any probabilitie in the world or to proue any thing else but his weakenesse wilfulnesse and folly in propounding and mainteining them 32. For albeit he teacheth out of Vasquez m Disput Theolog cap. 10. sec 2. num 7. vsque ad num 21. and others that of two opinions the lesse probable and lesse safe may securely be followed and that the opinion of a few yea of one approued Doctor sufficeth sometimes to make an opinion probable though many hold the contrary to that one Doctor to which purpose he filleth aboue a dozen pages of his booke with Vasquez his doctrine and text yet he is absurd in applying the same to this our case for although Vasquez doe teach n 1 a. 2 a. disp 62. cap. 1. nu 1. that a man may in doubtfull cases or questions securely follow the opinion of a few learned Doctours though the same be lesse safe and probable then the contrarie opinion held by many yet he is to be vnderstood to speake only of such disputable questions as my Aduersary Widdrington himselfe alleageth o Ibidem num 26. for example sake out of Vasquez to wit whether there are any habits infused by God alone concerning which question Vasquez saith p Vbi supra disp 79 cap. 1. disp 86. that albeit Pope Clement the fift did determine expressely in a Councell held at Vienna that there opinion who held that there are such habits is more probable then the negatiue yet it was neuer either by that decree or any other of Pope or Councell determined to be more then probable in which respect he doth not condemne the contrarie doctrine for heresie notwithstanding that he and the farre greater part of learned men do hold the other to be certainely true 33. So as Vasquez is to be vnderstood to speake of questions and opinions altogether vndecided and not of such a doctrine as ours touching the Popes power to depose Princes which as I haue said hath not onely beene taught by the learnedst men of many ages but also is grounded vpon the holy Scriptures and confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Popes and Councells as well Generall as Prouinciall as to omit the other mentioned in my Supplement q Cap. 2. num 76. 77. it is euident by the decree of the famous Councell of Lateran which expressely ordained the practise of it in some cases and did therefore necessarily suppose and firmely beleeue the verity of the doctrine as I will clearely prooue r Cap. 15. nu 6. 7. 8. hereafter in this Reply and withall shew the ridiculous absurditie of Widdringtons arguments and instances against the same yea and conuince him Å¿ Ibidem num 9. 11. 12. euen by his owne testimonie to be falne to vse his owne words into errour or heresie for not beleiuing this doctrine which that famous Generall Councell beleiued and ordained to be practised 34. In the meane time he is to vnderstand that whereas to shew the probabilitie of his doctrine he bringeth many Authors partly in his Theologicall Disputation and partly in his Apologie I remit him to D. Schulckenius who hath answered particularly to euery one of them and proued clearely that diuerse of them doe make flatly against him and many nothing at all for him being truely vnderstood and that some others are worthily reiected being either so absurd that they are easily confuted by the circumstances of the places alledged or else Heretikes as it appeareth by their doctrine in other things or knowne Schismatikes who liuing in the time of the Emperors or Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauour of which sort neuerthelesse there are very few so as of all the Authours that he hath scraped together to make some shew of probability in his doctrine he hath no one cleare and sufficient witnesse to iustifie the same 35. And therefore seeing that all his pretended probabilitie consisteth partly in the authoritie of the Authors and partly in the sufficiencie as he supposeth of his answeres to our grounds arguments and authorities which answeres I shall haue occasion to confute in this Treatise and to shew them to be so farre from probabilitie that they are wholly impertinent and sometimes ridiculous for their absurdity therefore I conclude that he cannot any way cleere or excuse himselfe from the note of great temerity and grosse errour yea flat heresie if he bee obstinate in impugning our doctrine grounded vpon such assured and solid foundations as I haue here signified and will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter as also I will put thee in minde good Reader oftentimes by the way to note how probably or rather to say truely how absurdly he argueth and answereth to the end thou maiest the better iudge how dangerous it will be for thee to venter thy soule vpon his pretence of probability which is no other but such as any heretike may haue for his doctrine 36. For all Heretikes doe thinke themselues and their followes as good and sufficient Doctors to make an opinion probable as he either is or esteemeth his Authors to be and they neuer want Scriptures and Fathers that seeme to them to confirme their opinions and doe make as probable answers to our obiections out of Scriptures and Fathers as hee doth and many times much more probable then he yea and they may either with his arguments and instances or other as probable as they impugne the authoritie of any decree of a General Councel be it neuer so expresse against them saying that the fathers who made it followed but a probable opinion and so might erre as you shal heare t Infra chap. 13. num 1. he answereth to the decree of the Councell of Lateran 37. And so you see that if is pretended probability be admitted against the common doctrine practise and decrees of the Church any heretike will not onely easily defend but also establish his heresie and any point of Catholike faith may easily be called in question made only probable and consequently doubtfull obnoxious to error and to be reiected by any man that list to embrace the contrary which truely I leaue good Reader to thy consideration whether it bee not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and to introduce all Heresie and Atheisme 38. This is my Aduersaries fourth admonition the substance whereof although I could haue comprised in few lines yet I thought good to set it downe entirely word by word as it lieth to the end the Reader may more plainely perceiue his fraudulent vncharitable and insufficient proceeding therein And first he declareth what is requisite to a probable argument Secondly he affirmeth that Vasquez doctrine which I related in my Theologicall Disputation for following of probable opinions is to be vnderstood to speak only of questions opinions altogether vndecided not of such a doctrine as theirs is touching the Popes power to depose Princes which hath beene taught by the learnedst men
it must alwaies be able in some sort to counterpoyse the arguments of the contrary opinion in the iudgements of those who either are not of that contrary opinion or else doe not reiect the argument as improbable this is most true for in the iudgments of those who do not onely reiect the argument as improbable but doe absolutely approue it for good and for the more probable it doth not only in some sort counterpoyse but it doth also in some sort overpoyse the arguments of the contrarie opinion as any man may plainely perceiue by Vasquez doctrine which because it fully cleareth this present difficultie and is able to quiet the conscience of any man be he neuer so ignorant I related word by word in my Theologicall Disputation b Cap 10. sec 2. which doctrine because my Aduersarie knew right well that it did amply declare what is a probable opinion and how farre forth both vnlearned and learned men may follow a probable opinion against the more common the more probable and the more secure opinion of Catholike Diuines he cunningly concealeth as you shall see the chiefe and principall point thereof and yet he carpeth at me for filling aboue a dozen pages of my booke with Vasquez doctrine and text affirming withall that I am absurd in applying Vasquez doctrine to this our case but who is the absurd you shall forthwith perceiue 43 For whereas Vasquez doth teach that if a learned and skilfull man who hath taken no small paines in studies and hath also throughly seene and examined all the reasons of the contrarie opinion shall iudge against all other writers who haue gone before him that his opinion is the more probable he may although it be the lesse secure opinion lawfully embrace it and in practise follow it whose opinion also an vnlearned man who ought according to reason saith Vasquez giue credit to the learning and honestie of a learned and vertuous man may lawfully follow my Aduersarie affirmeth that Vasquez is to be vnderstood to speake of questions and opinions altogether vndecided as is that which I cited there out of Vasquez concerning the infusing of habits by God alone and not of such a doctrine as is this concerning the Popes power to depose Princes which hath not onely been taught by the learnedst men of many ages but also is grounded vpon holy Scriptures and confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Popes and Counsells c. But whether I be absurd in accounting that doctrine to be probable vndecided and questionable among Catholikes about which the Schoolemen are at strife and as yet the controuersie is not decided by the Iudge saith Trithemius c In Chron monast Hirsaug ad annum 1106. and which very many Doctors doe defend saith Almainus d De dominio nat civ Eccles in probaâ— 2. concl and which the Kingdome of France hath alwaies approued for certaine saith Pithaeus e in Cod. libert Eccles Gallic and which the late proceeding of the Parliament of Paris against the contrarie doctrine taught by Suarez Card Bellarmine and others hath cleerely confirmed to omit the forme of oath lately propounded by the tiers Estates and that Card Peron himselfe doth not reiect it as improbable I remit to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader 44. Yea my Aduersarie himselfe although hee vntruly and vnlearnedly as you shall perceiue beneath chargeth me with heresie for defending the aforesaid doctrine as probable or to vse Cardinall Perons word as problematique dare not auouch that the doctrine is defined by any Generall Councell which neuerthelesse as I shewed in my Theologicall Disputation f Cap 10. sec 2. num 32. out of Card Bellarmine and Canus is necessarie that a decree of a Generall Councell can make a point of faith and the contrarie doctrine to be hereticall but with mincing tearmes onely affirmeth that it hath been taught by the learnedst men of many ages is grounded vpon holy Scriptures and confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Popes and Councells especially of the great Councell of Lateran which expresly ordained the practise of it in some Cases and did therefore necessarily suppose and firmely beleeue the veritie of the said doctrine But besides that here is no speech of any definition which onely can make any doctrine to be of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall and also it is vsuall among Diuines to affirme that their doctrine hath been taught by the learnedst men of many ages is grounded vpon holy Scriptures is not onely confirmed by the practise but is also expressely defined by the decrees of Generall Councells which neuerthelesse doth not terrifie other learned men from impugning their doctrine and opinions I will shew beneath g In the third part chap. 9. and the rest that the Councell of Lateran did neither ordaine the practise of that doctrine nor necessarilie suppose or firmely beleeue especially with diuine and supernaturall beleefe the veritie thereof and I will answer all the Replyes which my Aduersarie hath taken out of Fa Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name against my answers and hath filled not only a dozen pages but well neere foure dozen pages of his booke with Fa Lessius his doctrine text yet concealing his name belike to make his Reader beleeue what a learned Diuine he is now become and that those Replyes were not the fruits of other mens witts but the subtle inventions of his owne fertile braine whereas it is well knowne what small skill Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert hath in Theologicall learning 45 But if my Aduersarie had been resolued sincerely to handle this question and really to finde out the truth he might easily haue gathered out of Vasquez doctrine the answer to this his Reply For when Vasquez affirmeth that if a learned man who hath throughly seene and examined all the reasons of the contrary part shall iudge against all other writers who haue gone before him that his opinion is the more probable he may although it be the lesse secure opinion embrace it and in practise follow it his assertion is generall whether it be concerning any doctrinal point which is thought to belong to faith or any text of holy Scripture or any decree or definition of Pope or Generall Councell which are in controuersie among Catholikes Yea according to Vasquez doctrine it is lawfull for other men who hold the contrarie opinion to be the more probable without any note of temeritie to embrace it and in practise follow it vnlesse it be a singular opinion and of one onely Doctour as this doctrine which denieth the Popes power to depose Princes is not singular and of one only but of many as I will shew beneath for then saith Vasquez if it be a singular opinion and of one onely Doctor although it may be probable to that Doctour who is not therefore so easily to be condemned of temeritie yet to him who liketh not the proper and intrinsecall grounds
of many ages is grounded vpon the holy Scriptures c. Thirdly he inferreth that any heretike and namely the Arrians may pretend as great yea and farre greater probability to prooue their heresie then I doe or can doe to prooue my doctrine Fourthly he auerreth that all my pretended probability consisteth partly in the authoritie of those Authors which I bring in my Theologicall Disputation and also in my Apologie and partly in the sufficiencie as I suppose of my answers to their grounds arguments and authorities for confutation of the first my Aduersarie remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius and for the second he himself promiseth to shew them to be so far from probabilitie that they are wholly impertinent and sometimes ridiculous for their absurditie and that therefore I cannot any way cleere or excuse my selfe from the note of great temerity and grosse errour yea flat heresie into which he will forsooth conuince me euen by mine owne testimonie to be falne for not beleeuing this doctrine touching the Popes power to depose Princes which that famous Generall Councell of Lateran beleeued and ordained to be practised But how vaine are the brags of this glorious boasting man and who in very deede is the impertinent ridiculous and absurd thou shalt haue good Reader a taste by my answer to this his admonition and by my answers to the rest of his Replies thou shalt more fully perceiue as also that I am free from all note of temerity errour or heresie and how dangerous it is for thee to venter thy soule and whole estate vpon the credit of this vnlearned and vncharitable man who as hee is knowen to bee a man of no great learning so also both heere and in the greatest part of his Replies sheweth great want not onely of learning but also of charity sinceritie and also of Christian modestie as partly thou hast seene already and heereafter shalt most cleerely vnderstand 39. First therefore consider Courteous Reader whether Mr. Fitzherbert by his description of a probable argument intendeth to quiet and satisfie or rather to disturbe and perplexe the timorous consciences of vnlearned Catholikes who cannot vnderstand what he meaneth by those words in some sort and how an argument which is far the lesse probable can by those words be distinguished from an argument of the contrarie opinion which is by much the more probable For although it be true that probable arguments for one opinion must be able in some sort to counterpoise the arguments of the contrary opinion in the iudgement of those who thinke that opinion to bee probable and are able to weigh and ballance the intrinsecall grounds or arguments on both sides yet vnlearned men who are not able to iudge examin the intrinsecall grounds of any opinion but are onely led by authority can not easily discerne how farre this in some part which hath so great a latitude is to bee extended Neither is my Aduersarie as I suppose so ignorant in philosophy although perchance he hath spent smal time in the studie therof as to imagin that probability is in the thing it selfe as truth and falshood are according to that saying of the philosophers ex eo quod res est vel non est propositio dicitur vera vel falsa a proposition is sayd to bee true or false for that the thing it selfe which is affirmed or denyed is or is not 40 For probabilitie is not in the thing it selfe but in the vnderstanding of him who approueth the opinion or doctrine in so much that although an opinion which once is true can afterwards neuer be false nor which once is false be afterwards euer true yet an opinion which once was probable may afterwards be improbable and contrariwise which was once improbable may afterwards proue probable according as it shall be approued or disproued by men skilfull in the arte which they professe yea an opinion which to some Doctors is improbable and also hereticall to others may be probable yea and approued as the more true opinion And this proceedeth from the diuersitie of mens iudgements and opinions where oftentimes are seene according to the vulgar saying quot capita tot sententiae as many heads so many opinions That is probable say the Philosophers taking it from Aristotle u 1. Top cap. 1. which is approued by wise and skilfull men in the arte which they professe so that what argument or opinion learned men doe approue is a probable argument or opinion And this description of probable is not obscure and intricate but cleare and perspicuous euen to ignorant men who can easily discerne what opinion or argument learned men do approue And therefore well said Armilla x Verbo opinio nu 2. whom I cited in my Theologicall Disputation y cap 10. sec 2. nu 21. that a man is not bound alwaies to follow the better opinion but it sufficeth that he follow that which some skilfull Doctors iudge to be true and learned Nauarra whom I also related in that booke z cap 3. sec 3. nu 14. for the quieting of scrupulous consciences affirmeth a in Manuali cap 27. num 288. that in the Court of Conscience to the effect of not sinning it sufficeth to choose for true his opinion whom for iust cause we thinke to be a man of a good conscience and of sufficient learning 41 Wherefore when my Aduersarie affirmeth that to make an argument probable it sufficeth not that it seeme good and true in it selfe but it must also be able in some sort to counterpoyse the arguments of the contrary opinion if he meane that it must alwaies be able in some sort to counterpoyse the arguments of the contrarie opinion in the iudgements of those who are not of the contrary opinion and doe not approue the argument for good this if it were lawfull for me to vse my Aduersaries vndecent words is absurd and ridiculous for that oftentimes it falleth out that some Doctours doe thinke an opinion to be improbable and hereticall which other Doctours of the contrary opinion doe thinke not onely to bee probable but also to bee the more true opinion as it is euident in the question touching the superioritie of the Pope and Councells For the ancient Doctors of Paris as Ioannes Maior Iacobus Almainus Maior de auctorit Ecclesiae circa finem Almainus de authorit Ecclesiae cap 7. Card Camerac de authorit Eccles part 3. cap 4. Gerson in libello contra Petrum de Luna artic 22. alibi who wrote against Cardinall Caietane concerning this question thought the opinion which held the Pope to be aboue a Generall Councell to be improbable yea and other Doctors as Cardinalis Cameracensis and Iohn Gerson thought it to be erroneous and hereticall which neuerthelesse Cardinall Caietan defended to be the more true opinion 42 But if my Aduersarie meane as needs he must if he will speake with reason that to make an argument probable
of that singular opinion and of one onely Doctor and seeth it to bee grounded vpon the authoritie of one onely Doctor hee ought not to account it probable to this effect that he may prudently follow it in practise against his owne and the common opinion of all others 46 But if it be not a singular opinion and of one onely Doctour although the learned men of the contrarie opinion doe vrge for their doctrine some law decree or definition which the contrarie part hath seene and examined and hath in some sort answered therevnto it is lawfull for any learned man according to Vasquez to follow in practise that other lesse secure and lesse common opinion against his owne opinion albeit it be the more secure and common opinion For when we perceiue saith Vasquez that the Authors of the contrarie opinion haue seene and considered all the grounds and reasons for our opinion and haue obserued that obiection taken from that law or decree and haue endeauoured to answer them and that they were not convinced by them we may iustly thinke that we may prudently and lawfully follow in practise the opinion of those other men against our owne neither ought wee to suppose that our reasons are euident demonstrations and which doe make the contrarie opinion to be voide of all probabilitie 47 And this doctrine of Vasquez is euident in the question concerning the superioritie of the Pope aboue a Generall Councell which hath been so long debated betwixt the Doctors of Rome and Paris For both of them affirme that their opinion is grounded vpon holy Scriptures is confirmed by the practise and decrees yea and definitions of Generall Councels and yet both of thē because they are approued by learned Catholike Diuines are probable although as Nauarra h In cap. Nouit de Iudicijs notab 3. nu 84. out of Ioannes Maior a learned Diuine of Paris relateth that the opinion of the Parishioners is not permitted to bee defended at Rome nor the opinion of the Romanes to bee defended at Paris And therefore into what fowle tearmes trow you would my Aduersarie breake if the Doctors of Paris who doe resolutely hold that the Pope is inferiour to a Generall Councell should argue against Card. Bellarmine and others of his opinion in the same manner as this fowle mouthed man who hath still in his mouth absurd ridiculous impertinent foolish impudent temerarious impious hereticall or erroneous that their doctrine hath not onely beene taught by the learnedst men of many ages but also it is grounded vpon holy Scriptures confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Counsels but especially of the famous Councell of Constance which did not onely ordaine the practise of it in some cases and therefore necessarily suppose and firmely beleeue but did also expressely define and consequently command all Christians to beleeue the verity of that doctrine and that therefore Card. Bellarmine is falne into heresie for not beleeuing that doctrine which that famous Generall Councell beleeued defined and ordained to be practised and also to be beleeued 48 By this it is apparant that Vasquez doctrine is to be vnderstood generally of all cases questions and opinions which are in controuersie among learned Catholikes although one or both parts doe pretend their doctrine to be of faith and to be grounded vpon the authoritie of holy Scripture or some decree of Pope or Generall Councell and that learned Catholikes ought not according to Vasquez to bee easily condemned of temeritie and much lesse of errour or heresie who doe not follow the more common the more probable and the more secure opinion of other Catholike Doctors although this common opinion seeme to some followers thereof to be an vndoubted doctrine and to be confirmed by some Decree Law or Canon of Pope or Generall Counsell which Decree Law or Canon those learned Catholikes haue seene examined and answered although their answeres doe not satisfie the contrarie side And conformably to this doctrine did Vasquez as I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation dispute that question whether there be any habits which are infused by God alone For although he expressely affirmeth that it is the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of the Schoole-Diuines that there bee certaine vertues called Theologicall Faith Hope and Charitie which of their owne nature are infused by God alone and that some Doctors as Andreas Vega doe hold this doctrine to bee of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall or erroneous endeauouring to proue the same not out of the Councell of Vienna which did onely declare it to be the more probable opinion but out of the Councell of Trent yet Vasquez would not condemne the contrarie opinion not onely of heresie as my Aduersarie would cunningly perswade the Reader but not so much as of temeritie From whence I inferred that according to Vasquez doctrine which my Aduersarie fraudulently concealeth the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of Schoole-Diuines and which some of them thinke to be a point of faith may sometimes bee reiected without any note not onely of heresie or errour but also of temeritie which doctrine doth cleerely satisfie the common argument drawne from the authoritie of learned men who hold the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and consequently the oath to bee repugnant to faith and saluation And thus much concerning the first and second point of my Aduersaries fourth Admonition 49 As touching the third point it is apparantly vntrue and very iniurious to Catholikes and to Catholike Religion to affirme that the Arrians or any other heretikes may well pretend a farre greater probabilitie for the establishing of their heresies then may I and those other Catholikes who hold it probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes For besides that the Arrian heresie was expressely condemned in the first eight Generall Counsels and afterwards in many others and the Arrians haue euer been accounted heretikes by ancient Fathers and all other Catholikes wheras there cannot be alledged so much as any shew or colour of any one definition of a Generall Councell wherein the doctrine which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is condemned for hereticall but all the proofes that my Aduersaries alledge that the Pope hath such a power are onely ouer-wrested similitudes facts examples inferences and supposisitions of their owne drawne from the authoritie of holy Scriptures Popes or Councels when the Philosophers and Diuines doe affirme that the authoritie of learned and skilfull men sufficeth to make the doctrine or opinion probable which they approue they vnderstand of learned and skilfull men approuing a doctrine belonging to the art which they professe according to that vulgar maxime vnicuique in sua arte perito credendum est we must giue credit to euery man skilfull in his art 50 So that in a point of Law the authoritie of skilfull Lawiers and not of skilfull Physitions in a point of Physike the
also by depriuing him of the sword as in the like case the Councell of Lateran often cited doth teach which one Councell is to be preferred before all the Barclaies or Iohns of Paris all men doe thinke who are not mad 28. Is not this thinke you a trim answere The question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine in this place was not concerning the Councell of Lateran wherof I will treat beneath * Part. 3. cap. 9. seq and plainely shew that notwithstanding all the clamours of my Aduersaries the said Councell hath neither defined or supposed for certaine nay or supposed at all that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes as D. Schulckenius doth here collect from thence but the question was onely concerning the authoritie of S. Bernard And I prooued clearely out of S. Bernards wordes that although the Pope as Pope hath power to command or forbid in some cases the vse of the materiall sworde yet that he hath power as he is Pope to vse it himselfe or to depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof which implyeth a power to vse it himselfe this I said could not be proued but rather the contrarie out of those words of S. Bernard who doth not only say that it is not fitting for the Pope to vse the materiall sword as D. Schulckenius would mince his words but that it is forbidden the Pope to draw foorth or vse the materiall sword Now D. Schulckenius passeth ouer S. Bernard and flyeth to the Councell of Lateran to proue that if the Emperour refuse at the Popes command to vse the materiall sword he may by the Popes authoritie bee depriued of the vse thereof whereas the present question was only concerning the opinion of S. Bernard and not what was the doctrine of the Councell of Lateran in this point whose authoritie I doe asmuch respect either as Card. Bellarmine or any other Catholike is bound to doe But it is an easie matter to wrest the words of the Councell of Lateran or any other to their purpose contrary to the true meaning of the Councell and then to crie out ô the Councell of Lateran which is to be preferred before all Barclaies and Widdringtons c. whereas we doe asmuch respect the authoritie of the Councell of Lateran or any other as they do although we doe not so much respect their ouer wrested collections which they to serue their owne turnes doe gather from any Councel or text of holy Scripture contrarie to the plaine proper and true sense and meaning of the words But to such shiftings and windings euen learned men are sometimes brought when they will make their vncertaine opinions and priuate expositions of holy Scriptures or Councells to be infallible grounds of the Catholike faith 29. Lastly but the foundation saith D. Schulckenius of Widdringtons errour is for that he thinketh that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour by reason of the faith and free promise which the Emperour gaue and made to the Pope according to the similitude which a little before he put concerning one who promised an other to spend his life and all his goods in defence of him But this foundation is false because the authoritie of the Pope ouer Christian Princes doth not proceed from their onely promise or faith which they haue giuen but from the law of God by which law the Pope is made by Christ the Pastour of all his stocke the chiefe of all his familie the head of all his body and the Rectour of all his Church Wherefore it is no maruaile if from false foundation he conclude a falshood to wit that S. Bernards words do not onely not fauour the Popes temporal power but are flat contrarie to it What I beseech you could be spoken more cleerely for the Popes temporall power then that which S. Bernard said that the temporall sword is the Popes and that both swords are the Churches and that the temporall sword ought to be drawne foorth at the Popes becke And as for Ioannes Parisiensis there is no great reckoning to be made of him whatsoeuer he saith both for that he is repugnant to the Councell of Lateran and many others and also that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant Vas electionis and lastly for that either he denieth only the Popes direct power in temporalls or else he doth plainly contradict himselfe 30. But truely it is strange that learned men and who pretend to maintaine nothing but truth dare aduenture to auouch so bouldly and in such publike writings so manifest vntruths and which they themselues in their consciences can not but see to be plain and palpable vntruths I very often and that of set purpose did affirme in my Apologie and D. Schulckenius doth also set downe my words that the Pope as Pope hath power to command temporall Princes in temporals in order to spirituall good and yet this man to make his Reader beleeue that I doe teach flat heresie blusheth not to affirme in an other place n Pag. 256. that I deny that the Pope as Pope hath power to commaund temporall Princes in temporalls in order to spirituall good So likewise I did oftentimes in my Apologie affirme o Num. 90.91.181.223.341 and D. Schulckenius doth also set downe my words that the Pope as Pope hath power by the law of God and for that he is appointed by Christ to be the supreme spirituall Pastour of the Catholike Church to constraine and punish all disobedient Christians both Princes and people with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall punishments and yet now this man to perswade his Reader that I teach heere a manifest errour is not ashamed to affirme that I am of opinion that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour in regard onely of the free promise which the Emperour hath made to the Pope And therefore D. Schulckenius neither dealeth truely nor sincerely and both deludeth his Reader and also wrongeth mee in affirming that to bee my doctrine which I expressely impugne and that to be the foundation of my opinion which hee is pleased to call an errour which I in expresse words and that oftentimes haue denied 21. For as I doe willingly grant that although a temporall Prince hath power to command and with temporall punishments to compell if neede require his temporall subiects to make and sweare an expresse promise of that true faith loyaltie and temporall allegeance which by the Law of God and nature they doe owe to their lawfull Prince yet I doe not affirme that a temporalll Prince hath power to constraine his rebellious subiects by vertue onely of the promise which they haue made but by vertue of his supreme temporall power which hee hath as hee is a supreme temporall Prince by the Law of God and nature So also I do willingly grant that although the Pope hath power to command and with spirituall punishments to compell if neede require all Christian Princes and
haue sufficiently shewed in my Theologicall Disputation and beneath I shall haue occasion to repeat againe And albeit his Holinesse had in his Breues particularly declared the doctrine for his power to depose Princes to be of faith and the contrary to be haereticall as likewise Pope Celestine the 3. did in a Breue or Decretall letter of his which was in times past for almost two hundred yeeres together extant in the Canon Law declare that Marriage was so dissolued by heresie that the partie whose consort was fallen into heresie might lawfully marry another which doctrine is now flatly condemned in the Councell of Trent yet this declaration of the Pope being no infallible definition but onely a signification of his opinion as I proued abundantly in the foresaid booke no Catholike is bound in conscience to follow it neither to obey his declaratiue precept grounded thereon as out of Suarez doctrine I shewed in that place x Disp Theolog câ—p 10. sâ—â— â— 16 Fourthly it is also vntrue that I confesse the contrary doctrine of theirs touching the absolute proposition to be at least probable and that it may be securely followed without doubt or danger for touching practise I doe vtterly condemne that doctrine as absolutely false impious daÌ„nable seditious yea in some sort hereticall as shall appeare beneath y In the Adioinder num 106. seq and for speculation I doe neither approue it as probable nor condemne it as improbable because with the probabilitie or improbabilitie of the affirmatiue part of this question I do not at this time intermeddle That only which I affirme is touching the negatiue part of the question to wit that it is probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes but whether it be probable that he hath power to depose Princes I neither confes nor deny but only for Disputation sake I doe grant that although it be probable that the Pope hath such a power yet it doth not therefore follow that it is certaine and of faith and the contrarie hereticall improbable and not to be imbraced by any Catholike without note of heresie errour or temeritie And by this you may also easily perceiue another fraude and cunning of my Aduersarie For whereas he affirmeth that my speciall purpose is to shew probably that the said oath may lawfully be taken by Catholikes he doth heere turne cunningly the question an other way affirming that it is also probable yea the more probable opinion that the oath may lawfully be refused by Catholikes with which question I doe not intend at this present to intermeddle but only to proue by true probable arguments that the oath may lawfully be taken by Catholikes For be it so for Disputation sake that it is probable yea and the more probable opinion that Catholikes may lawfully refuse the oath by reason that so many learned men yea and the Pope himselfe doe thinke it to be vnlawfull which neuerthelesse I will not at this time either affirme or denie for the reason I will alledge beneath z Num 7 〈◊〉 yet can it not from thence be rightly concluded that therefore it is not probable that the oath may lawfully be taken or that it is a most dangerous temeritie and extreme folly as my Aduersarie seemeth to insinuate to follow an opinion which is truly probable against the more probable opinion of the Pope and other Diuines as out of the doctrine of Vasquez affirming it also to be the more opinion of Diuines I did in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 10 sâ—â— cleerely convince It is sufficient for my purpose at this present that Catholikes may lawfully take the oath but whether they may also refuse it I at this time will neither affirme nor denie This onely I will say that if Catholikes may lawfully take the oath and so auoide his Maiesties indignation against them and also their owne temporall ouerthrow and will not they may thanke themselues such like violent spirits as my Aduersarie is who by sleight and cunning endeauoureth to perplexe their consciences guilefully to perswade them that it is the more safe and the more probable way to suffer all temporall miseries and disgraces which he himselfe in my opinion if hee were in their case would not suffer then to do that which with a safe and probable conscience they may doe 18 Fiftly it is also vntrue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is conforme to the practise of the Church although it be indeed conforme to the practise of diuers Popes since the time of Gregorie the seuenth who was the first Pope that trusting to the power and riches of other men contrary to the custome of his Ancestours contemning the Emperours authoritie depriued him of his Empire a thing before those times not heard of saith Onuphrius b De varia◠〈◊〉 Rom Pont lib. 4. which practise neuertheles was then and hath been euer since contradicted by Catholike Princes and subiects As also it is vntrue that this doctrine is confirmed by any one Generall Councell that it is a point of faith or the contrary doctrine hereticall or improbable as I haue partly shewed in the Preface of my Apologeticall Answer where I answered all those nine Councells which Card Bellarmine in his Answer to D. Barclay brought to proue his doctrine in this point to be of faith and the contrary not Catholike and partly I will shew beneath when I shall answer to the Replies which haue been made by Fa Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name from whom my Aduersarie borroweth the third part of his booke to wit eight whole Chapters which he consumeth in defence of the Councell of Lateran to the answers I made to that Decree of the said Lateran Councell whereon this new doctrine of faith according to these men is chiefely grounded 19 Wherefore vnlesse my Aduersarie be able to convince as without doubt he is not that the opinion which denieth the Popes power to depose Princes is altogether improbable and the State of France besides many other Doctors as thou shalt see beneath to be extreame fooles he will neuer be able to demonstrate that it is most dangerous temeritie and extreme folly to adhere to that opinion which my Aduersarie to perswade his Reader that it is a singular opinion of one onely Authour and as he vntruly saith of no one Catholike euer calleth it my opinion considering that according to Vasquez doctrine which is as he saith c 1â— 2â— disp 62. cap 4. the common doctrine of the Schoole men it is neither follie nor temeritie to follow a probable opinion against the more probable the more common and the more sure opinion of the Pope and other learned men although they should pretend to convince their opinion by the authoritie of holy Scriptures declarations of Generall Councells the practise of the Church and other Theologicall reasons which seeme to them invincible For it is vsuall in
authoritie of skilfull Physitions and not of Lawiers and in a point of Catholike Religion the authoritie of learned Catholikes and who are skilfull in points of Catholike Religion which they professe and not of heretikes and who doe not professe Catholike Religion doth make the opinion or doctrine which they approue to bee probable And therefore my Aduersarie very insufficiently not to vse those fowle words absurdly ridiculously which hee so often vseth against mee argueth from the authoritie of learned Catholikes to the authoritie of heretikes whose doctrine according to the definition of probable can neuer make the opinions which they approue in points of Catholike Religion which they doe not professe to be probable Neither by this can any point of Catholike faith which is knowne to all learned Catholikes to bee a point of Catholike faith be easily called in question and made onely probable for that no learned Catholike will cal in question any doctrine which is cleerely knowne to be the Catholike faith and as for heretikes their authoritie can neuer make any doctrine belonging any way to Catholike Religion which they doe not professe to be probable 51 But if there should arise any controuersie among learned Catholikes whether this or that doctrine be of faith and in what sense the words of such a text of holy Scripture or of such a Canon or Decree of Pope or Councell are to be vnderstood there is no doubt but that the authoritie of learned Catholikes may in those cases make their opinion probable although other Catholikes would be so stiffe in their owne opinion as to condemne the contrarie part of heresie errour or temeritie A manifest example hereof we haue in the Councell of Constance wherein according to Iohn Gerson and other learned men who were present at that Councell it was expressely defined that the Pope is inferiour and subiect to a Generall Councell lawfully assembled and therefore the contrarie to be flat hereticall but since that other Catholikes especially Romane Diuines haue called that Decree in question and haue endeauoured to answer therevnto affirming that it was only meant of Popes in time of Schisme or that the aforesaid Decree was not confirmed by Pope Martin in the end of the Councell which answeres neuerthelesse doe not satisfie the Doctors of the contrarie opinion I doe not thinke but that my Aduersarie will confesse that the opinion of the Romans may bee accounted probable and that the calling of that Decree in question was not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and to introduce all heresie and Atheisme 52. But if it should perchance fall out that some Catholikes would be so selfe opinatiue as to affirme without any definition at all of the Church although vnder pretext of zeale and deuotion to the See Apostolike any doctrine to be of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall and other Catholikes although the farre fewer in number should deny the same especially in a matter which concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar if the first part only should be permitted to write freely what they please and to taxe the other part of heresie to omit errour temeritie folly ridiculous absurditie and such like and this other part should be forbidden to defend their good names and to answere for themselues I leaue good Reader to thy consideration whether this be not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and the vndoubted grounds thereof and to introduce vncertaine opinions for an infallible doctrine of the Catholike faith which is to open a wide gap to heresie Atheisme and euident iniustice and to make among Christians a perpetuall dissention betwixt the Cleargie and Laity the temporall and spirituall power Now that this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not by any definition at all of the Church declared to bee true my Aduersary cannot denie and that it euer hath been and is impugned by learned Catholikes and the contrarie hath euer beene and is by them approued and therefore it is truly probable and not only hath a pretence of probabilitie I will shew beneath where I will both relate the Catholike Authours who deny this authoritie of the Pope to depose Princes which only is sufficient to make their doctrine probable and also I will discouer the insufficiencie of those Replies which my Aduersary hath made against my answeres And thus much concerning the third point 53. For the fourth and last point consider Catholike Countreimen whether Mr. Fizherbert intendeth to declare vnto you plainly and sincerely this present controuersie and by a cleare explayning of the question to quiet your consciences or rather by wrangling and cauilling to obscure the difficultie and blind your vnderstandings The question betwixt him and mee at this present is whether it be a probable doctrine that the Pope hath not any power by the institution of Christ to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall power and Regall authoritie And there are two only grounds to perswade any man that this or that doctrine or opinion is truely probable The one are called intrinsecall groundes to wit the arguments and reasons which are drawne from holy Scriptures sacred Canons Theologicall reasons and such like to proue that doctrine or opinion and these groundes are proper only to learned men who are able to weigh and examine the arguments on both sides â—â—e other are called extrinsecall grounds which doe onely consist in the authority of those learned men who doe hold that doctrine or opinion because according to that which hath been said before that doctrine is trulie probable which is approued by wise and skilfull men in the art which they professe and by these onely grounds vnlearned men can be perswaded that any doctrine or opinion is truly probable 54. Now my Aduersarie seeing as he saith that all my pretended probabilitie consisteth partly in the authority of those Authours which I haue brought in my Theologicall Disputation and in my Apologie and partly in the sufficiencie as I suppose of my answeres to their groundes arguments and authorities yet he taketh vpon him in this Reply only to confute some of my answers to their intrinsecall grounds and for the confutation of the authorities which I bring hee remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius who as he saith hath answered particularly to euery one of them Seeing therefore that there is no sufficient way to satisfie the vnderstandings of vnlearned men that the doctrine which holdeth the Pope to haue no authoritie to depose Princes is not truely probable but by shewing that no learned Catholikes do approue the same for that vnlearned men are not able to examine the intrinsecall grounds of any Theologicall question but are only led by authoritie and extrinsecall grounds and if they once perceiue that learned Catholikes doe approue any doctrine they will presently also perceiue that doctrine to bee truly probable is there any likelihood that Mr. Fitzherbert intended to giue satisfaction to his vnlearned
Posseuine did not condemne the man but the doctrine which was against the Master of the Sentences But truly I can not but greatly maruell how Posseuine could be so grossely mistaken vnlesse he would of set purpose forge something whereby he might disgrace Trithemius For if he had but briefely runne ouer that place of Trithemius which he citeth he could not but haue seene that Trithemius did only affirme Ioachims doctrine and not his person to be condemned in the Councell Tractatus autem quem scripsit c. But the Treatise saith Trithemius p In verbo Ioachim Abbas in the place cited by Posseuine which Abbot Ioachim wrote against Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris is condemned in a Generall Councell as appeareth in the beginning of the Decretalls Damnamus 11 Wherefore to returne backe D. Schulckenius his words what neede had D. Schulckenius to aske aduice of Posseuine touching Trithemius his errours seeing that Posseuine himselfe hath therein not onely grossely erred but also in other his relations as in affirming Iohn Gerson Chancelour of Paris to be of the Order of the Celestines wherein also Card Bellarmine in his late treatise of Ecclesiasticall writers hath erred with him yea and sometimes which is lesse excusable when of set purpose he pretendeth to recall and amend his former errour as in verbo Durandus à S. Porciano whom in his former Edition as he saith for I neuer saw it he affirmed to be Bishop of Melda as truly he was and of the Order of S. Dominike and now forsooth in his corrected Edition he will needs haue him to be Bishop of Liege and to haue liued in the yeare 1035. and that Hermannus Contractus who liued in the yeare 1054. maketh mention of him and yet he will also haue him to be of the Order of Dominike And neuerthelesse Posseuine himselfe a little before q In verbo Dominicus Guzmannus affirmed that S. Dominike dyed in the yeare 1221. which was two hundred fourteene yeares after Durandus flourished Now let D. Schulckenius or any other who maketh so great account of Posseuines Apparatus either accord these two that Durandus à S. Porciano was according to Posseuine of the Order of S. Dominike and yet that according to the same Posseuine he liued well neere 200. yeares before S. Dominike did institute his Order or else not to giue hereafter so great credit to all that Posseuine affirmeth seeing that he hath so grossely erred both in falsly taxing Trithemius of those errours and also which is more grosse when purposely he endeauoured to amend his owne errour 12 Lastly we haue saith D Schulckenius the common opinion of Doctours and decrees of Councells which doe make the matter cleare And therefore although among learned Diuines and Lawyers there be a controuersie concerning the manner how the Pope may doe it yet there is no question whether he hath power to doe it But first we haue the authoritie of Trithemius that it is a controuersie among the Schoolemen and as yet not decided by the Iudge not onely in what manner the Pope may depose the Emperour but whether he hath any power at all to depose him Then we haue the authoritie of Almaine a learned Schoole-Diuine and a Classicall Doctour that it is the opinion of very many Doctours that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ can onely inflict spirituall Censures and not any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment And therefore although it be the more common opinion of Doctours that the Pope hath power to depose Princes especially of Lawyers who as Pope Pius the fift did plainely confesse to that famous Lawyer Nauarre r in Comment super cap Non liceat Papae 12. q. 2. § 3. num 6. doe attribute more authoritie to the Pope then is sufficient for that the greatest part of those Authours cited by Card Bellarmine who in expresse words affirme that the Pope hath such a power are Lawyers men also for the most part vnskilfull in Diuine Scriptures and the law of God as Dominicus Sotus affirmeth z Jn 4o. dist 18. q. 1. ar 1. yet it is not the more common opinion of Doctours that it is a cleare and certaine doctrine not to be called in question by any Catholike that the Pope hath such a power 13. Few only Diuines there are for the most part Iesuites who of late yeares haue by might and maine endeauoured without sufficient grounds to make the matter cleare and to be an vndoubted point of faith But vntill they bring more cleare decrees of Councells or more pregnant proofes from holy Scriptures then hitherto they haue brought they will neuer make the matter cleare but still it will remaine a controuersie among Catholikes not only in what maner the Pope may but whether he hath any power at all to depose the Emperour or no as it was in Trithemius and Almaines time since which time no cleare decree of any Councell hath been made to that purpose for all the decrees of Councells which by Card. Bellarmine are vrged to proue that doctrine and haue been answered by me and others and shall beneath be answered more at large were long before their time And thus much concerning the first authoritie of Trithemius and Almaine Chap. 2. Wherein the authoritie of Albericus Roxiatus a famous Lawyer is briefly debated 1. THe second testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation and also in my Apologie to proue this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes not to be certaine a Jn verbo Albericus Roxiatus without controuersie or a point of faith was of Albericus Roxiatus a most famous Professour as Trithemius writeth of the Canon and Ciuill Law and a man excellently learned and according to Fa. Azor b Lib. 2. Iust cap. 14. a Classical Doctour who liued in the yeare 1340. aboue a hundred yeares since the Councell of Lateran which is now so greatly vrged For this Authour calleth in question foure of the most principall Canons or Decrees of Popes registred in the Canon Law which do seeme most to fauour their authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of the temporalls especially of the Romane Emperour among which one is that famous and so often inculcated by my Aduersaries sentence of deposition denounced against Fredericke the Emperour by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons and he affirmeth that none of them are in his opinion agreeable to law or right but that they were made by Popes against the rights and libertie of the Empire 2. The Pastours of the Church saith he c In Dictionario verbo Electio putting their sickle into others haruest haue made foure Decrees or Decretalls The one concerning the election of the Emperour which beginneth Venerabilem and of this it is there noted by all men An other is about the deposing of Friderike the Emperour
And therefore I will easily grant that the Pope may exact if need require not only of the Romane Emperour but also of all other Catholike Princes an oath of spirituall allegiance but that Catholike Princes are subiect to the Pope in temporalls and that the Pope may exact of them an oath of temporall allegiance this is that I vtterly deny neither will Card. Bellarmine or any other be able by any sufficient argument to conuince the contrary wherefore it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be denied but that we haue the testimonie of Albericus a man excellently learned and a Classicall Doctour that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Soueraigne Princes and to dispose of their temporall dominions Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctour of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are proued to be insufficient 1. THe third authoritie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 7. and also in my Apologie b Num. 121. was of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Diuine of the Order of S. Dominike and as Trithemius relateth c In verbo Ioannes Parisiensis most learned in the holy Scriptures and who in the Vniuersitie of Paris was for a long time together a publike Professour and left behind him many Disciples He flourished about the yeare 1280. which was 65. yeares after the great Councell of Lateran which is now adaies so greatly vrged by our Aduersaries This Doctour therefore although he be of opinion that if a King should become an heretike and incorrigible and a contemner of Ecclesiasticall Censures the Pope may do somewhat with the people whereby the King may be depriued of his Secular dignitie and be deposed by the people to wit he may excommunicate all those to whom it belongeth to depose the king who should obey him as their Soueraigne Neuerthelesse he is cleerely of this opinion that it belongeth not to the Pope to depose iuridically Kings or Emperours for any crime whatsoeuer although it be spirituall or which is all one to depriue them d Almainus de potest Eccl. q. 2. cap. 8. of their kingdomes by a definitiue sentence in such sort that after the sentence be published they shall haue no more regall power and authoritie For he affirmeth e De potest Regia Papali cap. 14. ad 20. that excommunication or such like spirituall punishment is the last which may be inflicted by a spirituall Iudge For although saith he it belong to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to recall men to God and to withdraw them from sinne yet he hath not power to doe this but by vsing those meanes which be giuen him by God which is by excluding them from the Sacraments and participation of the faithfull Wherefore although Parisiensis be of opinion that the temporall common-wealth hath in some causes of great moment authoritie to depose their Prince with which question I doe not intend at this time to intermeddle yet concerning the principall controuersie which is betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether it be hereticall erroneous or temerarious to affirme that the Pope hath no power to depriue Princes of their Royall right and authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis doth most plainely as I haue now shewed contradict the opinion of Card. Bellarmine Thus I wrote in my Theologicall Disputation 2 Marke now good Reader with what fraude and falshood D. Schulckenius endeauoureth to passe ouer this authoritie Ioannes Parisiensis saith he f Pag. 64. 65. 66. ad num 4. is not for the contrarie opinion For although he giueth lesse to the Pope then he ought yet he giueth as much as sufficeth for our purpose For what doth it appertaine to the question which is in hand whether the Pope doe depose immediately by his sentence or that he may by his right withdraw his subiects from their obedience and cause them to depose But who would not admire the wonderfull boldnes of this man For the onely question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine is and euer hath been whether the Pope hath authoritie to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes immediately by his sentence in such sort that after his sentence of depriuation be denounced they who before were Kings and had true Regall authoritie are then no more Kings and haue no true and lawfull right to reigne and yet now he being pressed with the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis blusheth not to affirme that it doth not appertaine to the present question whether the Pope may depose immediately by his sentence which neuerthelesse is the onely question betwixt him and me or by commanding and causing the temporall Common-wealth to depose their Prince with which question I haue sundry times in my Apologie affirmed that I would not intermeddle For most certaine it is euen according to Card Bellarmines owne doctrine g in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. that the Pope can not withdraw discharge or absolue subiects from their obedience immediatly by his sentence vnles he haue authoritie to depriue immediately by his sentence their Prince of his Princely power and authoritie for that authoritie in a Prince and obedience in subiects are correlatiues and one dependeth on the other and the obligation of obedience doth so long endure in the Subiect as the dignitie power or Iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour saith Suarez h in Defensione fides c. lib. 6. cap 3. nu 6. and to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince and is not depriued of his Princely power is clearely repugnant saith Card Bellarmine i in Tract contra Barcl cap. 21. p. 202. to the law of God and nature 3 This therfore is the opinion of Parisiensis touching the Popes authoritie to dispose of the temporall goods or dominions either of Kings or priuate men And first concerning the goods of priuate men hee affirmeth k De potest Regia Pap. cap 6. 7. that the Pope is not a Lord to whom the propertie of Church liuings doth belong but onely a dispencer of them but of the goods of Laymen he is not so much as a dispencer vnlesse perchance in extreame necessitie of the Church in which necessitie also he is not a dispencer but a declarer of the law And because in extreame necessitie of faith and manners all the goods of the faithfull yea and Chalices of Churches are to be communicated the Pope who is supreme not onely of the Cleargie but of all the faithfull as they are faithfull hath authoritie as he is generall informer of faith and manners in case of extreame necessitie of faith and manners to dispence in this case the goods of the faithfull to ordaine them to be exposed as it is expedient for the cōmon necessitie of faith which other wise would be ouerthrown by the invasion of Pagās or other such like accident And this ordination of the Pope is only a
against the said Queene she was their true and lawfull Queene and that they did owe vnto her obedience and allegiance as to their lawfull Prince And Nicholas Harpesfield answered more plainly and distinctly that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull sentence and declaration of the Pope or any other already denounced or hereafter to be denounced by the Popes authority he did acknowledge her to be his true Queene and was to be obeyed as a true Queene and had as ample and full Regall authoritie in all ciuill and temporall causes as either other Princes haue or her most noble Progenitours euer had The like also M. Edward Rishton and M. Henry Orton both learned Priests did answere 13. But M. Iames Bosgraue a learned Iesuite in his declaration made in the yeare 1582. did more plainly and fully set downe his opinion concerning the power it selfe to depose that he did thinke and that before God that the Pope hath no authoritie neither de facto nor de iure to discharge the Subiects of the Queenes Maiestie or of any other Christian Prince of their allegiance for any cause whatsoeuer and that he was inwardly perswaded in his conscience that the Queenes Maiestie both is his lawfull Queene and is also so to be accounted notwithstanding any Bull or sentence which the Pope hath giuen shall giue or may hereafter giue and that he is readie to testifie this by Oath if neede require Mr. Iohn Hart also a learned Iesuite in his conference with M. Rainolds in the tower in the yeare 1584. and in his Epistle to the indifferent Reader did answere as effectually As for that saith he which M. Rainolds affirmeth in one place h Chap. 7. diuis 7. that I haue tould him that my opinion is the Pope may not depose Princes indeede I tould him so much And in truth I thinke that although the spirituall power be more excellent and worthy then the temporall yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend on the other Whereupon I gather as a certaine conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporall Lord ouer Kings and Princes is vnreasonable and vnprobable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs ciuilly much lesse to depose them or giue away their Kingdomes that is no part of his commission Hee hath in my iudgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himselfe taking no such title vpon him nor giuing it to Peter or any other of his disciples And that is it which I meant to defend in him and no other soueraigntie 14 Mr. Camden also relateth In Annalibus rerum Anglic. c. pag. 327. ad ann 1581. that when Fa Campian and diuers other Priests were demanded by the Magistrate whether by the authoritie of the Bull of Pius Quintus hir Maiesties Subiects were absolued from their oath of allegiance in such sort that they might take armes against hir Maiestie whether they did thinke hir to be a lawfull Queene whether they would subscribe to the opinion of D. Sanders and Bristow touching the authoritie of that Bull whether if the Pope should make warre against the Queene they would take his or hir part Some answered so ambiguously some so headily others by wrangling k â—â—rgiuersando or by silence did shift off the questions so that diuers plaine dealing Catholikes began to suspect that they harboured some treachery and one Iames Bishop a man deuoted to the Pope of Rome did write against these men and did soundly shew that Constitution which is obtruded in the name of the Councell of Lateran whereon all the authoritie to absolue Subiects from their Allegiance and to depose Princes is grounded was no other then a decree of Pope Innocent the third and neuer receiued in England yea and that Councell to be none at all nor any thing there decreed at all by the Fathers By all which it is euident that few English Catholikes were of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes vntill these later Iesuites and such as adhered to their opinions began to defend so eagerly the Bull of Pius Quintus and to maintaine with such vehemencie his aforesaid authoritie to depose Princes as a point of faith which doctrine how preiudiciall it hath been and is at this present to Catholikes and Catholike Religion I leaue Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration Chap. 6. Wherein the authoritie of the Kingdom and State of France is at large discussed 1. THe sixt and last testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 12. and also in my Apologie b Num 30. seq and which onely if there were no other would suffice to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not a point of faith was taken from the authoritie of the most noble and most Christian Kingdom and State of France which euer held the contrarie to be the more true sound and assured doctrine And first to omit the authoritie of Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine of Paris whereof I spake before who affirmed that very many or most Doctors were of opinion that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments no nor so much as to imprison much lesse to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes or liues in a generall Parliament or assembly of all the States of France held at Paris in the yeare 1593. the Cardinall de Pelleue and other Prelates who then were present tooke exceptions against certaine decrees of the Councell of Trent which Laurentius Bochellus relateth among which that of the 25. session chap 19. wherein the Councell forbiddeth Kings to permit single combats was one The Councell of Trent say they doth excommunicate and depriue a King of the Cittie or place wherein he permitteth to fight a single combate This article is against the authoritie of the King who can not be depriued of his temporall Dominion in regard whereof he acknowledgeth no Superiour at all 2 Secondly Petrus Pithaeus a man as Posseuine the Iesuite relateth truly learned and a diligent searcher of antiquitie in his booke of the liberties of the Church of France printed at Paris by authoritie of the Parliament in the yeare 1594 doth out of a generall maxime which France as he saith hath euer approued as certaine deduce this particular position That the Pope can not giue as a prey the Kingdome of France nor any thing appertayning therevnto neither that he can depriue the King thereof nor in any other manner dispose thereof And notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope may be made yet the subiects are bound to yeeld obedience due to his Maiestie for temporalls neither therein can they be dispenced or absolued by the Pope 3 Mark now good Reader what silly shifts D. Schulckenius hath found out to repell the aforesaid authorities To the
people to make and sweare an expresse promise of that the true faith loyalty and spirituall allegeance which as they are Christians and members of the mysticall body of Christ they doe owe by the Law of God to the supreme spirituall Pastour and visible head of this mysticall bodie and Church of Christ and the Emperour at his coronation taketh such an oath neuerthelesse I doe not affirme that the Pope hath power to constraine and punish disobedient Princes and people by vertue onely of the promise which they haue made to the Pope of their spirituall obedience but by vertue of his supreme spirituall power which he hath by the Law of God and his Pastorall authority giuen to him by our Sauiour Christ Iesus 32. True it is that the Reader might the better vnderstand that to command one to vse a temporall thing and to vse it himselfe to command one to dispose of temporals and to dispose of them himselfe are very different things and that the one doth not necessarily follow from the other I brought a familiar example of one who either by promise or by some other obligation and yet D. Schulckenius taketh hold onely of the promise and cleane omitteth the other obligation is bound to dispose and giue his goods or life at anthers command who notwithstanding this promise or other obligation doth still keepe the property dominion and right ouer his goods and life in such sort that the other cannot be vertue of his commanding power which he hath ouer him and them take them away and dispose of them without his consent but if hee will not dispose of his goods at the others command according as by vertue either of his promise or of some other obligation he is bound to doe the other may complaine to the Magistrate that hee will punish him for his offence or cause him to performe his promise so far forth as the coerciue power of the Magistrate doth extend From which I concluded that considering to haue the power to command the vse of the temporall sword and to haue a power to vse it or to depriue of the vse thereof are two different things neither doth one necessarily follow from the other although the Pope as Pope hath according to S. Bernard power to command the Emperour to vse the temporall sword yet it doth not therefore follow that if the Emperour will not vse the temporall sword at the Popes command the Pope as Pope can vse it himselfe or depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof which implieth a power to vse the same but onely that the Pope being a spirituall Prince or Pstour may punish the Emperor for his contempt with spirituall punishments which only doe belong to the coercive power of the supreme spirituall Prince Pastor of the spirituall kingdome Church of Christ 33. Thus therefore you haue seen that S. Bernard doth nothing fauour but it is rather flat contrarie to the Popes power to vse the temporall sword neither could he scarse speake more cleerely against the same then he hath done For although it be cleere that the temporall sword is according to S. Bernard the Popes in some sort and doth belong to the Church in some sort which words in some sort D. Schulckenius heere cunningly omitteth and that in some cases it must be vsed at the becke direction or declaratiue command of the Pope yet the aforesayd limitations of S. Bernard that it is the Popes and belongeth to the Pope in some sort that it is to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier and not of the Priest at the becke indeede of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour and that our Sauiour commanded and not only counselled S. Peter to put vp his sword into the scabard do plainly shew that according to S. Bernard the Pope as Pope cannot vse the temporal sword nor constrain a temporall Prince by vsing temporall punishments which doth imply a power to vse the temporal sword 34. And for D. Barclay and Iohn of Paris to omit our learned Country-man Alexander of Hales whose words I related before p Num. 18. who doe giue the very same answere which I haue giuen to the aforesaid words of S. Bernard of whose authoritie although Card. Bellarmine heere doth make very small reckoning yet I do plainly confesse that in this controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to vse the temporall sword and to dispose of all temporals in order to spirituall good I doe more regard their authoritie then I doe Card. Bellarmines speaking with all dutifull respect for that in my opinion they haue handled this question more soundly more cleerely and more sincerely then he hath done Neither is their doctrine repugnant to the Councell of Laterane but onely to the particular exposition which som few especially of late yeeres who haue scraped together all the authorities of Fathers Councells Scriptures facts and decrees of Popes which may seeme any way to fauour the Popes temporall authoritie haue wrested out the words of the said Councel contrarie to the plaine sense of the words and the common vnderstanding of all ancient Diuines who neuer vrged this authoritie of the Councell of Laterane although it hath beene so long publikely extant in the body of the Canon Law But it is now adaies a common fault euen among Catholike Diuines and those also who not perceiuing their owne errour doe accuse others of the same to alleadge in confirmation of their opinions the holy Scriptures and sacred Councels vnderstood according to their owne priuate spirit and meaning and then to cry out against their brethren who mislike their opinions that they haue the holy Sriptures and sacred Councels on their side and that therefore their doctrine is of faith and the contrary hereticall and that their Aduersaries doe oppose themselues against the holy Scriptures and decrees of the Catholike Church whereas wee doe regard with all dutifull respect the holy Scriptures sacred Councels and decrees of the Catholik Church the authority of which consisteth in the true and authenticall sense not in the letter or in the expositiō of any priuate Catholike Doctour which exposition others doe contradict and do oppose our selues only against their vncertaine opinions and expositions of holy Scriptures or sacred Councells grounded vpon their priuate spirit and vnderstanding contrary to the true proper and plaine meaning of the words 35. And although this Ioannes Parisiensis or rather another Iohn of Paris liuing at the same time and surnamed de Poliaco as I said before q Part. 1. ca. 3. nu 7. seq was cōpelled to recall in open Consistory at Auinion before Pope Iohn the 22. certain errors which he maintained cōcerning confession and absolution of whose authoritie neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine in the latter Editions of his controuersies notwithstanding those his errours maketh some rekoning seeing he citeth him as a Classicall Doctour in fauour of his opinion
are made partakers by being Christians and by meanes of the spirituall power and authority of spirituall Pastours And thus much concerning the vnion and subiection of the temporall and spirituall power and also of the second part AN ADJOJNDER to the first and second Part wherein Widdringtons Interpretation of that Clause of the Oath wherein the Doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may bee deposed or murthered by their Subiects is abiured as impious and hereticall is proued to be sound and sufficient and is cleared from all absurdity or contradiction euen by Mr. FITZHERBERTS examples and that it may without any Periury be sworne by any CATHOLIKE PErceiuing Courteous Reader that this my Answer to Mr. Fitzherberts Reply doth arise to a greater bignesse then at the first I imagined for that I am compelled not onely to answer him but also D. Schulckenius to whom he remitteth his Reader for the confutation of many of my Answers I thought good for diuers reasons to diuide it into two Bookes and to conclude the first Booke with the first and second Part onely adioyning by way of an Appendix for thy better satisfaction the Answer which I made to Mr. Fitzherberts fourth Chapter wherein hee excepteth against those words of the Oath as impious and hereticall Doctrine for against no other clause of the Oath doth hee make any particular obiection besides his generall discourse in fauour of the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls Which his Doctrine seeing that I haue already by extrinsecall grounds and the authority of learned Catholikes for to all the intrinsecall grounds which my Aduersary bringeth I will answer in the next booke which God willing ere it be long thou shalt receiue proued not to bee so certaine but that the contrary hath euer beene and is at this present approued by learned Catholikes and consequently may without any danger of heresie error or temerity be maintained by any Catholike and considering also that Mr. Fitzherbert taketh no particular exception against any clause of the Oath but onely against those words as impious and hereticall Doctrine it is euident that any man of iudgement may from that which I haue already said and proued easily conclude that the Oath may lawfully and with a safe Conscience bee taken if my Aduersaries obiections against those words of the Oath as impious and hereticall Doctrine bee once cleerely confuted 2 First therefore Mr. Fitzherbert in the beginning of his fourth Chapter seemeth to take it very ill for that I fall saith he vppon him very foule charging hâ—m with flat falsity at the first word But truely hee doth in this exaggerate the matter somwhat more then is needfull as also in that he saith that for a while I made my selfe merry with Fa. Lessius For besides that the word flat is added by himselfe I did neither cogge scoffe gibe or make my selfe merry with Fa. Lessius but after I had brought those foure instances to confute Fa. Lessius his antecedent proposition whereon hee grounded his consequence I onely demanded not by way of scoffing cogging gibing or making my selfe merry as this man in this and his former Chapter vntruely affirmeth but rather out of pitty compassion and complaint whether those and such like were not trim Arguments to moue English Catholicks prodigally to cast away their goods and to deny their allegiance to their Prince And as for charging my Aduersary with flat falsity my wordes were onely these Thirdly it is false which this Author F. T. affirmeth to wit that the Doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is plainely abiured in â—his Oath as impious and hereticall for this doctrine onely is abiured in this Oath as impious and hereticall that Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may bee deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer which position as I will declare beneath hath this sense that it is in the free power of Subiects to depose or if they will to murther their Prince beeing excommunicated or depriued by the Pope 3 In the very first beginning I affirmed and Mr. Fitzherbert in his first Chapter related my words that the supposition which hee made to wit that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is denyed in this Oath is most false and then he took no exception against this word most false and now after he hath so often fallen very foule vpon mee with charging mee with being absurd ridiculous foolish malicious impudent impious with cogging scoffing gibing heretike and being no good Child of the Catholike Church and vsing many such like slanderous and disgracefull termes against mee hee taketh it very ill for that I onely affirme his assertion to bee false which word neuerthelesse is vsuall in Schooles among Disputers and Answerers and is not taken for any disgracefull tearme being in sense all one with vntrue or I deny the assertion or position But because I perceiue Mr. Fitzherberts patience cannot brooke the very least of those so many foule disgracefull and slanderous nicknames hee is pleased to bestow vpon me and doth so easily see a little mote in my eye not perceiuing the great beame in his owne I will heereafter abstaine from that word false and in stead thereof vse vntrue as in the English Edition I did translate it neither can he haue any colour to bee distasted with this word vntrue vnlesse hee doe take it ill that I doe not forsooth approue all his opinions and applaud whatsoeuer he shall say to be true 4 But to the matter Mr. Fitzherbert in his fourth Chapter endeauoreth to proue two things the one that I haue falsly charged him with affirming that the Doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is manifestly abiured in the Oath as impious and hereticall which hee denyeth to haue affirmed although hee granteth withall â—hat it is true if hee had affirmed it The second is that my interpretation of that clause of the Oath wherein the aforesaid Doctrine and Position That Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects is abiured as impious and hereticall is absurd according to my owne grounds 5. As touching the first Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth a Cap. 4. nu 1. that he saith nothing at all touching his owne opinion whether the doctrine of deposing Princes be abiured in the Oath as impious and hereticall and much lesse that it is manifestly abiured as I say he doth but he affirmeth onely that the Oath is wholy repugnant to a Canon of the great Councell of Lateran by reason of two clauses therein And for proofe thereof he repeateth b Nu. 2. the words of his Supplement which are these Fourthly it appeareth also hereby and by all the premises that this Oath of pretended allegiance is an vnlawfull Oath and not to be taken by any Christian man seeing that it flatly contradicteth the said Councell and Canon not onely