from the doctrine which I taught in my Apologie it doth necessarily follow that with a probable and safe conscience it may bee taken by any Catholike considering that the Popes power to depose Princes as my Aduersarie heere confesseth is the maine question betwixt him and me and which is specially denied in this oath neuerthelesse I did not intend in that Disputation positiuely to defend the sayd oath but sincerely to propound vnto his Holinesse who as I am fully perswaded was neither truely nor throughly informed of the reasons why English Catholikes thought the sayd oath to bee lawfull all the arguments on both sides which might be vrged against or for the oath affirming nothing of my selfe but as representing the persons of those who either impugned or approoued the sayd oath humbly requesting his Holinesse that after he had diligently examined the reasons on both sides he would bee pleased to satisfie those difficulties which wee propounded and to make knowne to vs English Catholickes those many things which he in his Breues had affirmed to be in this oath cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation 12 Now let vs see those worthy admonitions and those things which my Aduersary sayth are worthy to be noted First therefore sayth he o num 10. Widdrington doth not account his owne opinion and doctrine in this point to be certaine and assured but only probable neither yet condemneth our doctrine as manifestly false or repugnant to faith or to the saluation of soules besides that he confesseth also elsewhere p In Epist Deâ—â—icat in Disp Theolog. cap. 3. num 1. that his Holinesse in three seuerall Breues declared the contrary doctrine contained in the oath to be repugnant to the Catholike faith q Num. 11. whereupon I inferre that it were no lesse then most dangerous temeritie and extreme folly to reiect our doctrine and to adhere to his for if it be wisdome in doubtfull matters to take the surest way it cannot with reason be denied but that albeit his opinion seeme probable to him yet the contrary is much more to be imbraced seeing that by his owne confession it is at least probable and therefore may be imbraced without danger whereas his is not onelie doubted of but also declared to be contrarie to the Catholike faith both by his Holines also by very many learned Catholikes as he himselfe also confesseth r Vbi supra besides that he acknowledgeth also afterwards that there are very few Authors extant Å¿ Cap. 3 sâ—â— 3. num 15. which doe deny our doctrine in comparison of those that teach and defend it whereto I also adde that it is altogether conforme to the practise of the Church confirmed by diuerse generall Councels as I haue showed particularly in my Supplement so as no man that hath care of his soule Supplem cap. 2 â—â—o 76. 〈◊〉 can haue any reason to venter it vpon his opinion impugned and condemned by so great authority when our doctrine may by his owne confession be securely followed without doubt or danger 13. But marke Courteous Reader how many frauds and falshoods my Aduersarie hath here committed And first how cunningly hee would deceiue thee by not distinguishing the absolute proposition concerning the Popes power to depose Princes which is not now in question from the modall which onely is now in controuersie For although I do not take vpon me at this present to condemne that opion for the Popes power to depose Princes as manifestly false or to defend the contrary as certaine and without controuersie yet it is vntrue that I doe not assuredly account that opinion and doctrine which affirmeth it to bee a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and the contrary to be hereticall to be absolutely false and to vse the words of the Parliament of Paris against Suarez doctrine to be scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious 14. Secondly it is also vntrue that I doe acknowledge that there are very few Authors extant which doe deny their doctrine concerning the modall proposition in comparison of those that doe teach and defend it for although I affirmed that very few Authors whose writings are now extant in comparison of others who defend this temporall power of the Pope are to be found that deny his authority to depose Princes the reasons whereof which I alledged in that place and before in my Apologie because they clean ouerthrow the common argument taken from the multitude of Authors who doe cleaue to their opinion touching the absolute proposition both my Aduersarie and D. Schulckenius also do altogether conceale yet touching the modall proposition I confidently auerred that there were very few writers and those for the most part Iesuites who doe hold this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a poynt of faith For behold my expresse words u In Pres Resp Apâ—log nu 10. And froÌ„ hence any man may plainly perceiue that Widdrington doth not oppose himselfe either against all Diuines or against the common opinion of the Church or Doctours but onely against very few writers considering that among those seuentie Authors related by Card. Bellarmine very few are to be found who although they are perchance of opinion that the Pope by Christ his institution hath authoritie to depose Princes for enormious crimes doe so peremptorily adhere to that opinion as to taxe them with heresie who doe maintaine the contrary And if Card. Bellarmine in the later Editions of his bookes yet bringing no new reason to confirme his former opinion had not condemned the contrarie opinion of Catholikes as hereticall but had suffred euery man to perseuere without note of heresy in his owne opinion which he should thinke to be the truer he should not doubtlesse haue had Widdrington to be his Aduersarie or to haue attempted to ouerthrow his reasons as insufficient to demoÌ„strate an vndoubted point of faith 15 Thirdly it is also vntrue that confesse the Popes Holinesse to haue declared in his Brâ—ues that the doctrine which denyeth his power to depose Princes is contrary to the Catholike faith I onely confesse that in his Breues he hath declared the Oath to be vnlawfull for that it containeth in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation but what these many things be his Holinesse doth not expresse in his Breues neither as yet hath he been pleased to signifie it vnto vs although we haue both by priuate letters and also publike writings most humbly and instantly requested it at his hands I did indeede confesse that his Holinesse was by all likelyhood misinformed of those many things which he thought in this oath to be flat contrary to faith and saluation by Card Bellarmine who hath publikely in his bookes declared that the Popes spirituall Primacie his power to excommunicate and to binde and loose are plainely denied in this Oath and the Kings spirituall Supremacie is therein acknowledged but how vntrue this is I
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
a controuersie among Catholike Doctors to alledge for confirmation of both opinions the aforesaid authorities and proofes which neuerthelesse doth not discourage either part from maintayning their opinions as it is manifest in the question concerning the superioritie of the Pope and Generall Councells the conception of our B. Lady in originall sinne and many questions concerning the Popes authoritie to dispence and now of late in the question touching grace and freewill betwixt the Dominicans and the Iesuites 20 Therefore it is rather great temeritie and extreme folly that you my Catholike Countrymen should venter your soules and whole estates vpon this my Aduersaries writings whose knowledge in Diuinitie is knowne to be but small and his desire to ease your griefes as you shall perceiue beneath d Num 81. 82. is also no whit lesse besides he handleth this controuersie which doth so greatly concerne your spirituall and temporall good or harme and your obedience due to GOD and CAESAR so vnsincerely and corruptly that either he concealeth my answers or peruerteth the true meaning of my words rather thereby to disgrace me with the Reader and to make him to haue a preiudicate conceipt of what I wrote then really and sincerely to finde out the truth and by a cleere and moderate debating of the controuersie to satisfie his Readers vnderstanding And this very argument taken chiefly from the Popes Breues which this man to terrifie and perplexe the timorous conscience of the deuout Catholike Reader vrgeth here I haue so largely answered in my Theologicall Disputation e Cap. 10 sec 2. wherein I fully satisfied this obiection taken from the authoritie of the Popes Breues and of so many learned men who condemne the oath as contayning in it many things cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation that I thought he would haue blushed to repeat the same argument here againe so nakedly which I my selfe vrged there more plainly and strongly without making any Reply or taking any notice of the answers I made in that place thervnto For there I shewed the difference according to Vasquez doctrine between a doubtfull and disputable question and that there is neither doubt nor danger of any imprudence temeritie disobedience or of any other sinne not to obey the Popes declaratiue command when it is grounded vpon an opinion or doctrine which is not certaine but disputable for that diuers Popes haue in their Breues or Decretall letters declared and taught false and also hereticall doctrine and that the Popes declaratiue command hath no greater force to binde then hath the doctrine or opinion whereon it is grounded as Suarez whom I related in that place doth expresly affirme And thus much concerning my Aduersaries first Admonition 21 Secondly whereas Widdrington saith my Aduersarie Å¿ Num. 12. professeth not to giue for his opinion any assured and certaine proofes which may breed in the hearers or Readers a firme and doubtlesse assent but onely probable reason drawne from credible principles which may induce a probable perswasion hee sheweth euidently that his meaning is not to seeke out the truth but rather to obscure it by wrangling and cauilling to shew his wit labouring to maintaine paradoxes with some shew of probabilitie knowing right well that as Cicero saith there is nothing so incredible but it may bee made probable by discourse c. And what else may this man be thought to intend but to shew his wit seeing that hee pretendeth to produce no other proofe of his opinion but onely probabilitie and withall acknowledgeth that the contrarie doctrine is and hath been professed and held by almost all the learned Catholikes that euer haue written at least whose workes are now extant Is it likely then that hee meaneth to establish the truth or to quiet mens consciences by the discussion thereof No truely But rather that he seeketh as I haue said to obscure it and make it doubtfull when he can not ouerthrow it which is the most diuellish deuise that any man could inuent to impugne any point of the Catholike faith to wit not to doe it all at once but by degrees seeking to shake the foundation of it first calling it in question and then teaching it to bee but probable and consequently doubtfull to the end that the mindes of men hanging in suspence may be disposed to admit as well the errour as the truth 22 But whether I or my Aduersarie doth intend to establish the truth or rather to obscure it by wrangling and cauilling seeing that hee still persisteth in misinterpreting the meaning of my words and in dissembling the true state of the question concerning the modall proposition which is the maine controuersie betwixt him and me wherein although hee sheweth in deede in some part his wit yet verily he sheweth no sincere and vpright dealing I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader For first it is vntrue that I professe as my Aduersarie affirmeth to giue for my opinion no assured and certaine proofes which may breed a firme and vndoubted assent which the Reader would quickly haue perceiued if my Aduersarie had been pleased to haue entirely related my words which are these wherefore the present controuersie betweene me and Card. Bellarmine is not concerning this absolute question or proposition whether the Pope hath or hath not power to depose Princes for heresie or no but concerning the modall proposition whether it bee so certaine that the Pope by Christ his institution hath such a power to depose Princes as that those who defend the contrarie opinion doe expose themselues to manifest danger of heresie errour or of any other mortall sinne Wherefore although in my Apologie I brought certaine arguments drawne from inconueniences which the Logicians call ad impossibile to proue that Christ our Lord did not grant such an authoritie to the Pope which is the son then can my Aduersarie haue to taxe me for not bringing any assured or certaine proofes but onely probable to proue that it is probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes 26 Wherefore to establish and confirme this doctrine that it is not a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes or that it is not improbable that he hath no such power it is sufficient to answere probably all the reasons and authorities to the contrarie and to bring probable proofes which may cause a probable perswasion that he hath no such authoritie considering that according to the approued ground of all Philosophers and Diuines certaintie of one part of the contradiction cannot stand with probabilitie of the other taking probable in that sense as the Diuines doe take it and not for that which hath onely a shew of probabilitie and is not truely probable for if it bee certainely true that the Pope hath power to depose it is certainely false and therefore not probable that hee hath not power to depose And therefore my Aduersarie rather seeketh to obscure the truth and to
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
Wherefore that Dialogue which D. Schulckenius maketh betwixt the Pope and a conuicted heretike whose goods are without any controuersie confiscated both by the Ciuill and Canon Law is vnaptly applyed to the deposing of Kings which hath beene and is at this present in controuersie among Catholikes Besides that this Dialogue also supposeth that the Pope is in possession of his authoritie to depose Kings and that Kings are not in possession of their right not to bee deposed by the Pope and that the Pope is a Iudge of temporall Kings in temporall causes and to punish them with temporall punishments by way of coercion and also that the aforesayd rule fauoureth the Iudge and not the person conuented before the Iudge when the authority of the Iudge ouer the person conuented is not sufficiently knowen all which as I haue shewed before are very vntrue And by this thou maiest perceiue good Reader how insufficient are the exceptions which D. Schuclkenius bringeth against my argument grounded in the aforsaid rule of the Law as in very deed are al the rest of his Replies against my Apology as God willing ere long for I cannot answer fully and exactly as I intend all my Aduersaries at once I will most cleerely shew 75. Consider now do are Country-men first the vnsincere dealing of this my Aduersarie T. F. who concealeth the chiefest part of opinion and doctrine for the securing of his Maiesty of the constant loyaltie and allegeance wherein all his Catholike Subiects are in conscience bound vnto him that thereby he may cause his Maiestie to bee iealous of my fidelity and to account me no good Subiect as this man slanderously affirmeth that I am neither a good Subiect nor a good Catholike or child of the Church as I professe my selfe to be but that I am falne into flat heresie from which I cannot any way cleere or excuse my selfe for impugning that doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is grounded vpon such assured and solid foundation as this man forsooth heere hath signified but how guilfully and vnsoundly you haue partly seene and he will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter where also his particular frauds and falsehoods I will more particularly and manifestly lay open to his owne shame and confusion But for all his slanderous words I trust in God that it wil appear to all men that insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui z Psal 26. mentita est iniquit as sibi that false witnesses haue risen vp against me and that wickednesse hath be lied her selfe and that I will euer prooue my selfe to bee both a good Subiect to his Maiestie and also a good Catholike and a dutifull childe of the Catholike Church as partly I haue prooued heere already and will more particularly and manifestly declare heereafter In the meane time let Mr. Fitzherbert examine well his Catholike faith and consider what a kinde of Catholike hee is who so stiffely maintaineth vncertaine opinions for the Catholike faith which if it bee truely Catholike cannot be exposed to any falshood or vncertainty as this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which with Catholike faith hee pretendeth truely to beleeue may in very deede bee false and without all doubt is vncertaine and questionable among Catholikes 76. Secondly consider how vntruely Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that my manner of disputing this question probably concerning the Popes power not to depose Princes and the lawfull taking of the Oath doth not onely giue no security to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safety and how vnlearnedly hee argueth from speculation to practise For although I should admit not onely for Disputation sake as onely I doe but also positiuely confesse that in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes whereas with that affirmatiue part of the question to wit whether it bee probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes I do not intermeddle but I do only handle the negatiue part and doe affirme that it is probable he hath no such power which manner of disputing against such Aduersaries who hold it not onely probable but certaine that he hath such a power can in no sort be dangerous or pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as I cleerely shewed before neuerthelesse this my Aduersarie very vnsoundly from hence inferreth that because in speculation it is probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore in practise it is lawfull to concurre to the actuall deposing or thrusting them out of the possession of their Kingdomes or for Subiects notwithstanding any sentence of deposition to beare armes against them so long as this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes remaineth disputable and vndecided Wherfore my firme resolute and constant opinion is that the Pope hath not power to dispēce or absolue any of his Maiesties Subiects what opinion soeuer in speculation they follow concerning the Popes power to depose Princes from anie promissorie parts of the Oath which onely doe belong to practise and as for the assertory parts of the Oath which belong to speculation they are not subiect to the Popes power of dispencing as I shewed at large in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. 77. Now whether this my doctrine doth not onely giue no securitie to his Maiestie but is also dangerous and pernicious to his Maiesties safetie as this my Aduersarie to procure his Maiesties displeasure against me falsely and vnlearnedly affirmeth if the Pope should denounce any sentence of depriuation against him I leaue to the iudgement of any sensible man Neither is it vnusuall that an opinion or doctrine may in speculation bee probable which yet in practise it is not lawfull to follow as may bee seene in the ministring of corporall physicke and of those Sacraments which are necessarie to saluation For although it bee probable that such a medicine will cure such a dangerous disease for that learned Physicians are of that opinion although other learned Physicians thinke the contrarie to be true or that such a matter or forme be sufficient to the validitie of the Sacrament for example sake of Baptisme because learned Diuines hold it to bee sufficient although other learned Diuines bee of the contrarie opinion and so in speculation both opinions be probable yet in practise wee are bound by the law of charitie to apply to our neighbour those remedies either spirituall or corporall which are out of question and controuersie and to leaue those that are questionable if certaine and vndoubted remedies can be had So likewise althogh it be probable that such a house or land doth not by a lawfull title belong to him who is in lawfull possession thereof for that learned Lawyers are of that opinion although other learned Lawyers thinke the contrarie to bee true and so in speculation both opinions bee probable yet in practise wee are bound by the rules of Iustice not to dispossesse
him by violence of that howse or land before the Iudge hath decided the controuersie 78 Thirdly consider the reason why this my Aduersarie T. F. is so greatly offended that I for this present doe onely take in hand by answering probably all the arguments which are obiected on the contrarie side to shew that it is probable that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes and consequently that any man may with a safe and probable conscience take the Oath for that the doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is by this my Aduersaries owne confession the maine question betwixt him me and the chiefe ground wherefore the Oath is iudged to be vnlawfull His reason therfore is for that he saw right well what great aduantage I had against him and what little aduantage hee had against me in arguing or rather answering in this manner and therefore he calleth it in heate of his zeale as you haue heard The most deuilish deuice that any man could invent And truly if I should at this first beginning haue treated of this controuersie in any other manner then by handling it probably in that sense as I haue declared I might worthily haue been taxed of great imprudencie in giuing my Aduersarie more aduantage against me then was needfull For this is the state of the question whether it can bee clearely convinced by the authoritie of holy Scriptures ancient Fathers Generall Councells or by necessarie inferences from any of them as my Aduersaries pretend to convince that it is an vndoubted doctrine of faith and the contrarie not to be maintained by any Catholike that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and consequently that the Oath can not lawfully be taken This is the question 79 Marke now the aduantage I haue For first I am not to proue but only to answer to defend not to oppose Secondly it is sufficient for me that my Answers be onely probable but their Replyes must not be onely probable but also convincing and which can not with any probabilitie be answered So that if I should goe about at the first to proue my opinion to be most true which my Aduersaries contend not to be questionable I should as it is euident greatly disaduantage my selfe For in such controuersies as are so violently maintained by the Aduersarie that hee will not grant the contrarie part to be questionable it is necessarie to proceed by degrees first to make the thing questionable and disputable which the aduerse part will not haue to be called in question and after this is once agreed vpon then to examine whether opinion be the truest For perchance it may fall out that as the opinion for the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin before Scotus did oppose himselfe herein against S. Thomas and his followers was scarse accounted probable yet afterwards it was daily more and more embraced so that it is now esteemed to be by farre the more true opinion and as Alphonsus Salmeron b in Rom 5. Disp 51. § deinde and Franciscus c Tom. 2. Disp 3. sec 5. Suarez doe affirme agreed vpon by the consent almost of the vninuersall Church and of all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities And as that opinion which holdeth that the Pope can not dispence in the solemne vow of Religious chastitie neither in any lawfull marriage before it bee consummate is accounted by very many learned men to be the truer opinion notwithstanding the practise of many Popes to the contrarie So it may fall out that in processe of time this opinion which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes may be accounted by the greatest number of learned men to be by farre the more true opinion and may be agreed vpon by the consent almost of the Vniuersall Church and of all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities notwithstanding the practise of many Popes and the vehement opposition of the Iesuits at this present time to the contrarie 80 Fourthly consider how little beholding are English Catholikes to this my Aduersarie T. F. who will needs inforce them euen with the temporall ouerthrow of themselues and of their whole posteritie to defend that doctrine to be of faith which the State of France accounteth scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious and also endeauoureth to perswade his Maiestie that no Catholike can according to the grounds of Catholike Religion be a true and loyall Subiect to his Maiestie but at the Popes pleasure or which is all one so long onely as the Pope shall not depose him which he may doe at his pleasure But we haue great affiance in his Maiesties singular wisdome and element disposition whereof we haue had both by his Maiesties gracious Proclamation publike bookes and effectuall deeds sufficient tryall that he will not be drawne by the false suggestion of this my Aduersarie who would haue all his Catholike Subiects to be of the same violent spirit as he is to haue all his Catholike Subiects in the same degree of iealousie but that he will euer make a distinction betwixt them who are his true hearted Subiects and most loyall in all temporall affaires and will aduenture all that they haue and are in defence of his Maiesties Royall Person and dignitie against any sentence of depriuation whatsoeuer which shall be denounced against him by the Pope assuring themselues that it is conformable to the grounds of Catholike Religion which they professe and not repugnant to that spirituall obedience wherein they stand bound to the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church and those other Catholikes who thinking it to be a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to dethrone Soueraigne Princes and to make temporall Kings priuate men will only defend his Maiestie and yeeld him temporall obedience vntill the Pope after his sentence of depriuation shall command them the contrarie 81 But what small reliefe are English Catholikes to expect from Mr. Fitzherberts hands if it were in his power to relieue them you may Catholike Countrymen coniecture by this that towards the end of Queene Elizabeth hir raigne when those foure Reuerend Priests were at Rome to seeke redresse of Pope Clement the eight to whom they and other of their brethren had appealed for the manifold wrongs and slaunders wherewith they were charged both at home and abroad at which time this my Aduersarie running from Cardinall to Cardinall to informe against them made no scruple of conscience to disgrace and slaunder them as Schismatikes Spies Rebells and disobedient persons to the See Apostolike c. as now in his publike writings he handleth me hee and some others vpon whom he depended fearing lest that hir Maiestie should shew some fauour and giue some sort of toleration to such hir Catholike Subiects whom for their constant loyaltie she might securely trust for out of hir Princely and mercifull disposition Shee had already shewed ouer great fauour to those oppressed Priests considering the present lawes
this is his principall meaning and intention that we should deale plainely and sincerely with him without any fraude guile mentall euasion or secret reseruation whatsoeuer 129 And if it should so fall out that we cannot be assured of his Maiesties meaning and intention when any difficulty concerning the sense of any word or sentence contained in the oath shall arise then we must recurre to those generall rules which Diuines Lawiers assigne for the interpreting of the wordes of euery law for this wee may with iust reason presume to bee the generall intention of his Maiesty as also of euery lawmaker And if perchance there bee any Catholike so scrupulous that by applying the aforesaid generall rules to any ambiguous and doubtfull word or sentence in the oath he cannot yet quiet his conscience yet he may auoid all danger of equiuocating by publikely declaring in what sense he taketh that word or sentence which hath diuers proper and vsuall significations as by declaring in what sense hee taketh the Aduerbe as both in the word impious and also in the word hereticall and likewise in what sense he taketh the word hereticall and so of others and this declaration will both auoid all danger of equiuocating and also without doubt satisfie the Magistrate so that his declaration be not knowne to be against his Maiesties meaning and intention 130 And truely it is strange that whereas the oath is by his Maiesty and the Parliament propounded and expressed in such maner of wordes that according to the approued rules assigned by Catholike Diuines and Lawyers for the interpreting of lawes it may bee expounded in a true lawfull and commodious sense to the swearer which sense also is agreeable to the proper and vsuall signification of the words yet M. Fitzherbert and other impugners of the oath for which English Catholikes are to giue them little thankes will needs haue them contrary to the aforesaid rules vnderstand in that sense which they account to be false vnlawfull and to bee an vtter ruine to the refusers of the oath whereas according to the aforesaid rules they ought to draw the wordes to a metaphoricall and improper sense if the proper sense should argue in the law and consequently in the oath ordained by a publike law any falshood iniustice absurdity or other inconuenience 131 Seeing therefore it cannot be denyed that the proper and vsuall signification of the Aduerbe as it being an Aduerbe of similitude is to signifie a similitude and often times also by reason of the matter but not by force of the word being taken in the most proper and most vsuall signification a reality and of the word hereticall as it is taken by many Catholike Diuines for euery falshood repugnant to diuine reuelation it is manifest that whether we affirme that the Aduerbe as doth signifie onely a similitude or also a reality both in the word impious and also in the word hereticall or a reality in the first and a similitude in the second in the maner before declared it is no gallimaufre but a true and plaine declaring of the common sense and vnderstanding of the wordes according to the approued rules prescribed by Catholike Diuines and Lawyers for the interpreting of doubtfull and ambiguous wordes in euery Law And thus much concerning the second Answer and M. Fitzherberts Reply against the same 132 Now then to make an end of this Chapter vpon these premises I will draw foure conclusions contrary to those which M. Fitzherbert heere collecteth First saith hee u nu 29. whereas Widdrington chargeth mee to haue affirmed falsly that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is manifestly abiured in the oath as impious and hereticall hee chargeth me falsly in two respects the one because I affirmed no such thing and the other for that albeit I had said so yet I had said truely as it euidently appeareth not onely by the plaine wordes substance and circumstances of the oath but also by his Maiesties meaning and intention therein 133 But contrariwise I conclude that whereas I charged him to haue falsly or vntruely affirmed that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is manifestly abiured in this oath as impious hereticall I charged him truly in two respects the one because it is true that he affirmeth so much as I haue cleerly conuinced by his owne wordes and I wonder that hee is not ashamed to affirme such a palpable vntruth the other for that this assertion of his is false as euidently appeareth both by the plaine words substance and circumstances of the oath and also by his Maiesties meaning and intention therein which is to bee gathered principally by the words which as you haue seene being taken in their proper and common sense doe cleerely shew that both parts of that disiunctiue proposition Princes which bee excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may bee deposed or murthered by their subiects are not of necessity to bee abiured as hereticall although by vertue of the matter if hereticall bee taken for euery false doctrine which is repugnant to truth containeâ— in holy Scriptures whether the Church haue declared or not declared it to bee so both parts of that posiâ—ition which alloweth the practise of deposing or murthering Princes which bee excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may bee truely abiured as hereticall as I haue aboundantly shewed before 134 Secondly it appeareth saith M. Fitzherbert x nu 30. how different Widdringtons doctrine belief concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is from his Maiesties yea from the whole substance of the oath seeing that according to Widdringtons opinion the said doctrine is probable and consequently may bee held taught and sworne whereas his Maiesty by this oath condemneth it for detestable damnable impious and hereticall whereby it may appeare also what good seruice he doth to his Maiesty with this his probable doctrine See Preface nu 25. 26. 27. as I haue noted before in the Preface 135. But whether my doctrine and beleife concerning the Popes power to depose Princes be different from his Maiesties or no which my Aduersary if hee had beene pleased to haue diligently perused my writings might quickly haue perceiued it is impertinent to the present question conncerning the lawfulnesse or vnlawfulnesse of the oath and therefore I neede not at this time to speake more expressely thereof for not giuing my Aduersary occasion to wrangle about impertinent questions and to decline the chiefe point which is controuersie about the lawfulnesse of the oath For to proue the oath to be lawfull or vnlawfull wee must not so much regard what his Maiesties beliefe or opinion is touching any point of controuersie which may seeme to be any way insinuated in the oath as it appeareth by his opinion concerning his Primacie in spiritualls and the Popes power to excommunicate him and such like which neuerthelesse he doth not intend that his Subjects shall be bound to affirme
Princes who in things temporal are supreme and subiect to none but God So also there be only two subiections and obediences answerable thereunto to wit spirituall and temporall So that if such a power or obedience be not spirituall it must of necessitie be temporall and with the same certaintie or probabilitie that one is perswaded such an authoritie not to be spirituall he must be perswaded that it is temporall That authoritie is spirituall and due onely to the Pope which Christ hath giuen to his Church and the spirituall Pastours thereof All other supreme authoritie is temporall and due only to temporall Princes And therefore if it be probable as in very deede it is and as you may see it in this Treatise clearely conuinced so to be that the Pope hath no authority giuen him by Christ to depose Princes it is consequently probable that the aforesaid authoritie if there be any such authoritie on earth to depose Princes is not spirituall but temporall and that therfore whosoeuer granteth it to the Pope doth giue to him that obedience which is due to temporall Princes and consequently he doth against the expresse command of Christ not render to God and Caesar that which is their due 3. Well then thus you see that if the Pope should challenge that obedience as due to him by the institution of Christ which Christ hath not giuen him and which consequently is due only to temporall Princes he should vsurpe that authority which he hath not in so doing he should transgresse the law of God and Nature and those subiects who should adhere to him and yeeld him that pretended spirituall obedience should also transgresse the law of Christ and be not only pretended but true Traitors both to God and their Prince in not acknowledging their Prince to be their true Soueraigne by yeelding that obedience which is due to him to an other and so by taking from him his supreme power or soueraingtie and giuing it to an other Prince which in very deed is to take the Diademe which doth signifie his supreme authoritie off from his head and place it vpon the head of an other 4. Now there is none of you as I suppose of so meane vnderstanding that can imagine that the Pope is so infallible in his opinion iudgement or any declaratiue command grounded thereon as that he can not possibly erre therein and challenge that authority as due to him by the institution of Christ which neuerthelesse Christ hath not giuen him but it belongeth only to temporall Princes This you may see by experience in Pope Boniface the eight who pretended that Philip the faire the most Christian KING of France was subiect to him in spiritualls and temporalls and declared them to be heretikes who should beleeue the contrarie and that he was a temporall Monarch of the Christians world and therefore that the kingdome of France by reason of the disobedience and rebellion of Philip their King was falne into the handes of the See Apostolike for which cause Pope Boniface was taxed by many learned Catholikes of great impudencie pride and arrogancie and his extrauagant Vnam Sanctam which he made to curbe the said King of France declaring that the temporall sword is subiect to the spirituall and temporall power to spirituall authoritie was reuersed by Pope Clement the fift the next Successour but one to Pope Boniface who declared that by the definition and declaration of Pope Boniface in his extrauagant Vnam SanctaÌ„ no preiudice should arise to the King and kingdome of France and that by it neither the King kingdom or inhabitants of France should be more subiect to the Church of Rome then they were before but that all things should be vnderstood to be in the same state wherin they were before the said definition as well concerning the Church as concerning the King Kingdome and Inhabitants of France The like temporall authoritie Pope Sixtus the fift if he had liued would also haue challenged for that as I haue been credibly informed by diuers Iesuites of good account who then liued at Rome hee did intend to suppresse Card. Bellarmines first Tome of Controuersies because he did not with the Canonists grant to the Pope this direct temporall Monarchie ouer the whole Christian world 5 So that the onely controuersie now is whether the Pope hath de facto erred or no in declaring the oath of allegiance to be vnlawful and to containe in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation vpon this supposall that it is a point of Faith that the Pope hath authoritie giuen him by Christ to depose Princes which is the substance of the oath as Fa Suarez a Lib 6 Defens Fidei fere â—er totum acknowledgeth and the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee as M.r. Fitzherbert b In the end of his Preface in expresse words confesseth Now you may see if you please to reade that I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise that it is probable that the authoritie which the Pope claimeth to depose Princes is not true but vsurped not granted him by Christ but giuen him by men contrarie to those expresse words of CHRIST c Math. 22. Render the things that are Caesars to Caesar and the things that are Gods to God And therefore consider I pray you in what danger you stand of doing great iniury to your Soueraigne and committing flat treason against his Royall person and Crowne if you rashly and without due examination follow the Popes opinion iudgement or also declaratiue command grounded thereon who vnder pretence of demanding of you a profession of his spirituall authoritie and your spirituall obedience exacteth in very deede not spirituall allegiance but that obedience which is probably thought by many learned Catholikes to be a meere temporal allegiance and due onely to your temporall Prince 6 But obserue deare Countrimen a more manifest and dangerous gulfe into which for want of due consideration you may easily cast your selues For if once you grant that it is probable that it is a controuersie that it is a disputable question as in very deed it is and as I thinke very few of you who haue studied this question are perswaded to the contrarie that the right title power and authoritie which the Pope challengeth to depose Princes is no true title but pretended a meere temporall and not a true spirituall authoritie although I should grant you also for Disputation sake of which as yet I doe not dispute that it is also probable that the said title is good and that the Pope hath such an authoritie to depose Princes giuen him by Christ yet there is none of you so simple but if you will duely consider will presently perceiue that this title so long as it is in controuersie is titulus sinere a meere title which so long as it is disputable and debated on either side can neuer be put in practise by any man what opinion so euer he follow in speculation without doing the Prince who
which doth attribute to the Pope that authoritie as certainly giuen him by Christ which at the most is disputable whether Christ hath giuen it him or no. 8. I do honour and reuerence in good truth Card. Bellarmine as also many other learned men of his Society and their singular learning I doe greatly admire but that their learning or authoritie ought to be so greatly esteemed of by Catholikes that whatsoeuer they thinke to be a point of faith it is presently to bee taken for a diuine Oracle and the contrarie opinion of other learned Catholikes who haue seene and examined all their grounds reasons and authorities is not to be accounted an opinion but an heresie and that in a matter of such importance which concerneth the dutifull obedience of euery Christian to God and Caesar this is that which I cannot take in good part And might not I pray you the Canonists who do vehemently defend the Popes direct power to dispose of all temporalls against Card. Bellarmine and others whom they are not afraide to call impios politicos wicked politicians h Alexander Carerius pretending thereby to strengthen the fortresse of the Catholike Church to confirme the immoueable rocke of S. Peter and to maintaine the Popes authoritie retort the very same inuectiue which my Aduersarie hath borrowed of Card. Bellarmine i Against Barclay cap. 1. and in the Epistle Dedicatory of his Schulckenius against me vpon Card. Bellarmine himselfe who doth vehemently impugne the aforesaid direct authoritie which the Canonists do yeelde vnto the Pope and with the same facilitie crie out with my Aduersary that he taketh vpon him to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions and to vndermine the immoueable rocke of S. Peter with his owne instruments and all this he doth with such Art and sleigth that whiles he fighteth against the Church hee pretendeth to be a friend and childe of the Church and albeit he impugne the Popes authoritie yet he dedicateth his booke to Pope Sixtus the fift laughing vpon him whiles he woundeth him and betraying Christ with a kisse as Iudas did c. And thus much concerning me 9. Now as touching the matter which I handle and the manner of my proceeding therein k Num. 6. Widdringtons speciall purpose saith my Aduersarie in this his late worke is to defend the new oath of allegiance and to confute all the chiefe arguments that haue beene made by any against the seuerall clauses thereof which neuerthelesse he meaneth no other waies to performe as he himselfe often protesteth but only by shewing probably that the said Oath may be taken by Catholikes and that nothing hath beene hitherto or can be obiected against it which hath not been or cannot be probably answered And from hence my Aduersary gathereth certaine admonitions to the Reader which as he saith are worthy to be noted 10. But before I come to set downe his worthy admonitions I thinke it fit to put thee in remembrance Curteous Reader what is the true state of the question betwixt vs concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and what was my chiefe intent in making that disputation of the Oath The maine question therefore betwixt me and these my Aduersaries as my Aduersarie T. F. also confesseth l In the end of his Preface is touching the Popes power to depose Princes which specially is denied in this new oath to wit whether it be a point of faith and not to be denied by any Catholike without note of heresie or errour that the Pope hath by Christ his institution power to depriue temporall Princes of their Kingdomes for any crime whatsoeuer For whereas some very few late writers especially Card. Bellarmine and other Iesuites could not bee content to defend this doctrine for the Popes power call it temporall or spirituall as you will to depose Princes in a moderate manner but would needes take vpon them to make it a point of the Catholike faith and cleerely to demonstrate by the testimonie of holy Scriptures of sacred Councells and by inuincible reasons that Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successors such a temporall power ouer Soueraigne Kings and Princes a doctrine neither practised nor knowne by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church and which hath beene a chiefe occasion why this Kingdome is departed from the obedience to the See Apostolike and to condemne all those Catholikes of heresie who do not runne with them in this their violent course when I seriously considered with my selfe what scandall this new doctrine maintained with such violence brought to Catholike Religion what danger to our Prince and Countrey and what great calamities and disgrace English Catholikes do daily suffer thereby as not being accounted true and loyall Subiects to their Prince euen according to the doctrine of those who are esteemed to bee the chiefe pillars of the Catholike Church but so long only as it shall please the Pope I thought my selfe bound by the duty which I do owe to the Catholike Religion to my Prince Country to take away as much as lieth in mee notwithstanding the manifold slaunders which I fore-saw some persons would therefore raise against mee the aforesaid scandals dangers and disgraces and to answer probably all the arguments which Card. Bellarmine hath from the chiefest Authors who haue handled this question collected to demonstrate that it is a certaine and infallible doctrine and the contrary not so much an opinion as an heresie that the Pope hath by Christ his institution authority to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions 11 Wherefore the present controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries is not at this time concerning the absolute proposition to wit whether the Pope hath or hath not power to depose the reason why I doe not dispute of this absolute proposition I will declare beneath m Num. 78.79 but concerning the modall whether it be certaine without controuersie and a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose as this Author T. F. following Card. Bellarmine and some few Iesuites will needes haue it to be and I with other Catholikes and the Kingdome of France as Petrus Pithaeus witnesseth n In Cod. libert Eccles Galliâ— doe vtterly deny the same And from hence it euidently followeth that although Card. Bellarmine should alledge an hundred Catholike Authors who doe affirme that the Pope hath power to depose Princes yet if they doe not also affirme that it is certaine and to be beleeued as a point of faith that the Pope hath such a power they neither confirme his opinion nor gaine-say mine concerning the present controuersie which is now in hand And thus much concerning the matter and manner of my Apologie for the right of Princes Now touching my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegeance although in very deede hitherto I haue not seene any sufficient reason to condemne the sayd oath as vnlawfull and
Countreimen by replying to some of the answeres which I made to their arguments and intrinsecall grounds of their doctrine which intrinsecall grounds vnlearned men cannot examine and for an answere to the authorities and extrinsecall grounds which I brought which only grounds vnlearned men can vnderstand to remit his English Readers and who for the most part vnderstand not Latine to D. Schulckenius a Latine writer 55. Besides from my Aduersaries own wordes the Reader may easily perceiue a great fraude of his For my Aduersarie confesseth that I haue brought many Authours partly in my Theologicall Disputation and partly in my Apologie which is very true for in my Theologicall Disputation of set purpose I chose out certaine Authours named in my Apologie which I thought did speake more plainly and against which no iust exception could be taken whereunto also I added certaine other Authours which in my Apologie were not named at all And yet my Aduersarie remitteth his Reader for an answere to them all to D. Schulckenius who hath only answered but how insufficiently you shall see beneath those authorities which I brought in my Apologie for my Theologicall Disputation he could not at that time see it being then but in the PRINTERS hands But the plaine truth is that vnlesse my Aduersarie would haue shewed apparantly to wrangle and cauill hee could take no iust exception whereby his Reader might be fully satisfied against those Authours which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation and therfore he thought it his best course cunningly to shift them of and not to meddle with the answering of them at all least the Reader perceiuing so many learned Catholikes to ioyne with Widdrington in denying this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes especially to be a point of faith should presently obserue both the fraudulent proceeding of my Aduersarie who laboureth to perswade his Reader that only Widdrington doth impugne this authoritie of the Pope to depose Princes and also that the contrarie doctrine being approued not only by Widdrington but also by so many learned Catholikes is and ought to be accounted truly probable and therefore may according to Vasquez doctrine without any note of temeritie be embraced by any Catholike But of these authorities I will treat more at large beneath And thus much concerning my Aduersaries fourth Admonition and all the foure points thereof 56. Now to come to my Aduersaries fift and last admonition which indeede as he truely saith is worthie to be noted but not for any truth therein to be obserued but for the manifest fraud and falshood therin contained The first and last consideration shall be saith my Aduersarie * Num. 25. seq that Widdringtons doctrine is dangerous and pernicious not onely to the consciences of Catholikes as I haue shewed but also to his Maiesties seruice which he pretendeth to further and aduance thereby for he cannot denie but that the contrary opinion being probable as he confesseth it to be may bee lawfully imbraced by all men whereupon it followeth that any man may not only refuse the oath lawfully but also hold that his Maiestie may be deposed by his owne subiects vpon a sentence of Excommunication and Deposition and that consequently they may lawfully take armes against his Maiesty in that case and this being so what security hath his Maiesty or aduancement of his seruice by this mans doctrine For albeit many doe now take the Oath and sweare that they thinke in their conscience that the Pope cannot depose the King yet for as much as it is and alwaies will be probable in the opinion of some learned men that they haue sworne a thing which is false and consequently that their Oath is inualide it followeth according to the grounds of his doctrine that they may breake their Oath seeing that they may alwaies probably perswade themselues that they promised and swore a thing false and vnlawfull and that therfore they are not bound to obserue it 57. Furthermore if his Holinesse should at any time dispence with them particularly for their Oath or excommunicate and depose his Maiestie discharging his Subiects of their bond of fidelitie and all others of Allegeance this man cannot deny but that it is probable at least that then they are free from the Oath and consequently that they may euen according to his doctrine of probabilitie concurre to the deposition of his Maiestie and therfore seeing that his doctrine doth not giue any security to his Maiestie and that according to his opinion any man may as lawfully condemne and refuse the Oath as approoue and take it it is euident that his sayd doctrine is not onely vaine and fruitlesse to his Maiestie but also dangerous and pernicious no lesse impugning the authoritie of his Maiestie commanding it to be taken then of his Holinesse forbidding it 58. Whereupon I inferre three things the first that he is neither so good a subiect to his Maiesty as he pretendeth nor such an obedient childe to the Church as he professeth to be The second is that his bookes deserue to be prohibited no lesse in England then Rome and therefore truely wise men in these parts doe greatly maruel how it can stand with the wisdome of his Maiesties Councell to permit them to be printed and published in England as we see they are The third is that he is one of those whom God threatneth in the Apocalyps Apoc. 3. to spit out of his mouth saying of such indifferent men as he Vtinam esses aut calidus aut frigidus c. I would thou wert either hot or cold but because thou art luke-warme I will beginne to vomit thee out of my mouth 59. And this shall suffice good Reader for the present touching those aduertisements and considerations which I meant to giue thee concerning Widdringtons doctrine in generall and therfore I will now passe to the examination of his answers to me in particular and lay downe in order as much of the text of his Admonition as concerneth me to the end that he shall not haue occasion to say that I haue concealed or dissembled any thing that he hath said against me as also that thou maiest see how probably he hath answered me and thereby the better iudge of the probability as well of his answers to other men as of his whole doctrine in his Theologicall Disputation which as I vnderstand thou shalt shortly see fully confuted in Latine to his confusion Besides that I doubt not but thou shalt also euen in this my Reply see a cleere confutation of the chiefe grounds of his doctrine and of his principall arguments and answers touching the Popes power to depose Princes which is the maine question betwixt him and vs and specially impugned and abiured in the new oath 60. But what strange paradoxes and positions void of all probabilitie Mr. Fitzherbert dare aduenture to maintaine yea and to perswade his Maiestie and the wisdomes of his most honourable priuie Councell that it
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
the priueledge it selfe is named King at whose instance S. Gregorie saith he granted that priueledge Baronius might with the same reason haue affirmed that not only the subscription but also the priueledge it selfe was afterwards made and adioyned to S. Gregories Epistles which without doubt Baronius would quickly haue acknowledged if it had not beene for those words honore suo priuetur which hee thought made greatly for the Popes power to depose Princes seeing that vpon far weaker grounds hee sticketh not to deny oftentimes priueledges and antiquities which neuer before were called in question 12. And although Pope Gregorie the seuenth in his Epistle to the Bishop of Metz doth not cite this priueledge of S. Gregorie granted to the Monasterie of S. Meâ—ard which is no small coniecture that this priueledge was not extant in those daies among the Epistles of S. Gregorie for otherwise it bearing so great a shew of being authenticall by the subscription of 30 Bishops and the King and Queene of France who were witnesses thereunto it would by all likelihood haue beene cited by Pope Gregorie the seuenth but an other priueledge granted to an other Monasterie by S Gregorie in his Epistle to one Senator Abbot Å¿ Lib. 11. epist epist 10. wherin S. Gregorie did not say honore suo priuetur let him be depriued of his honour but potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want or I desire he may want not his honour but the worthinesse of his power and honour which words are not so forcible to prooue the Popes authoritie to depriue Kings of their princely honour and power but at the most to declare them to bee vnworthy of it for some crime committed by them and to be worthy also to be damned in hell with Iudas the Traitor for that many a one may be a true King and haue princely power and honour who is vnworthy thereof Neuerthelesse besides that the aforesaid words do containe no sentence of depriuation but onely a curse or imprecation which kinde of imprecations euen containing anathema was frequent in the priueledges granted by Lay-men yea and vpon sepulchres that men should be fearefull to violate them as Baronius t Ad an 1097. Num. 51. relateth also this priueledge mentioned in S. Gregories epistle to Senator is not so authenticall both for that it hath neither date of any yeare or day when it was written nor subscription of any witnesse which by likelihood it would haue had if there had beene any authenticall copie thereof and also for that the Authour of the booke intituled de vnitate Ecclesiae who is thought to be Venericus Bishop of Vercellis and liued in Pope Gregorie the seuenth his time answering that epistle of Pope Gregorie the seuenth to the Bishop of Metz doth bouldly affirme that those words potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want the worthinesse of his power and honour were not in those daies extant among the workes of S. Gregorie Whereby the Reader may easily perceiue what weake demonstrations and authorities Card. Bellarmine doth so often inculcate to conuince this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Painces to be a point of faith 13 Thirdly it is also repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to those most famous French writers whom I related before But although it be true that the most part of those seuenteene French writers related by Card Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay and now in his Schulckenius against me are of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes this neuerthelesse may also be true which Petrus Pithaeus affirmeth to wit that France vnderstanding thereby the State of France hath euer held the the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdom May it not truly be said that the Kingdome and State of England hath from the first yeere of Queene Elizabeths reigne euen to this present time held that the Catholike Romane Religion is not the true Religion notwithstanding that not onely seuenteene but seuenteene thousands there haue been of English Catholikes since the first beginning of hir reigne till now who haue held the contrarie wherefore when Petrus Pithaeus affirmed that France hath euer held that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King by France hee did not vnderstand euery particular French-man but the State and temporall Gouernours of the Kingdome of France which his assertion is also confirmed by the State and Parliament of Paris first in the censuring of Card Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay then in burning his Schulckenius written against me afterwards in condemning Suarez booke against his Maiesties Apologie for maintayning so stifly this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls which they call a scandalous and seditious a damnable and pernicious doctrine and now lastly by the decree of the Parliament of Paris the second of Ianuarie of this present yeere 1615 wherein it is ordained that it shall not bee held for problematique and also by the new oath of allegiance like vnto that of ours but that ours is more sweete and more modest as the Cardinall du Peron u Pag. 100. affirmeth which those of the lower house of the generall assembly of all the States of France whom the same Cardinall du Peron in his speech to them confesseth to be Catholikes x Pag. 96. endeauoured to haue made for a fundamentall Law 14 Lastly it is also repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to reason it is repugnant to the principles of the Catholike faith For if the Subiects of the King of France be bound to obey their King being excommunicated and that they can not be absolued from this obedience by the Pope it followeth that either the King of France can not be bound by Christ his Vicar with the bond of ExcoÌ„munication or that his Subiects can not be loosed from the bond of their allegiance and obedience Both are repugnant to the words of Christ who said to his Vicar whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth shall be bound also in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shall be loosed also in heauen Neither did Christ except the King of France or his Subiects and who hath excepted them I can not tell This I know that no man could by right except them and whosoeuer will not be subiect to the keyes of the Church I know and with a cleare voice I doe pronounce that hee will neither bee a Christian nor can â—â—e appertaine to the kingdome of Christ 15 Great words to small purpose For although it be true that Card Bellarmine Suarez and some few others are or seeme to be of opinion that it is against reason and against the principles of the Catholike faith to hold that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes yet it is also true that other learned Catholikes are of opinion that it is neither against reason nor against the principles of the Catholike faith to hold
to the Germans or French by the Popes sole authoritie but by the consent suffrages and authoritie also of the people which neuerthelesse are principall authorities which by Card. Bellarmine and others are brought to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes Finally others although they be of opinion that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Princes for heresie or which is a farre different question to declare them to be deposed for so writeth Antonius de Rosellis yet they deny that for other temporall crimes or for insufficiency in gouernment a Christian Prince can be deposed by the Pope whereas Card. Bellarmine doth not limit his authoritie to any crime or cause but doth absolutely in ordine ad bonum spirituale in order to spirituall good extend this pretended authoritie 19. Neither is it true that I brought the authority of anie heretike for proofe of my opinion as M. Fitzherbert without anie shame or cōscience vntruly affirmeth I omitted of set purpose to name Marsilius of Padua for that not onely his booke but also himselfe is placed among heretikes in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes And although I had vrged his authority in that sort as I did vrge it in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez yet it had beene in my iudgement a forcible proofe not for that I thinke the authority of an heretike barely considered by it selfe to be of anie force to prooue affirmatiuely any doctrine to belong to faith but for that Marsilius writing a booke of purpose to defend the right and Soueraigntie of Emperours and Kings against the Popes power to depose them wherin here and there he scattereth many heresies he should by Catholike Authours who write of heresies as Castro Prateolus D. Sanders and others bee particularly taxed of those heresies and yet his doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes which was the principall subiect of his booke should not bee censured by them as hereticall or erroneous for this is a forcible argument that those Catholike writers did not account his doctrine in that point to be hereticall or erroneus although they thought it perchance to be the lesse probable doctrine 20. True also it is that in my Apologie I alledged Sigebert for my opinion for that hee vehemently impugned this pretended doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes both against Pope Gregorie the seuenth and also Paschalis the second calling it a noueltie not to say an heresie and answering as he saith with strong arguments of the Fathers the Epistle which the said Gregorie wrote to Hermannus Bishop of Metz in reproach of Kingly power But Sigebert saith D. Schulckenius was a Schismatike and his bookes against Gregorie the seuenth and Paschalis the second are condemned by the Catholike Romane Church But truly it is strange and greatly to be lamented to see some Catholikes now adaies especially who professe sanctitie of life and pretend to haue a tender and timorous conscience so easily to defame and slander other Catholikes who dislike their opinions or proceedings with such enormious crimes as are Schisme heresie and Apostacie What reason had Card. Baronius of whom D. Schulckenius hath taken the same to call Sigebert a Schismatike he being by no other Authour that I haue read before Baronius charged with that heinous crime but was euer reputed a learned vertuous and religious Catholike truely I cannot in any wise perceiue Schisme is a rebellious seperation from the vnitie of the Church or a refusing to obey the Pope as he is the visible head of the Church and Christ his Vicegerent on earth 21 For obserue diligently saith Card. Caietane y 2a 2a q. 39. ar 2. in resp ad 2m that to refuse to obey the Popes commaund may happen three manner of waies First in regard of the thing commanded Secondly in regard of the person commanding and thirdly in regard of the office of the Iudge or commander For if one doth euen with obstinacie contemne the Popes sentence to wit for that he will not fulfill that which the Pope hath commanded as to abstaine from such a warre to restore such a State c. although hee should most greiuously sinne yet he is not for this a Schismatike For it falleth out and that often that one will not fulfill the command of his Superiour acknowledging him neuerthelesse to be his Superior For if one vpon a reasonable cause hath the Pope for a person suspected and therefore doth not only refuse the Popes presence but also his immediate iudgement or sentence being readie to receiue from him not suspected Iudges hee neither incurreth the crime of Schisme nor any other crime For it is naturall to shunne hurtfull things and to be warie of dangers And the Popes person may gouern tyrānically so much the easier by how much he is more potent and feareth no reuenger on earth But when one refuseth to obey the Popes command or sentence in regard of his office not acknowledging him to be his Superiour although he do beleiue he is then properly he is a Schismatike And according to this sense are to be vnderstood the words of S. Thomas and such like for euen obstinate disobedience doth not make Schisme vnlesse it be a rebellion to the office of the Pope or of the Church so that he refuse to subiect himselfe vnto him to acknowledge him for Superiour c. Thus Card. Caietane 22. Now what Authour euer said that Sigebert refused to obey in this sort Pope Gregories command or that he acknowledged Guibert the Antipape and not Gregorie to be the true and lawful Pope True it is that Sigebert was blamed by some as Trithemius z In verbo Sigebertus relateth for that he adhering to the Emperour Henry being a persecutour and rebell to the Romane Church wrote letters and treatises against Pope Gregorie the seuenth whih did not become his profession but that Sigebert did depart from the vnitie of the Church or that he refused to obey and subiect himselfe to Pope Gregorie as not acknowledging him to be his Superiour which is necessarily required to make one a Schismatike or that he adhered to the Emperour Henry in his rebellion to the Romane Church and in deposing Gregorie and creating Guibert Pope neither D. Schulckenius nor any other is able to prooue out of any ancient or moderne writer 23. True also it is that Sigebert was of this opinion that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Emperour and therein he opposed himselfe to Pope Gregorie and answered as hee saith all his arguments with strong testimonies of the Fathers and vpon this ground he adhered to the Emperour acknowledging him to still remaine the true and lawfull Emperour and refused to obey Pope Gregories command wherein hee strictly ordained that no man should account Henry the fourth to be true and lawfull Emperour But considering that the doctrine for the Popes power to dethrone temporall Princes and the practise thereof was then new in the Church of God and neuer
not Popes haue their flatterers and who doe attribute vnto them more ample authoritie then is fitting as of the Canonists Pope Pius the fift affirmed to that learned Nauarre d in cap. Non liceat 12. q. 2. § nu 6. as well as Kings and Emperours See aboue cap 3. nu 6. what Parisiensis saith of this flattering 20 Wherefore to make an end of these Authorities I will onely request the iudicious Reader that he will be pleased to consider these two things first the reasons which I brought both in my Apologie e Num. 449. and also in my f Cap. 3. sec 3. nu 15. seq Theologicall Disputation which D. Schulckenius passeth ouer with silence why there are to be found so few Authours at this present whose writings are now extant who deny the Popes authoritie to depose Princes in comparison of those who doe maintaine the same which being duely considered the Reader will easily perceiue that it is a great maruaile to finde in any Catholike booke any one sentence or clause which seemeth any way to call in question this temporall authoritie of the Pope and neuerthelesse there are at this present and euer haue been as I haue clearely shewed before many vertuous and learned Catholikes who notwithstanding all the clamours and threatnings of our ouer-violent Aduersaries are of this opinion that the Pope hath no such authoritie to depriue Kings and Princes of their temporall dominions 21 The second is that if the doctrine of that learned Nauarre an excellent Diuine and most skilfull in the Law sayth Posseuine of Bartholomaeus Fumus in his Aurea armilla of Gabriel Vasquez g See the Preface nu 40. 43. and of other Diuines be true that in the Court of conscience it be sufficient to this effect that we shall commit no sinne to choose his opinion for true whom for good cause we thinke to be a man sufficiently learned end of a good conscience and that no man is bound to follow alwayes the better opinion but it sufficeth to follow that opinion which some skilfull Doctors thinke to be true how much the more may our Catholike Countrimen prudently perswade themselues that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes which doctrine not onely one learned and vertuous man but very many with the State of France do approue and who also haue diligently read examined and abundantly answered all the reasons arguments and authorities which their learned Aduersaries haue obiected to the contrarie And this I hope may suffice for the first part and for clearing all those authorities which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation from all the exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath taken against them Now wee will examine the reasons and intrinsecall grounds of this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes THE SECOND PART Wherein ALL THE PRINCIPALL ARGVments which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue the vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power together with the Replyes which are brought by D. Schulckenius to confirme the same are exactly examined Chap. 1. The true state of the question concerning the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power is declared 1. BEcause my Aduersarie Mr. Fitzherbert and all the rest who doe so vehemently maintaine the Popes power to depose Princes doe much rely vpon the vnion and subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall as vpon a principall proofe grounded vpon the light of reason before I come to examine the particular points of his Reply I thinke it not amisse for the better vnderstanding of what shall be said hereafter by either of vs concerning this subordination or vnion to declare in what sort these two powers are among Christians united and subordained and what a weake ground this subordination is to proue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls and to punish temporally by way of coercion or constraint And to proceede orderly herein and that the Reader may clearely perceiue what is the true state of the question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine and not be caried away with a confuse concept of I know not what kinde of vnion and subordination I will first set downe that which is certain and out of question and then what is in controuersie betweene vs concerning this vnion and subordination 2. First therefore I agree with Card. Bellarmine in this that the ciuill or temporall power of it owne nature and being considered precisely by it selfe is a distinct power from the spirituall and no way subiect or subordained to it as in my Apologie a Num. 132. seq nu 150. 153. 154. I affirmed out of Card. Bellarmine but they are two seuerall distinct and disunited powers and not depending one of the other and haue distinct ends distinct functions distinct lawes distinct punishments distinct Magistrates and Princes And this is very apparant partly in infidell Countries where there is true ciuill or temporall power saith Card. Bellarmine b Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 6. without any order or reference to any true Ecclesiasticall or spirit all power and partly in the time of the Apostles who had true and perfect spirituall power without 〈◊〉 true supreme temporall or ciuill authoritie And from hence it followeth that as the supreme spirituall Prince or Pastour is subiect to none in spirituall â—o also the supreme temporall Prince is subiect to none in temporalls 3. Secondly we do also agree in this that although among Christians the temporall and spirituall power do still remaine two distinct supreme powers for that the Mediatour betwixt God and men Christ Iesus hath also by proper actions and distinct dignities distinguished either power as Pope Nicholas the first doth well affirme c In epst ad Michaâ—lem Imp. Cum ad verum dist 96. yet they are so vnited and conioyned together among Christians that temporall authoritie and spirituall authoritie temporall authoritie and spirituall subiection temporall subiection and spirituall subiection to omit spirituall authoritie and temporall subiection may be vnited and conioined at one or diuerse times in one and the selfe same Christian man by reason of which vnion and coniunction the same Christian man may be both a temporall and also a spirituall Prince as we see in the Pope who by the institution of Christ is the supreme spirituall Pastour of the Church and by the consent of Christian Princes and people is become also a temporall Prince the same Christian man may be both a temporall Prince and also a spirituall subiect as are all Christian Princes who as Princes are supreme in temporalls and as Christians are subiect in spirituals to the spirituall Pastour of Christs Church the same Christian man may bee both a temporall and also a spirituall subiect as are other Christians whatsoeuer and whether the same man may be a spirituall Prince and yet a temporall subiect dependeth on that question whether and in what manner our Sauiour Christ hath exempted
the rest of the Apostles is according to the intention of Christ 29. But truely although there may be alleadged some probable congruities wherefore our Sauiour might grant some speciall prerogatiue and priuiledge of exemption to S. Peter whom he had chosen to be the first and principall head and gouernour of his Church rather then to the rest of the Apostles as likewise the Diuines doe yeeld probable congruities wherefore God almighty might giue to the B. Virgin Mary whom he had chosen to be the mother of his immaculate Sonne a speciall prerogatiue and priuiledge of exemption from originall sinne but whether he did grant that priuiledge or no it cannot certainely be proued neuerthelesse for my owne part I doe not see any probable likelihood that our Sauiour should giue to the rest of the Apostles and much lesse to all Cleargie men any speciall priuiledge of exemption from all ciuill subiection to temporall Princes And therefore the most part of the Schoole Diuines yea also and of the Iesuites themselues doe hould that Cleargie men are directly subiect to the ciuill lawes of temporall Princes in all those thinges which are not repugnant to their state nor to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and consequently that they are not exempted from all subiection and obedience and from the directiue or commanding power of Secular Princes but that they are bound not onely by force of reason but also by vertue of the law and of their due obedience to obserue such ciuill lawes 30 A fourth reason which Card. Bellarmine bringeth m In tract contra Barcl cap. 3. pag. 50 wherefore he recalled his former opinion and why the Apostles were not de iure subiect to temporall Princes is because they are appointed by God Princes ouer all the earth as wee read in the 44. Psalme For although that principality was spirituall not temporall yet it was true principallity and farre more noble then temporall principallitie But this reason is not sufficient for as I obserued in my Apologie n nu 68. seq the same man being considered diuerse waies may be subiect and superiour subiect in temporalls and supreame in spirituals and contrariwise neither is temporall subiection repugnant to spirituall authority nor temporall authority repugnant to spiritual subiection neither from hence doth it follow that either temporall authority it selfe is subiect to spirituall power or spirituall power subiect to temporall authority but onely that the same man who is superiour in temporalls is subiect in spiritualls and who is superiour in spiritualls is subiect in temporalls as the same man who is a Musition may be subiect and seruant to a Physition or contrariwise and yet it doth not from hence follow that Musicke it selfe is subiect to Physicke or contrariwise 31 And if Card. Bellarmine doe answere as he doth in his Schulckenius n Pag. 172. that when the powers are equall it may perchance fall out that the same compared diuerse waies may be subiect and superiour but if the powers be vnequall and one subordained to an other as are spirituall and ciuill power it cannot fall out that the same man be subiect to him who is his superiour this answere is also as insufficient as the former First for that the temporall power it selfe is not subordained to the spirituall as I haue shewed before for otherwise temporall Princes should not onely in spiritualls but also in mere temporalls be subiect to spirituall Pastours as if Musicke it selfe be subiect to Physicke a Musition as he is a Musition and in all thinges belonging to Musicke should be subiect to Physicke and consequently to a Physition as he is a Physition Secondly for that it is the common opinion of the Schoole Diuines and also of the Iesuites that Cleargie men are subiect to the directiue temporall power or command of temporall Princes 32 Thirdly for that there is no repugnance but rather a necessary consequence that spirituall Princes not as they are spirituall Princes but as they are true parts and members of the temporall common wealth should be subiect in temporall affaires to temporall Princes for euery member saiâ—h Card. Bellarmine o Liâ— de Monachis cap. 19. ought to be subiect to the head and Cleargie men besides that they are Cleargie men are also citizens and parts of the ciuill common wealth as Card. Bellarmine affirmeth in an other place p Lib. de Clericis cap. 28. and the King is head of the politike or ciuill body as also in his Schulckenius he expresly affirmeth q Pag. 339. Fourthly for that Card. Bellarmine is also now of opinion at least wise he was when he wrote against D. Barckley that it is probable that the Priests of the old law who had true spirituall power and were true spirituall Princes were subiect to Kinges and therfore for this reason to recall his former opinion and especially to condemne it as improbable were both to contradict himselfe and also to condemne of temeritie the learnedst Schoole Diuines of this age and also of his Societie 33 These be all the principall reasons which I can finde in Card. Bellarmine for which he was moued to recall his former opinion and to condemne it as improbable which how probable they be or rather very insufficient to moue such a learned man as Card. Bellarmine is to forsake the Schole Diuines and to fly to the Canonists who as pope Pius the fift sincerely confessed r Nauar. super cap. non liceat Papaâ— 12. q. 2 55. 3â— nu 6 doe attribute to the Pope more authoritie then is fitting and to censure so rigorously and rashly the learnedst Catholikes of this age and also of his owne Societie of temeritie I remit to the iudgement of the discreete Reader as also to consider whether reason or affection to aduance the Popes authoritie moued him not onely to recall his former opinion but also to condemne it as improbable 33 Lastly that the Reader may haue some knowledge of the true state of the question concerning the authority of spirituall Pastors to exempt Clergy men from the power of Secular Princes for that some Diuines are of opinion that from the exemption of Clergy men a strong Argument may bee drawne to pâ—oue that a spirituall Prince or Pastor hath power to depose or depriue a temporall Prince who is subiect to him in spiritualls of his temporall Kingdome and Dominions First therefore the true state of the question betwixt mee and my Aduersaries is not concerning the exemption of Cleargie men by way of command for I doe willingly grant that a spirituall Prince or Pastor as hee is a spirituall Pastor hath power to command a Christian Prince who is subiect to him in spiritualls not to exercise his temporall power in some cases if the necessity of the Church or Christian Religion doth require it ouer the persons of Clergy men who are his temporall Subiects so that if a secular Prince should disobey the lawfull command of his spirituall
speak of our free-will and doe affirme that it is in our power to choose good or euill they vse indifferently the coniunction disiunctiue or and the copulatiue and sometimes affirming that it is in our power to choose good or euill other times that it is in our power to choose goood and euill Yea Card. Bellarmine himselfe propounding in his Controuersies the question concerning free-will doth confound or with and and taketh them for all one There is a controuersie 1 Tom. 4. Lib. 5 Chap 13 in principio saith he betwixt Catholikes and heretikes whether a man in the state of corrupt nature hath free-will to choose morall good and to auoid euill or which is all one to obserue or breake morall precepts 24. Seeing therefore that in this proposition Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or which is all one Subiects may depose or murther their Prince beeing excommunicated or depriued by the Pope the verbe may doth import a free power in the Subiects to choose which part of the disiunction they please that is to depose such Princes or if they please to murder them it maketh all one sense whether it bee said Princes may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or Princes may bee deposed and murthered by their Subiects as Card. Bellarmine and Antonius Cappellus putting the Coniunction copulatiue and do seeme to haue well obserued and to be of opinion that the aforesaid disiunctiue proposition is in very deed equiualent to a copulatiue or such a conditionall disiunctiue which vertually doth containe a copulatiue And truely if this pretended demonstration of this Author were so euident an argument as hee imagineth it to be to condemne this oath as sacrilegious without doubt it could not haue escaped the most quick vnderstanding of Card. Bellarmine who also would not haue neglected to produce any reason which might clearly haue conuinced the oath to be apparantly vnlawfull Now from this which hath bene said it is easie to answer in forme to the aforesaid obiection whose whole strength dependeth vpon the nature and quality of a disiunctiue proposition Wherefore to the minor proposition it is answered that it is hereticall and against the expresse word of God contayned in the aforesaid two texts of holy Scripture to affirme That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other or which is all one that Subiects or any other may depose or murther such Princes For the plaine and common meaning of this proposition is as I haue shewed before that it is in the free power of subiects or of any other to depose such Princes or if they will to murther them which proposition is flat hereticall 26. And whereas it is obiected that the aforesaid proposition Princes which be excommunicated c. is a disiunctiue but to the veritie of a disiunctiue proposition it is sufficient that one part of the disiunction be true and to make the whole disiunctiue proposition to be false and hereticall it is necessary according to the most certaine rule of the Logicians that both parts of the disiunction be false and hereticall It is answered first to the Minor that although in externall sound the aforesaid proposition Princes which be excommunicated c. seeme to be a disiunctiue yet in very deede and according to the plaine and common vnderstanding of our English phrase it is as I haue already shewed equiualent to a copulatiue to the veritie of which it is necessary that both parts of the copulation be true and to make the whole copulatiue proposition to be false and hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part of the copulalation be false and hereticall Now that one part of the aforesaid proposition to wit that Princes which bee excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be murthered by their Subiects or any other is flat hereticall it is too too manifest 27 But least we should seeme to contend about bare words I answer secondly and grant that the aforesaid proposition Princes which be excommunicated c. is a disiunctiue But then the Minor proposition is to bee distinguished For when the Logicians affirme that to the verity of a disiunctiue proposition it is sufficient that one part of the disiunction be true and to make the whole disiunctiue to be hereticall it is necessary that both parts of the disiunction be hereticall that approued rule of the Logicians is to be vnderstood of an absolute disiunctiue to wit which doth not vertually containe in it a condition or free power in the will to choose whether part one pleaseth For to the verity of this conditionall disiunctiue it is necessary that both parts of the disiunction may be chosen and if it be hereticall to affirme that it is in the free choise of any man to chuse whether part of the disiunction he pleaseth the whole disiunctiue proposition is hereticall Now that it is hereticall to affirme that it is in the free power of Subiects to depose or if they will to murther Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope no man can call in question Neuerthelesse the Author of this Dialogue doth seeme to deale somewhat cunningly and endeauoureth not so much to impugne directly the affirmatiue proposition which is expresly contained in the Oath and to proue directly that the aforesaid position Princes being excommunicated c. may be deposed or murthered not to be hereticall as the oath affirmeth it to be but he flyeth from the affirmatiue to the negatiue and indeauoureth to shew that the contradictorie proposition to wit Princes being excommunicated c. cannot be deposed or murdered c. is not certaine of faith nor contained in the expresse word of God from whence he concludeth that therefore the former affirmatiue proposition which is in expresse words contayned in the Oath is not hereticall because in what degree of falshood any position is false in the opposite degree of truth the contradictory must be true 29. But this Author by his manner of arguing seemeth desirous to shun the difficulty and to impugne a proposition which is more cleare and manifest by an other more obscure and equiuocall which among Logicians is accounted a great defect in arguing whose nature is to proue one thing lesse manifest by an other more apparant For the falshood of this affirmatiue proposition Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or which is all one Subiects may depose or murther such Princes who be excommunicated c. is more cleare and manifest in the common vnderstanding of our English phrase then is the truth of this negatiue Subiects may not depose or murther such Princes who be excommunicated c. by reason of the negatiue aduerb not which as the Logicians say is of a malignant nature for that it destroyeth or denyeth whatsoeuer followeth after it making an
affirmatiue to be a negatiue and a negatiue to be an affirmatiue an vniuersall to be a particular and a particular to be an vniuersall k As this vniuersall affirmatiue proposition all men are sensible is by putting not in the begining not all men are sensible made a particular negatiue So that the meaning of the aforesaid negatiue proposition is by reason of that negatiue aduerbe not made ambiguous and may haue this sense that Subiects may neither depose nor murther such Princes who be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope which proposition so vnderstood is not of faith neither in very deed contradictory to the proper and vsuall meaning of the former affirmatiue which is abiured in the Oath And therefore no meruaile that this Author was desirous to fly from the affirmatiue to the negatiue 30. Supposing therefore that contradiction according to the approued doctrine of Aristotle l Lib. 1. de interpretat Cap. 4. is an affirming and denying of the selfe same thing in the selfe same manner I answere that this negatiue position Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may not be deposed or murthered by their Subiects is contradictory to that affirmatiue position which is abiured in the Oath if the verbe may be taken in the same manner or sense in the negatiue as it is taken in the affirmatiue And then as the affirmatiue is hereticall so the negatiue is of Faith For as the sense of the affirmatiue is as I haue shewed before that it is in the free choise of Subiects either to depose such Princes who be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope or if they will to murther them which is false hereticall and against those expresse words of Scripture Thou shalt not kill Kill him not c. So the sense of the negatiue contradictory must be that it is not in the free choice of Subiects to depose such Princes or if they please to murther them which proposition is most true and contained in the expresse word of God because it is not in their free power to murther them as is manifest by the former places of holy Scripture 31. And thus much concerning the first and principall Answer which I thought good to set downe at large both for that the Reader may the better iudge of my Answer and also of M. Fitzherberts Reply who taketh no other particular exception against the Oath besides the generall Doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes which he will needs haue to bee a poynt of faith and therefore not to bee denyed by any Catholike and also for that there be some Catholikes who although they be of opinion as was the Author of that English Dialogue that there is nothing against faith contained in the oath and that the Doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not a poynt of faith but in Controuersie among Catholikes notwithstanding the Popes Breues or any other decree of Pope or Councell which are vrged to the contrary yet they can hardly be perswaded but that by reason of that word hereticall that clause of the Oath is vnlawfull and cannot bee taken without periury as the Author of that Dialogue did by the aforesaid Argument pretend to demonstrate 32 Now you shall see what exceptions M. Fitzherbert taketh against this my Answer First hee saith m nu 10. that I contend de lana caprina and labour in vaine to proue that the English word may in a disiunctiue proposition implyeth a freedome to choose whether part we list of the disiunction wherein also by the way he saith that I abuse strangers in seeking to perswade them that the Latine verbe possunt in the Latine Translation of the Oath doth not sufficiently expresse the nature of the English word may in this clause Principes per Papam excommunicati vel depriuati possunt per suos subditos vel alios quoscunque deponi aut occidi Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other whatsoeuer 33 But first who seeth not that this question to wit whether this proposition Princes which are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may bee deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other be such a disiunctiue proposition which implyeth a free election in the Subiects or others to choose whether they will depose or murther such Princes is both a question of great moment and not de lana caprina also that I haue not laboured in vaine to proue but by the common vnderstanding of the words in vsuall speech and in the lawes of our Realme sufficiently proued that the verbe may in an affirmatiue disiunctiue proposition when there followeth the coniunction disiunctiue or implyeth a freedome to choose whether part of the disiunction wee list as by many examples both in common speech and by the lawes of our Realme I haue cleerely conuinced neither can there scarcely be alleadged any one example wherein the coniunction disiunctiue or immediatly following the verbe may in an affirmatiue proposition doth not imply a free election to choose which part of the disiunction we please 34. Secondly it is not true that I haue abused the Latine Reader in seeking to perswade him that the Latine verbe possunt in the Latine Translation of the Oath doth not sufficiently expresse the proper and vsuall signification of the verbe may contained in the aforesaid position vnlesse either the coniunction copulatiue et bee put in place of aut as Card. Bellarmine Anton. Capellus now lastly F. Suarez haue it in their bookes translated or else there be vnderstood a condition of the free will to choose in that clause deposed or murthered by their Subiects which part of the disiunction the Subiects please But M. Fitzherbert rather abuseth his English Readers who vnderstand not Latine in affirming the contrary For the Latine verbe possum doth by his proper signification as I haue said import a power in generall whether it bee naturall or morall and according to the matter it is limited to a naturall or morall power but the verbe may is by his proper signification limited onely to a morall or free power free I meane not as free is all one with morall but if there follow the coniunction copulatiue or disiunctiue to choose whether part of the disiunction wee please and if the verbe may doe sometimes signifie a naturall power as in this the fire may burne wood or straw it is by reason of the matter or of the thing affirmed or denyed and not by vertue of the proper and vsuall signification of the verbe may And howsoeuer when the verbe may goeth before the coniunction disiunctiue or it doth properly and vsually signifie a choice freedome or indifferency to take either part of the disiunction 35. But marke here the cunning I dare not say fraude and falsehood of my Aduersary for that hee checked mee before for falling very foule vpon him in saying that he
disiunctiue proposition as I haue often repeated before Secondly hee would seeme to proue the same by this argument His Maiestie is perswaded â—hat the doctrine not only which alloweth the practise of deposing Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but also which speculatiuely maintaineth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes is hereticall and repugnant to the holy Scriptures as may euidently appeare by the manifold places and texts of Scripture which he alledgeth c. yea and hee talledgeth much more Scripture to condemne the doctrine touching the deposition of Princes then Widdrington doth for violent attempts against their persons therefore it is manifest that according to his Maiesties intention both parts of that clause should be abiured as hereticall 97 But first this consequence of my Aduersary His Maiestie is perswaded that not onely the doctrine which teacheth that the Pope hath power to murther Princes but also to depose them is hereticall therefore his Maiesties meaning or intention was that in the aforesaid clause of the oath both parts should be abiured as hereticall taking hereticall in that strict sense whereof I will speake beneath p Nu. 106. et seq M. Fitzherbert might haue seene if it had pleased him in my Theologicall disputation q Cap. 4. sec 3. to be very insufficient where I did clearly shewe that there is a great difference to be made betwixt his Maiesties perswasion or opinion and his meaning or intention For his Maiesty doth according to the grounds of the Protestant Religion defend diuers opinions which neuerthelesse he doth not intend to binde his Catholike Subiects by this oath to defend and professe 98 As for example His Maiesty is perswaded that he is the supreame Lord and Gouernour in all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as temporall and yet he doth not intend that his Catholike Subiects shall by those words of this oath our Soueraigne Lord King Iames professe and maintaine the same Neither doth he ground the lawfulnes of this oath and the abiuration of the doctrine condemned therein vpon his Ecclesiasticall Primacie as my Aduersary here seemeth to insinuate for that the Oath of his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie as his Maiesty himselfe affirmeth r In his Apologie pag. 46. was deuised for putting a difference betwene Papists and Protestants but this oath was ordained for making a difference betweene the ciuilly obedient Papists and the peruerse disciples of the Powder-treason 99 Also his Maiesty is perswaded that the Pope hath not power to excommunicate his Maiesty and yet he doth intend by those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication c. to binde English Catholikes to professe the same Å¿ See my Th. Disp cap. 4. sec 1. howsoeuer Card. Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius and Suarez without sufficient proofe and M. Fitzherbert without any proofe at all doe affirme that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in this oath For although the lower house of Parliament as his Maiesty also affirmeth t In his Premonition pag 9. at the first framing of this oath made it to containe that the Pope had no power to excommunicate his Maiesty yet his Maiestie did purposely decline that poiâ—t u In the Catalogue of the lyes of Tortus nu 1. and forced them to reforme it onely making it to conclude that no excommunication of the Popes can warrant his Subiects to practise against his person or state as indeed taking any such temporall violence to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall Censure as Excommunication is 100 Likewise his Maiesty is perswaded that all reconcilings of his Subiects to the Pope and all returnings of English Priests made by the Popes authority into this Realme c are truely and properly treasons although not naturally and forbidden by the lawe of nature vnlesse they be repugnant to true naturall and ciuill alleagiance yet positiue and forbidden by the lawes of the Realme neuerthelesse by those words of the oath to disclose all treasons c. he did not intend to binde his Catholike Subiects to reueale and disclose such kinde of treasons vnlesse they be truely and properly vnnaturall treasons and repugnant to naturall alleagiance For that his Maiesty was carefull as he himselfe also writeth x In his Premonition pag. 9. naturall that nothing should be contained in this oath except the profession of naturall allegiance and ciuill and temporall obediednce with a promise to resist all contrarie vnnaturall and vnciuill violence 101 Wherefore seeing that his Maiestie doth binde the swearer to take this oath according to the plaine and common sense and vnderstanding of the words although his Maiesty be perswaded that it is hereticall to hould that the Pope hath power to depose princes yet from thence it cannot rightly be concluded that therfore by this oath he intended to bind his Catholike Subiects to acknowledge and professe the same vnlesse the words of the oath according to their proper and vsuall signification doe imply the same Considering therefore that as I haue clearly conuinced to make that proposition Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other to be hereticall it is sufficient according to the common sense of the words and the approued doctrine of Logicians that one onely part of the disiunction be hereticall as without doubt the latter part of this disiunction is it is euident that his Maiesties mtaning was no other then to binde the swearer to that sense to which the words being taken in their proper and vsuall signification doe binde And thus much concerning the consequence 102 Now touching the antecedent proposition although it be true that his Maiesty is perswaded that not onely the doctrine which alloweth the practise of deposing Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but also the speculatiue doctrine which teacheth that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes is a false doctrine and repugnant to holy Scriptures and consequently hereticall taking hereticall for that which implyeth an vntruth contrary to the word of God reuealed in holy Scriptures in which sense also all those Catholikes who doe hould this doctrine of the Popes power to depriue Princes of their kingdomes to be false doe hould also that it is contrary to the word of God and consequently also hereticall yet if hereticall be taken for that which importeth a knowne and manifest vntruth repugnant to holy Scriptures and so acknowledged also to be by the common consent also of Catholikes my Aduersarie will hardly proue that his Maiesty is perswaded that the speculatiue doctrine which holdeth that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes or to depose them by a iuridicall sentence is hereticall in this sense or repugnant to holy Scriptures in the opinion of all or of the most part of Catholikes albeit he be perswaded that the speculatiue doctrine which approueth the Popes power to murther or to take away the liues
intangle mens consciences by wrangling and cauilling whiles first he requireth euident demonstrations to proue a probable doctrine and secondly dissembleth the true state of the question confounding the absolute proposition and the proofes thereof with the modall which distinction doth expresse the true state of the question and discouereth both his fraude and weakenesse not onely in this but almost in all the rest of his Replyes and thirdly he concealeth the answere which I gaue to this argument taken from the authoritie of the Popes Breues and of other learned men and also the reasons why so many learned Catholikes whose bookes are now extant haue from the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth defended this opinion for the Popes power to depose Princes And thus much concerning my Aduersaries second admonition the weakenesse whereof will also presently more cleerely appeare by my answere to his third and fourth admonition 27 Therefore it is to be considered for the third point saith my Aduersarie h Nu. 15. what Widdrington meaneth by a probable opinion or a probable answere which no doubt he vnderstandeth so that whatsoeuer he saith must be held for probable how absurd so euer it be for otherwise he could not challenge to himselfe such a priuiledge of probabilitie as he doth his arguments and answers being so weake and impertinent as you shall finde them to be in which respect he is faine to dissemble the answeres already made by some to his former arguments and authorities in his Apologie whereto he now remitteth his Reader very often without taking so much as any knowledge of the confutation thereof as though the same had neuer been answered or that euery assertion or position of his being once laid downe must needs stand for an eternall law or were a decree of the Medes and Persians i Dan 6. quod non licet immutari 28 But not to returne these bitter speeches of my Aduersarie backe vpon himselfe which with the same facilitie and with farre better reason I might doe first It is very vntrue that I take probable for whatsoeuer I doe say how absurd so euer it be as this man if it were lawfull for mee to vse his absurd word very absurdly affirmeth that without doubt I doe Neither doe I take probable for that which hath onely a shew of probabilitie as Cicero tooke probable in his Paradoxes but I take probable as Philosophers and Diuines doe take it as it is distinguished from demonstratiue and fallacious to wit for that which is approued by wise and learned men in the art which they professe which therefore as in speculation may be embraced without any imputation of errour or folly so in practise it may bee followed without any note of imprudence or sinne As in a matter of Physicke that is accounted probable which is approued by learned Physitions of Law by learned Lawiers and of Diuinitie by learned Catholike Diuines Secondly it is also vntrue that I haue in my Theologicall Disputation dissembled the answeres made by some to my former arguments and authorities in my Apologie whereto I remit my Reader oftentimes considering that my Theologicall Disputation was wholly finished and in the presse before the Replyes of D. Schulkenius and of D. Weston and also my Aduersaries Supplement were published so that I could take no notice of them in my Disputation for which cause I was constrained to touch them briefely onely in an Admonition to the Reader But my Aduersarie himselfe to make his owne Replyes to seeme the more probable and my answeres absurd foolish impertinent ridiculous for so hee is pleased to call them is not ashamed to dissemble in many points the true state of the question and also the answeres which in my Theological Disputation I made to his chiefest Replyes especially those whereby hee laboureth to terrifie the timerous consciences of vnlearned Catholikes with the pretence of his new Catholike faith with the authoritie of the Popes Breues and the testimonies of so many learned men who haue condemned the oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation 29. Now let vs see his fourth consideration by which the Reader may perceiue how insufficiently he declareth what is a probable argument or opinion and how little he satisfieth the vnderstanding of vnlearned Catholikes who by his obscure and confuse description of a probable argument cannot perceiue what argument or opinion is probable k Num. 17. Fourthly saith he it is to be considered that to make an argument or proofe 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 and proofes of the contrary opinion for often it falleth out that the reasons of one part are so pregnant that they seeme to conuince and yet when they are weighed with the reasons of the other part they are neither pregnant nor so much as probable for according to the old prouerbe one tale is good vntill an other be heard 30. To which purpose it is to be considered that many heretikes and namely the Arians of whom there are many euen at this day both doe and may well pretend a farre greater probabilitie for their opinion than Widdrington doth or can for his considering their aboundant allegation of Scriptures their subtill shifts in answering the arguments and obiections of the Catholikes the great multitude of learned men of their Sect in times past and their dignitie in the Church the Conuenticles assembled and held in their fauour and finally the ample propagation of their opinion and Sect especially in the time of Constantius the Emperour For which respects their followers at this day doe hold their doctrine not only for probable but also for infallibly true and condemne the contrary for pernicious heresie whereas Widdringtons grounds and proofes of his opinion seeme to himselfe so weake that he dare not affirme them to be more then probable 31. Therefore as there is no good Christian that doth now hold the arguments of the Arrians to be so much as probable considering the potent reasons and proofes of the Catholike doctrine in that point so albeit the arguments and authorities which Widdrington produceth were they farre more plausible and pregnant then they are yet no Catholike could esteeme them to be any way probable being compared and ballanced with the irrefregable proofes of the other part I meane the arguments and necessarie consequences drawne from the holy Scriptures the authoritie of almost all the learned Doctors and Diuines that haue written of that point and the practise of the Church for some hundreths of yeares confirmed by nine or ten Councells l Sâ—e Supplem chap. 2. num 76. 77. whereof some haue been the greatest that euer were in Gods Church and therefore I say that all this being well weighed no Catholike man of sound wit or iudgment can imagine this mans arguments which he himselfe houldeth but for probable to haue
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
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
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
is dangerous to his Maiesties safetie to haue this doctrine for the Popes power to depose his Maiesty to be so much as called in question in his Dominions thou maiest good Reader cleerely perceiue by this his last Admonition wherein thou shalt obserue the manifest fraud and falshood of this man For if Mr. Fitzherbert had either sincerely or entirely related my opinion and doctrine or else had put in mind his Reader against what kind of Aduersaries I do oppose any man of meane vnderstanding would presently haue perceiued as I obserued elsewhere i In the Admonition to the Reader before my English Purgation sent to his Holinesse which my words I thinke it not amisse to set downe heere againe that it is too too apparantly and shamefully vntrue that my manner of handling this question probably can be dangerous or pernicious to his Maiestie as my Aduersarie endeauoureth to perswade his Maiestie not for any loue that he is knowen to beare vnto the State but to the end by all likely-hood that he and such like violent spirits may write more freely of this subiect and without being controlled or contradicted by Catholikes who as he is perswaded do little regard the writings and opinions of Protestants concerning this or any other doctrine 61. For it may bee dangerous to his Maiesty to handle a question probably against one Aduersary which will be nothing dangerous to handle it probably against another As for example if it wer agreed vpon by all Catholikes that the Pope hath no power to depose his Maiestie then it would bee dangerous to his Maiestie that any Catholike should call this in question and dispute it probably but if on the contrary side all Catholikes should agree in this that it were certaine vnquestionable and a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose his Maiestie and to absolue his Subiects of their Allegeance to command them to take armes against him c. then if a Catholike should call this in question or which is all one dispute it probably and maintaine that it is not certaine that the Pope hath such an authoritie but that it is questionable and probable that he hath it not no man of any sense or vnderstanding can affirme that such a manner of disputing this question probably against those Aduersaries who hold it for certaine and vnquestionable can bee any way dangerous or pernicious to his Maiestie 62 Now behold the manner which I haue taken in handling this controuersie Card Bellarmine Fa Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and some other Diuines especially of the Societie of Iesus whom Mr. T. F. in euery step as though he were their creature as now he is become one of their companie doth follow haue laid this for a sure and vndoubted ground that it is a point of faith and to be beleeued as certaine and vnder paine of eternall damnation by Catholikes that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to absolue Subiects from their allegiance and therevpon to command them to take armes and raise tumults against their Prince so deposed So that you see that these men haue already laid the danger and vndoubted ouerthrow to his Maiesties Person and Crowne if the Pope should perchance depose him in that they affirme that all Catholikes are in that case bound in conscience to forsake him and to fulfill the Popes command to the destruction of his Maiesties Person and State This doctrine to wit that it is a point of faith and an vndoubted principle of Catholike Religion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to inflict all temporall punishments by way of coercion and that all Catholikes are bound in conscience to forsake his Maiestie and to take armes against him I haue taken vpon me for two principall reasons to impugne and doe not doubt clearely to maintaine the same against the clamours of Mr. T. F. or any other whatsoeuer 63 My first reason was for that it is against the truth and puritie of the Catholike Church Shee being a pillar and ground of truth that doubtfull opinions and which among Catholikes are onely in controuersie and by the Parliament of Paris haue been condemned as scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious should be enforced vpon English Catholikes as an vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike faith to the vtter ouerthrow of themselues and their whole posteritie by men who are in no danger to loose but rather to gaine temporall aduancement by their writings My second reason was to assure his Maiestie that all English Catholikes may if they will according to the grounds of Catholike Religion be true and constant Subiects to his Maiestie and that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication or depriuation denounced or to be denounced against his Maiestie by the Pope whereby his Subiects should be absolued from their Allegiance or commanded not to obey him in temporall causes they may with a safe conscience also in practise marke well what I say they are bound to adhere to his Maiestie to obey him in temporall causes as still remayning their true and lawfull Soueraigne and to resist any such sentence of Excommunication or depriuation 64 The reason wherefore I affirmed that Catholikes may with a safe conscience adhere to his Maiestie and resist the Popes sentence of depriuation was for that it is a probable opinion and which with a safe conscience and without danger of heresie error or temeritie may be embraced by Catholikes that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes nor to inflict any temporall punishments by way of coercion but that the last punishment to which the coerciue power of the Church doth extend are onely Ecclesiasticall and spirituall Censures Wherefore that which my Aduersarie affirmeth that I confesse it to be probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that the oath cannot lawfully be taken is very vntrue vnles he meane that I confes it for Disputation sake or as we vsually say Dato sed non concesso it being admitted not granted for that it maketh nothing for or against the question which is in hand Therefore positiuely I neither confesse it nor deny it approue it or condemne it nor with that part of the contradiction whether it be probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and whether it be probable that the Oath may not be taken doe I at this time intermeddle but whereas my Aduersaries doe so violently maintaine that it is certaine and an vndoubted doctrine of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that the oath is repugnant to faith and saluation and therefore can not lawfully be taken I at this present doe affirme the contrarie to wit that it is probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes and that the oath may lawfully be taken 65 But the principall reason which I brought for the securing of his Maiestie which Mr. Fitzherbert fraudulently concealeth that English Catholikes not onely may for the reason
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
extra de sententia re iudicata cap. Ad Apostolicae in sexto where also of this it is noted by all men An other is concerning the discord betwixt Henry the Emperour and Robert King of Sicily and the sentence of treason published by the Emperour against him which Decree is in Clementina de sententia re iudicata cap. Pastoralis Another is in Clementina prima de Iureiurando that the Emperour is bound to sweare allegiance to the Pope and concerning some authoritie of the Pope ouer the Emperour Which Decretalls whether they be iust or no God he knoweth For I without preiudice to sounder aduice do beleeue and if it should be erroneous I recall it that none of them be agreeable to right Yea I beleeue that they are published against the rights and libertie of the Empire and I doe thinke that by God they were instituted distinct powers whereof I haue noted sufficiently lege prima Cod. de Summa Trinitate Fide Catholica Thus Albericus 3 Obserue now good Reader how sleightly D. Sculckenius would shift of this authoritie which is so plaine and manifest Albericus saith he speaketh wauering and altogether doubtfull and he addeth and if it should be erroneous I recall it and he is conuinced of errour by Azor lib. 10. cap. 6. q. 3. These be all the exceptions that D. Schulckenius taketh against this authority But first this word doubtfull or wauering as out of Vasquez I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation d Cap. 10. sec 2. nu 18. 19. 20. 81. may be taken two manner of waies either when one is so doubtfull that he hath no determinate assent of either part but remaineth perplex betwixt both iudging neither part to be either true or false in which sense that word altogether doubtfull which D. Schulkenius vseth here if he will not speake improperly can only be taken and when we are thus doubtfull concerning any matter we are alwaies bound to chuse the surer part neither is it lawfull to do any thing with a doubtfull conscience taking doubtfull in this sense Or else the word doubtfull may be taken when wee haue a determinate assent or iudgement that one part is true or false but yet we are not certaine and therefore haue some feare of the contrarie which feare doth not exclude a determinate assent and iudgement that one part is true for euery assent iudgement or opinion which is only probable doth alwaies imply a feare but feare consisteth in this that he who is fearefull or iudgeth with feare hath two assents or iudgements the one direct whereby he iudgeth determinately that one part is true the other reflexe whereby he iudgeth that although he thinketh it true yet in very deede it may be false for that it is not certaine but Disputable and in controuersie among Doctours and therefore only probable and when we are thus doubtfull or fearefull concerning any matter we are not bound to chuse the surer part but it is sufficient to chuse that which is probable neither is it vnlawfull to doe any thing with such a doubtfull or fearefull conscience as in that place I declared out of Vasquez 4. Now if D. Schulckenius by those wordes wauering and altogether doubtfull vnderstand as of necessitie he must if he will speake properly that Albericus had no determinate assent iudgement or opinion concerning the vniustice of those Decretalls this is manifestly false and those words I doe beleeue that they are not agreeable to right and I doe beleeue that they are published against the rights and libertie of the Empire c. doe clearely conuince D. Schulkenius of apparant vntruth But if D. Schulckenius by those words wauering and altogether doubtfull doe onely meane that Albericus was indeed of opinion that those Decretalls were vniust yet he did not hold his opinion for certaine and without all controuersie and therefore was not obstinate in his owne opinion but was readie to recall it if it should proue to be erroneous and that hee would not condemne other men that should thinke the contrarie as now adaies it is too frequent to condemne other men this is very true for so much only doe import those his wordes and I do beleeue vnder correction or without preiudice to sounder aduise and if it should be erroneous I recall it this neuerthelesse doth not hinder but that we haue the opinion of a man excellently learned and of a Classicall Doctour that the sentence of deposition denounced against Frederike the Emperour by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons and three other famous Decrees of Popes registred in the Canon Law touching the Popes power to dispose of temporalls were vniust and made against the rights and libertie of the Empire 5. Secondly but Albericus is conuinced saith D. Schulckenius of error by Azor. But besides that this letteth not but that Albericus is of opinion that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes this also is euen as true as that which D. Schulckenius said before concerning the errours which he said Posseuine had obserued in Trithemius his historie For besides that all the arguments which Azor bringeth to proue in generall the Popes authoritie ouer the Emperour in temporalls are but triuiall and haue been alreadie answered partly by D. Barclay partly by my selfe and now of late very exactly by Mr. Iohn Barclay to whom as yet no answere hath beene made one only argument in particular Azor vrgeth against Albericus which is this that the Romane Emperour was instituted by the authoritie of the Church by whose grant also the Romane Empire was translated from the Grecians to the Germanes or Frenchmen and that he is created as a Patron defendour Protector and Tutour of the Church from whence he inferreth that the Pope did not put his sickle into another mans haruest but did vse his owne right when hee made that Canon concerning the election of the Emperour and when he exacteth an oath of the Emperour 6. But that this is no conuincing proofe I shewed clearely in my Apologie c Num 404. seq For the Romane Empire was not instituted by the authoritie of the Romane Church seeing that he was instituted before there was any Romane Church at all and continued for a long time together the Soueraigne Lord in temporalls of the Romane Church Neither was the Romane Empire translated from the Grecians to the Germans or French men by the grant of the Romane Church if by the Romane Church be meant onely the Cleargie of Rome but it was translated by the grant suffrages and authoritie also of the Laitie who in the west parts were subiect to the Romane Empire True also it is that all Catholike Princes ought to be Patrons defenders and protectours of the Romane Church but the Romane Emperour more specially they being children and members of the Catholike Romane Church and euery member is bound to defend eath other but especially to defend the head
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
Hir and Hir Dominions they thought themselues not onely bound in câ—â—â—cience not to obey this or any such like Censure but also did promise to yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls 2 Now it is euident that this their protestation which I did at large set downe in my Appendix to Suarez b Part. 2. sec 1. can no way be iustified but vpon supposall that the Pope had no authoritie to depose the Queene For if hee had authoritie to depose Hir Shee being then by the Popes sentence depriued of all hir Regall authoritie power and Soueraigntie could not haue as they professed as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer theÌ„ and all the Subiects of the Realme as any of hir Predecessours euer had before Neither also could they although Shee had not been then deposed lawfully promise as out of Suarez I will convince beneath c Num 7. 8. that notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer either denounced or to be denounced against hir Maiestie or any borne within hir Maiesties Dominions they would neuerthelesse yeeld vnto hir Maiestie all obedience in temporalls thinking themselues bound in conscience not to obey this or any such like Censure vnlesse they did suppose that the Pope had no power to depose hir Maiestie or to absolue hir Subiects from their obedience 3 And if perchance any of those Priests should now be of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to excuse his former protestation should answer that hee onely intended to acknowledge hir Maiestie to be at that time Queene and to reigne de facto but not de iure besides that he should shew himselfe to be an egregious dissembler equiuocatour and deluder both of hir Maiestie and also of his Holinesse and should therefore deserue to be greatly punished both for deluding the State in a matter of so great weight and also for bringing Catholike Religion in obloquie among Protestants by such detestable dissimulation not to call it flat lying and cosoning which ought to be abhorred of all men â—â—â—t especially Catholike Priests who both by their words and deeds ought to be a patterne to others of Christian sinceritie this Answer can not stand with the words which he protested 4 For first marke the Preamble to their Protestation which clearely confuteth the aforesaid answere Whereas say they it hath pleased our dread Soueraigne Lady to take some notice of the faith and loyaltie of vs her naturall borne Subiects Secular Priests as it appeareth in the late Proclamation and of her Prince-like clemencie hath giuen a sufficient earnest of some mercifull fauour toward vs being all subiect by the lawes of the Realme to death by our returne into the Country after our taking the Order of Priesthood since the first yeere of hir Maiesties reigne and onely demandeth of vs a true profession of our Allegiance thereby to be assured of our fidelitie to hir Maiesties Person Crowne Estate and dignitie Wee whose names are vnderwritten in most humble wise prostrate at hir Maiesties feete doe acknowledge our selues infinitely bound vnto hir Maiestie therefore and are most willing to giue such assurance and satisfaction in this point as any Catholike Priests can or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes First therefore we acknowledge the Queenes Maiestie to haue as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer vs and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme as any hir Highnesse Predecessors euer had and further we protest c. 5 Now were it not an intollerable deluding and mockerie for any of those Priests this Preamble considered to affirme that by the aforesaid words hee did onely intend to acknowledge her Maiesty to bee Queene and to raigne de facto but not de iure was this the notice that her Maiesty tooke of the faith of Secular Priests rather then of Iesuites and did her Maiesty by those words and onely demandeth of vs a true profession of our Allegeance thereby to bee assured of our fidelitie to her Maiesties person Crowne Estate and Dignitie demand of them that thay should acknowledge her to be Queene onely de facto but not de iure And can Catholike Priests of other Countries giue to their Soueraignes no other assurance of their loyalty then onely to acknowledge them to bee their Kings and to raigne ouer them de facto but not de iure as these Priests did acknowledge themselues to bee most willing to giue such assurance and satisfaction in this point vnto her Maiesty as any Catholike Priests can or ought to giue vnto their Soueraignes No man could make doubt but that shee was Queene and did raigne de facto and so much the whole Christian world and her sworne enemies could not but acknowledge So that according to this shamelesse answer those Priests did giue no other assurance of their loyaltie to Queene Elizabeth then any man might giue to a knowen and manifest vsurper and by those words to haue as full authoritie power and Soueraignty as any her Predecessours euer had did acknowledge her to haue no other power and authoritie then any knowen vsurper hath and which her knowen enemies and who accounted her no lawfull Queene would also acknowledge her to haue that is to be Queene and to raigne de facto but not de iure 6. Secondly although one may truely acknowledge an vsurper to be King and to raigne de facto for that this doth onely imply an act fact or possession which may bee without any right at all yet no man can truely acknowledge that an vsurper or who is King de facto onely and not de iure hath authority which doth import a rightfull and lawfull power to raigne and much lesse to haue as full authoritie and power as euer any his Predecessours euer had who were Kings and raigned not onely de facto but also de iure or which is all one did both actually raigne and also had full power and authority to raigne 5 Thirdly not onely the aforesayd acknowledgement that her Maiestie being at that time depriued by the Pope had neuerthelesse as full power and authoritie as any her Predecessours euer had before doth necessarily suppose that the Pope had no authoritie to depriue her but also although shee had not beene at that time depriued by the Pope the other clause of their protestation which contained a promise to obey her in all temporal causes and to defend her c. accounting it their dutie so to doe notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer denounced or to be denounced against her Maiestie or euerie one borne within her Maiesties Dominions that would not forsake the aforesayd defence of her Maiestie c. thinking themselues not bound in conscience to obey this or any such like Censure doth necessarily suppose and imply the same to wit that the Pope had no authoritie to depose her which Fa. Suarez arguing against the like clause contained in the new Oath of Allegeance doth most cleerely conuince whose
argument therfore I will set downe word by word only turning his speech to the Priests which he applieth to the Kings Maiestie 8 For to take away all manner of euasion saith Suarez d In Desens lib. 6. cap. 3. I demand whether those Priests doe vnderstand that the sentence of the Pope deposing a baptized Queene for crimes may be iust or they beleeue that it is alwaies vniust The first they will not in my opinion affirme for otherwise they should promise a most wicked thing to wit not to obey a iust sentence which implieth in it a iust command For if the sentence bee iust the command also which enioyneth subiects to obserue it must also be iust seeing that otherwise it cannot be put in execution Also if the sentence of deposition denounced against a Queene may bee iust it will also be effectuall therefore it hath the effect of that punishment which it imposeth Wherefore seeing that the punishment imposed by the sentence of deposition from her Kingdome is to depriue her actually or effectually of her dominion and propertie to her Kingdome a iust sentence doth effectually depriue her of her Kingdome therefore it is against iustice and obedience due vnto the Pope to resist that sentence and to defend the Queenes person against the execution of that sentence therefore hee that beleeueth the first and neuerthelesse promiseth this second doth promise a thing cleerly vniust and wicked 9 And besides it implieth a contradiction to be willing to yeeld obedience and allegeance as thinking thy selfe bound so to doe to one whom thou knowest to be by a iust declaration and sentence effectually deposed from her Kingdome As if the Pope himselfe should exact of Christians a promise that notwithstanding any sentence or declaration of deposing him for any crime euen for heresie denounced by whatsoeuer generall Councell they will defend him in his See and will yeelde him the same obedience and allegeance their promise were wicked for that it were a wicked thing and against the Church Faith Such therfore is the promise of those Priests if the aforesaid sentence against the Queene bee supposed to bee iust This therefore those Priests without doubt will not admit neither also are they as I thinke so inconsiderate of their affaires that if they grant the Popes sentence denounced against a Queene may be iust neuerthelesse they will deny that against the Queene of England it may haue the same iustice For what greater immunitie or innocencie can they alledge in the Queene of England then in other Princes who haue beene rebells to the Romane Church or forsakers and impugners of the faith Or although they do not acknowledge that the Queene for that time had not committed any thing worthy of deposition how doe they know that for the time to come she cannot and yet their promise is absolute notwithstanding any authoritie or any sentence of Excommunication denounced or to be denounced against the Queene or euery one borne within her Maiesties Dominions c. Wherefore there is no doubt but that the ground of this promise and profession is that such a sentence cannot bee iust Wherefore from hence we euidently conclude that those Priests by the aforesaid words do professe that the sentence of deposition against the Queene can neither be valid nor iust For in very deede this they doe professe when they promise not to obey nor to obserue such a sentence 10. Whereupon we do moreouer conclude that those Priests doe professe that the Pope hath not power to denounce such a sentence seeing that for no other cause they doe beleiue the sentence to be vniust but for that it is giuen without power and Iurisdiction in the Pope to depose a Queene Neither can those Priests alledge in such a sentence any other cause of iniustice which is perpetuall and may be a ground of this part of their profession for their profession doth not speake of a sentence alreadie denounced but absolutely of a sentence denounced or to be denounced against the Queene therfore it doth comprehend euery sentence whether it bee giuen the partie being heard or not heard whether for disagreement in religion or for any other crime or cause whatsoeuer Wherefore the iniustice which those Priests do suppose to bee in that sentence and wherupon they ground their profession is no other but for that they beleeue that it cannot proceede from a lawfull power and Iurisdiction And therefore I conclude that they professe that the Pope hath not power and Iurisdiction to giue a sentence of deposition against the Queene for any cause Thus argueth Father Suarez So that it is euident that those thirteene reuerend Priests must of necessitie suppose if they will haue their protestation and promise to be iust and lawfull that the Pope hath no power to depriued Princes of their Regall right and authoritie 11. And by this fift testimonie it is also apparant that not only M. Doctour Barclay and Widdrington as Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay and now in his Sculckenius against me vntruely affirmeth but many other English Catholikes to omit those other learned Catholikes of other Countries of whom I haue spoken before and the Kingdome and State of France of which I will speake beneath g In the next Chapter are of opinion that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions Which also may moreouer be confirmed by the petition which some English Catholikes did exhibite to Queene Elizabeth deceased after the discouerie of Parries conspiracie wherein these expresse wordes are contained In consideration of all which necessarie points we doe protest before the true liuing God that all and euery Priest and Priests who haue at any time conuersed with vs haue recognized your Maiestie their vndoubted and lawfull Queene tam de iure quam de facto who neuerthelesse was at that time and long before depriued of her Princely power right and dignitie by the publike sentence of Pope Pius the fift 12. And to these authorities we may add the testimonies set downe in the end of Mr. Blackwells Latine examination of Bishop Watson Abbot Fernam Doctor Cole Iohn Harpesfield and Nicolas Harpesfield all of them very famous and learned Catholikes who vpon the publishing of the Bull of Pius Quintus against Queene Elizabeth being examined by the Magistrate in the yeare 1578. and demanded whether notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull or any other sentence of the Pope denounced or hereafter to be denounced against the said Queene they did thinke that shee was their true and lawfull Queene and that they and all other English and Irish men did as Subiects owe to her Maiesty obedience faith and loyaltie as to their lawfull and true Queene and Soueraigne Prince they did all with vniforme consent acknowledge and confesse that notwithstanding the aforesaid Bull or any other sentence or declaration of the Pope already denounced or hereafter to be denounced
of the fragment of the historie of France published by Petrus Pithaeus with Glaber Genebrard and Vignerius doe relate that Philip was excommunicated by Vrbanus and as some of them say in the Councell of Claramont but none of them make mention that hee was deposed or depriued of his Royall honour and Crowne 8. Neither can it any way be prooued out of Iuo that Philip was depriued by Pope Vrbanus of his Royall Honour and Crowne for that Iuo at that very time when Philip was excommunicated did in expresse words account him his Lord and King and offered him his faithfull seruice as to his Lord and King This onely can be gathered out of Iuo that King Philip was desirous to honour his new Queene or rather Concubine Bertrada by putting the Royall Crowne or Diademe on both their heads in a publike solemnity which for that it was a religious ceremony and vsually done in the Church at the time of Masse by the Primate of the Land and Philip was at that time excommunicated and depriued of all holy rites and ceremonies of the Church Pope Vrbanus fo◠bad all the Bishops of France to crowne in that sort the King and his new supposed Queene for Philip himselfe was long before crowned King of France and this solemnitie which Pope Vrbanus forbade or the want thereof did not giue or take away from King Philip any iot of his Royall power and authoritie 9. Secondly it is repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to the examples of Gregorie the great of Zachary and of other Popes But to those examples both I haue answered at large in my Apology h Num. 382. seq num 404. seq and also since that Mr. Iohn Barclay i Ca. 40. 42. to whom as yet no Reply hath beene made and first that those words of S. Gregorie k Lib. 2. epist post epist 38. honore suo priuetur let him be depriued or I would to God he may be depriued of his honour for both wayes it may be Englished as that the verbe priuetur may be of the Imperatiue or of the Optatiue moode doe not contain a iuridicall sentence command or decree as likewise neither those words which are spoken in the like manner by S. Gregory cum Iuda traditore in inferno damnetur and let him be damned in hell or I wish he may be damned in hell with Iudas the traitour but onely either a zealous imprecation l See Baronius ad annum 1097. num 51. against them who should infringe his priuiledge if they did not repent or else a declaration that they were worthie for their contempt to bee depriued of their honour and to bee condemned to hell fire with Iudas the traitour from whence it cannot be inferred that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by a iuridical sentence those Kings who infringe his priuiledge of their Regall Honour or to condemne them by a iuridicall sentence to hell fire 10. So likewise to that example of Pope Zacharie I answered m Num. 404. seq that he did not by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation depriue Childerike of his Kingdome and create Pipin King but onely gaue his aduise counsell and consent or at the most command to the Peeres of France that they ought or might lawfully the circumstances which they propounded to Zacharie being considered depriue Childerike of his kingdome and create Pipin king but this argueth no authoritie in the Pope to depose Princes by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation but at the most an authority in the common wealth to depose their King in some cases of great moment which is not the question which we haue now in hand And therefore the Glosse n In cap. Alius 15. q. 6. with other graue and learned Authours cited by me in my Apologie o Num. 404. seq doe expound those wordes of Pope Gregorie the seueth Zacharie deposed Childerike thus Zacharie gaue his aduise and consent to those who deposed him and those words which some Chronicles haue Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie Lupolbus Bambergensis Ioannes Parisiensis and Michael Coccineus doe expound in the like maner that Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie not deposing Childerike and creating Pipin King but only declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France whereof they were in some doubt for that they had sworne to him allegiance and therefore they craued the opinion and aduise of Pope Zacharie to be resolued by him of that doubt for that the Vniuersitie of Paris did not flourish at that time saith Ioannes Maior p Jn 4. dist 24. q. 3. circa sinē de potest Regia Papal c. 15. and so Pipin was annointed King by the election of the Barons saith Ioannes Parisiensis and by the authoritie of the Pope declaring the doubt of the Barons which also they might haue done without the Popes consent vpon a reasonable cause 11. But because Card. Bellarmine will neuer cease to inculcate still the same authorities which by mee and others haue beene so often answered I thinke it not amisse to add something here concerning that which I did in generall words insinuate in my Apologie q Num. 382. and is more expresly touched by Nicholas Vingerius in his Historie of the Church of France and more particularly vrged by the Bishop of Rochester in his answere to Card. Bellarmines Treatise against Barclay to wit that the priueledge which is said to be granted by S. Gregorie to the Monasterie of S. Medard and which is so greatly vrged by Card. Bellarmine and others is not so authenticall as Card. Bellarmine and others suppose it to be which may be proued by many probable coniectures as by the stile and phrase which is not agreeable to S. Gregories and also by the date of the yeare of our Lord which is not agreeable to the manner of dating of those daies but principally by the persons who are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge For S. Austin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus Bishop of London and Theodorike King of France are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge and yet neither S. Austin nor Mellitus were Bishops nor Theodorike King at that time which Card. Baronius also doth in expresse words affirme r Ad annum 893. num 85. But I confesse saith he that the subscriptions of the Bishops and of Theodorike King of France do not agree to these times for many Bishops who are found subscribed are knowne to be created some certaine yeares after as to speake nothing of the rest Augustin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus of London who as it is manifest were neither at this time Bishops nor gone for England neither at this time did Theodorike reigne in France but Childebert and Gunthramn Wherefore my opinion is that the subscription was afterwards adioyned Thus Baronius But considering that Theodorike not only in the subscription but also in
punishments not onely by the way of command but also of coercion and constraint that is to punish them actually whether they will or no with spirituall punishments when they shall refuse to obey his iust command for that this manner of punishing by way of coercion doth not exceede the limits of the spirituall coerciue power 10. Now if my Aduersaries demand or mee why the spirituall power may of her selfe command temporall actions and yet neither directly nor indirectly that is neither for temporall nor spirituall good exercise temporall actions may command ciuill punishments when they are necessarie to the end of the spirituall power and yet neither directly nor indirectly punish actually with ciuill punishments without the concurrance of the spirituall power I answer them by their owne similitude which pleaseth them so much for the same reason that the soule hath power of her selfe to command bodily actions and yet neither directly nor indirectly that is neither for the good of the body nor of the soule to doe of her selfe alone any bodily action hath power to command bodily punishments and yet of her selfe hath not power to inflict any bodily punishment without the concurrance of the bodie it selfe And thus you see that this similitude of which Card. Bellarmine and his followers doe make so great account is no fit similitude to prooue their doctrine but rather to confirme ours and that from this similitude no probable argument can be drawen to prooue that the spirituall Pastour hath power either directly or indirectly to dispose of temporals to depose temporall Princes or to punish temporally by way of coercion or constraint 11. But fourthly although the temporall and spirituall power were aptly compared by Card. Bellarmine to the bodie and soule yet it would prooue two things more then he as I suppose would willingly admit The first is that the temporall power can exercise no temporall action without the concurrance and assistance of the spirituall power as the body can doe no corporall action vnlesse the soule also as an efficient cause thereof doe concurre thereunto For this is a cleere and approoued principle in philosophie that the soule is cause of all motions in the body according to that common definition or description of the soule assigned by Aristotle g 2. De Anima tex 24. Animaid est quo vinimus sentimus mouemur intelligimus primò The soule is that whereby we first or principally liue and haue sense and are mooued and doe vnderstand 12. The second is that the spirituall power may command or forbid the ciuill power to exercise ciuill actions not onely when they are necessarie or hurtfull to the end of the spirituall power which is the health of the soule but also when they are necessarie or hurtfull to the end of the temporall power which is temporall peace as the soule hath power to command or forbid the bodie to exercise bodily actions as to see heare speake c. not onely when they are necessary or hurtfull to the end and good of the soule which is spirituall life and health but also when they are necessarie or hurtfull to the good of the body which is bodily health and life And therefore Card. Bellarmine declaring this similitude of the spirit and flesh doth only affirme that the spirit doth command the flesh when her actions are hurtfull to the end of the spirit but cunningly omitteth that the spirit also dorh command the flesh when her actions are necessarie or hurtfull to the end of the flesh least the Reader should presently perceiue therby the disparity of this similitude or else from thence inferre that in the same manner the spirituall power may command the temporall power not onely in order to spirituall good but also in order to temporall good which is the Canonist doctrine and which Card. Bellarmine doth at large impugne 13. Lastly in what manner S. Gregory Nazianzene did compare the temporall and spirituall power or rather temporall and spirituall Princes to the bodie and soule I haue sufficiently declared before h Cap. 3. to wit not in the manner of their vnion or subiection but onely in nobility and in that temporall Princes are in as excellent and worthy manner subiect to temporall Princes as spirituall things are more excellent and worthy then temporall So that neither from the authority of S. Gregorie Nazianzene nor from the similitude it selfe of the bodie and soule as it is declared and vrged by Card Bellarmine can it with any probabilitie be gathered that the spirituall power can of her selfe exercise any temporall action belonging to the ciuill power without the concurrance of the ciuill power although it be necessarie to the end of the spirituall power as the soule cannot of her selfe without the concurrance of the bodie exercise any bodily action although it be necessarie to the end not onely of the body but also of the soule And therefore I maruell that Card. Bellarmine could bee so much ouerseene as to vrge and repeat so often this similitude of the soule and body to prooue the Popes power to depose and to dispose of all temporals which is so flat against him and which if it were a fit similitude doth rather confirme the doctrine of the Canonists whom Card. Bellarmine taketh vpon him to confute then his owne opinon But the truth is that it confirmeth neither for that as I declared before i Cap. 2.3 the temporall and spirituall power or the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth are not parts compounding one totall Body or Common-wealth as the bodie and soule doe compound a perfect man Chap 9. Wherein the fift argument to proue the subiection of the temporall power to the spirituall taken from the authoritie of S. Bernard and Pope Boniface the eight is examined 1. THe fift argument which Car. Bellarmine bringeth a Lib. 5. de Râ—m Pont. c. 7. to proue the subiection of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is taken from the authoritie of S. Bernard Lib. 4. de considerat and Pope Boniface the eight in the Extrauagant Vnam Sanctam who doth imitate saith Card. Bellarmine S. Bernards words The words of S. Bernard to Pope Eugenius are these Why dost thou againe attempt to vsurpe or vse b Vsurpare the sword which once thou wast commanded to put vp into the scabbard which neuerthelesse hee that denieth to be thine doth seeme to me not sufficiently to haue considered the speech of our Lord saying Returne thy sword into the scabbard Therefore it is also thine to be drawne forth perchance at thy becke c Nutu tuo or direction although not with thy hand Otherwise if also it doth in no maner appertaine to thee when the Apostles said Behold to swords heere our Lord had not answered It is enough but it is too much Therefore both the spirituall and the materiall sword doe belong to the Church but the materiall is indeed to bee exercised or drawne
r Lib. 5. de Rō Pont. cap. 1. yet this rather confirmeth mee in my opinion For if his doctrine which denieth that the Pope as Pope hath power to depriue iuridically and by way of sentence temporall Princes of their dominions and to vse the temporall sword had beene thought in those daies to haue beene hereticall or erronious as now Card. Bellarmine and some few other Iesuites will needes haue it to be it is like that he should also haue beene compelled to recall that doctrine and that those learned Authors who write of heresies as Alphonsus de Castro Prateolus Genebrard D. Sanders and others would for the same haue taxed him and Marsilius of Padua as also Albericus and those many Schoolemen and Doctours related by Trithemius and Almaine who did defend the same doctrine with some note of heresie or errour which seeing they haue not done it is a manifest signe that they did not account that doctrine for hereticall or erronious that the decree of the Councel of Lateran which was long before any of these mens daies and which was also so publike and registred in the corps of the Canon Law was not in those times vnderstood in that sense as Card. Bellarmine now of late for before in his controuersies he made small reckoning of that authority for that he cleane omitteth that decree yet bringing many particular facts of Popes yea of Pope Innocēt the third in whose time and by whose authoritie that Councell was held and some few others without sufficient proofe as I will shew beneath ſ Part. 3. ca. 9. seq will needes haue that decree to be vnderstood 36. Neither is that true which D. Schulckenius affirmeth that Ioannes Parisiensis in acknowledging That when the Pope doth becken the Emperour ought to exercise the iurisdiction of the secular power for the spirituall good But if hee will not or if it doth not seeme to him expedient the Pope hath no other thing to do because he hath not the materiall sword in command but onely the Emperour according to S. Bernard dooth either speake of the direct power of the Pope to vse them materiall sword or else contradict himselfe when afterwards hee writeth that the Pope may per accidens depose the Emperour by causing the people to depose him For Ioannes Parisiensis in that his Treatise de potestate Regia Papali doth expresly impugne both the direct and indirect coerciue power of the Pope to punish by way of sentence and iuridically with temporall punishments affirming as D. Schulckenius also himselfe heere relateth that Excommunication or some such like spirituall punishment is the last which an Ecclesiasticall Iudge can inflict For although it belongeth to an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to bring men backe to God and to withdraw them from sinne yet he hath not this but according to the way or meanes giuen him by God which is by excluding from the Sacraments and the participation of the faithfull 37 Neither doth Ioannes Parisiensis therefore contradict himselfe in affirming that the Pope may depose per accidens by meanes of the people For although he be of opinion as I shewed before t Part. 1. ca. 2. that the people haue in some cases a coerciue power ouer their Prince and in some cases may depose him and consequently the Pope may in those cases if it be necessarie to the good of the Church command the people and with spirituall punishments compell them to vse their coerciue power and so the Pope may be said to depose a Prince per accidens by meanes of the people with which philosophicall question I will not at this time as I often said intermeddle yet concerning the Popes coerciue power to vse him selfe the temporall sword or to depose the Emperour by way of iuridicall sentence which is not repugnant to his authoritie to depose by meanes of the people if the people haue any such authoritie to depose which many learned Diuines to whose opinion the ancient Fathers seeme to assent as I haue signified heretofore doe denie u in my Apologie nu 411. and here part 1. cap. 3. nu 5. Ioannes Parisiensis is cleane opposite to Card. Bellarmines opinion and expressely affirmeth that the Pope hath no power to depriue iuridically or by way of sentence temporall Princes of their kingdomes but only to inflict by way of coercion or constraint Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And thus much both concerning my answer to S. Bernards authoritie and also the Reply which D. Schulckenius hath made therevnto 38 Now to the authoritie of Pope Boniface the 8. I answer first that his words are to be vnderstood in that sense as I expounded S. Bernard whom hee as Card Bellarmine affirmeth did imitate to wit that the temporall power is in order to spirituall good or which is all one in spirituall things subiect to the command of the spirituall power and that shee is to be instructed by the spirituall not absolutely in temporall gouernment but in Christian faith and religion and that if shee goe out of the way or erre in things belonging to Christian faith and religion shee is to bee iudged by the spiritual but with spirituall not temporall punishments And in this sense it is very true that the sword is vnder the sword and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall but by this it is onely signified that temporall Princes are in spiritualls but not in meere temporals subiect to the spirituall command and spirituall correction of spirituall Pastours 39 Secondly although Pope Boniface should vnderstand those words in this sense that temporall Princes are not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls subiect to the Popes power both to command and also to punish temporally yet his authoritie herein as he is Pope for as he is a priuate Doctor it is no greater then of other Doctors is not of any great weight considering first that as well obserueth D. Duvall x De suprema Rom. Pont. potest part 2. q. 4. pag. 262.263 a learned Schoole-Diuine one of the Kings Readers in the Colledge of Sorbon although Pope Boniface doth make mention both of the spirituall and temporall sword and in the progresse of his Constition doth say that the temporall sword is vnder the spirituall yet in the definition or conclusion which chiefely as in the decrees of Councells is to be regarded seeing that this onely bindeth to beleeue this onely hee pronounceth in generall but we declare say define and pronounce that it is necessarie to the saluation of euery humane creature to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome But in what manner all men must be subiect it is not expressed in this definition and therefore not to contradict this definition it is sufficient to affirme that all men must in spiritualls bee subiect to the Popes power to command and to punish s piritually 40 Secondly for that this Extrauagant was recalled by his Successour Pope Clement the fift in
their temporall power and the light of naturall reason which they receiue not from the Pope but only the light of faith and grace which they did receiue from the spirituall power 3. Secondly that which Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that the Pope receiueth nothing from temporall Princes is very vntrue and therefore in this point also that part of the similitude is not fitly applyed For the Pope hath receiued from temporall Princes all his temporall dominion iurisdiction and temporall sword and the whole patrimonie of S. Peter wherein as the same Pope Innocent affirmeth b In cap. per venerabilem qui filij sint legitimi he doth now exercise the power of a supreme temporall Prince Neither is it only true that temporall Princes are in spiritualls subiect to the spirituall power of spirituall Pastours from whom they receiue spirituall light and supernaturall directions by the holy Scriptures Ecclesiasticall lawes by which they may see how to liue like good Christians and to attaine to life euerlasting but it is also true that spirituall Pastours as inferiour Bishops and Cleargie men are in temporals subiect to the temporall power of temporall Princes from whom they receiue the increase of naturall light and ciuill directions by ciuill and temporall Lawes by which they may see how to conuerse ciuilly among themselues and other men and to attaine to temporall peace and quietnesse in the ciuill common-wealth 4. Whereupon well sayd S. Ambrose c Lib. 10. in Lucā cap. 20. If thou wilt not be subiect to Caesar doe not haue wordly things but if thou hast riches thou art subiect to Caesar For all men saith Astensis d In summa lib. 2. tit 39. are subiect to the Emperour Lay-men in temporals and Cleargie men who doe receiue from him temporals And Gratian the Compiler of the first and most ancient part of the Canon Law called the Decree writeth thus e Causa 11. q. 1. cap. 11. Cleargie men by their office are subiect to the Bishop by the possessions of farmes or mannours they are subiect to the Emperour From the Bishop they receiue vnction tithes and first fruits from the Emperour they receiue possessions of farmes or mannours Therfore because by the Emperiall Law it is made as he prooueth out of S. Austin that farmes be possessed it is manifest that Cleargie men by the possessions of farmes are subiect to the Emperour See also aboue f Cap. 6. nu 13. 14. 15. cap. 7. nu 12. 13. many other Catholike Authours who doe affirme that Cleargy men are subiect to the directiue power of temporall Princes Neither doth Pope Innocent in the aforesayd Chapter denie but in expresse words affirme that the Emperour is superiour to those who doe receiue from him temporals And therefore this similitude of the Sunne and Moone doth not prooue that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall or which is all one that temporall Princes are in temporals or as they haue temporall power subiect to spirituall Pastours but it rather prooueth the flat contrarie 5. Yea and Card. Bellarmine himselfe g Lib. 2. de Ro. Pont. cap. 29. did for many years together hold with Albertus Pighius h Lib. 5. hierach Eccles cap. 7. that it is the more probable opinion that S. Paul consequently the rest of the Apostles was subiect in temporals to Caesar not only de facto but also de iure from whence supposing another true vndoubted principle granted also by Card. Bellarmine i Lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. lib. 5. cap. 3. that the Law of Christ doth depriue no man of any his right or dominion it necessarily followeth that if infidell Princes haue rightfull power and dominion or iurisdiction ouer Cleargy men there is no repugnance but that they may keepe the same power and iurisdiction ouer Cleargy men although they become Christians But Card. Bellarmine hath now forsooth in his Recognitions recalled that opinion I doe not now approoue saith he k Pag. 16. that which I said with Albertus Pighius that S. Paul did appeale to Caesar as to his lawfull Prince And therefore I do persist in the former answer that S. Paul was subiect to Caesar de facto not de iure and did appeale to him not as his owne Superiour but as to the Superiour of the President of Iewry and of the Iewes by whom he was wronged For otherwise he could not free himselfe from that vniust iudgement and danger of a most vniust death but by hauing recourse to their Prince and Iudge which hee himselfe did signifie Acts 28. when he saith I am constrained to appeale to Caesar 6 If Card. Bellarmine hath vpon sufficient ground recalled either this or any other of his former opinions he is truly therefore much to be commended as likewise is S. Austin for making his booke of Retractations But if she should without sufficient ground not onely recall this opinion which he for aboue twentie yeeres together in publike print and for many yeeres before in publike writings had defended for the more probable but also condemne it for improbable it being also the common opinion of Diuines any man might iustly imagine that affection not reason moued him thereunto I doe not approue saith he l Pag. 16. in his Recognitions that which I said in that place with Albertus Pighius that S. Paul did appeale to Caesar as to his lawfull Prince But in his booke against D. Barclay hee goeth much farther I haue admonished saith he m Cap. 21. pag. 206. in the Recognition of my writings that the opinion of Pighius which in times past I did follow is improbable and that with better Doctours it is to be affirmed that the Apostles were exempted de iure from all subiection to earthly Princes 7. But truly I cannot but maruell that Card. Bell. could be so much ouerseen as to affirm that he did admonish in his Recognitions that the opinion of Pighius is improbable seeing that he only saith there I doe not approue the opinion of Pighius c. But he doth not say that it is improbable vnlesse forsooth what opinion C Bellarmine doth not approue although it be approued by other learned Catholikes must forth with be accounted improbable Besides I wold gladly know who be those better Doctours whom Card. Bellarmine saith are to be followed against the opinion of Phighius For my owne part I doe not know what better Doctours there be abstracting from the ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church if we speake only of the Doctours themselues and not of the doctrine which they teach then among the Thomists Iohn of Paris Dominicus Sotus Victoria Bartholomaeus Medina Bannes among the Scotists Richardus de Media villa Ioannes Medina Ioseph Angles and among the Iesuites Salmeron Molina Valentia Richeome Salas and many other Diuines whom Salas citeth who doe hold that Clergie men are not by the law of God nature but only by the
Ecclesiasticall Canons and priuileges of Princes exempted from the coactiue power of Secular Magistrates and not at all from their directiue power but that they are subiect to the directiue power of Secular Princes in those things which doe not repugne to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and their state and consequently that Cleargie men in the time of the Apostles and long after were subiect to the coactiue power of temporall Princes Yea and the ancient Fathers especially S. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius doe in expresse words affirme n Ad Rom. 13. that whether hee be a Monke a Priest or an Apostle hee is according to the doctrine of S. Paul subiect to Secular powers Only the Canonists yet not all of them as Pope Innoc Nauar and Coverruvias whom now Card Bellarm leauing the Diuines his ancient opinion vpon very weake grounds as you shall see doth follow do vehemently defend that Cleargie men are by the law of God and nature exempted from all subiection to Secular Princes 8 Now you shall see for what reasons Card Bellarmine was moued to recall his former opinion and to condemne it as improbable For if the reason saith he o In his Recognitions pag. 16. of the exemption of Clergie men be for that they are ministers of Christ who is the Prince of the Kings of the Earth and King of Kinges truely they are exempted de iure not onely from the power of Christian Kinges but also of Heathen Princes If Card. Bellarmine meane that the reason wherefore the Ecclesiasticall Canons and Christian Princes haue exempted Cleargie men I doe not say from all subiection for notwithstanding their exemption they still remaine subiects to temporall Princes but from paying of tributes from the tribunall of Secular Magistrates and such like be for that they are Ministers of Christ in spirituall but not in Secular matters I will not contradict this reason but from hence it doth not follow that therefore Cleargie men in the time of the Apostles when there were no such positiue lawes of their exemption were not in temporall causes subiect de iure to infidell Princes 9. But if Card. Bellarmine meane that the reason why Cleargie men are not onely by the Ecclesiasticall Canons and lawes of Princes but also by the law of GOD and nature exempted from all subiection to temporall Princes is for that they are Ministers of Christ who is the King of Kings this reason doth not proue but suppose that which is in question to wit that Cleargie men are by the law of GOD and nature exempted from all subjection to temporall Princes which the common opinion of Diuines doth constantly deny whose opinion to account improbable or temerarious for such a weake reason which doth not proue but suppose the question were in my iudgement to exceede the limits of Christian prudence and modesty Neither is there any repugnance in naturall reason but that the Ministers of Christ who as it is probable was according to his humanity onely a spirituall and not a temporall King and although he was also a temporall King yet Secular Princes are his Ministers in temporalls and the Apostles their Successors are his Ministers in spiritualls might in temporall causes be truely and de iure subject to temporall Princes as the Apostles them-selues who are Christ his chiefe Ministers in his spirituall kingdome and Church were according to the expresse doctrine of the ancient Fathers as they are parts members and cittizens of the temporall common-wealth subiect to temporall Princes in their temporal kingdomes and in temporall affaires Neither doe those words of Saint Paul p Act. 28. I am constrained to appeale to Caesar signifie that hee was subject to Caesar onely de facto and not de iure more then if a Priest being vniustly oppressed by his Ordinary should appeale to the Pope and say that he was constrained for that hee had small hope to finde iustice at his Ordinaries hands to appeale to the Pope signifie thereby that hee was not subject de iure but onely de facto to the Pope 10. An other reason which mooued Card. Bellarmine to recall his former opinion and to affirme that Saint Paul did not appeale to Caesar as to his owne lawfull Iudge but as to the Iudge of the president of Iewrie and of the Iewes who did vniustly oppresse him was saith he q In tract contra Bard. cap. 3 pag. 51. for that the cause of which they did accuse him being spirituall to wit concerning the resurrection of Christ and the ceremonies of the law of Moyses could not by right appertaine to a Heathen Prince See the Acts of the Apostles chap. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 11. But truely it is strange that Card. Bellarmine durst so confidently remit his Reader to those chapters of the Acts of the Apostles to proue that the cause whereof Saint Paul was accused by the Iewes to the Tribune and President of Iewrie and wherefore he appealed to Caesar was spirituall and not appertaining by right to a Heathen Prince vnlesse hee will haue the raising of sedition and tumults and the committing of a crime worthy of death not to belong to a Heathen Prince For it is cleere by those chapters that the Iewes accused him of sedition and that he had offended Caesar and endeauoured to haue him therefore put to death We haue found saith one Tertullus r Act. 24. who went to accuse S. Paul before the President Felix this man pestiferous and raising seditions to all the Iewes in thâ— world c. And afterwards Å¿ Act. 25. the Iewes before the President Festus obiected against S. Paul many and greâ—uous crimes which they could not proue but they might easily haue proued that S. Paul did preach the Resurrection of Christ for that hee confessed the same before both the Presidents and King Agrippa Wherevpon King Agrippa said to S. Paul t Act. 26 A little thou perswadest me to become a Christian And before u Act. 25. S. Paul made answere to the President Festus that neither against the law of the Iewes nor against the Temple nor against Caesar haue I any thing offended which signifieth that he was accused that he had offended against Caesar And a little after saith S. Paul to Festus The Iewes I haue not hurt as thou very well knowest For if I haue hurt them or done any thing worthy of death I refuse not to dye but if none of those thinges be whereof they accuse me no man can giue me to them I appeale to Caesar 12 By all which it is very cleare that the Iewes sought to haue S. Paul put to death and that all the crimes which they obiected against him were false and consequently that he was not accused merely for preaching the resurrection of Christ which S. Paul would neuer haue denied but for raising sedition and tumults in the people and for doing wrong to Caesar Whereupon S. Chrysostome x Hem.
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
was Catholike and if it had not beene Catholike the Church defining it to bee Catholike should haue erred therefore it was Catholike and reuealed by God before the Church defined it Wherefore the Church cannot make a new Article of faith but that which before was true faith but not certainely knowne to vs the Church by her definition maketh it knowne to vs. 108 In like maner wee haue this from the Church to know certainly which is diuine Scripture and we are bound to account that to be diuine Scripture which the Church hath defined to be diuine And although shee doth certainely define and cannot erre yet shee doth not make by her definition that Scripture to bee diuine for therefore shee hath declared it to be diuine because it was truely diuine and if it had not beene before diuine Scripture the Church would not haue declared it to be diuine Wherefore although that assertion which is condemned by the Catholike Church to be contrary to Catholike faith and to bâ—e accounted heresie was also heresie before the definition of the Church yet before the Church did define it the maintainers of that opinion were not called heretickes because it was not knowne whether that opinion was contrary to Catholike faith but now after the definition of the Church they shall bee called hereticks whosoeuer shall approue and maintaine that opinion not for that their opinion was not before false contrary to Catholike faith and heresie but because this name of heretickes beeing infamous and appertaining to that most heinous crime doth require a certaine pertinacy and rebellion departing from the definitions of the Catholike Church which could not truely be accounted at that time when it was doubtfull and disputable and the Church had not defined whether that opinion was repugnant to Religion and faith 109. In this sense therefore it may be said that the Church hath power to declare an assertion to be Catholike and to appertaine to Catholike faith to this effect that after the definition of the Church the said assertion is so manifestly of faith that he is to be accounted an obstinate hereticke who defending the contrary shall depart from that definition although before the definition of the Church the said assertion albeit was most true and Catholike yet by reason of the doubt and controuersie touching that point hee could not iustly be called an heretick who should allow and follow the contrary position And what hath bene said if there be any doubt or controuersie touching any text of holy Scripture and the true sense thereof is proportionally to be vnderstood if there be any doubt or controruersie touching any definition of the Church and the true sense thereof as wee see there is now a controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and Paris touching the definition of the Councell of Constance concerning the Superiority of the Church or a Generall Councell aboue the Pope and among many other Catholikes touching the decrees and declarations of diuerse other Generall Councells and now lately touching the sense of those words of the Councell of Lateran Si vero Dominus temporalis c. But if the temporall Lord c. Which some Catholikes of late haue greatly vrged to proue the Popes power to depose Princes whereof beneath b Part. 3. cap. 9. seq we will discourse at large 110. From this doctrine which neither Mr. Fitzherbert nor any other can proue to be improbable it cleerely followeth that heresie being a falshood repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probability wherewith one is perswaded that such a doctrine or position is false and repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probabilitie hee may abhorre detest and abiure that doctrine for hereticall And consequently it followeth that if it be lawfull to abhorre detest and abiure for impious damnable and false doctrine repugnant to truth contained in the word of God this Doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other which position for that it concerneth practise and not onely speculation is in very deed false impious damnable and repugnant to truth contained in holy Scriptures and ought so to be accounted not onely by those who are of opinion that the Pope hath not power to depriue Princes but also so long as this question remaineth vndecided and in controuersie by those who doe speculatiuely thinke that hee hath authority to depriue them it is lawfull also to abiure it for hereticall And this I hope may suffice for the defence of my first and principall answeare and for the confutation of M. Fitzherberts Reply therevnto 111. The Second answere which I haue heard many Catholikes giue to the aforesaid obiection of the Authour of that English Dialogue against the word hereticall contained in this clause of the oath and which Answeare Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to ouerthrow I related c Cap. 5. Sec. 2. nu 28. 29 in these words The second principall answeare which some of our Countrimen doe make to the aforesaid obiection is gathered from the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine who expounding d Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 12. that sentence of Pope Gregory the first e Lib. 1. epist 24. I confesse that I doe receiue the foure first Councells as the foure bookes of the Gospell affirmeth that the aduerbe as doth import a similitude and not an equality as that of Matth. 5. Be you perfect as your heauenly Father is perfect For in like manner these Catholiks doe answeare that those words I doe abhorre detest and abiure as heretical c. doe not import an equality but a similitude and that in common speech they doe onely signifie that I doe exceedingly detest that doctrine And so wee vsually say I hate him as the diuel I loue him as my brother not intending thereby to affirme that the one is in truth a Diuel or the other my brother 112 Now to omit the word murthered as though there were no mention at all made in the oath concerning the murthering of Princes and to speake onely of deposing them these men affirme that the aforesaid position Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed by their Subiects or any other supposing that this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is not yet decided is in their iudgments a false and seditious proposition and that it hath some similitude with heresie not for that they thinke it to be in very deed hereticall taking hereticall in that strict sense as some Catholikes doe take it but for that they doe constantly hold it to be of such a nature that it may be condemned by the Church for an hereticall proposition and then the maintainers thereof to be pâ—operly heretikes if deposing be taken in that sense as it is in this branch of the oath distinguished from depriuing For to
or deny in this oath wee must not I say so much regard his opinion as his intention and what is the true sense and meaning of the oath according to the plain and common vnderstanding of the words to which his Maiesty doth bind the taker and what by vertue of the words we must acknowledge professe detest and abiure in this oath Now it is euident as I haue shewed before that my opinion is not different from the substance of the oath nor from that which his Maiesty intendeth to bind the swearer to acknowledge or abiure in this oath 136. For I affirme two things which are the whole substance of the oath The first is that any Catholike may lawfully and with a safe conscience declare testifie and acknowledge before God and in his conscience that the Pope hath no power to depose his Maiesty nor to dispose of any his kingâ—omes or Dominions and so of the other clauses which doe follow from this doctrine And my reason is for that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes I will not say at this present is a false doctrine and repugnant to the holy Scriptures and to the ancient Fathers but it is not certaine and a point of faith as Maister Fitzherbert and some others of his companie will needs haue it to be and the contrary is probable and consequently may with a safe and probable conscience be acknowledged and maintained by any Catholike But whether it be probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes or no I doe not at this present dispute neither doe I either grant it or deny it or meddle at all therewith as being vnnecessary to proue the oath to be lawfull That which I affirme at this time is that it is probable that the Pope hath no such power Let vs first agree about this point that it is probable that the Pope hath no such power and then we will dispute how probable it is that he hath such a power In the meane time all Mr. Fitzherberts cunning turning and winding shall not draw mee to so great a disaduantage as to take vpon mee to proue that to be certaine which he and the rest of my Aduersaries will not grant to be so much as probable 137. The second thing which touching practise I doe affirme is that this doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed by their Subiects or any other to omit now the word murthered is an impious and damnable doctrine and in what sense it may be called hereticall as also whether by vertue of the words both parts of that disiunctiue position contained in the oath are abiured alike and whether there be the same reason that the deposing and murthering of Princes should be abiured alike I haue sufficiently declared before Whereby it may also appeare that my doctrine bringeth no danger at all to his Maiestie as that of my Aduersaries doth but giueth great security both to his Maiesties person and State as also I haue noted before in the Preface y nu 61. seq which the Reader would quickly haue perceaued if Mr. Fitzherbert had not guilfully to disgrace mee with his Maiestie concealed the chiefest part of my answeare and doctrine touching the security which it gaue to his Maiestie for which cause hee hath laboured so much to haue my bookes forbidden that the Reader may not see my answeares and doctrine but after that mangled and lame manner as hee is pleased to curtoll and disfigure them 138. Thirdly it is euident saith Mr. Fitzherbert z nu 31. that neither Widdrington nor any man that followeth his doctrine can lawfully sweare this clause of the oath whereof wee treat for no man can with safe conscience abiure as impious and hereticall any opinion which hee houldeth to be probable as Widdrington granteth our opinion to be 139. But on the contrary part I say that it is euident that any man who followeth my doctrine may lawfully sweare this clause of the oath whereof wee treat for any man may with safe conscience abiure as impious and hereticall that doctrine and position which is truely as impious and hereticall Neither doe I grant that the doctrine and position contained in this clause of the oath which as you see belongeth to practise is probable as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth but I acknowledge that it is a false damnable impious and hereticall doctrine and that therefore it ought by all Catholikes to be abhorred detested and abiured so from their hearts as I haue cleerely proued before and as for the speculatiue doctrine of deposing Princes I neither grant nor deny it to be probable nor medle at all therewith as being impertinent as I haue often said to proue that the oath may lawfully be taken 140 Lastly I conclude saith M. Fitzherbert a nu 32. that albeit there were no other thing in the oath to make it vnlawfull yet this onely clause might suffice to doe it yea and ought to moue all Catholikes to refuse it For surely he must be a Catholike of a strange conscience that can perswade himselfe to detest abiure and abhorre from his heart a doctrine that is taught by the best Catholike wriâ—ers ancient and moderne and confirmed by the practise of the Catholike Church and the authority of diuers Generall and Prouinciall Councells as experience hath shewed for many hundreds of yeares So as thou seest good Reader what Widdrington gaineth by his wrangling seeing that the further he goeth the further he intangleth himselfe still in an inextricable labyrinth of absurdities whiles he seeketh to intangle the consciences of Catholikes in the snares of his pretended probabilities And this shall suffice for this point 141. But contrariwise I conclude that this clause is not sufficient to make the oath vnlawfull or to moue any Catholike to refuse the same For surely he must be a Catholike of a strange conscience and caried away with the like fanaticall zeale and bloody maximes that the Powder-Traitors were that can perswade himselfe that the murthering of Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope and the doctrine thereof which is a part of that conditionall disiunctiue proposition abiured in this clause of the oath ought not to be detested abhorred and abiured from his heart Neither was this doctrine euer taught before in the Church of God by any Catholike writer ancient or moderne or confirmed by the practise of the Catholike Church or authority of any Generall or Prouinciall Councell 142. And although the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes by way of sentence hath bene taught by many Catholike writers and also practised by diuers Popes onely since the time of Pope Gregory the seauenth who was the first Pope saith Onuphrius that contrary to the custome of his ancestors durst I doe not say excommunicate but also depriue Caesar himselfe by whom if he was not chosen he was at least confirmed of
that the Pope hath no such authoritie Must the opinion of Card Bellarmine or of Suarez or of any other learned Catholike be a rule of reason to all other learned Catholikes or to bee accounted by all Catholikes the principles of the Catholike faith All Catholikes doe confesse that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate a Christian King and that Subiects are not bound to obey an excommunicated King in those things which the Censure of Excommunication of it owne nature and by the institution of Christ doth forbid but to absolue Subiects from their temporall allegiance either by vertue of Excommunication which being a spirituall Censure hath neither of it owne nature nor by the institution of Christ such a temporall effect or by the sentence of depriuation this many learned Catholikes with the State of France doe affirme not to belong to the Popes spirituall authoritie to binde or loose 16 True also it is that all Christians are subiect to the keyes of the Church but these keyes are spirituall not temporall of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes neither is any Christian excepted from that authoritie which Christ gaue to S. Peter by those words whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. But those words are not to be vnderstood of temporall but onely of spirituall bindings and loosings as I haue often shewed neither did any of the ancient Fathers euer extend the keyes of the Church to the absoluing of Subiects from their temporall allegiance or to the depriuing of Kings and Princes of their temporall liues libertie kingdomes or goods as by some Catholikes of these latter ages contrarie to the true meaning and institution of Christ and to the vnderstanding and practise of the primitiue Church they haue been violently wrested To that whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. I answer saith Ioannes Parisiensis according to S. Chrysostome Rabanus that by this is not vnderstood any power to be giuen but spirituall to wit to absolue from the bond of sinnes For it were foolish to vnderstand that by this is giuen a power to absolue from the bond of debts and much lesse from that great and high debt of temporall allegiance 16. These be all the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against those authorities which I broght in my Theologicall Disputation Now let any indifferent Reader iudge whether he hath sufficiently answered those authorities or rather by cauilling and shuffling laboured cunningly to shift them off and whether Mr. Fitzherbert might not blush to affirme so boldly that D. Schulckenius to whom he cunningly also as you haue seene remitteth his English Reader for his answer to those authorities hath answered particularly to euerie one of them and prooued cleerely that diuerse of them make flat against Widdrington 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 appeareth by their doctrine in other things or knowen Schismatikes who liuing in the times of the Emperours or Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauours of which sort neuerthelesse there are very few so that of all the Authours that Widdrington hath scraped together to make some shew of probabilitie in his doctrine hee hath no one cleere and sufficient witnesse to iustifie the same which how true it is or rather most cleerely false I remit to the consideration of the indifferent and iudicious Reader 17. For the testimony of Iohn Trithemius a learned and vertuous Catholike who expressely affirmeth that it is a controuersie among Schoolmen as yet not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no partly hee reiecteth partly that word Schoolemen hee ridiculously expoundeth to be Historiographers Grammarians Poets as Sigebert Valla Dante 's who neuerthelesse are by Trithemius himselfe related to be also excellent Diuines and partly to repell his testimonie he falsely grossely and vnaduisedly taxeth him with errours committed in his historie and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Reader to Posseuine who as you haue seene both in that and also other points of historie hath shamefully erred himselfe and neuerthelesse that which Trithemius affirmeth Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine and classicall Doctour of Paris who liued also in those daies confirmeth to be true whose words D. Schulckenius doth cunningly passe ouer without any answer at all Albericus a Classicall Doctour of the canon and ciuill Law for that hee deliuereth his opinion with submission is ready to recal it if it should prooue erroneous as euery good Catholike ought to doe he will haue to speake wauering and altogether doubtfull Ioannes Parisiensis a most learned Schoole-Diuine partly he will haue to make nothing for my opinion and yet he confesseth that Parisiensis is of opinion that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Prince of his Kingdome by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation which neuerthelesse is the maine and sole point which I contend to prooue and partly to cleane ouerthrow his testimony he taxeth him without sufficient ground of many errours which errours neuerthelesse although he should haue maintained doe cleerely confirme this doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes The testimony of Mr. D. Barclay a famous learned and vertuous Catholike he no more regardeth then of an heretike To M. Blackwell and those other English Priests he answereth nothing The Records of the generall assembly of the States of France related by Bochellus with such particular circumstances that no man can misdoubt of them for a friuolous reason hee accounteth incredible The testimonie of Petrus Pithaeus a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquity by Posseuines confession affirming that France hath euer held for certaine that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King also for friuolous reasons hee vtterly reieiecteth which neuerthelesse the late proceeding of the Court of Parliament against his and such like bookes hath sufficiently confirmed And if this manner of answering authorities is to bee admitted who may not easily shift off any authorities whatsoeuer especially when they shall haue their trumpetters to extoll all their writings and answers to the skie and to depresse their aduersaries and who shall seeme to make against them whether they be liuing or dead euen to the pit of hell appeaching them of heresie errour schisme and such like hainous crimes 18. Many other authorities I brought in my Apologie which doe cleerely contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine which onely I tooke vpon mee to confute whereof some of them doe expressely affirme that the Church of Christ hath onely a spirituall and not a temporall sword Others that temporall Princes are in temporall affaires next vnder God and to bee punished with temporall punishments by God alone and that the temporall power is independant of the spirituall Others that neither Childerike was deposed nor the Romane Empire translated from the Graecians
free from tributes as those who appertaine to the familie of Christ. Neither doth it therefore from hence follow that Cleargie men are by the law of God free from tributes For first that which S. Austen saith is not in the words of our Sauiour but it is onely gathered by a probable consequence For our Sauiour doth onely speake of the true and naturall children of Kinges as S. Chrysostome doth expound that place Secondly our Sauiour himselfe doth allso properly command nothing in this place that it may be called the law of God but doth onely shew by the vse and custome of men that the children of Kinges are free from tributes Thus Card. Bellarmine answered in his former Editions which answere in his later editions he altogether concealeth but for what cause I remit to the iudgement of the prudent Reader 23 By all which it is apparant that our Sauiour did onely speake of himselfe and of the naturall children of Kings when hee vsed those words therefore sonnes are free and of the seruants or familie either of Kings or of the children of Kinges he saith nothing at all and therefore from an other consequence drawne from the vse and custome of men and not from the words of our Sauiour can it be gathered that those who are seruants or of the familie of the children of Kings are exempted either from subiection to the inferiour magistrates of the kingdome or from the paying of tributs But by no probable consequence it can be deduced that those who are either seruants and of the familie of Kinges children or also seruants and of the familie of the King himselfe are by the custome of any nation either exempted from subiection to inferiour Magistrates and much lesse to the King himselfe or also from paying tributes vnlesse the King vpon some other speciall consideration doth grant to any of them such a priuiledge 24 To those words of our Sauiour But that wee may not scandalize them c. it is easily answered according to the first exposition of that didrachme which Card. Bellarmine thinketh to be most true that it was a tribute due to the temple or tabernacle and not to Caesar For I doe willingly grant that S. Peter who was appointed by Christ to be the chiefe gouernour of his Church and temple was exempted from paying tribute to the temple But although we should admit that the aforesaide didrachme was a tribute due to Caesar and not to the temple yet from those words of our Sauiour no sufficient argument can be drawne to proue that S. Peter and especially the rest of the Apostles were by the law of God exempted from paying tributes and much lesse from temporall subiection to Heathen Princes 25 First for that we may probably answere with Iansenius and Abulensis that Christ did speake to S. Peter in the plurall number but that wee may not scandalize them not for that S. Peter was bound to pay tribute onely by reason of scandall but either because our Sauiour did speake of his owne person vsing the plurall number for the singular as it is vsuall especially among great persons we are wont saith S. Epiphanius h In the heresie of the Manichies to speake singular thinges plurall and plurall singular For wee say wee haue tould you and we haue seene you and we come to you and yet there be not two who speake but one who is present or else because the scandall which Christ should haue giuen would in some sort haue redounded to S. Peter as being a mediatour in that businesse And therefore as well affirmeth Iansenius i In Câ—ncord Euang. cap. 69. in Mat. 17. our Sauiour did pay tribute for himselfe onely to auoid scandall for S. Peter to honour him as with a certaine reward for his faith obedience and diligence as a mediatour of this busines and an executor of the Miracle of finding the stater in the fishes mouth or as Barradius the Iesuite and others doe affirme k In cap 17. Mat. â—om 2. Lib. 10. cap. 32. to honour him aboue the rest as the Prince of the Apostles and the head of the Church See Abulensis q. 198. 199. and 200. in cap. 17. Mat. and Barradius vpon this place 26 Secondly although wee should grant that our Sauiour did for some speciall cause exempt S. Peter from paying tribute to Caesar either by a personall priuiledge or else reall and descending to his successors it doth not therefore follow that he did exempt him from all ciuil subiection to temporal Princes as neither doth it follow that because the Children of Kinges for that their goodes and their fathers are common or any of the Kinges seruants are by speciall priuiledge exempted from paying tributes they are therefore exempted from all ciuil subiection and alleagiance to the King 27 Thirdly for that there is no probabilitie in my iudgment that either Christ did by those words intend to exempt the rest of the Apostles seeing that there is no mention at all made of them in that place or also that this priuiledg of exemption is extended to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in regard onely that they were of the spirituall familie or Church of Christ I say of the spirituall familie for that I will not deny but that as they were of his corporall familie and liued with him here on earth and had no corporall goods but such as belonged to Christ they were exempted from paying tributes but not from ciuill subiection to Heathen Princes because the exemption of seruants with their Maister or of those who are of the familie of Kinges Children with the Kinges Children themselues is not grounded in the law of nature but onely in a certaine congruity and custome of men from which custome this argument to exempt the Apostles for that they were of Christs familie is drawne but there is no such custome among nations that the seruants or familie of Kinges Children or of the King himselfe are exempted from paying tributes although the children of Kinges hauing no other goodes then which are their fathers be exempted as Card. Bellarmine a little aboue affirmed But howsoeuer neither the seruants to Kinges children nor the kinges children themselues are exempted from ciuill subiection or from the directiue or coerciue power of the King 28 And therefore neither Fa. Suarez who handleth this question at large dare affirme that from those words of our Sauiour it can certainely but onely probably be gathered that this exemption was extended to the rest of the Apostles I answere saith hee l In defens fidâ— Caâ—â—o 〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap. 8. in sine that it is true that Christ did not say plainly that the familie is exempted with the children neither doth it follow by any euident or necessary consequence and therefore the aforesaid opinion for as much as belongeth to this part is neither of faith nor altogether certaine Neuerthelesse it is most likely that this extention to