of Henry the fourth Emperour the discord of the German Princes the riches of the Countesse Mathildis the warlike forces of the Nortmans and the desire of all men that the Emperour might be restrained from doing such euills were the first occasions m See beneath part 1. cap 6. nu 24. that this doctrine began first to bee practised by the said Pope Gregorie and afterwards it being in regard of the strangenesse thereof so greatly contradicted iustified by him to bee lawfull for which cause it was by Onuphrius n See in the place aboue câ—ted called a thing not heard of before that age and by Sigebert a learned and vertuous Catholike and no Schismatike as I will proue beneath o Part 1. cap. 6. num 20. seq it was taxed of noueltie not to say of heresie and confuted by him at large 16 Secondly the aduancing of them who did maintaine this doctrine the depressing of those who did impugne it the suppressing of Bookes and the threatning of Ecclesiasticall Censures which neuerthelesse if they be vniust are not of force in the p Suarez de Censuris Disp 4. sec 7. nu 2. 4. 23. seq Court of Conscience and the indiligence of temporall Princes to maintaine their Soueraigntie the causes whereof I dare not presume to examine besides the former reasons and pretence of aduancing Catholike religion c. were the chiefe causes why the defenders of this doctrine did so increase in number from the time of Pope Gregorie the 7. in comparison of those who did impugne it But if temporall Princes would yet be pleased to vse hereafter those meanes to defend their right and Soueraigntie which Popes haue heretofore and doe continually vse to maintaine their pretended temporall authoritie ouer Kings and Princes to depose them to dispose of their temporalls c. in order to spirituall good I do not doubt but that the streame of Doctors would quickly turne backward and my Aduersaries would haue small cause to brag considering especially the weaknesse of their grounds and that their doctrine is ouerswaied by authoritie and not by reason that so many Authors fauour the Popes power to depose Princes and so few the right of Princes not to bee deposed by the Pope 17 Neuerthelesse it is also manifest that it hath euer been contradicted by Christian Princes and people and notwithstanding the foresaid motiues and also the feare that some might haue lest wicked Princes might be in some sort incouraged to perseuere in euill by impugning that doctrine which seemed to be a bridle to restraine their bad purposes it hath continually been impugned disproued and confuted by learned Catholikes as I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise And therefore remember into what danger of soule bodie and temporall fortunes you for want of reading and due examining doe throw headlong your selues and many innocent men who doe follow your example and counsell for the which at the day of iudgement you are to make a most strict account where no fauour of Man can helpe you and willfull ignorance will not excuse you but condemne you and it will be too late to say then Non putaram vnlesse you doe now abstracting from all humane affection respects examine duely what dutie you beare God and Caesar what obedience you owe to the Pope and your temporall Prince 18 But perhaps some of you will demand how can you by reading examine this controuersie seeing that the Bookes which treate thereof are forbidden by the Pope In answer to this I will onely propound at this time to your prudent considerations whether if there should arise a controuersie betwixt the Pope and a temporall Prince concerning the title to any kingdome especially which that temporall Prince hath in his possession as there is betwixt the Pope and the King of Spaine touching the Kingdomes of Naples and Sicilie the Pope hath authoritie to command that temporall Prince and his Subiects not to read and pervse those euidences which doe make in fauour of his owne title but onely those euidences which doe proue the Popes title 19 Now if the reason why my bookes are forbidden by the Pope or rather by the euill information importunitie and iudiciall sentence of Card. Bellarmine against whom as my principall Aduersarie in this cause I did write both my Apologie for the right of Princes and also my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegiance which two bookes are onely forbidden and who therfore was pleased to bee an Accuser Witnesse and Iudge in his owne cause be for that they doe fauor the oath of Allegiance and impugne the Popes power to depose Princes as all my Aduersaries confesse that for this cause they are forbidden to bee read then you may cleerely perceiue that therefore my bookes are forbidden for that they doe shew and declare the euidences which doe make for the right and title of temporall Princes and their right not to be depriued or thrust out of their kingdomes by the Popes pretended authoritie but especially of our Soueraigne whose case concerning this point is more singular and concerneth him more neerely considering the opposition betwixt him and the Popes Holinesse with whom he is not linked in vnitie of religion and friendship then it doth concerne other Christian Princes who haue not the like reason to feare tumults rebellions and Powder-treasons vnder pretence of restoring Catholike religion in their Countrey and of hauing the Popes expresse or virtuall licence for the same which prohibition of the Pope to forbid such kinde of bookes how far it can binde either those Princes to whom it belongeth by the law of God and nature to defend their Soueraigntie or else their Subiects who also by the same Lawe of God and nature are bound to examine the reasons and euidences of their Princes title authoritie and Soueraigntie least that for want of due examination they should deny to God or Caesar that which is their due I remit to the prudent consideration of any iudicious Catholike man 20 Lastly consider I pray you the manifold wrongs which for the loue and paines I haue taken for your sakes I haue receiued from diuerse of you whom I could name if it were needfull both in reprochfull words and vncharitable deeds not beseeming I will not say Religious Priests but morall honest men For long before I did put pen to paper I had throughly examined this controuersie and all which in my iudgement could bee obiected on either side and for my owne part I was fully settled in my opinion but perceiuing all men to bee silent in a matter of such importance and necessitie as this is and which also concerneth vs all the zeale affection and dutie which I bare to Catholike Religion to the See Apostolike and to my Prince and Countrey with a vehement desire that the truth in this important controuersie which concerneth our obedience which by the command of Christ wee owe to GOD and Caesar to the
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
visible heads wherof Christ is the principal and inuisible head 14. Then must Thomas Waldensis our learned Country-man be taxed of heresie when after hee had related the aforesaid words of Hugo hee concludeth thus k Lib. 2. doctr fid art 3. ca. 78 Behold two powers and two heads of power and beneath Likewise saith he neither Kingly power which by the ring of faith or fidelitie is espoused to the kingdome is reduced to any man authoritatiuely aboue the King besides Christ and therefore the Pope is not head of the King or Kingdome in temporalls Then must S. Fulgentius be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth l In lib. de veritate praedest gratiae that in the Church none is more principall then a Bishop and in the Christian world none more eminent then the Emperour Then must S. Ignatius be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth m In Epist ad Smyrnenses That no man is more excellent then a King nor any man is like to him in all created things neither any one is greater then a Bishoppe in the Church Then must S. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius bee taxed of heresie when they affirme n Ad Rom. 13. That whosoeuer hee bee whether he be a Monke a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes as likewise Pope Pelagius the first who affirmeth o Apud Bininum tom 2. Concil pag. 633 That Popes also according to the command of holy Scriptures were subiect to Kings 15. Then must the ancient Glosse of the Canon Law p In cap. Adrianus dist 63. related and approued by Cardinall Cusanus q Lib. 3. de Concord Cath. cap. 3. which Glosse Card. Bellarmine r In Tract cōtr Barcl ca. 13. 16 with small respect to antiquity doth shamefully call a doting old woman and which perchance is abolished for ouermuch old age be taxed of heresie affirming That as the Pope is Father of the Emperour in spirituall◠so the Emperour is the Popes Father in temporalls Then must Pope Innocent the fourth bee taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth ſ Super ca. Nouerit de sent excom That the Emperour is Superiour to all both Church-men and Lay-men in temporalls Then must Hugo Cardinall related by Lupoldus of Babenberg be taxed of heresie when he affirmeth t De iure regni Imperij cap. 9. in principio That the Emperour hath power in temporalls from God alone and that in them he is not subiect to the Pope Then must Ioannes Driedo be taxed of heresie when hee affirmeth u Lib. 2. de libert Christiana cap. 2. That the Pope and the Emperour are not in the Church as two subordinate Iudges so that one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other but they are as two Gouernours who are the Ministers of one God deputed to diuerse offices so that the Emperour is chiefe ouer Secular causes and persons for the peaceable liuing in this world and the Pope ouer spiritualls for the aduantage of Christian faith and charitie Then must many of the ancient Fathers be taxed of heresie when they affirme x Expounding those words of the 50. Psalme Tibi soli peccaui that Kings and Emperors are next vnder God and inferiour to God alone as likewise infinite other Catholike writers who with Hector Pintus doe affirme y In cap 45. Ezech. that Kings in temporalls haue no Superiour although in spiritualls they are subiect to Priests 16 But to these and such like pittifull shifts and extremities are sometimes driuen men otherwise very learned when they are not afraid by clamours slanders and threatnings rather then by force of reason to thrust vpon the Christian world their owne vncertaine opinions for infallible grounds of the Catholike faith and rather then they will seeme to haue been too rash in their Censures or not so sound in their iudgements they care not although with palpable sophismes so that they may in regard of their authoritie any way blinde the eyes of the vnlearned Reader with their cunning and ambiguous speeches to maintaine what they haue once begun and with no small scandall to Catholike religion and great hurt to their owne soules and which also in the end will turne to their owne discredit to impeach those Catholikes of disobedience heresie or errour who shall impugne their new pretended faith and doctrine as being no point of the true ancient Catholike and Apostolike faith nor grounded vpon any one certaine authoritie or argument taken either from the testimonie of holy Scriptures ancient Fathers decrees of Councells practise of the primitiue Church or any one Theologicall reason wherevpon any one of the most learnedst of them all dare rely 17 For which cause they are so often enforced to vse so great equiuocation and ambiguitie of words in their arguments and answers not declaring in what sense they take such ambiguous words as in this question concerning the temporall power compounding the Church and being subiect therevnto in one proposition they will seeme to take temporall power formally and in abstracto signifying temporall Princes formally as they haue temporall power and in an other they will take it materially and in concreto for temporall Princes who indeed haue temporall power but not as they haue temporall power In one proposition they will seeme to take the Church formally as it signifieth the spirituall kingdome of Christ and consisteth only of spirituall power and in an other they will take it materially for all Christian men or for the Christian world as it is compounded both of temporall and spirituall power and contayneth both the spirituall kingdome of Christ and the earthly kingdomes of the Christian world So likewise they will not insist vpon any one authoritie of holy Scriptures any one decree of Pope or Councell or any one Theologicall reason as vpon a firme sure and infallible ground of their new pretended faith which if they would doe this controuersie would be quickly at end but from one place of holy Scripture they flie to an other from the new Testament to the ould from one Councell to an other and from one Theologicall reason to an other and when all their arguments be answered then with clamours slanders and forbidding of the bookes which are written against them but not declaring why or for what cause they are forbidden or what erroneous doctrine is contayned in them they will make the matter cleare But truth and plaine dealing in the end will preuaile neither will violence but reason satisfie mens vnderstandings and this their violent shuffling and vnsincere proceeding doth plainly shew that they distrust their cause And thus much concerning the second argument Chap. 7. Wherein the third argument which is taken from the changing of temporall gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good is examined 1. THe third argument which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not only as it is Christian but
meruaile that in conditionall disiunctiue propositions which follow the nature of copulatiues and not of pure or absolute disiunctiue propositions whatsoeuer is affirmed of the one part is not by vertue of the coniunction affirmed of the other I say by vertue of the coniunction for that both in absolute and also in conditionall disiunctiues as likewise in copulatiue propositions it may fall out that by reason of the matter or of the thing affirmed or denyed the same falshood which is affirmed of the one part is affirmed also of the other but this is not to vse the Logicians phrase vi forma or vi coniunctionis by vertue of the forme or by force of the coniunction but vi materiae by reason or vertue of the matter as I declared before So that you see the more M. Fitzherbert meddleth with these Dialecticall questions which are cleane out of the spheare of his knowledge the more hee discouereth his vnskilfulnes 76 But yet hee will still goe on to bewray his ignorance and want of Logike For marke how vnlearnedly hee goeth about to proue that what I said of that clause of the Oath deposed or murthered to wit that it is a conditionall disiunctiue proposition and did signifie a free election to take either part of the disiunction may also bee said of other clauses of the Oath wherein neuerthelesse it is manifest that or is a pure disiunctiue and that whatsoeuer is affirmed of the one part of the disiunction is also affirmed of the other As for example the Oath bindeth the takers thereof to sweare that the Pope hath no power or authority to depose the King which is as much in effect as that the Pope may not lawfully doe it Therefore let vs make the proposition so and lay it downe with the other disiunctiue clauses which follow immediately and to make the whole like to that clause that is now in question let vs conceiue it thus 77. I abiure h nu 18. this doctrine as false that the Pope may depose the King or dispose of any his Maiesties kingdomes or dominions Or authorize any forraigne Prince to inuade or annoy him Or discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance to his Maiestie Or giue licence to any of them to beare armes raise tumults or to offer any violence to his Maiesties Royall person c. 78. Here now i Nu. 19. it cannot be denyed that or is disiunctiue in all these seuerall sentences in such sort that which of them soeuer any man doth teach hee teacheth according to the intent of this oath a false doctrine notwithstanding that the word may goeth before or and mplieth a free election to choose any one of them in so much that if a man should say onely that the Pope may authorize a forraine Prince to inuade his Maiestie he is condemned by the oath to speake no lesse vntruely then if hee should say that the Pope may depose his Maiestie or giue licence to any to offer violence to his person 79. Therefore k Nu 20. if Widdrington apply the words impious and hereticall in the other clause to the doctrine of murthering onely and not also to the doctrine of deposing Princes why may not he or any man else doe the like in the foresaid example and offirme that the last member and part thereof which denieth the Popes power to giue licence to offer violence to his Maiesties person is onely abiured as false whereby the former parts or clauses concerning the Popes power to depose his Maiestie or to dispose of his kingdomes or to giue licence to forraigne Princes to inuade or annoy him which are principall points of the oath would be superfluous and to no purpose So as it is manifest that the words of the oath deposed or murthered being considered according to their proper and vsuall signification in the clause where they are and compared also with the other clauses parts and circumstances of the oath cannot admit Widdringtons interpretation who applieth the note of heresie to the Murther and not also to the deposition of Princes Thus much concerning the words of the law or oath 80. Behold now how vnlearnedly Mr. Fitzherbert and yet his ignorance is the lesse excusable for that he might haue seene the weakenesse of his argument in my Theologicall Disputation where the Authour of the aforesaid English Dialogue obiecteth the like argument but in a contrary manner argueth from the truth of a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which is negatiue de dicto to the falshood of a conditionall disiunctiue which is affirmatiue de modo and frameth an oath of his owne inuention far different in sense from the oath prescribed by his Maiestie which neuerthelesse hee pretendeth to haue the same sense and signification with his new deuised oath For the oath prescribed by his Maiesty is a negatiue proposition de dicto to wit that the Pope hath not any power or authoritie to depose the King or to dispose of any his Maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forraine Prince to inuade or annoy him or to discharge any of his Subiects of their allegiance and obedience to his Maiestie or to giue licence to any of them to beare armes raise tumults or to offer any violence to his Maiesties Royall person c. And all this I must acknowledge to be true and therefore I called this whole proposition negatiue de dicto and affirmatiue de modo And the sense of this oath is cleere to wit that the Pope hath not any lawfull power to doe any one of these things so that if the Pope hath power to doe any one of them the whole and entire disiunctiue proposition consisting of those particular clauses is by vertue of the forme of words and of the coniunction disiunctiue or or rather nor not true but false I say by vertue of the forme of words for that the negation not going before and hauing a power to distribute to vse the Logicians phrase or to deny all that followeth it maketh all those disiunctiue coniunctions or which follow to be equiualent to nor or neither which as I say being a distributiue signe is to be resolued as euery Logician knoweth by the coniunction copulatiue and and not by the disiunctiue or for which cause some Grammarians doe also hould that the coniunction nor or neither is not a disiunctiue but a copulatiue coniunction 81. But the oath which Mr. Fitzherbert hath framed is a proposition negatiue de modo and affirmatiue de dicto to wit that the Pope may or which according to his owne exposition is all one that it is in the Popes free and lawfull power to depose the King or to dispose any of his Maiesties Kingdomes or dominions or to authorize any forraine Prince to inuade or annoy him or to discharge any of his subiects of their allegiance and obedience to his Maiestie or to giue licence to any of them to beare armes raise tumults or to
reputation he doe not hereafter so bouldly aduenture to meddle with these questions belonging to Logike except he haue the helpe and furtherance of some of his company more skilfull herein then himselfe least that by granting one inconuenience he fall according to the ancient prouerbe into a thousand absurdities 86. By this it is euident first that although the Oath ordained by his Maiesty and the Oath framed by M. Fitzherbert containe the same disiunctiue clauses and so they doe both agree in the matter yet they differ greatly in the forme and in the sense and vnderstanding of the disiunctiue coniunction or For in the Oath prescribed by his Maiestie that which by vertue of the forme and by force of the coniunction or which in all those particular sentences is equiualent to nor I doe acknowledge to be true is that the Pope hath not power to doe any one of all those thinges mentioned in those disiunctiue clauses and that which I acknowledge to be false is that the Pope hath power to doe any one of all those thinges as either to depose the King or to dispose of his Dominions and so forth And therefore although to those clauses were added also this clause or to murther his Maiesty yet my Aduersary cannot affirme that it would change at all the truth or falshood of the whole oath or entyre proposition but if the oath were true before it would also be true now and if it were false before it would also be false now 87 But if the oath which M. Fitzherbert hath framed that which by vertue of the forme and by force of the coniunction or which as he himselfe confesseth implyeth a free election to chose any one of those seuerall sentences or clauses I acknowledge to be true is that the Pope hath not power to doe all those thinges mentioned in those clauses or which is all one to doe which of all those thinges he shall please and that which I acknowledge to be false is that the Pope hath power to doe all those thinges mentioned in those clauses or which is all one to doe which of all those thinges he shall please And therefore if to those clauses of M. Fitzherberts new deuised oath should be added also this clause or to murther his Maiesty he cannot denie but that his oath or entyre disiunctiue proposition which before in his opinion was false is now by adding that clause made true and therefore that it is false that the Pope hath power to murther his Mâ—iestie The adding of which clause doth clearely shew the manifest difference betwixt the forme of these two oaths and the different signification of the coniunction or in both of them albeit in the matter of all the particular clauses and propositions they doe both agree 88 Secondly by this also it is easie to answere the demand which M. Fitzherbert propoundeth to wit wherefore the word hereticall in the doctrine and position of his Maiesties oath may be referred to the doctrine of murthering Princes and not of deposing them and the word false may not with the like reason in the oath or intire disiunctiue proposition which my Aduersary hath framed be referred to the last member and part thereof which denyeth the Popes power to offer violence to his Maiesties person and not to the former concerning the Popes power to depose his Maiesty For if wee regard the forme of both propositions and the vertue or force of the disiunctiue coniunction or which implyeth a free choise to take which part of the disiunction we please and therefore to make the whole disiunctiue proposition to be false and hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part thereof be false and hereticall as they both agree in the forme and in the sense of the disiunctiue coniunction or as it is sufficient by vertue of the forme to make that affirmatiue position Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other to be hereticall so also to make this affirmatiue proposition which my Aduersary hath framed The Pope may or which is all one it is in the Popes free and lawfull power to depose the Kinges Maiesty or to offer violence to his Royall person to be false it sufficeth by vertue of the forme and by force of the disiunctiue coniunction or that one onely part of the disiunction be false But the onely difference is in the matter And therefore if the doctrine of deposing Princes be not so clearely and properly hereticall as is the doctrine of murthering them the word hereticall may with better reason be referred to the doctrine of murthering then of deposing But because the doctrine which teacheth that the Pope may depose his Maiesty as also that he may offer violence to his Royall person are false although perchance the latter be false in a more high and manifest degree of falshood then is the fotmer therefore the word false may by vertue of the matter but not by force of the coniunction disiunctiue or in the oath framed by my Aduersary be referred to both 89. I say in the oath framed by my Aduersary for as these two particular propositions are set downe in the oath ordained by his Maiestie both of them are not onely by vertue of the matter but also by reason of the forme and by force of the coniunction or which is equiualent to nor affirmed to be false as I declared before So that it is manifest that these words of the oath may be deposed or murthered being considered according to their proper and vsuall signification in the conditionall disiunctiue clause where they are and compared also with the other clauses parts and circumstances of the oath may very well admit the interpretation which I haue made and the application of heresie taking heresie in a strict sense may be applyed onely to the murther and not also to the deposition of Princes although it may also in a proper sense and wherein many learned Catholikes doe take the word heresie be applyed to both as I will shewe beneath l Nu. 106. et seq And thus much concerning the wordes of the law and oath 90 Now for his Maiesties meaning or intention in that clause which was the second rule assigned for the interpretation of the oath the same saith M. Fitzherbert m Nu 12. according to the doctrine of Suarez which Widdrington approueth is to be gathered principally by the words and which as you haue seene being to be taken in their proper and common sense doe shew that his Maiesties meaning was no other but to ordaine the abiuration of both parts of that clause alike that is to say as truely impious and hereticall 91 But contrariwise I haue cleerely shewed before that according to the proper and vsuall signification of the words the common vnderstanding of men and the receiued doctrine of the Logicians to make a copulatiue proposition or a conditionall disiunctiue which followeth
the nature of a copulatiue to bee hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part thereof bee hereticall Seeing therefore that his Maiesties meaning onely was to bind his Catholike Subiects to take this clause of the Oath in that sense which the words according to their true proper and vsuall signification doe beare and that according to the true and common sense of the wordes it sufficeth to abiure this clause of the Oath as hereticall if one onely part thereof bee hereticall it is manifest that his Maiesties meaning was not to ordaine that both parts of this clause should bee abiured alike vnlesse from the common sense and vnderstanding of the wordes it can be rightly gathered as I haue proued it cannot that both parts must of necessity be abiured alike 92 But if it be wel considered saith M. Fitzherbert n nu 21. what reason Widdrington hath to condemne the aforesaid doctrine as truely hereticall in respect of one part of the clause to wit that part which concerneth violent attempts vpon the persons of Princes it will easily appeare that his Maiesty pretendeth as much if not more reason to condemne it in like maner in regard of the other part which concerneth the deposition of Princes For whereas Widdrington hath no other reason for his conceipt but because hee thinketh that all doctrine preiudiciall to the liues of Princes is repugnant to the holy Scriptures whereby hee consequently holdeth it for hereticall his Maiesty is perswaded also that he hath the same reason to condemne the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes for hereticall as it may euidently appeare by the manifold places and texts of Scripture which hee alleadgeth for the proofe of his owne Ecclesiasticall Primacy and the obligation of his Subiects to yeeld him ciuil obedience whereon he groundeth the lawfulnes of the Oath and the abiuration of the doctrine condemned therein 93. And therefore omitting o Nu. 23. to examine how well the Scriptures alledged by his Maiestie serue for the proofe of the matter in question as also to note how impertinently Widdrington applyeth the precept non Occides to his purpose by occasion of the word murther in the oath which precept being indeed vnderstood of murther and consequently implying alwaies an vnlawfull act yea a mortall sinne was neuer held by any to be lawfull and therefore doth not in that sort and sense belong to our question as Widdrington knoweth well enough but omitting I say to speake further of this that which here I affirme is that his Maiestie alledgeth much more Scripture to condemne the doctrine touching the deposition of Princes then Widdrington doth for the condemnation of violent attempts against their persons Whereby it is manifest that hee hath no reason to say that his Maiestie meant that the latter part of that clause should be abiured as hereticall and not the formâ—r especially seeing that the expresse words of the oath according to their most vsuall and proper signification together with the circumstances thereof doe proue both alike as it appeareth by the premisses And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of his first and best answeare 94. But first as it appeareth also by the premisses the expresse words of this clause according to their most vsuall and proper signification together with all other circumstances doe cleerely proue that both parts of that disiunctiue proposition are not of necessitie to be abiured alike for that to make a conditionall disiunctiue proposition as is the doctrine and position abiured in this clause to be hereticall it is sufficient that one part of the disiunction be hereticall and that therefore both parts of the disiunction are not of necessity to bee abiured alike as by the forme of my Aduersaries owne examples I haue euidently conuinced and therefore his premisses doe no way proue his conclusion in this point 94 Secondly that his Maiesty had far greater reason to bee more vehement against the practise of murthering Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope then of deposing or thrusting them out of the possession of their kingdomes and to haue the former being the more heinous impious damnable and detestable crime and more plainely and expresly forbidden in holy Scriptures to bee abiured in a more high and eminent degree then the latter it is plainely conuinced by the great and manifest inequality of the crimes by the irrecuperable and not recompensable damage which proceedeth from the former and not from the later and yet the former being the more easily and suddainely to bee performed then the latter for that the latter cannot bee accomplished but by a mighty power which also may faile the euent of warre being vncertaine but the former by the aduenturous boldnesse onely of one villaine may bee effected together with the knowne practises of the late murthers of the most Christian Kings of France and the execrable conspiracy of the Pouder-Traytors which was the chiefe occasion of the ordaining of this Oath And therefore his Maiesty hath neither more reason nor as much reason to condemne that part of this clause which concerneth the deposing of Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope for hereticall taking hereticall for that which importeth a plaine manifest and confessed heresie or falshood cleerely repugnant to holy Scriptures as either he himselfe or I or any man else may haue to condemne that part for hereticall which concerneth the murthering of such Princes 95. But to reduce Mr. Fitzherberts whole discourse to a compendious forme of arguing That which hee chiefely laboureth to proue against me in this chapter is that this position Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other whatsoeuer â—s by the oath condemned for hereticall in regard as well of the deposition of such Princes as of the murthering of them And this hee endeauoureth to proue by two waies first by the common sense and vnderstanding of the words which doe signifie saith hee that both parts aâ—e abiured alike to which purpose hee bringeth foure examples of propositions which as you haue seene make nothing for him but are flat against him and hee frameth an oath of his owne inuention to paralell it with the oath ordained by his Maiestie which neuerthelesse is far different from it in sense as I haue shewed before 96. Secondly hee pretendeth to proue the same by his Maiesties meaning or intention which was saith hee that both parts should be abiured as hereticall And this also hee pretendeth to prove by two waies First by the proper and common sense of the words by which his Maiesties intention is principally to be gathered But this proofe is all one with the former and therefore with the same facility it is denied as it is affirmed for that the proper and vsuall sense of the words doe not import that both parts of the disiunction are of necessity to be abiured alike by reason of the conditionall
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
first hee answereth c Pag. 121. ad num 31. that it is not credible that the Cardinall of Pelleue and the other Prelates should affirme that which Bochellus relateth For the Councell of Trent saith he doth not decree that Princes are absolutely depriued of the Cittie and place wherein they shall permit single combat but with a restriction that they are depriued of the Cittie fort or place which they hold of the Church or which they hold in fee farme Therfore the Councell doth not speake of the King of France or other absolute Kings vnlesse Bochellus will haue the Kingdome of France to be giuen to the Kings by the Church or that the King is not a direct Lord but a feudarie Therefore it had been great imprudence and malignitie to depraue so spitefully the words of the sacred Councell as Bochellus hath depraued which ought not to be presumed of the Cardinall of Pelleue and of the other Prelates 4 But truly it is not credible that Bochellus durst presume to commit so great and publike a forgerie as to falsifie the Records of the highest Court of Parliament and assembly of the three States of the Land especially printing his booke at Paris where without doubt he should not want men both to finde out easily and also to punish seuerely so great a forgerie and withall affirming that those articles were extracted out of the Register of the assembly held at Paris in the yeare 1593 and putting downe such particular circumstances as naming not only the day of the yeare but also of the moneth to wit the 19. of Aprill when the Lord Abbot of Orbais did on the behalfe of the Lord Cardinall of Pelleue bring a coppie of them c. and setting downe all the articles in French whereas the maine corps of his booke was Latin 5 Neither is the reason which D. Schulckenius bringeth to make this testimonie seeme incredible of any great moment For first it is vntrue which he saith that the Councell did not speake of the King of France and other absolute Kings The words of the Councell are cleare to the contrarie The Emperour saith the Councell Kings Dukes Princes Marquesses Earles and temporall Lords by what other name soeuer they be called who shall grant a place for single combat in their Countries among Christians let them be excommunicated and vnderstood depriued of the Iurisdiction and Dominion of the Cittie fort or place which they hold from the Church wherein or whereat they shall permit single combat and if they be held in fee farme let them forthwith be taken for the direct Lords but they that shall fight the combat and they that are called their Patrimi let them incurre ipso facto the punishment of Excommunication and forfeiture of all their goods c. So that it is plaine that the Councell speaketh of Emperours and of other absolute Kings and Princes 6. Secondly although it bee cleere that those words let them bee depriued of the Citty Fort or place which they hold from the Church be spoken with a restriction and limitation onely to those Citties Forts or places which bee held from the Church yet the words following and if they be held in fee farme let them foorthwith be taken for the direct Lords may absolutely and without the aforesaid restriction bee vnderstood of those Citties Forts or places which be held in fee farme either from the Church or from some other Soueraigne Prince as from the direct Lord of them So likewise the punishment of the confiscation of goods may be vnderstood as well without the territories of the Church as within the Popes dominions and may also bee vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes if perchance they should either bee Patrimi or fight themselues in single combat And so by consequence it might bee inferred that if the Councell hath authoritie to depriue absolute Kings of those dominions which thy hold in fee farme from other absolute Princes or to confiscate their goods or else the goods of their subiects without their consent the Councell also hath authoritie to depriue for the same cause absolute Princes of their Citties Forts and places whereof they are absolute Lords And so the Cardinall of Pelleue and other Prelates of France might vnderstand the Councell in that sense as also D. Weston in his Sanctuarie d q. 28. doth vnderstand them and thereupon vrgeth those words of the Councell of Trent as a principall argument to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a poynt of faith and decreed by the Councell of Trent who little thought that he should therefore haue beene censured of imprudencie and malignitie as D. Schulckenius censureth the Prelates and Parliament of France if they should vnderstand in that manner the Councell of Trent as Bochellus relateth and D. Weston expoundeth it 6. To the second testimony of Petrus Pithaus D. Schulckenius answereth in as shuffling a manner First I answer saith he e Pag. â— 24. that Antonie Posseuine commendeth Petrus Pithaeus for a learned man and a diligent searcher of antiquity and relateth all his workes and also his death and yet he maketh no mention of this booke and I confesse I neuer saw it But although neither Posseuine nor D. Schulckenius euer saw that booke yet I haue seene it and read it and it was printed at Paris by the authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. and it hath those maximes and positions which I related in my Apologie And therefore we haue the testimony of a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquitie by Posseuines confession that France hath euer held this position for vndoubted that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdome and that notwithstanding any admonitions Excommunications c. his subiects are bound to obey him in temporals 7. His second answer is that whosoeuer is the Authour of that booke it is cleerely false that France hath alwaies approoued that doctrine for certaine Marke now the reasons which D. Schulckenius bringeth to conuince this very learned man and diligent searcher of antiquity of manifest falshood For first it is repugnant saith he to the Councell of Claramont wherein Philip the first was excommunicated and depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne by Pope Vrbanus the second whereof see Iuo Carnotensis in his 28. epistle to Vrbanus But it is most cleerely false that Philip was in that Councell depriued of his Regall Honour and Crowne as both I f In Prefat ad Resp Apol. nu 36. seq and Mr. Iohn Barclay g In Prolegom num 75. haue cleerely shewed heeretofore for that no Historiographer writeth that he was deposed in that Councell but at the most onely excommunicated for that hee had forsaken his lawfull wife Berta and had married Bertrada who was also wife to another man For Sigebert Aimonius Matthew Paris Nauclerus Paulus Aemilius Robertus Gaguinus Papirius Massonius the Authour
and spirituall power that is of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes is made properly and formally one politike body or temporall common-wealth 12. And dare D. Schulckenius trow you presume to say that S. Chrysostom Theophylact Oecumenius * Ad Rom. 13. and those others whom partly I did cite before e Cap. 6. and partly I will beneath f Cap. 12. were not well in their wits when they affirmed That whether he be a Monke or a Priest or an Apostle he is according to S. Paul subiect to temporall Princes Or dare he presume to say that Dominicus Sotus Franciscus Victoria Medina Sayrus Valentia and innumerable other Diuines cited by Sayrus g Lib. 3. Thesaurie 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 16 and also by Salas h Disp 14. de Legibus sect 8. the Iesuite whose opinion hee approoueth and withall affirmeth That some few moderne Diuines doe hold the contrary were not well in their wits when they taught that Cleargie men are directly subiect to the ciuill Lawes which are not repugnant to their state nor to Ecclesiasticall Lawes or Canons and that Kings are Lords of Cleargie men and that Cleargie men are bound to come at their call and as Subiects to sweare allegeance and obedience to them as Salas in expresse words affirmeth and that Cleargie men are not exempted from secular power concerning the directiue or commanding force thereof in ciuill Lawes which are profitable to the good state of the common wealth which are the expresse words of Gregorius de Valentia tom 3. disp 9. q. 5. punc 3. 13 And to conclude dare D. Schulckenius presume to say that Cardinall Bellarmine was not well in his wits when hee wrote i Lib. 1. de Clericis câ—p 28. propos 2a. That Cleargie men are not in any manner exempted from the obligation of ciuill Lawes which are not repugnant to holy Canons or to the office of their Clergie although in the last Editions of his Booke he hath left out those words in any manner not alleaging any cause wherefore And therefore although Cleargie men are by the Ecclesiastical Lawes and priuiledges of temporall Princes exempted fâ—om the tribunalls of secular Magistrates and from paying of certaine tributes and personall seruices yet to say that they are exempted wholly from temporall subiection and that they are not subiect to the directiue power of the ciuil Lawes nor can truely and properly commit treasons against any temporall Prince for that they owe not true fidelitie allegiance and ciuill subiection to any temporall Prince as some few Iesuites of these latter times haue not feared to a uerre whose opinion Card. Bellarmine now contrarie to his ancient doctrine which for many yeeres together he publikely maintained doth now seeme to follow is repugnant in my iudgement both to holy Scriptures so expounded by the ancient Fathers to the common opinion of the Schoole Diuines and once also of Card. Bellarmine himselfe at which time I thinke D. Schulckenius will not say that he was not wel in his wits and also to the practise both of the primitiue Church and of all Christian Kingdomes euen to these dayes and it is a doctrine newly broached in the Christian world without sufficient proofe scandalous to Catholike Religion iniurious to Chrian Princes and odious to the pious eares of all faithfull and well affected Subiects 14. The other reason which D. Schulckenius allegeth why Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laicks doe not make properly and formally one politike body or temporall common-wealth for to say that temporall and spirituall power in abstracto doe make formally either one temporal or one spiritual coÌ„mon-wealth is very vntrue and repugnant to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before vnlesse we will speake very improperly to wit for that Cleargie men are superiour and not subiect is as insufficient as the former for that temporall Princes are in temporalls superiour and haue preheminence not onely ouer Lay-men but also ouer Cleargy men And therefore the temporall and spirituall power or Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes as they are referred to the visible heads heere on earth doe neither make one politike or temporall body nor one spirituall or Ecclesiasticall body nor one total common-wealth consisting of both powers whereof the Pope is head but they doe make formally and properly two totall bodies or common-wealths to wit the spirituall kingdome of Christ which consisteth onely of spirituall power and the earthly kingdomes of this Christian world which consisteth onely of temporall and ciuill authority both which bodies are commonly signified by the name of the Christian world or Christian common-wealth wherin all things are well ordered and rightly disposed and therefore superiours are aboue inferiours and inferiours are subiect to superiours but in temporall causes temporall power whereof temporall Princes are the head hath the preheminence not onely ouer Lay-men but also ouer Cleargy-men and in spirituall causes the spirituall power whereof the Pope is head is superiour and to confound these two powers were to breake all good order as before I also declared And therfore for good reason I granted the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument and denied his consequence 15. But fourthly obserue good Reader another palpable vntruth which D. Schulckenius in this place affirmeth Card. Bellarmine as you haue seene endeuoured by his third argument to proue that the temporall power as it is temporall is among Christians subiect to the spirituall power as it is spirituall and his argument was this If the temporall gouernment hinder the spirituall good the Prince is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with the hinderance of the temporall good therefore it is a signe that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall .. The antecedent proposition I did grant and I denied his consequence Now D. Schulckenius affirmeth that for this cause I denyed his consequence for that of the temporall and spirituall power is not made formally one politike body which is very vntrue For although I should acknowledge as in very deede I doe that the temporall and spirituall power as they are referred to Christ the invisible and celestiall head doe make properly and formally one totall body or common-wealth consisting of both powers which may be called the Christian common wealth but more properly the Christian world yet I would and doe denie his consequence and the reason hereof I alledged before for that they are not essentiall parts of this totall bodie as the bodie soule are of man but integrall parts as two shoulders two sides hands feete eyes eares c. are integrall parts of mans bodie and doe not make an essentiall but an integrall compound in which kinde of compound it is not necessarie as I shewed before k Cap. 6. nu 6. 10. that one part bee subiect to an other but it sufficeth that both be subiect to the head And although I should also grant as I doe that temporall and spirituall power doe
51. in Act. commendeth S. Paul that he would be iudged before him whom he was accused to haue wronged And Card. Bellarmine himselfe not agreable to this his reason did before in his Controuersies affirme y Lib. 2. de Rom. Ponâ— cap. 19. which as yet he hath not recalled that S Paul did for good and iust cause appeale to Caesar when he was accused for raising sedition and tumults in the people And in that very place of his Recognitions where he recalleth his opinion he doth very plainely insinuate as you haue seene that the cause whereof he was accused was criminall for which he was in danger saith Card. Bellarmine of a most vniust death 13 True it is that S. Paul did preach to the Iewes the resurrection of Christ according to the predictions of the holy Prophets and for this cause they accused him of sedition and to be a man worthy of death and therefore he appealed to the tribunall of Caesar not that Caesar should iudge whether Christ was risen from death to life for this indeed had been a spirituall cause but whether to preach to the Iewes the resurrection of Christ according to the predictions of the holy Prophets were sedition and a crime worthy to be punished with death by the Secular Magistrate Wherefore Festus the President of Iewrie and King Agrippa after that S. Paul had discoursed about the resurrection of Christ z Act. 26. and King Agrippa had said to S. Paul A little thou dost perswade me to become a Christian they all rose vp and going aside they spake among themselues saying that this man hath done nothing worthy of death or bonds which answere also made Lycias the Tribune to the President Foelix before in the 23. Chapter 14 A third reason which moued Card. Bellarmine to recall his former opinion and that S Paul did not appeale to Caesar as to his lawfull Iudge is for that saith he a In tract contra Barclaium cap. 3. pag. 49. it doth seeme to be altogether repugnant to the Gospell that Christ did not free expresly and by name S. Peter and the Apostles from the obligation wherein they stood bound to Heathen Princes For Christ Mat. 17. did pay the didrachmes for himselfe and Peter to auoide scandall For that otherwise neither himselfe nor Peter were bound to pay that tribute he did demonstrate by those words The Kinges of the earth of whom doe they receiue tribute or cense of their children or of strangers And Peter answering of strangers Iesus said vnto him therefore the sonnes are free by which words he declared that he was free from all tribute cense for that he was the sonne of the King of all Kings and because when the sonne of a King is free also his familie is reputed free therefore Peter and the Apostles who by the gracious fauour of Christ did appertaine to his familie ought also to be free 15 But this reason is neither sufficient nor agreable to Card. Bellarmines owne principles For first Card. Baronius affirmeth b Ad ann Christi 33. nu 31. that this didrachme which was exacted from our Sauiour in this place was not a tribute due to Caesar but onely to God for the vse of the Temple according to the law of God decreed in the 30. chapter of Exodus And therefore from this place no sufficient argument can be drawne according to Card. Baronius doctrine that the Apostes were exempted from paying of tributes or any other temporall subiection due to temporall Princes Yea and which is more Card. Bellarmine himselfe in the latter Editions of his Controuersies approueth this Exposition for most true There be two interpretations saith he c Lib. 1 de Clericis cap. 28. in propos 4. of this place Therefore sonnes are free The former is of S. Hillarie who affirmeth that this place is onely meant of the tribute which God did impose vpon the Children of Israell Exodus 30. to the vse of the temple which tribute was properly called a didrachme and according to this Exposition which seemeth to vs to be most true this is the force of the argument The Kings of the earth do not exact tribute of their sonnes but of strangers therefore the King of heauen will not exact tribute of mee who am his proper and naturall sonne The second interpretation which is of S. Hierome who expoundeth those wordes of the tribute which was to bee paid to Caesar seemeth to bee the lesse probable because the tribute which was to be paid to Caesar was not a Didrachme but a penny as it is plaine by Math. 22. Shew me the tribute coyne and they offered him a penny Neither can it be demonstrated by any found reason that the tribute of the Didrachme was wont to be paid to Caesar but after the Ascension of Christ into heauen For Iosephus lib. 7. de bello Iudaico cap. 26. doth write that the tribute of the Didrachme which all the Iewes did pay to the temple euery yeare should afterwards be brought into the Capitole Thus Card. Bellarmine 16 Wherefore it is strange that hee should now be so forgetfull as to bring this text of holy Scripture for a reason why hee changed his former opinion and which reason also hee saith doth demonstrate that Christ our Sauiour did expresly and by name free S. Peter and the Apostles from the obligation wherein they stood bound to Caesar whereas Card. Bellarmine himselfe as you haue seene expoundeth this place not of any tribute to bee paid to Caesar but onely due to God for the vse of the temple And therefore small reason had Card. Bellarmine for the aforesaid reasons which are so weake and repugnant to his owne doctrine as you haue seene to recall his former opinion which for so long time hee had in publike Schooles and writings with the common opinion of Diuines taught and maintained against the Canonists but truely he had no reason to condemne for such weak reasons the contrary opinion of the Schoole Diuines of whose profession he himselfe also is as improbable 17 Far more agreeable to reason and also to Card. Bellarmines profession hee being a Schoole Diuine were it for him in my iudgement to returne to his ancient opinion which the Schoole Diuines doe generally maintaine and rather to recall some other his opinions wherein hee plainely contradicteth his owne doctrine as I haue shewed before As that our Sauiour by those wordes therefore sonnes are free c. Math. 17. did expresly and by name free S. Peter and the Apostles from the obligation wherein they stood bound to Heathen Princes which is flatly repugnant to that which hee taught in another place that these wordes are not meant of any tribute which was to be paid to Caesar but onely of the tribute which God did impose Exod. 30. vpon the children of Israell to the vse of the Temple And besides that the cause whereof the Iewes did accuse S. Paul and for
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
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
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
of murthering them for hitherto he hath so cleared the difficulty as you haue seene that I could not haue desired more cleare and fit examples of propositions to confirme my interpretation of those words deposed or murthered then which he himselfe hath brought to impugne it Thus therefore he writeth r Nu. 14. 15 16. 55. But to cleare all this difficulty and to make it manifest that the doctrine of the deposition of Princes is abiured in the Oath as impious and hereticall no lesse then the supposed doctrine of murthering them I shall need no other testimony or proofe thereof then such as may be taken from the Oath it selfe considered euen according to those rules which Widdrington himselfe hath laid downe for the interpretation of it in the very first chapter of his Theological disputation Å¿ Nu 7. where he professeth to approue follow the doctrine of Suarez t Lib. 6. de leg cap. 1. in that point as being conforme to the common opinion of Lawyers and Diuines Now then he teacheth there out of Suarez that if there be any doubt or question concerning the sense of a law or any part thereof three thinges are specially to be pondered for the exposition of it to wit the words of the Law the minde or intention of the Law-maker and the reason or end of the Law and the same he saith are also to be considered for the clearing of any difficulty or doubt in the Oath 56. As for the words of the Law and consequently of the Oath he saith that they are to be vnderstood according to their proper and vsuall signification and the reason is saith Suarez because words are so to be vsed in common speech and much more in Lawes which ought to be cleare but it is euident that the words of the clause now in question being taken in their vsuall and proper signification doe make clearely for vs wherein I dare bouldly apâ—eale to the iudgement of any discreet Reader for albeit such a sense as Widdrington imagineth may be picked or rather wringed out of thâ—se words yet no man at the first sight will or can reasonably conceiue any thing else thereby but that either part of the disiunctiue clause is abiured alike 57. For although the coniunction or is sometimes taken for a copulatiue yet it is commonly a disiunctiue and hath that signification diuers times euen in this oath as any man may see that list to obserue it As for example to omit all the rest which might be vrged to this purpose the very next words before deposed or murthered are excoÌ„municated or depriued wherein it is cleare that or hath the ordinarie and proper signification of a disiunctiue giuing to vnderstand that whether Princes be onely excommunicated or depriued also of their right to their States by the Pope it is impious and hereticall doctrine to teach that they may be either deposed or murthered Also the same is to be noted in the words immediatly following to wit by their Subiects or any other wherein it is signified that neither Subiects nor yet any other may depose or murther Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope and the like may bee exemplified in the other clauses of the Oath at least thirty times for so often I doe find the coniunction or therein and alwaies vsed properly for a disiunctiue as also I dare say it is vsed in like maner and in the same sense aboue a hundred times in the same Statute Thus M. Fitzherbert 58 Now you shall see how well he hath cleered this difficulty His Argument if it bee reduced to a syllogisticall forme is this The words of euery law and consequently of this Oath are according to Suarez whose doctrine I approue heerein to bee taken in their proper and vsuall signification but those words deposed or murthered c. according to their proper and vsuall signification doe signifie that the supposed Doctrine of murthering Princes and of deposing them is abiured alike therefore in the aforesaid clause I abhorre detest and abiure c. the doctrine of deposing and of murthering Princes which bee excommunicated c. are both abiured as hereticall The Minor hee proueth two wayes first by appealing to the iudgement of euery discreet man who at the first sight can reasonably conceiue nothing else but that either part of that disiunctiue clause is abiured alike Secondly for that although the Coniunction or bee sometimes taken for a copulatiue yet it is commonly a disiunctiue and hath the ordinary and proper signification of a disiunctiue and in this oath wherein it is found at least thirty times and in the same statute aboue a hundred times it is alwaies vsed properly for a disiunctiue coniunction 59 But first obserue good Reader those words of my Aduersary the supposâ—d doctrine of murthering Princes For a little beneath u hee affirmeth that murder implyeth alwaies an vnlawfull act yea and a mortall sinne whereby hee doth seeme to insinuate that the Oath speaketh onely of murther in this sense and supposeth that some Catholikes doe teach that it is lawfull to murther Princes as murther implyeth an vnlawfull act whereas no Catholike can bee so ignorant as to imagine much lesse to teach that it is lawfull to doe an vnlawfull act or to commit a mortall sinne seeing that God himselfe cannot giue authority to murther any man as murther implyeth an vnlawfull act or a mortall sinne Neither did his Maiesty and the Parliament take murther only in this sense but by the word murthered they vnderstood that all killing of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope was directly and absolutely an vnlawfull act and they did suppose that some Catholikes taught this doctrine that the Pope in order to spirituall good might giue leaue to take away the liues of wicked and hereticall Princes by all those waies either publike or secret and vnawares by which temporall Princes in order to temporall good haue authority to take away the liues of rebellious subiects who either cannot at all or at least cannot without great preiudice to the publike good of the State bee publikely apprehended or condemned 60 And I would to God that this doctrine were onely a supposed doctrine and had neuer beene taught or approued by any Catholike But alas it cleerely followeth from the doctrine and grounds for the Popes power to depriue Princes of all their temporall right and authority as I most euidently did demonstrate in my Apologie x nu 43. seq to which my Argument D. Schulckenius y Pag. 144 I answer saith hee that so many wordes are needlesse for whither al these doe tend euery man seeth neither is it hard to solue the Arguments let them passe as not making to the matter onely answereth with a transeat or let it passe as impertinent to the matter and the same is sufficiently confirmed by the same D. Schulckenius z Pag. 413. 4â—0 in other places of his booke and before him
consequently of this oath established by a publike law ought to bee drawne to that sense if there be no other let which containeth no vntruth iniustice or absurdity and that the Aduerbe as in common sense and vnderstanding of men to which common and vsuall sense his Maiesty doth in expresse wordes bind the takers of this oath doth onely denote a similitude and not a reality vnlesse the matter which is treated of doth enforce vs therevnto there is great reason that the Aduerbe as should in the word impious by vertue of the matter and not by force of the word being taken in his most proper and vsuall signification signifie a reality and in the word hereticall taking hereticall in that rigorous manner so often repeated should denote onely a similitude or some equality by the way of comparison 124 And by this which hath beene said that also which M. Fitzherbert lastly addeth is easily answered Furthermore saith hee Å¿ nu 27. 28. it is euident that the Aduerbe as being considered as it is ioyned with the word impious doth clerely imply the reality whereof I speake signifying that the said doctrine is truely impious and wicked and not onely to be esteemed so by the way of similitude or comparison as it is manifest by the wordes before and after which are I doe from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine c. Whereby it is cleare that his Maiesties meaning was to cause the takers of this oath to condemne that doctrine to bee truely impious seeing that hee will haue them to sweare that they abhorre and detest it from their heart and calleth it also a damnable doctrine 125 And this being so I would gladly know of Widdrington what reason hee can haue to take the Aduerbe as in one sense as it is referred to hereticall and in an other as it is ioyned with impious seeing that is referred to both alike with a copulatiue coniunction the one immediately following the other will hee say that it is to bee taken properly in the one and improperly in the other How can that stand with his former rules out of Suarez touching the cleare and perspicuous sense which is required in Lawes and Oaths especially in this oath wherein there is an expresse clause afterwards to exclude all equinocatioâ— therefore hee must needs grant that if the doctrine be abiured as truely impious it is also abiured as truely heâ—eticall or else hee must make such a Gallimaufrey as was neuer made in any law or oath within the compasse of foure wordes onely 126. But this is easily answered by that which I haue already saide For first if the word hereticall be taken in that sense as Alphonsus de Castro Couerrnuias and many other learned Catholikes doe take it for euery false doctrine which is repugnant to the word of God or diuine reuelation which is a proper and vsuall signification of the word hereticall and in which sense also as I conceiue his Maiesty and other Protestants doe take that word and not for that doctrine which is made hereticall by the definition or declaration of the Catholike Romane Church then the aduerbe as both in the word impious and also in the word hereticall doth by vertue of the matter and other circumstances denote a reality of impiety and heresie although not by force of the word being taken in the most proper and vsuall signification which being an aduerbe of similitude would onely denote a similitude both of heresie and also impiety vnlesse the matter with other circumstances did imply the contrary 127. But if the word hereticall be taken for that doctrine which is made hereticall by the Church and which before the declaration or definition of the Church is not accounted hereticall although it be in very deede a false doctrine and contrary to the word of God reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures which signification of the word hereticall whether it be the more proper and the more vsuall then the former or no I will not now contend it being sufficient and ouer sufficient for my purpose that the former sense is proper and vsuall among Catholikes and not metaphoricall and vnusuall then the reason which a little aboue I alleaged is very sufficient and my Aduersarie's demaund is clearly satisfied to wit why the aduerbe as should by vertue of the matter and by the approued rules of Diuines and Lawyers for the interpretation of the words of euery Law being referred to impious signifie a realitie of impiety and being referred to hereticall should onely denote a similitude of heresie taking heresie in that rigorous sense although by vertue of the word and proper signification of the aduerbe as it being an aduerbe of similitude both in the word impious and also in the word hereticall doth onely signifie as I haue saide a similitude of impiety and heresie Neither then should the aduerbe as be taken properly in one and improperly in the other as my Aduersary would seeme to inferre but it is taken properly in both for that the aduerbe as doth properly and vsually by reason of the matter sometimes denote a realitie and sometimes a similitude although most properly and most vsually it being an aduerbe of similitude doth by force of the word denote onely a similitude 128 Secondly to that which M. Fitzherbert obiecteth touching equinocatioÌ„ which by an expresse clause is excluded in this oath I answered also in my Theological Disputation t Cap. 8. Sec 2. that his Maiesty by those words without any equiuocation did not vnderstand and meane that in the oath no equiuocall word or sentence was contained for this is almost impossible seeing that most words are equiuoâ—all and haue diuerse yea and sometimes also proper and vsuall significations But his Maiesties meaning was that the swearer should not equiuocate that is deale vnsincerely but he should deale plainely and sincerely without any fraude or guile nor take the words in an other sense then the common meaning and vnderstanding of them doe beare And so those words without any equiuocation c. are onely a declaration of those former words And all these thinges I doe plainely and sincerely acknowledge and sweare c. For it is one thing to vse equiuocall words which may be called a materiall equiuocation and an other thing to equiuocate or to vse formall equiuocation For to equiuocate properly or to vse formall equiuocation as it is commonly vnderstood in this Kingdome is to vse equiuocall words or some secret reseruation of purpose to delude the hearer so that he who heareth the words vnderstandeth them in an other sense then he who vttereth them and it importeth an vnsincere manner of dealing If therefore in this oath there be perchance many common senses of the same word sentence or proposition all circumstances duely considered we ought to take it in that common sense wherein we are perswaded his Maiestie would haue vs to take it for
cap. meruit de privilegijs wherein hee declareth that no preiudice shall arise to the King of France by that Extrauagant of Pope Boniface but that all things shall be vnderstood to be in the same state as they were before that definition as well concerning the Church as concerning the King and Kingdome of France Thirdly for that all the authorities which hee bringeth from holy Scriptures to proue that the Pope hath both the temporall and spirituall sword doe proue only that the Pope is the spirituall Pastour of the Church and hath spirituall power to binde and loose to iudge and punish spiritually as whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth c. and a spirituall man doth iudge all things and he is iudged by none which place some Catholike writers expound of publike and authenticall iudgments For all the other places of holy Scripture which Pope Boniface alledgeth are either taken in the mysticall and not in the literall sense as those behold two swords here and put vp thy sword into the scabard but from the mysticall sense no forcible argument can bee drawne as all Diuines doe grant to proue any doctrine vnlesse to haue that mysticall sense it be declared in other places of holy Scripture or else they make nothing to the purpose as are those words which God spake to the Prophet Ieremie Behold I haue appointed thee this day ouer the Gentiles and ouer Kingdomes that thou maiest plucke vp and destroy and waste and dissipate and build and plant not to destroy nations and kingdomes and raise vp others but by his preaching to plant virtues and destroy vices as S. Hierome expoundeth and by foretelling the destruction of Kingdomes and Nations if they doe not repent and their increase and saluation if they will bee converted Neither is the Pope S. Ieremies Successour in the spirit of prophesie neither doe wee read that Ieremie destroyed any kingdom although he fulfilled all that which he was appointed to do by Alm God 41. It is the same saith Andreas Capella vpon this place to appoint him ouer the Gentiles and to giue him a Prophet in the Gentiles as he said before I giue thee power and authoritie saith God to declare and foretell in my name as my Prophet the ruines and wastings of the Gentiles and of Kingdomes That thou threaten my enemies whom in their Countries I haue planted placed confirmed erected that I will abolish them with captiuities vnlesse they will repent And contrariwise that I will build them and plant them againe that is restore to their ancient state them whom I shall destroy and abollish if they will acknowledge their sinnes And in these words all the charge of Ieremie is comprehended and the matter of this whole booke is declared For it is a prophecie of the destruction of the City and temple and of the captiuitie of the people and of their returne from captiuity and of the reedifying of the temple and City and of the ouerthrow of other nations and kingdomes Thus Capella And the same exposition of these words hath the Glosse vpon this place Besides Pope Boniface in this Extrauagant alledgeth for Scripture that which is no Scripture to wit for the truth testifying the spirituall power hath to institute or instruct the earthly power and to iudge it if it shall not be good which words are not to be found in the holy Scripture 42. Lastly there is no more account to be made of the authoritie of Pope Boniface the eight for this his doctrine in this point touching the Popes temporal authoritie ouer temporall Princes if we take him as a priuate Doctour deliuering his opinion then of an other Doctour as well learned as he was who holdeth with the Canonists that the Pope is direct Lord King of the world not only spirituall but also temporall for that Pope Boniface was of this opinion that the Pope hath direct power not only in spiritualls but also in temporalls Whereupon he wrote to Philip the faire King of France that he was subiect to him in spirituals and temporalls and that all those who should hold the contrary he reputed for heretikes and that the kingdome of France by reason of the Kings disobedience was falne to the Church For which words Pope Boniface is taxed by Ioannes Tilius x In Chron. ad annum 1302. Bishop of Meldune by Robertus Guaguinus y Lib. 7. in Philippo Pulch. by Platina z In vita Bonifaci◠octaui and others of great pride impudencie and arrogancie Whereupon Paulus Aemilius who doth otherwise greatly fauour Pope Boniface writeth thus * In Philippo Pulchro Pope Boniface did add at which all men did marmaile that the King of France ought to reuerence the Pope not only in sacred manner and by Episcopall right as a Father of our soules but he ought also to acknowledge him as his Prince by ciuill Iurisdiction and in prophane matters and dominion All this being considered as also that all the words of that Extrauagant are so generall that they may be vnderstood as well if not better of the Popes direct dominion in temporalls as of his indirect power to dispose of temporals which is only in order to spirituall good what great reckoning is to be made of this cōstitution of P. Boniface it being withal reuersed by P. Clemens the 5. who next but one succeeded him I remit to the cōsideration of the iudicious Reader Chap. 10. Wherein the similitude of Pope Innocent the third who compareth the spirituall and temporall power to the Sun Moone is examined 1. THe sixt and last argument which Card. Bellarmine bringth to proue the sbiection of the temporall power to the spirituall is taken from the authority of Pope Innocent the third who in cap. Solitae de maioritate obedientia doth wel saith he a In tract contra Barcl c. 13. in fine compare the spirituall temporall power to the Sun Moone Therefore as the moone is subiect to the Sun for that she receiueth light from the Sun the Sun is not subiect to the Moone for that the Sun receiueth nothing from the Moon so also a king is subiect to the Pope the Pope is not subiect to a king 2. But first this similitude doth not proue that the temporall power it selfe is subiect to the spirituall or which is all one that a temporall King is subiect to the Pope in respect of his temporall power which he doth not receiue from the Pope but in respect of the light of faith which a temporall King receiueth from the spirituall power And therefore as the Moone when she is eclypsed in opposition to the Sun doth not loose that little light which according to the doctrin of the Philosophers and astronomers she hath of her owne nature and not deriued from the Sunne so temporall Princes when of Catholikes or Christians they become heretikes or infidells and are in opposition to the Pope do not loose
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