the priueledge it selfe is named King at whose instance S. Gregorie saith he granted that priueledge Baronius might with the same reason haue affirmed that not only the subscription but also the priueledge it selfe was afterwards made and adioyned to S. Gregories Epistles which without doubt Baronius would quickly haue acknowledged if it had not beene for those words honore suo priuetur which hee thought made greatly for the Popes power to depose Princes seeing that vpon far weaker grounds hee sticketh not to deny oftentimes priueledges and antiquities which neuer before were called in question 12. And although Pope Gregorie the seuenth in his Epistle to the Bishop of Metz doth not cite this priueledge of S. Gregorie granted to the Monasterie of S. Meâ—ard which is no small coniecture that this priueledge was not extant in those daies among the Epistles of S. Gregorie for otherwise it bearing so great a shew of being authenticall by the subscription of 30 Bishops and the King and Queene of France who were witnesses thereunto it would by all likelihood haue beene cited by Pope Gregorie the seuenth but an other priueledge granted to an other Monasterie by S Gregorie in his Epistle to one Senator Abbot Å¿ Lib. 11. epist epist 10. wherin S. Gregorie did not say honore suo priuetur let him be depriued of his honour but potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want or I desire he may want not his honour but the worthinesse of his power and honour which words are not so forcible to prooue the Popes authoritie to depriue Kings of their princely honour and power but at the most to declare them to bee vnworthy of it for some crime committed by them and to be worthy also to be damned in hell with Iudas the Traitor for that many a one may be a true King and haue princely power and honour who is vnworthy thereof Neuerthelesse besides that the aforesaid words do containe no sentence of depriuation but onely a curse or imprecation which kinde of imprecations euen containing anathema was frequent in the priueledges granted by Lay-men yea and vpon sepulchres that men should be fearefull to violate them as Baronius t Ad an 1097. Num. 51. relateth also this priueledge mentioned in S. Gregories epistle to Senator is not so authenticall both for that it hath neither date of any yeare or day when it was written nor subscription of any witnesse which by likelihood it would haue had if there had beene any authenticall copie thereof and also for that the Authour of the booke intituled de vnitate Ecclesiae who is thought to be Venericus Bishop of Vercellis and liued in Pope Gregorie the seuenth his time answering that epistle of Pope Gregorie the seuenth to the Bishop of Metz doth bouldly affirme that those words potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want the worthinesse of his power and honour were not in those daies extant among the workes of S. Gregorie Whereby the Reader may easily perceiue what weake demonstrations and authorities Card. Bellarmine doth so often inculcate to conuince this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Painces to be a point of faith 13 Thirdly it is also repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to those most famous French writers whom I related before But although it be true that the most part of those seuenteene French writers related by Card Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay and now in his Schulckenius against me are of opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes this neuerthelesse may also be true which Petrus Pithaeus affirmeth to wit that France vnderstanding thereby the State of France hath euer held the the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue the King of France of his Kingdom May it not truly be said that the Kingdome and State of England hath from the first yeere of Queene Elizabeths reigne euen to this present time held that the Catholike Romane Religion is not the true Religion notwithstanding that not onely seuenteene but seuenteene thousands there haue been of English Catholikes since the first beginning of hir reigne till now who haue held the contrarie wherefore when Petrus Pithaeus affirmed that France hath euer held that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King by France hee did not vnderstand euery particular French-man but the State and temporall Gouernours of the Kingdome of France which his assertion is also confirmed by the State and Parliament of Paris first in the censuring of Card Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay then in burning his Schulckenius written against me afterwards in condemning Suarez booke against his Maiesties Apologie for maintayning so stifly this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls which they call a scandalous and seditious a damnable and pernicious doctrine and now lastly by the decree of the Parliament of Paris the second of Ianuarie of this present yeere 1615 wherein it is ordained that it shall not bee held for problematique and also by the new oath of allegiance like vnto that of ours but that ours is more sweete and more modest as the Cardinall du Peron u Pag. 100. affirmeth which those of the lower house of the generall assembly of all the States of France whom the same Cardinall du Peron in his speech to them confesseth to be Catholikes x Pag. 96. endeauoured to haue made for a fundamentall Law 14 Lastly it is also repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to reason it is repugnant to the principles of the Catholike faith For if the Subiects of the King of France be bound to obey their King being excommunicated and that they can not be absolued from this obedience by the Pope it followeth that either the King of France can not be bound by Christ his Vicar with the bond of ExcoÌ„munication or that his Subiects can not be loosed from the bond of their allegiance and obedience Both are repugnant to the words of Christ who said to his Vicar whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth shall be bound also in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shall be loosed also in heauen Neither did Christ except the King of France or his Subiects and who hath excepted them I can not tell This I know that no man could by right except them and whosoeuer will not be subiect to the keyes of the Church I know and with a cleare voice I doe pronounce that hee will neither bee a Christian nor can â—â—e appertaine to the kingdome of Christ 15 Great words to small purpose For although it be true that Card Bellarmine Suarez and some few others are or seeme to be of opinion that it is against reason and against the principles of the Catholike faith to hold that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes yet it is also true that other learned Catholikes are of opinion that it is neither against reason nor against the principles of the Catholike faith to hold
that the Pope hath no such authoritie Must the opinion of Card Bellarmine or of Suarez or of any other learned Catholike be a rule of reason to all other learned Catholikes or to bee accounted by all Catholikes the principles of the Catholike faith All Catholikes doe confesse that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate a Christian King and that Subiects are not bound to obey an excommunicated King in those things which the Censure of Excommunication of it owne nature and by the institution of Christ doth forbid but to absolue Subiects from their temporall allegiance either by vertue of Excommunication which being a spirituall Censure hath neither of it owne nature nor by the institution of Christ such a temporall effect or by the sentence of depriuation this many learned Catholikes with the State of France doe affirme not to belong to the Popes spirituall authoritie to binde or loose 16 True also it is that all Christians are subiect to the keyes of the Church but these keyes are spirituall not temporall of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes neither is any Christian excepted from that authoritie which Christ gaue to S. Peter by those words whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. But those words are not to be vnderstood of temporall but onely of spirituall bindings and loosings as I haue often shewed neither did any of the ancient Fathers euer extend the keyes of the Church to the absoluing of Subiects from their temporall allegiance or to the depriuing of Kings and Princes of their temporall liues libertie kingdomes or goods as by some Catholikes of these latter ages contrarie to the true meaning and institution of Christ and to the vnderstanding and practise of the primitiue Church they haue been violently wrested To that whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. I answer saith Ioannes Parisiensis according to S. Chrysostome Rabanus that by this is not vnderstood any power to be giuen but spirituall to wit to absolue from the bond of sinnes For it were foolish to vnderstand that by this is giuen a power to absolue from the bond of debts and much lesse from that great and high debt of temporall allegiance 16. These be all the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against those authorities which I broght in my Theologicall Disputation Now let any indifferent Reader iudge whether he hath sufficiently answered those authorities or rather by cauilling and shuffling laboured cunningly to shift them off and whether Mr. Fitzherbert might not blush to affirme so boldly that D. Schulckenius to whom he cunningly also as you haue seene remitteth his English Reader for his answer to those authorities hath answered particularly to euerie one of them and prooued cleerely that diuerse of them make flat against Widdrington and many nothing at all for him being truely vnderstood and that some others are worthily reiected being either so absurd that they are easily confuted by the circumstances of the places alledged or else heretikes as appeareth by their doctrine in other things or knowen Schismatikes who liuing in the times of the Emperours or Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauours of which sort neuerthelesse there are very few so that of all the Authours that Widdrington hath scraped together to make some shew of probabilitie in his doctrine hee hath no one cleere and sufficient witnesse to iustifie the same which how true it is or rather most cleerely false I remit to the consideration of the indifferent and iudicious Reader 17. For the testimony of Iohn Trithemius a learned and vertuous Catholike who expressely affirmeth that it is a controuersie among Schoolmen as yet not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no partly hee reiecteth partly that word Schoolemen hee ridiculously expoundeth to be Historiographers Grammarians Poets as Sigebert Valla Dante 's who neuerthelesse are by Trithemius himselfe related to be also excellent Diuines and partly to repell his testimonie he falsely grossely and vnaduisedly taxeth him with errours committed in his historie and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Reader to Posseuine who as you haue seene both in that and also other points of historie hath shamefully erred himselfe and neuerthelesse that which Trithemius affirmeth Iacobus Almaine a famous Schoole-Diuine and classicall Doctour of Paris who liued also in those daies confirmeth to be true whose words D. Schulckenius doth cunningly passe ouer without any answer at all Albericus a Classicall Doctour of the canon and ciuill Law for that hee deliuereth his opinion with submission is ready to recal it if it should prooue erroneous as euery good Catholike ought to doe he will haue to speake wauering and altogether doubtfull Ioannes Parisiensis a most learned Schoole-Diuine partly he will haue to make nothing for my opinion and yet he confesseth that Parisiensis is of opinion that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue a Prince of his Kingdome by a iuridicall sentence of depriuation which neuerthelesse is the maine and sole point which I contend to prooue and partly to cleane ouerthrow his testimony he taxeth him without sufficient ground of many errours which errours neuerthelesse although he should haue maintained doe cleerely confirme this doctrine against the Popes power to depose Princes The testimony of Mr. D. Barclay a famous learned and vertuous Catholike he no more regardeth then of an heretike To M. Blackwell and those other English Priests he answereth nothing The Records of the generall assembly of the States of France related by Bochellus with such particular circumstances that no man can misdoubt of them for a friuolous reason hee accounteth incredible The testimonie of Petrus Pithaeus a very learned Catholike and a diligent searcher of antiquity by Posseuines confession affirming that France hath euer held for certaine that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose their King also for friuolous reasons hee vtterly reieiecteth which neuerthelesse the late proceeding of the Court of Parliament against his and such like bookes hath sufficiently confirmed And if this manner of answering authorities is to bee admitted who may not easily shift off any authorities whatsoeuer especially when they shall haue their trumpetters to extoll all their writings and answers to the skie and to depresse their aduersaries and who shall seeme to make against them whether they be liuing or dead euen to the pit of hell appeaching them of heresie errour schisme and such like hainous crimes 18. Many other authorities I brought in my Apologie which doe cleerely contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine which onely I tooke vpon mee to confute whereof some of them doe expressely affirme that the Church of Christ hath onely a spirituall and not a temporall sword Others that temporall Princes are in temporall affaires next vnder God and to bee punished with temporall punishments by God alone and that the temporall power is independant of the spirituall Others that neither Childerike was deposed nor the Romane Empire translated from the Graecians
A CLEARE SINCERE AND MODEST confutation of the vnsound fraudulent and intemperate Reply of T. F. who is knowne to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert now an English IESVITE Wherein ALSO ARE CONFVTED THE chiefest obiections which D. Schulckenius who is commonly said to be Card. Bellarmine hath made against WIDDRINTONS Apologie for the right or Soueraigntie of temporall PRINCES BY Roger Widdrington an English Catholike LVKE 6. Benedicite maledicentibus vobis orate pro calumniantibus vos Blesse them that curse you and pray for them that calumniate you IHS Permissu Superiorum 1616. THE CONTENTS of this Treatise The Epistle to English Catholikes Wherein 1. IT is shewed first that it is not safe for the consciences of Catholikes to adhere alwaies to the Pope and neglect the command of their temporall Prince 2 That if the Pope should exact from Catholikes that obedience which is due onely to their temporall Prince they should by obeying the Pope disobey the command of Christ and be truly traitours to their Prince 3 That it is possible for Popes to challenge such an obedience and that de facto Pope Boniface did challenge it of the King and inhabitants of France 4 That it is probable that the Pope that now is in condemning the late Oath of Allegeance and in challenging a power to depose temporall Princes demaundeth of English Catholikes the foresaid temporall Allegiance and vsurpeth that authoritie which Christ hath not giuen him 5 That although it should be granted that it is probable that the Pope hath such an authoritie yet so long as it is but probable it is titulus sine re a title which can neuer be put in execution without manifest disobedience to God and iniustice to temporall Princes 6 That the Pope neither is the Iudge of temporall Princes in temporall causes nor as yet by any authenticall instrument hath defined that he hath power to depose temporall Princes and that therefore it is probable that he hath no such power 7 That the manner of his Holinesse proceeding in condemning my bookes and commanding me to purge my selfe and the fallacious dealing of my Aduersaries doth clearely shew that they in their consciences are not perswaded that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith 8 The causes of the beginning and increase of this doctrine are briefely insinuated and that if all temporall Princes would vse the like meanes to defend their Soueraigntie this controuersie would be quickly at an end 9 That Catholikes are bound to read and examine this question otherwise their ignorance will be willfull damnable and inexcusable 10 That they may lawfully read my bookes notwithstanding the Popes or rather Card. Bellarmines prohibition to the contrary and that I deserued not at their hands such vncharitable words and deeds for the loue and paines I haue taken for their sakes The Preface to the Reader Wherein M. r Fitzherberts Preface is confuted the matter which Widdrington handleth and the manner how he proceedeth therein is declared and his doctrine proued to be truly probable and to be neither preiudiciall to his Maiesties seruice nor to the consciences of Catholikes and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against that rule of the Law brought by Widdrington In dubijs melior est conditio possidentis In doubts or disputable causes the condition of him who hath possession is to be preferred are confuted The first Part. wherein The authorities and testimonies of those learned Catholikes which Widdrington in his Theologicall Disputation brought against the Popes power to depose Princes and which M. r Fitzherbert cunningly passeth ouer and for answer to them remitteth his English Reader to D. Schulckenius a Latine writer are briefely and perspicuously examined and the Replyes which Doctor Schulckenius maketh against them are confuted Chap. 1. Wherein the authoritie of Iohn Trithemius an Abbot and famous writer of the order of S. Benedict is examined and the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against it are ouerthrowne Chap. 2. Wherein the authoritie of Albericus Roxiatus a famous Lawyer and Classicall Doctor is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against it are confuted Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis a famous Doctor of Paris is examined and the exceptions of D. Schulckenius against him are proued to be insufficient Chap. 4. Wherein the authoritie of M. r Doctor Barclay a famous and learned Catholike is briefely examined Chap. 5. Wherein are set downe the authorities of many English Catholikes who haue publikely declared their opinions as M. r George Blackwell M. r William Warmington M. r Iohn Barclay M. r William Barret Bishop Watson Abbot Fecknam Doctor Cole both the Harpesfields Mr Edward Rishton M. r Henry Orton M. r Iames Bosgraue M. r Iohn Hart M. Iames Bishop related by Mr. Camden and those thirteene learned and vertuous Priests and most of them as yet liuing whose names I related in my Theologicall Disputation and whose protestation which I set downe verbatim in my Appendix to Suarez must needes suppose that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes as out of Suarez I conuince in this chapter Chap. 6. Wherein the authority of the Kingdome and State of France is largely debated the exceptions which D. Schulckenius taketh against Petrus Pithaeus and Bochellus are confuted and Sigebert is defended from Schisme of which he is wrongfully taxed by Card. Baronius and D. Schulckenius The second part wherein All the principall arguments which Card. Bellarmine bringeth to prooue the vnion and subordination of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians wheron Mr. Fitzherbert and all the other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes doe chiefely ground that doctrine together with the Replies which are brought by D. Schulckenius to confirme the same vnion and subordination are exactly examined Chap. 1. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians is declared Chap. 2. Wherein the argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from those words of S. Paul Wee being many are one body in Christ to prooue that the temporall spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common-wealth whereof the Pope is head is answered and Card. Bellarmine conuinced of manifest contradiction Chap. 3. Wherein the authoritie of S. Gregory Nazianzene comparing the temporall and spirituall power among Christians to the body and soule in man which is so often vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body as the body and soule doe make one man is declared and cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds to make nothing for his purpose Chap. 4. Wherein the true state of the question concerning the subiection and subordination of the temporall power among Christians to the spirituall is propounded and the different opinions of Catholikes concerning this poynt are rehearsed Chap. 5. Wherein the first argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from
extra de sententia re iudicata cap. Ad Apostolicae in sexto where also of this it is noted by all men An other is concerning the discord betwixt Henry the Emperour and Robert King of Sicily and the sentence of treason published by the Emperour against him which Decree is in Clementina de sententia re iudicata cap. Pastoralis Another is in Clementina prima de Iureiurando that the Emperour is bound to sweare allegiance to the Pope and concerning some authoritie of the Pope ouer the Emperour Which Decretalls whether they be iust or no God he knoweth For I without preiudice to sounder aduice do beleeue and if it should be erroneous I recall it that none of them be agreeable to right Yea I beleeue that they are published against the rights and libertie of the Empire and I doe thinke that by God they were instituted distinct powers whereof I haue noted sufficiently lege prima Cod. de Summa Trinitate Fide Catholica Thus Albericus 3 Obserue now good Reader how sleightly D. Sculckenius would shift of this authoritie which is so plaine and manifest Albericus saith he speaketh wauering and altogether doubtfull and he addeth and if it should be erroneous I recall it and he is conuinced of errour by Azor lib. 10. cap. 6. q. 3. These be all the exceptions that D. Schulckenius taketh against this authority But first this word doubtfull or wauering as out of Vasquez I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation d Cap. 10. sec 2. nu 18. 19. 20. 81. may be taken two manner of waies either when one is so doubtfull that he hath no determinate assent of either part but remaineth perplex betwixt both iudging neither part to be either true or false in which sense that word altogether doubtfull which D. Schulkenius vseth here if he will not speake improperly can only be taken and when we are thus doubtfull concerning any matter we are alwaies bound to chuse the surer part neither is it lawfull to do any thing with a doubtfull conscience taking doubtfull in this sense Or else the word doubtfull may be taken when wee haue a determinate assent or iudgement that one part is true or false but yet we are not certaine and therefore haue some feare of the contrarie which feare doth not exclude a determinate assent and iudgement that one part is true for euery assent iudgement or opinion which is only probable doth alwaies imply a feare but feare consisteth in this that he who is fearefull or iudgeth with feare hath two assents or iudgements the one direct whereby he iudgeth determinately that one part is true the other reflexe whereby he iudgeth that although he thinketh it true yet in very deede it may be false for that it is not certaine but Disputable and in controuersie among Doctours and therefore only probable and when we are thus doubtfull or fearefull concerning any matter we are not bound to chuse the surer part but it is sufficient to chuse that which is probable neither is it vnlawfull to doe any thing with such a doubtfull or fearefull conscience as in that place I declared out of Vasquez 4. Now if D. Schulckenius by those wordes wauering and altogether doubtfull vnderstand as of necessitie he must if he will speake properly that Albericus had no determinate assent iudgement or opinion concerning the vniustice of those Decretalls this is manifestly false and those words I doe beleeue that they are not agreeable to right and I doe beleeue that they are published against the rights and libertie of the Empire c. doe clearely conuince D. Schulkenius of apparant vntruth But if D. Schulckenius by those words wauering and altogether doubtfull doe onely meane that Albericus was indeed of opinion that those Decretalls were vniust yet he did not hold his opinion for certaine and without all controuersie and therefore was not obstinate in his owne opinion but was readie to recall it if it should proue to be erroneous and that hee would not condemne other men that should thinke the contrarie as now adaies it is too frequent to condemne other men this is very true for so much only doe import those his wordes and I do beleeue vnder correction or without preiudice to sounder aduise and if it should be erroneous I recall it this neuerthelesse doth not hinder but that we haue the opinion of a man excellently learned and of a Classicall Doctour that the sentence of deposition denounced against Frederike the Emperour by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons and three other famous Decrees of Popes registred in the Canon Law touching the Popes power to dispose of temporalls were vniust and made against the rights and libertie of the Empire 5. Secondly but Albericus is conuinced saith D. Schulckenius of error by Azor. But besides that this letteth not but that Albericus is of opinion that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes this also is euen as true as that which D. Schulckenius said before concerning the errours which he said Posseuine had obserued in Trithemius his historie For besides that all the arguments which Azor bringeth to proue in generall the Popes authoritie ouer the Emperour in temporalls are but triuiall and haue been alreadie answered partly by D. Barclay partly by my selfe and now of late very exactly by Mr. Iohn Barclay to whom as yet no answere hath beene made one only argument in particular Azor vrgeth against Albericus which is this that the Romane Emperour was instituted by the authoritie of the Church by whose grant also the Romane Empire was translated from the Grecians to the Germanes or Frenchmen and that he is created as a Patron defendour Protector and Tutour of the Church from whence he inferreth that the Pope did not put his sickle into another mans haruest but did vse his owne right when hee made that Canon concerning the election of the Emperour and when he exacteth an oath of the Emperour 6. But that this is no conuincing proofe I shewed clearely in my Apologie c Num 404. seq For the Romane Empire was not instituted by the authoritie of the Romane Church seeing that he was instituted before there was any Romane Church at all and continued for a long time together the Soueraigne Lord in temporalls of the Romane Church Neither was the Romane Empire translated from the Grecians to the Germans or French men by the grant of the Romane Church if by the Romane Church be meant onely the Cleargie of Rome but it was translated by the grant suffrages and authoritie also of the Laitie who in the west parts were subiect to the Romane Empire True also it is that all Catholike Princes ought to be Patrons defenders and protectours of the Romane Church but the Romane Emperour more specially they being children and members of the Catholike Romane Church and euery member is bound to defend eath other but especially to defend the head
and 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
also by depriuing him of the sword as in the like case the Councell of Lateran often cited doth teach which one Councell is to be preferred before all the Barclaies or Iohns of Paris all men doe thinke who are not mad 28. Is not this thinke you a trim answere The question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine in this place was not concerning the Councell of Lateran wherof I will treat beneath * Part. 3. cap. 9. seq and plainely shew that notwithstanding all the clamours of my Aduersaries the said Councell hath neither defined or supposed for certaine nay or supposed at all that the Pope hath power to depose Soueraigne Princes as D. Schulckenius doth here collect from thence but the question was onely concerning the authoritie of S. Bernard And I prooued clearely out of S. Bernards wordes that although the Pope as Pope hath power to command or forbid in some cases the vse of the materiall sworde yet that he hath power as he is Pope to vse it himselfe or to depriue the Emperour of the vse thereof which implyeth a power to vse it himselfe this I said could not be proued but rather the contrarie out of those words of S. Bernard who doth not only say that it is not fitting for the Pope to vse the materiall sword as D. Schulckenius would mince his words but that it is forbidden the Pope to draw foorth or vse the materiall sword Now D. Schulckenius passeth ouer S. Bernard and flyeth to the Councell of Lateran to proue that if the Emperour refuse at the Popes command to vse the materiall sword he may by the Popes authoritie bee depriued of the vse thereof whereas the present question was only concerning the opinion of S. Bernard and not what was the doctrine of the Councell of Lateran in this point whose authoritie I doe asmuch respect either as Card. Bellarmine or any other Catholike is bound to doe But it is an easie matter to wrest the words of the Councell of Lateran or any other to their purpose contrary to the true meaning of the Councell and then to crie out ô the Councell of Lateran which is to be preferred before all Barclaies and Widdringtons c. whereas we doe asmuch respect the authoritie of the Councell of Lateran or any other as they do although we doe not so much respect their ouer wrested collections which they to serue their owne turnes doe gather from any Councel or text of holy Scripture contrarie to the plaine proper and true sense and meaning of the words But to such shiftings and windings euen learned men are sometimes brought when they will make their vncertaine opinions and priuate expositions of holy Scriptures or Councells to be infallible grounds of the Catholike faith 29. Lastly but the foundation saith D. Schulckenius of Widdringtons errour is for that he thinketh that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour by reason of the faith and free promise which the Emperour gaue and made to the Pope according to the similitude which a little before he put concerning one who promised an other to spend his life and all his goods in defence of him But this foundation is false because the authoritie of the Pope ouer Christian Princes doth not proceed from their onely promise or faith which they haue giuen but from the law of God by which law the Pope is made by Christ the Pastour of all his stocke the chiefe of all his familie the head of all his body and the Rectour of all his Church Wherefore it is no maruaile if from false foundation he conclude a falshood to wit that S. Bernards words do not onely not fauour the Popes temporal power but are flat contrarie to it What I beseech you could be spoken more cleerely for the Popes temporall power then that which S. Bernard said that the temporall sword is the Popes and that both swords are the Churches and that the temporall sword ought to be drawne foorth at the Popes becke And as for Ioannes Parisiensis there is no great reckoning to be made of him whatsoeuer he saith both for that he is repugnant to the Councell of Lateran and many others and also that other his errours are condemned by the Church in the common Extrauagant Vas electionis and lastly for that either he denieth only the Popes direct power in temporalls or else he doth plainly contradict himselfe 30. But truely it is strange that learned men and who pretend to maintaine nothing but truth dare aduenture to auouch so bouldly and in such publike writings so manifest vntruths and which they themselues in their consciences can not but see to be plain and palpable vntruths I very often and that of set purpose did affirme in my Apologie and D. Schulckenius doth also set downe my words that the Pope as Pope hath power to command temporall Princes in temporals in order to spirituall good and yet this man to make his Reader beleeue that I doe teach flat heresie blusheth not to affirme in an other place n Pag. 256. that I deny that the Pope as Pope hath power to commaund temporall Princes in temporalls in order to spirituall good So likewise I did oftentimes in my Apologie affirme o Num. 90.91.181.223.341 and D. Schulckenius doth also set downe my words that the Pope as Pope hath power by the law of God and for that he is appointed by Christ to be the supreme spirituall Pastour of the Catholike Church to constraine and punish all disobedient Christians both Princes and people with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall punishments and yet now this man to perswade his Reader that I teach heere a manifest errour is not ashamed to affirme that I am of opinion that the Pope hath authoritie to constraine the Emperour in regard onely of the free promise which the Emperour hath made to the Pope And therefore D. Schulckenius neither dealeth truely nor sincerely and both deludeth his Reader and also wrongeth mee in affirming that to bee my doctrine which I expressely impugne and that to be the foundation of my opinion which hee is pleased to call an errour which I in expresse words and that oftentimes haue denied 21. For as I doe willingly grant that although a temporall Prince hath power to command and with temporall punishments to compell if neede require his temporall subiects to make and sweare an expresse promise of that true faith loyaltie and temporall allegeance which by the Law of God and nature they doe owe to their lawfull Prince yet I doe not affirme that a temporalll Prince hath power to constraine his rebellious subiects by vertue onely of the promise which they haue made but by vertue of his supreme temporall power which hee hath as hee is a supreme temporall Prince by the Law of God and nature So also I do willingly grant that although the Pope hath power to command and with spirituall punishments to compell if neede require all Christian Princes and
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
because it denieth that the Pope hath any power or authority to depose his Maiestie or to discharge any of his Subiects of their allegiance and obedience to his Maiesty but also because it bindeth the takers of it in expresse words to sweare thus And I do further sweare that from my hart I doe abhorre detest abiure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrin and position that princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed which position was by that Canon expresly ordained to be practised in some cases yea and executed by the Councells order vpon Reymond Earle of Tolosa Thus say I in my Suppliment 6. Now I report c Nu. 3. me to the indifferent Reader whether I affirme any more then that these two clauses of the Oath are flatly against the Councell of Lateran because the Popes power to depose Princes which the said Councell acknowledgeth and approueth by an expresse Canon is denied therein and this is manifest as well by all my precedent discourse as by that which followeth for all that which I amply debated before touching the Councell of Lateran concerned onely the Popes power to depose Princes without any one word whether the abiuration or deniall thereof be hereticall and my conclusion of the later clause confirmeth the same for I add immediately these words which position to wit that Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed was by that Canon expresly ordained to be practised in some cases yea and was executed by the Councels order vpon Reymond Earle of Tolosa 7. Whereby it appeareth d Nu. 4. that whereas the clause mentioneth two thinges the one the doctrine and position that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed and the other that the said doctrine is abiured as impious and hereticall I treat onely of the former and speake not one word of the later So as my Aduersary Widdrington charging me to haue falsly affirmed that the Popes power to depose Princes is manifestly abiured in this Oath hath charged me falsely and therefore may take his imputation of falsity to himselfe Thus M. Fitzherbert 8. But in truth I cannot but wonder where Mr. Fitzherberts memory was when he wrote these words that he could not perceiue that he himselfe here saith as much as I affirmed him to say and therefore if he can finde no better a shift and euasion then to deny with so bould a face that very same thinge which he himselfe in this very place doth so plainly affirme the vntruth I dare not say falsity wherewith I charged him will still remaine with him and will not be taken from him by me besides the disgrace for a man of his fashion quality and profession to deny so bouldly that he affirmeth that thing which euery Child who vnderstandeth English may perceiue that he doth affirme For marke his words The Oath saith he bindeth the takers of it in expresse words to sweare thus And I doe further sweare that I doe from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed Now let any man iudge whether he that affirmeth that the Oath bindeth the takers of it in expresse words to sweare that he doth abiure as impious and hereticall this doctrine that Princeâ— excommunicated or depriued by the Pope m y be deposed doth not affirme that the doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is plainely manifestly or in expresse words abiured in this oath as impious and hereticall 9. But obserue how cunningly M. Fitzherbert belike to returne the imputation of falsity vpon mee would delude his Reader Whereas the clause of the oath saith he mentioneth two things the one the doctrine and position that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed and the other that the saiâ— doctrine is abiured as impious and hereticall Loe here againe hee granteth as much as I said hee did affirme to wit that the doctrine which holdeth that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed is abiured in this oath as impious and hereticall I treate onely of the former and speake not one word of the later and all that which I amply debated before touching the Councell of Lateran concerned onely the Popes power to depose Princes without any one word whether the abiuration or deniall thereof be hereticall 10. Belike this man would make his Reader beleeue that I did say that he had amply debated treated or made some discourse of this point and that he had endeauoured to proue that the oath is vnlawfull and against the Councell of Lateran in regard it bindeth the takers of it to sweare that they doe from their heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall this doctrine and position that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed whereas I say no such thing but onely that Master Fitzherbert doth barely affirme that the oath bindeth the takers to abiure or which is all one in sense that in this oath is abiured as impious and hereticall this doctrine and categoricall proposition ex parte praedicati that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed And thus much hee himselfe as you haue seene in this very place doth twice affirm which his assertion I said is not true for that it onely bindeth the takers to abiure a impious and hereticall this doctrine and hypotheticall proposition ex parte praedicati that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer which hath a farre different sense from the former as I will shew beneath So that he may still take to himselfe that imputation of falsity or vntruth wherewith I did truely charge him and hereafter be more warie if hee haue any care of his credit not to maintaine such palpable vntruths which euery Schoole-boy may easily perceiue so to be And thus much for the first point Now you shall see how learnedly he proueth the second 11. Neuerthelesse I would not saith he e Nu. 5. haue Widdrington to thinke that because I deny that I haue said so in my Supplement therefore I doe or will deny that it is so for it is euident in that clause that the taker of the oath abiureth this doctrine as impious and hereticall to wit that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whereby not onely the Popes power to depose Princes is denyed but also the doctrine thereof is abiured as impious and hereticall And this I say is euident notwithstanding the friuolous euasion which my Aduersary Widdrington seketh by his extrauagant interpretation of that clause when hee saith as you haue heard that the sense and meaning thereof is no other but that it is hereticall to affirme it to be in the free power of
copulatiue and is vsed for the disiunctiue or it little importeth for that it was an error of him that translated the same out of the English which they vnderstood not and therefore must needs take it as it was giuen them Thus M Fitzherbert 41. But what sincerity can the Reader expect from this mans hands when in a controuersie of such great moment as is this concerning our obedience due to God and Caesar hee dealeth so corruptly For first hee would make his Reader beleeue that I affirme the coniunction disiunctiue or in this clause of the oath not to be a meere and absolute disiunctiue coniunction but a copulatiue and that the coniunction or is taken for and as though I should affirme that the proposition is not in very deede a disiunctiue but a pure copulatiue proposition and that vnlesse or be taken for and the said proposition Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other would not be hereticall Whereas I meane no such thing neither did I euer say that or in this proposition is taken for and or that this proposition is not a true and proper disiunctiue proposition 42. But that which I affirmed was that or in this proposition is equivalent to and and that although the proposition by reason of that coniunction or may seeme to be such a pure and absolute disiunctiue proposition to the verity whereof according to the Logicians rule is onely required that one part of the disiunction be true and to make the whole proposition false and hereticall both parts of the disiunction must be false and hereticall yet according to the common sense and meaning of the words it is not in very deed and according to our English phrase such a pure and absolute disiunctiue proposition but it is a conditionall disiunctiue which importeth a free choice to take which part of the disiunction we please which conditionall disiunctiue proposition is equiualent to a copulatiue or which is all one followeth the nature and conditions not of an absolute and common disiunctiue proposition whereof the Logicians treate but of a copulatiue proposition to the verity whereof according to the Logicians rule it is contrariwise required that both parts of the copulatiue or conditionall disiunction be true and to make the whole proposition false and hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part be false and hereticall And that therefore in this conditionall disiunctiue proposition it maketh all one sense for as much as concerneth the truth or falsehood of the proposition whether the coniunction copulatiue and or the disiunctiue or be vsed although the force of the proposition be by the vulgar sort more easily perceiued if the coniunction copulatiue and then if the disiunctiue or be vsed 43. Wherefore I doe not affirme that the coniunction disiunctiue or in this clause of the oath is not an absolute disiunctiue coniunction for I doe not make two sorts of disiunctiue coniunctions to wit absolute and conditionall or that or in this clause is taken for and as my Aduersary would perswade his Reader but that which I say is that the proposition is not an absolute disiunctiue proposition but a conditionall disunctiue and which implieth a free power to take which part of the disiunction we please and that therefore for as much as concerneth the truth or falshood of the proposition it is equiualent to a copulatiue proposition and followeth the nature and condition of a copulatiue and that it hath the same sense whether the coniunction copulatiue and or the disiunctiue or be vsed 44. Secondly it is too too cleare that I did not argue in that absurd childish manner as my Adversary would make his Reader belieue I doe It is sometimes so therefore it is alwaies so or thus the coniunction disiunctiue or is sometime taken for the copulatiue and therefore in this clause of the Oath it is taken so But I argued thus The coniunction disiunctiue or when it followeth the verbe may is not onely sometimes but vsually and commonly I did not say taken but equiualent to the coniunction copulatiue and for that then the proposition according to the common sense and vnderstanding of the words is not an absolute disiunctiue but a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which includeth a free condition of the will to choose either part of the disiunction and therefore hath the same sense whether the coniunction disiunctiue or the copulatiue be vsed therefore in this clause of the oath Princes may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects it ought so to be taken for that by an expresse clause wee are bound to take the Oath and euery part thereof plainly and sincerely according to the common sense and vnderstanding of the words That it is in common sense a conditionall disiunctiue proposition implying a free election to take either part of the disiunction and consequently equiualent to a copulatiue proposition I proued by very many examples both in common speech and in the lawes of this Realme and in the end I added that in infinite such like examples the verb may implyeth a free power to chuse either part of the disiunction we please neither can there be scarcely alleaged any one example speaking of affirmatiue propositions wherein the coniunction or immediately following the verbe may is not so taken 45 From whence I inferred that in a disiunctiue proposition wherein is implied a condition of the will to choose freely either part of the disiunction it maketh the same sense whether the coniunction copulatiue and or the disiunctiue or be vsed for both of them doe import a free election to take which part one pleaseth and so the coniunction disiunctiue hath in sense the vertue of a copulatiue and the copulatiue the vertue of a disiunctiue And this I confirmed both by the authority of the ancient Fathers and also of Card. Bellarmine himselfe who doe confound and with or and or with and in propositions which doe imply a free election to choose which part they will What good dealing then is this of my Aduersaries to frame my argument in that absurd and ridiculous manner it is sometimes so ergo it is alwaies so and also to corrupt my words and meaning as you haue seene he hath done 46. And albeit I doe remit the Reader to Felinus Azor and Salas where they may see some examples that a coniunction disiunctiue euen in absolute disiunctiue propositions is sometimes taken for a copulatiue and a copulatiue for a disiunctiue it was not to draw an argument from thence that therefore either alwaies or in this clause of the Oath it was so to be taken but it was onely to shewe that seeing it is not strange euen in absolute disiunctiue propositions whereof those Authors did chiefely treat that and should not onely be equiualent but be also taken for or and or for and therefore they ought not to meruaile that in conditionall disiunctiues or should be I
doe not say taken but equiualent to and and and to or But the argument which I brought to prooue that in this clause of the Oath the coniunction disiunctiue or is equiualent to the copulatiue and was taken from the plaine and vsuall sense of our English phrase and from the common vnderstanding of our English lawes wherin the coniunction disiunctiue or following the verbe may doth commonly imply a free election to take which part of the disiunction we please and which consequently is equiualent to a copulatiue therefore in this clause of the Oath which I am bound to take according to the common sense of the words it ought so to be taken This was my argument 47 Thirdly obserue how inconsiderately M. Fitzherbert bringeth here foure examples of propositions to confute my answere which neuerthelesse doe most clearely confirme the same For in all of them the coniunction or is equiualent to the copulatiue and and it maketh all one sense whether and or or be vsed As for example God may be denyed or blasphemed by his Creatures A Priest may eat or drinke before hee say Masse A man may trauell by Sea or by land without mony A Soldier may yeeld or fly vpon small occasion In all these foure examples wherein my Aduersary himselfe granteth a freedome of election to choose whether part of the disiunction a man will to be implyed the coniunction disiunctiue or for as much as concerneth the truth or falshood of the Propositions is equiualent to the copulatiue and and the propositions haue all one sense whether the coniunction and or the coniunction or be vsed And so it is all one sense whether we say that God may bee denyed or blasphemed by his Creatures or that God may be denyed and blasphemed by his Creatures that a Priest may eat or drinke before hee say Masse or that a Priest may eat and drinke before hee say Masse and so of the rest For the sense of them all is that they may choose this part or that part of the disiunction or this part and that part of the disiunction as they will And so the sense of the first proposition is that it is in the free power and choice of Creatures to denie or blaspheme God or to denie God and also to blaspheme him if they will and of the second that it is in the free power of a Priest to eat or to drinke or to eat and if he please to drinke before he say Masse and so of the rest By which it is euident that in all of them it maketh the same sense whether the coniunction and or the coniunction or bee vsed and so in all of them the coniunction disiunctiue is equiualent to a copulatiue and the copulatiue to a disiunctiue 48 Lastly albeit that which M. Fitzherbert doth specially obserue for his purpose be true to wit that in all those foure examples which he hath brought whatsoeuer is affirmed of the one part of the disiunction is also affirmed of the other notwithstanding that there be also free election to choose which part of the disiunction a man will as for example it is impious and hereticall whether soeuer a man hold that God may bee denyed or that hee may bee blasphemed by his Creatures it is as vnlawfull to teach that a Priest may drinke as that he may eat before hee say Masse and so of the rest from whence he would inferre the like that also in this clause of the Oath the doctrine of deposing Princes is no lesse abiured as hereticall then the doctrine of murthering them neuerthelesse this his obseruation maketh nothing at all for his purpose vnlesse it be to bewray his owne ignorance and want of Logick whiles hee doth not perceiue what is truely affirmed of both parts of an hypotheticall proposition by vertue of the forme and what by vertue onely of the matter For although in all those foure propositions which he hath brought it bee true that the same impiety heresie vnlawfulnes folly or shame which is affirmed of the one part of the disiunction be also affirmed of the other yet this is not true by vertue of the forme of the proposition consisting of a disiunctiue coniunction which implyeth a choice to take which part of the disiunction a man will but it is true by reason onely of the matter for that the same thing which is affirmed of the whole or entire disiunctiue proposition may bee also affirmed seuerally of either part of the disiunction For it is hereticall to hold that God may be denyed by his Creatures and likewise it is also hereticall to hold that God may be blasphemed by his Creatures and so or the rest But let him alter the matter and keepe the same forme that is the same disiunctiue coniunction which implyeth a free choice to take which part of the disiunction a man will and then hee will quickly perceiue how fowly hee is mistaken and how insufficiently he hath confuted my Answer 49 As for example let vs alter the matter of his foure propositions and keepe the same forme that is keep the same disiunctiue coniunction implying a choice to take which part of the disiunction one wil say that it is impious and hereticall to hold that God may be honoured or blasphemed by his creatures It is not lawfull to teach that a Priest may sleepe or eat before hee say Masse It is folly for a man to thinke that hee may trauell by Sea or by Land with the like danger It is a shame for a Captaine to say that hee may fight or flye when his Band is assaulted by the Enemy All these and infinite other such propositions which might bee added if it were needfull are true by reason of one onely part of the disiunction And the reason is generall and common to all conditionall disiunctiue propositions for that a disiunctiue proposition which implyeth a free election to take which part of the disiunction one pleaseth is I doe not say sometimes but alwaies equiualent to a copulatiue and followeth the nature of a copulatiue to the verity whereof as I haue shewed before it is required that both parts be true and to make the whole or entire proposition to bee false and hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part bee false and hereticall and that therefore it doth not follow by force of the forme nature and conditions of a conditionall disiunctiue proposition but onely by reason of the matter that whatsoeuer is affirmed of the one part of the disiunction is also affirmed of the other 50 Seeing therefore that this proposition Subiects may depose or murther their Prince being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope implieth a free election to choose which part of the disiunction we please and it is hereticall to affirme that Subiects may murther such a Prince I may truely lawfully and without any periurie abiure that proposition as hereticall although the doctrine onely of murthering such Princes should be hereticall
and not the doctrine of deposing them whereof neuerthelesse wee will treat beneath q Nu. 106. seq So as you see that none of all M. Fitzherberts examples maketh for him but all are flat against him and that it is not true that I doe argue in this ridiculous manner It is sometimes so therefore it is alwaies so or therefore it is now so which were to argue ex puris particularibus from pure particular propositions which kind of arguing all Logicians account to be very vicious But I argue thus The words are commonly taken so therefore I who am bound to take the oath and euery clause thereof according to the common sense of the words am bound to take this clause of the oath so which manner of arguing to be good I am sure he will not deny for shame 51. But my Aduersary little perceiueth how hee himselfe falleth into that vice of arguing whereof he vntruely accuseth me to wit It is sometimes so therefore it is alwaies so or therefore it is now so For he pretendeth to proue that because in those foure conditionall disiunctiue propositions and many such like whatsoeuer is affirmed of the one part of the disiunction is also affirmed of the other notwithstanding that there be also free election to choose whether part of the disiunction a man will which is onely true in some particular propositions and that onely by reason of the matter and not by vertue of the forme and quality of the conditionall disiunctiue proposition therefore in this clause of the oath because hereticall is affirmed of the doctrine to murther Princes it must also be affirmed of the doctrine to depose them which is to argue ex puris particularibus from pure particular propositions and is all one to say it is sometimes so therefore it is now so But my manner of arguing is from a vniuersall proposition to inferre a particular to wit that because in euery conditionall disiunctiue proposition implying a choice c by vertue of the forme it is sufficient to make the whole proposition false and hereticall that one onely part of the disiunction be false and hereticall and consequently it is sufficient that hereticall be affirmed of the one part and not of the other although sometimes by reason of the matter it may be affirmed of both therefore in this particular disiunctiue proposition Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other it is sufficient to make the whole proposition hereticall that one onely part of the disiunction be hereticall and that therefore the doctrine to murther such Princes may be abiured as hereticall without abiuring as hereticall the doctrine to depose them 52. And what man is there so simple who may not presently perceiue that in the very same manner and by the same foure examples which my Aduersary bringeth to impugne my interpretation of those words deposed or murthered hee might argue if the words were deposed and murthered and in those his foure examples of propositions or were changed into and wherby they would be made copulatiue and not disiunctiue propositions For then also whatsoeuer is affirmed of the one part would also be affirmed of the other As it is impious and hereticall to hold that God may be denied and blasphemed by his creatures It is vnlawfull to teach that a Priest may eate and drinke before hee say Masse and so of the rest And yet if he haue any skill in Logike as in truth I thinke hee hath but little hee will be ashamed to inferre from thence that therefore in copulatiue propositions whatsoeuer is affirmed of the one part is also affirmed of the other for that in a false and hereticall copulatiue proposition it sufficeth according to the Logicians rule that one onely part be false and hereticall which plainly sheweth how viciously he confuteth my interpretation of those words deposed or murthered ex puris particularibus from some particular examples of propositions which are onely true by reason of the matter not regarding what is generally and alwaies required by vertue of the forme and nature of the conditionall disiunctiue proposition to make the whole proposition true or false of faith or hereticall howsoeuer truth falshood or heresie may be affirmed seuerally of one only or of both parts of the disiunction 53. And whereas M. Fitzherbert affirmeth that Card. Bellarmine and Capellus were in the translation of those words deposed and murthered deceiued by the error of him who translated the Oath out of English into Latin I am content to take it at this time for an answere for that I doe not relie vpon their authority in this poynt but vpon the common vnderstanding of all men who in a conditionall disiunctiue proposition make or equiualent to and and and to or Neuerthelesse this I must needs say that it might be perchance an error of the Printer which also if it had bene me thinkes that Card. Bellarmine Capellus or Fa. Suarez would haue noted it among the errors if they had accounted it for any great errour or to haue cleane altered the sense of the proposition as this man would make it but that it should be an error of the Translator I can hardly be perswaded And my reason is because it seemeth that there was but one onely translation of the Oath out of English which is extant in publike writings from which all those writers who haue set downe the oath in Latin haue taken it as first the Pope in his Breue then Card. Bellarmine Fa. Gretzer Capellus and now lastly Suarez For that in none of all these Writers the translation of the Oath is in any point different either so much as in any one word or the placing of a word except in those words deposed or murthered which is morally impossible if there had bene diuers translations Now in the Popes Breue and likewise in Gretzer and in one Edition of Card. Bellarmines booke against his Maiesties Apologie we read deposed or murthered but in other Editions of the same booke in Capellus and now lastly in Suarez we read deposed and murthered which is a signe that is was an error rather of the Printer then of the Translator also that the error was not great much regarded by them for that the sense of the proposition is all one whether wee read deposed or murthered or deposed and murthered it being a conditionall disiunctiue proposition implying a free choise to take both parts of the disiunction which therefore for as much as concerneth the truth or falshood of the proposition hath the same sense whether the coniunction copulatiue and or the disiunctiue or be vsed as I haue shewed before 54 But now forsooth M. Fitzherbert will cleare all this difficulty and make it manifest out of my owne grounds that the doctrine of the dâ—position of Princes is abiured in the Oath as impious and hereticall no lesse then the doctrine
points of Religion yet the Preamble or Title to the particular Act wherein the Oath is established is to make a better triall how his Maiesties Subiects stand affected towards his Maiestie concerning points of their loyalty and due obedience And that his Maiesty and the Parliamâ—nt did also publikly declare that they onely intended to exact of Catholiques by this oath a profession of that temporall allegiance and ciuill obedience which all Subiects doe by the Law of God and nature owe to their temporall Prince And to make a distinction not betwixt Catholiques and Protestants touching points of Religion but betwixt Catholiques Catholiques touching points of opinion and betwixt ciuilly obedient Catholikes and of quiet disposition and in all other thinges good Subiects and such other Catholikes as in their hearts maintained the like bloody maximes that the Powder Traitors did And that therefore the particular Act concerning the Oath it selfe might very well haue beene intituled although it was not An Act for the better discouering and repressing of Popish Recusants not in generall but of such as were caried away with the like fanaticall zeale and bloody maximes that the powder Troitors were If any man I say will duely consider these thinges and the other obiections and answers which I propounded in my Theologicall disputation and in my Appendix to Suarez I dare boldly appeale to his iudgment herein for that no man will or can reasonably the premises considered conceiue any forcible or conuincing reason for which English Catholiques are bound in conscience to refuse the Oath 66 And as for this clause which is now in question it is euident the difference betwixt an absolute disiunctiue and a conditionall disiunctiue proposition being duely considered that the words being taken in their proper and vsuall signification doe make clearly for me wherein I dare bouldly appeale to the iudgement of any discreet Reader For albeit such a sense as this man imagineth may be conceiued at the first sight for the reason aforesaid yet no man after due consideration and who obserueth the difference betwixt an absolute and a conditionall disiunctiue proposition and perceiueth that to make a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which followeth the nature of a copulatiue to be hereticall and to be abiured as hereticall it is sufficient that one onely part thereof be hereticall and that therefore both parts of the disiunction are not of necessity to be abiured alike will or can reasonably conceiue that both parts of that conditionall disiunctiue clause may be deposed or murthered are by vertue of the disiunctiue coniunction or to be abiured alike 57 To the second proofe of his Minor proposition I answere that he contendeth to vse his owne words de lana caprina and laboureth in vaine to prooue that which I doe not deny For I make no question but that or in this clause of the Oath deposed or murthered is a disiunctiue coniunction and hath the ordinary and proper signification of a disiunctiue coniunction But that which I affirme is that although in this clause of the oath it be truely and properly a disiunctiue coniunction yet because it immediately followeth the verbe may it maketh such a disiunctiue proposition which implyeth a free choice to take either part of the disiunction and which consequently being not an absolute but a conditionall disiunctiue proposition is equiualent to a copulatiue and not to an ordinary or absolute disiunctiue proposition 68 And although the coniunction disiunctiue or doth also more commonly as I obserued before make an absolute disiunctiue then a conditionall disiunctiue proposition for that where you shall finde it once to follow the verbe may and so to make a conditionall disiunctiue proposition you shall finde it aboue a hundred times not to follow the verbe may and so not to make a conditionall but an absolute disiunctiue proposition and in this very Oath where the coniunction or is found to be taken affirmatiuely about sixeteene times and not to follow the verbe may for almost in all other places of the oath it is taken negatiuely and is all one with nor or neither yet once onely or twice at the most it followeth the verbe may and maketh a conditionall disiunctiue proposition Neuerthelesse this I say is certaine and not to be called in question that whensoeuer the coniunction disiunctiue or doth make a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which implyeth a free choise to take which part of the disiunction we please as it doth in this clause of the oath neither doth my Aduersarie deny but rather as you haue seene supposeth the same it is equiualent to a copulatiue proposition and followeth the nature of a copulatiue to the verity whereof according to the approued rule of the Logicians it is required that both parts be true and to make the whole proposition to be false and hereticall it sufficeth that one onely part be false and hereticall which contrariwise falleth out in an absolute or ordinarie disiunctiue proposition 69 Vnlesse therefore my Aduersary can proue either that the coniunction or when it immediatly followeth the verbe may doth not commonly and vsually make a conditionall disiunctiue proposition implying a free choise to take which part of the distunction one please which hitherto he hath not proued but rather supposed both by those foure examples of propositions and also in this clause of the oath as you haue seene that the coniunction or implyeth such a choise or else that a conditionall disiunctiue proposition which implieth such a choise doth not alwaies follow the nature and condition of a copulatiue proposition for as much as concerneth the truth or falshood thereof which he will neuer be able to proue for that a conditionall disiunctiue proposition implyeth a free choise to take if we please both parts of the disiunction and euery Logician knoweth that the word vterque both supposeth diâ—tributiuely and is resolued by the coniunction copulatiue as to take both signifieth to take this and that and not onely this or that it is euident that he saith nothing to the purpose neither doth he impugne my answere but fighteth in vaine with his owne shadow 70. Wherefore M. Fitzherbert perceiuing at last that this second proofe of his Minor proposition was little to the purpose and did not confute my answere concerning the conditionall disiunctiue proposition he would now seeme to say something to the purpose but in very deed saith nothing as you shall see and to cleane ouerthrowe that distinction which before he called a friuolous euasion and an extrauagant interpretation and now he calleth it a shift which neuerthelesse by his former discourse and examples of propositions as you haue seene and now againe he doth clearly confirme For thus he writeth g Nu. 17. And if Widdrington doth flye here to his former shift and say that in the other clauses or is an absolute disiunctiue and that in the words deposed or murthered it is a conditionall because the verbe may going before
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
disiunctiue proposition as I haue often repeated before Secondly hee would seeme to proue the same by this argument His Maiestie is perswaded â—hat the doctrine not only which alloweth the practise of deposing Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but also which speculatiuely maintaineth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes is hereticall and repugnant to the holy Scriptures as may euidently appeare by the manifold places and texts of Scripture which he alledgeth c. yea and hee talledgeth much more Scripture to condemne the doctrine touching the deposition of Princes then Widdrington doth for violent attempts against their persons therefore it is manifest that according to his Maiesties intention both parts of that clause should be abiured as hereticall 97 But first this consequence of my Aduersary His Maiestie is perswaded that not onely the doctrine which teacheth that the Pope hath power to murther Princes but also to depose them is hereticall therefore his Maiesties meaning or intention was that in the aforesaid clause of the oath both parts should be abiured as hereticall taking hereticall in that strict sense whereof I will speake beneath p Nu. 106. et seq M. Fitzherbert might haue seene if it had pleased him in my Theologicall disputation q Cap. 4. sec 3. to be very insufficient where I did clearly shewe that there is a great difference to be made betwixt his Maiesties perswasion or opinion and his meaning or intention For his Maiesty doth according to the grounds of the Protestant Religion defend diuers opinions which neuerthelesse he doth not intend to binde his Catholike Subiects by this oath to defend and professe 98 As for example His Maiesty is perswaded that he is the supreame Lord and Gouernour in all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as temporall and yet he doth not intend that his Catholike Subiects shall by those words of this oath our Soueraigne Lord King Iames professe and maintaine the same Neither doth he ground the lawfulnes of this oath and the abiuration of the doctrine condemned therein vpon his Ecclesiasticall Primacie as my Aduersary here seemeth to insinuate for that the Oath of his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie as his Maiesty himselfe affirmeth r In his Apologie pag. 46. was deuised for putting a difference betwene Papists and Protestants but this oath was ordained for making a difference betweene the ciuilly obedient Papists and the peruerse disciples of the Powder-treason 99 Also his Maiesty is perswaded that the Pope hath not power to excommunicate his Maiesty and yet he doth intend by those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication c. to binde English Catholikes to professe the same Å¿ See my Th. Disp cap. 4. sec 1. howsoeuer Card. Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius and Suarez without sufficient proofe and M. Fitzherbert without any proofe at all doe affirme that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in this oath For although the lower house of Parliament as his Maiesty also affirmeth t In his Premonition pag 9. at the first framing of this oath made it to containe that the Pope had no power to excommunicate his Maiesty yet his Maiestie did purposely decline that poiâ—t u In the Catalogue of the lyes of Tortus nu 1. and forced them to reforme it onely making it to conclude that no excommunication of the Popes can warrant his Subiects to practise against his person or state as indeed taking any such temporall violence to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall Censure as Excommunication is 100 Likewise his Maiesty is perswaded that all reconcilings of his Subiects to the Pope and all returnings of English Priests made by the Popes authority into this Realme c are truely and properly treasons although not naturally and forbidden by the lawe of nature vnlesse they be repugnant to true naturall and ciuill alleagiance yet positiue and forbidden by the lawes of the Realme neuerthelesse by those words of the oath to disclose all treasons c. he did not intend to binde his Catholike Subiects to reueale and disclose such kinde of treasons vnlesse they be truely and properly vnnaturall treasons and repugnant to naturall alleagiance For that his Maiesty was carefull as he himselfe also writeth x In his Premonition pag. 9. naturall that nothing should be contained in this oath except the profession of naturall allegiance and ciuill and temporall obediednce with a promise to resist all contrarie vnnaturall and vnciuill violence 101 Wherefore seeing that his Maiestie doth binde the swearer to take this oath according to the plaine and common sense and vnderstanding of the words although his Maiesty be perswaded that it is hereticall to hould that the Pope hath power to depose princes yet from thence it cannot rightly be concluded that therfore by this oath he intended to bind his Catholike Subiects to acknowledge and professe the same vnlesse the words of the oath according to their proper and vsuall signification doe imply the same Considering therefore that as I haue clearly conuinced to make that proposition Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other to be hereticall it is sufficient according to the common sense of the words and the approued doctrine of Logicians that one onely part of the disiunction be hereticall as without doubt the latter part of this disiunction is it is euident that his Maiesties mtaning was no other then to binde the swearer to that sense to which the words being taken in their proper and vsuall signification doe binde And thus much concerning the consequence 102 Now touching the antecedent proposition although it be true that his Maiesty is perswaded that not onely the doctrine which alloweth the practise of deposing Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but also the speculatiue doctrine which teacheth that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes is a false doctrine and repugnant to holy Scriptures and consequently hereticall taking hereticall for that which implyeth an vntruth contrary to the word of God reuealed in holy Scriptures in which sense also all those Catholikes who doe hould this doctrine of the Popes power to depriue Princes of their kingdomes to be false doe hould also that it is contrary to the word of God and consequently also hereticall yet if hereticall be taken for that which importeth a knowne and manifest vntruth repugnant to holy Scriptures and so acknowledged also to be by the common consent also of Catholikes my Aduersarie will hardly proue that his Maiesty is perswaded that the speculatiue doctrine which holdeth that the Pope hath power to depriue Princes or to depose them by a iuridicall sentence is hereticall in this sense or repugnant to holy Scriptures in the opinion of all or of the most part of Catholikes albeit he be perswaded that the speculatiue doctrine which approueth the Popes power to murther or to take away the liues
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
this is his principall meaning and intention that we should deale plainely and sincerely with him without any fraude guile mentall euasion or secret reseruation whatsoeuer 129 And if it should so fall out that we cannot be assured of his Maiesties meaning and intention when any difficulty concerning the sense of any word or sentence contained in the oath shall arise then we must recurre to those generall rules which Diuines Lawiers assigne for the interpreting of the wordes of euery law for this wee may with iust reason presume to bee the generall intention of his Maiesty as also of euery lawmaker And if perchance there bee any Catholike so scrupulous that by applying the aforesaid generall rules to any ambiguous and doubtfull word or sentence in the oath he cannot yet quiet his conscience yet he may auoid all danger of equiuocating by publikely declaring in what sense he taketh that word or sentence which hath diuers proper and vsuall significations as by declaring in what sense hee taketh the Aduerbe as both in the word impious and also in the word hereticall and likewise in what sense he taketh the word hereticall and so of others and this declaration will both auoid all danger of equiuocating and also without doubt satisfie the Magistrate so that his declaration be not knowne to be against his Maiesties meaning and intention 130 And truely it is strange that whereas the oath is by his Maiesty and the Parliament propounded and expressed in such maner of wordes that according to the approued rules assigned by Catholike Diuines and Lawyers for the interpreting of lawes it may bee expounded in a true lawfull and commodious sense to the swearer which sense also is agreeable to the proper and vsuall signification of the words yet M. Fitzherbert and other impugners of the oath for which English Catholikes are to giue them little thankes will needs haue them contrary to the aforesaid rules vnderstand in that sense which they account to be false vnlawfull and to bee an vtter ruine to the refusers of the oath whereas according to the aforesaid rules they ought to draw the wordes to a metaphoricall and improper sense if the proper sense should argue in the law and consequently in the oath ordained by a publike law any falshood iniustice absurdity or other inconuenience 131 Seeing therefore it cannot be denyed that the proper and vsuall signification of the Aduerbe as it being an Aduerbe of similitude is to signifie a similitude and often times also by reason of the matter but not by force of the word being taken in the most proper and most vsuall signification a reality and of the word hereticall as it is taken by many Catholike Diuines for euery falshood repugnant to diuine reuelation it is manifest that whether we affirme that the Aduerbe as doth signifie onely a similitude or also a reality both in the word impious and also in the word hereticall or a reality in the first and a similitude in the second in the maner before declared it is no gallimaufre but a true and plaine declaring of the common sense and vnderstanding of the wordes according to the approued rules prescribed by Catholike Diuines and Lawyers for the interpreting of doubtfull and ambiguous wordes in euery Law And thus much concerning the second Answer and M. Fitzherberts Reply against the same 132 Now then to make an end of this Chapter vpon these premises I will draw foure conclusions contrary to those which M. Fitzherbert heere collecteth First saith hee u nu 29. whereas Widdrington chargeth mee to haue affirmed falsly that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is manifestly abiured in the oath as impious and hereticall hee chargeth me falsly in two respects the one because I affirmed no such thing and the other for that albeit I had said so yet I had said truely as it euidently appeareth not onely by the plaine wordes substance and circumstances of the oath but also by his Maiesties meaning and intention therein 133 But contrariwise I conclude that whereas I charged him to haue falsly or vntruely affirmed that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is manifestly abiured in this oath as impious hereticall I charged him truly in two respects the one because it is true that he affirmeth so much as I haue cleerly conuinced by his owne wordes and I wonder that hee is not ashamed to affirme such a palpable vntruth the other for that this assertion of his is false as euidently appeareth both by the plaine words substance and circumstances of the oath and also by his Maiesties meaning and intention therein which is to bee gathered principally by the words which as you haue seene being taken in their proper and common sense doe cleerely shew that both parts of that disiunctiue proposition Princes which bee excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may bee deposed or murthered by their subiects are not of necessity to bee abiured as hereticall although by vertue of the matter if hereticall bee taken for euery false doctrine which is repugnant to truth containeâ— in holy Scriptures whether the Church haue declared or not declared it to bee so both parts of that posiâ—ition which alloweth the practise of deposing or murthering Princes which bee excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may bee truely abiured as hereticall as I haue aboundantly shewed before 134 Secondly it appeareth saith M. Fitzherbert x nu 30. how different Widdringtons doctrine belief concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is from his Maiesties yea from the whole substance of the oath seeing that according to Widdringtons opinion the said doctrine is probable and consequently may bee held taught and sworne whereas his Maiesty by this oath condemneth it for detestable damnable impious and hereticall whereby it may appeare also what good seruice he doth to his Maiesty with this his probable doctrine See Preface nu 25. 26. 27. as I haue noted before in the Preface 135. But whether my doctrine and beleife concerning the Popes power to depose Princes be different from his Maiesties or no which my Aduersary if hee had beene pleased to haue diligently perused my writings might quickly haue perceiued it is impertinent to the present question conncerning the lawfulnesse or vnlawfulnesse of the oath and therefore I neede not at this time to speake more expressely thereof for not giuing my Aduersary occasion to wrangle about impertinent questions and to decline the chiefe point which is controuersie about the lawfulnesse of the oath For to proue the oath to be lawfull or vnlawfull wee must not so much regard what his Maiesties beliefe or opinion is touching any point of controuersie which may seeme to be any way insinuated in the oath as it appeareth by his opinion concerning his Primacie in spiritualls and the Popes power to excommunicate him and such like which neuerthelesse he doth not intend that his Subjects shall be bound to affirme