plaintiffe Seeing therefore that from the very first beginning of this Controuersie concerning the authority of Popes and immunity of Kings that is from the time of Gregory the seuenth who was the first Pope that challenged vnto him this temporall power ouer Kinges this authority of the Pope to depose Kinges call it temporall or spirituall as you please hath beene vncertaine disputable and euer contradicted by Catholikes both Kinges and Subiects and therefore it cannot be said that the Pope was euer in possession of this authority although we should grant that power right or authority may be said to be possessed in that sense as possession is taken in Law whereof in my Answere to this Authors Reply I wil more at large discourse it consequently followeth that what opinion soeuer any Catholike follow speculatiuely concerning the Popes power to depose yet in practise vntill this Controuersie concerning the Popes authority to depose Kings and the immunity of Kings not to be deposed shall be decided as yet it is not he cannot with a good conscience endeuour to thrust out a King so deposed from the Kingdome or Dominions which he lawfully possesseth Wherfore in the end of my Apologie I wrote these expresse words of which also in my Epistle Dedicatory to his Holinesse I made mentioÌ„ And therfore if eyther Pope Prince or any other forainer should attempt to thrust an hereticall Prince out of the Kingdome which he possesseth this Controuersie concerning the deposition of Princes being vndecided he should contrary to the rules of Iustice do himselfe most manifest wrong And much more a Subiect cannot be excused from manifest treason what opinion so uer hee doth speculatiuely maintain concerning the Popes temporall power who practically vnder colour perchance of deuotion to the See Apostolike not duly also considering the bond of his Allegiance towards his Soueraigne should endeuour to thrust his lawfull Prince out of his Kingdome which he possesseth notwithstanding any Excommunication or sentence of depriuation denounced by the Pope against him Wherefore it is apparant that in practise I taught it to bee absolutely false that the Pope hath authority to depose Princes 11 Consider now good Reader first the vnsincere dealing of this Author who concealeth the cheefest part of my opinion in securing his Maiestie of the constant loyalty and allegiance wherein all his Catholique Subiects are in conscience bound vnto him that thereby hee may cause his Maiestie to be iealous of my fidelitie and to account me no good Subiect as this Authour falsely affirmeth that I am neither a good Subiect nor a good Catholike or Childe of the Church But I trust in God that it will appeare to all men that Insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui mentita est iniquitas sibi That false witnesses are risen vp against me and wickednesse hath belyed her selfe â—al 26. and that I will euer prooue my selfe to bee both a good Subiect to his Maiestie and also a dutifull child of the Catholike Church 12 Secondlie consider the reason why this Authour is so greatly offended that I at this present doe onely take in hand by answering probably all the arguments which on the contrary side are to be obiected to shew that it is at least-wise probable that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and consequently that any man may with a probable and safe conscience take the Oath for that the doctrine concerning the Popes authority to depose is by this Authours owne confession the maine question betwixt him and me and the cheefe ground wherefore the Oath is iudged to be vnlawfull His reason therefore is for that hee saw right well what great aduantage I had against him and what little aduantage hee had against me in arguing or rather answering in this sort and therefore he calleth it in heat of his zeale The most deuolish deuice that any man could inuent And truly if I should at this first beginning haue treated of this Controuersie in any other manner then by handling it probably in that sense as I haue declared I might worthily haue beene censured of great imprudency in giuing my Aduersary more aduantage against mee then was needfull For this is the State of the question whether it can be cleerely conuinced by the authority of the holy Scriptures Ancient Fathers Generall Councels or by necessary inferences from any of them as our Aduersaries pretend to conuince that it is an vndoubted doctrine of Faith and the contrary not be defended by any Catholike that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and consequently that the oath cannot lawfully be taken This is the question Marke now the aduantage I haue for first I am not to prooue but onely to aunswer to defend not to oppose Secondlie it is sufficient for me that my answers be onely probable but there Replyes must not bee onely probable but also conuincing and which with any probabilitie cannot bee answered So that if I should goe about at the first to proue my opinion to be most true which my aduersary affirmeth not to be questionable I should as it is euident greatly disaduantage my selfe For in such Controuersies as are so violently maintained by the Aduersary that he will not grant the contrary part to bee questionable it is necessary to proceed by degrees first to make the thing questionable and disputable which the aduerse part will not haue to be called in question and after this is once agreed vpon then to examine whether opinion be the truest For perchance it may fall out that as the opinion for the immaculate Conception of our B. Lady before Scotus did oppose himselfe therein against S. Thomas and his followers was scarse accounted probable yet afterwards it was daily more and more followed so that now it is esteemed to be the farre more true opinion and as Alphonsus Salmeron f In cap. 5. â— Rem disp 51. Sect. Dâ— inde and Fa. Suarez g Tom. â— disp 3. sec doe affirme Agreed vpon by the consent almost of the Vniuersall Church and of the Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities and as that opinion which holdeth that the Pope hath not power to dispence in the solemne vow of religious chastitie neither in any lawfull marriage before it be consummate is accounted by very many learned men to bee the farre truer opinion notwithstanding the practise of many Popes to the contrary So it may fall out that in processe of time this opinion that denieth the Popes authority to depose Princes may bee embraced by almost all Ecclesiasticall Writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities notwithstanding the practise of many Popes and the vehement opposition of the Iesuites at this present time to the contrary 13 Thirdly consider how little beholding are English Catholikes to this Author T. F. who will needes enforce them euen with the temporall ouerthrowe of themselues and of their whole posteritie to defend that doctrine to bee of faith which the
accounted by Catholickes to be a point of faith 4 Thirdly that from the time of Gregorie the seuenth who was the first Authour that cleerely taught this Doctrine but after he had first put it in practise and was the first Pope that contrarie to the custome of his Ancestors saith Onuphrius deposed the Roman Emperour for which cause he had much adoe to cleere himself euen with his own friends as appeareth by the Letter which Hermannus Bishop of Mentz his deare friend and follower in all such his proceedings wrote vnto him desiring to be satisfied herein and was by Sigebert who in those dayes was greatly esteemed by the wisest for his singular vertue and learning although Cardinal Baronius and Cardinall Bellarmine doe without sufficient ground call him a Scismatick at that time impeached of noueltie not to say of heresie for so bee Sigeberts words it hath been continually euen to these our daies contradicted by Catholike Authors as appeareth by Ioannes Trithemius a Jn Chronico Monasterii Hir. saug ad annum 1106. and Iacobus Almainus b In lib. a◠dominio naturali c. inprobatione conclus 2 ae there related but especially by the Kingdome of France as witnesseth Petrus Pithaeus c In codice libertatum Eccles Galli canae a man greatly commended by Fa Posseuine the Iesuit for his singular learning and knowledge in Antiquities d In Apparatu verbo Petrus Pithaeus and it is sufficiently confirmed by the late proceeding at Paris against the bookes of Card Bellarmine Becanus Schulckenius and now lastly of Suarez whose booke was for this Doctrine by a solemne Decree of the Parliament of Paris and Printed by the Kings Printer and with the Kings priuiledge condemned and reprochfully burned the 27. of Iune past by the hangman before the great Staires of the Pallace and foure of the chiefest Iesuites of France therein named were enioyned vnder paine of treason in their Sermons to exhort the people to the contrarie Doctrine And doubtlesse this Authour who in all points followeth these former mens steps if his booke had beene printed in Latine would haue quickly perceiued by the fruits of his own labours whether in France there be any Catholikes who doe impugne this Doctrine of deposing Princes by the Popes authoritie or no And yet this Authour would cunningly perswade the simpler sort of Catholikes therby to perplexe their consciences that I onely am the man who doe impugne this temporall authoritie of the Pope to depose Princes whereas hee cannot be ignorant that besides mee many others of our nation as both the Barclaies Mr Blackwell Mr Warmington Mr. Barret those thirteene Reuerend Priests all by publike writings and many others of the best learned of our Nation both Priests and lay-men I could name who are of my opinion and if it were not for the clamors threatnings and violent proceedings of our Aduersaries I meane not Protestants they vvould publikely professe as much as I haue done and as for the State of France what opinion they be of it is manifest And therefore that Doctrine of Vasquez concerning probable opinions may bee very wel applyed to this my doctrine howsoeuer this Author falsely supposing the Doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be defined would gladly perswade our English Catholikes to the contrarie 5 Fourthly I shewed in that booke that seeing the Pope is not the Church but onely a principall member thereof their is to bee made a great distinction betweene the facts and practises of Popes and betweene the facts and practise of the Church neither is the practise of many Popes to bee accounted the practise of the Church vnlesse by the vvhole Church it be allowed as that opinion and practise for the Popes power to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments by way of coërtion neuer was and therefore although it be and hath beene the more common opinion of Catholikes for some ages past that the Pope hath authority to depose yet that it is certaine and not to bee contradicted but to bee beleeued as a point of faith and the contrary not to be accounted an opinion but rather an heresie is altogether false To the Councell of Lateran which but of late yeares hath been vrged and that onely by some few because Suarez did onely barely relate it and not vrge the wordes thereof I did remit him to the Preface of my Apologelicall Answere wherein I largely discoursed of the Decree of that Councel But because this Author seemeth to stand much thereon as the chiefe pillar and ground of his pretended definition I will at large in my Answere to his Reply treate of that Councell and satisfie all the cauils which neuerthelesse should bee cleere demonstrations if this Author did intend to proue his purpose vvhich hee hath taken out of D. Singletons or rather Fa Lessius his Discussion of the Decree of that Councell and I will shew that it cannot be sufficiently proued first that the Councell by those words temporall Lord did intend to include Soueraign Princes secondly that although it did by those words vnderstand Soueraigne Princes yet that it did not suppose that the Pope had authoritie to depose Soueraigne Princes thirdly that although it did suppose it yet it did not suppose it as a point of faith and an vndoubted doctrine but at the most as probable opinion so that from the authoritie of this Councel it can not bee conuinced that it is a point of faith or an vndoubted doctrine that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Soueraign Princes 6 Lastly thou maist perceiue Good Reader what strange paradoxes this Author dare aduenture to maintaine by this that he blusheth not to affirme would cunningly perswade our State that my manner of handling this controuersie probably concerning the Popes authoritie to depose Princes c. is dangerous pernicious to his Maiestie and therefore that my books deserue to be prohibited no lesse in England then Rome and that wise men in the parts where hee is doe greatly maruell how it can stand with the wisedome of his Maiesties Councell to permit them to bee printed and published in England 7 But if this Author had either sincerely or entirely related my opinion or else had put in minde the Reader against what kinde of Aduersaries I doe oppose he would presently haue perceiued that it is too apparantly shamefully vntrue that my manner of handling this question probably is dangerous and pernicious to his Maiestie as this Author doth endeuor to perswade his Maiesty not for any loue that he is knowne to beare vnto the State but to the end by all likelihood that hee and such like violent spirits may vvrite more freely and without being controuled or contradicted by Catholikes who as hee is perswaded doe little regard the writings and opinions of Protestants concerning this or any other Doctrine For it may be dangerous to his Maiestie to handle a question probably against one Aduersarie which
minde but in manner of an humble petition sincerelie and for many reasons which I there rehearsed to informe your Holinesse more fully who as heere we thinke hath not beene rightly informed of the reasons for vvhich English Catholickes are of opinion that the Oath may lawfully bee taken and for this cause I did dedicate it to your Holinesse that after you had carefully examined all the reasons for which English Catholikes doe think the Oath may lawfully be taken your Holinesse might prouide both for their spirituall and temporall safety as according to your fatherly wisedome and charitie should be thought most conuenient And therefore as in the end of that Disputation I affirmed I did faithfully set downe all the cheefest arguments which are vsually alleaged as well against the taking of the oath as in fauour thereof neither did I intend to affirme any thing of my owne opinion but onely as representing the persons of them who of set purpose doe publikely maintaine that the Oath either may or may not lawfully be taken leauing it to the fatherly care of your Holines that when you haue beene fully informed of the whole progresse of the matter and haue diligently examined all the reasons for which English Catholikes obeying the Kings commaund haue taken the Oath you will bee pleased particularly to approoue them or to condemne them that Catholikes in this so most weightie a matter which doth so neerely concerne the prerogatiue of your spirituall Authority and of his Maiesties Royaltie being fearefull to resist your Holinesse precept declared in your Breues and also beeing desirous to obey as much as with a safe conscience they may his Maiesties commaund may clearely perceiue which particular clauses of the Oath they are bound to admit and which they are bound to reiect and may in plaine and expresse termes without any ambiguitie of wordes be instructed by your Holinesse in what manner they may satisfie their owne conscience your Holinesse will and also his Maiesties desire concerning all the particular partes of the Oath For as they are very ready to hazzard their whole temporall estate and also to loose their liues for the Catholike faith which by the Church to whom this office belongeth to define matters of Faith and not to priuate Doctours who may deceiue and be deceiued is declared to be truly the Catholike faith so doubtlesse they are vnwilling to expose themselues and their whole Family and Posterity which this our age doth so much labour to aduance to eminent danger of their temporall vtter ruine onely for opinions although they be maintained by the greater and better part of Deuines so that others although farre fewer in number doe defend the contrary But as they are desirous with all their hearts to obey your Holinesse in spirituall matters and in those things which cannot be omitted without sinne so also they might iustly thinke themselues to be more hardly vsed then children are wont by their Parents if especially in these times wherein by reason of the Catholike Faith which they professe they haue greeuously incurred his Maiesties high displeasure who is of a contrary Religion they should without sufficient reason be forbidden to giue that temporall Allegiance to his Maiestie which they thinke by the Law of Christ to be due vnto him hauing alwaies before their eies that commaund of Christ our Sauiour Render to Caesar the thinges that are Caesars and to God the thinges that are Gods 11 And that your Holinesse may yet more cleerely perceiue that this my Disputation of the Oath which is rather to be called a most humble Supplication to your Holinesse was written in manner of an humble Petition I thinke it not amisse to repeate also word by word these very last wordes of my Epistle to your Holinesse 12 This therefore most Holie Father is our most humble Supplication to your Holinesse First that your Holinesse will bee pleased to examine diligently the reasons for which our English Catholikes doe thinke the Oath may lawfully be taken and wherof they are perswaded your Holiness is not yet rightly informed Secondly that after you haue throughly examined them you will vouchsafe in regard of your Pastorall carefulnesse to instruct them which parts of the Oath are I do not say only according to a probable opinion of some Doctors but according to Catholike Doctrine necessarily to bee beleeued by all Christians repugnant to faith and saluation and therefore can not be taken by any Catholike with a safe and probable conscience Thirdly that if your Holinesse shal finde that you haue not beene rightly informed of those reasons for which our English Catholikes doe think that the Oath may lawfully be taken and that therefore they haue not in a matter of so great weight proceeded rashly and vnaduisedly you will be pleased to receiue them and their Priests into your ancient fauour and that if they or any of them haue not through their own fault but throgh the indiscreete zeale of others suffered any losse or detriment in their good names or other waies it may be restored againe to them in that best manner as shall seeme conuenient to the charitie iustice and wisedome of your Holinesse 13. Now what there is contained in this our humble Petition against which your Holinesse hath iust cause to take so high displeasure that you will not accept thereof I remit to the iudgement of indiferent men but especially of your Holines For by that which wee haue sayd it doth manifestly appeare that this disputation of the Oath was for that end composed by me to informe your Holinesse who is the Supreme Pastor of the Catholike Church and to whom Christ our Lord hath giuen charge to feed his sheepe not onely with precepts and Censures but also with the word of Doctrine and to instruct them in the Catholike faith truely of our state and to propound vnto your Holinesse sincerely and with all duetifull submission those doubts and difficulties which both to my selfe and other Catholikes doe occurre about this new Oath which is commaunded by his Maiesty forbidden by your Holinesse and dayly taken by almost all Catholikes of the better sort to whom it is tendred yea euen by those who haue the Iesuites for their directours howsoeuer these Fathers doe in outward shew seeme to condemne the same that after your Holinesse had duely examined the reasons and arguments which are vsually alledged on both sides against and for the taking of the Oath you would bee pleased to satisfie our consciences and to make knowne vnto vs what parts of the Oath may according to the principles of the Catholike faith bee lawfully and what parts may not lawfully bee taken and lastly to declare vnto vs which bee those many things which your Holinesse being not rightly informed by some as wee imagine hath affirmed in your Breeues to bee cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation for no man be he neuer so great an enemy to the Oath dare auouch that all things