him by violence of that howse or land before the Iudge hath decided the controuersie 78 Thirdly consider the reason why this my Aduersarie T. F. is so greatly offended that I for this present doe onely take in hand by answering probably all the arguments which are obiected on the contrarie side to shew that it is probable that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes and consequently that any man may with a safe and probable conscience take the Oath for that the doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is by this my Aduersaries owne confession the maine question betwixt him me and the chiefe ground wherefore the Oath is iudged to be vnlawfull His reason therfore is for that he saw right well what great aduantage I had against him and what little aduantage hee had against me in arguing or rather answering in this manner and therefore he calleth it in heate of his zeale as you haue heard The most deuilish deuice that any man could invent And truly if I should at this first beginning haue treated of this controuersie in any other manner then by handling it probably in that sense as I haue declared I might worthily haue been taxed of great imprudencie in giuing my Aduersarie more aduantage against me then was needfull For this is the state of the question whether it can bee clearely convinced by the authoritie of holy Scriptures ancient Fathers Generall Councells or by necessarie inferences from any of them as my Aduersaries pretend to convince that it is an vndoubted doctrine of faith and the contrarie not to be maintained by any Catholike that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and consequently that the Oath can not lawfully be taken This is the question 79 Marke now the aduantage I haue For first I am not to proue but only to answer to defend not to oppose Secondly it is sufficient for me that my Answers be onely probable but their Replyes must not be onely probable but also convincing and which can not with any probabilitie be answered So that if I should goe about at the first to proue my opinion to be most true which my Aduersaries contend not to be questionable I should as it is euident greatly disaduantage my selfe For in such controuersies as are so violently maintained by the Aduersarie that hee will not grant the contrarie part to be questionable it is necessarie to proceed by degrees first to make the thing questionable and disputable which the aduerse part will not haue to be called in question and after this is once agreed vpon then to examine whether opinion be the truest For perchance it may fall out that as the opinion for the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin before Scotus did oppose himselfe herein against S. Thomas and his followers was scarse accounted probable yet afterwards it was daily more and more embraced so that it is now esteemed to be by farre the more true opinion and as Alphonsus Salmeron b in Rom 5. Disp 51. § deinde and Franciscus c Tom. 2. Disp 3. sec 5. Suarez doe affirme agreed vpon by the consent almost of the vninuersall Church and of all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities And as that opinion which holdeth that the Pope can not dispence in the solemne vow of Religious chastitie neither in any lawfull marriage before it bee consummate is accounted by very many learned men to be the truer opinion notwithstanding the practise of many Popes to the contrarie So it may fall out that in processe of time this opinion which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes may be accounted by the greatest number of learned men to be by farre the more true opinion and may be agreed vpon by the consent almost of the Vniuersall Church and of all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities notwithstanding the practise of many Popes and the vehement opposition of the Iesuits at this present time to the contrarie 80 Fourthly consider how little beholding are English Catholikes to this my Aduersarie T. F. who will needs inforce them euen with the temporall ouerthrow of themselues and of their whole posteritie to defend that doctrine to be of faith which the State of France accounteth scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious and also endeauoureth to perswade his Maiestie that no Catholike can according to the grounds of Catholike Religion be a true and loyall Subiect to his Maiestie but at the Popes pleasure or which is all one so long onely as the Pope shall not depose him which he may doe at his pleasure But we haue great affiance in his Maiesties singular wisdome and element disposition whereof we haue had both by his Maiesties gracious Proclamation publike bookes and effectuall deeds sufficient tryall that he will not be drawne by the false suggestion of this my Aduersarie who would haue all his Catholike Subiects to be of the same violent spirit as he is to haue all his Catholike Subiects in the same degree of iealousie but that he will euer make a distinction betwixt them who are his true hearted Subiects and most loyall in all temporall affaires and will aduenture all that they haue and are in defence of his Maiesties Royall Person and dignitie against any sentence of depriuation whatsoeuer which shall be denounced against him by the Pope assuring themselues that it is conformable to the grounds of Catholike Religion which they professe and not repugnant to that spirituall obedience wherein they stand bound to the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church and those other Catholikes who thinking it to be a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to dethrone Soueraigne Princes and to make temporall Kings priuate men will only defend his Maiestie and yeeld him temporall obedience vntill the Pope after his sentence of depriuation shall command them the contrarie 81 But what small reliefe are English Catholikes to expect from Mr. Fitzherberts hands if it were in his power to relieue them you may Catholike Countrymen coniecture by this that towards the end of Queene Elizabeth hir raigne when those foure Reuerend Priests were at Rome to seeke redresse of Pope Clement the eight to whom they and other of their brethren had appealed for the manifold wrongs and slaunders wherewith they were charged both at home and abroad at which time this my Aduersarie running from Cardinall to Cardinall to informe against them made no scruple of conscience to disgrace and slaunder them as Schismatikes Spies Rebells and disobedient persons to the See Apostolike c. as now in his publike writings he handleth me hee and some others vpon whom he depended fearing lest that hir Maiestie should shew some fauour and giue some sort of toleration to such hir Catholike Subiects whom for their constant loyaltie she might securely trust for out of hir Princely and mercifull disposition Shee had already shewed ouer great fauour to those oppressed Priests considering the present lawes
authoritie And therefore notwithstanding all the exceptions which Card. Bellarmine and Fa. Lessius do take against Ioannes Parisiensis we haue the testimonie of this learned Catholike and famous Schole-Diuine that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes by his sentence which is the only question at this time betweene me and Card. Bellarmine Chap. 4. Wherein the authoritie of M. Doctour Barclay a famous and learned Catholike is breifly examined 1. THe fourth testimony which I broght both in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 28. and also in my Apologieb was of Mr. Doctour Barclay a most learned man and yet no more learned then religious howsoeuer some falsly and vnchristianly do slaunder him in his booke de Regno printed at Paris in the yeare 1600. with priueledge of the most Christian King of France where he affirmeth that Kings who doe omit or are negligent to keepe Gods commandements to worship him religiously and to vse all care and diligence that their subiects do not reuolt from true Religion and fall into Idolatrie Iudaisme or heresie are to be iudged by God alone because only to God they are subiect speaking of temporall iudgement and subiection although the Pope being the supreme Prince and vniuersall Pastour of the Chuch hath power to condemn with spirituall iudgement all kings and Princes offending against Gods law as they are Christians and children of the Church and to deliuer them to inuisible tormentours to be punished with the rod of the inuisible spirit and with the two edged sword of Excommunication 2. But Card. Bellarmine in his booke against D. Barclay c Per totum little regardeth his authority and now in his Sculckenius he affirmeth d Pag. 110. ad num 28. that Catholikes will make no more account of Barclay then they do of Marsilius de Padua and of my selfe an easie answer to shift off the authoritie of any learned Catholike And againe who doth not maruaile saith D. Schulckenius that seeing Card. Bellarmine hath in this point clearely and soundly after his accustomed manner confuted Barclay Widdrington durst not only aduenture to write against him without sufficient ground but also to oppose the said Barclay as a testimonie of truth against Card. Bellarmine 3. But notwithstanding this glorious brag of D. Schulckenius so highly commending himselfe and his cleare and sound confuting of Barclay after his accustomed manner it cannot be denied but that Doctour Barclay was a very learned man and liued and died like a vertuous Catholike and 〈◊〉 hee was in times past as Posseuine also relateth e In verbo Gulielmus Barclaius a Counseller to the Duke of Lorraine and Master of Requests and in the vniuersity of Mussepont a Professour of the Canon and Ciuill Law and also Deane and that his booke was printed at Paris with a speciall priueledge of the most Christian King of France and is by Posseuine related among other approued bookes and no exception taken by him against it And therefore who doth not maruell that D. Schulckenius durst aduenture so bouldly to affirme f Part. 1. cap. 2. num 2. that Catholikes will make no more account of D. Barclay a famous and learned Catholike then of Marsilius of Padua a known and condemned heretike although not for this point touching the Popes power to depose Princes but for other his assertions which I related in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez Wherefore although perchance some Catholikes doe with Card. Bellarmine make small account of Doctour Barclaies authoritie as also they would make of the authoritie of any other Catholike were he neuer so vertuous or learned that should write against them in this point neuerthelesse other Catholikes doe greatly regard his authoritie for the aforesaid cause and they are also perswaded that they haue as probable reasons to thinke that he did not write partially in fauour of Princes or any other person as that Card. Bellarmine did not write partially in fauour of the Pope and some other of his followers in fauour of him and their Order 4 Neither hath D. Schulckenius in very truth any great cause so greatly to vaunt of his cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay for that both his sonne Mr. Iohn Barclay a learned Catholike hath most clearely shewed the said confutation to be very vnsound to whom as yet no Reply hath been made and yet his booke was printed at Paris by the Kings Printer three yeeres since and also the Bishop of Rochester a learned Protestant hath out of Catholike grounds conuinced D. Schulckenius his brag of the cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay to be but vaine wherefore let Card Bellarmine first make a cleare and sound Reply to the aforesaid Answers and then he may haue some cause to boast that he hath clearely and soundly confuted D. Barclay In the meane time it can not be denyed but that notwithstanding all the clamours of our Aduersaries this doctrine which doth now so vehemently maintaine the Popes power to depose Princes is and hath euer been impugned by vertuous and learned Catholikes Chap. 5. Wherein the authorities of Mr George Blackwell and of many other English Priests are at large debated 1. THe first testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 9. to which D. Schulckenius doth not answer was of Mr. George Blackwell a vertuous and learned Catholike Priest and once the Archipraesbyter of the English Seminarie Priests who maintayned euen vntill death for not halfe a quarter of an howre before hee dyed he confirmed the same the oath to be lawfull and that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes to which also besides Mr. William Warmington in his moderate defence of the Oath Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Card Bellarmine in defence of his Father printed at Paris by the Kings Printer and Mr. William Barres in his booke de Iure Regio and many other learned Catholikes of this Kingdome both Priests and Lay-men whose names for iust causes I forbare to set downe for that they had not shewed themselues by publike writings I added the testimonie of those thirteene Reuerend and learned English Priests with whom twice thirtie others would haue ioyned if their protestation had not been made so suddenly who to giue assurance of their loyaltie to the late Queene Elizabeth did by a publike instrument written in parchment professe and made it knowne to all the Christian world that Shee being at that time excommunicated by name and depriued by the sentence of Pope Pius the fifth of hir Regall power and authoritie had neuertheles as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer them and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme as any hir Highnesse Predecessours euer had And that notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer either denounced or to be denounced by the Pope against hir Maiestie or any borne within hir Maiesties Dominions which would not forsake the defence of
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
of Henry the fourth Emperour the discord of the German Princes the riches of the Countesse Mathildis the warlike forces of the Nortmans and the desire of all men that the Emperour might be restrained from doing such euills were the first occasions m See beneath part 1. cap 6. nu 24. that this doctrine began first to bee practised by the said Pope Gregorie and afterwards it being in regard of the strangenesse thereof so greatly contradicted iustified by him to bee lawfull for which cause it was by Onuphrius n See in the place aboue câ—ted called a thing not heard of before that age and by Sigebert a learned and vertuous Catholike and no Schismatike as I will proue beneath o Part 1. cap. 6. num 20. seq it was taxed of noueltie not to say of heresie and confuted by him at large 16 Secondly the aduancing of them who did maintaine this doctrine the depressing of those who did impugne it the suppressing of Bookes and the threatning of Ecclesiasticall Censures which neuerthelesse if they be vniust are not of force in the p Suarez de Censuris Disp 4. sec 7. nu 2. 4. 23. seq Court of Conscience and the indiligence of temporall Princes to maintaine their Soueraigntie the causes whereof I dare not presume to examine besides the former reasons and pretence of aduancing Catholike religion c. were the chiefe causes why the defenders of this doctrine did so increase in number from the time of Pope Gregorie the 7. in comparison of those who did impugne it But if temporall Princes would yet be pleased to vse hereafter those meanes to defend their right and Soueraigntie which Popes haue heretofore and doe continually vse to maintaine their pretended temporall authoritie ouer Kings and Princes to depose them to dispose of their temporalls c. in order to spirituall good I do not doubt but that the streame of Doctors would quickly turne backward and my Aduersaries would haue small cause to brag considering especially the weaknesse of their grounds and that their doctrine is ouerswaied by authoritie and not by reason that so many Authors fauour the Popes power to depose Princes and so few the right of Princes not to bee deposed by the Pope 17 Neuerthelesse it is also manifest that it hath euer been contradicted by Christian Princes and people and notwithstanding the foresaid motiues and also the feare that some might haue lest wicked Princes might be in some sort incouraged to perseuere in euill by impugning that doctrine which seemed to be a bridle to restraine their bad purposes it hath continually been impugned disproued and confuted by learned Catholikes as I haue cleerely proued in this Treatise And therefore remember into what danger of soule bodie and temporall fortunes you for want of reading and due examining doe throw headlong your selues and many innocent men who doe follow your example and counsell for the which at the day of iudgement you are to make a most strict account where no fauour of Man can helpe you and willfull ignorance will not excuse you but condemne you and it will be too late to say then Non putaram vnlesse you doe now abstracting from all humane affection respects examine duely what dutie you beare God and Caesar what obedience you owe to the Pope and your temporall Prince 18 But perhaps some of you will demand how can you by reading examine this controuersie seeing that the Bookes which treate thereof are forbidden by the Pope In answer to this I will onely propound at this time to your prudent considerations whether if there should arise a controuersie betwixt the Pope and a temporall Prince concerning the title to any kingdome especially which that temporall Prince hath in his possession as there is betwixt the Pope and the King of Spaine touching the Kingdomes of Naples and Sicilie the Pope hath authoritie to command that temporall Prince and his Subiects not to read and pervse those euidences which doe make in fauour of his owne title but onely those euidences which doe proue the Popes title 19 Now if the reason why my bookes are forbidden by the Pope or rather by the euill information importunitie and iudiciall sentence of Card. Bellarmine against whom as my principall Aduersarie in this cause I did write both my Apologie for the right of Princes and also my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegiance which two bookes are onely forbidden and who therfore was pleased to bee an Accuser Witnesse and Iudge in his owne cause be for that they doe fauor the oath of Allegiance and impugne the Popes power to depose Princes as all my Aduersaries confesse that for this cause they are forbidden to bee read then you may cleerely perceiue that therefore my bookes are forbidden for that they doe shew and declare the euidences which doe make for the right and title of temporall Princes and their right not to be depriued or thrust out of their kingdomes by the Popes pretended authoritie but especially of our Soueraigne whose case concerning this point is more singular and concerneth him more neerely considering the opposition betwixt him and the Popes Holinesse with whom he is not linked in vnitie of religion and friendship then it doth concerne other Christian Princes who haue not the like reason to feare tumults rebellions and Powder-treasons vnder pretence of restoring Catholike religion in their Countrey and of hauing the Popes expresse or virtuall licence for the same which prohibition of the Pope to forbid such kinde of bookes how far it can binde either those Princes to whom it belongeth by the law of God and nature to defend their Soueraigntie or else their Subiects who also by the same Lawe of God and nature are bound to examine the reasons and euidences of their Princes title authoritie and Soueraigntie least that for want of due examination they should deny to God or Caesar that which is their due I remit to the prudent consideration of any iudicious Catholike man 20 Lastly consider I pray you the manifold wrongs which for the loue and paines I haue taken for your sakes I haue receiued from diuerse of you whom I could name if it were needfull both in reprochfull words and vncharitable deeds not beseeming I will not say Religious Priests but morall honest men For long before I did put pen to paper I had throughly examined this controuersie and all which in my iudgement could bee obiected on either side and for my owne part I was fully settled in my opinion but perceiuing all men to bee silent in a matter of such importance and necessitie as this is and which also concerneth vs all the zeale affection and dutie which I bare to Catholike Religion to the See Apostolike and to my Prince and Countrey with a vehement desire that the truth in this important controuersie which concerneth our obedience which by the command of Christ wee owe to GOD and Caesar to the
which doth attribute to the Pope that authoritie as certainly giuen him by Christ which at the most is disputable whether Christ hath giuen it him or no. 8. I do honour and reuerence in good truth Card. Bellarmine as also many other learned men of his Society and their singular learning I doe greatly admire but that their learning or authoritie ought to be so greatly esteemed of by Catholikes that whatsoeuer they thinke to be a point of faith it is presently to bee taken for a diuine Oracle and the contrarie opinion of other learned Catholikes who haue seene and examined all their grounds reasons and authorities is not to be accounted an opinion but an heresie and that in a matter of such importance which concerneth the dutifull obedience of euery Christian to God and Caesar this is that which I cannot take in good part And might not I pray you the Canonists who do vehemently defend the Popes direct power to dispose of all temporalls against Card. Bellarmine and others whom they are not afraide to call impios politicos wicked politicians h Alexander Carerius pretending thereby to strengthen the fortresse of the Catholike Church to confirme the immoueable rocke of S. Peter and to maintaine the Popes authoritie retort the very same inuectiue which my Aduersarie hath borrowed of Card. Bellarmine i Against Barclay cap. 1. and in the Epistle Dedicatory of his Schulckenius against me vpon Card. Bellarmine himselfe who doth vehemently impugne the aforesaid direct authoritie which the Canonists do yeelde vnto the Pope and with the same facilitie crie out with my Aduersary that he taketh vpon him to batter the fortresse of the Catholike Church with her owne Canons and constitutions and to vndermine the immoueable rocke of S. Peter with his owne instruments and all this he doth with such Art and sleigth that whiles he fighteth against the Church hee pretendeth to be a friend and childe of the Church and albeit he impugne the Popes authoritie yet he dedicateth his booke to Pope Sixtus the fift laughing vpon him whiles he woundeth him and betraying Christ with a kisse as Iudas did c. And thus much concerning me 9. Now as touching the matter which I handle and the manner of my proceeding therein k Num. 6. Widdringtons speciall purpose saith my Aduersarie in this his late worke is to defend the new oath of allegiance and to confute all the chiefe arguments that haue beene made by any against the seuerall clauses thereof which neuerthelesse he meaneth no other waies to performe as he himselfe often protesteth but only by shewing probably that the said Oath may be taken by Catholikes and that nothing hath beene hitherto or can be obiected against it which hath not been or cannot be probably answered And from hence my Aduersary gathereth certaine admonitions to the Reader which as he saith are worthy to be noted 10. But before I come to set downe his worthy admonitions I thinke it fit to put thee in remembrance Curteous Reader what is the true state of the question betwixt vs concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and what was my chiefe intent in making that disputation of the Oath The maine question therefore betwixt me and these my Aduersaries as my Aduersarie T. F. also confesseth l In the end of his Preface is touching the Popes power to depose Princes which specially is denied in this new oath to wit whether it be a point of faith and not to be denied by any Catholike without note of heresie or errour that the Pope hath by Christ his institution power to depriue temporall Princes of their Kingdomes for any crime whatsoeuer For whereas some very few late writers especially Card. Bellarmine and other Iesuites could not bee content to defend this doctrine for the Popes power call it temporall or spirituall as you will to depose Princes in a moderate manner but would needes take vpon them to make it a point of the Catholike faith and cleerely to demonstrate by the testimonie of holy Scriptures of sacred Councells and by inuincible reasons that Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successors such a temporall power ouer Soueraigne Kings and Princes a doctrine neither practised nor knowne by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church and which hath beene a chiefe occasion why this Kingdome is departed from the obedience to the See Apostolike and to condemne all those Catholikes of heresie who do not runne with them in this their violent course when I seriously considered with my selfe what scandall this new doctrine maintained with such violence brought to Catholike Religion what danger to our Prince and Countrey and what great calamities and disgrace English Catholikes do daily suffer thereby as not being accounted true and loyall Subiects to their Prince euen according to the doctrine of those who are esteemed to bee the chiefe pillars of the Catholike Church but so long only as it shall please the Pope I thought my selfe bound by the duty which I do owe to the Catholike Religion to my Prince Country to take away as much as lieth in mee notwithstanding the manifold slaunders which I fore-saw some persons would therefore raise against mee the aforesaid scandals dangers and disgraces and to answer probably all the arguments which Card. Bellarmine hath from the chiefest Authors who haue handled this question collected to demonstrate that it is a certaine and infallible doctrine and the contrary not so much an opinion as an heresie that the Pope hath by Christ his institution authority to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall Kingdomes and dominions 11 Wherefore the present controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries is not at this time concerning the absolute proposition to wit whether the Pope hath or hath not power to depose the reason why I doe not dispute of this absolute proposition I will declare beneath m Num. 78.79 but concerning the modall whether it be certaine without controuersie and a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose as this Author T. F. following Card. Bellarmine and some few Iesuites will needes haue it to be and I with other Catholikes and the Kingdome of France as Petrus Pithaeus witnesseth n In Cod. libert Eccles Galliâ— doe vtterly deny the same And from hence it euidently followeth that although Card. Bellarmine should alledge an hundred Catholike Authors who doe affirme that the Pope hath power to depose Princes yet if they doe not also affirme that it is certaine and to be beleeued as a point of faith that the Pope hath such a power they neither confirme his opinion nor gaine-say mine concerning the present controuersie which is now in hand And thus much concerning the matter and manner of my Apologie for the right of Princes Now touching my Theologicall Disputation concerning the oath of Allegeance although in very deede hitherto I haue not seene any sufficient reason to condemne the sayd oath as vnlawfull and
of that singular opinion and of one onely Doctor and seeth it to bee grounded vpon the authoritie of one onely Doctor hee ought not to account it probable to this effect that he may prudently follow it in practise against his owne and the common opinion of all others 46 But if it be not a singular opinion and of one onely Doctour although the learned men of the contrarie opinion doe vrge for their doctrine some law decree or definition which the contrarie part hath seene and examined and hath in some sort answered therevnto it is lawfull for any learned man according to Vasquez to follow in practise that other lesse secure and lesse common opinion against his owne opinion albeit it be the more secure and common opinion For when we perceiue saith Vasquez that the Authors of the contrarie opinion haue seene and considered all the grounds and reasons for our opinion and haue obserued that obiection taken from that law or decree and haue endeauoured to answer them and that they were not convinced by them we may iustly thinke that we may prudently and lawfully follow in practise the opinion of those other men against our owne neither ought wee to suppose that our reasons are euident demonstrations and which doe make the contrarie opinion to be voide of all probabilitie 47 And this doctrine of Vasquez is euident in the question concerning the superioritie of the Pope aboue a Generall Councell which hath been so long debated betwixt the Doctors of Rome and Paris For both of them affirme that their opinion is grounded vpon holy Scriptures is confirmed by the practise and decrees yea and definitions of Generall Councels and yet both of thē because they are approued by learned Catholike Diuines are probable although as Nauarra h In cap. Nouit de Iudicijs notab 3. nu 84. out of Ioannes Maior a learned Diuine of Paris relateth that the opinion of the Parishioners is not permitted to bee defended at Rome nor the opinion of the Romanes to bee defended at Paris And therefore into what fowle tearmes trow you would my Aduersarie breake if the Doctors of Paris who doe resolutely hold that the Pope is inferiour to a Generall Councell should argue against Card. Bellarmine and others of his opinion in the same manner as this fowle mouthed man who hath still in his mouth absurd ridiculous impertinent foolish impudent temerarious impious hereticall or erroneous that their doctrine hath not onely beene taught by the learnedst men of many ages but also it is grounded vpon holy Scriptures confirmed by the practise and decrees of diuers Counsels but especially of the famous Councell of Constance which did not onely ordaine the practise of it in some cases and therefore necessarily suppose and firmely beleeue but did also expressely define and consequently command all Christians to beleeue the verity of that doctrine and that therefore Card. Bellarmine is falne into heresie for not beleeuing that doctrine which that famous Generall Councell beleeued defined and ordained to be practised and also to be beleeued 48 By this it is apparant that Vasquez doctrine is to be vnderstood generally of all cases questions and opinions which are in controuersie among learned Catholikes although one or both parts doe pretend their doctrine to be of faith and to be grounded vpon the authoritie of holy Scripture or some decree of Pope or Generall Councell and that learned Catholikes ought not according to Vasquez to bee easily condemned of temeritie and much lesse of errour or heresie who doe not follow the more common the more probable and the more secure opinion of other Catholike Doctors although this common opinion seeme to some followers thereof to be an vndoubted doctrine and to be confirmed by some Decree Law or Canon of Pope or Generall Counsell which Decree Law or Canon those learned Catholikes haue seene examined and answered although their answeres doe not satisfie the contrarie side And conformably to this doctrine did Vasquez as I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation dispute that question whether there be any habits which are infused by God alone For although he expressely affirmeth that it is the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of the Schoole-Diuines that there bee certaine vertues called Theologicall Faith Hope and Charitie which of their owne nature are infused by God alone and that some Doctors as Andreas Vega doe hold this doctrine to bee of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall or erroneous endeauouring to proue the same not out of the Councell of Vienna which did onely declare it to be the more probable opinion but out of the Councell of Trent yet Vasquez would not condemne the contrarie opinion not onely of heresie as my Aduersarie would cunningly perswade the Reader but not so much as of temeritie From whence I inferred that according to Vasquez doctrine which my Aduersarie fraudulently concealeth the constant without controuersie and vndoubted opinion of Schoole-Diuines and which some of them thinke to be a point of faith may sometimes bee reiected without any note not onely of heresie or errour but also of temeritie which doctrine doth cleerely satisfie the common argument drawne from the authoritie of learned men who hold the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and consequently the oath to bee repugnant to faith and saluation And thus much concerning the first and second point of my Aduersaries fourth Admonition 49 As touching the third point it is apparantly vntrue and very iniurious to Catholikes and to Catholike Religion to affirme that the Arrians or any other heretikes may well pretend a farre greater probabilitie for the establishing of their heresies then may I and those other Catholikes who hold it probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes For besides that the Arrian heresie was expressely condemned in the first eight Generall Counsels and afterwards in many others and the Arrians haue euer been accounted heretikes by ancient Fathers and all other Catholikes wheras there cannot be alledged so much as any shew or colour of any one definition of a Generall Councell wherein the doctrine which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is condemned for hereticall but all the proofes that my Aduersaries alledge that the Pope hath such a power are onely ouer-wrested similitudes facts examples inferences and supposisitions of their owne drawne from the authoritie of holy Scriptures Popes or Councels when the Philosophers and Diuines doe affirme that the authoritie of learned and skilfull men sufficeth to make the doctrine or opinion probable which they approue they vnderstand of learned and skilfull men approuing a doctrine belonging to the art which they professe according to that vulgar maxime vnicuique in sua arte perito credendum est we must giue credit to euery man skilfull in his art 50 So that in a point of Law the authoritie of skilfull Lawiers and not of skilfull Physitions in a point of Physike the
authoritie of skilfull Physitions and not of Lawiers and in a point of Catholike Religion the authoritie of learned Catholikes and who are skilfull in points of Catholike Religion which they professe and not of heretikes and who doe not professe Catholike Religion doth make the opinion or doctrine which they approue to bee probable And therefore my Aduersarie very insufficiently not to vse those fowle words absurdly ridiculously which hee so often vseth against mee argueth from the authoritie of learned Catholikes to the authoritie of heretikes whose doctrine according to the definition of probable can neuer make the opinions which they approue in points of Catholike Religion which they doe not professe to be probable Neither by this can any point of Catholike faith which is knowne to all learned Catholikes to bee a point of Catholike faith be easily called in question and made onely probable for that no learned Catholike will cal in question any doctrine which is cleerely knowne to be the Catholike faith and as for heretikes their authoritie can neuer make any doctrine belonging any way to Catholike Religion which they doe not professe to be probable 51 But if there should arise any controuersie among learned Catholikes whether this or that doctrine be of faith and in what sense the words of such a text of holy Scripture or of such a Canon or Decree of Pope or Councell are to be vnderstood there is no doubt but that the authoritie of learned Catholikes may in those cases make their opinion probable although other Catholikes would be so stiffe in their owne opinion as to condemne the contrarie part of heresie errour or temeritie A manifest example hereof we haue in the Councell of Constance wherein according to Iohn Gerson and other learned men who were present at that Councell it was expressely defined that the Pope is inferiour and subiect to a Generall Councell lawfully assembled and therefore the contrarie to be flat hereticall but since that other Catholikes especially Romane Diuines haue called that Decree in question and haue endeauoured to answer therevnto affirming that it was only meant of Popes in time of Schisme or that the aforesaid Decree was not confirmed by Pope Martin in the end of the Councell which answeres neuerthelesse doe not satisfie the Doctors of the contrarie opinion I doe not thinke but that my Aduersarie will confesse that the opinion of the Romans may bee accounted probable and that the calling of that Decree in question was not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and to introduce all heresie and Atheisme 52. But if it should perchance fall out that some Catholikes would be so selfe opinatiue as to affirme without any definition at all of the Church although vnder pretext of zeale and deuotion to the See Apostolike any doctrine to be of faith and the contrarie to be hereticall and other Catholikes although the farre fewer in number should deny the same especially in a matter which concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar if the first part only should be permitted to write freely what they please and to taxe the other part of heresie to omit errour temeritie folly ridiculous absurditie and such like and this other part should be forbidden to defend their good names and to answere for themselues I leaue good Reader to thy consideration whether this be not the right way to ouerthrow Catholike Religion and the vndoubted grounds thereof and to introduce vncertaine opinions for an infallible doctrine of the Catholike faith which is to open a wide gap to heresie Atheisme and euident iniustice and to make among Christians a perpetuall dissention betwixt the Cleargie and Laity the temporall and spirituall power Now that this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not by any definition at all of the Church declared to bee true my Aduersary cannot denie and that it euer hath been and is impugned by learned Catholikes and the contrarie hath euer beene and is by them approued and therefore it is truly probable and not only hath a pretence of probabilitie I will shew beneath where I will both relate the Catholike Authours who deny this authoritie of the Pope to depose Princes which only is sufficient to make their doctrine probable and also I will discouer the insufficiencie of those Replies which my Aduersary hath made against my answeres And thus much concerning the third point 53. For the fourth and last point consider Catholike Countreimen whether Mr. Fizherbert intendeth to declare vnto you plainly and sincerely this present controuersie and by a cleare explayning of the question to quiet your consciences or rather by wrangling and cauilling to obscure the difficultie and blind your vnderstandings The question betwixt him and mee at this present is whether it be a probable doctrine that the Pope hath not any power by the institution of Christ to depriue Soueraigne Princes of their temporall power and Regall authoritie And there are two only grounds to perswade any man that this or that doctrine or opinion is truely probable The one are called intrinsecall groundes to wit the arguments and reasons which are drawne from holy Scriptures sacred Canons Theologicall reasons and such like to proue that doctrine or opinion and these groundes are proper only to learned men who are able to weigh and examine the arguments on both sides â—â—e other are called extrinsecall grounds which doe onely consist in the authority of those learned men who doe hold that doctrine or opinion because according to that which hath been said before that doctrine is trulie probable which is approued by wise and skilfull men in the art which they professe and by these onely grounds vnlearned men can be perswaded that any doctrine or opinion is truly probable 54. Now my Aduersarie seeing as he saith that all my pretended probabilitie consisteth partly in the authority of those Authours which I haue brought in my Theologicall Disputation and in my Apologie and partly in the sufficiencie as I suppose of my answeres to their groundes arguments and authorities yet he taketh vpon him in this Reply only to confute some of my answers to their intrinsecall grounds and for the confutation of the authorities which I bring hee remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius who as he saith hath answered particularly to euery one of them Seeing therefore that there is no sufficient way to satisfie the vnderstandings of vnlearned men that the doctrine which holdeth the Pope to haue no authoritie to depose Princes is not truely probable but by shewing that no learned Catholikes do approue the same for that vnlearned men are not able to examine the intrinsecall grounds of any Theologicall question but are only led by authoritie and extrinsecall grounds and if they once perceiue that learned Catholikes doe approue any doctrine they will presently also perceiue that doctrine to bee truly probable is there any likelihood that Mr. Fitzherbert intended to giue satisfaction to his vnlearned
is dangerous to his Maiesties safetie to haue this doctrine for the Popes power to depose his Maiesty to be so much as called in question in his Dominions thou maiest good Reader cleerely perceiue by this his last Admonition wherein thou shalt obserue the manifest fraud and falshood of this man For if Mr. Fitzherbert had either sincerely or entirely related my opinion and doctrine or else had put in mind his Reader against what kind of Aduersaries I do oppose any man of meane vnderstanding would presently haue perceiued as I obserued elsewhere i In the Admonition to the Reader before my English Purgation sent to his Holinesse which my words I thinke it not amisse to set downe heere againe that it is too too apparantly and shamefully vntrue that my manner of handling this question probably can be dangerous or pernicious to his Maiestie as my Aduersarie endeauoureth to perswade his Maiestie not for any loue that he is knowen to beare vnto the State but to the end by all likely-hood that he and such like violent spirits may write more freely of this subiect and without being controlled or contradicted by Catholikes who as he is perswaded do little regard the writings and opinions of Protestants concerning this or any other doctrine 61. For it may bee dangerous to his Maiesty to handle a question probably against one Aduersary which will be nothing dangerous to handle it probably against another As for example if it wer agreed vpon by all Catholikes that the Pope hath no power to depose his Maiestie then it would bee dangerous to his Maiestie that any Catholike should call this in question and dispute it probably but if on the contrary side all Catholikes should agree in this that it were certaine vnquestionable and a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose his Maiestie and to absolue his Subiects of their Allegeance to command them to take armes against him c. then if a Catholike should call this in question or which is all one dispute it probably and maintaine that it is not certaine that the Pope hath such an authoritie but that it is questionable and probable that he hath it not no man of any sense or vnderstanding can affirme that such a manner of disputing this question probably against those Aduersaries who hold it for certaine and vnquestionable can bee any way dangerous or pernicious to his Maiestie 62 Now behold the manner which I haue taken in handling this controuersie Card Bellarmine Fa Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and some other Diuines especially of the Societie of Iesus whom Mr. T. F. in euery step as though he were their creature as now he is become one of their companie doth follow haue laid this for a sure and vndoubted ground that it is a point of faith and to be beleeued as certaine and vnder paine of eternall damnation by Catholikes that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to absolue Subiects from their allegiance and therevpon to command them to take armes and raise tumults against their Prince so deposed So that you see that these men haue already laid the danger and vndoubted ouerthrow to his Maiesties Person and Crowne if the Pope should perchance depose him in that they affirme that all Catholikes are in that case bound in conscience to forsake him and to fulfill the Popes command to the destruction of his Maiesties Person and State This doctrine to wit that it is a point of faith and an vndoubted principle of Catholike Religion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to inflict all temporall punishments by way of coercion and that all Catholikes are bound in conscience to forsake his Maiestie and to take armes against him I haue taken vpon me for two principall reasons to impugne and doe not doubt clearely to maintaine the same against the clamours of Mr. T. F. or any other whatsoeuer 63 My first reason was for that it is against the truth and puritie of the Catholike Church Shee being a pillar and ground of truth that doubtfull opinions and which among Catholikes are onely in controuersie and by the Parliament of Paris haue been condemned as scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious should be enforced vpon English Catholikes as an vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike faith to the vtter ouerthrow of themselues and their whole posteritie by men who are in no danger to loose but rather to gaine temporall aduancement by their writings My second reason was to assure his Maiestie that all English Catholikes may if they will according to the grounds of Catholike Religion be true and constant Subiects to his Maiestie and that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication or depriuation denounced or to be denounced against his Maiestie by the Pope whereby his Subiects should be absolued from their Allegiance or commanded not to obey him in temporall causes they may with a safe conscience also in practise marke well what I say they are bound to adhere to his Maiestie to obey him in temporall causes as still remayning their true and lawfull Soueraigne and to resist any such sentence of Excommunication or depriuation 64 The reason wherefore I affirmed that Catholikes may with a safe conscience adhere to his Maiestie and resist the Popes sentence of depriuation was for that it is a probable opinion and which with a safe conscience and without danger of heresie error or temeritie may be embraced by Catholikes that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes nor to inflict any temporall punishments by way of coercion but that the last punishment to which the coerciue power of the Church doth extend are onely Ecclesiasticall and spirituall Censures Wherefore that which my Aduersarie affirmeth that I confesse it to be probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that the oath cannot lawfully be taken is very vntrue vnles he meane that I confes it for Disputation sake or as we vsually say Dato sed non concesso it being admitted not granted for that it maketh nothing for or against the question which is in hand Therefore positiuely I neither confesse it nor deny it approue it or condemne it nor with that part of the contradiction whether it be probable that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and whether it be probable that the Oath may not be taken doe I at this time intermeddle but whereas my Aduersaries doe so violently maintaine that it is certaine and an vndoubted doctrine of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that the oath is repugnant to faith and saluation and therefore can not lawfully be taken I at this present doe affirme the contrarie to wit that it is probable that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes and that the oath may lawfully be taken 65 But the principall reason which I brought for the securing of his Maiestie which Mr. Fitzherbert fraudulently concealeth that English Catholikes not onely may for the reason
heard of before for which cause it was called by Sigebert a noueltie not to say an heresie and since that time there hath euer beene a great controuersie saith Azor a Tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. q. 8. concerning this point betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops or Popes of Rome on the other and the Schoolemen are at variance about the same and as yet the Iudge hath not decided it saith Trithemius and very many Doctours are of opinion that the Pope hath no such authoritie saith Almainus and the State of France hath euer maintained the same for certaine saith Pithaeus and the late practise of the Parliament of Paris to omit all the authorities of our learned Countreymen doth most clearely confirme the same it is neither reason nor conscience to charge Sigebert with Schisme for impugning that new doctrine and practise which was neuer heard of before in the Church of God And therefore many complained saith Azâ—â— in the same place that Gregorie the seuenth did depriâ—e Henry the fourth of the administration of the Empire 24 For although the Bishops of Rome saith Onuphrius a man as Posseuine confesseth of exceeding great reading and whom Paulus Manutius calleth a deuourer of Histories were before honoured as the heads of Christian Religion and the Vicars of Christ and the Successours of Peter yet their authoritie was not extended any farther then either in declaring or maintayning positions of faith But yet they were subiect to the Emperours all things were done at the Emperours backe they were created by them and the Pope of Rome durst not presume to iudge or decree any thing concerning them Gregorie the seuenth the first of all the Bishops of Rome being aided with the forces of the Nortmans trusting in the riches of Countesse Mathildis a woman most potent in Italie and being encouraged with the discord of the German Princes who were at ciuill warre among them selues contrarie to the custome of his ancestours contemning the authoritie and power of the Emperour when hee had gotten the Popedome did presume I doe not say to excommunicate but also to depriue the Emperour by whom if he was not chosen he was at the least confirmed of his Kingdome and Empire A thing not heard of before that age For the fables which are carried abroad of Arcadius Anastasius Leo Iconomachus I do nothing regard Thus Onuphrius b Lib 4. de varia creat Rom Pont. 25 Lastly it is also true that Sigeberts bookes in answer to the letters of Pope Gregorie and Pope Paschalis are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes but that they are forbidden or condemned by the Catholike Church or the Catholike Romane Church as D. Schulckenius affirmeth vnlesse by the Catholike Church or Catholike Romane Church hee vnderstand those few Cardinalls and Diuines of Rome who are appointed by the Pope for the examining permitting and forbidding of bookes which were a very strange and ouer-strict description of the Catholike Church is altogether vntrue Neither is it knowne for what cause those bookes of Sigebert are put in the Catalogue of forbidden bookes as likewise two bookes of mine written especially against Card Bellarmine haue of late by a speciall decree of the aforesaid Cardinalls and especially of Card Bellarmine who hath been pleased to be a Iudge witnesse and accuser in his owne cause been prohibited and I vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures commanded to purge my selfe forthwith but the cause wherefore they are forbidden is not therein expressed neither as yet haue they giuen me to vnderstand of what crime either in particular or in generall I am to purge my selfe although in my purgation written to his Holinesse long agoe c The 24. of Iune 1614. I haue most humbly and instantly desired it and haue protested to bee most ready to purge my selfe of any crime whatsoeuer I shall know to haue committed which their strange proceeding doth clearely argue that they haue no small distrust in their cause and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not so cleare a point of faith as Card Bellarmine and his followers would haue the Popes Holinesse and the Christian world with out sufficient grounds to beleeue 26 Seeing therefore that there be many causes wherefore bookes may be forbidden and which in generall are reduced to these two heads either that they are repugnant to faith or else to good manners which the late instructions for the correcting of bookes published by the commandement of Pope Clement the eight do in so large yet doubtfull a manner extend that scarse any booke can be found which treateth of the Popes authoritie but some Correctour or other may easily except against it as those bookes are to be corrected which are against Ecclesiasticall libertie immunitie and Iurisdiction so that if a Canonist be the Corrector he will haue that blotted ouâ— which denyeth the Popes direct power in temporalls and that Cleargie are not exempted by the law of God and nature from the coerciue power of Princes c. vnlesse it can be proued that Sigebert bookes were put in the Catalogue of prohibited bookes for that they impugned the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes no good argument can be drawne from that Catalogue to impeach Sigeberts credit for the impugning of that doctrine Neither can Card Baronius nor Card Bellarmine be excused from greeuous detraction in charging Sigebert who both in his life and after his death was accounted a learned vertuous and religious Catholike with that execrable crime of schisme for which at the day of iudgement they shall render an exact account vnlesse they can proue that he did separate himselfe from the vnitie of the Church or disobey the Popes command as not acknowledging him to be the true visible head of the Church and the Successour of S. Peter 27 I omit now to declare how Catholikes ought to carry themselues in times of Schisme when more then one pretend to be the true and rightfull Pope and whether those who adhere to a false Pope perswading themselues for probable reasons that hee is the true and lawfull Pope are to be condemned of Schisme and to bee accounted formall Schismatikes concerning which question read Iohn Gerson in his Treatise therof This only at this present I will demand that if to reiect the testimonie of Sigebert or any such like Authour it be sufficient without any other proofe to say as Mr Fitzherbert answereth that they liuing in the time of the Emperours and Kings that were deposed wrote partially in their fauour why may it not with the same facilitie bee answered to the authorities of many others of the contrarie side that they liuing in the time of the Popes who tooke vpon them to depose Kings and Emperours for this hath euer been a great controuersie saith Azor betwixt Kings and Emperours on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other wrote partially in their fauour May
one person So likewise the ciuill and spirituall power are somtimes found diuided as long since in the Apostles time somtimes vnited as now and when they are vnited they make one body or common wealth 2. To this argument I answered in my Apologie b num 139. 140. that from the words of S. Gregorie Nazianzene onely these two things can be gathered The first that the spirituall power is more worthy and more noble then the temporall and that therefore the temporall must in worthinesse yeeld and giue place to the spirituall The second is that Christian Princes although in temporalls and in things belonging to ciuill gouernment they are supreme on earth and therefore subiect to none yet in that they are Christians they are subiect in spirituals and in things belonging to Christian Religion to the command of spirituall Pastours of the flocke of Christ For these bee the expresse wordes which he vsed to the Christian President For the law of Christ doth make you also subiect to my power and authoritie for we also haue authoritie to command I add also a more noble and more perfect vnlesse it be meete that the spirit do submit her power to the flesh and heauenly things doe giue place to earthly From which words this onely can be inferred that the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall and that all Christian Princes and Magistrates as they are the sheepe of Christ are in spirituall things subiect to the spirituall Pastours of the Church which all Catholikes will freely grant But that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians as they are referred to the supreme visible heads here on earth do make one totall body or common wealth as the soule and body do make one man or that the temporall power among Christians as it is temporall for this much doth signifie the temporall and spirituall power taking them in abstracto or which is all one that temporall Princes are in meere temporall causes subiect to spirituall Pastours cannot with any shew of probabilitie bee gathered out of those words of S. Gregorie Nazianzene 3. Wherefore the vnion of the temporall and spirituall power among Christians is nothing like to the vnion of the body and soule in man for that the body is a substantiall matter and the soule a substantiall forme and therefore being vnited they make one substantiall compound which is called man who therefore hath in him actually properly and formally both body and soule as euery compound hath in him the parts whereof it is compounded but the ciuill and spirituall power are not among Christians vnited as two parts compounding really and actually one totall body which is the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head for that according to Card. Bellarmines owne doctrine the Church of Christ whereof the Pope is head is compounded only of spirituall power and not of ciuill power as ciuill is distinguished from spirituall but ciuill and spirituall power ciuill power and spirituall subiection ciuill subiection and spirituall subiection to omit now spirituall power and ciuill subiection are only vnited among Christians as two accidents for example Musike and Phisike are vnited in one man which vnion being only accidentall and in subiect is not sufficient to cause the temporall and spirituall power to make truely properly and formally one body whereof the Pope is bead but only to make the same man either to haue in him both temporall and spirituall power or temporall power and spirituall subiection or both temporall subiection and spirituall subiection to omit now spirituall power and temporall subiection and consequently the same man to bee guided directed and gouerned in temporall things by the lawes precepts and directions of the temporall power and in spirituall things by the lawes precepts and directions of the spirituall power As the vnion of Musike and Phisike in one man although it be only materiall accidentall and in subiect yet it maketh the same man to be both a Musician and a Physitian and as he is a Musitian to be guided and directed by the lawes and precepts of Musicke and as a Phisitian by the rules precepts of phisike but it doth not make Musike to be guided and directed by Physike or a Musicion as he is a Musician to be guided and directed by a Physition as he is a Physitian So likewise the aforesaid vnion of temporall and spirituall power of temporall power and spirituall subiection c. in one man doth not make the temporall power to be subiect to the spirituall or a temporall Prince as hee is a temporall Prince or which is all one in temporall causes to bee guided directed and gouerned by the spirituall power as it is spirituall But of this similitude of the soule and body wee shall haue occasion to treat againe beneath c Cap. 8. 4. Pardon me good Reader that sometimes I repeate the same things somewhat often it is not to make my booke the bigger and to fill it vp with idle repetitions of the same things as my Aduersaries to disgrace me are pleased to lay to my charge not considering that they themselues do often times commit the like but it is onely to cleere thy vnderstanding and to make thee throughly comprehend the difficultie and in what manner the temporall and spirituall power are vnited and subordained among Christians considering that my Aduersaries to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of all temporalls and to punish temporally by way of constraint doe so often inculcate this vnion and subordination as a principall ground whereon the Popes power in temporalls doth depend And thus you haue seene how weakely Card. Bellarmine and disagreeably to his owne principles hath laboured to proue that the temporall and spirituall power among Christians doe make one totall body or common wealth whereof the Pope is head now you shall see how weakely also and not conformably to his owne doctrine he endeauoureth to proue that the temporall power among Christians is subiect and subordained to the spirituall 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 touching this point are rehearsed 1. FIrst therefore that you may perceiue the true state of the question and wherein I doe agree with Card Bellarmine and wherein we differ I doe agree with him in this that Christian Princes in whom the supreme temporall power doth reside being the sheepe of Christ no lesse then inferiour persons are subiect to the supreme visible Pastour of the Church of Christ but the question is in what things and also in what manner they are subiect Secondly we also agree in this that Christian Princes are in spirituall things or which doe belong to Christian faith and Religion subiect not onely to the directiue or commanding power but also in spirituall punishments to the coerciue or punishing power of spirituall
among Christians is not per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall power is for that in his Schulckenius he affirmeth h Pag. 276. ad nu 140. That among the Heathen Romanes the ciuill power was subiect to the spiritual power of a false religion and a little beneath if the ciuill power saith he be ioyned with a false Ecclesiasticall power that is of a false Religion as it was in the Heathen Romane Common-wealth then it is actually subordained to a false Ecclesiasticall power and if it bee ioyned with a true Ecclesiasticall power as in the Christian and Catholike Church then it is actually subordained to a true Ecclesiasticall power Now what Philosopher or Diuine will affirme that a true ciuill power is per se and of it owne nature actually ordained subordained or referred to a false Ecclesiasticall power that is of a false Religion or to the worshipping of false Gods Therfore this subiection subordination or relation of true ciuill power to the spirituall proceedeth from the intention of him in whom the ciuill power doth reside who according to his faith and religion bee it true or false referreth his true ciuill power to a true or false Religion to a true or false worshipping of God and not from the nature or any intrinsecal propertie of the true ciuill power it selfe which as it is the same in Infidels and Christians or in whatsoeuer subiect it be so also of it own nature hath the same end as well in Infidels as in Christians to wit temporall peace to which of it owne nature it is alwaies referred And therefore I doe not onely say but also I doe cleerely prooue and that out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds to which neuerthelesse I being only an answerer and not an opponent was not tied that neither the ciuil power being only a naturall power nor the end of ciuill power which is temporal peace being onely a naturall end is per se and of it owne nature subiect or subordained to a true supernaturall power or end but onely by the intension of him in whom the ciuill power doth reside 9. Now you shal see how wel D. Schulckenius proueth the contrarie But wee prooue the contrary saith he i Pag. 329. ad nu 162. because the end of the spirituall common-wealth is euerlasting saluation which is the last end the end of the temporall common-wealth is the peace of the Citie or Kingdome which is not the last end but a mediate end But all ends are subordained per se and of their owne nature to the last end and in vertue of it they doe mooue as all efficient causes are subordained per se and of their owne nature to the first efficient cause and in vertue of it they worke whatsoeuer they doe worke See S. Thomas 1â— 2â— q. 1. ar 6. 10. But to this argument I answered before that the last create end of the spirituall common-wealth which is a companie of men vnited by Baptisme in that manner as I declared before is eternal saluation to which they ought to referre all their powers both temporall and spirituall and all their actions both in generall and particular but I denied that the last end of the temporall power it selfe although it bee conioyned in one the selfe same subiect with true spirituall power is eternall saluation but onely temporall peace in the common-wealth to which of it owne nature it is onely referred as to her last end although by the intention of him in whom true ciuill and spirituall power doth reside it ought to bee referred to eternall saluation as to the last end of a Christian man but not as to the last end which the temporall power it selfe hath per se and of it owne nature Neither hath D. Schulckenius proued the contrary but rather in his Reply to my answere hee in expresse words confirmeth what I haue said For in his answere to the authority which I brought out of S. Augustine hee affirmeth That the last end of one particular will power or science is their act or operation and therefore it cannot of it owne nature be referred to eternall saluation as to the last end vnlesse D. Schulckenius will admit that the same particular power hath of it owne nature two last ends or a later end then the last which implieth a manifest contradiction but it must onely be referred extrinsecally to eternall saluation by the intention of him in whom the particular power doth reside 11 True it is That all create ends are subordained per se and of their nature to that end which is simply and absolutely the last end and doe moue in vertue thereof as all efficient causes are subordained per se and of their owne nature to that which is simply and absolutely the first efficient cause and in vertue thereof they doe worke whatsoeuer they do worke But this efficient and finall cause of all created things is not the eternall saluation of men but God a mighty who is Alpha Omega principium finis the beginning and end of all created things both naturall and supernaturall both vnreasonable and reasonable of accidents and substances of all powers and of all things wherein powers doe reside and who is glorified not onely by the eternall saluation but also by the eternall damnation of men God alone is simply and absolutely the last end of all created things to whome all naturall things are of their owne nature lastly referred as to the first Authour and last end of nature and supernaturall things as to the first Authour and last end of grace and glory Neither can naturall things of their owne nature be referred to any supernaturall create end as is eternall saluation but onely by the will and intention of him who by the helpe of supernatural grace shall referre and eleuate them aboue their nature to a supernaturall end Neither doth S. Thomas in that place affirme the contrary but rather most cleerely confirmeth what I haue said for there he only disputeth how euery man by his wil intention and desire referreth all good things which hee desireth to the last end 12. Marke now I beseech you D. Schulckenius his second proofe which is no whit better then the former Moreouer is not the body saith he k Pag. 330. per se or of it owne nature for the soule why then are not corporall things per se or of their owne nature for spirituall things And whereas my Aduersarie Widdrington seemeth to say that euery temporall end is per accidens or accidentally referred to a spiritual end as by man who worketh for an end it is ordained to a spirituall end it is altogether false For oftentimes wicked men doe ordaine spirituall things to temporall of whom the Apostle saith whose God is their belly and by this a temporall end is per se and of it owne nature alwaies ordained to a spirituall end but by accident and against nature by the
temporall Iurisdiction which is proper only to a temporall Prince and not to obserue due order but to make a confusion betwixt sword and sword betwixt the spirituall and temporall power which temporall power is only in spirituall corrections and not in temporall punishments subiect to the constraint of the temporall power 28 And therefore well said our most learned Countryman Alexander of Hales t 3. part q. 40. memb 5. q. 4. cited by me before that the subiection of Kings and Emperours to the Pope is in spirituall not corporall punishment according as it is said 2a. q. 7. that it belongeth to Kings to exercise corporall punishment and to Priests to vse spirituall correction Wherevpon S. Ambrose did excommunicate the Emperour Arcadius and did forbid him to enter into the Church For as an earthly Iudge not without cause beareth the sword as it is said Rom 13. so Priests doe not without cause receiue the keyes of the Church he beareth the sword to the punishment of malefactors and commendation of the good these haue keyes to the excluding of excommunicated persons and reconciling of them who are penitent Expound therefore A King is to be punished only by God that is with materiall punishment and againe A King hath no man to iudge his doings that is to inflict corporall punishment and a little beneath A King saith Alexander doth excell 1. Pet 2. true it is in his order to wit to inflict corporall punishment with which punishment if he offend he hath none to punish him but only God what can be spoken more plainly 29 And by this you easily see the weaknes of D. Schulckenius his argument and how cunningly with generall and ambiguous words he would delude his Reader A temporall Prince saith he ought to refer publike peace to the eternall peace and folâ—estie of him selfe and of his people which is the end of the spirituall power And what then And as hee ought to subiect temporall peace to eternall peace so he ought to subiect his temporall power to the spirituall power But how in what manner in what causes in what punishments temporall power ought to bee subiect to spirituall power D. Schulc cunningly concealeth Temporall power to be subiect to spirituall if wee will speake properly and in abstracto doth signifie that a temporall Prince is in all temporall affaires subiect to the spirituall power of spirituall Pastors And if by those generall words D. Schulckenius meaneth this he falleth into the Canonists opinion whose doctrine in this point learned Victoria u in Relect. 1. de potest Eccles num 2. 3. is not afraid to condemn as manifestly false and who being poore themselues in learning and riches to flatter the Pope gaue him this direct power and dominion in temporalls For the truth is that temporall Princes in temporall affaires are not subiect to any besides God alone which is the receiued doctrine of the ancient Fathers The sense therefore of that proposition must be that temporall Princes are in spiritualls but not in temporalls subiect to the spirituall power of the Pope But what then wherefore he ought not to take it in ill part if he be truly a Christian Prince that the Pope by his spirituall power direct and correct the ciuill power c. Still you see he speaketh ambiguously and in generall words the sense whereof if hee had declared you would presently haue perceiued the weaknesse of his argument for if he meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed in spiritualls and in things belonging to Christian Religion and corrected with spirituall punishments by the Pope this I easily grant him and so he proueth nothing against me but if hee meane that therefore a temporall Prince ought to be directed by the Pope in temporalls and corrected by him with temporall punishments this consequence I vtterly denie for this were to confound all good order and to vsurpe temporall Iurisdiction as I declared before And thus much concerning Card Bellarmines first argument my answer and D. Schulckenius his Reply to the same Chap. 6. Wherein is examined the second argugument taken from the vnion of Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes in one Church 1. THe second argument which Card Bellarmine bringeth a Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. to proue that the ciuill power among Christians not onely as it is Christian but also as it is ciuill is subiect to the Ecclesiasticall as it is Ecclesiasticall is this Kings and Bishops Clerkes and Laikes doe not make two common-wealths but one to wit one Church Rom 12. 1. Cor. 12. but in euery bodie the members are connected and one dependeth on the other but it can not rightly be said that spirituall things doe depend vpon temporall therefore temporall things doe depend vpon spirituall and are subiect to them 2 To the Maior proposition of this argument I answered before b Cap. 2. that Kings and Bishops Clearkes and Laikes being diuerse waies considered doe make two totall and not onely one totall body or common-wealth For as they are referred to the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the chiefe visible Pastour to whom all Christians are subiect in spirituals they make one totall body or common-wealth to wit the Catholike Church which is the spirituall Kingdome and mysticall body of Christ but as they are referred to the ciuill power of temporall Princes to whom all inferiour Clerkes and Laikes are subiect in temporals as all members are subiect to the head they make another body or common-wealth to wit earthly kingdomes as before I declared more at large And this is sufficient to shew the weaknesse of this second argument the Maior proposition thereof being cleerely false 3. But to declare more fully the insufficiencie thereof and to shew most plainely that not onely his Maior proposition as I haue prooued before but also his Minor is apparantly false I answer secondly with D. Barclay to his Minor that although in euery body the members are vnited and connected either immediately or mediately to the head vpon whom they all depend yet that in euery body all the members doe depend one vpon the other there is no man so ignorant that will affirme for neither one foote doth depend vpon the other nor one arme vpon the other nor one shoulder vpon the other but they are connected to some third either immediately by themselues or to other members to which they adhere May it not I pray you by the same manner of arguing and by the very same argument be concluded thus The armes or euery man are members of one body but in euery bodie the members are connected and depending one vpon the other but it cannot rightly bee said that the right arme doth depend vpon the left therfore the left arme of euerie man doth depend vpon the right and is subiect vnto it Who would not skorn such foolish arguments 4. To this answer Card. Bellarmine c In Tract contra Bâ—rcl
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
make formally one politike bodie or temporall common wealth taking temporall and spirituall power in that improper sense as is declared by D. Schulckenius to wit for Kings and Bishops Clerks and Laikes who diuerse waies considered doe make properly and formally not onely a spirituall but also a politike bodie or temporall common-wealth yet I should and do notwithstanding denie his consequence for those two causes which Card. Bellarmine did in his Replyes alledge but as you haue seene not sufficiently confute 16 And truly if this argument of Card. Bellarmine were of force it would in my opinion convince that not only the temporall power among Christians is subiect to the spirituall power of the Pope but also that the temporall power among infidell Princes is also subiect to the Popes spirituall authoritie which neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmine doth denie for if the temporall gouernment of an infidell Prince doe hurt and hinder the spirituall good of Christian Religion he is bound to change that manner of gouernment euen with the hinderance of temporall good therefore I might conclude with Card. Bellarmine that it is a signe that the temporall power of an heathen Prince is subiect to the spirituall power of Christian religion And therefore as the changing of temporall gouernment among infidells when it hindereth the spirituall good of Christian religion is no probable signe of any subiection per se of their temporall power to the Popes spirituall authoritie but onely of a bond of charitie whereby all men are by the law of God and nature bound not to hinder true spirituall good for a temporall commoditie so also among Christians it is no probable signe of any subiection or subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall but at the most of a greater bond of charitie whereby Christians not only by the law of God and nature but also by the bond of Christian religion which they professe are obliged not to hinder the spirituall good thereof for a temporall commoditie 17 Now you shall see how insufficiently also D. Schulckenius replyeth to those two answers which I made to Card. Bellarmines Replyes wherein are alledged the causes why I denyed the consequence of his argument and why a temporall Prince is bound to change the manner of his temporall gouernment when it hindereth the spirituall good And first to my first answer D. Schulckenius replyeth thus l Pag. 341. that by my answer it is clearely gathered that I say nothing in this place which maketh to the ouerthrowing of Card. Bellarmines argument For I confesse saith he that a Prince of a lesse noble common-wealth is not bound to suffer any detriment onely for the order of charitie that an other common-wealth more noble doe not suffer the like vnlesse either hee bee subiect to the Prince of that noble common-wealth or vnlesse one hath both the common wealths subiect to him Therefore I am constrained saith he to confesse that the principall reason why a temporall Prince ought to suffer detriment in temporalls lest that the spirituall good be hindered is not the order of charitie but the subiection of the temporall common wealth to the spirituall when they concurre to make one Christian common-wealth or one mysticall bodie of Christ Therefore I haue not saith hee confuted Card Bellarmines argument but haue yeelded vp the bucklers yea and also haue confirmed it 18 But truly it is strange to see with what boldnesse men otherwise learned dare aduenture to auouch such grosse and palpable vntruths and when their answers are cleane ouerthrowne to brag not only of the victorie but also that their Aduersarie hath granted and confirmed their answers For obserue good Reader how vntrue and fraudulent this answer is I affirmed as you haue seene that the reason why a temporall Christian Prince is bound to change his manner of gouernment if it hinder the spirituall good is not for that the temporall power is per se and of it owne nature subiect to the spirituall as Card. Bellarmine pretended but because he being a Christian Prince to whom especially more then to a Heathen it doth belong to haue care of true spirituall good which Christian Religion ought chiefly to intend is by the order of charitie and not for any intrinsecall subiection or subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall bound to preferre caeteris paribus the spirituall good before the temporall And whereas Card. Bellarmine replyed that for the order of charitie one common wealth although the lesse noble is not bound to suffer detriment that an other common wealth more noble do not suffer the like detriment and one priuate man who is bound to giue all his goods for the preseruation of his owne common wealth is not likewise bound to doe the like for an other common wealth although more noble Seeing therefore that a temporall common-wealth is bound to suffer damage for the spirituall it is a signe that they are not two diuerse common-wealths but parts of one and the selfe same common wealth and one subiect to another 12. To this Reply I answered by shewing the disparitie betwixt one temporall common-wealth compared to an other and a temporall common-wealth compared to the spirituall common wealth because the same Prince or subiect of one temporall common wealth is seldome or neuer a Prince or subiect of the other and therefore the order of charitie requireth that both the Prince and subiect ought to prefer the temporall good of their owne common wealth before the temporall good of an other more noble common wealth As also a man lesse noble ought in charitie to prefer if other things be alike his own temporall good before the temporall good of an other man more noble But if it should so fall out that the same man were Prince of both common wealths or the same priuate man were a part and member of both common wealths in this case the order of charitie would require that he who is member or hath charge of both common-wealths should preferre if other things be alike the temporall good of the more noble common wealth before the temporal good of the lesse noble not by reason of any subiection of one common wealth to the other but because both common-wealths are subiect to the same Prince or the same priuate man is subiect to both common wealths and therefore they ought with due respect and order of charitie to haue care of both and to preferre the more worthy common wealth before the lesse worthy 20. As likewise if one man hath diuerse trades one more noble an other lesse noble one more profitable and other lesse profitable if in case he should bee compelled to loose or preiudice one of his trades the order of charitie would require that hee should rather loose or preiudice the lesse noble then the more noble the lesse profitable then the more profitable trade neither from hence could it bee gathered that one trade were subiect or subordained to another but only
Priest but at the command of the Emperour and I also say the very same But S. Bernard doth not say that the materiall sword is subiect to the spirituall sword per se but only in some sort to be drawne forth for the Church not by the Church c. From which words it is plainely gathered that the materiall sword or temporall power is according to S. Bernard subiect to the spirituall not per se but per accidons in spiritualls not in temporalls to be commanded in some case by the Priest as he is a Priest but not to be drawne forth or vsed by a Priest as he is a Priest but as he is a temporall Prince or a publike or priuate souldier In like manner I say with Pope Boniface that the sword is vnder the sword and the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall but Pope Boniface doth not say that the sword is per se vnder the sword and the temporall power is per se subiect to spirituall authoritie and therefore seeing that hee doth imitate S. Bernards words as Card. Bellarmine here affirmeth he is to be vnderstood in that sense as S. Bernard vnderstood them to wit that the sword is vnder the sword in some sort and the temporall power subiect to the spirituall in some sort to be drawne foorth or vsed for the Church but not by the Church c. as I now declared 14. Thirdly when Widdrington affirmeth saith D. Schulckenius that the Church hath not by the law of God power to vse the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good he speaketh too ambiguously For the law of God doth not command Ecclesiasticall men to vse with their own hand the materiall sword neither doth it so forbid them but that his lawfull for them in some cases to vse it also with their owne hand But neuerthelesse according to S. Bernards opinion Christ gaue both the swordes to the Church and by this he gaue her power to vse the materiall sword in that manner as doth beseem her to wit by the seruice or hands of others in directing Secular Princes that they draw it forth or put it in the scabard as it is expedient to the honour of God and the saluation of Christian people 15. But my words are very plaine and no whit ambiguous I say that the Church taking the Church not materially for all the members of the Church but for Churchmen formally as they are Churchmen or which is all one for the Church as it consisteth of Ecclesiasticall power are according to S. Bernards doctrine commanded not to draw forth or vse with their owne hands the materiall sword euen in order to spirituall good For S. Bernards words are plaine why dost thou againe attempt to vse the sword which thou wast once not only counselled but cōmanded to put vp into the scabard c. But if the Pope becom a temporall Prince or a Priest do lawfully becom a Soldier to fight either in his own defence or in the defence of others which Christ did not forbid although the Church in some cases hath forbidden it neither I nor S. Bernard doe denie that the Pope as he is a temporall Prince or a Priest as he is a lawfull Souldier hath power to vse with their owne hands the materiall sword Neither did S. Bernard euer grant that the Pope as he is Pope or a Priest as he is a Priest or which is all one by his spirituall or Priestly authority hath power to draw foorth or to vse with his owne hands the materiall sword although the Pope by his spirituall power may direct and command a temporall Prince to draw it foorth and vse it when the necessitie of the Church shall require which onely D. Schulckenius in this paragraph doth affirme 16. Fourthly that is false saith D. Schulckenius g Pag. 387. which Widdrington affirmeth that the materiall sword in that onely sense doth belong to the Church because Secular Princes being children of the Church are bound to fight in defence of the Church their mother For S. Bernard doth grant much more to the Ecclesiasticall Prince when he saith Therefore it is also thine to wit the materiall sword And beneath Therefore both the spirituall and the materiall sword are the Churches but the materiall sword is to bee drawen foorth for the Church and the spirituall also by the Church the spirituall with the hand of the Priest the materiall with the hand of the Souldier but truly at the becke or direction of the Priest and at the command of the Emperour Where S. Bernard doth not only signifie that Souldiers or Princes are bound to draw foorth the sword for the Church but also at the becke or direction of the Priest that is with subordination to the Ecclesiasticall power as Souldiers ought to vse the sword with subordination to the command of the Emperour 17. But anie man who readeth ouer but sleightly my answer in that place will easily perceiue that this is a meere cauill and also a plaine vntruth for that in expresse words I doe affirme that Secular Princes and Souldiers are according to S. Bernard to draw foorth and vse the materiall sword for the necessity of the Church at the becke counsell direction yea and command of the Priest which is as much as D. Schulckenius heere affirmeth S. Bernard to say although S. Bernard did expressely distinguish betwixt becke and command at the becke saith he of the Priest but at the command of the Emperour whereby it is manifest that S. Bernard did not account becke and command to be all one and consequently hee did not approoue the same subordination to be betwixt Secular Princes and the Priest in vsing the materiall sword as is betwixt Souldiers and the Emperour For albeit S. Bernard by the name of becke did not onely vnderstand aduise and counsell which Christian Princes in all their weightie affaires concerning the Law of God and Christian Religion ought to demand of learned Priests and who are skilfull in the Law of God and Christian Religion but also a command to fight and vse the materiall sword in defence of the Church and Christian Religion to the obseruing of which command Christian Princes may as also I sayd by Ecclesiasticall censures bee compelled yet this command being a declaratiue command which doth onely declare a former command of God and nature and doth not make a new bond but onely declare and signifie a former obligation may rather be called a beckening and signifying that Christian Princes are by the Law of God bound in that case to draw foorth fight and vse the materiall sword then a true proper and constitutiue command which doth not onely signifie but also induce a new bond or obligation 18. And in this sense not onely Ioannes Parisiensis whom I cited before h Num. 8. doth vnderstand those words of S. Bernard at the becke indeede of the Priest but also our learned Countri-man Alexander of Hales
the rest of the Apostles is according to the intention of Christ 29. But truely although there may be alleadged some probable congruities wherefore our Sauiour might grant some speciall prerogatiue and priuiledge of exemption to S. Peter whom he had chosen to be the first and principall head and gouernour of his Church rather then to the rest of the Apostles as likewise the Diuines doe yeeld probable congruities wherefore God almighty might giue to the B. Virgin Mary whom he had chosen to be the mother of his immaculate Sonne a speciall prerogatiue and priuiledge of exemption from originall sinne but whether he did grant that priuiledge or no it cannot certainely be proued neuerthelesse for my owne part I doe not see any probable likelihood that our Sauiour should giue to the rest of the Apostles and much lesse to all Cleargie men any speciall priuiledge of exemption from all ciuill subiection to temporall Princes And therefore the most part of the Schoole Diuines yea also and of the Iesuites themselues doe hould that Cleargie men are directly subiect to the ciuill lawes of temporall Princes in all those thinges which are not repugnant to their state nor to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and consequently that they are not exempted from all subiection and obedience and from the directiue or commanding power of Secular Princes but that they are bound not onely by force of reason but also by vertue of the law and of their due obedience to obserue such ciuill lawes 30 A fourth reason which Card. Bellarmine bringeth m In tract contra Barcl cap. 3. pag. 50 wherefore he recalled his former opinion and why the Apostles were not de iure subiect to temporall Princes is because they are appointed by God Princes ouer all the earth as wee read in the 44. Psalme For although that principality was spirituall not temporall yet it was true principallity and farre more noble then temporall principallitie But this reason is not sufficient for as I obserued in my Apologie n nu 68. seq the same man being considered diuerse waies may be subiect and superiour subiect in temporalls and supreame in spirituals and contrariwise neither is temporall subiection repugnant to spirituall authority nor temporall authority repugnant to spiritual subiection neither from hence doth it follow that either temporall authority it selfe is subiect to spirituall power or spirituall power subiect to temporall authority but onely that the same man who is superiour in temporalls is subiect in spiritualls and who is superiour in spiritualls is subiect in temporalls as the same man who is a Musition may be subiect and seruant to a Physition or contrariwise and yet it doth not from hence follow that Musicke it selfe is subiect to Physicke or contrariwise 31 And if Card. Bellarmine doe answere as he doth in his Schulckenius n Pag. 172. that when the powers are equall it may perchance fall out that the same compared diuerse waies may be subiect and superiour but if the powers be vnequall and one subordained to an other as are spirituall and ciuill power it cannot fall out that the same man be subiect to him who is his superiour this answere is also as insufficient as the former First for that the temporall power it selfe is not subordained to the spirituall as I haue shewed before for otherwise temporall Princes should not onely in spiritualls but also in mere temporalls be subiect to spirituall Pastours as if Musicke it selfe be subiect to Physicke a Musition as he is a Musition and in all thinges belonging to Musicke should be subiect to Physicke and consequently to a Physition as he is a Physition Secondly for that it is the common opinion of the Schoole Diuines and also of the Iesuites that Cleargie men are subiect to the directiue temporall power or command of temporall Princes 32 Thirdly for that there is no repugnance but rather a necessary consequence that spirituall Princes not as they are spirituall Princes but as they are true parts and members of the temporall common wealth should be subiect in temporall affaires to temporall Princes for euery member saiâ—h Card. Bellarmine o Liâ— de Monachis cap. 19. ought to be subiect to the head and Cleargie men besides that they are Cleargie men are also citizens and parts of the ciuill common wealth as Card. Bellarmine affirmeth in an other place p Lib. de Clericis cap. 28. and the King is head of the politike or ciuill body as also in his Schulckenius he expresly affirmeth q Pag. 339. Fourthly for that Card. Bellarmine is also now of opinion at least wise he was when he wrote against D. Barckley that it is probable that the Priests of the old law who had true spirituall power and were true spirituall Princes were subiect to Kinges and therfore for this reason to recall his former opinion and especially to condemne it as improbable were both to contradict himselfe and also to condemne of temeritie the learnedst Schoole Diuines of this age and also of his Societie 33 These be all the principall reasons which I can finde in Card. Bellarmine for which he was moued to recall his former opinion and to condemne it as improbable which how probable they be or rather very insufficient to moue such a learned man as Card. Bellarmine is to forsake the Schole Diuines and to fly to the Canonists who as pope Pius the fift sincerely confessed r Nauar. super cap. non liceat Papaâ— 12. q. 2 55. 3â— nu 6 doe attribute to the Pope more authoritie then is fitting and to censure so rigorously and rashly the learnedst Catholikes of this age and also of his owne Societie of temeritie I remit to the iudgement of the discreete Reader as also to consider whether reason or affection to aduance the Popes authoritie moued him not onely to recall his former opinion but also to condemne it as improbable 33 Lastly that the Reader may haue some knowledge of the true state of the question concerning the authority of spirituall Pastors to exempt Clergy men from the power of Secular Princes for that some Diuines are of opinion that from the exemption of Clergy men a strong Argument may bee drawne to pâ—oue that a spirituall Prince or Pastor hath power to depose or depriue a temporall Prince who is subiect to him in spiritualls of his temporall Kingdome and Dominions First therefore the true state of the question betwixt mee and my Aduersaries is not concerning the exemption of Cleargie men by way of command for I doe willingly grant that a spirituall Prince or Pastor as hee is a spirituall Pastor hath power to command a Christian Prince who is subiect to him in spiritualls not to exercise his temporall power in some cases if the necessity of the Church or Christian Religion doth require it ouer the persons of Clergy men who are his temporall Subiects so that if a secular Prince should disobey the lawfull command of his spirituall
Pastor hee should offend against the vertue of Religion for the which offence his spirituall Pastor might punish him with Ecclesiasticall censures and of this manner of exemption by way of command and spirituall coercion all the Canons and Decrees of Popes and Councells which doe signifie imply or suppose that Clergy men may by the authority of the Church without the consent of temporall Princes bee exempted from secular powers either touching their persons or their goods may bee very well vnderstood I said if the necessity of the Church doth require it for at this present I will not enter into particulars what manner of necessity is required that a spirituall Pastor may impose such a command vpon his temporall Prince 34 But the controuersie betwixt mee and my Aduersaries betwixt those Catholikes who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes and those on the contrary side is whether spirituall Pastors as they are spirituall Pastors or by vertue of their spirituall power haue not onely by way of command and spirituall coercion but also by way of sentence authority to exempt without the consent of Princes Clergy men who before were subiect to them in temporalls from the directiue and coerciue power of secular Princes in such sort that after the sentence of such exemption bee giuen Clergy men are no more the subiects of that secular Prince for that his spirituall Pastor doth depriue him of that ciuill power which before the sentence hee had ouer Clergy men And what is said of particular Bishops in respect of Princes who are their spirituall children is to bee vnderstood of the Supreme spirituall Pastor in respect of all Christian Princes who are subiect to him in spiritualls This is the true state of the question 35 So that the Reader may clearely perceiue that although from the first manner of exemption by way of command and spirituall coercion no good argument can be drawne to proue that the spirituall power can depose Princes and depriue them of their Regall authoritie by way of sentence yet there is great coherence betwixt these two questions concerning the power of spirituall Pastors to depose Princes by way of sentence and their power to exempt by way of sentence Cleargie men from all subiection to Secular Princes For the first question is whether the spirituall power can by way of sentence depriue temporall Princes of all their temporall power and absolue all their Subiects from their temporall alleagiance and the second is whether it can depriue them of some part of their temporall power and absolue some of their subiects from their temporall allegiance And therefore those Catholikes who doe grant the second will easily grant the first and who doe grant the first must of necessity grant the second for that there can be no sufficient reason alleadged why the spirituall power can in order to spirituall good depriue Princes of some part of their Regall authoritie and not of all and absolue some subiects from their temporall allegiance and not all and if it can depriue oâ— all iâ— must needes follow that it can also of some part And contrariwise those Catholikes who affirme that the spirituall power cannot exempt ot absolue Cleargie men from their temporall allegiance and subiection to temporall Princes must consequenily affirme that it can not exempt or absolue all subiects from their temporall allegiance and who affirme that it can not absolue or exempt all subiects from their temporall allegiance nor depriue a temporalâ— Prince of all his Regall authority will easily affirme that it cannot exempt or absolue Cleargie men from their temporall alleagiance and subiection nor depriue a temporall Prince of any part of his Regall authority 36 But some doe greatly vrge this obiection If the spirituall power can command temporall Princes not to exercise their temporall power ouer the persons or goods of Cleargie men without the consent of their Ecclesiasticall superiour it doth consequently follow that a temporall Prince doth offend if he transgresse the iust and lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour and therefore it seemeth that a temporall Prince hath no power ouer the persons or goods of Cleargie men after such a command supposing it to be lawfull vnlesse wee will grant that a temporall Prince hath power to commit sinne and to transgresse the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour 37 To this obiection wherewith I haue knowne diuers men of learning to bee somewhat perplexed those Catholikes who deny that the spirituall power can depriue by way of sentence a temporall Prince of his Regall Authority either wholly or in part may easily answer in this manner that if a temporall Prince doth excercise his temporall power ouer the persons or goods of Clergy men against the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour hee sinneth indeed against Religion and the generall vertue of obedience in that hee vseth his power contrary to the lawfull command of his spirituall Pastour but hee doth not sinne against the speciall vertue of legall or morall iustice in vsing his authority ouer them who are not his subiects and ouer whom hee hath no temporall power and Authority in that manner as another man who is not their Prince should offend Neither is it vnvsuall for a man to commit a sinne in doing that which in respect of iustice hee hath power and authority to doe 38 As for example it is a sinne against the vertue of liberality for one to giue away his goods prodigally although if wee respect iustice hee hath true and full power to giue them away for that he giueth nothing but that which is his owne and therefore that prodigall guift although it be vnlawfull yet is not vniust as iustice is taken not as it comprehendeth all vertues in generall but in particular for a speciall vertue and one of the foure Cardinall vertues So also it is a sin against the vertue of temperance to giue money to commit an vnhonest act and yet the gift is not vniust for that hee giueth nothing but his owne and which according to iustice hee hath power to giue So likewise if a Ghostly father command his penitent to giue a certaine part of his goods to the poore in satisfaction of his sinnes if the penitent doe bestow them otherwise then hee was commanded hee sinneth against the vertue of Religion and Sacrament of pennance in transgressing his Ghostly fathers lawful command but he committeth no iniustice because hee giueth that which is his owne and which if wee regard the vertue of iustice hee hath power to giue neither doth the command of his Ghostly father depriue him of the right dominion property and power which he had before ouer those goods 39 Lastly if the Pope should vpon iust cause suspend a Priest from the Altar or a Bishop from his Episcopall function and consequently forbid the Priest to consecrate and the Bishop to giue orders if they should disobey the Popes lawfull command they should sinne against the
was Catholike and if it had not beene Catholike the Church defining it to bee Catholike should haue erred therefore it was Catholike and reuealed by God before the Church defined it Wherefore the Church cannot make a new Article of faith but that which before was true faith but not certainely knowne to vs the Church by her definition maketh it knowne to vs. 108 In like maner wee haue this from the Church to know certainly which is diuine Scripture and we are bound to account that to be diuine Scripture which the Church hath defined to be diuine And although shee doth certainely define and cannot erre yet shee doth not make by her definition that Scripture to bee diuine for therefore shee hath declared it to be diuine because it was truely diuine and if it had not beene before diuine Scripture the Church would not haue declared it to be diuine Wherefore although that assertion which is condemned by the Catholike Church to be contrary to Catholike faith and to bâ—e accounted heresie was also heresie before the definition of the Church yet before the Church did define it the maintainers of that opinion were not called heretickes because it was not knowne whether that opinion was contrary to Catholike faith but now after the definition of the Church they shall bee called hereticks whosoeuer shall approue and maintaine that opinion not for that their opinion was not before false contrary to Catholike faith and heresie but because this name of heretickes beeing infamous and appertaining to that most heinous crime doth require a certaine pertinacy and rebellion departing from the definitions of the Catholike Church which could not truely be accounted at that time when it was doubtfull and disputable and the Church had not defined whether that opinion was repugnant to Religion and faith 109. In this sense therefore it may be said that the Church hath power to declare an assertion to be Catholike and to appertaine to Catholike faith to this effect that after the definition of the Church the said assertion is so manifestly of faith that he is to be accounted an obstinate hereticke who defending the contrary shall depart from that definition although before the definition of the Church the said assertion albeit was most true and Catholike yet by reason of the doubt and controuersie touching that point hee could not iustly be called an heretick who should allow and follow the contrary position And what hath bene said if there be any doubt or controuersie touching any text of holy Scripture and the true sense thereof is proportionally to be vnderstood if there be any doubt or controruersie touching any definition of the Church and the true sense thereof as wee see there is now a controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and Paris touching the definition of the Councell of Constance concerning the Superiority of the Church or a Generall Councell aboue the Pope and among many other Catholikes touching the decrees and declarations of diuerse other Generall Councells and now lately touching the sense of those words of the Councell of Lateran Si vero Dominus temporalis c. But if the temporall Lord c. Which some Catholikes of late haue greatly vrged to proue the Popes power to depose Princes whereof beneath b Part. 3. cap. 9. seq we will discourse at large 110. From this doctrine which neither Mr. Fitzherbert nor any other can proue to be improbable it cleerely followeth that heresie being a falshood repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probability wherewith one is perswaded that such a doctrine or position is false and repugnant to holy Scriptures or diuine reuelation with the same certainty or probabilitie hee may abhorre detest and abiure that doctrine for hereticall And consequently it followeth that if it be lawfull to abhorre detest and abiure for impious damnable and false doctrine repugnant to truth contained in the word of God this Doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other which position for that it concerneth practise and not onely speculation is in very deed false impious damnable and repugnant to truth contained in holy Scriptures and ought so to be accounted not onely by those who are of opinion that the Pope hath not power to depriue Princes but also so long as this question remaineth vndecided and in controuersie by those who doe speculatiuely thinke that hee hath authority to depriue them it is lawfull also to abiure it for hereticall And this I hope may suffice for the defence of my first and principall answeare and for the confutation of M. Fitzherberts Reply therevnto 111. The Second answere which I haue heard many Catholikes giue to the aforesaid obiection of the Authour of that English Dialogue against the word hereticall contained in this clause of the oath and which Answeare Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to ouerthrow I related c Cap. 5. Sec. 2. nu 28. 29 in these words The second principall answeare which some of our Countrimen doe make to the aforesaid obiection is gathered from the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine who expounding d Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 12. that sentence of Pope Gregory the first e Lib. 1. epist 24. I confesse that I doe receiue the foure first Councells as the foure bookes of the Gospell affirmeth that the aduerbe as doth import a similitude and not an equality as that of Matth. 5. Be you perfect as your heauenly Father is perfect For in like manner these Catholiks doe answeare that those words I doe abhorre detest and abiure as heretical c. doe not import an equality but a similitude and that in common speech they doe onely signifie that I doe exceedingly detest that doctrine And so wee vsually say I hate him as the diuel I loue him as my brother not intending thereby to affirme that the one is in truth a Diuel or the other my brother 112 Now to omit the word murthered as though there were no mention at all made in the oath concerning the murthering of Princes and to speake onely of deposing them these men affirme that the aforesaid position Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed by their Subiects or any other supposing that this question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is not yet decided is in their iudgments a false and seditious proposition and that it hath some similitude with heresie not for that they thinke it to be in very deed hereticall taking hereticall in that strict sense as some Catholikes doe take it but for that they doe constantly hold it to be of such a nature that it may be condemned by the Church for an hereticall proposition and then the maintainers thereof to be pâ—operly heretikes if deposing be taken in that sense as it is in this branch of the oath distinguished from depriuing For to
Popes Holinesse and to our temporall Soueraigne compelled mee first to write and now also to continue for which although I shall hereafter suffer as hitherto I haue done reproch infamie disgrace losse of friends and other euils yet I will still pray for my persecutors and remit my cause to GOD aboue assuring my selfe that in time conuenient he will in this world or the next or both be a iust Iudge reuenger Protector and rewarder of the Innocent THE PREFACE TO the Reader Wherein Mr. FITZHERBERTS PREFACE is confuted the matter which WIDDRINGTON handleth and the manner how he proceedeth therein is declared and his doctrine proued to be truely probable and neither preiudiciall to his MAIESTIES seruice nor to the Consciences of Catholikes 1. IT is not vnknowne to thee Courteous Reader the great controuersie hath been of late yeares especially among vs English Catholikes concerning the new oath of Allegiance which his Maiestie by Act of Parliament hath ordained to make triall how his Catholike Subiects stand affected towards him in point of there loyaltie and due obedience For although his Holinesse by the instigation and importunitie no doubt of others hath by three seuerall Breues declared the said oath to be vnlawfull and to containe in it many things cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation and many learned men especially Iesuites as Card. Bellarmine Fa Gretzer Lessius Becanus and now lastly Suarez haue by publike writings endeauoured to conuince the same neuerthelesse since that Mr. George Blackwell then Archpraesbiter and many other learned Priests did from the very first publishing of this oath defend it to bee lawfull and not to containe in it any thing which either expressely or couertly is contrarie to Catholike faith or saluation the said oath hath been maintained as lawfull by many learned Catholike Priests and hath been taken by the most part of those Lay-Catholikes to whom it hath been tendered assuring themselues that his Holinesse command for the refusing thereof being onely a declaratiue precept and not grounded vpon any infallible definition but at the most vpon a probable opinion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes which is the maine substance of the oath as my Aduersarie here a In the end of his Preface confesseth and Fa Suarez b Lib. 6. defens a cap. 2. also before him expressely acknowledgeth is not according to Suarez doctrine of force to binde them especially with so great preiudice to his Maiestie and themselues to embrace an vncertaine and doubtfull opinion or to obey the Popes declaratiue precept grounded therevpon 2 I therefore with other Catholikes considering how greatly this oath doth concerne our allegiance and obedience due to God and Caesar and the great harme both spirituall and temporall which may ensue by breach thereof thought it our best course to set downe sincerely all the chiefest arguments which haue been hitherto by any Author or which might in our iudgements be obiected by any against the said oath together with the answers which haue been or might be brought to the same Obiections and withall dutifull submission to propound them to his Holinesse humbly requesting him that he would be pleased diligently to peruse them and in regard of his Pastorall Office would vouchsafe to instruct vs in the Catholike faith satisfie the difficulties which doe perplex our consciences to make knowne vnto vs what clauses of the oath are I doe not say according to the opinion of Card. Bellarmine or some other Catholike Doctors who are no necessarie rule of the Catholike faith but according to Catholike doctrine necessarily to be beleeued by all men repugnant to faith and saluation as his Holinesse affirmeth in his Breues And this I performed in my Theologicall Disputation partly at the request of many Catholikes whose case I greatly pittied but chiefely for the duty I owed to God Religion my Prince and Countrey Neither did I intend in that Disputation to affirme any thing of my selfe but as representing the persons of those who were perswaded that the oath may or may not be lawfully taken And because when the said Disputation was in the presse almost finished there came to my hands an English booke composed by F.T. and entituled a Supplement to the Discussion c. wherein this Authour endeauoured to proue the said oath to bee repugnant to all lawes both humane and diuine and therefore iustly condemned by his Holinesse in that it doth exempt temporall Princes from Excommunication and deposition by the Pope I thought good to touch briefely in an Admonition to the Reader both the substance of this Authors discourse and of the chiefest arguments which hee brought against the oath and also the answers which might bee made to them to the end his Holinesse might be fully informed of all the reasons which are alledged as well against as for the taking of the oath And this was the cause that I writing in Latin did to informe his Holinesse briefely set downe what hee had written in English against the aforesaid oath 3 But the said Authour F. T. who now hath turned backward the first letters of his name into T. F. and is knowne acknowledged yea and boasted of by his fauourers to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert now an English Iesuite for which cause I was the more bold to expresse his name hath of late set forth a Reply in English in defence of his arguments c In the Praeface nu 2. which I briefely answered in Latine to the end saith he that our Countreymen whom it most importeth to vnderstand well the qualitie and state of this controuersie may discouer my weakenesse and auoide the danger of their soules whereto they may be drawne by the false fame and opinion that many haue conceiued of my sufficiency But howsoeuer my Aduersarie or any other bee conceited of my weakenesse or sufficiencie for time will make knowne the weakenesse or sufficiencie of vs both I doe not doubt God willing but notwithstanding all his vaunting bragges to discouer cleerely the weakenesse and insufficiencie of his Reply albeit hee hath beene furthered with the former writings of many learned men especially Card. Bellarmine Fa Lessius now lastly of Suarez from whom he borroweth the chiefest Replyes he bringeth to my answeres yet concealing their names to omit the many other helpes I want which he may haue in the place where hee liueth both by the conference of learned men the commoditie of all sorts of books wherewith that place is furnished And although hee vseth very spiteful and slanderous speeches against me for the which I pray God to forgiue him thinking thereby to magnifie himselfe disgrace me and promote his owne cause but in the end hee will finde that such exorbitant and irreligious courses will tend to his owne disgrace and not mine and hee greatly preiudiciall both to his cause and conscience yet I wil abstaine from such vncharitable and vniust proceedings and with all modestie I will defend my owne