Cages for stalles to draw other birds with their chirping into their nets and snares Also that thou wilt ballance thy obligation to man with thy dutie to God and the losse of thy temporall goods with the gaine of euerlasting glory from the which the Diuell seeketh by his meanes to debarre thee and therefore I wish thee euer to beare in minde this comfortable lesson of the Apostle 2 Cor. 4. Quod momentaneum leue est tribulationis nostrae aeternum gloriae pondus operatur in nobis 125 But on the contrary side I hope thou wilt bee warie good Catholike Reader and diligent first to discouer the manifest fraud and falshood of this vnlearned and vncharitable man thereby to auoyde the danger of his slanderous and poisoned pen in propounding to thee a new article of faith so preiudiciall to the supreame authority of temporall Princes so dangerous to thy owne spirituall and temporall good so repugnant to the example and practise of Christ and his Apostles and of the whole primitiue Church vnknowen to the ancient Fathers vntill the time of Pope Gregory the seauenth which at the first broaching thereof was branded with the marke of nouelty This nouelty not to say heresie Sigeb ad ann 1080. Onuph lib. 4. de varia creat Rom. Pont. saith Sigebert A thing vnheard of before that age saith Onuphrius and lastly not confirmed by any one argument which hath any shew of a probable proofe to confirme euen according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds any doctrine which hath beene in controuersie among learned Catholikes to be certaine and of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 126 Secondly that thou wilt ponder all this matter in the iust ballance of prudence that is to say that thou wilt counterpoise his vaine pretended Catholike faith newly broached in the Christian world and the childish and ridiculous arguments brought to conuince the same with the example of Christ and his Apostles with the practise of the primitiue Church with the doctrine of the ancient Fathers with the authority of learned Catholikes who were neuer accounted heretikes or ill belieuers for impugning the same 127 Thirdly that thou wilt call to minde what is required euen according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds to make a matter of faith so that all Catholikes are bound to beleeue the same and that all the Acts euen of generall Councells doe not appertaine to faith but onely the bare Decrees and those not all but those onely which are propounded as of faith * See also Estius in Praefat epist ad Hebraeos Where also he affirmeth it to be probable that Dauid did not make all the 150. Psalmes although the Councell of Trent in the Decree of Canonical Scriptures expresly mentioneth Dauids Psalter of a 150. Psalmes Whereby thou maiest plainly see that he hath brought no one argument which hath any colour of a probable proofe drawne either from the practise of some Popes which he falsly and fraudulently calleth the practise of the Church or from any Canon or Decree of Pope or generall Councell or from any other authoritie whatsoeuer to prooue this doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and that the Councell of Lateran doth neither treate of the deposition of absolute Princes nor propound the doctrine whereof it treateth as of faith 128 Fourthly that thou wilt consider the doctrine of Sotus before rehearshed not onely concerning the Popes dispensations in lawfull and valide matrimony when carnall copulation doth not follow so often practised by diuers Popes which neuerthelesse hee impugneth as not hauing any shew of probabilitie but also touching the dutie of subiects towards their Superiours when they command any thing which is preiudiciall to a third person and the Subiect is doubtfull of the lawfulnesse thereof Whereby thou wilt cleerely perceiue that it is no presumption to reiect the iudgement of his Superiour albeit he be our supreme Pastour when it is contrary to the iudgement of other learned Catholikes or not to obey his declaratiue commandement grounded thereon especially humbly propounding to him the reasons of his doubts Neither is it more presumption for any man to say that the Pope was deceiued in his Breues following the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and some other Diuines of Rome who hold it a matter of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes seeing that many learned Catholikes haue euer maintained the contrary then it was for Sotus and many others of his opinion to say that all those Popes that dispenced in the aforesaid Marriages were deceiued following the doctrine of the Canonists 129 Fifthly that thou wilt weigh my sound Replyes and plaine dealing in propounding to thee sincerely the true state of euery difficultie and omitting nothing which he obiecteth against me with his childish and ridiculous arguments and answeres and false and fraudulent proceeding in seeking to confound thy vnderstanding with generall and ambiguous words and which haue diuers senses which hee omitteth to explaine and in vrging those arguments which I my selfe obiected and concealing the answeres which I made thereunto and in imposing vpon me many vntruths thereby to make some shew of impugning my answeres and in particular concerning the Lateran Councell which hee so often saith I doe impugne and then especially when I make no mention at all thereof whereas it is manifest that I doe not at any time impugne that Decree or Act but the exposition which he and some others make thereof and I doe expound it according to the grounds and principles of learned Catholikes both Diuines and Lawyers Also that thou wilt ballance thy dutie towards God with thy obedience due to Caesar and render to either of them that which is their due neither for feare of disgrace humane respect or any other temporall losse thou wilt so adhere to the Pope as to renounce thy allegiance due to thy temporall Prince from which the Deuill by my Aduersaries meanes vnder pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike seeketh to draw thee And therefore I wish thee euer to beare in minde the expresse commandent of our Sauiour Matth. 22. Render the things that are Caesars to Caesar and the things that are Gods to God and for thy more particular direction heerein especially to remember that vnboubted principle of Fa. Lessius which aboue in the Preface * nu 15. 16. I did also recommend to thy memorie A power which is not most certaine but probable cannot bee a ground or foundation to punish any man or to depriue him of his right and dominion De Regulis Iuris in 6o. and ff de Regulis Iuris In pari causa which he really possesseth for that according to the approued maxime both of the Canon and Ciuill law In a doubtfull or disputable case the state or condition of the possessor is to bee preferred 130 Lastly to that which this spitefull man obiecteth against me concerning my inward intelligence
vertue annexed doe become spirituall things that is vertuous actions and therefore subiect to the spirituall directiue power yet they doe not become spirituall Censures and therefore not subiect to the spirituall power as it is coerciue but they still remaine temporall punishments which are the obiect only of the temporall coerciue power 109 Wherefore that also which he addeth that euery Superiour may according to my doctrine punish his Subiect with penalties proportionate to his authoritie is very true but he must still distinguish betwixt the directiue and coerciue power or authoritie and in what manner temporall punishments are proportionate to either of them For because as well temporall as spirituall punishments may be vertuous or vicious actions therefore they are proportionate to the spirituall directiue power whose proper acts and obiects are the commanding of vertue and the forbidding of vice but because not the commanding either of temporall or spirituall punishments but only the actuall punishing with Ecclesiasticall censures or the inflicting of spirituall punishments is the proper act and obiect of the spirituall coerciue power therefore the inflicting onely of spirituall punishments and not of temporall is proportionate to the spirituall coerciue power From whence it euidently followeth that the Church for a spirituall end may command temporall things but not dispose of temporall things may command one to giue Almes for the satisfaction of his sinnes but may not take away his purse from him to giue Almes for that end may commaund one to punish and macerate his body when it rebelleth against the soule but not inflict vpon him corporall punishments for the same end 110 And by this also all the rest which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in this Chapter is clearely answered and the manifest absurditie which hee would put vpon mee doth manifestly fall vpon himselfe But now saith he m Pag. 109. nu 25.26.27 if together with all this we consider the naturall subordination of temporall things to spirituall whereof I haue sufficiently treated before n Supra num 2 3.4 seq Widdringtons absurdity will be most manifest as well in denying that the spirituall Superiour may punish his subiect in his person or temporall goods for a spirituall end as in affirming that the spirituall power may become subiect to the temporall no lesse then the temporall to the spirituall as though there were no subordination or subiection of the one to the other wherein he peruerteth the whole course of Nature no lesse then if he should say that in some cases the soule may be subiect to the body heauen to earth religion to policie Angels to men and God to the world whereby you may still see what probable arguments and answers he affordeth his Reader for the assurance and security of their consciences See Preface num 9. See also the answere therto nu 9. seq and that he had great reason to protest as you may remember I haue signified in the Preface that his meaning is not to lay downe any demonstrations or infallible arguments for the proofe or defence of his opinion 111 For truely all that he saith doth demonstrate nothing else but the weakenesse of his cause and his owne wilfulnesse if not of malice in defending such an improbable and extrauagant Paradoxe as this is which hee holdeth and defendeth contrary to the vniuersall and continuall custome of the Church grounded vpon the holy Scriptures the practise of the Apostles and the decrees of Popes and Councels and finally contrary to the whole course of the Canon law as it will euidently appeare in the ensuing Chapters and as Cardinall Bellarmine against Barclay and Doctour Schulckenius in his late Apologie for the Cardinall and diuers others haue sufficiently shewed and amongst our learned Countrimen Mr. Doctor Weston hath clerely soundly proued it in his booke intituled Iuris Pontificij Sanctuarium wherein he battereth all the foundations of my Aduersarie Widdringtons doctrine and fully confuteth him as well in all other points as in this touching the Popes power to punish temporally which hee o Quest 17.18.19.20.21 22. doth learnedly and amply demonstrate as well by the holy Scriptures as by many examples of the Churches practise to wit by diuers kinde of diuorces by the relaxation of debts exemption of children frō the power of their parents the abrogation of temporall and Ciuill lawes the dissolution of contracts and bargaines and finally by the imposition of temporall penalties almost vsuall and ordinarie in the practise of the Church as hee sheweth very particularly by the Ecclesiasticall Canons I forbeare for breuities sake to prosecute these points in particular only I shall haue iust occasion to treate now and then of the infliction of temporall penalties in answer of my Aduersaries pertinent obiections out of the Canons and Canonists which I hope may suffice for as much as I haue vndertaken to performe in this briefe Reply 112 But all that my Aduersary heere obiecteth I haue alreadie sufficiently confuted And first I haue cleerely conuinced that there is no naturall subordination of the temporall power to the spiritual except in nobilitie and therefore that neither the spirituall power speaking properly and in abstracto is subiect to the temporall nor the temporall to the spirituall except as I said in worth excellency and nobilitie wherein the spirituall doth excell but not in authoritie wherein they are both supreme vnlesse my Aduersaries will grant that temporall Princes are not supreme and absolute in temporall matters and spirituall Pastours are not supreme and absolute in spirituall causes which is a Paradox in true Diuinity Secondly I haue proued also most plainly that not onely temporall Princes being parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ are subiect to spirituall Pastours in spirituall things but also spirituall Pastours being parts and members of the temporall common-wealth are subiect to temporall Princes in all temporall things except wherein the law of God or man hath exempted them and to affirme the contrary were to peruert the whole course of Nature no lesse then if one should say that members are not subiect to the whole body and to the head thereof the bodie and soule to man heauen and earth to the whole world religion pollicy men Angels and the whole world to God Whereby you still see what improbable arguments answeres my Aduersary affoordeth his Readers for the assurance and securitie of their consciences in a matter belonging to their obedience due to God and Caesar and which forsooth he will needes haue to be a point of faith to the proofe whereof it is not sufficient to bring probable arguments but conuincing demonstrations as contrariwise it sufficeth to bring probable arguments and probable answeres to prooue any doctrine not to be certaine and of faith as I haue shewed more amply in the answere to his Preface whereto heere he remitteth his Reader 113 For truely all the effectuall proofes and cleere demonstrations which
the Priests of the new law must haue authoritie to doe the like but things farre more noble and excellent for that the veritie must be of a more high and excellent order then the figure as in the fifth Chapter I proued more at large And therefore as in the olde law all the figures promises and punishments were temporall so in the new law the veritie promises and punishments which correspond thereunto must be spirituall not temporall for otherwise the figure should bee the same with the veritie and not of an higher nature and order then the verity So that temporall life must correspond to spirituall life temporall kingdomes to spirituall kingdomes temporall goods to spirituall goods temporall promises and rewards to spirituall promises and rewards and temporall punishments to spirituall punishments all which spirituall punishments are contained in Excommunication Maior and Minor and in other Ecclesiasticall Censures and punishments And to that which he addeth in the end that I must acknowledge according to my owne doctrine that the Church may punish temporally seeing that shee may excommunicate I haue already fully m Cap. answered and denyed his consequence for that the Church of Christ neither by ExcoÌ„munication nor by any other way hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but only to punish temporally by way of command which no man denyeth And thus much concerning the olde law 10 Now to the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert brought out of the new Testament I answered thus Sixtly those places of the new Testament Quodcunque solueris super terram c. n Matth. 16. Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth c. and Pasce oues meas o Ioan. 21. Feede my sheepe as also the reason which Fa. Parsons bringeth to wit that otherwise the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth should bee imperfect and not sufficient for it selfe are explicated by mee elsewhere And that corporall killing of Ananias and Saphira and the visible deliuering of the fornicatour to Sathan are to be referred to the grace of miracles Neither will this Authour say as I imagine that the Pope hath power to kill wicked men and malefactours with the word of his mouth 11 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth in the same order And first to my answere to those two places Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feede my sheepe which I made in my Apologie p Apolog. nu 35. seq nu 203. seq wherevnto I remitted the Reader he replieth thus q Pag. 115. nu 6.7.8 That which Widdrington saith in his Apologie concerning these two texts allâ—dged out of the Gospell is no other but to prooue that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely which we willingly grant as D. Adolphus Schulckenius r Adolph Schulck in Apolog c. 4. § Respondeo p. 136 in his answere for Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared sufficiently and tolde my Aduersary Widdrington withall how vainely he hath laboured with a long discourse and many idle words to prooue that which neither the Cardinall nor any other Catholike will deny 12 For wee willingly grant saith Schulckenius that the Popes power is formally spirituall though virtually it is also temporall extending it selfe to temporall things so farre forth as they are subordinate to the spirituall and the necessitie of the Church shall require So hee Å¿ Ibidem and afterwards he also explicateth the same in these words Nam animus noster spiritus est c. For our soule saith he is a spirit and hath a spirituall power and yet it doth not onely thereby gouerne the body which is subiect vnto it but doth also chastise it with corporall punishments as watching hairecloth fasting and whipping And therefore if Bellarmine did say that the Pope doth iudge the faults of Princes and vpon their desert depriue them sometimes of their gouernment by a temporall power his Aduersary Widdrington should say somewhat to the purpose but now seeing that Bellarmine saith that the Pope vseth a spirituall power when hee depriueth Princes of their States for spirituall and Ecclesiasticall crimes such as heresies and Schismes are his Aduersary Widdrington doth idlely beate the ayre c. for he should haue prooued that a supreme spirituall power cannot extend it selfe to dispose of temporall things as they are referred to spirituall things Thus saith Schulckenius 13 And thereof my Aduersary Widdrington might haue taken notice if it had pleased him when he referred me and his Readers to his Apologie for answere to those places For albeit he may perhaps pretend that hee had not seene Schulckenius his Apologie for the Cardinall before hee had ended his Theologicall Disputation yet it is euident that he had seene and read it before he wrote his Admonition to the Reader wherein he writeth against me For he not onely maketh mention therein of the Apologie of Schulckenius but also carpeth at him for some things that hee handleth and therefore if he had meant sincerely he would not haue remitted vs to his owne Apologie for this point without some confutation of Schulckenius his Answere thereto I meane of so much as concerneth this matter For otherwise he may multiply bookes and write of this controuersie as long as he liueth and all to no purpose if he will still stand vpon his first grounds and dissemble the answeres that are made thereto and therefore as hee remitteth me to his Apologie so I remit him also to the answere of Schulckenius which I haue partly laide downe heere and may be seene more at large in him And this shall suffice for this point 14 But truely it is intollerable that these men should so shamefully both abuse me and delude their Reader I doe not say onely in dissembling the answere I made to their argument but in plainly corrupting the words and manifest sense thereof in which manner they may multiply bookes and make Replies with ease but with shame enough For it is too too apparantly vntrue that I labored in that place to prooue nothing else as those men falsly affirme but that which neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny to wit that Christ gaue to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely although it be well knowne that the common opinion of the Canonists doth deny the same who contend that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter not onely spirituall but also temporall authoritie and made him thereby not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert is grosly mistaken in saying so boldly that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely For I did not contend in that place about the authority which was giuen to Saint Peter to binde and loose which Cardinall Bellarmine taketh to bee all one with to feede his sheepe whether it was temporall or spirituall or both as the Canonists wil haue it but about the acts
Reader may easily perceiue how vaine and impertinent are the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts inferences and obiections in this Chapter which therefore I might well omit but that to giue satisfaction to the vnlearned Reader I am in a sort compelled to set them downe 26 Whereupon saith he f Page 180. num 6. it followeth first that Widdringtons answere to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran grounded vpon a distinction of a matter of fact and a matter of faith is very vaine and friuolous as well because the one doth not exclude the other as also because by that distinction hee may impugne the Decree of the Apostles themselues of the Popes Pius and Victor and of the Councell of Nice and such other touching matters of fact no lesse probably then hee impugneth the Canon of the Councell of Lateran 27 But to this as you haue seene I haue answered before and haue cleerely shewed that I did not impugne but onely expound the decree of the Lateran Councell and that I did not oppose a matter of faith to euery matter of fact but to a matter of fact onely or which is all one to such a matter of fact which is not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and such a matter of fact doth exclude a matter of faith also that by this distinction I doe not any wise impugne the decree of the Apostles of Pope Pius and Victor of the Councell of Nice or of any other touching matters of fact 28 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Pa. 180. nu 7 it appeareth that as the Quartadecimani were woorthily condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those Decrees so also those who doe with like obstinacy impugne the other Decree of the Councell of Lateran doe much more deserue to be held for heretickes seeing that they haue much lesse probability for their opinion then the other had 29 But this also hath been answered before for neither were the quartadecimani condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those decrees but because they contradicted them vpon an hereticall ground Neither doe I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell but do only expound it according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who since the Councell of Lateran haue affirmed that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but that the Church when she inflicteth such punishments doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes which learned Doctours cannot without grosse temeritie and impudency be therefore condemned of heresie And if this decree of the Lateran Councell bee so cleere a proofe to make this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and the contrary hereticall as these men pretend I would gladly know why Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies Victoria Corduba Moliua or D. Sanders did not vrge it to make their doctrine in this point certaine vnquestionable and of faith and why Marsilius of Padua was not by some one of those who write of heresies accounted an hereticke for impugning this doctrine and why it was not by Castro Prateolus Cardinall Bellarmine or some other reckoned among one of his heresies but it must now forsooth within these few yeeres without any new definition either of Pope or Councell bee made an heresie which for a 1600. yeeres before was not by any ancient Father or Catholike Diuine accounted an heresie 30 Thirdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert h Pa. 181. nu â— whereas Widdrington concludeth this his third answere with this reason that the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran had no more assurance and certaintie for this their Decree then if they had declared their opinion foorth of the Councell because Christ hath not promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit vnto facts and probable opinions of Popes or Councells but to their definitions onely this his conclusion I say is most impertinent not onely because it impugneth the foresaid Decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Nicene Councell no lesse then this other of the Councell of Lateran but also because he flatly ouerthroweth himselfe seeing that this Decree of the Councell of Lateran is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresie and therefore seeing that our Sauiour promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit to the definitions of Popes and Councels as Widdrington hath here expresly affirmed it followeth that the Pope and Fathers in the Councell of Lateran neither did nor could erre in their definition or Decree concerning the deposition of Princes when it shall be necessary for the extirpation of heresie 31 But all this also I haue fully satisfied before and shewed a great disparity betwixt those decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Councell of Nice and betwixt the Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Potestaes both for that this Act of the Lateran Councell is no true and proper Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as those were and also for that no Catholike Authour affâ—rmeth that those Decrees were made by temporall but onely by spirituall authoritie but very many Doctours affirme that this Act was made by the authoritie and consent of temporall Princes seeing that according to their doctrine the Church by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but that when shee vseth or inflicteth them shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes 32 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert saith that this Decree of the Lateran Councell is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresiâ— if hee meane by the Decree of the Lateran Councell this onely Act concerning the absoluing of Vassalls from their fealty whereof onely wee now dispute and by a definition hee vnderstand a Decree containing some precept or obligation either concerning faith or manners this is very vntrue for as I shewed before this Act according to his owne grounds containeth no precept bond or obligation vnlesse he will grant that the Councell hath authoritie to command or bind the Pope and therefore it is not properly a true Decree but onely the reason cause and end of the former Decree and although it were a true decree and in that sense a definition yet for that it was enacted not by spitituall but by temporall authoritie it is euident that no infallible assistance of the holy Ghost was promised by our Sauiour Christ to the making thereof But if by this Decree of the Lateran Councell he vnderstand the whole act which containeth diuers particular decrees coÌ„cerning the rooting out of heresie by spirituall meanes for to root out heresie by temporall meanes and inflicting temporall punishments as I haue often said doth not belong to spirituall but to temporall authoritie then I willingly graunt that this Decree is a true definition
Fa. Lessius his first argument which he produced without any restriction or limitation to be restrained and limited only to the decrees of Popes and generall Councels which are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and doe not onely concerne particular facts licences dispensations and iudiciall sentences concerning some particular Countries or persons besides that I haue declared aboue in what sence that proposition is true to wit that such decrees must be made by true Ecclesiasticall and not ciuill authority and also that they must be such decrees and sentences wherein it is certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre I haue also here produced a decree of Pope Sixtus the fourth concerning the Feast of the blessed Virgins conception which was made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and yet the ground and foundation of that decree was vncertaine as I prooued aboue and will more cleerely confirme beneath and euidently shew how Mr. Fitzherbert to answere this decree is forced to forsake the doctrine of the most learnedst Diuines of his own Society And also I might adde hereunto the decrees of Popes touching the canonization of Saints the ground and foundation whereof doth not appertaine to faith seeing that as I shewed before out of Canus that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints and yet these decrees are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church But as concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell touching the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates it is euident that I made no inference or any mention at all thereof in any one of my three Instances or examples as this man most shamefully affirmeth 43 Yet if he will needes haue me to apply this doctrine touching the vncertainty of the grounds and foundations of Popes decrees and sentences to the decrees of generall Councels and in particular to the often named Act of the Lateran Councell I doe confidently affirme that whensoeuer it is vncertaine and disputable among learned Catholikes whether a generall Councell hath authority to make this or that decree by her spirituall power without the consent and authority of temporall Princes as to inflict temporall punishments and to dispose of temporals wherein temporall Princes onely are supreame and the Councell maketh such a decree concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments or the disposing of temporals without declaring that she doth make that decree by her spirituall authority then I say it is lawfull for any man without any note of heresie errour or temerity to expound the decree of that Councell according to the probable opinion of those learned men and to affirme that the Councell made that decree not by spirituall power but by the consent and authority of temporall Princes And this is our case concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell Neither is this to impugne the decree of the Councell but onely to expound it according to the probable doctrine of Catholikes And if Mr. Fitzherbert will say that this inference is ridiculous absurd improbable and not to the purpose and that hereby we may inferre quidlibet ex quolibet he sheweth himselfe as the plaine truth is to haue small skill in Theologicall learning 44 In the meane time saith he x Pag. 190 nu 12. ad finem Widdrington is to vnderstand further concerning this point that whereas hee demandeth whether it is not a most grieuous errour to graunt such licences whereupon most grieuous Sacriledges may follow to wit the inualid administration of Sacraments I answere that the Church both doth and may minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a propable opinion without any danger of formall sacriledge or sinne as when a childe is baptized in one of his feet or hands before he be fully borne into the world or when the Sacrament of Extreame Vnction is giuen to one of whom it is not certaine whether he be fully dead In these cases I say and diuers other such the Church doth administer Sacraments with some danger of inualiditie and yet without danger of formall Sacriledge in respect of the great hope of benefit which may follow to the soules of those to whom they are administred and I verily thinke that there was neuer any Catholike so impious hitherto as to condemne the same as sacrilegious either in the most famous and holy Father S. Gregory the Pope or in any other of his successors for albeit some learned men haue indeed denied that they had authority to giue such licence yet they were not so inconsiderate as either to condemne them of most grieuous or sacrilegious errour or to deny that the other opinion was probable seeing that it had beene practised so long since by S. Gregory and approoued not onely by so many most famous and learned Doctours but also by the Councell of Florence which treating of the Sacrament of Confirmation and hauing said that the Bishop is the Ordinary Minister thereof addeth afterwards Legitur tamen c. yet it is read that a simple Priest hath administred it by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike with Chrisme or holy Oyle made by a Bishop 45 So saith the Councell giuing to vnderstand that although a Bishop is the ordinary Minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation yet a Priest may be the extraordinary Minister of it by dispensation of the Sea Apostolike And this I hope may suffice to free as well S. Gregory as other Popes his Successours from all errour and much more all danger of sacriledge in this point Besides that the grant of such licences being meere matters of fact and concerning onely particular persons and Countries could not any way preiudice our cause albeit they were erroneous or sacrilegious seeing that as I haue sufficiently signified before the question betwixt him and vs for the present is only about a generall Decree of a Generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefit of the whole Church wherein wee doe indeed acknowledge the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost though not in euerie particular fact of a Pope Thus much for his first Instance 45 But still this man discouereth either his grosse ignorance or his accustomed fraud For first whereas I spake onely of errour of materiall sacriledge and of inualid administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation this man replieth of sinne of formall sacriledge and of vnlawfull administration of Sacraments For although it be certaine that a man may lawfully and without sinne or formall sacriledge minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a probable opinion yet it is not certaine that in such cases the Sacrament is ministred with effect and without errour or materiall sacriledge for truth falshood and errour haue their denomination from the effect or thing it selfe and probable ignorance and errour doe make the act lawfull though not valid and with effect 46 Secondly there is a great disparity betwixt
the Councels as some grounds and foundations of their definitions and decrees therefore the grounds and foundations of Ecclesiasticall definitions and decrees are not so certaine and infallible as the definitions decrees themselues Now what absurdity or impertinency trow you can be found in this my argument For I neyther applyed it to the Lateran Councell or to any other Decree of Pope or Councell or to the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes neyther did I say that because the reasons of Ecclesiasticall definitions and decrees are sometimes vncertain and fallible therefore they may bee denied without offence but all this is forged by my Aduersary that so hee might haue some colour to charge me with absurdity and impertinency for so exorbitant is the bitternesse of his zeale not to vse a more bitter word that he will not haue me to say scarce any one thing throughout all my writings without some note either of heresie errour temerity fraud malice irreuerence ignorance falshood impertinency fondnes or ridiculous absurdity from which imputations I haue neuerthelesse cleared all my assertions and euidently shewed that they are farre more agreeable to his arguments and answeres And if my Aduersary had not beene blinded with some intemperate passion he might plainely haue seene that to no other end purpose I brought that argument but to shew that the proposition whereon Fa. Lessius grounded his two first arguments whereof I did treate immediately before to wit that the grounds and foundations of Ecclesiasticall decrees and sentences must be certaine infallible and of faith is not so generally true but that it is needfull for Fa. Lessius to make a more cleere explication thereof 6 And albeit this be sufficient to iustifie this my argument and to free it from all imputation of absurditie and impertinencie yet for the better satisfaction of the Reader I will examine more particularly what he excepteth against the same Wherefore after he had so falsly and fraudulently as you haue seene set downe the aforesaid argument applying it to the Popes power to depose Princes and to the decree of the Lateran Councell and also affirming me to say that because the reasons of Eccesiasticall Canons be sometimes vncertaine therefore they may be denied without offence all which three things are forged by himselfe and not spoken by me and therefore to colour his fraude the better he thought it best not to set downe my argument verbatim as there he found it he writeth thus a Pag. 200. nu 2. Whereunto I answere that by this argument Widdrington impugneth none so much as himselfe granting that the Decrees of Councells may be certaine though the reasons whereupon they are grounded be vncertaine 7 But as I doe not grant that all the reasons of Ecclesiasticall Decrees are vncertaine and not of faith for some no doubt are certaine and of faith so also I doe not grant that all Decrees of Councells are certaine and of faith for some no doubt are not of faith seeing that all Decrees of Councells Bell. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 12. saith Cardinall Bellarmine doe not belong to faith but those onely which are propounded as of faith but of this I haue aboue treated more at large So that if all decrees of Councells are not certaine infallible and of faith no meruaile that the reasons grounds and foundations of such Decrees as they are reasons grounds and foundations thereof may be vncertaine fallible and not of faith I said as they are reasons grounds and foundations thereof for if otherwise they be decisions definitions or conclusions of some other generall Councell in this respect they may be certaine infallible and of faith And this doth euidently impugne the two first arguments of Fa. Lessius and the often named proposition whereupon they are grounded but how by this argument I impugne none so much as my selfe as this man saith but doth not prooue or any way impugne my selfe I cannot comprehend 8 Whereupon it followeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Pag. 200. nu 2. that the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the deposition of Princes may bee certaine and iust albeit the reasons or doctrine which was the foundation of it were not certaine and so Princes may be lawfully deposed by the Pope in such case as the Lateran Councell hath ordained though the said Councell might be mooued thereto by an vncertaine or erroneous reason so that albeit Widdrington should prooue that the ground of the Canon in question were vncertaine or erroneous yet hee should prooue nothing against the Canon it selfe 9 But fie Mr. Fitzherbert that you should shew your selfe to be so grossely ignorant and then especially when you taxe your Aduersarie of absurditie and impertinencie and to impugne him euen by his owne argument Are not you ashamed to argue so childishly ex puris particularibus from pure particular propositions against the knowne principles and rules of Logike Some Decrees of Councells may bee certaine though the reasons doctrine whereupon they are grounded be vncertaine therefore the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the deposition of Princes may be certaine though the reasons doctrine and foundations thereof be vncertaine As who should say Some men may be very skilfull in Diuinitie although they neuer studied it to wit by supernaturall infusion and diuine reuelation as Adam Salomon and our Sauiour Christ according to his humanitie therefore M. Fitzherbert may be very skilfull in Diuinitie although he neuer studied the same 10 But secondly it is not true that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates Landlords or Lords by the consent and authority of temporall Princes and therfore that Decree or rather Act being not made by true Ecclesiasticall authoritie doth not appertaine to the present question concerning the certaintie infallibility of Ecclesiasticall Decrees which are made by the spirituall Pastours of the Church as they haue spirituall and not temporall authoritie Thirdly my Aduersarie standing in his own principles will haue much ado to proue as I said before that those words of the Councell vt extunc ipse c. That then the Pope may denounce the vassalls absolued from their fealtie do containe a proper decree or precept concerning faith or manners but the end reason and cause of the former decree wherein it is ordained that the Pope shall be certified if the temporall landlord or Lord being excommunicated shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeere to the end that the Pope may denounce c. vnlesse he will haue the Councell to make lawes decrees and Canons to bind the Pope And that although it were a proper decree concerning manners yet that is such a generall decree and belonging to all the faithfull as according to Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus is required to make Ecclesiasticall decrees to be infallible and of faith So that the more my Aduersarie striueth to prooue out of the aforesaid words of the
the way to saluation and yet their sheep are not alwaies bound to heare and follow their voyce or call to beleeue with Catholike faith all their doctrine or to obey all their commandements for that their definitions are not certaine and infallible neither are they alwaies so assisted by the holy Ghost that they cannot command vnlawfull things So that albeit the Pope be our supreame spirituall Pastour Superiour and Iudge yet wee are not bound to obey him but in lawfull things and to which his authoritie doth extend 90 And if you aske againe to whom shall it belong to iudge whether the Popes definitions or doctrine be true or false or his commandements conforme to the law of God or no or that he exceed the authority and commission which Christ hath granted him or no I answere that if wee speake of Iudgement as it is an act of Iustice or of a Iudge doing iustice supposeth in him a superiority authority ouer the person whom he iudgeth which the Diuines call iudicium potestatis a iudgement of authority then according to the Diuines of Rome only God can iudge the Popes actions except in case of heresie or of schisme when more then one contend to be Pope for in these cases they graunt that a generall Councell may iudge the Pope But according to the Diuines of Paris not onely in the aforesaid cases but also in many others a Generall Councell whom they grant to be superiour to the Pope may by way of authority iudge the Popes actions and declare determine and define whether his definitions and commandements be conforme to the word and law of God or no. But if wee take iudgement S. Thom. prima secuÌ„da q. 93 ar 2. secunda secundae q. 51. ar 3. q. 60. ar 1. as it is an act of the vnderstanding and is commonly called by the Philosophers the second act or operation thereof and signifieth a right discerning or determination of the vnderstanding betwixt truth falshood good and euill in euery matter whether it be speculatiue or practicall and consisteth in the apprehension of a thing as it is in it selfe which the Diuines call iudicium discretionis a iudgement of discretion then euery learned man may iudge and discerne whether the Popes definitions or doctrine be true or false and whether his commandements bee conforme to the law of God or no neyther is that vulgar saying None can iudge his superiours actions to be vnderstood of this iudgement but of the former for this inward and priuate iudgement is the guide of euery mans conscience by which for that it is the rule of all morall actions he must iudge and discerne all his thoughts words and deeds actions and omissions 91 Seeing therefore it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope can erre in his definitions if hee define without a generall Councell and consequently they cannot be infallible grounds of Catholike faith it is euident that whensoeuer the Pope defineth any doctrine to be of faith which in very deed is Catholike doctrine and of faith we must not beleeue with Catholike faith that doctrin to be Catholike and of faith because the Pope hath defined the same for this reason and ground is as I haue said vncertaine and fallible but because the Catholike Church 1. Tim. 3. which onely is the infallible propounder of Catholike faith and according to the Apostle the pillar and ground of truth hath approued the same to be Catholike and of faith And thus much concerning the Popes definitions and decrees in points of faith and which are to be beleeued with Catholike faith 92 Now concerning manners and things commanded to bee done or not to be done we must carefully distinguish betwixt declaratiue and constitutiue precepts or commandements for in constitutiue commandements which doe make the thing which they forbid to be vnlawfull and doe not suppose it to be otherwise vnlawfull and forbidden by some former law first if the Pope command a thing which is manifestly lawfull and subiect to his commanding power wee are bound to obey but with this caueat or prouiso if by obeying we are not like to incurre any probable danger of some great temporall harme for that no Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall or contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doth seldome or neuer binde with any great temporall losse as I obserued elsewhere u In Disp Theol. cap. 10. § 2. nu 41. out of the common doctrine of Catholike Diuines Secondly if the Pope perchance commaund a thing which is manifestly vnlawfull then we are bound not to obey according to that saying of S. Peter God must be obeyed â—ather then men Acts cap. 5. 93 Thirdly if it be doubtfull whether the thing which the Pope commandeth be vnlawfull or whether he hath authority to command that thing or no In the discouery of D. Schulckenius caâ—umnies calum 15 nu 12. seq Sot de deteg secret memb 3. q. 2. then as I obserued elsewhere according to the doctrine of many learned Diuines as Sotus Corduba Salon Sayrus and others wee must doe that wherein there is lesse danger according to that approoued maxime Of two euils the lesser is to be chosen But Sotus doth more plainely and distinctly declare the whole matter When the Superiours commandement saith hee is of a thing secure and lawfull where no danger ariseth to the publike good or to a third person in a doubtfull matter we must for the most part obey As for example my Superiour commandeth me to study or to helpe sicke persons which are actions wherein there is no danger although it be doubtfull whether hee may impose such a commandement I must obey yet I added saith he for the most part because I am not alwaies bound to obey in a doubtfull matter as if the thing be ouer burdensome or laborious to the subiect For if my Superiour commaund me a long iourney and a hard or vneasie thing and it is doubtfull whether he hath authoritie to commaund the same I am not bound forthwith to obey And a little beneath the same Sotus as I related his words more at large aboue affirmeth that when it is doubtfull whether the Superiour commandeth that which is lawfull if it be in preiudice of a third person because that third person is in possession of his credit and goods we must incline to that part where there is lesse danger For when such danger doth arise to a third person if the subiect be doubtfull he doth not against obedience if hee demand of his Prelate a reason of his commaundement propounding humbly the reasons of his doubt Thus Sotus And by this the Reader may cleerely vnderstand the true sense and meaning of that vulgar maxime In doubts wee must obey our Superiour and stand to his iudgement 94 And as concerning declaratiue precepts which doe not make the thing which they forbid to be vnlawfull but doe onely declare
both by his Maiestie and many others hath bene very soundly confuted considering that my Aduersary doth so boldly affirme that the oath is vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for that it denyeth the Popes power to excommunicate and yet he bringeth no argument at all to prooue the same but it must forsooth be supposed as certaine and besides he concealeth what I before at large had answered to the aforesaid argument And thus much concerning his first answere and exception 24 Secondly saith my Aduersary q Nu. 14 touching the declaration of his Maiesties mind in this point I cannot but meruaile that such a learned man as this Authour is held to bee cannot distinguish betwixt the contents of the oath and the end or intention of him that ordained it For I will not deny but that his Maiestie might intend nothing else by ordaining this oath but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience vnto him and yet neuerthelesse hee that should take the oath should thereby abiure the Popes Supremacie for the reasons before declared notwithstanding his Maiesties protestation of his intention This will be euident See these reasons beneath nu 33. seq if we turne the case to a like oath of the Popes part as for example if the Pope should exact an oath of Catholikes to sweare that the King cannot depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterbury and should withall protest that he meaneth not thereby to make them abiure or deny the Kings authoritie but only to professe their dutie and obedience to the Sea Apostolike I make no doubt but that the Protestants would say according to their grounds that this protestation and declaration of the Popes mind could not excuse the takers of such an oath from the deniall of the Kings Royall authoritie because his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is according to the Protestants opinion so necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently deny the other In which respect I say the Popes protestation of his meaning or intention could not in the Protestants opinion warrant the swearers from periurie 25 And so say we in this case of his Maiesties publike profession and declaration of his intention that it cannot alter the nature of the oath or derogate any thing from the contents thereof or from the Popes Supremacie or from his Maiesties beleefe concerning the same and much lesse can it make any thing in the oath lawfull which is otherwaies vnlawfull and therefore I say that seeing the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included according to our doctrine and beliefe in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie that the takers of the new oath cannot be excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie nor consequently from periurie notwithstanding any protestation of his Maiestie to the contrary for if he should protest that he doth not force the takers of the oath to abiure the Popes Supreamacie it were Protestatio contraria factis a protestation contrary to his deeds which the Lawyers hold to be nothing worth 26 But first my Aduersarie could not but cleerely see howsoeuer here he is pleased to babble that I who as he scoffingly saith am held to be so learned a man not only could distinguish it being no such difficult point of wit or learning but also did oftentimes in my Apologie Apologeticall answere Theologicall Disputation and in my Appendix to Suarez in expresse wordes distinguish betwixt the ende of the worke and of the worker of the Art and Artificer of the law and precepts therein contained and of the Lawmaker and shewed that when the words of any law are ambiguous they are to be vnderstood according to the intention and meaning of the Lawmaker and that neither the intention of his Maiestie was to deny in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate or any other his spirituall authoritie but onely to require of his Catholike subiects a profession of that temporall and ciuill obedience which all subiects by the law of God and nature do owe to their lawfull Prince neither in the oath is contained any clause which by learned Catholikes is not thought to belong to temporall ciuill obedience 27 Wherefore there is a great disparitie betwixt the oath which the Pope should exact concerning his Maiesties power not to depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterburie and this new oath of allegiance concerning the Popes authoritie not to depose his Maiesties because that Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which his Maiestie doth challenge is according to the opinion of all Protestants necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power insomuch that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently in the opinion of all Protestants deny the other but the Popes authoritie to depose Princes is not according to the opinion of all Catholikes necessarily included in the Popes spirituall Supremacie for that many learned Catholikes doe hold that the Pope hath no such power to depose Princes and therefore hee that denieth his power to depose doth not consequently according to the opinion of all Catholikes deny his spirituall Supremacie And albeit Mr. Fitzherbert doeth boldly affirme that according to his beliefe the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie yet I will be bold to say that his beliefe herein is not Catholike or Vniuersall but a particular beliefe or rather an opinion of his owne and of some other Catholikes the contrarie doctrine being as I said euen to this day maintained by many learned and vertuous Catholikes And therefore vntill he bring some better ground for his beliefe then his bare I say I will also be bold to say that the takers of the new oath are according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie seeing that according to the opinion of many learned Catholikes the Pope hath no such power to depose and so neither is his Maiesties protestation repugnant to his deeds nor his intention disagreeable to the contents of the oath 28. Secondly although my Aduersary to prooue the oath vnlawfull and to containe a deniall of the Popes Supremacy doth seeme now to fly from his Maiesties intention to the contents of the oath and expresly saith That he will not deny but that his Maiestie by ordaining this oath might intend nothing else but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience and temporall allegiance and not of his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie neuerthelesse he seemeth before to affirme that his Maiesties intention opinion and vnderstanding is that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured in this oath and his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is acknowledged therein which the iudicious Reader may plainely gather both by those wordes in his Supplement before related wherein hee auoucheth r See his words beneath Nu. seq 29. That it is euident enough that the true reason why the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince is impugned by the
and depriue is necessarily included in his Regall authoritie but all Catholikes doe not beleeue whatsoeuer my Aduersary and some few others doe that the power to depose Princes is necessarily included in that spirituall Supremacie which Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successours as hath bene amply prooued by me and diuers others and what particulars Mr. Fitzherbert hath laide here or in his Supplement concerning this point we will beneath in their due places examine 34 His first reason he deduced from the grounds and principles of the Protestants Religion and from the doctrine and beliefe of his Maiesty and those of the Parliament who made the oath But how silly and insufficient this reason is yea and repugnant to his owne grounds and also of Fa. Parsons in whose defence hee wrote his Supplement any man of iudgement may quickly perceiue For behold his reason It is great reason sayth he to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authours thereof for it is to be presumed that euery one speaketh 〈◊〉 and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion but it is an assertion position and the beliefe not onely of his Maiestie but also of the Parliament which decreed the oath that the Pope cannot depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie therefore it is great reason to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacie 35 But first his Minor proposition is very vntrue For neither his Maiestie nor the Protestants doe hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie This indeed is the reason why they hold that the Pope cannot excommunicate his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie But the reason why they hold that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose his Maiesty is for that deposition being not an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall but a ciuill and temporall censure or punishment for what crime soeuer it be imposed can not be inflicted by any Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie For which reason the Protestants doe holde that although the Protestant Bishops of this Realme haue Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall authoritie herein England yet they haue no authoritie by vertue of their Episcopall power to depose or depriue his Maiestie of his temporall dominions for that they take deposition or any such temporall violence as his Maiestie affirmeth u In his Premonition pag. 9. to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall Censure as Excommunication is 36 And although this be sufficient to shew the insufficiencie of this my Aduersaries reason yet graunting him onely for Disputation sake which he in his Minor proposition vntruely affirmeth that his Maiestie and the Parliament should hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England his reason neuerthelesse is both insufficient and also repugnant to that which Fa. Parsons and he himselfe suppose to be true For albeit Fa. Parsons doth confidently affirme x In his booke intituled The iudgement of a Catholike English man c. part 1. nu 22. pag. 13. and 16. that there is no man who sticketh or maketh difficultie to acknowledge our Soueraigne to be true King and rightfull Lord ouer all his Dominions for that euery English Catholike will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those parts and clauses of the oath that doe any way appertaine to the ciuill and temporall obedience due to his Maiestie whom hee acknowledgeth to be his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his Dominions and the same in effect doth my Aduersarie in his supposition affirme as you haue seene before y Nu. 6. yet according to this his reason neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be our true and lawfull Soueraigne nor can promise to yeeld him all temporall alleagiance nor to defend him from all treasons and traiterous conspiracies nor to disclose them when they shal come to their knowledge when any such acknowledgement shall be demanded at their hands by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of his Maiesty as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included and necessarily deduced from his temporall and Kingly authoritie and all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authoritie are by the lawes of this Realme made treasons and traiterous conspiracies 37 Seeing therefore to vse my Aduersaries wordes It is great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof for it is to bee presumed that euery one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the principles and grounds of his beliefe and Religion it is cleere that if my Aduersaries argument be good neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be their true and lawfull Soueraigne and that they will yeeld him all temporall allegiance and defend him from all treasons and disclose them when they shall come to their knowledge for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie and according to the lawes of this Realme all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authority are treasons and traiterous conspiracies So that you see what contradiction there is in my Aduersaries sayings and what a prettie argument hee hath made to prooue himselfe a traytour seeing that according to his owne grounds hee can not acknowledge King Iames to be his true and lawfull Soueraigne nor promise to yeeld him all temporall allegiance if it should be exacted by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Maiesties spirituall Supremacy is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie 38 But secondly if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased out of the desire of truth to handle this question betweene him and mee sincerely and not with a flourish of words to obscure the difficulty and blind the vnderstanding of simple and scrupulous Catholikes he might eyther out of his owne iudgement or at lest wise from of that which I in my Theologicall Disputation did answere to the arguments of Gretzer Disputatio Theol. c. 2. sect 1 who thought it vnlawfull to acknowledge King Iames to bee our Soueraigne Lord in temporals and of Capellus z Ibid. c. 6. sect 5. who also thought it vnlawfull for any Catholike to promise that he will disclose all treasons and traiterous conspiracies for the reasons aforesaide and also from that which out of the doctrine of Suarez a
very first so fraudulent friuolous and contrarie to his owne profession as you haue heard in this Chapter Thus you see with what bitternesse Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth his first Chapter 43 But if hee had beene pleased to haue dealt vprightly and as hee hath in a most spitefull manner vrged against me this obiection which is taken from his Holinesse Breues so also he had set downe the answere which in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation I gaue thereunto the Reader would presently haue perceiued that my Aduersarie hath passed the bounds of Christian charitie and iustice in wrongfully accusing me of impudencie impietie and disobedience to the Apostolicall decree of S. Peters Successour whose obedient child I did there and also I doe heere professe my selfe to be and am readie to obey in all those things wherein according to the grounds of Catholike Religion hee hath authoritie to command Neither can my Aduersarie without blushing affirme either that the Popes Holinesse albeit hee bee Saint Peters Successour cannot erre in his particular commands and decrees which are not propounded to the whole Church but to particular Churches or Kingdomes or that any Catholike is bound to obey him in those things wherein according to the doctrine of learned and vertuous Catholikes hee hath no authoritie to command 44 First therefore I shewed in that place out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez that there are two sorts of humane precepts as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill The one is called a constitutiue precept which of it selfe maketh that thing which it forbiddeth to bee vnlawfull which otherwise if that precept were not would not bee vnlawfull as the eating of flesh in Lent and the doing of seruile workes vpon Sundaies and Holidayes which if they were not forbidden by humane lawes would not be vnlawfull And although a constitutiue precept of humane power may sometimes binde with danger of some great temporall losse as of goods libertie yea also of life yet the Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall and contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doe seldome or neuer binde with very great temporall harme and therefore wee are not bound to abstaine from flesh in Lent or from doing seruile workes vpon Sundaies and holidaies when we are like to incurre thereby any probable danger of some great temporall hurt 45 The other is called a declaratiue precept which doth not of it selfe make but suppose and declare the thing which it forbiddeth to be vnlawfull as being before prohibited by some other former law as theft murder drunkennesse and such like which are otherwise forbidden by the law of God and nature And this kind of precept as well obserueth Suarex dependeth onely vpon the reason for which the act is commanded or forbidden or which is all one vpon the precedent law from whence all the obligation of the declaratiue precept doth proceed Insomuch that if the reason be not true and that there is no such precedent law or obligation as the declaratiue precept affirmeth to be the declaratiue precept hath no force to binde at all and with the same certaintie or probabilitie we are bound or not bound to obey a declaratiue precept as it is certaine or probable that there is or is not any other former bond and obligation 46 As for example his Holinesse doth by his Breues forbidde all English Catholikes to take the new oath of allegiance for that therein are contained many things which are cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation If therefore it be certaine or probable that nothing is contained in this oath which is repugnant to faith or saluation it is also certaine or probable that this declaratiue precept of his Holinesse which is grounded vpon this reason that something is contained therein contrary to faith and saluation is according to the doctrine of Suarez of no force to bind neither are English Catholikes by vertue of this declaratiue prohibition bound to refuse the said oath 47 Secondly I also shewed in that place that this declaratiue command of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation is such a declaratiue precept which is not grounded vpon any infallible reason or definition of the Church but onely vpon his opinatiue iudgement that his reason is true and that either his power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes which is denyed in the oath is a cleere point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall Supremacie and consequently the denyall thereof is plainly repugnant to Catholike faith Which being so it is manifest that wee are no further bound to obey this declaratiue prohibition of his Holinesse then we are bound to follow his opinion and to belieue that eyther his power to excommunicate or some such like is denyed in the oath or that whosoeuer denyeth his power to depose Princes denyeth the Catholike faith 48 Whereupon I concluded that considering neither his power to excommunicate or any such like is denyed in this oath as I haue prooued at large against Card. Bellarmine and others nor that his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith the contrary doctrine being probable and also maintained by many learned Catholikes as partly also I haue already prooued by the testimonie of learned Catholikes before alledged and heere beneath by answering all my Aduersaries obiections I will make it more manifest Part. 1. per. tâ—tum there can bee made no doubt but that any English Catholike may with a safe conscience or without any crime of disobedience to his supreme spirituall Pastour or any preiudice to Catholike faith refuse to obey his Holinesse declaratiue command which is onely grounded vpon such an opinion which considering the contrary is probable and defended by many learned Catholikes may without any note of impudencie impiety or disobedience be reiected by Catholikes 49 Thirdly I also affirmed in that place that no Catholike doth onely for this cause take the oath or thinke it to be lawfull because the Kings Maiestie being of a contrarie Religion doth command it or thinke it to be lawfull as though those Catholikes who take the oath doe it onely vpon the Kings bare word affirming the oath to be lawfull and seeme thereby to preferre the opinion of a Protestant Prince in things which in some sort doe belong to Religion before the opinion of our supreme spirituall Pastour but because the Kings Maiestie being our lawfull Prince and Soueraigne Lord in temporals what religion soeuer hee professeth hath established an oath of allegiance to make a triall how his Catholike subiects stand affected towards him in point of their loyaltie and due obedience and commanded all Catholikes to take the same which oath learned Catholikes for probable reasons doe thinke to be truely in oath of temporall allegiance and to
willingly graunt that it may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests had power to command or enioyne bodily penances to their penitents as fasting prayer lying vpon sackcloth and ashes yea and giuing of almes in satisfaction of their sinnes as the building of Churches Colledges Hospitals or Religious Houses according to the greatnesse of their offence and the qualitie condition and abilitie of the penitent or to vse the tearme of Diuines claâ—e non errante the key not erring For if such penances should be enioyned without discretion and due regard of the greatnesse of the offence or of the state and condition of the penitent the key should erre and would not haue force to bind Secondly I doe also graunt that there is an order and subordination in worth and dignitie betwixt spirituall corporall and temporall goods or of the soule of the body and of fortune and that according to the light of nature the goods of the soule being most worthy are to be preferred and esteemed before the other two and that the goods of the body bodily life health libertie and such like bodily contentments are to be preferred before the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states and that all of them are with due order to be referred to the seruice and glorie of God and to the eternall saluation both of body and soule But what followeth from all this 33 Whereupon I inferre saith my Aduersarie r pag. 33. nu 5.6 according to the axiome of the law accessorium sequitur principale that seeing not onely the body but also temporall goode and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof a must needs follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glorie of God for the which 〈…〉 bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained And this me thinkes our aduersaries should not deny seeing that their Ecclesiasticall discipline admitteth not onely corporall chastisements by imprisonment but also pecuniaris mulcto and penalties Therefore vpon this I inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke and consequently to be fedde and gouerned by the supreme Pastour of the Church may also be chastised by him in their temporall states when it shall be necessarie for the glorie and seruice of God the benefite of soules and good of the whole Church whereto all Christian Kingdomes Isa 60. and Empyres are subordinate and subiect as I haue prooued before out of the holy Scripture and will prooue also after a while by the very law of nature and light of reason 34 But first touching the consequent or conclusion of his inference or argument to wit that the Pope hauing power ouer the soule hath power also ouer the body and goods when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and glory of God I doe willingly graunt the same if it be vnderstoode of a power not to dispose of corporall and temporall goods but to command and enioyne them in order to spirituall good albeit my Aduersarie did vnderstand it of both as I shewed before But as concerning the consequence inference or argument which hee draweth from that rule of the law De Regulis Iuris in 6. regula 42. The accessorie followeth the principall or as it is in the Canon law Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis It is fit or conuenient that the accessorie follow the nature of the principall which rule as the Glosse there affirmeth is taken from that rule of the Ciuill law ff de Regulis Iuris regula 138. Cum principalis causa c. When the principall cause is not consisting for the most part neither those things that follow haue place there can be no conuincing or demonstratiue argument as all my Aduersaries arguments must be if hee will prooue by them that the oath cannot with a safe and probable conscience be taken by any Catholike and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith be drawen from that generall rule of the law which hath so many exceptions restrictions and limitations and which are not as yet made sufficiently knowen by the Lawiers as neither what is vniuersally meant by Accessorie and what by Principall and what is to follow the nature of the principall 35 And therefore not without cause doth the rule of the Ciuill law from which this rule of the Canon law is taken adioyne that word plaerunque for the most part and the rule it selfe of the Canon law doth not absolutely say that the Accessorie must follow or doth follow the nature of the principall but it is fit or conuenient that the accessorie doe follow the nature of the principall to signifie that it doth not alwaies and of necessitie but for the most part and of congruitie follow the principall and that Iudges ought for the most part follow this rule in their iudgements if they haue no speciall reasoned meaning 〈…〉 to the contraries And therefore as the marginall Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doth well obserue Å¿ Leg. Et si is quem Cod. de praedijs alijs c. The accessorie doth not follow his principall when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall 36 Secondly therefore I would gladly know of my Aduersarie whether he will haue this rule to be grounded onely in humane law and hath it force and strength onely from thence so that if the Ciuill or Canon law had not made and ordained that rule it would not be of force and validitie or else it is grounded also in the law of God or nature If he graunt the first as commonly the Lawiers doe and therefore some things which seeme of their owne nature to be accessorie as a saddle and bridle are to a horse are not accessorie according to humane law and therefore he that selleth a horse doth not consequently sell the bridle and faddle and somethings which are not accessorie of their owne nature as a dowrie is not necessarily annexed to marriage are made accessorie according to humane lawe and therefore he that marrieth a woman with the consent of her parents hath right to a dowrie and the parents are bound by the Ciuill Law to giue a dowrie if they be able wherefore the Glosse vpon the aforesaid rule of the Ciuill law doth obserue that the word plaerunque for the most part was purposely added to that rule of the law for that sometimes that rule doth faile to which purpose he alledgeth many texts of the Ciuill law If my Aduersarie I say will graunt the first he can not but easily perceiue that there can no forcible argument be drawne from the
he affirmeth that the Church in no case can iudge an vndoubted Pope so long as he is Pope Neuerthelesse I neuer affirmed that when the Emperour doth abandon and forsake his Empire and people and refuseth to be their Emperour any longer but leaueth them to themselues it is not in their power to choose them an other Emperour or to change the Imperiall Monarchie into Aristocratie or Democratie for that then the supreme temporall power and authoritie is immediately in the people and this also I prooued in that place out of Card. Bellarmines owne principles 45 Wherefore when D. Schulckenius a little aboue affirmed that I doe oftentimes graunt that the people cannot in any case deny ciuill obedience to that Prince whom once they haue had if his meaning be that I doe graunt that he who is once a Prince can not of his owne accord leaue to be a Prince and can not resigne his kingdome to the next heire and that the people are bound to yeeld ciuill obedience to him who was once their Prince but now of his owne accord hath resigned his kingdome to the next heire he doth greatly wrong me and abuse his Reader for to affirme this were foolish and ridiculous and contrarie to all reason and practise but that which I affirmed was that it is very probable and defended by many graue and learned Catholikes that the people who are subiect can in no case nor for any cause iudge or depose their Soueraigne Prince against his will and my reason was the same which Card. Bellarmine oftentimes vseth to prooue that the Church or a Generall Councell can not iudge or depose the Pope for that it is contrarie to all reason for an inferiour or subiect to iudge his Superiour and therefore those Catholikes that holde a Generall Councell may in some cases iudge the Pope doe also holde that it is superiour and aboue the Pope 46 That the Grecian Emperours had the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned by them I affirmed in these words Seeing therefore that as Lupoldus or Ludolphus writeth and diuers other Authors as Nauclerus Aeneas Siluius and Michael Coccinius doe insinuate the Emperours of Greece in the time of Charles the great and also before his time to wit in the time of his father Pipine and of his grandfather Charles Martellus did reigne in the West Empire only in name neither could the Church of Rome nor other Churches of Christ or also any others being by the Longobards vniustly oppressed in the same Empire haue iustice by them or by their authoritie and so the aforesaid Emperours had the West-Empire in a manner forsaken by gouerning therein only in name as it appeareth by diuers Chronicles the Pope Senate and people of Rome at leastwise by the tacite consent of all other Westerne men who were subiect to the Empire had euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine but now related full right and power which they could loose by no custome or translation of the Imperiall Seate as being to them connaturall and due by the law of nature to choose themselues a new Emprour and consequently to transfer the Empire which the Grecians kept in the Westerne parts only in name to Charles the great and his Successours the Imperiall Seate being in those parts at that time as it were vacant or without an Emperour Thus I wrote in my Apologie e Nu. 438. 47 And moreouer that the Greeke Emperours had the Westerne Empire and people for forsaken and abandoned and gaue at leastwise their tacite consent according to that rule of the law qui tacet consentire videtur that they might choose to themselues another Empeperour at leastwise in power and authoritie it is apparant for that they did neuer repugne contradict or gainesay that Charles the great should rule ouer them although perchance it displeased them that hee should haue the name of Emperour Yea and as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe writeth when the Empresse Irene heard that Charles was called and crowed Emperour by Pope Leo shee did not onely gainesay but also she would haue married Charles and had done if certaine perfidious Eunuches had not hindered her as Zonaras and Cedrenus doe write in the life of the said Irene Afterwards Irene being dead Nicephorus the Emperour who did succeede her sent Ambassadours to Charles as to an Emperour as writeth Ado in this Chronicle of the yeere 803. And a little after Nicephorus being dead Michael suceeding him sent Ambassadours to Charles who likewise did publikely honour him as an Emperour as writeth Ado in his Chronicle of the yeere 810. All which doe sufficiently confirme that the Greeke Emperours did not gainesay this translation nor conceiue it to be a wrong done to them and in preiudice of their Imperiall right and Soueraigntie 48 By all which it is manifest first that I doe not any wrong at all to the Latin Emperours who haue beene and shall be from the time of that translation as though their Empire were not grounded vpon any sound title or foundation for that all writers and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe doe agree in this that the Pope together with the rest of the people haue power to choose them another Emperour in case the Emperour will no longer reigne ouer them because in that case the supreame temporall power and authoritie is onely in the people or whole multitude but rather Card. Bellarmine as also I obserued in that place f Nu. 462. doth call in question and make doubtfull the right and title which the Latin Emperours haue to the Empire in that hee affirmeth that they haue all their right and title from the Pope alone seeing that there be many learned and graue Authours who make a great doubt whether the Pope alone hath by the institution of Christ any such power and authoritie to transfer Empires but no Authour not so much as Card. Bellarmine himselfe according to his doctrine which I related in that place doeth deny that the whole multitude hath full power and authoritie to transfer the Empire in the aforesaide case to wit when the Emperour doth abandon the Empire and will no longer reigne ouer the people 49 Secondly it is also manifest that I haue not any way contradicted my selfe in my answere and that I haue cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds and by his owne Authours that the aforesaide translation was done by the authoritie decree ordinance and suffrages both of the Pope and of the people and consequently that the people did more then onely request applaude and assent to that translation to which D. Schulckenius maketh no answere at all and therefore his silence herein is both an euident signe that hee was not able to impugne my answere and that although hee doeth so highly commend his owne booke of the translation of the Empire as exactly soundly and diligently written yet his owne conscience for as much as concerneth this question seeth now the contrarie for that hee being so
Iudges within the gates doe not agree the Iewes ought to haue recourse did consist only of Priests and not of temporall but of spirituall Iudges and that the Iudge mentioned in this place they ought obey was either the high Priest himselfe or rather some other inferiour Priest subordinate to him neuerthelesse he cannot prooue from hence as he pretendeth that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes was in the hands of the high Priest For all that is ordained for the Priests and Iudges to do in this place of Deuteronomie is only to decide determine and declare the doubts and difficulties of the law to whose commandement and decree euery man was bound by the expresse law of God vnder paine of death to stand but to decide and declare what is the law of God to instruct the people therin and to command the people to obey their declaration instruction commandement is not a temporall but a pure spirituall cause as well obserueth Abulensis in cap. 11. Num. q. 23. 24. in cap. 18. Exodi q. 5.8 11. 16 And what Catholike man will deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue also authoritie to declare and determine what is the law of God when any doubt or difficulty shall arise and to command all Christians euen temporall Princes who are subiect to them in spirituals to obey their decree and determination and yet from hence it can not be rightly inferred in that manner as my Aduersarie from those words of Deuteronomie would conclude that the highest tribunall for iudgement in the new law not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes is in the hands of the chiefe spirituall Pastour for that to decide and determine what is the law of Christ and to command Christian Princes to obey their decision and determination is not a temporall but a meere spirituall cause 17 But if my Aduersarie had prooued as he hath not that the Priests of the old law had authoritie not only to interpret the law and to command the people to follow their interpretation but also to pronounce the sentence of death and to execute the same against those who should not obey their declaration and decree then hee had said something to the purpose for to inflict temporall punishments and to pronounce the sentence of death and to execute or inflict the same for what crime soeuer it be either temporal or spiritual is a temporal not a spiritual actiō I say to inflict temporal punishmēts c. For as I haue often said to impose or enioine temporal punishments and to command temporall Iudges to do iustice according to the law by punishing malefactours with corporall death if it be so ordained by the law may if it be done for a spiritual end be a spiritualactiō belonging to the authority of spiritual Pastors Neither can my Aduersarie prooue that the Iudge who was to giue sentence of death against those who either did not obey the commandement of the Priest and the decree of the Iudge or committed any other crime worthie of death by the law as blasphemie adulterie Sodomie c. was either a Priest or a temporall Iudge who had his authoritie deriued from the high Priest as he was a Priest I say as he was a Priest for that sometimes the chiefe temporall Iudge as I obserued before out of the Glosse was also a Priest as in the time of Holy Moyses and the Machabees and then he had authoritie to giue sentence of death not as he was a Priest but as hee was a temporall Prince or Iudge 18 Wherefore to little purpose is that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth Besides that saith he m Pap. 71. nu 6. afterwards God commanded the people exactly to obey the Priests Deut. 24. without mention of any other Iudge threatening to punish them him selfe in case they should transgresse the same saying Obserua diligenter c. Obserue diligently that thou incurre not the plague of Leprosie but shalt doe whatsoeuer the Priests of the Leuitical stocke shal teach thee according to that which I commanded them and doe thou fulfill it carefully So said Almightie God And to mooue them the rather to this exact obedience which he commanded he added presently Remember what our Lord God did to Mary in the way when you came out of Egypt that is to say how seuerely God punished Mary the Prophetesse sister to Moyses for her disobedience to him was stroken with leprosie for the same by which example Almightie God did notably inculcate vnto the people the necessitie of their obedience to the Priest and the danger of his indignation and seuere punishment which they should incurre by neglecting their dutie therein Thus said I in my Supplement and hauing prooued afterwards most n Nu. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. amply that God gaue also to the high Priest not only a soueraignitie of authoritie but also an infallibilitie of doctrine iudgement in causes of doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters and hauing also shewed the great priuiledges of the Leuites and Priests who were separated wholly c. 19 But what followeth from all this No man maketh any doubt but that the Priests of the old law were to be obeyed in those things wherein they had authoritie to comand as likewise neither Mr. Fitz. can make any doubt but that the cōmandement of the temporall Prince or Iudge was exactly to be followed in those things wherein they had authoritie to command True it is that the Priests were the chiefe interpreters of the law of God in the old Testament according to those words of the Prophet Malachie The lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge Malach. cap. 2. and the law they shall require of his mouth because he is the Angell or Messenger of the Lord of Hosts and that it belonged to the Priests to declare whether one was infected with leprosie or no But from hence it can not rightly be concluded that it belonged to the Priests as they were Priests but to the temporall Iudges of the people or to the children of Israel that is the whole multitude from whom the temporarall Iudges had commonly their election and authoritie to giue sentence of death and to inflict any temporall punishment appointed by the law And therefore although God ordained Leuit. 13. that Aaron or any one of his sonnes should declare and iudge who was infected with leprosie and after his declaration and iudgement that he was a leaper he should be separated yet it belonged to the children of Israel not as they were ministers of the Priests but of God who was their King and ordained that punishment to separate him and cast him out of the campe according to that of Num. 5. And the Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leaper and
as you haue seene doth deny that the state of the Priesthood in the olde law was more honourable and excellent then of the temporall Princedome about which I will not contend with Abulensis for that I thinke he differeth from me onely in words yet from hence it can not be concluded that the temporall Prince in the olde law was in temporall affaires inferiour or subiect to the high Priest but onely in spirituall causes which is not at this time the question betwixt Mr. Fitzherbert and me 35 The last argument also which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old law before the institution of the Kings of Israel is as silly as any of the former b nu 9. pag. 73. and the most that it prooueth also is that the authoritie and office of the high Priest is more noble then the authoritie and office of the temporall Prince Thus farre sayth he in my Supplement where hauing also c Nu. 23. Leu. 4. Philo. l. de victimis Theod. in Leu. Procop. in Leu. Magdeb. cent 1 l. 1. c. 7. col 257. Calu Instit l. 4. c. 6 ss 12. prooued the preheminence of the Priest aboue the Prince by the difference of their Sacrifices according to the opinion of Philo the Iew. Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus and confirmed it by the testimonie and confession euen of the Magdeburgenses and Caluin himselfe I proceeded to the consideration of the Kings in the old Testament and whether there was any change or diminution of the authoritie of the high Priest by their institution to which purpose I said thus This being so by the ordinance of almightie God himselfe and this law being continued in full force without any alteration or change during the gouernment of Moyses Iosue and the Iudges it is to be considered whether the same was changed or any way altered afterwards at the institution of the Kings I meane whether the Kings were any way exempted from this law and had Superioritie ouer the high Priest and Clergie as our Aduersaries doe absurdly affirme that they had c. 36 But first what is this to the purpose The spirituall Pastour hath preheminence in dignitie and nobilitie ouer the temporall Prince will he therefore from hence inferre that the spirituall Pastour hath power and authoritie ouer the temporall Prince euen in temporall affaires as though because the Goldsmith hath in nobilitie and excellencie preheminence aboue the Cobler therefore we may conclude that the Goldsmith hath power and authoritie ouer the Cobler Secondly neither from the difference of the Sacrifices can there sufficiently be gathered any preheminence especially in authoritie aboue the temporall Prince in temporall affaires For although it be ordained Leuit. 4. that a calfe should be offered for the Priest and a goat for the Prince who should offend through ignorance yet this difference of sacrifices may be appointed not for that the Priest hath any preheminence either in dignitie or authoritie in temporall affaires aboue the temporall Prince but for that as well obserueth Mr. Iohn Barclay d Cap. 15. § 4. the offence of the Priest sinning through ignorance is either greater then of the Prince and therefore to be purged by a more worthie Sacrifice or that the Priest in Ecclesiasticall affaires hath preheminence aboue the Prince which no man denyeth And what man of learning would now conclude that the Priests the new law haue any temporall power ouer Kings for that a greater penâ—â— is enioyned to them if they offend through ignorance then to temporal Kings or that in Churches and Ecclesiasticall rites they are the first and doe first communicate 37 Wherefore Abulensis vpon this place doeth referre the difference of these sacrifices not to any preheminence of the high Priest aboue the temporall Prince but to the greatnesse of the offence committed by them both Abul q. 12. in cap. 4. Leuit. You must know saith hee that these sacrifices are appointed greater according as the sinnes for which they were offered were greater but the sinne of the high Priest taking it in the same kind of sinne is alwayes greater then the sinne of the Prince of the people or then the sinne of all the people therefore the sinne of the high Priest did require the greatest Sacrifice excelling all other Sacrifices for sinnes or at leastwise equall to the greatest Sacrifices Now in what manner and for what causes the sinne of the high Priest was greater both in extension and intension then the sinne of the temporall Prince or of all the people Abulensis doth declare at large in that place 38 Thirdly if Mr. Fitzherbert had examined that place of holy Scripture himselfe and not barely taken that argument from Card. Bellarmine hee might easily haue seene that the same sacrifice of a calfe with the same ceremonies was appointed to bee offered also for the sinne of all the people So that if this argument taken from the difference of the Sacrifices were good to prooue a preheminence of the high Priest aboue the Prince because for the high Priest if hee should offend through ignorance a calfe was to bee offered and for the Prince only a goate it would also prooue that the people were equall in preheminence to the high Priest and that they had preheminence aboue their King or Prince for that for the offence also of the people was to bee offered the same sacrifice of a calfe and for the offence of the Prince only a goate 39 Fourthly heere is no mention made in this place of Kings but only of Princes If a Prince saith the Scripture doth sinne and by ignorance doe of many things one that by the law of our Lord is forbidden and afterwards vnderstandeth his sinne hee shall offer an hoste to our Lord a bucke of the goates without spotte Now at this time the Israelites had no King but 400. yeeres after For the better vnderstanding whereof you must obserue as well declareth Abulensis e q. 8. in c. 21. Leuit. that Moyses was the first Prince of the people vnder whom all the people of Israel did depart out of Aegypt yet Moyses was not a King but a Captaine or a Leader of the people Yea he was not Dominus a Lord or ruler saith Abulensis f q. 19. in cap. 8. Iudic. but onely as making lawes to the Iewes on the behalfe of GOD and hee commanded nothing to the Israelites as from his owne will but as from GOD whereupon hee was not called a Lord but a Doctour of the Israelites And it is apparant that if hee had beene a Lord of the Israelites or as it were a King it had belonged to him to bestow dignities by instituting and deposing and none of the people could resist him or accuse him of this at leastwise de iure by right and if hee were accused de facto hee was not bound to answere but he might represse those who opposed against him by answering nothing and yet Core with a hundred and
Aduersaries by teaching that the Pope hath power to depose Christian Princes and not I who doe not maintaine that doctrine doe consequently impose that most horrible slander vpon the Vicar of Christ our common Father and Pastour 22 For wherefore thinke you doth this Doctour deny the consequence of my argument Marke I pray you his fallacious reason and how he fraudulently altereth my argument and cunningly changeth both the subiect and predicate of my antecedent proposition vpon which my consequence and consequent doe wholly depend For it doth not follow saith he from a power to depose a power to kill I neuer saide that from a power to depose in generall doeth follow a power to kill abstracting both from the persons who are to depose and kill and from the crimes for which the persons that may bee deposed may bee killed but my argument did specifie in particular as well the persons who were to depose and kill as the causes and crimes for which one may by them bee deposed or killed And I affirmed that from the doctrine that maintaineth the Popes power to depose hereticall Princes and publike enemies to the common spirituall good it doeth euidently follow that the Pope in order to the same publike spirituall good hath also power to kill such Princes and that therefore this argument was good The Pope in order to the common spirituall good hath power to depose absolute Princes if the crime deserue deposition therfore in order to the same spirituall good he hath power also to kill them if the crime deserue corporall death 23 And the reason or ground of my consequence was for that according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and those that maintaine the Popes power to depose Soueraigne Princes for this cause and reason they grant vnto the Pope a power to depose Princes in order to spirituall good for that they graunt the Pope to haue in order to spirituall good â—â—otestatem summam in temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater and therefore as great a power in temporals as â—emporall Princes haue Whereupon they are not afraid to affirme â—hat all Christian Princes Kings Emperours and Monarches are the Popes subiects in temporals in order to spirituall good as other infeâ—iour persons are subiect to temporall Princes in temporals in order to â—emporall good But a temporall Prince hath in order to temporall good authoritie not onely to take away the lands and liues of their â—ubiects if the crime deserue that punishment and the common temporall good doth require the same but also if the crime be publike and notorious and the malefactours or perturbers of the publike temporal good be so potent that without rebellion or great temporall harme â—hey can not be apprehended he hath authoritie to condemne them â—riuately and in their absence without any processe citation or deâ—ence and afterwards to giue licence to any priuate man to bereaue â—hem of their liues by any arte or stratageme and by any publike or â—riuie way therefore the Pope according to these desperate grounds â—nd principles which graunt him potestatem summam in temporalibus â—ath the like authoritie ouer temporall Princes in order to spirituall good who according to this false and scandalous doctrine are in order to spirituall good subiect to the Pope in temporals This was my â—rgument 24 wherefore my consequence was onely concerning the Pope â—o whom is therefore graunted by my Aduersaries a power to depose Princes for that he hath in order to spirituall good potestatem summam â—n temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater for â— supreme power in temporals doth necessarily include a power both to depose and kill if the crime deserue the same And therefore who would not admire or rather pitie that so learned a man as is he who â— reputed to be the true Authour of this booke should bring such vnâ—earned instances from those who haue not a supreme power in tempoâ—als or if they haue from a crime which doth not deserue death to imâ—ugne my consequence which speaketh both of one who is supposed â—o haue a supreme power in temporals and also of a crime which is so â—eynous that according to the law it deserueth death if it were committed by subiects or priuate men 25 For the consequences of those fiue examples which this Doâ—tour hath brought to impugne my arugment are all defectiue either â—or that the persons who are to depose and therefore to kill are not â—upposed to haue supreme power in temporals to wit euery Father Maâ—ter or Bishop or else because the crime for which the persons there â—pecified may be deposed doth not deserue so great a punishment as is death But if we once suppose a Father Master and Bishop to haue a supreme power in temporals ouer their sonnes seruants and Clerkes as the Pope is supposed by my Aduersaries to haue ouer all Christian Princes and also the crime to deserue death then I say it doth euidently follow that if such a Father hath power to depriue his sonne of his inheritance he hath also power to depriue him of his life not for that a power to kill is necessarily annexed to euery power to depose but to such a power to depose which is a supreme power ouer all temporals or rather for that a power to depose and to kill to take away goods and life are necessarily included in euery supreme power to dispose of all temporals And therefore all the shuffling shifting and cunning of this Doctour will neuer be able to weaken the force of my consequence but this consequence will euer remaine good and strong that if the Pope hath power to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes for that he is their supreme Lord in temporals in order to spirituall good it doth necessarily follow that he hath power also to depriue them of their liues if the necessitie of the common spirituall good require the same And therefore although the opinion of Card Bellarmine be receaued not by the Catholike Church as this Doctour vntruely affirmeth but by many Catholike Doctours and confirmed by the often practise of many later Popes yet alwaies contradicted by Catholike Kings and subiects neuerthelesse if these Catholike Doctours and Popes had duely considered what odious and detestable consequences doe follow from that opinion they would forthwith in my iudgement haue detested the premisses from which such hatefull conclusions and which this Doctour seemeth here so greatly to abhorre that he feareth not therefore to accuse me of imposing a most horrible slander vpon Christs Vicar are most cleerly and certainly deduced 26 Wherefore to conclude this point that which this Doctour answereth secondly concerning Athalia who was slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest is nothing to the purpose To this argument sayth he r Pag. 556. I answere now that examples are to be taken according to the conuenience of the matter and persons In
the old Testament Priests did make warre and fight with the rest of the Israelites against their enemies but in the new Testament Priests doe abstaine from the shedding of blood and if they find any to be worthy of death they deliuer them ouer to the Secular power to be punished But this I say is nothing at all to the purpose For my argument was not concerning inferiour Priests but onely concerning the Pope neither also what Popes in practise and de facto doe but what according to the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to doe Now it is euident and approoued by the common consent of Catholike Diuines that the shedding of blood is not by the institution of Christ forbidden either the Pope or inferiour Bishops and Priests who therefore with the Popes licence make warre and concurre directly to the effusion of blood as oftentimes they haue done yea now at Rome all effusion of blood by a iuridicall sentence and condemning malefactours to death and all making of warres by the Popes subiects are deriued from the Popes authoritie not as he is Pope but as he is a temporall Prince for that which I contend is that Priests neither in the old law nor in the new as they are Priests or by their Priestly power haue authoritie to condemne any man to death or to inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment or the like 27 Secondly and principally to this example of Athalia I answered Å¿ Apolog. nu 366. seq that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did as Card. Bellarmine af firmeth in this place create Ioas King that is did giue him a right or true title to reigne which before he had not seeing that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by hereditarie right belong to Ioas presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously slaine although Athalia did tyrannically vsurpe the possession thereof For it is not vnusuall for one to possesse sometimes either with a good or bad conscience that thing whereof another man is the true lord or owner And therefore betwixt right and possession a great difference is commonly made by all Diuines and Lawyers Wherefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then what euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case For seeing that for his innocent life opinion of sanctitie and the dignitie of his office he was in great veneration among the people and Peeres of the kingdome his authoritie or fauour did preuaile so much with them that all men with vniforme consent would very easily be drawen especially by his perswasion to kill the treacherous vsurpresse and to seate the lawfull King who was vniustly detained from the possession of his kingdome in the possession thereof But this did onely argue the strength and power of Ioiada and his great fauour with the people and Peeres and not any authoritie in him to create a King who by right was not a lawfull King before 28 Wherefore from this example of Athalia nothing at all can by any true or probable consequence bee concluded in fauour of Cardinall Bellarmine because from the holy Scripture it cannot sufficiently be gathered either that Athalia was by the commandement of Ioiada slaine for Idolatrie but onely for manifest tyrannie for that shee had cruelly murthered the Royall issue and had vniustly vsurped the kingdome the true heire being aliue and therefore shee could not bee the lawfull Queene or that Ioiada the high Priest did command her to be slaine by his owne proper authoritie but by the consent of the King Peeres and people And therefore this example doeth nothing auaile to proue that true Kings and Princes albeit heretikes and Idolaters who are in lawfull possession of their kingdomes may bee depriued of their kingdomes or liues by the Popes authoritie 29 This second to wit that Ioiada the high Priest did onely by his aide and counsell sollicite and not by his owne proper authoritie but with the consent of the States command in the Kings name Athalia to bee slaine 2. Paral. 23. is manifest by those words And in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage tooke the Centurions c. and made a couenant with them to wit to kill Athalia and to seate Ioas the Kings sonne and lawfull King in the possession of his kingdome which shee had vniustly vsurped who going about Iuda saith the Scripture gathered together the Leuites out of all the cities of Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Hierusalem Therefore all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of GOD And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as the Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid which words the Glosse expounding 4. Reg. 11. writeth thus Heere is described the institution of the true heire whom also hee calleth the due King through the carefulnesse of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent and aide of the Princes and Nobles of the kingdome when it is saide And hee made a couenant with them Wherefore that commandement which Ioiada gaue to the Centurions to kill Athalia did proceede from that former couenant which before hee had made with them and the King And therefore as euery priuate subiect may and ought to command any man in the Kings name to aide him for the apprehending of a traitour to his Prince and Countrey without hauing any authoritie proper or peculiar to him to doe the same so it is not necessarie that any peculiar authoritie to command bee giuen to Ioiada onely for that hee with the consent of the King and the comon wealth commaunded Athalia vniustly vsurping the kingdome to bee slaine although wee should vnderstand that commandement of Ioiada of a commandement being taken strictly and not largely or commonly in which sense to command doth little differ from to counsell or perswade 30 But the first which is affirmed by Cardinall Bellarmine to wit that Athalia was slaine not onely for tyrannie but also for idolatrie albeit if this were true it nothing auaileth to prooue that a true and lawfull Prince although an Idolater may lawfully be slaine seeing that it is manifest that Athalia was not a true and lawfull Queene but an vsurper of the kingdome the true heire being aliue hee very insufficiently concludeth from they holy Scripture seeing that he relateth not truely those words which doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it and they brake his Altars and his Images doe not immediately follow either 4. Reg. 11. or 2. Paralip 23. the killing of Athalia as Cardinall Bellarmine vntruely affirmeth intending to proue from thence that shee was slaine for idolatrie but these wordes doe immediately follow her killing And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King
but onely to be deposed But this is very vntrue For although Card. Bellarmine doth not in expresse wordes yet by a cleere and necessary consequence he doth contend that the Pope hath power to depriue hereticall Kings not onely of their kingdomes but also of their liues seeing that he contendeth that the Pope hath authoritie in oder to spirituall good to dispose of all temporalls and I hope that the liues of Princes are not to bee excluded from temporall things See aboue nu 9 seq And although Ioas was made King de facto by the procurement of Ioiada yet it cannot with any credibilitie be denied but that all the time that Athalia raigned de facto and vniustly vsurped the kingdome Ioas was King de iure and that the kingdome and all Kingly authoritie did by right belong to him 68 But Widdrington doth not vvell prooue saith this Doctour that all those things were done onely by the counsell and not by the authoritie of Ioiada For as the Scripture testifieth both 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. Ioiada called the Centurions together Ioiada armed the Souldiers Ioiada commanded that if any one should enter within the precinct of the Temple he should be slaine if any one should follow the Queene he should likewise bee slaine Ioiada as saith the Glosse cited by Widdrington did institute the King Ioiada crowned the King Ioiada commaunded the Queene to be slaine Ioiada made a couenant betwixt himselfe the King and the people that they should be the people of our Lord Ioiada commanded the Temple of Baal to bee ouerthrowne the Altars of the Idols to be destroyed the Priest of Baal to be slaine Ioiada set the watch in the house of our Lord c. All these things Ioiada the high Priest did but because he alone could not accomplish the whole matter he adiured the Centurions that they would helpe valiantly and faithfully and therefore he made a couenant with them for the execution Wherefore nothing is giuen to the Centurions but obeying and executing at the commandement of Ioiada The Centurions saith the Scripture did according to all things that Ioiada the high Priest had commanded them 69 But why doth this Doctour still corrupt my wordes and meaning why doth he omit that word propria authoritate by his owne proper authoritie which of set purpose to expresse plainely my meaning I did set downe I neuer affirmed that all those things here mentioned by this Doctour were done by Ioiada without true and lawfull authoritie but I alwaies added that they were not done propria authoritate by his owne proper authority to wit which was proper and peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by the authority and consent of the King Princes and people and which things euery faithfull subiect might doe and was bound to doe in the like case that is if he were the Kings Protectour and Guardian and represented in all things the Kings person and such a King whom he did not onely probably imagine but also certainly knew to bee the rightfull and vndoubted King and heire of the kingdome 70 Neuerthelesse I doe willingly grant as I haue said before and oftentimes in all my bookes I haue freely confessed that Ioiada by his owne proper authoritie that is by his Priestly power had authoritie to declare to the people the Law of God and to command them to obserue the same but not to constraine them by temporall punishment to the obseruation thereof and that therefore he might commaund them in generall to put Ioas in possession of his kingdome knowing that it did by the Law of God and by the right of his inheritance belong to him as being descended by a direct line from the stocke of King Dauid according as God almighty had promised to Dauid and Salomon But concerning the particular manner how Athalia was to be deposed and Ioas was to be put in possession of his kingdome which was not contained in the Law of God this I said Ioiada could onely doe by his aduice and counsell if we respect him onely as he was high Priest but if we respect him as he was the Kings Protectour Keeper and Guardian and represented the Kings person in all things this I said hee did by authoritie but not by his owne proper authoritie as he was high Priest and which could not be common also to all other subiects in the like case but by the authority of the King and commonwealth and as he being the Kings Protectour and Guardian represented the Kings person in all things And therefore I doe not deny that Ioiada did all those things mentioned by this Doctour by authoritie but not by his owne proper authority which this Doctor hath not as yet any way impugned nor will be euer able to impugne 71 That Ioiada did not those things by his owne proper authoritie but in the name and by the authoritie of the King with the consent of the Princes and people I prooued by the words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse vpon that place Therefore all the multitude saith the Scripture made a couenant with the King in the house of God and Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sone shall raigne as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid The words of the Glosse are these Heere is described the institution of the true heire the due heire and which ought to be the due King and which ought to be for all these names veri haeredis haeredis debiti Regis debiti the Glosse vseth by the procurement of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent of the Princes and Nobles of the Realme when it is said And he made a couenant with them 72 Marke now how cunningly this Doctor would shift of these testimonies That which is added saith hee p Pag. 568. concerning the couenant with the King is vnderstood of the future King to wit with him who a little after was to be instituted King as it is manifest by the same place for presently it is added And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne And the Glosse is against Widdrington for if heere be described the institution of the true King and to this is required the assent of the Princes assuredly Ioas was not King before albeit he was the Kings sonne For he that is King by succession ought not to be instituted but declared neither doth he neede the assent of the Princes Therefore Ioiada did constitute the King and depose the Queene but the Princes ayding and assisting him without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter 73 But if this Doctor had beene pleased to declare plainely the true state of the present question betwixt me and Cardinal Bellarmine as I did and not delude his Reader with ambiguous and equiuocall words the plaine trueth of this controuersie would presently haue appeared For this word King is equiuocal and may be taken either for a King de iure and
in the Councell of Constance but the contrarie doctrine is damnable scandalous and seditious 78 Marke now what a trim consequence Mr. Fitzherbert gathereth from the premisses Whereupon sayth he b nu 18. pag. 78 it followeth that seeing Ioiada did lawfully depose Athalia being a holy man Matth. 23. Hieron lib. 4. in Num. cap. 23. and therefore called by our Sauiour Barachias that is to say Blessed of our Lord he did it not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person All this is true as you haue seene But that which he addeth to wit as High-Priest to whom it belonged to iudge of her cause is very vntrue neither doth it follow from his premises For his antecedent proposition was this Ioiada being high Priest deposed Athalia as her lawfull Iudge and not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person this I granted now he inferreth that Ioiada as high-Priest did depose her which I euer denied and he brought no shew of argument to proue the same only heere in the next words following he adioineth some colour of an argument for proofe thereof especially saith he c pag. 79. seeing that she was not only a cruell tyrant but also an abhominable Idolairesse hauing drawne her husband Ioram her sonne Ochozias and the people to Idolatrie and transferred the riches of Gods temple to the temples of Idolls which being matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest and therefore I conclude that Ioiada deposed her as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge according to the supreme authoritie that God gaue to the High Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall State So I in my Supplement 79 But how insufficient this conclusion is it will presently appeare onely by laying open the ambiguitie of those wordes Idolatrie being a matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest For it belonged indeed to the tribunall of the high Priest of the old Law and his consistorie to iudge what was Idolatrie as likewise now in the new Law it belongeth to the Pope and Church to iudge what is heresie or idolatrie and so to declare and determine what is heresie or Idolatrie is a matter of Religion both in the olde Law and in the new but it did not belong to the tribunall of the high Priest in the olde law but of the King and temporall state to punish Idolaters with corporall death as likewise in the new law to punish heretikes with corporall death being not a spirituall but a temporall matter doeth not belong to the spirituall power of Priests but to the temporall authoritie of temporall Princes Sot in 4. dist 29 q. 1. ar 4. Bannes secunda secundae q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine as I prooued also out of Sotus and Bannes in my Theologicall Disputation d C. 7. s 2. nu 17 And therefore in the old Law the temporall power was supreame and the spirituall was subiect to it for as much as concerned the power to constraine with temporall punishments and as well Priest as Lay-men were subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of the temporall State as I prooued before e Sec. 1 nu 5. 6. out of St. Thomas St. Bonauenture Abulensis and others whose doctrine also Cardinall Bellarmine doth not account improbable 80 Wherefore although it belonged to the High-Priest to declare the law of GOD yet to execute the law and to punish the transgressours thereof whether they were Priests or Lay-men with temporall punishments belonged to the supreame temporall power of the King and not to the supreame spirituall authoritie of the High-Priest Seeing that Ozias saith Abulensis because he was King Abul q. 4. in c. 15. l. 4. Reg. was the executor of the law of GOD against offenders it belonged to him by his office to destroy all Altars which were without the temple of our Lord and to take away such a worship and consequently all Idolatrie vnder the penaltie of death And therefore I conclude that Ioiada did depose Athalia being a manifest Vsurper as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge but not according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the High-Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall state which as I prooued before was in temporalls supreame and not subiect but superiour to the spirituall power but according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the King to whom both Priests and Lay-men were subiect in temporalls and by whom they were to bee punished with temporall punishments whose place and person Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian while the King was in his minoritie did in all things represent Neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert either in his Supplement or in this his Reply as you haue cleerely seene brought any probable argument much lesse conuincing as hee pretended to impugne the same 81 Now let vs proceede to the example of King Ozias which is the last Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old Testament to which neuerthelesse I did abundantly answere in my Apologie which my answere he passeth ouer altogether with silence But before I set downe what hee saith heere concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to repeate my saide answere and what D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same for thereby the weakenesse of Mr. Fitzherberts obiection will presently appeare and so also hee shall not take occasion after his vsuall manner to remit his English Reader to D. Schulckenius to seeke out a Reply to that which I answered before in my Apologie concerning this example of King Ozias Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 8 82 In this manner therefore Cardinall Bellarmine argued from this example A Priest of the old law had authoritie to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie therefore in the new law the Pope hath authoritie to depriue a King of his kingdome for spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by leprosie The Antecedent proposition hee prooued thus for that wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that King Ozias when hee would vsurpe the office of a Priest was by the High Priest cast out of the temple and when he was for the same sinne stricken by GOD with leprosie hee was also enforced to depart out of the Citie and to renounce his kingdome to his sonne And that he was depriued of the Citie and of the administration of the kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest it is apparant For wee reade Leuit. 13. whosoeuer saith the law shall bee defiled with leprosie and is separated at the abitrement of the Priest shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing therefore that this was a law in Israel and withall wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that the King did dwell without the Citie in a solitary house and that his sonne did in the Citie iudge the people of the land wee are compelled to say that hee was
separated at the arbitrement of the Priest and consequently depriued of his authoritie to reigne S. Aug. in q. Euan. l. 2. q. 40. The Consequence Cardinall Bellarmine prooueth out of Saint Austin who teacheth that heresie was figured by leprosie and Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. who sayeth that all things chanced to the Iewes in a figure 83 Thus argued Cardinall Bellarmine from the example of King Ozias which if good Reader thou duely consider doth onely proue that it belonged to the Priests of the old Law to declare the Law of God when any difficultie should arise and that they were the supreame Iudges in spirituall matters as was to declare and iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie or no. For leprosie was not onely in the old Law a naturall disease and a contagious vncleannesse in the body whereupon the leper was by the law commanded to remaine out of the campe apart least others should bee infected by him but it was also a legall vncleannesse Abul q. 2. in c. 13. Leuit. and as well obserueth Abulensis it did principally debarre men from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things and because to iudge whether any one was to bee debarred from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things did belong principally to the Priests who were the ministers of sacred things God appointed them to iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie and gaue them rules and directions whereby to know the same So that the principall thing which the Priest was to doe in the case of leprosie was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law of God whether any one was infected with leprosie or no and if hee found him infected to declare him so to bee and to condemne him of the sayde vncleannesse after which declaration the leper was by the law it selfe foorthwith debarred both from sacred and also ciuill conuersation for that hee was not onely depriued of all sacred rites but also he was to bee seuered from the rest of the people who were not defiled with such vncleannesse and commanded to liue apart out of the Campe or Citie 84 Now the execution of this law forasmuch as concerned the spirituall penaltie did belong principally to the High Priest who was the chiefe minister of sacred things but concerning the temporall or ciuill penaltie which was to bee debarred from ciuill conuersation the execution thereof if the leper would not of his owne accord vndergoe the penaltie did belong to the Ciuill Magistrate who was the minister of ciuill or temporall things As also when any temporall punishment as death whipping or such like was prescribed by the law against malefactours although the crime was spirituall as Idolatrie vsurping the office of a Priest c. the execution belonged to the temporall Iudge who in temporalls had authoritie ouer them Whereupon wee neuer reade in the holy Scripture that any true and lawfull King although he had committed any crime worthy of death according to the law as many Kings of the Israelites were Idolaters and King Ozias heere vsurped the office of a Priest which were crimes that deserued death according to the law were for such crimes put to death by the ordinarie authoritie of any man whatsoeuer for that Kings had no Superiour ouer them in temporalls who had authoritie to execute the law which did chiefly belong to themselues as I a little aboue d Nu. 80 obserued out of Abulensis or to punish them with temporall punishments in which sense King Dauid did truely say that hee had sinned onely to God saying Tibisolipeccaui for that God alone to whom onely he was subiect in temporals had power to punish him with temporall punishments as all the ancient Fathers doe expound that place So likewise in the new law it belongeth to spirituall Pastours to declare and determine what is heresie and whether one befallen into heresie or no but to punish heretikes with temporall punishments doth not belong to the authoritie of spirituall Pastours but of temporall Princes who in temporals are supreme and to whom onely the vsing of the temporall sword doth principally belong 85 Wherefore from this example of King Ozias nothing else can forcibly be prooued but that in the olde law it belonged to the Priests to declare the law of God and that onely Priests and not Lay-men were to intermeddle in sacred things For obserue good Reader what did the Priests 2. Paralip 26. and what was done by King Ozias First therefore King Ozias saith the Scripture entering into the temple of our Lord would burne incense vpon the Altar of incense And incontinently Azarias the Priest going in after him and with him the Priests of our Lord eightie most valiant men they resisted the King and said It is not thy office Ozias to burne incense to our Lord but of the Priests that is of the children of Aaron which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie goe out of the Sanctuarie contemne not because this thing shall not be reputed to thee for glorie by our Lord. Here is nothing done as you see by the Priests which is not spirituall And who maketh any doubt but that the Priests also of the new law may resist Kings if they attempt to intermeddle in sacred things which belong onely to Priests and tell them that it is not their office but of the Priests which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie and command them to goe out of the Church and not to contemne the law of God because it will not be reputed to them for glorie by our Lord God 86 But secondly King Ozias being angrie and holding in his hand the Censar to burne incense threatned the Priests And forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in haste they thrust him out yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out because he felt by and by the plague of our Lord. And here also is nothing which the Priests might not doe by their spirituall authoritie For I doe not deny but that it belongeth to the office of Priests to exclude excommunicated persons as in some sorte leapers were in the old law from the temple of God and from participation in sacred rites as S. Ambrose excluded Theodosius the Emperour Neuerthelesse it cannot be prooued by the words of holy Scripture that they thrust him out of the temple by corporall violence and by laying their hands vpon his sacred person but onely by denouncing with vehement words Gods indignation against him for feare of which he now being stricken by God miraculously with the plague of leprosie did of his owne accord depart in haste out of the temple which also S. Chrysostome doth sufficiently confirme saying Chrys hom 4. de verbis Isae vidi Dominum That they
thrust him out no man enforcing him and the wordes of holy Scripture yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out doe cleerely insinuate the same 87 And thirdly King Ozias saith the Scripture was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house apart full of the leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord. Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land Neither from this can it be gathered that the Priests of the old law did intermeddle in any temporall action or did depriue King Ozias of his kingdome or the administration thereof but the most that from hence can be concluded is that the plague of leprosie did depriue him of the administration of his kingdome by ordaining that a leaper should dwell apart out of the campe or Citie and the Priest did onely declare the law of God and denounce him according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law to be infected with leprosie which is no temporall but a meere spirituall action 88 As likewise spirituall Pastours now in the new law haue authoritie to declare that the goods of the faithfull are to be exposed if the necessitie of the Church doe require the same but not to dispose of them or to take them away by force from the faithfull and also to declare when Princes are to vse the materiall sword for the good of the Church but not to vse it themselues as before e part 1. cap. 3. part 2. cap. 9. I declared out of Ioannes Parisiensis and 8. Bernard And if we should suppose a case which is not to wit that heresie idolatie or any other mortall crime doth ipso facto depriue Princes and Prelates of their dominion and Iurisdiction which was the doctrine of Iohn Wicleffe condemned in the Councell of Constance and therefore those words of the Ordinary Glosse f in cap. 13. lib. 1. Reg. that a wicked King during the time of his wickednesse is not according to trueth to be celled a King but onely equiuocally as a stony or painted eye and the same much more is to be said of a wicked Prelate are to be read warily and expounded fauourably to excuse them from errour then I say that spirituall Pastours may be said to haue authoritie not properly to depose an hereticall King but to declare him to be infected with heresie and consequently according to this false supposition depriued ipso facto But all this is nothing else but to declare authentically the law of God which no man denyeth to be within the limites of spirituall Iurisdiction And this might aboundantly suffice for an answere to this example of King Ozias But because Mr. Fitzherbert shall not as I said take occasion to say that all this hath beene confuted already by D. Schulckenius I am enforced good Reader to intreate thy patience in laying downe before thine eies what I answered in my Apologie to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and what D. Schulckenius hath replyed to the same 89 First therefore I answered that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the example of King Ozias were of force it would prooue more then perchance Card. Bellarmine would willingly grant to wit that not only the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests haue power by the law of God to depriue Princes of their kingdomes for spirituall leprosie seeing that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had power to iudge of leprosie The man saith the law g Leuit. 13. in whose skinne and flesh shall arise a diuers colour or a blisters or any thing as it were shining that is to say the plague of the leprosie shall be brought to Aaron the Priest or any one of his sonnes and at his arbitrement he shall be separated Besides this example doth also prooue that Prince not onely for heresie but also for all other mortall sinnes whatsoeuer may be deposed by Bishops and Priests for that not onely the sinne of heresie but also other sinnes were figured by leprosie Bellar. lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 3. as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth who speaking of the confessing of sinnes saith that the knowledge of sinne which was figured by leprosie and is most aptly named a spirituall leprosie appertaineth to Christian Priests This was my first answere 90 To which D. Schulckenius replyeth thus h pag. 542. ad num 355. I answere It is credible that is the old Testament according to the diuersitie of the leprosie and the diuersitie of the persons there were also diuers iudgements greater and lesser and that it was not lawfull for euery Priest to iudge a King But for this his credibile est it is credible he produceth neither Scripture reason nor any other authoritie and therefore we are rather to beleeue the words of holy Scripture which absolutely affirme that either Aaron the High-Priest or any one of his sonnes might iudge of leprosie without distinguishing either this kind or that kind of leprosie or this kind or that kind of person then the bare credibile est of this Doctour grounded vpon his owne bare word and not vpon any text of holy Scripture Abul q. 1. in cap. 13. Leuit. reason or authoritie Other Priests saith Abulensis had power to iudge in the plague of leprosie as Aaron and therefore to whom soeuer of them that person who had such signes should be showed it was sufficient Therefore when Christ had cured the ten lepers he did not send them specially to the High-Priest but to any one of the Priests saying Goe shew your selues to the Priests 91 But howsoeuer it be saith this Doctour concerning the custome of that nation assuredly in the Church of Christ greater causes are reserued to the See Apostolike as we read cap. Maiores de Baptismo eius effectu in the Decret all Epistles Therefore euery Priest may indeed iudge of the leprosie of sinne and absolue or bind his Subiects but some more heynous crimes are reserued to Bishops others also to the Pope as first of all is the crime of heresie to which the name of leprosie doth autonomasticè agree Therefore it is no meruaile that euery Priest cannot iudge Kings euen for the crime of heresie Adde that in the olde Testament it selfe we haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie then by the high Priest 92 But this Reply doth not answere my argument For my argument did onely proceede of the power of Priests standing in the law of God and abstracting from the positiue lawes of the Church It would follow said I that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea also and Priests haue power by the law of God c. Now who knoweth not that cases are reserued onely by the law of the Church and that by the law of God there is no reseruation of cases but that
euery Bishop and Priest to whom the charge of soules is committed haue by the law of God sufficient authoritie and iurisdiction to absolue from all cases I said to whom the charge of soules is committed for I doe not intend now to dispute whether euery Priest by his ordination receiueth authority and iurisdiction to binde and loose For I am not ignorant that diuers Catholike Doctors as Paludanus i In 4. di st 17. q. 3. ar 3. Abulensis k In Defensor part 2. c. 62. seq Syluester l In verbo Confessor 1. q. 2. learned Nauarre m In Sum. c. 27. nu 259. 260. in cap. Placuit de poenitent dist 6. nu 48. doe affirme that standing in the law of God euery Priest hath by vertue of his ordination sufficient iurisdiction to absolue from sinnes which iurisdiction is not hindered but by the prohibition of the Church And therefore I did not speake of all Priests as this Doctour imposeth vpon me but of Priests indefinitely signifying thereby that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were good it would also prooue that standing in the law of God not onely the Pope but also some inferiour Priests should haue authoritie to iudge Kings and Princes for spirituall leprosie considering that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had authoritie to iudge them for corporall leprosie 93 Neither is it to bee marueiled if there bee no example in the old Testament wherein we reade that Kings were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest for that in the olde Testament we haue but one onely example of any King to wit of this Ozias who was infected with leprosie yet the words of the holy Scripture wherein is giuen authoritie to Priests to iudge of leprosie are common as well to inferiour Priests as to the High Priest neither is there any exception made of the persons that are to bee iudged to bee infected or not infected with leprosie Yea and in this very example not onely Azarias the High Priest but also all the other eightie inferiour Priests iudged King Ozias and resisted him saying It is not thy office Ozias c. And therfore Ozias being angry saith the Scripture threatned the Priests and forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in hast they thrust him out And therefore this Doctour doth not well affirme that in the olde law wee haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest seeing that in this example of King Ozias the High Priest did not any thing which the test also of the Priests did not and which if the High Priest had not beene present at that time the other Priests might not according to the law haue done without him 94 Wherefore that also which this Doctour answereth to my second consequence which was that if Card. Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Bishops and also Priests might depose Princes not onely for heresie but also for all other mortal crimes is nothing to the purpose I answere saith hee n Pag. 543. It is true that all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may bee iudged for all sinnes whatsoeuer by euery Priest Because as we now haue saide greater sinnes are reserued to greater Prelates and some to the Pope alone especially when we speake of persons that are placed in the highest degree of dignitie 95 But what is this to my argument For first I spake of Bishops and Priests indefinitely and also standing in the law of God now this Doctour applieth my wordes to euery Priest and flyeth from the law of God by which there is no reseruation of cases to the law of the Church and of Popes by which law onely cases are reserued But secondly and principally hee cunningly concealeth the force and drift of my argument For in this second consequence my principall drift was to speake not so much of the persons who according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument should haue authoritie to depose Princes for of them I spake in the first consequence as the Reader may plainly see as of the crimes for which Princes might according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed And I affirmed that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Princes might for euery mortall sinne be deposed at least wise by the Pope if not by inferiour Bishops and Priests Now this Doctour speaketh not one word concerning the force of this consequence for as much as concerneth the crime for which Princes may according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed whereof I chiefly treated in this second consequence but he cunningly flyeth to the persons who may depose Princes of whom I spake principally in the first consequence and he answereth that indeede all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may be iudged by euery Priest for all sinnes insinuating thereby that Princes may bee deposed for of that iudgement I onely spake at least wise by the Pope for all sinnes which are mortall and may infect others which doctrine how dangerous and pernicious it is to the Soueraigntie and also securitie of Princes I leaue to the consideration of any prudent man 96 But because as the vulgar maxime saith ducere ad inconueniens non est soluere argumentum to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument I did secondly and principally answere that this argument of Cardinall Bellarmine taken from the foresaide example of King Ozias is also most weake seeing that the antecedent proposition is very vncertaine not to say false and the consequence no lesse doubtfull And forasmuch as concerneth the antecedent proposition and the proofe thereof albeit he doth rightly gather from Leuit. 13. 2. Paralip 26. that the Priest of the Leuiticall stocke might iudge Kings infected with leprosie and pronounce sentence against them by declaring the law of God that they ought to dwell apart out of the campe which is the first part of the antecedent proposition seeing that this separation was imposed by God vpon lepers at the arbitrement or declaratiue sentence of the Priest yet hee doth not therefore well conclude that the Priest of the stocke of Leui had authoritie to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen by accident and consequently vnlesse the depriuing them of their kingdome should necessarily follow their dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people which neuerthelesse cannot bee forcibly prooued from the holy Scripture 97 For as Fa. Suarez doth well obserue o Disp 15. de Excommunnicat sec 6. nu 3. the depriuation of dominion doth euer last after it once bee done but that dwelling apart of lepers to be imposed at the arbitrement of the
serued him but the rest which belonged to the Kingly affaires Ioathan did and perchance it is called a free house because it was out of the Citie Therefore that the Kingly estate prouision pompe should not cease Ioathan Ozias his sonne gouerned the Kings Pallace to wit he remained in the Kings house and all the Nobles and mightiest men of the Land had recourse to him as they were wont to haue recourse to Ozias and he kept all the seruants and all the other prouision which his Father kept that the Regall state should not seeme to be diminished and yet he was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate and the rest as follow before nu 104. 108 Wherefore D. Schulckenius perceiuing this his assertion not to be grounded either in Scripture reason or any other authoritie flyeth backe againe to his former answere that Ozias was at least wise depriued of the administration of the kingdome from whence first it is prooued sayth he that the Pope may inflict vpon a King for a iust cause a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome and secondly from thence consequently it is gathered that for a most important cause and a very heinous crime as is heresie he may inflict a greater punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome 109 But although I should grant to this Doctour that the High-Priest did depriue King Ozias per accidens and consequently not onely of the administration of the kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and right to reigne that is by declaring him to be a leper which disease did by the law of God as we now suppose but doe not grant depriue him ipso facto of his right to reigne yet froÌ„ thence it cannot be proued that the Pope hath the like authoritie to depriue an hereticall King of his Kingdome or the administration thereof per accidens or consequently for that no punishmeÌ„t is appointed by the law of Christ to heresie as it was in the old law to leprosie but to punish heretikes with this or that kind of spirituall punishment Christ hath left to the discretion of spirituall Pastours and to punish them with temporall punishments to the discretion of temporall Princes who therefore as well said Dominicus Bannes may put heretikes to death or punish them in some other manner But if Christ our Sauiour had in the new law assigned particularly any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods or the like for those who should bee infected with heresie as God in the olde law did ordaine that lepers should dwell out of the Campe in a house apart then the Pope might indeed punish heretikes temporally per accidens and consequently to wit onely by declaring the law of Christ and that they were infected with heresie to which crime such punishments are according to this supposition appointed by the law of Christ Neither should he heerein transcend his spirituall authoritie But to execute this law by putting heretikes to death or by inflicting vpon them temporall punishments and punishing them actually with the same doth exceede the limits of that spirituall authoritie which hath beene giuen to the Priests eyther of the new law or of the olde 110 And albeit Pope Innocent the fourth and also other Popes haue depriued Soueraigne Princes very few times for heresie but often for other crimes not onely of their administration but also of the kingdome it selfe yet this is no sufficient ground to prooue that they had any true and rightfull power so to doe as it is manifest of it selfe and in my Apologie I haue declared more at large z Nu. 444. 445 for that it is one thing saith Cardinall Bellarmine a In Respons ad Apolog. pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so of Popes and other persons and another thing to prooue their authoritie and power And thus much concerning the first part of my answere to the antecedent proposition of Cardinall Bellarmines argument The second part of my answere was contained in these words 111 Neither also doth Cardinal Bellarmine sufficiently confirme that the Leuiticall Priests had authority to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie onely of the administration of their Kingdomes for that time onely that they were infected with leprosie For albeit Ozias after he was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie did not administer the kingdome the cause thereof might bee for that hee being not fit to gouerne the kingdome during the time of his infirmitie did commit the gouernment to Ioathan his sonne and did appoint him the Administratour of the kingdome vntill he should be restored to his former health But that a Priest of the old law had authority to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie either of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof it cannot bee sufficiently gathered from the holy Scripture As also we cannot sufficiently collect from the holy Scripture that a Priest of the old law had authoritie to depriue housholders being infected with leprosie either of their goods or of the administration thereof although it be very like that seeing such householders ought at the iudgement of the Priest declaring them to be leapers to dwell out of the campe they themselues did commit to others the authoritie to bee administratours of their goods for the time they were infected with leprosie And so the weakenesse of the antecedent proposition is manifest 112 Now you shal see in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius replieth to this my answere I answere saith he b Pag 5â—â— These make nothing to the matter It is enough for vs that King Ozias did by the commandement of the High Priest dwell in a house apart from the time of his leprosie vntill his death and that seeing hee could not conuerse with the people he was enforced to permit the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing at all concerning the affaires of the kingdome was referred to him But if he had not beene subiect to the power of the High Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will dwell in the Kings Cittie and gouerne the kingdome either by himselfe or by his Ministers For leprosie doth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne Truly Naaman Syrus was a leeper and because he was not subiect to the high Priest of the Hebrewes he did nâ—t dwell in a house apart but he was the Generall of Warfare and he went wheresoeuer he would See 4. Reg. 5. And in the same manner the High Priest might depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially if they had any in Citties because he did separate them from the people or the conuersation of men and did exclude them from Citties and consequently depriued them of the administration of those goods which they had in Citties albeit they might administer them by
others Thus D Schulckenius 113 But truly it is a shame to see with what face this Doctour can so boldly affirme that the principall question which is now betwixt Card. Bellarmine and me to wit whether King Ozias was depriued either of his kingdome or of the administration thereof by the High Priest is nothing to the matter Before as you haue seene both Card. Bellarmine and also this Doctour if they be two different men haue laboured to proue that King Ozias was for corporall leprosie depriued by the high Priest not only of the administration of his kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and of his right or authoritie to reigne from whence they inferred that therefore the Pope might for spirituall leprosie depriue temporall Princes not only of the administration of their kingdomes but also of their kingdomes and all Regall authoritie or right to reigne And the second part of this antecedent proposition I did confute aboue and proued cleerely that Ozias did still remaine true King de iure vntill his death and was not depriued of his Royall authoritie or right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did de facto in his fathers name and by his Fathers authoritie administer the kingdome To the first part of the antecedent proposition which this Doctour affirmed to be manifest but howsoeuer it be saith he to wit whether Ozias remained King only in name or also with Regall authoritie it is manifest that he was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment I did now answere affirming that Card. Bellarmine had not sufficiently proued the same for that it might be that he perceiuing himselfe to be vnfit by reason of leprosie for which he was by the law to dwell in a house apart to gouerne the kingdome by himselfe did willingly and of his owne accord commit the gouernment thereof to his sonne Ioathan from whence it cannot bee gathered that hee was depriued of the gouernment by the high Priest And now this Doctour being pressed with this answere blusheth not to say That this is nothing to the matter as though to confute that which hee himselfe affirmetn to bee manifest to wit that King Ozias was by the high Priest depriued of his Kingly gouernment for corporall leprosie is nothing to the matter But to such shamefull windings turnings and shiftings are sometime brought men otherwise learned rather then they will plainly and sincerely confesse themselues to haue grosly erred in coyning their false or fallible opinions for true and vndoubted points of Catholike faith 114 Obserue now good Reader in what a fraudulent maner this Doctour would seeme to prooue that my aforesaid answere is nothing to the matter It is enough for vs saith he that King Ozias did by the high Priests commandement dwell in a house apart all the time of his leprosie vntill his death c. If this bee enough for this Doctour I shall easily agree with him heerein for that I doe willingly grant that the high Priest might commaund King Ozias being infected with leprosie to dwell in a house apart Onely this I must admonish him that Ozias was bound to dwell in a house apart not so much by the commandement of the high Priest if wee will speake properly as by the commandement of almightie God who by his law did expresly ordaine that all lepers should dwell apart from the rest of the people and the Priests office only was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law whether they were infected with leprosie or no and to declare the law of GOD which are spirituall not temporall actions abstracting from which law the high Priest had no authoritie to command King Ozias or any other leper to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people Wherefore this commandement of the high Priest was not any constitutiue commandement of his owne imposing a new obligation vpon King Ozias to which he was not tyed before although the high Priest had not commanded him but it was onely a declaratiue commandement or a declaration of Gods law and commandement whereby all lepers were long before commaunded to dwell in a place apart from the rest of the people But from hence this Doctour cannot gather that the Priests of the new law may for spirituall leprosie depriue Kings of their kingdomes or the administration thereof or of their right and freedome to dwell in their Cities or Pallaces and separate them by way of temporall constraint from all ciuill conuersation of men vnlesse hee will grant with Iohn Wicklefe that these punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to spirituall leprosie as in the old law the dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people was annexed to corporall leprosie Neuerthelesse I doe not deny that the Priests all of the new law haue authority to declare what is spirituall leprosie and what crimes doe notably infect the soule and what punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to such maladies and also to separate heretikes and other spirituall lepers from the sacred religious or spirituall conuersation of the faithfull for these are spirituall not temporall actions and punishments 115 But Ozias liuing in a house apart could not saith this Doctour conuerse with the people and so he was enforced to permit absolutely to to his sonne the administration of the kingdome that nothing at all should be referred to him concerning the affaires of the kingdome But first it is not true that King Ozias speaking properly was coactus that is enforced or compelled by corporall force and violence or by the coactiue force of the law which consisteth in the inflicting of temporall punishments to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people but onely he was bound thereunto by the directiue or commanding force of the law of God which ordained that all lepers should bee separated from the rest of the people and dwell alone by themselues out of the Campe for seeing that the King was supreame in temporalls and subiect therein to none but God alone and the High Priests were subiect to him therein and might bee punished by him with temporall punishments as I shewed before hee could not bee subiect to the coactiue or enforcing power of the law which ordained the inflicting of any temporall punishment And therefore wee neuer read in the holy Scripture that the High Priest of the old law whom my Aduersaries affirme to haue authoritie to inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment did euer attempt to put any King to death who had committed any crime that deserued death according to the law as you find many Kings to haue committed such crimes as Dauid committed adulterie which according to the law of God was to bee punished with death and most of the Kings of Israel were Idolaters whom God commanded to be put to death and this crime also of King Ozias for vsurping the office of a Priest
deserued death according to the Law 116 Secondly therefore although he was in some sort speaking improperly enforced or compelled that is he was bound by the law vnder paine of sinne to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people by reason of his leprosie yet it was the law of God and not the high Priest but onely as iudging him to bee a leper and declaring the law of God and his indignation against those who should transgresse his law that compelled him thereunto which declaration being a meere spirituall action without doubt did according to the law of God in the old law belong to the function of the high Priest and therefore the most that from hence can be inferred is this that the Priests of the new law haue also authoritie to declare the law of Christ and to iudge what is spirituall leprosie and what punishments are by the law of Christ appointed against heresie and other crimes which may infect the soule but that spirituall Pastours haue now authoritie to inflict temporall punishments vpon heretikes or any other spirituall lepers it cannot from hence be gathered by any probable reason 117 Thirdly it is very vntrue that because King Ozias was by the law commanded to liue in a house apart so long as hee remained a leper it doeth consequently follow from thence that he was also enforced bound or compelled to permit absolutely the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing concerning the affaires of the kingdome should bee referred to him for that a King may liue in a house apart not onely out of the Citie but also out of the kingdome and yet he may gouerne his kingdome by his Ministers in such sort that the chiefest things hee may reserue to himselfe as diuers Kings by their Vice-Roys doe gouerne forraine kingdomes reseruing diuers things as the placing or displacing of the chiefest Officers the making of warre against their neighbour Princes or such like important affaires to themselues and therefore from the dwelling of Ozias in a house apart either in the Citie or out of the Citie it cannot bee sufficiently gathered that hee was therefore enforced to permit absolutely the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing concerning the affaires of the kingdome should bee referred to him especially seeing that as this Doctour sayeth leprosie doeth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne 118 Neither also is it true that King Ozias could not conuerse with the people as this Doctour so bouldly affirmeth For although it was ordained by the law that lepers should dwell alone out of the campe and be separated from the rest of the people yet the law did not forbid any man to speake or talke with them or than with others yea which is more it was not forbidden by the law as well obserueth Abulensis c In ca. 8. Mat. q. 12. 13. to touch a leper for although the touching of a leper dâ—d cause a legall vncleanesse yet it was not any sinne or imperfection to incurre a legall vncleannesse but sometimes it was meritorious to bee legally polluted for to touch dead bodies and graues was a legall vncleannesse Num. 19. and yet to bury the dead was a meritorious worke for which Tobias is greatly commended and sometimes also a man was bound to incurre a legall vncleannesse as children were bound to bury their parents and yet by this they were legally polluted Leuit. 10. 21. and not only in prophane things but also in diuine mysteries Priests were sometimes bound by the law to be legally polluted as the Priest who offered a red cow in a burnt sacrifice was polluted and yet this was done by the commandement of God Num. 19. See also the like Leuit. 16. Wherefore to incurre a legall vncleannesse was not forbidden by the law but it was onely forbidden to enter into the Sanctuarie or to touch sacred things before he should be cleansed Leuit. 15. and therfore it was not a sinne according to the law to touch a leper after what maner soeuer vnlesse he that was so polluted would before his purification enter into the Tabernacle or participate in sacred things Leuit. 15. So that it is manifest that King Ozias was so debarred rom all ciuill conuersation but that he might sufficiently declare to his Deputies and ministers what he would haue done concerning any important businesse in the kingdome 119 Wherefore it can not be prooued that King Ozias was depriued for his leprosie of the administration of his kingdome and enforced to permit absolutely to his sonne the gouernment thereof that nothing at all should be referred to him concerning the affaires of the kingdome although it might very well be that he seeing himselfe for his great pride and arrogancie stricken by God with the plague of leprosie and that he could not so conueniently and in such Royall maner and remaining in his owne Pallace gouerne the kingdome as he did before did freely and of his owne accord and not vpon any constraint or absolute necessitie appoint his sonne the sole administratour of the kingdome and that he being now humbled by the potent hand of God would not for the time of his infirmitie meddle at all with the gouernment which is more to be attributed to his humilitie then to any necessitie for that he might if he had beene pleased haue reserued some affaires of greatest moment to his owne iudgement and referred the rest to those ministers whom he should appoint and as his sonne Ioathan was made administratour of the kingdome by his appointment and gouerned in his name and by his authoritie so also if Ioathan had caried himselfe partially and tyrannically in the gouernment he might by the authoritie of his father who still remained the true and rightfull King haue beene displaced and another put in his roume 120 But if King Ozias had not beene subiect saith this Doctour to the power of the high Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will haue dwelled in the Regall Citie and also haue gouerned the kingdome But first no man maketh any doubt but that King Ozias was subiect to the high Priest in spirituals as was euery sentence or iudgement wherein he declared the law of God And therefore the King was bound not to contemne in such things the commandement of the high Priest neither could he being now declared a leper either with the leaue or against the leaue of the high Priest dwell in the kingly Citie among the rest of the people for that by the law of God and not by any constitutiue commandement of the high Priest he was to dwell apart from the rest of the people Wherefore that clause and against his will he might haue dwelt in the Regall Citie is added by this Doctour to no purpose vnlesse he would signifie thereby that the law concerning the dwelling of lepers apart from the rest of the people
materially of an equall or not inferiour order and excellency then the things figured so that formally as they are figures or in that they are figures they are lesse perfect and excellent then are the things figured Now this Doctour doth craftily take here figures and the things figured not formally and according to that wherein they are figures but materially for otherwise as you shall see he saith nothing to the purpose and to the confuting of my answere For neither Manna nor the Paschall lambe are figures of the Eucharist as the accidents of the Eucharist doe concurre to the nourishing of the body but onely as they are profitable to the nourishing of the soule Neither was corporall leprosie or the separation of lepers from ciuill conuersation a figure of spirituall leprosie and of Ecclesiasticall separation or Excommunication as corporall leprosie doth infect the body and Excommunication doth separate from ciuill conuersation but only as spirituall leprosie doeth infect the soule and Ecclesiasticall Excommunication doth separate from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall communion for that a figure must in all those things wherein it is a figure be more noble and excellent then is the thing which is figured And therefore as Cardinall Bellarmine very well obserueth q Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. to fulfill a figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to bee done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when he himselfe was circumcised but when hee ordained Baptisme in the place thereof Thus Card. Bellarmine 148 From whence it euidently followeth that the separation of corporall lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation could not bee a figure of the separation of spirituall lepers also from ciuill conuersation for that ciuill conuersation is one and the self same thing and not another thing more excellent which according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine must succeede in place of the figure but the fulfilling of this figure must bee the separating of spirituall lepers from spirituall or Ecclesiasticall conuersation And therefore although Ecclesiasticall Excommunication hath by the lawes of the Church annexed vnto it in that manner as I haue before declared the excluding by way of commandement from ciuill conuersation if otherwise by the law of GOD and nature we are not bound ciuilly to conuerse yea and also according to Cardinall Bellarmine the depriuing of temporall kingdomes or at leastwise of the administration thereof yet the separating of lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation or the depriuing them of temporall kingdomes or administration could not according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds bee a figure of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication in the new law as Excommunication is pretended to worke the same effects but onely as it worketh more excellent effects to wit the separating of the faithfull from spirituall conuersation and excluding them from the kingdome of heauen 149 Wherefore if wee doe respect onely the nature and propertie of a figure it is euident that Cardinall Bellarmine according to his owne principles hath not any way prooued that because corporall leprosie and the punishments annexed thereunto in the old law to wit the depriuing of temporall kingdomes Iurisdiction or administration as Cardinall Bellarmine contendeth was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the punishments annexed thereunto in the new law therefore the same punishments to wit the depriuing of temporall dominion Iurisdiction or administration were figured by them and consequently may now by vertue of the figure bee ordained against spirituall lepers for this were not according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine to fulfill the figure and to put in place thereof something more excellent but to put that very same thing which the law in that figure prescribed to be done And therefore Cardinall Bellarmine must bring better arguments vnlesse he will quite discredit himselfe and his cause drawne from other heads then from the figure of leprosie and of separating lepers from ciuill conuersation which according to his owne principles doth as you haue seene make cleere against him to prooue that spirituall Pastours either by vertue of Excommunication or in any other manner haue authoritie to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes and dominions or of any temporall administration or Iurisdiction 150 Lastly whereas in the end of this my answere I affirmed as you haue seene that Cardinall Bellarmine did not truely and entirely set downe the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. And all these things chanced to them in figure for that hee left out that word these which is a relatiue and hath relation onely to those things whereof the Apostle spake before among which corporall leprosie is none and hee affirmeth him to say And all things chanced to the Iewes in figure this Doctour maketh much adoe and laboureth in vaine to excuse Card. Bellarmine And first hee answereth u pag. 553. that Cardinall Bellarmine did not produce the words but the sense of St. Paul but it is certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that Chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure but those and other like to them 151 But first this answere is not agreeable to Card. Bellarmines owne words The Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. saith Cardinall Bellarmine that all things did chance to the Iewes in figure and what I pray you is to say that the Apostle saith so then to produce the Apostles words Secondly although it bee certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure yet it is certaine that the Apostle in that chapter did onely say that all these things and not all things absolutely as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth him to say did chance to the Iewes in figure Thirdly albeit S. Paul knew right well that not onely all those altogethere mentioned but many other such like dioâ—ce to the Iewes in figure yet it was sufficient for his purpose in that place onely to affirme that all those things there mentioned and not that all things absolutely did chance to the Iewes in figure neither was it necessarie that the Apostle should in that chapter say all hee knew it was suffient for him to say in that chapter onely that which did suffice for his present purpose Wherefore this Doctour must distinguish betwixt knowledge which is in the vnderstanding and meaning which is in the will and so hee may see that the Apostle knew right well that not onely those things there mentioned but those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure and yet onely meant to say in that place that all those things there mentioned and not all those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure Neither did St. Paul meane otherwise then the words which he spake did signifie but it is
the high Priest this oath must needes haue beene repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament Thus farre I haue thought good to lay downe the words of my Supplement touching the law of God in the old Testament c. 168 To this authority of S. Chrysostome I did answere in my English Disputation of the oath long before Mr. Fitzherbert Reply come foorth And all the force of his argument taken from this authoritie seemeth to consist in those wordes of S. Chrysostome Consedit in throno legem Dei riâ—sus transgrediens He sate in his throne transgressing againe the law of God From whence this man inferreth that God was offended not only because Ozias was not cast out of the City but also because he was suffered still to reigne whereas this only can be gathered from those words and these other and you are afraid to cast him being vncleane out of the City you beare reuerence to his Kingly dignitie violating the law of God c. I doe therefore speake no longer to the Prophets c. That God was offended and speake no longer to the Prophets for that Ozias being a leper and vncleane was not cast out of the City as it was ordained by the law which also S. Chrysostome in the next homily doth more plainly declare 169 Ego vero saith this holy Father si vnum quiddam adhuc addidero c. But if I shall adde yet one other thing I will make an end of my speach And what is this That which not long agoe from the beginning we did demaund What is the cruse that seeing in externall things and in prophecies all are went to set downe the time wherein the Kings did liue this Prophet Esay ommiting that expresseth the time wherein King Ozias dyed speaking in this manner And it came to passe in the yeere wherein King Ozias dyed And yet he might haue expressed the time of the King then reigning as all Prophets vsually did But he did not so For what cause did he not so It was an ancient custome to expell a leprous out of the Citty both to the end that those who liued in the Citty might be in better health and that the leprous should not giue to men prone to vse reprochfull words an occasion of scoffing and derision but that he abyding out of the City might haue solitarines in steede of a vaile or couer against reprochfull calamitie And this ought this King to haue suffered after his leprosie but he did not suffer it those that were in the City reuerencing him for his Soueraignitie but he remained at his house secretly This to wit that he remained at his house secretly and went not forth of the City prouoked GOD to wrath this hindered the prophecie c. Thus saith S. Chrysostome whereby it is manifest that S. Chrysostome doth not affirme that God was offended because Ozias was not thrust out of his kingdom or depriued of his right to reigne but because he liued secretly at his house in the City and did not depart out of the City according as the law in Leuiticus did ordaine 170 Wherefore the meaning of those words of S. Chrysostome He sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God is made more plaine by these later words which I did now relate For as before he being no Priest trangressed the law of God by presuming to offer Sacrifice vpon the Altar of incense contrary to the law so now againe he being for his former offence striken by GOD with leprosie transgressed the law by presuming to remaine in the City which the law did forbid Allo Mr. Fitzherbert may perchance vse some cunning translating those words of S. Chrysostome Sedebat to thrâ—â—â— c. He sate still in his throne breaking againe the law of God as though Ozias had offended againe by remaining still in his throne or which I take for all one by continuing still to reigne and by keeping still his Royall dignitie and authoritie or right to reigne and not resigning it ouer wholy and fully to his sonne Ioathan Wherefore taking those words He sate still in his throne in this sense that word still may be equiuocall and of purpose thrust in by Mr. Fitzherbert to signifie that he offended for keeping still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne whereas the words of S. Chrysostome only are that he sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God not for that he brake againe the law of God because he sate in his throne or which I take for all one kept still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did gouerne the kingdome in his name and by his authoritie and as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy but for that he departed not our of the City as S. Chrysostome himselfe expresly declareth But if Mr. Fitzherbert will haue S. Chrysostome to take that word throne for the materiall Royall seate or chaire of estate which remained in the City for so also the Latin word may be Englished then this sense is in effect all one with the first which I contended to be Chrysostomes meaning to wit that Ozias transgressed the law againe for remaining in the City for leprosie did not debarre him by the law from sitting in a chaire of estate out of the City or from any iote of his Kingly right power or authoritie as I shewed before 171 But lastly it is worth the noting to obserue how well forfooth Mr. Fitzherbert agreeth with Card. Bellarmine in vrging this example of King Ozias For Card. Bellarmine contendeth that Ozias was thrust out both of the City and also of his kingdome but this man laboureth to proue that according to S. Chrysostome hee was neither cast out of his kingdome nor out of the City Others with Iosephus affirme that he liued in deede out of the City but withall that he still reigned or remained King although Ioathan in his name and authoritie or as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy administred the kingdome Neuerthelesse Abulensis Abulens q. 29 in Cap. 25. Exodi although he greatly commendeth Iosephus as a most skillfull Historiographer of the Iewes of whom also hee writeth m Q 9 in cap. 15. lib. 4. Reg. that it is likely he know all the particular facts of those Kings yet he leaueth the opinion of Iosephus in this point Sometimes saith Abulensis n Q. 10 in cap 13 â—euit the plague of leprosie was perpetuall and then the leper remained vntill his death out of the Campe separated from the rest and this was vnlesse perchance he was a man of great excellencie as the King who if he fell into leprosie did not goe out of the campe but remained therein but he was in a certaine separate house as we reade 4. Reg. 15. Of King Ozias who there is called Azarias for he fell into leprosie being stiken by GOD in the forehead because he would burne incense to our Lord as Priests where it
cleanse the soule of spirituall vncleannesse which doeth barre men from entring the Celestiall tabernacle created by God alone and as the Priests the old law had authoritie according to my Aduersaries false Doctrine to create annoint punish and depose earthly Kings so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to create institute and make them heires to the kingdome of heauen by the Sacrament of Baptisme to annoint them with the oile of grace by the sacrament of Confirmation to punish them with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures to depose or exclude them in some sort from the kingdome of heauen by denying them sacramentall absolution 8 In this manner should Mr. Fitzherbert haue argued from the figure to the veritie by which wee can onely proue that the Priests of the new law can create annoint punish and depose Kings in a more higher Bell. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. and not in the same degree for as Cardinall Bellarmine well obserued to fulfill the figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to be done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when hee was circumcised himselfe but when hee ordained Baptisme in place thereof and so the Priests of the new law doe not fulfill the figure of the Leuiticall Priesthood by creating annointing punishing and deposing earthly Kings in the same materiall manner as the Priests of Leui did but when they create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to wit Christians who by Baptisme are made heires to the kingdome of heauen with spirituall creation vnction chastisement and deposition as I haue declared before And by this the Reader may cleerely perceiue that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not sufficiently prooued either that the Priests of the old Testament had authoritie to create depose or punish temporally their Kings by way of temporall constraint for no man maketh doubt but that the Priests hoth of the olde and new law haue authoritie to annoint Kings it being only a sacred and religious ceremonie and to punish temporally by way of command and by declaring the law of GOD as to enioyne fastings almes-deedes and other corporall afflictions c. and to declare that this or that King shall be deposed if GOD shall so reueale because all these are meere spirituall actions or else that albeit wee should grant as my Aduersaries vntruely suppose that the Priests of the old law had the aforesaid authoritie to create depose and punish Kings temporally yet therefore from thence any probable and much lesse a potent argument as this man pretendeth can be drawne as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the Priests of the new law must have authoritie to doe the same things but onely to do things more excellent and of an higher degree and order as the body is more excellent and more perfect then the shadow the verity then the figure Christ then Moyses the new Law then the old heauenly kingdomes then earthly and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures are of another nature order and degree then temporall or ciuill punishments 9 Now Mr. Fitzherbert goeth on to prooue also out of the new Testament that the Priests of the new law especially the chiefe Pastour of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to punish Princes not onely with spirituall but also with temporall and corporall punishments And therefore now to declare saith hee g nu 32. p. 87. how I proued the same further by the new law it is to bee vnderstood Psal 77. Isa 44. Psal 2. Matth. 2. Apoc. 19. Aug. in Ioan. Bel. l. 1. de Rom. Pont c. 12. ad 6. obiect that I vrged h Suppl vbi supra nu 59. to that end the commission giuen by our Sauiour to St. Peter not onely to binde and loose but also to feede his sheepe shewing by many texts of Scripture as also by the authoritie of S. Augustine that Pascere to feede is taken for Regere to gouerne whereupon I drew certaine necessarie consequents in those words c. 10 But concerning the authoritie giuen by Christ our Sauiour to S. Peter to bind and loose or which euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine is all one in substance with to feede his sheepe for that by those words I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. was onely promised to S. Peter saith Cardinall Bellarmine not giuen the power to binde and loose and the keyes of the kingdome which keyes hee as the principall and ordinarie Prefect Prelate or Gouernour then onely receiued when he heard Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe I answere first that not onely S. Peter but also all the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and power to binde and loose and to feede the sheepe of Christs flocke seeing that as Christ saide to Saint Peter whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. so he said to the rest of the Apostles what things soeuer you shall binde c. albeit I will not deny that Saint Peter was the first of the Apostles but in what consisteth this prioritie principalitie primacie or superioritie of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles as likewise of the Pope ouer all other Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops and Bishops of Christs Church there is yet a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and of Paris and perchance hereafter I shall haue occasion to treate thereof more at large But that which for this present I intend to affirme is this that considering in those wordes of our Sauiour Tibi dabo claues c. I will giue thee the keyes c. Saint Peter represented the whole Church and not only to him but also to the rest of the Apostles and to the whole Church and Priesthood which Saint Peter did represent were promised the keyes and power to binde and loose as the holy Fathers and ancient Diuines doe commonly expound i As to omit Origen tract 1. in Matth. 16. Euseb Emis hom in Natali S. Petri. Theophylac in 1. Mat. 16. S. Ambr. in psa 38. lib. 1. de Paenit c. 2. Hieron lib. 1. contra Iouinian Aug. tra 50. 124. in Ioan. tract 10. in Epi. Ioan. in psal 108. Leo serm 3. in Anniu assumpt Fulgentius de fide ad Petr. l. 1. de remis pec c. 24. Beda Ansel in Mat. 16. Euthym. c. 33. in Matth. Haymo hom in fest Petri Pauli Hugo de S. vic l. 1. de Sacram. c. 26. alibi Durand in 4. dist 18. q. 2. â—yra in Mat. 16 Walden tom 2. doct fid c. 138. Cusanus l. 2. de Concord Cat. c. 13. 34. and commonly all the ancient Doctors of Paris if from the power to bind and loose promised to Saint Peter it doth necessarily follow that S. Peter and
likewise if temporall Kings themselues doe offend they cannot bee punished with temporall punishments but by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls Now to giue to temporall Common-wealths the vse of the spirituall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments or to the Church of Christ as it is a spirituall common-wealth the vse of the temporall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict temporall Censures or punishments it were both to confound the acts functions authoritie sword weapons and armour of the spirituall and temporall common-wealths which Christ our Sauiour hath distinguished and it is also repugnant to the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture 2. Cor. 10. nam arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt for the weapons or armour of our warfare are not carnall c. to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers who affirme that Emperours and Kings are in temporalls next to God in authoritie and consequently to be temporally punished by God alone and to the generall practise of the primitiue Church 40 Wherefore that comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth heere of the cobweb which holdeth onely the little flyes and serueth to no purpose against the great ones c. is idle and to no purpose For Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the punishments belonging to the Church of Christ are common both to Princes and Subiects and of themselues they are so dreadfull that they are able and sufficient of their owne nature to hold and keepe in awe all Christians whatsoeuer and to correct amend and bring all sinners as they did the Emperour Theodosius to true repentance But if some persons doe not feare these Censures and be not amended by them this is not to bee attributed to the weakenesse defect or imperfection of the Censure which of it selfe is most dreadfull yea and more horrible saith S. Augustine then any corporall death but to the indisposition of the offender who doth not duly consider the greatnesse and dreadfulnesse of that Ecclesiasticall Censure As likewise temporall punishments as is the sentence of death exile imprisonment whipping confiscation of goods c. are of themselues able and sufficient to withdraw any man from sinfull life yet they doe not actually correct and amend all malefactours but this is not to be attributed to the weakenesse or insufficiencie of the temporall sword but the rashnesse passion malice or inconsideration of such malefactours who for want of due consideration are not afraid of that temporall punishment which of it selfe is able to terrifie any prudent man and to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest 41 Neither is it necessarie for the publike good of the Church as this man supposeth or for the due execution of the office and charge of spirituall Pastours that they should haue authoritie to chastise temporally or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments and to vse the temporall sword which is onely proper to temporall Princes or common-wealths and by the law of Christ forbidden spirituall Pastours as they are spirituall Pastours who haue only spirituall and not temporall authoritie as I proued aboue by the authoritie of S. Bernard Wherefore that axiome of the Lawyer Cui iurisdictio data est c. To whom iurisdiction is giuen those things also doe seeme to bee granted without which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and that other of the Philosophers Qui dat esse c. Hee that giueth being giueth also those things that are consequent to being or necessarily required thereunto are vnaptly applied to this purpose For spirituall iurisdiction can very well bee exercised without vsing temporall weapons or inflicting temporall punishments and to vse temporall weapons or to inflict temporall punishments is not a consequent or necessarily required to the spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely supposeth 42 Now you shall see in what manner hee concludeth this Chapter Thus then saith hee z pag. 91. nu 38.39 thou seest good Reader how I prooued in my Supplement by the law of GOD that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall states and dignities when the necessitie of the Church shall require it which I also prosecuted further there inferring the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians by the power he hath ouer the soule according to the two axiomes Qui potest maius potest minus He which may doe the more may doe the lesse and Accessorium sequitur principalis naturam The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall which I haue amply dâ—bated before with my Aduersarie Widdrington in the second and third chapters hauing also laide downe there the words of my Supplement touching the same and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate them heere 43 Now then I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether my Aduersarie Widdrington hath not notably abused me in two things the one in affirming as you haue heard before in the first Chapter that I grounded all my discourse against the Oath in my Supplement See Chapter 1. nu 3. 7. 9. vpon a bare supposition that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured therein and the other that I haue effectually prooued nothing else by the law of GOD but that the temporal power in spirituall things in temporal as they are reduced to spiritual is subiect to the spirituall power so far forth as concerneth the authoritie to command a spiritual maner of correction not temporall for so you haue heard him say in the beginning of this chap. though it be euident by the premisses Supra nu 1. that I haue grounded my arguments against the oath not vpon any such supposition as he mentioneth but vpon the very substance of the law of God in the old and new Testament and that I haue deduced from thence by most pregnant reasons and necessarie consequents that the Pope hath power to proceede to the temporall correction of Princes when the spirituall will not suffice and the necessitie of the Church doth require it 44 Whereupon it followeth euidently that the new Oath which impugneth this power of the Pope is repugnant to the law of GOD. So that you see how probable my Aduersarie Widdringtons answeres are or rather how fraudulent seeing that he dissembleth all the substance and pith of my arguments abusing therein his Reader no lesse then mee seeking to breede in him a false conceit of the substance and effect of my discourse and then framing his answere according to his owne forgerie So as in fine he answereth nothing of mine but his owne vaine conceits as it will also further appeare by that which resteth to be debated betwixt vs concerning the Lawes of Nature and Nations 45 But contrariwise thou seest good Reader that Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement neither hath sufficiently proued by the law of GOD as hee here
necessitie of the Common-wealth shall require it so also the Ecclesiasticall Prince or head of the Church may giue lawes to temporall Common-wealths and the Gouernour thereof according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church the publike good whereof is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or Common-wealth by the same reason and law of Nature that the good of the soule is to be preferred before the good of the body spirituall good before temporall heauen before earth and the seruice of GOD before the seruice of any man or of all the men in the world 12 But first although it be true that Christian Princes who are the absolute heads of the temporall States or kingdomes which they gouerne being also parts and members of the mysticall body or spirituall kingdome of Christ which is the Church are consequently subiect in things belonging to the Church to wit in spirituall matters to the visible Pastours Gouernours or heads thereof yet it is not true that temporall kingdomes or common-wealths themselues being taken properly formally and in abstracto are either parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ or subiect and subordained to the Church or the visible heads thereof for then it must needes follow that temporall Princes not only as they are Christians in spirituall matters but also as they are temporall Princes and in temporall things are subiect to the visible heads or Gouernours of the Church which is cleerely repugnant to Mr. Fitzherberts owne words in that place pag. 95. num 4. who affirmeth that temporall Princes are absolute heads of the States which they gouerne in things pertaining only to their temporall States and consequently in them they cannot be subordinate and subiect to the visible heads of the Church 13 Wherefore that comparison which he maketh heere and is the chiefe ground of his Discourse betwixt families cities and kingdomes or ciuill common-wealths and betwixt ciuill common-wealths or kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ is no fit comparison and therefore neither can the Discourse which is grounded thereon be sound and sufficient For families and cities being taken properly formally and in abstracto are parts and members of the whole kingdome or common-wealth and consequently subordinate and subiect to the kingdome and absolute heads thereof seeing that they are particular ciuill Societies and consequently subiect to the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth as euery part is to the whole body and to the chiefe head thereof but temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto are not parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ vnlesse we will hold with the Canonists that the Church of Christ is compounded both of spirituall and ciuill power and that the Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of the whole Christian world And therefore although it be true that spirituall Pastours haue nothing to doe in matters meerely temporall and which belong to ciuill gouernment yet it is not true that temporall Princes haue not to doe with priuate families and cities in matters that belong to the ciuill gouernment of them for that priuate families and cities are true parts and members of the whole ciuill common-wealth or kingdome and I hope that the Prince who hath to doe with the whole kingdome and gouernment thereof hath also to doe with the gouernment of euery part thereof 14 Secondly no man maketh any doubt but that the spirituall Pastours and Gouernours of the Church may correct any King or ciuill Magistrate when hee doth any thing to the preiudice of the Church and that they may giue lawes to the Gouernours of temporall common-wealths according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church and also that the publike good of the Church is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or common-wealth But all the difficultie consisteth in these points first whether authoritie to correct malefactours by the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods c. hath by the institution of Christ beene communicated to the spirituall Pastours of the Church or was leaft only to temporall Princes and the supreme Gouernours of temporall common-wealths Secondly whether spirituall Pastours may giue lawes to temporall Princes I doe not say as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ for of this no Catholike maketh doubt but to temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto or which is all one to temporall Princes not as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection but as they are temporall Princes and haue supreme temporall power which doth only reside in them and not in spirituall Pastours 15 Thirdly whether the particular or publike good of temporall Princes or common-wealths is to be preferred before the particular or publike good of the Church for that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one totall body or common-wealth which is the Church as Card. Bellarmine contendeth in which totall body the temporall common-wealth is per se and naturally subordained and subiect to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ or whether the spirituall good is to be preferred before the temporall by all Christians both Princes and subiects for that euery man who is a part and member of two cities or common-wealths the one more noble and excellent then the other is by the order of charitie bound to preferre caeteris paribus the more noble and excellent citie or common-wealth and the good thereof before the lesse noble and excellent city or common-wealth and the good of it These be the chiefe heads of this controuersie concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes or common-wealths among Christians and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof I haue at large debated in the second part where the Reader may see all these points distinctly handled against Card. Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius and also touching all that which Mr. Fitzherbert doth confusedly discourse in this Chapter concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes and the Church of Christ And therefore remitting the Reader to my former Treatise where he may cleerely see in what manner the temporall and spirituall power or the temporall and spirituall common-wealth are vnited and subordained let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert would at length conclude 16 Whereupon I conclude saith he d Pag. 96. nu 6 that seeing this Oath now in question is as I haue proued by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church to whom all Christian Princes are subiect euen by the law of Nature it followeth that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to nature then if a husband should exact the like Oath of his wife or a Maister of his seruant or the father of his children I meane an Oath which should
Platonists reach man being made to the Image of God and capeable of the knowledge of him was principally ordained to worship and serue him and therefore for as much as neither one man alone can sufficiently performe the woorship of God which is due to him from all mankinde neither yet many men together if they should liue without Lawes See Marsil Ficin in argun Dial. 1. Plat. de Rep. and Magistrates for multitude without order would breed confusion therefore Nature hath inclined men to ciuill Societie that is to say to liue in common-wealths to the end that many men liuing together in communitie may the better discharge their duty to God in yeelding him the due worship and seruice that all mankinde oweth him Whereby the Philosophers euidently saw that the common-wealth was not onely necessary to the perfection of Religion but also naturally ordained and referred thereto as to the end thereof I meane not the next and immediate end of the common-wealth which is temporall tranquillitie commoditie and sufficiency but the last end whereto all temporall commodities are referred Whereupon two consequents follow directly c. 22 But what is all this I pray you to the purpose Who maketh any doubt that the publike spirituall good of the Church is to bee preferred before the publike temporall good of any temporall common-wealth and that the Church of Christ is the highest Societie in worth dignitie and excellencie of all other on earth and that euery Christian man oweth more dutie to the Church of Christ as being the highest and most excellent Societie to which hee is immediately subiect in spiritualls then vnto any other ciuill common-wealth to which he is immediately subiect in temporalls and that euery humane action ought to be more specially directed and referred to the worship and seruice of God then to any other inferiour action whereto it may haue a more immediate relation and finally that the Philosophers themselues as Plato and the Platonists guided by the law of Nature or light of naturall reason thought that man was principally ordained to worship and serue God and therefore placed the ende not onely of mens actions but also of euery man and of the common-wealth it selfe in Religion or the seruice and worship of God and that Nature hath inclined men to liue in ciuill Societie to the end that many men liuing together orderly and guided by Lawes and Magistrates may the better discharge their dutie to God in yeelding him due worship and seruice that all mankinde oweth him All this is conforme to the doctrine which I maintaine and prooueth that the Religious Societie is more noble excellent and woorthy then the ciuill or temporall Societie and that in spiritualls it hath supreme authoritie but it doth not prooue that the Religious Societie is superiour in temporall authoritie to the temporall common-wealth or that it hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes or to inflict temporall but onely spirituall punishments 23 Neuerthelesse I would desire the Reader to obserue some things concerning this Discourse of my Aduersary The first is concerning filiall dutie and the same may be proportionally applied to coniugall For as I obserued else where g In Append. contra Suar. part 1. sec 8. num 12. there be two bonds or obligations wherein children stand bound to their parents the one is natural and proceedeth from the law of Nature whereby children are bound to honour and reuerence their parents and this bond no humane power can take away or release neither can this dutifull respect which children by the law of Nature owe to their parents at any time encounter with any obedience which is due to temporall Princes The other Ciuill which dependeth vpon the positiue lawes of temporall Princes whereby Parents are made Tutors guardians and gouernours of their children and this power which Parents haue ouer their children is greater or lesser according to the lawes and customes of euery kingdome and as it dependeth wholly vpon the ciuill power so it may bee increased diminished or quite taken away by the supreme ciuill power and this ciuill duty or obedience which children owe to their Parents doth not hold when it encountreth with the respect dutie or obedience which they owe to their supreme temporall Prince 24 The second is that temporall allegiance or obedience which is due to temporall Princes if wee will speake properly can neuer encounter with that spirituall obedience which is due to spirituall Pastours For if a temporall Prince doth commaund any thing which is against the seruice or worship due to God and consequently against Religion to obey him in this case is not temporall allegiance for that the Prince hath not authoritie to command any such thing and where there is no authority to command there is no obedience due because according to the doctrine of all Diuines obligation to obey and authoritie to command are correlatiues and doe depend one vpon the other and therefore true temporall allegiance can neuer encounter with true spirituall obedience and bee preiudiciall thereto nor contrariwise 25 The third is that although some Heathen Philosophers by the light of naturall reason did euidently see that the worship and seruice of God as hee is the Authour and end of Nature and of all naturall things is to be preferred before any temporall tranquillitie of commoditie and that therefore euery man both Prince and subiect by the light of naturall reason ought to referre all their actions to the honour and seruice of God and to that happines which according to naturall reason doth follow the worship and seruice of God and is the last end of man although not the last end of all humane actions yet no Heathen Philosopher by the light of naturall reason did or could see that the temporall common-wealth it selfe formally and in abstracto as it consisteth of temporall power is per se intrinsecally or naturally ordained or referred but only per accidens and by the intention of man to that happinesse which is the end of Religion and followeth the worship and seruice of God although man himselfe in whom temporall power doth reside ought by the light of nature ordaine and referre the vse of his temporall power and all his other actions to that blisse happinesse and felicitie which is the last end of man and the immediate end of the worship and seruice of God But of this I haue treated more at large aboue in the Second part where I haue answered all the arguments which Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius haue brought to prooue that the temporall power it selfe among Christians is per se and intrinsecally and not only by the intention of man ordained and referred to euerlasting happinesse 26 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth from his former Discourse Whereupon saith he h pag. 99. nu 9. seq two consequents follow directly according to Philosophie the one that Religion is farre more noble and worthie then the
for euery man to offer sacrifice to God of whatsoeuer was his owne in what maner he would and in what place he would because it was not by any law forbidden any man to doe these things For to offer sacrifice in the honour of God was of it selfe a good and commendable act and it was forbidden no man and therefore it was lawfull for euery man So that in the law of nature euery man being considered by himselfe was a Priest in this sense that he might lawfully offer sacrifice in the honour of God of what thing in what manner and in what place he would But if man be considered as he was a part of some communitie and as liuing in ciuill Societie it was farre otherwise For euery ciuill Communitie had certaine rites and ceremonies for the worshipping either of the true or of false Gods and in the name and by the authoritie of the whole communitie there were done religious rites and ceremonies in honour of that God which that communitie professed to be God And because one particular act could not be done by the whole communitie the communitie appointed certaine Ministers who in the name and place of the whole communitie should doe that acte And these Ministers for as much as concerned the doing of holy rites were commonly called Priests and so some certaine men onely were appointed Priests and all men were not Priests and to these Priests onely it belonged to doe those Sacrifices in the name and by the authoritie of the whole communitie And this custome was among all Nations both Iewes and Gentiles before the law of God was giuen to Moyses and so among all Nations there were some persons specially appointed Priests by the communitie and all men were not Priests 36 But after the law was written and deliuered by Moyses to the Israelites both the place where sacrifices were to be offered and the Ministers which were to offer and also the sacrifices which were to be offered and the manner of offering them were limitted and determined by God himselfe Concerning the place there were two limitations The first was that Sacrifices should not bee offered in many places the second that they should not be offered in many Altars Of the first we may see in Deuteron Chap. 12. 16. where it is said that the Israelites should not offer sacrifice in euery place but onely in that place which God should choose to put his name there And this was onely one City although it was not alwaies the same For the Israelites had a Sanctuary which by Gods commandement Moyses made in the desert and this was placed in one Citie and this Citie was that which God did choose to place there his Sanctuary as it was first in Sile then in Nobe afterwards in Gabaon and lastly in Hierusalem and onely in that Citie it was lawfull for the Iewes to offer sacrifices and not in other places nor in the fields because then they should be accounted Idolaters Leuit. Chap. 17. 37 The second limitation was that they should not doe sacrifices in many Altars For albeit there was but one onely City where Sacrifices could be offered yet it might bee thought that there were many Altars vpon which they might be offered especially for that all Israel came sometimes to that place to offer sacrifices and yet it was not so For there was one onely Altar vpon which all things were burned and blood was offered And this Altar was not made by any of them that did offer sacrifice but it was that Altar which Moyses made in the desert after the manner and forme that God himselfe did describe vnto him Exod. 27. and it was called the Altar of Holocaust Exod. 38. Besides it was not lawfull to offer sacrifice in euery part of the City but only within the Sanctuary which remained firme in one part of the City and moreouer within the Sanctuary Sacrifice was not offered in euery place but onely vpon the Altar of Holocaust which was placed without the doore of the Tabernacle and to offer Sacrifice in another place it was vnlawfull Leuit. 17. and Iosue 22. Neuerthelesse in the same Sanctuary there were two Altars The one was called of Holocausts which had fiue cubites in length and as many in breadth and three in height The other of Incense which was onely one Cubite in length and another in breadth and two Cubites in height vpon the first all Sacrifices were offered Exod. 27. Leuit. 17. vpon the second Sacrifice was neuer offered but onely Incense was burned euery day twice morning and euening Exod. 30. But after that Salomon had built the Temple the Tabernacle of Moyses and that Altar ceased and then was made a greater Altar of Holocausts which was of brasse and it had twentie cubites in length and as many in breadth 2. Paralip 4. which according to the rules of Arithmeticke containeth foure hundred cubites square and was able to comprehend many sacrifices together but how great was the Altar of Incense made by Solomon the Scripture doth not mention The Altar of Incense was within the Temple but the Altar of Holocausts was without in the Court of the Temple which was called the Court of the Priests 38 Concerning the persons who were to offer sacrifice it is to be considered that almighty God to take away occasion of Idolatrie as he limited the places wherein sacrifices were to be offered so also hee would haue the Ministers therof to be limited for if euery man had bin permitted to offer sacrifice either Idolatrie it selfe or the rites and ceremonies of Idolaters might the more easily haue crept in and therefore he ordained that only Aaron and his sonnes and they that should descend from them should be consecrated Priests in Israel to whom he gaue authority to doe all rites and ceremonies as well of Sacrifices as of other things which ought to be done within the Sanctuary Num. 3.17.18 And hee appointed the rest of the Tribe of Leui whom as by a proper name we call Leuites to serue Aaron and his sonnes Num. 3. For these could doe nothing concerning those foure things which did peculiarly belong to the Priests to wit to offer Sacrifice to burne Incense to put vpon the Table holy breads which were called loaues of proposition Exod. 25. whereof the Priests onely could eate and to put the seuen lampes vpon the golden candlesticke and to haue care of them that they should giue light for these foure offices or ministeries did belong onely to the Priests but the office and ministerie of the Leuites was to serue the Priests in their office and to doe those things which are ordained Num. Chap. 1.3 8. as to haue a care and custody of the Tabernacle and all the furniture thereof of the Arke Table Candlesticke Altars vessels of the Sanctuary veile c. and to take downe and carry the Tabernacle when the campe was to goe forward and to set it vp when the people were
or which is all one with that I said before as by the order and reference to spirituall good that is to the glory of God and the health of soules they become spirituall that is vertuous and vicious actions it is manifest that although this distinction of directly and indirectly may be applyed to the spiriturall directiueâ— or commanding power as I declared before for that spirituall Pastours haue no power to command temporall actions but in order to spirituall good and by that reference become spirituall and capable of vertue or vice which is the health or hurt of soules yet it cannot be applyed to the spirituall coerciue or punishing power vnlesse it be first proued that Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours for the health of soules authoritie to inflict as well temporall as spirituall punishments and that the obiects of the spirituall coerciue power are by the institution of Christ both temporall and spirituall punishments which my Aduersaries will neuer be able to proue from the holy Scriptures or the ancient Fathers and vnpartiall expositours thereof for to proue the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours and Priests by the law of Nature or naturall reason who as I haue shewed before were in the law of Nature subiect to the coerciue power of the ciuill Common-wealth is most idle and friuolous 77 Now you shall see how friuolous the second reason is which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to proue that I contradict my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour may command temporall punishments and yet in denying that he may inflict temporall punishments Furthermore Widdrington granteth saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 105. num 18. that the spirituall Superiour may punish spiritually that is to say by Censures of Excommunication Interdict and Suspension but who seeth not that he granteth consequently that the said spirituall Superiour may also punish temporally For Excommunication doth not only depriue a man of the vse of the Sacraments but also of the communication and conuersation of Christian men and of many temporall commodities euen according to our Sauiours owne commandement who ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication Matth. 18. when he commanded that he which will not heare the Church shall be taken for an Ethnike and a Publican that is to say shall be excluded not only from the participation of the spirituall benefits of the Church but also from the temporall companie 1. Cor. 4.2 Thess 3. and conuersation of the faithfull which was also ordained by the Apostle when he commanded the Corinthians and Thessalonians not to eate with notorious sinners and disobedient persons and by S. Iohn when he commanded that the Christians should not receiue heretikes into their houses nor so much as salute them in all which it cannot be denyed but that the offenders were punished temporally 78 But all this and the rest also which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth in the two next Paragraphes was before obiected by Fa. Suarez and fully answered by me in my Appendix but this man is pleased to repeate still the same obiections which by me and others haue beene before often answered Wherefore it is true that I doe grant that the spirituall Superiour may punish spiritually by Ecclesiasticall Censures but it is not true that I must consequently grant that he may also punish temporally for this I euer denyed and therfore it is a meere fiction of his owne braine that I contradict my selfe in affirming and denying the selfe same thing For First Excommunication as I shewed before l In my Appendix against Suarez part 2. sec 4. See also aboue chap. 1. nu 16. and seq and chap. 5. sec 2. num 131. seq doth not of it owne nature and by any institution of Christ depriue of ciuill conuersation but only of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall participation of the faithfull and therfore all ciuill contracts with excommunicated persons as buying selling changing lending c. are valid and of force if we respect only the law of Christ Secondly it is also true that by the law of the Church some temporall punishments may be annexed to Excommunication by way of command and so the Church hath power to command that we shall not ciuilly conuerse with excommunicated persons except in those cases wherein by the law of Nature and Nations we are bound ciuilly to conuerse with them So also spirituall Pastors as I haue shewed before may annexe to Excommunication the inflicting of those temporall punishments which from the grant and priueledges of temporall Princes they haue authoritie to inflict But this is nothing to that which Mr. Fitzherbert intended to proue For I neuer denyed that the spirituall Superiour may punish temporally by way of command or to speake more properly may command and enioyne temporall penalties and also inflict them by that ciuill authoritie which he hath receiued from the grant of temporall Princes but that which I denyed is that the spirituall Superiour hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments 79 Thirdly Mr. Fitzherbert affirming so boldly that our Sauiour by his owne commandement ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication doth erre most grosly seeing that he cannot proue that our Sauiour ordained any penaltie at all much lesse a temporall penaltie of Excommunication For if he had but sleightly runne ouer Schoole-Diuinitie and especially the Treatise of Ecclesiasticall Censures he could not but haue seene that although the power to excommunicate is de iure diuine and instituted by the law of Christ yet that according to the more common doctrine of Diuines neither Excommunication or any other Ecclesiasticall Censure or penaltie is de iure diuino and ordained by the commandement of Christ but de iure humano and instituted by the Church and that to no sinne is annexed any Censure by the law and commandement of Christ who did neuer by himselfe immediately ordaine that the Church should vse such or such a determinate punishment but he left to the prudent iudgement and arbitrement of the Church to determine in particular this or that punishment according to the authoritie she hath receiued Suarez tom 5. dis 2. sec 1. For thus writeth Fa. Suarez affirming it to be the more common opinion of Doctours and withall he answereth all the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought heere out of the holy Scriptures 80 But the contrarie doctrine saith Suarez may seeme to haue some ground in those word Matth. 18. If he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican For by those words our Sauiour Christ doth seeme to haue sufficiently shewed and instituted the Censure of Excommunication and that the Pastours of the Church are heere vertually commanded to excommunicate disobedient and obstinate Christians because by no other reason the faithfull can be bound to auoid such kind of men But from this place saith Suarez nothing can be gathered For otherwise one might also gather from thence that whosoeuer
punishing power but also spirituall things by reason of some vnlawfull disturbance of the publike temporall peace annexed vnto them may sometimes take the nature of temporall things and therefore may be forbidden by the temporall power of the Ciuill common-wealth which hath for the obiect of her directiue power the procuring and maintaining of publike peace and the shunning of all vnlawfull disturbance of this temporall peace in what actions soeuer either temporall or spirituall they are to be found and consequently may be also punished if we abstract from the priueledges of Princes and Ecclesiasticall Canons with temporall punishments which only are the obiect of the temporall coerciue power For what sensible man can deny that temporall Princes haue authoritie if we regard the nature and obiects of temporall power to forbid all men whatsoeuer that are subiect to their directiue power as also according to the common doctrine of Diuines are Cleargie men not to disturbe wrongfully the publike temporall peace by any actions whatsoeuer and to punish all them that shall transgresse their iust command and are subiect to their coerciue power with temporall punishments and that when the temporall Prince forbiddeth all vnlawfull poysonings the vnlawfull poysoning of men by spirituall actions as by baptizing with poisoned water is not contained vnder this command 105 Secondly it is not true that granting once as I often doe that temporall things may take the nature of spirituall things by reason of sinne annexed it must follow thereon as Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth that the spirituall Superiour may punish in temporall things or which he taketh for all one may inflict temporall punishments and the perspicuous reason heereof I alledged before for although temporall punishments doe become spirituall things when the consideration of sinne entereth for which they may be subiect to the directiue power of the Church which hath for her obiect vertue or vice and consequently they may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power of the Church as it is directiue yet still they remaine temporall punishments which are only subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of temporall Princes and therefore cannot be vsed or inflicted by the coerciue or punishing power of the Church which hath for her obiect spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures and not temporall punishments Wherefore vnlesse the consideration of sinne can make which is impossible temporall punishments to be I doe not say spirituall things but spirituall punishments it can neuer make temporall punishments to be the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue although it maketh them to be the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue But my Aduersarie by not distinguishing these two powers and their proper acts and obiects would blind the vnderstanding of his vnlearned Reader with a confused reduction of temporall things to spirituall which this distinction of the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of either of them doth make most plaine and manifest 106 Also if temporall things saith Mr. Fitzherbert l Pag. 1. 8. nu 23. 24. may be come spirituall by reason of sinne annexed why shall they not also haue a spirituall nature and qualitie by the connexion of some vertue and specially when they are applied as I haue said before to a spirituall end as to the seruice and glory of God which is the end of all things spirituall and temporall to which purpose it may be obserued Rom. 12. that S. Paul exhorted the Romaines to exhibite their bodies hostiam viuentem sanctam Deo placentem c. a liuing sacrifice holy and pleasing God giuing to vnderstand that our bodies goods and what temporall thing soeuer is subiect to our soule being dedicated and applyed to Gods seruice and the good of the soule is sanctified therby and becommeth spirituall Whereupon it followeth that whensoeuer a spirituall Superiour punisheth his temporall subiects in their bodies or goods for satisfaction of their sinnes and for the seruice of God and the Church and the good of soules their corporall and temporall punishments becommeth spirituall by reason of the end and the vertue annexed and consequently is most lawfull and iust euen according to my Aduersarie Widdringtons owne doctrine 107 Whereto I also adde that whereas Widdrington saith that euerie Superiour may punish his subiects with penalties proportionate to his authoritie he must needes grant the same in this case for albeit temporall goods haue no naturall proportion with spirituall things yet they haue a morall proportion therewith because they are not able instruments of good workes â— Pet. 2. in which respect S. Peter calleth Almes and other good workes spirituales Hostias spirituall Sacrifices albeit they consist in the vse and imployment of temporall things and therefore when temporall things are necessarie to a spirituall end they may be disposed of by the Church as proportionate to the end whereto they are necessarie 108 No man maketh any doubt but that temporall things may become spirituall not only by reason of sinne but also of vertue annexed especially when they are applyed to a spirituall end as to the seruice and glory of God who is the end of all things spirituall and temporall and therefore when one doth punish his body by fasting discipline hairecloath or such like for the satisfaction of his sinnes and for the seruice of God although they be corporall punishments yet they are vertuous actions and in that regard spirituall things and consequently subiect to the spirituall power of the Church as it is directiue But from hence it doth not follow that these temporall punishments by reason of vertue annexed doe become spirituall punishments but only vertuous actions and in that regard spirituall things for still they remaine temporall punishments and therefore not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church as it is coerciue which hath for her obiect only the vsing and inflicting of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall not temporall or Ciuill punishments Wherefore a spirituall Superiour hath no authoritie by the institution of Christ to punish in body or goods for any end whatsoeuer by way of constraint his spirituall subiects whether they be Clearkes or Lay-men whom Mr. Fitzherbert improperly calleth his temporall Subiects for although they be temporall men yet comparing them to spirituall Superiours they are spirituall not temporall Subiects for that the obiect of the spirituall coerciue power are not temporall or corporall but only spirituall Censures or punishments although he may as I said command such corporall punishments when they are necessarie for the good of the soule in which case they become spirituall things to wit vertuous actions which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power But the cause of Mr. Fitzherberts errour is for that he doth not distinguish betwixt spirituall or temporall things and spirituall or temporall punishments and betwixt the acts and obiects of the spirituall directiue and of the spirituall coerciue power for although temporall punishments by reason of
for that in the law of Nature the Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe had the supreame authoritie to dispose of all things not only concerning State but also Religion CHAP. VII VVherein certaine places of the old and New Testament are explained D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere I made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisbury grounded thereon and other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias and Saphyra and of others and from the practise of the Church and from the person of man are cleerely confuted 1. THE seuenth Chapter Mr. Fitzherbert beginneth in this manner Now let vs see saith he a Pag. 112. how my Aduersarie Widdrington proceedeth who hauing giuen his reason though so weake as you haue heard why hee thinketh it to bee against reason that a spirituall Superiour should punish temporally vndertaketh to answere one place onely alleadged by me out of the old law and foure out of the new omitting to say any thing else in particular to all the other places and arguments which I vrged out of the law of God and Nature 2 But first it is not true as Mr. Fitzherbert saith that I gaue any reason at all why I thought it to bee against reason that a spirituall Superiour should punish temporally for I neuer thought this to bee against naturall reason That which I affirmed onely was that true reason doeth teach that euery Superiour hath power to punish his subiect with some punishment proportionate to his authoritie to wit by depriuing him of those goods which are proper to that Communitie whereof hee is Superiour but that any other Superiour besides the supreame Gouernour of the ciuill common-wealth hath power to punish his subiects with death mayming or depriuation of temporall goods it cannot bee deduced from the necessarie rule or prescript of true reason This was that I said Now what man of learning that knoweth the difference betwixt contra naturam secundū naturam praeter and supra naturam that is against nature according to nature besides and aboue nature would affirme that because I thinke it cannot bee deduced from the law of Nature or the prescript of true naturall reason as Mr. Fitzherbert pretended to prooue that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally therefore I must thinke that it is against Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally as though this proposition It cannot bee prooued by the law of Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally doth according to his logicke necessarily inferre that therefore it is against the law of Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally For I make no doubt but that Christ our Sauiour might if it had pleased him haue giuen authoritie as I am fully perswaded hee hath not to spirituall Pastours to punish temporally and so in this case hee had granted nothing against the law of Nature or against the prescript of true naturall reason but only aboue Nature and the light of naturall reason yet in this case it could not bee prooued by the law of Nature but only by the positiue institution and law of Christ that spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to punish temporally Wherefore the law of Nature hath neither commanded nor forbidden hath neither giuen nor denyed to spirituall Pastours authoritie to punish temporally but if they haue any such authoritie it must be giuen them by the positiue grant of GOD or man and consequently it is neither against nor according but aboue or besides the law of Nature that spiritual Pastors should haue any such authoritie to punish temporally 3 Secondly the reason why I omitted to say something in particular to euery part of his idle Discourse in this Reply of his but answered onely some certaine arguments drawne from those sixe generall heads to wit from the old law and the new the law of Nature and nations the Canon and the Ciuill law was not for that I could not answere particularly euery one of them as the Reader may see by this Treatise wherein I haue answered his whole Reply and euery part thereof but the reason was for that neither the breuitie of such a short Admonition nor the Printer who had then finished the whole Disputation would hardly permit me to make so long a Discourse as there I made and therfore I chose out of purpose certaine arguments drawne from each one of those sixe seuerall heads which I thought to bee the strongest and which being answered the iudicious Reader might easily perceiue how all the rest might in the like maner be fully satisfied 4 Now you shall see what he obiecteth against that which I there did answere And first he setteth downe my words which are these Fiftly he that will diligently consider the vnder written sentences of S. Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine will presently perceiue what a forcible proofe can bee deduced from that of Deuteronomie the 17. and such like places of the Old Testament which is a figure of the new Excommunication Bellar. lib. 2. de Ecclesia cap. 6. S. August q. 39. in Deut. saith Cardinall Bellarmine hath that place in the Church which the punishment of death had in the Old Testament and which the Common-wealth hath in temporals And Saint Augustine saith that Excommunication doth this now in the Church which killing or death did then in the Old Testament In which place hee compareth that which was said in the 24. of Deuteronomy He shall be slaine and thou shalt take away the euill from amidst thee with that which the Apostle saith 1 Corinth 5. Auferte malum ex vobis ipsis Take away euill from among your selues S. August lib. 2. de fide operibus cap. 2. And Saint Augustine teacheth in another place That the materiall sword which Moyses and Phinees vsed in the Old Testament was a figure of the degradations and excommunications which are to be vsed in the new law seeing that in the discipline of the Church saith S. Augustine the visible sword shall cease 5 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth b Pag. 113. nu 2. in this manner Thus saith my Aduersary Widdrington wherein he rather fortifieth and strengtheneth our cause then weakeneth or hurteth it any way For if you note well what Widdrington saith and inferreth he prooueth nothing else but that the penalty of temporall or corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the old and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by Excommunication which we denie not But will he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication which as he himselfe granted supplyeth the place of corporall death includeth a temporall punishment by the separation of the delinquent from the conuersation of men and from diuers
other temporall commodities as I haue shewed in the last Chapter c Num. 18. 6 But truely I cannot but smile to see the vanitie of this man who though he see himselfe altogether vanquished yet he boasteth that hee is victorious and although he clearely perceiueth yea and almost expressely confesseth that his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. Chapter to be quite ouerthrowne yet hee braggeth that his cause is not thereby weakened or hurt any way but rather fortified and strengthened For if you note well what he granteth to wit That the penalty of corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the olde and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by excommunication you cannot but clearely see that his argument taken from Deuteronomy the 17. Chapter which onely text in particular I vndertooke to answere and which speaketh onely of corporall death is quite ouerthrowne and yet forsooth I doe hereby rather fortifie and strengthen then weaken or hurt any way his cause By which you may plainely perceiue what credit is to be giuen to the rest of his vaine-glorious brags seeing that in this so manifest an ouerthrow of his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. he is not ashamed to boast that I haue rather fortified and strengthened then weakened or hurt any way his cause But will Widdrington saith he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication includeth a temporall punishment c. The inference that Widdrington maketh is that from the wordes of Deuteronomy the 17. which speake onely of corporall death Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought no good argument for that according to the doctrine of Saint Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine which hee himselfe also will not denie The penalty of corporall death is now in the new law turned to the death of the soule by Excommunication Neither is it true that Excommunication being of it own nature a separation frō the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull doth of it owne nature include any temporall punishment at all as also I haue shewed in the last Chapter albeit I doe not denie that the Church hath now by way of command annexed to Excommunication some temporall penalties but not by way of inflicting them as I declared in that place for I euer granted that the Church hath power to command enioyne or impose temporall punishments but not to inflict them yet these to command and to inflict to impose and to dispose my Aduersary doth commonly confound 7 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 114. numer 4.5 it is euident that in the olde Testament euen the temporall Princes themselues were punished by depriuation of their right to their temporall states and dominions as e 1 Reg. 16. Saul by Samuel Athalia f 4 Reg. 11. by Ioiada Ioram g 4 Reg. 9. by one of the children of the Prophets who being sent by Elizeus annointed Iehu King of Israel to the end he might destroy Iesabel all the house of Achab. Also Ozias was not only corporally expelled out of the temple by the Priests confined by their sentence to liue priuately is his own house but according to the opinion doctrine of S. Chrysostome he ought also to haue beene wholy depriued of the gouernment as I haue signified before h Cap. 5. nu 21. 22. at large And therefore seeing he telleth vs how the penalty of corporall death which was ordained in the olde Testament is now fulfilled spiritually in the new let him also tell vs to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their states and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end that wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment and in the meane time let him acknowledge according to his owne doctrine and instance here produced that the Church may punish temporally seeing it may excommunicate and consequently depriue men of many temporall commodities 8 But this also is very vntrue that the Priests of the olde Testament had authoritie to punish temporall Princes by depriuing them of their right to their temporall states and dominions as I amply prooued aboue in the 5. Chapter Neither doe these examples brought here by Mr. Fitzherbert prooue any such thing For to the examples of King Ozias and Athalia I haue answered aboue at large And as for the other two besides that Samuel Elias and Elizeus were not Priests it is manifest that what they did concerning the annointing or deposing of any King they did it not by their owne authority but onely as Prophets and speciall messengers sent by God to that purpose How long saith God to Samuel i 1 Reg. 16. dost thou mourne Saul whom I haue reiected that hee rule not ouer Israel Fill thy horne with oyle and come that I may send thee to Isai the Bethleemite for I haue prouided me a King among his Sons And again Goe saith God to k 3 Reg. 19. Elias and returne into thy way by the desert of Damascus and when thou art come thither thou shalt annoint Hazael King ouer Syria and Iehu the Sonne of Namsi thou shalt annoint King ouer Israel and Elizeus the Sonne of Saphat thou shalt annoynt Prophet for thee And therefore he that was sent by Elizeus to annoint Iehu was commanded to speake in the person of God not of Elizeus And holding saith l 4 Reg. 9. Elizeus to him that was sent the little boxe of oyle thou shalt power vpon his head and shalt say Thus saith our Lord I haue annointed thee King ouer Israel Now what man of iudgement would make this inference that because in the olde lawe some Prophets who were no Priests did by the expresse commandement of God make annoint or depose Kings therefore the Priests in the new law haue ordinary power and authority to doe the same Belike Mr. Fitzherbert will approoue also this argument that because Elias was commanded by God to annoint not onely Iehu King ouer Israel but also Hazael King ouer Syria therefore the Pope hath authority to make and depose not onely Christian but also Pagan Kings 9 Wherefore that demand which is heere made by my Aduersary to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their States and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment is friuolous both for that the Priests of the old law had no authority to depriue Kings of their temporall States and Dominions or to inflict temporall punishments and also albeit they had such an authority neuerthelesse it could not bee prooued from thence by deducing an argument from the figure to the veritie that therefore
and effects of that power and authority and I affirme that the effects of that power which was giuen to S. Peter to binde and loose to wit the bindings and loosings themselues were spirituall and not temporall bindings and loosings For this was my answere in that place t Apolog. â— 35.36 15 And although it be generally said by Christ our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. yet without doubt neither is that word whatsoeuer to bee taken in it whole latitude or generality or as the Logicians say with a complete distribution but with some limitatioÌ„ or accommodate distribution neither did Christ our Sauiour speake of euery binding but only of a certaine determinate binding And by the words that go before to wit the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and by those that follow in caelis also in heauen it is plaine enough that this bond which the Ecclesiasticall power may by the institution of Christ binde and loose is not a temporall â—â—nd but that it appertaineth to a heauenly and spirituall binding Whereupon the Interlineall Glosse expounding those wordes Matth. 18. What things soeuer you shall binde with the bond saith hee of Anathema Which also Franciscus Suarez a most famous Diuine of the Societie of Iesus doth expresly affirme But that which is added saith he u Tom. â— disp 1. sec 2. nu 5. Erit ligatum in caelo Shall bee bound also in heauen doth sufficiently declare this power not to be naturall but supernaturall and that bond marke this word bond to be spirituall and of a superiour or higher order And Ioannes Parisiensis To that saith hee x In Tract de potest Regia Papaâ— c. 15. which is secondly obiected Whatsoeuer you shall loose c. I answere according to Chrysostome and Rabanus that by this no other power is vnderstood to bee giuen but spirituall to wit obserue that which followeth to absolue from the bond of sinnes For it were foolish to vnderstand that by this is giuen authoritie to absolue from the bond of debts Thus I answered in my Apologie 16 Consider now Good Reader with what face or conscience these men can affirme that I haue laboured houre euen with sweate and vainly spent many words only to proue by those two authorities of holy Scripture that the Pontificall power is spiritually which neither Card. Bellarmine nor they doe deny but willingly grant whereas I doe not contend that the power to bind and loose which was giuen to S. Peter and to the rest of the Apostles is spirituall and not temporall but that the bond which the Ecclesiasticall power is to bind and loose is a spirituall and not a temporall bond which if my Aduersarie hence will grant it must needs follow that corporall and temporall punishments as watching haire-cloath fasting whipping imprisonment depriuing of corporall life or temporall goods all which are corporall and temporall bonds and punishments cannot be inflicted by that Ecclesiasticall power which Christ gaue to S. Peter and the other Apostles And therefore with what safetie our English Catholikes can aduenture their soules and whole estates vpon these men 1. Tim. 4. who haue according to the Apostles saying such wounded seared or canteriate consciences and in their publike writings doe so grosly and shamefully corrupt the words and meaning of their Aduersarie in a matter of such importance as is their obedience due to God and Caesar I remit to the consideration of any prudent man 17 The soule is a spirit saith D. Schulckenius related heere by my Aduersarie and hath a spirituall power yet it doth also chastice the body but in that manner as I declared in the second part with corporall punishments as watching hairecloath fasting and whipping And what then will they therefore inferre that because watching wearing of hairecloath fasting and whipping are commanded by the spirituall power of the foule therefore they are spirituall and not corporall actions and punishments No man maketh any doubt but that the power whereby God created the world the Angell moued the water y Ioan. 5. Ananias and Saphira were striken dead z Acts 5. was a spirituall power yet no man can deny that the creation of the world and the mouing of the water were corporall actions and the sudden putting to death of Ananias and Saphira were also corporall actions and punishments So likewise it cannot be denyed that the binding of men with fetters be it done by God Angells or men that is by a spirituall or temporall power is a corporall binding and the depriuing of any man of his temporall goods libertie or life let it be done by a spirituall or temporall power is still a temporall and not a spirituall punishment 18 If therefore these men as they make a shew in words will in very deede and sincerely grant what I affirmed and proued in that place they must needes confesse that the Pope by vertue of that commission which Christ gaue to Saint Peter and the other Apostles to binde and loose hath no authoritie to imprison men to bind them with corporall chaines to absolue or loose them from their temporall bonds debts or allegiance for that these are temporall and not spirituall bindings and loosings for what end or by what power soeuer they be done Neither did I contend in that place that the power and authority of the Apostles to binde and loose was not temporall but spirituall but onely that the bindings and loosings which were the effects of that power were onely spirituall and not temporall bindings and loosings See aboue a Cap. 5 sec 3. nu 10. sec more of these bonds to which the Ecclesiasticall power to binde and loose is by the ancient Fathers limited and restrained And heereby the Reader may easily perceiue that I had no great reason to confute in that briefe Admonition D. Schulckenius his Reply for as much as concerneth this point but it was sufficient to remit the Reader to my aforesaid answere seeing that D. Schulckenius saide nothing at all against it but cunningly flyed from the effects of the Apostles power to binde and loose which I there prooued to be onely spirituall and not temporall bonds to the power it selfe to binde and loose whereof I did not intend to dispute in that place knowing well that although the effects of that power had beene as they were not temporall bindings and loosings yet the power it selfe to binde and loose might for diuers reasons be called as Diuines doe call it a spirituall and not formally a temporall or ciuil power although as I said aboue b Cap. nu 7â— See also beneath cap. 12. nu 61. seq I thinke this question betwixt the Diuines and Canonists whether it be a spirituall or a temporall power to be more verball and of wordes then reall and of the thing it selfe And this may suffice for this point 19 Now before wee come to examine Fa. Parsons reason
constitution of men neither are those lawes which are onely declared by all nations to be easily and directly deduced from the knowne principles of nature to be numbred among humane lawes but among the lawes of nature And if the law of nations is to be accounted a humane lawe for that it is so easily directly deduced from the principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit it why may not many lawes of nature bee accounted humane lawes seeing that they are so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit them Moreouer Mr. Fitzherbert will not as I thinke deny but that many things are forbidden by the law of nature which neuerthelesse are not so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit them as simple fornication vsury drunkennesse perpetuity of marriage and plurality of wiues which according to the doctrine of all Diuines are repugnant to the law of nature and yet some nations haue not thought these to be vnlawfull Wherevpon Vasquez boldly affirmeth Vasq 1 a. 2 ae disp 122. c. 2. tom 1. that one may haue inuincible ignorance for his whole life time of those conclusions of the law of Nature which are more obscure and more remote from the generall principles of Nature then are the morall precepts of the Decalogue Wherefore although Mr. Fitzherbert doth make heere a long discourse about the law of nations and nature yet it seemeth that he doth not hitherto vnderstand what is the law of nations and how it is distinguished from the law of nature 17 Wherefore to omit now the diuers opinions of Doctours concerning the difference of the law of nature and nations it will be sufficient for this present to declare how Vasquez differeth from the other Iesuiâ—es and Diuines in this point Vasq 1 a. 2 ae disp 157. c. 3. tom 2. For Vasquez is of opinion that the law of nations is comprehended vnder the law of nature as a part and member thereof and that it differeth from the law of nature onely in this that the law of nature is that which is deduced by a very good discourse from the principles of nature not onely as permitting but also as commanding some thing to be done or not to bee done insomuch that it is a rule of virtue and vice and this whether wee consider nature by it selfe or which is all one as men liue alone by themselues or else as liuing in common and ciuill Societie But the law of nations is onely a law of permission vtilitie or conueniencie For some things are in this manner conuenient and profitable to men as liuing in Ciuill Society which are not conuenient for a man liuing by himselfe alone therefore this permission of a thing conuenient to the whole nature of man as liuing in Ciuill Societie is called by Vasquez the law of nations that is a licence or power of nations Of this sort is the diuision of lands for without it Cities could very hardly be well gouerned and also a right or power to make warre and by the right of warre to reuenge iniuries for without this Cities would be exposed to a thousand iniuries but a power to marry is not to bee called the law of nations but of nature for that it was not introduced by naturall reason for this consideration that men began to liue in Cities whereupon they were called Nations but because it is conuenient by permission to the nature of man being absolutely considered by it selfe So that according to Vasquez no law of nations is a rule of virtue and vice to wit commanding something as necessarie or forbidding some thing as euill but onely granting or permitting some thing as conuenient and profitable and also as honest but not necessarie but the law of nature both commandeth forbiddeth and permitteth Wherefore the law of nature as it doth permit onely and not command or forbid is by Vasquez called the law of nations For all morall precepts doe according to him belong either to the law of nature or to the Ciuill law for if any thing be commanded or forbidden by force of naturall reason it belongeth to the law of nature but if it bee commaunded or forbidden by the will of man hauing authoritie thereunto it belongeth to the Ciuill law And of this opinion hee thinketh Aristotle and all the ancient Philosophers to haue beene for that all Philosophers before the Ciuill lawyers did deuide euery law in generall into the law of nature and the Ciuill law 18 But this opinion of Vasquez doth not please Suarez Salas Suarez lib. 2. cap. 18. 19. Salas disp 2. sec 2. 3. seq D. sec 3. and many other Diuines albeit Salas thinketh this question concerning the difference of the law of nature and nations is for the greatest part rather a verball question and of words then reall and of any great moment For if it be once knowne that any thing belongeth to the law of nature it little importeth to say that it belongeth also to the law of nations for that all nations doe commonly keepe or vse that law But it greatly importeth to know whether any thing bee commaunded by the law of nature or onely by the positiue law of man if it be commanded by positiue law whether that law be common to all nations or no and whether it be common to all nations as it were per se by it selfe for that all nations as being one totall communitie of mankind haue decreed it or as it were per accidens by accident for that euery Nation decreeing it by it selfe we may gather by Induction that all nations haue decreed it and so that it is a decree common to all nations 19. For the better vnderstanding whereof Suarez Suarez lib. 2. de Leg. pap 19. Salas Tract 14. q. 91. disp 2. sec 3. and Salas doe obserue that a law may be said to be common to all or many nations either for that all or many nations being taken seuerally by themselues doe agree in that law or else for that it is obserued by the vse and custome of all or many nations as they haue among themselues a certaine societie and ciuill communication For although euery Citie common-wealth or Kingdome be in it selfe a perfect communitie and composed of her parts and members yet euery one of them is in some sort a member of this vniuersall world as it appertaineth to mankind neither are those communities so sufficient seuerally for themselues but that they want some helpe societie and communication of others sometime for greater vtilitie or conueniencie and sometime for morall necessitie and want and in regard of this they want some law whereby to be directed in this kind of communication and societie And although for the most part this be done by naturall reason yet it cannot be done sufficiently and immediatly for all things and therefore
are not subordinate to spirituall and due reuerence respect and obedience giuen to his immediate Ministers 37 But what is all this to the purpose what will hee conclude from hence who maketh any doubt but that all Nations and people doe vniformely agree in this that due honour is to be giuen to almighty God and that nothing is to be preferred before his seruice and that temporall things are subordinate to spirituall to wit in perfection worth and excellency and that due reuerence respect and obedience is to be giuen to his immediate Ministers But from hence it onely followeth according to the law of nature and Nations that because in the law of nature the cheife Ministers of God in all things as well concerning his publike seruice as the ciuill gouernment was the ciuill Common-wealth it selfe which because shee could not by her selfe immediatly exercise the said functions she appointed certaine Ministers to execute the same therefore we must giue due reuerence respect and obedience first to the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernours thereof and secondly to those immediate Ministers whom the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernours thereof haue appoynted according to the honour dignity and authority which is graunted them And therefore hee that should make this argument Due honour is to be giuen to almighty God and nothing is to be preferred before his seruice and due reuerence respect and obedience is to be giuen to his immediate Ministers therefore the Pope hath authority by the law of Nature and Nations to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all their temporals it is euident that he shooteth farre wide of the marke and maketh a very vaine and friuolous consequence seeing that according to the law of nature and Nations the ciuill Common-weath hath full authority to dispose of all things both concerning state and Religion 38 Wherefore with these generall propositions which all men vnderstand and approoue he still ioyneth that ambiguous and equiuocall proposition that temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to spirituall things to make the vnlearned Reader beleiue that some great mysterie lyeth hidden therein whereas the plaine meaning of it is that spirituall things are superiour to temporall things in worth excellency and dignity and therefore caeteris paribus to bee preferred before them so that in very deed the meaning thereof is nothing else but that the seruice of God is to be preferred before all temporall things which in the law of nature all ciuill Common-wealths which had supreame authority to dispose of all things both concerning State and Religion did euer acknowledge And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert labouring in his next Paragraph to prooue this spendeth his time and labour in vaine for that no man maketh doubt but that all Nations euer preferred Religion and the seruice of their Gods before all other things 39 But before I come to set downe his words I thinke it not amisse to declare briefly in what sense Religion towards God which Vlpian the Lawyer mentioned here by my Aduersary reduceth to the law of Nations may appertaine both to the law of Nations and Nature And that he may the more easily perceiue his owne errour and ignorance in contending to prooue by the law of Nature and Nations the Popes authority to depose temporall Princes I will relate verbatim Suarez doctrine against which hee neither can nor will as I suppose in this point take any exception 40 Religion or the worshipping of God saith Suarez Suarez lib. 2. Leg. cap. 19. num 10. which example the Lawyer vsed doth absolutely belong to the law of nature but the speciall and particular determination thereof doth belong to the positiue law of God and in the order of nature marke these words it would belong to the ciuill or priuate Law But the meane betwixt both seemeth in some sort to belong to the law of Nations as the right to worship God by Sacrifices is not simply or absolutely commanded by the law of nature and yet all Nations dâ— seeme to haue agreed therein as we haue said treating of this matter and therefore it may worthily be said to belong to the law of Nations Likewise that there should be in the Common-wealth a State of man appointed specially to the seruice of God doth not seeme to belong to the absolute law of nature yet it is so conuenient and agreeable thereunto that almost all Nations and Common-wealths haue agreed in this institution at least wise in the generall although in the particular manner there hath beene great variety and therefore concerning this institution in generall Religion may also be said to belong to the law of Nations Thus Suarez 41 Whereby Mr. Fitzherbert may clearely see that although to worship God in generall is commanded by the law of nature yet both to worship him in this or that particular manner is not ordained by the law of nature but left to the determination of euery priuate man as he is considered to liue by himselfe alone or of the ciuill Common-wealth as he liueth in ciuill Society and also that there should be in the Common-wealth a State of men appointed specially for the publike seruice and worshipping of God is not ordained by the law of nature but onely by the law of nations and this also onely in generall for as concerning the particular manner to wit what honour dignity authority and prerogatiues this State of men should haue it is not determined by the law of nations because in this there hath always among nations beene great variety for that some nations gaue to their religious Priests greater honour authority and prerogatiues and some gaue lesse as partly you haue seene in the sixt Chapter and partly you shall see anone by examining the rest of my Aduersaries discourse So that you may manifestly perceiue that no good argument can be brought from the law of nature or nations to proue that the Pope hath authority to punish temporally the supreame ciuill Magistrate seeing that all the authority which the religious Priests had in the law of nature either in temporals or spirituals did onely proceed from the grant of the ciuill Common-wealth it selfe and not from the law of nature 24 Now let vs go on with Mr. Fitzherberts discourse This saith he i Pag. 131. nu 6 is manifest by the generall consent and practise of all Nations who haue alwaies preferred diuine things before humane and spirituall things before temporall as in Aethiopia c. But this is onely a continuall repeating of that which he hath so often affirmed and which no man calleth in question for no man maketh doubt but by the law of nature wee are bound to preferre the seruice of God before any other thing and to giue due reuerence respect and obedience to his immediate Ministers but to honour or serue God in this or that particular manner and what particular honour respect or obedience is due to religious Priests this doth not proceede
Bishops had ouer the Consulls in the Romane Common-wealth Bapt. Fulgos l. 1. c. 1. and yet neuerthelesse vve read of Alexander Seuerus that he suffered an appellation from himselfe to the Bishops and that they reuersed his sentence vvhen it seemed to them that equitie and iustice required it And heereto may be added vvhat great respect the Emperours of the Turkes and Persians beare at this day to the chiefe Bishop vvho hath power to abrogate any law made by them if it seeme to him to be repugnant to the Alcoron 48 But from these examples or any other such like this onely can be gathered that all nations haue euer preferred Religion and the worship of their Gods before any other temporall thing and that in respect chiefly of Religion they gaue to their Religious Priests whom they appointed to bee their immediate Ministers to offer Sacrifice to their Gods or as certaine messengers or prophets to declare their wills as in Rome were the Augures and Soothsayers certaine temporall honour authority and preheminence greater or lesser according to the custome of euery Nation but it cannot be gathered from hence that this temporall authority which these Religious Priests had to punish any man temporally did proceed from the law of nature or nations as the law of nations is accounted one law but from the municipall lawes of euery nation kingdome or common-wealth as the diuers custome of euery nation touching the temporall authority of their Religious Priests doth cleerely conuince 49 But marke what Mr. Fitzherbert would gather from these examples So that saith hee n Pag. 133. nu 7. by all this it appeareth that howsoeuer all Nations haue differed amongst themselues in particular rites and ceremonies of Religion yet they haue all agreed in this generall principle of nature that there ought to be in all Common-wealths a due subordination and subiection of humane things to diuine of Policy to Religion and of the temporall Magistrate to the spirituall in matters that appertaine any way to Religion Whereupon it followeth that Ius Gentium the law of Nations being grounded vpon the principles of nature cannot patronize or admit an Oath whereby a temporall and Secular Prince shall be exempted in matters that concerne Religion from subiection to his spirituall Pastours and speciall to the supreme Pastour of Christs Church Thus said I in my Supplement concerning the law of Nations vvhereby it appeareth c. 50 No man maketh any doubt but that all Nations haue agreed in this as a principle of nature that there ought to be a due subordination and subiection of humane things to diuine of Policy to Religion and of the temporall Magistrate to the spirituall in matters that appertaine to Religion but in what this due subordination and subiection according to the principles of nature consisteth this is the whole difficulty For if Mr. Fitzherberts meaning be that spirituall things and Religion are more excellent then temporall things and policy and therefore Religion and things belonging thereunto are caeteris paribus to be preferred before things appertaining to ciuill gouernment and that according to the principles of nature it is fit and conuenient that the ciuill common-wealth should for reuerence to Religion giue to Religious Priests some temporall honour authority and prerogatiues and also that Religious Priests should bee honoured and obeyed by all men in those things whereunto the authority which is giuen them either by God himselfe or by the positiue graunt of the ciuill common-wealth doth extend this I willingly graunt to be a principle grounded in nature and naturall reason But if his meaning bee that the ciuill common-wealth is according to the principles of nature and naturall reason subiect and subordinate not onely in dignity and perfection but also in coerciue authority and that the Religious Priests might in the law of nature and according to the knowne principles of naturall reason punish temporally eyther the supreme temporall Prince or any one of the inferiour people this is very vntrue as I haue conuinced before o Cap. 6. nu 35 seq c. 8. nu 40. out of the doctrine of Abulensis and Suarez 51 Wherefore as all the particular power and authoritie which was graunted to Religious Priests in the order of nature before the law of God was written as well in matters concerning Religion as policie did not proceede from the law of nature or of nations among whom there was so great varietie in this point but from the priuate or Ciuill law of euery particular common-wealth to whom the chiefe mannage and disposition of all things as well concerning Religion as Ciuill gouernement did belong so all the particular subordination and subiection especially in coerciue authoritie either of the people or of the Ciuill Magistrate to the Religious Priests as well in matters of Religion as State did wholy proceede from the free grant of the Ciuill common-wealth or the supreme Prince and gouernour thereof Wherevpon it euidently followeth that both the law of nature and nations would haue patronized and admitted an Oath which had beene made before the law of God was written whereby the Ciuill common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince should haue beene exempted from the temporall punishment of any religious Priest who in all matters as well concerning Religion as policie was subordinate and subiect both to the coerciue and directiue power of the Ciuill Societie or common-wealth and that therefore this Oath now in question concerning the Popes authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of temporall kingdomes cannot any way be impugned but altogether patronized by the law of nature and nations And by this all that Mr. Fitzherbert hath said in his Supplement concerning the law of nature and nations and that also which heere he addeth for a conclusion is most cleerely satisfied 52 Thus said I in my Supplement saith he p Pap. 133. nu 8. concerning the law of nations vvhereby it appeareth that the said law vvhich is deduced directly from the law of nature teacheth and confirmeth not onely the supreme dignitie of Religion in the Common-wealth but also the subordination and subiection of the temporall state to the Religious euen in temporall matters that touch Religion and that the custome and municipall law of the Romanes ordaining the same in their Common-wealth vvas most conforme to the lawe of nature being deduced directly from the knowne principles thereof which by the light of naturall reasoâ—n vvere manifest to the Philosophers and vvise law-makers amongst the Paynims and therefore vvhereas Widdrington ascribeth the preheminence of Religion in the Common wealth of the Romans to a municipall law denying it vvithall to proceede from the law of nature vvhich vvas the ground of that law he speaketh as problably as if he should ascribe an effect vvholy to the second cause and denie it to proceede from the first So as it is euident that he hath answered as vnprobably and imperfectly to my arguments drawne
from the law of nations as to the former grounded vpon the law of nature q Nu. 13. 53 But first I haue cleerely shewed as you haue seene from the doctrine of Suarez and the common opinion of Diuines that the law of nations as it is distinguished from the law of nature is not directly deduced from the principles of the law of nature but it is a humane law hauing force to bind onely by the positiue constitution and decree of man Secondly that although according to the principles of naturall reason Religion is in dignitie perfection and nobilitie superiour to policie and policie is therein subordinate and subiect to it yet according to the law of nature and nations all the particular authoritie which the Religious Societie as it was distinguished from the Ciuill had to commaund or punish any man dependeth wholy vpon the Ciuill common-wealth not onely in temporall but also in religious affaires and the particular customes and municipall lawes not onely of the Romanes but also of all other nations graunting some temporall honour authoritie and prerogatiues to Religious Priests did not proceede from the law of nature nor was directly or indirectly deduced from the principles thereof but was deriued meerely from the positiue constitutions and graunts of euery particular Ciuill common-wealth in whose power it was to create depose and punish their Religious Priests and to extend diminish change and quite take away from them all their directiue and coerciue authoritie and Mr. Fitzherbert affirming the contrary speaketh not onely improbably and disagreeably to the doctrine of Suarez and all other learned Diuines but also discouereth heerein his great want of iudgement learning and reading Neuerthelesse I will not denie but that in this sense the particular customes and municipall lawes of nations graunting to their Religious Priests who were their immediate ministers for things belonging to the publike seruice and worship of their Gods some temporall honour and authoritie were most conforme to the law of nature and principles of naturall reason for that the law of nature and light of naturall reason doth approoue and allow such lawes and customes as fit and conuenient but not commaund and ordaine them as necessarie in which sense also the exemption of Cleargie men now in the new law from the coerciue authoritie of Secular Magistrates ordained by humane law may be said to be conforme to the law of nature for that it doth approoue such exemption as conuenient but not command it as necessary And thus much concerning the law of nations and nature 54 Now touching the Ciuill law r Pag. 134. nu 9. 10. Mr. Fitzherb maketh a quicke dispatch therof in these words And as for the Ciuill law saith he whereas Widdrington saith only that I haue proued nothing else thereby but that the Pope is the supreme superiour of the Church in spirituall matters he is to vnderstand that albeit I haue not directly prooued any thing else by the Ciuill law yet I haue also thereupon inferred the extention of his power to temporall things by a necessarie consequent For hauing concluded that the Imperiall or Ciuill law doth not onely establish the Popes Supremacie but also acknowledge the subiection of temporall Princes to him in matters belonging to their soules and the good of the Church I added this inference 55 Whereupon it followeth directly that it acknowledgeth also See Supplement cap. 1. nu 118. pag. 67. by a necessarie consequent that he may punish them temporally in their persons and states vvhen the good of soules and the seruice and glory of God doth require it according to the rule of the said law vvhich I haue touched before to wit that the accessorie followeth the principall and that he which hath the greater power hath also the lesse And therefore I conclude that the Ciuill law doth no way fauour support or iustifie the Oath and much lesse inioyne it Ibid. nu 64 65. but flatly impugne and ouerthrow it Thus said I in my Supplement remitting my Reader for the more ample proofe of this inference to that vvhich I had before handled concerning the same vvhen I treated of the law of God See cap. nu 3. seq vvhich I haue also repeated in the first Chapter as also I haue examined his answeres thereto and shewed them to be very idle and friuolous and therefore I may vvell conclude that the arguments in my Supplement grounded as well vpon the lawes of God Nature and Nations as vpon the Cuiill or Imperial law doe stand sound and good against the Oath notwithstanding any thing that my Aduersary Widdrington hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary 56 But fie Mr. Fitzherbert that you in whose mouth are so frequent absurd ridiculous impertinent friuolous foolish idle fradulent impious malicious as though all your writings were so graue wise substantiall and sincere should thus in euery Chapter delude your Reader and not to vse your owne foule words shew so great want of learning iudgement and sincerity For what man of learning or iudgement can sincerely thinke that the Ciuill law may be said sufficiently to patronize the Popes power to depose Princes and to impugne the new Oath for that it acknowledgeth the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour or with what sinceritie can you make your Reader beleeue that you had no other meaning in spending fourteene whole Pages of your Supplement to prooue by the Ciuill law that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and hath authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes then onely to inferre thereupon by your necessarie or rather improbable consequent that he may therefore punish them temporally in their persons and states For first who would not imagine that when you boasted to prooue the Oath to be repugnant to the Ciuill law because it denieth the Popes power to depose Princes you would haue brought some text out of the Ciuill law where it is written that the Pope hath such a power to depose and not to haue made so much adoe to proue by the Ciuill law the Pope to be head of the Church and to haue authority to inflict spirituall Censures which no Catholike denieth and then forsooth in a word or two to deduce from thence by a farre fetched consequence of your owne and not of the Ciuill law that therefore the Pope may also punish them temporally in their persons and States 57 And truely if it be sufficient to condemne in this manner the Oath by the Ciuill law you might in the like manner for a greater florish haue brought the authoritie of all the auncient Fathers yea and of all Catholikes euen of my selfe and of all those who mainetaine the Oath to be lawfull for a cleere testimony to condemne the same for that all the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes euen my selfe and those who maintaine the Oath to be lawfull and denie the Popes power to depose Princes doe acknowledge the Pope to be the supreme
spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures And without doubt you would condemne me for a vaine-glorious Thraso if I should take vpon me to prooue by the testimony and grant of Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and of your selfe who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes that the Pope hath no such power for that you and all the rest doe grant the Pope to bee the supreame spirituall Pastour and then by a necessarie consequence in my iudgement though not in yours I should inferre from thence that because the Pope is by the institution of Christ according to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers a spirituall Pastour and not a temporall Prince he hath only authoritie to giue or take away heauenly not earthly kingdomes to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to vse spirituall not temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill punishments This consequence the ancient Fathers made See aboue cha 5· sec 3. nu 11. seq But besides that it is not sufficient to prooue any conclusion by the authority of the Ciuill law vnles the Ciuil law granteth both the premises or propositions from whence that conclusion is deduced the insufficiencie of this consequence grounded vpon those rules The accessorie followeth the principall and he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse See chap. 2. 3. per totum I haue made manifest in the former Chapters 58 Secondly doe not dissemble Mr. Fitzherb nor seeke to delude your Reader but deale sincerely and be not ashamed to acknowledge your errour seeing that not onely your selfe but also Card. Bâ—ll Gretzer Lessius Becanus and also Suarez haue herein grosely erred For your meaning was not by making that long discourse out of the Ciuill law to proue the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes onely to inferre by a necessary consequent in your owne vnderstanding that he may also punish them temporally in their persons and states but your meaning was to proue directly by the Ciuill law the Oath to be vnlawfull for that in your opinion it denieth the Popes power to Excommunicate Princes which the Ciuill law doth expresly acknowledge For in the beginning of your Supplement you tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine namely in respect of those clauses which do exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope and then after you had made an end of your long discourse concerning the Popes spirituall power acknowledged by the Ciuill law you made this inference that the Ciuill law cannot iustifie the Oath but doth flatly impugne it for that the Oath supposeth and implieth the Kings Maiestie to be supreme head of the English Church and not the Pope and thereupon denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince So that the Oath in your opinion contained two clauses the one a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and this was that which you intended to prooue to bee directly repugnant to the Ciuill law the other was a deniall of the Popes power to depose Princes and this in a word or two related before you affirmed to be also repugnant to the ciuill law for that in your iudgement it followeth necessarily froÌ„ the fromer which how vaine an assertion this is you may see by that I haue said before for so you may make one to affirme any thing if to make him to graunt an argument or consequent it bee sufficient that he graunt the antecedent although hee deny the consequence But now it seemeth by your silence as I signified before in the first Chapter that you are ashamed to insist vpon the former clause concerning the Popes power to excommunicate Princes for which you made that long discourse to prooue by the Ciuill law the Popes supremacie in spirituals and yet rather then you will confesse your errour you care not to delude your Reader in dissembling the chiefe and principall cause for which you affirmed the Oath to bee repugnant to the Ciuill law to wit because it denyed the Popes power to excommunicate Princes wherein with many others of your Society you haue most fowlely and shamefully erred 59 Wherefore I may now very well conclude that the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought in his Supplement grounded as well vpon the law of God of nature and nations as vpon the ciuill or imperiall law are very insufficient and that the answeres which in my Admonition I did briefly make to them doe stand sound and good notwithstanding any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary Now you shall see what arguments he bringeth from the Canon law and especially from that so often named decree of the famous Councell of Lateran CHAP. IX Wherein the difficulties which some make concerning the authority of the Lateran Councel are propounded the decree of the Councell which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related and Widdringtons first answere to the said Decree is proued to be sound and sufficient and Mr. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted 1 WE are come now at last courteous Reader to examine what conuincing arguments can bee brought for proofe of this new pretended Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes out of the Canon law and especially from the decree of the great and famous Councell of Lateran whereon my principall Aduersaries seeing belike all their other arguments and authorities to bee cleane shaken and battered doe now chiefly rely Wherefore albeit neither the more ancient of our moderne Diuines who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba D. Sanders and others nor Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken from these men all his chiefe arguments and authorities to confirme his new Catholike faith in this point did in his Controuersies make any great reckoning of the decree of this great Councell for otherwise without doubt he being not ignorant of this decree and also desirous to make his doctrine vnquestionable and therefore feareth not to brand the contrary opinion with the note of heresie would not haue beene contented onely with the fact of Pope Innocent the third in deposing Otho the Emperour and haue neglected to vrge this decree of the Councell of Lateran which was called by the said Pope Innocent yet now hee flyeth to the decree of the great Councell of Lateran as the chiefe pillar to support his new Catholike faith therefore in regard principally of this decree he doubteth not to affirme but how rashly and without sufficient ground you shall see beneath that whosoeuer denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes contemneth the voyce of the Church in this so great and famous a Councell and is to be accounted a Heathen and Publican and in
no wise a Christian. 2 And Mr. Fitzherbert also maketh so great account of this decree that whereas hee spendeth onely three Chapters concerning the law of God in the olde and new Testament the law of Nature of Nations and the Ciuill law yet in examining this decree of the Councell of Lateran he consumeth seuen whole Chapters wherein hee hath borrowed of Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name the greatest part of a whole Treatise which he made in the defence of this Decree and in the end he boldly affirmeth a P. 204. 205. that I am falne into flat heresie yea which is more by my owne grant and confession and why forsooth for not vnderstanding the Decree in that sense wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and some later Diuines specially Iesuites doe vnderstand it as though the authoritie of these men is so great that wee are bound to accept their priuate expositions concerning any text of holy Scriptures or sacred Canons for the voice of the Catholike Church But how vaine are the bragges of this boasting man and how palpable are his slanders taxing me of ridiculous absurditie folly temeritie malice impietie impudencie and heresie and then especially when my answeres are most strong and his Replyes most childish and impertinent you haue partly seene in the former Chapters and in the rest also you shall more cleerely perceiue 3 But before I come to shew what is the true sense and meaning of this decree it will not bee amisse first to see of what authoritie and credit among all Catholikes this great and famous Councell of Lateran is and ought to bee for this is very materiall to know whether any decree therein contained bee of it selfe sufficient to make any matter of faith which all Catholikes are bound to beleeue to be of faith as also because some make doubt Bel. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 13. saith Cardinall Bellarmine whether the last Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth which most expresly defined that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell was truely a Generall Councell therefore euen to this day it remaineth a question also among Catholikes whether a Generall Councell be aboue the Pope or no. And although I doe not intend to deny or call in question the authoritie of this Councell but for my owne part doe willingly admit and approue the same yet for satisfaction of the Reader and that the trueth may the more easily bee found out and followed I thinke it necessarie to set downe the doubts and difficulties which some haue made against the authoritie of this so great and famous a Councell 4 First therefore it is certaine and out of controuersie that the aforesaid Councell of Lateran was called by Pope Innocent the third to which came all those Ambassadours Bishops and other inferiour Prelates mentioned heere beneath by my Aduersarie and in this all Histories doe agree in which respect it may truely be called the greatest and most famous Councell that euer was assembled in the Church of God albeit if we respect onely the number of the Bishops who were present thereat and who only according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine haue authoritie to decide determine and define as Iudges matters belonging to Christian faith and Religion the Councell of Chalcedon was farre greater whereat were present 630. Bishops and the Councell of Lyons vnder Pope Gregorie the tenth was also farre greater whereat were present according to Genebrard 500. Bishops and according to Binnius more then 700. whereas at this Councell of Lateran were onely 412. Bishops according to Matthew Paris and Abbas Vspergensis whom Binnius followeth who comprehend the two Patriarchs and 70. Archbishops in the number of the 412. Bishops But all the difficultie consisteth in this whether this decree which is now in question and all the other Canons which now are published as decrees of the Councell of Lateran were confirmed by the generall consent of all or the greatest part of all the Fathers or were onely propounded and rehearsed in the Councell but not approoued by common consent And one chiefe ground of this difficultie is taken from the testomonie of our countrey-man Matthew Paris a Benedictiue Monke of the Monasterie of S. Alban who both liued neere the time of this Councell See his Historie of Henrie the 3. in the yeere 1248. and was also reputed a man probatae vitae religionis expertae of an approoued life and tried religion as Pope Innocent the 4. doth testifie in regard whereof he was by the same Pope Innocent sent into the kingdome of Norway to reforme the Monasterie of Holme although in regard of his freedome of speech and vpright dealing he is vndeseruedly taxed by the most Illustrious and renowmed Cardinall de Peron as a great enemie to Popes in which respect he might also taxe him as a great enemie to all both Popes and Kings Clerkes and Laikes yea and to those of his owne Order for that hee freely and without partialitie rehearseth and taxeth the vices of all But the ancient prouerbe is by dayly experience found true Ohsequium amicos veritas odium parit Flatterie causeth friends trueth enmitie 5 Thus therefore hee writeth of that Councell b Mat. Paris vpon the yeere 1215. in the life of King Iohn after hee hath set downe the time and place where it was held and the number of persons who were present thereat All these being gathered together in the place aforesaid and according to the manner of Generall Councells euery man being placed in his order the Pope hauing made first an exhortation 60. Chapters were rehearsed in the full Councell which to some did seeme pleasing or easie to others burdensome At length he beginning his speech concerning the businesse of the Crucifix subioyned saying c. And the same Matthew Paris in his lesser Chronicle writeth thus But that Generall Councell which after the Papall manner did pretend great things at the beginning ended in scorne and mockerie whereby the Pope cunningly deluded the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Deanes Archdeacons and all that came to the Councell For when they now perceiued nothing to bee done in so great a businesse they being desirous to returne home desired leaue one after another which the Pope did not grant them before they had promised him a great summe of money which they were constrained first to borrow of Romane merchants and pay it to the Pope before they were permitted to depart from Rome The Pope now hauing receiued the money did freely dissolue this gainefull Councell and all the Cleargie departed sorrowfull 6 From which worde of Matthew Paris it seemeth to follow that neither all these 60. Chapters mentioned by him were made by the order of the whole Councell but rather by Pope Innocent himselfe or by his direction before the Councell began both for that at the very beginning of the Councell after the Pope had made his sermon it seemeth that they were rehearsed in the full Councell and also
of this great Councell is by some called in question 16 But on the contrary side the most Illustrious Cardinal of Peron doth bring two principall arguments which may seeme to confirme the authority of this Councell and that the decrees now extant were made by the generall consent and approbation of the whole Councell The first is for that otherwise we may impugne the article of Transubstantiation the article of the holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Sonne the precept of annuall confession the condemnation of the errours of Abbot Ioachim c. But to this argument they answere that it doth not therefore follow that we may impugne the aforesaid Decrees because they are now receiued by the generall consent of all Catholikes either by vertue of the Canon law contained in the booke of Decretals which Pope Gregory the ninth commanded to be obserued and practised by all men or because they are approoued by common consent but not by virtue of the authoritie of the Councell wherein nothing was decreed and agreed vpon by any knowne and authenticall approbation of the Fathers although doubtlesse they did by their priuate or tacite consent approoue many of those 60. or 70. Decrees 17 The second argument is for that both Councells Popes and Sholasticall Doctours doe cite some of the aforesaid 60. or 70. Decrees as of the Councell of Lateran But to this also they answere that these Decrees are called Canons of the Councell Lateran for that they were propounded and rehearsed in the Councell but not confirmed or approoued by the generall acceptance and consent of the Fathers because they seemed to some to bee easie and pleasing but to others heauy and burdensome To these may be added a third argument that the Councell of Constance in the 39. Session ordaining what profession the future Pope was to make decreeth that euery future Pope hereafter to bee chosen must make this confession and profession before his election be published that he doth firmely beleeue the holy Catholike faith according to the traditions of the Apostles of generall Councells and of other holy Fathers but especially of the eight Sacred generall Councells to wit of the first Nicene of the second Constantinopolitan of the third Ephesine of the fourth Chalcedon of the fifth and sixth Constantinopolitan of the seuenth Nicene and the eight Constantinopolitan and also of Lateran Lyons and Vienna also generall Councells But to this they also answere that by the Councell of Lateran is not vnderstood this vnder Pope Innocent the third but the former celebrated vnder Pope Alexander the third in the yeere 1180. and if it bee vnderstood of this Councell of Lateran it is only say they forasmuch as concerneth those decrees wherein mention is made of the approbation of the Councell as is that 46. decree which the Councell of Constance mentioneth in the Bull of the confirmation of the Emperour Frederikes constitution As also by the Councell of Lyons it doth not vnderstand that vnder Pope Innocent the 4th who in the presence thereof excommunicated the Emperour Fredricke and whereat only 140. Bishops were present but that vnder Pope Gregory the tenth in the yeere 1274. whereat S. Bonauentura and S. Thomas of Aquina and more then 700. Bishops were present according to Binnius and Ebarhardus whom Binnius citeth 18 These be the principall difficulties both against and for the authoritie of this Councell of Lateran which before I came to examine the sense meaning of the decree which is now in question I thought needfull to set downe that the Reeder may thereby iudge whether if one for the reasons aforesaid should deny the authority of this Councel and affirme that nothing was therein plainly concluded by any publike and authenticall decree approoued by the common consent of the greatest part of the Fathers there present may be excused from all note of heresie errour and temerity in that manner as the Doctors of Paris may be excused from those aspersions for still defending the authority of a Generall Councell aboue a true and vndoubted Pope and denying the authority of the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth wherein the contrary doctrine as Cardinall Bellarmine saith is expresly defined yet for my owne part as I said before I doe willingly embrace and admit the authority of this great Councell of Lateran and of euery Canon and Decree therein contained and namely of this which is now in question and doe onely contend about the true sense and meaning thereof as is vsuall in the holy Scriptures themselues which some expound one way some another not intending thereby to cal in question the authority of Gods word but onely to examine and declare what is the true sense and meaning thereof 19 Now let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert saith in this Chapter against my answere wherein I briefly declared the true sense and meaning of this Decree Thus therefore he beginneth It resteth now saith he that I examine the probability of Widdringtons answeres to my arguments grounded vpon the Canon law and specially vpon a constitution and Canon of the great and famous Councell of Lateran And first of all he setteth downe the answere I gaue in my Admonition which before I relate it will not bee amisse to put downe the decree it selfe of the Councell of Lateran for thereby the sense and true meaning thereof will more easily appeare First therefore the Councell in the third Chapter doth excommunicate and anathematize all heresie and condemne all heretickes by what name soeuer they be called and doth ordaine that they being condemned shall be left to secular potestaes Magistrates or their Bayliffes to be punished according to their deserts but so that Cleargie men shall be first degraded from their Orders or Cleargie and if they bee Lay-men that there goods shall be confiscated but if they be Cleargie men that their goods shall be applyed to the Churches from whence they receiued stipends And then it decreeth thus 20 But let Secular Potestaes what offices soeuer they beare bee admonished and induced and if it shall be needefull be compelled by Ecclesiasticall Censure that as they desire to be reputed and accounted faithfull so for the defending of the faith they doe take publikely an Oath that they will sincerely endeuour to their power to cast out of the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction all heretickes declared by the Church So that from hence foorth when any man shall bee chosen to a perpetuall or temporall potesta or office he be bound to confirme this Chapter by Oath Si vero Dominus temporalis c. But if the temporall Lord Officer or Landlord For Dominus temporalis signifieth also euery Officer Magistrate or Landlord being required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his territory from hereticall filth let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of the same Prouince And if he shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeare let it bee
absolute Princes are not in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder the generall names of temporall Land-lords Gouernours Iudges Lords or such like was not grounded vpon any peculiar priuiledge proper to absolute Princes for the like I affirmed of a Bishop and an Abbot but vpon the knowne rules of the law which there I cited and vpon the authority of learned Lawyers and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert might haue saued his labour in seeking out of Restaurus Castaldus or others any such priuiledge peculiar to absolute Princes Neither also did I affirme that all Lawyers are of opinion that in penall lawes and odious matters an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest or Clearke nor an absolute Prince vnder the name of a temporall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord but that some Lawyers are of this opinion and this is enough to prooue it to be probable that in the Canon of the Lateran Councell Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall wordes of a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord. Wherefore although the opinion of Hostiensis of whom I will speake beneath or of any other Lawyer or Diuine whatsoeuer be expresly against this doctrine it is nothing to the purpose except it be also against the opinion of all Lawyers and Diuines 7 Secondly therefore that M. Fitzherbert may also see that I haue not inuented this doctrine of my owne head I will now for proofe of the same relate some Catholike Authors whom then I omitted to rehearse for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt thereof An Abbot saith Bartholomaeus Fumus in his Armilla aurea Armilla verbo Abbas nu 11. in an odious matter is not comprehended by the name of Monkes although he be in a fauourable matter according to the Doctours in cap. Armilla verbo Clericus nu 2. finali de Simonia And againe by the name of Clearkes saith hee in a fauourable matter are vnderstood all that haue any Clearkely dignity but in an odious matter vnder the name of a Clerke are not comprehended Bishops no Canons nor others placed in dignity nor Monkes nor Religious men that are exempted Vide Panormit in cap. bonae memoriae de postulat Praelatorum Armilla verbo Sacerdos nu 1 And againe by the name of a Priest saith he in a fauourable matter are vnderstood not onely Prasbyters but also Deacons and Subdeacons but in an odious matter onely Presbyters and not therefore Bishops are to bee vnderstood arg cap. si quisque de cohab Cleric mulierum where Panormitan obserueth the same Thus writeth Armilla Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia 8 The like hath Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia § prima conclusio By the name of Monkes saith he Abbots are vnderstood in a fauourable matter but this conclusion is not true in an odious matter and for the same hee citeth Panormitan Pope Innocent and others And a little before out of diuers textes of the Canon Law he deduceth this general rule Quoties species aliquid addit generi nunquam appellatione generis venit species Whensoeuer the particular doth adde something to the generall the particular is not to be comprehended vnder the name of the generall which is the same in sense with that rule which he afterwards relateth out of Antonius de Butrio that in penall things the mixt or compound is not comprehended vnder the simple which rules Felinus limiteth thus vnlesse the punishment or odious matter doth tend principally to fauour the soule but how to know this for certaine it is very heard as you shall see beneath Sayrus tom 1. lib. 3. cap. 33. 9 The like teacheth our learned Countreyman Gregorius Sayrus expounding the Canon Vt periculosa Ne Clerici vel Monachi lib. 6. Wherein are excommunicated all Religious men who goe to any Schooles of learning vnlesse they haue first license graunted them by their Prelate with the aduise of the greater part of the Conuent An Abbot saith he going to Schooles without the license of his Superiour and Conuent doth not incurre this punishment according to Archidiaconus Geminianus Angelus Antoninus and Nauarrus in the places aboue cited because it is a penall constitution and therefore rather to be restrained then extended The same hath Nauarre vpon cap. finali de Simonia From the aforesaid it is also saith he inferred that the disposition Nauar. tom 2. Comment in cap. finali de Simonia nu 5. or constitution which speaketh of a Monke doth not comprehend an Abbot if the matter be not fauourable as Doctors here vpon this Canon do seeme to be of opinion 10 And Syluester treating of the Canon in Clement Vnica de vsuris wherein are excommunicated quicunque communitatum ipsarum Potestates Capitanei Rectores c. All Potestaes of Communities themselues Captaines Rectours or Gouernours Consulls Iudges Counsellers or any other Officiall or Officer who doe make write or dictate Constitutions that vsurers are to bee paid or being paid are not to be restored Siluest verbo Excommunicatio 19. nu 82. §. quadragessima tertia c. affirmeth that because this is a penall constitution consequently it is not extended to persons that are not expressed or which is all one expresly named therein and he proueth this by that rule of the Law in Sexto In penalties the milder part is to be chosen Moreouer Pope Innocent the third himselfe vnder whom this Councell of Lateran was held In can Sedes Apostolica de Rescriptis doth expresly decree that when in his Commissions persons of lesse worth more base are onely signified persons of greater worth and dignitie are not vnderstood to be included in a generall clause Now what man of iudgement can make any doubt but that Dominus temporalis is a person of lesse worth honour and dignitie then Dominus principalis who in the Canon is distinguished from Dominus temporalis and both of them are persons of lesse worth honour and authoritie then are Domini supremi as are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes And therefore these generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis being names of lesse worth and dignitie then are Domini supremi must not according to Pope Innocent his owne rule comprehend Emperours Kings and absolute Princes who are the most worthy most noble and most principall Lords and persons vpon earth 11 But wee will conclude this point with so plaine and manifest an authoritie that my Aduersarie both in respect of the Authour and also of his words being so cleere can take against it no colourable exception Lastly therefore Andreas Duuallius a famous Doctour of Paris and at this present the Kings Publike professour of Diuinitie and also a man otherwise much fauouring the Popes temporall authoritie ouer absolute Princes Andr. Duual de suprema Rom Pont. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q.
vnder the generall name of Priests or Clearkes nor Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes nor Kings vnder the generall name of Lords Gouernours or Landlords he must according to his owne confession grant that I haue reason to exempt Emperours Kings and absolute Princes from the Canon of the Lateran Councell 34 Neither did I ground this my doctrine vpon the Canon Quia periculosum wherein it is decreed that in the case of Suspension Interdict Bishops are not comprehended vnder any generall words whatsoeuer vnlesse they be expressed by the name of Bishops but vpon the authorities aforesaid chiefly vpon that reason which Mr. Fitzher himselfe acknowledgeth to be most true that all lawes are to be vnderstood according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation of euery Ecclesiasticall Canon is extended onely to those who are subiect to the spirituall authority of the Church as absolute Princes are not in meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes whom I haue named aboue in the first part of this Treatise and defended them from the friuolous exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath made against them 35 Finally saith Mr. Fitzherbert whereas Widdrington saith that the Synode would haue specified Princes by that name as well in this Canon if it had meant to include them therein as it did in some other Canons and Decrees concerning other matters who seeth not the vanitie of this coniecture For why should they be named more particularly then they are seeing that they are sufficiently comprehended in the generall tearme of Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord k He might as wel haue translated it a temporall Landlord n To wit no temporal Landlord aboue thē but the King which is also sufficiently explicated in this very Canon wherein we see that a temporall Lord l He might as well haue said a tempprall Landlord for Dominus temporalis signifieth both is diuided into two sorts the one of those who haue principall Lords m And also Landlords aboue them and the other of such as haue none of which sort are all absolute Princes that hold of none p And also other principall Landlords who haue no principall Landlord aboue them but the King who is not comprehended in odious matters vnder the name of a Landlord and therefore seeing that such are declared by the Canon to be subiect to the penaltie no lesse then those who holde of others it was needlesse to name them in other manner But belike my Aduersary will take vpon him not onely to interprete the Councell but also to teach it how to speake and what words to vse or else it must be of no force 36 No Mr. Fitzherbert God forbid that either I who professe my selfe to be a Catholike should be so arrogant as to take vpon mee to teach the Councell how to speake or what words to vse or that you who professe to be a teacher and to instruct others in this difficult controuersie which you will needes make a point of faith should bee so ignorant as not to know that the sense and meaning of the Councell is to be gathered from the sense and propertie of the words and that by the words we are taught what is the sense meaning of the Councell Now I haue sufficiently shewed before both by the authority of learned Lawyers and Diuines and also by conuincing reason that absolute Princes are not sufficiently comprehended in this Canon vnder the generall name of a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour of Lord both for that it is a penall law wherein an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Landlord Gouernour or Lord and ciefely for that it is such a penall law which is probable to bee a temporall and not a spirituall law for that it inflicteth temporall punishments which according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes cannot be inflicted but by temporall or ciuill power and that therefore those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or Lord cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church for that the words of euery law are to bee limitted according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes law whether hee bee a temporall or spirituall Prince is extended onely to his owne subiects 37 And if my Aduersary flie to his ancient shift that all Emperours Kings and other Christian Princes are children of the Church therfore subiect to the spirituall Pastors thereof It is true in spiritualls but not in temporalls as is the inflicting of temporall punishments wherein they are not subiect but absolute and supreme True also it is that Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord is in this Canon diuided into two sorts of Lords taking a Lord as the canon here doth take him to wit not only for a title of honour which Knights Gentlemen many inferiour Magistrates as Shiriffes Bayliffes Constables haue not but for euery person who hath tenants vassals or other persons any way subiect to him in which sense euery Land-lord Magistrate is called Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord The one sort is of those who haue principall and chiefe Gouernours or Land-lords aboue them as are all inferiour Magistrates and those who hold any land of others The other is of those who although they be subiect to the King yet they haue no other principall Land-lords or Gouernours aboue them and of this sort are both those who let their lands to others and yet hold their lands of none nor perchance of the King and also all principall Gouernours of the common-wealth who are subiect to no other then the King as are all the Lords or the body of the Kings priuie Councell together and in some sort the Lord Chancellour the Lord chiefe Iustice who haue no one principall Lord or Gouernour aboue them as all other subiects haue but the King alone yet neither of these sorts doe sufficiently expresse a King or a supreme and absolute Prince for that they are titles belonging also to subiects and inferiour persons And therefore the premises being considered it is probable that if the Councell had meant to haue comprehended Kings and absolute Princes in that Canon she would haue giuen them their proper titles of honour as she did in other Decrees and not include them in those common titles of honour which are giuen to persons of inferiour state and condition 38 And by this which I haue said in these two Chapters the Reader may cleerely see that these answeres which I haue giuen to the decree of the Lateran
Councell are very probable and sufficient and that therefore Mr. Fitzherberts conclusion of this Chapter to vse his owne words is no lesse vaine impertinent and insufficient then of his former Chapters for these be his words k Pag. 154 nu 10. Thus thou seest good Reader that these few exceptions being all that Widdrington hath taken to the Councell of Lateran in his answere to my Supplement are no lesse vaine and impertinent then his former arguments and answeres to the rest of my discourse and this is as much as at the first I meant and vndertooke to performe neuerthelesse forasmuch as he hath charged me to haue dissembled his other answeres and arguments touching the Councell of Lateran in another worke of his which as I haue signified before I neuer saw till now of late I will take a little more paines and craue thy further patience whiles I examine the validitie thereof which I might forbeare to doe if I did write in Latin because the same arguments and answeres of my Aduersary are very learnedly and cleerely confuted in Latin as well by M. D. Weston l Iuris Pontif. Sanctuar q. 27. per totum in his Sanctuary whereof I haue spoken before as also by M. D. Singleton in an excellent Treatise concerning onely the Decree of the Councell of Lateran to which two Authours I might and would wholly remit my Reader m Disscussio decreti c. nu 4. seq were it not that I desire to giue satisfaction in this point as well to such as doe not vnderstand the Latin tongue as to those that haue not the commodity and meanes to see the said Treatises besides that I shall now and then vpon some speciall occasions touch some things which seeme to me very considerable and are not touched by them or any other for ought I know 39 But on the contrary side thou seest good Reader that these answeres which I haue giuen to the Councell of Lateran are sound sufficient and very probable and that the exceptions which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken against them are no lesse vaine and impertinent then are his arguments and answeres in the former Chapters and that according to his owne confession who granteth that all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and therefore the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Canons is extended onely to them who are subiect to the authoritie of the Church if it be probable that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue by the institution of Christ no authoritie to inflict temporall punishments and that consequently absolute Princes are not subiect to them therein it cleerely followeth that it is also probable that the Councell of Lateran did not intend to include absolute Princes in that penall law vnder the generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis but that this decree inflicting temporall punishments was made by the authority and consent of temporall Princes and did therefore onely include those inferiour Land-lords Gouernours or Lords that were subiect to them 40 Wherefore to conclude this point vnlesse as I said before my Aduersaries doe first prooue out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleere definition of a generall Councell or a demonstratiue reason grounded thereon that it is certaine and of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes they cannot draw any conuincing argument from this Canon of the Lateran Councell to prooue that doctrine to be certaine and of faith for still the aforesaid answere will bee ready at hand that it was made by the authority of temporall Princes seeing all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as Almaine and very many Doctours doe affirme So that vnlesse in arguing from the Lateran Councell they will manifestly petere principium and suppose that which they ought to prooue they can neuer bring any conuincing argument from the aforesaid Canon to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes as any man of iudgement may cleerely see but they must still suppose the same as certaine which is a great vice in the disputer although the answerer who taketh not vpon to prooue but onely to defend may without any fault or note giue such answeres which suppose that the Pope hath no such power vntill by force of argument he be driuen from that his supposition and this I wish the Reader and all my Aduersaries well to note for in most of their arguments they suppose that which is in question which is a fault in the Disputant but not in the Respondent who doth alwaies answere supposing his owne grounds and doctrine but the Disputer must not onely suppose them but also prooue them And as for the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Replies which he confesseth to haue taken out of D. Weston and D. Singleton I will also examine with him in the ensuing Chapters as also that which he hath now and then as he saith vpon some speciall occasions touched and which seeme to him very considerable and yet are not for ought he knoweth touched by them or any other CHAP. XI Wherein Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to be sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessarie to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Also the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined And lastly Mr-Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the Decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the Constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted 1 NOw Mr. Fitzherbert with the helpe of D. Weston and Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name taketh vpon him in the three next ensuing Chapters to prooue three answeres which I gaue to an obiection made in fauour of this Decree of the Lateran Councell to bee absurd And thus he beginneth My Aduersary Widdrinton in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere to an English Doctour hath not onely vrged the arguments Praefat. Ad. Resp Apolog. nu 46. which I haue heere alreadie confuted but vndertaketh also to answere certaine of ours against the same arguments and therefore he obiecteth in our behalfe that although it were true that Kings and absolute Princes are not included per se and principally in that Decree of the Councell yet it seemeth to be manifest that secondarily and consequently they are or at least may be comprehended therein For if the Pope saith he haue power to depriue the subiects of other Princes of their temporall states for heresie without the consent of the said Princes it seemeth that no sufficient reason can be assigned why he may not also for the same cause depriue Soueraigne Princes of their Dominions 2 Thus argueth he for
of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion the Subiects could not bee absolued from the oath of allegiance or from the obligation that they owe to their Princes these his words I say doe neither contradict those English Catholickes who defend our English oath to be lawfull nor doe shew or signifie that Widdrington hath not brought any Diuines or Lawyers both French-men and of other Nations who affirme that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For the Cardinals words are to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam according to the matter which he treateth of and which he would perswade his Reader the three estates of France endeauoured to establish by their oath to wit that the subiects of the King of France could not be absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance by any authority whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall 30 Now it is euident that I neither produced nor intended to produce any Authors who in these generall tearmes expresly affirme that the Subiects of an hereticall Prince cannot be discharged of their allegiance neither by the spirituall authority of the Pope nor by the temporall power of the Common-wealth for that it was not my meaning as being a thing altogether impertinent to our Oath of England to examine what authority the ciuil Common-wealth hath ouer their Prince in the case of heresie or Apostacie For our oath onely denieth the Popes authoritie to depose our King and to discharge his subiects from their temporall allegiance and with the authority of the Common-wealth it doth not intermeddle But that the Pope hath no authority to depose temporall Princes and that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment depriuation of goods and such like but onely to Ecclesiasticall censures I haue brought many Authours both French and others to prooue the same among whom are Ioannes Parisiensis and also Iacobus Almainus cited here by the Cardinall in his Treatises Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. de Domino naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico o Concls 2. in probat 2. conclus and de authoritate Ecclesiae p Cap. 2. Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. where he writeth according to his owne opinion though not in his Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica which the Cardinall citeth where he commenteth Occam and speaketh according to Occams doctrine albeit these Doctours doe on the other side affirme that the Common-wealth hath authority to depose a wicked and incorrigible King and so that the Pope may according to them depose him per accidens as Ioan. Parisiensis writeth or to vse Ioannes Maior his words applicando actiua passiuis as he that applieth fire to straw is said to burne the straw to wit by perswading aduising commanding and also by spirituall censures compelling them who haue authority to wit the people or Common-wealth to depose him and after he is deposed by the people or kingdome by declaring his subiects absolued and discharged from the naturall and consequently also spirituall bond of their allegiance but this is impertinent to our oath of England wherein only the Popes authority to depose depriue our King of his Dominions by way of iuridicall sentence is denied 31 Wherefore the English Translatour of the Cardinalls oration doth with as great boldnesse as with little truth shamefully affirme q In his Preface to the Reader that this difference is found between these two oathes that whereas the English oath in one of the clauses seemes to exclude not only the authoritie of the Church ouer Kings but euen of the common-wealth also yea though it should be accōpanied with that of the Church that of France shootes only at the abnegation of the Churches authority For contrariwise although the oath of France may as you shall see at the first sight seeme to deny both the authority of the Church and also of the Common-wealth to depose the King of France yet our Oath shootes onely at the abnegation of the Popes authority to depose our King and to absolue his Subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For as I haue shewed in my Theologicall disputation our oath doth onely affirme r Cap. 3. sec 4 that the Pope neither of himselfe that is by the spirituall authority which is granted him by the institution of Christ nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome for that the Church or Sea of Rome hath no such authority nor by any other meanes with any other that is neither as a totall or partiall as a principal or instrumentall cause hath any power or authority to depose the King c. which last words doe only at the most import that whether the temporall Common-wealth hath any authority ouer the King for any cause or crime whatsoeuer or no with which question the King and Parliament did not intermeddle yet the Common-wealth hath giuen no such authority to the Pope either by himselfe or with any other to depose the King c. 32 But the oath of France doth expresly affirme that there is no power on earth whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall which hath any right ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue the sacred persons of our Kings nor to dispence or absolue their subiects from that loyaltie and obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoeuer for these be the expresse words of the oath of France which our English Translatour as it seemes either hath not seene or maliciously abuseth his Reader in affirming so shamefully that the oath of France shootes onely at the abnegation of the Churches authoritie which words of the oath of France also the Cardinall of Peron seemeth to vnderstand generally of all temporall and spirituall power whatsoeuer either out of the kingdome or of the kingdome it selfe as both by the propounding the state of his question and also by the whole drift of his oration any iudicious man may gather for which cause as I imagine he affirmeth ſ Pag. 115. that our Oath of England is more sweete and modest or moderate then that of France And truely although the words may seeme to any man at the first sight to haue that sense which the Cardinall pretendeth seeing that they expresly deny all power on earth both temporall and spirituall yet both the Translatour of his oration applieth them onely to the Popes authority and also if those words which hath any authority ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue be well obserued they may in my iudgement haue a very true sense to wit that the temporall power which there is mentioned is not to be referred to the authority of the kingdome it selfe seeing that no kingdome hath truely and properly right power and authority ouer itselfe neither hath the kingdome of France any right ouer the kingdome of France to depriue
Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Now Mr. Fitzherbert is it possible that you should be so ignorant as not to vnderstand the force of my answere and that I brought the testimonies of Ioannes Parisiensis and Hostiensis to great purpose Doe not you see what I gaine for the question which is in hand if you graunt me that the decree of the Lateran Counsell as also that Canon Ad abolendam according to those Doctours cited by Hostiensis had their force to binde from the consent of temporall Princes Can you bee so blinde as not to see how this inference is not weake and absurd but strong and certaine that because this and other decrees of Popes and Councels concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments were I do not onely say ratified by temporall Princes but had their force to binde from the consent of temporal Princes therfore they could not be lawfully made without their ratification and consent which is the point you say I must prooue if I will argue to the purpose vnlesse your weaknesse will admit that a law may lawfully or legally be made without that by vertue whereof it hath force to binde as those Canonists cited by Hostiensis Pope Innocent and Ioannes Andreas doe affirme that the Canon Ad abolendā ideo valuisse quia Imperator aut Princeps consensit Was therefore of force because the Emperour or Prince gaue his consent 44 And as for that inference you make that if that Canon of the Lateran Councell which was as it were a Parliament of all Christendome was made by the consent and I also adde by the authority of all Christian Princes therefore it cannot be repealed but by some other generall Councell of like authority although it nothing concerneth the deposition of absolute Princes by whose authority it was made but onely of inferiour Landlords Magistrates or Lords yet of what force this inference is you may for your better instruction see aboue d Ch. 8. nu 27. by the doctrine of Suarez who declareth in what manner the law of Nations may in this or that Nation be repealed for that a law of a generall Councell made by the consent and authority of all Christian Princes is as I may say a law of all Christian Nations 45 But let vs goe on and see how well you prooue that it is absurd to say that the Canon of the Lateran Councell and diuers other Canons concerning politicall matters could not be lawfully made without the consent of temporall Princes But how absurd is this saith Mr. Fitzherbert e Pag. 161. num 8. it may appeare euen by Widdringtons former graunt and expresse doctrine f Chap. 2. num 1. 2. touching the Popes power to command corporall and temporall things as they serue or are reduced to spirituall for this power being spirituall in respect of the spirituall end whereto it reduceth all temporall things must needes bee independent of temporall Princes vnlesse we shall also grant them a supreame spirituall authority 46 But how vaine this inference is I haue clearely shewed before g Chap. 6. num 66 seq by declaring the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of them both which my Aduersary not distinguishing doth thereby confound the vnderstanding of his vnlearned Reader For the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue or commanding are all those things spirituall or temporall which by the reference or reduction of them to a spirituall end may become spirituall things to wit vertuous or vicious actions which are the acts obiects of the spirituall power as it is directiue this spirituall power is independant of temporall Princes but the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing are not all spirituall things but onely spirituall punishments and because no reduction of temporall punishments to a spirituall end can make temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments therefore temporall punishments although by reducing them to a spirituall end may become spirituall things which are the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue yet still they remaine temporall punishments and therefore cannot by any reduction become the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing whereupon the inflicting of such punishments for what end soeuer they be inflicted must needes remaine dependant vpon the consent and authority of temporall Princes Neither also can my Aduersary be so ignorant as to affirme that temporall Princes cannot vse their supreame temporall power to a spirituall end as to the rooting out of heresie adultery and all other crimes vnlesse we grant them a supreame spirituall authority 47 Besides that this may be conuinced saith Mr. Fitzherbert h Pag. 161. num 8. by the practise of all the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours when not only corporall and temporall things were commanded by the Church but temporall and comporall penalties ordained without the ratification or consent of any temporall Prince This indeed were somewhat to the purpose if Mr. Fitzherbert could conuince that in the primitiue Church before Kings and Emperour were Christians temporall penalties were not onely commanded but also ordained as to ordaine is distinguished from to command for then it must needes follow that the primitiue Church did not onely command the inflicting of temporall punishments without the consent and authority of temporall Princes and that temporall punishments were then the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue which I neuer denied but also did inflict temporall punishments and that temporall punishments were then the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing which I vtterly denie Obserue now what pittifull arguments this silly man bringeth for conuincing proofes 48 This may appeare saith he by a decree of Pope Calixtus e Epist 2. Callixt tom 1. Concil in the time of the Emperour Alexander Seuerus whereby as well Lay-men as Priests and Cleargie-men were forbidden vpon paine of infamie to make conspiracies against their Bishops 48 The words of Pope Calixtus to the Bishops of Fraunce are these Wee haue heard that the crimes of conspiracies doe raigne in your parts and it hath beene made manifest vnto vs that their people doe conspire against their Bishops The subtilty or malice of which offence is abhominable not onely among Christians but also among Heathens and is forbidden by externall lawes And therefore not onely Ecclesiasticall but also Secular laws do condemne them that are guilty of this crime and not onely those that do conspire but those also who consent to them And our predecessours with a great company of Bishops haue commanded all them that are placed in Priestly dignity or are Clergy-men to fall from the dignity which they haue haue commanded that the rest be depriued of Communion and to be banished from the Church and haue thought or iudged all men together of either order to be infamous not onely the
or the Popes Dominions wherein hee being a temporall Prince hath authoritie to inflict temporall punishments or that they haue force to binde by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes 7 Neither haue I vsed any fraude in alleadging and applying the words of the Glosse to my purpose as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely affirmeth Besides that saith he b pa. 166. nu 3 my Aduersarie Widdrington hath vsed no small fraude in the allegation and application of the Glosse to his purpose for whereas he mentioneth the Glosse vpon two seuerall decretalls hee setteth downe onely the later as though the same might serue indifferently for both and were so meant by the Glosser or that the two Decrees were both of one substance and nature as they are not but farre different and therefore doe require a different consideration 8 But it is not true that in setting downe the words of the later Glosse to wit vpon the Canon Delatori I haue omitted the wordes of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus seeing that the words of both Glosses are in substance all one and haue the same sense and signification For the words of the later Glosse are these Sed qualiter dat Papa c. But how doeth the Pope make lawes concerning the punishment of blood against that decree of the Councell of Toledo 23. q. 8. his a quibus But heere the Pope teacheth what the Secular Iudge ought to doe according to the Imperiall law 27. q. 1. si quis rapuerit And the words of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus where the Pope commandeth the goods of all those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated are these Hîc Ecclesia publicat c. Heere the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes shee deposeth Lay-men from their dignities 3◠q. 5. praeceptum in fine Or else say that heere the Church teacheth what ought to bee done so 24. q. 3. de illicita and 5. q. 6. Delatori Wherefore it is manifest that the wordes of both the Glosses haue the selfe same sense seeing that for the vnderstanding of the former Glosse hee remitteth his Reader to the wordes of the later Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I did set downe 9 Neither did I intend to set downe all the expositions which were brought by the former Glosse It was sufficient for mee to bring that exposition of the Glosse which serued to my purpose to wit that as the Pope in the Canon Delatori ordaining a temporall punishment though criminall did according to the Glosse teach and declare what ought to bee done by the Secular Iudge according to the Imperiall law so also the Pope in the Canon Hadrianus ordaining a temporall punishment though ciuill to wit the confiscation of goods did also according to one exposition of the Glosse teach and declare what ought to be done by the Secular Prince or Iudge and that therefore the same words or answere of the Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I only set downe to which hee remitteth his Reader vpon the Canon Hadrianus might serue indifferently for both And although ciuill and bloodie or criminall punishments as criminall is opposed to Ciuill and the decrees which ordaine and inflict the same are of a different substance and nature in particular yet in generall they are of the same substance and nature for that both of them are temporall punishments and cannot according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes be inflicted by the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but onely by the ciuill or temporall power and that therefore when either of them are inflicted by spirituall Pastours this proceedeth from the ciuill authoritie priuiledges or consent of temporall Princes or if wee will needes haue such decrees to bee made by true spirituall authoritie the Church in making such decrees as well concerning ciuill as criminall or bloodie punishments doeth according to the expositions of the Glosse before rehearsed teach and declare what a Secular Prince or Iudge ought to doe 10 But to the end saith Mr. Fitzherbert c Pag. 166. num 4. that the Reader may the better vnderstand this matter and the true sense and meaning of these two Glosses it is to bee considered first that the Glosses of the Law being commonly very briefe and therefore many times obscure are to bee vnderstood according to the drift sense and circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses in other parts and places of the Law 11 True it is that when the Glosses or expositions of the law are obscure as being commonly briefe although not so briefe and for this respect not so obscure as the law it selfe for to little purpose were that Glosse or exposition which is more obscure then the text it selfe we must gather the sense meaning of such Glosses from the drift sense circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses of the same Expositour or glosser in other parts and places of the law but with this caueat and prouiso that if the same Glosser or Expositour bring two diuers or contrarie Expositions of the same Canon which are grounded vpon two contrary opinions we must haue a regard to distinguish these two contrary opinions and the Glosses grounded thereon and for the vnderstanding of the Glosse or exposition which supposeth one opinion not to flye to that Glosse which supposeth the contrary doctrine and opinion for otherwise we shall make the sense and meaning of the Glosses to be more obscure and intricate then plaine and manifest As for example if the same Glosser or Expositour giue two diuers expositions of the same Canon whereof the one supposeth the Pope to haue either direct or indirect dominion in temporals and to haue authority either directly or indirectly to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishment and the other Glosse supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority in temporals for the vnderstanding of that Glosse which supposeth the Pope to haue such a dominion or authority in temporals wee must not flye to that other Glosse which supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority d Page 167. num 5. 12 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert the penalties imposed in the two decrees here glossed are of different nature and quality the one concerning onely the confiscation of goods which is expresly ordained in diuers places of the law and the other touching onely the effusion of bloud by death or mutilation which is no where ordained or permitted but expresly forbidden to all Ecclesiasticall Iudges 13 But first although it be true that the penalties imposed in these two Canons are of different nature and qualitie in particular for that the one ordaineth a ciuill punishment to wit the confiscation of goods the other a criminall penaltie to wit the effusion of bloud by mutilation and also death yet both of them are as I said before of the
of the Canonists who make the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and to haue dominion and authoritie in temporalls not onely directly but also indirectly And therefore the common doctrine of the Canonists who as Pope Pius the fifth q See Nauar. in c. Nō liceat 12. q. 2. §. tertio nu 6 did freely acknowledge doe attribute more authority to the Pope then is fit in points concerning the Popes authoritie especially when they are therein contradicted by other learned Catholikes is but a very weake ground to build any infallible doctrine or point of faith thereon 33 Besides that it is to be considered r Pag. 169. nu 9. 10 saith Mr. Fitzherbert that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties seeing it hath the power and authoritie not onely to inflict them but also to force the Secular Magistrate to execute them which shall appeare further ſ Infra nu 11 15. after a while and is not contradicted by the Glosse obiected by Widdrington except onely concerning the imposition of bloody penalties which indeed the said Glosse doth exclude by an expresse Canon as wee also doe in this question affirming onely as I haue said before that the Church may in some cases both ordaine and execute certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood by mutilation or death And this is so manifest in the Canon law that truely a man may wonder with what face Widdrington can seeke by some peece of an obscure Glosse to ouerthrow the cleere and manifest sense of the law it selfe and the euident and ancient practise of the Church which hee knoweth in his conscience to bee grounded vpon the Ecclesiasticall Canons but heereby wee may see that his intent is no other but to patch vp his pretended probability with shifts and shewes of whatsoeuer hee can wring and wrest to his purpose 34 But truely I cannot but maruaile with what face this man dare so boldly affirme that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties or no yet granting as you see he doth that the Church hath power and authority to inflict them for of the power of the Church to compell or force by Ecclesiasticall Censures the Secular Magistrate wee doe not now dispute seeing that authority to inflict temporall penalties and to execute them are either all one or if we will distinguish them by taking authority to inflict them for authority to make lawes to inflict them the former doth necessarily inferre the later For what man euen of meane learning or vnderstanding can bee so ignorant as to imagine that euery Prince either spirituall or temporall who hath supreme authoritie to inflict any penalties hath not authoritie also to execute the same Neither can it bee denied but that the Pope and also other Bishops of Germany who are both spirituall Pastours and also temporall Princes haue authoritie to ordaine inflict and execute not onely certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood as is the confiscation of goods but all corporall and temporall penalties euen with effusion of blood by mutilation and death For although they are forbidden by expresse Canons of the Church not to concurre to the effusion of blood yet this prohibition doth not depriue them of any iote of their temporall authoritie which they did not receiue from the Church but from the grant of temporall Princes insomuch that if contrary to the Canons of the Church they should pronounce the sentence of death yea execute the same vpon any malefactour that deserueth death according to the law they should not offend against iustice for vsurping that ciuill authoritie which they haue not in that manner as another priuate man who hath no temporall authority should offend but against Religion for not obeying the iust commandement of their supreme spirituall Superiour 35 And this is so manifest in the knowne principles of Morall Philosophie of Schoole Diuinitie of the Canon and Ciuill law and in the practise of the whole Christian world that no man of any learning can with any face denie the same But this is the vsuall tricke of my Aduersarie to blind his Readers vnderstanding with the obscuritie of generall words not distinguishing the true state of the question and then crying out against me that I denie the Decrees of Generall Councells the Ecclesiastiall Canuos and the practise of the Church which is a meere fiction of his owne braine For all the Canons of the holy Church I doe embrace with all dutifull respect but I doe not vnderstand them alwayes in that sense as he and others of his opinion doe expound them and I doe willingly grant that the practise of the Church since she hath beene endewed by Christian Princes with many temporall priuiledges of Ciuill Iurisdiction hath beene to inflict and execute certaine temporall penalties without effusion of blood by death or mutilation but that which I contend is that it cannot be sufficiently prooued by any Canon or practise of the Church that spirituall Pastours doe ordaine inflict or execute such temporall penalties by their spirituall authoritie which they haue receiued from Christ but onely by their ciuill and temporall power which hath beene graunted them by the free gift and liberalitie of temporall Princes And thus much concerning these two Glosses of Ioannes Teutonicus vpon the Canon Hadrianus Delatori which without any wringing or wresting of their words or meaning I haue shewed to make cleere for my purpose 36 The second principall exception which M. Fitzherbert taketh against me in this my second answere to the obiection which I propounded is for adding immediately certaine words out of Siluester as fauouring my aforesaid answere Also Siluesters words said I doe fauour this answere who writeth thus Ioannes Andreas following Hostiensis is of opinion that a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him but that he ought to make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge 37 Against this Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth t Pag. 170. nu 12. seq that Widdrington hath dissembled that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that his Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion whereas Siluester hauing said that which Widdrington obiecteth addeth presently sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this doctrine doth not please Panormitan because when the case is such that the Iudge doth challenge iurisdiction ouer a Lay-man there appeareth no reason why he cannot in the foresaid cases impose vpon him a pecuniarie penaltie as it may be seene in cap. Statuimus 16. q. 1. and 27. q. 4. cap. Quisquis Thus saith Siluester alledging Pà normitans words and the Canons by the which hee prooueth that a Bishop may impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him which Canons are
Bishops authoritie and the Seculiar Iudge is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will yet that a Bishop may only make a pecuniarie penaltie to be inflicted by a Seculiar Iudge by forcing him thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures and not by temporall compulsion this doth very much import and altogether fauour my doctrine For I doe not now contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as by the institution of Christ it is directiue or which is all one commaunding imposing or inioyning for I doe not denie as I haue often said that spirituall Pastours may by their spirituall authoritie commaund impose and inioyne temporall Princes to make temporall lawes as Saint Ambrose did the Emperour Theodosius and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good in which case those lawes are not made nor those temporall penalties are inflicted by the authoritie of spirituall Pastours as though temporall Princes were only their instruments and Ministers to execute their wills as inferiour Magistrates are onely instruments and Ministers to execute the will of the Prince but I doe now onely contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing and I vtterly denie that it is a certaine and vndoubted point of faith that the spirituall coerciue power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Secondly that fraude and impertinencie which Mr. Fitzherbert doth vntruely attribute to my answeres and obiections I haue clearely shewed to bee found in euery one of his Replies And as touching that absurditie which he now obiecteth against my answere it is cleere that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me is not concerning the power which either the Pope or inferiour Bishops haue by the grant consent and authoritie of temporall Princes I doe not say to commaund impose or inioyne but to inflict temporall penalties vpon Lay-men who are not their temporall subiects but whether any spirituall Pastour whether he be an inferiour Bishop or also the Pope himselfe hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict such temporall penalties And indeed my purpose is to conclude that because it is probable that an inferiour Bishop hath no such authoritie by the institution of Christ iure diuino therefore it is also probable that the Pope iure diuino and by the institution of Christ hath no such authority and vpon what probabilitie this my consequence is grounded and how absurdly Mr. Fitzherbert condemneth it of ridiculous absurditie you shall forthwith perceiue Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. 3 44 And first according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in the particular which assertion he brought to prooue that if the Pope be a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church then euery Bishop is also a direct Lord in temporals of his owne particular Church or Diocesse which consequent he affirmeth to be manifestly false and therefore hee denyeth also that the Pope is a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church Now from the same assertion I may as well conclude that if the Pope be an indirect Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church and may inflict temporall punishments vpon all Christians in order to spirituall good then euery Bishop is also an indirect Lord in temporals in his owne particular Diocesse and may in order to spirituall good inflict temporall punishments vpon the Christians of his Diocesse because euery Bishop in his particular Diocesse is that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church And therefore to argue according to the rules of Logicke à destructione consequentis ad destructionem antecedentis from the ouerthrowing or denying of the consequent to the denying of the antecedent If a Bishop in his owne Diocesse cannot according to the institution of Christ inflict a pecuniarie mulct or temporall penalty of money vpon those Lay-men that are not his temporall subiects neither can the Pope in the vniuersall Church doe the same Victoria in relect 2. de potest Eccles Castro lib. 2. de iusta Haeres punit cap. 24. Vasques 1. 2. disp 152. cap. 3. num 28. 45 Secondly according to the doctrine of the Diuines of Paris which others also as Victoria Castro Vasquez although otherwise vehement maintainers of the Popes power indirectly in temporals doe in this point follow it is euident that Bishops doe not receiue their authority and Iurisdiction from the Pope but immediatly from Christ by vertue of those words which were spoken to all the Apostles Whatsoeuer you shall binde c. Matth. 18. And Whose sinnes you shall forgiue c. Iohn 19. And Feede my sheepe Iohn 20. Which words according to the Exposition of the ancient Fathers a See aboue cap. 5. num 10. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad 1586. which also Cardinall Bellar. did once approoue are vnderstood to be spoken also to all the Apostles Seeing therefore that S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles and consequently the Pope and other Bishops who succeede the Apostles as they were ordinary Pastours and had ordinary spirituall power to gouerne the Church receiued their power and iurisdiction in the selfe-same forme of words without any limitation or restriction from hence it clearely followeth that what Ecclesiastical power iurisdiction soeuer the Pope receiueth ouer the whole Church the same power and iurisdiction if we regard meerely the law of God and the institution of Christ other Bishops receiue ouer those who are subiect to their Bishopricke * A Bishop saith Ledesma 1. 4. ar 11. standing in the law of God hath as great power in his Prouince as the Pope in the whole world So that standing in the law of God and abstracting from the Canons of the Church euery Bishop may in his owne Bishoprick absolue from all cases inflict all censures dispense in oathes and vowes make lawes and Canons no lesse then the Pope may in the Vniuersall Church And therefore it is no absurd argument to conclude that because a Bishop cannot by vertue of that spirituall power which hee hath receiued from Christ inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon those that in spiritualls are subiect to his Diocesse therefore neither can the Pope doe the same in the Vniuersall Church 46 Whereby it is apparant that the comparison which M. Fitzherbert heere maketh betwixt a King and an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge a Bishop and a Parish Priest and betwixt the Pope and other Bishops is idle and impertinent for that no man can make any doubt but that an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge hath all his authoritie and iurisdiction from the King but Bishops according to the doctrine of many learned men haue not their authority and iurisdiction from the Pope but immediately from Christ as the Pope himselfe hath and all Catholikes confesse that Bishops are Peeres and Princes of the Church and principall Iudges in the externall spirituall Court
thing as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what ende soeuer they bee inflicted the sayde Decree can bind onely those of necessitie that belong to the Popes temporall Dominions 52 For seeing that as Suarez e Suarez l. 3. de Leg. c. 6. cap. 8. nu 3. and all other Diuines affirme all lawes enacted by the Pope as they are meerely ciuill and temporall doe bind onely in the Popes territories and as Mr. Fitzherbert himselfe before f Cap. 9. nu 15. acknowledged there can bee nothing more cleare then that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended onely to his owne subiects and whatsoeuer is decreed onely by the Popes temporall authoritie and as hee is a temporall Prince is a meere temporall thing and cannot extend beyond the Popes temporall dominions from hence it cleerely followeth that what Doctour soeuer affirmeth that the Pope hath no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall penalties as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and consequently that the inflicting of them is a meere temporall thing and that the decrees which doe inflict them cannot be made by the Popes spirituall but onely by his temporall authoritie and that therefore they cannot of necessitie binde but onely those who are subiect to his temporall authoritie or as hee is a temporall Prince must also affirme that whensoeuer the Pope by any generall Constitution decreeth the inflicting of any such temporall penaltie the saide Decree doeth extend onely to the Popes temporall Dominions and comprehendeth onely those who are subiect to him as hee is a temporall Prince and endued with temporall authoritie 53 Wherefore it is neither hereticall nor absurd to say as this foule-mouthed ignorant man affirmeth that the Popes generall Decrees touching the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie and that no heretike can bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes Decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes for that according to the doctrine of very many Doctours as I said before the Popes spirituall authoritie doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Eccclesiasticall Censures and that therefore it belongeth only to temporall Princes to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with temporall punishments and to the Pope as hee is a spirituall Pastour to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And this I will boldly say and yet remaine as good a Catholike yea and a farre better then Mr. Fitzherbert is notwithstanding all his bigge and bitter words if hee build his Catholike faith vpon such weake doubtfull and vncertaine principles 54 Whereupon it followeth that euery Decree Canon or Constitution of the Pope which ordaineth the inflicting of temporall penalties for any crime whatsouer if my Aduersarie will needes haue it to be of force out of the Popes territories is either an approbation of some former Imperiall law or is of force by vertue of the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes or is onely a declaring teaching or commanding what the temporall Prince or Iudge ought to doe Neither doth the Canon Vergentis of Pope Innocent the third which Mr. Fitzherbert citeth heere in the margent any way contradict what I haue said but it doth rather confirme the same for the words of the Canon are these Wee ordaine that in the territories subiect to our temporall Iurisdiction the goods of heretikes be confiscated and in other territories wee command the same to bee done by Secular Potestaes and Princes which if perchance they shall bee negligent to performe wee will and command that they be compelled thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures So that this Canon doth rather fauour then contradict what I said seeing that it distinguisheth the Popes territories from other kingdomes and signifieth that the Pope in his owne Dominions hath authoritie by his Decrees to confiscate the goods of heretikes but in other kingdomes he hath no such authoritie but only to command Secular Princes to make such Decrees for the extirpation of heresie and also if they bee negligent therein to compell them by Ecclesiasticall Censures thereunto Neither can Mr. Fitzherbert prooue by any one Canon of Pope or Councell or by any generall or particular practise of the Church that out of the Popes temporall dominions any heretike is temporally punished by vertue of the Popes decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes whereby the Reader may plainly see what an ignorant vncharitable and rash headed man is this my Aduersarie to taxe so easily and vpon such vncertaine grounds learned Catholikes of heresie which among all Christians is accounted so heinous and execrable a crime 53 But his fraude and ignorance will the more cleerely bee discouered if wee obserue the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the acts and obiects of them both For the same spirituall action as heresie blasphemie sacriledge may be forbidden both by the spirituall and temporall power yea also for the same spirituall ende seeing that Christian Princes are bound by the law of Christ to referre all their actions the vse of their tēporall authoritie to Gods honour and glorie and to the good of their own soules of their subiects and by their temporall lawes to maintaine and aduance Christian Religion and to roote out heresie blasphemie and such like spirituall crimes out of their kingdomes so that the directiue or commanding temporall power as I haue signified heeretofore g Cap. 6. nu 66. seq may agree with the spirituall in the same acts obiects and end but the principall distinction betwixt the spirituall and temporall power is to be taken from both the powers as they are coerciue or punishing which alwayes haue distinct acts and obiects for the acts and obiect of the temporall power as it is coerciue or punishing are alwayes the inflicting of temporall punishments and of the spirituall the inflicting of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures so that the forbidding of heresie vnder paine of incurring Ecclesiasticall Censures for what ende soeuer temporall or spirituall it bee done can proceede onely from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and the forbidding of the same heresie vnder paine of incurring temporall punishments as death losse of goods or of any other temporall thing for what end soeuer it bee inflicted can proceede onely from temporall and ciuill authoritie because according to Almaine and those other many Doctours mentioned by him who were as good Catholikes as M. Fitzherbert is and farre more learned then hee is euer like to be the Ecclesiasticall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of ciuill or temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures and the other punishments which
from the Soueraigntie of absolute Princes for it little importeth to the substance of the matter whether the Pope may depose hereticall or wicked Princes by a power or dominion ouer temporals which must bee called temporall or by a power which must bee called spirituall so that he may depose them or whether the Pope bee superiour to absolute Princes in temporals directly or indirectly so that they must acknowledge themselues not to be absolute but subiect to the Pope in temporals But as I haue signified heeretofore all the difficultie and ambiguitie of these words directly and indirectly will presently appeare and the whole mist which the Diuines by this distinction doe cast ouer the eyes of the vnlearned wil foorthwith vanish away if we will but duly consider the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of either of them 62 For as in all arts sciences faculties and powers whatsoeuer is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of that art science facultie or power is directly subiect to that art science facultie or power so what thing soeuer whether it be temporall or spirituall is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of the directiue or coerciue power is directly subiect to that power Seeing therefore that the proper acts and formall obiects by which all powers are distinguished of the spirituall directiue or commanding power are the commanding of vertue and the forbidding of vice from hence it followeth that all actions whatsoeuer whether they be spirituall or temporall as they are vertuous or vicious actions and necessary or hurtfull to the spirituall and eternall good of soules are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power So that the reference or relation of temporall actions to the spirituall good of soules doth nothing hinder but rather is a cause that as they are vertuous or vicious actions they are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power 63 But if these Diuines will further say that the spirituall directiue power dominion or iurisdiction ouer temporall things is therefore said to be indirect for that it doth not command or forbid temporall things as they are temporall but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions no man maketh doubt of the matter or of the thing it selfe it being too too manifest to euery man of iudgement that temporall things are not subiect to the spirituall directiue power as they are temporall things but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions but the speech is not so proper and giueth occasion to the vnlearned to be confounded and deluded with a superfluous ambiguitie and multiplicitie of words For what Diuine or Phylosopher can deny that all those things whatsoeuer which doe truly participate the definition or nature of the formall obiect of any art science facultie or power by what meanes or consideration soeuer they doe participate the same are directly subiect to that art science facultie or power And in the same proportionate manner as these men say that the Pope hath an indirect temporall directiue power or authoritie ouer temporall things it may bee said that temporall Princes haue an indirect spirituall directiue power ouer spirituall things for that as the Pope doth forbid temporall things not as they are temporall but as they are spirituall and hurtfull to the good of soules so temporall Princes may forbid spirituall things as Heresie Schisme periurie ministring of Sacraments with a poysoned matter whereby danger of death doth ensue not as they are spirituall but as they are temporall wrongs and hurtfull to the publike peace in the Common-wealth which is the formall obiect of the temporall directiue power So that this distinction of directly and indirectly cannot bee well applied to the spiritual directiue power but that in the like proportionate manner it may be also applied to the temporall directiue power dominion and Iurisdiction 64 And as concerning the Ecclesiasticall coerciue power we must discourse in the same manner and likewise consider what are the proper acts and formall obiects of this power as it is coerciue or punishing for whatsoeuer doth participate the nature and definition of the acts and obiects of this power is directly subiect thereunto Now concerning this point there are two principall opinions among Catholikes The first opinion and which now adaies is the more common for the causes by mee heeretofore l Apol. nu 449 alledged is that the inflicting of all punishments whatsoeuer being referred to spirituall good are the acts and obiects of the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing But the Authours of this opinion albeit they all agree in this that whatsoeuer authoritie the Church hath by the institution of Christ call it spirituall or temporall is in order to spirituall good and is giuen her by Christ for the eternall saluation of soules for which end Christ also himselfe descended from heauen and tooke our flesh vpon him yet in this they differ that the Canonists that commonly follow this opinion measuring the nature of the powers by their acts and obiects and graunting as they doe that Christ hath giuen to his Church authoritie to inflict both temporall and spirituall punishments doe also affirme that the Church hath by the institution of Christ truely properly directly and formally both temporall and spirituall power But the Diuines commonly perceiuing the absurdity of this doctrine and that it confoundeth the acts and obiects of the temporall and spirituall power and subiecteth the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes who by the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers are accounted to bee supreme in temporalls and therein subiect to none but to God alone to the Popes temporall authoritie to giue the more probable colour as they thinke to this pretended authoritie of the Church to dispose of all temporals and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good and to make it seeme lesse odious to Christian Princes and subiects doe differ from the Canonists at lest wise in words and therefore they affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath no true proper direct and formall temporall authoritie but onely vertuall or in effect which they call but verie improperly in my opinion indirect as I haue shewed before as the power of God and of the Angels to worke corporall effects although it be truely and formally spirituall as God and the Angels are truely and formally spirituall substances yet eminently vertually and in effect is corporall for that by their spirituall power they can worke corporall effects So that the Canonists and these Diuines doe not differ in effect and these Diuines doe in effect no lesse derogate from the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes subiecting them in temporals who are supreme then the Canonists doe 65 The second principall opinion is of other m Apol. nu 4 seq and aboue in the first part of this Treatise learned
it doeth not ordaine or command any new thing but only declare the law of GOD and Nature and that by things strangled and blood is vnderstood onely man-slaughter Irenae l. 3. c. 12 Cypr. l. 3. ad Quirimum c. vl See Suarez lib. ◠de Leg. ca. 20. either by strangling or by the effusion of blood as Irenaeus S. Cyprian and others doe seeme to vnderstand those words and likewise that meates offered to Idoles are heere onely forbidden to be eaten either with a superstitious worship as though some sacred thing were in those meates in regard of the Idoll or else with the scandall of others both which are against the law of God nature and both which senses may bee gathered from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 8. vers 4. and 7. and 1. Cor. 10. vers 28. 29. 18 And in the like proportionate manner I haue answered to the Decree of the Lateran Councell not by impugning but by expounding the same For considering that it is truly a probable doctrine and maintained by very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and when shee vseth these shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes it is euident that wee may probably answere that decree of the Lateran Councell if wee may call it a decree concerning the future fact of the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates not to proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power but from that temporall authoritie which was granted to the Councell by the consent of temporall Princes whose Ambassadours were present at the making of that act or else to bind only in the Popes temporall Dominions 19 Secondly I answere that there is a great disparitie betwixt the decree of the Apostles and the decree or act of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth that future deposition of temporall Land-lords For the decree of the Apostles is a true and proper law and decree and includeth an expresse commandement to abstaine from those things which are there forbidden but this Decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the aforesaid deposition is not a true and proper law or Decree neither doeth it containe any speciall commandement prohibition grant or priuiledge which euery true and proper law or decree ought to containe as it will cleerely appeare according to my Aduersaries owne grounds if wee consider euery part and parcell of this Decree or Canon For first it is there ordained that Secular Potestaes or Magistrates shall by Ecclesiasticall Censure if neede require be compelled to take an Oath that they will doe their best endeauour to banish all heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction and this no doubt is a true and proper decree Secondly that if a temporall Land-Lord Magistrate or Lord shall neglect to purge his territories from hereticall filth he shall by the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops be excommunicated and this also is a true and proper decree and includeth a precept and commandement Tirdly that if hee shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeere the same shall be signified to the Pope and this also is a proper decree commanding the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops to signifie the same to the Pope Fourthly it is added that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie and his territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes and this which is the maine and only point from whence my Aduersaries conclude that the Pope by his spirituall power may depose temporall Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true and proper decree and containe any commandement grant or priuiledge vnlesse they will graunt the Councell to bee aboue the Pope and that the Councell hath power to impose commandements vpon the Pope or to giue him any authoritie or priuiledge which neuerthelesse they vtterly deny and therefore these wordes as of themselues it is plaine doe onely import and signifie the ende reason or cause of the former Decree to wit wherefore it must bee signified to the Pope that such a temporall Land-Lord hath beene excommunicated for a whole yeere 20 And by this it is euident first that seeing that in generall Councels according to the expresse doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith For neither are of faith the disputations which goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate but onely the bare decrees and those not all but which are propounded as of faith and that this is no decree and though it were it is not propounded as of faith as it is manifest by the rules assigned aboue by Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus to know when any thing is propounded as of faith but it onely containeth the cause and reason of the former decree which reason may bee exposed to errour seeing that it is not greatly to be stood vpon saith Canus Canus l. 6. c. 8. si Pontificum rationes necessariae non sunt if the reasons of the Popes or Councels be not necessary it is I say most euident that from this Act no probable argument can be brought to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith 21 Secondly it is also euident that I do not impugne or call in question this Act of the Councell but do only expound and interpret it and that my expositiō is probable to wit that this Act was made not by spirituall authority but by temporall it is manifest supposing that is probable as in very deede it is and maintained by very many Doctours both Diuines and Lawyers that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall censures and therefore it cannot without grosse ignorance and manifest absurdity be said that this my answere and exposition which is grounded vpon the doctrine not onely of so many learned Authours but also of my owne Aduersaries and who otherwise defend the Popes authority to depose Princes is to bee accounted improbable or absurd I now let passe that the decrees of Popes and Councels which are not referred to all the Church but onely to particular Bishops Churches or persons and doe not concerne and binde all the Church but onely certaine persons may bee exposed to errour Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. q. 4. as I declared before For in that case onely saith Canus the Iudges are to be vnderstood to pronounce or define of faith when the decree or sentence belongeth to all the faithfull when it bindeth all but this Act of the Lateran Councell doth onely concerne temporall Land lords and their Vassals and those not all but onely the Vassals of such Land lords Magistrates
or Lords who remaine excommunicated for a whole yeare for neglecting to purge their territories of hereticall filth And thus much concerning the Apostles decree 22 And the like also saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 179. nu 4. 5. may bee said concerning other decrees of Popes and Councels the impugners whereof haue beene held and condemned by the Church for heretikes as for example it was decreed e Baron an 159 Euseb lib. 23. cap. 22. 23. 24 25. Theod. lib. 1. c. 9. Athan. in epist de Synod Arimin Ambros epist 83. by Pope Pius the first and confirmed by Pope Victor and after by the Councell of Nice that the feast of Easter should be celebrated at the same time that now it is kept vniuersally throughout Christendome according to the tradition left to the Romane Church by S. Peter whereas the Churches of Asia did celebrate the said feast with the Iewes to wit at the time prescribed in the law of Moyses following therein the tradition or at least the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist And albeit those decrees ordaine onely matter of fact and practise yet they which haue heretofore contradicted the same and adhered to the custome of the Iewes were and are still held by the Church for heretikes Epiphan haer 50 S. Aug haer 29. and registred for such by S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine in their Catalogues of heretikes vnder the name and title of Tessarescedecatitae that is to say Quartadecimani who with this distinction of Widdrington and his arguments might farre more probably defend their opinion then he doth or can defend his For they might say as well as he that those Decrees were not matters of faith but matters of fact onely wherein both the Pope and the Councels might follow their owne priuate opinions and consequently erre which being added to that which they said in defence of their heresie and might truely say to wit that they followed the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist and of the Churches of Asia Euseb vbi supra Beda lib. 3. hist cap. 23. which receiued the same by tradition from him and continued it without interruption for 150. yeares this I say would giue another manner of probability to their doctrine then he can any way pretend for his and yet neuerthelesse they are worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees 23 But this obiection is as friuolous as the former first for that it supposeth that I oppose a matter of fact to a matter of faith and imagine that the one cannot stand with the other which is vntrue as I shewed before Secondly for that it supposeth also that I impugne the decree or rather Act and reason of the Lateran Councell which is also vntrue seeing that I doe not impugne it but onely as you haue seene expound it Thirdly for that there is a great disparity betwixt the decree concerning the celebrating of the Feast of Easter and this Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates seeing that the former is a true and proper decree implying an expresse precept and commandement but this Act is not a true proper decree containing in it any command grant or priuiledge as I shewed before and therefore we cannot rightly apply those arguments which the Diuines doe bring to prooue the Churches infallible authority to make decrees and precepts concerning manners to this Act of the Lateran Councel which is not grounded vpon any doctrine appertaining to faith but onely vpon opinion which may be exposed to errour 24 Fourthly the Quartadecimani Castro lib. 12. contra haer verbo Pascha Bell. lib. 3. de Cultu Sanct. cap. 12. as you may see in Alphonsus de Castro and Cardinall Bellarmine were not accounted heretikes for celebrating the Feast of Easter according to the custome of the Iewes contrary to the decree of the Church but for that they thought it necessary to celebrate that Feast according to the custome of the Iewes which is indeede hereticall And therefore that is very vntrue which Mr. Fitzherbert saith that the Quartadecimani were worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees but because they refused to obey them vpon an hereticall ground Neither is it hereticall as I haue shewed before out of Canus to impugne or disobey a decree of the Church especially concerning facts and manners which are not necessary to saluation vnlesse it be impugned or disobeyed vpon an hereticall ground But if the decree bee grounded onely vpon an opinion which is exposed to errour and not vpon an infallible point of faith it is not hereticall to impugne that decree and to say that the Church may erre in making that decree Wherefore it is one thing to say that the Church may erre in making such or such a law and decree and another thing to say that the Church doth erre or hath erred in making that law and decree Canus lib. 5. q. 5 conclu 2. albeit Melchior Canus feareth not to say that hee doth not approoue all Church-lawes nor commend all punishments Censures Excommunications Irregularities Interdicts I know saith he that there be some such lawes which if they want nothing else yet doubtlesse they want prudence and discretion For in lawes precepts decrees and facts concerning manners which are not necessary to saluation and which are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith it is not hereticall to hold that Christ hath not promised to the Church any infallible assistance and that therefore she may erre in making such decrees yet I do not deny but that it were temerarious and irreligious for any priuate man to impugne any decree of a generall Councell and to say that the Church did erre in making that decree 25 As also it is no false doctrine much lesse hereticall to affirme that Kings and temporall Common-wealths may erre in making lawes and decrees concerning ciuill gouernment for that Christ hath not promised them his infallible assistance therein yet it were scandalous and seditious for a priuate man to impugne any temporall law established by the Prince and the Common-wealth and to say that they did erre in making that temporall law But as I said before I doe not impugne but onely expound this Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell according to the probable doctrine of very many Doctours who affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath not power to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall Censures But no maruaile that my Aduersary discourseth here so vnlearnedly seeing that hee hath so little insight in these Theologicall questions and I accuse rather his temerity then his ignorance that hee will take vpon him with such confidence to bee a teacher in these difficult questions wherein hee himselfe hath neuer beene a Schollar or scarce vnderstandeth the true state of the question And by this which hath beene said the iudicious
taking a definition as he doth for a Decree but besides that this is nothing against mee hee must withall remember that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine not all definitions or decrees doe appertaine to faith but those Decrees only which are propounded as of faith Now if Mr. Fitzherbert will but call to minde the rules which I haue alledged before out of Cardinall Bellarmine to know when any Decree is propounded as of faith he will euidently see that this Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the absoluing of vassalls from their fealty is no such Decree and will therefore bee hereafter shamed to vrge any longer the Councell of Lateran for the confirming of his new Catholke or rather particular faith and priuate spirit 33 And if Widdrington say saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Pa. 191. nu 9 that Decrees concerning matters of fact are not definitions he sheweth himselfe very absurd For it cannot be denied but that Popes and Councells ordaining Decrees concerning matters of fact doe as well define what is to be done or practised as they define what is to be beleeued and taught when they make Decrees concerning matters of faith and the one is no lesse necessary for the good gouernment of the Church then the other and therefore their Decrees of both sorts are definitions the one of a thing to be beleeued and the other of a thing to be done for otherwise we must say that the Apostles after all their consultation in their Councell at Hierusalem defined nothing which were absurd 34 But because I will not contend of words I doe not say Act. 15. that Decrees concerning matters of fact and manners which are true and proper Decrees are not definitions or that such Decrees or definitions are not necessarie for the good gouernement of the Church but that which I say is that this Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition not of Princes as this man supposeth but of Landlords Potestaes or Lords is not according to my Aduersaries grounds a true and proper Decree or definition including any precept bond or obligation which all true and proper decrees doe include and I also say that according to the expresse doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine not all the Decrees or definitions of generall Councells doe appertaine to faith but those onely which are propounded as of faith and that to know when any Decree is propounded as of faith he assigneth these rules to wit If the Councell doe excommunicate those or account them for heretikes who shall beleeue the contrary or if it declare by a firme decree that what is defined or decreed ought to be receiued as a doctrine of the Catholike faith and to be firmely beleeued by all the faithfull or the contrarie to be hereticall or repugnant to the holy Scriptures and that when none of these things be affirmed it is not certaine that it is a point of faith Now that there is no such thing decreed defined or affirmed in this manner in the Lateran Councell touching the absoluing of vassals from their fealtie it is too too apparant 35 Wherein also saith M. Fitzherbert k Pag. 182. nu 10. 11. it is to be considered that the error which may be incident to a definition or Decree concerning matters of fact cannot fall vpon the Decree or definition it selfe for so should the errour redound to the holy Ghost whose assistance our Sauiour hath promised to the definitions of Councells and Popes as Widdrington himselfe n See before u. 1. granteth but it must fall vpon the execution of the Decree as if some Prince should be deposed vpon wrong information or without due circumstances required in the Decree But the question is not heere of errour in matters of fact of this kind I meane in the execution of Decrees and therefore if Widdrington speake of such facts when he saith that Christ hath not promised the assistance of his spirit to facts but to definitions he changeth the question and fighteth with his owne shadow affirming that which we denie not who speake onely of the veritie iustice and equitie of the Decree it selfe from the which we exclude all errour and iniustice acknowledging the assistance of the holy Ghost in the making therof in which respect all Catholike Doctours that haue euer written haue vniformely taught hitherto that the Church being guided by the holy Ghost cannot erre in her generall Decrees made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners as I will declare m See Cha. 16. nu 11. 12. further hereafter Whereupon I conclude that Widdrington admitting as hee doth the assistance of the holy Ghost in the definitions of Councells and Popes and yet impugning the veritie or iustice of the Decree ascribeth errour or iniustice to the holy Ghost 36 But first whether a Generall Councell can erre or no in her definitions or decrees which are made by her spirituall authoritie concerning matters of fact or manners for that the Pope cannot erre euen in his definitions concerning faith if hee define without a Generall Councell I neuer intended to affirme it is altogether impertinent to the present Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the absoluing of vassals from their fealty seeing that this Act as I contend was not made by her spirituall authoritie but by the authoritie license and consent of temporall Princes to the making of which Decrees no Catholike Authour affirmeth that Christ hath promised his infalible assistance or that the Church is guided therein by the holy Ghost 37 Secondly albeit at this present I doe not say that the Church or a Generall Councell can erre in her generall Decrees concerning matters of fact and manners yet I say as I said before that Melchior Canus a man of such learning and pietie that Mr. Fitzherbert dare not as I thinke accuse him of heresie doth confidently say that without danger of heresie it may be held that the Church in some such law or custome may erre and that hee dare not affirme it to bee hereticall to say that some such law or custome of the Church is vniust and also that in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate persons or Churches the Church may erre through ignorance not onely in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes and generally he saith that if any one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church doth depend be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be firme and certaine whether the question be speculatiue or practicall of which sort saith he is that decree by which she doth canonize or iudge holy men to be numbred in the Catalogue of Saints By all which it is euident that from the Act or Decree if we will needes call it so of the Lateran Councell concerning the absoluing of vassalls from their fealtie stretch it as farre as may be no colourable much lesse conuincing argument can bee brought to
make the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 38 Thirdly when I affirmed that from the vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church this onely can be gathered that Christ hath promised the infalliable assistance of the holy Ghost not to facts or probable opinions of Popes and Councells but to definitions onely by facts I vnderstand such acts as are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and by definitions I meant those Decrees which are propounded as of faith or which without any doubt or controuersie are deduced euidently from such infallible definitions or principles of faith of which sort this Act or Decree of the Lateran Councell is not as it is euident for those many reasons before alledged 39 And whereas Widdrington addeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 133. nu 12. Supra nu 1. an other circumstance to wit that the Councell did not determine by this Decree that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie or from the Ecclesiasticall power onely without the consent of Princes he is no lesse impertinent then in the former for what need was there to determine that the Pope had an vndoubted lawfull authoritie to depose Princes seeing that the same was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth as it is euident for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it Naucler goâ—erat 41. ad ann 12. which they would not haue done if they had doubted of the lawfulnesse of the Popes authoritie in that behalfe But first Mr. Fitzherbert doth egregiously abuse both me and his Reader in adding both heere and aboue the word Princes as though I had acknowledged that Act of the Lateran Councell to concerne the future deposition of Princes whereas I euer affirmed that it did onely concerne inferiour Magistrates Potestaes Landlords and Lords and not Soueraigne Princes and therfore I said onely that future deposition and my Aduersarie addeth of himselfe the word Princes 40 Secondly whether it was needfull or no for the Councell to declare whether that Act concerning the future deposition of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords or rather the denouncing of them ipso facto deposed was made by spirituall or temporall authoritie it is nothing materiall to our question this being sufficient for me that seeing that very many Catholike Doctors do affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the absoluing of Vassals from their temporall fealtie and the Councell did not declare by what authoritie that Act was made any Catholike man may probably and without any note of temeritie much lesse of heresie affirme that it was made not by any vndoubted lawfull Ecclesiasticall authoritie but onely by the authoritie licence and consent of absolute Princes But although it were not absolutely necessarie that the Councell should haue declared whether that future deposition was to proceed from Ecclesiasticall or temporall authoritie yet to make it a point of faith which all men are bound to beleeue that the aforesaid deposition was to proceede from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and not temporall it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same especially supposing that it is truely probable that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments As also if the Pope being now both a spirituall Pastour and also a temporall Prince should make a law whereof there may bee made a probable doubt whether it was made by vertue of his spirituall or of his temporall authoritie it is necessarie to make this point certaine and out of controuersie that he declare by what authoritie temporall or spirituall that lawe was enacted 41 Thirdly it is very vntrue that the Popes power to depose Princes was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth for that from the very first broaching thereof there alwayes hath beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side Azor. tom 2. li. 11. ca. 5. q. 8 and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in certaine causes the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kings of their kingdome And the euident reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth hereof to wit for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it is the maine question which is now betwixt vs and so he bringeth for an euident reason that which is the controuersie and to be prooued which is an euident petitio principij and condemned as vicious by all Logicians Neither doth Nauclerus whom my Aduersarie citeth in the margent as though hee would make his Reader beleeue that Nauclerus affirmeth that the whole Councell decreed the practise therof affirme any such thing For Nauclerus words are onely these There were many things truly then consulted of yet nothing could be plainly decreed for that they of Pisa and Genua made warre one against the other by Sea and those on this side the Alpes by land Yet some Constitutions are reported to be published whereof one is that whensoeuer the Princes of the world shall offend one the other the correcting belongeth to the Bishop of Rome Where you see first that Nauclerus expresly saith that albeit many things were consulted yet nothing at all could be plainely decreed Secondly that it was onely a report that some constitutions were published Thirdly he doth not say that these Constitutions were of the whole Councell or onely of Pope Innocent and recited in the Councell as Matthew Paris said Fourthly that this report was vntrue it is also plaine seeing that there is no such Constitution as hee mentioneth to be found in the Lateran Councell And lastly albeit there were such a Constitution it is nothing to the purpose seeing that it onely saith that when Princes are at variance it belongeth to the Pope to correct them to wit by Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not the question but that it belongeth to the Pope to correct Princes by deposing them and by inflicting temporall punishments which is the maine controuersie and whereof the practise as Mr. Fitzherbert saith citing Nauclerus in the margent was decreed by the whole Councell Nauclerus speaketh not any one word at all 42 Also Pope Innocent the third saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Pag. 183. u. 13. Naucler geuerat 42 ann 1246. Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. See Adolp Schulc pro Card. Bell. ca. 12 14 where he confuteth the answeres of Widdrington to these examples vnder whom the Councell of Lateran was held had not past three or foure yeeres before depriued the Emperour Otho of his right to the Empire by a sentence of Excommunication and deposition by vertue whereof Frederike the second whose Ambassadours were present at the Lateran Councell was made Emperour who also was afterwards deposed by Innocentius the fourth in the Generall Councell held at Lyons as
sufficiently answered 46 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius for the confutation of my answeres to these examples if the Reader will be pleased after he hath read ouer this my Treatise wherein I confute this Doctour but onely to conferre my answeres with his Replies hee will easily perceiue how egregiously hee shuffleth and that he hath much adoe to excuse Cardinall Bellarmine from manifest improbability and bringeth no one argument which prooueth any one of my answeres to bee improbable and if hee desire to see this Doctours Replies more particularly answered I remit him likewise for this present to Maister Iohn Barclay to whom as yet no answere hath beene made in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmines answere to his father but especially to the Bishop of Rochester who although a Protestant yet out of Catholike Authours and Catholike grounds hath very cleerely and particularly confuted all these examples and what Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius if they bee two sundrie men haue brought to confirme the same 47 Besides that saith M. Fitzherbert Å¿ Pag. 184. nu 14. neither the Church nor yet Secular Princes doe vse to declare in their lawes from what authority the execution thereof shall proceede but it sufficeth that their authority to decree ordaine and execute their Lawes is sufficiently knowne and acknowledged by their subiects wherby it appeareth that Widdrington doth very idly require that the Councell of Lateran should haue declared that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie being a matter which they held to bee without all doubt or Controuersie 48 But as for Secular Princes it is not needefull for them to declare by what authoritie they make temporall lawes and ordaine or inflict temporall punishments for that no Catholike euer made doubt but that they had full authoritie to doe the same but seeing that it hath euer beene a Controuersie among Catholikes and very many Doctours doe affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments whensoeuer the Church doth inflict such punishments without declaring by what authoritie she doeth the same we may probably answere according to the grounds of these Doctours that shee doeth it not by her spirituall authoritie which can inflict no such punishments but by the authoritie license and consent of temporall Princes and therefore that we must certainly beleeue that the Councell of Lateran did ordaine the future deposition not of temporall Princes as this man faineth but of inferiour Land-lords Magistrates or Lords by her vndoubted Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same seeing that both Catholike Princes and subiects haue euer made a great doubt and controuersie concerning this point neither could the Fathers of that Councell bee ignorant heereof who both saw and felt what great contradiction and opposition both Philip and Otho t Pag. 184. nu 15. and the Princes of Germanie and their fauourers made against this pretended authoritie of the Pope to depose the Emperour and to dispose of temporall matters belonging to the Empire 49 And as for the consent of Princes saith Mr. Fitzherbert which Widdrington also requireth to Decrees concerning temporall matters I haue alreadie answered him touching that point and shewed u See Chap. 11. nu 7. 8. 9 s and see also my answere to the same as well by the example of the Apostles themselues as by the practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes that their consent is needelesse to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Decrees and that if the same were needefull all Christian Princes should stand bound to obey the Decrees of the Councell because being enacted by their generall consent in a generall Parliament of all Christendome it cannot bee repealed without another generall Councell of like authoritie So as thou seest good Reader that Widdringtons third answere is in euery thing defectiue and no lesse improbable then the former Neuerthelesse hee presumeth so much vpon the probabilitie thereof that hee vndertaketh to answere also a Reply which hee imagineth we will make to his last argument he should rather haue said last answer wherof I will examine the particulars in the next chap. 50 And I also in those places cited heere by my Aduersarie haue fully confuted his answeres and haue cleerely shewed that by no example of the Apostles nor any one practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes it can bee conuinced that the Apostles by their ordinarie power for of their extraordinarie and miraculous power I doe not now dispute or any Pope or Councell in the primitiue Church did inflict temporall punishments And whether a temporall law made in a generall assemblie or Parliament of all Christian Princes or confirmed by the generall consent of them all cannot bee repealed but by such another generall Assemblie or by the generall consent of them all I haue sufficiently declared aboue x Cap. 8. nu 26. seq out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez when I treated of the law of Nations Two things only may for this present be added thereunto The first is that no humane law either Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill doth binde vnlesse it bee approoued by the acceptance of the people as the common opinion of Diuines and Lawyers doeth affirme y See Disput Theol. c. 6. sec 3. nu 25. and that many Decrees of this Lateran Councell and namely this Decree which is now in question that euery temporall Officer Land-Lord or Lord when they come first to their Office or Landes must take an Oath to roote out heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction was neuer obserued or put in execution in this kingdome and in many other Kingdomes and Nations it is manifest for ought wee can gather by the relation of Histories 51 The second is that there is great difference to bee obserued betwixt temporall kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and consequently betwixt the generall assemblies or Parliaments of them both for that all Christians doe make one true proper and totall mysticall body or Common-wealth which is the Catholike Church and spirituall kingdome of Christ really vnited in spiritualls and subiect to one supreame visible head or spirituall Superiour thereof but all Christians doe not make one true and totall Ciuill body or Common-wealth really vnited in temporalls and subiect to one supreame visible head or temporall Prince thereof but they doe make diuers entire temporall kingdomes or Common-wealths so that throughout all the whole world there is but one true entire Catholike Church or mysticall body of Christ but there are many true entire temporall kingdomes and common-wealths From whence the iudicious Reader may easily gather the reason why a Decree made by a Generall Councell or spirituall Parliament can not be repealed but by
Diuines whether the Pope can giue leaue to such a Priest to administer this Sacrament Seeing therefore that to the Sacraments of the new Law as the Councell of Florence declareth are required three things the matter the forme and the Minister of which if any one be wanting it is not a true and perfect Sacrament and that it is a very great sacriledge that the due and lawfull matter and forme of a Sacrament should be seriously applied by an vnlawfull Minister if the Pope in whom only according to these Diuines the whole Ecclesiastiall power and authority to define infallibly matters of faith doth chiefly reside cannot grant authority to a Priest who is no Bishop to administer this Sacrament as very learned Diuines c Adrianus Papa in 4. in q. de confess ar 3. Durand in 4. dist 7. q. 3. 4 Bonauent ibid. Alphon. de Cast in l. de haer verbo confirmatio Petrus Soto lec 2. de confirm and others without any note of heresie or errour doe hold is it not a very great errour to grant such licences whereby there is danger that most heinous sacriledges to wit the inualid administrations of Sacraments should be committed 7 Moreouer Pope Sixtus the fourth did in honor of the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary make a Decree d It is to be seen in the 4. tome of the Councels after the life of Pope Sixtus for celebrating the Feast of her Conception to the end that all faithfull Christians should giue thanks and praise to almighty God for her wonderfull conception which he also cals immaculate e In the second decree of the immaculate Virgin and notwithstanding it is vncertaine and disputed by Diuines on both sides whether the B. Virgin was conceiued in originall sinne or by the speciall prouidence of God preserued from the same Is it not therefore from hence manifest that the doctrine which is propounded or supposed as a foundation of an Apostolicall constitution and decree and which belongeth to the religious seruice of God is not so certaine and vndoubted a truth but that without danger of deadly sinne it may be impugned 8 Lastly some Popes haue oftentimes dispenced with Princes who haue made a solemne vow of chastity in approoued Religions to contract matrimonie f See Azor. tom 1. li. 12. c. 7. q. 1. as it is recorded by Historiographers of Constantia daughter to Roger King of Sicilie of Casimirus King of Poland and of Ramirus King of Aragon and of Nicholas Iustinian a noble Venetian but if the Pope hath no authority to dispence in the solemne vowe of religious chastitie whereof there is a great controuersie among Catholike Doctours g For S. Thomas and all his followers whom Zanchez a Iesuite relateth lib. 8 de Matrimon disp 8. doe deny that the Pope hath such a power and Zanchez also saith that it is probable doubtlesse such dispensations would cause very many hainous sinnes and doe also great wrong to other Princes who by such dispensations should be vniustly depriued of their iust title to raigne and to succeede in their inheritance These bee the examples whereon I grounded my three arguments or instances to confront them with the former three of Fa. Lessius in these words 1. Instance of Widdrington 9 May we not therefore according to our aduersaries principles argue in this manner That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which the Pope in whom onely according to these Doctours all authoritie to define infallibly matters of faith doth reside h For they grant that the Pope alone without a Coūcell hath this insallibility the Councell without the Pope hath it not doth eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of his Decrees and sentences this is the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius first argument But this doctrine that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemn vow of chastity and giue leaue to a Priest who is no Bishop to Minister the Sacrament of Confirmation is propounded or supposed by Popes as a ground or foundation of many their decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences therefore that doctrine doth appertaine to faith This is the substance of my first instance but in forme made like to Fa Lessius his first argument 2. Instance 10 Secondly if the Pope should expresly define that the Church hath such a power to wit to dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and to define that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne no Catholike of those especially who hold that the Pope defining without a Generall Councell cannot erre can make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that Popes doe suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences they are thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to bee accounted no lesse certaine 3. Instance 11 Thirdly it is a point of faith as our Aduersaries suppose that the Pope cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or to bee vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which per se of it selfe is vnlawfull For such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to dispence in the solemne vow of chastity or to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation the Pope should erre in doctrine and precepts of manners and that in matters of very great moment For he teacheth that the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by an inferiour Priest who is no Bishop is a true Sacrament Also that if a Prince by the Popes dispensation doe marry a professed Nunne that marriage to be lawfull and valid and that their children are lawfully begotten and ought to succeed in the Kingdome and notwithstanding that the next of the blood Royall should for want of the lawfull issue of this Prince pretend a right to the Crowne yet the Pope may without doubt according to our Aduersaries doctrine commaund and also by Censures compell the Subiects to acknowledge the issue begotten by that marriage wherein the Pope did dispence to be their true vndoubted and rightfull Prince All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the Subiects shall be incited thereby to doe iniuries and against their wills be compelled thereunto and Princes shall obtaine free liberty and licence from the Pope to commit incests and sacriledges Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and counsaileth sacriledge and commandeth iniustice and by Censures compelleth thereunto But to affirme this it is heritical therefore that also from whence followeth is hereticall to wit that the Pope hath not authority to dispence
none of those Catholikes that hold as Fa. Lessius doth that the Pope cannot erre in his definitions although hee define without a generall Councell can make any doubt but that the aforesaid things should appertaine to faith but seeing that diuers Popes doe suppose the same as a certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences they are thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore they ought to be accounted no lesse certaine This was my second instance and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert in affirming my second example to be my second instance discouereth no lesse his fraude then he doth both his fraude and ignorance in impugning the same 3 Secondly it is also very vntrue that I from this example inferred as this man shamefully affirmeth that the ground of the Canon of the Lateran Councell may also be vncertaine and impugned without note of heresie or sinne seeing that it is euident as you haue seene before that I neither impugned but onely expounded the Canon or rather Act of the Lateran Councell neither did I apply any one of those three examples to the Canon of the Lateran Councell or in any one of my three instances made any mention of the Lateran Councell at all But as Fa. Lessius referred his second argument to the foundations not onely of the Decrees of deposition as he supposeth this decree of the Lateran Councell to be but also of the sentences of generall Councells as in his opinion was that denounced against Frederike the second by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons so also I referred my second Instance to the foundations of Popes D crees and sentences vpon whom all the infallibility of the Church according to his doctrine doth depend And the same answere which my Aduersaries shall giue to my second instance will forthwith satisfie Fa. Lessius his second argument 4 For all the difficulty thereof as also of his former argument consisteth in this whether euery doctrine which Popes and Councells suppose as a ground and foundation of their Decrees and sentences is alwaies to be accounted a certaine and infallible ground and not subiect to errour or it may sometimes bee onely a probable ground and not alwayes an infallible point of faith and my second Instance doth sufficiently conuince that it is not alwaies a certaine and infallible ground whereby Fa. Lessius his argument is quite ouerthrowne Besides that the ground and foundation onely of those Decrees of Popes or generall Councells can be certaine and infallible which are made by spirituall and not temporall authoritie as I haue said before so that this argument of Fa. Lessius can little concerne the decree or Act of the Lateran Councell touching the deposition not of temporall Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates and Lords seeing that it was made by the consent and authority of temporall Princes to whom onely according to the probable doctrine of very many Doctours the inflicting of temporall punishments as of death exile priuation of goods imprisonment doth belong 3 Now let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert can say against this second example which he would make his Reader belieue to be my second Instance But Widdringtons instance saith he a Pag. 194. nu 2. seq is as little to the purpose as the former for albeit he alleadgeth not here a particular fact but a generall decree of a Pope directed to the whole Church yet he abuseth his Reader in seeking to perswade him that the foundation of that decree was the opinion or particular perswasion of Pope Sixtus Tom. 4. Concil post vitam Sixti 4. §. cum prae exelsa that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne whereas no such thing can be gathered by the decree but onely that his desire was by the concession of Indulgences to stirre vp the people to the deuote celebration of the Feast and thereby to giue thankes and praise to Almighty God for the benefite which all Cristian men haue receiued by her Conception to which end it imported nothing at all how she was conceiued I meane whether she were sanctified in the first instant of her conception as very many doe hold or shortly after as others teach and therefore the decree of Pope Sixtus is obserued as well by those that affirme her to haue beene conceiued in originall sinne as by those that denye it because nothing is ordained in the decree in fauour Ibid. §. Graue nimis or preiudice of either opinion 4 This may appeare as well by a latter Decree of his whereby hee ordained that both the opinions might be held and taught without note of heresie because saith he the question is not determined and decided by the Church as also by the expresse words of this Decree wherein hee signifieth that considering the ineffable dignity and worthinesse of the most blessed Virgin it is conuenient and necessary that all faithfull Christians giue praise and thanks to God for her meruellous conception Note that word meruailous to the end that by her merits and intercession they may be made more capable of Gods grace Thus saith Pope Sixtus in his Decree and then addeth Hac igitur consideratione inducti c. Therefore beeing moued with this consideration we determine and decree c. So he And his determination and Decree was no other but that all such as did with due deuotion assist at the diuine office and seruice appointed for the celebration of that Feast should gaine all those Indulgences which had beene granted before to such as celebrated the Feast of Corpus Christi 5 This then being the whole substance and effect as well of the Decree as of the motiue thereof expressed therein it is euident that Pope Sixtus had no other meaning in all this then to mooue all Christians to the deuout celebration of the feast of the conception of the blessed Virgin no lesse then of her Natiuity and other Feasts without any preiudice to the different opinions that eyther then were or after might be held concerning the manner of her conception in which respect the said Feast is celebrated by all Christians no lesse then her other Feasts which is as much as Pope Sixtus desired and intended whereby it appeareth that his Decree is indifferent to both opinions being obserued by the maintainers of both and that therefore it is not grounded vpon either of both 6 And now to apply this to our purpose whereas Widdrington pretendeth by this Instance to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is as vncertaine as the doctrine that the B. Virgin was conceiued without originall sinne which is impugned by very learned men it is to be considered that there is such disparitie in the cases and such weakenesse in his Instance that hee prooueth nothing at all against vs. For the Decree of Pope Sixtus had so little dependance on the doctrine of her immaculate Conception that he might haue made it
the end reason ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his decree touching the celebration of the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception was for that the Pope supposed that shee was sanctified in the first instant of her Conception And the same reasons Fa. Vasquez also bringeth Only hee vrgeth another reason taken from the wordes of the Decree of Pope Sixtus and related aboue by my Aduersarie to wit that the Pope in that Decree exhorteth the faithfull to giue praise and thankes to God for the wonderfull or meruailous Conception of the immaculate Virgin but hee could not call it a wonderfull or meruailous Conception vnlesse the B. Virgin were contrarie to the accustomed manner conceiued in grace and sanctitie for no other wonderfull or admirable thing could her Conception haue seeing that for as much as appertaineth to nature she was conceiued after the manner of other men and women 13 Iudge now good Reader whether this rash-headed ignorant man may not be ashamed to condemne so rashly the most famous and learnedst men of his owne Societie as hee condemneth mee of fondnesse improbabilitie and impertinencie for affirming so resolutely that without all doubt the end reason ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree for celebrating the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception was for that the Pope supposed her to bee conceiued in grace and sanctitie and that all Christian people by celebrating her Feast should giue praise and thanks to God for her holy and wonderfull Conception and contrarie to the ordinarie manner that other men are conceiued to the end that they thus celebrating her holy and meruailous Conception may by her merits and intercession bee made more capable of Gods grace But perchance Mr. Fitzherbert hath not read these Authours and then his ignorance and rashnesse is the more blame worthie in taking vpon him to bee a teacher and Censurer of others in these points of Schoole-Diuinitie wherein hee sheweth himselfe to bee so ignorant and if hee haue read them then his fraude is the more culpable to delude his Reader so shamefully in bringing arguments against their doctrine to taxe it of fondnesse improbabilitie and impertinencie and in dissembling in what manner they haue most cleerely confuted the same And therefore thou needest not much meruaile to heare these wordes so frequent in this mans mouth that my arguments and answeres are absurd improbable impertinent foolish ridiculous malicious erroneous yea and hereticall and then most commonly when they are most sound and sufficient and his Replyes most weake and fraudulent considering with what a bold face the silly ignorant man doth vnlearnedly arrogantly condemne in me my doctrine of fondnes improbabilitie and impertinencie the most famous Diuines of his own Societie 14 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert still harpeth vpon the same string to wit that the vndoubted ground and foundation of the Decree of the Lateran Councell is that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that the Canon supposeth this doctrine to be certaine this is the maine point about which wee contend for I haue euer denyed and hee hath no way sufficiently prooued but supposed that this decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell doeth concerne the deposition of temporall Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes from whom that Act had force to bind And although the Popes power to institute Feasts bee a remote ground and foundation of the decree of Pope Sixtus yet the immediate ground foundation of that Decree was the puritie and sanctitie of the B. Virgins Conception in honour whereof hee did institute that Feast as I haue shewed before And albeit I doe not deny that the Pope hath authoritie to institute Feasts in the honour of Saints and of sacred mysteries yet I deny that the end reason ground and foundation for which such Feasts are instituted is alwayes certaine and infallible and that those mysteries are therefore infallibly sacred as in this Feast of the B. Virgins Conception it is apparant by the testimonies of most famous and learned Diuines And lastly although I doe not deny that the Pope hath authoritie to canonize Saints or to declare them to be holy and blessed men yet Melchior Canus feareth not to say that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Pope may erre therein and the reason thereof hee giueth as I declared before because the ground whereon the Popes iudgement and declaration in such canonizations doth rely to wit the testimonies of men is fallible and exposed to errour And thus much concerning my second Instance now to the third 15 Widdringtons third Instance saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Pag. 197. nu 8. ad finem being of the nature and qualitie of the first is so sufficiently answered alreadie that I neede not to stand long vpon it hee saith that the Popes haue oft dispenced with Princes which had made a solemne vow of chastitie whereof he alleadgeth some examples and because very learned Doctours doe deny that the Pope hath authoritie to dispence in solemne vowes Widdrington inferreth as before that the doctrine whereupon those dispensations were grounded is not so certaine but that it may be impugned without sinne and consequently that the like followeth also concerning the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes which is the foundation of the Canon of the Lateran Councell Thus argueth Widdrington in substance 16 But in all this he is as idle as in the rest and shooteth his bolts at random and cleane wide of the marke impugning a generall Canon of an Oecumenicall Councell by some particular facts of Popes concerning particular men which facts both he and wee grant may be subiect to errour whereas not onely we but he himselfe also acknowledgeth the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost in the definitions and decrees of generall Councells as I haue amply declared before c Chap. 13. nu 1. 8. 9. 10. 11 And therefore to make a good Instance in this case and fit for the matter in hand hee should produce some Decree of a generall Councell or at least of some Pope ordaining the practise of such dispensations and shew vs withall that notwithstanding the said Decree some Catholike Doctours doe deny the Popes authoritie to dispence in vowes but this he neither doth nor can doe for if euer any such Decree had beene made the Catholike Doctours whom hee nameth would not haue doubted of the Popes authoritie in that behalfe as they haue done because neither the doctrine it selfe nor the practise thereof was euer decreed by any Pope or Generall Councell whereby it appeareth euidently that this his third Instance is suteable to the two former and as improbable and absurd as the rest of his arguments and answeres 17 But still my Aduersary persisteth in his accustomed fraud not to say falshood For neyther is this the third Instance which I brought to confront with Fa. Lessius his third
commandement concerning all subiects not to obey their temporall Prince being deposed by the Pope or to rebell and plot conspiracies against him But if by commanding he vnderstand particular decrees and commandements propounded to particular persons Bishops Churches or Kingdomes against any particular Emperours Kings or temporall Princes then I say that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus the Church and much more the Pope may erre and of this sort are the depositions iudiciall sentences and commandements of Pope Gregory the seauenth in a Councell held at Rome against Henrie the fourth Emperor of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons against Frederike the second Emperour and all other particular depositions of whatsoeuer Emperours Kings or temporall Princes and in these commandements the Popes were euer resisted and contradicted both by Princes themselues and also by learned and vertuous Catholike subiects as it appeareth euidently not onely by the first depositions of Emperours and Princes but also by the two last of our late Queene Elizabeth and the last King of Fraunce who were obeyed in ciuill matters by their Catholike subiects acknowledged by them to be their true and rightfull Soueraignes notwithstanding the Popes particular declaration sentence and commandement to the contrary as I haue shewed at large concerning our late Queene in the first part and of the King of Fraunce the late troubles and ciuill warres in Fraunce which are yet both fresh in most mens memories and recorded also by Histories are sufficient testimonies 22 Thus thou seest good Reader that neither by this third example of Popes dispensations in vowes whereon not onely my third Instance but also the two former were grounded all which Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed did I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell as the silly man to make some shew of confuting them as absurd improbable impertinent fond and ridiculous doth most vntruely affirme neither did I in any one of my examples or Instances make any mention at all of the said Decree seeing that I had before sufficiently answered to this Decree not by impugning but onely by expounding it and by clearely conuincing that according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who are of opinion that the Church cannot by her spirituall power inflict temporall punishments it must according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne principles who acknowledgeth that all lawes and decrees whatsoeuer are to be restrained and limited according to the power of the Law-Maker c. be vnderstood of the deposing not of temporall Princes who are not subiect to the authoritie of the Church forasmuch as concerneth meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end whatsoeuer they bee inflicted but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes but that which I intended by my three examples and instances was to shew the weakenesse and insufficiency of Fa. Lessius his three arguments as I haue sufficiently declared before 23 But if I should presse M. Fitzherbert a little further and grant him for Disputation sake which he is not able to prooue to wit that the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell is to bee vnderstood of the deposition of temporall Princes yet the silly man would haue much adoe to prooue as also I haue signified before that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Cap. 13. nu 7. seq which I haue related aboue it is such a Decree that from thence it can be sufficiently gathered that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith seeing that according to their grounds onely those Decrees and precepts touching faith or manners are infallible and of faith which are generall and vniuersall and belong to the whole Church and all the faithfull and consequently as well Clearkes as Lay-men For onely in this case saith Canus the Councels Canus l. 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. or Fathers are to be vnderstood to pronounce of faith when the sentence or Decree belongeth to all Christians when it bindeth all Therefore the doctrine of Popes and Councells saith hee if it bee propounded to the whole Church if it bee also propounded with an obligation to be beleeued then doth their sentence or Decree concerne a point of faith And concerning Decrees and precepts of manners Canus teacheth the same When the Church saith he in a matter of weight and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all the people she cannot command any thing which is contrary to the Gospell or naturall reason but in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate men or Churches she may erre through ignorance not only in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. 5. And Cardinall Bellarmine also affirmeth that those Decrees or precepts concerning faith or manners wherein the Pope in whom he putteth all the infallibilitie of the Church cannot erre must bee generall and be propounded and belong to all the faithfull 24 Now this Act of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie besides that it is not properly a Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as I signified before containing in it any precept or obligation vnlesse they will grant the Councell to be aboue the Pope nor also propounded as of faith according to the rules of Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus before related and therefore it cannot according to their doctrine appertaine to faith it is not also a generall Decree and which appertaineth to the whole Church and all the faithfull for it doth not concerne Cleargie men who according to my Aduersaries false scandalous and seditious doctrine are not subiect to temporall Princes nor doe owe to them any temporall allegiance but onely the temporall Vassals of temporall Lords and those not all but of such a Lord onely who for a yeere remaineth excommunicated for neglecting to purge his territories of heresie For those words of the Councell vt ex tunc ipse c. that from that time the Pope may denounce his Vassals absolued from their fealtie can onely bind either the Pope to make that denunciation or that temporall Lord not to exact of his Vassals temporall fealtie or the Vassalls not to giue to that temporall Lord temporall fealty and so it cannot binde Cleargy men who doe not owe any temporall fidelity or obedience to temporal Lords according to my Aduersaries false doctrine nor also all Vassals but onely those of that temporall Lord wherevpon the decree is not generall and belonging to all the faithfull which neuerthelesse is necessary that any decree or precept concerning faith or manners doe appertaine to faith 25 And if perchance my Aduersary will say that it bindeth all
three Instances or in this Argument whereof now we treate make any mention at all of the Lateran Councell although indeede I haue now by the way and without any necessitie vrging mee thereunto signified as you haue seene aboue that those words of the Lateran Councell vt extuncipse c. that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie which my Aduersaries affirme to bee the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the practise of the Popes power to depose Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true proper and formall Decree containing any precept or obligation but rather the reason cause and end for which the former Decree was made as I haue more amply declared before 24 Secondly neither are all the reasons of Decrees so extrinsecall thereto that they may faile and yet the Decree stand good for some are so intrinsecall and as I may say so essentiall to the Decree that the Decree cannot possibly stand good if the doctrine bee not true or at least-wise presumed to bee true as I shewed before in the reason of the canonizing of Saints and of celebrating their Feast in honour of their Sanctitie and also of celebrating the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception in honour of the vnspotted puritie thereof and of these and such like reasons I chiefly meant when in the aforesaid argument I demanded whether the reasons that mooue Popes and Councells to define or decree something are not as it were certaine grounds and foundations of their definitions and decrees So that I may truely conclude with my Aduersaries owne wordes that hee argueth as ignorantly impertinently and absurdely in impugning this argument as in the former and in the same manner also hee still goeth on 25 But now will you heare saith hee i p. 203. nu 9. how well Widdrington concludeth this his last argument and condemneth himselfe of errour or heresie Thus then hee saith Quapropter c. Wherefore no man can doubt but that great difference is to bee made betwixt the voice Vbi supra nu 63 doctrine and consent of the Church firmely beleeuing or defining any thing as a matter of faith and the voice doctrine and consent of the Church onely probably thinking For no Catholike man doeth deny that hee who contemneth to heare the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing doeth fall into errour or heresie whereas Catholike Doctours whose authoritie the learnedst of my Aduersaries will easily admit doe plainely affirme that hee who being mooued with sufficient reason doeth not embrace the doctrine of the Church onely probably thinking doeth not expose himselfe to the danger of heresie errour or temeritie For Alphonsus Salmeron and Francis Suarez men truely very learned doe bring the practise and consent of the whole Church to confirme the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin and yet that the contrarie opinion may bee defended without any danger of deadly sinne they both plainely acknowledge and cannot also deny without great offence we saith Salmeron do oppose the consent of almost the vniuersall Church the vniforme doctrine of all vniuersities Salmer tom 13. ad Rom. 5. disp 51. §. deinde Suarez tom 2. disp 3. sec 2. And the second ground saith Suarez is to bee taken from the authoritie of the Church And first the vniuersall consent almost of the whole Church and especially for these two hundred yeeres almost all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops almost all Religions and Vniuersities haue subscribed Thus Widdrington 26 But first Mr. Fitzherbert is fouly deceiued in saying or conceiuing that this is a conclusion of this my last argument For it is a conclusion and as it were a briefe collection and explication of all the answeres I made in that Apologeticall Preface to all the arguments by which my Aduersaries laboured to conuince mee and my doctrine touching the Popes power to depose Princes of temeritie errour and heresie For seeing that all the arguments which they brought to prooue my doctrine to bee temerarious erroneous yea and hereticall were grounded chiefly vpon the generall voice doctrine and consent of the Church as they pretend I thought good for a conclusion of all my answeres to these their false imputations to admonish the Reader of the aforesaid difference betwixt the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing and onely probably thinking whereby hee might plainely perceiue that considering all my former discourse and answeres I had clearely freed my selfe from all iust imputation of heresie errour and temerity 27 But secondly let vs now see what exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against this my so manifest and certaine conclusion Wherein I wish saith he i Pag. 203. num 10. to be noted two things the one how confident Widdrington is that he hath prooued by his three instances or examples and this his last argument that the Church ordaining and decreeing in the Lateran Councell that Princes shall in some cases be deposed by the Pope did not firmely belieue but onely probably thinke that the Pope hath lawfull power and authority to doe it whereas you haue seene his instances and arguments to be so weake friuolous and impertinent that they haue serued to no other purpose but to discouer his folly and the weakenesse of his cause 28 But truely I cannot but greatly pitty this poore mans case albeit I am much ashamed to see and discouer his palpable fraud and ignorance For neither did I in those three instances or examples or in this last argument make any mention at all of the decree of the Lateran Councell neither did I intend to make any inference from them concerning that decree neither did I euer graunt that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did ordaine or decree that Princes might in some cases be deposed by the Pope but I alwaies affirmed that the aforesaid decree or rather Act did onely concerne the deposition of inferiour Magistrates or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes that therfore that Act or decree was not made by meere Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently could not be a matter of faith but of fact onely as are all the decrees of temporall Princes concerning meere matters of fact For although it be a matter of faith that temporall Princes haue authority to make temporall Lawes yet it is not a matter of faith that in making such lawes they cannot erre and therefore their lawes are not matters of faith but of fact onely but the Church in making lawes to all the faithfull concerning such matters of fact or manners which are necessary to saluation cannot erre by commanding anything which is contrary to the Gospell or the law of Nature and therefore such lawes are not onely matters of fact but also of faith 29. That wherein I was confident is this that seeing my Aduersaries haue not hitherto brought nor will euer in my iudgement be able to bring any one sufficient argument to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose
Catholike Roman Church whereby hee professeth that if by ignorance hee haue failed in any thing which the Roman Church doth not approoue he doth also reprooue it condemne it and wisheth it to be held as not written let not this I say seduce thee or mooue thee to thinke that he teacheth Catholike doctrine concerning the matter now in question seeing that it is euident that all this is but a false luster and glosse cast vpon his counterfeite ware of purpose to deceiue thee 3 It is true all the bookes I haue written hitherto either in Latin or English I did submit to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church and in the first booke of all which I published in defence of the temporall right of Princes against Card. Bellarmines reasons whereby he pretended to demonstrate that it is not so much an opinion as an heresie to hold that the Pope hath no authority by the institution of Christ to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of temporals besides the submission thereof to the said Censure of the Catholike Romane Church I did also solemnely protest and call God to witnesse that neither through the spirit of flattery nor of contradiction but sincerely mooued with a vehement desire to finde out the truth in this difficult controuersie which so neerely concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar I did take vpon me the writing of that Apologie 4 And my third booke which is the Disputation of the Oath against which this man so greatly inueigheth I did not onely submit to the Censure of the said Catholike Romane Church protesting also that if either in that Disputation or elsewhere I had through ignorance written any thing which she did not approoue I also did disprooue it condemne it and would haue it for not written but also I did of set purpose dedicate it to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requesting him that considering we had diligently examined all the parts and parcels of the oath and yet could not finde any one thing among so many contrary to faith or saluation his Holinesse would be pleased in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall office after hee had duely considered all those obiections which we did propound vnto him for and against the Oath to make knowne vnto vs his poore and afflicted Catholikes one onely thing among so many which are so manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation as he had declared by his Breues protesting that if we could be assured of one onely thing contained in the Oath which is any way repugnant to faith or saluation wee would forthwith obey his declaratiue commaundement and would hazard our liues and all our fortunes in defence of the vndoubted Catholike faith 5 Now this vncharitable man notwithstanding all these my protestations and submissions will contrary to the commandement of Christ our Sauiour the knowne rules of charity and iustice iudge censure my inward thoughts which none but God and my owne conscience can know and boldly affirmeth that it is euident b Nu. 1. that all this is but a false luster and glosse cast vpon my counterfait ware of purpose to deceiue the Reader and that I am an hereticke disguised c Nu. 19. and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that all my pretences to bee a Catholike d Nu. 26. and my submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceeds from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes But God knoweth how wrongfully he belyeth me to whose iustice for the infinite wrong he hath done me I doe appeale and I make no doubt but that he will finde him a most iust Iudge and seuere reuenger either in this life or in the next or both vnlesse hee repent and satisfie mee in time for the great wrong he hath done me 6 But let vs heare the reasons which this vnconscionable man bringeth to colour this rash iudgement of his For if Widdrington saith he e Pa. 212. nu 2 so much respect and reuerence his Holinesse and the Romane Church as he pretendeth how chanceth it that vtterly reiecteth three Apostolicall Breues of his Holinesse vpon no better ground and reason but because his Holinesse hath beene ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and absurd 7 But albeit with all my heart and soule I doe greatly respect and reuerence the Popes Holinesse the Sea Apostolike the Romane Church and the Catholike Romane Church each of them in their due place and degree but not all of them with equall respect and reuerence for that no learned Catholike can deny but that betwixt all these a great difference is to be made neither are the errours misdemeanours or imperfections of Popes who being men and subiect to humane infirmities as others are to bee attributed to the Sea Apostolike or to the Roman Church although my ignorant Aduersary seemeth not only to make no distinction betwixt the Pope and the Sea Apostolike whereas if he will but reade S. Robert of Lincolne his life in Matthew Paris he may see what difference hee maketh betwixt Pope Innocent the fourth whom hee calleth Antichrist Mat. Paris in Henrico 3 o. pag. 843. and whose Breues as containing in them something which is hatefull to Christ our Sauiour detestable abhominable and very pernicious to mankind hee refused to obey and betwixt the most holy Sea Apostolike which hee saith can command no such detestable thing but also hee would make his Reader beleeue that I take the Roman Church and the Catholike Roman Church for all one whereas it is manifest that there is betwixt them almost as great difference as is betwixt the Kingdome of England and the Christian world or rather betwixt Rome and Christendome and also very many vertuous and learned Roman Catholikes doe not graunt that infallible authoritie to the Popes Holinesse or to the Roman Church which they grant to the Catholike Roman Church according to that saying of S. Hierome si authoâ—iâ—as quaeritur Hier. epist 85. ad Euangrium orbis maior est vrbe if authoritie bee demanded or sought for the world is greater then a Citie which sentence the Glosse vpon the Canon Legimus dist 93. citing and expounding saith Heere is an argument that the Decrees of a Councell doe preiudicate or goe before the Popes Decree if they contradict it 8 Neuerthelesse I doe also willingly acknowledge that I doe not so much respect and reuerence his Holinesse as to beleeue that all the commandements of Popes are iust and all their Breues and Decrees are grounded vpon infallible truth or that any Catholike is bound to obey his Holinesse declaratiue commandement when it is only grounded vpon a probable opinion which no man is bound to follow it being most euident that where there is no authoritie to command it is no irreuerence or vndutifull respect not to obey As likewise although all Subiects are bound to respect
affaires his Holinesse meant to include not onely the authority to vse Censures which onely were mentioned in the words next going before and to which onely any man according to the property of the words would restraine them but also to despose them which is not much materiall to the present purpose for be it so that his Holinesse speaking of the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included his power as well to depose as to excommunicate Princes it is nothing to the matter for that which I intend is that his Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines who consulted of the Oath not onely misinformed that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is plainly denied in the Oath but also that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall authority which is verie vntrue as in this Treatise I haue sufficiently declared and prooued 67 But that also which M. Fitzherbert addeth for a confirmation of his saying to wit that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects from their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some censure of Excommunication is both false and also repugnant to the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine For Childericke King of France which example Cardinall Bellarmine bringeth for a proofe that the Pope hath power to depose Princes was deposed and his subiects discharged of their allegiance and not by vertue of any Censure of Excommunication And it is one thing saith Becanus Becanus incōtrou Anglic. c. 3. p. 2. pag. 108. to excommunicate a King and another to depose or depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connexed with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue beene excommunicated and not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and not therefore excommunicated And yet my ignorant Aduersary to patch vp this silly answere of his doth now agreeable to his learning boldly affirme that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication whereas I haue sufficiently prooued aboue m Chap. 1. nu 21. seq chap. 5. sec 2. 131. seq out of the doctrine of Suarez Becanus and from the definition of excommunication that deposition is not an effect of Excommunication that therefore although they are sometimes ioyned together and that some Princes haue beene both excommunicated and deposed by the Pope yet they were not deposed by vertue of the Censure of Excommunication for that as his Maiestie did wel obserue n In his Premonition p. 9. Excommunication being only a spirituall Censure hath not vertue to worke this temporall effect 68 Now you shall see how vncharitably and also vnlearnedly this ignorant man concludeth this point Whereupon it followeth saith hee o p. 219. nu 14 that albeit his Holinesse had beene perswaded by Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and others as doubtlesse he was although this man would seeme to deny the same that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes impugned his spirituall authority he had not beene deluded or deceiued therein nor had erred in the reason why hee forbade the Oath though he had forbidden it for that cause onely as it is euident by the Breue he did not but for many respects And therefore thou seest good Reader what probable exceptions this silly sicke and scabbed sheepe taketh to the iudgement and sentence of his supreame Pastour and what account hee maketh of his Apostolicall authoritie and consequently what a good Catholike hee is 69 But if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance impugneth his spirituall authoritie to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures as needes hee must if hee will speake to the purpose for that all his former discourse hath beene to impugne my second answere to his Holinesse Breues which was that hee was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures is denyed in the Oath then I say that his Holinesse was fowly deluded and deceiued in that reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation although hee did not forbid it for that cause only But if his meaning bee that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes for to these two generall heads and to all that which doth necessarily follow thereon both this man and all my other Aduersaries doe chiefly reduce all their exceptions against the Oath and if for any other respects his Holinesse forbade the Oath let my Aduersarie name them and hee shall heare what wee will say thereunto impugneth his spirituall authoritie for that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes to dispose of their temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to discharge subiects of their temporall allegiance and which consequently are included in his spirituall power then I also say that his Holinesse was deluded dedeceiued and erred also in this reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation for that it is no point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to inflict temporall punishments c. but the contrarie hath euer beene maintained by learned Catholikes 70 Neither was Almaine a famous Doctour of Paris and those very many Doctours related by him or any other of those learned Authours whom partly I cited in my Apologie p nu 4. seq and partly aboue in this Treatise q Part. 1. euer accounted bad Catholikes or silly sicke and scabbed sheepe Neither can Card. Bellarmine euen according to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before and in his owne conscience whereunto I dare appeale heerein affirme that the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell whereon all my Aduersaries doe now at last chiefly rely to proue their doctrine of deposing to be of faith although it should haue mentioned as it doeth not mention absolute Princes is sufficient to make it certaine and of faith And therefore this ignorant and vnconscionable man calling mee a silly sicke and scabbed sheepe and no good Catholike for not beleeuing this doctrine to bee certaine and of faith which so many learned Catholike Doctours haue euer maintained to bee false and for not admitting his Holinesse declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon and consequently hath no greater force to binde according to Suarez doctrine then hath the reason whereon it is grounded sheweth himselfe to haue neither learning nor charitie but a vehement desire to disgrace mee with Catholikes and to take away my good name per fas nefas whether it bee by right or wrong as all the rest of his vncharitable and fraudulent discourse doeth
the State to take compassion of them and to suffer them to make their innocencie and oppression knowne to the whole world in that manner they should thinke fittest being so infinitely wronged for his Maiesties sake in yeelding him that temporall allegiance which he requireth and they in their consciences thinke to be due to him 116 An other reason may be a willingnesse in his Maiestie and the State to haue plainly discouered to the whole world the different grounds and principles in things concerning obedience due to God and Caesar etwixt Catholikes of quiet disposition and in all other things good subiects and such other Catholikes as in their hearts maintaine the like violent bloody maximes that the Powder-Traytors did and a desire that his Catholike subiects would plainly let him see that in all temporall affaires they would and might lawfully according to the grounds of Catholike Religion adhere to him notwithstanding any authority by which the Pope might pretend to commaund them the contrarie whereby himselfe and his State might bee the better secured from all perturbations which might arise from thence and they also freed from most grieuous penalties which otherwise would bee imposed vpon them 117 And if the Pope should vpon some occasion offered be desirous to know how the Iewes that are borne and liue in his temporall Dominions stand affected towards him in point of their ciuill loyaltie and due obedience and whether they thought that their Chiefe Priest or Synagogue had according to the grounds of their Religion authoritie to absolue them from the bond of their naturall allegiance and for that cause should suffer bookes to be printed vnder the name of Iewes with Epistles dedicatory to their chiefe Priests and submission of the whole to the censure of their Synagogue or if the French King should for some good respects bee desirous to know the like concerning his Protestant subiects and thereupon suffer bookes to be printed vnder the name of Protestants with Epistles dedicatory to their chiefe Ministers and submission of the whole to their Congregation or Synode would not any man thinke it to bee both a manifest slander and childish inference to conclude from hence that eyther the Pope was turned Iew or the King of France become a Protestant for suffering such bookes to be printed in that manner or that therefore they knew the Authours of them meant the same for a meere mockery and derision of their chiefe Priests Ministers or Synodes honouring them as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex Iudaeorum and spitting in his face And yet these are the manifest arguments which this vncharitable and ignorant fellow obiecteth against me to proue me an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike 118 An other Argument of the like kind vrgeth against mean other as foule a mouth'd and vncharitable Aduersarie of mine to wit that my bookes are printed without license and approbation of Catholike Superiours contrary to the decrees of the Lateran Councell vnder Pope Leo the tenth and also of the Councell of Trent But besides that this is more then this man doth know or can sufficiently prooue it is well knowne that neither that Lateran Councell nor the Councell of Trent were euer authentically receiued heere in England whereupon clandestine marriage which by a decree of the Councell of Trent is made inualide is heere in England euen among Catholikes accounted a true and valid marriage Moreouer it is well knowne that according to the doctrine of many learned Diuines which I haue related else where c In Disp Theol. cap. 10. sec 2. nu 41. Ecclesiasticall lawes doe not binde when there is danger of some great temporall harme by the obseruing of them or when some other necessitie to auoid great scandall or danger to Religion or the temporall common-wealth to know the trueth in a thing necessary to the great temporall or spirituall good or harme of many persons impugned by craft and violence and to defend himselfe and his credite from the slaunderous reports of vncharitable Aduersaries and such like necessities which are commanded or permitted by the law of God and nature all which may by any man of iudgement be applyed to the bookes written by me 119 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 222. nu 20. and 21. their Lordships know full well that Widdrington shall more easily instill his pernicious doctrine into the mindes of Catholikes vnder the pretence and name of a Catholike of a friend and of a brother of theirs then if hee should discouer himself to bee a Protestant and enemy of their cause for as the Poet saith Tuta frequensque via est per amici fallere nomen Tuta frequensque licet sit via crimen habet Which one translated very aptly thus It is a safe and common way by friendship to deceiue Though safe common be the way t' is knauery by your leaue S. Ambrose saith Nihil periculosius his haereticis esse potest c. S. Ambros de filij diuvnt c. 1. Nothing can bee more dangerous then those heretikes who with some one word onely as with a drop of poyson doe infect the pure and sincere faith of our Lord and of the Apostolicall tradition But what would he haue said if he had seene this fellowes bookes impugning directly the Sea Apostolike and the whole course of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church would he haue thought any thing more dangerous or pernicious then him and his workes No truely 120 That which his Maiesty and the State might very well know for their secret thoughts and intentions we cannot know but by coniecture was this that Catholikes would hardly beleeue or reade the writings and bookes of Protestants in matters which may be thought to concerne Religion And therefore to the end his Catholike subiects might plainely see and discerne according to the grounds of Catholike Religion the true difference betwixt spirituall obedience due to the Pope and temporall allegiance due to himselfe and the proper acts and obiects of eyther of them and thereby might the more easily be drawn to giue him that temporall allegiance which hee requireth at their hands And that also all other Catholikes of other Countreyes might perceiue the lawfulnesse of the Oath against which the Iesuites especially did so greatly exclaim vpon what doctrin principles his Maiesty grounded the same also that he himselfe might certainly know what particular exceptions his Holinesse would or could take against any clause of the Oath and what one thing in particular therein contained is contrary to faith and saluation as his Holinesse had in generall in his Breues affirmed that many things were therein clerely repugnant thereunto his Maiesty thought it not amisse to suffer my bookes to be printed vnder the name of a Catholike with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and with submission of the
with his soule and that the body concurreth with the soule to the execution of all externall workes good and bad and shall be either glorified or tormented eternally together with it no man can with reason denie but that he who hath the direction and gouernement of the whole person for the eternall good thereof may punish the same as well in the one part as in the other as also in what else soeuer is accessorie to the said person when the same shall be requisite for the eternall good and saluation thereof So as reason it selfe may teach vs that the Apostolicall power and authoritie extended it selfe to the punishment not onely of the soule but also of the body and goods when occasion required And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of Widdringtons answeres concerning the law of God and Nature and therefore I will now briefly examine what he saith concerning the law of Nations and the Ciuill or Imperiall law which shall be the subiect of the next Chapter 81 But truely I cannot but wonder that Mr. Fitzherbert who is taken and commended by many for a man although not of any great Schoole-learning yet of a deepe and rare naturall iudgement should so palpably bewray both his want of learning and also his weakenesse of iudgement For by his owne argument any man of iudgement may conclude that a temporall Prince may punish his subiects not onely in their bodies and goods but also in their soules seeing that it cannot be denied but that he is their Superiour in regard not onely of their bodies but also of their soules that is to say of their whole persons wherein their soule is necessarily included and therefore for as much as euery Christian man is bound to serue his temporall Prince and obey his iust lawes no lesse with his soule and for conscience sake then with his body and that the soule concurreth with the body to the execution of all externall workes good and bad and shall be either glorified or tormented eternally together with it no man can with reason denie but that hee who hath the direction and gouernement of the whole person for the temporall good thereof and the publike good of the whole common-wealth may punish the same as well in the one part as the other as also in what else soeuer is accessorie to the said person when the same shall be requisite for the temporall good of the said person and the publike good of the whole common-weath So as reason it selfe may teach vs that temporall authoritie extendeth it selfe to the punishment not onely of the body but also of the soule when occasion requireth 82 Now what will Mr. Fitzherbert in his iudgement say to this argument Can he denie that a temporall Prince is not Superiour to euery person that is subiect to the lawes of his kingdome Or can hee deny that when a temporall Prince commaundeth his subiects to doe any thing that part which is principally commaunded is the soule which is capable of reason and therefore chiefly subiect to command and not the bodie which is not endued with reason for which cause neither the soule if it want the vse of reason is subiect to command as it appeareth in infants and mad men who although they should kill a man doe no more transgresse the law made against murther then if a wild beast should doe the same And therefore it cannot be denied but that as well a temporall Prince in order to temporall good as a spirituall Pastour in order to spirituall good is superiour to the whole person of man although the soule which is capable of reason and vnderstanding and not the body is chiefly subiect to the commandement as well of temporall Princes in order to temporall good as of spirituall Pastours in order to the spirituall and eternall good of their soules Moreouer a Christian Prince is to direct and gouerne by temporall lawes the persons committed to his charge not onely for their temporall good but also for their spirituall and eternall for that the end of a Christian Prince is also according to Card Bellarmines doctrine ſ In Schulkenio pag. 334. not onely temporall good and externall peace in the common-wealth but also euerlasting happinesse for which man was principally created and to which euery Christian Prince ought as much as lyeth in him to bring the soules of his subiects and therefore he may according to my Aduersaries argument punish them as well in their soules as in their bodies when it shall be requsite to the eternall good and saluation of the whole person Whereby you may see what little reason any man of iudgement can haue to repose his soule and conscience vpon the learning and iudgement of this man who here in a matter of such importance hath so grosly discouered his great want of learning iudgmēt 83 Secondly therefore◠the weakenesse of this argument will cleerely appeare and the confused and cloudie mist of the Popes Superioritie ouer the whole person of euery Christian man which Mr. Fitzherbert for want either of learning and iudgement or of sinceritie hath cast before the eyes of the vnlearned Readers will be easily dispersed and their vnderstandings cleered if they distinguish betwixt the directiue or commanding and the coerciue or punishing power both of temporall Princes and also of spirituall Pastours For to omit now Metaphisicall questions as in what consisteth essentially the person of man and how the person of man is distinguished from his humanitie or which is all one from the body and soule of man being vnited in one essentiall compound and whether the subsistence or personalitie of man be a simple or compound entitie a spirituall or corporall or mixt of both for if it be a simple entitie we cannot properly say the whole person of man as though the personality of man were compounded of parts which difficulties the vulgar sort cannot well comprehend and to take the whole person of man in the common vulgar sense as it is a particular or indiuiduall substance including both body and soule it is euident that the soule of man is if not onely yet principally subiect to the directiue or commanding power not onely of spirituall Pastours but also of temporall Princes for that lawes are not made but for reasonable creatures and who haue free will to obserue or transgresse the law And therefore although a temporall Prince hath power to force or punish the bodies of his subiects yet he cannot command their bodies because they are not capable of reason or vnderstanding 84 But we must not argue in the like manner concerning the coerciue or punishing power For considering that not onely the soule but also the body are subiect to punishments according to their nature to wit the soule to spirituall and the body to temporall punishments therefore as well the body as the soule are subiect to the coerciue or punishing power in generall according as it may inflict corporall
or spirituall punishments Wherefore neither from the superiority or authority which spirituall Pastours haue to direct or commaund the persons of their spirituall subiects nor from the authority which temporall Princes haue to direct or command the persons of their temporall subiects can we rightly conclude what authority either spirituall Pastours or temporall Princes haue to punish the soule or the body or which is all one to inflict spirituall or temporall punishments for that the soule and not the body is principally subiect to the directiue or commanding power So that by this manner of arguing from the directiue power to the coerciue it may rather be concluded that temporall Princes may punish the soule for that they haue power to command the soule rather then that spirituall Pastours may punish the body for that they haue not power to commaund the body which being an vnreasonable creature is not subiect to any externall commaundement But what coerciue authority either spirituall Pastours or temporall Princes haue to punish the body or soule wee must gather from the institution of Christ to wit whether Christ our Sauiour hath giuen authority to spirituall Pastours to inflict onely spirituall punishments and consequently to punish onely the soule and to temporall Princes to inflict onely corporall and temporall punishments and consequently to punish onely the body and not the soule but onely by consequence as being grieued when the body either in it selfe or in some temporall things annexed therunto is punished So that the maine question notwithstanding Mr. Fitzherberts argument still remaineth a foote to wit whether Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to spirituall Pastours authority to inflict onely spirituall or also temporall punishments neither can this question bee decided by any argument grounded vpon naturall reason but only vpon the holy Scriptures wherein the institution and law of Christ is contained 85 And although the holy Scriptures doe expressely testifie that the Apostles did in some sort punish to wit as Abulensis before t Nu. 73. declared by way of prediction or deprecation not onely Christians but also infidels in their bodies as S. Paul foretold the blindnes of Elymas the Magician S. Peter the death of Ananias and Saphira yet because this was done by them miraculously and by that extraordinary power which they had giuen them by Christ which therefore was not of necessity to descend to their Successours we cannot deduce a good argument from thence that therefore spirituall Pastours haue now an ordinary power to inflict the same punishments but onely that they may inflict them in that manner and by that power wherewith the Apostles did to wit by miracle in which case I will not deny but that if perhaps any holy Pope or Bishop haue the grace of miracles he may by prophecie foretell or by prayer obtaine that such a wicked Prince whether he be Christian or Heathen shall by God the Angels or the Deuill bee depriued of his life and kingdome Neither doth reason teach vs that because Saint Peter and the Apostles had so ample and extraordinary Apostolicall power to inflict corporall punishments therefore the Pope and the Apostles Successours should haue an ordinary power to inflict the same For as Christ gaue to the Apostles such an extraordinary and transcendent power so he gaue them an extraordinary grace and vnderstanding that they should not either bee puft vp with pride by reason of so great a power or at any time abuse the same in preiudice of themselues or others which extraordinary grace vnderstanding Christ gaue not to all future Popes and Bishops Wherefore seeing that this plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power to depose Kings and to dispose of all temporalls supposing the humane fragilitie of Popes who therein are like to other men might be occasion to vse Almaines words u Almain de potest â—cces Lâ—â—ca q. 1. c. 9. for the Popes to be puffed vp with exceeding great pride and might also be very hurtfull to subiects there is no likelihood that Christ gaue him such a power 86 Neither doe I make any doubt that either Christian Princes or people would bee any way grieued but rather very glad that the Pope should haue so ample a power and authoritie ouer their bodies and goods if they were assured that he were so confirmed in grace and enlightned with supernaturall knowledge as the Apostles were that hee should alwayes in very deed vse it to the good of their soules and neuer abuse it to the great preiudice of them and their subiects But seeing that Popes are as other men subiect to all humane infirmities and may not onely be tempted but also ouercome with ire enuy hatred flattery and a vehement desire to encrease their temporall States and Dominions no maruaile that Soueraigne Princes who euer haue beene accounted supreme in temporals and therein inferiour onely to God cannot take it well to bee made now subiect to the Pope in temporals vnlesse sufficient reason bee brought to prooue the same And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of all that Mr. Fitzherbert hath replied concerning the law of GOD and Nature and therefore I will now briefly examine what hee saith concerning the law of Nations and the Ciuill or Imperiall law which shall be the subiect of the next Chapter CHAP. VIII VVherein M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the Law of Nations and the Ciuill Law are answered and first the difference betwixt the Priests of the olde and New Testament and the Priests of other Nations and also betwixt the Law of Nations and of Nature is declared and from thence proued that among all Nations the Ciuill Common-wealth was supreame and disposed of all things both spirituall and temporall and punished all persons both Priestes and others with temporall punishments and consequently that the new Oath cannot bee impugned by the Law of Nations and lastly what Maister Fitzherbert obiecteth from the Ciuill Law is confuted 1. IT is a vsuall tricke of Mr. Fitzherbert as you haue seene in the former Chapters and also shall see in this and the rest then most of all to bragge when hee hath least cause and when any answere of mine is most sound and sufficient then to crie out that it is improbable impertinent absurd friuolous foolish idle or ridiculous Hee pretended to prooue in his Supplement by the law of Nations that the new Oath is vnlawfull in regard it denyeth the Popes power to excommunicate and depose temporall Princes not for that hee thought it otherwise needefull hauing as hee saith prooued already but how insufficiently you haue seene that the Oath is contrarie to the law of God and Nature but to satisfie the importunitie of his Aduersarie and to giue his Reader an aboundant satisfaction because as the Lawyers say abundans cautela non nocet a prouiso too much neuer hurteth And to all the arguments he brought from the law of Nations and the Ciuill law I gaue this briefe answere as heere hee