whole to the censure of the Catholike Romane Church in that manner as bookes are vsually printed by Catholikes And if S. Ambrose or any other of the ancient Fathers were now aliue and should see bookes of certaine Catholikes directly impugning the Soueraigne power and authority of Kings and absolute that Princes whom they did so highly honor and reuerence affirming them to be inferiour in temporals to none but God alone vnder pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike and subiecting them to the coerciue temporall power of spirituall Pastours whereas their generall doctrine was that with temporall punishments they are not to be punished but by God alone and broaching by violence and without sufficient ground with scandall to Catholike Religion and contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles and the whole primitiue Church new articles of faith in preiudice of temporall authority and not permitting any man eyther to call their new faith in question or for his better instruction or discussion of the controuersie to propound any difficulty against the same with a desire to be satisfied therein albeit he submit himselfe and all his writings to the censure of the Catholike Roman Church but with open mouth crying out against him and calling him an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike what would S. Ambrose trow you or any other of the ancient Fathers if they were now aliue say of such Catholikes Truly that nothing can be more dangerous then such Catholikes who vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike religion and to the Sea Apostolike inuent new articles of faith in preiudice of Christian Princes by wresting many places of the holy Scriptures as Quodcunque solueris Pasce oues meas Secularia iudicia si habueritis c. to a sense not dreamed of by the ancient Fathers by reason of their potency in the Court of Rome and their fauour with his Holinesse whose authority they pretend to aduance vniustly persecuting those that discouer their manifest frauds and falshoods 122 Lastly that which Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth heere against me migh Bartholus Carerius and other Canonists obiecteth against Cardinall Bellarmines booke directly impugning the authority of the Sea Apostolike vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church But the plaine truth is that neyther of vs both doe impugne that authority whiCh is certainely knowne and acknowledged by all Catholikes to belong to the Sea Apostolike but as hee impugneth the direct power of the Pope to dispose of temporalls for that there is no sufficient ground to proue the same albeit some Popes haue challenged the same as due to them and some Canonists affirme that it is hereticall to deny the same so I impugne the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine who holdeth that it is certaine and a point of faith that the Pope hath at least wise an indirect power to dispose of all temporals and consequently to depose temporall Princes in order to spirituall good for that there is no sufficient ground to confirme the same 123 And the like argument might Mr. Fitzherbert vrge against all those learned Catholikes who constantly deny the Pope to haue authority to dispence in any true and lawfull marriage which is not consummated notwithstanding so many practises of Popes to the contrary impugning directly the Sea Apostolike and the whole course of Ecclesiasticall gouernment vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church For Saint Antoninus doth of affirme Antonin 3. part tit 1. cap. 21. § 3. Caiet tom 1. opusc trac 28. de Matrim q. vnica Nauar. in Manual cap. 22. nu 21. Henriq lib. 11. de matrim cap. 8. nu 11. in Com. lit F. Sot in 4. dist 27. q. 1. ar 4. that hee saw the Bulles of Pope Martin the fifth and Pope Eugenius the fourth who dispenced therein and Card. Caietane relateth that in his time Popes did oftentimes dispence therein and Nauar affirmeth that Pope Paulus the third and Pope Pius the fourth did dispence therein three or foure times by his Counsell and aduise And Henriquez the Iesuite saith that Pope Gregorie the thirteenth did in one day dispence therein with eleuen persons Whereupon Dominicus Sotus although he submitteth himselfe and all his writings to the Censure of the Church is not afraide notwithstanding this often practise of Popes which my ignorant Aduersarie calleth the practise of the Church to say that those Popes erred therein following the Canonists opinion which he affirmeth to haue in it no shew of probabilitie And why then may it not be said in like manner that his Holinesse condemning the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation followed Cardinall Bellarmines opinion and other Diuines of Rome who hold that the Popes power to excommunicate and inflict Censures is denied in the Oath and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is denied in the Oath is certaine and of faith which their doctrine in my opinion hath in it no shew of probabilitie at all euen according to those rules which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe requireth to make any doctrine of Pope or generall Councell to be of faith Whereby is plainely discouered the manifest fraude and ignorance of my vncharitable Aduersarie in affirming my doctrine to be hereticall and my selfe to be an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholik for denying the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be of faith whereas euen according to the rules which Cardinall Bellarmine requireth to make a matter of faith he cannot bring any one argument Which hath so much as a shew of probabilitie to conuince the same 124 Marke now the fraudulent Admonition which Mr. Fitzherbert giueth to his Catholike Reader vnder pretence forsooth of sinceritie and the feruent zeale he hath of his soules health And therefore I hope saith he e Pag. 223. nu 22. thou wilt be wary good Catholike Reader and diligent to discouer Widdringtons fraude thereby to auoide the danger of his poysoned pen pondering all this matter in the iust ballance of prudence that is to say that thou wilt counterpoise his vaine pretence of probabilitie not onely with the graue and sacred authoritie of the Churches practise for many ages but also with the Canons of generall and Prouinciall Councells with the Decrees of Popes and with cleere doctrine of so many famous and learned Writers as hee impugneth Also that thou wilt weigh his presumption in defending and iustifying the Oath with the iudgement authority of thy supreame Pastour who condemneth and forbiddeth it the pretended force and soliditie of his doctrine and arguments with the ridiculous absurdities which thou hast euidently seene in his answeres to mee outward shewes of affection to thee and desire of thy good with the inward intelligence he hath with Gods enemies and thine who employ him to deceiue thee seruing themselues of him as Fowlers doe of birds which they keepe in
and Saphyra and of others and from the practise of the Church and the person of man are cleerely confuted CHAP. VIII M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nations and the Ciuill law are answered and first the difference betwixt the Priests of the old and new Testament and the Priests of other Nations and also betwixt the law of Nations and of Nature is declared Secondly from thence it is prooued that among all Nations the ciuill common-wealth was supreme and disposed of all things both spirituall and temporall and punished all persons both Priests and others with temporall punishments and consequently that the new Oath cannot be impugned by the law of Nations Thirdly what M. Fitzherbert obiecteth from the Ciuill Law is confuted CHAP IX First the difficulties which some make concerning the authoritie of the Lateran Councell are propounded Secondly the decree of the Councel which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related Thirdly Widdringtons first answere to the said decree is prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted CHAP. X. Widdringtons second answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell affirming that absolute Princes are not comprehended therein because they are not mentioned by their proper names but by inferiour titles is prooued to be neitheir improbable nor absurd but conforme to the doctrine of learned Diuines and Lawyers and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the said answere are shewed to be very insufficient and fraudulent CHAP. XI Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to bee sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessary to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Secondly the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the Lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined Thirdly M. 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 CHAP. XII An other answere of Widdrington grounded vpon certaine Glossers or Expositours of the Canon Law is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are prooued to be fraudulent and insufficient Secondly it is shewed that from no Canon of the Church it can be prooued that the custome of the Church is or hath beene to inflict by her spirituall authoritie temporall penalties Thirdly the true difference betwixt the Diuines and Canonists concerning the Popes power in temporalls is declared CHAP. XIII Widdringtons third answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell is confirmed Secondly it is shewed how certaine it is according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes that the Church cannot erre in decrees or precepts of manners from whence it is cleerely deduced that from the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell it cannot with any colour of probabilitie be prooued that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes Thridly all M. Fitzherberts arguments to shew the contrary are most plainely confuted CHAP. XIIII Three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes Decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby he laboureth in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the Decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to be sound and sufficient Secondly the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons Instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraud and falshood Thirdly that proposition Many things may be certaine to the Sea Apostolike and yet seeme vncertaine to other learned men is examined CHAP. XV. Widdringtons second example and his Instances grounded thereon are confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in impugning the same is conuinced of manifest fraud and ignorance in taxing therein of fondnesse the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie Also Widdringtons third example and his Instances grounded thereon are prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts fraud in relating the said Instances and applying them to the Lateran Councell is plainely discouered CHAP. XVI Another argument or rather answere of Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in labouring to prooue that Widdrington by his owne grant is fallen into heresie or errour is conuinced of palpable ignorance The Conclusion of all Widdringtons discourse in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere is confirmed and what M. Fitzherbert excepteth against the same and also his briefe Recapitulation of all his Discourse in this his Treatise are confuted CHAP. XVII M. Fitzherberts vncharitable Admonition to the Catholike Reader that Widdrington is no other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that his submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather artificial and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes is clearely confuted and prooued to be voide of charity learning and sincerity and what reasons the King and State may haue to permit such submissions is there declared Widdringtons answere to the Popes Breues forbidding the Oath is confirmed and hee freed from all disobedience and irreuerence for not admitting them The decree of the Cardinals forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes and commanding him to purge himselfe forthwith is fully answered by his Purgation and humble Supplication which he made forthwith to his Holinesse THE PREFACE TO THE READER HOw dangerous and pernicious a thing it is deare Contreymen in any temporall Kingdome or Common-wealth to coyne or willingly to vtter and much more by fraud or violence to force the people to accept of counterfait money any man of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue And truely no lesse dangerous and pernicious is it in the spirituall Kingdome and Church of Christ 1 Tim. 3. which is the pillar and firmament of truth to inuent forge or divulge and which is farre worse to thrust vpon the faithfull by fraud and violence false articles and positions for true and infallible Catholike faith but especially in things which are greatly preiudiciall to the temporall Soueraigntie of Christian Princes whom Christ our Sauiour hath appointed to be Nurcing Fathers and Protectours of his Church Isay 19. Concil Trid. sess 25. cap. 20. de Reform for that thereby not onely Christian Princes are extreamely wronged but also the Christian Religion is greatly scandalized and the soules both of Princes and subiects are much endangered and therfore no lesse thanks doe they deserue at the hands of the Church of God who should discouer a false and forged Catholike faith and the first inuenters or publishers thereof then doe they at the hands of the temporall Kingdome who should disclose false and counterfait money and the first coiners or
receiue not from the Church but from the temporall kingdome or Common-wealth And therefore small credite is to be giuen to Mr. Fitzherberts bare I say vnlesse he could more sufficiently prooue and make good what he sayth 15 Marke now secondly how well he confirmeth this his I say For if bad Princes sayth he could not be temporally chastised by their Pastour when they contemne the spirituall rod of Ecclesiasticall Censures as wicked Princes commonly doe Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of the Church But this consequence which is so barely and without any proofe at all affirmed by him I vtterly denie For to the good gouernment of a spirituall kingdome or Common-wealth as is the Church of Christ t is sufficient for the Pastours and Gouernours thereof to haue authoritie to punish spiritually not temporally or to inflict spirituall noâ— temporall punishments as also to the good gouernment of temporall kingdomes or Common-wealths it is sufficient that their Kings Princes and other Gouernours haue authoritie to punish temporally or to inflict temporall not spirituall punishments But of this consequence more beneath m nu 21. seq for in effect it is all one with Card. Bellarmines second reason which D. Schulckenius as you shall see laboureth in vaine to make good against the answere which in my Apologie I brought thereunto 16 But this may yet be more euident saith Mr. Fitzherbert if we consider that the greatest inconuenience and harme that can happen to the Church of God groweth commonly by the negligence opposition rebellion or apostasie of Christian Princes who so long as they remaine obedient and dutifull to the Church are as the Prophet calleth them her Nutritij that is to say Isay 59. her Foster-fathers or as it were her Armes not onely to defend her against all forraine enemies but also to retaine all her subiects in their due obedience executing her lawes and decrees and confirming the same with her owne constitutions and therefore we see that in a Christian Countrey where the Prince is Catholike if any subiect doe contemne or resist an Excommunication or other Censure of the Church he is euen by the temporall and publike lawes and by the authoritie of the Prince forced presently to doe his dutie or else is seuerely punished so that while the Prince remaineth obedient to the Church there is no doubt or danger of disobedience in his subiects or of any other great inconuenience to ensue on their parts But if he become disobedient himselfe and fall into heresie Schisme or Apostasie what remedie hath the Church against him by a bare Ecclesiasticall Censure doth he not contemne it and by his authoritie and example draw his subiects for the most part to a generall reuolt from the Church shall we then say that Christ left not to his Church sufficient authoritie to remedie this 17 If a Christian Prince become disobedient to the Pastours of the Church and shall contemne all Ecclesiasticall Censures fearing not to be declared as a Heathen and Publican and to be deliuered ouer to Sathan by Excommunication which is a greater punishment saith S. Augustine then to be stricken with the sword to be consumed by fire Augustin lib. 1 contra Aduersar leg prophet cap. 17. or to be exposed to the deuouring of wild beasts the Church hath no other punishment to inflict vpon him and therefore in this case she hauing performed her office and inflicted her last punishment hath no other remedie then to leaue him to the iudgement and punishment of almightie God who will euer protect his Church and to flie to prayer fasting almes-deeds patience and such kind of spirituall armour or weapons which are proper saith the Glosse n ad Ephes 4. to the souldiers of Christ neither must she therefore vsurpe temporall and ciuill weapons or armour as are the depriuing of temporall and corporall goods which doe not belong to spirituall Pastours but to temporall Princes Kingdomes and Common-wealth Thus I answered in my Apologie o nu 184. and the reason hereof I gaue a little before for that Excommunication or such like spirituall Censure is the last and onely punishment which the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power by the institution of Christ can inflict Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. Almain in lib. de dominio nat ciu Eccles conclus 2. Bell. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19. ad secundum as Ioannes Parisiensis Iacobus Almaine and very many Doctours sayth Almaine doe affirme 18 And what if a wicked Pope shall afflict the Church and seeke to ouerthrow the spirituall good thereof and to draw soules into perdition what authoritie thinke you hath Christ our Sauiour the spouse Protectour and King of the Church according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine left to his Church to remedie this I answere saith he that it is no meruaile that the Church in this case remaineth without any effectuall humane remedie seeing that her safetie doth not chiefly relie vpon the industrie of mâ—n but vpon the protection of God who is her King Therefore although the Church hath not power to depose the Pope yet she may and ought to pray humbly to God that he will bring some remedie And it is certaine that God will haue a care of her safetie who will either conuert such a Pope or else take him out of the way before he destroy the Church And yet against this answere which may in like manner be applyed to wicked Princes persecuting the Church and contemning Ecclesiasticall Censures Mr. Fitzherbert dare not conclude that therefore Christ our Sauiour hath not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church 19 But what thinke you doth D. Schulckenius reply to that which I answered that if wicked Princes shall contemne all Ecclesiasticall censures the Church hauing vsed her last punishment cannot proceed against them by inflicting temporall punishments Euen as he vsually doth throughout his whole booke by cunningly shifting of the difficultie and flying from one argument to an other and in the ende to his accustomed rayling Schulcken pag. 359. ad nu 184. and slanderous speeches I answere saith he The temeritie of this man who will haue himselfe to be accounted a Catholike is wonderfull A generall Councell of the Christian world saith that Princes favouring heretikes and contemning Excommunication are to be depriued of their dominions by the Sea Apostolike and one man doth freely contradict and affirme that the Church hath no other thing to doe but hath performed her office after she hath throwen the dart of Excommunication To whom ought Catholike men giue credite whether to the vniuersall Church giuing testimonie of her authoritie receiued from God unto one I know not whom who lying hid vnder another mans name lasheth out words 20 But first to returne him backe his bitter inuectiue truely I cannot but admire the fraudulent and vncharitable dealing of this Doctour who would haue himselfe to be accounted
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
that they may imply that the Pope can remooue all impediments whatsoeuer which either the world or the Deuill with all their forces and sleights can oppose which proposition may at the first sight bee taken as I haue knowne diuers learned men vnderstand it in that first sense which before I shewed to bee false and therefore what great fault trow you could it bee for me to declare the meaning of those words more plainely seeing that a proposition may without doubt sometimes be false yea and as learned Diuines are of opinion may bee also hereticall according to that vulgar maxime S. Tho. secunda secundae q. 11. ar 2. Magister in 4. dist 13. which Saint Thomas and the Maister of the sentences attribute to Saint Hierome ex verbis inordinate prolatis incurritur haeresis haeresie is incurred by wordes inordinately vttered although hee by whom they were spoken had no badde meaning 33 Thirdly saith this Doctour k Ibid. it is to bee obserued that Widdrington whiles hee declareth what punishments the Church can inflict vpon her subiects that shall offend maketh mention onely of spirituall punishments as though the Church cannot inflict also temporall punishments whereof see what wee haue said aboue cap. 4. vpon the 40.41 and 42. numbers True it is that the maine scope of my Apologie was no other then to prooue it to bee probable that the spirituall power of the Church or Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall or ciuill punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures Neither hath this Doctour in those places to which hee remitteth his Reader prooued any other thing then that the Church by vertue of her spirituall power may command enioyne and impose temporall punishments and by the temporall authoritie giuen her by the grant and consent of temporall Princes may also inflict them vpon inferiour persons which I neuer denyed And so in this kingdome wee see by experience that albeit Bishops haue euer had authoritie to excommunicate disobedient persons and to enioyne temporall penalties as a thing proper to their spirituall power yet to imprison them they procure a Writ out of the temporall Court de excommunicato capiendo for apprehending an excommunicated person 34 Lastly saith this Doctour l Ibid. pag. 354 it is to bee obserued that whiles Widdrington declareth the power of Iurisdiction not without mysterie hee hath said nothing of the power to absolue from oaths and vowes and other things of that kind True it is that although I did not in that place expresly affirme as also I did not deny that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the absoluing from oathes and vowes yet of set purpose and for some mysterie I did then omit to make mention of them and the mysterie was this for that there is a great controuersie among learned Diuines especially betwixt the Thomists and their opposites wherewith I thought it neither necessarie nor expedient at that time to intermeddle not only in what maner the spiritual power of the Church may absolue froÌ„ oaths vowes but also whether the Church hath any authoritie at all to absolue from all Oaths and all vowes seeing that as afterwards m Praefat. ad Resp Apolog. nu 58. in Resp nu 148. I declared S. Thomas and his followers doe contend that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the solemne vow of religious chastitie and also that hee cannot absolue from any vow or oath by releasing the bond and obligation to performe that which is once sworne or vowed for this were to absolue from the law of Nature which commandeth vs to performe that which we haue once lawfully sworne or vowed but onely by declaring and interpreting that the matter which was sworne or vowed is not now in this particular case a sufficient matter to bee sworne or vowed From which doctrine it cleerely followeth that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the oath of true temporall allegiance vnlesse hee also haue authoritie as hee hath not to declare that true temporall allegiance is not in that particular case lawfull or necessary and consequently not a sufficient matter to bee sworne whereas true temporall allegiance is alwayes not onely lawfull but also necessary and commaunded by the law of God and nature And thus much concerning this Doctours obseruations 35 Now you shall see how well he confuteth the answere which I gaue to Cardinall Bellarmines argument supposing the aforesaid distinction Thus therefore I began to answere it Wherefore we grant the antecedent proposition in the sense which wee haue now declared But we deny that the power to vse to dispose of the temporals of all Christians is necessary to the spirituall end for such a power is not proportionate to that end therfore there is no likelyhood that for the spirituall end such a temporall power or which is all one such a power to dispose of temporals was by Christ our Sauiour giuen to his Church which is a spirituall and not temporall common-wealth I answere saith this Doctor n Num. 355. whether the power to vse and to dispose of the temporals of all Christians be necessary to the Church for her end is the principall question which is in controuersie Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth Widdrington denyeth But whiles he denyeth he is so destitute of Patrons and Doctours that also Ioannes Parisiensis whom in his booke he more often citeth for his opinion then any other is flat against him c. 36 But first it is not true that the principall question which is in controuersie is whether the power to dispose of the temporals of all christians be necessary to the Church for her end which is the saluatioÌ„ of soules but the principall question controuersie is whether Christ our Sauior gaue authority to his Church as it is a spirituall Kingdome consisteth onely of spirituall power to dispose of all temporals And Cardinall Bellarmine to proue that Christ gaue vnto his Church this power bringeth this for a reason because this power to dispose of all temporals is necessarie to her spirituall end to wit the saluation of soules which reason I say is not true and from thence it would cleerely follow that our Sauiour was of necessity tied to giue to spiritual Pastours authority to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all temporals which no man I thinke that hath his wits about him will affirme And how did the Church of Christ thinke you dispose of temporals by way of authority when she was persecuted by the Pagan and Arrian Emperours for then if at any time a power to dispose of temporals should haue beene necessary to the saluation of soules Whereupon Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth That it is not absolutely necessary to resist the common enemie Bel. l. 1. de Conâ—l ca. 10. as is the Turke For if the Church could be conuersant vnder the most cruell persecutions of Nero Domitian Decius
the Church hath not any effectuall remedie or which in his opinion is all one any sufficient authority to punish a knowen and vndoubted Pope for any crime whatsoeuer only heresie excepted Therefore you see what a foundation this Authour hath laid to subiect Popes to the examination censure and correction of a generall Councell which representeth the vniuersall Church and to quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine touching the Popes authority ouer a generall Councell which is also receiued by all the writers of his Society Thus I answered Father Parsons discourse in my Apologie 57 By which the Reader may easily perceiue what small satisfaction Fa. Parsons gaue to the Earle of Salisburies complaint both for that hee brought no cleare definition orthodoxall which the Earle required to prooue that the Pope hath authority to depose wicked Princes and to dispose of all their temporals but supposed it as graunted by all Catholikes for these silly reasons which I before rehearsed and also that from the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls it necessarily followeth as I conuinced in my Apologie d Nu. 43. Seg. that he may also takeaway their liues and giue leaue to others to kill them by all those wayes publike or secret by which temporall Princes may take away the liues of their wicked subiects and consequently his Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloudy Assassinates was not remooued by Father Parsons answere for that they who would attempt to kill such wicked and tyrannicall Princes and obstinate in their wickednesse might easily answere the decree of the Councell of Constance and affirme that what they did was not done by priuate but by publike and lawfull authoritie and that they had sufficient warrant from the virtuall at least wise and interpretatiue consent of the Pope who was bound by the law of God to giue his consent thereunto as in my Appendix against Suarez I did cleerely deduce e Part. 1. sec 9. nu 7. 8. and so those wicked miscreants that murthered the last two Kings of France and attempted to haue blowne vp with gun-powder our most noble King Queene with their Royall issue and all the nobility with the Knights and Burgeses of the Parliament did easily shift off the Decree of the Councell of Constance pretending that what they did was done by lawfull and publike authoritie 58 Now albeit Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth to defend Fa. Parsons against that which I did answere for the respect and reuerence which hee beareth to the memorie of so woorthy a man and his old friend whereof I will say nothing at this time because as he was respected and reuerenced by many Catholikes so also hee was by many not reputed woorthy of such respect and reuerence the cause whereof I will omit now to relate neuerthelesse hee saith little or nothing as you shall see against that which I vrged against him For first the greatest part of his defence hee spendeth f Pag. 120. nu 16. seq in excusing him from that whereof I did not accuse him to wit that Fa. Parsons did not say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power to worke the effect for which it was ordained but also sufficientes vires sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same but onely that the power of the Church being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment which may bee exemplified in the power to remit sinnes to giue holy Orders to excommunicate and such like For albeit the Church haue sufficient power to doe all this yet the same cannot be executed either at all times or in all places or vpon all persons by reason aswell of the in capacitie of subiects as of other externall impediments which may hinder the execution So as it were extreme folly to say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power but also sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same And the like we say concerning the power left by our Sauiour Christ to punish absolute Princes in their temporall states to wit that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient albeit the same cannot alwaies be executed and Fa. Parsons neuer taught or thought otherwise And therefore I must needes say as I said before that Widdrington hath either most grosly mistaken him which truely I cannot see how hee could doe in this place or else most maliciously abused and belyed him 59 But truely I must needes say that Mr. Fitzherbert to returne him backe his owne wordes hath either most grosly mistaken mee or else most maliciously abused and belyed me For I neither said nor meant to say that Fa. Parsons supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that Christ hath left to his Church sufficient force power or might to represse at all times all exorbitant excesses of Christian Princes or people but that he supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that the penalties wherewith the Church may punish her spirituall Children may be temporall punishments which supposition also of Fa. Parsons I declared afterwards as you haue seene in these wordes And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath power in temporalls to wit directly or indirectiy as this Au. hour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose but about the thing it selfe whether he hath in any manner at all such an authoritie whereof the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet it is not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath authoritie to depose the Emperour as we haue often said out of Trithemius 60 Neuerthelesse this also I must needes say that both D. Schulekenius and Mr. Fitzherbert and also Fa. Parsons cannot make good Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and sufficiently confute the answere I made thereunto but that they will bee driuen to suppose that the Church must haue not onely sufficient power and authoritie but also sufficient force power might and effectuall meanes to bring soules to paradise as any man of learning by that which I haue saide before may easily perceiue For the substance of Cardinall Bellarmines argument was this The Church must haue all necessarie and sufficient power or authoritie to saue soules for which the Ecclesiasticall power is ordained but the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures is not sufficient for this end therfore another power to wit to inflict also temporal punishments is necessary 61 To this argument I answered that the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures being considered in it selfe is sufficient to saue soules and that Ecclesiasticall Censures being so dreadfull punishments as I haue shewed are of themselues sufficient if they meete with a capable subiect to withdraw men from sinne neither is it necessarie that the Church must haue besides a power sufficient of it selfe sufficient force might
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
to prooue that this law of the Emperour Frederike was no way preiuciall to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran but a notable confirmation thereof which is nothing at all against mee For I neuer intended to deny that this Constitution of Frederike was against the Canon of the saide Councell but I expresly affirmed that it was the same law and constitution containing the very same wordes with that of the Councell changing onely spirituall punishments into temporall and that therefore those wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-Lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in both Decrees haue though not equally yet proportionally the like restriction and limitation in both For that which I affirme is that this great and famous Councell of Lateran where almost all the Ambassadours of Christian Kings and Princes were present did represent as the Cardinall of Peron doth well obserue the whole Christian world or Common-wealth as well temporall as spirituall and was as it were a generall Parliament of all Christendome consisting both of temporall and spirituall authoritie of temporall Princes and spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted therein concerning spirituall matters as is the inflicting of spirituall Censures for what crime soeuer either spirituall or temporall did proceede meerely from the authoritie of spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted concerning temporall matters as is this decree whereof now we treate concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they bee inflicted did proceede meerely from the authoritie of Secular Princes who are the head and fountaine of all temporall authoritie and of all power to dispose of temporall matters for that as I haue prooued more at large in the first part of this Treatise by the testimonie of many learned Catholikes the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment but that when the Church or spirituall Pastours doe inflict such temporall punishments it proceedeth from the positiue grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes 38 And from this ground it euidently followeth that not onely in this Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the temporall punishing of heretikes their abetters but also in all other Canons of Popes or Councells when the inflicting of any tēporal punishmēt is ordained it is as probable that all the force which they haue to bind doth proceede originally frō the positiue grant consent and authoritie of temporal Princes as it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not by the institutiō of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporal or ciuill punishments and consequently that temporall Princes are not by any generall wordes included in such decrees as being themselues supreame and next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be punished with temporall punishments but by GOD alone Wherefore vnlesse my Aduersaries doe first prooue which in my iudgement they will neuer bee able to doe by some conuincing argument grounded vpon the authoritie either of the Holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleare definition of the Church that this doctrine which denyeth the Pope to haue by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments is absurd and not probable they spend their time in vaine and beate about the bush to little purpose whiles they bring neuer so many decrees and canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained for still the maine question remaineth yet a foote by what authoritie to wit temporall or spirituall those Canons for as much as concerneth the inflicting of such temporall punishments haue force to binde and the answere of Almaine and of many other Catholike Doctours will bee still readie at hand that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath onely authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and that the other punishments which hee vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law authoritie grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes and that therefore the lawes or Canons of spirituall Pastours enacting them cannot bind or comprehend temporall Princes themselues 39 And by this the Reader may cleerely see both the ground and reason from whence I deduced probably that absolute Princes are not included vnder any generall words whatsoeuer in penall lawes and canons of the Church wherein temporall penalties are inflicted for neither are they included as you shall see beneath in the next Chap. in penall lawes wherein spirituall punishments are inflicted vnder generall words or names which denote titles of inferiour degree place and dignitie as are Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis a temporall or principall Land-Lord Gouernour or also Lord and such like and also how weakely not to vse Mr. Fitzherberts foule word absurdly he prooueth that I shew my selfe to bee very absurd in perswading the Reader that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in the Canon and in the Emperours law haue like restriction though not equally yet proportionally in both For what can be more cleare saith he h p. 145. nu 15 then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince who maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended only to his owne subiects whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall tearmes do comprehend all Christian men as well absolute Princes as others because they are all subiect thereto yet the Lawes of temporall Princes being made in the like or in the same generall tearmes can comprehend none but their owne subiects and this being so what an absurd argument hath Widdrington made who because the words are all one in the Canon of the Councell and the Law of the Emperour will restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne Dominion 40 And therefore though the words Dominus temporalis or principalis or non habens Dominum principalem be generall in his Law yet they can bee vnderstood of none but such as being his subiects held their Lands or states of him or of some other in his Dominions in which respect Kings and other temporall Princes which held not of the Empire could not be comprehended therein though the same generall words in the Canon must needes comprehend as well all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes as other inferiour Lords because all of them being Domini temporales are subiect alike to the decrees of a generall Councell 41 True it is that nothing is more cleere then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of
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
same Kingdome or Common-wealth and also that it may be truly presumed that they doe release the same if they choose or admit confirme and allow likewise an infidell or hereticke to bee their King For if the hereticall or infidell Kingdome hath true ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction why shall not likewise the hereticall or infidell Prince whom they shall choose or confirme be capable of the same ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction So that this pact couenant and agreement which is pretended to be made betwixt the predecessours of an hereticall Prince and his people can bee no sufficient cause and ground to make an hereticall Prince who is chosen or confirmed by an hereticall Kingdome to fall from his Royall dignity and be ipso facto depriued thereof for the confirming and establishing of that heresie which that Kingdome doth professe 25 Wherefore concerning the deposition of hereticall Princes as the state of this question is propounded by the Cardinall of Peron many particular questions are inuolued The first may be whether a Prince hauing either himselfe or his predecessours made an oath to liue and die in the Catholicke faith and doe afterwards fall to open profession of heresie and seeke to force his subiects consciences to doe the same is fallen thereby forthwith before any declaration of the Pope or Church from his Royall right and dignity and his subiects are absolued or freed ipso facto from the ciuill and sacred bond of their temporall allegiance and the affirmatiue part which Philopater teacheth and affirmeth to be certaine and vndoubted I account to be a very false scandalous seditious yea and flat traiterous doctrine The second question may be supposing this damnable doctrine to be true touching the cause and ground why such an hereticall Prince doth fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity to wit whether the breaking of the oath which he or his predecessours made to liue and die in the Catholike faith or his open profession of heresie or forcing of his subiects to doe the same whether I say all these or some of them together may be necessary or else any one of them bee sufficient that an hereticall Prince bee ipso facto depriued of his princely power and authority 26 The third question may be supposing still this false doctrine to be true whether the Pope or Church haue authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke a breaker of his oath and promise and a persecutor or enemy to Christ and Christian Religion and consequently to be fallen from all his Princely right And of this no doubt can be made supposing the former seeing that to declare authentically what is heresie who is infected therwth is a spiritual action consequently belonging to the authority of the Pope or Church The fourth question may be what effect this declaration of the Pope or Church doth worke seeing that before this declaration the aforesaid hereticall Prince hath lost and is depriued of all his princely authority and whether this declaration of the Pope or Church be necessary when the fact is so notorious and publike that no Subiect in the Realme can make any doubt but that the Prince is become an hereticke hath broken his oath to liue and die in the Catholike faith and doth force his Subiects consciences to follow his heresie And of this question also no great doubt in my opinion can be made supposing the former false doctrine to be true seeing that this declaration doth not depriue the Prince of any right at all but onely serueth to make it knowne and publike that he is depriued thereof and therefore is not greatly necessary when the fact is so publike and manifest to the view of the whole Kingdome that no man can make any doubt thereof 24 The fift question may be that supposing such a Prince doth not fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity neither by his open profession of heresie nor by breach of his oath nor by forcing his Subiects consciences to forsake their Religion whether the whole Kingdome or Common-wealth which the Parliament doth represent hath authority to depriue him of the same or which is all one whether the whole Kingdome or the King be the supreame and absolute temporall Iudge and Superiour And this question doth nothing appertaine to the Oath of England and it is grounded rather vpon the principles of morall Philosophie and Aristotles Politikes then of Diuinitie The last and principall question is whether the Pope or Church hath authority to depriue such a Prince for the aforesaid crimes of his right to raigne really truly to absolue his subiects from the natural bond of their temporall allegiance which being once dissolued the sacred or spirituall bond of the oath of allegiance which is grounded vpon the former ciuill bond and obligation and was made onely to corroborate the same is forthwith vnloosed or whether the Pope or Church hath only authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke and an enemy to Catholicke Religion and a breaker of his oath and promise and to command compell by Ecclesiasticall censures the Common-wealth supposing they haue such an authority to depriue him of his Regall power and authority and consequently to discharge euery subiect from the naturall and ciuill bond of his temporall allegiance which being taken away the sacred obligation of the oath without any other absolution dispensation or declaration of the Pope or Church is forthwith dissolued 28 All these questions the Lord Cardinall of Peron doth so cunningly inuolue in his question touching the oath of France that if wee descend to particulars I cannot see either what opinion hee doth follow concerning the deposing of hereticall Princes or how his doctrine impugneth our English oath although he would seeme to disprooue the same which onely denyeth the Popes authority to depriue the Kings Maiestie of his Royall dignity and to absolue his subiects from the ciuill bond of their temporall allegiance and doth not meddle at all with the temporall authority which a Kingdome or Common-wealth hath to depose their Prince 29 Wherefore these words of the Cardinall of Peron affirming that not onely all the other parts of the Catholicke Church Page 15. but likewise all the Doctours that liued in France from the first setting vp of Schooles of Diuinitie amongst them haue held that in the case of hereticall or infidell Princes and such as persecute Christianity or Catholicke Religion their subiects may be absolued from their oath of allegiance And againe Page 63. saith he citing Widdrington in the margent The English writers who haue put their hand to pen for the defence of the Oath made by the present King of England against the Pope hauing vsed all their endeauour to finde some Doctours and in particular French who had held their opinion before these last troubles could hitherto bring forth neuer any one neither Diuine Page 65. nor Lawyer who saith that in case
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
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
manifest which is most woorthy the obseruation that decrees of the Church cannot be certaine and firme which are not grounded vpon certaine and firme principles and foundations Wherefore if but one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church dependeth be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be certaine whether the question bee speculatiue or practicall For the Conclusion according to the maxime of the Logicians followeth the weaker part and if one of the principles or premisses bee weake it is necessarie that the conclusion in regard of that part bee weakened Wherby it is easily vnderstood that the iudgements of the Church which proceede from the vncertaine testimonies of men are weake to make a certaine and vndoubted beliefe of which sort is that whereby she iudgeth any one to be numbred in the Catalogue of Saints yet it is not lawfull to call in question such decrees without punishment but it is temerarious and irreligious not to giue credit to the Church in the canonizing of Saints which because he that doth doeth rashly and inconsiderately hee shall indeede deseruedly bee punished by the Church Thus Canus Canus l. 12. c. 1. 13 Lastly hee excuseth from heresie those who should affirme that the B. Virgin is not corporally assumpted into heauen which although saith hee it bee not contrary to faith yet because it is repugnant to the common consent of the Church it would bee taxed of malapert temeritie And albeit Fa. Suarez also doth affirme Suarez tom 2. disp 21. sec 2. that now it is so receiued an opinion that it cannot be called in question by any pious and Catholike man yet hee acknowledgeth that it is not of faith because it is neither defined by the Church neither is there any testimonie of Scripture or sufficient tradition Sot in 4. dist 43 q. 2. ar 1. Caiet tom 2. opu trac 2. de Concept cap. 1. which may cause infallible faith But Sotus saith only that it ought to bee beleeued most piously but yet it is not put among the articles of faith necessarily to bee beleeued And Caietane affirmeth that it is not to bee beleeued of necessitie but probably and piously For there is two manner of wayes saith hee whereby a thing may bee decreed to bee beleeued For some things are decreed to bee beleeued in such sort that hee who thinkes the contrarie is an heretike but some things as probably to bee beleeued as the common pietie of the Church doth probably beleeue concerning the corporall Assumption of the B. Virgin and her Sanctification in her mothers wombe Abul in cap. 22. Matth. q. 230. and other such like Abulensis also saith that it is not necessarie to holde this because it is not among the articles of faith neither also is there any thing defined by the Church that it ought to be held therefore it is lawfull for euery man to thinke as he will And the reasons which are brought to prooue her Resurrection are certaine persuasions and do not conuince yet because it is commonly held that she is risen it is more reasonable to hold it yet if any one doe affirme the contrarie wee doe not contend And neuerthelesse the aforesaid Authours knew right well that this doctrine concerning the corporall Assumption of the B. Virgin was neuer denyed by any Catholike and was also the ground and foundation of an Ecclesiasticall decree and custome to celebrate the Feast of the B. Virgins Assumption 14 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue what things are required to make one an heretike that should deny the decrees of the Church concerning manners to bee infallible and how rashly and vnchristianly my Aduersaries doe charge mee with heresie for denying the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith seeing that they cannot bring any one decree either of Pope or Councell whereby according to the conditions before required by Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus to the infallibilitie of decrees either touching faith or manners it can with any probable colour bee prooued that this doctrine is certaine and of faith but we must forsooth take their owne interpretations or rather wrestings of the Canons and false suppositions to bee sufficient decrees to determine matters of faith Now to Mr. Fitzherberts discourse 15 Secondly saith he c Pag. 178. nu 3. I wish Widdrington to consider that by this his distinction and the argument which hee deduceth from it hee may in like manner impugne the decree of the Apostles themselues made in their Councell at Hierusalem wherein they ordained and defined nothing else but matters of fact to wit that the Christians should abstaine from meates offered to Idols from things strangled and blood and fornication in all which the Apostles might according to this mans doctrine follow their owne priuate opinions and erre because their Decree concerned only matters of fact 16 But first this man supposeth that I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell which is very vntrue for I only expound and declare the sense and meaning of the Decree and disprooue the exposition which my Aduersaries make thereof Wherefore if wee may suppose that this Decree of the Apostles was concerning such a matter of fact which is not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith but only vpon opinions which are exposed to errour as I contend this Decree if wee may truely call it so of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Land-lords Magistrates or Lords to be such a matter of fact then I say we may in the like proportionate manner I doe not say impugne but expound this decree of the Apostles as I haue and shall beneath expound the decree of the Lateran Councell in such sort that from thence no infallible doctrine of faith can be concluded to prooue that which some Authours from thence pretend to conclude to wit that the Church hath authoritie to make new lawes which shall haue force to bind in conscience 17 As for example supposing onely for Disputation sake but not affirming that the Church hath not authoritie to make new lawes and precepts which shall haue force to bind in conscience which doctrine some Authours attribute to Gerson but onely to declare the lawes and precepts of GOD and Nature and also to determine those lawes and praecepts which GOD and Nature haue left vndetermined either concerning the time place or manner as for example wee are commanded by the law of GOD and Nature to honour GOD and his Saints to fast to receiue the Eucharist to confesse our sinnes c. yet the time place and manner are not determined but left to the determination of the Church and so the Church appointeth Holy-dayes fasting-dayes the time of Easter to receiue and confesse our sinnes and such like which being supposed for probable but not granted wee may I doe not say impugne but probably expound that decree of the Apostles as some ancient Fathers doe expound it so that
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
another generall Councell of like authority and why a Bishop for example of Spaine as he is a part of the generall Councell which is a true formall body representing the whole Catholike Church hath power and iurisdiction ouer the Christians of another temporall kingdome for example of France and contrariwise but a temporall or Ciuill law made by the consent of all Christian Princes may bee repealed by euery Prince for as much as concerneth his owne kingdome by whose onely authoritie that law had force to binde in his kingdome which in temporalls is subiect to no other Prince but himselfe alone and therefore as that law had not force to binde in his kingdome from the authoritie of any other Prince so the authoritie and consent of no other Prince is necessarie for the repealing and abrogating of the same So as thou seest good Reader that my third answere is no way defectiue but in euery thing sound and sufficient and that Maister Fitzherbert in the impugning thereof hath very grossely bewrayed his egregious fraude and ignorance CHAP. XIIII VVherein three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby hee laboured in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraude and falshood 1. AFter I had giuen the aforesaide third answere to that Act of the Lateran Councell as you haue seene before I insinuated another difficultie a In the aforesaid Preface nu 51. concerning that Act in these wordes I omit now that those wordes that from that time the Pope may denounce or declare his Vassalls absolued from his fealtie doe containe in them some difficultie for if wee will regard the force or proprietie of the wordes they seeme onely to signifie that it belongeth to the Pope not truely to absolue Vassalls from their fealtie but onely to declare them alreadie absolued which is not the question which wee haue now in hand But this difficultie Mr. Fitzherbert passeth ouer with silence and skippeth to examine three instances which I did not onely imagine or suppose as hee saith would be made against my last answere but which Fa. Lessius in those expresse words by me related in a booke of his called Disputatio Apologetica pro potestate Summi Pontificis which went heere vp and downe for a while in hugger mugger and whereof by chance I had then a view but now it cannot be seene but by very speciall and secret friends which is a manifest token of a great diffidence in his cause did bring to demonstrate and cleerely conuince that it is a manifest point of faith that the Pope hath power and authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance 2 And because Mr. Fitzherbert doth ouer much pare and curtoll those three instances which I brought to confront and paralele with the three arguments or obiections vrged by Fa. Lessius I thinke it not amisse first of all to relate them word by word as there they are set downe by me Wherefore the first argument or obiection of Fa. Lesus is this 1. Argument of Fa Lessius That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of their Decrees and sentences but this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their allegiance is eyther propounded or supposed by Popes Councels and Doctors as a foundation of many Canons and iudiciall sentences therfore this doctrine doth appertaine to faith 2. Argument 3 His second argument is this If a Generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath this authoritie no Catholike could make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that it doth suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of her Decrees and Sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to be accounted no lesse certaine 3. Argument 4 His third argument is this It is a poynt of Faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which is per se of it selfe vnlawfull for such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then is an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to depriue temporall Princes of their dominions the Church should erre in doctrine of manners and that in matters of very great moment For shee teacheth that after a Prince is deposed by the Popes authority all his subiects are absolued from his obedience and that his dominions may bee taken by another as it is manifest by the Councells Also that after a Prince is publikely excommunicated his subiects are absolued from their Oath of Allegiance in so much that they are not bound to obey him vntill hee he reconciled yea and she doth forbid them to obey him if the Censure be denounced All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the subiects shall thereby be incited to rebellions and periuries yea and against their will be compelled thereunto Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and commandeth rebellions and periuries and by her Censures doth compell men thereunto but to affirme this is hereticall therefore that also from whence this followeth is hereticall to wit that the Church hath not authority to absolue subiects from the bond of their oath and from their obedience 5 Thus argueth Fa. Lessius to which his arguments I did not answer in forme but onely propounded three other instances or arguments to confront them with his whereby the learned Reader might cleerely see the weakenesse and insufficiency of his obiections which my arguments I grounded in like manner vpon the dispensations decrees and iudiciall sentences of certaine Popes in these words * Praefatio Apol nu 56. seq 6 And first of all is not the due administration of Sacraments a matter of great moment and chiefly belonging to the Popes office is not an error concerning it to be accounted very pernicious But the Pope hath oftentimes giuen leaue to a Priest who was no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation b As it appeareth by S. Gregory lib. 3. epist 26. and it is related in the Canon peruenit dist 95. and many Abbots at this day haue the same faculty Concil Flor. circa finem in Decreto Eugen. whereas it is a great cōtrouersie among
not onely vpon this fact of Popes giuing licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation but also vpon the two other examples before propounded whereas he hath not as you haue seene so much as related my first Instance 24 Secondly besides that not onely my first Instance or argument but also the other two Instances which I brought to comfort them with Fa. Lessius his three arguments were grounded vpon the licences which some Popes haue giuen to inferiour Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation it is very vntrue that I by any of my three instances laboured to prooue as this man affirmeth that the Decree of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition of Princes might be vncertaine seeing that I alwayes contended that the Decree of the Lateran Councell did not concerne the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates and Landlords and also that it was not made by Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie but onely by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes So that Mr. Fitzherbert to shew that I argue most absurdly from the particular facts and dispensations of Popes to the generall Decrees of Popes and generall Councells betwixt which I doe not denie but that there is an euident disparitie sheweth himselfe to be very false and fraudulent For that which I contended by my first instance to prooue was that the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius first argument is not generally true and consequently that his argument could not be good That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctors doe either propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which proposition being generall may be applyed not onely to the decree of the Lateran Councell but also to all other particular decrees and sentences of Popes or Councells which the three aforesaid examples by me propounded touching the particular sentences dispensations licences and decrees of Popes do euidently conuince to be a very false proposition and consequently his argument grounded thereon to be very insufficient 25 And therefore to shew the weaknesse of Fa. Lessius his first argument I did oppose to it an other like instance for if that doctrine doth appertain to faith which Popes Doctors do propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which is the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his first argument then this doctrin that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie and giue licence to inferiour Priests to minister the Sacrament of confirmation must also appertaine to faith seeing that it is propounded and supposed by Popes and Doctours as a certaine foundation of many Canons Decrees and iudiciall sentences of Popes Now by the answere which my Aduersaries will make to this instance I will also satisfie Fa. Lessius his first argument For all the force of that argument doth consist in the true sense and meaning of that Maior proposition for absolutely and in those generall words as it is spoken by him without any limitation it is as I said very vntrue but it must be limited both to those decrees constitutions iudiciall sentences grants and priuiledges which are certainely knowne to proceed from Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill authority and also to such Decrees which are propounded as of Faith or doe ordaine things cleerely and euidently deduced from some vndoubted doctrine of Faith as I shewed aboue out of Card. Bellarmine and Canus 26 For although it bee certaine and a poynt of faith that the Church of Christ as it includeth onely Church-men or Cleargy-men hath a full Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall power in generall and that the foundation of true and proper Ecclesiasticall Lawes Decrees or Canons is true Ecclesiasticall power also in generall yet in particular to what things the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power doth extend there is such a great controuersie among Doctours that in this point few things are sure or certaine as I shewed before out of Almaine as whether the Church hath power to giue licence to inferiour Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastitie to dissolue the bond of Matrimony which is not consummate and many such like and to come neere our matter to dispose of temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to depose temporall Princes for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer So that the foundation of such Decrees Canons constitutions licences dispensations and sentences cannot be certaine and a point of faith so long as it remaineth questionable and controuersed among Catholikes For it is manifest and most worthy to be noted as Canus said Canus lib 5. de loc cap. 5. q. vlt. concl 3. that those decrees of the Church can not be certaine and firme which are not grounded vpon certaine and firme principles and foundations Wherefore if but one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church dependeth be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be vncertaine c. And by this Fa. Lessius his first argument is plainely solued For his Minor proposition is absolutely false and also his Maior is not true if it be vnderstood of Decrees Canons m Pag. 88. nu 7. and sentences which are not certainely knowne to proceed fâ—om spirituall authority 27 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert that he doth not argue against the Decree it selfe but against the reason whereupon it was grounded saying that it may be vncertaine and subiect to error no lesse then the reason which mooued some Popes to giue licence to a Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation But if he say this he is very absurd for he argueth in effect no otherwise then thus Gal. 2. Acts 15. Because S. Peter had no sufficient ground for his dissimulation at Antioch which S. Paul reprehended in him therefore the Apostles had no sufficient reason or ground for their Decree in the Councell at Hierusalem which no man that hath his right wits will say for that the Apostles had the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost in making their Decree which S. Peter had not eyther in his particular fact or in the foundation whereupon he grounded it 28 But first it is manifest as you haue seene before that I neuer argued eyther against the Decree of the Lateran Councell or against the reason of that Decree but I onely impugned the exposition which my Aduersaries make of that Decree and the reason whereby they pretend to prooue from that Decree that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith considering that it is vncertaine whether that Decree was made by true Ecclesiasticall or ciuill authority and also for that it is not a true and proper Decree containing in it any precept or obligation and though it were it is not propounded as of faith nor grounded vpon any cleare and vndoubted doctrine of faith which
Lateran Councell that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith the more he bewraieth his owne ignorance and the weakenesse of his cause and the vncertaintie of his new broached Catholike faith 11 And truely it cannot be denied saith Mr. Fitzherbert c Pag. 200. nu 3. but that great difference is to be made as Widdrington saith well out of Cardinall Bellarmine betwixt the certaintie of the Decrees of Councells and of the reasons which are alledged therein it being euident that all reasons are not of like weight certaintie or probability neuerthelesse it were absurd to say that the fundamentall reason or doctrine which is necessarily included and supposed in any decree of an Oecumenicall Councell can be false for so also the decree it selfe should be false and the errour of both iustly ascribed to the holy Ghost as Authour thereof 12 But heere my Aduersary shooteth his bolt farre beyond the marke for as not all Decrees of Oecumenicall Councells are certaine infallible and of faith but onely those which are made by true Ecclesiasticall authority and are propounded as of faith and which are generall to the whole Church and doe binde all the faithfull so neyther must the fundamentall reason or doctrine which is necessarily included in euery decree of an Oecumenial Councell be of necessity certain infallible and of faith but it may be false and exposed to error as the decree it selfe whereof it is a fundamentall reason 13 And this I say of decrees saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 194. num 4. 5. that concerne not onely matters of beliefe but also manners or matters of fact such as was the decree of the Apostles at Hierusalem wherein they doubted not to say Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis Acts 15. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs ascribing to the holy Ghosts assistance their determination not onely of the decree it selfe but also of the foundation whereupon it was grounded I meane the equalitie iustice and conueniencie of it For it cannot bee denied but that the holy Ghost assisted and guided them first to determine what was lawfull and conuenient to be decreed and executed and then after to ordaine and decree it the one so depending on the other that if they had failed in the former they would not haue iustly decreed the latter that is to say if it had not beene lawfull and conuenient for Christians at that time to abstaine from strangled meates and bloud the Apostles could not haue lawfully ordained and decreed it and therefore the Decree being iust and ascribed to the assistance of the holy Ghost the foundation or ground and all the necessary consequents thereof must needs be granted to be lawfull and iust and to flow from one fountaine that is to say from the holy Ghosts inspiration and assistance 14 But first as concerning matters of beliefe I grant with Canus that it is certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre when shee propoundeth a doctrine of faith with an obligation to binde all the faithfull to beleeue the same and likewise in Decrees concerning such manners and matters of fact as are necessary to saluation I grant also with the same Canus that it is certaine that shee cannot erre in making such Decrees for that consequently it would follow as Canus well deduceth that she may also erre in doctrine of faith and so the Church cannot command any thing to all the faithfull which is repugnant to the Gospel or to the law of nature But whether it be likewise certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre in Decrees concerning manners and matters of fact which are not necessary to saluation I will not now dispute for not giuing occasion to my Aduersaries to flye from the principall question touching the Decrees or Act of the Lateran Councell it being sufficient at this time that the iudicious Reader by that which I haue before related out of the doctrine of Canus may haue some light how to iudge of this question For hee granteth that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Charch may erre in the canonizing of Saints for that her iudgement heerein dependeth vpon an vncertaine ground to wit vpon the relation information and iudgement of other men which is vncertaine and fallible and consequently according to his grounds she may erre in all such Decrees which depend vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and foundations And the leardnest Diuines of his owne Societie as Salmeron Suarez and Vasquez who according to the Censure of this my rash and ignorant Aduersarie are very absurd and impertinent therein doe constantly hold that the fundamental reason of the Churches Decree concerning the celebration of the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception is not certaine and a point of faith but controuersed by learned Catholikes without any offence to wit that shee was sanctified in the first instant of her Conception and that to honour this her pure holy and immaculate Conception the said Feast was instituted 15 Secondly it is not certaine that the Church now hath the same infallibility in making Decrees concerning such manners and matters of fact as are not necessary to saluation which the Apostles had in making such Decrees for that the iudgement of the Apostles being extraordinarily illuminated and assisted by the holy Ghost did not onely depend vpon the relation information and iudgement of men but also vpon the speciall and extraordinary assistance of the holy Ghost and therefore from that Decree of the Apostles concerning the not eating of blood and strangled meates who were peculiarly and extraordinarily assisted and replenished with the holy Ghost and therefore might well say Visum est spiritui nobis Acts 2. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs no sufficient argument can bee brought to prooue that therefore it is a point of faith that the Church now cannot likewise erre in making such Decrees 16 Thirdly Mr. Fitzherbert must also distinguish betwixt the lawfulnesse of an Ecclesiasticall decree concerning manners and matters of fact and the certainty or infallibilitie thereof for that many Decrees may bee lawfull and consequently ought to bee obeyed vntill the vnlawfulnesse or iniustice thereof be manifest and yet not infallible as it is euident in the ciuill lawes of temporall Princes and Common-wealths whose lawes are lawfull and ought to be obeyed by their subiects so long as the vnlawfulnesse or iniustice of them is not apparant and yet they are not therefore infallible And so a Decree of the Church after due examination approouing the finall sanctitie of such or such a man deceased and vpon that ground commanding all the faithfull to celebrate his Feast is lawfull and ought to bee obeyed vntill it be manifest that she was deceiued and misinformed by false relation and yet it is not therefore infallible and a point of faith that he is truely a Saint and died in true sanctitie and holinesse of
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
held with Catholike faith was truely a generall Councell therefore vnto this day it remaineth a question euen among Catholikes And all the world seeth that the Diuines of Paris are admitted to Sacraments which ought not to bee tolerated if they committed any heresie errour or temerity for defending this doctrine as publike harlots are in some sort permitted at Rome but not suffered to receiue Sacraments so long as they persist in that wicked life 81 And from hence it euidently followeth first that it is not certaine and infallible that the Pope with his Cardinalls and Diuines yea and with the particular Romane Church defining determining or propounding to the whole Church any thing to be beleeued formally as of faith without a generall Councell cannot erre and be deceiued and consequently such definitions cannot be certaine and infallible nor can be an assured ground of Catholike faith nor a sufficient reason motiue medium or cause to beleeue any thing by him so defined with Catholike faith for that the fundamentall reason medium cause and motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine and infallible as I shewed before out of Bannes from whom other Diuines doe not dissent herein and if that reason be vncertaine doubtfull or fallible the faith or beliefe which is grounded and dependeth thereon cannot be truely Catholike and infallible 82 Secondly if the Popes decrees and definitions in things to be beleeued as of faith albeit directed to the whole Church and in things which doe not concerne his owne particular interest honour authority or prerogatiue and wherein therefore there can be no suspicion that he himselfe is led by affection or his Counsellers and Diuines by flattery to the making of such Decrees are not certaine and infallible but may be false and exposed to errour and consequently can be no sure ground of Catholike faith what iudgement can any sensible man make of such decrees or definitions which are neither directed to the whole Church but to particular persons or Churches nor are propounded as of faith nor grounded vpon any doctrine which is certaine and out of controuersie but onely vpon a question maintained on both sides by learned Catholikes and which also concerneth the Popes owne interest authority and prerogatiue as are his Breues directed to English Catholikes which are neither propounded to the whole Church nor containe any definition as of faith but onely a declaratiue precept which is grounded vpon a controuersie which began in Pope Gregory the seuenth his time and hath since continued betwixt the Bishops of Rome and Christian Princes concerning the authority which Popes pretend to haue ouer all their temporalls 83 Thirdly if the Popes Decrees together with the Romane Church by which he declareth and defineth any doctrine to be of faith or against faith may be fallible and exposed to errour and consequently can be no certaine rule or ground of Catholike faith nor any sufficient reason cause or motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith so long as this controuersie among Catholikes concerning the Popes infallibility in his definitions remaineth vndecided much lesse can a Decree of any Congregation of Cardinalls declaring any doctrine to be of faith or condemning any doctrine as hereticall erroneous temerarious or scandalous be an assured ground of Catholike faith or a sufficient reason for any man to beleeue with Catholike faith that doctrine to be such as their Decrees doe declare or condâ—mne Which being so what iudgement I pray you can any reasonable man make of such their Decrees which condemne no doctrine at all either in generall or particular but onely forbid certaine bookes to be read or kept without declaring for what cause or crime either in particular or in generall they are forbidden and such bookes also as are written against one of the chiefest of their Congregation of which sort is that Decree of the Cardinalls wherein two bookes of mine written chiefly against Cardinall Bellarmine are forbidden without expressing any cause or crime at all either in particular or generall why they are forbidden 84 Fourthly by all this it is euident what infinite wrong this my ignorant Aduersary whether onely through blinde and inconsiderate zeale or also through some passionate splene taken against me for contradicting his writings and some others of his Societie I leaue to God his own conscience to iudge hath both done to me in so falsly and yet vpon such childish grounds accusing me to be no Catholike but an hereticke disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike for not admitting the Popes Breues and declaratiue precept grounded at the most vpon an opinion which learned Catholikes haue euer impugned and taxing my doctrine of heresie for that my bookes are forbidden by the Cardinalls of the Inquisition without condemning any position contained in them of any crime either in particular or generall and also into what eminent danger he both casteth himselfe headlong and seeketh also to draw after him vnlearned Catholikes if they will follow such a blinde guide in waies which he himselfe for want of Scholasticall learning hath neuer gone by endeauouring to ouerthrow their Catholike faith and to perswade them to build it vpon fallible grounds as vpon Popes Breues which neither are directed to the whole Church nor doe containe any definition or declaration of any particular doctrine and vpon the Decrees of certaine Cardinalls condemning bookes onely in generall tearmes which perchance some of them neuer read nor for want of sufficient learning doe well vnderstand but doe relie either vpon the relation or iudgement of other men to whom the charge of ouerseeing such bookes is committed by them whereas the grounds of true Catholike faith and the fundamentall reason why a man ought to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine infallible and without all controuersie And thus you see in what a labyrinth this silly man hath wound himselfe who seeking to perswade his Reader that I am no true Catholike but a disguised and masked hereticke vnder the name of a Catholike for not building my Catholike faith vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are controuersed among learned Catholikes plainly bewraieth what a sound Catholike he himselfe is and vpon what sure grounds he buildeth his Catholike faith and would haue other Catholikes to build the same whereas according to the approoued doctrine of all learned Catholikes vnlesse it be built vpon certaine vndoubted and infallible grounds it cannot be a true Catholike faith but onely an vncertaine and fallible opinion masked vnder the vizard of Catholike faith 85 Lastly that vnlearned Catholikes may walke warily securely and without danger and bee not misled blindfold by this my ignorant Aduersary they must carefully obserue the difference betwixt the Church firmely beleeuing and probably thinking or which is all one betwixt Catholike faith and opinion The first difference is that the grounds of Catholike faith must bee certaine and infallible but the grounds of
no Catholike is bound to admit his Holinesse Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath and to obey his declaratiue commandement contained therein for the reasons signified before which I humbly propounded to his Holinesse desiring him most earnestly as being our chiefe Pastour Teacher and Instructer to giue vs some satisfaction therein yet I cannot therefore in the iudgement of any learned man bee iustly accounted a disobedient childe to his Holinesse seeing that it is euident as I shewed before out of Dominicus Sotus that if a Superiour imposâ— a commandement whereby danger is feared to Religion or to the common-wealth or to a third person as all the world knoweth that the forbidding of the Oath is heere in England preiudiciall to Catholike Religion to his Maiestie and the temporall State and to all his Catholike subiects if the subiect be doubtfull that such a danger will arise he is not bound foorthwith to obey but he may without any disobedience demaund of his Prelate a reason of his commandement propounding humbly the reasons of his doubts 103 Besides Luthers doctrine was within two yeeres condemned not onely in generall words but also his propositions were specified in particular both by Pope Leo himselfe in his particular Bull concerning the same and also by the famous Vniuersities of Paris Louan and Collen But albeit two of my bookes are by a particular decree of the Cardinall forbidden in generall and I commanded vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe forthwith yet they haue neither expressed any one proposition in particular neither as yet can I get them to name one proposition which is repugnant to faith or good manners although I haue most earnestly requested to know the same protesting from my heart to bee most readie to correct what is to bee corrected to purge what is to bee purged to explaine what is to be explained and to retract what is to bee retracted which their different proceeding against me and Luther doth plainly argue that they haue begun a worke which they cannot with their reputation continue and that there is no such dangerous doctrine contained in my bookes as Cardinall Bellarmine against whom I did chiefly write and who is my accuser Aduersarie and Iudge hath by all likelihood informed them and would gladly to saue his owne credit and that he hath not falsly to his great dishonour accused me and my doctrine of errour heresie and of being no good Catholike would make the world beleeue for which at the day of iudgement hee shall render a strict account And thus you see that this comparison which my indiscreete Aduersarie hath to disgrace me made betwixt me and Luther doth nothing helpe but greatly hurt his cause 104 Now you shall see what a fraudulent and vncharitable obseruation hee gathereth from hence That which I wish saith he z Pag. 121. nu 18. 19. to bee obserued heerein is how little heed is to bee taken to Widdringtons submission of his writings to the Roman Church he should haue saide Catholike Roman Church considering his doctrine and the course he holdeth in the maintaining thereof For as Cicero saide by Epicurus who wrote sometimes very vertuously and thereby deceiued many it is not so much to be considered what hee writeth as what his grounds and principles are and how well his writings agree therewith as for example what opinion he or any other hath or can haue of the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike who purposely impugneth the iurisdiction thereof contradicting as I haue shewed sufficiently in this Reply the ancient and generall practise of the Church the expresse Canons thereof and the Decrees of Popes and Generall Councells vpon an absurd supposition partly of a bare probabilitie in his own doctrine partly of a possibilitie of errour in Decrees touching matters of fact which he is not ashamed to say of the Decree of the famous Oecumenical Councel of Lateran albeit all Catholikes doe vniformely teach that generall Councells lawfully assembled and confirmed by the Pope cannot erre in any generall Decree touching either faith or manners as I haue sufficiently signified before a See chap. 16. nu 11. and 12. Besides that he vseth the very obiections arguments answeres shifts and euasions of heretikes discouering now and then such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade him without great disgust and indignation or can take him for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike 105 But to answer the false and fraudulent obseruation or rather shamefull calumniation of this malignant spirit which hee would gladly colour with the luster of a faigned intemperate and Pharisaicall zeale to the Sea Apostolike I may rightly say to him as Saint Paul sayde to Elymas the Magician O plene omnidole omnifallacia Act. 13. c. O full of all guile and of all deceipt c. For to begin with his later wordes I doe not vse any other obiections arguments and answeres then which vertuous and learned Catholikes haued vsed before mee neither doe I discouer any arrogant proude or malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike whom I reuerence and respect with all my heart onely the plaine truth which Catholike Doctours haue said before me and which oftentimes breedeth enmitie I doe modestly reuerently and without any flattery which commonly procureth friends â—â—â—downe And this vncharitable and ignorant man might haue done well to haue named some one particular shift or euation which I haue vsed and which onely heretikes and no Catholikes doe vse or wherein I discouer such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade it without disgust and indignation or take me for any other than an heretike disguished and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike But this is a vsuall tricke of slanderers and backbiters to vse such generall speeches lest if they should descend to particulars their malicious and lying spirit would presently bee discouered 106 Secondly this silly man cannot prooue that any one thing either concerning my doctrine and the grounds and principles thereof or concerning the course which I hold in the maintenance thereof doth not agree with the submission I made of my writings to the censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church For I doe not impugne any authoritie or iurisdiction which the Catholike Romane Church acknowledgeth as due to the Sea Apostolike but I impugne onely the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishment as a thing certaine and necessarily to be belieued or maintained by Catholikes for that the Catholike Church neuer acknowledged this authoritie to be due to him neither was this doctrine in the primitiue Church and for many hundred yeares after by the ancient Fathers so much as dreamed on but it hath been challenged practised by some Popes since the time of P. Gregorie the 7. Res ante ea secula inaudita
bee published euery where made by the Sacred Congregation of the most Honourable Cardinalls of the holy Roman Church specially deputed by our most holy Lord Pope Paul the fift and the holy Apostolike Sea for the examination of bookes and their permission prohibition purgation and impression throughout the vniuersall Christian Common-wealth The Sacred Congregation of the most Honourable Cardinalls of the holy Roman Church deputed for the examination of bookes hauing seene a booke falsly intituled An Apologie of Cardinall Bellarmine for the right of Princes against his owne reasons for the Popes authoritie to depose Secular Princes in order to spirituall good written by Roger Widdrington an English Catholike in the yeere of our Lord 1611. and another booke of the same Authour intituled A Theologicall Disputation concerning the Oath of Allegiance dedicated to the most holy Father Pope Paul the fift Printed at Albinopolis in the yeere of our Lord 1613. hath iudged both the bookes worthy to bee condemned and prohibited and by the commandement of our most holy Lord Pope Paul the fift doeth by this present Decree vtterly condemne and prohibite them in what language soeuer they are printed or to be printed and except the Authour of them who professeth himselfe to be a Catholike doe cleare himselfe foorthwith hee is to vnderstand that hee shall bee throughly punished with Censures and other Ecclesiasticall penalties Furthermore it commandeth vnder the penalties contained in the holy Councell of Trent and the Index of forbidden bookes that none of what degree or condition soeuer be so bold from hencefoorth to print the foresaide bookes or cause them to bee printed or keepe them with him in any sort or reade them Also it commandeth vnder the same penalties that whosoeuer hath them now or shall haue them heereafter hee shall presently vpon the knowledge of this present Decree exhibite them to the Ordinaries of the places where he is or to the Inquisitours In testimonie whereof this present Decree was signed and sealed with the hand and seale of the most Honourable and most Reuerend Lord the Lord Cardinall of S. Caecila Bishop of Alba the 16. of March 1614. P. Bishop of Alba Cardinall of S. Caecilia The place ✚ for the seale Regist fol. 50. Fr. Thomas Pallauicinus of the Order of the Preachers Secretarie Printed in Rome by the Printer of the Apostolicall Chamber 1614. 134 To this Decree may bee added a Letter which the Popes Nuncius in Flaunders wrote from Bruxels to Mr. George Birket then Arch-Priest touching my Theologicall Disputation dedicated to his Holinesse the Copie whereof is this Admodum Reuerende Domine vti frater in Christo dilectissimé PEruenit in vrbem Disputatio Theologica de Iuramento Fidelitatis tertium sub Widdringtoni nomine evulgatum opus Ibi cum diligenter examinatum sit declarauit Sanctissimus D. N. nullo modo se dicti operis dedicationem acceptare illius Authorem neque Ecclesiae filium neque Catholicum existimare omnesque insuper Catholicos ab illius lectione abstinere prorsus debere De his ante paucos dies per Sanctae Romanae Inquisitionis Congregationis literas de mandato suae Sanctitatis edoctus sum vt de ijsdem ad Dominationem tuam imprimis scriberem quò eadem istic Catholicis significes ac pro tua prudentia innotescere cures Deus Dominationem tuam Coelesti sua custodia muniat Bruxellis 26. Nouembr 1613. Admodum Reuerendae Dominationis tuae Amantissimus studiosus Very Reuerend Sir and as a Brother most beloued in Christ THere came into the Citie of Rome a Theologicall Disputation concerning the Oath of Allegiance the third worke published vnder the name of Widdrington After it was there diligently examined our most Holy Lord declared that he in no wise accepted the Dedication of the said Worke and that hee thought the Authour thereof to bee neither a childe of the Church nor a Catholike and moreouer that all Catholikes should abstaine from the reading thereof Of these things I was certified some few daies since by Letters of the Congregation of the Holy Romane Inquisition by the commandement of his Holinesse to the end that first of all I should write thereof to your Reuerence that you may signifie the same to Catholikes there according to your wisedome to make it knowne to them God defend your Reuerence with his heauenly custodie From Bruxels the 26. of Nouemb. 1613. Of your Reuerence most louing and respectiue 135 Now from this Decree Mr. Fitzh concludeth this last Chapter and his whole Replie in this manner So as saith he f Pag. 225. num 25. 26. I hope Catholike Reader thou shalt shortly be out of all doubt of what Religion Widdrington is for if now after that this controuersie of the Oath hath beene many yeares debated and discussed by the learned Catholikes of diuers Nations and determined by two Apostolicall Breues yea and that his owne Bookes written in defence of the Oath are condemned by his Holinesse and hee himselfe peremptorily admonished vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures to cleare and conforme himselfe without further delay if now I say after all this he will pretend as hitherto he hath done that his Holinesse is still ignorant of the true state of the question or that he is deceiued deluded by others or else if he seeke other new shifts euasions or delaies to excuse or deferre his conformitie to the iudgement of his supreame Pastour he shall shew himselfe to he either a scabbed or rotten sheepe worthy to be excluded out of the folde for feare hee infect others or else a rauening Wolfe clad in a sheepes skinne Besides that it will euidently appeare that all his former pretences to de a Catholike and his submissions to the Sea Apostolike g He should haue said to the Catholike Romane Church for these be Widdringtons expresse words haue proceeded from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes which I leaue good Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration and humbly beseeching Almighty God from the bottome of my heart to illuminate and inspire him with his grace that he may see his owne lamentable estate and preuent the danger of his soule wherein be runneth headlong if he continue his wonted course 136 But to this Decree of the Lord Cardinals and to the letter of the Pope Nuncius to Mr. Birkett and also to all that which Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth from the aforesaid Decree there needeth no other answer then to set down my Purgation humble Supplication to his Holines wherein I desired to know any one thing which in the Oath is repugnant to faith or saluation as his Holinesse in his Breues declared that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation or any one thing in my bookes which are against faith or good manners protesting with all sinceritie to correct what is to be
ROGER WIDDRINGTONS Last REIOYNDER TO Mr. THOMAS FITZ-HERBERTS REPLY CONCERNING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE And the POPES power to depose PRINCES Wherein all his arguments taken from the Lawes of God in the old and new Testament of Nature of Nations from the Canon and Ciuill Law and from the Popes Breues condemning the Oath and the Cardinalls Decree forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes are answered Also many Replies and Instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered PROVERBS 12. The lip of truth shall be stable for euer but he that is an hasty witnesse frameth a tongue of lying IHS Permissu Superiorum 1619. ⧠The CONTENTS of this TREATISE THE Preface to the Reader wherein it is shewed first how dangerous and pernitious a thing it is vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike Religion and to the Sea Apostolike to coyne teach and publish by fraude and violence false articles of Catholike faith especially in things which doe greatly derogate from the temporall Soueraignty of absolute Princes Secondly how exceedingly Widdringtons Aduersaries doe preiudice themselues and their cause by handling this controuersie concerning the Oath of Allegiance and the Popes power to depose Princes in such a fraudulent vncharitable and slanderous manner and in not permitting learned Catholikes to whom the charge of soules is committed and who ought alwaies to bee ready to satisfie euery one that asketh them a reason of their Catholike faith to try and examine by the true touchstone of Catholike faith and the vndoubted principles of Catholike Religion whether the faith which they pretend to bee Catholike bee a false and forged Catholike faith or no Thirdly what is Widdringtons chiefe drift in making this Reioynder and in continuing still to handle this controuersie CHAP. I. Widdrington freeth himselfe of two fraudes whereof he is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe againe vp his Aduersary Secondly hee discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds Thirdly he plainly sheweth that he hath answeared probably and like a good Catholike CHAP II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersary taken from the rule of the law The accessory followeth the principall is confirmed Secondly Two Instances which he brought against that rule are prooued to be sound and sufficient Thirdly that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue Secular iudgements c. is at large examined CHAP. III. Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime Hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed Secondly the foure Instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polony are confuted CHAP. IIII. Widdringtons interpretation of that clause of the Oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to bee sound and sufficient and is cleered from all absurditie and contradiction euen by M. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike CHAP. V. Widdringtons answeres to all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the olde and new Testament are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrary to his owne doctrine SEC 1. First all the authorities which are brought out of the old law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and other learned Diuines Secondly the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular SEC 2. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the olde law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authority of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastice and depose Kings is disprooued Secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered Thirdly it is shewed that the authority of S. Chrysostome brought by M. Fitzherbert to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authority he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth Saint Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine SEC 3. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the verity is prooued to make against himselfe Secondly those words of our Sauiour Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted Common-wealth are satisfied and Doctor Schulckenius Reply is proued to be fraudulent and insufficient Thirdly the authoritie of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were readie to reuenge all disobedience is answered M. Fitzherberts fraud in alledging the authority of S. Augustine is plainely discouered and the Conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be false and fraudulent CHAP. VI. M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ Secondly that Religious Priests cannot by the law of Nature punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the law of Nature the ciuill societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers Replies of M. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted CHAP. VII 1. Certaine places of the old and new Testament are explained 2. D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere Widdrington made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisburie grounded thereon and fourthly other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias
scrupulous and vnlearned Catholikes and to nourish in their hearts such dangerous speculations which without manifest treason can neuer bee put in practise Thirdly to make manifest to all men that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not certaine vnquestionable and a point of faith but very doubtfull vncertaine and at the most onely probable and consequently that it cannot bee practised by the Pope or any other whatsoeuer without manifest iniury to the Prince who is in lawfull possession of his Kingdome of which the Pope vnder pretence onely of a probable power or title seeketh by his sentence to depriue him for that according to the approued rule of the law and grounded vpon naturall reason In causa dubia De regulis Iuris in 6. ff de regulis Iuris regula In pari causa siue incerta melior potior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable case the condition of the possessour is to bee preferred And therefore as well obserueth Fa. Lessius in his Singleton a Par. 2. nu 38. potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. A power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished and be depriued of his right and dominion but such a power must be most certaine and not doubtfull or disputable c. 16 So that there is a great difference to be made for as much as concerneth practise betwixt a power onely probable which tendeth to fauour and is hurtfull to none and which is penall and preiudiciall to a third person who is depriued thereby of some thing which he lawfully possesseth For it is most certaine and approoued by all Diuines that one may practise a probable power to vse Lessius words Quando agitur de fauore beneficio nemo cogitur nemo iure propinquo seu in re obtento spoliatur sed potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. When it is treated of a fauour and benefit and no man is forced or compelled no man is spoiled of his next right or which hee possesseth indeed but a power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished or depriued of his right and dominion c. And for this cause my Aduersaries knowing right well that if they should once admit that this power of the Pope is onely probable they must con-consequently grant that it is merus titulus sine re and can neuer bee lawfully put in practise by any Pope Prince or subiect whatsoeuer haue so much laboured to conuince out of all lawes humane and diuine that this power is not onely probable but most certaine and a cleare point of faith But how shamefully they haue spent their labour in vaine and what friuolous and fallacious arguments they haue brought vnder pretence of spirituall good to make Soueraigne Princes whom all the ancient Fathers with uniforme consent acknowledge to bee supreame on earth and next vnder God in temporals to bee in temporals subiect to the Pope and that the more they striue to make their doctrine in this point to be certaine and of faith the more they shew it still to be lesse probable and to bee inuented and maintained onely in fauour of the Pope without sufficient grounds thou shalt see it good Reader in this Treatise made as cleare and manifest as the light at noone-day 17 Onely I must desire thy patience and pardon for my often repeating the selfe same things which may seeme to some to bee both superfluous and tedious but to me for satisfaction chiefly of the vnlearned Reader it seemed very necessary especially for that the chiefe state of the controuersie depends thereon and yet my Aduersaries will scarse take notice thereof yea and are not ashamed to affirme that I doe not teach any such things although they haue beene by mee very often inculcated As among other things for example sake albeit I haue in all my bookes so often repeated that distinction betwixt the directiue and coerciue power betwixt commanding enioyning or imposing and inflicting punishing or disposing and that I doe so often and so expresly affirme that spirituall Pastours haue by the institution of Christ authority to command enioyne and impose temporall and coporall penalties but to inflict them to punish temporally and to dispose of temporall things onely by the consent and grant of temporall Princes Page 258. yet Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius is not ashamed to auerre that Widdrington denieth the Pope to haue authority to command temporall Princes in temporals in order to spirituall good and therevpon taxeth him of teaching flat heresie and the most that M. Fitzherbert prooueth in this his Replie is as you shall see that spirituall Pastours may for the necessitie of the Church and the good of soules command enioyne and impose temporall and corporall afflictions as fasting almes deedes vsing of haire-cloth and the like wherof no Catholike maketh doubt And therefore I thought it necessarie to inculcate as often as occasion should require the aforesaid distinction it being the maine marke to which the greatest part of all my Aduersaries arguments and of my answeres doe principally tend and whereon the whole state of the Controuersie betwixt me and them concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporals doth chiefly depend CHAP. I. Wherein Widdrington freeth himselfe from two fraudes whereof hee is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe vpon his Aduersarie secondly he discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds and thirdly hee plainely sheweth that hee hath answered probably and like a good Catholike 1. THere bee three things Good Reader which my Aduersary Mr. Fitzherbert in the first chapter of his Reply doth wrongfully lay to my charge The first is that I haue lamely and fraudulently set downe the summe and substance of his discourse in the two first Chapters of his Supplement the second that in relating a supposition of his I haue vsed two fraudes the one in the relation of his wordes and the other in the vse and application of them the third is that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike And because the Reader may the better iudge of the sufficiencie and truth of both our answeres for my onely desire is that the trueth in this difficult controuersie may be cleerely knowne I will obserue the same methode order and number of Chapters which he doth and therefore my answere to his first accusation for that he remitteth his Reader for proofe thereof to his fift sixt and seuenth Chapters I will also referre to those places and only his two accusations I will examine with him in this
that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the English Church nor in plaine words deny the Pope so to be yet it supposeth and implieth both the one and the other and thereupon denyeth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince c. 8 Now who seeth not that I did cleerely distinguish betwixt first of all and afterwards betwixt his supposition which I referred to first of all and to the beginning of his discourse in the sixth page before he began to treat of any of the lawes as also it may euidently appeare by those words of mine This being supposed hee laboureth to prooue c and betwixt his conclusion which I referred to afterwards and quoted the 66. page where he treateth in particular of the Ciuill law But because I quoted onely the place where my Aduersarie maketh the aforesaide conclusion for that the Reader could otherwise hardly finde it out vnlesse he should read 66. pages together and did not quote the place where hee made his supposition for that by those words of mine first of all he supposeth and those other This being supposed he laboureth to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the law of God of Nature of Nations Ciuill and Canon the Reader might easily perceiue that this supposition of his was in the beginning of his discourse before he beganne to treat of any of the lawes Belike my Aduersarie thought that hee might easily from hence haue some colour to taxe me of fraudulent proceeding at the very first beginning little imagining that my words should be so narrowly scanned and that the Reader would easily conceiue the difference betwixt first of all and afterwardes betwixt his supposition in the beginning of his discourse page 6. and his conclusion page 66. but guile hath heerein beguiled it selfe and whilest my Aduersarie by taxing mee of fraud thought to discredite mee at the very first entrance hee hath cleerely prooued himselfe to bee guiltie both of fraude and falshood 9 The second fraude which my Aduersarie Widdrington hath vsed saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Nu. 6. is for that he laboureth as it seemeth to perswade his Reader that all my arguments and reasons are grounded vpon a false supposition of my owne which hee sayth I doe not any way prooue but suppose as knowen of it selfe and this hee seemeth to gather out of my owne wordes alleadged by him as you haue heard wherein I affirme that the new oath supposeth and implieth a deniall of the Popes supremacy although it bee not expresly denied therein hee should haue said wherein I affirme that the oath denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince for this is that which I said hee did suppose and no way prooue When neuerthelesse e Nu. 9. hee could not but see euen in the verie same place from whence hee tooke my wordes that I did not prooue the oath to be vnlawfull by that supposition onely but also by the subordination and subiection of temporall things to spiritual when the good of soules and the seruice of God requireth it Besides that it is most euident in my discourse concerning diuers of those lawes that I deduced the vnlawfulnesse of the oath from the very substance of them as it will manifestly appeare heereafter when I shall come to touch them in particular Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 10 But that I haue vsed no fraud at all in my wordes as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth and that rather that imputation of fraude may bee retorted backe vpon himselfe it is very apparant For in the beginning of his discourse to wit in the sixt page of his Supplement he supposeth as you haue seene that the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes is denied in this oath which also afterwards in the 66. page he confirmeth and in regard onely of these two clauses hee taketh vpon him to prooue that the Popes spirituall authoritie is denied therein VVhich his supposition for as much as concerneth his power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie for that the former is according to the doctrine of all Catholikes included in this latter as a particular in the vniuersall I shewed in my Theologicall Disputation against Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Gretzer Disputatio Theol. c. 4. sect â— and Lessius to be cleerely false and withall in my answere to the substance of this my Aduersaries discourse I affirmed that hee doth not prooue it with any one argument at all but supposeth it as knowne of it selfe which any man that will but sleightly run ouer his discourse may presently perceiue to be true 11 For albeit he doeth boldly affirme and suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes is denied in this oath and consequently if the Popes power to excommunicate Princes be not denied therein his position or copulatiue proposition is false for that to the truth of a copulatiue proposition it is required that both parts of the copulation bee true and to make it false it sufficeth that one onely part of the copulation be false yet he bringeth no one argument in his whole Discourse to prooue that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is denied in the oath but cunningly passeth ouer to his power to depose which all men confesse to be expresly denied therein Neither can any man who is not desirous of set purpose to misconstrue my wordes and meaning imagine that I intended either to deny that the Popes power to depose Princes is impugned in the oath for that my whole Disputation and also my answere to this my Aduersaries Discourse doth plainely shew the contrary or to affirme that my Aduersarie doth suppose as knowne of it selfe and by no reason at all endeauour to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that therefore the oath in regard of this clause which is expresly denied therein is vnlawfull for that I haue briefly related and answered many of his arguments to this purpose and those words of mine which he himselfe relateth This being supposed he goeth about to prooue that the oath is repugnant to the law of God c. doe cleerely conuince the same 12. But my onely intention and meaning was to affirme as the Reader may plainely gather from my words that my Aduersarie at the verie first entrance of his Discourse supposeth that the oath doth containe in it a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes and that to these two generall heads hee promised to reduce all the arguments and exceptions which hee should bring against the oath And that although he hath endeuoured by the subordination of temporall things to spirituall and by many other arguments drawne from diuine and humane lawes to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes yet concerning his power to excommunicate which all Catholikes doe beleeue to bee graunted to him by Christ that hee bringeth no one argument or shew of an argument to prooue that
branch neither the Popes power to Excommunicate is abiured nor any sacriledge committed For hee who sweareth that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication to be denounced against the King he will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie although hee doth sweare that hee will obey the King being excommunicated because Excommunication hath not power to depriue Kings of their temporall dominions and Iurisdiction Apol. nu 346. as Becanus with many other learned Diuines whom I cited in my Apologie doth affirme yet he doth not sweare that hee will not obey a iust Excommunication as Cardinall Bellarmine doth ill conclude For albeit he beleeueth that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate hereticall Kings yet hee doth not beleeue that Excommunication being a spirituall Censure worketh this temporall effect to depriue hereticall Kings of their Royall authoritie to make Kings no Kings or to take away from subiects their naturall and ciuill obedience which by the law of God according to Cardinall Bellarmines owne doctrine n In tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. is due to all Kings although they be heretikes so long as they remaine Kings 20 Nowe Fa. Lessius argued in this maner You will say saith he that the power to excommunicate is not here denyed but onely a certaine effect of Excommunication which is that notwithstanding a Prince be excommunicated yet shall not the subiects be released from the bond of their allegiance But this effect doth necessarily follow the sentence of Excommunication as the practise of the Church for the space of more then twelue hundred yeeres doth shew To this argument I answered that by no practise at all of the Church it can be prooued that the absoluing of subiects from the bond of their alleagiance which by the law of God is due to all absolute Princes is an effect of Excommunication but at the most another punishment although sometimes imposed together with Excommunication as Becanus with many other learned Catholikes doe acknowledge concerning which punishment whether it may for any crime be imposed by the Popes authoritie vpon absolute Princes or onely vpon inferiour Princes by the consent of absolute Princes to whom they are subiect in temporals it hath euen bene and is also now a controuersie among learned Catholikes as by the testimonie of those two Authours whom I cited a little before o Nu. 13. and also of many others cited by me else where p in Apolog. nu 4 seq and in this Treatise part 1. per totum Becanus in q. de fide haereticis seruanda cap. 8. nu 16. Becan in Controu Angl. cap. 3. q. 2. Suarez tom 5. disp 15. sec 6. nu 3. it doth cleerely appeare 21 From hence it is very apparant sayth Becanus that heretikes by this precisely that they are excommunicated are not depriued of their dominion or iurisdiction either ouer their subiects or ouer their temporall goods but this depriuation is a distinct punishment and inflicted by a distinct law And againe It is one thing sayth he to excommunicate a King and another thing to depose him or to depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connected with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue bene excommunicated and yet not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and yet not therefore excommunicated 22 Excommunication sayth Suarez can not haue this effect to take away the dominion of a kingdome or of a people and the paying of tributes and doing seruices which are answearable thereunto concerning such subiects vnlesse an other thing be first supposed which is that the Lords be depriued of their dominion or the vse thereof because the dominion remayning still in it force it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey and consequently to communicate at leastwise as much as is necessary to fulfill their obligation according to the chapter Inter alia desentent excommun But Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect because as it doth not depriue of the dominion of other temporall things nor of the vse of them so it doth not depriue of this dominion because there is no more reason of that neither is there any law wherein this is specially ordained of Excommunication I say of Excommunication because this is sometimes ordained in the law concerning some excommunicated persons as heretikes yet by this speciall ordination we may vnderstand that Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect for when this effect is to follow it is necessarie that it be specially expressed in the law or sentence And therefore when this effect is adioyned I doe not call it an effect of Excommunication but a peculiar punishment imposed together with Excommunication as when an heretike is excommunicated and depriued of the dominion of his goods this depriuation is not an effect of Excommunication but a certaine punishment ioyned together with Excommunication Thus Suarez 23 We haue therefore out of Becanus and Suarez that the depriuing Princes of their dominion or iurisdiction is not an effect of Excommunication contrarie to that which Fa. Lessius saide Wee haue also out of Cardinall Bellarmine Bellar. in trac contra Barcl cap. 21. Pag. 202. and the same Suarez that subiects are not released from the bond of their obedience vnlesse the Prince be depriued of his dominion or iurisdiction for that to deny obedience to a Prince sayth Cardinall Bellarmine so long as he remaineth Prince is repugnant to the law of God and the dominion or iurisdiction of a Prince sayth Suarez Suarez in Defens fidei Cath. lib. 6. cap. 3. nu 6. remayning in its force and not being taken away it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey because the obligation of obedience sayth hee in any degree or state whatsoeuer doth so long endure in the subiect as the dignity or power and iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour for these are correlatiues and the one dependeth vpon the other So that you see how well these learned Diuines of the Societie of Iesus doe agree amōg themselues in assigning the reason for which this oath of allegiance doth containe in it a manifest deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and of his spirituall Supremacie And whether English Catholikes for so weake and slender arguments and wherein our learned Aduersaries doe not agree among themselues are bound to hazard their perpetuall libertie In Append. part 2. sect 4. and whole estate with the vtter ruine of their posteritie I remit to the iudgement of the pious and prudent Reader Thus I answered in my Theologicall Disputation which afterwards in my Appendix to Suarez I did more fully explaine Now let the Reader iudge whether this my answere to their argument be a vaine brag and an idle affirmation of my owne or a solid confutation thereof and whether I had not reason to affirme that learned men doe not blush to inculcate so often and secoldly without any solid proofe that very argument which
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
peaceably maintaine his owne right 16 Neither were those Iudges whom the Apostle commanded or aduised the Corinthians to appoint any other then Arbiters or Arbitratours in power although we should grant that they were to be chosen by common consent and not by the parties only who were in suite which neuerthelesse cannot be conuinced by the Apostles words For albeit the Apostle doeth not say which is the onely reason that D. Schulckenius bringeth to prooue D. Schulck in Apol. ad nu 269 pag. 445. that they were to be chosen by common consent that euery man must choose to himselfe an Arbiter for Arbiters are not to be chosen by the consent of one only partie but by the consent of both yet the Apostle doeth not say that the whole Church of the Corinthians is by common consent of all to choose the Iudges of such causes as D. Schulckenius without any sufficient ground affirmeth but rather Saint Paul saith the cleane contrarie For these bee his words If therefore you shall haue secular iudgements the contemptible that are in the Church set them to iudge wherefore the Apostle speaketh only to those Corinthians who shall haue secular iudgements that is as Iustinian well expoundeth who shall haue controuersies strifes to bee debated and not to the whole Church vnlesse we suppose that the whole Church shall bee at strife among themselues and also hee speaketh with a condition that if the Corinthians shall bee at strife they shall appoint men to decide their controuersie so that the parties who shall bee at strife and not the whole Church vnlesse the whole Church shall bee at strife are according to the Apostles command or aduise to appoint men to iudge or decide their controuersie 17 But be it so that the Apostle should not say if you shall haue secular iudgements appoint contemptible persons to iudge and decide your controuersies but he should say because it may be and it is very like to fall out that you shall haue now and then secular iudgements therefore I will haue you to choose before hand by common consent same contemptible persons to iudge and decide those controuersies which shall heereafter arise among you which neuerthelesse were to wrest the words of the Apostle which of themselues are very plaine yet it is cleere that these Iudges were in power meere Arbiters or Arbitratours and had no publike and lawfull authoritie of themselues to giue iudgement to which the parties were in iustice bound to stand but they receiued their power and authoritie to giue iudgement and to make a finall end of controuersies from the parties who were at strife and who for the auoyding of scandall which the infidels might take seeing their strifes and contentions submitted themselues to their decision and arbitrement 18 That they were Arbiters or Arbitratours S. Chrysostome Chrysost in 1. Cor. 6 Almain de potest Eccle. Laica q. 1. cap. 10. Abulens q 96. in cap. 20. Mat. Salmeron tom 14. disp 9. Iacobus Almainus Abulensis and Salmeron a learned Iesuite doe in expresse words affirme And also that they had no publike power but onely priuate and if we may so call it compromissorie which they receiued from those priuate persons who werein suite and by their mutuall promise and consent gaue power to those Arbiters to iudge and make a finall end of their controuersies k in Apol. nu 271. I prooued by the authoritie of S. Thomas and the glosse of Nicolaus de Lyra vpon that place for that according to their doctrine the appointing of those arbitrarie Iudges did nothing derogate from the subiection and obedience which the Christians did owe to Heathen Princes and that they were bound to appeare before the Heathen Magistrate and consequently to stand to his iudgement when they should be called to his tribunall and that the Apostle doth onely forbid the faithfull Corinthians to goe willingly and haue recourse to Heathen Iudges in those causes which may bee determined by the faithfull 19 From whence it euidently followeth that the power of these Iudges was onely priuate arbitrarie or compromissorie and not publike for if they had publike authoritie to decide Secular causes without the expresse or tacite consent of the Secular Prince it must needs derogate from the subiection which they did owe to the Secular Prince neither could the Heathen Iugdes haue lawfull power to reuerse that sentence which was giuen by those Christian Iudges if the cause had bâ—ne before decided by sufficient and publike authoritie of a more eminent power and tribunall which must also be a derogation to their authoritie and to the subiection which in Secular causes is due to Secular Princes And this also Benedictus Iustinian doth very plainly insinuate when he affirmeth that by this any man may easily vnderstand that the Apostle doth not speake of lawfull iudgements which are exercised by Magistrates and publike Iudges by publike authoritie but of those who by the common consent to wit of those who are at strife are appointed debaâ—â—rs of ciuill controuersies and that this right and authoritie of the Apostle to command humane and ciuill things doth not repugne to the publike authoritie of Iudges and Magistrates for that no man is compelled to goe to the Magistrate if by other waies he may peaceably maintaine his owne right 20 By which it is euident that this manner of iudging which the Apostle commands was not legall or done by publike authoritie and that these Iudges were not Magistrates and who had publike authoritie And therefore although these arbitrarie Iudges were appointed by the declaratiue commandement of the Apostle for the auoyding of scandall yet their power was only priuate and compromissorie and was giuen them by the mutuall consent of both parties in so much that if either of the parties who were in suite would not haue obeyed the Apostles commandement admitted of those Arbiters but would haue had recourse to the tribunal of the Heathen Magistrate although by disobeying the Apostles commandement and by scandalizing Christian Religion he should haue greatly offended yet he should not haue offended against iustice in wronging either of those Christian Iudges or the other partie that would not willingly goe to the Heathen Magistrate against which without doubt he should haue offended if hee had refused to obey the sentence of his lawfull and legall Iudge and who had full power and authoritie to decide and end the cause 21 And by this it is very cleere that my Aduersaries conclusion is very vntrue to wit that the Apostle did intermeddle in the temporall and politike gouernment which then belonged to the Pagan Emperour for this had bene to derogate from the ciuill subiection due to temporall Princes but he did onely intermeddle with the priuate and peaceable composition of secular controuersies among the faithfull Corinthians which euery Christian without any publike authoritie or any preiudice to the same might doe and which the Apostle by his Apostolicall
very true and I haue affirmed the same too too often and this only he hath prooued by this Discourse which he hath here repeated out of his Supplement albeit this bee not the marke at which he aimeth and which hee pretended to prooue for as I haue shewed before Nu. 6. his chiefe drift and purpose was to proue that the Pope hath power not onely to command temporals in order to spirituall good but also to dispose of temporals not only to command christians that in satisfaction of their sinnes or in defence of the Church they will dispose of their temporall goods according to the qualitie of their offence and the necessitie of the Church shall require and their abilitie doth extend but also to depriue them of the right power and dominion which they haue ouer their temporall goods and states if they shall refuse to obey his iust command which my Aduersarie by this Discourse in his Supplement hath not as you haue seene so much as probably confirmed and neuerthelesse as I haue often said not onely probable arguments but conuincing authorities or demonstrations are required to prooue his doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of their temporals to bee certaine and a point of faith and that the oath cannot lawfully and with a safe conscience be taken by any Catholike And thus much concerning the Discourse which Mr. Fitzherbert hath made in his Supplement Now you shall see what from thence he doth inferre 42 Thus did I discourse saith he u Pag. 34. nu 7 and argue in my Supplement whereby my Aduersarie Widdrington may perceiue first what I meane by the accessorie and by the principall as that the soule of man and the seruice and glory of God are the principall and that the accessory is the body goods and all temporall states whatsoeuer because they are subordinate to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof and for Gods glory 43 And my Aduersarie also by that which I haue heere answered to his Discourse may perceiue that although the soule of man and the spirituall good thereof and the seruice and glory of God may in some sense bee called the principall and bodily and temporall goods the accessorie for that they are the lesse worthy and lesse noble and therefore though not of their owne nature referred yet by the intention and will of man ought to bee referred to the eternall good and saluation of the soule as to the last end of man in which sense temporall good may bee said to be subiect and ordained to the supernaturall good of the soule whereof I haue treated more at large aboue in the second part Yet in that sense as antecedent and consequent principall and accessorie are taken in that maxime the spirituall good of the soule eternall saluation and the supernaturall seruice and glorie of God cannot be called the principall or antecedent nor corporall goods and temporall states as health wealth honour c. the accessorie or consequent for that God may bee serued and glorified and the soule saued without hauing any such corporall or temporall contentments yea rather they doe hinder then promote the good of the soule for that according to our Sauiours owne wordes x Matth. 19. A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen For they y 1. Tim. 6. that will be made rich fall into tentation and the snare of the Deuill and many desires vnprofitable and hurtfull which drowne men into destruction and perdition and By many tribulations z Act. 14. we must enter into the kingdome of God 44 Neither did I desire my Aduersary to declare what he vnderstood in particular by the names of principall and accessory for I knew right well that hee tooke the good of the soule for principall and the goods of the body and of fortune to be the accessory for that they are referred and ordained to the good of the soule in which sense the words principall and accessory are not taken in that maxime as I shewed before and it will more cleerely appeare beneath but I desired him to declare what the Lawyers vnderstood in generall by the names of principall and accessory in that rule of the Law for that the nature and definition of principall and accessory being once knowne we might the better descend to particulars and more easily perceiue whether the good of the soule was to bee taken for principall and all other corporall and temporall goods for accessory in that rule of the Law and withall he should also haue explained if hee had meant to cleere and satisfie the vnderstanding of his Reader what the Lawyers vnderstood by those wordes to follow the nature of the principall all which my Aduersary hath as you haue seene neglected to declare 45 Secondly Widdrington may see saith Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 34. nu 8 the force and validitie of my consequence to wit because the Church hath power ouer the soule which is the principall therefore it hath power also ouer the accessorie that is to say ouer the body temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God for which our soules bodies goods states and all things else were ordained 46 And hee also may see in what manner his consequence is of force if it be onely vnderstood of a power to commaund temporall things in order to spiritual good to wit not for that the Church hauing power ouer the soule which he calleth the principall must also haue power ouer the body and temporall goods which he calleth the accessorie when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glory of God because temporall goods and states are not necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God but rather lets and hinderances thereof seeing that soules may be saued and God glorified without the enioying of such corporall or temporall goods and therefore temporall goods and states can not rightly be called the accessory or consequent as accessory or consequent ought to be taken in that maxime But the force of his consequence can onely consist in this that because Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to Saint Peter and his Successours sufficient authority to gouerne the Church by spirituall meanes and in order to spirituall good to command not onely spirituall things which is the more noble and principall but also temporall things which power is the lesse noble and so by the institution of Christ annexed to the spirituall power of gouerning the Church and of commaunding spirituall things for which cause it may well be called the accessory or consequent therefore from that rule or maxime not of the law but of the Logicians The accessory or consequent doth necessarily follow the principall or antecedent it may be well inferred that the Pope hauing power to command spirituall things hath also power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good for that
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
to doe God good seruice will be Pharisaicall sinfull and inexcusable and therefore I hope they will be wiser and not suffer themselues to bee carried away hoodwinkt with blinde obedience which is most dangerous when their obedience to man may be a disobedience to God but that they will alwaies remember that golden sentence of our Sauiour Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and the things that are Gods to God CHAP. IIII. Wherein Widdringtons Interpretation of that clause of the oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to be sound and sufficient and is cleared from all absurditie and contradiction euen by Mr. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike ALl that Mr Fitzherbert obiecteth in this Chapter I haue aboue in the end of the second part of this Treatise fully and verbatim already confuted and therefore I thinke it superfluous to repeate here the same againe CHAP. V. Wherein Widdringtons answeres to all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the old Testament and also in the new are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrarie to his owne doctrine BEcause this Chapter will be somwhat longer then the rest for that my Aduersarie hath scraped here together many authorities out of the law of God especially in the old Testament to prooue that the spirituall power not onely in the new law but also in the old hath euer been the supreme power on earth and might chastise Princes temporally and not onely command impose and enioyne temporall penalties but also dispose of temporals and inflict temporall punishments I thinke it not amisse to diuide it into three parts or sections In the first I will treate especially of those authorities which he hath brought out of the olde law before the institution of the Kings of Israel In the second I will confute those examples which he alledgeth out of the said olde Testament since the institution of those Kings and in the third I will examine those texts of holy Scripture which he hath taken out of the new Testament SECT I. Wherein all the authorities which are brought out of the olde law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and other learned Diuines also the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular FIrst therefore Mr. Fitzherbert in his fift chapter pretendeth to prooue that Widdringtons answere to his arguments deduced from the law of God is confuted by the expresse words and text of the Supplement and prooued to be not onely improbable but also fraudulent in that he dissembleth the whole substance and pith of Mr. Fitzherberts discourse for so is the title of his fift Chapter and then he proceedeth thus My Aduersarie Widdrington hauing trifled as you haue heard in the precedent Chapters goeth forward no lesse impertinently in these words Quarto si quis c. Fourthly if a man doe attentiuely read ouer Mr. Fitzherberts discourse he shall most clearely see that he hath effectually prooued nothing else out of the Law either of God or of Nature but that the temporall power in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall is subiect to the spirituall power so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall manner of correction and not temporall So Widdrington 2 Wherein he seemeth to acknowledge as you see that I haue effectually prooued by the law of God and Nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall so farre forth as concerneth the authoritie to command though not to punish temporally meaning that the spirituall power may command temporal and corporall things so farre forth as they are to serue the spirituall for so you haue heard him also confesse before a Sâ—e before chap. 2. nu 1. 2. and that it may punish spiritually that is to say by the way of spirituall censures but no way temporally wherein I wish to be obserued what he granteth and what he denyeth for of his grant will easily follow the confutation of his denyall as I haue partly signified before b Chap. 2. nu 1.2.9 10. and will shew more amply c Chap. 6. nu 14 15 seq See Supplem chap. 1. nu 10. when I shall haue first examined how true it is that I haue prooued effectually nothing else but that which he mentioneth For to this purpose it is to be considered what I haue debated concerning the law of God in my Supplement where I said thus 3 First I will speake of the law of God which if it be considered as it is a written law is diuided into the law of Moyses and the law of Grace deliuered by our Sauiour Iesus Christ and albeit the law of Moyses for so much as concerneth the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof doth not bind vs Christians yet I will make it manifest euen by that law that the spiritual power was then the supreme power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally when it was necessarie for the glorie of God and the good of the Church This appeareth by the law of God set downe in Deuteronomy c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 4 But whether he or I haue trifled in the precedent Chapters you haue already seene and how improbably he hath prooued my answere to his arguments to be improbable or fraudulent and hath confuted it by my owne doctrine as he vainly braggeth you shall presently perceiue And first Mr. Fitzherbert endeauoureth to confute my answere as improbable wherein I said that he hath prooued effectually nothing else by the law of God but that the temporall power in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall is subiect to the spirituall power so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall manner of correction and not temporall to which purpose he maketh a long and tedious repetition of that discourse which he made in his Supplement concerning the law of God especially in the old Testament preteÌ„ding forsooth to make it manifest euen by that law that the spiritual power was then the supreme power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally when it was necessarie for the glorie of God and the good of the Church 5 First therefore to all the arguments which either my Aduersarie here hath brought or any other can bring to conuince demonstrate or prooue effectually that the spirituall power in the old law was the supreme
power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally in order to spirituall good it is sufficient to answere in generall that the contrarie doctrine to wit that in the old law the temporall power and not the spirituall was supreme and that the spirituall power was subiect to the temporall is maintained by many famous and most learned Catholike Diuines S. Bonauentura lib. 2. de Eccles hierarch cap. 1. in 4. dist 24. in litera S. Thom. lib. 1. de Regim Prin. cap. 14. whose opinion in this point Mr. Fitzherbert dare not presume to condemne as temeratious and improbable albeit my answere which is agreeable to their doctrine he sticketh not to call improbable For so teacheth S. Bonauenture a man otherwise addicted to the Popes temporall Monarchie In the old Testament saith he the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and therefore Kings then had power to remooue the high Priests from their office as Salomon remooued Abiathar The same teacheth S. Thomas or whosoeuer is the Author of that booke de regimine Principum Whereupon Card. Bellarmine himselfe writeth thus It is not improbable Bell. l. i. c. 14. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcla that in the olde Testament the King was absolutely greater then the high Priest both for that so teacheth S. Thomas in his first booke de Regimine Principum cap. 14. and also for that in the old Testament the promises were temporall and the sacrifices carnall 6 The same also doe teach Alphonsus Tostatus Abulensis Card. Bellar. de Script Eccles pag. 410. d q. 28 in c. 2. l. 3. Regum q. 48. c. 27. num a man most renowmed saith Card. Bellarmine for holinesse and learning Ioannes de Turrecremata e In sum de Eccles l. 2. c. 96. ad 4 c. obedientiam dest 93. q. 2. ad 2 Franciscus Victoria f Relect. 1. de potest Eccles cited by Corduba Sal s. Antonius Corduba g l. 4 quaest q. 5 ar 2 ss ad Vlti Ioannes Salas h q 95. de leg sec 21. and Burgensis i In Addit lid Nic. de Lyra in 1. Pet. cap. 2. all of them most famous Diuines You must also know saith Abulensis that Salomon had power to kill Abiathar although he was the High Priest for that in the old Testament the Ecclesiastical power was not distinct from the Secular power to wit in punishments for great crimes but Priests were directly subiects to the King as Lay men Also there was not a distinction of punishments for Priests and Lay men but in enormious crimes the sentence of death was common to all and because Abiathar had committed treason hee was to be put to death vnlesse Salomon would pardon him And that Priests were subiect to Lay men it appeareth Numer 27. where God said that Eleazar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue as it hath beene more declared Iosue 3. but Iosue was a secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim Thus Abuâ—ensis 7 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue how ignorantly my vnlearned Aduersarie taxeth my answere of improbabiâ—itie and impertinencie which neuerthelesse is most conformeable to the doctrine of so many famous and learned Catholike Diuines and which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe holdeth for not improbable and how vainely hee braggeth that hee will make it manifest euen by the law of Moyses that the spirituall power was then the supreame power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally whereas so many famous and learned Diuines whose doctrine this ignorant man feareth not to call improbable doe resolutely hold that in the olde Testament the high Priests were subiect to Kings and that the temporall power was superiour to the spirituall and might remooue the high Priests from their office and punish them temporally if they should deserue it 8 But let vs examine in particular the manifest proofes which this man deduceth from the Law of God in the old Testament His first and principall proofe is taken from that which is written in the 17. chapter of Deuteronomie This appeareth saith he k Pag. 70. nu 3.4.5 by the law set downe in Deuteronomie wherein it is ordained expressely that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes should be in the hands of the high Priest The words of the law are these Si defficile ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubfull betweene bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie and not leprosie and thou seest that the words of the Iudges within the gates doe varie arise and goe vp to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come vp to the Priests of the Leuitical stock to the Iudges that shall be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall shew thee the truth of the iudgement and thou shalt do whatsoeuer they that are Presidents of the place which our Lord shall choose shal say and teach thee according to his Law and thou shalt follow their sentence neither shalt thou decline to the right nor to the left but he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away the euill out of Israel and the whole people shall feare that none after swell with pride 9 These are the words of the Law of God in Deuteronomie wherein it is to be noted that albeit there be here mention made of the Iudge to be consulted together with the Priests which some of the Aduersaries take to be a temporall Iudge though he may very well be vnderstood to bee the high Priest who was supreme Iudge in the Councell of Priests neuerthelesse I say that albeit he were a temporall Iudge yet it is euident that the finall decision of the doubts and controuersies in that Consistorie and consequently the supreme authoritie resided in the high Priest seeing that the said Iudge if he were a different person was no other then Minister either to see the high Priests commandement executed or to ordaine and decree the punishment of those who should disobey him it being ordained in the Law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest should die by the decree of the Iudge So that it belonged to the high Priest absolutely to command and to the Iudge to giue sentence of death against the transgressors of his commandement besides that c. 10 But first obserue good Reader the corrupt proceeding of this man who to prooue his purpose doth falsely and otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition alledge the words of holy Scripture
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
ridiculous and vnbeseeming a man but meanely learned 7 The second argument which M. Fitzherbert maketh is taken from the example of Queene Athalia Also in the kingdome of Iuda saith he c P. 77. nu 15. 4 Reg. 11. the wicked Queene Athalia ws deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and Ioas set vp in her place But now our Aduersaries to answere this example fo Athalia doe say c. But before I come to examine what M. Fitzherbert obiecteth and answereth concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to set downe what I answered to the said example in my Apologie f Apol. nu 364 seq and Theologicall Disputation g Disp Theolâ— in Admon nu 6. and what Doctor Schulckenius of whom M. Fitzherbert hath beene bould to borrow his answeres without acknowledging so much hath replyed to the same Thus therefore Card. Bellarmine argued from this example h L. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. 8 The second example saith he is 2. Paralip 23. Where when Athalia had tyrannically vsurped the kingdome and did maintaine the worship of Baal Ioiada the high Priest called the Centurions and souldiers and commanded them to kill Athalia which also they did and for her he created Ioas King For that the high Priest did not counsaile but command it is apparant by those word 4. Reg. 11. And the Centurions did according to all things that Ioaida the Priest had commanded them Also by those words 2. Paralip 23. And Ioiada the high Priest going forth to the Centurions and captaines of the armie said to them Bring her Queene Athalia forth without the precinct of the temple and let her be killed with the sword without And that the cause of this deposition and killing of Athalia was not only her tyrannie but also for that she did maintaine the worship of Baal it is manifest by those words which are set downe immediately after her killing Therefore all the people saith the Scripture entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it and they brake his altars and his images * Simulachra Mathan also the Priest of Baal they slew before the Altars 9 To this example I answered first that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine were of any force as in very deede it is not it would also demonstrate that the Pope hath power to depriue Soueraigne Princes both for heresie Idolatrie and also tyrannie not only of their dominions but also of their liues which although I haue before i Num 43. seq num 329. euidently deduced to follow manifestly from his doctrine yet he now bringing this example of Athalia who by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest was deposed and also slaine for proofe of his opinion doth cleerely insinuate the same That this is clearely deduced from his doctrine I proued principally by this argument for that according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine the Pope is the supreme Prince of all Christians yea and of Soueraigne Princes not only in spiritualls but also in temporalls in order to spirituall good and that in order to the same spirituall good he hath a most ample power in temporalls and so great that greater there cannot be and consequently he hath as great and ample authoritie ouer temporall Princes in temporalls in order to the same spirituall good as temporall Princes haue in temporalls ouer their subiects in order to temporall good but temporall Princes haue in order to the common temporall good not only authoritie to depriue them of their liues but also if the crime be publike and notorious or if the knowne and manifest perturbers of the common temporall good be so potent that they cannot without danger of rebellion and great manslaughter be apprehended the Prince may without citation defence or processe condemne them in their absence and without their priuitie as there I proued out of Nauarre k Nauar. in Manual cap. 25. num 10. and Sayrus l Sayrus lib. 7. Thesauri cap. â—1 num 11. and also he may giue leaue to priuate men to kill such notorious malefactors by poyson or in any other publike or secret manner therefore the Pope may in order to spirituall good proceed in the same manner with temporall Princes who in order to spirituall good are according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine subiect to the Pope in all temporalls 10 Which doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and others of his Societie whose bookes haue beene therefore condemned and some of them burned by a publike decree of the Parliament of Paris how dangerous and preiudiciall it is not only to the supreme authoritie of absolute Princes who in temporalls are supreme and subiect to none but God alone by whom only with temporall punishments they can be punished as I haue proued in other places by the common consent of all the holy Fathers and ancient Diuines but also to their persons and liues I haue insinuated else where and leaue it to the consideration of any iudicious man especially considering that Popes are also now temporall Princes and subiect to humane infirmities as other men are who with the passions of ire enuie couetousnesse and desire to augment and enlarge their temporall States and Dominions may not only be moued but vnder pretence also of aduancing or defending the common spirituall good may be sometimes ouercome and moreouer that according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine it belongeth to the Pope to iudge what hindereth hurteth or aduanceth the spirituall good neither must his iudgement or sentence be contradicted by any man as it is declared in can Patet and can Aliorum 9. q. 3. 11 Now you shall see D. Schulcke in Apolog. ad num 363. pag. 556. in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius would shift of this argument And first heere he remitteth himselfe to the numbers 43. and 329. before cited where he saith that he hath cleerely answered the argument but how cleerely or rather obscurely he hath answered the same you shall presently perceiue For as touching the principall argument which I did set downe at large in the 43. number and seq and haue briefely signified the same aboue first he concealeth the whole proofe of my consequence for sixe entire numbers together and he only answereth thus I answere saith he m Pag. 144. that so prolixe a discourse is needlesse for there is none but seeth to what all this doth tend neither is it a hard matter to solue the arguments let them passe as not making to the purpose For I haue aboue not once only commended that not able sentence of Pope Leo the great and receiued by the Church in vse and practise Ecclesiastica lenitas refugit cruentas vltiones Ecclesiasticall Lenitie doth shunne bloody reuengings or punishments And afterwards he maketh a long discourse that no Pope hath ouer commanded the killing of Princes or caused them to be slaine by priuie murtherers and that Princes neede not to feare that any Pope will
plot the death of any Prince Wherefore let Widdrington cease by vaine words to put Secular Princes in feare and to make the Pontificall power to be odious The Pontificall power is instituted by the Sauiour of mankind for the saluation and not for the destruction of Princes These arguments doe tend to no other end then to prouoke the hatred of Princes against the Pope for otherwise Widdrington was not ignorant that Ecclesiasticall especially Pontificall lenitie doth shunne bloody punishments 12 But first whether D. Schulckenius by this his answered doth intend to acknowledge that the Pope in order to spirituall good hath authoritie to take away the liues of wicked Princes by all those waies publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie in order to temporall good to take away the liues of their wicked and rebellious subiects which I intended by that argument to conuince in this place he speaketh doubtfully and in expresse words doth neither say I nor no yet afterwards he doth plainly enough affirme the same saying n Cap 9. ad nu 229. pag. 413. that Ecclesiasticall lenitie for as much as concerneth the punishment of death doth shunne bloody punishments not for that it doth by the law of God want power to doe the same but because it doth not beseeme the Ministers of Christ and againe It doth not belong saith he o Cap. 10. ad num 318. pag. 490. to the Ecclesiasticall Court to giue sentence of death not because the Church cannot absolutely giue this sentence but because it is not decent And the Pope himselfe might if he should iudge it expedient both giue this sentence and also grant by a dispensation that other Priests might doe the same For we haue nothing whereby it is forbidden but the positiue Ecclesiasticall law wherein the Pope by the consent of all men may dispence 13 Secondly this Doctor doth egregiously and against Christian charitie and iustice abuse my innocencie in misconstruing my good intentions which God is my witnesse are most pure and sincere For it was neuer my meaning to make the Sea Apostolike odious or dreadfull to Christian Kings and Princes but only to find out the Catholike truth plainly and sincerely in a matter of such great importance which doth so neerely concerne the supreme authoritie of all temporall Princes and the due obedience which all subiects of what religion soeuer they be doe by the law of Christ owe to them in temporall matters It is rather this Doctor and such as embrace his desperate principles who by this their false seditious scandalous and new broached damnable doctrine and vnknowne to the ancient Fathers and the primitiue Church doe seeke as much as lyeth in them to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to all Christian Princes and subiects And if it be so easie a matter to answere my aforesaid arguments as this Doctor affirmeth why then doth he not answere them but shifteth them ouer with a let them passe as not pertaining to the purpose Is it not to the purpose that Card. Bellarmine and his followers should force vpon the Christian world the doctrine touching the Popes spirituall power to depose temporall Princes as a point of Catholike beliefe from which such absurd dangerous desperate scandalous seditious consequents and not heard of before these miserable times doe euidently follow 14 But such strang nouelties must with shufflings and shiftings be cunningly couered and must not be cleerely knowne to Soueraigne Princes and their subiects least forsooth they make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes As thought it were likely that Christ our Sauiour would giue to S. Peter and his Successours any spirituall power which should be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes or that the knowledge of true Catholike faith either concerning the Popes spirituall power to take away the crownes or liues of Christian Princes or concerning any other thing could be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes more then the knowledge of true Catholike faith concerning the power of temporall Princes to take away the temporall goods and liues of their subiects can be a sufficient cause to make temporall authoritie odious to Christian subiects Hostis Herodis impie Christum venire quid times said Sedulius who flourished about the yeere 430. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia which is Englished thus That Christ is come why doest thou dread O Herode thou vngodly foe He doth not earthly Kingdomes reaue that heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow But Herode might iustly haue replyed if this new broacht doctrine were true yes I haue great cause to feare for that not only Christ but S. Peter also and his Successours haue by their ordinarie commission authoritie to bereaue mee not onely of my kingdome but also of my life 15 And the same answere which is also conforme to the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers would Sedulius haue made to any Christian King who should haue feared that the Pope by his spirituall power might depriue him of his kingdome and life to wit that he neede not to feare the Popes power in that respect for that Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to the Apostles and their Successours the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes to absolue from sinnes not from debts to binde the soule with the bond of anathema and not with chaines of Iron 16 But although the Pope should haue power ouer the liues of Princes in order to spirituall good yet Princes sayth this Doctour need not to feare that the Pope will plot the death of any Prince for that no Pope hath euer commanded the killing of Princes or caused them to be slaine by priuie murtherers and it is well knowen that Ecclesiasticall lenitie shunneth bloodie punishments But first if the Pope haue such a power it is euident that it is in his free choise and curtesie to take away the life of any wicked Prince in order to spirituall good as it is in the curtesie of a temporall Prince to take away the life of any wicked subiect in order to temporall good Secondly that the Pope is also bound as I prooued against Suarez to proceed against a Christian Prince See Apendix to Suarez part 1. sec 9. nu 6. seq who is a knowne heretike or persecutor of the Church or publike enemie to spirituall good in that manner and by all those waies publike or secret by which a temporall Prince is bound to proceed against a publike traitour a notorious robber and murtherer by the high way side and a knowne enemie to the common temporall good 17 Thirdly if no Pope hath euer plotted the death of any Christian Prince the reason heereof I thinke to be for that there was neuer any Pope that held this newly inuented and neuer before heard of bloody doctrine that the Pope as Pope or by vertue of his spirituall
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
by a peculiar and speciall promise of GOD was giuen to King Dauid and his seede for euer from whom Queene Athalia did not descend And therefore Fa. Becanus who in the former edition of his Controuersia Anglicana taught this pestiferous doctrine fearing belike least it would haue beene censured by the Vniuersitie of Paris as in very deede it had beene x As it may appeare by the Acts of the Facultie of Paris held in their ordinarie Congregation the first day of February in the yeere 1613. if some had not cunningly preuented the same by procuring it to be first condemned at Rome y By apeculiar decree against his booke dated at Rome the third day of Ianuarie 1613. by a speciall command of his Holinesse as containing in it somethings which are false temerarious scandalous and seditious respectiuely vntill it should be corrected was carefull that in the later Edition of his booke which was forthwith published this dangerous position should be quite blotted out And yet this Doctour following therein Card. Bellarmine in his booke against D. Barclay is not afraid most desperately and seditiously to renew the same But with what strang paradoxes and seditious doctrines these vehement manitainers of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls being so famous for their learning so reuerent for their Order so great in authoritie so potent by friends and so violent in maintaining their nouelties wil in the end infect a great part of the Church of Christ whereof these men are accounted to be the chiefe pillars vnlesse God by his infinite mercy preuent their exorbitant courses I tremble to consider and how little beholding are Soueraigne Princes to such extrauagant Writers who will also haue their people who are subiect to them to haue authoritie ouer them in temporalls and to take away their lawfull right which they haue to their Crownes and to giue it to another who by inheritance hath no true right thereunto and that without any fault or negligence committed by them any prudent man may easily perceiue 40 To conclude therefore this point that which this Doctor addeth concerning those Emperours and Kings who although in the beginning were Tyrants and Vsurpers yet afterwards by the consent of the people and of those who had true right to those kingdomes were made lawfull Princes are nothing like to this example of Queene Athalia and all those examples are particularly answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay z Cap. 38. paragraph 2. against Cardinall Bellarmine who also in the very like words vrged the same Neither can they be rightly applied to the kingdome of Iuda which by the expresse promise and appointment of almightie God was due to the posterity of King Dauid neither was it in the power of the high Priests Princes and people without violating the ordinance of almightie God to transferre the kingdome of Iuda from the race of King Dauid to another tribe and especially to an Idolatresse as was wicked Athalia who by the Law of God as being a subiect was commanded to be put to death 41 Wherefore this which this Doctor in the end adioyneth to wit that the Scripture doth manifestly teach that Ioiada together with the people did make Ioas King and they made him King 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. cap. 24. Ioas was seuen yeeres old when hee beganne to raigne where the beginning of his kingdome is put from the death of Athalia and his institution to be King and although before his coronation the Scripture called him King 2. Paralip 23. this was onely by anticipation as a designed King and therefore hee was first called King and afterwardes it is said he shall raigne because he was a King not present but future this I say is either a manifest equiuocation or a plaine vntruth for if he meane that they did make him King that is did put him in possession of his kingdome which was wrongfully and tyrannically kept from him by Athalia or which is all one they did make him King de facto or to raigne de facto this is most true and the Scripture doth plainely shew the same but if he meane that they did make him King de iure and giue him his right to the kingdome as though before their making him King he had not right to the kingdome and was not King de iure it is most false and also implieth a very seditious doctrine to wit either that those who are Kings by hereditarie succession doe not as other heires albeit they be in minoritie succeede in all their Fathers rights presently after he is departed the world or else that the people may depriue them of their lawfull right to the kingdome without any fault or negligence committed by them 42 And to this I plainely answered before as you haue seene in my Apologie by declaring the sense of those equiuocall words they created or made Ioas King sort I said in expresse words that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did create Ioas King as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that is did giue him a right to reigne which he had not before seeing that presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously murthered the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by inheritance belong to Ioas although Athalia did tyrannically keepe the possession For as soone as a King is dead the next heire apparant to the Crowne is foorthwith the lawfull King neither doth his annointing crowning or acceptance of the people giue but onely confirme his former Kingly right And this is so cleere that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor this Doctour if they be not the same person dare deny the same but such false and seditious positions cannot but by equiuocations with any shew of credibilitie be maintained If this Doctour had declared the ambiguitie of those words they did make him King as I did the Reader would quickly haue perceiued that out of those wordes of holy Scripture it cannot be prooued that Ioiada with the people did make Ioas King that is did giue him a lawfull right to the kingdome which before he had not but onely that they did make him King de facto and put him in possession of his kingdome whereof before he was King de iure although the possession was tyrannically kept from him by Athalia And thus much concerning the incredibilitie of this Doctours credibile est 43 Now you shal see how weake fallacious and slanderous are the other Replies of this Doctor to the rest of my answere For whereas I affirmed as you haue seene that Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then which euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case this Doctor very falsly and slanderously affirmeth that Widdrington doth heere in plaine words giue occasion to subiects to rebell against their Kings and to kill them and if they thinke that any man hath by an ill title vsurped the
raise 58 Another slander not much vnlike to the former doeth this Doctour vnconscionably impose vpon mee in his wordes immediately following Neere also or adioyning to his saith this Doctour h pag. 563. is that which Widdrington teacheth in the number 460. that the Pope in his opinion then subiect to the Emperour and as subiect might and really did with the tacite er expresse consent of the people of Rome lawfully and with validitie take away the Empire of the West from the Emperour of Constantinople and transfer it to Charles the great For how little a part of the Empire was then the people of Rome or what power had they in the election of the Emperour From this therefore it doeth euidently and necessarily follow that euery subiect with the tacite or expresse consent of one Citie that also which hath no voyce or suffrage in the election of the King may depriue his true lawfull and naturall Prince either of all his dominion or of part whereby truly is opened a most broad way to seditions conspiracies rebellions and reuoltings 59 But truly I cannot but greatly meruaile how this my Aduersarie by his Degree a Doctour and by his function a Priest is not ashamed to teach contrarie to his profession such palpable vntrueths and so fowly grosly and shamefully to corrupt my wordes and meaning And therefore whereas in most places hee is very carefull to set downe my expresse words or in some sort the sense of them heere least the Reader should presently perceiue his corrupt dealing hee cleane omitteth to set them downe for almost 40. pages together to wit from the number 413. to 463. wherein I amply declared in what manner the Pope and people of Rome translated the Romane Empire to Charles the great with other obseruations concerning the facts of Popes in deposing Emperours and Princes and why there are so many Authours whose bookes are extant that fauour the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes all which this Doctour passeth ouer with silence For as I haue shewed aboue i Cap. 3. nu 37. seq I prooued there most cleerely by the testimonies of many learned Authours first that the translation of the Romane Empire from the Grecians to Charles the great was done not onely by the authoritie of the Pope but also of the Senate and people of Rome with the expresse or tacite consent of all the people of the West and that none of the Authours brought by Cardinall Bellarmine doe contradict the same And secondly that the Pope and people of Rome and of the Westerne Empire were not at that time subiect to the Grecian Emperour for that hee had then the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned and that therefore the Romane and Westerne Prouinces being left to themselues might choose what Emperour they pleased according to Card. Bellarmines expresse doctrine which I there related 60 Consider therefore good Reader with what conscience this Doctour affirmeth me to say that the Pope in my opinion then subiect to the Emperour and as subiect with the consent of the people of Rome might lawfully depriue the Grecian Emperour of the Westerne Empire and transferre it to Charles the great from whence it euidently folleweth saith he that euery subiect with the consent of one Citty yea and of that Citty which hath no suffrage in the choosing of the King may depriue their true lawfull and naturall Prince either of his whole dominion or of part thereof For I neuer affirmed either that he Pope or people of Rome were then really and in very deed subiect to the Emperour of Greece who had the Romane Empire for abandoned and forsaken or that the whole common wealth being subiect and as subiect much lesse one Citty or Prouince had authoritie ouer their Prince to iudge him depose him or to change the manner of gouernment That which I affirmed is that the common wealth it selfe in case it hath no Prince and consequently is then supreme it selfe and not subiect to any Prince and not that people subiect as this Doctour faigneth haue power I doe not say to iudge or depose their King as hee also shamefully affirmeth mee to say for that the Common wealth in that case hath no King but to choose to them a King or to change the manner or gouernment from a Monarchie to Democratic Aristocratic or mixt And this I affirmed Cardinall Bellarmine to auouch when he teacheth that the supreame temporall power is by the law of nature in the whole multitude or common wealth when they haue no King or Superiour ouer them and that by the same law of nature they man transferre it from the whole multitude to one only or to more and that therefore they may change the Monarchie into Aristosratic or Democratic and contrariwise as we see it was done at Rome 61 Neither can it with any probabilitie be denied that the Citty of Rome which was the chiefe Imperiall Citty and Metropolis of the Romane Empire that is the Pope Senate and people of Rome had by right a great sway in the election of their owne Emperour albeit the armie did de facto commonly choose him to which election the Senate and people of Rome did either willingly or for feare giue their consent and that therefore the Pope Senate and people of Rome with the consent either expresse or tacite of the rest of the Westerne Prouinces had fell power and authoritie to choose to them an Emperour supposing they were left to themselues and forsaken and abandoned by the Emperour of Greece and this is agreeable to Card. Bellarmines doctrine But that one only Subiect or one Citty which is a small part of the kingdome yea or that the whole kingdome it selfe may lawfully and rightly depriue of the whole kingdome or of any part thereof their lawfull King being neither condemned nor heard nor accused yea may lawfully condemne him although he be heard or accused I neuer affirmed neither doth it follow from my doctrine neuerthelesse that euery faithfull subiect is bound to doe in the like case that which Ioiada did either in deposing or killing Athalia this I doe constantly affirme neither can any Catholike deny the same without note of teaching a most false a most scandalous and a most seditious doctrine 62 And therefore I remit to the iudgement of Christian Kings â—nd subiects what censure those last words of this Doctour doe deserue Also that euery faithfull subiect is bound to doe that which Ioiada did in kilâ—ing Athalia Bellarmlne neuer taught it doth not follow from Bellarmines doctrine all Catholikes doe abhorre and detest it and among them without doubt Bellarmine I omit to examine at this present what title Charles â—he great had either by hereditarie succession or by the right of conâ—uest to the Westerne Empire before this translation and what reall â—ower authoritie and dominion this translation gaue to Charles the great for that he and his Father Pipin had before
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
the old law the high Priest was subiect to the king in temporalls and might by him be iudged and punished with temporall punishments But if she were no lawfull Queene but an Vsurper as in deede she was then it is euident that Ioas was the true and rightfull King and that all ciuill authoritie did reside in him and was deriued from him as from the head of all ciuil power whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius himselfe confesseth x Pag. 339. ad num 169. and that therefore Ioiada who was the Kings Protectour and Guardian now in his minoritie and represented the Kings person in all things might be her Iudge both to depose her and also to kill her as a manifest traitour and vsurper 74 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth especially after she had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the whole state for sixe yeeres doe sauour of that false scandalous and seditious doctrine which D. Schulckenius taught before as though either sixe yeeres prescription were sufficient to depriue a lawfull King of his Princely right and giue it to a wicked vsurper or that the kingdome of Iuda either did depriue or had authoritie to depriue the true rightfull and certainly knowne King of his lawfull inheritance and Princely right and that without any offence at all committed by him 75 Neither is that to the purpose which Mr. Fitzherbert would haue his Reader beleeue to wit that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom hee should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth a Iudge absolue a man when hee is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power in both cases For I doe not deny that Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian and therefore representing the Kings person in all things was the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of Athalia and of euery other subiect in the kingdome but that which I contend is that although Ioiada was in spiritualls her Superiour and Iudge as he was high Priest yet in temporalls he was neither her Superiour or Iudge nor of any other subiect in the kingdome as hee was high Priest or by his Priestly authority but as hauing his authority deriued from the true and lawfull King in whom onely all supreme ciuill authority as in the head of all ciuill power doth reside And therefore this his consideration is not to the purpose as also it is not generally true For all Catholikes yea Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe y Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19 doe grant that in time of Schisme when two contend to be the lawfull Pope the Church is the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of both Popes and that it belongeth to her to determine of their right neither yet Cardinall Bellarmine nor my Aduersary will affirme that the Church hath the same authoritie and iudiciall power ouer the true and vndoubted Pope Likewise what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to Cardinall Caietaine and others of his opinion that the Church is Superiour to an hereticall Pope and hath authoritie to iudge him and depose him who neuerthelesse will not admit that the Church is Superiour to a Pope who is no hereticke Moreouer no learned man can deny that when two contend to haue right or a title to any kingdome if they bee members of that kingdome the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to them and hath authoritie to iudge and determine of their right and yet wee may not therefore conclude that the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to a knowne and vndoubted King 76 No lesse idle also is that which followeth z Nu. 17. p. 78. Besides that saith Mr. Fitherbert our Aduersaries must needes graunt either that Ioiada deposed her as her lawfull Iudge being high Priest or else that any peculiar man many of his owne authority take vpon him to depose and kill a Tyrant and vsurper which opinion was worthily condemned by the Councell of Constance as hereticall and with great reason for that no particular man can make himselfe another mans Iudge and much lesse the Iudge of a Prince Neither can there be any doctrine more dangerous to Common-wealths or pernicious to Princes states then that euery subiect may take vpon him to iudge when his Prince is a Tyrant and proceeds against him to his deposition or death 77 True it is that Ioiada deposed Athalia that is put her from the possession of the kingdome which she vniustly vsurped as her lawful Iudge being High-Priest but it is not true that he deposed her as being High-Priest or by his Priestly authoritie nor as a private man or by priuate authoritie but he both deposed her and commanded her to be slaine as her lawfull Iudge being the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his nonage and as representing the Kings person in all things and also with the assent of the Princes and people Neither from hence doth it follow that euery particular and priuate subiect may by his owne authoritie take vpon him to kill a manifest vsurper although S. Thomas a In 2. dist vltima q. 2. ar 2. ad 5. Caietan 2. 2. q. 64. ar 3. Sotus l. 5. de Iustit q. 1. ar 3 Solon 2 2. q. 64 ar 3. controuers 1. Aragon ibidem Lessius l. 2. de Iustit c. 9. dub 4 and many other Diuines are of opinion that euery particular subiect and citizen hath authoritie to kill not a manifest Tyrant in the abuse of gouernment but a manifest vsurper for in this case say they euery priuate Citizen hath sufficient authoritie giuen him by the consent of the rightfull King and also of the Common-wealth against whom this manifest vsurper doth continually make a manifest vniust warre and therefore it can not be called properly priuate but publike authoritie Neither say they is this doctrine aginst the decree of the Councell of Constance which doth not speake particularly of those who are manifest Tyrants by vsurpation but of Tyrants in generall comprehending also those who are true and lawfull Kings and onely Tyrants in gouernment For the proposition which is in that Councell condemned as hereticall scandalous and giuing way to fraudes deceipts treasons and periuries is this Euery Tyrant and consequently also a Tyrant onely in gouernment although otherwise a true and rightfull King may and ought lawfully and meritoriously to be slaine by any his vassall or subiect euen by secret wiles and craftie deceipts or flatteries notwithstanding any oath or confideracie made by them with him not expecting the sentence or commandment of any Iudge whatsoeuer which is in very trueth a most damnable and traiterous doctrine But that a manifest Tyrant by vsurpation may not be lawfully slaine by any priuate man hauing authoritie thereunto from the true rightfull and vndoubted King or from him who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his minoritie and representeth the Kings person in all things this is not condemned
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
also follow that the authoritie and power of the Church should be no better in effect then a cobweb which holdeth only the little flies and serueth to no purpose against the great ones sufficing to correct all inferiour persons and to preuent and remedy all the inconueniences that may grow from them but not to redresse the most dangerous and pernicious disobedience that may be to wit the rebellion of Princes against the Church from whence the greatest danger and damage to soules may and commonly doth arise if this then should be without remedie it must needes follow as I haue said that Christ hath not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are wont to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or States subiect to them who when they appoint Lieutenants or Deputies any where doe giue them authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects and so much power as may suffice for the remedy of all inconueniences and specially of the greatest which may occurre in the States where they gouerne 30 Therefore it must needes be granted that our Sauiour Christ ordaining a gouernment in his Church gaue to the Gouernours thereof sufficient power and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest and when spirituall correction will not suffice then to chastice them also in their temporalities so farre forth as shall be necessarie for the publike good of the Church and for the due execution of their office and charge For as the Lawler saith Cui iurisdictio data est Iauolen leg 2. â— de Iurisdict ei quoque concessa esse videntur sine quibus iurisdictio explicaâ—i non potuit To whomsoeuer iurisdiction is giueÌ„ those things do seeme to be granted withall without the which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and this is also conforme to the axiome of the Philosophers qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth being giueth also those things that are consequents thereof or necessarily required thereto 31 But first I would demaund of Mr. Fitzherbert what remedie the Church hath against a most potent Christian Prince who shall contemne not only an Ecclesiasticall Censure but also euery sentence of depriuation or of any of other temporall or corporall chasticement denounced against him by the Pope doth he not contemne this Censure and sentence and by his authoritie and example draw his subiects for the most part to a generall reuolt from the Church shall we then say that Christ left not to his Church sufficient authoritie to remedie this How then is that fulfilled which the Apostle said of the most ample power of the Church to reuenge or punish all disobedience seeing that the disobedience of absolute Princes to this sentence of depriuation should be incorrigible and remedilesse Whereupon it would also follow that the authoritie and power of the Church should be in effect no better then a cobweb c. Let Mr. Fitzherbert satisfie this demaund and he will forthwith see that in the like manner his owne argument may be answered 32 Secondly as euery well instituted temporall common wealth and the chiefe gouernours thereof haue alwaies sufficient temporall power taking temporall power for authoritie to punish with temporall punishments all treasons rebellions and contempts whatsoeuer although they haue not alwaies sufficient power taking power for might force or effectuall meanes to redresse actually all disorders that shall arise in the common wealth for that if the perturbers of the common wealth be more potent and strong then the rulers and gouernours thereof they will little regard any sentence or declaration either of exile losse of goods and libertie or also of life that the Gouernours of the common wealth shall denounce against them and yet no man will deny that the chiefe Gouernours of the common wealth haue sufficient authoritie forasmuch as concerneth â—he authoritie it selfe to punish with temporall punishments euery particular contempt of these seditious and wicked subiects and to redresse all inconueniences that possibly may arise So likewise the chiefe Pastours or Gouernours of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ haue alwaies sufficient spiritual power taking spirituall power for authoritie to punish with spirituall punishments all heresies schismes and other crimes whatsoeuer although they haue not alwaies sufficient spirituall power taking power for force might or effectuall meanes to redresse actually by spirituall punishments all inconueniences and disorders that shall arise in the Church of Christ For if the disturbers of the Church be peruerse obstinate and wilfull they will little regard and Censure sentence or declaration that the Pastours of the Church can possibly denounce against them and yet no man will deny that the chiefe Pastours or Gouernours of the Church of Christ haue sufficient authoritie for as much as concerneth the authoritie it selfe to punish with spirituall Censures euery particular contempt of these disobedient persons and that these spirituall Censures are of themselues sufficient to terrifie any Christian whatsoeuer and to withdraw him from sinne seeing that they are farre more grieuous and dreadfull as S. Augustine affirmeth then any temporall punishment whatsoeuer 33 Thirdly I answere that S. Paul had indeede through the gift of miracles which Christ our Sauiour gaue to him and to the rest of the Apostles not only a most ample and extraordinarie authoritie but also power might force and effectuall meanes to punish or reuenge all disobedience euen with temporall and corporall punishments Whereupon as S. Chrysostome obserueth vpon this place Chrysost in 2. Cor 10. Act. 14. Act. 2â— Act. 13. Auselni in 2. Cor. 10. hee did one time cure a lame man an other time hee raised one from death to life and an other time he punished Elymas the Magician with depriuing him of his sight And S. Anselme numbreth among this spirituall armour whereof the Apostle heere speaketh the doing of miracles For we saith S. Anselme speaking in the person of S. Paul doe not warre or fight according to the flesh For the weapons of our warfare are not carnall but spirituall and mighty to God our King for whom we warre or fight For we doe not beare a materiall lance or sword but we doe more mightily ouerthrow our enemies with the word then others doe with carnall weapons For our weapons are the word of preaching wisdome miracles charitie and other vertues c. 34 Wherefore S. Paul speaketh not only of authoritie to fight or punish but also of might force or effectuall meanes to ouercome his enemies Our weapons saith he are mighty to God to destroy munitions that is saith S. Anselme secular doctrines arguments and subtilities by which peruerse men doe strengthen their hearts that the word of truth may not be able to touch them because the art of Apostolicall preaching doth mightily pearce and ouerthrow through the vertue of spirituall grace these kind of munitions And we haue
also in readinesse that is in manifest and speedy effect to reuenge all disobedience that is to punish the offences of them who would not obey vs that they might correct themselues Which we will doe when your obedience shall be fulfilled that is when all the rest of you shall by loue be obedient in all things Thus S. Anselme Now what learned man will thus conclude that because S. Paul and the Apostles had a most ample extraordinarie and miraculous authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to conuert men to the faith of Christ and to reuenge or punish all that were disobedient with temporall punishments euen by death as S. Peter did Ananias and Saphyra or by depriuing them of their sight as S. Paul did Elimas the Magician or by deliuering them to Sathan to be visibly tormented by him as S. Paul did the incestuous Corinthian that therefore the ordinarie Pastours of the Church haue now either an extraordinarie or ordinary authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to doe the like 35 I omit that S. Ambrose or whosoeuer is the Authour of those Commentaries expoūdeth those words to reuenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled of the Corinthians themselues who being perfectly conuerted shall punish in themselues their former disobedience It is manifest saith S. Ambrose that he reuengeth disobedience when he condemneth it by obedience then destroying it when he bringeth to the faith those who doe resist or disobey that infidelitie may be condemned by them by whom it was defended The same also doth S. Anselme insinuate as you haue seene aboue 36 But S. Augustine saith Mr. Fitzherbert vnderstandeth those words of the Apostle hauing in a readinesse to reuenge all disobedience of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties True it is that S. Augustine applyeth those words of the Apostle to the authoritie of the Church to compell heretikes by temporall punishments to returne to the faith of Christ taking the Church as it containeth all the faithfull and consisteth both of temporall and spirituall power but it is not true that he vnderstandeth them of the authoritie of the Church as the Church is taken for Church-men or the spiritual Pastours of the Church Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth herein egregiously abuse his Reader For S. Augustines maine drift both in that 50. epistle in the former 48. epistle is only to proue against the Donatists that heretiks may lawfully be compelled with temporall punishments by the lawes of Christian Emperours to returne to the Catholike faith and that the Pastours of the Church did well in requesting Christian Emperours to make such lawes Wherefore the argument of the 48. epistle to Vincentius is that S. Austin was once of opinion that we must not deale with heretikes by violence but only with the word of God but afterwards being ouercome with the doctrine and example of others he changed his opinion and taught that it is lawfull to implore the lawes of Princes against the enemies of the faith so that it be done with an intention to correct and not with a desire to reuenge And the argument of this 50. Epistle is that S. Augustine sheweth with what moderation heritickes may through feare of Emperiall lawes be reduced to the communion of the Church And in his second booke of Retractations Cap. 48. mentioning this Epistle to Bonifacius he writeth thus At the same time I wrote also a booke meaning this 50. Epistle concerning the correction of the Donatists by reason of those who would not haue them to be corrected by the Emperiall lawes This booke beginneth thus Laudo gratulor admiror fili dilectissime Bonifaci 37 Iudge now good Reader what a shamefull fraud is this of Mr. Fitzherbert to make ignorant Catholikes beleeue that S. Augustine bringeth those words of the Apostle to prooue the authority left by our Sauiour to his Church that is to Churchmen or to the spirituall Pastours of the Church for so hee vnderstandeth the word Church in all this his Discourse to compell her rebellious disobedient children by force of temporall punishments to performe their duties whereas S. Augustines intent onely is to prooue the lawfulnesse of the Emperiall lawes compelling heretickes by temporall punishments to returne backe to the faith and that Church-men or the spirituall Pastours of the Church may lawfully implore the Emperiall lawes and desire Christian Princes to compell heretickes to forsake their heresie by force of temporall punishments so that they desire it with intent to correct them and not with a desire of reuenge 38 But if the Ecclesiasticall authority saith Mr. Fitzherbert y Pag. 90. did not extend it selfe to the chastisement of disobediēt Princes in their temporal states it must needs follow that Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are went to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or states subiect to them who when they appoint lieutenants or deputies any where do giue them authority ouer all sorts of subiects so much power as may suffice for the remedy of all inconueniences and specially of the greatest which may occurre in the States where they gouerne c. But this consequence I haue euer denied For as I haue often said to the good gouernment of the Church of Christ which is a spirituall not a temporall kingdome or common-wealth it is onely required that the Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie to inflict spirituall and not temporall punishments and this authoritie forasmuch as concerneth the authoritie and punishments themselues is sufficient to redresse all inconueniences neither is it necessarie either in a spirituall or a temporall kingdome that the chiefe Gouernours thereof should haue that power might or effectuall meanes whereby all inconueniences must actually at all times be redressed 39 And therefore as temporall Kings doe giue to their Lieutetenants Deputies or Vice-Royes sufficient temporall authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects in the Prouinces or States where they gouerne but not alwayes so much power taking power not for authoritie or iurisdiction but for might force or effectuall meanes as may suffice for the remedie of all inconueniences for this power the Kings themselues doe often times want in those Dominions where they themselues doe personally gouerne so Christ our Sauiour ordaining in his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Gouernment gaue to the spirituall Gouernours thereof sufficient spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest but not sufficient power might or effectuall meanes actually to redresse the same And as the Lieutenants Deputies or Vice-Royes of temporall Kings if they offend cannot be punished with temporall punishments by any subiect in the States where they gouerne but by the King alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So
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
to campe againe c. 39 Concerning the ceremonies which were to be vsed and the sacrifices which were to be offered albeit in the law of Nature when there was no law of God which did restraine or limit any man to any kinde of ceremony or Sacrifice it was lawfull for euery man to doe what hee would vnlesse it were euill of it selfe and therefore euery man as being considered by himselfe might offer what sacrifice or vse what kinde of ceremony he pleased but as he was a part and member of some Communitie he could vse no other sacrifice or ceremony then that which the Communitie or the supreme Gouernours thereof whose Minister he was did appoint yet in the law written it was otherwise For as God himselfe did limite and determine the places and ministers to doe sacrifice so also he determined all the rites and ceremonies belonging to the worshipping of him whereof the whole booke of Leuiticus doth treate But concerning the Sacrifices God appointed in generall three kindes to wit Holocausts a sacrifice for sinne and a Pacificke hoste Num. 6. and vnder these three were comprehended all other particular kindes of sacrifices of all which and of the ceremonies belonging to them it is treated from the first Chapter of Leuiticus to the eight What other authority the Priests of the olde Testament had in expounding and interpreting the law of God when any doubt or difficulty should arise I declared aboue in the former Chapter when I examined that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubtfull c. 40 Now lastly concerning the law of Christ wherein all the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawes of the old Testament doe cease insomuch that no Christian now is bound to obserue any one of those lawes by vertue and force of the law it is to be considered that our Sauiour Christ hath now instituted a new Priesthood and a new Sacrifice And albeit he hath determined and limited the persons who are to offer Sacrifice and the Sacrifice which is to be offered for the persons or Priests to offer Sacrifice he hath appointed onely his twelue Apostles and those who are duely consecrated and ordained by them or their Successours and the Sacrifice which they ought to offer is one onely to wit the vnbloody offering of his immaculate body and blood vnder the visible formes of bread and wine by vsing those words which he himselfe in his last Supper did vse and institute yet he did neither limit the place where this Sacrifice should be offered nor the ceremonies which were to be vsed in the offering thereof but he left these to the disposition of the Church and to the supreme Pastours or Gouernours thereof to determine them as they should thinke conuenient Besides this authoritie which Christ gaue to the Priests of the new law ouer his true body he gaue them also authority and Iurisdiction ouer his mysticall body which are the faithfull which authority and Iurisdiction is signified by the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour promised to S. Peter and in his person to the rest of the Apostles whom he did represent of which authority I haue spoken somewhat in the former chapter and also in my Apologie Theologicall Disputation and Appendix thereunto 41 And from hence the Reader may easily gather two things the one is the difference betwixt the Priests in the law of Nature and in the law written for that both in the law of Moyses and of Christ the Priests had not their authoritie from men but from GOD neither was it in the power of the temporall common-wealth to extend or diminish their Priestly authoritie but in the law of Nature the Priests had their authoritie from the ciuill Communitie or common-wealth whereof they were parts and members and in whose name and by whose authoritie they were made Priests and had power to offer sacrifice and it was in the power of the common-wealth to extend or diminish or to take quite away their Priestly authority and to appoint and ordaine in what manner and with what ceremonies and what things they should Sacrifice to God and to determine of all things concerning Religion yea and the common-wealth did also determine what Gods they were to woorship and therefore it was decreed by the Senate of Rome that no Emperour should be canonized or made God Alexand. l â—6 cap. 4. but by the decree of the Senate 42 The second which followeth from the former is that considering in the law of nature the Priesthood was wholly subiect and dependent vpon the ciuill Common-wealth in so much that the Priests in the law of nature were subiect and subordinate not onely in temporals but also in spirituals and in all things which concerned Religion and the publike seruice of God to the supreme Gouernours of the temporall Common-wealth from whom they receiued all their Priestly authoritie Mr. Fitzherbert very vnlearnedly concludeth that according to the law of nature the temporall State and power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that the supreme temporall Magistrate was commanded and corrected with temporall punishments as occasion required by the spirituall seeing that the quite contrarie I haue most cleerly conuinced out of Abulensis and the same may very plainely be gathered from the doctrine of Sotus Valentia Suarez Vasquer and other Diuines treating either of Sacrifices in generall or of the Sacrifice of the Masse or of the Priesthood of Christ And therefore I may bouldly say that if in the law of nature an Oath had beene propounded by the ciuill Common-wealth wherin the Religious Priests should haue acknowledged that they might not only for temporall crimes but also for spirituall and which meerely concerned Religion be punished by the supreme temporall Gouernour with temporall punishments and also be depriued of their Priestly function and authoritie the Priests would haue admitted it as lawfull And if an Oath had beene propounded by the Priests to haue themselues exempted from the authoritie of the supreme temporall Gouernour euen in spirituall or religious affaires much lesse in temporall the Ciuill Common-wealth or supreme Gouernours thereof would not haue admitted it as lawfull but would haue punished the Priests for presuming to vsurpe such an authoritie 43 Wherefore those last words of my Aduersarie to Mr. Barlow are a most vaine friuolous and idle florish For albeit the ancient Philosophers and learned Paynims being guided by the law of Nature and light of naturall reason whose doctrine also in this point our moderne Diuines doe follow did cleerely see that in the law of Nature when no positiue law of God was published the Ciuill common-wealth or supreme gouernours thereof had the chiefe command and authoritie in all matters as well concerning Religion as State to whom the Religious Priests were wholy subiect as well in spirituall or religious as in temporall affaires yet they did not turne
this no lesse in commanding then in punishing For corporall or temporall things to become spirituall things or to be reduced thereto is nothing else then that in corporall and temporall things there may bee found vertue or vice which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power and that therefore all temporall things and also all temporall punishments as they may become spirituall things or reduced thereto that is as by the relaâ—ion of them to Gods gloty and the health of soules there may reside in them vertue or vice may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall directiue or commanding power which hath for her acts and obiects the commaunding of vertue and the forbidding of vice but the act and obiect of the spirituall coerciue power is the inflicting and not the commanding of spirituall punishments and no relation of temporall punishments to Gods glory or to the health of soules can make them to bee spirituall punishments for that death exile priuation of goods c. although by the reference of them to Gods glory and the health of soules they may become spirituall actions that is in them may reside vertue or vice yet they can neuer become spirituall punishments and therefore although they may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power for that the obiect of the spirituall commanding power are all things wherein vertue or vice may be found yet they cannot be inflicted by the spirituall coerciue power which hath for her obiect the inflicting onely of spirituall and not of temporall punishments vnlesse the reference of temporall punishments to the glory of God and the health of soules can make temporall punishments to become I doe not say spirituall things but spirituall and not temporall punishments which is impossible And therefore with great reason I did admit the one to wit that the spirituall Superiour may commaund temporall punishments as they become spirituall things or are reduced thereunto that is to things wherein vertue or vice may be found and did reiect the other to wit that the Spirituall Superiour may in regard of the same reference or reduction inflict also temporall punishments for that no reference or reduction of the inflicting of temporall punishments to Gods glory and the health of soules can make temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments or the inflicting of temporall punishments to be the inflicting of spirituall punishments And therefore you may see I will not say with what probabilitie but with what palpable ignorance Mr. Fitzherbert i Suprat 2. nu 10. accuseth me of contradiction in this point and calleth it before a friuolous distinction of mine 74 And from this also which I haue said two other things may easily bee gathered The one is that to know what punishments are the obiect of the spirituall coerciue or punishing power wee haue no other way a priori then the holy Scriptures wherein the institution and law of Christ is contained and the reason is because there is no naturall necessitie that spirituall Pastours must haue authority to inflict temporall punishments and by the law of nature and the auncient Romanes and other Heathen common-wealths who were guided by the light of naturall reason I haue sufficiently prooued before that this naturall subordination and subiection especially in coerciue or punishing temporall authority or authority to punish temporally of the ciuill common-wealth to religious Priests which my Aduersary supposeth is a very vaine and idle fiction or Chymaera faigned without any colour or shew of true naturall reason Wherefore seeing that Christ our Sauiour might by his absolute power haue giuen to the spirituall Pastours of his Church a greater or lesser coerciue or punishing authority then hee hath giuen them yea and might haue giuen them no coerciue authority or power to punish at all so much as with spirituall Censures to know what coerciue or punishing power he hath actually giuen them cannot be proued by the law of Nature or by naturall reason but onely by the holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers who are the sincere Expositours thereof and liued before this controuersie concerning the Popes temporall authority ouer temporall Princes arose and therefore could neither fauour the one side nor the other 75 The second is that there is but little difference except in words betwixt the doctrine of the Diuines and Canonists concerning the spirituall coerciue or punishing power For although the Canonists doe suppose that all the power as well coerciue as directiue which Christ hath giuen to the Pastors of his Church is in ordine ad bonum spirituale in order to spirituall good or for the sauing of soules which the Diuines call indirectly yet because the Canonists hold that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath supreme authoritie to inflict as well temporall as spirituall punishments and consequently to punish all Christians euen temporall Princes as well temporally as spiritually therefore they feare not to affirme conformably to their grounds that the Pope is the supreme temporall and spirituall Monarch of the whole Christian world and hath true temporall coerciue authoritie But the Diuines although in effect grant as much yet they differ in words and that coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours which the Canonists call temporall for that it worketh the same temporall effect and hath the selfe same obiect which the temporall or ciuill coerciue authoritie hath wil not forsooth call it temporall authoritie but spirituall authoritie in temporalls and that not directly but indirectly or in order to spirituall good whereas the Canonists doe also hold that the Popes temporall coerciue authoritie or his coerciue authoritie in temporalls is also in order to spirituall good But this distinction of directly and indirectly was purposely inuented by the later Diuines to make their doctrine concerning the Popes authoritie to dispose of all temporalls and to inflict temporall punishments to be more plausible to the vulgar sort and to be lesse odious to Christian Princes and their loyall subiects who can not brooke to heare any man say that absolute and Soueraigne Princes are not supreme but subiect in temporalls to spirituall Pastours whereas in effect and very deed the Diuines notwithstanding this their distinction doe make absolute Princes whom the ancient Fathers with vniforme consent haue euer accounted to be next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be temporally punished but by GOD alone to be as much subiect in temporalls to spirituall Pastors and to be no lesse temporally punished by them then the Canonists doe So that the difference betwixt their opinions concerning the coerciue power of spirituall Pastours is rather verball and only about words them reall and in very deede 76 Seeing therefore that to haue power and authoritie directly in temporalls is nothing else then to haue power in temporalls as they are temporall and to haue power indirectly in temporalls is to haue power in temporalls not as they are temporall but as the Diuines say in order to spirituall good
Instit de patr potest Glossa ibidem Moli disp 228. and the Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doe well obserue the authoritie which Parents haue ouer their children was introduced by the Ciuill law of the Romanes from the time as the Glosse saith of Romulus the effects of which fatherly power authoritie or command the Glosse doth in briefe but Molina more at large set downe 93 Wherefore the Reader may by the way obserue that there is a great difference to be made betwixt the power and authority which Parents now liuing in ciuill Society haue ouer their Children consequently the obedience of Children answerable thereunto and the power and authority which the Ciuill Common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince haue ouer subiects because all the authority and command which Parents haue ouer their children proceedeth from the Ciuill Common-wealth and is wholy depending thereon and not from the law of nature and therefore the obedience which children owe to their Parents supposing them to be Parents cannot properly be called naturall but ciuill obedience but the supreme authoritie that the temporall Common-wealth hath ouer her subiects supposing the aduniting of men in Ciuill Societie Bellar. lib. 3. de Laicis cap. 6. is euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine deriued from the law of nature Yea also it is very probable and affirmed by diuers learned men as I haue shewed heretofore x In Append. cōtra D. Schulcken calumnia 16. nu 8. that the supreame power and authority which temporall Princes haue ouer their subiects doth also proceed from the law of nature and prescript of naturall reason although their title or the designing of their persons to be Princes is not deriued from the law of nature but from the Common-wealth it selfe for which cause wee may truely and properly call that obedience which subiects owe to the ciuill Common-wealth or the Soueraigne Prince thereof not onely ciuill but also naturall obedience or allegiance consequently the bond thereof to be greater then the obligation of the Sonne to his Father the wife to the Husband and the slaue to his Lord. 94 Now to Mr Fitzherberts argument I answered in the said Appendix to Suarez that as the power and authority which Parents haue ouer their children is granted to them by the ciuill Common-wealth so also it cannot be taken away from them but by Ciuill authority And therefore those Canons either of Popes or Councels wherein children are exempted from the power and authoritie which by the Ciuill law their Parents haue ouer them doe either confirme that which was first decreed by the Imperiall law or they are made with the expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or they doe onely declare the law of God and nature to wit that children are to forsake the company of their Parents when by conuersing with them they are in danger to offend their Creatour As when the Father is accounted to be dead ciuilly either by some great sinne committed by him as heresie and treason or otherwise or if he make profession in an approued Religion whereby he is accounted dead to the world his Children are discharged by the Ciuill law from the power which he had ouer them as you may see in Molina in the place whereto my Aduersary remitteth his reader For it is a rule of the Ciuill law that naturall and ciuill death are equiualent concerning ciuill acts as noteth the Glosse vpon Leg. si decesserit ff qui satisdare So likewise if one be ordained a Bishop he is discharged thereby from the power and authority which his Father hath ouer him Authent de Sanct. Episcopis cap. 3. § Si uero contigerit And in this particular case which Mr. Fitzherbert here vrgeth that decree of the fourth Councell of Toledo was made by the authority and consent of King Sisennandus as I haue shewed more at large in that Appendix against Suarez Besides the decree of that Councell if it be vnderstood of Children which haue discretion is onely a declaration as I there obserued of the law of God and Nature whereby the baptized children of Iewes are freed not from the power or right which Parents haue ouer their Children but onely from their company for that the law of God and Nature forbiddeth all conuersation whereby one may incurre probable danger of reuolting from the faith or falling into any other sinne 95 And the like is to be said of the discharge of slaues and bondmen from the company of their Lords when the said slaues are Catholikes and their Lords heretikes For although these slaues if they be in danger to be peruerted may by the law of God Nature absent themselus from the company of their Lords vntil the danger be past as likewise a catholike wife may depart frō the company of her husband who is an heretike if she be in danger of being peruerted by his company this the Church hath power to declare and command them vnder paine of spirituall Censures to performe Neuerthelesse the Church hath no authority to dissolue the bond of Matrimony or to take away the right or fatherly power which hereticall Parents haue ouer their Children or to release the bond of slauery by which Lords haue a right or dominion ouer their slaues And therefore when the danger of being peruerted is past the wife is bound to returne to her Husband the Child to his Father and the bondman to his Lord vnlesse by the authority of the temporall Prince the Childe bee freed from the right and power which his Father had ouer him and the slaue from his bondage And therefore à fortiori and by a stronger reason the Church hath not authority to discharge subiects from the bond of obedience and allegiance to an hereticall Prince both for that thisis a temporall and ciuill punishment which therefore to inflict doth not belong to spirituall power and also for that temporall Princes being in temporals next vnder God cannot be temporally punished but by God alone and also because this bond of allegiance is naturall whereas the other obligations by which a wife a childe a slaue are bound to obey her husband his Father his Lord is ciuill and deriued from the Ciuill Common-wealth Neuerthelesse I doe not denie that the Church by a declaratiue precept may command the subiect to forsake the company of his Prince yea and perchance to depart the land if by such staying he be in probable danger to be peruerted yet still hee remaineth subiect to his Prince and when this danger is past he is bound by vertue of his allegiance to returne againe at the commandement of his Prince 96 And by this it is manifest how grossely Mr. Fitzherbert is deceiued in affirming so boldly That the bond of allegiance to the Prince is not greater then the obligation of the Sonne to the Father the Wife to the Husband and the Slaue to his Lord Seeing that all the obedience which a Childe oweth to his
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
question may be about the causes for which this authoritie may bee vsed as also the forme of proceeding to bee obserued therein whereunto he answereth that herein there are so many particularities to be considered as are ouerlong for this place onely it is sufficient for Catholike men to know that this may not be done without iust cause graue and vrgent motiues and due forme also of proceeding by admonition preuention intercession and other like preambles prescribed by Ecclesiasticall Canons to bee obserued whereby my Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloody Assassinates may iustly bee remooued For that this authoritie doth not onely not allow any such wicked or vnlawfull attempts but doth also expresly and publikely condemne the same and the doctrine thereof as may appeare not onely by the condemnation of Wickliffes wicked article in the Councell of Constance z Sess 15. wherein he affirmed That it was lawfull for euery priuate man to kill any Prince whom he held to bee a Tyrant but also by like condemnation of Caluin Beza c. 52 Thus you see that Father Parsons hath not answered to the Earle of Salisburies complaint in particular to wit that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie ouer the kingdomes and liues of temporall Princes hath not beene made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. But he supposeth it as certaine and graunted by Catholikes and in steade of some cleere and publike definition orthodoxall c. Which the Earle of Salisburie desired he bringeth onely certaine reasons which are in some sort grounded vpon the Law of Nature and the light of naturall reason to wit that Christ hath in his Church subiected temporall things to spirituall which also is true in the Law of Nature and that otherwise he had not so sufficiently prouided for the necessitie of his Church as God and Nature haue prouided for other temporall common-wealthes which are not so perfect as is his Church which reasons how weake and insufficient they are the Reader may presently perceiue by that which hath beene said before concerning the Law of Nature and against Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and also if he will but apply them to the Church and Synagogue in the old law in which without doubt God Almightie did both subiect temporall things to spirituall and for the necessitie whereof he did also sufficiently prouide and yet Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth it to probable that in the old Law the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and that Kings were not to bee temporally by the High Priest but contrariwise the High Priest was subiect in temporalls to the King and to bee punished by him with temporall punishments Wherefore after I had cleerely ouerthrowne Cardinall Bellarmines reason concluding thus And so it is manifest by that which I haue said how weake this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine is euen according to his owne principles I forthwith answered Father Parsons in this manner a Apolog. nu 203. 53 By which it is also apparant how weakely the Author of the English Treatise tending to Mitigation who groundeth his whole discourse for the Popes power to depose Princes vpon this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine doth satisfie the Earle of Salisburies desire whereof we made mention aboue For although it be-true that Christ our Sauiour left in his Church which is a spirituall common-wealth as in all other well established common-wealths sufficient authoritie and power for as much as concerneth the power it selfe to defend her selfe from the iniuries of all men whatsoeuer to correct iudge punish all wicked persons of what state or condition soeuer they be that are subiect to the supreme Prince of this spirituall common-wealth as members of the head sheepe to their Pastours children to their Father Neuerthelesse that Christ left in his Church sufficient power might or force to represse at all times all excesses whatsoeuer of Christian Princes or that the punishments wherewith such Princes may be punished by the Church are temporall which doe passe the limits appointed by Christ to a spirituall common-wealth this besides that it seemeth to be supposed by this Authour as certaine without any reason at all is also most clearely repugnant to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers who doe teach as I related aboue b Nu. 5 seq that the armour or weapons of the Church are spirituall not temporall and that Princes if they offend are for as much as concerneth temporall punishments to be left to the examination and iudgement of God alone 54 Wherefore there remaineth in the Church sufficient remedie and spirituall authoritie for temporall authoritie or which now I take for all one authoritie to dispose of temporalls is not agreeable to the condition of a spirituall common-wealth to represse by spirituall punishments the exorbitant excesses of all her subiects whatsoeuer and of this there is no controuersie among Catholikes as also to euery temporall common-wealth the law of God and nature hath giuen full and perfect temporall authoritie to punish all her subiects that shall offend with temporall punishments but not with spirituall which are not agreeable to a temporall common-wealth and to defend her selfe with corporall weapons from the wrongs and violence of all men though of forraine countreys how strong and potent soeuer they be albeit she hath not alwayes an effectuall remedie or sufficient force might or power to free her selfe from the vniust oppressions not onely of forraine countreys but also of her owne subiects by reason of their excessiue power and might 55 And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath authority to dispose of temporals and to depose temporall Princes to wit whether directly or indirectly immediatly or by a certaine consequence as this Authour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose as certaine and not doubted of by Catholikes but as I haue often said out of Trithemius It is a controuersie among the Schoolemen about the thing it selfe Trithem in Chron. monast Hirsang ad ann 1106. whether the Pope hath any such authority in any manner at all and as yet it is not determined by the Iudge whether hee hath any power to depose the Emperour or no. 56 Lastly if in euery well established Common-weath there is left sufficient remedy and authority by God and nature to represse and punish the more hainous offences of their Soueraigne Prince whereon the Discourse of this Authour in his first question whereupon the other two questions doe depend is chiefly grounded I doe not see in what manner and with what reason he can rid himselfe but that consequently hee must also grant that the Pope himselfe may for all enormous crimes be corrected iudged and punished by the Church Bel. li. 2. de Concil cap. 19. ad 2. nu whereas Cardinall Bellarmine as you haue seene aboue c Nu. 188. Apolog doth teach that
and effectuall meanes to withdraw men actually from sinne for this were extreame folly to say as my Aduersarie himselfe confesseth For the sufficiencie saith hee of the power which Christ hath left to his Church in this point or any other consisteth in this that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment Wherefore it is manifest that hee who will contend that the Church must haue a more sufficient power to saue soules then which of it selfe is sufficient if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment must needes suppose that the Church must also haue sufficient force might and effectuall meanes to saue soules and a power to make the subiect capable and to remooue all external impediments or which is all one must haue such a sufficient power which is not onely sufficient in regard of the power being considered in it selfe but also in regard of all other things which are necessarie that the power worke the effect for which it was ordained for that these two are opposite parts or members of the distinction I made before and no man that hath any skill in Logike can be ignorant that in euery diuision consisting only of two parts or members we may rightly argue from the affirming of the one part to the denyall of the other and frō the denying of the one to the affirming of the other If therfore the power of the Church to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures be of it selfe a sufficient coerciue power to withdraw men from sinne which is the end of Ecclesiasticall power and if men bee not thereby withdrawne from sinne it is not by reason of the insufficiencie of the power but of the indisposition of the subiect no other coerciue power to inflict temporall punishments can be necessarie And therefore the aforesaid distinction of Ecclesiasticall coerciue power considered in it selfe and in respect of the impediments which may be in regard of the subiect did quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines second argument and the whole discourse of Fa. Parsons which was grounded thereon So that Mr. Fitzherbert might with more credit haue left vntouched the satisfaction which Fa. Parsons pretended to giue to the Earle of Salisburies desire or complaint for ought hee hath beene able to say in defence of the same 62 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert quarelleth with mee for teaching in this my Discourse against Fa. Parsons that the penalties which the Church may I doe not say impose as hee vntruely imposeth vpon me for this power of the Church to impose command or enioyne temporall penalties I neuer denyed but to inflict are not temporall punishments and for remitting my Reader for this point to diuers authorities euen of the ancient Fathers related by mee in my Apologie hee wisheth mee g Pag. 122. nu 21. and the Reader to see the answere to those authorities in D. Schulckenius who giueth as he saith sufficient satisfaction to euery one of them and sheweth euidently that diuers of those Authours doe wholly impugne Widdringtons opinion and doctrine and finally telleth him of his bad fortune in alleadging such witnesses as either make nothing for him or quite ouerthrow him and the like may bee seene saith he in D. Westons Sanctuarie who also answereth the said places particularlay and fully I also in like manner wish him and the Reader to see how their answeres haue beene confuted partly by Mr. Iohn Barclay and partly by my selfe aboue in this Treatise h Part. 1. per totum where also I haue shewed the vanitie of these men that when they see their arguments and answeres most of all to bee shaken then they make the greatest brags to which silly shifts they haue beene driuen by their bad fortune to vndertake the defence of so bad a cause and through a vehement desire not to seeme to bee vanquished and to haue any way erred in hauing coined a new Catholike faith 63 Furthermore the Reader may see i Pag. 122. nu 22. C. Bel. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcl cap. 8. saith Mr. Fitzherbert many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay which Widdrington could not but haue seene no lesse then the former before he wrote against my Supplement and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in those answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Readers to those places and such like which hee knew were alreadie answered but perhaps he perswadeth himselfe that all his writings and assertions are as I haue said in the Preface like to the lawes of the Medes See Preface nu 15. and see also the answere thereunto Dan. 6. and Persians which are inuiolable and immutable And this shall suffice touching Father Parsons whom you see hee might with more credit haue left vntouched for ought hee hath beene able to prooue against him 64 But as the Reader may see many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay so also hee may see the Cardinalls answeres confuted by Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmine which Mr. Fitzherbert could not but haue seene before he wrote now his Reply against mee and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in Mr. Iohn Barclayes answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Reader to Cardinall Bellarmines booke against Barclay which he knew was already answered And therefore that which hee repeateth heere againe concerning the lawes of the Medes and Persians may more aptly be applyed to himselfe and other such like vehement defenders of the Popes power to depose Princes who for that they haue vnaduisedly begun to make their doctrine to be an infallible point of faith which they will neuer bee able to make good will yet defend the same per fas ne fas by right and wrong and perceiuing that they cannot preuaile with reason and arguments endeauour to ouersway their cause by force and authoritie clamours and threatnings as it is euident by the Breues which his Holinesse by their importunitie and sinistrous Information hath published to condemne the new Oath wherein chiefly that doctrine is denied as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation which they will neuer bee able to maintaine and by condemning some of my bookes in such generall wordes and commanding me vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith in so strange a maner not declaring of what crime either in particular or in generall I should purge my selfe although I haue often by diuers Supplications to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requested to bee particularly informed what one thing is contained in the Oath which is so cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation or what one thing I haue written in those bookes whereof I should purge my selfe as being contrarie to faith
prayer or curse two beares came forth of the forrest and tore fourtie two boyes that mocked him saying Come vp balde head come vp balde head Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert may distinguish if it please him betwixt the ordinary and extraordinary power of the Apostles and cleerely see that from the facts and punishments which the Apostles exercised by their extraordinary delegate miraculous power which therefore doth not descend to their Successours it is not lawfull to argue that the Apostles by their ordinary power might do the same or that their successors haue therfore power to inflict the like punishments 77 But heere saith Mr. Fitzherbert m Pag. 125. nu 28. perhaps Widdrinton will say that if Saint Peter exercied his Apostolicall power and iurisdiction therein it followeth that the Pope or other Ecclesiasticall Iudges may also giue sentence of death yea execute vpon such as deserue it which is contrary to the custome and Canons of the Church Whereto I answere that for as much as that time there were no Christian Princes or Magistrates to do iustice in that kind and that it was necessary in the beginning to inflict such an exemplar punishment vpon those two hypocrites for the terrour of other Saint Peter thought good to performe it himselfe although afterwards when Christian Religion was further propagated and Christian Princes held it for an honour to them to serue God and his Church with their temporall lawes and power the Church thought it needlesse to inflict bloodie penalties not because it might not doe it if it would but because it seemed more decent and conuenient for lenitie of a pious Mother to abstaine from the same and to vse more milde and lesse rigorous punishments in which respect the Church hath alwayes retained the vse of some temporall and corporall chastisements although she haue restrained her Ministers by Canons and constitutions from the effusion of blood remitting the iudgement and execution thereof wholy to the secular Magistrates who haue by their lawes sufficiently prouided for the execution of iustice in that kind 78 But first without perhaps I doe say and haue euidently conuinced not from those miraculous facts of the Apostles but from the doctrine and grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine and others who mainetaine the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie also to kill wicked Princes by all those wayes publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie to depriue their subiects of their liues as I haue insinuated aboue in this Treatise n Cha. 3 nu 15 and 16. and chap. 5. sec 2 nu 9 seq and prooued at large in my Apologie o Apolog nu â—3 seq to which D. Schulkenius answereth onely with a transcat let it passe as not belonging to the matter and Mr. Fitzherbert both in other places of this his Reply and also heere by these words not because it might not doe it if it would doth expressely acknowledge as much although forsooth he will not meddle with the liues of Princes to auoid enuy and yet he feareth not to say p Chap 2. nu 15.16 That the Pope can take away my life and the liues of all Christians Now what a scandalous doctrine this is and what feares and iealousies of continuall treasons inhumaine gun-powder plots and bloodie Assassinates against their Royall persons those Christian Princes especially who dissent from the Catholike Romane Religion may iustly conceiue thereby I haue sufficiently prooued in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez q Part. 1. sec 9 nu 5. seq where also I haue cleerely conuinced that this pretence of Ecclesiasticall lenitie and the clemencie of a Pious mother which onely for mildnesse sake as they pretend and not by any obligation doth not vse such rigorous punishments is a meere shift and cloake to dazell the eyes of the simple and vnlearned Catholikes For as it is no clemencie but a plaine crueltie for a mother not to cut off one member of her beloued child when it is in danger to infect and kill the whole body so also the Pope should bee cruell to the Church of God not to cut off an hereticall Prince that is in danger to infect the other members of the Church if we once suppose this scandalous damnable doctrin that the Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to dispose of all the temporals both of Christian Princes subiects as temporall Princes haue in order to temporal good authority to dispose of al the temporal corporal goods of their subiects 79 Secondly it is not true that the Church hath alwayes retained the vse of some temporall and corporall chastisements except onely by way of commaund whereof I neuer made doubt As also that reason which my Aduersary heere bringeth why the Church now since Christian Religion hath beene further propagated and Christian Princes haue held it for an honour to them to serue God and his Church with their temporall lawes thought it needlesse to inflict bloody punishments especially vpon wicked and disobedient Princes for that by their lawes they haue sufficiently prouided for the execution of iustice in that kind is very weake and insufficient because although Christian Princes haue sufficiently prouiued for the execution of iustice with bloodie punishments against their subiects yet they haue no way prouided for the execution of iustice in this kind against themselues and therefore if Christian Princes themselues become heretikes and seeke to draw their subiects to their heresie neither Ecclesiasticall lenitie nor the reason that my Aduersarie heere hath brought why the Church now thought it needlesse to inflict bloodie penalties can be any hinderance why the Pope may not proceed against them with bloody punishments if we once suppose that he hath power and authoritie so to do But the true ancient doctrine is that a Priest as he is a Priest is forbidden by the law of Christ to vse See aboue part 2. cap. 9. and not onely is counselled for decencie sake not to vse the material or temporal sword 80 But now Mr. Fitzherbert for the vpshot and conclusion of this Chapter will cleerely prooue by an argument which no man forsooth of iudgement can denie that the supreme spirituall Pastour hath power to punish his sheepe or subiects not onely in their soules but also in their bodies and goods And truely I cannot but wonder saith hee r Pag. 126. nu 29.30 that any man of iudgement can thinke it vnlawfull for the supreme spirituall Pastour to punish his sheepe or subiects in their bodies or goods seeing that it cannot be denied but that he is their Pastour and superiour in regard not onely of their soules but also of their bodies that is to say of their whole persons wherein their bodie is necessarily included and therefore for as much as euery man is bound to serue God no lesse with his body then
earthly things to heauenly men to Angels and the like and that therefore when there are two things concurring and commanded to bee done whereof the one concerneth religion the othe pollicie the one spirituall things the other temporall the one concerneth the soule the other the body wee must preferre caeteris paribus that which concerneth religion before that which concerneth pollicie and that which concerneth spirituall things before that which concerneth temporall and that which concerneth the soule before that which concerneth the body and this the light of true naturall reason doeth teach vs. 8 But what of all this will hee conclude from hence that because Religious Priests are in perfection and nobilitie superiour to temporall Princes by the same reason that policie is in perfection inferiour to Religion therefore the light of naturall reason doeth teach vs that Religious Priests may punish temporally temporall Princes and are superiour to them in temporall authoritie This is a very vicious consequence and by the like argument wee may conclude that because Angels are superiour to men in perfection and excellencie of substance knowledge and naturall strength therefore they are also superiour to men in authoritie and commaund and that men are bound by force of obedience to doe what the Angells shall prescribe which no Diuine will grant vnlesse they bee sent by GOD as his messengers and ministers And likewise wee may conclude that hee who hath one of the liberall sciences is by the law of nature superiour in authoritie to euery trades man by the same reason that things lesse perfect are inferiour to the more perfect and euery seruile trade is subiect and inferiour in perfection to euery one of the liberall arts and yet whosoeuer should argue from the law of nature in this manner would bee esteemed to bee in this point no lesse then a very naturall for that from the law of nature the light of naturall reason we can only conclude that in what degree of superiority one thing is superiour to another in the like degree of subiection this is subiect and subordinate to that and that therefore temporall things are subiect to spirituall in dignity and perfection because these are superiour to them herein but to transcend from one kind of superiority to another and from superiority in perfection dignity to argue a superiority in command and authority or from a superiority in spirituals to argue a superiority in meere temporall things is contrary to the light and prescript of true naturall reason 9 Secondly I did also graunt that all Nations being enlightened by Nature did agree in certaine generall principles touching Religion as concerning the necessity and dignity thereof and that all humane actions ought to be leuelled and directed by the square and rule of Religion and referred thereto as to the end of man although not to the intrinsecall end of the actions themselues as I declared aboue in the second part whereupon doth necessarily follow a subordination and subiection of temporall things to spirituall also of the ciuill Society to the religious in dignity and perfection But it doth not follow from the law of nature or the light of naturall reason that the religious Society as it is distinguished from the ciuill should haue power and authority to command and much lesse to punish especially with temporall punishments the ciuill Societie And the reason hereof I alleaged in that place out of the doctrine of Abulensis b Cap. 6. nu 35. 10 Because euery man liuing according to the law of nature and the light of naturall reason may be considered either as liuing by himselfe alone or else as liuing with other men in ciuill Society If hee bee considered as liuing by himselfe alone what power soeuer hee hath either concerning temporals or spirituals concerning his body or soule is in himselfe alone so that he hath neither power to command or punish but himselfe alone and in this manner euery man is a Priest and by the law of nature hath authority to worship God and to sacrifice to him in all places and at all times and with all kinde of Sacrifices which the prescript of true reason doth not teach to be vnlawfull for that the law of nature or the light of naturall reason doth not limit or determine to a man as liuing by himselfe alone any certaine time place or maner of worshipping God and doing sacrifice to him But if a man be considered as hee is a part and member of some ciuill Societie or Common-wealth then no priuate man but the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernour thereof hath by the law of nature and prescript of naturall reason all authority to command dispose ordaine and punish as well concerning religious as ciuill affaires So that in this manner the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernour thereof is the publike Priest and none hath authority to offer Sacrifice to God or to worship him in any publike manner and as a publike person but the Common-wealth it selfe or those whom in her place she shall appoint neither can any priuate or particular man haue any publike authority to command ordaine or punish for matters belonging to the worshipping of God but that which the ciuill Common-wealth is pleased to grant him 11 Wherefore there is a great difference as I noted in that place betwixt the Priests and the Religious Society in the law of nature before any positiue law of God was published and the Priests and religious Society in the olde and new Testament For in the law of nature there were not two distinct and independent Societies the one Religious the other Ciuill but the ciuill Society had all power and authority to command and dispose as well concerning the publike seruice of God as concerning ciuill gouernment neither did the law of nature determine or appoint any certaine men who should be Priests and should haue full authority to commaund and dispose of those things which belonged to the publike seruice of God but this authority was in the Common-wealth it selfe which appointed certaine men to be the publike ministers as well concerning the publike worshipping of God with religious rites and ceremonies as concerning the ciuill gouernment of the Common-wealth neither had these publike ministers any more authority or command then the Common-wealth did giue them so that it was in the power of the Common-wealth to extend diminish or quite take away the power authority command and priuiledges which by her authority were granted vnto them But since the positiue law of God was written the religious and ciuill Societie are two totall and independent Common-wealths neither hath the ciuill Common-wealth or the supreame Gouernours thereof any authority to determine matters concerning religion and the publike seruice of Almighty God for that hee himselfe hath appointed those that shall be publike Ministers in matters belonging to Religion to wit in the olde Testament the sonnes of Aaron and who by naturall propagation should
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
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
4. p. 264. and his spirituall authoritie ouer a generall Councell contrary to the custome of that renowmed Vniuersitie writeth thus Notum est nomine Clericorum c. It is manifest that in an odious matter Bishops are not comprehended vnder the name of Clerkes nor sometimes in the same matter Religious men vnder the name of Monkes neque similiter nomine Dominorum Reges nor likewise Kings vnder the name of Landlords Gouernours or Lords in regard of the height and Maiestie of Kingly dignitie I will say more that perchance in an odious matter the King of France in regard of the singular prerogatiues wherein he excelleth other Kings is not comprehended vnder the name of Kings Thus D. Duual 12 And by this the iudicious Reader may cleerely perceiue both what censure my ignorant Aduersary deserueth both in branding this doctrine with the temerarious note of absurditie and also that from hence it followeth euidently that the answere which I gaue to the decree of the Laeteran Councell is not absurd or improbable For all this may be not onely a probable perswasion but also a manifest demonstration to any Catholike man of iudgement that in the foresaid Canon wherein temporall penalties are inflicted Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not included in those generall names of Dominus temporalis and Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which denote titles of honour office or dignitie farre inferiour to the height and Maiestie of Kingly Soueraingtie and that therfore no conuincing or demonstratiue argument can be brought from this Canon to prooue that the Pope hath authoritie to depose absolute Princes who according to the doctrine of so many learned men and also the decree of Pope Innocent himselfe are not in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder generall words which denote titles of inferiour worth honour or dignitie Wherefore although it bee needlesse the premises considered to make any further answere to the rest of my Aduersaries discourse in this Chapter yet for better satisfaction of the studious Reader I will set downe what weake obiections he continueth still to vrge 13 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzher b Pag. 150. nu 3. 4. I finde the opinion of Lawyers expresly contrary thereto For wheras the famous Canonist and Card. Hostiensis who wrote aboue 300. yeeres agoe saith that Deponitur haereticus c. Hostiens in Sum. tit de haereticis §. qua paena nu 9. an heretike is deposed from all dignity whether he be a Clerke or a Lay-man Pope Emperour or any inferiour he alledgeth for the same three Lawes whereof the second and the third doe directly proue our intent For the second is an ancient Decree of Liberius the Pope wherein he ordained that 24. q. 1. Qui contra Ecclesiae pacem Qui contra Ecclesiae pacem sunt c. They who are against the peace of the Church if they haue any dignitie or the militarie girdle let them be depriued of it if they bee priuate men and yet nobly borne let them forfeit all their substance or goods but if they bee ignoble or base people let them bee not onely whipped but also banished which I wish my Aduersary Widdrington well to note for two respects the one for albeit he seemeth to admit the authority of the Ecclesiasticall Canons yet he denieth often as you haue heard that the Church can inflict any corporall and temporall punishment which he may see was ordained by this ancient Decree admitted and set downe in the body of the Canon law besides many other cleare Canons and Decrees to the same purpose The other because he saith that Princes are not included in penall lawes if they be not specified by the name of Princes whereas neuerthelesse he may see that this ancient Canonist Hostiensis includeth them in this Decree though the tearmes thereof are very generall without any particular mention of Princes 14 But first what Cardinall Hostiensis a man wholly addicted to the aduancing of the Popes temporall Monarchy and his authority in temporals ouer absolute Princes not only indirectly but also directly or any other Canonist Ciuill Lawyer or Diuine affirmeth concerning this point is little to our purpose considering that other Diuines and Lawyers are contrary to him heerein And therefore it is not sufficient for Mr. Fitzherbert to bring the testimony onely of Hostiensis or of many other Doctours ioyned together with him to prooue my aforesaid doctrine to bee improbable but it is necessary for him to bring conuincing proofes and he must also shew that no other approoued Authours mooued with probable grounds doe maintaine the same 15 Secondly obserue good Reader what kind of conuincing proofes this man bringeth out of Hostiensis and how grosly thou art abused through the manifest fraud or ignorance of this my vnlearned Aduersarie For first this Decree of Pope Liberius admitted as hee saith and set downe in the bodie of the Canon law is not authenticall but of a suspected credit whereof also Mr. Fitzherbert could not haue bene ignorant if he had read in the Councells set out by Binnius the whole Decree which is taken out of a Decretall Epistle which is pretended to haue beene written by Pope Liberius to S. Athanasius which Epistle Binnius himselfe calleth in question The Consulls saith Binnius Binnius tom 1 Concil pag 470 in fine Epistolae 13. Liberij which are added to this Epistle to wit Asclepius and Deodatus doe shew it to be of a suspected credit for I could neuer find their names to be in oth r places subscribed to deedes writings or Calender bookes 16 Secondly if Mr. Fitzherbert had related the words immediatly going before that which heere he citeth out of the Canon and wisheth me to note well for two respects the Reader would presently haue perceiued his fraude or ignorance and that from this Canon no argument at all can be brought to prooue that the Pope hath authoritie to inflict temporall penalties but rather that temporall Kings haue authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments For the entire words of this Canon as it is set downe by Binnius are these Binnius vbi supra Whosoeuer shall presume to transgresse these things first let them be subiect to the terrible iudgement of Almightie God Deinde autem qualem cunque Regalem indignationem reuereantur per quam si Episcopi c. and afterwards let them reuerence or feare all Regall indignation by which if they be Bishops or Cleargie men let them fall or be depriued wholy from the order of their Priesthood or Cleargie but if they be Monkes let them be separated from their places but if they be in dignitie or haue the militarie girdle let them be depriued thereof but if they be priuate men yet noble let them forfeit all their substance or goods but if they be ignoble let them not onely be whipped but also perpetually banished that all men being repressed by the feare of God and fearing
subiects from their temporall allegiance but because this supposition of his is not certaine his proofe grounded thereon cannot bee certaine And Emericus in the 31. question cited by my Aduersarie to prooue that the Inquisitours haue authoritie to proceede against Kings bringeth only the authoritie of Pope Clement the 4. and Vrbanus the 4. and those generall words contained in their Breues of what condition dignitie or degree soeuer they be and the same only confirmeth Pegna in his Commentarie vpon that question which doth not contradict my doctrine for I neuer denyed that in penall lawes absolute Princes may not be comprehended vnder such generall words supposing as they suppose which I deny that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may inflict temporall punishments 23 But secondly and principally albeit these Doctours should as in the places cited by my Aduersarie they doe not contradict my doctrine in this point concerning the not comprehending of Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes Bishops of Priestes and absolute Princes vnder generall names of temporall Lords Gouernours Potestaes and such like yet it were little to the purpose seeing that other learned Lawyers and Diuines as I haue shewed before doe agree with mee in this point And therefore to prooue my doctrine in this point to bee absurd and improbable as this man after his vaine glorious bragging fashion boasteth it to bee it is not sufficient as I said and this I wish him to note well to bring the authoritie of one two twentie yea a hundred Lawyers or Diuines if other learned Lawyers and Diuines although the farre fewer in number doe contradict them therein 24 Now let vs proceede to the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts discourse And whereas saith hee g p. 151. nu 6. Widdrington seemeth also to ground this his deuise vpon two rules of the law to wit that in penall Lawes the milder or more fauourable part is to bee chosen and that odious things are to bee restrained and fauours amplified the same is commonly true when the text of the Law is so obscure or the case so doubtfull that two or more opinions may bee probably gathered thereof touching the quantitie or qualitie of the paine and how farre and to whom the same is to bee extended for in these cases of debt or such like the more fauourable or lesse rigorous opinion is to be followed but in this Canon both the words and sense are so cleare that hitherto no doubt hath beene made amongst the Canonists whether Kings or absolute Princes are comprehended therein 25 It is very true that my aforesaid answere to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters an Abbot is not included in the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop in the generall name of a Priest or Clerke nor a King in the generall name of a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord or the like I did partly ground vpon those rules of the law and partly vpon the authoritie of learned Lawyers and Diuines who as you haue seene doe confirme the same and therefore the wordes and sense of this Canon are not so cleare but that those Authours will consequently deny that Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not in this Canon comprehended vnder those generall words of a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord as neither an Abbot is according to them in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest or Clerke nor a King vnder the generall name of a Land-lord Gouernour or also Lord. And if the wordes and sense of this Canon bee so cleare as this man would make it to bee I wonder that neither Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies nor Molina nor Corduba nor Victoria nor D. Sanders nor Azor vehement defenders of the Popes authoritie to depose absolute Princes could not see the cleare sense of this Canon whereof they could not bee ignorant thereby to confirme their doctrine by a manifest decree of a generall Councell without flying to the particular facts of Popes oftentimes deposing Kings and Emperours which all learned men know to be no good argument to prooue that the Pope hath true right and authoritie so to doe 26 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert h pag. 152. these rules haue many exceptions which are very considerable and haue place in this case For first whereas all the obscuritie that can be imagined in this Canon and case is in the generall words Dominus temporalis and non habens Dominum principalem the Lawyers teach vs that verba generalia non dicuntur obscura generall words are not said to be obscure And the Lawyers also teach that in penall lawes and odious matters such generall words as denote some inferiour dignitie order title office or function as a temporall or principall Lord Gouernour Iudge or Land-lord a Monke a Clerke and a Priest are obscure and are not vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes Abbots or Bishops 27 Secondly this rule of restriction saith hee is not to bee vnderstood quantum ad vim verborum of the force of the words and therefore the Lawyers also teach that penalties are to be extended as farre as the proprietie of the words doe permit And the Lawyers also teach vs that in penall lawes and odious matters such generall words as denote some inferiour title dignitie office order or function are not to bee extended as farre as the priorietie of the wordes doe permit and that therefore 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 Lord Gouernour or Land-lord albeit an Abbot bee properly a Monke and a Bishop be properly a Priest and a King be properly a Lord Gouernour and Land-lord But Mr. Fitzherbert doeth not distinguish betwixt proper as it is distinguished from improper or metaphoricall in which sense it is true that the words of penall lawes are to bee vnderstood in a proper sense and not to bee restrained to an improper or metaphoricall sense and as proper is distinguished from common or generall in which sense an Abbot is not properly a Monke nor a Bishop is properly a Priest nor a King is properly a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord for that a Monke is not the proper name of an Abbot nor a Priest the proper name of a Bishop nor a temporall Lord the proper name of a King but they are names which are common also to inferiour Monkes inferiour Priests and inferiour Lords 28 Thirdly the rule saith hee faileth when the reason is expressed as it is in this Canon But Mr. Fitzherbert should haue declared what reason expressed in the law is required to haue the aforesaid rule to faile For in this Canon of the Lateran Councell there is no reason expressed why Dominus temporalis a temporall Land lord Gouernour or Lord must comprehend absolute Princes For the end and reason of
making this Canon was to put in execution the holy lawes before enacted by Christian Princes for the rooting out of heretikes which lawes were not put in practise by the negligence of inferiour Gouernours Magistrates and Officers to whose charge the execution of iustice is immediately committed for which reason it was sufficient to comprehend in that Canon only inferiour Lords Gouernours Magistrates and Land-lords who were negligent to put in execution the godly lawes before enacted by pious Emperours and Kings for the repressing of heretikes but of this reason more beneath 29 Lastly the rule saith Mr. Fitzherbert holdeth not say the Lawyers when there is question of the publike good or the fauour of the Church or of the faith or of soules for in thesâ—â—ases penalties are to bee extended and the law interpreted in preiudice of the delinquent So as these rules doe helpe Widdrington nothing at all seeing that these exceptions which are admitted by the Law doe cleerely exclude the restriction which hee requireth by vertue of the rules 30 And the Lawyers also doe absolutely and without the aforesaide exceptions affirme the aforesaide rules to bee true Wherefore Sayrus citing diuers Lawyers for the same doeth by vertue of this rule except Abbots from Excommunication although Excommunication bee rather medicinall then penall and ought not to bee inflicted but for the good of the soule And Andreas Duuallius did by vertue of this rule exempt the King of France from the Canon Vnam sanctam of Pope Boniface the eight which neuerthelesse was made in fauour of the Church Neither is there any law either spirituall or ciuill which ought not to concerne the publike good neither hath the Pope any authority either directiue or coerciue graunted him but for the good of soules So as these rules according to the opinion of learned Lawyers and Diuines doe helpe mee greatly and fauour my doctrine concerning the not including in penall lawes Abbots Bishops and Kings vnder the generall names of Monkes Priests and Lords although they bee enacted for the publike good the health of soules and in fauour of the Church 31 But the maine and principall ground whereon I stand why absolute Princes are not comprehended in this Canon of the Lateran Councell vnder those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is this as you haue seene before for that albeit I should grant my Aduersarie onely for disputation sake that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are included in the name of Monkes and Bishops in the name of Priests and Kings in the name of temporall Lords which neuerthelesse he will neuer bee able to conuince yet seeing that it is most cleare as Mr. Fitzherbert also confesseth that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation both of Princes and Church lawes is extended onely to their owne subiects it necessarily followeth that temporall Princes cannot bee comprehended vnder any generall words in any Canon or constitution of the Church but onely in those things wherein they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church From whence it cleerely followeth that if it bee probable as in very deede it is that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments or to depose temporall Princes it is also probable that this Canon of the Lateran Councell as also all other such like decrees wherein temporall punishments are in generall words inflicted vpon temporall Lords Gouernours or Land-lords was not made by spirituall but by temporall authoritie and therefore cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are supreame on the earth and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but that it was either made by the authority consent of all temporall Princes if wee will needes haue it to binde all Christian Kingdomes or else that it hath force onely to binde in the Popes dominions wherein he hath the place both of a spirituall Pastour and also of a temporall Prince 32 And whereas Widdrington giueth an instance saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Pag. 153. num 8. without any quotation of Law or Author that Bishops and Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned it is true in Bishops in the case onely of suspension or interdict from the which they are by an expresse Canon exempted except they be named as it appeareth in the Decretals lib. Tit. 11. cap. 4. §. Quia periculosum Glossa ibidem in verbum suspensionis 5. de sententia excommunicationis where also the Glosse saith expressely that they are not priuiledged from a generall penaltie of Excommunication because the Pope who giueth them the aforesaid priuiledge would not haue them to be exmpted from the Canon Si quis suadente and such like which inflict the penalty of Excommunication in generall tearmes and the same is to be said of Abbots or any other persons of dignitie to wit that they haue no exemption from the generall tearmes of penall lawes except they be priuiledged namely by some expresse Canon And therefore when my Aduersary shall shew me such a Canon whereby Princes haue the priuiledge that he pretendeth in their behalfe I will grant that he hath reason to exempt them from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran In the meane time he hath no more probability in this poynt then in the former 33 But first I neuer said as Mr. Fitzherbert to make some colour of a probable answere falsely layeth to my charge that Bishops or Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned For I make no doubt but that they are included in penall lawes vnder such generall words which denote no particular dignity order degree or function of Christian men and that therefore they are included in the Canon Si quis suadente Diabolo and in the Canon Omnis vtriusque sexus but that which I said was that in penall lawes and odious matters Bishops are not included in the generall name of Priests nor Abbots in the generall name of Monkes And for the proofe thereof I brought neither Canon nor Author for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt but that learned Lawyers and Diuines doe affirme the same But now finding my Aduersary for want of reading learning or sincerity to make doubt thereof I haue brought as you haue seene to prooue the same both learned Lawyers and Diuines and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe who called and ended this Councell of Lateran wherein he declareth that he doth not intend in his commissions to comprehend vnder a generall clause greater and worthier persons when lesse worthie and lesse noble persons are expressed And therefore seeing that I haue now shewed him both learned Authours and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe to prooue that Bishops are not in penall lawes comprehended
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
Decretalls And thus much concerning Hostiensis and his answere alledged by Parisiensis to great purpose whatsoeuer my Aduersarie giuing ouermuch credit to Fa. Lessius hath vntruly saide to the contrary 7 Now concerning Ioannes Parisiensis Mr. Fitzherbert writeth thus a Pag. 158. nu 4. But it is no maruaile if Ioannes Parisiensis shewed himselfe partiall towards Princes in some things concerning the Popes authority seeing that he liued and was a Reader in Paris in the time of the troubles betwixt Pope Boniface the eight and Philip le Bel King of France who being excommunicated by the said Pope and extreamely incensed against him could not want learned men to second his humor especially such as were his borne subiects and liued within his dominions Neuerthelesse howsoeuer Ioannes Parisiensis may seeme in the words alleadged by my Aduersary to affirme that the Pope hath no power at all to dispose of temporall things yet it is cleere that he teacheth elsewhere that in some cases the Pope may dispose of the temporall goods not onely of Ecclesiasticall persons but also of all the faithfull 8 And of this Widdrington might haue taken notice when he wrote against me if it had pleased him seeing that he was admonished thereof by Schulckenius b Shulck pag. 64. who sheweth that Ioannes Parisiensis teacheth expresly c Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Papali cap. 7. that the Pope being the supreme head of Priests and of the faithfull may as the generall informer of faith and manners dispose the goods of the faithfull and decree them to bee exposed so farre foorth as the common and extreame necessitie of faith and manners shall require and f Ibid. cap. 13. further that if the King be an hereticke and incorrigible the Pope may not onely excommunicate him but also force the people to depose him Excommunicando omnes qui ei vt Domino obedirent Excommunicating all those which should obey him as their Lord and againe afterwards he saith g Ibid. cap. 16. that if the Prince be an hereticke his vassall is not bound to follow him and that the Pope may deliuer his subiects from the obligation of their oath of allegiance 9 By all this it appeareth that albeit Ioannes Parisiensis doth giue lesse vnto the Pope then he ought as Schulckenius well noteth yet he giueth him as much as sufficeth for our purpose seeing that it little importeth to the substance of the maine question betwixt our Aduersary and vs which is whether the Pope may depose a temporall Prince I say it little importeth how and in what manner he may doe it whether by a Iuridicall sentence of deposition or otherwise so as it is granted that he hath authoritie to discharge the Princes subiects of their Oath of allegiance yea and to compell them to depose him which Ioannes Parisiensis expresly teacheth wherevpon it may be inferred that his meaning was in the place before obiected that the Pope may not dispose of temporall things directly but onely indirectly and in some cases which ouerthrowe the foundation of our Aduersaries doctrine touching this question and this may suffice for him and Hostiensis 10 But first besides that Ioannes Parisiensis was neuer taxed by any ancient Authour for writing partially in fauour of the King of France the like words that Mr. Fitzherbert heere vseth against Ioannes Parisiensis may be retorted backe vpon Hostiensis and diuers other Diuines and Canonists to wit that it is no maruaile that Cardinall Hostiensis and diuers other Romane Diuines and Canonists shewed themselues partiall towards Popes in some things concerning the Popes authoritie seeing that they liued and were Readers in Rome or in the Popes Dominions in the time of the troubles betwixt the Popes and Christian Princes which Popes since the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth tooke vpon them to dispose of all temporalls and to depose temporall Princes and therefore could not want learned men to second their humours especially such as either were their borne subiects and liued in their Dominions or else might expect spirituall preferment and to be aduanced to Bishoprikes or other spirituall dignities by the Pope and this also the said Ioannes Parisiensis in the same booke doth well obserue But more probably saith he h Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Papali cap. 21. ad 41. arg it may be said on the contrary side that those Doctours who so vndutifully aduance the Popes authoritie doe speake for feare or fauour of him seeing that they are Clergie men who may rather bee promoted by him and especially seeing that they themselues doe say though not well that the Pope doth graciously embrace those that doe extend or amplifie his authoritie and represseth those that speake against the same 11 Secondly Ioannes Parisiensis doth not teach that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporall things and of the temporall goods not onely of Ecclesiasticall persons but also of all the faithfull except onely by declaring the law of God and by compelling the faithfull by Ecclesiasticall censures to obserue the same haec Papae ordinatio non est nisi iuris declaratio this ordaining or disposing of the Pope is nothing else then a declaring of the Law of God saith Parisiensis in that very place i Cap. 7 and this I haue declared and prooued at large aboue in the first part against D. Schulckenus And the same hee teacheth concerning the absoluing of vassalls from their oath of fealtie To that saith hee k Cap. 16. ad 11. which is obiected that the Pope hath sometimes absolued souldiers from their oath of fealtie Besides that it is an argument De facto which is onely introduced concerning French-men I answere that it was rather a declaring of the law to wit that the Oath did not bind in that case then an absoluing from the oath of fealtie Now what Catholike man maketh doubt but that the Pope hath authoritie to declare the Law of God it being a spirituall thing and proceeding from spirituall power 12 Wherefore as I declared at large aboue in the first part Ioannes Parisiensis teacheth three things The one is that the Pope hath no authority to depose or depriue by way of sentence an hereticall Prince of his Royall right and authority and this is the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee The second is that the Pope hath power to declare and interprete the law of God and to compell by Ecclesiasticall Censures all the faithfull to obserue the same and in this I agree with Parisiensis sauing that there is yet a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and Paris what things are required to make the Popes definition declaration or interpretation to be certaine and infallible as also inferiour Bishops haue authority to declare and interpret the law of God and to compell their spirituall subiects to obserue the same yet their declaration and interpretation of the law of God is not alwaies
the authoritie of the Church resident either in her head the Pope or in her body a Councell to publish this declaration And not onely all the other parts of the Catholike Church but likewise all the Doctours who liued in Farance from the first setting vp of Schooles of Diuinitie amongst them haue held the affirmatiue opinion that in the case of hereticall or infidell Princes and such as persecute Christianitie or Catholike Religion their subiects may bee absolued from their Oath of Allegiance By meanes whereof though the contrarie doctrine were the truest yet notwithstanding all the other parts of the Church being against it you cannot hold it for more them problematicall in matter of faith I call that doctrine problematicall in matter of faith which we are not bound to beleeue by necessity of faith and the contradictorie thereof doth not binde them that belieue it with Excommunication and disunion or separation from the communitie Otherwise you must acknowledge that the communion which you exercise with the other parts of the Church holding the contrary doctrine yea euen that communion which you conserue with the memorie of your predecessours was vnlawfull defiled with heresie and excommunication 17 Thus you see that the Cardinall of Peron doth altogether auoide the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee to wit concerning the Popes power to depriue a Prince of his Regall authority wherewith before his sentence of depriuation he was endued and ioyneth two questions together which nothing belong to our new Oath The first is whether if a Prince who either by himselfe or by his Predecessours hath made an oath to liue and die in the Christian Catholike Religion and afterwards becommeth an hereticke or infidell and laboureth to draw his subiects to the same may not bee declared fallen from his right as culpable of felony towards Christ to whom he hath made his Oath and his subiects may not bee declared absolued from their oath of allegiance The second question is whether the Pope or Church haue not authority to publish this declaration Now neither of these two questions appertaine to our new Oath nor are as yet called in question by mee For as concerning the later supposing that a Prince by reason of heresie or Apostacy either is actually depriued and fallen from his right to raigne which the Cardinall of Peron following therein Philopater seemeth heere to maintaine or else may for the same be depriued thereof by the Common-wealth no Catholike will make any doubt but that this being supposed the Pope or Church may declare him an hereticke or Apostata and consequently to be fallen thereby from his Royall dignity according to Philopaters doctrine or to bee depriued thereof by the Common-wealth as others contend and to declare that his subiects are either actually discharged or to be discharged of the naturall and ciuill bond of their temporall allegiance and consequently of their Oath or sacred bond which was made to confirme the same For no Catholike can make any doubt that to declare the law of God and who is an hereticke or infidell is a spirituall action and belongeth to the spirituall authority of the Church 18 But with the former question forasmuch as it may concerne what authority the Common-wealth hath to depriue hir Soueraigne Prince of his Royall right in case that he should forsake the Catholike faith which he hath once professed although as I haue often said I wil not intermeddle for not giuing my Aduersaries occasion to decline the principall question concerning the Popes authority to depriue hereticall Kings of their Regall power which they had before his sentence of depriuation neuerthelesse this scandalous and desperate position of Philopater against which I was somewhat vehement in my Apologie and yet is quite passed ouer with silence by D. Schulckenius which may bee some coniecture that hee also fauoureth that doctrine to wit that a Prince who maketh open profession of Arianisme or Mahometisme or any such like infidelitie and goeth about to plant the same within his dominions doth fall thereby ipso facto from his Regall authority and right to raigne albeit either himselfe or his predecessours haue made an oath to liue and die in the Catholike faith I account to be a very false damnable and seditious doctrine tending to the perturbation and subuersion of all temporall States wherein there is not a perfect vnitie of Religion giuing occasion to hereticall and infidell Princes not to become Catholikes fauouring that damnable doctrine which teacheth that among heretickes and infidells there is no true ciuill dominion authoritie or Iurisdiction and what Romane Catholike soeuer hee bee that maintaineth and teacheth the same in this kingdome I account him to speake plainly a manifest Arch-traitour for that hee must consequently maintaine that our Soueraigne Lord KING IAMES is not our true and rightfull King because albeit not he himselfe yet some of his predecessours haue solemnly sworne to liue and die in the Catholike Romane faith 19 For seeing that by Gods permission heresies must be according to that of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. Oportet haereses esse what State can be secure from continuall feares of tumults and insurrections when the subiects according to this doctrine must bee perswaded that their Prince if hee bee of a contrary Religion to that which they in their hearts professe and thinke to bee Catholike and seeke to draw them to his Religion as all Princes vsually doe is not a true and rightfull Prince but falne from his right to raigne and by their Church which they as also all heretickes thinke to be the true Catholike Church may be declared so to be With what security can any King whether he be a Catholike or no permit in his dominions any Religion contrary to his owne when his subiects of the contrary Religion must be perswaded that he is falne from his right to raigne if hee seeke to draw them as all Princes vsually do to his owne Religion With what security also can any hereticall or infidell Prince whose kingdome is wholly or for the greatest part infected with heresie or infidelity become a Catholike and seeke to draw his subiects to Catholike Religion when his subiects who are no Catholikes must according to the principles of this doctrine be perswaded that he is a rebell to God and an enemy to that Religion which they thinke to bee true and hath broken the oath which he or some of his predecessours haue made to liue and die in their faith and religion and consequently is fallen from his right as culpable of felony towardes GOD to whom hee hath made the oath of this Realme 20 Besides this assertion fauoureth that false not to say erroneous doctrine which teacheth that ciuill dominion is founded in grace or faith that in heretickes or infidells especially who seeke to draw their subiects to their heresie or infidelity as all heretickes and infidels commonly doe there is no ciuill authority
dominion and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that the Iewes persecuting Christ and Christian Religion lost thereby ipso facto their ciuill dominion and all those Romane Emperours who either being Pagans or Arrians did persecute the Church of Christ were not true and rightfull Emperours but falne from their right as being culpable of fellony towards Christ bidding him open warre and compelling their Christian subiects to rebell against Christ and to embrace heresie or infidelity and seeking thereby to destroy and roote out Christianity For this declaration of the Pope or Church which the Cardinall mentioneth doth not depriue them of their right to reigne but supposeth them depriued thereof and serueth onely to make it certainly knowne that they are not rightfull Kings but by their heresie or infidelity to which they seeke to draw their subiects to be actually falne from all Royall right and authority From whence it followeth that this declaration is not necessary in euident and manifest but onely in doubtfull cases as also in all vowes and oathes when it is euident that one is not bound to obserue the vow or oath there needeth no dispensation which according to the Thomists doctrine is onely a declaration concerning the matter of the vow or oath but onely when it is doubtfull or not certaine whether the thing which is sworne or vowed bee now a sufficient matter of an oath and vow or no. Whereupon experience teacheth that when a King either for age or infirmitie doth publikely resigne ouer to this sonne and heire not onely the administration but also all his Kingly authority and right to reigne the subiects neede not to procure any declaration dispensation or absolution of the Pope or Church from the oath of their temporall allegiance for that it is now euident that their temporall allegiance to their former King ceaseth and is no sufficient matter of an oath and consequently their oath is void which was made to confirme the same 21 And albeit the Cardinall in propounding the state of his question maketh mention of an Oath which Princes either themselues or their predecessours haue made to God and their people to liue and die in the Christian Catholike faith as though the breach of this promise and oath were the chiefe or onely cause why hereticall and Apostata Princes seeking to draw their subiects to their heresie or Apostacie doe fall from their Royall right yet in my opinion this oath which the Cardinall hath put downe in the state of his question is a meere cloake and colour to cast ouer the eyes of the vnlearned and to make his doctrine and position to seeme the lesse improbable and yet it doth not take away the improbabilitie thereof For first if this oath which Christian Princes or their predecessours haue made to God and their people to liue and die in the Catholike faith be the onely effectuall cause why Christian Princes doe fall from their Royall right and their subiects absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance and consequently from the oath or sacred and spirituall bond which was made to confirme the same then if a Prince become an Arian or Mahomitan or professe any other heresie or infidelity without drawing his subiects to the same he doth neither fall from his Royall right nor his subiects are thereby absolued from the bond of their naturall and ciuill allegiance 22 Secondly all Christians do in baptisme according to the opinion of some Diuines also ancient Fathers n See Suarez in 3. par q. 71. art 1. make a certaine vow and promise to liue die in the Christian Catholike faith yet I think neither the Cardinall nor any other learned man will affirme that if they break this vow or promise forsake the Catholike faith they are fallen thereby ipso facto from that ciuill dominion right power authority which they did not receiue by Baptisme or by making that vow or promise to liue die in the Christian Catholike faith Thirdly no promise vow or oath to do any thing doth ipso facto depriue any man of any ciuil right authority dominion or iurisdiction vnles that ciuill right or authority be giuen or receiued with a condition and couenant that if hee doe not performe that oath or promise hee shall forthwith fall ipso facto from his right dominion or iurisdiction but no probable shew or colour of an argument can be brought to prooue that Christian Princes although they or their predecessours haue made an oath to liue and die in the Christian Catholike faith haue receiued their kingly power and authority with this condition and couenant that if they shall forsake the Catholike faith they shall forthwith fall from their Royall dignity seeing that this oath which Christian Princes who come to their Crowne by inheritance do make to liue die in the Christian Catholike faith belongeth only to a certain ceremony vsed at the time of their coronation wheras all their Kingly power authority they had before by the right of succession instantly vpon the death of their Predecessor 23 Fourthly abstracting from all oaths which Christian Princes or their Predecssours haue made to liue and die in the Catholike faith yet if they sorsake the faith which they haue professed in Baptisme and doe become Arians or Mahometans and seeke to draw their subiects to the same they doe rebell against Christ and bid him open warre and doe force their subiects consciences and goe about to destroy and roote out Christianitie within their states which are the chiefest causes which the Cardinall of Peron setteth downe in propounding the state of his question why such wicked Princes doe fall from their Royall right or which is all one are ipso facto and actually depriued thereof And therefore that Oath which he mentioneth to liue and die in the Catholike faith is onely a shift and colour to make some shew of a faigned contract and couenant betwixt the King and his subiects that if he forsake the Catholike faith he shall forthwith fall from his Royall dignity seeing that the chiefest reasons of the Cardinall why hee doth fall from his Royall right are of force although no such oath or couenant be supposed 24 Fiftly albeit we should graunt which cannot in my iudgement with any probable argument be prooued that Christian Princes or their predecessours doe make an oath to God and their people with an expresse condition pact or couenant that if they forsake the Catholike faith they shall forthwith fall from their Royall dignity and be ipso facto depriued thereof yet supposing that in heretikes and infidels although they seeke to draw others to their heresie infidelity there is true ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction no learned man can make any doubt but that as it was in the power of that hereticall or pagan Kingdome or Commonwealth to make or admit confirme approue this pact or couenant established by oath so it may be released by the
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
whereupon not only the Bishops but also 15. Noblemen of the Kings Pallace doe subscribe their names to the decrees of that Councell f See Binnius tom ◠Concil in Conc. Tolet. 12 And the Glosse it selfe expounding those words of this Canon Praeceptum ipsi sesuis meritis a Palatinae dignitatis officio separabunt It is an argument saith the Glosse that if any man contemne Excommunication the Secular Iudge or his Land-Lord hath power to depriue him of his feude or farme 23 Neither from any decree of the Canon law or from any glosse or exposition of Ioannes Teutonicus who glossed these decrees collected by Gratian can it be certainely gathered that the Church by her spirituall power which she receiued from Christ but onely by the grant and authority of temporall Princes may inflict temporall punishments for of her power to inflict spirituall censures and also to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties there is no controuersie betweene my Aduersaries and me Neither also from any of those foure glosses here cited by Mr. Fitzherbert to wit either vpon the Canon Attedendum which Canon as I shewed aboue is falsly attributed to Pope Vrbanus the second and by all probability the whole Canon Attendendū is forged and by some one or other inserted into that decretall Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Pope Vrbanus or vpon the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis or Licet de poenis which last Canon Licet is not glossed by Ioannes Teutonicus whose authority I brought vpon the Canon Hadrianus who expounded only the Decrees collected by Gratian and not the Decretals can it bee forcibly concluded that the Church that is the spirituall Pastours of the Church may without the authority and consent of temporall Princes inflict temporall punishments yea the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet de poenis here cited by my Aduersary doth clearely fauour my doctrine For demanding why Archdeacons doe exact of Lay-men a pecuniary penalty as it is mentioned in that Canon he answereth because perhaps they were vnder their temporall Iurisdiction or they haue this by custome 24 Neither from the practise of the Church which Mr. Fitzherbert doth so inculcate can any thing be conuinced against this my doctrine And hereof saith hee g Page 168. num 7. the practise is and hath alwaies beene most manifest in the Church and acknowledged by the Canonists to bee grounded on the Canons as partly hath appeared already and shall appeare further h Infra nu 12. 13. 14. 15. seq after a while and therefore I say that those Glosses obiected by Widdrington must either bee so vnderstood that they may agree the one with the other and with the Glosses of other Canons yea with the generall opinion and doctrine of the Canonists and with the whole course and practise of the Canon Law or else they are to be reiected as absurd erroneous and false 25 But although it bee true that for many hundreds of yeares since that Christian Princes haue indewed the Church with great power of ciuill Iurisdiction the practise of the Church hath beene to inflict pecuniarie mulcts yet it is not true that it was the practise of the primitiue Church to inflict but onely to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties and this onely can be prooued by any authenticall Canon as I haue shewed aboue by answering all the Canons which my Aduersary hath alleadged And although also since the time of Pope Gregory the 7. who was the first Pope that began to challenge to himselfe authority as due to him by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments to dispose of all temporals and to depose temporall Princes diuers Popes and other learned men haue with might and maine by fauours and threatnings laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise for which cause it is no maruaile as I haue elsewhere obserued i Apol. nu 449. that their opinion hath beene the more common and generall in Schooles yet for that it hath beene euer contradicted by Christian Princes and learned Catholikes for which cause Ioannes Azorius a learned Iesuite expresly saith k Azor. tom 2. lib. 12. ca. 5. q. 8. that it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether the Pope in certaine cases hath right and authority to depriue Kings of their Kingdomes and about this the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet the controuersie saith Trithemius l In Chro. monast Hirsang an 1106. is not decided by the Iudge and very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth doe denie that the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment m De Dominio natur ciuit Eccles conclus 2 in probatione illius but only spirituall censures It canot I say be truly called the general doctrine and practise of the Church neither are those Glosses and expositions of those Canonists who fauour this doctrine sufficient to decide the controuersie neither can the other Glosses and expositions which are grounded vpon the contrary doctrine and contradict the former glosses without grosse temeritie bee reiected as erroneous absurd and false 26 And truely in my opinion it is greatly to be maruailed and worthy also the obseruation that albeit for so many hundreds of yeeres both Popes and other Cleargie men haue so earnestly laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise of Pope Gregory the seuenth touching the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of temporalls which neuerthelesse Sigebert did not feare to call a nouelty Sigebert ad annum 1088. not to say an heresie yet considering the great opposition which this doctrine and practise hath euer had by reason whereof it was behoouing to haue the matter made cleere and out of controuersie yet I say there cannot be found any one Canon constitution or definition either of Pope or Councell generall or Prouinciall wherein it is plainly decreed that the Pope or Church hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose temporall Princes to dispose of temporalls or to inflict temporall punishments but the certaintie of this doctrine must chiefly bee grounded vpon the facts of Popes which how weake a ground it is to prooue a true right and authoritie any man of iudgement may plainly see and I haue also shewed elsewhere n Apol. nu 444 seq 27 Now then saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Page 168. num 8. seeing that the Glosser acknowledgeth in his former glosse that the Church doth by the Canon ordaine the confiscation of Lay-mens goods and depriuation of their dignities which is also confirmed by diuers other Canons and glosses and the practise of the Church it cannot as I haue said bee imagined that hee meant to contradict it by that which followeth either in the same glosse or in the other vpon the Canon
Delatori 28 But this hath beene at large already answered and first that albeit the former glosse doth acknowledge that the Church doth by this Canon ordaine the confiscation of Lay-mens goods and depriuation of their dignities which is also confirmed by the practise of the Church yet the former glosse doth not acknowledge that the Church doth ordaine this by that authoritie which shee hath receiued from Christ and not from the grant and priuiledges of Christian Princes whereof onely wee now dispute Secondly that those words of the former glosse confiscate and depose may well bee vnderstood in that sense wherein the same Glosser expoundeth the word depose in the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. and so as I shewed before the later glosse doth not contradict the former but it is rather an explication thereof and thirdly that albeit we should grant that the later glosse or exposition is repugnant to the former yet it is no absurdity for the same Glosser or Expositour to bring two contrarie glosses or expositions when they are grounded vpon the contrary opinions of learned Authours which may without any errour or absurditie be followed as I declared aboue by diuers examples 29 And therefore wee must distinguish saith Mr. Fitzherbert p Pag. 169. nu 8. betwixt the Canon and the execution thereof and say that when he affirmeth in the former Glosse that the Church teacheth there what ought to bee done and againe in the later that the Church teacheth what the Secular Iudge ought to doe he speaketh onely as the very words import of the execution of these two Canons giuing also to vnderstand that the execution of penall lawes doth belong sometimes to the Secular Iudge and not to the Ecclesiasticall especially in cases touching life and death or effusion of blood albeit in many other cases the Ecclesiasticall Iudge may not onely ordaine but also execute pecuniary and other temporall penalties in which respect the Councell of Trent which my Aduersarie Widdrington if he bee a Catholike as he pretendeth to bee must needes admit for a lawfull Councell decreeth that Ecclesiasticall Iudges shall abstaine from Censures when they may by their owne authority proceed against the delinquents by reall or personall execution So as I will conclude that these glosses which Widdrington alledgeth either doe make nothing against vs or if they doe they doe manifestly contradict as well themselues as other Glosses and many expresse Canons and the doctrine of all learned Canonists yea the whole course and continuall practise of the Canon law 30 But first as no man maketh doubt but that wee must distinguish betwixt Canons or lawes and the execution thereof so also no doubt can be made but that the Prince or Law-maker either spirituall or temporall who hath authority to make the Canon or law hath also authority to execute the same for that the executioner of the law is a meere Minister and Officer of the Prince who enacted the law and what he doth he doth not by his owne authoritie but by the authority committed to him by the Prince and therefore whatsoeuer a Prince either spirituall or temporall hath authority to execute by his Minister or Officer hee hath also authority to execute by himselfe Wherefore seeing that the Glosser doth expound these Canons alike as it may appeare by this that in the second Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus he remitteth the Reader to the Canon Delatori signifying thereby that both the Canon Hadrianus which ordaineth the confiscation of goods and also the Canon Delatori wherein the effusion of blood by mutilation and death is ordained are to bee vnderstood in the same sense if the meaning of the Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori was onely to teach that an Ecclesiasticall Iudge could not execute that Decree which ordaineth the effusion of blood but it must bee executed by a Secular Iudge his meaning also was in the Canon Hadrianus to teach that an Ecclesiasticall Iudge cannot also execute that decree which ordaineth the confiscation of goods which no man of learning can affirme for that Ecclesiasticall persons are not by the Canons of the Church forbidden to execute decrees which ordaine the confiscation of goods but onely those decrees which ordaine the effusion of blood albeit by the graunt and priuiledges of temporall Princes they may haue authority to execute the one and the other 31 Whereby secondly it is apparant that the Glosse affirming that the Church in both those Canons doth teach what a Secular Iudge ought to doe did not intend to speake onely of the execution of those Canons for that also a Secular Iudge whose office is to giue sentence and to declare the meaning of the law in this particular case or crime is not properly an Executioner of the law because after his sentence the law may still remaine not executed but also of the Decrees and Canons themselues and of the authority which the Church hath to make such Canons and to teach that the Church by her proper spirituall power which shee hath receiued from Christ hath not authority to make Decrees which ordaine the inflicting of temporall punishments whatsoeuer whether they bee criminall or onely ciuill for that the making of such Decrees belong onely to the Ciuill and not to the Ecclesiasticall power which according to the doctrine of very many Doctours whom the Glosser in the aforesaid Glosses doth follow is not extended to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures albeit by that ciuill power and iurisdiction which spirituall Pastours haue receiued by the grant of Secular Princes which their ciuill power and iurisdiction may bee also called sacred Ecclesiasticall and their owne power they haue authoritie to inflict as well criminall as ciuill punishments notwithstanding the Church hath forbid them to meddle with the effusion of blood And this temporall and ciuill authoritie and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours which the prohibition of the Church as I said before doth not take away the Councell of Trent calleth their owne authoritie although they haue receiued it not from the institution of Christ but from the grant of Secular Princes in that manner as the temporall goods of Church-men are called sacred Ecclesiasticall and their owne proper goods as I declared a little aboue out of Gerson 32 So as I will conclude that these two Glosses which I haue heere alledged doe greatly fauour my doctrine concerning the vncertaintie of the Popes power to inflict by the institution of Christ temporall punishments and doe no way contradict the course and practise of the Church or any Canon thereof and that albeit they were repugnant to themselues as also according to a probable exposition of the same Glosser I haue shewed they are not yet this were nothing to the purpose seeing that they are grounded vpon two contrary opinions taught and maintained by learned Catholikes although I will not deny that they are repugnant to many other Glosses and to the more common opinion
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
indeede very cleare for that point especially cap. Quisquis 27. q. 4. Where it is ordained that a sacrilegious person shall pay thirtie pounds of siluer to the Bishop or Abbot or any Ecclesiasticall Iudge to whom the knowledge of the cause shall appertaine as it may appeare both by the Canon and the Glosse Besides that Panormitan Panorm vbi supra whom Siluester citeth teacheth expresly that when the Bishop proceedeth iuridically and no certaine penaltie is ordained by the Law he may impose a penaltie of money though he cannot doe it when the Law ordaineth expresly an other except it be for a crime wherein he hath power to dispence for then he may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie though some other be assigned by the Law as I haue also shewed before u Supra nu 6. out of the Glosse in cap. Licet tit de poenis 38 This being then Panomitans doctrine approoued by Siluester who followeth him altogether in this question it appeareth that Widdrington might haue easily seene if it had pleased him that Siluester doth not any way fauour his opinion nor impugne our doctrine concerning the Popes power to dispose of temporall things in order to spirituall which is the principall question controuersed betwixt vs. You haue heard before x Chap. 11. nu 3. that Hostiensis expresly teacheth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and Siluester doth the like being also both of them of the number of the Canonists who teach y Hostiens in cap. Quod super his de voto voti redempt Siluest in Sum. verbo Papa nu 1. 11. 12. that the Pope hath a direct Dominion ouer temporall things no lesse then ouer spirituall and therefore it is euident that they cannot any way make for my Aduersarie Widdrington 39 But it is vntrue that I either dissembled or omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that the Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion but the reason why I omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to wit Sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this pleaseth not Panormitan was for that it did nothing import our question to know of what opinion either Panormitan or also Siluester himselfe were concerning that point for that which I intended to proue out of Siluesters words was this that it is no vndoubted point of faith but onely an opinion according to Siluester that Bishops can inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto them and the words of Siluester doe sufficiently shew that it is onely an opinion among the Canonists and therefore that either Panormitan or Siluester or any other Canonist be of the contrarie opinion it is nothing to the purpose Neither doth the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis cited by Panormitan and Siluester make against my doctrine foc they doe onely shew that a spirituall Iudge may inflict a pecuniarie mulct but that he may inflict it by his spirituall authoritie and consequently vpon Lay-men that are not temporally subiect vnto him without the consent of their temporall Prince they doe not shew and the Canon Quisquis which Mr. Fitzherbert thinketh to be so cleere in this point is taken out of an Epistle of Pope Iohn the eight wherein he commaunded that the decrees of a Councell called Trecense which was approoued by authoritie of Lewis the Emperour should be obserued and the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet tit de poenis doth expresly fauour my doctrine as I haue signified before 40 And albeit both Hostiensis and Siluester be themselues of opinion that the Pope is by the institution of Christ a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and hath direct dominion not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls and consequently that hee may inflict temporall punishments dispose of all temporalls and depose temporall Princes for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are according to their opinion subiect to him directly in temporalls and so in this point they make nothing for my doctrine yet they make greatly for my doctrine in this that by their answeres it may be plainely gathered that they hold it onely for an opinion as at this present I contend it onely to be and that other Authors doe not agree with them therein as to the answere of Hostiensis to the Canon Ad abolendam I haue shewed before and also by this answere of Siluester you may see more cleerely beneath in this I say it is euident that they greatly make for my doctrine 41 Besides that it little importeth saith Mr. Fitzher z Pag. 172. nu 15. 16. 17. whether the Bishop may according to the Canons impose a temporall penaltie vpon such Lay-men as are not his temporall subiects seeing he may by the opinion of those three whom my Aduersarie Widdrington alledgeth make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge or Magistrate in which case it is done by the Bishops authoritie and the Secular Magistrate is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will Furthermore put the case that the Bishop could not impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect will Widdrington conclude thereupon that therefore the Pope may not doe it Will he be so absurd to restraine the supreme iurisdiction of the Pope to the inferiour power of a Bishop as well might he say that a King can doe no more in like case then an inferiour temporall Magistrate and that because the Iudge cannot pardon a person condemned therefore the King cannot doe it who knoweth not that the Church hath prescribed to her Magistrates certaine limits for the exercise of their authoritie and iurisdiction allowing to some more and to some lesse which they cannot exceede Therefore it were absurd to say that a Bishop cannot excommunicate because a Parish-Priest cannot doe it But much more absurd and ridiculous it is to say that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis cannot dispose of temporall things in some cases because a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vp a Lay man that is not his temporall subiect as Widdrinton seemeth to argue for otherwise his obiection concerning the Bishops power is to no purpose So as you see vpon what probabilities he grounded his doctrine being found to be either fraudulent or impertinent in euery thing that hee vndertaketh to answere or obiect as you shall also further see by that which yet followeth for the confirmation of his pretended answere 42 But Mr. Fitzherbert seeketh still to blind his Readers vnderstanding with a confuse ambiguitie of equiuocall words For although it litle importeth whether a Bishop may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect or make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge by forcing the Iudge thereunto not onely by spirituall but also by temporall compulsion or coercion seeing that in this case it is done by the
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
she vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law or to vse Gersons words from the grant of Princes 56 Lastly Mr. Fitzherbert excepteth against that which I brought from the words of the Glosse vpon the Canon Per venerabilem to confirme the doctrine of those who affirme that the Pope hath not authority to make ciuill or temporall lawes or which is all one to ordaine meere temporall things out of his owne temporall dominions And these Authours the Glosse said I vpon the same Canon Per venerabilem doth seeme to fauour where it affirmeth that the Pope cannot legitimate any man who is not subiect to his temporall Iurisdiction to make him succeede in an inheritance as a lawfull heire for this were to put his sickle into another mans haruest and to vsurpe another mans Iurisdiction and to depriue some man of his right to succeede which hee ought not to doe and therefore he cannot legitimate any man for the Secular Court vnlesse the Prince shall permit or giue him leaue But if the Pope cannot legitimate one who is not legitimate nor depriue one of his right to succeede I see not by what authority he can make a lawfull and legitimate heire or Prince to be vnlawfull and not legitimate or depriue one of his inheritance which hee lawfully possesseth 57 But to this Glosse whose words as you see are most plaine and cleare Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth h Page 174. num 20. to the end that this my instance or example taken from the Glosse is no lesse impertinent then the former seeing that it concerneth onely a temporall matter without relation to any spirituall end And is it possible saith he that Widdrington cannot see the difference betwixt these two cases seeing that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end that is to make them capable of a temporall inheritance is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince whereas the deposition of Princes in this our case hauing a spirituall end to wit the extirpation of heresie and punishment of sinne to the exceeding great good of soules and the publike benefite of the Church is not meerely temporall in respect of the spirituall end and therefore may proceede from the spiritvall power of him that hath the supreame charge of soules and the gouernment of the whole Church in whom it may suffice for that purpose to haue an indirect dominion ouer temporall things to bee vsed and exercised in some cases when the necessity of the Church shall require it 58 Whereupon it also followeth that if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church that the Pope should legitimate a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance as for example if a kingdome should otherways fall into the hands or possession of Gods enemies in such a case I say he might doe it by his spirituall power and the indirect dominion he hath ouer temporall things as both Lawyers i See Couerra in 4 Decret 2. par §. 8. nu 16 and Diuines teach and the Glosse alleaged by Widdrington doth not denie it affirming onely that the Pope hath no power to legitimate a bastard out of his owne temporall Dominions to a meere temporall end which as I haue said is a farre different case from ours and not denyed by vs So as you see still how improbably Widdrington argueth and how absurdly he hath answered to his owne obiection And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of his second answere Let vs now heare the third 59 But in this also Mr. Fitzherbert sheweth as much fraude and ignorance as hee hath in the former For first it is euident that this assertion of the Glosse denying the Pope to haue authoritie out of his owne temporall dominions to make one capable of a temporall inheritance vnlesse the Prince giue him leaue is generall and without any relation at all either to a temporall or spirituall end and the onely exception limitation or restriction which the Glosse maketh is vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue so to doe which words being so generall doe plainly signifie that the Pope cannot out of his owne temporall dominions make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that the Pope may for a spirituall end to wit for that the spirituall good of the Church and the saluation of soules make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance this explication corrupteth the text and is contrarie to the plaine words of the Glosse for if the Pope out of his owne temporall Dominions may for a spirituall end make one capable of a temporall inheritance or depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission then it cleerely followeth that the Pope may make one capable of a temporall inheritance and legitimate him for the Secular Court and depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission which the Glosse in expresse words denieth 60 But secondly is it possible that this man cannot see how plainly he contradicteth himselfe in granting first that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end is to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and that so it is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince and afterwards in acknowledging that the legitimation of a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church may bee done by the Popes spirituall power and indirect dominion which he hath ouer temporalls which is plainly repugnant to his former assertion seeing that no reference or relation of the making bastards capable of a temporall inheritance to the necessary good of the Church can make but that according to his former grant it still remaineth a meere temporall thing and is to a temporall end that is saith hee to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince consequently it cannot be done by the spirituall power and indirect dominion which the Pope hath ouer temporall things 61 Wherefore this indirect temporall power authoritie dominion or iurisdiction is in my opinion a meere fiction purposely inuented without sufficient ground by the later Diuines to put a more colourable cloake vpon this pretended temporall authoritie of the Pope because they saw the Canonists doctrine making the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole world to be very false absurd scandalous and odious both to Princes and subiects and yet in effect or substance they differ little or nothing at all For whatsoeuer the Canonists grant that the Pope may doe in temporalls directly the Diuines grant he may doe indirectly which doth in effect as much as the former derogate
Catholikes both Diuines and Canonists whom I haue heeretofore related that the acts and obiects of the spirituall coerciue power are onely the inflicting of spirituall punishments or Ecclesiasticall Censures as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and not of temporall or ciuill penalties as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and consequently that the inflicting of temporall punishments are neither directly nor indirectly formally nor vertually subiect to the spirituall coerciue power of the Church but onely to the coerciue temporall power of temporall Princes for that no reference relation or reduction of the inflicting of temporall punishments to the glory of GOD or the saluation of soules can make temporall punishments to bee Ecclesiasticall Censures or the inflicting of temporall and ciuill punishments to bee the inflicting of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures 66 And although this opinion bee the lesse common among Catholikes for the reasons heretofore alledged especially through the watchfulnes of the coÌ„trary side since the time that some Popes haue challenged to themselues this temporall authoritie ouer Kings call it direct or indirect formall or vertuall as you please and the indiligence to speake with all reuerence of Christian Princes in suffering their temporall Soueraigntie to be so greatly and cunningly depressed and subiected yet in my iudgement it is more conforme to the true sense and meaning of the holy Scriptures to the practise of the primitiue Church to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers and to the true grounds and principles of morall Philosophy and Diuinitie and therefore to affirme this opinion which is embraced by so many Doctours as Almaine witnesseth and which is grounded vpon such plaine and pregnant reasons to be impious absurd improbable erroneous yea and hereticall as this foule mouth'd and rash headed ignorant man doth so often brand it is cleerely repugnant to the rules of Christian prudence charitie and modestie and to the knowne principles of Schoole-Diuinitie 67 And according to this opinion although we should suppose which is altogether vntrue though often inculcated by my Aduersarie that the inflicting of temporall punishments and the disposing of temporall things were absolutely necessarie for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules yet they should not therefore be subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but onely to the temporall authoritie of Christian Princes who as the Prophet Isay foretold Isa c. 49. were by Gods speciall prouidence appointed to be her nourcing Fathers Nources and Protectours In such cases of necessitie spirituall Pastours must implore the aide of Christian Princes and the Brachium Seculare or temporall power is bound by her lawes and other meanes to helpe the spirituall and both of them hauing neede one of the other being so vnited linked and conioyned as I haue shewed before m Paâ—t 2. c. 1. one with the other among Christians ought to vse all due meanes to helpe each other yet without breaking the bounds and limits prescribed by Christ to either of them 68 But truely in my opinion the weakenesse of their cause and of the grounds of this their doctrine touching the Popes temporall Monarchie ouer absolute Princes call it direct or indirect as you please may to any man of iudgement sufficiently appeare by their so often declining the true state of the question and not standing vpon any sure or certaine ground but flying from one argument to another as from conuenience to absolute necessitie sometimes affirming that the Pope may depose Princes and dispose of temporall things when it is conuenient for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules other times when it is absolutely necessarie thereunto But as I haue shewed before o Cap. 7. nu 36 seq this absolute necessitie is a meere fiction and onely supposed but neuer prooued and this pretended temporall authoritie of the Pope Almain de potest Eccle. q. 1 cap. 9. as Almaine said is rather very hurtfull then any way necessarie either for the good of the Pope or of Christian people And if by the practise of depositions as of Henrie the fourth by Pope Gregorie the seuenth of Fredrike the second by Innocent the fourth of Philip the the faire by Boniface the eight of our King Henrie the eight by Paul the third and Queene Elizabeth by Pope Pius the fifth which are the most famous depositions of all we may gather whether this authoritie be necessarie or hurtfull to the Church of God all histories make mention what infinite harme rather then any good at all came to the Church of God thereby And this I hope may suffice for the confirmation of my second answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell and for the confutation of my Aduersaries Reply Now let vs see the third answere CHAP. XIII Wherein Widdringtons third answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell is confirmed and also it is shewed how certaine it is according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes that the Church cannot erre in Decrees or precepts of manners from whence it is cleerely deduced that from the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell it cannot with any colour of probabilitie be prooued that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and all M. Fitzherberts arguments to shew the contrarie are most plainely confuted 1 BEcause my Aduersaries did so much relie vpon this Decree of the Lateran Councell that they thought it alone to be sufficient to make their doctrine certaine and of faith and therefore feared not to brand the contrarie with the note of heresie my third answere to their argument grounded vpon the authoritie of the Lateran Councell was that the Canon or decree for so we call it yet of the said Councell touching the deposition of temporall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords was no matter of faith but of fact onely wherein as well the Pope as those Fathers following their owne opinions might erre and that the Councell did not determine or define that the future deposition not of Princes as Mr. Fitzherbert translateth it but of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull power or from the Ecclesiasticall power alone without the consent of Princes And therefore the opinion of those Fathers yeeldeth no more certainety for the Popes power to depose Princes then if they had declared their opinions forth of the Councell seeing that this onely can bee gathered from the certaine and vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church that the infalable assistance of the Holy Ghost is promised by our Sauiour Christ not to the facts or probable opinions of Popes or Councells but onely to their definitions 2 Against this answere Mr. Fitzherbert taketh some idle and friuolous exceptions And first he carpeth at that distinction or Antithesis betwixt rem facti duntaxat and rem fidei a matter of fact onely and a matter of faith which he would haue me to reforme and to make it according to the
vsuall manner rem facti and rem iuris a matter of fact a matter of law or right But here saith he a Pag. 17. 8. nu 2. I must desire Widdrington first to reforme his distinction or rather Antithesis which he maketh betwixt rem facti and rem fidei a matter of fact and a matter of faith Wherein there is no such opposition as hee seemeth to imagine or would at least haue to bee conceiued for if by a matter of fact onely he meanes a matter that is not speculatiue but consisteth onely in action or practise then matters of fact and faith may so well stand together that they may be and often are one and the selfe same thing I meane that a matter of fact not onely may but ought also to be beleeued vnder paine of damnation as it is euident in diuers Articles of our faith consisting in the beliefe of things done or to be done as in all the Historie of our Sauiours Incarnation life and death already past and in his last Iudgement our Resurrection and euerlasting reward or punishment which are yet to come and being matters of fact are neuerthelesse matters of faith and therefore Widdrington may doe well as I haue said to reforme his distinction and to make it according to the vsuall manner to wit rem facti and rem iuris a matter of fact and a matter of law or right which are indeed alwayes distinct 3 But first is it possible that this man should be so blind or ignorant as not to see that a matter of faith is alwayes a matter of law for that it is commaunded to be beleeued by the law of God and so how childishly he carpeth at that distinction or Antithesis a matter of fact onely and not a matter of faith desiring me to reforme that distinction and to make it according to the vsuall manner to wit rem facti and rem iuris a matter of faith and a matter of law seeing that it is manifest to euery Schoole-boy that a matter of faith is alwayes a matter of law as being a thing commanded to be beleeued by the law of God But matters of fact and of faith saith Mr. Fitzherbert may well stand together c. And therefore a matter of fact is not opposite to a matter of faith as Widdrington seemeth to imagine or would at least haue to be conceiued 4 But in the like manner I may say that matters of fact and matters of law may well stand together as it is euident in diuers Articles of our faith concerning our Sauiours Incarnation Passion Resurrection c. which are both matters of fact and of law seeing that they are things appertaining to the law of God and therefore a matter of fact is not opposite to a matter of law and alwayes distinct as Mr. Fitzherbert following therein Fa. Lessius from whom he tooke this friuolous exception not onely seemeth to imagine but also expresly affirmeth So that these men haue neede first to reforme their owne distinction or Antithesis which they make betwixt a matter of fact and a matter of law before they vndertake to be reformers of other men But the plaine truth is that I neither said nor imagined as these men vntruly affirme that I made an opposition or Antithesis betwixt a matter of faith and a matter of fact but betwixt a matter of faith and of fact onely which word onely if they had well considered they might easily haue perceiued that it doth exclude a matter of faith and that I did not make an opposition betwixt euery matter of fact and of faith but betwixt a matter of faith and of fact onely that is of such facts whic are onely grounded vpon a probable opinion or at the most not vpon any vndoubted doctrine of faith and such matters of fact and of faith can neuer stand together 5 For whereas Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Lessius against whom principally I wrote that Preface wherein I answered this Decree of the Lateran Councell did so much insist vpon this Decree that as I said before they would make the world beleeue that it alone were sufficient to make their doctrine to be of faith and the contrary flat hereticall my meaning was in this third answere to shew that no such thing could be proued from this Councell as they pretended for that this Decree for as much as it concerneth the future deposition of temporall Landlords or Lords was no matter of faith but of fact onely and that the Councell did not declare determine or define that this future deposition of them was therein decreed to proceede from the spirituall authority of the Church without the consent licence or authoritie of temporall Princes which my Aduersarie must first prooue or else they will speake little to the purpose Now Mr. Fitzherbert falsly supposing as you haue seene that I make an opposition betwixt a matter of fact and a matter of faith as though a matter of fact and a matter of faith cannot stand together which euery Schoole-boy knoweth to bee false you shall see what an idle discourse he maketh throughout this whole Chapter it being grounded vpon this false supposall 6 But because Mr. Fitzher in his ensuing discourse giueth me occasion to enter into a question which not a litle concerneth our present controuersie I thinke it not amisse before I goe any further to speake something thereof to wit with what kind of certainetie we are to beleeue that the Church cannot erre in making Decrees or precepts of manners that is whether as it is hereticall to hold that the Church can erre in making matters of faith so also it is hereticall to hold that she can erre in making lawes Decrees or precepts belonging to manners And albeit my meaning is not at this time to set downe what is my owne opinion concerning this matter because I doe not intend to relie much thereon for the answering of my Aduersaries obiections and so will not giue him occasion to flie from the principall controuersie to other by-questions and of lesse importance yet for the better instruction of the vnlearned Reader who may perchance imagine that euery Popes Breue is sufficient to make a matter of faith I will briefly relate what is the opinion of learned Catholikes and namely of Melchior Canus in this point 7 First therefore concerning matters of faith or things to beleeued Melchior Canus affirmeth that a Generall Councell being confirmed by the Popes authoritie cannot erre in the defining of Catholike doctrine Canus lib. 1. de locis cap. 4. concl 3. and this conclusion he taketh to be so certaine that the contrarie he accounteth hereticall But as I obserued in an other place b In disp Theol cap 10. sec 2. nu 13. to make such definitions to be certaine infallible and without errour he requireth two conditions the one is that the doctrine must bee propounded to the whole Church and not onely to priuate
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
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
he thinketh or insinuateth at least that they haue most grieuously and perniciously erred therein many times and yet one of the Popes that did dispence in the case here mentioned to wit in the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation was the famous S. Gregorie the great who granted that licence to some Priests in Sardinia by reason of the great want of Bishops in that Iland 18 But first although the first instance which I brought be partly grounded vpon this practise of Popes to giue authoritie to Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation yet this is not my first instance but my first instance is this That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which is propounded or supposed by Popes as a sure and certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences for so saith Fa. Lessius But this doctrine that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemne vow of chastite and giue leaue to a Priest to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation is propounded or supposed by Popes as a ground and foundation of many their Decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences Therefore c. 19 Now I expected that Mr. Fitzherbert would haue answered this my instance in forme which if he had done I would also by his answere haue satisfied Fa. Lessius his first argument but he neither answereth nor propoundeth my first instance but cunningly flyeth to the Councell of Lateran affirming that there is a great disparitie betwixt the decree of the Lateran Councell and the licences which some Popes giue to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation whereas Fa. Lessius did not apply his first argument particularly to the Councell of Lateran but spake generally of the grounds and foundations of all Decrees and sentences of Councells or Popes affirming that doctrine to appertaine to faith which Popes Councells and Doctours doe propound or suppose as a sure foundation of their decrees and sentences c. which assertion may be applied not onely to the decree of the Lateran Counell but also to the decree sentence of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons and it doth also prooue that the ground and foundation of euery sentence whereby any Emperour or King hath beene deposed by the Pope doth consequently belong to faith which because it is repugnant to the common doctrine of all Diuines Mr. Fitzherbert would onely apply to the decree of the Lateran Councell and thereupon he did fraudulently as you haue seene both conceale my first instance and also change and curtoll the first argument of Fa. Lessius which doth plainely shew that he hath a great diffidence in his cause and that his meaning is not to deale sincerely in the examining of this dangerous and difficult controuersie 20 Secondly wheras Mr. Fitzherbert accuseth me of irreuerence to the Sea Apostolike seeing that I thinke or insinuate at least as he saith that Popes haue most grieuously and perniciously erred many times in their licences dispensations and other actions he sheweth euidently therein rather his want of Christian charitie then any solid learning wisedome or discretion seeing that I neuer said or insinuated that Popes haue most grieuously erred many times in their licences dispensations and other actions but I onely related the opinions of learned and vertuous Catholikes and who were also much deuoted to the Sea Apostolike and one of them also a Pope from whose doctrine it cleerely followeth that if to erre in the due administration of the Sacraments be a most grieuous and pernicious errour both in regard of the irreuerence done to the Sacrament and also the wrong done to the person who is defrauded of the benefite thereof then those Popes who haue giuen authoritie to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation whereby the administration thereof is inualid and repugnant to the institution of Christ haue most grieuously and perniciously erred 21 But if Mr. Fitzherbert will needes haue vs to approoue all the licences dispensations decrees and other actions of Popes vnlesse wee must haue an irreuerent opinion of the Sea Apostolike what will hee say of Melchior Canus a learned religious man much deuoted to the Pope who boldly saith that he doth not approoue all Church-lawes Canus lib. 5. de locis cap. 5. q. vlt concl nor commend all punishments Censures Excommunications Suspensions Irregularities interdicts and a little beneath hee affirmeth l Cap. 5. propo finem that those who rashly and without election doe defend euery sentence or iudgement of the Pope concerning euery thing doe weaken not strengthen doe ouerthrow not establish the authority of the Sea Apostolike What will he say of Siluester a man also no lesse addicted to the aduancing of the Popes temporall authoritie who affirming that the Pope hath no authoritie to dispence in the solemne vow of religious chastitie and some obiecting that they haue seene the Pope so to haue dispenced de facto answereth boldly Siluist in Sum. verbo votum 4. q. 5. in fine See Aluarus pelag lib. 2. de Planctu Eccles ar 5 in fine See Bell lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. that he also hath seene the Pope done greater things with the scandal all Christianity And to omit Aluarus Pelagius others who taxe freely the facts of many Popes what will he say of Cardinall Bellarmine who affirmeth that Pope Nicolas and Pope Celestine haue in their Decrees or Decretall Epistles expresly taught false doctrine concerning the Sacraments of Baptisme and Matrimony But this is a vsuall tricke of my Aduersaries when they are pressed with any argument to flie to rayling and disgracefull speeches and which with the same facilitie and vpon the like grounds may be retorted backe vpon themselues 22 But to answere Widdringtons argument saith Mr. Fitzherbert Pag. 187. nu 6. grounded vpon this instance or example whereas he laboureth to proue thereby that the foundation or ground of the Decree of the Councell of Lateran concerning the deposition of Princes may be vncertaine because the ground of some Popes dispensations in the administration of a Sacrament is vncertaine he argueth most absurdly For there is such an euident disparity betwixt the particular facts or dispensations of Popes touching particular persons Countreys or Churches and the generall Decrees of Popes and Generall Councells made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church that a man may wonder how he could forget himselfe so farre as by an instance of a supposed possibility of errour in a particular fact of some Pope to impugne a generall Decree of a Pope together with a generall Councell 23 What a great distrust Mr. Fitzherbert hath of his cause the Reader may easily perceiue by this that he seldome propoundeth any one argument or answere of mine but he vseth therein some notable fraud or falshood And first he would heere make his Reader beleeue that he hath fully answered my first instance or argument which was grounded
neuerthelesse according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus are necessary to make any Decree of a generall Councell to appertaine to faith And secondly heere in this place I did only argue against the first argument brought by Fa. Lessius who in his Maior proposition speaketh generally of all decrees and sentences of Popes and Councels That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe either propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences c. And against this argument I did oppose as you haue seene another like instance grounded vpon three examples of decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences of diuers Popes which instance of mine Mr. Fitzherbert concealeth and by the word foundation I did not onely vnderstand the reason which mooued those Popes to make such decrees and to grant such dispensations and licences as for example that S. Gregory as my Aduersary saith graunted licence to some Priests in Sardinia to administer the Sacrament of confirmation by reason of the great want of Bishops in that Iland but by the word foundation I vnderstood the authority it selfe which those Popes pretended to haue to make such decrees and to grant such licences and dispensations and the reasons and foundations whereon that pretended authority of theirs was grounded which authority of theirs I shewed to be vncertaine and consequently not to belong to faith and therefore the first argument of Fa. Lessius to be defectiue 29 And although there bee an euident disparitie betwixt the Decrees of Popes and the Decrees of generall Councels yet it is apparant that according to my Aduersaries principles who affirme that all the infallibility of the Decrees of Generall Councels doth wholly depend vpon the Pope wee may according to their grounds proportionally argue of the infallibilitie of the Decrees of Popes and of General Councels and that if the Pope may erre in his priuate iudgement particular facts and decrees concerning manners which are referred to particular persons Bishops or Churches a Generall Councell also may erre in the like and if to make a Decree of a Generall Councell to belong to faith it bee necessary according to their doctrine that it bee a true and proper Decree and must also be propounded as of faith or necessarily grounded vpon some vndoubted doctrine of faith the like also they must say of the Decrees of Popes From whence it cleerely followeth that according to their owne principles no forcible argument can bee drawne either from the iudiciall sentence of Pope Gregory the seuenth against Henry the fourth Emperour or of Pope Innocent the third against Philip and Otho or of Pope Innocent the fourth in the Councell of Lyons against Fredericke the second or from any other deposition of whatsoeuer King or Emperour or also from the Decree of the Lateran Councell although we should suppose as wee doe not that it doth concerne the deposition of temporall Princes and was made by true Ecclesiasticall authority without any necessitie that Christian Princes should approoue and confirme the same yet I say no forcible argument can bee drawne from thence to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted doctrine of faith seeing that the former sentences and depositions doe onely concerne particular persons and this Act of the Lateran Councell is not according to their owne grounds a true and proper Decree and none of them are propounded as of faith as any man of iudgement out of those rules which Card. Bellarmine and Canus haue brought to know when any Decree is propounded as of faith may very easily perceiue 30 Besides that Widdrington inferreth absurdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 188. nu 8. 9. that because the reason which mooued some Popes to grant that licence was vncertaine or seemed erroneous to some learned men therefore it was vncertaine also in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence as who would say that because the reason of Pope Pius his Decree concerning the obseruation of the Feast of Easter seemed vncertaine to the Churches of Asia therefore it was vncertaine in it selfe or to Pope Pius who made the Decree whereas the reason or gound of the said Decree to wit the tradition of the Romane Church was not onely certaine to Pope Pius and his Successour Victor o Euseb l. 5. hist c. 24. 25 who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for resisting it but also to the first Councell of Nice which afterwards decreed the same yea to the whole Church which followeth the Decrees of the said Pope and Nicen Councell accounting them for heretikes that doe contradict them as I haue shewed before p See Chap. 13 nu 4. 7. And see also the answere therevnto chap. 13. nu 22. seq 31 The like also may bee said of the rebaptization of such as are baptized by heretikes which was condemned by the Sea Apostolike vpon an assured ground albeit the same seemed vncertaine and erroneous to Saint Cyprian and to a Synode of Bishops with him who were of contrarie opinion So as it is euident that many things may seeme vncertaine to some learned men and yet bee most certaine to the Sea Apostolike and therefore Widdrington argueth very ridiculously if hee inferre as hee seemeth to doe that the reason which mooued some Popes to giue licence to Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation is vncertaine or erroneous because it seemeth so to some learned men 32 But besides that I made no such inference as this man faigneth and the Reader may plainely see by the examples and instances which I haue entirely set downe and Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed it is euident that hee heere insinuateth giuing credit therein to Fa. Lessius a most dangerous and pernicious doctrine to wit that all Catholikes are bound to follow in matters which are in controuersie among learned men the Popes priuate spirit faith and knowledge as though the Church of God were to bee guided and gouerned in matters which are questionable among learned Catholikes by the priuate faith spirit or knowledge of any man yea of the Pope himselfe or that Christ had promised his infallible assistance to the Popes priuate knowledge or iudgement 33 And first whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that although the reason which mooued some Popes to grant licence to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation seemed vncertaine to some learned men yet it was not therefore vncertaine in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence hee speaketh very improperly For albeit truth and falshood are taken from the thing it selfe according to that knowne maxime of Aristotle ex eo quod res est vel non est propositio dicitur vera vel falsa and so may bee said to bee in the thing it selfe yet certaintie as certaine is opposed to doubtfull vncertaine fallible probable erroneous is not properly in the thing it selfe but in the vnderstanding
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
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
argument as you haue seen before although it be indeed my third example whereon all my three Instances were partly grounded neyther did I by this example eyther impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell or inferre from thence as this man vntruely affirmeth that the Decree of the Lateran Councell might be impugned without sinne For neyther did I impugne but onely expound the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell neyther did I in any one of my three Instances or also examples make mention at all of the Lateran Councell nor also did I euer acknowledge that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes was the ground and foundation of the Decree of the Lateran Councell But for this cause I produced this example of Popes dispensations in the solemne vow of chastitie to shew that the ground and foundation especially of Popes sentences of deposition as was that sentence of Gregorie the 7. against Henrie the 4. in a Councell held at Rome and of Innocent the 4. against Fredericke the second in the Councell of Lyons and other such sentences which concerne particular men doth not appertaine to faith by vertue of this proposition whereon both the first and second argument of Fa. Lessius was principally grounded That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes and Councels suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences for it is euident that there is no more reason why the ground and foundation of Popes particular sentences of depositions or punishments should appertaine to faith then of his particular grants of dispensations and priuiledges whereby it appeareth euidently that this was a fit example to confute Fa. Lessius his first and second argument which there I tooke in hand in my first and second Instance to confute 18 Besides I brought this example in my third Instance against Fa. Lessius his third argument whereby he laboured to prooue that it is a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes for that otherwise the Church and Pope should erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally something to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or contrariwise and also by commanding something of it selfe vnlawfull seeing that she teacheth that a Prince being deposed yea and excommunicated by the sentence of the Pope his subiects are absolued from his obedience yea and are bound not to obey him vntill he be reconciled if the Censure bee denounced whereby subiects are incited by the Pope to rebellions and periuries Against this argument I brought my third Instance which my Aduersary fraudulently concealeth and which was grounded not only vpon this third example of Popes licences giuen to Priests to Minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and might likewise bee grounded vpon the second of Pope Sixtus his decree for the celebrating of the blessed Virgins Conception 19 For if Fa. Lessius his third argument be good it may likewise be prooued as you may see by my third Instance that it is a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastity to giue licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and also that the blessed Virgines Conception was pure holy and immaculate seeing that from these dispensations licences and decree of Pope Sixtus it euidently followeth that the Pope teacheth generally that the marriage of professed religious persons is a true Sacrament and the children begotten and borne by them are legitimate and if the Parents be Kings their children ought to be preferred in the Kindome before all others who may pretend otherwise a right thereto and the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by an inferiour Priest with the Popes licence is a true and valid Sacrament and also that the honour and worship which is giuen to the blessed Virgines conception is a true and religious honour all which would according to Fa. Lessius his third argument bee false and pernicious because the faithfull should thereby be incited to commit iniuries and sacriledges yea and against their wils by Censures bee compelled thereunto if the Pope hath no such power to dispence in the solemne vowe of chastity nor to giue licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and that the blessed Virgin was not in her Conception pure holy and immaculate But my Aduersary to obscure the whole difficulty and to blinde the Readers vnderstanding thought it best not to set downe fully but in that lame manner as you haue seene Fa. Lessius his three arguments and wholy to conceale the three Instances I made against them whereby hee might with a lesse shew of falsity boldly affirme that the three examples were my three Instances and that they were brought by me of purpose to impugne the decree of the Lateran Councell both which how vntrue they are and also of what little force are all Fa. Lessius his three arguments against which onely I brought my three Instances you haue seene before 20 For all the difficulty of Fa. Lessius his third argument consisteth in the vnderstanding of that Maior proposition It is a point of faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally something to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding something of it selfe vnlawfull For if by doctrine of maners teaching generally he meane a definitiue teaching or a propounding any thing as of faith with an obligation to bind all the faithfull to belieue that doctrine I grant that it is a point of faith that the Church or a generall Councell cannot erre in such doctrine or teaching for whether the Pope can erre or no in such teaching it is not a point of faith but as yet a controuersie betwixt the Roman and French Diuines but then I vtterly deny that any generall Councell yea or any Pope hath euer defined or taught generally that the Pope by vertue of his Ecclesiasticall power hath authority to depose temporall Princes to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance or to inflict temporall punishments But if by doctrine and teaching he meane opinatiue and probable doctrine and teaching besides that it cannot be conuinced that the Lateran Councell or any other generall Councell taught generally in this sense that the Pope by vertue of his spirituall power hath authority to depose temporall Princes his Maior proposition is very vntrue and therefore from thence it doth not follow that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith 21 Likewise if by commanding something of it selfe euill Fa. Lessius vnderstand a generall commaundement propounded to the whole Church or all the faithfull I grant also that a generall Councell cannot erre in imposing such generall commandements although this be not so cleare a point of faith as the former as I haue shewed before out of the doctrine of learned Canus but then I deny that any generall Councell hath euer giuen any such generall
and reuerence their temporall Prince and to obey him in temporalls as with all my heart and soule I doe greatly respect and reuerence my Soueraigne Lord King IAMES acknowledging him to bee my onely Soueraigne Lord in temporalls to whom I owe all temporall allegiance as I acknowledge his Holinesse to bee my supreame spirituall Pastour to whom I owe spirituall obedience yet if the temporall Prince should command any thing which to his Suâ—iects consciences is manifestly vniust they may without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to their Prince not obey that vniust commandement knowing in that case they are bound rather to obey God then men especially if they bee readie to suffer without resistance the penaltie imposed by the law 9. Secondly that any Catholike might lawfully and without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse not obey or admit his Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation I yeelded in my Theological Disputation f Cap. 10 sec 2 nu 50. seq two sufficient reasons whereof the first and principall Mr. Fitzherbert heere fraudulently concealeth and both vnlearnedly and guilefully as you shall foorthwith see hee cauelleth onely against the second and lesse principall reason For I did not affirme that no Catholike is bound to admit his Holinesse Breues onely for that hee was ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines albeit this alone had beene a very sufficient reason but chiefly and principally for that his Breues were grounded vpon probable opinion at the most that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to dispose of all temporalls and to depose temporall Princes which doctrine being not certaine but in controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge no Catholike is bound to follow and consequently according to the doctrine of Fa. Suarez neither bound to obey his declaratiue commandement which is grounded thereon for that a declaratiue precept as is this of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath hath no greater force then the reason whereon is grounded but this first reason which I brought for the chiefe and principall Mr. Fitzherbert cunnigly dissembleth 10. For seeing that his Holinesse did onely in generall worde forbid English Catholikes to take the Oath for that therein are contained many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation without specifying in particular any one of those many things I by probable coniectures or rather by morall certainties all circumstances considered did gather that his Holinesse by those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation did either vnderstand as by all likelihood hee did his power to inflict Censures to excommunicate his Maiestie to binde and loose in generall c. and consequently his spirituall Supremacie which hee conceiued were denyed in the Oath for that Cardinall Bellarmine did publikely in his booke against his Maiesties Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance also in this sense vnderstand the same and then it is apparant that his Holinesse was misinformed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused for that it is too too manifest as his Maiestie himselfe hath against Cardinall Bellarmine conuinced that the Popes power to inflict spirituall Censures and to excommunicate his Maiestie was not treated of at all in the Oath but purposely declined and Mr. Fitzherbert also seemeth couertly to confesse as much for that albeit in his Supplement he affirmed See aâ—oue chap. â— that the Oath is vnlawfull for that therein is denyed the Popes powers to excommunicate for which in my Admonition I taxed him of falsitie yet now in his Reply he altogether flyeth from that point acknowledging in effect by his silence that hee dare not now maintaine his former assertion 11 But because I could not certainely know and affirme although it bee very probable that his Holinesse vnderstood those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation of his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures c. as Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius and Suarez did vnderstand them I added the second part of the disiunction to wit that his Holinesse vnderstood those many things c. in the former sense or else by those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation hee vnderstood his power to depose Princes to dispose of all temporalls and to inflict temporall punishments for that his Holinesse was of opinion that the doctrine for his power to depose Princes c. which is expresly denyed in the Oath is certaine and of faith And if this bee the meaning of his Holinesse then if hee did adhere to this opinion by his owne reading studie and learning whereof I haue no certaintie for that I know not whether his Holinesse being accounted onely a Lawyer and not to make profession of Schoole-Diuinitie had before the publishing of his Breues exactly studied this question and throughly examined all that could bee obiected on either side then I say that his Holinesse was greatly mistaken for that it is euident that this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes c. is not certaine and of faith but in controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge 12 But if his Holinesse did adhere to this opinion and conceiue that this doctrine for his power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith as it is very pobable hee did by the information of Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome who consulted of the Oath as Fa. Parsons relateth in his letter then I say that his Holinesse hath also beene ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused by them for that it is a controuersie among the Schoole-men saith Trithemius Trithem in Chron. Monast Hirsang ad an 1106. Almain de dominat ciuil Eccles conclus 2. in probat and as yet not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no And Almaine a very famous Schoole-Diuine and Doctour of Sorbon with very many or most Doctours as hee saith doeth resolutely affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes but onely of spirituall Censures neither was he euer taxed by any man of heresie errour or temeritie for holding this opinion 13 These were the reasons which I propounded to his Holinesse why English Catholikes thought themselues not bound to obey his declaratiue precept contained in his Breues For these are my expresse words in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse g Cap. 10. sec 2 nu 8. seq And this is the reason most holy Father why very few Lay Catholikes of any name or worth with vs doe refuse to take the Oath being tendered them by the Magistrate For while they aduisedly cal to
Fitzherbert turneth and windeth in such a running and fraudulent manner that his Reader cannot well perceiue of what imputation he meanes when he saith that if the second Breue be not sufficient to cleare his Holines of this imputation yet his third Breue must needs be aboundantly sufficient to doe it For that which I said onely is that his Holinesse by all likelihoode was not truely informed by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines of the true sense and meaning of some clauses of the Oath against which you haue seene with what fraude and falsitie my ignorant Aduersarie hath wrangled and iangled as though I had taxed his Holinesse for publishing his first Breue before he had seene or maturely weighed and pondered the Oath it selfe and all the clauses thereof and without graue and long deliberation had concerning all things contained in his Breue which how vntrue this imputation is wherewith hee chargeth me I haue alreadie shewed Now this silly man laboureth to prooue as also he insinuated before that because his Holinesse did maturely weigh and ponder the Oath and euery clause thereof before he sent hither his first Breue and did sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessarie to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence as well concerning the forbidding of the Oath by his first Breue as also concerning the punishing of such Priests that should take or defend the Oath to be lawfull by his third Breue sent hither two yeeres after which he could not saith my Aduersarie lawfully doe without due consideration and diligent discussion of the whole controuersie and sufficient information of all the circumstances thereof therefore his Holinesse neither was nor could all this time which was more then two yeeres be ignorant of the nature and qualitie of the Oath and that therefore he could not be ignorant but certainely knew that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation as he had declared by his first Breue 32 But to omit now those words sufficient information c. and that his Holinesse did sufficiently informe himselfe c. which my Aduersarie heere diuers times repeateth which because they are equiuocall and may haue a double sense I will declare beneath it is very vntrue and contrary to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and of all other learned Diuines to say that certaine and infallible knowledge of truth is in the Pope necessarily annexed to his long graue mature and diligent consideration and discussion of any doctrine or matter vnlesse the doctrine and matter be of such a nature and the discussion thereof be done with such circumstances and in such a manner as Christ hath promised him his infallible assistance which euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Christ hath not promised him in such decrees or definitions which are not directed and doe not appertaine to the whole Church as are these his Breues forbidding the Oath whereof the two first are onely directed to English Catholikes and the third onely to Mr. Birket then Arch-Priest For in customes lawes or decrees which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate persons or Churches not onely the Pope but also the Church may erre and be deceiued through ignorance I say saith Canus not onely in her iudgement of facts Canus lib. 5. q. 5. conel 3. or things done as whether such a one committed such a sinne hath lost his faculties ought to be censured and such like but also in her priuate precepts and lawes themselues and the true and proper reason hereof he bringeth from the authority of Pope Innocent the third which I related also aboue q Chap. 13. nu 11. for that albeit the iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued yet the iudgement of the Church is now and then led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue and is deceiued c. 33 Whereupon the Reader may most cleerely perceiue how vnlearnedly my ignorant Aduersarie doth inferre that because his Holinesse had a long graue and mature deliberation and consultation concerning the true sense of the Oath and of euery clause thereof and did send hither his third Breue for punishing those Priests that should take or defend the same therefore he could not be ignorant of the true sense of euery clause thereof but must certainly and infallibly know that many things are therein contained flat contrary to faith and saluation as he by his first Breue had declared as though his sentence and iudgement in Decrees which are directed onely to priuate persons or Churches should be alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither can deceiue nor be deceiued and that he cannot erre through ignorance or be led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue is deceiued in his priuate lawes decrees which are not common to the whole Church but doe belong to priuate men Bishops or Churches and that therefore those Priests whom he bindeth or punisheth by his Censure and sentence may not be free before God and those other Priests whom he doth not Censure may not deserue punishment in the sight of God according to that which Pope Innocent in the end of his aforesaid reason did affirme 34 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert often repeateth that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained in his first Breue among which the principall was that many things are contained in the Oath which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation was sufficiently informed of the whole matter are very equiuocall and may haue a double sense For first these words may signifie that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation was sufficiently informed to excuse him from sinne for doing what hee did and for sending hither his Breues to forbid the Oath and to punish those Priests that should take the Oath or teach it to be lawfull and with this point for that it little importeth our present question whether the Oath not onely in the Popes opinion and conscience but also really truely and certainely containeth in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation or no and for that it is a thing secret and vnknowne to me I will not inter meddle but leaue it to the conscience of his Holinesse and to the iudgement of God who searcheth the hearts and reines of men Yet this I dare boldly say that in my iudgement his Holinesse might haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter if hee had consulted this question concerning the certainty of his authority to depose Princes and whether his spirituall Supremacie or any other doctrine of faith or manners necessarie to saluation is denyed in the Oath not onely with his owne Diuines who are knowne to maintaine with such violence both his authority in temporals ouer temporall Princes which is the principall marke at which the Oath doth aime and his spirituall authority
thing it selfe which he testifieth for that this may very well be true that Fa. Parsons did seeke to perswade and induce his Holinesse to that course of mitigation which M. Fitzherbert mentioneth to wit not to proceed with Censures against his Maiesty to which course Fa. Parsons might imagine his Holinesse to haue at that time some inclination in regard both of the new oath then established by his Maiestie and the Parliament which doth so much derogate from the pretended authority which the Bishops of Rome since the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth doe challenge ouer temporall Princes to depriue them of their Princely authority and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance and also of the seuere lawes which were then newly enacted against Catholikes vpon occasion of that horrible Gun-powder conspiracy plotted onely by Catholikes and yet withall it may also be true as onely by the way I did affirme and by many probable coniectures sufficiently confirme that Fa. Parsons did also induce and mooue his Holinesse to the publication of his Breue against the taking of the oath for that betwixt these two there is no repugnance at all and whether hee did or no it is not much materiall to my second answere or reason which M. Fitzherbert tooke vpon him to impugne 54 Neuertheles concerning Mr. Fitzher testification vpon his own knowledge I must tell him in plaine words that I can giue no credit to his testimonie albeit he should confirme it by solemne Oath vnlesse I could be morally certaine that he vseth heerein no equiuocation or mentall reseruation whereof I can hardly be assured considering especially his owne particular practise of equiuocation or mentall reseruation in the time of Pope Clement the eight in slandering and traducing so falsly and shamefully those foure Reuerend Appellant Priests for Schismatikes Spies Rebells and disobedient persons to the Sea Apostolike c. notwithstanding they being present them at Rome to craue iustice and to make manifest their oppression and innocencie and also in giuing testimonie to his Holinesse vpon his Oath that those English bookes which Fa. Parsons had deliuered to the Inquisition with diuers propositions therein contained shewing them to be heretical erroneous c. were truely translated wherein how fowly he and Fa. Parsons with diuers other their adherents did equiuocate to defend Fa. Parsons credit not onely his owne conscience but diuers other persons yet liuing can be a sufficient witnesse and considering also the common doctrine and practise of many of his Societie not onely touching equiuocation but also mentall reseruation which in very deede is flat lying grounded vpon that Chimericall and not intelligible vnion mixtion and composition or rather meere fiction of thoughts and words in one true mixt and compound or rather faigned proposition This I say being considered to omit now diuers other scandalous and pernicious positions and practises to this purpose which some of them especially of our English Nation doe maintaine and whereof I will hereafter if they vrge me thereunto more particularly treate I can giue no credit to any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert shall testifie vpon his owne knowledge vnlesse by some other meanes I shall finde it to be true 55 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert obserueth out of his owne testimonie concerning Fa. Parsons conference with his Holinesse to taxe me of improbabilitie and impertinencie This being so saith he e Pag. 217. I cannot omit vpon this occasion to desire thee good Reader to note the improbable and impertinent inference which Widdrington maketh vpon this answere of his Holinesse Dispu Theol. cap. 10. sec 2. nu 57. for he inferreth thereupon that his Holinesse did condemne the Oath by his Breues and held them for no Catholikes who inclined to take it because he was perswaded that his authoritie to proceed with Censures against the King and consequently his spirituall authoritie was denied thereby and then he concludeth Ibid. nu 58. that if his Holinesse was moued to condemne it for that cause by the instigation of Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and those seuen or eight Diuines mentioned in the letter aboue said Nimis proh dolor saith he manifestum est c. it is alas too manifest that his Holinesse was deluded to the great ignominie of the Sea Apostolike the grieuous scandall of Protestants and the vtter temporall ruine of very many Catholikes So Widdrington But I also must desire the Reader to note the egregios fraud and falshood of this man For I did not there inferre from the answere of his Holinesse as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruly affirmeth that his Holinesse did condemne the Oath by his Breues and held them for no Catholikes who inclined to take the Oath because he was perswaded that his authoritie to proceede with Censures against the King and consequently his spirituall authority was denied thereby but I made this inference first from the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine for that he was of opinion from which Diuines of Rome and consequently neither his Holinesse did dissent that the Popes power to excommunicate and inflict Censures his power to binde and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is plainely denied in the Oath and secondly from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter concerning the consultation of the Diuines of Rome had touching the Oath for that the Diuines of Rome did also suppose as I prooued in that place that the Popes power to chastice in generall and consequently his power to chastice by spirituall Censures is denied in the Oath So that I made there no inference from his Holinesse answere to Fa. Parsons but I onely made an explication of the said answere from the aforesaid inferences shewing from them the cause and reason why his Holinesse thought them to bee no Catholikes who inclined to take the Oath for that he was perswaded by the aduise of Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommuniate and to chastice Princes by Ecclesiasticall Censures is plainely denied in the Oath And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert to conceale his fraude omitteth to set downe my expresse words and the first part of Fa. Parsons letter and what I inferred from thence 57 Wherefore from the discourse which there I made and which Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale I concluded that Cardinal Bellarmine Fa. Parsons the other Diuines of Rome vsing such sophisticall inferences to wit that because we must sweare that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication made or to be made against his Maiestie we will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie c. therefore the Popes power to Excommunicate Kings is denied in the Oath and because the Popes power to punish Kings by deposing them and by absoluing their subiects from their allegiance is denied in the Oath therefore the Popes power to punish Kings in generall and to binde and loose in generall is denied in the Oath vsing I say such sophisticall inferences to
will vouchsafe to examine the cause himselfe and not to be ouer confident in the testimonie and conscience of his accuser who is both in great fauour with the Iudge and also is brought as a witnesse against him otherwise all the standers by will perceiue what manifest wrong is done him and hee will giue his Aduersaries great occasion to except and exclaime against him And this is my very case as you haue seene before 75 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth that I doe not promise to his Holinesse to retract or reforme my writings in case that he condemne them to which hee might also haue added that his Holinesse hath now condemned or rather forbidden some of my writings and I haue not as yet retracted or reformed them I answere first that I know not well what this silly man would conclude from hence vnlesse he would make his Reader belieue that I am obstinate in my doctrine which the ignorant man calleth an heresie and that I doe still maintaine that it is a probable doctrine and consequently may be maintained by any Catholike that the Pope hath not authority to depose temporall Princes and that therfore I am no Catholike but a formall heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that all my pretences to bee a Catholike doe proceede from no other ground but from a deepe d ssimulation or rather an artificall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes And this is the chiefe marke at which this rash-headed and vncharitable man aimeth at in this Chapter whereby hee plainely discouereth both the bitternes of his intemperate splene little beseeming the spirit of a religious Priest and also that he knoweth not himselfe what is required to be a Catholike or to haue true Catholike faith 76 Secondly therefore to answere this inference I doe boldly and resolutely affirme againe which also I haue sufficiently conuinced in this Treatise that it is a doctrine truely probable that the Pope hath no authority to depose absolute Princes or to discharge their subiects of their temporall allegiance and therefore it cannot truely bee noted of heresie errour or temerity and so the imputation of heresie concerning the doctrine it selfe is altogether auoided and the submission of all my writings to the Censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church professing that if through ignorance I haue written any thing which she approoueth not I doe also reprooue it condemne it and desire it to bee hâ—ld for not written which is a retractation and recalling in generall of whatsoeuer I haue written amisse is sufficient to cleare mee from all imputation of obstinacie or wilfulnesse vntill I bee certified of some particular thing which requireth a more particular retractation 77 True it is that I did not promise to his Holinesse to retract or reforme my writings and doctrine in case hee should condemne them vpon the false informations of my Aduersaries for that I was not bound to make any such promise as you shall more fully see beneath And now in that manner as the Cardinals of the Inquisition haue by the commandement of his Holinesse as the Decree mentioneth forbidden my Apologie and Theologicall Disputation in the same manner I haue retracted and recalled all that I haue written amisse for as they haue onely in generall forbidden those bookes not expressing any cause or crime either in particular or in generall for which they are forbidden although I haue most humbly and earnestly requested to know some cause thereof so also I haue in generall retracted recalled what I haue written amisse both by abhorring and detesting all heresie and errour in generall and also by submitting my selfe to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church and solemnely protesting to bee most ready to correct whatsoeuer in my writings is to be corrected to purge what is to bee purged to explaine what is to be explained and to retract what is to bee retracted which being so with what face conscieÌ„ce can this my ignorant and vncharitable Aduersary so confidently affirme that no zealous Catholike can take me for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that all my pretences to be a Catholike doe proceede from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrab e hypocrisie 78 But that vnlearned Catholikes may not be led blind folde by this ignorant and silly man who presumeth to be a Doctour and Teacher in these difficult points of Schoole-Diuinitie before he hath beene scarce a Scholler therein and that they may haue some sufficient light and directions to discerne vpon what grounds they ought to build their Catholike faith and whether they are bound to belieue with Catholike faith all that doctrine to bee faith which the Pope with the Cardinals of the Inquisition and his other Diuines of Rome propoundeth as of faith and that doctrine to be hereticall or erroneous which hee with their aduise and counsell condemneth as hereticall or erroneous I thinke it not amisse to set downe two principall obseruations to direct them therein 79 The first is that it is certaine and agreed vpon by all Diuines that true Catholike and supernaturall faith must alwaies bee certaine and infallible not onely in respect of the obiect or the thing which is to be belieued which must of necessity be true but chiefly and principally in respect of the reason or medium whereby wee assent thereunto for many opinions which include intrinsecally a feare and vncertainty as true naturall science and supernaturall faith include intrinsecally a certainety and exclude all feare doubt and vncertainty are true See Bannes secunda secundae q. 6. ar 2. and in respect of their obiect also necessary but the reason for which we belieue or giue assent is that which maketh our true Catholike and supernaturall faith and iudgement to bee infallible and this reason is the reuelation of God propounded to vs by the Church 80 The second is that it is also certaine that there is a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and other learned Catholikes especially of Paris whether the Pope defining and determining any doctrine to bee of faith and the contrary hereticall without a generall Councell may erre or no and whether the Pope be subiect or superiour to a generall Councell Victor relect 4 de potest Papae Conc. proposit 3. Bellar. li 2. de Conc. cap. 13. Whereupon learned Victoria affirmeth that both opinions concerning the superiority of the Pope or Councell are probable and Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that although in the Councell of Florence and in the last Lateran Councell the question seemeth to be defined yet because the Florentine Councell hath not so expresly defined it and some make doubt whether the Lateran Councell which hath most expresly defined it Bellar. ibid. ca. 17. albeit afterwards he saith that it is doubtfull whether shee defined it properly as to be
opinion are vncertaine and fallible and therefore although the Popes definitions made with mature deliberation and graue counsell may be a sufficient ground for Catholikes to thinke with opinion that the doctrine which he defineth is true if they haue no conuincing reasons to perswade them to the contrary yet they cannot be sufficient for Catholikes I doe not say to thinke probably but to beleeue assuredly with Catholike faith the doctrine which he so defineth without the approbation of a generall Councell to bee true The second difference is that albeit euery Catholike ought to be so firme and stedfast in his Catholike beliefe that hee must needes beleeue the contrary doctrine not onely to be false à parte rei but also to be improbable yet he ought not to bee so firme and stedfast in his opinion as to condemne of heresie errour or temeritie other learned Catholikes who hauing duely examined all the reasons and grounds for that opinion shall thinke against him or be of the contrary opinion although he pretend to prooue his doctrine to be true out of some Decree or definition euen of a generall Councell which Decree or definition the other learned Catholikes of the contrary opinion haue seene examined and answered thereunto and this I prooued at large in my Theologicall Disputation Å¿ Cha. 10. sec 2. out of the expresse doctrine of Fa. Vasquez which my ignorant Aduersary doth fraudulently conceale who as you haue seene vrgeth against mee certaine arguments which I there related and answered and dissembleth wholly the answeres which there I made to the same 86 Wherefore although the Pope be the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach and instruct them in the Catholike faith and in all other things which are necessary to saluation as also euery Bishop is a spirituall Pastour in his owne Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach and instruct all those that are committed to his charge in the Catholike faith and in all other things necessarie to the health of their soules because as Cardinall Bellarmine well affirmeth Bell. l. 5. de RoÌ„ Pont. c. 3. that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in his particular Dioecesse and those words Pasce oues meas Feed my sheepe Bell. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12 in sine Edit antiquâ—â— saith he and such like which are spoken to Saint Peter in regard of the Pastorall office are vnderstood to be spoken to all Pastors yet as no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith which the Bishop of the Dioecesse doth define or determine to be of faith so long as there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes concerning the certaintie of that doctrine for that it is certaine and agreed vpon by all Catholikes that euery particular Bishop may erre in his definitions and consequently they cannot be any assured and infallible grounds of the Catholike faith So also proportionally no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith any doctrine whereof there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes albeit the Pope without a generall Councell shall define it to be of faith for that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope defining without a generall Councell can erre or no and consequently vntill this controuersie be decided and determined by a generall Councell or the vniuersall acceptance of the Church as a point of faith such his definitions can be no assured and infallible grounds of true Catholike faith 87 And if you demaund that seeing the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way to saluation why are not all Christians bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund him I answere with the like demaund seeing that euery Bishop is the spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull within his Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way of saluation why are not all the faithfull within his Dioâ—cesse committed to his charge bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund them 88 But perchance you will say that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and his commaundements are Apostolicall as Mr. Fitzherbert in this Treatise often vrgeth against me the authoritie of the supreme spirituall Pastor his Apostolicall Breues and commandement therfore there is a great disparitie betwixt the Pope and the inferiour Bishops True it is that there is a great disparitie and difference betwixt the Pope who is the supreme Pastour and other Bishops who are not supreme but as there is a great disparitie betwixt them so there is a great difficultie and controuersie among learned Catholikes in what this disparitie and this supremacie of the Pope doth consist which were to long to examine at this present perchance hereafter if my Aduersaries will vrge me thereunto I shall treate of this disparitie and the Popes Supremacie more at large In the meane time all Catholikes doe agree in this that the Popes Supremacie doth not consist in this that he cannot command any vnlawfull thing and contrary to the law of God or that he cannot teach false doctrine and contrary to the word of God or that he cannot exceede the authority which Christ hath granted him or that hee cannot challenge to him a power or Iurisdiction as due to him which Christ hath not giuen him Yea and according to the doctrine of many famous and learned Catholikes cited by me elsewhere t In disp Theol. cap. 10. § 2 nu 27. the Popes Supremacy doth not consist in this that he cannot erre and bee deceiued in his definitions albeit they bee directed to the whole Church if he define without the approbation of a generall Councell or the acceptance of the vniuersall Church and consequently such his definitions cannot be certaine and infallible grounds of true Catholike Faith 89 Neyther are his commandements definitions or letters called Apostolicall for that they are alwayes conforme to the law of God and to the doctrine of the Apostles neyther is his authority called Apostolicall for that he hath alwayes the assistance of the holy Ghost anexed to his Decrees and doctrine in that manner as the Apostles had but chiefly and principally for that he is the successour of S. Peter the first Apostle and hath authority and iurisdiction ouer all Christians as the Apostles and principally S. Peter had although not with the like infallibility and continuall assistance of the holy Ghost And so the parity doth still remaine betwixt the Pope and other Bishops notwithstanding his Primacie in that both are Pastours and therefore are bound by their pastorall function to feede their sheepe to instruct them in the Catholike faith and to direct them in
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
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
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
Church of Christ which is called euery where in the Scripture Regnum Caelorum the kingdome of heauen though on the other side the consequent must needs be good that what excellencie dignitie or perfection soeuer was in the Synagogue the same must needs be farre more eminent and excellent in the Church of Christ as the Apostle taught expressely 2. Cor. 3. arguing thus Si ministratio damnationis c. If the ministration of death with letters figured in stones was in glorie that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moyses for the glorie of his countenance which is euacuated how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more in glorie For if the ministration of damnation be in glorie much more the ministerie of iustice aboundeth in glorie Thus argueth S. Paul proouing à fortiori the supereminent dignitie and glorie of Christs law by the great and eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law Hebr. 6.7.8 9. whereto tendeth also his argument to the Hebrewes concerning the imperfection and infirmitie of the Leuiticall Priesthood in regard of the most excellent and high perfection of the Priesthood of Christ 4 Whereupon it followeth euidently saith Mr. Fitzherbert f nu 29. 30 31. 32. that seeing the Priesthood of the olde Testament had such a supreme and soueraigne authoritie to create anoynt punish and depose Kings as appeareth in the former examples the Priesthood in the new Testament can not haue lesse power and authoritie for it can not be with reason imagined that God hauing taken vpon him our humanitie and honoured the same with a peculiar and mere excellent Priesthood then that of Aaron yea ordained a visible succession of Pastours and Priests for the gouernment of his Church to continue as the Apostle witnesseth g 1. Cor. 11. Ephes 4. Matth. 28. Luk. 10. Matth. 18. Heb. 13. vntill the end of the world commanding also that they should be heard and obeyed as himselfe it were I say against reason to thinke that he would giue lesse honour and priuiledge to these his owne substitute in his owne kingdome then he gaue to the successours of Aaron in the olde law whereby the shadow would be more worthie and perfect then the bodie the figure then the veritie the Leuiticall or Aaronicall Priesthood then the Priesthood of Christ and finally the Iewish Synagogue then Christs owne spouse and mysticall body which is his Church of the glorie maiesty whereof the Prophet I say foretold speaking in the person of God thus Ponam te saith he in superbiam seculorum c. Isay 60. I will place thee as the pride of all worlds or ages a ioy to generation and generation and thou shalt sucke the milke of nations and shalt bee fedde with the paps of Kings and the children of those who haue humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and shall adore the footsteps of thy feete and thy gates shall bee open continually and they shall not bee shut day nor night that the strength of all nations and their Kings may bee brought vnto thee For the Nation and the Kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish c. 5 Thus promised almighty God by his Prophet to raise and aduance the Church of Christ aboue the power of all Nations and kingdomes insomuch that hee threatned ruine and destruction vnto them Matth. 18. if they did not serue her whereby it maye easily be iudged what an excellent and eminent power our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter and his Successours when he not onely promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a rocke and that the gates of hell should not preuaile against it but also gaue him such ample authority to binde and loose that whatsoeuer he should binde or loose on earth should be bound and loosed in heauen yea and finally made him supreme Pastour of his flocke commanding him thrice to feede his sheepe and lambes that is to say to gouerne those that should any way pertaine to his fold the Catholike Church Thus said I in my Supplement Whereby it may appeare that the Popes power to chastice Princes temporally is most conforme to the law of God not onely in the old Testament but also in the new according to Saint Pauls argument a fortiori before mentioned drawne from the figure to the veritie And therefore now to declare how I prooued the same further by the new law c. Thus argeth Mr. Fitzherbert 6 Marke now good Reader what a trimme disourse this man hath made agains himselfe and what grounds he hath laid to ouerthrow his owne argument he groundeth thereon For first I doe willingly grant his first position to wit that the old Testament was a figure of the new the earthly Hierusalem a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the Iewes a figure of the heauenly and spirituall kingdome of Christ the eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law a figure of the supereminent dignitie and glory of the law of Christ the Priesthood in the old law farre inferiour in authoritie excellency and perfection to the Priesthood in the new law yea and that all things for the most part chanced to the Iewes in figure for that nihil as perfectum adduxit lex The law brought nothing to perfection But secondly concerning his second position it followeth euidently from hence that not only the defects of the old law cannot serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ but also that all things in the olde law being compared to the law of Christ were defectiue and imperfect for that the law brought nothing to perfection and that all the authoritie excellency and perfection of the old law was a figure and shadow of the authoritie excellency and perfection of the law of Christ 7 Whereupon it followeth euidently that although wee should suppose only for Disputation sake because the contrarie we haue sufficiently prooued before that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreame and soueraigne authoritie to create annoint punish or depose Kings yet we cannot from thence as from the figure to prooue the veritie conclude that therefore the Priesthood in the new Testament must haue the same authoritie for this were not to fulfill the figure as Cardinall Bellarmine before affirmed but that it must haue a farre more noble and excellent authoritie ouer Princes to create annoint punish and depose Kings in another more excellent degree to wit that considering the promises of the old law were earthly and of the new law heauenly the kingdome of the Iewes was temporall and the kingdome or Church of Christ eternall and spirituall from hence as from the figure to the veritie we may deduce a good argument to prooue that as the Priests of the old law had authoritie to cleanse corporall vncleannesse which did barre men from entering the earthly tabernacle made by the handes of men so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to
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