likewise if temporall Kings themselues doe offend they cannot bee punished with temporall punishments but by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls Now to giue to temporall Common-wealths the vse of the spirituall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments or to the Church of Christ as it is a spirituall common-wealth the vse of the temporall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict temporall Censures or punishments it were both to confound the acts functions authoritie sword weapons and armour of the spirituall and temporall common-wealths which Christ our Sauiour hath distinguished and it is also repugnant to the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture 2. Cor. 10. nam arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt for the weapons or armour of our warfare are not carnall c. to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers who affirme that Emperours and Kings are in temporalls next to God in authoritie and consequently to be temporally punished by God alone and to the generall practise of the primitiue Church 40 Wherefore that comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth heere of the cobweb which holdeth onely the little flyes and serueth to no purpose against the great ones c. is idle and to no purpose For Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the punishments belonging to the Church of Christ are common both to Princes and Subiects and of themselues they are so dreadfull that they are able and sufficient of their owne nature to hold and keepe in awe all Christians whatsoeuer and to correct amend and bring all sinners as they did the Emperour Theodosius to true repentance But if some persons doe not feare these Censures and be not amended by them this is not to bee attributed to the weakenesse defect or imperfection of the Censure which of it selfe is most dreadfull yea and more horrible saith S. Augustine then any corporall death but to the indisposition of the offender who doth not duly consider the greatnesse and dreadfulnesse of that Ecclesiasticall Censure As likewise temporall punishments as is the sentence of death exile imprisonment whipping confiscation of goods c. are of themselues able and sufficient to withdraw any man from sinfull life yet they doe not actually correct and amend all malefactours but this is not to be attributed to the weakenesse or insufficiencie of the temporall sword but the rashnesse passion malice or inconsideration of such malefactours who for want of due consideration are not afraid of that temporall punishment which of it selfe is able to terrifie any prudent man and to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest 41 Neither is it necessarie for the publike good of the Church as this man supposeth or for the due execution of the office and charge of spirituall Pastours that they should haue authoritie to chastise temporally or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments and to vse the temporall sword which is onely proper to temporall Princes or common-wealths and by the law of Christ forbidden spirituall Pastours as they are spirituall Pastours who haue only spirituall and not temporall authoritie as I proued aboue by the authoritie of S. Bernard Wherefore that axiome of the Lawyer Cui iurisdictio data est c. To whom iurisdiction is giuen those things also doe seeme to bee granted without which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and that other of the Philosophers Qui dat esse c. Hee that giueth being giueth also those things that are consequent to being or necessarily required thereunto are vnaptly applied to this purpose For spirituall iurisdiction can very well bee exercised without vsing temporall weapons or inflicting temporall punishments and to vse temporall weapons or to inflict temporall punishments is not a consequent or necessarily required to the spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely supposeth 42 Now you shall see in what manner hee concludeth this Chapter Thus then saith hee z pag. 91. nu 38.39 thou seest good Reader how I prooued in my Supplement by the law of GOD that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall states and dignities when the necessitie of the Church shall require it which I also prosecuted further there inferring the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians by the power he hath ouer the soule according to the two axiomes Qui potest maius potest minus He which may doe the more may doe the lesse and Accessorium sequitur principalis naturam The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall which I haue amply dâ—bated before with my Aduersarie Widdrington in the second and third chapters hauing also laide downe there the words of my Supplement touching the same and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate them heere 43 Now then I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether my Aduersarie Widdrington hath not notably abused me in two things the one in affirming as you haue heard before in the first Chapter that I grounded all my discourse against the Oath in my Supplement See Chapter 1. nu 3. 7. 9. vpon a bare supposition that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured therein and the other that I haue effectually prooued nothing else by the law of GOD but that the temporal power in spirituall things in temporal as they are reduced to spiritual is subiect to the spirituall power so far forth as concerneth the authoritie to command a spiritual maner of correction not temporall for so you haue heard him say in the beginning of this chap. though it be euident by the premisses Supra nu 1. that I haue grounded my arguments against the oath not vpon any such supposition as he mentioneth but vpon the very substance of the law of God in the old and new Testament and that I haue deduced from thence by most pregnant reasons and necessarie consequents that the Pope hath power to proceede to the temporall correction of Princes when the spirituall will not suffice and the necessitie of the Church doth require it 44 Whereupon it followeth euidently that the new Oath which impugneth this power of the Pope is repugnant to the law of GOD. So that you see how probable my Aduersarie Widdringtons answeres are or rather how fraudulent seeing that he dissembleth all the substance and pith of my arguments abusing therein his Reader no lesse then mee seeking to breede in him a false conceit of the substance and effect of my discourse and then framing his answere according to his owne forgerie So as in fine he answereth nothing of mine but his owne vaine conceits as it will also further appeare by that which resteth to be debated betwixt vs concerning the Lawes of Nature and Nations 45 But contrariwise thou seest good Reader that Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement neither hath sufficiently proued by the law of GOD as hee here
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
disobeyeth the Church is excommunicated by the law of God Also for that otherwayes the Church doth excommunicate no man but declare him to be excommunicated by the law of God because he doth not obey the Church which how absurd this is it is manifest of it selfe c. First therefore by those words is signified this generall maxime that those who doe not heare the Church doe grieuously sinne and especially if they be obstinate and that therefore they are to be accounted and shunned as grieuous sinners as are Heathens and Publicanes Secondly It is signified that Christ our Lord will giue to his Church power to binde and loose And so in those words is contained the power to inflict the Censure of Excommunication but not the institution of the Censure it selfe or a commandement in particular but onely in generall of auoyding sinners who are disobedient to the Church vnder which generall law is comprehended an accomodate distribution to say so to wit a commandement to shunne euery one that is disobedient to the Church according to the degree and manner of the prohibition and separation which is made by the Church her selfe And this is the common exposition of Interpreters vpon that place and of Diuines handling this matter Thus Suarez Whereby it is apparant how disagreeably to Suarez doctrine Mr. Fitzherbert here affirmeth that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement ordained a temporall penalty of Excommunication when he commanded that he who will not heare the Church shall bee taken for an Ethnicke and a Publicane seeing that according to Suarez he ordained here no penalty or Censure at all of Excommunication 81 But because some Catholike Doctours as Almaine Eckius Clicthoueus and Driedo doe affirme whose doctrine in this poynt both Suarez and the more common opinion of Diuines doe reiect that at least-wise to the sinne of heresie if it be ioyned with obstinacy there is annexed some Censure or punishment by the law of God and their opinion may seeme to haue some ground in those authorities of holie Scripture whereof some are here vrged by Mr. Fitzherbert Suarez also answereth to these authorities and affirmeth that they are not forcible And first that those words of S. Paul ad Tit. 3. A man that is an heretike after the first and second admonition auoyd c. may bee vnderstood of the naturall obligation by which euery man is bound to auoyd danger of being infected and consequently to auoyd the person which is an occasion to him of sinning and such is an heretike whose speech spreadeth as a Canker 2. Tim. 2. So also it is said 1. Cor. 5. But now I wrote to you not to keepe company if he that is named a brother be a fornicator or a couetous person or a seruer of Idols or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner with such an one not so much as to take meate and Galat 5. Know you not that a little leauen corrupteth the whole paste Secondly although we should grant that the Apostle in that place ad Tit. 3. spoke of a proper Censure it doth not follow that this institution is diuine but at the most an institution of the Apostle because it is the commandement of S. Paul c. and especially for that it may be expounded Auoid that is Excommunicate for the Apostle spake to Titus who was a Bishop and had power to excommunicate 82 And according to this sense may be vnderstood those words of S. Iohn Epist 2. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine receiue him not into your house nor say to him God saue you although they rather seeme to be vnderstood of a naturall commandement not to cooperate with such men and not to giue them any signes whereby either wee should seeme to consent to them or that they should be confirmed in their errour And this S. Iohn did signifie in the next words For he that saith to him God saue you communicateth with his wicked workes As also S. Paul 2. Thess 3. said And if any obey not our word note him by an Epistle and doe not company with him that he may be confounded In which last word also the Apostle insinuateth that not onely to auoide communication in sinne but also to rebuke our neighbour charitably it is sometimes counselled or also commanded to abstaine from his companie that hee may be confounded of this sort also are those wordes 1. Cor. 5. which words doe admit almost all the aforesaid interpretations And if they be extended to a proper Censure they are to be vnderstood at what time and in what manner the Pastours of the Church shall iudge that these kinde of sinners are to be auoided And so by all these testimonies conferred together it is euidently gathered that there is no ground in Scripture for vs to say that any Censure is by the law of God annexed to heresie rather then to other sinnes And therefore the contrary opinion is farre more probable and it is the common opinion of other Doctours Thus Suarez And yet forsooth Mr. Fitzherbert maketh no doubt but that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement hath ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication whereas Suarez and the common opinion of Doctors doe resolutely affirme that no penaltie at all of Excommunication is by the commandement of Christ ordained against those that shall disobey the commandement of the Church 83 Wherefore lastly and principally all that Mr. Fitzherbert or any other can conclude from the former places of holy Scripture or such like is that the Church hath power in order to the spirituall good of soules to enioyne temporall punishments and to commaund the faithfull not to conuerse ciuilly with Heathens Publicanes or notorious sinners when otherwise by the law of nature they are not bound to conuerse ciuilly with them whereof I neuer made any doubt And therefore obserue good Reader the fraude and ignorance of this man who pretended to prooue that I contradicted my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour could command temporall punishments but not inflict them seeing that neither frō the reduction of temporall things to spiritual nor from the nature effects of Excommunication nor from those places of holy Scripture which he heere hath brought he concludeth any other thing then that Christians are commaunded to account him an Heathen and a Publican who will not heare the Church that the Apostle commanded the Corinthians and Thessalonians not to eate with notorious sinners and disobedient persons that S. Iohn commanded the faithfull not to receiue heretikes into their houses nor so much as to salute them all which I willingly granted but of the other part of the contradiction which was the principall thing he should haue proued that I must consequently grant that the spirituall Superiour can also inflict temporall punishments hee speaketh not one word 84 For if a Christian should not obserue the aforesaid commandements and will not account them for Heathens and Publicanes
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
both by his Maiestie and many others hath bene very soundly confuted considering that my Aduersary doth so boldly affirme that the oath is vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for that it denyeth the Popes power to excommunicate and yet he bringeth no argument at all to prooue the same but it must forsooth be supposed as certaine and besides he concealeth what I before at large had answered to the aforesaid argument And thus much concerning his first answere and exception 24 Secondly saith my Aduersary q Nu. 14 touching the declaration of his Maiesties mind in this point I cannot but meruaile that such a learned man as this Authour is held to bee cannot distinguish betwixt the contents of the oath and the end or intention of him that ordained it For I will not deny but that his Maiestie might intend nothing else by ordaining this oath but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience vnto him and yet neuerthelesse hee that should take the oath should thereby abiure the Popes Supremacie for the reasons before declared notwithstanding his Maiesties protestation of his intention This will be euident See these reasons beneath nu 33. seq if we turne the case to a like oath of the Popes part as for example if the Pope should exact an oath of Catholikes to sweare that the King cannot depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterbury and should withall protest that he meaneth not thereby to make them abiure or deny the Kings authoritie but only to professe their dutie and obedience to the Sea Apostolike I make no doubt but that the Protestants would say according to their grounds that this protestation and declaration of the Popes mind could not excuse the takers of such an oath from the deniall of the Kings Royall authoritie because his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is according to the Protestants opinion so necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently deny the other In which respect I say the Popes protestation of his meaning or intention could not in the Protestants opinion warrant the swearers from periurie 25 And so say we in this case of his Maiesties publike profession and declaration of his intention that it cannot alter the nature of the oath or derogate any thing from the contents thereof or from the Popes Supremacie or from his Maiesties beleefe concerning the same and much lesse can it make any thing in the oath lawfull which is otherwaies vnlawfull and therefore I say that seeing the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included according to our doctrine and beliefe in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie that the takers of the new oath cannot be excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie nor consequently from periurie notwithstanding any protestation of his Maiestie to the contrary for if he should protest that he doth not force the takers of the oath to abiure the Popes Supreamacie it were Protestatio contraria factis a protestation contrary to his deeds which the Lawyers hold to be nothing worth 26 But first my Aduersarie could not but cleerely see howsoeuer here he is pleased to babble that I who as he scoffingly saith am held to be so learned a man not only could distinguish it being no such difficult point of wit or learning but also did oftentimes in my Apologie Apologeticall answere Theologicall Disputation and in my Appendix to Suarez in expresse wordes distinguish betwixt the ende of the worke and of the worker of the Art and Artificer of the law and precepts therein contained and of the Lawmaker and shewed that when the words of any law are ambiguous they are to be vnderstood according to the intention and meaning of the Lawmaker and that neither the intention of his Maiestie was to deny in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate or any other his spirituall authoritie but onely to require of his Catholike subiects a profession of that temporall and ciuill obedience which all subiects by the law of God and nature do owe to their lawfull Prince neither in the oath is contained any clause which by learned Catholikes is not thought to belong to temporall ciuill obedience 27 Wherefore there is a great disparitie betwixt the oath which the Pope should exact concerning his Maiesties power not to depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterburie and this new oath of allegiance concerning the Popes authoritie not to depose his Maiesties because that Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which his Maiestie doth challenge is according to the opinion of all Protestants necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power insomuch that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently in the opinion of all Protestants deny the other but the Popes authoritie to depose Princes is not according to the opinion of all Catholikes necessarily included in the Popes spirituall Supremacie for that many learned Catholikes doe hold that the Pope hath no such power to depose Princes and therefore hee that denieth his power to depose doth not consequently according to the opinion of all Catholikes deny his spirituall Supremacie And albeit Mr. Fitzherbert doeth boldly affirme that according to his beliefe the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie yet I will be bold to say that his beliefe herein is not Catholike or Vniuersall but a particular beliefe or rather an opinion of his owne and of some other Catholikes the contrarie doctrine being as I said euen to this day maintained by many learned and vertuous Catholikes And therefore vntill he bring some better ground for his beliefe then his bare I say I will also be bold to say that the takers of the new oath are according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie seeing that according to the opinion of many learned Catholikes the Pope hath no such power to depose and so neither is his Maiesties protestation repugnant to his deeds nor his intention disagreeable to the contents of the oath 28. Secondly although my Aduersary to prooue the oath vnlawfull and to containe a deniall of the Popes Supremacy doth seeme now to fly from his Maiesties intention to the contents of the oath and expresly saith That he will not deny but that his Maiestie by ordaining this oath might intend nothing else but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience and temporall allegiance and not of his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie neuerthelesse he seemeth before to affirme that his Maiesties intention opinion and vnderstanding is that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured in this oath and his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is acknowledged therein which the iudicious Reader may plainely gather both by those wordes in his Supplement before related wherein hee auoucheth r See his words beneath Nu. seq 29. That it is euident enough that the true reason why the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince is impugned by the
shall go out and go in and not that Eleazar at the word of Iosue shall goe out and goe in yet from thence it can not rightly be concluded that Iosue was subiect to Eleazar in temporals but onely in spirituals for that to consult the Lord and declare to Iosue and the people the commandement of God when any difficultie should arise yea and to command Iosue and the people to obey his declaration and to follow that which God had reuealed which Theodoret doth onely affirme was not a temporall but a meere spirituall thing as before I declared out of Abulensis Abulens q. 11. in cap. 33. Exodi Neither can my Aduersarie denie but that Iosue did succeed Moyses in the temporall gouernment and therefore vnlesse he will denie as I thinke he dare not that Aaron the high Priest was subiect to Moyses in temporals and might be punished by him temporally if he should transgresse the law of God he can not with any probabilitie deny but that Eleazar the high Priest was also in temporals subiect to Iosue who succeeded Moyses in the temporall gouernment and that he might be punished by him temporally if he should offend against the law of God 30 The next argument of Mr. Fitzherbert is also as weake as the former Also the holy Scripture sayth he x Nu. 8. pag. 7â— Iosue 19. declaring how the Land of Promise was diuided setteth it downe in this manner Hae sunt possessiones c. These are the possessions which Eleazar the Priest and Iosue the sonne of Nun and the Princes of the families and of the tribes of the children of Israel diuided by lot in Silo c. Thus sayth the Scripture giuing the preheminence in the diuision of the land to the high Priest before the temporall Prince 31 But this argument prooueth at the most that the spirituall Priesthood is in worth dignitie and nobilitie more excellent then the temporall Soueraigntie but it doth not prooue that Priests are in temporall Soueraigntie greater then temporall Princes As likewise Cardinall Bishops haue the precedence and preheminence before Cardinall Priests and Cardinall Priests before Cardinall Deacons and a Cardinall who is first created hath the precedence and preheminence before an other Cardinall who is afterwards created yet from hence it cannot be concluded that one Cardinall is greater in authoritie then another or that one Cardinall hath power to command and punish another 32 Also learned Abulensis expounding those words of holy Scripture y Iosue 14. This is it which the children of Israel possessed in the land of Canaan which Eleazar the Priest and Iosue the sonne of Nun and the princes of the families by the tribes of Israel gaue to them c. answereth this argument at large Here saith he are related the persons diuiding the land of the nine tribes Abulens q. 1. 2. in cap. 14. Iosue and a halfe to wit Eleazar Iosue and the ancients or elders of Israel Wherein it is to be considered that Moyses alone before the passage of Iordan diuided the land of two tribes and a halfe although Eleazar the Priest and the multitude of the Israelites to wit the Princes of the multitude did assist him as it appeareth Num. 32. and if he had liued none other had diuided the land But when he was dead there did succeed other diuiders and it was not giuen to Iosue as the onely diuider because God would not giue to any one after the death of Moyses all this power as he had giuen to Moyses for that he would not appoint any one equall to him Therefore before the death of Moyses he caused that there should be assigned diuiders of the land of Canaan whereof the principall power he gaue to Iosue as it appeareth Deuter. cap. 3. 31. to wit that Iosue should take the land from the hands of the enemies and he should diuide it by lots But there were giuen other coadiutors of euery tribe and Eleazar was giuen For Eleazar the high Priest is put as a helper of Iosue in all things as it appeareth Num. 27. And Eleazar is put here in the first place not for that he was the more worthie either for state or holinesse Iosue did sufficiently excell seeing that he was greatly beloued of God and God did speake vnto him very often which is not apparant of Eleazar 33 Neither was the state of Priests in the old Testament more excellent then the state of Kings but Priests were iudged by Kings and this not onely concerning Kings but also Iosue who was not a King was greater then the high Priest as it appeareth Num. cap. 27. where it is said that Eleazar the high Priest and euery one shall at the commandement of Iosue goe in and goe out that is shall doe whatsoeuer they ought to doe Therefore Iosue was the greater because to command is an act of the greater Yet Eleazar is here put before because Samuel the writer of this booke would obserue the order of the writing of Moyses But when Moyses described the diuiders of the land of Canaan he put Eleazar before Iosue and all the Israelites as it appeareth Num. 34. and therefore he did here keepe the same order Thus Abulensis And the cause why Moyses did preferre Eleazar before Iosue may be easily gathered out of the same Abulensis z q. 1. in cap. 27. Num. q. 42. for that Eleazar was then the high Priest and in that respect most honoured among the people next to Moyses Whereupon both Moyses and Eleazar did sit to iudge great causes both of them also did number the people Cap. 26. Num. as it appeareth in the former chapter and this honour did appertaine to all the high Priests c. But Iosue was then a minister and seruant of Moyses and was not the chiefe temporall Prince of the people but after Moyses death although Moyses in his life time did by Gods commandement appoint him to be his successour in the temporall gouernment of the people 34 The next argument of Mr. Fitzherbert is all one with the former And when the daughters of Salphaad saith he a Iosue 17. demanded their inheritance venerunt sayth the Scripture in conspectu c. they came into the presence of Eleazar and of Iosue the sonne of Nun and of the Princes wherein you see also that as Iosue who was the chiefe temporall Prince is preferred before the other Princes so is also the chiefe Priest preferred before Iosue Thus farre in my Supplement c. But why Eleazar the high Priest was named in the first place before Iosue the temporall Prince I haue shewed before out of Abulensis and from hence it doth onely follow that the state or office of the high Priest which was to consult the Lord in doubtfull matters and to be the chiefe minister in the sacrifices and worship of God was in worth dignitie or nobilitie more excellent then the temporall state or Princedome albeit Abulensis
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
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
thrust him out no man enforcing him and the wordes of holy Scripture yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out doe cleerely insinuate the same 87 And thirdly King Ozias saith the Scripture was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house apart full of the leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord. Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land Neither from this can it be gathered that the Priests of the old law did intermeddle in any temporall action or did depriue King Ozias of his kingdome or the administration thereof but the most that from hence can be concluded is that the plague of leprosie did depriue him of the administration of his kingdome by ordaining that a leaper should dwell apart out of the campe or Citie and the Priest did onely declare the law of God and denounce him according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law to be infected with leprosie which is no temporall but a meere spirituall action 88 As likewise spirituall Pastours now in the new law haue authoritie to declare that the goods of the faithfull are to be exposed if the necessitie of the Church doe require the same but not to dispose of them or to take them away by force from the faithfull and also to declare when Princes are to vse the materiall sword for the good of the Church but not to vse it themselues as before e part 1. cap. 3. part 2. cap. 9. I declared out of Ioannes Parisiensis and 8. Bernard And if we should suppose a case which is not to wit that heresie idolatie or any other mortall crime doth ipso facto depriue Princes and Prelates of their dominion and Iurisdiction which was the doctrine of Iohn Wicleffe condemned in the Councell of Constance and therefore those words of the Ordinary Glosse f in cap. 13. lib. 1. Reg. that a wicked King during the time of his wickednesse is not according to trueth to be celled a King but onely equiuocally as a stony or painted eye and the same much more is to be said of a wicked Prelate are to be read warily and expounded fauourably to excuse them from errour then I say that spirituall Pastours may be said to haue authoritie not properly to depose an hereticall King but to declare him to be infected with heresie and consequently according to this false supposition depriued ipso facto But all this is nothing else but to declare authentically the law of God which no man denyeth to be within the limites of spirituall Iurisdiction And this might aboundantly suffice for an answere to this example of King Ozias But because Mr. Fitzherbert shall not as I said take occasion to say that all this hath beene confuted already by D. Schulckenius I am enforced good Reader to intreate thy patience in laying downe before thine eies what I answered in my Apologie to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and what D. Schulckenius hath replyed to the same 89 First therefore I answered that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the example of King Ozias were of force it would prooue more then perchance Card. Bellarmine would willingly grant to wit that not only the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests haue power by the law of God to depriue Princes of their kingdomes for spirituall leprosie seeing that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had power to iudge of leprosie The man saith the law g Leuit. 13. in whose skinne and flesh shall arise a diuers colour or a blisters or any thing as it were shining that is to say the plague of the leprosie shall be brought to Aaron the Priest or any one of his sonnes and at his arbitrement he shall be separated Besides this example doth also prooue that Prince not onely for heresie but also for all other mortall sinnes whatsoeuer may be deposed by Bishops and Priests for that not onely the sinne of heresie but also other sinnes were figured by leprosie Bellar. lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 3. as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth who speaking of the confessing of sinnes saith that the knowledge of sinne which was figured by leprosie and is most aptly named a spirituall leprosie appertaineth to Christian Priests This was my first answere 90 To which D. Schulckenius replyeth thus h pag. 542. ad num 355. I answere It is credible that is the old Testament according to the diuersitie of the leprosie and the diuersitie of the persons there were also diuers iudgements greater and lesser and that it was not lawfull for euery Priest to iudge a King But for this his credibile est it is credible he produceth neither Scripture reason nor any other authoritie and therefore we are rather to beleeue the words of holy Scripture which absolutely affirme that either Aaron the High-Priest or any one of his sonnes might iudge of leprosie without distinguishing either this kind or that kind of leprosie or this kind or that kind of person then the bare credibile est of this Doctour grounded vpon his owne bare word and not vpon any text of holy Scripture Abul q. 1. in cap. 13. Leuit. reason or authoritie Other Priests saith Abulensis had power to iudge in the plague of leprosie as Aaron and therefore to whom soeuer of them that person who had such signes should be showed it was sufficient Therefore when Christ had cured the ten lepers he did not send them specially to the High-Priest but to any one of the Priests saying Goe shew your selues to the Priests 91 But howsoeuer it be saith this Doctour concerning the custome of that nation assuredly in the Church of Christ greater causes are reserued to the See Apostolike as we read cap. Maiores de Baptismo eius effectu in the Decret all Epistles Therefore euery Priest may indeed iudge of the leprosie of sinne and absolue or bind his Subiects but some more heynous crimes are reserued to Bishops others also to the Pope as first of all is the crime of heresie to which the name of leprosie doth autonomasticè agree Therefore it is no meruaile that euery Priest cannot iudge Kings euen for the crime of heresie Adde that in the olde Testament it selfe we haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie then by the high Priest 92 But this Reply doth not answere my argument For my argument did onely proceede of the power of Priests standing in the law of God and abstracting from the positiue lawes of the Church It would follow said I that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea also and Priests haue power by the law of God c. Now who knoweth not that cases are reserued onely by the law of the Church and that by the law of God there is no reseruation of cases but that
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
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
and effects of that power and authority and I affirme that the effects of that power which was giuen to S. Peter to binde and loose to wit the bindings and loosings themselues were spirituall and not temporall bindings and loosings For this was my answere in that place t Apolog. â— 35.36 15 And although it be generally said by Christ our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. yet without doubt neither is that word whatsoeuer to bee taken in it whole latitude or generality or as the Logicians say with a complete distribution but with some limitatioÌ„ or accommodate distribution neither did Christ our Sauiour speake of euery binding but only of a certaine determinate binding And by the words that go before to wit the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and by those that follow in caelis also in heauen it is plaine enough that this bond which the Ecclesiasticall power may by the institution of Christ binde and loose is not a temporall â—â—nd but that it appertaineth to a heauenly and spirituall binding Whereupon the Interlineall Glosse expounding those wordes Matth. 18. What things soeuer you shall binde with the bond saith hee of Anathema Which also Franciscus Suarez a most famous Diuine of the Societie of Iesus doth expresly affirme But that which is added saith he u Tom. â— disp 1. sec 2. nu 5. Erit ligatum in caelo Shall bee bound also in heauen doth sufficiently declare this power not to be naturall but supernaturall and that bond marke this word bond to be spirituall and of a superiour or higher order And Ioannes Parisiensis To that saith hee x In Tract de potest Regia Papaâ— c. 15. which is secondly obiected Whatsoeuer you shall loose c. I answere according to Chrysostome and Rabanus that by this no other power is vnderstood to bee giuen but spirituall to wit obserue that which followeth to absolue from the bond of sinnes For it were foolish to vnderstand that by this is giuen authoritie to absolue from the bond of debts Thus I answered in my Apologie 16 Consider now Good Reader with what face or conscience these men can affirme that I haue laboured houre euen with sweate and vainly spent many words only to proue by those two authorities of holy Scripture that the Pontificall power is spiritually which neither Card. Bellarmine nor they doe deny but willingly grant whereas I doe not contend that the power to bind and loose which was giuen to S. Peter and to the rest of the Apostles is spirituall and not temporall but that the bond which the Ecclesiasticall power is to bind and loose is a spirituall and not a temporall bond which if my Aduersarie hence will grant it must needs follow that corporall and temporall punishments as watching haire-cloath fasting whipping imprisonment depriuing of corporall life or temporall goods all which are corporall and temporall bonds and punishments cannot be inflicted by that Ecclesiasticall power which Christ gaue to S. Peter and the other Apostles And therefore with what safetie our English Catholikes can aduenture their soules and whole estates vpon these men 1. Tim. 4. who haue according to the Apostles saying such wounded seared or canteriate consciences and in their publike writings doe so grosly and shamefully corrupt the words and meaning of their Aduersarie in a matter of such importance as is their obedience due to God and Caesar I remit to the consideration of any prudent man 17 The soule is a spirit saith D. Schulckenius related heere by my Aduersarie and hath a spirituall power yet it doth also chastice the body but in that manner as I declared in the second part with corporall punishments as watching hairecloath fasting and whipping And what then will they therefore inferre that because watching wearing of hairecloath fasting and whipping are commanded by the spirituall power of the foule therefore they are spirituall and not corporall actions and punishments No man maketh any doubt but that the power whereby God created the world the Angell moued the water y Ioan. 5. Ananias and Saphira were striken dead z Acts 5. was a spirituall power yet no man can deny that the creation of the world and the mouing of the water were corporall actions and the sudden putting to death of Ananias and Saphira were also corporall actions and punishments So likewise it cannot be denyed that the binding of men with fetters be it done by God Angells or men that is by a spirituall or temporall power is a corporall binding and the depriuing of any man of his temporall goods libertie or life let it be done by a spirituall or temporall power is still a temporall and not a spirituall punishment 18 If therefore these men as they make a shew in words will in very deede and sincerely grant what I affirmed and proued in that place they must needes confesse that the Pope by vertue of that commission which Christ gaue to Saint Peter and the other Apostles to binde and loose hath no authoritie to imprison men to bind them with corporall chaines to absolue or loose them from their temporall bonds debts or allegiance for that these are temporall and not spirituall bindings and loosings for what end or by what power soeuer they be done Neither did I contend in that place that the power and authority of the Apostles to binde and loose was not temporall but spirituall but onely that the bindings and loosings which were the effects of that power were onely spirituall and not temporall bindings and loosings See aboue a Cap. 5 sec 3. nu 10. sec more of these bonds to which the Ecclesiasticall power to binde and loose is by the ancient Fathers limited and restrained And heereby the Reader may easily perceiue that I had no great reason to confute in that briefe Admonition D. Schulckenius his Reply for as much as concerneth this point but it was sufficient to remit the Reader to my aforesaid answere seeing that D. Schulckenius saide nothing at all against it but cunningly flyed from the effects of the Apostles power to binde and loose which I there prooued to be onely spirituall and not temporall bonds to the power it selfe to binde and loose whereof I did not intend to dispute in that place knowing well that although the effects of that power had beene as they were not temporall bindings and loosings yet the power it selfe to binde and loose might for diuers reasons be called as Diuines doe call it a spirituall and not formally a temporall or ciuil power although as I said aboue b Cap. nu 7â— See also beneath cap. 12. nu 61. seq I thinke this question betwixt the Diuines and Canonists whether it be a spirituall or a temporall power to be more verball and of wordes then reall and of the thing it selfe And this may suffice for this point 19 Now before wee come to examine Fa. Parsons reason
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
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
of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion the Subiects could not bee absolued from the oath of allegiance or from the obligation that they owe to their Princes these his words I say doe neither contradict those English Catholickes who defend our English oath to be lawfull nor doe shew or signifie that Widdrington hath not brought any Diuines or Lawyers both French-men and of other Nations who affirme that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For the Cardinals words are to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam according to the matter which he treateth of and which he would perswade his Reader the three estates of France endeauoured to establish by their oath to wit that the subiects of the King of France could not be absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance by any authority whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall 30 Now it is euident that I neither produced nor intended to produce any Authors who in these generall tearmes expresly affirme that the Subiects of an hereticall Prince cannot be discharged of their allegiance neither by the spirituall authority of the Pope nor by the temporall power of the Common-wealth for that it was not my meaning as being a thing altogether impertinent to our Oath of England to examine what authority the ciuil Common-wealth hath ouer their Prince in the case of heresie or Apostacie For our oath onely denieth the Popes authoritie to depose our King and to discharge his subiects from their temporall allegiance and with the authority of the Common-wealth it doth not intermeddle But that the Pope hath no authority to depose temporall Princes and that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment depriuation of goods and such like but onely to Ecclesiasticall censures I haue brought many Authours both French and others to prooue the same among whom are Ioannes Parisiensis and also Iacobus Almainus cited here by the Cardinall in his Treatises Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. de Domino naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico o Concls 2. in probat 2. conclus and de authoritate Ecclesiae p Cap. 2. Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. where he writeth according to his owne opinion though not in his Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica which the Cardinall citeth where he commenteth Occam and speaketh according to Occams doctrine albeit these Doctours doe on the other side affirme that the Common-wealth hath authority to depose a wicked and incorrigible King and so that the Pope may according to them depose him per accidens as Ioan. Parisiensis writeth or to vse Ioannes Maior his words applicando actiua passiuis as he that applieth fire to straw is said to burne the straw to wit by perswading aduising commanding and also by spirituall censures compelling them who haue authority to wit the people or Common-wealth to depose him and after he is deposed by the people or kingdome by declaring his subiects absolued and discharged from the naturall and consequently also spirituall bond of their allegiance but this is impertinent to our oath of England wherein only the Popes authority to depose depriue our King of his Dominions by way of iuridicall sentence is denied 31 Wherefore the English Translatour of the Cardinalls oration doth with as great boldnesse as with little truth shamefully affirme q In his Preface to the Reader that this difference is found between these two oathes that whereas the English oath in one of the clauses seemes to exclude not only the authoritie of the Church ouer Kings but euen of the common-wealth also yea though it should be accōpanied with that of the Church that of France shootes only at the abnegation of the Churches authority For contrariwise although the oath of France may as you shall see at the first sight seeme to deny both the authority of the Church and also of the Common-wealth to depose the King of France yet our Oath shootes onely at the abnegation of the Popes authority to depose our King and to absolue his Subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For as I haue shewed in my Theologicall disputation our oath doth onely affirme r Cap. 3. sec 4 that the Pope neither of himselfe that is by the spirituall authority which is granted him by the institution of Christ nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome for that the Church or Sea of Rome hath no such authority nor by any other meanes with any other that is neither as a totall or partiall as a principal or instrumentall cause hath any power or authority to depose the King c. which last words doe only at the most import that whether the temporall Common-wealth hath any authority ouer the King for any cause or crime whatsoeuer or no with which question the King and Parliament did not intermeddle yet the Common-wealth hath giuen no such authority to the Pope either by himselfe or with any other to depose the King c. 32 But the oath of France doth expresly affirme that there is no power on earth whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall which hath any right ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue the sacred persons of our Kings nor to dispence or absolue their subiects from that loyaltie and obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoeuer for these be the expresse words of the oath of France which our English Translatour as it seemes either hath not seene or maliciously abuseth his Reader in affirming so shamefully that the oath of France shootes onely at the abnegation of the Churches authoritie which words of the oath of France also the Cardinall of Peron seemeth to vnderstand generally of all temporall and spirituall power whatsoeuer either out of the kingdome or of the kingdome it selfe as both by the propounding the state of his question and also by the whole drift of his oration any iudicious man may gather for which cause as I imagine he affirmeth ſ Pag. 115. that our Oath of England is more sweete and modest or moderate then that of France And truely although the words may seeme to any man at the first sight to haue that sense which the Cardinall pretendeth seeing that they expresly deny all power on earth both temporall and spirituall yet both the Translatour of his oration applieth them onely to the Popes authority and also if those words which hath any authority ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue be well obserued they may in my iudgement haue a very true sense to wit that the temporall power which there is mentioned is not to be referred to the authority of the kingdome it selfe seeing that no kingdome hath truely and properly right power and authority ouer itselfe neither hath the kingdome of France any right ouer the kingdome of France to depriue
the Popes power in temporalls is declared 1 MY second answere to the obiection before mentioned was taken from an exposition of the Glosse vpon the Canon Adrianus dist 63. Where the Pope commaundeth the goods of those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated and vpon the Canon Delatori 5. q. 6. where he ordaineth the tongues of calumniatours or false accusers to be pulled out or being conuicted their heads to bee stroken off For to these Decrees the Glosse answereth thus Hîc docere Ecclesiam quid facere debeat Iudex Secularis The Church teacheth heere what a Seculiar Iudge ought to doe Which answere of the Glosse may be accommodated or applied to the like Decrees wherein the sacred Canons doe inflict temporall punishments And this answere the words of Siluester doe also fauour c. Thus I answered in the foresaid Preface 2 Now to this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth a Pag. 166. nu 1. 2. that it is as idle as the former For although it were true saith he that this Glosse were to be vnderstood as Widdrington would haue it yet it would not follow thereon that the same may be truely applied to all other Decrees of the Church which concerne the imposition of temporall punishments especially to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran which ordaineth the deposition of Princes for this Glosse doth treate onely of such as are subiect to the iurisdiction of Iudges and Secular Magistrates whereas the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes on whom no Secular Iudge or Magistrate can execute any penaltie and therefore there is such disparitie in these cases that the Glosse obiected by my Aduersarie Widdrington cannot be iustly applied to both alike 3 But this Reply of Mr. Fitzherbert is as idle and insufficient as his former For first he supposeth as certaine that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Emperours Kings and all absolute Princes which as you haue seene he hath not as yet by all the helpes hee hath had from Fa. Lessius sufficiently conuinced Secondly if we respect the force and proprietie of the words these two Canons especially the former are according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne grounds rather to be vnderstood of absolute Princes then is the Decree of the Lateran Councell for that the words of these Canons especially of the former are generall and doe not denote titles of inferiour honour or dignitie The Pope saith the Canon Hadrianus did excommunicate and commaunded vnlesse hee should repent his goods to be proclaimed or confiscated whosoeuer should infringe this Decree whereas the Councell of Lateran doth not speake in such generall tearmes but onely it mentioneth persons of inferiour state dignitie and title then are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes to wit temporall and principall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords or who haue not any principall Landlords Gouernours or Lords aboue them but onely Emperours Kings or absolute Princes But the truth is that both the Decree of the Lateran Councell and these Canons doe not comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour persons and subiects 4 Thirdly if this exposition of the Glosse is to be approoued my Aduersaries can bring no sufficient reason why the same may not also be applied to all other such like Canons of the Church wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained and especially to the Decree of the Lateran Councell to wit that all such Canons doe onely teach or declare what hath beene done or is to be done by Secular Princes or their Officers For besides that the reason which here Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth why the Decree of the Lateran Councell cannot be expounded in this sense because saith he the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes is a meere prtitio principij a giuing that for a reason which is the maine question betweene vs and hath not as yet beene sufficiently prooued by him the words of the Lateran Councell according to their proper signification doe chiefly import this sense For the Councell doth not decree that the Pope may absolue those vassall from their fidelitie but the words of the Councell onely are that the Pope may denounce that is may declare or teach that those vassalls are absolued frō their fidelitie to wit by the consent and authoritie of absolute Princes 5 And if the Glosse and diuerse other Doctors whom I related elsewhere expounding the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. wherein Pope Gregory the 7th in his Epistle to the Bishop of Mentz affirmeth b Xpolog nu 444. that an other Bishop of Rome called Zacharie deposed the King of France from his kingdome and absolued all the French-men from their oath of allegiance doe thus interprete those wordes hee deposed the King and absolued the Frenchmen that is he consented to them that deposed him and declared him to be lawfully deposed and the Frenchmen to be lawfully absolued from their allegiance why may not this Canon of the Lateran Councell bee vnderstood in this sense that from that time the Pope may denounce that is declare and teach that the vassalls of that temporall Landlord Gouernour or Lord who for neglecting to purge his territories from heresie is for a whole yeere excommunicated are absolued from their fealty and their territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes especially seeing that the word denounce or declare is in this Canon expresly contained 6 And if any one obiect that the words of the Lateran Councell cannot be well vnderstood in this sense that the Pope may denounce that is may declare and teach that the vassals are absolued from their fealty to wit by force of some temporall law or constitution made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that before this Councell of Lateran there was no such decree or constitution of temporall Princes by vertue whereof the vassals of such a temporall Land-lord were absolued from their fealty and therefore those words of the Councell are so to bee vnderstood that the Pope may not onely declare and teach that they are absolued but also really absolue such vassals from their fealty To this obiection I answere that albeit I haue not seene any such temporall law or Constitution of any temporall Prince before it is was enacted by Frederike the second Emperour fiue yeeres after this Lateran Councell by vertue whereof such Vassalls are absolued from their fealtie yet wee finde that Pope Gregorie the seuenth long before in the Canon Nos Sanctorum 15. q. 6. did absolue them who either by allegiance or by oath were obliged to excommunicated persons from their oath of fidelitie to which Canon those wordes of the Lateran Councell if they bee vnderstood in the aforesaide sense may haue reference but then wee must consequently to our doctrine say that both this decree of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the inflicting of this temporall punishment and also the Canon Nos sanctorum haue onely force to binde in the territories of the Church
or the Popes Dominions wherein hee being a temporall Prince hath authoritie to inflict temporall punishments or that they haue force to binde by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes 7 Neither haue I vsed any fraude in alleadging and applying the words of the Glosse to my purpose as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely affirmeth Besides that saith he b pa. 166. nu 3 my Aduersarie Widdrington hath vsed no small fraude in the allegation and application of the Glosse to his purpose for whereas he mentioneth the Glosse vpon two seuerall decretalls hee setteth downe onely the later as though the same might serue indifferently for both and were so meant by the Glosser or that the two Decrees were both of one substance and nature as they are not but farre different and therefore doe require a different consideration 8 But it is not true that in setting downe the words of the later Glosse to wit vpon the Canon Delatori I haue omitted the wordes of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus seeing that the words of both Glosses are in substance all one and haue the same sense and signification For the words of the later Glosse are these Sed qualiter dat Papa c. But how doeth the Pope make lawes concerning the punishment of blood against that decree of the Councell of Toledo 23. q. 8. his a quibus But heere the Pope teacheth what the Secular Iudge ought to doe according to the Imperiall law 27. q. 1. si quis rapuerit And the words of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus where the Pope commandeth the goods of all those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated are these Hîc Ecclesia publicat c. Heere the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes shee deposeth Lay-men from their dignities 3◠q. 5. praeceptum in fine Or else say that heere the Church teacheth what ought to bee done so 24. q. 3. de illicita and 5. q. 6. Delatori Wherefore it is manifest that the wordes of both the Glosses haue the selfe same sense seeing that for the vnderstanding of the former Glosse hee remitteth his Reader to the wordes of the later Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I did set downe 9 Neither did I intend to set downe all the expositions which were brought by the former Glosse It was sufficient for mee to bring that exposition of the Glosse which serued to my purpose to wit that as the Pope in the Canon Delatori ordaining a temporall punishment though criminall did according to the Glosse teach and declare what ought to bee done by the Secular Iudge according to the Imperiall law so also the Pope in the Canon Hadrianus ordaining a temporall punishment though ciuill to wit the confiscation of goods did also according to one exposition of the Glosse teach and declare what ought to be done by the Secular Prince or Iudge and that therefore the same words or answere of the Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I only set downe to which hee remitteth his Reader vpon the Canon Hadrianus might serue indifferently for both And although ciuill and bloodie or criminall punishments as criminall is opposed to Ciuill and the decrees which ordaine and inflict the same are of a different substance and nature in particular yet in generall they are of the same substance and nature for that both of them are temporall punishments and cannot according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes be inflicted by the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but onely by the ciuill or temporall power and that therefore when either of them are inflicted by spirituall Pastours this proceedeth from the ciuill authoritie priuiledges or consent of temporall Princes or if wee will needes haue such decrees to bee made by true spirituall authoritie the Church in making such decrees as well concerning ciuill as criminall or bloodie punishments doeth according to the expositions of the Glosse before rehearsed teach and declare what a Secular Prince or Iudge ought to doe 10 But to the end saith Mr. Fitzherbert c Pag. 166. num 4. that the Reader may the better vnderstand this matter and the true sense and meaning of these two Glosses it is to bee considered first that the Glosses of the Law being commonly very briefe and therefore many times obscure are to bee vnderstood according to the drift sense and circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses in other parts and places of the Law 11 True it is that when the Glosses or expositions of the law are obscure as being commonly briefe although not so briefe and for this respect not so obscure as the law it selfe for to little purpose were that Glosse or exposition which is more obscure then the text it selfe we must gather the sense meaning of such Glosses from the drift sense circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses of the same Expositour or glosser in other parts and places of the law but with this caueat and prouiso that if the same Glosser or Expositour bring two diuers or contrarie Expositions of the same Canon which are grounded vpon two contrary opinions we must haue a regard to distinguish these two contrary opinions and the Glosses grounded thereon and for the vnderstanding of the Glosse or exposition which supposeth one opinion not to flye to that Glosse which supposeth the contrary doctrine and opinion for otherwise we shall make the sense and meaning of the Glosses to be more obscure and intricate then plaine and manifest As for example if the same Glosser or Expositour giue two diuers expositions of the same Canon whereof the one supposeth the Pope to haue either direct or indirect dominion in temporals and to haue authority either directly or indirectly to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishment and the other Glosse supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority in temporals for the vnderstanding of that Glosse which supposeth the Pope to haue such a dominion or authority in temporals wee must not flye to that other Glosse which supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority d Page 167. num 5. 12 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert the penalties imposed in the two decrees here glossed are of different nature and quality the one concerning onely the confiscation of goods which is expresly ordained in diuers places of the law and the other touching onely the effusion of bloud by death or mutilation which is no where ordained or permitted but expresly forbidden to all Ecclesiasticall Iudges 13 But first although it be true that the penalties imposed in these two Canons are of different nature and qualitie in particular for that the one ordaineth a ciuill punishment to wit the confiscation of goods the other a criminall penaltie to wit the effusion of bloud by mutilation and also death yet both of them are as I said before of the
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
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
from the Soueraigntie of absolute Princes for it little importeth to the substance of the matter whether the Pope may depose hereticall or wicked Princes by a power or dominion ouer temporals which must bee called temporall or by a power which must bee called spirituall so that he may depose them or whether the Pope bee superiour to absolute Princes in temporals directly or indirectly so that they must acknowledge themselues not to be absolute but subiect to the Pope in temporals But as I haue signified heeretofore all the difficultie and ambiguitie of these words directly and indirectly will presently appeare and the whole mist which the Diuines by this distinction doe cast ouer the eyes of the vnlearned wil foorthwith vanish away if we will but duly consider the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of either of them 62 For as in all arts sciences faculties and powers whatsoeuer is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of that art science facultie or power is directly subiect to that art science facultie or power so what thing soeuer whether it be temporall or spirituall is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of the directiue or coerciue power is directly subiect to that power Seeing therefore that the proper acts and formall obiects by which all powers are distinguished of the spirituall directiue or commanding power are the commanding of vertue and the forbidding of vice from hence it followeth that all actions whatsoeuer whether they be spirituall or temporall as they are vertuous or vicious actions and necessary or hurtfull to the spirituall and eternall good of soules are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power So that the reference or relation of temporall actions to the spirituall good of soules doth nothing hinder but rather is a cause that as they are vertuous or vicious actions they are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power 63 But if these Diuines will further say that the spirituall directiue power dominion or iurisdiction ouer temporall things is therefore said to be indirect for that it doth not command or forbid temporall things as they are temporall but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions no man maketh doubt of the matter or of the thing it selfe it being too too manifest to euery man of iudgement that temporall things are not subiect to the spirituall directiue power as they are temporall things but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions but the speech is not so proper and giueth occasion to the vnlearned to be confounded and deluded with a superfluous ambiguitie and multiplicitie of words For what Diuine or Phylosopher can deny that all those things whatsoeuer which doe truly participate the definition or nature of the formall obiect of any art science facultie or power by what meanes or consideration soeuer they doe participate the same are directly subiect to that art science facultie or power And in the same proportionate manner as these men say that the Pope hath an indirect temporall directiue power or authoritie ouer temporall things it may bee said that temporall Princes haue an indirect spirituall directiue power ouer spirituall things for that as the Pope doth forbid temporall things not as they are temporall but as they are spirituall and hurtfull to the good of soules so temporall Princes may forbid spirituall things as Heresie Schisme periurie ministring of Sacraments with a poysoned matter whereby danger of death doth ensue not as they are spirituall but as they are temporall wrongs and hurtfull to the publike peace in the Common-wealth which is the formall obiect of the temporall directiue power So that this distinction of directly and indirectly cannot bee well applied to the spiritual directiue power but that in the like proportionate manner it may be also applied to the temporall directiue power dominion and Iurisdiction 64 And as concerning the Ecclesiasticall coerciue power we must discourse in the same manner and likewise consider what are the proper acts and formall obiects of this power as it is coerciue or punishing for whatsoeuer doth participate the nature and definition of the acts and obiects of this power is directly subiect thereunto Now concerning this point there are two principall opinions among Catholikes The first opinion and which now adaies is the more common for the causes by mee heeretofore l Apol. nu 449 alledged is that the inflicting of all punishments whatsoeuer being referred to spirituall good are the acts and obiects of the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing But the Authours of this opinion albeit they all agree in this that whatsoeuer authoritie the Church hath by the institution of Christ call it spirituall or temporall is in order to spirituall good and is giuen her by Christ for the eternall saluation of soules for which end Christ also himselfe descended from heauen and tooke our flesh vpon him yet in this they differ that the Canonists that commonly follow this opinion measuring the nature of the powers by their acts and obiects and graunting as they doe that Christ hath giuen to his Church authoritie to inflict both temporall and spirituall punishments doe also affirme that the Church hath by the institution of Christ truely properly directly and formally both temporall and spirituall power But the Diuines commonly perceiuing the absurdity of this doctrine and that it confoundeth the acts and obiects of the temporall and spirituall power and subiecteth the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes who by the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers are accounted to bee supreme in temporalls and therein subiect to none but to God alone to the Popes temporall authoritie to giue the more probable colour as they thinke to this pretended authoritie of the Church to dispose of all temporals and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good and to make it seeme lesse odious to Christian Princes and subiects doe differ from the Canonists at lest wise in words and therefore they affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath no true proper direct and formall temporall authoritie but onely vertuall or in effect which they call but verie improperly in my opinion indirect as I haue shewed before as the power of God and of the Angels to worke corporall effects although it be truely and formally spirituall as God and the Angels are truely and formally spirituall substances yet eminently vertually and in effect is corporall for that by their spirituall power they can worke corporall effects So that the Canonists and these Diuines doe not differ in effect and these Diuines doe in effect no lesse derogate from the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes subiecting them in temporals who are supreme then the Canonists doe 65 The second principall opinion is of other m Apol. nu 4 seq and aboue in the first part of this Treatise learned
it doeth not ordaine or command any new thing but only declare the law of GOD and Nature and that by things strangled and blood is vnderstood onely man-slaughter Irenae l. 3. c. 12 Cypr. l. 3. ad Quirimum c. vl See Suarez lib. ◠de Leg. ca. 20. either by strangling or by the effusion of blood as Irenaeus S. Cyprian and others doe seeme to vnderstand those words and likewise that meates offered to Idoles are heere onely forbidden to be eaten either with a superstitious worship as though some sacred thing were in those meates in regard of the Idoll or else with the scandall of others both which are against the law of God nature and both which senses may bee gathered from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 8. vers 4. and 7. and 1. Cor. 10. vers 28. 29. 18 And in the like proportionate manner I haue answered to the Decree of the Lateran Councell not by impugning but by expounding the same For considering that it is truly a probable doctrine and maintained by very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and when shee vseth these shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes it is euident that wee may probably answere that decree of the Lateran Councell if wee may call it a decree concerning the future fact of the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates not to proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power but from that temporall authoritie which was granted to the Councell by the consent of temporall Princes whose Ambassadours were present at the making of that act or else to bind only in the Popes temporall Dominions 19 Secondly I answere that there is a great disparitie betwixt the decree of the Apostles and the decree or act of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth that future deposition of temporall Land-lords For the decree of the Apostles is a true and proper law and decree and includeth an expresse commandement to abstaine from those things which are there forbidden but this Decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the aforesaid deposition is not a true and proper law or Decree neither doeth it containe any speciall commandement prohibition grant or priuiledge which euery true and proper law or decree ought to containe as it will cleerely appeare according to my Aduersaries owne grounds if wee consider euery part and parcell of this Decree or Canon For first it is there ordained that Secular Potestaes or Magistrates shall by Ecclesiasticall Censure if neede require be compelled to take an Oath that they will doe their best endeauour to banish all heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction and this no doubt is a true and proper decree Secondly that if a temporall Land-Lord Magistrate or Lord shall neglect to purge his territories from hereticall filth he shall by the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops be excommunicated and this also is a true and proper decree and includeth a precept and commandement Tirdly that if hee shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeere the same shall be signified to the Pope and this also is a proper decree commanding the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops to signifie the same to the Pope Fourthly it is added that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie and his territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes and this which is the maine and only point from whence my Aduersaries conclude that the Pope by his spirituall power may depose temporall Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true and proper decree and containe any commandement grant or priuiledge vnlesse they will graunt the Councell to bee aboue the Pope and that the Councell hath power to impose commandements vpon the Pope or to giue him any authoritie or priuiledge which neuerthelesse they vtterly deny and therefore these wordes as of themselues it is plaine doe onely import and signifie the ende reason or cause of the former Decree to wit wherefore it must bee signified to the Pope that such a temporall Land-Lord hath beene excommunicated for a whole yeere 20 And by this it is euident first that seeing that in generall Councels according to the expresse doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith For neither are of faith the disputations which goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate but onely the bare decrees and those not all but which are propounded as of faith and that this is no decree and though it were it is not propounded as of faith as it is manifest by the rules assigned aboue by Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus to know when any thing is propounded as of faith but it onely containeth the cause and reason of the former decree which reason may bee exposed to errour seeing that it is not greatly to be stood vpon saith Canus Canus l. 6. c. 8. si Pontificum rationes necessariae non sunt if the reasons of the Popes or Councels be not necessary it is I say most euident that from this Act no probable argument can be brought to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith 21 Secondly it is also euident that I do not impugne or call in question this Act of the Councell but do only expound and interpret it and that my expositiō is probable to wit that this Act was made not by spirituall authority but by temporall it is manifest supposing that is probable as in very deede it is and maintained by very many Doctours both Diuines and Lawyers that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall censures and therefore it cannot without grosse ignorance and manifest absurdity be said that this my answere and exposition which is grounded vpon the doctrine not onely of so many learned Authours but also of my owne Aduersaries and who otherwise defend the Popes authority to depose Princes is to bee accounted improbable or absurd I now let passe that the decrees of Popes and Councels which are not referred to all the Church but onely to particular Bishops Churches or persons and doe not concerne and binde all the Church but onely certaine persons may bee exposed to errour Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. q. 4. as I declared before For in that case onely saith Canus the Iudges are to be vnderstood to pronounce or define of faith when the decree or sentence belongeth to all the faithfull when it bindeth all but this Act of the Lateran Councell doth onely concerne temporall Land lords and their Vassals and those not all but onely the Vassals of such Land lords Magistrates
ouer the whole Church or a Generall Councell but also with the Diuines of Fraunce who are not so vehement for either of them and with the learned Priests and Catholikes of England whom it did most concerne and I am fully perswaded or rather morally certaine that both the Cardinall Peron and many other learned Catholikes both of France and England would at that time plainely haue told his Holinesse and giuen him sufficient reasons for their saying that neither the doctrine for his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith or the contrary improbable nor that his power to excommunicate or any other spirituall authority of his which is certaine and of faith is denied in the oath 35 And this also of my owne knowledge is very true as I haue signified heeretofore r In the Epistle dedicatory nu 6. to his Holinesse that a certaine Priest not of meaner sort did presently vpon the resolution of Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest and of diuers other learned Priests and Catholikes that the Oath might lawfully be taken with all the speed he might write to Mr. Nicolas Fitzherbert being then at Rome and sincerely related vnto him how all things heere had past concerning the conference and resolution of learned Priests end Catholikes about the Oath earnestly requesting him that either by himselfe or by meanes of a certaine Cardinal whom he nam'd to him he would deale effectually with his Holinesse not to bee perswaded to send hither any Breue against the taking of the Oath things standing as they did for that otherwise his authority as well temporall to depose Princes as spirituall to define without a generall Councell would be more strongly called in question by English Catholikes then it hath beene in former times Now if his Holinesse had deferred for a time the sending hither of his first Breue and in the meane space had demaunded the opinion of English Catholikes whom most of all it concerned in this difficult controuersie about the lawfulnesse of the Oath he might doubtlesse haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter then he was or could be informed by his owne Diuines of Rome whom besides that they had not taken such paines in canuassing this question touching the certaintie of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes as many of our English Catholikes had he might haue some cause to suspect that they would speake partially in fauour of his authority either for hope of promotion as being men feruent to aduance all his pretended authoritie or for feare of incurring his displeasure and to bee accounted Aduersaries to the Sea Apostolicall as the euent alas hath prooued to bee ouer true 37 Or secondly the sense and meaning of those wordes may bee that his Holinesse by that long graue and mature deliberation and consultation was sufficiently that is truely and certainely informed of the whole matter and of the true sense and meaning of all the clauses of the Oath and this I say is very vntrue as likewise it is very vntrue that Cardinall Bellarmine notwithstanding all his graue mature and long deliberation and consultation had concerning this controuersie for betwixt this consultation of his Holinesse at which Cardinall Bellarmine was one of the chiefest and the publishing of his second booke against his Maiestie there passed almost foure whole yeeres and the consultation of his Holinesse could continue but few moneths seeing that the Oath was published heere about Iune and his Holinesse first Breue was dated the first of October next following hee was greatly mistaken and deceiued both in the vnderstanding of those wordes of the Oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. and of diuers other clauses thereof as I haue sufficiently conuinced in my Theologicall Disputation and Mr. Fitzherbert by his silence and not replying to this point being vrged by me thereunto doeth in effect acknowledge as much and also in his opinion touching the certaintie and infallibilitie of the doctrine for the Popes power to depose temporall Princes which without any sufficient ground euen according to his owne principles hee will needes haue to bee a point of faith 38 And heereby you may see how falsly and slaunderously and with small respect to his Holinesse whom Mr. Fitzherbert would seeme so much to reuerence hee concludeth in these words Å¿ P. 214. nu 5. Disp Theol. c. 10. s 2. nu 46. Therefore he that thinketh otherwise of his Holinesse as Widdrington doth affirming that his Breues were grounded vpon light foundations and false informations must needes hold him to be the most carelesse and negligent Pastour that euer gouerned the Church of God whereby any man may iudge what account Widdrington maketh of his Holinesse and his authoritie notwithstanding his submission of his writings to the Catholike Roman Church 39 But first it is very vntrue that from my wordes any such inference can bee gathered as Mr. Fitzherbert heere maketh I gaue indeede as you haue seene two answeres to his Holinesse Breues which are briefly comprised in those few words light foundations and false informations My first and principall answere which this fraudulent man altogeth concealeth was this that if his Holinesse Breue forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation was grounded vpon the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance as all my Aduersaries grant it was chiefly grounded thereon then I say it was not grounded vpon any certaine doctrine infallible and of faith but vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which were alwayes impugned by learned Catholikes which vncertaine and fallible grounds I called light for that they are not sufficient and weightie enough let them be neuer so probable to build thereon any certaine and infallible doctrine of faith and which euery Catholike vnlesse hee will deny his faith is bound to follow My second answere which this man doth also in great part conceale for that I did particularly set downe wherein his Holinesse was misinformed which he wholly dissembleth was that if his Holinesse Breue was grounded as by all likelihood it was vpon this foundation that his power to excommunicate his power to bind and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie which according to the common doctrine of Catholikes is indeede cleerely repugnant to faith is denyed and impugned in the Oath then I say that his Breues were grounded vpon false informations for that there is no such thing denyed in the Oath as I haue euidently conuinced howsoeuer Cardinall Bellarmine hath laboured to prooue the contrarie And neither of these answeres can bee sufficiently confuted by any of my Aduersaries neither are they repugnant to the submission of my writings to the Catholike Roman Church 40 So as you see that I made not that irreuerent inference which Mr. Fitzherbert heere concludeth I
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
and censure of the Catholike Romane Church whose child I professed my selfe to bee and that if perchance any thing through ignorance had escaped mee In Disp Theo. in fine which should not bee approoued by her I did disprooue it condemne it and would haue it for not written In Disp c. 6. sec 3. nu 18. seq 5 Besides I did professe that with all due honour and respect I did reuerence all the Canons of the Catholike Church although I did freely confesse that betwixt the Catholike Church and the Pope who is onely the first and principall member thereof betwixt some Chapters or Decrees of the Canon-Law and betwixt others a great difference is to be made and neuerthelesse I sincerely affirmed that to euery one in his degree and place I gaue dutifull but not equall credit the vast Corps of the Canon-Law and in the volumes of the Councells are contained either sayings or assertions of the ancient Fathers or Decrees or sentences of Popes or Councells and these are either doctrinall and propounded as things to bee belieued by the faithfull or else morall and which in the externall discipline of the Church are commanded to be obserued 6 And first I did acknowledge that the doctrine which the Ancient Fathers either in expounding the holy Scriptures or in questions belonging to faith haue with vniforme consent deliuered I did also vndoubtedly beleeue as being certainly perswaded that it was inspired by the Holy Ghost 7 Secondly I also with Melchior Canus and other Diuines affirmed that the doctrine also of all the holy Fathers in things which doe appertaine to faith may plously and probably bee beleeued by Catholikes yet that it ought not of necessitie to be followed as certaine and infallible 8 Thirdly I did professe that the definitions of Generall Councells lawfully assembled and confirmed by the Pope wherein any doctrine is propounded to the whole Church to be beleeued of all men as of Faith are to be receiued by Catholikes as infallible rules of Faith Neuerthelesse I did freely affirme with the aforesaid Melchior Canus and Cardinall Bellarmine that those the said Councells are defined or else supposed onely as probable and those assertions which either incidently and by the way are inserted or for better declaration or proofe of their decisions be produced are sometimes subiect to errour and may by Catholikes without any wrong to the Catholike faith be reiected This withall obseruing of which also in other places I haue admonished the Reader that although I professing my selfe to be a childe of the Catholike Romane Church doe most willingly imbrace whatsoeuer Generall Councells confirmed by the Pope which represent the Catholike Church doe propound to the faithfull as necessarily to be beleeued of faith and which certainely and euidently is knowne to be the true sense and meaning of the Councells Neuerthelesse I doe not vndoubtedly beleeue euery doctrine which either Cardinall Bellarmine speaking with due reuerence or any other Doctour seeing that they are not appointed by God to be an vndoubted rule of the Catholike Faith doe cry out to be Catholike doctrine to be the voice of the Catholike Church to be the meaning of the Scriptures and Councells if especially some Catholike Doctours doe hold the contrary Them truely as it is meete I doe reuerence with all dutifull respect and I doe much attribute to their authoritie but that all those collections which they in their iudgements doe imagine to be euidently concluded from the holy Scriptures or Councells considering that oftentimes they are deceiued and doe deceiue For Card. Bellarmine himselfe in his old age hath recalled many things which he wrote when he was yonger and perchance he now growing elder will recall more and what they haue written when they were yonger they may recall when they grow elder are to be accounted for vndoubted assertions of faith and the contrary opinion of other Catholikes to be rather esteemed an heresie then an opinion this truely I cannot take in good part 9 Fourthly concerning the Canons or Decrees of Generall Councells belonging to manners and to the externall gouernment of the Church I promised to be most ready to receiue willingly all those Decrees which in places where I shall liue shall be generally receiued for these are properly called the Decrees or Canons of the Catholike or vniuersall Church which are by common consent admitted by the Vniuersall Church Neither doubtlesse is any man bound to admit those Lawes and precepts which in the Countrey where he liueth are not obserued by the people as according to the receiued opinion of Diuines and Lawyers I there affirmed And the same I there auouchâ—d is to be vnderstood proportionally of the Decrees of Popes and Prouinciall Councells For as concerning the Popes definitions belonging to faith if he define without a Generall Councell I confesse that I haue oftentimes auerred that very many especially ancient Diuines of the Vniuersitie of Paris whose names I there c c Cap. 10. sec 2. nu 27. related are of opinion that such Definitions vnlesse they be receiued by the Catholike Church as Definitions of Catholike Faith are subiect to errour whose opinion both for the authoritie of so famous men and also for the reasons and grounds whereon that opinion is founded I with many later Diuines to whose opinion also Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe d d Lib. de Concil cap. 13. doth plainely enough incline howsoeuer he would seeme also e e Lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. li. 2. de concil cap. 17. to auerre the contrary haue also oftentimes affirmed that it is not to be condemned of heresie errour or temeritie which also now againe speaking with all dutifull submission I feare not to confirme 10 Lastly concerning my Disputation of the Oath and the Dedication thereof which seemeth to be that stone of offence and rocke of scandall to some Diuines especially of the Society of Iesus and to those Catholikes who adhere to them I cannot to speake vnfaignedly in any wise vnderstand what can iustly be obiected against it or what fault I haue committed either in making it or else in dedicating it to your Holinesse of which I should purge my selfe For first of all I the Authour of that Disputation and Dedication haue therein professed that I did not write it with any obstinate mind but in manner of an humbly petition sincerely and for many reasons which I there related to informe your Holinesse more fully who as heere we thinke hath not beene rightly informed of the reasons for which English Catholikes are of opinion that the Oath may lawfully be taken and for this cause I did dedicate it to your Holinesse that after you had carefully examined all the reasons for which English Catholikes doe thinke the Oath may lawfully be taken your Holinesse might prouide both for their spirituall and temporall safety as according to your fatherly wisedome and charitie should be thought most conuenient And
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
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
whom I built a Monasterie I had not repented at the last houre And truely I haue escaped eternall death but I shall be tormented with most grieuous punishments vntill the day of Iudgement But the Mother of mercie obtained for me of her Sonne that I might come to thee to desire prayers which when he had said he presently vanished away And Ludgard told his necessities to her Sisters that they might relieue him but she greatly pittying his case did afflict her selfe for his cause with wonderfull punishment Let the Reader know saith Thomas Cantipratensis the writer of her life from whom Surius tooke the same that those three causes are by the reuealing of Ludgard not vnknowne to vs but for the reuerence of so great a Pope we would not relate them 7 Which example saith Card. Bellarmine is wont oftentimes to terrifie mee exceedingly and to cause mee to tremble For if so commendable a Pope and who in the eies of men was accounted not onely honest and prudent but also a Saint and woorthy to bee imitated did scape so narrowly hell fire and is to bee punished vntill the day of Iudgement with the most grieuous fire of Purgatory what Prelate would not tremble who would not examine most exactly the secrets of his conscience For I doe easily perswade my selfe that so great a Pope could not commit deadly sinnes but being deceiued vnder the shew of good by flatterrs and those of his owne houshold of whom it is said in the Gospell Matth. 10 A mans enemyes are they of his owne howshold Therefore let vs all learne by this so great an example to examine carefully our conscience least perchance it be erroneous albeit to vs it seeme to be right and sound Thus Cardinall Bellarmine whose counsell in this point I thinke it necessary that all my Aduersaries with Cardinall Bellarmine the chiefest of them and my selfe should duely consider least that the zeale which all of vs pretend to haue be blind and not according to knowledge and that our conscience albeit to vs it seeme to bee right and sound bee erroneous and grounded vpon culpable ignorance For my owne part I haue examined my conscience very carefully and cannot find my selfe guilty of any fault for examining this controuersie touching the lawfulnesse of the Oath and the Popes power to depose Princes and that I was not mooued thereunto for feare flattery hope of gaine or any other worldly respect but truely and sincerely God is my witnesse for the loue I beare to God Religion my Prince and Countrey to finde out the Catholike truth and being found to embrace professe and follow it and thereby according to our Sauiours commaundement to render to God and Caesar that obedience which doth belong to them 8 Secondly therfore I wish my Aduersaries to consider what may in the iudgemēt of any prudent man be thought of those men who by fraud or violēce should seek to force vpon any one a great sum of gold which he greatly suspecteth to be false and counterfaite and therefore refuseth to accept thereof before hee hath fully tryed whether it be true or forged coyne and whether any fault be to be found in him both for desiring to haue the gold examined by the touchstone and those waies by which true gold is discerned from counterfaite before hee bee compelled to take it for good and currant and also for giuing his reasons why hee thinketh the same to bee false and forged And if they will not suffer him to make triall whether it be good or no but will needes haue him to take it for good gold when not onely himselfe but also diuers other skilfull Gold-Smiths doe greatly suspect yea and are fully perswaded that it is naught and counterfaite and if he refuse to accept thereof in that manner they should seeke to disgrace him with the Prince and people and to accuse him of disobedience to the State and who wilfully refuseth to accept and acknowledge the Kings coyne for lawfull whether these men doe not great wrong to that party and whether it may not be prudently thought that they haue a guilty conscience and that they themselues suspect the said gold not to bee indeed so good and currant as in words they would pretend 9 Now the case betweene mee and my Aduersaries is farre worse then this For they haue sought by false and fraudulent meanes not onely to impose vpon the whole Christian world a false and counterfait Catholike faith for truely Catholike but to slander and defame all those Catholikes and my selfe in particular who for the reasons wee haue often propounded refuse to accept thereof for Catholike vntill it be better prooued so to be and to condemne vs of temerity and disobedience to the Sea Apostolike yea and of flat heresie and they would make the world beleeue that wee are not true Catholikes but heretickes disguised and masked vnder the vizard of Catholikes For so saith M. Fitzherbert c. 17. nu 19. And albeit we doe publikely professe our selues to be true Catholikes and doe submit all our writings to the iudgement and censure of the Catholike Romane Church and doe sincerely and solemnly protest to recall and recant foorthwith our errour if wee haue committed any as soone as it shall be made knowne vnto vs that wee haue written any thing amisse yet they feare not to affirme contrary to all iustice and charity that all this our profession submission and protestation is but a false luster and glosse So saith Fitzherbert c. 17 nu 1. 26. to cast vpon our counterfaite ware of purpose to deceiue and that it proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes 10 Neither will they suffer vs to examine by the true grounds of Catholike Religion their newly inuented Catholike faith and to yeeld our reasons which doe fully perswade vs that their faith which they pretend to be Catholike is not ancient and true but a newly inuented and a false and forged Catholike faith but they haue caused his Holinesse to condemne our bookes which in our iudgement doe plainly discouer their forgeries and to forbid all Catholikes as well learned as vnlearned to read them without signifying vnto vs any one thing in particular which we haue written amisse although wee haue often and earnestly requested to know the same but all that they say or write wee must forsooth without any further examination approoue for good and currant doctrine albeit wee haue most plainely conuinced them of manifest fraude and falshood in almost euery one of their arguments and answeres which they haue brought to prooue their doctrine in this point of the Popes spirituall authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments to be truely Catholike All which being duely considered what infinite wrong they haue done vs it is too too manifest and albeit they pretend true zeale to Catholike Religion
Chapter 2 To begin therefore with his second accusation whereas in the beginning of my answere to the substance of M. Fitzherberts discourse I affirmed a Disâ—â—â—â—ol in 〈…〉 â—ect 〈◊〉 that first of all he supposeth that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes if they deserue it and the good of the Church and the saluation of soules doe necessarily require it is deniâ—d in this oath whereupon hee concludeth afterwards that although the oath doth not expressely affirme 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 and howsoeuer the matter may bee otherwise coloured it is euident that the true reason why the said authoritie of the Pope is impugned by the oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is held to bee no way subiect to the Pope yea and to bee himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England This being presupposed hee goeth about to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the law of God of Nature of Nations Canon and Ciuill c. 3 Now Mr. Fitzherbert doeth bouldly but vntruely affirme that I haue vsed herein two fraudes the one in the relation of his wordes the other in the vse and application of them For albeit saith hee b Chap. 1. nu 7 Widdrington alleadgeth them truely and doth not falsifie my text yet hee relateth them in such sort that his Reader must needes conceiue that I lay them downe in the very beginning of my Discourse for the onely foundation and ground of all my building and therefore as soone as he hath cited them he saith hoc posito probare contendit c. this being supposed hee laboureth to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the Diuine and Naturall law to the law of Nations Ciuill and Canon So hee and then hee proceedeth to the abridgement of all my Discourse beginning with the law of God in the olde Testament and so goeth on with the rest and impugneth my supposition as the onely foundation of all my Discourse and arguments 4. But the trueth is hee findeth those words of mine in the 66. page of my Supplement as it may appeare by his owne quotation thereof after I haue discoursed of the law of God in the old and new Testament and of the lawes of Nature and Nations and of the Ciuill law in the conclusion whereof I haue those words referring them to the Ciuill law onely for hauing prooued that the said law confirmeth and establisheth the Popes supremacie I inferred that it cannot fauour and much lesse enioyne and iustifie the oath for two reasons the one because the said oath is in part grounded vpon the beliefe that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the Church of God in England and no way subiect to the Pope which is repugnant to the Ciuill law and the other because the Ciuill law acknowledging the subiection of temporall Princes to the Pope in matters belonging to their soules and to the good of the Church doth by a necessarie consequent acknowledge that they may bee punished by him temporally in their persons and states where the good of soules and the seruice of God doeth require it according to the rule of the law Accossorium sequitur principale the accessorie followeth the principall Then I say I argued in the place which he citeth and I remitted my Reader for the confirmation of this second reason to a more ample Discourse thereof before in the same chapter c Nu 66. 56. Now then it appeareth as I haue said that hee hath dealt fraudulently with me two wayes the one in referring my supposition to all the lawes whereof I treated whereas I referred the same expresly and only to the Ciuill law the other c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 5 But truly I cannot but wonder that this my Aduersarie should at the very first beginning of his Reply be so inconsiderate as in wrongfully accusing me of fraude to deale so vntruly and fraudulently himselfe which could not but greatly empaire his credit with the â—udicious Reader and cause him to be iealous of his sinceritie in the rest of his Replyes when at the very first entrance hee should finde in him such fraudulent proceeding For that which I affirmed is very true and I meruaile that Mr. Fitzherbert doth not blush to deny the same to wit that hee did first of all that is at the very first beginning of his Discourse in the sixt page of his Supplement before hee began to prooue the oath to bee repugnant to any law Diuine or Humane suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes if they deserue it and the good of the Church and the saluation of soules doe necessarily require it is denied in this oath For these be his expresse words in the sixt page and ninth number of his Supplement 6 Therefore I thinke good to let him vnderstand heere that my meaning is not to contradict any article of the oath that concerneth meerely Ciuill obedience to our Soueraigne but such clauses only as doe either directly or indirectly preiudice the authoritie of our spirituall supreame Pastour and namely those which doe exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope when iust occasion shall be giuen by them and the necessitie of the Church and the good of soules require it to which purpose I will prooue marke well these words that this new oath in respect of such clauses is repugnant to all lawes Humane and Diuine and therefore iustly condemned by his Holinesse and refused by Catholikes First then I will speake of the law of God c. So he 7 Wherefore it is apparant that Mr. Fitzherbert in the very beginning of his Discourse referreth his aforesaid supposition to all lawes both Humane and Diuine and yet now to taxe mee of fraude hee doth not blush to say that I haue dealt fraudulently with him in referring his aforesaide supposition to all the lawes whereof hee treateth whereas saith he hee referred the same expresly and onely to the Ciuill law Which errour of his I would not willingly haue construed in the worser sense but attribute it only to his obliuion and forgetfulnesse of what he himselfe had written in the beginning of his Discourse and not to any fraude in him but that my wordes which hee himselfe doth relate are so plaine that he cannot bee excused either from manifest fraude or from so palpable an errour which no man of vnderstanding can scarcely commit For marke my words which he himselfe setteth downe First of all he M. Fitz. supposeth that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed in this oath wherupon afterwards to wit in the 66. page as it is euident by my quotation hee concludeth that although the oath doth not expresly affirme
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
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
the vniuersall 27 And therefore I haue sufficiently without altering the case confuted that maxime he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse by this instance of a priuate Priest who is contained in that subiect hee that can as a particular in the vniuersall for that a priuate Priest can doe the greater to wit can absolue from sinnes and yet he can not doe the lesse to wit absolue from debts from whence it followeth that the aforesaid generall maxime is not true and therefore neither the consequence of that argument concerning the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently to depose which consequence is grounded vpon that generall maxime can be good By which it is apparant that from that maxime it can not be rightly concluded that because the Pope hath power to excommunicate which is the greater he hath power either to depriue Princes of their kingdomes or to absolue subiects from their debts which are the lesse 28 Neither is the deposing of Princes or the discharging of subiects from paying their debts necessary for the spirituall good and publike benefite of the Church or which is all one to the saluation of soules although they were necessary yet seeing they are temporall and not spirituall actions they must be performed for the same spirituall end by temporall and not spirituall power And therefore that argument which my Aduersarie vseth a maiori ad minus that because a temporall Prince may absolue his subiect from the payment of his debt therefore much more the supreame spirituall Pastour of the Church may doe the same is of little worth for that the disposing of temporall things and the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the discharging of subiects from paying their debts doe belong only to the temporall power of Secular Princes and not to Ecclesiasticall authoritie which by the institution of Christ is not extended to the inflicting of temporal punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. but only of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall censures as I haue shewed more at large in the first part 29 To my fourth and last instance which was this He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse therefore a priuate Priest who hath power to giue the kingdome of heauen to wit by vertue of the Sacraments hath power to giue an earthly kingdome Mr. Fitzherbert answereth as before k Nu. 12. 13. pag. 46. that Widdrington changeth the state of the question transferring it from the Pope to a priuate Priest for albeit this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if we change the consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto my Aduersarie Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreame authoritie and therefore the argument would be good thus Potest Papa per plenitudinem potestatis c The Pope may by the plenitude of his power giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore he may giue an earthly for the later being a necessarie consequent of the former is necessarily comprehended in it because the Pope by the plenitude of his power hath as much authoritie and iurisdiction as is necessarie for the gouernment and good of the Church Whereupon it followeth that whensoeuer it shall be absolutely necessarie and behoouefull for the Church that he change or transferre a kingdome or Empire he may doe it and giue not only the Kingly or Imperiall title but also the right to the crowne as Leo the third c. 30 But Mr Fitzherbert doth also in this answere bewray his ignorance and want of Logicke as he did in the former for it is cleere that he himselfe and not I doth alter the case and change the state of the question For the question is not concerning the consequent of Lessius argument but concerning the consequence or that antecedent proposition and maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon his consequence or argument is grounded and therefore by changing the consequent the case or state of the question is not altered when the consequent is included in the antecedent proposition as a particular in the vniuersall as in the former part of this argument a Priest can giue the kingdome of heauen is included in the former part of that maxime he that can doe the greater and the second part therefore he can giue an earthly kingdome is included in the second part of that maxime therefore he can doe the lesse for that to giue the kingdome of heauen is greater then to giue an earthly kingdome And to make the case more plaine to the vulgar sort put the case that I should argue thus Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore sugar is pleasant to the taste the consequent you see is true yet the consequence is not good for that the antecedent proposition is false And if my Aduersarie should impugne my consequence and prooue my antecedent proposition to be false by this instance Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore chalke is pleasant to the taste and I should reply to this instance and say that he altereth the case changeth the state of the question in transferring it from sugar which is sweet to chalke which is vnsauoury would not my Aduersarie trow you according to his accustomed manner affirme that my reply is impertinent absurd foolish and ridiculous and send me backe to learne Logicke againe 32 Now you shall see how plainely Mr. Fitzherbert whiles hee vntruely chargeth mee as you haue seene with altering the case and changing the state of the question he doth alter and change it himselfe For albeit saith he this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if wee changet he consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreme authoritie c. But first it is vntrue and I wonder that Mr. Fitzherbert blusheth not to say that I ascribe the Popes power to the force of the Sacraments seeing that I speake not one word in my instance of the Pope but onely of priuate Priests And if I had ascribed the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace whereby we are made children of God and heires to the kingdome of heauen to the force and vertue of the Sacraments had this beene forsooth any vnsound or bad doctrine Will my Aduersarie ascribe the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace not to the force and vertue of the Sacraments but to the plenitude of his power as though the Pope by the plenitude of his power could without the Sacraments remit sinnes and giue iustifying grace If this be his meaning all Catholikes know what Censure this doctrine deserueth and it is in some sort agreeable to that which he said a little before that the Pope by excommunication doeth take away the life
the necessarie good of their owne soules and of their subiects 36 Neither doe those examples or facts or Popes which my Aduersarie here bringeth or any such like sufficiently prooue a power in the Pope as he is a spirituall Pastour to change transferre giue or take away earthly kingdomes for that it is one thing sayth Card. Bellarmine n in Resp ad Apolog pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so likewise of Popes and an other thing to prooue their power right and authoritie As Leo the third Pope of that name o pag. 47. nu 13 Egmarth in vita Caroli Annales Francof anno 801. Paul Diacon lib. 23. Zonaras tom 3. Annal Cedrenus in vita Constant Irene sayth my Aduersarie gaue to Charles the great the Empyre of the West which was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift c. 37 But to this example I did fully and clecrely answer in my Apologie p nu 414. seq to wit that the Romane Empire was not translated from the Grecians to the Germans by the onely authoritie of the Pope but also by the common consent suffrages ordinance decree and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome both Clerkes and Laikes with the tacite consent at least wise of all others to whom it did belong amongst whom the chiefest of all was the Bishop of Rome who did not by his spirituall or Pontificall authoritie which he as Pope receiued from Christ cause that translation but as he being the principall member and citizen of Rome and of the Romane Empire did by his aduise consent solliciting procurement suffrage and authoritie chiefly set forward that translation and as he was Pope did by his Pontificall authoritie approoue it to be lawfull and no way repugnant to the law of God or nature for which causes he is said by many writers to haue transferred that Empire as the chiefe and principall Authour procurer and approouer thereof 38 And this I did sufficiently prooue in that place both by the grounds of Card. Bellarmine himselfe and also by the testimonies of those Authours whom he alledged For nothing can be concluded saith he q lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. by arguments taken from authoritie negatiuely For it doth not follow Luke Paul and Seneca doe not say that S. Peter was at Rome therefore S. Peter was not at Rome For these three were not bound to say all things and more credite is to be giuen to three witnesses affirming then to a thousand saying nothing so that these doe not deny what the others doe affirme Seeing therefore that none at all of those thirtie two Authours whom Card. Bellarmine brought for witnesses of the translation of the Empire made by the Pope doth deny that the aforesaid translation was done by the authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome and not onely three of Card. Bellarmines Authours but also many more whom I cited there doe most plainly affirme that both the authoritie of the Pope and also the consent decree ordinance suffrage and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome did concurre to that translation more credite is to be giuen to them who doe affirme that the Empire was translated by the Pope Senate people of Rome then to all the rest although they were a thousand who albeit they say that this translation was done by the Pope yet they doe not deny that it was also done by the Senate and people of Rome Thus and much more to the same purpose did I answere in my Apologie r See Apologie 427. seq 39 Now you shall see how cunningly and insufficiently D. Schulckenius doth shift of this my answere For whereas he is very diligent for the most part to set downe my words and text in particular when hee imagineth that with any colourable Reply hee can confute them yet here he relateth Cardinall Bellarmines argument drawne from the translation of the Romane Empire to the French men but hee altogether concealeth my answere thereunto and so passeth ouer twentie pages of my Apologie wherein both by his owne grounds by his owne Authours and many others I cleerly proued that this translation was done not onely by the authoritie of the Pope but also of the Senate and people of Rome and onely with a flourish of words hee endeuoureth to prooue by a Dilemma which as you shall see is neither to the question betwixt me and Cardinall Bellarmine and which I also answered in that place That I must either approoue Card. Bellarmines opinion or else cleerely contradict my selfe in my answere Wherefore although D. Schulckenius maketh this title of his foureteenth Chapter The answere of Widdrington to the rest of the examples which are taken from the facts of Leo the third c. is examined yet hee neither examineth my answere to that fact of Leo nor setteth it downe at all albeit he confesseth that I haue at large disputed thereof But this is all that he replieth r Schulck in Apol. cap. â— pag. 597. 598. 40 And of the translation of the Empire Cardinall Bellarmine hath exactly soundly and diligently written three bookes of a iust bignesse in so much that nothing doth seeme can be added thereunto Onely at this time I doe make this argument against my Aduersary Widdrington Either that translation was true or faigned If hee say it was faigned hee will bee ouerwhelmed with the voyces of all Historiographers and hee will take away all humane faith out of the world But if hee say it was truely done I aske againe whether it was done iustly or vniustly if hee say it was done vniustly first he will contradict almost all Catholike Writers for onely the Magdeburgian Heretikes doe blame it as one of the miracles of Antichrist Besides that hee will wrong all the Latin Emperours who from that time haue beene shall be as though their Empire is not grounded vpon a sound foundation Lastly he will reprehend all the people of the West yea all the world who haue hitherto honoured the Latin Emperour as a true and lawfull possessour of the Empire For also the Grecians themselues with their Emperour and the Persians as wee haue related out of Bellarmine in the former Chapter Å¿ Ad nu 390. haue acknowledged the Latin Emperours as true and lawfull Emperours 41 But if Widdrington say that it was done iustly I demand whether it was done by the authority of the Romane Bishop the Citizens of Rome assenting or also requesting it or whether it was done by the authoritie of the people of Rome the Pope assenting and crowning and blessing the Emperour chosen by the people or whether it was done by the authoritie of the Pope and of the people of Rome together If he will say that it was done by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome the Citizens of Rome assenting and requesting it he will agree both with the truth of
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
plainly conuinced both by his owne principles and also by his owne Authours and diuers others that this translation was not done by the authoritie only of the Pope as hee pretended to prooue in that his booke of the translation but also of the people hee was engaged for the sauing of his credit to haue in some sort cōfuted my answere but to passe it ouer cunningly with a Dilemma not belonging to the principall question and which was also fully satisfied by mee in that place without setting downe any one word of my answere and so omitting contrarie to his accustomed manner aboue twenty pages of my text together doth argue no good and sincere proceeding And lastly it is also manifest what the Reader may thinke of my Aduersaries sinceritie who in this place doth so barely and nakedly repeate againe this argument without taking any notice of the answere which in my Apologie I gaue to the same 50 But the Empire of the West saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Nu. 13. p. 47 was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift and therefore Emanuel Commenus h Blond dec 2. l. 5. Platina in Alex. 3. Nauclerus generat 39. pag. 848. Emperour of Constantinople in the time of Fridereke the first vnderstanding of the dissention betwixt him and Pope Alexander the third sent Ambassadours to the Pope and offered him not only a great army with great summes of money but also to reunite the Greeke Church with the Latin if hee would restore that Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople 51 But neither Emanuel Commenus nor any other Greeke Emperour although from the particular fact of some one Emperour especially who was desirous to enlarge his Empire no good argumēt can be drawne to proue a right did acknowledge the Empire of the West to be the Popes gift in any other manner then they had read or heard from Historiographers to wit that the Pope was indeede the chiefe and principall but not the onely Authour of that translation And therefore Blondus one of Cardinall Bellarmines owne Authours doeth well affirme it to be manifest Blond decad 1. l. 3. in principle that the first translation of the Roman Empire frō the Constantinopolitans to the French Princes was done by the authoritie and consent not only of the Pope Clergy people of Rome but also by the suffrages of the people and principall men of all Italie Neither did Emanuel Commenus desire of Pope Alexander the third that he alone without the consent and suffrages of the Princes and people would restore the Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople but that he would be a meanes that it might be restored or translated to them againe as he was a chiefe meanes and principall Authour that it was translated from the Grecians to the French 52 In like manner saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Nu. 13. p. 47. the second translation of the West Empire from the French that is to say from the familie of Charles the great vnto the Germans was made especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike Bell. l. 2. c. 2. 3. as Card. Bellarmine prooueth cleerely in his Treatise of the translation of the Empire If my Aduersarie had said only by the authority of the Sea Apostolike he had spoken to the purpose but that word especially cleane ouerthroweth his argument For I will not contend with him at this present whether it was done especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike in that manner as I granted before that the first translation from the Grecians to the French was done especially chiefly or principally by the Popes authoritie but that either the first or second translation was done only by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike and not also of the people this I vtterly deny neither hath Card. Bellarmine in the aforesaid Treatise by any one sufficient argument prooued or is able to prooue the same 53 We reade also saith Mr. Fitzherbert that Clodoueus k Papyrius Maso in vita Henrici primi See Bozius de signis Ecclesiae lib. 10. cap. 12. the first Christian King of France being desirous after his Baptisme to make good and establish his right and title to that kingdome professed to receiue the same from the hands of the Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike But truly it is strange to see what strange arguments and voide of all probabilitie my Aduersaries dare bring for proofe of so great a matter as is the giuing taking away translating of Kingdomes and Empires For what Historiographer euer wrote that Clodoueus the first Christian King of France had no good right and title to his kingdome before he became Christian or that hee receiued his title right and authoritie to reigne from S. Remigius by commission of the Sea Apostolike and that he himselfe professed as much or that it belongeth to the Archbishop of Rhemes to choose the King of France if we will speake properly of choosing as though the Kings of France were Kings by election and not by hereditatie succession or that the right and title which the Kings of France haue to their kingdome depended vpon the election of the Archbishop of Rhemes or the Sea Apostolike If my Aduersarie were in France and would affirme thus much I feare me he would be glad to recant his doctrine in this point or to interpret his words in a better sense or else he might perchance to vse his owne words finde it to his cost 54 Neither doth Papirius Maso affirme as my Aduersarie and Bozius say that King Clodoueus or Lewis the first did professe to receiue his kingdome or his right and title thereunto from the hands of S. Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike neither could he with truth professe the same for that he was long before King of France and had true right and lawfull title to that kingdome before he was baptized by S. Remigius neither doth baptisme make good rights and titles to temporall kingdomes but as it depriueth no man of his temporall right and dominion so it giueth no man any temporall right or dominion but giueth him only a spirituall right and maketh him heire to the kingdome of heauen But all that Papirius Maso doth affirme is that when Philip the first of that name being but seauen yeares old was by the Archbishop of Rhemes consecrated and elected future King of France and to succeede his Father Henry then liuing and present at his consecration the Archbishop after he had declared the Catholike faith vnto him and Philip had professed the same and taken his oath to defend the Church and his kingdome taking S. Remigius staffe into his hands did quietly and peaceably discourse how the election and consecration of the King did belong chiefely to him from the time that S. Remigius did Baptize and consecrate King Lewis Hee did also
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
the old Testament Priests did make warre and fight with the rest of the Israelites against their enemies but in the new Testament Priests doe abstaine from the shedding of blood and if they find any to be worthy of death they deliuer them ouer to the Secular power to be punished But this I say is nothing at all to the purpose For my argument was not concerning inferiour Priests but onely concerning the Pope neither also what Popes in practise and de facto doe but what according to the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to doe Now it is euident and approoued by the common consent of Catholike Diuines that the shedding of blood is not by the institution of Christ forbidden either the Pope or inferiour Bishops and Priests who therefore with the Popes licence make warre and concurre directly to the effusion of blood as oftentimes they haue done yea now at Rome all effusion of blood by a iuridicall sentence and condemning malefactours to death and all making of warres by the Popes subiects are deriued from the Popes authoritie not as he is Pope but as he is a temporall Prince for that which I contend is that Priests neither in the old law nor in the new as they are Priests or by their Priestly power haue authoritie to condemne any man to death or to inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment or the like 27 Secondly and principally to this example of Athalia I answered Å¿ Apolog. nu 366. seq that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did as Card. Bellarmine af firmeth in this place create Ioas King that is did giue him a right or true title to reigne which before he had not seeing that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by hereditarie right belong to Ioas presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously slaine although Athalia did tyrannically vsurpe the possession thereof For it is not vnusuall for one to possesse sometimes either with a good or bad conscience that thing whereof another man is the true lord or owner And therefore betwixt right and possession a great difference is commonly made by all Diuines and Lawyers Wherefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then what euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case For seeing that for his innocent life opinion of sanctitie and the dignitie of his office he was in great veneration among the people and Peeres of the kingdome his authoritie or fauour did preuaile so much with them that all men with vniforme consent would very easily be drawen especially by his perswasion to kill the treacherous vsurpresse and to seate the lawfull King who was vniustly detained from the possession of his kingdome in the possession thereof But this did onely argue the strength and power of Ioiada and his great fauour with the people and Peeres and not any authoritie in him to create a King who by right was not a lawfull King before 28 Wherefore from this example of Athalia nothing at all can by any true or probable consequence bee concluded in fauour of Cardinall Bellarmine because from the holy Scripture it cannot sufficiently be gathered either that Athalia was by the commandement of Ioiada slaine for Idolatrie but onely for manifest tyrannie for that shee had cruelly murthered the Royall issue and had vniustly vsurped the kingdome the true heire being aliue and therefore shee could not bee the lawfull Queene or that Ioiada the high Priest did command her to be slaine by his owne proper authoritie but by the consent of the King Peeres and people And therefore this example doeth nothing auaile to proue that true Kings and Princes albeit heretikes and Idolaters who are in lawfull possession of their kingdomes may bee depriued of their kingdomes or liues by the Popes authoritie 29 This second to wit that Ioiada the high Priest did onely by his aide and counsell sollicite and not by his owne proper authoritie but with the consent of the States command in the Kings name Athalia to bee slaine 2. Paral. 23. is manifest by those words And in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage tooke the Centurions c. and made a couenant with them to wit to kill Athalia and to seate Ioas the Kings sonne and lawfull King in the possession of his kingdome which shee had vniustly vsurped who going about Iuda saith the Scripture gathered together the Leuites out of all the cities of Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Hierusalem Therefore all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of GOD And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as the Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid which words the Glosse expounding 4. Reg. 11. writeth thus Heere is described the institution of the true heire whom also hee calleth the due King through the carefulnesse of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent and aide of the Princes and Nobles of the kingdome when it is saide And hee made a couenant with them Wherefore that commandement which Ioiada gaue to the Centurions to kill Athalia did proceede from that former couenant which before hee had made with them and the King And therefore as euery priuate subiect may and ought to command any man in the Kings name to aide him for the apprehending of a traitour to his Prince and Countrey without hauing any authoritie proper or peculiar to him to doe the same so it is not necessarie that any peculiar authoritie to command bee giuen to Ioiada onely for that hee with the consent of the King and the comon wealth commaunded Athalia vniustly vsurping the kingdome to bee slaine although wee should vnderstand that commandement of Ioiada of a commandement being taken strictly and not largely or commonly in which sense to command doth little differ from to counsell or perswade 30 But the first which is affirmed by Cardinall Bellarmine to wit that Athalia was slaine not onely for tyrannie but also for idolatrie albeit if this were true it nothing auaileth to prooue that a true and lawfull Prince although an Idolater may lawfully be slaine seeing that it is manifest that Athalia was not a true and lawfull Queene but an vsurper of the kingdome the true heire being aliue hee very insufficiently concludeth from they holy Scripture seeing that he relateth not truely those words which doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it and they brake his Altars and his Images doe not immediately follow either 4. Reg. 11. or 2. Paralip 23. the killing of Athalia as Cardinall Bellarmine vntruely affirmeth intending to proue from thence that shee was slaine for idolatrie but these wordes doe immediately follow her killing And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King
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
conquered all Italie â—and before this translation his sonne Pipin was created King of Italie k Sigebert ad ann 774. and others â—nd he himselfe Patritius Romanorum which l Otho Frisingens lib. 5. cap. 28. Sigebert ad ann 781. and others as Card. Bellarmine himâ—elfe confesseth m Lib. 1. de Translat Imper. cap. 9. Lupold Babeng lib. de Iuribus Regn Imperij Rom. cap. 12. is the next dignitie to the Emperour Neither will I now â—ispute what reall difference there is betwixt the Emperour and an abâ—olute King concerning their supreme power and authoritie ouer their â—ubiects This only is sufficient for me at this present that supposing with Card. Bellarmine this translation to haue not only a titular but also â— reall effect whereof Lupoldus of Bamberbeg doth particularly treate if Card. Bellarmine will needes haue this translation to haue all it force â—nd validitie from the Popes authoritie alone and not also of the Romane â—eople or common wealth he calleth in question the right and title which the Latin Emperours haue to the Romane Empire in making it â—o be grounded vpon no so sound title or foundation as I signified beâ—ore cap. 3. num 48. See also that Chapter num 37. seq where I treaâ—ed more amply of this translation 63 But now to returne to that fact of Ioiada from whence with â—his Doctour I haue made this digression Ioiada saith this Doctour n Pag. 565. to â—aue done that which he did through the opinion only of his sanctitie and without any true and lawfull power Widdrington affirmeth we deny Hee â—peaketh of his owne head we follow the words of the Scripture Ioiada saith â—he Scripture 4. Reg. 11. commanded them the Centurions and souldiers â—aying This is the thing which you must doe c. And a little beneath And if any man shall enter the precinct of the temple let him be slaine And forthwith And the Centurions did according to all things that Ioiada the Priest had commanded them And againe Ioiada commanded the Centurions that were ouer the armie and said to them Lead â—er Athalia forth without the precinct of the temple and whosoeuer shall follow her let him be striken with the sword See also 2. Paralip cap. 23. 64 But still this Doctour persisteth in corrupting my words and meaning For I neuer said or meant that Ioiada did that which he did without any true or lawfull power this is a meere fiction of his owne braine That which I said was that all that Ioiada did either concerning the putting the true heire and rightfull King into the possession of his inheritance and kingdome or concerning the putting Athalia to death did not argue in Ioiada either any true authoritie to create a king denouo that is to giue him a right to the kingdome which right he had not before or any proper authoritie due only to the high Priest and which might not also be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case but that which Ioiada did concerning the killing of Athalia he did by the authority and consent of the King Princes and people and what hee did concerning her deposing he was bound to doe by the law of God of nature and nations For Ioiada was the Kings vncle the Kings Protectour his tutour and keeper and represented his person in all things and was the chiefe Captaine and Authour of all this couenant which he made with the Centurions Princes and people to put king Ioas in possession and to defend him from Athalia and therefore no maruaile that he as representing the Kings person gaue commandement to the centurions and souldiers how they should carry themselues either towards Athalia or any other in the kings defence 65 True it is that Ioiada might by his owne proper authoritie as he was high Priest command the Souldiers that Athalia should not be slaine in the temple least the temple whereof the high Priest had the chiefe charge should not be polluted by her blood but absolutely to command her to be slaine none could doe by his owne proper authoritie but he only vpon whom the weale publike common iustice and the temporall sword doth principally depend who only is the King in a kingdome from whom as from the head of ciuill power all temporall authoritie and command in his kingdome is deriued Wherefore I neuer meant that Ioiada did that which he did without any true lawfull and proper authoritie as proper is opposed to improper or metaphoricall but he did that which he did not by any proper authoritie of his owne which was peculiar to him as he was high Priest in which sense proper is distinguished from common but he did that which he did concerning Ioas and Athalia by that true and lawfull authoritie which might also be common to other subiects in the like case to wit to such subiects as are the chiefe Peeres of the Realme the Kings Protectors and Guardians and who represent the Kings person in all things 66 For two principall things Ioiada did the one was that he preserued the true and rightfull King and whom he knew certainely so to bee from being murthered by wicked Athalia and to that ende hee kept him secretly in the Temple for sixe yeeres together and in the seuenth yeere by the aide of the Princes and people hee did put him in possession of his kingdom which Aathalia had tirannically kept from him And this euery faithfull subiect in the like case is bound to doe and by the Law of nature and nations hath authoritie so to doe and the consent of all kingdomes and the authoritie of the rightfull King doth giue sufficient warrant to the same So that this authoritie was not proper to the function of the high Priest as he was high Priest but is common to euery faithfull subiect who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian and representeth the Kings person in all things The second was that Ioiada commanded Athalia to be slaine who endeuoured to make a publike rebellion against the true lawfull and now crowned and anointed King crying out in the presence of the King himselfe the Princes and the people A conspiracy A conspiracy Treason Treason And the authoritie also to commaund this was not proper to the function of the high Priest as hee was high Priest but is common also to euery faithfull subiect who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian and representeth the Kings person in all things And to teach the contrary to any of these two things is to teach a most false scandalous and seditious doctrine 67 This second to wit that the commandement of Ioiada to kill Athalia was done in the Kings name and by his authority this Doctor affirmeth o Pag. 567. not to be incredible because it happened after the creation of the new King neither would this saith he hurt Bellarmines opinion For Bellarmine doth not contend that hereticall Kings ought to bee slaine by the Popes commandement
his kingdome and deposed the Queene de facto that is thrust her out of the possession of the kingdome For Ioiada in this sense did make or constitute the King and deposed the Queene by the aide and assistance of the Princes without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter but to make or constitute him King de iure or the rightfull heire to the kingdome onely succession without the aide and assent of Ioiada or the Princes was sufficient Neither dare this Doctour absolutely auerre as you haue seene that Ioas was not before this King de iure but Athalia but he affirmeth it with a credibile est which neuerthelesse I haue prooued to be incredible and to containe a very false scandalous and seditious doctrine 78 Lastly although that question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether Athalia was slaine onely for treason or also for idolatrie be not much materiall to the present controuersie betweene vs which is by what authoritie it was done seeing that whether she was slaine only for treason or also for idolatrie it was done by the authoritie of the King who then was crowned and confirmed by the Princes and people as this Doctour heere is not also vnwilling to grant Neuerthelesse I still affirme that it can not be prooued from the holy Scripture that she was slaine for idolatrie albeit I doe not deny that she deserued death therefore Whereupon the Scripture onely mentioneth that vpon her endeauouring to make a rebellion against the true and now anointed King crying out in the presence of the King Princes and people A conspiracie A conspiracie Treason Treason she was commanded to be slaine Neither can this Doctour sufficiently conclude from those words of holy Scripture Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. as Card. Bellarmine pretended to prooue or from those words immediatly going before And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would be the people of the Lord that Athalia was actually slaine for idolatrie although I doe willingly grant that she was an Idolatresse and therefore deserued death according to the law 79 Neither did I as this Doctour vntruely saith g pag. 570. either slaunder Card. Bellarmine or else knew not what I said my selfe when I affirmed that Card. Bellarmine did not sincerely relate the words of holy Scripture to wit Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. which words as he saith doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For after the killing of Athalia these words And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King c. which as the Glosse affirmeth were a confirmation of the King newly annointed and crowned doe immediately follow and after them doe follow those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. And whereas this Doctour affirmeth that Bellarmine did not meane that those words precisely Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal c. doe immediately follow after the words wherein the killing of Athalia was commanded but his meaning was that the ouerthrowing of the temple of Baal was done immediately after the killing of the Queene and therefore hee did not properly speake of wordes but of things done This is plainely both against the text of holy Scripture for that betwixt the killing of Athalia and the destruction of the temple of Baal was the confirmation of King Ioas newly crowned and annointed and of the couenant which Ioiada made betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would bee the people of our Lord and it is also against Cardinall Bellarmines owne wordes Those wordes saith Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia And yet this Doctour forsooth will haue Cardinall Bellarmine not to speake properly of wordes but of things done contrary to Card. Bellarmines expresse words But truth and plaine dealing cannot colourably be impugned but by such pitifull shifts and fraudulent euasions 71 And thus thou seest good Reader how insufficiently this Doctour hath confuted my answer to Cardinall Bellarmines argument taken from the example of Athalia who was not deposed by Ioiada that is depriued of her right to reigne seeing that shee was neuer a lawfull Queene nor euer had any true right to reigne but shee was by the procurement of Ioiada and by the aide and assistance of the Princes and people thrust out of the possession of the kingdome which she tyrannically had for sixe yeeres vsurped and wrongfully detained from Ioas the true and rightfull King by hereditarie succession as being the onely sonne and heire suruiuing to King Ochozias and that Ioiada that which he did both in putting Ioas in possession and in killing Athalia not by his owne proper authoritie and which was peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by that authoritie which might be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case Now you shall see how bouldly and barely Mr. Fitzherbert repateth againe this example of Athalia without taking any notice of the answere which I made thereunto before in my Apologie and Theologicall Disputation 72 But now our Aduersaries saith Mr. Fitzherbert u Nu. 16. p 77. to answere this exemple of Athalia doe say that shee was no lawfull Queene but a Tyrant and vsurped the state in preiudice of Ioas the right heire whom Ioiada set vp and that therefore the example of her deposition cannot be of consequence to prooue that the high Priest in the old law had authoritie to depose a lawfull Prince But they are to vnderstand that it little importeth for the matter in hand whether shee were a true Queene or a Tyrant for though shee had beene a lawfull Queene yet hee should haue beene her lawfull Superiour it being euident that otherwise hee could not haue beene her Iudge to determine of her right and depose her as vnlawfull especially after shee had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the State for sixe yeeres to which purpose it is to be considered that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom he should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth the Iudge absolue a man when he is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power ouer him in both cases 73 Yes good Syr it much importeth to the matter in hand whether she was a true Queene or a Tyrant for if she had beene a lawfull Queene then he should not haue beene her lawfull Superiour in temporalls neither could he haue beene her lawfull Iudge to determine of her temporal right for that as I shewed before out of many learned Catholikes and which also Card. Bellarmine himselfe holdeth to be probable in
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
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
serued him but the rest which belonged to the Kingly affaires Ioathan did and perchance it is called a free house because it was out of the Citie Therefore that the Kingly estate prouision pompe should not cease Ioathan Ozias his sonne gouerned the Kings Pallace to wit he remained in the Kings house and all the Nobles and mightiest men of the Land had recourse to him as they were wont to haue recourse to Ozias and he kept all the seruants and all the other prouision which his Father kept that the Regall state should not seeme to be diminished and yet he was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate and the rest as follow before nu 104. 108 Wherefore D. Schulckenius perceiuing this his assertion not to be grounded either in Scripture reason or any other authoritie flyeth backe againe to his former answere that Ozias was at least wise depriued of the administration of the kingdome from whence first it is prooued sayth he that the Pope may inflict vpon a King for a iust cause a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome and secondly from thence consequently it is gathered that for a most important cause and a very heinous crime as is heresie he may inflict a greater punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome 109 But although I should grant to this Doctour that the High-Priest did depriue King Ozias per accidens and consequently not onely of the administration of the kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and right to reigne that is by declaring him to be a leper which disease did by the law of God as we now suppose but doe not grant depriue him ipso facto of his right to reigne yet froÌ„ thence it cannot be proued that the Pope hath the like authoritie to depriue an hereticall King of his Kingdome or the administration thereof per accidens or consequently for that no punishmeÌ„t is appointed by the law of Christ to heresie as it was in the old law to leprosie but to punish heretikes with this or that kind of spirituall punishment Christ hath left to the discretion of spirituall Pastours and to punish them with temporall punishments to the discretion of temporall Princes who therefore as well said Dominicus Bannes may put heretikes to death or punish them in some other manner But if Christ our Sauiour had in the new law assigned particularly any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods or the like for those who should bee infected with heresie as God in the olde law did ordaine that lepers should dwell out of the Campe in a house apart then the Pope might indeed punish heretikes temporally per accidens and consequently to wit onely by declaring the law of Christ and that they were infected with heresie to which crime such punishments are according to this supposition appointed by the law of Christ Neither should he heerein transcend his spirituall authoritie But to execute this law by putting heretikes to death or by inflicting vpon them temporall punishments and punishing them actually with the same doth exceede the limits of that spirituall authoritie which hath beene giuen to the Priests eyther of the new law or of the olde 110 And albeit Pope Innocent the fourth and also other Popes haue depriued Soueraigne Princes very few times for heresie but often for other crimes not onely of their administration but also of the kingdome it selfe yet this is no sufficient ground to prooue that they had any true and rightfull power so to doe as it is manifest of it selfe and in my Apologie I haue declared more at large z Nu. 444. 445 for that it is one thing saith Cardinall Bellarmine a In Respons ad Apolog. pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so of Popes and other persons and another thing to prooue their authoritie and power And thus much concerning the first part of my answere to the antecedent proposition of Cardinall Bellarmines argument The second part of my answere was contained in these words 111 Neither also doth Cardinal Bellarmine sufficiently confirme that the Leuiticall Priests had authority to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie onely of the administration of their Kingdomes for that time onely that they were infected with leprosie For albeit Ozias after he was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie did not administer the kingdome the cause thereof might bee for that hee being not fit to gouerne the kingdome during the time of his infirmitie did commit the gouernment to Ioathan his sonne and did appoint him the Administratour of the kingdome vntill he should be restored to his former health But that a Priest of the old law had authority to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie either of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof it cannot bee sufficiently gathered from the holy Scripture As also we cannot sufficiently collect from the holy Scripture that a Priest of the old law had authoritie to depriue housholders being infected with leprosie either of their goods or of the administration thereof although it be very like that seeing such householders ought at the iudgement of the Priest declaring them to be leapers to dwell out of the campe they themselues did commit to others the authoritie to bee administratours of their goods for the time they were infected with leprosie And so the weakenesse of the antecedent proposition is manifest 112 Now you shal see in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius replieth to this my answere I answere saith he b Pag 5â—â— These make nothing to the matter It is enough for vs that King Ozias did by the commandement of the High Priest dwell in a house apart from the time of his leprosie vntill his death and that seeing hee could not conuerse with the people he was enforced to permit the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing at all concerning the affaires of the kingdome was referred to him But if he had not beene subiect to the power of the High Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will dwell in the Kings Cittie and gouerne the kingdome either by himselfe or by his Ministers For leprosie doth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne Truly Naaman Syrus was a leeper and because he was not subiect to the high Priest of the Hebrewes he did nâ—t dwell in a house apart but he was the Generall of Warfare and he went wheresoeuer he would See 4. Reg. 5. And in the same manner the High Priest might depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially if they had any in Citties because he did separate them from the people or the conuersation of men and did exclude them from Citties and consequently depriued them of the administration of those goods which they had in Citties albeit they might administer them by
was not the law of God but onely the law and commandement of the high Priest and that therefore King Ozias and other lepers might with the leaue and licence of the high Priest dwell in the Citie among the rest of the people 121 Secondly if King Ozias had contemned the high Priest and had against his will dwelled in the Regall Citie although he had geatly offended therein by transgressing the law of God which the high Priest ought by his Office to declare to all the people yet he could not therefore be punished by the high Priest with any temporall punishment for that he himselfe was supreme in temporals and subiect to none but God and the high Priest was as I shewed before subiect to him therein and might be punished by him with temporall punishments But as for the administration of the kingdome he should no way haue transgressed the law of God albeit he had gouerned the same against the high Priests will for that he was not by his leprosie depriued of any iote of his Regall authoritie Neither can this Doctour well declare how King Ozias being a man of iudgement and wisedome notwithstanding his corporall leprosie could be depriued of the administration of his kingdome or which is all one of his right and authoritie to gouerne the same for the time of his leprosie if he once suppose that he still remained true King and had true Regall authoritie seeing that to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince is plainly repugnant to the law of God sayth Card. Bellarmine d in Tract contra Barcla cap. 21. pag. 202. and as Suarez doth well affirme e in Defens fidei Cathol c. lib. 6. cap. 3. nu 6. the obligation of obedience in any degree or state doth so long endure in the subiect as the dignitie or power and iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour for these are correlatiues and the one dependeth on the other 122 And in the same manner saith this Doctor might the high Priest depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially which they had in Citie because he did separate them from the people or conuersation of men and did exclude them from Cities and consequently did depriue them of the administration of those goods which they had in Cities although they might administer them by others But this also is apparantly vntrue For although the high Priest had authoritie to declare that house-holders being infected with leprosie were to dwell apart out of the campe or Citie but yet so that they might talke and speake a farre of to others that should come to visite them as I signified before and in this sense the high Priest may be said to haue authoritie to separate them from the rest of the people to wit by declaring the law of God and not by any constitutiue commandement of his owne yet from hence it doth not follow as this Doctour affirmeth that the high Priest did consequently depriue them of the administration of their goods which they had in the Citie For he that is depriued of the administration of his goods can neither set let sell or giue away his goods or make any other contract concerning them which is valid and of force by law as it is apparant in all those who are depriued of the administration of their goods as are orphanes vnder age mad-men and many times also vnthrifts or ouer prodigall persons are by the law depriued of the administration of their goods and can make no bargaine which is valid by law and therefore they haue Ouerseers Guardians or Administratours appointed them 123 Now what man of learning will affirme that he who either by sicknesse imprisonment confinement or banishment is separated from the places where his goods doe remaine is consequently depriued of the administration of his goods Is an Englishman who for some crime or cause is banished his Countrey consequently depriued of the administration of his goods which he hath in England and can not he by authenticall writings set them sell them or giue them away Must he that is rightfully detained in prison be consequently depriued of the administration of his goods which he hath out of prison can he not set or sell his lands or goods which he hath in the Citie or Countrey What an vnsound consequence is therefore this which this Doctour maketh The high Priest did exclude lepers out of the Citie therefore he did consequently depriue them of the administration of those goods which they had in the Citie But they can not come to the Citie to set or sell their goods Who doubteth of this if they be banished the Cities as neither he that is detained in prison or banished the kingdome can goe out of prison into the Citie or returne into the kingdome to administer his goods and to set them sell them or giue them away without incurring the danger of the law But will any man of learning from thence conclude that therefore he is consequently depriued of the administration of his goods which he hath in the Citie or kingdome Or that if he should against the law aduenture to goe out of prison or the place of his confinement to administer or make away his goods the contract should be vniust and of no effect for want of right and authoritie to administer the same And thus you see that both parts of the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument are very vntrue 124 But although we should graunt onely for Disputation sake both parts of the antecedent proposition to wit that the Priests of the olde law had authoritie to depriue in that manner as I declared that is not by any constitutiue commandement of the high Priest but onely by the declaring the law of God the Kings of Iuda being infected with leprosie not onely of the administration of their kingdomes but also of their kingdomes or which is all one of their Regall authoritie and right to reigne yet how weake and insufficient is also the consequence of his argument and so the whole argument and euery parte thereof altogether defectiue I shewed in these words 125 As concerning the consequence albeit wee should grant the antecedent proposition to wit that the Priests of the olde law had authoritie to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie at least wise of the administration of their kingdomes not per se but consequently as Card. Bellarmine deduceth to wit for that the had authority to separate them from the company of the rest of the people and consequently as he saith to depriue them of their kingdome yet we deny his consequence For that figure of the lepers doth consist in this that as in the old law they that were infected with corporall leprosie oughts to be separated at the arbitrement of the high Priest from the company of the rest of the people so long as they were infected with leprosie so in the Euangelical law they that are infected
with spirituall leprosie may by Bishops be excluded from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the faithful vntil they shal returne to their former health And therefore if from this that lepers ought vpon the sentence of the Priest to remaine in a house apart out of the campe vntill they were healed it doth necessarily follow that they had not power for that time to gouerne their temporall kingdome no meruaile that consequently also the were for that time depriued of the administration of the kingdome But it is manifest enough among the learneder Diuines and of better note as wee haue seene aboue f Nu. 346. Apolog. that the depriuing either of a temporall kingdome or of the administration thereof doth not necessarily follow Ecclesiasticall excommunication And therefore this similitude of Card. Bellarmine doth also faile in this and therefore his whole argument is not forcible 126 Yea also if Card. Bellarmine in his Treatise of the Eucharist doth argue well from the figure to the thing figured where from the figures of the old Testanment he prooueth that Christ our Lord is truely and really present in the Eucharist albeit we should grant that the Priests of Leui had power to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes not only consequently but also per se and principally yet it would not therefore follow that the Priests of the new law had also that power to depriue hereticall Kings of their kingdomes For by this very same that corporall leprosie and the punishment annexed to it by the law of God was a figure of heresie or spirituall leprosie and of the punishment which is agreeable to it by the law of Christ heresie ought not by the Euangelicall law to be punished with the losse of temporall kingdome in regard of the signification of the figure for that this punishment was in the old law ordained for corporall leprosie but with a punishment of a higher degree to wit spirituall and the losse of an euerlasting kingdome because the figure is alwaies lesse perfect and of an inferiour degree then is the thing figured as the shadow in respect of the body as Card. Bellarmine doth in that place affirme And by this reason some Diuines doe not vnaptly gather that Christ our Lord was an eternall King and of a higher degree because he was figured by Melchisedech who was a temporall King 127. But that which Card. Bellarmine addeth in the end out of the first to the Corinthians chap. 10. that all things chaunced to the Iewes in figure to prooue from thence that corporall leprosie in the old Testament was a figure of heresie and spirituall leprosie he doth not well deduce out of Saint Paul neither doth he entirely and faithfully produce his words For Saint Paul doth onely say in that place All these things to wit those few things before he had rehearsed did chance to them in figure but he maketh no mention at all in that place of this figure of leprosie Thus I answered in my Apologie 128 Now to this my answere D. Schulckenius g Pag. 550. replieth thus I answere First when Bellarmine saide that Ozia was enforced to resigne vp the kingdome to his sonne for my Adversary Widdrington seemeth to wrest this awry by the kingdome he vnderstood not the name of King but the administration at the kingdome with full power or Regall authoritie But I did not wrest awry or misinterprete that word kingdome for I prooued as you haue seene that Ozias did not resigne vp to his sonne his Kingly authority but he still remained King not onely in name but elso and right and in very deede and that his sonne had indeede full authority to gouerne or administer the kingdome as an Administratour Protectour Guardian or if we may say so Vice-Roy but no supreme or Regall authority 129 Besides that saith this Doctour good Diuines cited aboue h Nu. 346. by my Aduersary WiddringtoÌ„ as Paludanus Richardus S. Antoninus Sotâ—s Medina Richeomus and two they are my Aduersary Widdringtons words most famous Diuines of this age and of the same Religious Order with Card. Bellarmine Franciscus Suarez and Martinus Becanus dâ—e teach that which is true and denied by no man to wit that excommucation precisely and per se men are not depriued of the dominion of their temporall goods and thereby not depriued of their Kingdomes and Seignories But that which my Aduersary Widdrington doth impose vpon them to wit that they are not depriued of the administration of their kingdome this they doe not teach For it is the common opinion of Diuines and Cannists that by excommunication men are depriued of their power to iudge and of other acts belonging to the externall Court Forensibus actibus wherein the administraton of ciuill Iurisdiction doth consist 130 For Suarez doth say and prooue three things against my Aduersary Widdrington in the place cited by my Aduersary Tom. 5. disput 15. sec 6. First that by excommunication externall iurisdiction doth cease in the person excommunicated and all acts which doe appertaine thereunto Secondly that in subiects doth cease the obligation of fidelitie being also sworne after the sentence is giuen by an Ecclesiasticall Iudge and hee prooueth it by the chap. Nos sanctorum cap. Iuratos 15. q. 6. Thirdly that dominion and temporall goods doe not cease vnlesse there be mention made of them as truely it is made in the excommunication of heretickes who are depriued of all goods and of all dignitie Wherefore seeing that our principall question is concerning the leprosie of heresie it is plaine that my Aduersary Widdrington hath imposed vpon Catholke Doctors a false doctrine for true 131 But truely it is plaine that this Doctour cannot with any colourable Reply impugne my answeres but either by equiuocating chopping or changing corrupting or misinterpreting my words or meaning For my words in this place which this Doctour after his vsuall manner doth misinterpret are as you haue seene that according to learned Diuines the depriuing either of a temporall kingdome or of the administration of a temporall kingdome doth not necessarily follow Ecclesiasticall excommunication marke that word necessarily fellow And in the number 346 to which also I referred the Reader I affirmed that Excommunication ex se of it selfe or of it owne nature hath not sufficient force to depriue a Prince of his dominion or of the vse thereof Suarez tom 5. desp 8. sec 1. And this I prooued by the definition of Excommunication assigned by Suarez to wit that it is an Ecclesiasticall Censure whereby one is separated from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the faithfull which definition is taken from Saint Augustine as he is cited in the Canon law i 11. q. 3. omnis Christianus who saith that euery Christian who is excommunicated is remooued from Ecclesiasticall communion 132 From whence it necessarily followeth that Excommunication ex se of it selfe of it owne nature or by any intrinsecall and necessarie
materially of an equall or not inferiour order and excellency then the things figured so that formally as they are figures or in that they are figures they are lesse perfect and excellent then are the things figured Now this Doctour doth craftily take here figures and the things figured not formally and according to that wherein they are figures but materially for otherwise as you shall see he saith nothing to the purpose and to the confuting of my answere For neither Manna nor the Paschall lambe are figures of the Eucharist as the accidents of the Eucharist doe concurre to the nourishing of the body but onely as they are profitable to the nourishing of the soule Neither was corporall leprosie or the separation of lepers from ciuill conuersation a figure of spirituall leprosie and of Ecclesiasticall separation or Excommunication as corporall leprosie doth infect the body and Excommunication doth separate from ciuill conuersation but only as spirituall leprosie doeth infect the soule and Ecclesiasticall Excommunication doth separate from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall communion for that a figure must in all those things wherein it is a figure be more noble and excellent then is the thing which is figured And therefore as Cardinall Bellarmine very well obserueth q Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. to fulfill a figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to bee done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when he himselfe was circumcised but when hee ordained Baptisme in the place thereof Thus Card. Bellarmine 148 From whence it euidently followeth that the separation of corporall lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation could not bee a figure of the separation of spirituall lepers also from ciuill conuersation for that ciuill conuersation is one and the self same thing and not another thing more excellent which according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine must succeede in place of the figure but the fulfilling of this figure must bee the separating of spirituall lepers from spirituall or Ecclesiasticall conuersation And therefore although Ecclesiasticall Excommunication hath by the lawes of the Church annexed vnto it in that manner as I haue before declared the excluding by way of commandement from ciuill conuersation if otherwise by the law of GOD and nature we are not bound ciuilly to conuerse yea and also according to Cardinall Bellarmine the depriuing of temporall kingdomes or at leastwise of the administration thereof yet the separating of lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation or the depriuing them of temporall kingdomes or administration could not according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds bee a figure of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication in the new law as Excommunication is pretended to worke the same effects but onely as it worketh more excellent effects to wit the separating of the faithfull from spirituall conuersation and excluding them from the kingdome of heauen 149 Wherefore if wee doe respect onely the nature and propertie of a figure it is euident that Cardinall Bellarmine according to his owne principles hath not any way prooued that because corporall leprosie and the punishments annexed thereunto in the old law to wit the depriuing of temporall kingdomes Iurisdiction or administration as Cardinall Bellarmine contendeth was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the punishments annexed thereunto in the new law therefore the same punishments to wit the depriuing of temporall dominion Iurisdiction or administration were figured by them and consequently may now by vertue of the figure bee ordained against spirituall lepers for this were not according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine to fulfill the figure and to put in place thereof something more excellent but to put that very same thing which the law in that figure prescribed to be done And therefore Cardinall Bellarmine must bring better arguments vnlesse he will quite discredit himselfe and his cause drawne from other heads then from the figure of leprosie and of separating lepers from ciuill conuersation which according to his owne principles doth as you haue seene make cleere against him to prooue that spirituall Pastours either by vertue of Excommunication or in any other manner haue authoritie to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes and dominions or of any temporall administration or Iurisdiction 150 Lastly whereas in the end of this my answere I affirmed as you haue seene that Cardinall Bellarmine did not truely and entirely set downe the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. And all these things chanced to them in figure for that hee left out that word these which is a relatiue and hath relation onely to those things whereof the Apostle spake before among which corporall leprosie is none and hee affirmeth him to say And all things chanced to the Iewes in figure this Doctour maketh much adoe and laboureth in vaine to excuse Card. Bellarmine And first hee answereth u pag. 553. that Cardinall Bellarmine did not produce the words but the sense of St. Paul but it is certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that Chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure but those and other like to them 151 But first this answere is not agreeable to Card. Bellarmines owne words The Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. saith Cardinall Bellarmine that all things did chance to the Iewes in figure and what I pray you is to say that the Apostle saith so then to produce the Apostles words Secondly although it bee certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure yet it is certaine that the Apostle in that chapter did onely say that all these things and not all things absolutely as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth him to say did chance to the Iewes in figure Thirdly albeit S. Paul knew right well that not onely all those altogethere mentioned but many other such like dioâ—ce to the Iewes in figure yet it was sufficient for his purpose in that place onely to affirme that all those things there mentioned and not that all things absolutely did chance to the Iewes in figure neither was it necessarie that the Apostle should in that chapter say all hee knew it was suffient for him to say in that chapter onely that which did suffice for his present purpose Wherefore this Doctour must distinguish betwixt knowledge which is in the vnderstanding and meaning which is in the will and so hee may see that the Apostle knew right well that not onely those things there mentioned but those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure and yet onely meant to say in that place that all those things there mentioned and not all those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure Neither did St. Paul meane otherwise then the words which he spake did signifie but it is
manifest that those words of the Apostle And all these things chanced to them in figure doe not signifie the same that these words doe And all things chanced to them in figure 152 His second answere is that the ancient Fathers and especially S. Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerdotio doe teach that the iudgement of the Priests in the old law concerning corporall leprosie was a figure of the iudgement of the Priests in the new Testament concerning sinnes But no man denyeth this for I make no doubt but that corporall leprosie and the iudgement thereof in the old law was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the iudgement belonging thereunto in the new law That which I contend is that Cardinall Bellarmine did not truely entirely and faithfully set downe those wordes of Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. And all these things chanced to them in figure for that hee left out that word these and that the Apostle did not say in that place that corporall leprosie and the iudgement thereof in the old law was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the iudgement belonging thereunto in the new Testament and of this there needeth no other proofe then to peruse the words and text of the Apostle in that Chapter 153 Thirdly this Doctor answereth that S. Thomas x Prima secundae q. 104 ar 1. and S. Aug. y In lib viginti vnius sentent l. 16. contra Faustum cap. 28. l. 18. c. 6. l. 22. c. 24. in many places doe cite those words of S. Paul in that maner as Card. Bell. doth therefore C. Bell cannot bee reprehended for citing the wordes of the Apostle not entirely and sincerely vnlesse they also with him bee reprehended But first this is not to take away the aforesaid imputation from Card. Bellarmine but to lay it vpon others Secondly it is not true that St. Augustine citeth those wordes in that manner as Cardinall Bellarmine doeth but hee expresly setteth downe in all the later places All these things as it is in Saint Paul Onely in that booke Viginti vnius sententiarum he citeth indeede those wordes of the Apostle as Cardinall Bellarmine doth leauing out that word these yet D. Shulckenius being so well acquainted with Cardinall Bellarmine and his doctrine could hardly forget that Card. Bellarmine himselfe expressely denyeth z De Scriptoribus Ecclesiast ab anno 400. ad 500. in obseruat ad â—om 4. S. Augustini pag. 187. that booke viginti vnius sententiarum to be S. Augustius worke or to haue in it any graue thing or worthy S. Augustine 154 Neuerthelesse I doe not deny but that S. Austin S. Thomas or any other might by an other consequence gather from that saying of S. Paul that all things for the greater part did chance to the Iewes in figure For although S. Paul doth onely say That all these things did chance to the Iewes in figure yet seeing that there is no more reason why those things mentioned there and not also many other things not mentioned in that place as the Sabboth Circumcision c. which are named by S. Augustine should chance to the Iewes in figure we may from those words of S. Paul rightly inferre by an other consequence that all things for the greatest part did chance to the Iewes in figure But as I said that onely which I contend is that Card. Bellarmine did not truely entirely and faithfully relate those words of S. Paul neither hath this Doctour as you haue seene brought any colourable argument to confute the same 155 Thus thou seest good Reader that Card. Bellarmines argument taken from the example of King Ozias is most weake and insufficient and my answere thereunto to be sound and irreprooueable and D. Schulckenius Reply to be very fraudulent and in all points to be shaken and quite ouerthrowne and to haue wrapped in sentences with vnskilfull and ambiguous words Now you shall see how weakely and nakedly my vnlearned Aduersarie Mr. Fitzherbert notwithstanding he had seene my aforesaid answere to this example vrgeth againe the same But he bringeth nothing in confirmation thereof but what I answered before in my Apologie except the authoritie of S. Chrysostome whose words and meaning neuerthelesse he doth most fowlly corrupt and to which also in my English Theologicall Disputation a in the Admonition nu 23. seq which was published long before his Treatise against me came foorth I did most cleerely answere 156 Ozias was so farre saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Cap. 5. nu 19. pag. 79. Suppl pag. 19. from being supreme head ouer Priests in spirituall matters that he was subiect to them therein and bound to obey them no lesse then was the meanest subiect he had This is manifest by the plaine-words of the Scripture in this place where the high Priest hauing rebuked Ozias for his presumption did not onely command him to depart saying Egredere de Sanctuario c. Goe out of the Sanctuarie c. 2. Paralip 26. but also thrust him out of the same as soone as the leprosie was discouered in his forehead Festinato saith the Scripture expulerunt cum They thrust him out in all hast besides that it is manifest in the same place that God punished him as well for his disobedience in resisting and threatning the Priests as for presuming to Sacrifice and therefore though he had the Censar in his hand to burne the incense yet he was not stroken with leprosie vntill he had threatned the Priests Minabatur Sicerdotibus sayth the Scripture statimque orta est lepra in fronte eius c. He threatned the Priests and foorthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead wherein was fulfilled the menacing admonition that God gaue to the people in the 24. of Deuteronomie as I haue declared before when he commanded them exactly to obey the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke bidding them remember how Mary was punished with leprosie for murmuring against Moyses Moreouer whereas there was a generall law giuen to the people in Leuiticus whereby all men without exception were bound in case of leprosie to vnder goe and obey the iudgement of the Priests and at their arbitrement to be separated from the company and conuersation of other men it is manifest by this example that the Kings were no lesse subiect to this law and bound to obey the Priests then euery other man in which respect Ozias was forced by the sentence of the Priests according to the prescript of the law to liue in a house apart so long as he liued And I can not omit c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 157 But what is all this to the purpose or how from hence doth it follow that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depose temporall Princes and had a Soueraigntie ouer them not onely in spirituall but also in temporall causes as this man pretendeth For all that Mr. Fitzherbert here hath said is briefly this First that the
the high Priest this oath must needes haue beene repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament Thus farre I haue thought good to lay downe the words of my Supplement touching the law of God in the old Testament c. 168 To this authority of S. Chrysostome I did answere in my English Disputation of the oath long before Mr. Fitzherbert Reply come foorth And all the force of his argument taken from this authoritie seemeth to consist in those wordes of S. Chrysostome Consedit in throno legem Dei riâ—sus transgrediens He sate in his throne transgressing againe the law of God From whence this man inferreth that God was offended not only because Ozias was not cast out of the City but also because he was suffered still to reigne whereas this only can be gathered from those words and these other and you are afraid to cast him being vncleane out of the City you beare reuerence to his Kingly dignitie violating the law of God c. I doe therefore speake no longer to the Prophets c. That God was offended and speake no longer to the Prophets for that Ozias being a leper and vncleane was not cast out of the City as it was ordained by the law which also S. Chrysostome in the next homily doth more plainly declare 169 Ego vero saith this holy Father si vnum quiddam adhuc addidero c. But if I shall adde yet one other thing I will make an end of my speach And what is this That which not long agoe from the beginning we did demaund What is the cruse that seeing in externall things and in prophecies all are went to set downe the time wherein the Kings did liue this Prophet Esay ommiting that expresseth the time wherein King Ozias dyed speaking in this manner And it came to passe in the yeere wherein King Ozias dyed And yet he might haue expressed the time of the King then reigning as all Prophets vsually did But he did not so For what cause did he not so It was an ancient custome to expell a leprous out of the Citty both to the end that those who liued in the Citty might be in better health and that the leprous should not giue to men prone to vse reprochfull words an occasion of scoffing and derision but that he abyding out of the City might haue solitarines in steede of a vaile or couer against reprochfull calamitie And this ought this King to haue suffered after his leprosie but he did not suffer it those that were in the City reuerencing him for his Soueraignitie but he remained at his house secretly This to wit that he remained at his house secretly and went not forth of the City prouoked GOD to wrath this hindered the prophecie c. Thus saith S. Chrysostome whereby it is manifest that S. Chrysostome doth not affirme that God was offended because Ozias was not thrust out of his kingdom or depriued of his right to reigne but because he liued secretly at his house in the City and did not depart out of the City according as the law in Leuiticus did ordaine 170 Wherefore the meaning of those words of S. Chrysostome He sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God is made more plaine by these later words which I did now relate For as before he being no Priest trangressed the law of God by presuming to offer Sacrifice vpon the Altar of incense contrary to the law so now againe he being for his former offence striken by GOD with leprosie transgressed the law by presuming to remaine in the City which the law did forbid Allo Mr. Fitzherbert may perchance vse some cunning translating those words of S. Chrysostome Sedebat to thrâ—â—â— c. He sate still in his throne breaking againe the law of God as though Ozias had offended againe by remaining still in his throne or which I take for all one by continuing still to reigne and by keeping still his Royall dignitie and authoritie or right to reigne and not resigning it ouer wholy and fully to his sonne Ioathan Wherefore taking those words He sate still in his throne in this sense that word still may be equiuocall and of purpose thrust in by Mr. Fitzherbert to signifie that he offended for keeping still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne whereas the words of S. Chrysostome only are that he sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God not for that he brake againe the law of God because he sate in his throne or which I take for all one kept still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did gouerne the kingdome in his name and by his authoritie and as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy but for that he departed not our of the City as S. Chrysostome himselfe expresly declareth But if Mr. Fitzherbert will haue S. Chrysostome to take that word throne for the materiall Royall seate or chaire of estate which remained in the City for so also the Latin word may be Englished then this sense is in effect all one with the first which I contended to be Chrysostomes meaning to wit that Ozias transgressed the law againe for remaining in the City for leprosie did not debarre him by the law from sitting in a chaire of estate out of the City or from any iote of his Kingly right power or authoritie as I shewed before 171 But lastly it is worth the noting to obserue how well forfooth Mr. Fitzherbert agreeth with Card. Bellarmine in vrging this example of King Ozias For Card. Bellarmine contendeth that Ozias was thrust out both of the City and also of his kingdome but this man laboureth to proue that according to S. Chrysostome hee was neither cast out of his kingdome nor out of the City Others with Iosephus affirme that he liued in deede out of the City but withall that he still reigned or remained King although Ioathan in his name and authoritie or as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy administred the kingdome Neuerthelesse Abulensis Abulens q. 29 in Cap. 25. Exodi although he greatly commendeth Iosephus as a most skillfull Historiographer of the Iewes of whom also hee writeth m Q 9 in cap. 15. lib. 4. Reg. that it is likely he know all the particular facts of those Kings yet he leaueth the opinion of Iosephus in this point Sometimes saith Abulensis n Q. 10 in cap 13 â—euit the plague of leprosie was perpetuall and then the leper remained vntill his death out of the Campe separated from the rest and this was vnlesse perchance he was a man of great excellencie as the King who if he fell into leprosie did not goe out of the campe but remained therein but he was in a certaine separate house as we reade 4. Reg. 15. Of King Ozias who there is called Azarias for he fell into leprosie being stiken by GOD in the forehead because he would burne incense to our Lord as Priests where it
is said And our Lord stroke the King and he was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a free house apart but Ioathan the Kings sonne gouerned the Palace and iudged the people of the Land But from hence it cannot be conuinced that this free house a part was in the City but rather apart out of the City and therefore the opinion of Iosephus seemeth to be more agreeable to the words of holy Scripture Num. 5. And our Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leper 172 Therefore I will conclude vpon the premisses cleane contrarie to Mr. Fitzherberts inference that for as much as the law of GOD assigned no Soueraigntie in iudgement to the High Priests and their consistorie in temporall causes but only in meere spirituall as was to declare the law of God and to iudge one to be infected or not infected with leprosie according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law and to declare them that were infected to be separated and cast out of the campe according to the Prescript of the law which is the plaine meaning of those words ad arbitrium illius separabitur and he shall be separated at his arbitrement or iudgement that is if the Priest doe declare or iudge him a leper he shall be separated and cast out of the campe and seeing that the executing of the law concerning temporall punishments and the separating of lepers by force and temporall constraint did not belong to the Priests but to the supreme temporall authoritie which did reside in the Kings and not in the Priests who were subiect to the Kings in temporalls and might be punished by them with temporall punishments as I haue amply proued in these two Sections and the aforesaid words Num. 5. Command the children of Israel he doth not say command the Priests although then the Israelites had no King neither did the supreme temporall authoritie reside in the Priests but rather in the people that they cast out of the Campe euery leper it followeth euidently that the Priests were not the supreme heads of the Kings in temporalls nor Kings therein subiect to them and their tribunall nor to be punished by them with temporall punishments but contrariwise and consequently that if an Oath had beene proposed by any of these Kings to his subiects whereby they should haue sworne that hee was free from all subiection in temporalls and from all temporall chasticement of the high Priest by way of temporall constraint I say by way of temporall constraint and putting in execution the law of God wherein temporall punishment were ordained and not by way only of declaring the law of God which as it haue sufficiently proued was a spirituall and not a temporall action the said Oath must needes haue beene conforme and not repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament And thus much concerning the arguments taken from the old Testament SECT III. Wherein 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 veritie is proued to make against himselfe 2. 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 D. Schulckenius Reply proued to be fraudulent and insufficient 3. the authoritie of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were ready to revenge all disobedience is answered Mr. Fitzherberts fraude in alledging the authoritie of S. Austin is plainly discouered and the conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be both false and fraudulent NOw from the old Testament Mr. Fitzherbert descendeth to the new and vpon a false supposall as I haue already conuinced to wit that he hath effectually proued that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreme and soueraigne authority to create punish and depose Kings he laboureth in vaine from the number 25 to 32. to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood of the new law not for that he think th that we are now bound to retaine the ceremoniall or iudiciall part thereof but to deduce as he saith a Num. 25. pag 83. a potent argument from thence as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood and especially in the chiefe Priest in the law of Christ And for proofe heereof he setteth downe two positions as the only grounds of this his potent argument 2 The first is that the old law and Testament being but a figure b Num. 26. pag 84. and a shadow of the new was no lesse inferiour there to in authoritie dignitie and perfection then Moses to Christ the dead and killing letter to the quickning spirit or the Priesthood of Aaron to the Priesthood of Melchisedech which was Christs Priesthood he should rather haue said which prefigured the excellencie of Christs Priesthood c See S. Thomas and the Schoolemen 3. part q. 22. ar 6. This position to wit Hebr. 10. that the old Testament was a figure and shadow and not inferiour to the new he proueth by the authoritie of S. Augustine d In Psal 119. who affirmeth that vetus Testamentum promissiones habet terrenas c. The old Testament hath earthly promises an earthly Palestine an earthly Hierusalem an earthly saluation to wit conquest of enemies aboundance of children fertilitie of soyle and plentie of fruites all these things are earthly promises and it is to be vnderstood spiritually in figure how the earthly Hierusalem was a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the heauenly kingdome So S. Austin and thereupon concludeth that if the olde Testament was a shadow of the new non mirum quia ibi tenebrae it is no meruaile though there were darkenesse there pinguiorâ—s enim vmbrae sunt tenebrae for thicker shadowes are darkenesse Thus argueth S. Augustine proouing the imperfection of the old law in respect of the new which the Apostle also proueth amply in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 7. saying that the old law was abolished propter infirmitatem eius inutilitatem for the infirmitie and invtilitie of it Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex for the law brought nothing to perfection 3 His second position is e nu 26.28 that the defects of the old law and Synagogue of the Iewes can not serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ and therefore though the Kings in the olde Testament should haue had authoritie ouer Priests yet it would not follow that Christian Kings should haue the like for that the defects and imperfections of the Synagogue which S. Austin calleth terrenum regnum an earthly kingdome were not to be transferred to the
his Successours haue authoritie to create depose and punish Princes temporally it doth likewise follow that the rest of the Apostles and their Successours haue the same authoritie ouer Kings and Princes who are subiect to them spiritually 11 Secondly those wordes of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood as I answered in my Apologie nu 36. of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings to absolue from sinnes not from debts to vnloose the bonds of the soule not of the body to open or shut the gates of the kingdome of heauen not of earthly kingdomes to giue or take away spirituall goods graces and benefits not temporall goods lands kingdomes or liues When it was said to S. Peter saith S. Augustine I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. he signified the vniuersall Church The rocke is not from Peter but Peter from the rocke vpon this rocke which thou hast confessed Aug. trac 124. in Ioan. I will build my Church The Church therefore which is founded on Christ receiueth from Christ the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that is power to binde and loose sinnes And againe beneath saith S. Augustine Peter the first of the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to bind and loose sinnes So also S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Fulgentius Ambr. lib. 1. de paenit c. 2. Chrysost Theoph. in Mat. 16. Fulgent Eus Emiss vbi supra Bernard l. 2. c. 6 de considerat Hug. Vict. tom 2. serm 64. Iust Monast Laurent Iust de casto connub verbi animae c. 10. Eusebius Emissen Theophylact S. Bernard Hugo de S. Victore Laurentius Iustinanus and infinite others vnderstand those words of our Sauiour of binding and loosing soules and sinnes Neither is there any one of the ancient Fathers or Doctours before Pope Gregorie the seuenth that wrested them to the giuing or taking away from any man whatsoeuer according to their deserts Empires Kingdomes Princedomes Dukedomes Earledomes and the possessions of all men Quia si potestis saith hee k In the Excommunication of Henry the 4. in the eight Roman Councel held by him in the yeere 1080. Iansenius c. 148. Concord Theophy in c. 21. Ioan. Basil in l. de vita solitar c. 23. in caelo ligare soluere potestis in terra Imperia Regna Principatus Ducatus Marchias Comitatus omnium hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere vnicuique concedere 12 I grant likewise that Pascere to feede is taken also for Regere to gouerne but not as a King gouerneth his kingdome but as a Sheepheard gouerneth his flocke as well obserueth Iansenius vpon this place of S. Iohn Christ saith Theophylact doeth not make Peter a Lord nor a King nor a Prince but commandeth him to be a Sheepheard Wherefore as those words whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings and were spoken not only to Saint Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles so also these wordes Feede my sheepe are to be vnderstood of spirituall feeding or gouernment and doe belong not onely to S. Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles whom S. Peter did represent Atque hoc ab ipso Christo docemur c. saith S. Basill And this wee are taught by Christ himselfe who appointed Peter the Pastour of his Church after him For Peter saith he doest thou loue me more then these Feede my sheepe and consequently hee giueth to all Pastours and Doctours the same power whereof this is a signe that all doe equally bind and loose after that manner as he Feede my sheepe saith S. Ambrose which sheepe and which flocke Amb. de dignit sacerd c. 2. not only blessed Peter did then take to his charge but hee did take charge of them with vs and all we tooke charge of them with him For not without cause Aug. de agone Christiano c. 30. saith S. Augustine among all the Apostles Peter sustained the person of this Catholike Church for to this Church the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter amd when it is said to him it is said to all Doest thou loue Feede my sheepe Let Bishops and Preachers of the word heare saith Theophylact what is commended to them Theoph. in c. 21. Ioan. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad anno 1580. Feede saith Christ my sheepe c. Certaine things saith Cardinall Bellarmine are said to Peter in regard of the Pastorall office which therefore are vnderstood to bee said to all Pastours as Feede my sheepe and confirme thy brethren and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. But of this my second answere more beneath l nu 21. seq where you shall see in what fraudulent manner D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same 13 Now you shall see what necessarie consequents Mr. Fitzherbert hath drawen from those words of our Sauiour spoken to S. Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. and Feede my sheepe For as much saith he m nu 33. p 87 Suppl nu 61. at there can be no good gouernment of men without chastisement when iust occasion requireth it followeth that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and so consequently to his Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish such as should deserue it Whereupon it followeth that seeing all Christian Princes are sheepe of Christs fould and to be gouerned and guided by their supreme Pastour they cannot exempt themselues from his iust chastisement when their owne demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it And this I say not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction 14 But first I willingly grant that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and also to the rest of his Apostles and also consequently to their Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish all those that are sheepe of Christs fould and consequently also all Christian Princes when their demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it But I vtterly denie that this chastisement is to be vnderstood as Mr. Fitzherbert saith not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Commmon-wealth and consequently granted her power to giue only spirituall goods graces and benefites not temporall goods lands or kingdomes so also the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to chastise and punish spiritually not temporally or which is all one to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments and to depriue their spirituall sheepe and subiects of those spirituall goods which they haue receiued from the Church and by being Christians and not of those temporall goods which they had before they became Christians and which they
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
so good sincere and zealous a Catholike and yet lyeth lurking and schulking vnder another mans name of purpose as it seemeth to lash out more freely contumelious words which in his owne name he would blush to vtter for otherwise he needed not to disguise himselfe for feare of incurring the displeasure of Princes for the doctrine he teacheth so preiudiciall to their temporall Soueraigntie which also he will needes haue to be forsooth an vndoubted point of Catholike faith both for that he being a man of so high a ranke and place and liuing out of their dominions and subiection can by their indignation taken against him receiue but little harme and also for that he teacheth heere little or nothing in preiudice of their Soueraigne authority which he did not long before in his owne shape and name without putting on any maske or vizard in very plaine words maintaine But in what an exorbitant manner the Court of Rome doth proceede against those Catholikes who for desire to know the truth in matters of greatest moment speake or write any thing be it with neuer so great submission which seemeth in their opinion to derogate from that authoritie which some Popes of late yeres haue claimed as due to them although it is and euer hath beene contradicted by learned Catholikes it is too too manifest and their proceedings against mee and my bookes in commanding mee vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith and yet giuing mee no notice of any crime which I haue committed or any bad doctrine which I haue taught albeit I haue oftentimes with great instance desired to know the same protesting to purge and recall whatsoeuer I ought to purge and recall doth sufficiently confirme the same But now secondly to the matter from whence the virulent speeches of this Doctor hath caused mee to make this digression 21 Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies laboured to prooue from the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. which ought to haue all sufficient and necessary authoritie to the attaining of her end that the Church of Christ must haue authoritie to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to inflict temporall punishmēts and to depose temporall Princes for that this authoritie is necessary to her spirituall end which is the saluation of soules because otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow Religion To this argument I answered in my Apologie Apolog. 176. seq graunting to Card. Bellarmine that euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth ought to haue alwaies sufficient authority for as much as concerneth the authoritie it selfe to the attaining of her ende although she hath not alwaies sufficient power force meanes or abilitie actually to obtaine the same and to remooue all impediments which may hinder the same And so the Church of Christ being a perfect and well instituted spirituall Common-wealth hath all sufficient spirituall authority forasmuch as concerneth the authority it selfe to the attaining of her spirituall and which is the sauing of soules albeit she hath not alwaies sufficient power meanes or ability actually to bring all men to saluation to take away all the lets that may hinder the obtaining thereof But withall I denied that the authoritie to vse and dispose of temporall things or to inflict temporall punishments is necessary in spirituall Pastours to the sauing of soules but that the authority to vse and dispose of spirituall things and to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments is sufficient in spirituall Pastours to bring soules to saluation forasmuch as concerneth the authority and punishment themselues 22 Neither doth it therefore follow as Card. Bellarmine pretended to conclude that if the Church hath not authority to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to depose temporall Princes wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For the Church by her spirituall authority may punish them grieuously with Ecclesiasticall Censures which punishments are so great and dreadfull that of themselues they are able to terrifie any Christian Prince and to withdraw him from euill But if some Christian Prince for want of due consideration bee not terrified with Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall authority of the Church cannot inflict vpon him any temporall or ciuill punishment for that the onely and last punishment which the Church or which is all one the spirituall Pastours thereof by the institution of Christ can inflict is Excommunication or some such like spirituall Censure or punishment Thus I answered in my Apologie 23 Now D. Schulckenius to confute this my answere flyeth from Card. Bellarmines reason grounded vpon the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth which reason I tooke vpon mee in that place to confute to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran which is his common skar crow For when he cannot confute the answere which I giue to any reason or authority brought by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes then his custome is to flye from that reason or authority to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran as though that onely Decree of the Councell of Lateran of which Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies made no account at all were now a sufficient proofe to make good all his other reasons and authorities which Decree neuerthelesse he expoundeth according to his priuate spirit contrary to the words and true meaning of the same Councell and in stead of the Lateran Councell which I doe not impugne he would thrust vpon Catholikes his owne opinion which he violently wresteth from the words of the Councell 24 For as I haue often told him I am a true and sincere Catholike yea and a farre truer then he himselfe is if he build his Catholike faith vpon such weake and fallible grounds which some Catholike◠vnderstand in one sense and some in another it being well knowne to all learned Catholikes that the Catholike faith which is infallible cannot be built vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are in controuersie among Catholikes but vpon vndoubted grounds and so acknowledged by all true and learned Catholikes So likewise I haue often told him that I doe giue all dutifull honour and respect to all the Decrees of any approoued Councell either touching faith or manners and I doe reuerence euery one of them in their due place and order but euery exposition which either Card. Bellarmine or any other priuate Doctour who may both deceiue and be deceiued maketh of any Decree of the Councell of Lateran or of any other Councell especially when other Doctours expound that Decree otherwise I doe not account to bee any good ground or rule of a true Catholike faith And therefore it is not true that I doe freely contradict the Decree of the Councell of Lateran but I doe freely contradict his priuate exposition of the Decree of that Councell it being contrary to the true sense and meaning of the wordes
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
vntruely affirmeth either that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall States and dignities except by way only of direction or commandement or that the necessitie of the Church doth require that spirituall Pastours should by their spirituall authoritie haue power to vse the temporall sword and to inflict temporall punishments nor hath rightly concluded the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians from the power hee hath ouer their soules by those two axiomes Hee that may doe the greater may doe the lesse and The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall the true sense and meaning wherof I haue amply declared before in the second and third Chapters and haue laid open Mr. Fitzherberts fraude and ignorance in vrging those axiomes 46 Wherefore to conclude with him this Chapter I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether I haue any way abused Mr. Fitzherbert in two things as hee saith I haue done the one in affirming as thou hast heard before in the first Chapter that hee in his Supplement doth first of all suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is abiured in this Oath and the other that hee hath effectually proued nothing else by the law of God but that the temporall power is in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall subiect to the spirituall power so farre foorth as concerneth the authoritie to command and a spirituall manner of punishing by way of coercion and not temporall For as I haue most amply shewed in this Chapter he hath not brought any one pregnant reason or necessarie consequent grounded vpon the law of GOD either in the olde Testament or in the new to proue that the Pope hath power to proceede by way of temporall coercion or which is all one by inflicting temporall punishments to the temporall correction or punishment of any Prince Neither also hath hee brought any one pregnant reason or argument to prooue either that spirituall punishments are not of themselues sufficient although by reason of the indisposition of the person so punished not alwayes effectuall to redresse all inconueniences and to correct or amend all the disobedient children of the Church or that the necessitie of the Church as it is instituted by Christ to be a spirituall and not a temporall common-wealth doth at any time require that the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof must haue authoritie to vse temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments whereupon it euidently followeth that this new Oath which denyeth this authoritie of the Pope is not repugnant to the law of God 47 Thus then thou seest that I haue soundly answered all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments without dissembling the substance or pith of any one of them and haue most cleerely shewed that I haue neither abused him nor the Reader in those two things which heere he mentioneth but that hee hath notably abused mee and bewrayed his manifest fraude and dissimulation in falsly relating the supposition whereon he groundeth his whole Discourse as I haue at large declared in the first Chapter and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate heere the same againe CHAP. VI. Wherein Mr. 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 by the Law of Nature cannot 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 Mr. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted MY Aduersarie T. F. a man as most of our Countreymen know vnskilfull in Philosophie and Schoole-Diuinitie as being sciences which he hath little studied hath in this sixt Chapter taken a hard taske vpon him and which few men except such as are like to himselfe would aduenture but as our English prouerbe saith who is so bold as is blind Bayard For he will forsooth shew in this Chapter that he hath effectually prooued in his Supplement by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes temporally and consequently that the new Oath of Allegiance which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is repugnant to the law of Nature But how vnsoundly he hath prooued this and that by the law of Nature it may rather be conuinced that Religious Priests were subiect to temporall Princes and might be deposed by them and that all things both concerning State and Religion and the publike seruice of God did in the law of Nature depend vpon the authoritie of the temporall common-wealth you shall anon most cleerely perceiue 2 First therefore Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 94. nu 2 setteth downe the words which he wrote in his Supplement in this manner It is euident by the light of naturall reason that in all things wherein there is any naturall composition or combination there is a due subordination and subiection of that which is lesse perfect to the more perfect and of the inferiour to the Superiour as of the meanes to the end which is euident in the Hierarchies of Angels in the Orbes or Spheres in the Elements in the Powers of the soule in the Sciences and to omit other examples in all naturall Societies of Families Common-wealths and Kingdomes in which there is a superioritie and subiection the lesse perfect being inferiour and subordinate to the more perfect whereby nature giueth to euery thing the perfection which is conuenient for it according to the kind degree and qualitie thereof wherein we see nature tendeth still to greater perfection passing and as it were mouing by degrees from the lowest and and most imperfect creature to man from man to Angels and from them to Almightie God who as he is the Creatour of all so also he is the end consummation and perfection of all yea perfection it selfe by whom and in whom all naturall things are consummated and perfected 3 Here you see this man hath brought diuers examples wherein one thing is subiect and subordinate to another but to what purpose he hath brought them and how from any one of them he can well deduce that the Pope hath power to depose Princes by the law of Nature which is the principall subiect of this Chapter I cannot any way conceiue If he had declared in particular after what manner and with what kind of subiection these things are subordained one to the other euery man of meane vnderstanding would presently haue perceiued the non sequitur of all the consequences
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
thereof when any thing was to be handled in the Senate that which corcerned Religion was first of all dispatched whereupon also they gaue great temporall authoritie honour priuiledges and exemptions especially to their chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom all other inferiour Priests as the Flamines the Salij the Augures the Epulones the Aruales the Vestales yea and he that was called Rex sacrorum the King of sacred things were subiect in so much that the dignitie of the chiefe Bishop was accounted the second in the Common-wealth and the next to Kingly dignitie and many times the same man was both a Religious Priest and also a temporall Magistrate as Q. Fabius Maximus was an Augure and a Consull M. Aemilius Lepidus was Proconsull and chiefe Bishop Neuerthelesse it is not true that the chiefe Bishop had any temporall authoritie euen ouer the inferiour Priests as necessarily due to him by the law of nature but onely from the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth or the supreme Gouernours thereof And therefore at sometimes the chiefe Bishops had greater temporall authoritie as in the beginning when the Romanes were gouerned by Kings in whom both Regall and Pontificall authoritie were conioyned and by whom as being both Kings and chiefe Bishops all matters as well concerning State as Religion were determined and executed at some times they had lesse as afterwards Alexand. lib. 3. genial dier cap. 3. Sabellicus lib. 2. Ennead 4. Alexand. ibidem lib. 1. cap. 27. Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 27. when they had put downe their Kings for that they beganne to tyrannize ouer them and were gouerned by the Senate and two Consuls who at the first were chosen out of the Nobilitie but afterwards at the instance of the people the Senate was forced to graunt that they might be chosen also out of the commmunaltie which Consuls least they should challenge to themselues Kingly authoritie could put no Citizen to death without the consent of the people 32 For to the ende that the Kingly name which was by the Romanes fortunately begunne and for many yeeres happily continued should still remaine and also that the Priestly authoritie which the Kings had should not be abolished they did create a King whom they called Rex sacrorum a King of sacred things who had onely the name of a King without Regall authoritie and should performe the sacred rites and ceremonies belonging to Religion which the former Kings did performe Which King of sacred things by reason of the odious and suspected name and authorititie of a King could haue no authoritie or command ouer the armie and legions nor beare any office or haue any temporall gouernment ouer the people but his power and authoritie was limited to Religion and contained onely within the temples of the Gods And this King of sacred things was subiect to the chiefe Bishop as all other Priests were who as they were Priests had onely to intermeddle in sacred things but afterwards they had also great temporall authoritie granted them by the Senate and people For the chiefe Priests or Bishops had not onely power giuen them to punish with pecuniarie mulcts the inferiour Priests who should disobey their command but also they were made Consuls Captaines and chiefe Magistrates in the Common-wealth But all this temporall authoritie of the religious Priests did proceed from the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth and not as necessarily due to them by the law of Nature which those words of Cicero cited by my Aduersarie doe onely confirme to wit that it was notably and diuinely ordained that the Bishops should haue a chiefe command in matters that appertained as well to the Common-wealth as to the religion of the Gods 33 But that the temporall Magistrate sayth Mr. Fitzherbert was commanded and corrected he meaneth with temporall punishments as occasion required by the spirituall was the custome of the Romans because no doubt they held it to be most conforme to the law of Nature But first those words to be most conforme to the law of Nature are equiuocall and may haue a double signification For as euery law for as much as concerneth the directiue power or force thereof for the coerciue power or force of euery law consisteth meerly in punishing hath one of these three effects to command to forbid to permit or graunt some thing so the law of Nature as it is directiue may be taken either as it commandeth or as it forbiddeth or as it permitteth or granteth some thing If therefore my Aduersaries meaning be to signifie by those words that the law of Nature commandeth the spirituall Magistrate or giueth him authoritie as he is a spirituall person to punish the temporall Magistrate transgressing his commandement with temporall punishments that in this sense the custome of the Romans was conforme to the law of Nature this I say is very vntrue neither can he bring any colour of a probable proofe to confirme the same Nay which is more he can not prooue as you shall see beneath that the law of Nature gaue to Religious Priests as they were such authoritie to command in spirituals or to punish with spirituall punishments the supreme temporall Magistrate for that standing in the law of nature there is no publike spirituall authoritie which is not subiect and subordinate to the temporall Common-wealth and the supreme Gouernours thereof 34 But if he meane that the law of nature or the light and dictamen of naturall reason doth not forbid but doth permit that temporall Princes or Common-wealths may giue authoritie to those Religious Priests whom they shall appoint to be in their steed publike Ministers of sacred rites to punish with temporall punishments those that shall contemne their iust command and that in this sense the custome of the Romanes giuing authoritie to their Religious Priests to inflict temporall punishments was conforme that is was not repugnant to the law of nature but agreeable thereunto as a laudable and decent custome but not as necessarily enioyned by the law of nature this is very true but not to the purpose for that which my Aduersarie pretendeth to prooue is that Religious Priests haue by the law of nature and not onely by the free graunt of temporall Princes or Common-wealths authoritie to inflict temporall punishments which neuerthelesse he will neuer be able to prooue by any probable argument or any probable shew thereof 35 Thirdly therfore for the better cleering of the whole matter the Reader may obserue out of learned Abulensis Abulens in cap. 13. Gen. q. 8. 9 seq that there is a great difference betwixt the Priests of the old law of the new the Priests that were in the law of nature For in the law of nature before the law of God was published by Moyses we may cōsider euery man either by himselfe or as he was a part of some communitie If he be considered by himselfe and as dwelling alone in no Societie it was lawfull
authoritie and command ouer the Pewterers and I haue shewed a little before most euidently that in the law of Nature the Ciuill common-wealth had the whole charge and command of all things as well belonging to Religion as to State and that the Priests or publike Ministers of religious rites were instituted ordained changed depriued commanded and punished by the ciuill Common-wealth vpon whom euen in all matters belonging to Religion and the publike worship of God they wholy depended and therefore no maruaile that from this vaine and friuolous supposition of the naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall Common-wealth to the spirituall often affirmed by Mr. Fitzherbert but neuer proued by him by any one probable argument none but vaine and friuolous collections can be gathered 50 Secondly I haue also sufficiently shewed that there is not the like case betwixt the supreme ciuill Magistrate and the heads of Families and Cities and betwixt the head of the Church and the supreme Magistrate of the ciuill Common-wealth as my Aduersarie heere vntruly affirmeth for that not only those persons who are the heads of Families and Cities but also the Families and Cities themselues are parts and members of the whole ciuill Common-wealth and therefore in all ciuill matters to be directed commanded and temporally corrected by the supreme ciuill Magistrate but the temporall Common-wealth it selfe or the temporal Prince as he hath temporal power or in meere temporall matters is not a part member of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ but onely as hee hath spirituall subiection and therefore onely in spiritualls and in such which are reduced to the nature of spiritualls hee is to be directed and commanded and to be spiritually not temporally corrected by the supreme spirituall Pastour And so indeed it is conforme to the law of nature that is it is not repugnant to naturall reason but it is fit decent and conuenient although not necessary that the chiefe Religious Priest should haue authoritie graunted him either by the ciuill common-wealth as it was in the law of nature or by the positiue institution and law of God as it was in the law written to punish the transgressours of religious rites with some kinde of punishments but that the law of nature did giue no authoritie at all to those who were appointed to be publike Ministers of religious rites to commaund or punish at all the ciuill common-wealth or Soueraigne Prince thereof vpon whom both in spiritual and ciuill matters they wholly depended is altogether repugnant to naturall reason 51 But Widdrington himselfe saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 102. nu 14. doth not deny but that I haue prooued thus much effectually so farre foorth as concerneth a power to command and a spirituall manner of punishment seeing that hee saith as you haue heard in the beginning of the last Chapter that I haue effectually prooued nothing else by the diuine or naturall law but that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall not a temporall manner of punishment So he 52 But although I doe willingly grant that he hath sufficiently prooued by the law of God that the Church of Christ and the sprituall Pastours thereof haue authoritie granted them by the positiue institution and law of God to command in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall all Christians both Princes and subiects being parts and members of the Church and to punish them with spirituall punishments if they shall contemne his iust command yet my meaning was neuer to affirme that he hath effectually proued either that there is any naturall subiection and subordination of the temporall common-wealth to the head of the Church of Christ except onely in dignitie and perfection or that the law of nature abstracting from the positiue institution and law of Christ hath granted to spirituall Pastours authority to punish or commaund absolute Princes for that all the authority which spirituall Pastours now haue doth either proceed from the positiue institution and law of Christ or from the graunt of Christian Princes and not from the law of nature Wherefore from these wordes of mine which hee hath related this onely can be concluded that he hath effectually prooued by the law of God or nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall in spirituall things and spirituall punishments and that he hath proued nothing else For by what rules of Logicke can my Aduersary inferre that because I grant that he hath effectually proued by the law of God or nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall c. Therefore I must grant that hee hath effectually proued by the law of God and nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall c. sith that euery Logician knoweth that to make an absolute disiunctiue proposition to bee true it sufficeth that one part of the disiunction bee true and therefore to make that proposition of mine to bee true that he hath effectually proued by the law of God or nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall c. it is sufficient that hee hath prooued by the law of God that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall so farre foorth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall not temporall manner of punishment for by the law of nature he hath prooued no such thing nor brought any one probable argument to prooue the same 53 But let vs goe on with his Discourse Whereby it appeareth saith he l Pag. 102. nu 15. that the onely question now betwixt vs is whether the supreme spirituall Superiour may punish temporally according to the law of nature whereof truely there can be no doubt if we consider the ground and substance of my former Discourse proouing a subordination of all Societies and communities to the Church for thereupon it followeth that the head thereof may by way either of commaundement or punishment dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all the inferiour Societies when it shall be absolutely necessarie for the conseruation of the Church by the same reason that the Superiour Magistrate or Prince of the ciuill Societie or common wealth may dispose in like case and to like purpose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all the Societies which are inferiour to the common-wealth or as the soule commandeth Chap 2. per totum or punisheth the body in whatsoeuer is dependent thereon or accessorie thereto as I haue prooued before in the second Chapter 54 But this as you see is only a repetition of his former idle Discourse and therefore it needeth no other answere then that which I gaue before where first I haue shewed that the supreame spirituall superiour of the Church of Christ cannot punish temporally according to the law of Nature and that there
heads of others stroken off but the question was whether the Pope hath power and authoritie to vse bloodie punishments and hee himselfe as you haue seene expresly teacheth that the Pope hath such a power and yet now forsooth I in denying it doe mention idly bloodie punishments by death or maiming 59 Thirdly that hee may not take occasion heereafter to cauell at my words when I affirmed that true reason teacheth that euery Superiour hath power to punish his inferiour with some punishment proportionate to his authoritie my meaning was as also my words doe sufficiently signifie to speake onely of supreame Superiours who haue both directiue and coerciue authoritie that is power both to command and punish for a delegate Superiour hath no other authoritie then is granted him by his supreame Superiour And therefore it is not against the law of Nature or the prescript of true naturall reason that such a delegate Superiour may haue power giuen him only to command and not to punish or to punish one man and not another or to inflict one punishment and not another according as his supreame Superiour shall thinke it fit and conuenient 60 Now you shall see in what manner Mr. Fitzherbert prooueth that I contradict my owne grant the holy Scriptures and the ancient and common practise of the Church You haue heard Widdrington graunt r Supra c. 5. nu 1. Wid. in Admon ad Lect. nu 17. saith hee Å¿ Pag. 104. nu 17. that the spirituall Superiour may commaund corporall and temporall things as they serue the spirituall and are reduced thereto Why then may hee not punish his subiect in his body or temporall goods for the same respect But first what contradiction I pray you is it to affirme that the spirituall Superiour may for a spirituall end command or enioyne temporall penalties and to deny that he may not for a spirituall end inflict temporall penalties Contradiction as all Philosophers know is an affirming and denying of the selfe same thing and in the selfe same manner but to affirme one thing and to deny another is no contradiction at all Wherefore to proue that I contradict my owne grant Mr. Fitzherbert must proue which he can neuer doe that I affirme and deny the selfe same thing as to affirme and deny that the spirituall Superiour hath power to commaund temporall penalties to affirme and also to deny that hee hath power to inflict temporall penalties for otherwise to accuse mee of contradiction for affirming one thing to wit that the spirituall Superiour hath power to commaund temporall penalties and for denying another thing to wit that hee hath not power to inflict temporall penalties is to accuse himselfe of most grosse and palpable ignorance 61 Secondly I answere his demaund with other like demaunds Cardinal Bellarmine as you haue seene aboue t Part. 2. cap. 8. affirmeth that the soule may command bodily actions when they are necessary for the good of the soule and I also added which he cunningly concealed when they are necessary for the good also of the body why then may not the soule her selfe also exercise bodily actions for the same respect without the helpe or actiue concurrance of the body it selfe Also the soule may command one corporall member to punish another if it be necessary for the good either of the soule or of the body as the hands to whip the shoulders or to cut off some contagious member as the fingers the toes the feete or legges if they be poysoned why then hath not the soule herselfe for the same respect power to doe the same Moreouer a ghostly father may enioine his penitent for satisfaction of his sinnes and to auoide the danger of falling backe into sinne to giue Almes to build Hospitalls to afflict his body with fasting watching disciplining haire cloth and such like to shunne this or that company c. Why then if the Penitent refuse to doe these things may not his ghostly father for the same respect take away his money from him and giue Almes and build Hospitalls therewith and afflict his penitents body whether hee will or no c Why did S. Bernard affirme that the materiall sword is by Christs commandement to be drawne forth for the Church but not by the Church with the hands of the Souldier but at the becke or declaratiue commaundement of the Priest 62 But the true and proper reason why spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to command temporall punishments and not to inflict temporall punishments or to punish temporally must bee taken not from any naturall subordination or which is all one from any necessarie subiection which according to the law of Nature the ciuill common-wealth or temporall Princes haue to the Religious Societie or to the Ministers of sacred rites for that in the law of Nature it belonged to the ciuill common-wealth to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state as I haue shewed before but it must bee taken from the positiue institution of Christ our Sauiour and from the nature and conditions of the lawes weapons armour and punishments which according to the institution of Christ are due to the Church as he hath distinguished them from the nature and conditions of the lawes weapons armour and punishments which are proper to the temporall Common-wealth For there is no doubt to be made but that our Sauiour if it had pleased him might haue ordained that the chiefe visible head of the Church should bee both a temporall and spirituall Monarch as the Canonists will haue him to be and might haue giuen him authoritie to inflict not only spirituall but also temporall punishments and not only to command but also to vse the materiall temporall or ciuill sword as also if it had pleased him hee might haue giuen him no power to command at all but only to preach the word of God and to declare his law and to minister Sacraments to them that should voluntarily and of their owne accord demaund them wherefore what power the Pope and other spirituall Pastours haue wee cannot gather from the law of Nature or the necessary prescript of naturall reason but onely from the positiue institution and law of Christ. 63 But this difference betwixt the power to command and to inflict temporall punishments will be made more plaine and perspicuous by examining his next Discourse and by declaring morefully the true sense and meaning of those former words of mine The spirituall Superiour may command corporall and temporall things as they serue spirituall and are reduced thereto Which my Aduersarie either doth not or would seeme not to vnderstand For seeing that saith he u Pag. 104. numer 17. the spirituall power to command temporall things in that case resulteth as Widdrington seemeth to grant vpon their reduction to the spirituall that is to say because they are vsed and applied to the seruice of the spirituall whereby they are reduced to a kind of spirituall nature or qualitie why
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
cauilleth at the similitude for that saith he as there is not the same reason of the flesh and spirit of the body and soule of sense and reason of earth and heauen of Beasts and Angels of the sheepe and the Pastour especially in the comparing of the subiection and dominion so truely there is not the same reason of the temporall and spirituall power 101 But who seeth not what a friuolous cauill this is Who knoweth not that the body and the soule sense and reason earth and heauen Beasts and Angels Kings and Popes doe agree and are like in somethings and that in those things wherein they agree they may be compared together What man of iudgement would disprooue him that should say that as the body is an imperfect substance and is referred to the soule so the soule is an imperfect substance and is referred to the body as sense is sometimes subiect to reason so reason is sometimes subiect and captiuated by sense as the Pope is head of the Church and of spirituall power so the King is head of the ciuill common-wealth and of ciuill power and to omit that saying of the auncient Glosse f Patricius est Pater Papae in temporalibus sicut Papa est Pater Patricij in spiritualibus which Cardinall Bellarmine with small reuerence to antiquity affirmeth g Bell. contra Barcla c. 13. 16. to be razed out of the Canon law for doting olde age who can iustly mislike the like assertion of the Glosse vpon the twelfth Chapter of S. Marke As the King of France is subiect to the Bishop of Paris in spiritualls and his Lord in temporalls so Christ is the sonne of Dauid according to the flesh and his Lord according to his Dietie What man of learning can deny that although there be not the same reason of Christ and Dauid of the Bishop of Paris and the King of Fraunce of the temporall common-wealth and the spirituall concerning the particular manner of subiection and dominion yet in generall they may agree in this that the one is superiour and subiect to the other in a diuerse kind of superioritie and subiection and that although the King of France be a sheepe and the Bishop of Paris a spirituall Pastour and Dauid bee a man and Christ be God and the spirituall common-wealth be more excellent then the temporall yet they may bee compared one with the other in diuers kindes of superioritie and subiection But in such childish arguments and which are not worth the answering for want of better D. Schulckenius maketh great force 102 Secondly how vntrue it is which this Doctour so boldly affirmeth and which is one of the chiefe pillars whereon his doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is supported that the temporall power is per so subiect to the spirituall and that the spirituall power or spirituall Pastours are not per accident and by reason of vniust perturbing the publike peace subiect to the temporall power I haue shewed at large in the second part where I haue conuinced that this naturall subiection and subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall except only in perfection and excellencie is a meere fiction and that to affirme as this Doctour doth h Pag. 201. that Bishops are exempted omni iure from the ciuill power is a most false and intollerable doctrine and generally repugnant both to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers expounding that place of the Apostle Omnis anima c. Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers and to the common opinion of the Diuines and also the Iesuites who affirme that Cleargie men are not de facto exempted from the directiue power of temporall Princes and that they are bound to obserue their lawes not only by force of reason but also by force and vertue of the law 103 Now Mr. Fitzherbert in like manner being not able to proue as you haue seene this his fained naturall subordination of the temporall common-wealth to the spirituall except only in perfection worth and excellencie as spirituall things are more excellent then temporall which is nothing to the purpose and denyed by no man and hauing brought not so much as one proofe that the temporall power and spirituall doe make one body but barely and briefly supposeth the same whereas aboue in the second part I haue euidently conuinced the contrarie euen according to Card. Bellarmines owne grounds yet he feareth not to impeach of absurditie and impietie this doctrine which denyeth the aforesaid subordination and vnion thinking belike silly man that his bare I say is sufficient to satisfie the vnderstanding of the iudicious Reader But I let passe saith he i Pag. 108. nu 22. Widdringtons absurd and impious doctrine destroying the naturall subordination of temporall things to spirituall when they are ioyned in one body which I haue amply k Supra num 2. 3. seq proued euen by the law of Nature and I only wish to be obserued that albeit we should grant it to be true as it is most false that spirituall and temporall things may take the nature the one of the other equally by reason of some sinne annexed yet it would follow thereon that the spirituall Superiour may punish euen in temporall things because according to this doctrine temporall things doe become spirituall when the consideration of sinne entereth whereby also they are made proper to the spirituall communitie and consequently may be vsed and applyed by the spirituall Superiour to the punishment of his subiects 104 But first to let passe that Mr. Fitzherbert throughout this whole Treatise hath shewed himselfe to be a very vaine absurd ignorant and fowlemouthed man and that heere he hath proued nothing else by the law of Nature then that spirituall things are to be preferred before temporall things as the more perfect before the lesse perfect the soule before the body religion before policie heauen before earth and God before the world and consequently that the temporall common-wealth is in perfection worth and excellencie but not in authoritie subiect to the spirituall which no man calleth in question why doth he adde out of his owne braine that word equally except only to cauill and to perswade his Reader that I affirmed that spirituall and temporall things may be compared together not only in generall but also in euery point in particular and that betwixt them there is no disparitie at all seeing that I did not vse that word equally but the doctrine which I taught was this that not only temporall things by reason of some sinne annexed may oftentimes take the nature of spirituall things and therefore may be forbidden by the spirituall power of the Church which hath for the obiect of her directiue power vertue and vice in what actions so euer either temporall or spirituall they are to be found and consequently may be punished also by the Church with Ecclesiasticall Censures which only are the obiect of her coerciue or
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
vertue annexed doe become spirituall things that is vertuous actions and therefore subiect to the spirituall directiue power yet they doe not become spirituall Censures and therefore not subiect to the spirituall power as it is coerciue but they still remaine temporall punishments which are the obiect only of the temporall coerciue power 109 Wherefore that also which he addeth that euery Superiour may according to my doctrine punish his Subiect with penalties proportionate to his authoritie is very true but he must still distinguish betwixt the directiue and coerciue power or authoritie and in what manner temporall punishments are proportionate to either of them For because as well temporall as spirituall punishments may be vertuous or vicious actions therefore they are proportionate to the spirituall directiue power whose proper acts and obiects are the commanding of vertue and the forbidding of vice but because not the commanding either of temporall or spirituall punishments but only the actuall punishing with Ecclesiasticall censures or the inflicting of spirituall punishments is the proper act and obiect of the spirituall coerciue power therefore the inflicting onely of spirituall punishments and not of temporall is proportionate to the spirituall coerciue power From whence it euidently followeth that the Church for a spirituall end may command temporall things but not dispose of temporall things may command one to giue Almes for the satisfaction of his sinnes but may not take away his purse from him to giue Almes for that end may commaund one to punish and macerate his body when it rebelleth against the soule but not inflict vpon him corporall punishments for the same end 110 And by this also all the rest which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in this Chapter is clearely answered and the manifest absurditie which hee would put vpon mee doth manifestly fall vpon himselfe But now saith he m Pag. 109. nu 25.26.27 if together with all this we consider the naturall subordination of temporall things to spirituall whereof I haue sufficiently treated before n Supra num 2 3.4 seq Widdringtons absurdity will be most manifest as well in denying that the spirituall Superiour may punish his subiect in his person or temporall goods for a spirituall end as in affirming that the spirituall power may become subiect to the temporall no lesse then the temporall to the spirituall as though there were no subordination or subiection of the one to the other wherein he peruerteth the whole course of Nature no lesse then if he should say that in some cases the soule may be subiect to the body heauen to earth religion to policie Angels to men and God to the world whereby you may still see what probable arguments and answers he affordeth his Reader for the assurance and security of their consciences See Preface num 9. See also the answere therto nu 9. seq and that he had great reason to protest as you may remember I haue signified in the Preface that his meaning is not to lay downe any demonstrations or infallible arguments for the proofe or defence of his opinion 111 For truely all that he saith doth demonstrate nothing else but the weakenesse of his cause and his owne wilfulnesse if not of malice in defending such an improbable and extrauagant Paradoxe as this is which hee holdeth and defendeth contrary to the vniuersall and continuall custome of the Church grounded vpon the holy Scriptures the practise of the Apostles and the decrees of Popes and Councels and finally contrary to the whole course of the Canon law as it will euidently appeare in the ensuing Chapters and as Cardinall Bellarmine against Barclay and Doctour Schulckenius in his late Apologie for the Cardinall and diuers others haue sufficiently shewed and amongst our learned Countrimen Mr. Doctor Weston hath clerely soundly proued it in his booke intituled Iuris Pontificij Sanctuarium wherein he battereth all the foundations of my Aduersarie Widdringtons doctrine and fully confuteth him as well in all other points as in this touching the Popes power to punish temporally which hee o Quest 17.18.19.20.21 22. doth learnedly and amply demonstrate as well by the holy Scriptures as by many examples of the Churches practise to wit by diuers kinde of diuorces by the relaxation of debts exemption of children frō the power of their parents the abrogation of temporall and Ciuill lawes the dissolution of contracts and bargaines and finally by the imposition of temporall penalties almost vsuall and ordinarie in the practise of the Church as hee sheweth very particularly by the Ecclesiasticall Canons I forbeare for breuities sake to prosecute these points in particular only I shall haue iust occasion to treate now and then of the infliction of temporall penalties in answer of my Aduersaries pertinent obiections out of the Canons and Canonists which I hope may suffice for as much as I haue vndertaken to performe in this briefe Reply 112 But all that my Aduersary heere obiecteth I haue alreadie sufficiently confuted And first I haue cleerely conuinced that there is no naturall subordination of the temporall power to the spiritual except in nobilitie and therefore that neither the spirituall power speaking properly and in abstracto is subiect to the temporall nor the temporall to the spirituall except as I said in worth excellency and nobilitie wherein the spirituall doth excell but not in authoritie wherein they are both supreme vnlesse my Aduersaries will grant that temporall Princes are not supreme and absolute in temporall matters and spirituall Pastours are not supreme and absolute in spirituall causes which is a Paradox in true Diuinity Secondly I haue proued also most plainly that not onely temporall Princes being parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ are subiect to spirituall Pastours in spirituall things but also spirituall Pastours being parts and members of the temporall common-wealth are subiect to temporall Princes in all temporall things except wherein the law of God or man hath exempted them and to affirme the contrary were to peruert the whole course of Nature no lesse then if one should say that members are not subiect to the whole body and to the head thereof the bodie and soule to man heauen and earth to the whole world religion pollicy men Angels and the whole world to God Whereby you still see what improbable arguments answeres my Aduersary affoordeth his Readers for the assurance and securitie of their consciences in a matter belonging to their obedience due to God and Caesar and which forsooth he will needes haue to be a point of faith to the proofe whereof it is not sufficient to bring probable arguments but conuincing demonstrations as contrariwise it sufficeth to bring probable arguments and probable answeres to prooue any doctrine not to be certaine and of faith as I haue shewed more amply in the answere to his Preface whereto heere he remitteth his Reader 113 For truely all the effectuall proofes and cleere demonstrations which
for that in the law of Nature the Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe had the supreame authoritie to dispose of all things not only concerning State but also Religion CHAP. VII VVherein certaine places of the old and New Testament are explained D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere I made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisbury grounded thereon and other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias and Saphyra and of others and from the practise of the Church and from the person of man are cleerely confuted 1. THE seuenth Chapter Mr. Fitzherbert beginneth in this manner Now let vs see saith he a Pag. 112. how my Aduersarie Widdrington proceedeth who hauing giuen his reason though so weake as you haue heard why hee thinketh it to bee against reason that a spirituall Superiour should punish temporally vndertaketh to answere one place onely alleadged by me out of the old law and foure out of the new omitting to say any thing else in particular to all the other places and arguments which I vrged out of the law of God and Nature 2 But first it is not true as Mr. Fitzherbert saith that I gaue any reason at all why I thought it to bee against reason that a spirituall Superiour should punish temporally for I neuer thought this to bee against naturall reason That which I affirmed onely was that true reason doeth teach that euery Superiour hath power to punish his subiect with some punishment proportionate to his authoritie to wit by depriuing him of those goods which are proper to that Communitie whereof hee is Superiour but that any other Superiour besides the supreame Gouernour of the ciuill common-wealth hath power to punish his subiects with death mayming or depriuation of temporall goods it cannot bee deduced from the necessarie rule or prescript of true reason This was that I said Now what man of learning that knoweth the difference betwixt contra naturam secundū naturam praeter and supra naturam that is against nature according to nature besides and aboue nature would affirme that because I thinke it cannot bee deduced from the law of Nature or the prescript of true naturall reason as Mr. Fitzherbert pretended to prooue that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally therefore I must thinke that it is against Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally as though this proposition It cannot bee prooued by the law of Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally doth according to his logicke necessarily inferre that therefore it is against the law of Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally For I make no doubt but that Christ our Sauiour might if it had pleased him haue giuen authoritie as I am fully perswaded hee hath not to spirituall Pastours to punish temporally and so in this case hee had granted nothing against the law of Nature or against the prescript of true naturall reason but only aboue Nature and the light of naturall reason yet in this case it could not bee prooued by the law of Nature but only by the positiue institution and law of Christ that spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to punish temporally Wherefore the law of Nature hath neither commanded nor forbidden hath neither giuen nor denyed to spirituall Pastours authoritie to punish temporally but if they haue any such authoritie it must be giuen them by the positiue grant of GOD or man and consequently it is neither against nor according but aboue or besides the law of Nature that spiritual Pastors should haue any such authoritie to punish temporally 3 Secondly the reason why I omitted to say something in particular to euery part of his idle Discourse in this Reply of his but answered onely some certaine arguments drawne from those sixe generall heads to wit from the old law and the new the law of Nature and nations the Canon and the Ciuill law was not for that I could not answere particularly euery one of them as the Reader may see by this Treatise wherein I haue answered his whole Reply and euery part thereof but the reason was for that neither the breuitie of such a short Admonition nor the Printer who had then finished the whole Disputation would hardly permit me to make so long a Discourse as there I made and therfore I chose out of purpose certaine arguments drawne from each one of those sixe seuerall heads which I thought to bee the strongest and which being answered the iudicious Reader might easily perceiue how all the rest might in the like maner be fully satisfied 4 Now you shall see what he obiecteth against that which I there did answere And first he setteth downe my words which are these Fiftly he that will diligently consider the vnder written sentences of S. Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine will presently perceiue what a forcible proofe can bee deduced from that of Deuteronomie the 17. and such like places of the Old Testament which is a figure of the new Excommunication Bellar. lib. 2. de Ecclesia cap. 6. S. August q. 39. in Deut. saith Cardinall Bellarmine hath that place in the Church which the punishment of death had in the Old Testament and which the Common-wealth hath in temporals And Saint Augustine saith that Excommunication doth this now in the Church which killing or death did then in the Old Testament In which place hee compareth that which was said in the 24. of Deuteronomy He shall be slaine and thou shalt take away the euill from amidst thee with that which the Apostle saith 1 Corinth 5. Auferte malum ex vobis ipsis Take away euill from among your selues S. August lib. 2. de fide operibus cap. 2. And Saint Augustine teacheth in another place That the materiall sword which Moyses and Phinees vsed in the Old Testament was a figure of the degradations and excommunications which are to be vsed in the new law seeing that in the discipline of the Church saith S. Augustine the visible sword shall cease 5 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth b Pag. 113. nu 2. in this manner Thus saith my Aduersary Widdrington wherein he rather fortifieth and strengtheneth our cause then weakeneth or hurteth it any way For if you note well what Widdrington saith and inferreth he prooueth nothing else but that the penalty of temporall or corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the old and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by Excommunication which we denie not But will he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication which as he himselfe granted supplyeth the place of corporall death includeth a temporall punishment by the separation of the delinquent from the conuersation of men and from diuers
other temporall commodities as I haue shewed in the last Chapter c Num. 18. 6 But truely I cannot but smile to see the vanitie of this man who though he see himselfe altogether vanquished yet he boasteth that hee is victorious and although he clearely perceiueth yea and almost expressely confesseth that his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. Chapter to be quite ouerthrowne yet hee braggeth that his cause is not thereby weakened or hurt any way but rather fortified and strengthened For if you note well what he granteth to wit That the penalty of corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the olde and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by excommunication you cannot but clearely see that his argument taken from Deuteronomy the 17. Chapter which onely text in particular I vndertooke to answere and which speaketh onely of corporall death is quite ouerthrowne and yet forsooth I doe hereby rather fortifie and strengthen then weaken or hurt any way his cause By which you may plainely perceiue what credit is to be giuen to the rest of his vaine-glorious brags seeing that in this so manifest an ouerthrow of his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. he is not ashamed to boast that I haue rather fortified and strengthened then weakened or hurt any way his cause But will Widdrington saith he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication includeth a temporall punishment c. The inference that Widdrington maketh is that from the wordes of Deuteronomy the 17. which speake onely of corporall death Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought no good argument for that according to the doctrine of Saint Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine which hee himselfe also will not denie The penalty of corporall death is now in the new law turned to the death of the soule by Excommunication Neither is it true that Excommunication being of it own nature a separation frō the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull doth of it owne nature include any temporall punishment at all as also I haue shewed in the last Chapter albeit I doe not denie that the Church hath now by way of command annexed to Excommunication some temporall penalties but not by way of inflicting them as I declared in that place for I euer granted that the Church hath power to command enioyne or impose temporall punishments but not to inflict them yet these to command and to inflict to impose and to dispose my Aduersary doth commonly confound 7 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 114. numer 4.5 it is euident that in the olde Testament euen the temporall Princes themselues were punished by depriuation of their right to their temporall states and dominions as e 1 Reg. 16. Saul by Samuel Athalia f 4 Reg. 11. by Ioiada Ioram g 4 Reg. 9. by one of the children of the Prophets who being sent by Elizeus annointed Iehu King of Israel to the end he might destroy Iesabel all the house of Achab. Also Ozias was not only corporally expelled out of the temple by the Priests confined by their sentence to liue priuately is his own house but according to the opinion doctrine of S. Chrysostome he ought also to haue beene wholy depriued of the gouernment as I haue signified before h Cap. 5. nu 21. 22. at large And therefore seeing he telleth vs how the penalty of corporall death which was ordained in the olde Testament is now fulfilled spiritually in the new let him also tell vs to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their states and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end that wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment and in the meane time let him acknowledge according to his owne doctrine and instance here produced that the Church may punish temporally seeing it may excommunicate and consequently depriue men of many temporall commodities 8 But this also is very vntrue that the Priests of the olde Testament had authoritie to punish temporall Princes by depriuing them of their right to their temporall states and dominions as I amply prooued aboue in the 5. Chapter Neither doe these examples brought here by Mr. Fitzherbert prooue any such thing For to the examples of King Ozias and Athalia I haue answered aboue at large And as for the other two besides that Samuel Elias and Elizeus were not Priests it is manifest that what they did concerning the annointing or deposing of any King they did it not by their owne authority but onely as Prophets and speciall messengers sent by God to that purpose How long saith God to Samuel i 1 Reg. 16. dost thou mourne Saul whom I haue reiected that hee rule not ouer Israel Fill thy horne with oyle and come that I may send thee to Isai the Bethleemite for I haue prouided me a King among his Sons And again Goe saith God to k 3 Reg. 19. Elias and returne into thy way by the desert of Damascus and when thou art come thither thou shalt annoint Hazael King ouer Syria and Iehu the Sonne of Namsi thou shalt annoint King ouer Israel and Elizeus the Sonne of Saphat thou shalt annoynt Prophet for thee And therefore he that was sent by Elizeus to annoint Iehu was commanded to speake in the person of God not of Elizeus And holding saith l 4 Reg. 9. Elizeus to him that was sent the little boxe of oyle thou shalt power vpon his head and shalt say Thus saith our Lord I haue annointed thee King ouer Israel Now what man of iudgement would make this inference that because in the olde lawe some Prophets who were no Priests did by the expresse commandement of God make annoint or depose Kings therefore the Priests in the new law haue ordinary power and authority to doe the same Belike Mr. Fitzherbert will approoue also this argument that because Elias was commanded by God to annoint not onely Iehu King ouer Israel but also Hazael King ouer Syria therefore the Pope hath authority to make and depose not onely Christian but also Pagan Kings 9 Wherefore that demand which is heere made by my Aduersary to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their States and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment is friuolous both for that the Priests of the old law had no authority to depriue Kings of their temporall States and Dominions or to inflict temporall punishments and also albeit they had such an authority neuerthelesse it could not bee prooued from thence by deducing an argument from the figure to the veritie that therefore
the Priests of the new law must haue authoritie to doe the like but things farre more noble and excellent for that the veritie must be of a more high and excellent order then the figure as in the fifth Chapter I proued more at large And therefore as in the olde law all the figures promises and punishments were temporall so in the new law the veritie promises and punishments which correspond thereunto must be spirituall not temporall for otherwise the figure should bee the same with the veritie and not of an higher nature and order then the verity So that temporall life must correspond to spirituall life temporall kingdomes to spirituall kingdomes temporall goods to spirituall goods temporall promises and rewards to spirituall promises and rewards and temporall punishments to spirituall punishments all which spirituall punishments are contained in Excommunication Maior and Minor and in other Ecclesiasticall Censures and punishments And to that which he addeth in the end that I must acknowledge according to my owne doctrine that the Church may punish temporally seeing that shee may excommunicate I haue already fully m Cap. answered and denyed his consequence for that the Church of Christ neither by ExcoÌ„munication nor by any other way hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but only to punish temporally by way of command which no man denyeth And thus much concerning the olde law 10 Now to the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert brought out of the new Testament I answered thus Sixtly those places of the new Testament Quodcunque solueris super terram c. n Matth. 16. Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth c. and Pasce oues meas o Ioan. 21. Feede my sheepe as also the reason which Fa. Parsons bringeth to wit that otherwise the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth should bee imperfect and not sufficient for it selfe are explicated by mee elsewhere And that corporall killing of Ananias and Saphira and the visible deliuering of the fornicatour to Sathan are to be referred to the grace of miracles Neither will this Authour say as I imagine that the Pope hath power to kill wicked men and malefactours with the word of his mouth 11 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth in the same order And first to my answere to those two places Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feede my sheepe which I made in my Apologie p Apolog. nu 35. seq nu 203. seq wherevnto I remitted the Reader he replieth thus q Pag. 115. nu 6.7.8 That which Widdrington saith in his Apologie concerning these two texts allâ—dged out of the Gospell is no other but to prooue that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely which we willingly grant as D. Adolphus Schulckenius r Adolph Schulck in Apolog c. 4. § Respondeo p. 136 in his answere for Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared sufficiently and tolde my Aduersary Widdrington withall how vainely he hath laboured with a long discourse and many idle words to prooue that which neither the Cardinall nor any other Catholike will deny 12 For wee willingly grant saith Schulckenius that the Popes power is formally spirituall though virtually it is also temporall extending it selfe to temporall things so farre forth as they are subordinate to the spirituall and the necessitie of the Church shall require So hee Å¿ Ibidem and afterwards he also explicateth the same in these words Nam animus noster spiritus est c. For our soule saith he is a spirit and hath a spirituall power and yet it doth not onely thereby gouerne the body which is subiect vnto it but doth also chastise it with corporall punishments as watching hairecloth fasting and whipping And therefore if Bellarmine did say that the Pope doth iudge the faults of Princes and vpon their desert depriue them sometimes of their gouernment by a temporall power his Aduersary Widdrington should say somewhat to the purpose but now seeing that Bellarmine saith that the Pope vseth a spirituall power when hee depriueth Princes of their States for spirituall and Ecclesiasticall crimes such as heresies and Schismes are his Aduersary Widdrington doth idlely beate the ayre c. for he should haue prooued that a supreme spirituall power cannot extend it selfe to dispose of temporall things as they are referred to spirituall things Thus saith Schulckenius 13 And thereof my Aduersary Widdrington might haue taken notice if it had pleased him when he referred me and his Readers to his Apologie for answere to those places For albeit he may perhaps pretend that hee had not seene Schulckenius his Apologie for the Cardinall before hee had ended his Theologicall Disputation yet it is euident that he had seene and read it before he wrote his Admonition to the Reader wherein he writeth against me For he not onely maketh mention therein of the Apologie of Schulckenius but also carpeth at him for some things that hee handleth and therefore if he had meant sincerely he would not haue remitted vs to his owne Apologie for this point without some confutation of Schulckenius his Answere thereto I meane of so much as concerneth this matter For otherwise he may multiply bookes and write of this controuersie as long as he liueth and all to no purpose if he will still stand vpon his first grounds and dissemble the answeres that are made thereto and therefore as hee remitteth me to his Apologie so I remit him also to the answere of Schulckenius which I haue partly laide downe heere and may be seene more at large in him And this shall suffice for this point 14 But truely it is intollerable that these men should so shamefully both abuse me and delude their Reader I doe not say onely in dissembling the answere I made to their argument but in plainly corrupting the words and manifest sense thereof in which manner they may multiply bookes and make Replies with ease but with shame enough For it is too too apparantly vntrue that I labored in that place to prooue nothing else as those men falsly affirme but that which neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny to wit that Christ gaue to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely although it be well knowne that the common opinion of the Canonists doth deny the same who contend that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter not onely spirituall but also temporall authoritie and made him thereby not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert is grosly mistaken in saying so boldly that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely For I did not contend in that place about the authority which was giuen to Saint Peter to binde and loose which Cardinall Bellarmine taketh to bee all one with to feede his sheepe whether it was temporall or spirituall or both as the Canonists wil haue it but about the acts
doeth suppose the subiect to bee otherwise apt and well disposed For she hath power granted her by Christ to giue grace whereby we may come to the kingdome of heauen to Infants by the Sacrament of Baptisme and to men of discretion also by other Sacraments but especially of Penance by which the Priest as a Minister of Christ by vertue of the keyes which he hath receiued from Christ absolueth from sinnes and giueth grace neuerthelesse this power to worke actually her effect supposeth certaine necessarie dispositions on the behalfe of the persons who are to receiue the Sacraments as well in Infants as in men of discretion which dispositions the Church hath not alwayes power to procure Also besides this power which the Diuines call of Order the Church hath also power of Iurisdiction for shee hath authoritie to preach the word of GOD to correct sinners to make lawes and to punish the transgressours with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments For as the Church and the Ecclesiasticall power is spirituall so also she ought to haue meanes proportionate to such an end Wee graunt therefore the antecedent proposition in this sense which we haue now declared but we deny c. 29 Now this Doctour although hee granteth all this which I haue said to bee true yet he cannot forbeare to take certaine idle exceptions against the same I answere saith he g Pag. 353. ad nu 179. seq although all this doe make little or nothing to the soluing of Cardinall Bellarmines argument but to the enlarging of the volume of his booke they make much yet I would relate what hee hath said for that I saw certaine things to bee noted therein But whether they make little or nothing to solue Cardinall Bellarmines argument you shall see anon this is a vsuall tricke of this Doctour especially when my answere or argument is of greatest force that hee knoweth not well what to reply thereunto then with some idle or despitefull words to shift it of as that it is spoken either to disgrace Cardinall Bellarmine or to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes or that it is nothing to the purpose but to enlarge my booke and to make it seeme to bee of a competent volume and such like trifling toies which doe argue rather want of matter and a spirit of contradiction then a true desire to examine sincerely this important and difficult controuersie and which with as great facilitie and farre greater reason may bee retorted backe vpon himselfe for his often repeating of the same sentences and which are nothing to the purpose as that of S. Leo Ecclesiastica lenitas refugit cruentas vltiones Ecclesiasticall lenitie doeth shunne cruell punishments which is nothing to the soluing of my argument and spending many wordes to prooue that the Pope hath power to command and enioyne temporall penalties whereof I made no question and consuming twentie eight whole pages to prooue that S. Peter and his Successours are the heads of the Church which no Catholike doth deny and which make little or nothing to the impugning of my doctrine but to the enlarging the volume of his booke they make much 30 Now you shall see what goodly obseruations this Doctour hath found out in this part of my answere First saith he h Pag. 353. it is to bee obserued that my Aduersarie Widdrington I know not with what cunning hath transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian Common-wealth or the Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels For in Bellarmines argument the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth is taken in the first and not in the later sense But Widdrington answereth of the Christian common-wealth as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men Let he himselfe see with what simplicitie hee did it who otherwise doeth seeme so scrupulously to shunne equiuocations 31 But first it is to bee obserued with what cunning or ignorance this Doctour affirmeth that I haue transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels See Apolog. nu 176. 180. seq seeing that I expresly spake of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth as it is a spirituall common-wealth and as it hath spirituall power Now with what colour of probabilitie can this Doctour inferre from any one word of mine that I euer saide that Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth reside in Lay-men or that when I treate of the spirituall power of the Church or of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth I take the Church as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men True it is that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Common-wealth kingdome or Church of Christ when wee speake properly and generally is taken both by Cardinall Bellarmine and my selfe as it comprehendeth Cleargie-men and Lay-men that is as it containeth both spirituall power and spirituall subiection spirituall Pastours and spirituall subiects and therefore Cardinall Bellarmine before in his first reason affirmed that Kings and Bishops Cleargie-men and Lay-men doe not make two common-wealths but one onely that is one Church As likewise a temporall common-wealth or kingdome when we speake properly and generally is taken as it comprehendeth both temporall Kings and temporall subiects that is as it containeth both ciuill power and ciuill subiection For what man of iudgement speaking generally of a temporall kingdome by the name of the kingdome vnderstandeth onely the King himselfe but when he speaketh of the temporall power of a kingdome as I expresly spake heere of the spirituall power of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth no iudicious man can vnderstand that he speaketh of subiects wherein no temporall power doeth reside Let this Doctour therefore see himselfe with what simplicitie he said that I comprehended heere in this answere vnder the name of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth Cleargie-men and Lay-men when I treated of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the Church 32 Secondly it is to bee obserued saith this Doctour i Pag. 354. that which Widdrington heere disputeth of an apt and well disposed subiect that the Ecclesiasticall power may therein worke her effect to be true and that Cardinall Bellarmine hath the same in his answere to the obiections of Paulus Venetus and yet that Widdrington after his accustomed vprightnesse commended the argument of Paulus Venetus and dissembled Card. Bellarmines answere Heere you see that this Doctour granteth the distinction which I made to bee true and that Card. Bellarmine approoueth the same but that which he addeth that I dissembled Cardinall Bellarmines answere is very vntrue for I neuer saw his answere and although I had seene it and so might haue commended his meaning and his declaration yet truely I should not haue commended his words being spoken so generally and without any limitation or declaration seeing
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
Diocletian why can she not also vnder the persecution of the Turkes 37 Secondly neither is it true that I am destitute of Patrons and Doctours who maintaine that the Pope by his spirituall power cannot dispose of temporals or inflict temporall punishments as I haue shewed aboue in the first part where also I prooued that Ioannes Parisiensis doth no way fauour but flatly contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine and also the very ashes of this Doctours booke if they could speake would giue sufficient testimony against him that this my doctrine is not altogether destitute of Patrons and Doctours But whereas this Doctour should haue prooued that the power to dispose of all temporals is necessary to the saluation of soules which Cardinall Bellarmine affirmed and I denied he flyeth from this reason to the authority of Doctours who affirme that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporals which is to runne vp and downe in a circle from intrinsecall grounds to extrinsecall from reason to authority and contrariwise and neuer to persist in any one medium or argument Wherefore whensoeuer any Author or my selfe do seeme to affirme or suppose that temporall things the disposing of them are in some cases necessary to the general good of the Church and to the saluation of soules it is not to be vnderstood of any absolute necessity but onely of some great conuenience or vtility for which in common speech wee oftentimes take necessity as it is well knowen to euery Logician who hath but read the beginning of Porphyries Introduction Cùm necessarium sit Chysaori c. Whereas it is necessarie o Chysaori c. In which case of necessity or great vtility temporall things are by the institution of Christ to be disposed of to a spirituall end by the temporall and ciuill power of Christian Princes and not by the spirituall power as he hath distinguished the acts offices and functions thereof from ciuill authority 38 But thou wilt say saith this Doctour o Pag. 355. that this power to dispose of temporals is not proportionate to the end of the Ecclesisticall power which is spirituall I answere first saith he that this power to dispose of temporals in the Pope is not formally temporall but formally spirituall and eminently temporall and therefore it is very well proportionate to a spirituall end But this is to declare the selfe same thing by it selfe for to haue vertually or eminently a temporal power is nothing else then to haue a power to dispose of temporall things or to doe all that which the temporall power can do which is the maine poynt which I vtterly deny and consequently affirme that according to the institution of Christ who hath left distinguished the acts functions and properties of the temporall power or Common-weath from them of the spirituall power or Church of Christ to dispose of temporall things and to inflict temporall punishments which are temporall and ciuill acts and punishments are not by the institution of Christ proportionate to the spiritual power and to the end thereof as it is by him distinguished from the ciuil power and the end obiects and acts thereof For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall Kingdome or Common-wealth and distinguished her directiue and coerciue power and the acts and obiects thereof from the acts and obiects of the ciuill power or Common-wealth so also hath he assigned spirituall punishments as meanes proportionate to her coerciue or punishing power as temporal punishments are proportionate to the temporall coerciue power 39 Wherefore this Doctor knowing right well that I haue alwayes denied the Church of Christ to haue either formally or eminently temporall power giueth a second answere I answere secondly saith he p Pag. 356. that temporall goods and the power it selfe ouer temporall goods haue indeede no naturall proportion with spirituall but they haue a very great morall proportion which for the present is sufficient For temporall goods are spirituall instruments of good workes in which respect S. Peter calleth Almes other good works 1 Pet. 2. although corporall spirituales hostias spirituall sacrifices Wherfore as the spirit in man disposeth of corporall actions as Almes fastings chastising of the flesh and such like as they are necessary to the health of the soule hee might adde also to the health of the body so the Prince of the Church may in order to a spirituall end and if his similitude were good may likewise in order to a temporall end dispose of temporall goods which for the same reason that they are necessary to the obtaining of that end for the same reason they are said to be proportionate to the same end 40 But this answere I haue confuted aboue partly in the second part q Par. 2. cap. 8. where I haue shewed that this similitude of the soule and body doth manifestly impugne their doctrine and that the soule doth not dispose of any temporall action as Almes fasting whipping and such like but onely by way of command and also not without the actiue concurrance of some corporall organ and besides that if the similitude were good the Pope should haue power not only for spirituall good but also for temporall to depose temporall Princes to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments and partly aboue in the former Chapter r Num. 108. where Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken this answere verbatim from this Doctour For temporall goods to haue a morall proportion with spirituall and to be spirituall instruments of good or bad workes is nothing else then that they may concurre to vertuous or vicious actions and be the obiect of vertue or vice which therefore may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power as it is directiue which hath for her obiect vertue and vice But no morrall proportion reference or relation can alter the nature of temporall goods or puishments or make temporall goods to become spirituall goods and temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments and therefore no such morall proportion is sufficient to cause temporall goods to be disposed or temporall punishments to be inflicted by the spirituall power as it is coerciue whose acts and obiects are onely the disposing of spirituall goods and the inflicting of spirituall punishments for a spirituall end 41 Lastly to the consequence of Cardinal Bellarmines argument whereby he laboured to prooue that the power to vse and dispose of temporals is necessary to the spirituall end I answered thus ſ Apolog. nu 183. by denying his consequence Neither doth it follow from thence as Cardinall Bellarmine doth ill and contrary to himselfe inferre that otherwise wicked Princes may without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For the Church hath as we said power to punish them not indeed with ciuill or temporall but with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments vnlesse perhaps Ecclesiasticall Censures are not woorthy to be reckoned among punishments whereas they are accounted by all men to be most sharpe
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
receiued if he meane that those miraculous punishments did testifie an ordinary power to bee in the Church that is in spirituall Pastours to inflict punishments as well vpon the bodie as vpon the soule this he must proue by some other reason then by his bare I say to which in very truth knowing his insufficiency in Theologicall learning I giue but little credit therefore with the same facility I deny it as he saith it for it is the maine questioÌ„ betwixt vs whether the Church hath any such ordinarie power or no But if hee meane that those miraculous punishments did signifie and testifie a miraculous and extraordinarie power to bee in the spirituall Pastours of the Church in the Apostles time to inflict in some sort temporall punishments as well vpon the body as vpon the soule then I willingly grant his I say but withall dcny that either the power it selfe it being extraordinary and miraculous or the effects and execution thereof which also were miraculous should afterwards remaine in the Church when the faith was once propagated and generally receiued according to that saying of Saint Gregory Signes or miracles were giuen for Infidels not for the faithfull I said to inflict in some sort temporall punishments for as well obserueth Abulensis Abul q. 96. in c. 20. Matth. the punishment which Saint Peter inflicted vpon Ananias and Saphira was onely by the way of prediction whereupon hee was not as a Iudge or executioner of Christ but as a Prophet and the punishment inflicted by Saint Paul was by way of prayer and intercession whereupon it was not any vse of Iurisdiction but of a miracle because the Deuils are not subiect to the commaund of men and so neither of them did exercise the vse of coerciue temporall power 74 And by this also that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth is easily answered Besides that saith he it is to be considered for the further explication of this point that although the punishments were miraculous and extraordinary for the manner of them yet if we consider the punishments themselues the Apostles exercised therein their ordinary and Apostolicall Iurisdiction as being the ordinary Iudges to whom the chastisement of spirituall offences appertained which is euident in the punishment of the incestuous Corinthian by the formall and iudiciall sentence pronounced by the Apostle saying 1. Cor. 5. Ego quidem absens c. I indeede absent in body but present in spirit haue already iudged as present him that hath so done in the name of our Lord Iesus you being gathered together and my spirit with the vertue of our Lord Iesus to deliuer such a one to Sathan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saued in the day of our Lord Iesus Christ Thus did the Apostle fulminate his terrible sentence of Excommunication shewing and exercising his Apostolicall authoritie And the same is also to bee vnderstood concerning the corporall punishment of Ananias and Saphara S. Chrysost in hunc locum in wich respect Saint Chrysostome saith That Petrus faciebat terribile iudicium Peter executed a terrible iudgement vpon them and Saint Hierome saith that merûere sententiam Apostoli S. Hieron epist 150. ad Hedibiani q. 2. in fine Apud August l. 3. c. 16. They deserued the sentence of the Apostle and the Authour of the booke De mirabilibus Scripturae amonst Saint Augustines workes saith that Petrus ligauit c. Peter did bind Ananias and his wife with the bond of death vt authoritas Apostolica quanta esset ostenderetur that it might appeare how great was the Apostolicall authoritie Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 75 But I neuer denyed that the Apostles were ordinary Iudges to whom the chastisement of spirituall offences appertained but that which I deny is that by these miraculous punishments of Ananias and Saphira and the incestuous Corinthian or such like it can bee prooued that the Apostles were ordinary Iudges to inflict temporall punishments for spirituall offences or that they exercised therein I doe not say their Apostolicall Bell. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. but their ordinary power and Iurisdiction for the Apostles had two powers one ordinary and which should descend to their Successours the other extrordinary or delegate which therefore should not descend neither is it lawfull from the punishments which they inflicted by their extraordinarie power to inferre that they did or might inflict the like punishments by their ordinary power this I say cannot be prooued by any miraculous fact or punishment which the Apostles inflicted by their extraordinary and delegate power And therefore although the Apostle in pronouncing his terrible sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous Corinthian shewed and exercised his ordinary Apostolicall power forasmuch as concerned the deliuering him ouer to the inuisible power of Sathan yet forasmuch as concerned the deliuering him ouer to the visible power of Sathan that is to bee visibly tormented by him the Apostle did not vse his ordinary Apostolicall but his extraordinary Apostolicall power And the same is also to be vnderstood touching the corporall punishment of Ananias and Saphira to wit that Saint Peter vsed therein his extraordinary Apostolicall power as I obserued aboue out of Abulensis 76 Neither doe S. Chrysostome S. Hierome or S. Augustine say any thing contrary to this For all that can be gathered from their wordes is onely this that the iudgement of S. Peter was terrible and that they deserued the sentence of the Apostle and that the binding of Ananias and Saphira with the bond of death did proceed from Apostolicall authority but that this their sentence iudgement and the binding of them with the bond of death did proceed from ordinary Apostolicall authority this cannot any way be gathered from the words of those holy Fathers but rather the flat contrary Chrys hom 12 in Act. For S. Chrysostome doth attribute their punishment to a great miracle both in regard Saint Peter knew their thoughts and what they had done priuily and also for that hee killed them by the commandement of his word And Saint Hierome Hieron epist 8 ad Demetriad although he deny that Saint Peter commanded or desired their death yet he attributeth that sentence of the Apostle to a miracle and to the spirit of Prophecie The Apostle Saint Peter saith he doth not wish their death as foolish Porphyrie doth calumniate but with a propheticall spirit he foretold the iudgement of God that the punishment of two might bee a doctrine to many So likewise the Author de mirabilibus S. Scripturae doth attribute their punishment to a miracle and to the Apostolicall virtue of Christ and to the same power whereby hee raised Tabitha from death which words Mr. Fitzherbert was willing to conceale August serm 204. de tempore quâ—est sermo 3. in Dom. 4. post Trinit 4. Reg. 2. And Saint Augustine himselfe compareth this fact of Saint Peter to that of Helizaeus at whose
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
setteth it downe 2 Septimò ex iure Gentium nihil aliud probat hic Author c. Seuenthly this Authour prooueth nothing else by the law of Nations but that all people euer held Religion in the highest price or esteeme and preferred it before policie but that the Priests of the Gentiles had power as they were Priests to punish any man with death or the depriuation of all his goods it did not proceede from the law of Nature granting them such an authoritie but from the municipall lawes of the Gentiles Pro domo sua the which Cicero whom this Authour citeth doth most manifestly confirme saying that it was diuinely inuented and ordained by the ancient Romans that their Bishops should haue the chiefe command both in matters belonging to the Common-wealth and to the religion of the immortall Gods And as for the Ciuill law this Authour onely confirmeth by it that the Bishop of Rome is the supreame Gouernour of the Church in spirituall things Thus I answered in that briefe Admonition 3 Now Mr. Fitzherbert to this my Answere maketh as you shall see no other Reply then that which I did fully satisfie aboue in the sixt Chapter when I treated of the law of Nature and therefore it were needelesse to set downe heere his wordes verbatim but that otherwise hee would take occasion to bragge after his accustomed manner that I haue concealed and dissembled his strongest arguments Obserue therefore well what hee saith But if thou hast saith hee a ip 129. nu 2.3 well noted good Reader what was the effect and substance of my discourse concerning the law of Nature thou wilt easily discouer the weakenesse of this answere For whereas hee would prooue by Cicero his wordes alleadged by me that the authoritie of the Pagan Priests to punish the supreame Secular Magistrates with death or depriuation of goods proceeded not from the law of Nature but from the municipall lawes of the Gentiles I must desire him to call to minde what was my inference vpon the wordes of Cicero and the examples by mee alleadged to wit that this law and custome amongst the Romans had no other ground in their opinion but the Law of Nature because they hauing no other light to guide them but the light of reason held it to bee most conforme to Nature that religion should bee preferred before policie and temporall things subordinate to spirituall by the same reason that things lesse perfect are inferiour to the more perfect the body to the soule earthly things to heauenly men to Angels and the like 4 So albeit I doe not deny but that their custome proceeded from their municipall law yet it doeth not follow thereon that it did not also proceede from the Law of Nature but rather the contrarie because their municipall law in that point had no other ground but the Law of Nature which moued them to make that Law For although the Law of Nature could not teach them the mysteries of Christian Religion nor in what manner GOD was to be worshipped and serued in which respect they both might and did erre in those things which pertained to particular points of religion as also other Nations did which had not the light of grace yet not onely they but also all other Nations being enlightned by nature agreed in certaine generall principles touching religion as concerning the necessitie and dignitie thereof and that all humane actions ought to bee leuelled and referred thereto as to their end whereupon necessarily followed the subordination and subiection of temporall things to spirituall and of the Ciuill or politicall Societie to the Religious in matters that touch religion and all this I explicated further in my Supplement when I treated of the law of Nations in particular in these words Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 5 Whereby first of all you may easily see that all the proofes hee bringeth from the law of Nations he reduceth to the law of nature and that therefore what I said in the sixt Chapter concerning the law of nature doth fully satisfie all that hee saith heere concerning the law of nations And secondly you may see what a prettie circle hee maketh and how cunningly he would prooue the same by the same For in his sixt Chapter hee pretended to prooue that the authoritie of Pagan Priests to punish temporally the supreame Ciuill Magistrate did proceede from the law of nature for that it proceeded from the custome and law of all Nations and now heere hee prooueth that this their authoritie did proceede from the custome and law of all Nations for that it proceeded from the law of nature by which kinde of arguing hee prooueth in very deede idem per seipsum the same thing by the very same 6 Seeing therefore that all hee saith heere is a meere repetition of that hee said in his sixt Chapter I will also reduce into a briefe compendium what I answered there that the Reader may thereby cleerely see that hee hath no way satisfied albeit hee pretend to haue giuen an aboundant satisfaction to that which I answered in my briefe Admonition as well concerning the law of Nations as Nature And to take away all equiuocation and ambiguitie of wordes although the law of nature doth properly signifie the light of naturall reason teaching or prescribing some thing of necessitie to bee done or omitted or which is all one commanding some thing to bee done or not to bee done for that euery law being taken properly doth intrinsecally include some precept or commandement neuerthelesse wee doe not now take the law of nature in this proper and strict sense but more generally for the light of naturall reason not onely as it commandeth or forbiddeth but also as it giueth granteth teacheth or prescribeth any thing abstracting from all positiue lawes grants and ordinances of God or man So that euery right power or authoritie which the light of naturall reason abstracting from the positiue ordinances of God or man teacheth to bee due or belong to any man is said to belong to him by the law of Nature as the right which euery man hath to defend himselfe and his goods although it bee with the death of the inuader is giuen him by the law of nature Likewise the power and authoritie which the Ciuill common-wealth hath ouer euery member thereof supposing the vnion of men in one Ciuill Societie is granted by the law of nature for that the light of naturall reason abstracting from all positiue lawes or graunts of GOD or man doeth teach and ordaine the same 7 Now to the point and to the inference which Mr. Fitzherbert made vpon the wordes of Cicero and the examples by him alleadged first I did willingly grant that the light of naturall reason doeth teach vs that Religion is to bee preferred before pollicie and temporall things are in perfection subordinate to spirituall by the same reason that things lesse perfect are inferiour to the more perfect the body to the soule
descend from him and in the new Testament his Apostles and who by lawfull ordination shall descend from them and what spirituall authority these Ministers haue they doe not receiue from the ciuill Common-wealth but from God himselfe 12 Whereupon it is euident that we cannot gather what authority and priuiledges the Priests either of the olde Testament had or of the new Testament haue from the law of nature for that all the authoritie and priuiledges which the Priests in the law of nature had did wholly depend vpon the ciuill Common-wealth by whose authority those Priests and Ministers of religious rites and ceremonies were made but what authority either to cōmand or to punish either Lay-men or Clergie-men the Priests of the olde Testament had and of the new Testament haue we can onely gather from the positiue institution and graunt of God who hath giuen and determined their authority and not from the law of nature wherein the Priests were subiect to the ciuill Common-wealth and had all their authority from the Common-wealth it selfe And by this which I haue now said here and more at large declared in the sixt Chapter is fully satisfied all that Mr. Fitzherbert hath said aboue and repeateth heere out of his Supplement concerning the law of nature in these words 13 First then saith hee c Pag. 130. nu 5. it is to be considered that humane law is commonly diuided into Ius Gentium Ius Ciuile and Ius Ecclesiasticum vel Canonicum the law of Nations the Ciuill law and the Canon or Ecclesiasticall law And as for the law of Nations which is a humane law so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of Nature that all Nations doe receiue and admit it it is manifest c. But before wee goe any farther it will not be amisse to obserue the difference which the learnedst Diuines of this age doe make betwixt the law of Nations and Nature for vnlesse wee know and agree what the law of Nations is we shall dispute thereof to little purpose First therefore Mr. Fitzherbert by those words which is a humane law so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of Nature that all Nations doe receiue and admit it doth seeme to signifie that onely the knowne morall principles or generall maximes of Nature or naturall reason doe belong to the law of Nature and the conclusions which are easily and directly deduced from them doe belong to the law of Nations which doctrine neuerthelesse all the Diuines of this age euen of his owne Societie doe commonly reiect Vasq 1 a. 2 ae disp 154. cap. 3 Salas Disp 5. de Leg. sec 5. Suarez l. 2. de Leg. c. 7. as you may see in Vasquez Salas Suarez who doe therefore affirme that the law of Nature doth comprehend not onely all morall principles but also all conclusions which are easily and directly or by an euident and necessary consequence deduced from those principles of Nature 14 For all morall things which are knowne by naturall reason are either the first generall principles of manners as virtue is to be embraced vice to be shunned Doe not that to another which thou wilt not haue done to thy selfe and these without all doubt doe belong to the law of Nature or else they are principles not so generall but yet euidently knowne of themselues as Iustice is to be kept God is to be worshipped Parents are to be honoured and such like and these also without all question doe appertaine to the law of Nature or thirdly they are conclusions which are euidently deduced from the morall principles of nature and cannot be knowne but by discourse among which some are knowne more easily as adultery murther periury and such like to bee euill some are not so easily knowne but to know them there is required a greater discourse as simple fornication to be of it owne nature euill vsury to bee vniust an officious lye not to be lawfull for any cause whatsoeuer and such like And all these and other morall conclusions of what degree soeuer so that they bee deduced as conclusions from the morall principles of nature by a certaine and euident consequence doe also according to the common doctrine of Diuines belong to the law of Nature I said by a certaine and euident consequence for as well obserueth Salas Salas tract 14. disp 5. sec 5. as conclusions which are euidently deduced from morall principles and doe binde without any positiue law doe euidently containe the law of nature so those conclusions which are probably deduced doe containe it porbably and are lawes of nature not certaine but probable in which if in very deede falshood bee affirmed they are not the lawes of nature truely and in very deed but apparantly for that an erroneous conscience is not truely a law 15 The reason why not onely morall principles but also the conclusions which are deduced from them doe belong to the law of nature and not of nations as the law of nations is a positiue and humane law is both for that all actions which by the light of naturall reason abstracting from all positiue precepts of God or man are knowne to be euill and for that cause are forbidden by the law of God or man because they are euill of themselues although they had neuer beene forbidden by any such positiue law doe belong to the law of nature and also for that otherwise the morall precepts of the Decalogue and others contained in them as the precept forbidding simple fornication vsurie and to be reuenged of ones enemy by his owne priuate authority and such like should not belong to the law of nature because none of those precepts are generall principles but conclusions deduced by discourse from them nay nor to honour and woorship God should belong to the law of nature for that it is not knowne but by discourse that there is a God 16 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue that Mr. Fitzherbert in defining the law of nations to be a humane law which is so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of Nature that all Natitions doe receiue and admit it doth not onely dissent from all the learned Diuines euen of his owne Societie but hee must also vnlesse hee will maintaine strange paradoxes plainly contradict himselfe For first if the law of nations bee so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit it it cannot be a humane law which hath it force and obligation to binde onely from the constitution of men but it must haue it force and obligation to binde from the very principles of nature and consequently it must be reduced to the law of nature and not of nations Besides euery humane law is therefore a positiue and humane law not onely for that it is receiued and admitted by men but also for that it is made by men and hath it force to binde onely by the positiue
which is a humane law so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit it it is manifest that it cannot dissent from those infallible grounds which I haue laid alreadie as well out of the law of Nature as out of the law of GOD especially seeing that there is nothing wherein all Nations doe more vniformely agree by the very instinct of Nature then that all temporall things are inferiour to spirituall things and subordinate thereto whereupon it necessarily followeth c. But what grounds either infallible or fallible Mr. Fitzherbert hath alreadie laid as well out of the law of nature as out of the law of GOD you haue alreadie seene Neither doth any man make any doubt but that this is an infallible ground wherein all nations by the very instinct of nature doe vniformely agree that as all spirituall things are superiour to all temporall things in dignitie worth and excellencie in generall so all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to spirituall things in the same degree of subiection and subordination wherein spirituall things are superiour to them for no man can bee so foolish as to imagine that temporall things must be subiect to spirituall things in any other degree or kind of subiection or subordination then wherein spirituall things are superiour to them 33 Marke now what Mr. Fitzherbert would conclude from this infallible ground Whereupon it necessarily followeth saith he that all the temporall states of temporall Princes are subordinate to the Church and to the head thereof and to bee disposed by him when the good of the Church shall so require as I haue amply declared But fye for shame that Mr. Fitzherbert who is accounted a man of great iudgement though of small learning should make so childish and improbable a consequence and withall to esteeme it a necessarie inference For what man of iudgement would argue thus All temporall things are inferiour subiect and subordinate to spirituall things to wit in worth dignitie and excellencie therefore the Pope hath power to dispose of all temporall things when the good of the Church shall so require But my Aduersaries vsuall custome is to darken and confound the Readers vnderstanding with a mist of cloudie and ambiguous words which being once dissolued and taken away the plaine and perspicuous trueth will presently appeare For as concerning his antecedent proposition which is that all temporall things are inferiour to spirituall things and subordinate thereto first if his meaning be that all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to all spirituall things in euery kind of subiection this is apparantly false for that all spirituall things are not capeable of all kind of superioritie seeing that onely spirituall persons or substances and not spirituall accidents are capable of spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction which consisteth in a power to commaund to punish or to dispose of something 34 Secondly if his meaning be that all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to all spirituall things in some kind of subiection this is very true for as all spirituall things in that they are spirituall are more excellent and of a more noble more perfect and of a superiour and higher degree or order then is any temporall thing so all temporall things as they are temporall are inferiour and subordinate in nobilitie perfection and excellencie to all spirituall things But from a superioritie in perfection worth and nobilitie to conclude a superioritie of another kind to wit in authoritie iurisdiction or power to dispose thereon is transcendere de genere ad genus to transcend from one kind to another which manner of arguing euery Schoole-boy knoweth to bee vicious as thus Angels both good and bad are superiour to men in substance knowledge might and other natural perfections but to conclude from hence that therefore Angels are superiour to men in authoritie or Iurisdiction and that therefore men are inferiour and subiect therein to Angels and are bound to obey them as their lawfull Superiours vnlesse they bee sent as messengers from God which the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import and which as Saint Gregory saith S. Greg. hom 34. in Euang a. is a word of office not of nature were a very fallacious kinde of arguing Also all seruile trades are inferiour subiect and subordinate to all liberall arts and sciences to wit in woorth perfection and nobilitie and this all trades-men will acknowledge but they would smile at him that should conclude from thence that therefore all they that are endued with any liberall art or science may command and punish all trades-men and dispose of what they haue when the good of the liberall arts or sciences shall so require 35 But thirdly if Mr. Fitzherbert in his antecedent proposition by spirituall things doeth not vnderstand all spirituall things but only spirituall persons who by their office haue charge of Religion and of all spirituall things appertaining to Religion and that all temporall things are by the instinct of nature and the light of naturall reason subiect and subordinate to spirituall persons in such sort that they may bee disposed of by them when the good of Religion shall so require then indeede supposing this antecedant proposition to bee true it doeth necessarily follow that the Pope hath power to dispose of all temporall things in order to spirituall good But then hee supposeth that which he should prooue and which I euer denyed for as I haue amply shewed before by the law of nature the ciuill Common-wealth it selfe and the supreame Gouernours thereof had supreame authoritie to dispose of all things as well concerning Religion as State and policie Neither did the Religious Societie and the ciuill Common-wealth in the law of nature make two totall and independent bodies Societies or Common-wealths as they doe now in the new Law wherein the temporall Prince or the Ciuill Common-wealth haue not to dispose of spirituall and religious affaires as they did in the law of nature and according to the custome of all nations and therefore it cannot bee prooued either by the law of nature or of nations that the Pope hath power to dispose of the bodies States or temporall goods of temporall Princes but contrariwise standing in the law of nature the Ciuill Common-wealth had supreame power and authoritie to dispose of the bodies and goods of Religious Priests and of all things belonging to Religion and the publike seruice of God 36 Wherefore to little purpose are those words which Mr. Fitzherbert next adioyneth And therefore Vlpian the Lawyer saith hee affirming that Ius Gentium the Law of Nations is that which is common onely to men putteth for example Religio erga Deum Religion towards God giuing to vnderstand that all Nations and people doe agree in nothing more then that due honour is to bee giuen to Almightie GOD which is not done when any thing is preferred before his seruice or when temporall things
Bishops had ouer the Consulls in the Romane Common-wealth Bapt. Fulgos l. 1. c. 1. and yet neuerthelesse vve read of Alexander Seuerus that he suffered an appellation from himselfe to the Bishops and that they reuersed his sentence vvhen it seemed to them that equitie and iustice required it And heereto may be added vvhat great respect the Emperours of the Turkes and Persians beare at this day to the chiefe Bishop vvho hath power to abrogate any law made by them if it seeme to him to be repugnant to the Alcoron 48 But from these examples or any other such like this onely can be gathered that all nations haue euer preferred Religion and the worship of their Gods before any other temporall thing and that in respect chiefly of Religion they gaue to their Religious Priests whom they appointed to bee their immediate Ministers to offer Sacrifice to their Gods or as certaine messengers or prophets to declare their wills as in Rome were the Augures and Soothsayers certaine temporall honour authority and preheminence greater or lesser according to the custome of euery Nation but it cannot be gathered from hence that this temporall authority which these Religious Priests had to punish any man temporally did proceed from the law of nature or nations as the law of nations is accounted one law but from the municipall lawes of euery nation kingdome or common-wealth as the diuers custome of euery nation touching the temporall authority of their Religious Priests doth cleerely conuince 49 But marke what Mr. Fitzherbert would gather from these examples So that saith hee n Pag. 133. nu 7. by all this it appeareth that howsoeuer all Nations haue differed amongst themselues in particular rites and ceremonies of Religion yet they haue all agreed in this generall principle of nature that there ought to be in all Common-wealths a due subordination and subiection of humane things to diuine of Policy to Religion and of the temporall Magistrate to the spirituall in matters that appertaine any way to Religion Whereupon it followeth that Ius Gentium the law of Nations being grounded vpon the principles of nature cannot patronize or admit an Oath whereby a temporall and Secular Prince shall be exempted in matters that concerne Religion from subiection to his spirituall Pastours and speciall to the supreme Pastour of Christs Church Thus said I in my Supplement concerning the law of Nations vvhereby it appeareth c. 50 No man maketh any doubt but that all Nations haue agreed in this as a principle of nature that there ought to be a due subordination and subiection of humane things to diuine of Policy to Religion and of the temporall Magistrate to the spirituall in matters that appertaine to Religion but in what this due subordination and subiection according to the principles of nature consisteth this is the whole difficulty For if Mr. Fitzherberts meaning be that spirituall things and Religion are more excellent then temporall things and policy and therefore Religion and things belonging thereunto are caeteris paribus to be preferred before things appertaining to ciuill gouernment and that according to the principles of nature it is fit and conuenient that the ciuill common-wealth should for reuerence to Religion giue to Religious Priests some temporall honour authority and prerogatiues and also that Religious Priests should bee honoured and obeyed by all men in those things whereunto the authority which is giuen them either by God himselfe or by the positiue graunt of the ciuill common-wealth doth extend this I willingly graunt to be a principle grounded in nature and naturall reason But if his meaning bee that the ciuill common-wealth is according to the principles of nature and naturall reason subiect and subordinate not onely in dignity and perfection but also in coerciue authority and that the Religious Priests might in the law of nature and according to the knowne principles of naturall reason punish temporally eyther the supreme temporall Prince or any one of the inferiour people this is very vntrue as I haue conuinced before o Cap. 6. nu 35 seq c. 8. nu 40. out of the doctrine of Abulensis and Suarez 51 Wherefore as all the particular power and authoritie which was graunted to Religious Priests in the order of nature before the law of God was written as well in matters concerning Religion as policie did not proceede from the law of nature or of nations among whom there was so great varietie in this point but from the priuate or Ciuill law of euery particular common-wealth to whom the chiefe mannage and disposition of all things as well concerning Religion as Ciuill gouernement did belong so all the particular subordination and subiection especially in coerciue authoritie either of the people or of the Ciuill Magistrate to the Religious Priests as well in matters of Religion as State did wholy proceede from the free grant of the Ciuill common-wealth or the supreme Prince and gouernour thereof Wherevpon it euidently followeth that both the law of nature and nations would haue patronized and admitted an Oath which had beene made before the law of God was written whereby the Ciuill common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince should haue beene exempted from the temporall punishment of any religious Priest who in all matters as well concerning Religion as policie was subordinate and subiect both to the coerciue and directiue power of the Ciuill Societie or common-wealth and that therefore this Oath now in question concerning the Popes authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of temporall kingdomes cannot any way be impugned but altogether patronized by the law of nature and nations And by this all that Mr. Fitzherbert hath said in his Supplement concerning the law of nature and nations and that also which heere he addeth for a conclusion is most cleerely satisfied 52 Thus said I in my Supplement saith he p Pap. 133. nu 8. concerning the law of nations vvhereby it appeareth that the said law vvhich is deduced directly from the law of nature teacheth and confirmeth not onely the supreme dignitie of Religion in the Common-wealth but also the subordination and subiection of the temporall state to the Religious euen in temporall matters that touch Religion and that the custome and municipall law of the Romanes ordaining the same in their Common-wealth vvas most conforme to the lawe of nature being deduced directly from the knowne principles thereof which by the light of naturall reasoâ—n vvere manifest to the Philosophers and vvise law-makers amongst the Paynims and therefore vvhereas Widdrington ascribeth the preheminence of Religion in the Common wealth of the Romans to a municipall law denying it vvithall to proceede from the law of nature vvhich vvas the ground of that law he speaketh as problably as if he should ascribe an effect vvholy to the second cause and denie it to proceede from the first So as it is euident that he hath answered as vnprobably and imperfectly to my arguments drawne
from the law of nations as to the former grounded vpon the law of nature q Nu. 13. 53 But first I haue cleerely shewed as you haue seene from the doctrine of Suarez and the common opinion of Diuines that the law of nations as it is distinguished from the law of nature is not directly deduced from the principles of the law of nature but it is a humane law hauing force to bind onely by the positiue constitution and decree of man Secondly that although according to the principles of naturall reason Religion is in dignitie perfection and nobilitie superiour to policie and policie is therein subordinate and subiect to it yet according to the law of nature and nations all the particular authoritie which the Religious Societie as it was distinguished from the Ciuill had to commaund or punish any man dependeth wholy vpon the Ciuill common-wealth not onely in temporall but also in religious affaires and the particular customes and municipall lawes not onely of the Romanes but also of all other nations graunting some temporall honour authoritie and prerogatiues to Religious Priests did not proceede from the law of nature nor was directly or indirectly deduced from the principles thereof but was deriued meerely from the positiue constitutions and graunts of euery particular Ciuill common-wealth in whose power it was to create depose and punish their Religious Priests and to extend diminish change and quite take away from them all their directiue and coerciue authoritie and Mr. Fitzherbert affirming the contrary speaketh not onely improbably and disagreeably to the doctrine of Suarez and all other learned Diuines but also discouereth heerein his great want of iudgement learning and reading Neuerthelesse I will not denie but that in this sense the particular customes and municipall lawes of nations graunting to their Religious Priests who were their immediate ministers for things belonging to the publike seruice and worship of their Gods some temporall honour and authoritie were most conforme to the law of nature and principles of naturall reason for that the law of nature and light of naturall reason doth approoue and allow such lawes and customes as fit and conuenient but not commaund and ordaine them as necessarie in which sense also the exemption of Cleargie men now in the new law from the coerciue authoritie of Secular Magistrates ordained by humane law may be said to be conforme to the law of nature for that it doth approoue such exemption as conuenient but not command it as necessary And thus much concerning the law of nations and nature 54 Now touching the Ciuill law r Pag. 134. nu 9. 10. Mr. Fitzherb maketh a quicke dispatch therof in these words And as for the Ciuill law saith he whereas Widdrington saith only that I haue proued nothing else thereby but that the Pope is the supreme superiour of the Church in spirituall matters he is to vnderstand that albeit I haue not directly prooued any thing else by the Ciuill law yet I haue also thereupon inferred the extention of his power to temporall things by a necessarie consequent For hauing concluded that the Imperiall or Ciuill law doth not onely establish the Popes Supremacie but also acknowledge the subiection of temporall Princes to him in matters belonging to their soules and the good of the Church I added this inference 55 Whereupon it followeth directly that it acknowledgeth also See Supplement cap. 1. nu 118. pag. 67. by a necessarie consequent that he may punish them temporally in their persons and states vvhen the good of soules and the seruice and glory of God doth require it according to the rule of the said law vvhich I haue touched before to wit that the accessorie followeth the principall and that he which hath the greater power hath also the lesse And therefore I conclude that the Ciuill law doth no way fauour support or iustifie the Oath and much lesse inioyne it Ibid. nu 64 65. but flatly impugne and ouerthrow it Thus said I in my Supplement remitting my Reader for the more ample proofe of this inference to that vvhich I had before handled concerning the same vvhen I treated of the law of God See cap. nu 3. seq vvhich I haue also repeated in the first Chapter as also I haue examined his answeres thereto and shewed them to be very idle and friuolous and therefore I may vvell conclude that the arguments in my Supplement grounded as well vpon the lawes of God Nature and Nations as vpon the Cuiill or Imperial law doe stand sound and good against the Oath notwithstanding any thing that my Aduersary Widdrington hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary 56 But fie Mr. Fitzherbert that you in whose mouth are so frequent absurd ridiculous impertinent friuolous foolish idle fradulent impious malicious as though all your writings were so graue wise substantiall and sincere should thus in euery Chapter delude your Reader and not to vse your owne foule words shew so great want of learning iudgement and sincerity For what man of learning or iudgement can sincerely thinke that the Ciuill law may be said sufficiently to patronize the Popes power to depose Princes and to impugne the new Oath for that it acknowledgeth the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour or with what sinceritie can you make your Reader beleeue that you had no other meaning in spending fourteene whole Pages of your Supplement to prooue by the Ciuill law that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and hath authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes then onely to inferre thereupon by your necessarie or rather improbable consequent that he may therefore punish them temporally in their persons and states For first who would not imagine that when you boasted to prooue the Oath to be repugnant to the Ciuill law because it denieth the Popes power to depose Princes you would haue brought some text out of the Ciuill law where it is written that the Pope hath such a power to depose and not to haue made so much adoe to proue by the Ciuill law the Pope to be head of the Church and to haue authority to inflict spirituall Censures which no Catholike denieth and then forsooth in a word or two to deduce from thence by a farre fetched consequence of your owne and not of the Ciuill law that therefore the Pope may also punish them temporally in their persons and States 57 And truely if it be sufficient to condemne in this manner the Oath by the Ciuill law you might in the like manner for a greater florish haue brought the authoritie of all the auncient Fathers yea and of all Catholikes euen of my selfe and of all those who mainetaine the Oath to be lawfull for a cleere testimony to condemne the same for that all the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes euen my selfe and those who maintaine the Oath to be lawfull and denie the Popes power to depose Princes doe acknowledge the Pope to be the supreme
spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures And without doubt you would condemne me for a vaine-glorious Thraso if I should take vpon me to prooue by the testimony and grant of Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and of your selfe who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes that the Pope hath no such power for that you and all the rest doe grant the Pope to bee the supreame spirituall Pastour and then by a necessarie consequence in my iudgement though not in yours I should inferre from thence that because the Pope is by the institution of Christ according to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers a spirituall Pastour and not a temporall Prince he hath only authoritie to giue or take away heauenly not earthly kingdomes to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to vse spirituall not temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill punishments This consequence the ancient Fathers made See aboue cha 5· sec 3. nu 11. seq But besides that it is not sufficient to prooue any conclusion by the authority of the Ciuill law vnles the Ciuil law granteth both the premises or propositions from whence that conclusion is deduced the insufficiencie of this consequence grounded vpon those rules The accessorie followeth the principall and he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse See chap. 2. 3. per totum I haue made manifest in the former Chapters 58 Secondly doe not dissemble Mr. Fitzherb nor seeke to delude your Reader but deale sincerely and be not ashamed to acknowledge your errour seeing that not onely your selfe but also Card. Bâ—ll Gretzer Lessius Becanus and also Suarez haue herein grosely erred For your meaning was not by making that long discourse out of the Ciuill law to proue the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes onely to inferre by a necessary consequent in your owne vnderstanding that he may also punish them temporally in their persons and states but your meaning was to proue directly by the Ciuill law the Oath to be vnlawfull for that in your opinion it denieth the Popes power to Excommunicate Princes which the Ciuill law doth expresly acknowledge For in the beginning of your Supplement you tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine namely in respect of those clauses which do exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope and then after you had made an end of your long discourse concerning the Popes spirituall power acknowledged by the Ciuill law you made this inference that the Ciuill law cannot iustifie the Oath but doth flatly impugne it for that the Oath supposeth and implieth the Kings Maiestie to be supreme head of the English Church and not the Pope and thereupon denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince So that the Oath in your opinion contained two clauses the one a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and this was that which you intended to prooue to bee directly repugnant to the Ciuill law the other was a deniall of the Popes power to depose Princes and this in a word or two related before you affirmed to be also repugnant to the ciuill law for that in your iudgement it followeth necessarily froÌ„ the fromer which how vaine an assertion this is you may see by that I haue said before for so you may make one to affirme any thing if to make him to graunt an argument or consequent it bee sufficient that he graunt the antecedent although hee deny the consequence But now it seemeth by your silence as I signified before in the first Chapter that you are ashamed to insist vpon the former clause concerning the Popes power to excommunicate Princes for which you made that long discourse to prooue by the Ciuill law the Popes supremacie in spirituals and yet rather then you will confesse your errour you care not to delude your Reader in dissembling the chiefe and principall cause for which you affirmed the Oath to bee repugnant to the Ciuill law to wit because it denyed the Popes power to excommunicate Princes wherein with many others of your Society you haue most fowlely and shamefully erred 59 Wherefore I may now very well conclude that the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought in his Supplement grounded as well vpon the law of God of nature and nations as vpon the ciuill or imperiall law are very insufficient and that the answeres which in my Admonition I did briefly make to them doe stand sound and good notwithstanding any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary Now you shall see what arguments he bringeth from the Canon law and especially from that so often named decree of the famous Councell of Lateran CHAP. IX Wherein the difficulties which some make concerning the authority of the Lateran Councel are propounded the decree of the Councell which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related and Widdringtons first answere to the said Decree is proued to be sound and sufficient and Mr. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted 1 WE are come now at last courteous Reader to examine what conuincing arguments can bee brought for proofe of this new pretended Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes out of the Canon law and especially from the decree of the great and famous Councell of Lateran whereon my principall Aduersaries seeing belike all their other arguments and authorities to bee cleane shaken and battered doe now chiefly rely Wherefore albeit neither the more ancient of our moderne Diuines who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba D. Sanders and others nor Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken from these men all his chiefe arguments and authorities to confirme his new Catholike faith in this point did in his Controuersies make any great reckoning of the decree of this great Councell for otherwise without doubt he being not ignorant of this decree and also desirous to make his doctrine vnquestionable and therefore feareth not to brand the contrary opinion with the note of heresie would not haue beene contented onely with the fact of Pope Innocent the third in deposing Otho the Emperour and haue neglected to vrge this decree of the Councell of Lateran which was called by the said Pope Innocent yet now hee flyeth to the decree of the great Councell of Lateran as the chiefe pillar to support his new Catholike faith therefore in regard principally of this decree he doubteth not to affirme but how rashly and without sufficient ground you shall see beneath that whosoeuer denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes contemneth the voyce of the Church in this so great and famous a Councell and is to be accounted a Heathen and Publican and in
no wise a Christian. 2 And Mr. Fitzherbert also maketh so great account of this decree that whereas hee spendeth onely three Chapters concerning the law of God in the olde and new Testament the law of Nature of Nations and the Ciuill law yet in examining this decree of the Councell of Lateran he consumeth seuen whole Chapters wherein hee hath borrowed of Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name the greatest part of a whole Treatise which he made in the defence of this Decree and in the end he boldly affirmeth a P. 204. 205. that I am falne into flat heresie yea which is more by my owne grant and confession and why forsooth for not vnderstanding the Decree in that sense wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and some later Diuines specially Iesuites doe vnderstand it as though the authoritie of these men is so great that wee are bound to accept their priuate expositions concerning any text of holy Scriptures or sacred Canons for the voice of the Catholike Church But how vaine are the bragges of this boasting man and how palpable are his slanders taxing me of ridiculous absurditie folly temeritie malice impietie impudencie and heresie and then especially when my answeres are most strong and his Replyes most childish and impertinent you haue partly seene in the former Chapters and in the rest also you shall more cleerely perceiue 3 But before I come to shew what is the true sense and meaning of this decree it will not bee amisse first to see of what authoritie and credit among all Catholikes this great and famous Councell of Lateran is and ought to bee for this is very materiall to know whether any decree therein contained bee of it selfe sufficient to make any matter of faith which all Catholikes are bound to beleeue to be of faith as also because some make doubt Bel. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 13. saith Cardinall Bellarmine whether the last Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth which most expresly defined that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell was truely a Generall Councell therefore euen to this day it remaineth a question also among Catholikes whether a Generall Councell be aboue the Pope or no. And although I doe not intend to deny or call in question the authoritie of this Councell but for my owne part doe willingly admit and approue the same yet for satisfaction of the Reader and that the trueth may the more easily bee found out and followed I thinke it necessarie to set downe the doubts and difficulties which some haue made against the authoritie of this so great and famous a Councell 4 First therefore it is certaine and out of controuersie that the aforesaid Councell of Lateran was called by Pope Innocent the third to which came all those Ambassadours Bishops and other inferiour Prelates mentioned heere beneath by my Aduersarie and in this all Histories doe agree in which respect it may truely be called the greatest and most famous Councell that euer was assembled in the Church of God albeit if we respect onely the number of the Bishops who were present thereat and who only according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine haue authoritie to decide determine and define as Iudges matters belonging to Christian faith and Religion the Councell of Chalcedon was farre greater whereat were present 630. Bishops and the Councell of Lyons vnder Pope Gregorie the tenth was also farre greater whereat were present according to Genebrard 500. Bishops and according to Binnius more then 700. whereas at this Councell of Lateran were onely 412. Bishops according to Matthew Paris and Abbas Vspergensis whom Binnius followeth who comprehend the two Patriarchs and 70. Archbishops in the number of the 412. Bishops But all the difficultie consisteth in this whether this decree which is now in question and all the other Canons which now are published as decrees of the Councell of Lateran were confirmed by the generall consent of all or the greatest part of all the Fathers or were onely propounded and rehearsed in the Councell but not approoued by common consent And one chiefe ground of this difficultie is taken from the testomonie of our countrey-man Matthew Paris a Benedictiue Monke of the Monasterie of S. Alban who both liued neere the time of this Councell See his Historie of Henrie the 3. in the yeere 1248. and was also reputed a man probatae vitae religionis expertae of an approoued life and tried religion as Pope Innocent the 4. doth testifie in regard whereof he was by the same Pope Innocent sent into the kingdome of Norway to reforme the Monasterie of Holme although in regard of his freedome of speech and vpright dealing he is vndeseruedly taxed by the most Illustrious and renowmed Cardinall de Peron as a great enemie to Popes in which respect he might also taxe him as a great enemie to all both Popes and Kings Clerkes and Laikes yea and to those of his owne Order for that hee freely and without partialitie rehearseth and taxeth the vices of all But the ancient prouerbe is by dayly experience found true Ohsequium amicos veritas odium parit Flatterie causeth friends trueth enmitie 5 Thus therefore hee writeth of that Councell b Mat. Paris vpon the yeere 1215. in the life of King Iohn after hee hath set downe the time and place where it was held and the number of persons who were present thereat All these being gathered together in the place aforesaid and according to the manner of Generall Councells euery man being placed in his order the Pope hauing made first an exhortation 60. Chapters were rehearsed in the full Councell which to some did seeme pleasing or easie to others burdensome At length he beginning his speech concerning the businesse of the Crucifix subioyned saying c. And the same Matthew Paris in his lesser Chronicle writeth thus But that Generall Councell which after the Papall manner did pretend great things at the beginning ended in scorne and mockerie whereby the Pope cunningly deluded the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Deanes Archdeacons and all that came to the Councell For when they now perceiued nothing to bee done in so great a businesse they being desirous to returne home desired leaue one after another which the Pope did not grant them before they had promised him a great summe of money which they were constrained first to borrow of Romane merchants and pay it to the Pope before they were permitted to depart from Rome The Pope now hauing receiued the money did freely dissolue this gainefull Councell and all the Cleargie departed sorrowfull 6 From which worde of Matthew Paris it seemeth to follow that neither all these 60. Chapters mentioned by him were made by the order of the whole Councell but rather by Pope Innocent himselfe or by his direction before the Councell began both for that at the very beginning of the Councell after the Pope had made his sermon it seemeth that they were rehearsed in the full Councell and also
absolute Princes are not in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder the generall names of temporall Land-lords Gouernours Iudges Lords or such like was not grounded vpon any peculiar priuiledge proper to absolute Princes for the like I affirmed of a Bishop and an Abbot but vpon the knowne rules of the law which there I cited and vpon the authority of learned Lawyers and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert might haue saued his labour in seeking out of Restaurus Castaldus or others any such priuiledge peculiar to absolute Princes Neither also did I affirme that all Lawyers are of opinion that in penall lawes and odious matters an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest or Clearke nor an absolute Prince vnder the name of a temporall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord but that some Lawyers are of this opinion and this is enough to prooue it to be probable that in the Canon of the Lateran Councell Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall wordes of a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord. Wherefore although the opinion of Hostiensis of whom I will speake beneath or of any other Lawyer or Diuine whatsoeuer be expresly against this doctrine it is nothing to the purpose except it be also against the opinion of all Lawyers and Diuines 7 Secondly therefore that M. Fitzherbert may also see that I haue not inuented this doctrine of my owne head I will now for proofe of the same relate some Catholike Authors whom then I omitted to rehearse for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt thereof An Abbot saith Bartholomaeus Fumus in his Armilla aurea Armilla verbo Abbas nu 11. in an odious matter is not comprehended by the name of Monkes although he be in a fauourable matter according to the Doctours in cap. Armilla verbo Clericus nu 2. finali de Simonia And againe by the name of Clearkes saith hee in a fauourable matter are vnderstood all that haue any Clearkely dignity but in an odious matter vnder the name of a Clerke are not comprehended Bishops no Canons nor others placed in dignity nor Monkes nor Religious men that are exempted Vide Panormit in cap. bonae memoriae de postulat Praelatorum Armilla verbo Sacerdos nu 1 And againe by the name of a Priest saith he in a fauourable matter are vnderstood not onely Prasbyters but also Deacons and Subdeacons but in an odious matter onely Presbyters and not therefore Bishops are to bee vnderstood arg cap. si quisque de cohab Cleric mulierum where Panormitan obserueth the same Thus writeth Armilla Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia 8 The like hath Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia § prima conclusio By the name of Monkes saith he Abbots are vnderstood in a fauourable matter but this conclusion is not true in an odious matter and for the same hee citeth Panormitan Pope Innocent and others And a little before out of diuers textes of the Canon Law he deduceth this general rule Quoties species aliquid addit generi nunquam appellatione generis venit species Whensoeuer the particular doth adde something to the generall the particular is not to be comprehended vnder the name of the generall which is the same in sense with that rule which he afterwards relateth out of Antonius de Butrio that in penall things the mixt or compound is not comprehended vnder the simple which rules Felinus limiteth thus vnlesse the punishment or odious matter doth tend principally to fauour the soule but how to know this for certaine it is very heard as you shall see beneath Sayrus tom 1. lib. 3. cap. 33. 9 The like teacheth our learned Countreyman Gregorius Sayrus expounding the Canon Vt periculosa Ne Clerici vel Monachi lib. 6. Wherein are excommunicated all Religious men who goe to any Schooles of learning vnlesse they haue first license graunted them by their Prelate with the aduise of the greater part of the Conuent An Abbot saith he going to Schooles without the license of his Superiour and Conuent doth not incurre this punishment according to Archidiaconus Geminianus Angelus Antoninus and Nauarrus in the places aboue cited because it is a penall constitution and therefore rather to be restrained then extended The same hath Nauarre vpon cap. finali de Simonia From the aforesaid it is also saith he inferred that the disposition Nauar. tom 2. Comment in cap. finali de Simonia nu 5. or constitution which speaketh of a Monke doth not comprehend an Abbot if the matter be not fauourable as Doctors here vpon this Canon do seeme to be of opinion 10 And Syluester treating of the Canon in Clement Vnica de vsuris wherein are excommunicated quicunque communitatum ipsarum Potestates Capitanei Rectores c. All Potestaes of Communities themselues Captaines Rectours or Gouernours Consulls Iudges Counsellers or any other Officiall or Officer who doe make write or dictate Constitutions that vsurers are to bee paid or being paid are not to be restored Siluest verbo Excommunicatio 19. nu 82. §. quadragessima tertia c. affirmeth that because this is a penall constitution consequently it is not extended to persons that are not expressed or which is all one expresly named therein and he proueth this by that rule of the Law in Sexto In penalties the milder part is to be chosen Moreouer Pope Innocent the third himselfe vnder whom this Councell of Lateran was held In can Sedes Apostolica de Rescriptis doth expresly decree that when in his Commissions persons of lesse worth more base are onely signified persons of greater worth and dignitie are not vnderstood to be included in a generall clause Now what man of iudgement can make any doubt but that Dominus temporalis is a person of lesse worth honour and dignitie then Dominus principalis who in the Canon is distinguished from Dominus temporalis and both of them are persons of lesse worth honour and authoritie then are Domini supremi as are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes And therefore these generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis being names of lesse worth and dignitie then are Domini supremi must not according to Pope Innocent his owne rule comprehend Emperours Kings and absolute Princes who are the most worthy most noble and most principall Lords and persons vpon earth 11 But wee will conclude this point with so plaine and manifest an authoritie that my Aduersarie both in respect of the Authour and also of his words being so cleere can take against it no colourable exception Lastly therefore Andreas Duuallius a famous Doctour of Paris and at this present the Kings Publike professour of Diuinitie and also a man otherwise much fauouring the Popes temporall authoritie ouer absolute Princes Andr. Duual de suprema Rom Pont. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q.
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
deserued punishments threatned against them may keepe immooueable and without perturbation the peace of the holy Churches of God Giuen the eight Calends of Iune Asclepius and Deodatus most excellent men being Consulls 17 Now what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to this ancient decree of Pope Liberius which hee wisheth mee well to note wherein it is decreed that Bishops if they perturbe the peace of the Church shall be depriued of their Priesthood by Regall or Kingly indignation For that secular men being placed in dignity may be depriued of their honour and dignity and if they be priuate men yet noble may forfeit all their goods and if they be ignoble may be whipped or perpetually banished by Regall or Kingly power or indignation which this Canon also of what credit soeuer it be doth ordaine is not any way repugnant to my doctrine Thus thou seest good Reader how grosly thou art abused through the fraud or ignorance of this vnlearned man who neuertheles presumeth to direct thy soule and conscience in this so high and dangerous a point of thy allegeance due to God and man wherein he cleerely sheweth himselfe to haue so little skill 18 Thirdly in what sense I affirmed that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes vnder generall words vnlesse they be expressed by name for which respect also Mr. Fitzherbert wisheth me to note well this Canon of Pope Liberius I haue declared before to wit that they are not in such lawes comprehended vnder generall words which denote some inferiour office or title of honour for I neuer intended to denie as this man imposeth vpon me that they are not included in any generall words except they be specified by the name of Princes if such generall words denote no inferiour office or title of honour So that neither Hostiensis for as much as concerneth this Canon of Liberius contradicteth my doctrine because those generall words Qui contra pacem Ecclesiae They who are against the peace of the Church do denote no inferiour office or title of honour and although he were against my doctrine it is too little to the purpose seeing that other Lawyers and Diuines doe contradict him herein and moreouer this Canon cited by Hostiensis is neither authenticall and of sufficient credit nor any way gaine-saith that which I affirme concerning this poynt Pag. 151. nu 5. 19 Now you shall see the third testimony which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of Hostiensis And this saith he c will be much more cleare by the third testimony cited out of the Canon law by Hostiensis which hee taketh out of the title de haereticia Decret lib. 5. tit 7. de Haretices wherin there is no particular mention of absolute Princes by the name of Princes neither is there in any other Decree concerning their deposition but onely this Canon of the Councell of Lateran now in question so as Widdrington may see not onely that Kings and absolute Princes haue no such exemption from penall Lawes as he pretendeth but also that they are included in the generall tearmes ouen of this Canon of the Councell of Lateran in the opinion of a famous Canonist who wrote not past fiftie yeares after the said Councell And if he say that they haue had this exemption or priuiledge since that time let him shew vs when and where they had it which I am sure he cannot doe as it may appeare by the Canonists who comprehend absolute Princes in other penall lawes wherein they are not otherwise mentioned then in generall tearmes as he may see in Simanca in his Institutions d Tit. 23. and Emericus in his third part of the Directorie e Q. 31. and Penna in his Annotations vpon the f Annot. 96. same 20 But first it is vntrue that in the whole title dehaereticis there is not any other Canon or decree concerning the deposition of Princes except this Decree of the Lateran Councell if wee once suppose as Hostiensis doth suppose that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for this once supposed they may very well bee included in the last Canon of this title De haereticis wherein Pope Gregory the ninth doth Decree and declare that whosoeuer are bound or obliged to manifest heretickes by any couenant strengthened with neuer so great securitie are absolued from the bond of all allegiance homage and obedience for in those words whosoeuer and manifest heretickes and such like generall tearmes which denote no title of office honour or dignity inferiour to Kingly maiesty all men whatsoeuer euen Kings and absolute Princes may be included if it be once granted that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes But because it is probable as I haue prooued at large aboue in this Treatise that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath no authority to depose temporall Princes or to inflict temporall punishments it consequently followeth that it is also probable that neither the aforesaid Canon Absolutos nor any other Canon made in such generall words wherein temporall punishments are inflicted can comprehend absolute Princes but that all such like Canons are made either by the Pope as he is a temporall Prince and consequently are of force onely in the territories of the Church or the Popes temporall dominions or else that they are made by the consent of temporall Princes and haue their force to binde from their authority and consequently doe concerne onely inferiour persons or subiects and not absolute Princes themselues who are free from the coerciue power of those lawes which are made by their owne authority 21 So that although I will not now contend neither doe I much regard of what opinion Hostiensis bee concerning the sense and meaning of this Canon of the Lateran Councell yet it is plaine that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not hitherto prooued out of Hostiensis as hee pretended to prooue that absolute Princes are comprehended in the penall lawes of the Church vnder such generall names which denote some office honour dignitie or title inferiour to Kingly Maiestie Neither doeth Simancas Emericus or Pegna in the places cited by my Aduersarie teach contrarie to my doctrine in this point to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are vnderstood by the generall name of Monkes Bishops by the generall name of Priests and Emperours Kings and absolute Princes by the generall name of Dominus temporalis a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord. 22 For Simancas in the 23. title cited by my Aduersarie nu 10. doth cleerely distinguish betwixt Dominos temporales and Reges temporall Lords and Kings and nu 11. hee proueth that hereticall Kings and Princes are forthwith deposed and their subiects absolued from their allegiance by the aforesaide Canon Absolutos of Gregorie the ninth which as I saide is a sufficient proofe supposing as hee doeth that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue
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
vnder the generall name of Priests or Clearkes nor Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes nor Kings vnder the generall name of Lords Gouernours or Landlords he must according to his owne confession grant that I haue reason to exempt Emperours Kings and absolute Princes from the Canon of the Lateran Councell 34 Neither did I ground this my doctrine vpon the Canon Quia periculosum wherein it is decreed that in the case of Suspension Interdict Bishops are not comprehended vnder any generall words whatsoeuer vnlesse they be expressed by the name of Bishops but vpon the authorities aforesaid chiefly vpon that reason which Mr. Fitzher himselfe acknowledgeth to be most true that all lawes are to be vnderstood according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation of euery Ecclesiasticall Canon is extended onely to those who are subiect to the spirituall authority of the Church as absolute Princes are not in meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes whom I haue named aboue in the first part of this Treatise and defended them from the friuolous exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath made against them 35 Finally saith Mr. Fitzherbert whereas Widdrington saith that the Synode would haue specified Princes by that name as well in this Canon if it had meant to include them therein as it did in some other Canons and Decrees concerning other matters who seeth not the vanitie of this coniecture For why should they be named more particularly then they are seeing that they are sufficiently comprehended in the generall tearme of Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord k He might as wel haue translated it a temporall Landlord n To wit no temporal Landlord aboue thē but the King which is also sufficiently explicated in this very Canon wherein we see that a temporall Lord l He might as well haue said a tempprall Landlord for Dominus temporalis signifieth both is diuided into two sorts the one of those who haue principall Lords m And also Landlords aboue them and the other of such as haue none of which sort are all absolute Princes that hold of none p And also other principall Landlords who haue no principall Landlord aboue them but the King who is not comprehended in odious matters vnder the name of a Landlord and therefore seeing that such are declared by the Canon to be subiect to the penaltie no lesse then those who holde of others it was needlesse to name them in other manner But belike my Aduersary will take vpon him not onely to interprete the Councell but also to teach it how to speake and what words to vse or else it must be of no force 36 No Mr. Fitzherbert God forbid that either I who professe my selfe to be a Catholike should be so arrogant as to take vpon mee to teach the Councell how to speake or what words to vse or that you who professe to be a teacher and to instruct others in this difficult controuersie which you will needes make a point of faith should bee so ignorant as not to know that the sense and meaning of the Councell is to be gathered from the sense and propertie of the words and that by the words we are taught what is the sense meaning of the Councell Now I haue sufficiently shewed before both by the authority of learned Lawyers and Diuines and also by conuincing reason that absolute Princes are not sufficiently comprehended in this Canon vnder the generall name of a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour of Lord both for that it is a penall law wherein an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Landlord Gouernour or Lord and ciefely for that it is such a penall law which is probable to bee a temporall and not a spirituall law for that it inflicteth temporall punishments which according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes cannot be inflicted but by temporall or ciuill power and that therefore those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or Lord cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church for that the words of euery law are to bee limitted according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes law whether hee bee a temporall or spirituall Prince is extended onely to his owne subiects 37 And if my Aduersary flie to his ancient shift that all Emperours Kings and other Christian Princes are children of the Church therfore subiect to the spirituall Pastors thereof It is true in spiritualls but not in temporalls as is the inflicting of temporall punishments wherein they are not subiect but absolute and supreme True also it is that Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord is in this Canon diuided into two sorts of Lords taking a Lord as the canon here doth take him to wit not only for a title of honour which Knights Gentlemen many inferiour Magistrates as Shiriffes Bayliffes Constables haue not but for euery person who hath tenants vassals or other persons any way subiect to him in which sense euery Land-lord Magistrate is called Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord The one sort is of those who haue principall and chiefe Gouernours or Land-lords aboue them as are all inferiour Magistrates and those who hold any land of others The other is of those who although they be subiect to the King yet they haue no other principall Land-lords or Gouernours aboue them and of this sort are both those who let their lands to others and yet hold their lands of none nor perchance of the King and also all principall Gouernours of the common-wealth who are subiect to no other then the King as are all the Lords or the body of the Kings priuie Councell together and in some sort the Lord Chancellour the Lord chiefe Iustice who haue no one principall Lord or Gouernour aboue them as all other subiects haue but the King alone yet neither of these sorts doe sufficiently expresse a King or a supreme and absolute Prince for that they are titles belonging also to subiects and inferiour persons And therefore the premises being considered it is probable that if the Councell had meant to haue comprehended Kings and absolute Princes in that Canon she would haue giuen them their proper titles of honour as she did in other Decrees and not include them in those common titles of honour which are giuen to persons of inferiour state and condition 38 And by this which I haue said in these two Chapters the Reader may cleerely see that these answeres which I haue giuen to the decree of the Lateran
Councell are very probable and sufficient and that therefore Mr. Fitzherberts conclusion of this Chapter to vse his owne words is no lesse vaine impertinent and insufficient then of his former Chapters for these be his words k Pag. 154 nu 10. Thus thou seest good Reader that these few exceptions being all that Widdrington hath taken to the Councell of Lateran in his answere to my Supplement are no lesse vaine and impertinent then his former arguments and answeres to the rest of my discourse and this is as much as at the first I meant and vndertooke to performe neuerthelesse forasmuch as he hath charged me to haue dissembled his other answeres and arguments touching the Councell of Lateran in another worke of his which as I haue signified before I neuer saw till now of late I will take a little more paines and craue thy further patience whiles I examine the validitie thereof which I might forbeare to doe if I did write in Latin because the same arguments and answeres of my Aduersary are very learnedly and cleerely confuted in Latin as well by M. D. Weston l Iuris Pontif. Sanctuar q. 27. per totum in his Sanctuary whereof I haue spoken before as also by M. D. Singleton in an excellent Treatise concerning onely the Decree of the Councell of Lateran to which two Authours I might and would wholly remit my Reader m Disscussio decreti c. nu 4. seq were it not that I desire to giue satisfaction in this point as well to such as doe not vnderstand the Latin tongue as to those that haue not the commodity and meanes to see the said Treatises besides that I shall now and then vpon some speciall occasions touch some things which seeme to me very considerable and are not touched by them or any other for ought I know 39 But on the contrary side thou seest good Reader that these answeres which I haue giuen to the Councell of Lateran are sound sufficient and very probable and that the exceptions which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken against them are no lesse vaine and impertinent then are his arguments and answeres in the former Chapters and that according to his owne confession who granteth that all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and therefore the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Canons is extended onely to them who are subiect to the authoritie of the Church if it be probable that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue by the institution of Christ no authoritie to inflict temporall punishments and that consequently absolute Princes are not subiect to them therein it cleerely followeth that it is also probable that the Councell of Lateran did not intend to include absolute Princes in that penall law vnder the generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis but that this decree inflicting temporall punishments was made by the authority and consent of temporall Princes and did therefore onely include those inferiour Land-lords Gouernours or Lords that were subiect to them 40 Wherefore to conclude this point vnlesse as I said before my Aduersaries doe first prooue out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleere definition of a generall Councell or a demonstratiue reason grounded thereon that it is certaine and of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes they cannot draw any conuincing argument from this Canon of the Lateran Councell to prooue that doctrine to be certaine and of faith for still the aforesaid answere will bee ready at hand that it was made by the authority of temporall Princes seeing all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as Almaine and very many Doctours doe affirme So that vnlesse in arguing from the Lateran Councell they will manifestly petere principium and suppose that which they ought to prooue they can neuer bring any conuincing argument from the aforesaid Canon to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes as any man of iudgement may cleerely see but they must still suppose the same as certaine which is a great vice in the disputer although the answerer who taketh not vpon to prooue but onely to defend may without any fault or note giue such answeres which suppose that the Pope hath no such power vntill by force of argument he be driuen from that his supposition and this I wish the Reader and all my Aduersaries well to note for in most of their arguments they suppose that which is in question which is a fault in the Disputant but not in the Respondent who doth alwaies answere supposing his owne grounds and doctrine but the Disputer must not onely suppose them but also prooue them And as for the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Replies which he confesseth to haue taken out of D. Weston and D. Singleton I will also examine with him in the ensuing Chapters as also that which he hath now and then as he saith vpon some speciall occasions touched and which seeme to him very considerable and yet are not for ought he knoweth touched by them or any other CHAP. XI Wherein Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to be sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessarie to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Also the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined And lastly Mr-Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the Decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the Constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted 1 NOw Mr. Fitzherbert with the helpe of D. Weston and Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name taketh vpon him in the three next ensuing Chapters to prooue three answeres which I gaue to an obiection made in fauour of this Decree of the Lateran Councell to bee absurd And thus he beginneth My Aduersary Widdrinton in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere to an English Doctour hath not onely vrged the arguments Praefat. Ad. Resp Apolog. nu 46. which I haue heere alreadie confuted but vndertaketh also to answere certaine of ours against the same arguments and therefore he obiecteth in our behalfe that although it were true that Kings and absolute Princes are not included per se and principally in that Decree of the Councell yet it seemeth to be manifest that secondarily and consequently they are or at least may be comprehended therein For if the Pope saith he haue power to depriue the subiects of other Princes of their temporall states for heresie without the consent of the said Princes it seemeth that no sufficient reason can be assigned why he may not also for the same cause depriue Soueraigne Princes of their Dominions 2 Thus argueth he for
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
from hence bee necessarily inferred that the aforesaid Doctours should thereby take vpon them to determine an article of faith to make a manifest and ineuitable schisme in the Church of God yea and to precipitate men into a manifest heresie and account the Pope if he should not hold the same not to bee the head of the Church and Christs Vicar but an hereticke and Antichrist and all the other parts of the Church who should maintaine the contrary not to bee true parts of the Church but members of Antichrist Of this question I would gladly be resolued for the resolution thereof would giue no small light whereby the iudicious Reader may see of what force are the chiefest obiections and inferences that the Cardinall of Peron vrgeth aginst the oath of France and the decree of the Parliament of Paris made the second of Ianuary 1615. 39 And thus much concerning the Lord Cardinall of Peron whom in truth I was very loath to mention for the great reuerence and respect wherewith I honour his Grace in regard of the singular gifts of honour and nature wherewith he is adorned but that the defence of truth in this important question touching our duties to God and Caesar and of my innocency which the slanderous tongues of some haue vniustly branded with the infamous note of errour and heresie for impugning their new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes and also the publishing of his oration to the view of the world wherby many vnlearned Catholikes not being able to discerne his artificiall and cunning manner both in propounding and handling this dangerous question touching the deposition of Princes are pittifully deluded and seduced haue vrged me thereunto Now to the matter from whence vpon this occasion giuen me by my Aduersarie touching the doctrine of Ioannes Parisiensis I haue made this digression 40 And as for the matter it selfe saith Mr. Fitzherbert c pag. 160. n. 7. for the which my Aduersary Widdrington produceth their testimonies to wit to prooue that many decrees of the Popes and generall Councells touching temporall things haue beene alwaies made with the expresse Nu. 47. or secret consent of Princes I cannot see what he could gaine or prooue thereby for the question now in hand if it should be granted him For would hee inferre that because many things haue beene decreed by Popes and Councels touching temporall matters therefore no such thing could be decreed in the Councell of Lateran without them Who seeth not the weakenesse and absurditie of this inference seeing that nothing else can follow of those premisses directly but that as diuers other decrees concerning temporall matters haue beene made with the consent of the Princes so also it may be that this Canon of the Councell of Lateran was made in like manner with their consent which no man will deny yea wee willingly grant not onely that it might bee so but also that it was so and inferre thereupon that forasmuch as all Christian Princes gaue their consent to this Canon in that famous generall Councell which was as I may say the Parliament of all Christendome therefore they are and euer shall be subiect thereto except it be repealed by some other generall Councell of like authoritie But how doth it follow that because this and diuers other Canons concerning politicall matters haue beene ratified by temporall Princes therefore they could not be lawfully made without their consent which is the point that Widdrington must prooue if he will argue to the purpose 41 But if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased to consider with an indifferent eye my answere and the principall drift and scope thereof he might easily haue seene that my answere was good and strong and the authority which I brought from Ioannes Parisiensis and Hostiensis sufficient to confirme the same For my principall answere was this that the decree of the Councell of Lateran did not in those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominos principales comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour Landlords Magistrates or Lords it being made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes as ordaining the inflicting of temporall punishments which to ordaine doth not belong to the spirituall but onely to the temporall power and that therefore not onely it did not but also it could not in those generall words comprehend absolute Princes themselues by whose authority it was made And to preuent an obiection which I foresaw some might make to wit that the decrees and Canons of Popes and Councels haue their force to binde from the authority of the Church and not from the consent approbation ratification or authority of temporall Princes I gaue the aforesaid answere that Popes and Councels doe oftentimes ordaine many things which to ordaine belongeth rather to the ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power by the expresse or tacite consent of Princes who are present by themselues or their Ambassadours or else presuming or at leastwise hoping that temporall Princes will ratifie the same and for the confirmation hereof I brought the authority of Hostiensis who affirmeth that according to the opinion of some Doctors which also Pope Innocent Io. Andreas doe affirme that the Canon Ad abolendam de haereticis wherein it is ordained that if Counts and Barons Rectours and Consuls of Cities and of other places doe refuse to take an oath to defend the Church against heretikes they shall be depriued of their honour had therefore force to binde because the Emperour gaue his consent thereunto And that therefore it is no maruaile if this decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments had therefore force to binde for that temporall Princes consented thereunto 42 And by this it is cleare that my meaning was not onely to affirme that the decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made by the consent of absolute Princes onely in that manner as absolute Princes do giue their consent to the making of Ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons which doe meerely proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authority but also that it was made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that to ordaine the inflicting of temporall punishments belongeth rather to the Ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power and therfore it would not haue had force to binde vnlesse absolute Princes had consented thereunto As likewise the Canon Ad abolendam wherein temporall punishments were inflicted was therefore of force according to the opinion of some Canonists as Hostiensis relateth for that the Emperour consented thereunto although the ordaining or inflicting of Excommunication which in that Canon Ad abolendam was ioyned together with the depriuation of temporall honour as it is also ioyned in the decree of the Lateran Councell did proceed and had force to binde from the spirituall authoritie of the Church to whom onely it belongeth to inflict
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
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
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
make the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 38 Thirdly when I affirmed that from the vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church this onely can be gathered that Christ hath promised the infalliable assistance of the holy Ghost not to facts or probable opinions of Popes and Councells but to definitions onely by facts I vnderstand such acts as are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and by definitions I meant those Decrees which are propounded as of faith or which without any doubt or controuersie are deduced euidently from such infallible definitions or principles of faith of which sort this Act or Decree of the Lateran Councell is not as it is euident for those many reasons before alledged 39 And whereas Widdrington addeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 133. nu 12. Supra nu 1. an other circumstance to wit that the Councell did not determine by this Decree that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie or from the Ecclesiasticall power onely without the consent of Princes he is no lesse impertinent then in the former for what need was there to determine that the Pope had an vndoubted lawfull authoritie to depose Princes seeing that the same was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth as it is euident for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it Naucler goâ—erat 41. ad ann 12. which they would not haue done if they had doubted of the lawfulnesse of the Popes authoritie in that behalfe But first Mr. Fitzherbert doth egregiously abuse both me and his Reader in adding both heere and aboue the word Princes as though I had acknowledged that Act of the Lateran Councell to concerne the future deposition of Princes whereas I euer affirmed that it did onely concerne inferiour Magistrates Potestaes Landlords and Lords and not Soueraigne Princes and therfore I said onely that future deposition and my Aduersarie addeth of himselfe the word Princes 40 Secondly whether it was needfull or no for the Councell to declare whether that Act concerning the future deposition of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords or rather the denouncing of them ipso facto deposed was made by spirituall or temporall authoritie it is nothing materiall to our question this being sufficient for me that seeing that very many Catholike Doctors do affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the absoluing of Vassals from their temporall fealtie and the Councell did not declare by what authoritie that Act was made any Catholike man may probably and without any note of temeritie much lesse of heresie affirme that it was made not by any vndoubted lawfull Ecclesiasticall authoritie but onely by the authoritie licence and consent of absolute Princes But although it were not absolutely necessarie that the Councell should haue declared whether that future deposition was to proceed from Ecclesiasticall or temporall authoritie yet to make it a point of faith which all men are bound to beleeue that the aforesaid deposition was to proceede from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and not temporall it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same especially supposing that it is truely probable that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments As also if the Pope being now both a spirituall Pastour and also a temporall Prince should make a law whereof there may bee made a probable doubt whether it was made by vertue of his spirituall or of his temporall authoritie it is necessarie to make this point certaine and out of controuersie that he declare by what authoritie temporall or spirituall that lawe was enacted 41 Thirdly it is very vntrue that the Popes power to depose Princes was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth for that from the very first broaching thereof there alwayes hath beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side Azor. tom 2. li. 11. ca. 5. q. 8 and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in certaine causes the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kings of their kingdome And the euident reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth hereof to wit for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it is the maine question which is now betwixt vs and so he bringeth for an euident reason that which is the controuersie and to be prooued which is an euident petitio principij and condemned as vicious by all Logicians Neither doth Nauclerus whom my Aduersarie citeth in the margent as though hee would make his Reader beleeue that Nauclerus affirmeth that the whole Councell decreed the practise therof affirme any such thing For Nauclerus words are onely these There were many things truly then consulted of yet nothing could be plainly decreed for that they of Pisa and Genua made warre one against the other by Sea and those on this side the Alpes by land Yet some Constitutions are reported to be published whereof one is that whensoeuer the Princes of the world shall offend one the other the correcting belongeth to the Bishop of Rome Where you see first that Nauclerus expresly saith that albeit many things were consulted yet nothing at all could be plainely decreed Secondly that it was onely a report that some constitutions were published Thirdly he doth not say that these Constitutions were of the whole Councell or onely of Pope Innocent and recited in the Councell as Matthew Paris said Fourthly that this report was vntrue it is also plaine seeing that there is no such Constitution as hee mentioneth to be found in the Lateran Councell And lastly albeit there were such a Constitution it is nothing to the purpose seeing that it onely saith that when Princes are at variance it belongeth to the Pope to correct them to wit by Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not the question but that it belongeth to the Pope to correct Princes by deposing them and by inflicting temporall punishments which is the maine controuersie and whereof the practise as Mr. Fitzherbert saith citing Nauclerus in the margent was decreed by the whole Councell Nauclerus speaketh not any one word at all 42 Also Pope Innocent the third saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Pag. 183. u. 13. Naucler geuerat 42 ann 1246. Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. See Adolp Schulc pro Card. Bell. ca. 12 14 where he confuteth the answeres of Widdrington to these examples vnder whom the Councell of Lateran was held had not past three or foure yeeres before depriued the Emperour Otho of his right to the Empire by a sentence of Excommunication and deposition by vertue whereof Frederike the second whose Ambassadours were present at the Lateran Councell was made Emperour who also was afterwards deposed by Innocentius the fourth in the Generall Councell held at Lyons as
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
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
in the solemne vow of chastity and to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest who is no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation 12 Thus I argued in my Apologeticall Preface and then I concluded thus Let my Aduersaries solue these difficulties and I will forthwith by their owne solutions vntie the aforesaid knots which they imagine cannot in any wise be solued or loosed Whereby it is apparant that I did not oppose or apply any one of these three instances either to the decree of the Lateran Councell or to any other Canon of Pope or Councell which are vsually brought by my Aduersaries to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith but as Fa. Lessius did not apply in particular those his three arguments either to the Canon of the Lateran Councell or to any other Canon or iudiciall sentence of the Pope or Councell but left them to be applyed by others to this or that Canon except onely his second agument which he seemeth to apply to the Lateran Councell so I thought it sufficient for that time to propound onely three other like instances in generall and not to compare or parellel any of them to any decree Canon or iudiciall sentence of Pope or Councell in particular whereby my Aduersaries contend to make manifest that this their doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith but left the application of them to this or that Canon in particular vntill such time that they themselues would either apply those three arguments to some particular Canon of Pope or Councell or answere in forme to the three instances which I brought to confront with theirs 13 Now Mr. Fitzherbert neither answereth in forme to those three instances of mine which I grounded vpon those three examples of Popes nor so much as setteth them downe to bee seene by his Reader but cauilleth onely as you shal see at those three examples whereon my three instances were grounded and pretendeth to shew a great disparitie betweene those three examples and the Decree of the Lateran Councell and also hee would seeme to haue plaid the man and to haue quite ouerthrowne my three instances whereas hee hath not so much as touched or mentioned them at all Thus therefore hee beginneth this Chapter i Pag. 185. nu 1 My Aduersary Widdrington hauing hitherto shewed great weakenesse in himselfe and his cause by his answeres to our arguments Widdr. vbi supra nu 52. pretendeth to confute a Reply which he supposeth we will make to his last answere diuiding the said Reply into three points whereof the first is that the foundations and grounds of the Ecclesiasticall Canons and Decrees of Popes and Councells doe belong to faith whereupon Widdrington saith we inferre that seeing the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran grounded their Decree vpon this doctrine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore the said doctrine must needs be certaine and a matter of faith Ibid. nu 53. 14 The second point is that seeing no Catholike man would doubt but that all Christians were bound to beleeue as a matter of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes if a generall Councell should expresly define it therefore we say that forasmuch as the Councell of Lateran doth suppose the same as a sure foundation of their foresaid Canon and Decree all Christians are no lesse bound to beleeue it then if they had expresly determined or defined it Ibid. nu 54. 15 The third point is that it being a matter of faith that the Church cannot erre in generall precepts or Decrees concerning manners it followeth that the Councell of Lateran hauing ordained the deposition of Princes neither hath erred nor could erre in it especially seeing that the errour would be most grieuous and pernicious to all Christians for thereupon would follow tumults seditions and warres by reason of the reuolts and rebellions of subiects against their Princes and the breach of their Oathes of fidelity which were no lesse then periury if the Pope had not authority to discharge subiects of their allegiance and fidelity to their Princes Thus in effect though somewhat more amply doth Widdrington argue for vs. 16 But first whether I or my Aduersary haue shewed great weakenesse in our selues and in our cause neither hee nor I but the iudicious Reader must bee the Iudge for with the same facilitie I may retort his owne words backe vpon himselfe Secondly I did not onely suppose that they would make those three arguments but I related them word by word as I found them in Fa. Lessius which neuerthelesse Mr. Fitzherbert hath very lamely recited especially the first and last argument leauing out many principal and very important words as you may see if you will compare them together Thirdly I did not say that hereupon they did inferre as this man vntruely saith I did that seeing the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran grounded their Decree vpon this doctrine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore this doctrine must be certaine and of faith For albeit Fa. Lessius may seeme to apply his second argument to the Decree of the Lateran Councell which neuerthelesse he may also apply to the Decree of the Councell of Lyons yet his other arguments especially his first are so generall that they may be applyed to many other Decrees Canons dispensations and iudiciall sentences of Popes or Councells and if Fa. Lessius had particularly applied them to the Lateran Councell I might without more adoe haue easily answered them by denying as there I did that the Councell did suppose as a foundation of that Decree or Act concerning the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie this doctrine that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes but onely inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the authoritie and consent of absolute Princes 17 Now for the answere and confutation saith k Pag. 186. nu 4. 5. Mr. Fitzherbert of these three arguments Widdrington produceth three instances to proue that the Pope doth somtimes exercise his power with danger of pernicious most grieuous errour when neuerthelesse it is vncertaine whether he haue such power or no. His first instance is that the Pope hath often giuen lilence to a Priest to minister and conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation notwithstanding that diuers great Doctours doe denie that the Pope can giue such licence or commission whereupon he concludeth that it is not certaine Durand Bonauent Adrian alij whether the Pope hath the power which he exercieth in giuing such licenses and addeth further An non saith he grauissimus error est c Is it not a most grieuous errour to grant such licences whereby there is danger to commit most grieuous sacriledges to wit the inualide administration of Sacraments So he shewing euidently how vnreuerent an opinion he hath of the licences dispensations and other actions of Popes seeing that
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
Fa. Lessius his first argument which he produced without any restriction or limitation to be restrained and limited only to the decrees of Popes and generall Councels which are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and doe not onely concerne particular facts licences dispensations and iudiciall sentences concerning some particular Countries or persons besides that I haue declared aboue in what sence that proposition is true to wit that such decrees must be made by true Ecclesiasticall and not ciuill authority and also that they must be such decrees and sentences wherein it is certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre I haue also here produced a decree of Pope Sixtus the fourth concerning the Feast of the blessed Virgins conception which was made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and yet the ground and foundation of that decree was vncertaine as I prooued aboue and will more cleerely confirme beneath and euidently shew how Mr. Fitzherbert to answere this decree is forced to forsake the doctrine of the most learnedst Diuines of his own Society And also I might adde hereunto the decrees of Popes touching the canonization of Saints the ground and foundation whereof doth not appertaine to faith seeing that as I shewed before out of Canus that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints and yet these decrees are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church But as concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell touching the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates it is euident that I made no inference or any mention at all thereof in any one of my three Instances or examples as this man most shamefully affirmeth 43 Yet if he will needes haue me to apply this doctrine touching the vncertainty of the grounds and foundations of Popes decrees and sentences to the decrees of generall Councels and in particular to the often named Act of the Lateran Councell I doe confidently affirme that whensoeuer it is vncertaine and disputable among learned Catholikes whether a generall Councell hath authority to make this or that decree by her spirituall power without the consent and authority of temporall Princes as to inflict temporall punishments and to dispose of temporals wherein temporall Princes onely are supreame and the Councell maketh such a decree concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments or the disposing of temporals without declaring that she doth make that decree by her spirituall authority then I say it is lawfull for any man without any note of heresie errour or temerity to expound the decree of that Councell according to the probable opinion of those learned men and to affirme that the Councell made that decree not by spirituall power but by the consent and authority of temporall Princes And this is our case concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell Neither is this to impugne the decree of the Councell but onely to expound it according to the probable doctrine of Catholikes And if Mr. Fitzherbert will say that this inference is ridiculous absurd improbable and not to the purpose and that hereby we may inferre quidlibet ex quolibet he sheweth himselfe as the plaine truth is to haue small skill in Theologicall learning 44 In the meane time saith he x Pag. 190 nu 12. ad finem Widdrington is to vnderstand further concerning this point that whereas hee demandeth whether it is not a most grieuous errour to graunt such licences whereupon most grieuous Sacriledges may follow to wit the inualid administration of Sacraments I answere that the Church both doth and may minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a propable opinion without any danger of formall sacriledge or sinne as when a childe is baptized in one of his feet or hands before he be fully borne into the world or when the Sacrament of Extreame Vnction is giuen to one of whom it is not certaine whether he be fully dead In these cases I say and diuers other such the Church doth administer Sacraments with some danger of inualiditie and yet without danger of formall Sacriledge in respect of the great hope of benefit which may follow to the soules of those to whom they are administred and I verily thinke that there was neuer any Catholike so impious hitherto as to condemne the same as sacrilegious either in the most famous and holy Father S. Gregory the Pope or in any other of his successors for albeit some learned men haue indeed denied that they had authority to giue such licence yet they were not so inconsiderate as either to condemne them of most grieuous or sacrilegious errour or to deny that the other opinion was probable seeing that it had beene practised so long since by S. Gregory and approoued not onely by so many most famous and learned Doctours but also by the Councell of Florence which treating of the Sacrament of Confirmation and hauing said that the Bishop is the Ordinary Minister thereof addeth afterwards Legitur tamen c. yet it is read that a simple Priest hath administred it by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike with Chrisme or holy Oyle made by a Bishop 45 So saith the Councell giuing to vnderstand that although a Bishop is the ordinary Minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation yet a Priest may be the extraordinary Minister of it by dispensation of the Sea Apostolike And this I hope may suffice to free as well S. Gregory as other Popes his Successours from all errour and much more all danger of sacriledge in this point Besides that the grant of such licences being meere matters of fact and concerning onely particular persons and Countries could not any way preiudice our cause albeit they were erroneous or sacrilegious seeing that as I haue sufficiently signified before the question betwixt him and vs for the present is only about a generall Decree of a Generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefit of the whole Church wherein wee doe indeed acknowledge the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost though not in euerie particular fact of a Pope Thus much for his first Instance 45 But still this man discouereth either his grosse ignorance or his accustomed fraud For first whereas I spake onely of errour of materiall sacriledge and of inualid administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation this man replieth of sinne of formall sacriledge and of vnlawfull administration of Sacraments For although it be certaine that a man may lawfully and without sinne or formall sacriledge minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a probable opinion yet it is not certaine that in such cases the Sacrament is ministred with effect and without errour or materiall sacriledge for truth falshood and errour haue their denomination from the effect or thing it selfe and probable ignorance and errour doe make the act lawfull though not valid and with effect 46 Secondly there is a great disparity betwixt
the examples which Mr. Fitzherbert heere bringeth concerning the lawfulnesse of ministring Sacraments vpon a probable opinion and the example which I brought concerning the licences graunted by some Popes to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation For the common doctrine and practise among Catholikes is that it is not lawfull to minister vpon a probable opinion those Sacraments mentioned by my Aduersary but in case of necessitie and when the necessitie is past because it was vncertaine or doubtfull whether they were valid and had effect or no to reiterate them againe vpon condition according to that doctrine which is certaine and without all controuersie doubt or danger But neither doe Popes giue licence to inferiour Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation onely in time of necessitie neither is it the common practise among Catholikes to reiterate againe after the necessitie is past the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by those Priests of whom there is a great controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope hath authority to giue them any such licence or no. 47 Neither doth the Councell of Florence * See Estius in 4. sent dist 7. §. 22. who answereth this authoritie of the Councell of Florence Castro vbi supra either approoue or disprooue this practise but onely relateth that some Popes haue giuen such licences as the words before rehearsed by my Aduersary doe plainly shew And although S. Gregorie did grant or as Alphonsus de Castro doth expound him did for auoiding of scandall onely permit which before he had forbidden as a thing contrary to the ancient custome of the Romane Church that certaine Priests in Sardinia might conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation when Bishops were wanting or Adrianus vbi supra as Pope Adrian doth interprete S. Gregorie he did not giue leaue to Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation but onely to annoint the forehead of the person baptized with Chrisme in that manner as Pope Siluester is said to haue ordained that the Priest should annoint with Chrisme the person baptized in the crowne of the head which he ordained Hugo lib. 2. de Sacram. part 7. cap. 3. as Hugo de S. Victore affirmeth least the person baptized should depart this life without Confirmation according to al which expositions there is no Catholike as I verily think so impious or inconsiderate that wil condemne S. Gregory of any sin or formall sacriledge yet other Popes haue giuen that licence to inferiour Priests who are no Bishops to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation without any such necessitie as to diuers Abbots and namely to the Abbot of Monte Cassino where there is no such want but rather ouer great plenty of Bishops being so many thereabout and hauing so small reuenues to maintaine their Episcopall dignity Neither is it the custome or practise of those Countries to confirme againe those persons who are confirmed by those Abbots although it may very conueniently be done And therefore albeit there be no danger or preiudice to soules to minister the Sacrament of Baptisme of Extreame vnction of Pennance or of holy Orders in time of necessitie vpon a probable opinion for that the practise and custome is in such a case to minister them againe when the necessity is past yet it is a very dangerous and pernicious errour to minister either the Sacrament of Confirmation or any other Sacrament onely vpon a probable opinion if it may be ministred without any such probable doubt or danger or when the necessity is past not to reiterate vpon condition the Sacrament againe So that although it be no dangerous or pernicious errour to minister that Sacrament as doubtfull which is indeed among learned Catholikes accounted doubtfull yet it is most a dangerous and pernicious errour to minister that Sacrament as certainly to haue effect which neuerthelesse is by famous and learned Catholikes vpon probable grounds accounted doubtfull 48 Thirdly the Reader may plainly perceiue the fraudulent dealing of this man who wholly dissembleth in what manner I applied this example to all the three arguments brought by Fa. Lessius and not onely to his first argument as he would make his Reader beleeue and therefore hee altogether concealeth the three instances which I brought to confront with Fa. Lessius his three arguments For this assertion touching the inualid administration of Sacraments which by way of an interrogation as you haue seene I brought in my first example to wit that to erre in the inualid administration of Sacraments is a very pernicious errour I did not affirme absolutely but onely ad hominem with reference to the like assertion which Fa. Lessius brought in his third argument to which third argument and not to his first as my Aduersary would seeme to make his Reader beleeue I afterwards applied this assertion 49 For whereas Fa. Lessius in the Maior proposition of his third argument affirmed as you haue seene that 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 also by commanding something of it selfe vnlawfull for that such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then an errour in faith from which proposition he did inferre that it is therefore a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes for that otherwise the Church should teach a most pernicious errour and subiects should be incited to rebellions and periuries I in my third instance which my Aduersarie hath wholly concealed made as you haue seene the like argument and from the same Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his argument I likewise inferred that it is also a point of faith that the Pope hath power to giue leaue to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and to dispence in the solemne vow of chastity and so likewise it may be inferred that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne for that otherwise the Pope in whom according to my Aduersaries doctrine all the infallibilitie of the Church doth consist should teach most pernicious errors and the faithfull should be incited to sacriledges and iniuries 50 And if Mr. Fitzherbert to answere my third instance wil affirme that from the foresaid Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his third argument it cannot be well inferred that the aforesaid doctrines mentioned in my third instance must be of faith because it is no pernicious or sinfull errour it being grounded vpon a probable opinion of learned Catholikes which excuseth from all sinne to teach such doctrines and to incite to such sacriledges and iniuries seeing that to erre in this case is no sinne neither are the sacriledges and iniuries grounded vpon so probable an errour formall or sinfull sacriledges and iniuries if I say he will answere thus besides that he taketh errour sacriledges and iniuries otherwise then errour rebellions and periuries are taken by Fa. Lessius who as it is euident taketh them
not onely as they are sinnes to the conscience of man but also as they are so a parte rei and are commonly called materiall not formall or sinfull errours rebellions and periuries the same also may bee answered to Fa. Lessius his argument to wit that it cannot be well inferred from that Maior proposition that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes must be of faith because it is no pernicious and sinnefull errour in his opinion to teach those doctrines by him mentioned and to incite men to such rebellions and periuries which according to his opinion are not formall and sinfull rebellions and periuries 51 Whereupon it is euident that in the same manner as my Aduersaries will answere my third instance I will answere Fa. Lessius his third argument and that if from Fa. Lessius his argument it may be well inferred that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith it may also by my instance be well inferred that the doctrines for the Popes power to giue authoritie to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and to dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie and also for the preseruation of the B. Virgin from originall sinne are certaine and of faith which how absurd it is to affirme it is too too apparant But more of this third argument beneath 52 Lastly to that which Mr. Fitzherbert saith in the end of this Chapter that the grant of such licences being meere matters of fact and concerning onely particular persons and Countreys could not any way preiudice his cause albeit they were erroneous and sacriledgious seeing that the question saith he betwixt me and them for the present is onely about a generall decree of a generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefite of the whole Church wherein Widdrington acknowledgeth the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost though not in euery particular fact of a Pope I answere first albeit I will not condemne those Popes of any pernicious errour that in time of necessitie grant such licences vpon a probable opinion yet I cannot see but that to grant such licences either as certaine when they are doubtfull or to grant them without necessitie onely vpon a probable opinion is a very dangerous and pernicious errour seeing that they concerne the valid and effectuall administration of a Sacrament which all men know to be a matter of great moment 53 And albeit the grant of such licences be meere matters of fact and concerne onely particular persons and Countreys yet from thence it may be cleerely gathered that those Popes who granted them did generally teach that the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by those Priests is a true valid and substantiall Sacrament which if it bee not so is a very great and pernicious errour in doctrine of manners and also that the instances drawne from thence doe quite ouerthrow all Fa. Lessius his three arguments and namely the first whereof the Maior proposition as you haue seene is generall and without limitation and may be applied to all decrees and sentences whatsoeuer of Popes or Councells whether they are generall Decrees or concerne only particular persons or Countreys Neither is it true as this man very shamefully affirmeth that the question betwixt me and them for the present is onely about a generall decree of a generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefite of the whole Church for the question betwixt them and me for the present is onely about the first argument of Fa. Lessius and my first instance made against the same and especially about the truth of his Maior proposition which as you haue seene speaketh of the ground and foundation generally of all Decrees and sentences both of Popes and Councells That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councells and Doctours doe propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences So that my Aduersarie very vntruely affirmeth that the question betwixt me and them for the present is onely about a generall Decree of a generall Councell And this may suffice for the confirmation of my first instance and the confutation of all that which Mr. Fitzherbert would seeme to haue made against the same whereas he hath not as you haue seene so much as set it downe at all Now you shall see how fraudulently and ignorantly he hath in the next Chapter obiected against my other two instances CHAP. XV. Wherein Widdringtons second example and his instances grounded thereon are confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in impugning the same is conuinced of manifest fraude and ignorance in taxing therein of fondnesse the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie Also the third example of Widdrington and his instances grounded thereon are prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts fraude in relating of the said instances and applying them to the Lateran Councell is plainely discouered 1 MY Aduersarie in this Chapter sheweth also the like fraude and ignorance as he did in the former Thus therefore he beginneth Widdringtons second instance is Widdr. vbi supra nu 57. that Pope Sixtus the fourth made a Decree concerning the celebration of the B. Virgins Conception notwithstanding that it is vncertaine and disputed amongst the Diuines without any blot of heresie errour or mortall sinne whether the blessed Virgin cantracted originall sinne in her Conception or was preserued from it by a peculiar prouidence of God Ibidem and therefore saith he it is manifest that the Doctrine which is either proposed or supposed by the Pope as the foundation of his Apostolicall Decree and Constitution concerning euen the religious worship of God is not so certaine and vndoubtedly true but that it may be impugned without danger of grieuous sinne So he whereupon he inferreth that the ground of the Canon of the Lateran Councell may also be vncertaine or impugned without note of heresie or sinne 2 But first it is very vntrue that this was my second instance which I brought to confront with Fa. Lessius his second argument although it be true that it was my second example whereon both my first and second instance were grounded For whereas Fa. Lessius to proue that the Popes power to depose Princes doth belong to faith argueth thus in his second argument If a generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath power to depose Princes no Catholike can make doubt but that it should belong to faith but seeing that she supposeth it as a certaine foundation of her Decrees and sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to bee accounted no lesse certaine To this argument I opposed an other instance not much vnlike to it which was this If the Pope should expresly define that he hath authoritie to giue licence to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastitie or that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne
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
the Councels as some grounds and foundations of their definitions and decrees therefore the grounds and foundations of Ecclesiasticall definitions and decrees are not so certaine and infallible as the definitions decrees themselues Now what absurdity or impertinency trow you can be found in this my argument For I neyther applyed it to the Lateran Councell or to any other Decree of Pope or Councell or to the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes neyther did I say that because the reasons of Ecclesiasticall definitions and decrees are sometimes vncertain and fallible therefore they may bee denied without offence but all this is forged by my Aduersary that so hee might haue some colour to charge me with absurdity and impertinency for so exorbitant is the bitternesse of his zeale not to vse a more bitter word that he will not haue me to say scarce any one thing throughout all my writings without some note either of heresie errour temerity fraud malice irreuerence ignorance falshood impertinency fondnes or ridiculous absurdity from which imputations I haue neuerthelesse cleared all my assertions and euidently shewed that they are farre more agreeable to his arguments and answeres And if my Aduersary had not beene blinded with some intemperate passion he might plainely haue seene that to no other end purpose I brought that argument but to shew that the proposition whereon Fa. Lessius grounded his two first arguments whereof I did treate immediately before to wit that the grounds and foundations of Ecclesiasticall decrees and sentences must be certaine infallible and of faith is not so generally true but that it is needfull for Fa. Lessius to make a more cleere explication thereof 6 And albeit this be sufficient to iustifie this my argument and to free it from all imputation of absurditie and impertinencie yet for the better satisfaction of the Reader I will examine more particularly what he excepteth against the same Wherefore after he had so falsly and fraudulently as you haue seene set downe the aforesaid argument applying it to the Popes power to depose Princes and to the decree of the Lateran Councell and also affirming me to say that because the reasons of Eccesiasticall Canons be sometimes vncertaine therefore they may be denied without offence all which three things are forged by himselfe and not spoken by me and therefore to colour his fraude the better he thought it best not to set downe my argument verbatim as there he found it he writeth thus a Pag. 200. nu 2. Whereunto I answere that by this argument Widdrington impugneth none so much as himselfe granting that the Decrees of Councells may be certaine though the reasons whereupon they are grounded be vncertaine 7 But as I doe not grant that all the reasons of Ecclesiasticall Decrees are vncertaine and not of faith for some no doubt are certaine and of faith so also I doe not grant that all Decrees of Councells are certaine and of faith for some no doubt are not of faith seeing that all Decrees of Councells Bell. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 12. saith Cardinall Bellarmine doe not belong to faith but those onely which are propounded as of faith but of this I haue aboue treated more at large So that if all decrees of Councells are not certaine infallible and of faith no meruaile that the reasons grounds and foundations of such Decrees as they are reasons grounds and foundations thereof may be vncertaine fallible and not of faith I said as they are reasons grounds and foundations thereof for if otherwise they be decisions definitions or conclusions of some other generall Councell in this respect they may be certaine infallible and of faith And this doth euidently impugne the two first arguments of Fa. Lessius and the often named proposition whereupon they are grounded but how by this argument I impugne none so much as my selfe as this man saith but doth not prooue or any way impugne my selfe I cannot comprehend 8 Whereupon it followeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Pag. 200. nu 2. that the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the deposition of Princes may bee certaine and iust albeit the reasons or doctrine which was the foundation of it were not certaine and so Princes may be lawfully deposed by the Pope in such case as the Lateran Councell hath ordained though the said Councell might be mooued thereto by an vncertaine or erroneous reason so that albeit Widdrington should prooue that the ground of the Canon in question were vncertaine or erroneous yet hee should prooue nothing against the Canon it selfe 9 But fie Mr. Fitzherbert that you should shew your selfe to be so grossely ignorant and then especially when you taxe your Aduersarie of absurditie and impertinencie and to impugne him euen by his owne argument Are not you ashamed to argue so childishly ex puris particularibus from pure particular propositions against the knowne principles and rules of Logike Some Decrees of Councells may bee certaine though the reasons doctrine whereupon they are grounded be vncertaine therefore the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the deposition of Princes may be certaine though the reasons doctrine and foundations thereof be vncertaine As who should say Some men may be very skilfull in Diuinitie although they neuer studied it to wit by supernaturall infusion and diuine reuelation as Adam Salomon and our Sauiour Christ according to his humanitie therefore M. Fitzherbert may be very skilfull in Diuinitie although he neuer studied the same 10 But secondly it is not true that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates Landlords or Lords by the consent and authority of temporall Princes and therfore that Decree or rather Act being not made by true Ecclesiasticall authoritie doth not appertaine to the present question concerning the certaintie infallibility of Ecclesiasticall Decrees which are made by the spirituall Pastours of the Church as they haue spirituall and not temporall authoritie Thirdly my Aduersarie standing in his own principles will haue much ado to proue as I said before that those words of the Councell vt extunc ipse c. That then the Pope may denounce the vassalls absolued from their fealtie do containe a proper decree or precept concerning faith or manners but the end reason and cause of the former decree wherein it is ordained that the Pope shall be certified if the temporall landlord or Lord being excommunicated shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeere to the end that the Pope may denounce c. vnlesse he will haue the Councell to make lawes decrees and Canons to bind the Pope And that although it were a proper decree concerning manners yet that is such a generall decree and belonging to all the faithfull as according to Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus is required to make Ecclesiasticall decrees to be infallible and of faith So that the more my Aduersarie striueth to prooue out of the aforesaid words of the
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
Princes was euer firmely belieued by the Church as an vndoubted point of faith but at the most as a probable opinion no Catholike man can be iustly impeached of heresie errour or temeritie as the aforesaid Conclusion of mine doth plainely conuince for maintaining the contrary doctrine And whether the instances arguments and answeres which I haue brought be weake friuolous or impertinent or Mr. Fitzh replies altogether vaine and fraudulent wherby he clearely discouereth both the weaknesse of his cause and also his manifest fraude and ignorance I remit to the iudgement of any indifferent Reader And thus much concerning his first obseruation 30 The other thing which I wish saith Mr. Fitzherbert l Pag. 204. nu 11. 12. to be noted is how Widdrington giueth sentence against himselfe as hauing incurred the note of errour or heresie in contemning to heare the voyce of the Church firmely beleeuing for if the Church had not firmely beleeued that the Pope hath power to depose Princes shee neither would nor could haue decreed in the Lateran Councell that Princes should bee deposed by the Pope for albeit shee doth and may in particular cases practise some things vpon a probable opinion when there is no Definition or Decree to the contrary yet it were most absurd and temerarious if not hereticall to say that shee euer made a generall Decree in a Councell touching either faith or manners but vpon a most certaine and assured ground and the reason is for that otherwise the Decrees of generall Councells should sometimes bee vncertaine as being grounded onely vpon a probable opinion yea all their Decrees might alwaies with some shew of reason bee impugned and reiected by any contentious heretike who might and would call the Decree in question and say that the same were onely probable as Widdrington doth in this case 31 Therefore seeing it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued by all Catholike Doctours See Bellar. de Concil l. 2. c. 2. 3. 4. Item Can. l. 5. de locis c. 5. Bannes 2ae 2ae q. 1. ar 10. dub 6. concl 2. that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the veritie of the holy Scriptures or may bee impugned or called in question by any Christian man it followeth euidently that all such Decrees are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions for if the grounds thereof were or might bee onely probable they might bee repugnant to the Scriptures and lawfully impugned or denyed by any man Whereupon it followeth that seeing the Lateran Councell hath for the speciall good of the Church decreed that Princes shall be deposed by the Pope in some cases the said Councell and consequently the Church doth firmely and assuredly beleeue and not thinke onely probably that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and therefore I conclude that Widdrington contemning and reiecting this beliefe of the Church is by his owne confession fallen into errour Luc. 19. or heresie so as I may well say to him with our Sauiour in the Gospell Ex ore tuo te iudicio serue nequam 32 But this obseruation of Mr. Fitzherbert is so childish not to say ridiculous that no Schoole-boy would argue in such a childish manner For what man that hath his wits about him would make this conclusion that his Aduersary by his own sentence grant confession is fallen into errour or heresie and to prooue the same bringeth two propositions whereof the one his Aduersary doth indeed very willingly grant but the other which is the maine difficultie betweene them he vtterly denyeth By the same manner of arguing I might also prooue that Mr. Fitzherbert is by his owne sentence grant and confession fallen into errour or heresie For hee graunteth that the Pope hath no other authority to depose Princes then that which was granted to S. Peter and his Successours by those wordes I will giue thee the keyes c. Whatsoeuer thou shalt lose c. Feede my sheepe or such like and that whosoeuer impugneth that which is decreed in the holy Scriptures is fallen into errour or heresie but in those and such like words of the holy Scriptures was onely granted to Saint Peter and his Successours authority to expell men from the Church of Christ not from temporall kingdomes to binde and loose with spirituall not with temporall bindings or loosings to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments therefore Mr. Fitzherbert contemning and reiecting the holy Scriptures is by his owne confession fallen into errour or heresie so as I may wel say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Gospel ex te ore tuo iudico serue nequam Now if I should haue argued in this manner against him he would quickely haue answered that albeit he grant the Maior proposition yet hee denieth the Minor and therefore cannot bee said to grant the conclusion which must bee inferred from the granting of both the premisses and for my goodly argument hee both would and might deseruedly haue giuen mee his vsuall absurd impertinent fond foolish and ridiculous nicknames 33. In this very like manner hee argueth against mee to prooue that by my owne sentence graunt and confession I am fallen into errour or heresie for contemning and reiecting the voyce of the Church in a generall Councell firmely beleeuing For although I graunt the Maior proposition to wit that whosoeuer contemneth to heare the voyce of the Church or of a General Councell firmely beleeuing or decreeing any doctrine as certaine and of faith is fallen into error or heresie yet I euer denyed the other proposition to wit that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did either Decree the deposition of Princes or firmely beleeue the doctrine thereof as certaine and of faith and therefore it cannot be rightly inferred that I graunt the conclusion which must be inferred from both the premisses for as the conclusion doth follow from both the premisses and not from one onely so he cannot be said to grant the conclusion who granteth not both the premisses or propositions but one onely And therefore those words of our Sauiour Exore tuo te iudico serue nequam may fitly be applied to himselfe who by his owne arguing sheweth himselfe to be a very ignorant fraudulent and slanderous man in charging me to bee fallen into errour or heresie by my owne grant and confession which euery Schoole-boy seeth to be most false 34 And as concerning that generall reason which heere hee bringeth why the Councell of Lateran must firmely and assuredly beleeue as certaine and of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to wit because it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued and taught by all Catholike Doctours that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the verity of the holy Scriptures or called in question by any Christian man and
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
Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome for of Fa. Parsons misinforming his Holinesse I made no mention at all in that answere but onely of his vrging his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the oath My words were these c Num. 52. Moreouer that his Holinesse was perswaded that in this oath is denied his spirituall authority to inflict Censures is plainely gathered by a letter of Fa. Parsons who did greatly vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues as both some Iesuites here with vs doe freely confesse and also no man who knoweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in his daies can make any doubt thereof This therefore is the true copie of that letter c. About some foure o fiue moneths agoe it was consulted by seauen or eight of the learnedst Diuines that could bee chosen who gaue their iudgement of it Their reasons are many but all reduced to this that the Popes authority in chastising Princes vpon a iust cause is de fide and consequently cannot bee denied when it is called into controuersie without denying of our faith nor that the Pope or any other authoritie can dispense in this c. 50 Now Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale this part of the letter whereby it is manifest that the Diuines of Rome did suppose that the Popes authority to punish Princes and consequently to excommunicate and to inflict spirituall Censures is denied in the oath for otherwise as I shewed in that place d Num. 57. they had argued very vitiously against the knowne rules of Logicke from a particular to inferre an vniuersall as thus The Pope cannot chastice Princes by taking away their liues or dominions therefore the Pope cannot chastise Princes as though the inflicting of spirituall Censures and the denouncing of anathema Aug. lib. 1. contra aduers leg prophet cap. 7. which according to Saint Augustine is more horrible then any corporall death were not to be accounted a chasticing of Princes We grant therefore that the Pope may chastice Princes by vsing Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not denied in the oath but we vtterly deny that to depriue Princes of their dominions or liues are to be ranked among spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures Thus I argued in that place from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter all which my fraudulent Aduersary thought best for his purpose to conceale and to skip ouer to the other part of the letter thinking from thence to take some colourable argument to prooue both that Fa. Parsons did not perswade and draw his Holinesse to the publication of his Breue also that the inference I made frō thence to wit that his Holinesse was perswaded that his authority to inflict Censures is denied in the oath is sorsooth improbable and impertinent wherein as you shall see he continueth still his ancient fraude and falsitie 51 For first I did not intend to prooue by Fa. Parsons letter or by his conference with his Holinesse that he vrged and perswaded his Holinesse to forbid the taking of the oath two other reasons I brought here to confirme the same wich Mr. Fitzherbert after his vsuall manner concealeth the one that some Iesuites heere in England did freely confesse the same the other that no man who konweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in Fa. Parsons time can make any doubt thereof To which may be added two other the first that Mr. Nicholas Fitzherbert whose letter is yet to be seene did send word to a friend of his that Fa. Parsons laboured much to haue the oath forbidden the second that the Prouinciall of the Iesuites at that time who is yet liuing did boast to diuers persons that he would cause to be reuersed what Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest had concluded concerning the lawfulnesse of the oath and would procure a Breue from his Holinesse to forbid all Catholikes to take the oath and which with very great expedition as I signified in my Epistle Dedicatory to his Holinesse was accordingly performed all which are to any man of iudgement very probable coniectures if not morall certainties that Fa. Parsons did vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the taking of the oath But howsoeuer it be it is not much materiall to my second answere or reason which is that his Holinesse was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures and consequently his spirituall supremacy is plainly denied in the oath whether Fa. Parsons did vrge and incite his Holinesse to forbid the oath or no. 52 Besides for the confirmation of my second answere those words of the Breue for that it containeth many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation and also his Holinesse answere to Fa. Parsons that he could not hold them for Catholikes who seemed to incline to the taking of the oath are very considerable for that before these our miserable times wherein so many new fangled Doctours are ready to coyne new articles of faith and to taxe with such facilitie their Catholike brethren of errour and heresie that will not foorth with approoue their nouelties it was neuer in the Church of God accounted an heresie to deny the Popes authoirty to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments neither hath any Catholike Author who writeth of heresies or Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe relating the errours of Marsilius of Padua ranked him among heretickes for denying the Popes power to depose Princes And very many Catholike Doctours with Iacobus Almaine who haue not therefore beene branded by any man with any note of heresie or errour doe resolutely affirme that the authoritie of the Church doth not extend by the institution of Christ to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods much lesse of kingdomes but onely of spirituall Censures And Fa. Suarez himselfe dare not auouch Suarez l. 6. c. 1. that the Popes spirituall authority is plainly and manifestly but onely couertly denied in the oath and this also he gathereth from many farre fetcht consequences all which I haue cleerely answered in my Appendix against him And therefore from the aforesaid words of his Holinesse that he could not take those Priests for Catholikes that inclined to the taking of the oath it may very probably be included that he was fully perswaded that not onely his authority to depose Princes but also his power to excommmicate and to binde and loose in generall as Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome then conceiued is plainly denied in the Oath 53 Secondly whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that hee can testifie vpon his owne knowledge that Fa. Parsons was so farre from perswading or drawing his Holinesse to the resolution which hee tooke concerning the publication of his Breue that he sought to induce him to some other course propounding meanes of mitigation c. I will not now contend about the
Censures is impugned by the oath and will shew withall that I gaine nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and for the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues Secondly saith hee i Pag. 218. na 12. although wee should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath yet Widdrington gaineth nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues and this I say for two reasons the one because it doth not follow vpon the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that cause as any man may easily see who list to examine it the other reason is for that the Oath is forbidden in the Breue expresly because it contained many things contrarie to faith and the saluation of soules whereby it is euident that albeit his Holinesse had beene falsly perswaded that his spirituall authoritie was impugned by the Oath yet the prohibition of the said Oath in his Breue might bee iust as being grounded vpon other respects seeing that the Breue declareth it to bee vnlawfull for many causes and doeth not mention this for any of them 63 Yes Mr. Fitzherbert I gaine much thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues for seeing that as you your selfe confesse the Oath is vnlawfull and condemned by the Breues as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation in respect of two principall points to wit the exemption of temtemporall Princes from the Popes power to excommunicate and depose them if you admit as needes you must and doe that his Holinesse was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is denied in the Oath you can giue no sufficient reason why his Holinesse might not also be misinformed by them of the later and be falsly perswaded by them that his power to depose Princes to dispose of their Kingdomes and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance which is indeede expresly denied in the Oath is a point of faith and the contrary doctrine hereticall yea it is as morally certaine that his Holinesse was misinformed by them of this second point of all the clauses of the Oath which are pretended to be flat contrary to faith and saluation as he was misinformed by them of the former point and so you may see the weakenesse of your second reason 64 And as for your first reason I cannot see what coherence at all it hath with that whereof you alledge it to bee a reason For what connexion or coherence I pray you is there betwixt this your assertion that though you should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsely perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is denyed by the Oath yet Widdrington should gaine nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues and this assertion which you alledge as a reason of the former that it doth not follow vpon the answeres of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that cause For who would not thinke that man not well to know what he spake that should argue thus It doth not follow vpon the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that hee was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath therefore though we should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath yet my Aduersary gaineth nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues For besides that I did not say in that place that from the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons it followeth that hee forbade the Oath for that cause but I said indeed that from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter touching the consultation of the Diuines of Rome about the Oath and the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine from whom the Diuines of Rome did not dissent who teacheth that the Popes power to excommunicate euen heretical kings is plainly denied in the oath it followeth that his Holinesse forbade the Oath for that cause Neuerthelesse it is euident that albeit we abstract wholly from Fa. Parsons letter if my Aduersary once admit as he doth that his Holinesse was deluded and misinformed by others concerning this so manifest a point he can giue no reason why he might not also bee deluded and misinformed by others concerning the other points which are pretended to be in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation and so by this my Aduersaries grant I gaine much for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues to wit that they were grounded vpon false informations either that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is denied in the Oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and the contrary hereticall which also is manifestly false as I haue sufficiently conuinced in this Treatise 65 And hereby that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth is easily answered Besides that saith he k p. 218. nu 13 the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons concerning the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires for so were the word of Fa. Parsons letter did not exclude the deposition of Princes from his spirituall authority but necessarily include it because his said answere was to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam that is to say according to the meaning and drift of the Oath which was the speciall subiect of that Conference and therefore forasmuch as the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is directly denyed by the Oath and that the same is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication it is manifest that his Holinesse answering a demaund concerning the Oath and speaking of the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included therein his power aswell to depose as to excommunicate Princes especially knowing well as he did that the Oath denying his power to depose Princes doth by a necessary consequent deny his spiritual authority which includeth that power as I haue sufficiently declared and prooued in this Treatise l Chap. 2. per totum Item chap. 5. 6. 66 You haue heard before that the words which his Holinesse vsed to Fa. Parsons were that as for any actuall vsing Censures against his Maiestie he meat not but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires which last words in such affaires are now added by Mr. Fitzherbert he was resolued and would rather lose his head then lose one iote Now my Aduersary laboureth to shew that by those words but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such
affaires his Holinesse meant to include not onely the authority to vse Censures which onely were mentioned in the words next going before and to which onely any man according to the property of the words would restraine them but also to despose them which is not much materiall to the present purpose for be it so that his Holinesse speaking of the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included his power as well to depose as to excommunicate Princes it is nothing to the matter for that which I intend is that his Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines who consulted of the Oath not onely misinformed that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is plainly denied in the Oath but also that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall authority which is verie vntrue as in this Treatise I haue sufficiently declared and prooued 67 But that also which M. Fitzherbert addeth for a confirmation of his saying to wit that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects from their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some censure of Excommunication is both false and also repugnant to the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine For Childericke King of France which example Cardinall Bellarmine bringeth for a proofe that the Pope hath power to depose Princes was deposed and his subiects discharged of their allegiance and not by vertue of any Censure of Excommunication And it is one thing saith Becanus Becanus incōtrou Anglic. c. 3. p. 2. pag. 108. to excommunicate a King and another to depose or depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connexed with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue beene excommunicated and not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and not therefore excommunicated And yet my ignorant Aduersary to patch vp this silly answere of his doth now agreeable to his learning boldly affirme that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication whereas I haue sufficiently prooued aboue m Chap. 1. nu 21. seq chap. 5. sec 2. 131. seq out of the doctrine of Suarez Becanus and from the definition of excommunication that deposition is not an effect of Excommunication that therefore although they are sometimes ioyned together and that some Princes haue beene both excommunicated and deposed by the Pope yet they were not deposed by vertue of the Censure of Excommunication for that as his Maiestie did wel obserue n In his Premonition p. 9. Excommunication being only a spirituall Censure hath not vertue to worke this temporall effect 68 Now you shall see how vncharitably and also vnlearnedly this ignorant man concludeth this point Whereupon it followeth saith hee o p. 219. nu 14 that albeit his Holinesse had beene perswaded by Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and others as doubtlesse he was although this man would seeme to deny the same that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes impugned his spirituall authority he had not beene deluded or deceiued therein nor had erred in the reason why hee forbade the Oath though he had forbidden it for that cause onely as it is euident by the Breue he did not but for many respects And therefore thou seest good Reader what probable exceptions this silly sicke and scabbed sheepe taketh to the iudgement and sentence of his supreame Pastour and what account hee maketh of his Apostolicall authoritie and consequently what a good Catholike hee is 69 But if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance impugneth his spirituall authoritie to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures as needes hee must if hee will speake to the purpose for that all his former discourse hath beene to impugne my second answere to his Holinesse Breues which was that hee was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures is denyed in the Oath then I say that his Holinesse was fowly deluded and deceiued in that reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation although hee did not forbid it for that cause only But if his meaning bee that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes for to these two generall heads and to all that which doth necessarily follow thereon both this man and all my other Aduersaries doe chiefly reduce all their exceptions against the Oath and if for any other respects his Holinesse forbade the Oath let my Aduersarie name them and hee shall heare what wee will say thereunto impugneth his spirituall authoritie for that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes to dispose of their temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to discharge subiects of their temporall allegiance and which consequently are included in his spirituall power then I also say that his Holinesse was deluded dedeceiued and erred also in this reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation for that it is no point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to inflict temporall punishments c. but the contrarie hath euer beene maintained by learned Catholikes 70 Neither was Almaine a famous Doctour of Paris and those very many Doctours related by him or any other of those learned Authours whom partly I cited in my Apologie p nu 4. seq and partly aboue in this Treatise q Part. 1. euer accounted bad Catholikes or silly sicke and scabbed sheepe Neither can Card. Bellarmine euen according to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before and in his owne conscience whereunto I dare appeale heerein affirme that the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell whereon all my Aduersaries doe now at last chiefly rely to proue their doctrine of deposing to be of faith although it should haue mentioned as it doeth not mention absolute Princes is sufficient to make it certaine and of faith And therefore this ignorant and vnconscionable man calling mee a silly sicke and scabbed sheepe and no good Catholike for not beleeuing this doctrine to bee certaine and of faith which so many learned Catholike Doctours haue euer maintained to bee false and for not admitting his Holinesse declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon and consequently hath no greater force to binde according to Suarez doctrine then hath the reason whereon it is grounded sheweth himselfe to haue neither learning nor charitie but a vehement desire to disgrace mee with Catholikes and to take away my good name per fas nefas whether it bee by right or wrong as all the rest of his vncharitable and fraudulent discourse doeth
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
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
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
and suppose it to be vnlawfull as being forbidden by some former law they haue no more force to binde as Fa. Suarez expresly affirmeth Suarez l. 3. de Leg. c. 20 nu 10. then hath the reason whereon they are grounded So that if the reason be certaine then we are bound to obey if it be onely probable wee are no more bound to obey that declaratiue commaundement then we are bound to follow the Popes opinion against the probable opinion of other learned Catholikes All this and much more touching declaratiue and constitutiue precepts and his Holinesse Breues in particular which doe onely containe a declaratiue precept forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation I declared in my Theologicall Disputation x Ch. 10. sec 2. which is aboundantly sufficient to free me and other English Catholikes from all note of disobedience for not obeying in this doubtfull and disputable matter his Holinesse Breues and his declaratiue precept contained therein which is so preiudiciall to his Maiesties authority and so dangerous to his Catholike subiects not being able to finde any one thing therein which is repugnant to faith and saluation especially humbly propounding to his Holinesse the reasons of our doubts and earnestly requesting to bee satisfied therein But Mr. Fitzherbert thought it fit for his purpose to vrge against mee the obiections which I there answered and to taxe me not onely of disobedience but also of errour and heresie and to conceale the answeres which I made thereunto wherein he plainely discouereth his vnsincere dishonest and vncharitable proceeding and that his onely drift is to disgrace mee with his Reader and not to examine vprightly the truth of the cause 95 To conclude therefore this digression it is euident by the premises that if the Pope without a generall Councell define any doctrine to be hereticall erroneous or temerarious and command all Catholikes to belieue the same no Catholike is bound or ought to belieue with Catholike faith that doctrine to be hereticall erroneous or temerarious for this respect onely because the Pope hath defined and commanded the same for that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether he hath any such authority infallibly to define or no and consequently neither his definitions nor his declaratiue commandements grounded thereon can be certaine and infallible grounds of Catholike faith And thus much touching inward beliefe But secondly if the Pope command that none shall preach or teach against his definitions or Breues then wee must obserue that golden rule of learned and deuout Gerson that if we neither perceiue any manifest errour against faith in his definitions or Breues nor that by our silence some great scandall shall arise to Catholike faith we must not dogmatize against them otherwise wee must speake freely and feare no Censures See his words aboue Chap. 14. num 39. But notwithstanding this document of Gerson if any learned man hath doubts and difficulties which doe trouble his conscience concerning the verity or lawfulnesse of the Popes definitions or Breues when they are greatly prejudiciall to a third person especially to a whole kingdome it is lawfull for him according to the doctrine of Sotus and others before rehearsed to propound humbly to his Holinesse the reasons of his doubts desiring to bee satisfied therein for this is not to dogmatize or to teach or preach publikely against them although this also according to Gerson be sometimes commendable yea and necessary but it is a desire to bee taught and instructed concerning the veritie or lawfulnesse of them 96 Thirdly if the Pope should excommunicate nominatim by name all those that shall teach preach or write against his definitions or Breues in case they perceiue great scandall to arise to Catholike faith if they be silent and doe not oppose themselues or should excommunicate nominatim those who shall write Supplications to his Holinesse to be taught and instructed concerning the veritie or lawfulnesse of his definitions or Breues whereof they haue great doubts and difficulties which doe perplexe their conscience then they must remember that saying of our Sauiour wherewith Gerson concludeth his golden document that Blessed are they that suffer persecution for iustice and let them assure themselues that they are vniustly excommunicated and free before God howsoeuer the Pope hath tyed them by his Censure and therefore they may in this case carry themselues in that manner as those who are not excommunicated in the sight of God though by presumption which often deceiueth and is deceiued they may bee thought by many persons who know not their innocency to bee excommunicated Yet they must not contemne the Censure but also for feare of scandall obserue it in the face of the Church although secretly and when no scandall is like to arise they may doe all that which if they had not beene excommunicated they might haue done and they who know their innocency may in like manner conuerse with them secretly and without scandall as they might before But notwithstanding any such excommunication they may still write supplications to his Holinesse vntill hee shall instruct them and may still appeale to his Holinesse ad melius informandum to informe him better and to desire to be fully instructed propounding humbly the reasons of thâ—â—rdoubts 97 Lastly if the Pope or the Cardinalls of the Inquisition shall forbid Catholikes to read or keepe certaine bookes to know whether and by whom such bookes may without any licence be read and kept or no learned Catholikes must diligently obserue for what reason ground cause or end they are forbidden to be read to wit whether for that they are repugnant to faith or good manners and also they must carefully consider the natures properties and differences of declaratiue and constitutiue precepts and that according to the common doctrine of Diuines whensoeuer the reason or end of any law doth generally cease the obligation also of that law doth cease So that if the bookes are forbidden for that they are repugnant to faith and therevpon may be dangerous to soules and this reason is not true but onely pretended and falsly supposed the reason end and cause of this prohibition doth altogether cease to him who seeth this false pretence And this obseruation I haue set downe chiefly for learned men For those that be vnlearned must bee guided and directed by vertuous discreet and learned men which learned men who take vpon them to guide and direct others if through affectate and wilfull ignorance they doe erre for that they will not duly examine the matter when they haue sufficient cause to doubt thereof but either for feare or flattery will beleeue with blinde obedience the Popes or Cardinalls words knowing certainly that they may erre and oftentimes haue erred and now haue sufficient cause to doubt and consequently to examine whether at this present they haue erred or no seeing that learned Catholikes doe in
publike writings dedicated to his Holinesse make great doubts and giue great reasons to shew that they haue erred at this very present desiring to be satisfied therein these learned men I say shall render a strict account at the day of iudgement for the temporall or spirituall harme which those poore ignorant soules who haue trusted to their learning and conscience haue sustained by their aduise and counsell and also they are bound to make satisfaction and restitution in this world for all the temporall losse which those poore soules haue incurred by their rash and pernicious counsell proceeding from wilfull and affectate or desired ignorance 98 Neuerthelesse also vnlearned Catholikes when they haue iust cause to doubt of the truth lawfulnes of any Decrees either of Pope or Cardinalls which are preiudiciall to a third person and especially to their temporall Prince and the whole kingdome are bound for as much as by their naturall wit and capacitie they are able to examine the matter and not to be led blindfold without sufficient reason which may fully satisfie their vnderstanding and conscience And this doctrine which I haue heere in this digression set downe is so sound easie and perspicuous that no learned man can take any iust exception thereat Yet I haue not set it downe for that it is necessarie to satisfie my Aduersaries obiections which before I clearely answered seeing that neither the Pope by his Breues nor the Cardinalls of the Inquisition by forbidding my bookes haue defined determined or declared this doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes to bee of faith because there is no mention at all made of this doctrine either in the Popes Breues or in the aforesaid Decree of the Cardinalls but I haue set it downe onely for satisfaction and instruction of the Catholike Reader that hee bee not led hood-winckt by the grosse ignorance of my vnlearned Aduersarie T.F. who as it seemeth doth not know what heresie or disobedience is yet pretendeth to be their guide and director therin but both of them may doe well to remember that saying of our Sauiour Si caecus caeco ducatum praestet ambo in foueam cadunt If the blinde bee guide to the blinde both fall into the ditch And by all this it is euident that I and other Catholikes cannot any way bee iustly taxed of disobedience for propounding to his Holinesse with all humilitie the doubts and reasons which wee haue not to admit his Breues which are so preiudiciall to his Maiestie and our selues and most humbly requesting him that he will satisfie and instruct vs therein but alas what little satisfaction wee haue receiued from his Holinesse you shall see beneath 99 Now to returne to my ignorant and vncharitable Aduersarie who hath laboured in vaine to prooue not onely that I am disobedient and irreuerent to the Sea Apostolike but also an heretike disguised and that my submission to the Censure of the Catholike Roman Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes and also that my meaning is to escape the Censures of the Church by appealing from the Pope to a generall Councell all which how false and slanderous they are you haue alreadie seene and yet wee reade that the Doctours and Catholikes of Paris haue diuers times appealed from the Pope being not well informed and aduised to a future Councell now this silly and vnconscionable man will forsooth confirme his aforesaid rash iudgement of mee concerning the last point of my appealing to a Councell by the example of Luther who at his first breach and disunion from the Church did as all Anostataes and heretikes are wont to doe appeale from the Pope to a generall Councell 100 This is manifest saith hee y p. 220. nu 17 euen in Luther himselfe who after hee had begunne to set abroach his heresie retained for a while the good opinion of many Catholikes with his pretence still to reuerence and highly esteeme the Popes authoritie insomuch that he wrote to Pope Leo in these words Quare Beatissime Pater Surius an 1517 prostratum me pedibus tuae Beatitudinis offero c. Wherefore most holy Father I offer my selfe prostrate at the feete of your Holinesse with all that I haue or am do you quicken or kill call or recall approoue or reprooue as it shall please you I will acknowledge your voyce as the voyce of Christ gouerning in you So he making as you see a farre greater and more absolute submission then Widdrington doth albeit within a while after being condemned first by a Legate of the Pope and after by the Pope himselfe he appealed first from the Legate to the Pope and afterward from the Pope to a future Councell and what became of him in the ende the world hath seene and felt by the bad fruites of his Apostacie Ibid. anno 1519 Sed Deus meliora 102 But first this silly man will not as I suppose finde fault with Luther for the humble submission hee made to the Pope but all that hee can reprehend in him may be two things the one is that he did it not sincerely and from his heart which if it be so as also it may be otherwise I cannot but much dislike such deepe dissimulation But for my owne part I protest before almightie God that the submission I made of my selfe and all my writings to the iudgement and Censure of the Catholike Roman Church I did it with all my heart and without any dissimulation at all The second may bee that hee did appeale afterwards from the Pope to a future Councell which although I doe not intend euer to doe but will take patiently all the Censures which shall bee imposed vpon mee I will onely appeale still to the Pope himselfe to informe him better and to make knowne to him and to the whole world my oppression and the iustice of my cause yet neither Luther nor any other can bee accounted an heretike Apostata or Schismatike for appealing from the Pope to a future Councell vpon a iust cause seeing it is well knowne that the Masters Doctours and the whole Vniuersitie of Paris did also appeale from the saide Pope Leo to a future Councell The copie of this Appeale which was made in the yeere 1517. the 27. of March is to bee seene in Bochell lib. 8. Decret Eccles Gallic cap. 8. who were not therefore accounted heretikes Apostataes Schismatikes silly sicke scabbed or rotten sheepe 102 Secondly Luther within two yeeres after hee began to publish his doctrine reuolted wholly from the Catholike Roman Church and renounced all obedience to the Bishop of Rome but since I began to write there be seuen yeeres fully expired and yet I continue still in the vnitie of the Catholike Roman Church and doe acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to bee my supreame spirituall Pastour Father and Superiour And albeit my opinion be that
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
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
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
the word vpside downe or peruerted the course of Nature but knew right well that things lesse perfect are not to be preferred before the more perfect the body before the soule sense before reason temporall things before spirituall policie before Religion earth before heauen and the world before God And therefore there is none but such ignorant men as my Aduersarie is that can or will affirme the new Oath of allegiance to be repugnant to the law of Nature or to the light of nature reason for that it denyeth the authoritie of spirituall Pastours to punish temporally ablute Princes or to depriue them of their kingdomes or dominions 44 And by this the insufficiencie of the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Discourse will easily appeare This was some part saith he i Pag. 101. num 12. of my Discourse in my Supplement concerning the law of Nature whereby thou seest good Reader that I haue sufficiently shewed two things the one that according to the law of Nature the temporall state and power is subordinate and subiect to the spirituall when they are conioined in one body no lesse then the familie is subordinate and subiect to the Common-wealth in like case because the end of the temporall power is subordinate to the end of the spirituall power which ouerthroweth my Aduersaries false principle to wit that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill Societie are so distinct in nature and office that though they be ioined together yet they haue no dependance the one of the other vpon which false ground and vaine supposition often affirmed by Barclay and him and neuer proued by either of them they found all their false doctrine 45 But how vntrue this is I haue already shewed For in the law of Nature the temporall state and power was not subiect and subordinate to the spirituall or Religious except only in excellencie and nobilitie whereof there is no question but contrariwise the Priests of the law of Nature were subiect in spirituall and religious affaires to the supreme ciuill Gouernour when they were distinct persons neither did they make two distinct Common-wealths as they doe in the law written but the ciuill Common-wealth had authoritie to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state and not only to make Priests and to giue them Priestly power but also to increase diminish alter or to take away from them their Priestly authoritie and to determine of all things both temporall and spirituall which is not so in the law written wherein Priests haue their authoritie from the positiue institution and law of God himselfe 46 True it is that the Heathen Common-wealths gaue great authoritie priueledges and exemptions to those persons whom they chose and appointed to be their Priests especially to the chiefe Priest or Bishop whereof reade Alexander lib. 2. cap. 8. and lib. 3. cap. 27. to whom the Romanes gaue such great honour that they did esteeme him next to the King or supreme temporall Prince and gaue him authoritie to command and also to punish the King of sacred rites and all the other inferiour Priests Yea euen to Vestall Virgins who were Priests of the Goddesse Vesta such honour was giuen by the Romanes that if by chance they should meete any malefactour that was led to death hee should not for that time be put to death Plutarch in Numa Alex. lib. 5. cap. 12. vpon condition that the Virgin must sweare that her meeting of him was casuall and not of purpose But from hence it cannot be gathered that the religious Priests had by the law of Nature such authoritie priueledges and prerogatiues but only that the Common-wealth in honour of Religion did grant them such temporall honour and authoritie and would haue them to be obeyed in some matters of great moment vnder paine of death 47 Now in the new law in what manner the temporall Common-wealth or rather those persons who are parts and members therof are subiect to spirituall Pastours I haue at large declared aboue in the second part where I haue sufficiently proued out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds that the coniunction of temporall power and of spirituall subiection in the same Christian man is not sufficient to make the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth among Christians one totall body or Common-wealth whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head for then the Pope must be both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of all Christendome and Christians and that although they should make one totall body or Common-wealth whereof Christ only is the head in that manner as I there declared yet from thence it could not be concluded that the temporall power or Common-wealth is per se and naturally subiect and subordinate to the spirituall power or Common-wealth but only that Christian Princes not as they haue temporall power but as being members of the Church of Christ they haue spirituall subiection and consequently in spiritualls and not in temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power or common-wealth and the spirituall Pastours thereof And there also I answered all the arguments which D. Schulckenius brought to proue the contrarie Let Mr. Fitzherbert impugne that Treatise and then he may haue some cause to brag that this doctrine of mine and Barclaies is a false and vaine supposition of our owne In the meane time the Reader may cleerely see how vainely and friuolously he hath proued by the law of Nature that the temporall power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that in the law of Nature Religious Priests as they were such might command and correct temporally the temporall Common-wealth or supreme temporall Prince whereas the quite contrary is manifest by the law of nature 48 The other thing saith Mr. Fitzherbert that I haue shewed is that by reason of this naturall subordination and subiection of the lawes and lesse perfect Societies to the higher and more perfect it is most conforme to nature that the head of the Church who is the supreme spirituall Magistrate may command and correct all inferiour Magistrates as well temporall as spirituall when the necessitie either of the whole body or of the Church only which is the most perfect and supreme Societie doth require it as in like case the supreme ciuill Magistrate who is Prince and head of the Common-wealth iustly commandeth and punisheth the heads of Families or Cities notwithstanding that the said Families and Cities are distinct Societies and bodies and haue their lawes and Magistrates apart no lesse then the Common-wealth and Church haue theirs 49 But first it is vntrue that there is any naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall power or Common-wealth to the spirituall except in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and whereof no man maketh doubt neither doth the dignity and perfection of the more noble and excellent Societie inferre a superioritie in command and authoritie ouer the lesse worthy and lesse noble Societie vnlesse we will haue the companie of Goldsmiths to haue
c. Which are the expresse words of the oath of France and therefore they must be applyed to the temporall power of some other forraine Prince or Kingdome and they seeme chiefely to shoot at the abnegation of that doctrine and position which Iohn Tanquarell by a Decree of the Parliament of Paris t Anno 1561. in Tract de Iuribus c. p. 289 was enioyned to recall and to aske pardon of the King for his offence in defending the same to wit that the Pope Christs Vicar and a Monarch hauing spirituall and secular power hath authoritie to depriue Princes who rebell against his precepts of their kingdomes and dignities 33 But howsoeuer it be whether in the oath of France the authority of the temporall Common-wealth ouer the King be denied or no it is plaine that neither our King and Parliament who established our oath did intend thereby to meddle with the authority of the Common-wealth but onely of the Pope nor I who disputed of our oath did meane to treat of any other authority then of the Pope which onely in our oath is denied And therefore the Lord Cardinall of Peron to impugne the oath of France dealeth very cunningly when he affirmeth as you haue seene before that Widdrington hath not found out one Authour either Diuine or Lawyer who hath said that in case of heresie or infidelity the subiects cannot bee absolued from the oath of fidelity and the obligation which they owe to their Princes 34 For albeit I haue not brought any one Authour onely D. Barclay excepted who affirmeth these two things together to wit that in the case of heresie or infidelity Princes can neither by the authority of the Pope nor of the Common-wealth be deposed and their subiects released of the bond and oath of their temporall allegiance for that those Doctours of France who absolutely deny the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments doe commonly maintaine that the temporall Common-wealth may depose their Prince for heresie or infidelity and consequently discharge the subiects of their temporall allegiance which being once released the spirituall bond of the oath made to confirme the same is foorthwith dissolued neuerthelesse I haue brought diuers Authours both Diuines and Lawyers who absolutely and without any exception of heresie or infidelitie doe in expresse words affirme though not ioyntly and together yet seuerally and apart that neither the Pope hath any authority to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments not that the kingdome or common-wealth hath any power or authority ouer their absolute Prince to depose him 35 For among those Doctours who affirme that the common-wealth hath authority ouer their Prince in some cases to depose him there are many whom I cited in the former part of this Treatise and also answered all the obiections that D. Schulckenius hath made against some of them who doe absolutely and without any exception affirme that the Pope hath not authority to depose Princes and that the power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment c. which their generall assertion would be false if the Pope had authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer For if the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments for heresie then it would be true that the power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments and if the Pope can depose temporall Princes for heresie then it followeth that the Pope can depose temporall Princes which those Doctors doe absolutely deny 36 And among those Doctours who are vehement for the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments I brought u In Apol. nu 411. also diuers who deny that the people or common-wealth hath authority to depose their Prince The Pope onely hath authority to depriue or depose Emperours Kings and Princes saith Bartholus Baldus and Petrus Andreas Gambara And Gregorius Tholosnus Barth in leg si Imperator Cod. de Legibus nu 4. Bald. in proaemio ff veteris Gambara in tract de officio potest legati l. 2. tit de varijs ordinar titulis nu 220. Gregor Thol l 26. de Rep. c. 5 nu 14. 24. 25 albeit a French Doctour yet denieth that the people or common-wealth hath authority to iudge punish or depose their King And therefore he doth not approoue that fact of the Peeres of France in depriuing Childericke and expresly affirmeth that Pipin vsurped the Kingdome and he reprehendeth also the Pope who called saith he Pipin into Italy to helpe him against the Longobards and when he came he absolued him from the oath he had made to his King Childerike being neither heard nor called nor defended nor accused as Abbas Vspergensis and Entropius doe affirme and afterwards he saith that the Pope might bee deceiued in his opinion for that hee would reward Pipin bringing an army in his defence with the hurt of another And this in my iudgement is one of the chiefe causes that mooued the other French Doctours to be commonly of this opinion that the common-wealth may depose their King in some cases to excuse that fact of the French Peeres in deposing Childerike their true and rightfull King 37 Also Alexander Carerius a vehement defender of the Popes direct power in temporalls Carer l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. 3 in fauour of the Canonists against Cardinall Bellarmine is of the same opinion Hee that hath no Iudge vpon earth saith he Cap. 3. we must confesse that many Iudges cannot Iudge For in denying a singularitie by a collectiue and generall word pluralls are accounted to bee denied It is manifest therefore as hath beene said before that the Barons and people for want of coactiue power or authoritie which Vassalls haue not ouer their Lord cannot iudge nor depose their Prince And in the former Chapter answering the authoritie of Aristotle The Philosopher saith he speaketh of a King who is instituted by the election of the Communitie for such a one is punished and deposed by the Communitie which doth principally institute him as the Venetians and people of Genoa who choose to themselues a Duke and if he offend against the common-wealth shee may depose him But it is otherwise in a King who naturally and by succession and descending of a certaine race doth raigne And this assertion of Carerius and others seemeth agreeable to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers cited by me elsewhere y Apol. nu 5. seq in Append. ad Supplicat calū 17. nu 14. who expresly affirme that Kings and Emperours are inferiour to none but God to wit in temporalls and that they can bee punished to wit with temporall punishments by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So that you see how cunningly the Cardinall of Peron handleth this controuersie touching the deposition