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
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
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
deserued death according to the Law 116 Secondly therefore although he was in some sort speaking improperly enforced or compelled that is he was bound by the law vnder paine of sinne to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people by reason of his leprosie yet it was the law of God and not the high Priest but onely as iudging him to bee a leper and declaring the law of God and his indignation against those who should transgresse his law that compelled him thereunto which declaration being a meere spirituall action without doubt did according to the law of God in the old law belong to the function of the high Priest and therefore the most that from hence can be inferred is this that the Priests of the new law haue also authoritie to declare the law of Christ and to iudge what is spirituall leprosie and what punishments are by the law of Christ appointed against heresie and other crimes which may infect the soule but that spirituall Pastours haue now authoritie to inflict temporall punishments vpon heretikes or any other spirituall lepers it cannot from hence be gathered by any probable reason 117 Thirdly it is very vntrue that because King Ozias was by the law commanded to liue in a house apart so long as hee remained a leper it doeth consequently follow from thence that he was also enforced bound or compelled to permit absolutely the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing concerning the affaires of the kingdome should bee referred to him for that a King may liue in a house apart not onely out of the Citie but also out of the kingdome and yet he may gouerne his kingdome by his Ministers in such sort that the chiefest things hee may reserue to himselfe as diuers Kings by their Vice-Roys doe gouerne forraine kingdomes reseruing diuers things as the placing or displacing of the chiefest Officers the making of warre against their neighbour Princes or such like important affaires to themselues and therefore from the dwelling of Ozias in a house apart either in the Citie or out of the Citie it cannot bee sufficiently gathered that hee was therefore enforced to permit absolutely the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing concerning the affaires of the kingdome should bee referred to him especially seeing that as this Doctour sayeth leprosie doeth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne 118 Neither also is it true that King Ozias could not conuerse with the people as this Doctour so bouldly affirmeth For although it was ordained by the law that lepers should dwell alone out of the campe and be separated from the rest of the people yet the law did not forbid any man to speake or talke with them or than with others yea which is more it was not forbidden by the law as well obserueth Abulensis c In ca. 8. Mat. q. 12. 13. to touch a leper for although the touching of a leper dâ—d cause a legall vncleanesse yet it was not any sinne or imperfection to incurre a legall vncleannesse but sometimes it was meritorious to bee legally polluted for to touch dead bodies and graues was a legall vncleannesse Num. 19. and yet to bury the dead was a meritorious worke for which Tobias is greatly commended and sometimes also a man was bound to incurre a legall vncleannesse as children were bound to bury their parents and yet by this they were legally polluted Leuit. 10. 21. and not only in prophane things but also in diuine mysteries Priests were sometimes bound by the law to be legally polluted as the Priest who offered a red cow in a burnt sacrifice was polluted and yet this was done by the commandement of God Num. 19. See also the like Leuit. 16. Wherefore to incurre a legall vncleannesse was not forbidden by the law but it was onely forbidden to enter into the Sanctuarie or to touch sacred things before he should be cleansed Leuit. 15. and therfore it was not a sinne according to the law to touch a leper after what maner soeuer vnlesse he that was so polluted would before his purification enter into the Tabernacle or participate in sacred things Leuit. 15. So that it is manifest that King Ozias was so debarred rom all ciuill conuersation but that he might sufficiently declare to his Deputies and ministers what he would haue done concerning any important businesse in the kingdome 119 Wherefore it can not be prooued that King Ozias was depriued for his leprosie of the administration of his kingdome and enforced to permit absolutely to his sonne the gouernment thereof that nothing at all should be referred to him concerning the affaires of the kingdome although it might very well be that he seeing himselfe for his great pride and arrogancie stricken by God with the plague of leprosie and that he could not so conueniently and in such Royall maner and remaining in his owne Pallace gouerne the kingdome as he did before did freely and of his owne accord and not vpon any constraint or absolute necessitie appoint his sonne the sole administratour of the kingdome and that he being now humbled by the potent hand of God would not for the time of his infirmitie meddle at all with the gouernment which is more to be attributed to his humilitie then to any necessitie for that he might if he had beene pleased haue reserued some affaires of greatest moment to his owne iudgement and referred the rest to those ministers whom he should appoint and as his sonne Ioathan was made administratour of the kingdome by his appointment and gouerned in his name and by his authoritie so also if Ioathan had caried himselfe partially and tyrannically in the gouernment he might by the authoritie of his father who still remained the true and rightfull King haue beene displaced and another put in his roume 120 But if King Ozias had not beene subiect saith this Doctour to the power of the high Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will haue dwelled in the Regall Citie and also haue gouerned the kingdome But first no man maketh any doubt but that King Ozias was subiect to the high Priest in spirituals as was euery sentence or iudgement wherein he declared the law of God And therefore the King was bound not to contemne in such things the commandement of the high Priest neither could he being now declared a leper either with the leaue or against the leaue of the high Priest dwell in the kingly Citie among the rest of the people for that by the law of God and not by any constitutiue commandement of the high Priest he was to dwell apart from the rest of the people Wherefore that clause and against his will he might haue dwelt in the Regall Citie is added by this Doctour to no purpose vnlesse he would signifie thereby that the law concerning the dwelling of lepers apart from the rest of the people
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
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
to vse any corporall violence against him and if it shall please the temporall Prince to pardon his life the spirituall Pastours haue no authority to take it away as out of Dominicus Bannes I shewed in that Disputation f Cap. 7. sec 2. in fine 162 But what if I should grant to Mr. Fitzherbert that the Priests of the old law might lawfully thrust by violence an vncleane person out of the Temple if he will not otherwise depart or that they might lawfully haue taken by force the Censar out of the Kings hands or haue held his hands that he should not haue offered incense as also that in the new law it is lawfull for Priests to thrust an excommunicated person out of the Church in the time of Diuine seruice or if in case a King would in his rage and furie runne his sword through the body of any innocent man should graunt that his Chaplaine or any other of his subiects attending upon his Royall person may lawfully hold his hands and so keepe him from committing so wilfull a murther could Mr. Fitzherbert trow you gather from hence that either Priests or subiects had any authority or superiority ouer the Kings person to hold his hands or to force him by corporall violence No. But from hence it onely can be gathered that euery priuate man may and ought by the law of God and nature and by the bond of charitie to keepe as much as lyeth in him his neighbour from doing euill which argueth no authority or superiority but onely a bond of charity 163 Now you shall see in what fraudulent manner Mr. Fitzherbert vrgeth the authoritie of S. Chrysostome And I cannot omit also saith hee g Pag. 80. seq to touch heere by the way what S. Chrysostome obserueth further in this example to wit that whereas Ozias being leprous did not onely dwell in the City though in a house apart but also raigne still for some yeeres vntill he died he ought to be cast both out of the City and also out of the kingdome and that almighty God was so highly offended because the same was not performed that he withdrew the spirit of Prophecie from Esay and other Prophets during the life and raigne of Ozias 164 Exivit Hom. 4. de verbis Isai vidi Dominum saith S. Chrysostome cum lepra c. The King went out of the Temple with a leprosie and yet they did not cast him out of the City for the respect they bare to the Kingly diademe but hee still sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God What then God being angry with the Iewes interrupted the Prophecy So he And againe a little after speaking in the person of God Ego saith he quod mei muneris feci c I haue done my part that is to say I haue strucken Ozias with leprosie and you are afraide to cast him being vncleane out of the City You beare reuerence to his Kingly dignity violating the law of God c. I doe therefore speake no longer to the Prophets neither doe I giue any more the grace of the spirit c. Silet spiritus gratia non est ostensus Deus eo quod sub impure illo non erat gratis The grace of propheticall spirit was silent or ceased and God did not shew himselfe because that vnder that vncleane man there was grace Thus saith S. Chrysostome vpon occasion of these words of the Prophet Esay Et factum est anno quo mortuus est Ozias Rex vidi Dominum c. For whereas all the Prophets vsed to declare the time and yeere of the Kings reigne when they prophecied S. Chrysostome noteth that Esay here omitted that custome and did not speake of the life and reigne Ioathan in whose time he had his vision but of the death of King Ozias during whose reigne the spirit of prophecy had ceased for the causes before declared 165 Well then heereby it appeareth that God was offended not onely because Ozias was not cast out of the City but because hee was suffered still to reigne Consedit in throno saith the holy Father legem Dei rursus transgrediens Hee sate still his throne transgressing againe the law of God that is to say as he had broken the law of God before in presuming to Sacrifice and threatning the Priests so also did hee againe transgresse and violate the same in retaining his kingdome being leprous and because the same was permitted and more respect borne to his Kingly dignitie then to the execution of Gods law therefore saith S. Chrysostome God punished the whole state not permitting his Prophets to prophecy as they were want 166 Whereupon I inferre that seeing the expresse law of God ordained that the cause of leprosie should be iudged and determined wholly by the Priests and that Ozias was subiect to this law it followeth that as hee was expelled out of the Temple by the Priests and forced by their sentence to liue in a house apart though within the City so ought hee also to haue beene by their sentence cast out both of the City and his Kingdome And if wee consider but onely that which was done by the Priests in this case of Ozias it cannot be denied but that they had a iudiciall power ouer his person seeing that they both commaunded him to goe out of the Temple before he was leprous and afterwards thrust him out yea and confined him to liue in a house apart for though the Scripture doth not expresse that this confining and separation was ordained by them yet it could not bee otherwise seeing that the law had ordained expresly Leuit. 13. Matth. 18. Marke 1. Luke 17. that euery leprous man should be brought vnto the Priest and that Ad arbitrium eius separabitur He shall be separated by his iudgement or arbittement which our Sauiour himselfe acknowledged vvhen hee remitted the leprous vvhom hee cured to the Priests 167 Therefore I will conclude vpon the premisses that forasmuch the law of God assigned a soueraigntie in iudgement to the high Priests and their consistorie as vvell in temporall as spirituall causes and to that end honoured them with a particular and most excellent priuiledge of infallibility in their doctrine and iudiciall sentences as I haue h See before nu 10. 11. 12. 13. c. amply prooued and seeing that the Kings of the old Testament were not any way exempt from the law as appeareth no lesse by diuers reasons alledged by me before i Num. 24.25 26. then by these two last examples of Athalia k Num. 29. 30. and Ozias l Num. 31.32.33 seq it followeth euidently that they were not supreme heads of the Priests but subiect to them and to their tribunall and consequently that if an Oath had beene proposed by any of these Kings to his subiects whereby they should haue sworne that he was free from all subiection and temporall chastisement of
bee published euery where made by the Sacred Congregation of the most Honourable Cardinalls of the holy Roman Church specially deputed by our most holy Lord Pope Paul the fift and the holy Apostolike Sea for the examination of bookes and their permission prohibition purgation and impression throughout the vniuersall Christian Common-wealth The Sacred Congregation of the most Honourable Cardinalls of the holy Roman Church deputed for the examination of bookes hauing seene a booke falsly intituled An Apologie of Cardinall Bellarmine for the right of Princes against his owne reasons for the Popes authoritie to depose Secular Princes in order to spirituall good written by Roger Widdrington an English Catholike in the yeere of our Lord 1611. and another booke of the same Authour intituled A Theologicall Disputation concerning the Oath of Allegiance dedicated to the most holy Father Pope Paul the fift Printed at Albinopolis in the yeere of our Lord 1613. hath iudged both the bookes worthy to bee condemned and prohibited and by the commandement of our most holy Lord Pope Paul the fift doeth by this present Decree vtterly condemne and prohibite them in what language soeuer they are printed or to be printed and except the Authour of them who professeth himselfe to be a Catholike doe cleare himselfe foorthwith hee is to vnderstand that hee shall bee throughly punished with Censures and other Ecclesiasticall penalties Furthermore it commandeth vnder the penalties contained in the holy Councell of Trent and the Index of forbidden bookes that none of what degree or condition soeuer be so bold from hencefoorth to print the foresaide bookes or cause them to bee printed or keepe them with him in any sort or reade them Also it commandeth vnder the same penalties that whosoeuer hath them now or shall haue them heereafter hee shall presently vpon the knowledge of this present Decree exhibite them to the Ordinaries of the places where he is or to the Inquisitours In testimonie whereof this present Decree was signed and sealed with the hand and seale of the most Honourable and most Reuerend Lord the Lord Cardinall of S. Caecila Bishop of Alba the 16. of March 1614. P. Bishop of Alba Cardinall of S. Caecilia The place ✚ for the seale Regist fol. 50. Fr. Thomas Pallauicinus of the Order of the Preachers Secretarie Printed in Rome by the Printer of the Apostolicall Chamber 1614. 134 To this Decree may bee added a Letter which the Popes Nuncius in Flaunders wrote from Bruxels to Mr. George Birket then Arch-Priest touching my Theologicall Disputation dedicated to his Holinesse the Copie whereof is this Admodum Reuerende Domine vti frater in Christo dilectissimé PEruenit in vrbem Disputatio Theologica de Iuramento Fidelitatis tertium sub Widdringtoni nomine evulgatum opus Ibi cum diligenter examinatum sit declarauit Sanctissimus D. N. nullo modo se dicti operis dedicationem acceptare illius Authorem neque Ecclesiae filium neque Catholicum existimare omnesque insuper Catholicos ab illius lectione abstinere prorsus debere De his ante paucos dies per Sanctae Romanae Inquisitionis Congregationis literas de mandato suae Sanctitatis edoctus sum vt de ijsdem ad Dominationem tuam imprimis scriberem quò eadem istic Catholicis significes ac pro tua prudentia innotescere cures Deus Dominationem tuam Coelesti sua custodia muniat Bruxellis 26. Nouembr 1613. Admodum Reuerendae Dominationis tuae Amantissimus studiosus Very Reuerend Sir and as a Brother most beloued in Christ THere came into the Citie of Rome a Theologicall Disputation concerning the Oath of Allegiance the third worke published vnder the name of Widdrington After it was there diligently examined our most Holy Lord declared that he in no wise accepted the Dedication of the said Worke and that hee thought the Authour thereof to bee neither a childe of the Church nor a Catholike and moreouer that all Catholikes should abstaine from the reading thereof Of these things I was certified some few daies since by Letters of the Congregation of the Holy Romane Inquisition by the commandement of his Holinesse to the end that first of all I should write thereof to your Reuerence that you may signifie the same to Catholikes there according to your wisedome to make it knowne to them God defend your Reuerence with his heauenly custodie From Bruxels the 26. of Nouemb. 1613. Of your Reuerence most louing and respectiue 135 Now from this Decree Mr. Fitzh concludeth this last Chapter and his whole Replie in this manner So as saith he f Pag. 225. num 25. 26. I hope Catholike Reader thou shalt shortly be out of all doubt of what Religion Widdrington is for if now after that this controuersie of the Oath hath beene many yeares debated and discussed by the learned Catholikes of diuers Nations and determined by two Apostolicall Breues yea and that his owne Bookes written in defence of the Oath are condemned by his Holinesse and hee himselfe peremptorily admonished vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures to cleare and conforme himselfe without further delay if now I say after all this he will pretend as hitherto he hath done that his Holinesse is still ignorant of the true state of the question or that he is deceiued deluded by others or else if he seeke other new shifts euasions or delaies to excuse or deferre his conformitie to the iudgement of his supreame Pastour he shall shew himselfe to he either a scabbed or rotten sheepe worthy to be excluded out of the folde for feare hee infect others or else a rauening Wolfe clad in a sheepes skinne Besides that it will euidently appeare that all his former pretences to de a Catholike and his submissions to the Sea Apostolike g He should haue said to the Catholike Romane Church for these be Widdringtons expresse words haue proceeded from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes which I leaue good Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration and humbly beseeching Almighty God from the bottome of my heart to illuminate and inspire him with his grace that he may see his owne lamentable estate and preuent the danger of his soule wherein be runneth headlong if he continue his wonted course 136 But to this Decree of the Lord Cardinals and to the letter of the Pope Nuncius to Mr. Birkett and also to all that which Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth from the aforesaid Decree there needeth no other answer then to set down my Purgation humble Supplication to his Holines wherein I desired to know any one thing which in the Oath is repugnant to faith or saluation as his Holinesse in his Breues declared that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation or any one thing in my bookes which are against faith or good manners protesting with all sinceritie to correct what is to be
kingdome because he was vnfit and gaue him his brother Alphonsus the third for a Coadiutor and also he depriued of the Empire Friderike the second in the Councell of Lyons being declared an enemie to the Church 103 But first that King Ozias retained only the bare name of a King without any Royall right authoritie or dominion it is very false and affirmed by this Doctour without any colourable ground at all For the Scripture doth not only call Ozias a King after hee was infected with leprosie and recounteth the yeeres of his reigne in the same manner as he recounteth the yeeres of the reigne of other Kings who had not only the bare name but also the true authoritie of other Kings but it doth also affirme that the reigned all the rest of his life and that Ioathan beganne to reigne only after his Fathers death Sixteene yeeres old saith the Scripture Å¿ 2. Paralip 26. 4. Reg. 15. was Ozias who also was called Azarias 4. Reg. 15. When he beganne to reigne and he reigned two and fiftie yeeres in Ierusalem And againe t 2. Paralip 26. 27. And Ozias slept with his Fathers and they buried him in the Kings sepulchres field because he was a leaper and Ioathan his sonne reigned for him Fiue and twentie yeeres old was Ioathan when he beganne to reigne and therefore he did not reigne in his Fathers time and he reigned sixteene yeeres in Ierusalem 104 Ioathan saith Abulensis v 4 Reg. 15. â—â— was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate but Ozias was called King all the time he liued and vnder him is reckoned the time of the kingdome and the power or authoritie concerning those things which were done in the kingdome did depend on him although they were administred by Ioathan his sonne and beneath This Ioathan saith Abulensis was the only or at least wise the eldest sonne of Ozias therefore he did succeede in the Kingdome his Father being dead for his Father being aliue he did gouerne the Palace and sustained the whole weight of the Kingly labour Also x lib. 26 de Repub. cap. 5. num â— Gregorius Tholosanus among other reasons which he brought to proue that a Prince ought not to be depriued of his kingdome for that hee is or seemeth to be vnfit to gouerne the same he produceth this example of King Ozias Seeing that saith he also Azarias or Ozias for he was called by both these names King of Iuda was striken by God with leprosie for this sinne that he did not destroy the Altars of the Idolls after he was become a leaper he liued indeede vntill the day of his death in a free house apart yet he was not depriued of his kingdome but Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings Palace and did iudge the people of the Land at his Coadiutor And another cause of his leprosie is alledged for that he presumed to burne incense vpon the Altar of incense which was only the office of a Priest yet in both places it is said that Ioathan reigned for him only after his death but that before his death he only administred the kingdome in his Fathers name 105 Wherefore that which this Doctour affirmeth that the Kings sonne administred the kingdome with full power is equiuocall although the Scripture maketh no mention that he administred the kingdome with full power but only that he gouerned the Kings Palace and iudged the people of the Land for if he meane that he administred the kingdome with a full absolute and supreme authoritie this is very vntrue for this authoritie did belong only to the King in whose name and by whose authoritie he gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people but if his meaning be that he administred the kingdome with a full delegate power and which in some cases the King may communicate to a subiect who is onely an administratour and gouernour but not a King this I will easily grant Belike this Doctour will haue the Kings Protectour and Guardian in the time of his minoritie or who administreth the kingdome when the King is absent in some forraine countrey or when hee is taken prisoner by his enemie or when by reason of some great infirmitie hee cannot gouerne by himselfe to haue full absolute and supreame power and consequently to be in very deede the Soueraigne King and to haue Kingly authoritie to gouerne the kingdome which how absurd it is any man but of meane capacitie may easily perceiue 106 Neither from Iosephus can any other thing bee gathered then which the Scripture it selfe affirmeth to wit that King Ozias liued in a house a-part and his sonne Ioathan gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land For the words of Iosephus as they are related by this Doctour are not so bee vnderstood that Ioathan tooke vpon him the kingdome and to reigne for Ozias all the time of his life was King and did reigne as Iosephus affirmeth in the same place but that hee tooke vpon him to administer or gouerne the kingdome in his Fathers name who by reason of his infirmitie for which hee was bound by the law of God to liue in a house a part from the rest of the people could not conueniently gouerne the same But the words of Iosephus according to the Edition which I haue and which also Cardinall Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay followeth are these After the Priests had perceiued the leprosie in the Kings face they tolde him or if the word bee iudicauerunt and not indicauerunt they iudged that hee was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie and they admonished him that hee would depart the Citie as one polluted and vncleane And hee with the shame of his calamitie obeyed being so miserably punished for his pride ioyned with impietie and when for a time hee liued priuate out of the Citie his sonne Ioathan administring the kindome at length being consumed with sorrow hee dyed the sixtie eight yeere of his age and the fiftie second of his kingdome or reigne 107 From which wordes this onely can bee gathered that Ioathan administred the kingdome and gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people as the Scripture saith yet that Ozias was stil King and reigned although he liued priuate that is not depriued of his kingdome for he still remained King and did reigne vntill his death as Iosephus confesseth but priuately to wit he did not meddle with the publike affaires of the kingdome but liued in a free house apart as the Scripture saith which words Abulensis expoundeth thus y 〈…〉 And hee dwelled in a free house apart that is hee did not dwell in the Kings Pallace for he being a leper ought not to giue himselfe to businesses neither did he dispose of the kingdome but Ioathan his sonne and it is called a free house that is sequestred from all businesse and frequentation of people for none did resort to him but those who