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
also of Lateran or at least wise Pope Innocent in the Councell of Lateran perceiuing that many sensuall men are more afraide of sensible and temporall punishments then of spirituall therefore to withdraw them more easily from sinne they commanded enioyned and imposed by their spirituall authoritie as it is directiue corporall and temporall punishments which sensuall men doe most abhorre and also they inflicted the same punishments not by their spirituall authoritie as it is coerciue which is extended onely as I haue often said to Ecclesiastical Censures but by the temporall authoritie which they haue receiued from the expresse or tacite consent graunt and priuiledges of temporall Princes seeing that it is well knowne as I haue related elsewhere out of Iohn Gerson Gerson de potest Eccles considerat 4. that Princes out of their deuotion haue giuen to the Cleargie great authoritie of temporall Iurisdiction 46 Thirdly obserue the goodly reason that this man bringeth why the Councell of Lateran began first with spirituall punishments and the Councell of Trent with temporall For that saith hee the decree of the Councell of Lateran was made against those who knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication and the decree of the Councell of Trent was made against those that knew the greatnesse thereof as though either Christian Princes or people knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication at the time of the Councell of Lateran or that either in very truth or according to the Doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine Suarez and other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes or in the iudgement of this Doctour himselfe it be commendable or lawfull first to depose Princes and to thrust them out of their kingdomes and afterwardes to excommunicate them and to declare them to be accounted as Heathens and Publicanes Be like this Doctour is perswaded that all his idle conceits must goe for an vndoubted oracle But he is deceiued for howsoeuer his fauourites will applaude all his sayings esteeming him as an other Pythagoras yet other men will require of him a more sufficient reason then a bare ipse dixit 47. Lastly it is not true that the Councell of Lateran did first commaund that Princes who fauour heretikes should be excommunicated and afterwards if this remedie did not auaile their subiects should be absolued from their allegiance because in that decree there is no mention made of Princes but onely of inferiour Officers and Magistrates But of this Decree we shall haue occasion to treate anon more at large As also it is a slaunder vsuall in this mans mouth that I contemne the foresaid decrees of the Councell of Lateran and of Trent which I doe reuerence with as much respect as he or any other Catholike ought to doe albeit I must needes confesse that although this Doctours interpretation of those decrees I doe not contemne for this is a word of arrogancie yet truely I doe not much regard vnlesse he shall bring better reasons to confirme the same then hitherto he hath brought And thus you see part of the answere I made to Cardinall Bellarmines second reason which afterwards I did prosecute more at large and in the end I did briefly insinuate how insufficiently Father Parsons grounding himselfe chiefly vpon this second argument of Cardinall Bellarmine did satisfie the Earle of Salisburies complaint 48 For the Earle of Salisburie saith Father Parsons y In the Preface to the Treatise tending to Mitigation nu 19. hath bin a long time sorrie that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie hath not bin made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. That not onely those Princes which acknowledge this superioritie might be secured from feares and iealosies of continuall treasons and bloodie Assassinates against their persons but those Kings also which doe not approoue the same and yet would faine reserue a charitable opinion of their subiects might know how farre to repose themselues in their fidelitie in ciuill obedience howsoeuer they see them diuided from them in point of conscience c. Now to this complaint or desire of the Earle of Salisbury to haue the matter defined and declared Father Parsons answereth that among Catholike people the matter is cleare and sufficiently defined and declared in all points wherein there may be made any doubt concerning this affaire And for the clearing of the whole matter he diuideth it into three questions 49 The first is whether any authority were left by Christ in his Church and Christian Common-wealth to restraine or represse censure or iudge any exorbitant and pernicious excesse of great men States or Princes or that he hath left them remedilesse wholy by any ordinarie authoritie And to this question the substance of his answere is this that as in all other common-wealths that are not Christian all Philosophers and other men of soundest wisedome prudence and experience either Iew or Gentile haue from the beginning of the world concurred in this that God and nature hath left some sufficient authoritie in euery common-wealth for the lawfull and orderly repressing of those euils euen in the highest persons So when Christ our Sauiour came to found his Common-wealth of Christians in farre more perfection then other states had beene established before subiecting temporall things to spirituall according to the degree of their natures ends and eminencies and appointing a supreme vniuersall Gouernour in the one with a generall charge to looke to all his sheepe without exception of great or small people or potentates vpon these suppositions I say all Catholike learned men doe ground and haue euer grounded that in Christian Common-wealthes not only the foresaid ordinary authoritie is left which euery other state and kingdome had by God and nature to preserue and protect themselues in the cases before laid down but further also for more sure orderly proceeding therin that the supreme care iudgement direction and censure of this matter was left principally by Christ our Sauiour vnto the said supreme Gouernour and Pastour of his Church and Common-wealth And in this there is no difference in opinion or beliefe betweene any sort of Catholikes whatsoeuer so they be Catholikes though in particular cases diuersitie of persons time place cause and other circumstances may mooue some diuersitie of opinions And thus much of the first question 50 The second question may bee about the manner how this authoritie or in what sort it was giuen by Christ to his said supreme Pastour whether directly or indirectly immediately or by a certaine consequence And to this question he answereth that albeit the Canonists doe commonly defend the first part and Catholike Diuines for the most part the second yet both parts fully agree that there is such an authoritie left by Christ in his Church for remedie of vrgent cases for that otherwise hee should not haue sufficiently prouided for the necessitie thereof So as this difference in the manner maketh no difference at all in the thing it selfe 51 The third
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
of Ecclesiasticall Censures may bee called a compulsion yet the vsing of temporall power the disposing of temporall things the compelling with temporall punishments or the inflicting of temporall punishments and punishing temporally by way of constraint are only proper and doe belong to the temporall power for which cause S. Bernard as I shewed before did affirme that the materiall sword is according to our Sauiours command to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier not of the Priest at the booke or direction of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour 8 Now to come to my Aduersarie although he hath not as he saith Lessius booke nor euer reade it yet I haue both seene it and reade it and I haue alleadged truly his expresse words as they lye and I doubt not but that my Aduersarie may easily get a sight thereof But howsoeuer that which hee saith is very vntrue that I say nothing in effect against Lessius argument but that which may bee vrged in like manner against the Apostle Saint Paul for that Saint Pauls argument as I shewed before in the former chapter was not grounded vpon this maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon Lessius groundeth his argument for this maxime is very vntrue vnlesse the greater doeth actually or vertually include and imply the lesse or which I take for all one vnlesse the greater and the lesse be of the same kind or order But S. Pauls argument was grounded vpon this maxime hee that is not vnworthie to doe the greater is not vnworthie to doe the lesse For S. Paul intended only to prooue as I shewed before that Christians were not vnworthie to iudge of secular things because they were to iudge the world and the Angels and therefore by the argument a maiori ad minus they were not to be accounted vnworthie to decide secular causes Neither hath euery man that power whereof hee is not vnworthie but he hath onely that power which hee who hath authoritie to giue that power hath granted although perchance he be not vnworthie to haue a greater power as to be Lord Chancellour is a more great and eminent authoritie then to be Lord Chamberlaine and yet it is not lawfull thus to argue from that maxime he that hath the greater authoritie hath the lesse therefore he who is Lord Chancellour is also Lord Chamberlaine albeit we might rightly thus conclude as the Apostle did a maiori ad minus he that is not vnworthie to be Lord Chancellour is not vnworthy to be Lord Chamberlaine for that he who is not vnworthie to haue the greater authoritie is not vnworthie to haue the lesse 9 If therefore I had denied the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things because he had beene vnworthy to haue that authoritie then I had indeede disprooued the Apostles argument but seeing that I doe onely for this cause deny the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things for that Christ our Sauiour hath not granted this authoritie to him but onely to temporall Princes I doe not goe against the Apostles argument Neither did the Apostle goe about to prooue that the Church might ordaine and dispose of secular iudgements taking secular iudgements for such as doe proceed from publike authoritie and can not be done by priuate power but hee onely commanded the Corinthians for auoiding of scandall to appoint arbitrarie Iudges among themselues which they might doe by their owne priuate power and without any derogation to the temporall Magistrate and in case of scandall they ought also so to doe and he onely intended to prooue that because they were not vnwoorthy to iudge the Angels and the world much more were they not vnworthy to be Arbitrarie Iudges in secular causes Wherefore Saint Paul did not intend to prooue either by the subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall or by any other argument that the Church might ordaine or dispose of those secular iudgements which belong to temporall authoritie neither can there be drawne any good argument from this subordination to prooue the same as I haue shewed more amply in the second part 10 Neither did I graunt that the spirituall Pastour hath power to command corporall and temporall things quatenus spiritualibus deseruiunt so farre forth as they serue spirituall things for that corporall and temporall things are ordained to spirituall things and to the eternall saluation of soules as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth for then indeede I must also haue granted that the Pope hauing power to dispose of spirituall things hath consequently power to dispose of temporall things so farre soorth as they are to serue spirituall things but my reason was as you haue seene in the former chapter because the power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good is a spirituall power and agreeable to a spirituall Pastour and Gouernour as he is instituted by Christ but the power to dispose of temporall things whether it be in order to temporall or to spirituall good is a temporall power and therefore not agreeable to a spirituall Pastour according at our Sauiour hath in the Christian world or common wealth instituted ordained and distinguished these two supreme powers temporall and spirituall by their proper acts functions and dignities 11 And albeit both spirituall and temporall things are referred to one last end which is Gods honour and glorie as to the center to which both of them ought to tend yet from hence it can not be rightly concluded that the temporall power is subordained to the spirituall or that temporall things as temporall lawes temporal actions temporall punishments and the like are subordained to spirituall things as to spirituall lawes spirituall actions spirituall punishments and the like but that both of them are I doe not say subordained one to the other but ordained to one and the selfe same end which is the glorie and seruice of God and the saluation of soules which is as it were the center to which the temporall power by temporall lawes and by disposing of temporals and the spirituall power by spirituall lawes and by disposing or dispencing of spiriruall things ought to tend By which it is apparant that although it were supposed that the disposing of temporall things and the vsing of temporall power were in some cases necessarie to the honour and seruice of God to the good of the Church and to the saluation of soules yet it can not be performed but by the temporall power for that our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours onely spirituall power to promote and maintaine by spirituall meanes the good of the Church and to bring soules to heauen and temporall meanes and temporall power he hath left to the disposition of temporall Princes whom he forsaw and preordained to be Nurses Patrons and Protectours of his Church 12 Wherefore although my Aduersarie did endeauour as you haue seene in the former
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
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
neuerthelesse according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus are necessary to make any Decree of a generall Councell to appertaine to faith And secondly heere in this place I did only argue against the first argument brought by Fa. Lessius who in his Maior proposition speaketh generally of all decrees and sentences of Popes and Councels That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe either propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences c. And against this argument I did oppose as you haue seene another like instance grounded vpon three examples of decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences of diuers Popes which instance of mine Mr. Fitzherbert concealeth and by the word foundation I did not onely vnderstand the reason which mooued those Popes to make such decrees and to grant such dispensations and licences as for example that S. Gregory as my Aduersary saith graunted licence to some Priests in Sardinia to administer the Sacrament of confirmation by reason of the great want of Bishops in that Iland but by the word foundation I vnderstood the authority it selfe which those Popes pretended to haue to make such decrees and to grant such licences and dispensations and the reasons and foundations whereon that pretended authority of theirs was grounded which authority of theirs I shewed to be vncertaine and consequently not to belong to faith and therefore the first argument of Fa. Lessius to be defectiue 29 And although there bee an euident disparitie betwixt the Decrees of Popes and the Decrees of generall Councels yet it is apparant that according to my Aduersaries principles who affirme that all the infallibility of the Decrees of Generall Councels doth wholly depend vpon the Pope wee may according to their grounds proportionally argue of the infallibilitie of the Decrees of Popes and of General Councels and that if the Pope may erre in his priuate iudgement particular facts and decrees concerning manners which are referred to particular persons Bishops or Churches a Generall Councell also may erre in the like and if to make a Decree of a Generall Councell to belong to faith it bee necessary according to their doctrine that it bee a true and proper Decree and must also be propounded as of faith or necessarily grounded vpon some vndoubted doctrine of faith the like also they must say of the Decrees of Popes From whence it cleerely followeth that according to their owne principles no forcible argument can bee drawne either from the iudiciall sentence of Pope Gregory the seuenth against Henry the fourth Emperour or of Pope Innocent the third against Philip and Otho or of Pope Innocent the fourth in the Councell of Lyons against Fredericke the second or from any other deposition of whatsoeuer King or Emperour or also from the Decree of the Lateran Councell although we should suppose as wee doe not that it doth concerne the deposition of temporall Princes and was made by true Ecclesiasticall authority without any necessitie that Christian Princes should approoue and confirme the same yet I say no forcible argument can bee drawne from thence to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted doctrine of faith seeing that the former sentences and depositions doe onely concerne particular persons and this Act of the Lateran Councell is not according to their owne grounds a true and proper Decree and none of them are propounded as of faith as any man of iudgement out of those rules which Card. Bellarmine and Canus haue brought to know when any Decree is propounded as of faith may very easily perceiue 30 Besides that Widdrington inferreth absurdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 188. nu 8. 9. that because the reason which mooued some Popes to grant that licence was vncertaine or seemed erroneous to some learned men therefore it was vncertaine also in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence as who would say that because the reason of Pope Pius his Decree concerning the obseruation of the Feast of Easter seemed vncertaine to the Churches of Asia therefore it was vncertaine in it selfe or to Pope Pius who made the Decree whereas the reason or gound of the said Decree to wit the tradition of the Romane Church was not onely certaine to Pope Pius and his Successour Victor o Euseb l. 5. hist c. 24. 25 who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for resisting it but also to the first Councell of Nice which afterwards decreed the same yea to the whole Church which followeth the Decrees of the said Pope and Nicen Councell accounting them for heretikes that doe contradict them as I haue shewed before p See Chap. 13 nu 4. 7. And see also the answere therevnto chap. 13. nu 22. seq 31 The like also may bee said of the rebaptization of such as are baptized by heretikes which was condemned by the Sea Apostolike vpon an assured ground albeit the same seemed vncertaine and erroneous to Saint Cyprian and to a Synode of Bishops with him who were of contrarie opinion So as it is euident that many things may seeme vncertaine to some learned men and yet bee most certaine to the Sea Apostolike and therefore Widdrington argueth very ridiculously if hee inferre as hee seemeth to doe that the reason which mooued some Popes to giue licence to Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation is vncertaine or erroneous because it seemeth so to some learned men 32 But besides that I made no such inference as this man faigneth and the Reader may plainely see by the examples and instances which I haue entirely set downe and Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed it is euident that hee heere insinuateth giuing credit therein to Fa. Lessius a most dangerous and pernicious doctrine to wit that all Catholikes are bound to follow in matters which are in controuersie among learned men the Popes priuate spirit faith and knowledge as though the Church of God were to bee guided and gouerned in matters which are questionable among learned Catholikes by the priuate faith spirit or knowledge of any man yea of the Pope himselfe or that Christ had promised his infallible assistance to the Popes priuate knowledge or iudgement 33 And first whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that although the reason which mooued some Popes to grant licence to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation seemed vncertaine to some learned men yet it was not therefore vncertaine in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence hee speaketh very improperly For albeit truth and falshood are taken from the thing it selfe according to that knowne maxime of Aristotle ex eo quod res est vel non est propositio dicitur vera vel falsa and so may bee said to bee in the thing it selfe yet certaintie as certaine is opposed to doubtfull vncertaine fallible probable erroneous is not properly in the thing it selfe but in the vnderstanding
whole to the censure of the Catholike Romane Church in that manner as bookes are vsually printed by Catholikes And if S. Ambrose or any other of the ancient Fathers were now aliue and should see bookes of certaine Catholikes directly impugning the Soueraigne power and authority of Kings and absolute that Princes whom they did so highly honor and reuerence affirming them to be inferiour in temporals to none but God alone vnder pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike and subiecting them to the coerciue temporall power of spirituall Pastours whereas their generall doctrine was that with temporall punishments they are not to be punished but by God alone and broaching by violence and without sufficient ground with scandall to Catholike Religion and contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles and the whole primitiue Church new articles of faith in preiudice of temporall authority and not permitting any man eyther to call their new faith in question or for his better instruction or discussion of the controuersie to propound any difficulty against the same with a desire to be satisfied therein albeit he submit himselfe and all his writings to the censure of the Catholike Roman Church but with open mouth crying out against him and calling him an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike what would S. Ambrose trow you or any other of the ancient Fathers if they were now aliue say of such Catholikes Truly that nothing can be more dangerous then such Catholikes who vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike religion and to the Sea Apostolike inuent new articles of faith in preiudice of Christian Princes by wresting many places of the holy Scriptures as Quodcunque solueris Pasce oues meas Secularia iudicia si habueritis c. to a sense not dreamed of by the ancient Fathers by reason of their potency in the Court of Rome and their fauour with his Holinesse whose authority they pretend to aduance vniustly persecuting those that discouer their manifest frauds and falshoods 122 Lastly that which Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth heere against me migh Bartholus Carerius and other Canonists obiecteth against Cardinall Bellarmines booke directly impugning the authority of the Sea Apostolike vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church But the plaine truth is that neyther of vs both doe impugne that authority whiCh is certainely knowne and acknowledged by all Catholikes to belong to the Sea Apostolike but as hee impugneth the direct power of the Pope to dispose of temporalls for that there is no sufficient ground to proue the same albeit some Popes haue challenged the same as due to them and some Canonists affirme that it is hereticall to deny the same so I impugne the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine who holdeth that it is certaine and a point of faith that the Pope hath at least wise an indirect power to dispose of all temporals and consequently to depose temporall Princes in order to spirituall good for that there is no sufficient ground to confirme the same 123 And the like argument might Mr. Fitzherbert vrge against all those learned Catholikes who constantly deny the Pope to haue authority to dispence in any true and lawfull marriage which is not consummated notwithstanding so many practises of Popes to the contrary impugning directly the Sea Apostolike and the whole course of Ecclesiasticall gouernment vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church For Saint Antoninus doth of affirme Antonin 3. part tit 1. cap. 21. § 3. Caiet tom 1. opusc trac 28. de Matrim q. vnica Nauar. in Manual cap. 22. nu 21. Henriq lib. 11. de matrim cap. 8. nu 11. in Com. lit F. Sot in 4. dist 27. q. 1. ar 4. that hee saw the Bulles of Pope Martin the fifth and Pope Eugenius the fourth who dispenced therein and Card. Caietane relateth that in his time Popes did oftentimes dispence therein and Nauar affirmeth that Pope Paulus the third and Pope Pius the fourth did dispence therein three or foure times by his Counsell and aduise And Henriquez the Iesuite saith that Pope Gregorie the thirteenth did in one day dispence therein with eleuen persons Whereupon Dominicus Sotus although he submitteth himselfe and all his writings to the Censure of the Church is not afraide notwithstanding this often practise of Popes which my ignorant Aduersarie calleth the practise of the Church to say that those Popes erred therein following the Canonists opinion which he affirmeth to haue in it no shew of probabilitie And why then may it not be said in like manner that his Holinesse condemning the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation followed Cardinall Bellarmines opinion and other Diuines of Rome who hold that the Popes power to excommunicate and inflict Censures is denied in the Oath and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is denied in the Oath is certaine and of faith which their doctrine in my opinion hath in it no shew of probabilitie at all euen according to those rules which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe requireth to make any doctrine of Pope or generall Councell to be of faith Whereby is plainely discouered the manifest fraude and ignorance of my vncharitable Aduersarie in affirming my doctrine to be hereticall and my selfe to be an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholik for denying the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be of faith whereas euen according to the rules which Cardinall Bellarmine requireth to make a matter of faith he cannot bring any one argument Which hath so much as a shew of probabilitie to conuince the same 124 Marke now the fraudulent Admonition which Mr. Fitzherbert giueth to his Catholike Reader vnder pretence forsooth of sinceritie and the feruent zeale he hath of his soules health And therefore I hope saith he e Pag. 223. nu 22. thou wilt be wary good Catholike Reader and diligent to discouer Widdringtons fraude thereby to auoide the danger of his poysoned pen pondering all this matter in the iust ballance of prudence that is to say that thou wilt counterpoise his vaine pretence of probabilitie not onely with the graue and sacred authoritie of the Churches practise for many ages but also with the Canons of generall and Prouinciall Councells with the Decrees of Popes and with cleere doctrine of so many famous and learned Writers as hee impugneth Also that thou wilt weigh his presumption in defending and iustifying the Oath with the iudgement authority of thy supreame Pastour who condemneth and forbiddeth it the pretended force and soliditie of his doctrine and arguments with the ridiculous absurdities which thou hast euidently seene in his answeres to mee outward shewes of affection to thee and desire of thy good with the inward intelligence he hath with Gods enemies and thine who employ him to deceiue thee seruing themselues of him as Fowlers doe of birds which they keepe in
and 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
vtterers of the same 2 And this is the very case betweene me and my Aduersaries in this controuersie concerning the Popes pretended authority to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls For I accuse them and also in my iudgement clearely conuince them that they haue if not coined and forged yet at leastwise not onely taught and divulged and which is worse endeauoured by fraud and violence to thrust vpon Catholikes a false and forged Catholike faith but also that they haue wrongfully defamed and slandered those Catholikes and my selfe in particular who doe plainely discouer their falshoods and that they seeke both by deceitfull and violent meanes to hinder aswell the learned as the vnlearned people that they shall not by the true touchstone and vndoubted rules of the Catholike faith by reading those books which doe exactly and sincerely debate this question examine in what a fraudulent manner they seeke to colour this their false and newly forged Catholike faith wherein they doe most egregiously abuse all Christian Princes and people most exceedingly scandalize Catholike Religon and as much as lyeth in them they make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull both to Princes and people and giue occasion of perpetuall discord betwixt the Kingdome and the Priesthood whereby they prepare the way to Antichrist and lay open a wide gap to Schisme heresie Atheisme and infidelity 3 For if vnder the pretence of aduancing the Popes authority in so great preiudice of Regall Soueraignty we once forsake the ancient and approoued rules by which as by an assured touchstone the true Christian and Catholike faith hath alwaies been discerned from the false and counterfeit what vndoubted grounds shal we haue to build our Catholike faith vpon which c In the Creed of S. Athanasius vnlesse euery one shall keepe entire and inuiolate without doubt he shall perish eternally If Christian Princes people once perceiue that the supreame Pastours of Gods Church doe both permit and applaud some learned men who are otherwise potent in the Court of Rome to impose by fraud and violence vpon the Church of Christ in fauour of that authority which they pretend to haue ouer all temporals a false and forged Catholike faith for true and to disgrace and slander all those who shall detect their forgeries why may not the said Princes and people iustly suspect as Fa. Lessius argueth d In his Singleton part 3. num 74. that the Catholike faith and Religion is for a great part thereof a meere inuention of men deuised of set purpose by Popes Bishops and Cleargie men in policie that they may more securely dominiere and vnder a shew of piety and Religion dispose of all temporals at their pleasure And therefore how much these men are to answere at the day of iudgement for so greatly wronging Christian Princes for so mightily scandalizing Catholike Religion for so much endangering the soules of all sorts of people and for so vniustly oppressing and slandering innocent and zealous Catholikes who doe plainely discouer their fraud and falshoods I cannot but tremble when I seriously consider the same 4. And if perhaps my Aduersaries will in their owne defence alledge that one may be excused from all fault before God and man who in zeale should teach any doctrine to be Catholike which he sincerely in his conscience thinketh to bee truely Catholike albeit perchance in very deed it is not so as also he that vttereth counterfait money not knowing it to bee counterfait but sincerely thinking that it is good and lawfull coine is not to be condemned before God or man I answere that all things done in zeale are not free from sinne when the zeale is blinde and grounded vpon an erroneous conscience and culpable ignorance Otherwise we might excuse from all fault the Iewes for crucifying our Sauiour and putting to death his Disciples Luke 23. for that they did it through ignorance and thought thereby to doe seruice to God Iohn 16. and S. Paul for blaspheming and persecuting the Christians before his conuersion Acts 1. because he did it being ignorant in incredulity 5 And therefore first I wish them to remember that admonition Bell. lib 2. de gemitu columbae cap 9. which Cardinall Bellarmine my chiefest Aduersary giueth to the Pastours and Prelates of the Church vpon occasion of relating the fearefull death of Pope Innocent the third who greatly busied himselfe with the deposing of temporall Princes and with the disposing of temporall kingdomes whereby great warres and much effusion of innocent blood were caused in the Church of God which perchance was one of the three causes for which the said Pope as Cardinall Bellarmine rehearseth had beene damned eternally if he had not repented at the houre of his death For first he deposed Philip and set vp Otho Matth. Paris in vita Ioannis ad annū 1210. Page 220. then he deposed Otho for seeking to recouer certaine townes and forts belonging to the Empire which the said Pope in the time of Frederikes minority had taken into his owne possession afterward he sought to thrust out of Italy the said Frederike the second Blondus decad 2. l b. 6. Abbas Vrsperg ad annū 1212. who before at Aquisgraue was crowned Emperour by the said Pope Innocent his authority I omit now to relate how here in England he carried himselfe first in taking part with the Barons and deposing King Iohn Matth Paris in vita Ioannis ad annū 1212. pag. 223. And Stow in the life of King Iohn and which neither Car. Bellarmine nor Suarez dare iustifie who will not admit that the Pope may lawfully depose a King and giue his Kingdome from the next heire who is free from all fault to another in giuing the Kingdome to the King of France and his posterity for euer wherby he depriued the next lawful heire Henry the 3. being a childe of his right without any fault committed by him But after the Popes Legate had cunningly perswaded King Iohn to resigne vp his Crowne and Kingdome to the Pope then he tooke King Iohns part against the King of France and the Barons and commanded them not molest him for that he was now become the Popes Vassall But marke I pray you what Card. Bellarmine writeth of this Pope Innocent 6 About this time saith he Surius ad 16. Iunij relating Surius words in the life of S. Ludgard Pope Innocent the third after the celebrating of the Lateran Councell departed this life and forthwith he appeared visibly to Ludgard But she seeing him compassed about with a great flame of fire demāded who he was He answered that hee was Pope Innocent And what is this saith she with a pittifull grone that the common Father of vs all is so cruelly tormented Hee answered For three causes am I so tormented which also had most iustly adiudged me to euerlasting torments if by the intercession of the most pious Mother of God to
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
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
body which for as much as appertaineth to the power it selfe and not in regard of all other things which are requisite that the power shall haue effect is sufficient and necessarie to the eternall saluation of soules yet that hee must needes haue euen ouer the soule and much lesse ouer the body and temporall goods and states all that power which is conuenient for the good of soule as my Aduersary heere affirmeth is very vntrue for this were a too too large extension of the Popes pastorall power ouer the soule and body and would cleerely prooue that the Pope should haue power to doe miracles as the Apostles had and by miraculous operations to bring actually all Christians to the kingdome of heauen For no man as I thinke can make doubt but that the Pope to haue all that power whereby all Christians shall bee actually saued is very conuenient for the good of soules Neither will my Aduersarie be euer able to prooue that it is necessary to the saluation of soules or to the gouernment of the Church as it was instituted by Christ to bee a spirituall and not a temporall Common-wealth to haue power to dispose of temporals and to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes and liues 12 Secondly that proposition he that hath the greater power hath the lesse which my Aduersary vntruely saith to bee a rule of the Law for that it is not to bee found among the rules either of the Canon or Ciuill Law is very vntrue if it bee taken in those generall wordes and without due limitations which my Aduersary doth not declare as might be conuinced by infinite examples whereof some may be seene in the next Chapter where wee shall treate of this Maxime more at large and for the present this onely shall suffice that if it were vniuersally true it would cleerely conuince that the Pope who by the institution of Christ hath spirituall power which is the greater power should also haue temporall power which is the lesse which my Aduersarie as I thinke will hardly grant vnlesse hee will now become a Canonist and affirme that the Pope as Pope hath both temporall and spirituall power and is both a temporall and spirituall Prince which is repugnant to the common doctrine of the Diuines of his owne Societie 13 True it is that if the lesse be taken for that which is contained in the greater either actually and formally or vertually he that hath the greater power hath formally or vertually also the lesse as because a hundred crownes is actually contained in a hundred pounds and foure degrees of heate is actually contained in eight and heate is vertually contained in light therefore from those rules of the law which rather may bee called rules of naturall reason for that they are grounded vpon the light of nature i De regulis iuris in 6. regula 35. 80. Plus semper continet in se quod est minus into to partem non est dubium contineri The greater doth alwaies containe in it the lesse and there is no doubt but that a part is contained in the whole we may rightly inferre that he who can giue a hundred pounds can giue a hundred crownes and the fire which can produce eight degrees of heate can produce foure and the Sunne that hath power to produce light hath also power to produce heate But temporall power is neither formally nor vertually contained in the spirituall power of the Pope although it be vertually and supereminently contained in the spirituall power of God almightie in whom all create powers are vertually in an infinite and superexcellent manner contained That which is obiected saith Ioannes Parisiensis he that hath power to doe the greater Ioan. Paris de potest Regia Papali cap. 17. ad 17. hath power to doe the lesse therefore the Pope who hath power in spiritualls hath also power in temporalls it is true in the greater and lesser which are per se subordained as because a Bishop hath power to ordaine a Priest therefore he hath also power to ordaine a Deacon but it doeth not hold in those things which are of a diuerse order or kind as because my father could beget a man therefore hee can also beget a dogge or because a Priest can absolue from sinne therefore hee can also absolue from the debt of money 14 Thirdly neither is that true which my Aduersary affirmeth that S. Paul by that proposition he that hath the greater power hath the lesse did iustifie his dealing with temporall affaires when hee aduised the Corinthians to constitute and appoint Iudges amongst themselues to decide their controuersies rather then to haue recourse to the tribunalls of Infidells which Iudges S. Chrysostome vpon this place calleth Arbiters and accorders or reconcilers For S. Paul foreseeing that some might easily obiect as S. Chrysostome obserueth that those Corinthians who were newly become Christians were for the most part rude ignorant and vnnoble and therefore might seeme to bee men vnfit and vnworthie to intermeddle in secular controuersies therefore to preuent this obiection he vseth an argument which the Logicians call a maiori ad minus from the greater to the lesse which argument is not grounded in that maxime he that hath the greater power hath the lesse but in this hee that is worthie to haue the greater power is not vnworthie to haue the lesse To preuent therefore that obiection S. Paul argueth in this maner Know you not that the Saints shall iudge of the world and if the world shall bee iudged by you are you vnworthie to iudge especially as Arbitratours of the least things Know you not that wee shall iudge Angels how much more secular things 15 This therefore is the force of the Apostles argument as Benedictus Iustinianus a learned Iesuite vpon this place doeth well declare The Apostle saith he argueth a maiori from the greater Beâ—ed Iustin in 1. Cor. 6. For if the Saints are accounted worthie to be appointed Iudges of the whole world who can thinke them vnworthie to bee ouer the meanest and least iudgements If to your iudgement the world shall be subiect are you to bee accounted vnworthie to decide and compose the least controuersies and strifes of your brethren If we shall iudge the Angels these bee the wordes of Photius related by Iustinian how much more shall wee bee fit to compose the strifes and controuersies which arise concerning things necessarie to mans life whereupon the Apostles argument doth well conclude saith Iustinian that those who are appointed Iudges of the world cannot bee accounted vnworthie to haue charge of humane iudgements if they bee appointed by them who haue this authoritie or who may by right subiect themselues to their iudgements as those who are in suite may to Arbitratours Neither is this repugnant saith Iustinian to the publike authoritie of Iudges and Magistrates for no man is compelled to goe to the Magistrate if by other waies he may
peaceably maintaine his owne right 16 Neither were those Iudges whom the Apostle commanded or aduised the Corinthians to appoint any other then Arbiters or Arbitratours in power although we should grant that they were to be chosen by common consent and not by the parties only who were in suite which neuerthelesse cannot be conuinced by the Apostles words For albeit the Apostle doeth not say which is the onely reason that D. Schulckenius bringeth to prooue D. Schulck in Apol. ad nu 269 pag. 445. that they were to be chosen by common consent that euery man must choose to himselfe an Arbiter for Arbiters are not to be chosen by the consent of one only partie but by the consent of both yet the Apostle doeth not say that the whole Church of the Corinthians is by common consent of all to choose the Iudges of such causes as D. Schulckenius without any sufficient ground affirmeth but rather Saint Paul saith the cleane contrarie For these bee his words If therefore you shall haue secular iudgements the contemptible that are in the Church set them to iudge wherefore the Apostle speaketh only to those Corinthians who shall haue secular iudgements that is as Iustinian well expoundeth who shall haue controuersies strifes to bee debated and not to the whole Church vnlesse we suppose that the whole Church shall bee at strife among themselues and also hee speaketh with a condition that if the Corinthians shall bee at strife they shall appoint men to decide their controuersie so that the parties who shall bee at strife and not the whole Church vnlesse the whole Church shall bee at strife are according to the Apostles command or aduise to appoint men to iudge or decide their controuersie 17 But be it so that the Apostle should not say if you shall haue secular iudgements appoint contemptible persons to iudge and decide your controuersies but he should say because it may be and it is very like to fall out that you shall haue now and then secular iudgements therefore I will haue you to choose before hand by common consent same contemptible persons to iudge and decide those controuersies which shall heereafter arise among you which neuerthelesse were to wrest the words of the Apostle which of themselues are very plaine yet it is cleere that these Iudges were in power meere Arbiters or Arbitratours and had no publike and lawfull authoritie of themselues to giue iudgement to which the parties were in iustice bound to stand but they receiued their power and authoritie to giue iudgement and to make a finall end of controuersies from the parties who were at strife and who for the auoyding of scandall which the infidels might take seeing their strifes and contentions submitted themselues to their decision and arbitrement 18 That they were Arbiters or Arbitratours S. Chrysostome Chrysost in 1. Cor. 6 Almain de potest Eccle. Laica q. 1. cap. 10. Abulens q 96. in cap. 20. Mat. Salmeron tom 14. disp 9. Iacobus Almainus Abulensis and Salmeron a learned Iesuite doe in expresse words affirme And also that they had no publike power but onely priuate and if we may so call it compromissorie which they receiued from those priuate persons who werein suite and by their mutuall promise and consent gaue power to those Arbiters to iudge and make a finall end of their controuersies k in Apol. nu 271. I prooued by the authoritie of S. Thomas and the glosse of Nicolaus de Lyra vpon that place for that according to their doctrine the appointing of those arbitrarie Iudges did nothing derogate from the subiection and obedience which the Christians did owe to Heathen Princes and that they were bound to appeare before the Heathen Magistrate and consequently to stand to his iudgement when they should be called to his tribunall and that the Apostle doth onely forbid the faithfull Corinthians to goe willingly and haue recourse to Heathen Iudges in those causes which may bee determined by the faithfull 19 From whence it euidently followeth that the power of these Iudges was onely priuate arbitrarie or compromissorie and not publike for if they had publike authoritie to decide Secular causes without the expresse or tacite consent of the Secular Prince it must needs derogate from the subiection which they did owe to the Secular Prince neither could the Heathen Iugdes haue lawfull power to reuerse that sentence which was giuen by those Christian Iudges if the cause had bâ—ne before decided by sufficient and publike authoritie of a more eminent power and tribunall which must also be a derogation to their authoritie and to the subiection which in Secular causes is due to Secular Princes And this also Benedictus Iustinian doth very plainly insinuate when he affirmeth that by this any man may easily vnderstand that the Apostle doth not speake of lawfull iudgements which are exercised by Magistrates and publike Iudges by publike authoritie but of those who by the common consent to wit of those who are at strife are appointed debaâ—â—rs of ciuill controuersies and that this right and authoritie of the Apostle to command humane and ciuill things doth not repugne to the publike authoritie of Iudges and Magistrates for that no man is compelled to goe to the Magistrate if by other waies he may peaceably maintaine his owne right 20 By which it is euident that this manner of iudging which the Apostle commands was not legall or done by publike authoritie and that these Iudges were not Magistrates and who had publike authoritie And therefore although these arbitrarie Iudges were appointed by the declaratiue commandement of the Apostle for the auoyding of scandall yet their power was only priuate and compromissorie and was giuen them by the mutuall consent of both parties in so much that if either of the parties who were in suite would not haue obeyed the Apostles commandement admitted of those Arbiters but would haue had recourse to the tribunal of the Heathen Magistrate although by disobeying the Apostles commandement and by scandalizing Christian Religion he should haue greatly offended yet he should not haue offended against iustice in wronging either of those Christian Iudges or the other partie that would not willingly goe to the Heathen Magistrate against which without doubt he should haue offended if hee had refused to obey the sentence of his lawfull and legall Iudge and who had full power and authoritie to decide and end the cause 21 And by this it is very cleere that my Aduersaries conclusion is very vntrue to wit that the Apostle did intermeddle in the temporall and politike gouernment which then belonged to the Pagan Emperour for this had bene to derogate from the ciuill subiection due to temporall Princes but he did onely intermeddle with the priuate and peaceable composition of secular controuersies among the faithfull Corinthians which euery Christian without any publike authoritie or any preiudice to the same might doe and which the Apostle by his Apostolicall
scandall but also against obedience and against legall and morall iustice by declining the iudgement of their lawfull Superiours and Iudges and by wronging their Aduersarie in drawing him against his will from the tribunall of his lawfull Iudge and who had good and sufficient authoritie to make a small end of his suite 27 But considering that these Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint were not lawfull and proper Superiours and Iudges but only Arbaratours and consequently to whose iudgement they were not bound to stand by vertue of any subiection and obedience due to them but only by reason of scandall whereon the declaratiue precept of the Apostle was only grounded and which scandall being taken away the commandement of the Apostle doth also cease this difficultie is easily cleared For albeit it was very scandalous and therefore iustly reprehended by the Apostle that the faithfull Corinthians should of their owne accord without any necessitie for in that case Disp Theol. c. 10. s 3. nu 10. Salmer tom 8. tract 29. in Euang. as I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation out of Alphonsus Salmeron the actiue scandall doth cease and if it be any scandall it is not giuen but taken goe to the tribunalls of Heathen Magistrates yet it is not scandalous to appeare before them when they are called for in this case they must of necessitie by vertue of their subiection appeare and so the scandall ceaseth which would still remaine by their appearing if those Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint had beene true and lawfull Superiours and Iudges for then they had also beene bound by vertue of their subiection not to forgoe the iudgement of their lawfull Superiours and Iudges and consequently not to appeare before the tribunall of the Heathen Magistrate in derogation of the authoritie of their Christian Superiour and Iudge And this may suffice for this point 28 Moreouer we read in the old Testament saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Nu. 4. pa. 31 3 Reg. 18. that Elias the Prophet had power to inflict temporall punishment yea death vpon the false Prophets of Achab whom he commanded the people to kill in his presence as also he caused fire to fall from heauen and consume the two Captaines of King Ochozias and their troupes 4 Reg. 1. In like manner wee reade in the new Testament that the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul extended their spirituall authoritie to the temporall punishment of the body when it seemed to them conuenient for the glory of God and good of soules and therefore S. Peter stroâ—ke Ananias and Saphyra with suddaine death Act. 6. and S. Paul depriued Elymas the Magician of his sight Act. 13. 1. Cor. 5. and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to the deuill to be bodily 〈◊〉 and tormented for the example and terrour of others vt spiritus saluus fiat that his soule might be saued and the same iudgements and corporall punishments these Apostles might no doubt as lawfully haue executed vpon any Prince in the world if hee had then beene a Christian and giuen the like occasion 29 But who would not wonder that any man of ordinarie iudgment should from an extraordinarie and miraculous power of the Apostles yea and of the Prophets who were no Priests or from a speciall command or inspiration of God to kill men and to doe other miracles inferre that the Pope hath an ordinarie Pastorall and Episcopall power to doe the like as are those examples which my Aduersarie bringeth of Elias the Prophet who was no Priest and by the commandement of God o 3. Reg. 18. ver 36. Abul in 3. Reg. 18. q. 35 and not by any ordinarie authoritie or iurisdiction caused the false prophets of Ashab to be slaine and by miracle caused fire to fall from heauen to consume the two captaines of King Ochozias and their troupes and of S. Peter who by miracle either killed Ananias and Saphyra or foretold their death and of S. Paul who also by miracle depriued Elymas of his sight or foretold his blindnesse and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to the deuill to bee bodily vexed and tormented which manner of deliuering men to Satan did proceede from an extraordinarie and miraculous power giuen to the Apostles and not from any ordinarie power which was to descend to all their Successours But of these examples I shall haue occasion to speake againe beneath p Cap. 6. 30 And the same iudgements and corporall punishments saith Mr. Fitzherbert might no doubt these Apostles as lawfully haue executed vpon any Prince in the world if hee had beene a Christian and giuen the like occasion But first I meruaile why he addeth that condition if he had then beene a Christian for the example of Elymas who was no Christian doth proue that the same iudgements and corporall punishments they might haue executed not only vpon Christians but also vpon infidels Besides if any one will reduce those examples to a dialecticall forme of arguing hee will easily perceiue that they are very weake and insufficient not to vse those his foule and vnseemely wordes of absurd impertinent foolish and ridiculous to proue that the Pope by his ordinarie Pastorall power can doe the like As that because Elias who was no Priest had an extraordinarie commission and power giuen him by God to kill the false Prophets and to cause fire to fall from heauen to consume those two Captaines and their troopes therefore the Pope by his ordinarie Episcopall and Pastorall office hath power to doe the same in the like cases and so of the rest that because S. Peter and S. Paul had an extraordinarie power giuen them c. 31 And all this saith my Aduersarie q Nu. 5. may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church to enioyne bodily penance to publike penitents as to attend to continuall fasting and prayer Tertull. de penitent Ambros ad virg lap sam cap. 28. and to lye vpon sackcloth and ashes as it may be seene in Tertullian S. Ambrose and others whereupon it followeth that if the Church may chastise a man in his body for the good of his soule much more may she chastise him in his goods and temporall state which are ordained by the law of nature to serue both the body and the soule as the Philosophers touch namely Plato Plato epist 8. ad Dionys who therefore aduised a Law-maker to procure by his lawes that the three kinds of goods to wit of the mind the body and fortune be sought and possessed in due and ordinate manner that is to say that the goods of the mind be preferred before the other two and the goods of the body esteemed only so farre forth as they may serue the mind and lastly that the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states be accounted no better then ministers and seruants of both the other 32 But first I doe
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
whosoeuer hath a flux of seede and is polluted vpon the dead as well man as woman cast ye out of the campe 20 So likewise it belongeth to the Priests of the new Law to declare what is the Law of Christ and to iudge what is heresie vsurie or any other crime forbidden by the law of Christ and to command temporall Princes to roote out hereticks vsurers and such like malefactors by the meanes of temporall punishments for all this doth not exceede the bounds of spirituall authoritie but it doth not belong to the Priests of the new law as they are Priests to giue sentence of death or to punish temporally heretikes vsurers or any other malefactours by inflicting temporall punishments but only to temporall Princes who haue in their hands and power the sword of life and death and who therefore as I obserued o Disputat Theolog. ca. 7. sec 2. nu 17. Bannes 2.2 q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine out of Bannes may pardon sometimes the punishment of death and punish heretikes in some other manner 21 And therefore to as little purpose also is that which Mr. Fitzherbert next adioyneth that God gaue also to the high Priest an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement in causes of doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters For I willingly grant that the high Priests of the old Testament had an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement at least wise for many yeares together in doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters which could not be determined by the law yea and a greater infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement then is now in the new law in doubts and controuersies of particular facts as whether they should ouercome in such a warre how such an inheritance of particular men was to be deuided c. Either because as well obserueth Abulensis Abulensis q. 3. in 17. Deut. in fine Abulensis q. i9 in cap. 22. lib. 1. Reg. in Defensor part â— cap. 41. the high Priest did iudge in the presence of some Prophet to whom the truth was reuealed by God or because they did know the secrets of things by the plaâ—es of the Priests vestement which was called the rationale wherein was contained doctrine and truth whereof we haue treated saith Abulensis Exod. 28. 22 Or thirdly as the same Abulensis obserueth when the high Priest consulted our Lord about any thing by entering into the Sanctuary in the day of Expiation which happened but once a yeere for on that day the Priest did speake vnto our Lord within the Sanctuary and did heare him speake in the Propitiatory as hath beene declared Leuit. 16. For therefore it was commanded that at what time the high Priest did enter into the Sanctuary no man should be in the Tabernacle to wit least he should heare those things which were spoken in the Sanctuary Thus Abulensis none of which wayes to finde out the truth infallibly in any doubtfull matter is ordinarily granted to the Priests of the new Law Neuerthelesse it can not from hence bee sufficiently concluded that the high Priests of the old Law had a soueraigntie of temporall authoritie or in temporall things but onely in spirituall for that as well obserueth the saide Abulensis p Q. 23. in cap. 11. Num. to instruct in the questions of the Law and to consult almighty God was a spirituall thing 23 But that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth that the Leuites and Priests were separated wholly from temporall and ciuill state in such sort that they had no dependance thereon is very vntrue and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth the contrarie to bee probable q Supra nu 6. For as I aboue obserued out of S. Bonauenture S. Thomas Abulensis and many other learned Diuines in the Olde Testament the Priesthood was subiect to the Kingdome and Priests were directly subiect to the King as Laymen were to wit in temporalls as it appeareth saith Abulensis Num. 17. where God said that Eleezar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue who was a Secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim yea and in the time of Moses Aaron who was the high Priest was in temporalls subiect to Moses and for that cause called him his Lord Exod. 32. although in spiritualls Aaron was greater then Moses Q. 10. in 9. Leuit. Moses saith Abulensis expounding those words of Leuit. 9. and Aaron stretching forth his handes to the people hee blessed them was in temporalls greater then Aaron because hee iudged the whole people as it is contained Exod. 18. Chap. and he commanded the people those things which they ought to doe But in spiritualls Aaron was simply greater then Moses For Aaron was the high Priest but Moses one of the simple Leuites Also because Aaron had directly a right to minister but Moyses had onely this for want of Priests but this hee had not by any order or ordination And if thou say that Moses was greater then Aaron because hee commanded him to doe these sacrifices and whatsoeuer he did I answere saith Abulensis that it is not inferred from this because Moyses did not therefore commaund these things as hauing authoritie to commaund by some Prelacie or Order but because hee was the messenger of God relating those things which God had commaunded whereupon it is not properly saide that Moyses did commaund but that hee did declare the things to be done 24 But if thou yet obiect that Moyses was greater then Aaron because Moyses did consecrate Aaron It is answered saith Abulensis that it is not deduced from this for therefore Moyses did consecrate Aaron because there was no high Priest that could consecrate him nor also then any inferiour Priests for that as well the high Priest as the inferiour Priests were consecrated and yet neuerthelesse this consequence is not of force this man doth consecrate that man therefore hee is greater then hee For the Pope is consecrated by a Cardinall Bishop of Hostia who is inferiour to the Pope and after his consecration the Pope doth command him that consecrated him So also it happened among the high Priests in the Olde Testament For except the consecration of Aaron which was done by Moyses who was no Priest to wit by ordination but onely by the speciall priuiledge of God as the same Abulensis declareth q. 7. in cap. 17. Exodi and except the consecration of Eleazar which was done without any ceremonies as we shewed at large Exod. 19. all the later consecrations of the high Priests were done by inferiour Priests therefore Moyses was not greater for that he consecrated Aaron but Aaron was greater and because as the Apostle writeth Hebr. cap. 7. alwaies the lesser is blessed by the greater it was fit that the blessing ouer the people should bee done by Aaron Thus Abulensis See him also q. 2. in cap. 2. Num. 25 Now Mr. Fitzherberts next argument is as insufficient as the former I added further
only be knowne by them who ought to bee annointed and that it might bee done more secretly it was done by them and so it was in all the aforesaid examples for Saul was annointed not by succession seeing that hee was the first King of Israel Dauid also was not annointed by succession for the children of Saul ought to succeede Iehu also who was not of the race of the Kings of Israel and he was annointed to ouerthrow the house of Achab 4. Reg. cap. 9. 3. Reg. cap. 19. and Asael was not of the issue of the Kings of Damascus and he was annointed by Elias to persecute the Israelites Thus Abulensis 3 So likewise the creation institution and deposition of Kings in that manner as the aforesaid Kings were created instituted and deposed were spirituall not temporall actions For the Prophets did not create institute or depose Kings by their owne proper authoritie or by any ordinarie power of theirs but only by an extraordinarie power as they were meere messengers and sent by God with a peculiar and extraordinarie message or ambassage to create institute or depose the aforesaid Kings whereupon they did not speake in their owne names but in the person of almightie God saying this saith the Lord I haue annointed thee to bee King or the Lord hath sent me to annoint thee to bee King or the Lord hath reiected thee that thou shalt not bee King and hath deliuered it to thy neighbour better then thy selfe So that the aforesaide creations institutions and depositions were onely declarations of the will of God which without all doubt are spirituall actions Neither from hence can it bee rightly concluded that therefore the Priests of the old law had authoritie to create depose or chastise Kings temporally or that Kings were subiect to Priests in temporalls because sometimes Prophets were sent by God as his messengers to declare his will and to tell them that God would create depose or chastise them with temporall punishments 4 And who would not blush to heare a man who taketh vpon him to bee learned and to be a teacher of others in such difficult and dangerous points of Diuinitie vrge such pitifull arguments to prooue matters of so great moment as is the dethroning of Kings and absolute Princes and the subiecting of them to Priests in temporall affaires A Priest hath power to blesse the King and all the people as it is vsuall at the ende of Masse therefore the King and all the people are subiect to the Priest in temporall things for without any contradiction saith the Apostle the lesse is blessed by the better The father hath authoritie to blesse his sonne who is a King and consequently supreame in temporalls therefore without doubt hee is greater then his sonne in temporalls One of the Kings priuie chamber is sent by the Kings expresse order to declare to one that it is his Maiesties pleasure to make him Lord Chancelour therefore without doubt one of the Kings priuie chamber hath authoritie to make one Lord Chancelour If God almightie had giuen to the Priests and Prophets of the old testament authoritie to denounce to the King or people concerning temporall affaires as is the creation or deposition of King and Princes not only what God himselfe had reuealed vnto them and commanded them to denounce but also what according to their owne will and iudgement they thought fit and conuenient then there might bee drawne from thence a good argument to prooue that Kings were subiect to the Prophets in temporall affaires but seeing that it was not lawfull for the Prophets of the old law in such cases to commaund or denounce to the King or people but that which by some cleare and assured reuelation God had commanded them to declare and signifie concerning such temporall affaires it is manifest that no colourable argument can be drawne from thence to prooue that the Priests or Prophets of the old law had authoritie to create institute depose or punish Kings temporally 5 Neither doth S. Chrysostome cited by my Aduersarie teach any other thing then that Kings are subiect to Priests in spiritualls and that the office of a Priests is in worth dignitie and nobilitie greater and more excellent then the office of a King for that a King hath power only ouer earthly things but a Priest ouer heauenly to the Priest are committed soules to the King bodies the King taketh away the spots of the bodie the Priest the spots of sinnes c. But St. Chrysostome neuer meant that Kings were subiect to Priessts and Prophets in temporalls or were to be punished by them temporally but hee affirmeth the cleane contrarie to wit that Priests and Prophets are subiect to temporall Princes Omnis anima c. Let euery soule saith he c Hom. 23. in c. 13. ad Rom. bee subiect to higher powers albeit thou be an Apostle albeit an Euangelist albeit a Prophet or lastly whosoeuer thou be for this subiection doth not ouerthrow pietie and hee doeth not say simply let him obey but let him be subiect And againe S. Chrysostome affirmeth d In that place aboue cited by my Aduersarie l. 2. de Sacer. â—nto med that a Priest hath not so great power granted him to punish delinquents and to compell a man to change his euill manners as a temporall Iudge hath to wit by forcing him with temporall punishments but only by reproouing and giuing a free admonition not by raising armes by vsing targets by shaking a lance by shooting arrowes by casting darts but onely saith hee againe by reproouing and giuing a free admonition 6 Neither also can Mr. Fitzherbert sufficiently conuince that when Dauid was first annointed by Samuel Saul was forthwith depriued of his Regall authoritie or right to reigne but onely that Dauid was instituted the future King and heire apparant to the Crowne and to succeede him after his death as likewise when Salomon was annointed King Dauid was not thereby depriued of his Regall authoritie but only Salomon was declared to be the future King and to succeede Dauid in the kingdome But howsoeuer it be it is little to the present controuersie whether Saul after Dauid was annointed by Samuel was true King de facto de iure or Dauid King de iure Salomon de facto for that Samuel in that businesse was only a messenger of GOD and did nothing by his owne proper authoritie but onely what GOD by a peculiar reuelation did commaund him to doe And so if almightie GOD should now in the new Testament by any vndoubted reuelation command a Priest to deliuer this message to such a King that for the sinnes hee had committed hee would depriue him of his kingdome and giue it to another mor vertuous then hee no man will deny but that this Priest hat good and full power and authoritie to doe that message but from hence to argue an ordinarie power to bee in Priest to giue and take away kingdomes were
haue vsurped the kingdome they wholy resigne that authoritie and submit their forces with their person to the iudgement of those who may lawfully giue the kingdome or vnlesse after they haue by tyrannie obtained the kingdome they with their progenie doe by prescription get a lawfull right to the Soueraigntie by possessing it a hundred yeeres or more 35 Secondly there is no likelihood that if Athalia had demanded the consent of the people or common wealth whereof neuerthelesse there is no mention made in the holy Scripture they would haue giuen their free hearty and willing consent thereunto And first as noteth Abulensis t Q. 4 i cap. 11. lib. 4. reg for that she was a woman and it was a disgrace to them to haue a woman who especially had no title to the kingdome to rule ouer them by their owne free and voluntarie consent Secondly for that she was greatly hated by the people both because she had most barbarously murthered her owne sonnes children and all of the blood Royall and also for that she was daughter to Achab whom the people of Iuda did grieuously hate because by the meanes of his issue many mischiefes happened to them to wit for that the house of Achab had instructed the Kings of Iuda in euill and for this the people of Iuda suffered many euills for the sinnes of their Kings as it fell out in the time of Ioram who was a most wicked man by reason of the alliance hee had made with the house of Achab for this Ioram married this wicked Athalia who was daughter to Achab and for this God sent enemies into the land of Iuda who destroyed a great part thereof and they spoiled all the substance that was found in the Kings house as it may be seene 2. Paralip 21. 36 Moreouer seeing that there had beene so long strife and contention betwixt the tribe of Iuda and the people of Israel about the Soueraignitie for there was neuer true and constant amitie betwixt them and the tenne Tribes from the time of King Ieroboam to Achab the father of Athalia it is not credible that the people of Iuda would now yeeld vp the bucklars and freely without feare and compulsion giue there consent that Athalia a woman and not of their tribe an Idolater an Vsurper and who barbarously massacred all the Royall issue of the lineage of King Dauid should now reigne ouer them and sit in the throne of King Dauid to whom they knew God had promised that his seede should reigne ouer the people of Israel for euer 37 Besides that the people did not giue their consent heartily willingly and freely that Athalia should reigne ouer them or at the most that can be imagined only vpon supposition that there was none of the blood Royall left aliue it is manifest by the great ioy which all the people tooke at her death 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paral. 23. and at the crowning of King Ioas Laetatusque est omnis populus terrae saith the Scripture ciuitas conquieuâ—t And all the people of the land reioiced and the Cittie was quiet for that they saw their King saith Abulensis v In fine cap. 11. sit peaceably in his throne and because whilest Athalia liued the people were greatly troubled but now she being slaine all were quiet I said heartily willingly and freely because the consent of the common wealth in the approbation of such a King ought to be most free for if it be enforced from them by any feare or violence it is not be accounted a suffiicient consent but a constraint or compulsion as may easily be gathered from the doctrine of Gregorius Tholosanus before related and also because the contract betwixt the King and the Common wealth is a certaine kind of marriage wherein as in carnall and also in religious matrimonie by making a solemne vow to GOD in an approued Religion if the consent be not most free it can not be called a sufficient consent but a constraint and the contract is not of force before GOD as all Diuines and Lawiers doe affirme but the people of Iuda had iust cause to feare the crueltie of so barbarous a woman who feared not to murther her owne grandchildren and all the blood Royall and therefore by all likelihood would not spare any other that should resist her tyrannie 38 Lastly it is not credible that the people and Princes of Iuda would freely and willingly consent to such a new and exorbitant action as to make an Idolatresse their rightfull Queene without the consent of the Priests and Leuites and that the Priests and Leuites would giue their free consent without the priuitie and approbation of the high Priest whose office was to instruct and direct the people in all difficult matters concerning the law of GOD But it is euident that the high Priest neither did nor would his free consent if it had beene demaunded to such a wicked action both for that he should haue beene a traitour to his lawfull King whom he kept secret in the house of GOD for feare of Athalia and also for that he should haue transgressed the law of GOD in honouring an Idolatresse with the true title of a lawfull Queene who was to be put to death according to the law which is not to be presumed of so holy a man as Ioiada was whose aduise so long as King Ioas followed he did not fall from GOD according to that of 4. Reg. 12. And Ioas did right before our Lord so long as Ioiada the high Priest taught him And therefore this consent of the people which this Doctour faigneth is altogether incredible and is neither grounded in the holy Scripture nor in any other probable reason Neuerthelesse I will not deny but that Athalia being the Kings mother and hauing in his absence the custodie of his Pallace treasure and forces and also hauing cruelly slaine all her grand children as she and the people also thought might haue many fauourers either for feare or gaine but that the people Princes and Priests did either in any publike assembly which representeth the body of the common wealth or also in their hearts without any such assembly giue their free consent to make that wicked Athalia their rightfull Queene it is altogether improbable and hath no colour at all of credibilitie 39 But be it so for Disputation sake that the people imagining vpon a false ground that none of the blood Royall and who by inheritance had a lawfull right to the Kingdome of Iuda were aliue were content that Athalia should be their rightfull Queene yet that this consent of the people did giue her a true lawfull right to the Kingdome the true King and rightfull heire being aliue as this Doctor affirmeth is a very false and seditious doctrine and iniurious to the true rights of all Soueraigne Princes who haue right to their Kingdomes by inheritance but especially of those of the Kingdome of Iuda which
kingdome they may and not onely may but also are a bound to kill such a King c. But marke his words I answere saith he a Pag. 560. that my Aduersary Widdrington hath sometimes falsly and slanderously obiected to Bellarmine that he should giue occasion to subiects to rise vp against their Kings and to kill them and nor he in plaine words doth teach the same For Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother and now her selfe a Queene reigned peaceably the seuenth yeere she was accused by no man condemned by no Iudge and yet Widdrington doth contend that it was lawfull for the high Priest who according to his opinion and words was a subiect to exhort the people to rebellion and with the Peeres and people to conspire against the Queene and to kill her 44 But saith Widdrington she had vsurped the kingdome tyrannically I answere Be it so but now the people assenting shee reigned the seuenth yeere Who gaue to subiects authority ouer their Prince peaceably reigning Who iudged at that time Athalia to be a Tyrant not a Queene if she did not acknowledge a Superiour to her Let my Aduersary Widdrington diligently consider whether it be not by farre more dangerous to the life of Kings and Princes and to the safetie of Kingdomes and Common-wealths to giue power to the people and to subiects to rebell and conspire and at the last to kill Kings whom they rashly oftentimes and falsly account Tyrants then to say that in the Pope as head of the vniuersall Church and Christs Vicar is a iudiciall power to iudge Kings and if the deserue it to depose them b Why doth he not adde also to kill them as Ioiada did Athalia For who maketh any doubt that Kings are safer if they be subiect to the Popes equity and grauity to which Christ hath subiected them then if they be subiect to the rash leuity the people to which my Aduersary Widdrington doth subiect them 45 Euery faithfull subiect saith Widdrington ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did by killing Athalia VVhat did Ioiada Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother hauing killed all the Royall issue as it was thought had vsurped the kingdome of Iuda possessed the same peaceably now the seuenth yeere Ioiada the seuenth yeere commanded her to be slaine she suspecting no such thing and declared Ioas to be King The same saith my Aduersary Widdrington euery faithfull subiect in the like case ought to doe that is euery faithfull subiect if he thinke that one hath by an ill title vsurped the kingdom may and not onely may but also altogether ought to kill such a Prince notwithstāding that he hath possessed the kingdom peaceably now many yeeres that all the people haue obeyed him many yeeres that this Prince acknowledgeth no Superiour that he is not rightly or as it should bee accused heard condemned to haue vsurped the kingdome by an ill title 46 I declare it by an example Let vs suppose that Elizabeth did by an ill title vsurpe the kingdome of England and that the same by all right was fallen to the most excellent and most holy Mary Queene of Scotland and after her to her sonne now the most excellent and most potent King of great Brittaine In the meane time Elizabeth possessed the kingdome peaceably for many yeeres and did gouerne all things belonging to Kingly function no man contradicting that shee was condemned by no man what doe I say condemned that shee was accused by no man to vsurpe the kingdome tyrannically what ought the subiects here to doe Euery faithfull Subiect sayth my Aduersarie Widdrington ought in the like case to doe that Ioiada did by killing Athalia that is he ought to kill Queene Elizabeth and to transferre the kingdome to Mary and her sonne 47 Behold O Kings and Princes you haue one who is carefull of your securitie So obseruant of your Royall Maiestie are they who doe violate and calumniate the Pontificall authoritie Euery subiect saith Widdrington not onely may but also ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did O miserable state of Princes whose kingdome and life is subiect to the iudgement of euery priuate man If Card. Bellarmine had written the like thing what tumults would not my Aduersarie Widdrington make what clamours would he not raise Thus writeth this Doctour 48 But how false fraudulent and vnconscionable is this Doctours Reply I haue most cleerely conuinced heretofore c Disp Theolog in Admonit nu 6. For I neuer affirmed as this Doctour most slanderously and shamefully imposeth vpon me that euery faithfull subiect if he thinke any one to haue by an ill title vsurped the kingdome not onely may but also ought to kill such a King I onely said that Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then that euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in the like case Nowe this Doctour cleane altereth the case and turneth it from the case of Ioiada in killing Athalia which was this Athalia daughter to Achab king of Israel and wife to Ioram King of Iuda and mother to Ochozias King Iorams sonne who then reigned hearing that her sonne King Ochozias was slaine by Iehu did cruelly murther all the Kings stocke of the house was Ioram as she thought thereby to vsurpe the kingdome her selfe But Iosabeth King Iorams daughter the sister of Ochozias and the wife of Ioiada the high Priest taking Ioas the sonne of Ochozias stole him out of the middest of the Kings children that were slaine and his nurce out of the bed-chamber and hid them in the temple where they liued with Ioiada and Iosabeth sixe yeeres in the which Athalia reigned ouer the land But in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage for all the time before both Ioas was very yong and now began to haue some vnderstanding and hee also feared the power of Arthalia and by little and little procured the fauour of the people and souldiers to take his part in so iust a cause sent for the Centurions and communicating the whole matter with them made with them a couenant adiuring them in the house of our Lord to wit that they would constantly take his part in putting downe Athalia and setting vp Ioas the lawfull heire and rightful King from whom Athalia had now six yeeres tyrannically kept the kingdome who going about Iuda gathered together the Leuites out of all Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Ierusalem 49 And then Ioida brought them into the temple and shewed them the Kings sonne saying to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reign as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid and all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of God Then Ioiada gaue order and commandement to the Centurions in what manner they should stand in the temple with their souldiers to guarde the Kings person which the Centurions performed according to all things that Ioiada had commanded
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
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
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
with his soule and that the body concurreth with the soule to the execution of all externall workes good and bad and shall be either glorified or tormented eternally together with it no man can with reason denie but that he who hath the direction and gouernement of the whole person for the eternall good thereof may punish the same as well in the one part as in the other as also in what else soeuer is accessorie to the said person when the same shall be requisite for the eternall good and saluation thereof So as reason it selfe may teach vs that the Apostolicall power and authoritie extended it selfe to the punishment not onely of the soule but also of the body and goods when occasion required And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of Widdringtons answeres concerning the law of God and Nature and therefore I will now briefly examine what he saith concerning the law of Nations and the Ciuill or Imperiall law which shall be the subiect of the next Chapter 81 But truely I cannot but wonder that Mr. Fitzherbert who is taken and commended by many for a man although not of any great Schoole-learning yet of a deepe and rare naturall iudgement should so palpably bewray both his want of learning and also his weakenesse of iudgement For by his owne argument any man of iudgement may conclude that a temporall Prince may punish his subiects not onely in their bodies and goods but also in their soules seeing that it cannot be denied but that he is their Superiour in regard not onely of their bodies but also of their soules that is to say of their whole persons wherein their soule is necessarily included and therefore for as much as euery Christian man is bound to serue his temporall Prince and obey his iust lawes no lesse with his soule and for conscience sake then with his body and that the soule concurreth with the body to the execution of all externall workes good and bad and shall be either glorified or tormented eternally together with it no man can with reason denie but that hee who hath the direction and gouernement of the whole person for the temporall good thereof and the publike good of the whole common-wealth may punish the same as well in the one part as the other as also in what else soeuer is accessorie to the said person when the same shall be requisite for the temporall good of the said person and the publike good of the whole common-weath So as reason it selfe may teach vs that temporall authoritie extendeth it selfe to the punishment not onely of the body but also of the soule when occasion requireth 82 Now what will Mr. Fitzherbert in his iudgement say to this argument Can he denie that a temporall Prince is not Superiour to euery person that is subiect to the lawes of his kingdome Or can hee deny that when a temporall Prince commaundeth his subiects to doe any thing that part which is principally commaunded is the soule which is capable of reason and therefore chiefly subiect to command and not the bodie which is not endued with reason for which cause neither the soule if it want the vse of reason is subiect to command as it appeareth in infants and mad men who although they should kill a man doe no more transgresse the law made against murther then if a wild beast should doe the same And therefore it cannot be denied but that as well a temporall Prince in order to temporall good as a spirituall Pastour in order to spirituall good is superiour to the whole person of man although the soule which is capable of reason and vnderstanding and not the body is chiefly subiect to the commandement as well of temporall Princes in order to temporall good as of spirituall Pastours in order to the spirituall and eternall good of their soules Moreouer a Christian Prince is to direct and gouerne by temporall lawes the persons committed to his charge not onely for their temporall good but also for their spirituall and eternall for that the end of a Christian Prince is also according to Card Bellarmines doctrine ſ In Schulkenio pag. 334. not onely temporall good and externall peace in the common-wealth but also euerlasting happinesse for which man was principally created and to which euery Christian Prince ought as much as lyeth in him to bring the soules of his subiects and therefore he may according to my Aduersaries argument punish them as well in their soules as in their bodies when it shall be requsite to the eternall good and saluation of the whole person Whereby you may see what little reason any man of iudgement can haue to repose his soule and conscience vpon the learning and iudgement of this man who here in a matter of such importance hath so grosly discouered his great want of learning iudgmēt 83 Secondly therefore◠the weakenesse of this argument will cleerely appeare and the confused and cloudie mist of the Popes Superioritie ouer the whole person of euery Christian man which Mr. Fitzherbert for want either of learning and iudgement or of sinceritie hath cast before the eyes of the vnlearned Readers will be easily dispersed and their vnderstandings cleered if they distinguish betwixt the directiue or commanding and the coerciue or punishing power both of temporall Princes and also of spirituall Pastours For to omit now Metaphisicall questions as in what consisteth essentially the person of man and how the person of man is distinguished from his humanitie or which is all one from the body and soule of man being vnited in one essentiall compound and whether the subsistence or personalitie of man be a simple or compound entitie a spirituall or corporall or mixt of both for if it be a simple entitie we cannot properly say the whole person of man as though the personality of man were compounded of parts which difficulties the vulgar sort cannot well comprehend and to take the whole person of man in the common vulgar sense as it is a particular or indiuiduall substance including both body and soule it is euident that the soule of man is if not onely yet principally subiect to the directiue or commanding power not onely of spirituall Pastours but also of temporall Princes for that lawes are not made but for reasonable creatures and who haue free will to obserue or transgresse the law And therefore although a temporall Prince hath power to force or punish the bodies of his subiects yet he cannot command their bodies because they are not capable of reason or vnderstanding 84 But we must not argue in the like manner concerning the coerciue or punishing power For considering that not onely the soule but also the body are subiect to punishments according to their nature to wit the soule to spirituall and the body to temporall punishments therefore as well the body as the soule are subiect to the coerciue or punishing power in generall according as it may inflict corporall
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
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
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
the end reason ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his decree touching the celebration of the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception was for that the Pope supposed that shee was sanctified in the first instant of her Conception And the same reasons Fa. Vasquez also bringeth Only hee vrgeth another reason taken from the wordes of the Decree of Pope Sixtus and related aboue by my Aduersarie to wit that the Pope in that Decree exhorteth the faithfull to giue praise and thankes to God for the wonderfull or meruailous Conception of the immaculate Virgin but hee could not call it a wonderfull or meruailous Conception vnlesse the B. Virgin were contrarie to the accustomed manner conceiued in grace and sanctitie for no other wonderfull or admirable thing could her Conception haue seeing that for as much as appertaineth to nature she was conceiued after the manner of other men and women 13 Iudge now good Reader whether this rash-headed ignorant man may not be ashamed to condemne so rashly the most famous and learnedst men of his owne Societie as hee condemneth mee of fondnesse improbabilitie and impertinencie for affirming so resolutely that without all doubt the end reason ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree for celebrating the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception was for that the Pope supposed her to bee conceiued in grace and sanctitie and that all Christian people by celebrating her Feast should giue praise and thanks to God for her holy and wonderfull Conception and contrarie to the ordinarie manner that other men are conceiued to the end that they thus celebrating her holy and meruailous Conception may by her merits and intercession bee made more capable of Gods grace But perchance Mr. Fitzherbert hath not read these Authours and then his ignorance and rashnesse is the more blame worthie in taking vpon him to bee a teacher and Censurer of others in these points of Schoole-Diuinitie wherein hee sheweth himselfe to bee so ignorant and if hee haue read them then his fraude is the more culpable to delude his Reader so shamefully in bringing arguments against their doctrine to taxe it of fondnesse improbabilitie and impertinencie and in dissembling in what manner they haue most cleerely confuted the same And therefore thou needest not much meruaile to heare these wordes so frequent in this mans mouth that my arguments and answeres are absurd improbable impertinent foolish ridiculous malicious erroneous yea and hereticall and then most commonly when they are most sound and sufficient and his Replyes most weake and fraudulent considering with what a bold face the silly ignorant man doth vnlearnedly arrogantly condemne in me my doctrine of fondnes improbabilitie and impertinencie the most famous Diuines of his own Societie 14 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert still harpeth vpon the same string to wit that the vndoubted ground and foundation of the Decree of the Lateran Councell is that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that the Canon supposeth this doctrine to be certaine this is the maine point about which wee contend for I haue euer denyed and hee hath no way sufficiently prooued but supposed that this decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell doeth concerne the deposition of temporall Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes from whom that Act had force to bind And although the Popes power to institute Feasts bee a remote ground and foundation of the decree of Pope Sixtus yet the immediate ground foundation of that Decree was the puritie and sanctitie of the B. Virgins Conception in honour whereof hee did institute that Feast as I haue shewed before And albeit I doe not deny that the Pope hath authoritie to institute Feasts in the honour of Saints and of sacred mysteries yet I deny that the end reason ground and foundation for which such Feasts are instituted is alwayes certaine and infallible and that those mysteries are therefore infallibly sacred as in this Feast of the B. Virgins Conception it is apparant by the testimonies of most famous and learned Diuines And lastly although I doe not deny that the Pope hath authoritie to canonize Saints or to declare them to be holy and blessed men yet Melchior Canus feareth not to say that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Pope may erre therein and the reason thereof hee giueth as I declared before because the ground whereon the Popes iudgement and declaration in such canonizations doth rely to wit the testimonies of men is fallible and exposed to errour And thus much concerning my second Instance now to the third 15 Widdringtons third Instance saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Pag. 197. nu 8. ad finem being of the nature and qualitie of the first is so sufficiently answered alreadie that I neede not to stand long vpon it hee saith that the Popes haue oft dispenced with Princes which had made a solemne vow of chastitie whereof he alleadgeth some examples and because very learned Doctours doe deny that the Pope hath authoritie to dispence in solemne vowes Widdrington inferreth as before that the doctrine whereupon those dispensations were grounded is not so certaine but that it may be impugned without sinne and consequently that the like followeth also concerning the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes which is the foundation of the Canon of the Lateran Councell Thus argueth Widdrington in substance 16 But in all this he is as idle as in the rest and shooteth his bolts at random and cleane wide of the marke impugning a generall Canon of an Oecumenicall Councell by some particular facts of Popes concerning particular men which facts both he and wee grant may be subiect to errour whereas not onely we but he himselfe also acknowledgeth the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost in the definitions and decrees of generall Councells as I haue amply declared before c Chap. 13. nu 1. 8. 9. 10. 11 And therefore to make a good Instance in this case and fit for the matter in hand hee should produce some Decree of a generall Councell or at least of some Pope ordaining the practise of such dispensations and shew vs withall that notwithstanding the said Decree some Catholike Doctours doe deny the Popes authoritie to dispence in vowes but this he neither doth nor can doe for if euer any such Decree had beene made the Catholike Doctours whom hee nameth would not haue doubted of the Popes authoritie in that behalfe as they haue done because neither the doctrine it selfe nor the practise thereof was euer decreed by any Pope or Generall Councell whereby it appeareth euidently that this his third Instance is suteable to the two former and as improbable and absurd as the rest of his arguments and answeres 17 But still my Aduersary persisteth in his accustomed fraud not to say falshood For neyther is this the third Instance which I brought to confront with Fa. Lessius his third
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
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
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
that they would bee the people of the Lord and after them doe immediately follow those words related by Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. Wherefore these last words which he bringeth for his onely ground are not so much to bee referred to the killing of Athalia as to the couenant made after Athalia was slaine betwixt Ioiada the people and the King that they would bee the people of God through which couenant made with God that they would bee his people they were mooued to destroy the house of Baal and his Images Therefore Cardinall Bellarmine doeth not well conclude from this place that Queene Athalia was slaine either by the proper authoritie of the high Priest as hee was high Priest or for Idolatrie in doing worship to Baal And although wee should also graunt him both yet how vicious it is to draw an argument from the killing of an vnlawfull Queene and vniustly vsurping the kingdome to prooue that a true King who is an Idolater may lawfully bee slaine any man that is not voide of naturall reason may presently perceiue Thus I answered to this example of Athalia in my Apologie 31 Now you shall see what a weake fallacious and slanderous Reply D. Schulckenius hath made to this my answere I answere saith hee r Pag. 558. that Athalia without doubt did tyrannically inuade the kingdome but seeing that shee ruled peaceably for sixe yeeres it is credible that by little and little by the consent of the people shee did get a lawfull right to the kingdome For so many Kings who are Tyrants in the beginning are afterwards by the consent of the people made lawfull Princes Surely Octauian Augustus himselfe who is numbred among the best Princes did oppresse the common wealth by force and armes and spoiled her of her libertie yet afterwards by the consent of the people hee began to bee accounted a lawfull Prince and did lawfully transfer the Empire to his posteritie Otho killed Galba Vitellius killed Otho Vespasian killed Vitellius Philip killed Gordian and yet they were all saluted Emperours by the Senate and people of Rome How did the Ostrogoths inuade and possesse Italie the Visigothe Spaine the Francks France the English Britanie and yet afterwards by the consent of the people they were accounted lawfull Kings of those Dominions 32 But any man though of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue the weakenesse of this his first Reply For first the maine controuersie betwixt mee and Cardinall Bellarmine as I haue often signified in other places at this present onely is whether it be certaine and a point of faith and by demonstratiue arguments it can be conuinced that the Pope hath power to depose temporall Princes and hee pretendeth to demonstrate the same and therefore hee calleth the contrarie opinion not so much an opinion as an heresie and his doctrine to bee the doctrine and voyce of the Catholike Church which euery Christian is bound to heare and follow otherwise hee is to bee accounted as a Heathen and a Publicane and now this Doctour for proofe of this his new Catholike faith bringeth a bare credibile est it is credible or which in sense is all one it is not incredible that although Athalia was without doubt an vsurpresse in the beginning yet afterwards by the consent of the people shee was lawfull Queene or did get a lawfull right to the kingdome as though a bare credibile est and sleight coniectures of his owne inuention are sufficient proofes to demonstrate a matter of so great moment as is the Popes authoritie to take away the kingdomes and liues of Soueraigne Princes who in temporalls are subiect to none but to GOD alone 33 Obserue now good Reader the reason for which this Doctour affirmeth that it is credible that Athalia did by little and little by the consent of the people get a lawfull right to the kingdome Because forsooth shee reigned peaceably sixe yeeres together as though either sixe yeeres prescription or peaceable possession is sufficient to giue to a most cruell Tyrant and Vsurper a true and lawfull right to the kingdome which he hath tyrannically vsurped especially the true and lawfull heire being aliue or thar sixe yeeres peaceable possession can be a credible presumption that the whole common-wealth hath giuen their free heartie and altogether willing consent that the said vsurper should be their true and rightfull King or thirdly that the common wealth can depriue the true heire and rightfull King of his right to the kingdome without any fault or negligence committed by him and giue it to another who hath no right thereunto For it is the common doctrine of the Lawyers Molina de Inst trac 2. disp 69. 74. as Molina well obserueth that ten yeeres at the least are required that a priuate man may against another priuate man get by prescription a lawfull right to any immoueable thing as lands houses or the like which hee bona fide with a good conscience possesseth and to get a lawfull right by prescription to those lands or houses which belong to the Crowne and yet may bee prescribed by a priuate man are required a hundred yeeres for those things which are intrinsecally due and proper to the Prince in signe of subiection due to him by his subiects as is the paying of tributes and which doe belong intrinsecally to his supreame temporall power as to punish offenders to bee subiect to the lawes to appeale to him from inferiour Iudges cannot by any subiect by continuall possession of neuer so long a time be prescribed besides that it is a common and approued rule of the law Å¿ Regula possessor de Reg. iuris in 60. and all Diuines that write de Iust Iure as Sotus Salon Aragona c. that whosoeuer possesseth any thing with a bad conscience can neuer prescribe or get a lawfull right to the thing which he possesseth See Molina tract 2. de Iustitia disput 72. 73. 74. and Lessius disp 2. cap. 6. dub 8. 12. 34 And therefore can any man be so senselesse as to imagine that only sixe yeeres possession are sufficient for a notorious tyrant and manifest vsurper who therefore can not with any probable presumption be thought to possesse with a good conscience the kingdome to get by prescription a lawfull right to a whole Realme against the true and rightfull heire who is liuing There is this deceipt Gregor Tholos lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 7. num 4. saith Gregorius Tholosanus of Tyrants or Vsurpers that after they haue inuaded the kingdome they would be partakers of the titles or rights of the true Princes whom they haue dethroned by vsing the generall Assemblies of the people or by forcing the authoritie of some Superiour which neuerthelesse doth not make them not to be true Tyrants and not to be contained in the lawes of Tyrants vnlesse as some are of opinion after they