the old Testament Priests did make warre and fight with the rest of the Israelites against their enemies but in the new Testament Priests doe abstaine from the shedding of blood and if they find any to be worthy of death they deliuer them ouer to the Secular power to be punished But this I say is nothing at all to the purpose For my argument was not concerning inferiour Priests but onely concerning the Pope neither also what Popes in practise and de facto doe but what according to the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to doe Now it is euident and approoued by the common consent of Catholike Diuines that the shedding of blood is not by the institution of Christ forbidden either the Pope or inferiour Bishops and Priests who therefore with the Popes licence make warre and concurre directly to the effusion of blood as oftentimes they haue done yea now at Rome all effusion of blood by a iuridicall sentence and condemning malefactours to death and all making of warres by the Popes subiects are deriued from the Popes authoritie not as he is Pope but as he is a temporall Prince for that which I contend is that Priests neither in the old law nor in the new as they are Priests or by their Priestly power haue authoritie to condemne any man to death or to inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment or the like 27 Secondly and principally to this example of Athalia I answered Å¿ Apolog. nu 366. seq that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did as Card. Bellarmine af firmeth in this place create Ioas King that is did giue him a right or true title to reigne which before he had not seeing that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by hereditarie right belong to Ioas presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously slaine although Athalia did tyrannically vsurpe the possession thereof For it is not vnusuall for one to possesse sometimes either with a good or bad conscience that thing whereof another man is the true lord or owner And therefore betwixt right and possession a great difference is commonly made by all Diuines and Lawyers Wherefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then what euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case For seeing that for his innocent life opinion of sanctitie and the dignitie of his office he was in great veneration among the people and Peeres of the kingdome his authoritie or fauour did preuaile so much with them that all men with vniforme consent would very easily be drawen especially by his perswasion to kill the treacherous vsurpresse and to seate the lawfull King who was vniustly detained from the possession of his kingdome in the possession thereof But this did onely argue the strength and power of Ioiada and his great fauour with the people and Peeres and not any authoritie in him to create a King who by right was not a lawfull King before 28 Wherefore from this example of Athalia nothing at all can by any true or probable consequence bee concluded in fauour of Cardinall Bellarmine because from the holy Scripture it cannot sufficiently be gathered either that Athalia was by the commandement of Ioiada slaine for Idolatrie but onely for manifest tyrannie for that shee had cruelly murthered the Royall issue and had vniustly vsurped the kingdome the true heire being aliue and therefore shee could not bee the lawfull Queene or that Ioiada the high Priest did command her to be slaine by his owne proper authoritie but by the consent of the King Peeres and people And therefore this example doeth nothing auaile to proue that true Kings and Princes albeit heretikes and Idolaters who are in lawfull possession of their kingdomes may bee depriued of their kingdomes or liues by the Popes authoritie 29 This second to wit that Ioiada the high Priest did onely by his aide and counsell sollicite and not by his owne proper authoritie but with the consent of the States command in the Kings name Athalia to bee slaine 2. Paral. 23. is manifest by those words And in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage tooke the Centurions c. and made a couenant with them to wit to kill Athalia and to seate Ioas the Kings sonne and lawfull King in the possession of his kingdome which shee had vniustly vsurped who going about Iuda saith the Scripture gathered together the Leuites out of all the cities of Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Hierusalem Therefore all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of GOD And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as the Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid which words the Glosse expounding 4. Reg. 11. writeth thus Heere is described the institution of the true heire whom also hee calleth the due King through the carefulnesse of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent and aide of the Princes and Nobles of the kingdome when it is saide And hee made a couenant with them Wherefore that commandement which Ioiada gaue to the Centurions to kill Athalia did proceede from that former couenant which before hee had made with them and the King And therefore as euery priuate subiect may and ought to command any man in the Kings name to aide him for the apprehending of a traitour to his Prince and Countrey without hauing any authoritie proper or peculiar to him to doe the same so it is not necessarie that any peculiar authoritie to command bee giuen to Ioiada onely for that hee with the consent of the King and the comon wealth commaunded Athalia vniustly vsurping the kingdome to bee slaine although wee should vnderstand that commandement of Ioiada of a commandement being taken strictly and not largely or commonly in which sense to command doth little differ from to counsell or perswade 30 But the first which is affirmed by Cardinall Bellarmine to wit that Athalia was slaine not onely for tyrannie but also for idolatrie albeit if this were true it nothing auaileth to prooue that a true and lawfull Prince although an Idolater may lawfully be slaine seeing that it is manifest that Athalia was not a true and lawfull Queene but an vsurper of the kingdome the true heire being aliue hee very insufficiently concludeth from they holy Scripture seeing that he relateth not truely those words which doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it and they brake his Altars and his Images doe not immediately follow either 4. Reg. 11. or 2. Paralip 23. the killing of Athalia as Cardinall Bellarmine vntruely affirmeth intending to proue from thence that shee was slaine for idolatrie but these wordes doe immediately follow her killing And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King
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
kingdome because he was vnfit and gaue him his brother Alphonsus the third for a Coadiutor and also he depriued of the Empire Friderike the second in the Councell of Lyons being declared an enemie to the Church 103 But first that King Ozias retained only the bare name of a King without any Royall right authoritie or dominion it is very false and affirmed by this Doctour without any colourable ground at all For the Scripture doth not only call Ozias a King after hee was infected with leprosie and recounteth the yeeres of his reigne in the same manner as he recounteth the yeeres of the reigne of other Kings who had not only the bare name but also the true authoritie of other Kings but it doth also affirme that the reigned all the rest of his life and that Ioathan beganne to reigne only after his Fathers death Sixteene yeeres old saith the Scripture Å¿ 2. Paralip 26. 4. Reg. 15. was Ozias who also was called Azarias 4. Reg. 15. When he beganne to reigne and he reigned two and fiftie yeeres in Ierusalem And againe t 2. Paralip 26. 27. And Ozias slept with his Fathers and they buried him in the Kings sepulchres field because he was a leaper and Ioathan his sonne reigned for him Fiue and twentie yeeres old was Ioathan when he beganne to reigne and therefore he did not reigne in his Fathers time and he reigned sixteene yeeres in Ierusalem 104 Ioathan saith Abulensis v 4 Reg. 15. â—â— was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate but Ozias was called King all the time he liued and vnder him is reckoned the time of the kingdome and the power or authoritie concerning those things which were done in the kingdome did depend on him although they were administred by Ioathan his sonne and beneath This Ioathan saith Abulensis was the only or at least wise the eldest sonne of Ozias therefore he did succeede in the Kingdome his Father being dead for his Father being aliue he did gouerne the Palace and sustained the whole weight of the Kingly labour Also x lib. 26 de Repub. cap. 5. num â— Gregorius Tholosanus among other reasons which he brought to proue that a Prince ought not to be depriued of his kingdome for that hee is or seemeth to be vnfit to gouerne the same he produceth this example of King Ozias Seeing that saith he also Azarias or Ozias for he was called by both these names King of Iuda was striken by God with leprosie for this sinne that he did not destroy the Altars of the Idolls after he was become a leaper he liued indeede vntill the day of his death in a free house apart yet he was not depriued of his kingdome but Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings Palace and did iudge the people of the Land at his Coadiutor And another cause of his leprosie is alledged for that he presumed to burne incense vpon the Altar of incense which was only the office of a Priest yet in both places it is said that Ioathan reigned for him only after his death but that before his death he only administred the kingdome in his Fathers name 105 Wherefore that which this Doctour affirmeth that the Kings sonne administred the kingdome with full power is equiuocall although the Scripture maketh no mention that he administred the kingdome with full power but only that he gouerned the Kings Palace and iudged the people of the Land for if he meane that he administred the kingdome with a full absolute and supreme authoritie this is very vntrue for this authoritie did belong only to the King in whose name and by whose authoritie he gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people but if his meaning be that he administred the kingdome with a full delegate power and which in some cases the King may communicate to a subiect who is onely an administratour and gouernour but not a King this I will easily grant Belike this Doctour will haue the Kings Protectour and Guardian in the time of his minoritie or who administreth the kingdome when the King is absent in some forraine countrey or when hee is taken prisoner by his enemie or when by reason of some great infirmitie hee cannot gouerne by himselfe to haue full absolute and supreame power and consequently to be in very deede the Soueraigne King and to haue Kingly authoritie to gouerne the kingdome which how absurd it is any man but of meane capacitie may easily perceiue 106 Neither from Iosephus can any other thing bee gathered then which the Scripture it selfe affirmeth to wit that King Ozias liued in a house a-part and his sonne Ioathan gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land For the words of Iosephus as they are related by this Doctour are not so bee vnderstood that Ioathan tooke vpon him the kingdome and to reigne for Ozias all the time of his life was King and did reigne as Iosephus affirmeth in the same place but that hee tooke vpon him to administer or gouerne the kingdome in his Fathers name who by reason of his infirmitie for which hee was bound by the law of God to liue in a house a part from the rest of the people could not conueniently gouerne the same But the words of Iosephus according to the Edition which I haue and which also Cardinall Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay followeth are these After the Priests had perceiued the leprosie in the Kings face they tolde him or if the word bee iudicauerunt and not indicauerunt they iudged that hee was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie and they admonished him that hee would depart the Citie as one polluted and vncleane And hee with the shame of his calamitie obeyed being so miserably punished for his pride ioyned with impietie and when for a time hee liued priuate out of the Citie his sonne Ioathan administring the kindome at length being consumed with sorrow hee dyed the sixtie eight yeere of his age and the fiftie second of his kingdome or reigne 107 From which wordes this onely can bee gathered that Ioathan administred the kingdome and gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people as the Scripture saith yet that Ozias was stil King and reigned although he liued priuate that is not depriued of his kingdome for he still remained King and did reigne vntill his death as Iosephus confesseth but priuately to wit he did not meddle with the publike affaires of the kingdome but liued in a free house apart as the Scripture saith which words Abulensis expoundeth thus y 〈…〉 And hee dwelled in a free house apart that is hee did not dwell in the Kings Pallace for he being a leper ought not to giue himselfe to businesses neither did he dispose of the kingdome but Ioathan his sonne and it is called a free house that is sequestred from all businesse and frequentation of people for none did resort to him but those who
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
the vniuersall 27 And therefore I haue sufficiently without altering the case confuted that maxime he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse by this instance of a priuate Priest who is contained in that subiect hee that can as a particular in the vniuersall for that a priuate Priest can doe the greater to wit can absolue from sinnes and yet he can not doe the lesse to wit absolue from debts from whence it followeth that the aforesaid generall maxime is not true and therefore neither the consequence of that argument concerning the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently to depose which consequence is grounded vpon that generall maxime can be good By which it is apparant that from that maxime it can not be rightly concluded that because the Pope hath power to excommunicate which is the greater he hath power either to depriue Princes of their kingdomes or to absolue subiects from their debts which are the lesse 28 Neither is the deposing of Princes or the discharging of subiects from paying their debts necessary for the spirituall good and publike benefite of the Church or which is all one to the saluation of soules although they were necessary yet seeing they are temporall and not spirituall actions they must be performed for the same spirituall end by temporall and not spirituall power And therefore that argument which my Aduersarie vseth a maiori ad minus that because a temporall Prince may absolue his subiect from the payment of his debt therefore much more the supreame spirituall Pastour of the Church may doe the same is of little worth for that the disposing of temporall things and the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the discharging of subiects from paying their debts doe belong only to the temporall power of Secular Princes and not to Ecclesiasticall authoritie which by the institution of Christ is not extended to the inflicting of temporal punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. but only of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall censures as I haue shewed more at large in the first part 29 To my fourth and last instance which was this He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse therefore a priuate Priest who hath power to giue the kingdome of heauen to wit by vertue of the Sacraments hath power to giue an earthly kingdome Mr. Fitzherbert answereth as before k Nu. 12. 13. pag. 46. that Widdrington changeth the state of the question transferring it from the Pope to a priuate Priest for albeit this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if we change the consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto my Aduersarie Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreame authoritie and therefore the argument would be good thus Potest Papa per plenitudinem potestatis c The Pope may by the plenitude of his power giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore he may giue an earthly for the later being a necessarie consequent of the former is necessarily comprehended in it because the Pope by the plenitude of his power hath as much authoritie and iurisdiction as is necessarie for the gouernment and good of the Church Whereupon it followeth that whensoeuer it shall be absolutely necessarie and behoouefull for the Church that he change or transferre a kingdome or Empire he may doe it and giue not only the Kingly or Imperiall title but also the right to the crowne as Leo the third c. 30 But Mr Fitzherbert doth also in this answere bewray his ignorance and want of Logicke as he did in the former for it is cleere that he himselfe and not I doth alter the case and change the state of the question For the question is not concerning the consequent of Lessius argument but concerning the consequence or that antecedent proposition and maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon his consequence or argument is grounded and therefore by changing the consequent the case or state of the question is not altered when the consequent is included in the antecedent proposition as a particular in the vniuersall as in the former part of this argument a Priest can giue the kingdome of heauen is included in the former part of that maxime he that can doe the greater and the second part therefore he can giue an earthly kingdome is included in the second part of that maxime therefore he can doe the lesse for that to giue the kingdome of heauen is greater then to giue an earthly kingdome And to make the case more plaine to the vulgar sort put the case that I should argue thus Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore sugar is pleasant to the taste the consequent you see is true yet the consequence is not good for that the antecedent proposition is false And if my Aduersarie should impugne my consequence and prooue my antecedent proposition to be false by this instance Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore chalke is pleasant to the taste and I should reply to this instance and say that he altereth the case changeth the state of the question in transferring it from sugar which is sweet to chalke which is vnsauoury would not my Aduersarie trow you according to his accustomed manner affirme that my reply is impertinent absurd foolish and ridiculous and send me backe to learne Logicke againe 32 Now you shall see how plainely Mr. Fitzherbert whiles hee vntruely chargeth mee as you haue seene with altering the case and changing the state of the question he doth alter and change it himselfe For albeit saith he this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if wee changet he consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreme authoritie c. But first it is vntrue and I wonder that Mr. Fitzherbert blusheth not to say that I ascribe the Popes power to the force of the Sacraments seeing that I speake not one word in my instance of the Pope but onely of priuate Priests And if I had ascribed the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace whereby we are made children of God and heires to the kingdome of heauen to the force and vertue of the Sacraments had this beene forsooth any vnsound or bad doctrine Will my Aduersarie ascribe the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace not to the force and vertue of the Sacraments but to the plenitude of his power as though the Pope by the plenitude of his power could without the Sacraments remit sinnes and giue iustifying grace If this be his meaning all Catholikes know what Censure this doctrine deserueth and it is in some sort agreeable to that which he said a little before that the Pope by excommunication doeth take away the life
of the soule which is iustifying grace 32 Secondly obserue good Reader how my Aduersarie himselfe altereth the case and changeth the state of the question and the reason or principle whereon Lessius consequence or argument which I did impugne was grounded For Lessius his argument was this The Pope can excommunicate Kings therefore he can depose them because hee that can inflict the greater punishment can inflict the lesse which proposition supposeth that generall maxime he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse and this maxime was the reason and ground of his consequence or argument Now my Aduersary changeth this reason and ground and flieth to another The Pope saith hee may giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore hee may giue an earthly but for what reason thinke you I expected that he would haue yeelded Lessius reason because hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse which reason by those foure instances I did impugne but he flyeth from this reason to another because the Pope saith he hath a plenitude of power by which hee may giue the heauenly and consequently an earthly kingdome Before he affirmed as you haue seene that the Pope hauing power to excommunicate Kings may depose them as well because the power to excommunicate is greater then the power to depose and this was Lessius his reason which I impugned in this Chapter as also because the temporall state whereof the Pope depriueth the Prince is ordained to serue the spirituall and therefore to bee disposed by the supreme spirituall Pastour so farre soorth as shall be necessarie for Gods seruice and the good of the Church and this is the reason which my Aduersary brought in the former Chapter and was grounded in that rule of the Law The accessory followeth the principall which I impugned in that place Now he yeeldeth another reason which is taken from the plenitude of power which the supreme spirituall Pastour hath 33 So that you see how he himselfe now changeth the state of the question and flyeth from Lessius reason which I impugned to wit that hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse to the plenitude of the Popes power which reason neuerthelesse is of small force and it is rather petitio principij or a giuing that for a reason which is the question For albeit I doe not deny that the supreme spirituall Pastour hath in spirituals a plenitude of power that is a full spirituall power to gouerne the Church which is the spirituall kingdome of Christ as likewise all Soueraigne Princes haue in temporalls a plenitude of power that is a full temporall power to gouerne their temporall kingdomes yet how farre this plenitude or fulnesse of spirituall power is extended whether to the disposing of temporall things and to the giuing or depriuing of temporall kingdomes in order to spirituall good as my Aduersaries imagine or onely to the disposing or dispensing of spirituall things as many other learned Catholikes are of opinion this is that which is now in controuersie betwixt mee and Mr. Fitzherbert and which he taketh vpon him by all lawes humane and diuine cleerely to conuince and therefore to giue that for a reason which is the question is to commit that fault which the Logicians call petitio principij 34 If Mr. Fitzherbert had argued in that manner as Lessius did to wit that the Pope by the plenitude of his power may giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore hee may giue an earthly because hee that can doe the greater can do the lesse then he had not altered the state of the questiō or changed Lessius medium or reason but then I would also haue denied his consequence and haue impugned that reason of maxime by those foure instances and infinite other which might be brought which do cleerely directly confute and ouerthrow that maxime But seeing that he flyeth from that maxime which Lessius brought for his medium or reason to the plenitude of the Popes power he both altereth the state of the question and also giueth that for a reason which is the question For I vtterly deny that the Pope by that plenitude of power which Christ hath graunted to his Church can I doe not say command impose or enioyne temporall things as temporall penalties but dispose of temporall things or inflict temporall punishments although it bee imagined that they are necessary as they are not to the good of the Church and the saluation of soules it belonging only to the temporall power of Secular Princes whom Christ hath appointed to be Protectours of his Church to vse the temporall sword to inflict temporall punishments and to dispose of temporall things 35 Wherefore neither the plenitude of spirituall power in the supreme spirituall Pastour to giue the heauenly kingdome doth necessarily inferre a power in him to giue an earthly kingdome as a necessarie consequent of the former as my Aduersarie heere affirmeth although the supreme spirituall Pastour by the plenitude of his spirituall power hath as much spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction as is necessarie for the gouernment and good of the Church as it is instituted by Christ our Sauiour neither is the changing transferring or giuing of an earthly kingdome and the disposing of all temporall things absolutely necessarie for the spirituall good of the Church or which is all one for the sauing of soules as also my Aduersarie here supposeth from which necessitie for the most part he draweth an argument to prooue the aforesaid power to dispose of all temporall things to be in the Pope although sometimes he graunteth l cap. 2. nu 3. that the Pope hath the aforesaid power ouer temporall goods and States yea and of the bodies of all Christians so farre forth at least as it shall be conuenient for the good of the soule and of the Church which is a too too large and exorbitant extension of the Popes plenitude of power to take away the kingdomes and liues of Christian Princes and to dispose of all temporals for that as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth it is not absolutely necessarie for the good of the Church to resist the common enemie as is the Turke For if the Church sayth he m lib. 1. de Concil cap. 10 could conuerse * conuersari vnder the most cruell persecutions of Nero Domitian Decius and Diocletian why may it not also vnder the persecutiō of the Turks And although the disposing of temporal things the changing transferring giuing and taking away of temporall kingdomes were necessary for the spiritual good of soules or of the Church yet they being temporall actions and proper to the temporall power as God almightie hath distinguished in the Christian world or common-wealth the temporall and spirituall power by their proper actions functions and dignities they can not be performed by the spirituall but onely by the temporall and ciuill power which Christian Princes are by the law of Christ bound to vse in defence of the Church and for
by a peculiar and speciall promise of GOD was giuen to King Dauid and his seede for euer from whom Queene Athalia did not descend And therefore Fa. Becanus who in the former edition of his Controuersia Anglicana taught this pestiferous doctrine fearing belike least it would haue beene censured by the Vniuersitie of Paris as in very deede it had beene x As it may appeare by the Acts of the Facultie of Paris held in their ordinarie Congregation the first day of February in the yeere 1613. if some had not cunningly preuented the same by procuring it to be first condemned at Rome y By apeculiar decree against his booke dated at Rome the third day of Ianuarie 1613. by a speciall command of his Holinesse as containing in it somethings which are false temerarious scandalous and seditious respectiuely vntill it should be corrected was carefull that in the later Edition of his booke which was forthwith published this dangerous position should be quite blotted out And yet this Doctour following therein Card. Bellarmine in his booke against D. Barclay is not afraid most desperately and seditiously to renew the same But with what strang paradoxes and seditious doctrines these vehement manitainers of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls being so famous for their learning so reuerent for their Order so great in authoritie so potent by friends and so violent in maintaining their nouelties wil in the end infect a great part of the Church of Christ whereof these men are accounted to be the chiefe pillars vnlesse God by his infinite mercy preuent their exorbitant courses I tremble to consider and how little beholding are Soueraigne Princes to such extrauagant Writers who will also haue their people who are subiect to them to haue authoritie ouer them in temporalls and to take away their lawfull right which they haue to their Crownes and to giue it to another who by inheritance hath no true right thereunto and that without any fault or negligence committed by them any prudent man may easily perceiue 40 To conclude therefore this point that which this Doctor addeth concerning those Emperours and Kings who although in the beginning were Tyrants and Vsurpers yet afterwards by the consent of the people and of those who had true right to those kingdomes were made lawfull Princes are nothing like to this example of Queene Athalia and all those examples are particularly answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay z Cap. 38. paragraph 2. against Cardinall Bellarmine who also in the very like words vrged the same Neither can they be rightly applied to the kingdome of Iuda which by the expresse promise and appointment of almightie God was due to the posterity of King Dauid neither was it in the power of the high Priests Princes and people without violating the ordinance of almightie God to transferre the kingdome of Iuda from the race of King Dauid to another tribe and especially to an Idolatresse as was wicked Athalia who by the Law of God as being a subiect was commanded to be put to death 41 Wherefore this which this Doctor in the end adioyneth to wit that the Scripture doth manifestly teach that Ioiada together with the people did make Ioas King and they made him King 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. cap. 24. Ioas was seuen yeeres old when hee beganne to raigne where the beginning of his kingdome is put from the death of Athalia and his institution to be King and although before his coronation the Scripture called him King 2. Paralip 23. this was onely by anticipation as a designed King and therefore hee was first called King and afterwardes it is said he shall raigne because he was a King not present but future this I say is either a manifest equiuocation or a plaine vntruth for if he meane that they did make him King that is did put him in possession of his kingdome which was wrongfully and tyrannically kept from him by Athalia or which is all one they did make him King de facto or to raigne de facto this is most true and the Scripture doth plainely shew the same but if he meane that they did make him King de iure and giue him his right to the kingdome as though before their making him King he had not right to the kingdome and was not King de iure it is most false and also implieth a very seditious doctrine to wit either that those who are Kings by hereditarie succession doe not as other heires albeit they be in minoritie succeede in all their Fathers rights presently after he is departed the world or else that the people may depriue them of their lawfull right to the kingdome without any fault or negligence committed by them 42 And to this I plainely answered before as you haue seene in my Apologie by declaring the sense of those equiuocall words they created or made Ioas King sort I said in expresse words that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did create Ioas King as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that is did giue him a right to reigne which he had not before seeing that presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously murthered the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by inheritance belong to Ioas although Athalia did tyrannically keepe the possession For as soone as a King is dead the next heire apparant to the Crowne is foorthwith the lawfull King neither doth his annointing crowning or acceptance of the people giue but onely confirme his former Kingly right And this is so cleere that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor this Doctour if they be not the same person dare deny the same but such false and seditious positions cannot but by equiuocations with any shew of credibilitie be maintained If this Doctour had declared the ambiguitie of those words they did make him King as I did the Reader would quickly haue perceiued that out of those wordes of holy Scripture it cannot be prooued that Ioiada with the people did make Ioas King that is did giue him a lawfull right to the kingdome which before he had not but onely that they did make him King de facto and put him in possession of his kingdome whereof before he was King de iure although the possession was tyrannically kept from him by Athalia And thus much concerning the incredibilitie of this Doctours credibile est 43 Now you shal see how weake fallacious and slanderous are the other Replies of this Doctor to the rest of my answere For whereas I affirmed as you haue seene that Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then which euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case this Doctor very falsly and slanderously affirmeth that Widdrington doth heere in plaine words giue occasion to subiects to rebell against their Kings and to kill them and if they thinke that any man hath by an ill title vsurped the
them and after he had giuen them the speares and weapons of King Dauid which were in the temple with commandement that if any person should enter into the temple to disturbe them he should be slaine he brought foorth the Kings sonne and put the crowne vpon him and the testimonie and they made him King and anointed him and clapping with their hands said God saue the King Which noise when Athalia being in the Kings Palace neere to the temple heard shee went into the temple and seeing the King standing vpon the tribunall seate according to the manner and the Princes and the companies about him and the singers and trumpets neere him and all the people reioycing and sounding the trumpets shee rent her garments and cryed A Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason But Ioiada the high Priest commanded the Centurions that were ouer the armie not to kill her in the Temple but that shee should bee slaine with the sword without and that whosoeuer should follow her should bee stroken with the sword And they laid hands vpon her and when shee was entred within the gate of the horses of the Kings house they killed her there Thus it its written 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. 50 This therefore as you see was the case of Ioiada in commanding Athalia to bee slaine Ioiada not onely being the high Priest and therefore next in authoritie to the King for that next to the King there was none greater among the people then the high Priest d Abul q. 15. in c. 11. l. 4. Reg. but also being the Kings vncle by his wife and the Kings Protectour and Guardian did put in possession of the kingdome of Iuda Ioas the Kings sonne being but seuen yeeres old to whom the kingdome by the right of inheritance did appertaine whom hee kept secretly in the temple for sixe yeeres together and therefore did not onely by probable coniectures thinke but hee did certainely know that hee was the lawfull King and neuerthelesse before hee would accomplish the same hee communicated the matter with the Centurions and Princes of the people and made a couenant with them and hee also caused Athalia to bee slaine not onely for that shee had most tyrannically and barbarously vsurped the kingdome by killing all as shee thought of the Kings issue but also for that shee sought to make an open rebellion against the annointed King crying out in the Temple in the presence of the new crowned King of the high Priest being the King Vncle and Protectour of all the Peeres and people a Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason And this I say Ioiada and euery faithfull subiect in such a case that is hauing the protection of the true and whom for certaintie he knew to be the rightfull King not only might but also if it were in his power was bound to doe neither dare this Doctour vnlesse he will rashly and seditiously teach a most false and pernicious doctrine deny the same 51 But marke I pray you how learned Abulensis answereth to this question whether Ioiada was bound to make Ioas King that is put him in possession of the Kingdome to which he had right by hereditarie succession It was saith he e Q. 15. in cap. 11. lib. 4. Reg. a manifest sinne that Athalia should vsurpe to her selfe the kingdome Ioas being aliue to whom it did by lawfull right appertaine therefore Ioiada was bound to doe as much as lyed in his power that Ioas should not by Athalia be depriued of his right to the kingdome therefore he was bound when it did lye in his power to make Ioas King Secondly this is manifest because Ioiada was in a certain manner by his office to make Ioas King because after the King there was none greater among the people then was the high Priest and then there was no King therefore it belonged to Ioiada as to the high Priest to redresse the agreeuances which happened among the people and this was the greatest agreeuance that the King should be depriued of his right and therefore Ioiada was in this bound as much of lied in his power to procure a remedy by annointing Ioas King to whom the kingdome did of right belong Thirdly this is manifest because euery man is bound to execute the knowne will of God forasmuch as it doth preiudice charity or some commandement of God but God had said that of the seede of Dauid there should bee Kings for euer and it was not against charitie or any other commandement of God alwaies to annoint Kings of that tribe therefore Ioiada was bound as much as lied in his power to accomplish that will of God to wit that hee should annoint Ioas King And this was that whereon Ioiada grounded himselfe when he annointed Ioas King saying to the people Beholde the Kings sonne shall raigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid 2. Paralip 23â— as though hee should say because God commanded that the sonnes of Dauid should alwaies reigne therefore we ought to annoint this for King who was of the stocke of Dauid 52 And as concerning the killing of Athalia the said Abulensis f Ibidem â— 20. writeth thus I answere that it was lawfull for Ioiada to command Athalia to be slaine For the cause was iust to wit for that she intended to kill the King seeing that she had vsurped the Kingdome and also she was guiltie of death for many other causes or she had slaine all the Kings sonnes and she was a disturber of the people and a corrupter of the worship of GOD seeing that she brought in the worship of Baal into Ierusalem and had made there a temple and had Priests Therefore any one of these things were sufficient that she might be slaine Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard of the power For that now that is the King being in his minoritie he was the Prince of the people as being the high Priest who was alwaies the greatest Iudge in Israel from whose sentence it was not lawfull for any man to appeale vnder paine of death or to contemne in any wise his commandement Deut. 17. Neuerthelesse the high Priest was subiect to the King in temporalls and might be iudged by him as the said Abulensis before affirmed where he assigned the difference betwixt a Iudge and a King Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard he now represented the Kings person For he made a couenant in the place or person of the King with all the people and with GOD and he represented the Kings person in all things for that he had hitherto kept him hidden and now he annointed him King but it was lawfull for the King to command Athalia to be slaine who had vsurped the kingdome therefore it was lawfull also for Ioiada who represented the Kings person in all things 53 Now I remit to the iudgement of any vnderstanding man although he be neuer so partiall whether euery faithfull subiect hauing great
power and fauour with the people and being the Kings Protectour and Guardian and presenting the Kings person in all things ought not to defend the true and knowne King against a manifestly surper and to command that vsurper to be slaine who in a manifest rebellion seeketh the crowne and life of the true and annointed King which was the case of Ioiada in commanding Athalia to be slaine How vnconscionably therefore and shamefully doth this Doctour both abuse me and also delude his Reader in misinterpreting so grosly those words of mine Therefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then which euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in the like case that is saith this Doctour euery faithfull subiect if he thinke one to haue by an ill title vsurped the kingdome not onely may but also ought to kill such a King c. As though this were the case of Ioiada whereas it is manifest that Ioiada did not onely thinke but also certainely know that Athalia was an vsurper and that Ioas was the rightfull King Besides he was the Kings Vncle his Protectour and Guardian and represented the Kings person in all things and also he proceeded orderly by procuring first the consent of the Princes and people in putting Ioas in the possession of his kingdome and afterwards commanding Athalia to be slaine for making a manifest rebellion in presence of the King sitting in his Royall throne of all the Princes and people crying a Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason for proofe whereof there needed no accuser or witnesse the fact being so publike and notorious but it was sufficient to vse martiall Law in this case especially seeing that there might haue beene danger in delay 54. Neither doth this giue occcasion to subiect to rebell against their lawfull Kings or to kill them but rather to defend the right of their true Kind and who is euidently knowen so to be and too put down a knowen and manifest Vsurper Neither doe I contend as this Doctour without shame offirmeth mee to doe that it was lawfull for the high Priest whom indeede I granted with S. Thomas S. Bonauenture Abulensis and other Catholike Diuines before g Sec. 1. nu 5. 6. cited to bee subiect to the King in temporalls to exhort the people to rebellion and to conspire with the Peeres and people against the lawfull Queene and to kill her but I onely contend that it was lawfull for Ioiada the high Priest and for euery faithfull subiect to defend the rightfull title of the true and knowen King against a manifest Vsurper especially if such a subiect bee the Kings Vncle Protectour and Guardian and hath the true and knowen King in his protection and custodie and representeth the Kings person in all things as Ioiada was 55 Neither is that example of Queen Elizabeth which this Doctour vrgeth to disgrace mee with our Countreymen to the present purpose Seeing that it was not manifest that Queene Elizabeth was an Vsurper as was Athalia but rather it is manifest that shee was the lawfull Queene considering that the Kingdome was left vnto her by the last Will and Testament of her Father King Henry and also that shee was accepted for lawfull Queene by a publike decree of the Parliament without any contradiction or claime of Queene Mary our now Soueraignes mother or of any other who might pretend a right to the kingdome And although her title to the Crowne had beene doubtfull yet I thinke my Aduersary will hardly deny that in case of doubtfull titles it chiefly belongeth to the Common-wealth or kingdome which the Parliament doeth represent to declare and determine whose title is the best As in the time of Schisme when two pretend to be the true Pope this Doctour will not deny that it belongeth to the Church whom hee maketh inferiour and subiect to the true and vndoubted Pope to declare and determine whether of their titles to the Popedome is the best neither doeth this expose the Crownes of Popes or Kings to the rash leuitie of priuate men 56 But rather this Doctour seemeth heere to insinuate diuers very false and seditious positions As first that the people may depriue a lawfull King and who by a speciall promise and appointment of God hath right to the kingdome of his Princely right and lawfull inheritance without any fault committed by him and giue it to a manifest Vsurper and who also as being a subiect is by the expresse law of God for many crimes to be put to death Secondly that if a manifest Vsurper possesse the kingdome peaceably for sixe yeeres together the true and rightfull King then liuing so that the people fearing his crueltie doe not rise vp in armes against him the true heire is thereby depriued of his Royall right and the Vsurper hath now gotten a lawfull right to the kingdome Thirdly that an Vsurper making an open rebellion against the true and annointed King in presence of the King himselfe sitting in his throne of the Peeres people and all his armie the Kings Protectour and who representeth the Kings person in all things may not by the law of armes or martiall law the King being in his minoritie commaund such a manifest traitour presently to bee slaine the fact being so publike and notorious that it needeth no accuser witnesse or other proofe and especially when by delay there may bee danger of Conspiracie and tumults among the people All these doe euidently follow as you haue seene from Doctors Reply against my answere to this example of Athalia And therefore to retort his bitter inuectiue against mee to Kings and Princes backe vpon himselfe 57 Behold O Kings and Princes you haue heere one who is carefull of the securitie of your Royall issue or rather of those who shall tyrannically vsurpe their kingdomes So obseruant are they of your Princely Maiestie and of your Royall posteritie who so immoderately aduance the Popes temporall authoritie Euery faithfull subiect say they ought not to doe in the like case that which Ioiada did in killing Athalia that is if a manifest Vsurper shall cruelly murther your innocent children and so tyrannically inuade the kingdome euery faithfull subiect who hath preserued one of your Royall issue from cruell death and who is the chiefe Peere of the Realme his Vncle Protectour and Guardian and representeth his Royall person in all things and hath great power and fauour among the people ought not to put your sonne in the possession of his Crowne and commaund the Vsurper to bee slaine by the law of armes if he seeke to make a publike and manifest rebellion in presence of the annointed King Princes and people for this was the case of Ioiada in commanmanding Athalia to bee slaine O miserable state of Princes children whose kingdome and life is by the desperate writings of these men exposed to eminent danger If Widdrington had written such a thing what tumults would not this Doctour make what clamours would he not
conquered all Italie â—and before this translation his sonne Pipin was created King of Italie k Sigebert ad ann 774. and others â—nd he himselfe Patritius Romanorum which l Otho Frisingens lib. 5. cap. 28. Sigebert ad ann 781. and others as Card. Bellarmine himâ—elfe confesseth m Lib. 1. de Translat Imper. cap. 9. Lupold Babeng lib. de Iuribus Regn Imperij Rom. cap. 12. is the next dignitie to the Emperour Neither will I now â—ispute what reall difference there is betwixt the Emperour and an abâ—olute King concerning their supreme power and authoritie ouer their â—ubiects This only is sufficient for me at this present that supposing with Card. Bellarmine this translation to haue not only a titular but also â— reall effect whereof Lupoldus of Bamberbeg doth particularly treate if Card. Bellarmine will needes haue this translation to haue all it force â—nd validitie from the Popes authoritie alone and not also of the Romane â—eople or common wealth he calleth in question the right and title which the Latin Emperours haue to the Romane Empire in making it â—o be grounded vpon no so sound title or foundation as I signified beâ—ore cap. 3. num 48. See also that Chapter num 37. seq where I treaâ—ed more amply of this translation 63 But now to returne to that fact of Ioiada from whence with â—his Doctour I haue made this digression Ioiada saith this Doctour n Pag. 565. to â—aue done that which he did through the opinion only of his sanctitie and without any true and lawfull power Widdrington affirmeth we deny Hee â—peaketh of his owne head we follow the words of the Scripture Ioiada saith â—he Scripture 4. Reg. 11. commanded them the Centurions and souldiers â—aying This is the thing which you must doe c. And a little beneath And if any man shall enter the precinct of the temple let him be slaine And forthwith And the Centurions did according to all things that Ioiada the Priest had commanded them And againe Ioiada commanded the Centurions that were ouer the armie and said to them Lead â—er Athalia forth without the precinct of the temple and whosoeuer shall follow her let him be striken with the sword See also 2. Paralip cap. 23. 64 But still this Doctour persisteth in corrupting my words and meaning For I neuer said or meant that Ioiada did that which he did without any true or lawfull power this is a meere fiction of his owne braine That which I said was that all that Ioiada did either concerning the putting the true heire and rightfull King into the possession of his inheritance and kingdome or concerning the putting Athalia to death did not argue in Ioiada either any true authoritie to create a king denouo that is to giue him a right to the kingdome which right he had not before or any proper authoritie due only to the high Priest and which might not also be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case but that which Ioiada did concerning the killing of Athalia he did by the authority and consent of the King Princes and people and what hee did concerning her deposing he was bound to doe by the law of God of nature and nations For Ioiada was the Kings vncle the Kings Protectour his tutour and keeper and represented his person in all things and was the chiefe Captaine and Authour of all this couenant which he made with the Centurions Princes and people to put king Ioas in possession and to defend him from Athalia and therefore no maruaile that he as representing the Kings person gaue commandement to the centurions and souldiers how they should carry themselues either towards Athalia or any other in the kings defence 65 True it is that Ioiada might by his owne proper authoritie as he was high Priest command the Souldiers that Athalia should not be slaine in the temple least the temple whereof the high Priest had the chiefe charge should not be polluted by her blood but absolutely to command her to be slaine none could doe by his owne proper authoritie but he only vpon whom the weale publike common iustice and the temporall sword doth principally depend who only is the King in a kingdome from whom as from the head of ciuill power all temporall authoritie and command in his kingdome is deriued Wherefore I neuer meant that Ioiada did that which he did without any true lawfull and proper authoritie as proper is opposed to improper or metaphoricall but he did that which he did not by any proper authoritie of his owne which was peculiar to him as he was high Priest in which sense proper is distinguished from common but he did that which he did concerning Ioas and Athalia by that true and lawfull authoritie which might also be common to other subiects in the like case to wit to such subiects as are the chiefe Peeres of the Realme the Kings Protectors and Guardians and who represent the Kings person in all things 66 For two principall things Ioiada did the one was that he preserued the true and rightfull King and whom he knew certainely so to bee from being murthered by wicked Athalia and to that ende hee kept him secretly in the Temple for sixe yeeres together and in the seuenth yeere by the aide of the Princes and people hee did put him in possession of his kingdom which Aathalia had tirannically kept from him And this euery faithfull subiect in the like case is bound to doe and by the Law of nature and nations hath authoritie so to doe and the consent of all kingdomes and the authoritie of the rightfull King doth giue sufficient warrant to the same So that this authoritie was not proper to the function of the high Priest as he was high Priest but is common to euery faithfull subiect who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian and representeth the Kings person in all things The second was that Ioiada commanded Athalia to be slaine who endeuoured to make a publike rebellion against the true lawfull and now crowned and anointed King crying out in the presence of the King himselfe the Princes and the people A conspiracy A conspiracy Treason Treason And the authoritie also to commaund this was not proper to the function of the high Priest as hee was high Priest but is common also to euery faithfull subiect who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian and representeth the Kings person in all things And to teach the contrary to any of these two things is to teach a most false scandalous and seditious doctrine 67 This second to wit that the commandement of Ioiada to kill Athalia was done in the Kings name and by his authority this Doctor affirmeth o Pag. 567. not to be incredible because it happened after the creation of the new King neither would this saith he hurt Bellarmines opinion For Bellarmine doth not contend that hereticall Kings ought to bee slaine by the Popes commandement
but onely to be deposed But this is very vntrue For although Card. Bellarmine doth not in expresse wordes yet by a cleere and necessary consequence he doth contend that the Pope hath power to depriue hereticall Kings not onely of their kingdomes but also of their liues seeing that he contendeth that the Pope hath authoritie in oder to spirituall good to dispose of all temporalls and I hope that the liues of Princes are not to bee excluded from temporall things See aboue nu 9 seq And although Ioas was made King de facto by the procurement of Ioiada yet it cannot with any credibilitie be denied but that all the time that Athalia raigned de facto and vniustly vsurped the kingdome Ioas was King de iure and that the kingdome and all Kingly authoritie did by right belong to him 68 But Widdrington doth not vvell prooue saith this Doctour that all those things were done onely by the counsell and not by the authoritie of Ioiada For as the Scripture testifieth both 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. Ioiada called the Centurions together Ioiada armed the Souldiers Ioiada commanded that if any one should enter within the precinct of the Temple he should be slaine if any one should follow the Queene he should likewise bee slaine Ioiada as saith the Glosse cited by Widdrington did institute the King Ioiada crowned the King Ioiada commaunded the Queene to be slaine Ioiada made a couenant betwixt himselfe the King and the people that they should be the people of our Lord Ioiada commanded the Temple of Baal to bee ouerthrowne the Altars of the Idols to be destroyed the Priest of Baal to be slaine Ioiada set the watch in the house of our Lord c. All these things Ioiada the high Priest did but because he alone could not accomplish the whole matter he adiured the Centurions that they would helpe valiantly and faithfully and therefore he made a couenant with them for the execution Wherefore nothing is giuen to the Centurions but obeying and executing at the commandement of Ioiada The Centurions saith the Scripture did according to all things that Ioiada the high Priest had commanded them 69 But why doth this Doctour still corrupt my wordes and meaning why doth he omit that word propria authoritate by his owne proper authoritie which of set purpose to expresse plainely my meaning I did set downe I neuer affirmed that all those things here mentioned by this Doctour were done by Ioiada without true and lawfull authoritie but I alwaies added that they were not done propria authoritate by his owne proper authority to wit which was proper and peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by the authority and consent of the King Princes and people and which things euery faithfull subiect might doe and was bound to doe in the like case that is if he were the Kings Protectour and Guardian and represented in all things the Kings person and such a King whom he did not onely probably imagine but also certainly knew to bee the rightfull and vndoubted King and heire of the kingdome 70 Neuerthelesse I doe willingly grant as I haue said before and oftentimes in all my bookes I haue freely confessed that Ioiada by his owne proper authoritie that is by his Priestly power had authoritie to declare to the people the Law of God and to command them to obserue the same but not to constraine them by temporall punishment to the obseruation thereof and that therefore he might commaund them in generall to put Ioas in possession of his kingdome knowing that it did by the Law of God and by the right of his inheritance belong to him as being descended by a direct line from the stocke of King Dauid according as God almighty had promised to Dauid and Salomon But concerning the particular manner how Athalia was to be deposed and Ioas was to be put in possession of his kingdome which was not contained in the Law of God this I said Ioiada could onely doe by his aduice and counsell if we respect him onely as he was high Priest but if we respect him as he was the Kings Protectour Keeper and Guardian and represented the Kings person in all things this I said hee did by authoritie but not by his owne proper authoritie as he was high Priest and which could not be common also to all other subiects in the like case but by the authority of the King and commonwealth and as he being the Kings Protectour and Guardian represented the Kings person in all things And therefore I doe not deny that Ioiada did all those things mentioned by this Doctour by authoritie but not by his owne proper authority which this Doctor hath not as yet any way impugned nor will be euer able to impugne 71 That Ioiada did not those things by his owne proper authoritie but in the name and by the authoritie of the King with the consent of the Princes and people I prooued by the words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse vpon that place Therefore all the multitude saith the Scripture made a couenant with the King in the house of God and Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sone shall raigne as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid The words of the Glosse are these Heere is described the institution of the true heire the due heire and which ought to be the due King and which ought to be for all these names veri haeredis haeredis debiti Regis debiti the Glosse vseth by the procurement of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent of the Princes and Nobles of the Realme when it is said And he made a couenant with them 72 Marke now how cunningly this Doctor would shift of these testimonies That which is added saith hee p Pag. 568. concerning the couenant with the King is vnderstood of the future King to wit with him who a little after was to be instituted King as it is manifest by the same place for presently it is added And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne And the Glosse is against Widdrington for if heere be described the institution of the true King and to this is required the assent of the Princes assuredly Ioas was not King before albeit he was the Kings sonne For he that is King by succession ought not to be instituted but declared neither doth he neede the assent of the Princes Therefore Ioiada did constitute the King and depose the Queene but the Princes ayding and assisting him without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter 73 But if this Doctor had beene pleased to declare plainely the true state of the present question betwixt me and Cardinal Bellarmine as I did and not delude his Reader with ambiguous and equiuocall words the plaine trueth of this controuersie would presently haue appeared For this word King is equiuocal and may be taken either for a King de iure and
the old law the high Priest was subiect to the king in temporalls and might by him be iudged and punished with temporall punishments But if she were no lawfull Queene but an Vsurper as in deede she was then it is euident that Ioas was the true and rightfull King and that all ciuill authoritie did reside in him and was deriued from him as from the head of all ciuil power whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius himselfe confesseth x Pag. 339. ad num 169. and that therefore Ioiada who was the Kings Protectour and Guardian now in his minoritie and represented the Kings person in all things might be her Iudge both to depose her and also to kill her as a manifest traitour and vsurper 74 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth especially after she had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the whole state for sixe yeeres doe sauour of that false scandalous and seditious doctrine which D. Schulckenius taught before as though either sixe yeeres prescription were sufficient to depriue a lawfull King of his Princely right and giue it to a wicked vsurper or that the kingdome of Iuda either did depriue or had authoritie to depriue the true rightfull and certainly knowne King of his lawfull inheritance and Princely right and that without any offence at all committed by him 75 Neither is that to the purpose which Mr. Fitzherbert would haue his Reader beleeue to wit that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom hee should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth a Iudge absolue a man when hee is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power in both cases For I doe not deny that Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian and therefore representing the Kings person in all things was the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of Athalia and of euery other subiect in the kingdome but that which I contend is that although Ioiada was in spiritualls her Superiour and Iudge as he was high Priest yet in temporalls he was neither her Superiour or Iudge nor of any other subiect in the kingdome as hee was high Priest or by his Priestly authority but as hauing his authority deriued from the true and lawfull King in whom onely all supreme ciuill authority as in the head of all ciuill power doth reside And therefore this his consideration is not to the purpose as also it is not generally true For all Catholikes yea Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe y Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19 doe grant that in time of Schisme when two contend to be the lawfull Pope the Church is the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of both Popes and that it belongeth to her to determine of their right neither yet Cardinall Bellarmine nor my Aduersary will affirme that the Church hath the same authoritie and iudiciall power ouer the true and vndoubted Pope Likewise what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to Cardinall Caietaine and others of his opinion that the Church is Superiour to an hereticall Pope and hath authoritie to iudge him and depose him who neuerthelesse will not admit that the Church is Superiour to a Pope who is no hereticke Moreouer no learned man can deny that when two contend to haue right or a title to any kingdome if they bee members of that kingdome the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to them and hath authoritie to iudge and determine of their right and yet wee may not therefore conclude that the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to a knowne and vndoubted King 76 No lesse idle also is that which followeth z Nu. 17. p. 78. Besides that saith Mr. Fitherbert our Aduersaries must needes graunt either that Ioiada deposed her as her lawfull Iudge being high Priest or else that any peculiar man many of his owne authority take vpon him to depose and kill a Tyrant and vsurper which opinion was worthily condemned by the Councell of Constance as hereticall and with great reason for that no particular man can make himselfe another mans Iudge and much lesse the Iudge of a Prince Neither can there be any doctrine more dangerous to Common-wealths or pernicious to Princes states then that euery subiect may take vpon him to iudge when his Prince is a Tyrant and proceeds against him to his deposition or death 77 True it is that Ioiada deposed Athalia that is put her from the possession of the kingdome which she vniustly vsurped as her lawful Iudge being High-Priest but it is not true that he deposed her as being High-Priest or by his Priestly authoritie nor as a private man or by priuate authoritie but he both deposed her and commanded her to be slaine as her lawfull Iudge being the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his nonage and as representing the Kings person in all things and also with the assent of the Princes and people Neither from hence doth it follow that euery particular and priuate subiect may by his owne authoritie take vpon him to kill a manifest vsurper although S. Thomas a In 2. dist vltima q. 2. ar 2. ad 5. Caietan 2. 2. q. 64. ar 3. Sotus l. 5. de Iustit q. 1. ar 3 Solon 2 2. q. 64 ar 3. controuers 1. Aragon ibidem Lessius l. 2. de Iustit c. 9. dub 4 and many other Diuines are of opinion that euery particular subiect and citizen hath authoritie to kill not a manifest Tyrant in the abuse of gouernment but a manifest vsurper for in this case say they euery priuate Citizen hath sufficient authoritie giuen him by the consent of the rightfull King and also of the Common-wealth against whom this manifest vsurper doth continually make a manifest vniust warre and therefore it can not be called properly priuate but publike authoritie Neither say they is this doctrine aginst the decree of the Councell of Constance which doth not speake particularly of those who are manifest Tyrants by vsurpation but of Tyrants in generall comprehending also those who are true and lawfull Kings and onely Tyrants in gouernment For the proposition which is in that Councell condemned as hereticall scandalous and giuing way to fraudes deceipts treasons and periuries is this Euery Tyrant and consequently also a Tyrant onely in gouernment although otherwise a true and rightfull King may and ought lawfully and meritoriously to be slaine by any his vassall or subiect euen by secret wiles and craftie deceipts or flatteries notwithstanding any oath or confideracie made by them with him not expecting the sentence or commandment of any Iudge whatsoeuer which is in very trueth a most damnable and traiterous doctrine But that a manifest Tyrant by vsurpation may not be lawfully slaine by any priuate man hauing authoritie thereunto from the true rightfull and vndoubted King or from him who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his minoritie and representeth the Kings person in all things this is not condemned
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
from the law of nature or nations but in the order of nature from the ciuill or priuate lawes of euery nation as Suarez before affirmed for that as all histories acknowledge in this there was a great variety among all nations Baptist Fulg. lib. 1. as in Aethiopia saith Mr. Fitzherbert where the Priests determined of the life and death of Kings in such sort that when the Priests signified to them that it was Gods will they should die they presently killed themselues 43 But he might haue added if it had pleased him the next words following in Fulgosus whom he citeth in the margent that this custome of theirs did not alwaies continue Diod. Sicul. lib. 3. cap. 1. for it was abolished by King Erganes who liued about the time of Ptolomey King of Egypt who to the end his death should not be foretold him by the Priests hee slew them all and was the first that tooke away that custome Besides neither was this custome obserued among other nations as among the Romans the chiefe Priest or Bishop ought to keepe his hands not onely pure from all bloud but also he ought not to be partaker or priuie to the death of any man insomuch that if any condemned man did flye to him he was freed from death for that day k Alex. lib. 2. geralium dierum cap. 8. Neither did those Priests of Aethiopia properly put their Kings to death by authority but as interpreters of the will of GOD they did declare that it was GODS pleasure they should kill themselues and so this example is little to the purpose 44 Also in Aegypt saith Mr. Fitzherbert none could be a King except he vvere a Priest True it is that the custome of the Aegyptians was Stobaeus se 42. as Stobaeus also affirmeth to create either Priests or vvarlike men their Kings for honour and nobility vvas giuen to vvarlike men for their fortitude and to Priests for their vvisedome But he that vvas chosen out of vvarlike men to be their King vvas foorthwith made a Priest and partaker of philosophy or the study of vvisedome And no doubt but that this was a laudable custome and so much the more for that the King of Aegypt could not iudge Diodor. Sicul. l. 1. c. 6. but according to the lawes and the Kings themselues were subiect to the lawes of their kingdome yet this custome of the Aegyptians was not generall among other nations For although in times past Plutarch in quaest Rom. as Plutarch writeth Kings did the greatest and chiefest part of Sacrifices and they vvith the other Priests did concurre in sacred rites yet after they became to vvax insolent arrogant and cruell the Graecians for the most part taking away from them their Empire left them onely authority to sacrifice to their Gods 45 And the like custome saith my Aduersary vvas also obserued among the Goths whiles they vvere Paynimes That the Goths had this for a continuall custome that none should be their Kings vnlesse they were Priests I haue not read and that it was among them a continuall practise I can hardly beleeue both for that their custome vvas that their Kings should not be learned but among al nations Caelius l. 8. c. 6. the Priests were vsually the most learned of all the people also for that the contrary is signified by Ioannes Magnus in his historie of the Goths who writeth that their Priests werâ— of diuers degrees to wit Pontifices Archiflamines Flamines Salij Augures and that to their chiefe Priests See Procopius Ioan. Magnus in their history of the Goths Olaus l. 3 c. 8. l. 8. c. 15. who were called Pontifices was granted by them equall power with their Kings whose authoritie was so great that whatsoeuer they should either counsell or commaund both the King himselfe and the people did foorthwith wllingly execute as an oracle from heauen And no maruaile if it were so seeing that the reuerence which the Goths did beare to Priests althogh they were of a contrary Religion to them was exceeding great and to be admired insomuch that when they conquered any Citie they did neither violate Temple nor Priests and in the iudgement of all men they were accounted so pious and religious that they would not hurt any one that should flye to the Temples dedicated to God for succour or Sanctuary And when Alaricus King of the Goths otherwise a barbarous and cruell man inuaded Italie in the time of Honorius the Emperour and had subdued Rome before hee would giue leaue to his souldiers to spoyle the City he proclaimed by sound of trumpet that the bodies and goods of those persons Fulgos l. 1. c. 1. who flyed for refuge to the Apostles Church should not be touched and which is more to be admired the souldiers themselues in the very middest of the sacke and spoyle meeting certaine sacred Virgins carrying vpon their heads plate of gold after they were informed that they were consecrated to the Apostles did not extend their hands so much as to touch them Fulosus in the same place 46 And amongst the Gaules saith Mr. Fitzherbert the Druides vvho vvere their Priests had in their hands the chiefe mannage of publike affaires deciding all controuersies and iudging all ciuill and criminall causes Caesar l. 6. de Bello Gallico excommunicating such as vvould not obey them and those that vvere so excommunicated vvere abhorred and detested of all men But this custome of the Gaules proceeded from the priuate and ciuill law of that nation and was not common to all nations as you may see aboue in the Graecians who from their Priests tooke away the temporall gouerment and left them onely authority to sacrifice to their Gods and the great variety which was among nations concerning the authority of their Priests doth euidently conuince the same 47 I haue also signified before l Cap. 6. nu 10 saith Mr. Fitzherbert m Pag. 132. nu 6. vvhat authority and command the chiefe Bishops and Augures had in the Romane Common-wealth aboue the Consulls and temporall Magistrates vvhen consideration of Religion occurred in matters of State Whereupon Valerius Maximus saith Valer. Max. l. 1. c. 1. that the Romane Common-wealth alwaies preferred Religion before all things euen in men of the highest degree dignity and Maiesty and that their Empire did willingly submit it selfe and obey in matters of Religion esteeming that it should in time arriue to the soueraigntie of humane gouernment if it did well and duely obserue the diuine power Thus saith Valerius of the preheminence and soueraigntie of Religion in the Romane Common-wealth And for the time of the Romane Emperours most of them vvere extreame Tyrants and did condemne as vvell all diuine as humane lawes yet all of them seemed to acknowledge the Soueraignty of Religion in that they tooke vpon them the title and dignity of chiefe Bishops because no man should haue any authority ouer them as the
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
branch neither the Popes power to Excommunicate is abiured nor any sacriledge committed For hee who sweareth that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication to be denounced against the King he will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie although hee doth sweare that hee will obey the King being excommunicated because Excommunication hath not power to depriue Kings of their temporall dominions and Iurisdiction Apol. nu 346. as Becanus with many other learned Diuines whom I cited in my Apologie doth affirme yet he doth not sweare that hee will not obey a iust Excommunication as Cardinall Bellarmine doth ill conclude For albeit he beleeueth that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate hereticall Kings yet hee doth not beleeue that Excommunication being a spirituall Censure worketh this temporall effect to depriue hereticall Kings of their Royall authoritie to make Kings no Kings or to take away from subiects their naturall and ciuill obedience which by the law of God according to Cardinall Bellarmines owne doctrine n In tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. is due to all Kings although they be heretikes so long as they remaine Kings 20 Nowe Fa. Lessius argued in this maner You will say saith he that the power to excommunicate is not here denyed but onely a certaine effect of Excommunication which is that notwithstanding a Prince be excommunicated yet shall not the subiects be released from the bond of their allegiance But this effect doth necessarily follow the sentence of Excommunication as the practise of the Church for the space of more then twelue hundred yeeres doth shew To this argument I answered that by no practise at all of the Church it can be prooued that the absoluing of subiects from the bond of their alleagiance which by the law of God is due to all absolute Princes is an effect of Excommunication but at the most another punishment although sometimes imposed together with Excommunication as Becanus with many other learned Catholikes doe acknowledge concerning which punishment whether it may for any crime be imposed by the Popes authoritie vpon absolute Princes or onely vpon inferiour Princes by the consent of absolute Princes to whom they are subiect in temporals it hath euen bene and is also now a controuersie among learned Catholikes as by the testimonie of those two Authours whom I cited a little before o Nu. 13. and also of many others cited by me else where p in Apolog. nu 4 seq and in this Treatise part 1. per totum Becanus in q. de fide haereticis seruanda cap. 8. nu 16. Becan in Controu Angl. cap. 3. q. 2. Suarez tom 5. disp 15. sec 6. nu 3. it doth cleerely appeare 21 From hence it is very apparant sayth Becanus that heretikes by this precisely that they are excommunicated are not depriued of their dominion or iurisdiction either ouer their subiects or ouer their temporall goods but this depriuation is a distinct punishment and inflicted by a distinct law And againe It is one thing sayth he to excommunicate a King and another thing to depose him or to depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connected with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue bene excommunicated and yet not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and yet not therefore excommunicated 22 Excommunication sayth Suarez can not haue this effect to take away the dominion of a kingdome or of a people and the paying of tributes and doing seruices which are answearable thereunto concerning such subiects vnlesse an other thing be first supposed which is that the Lords be depriued of their dominion or the vse thereof because the dominion remayning still in it force it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey and consequently to communicate at leastwise as much as is necessary to fulfill their obligation according to the chapter Inter alia desentent excommun But Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect because as it doth not depriue of the dominion of other temporall things nor of the vse of them so it doth not depriue of this dominion because there is no more reason of that neither is there any law wherein this is specially ordained of Excommunication I say of Excommunication because this is sometimes ordained in the law concerning some excommunicated persons as heretikes yet by this speciall ordination we may vnderstand that Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect for when this effect is to follow it is necessarie that it be specially expressed in the law or sentence And therefore when this effect is adioyned I doe not call it an effect of Excommunication but a peculiar punishment imposed together with Excommunication as when an heretike is excommunicated and depriued of the dominion of his goods this depriuation is not an effect of Excommunication but a certaine punishment ioyned together with Excommunication Thus Suarez 23 We haue therefore out of Becanus and Suarez that the depriuing Princes of their dominion or iurisdiction is not an effect of Excommunication contrarie to that which Fa. Lessius saide Wee haue also out of Cardinall Bellarmine Bellar. in trac contra Barcl cap. 21. Pag. 202. and the same Suarez that subiects are not released from the bond of their obedience vnlesse the Prince be depriued of his dominion or iurisdiction for that to deny obedience to a Prince sayth Cardinall Bellarmine so long as he remaineth Prince is repugnant to the law of God and the dominion or iurisdiction of a Prince sayth Suarez Suarez in Defens fidei Cath. lib. 6. cap. 3. nu 6. remayning in its force and not being taken away it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey because the obligation of obedience sayth hee in any degree or state whatsoeuer doth so long endure in the subiect as the dignity or power and iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour for these are correlatiues and the one dependeth vpon the other So that you see how well these learned Diuines of the Societie of Iesus doe agree amōg themselues in assigning the reason for which this oath of allegiance doth containe in it a manifest deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and of his spirituall Supremacie And whether English Catholikes for so weake and slender arguments and wherein our learned Aduersaries doe not agree among themselues are bound to hazard their perpetuall libertie In Append. part 2. sect 4. and whole estate with the vtter ruine of their posteritie I remit to the iudgement of the pious and prudent Reader Thus I answered in my Theologicall Disputation which afterwards in my Appendix to Suarez I did more fully explaine Now let the Reader iudge whether this my answere to their argument be a vaine brag and an idle affirmation of my owne or a solid confutation thereof and whether I had not reason to affirme that learned men doe not blush to inculcate so often and secoldly without any solid proofe that very argument which
the necessarie good of their owne soules and of their subiects 36 Neither doe those examples or facts or Popes which my Aduersarie here bringeth or any such like sufficiently prooue a power in the Pope as he is a spirituall Pastour to change transferre giue or take away earthly kingdomes for that it is one thing sayth Card. Bellarmine n in Resp ad Apolog pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so likewise of Popes and an other thing to prooue their power right and authoritie As Leo the third Pope of that name o pag. 47. nu 13 Egmarth in vita Caroli Annales Francof anno 801. Paul Diacon lib. 23. Zonaras tom 3. Annal Cedrenus in vita Constant Irene sayth my Aduersarie gaue to Charles the great the Empyre of the West which was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift c. 37 But to this example I did fully and clecrely answer in my Apologie p nu 414. seq to wit that the Romane Empire was not translated from the Grecians to the Germans by the onely authoritie of the Pope but also by the common consent suffrages ordinance decree and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome both Clerkes and Laikes with the tacite consent at least wise of all others to whom it did belong amongst whom the chiefest of all was the Bishop of Rome who did not by his spirituall or Pontificall authoritie which he as Pope receiued from Christ cause that translation but as he being the principall member and citizen of Rome and of the Romane Empire did by his aduise consent solliciting procurement suffrage and authoritie chiefly set forward that translation and as he was Pope did by his Pontificall authoritie approoue it to be lawfull and no way repugnant to the law of God or nature for which causes he is said by many writers to haue transferred that Empire as the chiefe and principall Authour procurer and approouer thereof 38 And this I did sufficiently prooue in that place both by the grounds of Card. Bellarmine himselfe and also by the testimonies of those Authours whom he alledged For nothing can be concluded saith he q lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. by arguments taken from authoritie negatiuely For it doth not follow Luke Paul and Seneca doe not say that S. Peter was at Rome therefore S. Peter was not at Rome For these three were not bound to say all things and more credite is to be giuen to three witnesses affirming then to a thousand saying nothing so that these doe not deny what the others doe affirme Seeing therefore that none at all of those thirtie two Authours whom Card. Bellarmine brought for witnesses of the translation of the Empire made by the Pope doth deny that the aforesaid translation was done by the authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome and not onely three of Card. Bellarmines Authours but also many more whom I cited there doe most plainly affirme that both the authoritie of the Pope and also the consent decree ordinance suffrage and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome did concurre to that translation more credite is to be giuen to them who doe affirme that the Empire was translated by the Pope Senate people of Rome then to all the rest although they were a thousand who albeit they say that this translation was done by the Pope yet they doe not deny that it was also done by the Senate and people of Rome Thus and much more to the same purpose did I answere in my Apologie r See Apologie 427. seq 39 Now you shall see how cunningly and insufficiently D. Schulckenius doth shift of this my answere For whereas he is very diligent for the most part to set downe my words and text in particular when hee imagineth that with any colourable Reply hee can confute them yet here he relateth Cardinall Bellarmines argument drawne from the translation of the Romane Empire to the French men but hee altogether concealeth my answere thereunto and so passeth ouer twentie pages of my Apologie wherein both by his owne grounds by his owne Authours and many others I cleerly proued that this translation was done not onely by the authoritie of the Pope but also of the Senate and people of Rome and onely with a flourish of words hee endeuoureth to prooue by a Dilemma which as you shall see is neither to the question betwixt me and Cardinall Bellarmine and which I also answered in that place That I must either approoue Card. Bellarmines opinion or else cleerely contradict my selfe in my answere Wherefore although D. Schulckenius maketh this title of his foureteenth Chapter The answere of Widdrington to the rest of the examples which are taken from the facts of Leo the third c. is examined yet hee neither examineth my answere to that fact of Leo nor setteth it downe at all albeit he confesseth that I haue at large disputed thereof But this is all that he replieth r Schulck in Apol. cap. â— pag. 597. 598. 40 And of the translation of the Empire Cardinall Bellarmine hath exactly soundly and diligently written three bookes of a iust bignesse in so much that nothing doth seeme can be added thereunto Onely at this time I doe make this argument against my Aduersary Widdrington Either that translation was true or faigned If hee say it was faigned hee will bee ouerwhelmed with the voyces of all Historiographers and hee will take away all humane faith out of the world But if hee say it was truely done I aske againe whether it was done iustly or vniustly if hee say it was done vniustly first he will contradict almost all Catholike Writers for onely the Magdeburgian Heretikes doe blame it as one of the miracles of Antichrist Besides that hee will wrong all the Latin Emperours who from that time haue beene shall be as though their Empire is not grounded vpon a sound foundation Lastly he will reprehend all the people of the West yea all the world who haue hitherto honoured the Latin Emperour as a true and lawfull possessour of the Empire For also the Grecians themselues with their Emperour and the Persians as wee haue related out of Bellarmine in the former Chapter Å¿ Ad nu 390. haue acknowledged the Latin Emperours as true and lawfull Emperours 41 But if Widdrington say that it was done iustly I demand whether it was done by the authority of the Romane Bishop the Citizens of Rome assenting or also requesting it or whether it was done by the authoritie of the people of Rome the Pope assenting and crowning and blessing the Emperour chosen by the people or whether it was done by the authoritie of the Pope and of the people of Rome together If he will say that it was done by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome the Citizens of Rome assenting and requesting it he will agree both with the truth of
he affirmeth that the Church in no case can iudge an vndoubted Pope so long as he is Pope Neuerthelesse I neuer affirmed that when the Emperour doth abandon and forsake his Empire and people and refuseth to be their Emperour any longer but leaueth them to themselues it is not in their power to choose them an other Emperour or to change the Imperiall Monarchie into Aristocratie or Democratie for that then the supreme temporall power and authoritie is immediately in the people and this also I prooued in that place out of Card. Bellarmines owne principles 45 Wherefore when D. Schulckenius a little aboue affirmed that I doe oftentimes graunt that the people cannot in any case deny ciuill obedience to that Prince whom once they haue had if his meaning be that I doe graunt that he who is once a Prince can not of his owne accord leaue to be a Prince and can not resigne his kingdome to the next heire and that the people are bound to yeeld ciuill obedience to him who was once their Prince but now of his owne accord hath resigned his kingdome to the next heire he doth greatly wrong me and abuse his Reader for to affirme this were foolish and ridiculous and contrarie to all reason and practise but that which I affirmed was that it is very probable and defended by many graue and learned Catholikes that the people who are subiect can in no case nor for any cause iudge or depose their Soueraigne Prince against his will and my reason was the same which Card. Bellarmine oftentimes vseth to prooue that the Church or a Generall Councell can not iudge or depose the Pope for that it is contrarie to all reason for an inferiour or subiect to iudge his Superiour and therefore those Catholikes that holde a Generall Councell may in some cases iudge the Pope doe also holde that it is superiour and aboue the Pope 46 That the Grecian Emperours had the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned by them I affirmed in these words Seeing therefore that as Lupoldus or Ludolphus writeth and diuers other Authors as Nauclerus Aeneas Siluius and Michael Coccinius doe insinuate the Emperours of Greece in the time of Charles the great and also before his time to wit in the time of his father Pipine and of his grandfather Charles Martellus did reigne in the West Empire only in name neither could the Church of Rome nor other Churches of Christ or also any others being by the Longobards vniustly oppressed in the same Empire haue iustice by them or by their authoritie and so the aforesaid Emperours had the West-Empire in a manner forsaken by gouerning therein only in name as it appeareth by diuers Chronicles the Pope Senate and people of Rome at leastwise by the tacite consent of all other Westerne men who were subiect to the Empire had euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine but now related full right and power which they could loose by no custome or translation of the Imperiall Seate as being to them connaturall and due by the law of nature to choose themselues a new Emprour and consequently to transfer the Empire which the Grecians kept in the Westerne parts only in name to Charles the great and his Successours the Imperiall Seate being in those parts at that time as it were vacant or without an Emperour Thus I wrote in my Apologie e Nu. 438. 47 And moreouer that the Greeke Emperours had the Westerne Empire and people for forsaken and abandoned and gaue at leastwise their tacite consent according to that rule of the law qui tacet consentire videtur that they might choose to themselues another Empeperour at leastwise in power and authoritie it is apparant for that they did neuer repugne contradict or gainesay that Charles the great should rule ouer them although perchance it displeased them that hee should haue the name of Emperour Yea and as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe writeth when the Empresse Irene heard that Charles was called and crowed Emperour by Pope Leo shee did not onely gainesay but also she would haue married Charles and had done if certaine perfidious Eunuches had not hindered her as Zonaras and Cedrenus doe write in the life of the said Irene Afterwards Irene being dead Nicephorus the Emperour who did succeede her sent Ambassadours to Charles as to an Emperour as writeth Ado in this Chronicle of the yeere 803. And a little after Nicephorus being dead Michael suceeding him sent Ambassadours to Charles who likewise did publikely honour him as an Emperour as writeth Ado in his Chronicle of the yeere 810. All which doe sufficiently confirme that the Greeke Emperours did not gainesay this translation nor conceiue it to be a wrong done to them and in preiudice of their Imperiall right and Soueraigntie 48 By all which it is manifest first that I doe not any wrong at all to the Latin Emperours who haue beene and shall be from the time of that translation as though their Empire were not grounded vpon any sound title or foundation for that all writers and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe doe agree in this that the Pope together with the rest of the people haue power to choose them another Emperour in case the Emperour will no longer reigne ouer them because in that case the supreame temporall power and authoritie is onely in the people or whole multitude but rather Card. Bellarmine as also I obserued in that place f Nu. 462. doth call in question and make doubtfull the right and title which the Latin Emperours haue to the Empire in that hee affirmeth that they haue all their right and title from the Pope alone seeing that there be many learned and graue Authours who make a great doubt whether the Pope alone hath by the institution of Christ any such power and authoritie to transfer Empires but no Authour not so much as Card. Bellarmine himselfe according to his doctrine which I related in that place doeth deny that the whole multitude hath full power and authoritie to transfer the Empire in the aforesaide case to wit when the Emperour doth abandon the Empire and will no longer reigne ouer the people 49 Secondly it is also manifest that I haue not any way contradicted my selfe in my answere and that I haue cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds and by his owne Authours that the aforesaide translation was done by the authoritie decree ordinance and suffrages both of the Pope and of the people and consequently that the people did more then onely request applaude and assent to that translation to which D. Schulckenius maketh no answere at all and therefore his silence herein is both an euident signe that hee was not able to impugne my answere and that although hee doeth so highly commend his owne booke of the translation of the Empire as exactly soundly and diligently written yet his owne conscience for as much as concerneth this question seeth now the contrarie for that hee being so
plainly conuinced both by his owne principles and also by his owne Authours and diuers others that this translation was not done by the authoritie only of the Pope as hee pretended to prooue in that his booke of the translation but also of the people hee was engaged for the sauing of his credit to haue in some sort cōfuted my answere but to passe it ouer cunningly with a Dilemma not belonging to the principall question and which was also fully satisfied by mee in that place without setting downe any one word of my answere and so omitting contrarie to his accustomed manner aboue twenty pages of my text together doth argue no good and sincere proceeding And lastly it is also manifest what the Reader may thinke of my Aduersaries sinceritie who in this place doth so barely and nakedly repeate againe this argument without taking any notice of the answere which in my Apologie I gaue to the same 50 But the Empire of the West saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Nu. 13. p. 47 was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift and therefore Emanuel Commenus h Blond dec 2. l. 5. Platina in Alex. 3. Nauclerus generat 39. pag. 848. Emperour of Constantinople in the time of Fridereke the first vnderstanding of the dissention betwixt him and Pope Alexander the third sent Ambassadours to the Pope and offered him not only a great army with great summes of money but also to reunite the Greeke Church with the Latin if hee would restore that Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople 51 But neither Emanuel Commenus nor any other Greeke Emperour although from the particular fact of some one Emperour especially who was desirous to enlarge his Empire no good argumēt can be drawne to proue a right did acknowledge the Empire of the West to be the Popes gift in any other manner then they had read or heard from Historiographers to wit that the Pope was indeede the chiefe and principall but not the onely Authour of that translation And therefore Blondus one of Cardinall Bellarmines owne Authours doeth well affirme it to be manifest Blond decad 1. l. 3. in principle that the first translation of the Roman Empire frō the Constantinopolitans to the French Princes was done by the authoritie and consent not only of the Pope Clergy people of Rome but also by the suffrages of the people and principall men of all Italie Neither did Emanuel Commenus desire of Pope Alexander the third that he alone without the consent and suffrages of the Princes and people would restore the Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople but that he would be a meanes that it might be restored or translated to them againe as he was a chiefe meanes and principall Authour that it was translated from the Grecians to the French 52 In like manner saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Nu. 13. p. 47. the second translation of the West Empire from the French that is to say from the familie of Charles the great vnto the Germans was made especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike Bell. l. 2. c. 2. 3. as Card. Bellarmine prooueth cleerely in his Treatise of the translation of the Empire If my Aduersarie had said only by the authority of the Sea Apostolike he had spoken to the purpose but that word especially cleane ouerthroweth his argument For I will not contend with him at this present whether it was done especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike in that manner as I granted before that the first translation from the Grecians to the French was done especially chiefly or principally by the Popes authoritie but that either the first or second translation was done only by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike and not also of the people this I vtterly deny neither hath Card. Bellarmine in the aforesaid Treatise by any one sufficient argument prooued or is able to prooue the same 53 We reade also saith Mr. Fitzherbert that Clodoueus k Papyrius Maso in vita Henrici primi See Bozius de signis Ecclesiae lib. 10. cap. 12. the first Christian King of France being desirous after his Baptisme to make good and establish his right and title to that kingdome professed to receiue the same from the hands of the Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike But truly it is strange to see what strange arguments and voide of all probabilitie my Aduersaries dare bring for proofe of so great a matter as is the giuing taking away translating of Kingdomes and Empires For what Historiographer euer wrote that Clodoueus the first Christian King of France had no good right and title to his kingdome before he became Christian or that hee receiued his title right and authoritie to reigne from S. Remigius by commission of the Sea Apostolike and that he himselfe professed as much or that it belongeth to the Archbishop of Rhemes to choose the King of France if we will speake properly of choosing as though the Kings of France were Kings by election and not by hereditatie succession or that the right and title which the Kings of France haue to their kingdome depended vpon the election of the Archbishop of Rhemes or the Sea Apostolike If my Aduersarie were in France and would affirme thus much I feare me he would be glad to recant his doctrine in this point or to interpret his words in a better sense or else he might perchance to vse his owne words finde it to his cost 54 Neither doth Papirius Maso affirme as my Aduersarie and Bozius say that King Clodoueus or Lewis the first did professe to receiue his kingdome or his right and title thereunto from the hands of S. Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike neither could he with truth professe the same for that he was long before King of France and had true right and lawfull title to that kingdome before he was baptized by S. Remigius neither doth baptisme make good rights and titles to temporall kingdomes but as it depriueth no man of his temporall right and dominion so it giueth no man any temporall right or dominion but giueth him only a spirituall right and maketh him heire to the kingdome of heauen But all that Papirius Maso doth affirme is that when Philip the first of that name being but seauen yeares old was by the Archbishop of Rhemes consecrated and elected future King of France and to succeede his Father Henry then liuing and present at his consecration the Archbishop after he had declared the Catholike faith vnto him and Philip had professed the same and taken his oath to defend the Church and his kingdome taking S. Remigius staffe into his hands did quietly and peaceably discourse how the election and consecration of the King did belong chiefely to him from the time that S. Remigius did Baptize and consecrate King Lewis Hee did also
discourse how by that staffe Pope Hormisda gaue to S. Remigius this power consecrating and the whole principalitie or Primacie of France and how Pope Victor did grant it to him and his Church Then his Father Henry beckoning he chose him to be King after him 55 This is all that Papirius Maso writeth So that all the difficultie of these words consisteth in that word election which cannot be vnderstood properly and for that election whereby one is made King or heire apparant to the crowne who was not King or heire apparant before the election For the Kings of France before that time and euer since haue their right and title to the crowne not by election but by hereditarie succession but it is taken for the religious ceremonie of consecration and a solemne declaration of the Archbishop that the person whom he consecrateth is chosen or rather acknowledged and accepted by the whole kingdome for King or heire apparant to the crowne Neither doth the consecration and declaration or if we will improperly call it election of the Archbishop giue any more right authoritie or Soueraignitie to the King of France then he had before neither if hee were not consecrated elected or declared to be King by the Archbishop should he want any temporall right authoritie or Soueraignitie for that the Kings authoritie Soueraignitie doth not necessarily depend on the Archbishops consecration election or declaration although some of the vulgar sort of people may perchance imagine that he is not a perfect King before he be consecrated and annointed 56 As likewise the Pope after he is chosen by the Cardinals is true Pope and hath all Papall power and iurisdiction before he is consecrated or crowned Pope neither doth his Papall authoritie necessarily depend vpon his coronation which belongs only to a religious ceremonie and a complementall but not needfull solemnitie But this I vnderstand for this present only of those Kings who haue their right and title by hereditarie succession and not of those who are Kings by election as is the Romane Emperour and the King of Polonia For it is a question among the Lawyers whether the Emperour before he bee crowned by the Pope or by his commission is truly Emperour and hath full Imperiall power or no whereof and from whence this may proceede I will not now dispute and so it may perchance be a custome among the Polonians that the King elect is not accounted a complete and perfect King before he be crowned and consecrated by the Metropolitan but this may proceede originally and chiefely from the people or Kingdome in whom the supreme Regall authoritie doth reside vntill they haue chosen a King in which time of vacancie they may extend or limite his authoritie or make him with what conditions they please yea and if they will change the Monarchie into Aristocratie or Democratie which cannot be likewise said of those Kingdomes which haue their Kings not by election but by hereditarie succession of whom that vulgar saying is verified that the King doth neuer die 57 Also when Boleslaus King of Polonia saith Mr. Fitzherbert had killed the holy Bishop Stanislaus Pope Gregorie the seuenth did not only excommunicate and depose him but also commanded the Bishops of that Realme that they should not annoint and crowne any King of Polonia without his expresse leaue and order whereby he that succeeded Boleslaus had but the title of Duke which remained also to his Successours for the space of two hundred and fiftie yeares So as this matter is cleare not only in reason but also in practise and so hath been for many ages whereby it appeareth that the Pope may giue as well the earthly as the heauenly kingdome for the good of the Church by the same reason and power that he may depriue Princes of their states when they deserue it and the good of the Church requireth it 58 And thus thou seest good Reader how probably this man Widdrington hath impugned the argument of Lessius seeing that of foure arguments that he hath scoffingly framed to counterfeit the same and to prooue a bad consequence therein there is not any one to his purpose and some of them being truly vnderstood and vrged according to the true state of the question which he hath changed in them doe make directly for vs so that his scoffes doe fall vpon one but himselfe and his owne ridiculous arguments and therefore whereas he concludeth them with a gybing demand asking whether these and the like are not goodly arguments to perswade the English Catholikes to cast away prodigally their goods and to deny their fidelitie to their Prince I may with much more reason demand of him whether these and such other answeres and arguments of his are not goodly ones to mooue the English Catholikes to be so prodigall of their soules as to cast them away vpon his word by denying fidelitie and obedience to their spirituall Pastour who hath the charge of their soules 59 But it seemeth that his minde and hand is altogether vpon his halfe penny as the prouerbe speaketh seeing that he hath so great care of the Catholikes goods and so little of their soules that he would haue them venter and hazard their eternall saluation to saue their temporall goods but I hope God will inspire them to be wiser and alwaies to remember the golden sentence of our Sauiour Marc. 8. Luc. 9. quid prodest homini c. What doth it profit a man to gaine all the world if he loose his soule Thus Mr. Fitzherbert endeth this chapter 60 But as for the example and practise of Pope Gregory the seuenth I doe freely acknowledge that hee was the first Authour and Writer that did in expresse wordes teach that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes also that he was the first Pope who contrary to the custome of his Ancestours as Onuphrius witnesseth b Li. 4. de varsa creat Rom. Pont. did practise the same but first he did practise it and then he endeuoured to prooue that he might lawfully doe it since which time it hath indeede beene practised by many Popes Neuerthelesse both the doctrine and the practise was not knowne to the ancient Fathers and also it hath euer beene resisted and contradicted by Catholike Princes and people both Diuines and Lawyers and therefore it cannot rightly bee called the practise of the Church And although the Pope might for sufficient cause command the Bishops of Polonia that they should not consecrate any King without his expresse leaue and order it being onely a religious ceremony yet it cannot bee sufficiently prooued either that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by way of sentence for of his power to depriue by way of command I doe not now dispute any Countrey of the title and name of a Kingdome without the consent of the Countrey or of him to whom the Countrey is subiect in temporalls it being no spirituall but a meere temporall title and
therefore belonging to temporall and not to spirituall power or that the Successours of Boleslaus had onely the title of Dukes for that the Pope depriued them by way of a iuridicall sentence of the title of Kings but this might proceed either from the people themselues who by reason of that heynous fact of Boleslaus in killing that holy Bishop Stanislaus with his owne hands in the Church whiles he was saying Masse and after he had miraculously cleered himselfe by raising a man from death in open Parliament to giue testimony whether he had iniutiously taken from that dead man certaine lands or no whereof he was falsly accused by the King in a publike assembly of the Realme would not giue any longer that title of Kings or for that the Emperour to whom that kingdome was perchance m Dubranius l. 5. Aeneas Siluius cap. 19. Bohemiae who relateth that in the time of Otho the first Emperour the kingdome of Polonia was subiect to the Romane Empire then feudarie would not suffer them by reason of the execrable crime to haue any longer that title of Kings but onely of Dukes 61 Wherefore neither by any sufficient reason or approoued practise it can bee prooued that the Pope as Pope hath power to giue earthly kingdomes for the good of the Church or to depriue Princes of their states although they should deserue it and the good also of the Church should require it which last supposition neuerthelesse is vntrue for that to depriue Princes of their temporall States is not necessary for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules as I haue shewed before and although it were necessary yet considering that it is a temporall or ciuill and not a spirituall action for what end soeuer we suppose it to be done it cannot be performed by a spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but by temporall or ciuill power 62 And thus thou seest good Reader to conclude this Chapter with my Aduersary how soundly and without any scoffing I haue confuted Lessius argument and that generall maxime whereon his consequence was grounded by those foure instances which I haue heere examined and cleerely prooued that they are all to the purpose and doe not any whit alter the state of the question but that my Aduersarie himselfe in impugning them doth alter the case and change the state of the question or medius terminus which Lessius vsed and flyeth from his argument to others of his owne inuenting wherein he discouereth his great ignorance in Logicke and that therefore all those vnseemely nickenames of absurd impertinent foolish ridiculous and malicious agree to none so much as to himselfe All which being duly considered I referre to the iudgement of any indifferent man whether I had not reason without any cogging scoffing gibing or malice as my Aduersary is pleased to vnburden his fowle and bitter stomacke but with a sincere compassion of the miserable state of poore English Catholikes in soule body goods and credit into which this man seeketh to draw them headlong and with an earnest desire that they should according to our Sauiours commandement Render to God and Caesar that which is their due to affirme by way of interrogation that these and such like reasons are no good arguments to mooue the English Catholikes prodigally to cast away their goods and to deny their allegiance to his Maiestie 63 Neither is it my desire that Catholikes should bee prodigall of their soules or should deny their fidelitie and due obedience to their spirituall Pastour neither is it true that I haue greater care of their goods then of their soules or that I would haue them venteâ— and hazard their eternall saluation to saue their temporall goods as Mr. Fitzherbert little caring what he saith so that by his saying he may any way disgrace me very vntruely God forgiue him affirmeth For I doe chiefly respect God is my witnesse their eternall saluation and I would haue them to render all due obedience both to their spirituall Pastour and also to their temporall Prince but my desire is that they will sincerely consider that not onely in denying spirituall obedience to their spirituall Pastour but also in denying temporall allegiance to their temporall Prince they doe venter and hazard their eternall saluation for that they are bound by the expresse commaundement of our Sauiour and vnder paine of eternall damnation to render both to God and Caesar that which is their due But it seemeth that my Aduersaries minde is all vpon the Pope and little vpon his Prince seeing that he hath so great care to enlarge the Popes Monarchy and so little to maintaine his Kings Soueraigntie but I hope God will inspire English Catholikes to be wiser and not to runne headlong on either side but to examine and weigh their temporall and spirituall fidelity with an equall ballance and to consider that they may as well offend and hazard their saluation in giuing too much as too little to their spirituall Pastour as also in giuing too little as too much to their temporall Prince 64 Wherefore my humble request to English Catholikes is that seeing this controuersie of their temporall and spirituall obedience betweene their temporall Prince and spirituall Pastour doth so neerely concerne their eternall saluation they will not venter their soules vpon any mans bare word nor giue credit either to my sayings or the sayings of my Aduersaries without examining sincerely the reasons on both sides and the substance and manner of both our writings and diligently considering how farre forth they are bound to obey the command of their spirituall Pastour when it is only declaratiue and grounded vpon no sure definition against the commandement of their temporall Prince who is in lawfull possession of his kingdome from which the Pope the matter being as yet in controuersie and not decided pretendeth to haue power to exclude him For neither ignorance nor pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike can now in my opinion excuse them from not examining what duty they owe both to their spirituall Pastour and also to their temporal Prince and to what things both their temporall and also spirituall obedience doth extend for now they hauing so many and so sufficient causes prudently to doubt both in regard of so many bookes that haue beene written and also of the strange carriage of my Aduersaries in commanding me to purge my selfe vnder paine of Censures and not telling of what and forbidding my bookes and not declaring for why although I haue often desired to know some one particular thing whereof I should purge my selfe or which is blame worthy in my bookes faithfully promising to purge whatsoeuer is to be purged and to recall whatsoeuer I haue written amisse they are bound according to the doctrine of all Diuines to examine the truth so farre forth as the learning and capacitie of euery man will permit otherwise their ignorance will bee wilfull and damnable and their zeale albeit they shall thinke
power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally in order to spirituall good it is sufficient to answere in generall that the contrarie doctrine to wit that in the old law the temporall power and not the spirituall was supreme and that the spirituall power was subiect to the temporall is maintained by many famous and most learned Catholike Diuines S. Bonauentura lib. 2. de Eccles hierarch cap. 1. in 4. dist 24. in litera S. Thom. lib. 1. de Regim Prin. cap. 14. whose opinion in this point Mr. Fitzherbert dare not presume to condemne as temeratious and improbable albeit my answere which is agreeable to their doctrine he sticketh not to call improbable For so teacheth S. Bonauenture a man otherwise addicted to the Popes temporall Monarchie In the old Testament saith he the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and therefore Kings then had power to remooue the high Priests from their office as Salomon remooued Abiathar The same teacheth S. Thomas or whosoeuer is the Author of that booke de regimine Principum Whereupon Card. Bellarmine himselfe writeth thus It is not improbable Bell. l. i. c. 14. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcla that in the olde Testament the King was absolutely greater then the high Priest both for that so teacheth S. Thomas in his first booke de Regimine Principum cap. 14. and also for that in the old Testament the promises were temporall and the sacrifices carnall 6 The same also doe teach Alphonsus Tostatus Abulensis Card. Bellar. de Script Eccles pag. 410. d q. 28 in c. 2. l. 3. Regum q. 48. c. 27. num a man most renowmed saith Card. Bellarmine for holinesse and learning Ioannes de Turrecremata e In sum de Eccles l. 2. c. 96. ad 4 c. obedientiam dest 93. q. 2. ad 2 Franciscus Victoria f Relect. 1. de potest Eccles cited by Corduba Sal s. Antonius Corduba g l. 4 quaest q. 5 ar 2 ss ad Vlti Ioannes Salas h q 95. de leg sec 21. and Burgensis i In Addit lid Nic. de Lyra in 1. Pet. cap. 2. all of them most famous Diuines You must also know saith Abulensis that Salomon had power to kill Abiathar although he was the High Priest for that in the old Testament the Ecclesiastical power was not distinct from the Secular power to wit in punishments for great crimes but Priests were directly subiects to the King as Lay men Also there was not a distinction of punishments for Priests and Lay men but in enormious crimes the sentence of death was common to all and because Abiathar had committed treason hee was to be put to death vnlesse Salomon would pardon him And that Priests were subiect to Lay men it appeareth Numer 27. where God said that Eleazar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue as it hath beene more declared Iosue 3. but Iosue was a secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim Thus Abuâ—ensis 7 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue how ignorantly my vnlearned Aduersarie taxeth my answere of improbabiâ—itie and impertinencie which neuerthelesse is most conformeable to the doctrine of so many famous and learned Catholike Diuines and which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe holdeth for not improbable and how vainely hee braggeth that hee will make it manifest euen by the law of Moyses that the spirituall power was then the supreame power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally whereas so many famous and learned Diuines whose doctrine this ignorant man feareth not to call improbable doe resolutely hold that in the olde Testament the high Priests were subiect to Kings and that the temporall power was superiour to the spirituall and might remooue the high Priests from their office and punish them temporally if they should deserue it 8 But let vs examine in particular the manifest proofes which this man deduceth from the Law of God in the old Testament His first and principall proofe is taken from that which is written in the 17. chapter of Deuteronomie This appeareth saith he k Pag. 70. nu 3.4.5 by the law set downe in Deuteronomie wherein it is ordained expressely that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes should be in the hands of the high Priest The words of the law are these Si defficile ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubfull betweene bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie and not leprosie and thou seest that the words of the Iudges within the gates doe varie arise and goe vp to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come vp to the Priests of the Leuitical stock to the Iudges that shall be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall shew thee the truth of the iudgement and thou shalt do whatsoeuer they that are Presidents of the place which our Lord shall choose shal say and teach thee according to his Law and thou shalt follow their sentence neither shalt thou decline to the right nor to the left but he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away the euill out of Israel and the whole people shall feare that none after swell with pride 9 These are the words of the Law of God in Deuteronomie wherein it is to be noted that albeit there be here mention made of the Iudge to be consulted together with the Priests which some of the Aduersaries take to be a temporall Iudge though he may very well be vnderstood to bee the high Priest who was supreme Iudge in the Councell of Priests neuerthelesse I say that albeit he were a temporall Iudge yet it is euident that the finall decision of the doubts and controuersies in that Consistorie and consequently the supreme authoritie resided in the high Priest seeing that the said Iudge if he were a different person was no other then Minister either to see the high Priests commandement executed or to ordaine and decree the punishment of those who should disobey him it being ordained in the Law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest should die by the decree of the Iudge So that it belonged to the high Priest absolutely to command and to the Iudge to giue sentence of death against the transgressors of his commandement besides that c. 10 But first obserue good Reader the corrupt proceeding of this man who to prooue his purpose doth falsely and otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition alledge the words of holy Scripture
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
he was chosen to be their Law-maker and Prince not by manner of reigning or hauing properly dominion but rather b Abulensis q. 8. in cap. 6.2 Paralip per modum iudicantis by manner of iudging 58 And by this you may plainly see in what manner the temporall gouernment of the Iewes and not the spirituall was altered by the institution of Kings for that the supreme temporall power or dominion which before their institution did reside in the whole multitude or people of Israel was after their institution wholly translated to the King But that the course of the law was changed and turned vpside downe in fauour of Kings or that the spirituall gouernment of the high Priests was altered by the institution of Kings is a meere fiction For the same spirituall authoritie and superioritie that the Priests had before the institution of Kings they kept also after their institution and as all the people of Israel in whom the supreme spirituall power did before reside were neuerthelesse subiect in spirituals to the high Priests so also were Kings afterwards subiect also in spirituals to the same high Priests although in temporals they were supreme and the high Priests subiect and inferiour to them 59 And therefore to auoide tediousnesse I will omit to relate Mr. Fitzherberts text which he setteth down in the three next pages to prooue that the law of God was not altered and turned vpside downe by the institution of Kings and that the institution of Regall authoritie did not worke any alteration of the diuine law touching the authority of the high Priest and matters belonging to Religion nor brought any preiudice to the Ecclesiasticall dignitie nor did derogate from the obedience due to the high Priest in matters meere spirituall nor from the Soueraigntie of the spirituall power and function in things spirituall for of this there is no controuersie for ought I know albeit Mr. Fitzherbert saith that his Aduersaries but who they are I know not neither doth he expresse who they be doe make question about the same And therefore supposing that the high Priest retained the same spirituall power authoritie and dignitie after the institution of Kings which he had before their institution I will proceede to the examining of Mr. Fitzherberts arguments which he bringeth to proue that in the old law the high Priests were superiour not onely in dignitie and nobilitie but also in power and authoritie to the Kings as well in temporall as spirituall causes and that the Kings might be chastised temporally by the high Priest SECT II. Wherein all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the old law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authoritie of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastise and depose Kings is disprooued secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered and thirdly it is shewed that the authoritie of S. Chrysostome brought by my Aduersarie to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authoritie he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth S. Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine THe first argument which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old law since the institution of the Kings of Israel is taken from their institution creation and vnction For almightie God sayth Mr. Fitzherbert a nu 14.15 pag 76. ordained that the Kings should receiue their very institution creation and vnction from the high Priests and Prophets Whereupon it followeth from the vndoubted maxime of the Apostle Hebr. 7. that the said Priests and Prophets were superiour to Kings for sine vlla contradictione sayth the Apostle quod minus est a meliore benedicitur without any contradiction the lesse is blessed by the better which argument S. Chrysostome vseth in like manner saying Chrysost de verbis Isa hom Deus ipsum Regale caput c. God hath subiected the very head of the King to the hands of the Priest teaching vs that this Prince to wit the Priest is greater then the other for that which is lesse receiueth benediction from that which is more worthie So he who vrgeth also to the same end that the Kings in the old Testament were annointed by Priests and inferreth thereupon that maior hic principatus the principalitie of the Priest is greater then the Kings Ibid. hom 4. Whereby he also acknowledgeth that the Priests of the old Testament were superiour to Kings And what meruaile seeing that the said Kings were not onely created and annointed but also chastised yea deposed sometimes by Prophets and Priests 1. Reg. 9. Ibid. cap. 16. 4. Reg. 9. 3. Reg. 19. 4. Reg. 11. Samuel first created and anoynted Saul King of the Iewes and after deposed him for his offences and anointed Dauid to reigne in his place In like manner the kingdome of Israel was translated from the children of Achab to Iehu by the Prophet Elizaeus and the kingdome of Syria from Benhadab to a subiect and seruant of his called Hazael by the Prophet Elias Also in the kingdome of Iuda the wicked Queene Athalia c. 2 But this argument only prooueth that which is not in controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries to wit that the Priests and Prophets were superiour to Kings in spirituall affaires and also that the spirituall power is more noble excellent and worthie then the temporall as spirituall things doe in worth dignitie and nobilitie excell temporall things For to annoint create institute and depose Kings in that manner as Kings in the old law were annointed created and deposed by Priests or Prophets were spirituall and not temporall actions b Qu. 38. in c. 1. lib. 3. Reg. For the annointing of Kings was a religious ceremonie and appertained to the office of a Priest especially when it was done with solemnitie and as well obserueth Abulensis it did directly belong to Priests seeing that it was a sacred thing and sacred oile was powred vpon them the making and handling whereof did belong onely to Priests yet sometimes it was done by Prophets for want of Priests to wit when by no meanes it could be done by Priests as when it was secret and vnknowne whom God would haue to be annointed for King for if it were manifest who was to bee annointed hee was annointed by Priests so was Salomon and afterwards Ioas and so it is to be thought of all others who were annointed for that the kingdome did belong to them by hereditarie succession but sometimes it was vnknowne who was to bee annointed to wit when one was annointed to whom it did not appertaine by right of succession and this was done by the commandement of God for seeing that the will of God was not made manifest but to the Prophets it could
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
ridiculous and vnbeseeming a man but meanely learned 7 The second argument which M. Fitzherbert maketh is taken from the example of Queene Athalia Also in the kingdome of Iuda saith he c P. 77. nu 15. 4 Reg. 11. the wicked Queene Athalia ws deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and Ioas set vp in her place But now our Aduersaries to answere this example fo Athalia doe say c. But before I come to examine what M. Fitzherbert obiecteth and answereth concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to set downe what I answered to the said example in my Apologie f Apol. nu 364 seq and Theologicall Disputation g Disp Theolâ— in Admon nu 6. and what Doctor Schulckenius of whom M. Fitzherbert hath beene bould to borrow his answeres without acknowledging so much hath replyed to the same Thus therefore Card. Bellarmine argued from this example h L. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. 8 The second example saith he is 2. Paralip 23. Where when Athalia had tyrannically vsurped the kingdome and did maintaine the worship of Baal Ioiada the high Priest called the Centurions and souldiers and commanded them to kill Athalia which also they did and for her he created Ioas King For that the high Priest did not counsaile but command it is apparant by those word 4. Reg. 11. And the Centurions did according to all things that Ioaida the Priest had commanded them Also by those words 2. Paralip 23. And Ioiada the high Priest going forth to the Centurions and captaines of the armie said to them Bring her Queene Athalia forth without the precinct of the temple and let her be killed with the sword without And that the cause of this deposition and killing of Athalia was not only her tyrannie but also for that she did maintaine the worship of Baal it is manifest by those words which are set downe immediately after her killing Therefore all the people saith the Scripture entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it and they brake his altars and his images * Simulachra Mathan also the Priest of Baal they slew before the Altars 9 To this example I answered first that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine were of any force as in very deede it is not it would also demonstrate that the Pope hath power to depriue Soueraigne Princes both for heresie Idolatrie and also tyrannie not only of their dominions but also of their liues which although I haue before i Num 43. seq num 329. euidently deduced to follow manifestly from his doctrine yet he now bringing this example of Athalia who by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest was deposed and also slaine for proofe of his opinion doth cleerely insinuate the same That this is clearely deduced from his doctrine I proued principally by this argument for that according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine the Pope is the supreme Prince of all Christians yea and of Soueraigne Princes not only in spiritualls but also in temporalls in order to spirituall good and that in order to the same spirituall good he hath a most ample power in temporalls and so great that greater there cannot be and consequently he hath as great and ample authoritie ouer temporall Princes in temporalls in order to the same spirituall good as temporall Princes haue in temporalls ouer their subiects in order to temporall good but temporall Princes haue in order to the common temporall good not only authoritie to depriue them of their liues but also if the crime be publike and notorious or if the knowne and manifest perturbers of the common temporall good be so potent that they cannot without danger of rebellion and great manslaughter be apprehended the Prince may without citation defence or processe condemne them in their absence and without their priuitie as there I proued out of Nauarre k Nauar. in Manual cap. 25. num 10. and Sayrus l Sayrus lib. 7. Thesauri cap. â—1 num 11. and also he may giue leaue to priuate men to kill such notorious malefactors by poyson or in any other publike or secret manner therefore the Pope may in order to spirituall good proceed in the same manner with temporall Princes who in order to spirituall good are according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine subiect to the Pope in all temporalls 10 Which doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and others of his Societie whose bookes haue beene therefore condemned and some of them burned by a publike decree of the Parliament of Paris how dangerous and preiudiciall it is not only to the supreme authoritie of absolute Princes who in temporalls are supreme and subiect to none but God alone by whom only with temporall punishments they can be punished as I haue proued in other places by the common consent of all the holy Fathers and ancient Diuines but also to their persons and liues I haue insinuated else where and leaue it to the consideration of any iudicious man especially considering that Popes are also now temporall Princes and subiect to humane infirmities as other men are who with the passions of ire enuie couetousnesse and desire to augment and enlarge their temporall States and Dominions may not only be moued but vnder pretence also of aduancing or defending the common spirituall good may be sometimes ouercome and moreouer that according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine it belongeth to the Pope to iudge what hindereth hurteth or aduanceth the spirituall good neither must his iudgement or sentence be contradicted by any man as it is declared in can Patet and can Aliorum 9. q. 3. 11 Now you shall see D. Schulcke in Apolog. ad num 363. pag. 556. in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius would shift of this argument And first heere he remitteth himselfe to the numbers 43. and 329. before cited where he saith that he hath cleerely answered the argument but how cleerely or rather obscurely he hath answered the same you shall presently perceiue For as touching the principall argument which I did set downe at large in the 43. number and seq and haue briefely signified the same aboue first he concealeth the whole proofe of my consequence for sixe entire numbers together and he only answereth thus I answere saith he m Pag. 144. that so prolixe a discourse is needlesse for there is none but seeth to what all this doth tend neither is it a hard matter to solue the arguments let them passe as not making to the purpose For I haue aboue not once only commended that not able sentence of Pope Leo the great and receiued by the Church in vse and practise Ecclesiastica lenitas refugit cruentas vltiones Ecclesiasticall Lenitie doth shunne bloody reuengings or punishments And afterwards he maketh a long discourse that no Pope hath ouer commanded the killing of Princes or caused them to be slaine by priuie murtherers and that Princes neede not to feare that any Pope will
plot the death of any Prince Wherefore let Widdrington cease by vaine words to put Secular Princes in feare and to make the Pontificall power to be odious The Pontificall power is instituted by the Sauiour of mankind for the saluation and not for the destruction of Princes These arguments doe tend to no other end then to prouoke the hatred of Princes against the Pope for otherwise Widdrington was not ignorant that Ecclesiasticall especially Pontificall lenitie doth shunne bloody punishments 12 But first whether D. Schulckenius by this his answered doth intend to acknowledge that the Pope in order to spirituall good hath authoritie to take away the liues of wicked Princes by all those waies publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie in order to temporall good to take away the liues of their wicked and rebellious subiects which I intended by that argument to conuince in this place he speaketh doubtfully and in expresse words doth neither say I nor no yet afterwards he doth plainly enough affirme the same saying n Cap 9. ad nu 229. pag. 413. that Ecclesiasticall lenitie for as much as concerneth the punishment of death doth shunne bloody punishments not for that it doth by the law of God want power to doe the same but because it doth not beseeme the Ministers of Christ and againe It doth not belong saith he o Cap. 10. ad num 318. pag. 490. to the Ecclesiasticall Court to giue sentence of death not because the Church cannot absolutely giue this sentence but because it is not decent And the Pope himselfe might if he should iudge it expedient both giue this sentence and also grant by a dispensation that other Priests might doe the same For we haue nothing whereby it is forbidden but the positiue Ecclesiasticall law wherein the Pope by the consent of all men may dispence 13 Secondly this Doctor doth egregiously and against Christian charitie and iustice abuse my innocencie in misconstruing my good intentions which God is my witnesse are most pure and sincere For it was neuer my meaning to make the Sea Apostolike odious or dreadfull to Christian Kings and Princes but only to find out the Catholike truth plainly and sincerely in a matter of such great importance which doth so neerely concerne the supreme authoritie of all temporall Princes and the due obedience which all subiects of what religion soeuer they be doe by the law of Christ owe to them in temporall matters It is rather this Doctor and such as embrace his desperate principles who by this their false seditious scandalous and new broached damnable doctrine and vnknowne to the ancient Fathers and the primitiue Church doe seeke as much as lyeth in them to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to all Christian Princes and subiects And if it be so easie a matter to answere my aforesaid arguments as this Doctor affirmeth why then doth he not answere them but shifteth them ouer with a let them passe as not pertaining to the purpose Is it not to the purpose that Card. Bellarmine and his followers should force vpon the Christian world the doctrine touching the Popes spirituall power to depose temporall Princes as a point of Catholike beliefe from which such absurd dangerous desperate scandalous seditious consequents and not heard of before these miserable times doe euidently follow 14 But such strang nouelties must with shufflings and shiftings be cunningly couered and must not be cleerely knowne to Soueraigne Princes and their subiects least forsooth they make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes As thought it were likely that Christ our Sauiour would giue to S. Peter and his Successours any spirituall power which should be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes or that the knowledge of true Catholike faith either concerning the Popes spirituall power to take away the crownes or liues of Christian Princes or concerning any other thing could be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes more then the knowledge of true Catholike faith concerning the power of temporall Princes to take away the temporall goods and liues of their subiects can be a sufficient cause to make temporall authoritie odious to Christian subiects Hostis Herodis impie Christum venire quid times said Sedulius who flourished about the yeere 430. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia which is Englished thus That Christ is come why doest thou dread O Herode thou vngodly foe He doth not earthly Kingdomes reaue that heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow But Herode might iustly haue replyed if this new broacht doctrine were true yes I haue great cause to feare for that not only Christ but S. Peter also and his Successours haue by their ordinarie commission authoritie to bereaue mee not onely of my kingdome but also of my life 15 And the same answere which is also conforme to the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers would Sedulius haue made to any Christian King who should haue feared that the Pope by his spirituall power might depriue him of his kingdome and life to wit that he neede not to feare the Popes power in that respect for that Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to the Apostles and their Successours the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes to absolue from sinnes not from debts to binde the soule with the bond of anathema and not with chaines of Iron 16 But although the Pope should haue power ouer the liues of Princes in order to spirituall good yet Princes sayth this Doctour need not to feare that the Pope will plot the death of any Prince for that no Pope hath euer commanded the killing of Princes or caused them to be slaine by priuie murtherers and it is well knowen that Ecclesiasticall lenitie shunneth bloodie punishments But first if the Pope haue such a power it is euident that it is in his free choise and curtesie to take away the life of any wicked Prince in order to spirituall good as it is in the curtesie of a temporall Prince to take away the life of any wicked subiect in order to temporall good Secondly that the Pope is also bound as I prooued against Suarez to proceed against a Christian Prince See Apendix to Suarez part 1. sec 9. nu 6. seq who is a knowne heretike or persecutor of the Church or publike enemie to spirituall good in that manner and by all those waies publike or secret by which a temporall Prince is bound to proceed against a publike traitour a notorious robber and murtherer by the high way side and a knowne enemie to the common temporall good 17 Thirdly if no Pope hath euer plotted the death of any Christian Prince the reason heereof I thinke to be for that there was neuer any Pope that held this newly inuented and neuer before heard of bloody doctrine that the Pope as Pope or by vertue of his spirituall
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
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
raise 58 Another slander not much vnlike to the former doeth this Doctour vnconscionably impose vpon mee in his wordes immediately following Neere also or adioyning to his saith this Doctour h pag. 563. is that which Widdrington teacheth in the number 460. that the Pope in his opinion then subiect to the Emperour and as subiect might and really did with the tacite er expresse consent of the people of Rome lawfully and with validitie take away the Empire of the West from the Emperour of Constantinople and transfer it to Charles the great For how little a part of the Empire was then the people of Rome or what power had they in the election of the Emperour From this therefore it doeth euidently and necessarily follow that euery subiect with the tacite or expresse consent of one Citie that also which hath no voyce or suffrage in the election of the King may depriue his true lawfull and naturall Prince either of all his dominion or of part whereby truly is opened a most broad way to seditions conspiracies rebellions and reuoltings 59 But truly I cannot but greatly meruaile how this my Aduersarie by his Degree a Doctour and by his function a Priest is not ashamed to teach contrarie to his profession such palpable vntrueths and so fowly grosly and shamefully to corrupt my wordes and meaning And therefore whereas in most places hee is very carefull to set downe my expresse words or in some sort the sense of them heere least the Reader should presently perceiue his corrupt dealing hee cleane omitteth to set them downe for almost 40. pages together to wit from the number 413. to 463. wherein I amply declared in what manner the Pope and people of Rome translated the Romane Empire to Charles the great with other obseruations concerning the facts of Popes in deposing Emperours and Princes and why there are so many Authours whose bookes are extant that fauour the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes all which this Doctour passeth ouer with silence For as I haue shewed aboue i Cap. 3. nu 37. seq I prooued there most cleerely by the testimonies of many learned Authours first that the translation of the Romane Empire from the Grecians to Charles the great was done not onely by the authoritie of the Pope but also of the Senate and people of Rome with the expresse or tacite consent of all the people of the West and that none of the Authours brought by Cardinall Bellarmine doe contradict the same And secondly that the Pope and people of Rome and of the Westerne Empire were not at that time subiect to the Grecian Emperour for that hee had then the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned and that therefore the Romane and Westerne Prouinces being left to themselues might choose what Emperour they pleased according to Card. Bellarmines expresse doctrine which I there related 60 Consider therefore good Reader with what conscience this Doctour affirmeth me to say that the Pope in my opinion then subiect to the Emperour and as subiect with the consent of the people of Rome might lawfully depriue the Grecian Emperour of the Westerne Empire and transferre it to Charles the great from whence it euidently folleweth saith he that euery subiect with the consent of one Citty yea and of that Citty which hath no suffrage in the choosing of the King may depriue their true lawfull and naturall Prince either of his whole dominion or of part thereof For I neuer affirmed either that he Pope or people of Rome were then really and in very deed subiect to the Emperour of Greece who had the Romane Empire for abandoned and forsaken or that the whole common wealth being subiect and as subiect much lesse one Citty or Prouince had authoritie ouer their Prince to iudge him depose him or to change the manner of gouernment That which I affirmed is that the common wealth it selfe in case it hath no Prince and consequently is then supreme it selfe and not subiect to any Prince and not that people subiect as this Doctour faigneth haue power I doe not say to iudge or depose their King as hee also shamefully affirmeth mee to say for that the Common wealth in that case hath no King but to choose to them a King or to change the manner or gouernment from a Monarchie to Democratic Aristocratic or mixt And this I affirmed Cardinall Bellarmine to auouch when he teacheth that the supreame temporall power is by the law of nature in the whole multitude or common wealth when they haue no King or Superiour ouer them and that by the same law of nature they man transferre it from the whole multitude to one only or to more and that therefore they may change the Monarchie into Aristosratic or Democratic and contrariwise as we see it was done at Rome 61 Neither can it with any probabilitie be denied that the Citty of Rome which was the chiefe Imperiall Citty and Metropolis of the Romane Empire that is the Pope Senate and people of Rome had by right a great sway in the election of their owne Emperour albeit the armie did de facto commonly choose him to which election the Senate and people of Rome did either willingly or for feare giue their consent and that therefore the Pope Senate and people of Rome with the consent either expresse or tacite of the rest of the Westerne Prouinces had fell power and authoritie to choose to them an Emperour supposing they were left to themselues and forsaken and abandoned by the Emperour of Greece and this is agreeable to Card. Bellarmines doctrine But that one only Subiect or one Citty which is a small part of the kingdome yea or that the whole kingdome it selfe may lawfully and rightly depriue of the whole kingdome or of any part thereof their lawfull King being neither condemned nor heard nor accused yea may lawfully condemne him although he be heard or accused I neuer affirmed neither doth it follow from my doctrine neuerthelesse that euery faithfull subiect is bound to doe in the like case that which Ioiada did either in deposing or killing Athalia this I doe constantly affirme neither can any Catholike deny the same without note of teaching a most false a most scandalous and a most seditious doctrine 62 And therefore I remit to the iudgement of Christian Kings â—nd subiects what censure those last words of this Doctour doe deserue Also that euery faithfull subiect is bound to doe that which Ioiada did in kilâ—ing Athalia Bellarmlne neuer taught it doth not follow from Bellarmines doctrine all Catholikes doe abhorre and detest it and among them without doubt Bellarmine I omit to examine at this present what title Charles â—he great had either by hereditarie succession or by the right of conâ—uest to the Westerne Empire before this translation and what reall â—ower authoritie and dominion this translation gaue to Charles the great for that he and his Father Pipin had before
who hath true and lawfull right to the kingdome albeit he be not in possession thereof or for a King de facto and who doth actually reigne abstracting from that he doth reigne de iure by right and lawfully or by vsurpation Now I granted that Athalia was Queene de facto and in possession of the kingdome for sixe yeeres together but I denyed that shee was Queene de iure and that the kingdome did belong to her by right but to Ioas the rightfull heire as being the onely sonne then liuing of Ochozias King of Iuda and that therefore Ioiada did not create or institute Ioas King that is giue him a true right to reigne which he had not before for that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did reside in Ioas by right of inheritance and succession instantly vpon the death of his eldest brethren and this much the aforesaid words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse doe euidently conuince Wherefore that which this Doctour sayth concerning the couenant of the people with the King is vnderstood of the future King which a little after was to be instituted is also equiuocall for if he vnderstand that Ioas was not then King de facto but a little after by the procurement of Ioiada was made and instituted King de facto that is was put in possession of the kingdome and did actually reigne this was not the controuersie betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine for I neuer denyed but did alwaies in expresse words grant that Ioiada with the assent of the Princes and people did put Ioas in possession of his kingdome which Athalia had vniusty kept from him and in this sense Ioas who before was King de iure was afterwards by Ioiada created and instituted King de facto But if he meane that Ioas was not then King de iure and that the kingdome did not by right of inheritance and by the ordinance of almightie God belong to him this I say is plainely against the words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse Ecce filius Regis c. Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid that is behold the Kings sonne to whom therefore the right to the kingdome by inheritance doth belong although hee doth not actually reigne for that Athalia contrarie to the commandement of God who gaue the kingdome to the sonnes of Dauid hath tyrannically kept it from him shall reigne that is shall be King de facto and actually reigne according as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid 75 But the words of the Glosse are more plaine for he calleth Ioas not onely the true due or rightfull King but also the true due or rightfull heire Neither can this Doctour deny that Ioas was presently after the death of all his brethren the onely sonne of King Ochozias and consequently the true and onely heire to the kingdome of Iuda and therefore the true King de iure or by right For he can not be so ignorant as not to know that the heire to a kingdome hath presently after the death of his father all the right which his father deceased had to the kingdome It is manifest saith the rule of the law q ff de regulis iuris regula 59 approoued by all lawyers that an heire hath the same power and right which the deceased had and againe r Ibidem regula 62. Inheritance is no other thing then a succeeding to all the right which the deceased had Wherefore the words and sense of the Glosse are plaine for the words are not Here is described the institution of the true King but of the true heire whom he called before the due or rightfull heire Now it is manifest that Ioiada did not make or institute Ioas the true and rightfull heire to the kingdome of Iuda but he was made and instituted the rightfull heire by succession and by the ordinance of almightie God for that he was the onely sonne and heire suruiuing of the deceased King Ochozias And therefore those words of this Doctour Assuredly Ioas was not King before although he was the Kings sonne if he meane that he was not King de iure before are very vntrue but rather contrariwise I inferre that assuredly Ioas was King de iure before because he was the Kings sonne to whom by succession and inheritance the kingdome of Iuda did by right and by the ordinance of almightie God belong and those words of holy Scripture Behold the Kings sonne c. doe conuince as much 76 But he that is King by succession sayth this Doctour ought not to be instituted or made but to be declared neither doth he need the assent of the Princes It is true that he who is King de iure and by succession ought not to be instituted or made King de iure neither needeth he the consent of the Princes to make him King de iure But he that is King onely de iure and by succession but not King de facto and by possession ought to be instituted or made King de facto and to this is necessarie the assent and aide of the Princes and people Wherefore as this word to depose is equiuocall and may be taken either for to depriue one of his right or to put him out of possession of the thing he holdeth so also to institute create or make a King or heire is equiuocall and may be taken either for to giue one a right to a kingdome or inheritance which right he had not before or to put him in possession of the kingdome or inheritance whether he hath right thereunto or no. And therefore as well obserueth Gregorius Tholosanus Å¿ In Syntagin Iuâ—is lib. 17. cap. 16. nu 4. because the instituting or giuing of a benefice and the like may be said of a Dukedome Princedome Kingdome or inheritance is sometimes effected by giuing the possession or as it is commonly said by installing or inuesting therefore to institute is sometimes taken for to install or inuest as by deliuering some corporall thing as a ring a crowne a scepter c. by which the real and actuall possession is giuen apprehended or induced cap. ad haec de officio Archidiaconi § 1o. de consuetudine recti feudi lib. 2. de feudis tit 33. And in this sense the Glosse did vnderstand the word institution to wit for inuesting installing or putting Ioas into possession of his kingdome or which is all one making him King de facto For it is too too manifest that he was before the rightfull heire and King by succession and not then made or instituted the rightfull heire by the election of Ioiada and of Princes 77 Wherefore the last inference which this Doctour maketh in these words Therefore Ioiada did institute the King and deposed the Queene c. is very true if he meane that he did constitute the King de facto or put him in possession of
his kingdome and deposed the Queene de facto that is thrust her out of the possession of the kingdome For Ioiada in this sense did make or constitute the King and deposed the Queene by the aide and assistance of the Princes without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter but to make or constitute him King de iure or the rightfull heire to the kingdome onely succession without the aide and assent of Ioiada or the Princes was sufficient Neither dare this Doctour absolutely auerre as you haue seene that Ioas was not before this King de iure but Athalia but he affirmeth it with a credibile est which neuerthelesse I haue prooued to be incredible and to containe a very false scandalous and seditious doctrine 78 Lastly although that question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether Athalia was slaine onely for treason or also for idolatrie be not much materiall to the present controuersie betweene vs which is by what authoritie it was done seeing that whether she was slaine only for treason or also for idolatrie it was done by the authoritie of the King who then was crowned and confirmed by the Princes and people as this Doctour heere is not also vnwilling to grant Neuerthelesse I still affirme that it can not be prooued from the holy Scripture that she was slaine for idolatrie albeit I doe not deny that she deserued death therefore Whereupon the Scripture onely mentioneth that vpon her endeauouring to make a rebellion against the true and now anointed King crying out in the presence of the King Princes and people A conspiracie A conspiracie Treason Treason she was commanded to be slaine Neither can this Doctour sufficiently conclude from those words of holy Scripture Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. as Card. Bellarmine pretended to prooue or from those words immediatly going before And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would be the people of the Lord that Athalia was actually slaine for idolatrie although I doe willingly grant that she was an Idolatresse and therefore deserued death according to the law 79 Neither did I as this Doctour vntruely saith g pag. 570. either slaunder Card. Bellarmine or else knew not what I said my selfe when I affirmed that Card. Bellarmine did not sincerely relate the words of holy Scripture to wit Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. which words as he saith doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For after the killing of Athalia these words And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King c. which as the Glosse affirmeth were a confirmation of the King newly annointed and crowned doe immediately follow and after them doe follow those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. And whereas this Doctour affirmeth that Bellarmine did not meane that those words precisely Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal c. doe immediately follow after the words wherein the killing of Athalia was commanded but his meaning was that the ouerthrowing of the temple of Baal was done immediately after the killing of the Queene and therefore hee did not properly speake of wordes but of things done This is plainely both against the text of holy Scripture for that betwixt the killing of Athalia and the destruction of the temple of Baal was the confirmation of King Ioas newly crowned and annointed and of the couenant which Ioiada made betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would bee the people of our Lord and it is also against Cardinall Bellarmines owne wordes Those wordes saith Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia And yet this Doctour forsooth will haue Cardinall Bellarmine not to speake properly of wordes but of things done contrary to Card. Bellarmines expresse words But truth and plaine dealing cannot colourably be impugned but by such pitifull shifts and fraudulent euasions 71 And thus thou seest good Reader how insufficiently this Doctour hath confuted my answer to Cardinall Bellarmines argument taken from the example of Athalia who was not deposed by Ioiada that is depriued of her right to reigne seeing that shee was neuer a lawfull Queene nor euer had any true right to reigne but shee was by the procurement of Ioiada and by the aide and assistance of the Princes and people thrust out of the possession of the kingdome which she tyrannically had for sixe yeeres vsurped and wrongfully detained from Ioas the true and rightfull King by hereditarie succession as being the onely sonne and heire suruiuing to King Ochozias and that Ioiada that which he did both in putting Ioas in possession and in killing Athalia not by his owne proper authoritie and which was peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by that authoritie which might be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case Now you shall see how bouldly and barely Mr. Fitzherbert repateth againe this example of Athalia without taking any notice of the answere which I made thereunto before in my Apologie and Theologicall Disputation 72 But now our Aduersaries saith Mr. Fitzherbert u Nu. 16. p 77. to answere this exemple of Athalia doe say that shee was no lawfull Queene but a Tyrant and vsurped the state in preiudice of Ioas the right heire whom Ioiada set vp and that therefore the example of her deposition cannot be of consequence to prooue that the high Priest in the old law had authoritie to depose a lawfull Prince But they are to vnderstand that it little importeth for the matter in hand whether shee were a true Queene or a Tyrant for though shee had beene a lawfull Queene yet hee should haue beene her lawfull Superiour it being euident that otherwise hee could not haue beene her Iudge to determine of her right and depose her as vnlawfull especially after shee had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the State for sixe yeeres to which purpose it is to be considered that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom he should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth the Iudge absolue a man when he is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power ouer him in both cases 73 Yes good Syr it much importeth to the matter in hand whether she was a true Queene or a Tyrant for if she had beene a lawfull Queene then he should not haue beene her lawfull Superiour in temporalls neither could he haue beene her lawfull Iudge to determine of her temporal right for that as I shewed before out of many learned Catholikes and which also Card. Bellarmine himselfe holdeth to be probable in
in the Councell of Constance but the contrarie doctrine is damnable scandalous and seditious 78 Marke now what a trim consequence Mr. Fitzherbert gathereth from the premisses Whereupon sayth he b nu 18. pag. 78 it followeth that seeing Ioiada did lawfully depose Athalia being a holy man Matth. 23. Hieron lib. 4. in Num. cap. 23. and therefore called by our Sauiour Barachias that is to say Blessed of our Lord he did it not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person All this is true as you haue seene But that which he addeth to wit as High-Priest to whom it belonged to iudge of her cause is very vntrue neither doth it follow from his premises For his antecedent proposition was this Ioiada being high Priest deposed Athalia as her lawfull Iudge and not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person this I granted now he inferreth that Ioiada as high-Priest did depose her which I euer denied and he brought no shew of argument to proue the same only heere in the next words following he adioineth some colour of an argument for proofe thereof especially saith he c pag. 79. seeing that she was not only a cruell tyrant but also an abhominable Idolairesse hauing drawne her husband Ioram her sonne Ochozias and the people to Idolatrie and transferred the riches of Gods temple to the temples of Idolls which being matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest and therefore I conclude that Ioiada deposed her as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge according to the supreme authoritie that God gaue to the High Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall State So I in my Supplement 79 But how insufficient this conclusion is it will presently appeare onely by laying open the ambiguitie of those wordes Idolatrie being a matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest For it belonged indeed to the tribunall of the high Priest of the old Law and his consistorie to iudge what was Idolatrie as likewise now in the new Law it belongeth to the Pope and Church to iudge what is heresie or idolatrie and so to declare and determine what is heresie or Idolatrie is a matter of Religion both in the olde Law and in the new but it did not belong to the tribunall of the high Priest in the olde law but of the King and temporall state to punish Idolaters with corporall death as likewise in the new law to punish heretikes with corporall death being not a spirituall but a temporall matter doeth not belong to the spirituall power of Priests but to the temporall authoritie of temporall Princes Sot in 4. dist 29 q. 1. ar 4. Bannes secunda secundae q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine as I prooued also out of Sotus and Bannes in my Theologicall Disputation d C. 7. s 2. nu 17 And therefore in the old Law the temporall power was supreame and the spirituall was subiect to it for as much as concerned the power to constraine with temporall punishments and as well Priest as Lay-men were subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of the temporall State as I prooued before e Sec. 1 nu 5. 6. out of St. Thomas St. Bonauenture Abulensis and others whose doctrine also Cardinall Bellarmine doth not account improbable 80 Wherefore although it belonged to the High-Priest to declare the law of GOD yet to execute the law and to punish the transgressours thereof whether they were Priests or Lay-men with temporall punishments belonged to the supreame temporall power of the King and not to the supreame spirituall authoritie of the High-Priest Seeing that Ozias saith Abulensis because he was King Abul q. 4. in c. 15. l. 4. Reg. was the executor of the law of GOD against offenders it belonged to him by his office to destroy all Altars which were without the temple of our Lord and to take away such a worship and consequently all Idolatrie vnder the penaltie of death And therefore I conclude that Ioiada did depose Athalia being a manifest Vsurper as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge but not according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the High-Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall state which as I prooued before was in temporalls supreame and not subiect but superiour to the spirituall power but according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the King to whom both Priests and Lay-men were subiect in temporalls and by whom they were to bee punished with temporall punishments whose place and person Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian while the King was in his minoritie did in all things represent Neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert either in his Supplement or in this his Reply as you haue cleerely seene brought any probable argument much lesse conuincing as hee pretended to impugne the same 81 Now let vs proceede to the example of King Ozias which is the last Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old Testament to which neuerthelesse I did abundantly answere in my Apologie which my answere he passeth ouer altogether with silence But before I set downe what hee saith heere concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to repeate my saide answere and what D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same for thereby the weakenesse of Mr. Fitzherberts obiection will presently appeare and so also hee shall not take occasion after his vsuall manner to remit his English Reader to D. Schulckenius to seeke out a Reply to that which I answered before in my Apologie concerning this example of King Ozias Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 8 82 In this manner therefore Cardinall Bellarmine argued from this example A Priest of the old law had authoritie to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie therefore in the new law the Pope hath authoritie to depriue a King of his kingdome for spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by leprosie The Antecedent proposition hee prooued thus for that wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that King Ozias when hee would vsurpe the office of a Priest was by the High Priest cast out of the temple and when he was for the same sinne stricken by GOD with leprosie hee was also enforced to depart out of the Citie and to renounce his kingdome to his sonne And that he was depriued of the Citie and of the administration of the kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest it is apparant For wee reade Leuit. 13. whosoeuer saith the law shall bee defiled with leprosie and is separated at the abitrement of the Priest shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing therefore that this was a law in Israel and withall wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that the King did dwell without the Citie in a solitary house and that his sonne did in the Citie iudge the people of the land wee are compelled to say that hee was
Priest did onely continue for the time they were infected with leprosie for which time neuerthelesse they remained true Kings although others did administer their kingdome For vnablenesse to gouerne the kingdome doth not depriue Kings of their right and authoritie to reigne as it is manifest in a King who is vnder age in whom there is true dominion power and right to reigne although vntill hee come to yeeres of discretion there is appointed him a Protector and Guardian who doth in the Kings name and by the Kings authoritie adminster all the affaires of the kingdome And that King Ozias for all the time of his infirmitie which continued vntill the day of his death did remaine true King the Glosse doth most plainely teach 2. Paralip 26. who writeth thus The Hebrewes are of opinion that this the miraculous striking of Ozias with leprosie happened in the 25th yeere of Ozias the rest of whose yeeres are twentie seuen and he raigned fiftie one yeeres And the same is gathered not obscurely from the Scripture it selfe in that place Wherevpon although we reade in the 21. vers that for the time Ozias was a leper Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house yet wee doe not reade that Ioathan his sonne reigned for him but after that Ozias was dead vers 23. 98 To this my answere D. Schulckenius replieth thus p Pag. â— I answere first although Ozias should haue beene depriued only of the administration of the kingdome and constrained to giue it ouer to his sinne yet had kept the right and authoritie to reigne as my Aduersarie Widdrington will haue it neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmines argument would be strong and vnshaken For from hence also by the grant of my Aduersarie is we doe gather that King Ozias was by the Priest of Aaron depriued not only of the communion of sacred things but also of the administration of his kingdome and punished not only with a spirituall but also with a temporall punishment But my Aduersarie denieth that an hereticall King can be depriued of the administration of his Kingdome and he saith that he can only be depriued of the receiuing of Sacraments 99 But first it is vntrue that I euer granted as this Doctour saith that the Priest of the old law depriued King Ozias of the administration of his kingdome but as you shall beneath q Num. I affirmed the flat contrarie Secondly it is strange how Card. Bellarmines argument can stand firme and vnshaken if the antecedent proposition for as much as concerneth the principall part thereof be not true as this Doctour in this his answere doth suppose For the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument contained two parts the one was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued of his kingdome and authoritie to reigne and from hence he concluded as you haue seene If therefore the Priest of the old law had power to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie why may not a Priest now doe the same for spirituall leprosie and of this part to wit of depriuing Princes of their kingdomes and of their right or authoritie to reigne I did only speake in this part of my answere And if this part which was the principall point of Card. Bellarmines argument be supposed to be false as this Doctour doth suppose how can his argument for as much as concerneth this point stand strong and vnshaken 100 The second part of Card. Bellarmines agrument was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued by the High Priest of the administration of his kingdome and of this second part I did not speake one word in this part of my answere but only of the depriuing him of his kingdome dominion or right to reigne And I affirmed that although the Priests of the old law had authoritie to iudge a leper and by a declaratiue sentence or commandement to denounce that he was to be seuered from the rest of the people which was only to declare the commandement and law of God considering that this separation was ordained by the expresse commandement of God after the Priest had iudged him to be infected with leprosie yet from hence it cannot be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen per accidens and consequently vnlesse their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre as it doth not that they were consequently depriued also of their kingdomes But their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre saith this Doctour that they were depriued at least of the administration of their kingdome and therefore from hence it may be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue per accidens and consequently Princes that were infected with leprosie at least wise of the administration of their kingdome But of this I will treate a little beneath after I haue examined the second Reply which this Doctour maketh to this first part of my answere to his antecedent proposition 101 I answere secondly saith D. Schulckenius r Pag. 546. King Ozias did indeed retaine the name of a King for the residue of his life but a bare and naked name For his sonne did gouerne the kingdome with full power although without the name of a King For so the Scripture speaketh 2. Paralip 26. King Ozias was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house a part full of leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the land The same is said 4. Reg. 15. Therefore we haue not from the Scripture that any part of the gouernment did any way appertaine to Ozias which Iosephus doth more cleerely explicate lib. 9. Antiq. cap. 11. While he saith that the sonne of Ozias did take vpon him the kingdome and that Ozias liued a priuate life vntill his death But howsoeuer it be this is manifest that Ozias was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment 102 But thou wilt say that Ozias retained the name of a King and as it was said in the first answere perchance a right to reigne Therefore from hence it cannot be proued that hereticall Kings may altogether be depriued of their kingdomes by the Pope I answere First from hence it is proued that the Pope may for a iust cause inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome Secondly it is consequently gathered that for a most weightie cause and for a very heinous crime and very pernicious to the Church as for example is heresie he may inflict a more grieuous punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome For both Innocentius the fourth did remoue Sanctius the second King of Portugall from the administration of the
others Thus D Schulckenius 113 But truly it is a shame to see with what face this Doctour can so boldly affirme that the principall question which is now betwixt Card. Bellarmine and me to wit whether King Ozias was depriued either of his kingdome or of the administration thereof by the High Priest is nothing to the matter Before as you haue seene both Card. Bellarmine and also this Doctour if they be two different men haue laboured to proue that King Ozias was for corporall leprosie depriued by the high Priest not only of the administration of his kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and of his right or authoritie to reigne from whence they inferred that therefore the Pope might for spirituall leprosie depriue temporall Princes not only of the administration of their kingdomes but also of their kingdomes and all Regall authoritie or right to reigne And the second part of this antecedent proposition I did confute aboue and proued cleerely that Ozias did still remaine true King de iure vntill his death and was not depriued of his Royall authoritie or right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did de facto in his fathers name and by his Fathers authoritie administer the kingdome To the first part of the antecedent proposition which this Doctour affirmed to be manifest but howsoeuer it be saith he to wit whether Ozias remained King only in name or also with Regall authoritie it is manifest that he was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment I did now answere affirming that Card. Bellarmine had not sufficiently proued the same for that it might be that he perceiuing himselfe to be vnfit by reason of leprosie for which he was by the law to dwell in a house apart to gouerne the kingdome by himselfe did willingly and of his owne accord commit the gouernment thereof to his sonne Ioathan from whence it cannot bee gathered that hee was depriued of the gouernment by the high Priest And now this Doctour being pressed with this answere blusheth not to say That this is nothing to the matter as though to confute that which hee himselfe affirmetn to bee manifest to wit that King Ozias was by the high Priest depriued of his Kingly gouernment for corporall leprosie is nothing to the matter But to such shamefull windings turnings and shiftings are sometime brought men otherwise learned rather then they will plainly and sincerely confesse themselues to haue grosly erred in coyning their false or fallible opinions for true and vndoubted points of Catholike faith 114 Obserue now good Reader in what a fraudulent maner this Doctour would seeme to prooue that my aforesaid answere is nothing to the matter It is enough for vs saith he that King Ozias did by the high Priests commandement dwell in a house apart all the time of his leprosie vntill his death c. If this bee enough for this Doctour I shall easily agree with him heerein for that I doe willingly grant that the high Priest might commaund King Ozias being infected with leprosie to dwell in a house apart Onely this I must admonish him that Ozias was bound to dwell in a house apart not so much by the commandement of the high Priest if wee will speake properly as by the commandement of almightie God who by his law did expresly ordaine that all lepers should dwell apart from the rest of the people and the Priests office only was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law whether they were infected with leprosie or no and to declare the law of GOD which are spirituall not temporall actions abstracting from which law the high Priest had no authoritie to command King Ozias or any other leper to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people Wherefore this commandement of the high Priest was not any constitutiue commandement of his owne imposing a new obligation vpon King Ozias to which he was not tyed before although the high Priest had not commanded him but it was onely a declaratiue commandement or a declaration of Gods law and commandement whereby all lepers were long before commaunded to dwell in a place apart from the rest of the people But from hence this Doctour cannot gather that the Priests of the new law may for spirituall leprosie depriue Kings of their kingdomes or the administration thereof or of their right and freedome to dwell in their Cities or Pallaces and separate them by way of temporall constraint from all ciuill conuersation of men vnlesse hee will grant with Iohn Wicklefe that these punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to spirituall leprosie as in the old law the dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people was annexed to corporall leprosie Neuerthelesse I doe not deny that the Priests all of the new law haue authority to declare what is spirituall leprosie and what crimes doe notably infect the soule and what punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to such maladies and also to separate heretikes and other spirituall lepers from the sacred religious or spirituall conuersation of the faithfull for these are spirituall not temporall actions and punishments 115 But Ozias liuing in a house apart could not saith this Doctour conuerse with the people and so he was enforced to permit absolutely to to his sonne the administration of the kingdome that nothing at all should be referred to him concerning the affaires of the kingdome But first it is not true that King Ozias speaking properly was coactus that is enforced or compelled by corporall force and violence or by the coactiue force of the law which consisteth in the inflicting of temporall punishments to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people but onely he was bound thereunto by the directiue or commanding force of the law of God which ordained that all lepers should bee separated from the rest of the people and dwell alone by themselues out of the Campe for seeing that the King was supreame in temporalls and subiect therein to none but God alone and the High Priests were subiect to him therein and might bee punished by him with temporall punishments as I shewed before hee could not bee subiect to the coactiue or enforcing power of the law which ordained the inflicting of any temporall punishment And therefore wee neuer read in the holy Scripture that the High Priest of the old law whom my Aduersaries affirme to haue authoritie to inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment did euer attempt to put any King to death who had committed any crime that deserued death according to the law as you find many Kings to haue committed such crimes as Dauid committed adulterie which according to the law of God was to bee punished with death and most of the Kings of Israel were Idolaters whom God commanded to be put to death and this crime also of King Ozias for vsurping the office of a Priest
deserued death according to the Law 116 Secondly therefore although he was in some sort speaking improperly enforced or compelled that is he was bound by the law vnder paine of sinne to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people by reason of his leprosie yet it was the law of God and not the high Priest but onely as iudging him to bee a leper and declaring the law of God and his indignation against those who should transgresse his law that compelled him thereunto which declaration being a meere spirituall action without doubt did according to the law of God in the old law belong to the function of the high Priest and therefore the most that from hence can be inferred is this that the Priests of the new law haue also authoritie to declare the law of Christ and to iudge what is spirituall leprosie and what punishments are by the law of Christ appointed against heresie and other crimes which may infect the soule but that spirituall Pastours haue now authoritie to inflict temporall punishments vpon heretikes or any other spirituall lepers it cannot from hence be gathered by any probable reason 117 Thirdly it is very vntrue that because King Ozias was by the law commanded to liue in a house apart so long as hee remained a leper it doeth consequently follow from thence that he was also enforced bound or compelled to permit absolutely the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing concerning the affaires of the kingdome should bee referred to him for that a King may liue in a house apart not onely out of the Citie but also out of the kingdome and yet he may gouerne his kingdome by his Ministers in such sort that the chiefest things hee may reserue to himselfe as diuers Kings by their Vice-Roys doe gouerne forraine kingdomes reseruing diuers things as the placing or displacing of the chiefest Officers the making of warre against their neighbour Princes or such like important affaires to themselues and therefore from the dwelling of Ozias in a house apart either in the Citie or out of the Citie it cannot bee sufficiently gathered that hee was therefore enforced to permit absolutely the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing concerning the affaires of the kingdome should bee referred to him especially seeing that as this Doctour sayeth leprosie doeth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne 118 Neither also is it true that King Ozias could not conuerse with the people as this Doctour so bouldly affirmeth For although it was ordained by the law that lepers should dwell alone out of the campe and be separated from the rest of the people yet the law did not forbid any man to speake or talke with them or than with others yea which is more it was not forbidden by the law as well obserueth Abulensis c In ca. 8. Mat. q. 12. 13. to touch a leper for although the touching of a leper dâ—d cause a legall vncleanesse yet it was not any sinne or imperfection to incurre a legall vncleannesse but sometimes it was meritorious to bee legally polluted for to touch dead bodies and graues was a legall vncleannesse Num. 19. and yet to bury the dead was a meritorious worke for which Tobias is greatly commended and sometimes also a man was bound to incurre a legall vncleannesse as children were bound to bury their parents and yet by this they were legally polluted Leuit. 10. 21. and not only in prophane things but also in diuine mysteries Priests were sometimes bound by the law to be legally polluted as the Priest who offered a red cow in a burnt sacrifice was polluted and yet this was done by the commandement of God Num. 19. See also the like Leuit. 16. Wherefore to incurre a legall vncleannesse was not forbidden by the law but it was onely forbidden to enter into the Sanctuarie or to touch sacred things before he should be cleansed Leuit. 15. and therfore it was not a sinne according to the law to touch a leper after what maner soeuer vnlesse he that was so polluted would before his purification enter into the Tabernacle or participate in sacred things Leuit. 15. So that it is manifest that King Ozias was so debarred rom all ciuill conuersation but that he might sufficiently declare to his Deputies and ministers what he would haue done concerning any important businesse in the kingdome 119 Wherefore it can not be prooued that King Ozias was depriued for his leprosie of the administration of his kingdome and enforced to permit absolutely to his sonne the gouernment thereof that nothing at all should be referred to him concerning the affaires of the kingdome although it might very well be that he seeing himselfe for his great pride and arrogancie stricken by God with the plague of leprosie and that he could not so conueniently and in such Royall maner and remaining in his owne Pallace gouerne the kingdome as he did before did freely and of his owne accord and not vpon any constraint or absolute necessitie appoint his sonne the sole administratour of the kingdome and that he being now humbled by the potent hand of God would not for the time of his infirmitie meddle at all with the gouernment which is more to be attributed to his humilitie then to any necessitie for that he might if he had beene pleased haue reserued some affaires of greatest moment to his owne iudgement and referred the rest to those ministers whom he should appoint and as his sonne Ioathan was made administratour of the kingdome by his appointment and gouerned in his name and by his authoritie so also if Ioathan had caried himselfe partially and tyrannically in the gouernment he might by the authoritie of his father who still remained the true and rightfull King haue beene displaced and another put in his roume 120 But if King Ozias had not beene subiect saith this Doctour to the power of the high Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will haue dwelled in the Regall Citie and also haue gouerned the kingdome But first no man maketh any doubt but that King Ozias was subiect to the high Priest in spirituals as was euery sentence or iudgement wherein he declared the law of God And therefore the King was bound not to contemne in such things the commandement of the high Priest neither could he being now declared a leper either with the leaue or against the leaue of the high Priest dwell in the kingly Citie among the rest of the people for that by the law of God and not by any constitutiue commandement of the high Priest he was to dwell apart from the rest of the people Wherefore that clause and against his will he might haue dwelt in the Regall Citie is added by this Doctour to no purpose vnlesse he would signifie thereby that the law concerning the dwelling of lepers apart from the rest of the people
was not the law of God but onely the law and commandement of the high Priest and that therefore King Ozias and other lepers might with the leaue and licence of the high Priest dwell in the Citie among the rest of the people 121 Secondly if King Ozias had contemned the high Priest and had against his will dwelled in the Regall Citie although he had geatly offended therein by transgressing the law of God which the high Priest ought by his Office to declare to all the people yet he could not therefore be punished by the high Priest with any temporall punishment for that he himselfe was supreme in temporals and subiect to none but God and the high Priest was as I shewed before subiect to him therein and might be punished by him with temporall punishments But as for the administration of the kingdome he should no way haue transgressed the law of God albeit he had gouerned the same against the high Priests will for that he was not by his leprosie depriued of any iote of his Regall authoritie Neither can this Doctour well declare how King Ozias being a man of iudgement and wisedome notwithstanding his corporall leprosie could be depriued of the administration of his kingdome or which is all one of his right and authoritie to gouerne the same for the time of his leprosie if he once suppose that he still remained true King and had true Regall authoritie seeing that to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince is plainly repugnant to the law of God sayth Card. Bellarmine d in Tract contra Barcla cap. 21. pag. 202. and as Suarez doth well affirme e in Defens fidei Cathol c. lib. 6. cap. 3. nu 6. the obligation of obedience in any degree or state doth so long endure in the subiect as the dignitie or power and iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour for these are correlatiues and the one dependeth on the other 122 And in the same manner saith this Doctor might the high Priest depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially which they had in Citie because he did separate them from the people or conuersation of men and did exclude them from Cities and consequently did depriue them of the administration of those goods which they had in Cities although they might administer them by others But this also is apparantly vntrue For although the high Priest had authoritie to declare that house-holders being infected with leprosie were to dwell apart out of the campe or Citie but yet so that they might talke and speake a farre of to others that should come to visite them as I signified before and in this sense the high Priest may be said to haue authoritie to separate them from the rest of the people to wit by declaring the law of God and not by any constitutiue commandement of his owne yet from hence it doth not follow as this Doctour affirmeth that the high Priest did consequently depriue them of the administration of their goods which they had in the Citie For he that is depriued of the administration of his goods can neither set let sell or giue away his goods or make any other contract concerning them which is valid and of force by law as it is apparant in all those who are depriued of the administration of their goods as are orphanes vnder age mad-men and many times also vnthrifts or ouer prodigall persons are by the law depriued of the administration of their goods and can make no bargaine which is valid by law and therefore they haue Ouerseers Guardians or Administratours appointed them 123 Now what man of learning will affirme that he who either by sicknesse imprisonment confinement or banishment is separated from the places where his goods doe remaine is consequently depriued of the administration of his goods Is an Englishman who for some crime or cause is banished his Countrey consequently depriued of the administration of his goods which he hath in England and can not he by authenticall writings set them sell them or giue them away Must he that is rightfully detained in prison be consequently depriued of the administration of his goods which he hath out of prison can he not set or sell his lands or goods which he hath in the Citie or Countrey What an vnsound consequence is therefore this which this Doctour maketh The high Priest did exclude lepers out of the Citie therefore he did consequently depriue them of the administration of those goods which they had in the Citie But they can not come to the Citie to set or sell their goods Who doubteth of this if they be banished the Cities as neither he that is detained in prison or banished the kingdome can goe out of prison into the Citie or returne into the kingdome to administer his goods and to set them sell them or giue them away without incurring the danger of the law But will any man of learning from thence conclude that therefore he is consequently depriued of the administration of his goods which he hath in the Citie or kingdome Or that if he should against the law aduenture to goe out of prison or the place of his confinement to administer or make away his goods the contract should be vniust and of no effect for want of right and authoritie to administer the same And thus you see that both parts of the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument are very vntrue 124 But although we should graunt onely for Disputation sake both parts of the antecedent proposition to wit that the Priests of the olde law had authoritie to depriue in that manner as I declared that is not by any constitutiue commandement of the high Priest but onely by the declaring the law of God the Kings of Iuda being infected with leprosie not onely of the administration of their kingdomes but also of their kingdomes or which is all one of their Regall authoritie and right to reigne yet how weake and insufficient is also the consequence of his argument and so the whole argument and euery parte thereof altogether defectiue I shewed in these words 125 As concerning the consequence albeit wee should grant the antecedent proposition to wit that the Priests of the olde law had authoritie to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie at least wise of the administration of their kingdomes not per se but consequently as Card. Bellarmine deduceth to wit for that the had authority to separate them from the company of the rest of the people and consequently as he saith to depriue them of their kingdome yet we deny his consequence For that figure of the lepers doth consist in this that as in the old law they that were infected with corporall leprosie oughts to be separated at the arbitrement of the high Priest from the company of the rest of the people so long as they were infected with leprosie so in the Euangelical law they that are infected
with spirituall leprosie may by Bishops be excluded from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the faithful vntil they shal returne to their former health And therefore if from this that lepers ought vpon the sentence of the Priest to remaine in a house apart out of the campe vntill they were healed it doth necessarily follow that they had not power for that time to gouerne their temporall kingdome no meruaile that consequently also the were for that time depriued of the administration of the kingdome But it is manifest enough among the learneder Diuines and of better note as wee haue seene aboue f Nu. 346. Apolog. that the depriuing either of a temporall kingdome or of the administration thereof doth not necessarily follow Ecclesiasticall excommunication And therefore this similitude of Card. Bellarmine doth also faile in this and therefore his whole argument is not forcible 126 Yea also if Card. Bellarmine in his Treatise of the Eucharist doth argue well from the figure to the thing figured where from the figures of the old Testanment he prooueth that Christ our Lord is truely and really present in the Eucharist albeit we should grant that the Priests of Leui had power to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes not only consequently but also per se and principally yet it would not therefore follow that the Priests of the new law had also that power to depriue hereticall Kings of their kingdomes For by this very same that corporall leprosie and the punishment annexed to it by the law of God was a figure of heresie or spirituall leprosie and of the punishment which is agreeable to it by the law of Christ heresie ought not by the Euangelicall law to be punished with the losse of temporall kingdome in regard of the signification of the figure for that this punishment was in the old law ordained for corporall leprosie but with a punishment of a higher degree to wit spirituall and the losse of an euerlasting kingdome because the figure is alwaies lesse perfect and of an inferiour degree then is the thing figured as the shadow in respect of the body as Card. Bellarmine doth in that place affirme And by this reason some Diuines doe not vnaptly gather that Christ our Lord was an eternall King and of a higher degree because he was figured by Melchisedech who was a temporall King 127. But that which Card. Bellarmine addeth in the end out of the first to the Corinthians chap. 10. that all things chaunced to the Iewes in figure to prooue from thence that corporall leprosie in the old Testament was a figure of heresie and spirituall leprosie he doth not well deduce out of Saint Paul neither doth he entirely and faithfully produce his words For Saint Paul doth onely say in that place All these things to wit those few things before he had rehearsed did chance to them in figure but he maketh no mention at all in that place of this figure of leprosie Thus I answered in my Apologie 128 Now to this my answere D. Schulckenius g Pag. 550. replieth thus I answere First when Bellarmine saide that Ozia was enforced to resigne vp the kingdome to his sonne for my Adversary Widdrington seemeth to wrest this awry by the kingdome he vnderstood not the name of King but the administration at the kingdome with full power or Regall authoritie But I did not wrest awry or misinterprete that word kingdome for I prooued as you haue seene that Ozias did not resigne vp to his sonne his Kingly authority but he still remained King not onely in name but elso and right and in very deede and that his sonne had indeede full authority to gouerne or administer the kingdome as an Administratour Protectour Guardian or if we may say so Vice-Roy but no supreme or Regall authority 129 Besides that saith this Doctour good Diuines cited aboue h Nu. 346. by my Aduersary WiddringtoÌ„ as Paludanus Richardus S. Antoninus Sotâ—s Medina Richeomus and two they are my Aduersary Widdringtons words most famous Diuines of this age and of the same Religious Order with Card. Bellarmine Franciscus Suarez and Martinus Becanus dâ—e teach that which is true and denied by no man to wit that excommucation precisely and per se men are not depriued of the dominion of their temporall goods and thereby not depriued of their Kingdomes and Seignories But that which my Aduersary Widdrington doth impose vpon them to wit that they are not depriued of the administration of their kingdome this they doe not teach For it is the common opinion of Diuines and Cannists that by excommunication men are depriued of their power to iudge and of other acts belonging to the externall Court Forensibus actibus wherein the administraton of ciuill Iurisdiction doth consist 130 For Suarez doth say and prooue three things against my Aduersary Widdrington in the place cited by my Aduersary Tom. 5. disput 15. sec 6. First that by excommunication externall iurisdiction doth cease in the person excommunicated and all acts which doe appertaine thereunto Secondly that in subiects doth cease the obligation of fidelitie being also sworne after the sentence is giuen by an Ecclesiasticall Iudge and hee prooueth it by the chap. Nos sanctorum cap. Iuratos 15. q. 6. Thirdly that dominion and temporall goods doe not cease vnlesse there be mention made of them as truely it is made in the excommunication of heretickes who are depriued of all goods and of all dignitie Wherefore seeing that our principall question is concerning the leprosie of heresie it is plaine that my Aduersary Widdrington hath imposed vpon Catholke Doctors a false doctrine for true 131 But truely it is plaine that this Doctour cannot with any colourable Reply impugne my answeres but either by equiuocating chopping or changing corrupting or misinterpreting my words or meaning For my words in this place which this Doctour after his vsuall manner doth misinterpret are as you haue seene that according to learned Diuines the depriuing either of a temporall kingdome or of the administration of a temporall kingdome doth not necessarily follow Ecclesiasticall excommunication marke that word necessarily fellow And in the number 346 to which also I referred the Reader I affirmed that Excommunication ex se of it selfe or of it owne nature hath not sufficient force to depriue a Prince of his dominion or of the vse thereof Suarez tom 5. desp 8. sec 1. And this I prooued by the definition of Excommunication assigned by Suarez to wit that it is an Ecclesiasticall Censure whereby one is separated from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the faithfull which definition is taken from Saint Augustine as he is cited in the Canon law i 11. q. 3. omnis Christianus who saith that euery Christian who is excommunicated is remooued from Ecclesiasticall communion 132 From whence it necessarily followeth that Excommunication ex se of it selfe of it owne nature or by any intrinsecall and necessarie
temporal punishments which to inflict the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue receiued authoritie from the graunt and consent of temporall Princes may by the Pastours of the Church be adioyned to Ecclesiasticall Excommunication and in this sense be called accidentall effects of Excommunication or rather punishments accidentally or per accidens annexed to the Censure of Excommunication And so the Pope being now by the graunt and consent of Secular Princes and Christian people become also a temporall Prince may annexe to Excommunication all temporall punishments which he as a temporall Prince hath power to inflict 143 Whereupon albeit I doe vtterly deny that Excommunication either of it owne nature or by any necessary consequence deduced from thence abstracting from the graunt and consent of temporall Princes hath sufficient force to depriue one of any ciuill dominion Iurisdiction or conuersation yet I doe willingly graunt that an inferior Magisrate who by the sentence of a spirituall Iudge is declared to haue incurred the Censure of Excommunication is by the expresse ciuill lawes of some kingdomes and in some others by the tacite consent of the Prince deprived of ciuill Iurisdiction and their acts reputed to bee of no force in law yea and that by the Imperiall law q In noua Constit Frederici if for a whole yeere he remaine excommunicated he is in the nature of a proclaimed outlaw or Bandite But to commaund subiects not to obey their lawfull and Soueraigne Prince in temporalls and to absolute subiects from that ciuill and naturall allegiance which by the law of God and nature they owe to their rightfull Prince seeing that according to Suarez r Aboue nu 121 the power to command in the Prince and the bond of obedience in the subiects are correlatiues and one dependeth on the other and that to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince is plainely repugnant saith Card. Bellarmine to the law of God it is not in the power of spirituall Pastours vnlesse they have authoritie to depose Princes and to make Kings no Kings which whether it bee in their power to doe or no is the very question about which I with all my Aduersaries doe now contend and concerning which the Schoolemen are now at variance and as yet the controuersie is not decided by the Iudge saith Iohn Trithemius Å¿ In Chron. Monast Hirsang ad an 1106. 144 To those Canons Nos sanctorum Iuratos Absolutos which Suarez brought for his chiefe ground to prooue that the absoluing of Subiects from the temporall allegiance which by the law of God and nature they owe to their Soueraigne Princes is now a punishment annexed to the Censure of Excommunication I haue heeretofore answered and among other answeres this was one that those Canons are not to bee vnderstood of Soueraigne Princes but onely of inferiour persons who indeede by the consent of their temporall Soueraignes doe loose their temporall Iurisdiction after the sentence is publikely declared yea and in the territories of the Empire if for a yeere they persist excommunicated are as I saide in the nature of persons prescribed out lawes or Bandites 145 This in effect and much more to the same purpose did I answere heeretofore by all which the force of my answere to Card. Bellarmines argument taken from the example of King Ozias and the reason why I denyed his consequence supposing for Disputation sake the antecedent to be true as it is not may euidently appeare For in the old law the dwelling of lepers after they were declared so to be by the Priest in a house apart from the rest of the people was expresly ordained by the law of God and therefore supposing now with Card. Bellarmine that the dwelling of a King being infected with leprosie in a house apart from the rest of the people should by any necessarie consequence inferre that hee is consequently depriued of his kingdome or the administration thereof it is no meruaile that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue such Kings per accidens and consequently that is to declare them depriued by the law of GOD of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof But in the new law neither the depriuation of a temporall kingdome or of the administration thereof nor the losse of any temporall Iurisdiction doth by the law of GOD or by any other necessarie consequence follow spirituall leprosie or any intrinsecall propertie of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication neither is it in power of spirituall Pastours as Almainus said to inflict any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods c. nay nor so much as to imprison as very many Doctours saith hee doe affirme but onely to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments And therefore the similitude of Cardinall Bellarmine betwixt corporall and spirituall leprosie in the old and new law is this defectiue and so the consequence of his argument is altogether insufficient Thus much touching my first answere to the consequence of his argument 146 Marke now how sleightly this Doctour would shuffle ouer my second answere and reason which did cleane ouerthrow Card. Bellarmines consequence grounded vpon the nature of a figure and the thing figured euen according to his owne grounds For whereas I answered as you haue seene that because a figure as Card. Bellarmine saith is alwayes lesse perfect and of an inferiour degree then the thing which is figured it doeth not follow that heresie which is figured by corporall leprosie must bee punished with a temporall punishment because corporall leprosie was punished therewith but with a punishment of a higher degree to wit with a spirituall punishment D. Schulckenius replieth thus I answere saith hee t pag. 552. As heresie which is a spirituall leprosie is farre more pernicious then corporall leprosie so Excommunication is a punishment of a higher degree then the separating of lepers For Excommunication doth not onely depriue of the companie and liuing together of men in one house but also of participation of Sacraments and Suffrages of the Church But that Excommunication besides doeth depriue of ciuill administration and sometimes hath annexed the depriuation of temporall goods and also of the kingdome it selfe doth not diminish but increase the greatnes and excellencie of the punishment of spirituall leprosie aboue the punishment of corporall leprosie Wherefore it is most true that the thing figured is of an higher degree then the figure And in this manner the Eucharist is of an higher degree then manna or the Paschall lambe because these doe nourish the body that nourisheth the soule although also those accidents of the Eucharist are profitable to the nourishment of the body 147 But obserue the egrigious fraude of this Doctour For that proposition of Card. Bellarmine Figures must of necessitie be of an inferiour order and excellencie then the things figured is to be vnderstood of figures formally as they are figures for it little importeth that those things that are figures be
the high Priest this oath must needes haue beene repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament Thus farre I haue thought good to lay downe the words of my Supplement touching the law of God in the old Testament c. 168 To this authority of S. Chrysostome I did answere in my English Disputation of the oath long before Mr. Fitzherbert Reply come foorth And all the force of his argument taken from this authoritie seemeth to consist in those wordes of S. Chrysostome Consedit in throno legem Dei riâ—sus transgrediens He sate in his throne transgressing againe the law of God From whence this man inferreth that God was offended not only because Ozias was not cast out of the City but also because he was suffered still to reigne whereas this only can be gathered from those words and these other and you are afraid to cast him being vncleane out of the City you beare reuerence to his Kingly dignitie violating the law of God c. I doe therefore speake no longer to the Prophets c. That God was offended and speake no longer to the Prophets for that Ozias being a leper and vncleane was not cast out of the City as it was ordained by the law which also S. Chrysostome in the next homily doth more plainly declare 169 Ego vero saith this holy Father si vnum quiddam adhuc addidero c. But if I shall adde yet one other thing I will make an end of my speach And what is this That which not long agoe from the beginning we did demaund What is the cruse that seeing in externall things and in prophecies all are went to set downe the time wherein the Kings did liue this Prophet Esay ommiting that expresseth the time wherein King Ozias dyed speaking in this manner And it came to passe in the yeere wherein King Ozias dyed And yet he might haue expressed the time of the King then reigning as all Prophets vsually did But he did not so For what cause did he not so It was an ancient custome to expell a leprous out of the Citty both to the end that those who liued in the Citty might be in better health and that the leprous should not giue to men prone to vse reprochfull words an occasion of scoffing and derision but that he abyding out of the City might haue solitarines in steede of a vaile or couer against reprochfull calamitie And this ought this King to haue suffered after his leprosie but he did not suffer it those that were in the City reuerencing him for his Soueraignitie but he remained at his house secretly This to wit that he remained at his house secretly and went not forth of the City prouoked GOD to wrath this hindered the prophecie c. Thus saith S. Chrysostome whereby it is manifest that S. Chrysostome doth not affirme that God was offended because Ozias was not thrust out of his kingdom or depriued of his right to reigne but because he liued secretly at his house in the City and did not depart out of the City according as the law in Leuiticus did ordaine 170 Wherefore the meaning of those words of S. Chrysostome He sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God is made more plaine by these later words which I did now relate For as before he being no Priest trangressed the law of God by presuming to offer Sacrifice vpon the Altar of incense contrary to the law so now againe he being for his former offence striken by GOD with leprosie transgressed the law by presuming to remaine in the City which the law did forbid Allo Mr. Fitzherbert may perchance vse some cunning translating those words of S. Chrysostome Sedebat to thrâ—â—â— c. He sate still in his throne breaking againe the law of God as though Ozias had offended againe by remaining still in his throne or which I take for all one by continuing still to reigne and by keeping still his Royall dignitie and authoritie or right to reigne and not resigning it ouer wholy and fully to his sonne Ioathan Wherefore taking those words He sate still in his throne in this sense that word still may be equiuocall and of purpose thrust in by Mr. Fitzherbert to signifie that he offended for keeping still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne whereas the words of S. Chrysostome only are that he sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God not for that he brake againe the law of God because he sate in his throne or which I take for all one kept still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did gouerne the kingdome in his name and by his authoritie and as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy but for that he departed not our of the City as S. Chrysostome himselfe expresly declareth But if Mr. Fitzherbert will haue S. Chrysostome to take that word throne for the materiall Royall seate or chaire of estate which remained in the City for so also the Latin word may be Englished then this sense is in effect all one with the first which I contended to be Chrysostomes meaning to wit that Ozias transgressed the law againe for remaining in the City for leprosie did not debarre him by the law from sitting in a chaire of estate out of the City or from any iote of his Kingly right power or authoritie as I shewed before 171 But lastly it is worth the noting to obserue how well forfooth Mr. Fitzherbert agreeth with Card. Bellarmine in vrging this example of King Ozias For Card. Bellarmine contendeth that Ozias was thrust out both of the City and also of his kingdome but this man laboureth to proue that according to S. Chrysostome hee was neither cast out of his kingdome nor out of the City Others with Iosephus affirme that he liued in deede out of the City but withall that he still reigned or remained King although Ioathan in his name and authoritie or as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy administred the kingdome Neuerthelesse Abulensis Abulens q. 29 in Cap. 25. Exodi although he greatly commendeth Iosephus as a most skillfull Historiographer of the Iewes of whom also hee writeth m Q 9 in cap. 15. lib. 4. Reg. that it is likely he know all the particular facts of those Kings yet he leaueth the opinion of Iosephus in this point Sometimes saith Abulensis n Q. 10 in cap 13 â—euit the plague of leprosie was perpetuall and then the leper remained vntill his death out of the Campe separated from the rest and this was vnlesse perchance he was a man of great excellencie as the King who if he fell into leprosie did not goe out of the campe but remained therein but he was in a certaine separate house as we reade 4. Reg. 15. Of King Ozias who there is called Azarias for he fell into leprosie being stiken by GOD in the forehead because he would burne incense to our Lord as Priests where it
cleanse the soule of spirituall vncleannesse which doeth barre men from entring the Celestiall tabernacle created by God alone and as the Priests the old law had authoritie according to my Aduersaries false Doctrine to create annoint punish and depose earthly Kings so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to create institute and make them heires to the kingdome of heauen by the Sacrament of Baptisme to annoint them with the oile of grace by the sacrament of Confirmation to punish them with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures to depose or exclude them in some sort from the kingdome of heauen by denying them sacramentall absolution 8 In this manner should Mr. Fitzherbert haue argued from the figure to the veritie by which wee can onely proue that the Priests of the new law can create annoint punish and depose Kings in a more higher Bell. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. and not in the same degree for as Cardinall Bellarmine well obserued to fulfill the figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to be done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when hee was circumcised himselfe but when hee ordained Baptisme in place thereof and so the Priests of the new law doe not fulfill the figure of the Leuiticall Priesthood by creating annointing punishing and deposing earthly Kings in the same materiall manner as the Priests of Leui did but when they create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to wit Christians who by Baptisme are made heires to the kingdome of heauen with spirituall creation vnction chastisement and deposition as I haue declared before And by this the Reader may cleerely perceiue that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not sufficiently prooued either that the Priests of the old Testament had authoritie to create depose or punish temporally their Kings by way of temporall constraint for no man maketh doubt but that the Priests hoth of the olde and new law haue authoritie to annoint Kings it being only a sacred and religious ceremonie and to punish temporally by way of command and by declaring the law of GOD as to enioyne fastings almes-deedes and other corporall afflictions c. and to declare that this or that King shall be deposed if GOD shall so reueale because all these are meere spirituall actions or else that albeit wee should grant as my Aduersaries vntruely suppose that the Priests of the old law had the aforesaid authoritie to create depose and punish Kings temporally yet therefore from thence any probable and much lesse a potent argument as this man pretendeth can be drawne as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the Priests of the new law must have authoritie to doe the same things but onely to do things more excellent and of an higher degree and order as the body is more excellent and more perfect then the shadow the verity then the figure Christ then Moyses the new Law then the old heauenly kingdomes then earthly and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures are of another nature order and degree then temporall or ciuill punishments 9 Now Mr. Fitzherbert goeth on to prooue also out of the new Testament that the Priests of the new law especially the chiefe Pastour of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to punish Princes not onely with spirituall but also with temporall and corporall punishments And therefore now to declare saith hee g nu 32. p. 87. how I proued the same further by the new law it is to bee vnderstood Psal 77. Isa 44. Psal 2. Matth. 2. Apoc. 19. Aug. in Ioan. Bel. l. 1. de Rom. Pont c. 12. ad 6. obiect that I vrged h Suppl vbi supra nu 59. to that end the commission giuen by our Sauiour to St. Peter not onely to binde and loose but also to feede his sheepe shewing by many texts of Scripture as also by the authoritie of S. Augustine that Pascere to feede is taken for Regere to gouerne whereupon I drew certaine necessarie consequents in those words c. 10 But concerning the authoritie giuen by Christ our Sauiour to S. Peter to bind and loose or which euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine is all one in substance with to feede his sheepe for that by those words I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. was onely promised to S. Peter saith Cardinall Bellarmine not giuen the power to binde and loose and the keyes of the kingdome which keyes hee as the principall and ordinarie Prefect Prelate or Gouernour then onely receiued when he heard Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe I answere first that not onely S. Peter but also all the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and power to binde and loose and to feede the sheepe of Christs flocke seeing that as Christ saide to Saint Peter whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. so he said to the rest of the Apostles what things soeuer you shall binde c. albeit I will not deny that Saint Peter was the first of the Apostles but in what consisteth this prioritie principalitie primacie or superioritie of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles as likewise of the Pope ouer all other Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops and Bishops of Christs Church there is yet a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and of Paris and perchance hereafter I shall haue occasion to treate thereof more at large But that which for this present I intend to affirme is this that considering in those wordes of our Sauiour Tibi dabo claues c. I will giue thee the keyes c. Saint Peter represented the whole Church and not only to him but also to the rest of the Apostles and to the whole Church and Priesthood which Saint Peter did represent were promised the keyes and power to binde and loose as the holy Fathers and ancient Diuines doe commonly expound i As to omit Origen tract 1. in Matth. 16. Euseb Emis hom in Natali S. Petri. Theophylac in 1. Mat. 16. S. Ambr. in psa 38. lib. 1. de Paenit c. 2. Hieron lib. 1. contra Iouinian Aug. tra 50. 124. in Ioan. tract 10. in Epi. Ioan. in psal 108. Leo serm 3. in Anniu assumpt Fulgentius de fide ad Petr. l. 1. de remis pec c. 24. Beda Ansel in Mat. 16. Euthym. c. 33. in Matth. Haymo hom in fest Petri Pauli Hugo de S. vic l. 1. de Sacram. c. 26. alibi Durand in 4. dist 18. q. 2. â—yra in Mat. 16 Walden tom 2. doct fid c. 138. Cusanus l. 2. de Concord Cat. c. 13. 34. and commonly all the ancient Doctors of Paris if from the power to bind and loose promised to Saint Peter it doth necessarily follow that S. Peter and
his Successours haue authoritie to create depose and punish Princes temporally it doth likewise follow that the rest of the Apostles and their Successours haue the same authoritie ouer Kings and Princes who are subiect to them spiritually 11 Secondly those wordes of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood as I answered in my Apologie nu 36. of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings to absolue from sinnes not from debts to vnloose the bonds of the soule not of the body to open or shut the gates of the kingdome of heauen not of earthly kingdomes to giue or take away spirituall goods graces and benefits not temporall goods lands kingdomes or liues When it was said to S. Peter saith S. Augustine I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. he signified the vniuersall Church The rocke is not from Peter but Peter from the rocke vpon this rocke which thou hast confessed Aug. trac 124. in Ioan. I will build my Church The Church therefore which is founded on Christ receiueth from Christ the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that is power to binde and loose sinnes And againe beneath saith S. Augustine Peter the first of the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to bind and loose sinnes So also S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Fulgentius Ambr. lib. 1. de paenit c. 2. Chrysost Theoph. in Mat. 16. Fulgent Eus Emiss vbi supra Bernard l. 2. c. 6 de considerat Hug. Vict. tom 2. serm 64. Iust Monast Laurent Iust de casto connub verbi animae c. 10. Eusebius Emissen Theophylact S. Bernard Hugo de S. Victore Laurentius Iustinanus and infinite others vnderstand those words of our Sauiour of binding and loosing soules and sinnes Neither is there any one of the ancient Fathers or Doctours before Pope Gregorie the seuenth that wrested them to the giuing or taking away from any man whatsoeuer according to their deserts Empires Kingdomes Princedomes Dukedomes Earledomes and the possessions of all men Quia si potestis saith hee k In the Excommunication of Henry the 4. in the eight Roman Councel held by him in the yeere 1080. Iansenius c. 148. Concord Theophy in c. 21. Ioan. Basil in l. de vita solitar c. 23. in caelo ligare soluere potestis in terra Imperia Regna Principatus Ducatus Marchias Comitatus omnium hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere vnicuique concedere 12 I grant likewise that Pascere to feede is taken also for Regere to gouerne but not as a King gouerneth his kingdome but as a Sheepheard gouerneth his flocke as well obserueth Iansenius vpon this place of S. Iohn Christ saith Theophylact doeth not make Peter a Lord nor a King nor a Prince but commandeth him to be a Sheepheard Wherefore as those words whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings and were spoken not only to Saint Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles so also these wordes Feede my sheepe are to be vnderstood of spirituall feeding or gouernment and doe belong not onely to S. Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles whom S. Peter did represent Atque hoc ab ipso Christo docemur c. saith S. Basill And this wee are taught by Christ himselfe who appointed Peter the Pastour of his Church after him For Peter saith he doest thou loue me more then these Feede my sheepe and consequently hee giueth to all Pastours and Doctours the same power whereof this is a signe that all doe equally bind and loose after that manner as he Feede my sheepe saith S. Ambrose which sheepe and which flocke Amb. de dignit sacerd c. 2. not only blessed Peter did then take to his charge but hee did take charge of them with vs and all we tooke charge of them with him For not without cause Aug. de agone Christiano c. 30. saith S. Augustine among all the Apostles Peter sustained the person of this Catholike Church for to this Church the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter amd when it is said to him it is said to all Doest thou loue Feede my sheepe Let Bishops and Preachers of the word heare saith Theophylact what is commended to them Theoph. in c. 21. Ioan. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad anno 1580. Feede saith Christ my sheepe c. Certaine things saith Cardinall Bellarmine are said to Peter in regard of the Pastorall office which therefore are vnderstood to bee said to all Pastours as Feede my sheepe and confirme thy brethren and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. But of this my second answere more beneath l nu 21. seq where you shall see in what fraudulent manner D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same 13 Now you shall see what necessarie consequents Mr. Fitzherbert hath drawen from those words of our Sauiour spoken to S. Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. and Feede my sheepe For as much saith he m nu 33. p 87 Suppl nu 61. at there can be no good gouernment of men without chastisement when iust occasion requireth it followeth that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and so consequently to his Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish such as should deserue it Whereupon it followeth that seeing all Christian Princes are sheepe of Christs fould and to be gouerned and guided by their supreme Pastour they cannot exempt themselues from his iust chastisement when their owne demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it And this I say not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction 14 But first I willingly grant that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and also to the rest of his Apostles and also consequently to their Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish all those that are sheepe of Christs fould and consequently also all Christian Princes when their demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it But I vtterly denie that this chastisement is to be vnderstood as Mr. Fitzherbert saith not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Commmon-wealth and consequently granted her power to giue only spirituall goods graces and benefites not temporall goods lands or kingdomes so also the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to chastise and punish spiritually not temporally or which is all one to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments and to depriue their spirituall sheepe and subiects of those spirituall goods which they haue receiued from the Church and by being Christians and not of those temporall goods which they had before they became Christians and which they
receiue not from the Church but from the temporall kingdome or Common-wealth And therefore small credite is to be giuen to Mr. Fitzherberts bare I say vnlesse he could more sufficiently prooue and make good what he sayth 15 Marke now secondly how well he confirmeth this his I say For if bad Princes sayth he could not be temporally chastised by their Pastour when they contemne the spirituall rod of Ecclesiasticall Censures as wicked Princes commonly doe Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of the Church But this consequence which is so barely and without any proofe at all affirmed by him I vtterly denie For to the good gouernment of a spirituall kingdome or Common-wealth as is the Church of Christ t is sufficient for the Pastours and Gouernours thereof to haue authoritie to punish spiritually not temporally or to inflict spirituall noâ— temporall punishments as also to the good gouernment of temporall kingdomes or Common-wealths it is sufficient that their Kings Princes and other Gouernours haue authoritie to punish temporally or to inflict temporall not spirituall punishments But of this consequence more beneath m nu 21. seq for in effect it is all one with Card. Bellarmines second reason which D. Schulckenius as you shall see laboureth in vaine to make good against the answere which in my Apologie I brought thereunto 16 But this may yet be more euident saith Mr. Fitzherbert if we consider that the greatest inconuenience and harme that can happen to the Church of God groweth commonly by the negligence opposition rebellion or apostasie of Christian Princes who so long as they remaine obedient and dutifull to the Church are as the Prophet calleth them her Nutritij that is to say Isay 59. her Foster-fathers or as it were her Armes not onely to defend her against all forraine enemies but also to retaine all her subiects in their due obedience executing her lawes and decrees and confirming the same with her owne constitutions and therefore we see that in a Christian Countrey where the Prince is Catholike if any subiect doe contemne or resist an Excommunication or other Censure of the Church he is euen by the temporall and publike lawes and by the authoritie of the Prince forced presently to doe his dutie or else is seuerely punished so that while the Prince remaineth obedient to the Church there is no doubt or danger of disobedience in his subiects or of any other great inconuenience to ensue on their parts But if he become disobedient himselfe and fall into heresie Schisme or Apostasie what remedie hath the Church against him by a bare Ecclesiasticall Censure doth he not contemne it and by his authoritie and example draw his subiects for the most part to a generall reuolt from the Church shall we then say that Christ left not to his Church sufficient authoritie to remedie this 17 If a Christian Prince become disobedient to the Pastours of the Church and shall contemne all Ecclesiasticall Censures fearing not to be declared as a Heathen and Publican and to be deliuered ouer to Sathan by Excommunication which is a greater punishment saith S. Augustine then to be stricken with the sword to be consumed by fire Augustin lib. 1 contra Aduersar leg prophet cap. 17. or to be exposed to the deuouring of wild beasts the Church hath no other punishment to inflict vpon him and therefore in this case she hauing performed her office and inflicted her last punishment hath no other remedie then to leaue him to the iudgement and punishment of almightie God who will euer protect his Church and to flie to prayer fasting almes-deeds patience and such kind of spirituall armour or weapons which are proper saith the Glosse n ad Ephes 4. to the souldiers of Christ neither must she therefore vsurpe temporall and ciuill weapons or armour as are the depriuing of temporall and corporall goods which doe not belong to spirituall Pastours but to temporall Princes Kingdomes and Common-wealth Thus I answered in my Apologie o nu 184. and the reason hereof I gaue a little before for that Excommunication or such like spirituall Censure is the last and onely punishment which the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power by the institution of Christ can inflict Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. Almain in lib. de dominio nat ciu Eccles conclus 2. Bell. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19. ad secundum as Ioannes Parisiensis Iacobus Almaine and very many Doctours sayth Almaine doe affirme 18 And what if a wicked Pope shall afflict the Church and seeke to ouerthrow the spirituall good thereof and to draw soules into perdition what authoritie thinke you hath Christ our Sauiour the spouse Protectour and King of the Church according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine left to his Church to remedie this I answere saith he that it is no meruaile that the Church in this case remaineth without any effectuall humane remedie seeing that her safetie doth not chiefly relie vpon the industrie of mâ—n but vpon the protection of God who is her King Therefore although the Church hath not power to depose the Pope yet she may and ought to pray humbly to God that he will bring some remedie And it is certaine that God will haue a care of her safetie who will either conuert such a Pope or else take him out of the way before he destroy the Church And yet against this answere which may in like manner be applyed to wicked Princes persecuting the Church and contemning Ecclesiasticall Censures Mr. Fitzherbert dare not conclude that therefore Christ our Sauiour hath not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church 19 But what thinke you doth D. Schulckenius reply to that which I answered that if wicked Princes shall contemne all Ecclesiasticall censures the Church hauing vsed her last punishment cannot proceed against them by inflicting temporall punishments Euen as he vsually doth throughout his whole booke by cunningly shifting of the difficultie and flying from one argument to an other and in the ende to his accustomed rayling Schulcken pag. 359. ad nu 184. and slanderous speeches I answere saith he The temeritie of this man who will haue himselfe to be accounted a Catholike is wonderfull A generall Councell of the Christian world saith that Princes favouring heretikes and contemning Excommunication are to be depriued of their dominions by the Sea Apostolike and one man doth freely contradict and affirme that the Church hath no other thing to doe but hath performed her office after she hath throwen the dart of Excommunication To whom ought Catholike men giue credite whether to the vniuersall Church giuing testimonie of her authoritie receiued from God unto one I know not whom who lying hid vnder another mans name lasheth out words 20 But first to returne him backe his bitter inuectiue truely I cannot but admire the fraudulent and vncharitable dealing of this Doctour who would haue himselfe to be accounted
also in readinesse that is in manifest and speedy effect to reuenge all disobedience that is to punish the offences of them who would not obey vs that they might correct themselues Which we will doe when your obedience shall be fulfilled that is when all the rest of you shall by loue be obedient in all things Thus S. Anselme Now what learned man will thus conclude that because S. Paul and the Apostles had a most ample extraordinarie and miraculous authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to conuert men to the faith of Christ and to reuenge or punish all that were disobedient with temporall punishments euen by death as S. Peter did Ananias and Saphyra or by depriuing them of their sight as S. Paul did Elimas the Magician or by deliuering them to Sathan to be visibly tormented by him as S. Paul did the incestuous Corinthian that therefore the ordinarie Pastours of the Church haue now either an extraordinarie or ordinary authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to doe the like 35 I omit that S. Ambrose or whosoeuer is the Authour of those Commentaries expoūdeth those words to reuenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled of the Corinthians themselues who being perfectly conuerted shall punish in themselues their former disobedience It is manifest saith S. Ambrose that he reuengeth disobedience when he condemneth it by obedience then destroying it when he bringeth to the faith those who doe resist or disobey that infidelitie may be condemned by them by whom it was defended The same also doth S. Anselme insinuate as you haue seene aboue 36 But S. Augustine saith Mr. Fitzherbert vnderstandeth those words of the Apostle hauing in a readinesse to reuenge all disobedience of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties True it is that S. Augustine applyeth those words of the Apostle to the authoritie of the Church to compell heretikes by temporall punishments to returne to the faith of Christ taking the Church as it containeth all the faithfull and consisteth both of temporall and spirituall power but it is not true that he vnderstandeth them of the authoritie of the Church as the Church is taken for Church-men or the spiritual Pastours of the Church Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth herein egregiously abuse his Reader For S. Augustines maine drift both in that 50. epistle in the former 48. epistle is only to proue against the Donatists that heretiks may lawfully be compelled with temporall punishments by the lawes of Christian Emperours to returne to the Catholike faith and that the Pastours of the Church did well in requesting Christian Emperours to make such lawes Wherefore the argument of the 48. epistle to Vincentius is that S. Austin was once of opinion that we must not deale with heretikes by violence but only with the word of God but afterwards being ouercome with the doctrine and example of others he changed his opinion and taught that it is lawfull to implore the lawes of Princes against the enemies of the faith so that it be done with an intention to correct and not with a desire to reuenge And the argument of this 50. Epistle is that S. Augustine sheweth with what moderation heritickes may through feare of Emperiall lawes be reduced to the communion of the Church And in his second booke of Retractations Cap. 48. mentioning this Epistle to Bonifacius he writeth thus At the same time I wrote also a booke meaning this 50. Epistle concerning the correction of the Donatists by reason of those who would not haue them to be corrected by the Emperiall lawes This booke beginneth thus Laudo gratulor admiror fili dilectissime Bonifaci 37 Iudge now good Reader what a shamefull fraud is this of Mr. Fitzherbert to make ignorant Catholikes beleeue that S. Augustine bringeth those words of the Apostle to prooue the authority left by our Sauiour to his Church that is to Churchmen or to the spirituall Pastours of the Church for so hee vnderstandeth the word Church in all this his Discourse to compell her rebellious disobedient children by force of temporall punishments to performe their duties whereas S. Augustines intent onely is to prooue the lawfulnesse of the Emperiall lawes compelling heretickes by temporall punishments to returne backe to the faith and that Church-men or the spirituall Pastours of the Church may lawfully implore the Emperiall lawes and desire Christian Princes to compell heretickes to forsake their heresie by force of temporall punishments so that they desire it with intent to correct them and not with a desire of reuenge 38 But if the Ecclesiasticall authority saith Mr. Fitzherbert y Pag. 90. did not extend it selfe to the chastisement of disobediēt Princes in their temporal states it must needs follow that Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are went to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or states subiect to them who when they appoint lieutenants or deputies any where do giue them authority ouer all sorts of subiects so much power as may suffice for the remedy of all inconueniences and specially of the greatest which may occurre in the States where they gouerne c. But this consequence I haue euer denied For as I haue often said to the good gouernment of the Church of Christ which is a spirituall not a temporall kingdome or common-wealth it is onely required that the Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie to inflict spirituall and not temporall punishments and this authoritie forasmuch as concerneth the authoritie and punishments themselues is sufficient to redresse all inconueniences neither is it necessarie either in a spirituall or a temporall kingdome that the chiefe Gouernours thereof should haue that power might or effectuall meanes whereby all inconueniences must actually at all times be redressed 39 And therefore as temporall Kings doe giue to their Lieutetenants Deputies or Vice-Royes sufficient temporall authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects in the Prouinces or States where they gouerne but not alwayes so much power taking power not for authoritie or iurisdiction but for might force or effectuall meanes as may suffice for the remedie of all inconueniences for this power the Kings themselues doe often times want in those Dominions where they themselues doe personally gouerne so Christ our Sauiour ordaining in his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Gouernment gaue to the spirituall Gouernours thereof sufficient spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest but not sufficient power might or effectuall meanes actually to redresse the same And as the Lieutenants Deputies or Vice-Royes of temporall Kings if they offend cannot be punished with temporall punishments by any subiect in the States where they gouerne but by the King alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So
our Sauiour by instituting his spirituall Kingdome or Church hath not changed the nature of temporal kingdomes or ciuill common-wealths from whence it cleerely followeth that all temporall kingdomes or common-wealths whether they consist of Christians or Pagans haue the same nature and are naturally ordained to one and the selfe same and which is a peaceable liuing in humane Societie 8 True it is that the same Christian man as well Prince as subiect is a part and member of the true ciuill common-wealth and also of the true spirituall or Ecclesiasticall kingdome or Church of Christ as also the same Paynim is a part and member of the true ciuill common-wealth and of a false Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie and the reason heereof I declared more at large aboue in the second part because either temporal authoritie spiritual authoritie or temporal authoritie and spiritual subiection or temporal subiection spiritual subiection to omit spirituall authoritie and temporall subiection are vnited conioyned in one the selfe same Christian man by reason of which vnion and coniunction the same Christian man is either a temporall Prince and also a spirituall Prince or a temporal Prince and a spirituall subiect or a temporall subiect and also a spirituall subiect to omit now whether the same man may be a spirituall Prince and a temporall subiect for this dependeth vpon that question whether and in what manner our Sauiour Christ hath exempted Clergy men and especially the supreme spirituall Pastour from subiection to temporall Princes As likewise the same man may be of diuers trades as a Musition and a Physition the same man may bee Citizen of diuers cities as of London and Yorke the same man may be a King of diuers kingdomes as of England and Scotland But from hence it doth not follow that the temporall kingdome or common-wealth it selfe although the lesse noble and perfect must be subiect or naturally ordained to the spirituall Kingdome or Church of Christ which is the more noble and perfect Societie As likewise it doth not follow that because a man hath two trades the one more woorthy the other lesse woorthy or a citizen of two cities the one more noble the other lesse noble or a King of two Kingdomes the one more excellent the other lesse excellent that therefore the lesse worthy noble and excellent trade citie or kingdome it selfe must be subiect and subordained to the more worthy noble and excellent trade citie or kingdome 9 But this onely doth follow from the light of true reason that as the same man who hath two trades or artes to wit of Musicke and Physicke or a citizen of two cities as of London and Yorke or a King of two kingdomes as of England and Scotland must preferre cateris paribus the more noble and excellent before the lesse noble and excellent trade citie or kingdome and that as he is a Musition he is to bee guided and directed by the rules of Musicke and not of Physicke and as he is a citizen of London to be subiect to and gouerned by the lawes and customes of London and not of Yorke and as hee is King of England to rule and gouerne according to the lawes and customes of England and not of Scotland but that therefore Musicke must bee subiect to Physicke Yorke to London or Scotland to England except in worth dignitie or nobilitie or contrariwise it doth not follow from the light of true reason So in like manner it doth follow from the light of true reason that the same man who is a citizen of the temporall kingdome or common-wealth by his naturall birth or ciuill conuersation and also of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ by Baptisme or spirituall regeneration must in temporalls bee subiect onely to the temporall Prince and be directed and gouerned by temporall authoritie which doth onely reside in the temporall Prince and in spiritualls must be subiect onely to spirituall Pastours and be directed and gouerned by spirituall authoritie which doth onely reside in the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours of the Church But that the temporall kingdome it selfe or which is all one the temporall Prince as hee hath temporall authoritie or as hee is a temporall Prince must bee subiect to the spirituall kingdome or which is all one to spirituall Pastours as they haue spirituall authoritie but onely as the temporall Prince hath spirituall subiection this cannot be inferred from the light of true reason But Mr. Fitzherbert forsooth supposeth this to bee so euident in reason that no man will deny it to wit that the temporall common-wealth it selfe is subiect and subordained to the Ecclesiasticall Society and naturally ordained to her whereas in the Second part of this Treatise I haue at large against Card. Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius confuted the same and out of their owne grounds cleerely prooued that there is no such vnion subiection or naturall ordination of temporall common-wealths to the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ as they pretend but that temporall kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome of Christ doe make two totall bodies or common-wealths supreme and independent one vpon the other in those things which are proper to either of them to wit that temporall kingdomes are supreme in temporalls and consequently not subiect therein to the Church of Christ or the Pastours thereof and the Church supreme in spiritualls and not subiect to temporall kingdomes or the supreme Gouernours thereof 10 Now let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert inferreth from the premisses Whereupon saith he c Pag. 75. nu 4 it is also further to be inferred that as all Common-wealths are subordinate and subiect to the Church so also the heads of them all I meane the temporall Princes that gouerne them are subordinate and subiect to the head of the Church For although they be absolute heads of the States which they gouerne in things pertaining only to their temporall States yet they are but members of the mysticall body of Christ which is the Church and therefore no lesse subiect to the visible head thereof in matters belonging thereto then their owne proper Vassalls are subiect to them and therefore as the King or Ciuill Magistrate iustly correcteth the head of any familie when he passeth the limits and bounds of true Oeconomie to the hâ—rt of the Common-wealth though neuerthelesse a familie is a distinct Societie from a Common-wealth hauing a peculiar end with different lawes and manner of gouernment so the head of the Church may correct any King or Ciuill Magistrate when he doth any thing to the preiudice of the Church pag. 96. num 5. 11 For although the spirituall Prince or Magistrate haue no dominion ouer temporall States and the Gouernours thereof in matters appertaining only and meerely to State no more then the temporall Prince hath to doe with priuate families in matters that belong only thereto yet as the temporall Prince may giue lawes to a familie or to the head thereof when the
necessitie of the Common-wealth shall require it so also the Ecclesiasticall Prince or head of the Church may giue lawes to temporall Common-wealths and the Gouernour thereof according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church the publike good whereof is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or Common-wealth by the same reason and law of Nature that the good of the soule is to be preferred before the good of the body spirituall good before temporall heauen before earth and the seruice of GOD before the seruice of any man or of all the men in the world 12 But first although it be true that Christian Princes who are the absolute heads of the temporall States or kingdomes which they gouerne being also parts and members of the mysticall body or spirituall kingdome of Christ which is the Church are consequently subiect in things belonging to the Church to wit in spirituall matters to the visible Pastours Gouernours or heads thereof yet it is not true that temporall kingdomes or common-wealths themselues being taken properly formally and in abstracto are either parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ or subiect and subordained to the Church or the visible heads thereof for then it must needes follow that temporall Princes not only as they are Christians in spirituall matters but also as they are temporall Princes and in temporall things are subiect to the visible heads or Gouernours of the Church which is cleerely repugnant to Mr. Fitzherberts owne words in that place pag. 95. num 4. who affirmeth that temporall Princes are absolute heads of the States which they gouerne in things pertaining only to their temporall States and consequently in them they cannot be subordinate and subiect to the visible heads of the Church 13 Wherefore that comparison which he maketh heere and is the chiefe ground of his Discourse betwixt families cities and kingdomes or ciuill common-wealths and betwixt ciuill common-wealths or kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ is no fit comparison and therefore neither can the Discourse which is grounded thereon be sound and sufficient For families and cities being taken properly formally and in abstracto are parts and members of the whole kingdome or common-wealth and consequently subordinate and subiect to the kingdome and absolute heads thereof seeing that they are particular ciuill Societies and consequently subiect to the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth as euery part is to the whole body and to the chiefe head thereof but temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto are not parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ vnlesse we will hold with the Canonists that the Church of Christ is compounded both of spirituall and ciuill power and that the Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of the whole Christian world And therefore although it be true that spirituall Pastours haue nothing to doe in matters meerely temporall and which belong to ciuill gouernment yet it is not true that temporall Princes haue not to doe with priuate families and cities in matters that belong to the ciuill gouernment of them for that priuate families and cities are true parts and members of the whole ciuill common-wealth or kingdome and I hope that the Prince who hath to doe with the whole kingdome and gouernment thereof hath also to doe with the gouernment of euery part thereof 14 Secondly no man maketh any doubt but that the spirituall Pastours and Gouernours of the Church may correct any King or ciuill Magistrate when hee doth any thing to the preiudice of the Church and that they may giue lawes to the Gouernours of temporall common-wealths according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church and also that the publike good of the Church is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or common-wealth But all the difficultie consisteth in these points first whether authoritie to correct malefactours by the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods c. hath by the institution of Christ beene communicated to the spirituall Pastours of the Church or was leaft only to temporall Princes and the supreme Gouernours of temporall common-wealths Secondly whether spirituall Pastours may giue lawes to temporall Princes I doe not say as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ for of this no Catholike maketh doubt but to temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto or which is all one to temporall Princes not as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection but as they are temporall Princes and haue supreme temporall power which doth only reside in them and not in spirituall Pastours 15 Thirdly whether the particular or publike good of temporall Princes or common-wealths is to be preferred before the particular or publike good of the Church for that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one totall body or common-wealth which is the Church as Card. Bellarmine contendeth in which totall body the temporall common-wealth is per se and naturally subordained and subiect to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ or whether the spirituall good is to be preferred before the temporall by all Christians both Princes and subiects for that euery man who is a part and member of two cities or common-wealths the one more noble and excellent then the other is by the order of charitie bound to preferre caeteris paribus the more noble and excellent citie or common-wealth and the good thereof before the lesse noble and excellent city or common-wealth and the good of it These be the chiefe heads of this controuersie concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes or common-wealths among Christians and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof I haue at large debated in the second part where the Reader may see all these points distinctly handled against Card. Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius and also touching all that which Mr. Fitzherbert doth confusedly discourse in this Chapter concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes and the Church of Christ And therefore remitting the Reader to my former Treatise where he may cleerely see in what manner the temporall and spirituall power or the temporall and spirituall common-wealth are vnited and subordained let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert would at length conclude 16 Whereupon I conclude saith he d Pag. 96. nu 6 that seeing this Oath now in question is as I haue proued by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church to whom all Christian Princes are subiect euen by the law of Nature it followeth that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to nature then if a husband should exact the like Oath of his wife or a Maister of his seruant or the father of his children I meane an Oath which should
vice that may be necessary or hurtfull to the spirituall good of soules may also be commaunded or forbidden by the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power as it is directiue And this is the reason why the spirituall power as it is directiue may be extended to temporall punishments that is may command or forbid temporall penalties or afflictions for that vertue and vice which are the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue may be found in them 69 So likewise the obiect of the ciuill power as it is directiue is the obtaining and conseruing of temporall peace and quietnesse in the temporall common-wealth and her acts are the commanding or forbidding of those things which are necessary or hurtfull to the publike peace which is the last end of the temporall power it selfe although it be not the last end of the temporall Christian Prince as I shewed aboue in the second part So that what thing soeuer be it spirituall or temporall that doth iniuriously disturbe the publike peace may be forbidden by the temporall power as it is directiue And this is the reason why the temporall power as it is directiue may be extended sometimes to spirituall actions not as they are spirituall but as they are reduced to temporall actions for that the iniurious disturbance of the publike temporall peace which is the obiect of the temporall power as it is dâ—rectiue may sometimes be found in them As the baptizing of one with poysoned water or the ministring of the B. Sacrament which is also poysoned as they are spirituall actions to wit the ministring of Sacraments which worke a spirituall effect are not subiect to the directiue power of the temporall Prince but as they worke a temporall effect which is iniurious to the temporal peace they are subiect to the temporall power as it is directiue And so a temporall Prince may forbid a spirituall Pastour who is subiect to him in temporalls to minister hic nunc the Sacrament of Baptisme whereby the party baptized shall be poysoned So also vniust Excommunications if they cause tumults and perturbations in the common-wealth or vnfit conuenticles by night with armour and weapons whereby probable danger of seditions or of other temporall wrongs may arise although these assemblies be made to preach the Gospell or instruct the people in the faith of Christ may be forbidden by the temporall power not as they are temporall actions but as they are temporall wrongs and truely iniurious to the publike temporall peace 70 And this doctrine is of it selfe so manifest and perspicuous that no man of any learning can deny it and to affirme that it is a doctrine altogether intollerable and which cannot be vttered but by one who is giuen to a reprobate sense for that it maketh the temporall Prince to bee Iudge of spirituall things and thereby maketh him truely the head of the Church as D. Schulckenius most rashly affirmeth y Pag. 7. 208. is an intollerable slaunder and which could not be vttered by any learned man vnlesse with some vehement passion of ire hee had beene altogether transported and his vnderstanding therewith had beene wholly blinded as I haue shewed more amply in the Discouery of his slaunders z In Appendice ad Supplicationem § 11. calumnia 11. For this doctrine doth not make the temporall Prince to be iudge of spirituall matters but of temporall nor to be the head of the Church that is of the mysticall body of Christ and his spirituall kingdome or of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall causes but onely of the politicke body and temporall common-wealth and of ciuill matters or which by reason of some true temporall wrong are reduced to ciuill matters 71 But the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power as it is coerciue compelling or punishing doth not consist in commaunding but in punishing and her proper act and obiect is the inflicting of spirituall Censures or punishments For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall kingdome so he hath giuen her correspondent weapons armour and punishments which she is to vse to wit Ecclesiasticall Censures as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and not ciuill punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. as I haue shewed before a Part. 1. per totum out of Almaine and many others both ancient Fathers and moderne Catholike Diuines and Lawyers which also is sufficiently grounded in the holy Scriptures And if hee will not heare the Church let him bee to thee as a Heathen and Publicane b Matth. 18 and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c Matth. 16 not of earthly kingdomes and the weapons of our warfare are not carnall d 2. Cor. 10. 72 So likewise the Ciuill power as it is coerciue doth not consist in commanding but in punishing and her proper act and obiect is the inflicting or vsing of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. Which S. Bernard f Lib. de considerat ad Eugenium called the drawing forth or vsing and exercising the materiall or temporall sword for although he affirmed the materiall or temporall sword to belong in some sort to the Church for that it was to be drawne forth or vsed for the Church but not by the Church yet he also affirmed that Christ our Sauiour did forbid spirituall Pastours to wit as they were such to draw forth or vse the materiall or temporall sword And therefore well said Petrus Damianus g In Epist ad Firnim that the kingdome and Priesthood are by their proper offices and functions so distinguished that the King should vse Secular weapons and the Priests be girded with the spirituall sword which in sense is all one with that saying of Gratian h 2. q. 7. cap. Nos si the Compiler of the Canon law called the Decree It belongeth to Kings to inflict corporall and to Priests to inflict spirituall punishments Now as the end both of the directiue and also of the coerciue power is temporall peace so the end both of the directiue or commanding and also of the coerciue or punishing spirituall power is the spirituall health of soules and euerlasting happinesse which as I haue shewed aboue in the second part is also the last end of euery Christian man to which spirituall Pastours by Ecclesiasticall lawes and spirituall Censures and Christian Princes by ciuill lawes and temporal punishments are by the law of Christ bound as much as lyeth in them to bring their Subiects 73 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue both the true meaning of those words of mine The spirituall Superiour may command corporall and temporall things as they serue spirituall and are reduced thereto but not inflict temporall punishments and also what Mr. Fitzherbert can rightly conclude from that assertion of his All temporall things and temporall punishments may bee referred to a spirituall ende to wit to Gods glory and the benefit of soules and
doeth suppose the subiect to bee otherwise apt and well disposed For she hath power granted her by Christ to giue grace whereby we may come to the kingdome of heauen to Infants by the Sacrament of Baptisme and to men of discretion also by other Sacraments but especially of Penance by which the Priest as a Minister of Christ by vertue of the keyes which he hath receiued from Christ absolueth from sinnes and giueth grace neuerthelesse this power to worke actually her effect supposeth certaine necessarie dispositions on the behalfe of the persons who are to receiue the Sacraments as well in Infants as in men of discretion which dispositions the Church hath not alwayes power to procure Also besides this power which the Diuines call of Order the Church hath also power of Iurisdiction for shee hath authoritie to preach the word of GOD to correct sinners to make lawes and to punish the transgressours with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments For as the Church and the Ecclesiasticall power is spirituall so also she ought to haue meanes proportionate to such an end Wee graunt therefore the antecedent proposition in this sense which we haue now declared but we deny c. 29 Now this Doctour although hee granteth all this which I haue said to bee true yet he cannot forbeare to take certaine idle exceptions against the same I answere saith he g Pag. 353. ad nu 179. seq although all this doe make little or nothing to the soluing of Cardinall Bellarmines argument but to the enlarging of the volume of his booke they make much yet I would relate what hee hath said for that I saw certaine things to bee noted therein But whether they make little or nothing to solue Cardinall Bellarmines argument you shall see anon this is a vsuall tricke of this Doctour especially when my answere or argument is of greatest force that hee knoweth not well what to reply thereunto then with some idle or despitefull words to shift it of as that it is spoken either to disgrace Cardinall Bellarmine or to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes or that it is nothing to the purpose but to enlarge my booke and to make it seeme to bee of a competent volume and such like trifling toies which doe argue rather want of matter and a spirit of contradiction then a true desire to examine sincerely this important and difficult controuersie and which with as great facilitie and farre greater reason may bee retorted backe vpon himselfe for his often repeating of the same sentences and which are nothing to the purpose as that of S. Leo Ecclesiastica lenitas refugit cruentas vltiones Ecclesiasticall lenitie doeth shunne cruell punishments which is nothing to the soluing of my argument and spending many wordes to prooue that the Pope hath power to command and enioyne temporall penalties whereof I made no question and consuming twentie eight whole pages to prooue that S. Peter and his Successours are the heads of the Church which no Catholike doth deny and which make little or nothing to the impugning of my doctrine but to the enlarging the volume of his booke they make much 30 Now you shall see what goodly obseruations this Doctour hath found out in this part of my answere First saith he h Pag. 353. it is to bee obserued that my Aduersarie Widdrington I know not with what cunning hath transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian Common-wealth or the Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels For in Bellarmines argument the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth is taken in the first and not in the later sense But Widdrington answereth of the Christian common-wealth as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men Let he himselfe see with what simplicitie hee did it who otherwise doeth seeme so scrupulously to shunne equiuocations 31 But first it is to bee obserued with what cunning or ignorance this Doctour affirmeth that I haue transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels See Apolog. nu 176. 180. seq seeing that I expresly spake of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth as it is a spirituall common-wealth and as it hath spirituall power Now with what colour of probabilitie can this Doctour inferre from any one word of mine that I euer saide that Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth reside in Lay-men or that when I treate of the spirituall power of the Church or of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth I take the Church as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men True it is that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Common-wealth kingdome or Church of Christ when wee speake properly and generally is taken both by Cardinall Bellarmine and my selfe as it comprehendeth Cleargie-men and Lay-men that is as it containeth both spirituall power and spirituall subiection spirituall Pastours and spirituall subiects and therefore Cardinall Bellarmine before in his first reason affirmed that Kings and Bishops Cleargie-men and Lay-men doe not make two common-wealths but one onely that is one Church As likewise a temporall common-wealth or kingdome when we speake properly and generally is taken as it comprehendeth both temporall Kings and temporall subiects that is as it containeth both ciuill power and ciuill subiection For what man of iudgement speaking generally of a temporall kingdome by the name of the kingdome vnderstandeth onely the King himselfe but when he speaketh of the temporall power of a kingdome as I expresly spake heere of the spirituall power of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth no iudicious man can vnderstand that he speaketh of subiects wherein no temporall power doeth reside Let this Doctour therefore see himselfe with what simplicitie he said that I comprehended heere in this answere vnder the name of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth Cleargie-men and Lay-men when I treated of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the Church 32 Secondly it is to bee obserued saith this Doctour i Pag. 354. that which Widdrington heere disputeth of an apt and well disposed subiect that the Ecclesiasticall power may therein worke her effect to be true and that Cardinall Bellarmine hath the same in his answere to the obiections of Paulus Venetus and yet that Widdrington after his accustomed vprightnesse commended the argument of Paulus Venetus and dissembled Card. Bellarmines answere Heere you see that this Doctour granteth the distinction which I made to bee true and that Card. Bellarmine approoueth the same but that which he addeth that I dissembled Cardinall Bellarmines answere is very vntrue for I neuer saw his answere and although I had seene it and so might haue commended his meaning and his declaration yet truely I should not haue commended his words being spoken so generally and without any limitation or declaration seeing
question may be about the causes for which this authoritie may bee vsed as also the forme of proceeding to bee obserued therein whereunto he answereth that herein there are so many particularities to be considered as are ouerlong for this place onely it is sufficient for Catholike men to know that this may not be done without iust cause graue and vrgent motiues and due forme also of proceeding by admonition preuention intercession and other like preambles prescribed by Ecclesiasticall Canons to bee obserued whereby my Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloody Assassinates may iustly bee remooued For that this authoritie doth not onely not allow any such wicked or vnlawfull attempts but doth also expresly and publikely condemne the same and the doctrine thereof as may appeare not onely by the condemnation of Wickliffes wicked article in the Councell of Constance z Sess 15. wherein he affirmed That it was lawfull for euery priuate man to kill any Prince whom he held to bee a Tyrant but also by like condemnation of Caluin Beza c. 52 Thus you see that Father Parsons hath not answered to the Earle of Salisburies complaint in particular to wit that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie ouer the kingdomes and liues of temporall Princes hath not beene made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. But he supposeth it as certaine and graunted by Catholikes and in steade of some cleere and publike definition orthodoxall c. Which the Earle of Salisburie desired he bringeth onely certaine reasons which are in some sort grounded vpon the Law of Nature and the light of naturall reason to wit that Christ hath in his Church subiected temporall things to spirituall which also is true in the Law of Nature and that otherwise he had not so sufficiently prouided for the necessitie of his Church as God and Nature haue prouided for other temporall common-wealthes which are not so perfect as is his Church which reasons how weake and insufficient they are the Reader may presently perceiue by that which hath beene said before concerning the Law of Nature and against Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and also if he will but apply them to the Church and Synagogue in the old law in which without doubt God Almightie did both subiect temporall things to spirituall and for the necessitie whereof he did also sufficiently prouide and yet Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth it to probable that in the old Law the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and that Kings were not to bee temporally by the High Priest but contrariwise the High Priest was subiect in temporalls to the King and to bee punished by him with temporall punishments Wherefore after I had cleerely ouerthrowne Cardinall Bellarmines reason concluding thus And so it is manifest by that which I haue said how weake this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine is euen according to his owne principles I forthwith answered Father Parsons in this manner a Apolog. nu 203. 53 By which it is also apparant how weakely the Author of the English Treatise tending to Mitigation who groundeth his whole discourse for the Popes power to depose Princes vpon this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine doth satisfie the Earle of Salisburies desire whereof we made mention aboue For although it be-true that Christ our Sauiour left in his Church which is a spirituall common-wealth as in all other well established common-wealths sufficient authoritie and power for as much as concerneth the power it selfe to defend her selfe from the iniuries of all men whatsoeuer to correct iudge punish all wicked persons of what state or condition soeuer they be that are subiect to the supreme Prince of this spirituall common-wealth as members of the head sheepe to their Pastours children to their Father Neuerthelesse that Christ left in his Church sufficient power might or force to represse at all times all excesses whatsoeuer of Christian Princes or that the punishments wherewith such Princes may be punished by the Church are temporall which doe passe the limits appointed by Christ to a spirituall common-wealth this besides that it seemeth to be supposed by this Authour as certaine without any reason at all is also most clearely repugnant to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers who doe teach as I related aboue b Nu. 5 seq that the armour or weapons of the Church are spirituall not temporall and that Princes if they offend are for as much as concerneth temporall punishments to be left to the examination and iudgement of God alone 54 Wherefore there remaineth in the Church sufficient remedie and spirituall authoritie for temporall authoritie or which now I take for all one authoritie to dispose of temporalls is not agreeable to the condition of a spirituall common-wealth to represse by spirituall punishments the exorbitant excesses of all her subiects whatsoeuer and of this there is no controuersie among Catholikes as also to euery temporall common-wealth the law of God and nature hath giuen full and perfect temporall authoritie to punish all her subiects that shall offend with temporall punishments but not with spirituall which are not agreeable to a temporall common-wealth and to defend her selfe with corporall weapons from the wrongs and violence of all men though of forraine countreys how strong and potent soeuer they be albeit she hath not alwayes an effectuall remedie or sufficient force might or power to free her selfe from the vniust oppressions not onely of forraine countreys but also of her owne subiects by reason of their excessiue power and might 55 And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath authority to dispose of temporals and to depose temporall Princes to wit whether directly or indirectly immediatly or by a certaine consequence as this Authour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose as certaine and not doubted of by Catholikes but as I haue often said out of Trithemius It is a controuersie among the Schoolemen about the thing it selfe Trithem in Chron. monast Hirsang ad ann 1106. whether the Pope hath any such authority in any manner at all and as yet it is not determined by the Iudge whether hee hath any power to depose the Emperour or no. 56 Lastly if in euery well established Common-weath there is left sufficient remedy and authority by God and nature to represse and punish the more hainous offences of their Soueraigne Prince whereon the Discourse of this Authour in his first question whereupon the other two questions doe depend is chiefly grounded I doe not see in what manner and with what reason he can rid himselfe but that consequently hee must also grant that the Pope himselfe may for all enormous crimes be corrected iudged and punished by the Church Bel. li. 2. de Concil cap. 19. ad 2. nu whereas Cardinall Bellarmine as you haue seene aboue c Nu. 188. Apolog doth teach that
the authoritie of the Church resident either in her head the Pope or in her body a Councell to publish this declaration And not onely all the other parts of the Catholike Church but likewise all the Doctours who liued in Farance from the first setting vp of Schooles of Diuinitie amongst them haue held the affirmatiue opinion that in the case of hereticall or infidell Princes and such as persecute Christianitie or Catholike Religion their subiects may bee absolued from their Oath of Allegiance By meanes whereof though the contrarie doctrine were the truest yet notwithstanding all the other parts of the Church being against it you cannot hold it for more them problematicall in matter of faith I call that doctrine problematicall in matter of faith which we are not bound to beleeue by necessity of faith and the contradictorie thereof doth not binde them that belieue it with Excommunication and disunion or separation from the communitie Otherwise you must acknowledge that the communion which you exercise with the other parts of the Church holding the contrary doctrine yea euen that communion which you conserue with the memorie of your predecessours was vnlawfull defiled with heresie and excommunication 17 Thus you see that the Cardinall of Peron doth altogether auoide the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee to wit concerning the Popes power to depriue a Prince of his Regall authority wherewith before his sentence of depriuation he was endued and ioyneth two questions together which nothing belong to our new Oath The first is whether if a Prince who either by himselfe or by his Predecessours hath made an oath to liue and die in the Christian Catholike Religion and afterwards becommeth an hereticke or infidell and laboureth to draw his subiects to the same may not bee declared fallen from his right as culpable of felony towards Christ to whom he hath made his Oath and his subiects may not bee declared absolued from their oath of allegiance The second question is whether the Pope or Church haue not authority to publish this declaration Now neither of these two questions appertaine to our new Oath nor are as yet called in question by mee For as concerning the later supposing that a Prince by reason of heresie or Apostacy either is actually depriued and fallen from his right to raigne which the Cardinall of Peron following therein Philopater seemeth heere to maintaine or else may for the same be depriued thereof by the Common-wealth no Catholike will make any doubt but that this being supposed the Pope or Church may declare him an hereticke or Apostata and consequently to be fallen thereby from his Royall dignity according to Philopaters doctrine or to bee depriued thereof by the Common-wealth as others contend and to declare that his subiects are either actually discharged or to be discharged of the naturall and ciuill bond of their temporall allegiance and consequently of their Oath or sacred bond which was made to confirme the same For no Catholike can make any doubt that to declare the law of God and who is an hereticke or infidell is a spirituall action and belongeth to the spirituall authority of the Church 18 But with the former question forasmuch as it may concerne what authority the Common-wealth hath to depriue hir Soueraigne Prince of his Royall right in case that he should forsake the Catholike faith which he hath once professed although as I haue often said I wil not intermeddle for not giuing my Aduersaries occasion to decline the principall question concerning the Popes authority to depriue hereticall Kings of their Regall power which they had before his sentence of depriuation neuerthelesse this scandalous and desperate position of Philopater against which I was somewhat vehement in my Apologie and yet is quite passed ouer with silence by D. Schulckenius which may bee some coniecture that hee also fauoureth that doctrine to wit that a Prince who maketh open profession of Arianisme or Mahometisme or any such like infidelitie and goeth about to plant the same within his dominions doth fall thereby ipso facto from his Regall authority and right to raigne albeit either himselfe or his predecessours haue made an oath to liue and die in the Catholike faith I account to be a very false damnable and seditious doctrine tending to the perturbation and subuersion of all temporall States wherein there is not a perfect vnitie of Religion giuing occasion to hereticall and infidell Princes not to become Catholikes fauouring that damnable doctrine which teacheth that among heretickes and infidells there is no true ciuill dominion authoritie or Iurisdiction and what Romane Catholike soeuer hee bee that maintaineth and teacheth the same in this kingdome I account him to speake plainly a manifest Arch-traitour for that hee must consequently maintaine that our Soueraigne Lord KING IAMES is not our true and rightfull King because albeit not he himselfe yet some of his predecessours haue solemnly sworne to liue and die in the Catholike Romane faith 19 For seeing that by Gods permission heresies must be according to that of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. Oportet haereses esse what State can be secure from continuall feares of tumults and insurrections when the subiects according to this doctrine must bee perswaded that their Prince if hee bee of a contrary Religion to that which they in their hearts professe and thinke to bee Catholike and seeke to draw them to his Religion as all Princes vsually doe is not a true and rightfull Prince but falne from his right to raigne and by their Church which they as also all heretickes thinke to be the true Catholike Church may be declared so to be With what security can any King whether he be a Catholike or no permit in his dominions any Religion contrary to his owne when his subiects of the contrary Religion must be perswaded that he is falne from his right to raigne if hee seeke to draw them as all Princes vsually do to his owne Religion With what security also can any hereticall or infidell Prince whose kingdome is wholly or for the greatest part infected with heresie or infidelity become a Catholike and seeke to draw his subiects to Catholike Religion when his subiects who are no Catholikes must according to the principles of this doctrine be perswaded that he is a rebell to God and an enemy to that Religion which they thinke to bee true and hath broken the oath which he or some of his predecessours haue made to liue and die in their faith and religion and consequently is fallen from his right as culpable of felony towardes GOD to whom hee hath made the oath of this Realme 20 Besides this assertion fauoureth that false not to say erroneous doctrine which teacheth that ciuill dominion is founded in grace or faith that in heretickes or infidells especially who seeke to draw their subiects to their heresie or infidelity as all heretickes and infidels commonly doe there is no ciuill authority
same Kingdome or Common-wealth and also that it may be truly presumed that they doe release the same if they choose or admit confirme and allow likewise an infidell or hereticke to bee their King For if the hereticall or infidell Kingdome hath true ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction why shall not likewise the hereticall or infidell Prince whom they shall choose or confirme be capable of the same ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction So that this pact couenant and agreement which is pretended to be made betwixt the predecessours of an hereticall Prince and his people can bee no sufficient cause and ground to make an hereticall Prince who is chosen or confirmed by an hereticall Kingdome to fall from his Royall dignity and be ipso facto depriued thereof for the confirming and establishing of that heresie which that Kingdome doth professe 25 Wherefore concerning the deposition of hereticall Princes as the state of this question is propounded by the Cardinall of Peron many particular questions are inuolued The first may be whether a Prince hauing either himselfe or his predecessours made an oath to liue and die in the Catholicke faith and doe afterwards fall to open profession of heresie and seeke to force his subiects consciences to doe the same is fallen thereby forthwith before any declaration of the Pope or Church from his Royall right and dignity and his subiects are absolued or freed ipso facto from the ciuill and sacred bond of their temporall allegiance and the affirmatiue part which Philopater teacheth and affirmeth to be certaine and vndoubted I account to be a very false scandalous seditious yea and flat traiterous doctrine The second question may be supposing this damnable doctrine to be true touching the cause and ground why such an hereticall Prince doth fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity to wit whether the breaking of the oath which he or his predecessours made to liue and die in the Catholike faith or his open profession of heresie or forcing of his subiects to doe the same whether I say all these or some of them together may be necessary or else any one of them bee sufficient that an hereticall Prince bee ipso facto depriued of his princely power and authority 26 The third question may be supposing still this false doctrine to be true whether the Pope or Church haue authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke a breaker of his oath and promise and a persecutor or enemy to Christ and Christian Religion and consequently to be fallen from all his Princely right And of this no doubt can be made supposing the former seeing that to declare authentically what is heresie who is infected therwth is a spiritual action consequently belonging to the authority of the Pope or Church The fourth question may be what effect this declaration of the Pope or Church doth worke seeing that before this declaration the aforesaid hereticall Prince hath lost and is depriued of all his princely authority and whether this declaration of the Pope or Church be necessary when the fact is so notorious and publike that no Subiect in the Realme can make any doubt but that the Prince is become an hereticke hath broken his oath to liue and die in the Catholike faith and doth force his Subiects consciences to follow his heresie And of this question also no great doubt in my opinion can be made supposing the former false doctrine to be true seeing that this declaration doth not depriue the Prince of any right at all but onely serueth to make it knowne and publike that he is depriued thereof and therefore is not greatly necessary when the fact is so publike and manifest to the view of the whole Kingdome that no man can make any doubt thereof 24 The fift question may be that supposing such a Prince doth not fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity neither by his open profession of heresie nor by breach of his oath nor by forcing his Subiects consciences to forsake their Religion whether the whole Kingdome or Common-wealth which the Parliament doth represent hath authority to depriue him of the same or which is all one whether the whole Kingdome or the King be the supreame and absolute temporall Iudge and Superiour And this question doth nothing appertaine to the Oath of England and it is grounded rather vpon the principles of morall Philosophie and Aristotles Politikes then of Diuinitie The last and principall question is whether the Pope or Church hath authority to depriue such a Prince for the aforesaid crimes of his right to raigne really truly to absolue his subiects from the natural bond of their temporall allegiance which being once dissolued the sacred or spirituall bond of the oath of allegiance which is grounded vpon the former ciuill bond and obligation and was made onely to corroborate the same is forthwith vnloosed or whether the Pope or Church hath only authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke and an enemy to Catholicke Religion and a breaker of his oath and promise and to command compell by Ecclesiasticall censures the Common-wealth supposing they haue such an authority to depriue him of his Regall power and authority and consequently to discharge euery subiect from the naturall and ciuill bond of his temporall allegiance which being taken away the sacred obligation of the oath without any other absolution dispensation or declaration of the Pope or Church is forthwith dissolued 28 All these questions the Lord Cardinall of Peron doth so cunningly inuolue in his question touching the oath of France that if wee descend to particulars I cannot see either what opinion hee doth follow concerning the deposing of hereticall Princes or how his doctrine impugneth our English oath although he would seeme to disprooue the same which onely denyeth the Popes authority to depriue the Kings Maiestie of his Royall dignity and to absolue his subiects from the ciuill bond of their temporall allegiance and doth not meddle at all with the temporall authority which a Kingdome or Common-wealth hath to depose their Prince 29 Wherefore these words of the Cardinall of Peron affirming that not onely all the other parts of the Catholicke Church Page 15. but likewise all the Doctours that liued in France from the first setting vp of Schooles of Diuinitie amongst them haue held that in the case of hereticall or infidell Princes and such as persecute Christianity or Catholicke Religion their subiects may be absolued from their oath of allegiance And againe Page 63. saith he citing Widdrington in the margent The English writers who haue put their hand to pen for the defence of the Oath made by the present King of England against the Pope hauing vsed all their endeauour to finde some Doctours and in particular French who had held their opinion before these last troubles could hitherto bring forth neuer any one neither Diuine Page 65. nor Lawyer who saith that in case
of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion the Subiects could not bee absolued from the oath of allegiance or from the obligation that they owe to their Princes these his words I say doe neither contradict those English Catholickes who defend our English oath to be lawfull nor doe shew or signifie that Widdrington hath not brought any Diuines or Lawyers both French-men and of other Nations who affirme that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For the Cardinals words are to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam according to the matter which he treateth of and which he would perswade his Reader the three estates of France endeauoured to establish by their oath to wit that the subiects of the King of France could not be absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance by any authority whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall 30 Now it is euident that I neither produced nor intended to produce any Authors who in these generall tearmes expresly affirme that the Subiects of an hereticall Prince cannot be discharged of their allegiance neither by the spirituall authority of the Pope nor by the temporall power of the Common-wealth for that it was not my meaning as being a thing altogether impertinent to our Oath of England to examine what authority the ciuil Common-wealth hath ouer their Prince in the case of heresie or Apostacie For our oath onely denieth the Popes authoritie to depose our King and to discharge his subiects from their temporall allegiance and with the authority of the Common-wealth it doth not intermeddle But that the Pope hath no authority to depose temporall Princes and that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment depriuation of goods and such like but onely to Ecclesiasticall censures I haue brought many Authours both French and others to prooue the same among whom are Ioannes Parisiensis and also Iacobus Almainus cited here by the Cardinall in his Treatises Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. de Domino naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico o Concls 2. in probat 2. conclus and de authoritate Ecclesiae p Cap. 2. Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. where he writeth according to his owne opinion though not in his Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica which the Cardinall citeth where he commenteth Occam and speaketh according to Occams doctrine albeit these Doctours doe on the other side affirme that the Common-wealth hath authority to depose a wicked and incorrigible King and so that the Pope may according to them depose him per accidens as Ioan. Parisiensis writeth or to vse Ioannes Maior his words applicando actiua passiuis as he that applieth fire to straw is said to burne the straw to wit by perswading aduising commanding and also by spirituall censures compelling them who haue authority to wit the people or Common-wealth to depose him and after he is deposed by the people or kingdome by declaring his subiects absolued and discharged from the naturall and consequently also spirituall bond of their allegiance but this is impertinent to our oath of England wherein only the Popes authority to depose depriue our King of his Dominions by way of iuridicall sentence is denied 31 Wherefore the English Translatour of the Cardinalls oration doth with as great boldnesse as with little truth shamefully affirme q In his Preface to the Reader that this difference is found between these two oathes that whereas the English oath in one of the clauses seemes to exclude not only the authoritie of the Church ouer Kings but euen of the common-wealth also yea though it should be accōpanied with that of the Church that of France shootes only at the abnegation of the Churches authority For contrariwise although the oath of France may as you shall see at the first sight seeme to deny both the authority of the Church and also of the Common-wealth to depose the King of France yet our Oath shootes onely at the abnegation of the Popes authority to depose our King and to absolue his Subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For as I haue shewed in my Theologicall disputation our oath doth onely affirme r Cap. 3. sec 4 that the Pope neither of himselfe that is by the spirituall authority which is granted him by the institution of Christ nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome for that the Church or Sea of Rome hath no such authority nor by any other meanes with any other that is neither as a totall or partiall as a principal or instrumentall cause hath any power or authority to depose the King c. which last words doe only at the most import that whether the temporall Common-wealth hath any authority ouer the King for any cause or crime whatsoeuer or no with which question the King and Parliament did not intermeddle yet the Common-wealth hath giuen no such authority to the Pope either by himselfe or with any other to depose the King c. 32 But the oath of France doth expresly affirme that there is no power on earth whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall which hath any right ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue the sacred persons of our Kings nor to dispence or absolue their subiects from that loyaltie and obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoeuer for these be the expresse words of the oath of France which our English Translatour as it seemes either hath not seene or maliciously abuseth his Reader in affirming so shamefully that the oath of France shootes onely at the abnegation of the Churches authoritie which words of the oath of France also the Cardinall of Peron seemeth to vnderstand generally of all temporall and spirituall power whatsoeuer either out of the kingdome or of the kingdome it selfe as both by the propounding the state of his question and also by the whole drift of his oration any iudicious man may gather for which cause as I imagine he affirmeth ſ Pag. 115. that our Oath of England is more sweete and modest or moderate then that of France And truely although the words may seeme to any man at the first sight to haue that sense which the Cardinall pretendeth seeing that they expresly deny all power on earth both temporall and spirituall yet both the Translatour of his oration applieth them onely to the Popes authority and also if those words which hath any authority ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue be well obserued they may in my iudgement haue a very true sense to wit that the temporall power which there is mentioned is not to be referred to the authority of the kingdome it selfe seeing that no kingdome hath truely and properly right power and authority ouer itselfe neither hath the kingdome of France any right ouer the kingdome of France to depriue
c. Which are the expresse words of the oath of France and therefore they must be applyed to the temporall power of some other forraine Prince or Kingdome and they seeme chiefely to shoot at the abnegation of that doctrine and position which Iohn Tanquarell by a Decree of the Parliament of Paris t Anno 1561. in Tract de Iuribus c. p. 289 was enioyned to recall and to aske pardon of the King for his offence in defending the same to wit that the Pope Christs Vicar and a Monarch hauing spirituall and secular power hath authoritie to depriue Princes who rebell against his precepts of their kingdomes and dignities 33 But howsoeuer it be whether in the oath of France the authority of the temporall Common-wealth ouer the King be denied or no it is plaine that neither our King and Parliament who established our oath did intend thereby to meddle with the authority of the Common-wealth but onely of the Pope nor I who disputed of our oath did meane to treat of any other authority then of the Pope which onely in our oath is denied And therefore the Lord Cardinall of Peron to impugne the oath of France dealeth very cunningly when he affirmeth as you haue seene before that Widdrington hath not found out one Authour either Diuine or Lawyer who hath said that in case of heresie or infidelity the subiects cannot bee absolued from the oath of fidelity and the obligation which they owe to their Princes 34 For albeit I haue not brought any one Authour onely D. Barclay excepted who affirmeth these two things together to wit that in the case of heresie or infidelity Princes can neither by the authority of the Pope nor of the Common-wealth be deposed and their subiects released of the bond and oath of their temporall allegiance for that those Doctours of France who absolutely deny the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments doe commonly maintaine that the temporall Common-wealth may depose their Prince for heresie or infidelity and consequently discharge the subiects of their temporall allegiance which being once released the spirituall bond of the oath made to confirme the same is foorthwith dissolued neuerthelesse I haue brought diuers Authours both Diuines and Lawyers who absolutely and without any exception of heresie or infidelitie doe in expresse words affirme though not ioyntly and together yet seuerally and apart that neither the Pope hath any authority to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments not that the kingdome or common-wealth hath any power or authority ouer their absolute Prince to depose him 35 For among those Doctours who affirme that the common-wealth hath authority ouer their Prince in some cases to depose him there are many whom I cited in the former part of this Treatise and also answered all the obiections that D. Schulckenius hath made against some of them who doe absolutely and without any exception affirme that the Pope hath not authority to depose Princes and that the power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment c. which their generall assertion would be false if the Pope had authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer For if the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments for heresie then it would be true that the power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments and if the Pope can depose temporall Princes for heresie then it followeth that the Pope can depose temporall Princes which those Doctors doe absolutely deny 36 And among those Doctours who are vehement for the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments I brought u In Apol. nu 411. also diuers who deny that the people or common-wealth hath authority to depose their Prince The Pope onely hath authority to depriue or depose Emperours Kings and Princes saith Bartholus Baldus and Petrus Andreas Gambara And Gregorius Tholosnus Barth in leg si Imperator Cod. de Legibus nu 4. Bald. in proaemio ff veteris Gambara in tract de officio potest legati l. 2. tit de varijs ordinar titulis nu 220. Gregor Thol l 26. de Rep. c. 5 nu 14. 24. 25 albeit a French Doctour yet denieth that the people or common-wealth hath authority to iudge punish or depose their King And therefore he doth not approoue that fact of the Peeres of France in depriuing Childericke and expresly affirmeth that Pipin vsurped the Kingdome and he reprehendeth also the Pope who called saith he Pipin into Italy to helpe him against the Longobards and when he came he absolued him from the oath he had made to his King Childerike being neither heard nor called nor defended nor accused as Abbas Vspergensis and Entropius doe affirme and afterwards he saith that the Pope might bee deceiued in his opinion for that hee would reward Pipin bringing an army in his defence with the hurt of another And this in my iudgement is one of the chiefe causes that mooued the other French Doctours to be commonly of this opinion that the common-wealth may depose their King in some cases to excuse that fact of the French Peeres in deposing Childerike their true and rightfull King 37 Also Alexander Carerius a vehement defender of the Popes direct power in temporalls Carer l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. 3 in fauour of the Canonists against Cardinall Bellarmine is of the same opinion Hee that hath no Iudge vpon earth saith he Cap. 3. we must confesse that many Iudges cannot Iudge For in denying a singularitie by a collectiue and generall word pluralls are accounted to bee denied It is manifest therefore as hath beene said before that the Barons and people for want of coactiue power or authoritie which Vassalls haue not ouer their Lord cannot iudge nor depose their Prince And in the former Chapter answering the authoritie of Aristotle The Philosopher saith he speaketh of a King who is instituted by the election of the Communitie for such a one is punished and deposed by the Communitie which doth principally institute him as the Venetians and people of Genoa who choose to themselues a Duke and if he offend against the common-wealth shee may depose him But it is otherwise in a King who naturally and by succession and descending of a certaine race doth raigne And this assertion of Carerius and others seemeth agreeable to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers cited by me elsewhere y Apol. nu 5. seq in Append. ad Supplicat calū 17. nu 14. who expresly affirme that Kings and Emperours are inferiour to none but God to wit in temporalls and that they can bee punished to wit with temporall punishments by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So that you see how cunningly the Cardinall of Peron handleth this controuersie touching the deposition
of Princes confounding and inuoluing both questions concerning the authoritie of the Pope and also of the common-wealth to depose Princes together in one and then in affirming that Widdrington hath not brought any one Authour only D. Barclay excepted who saith that Princes for heresie cannot be deposed to wit neither by the Pope nor the common-wealth which is very true but it is not true that he hath brought no Authours who absolutely affirme that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes and that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments 38 An other cunning the Lord Cardinall of Peron may vse in confounding the oath or religious bond of temporall allegiance with the ciuill or naturall bond thereof which perchance he did for this end that his speech concerning the Popes authority to absolue from the oath of allegiance might seeme more plausible to his audience for that an oath is a sacred and spirituall thing and therefore not exceeding the obiect of the Popes spirituall power and all Diuines doe hold that the Pope hath authority to absolue from oathes either by releasing directly the spirituall bond it selfe or consequently by declaring the thing which is sworne not to be hic nunc in this particular case a fit matter of an oath but temporall allegiance and temporall kingdomes are temporall things and therefore that the Pope by his spirituall power should haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things and to absolue from temporall allegiance and to giue take away translate and dispose of temporall kingdomes would haue seemed very harsh in the yeeres of the greatest part of true French-men z In Apol. nu 148. 149. 39 But besides that as I haue shewed elsewhere the Pope cannot according to the doctrine of S. Thomas and his followers absolue from the oath of temporall allegiance but by declaring the naturall or ciuill bond it selfe of temporall allegiance to be voyd and of no force and consequently to be no fit matter to be sworne it little importeth to the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee touching the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance whether the Pope can release or take away the spirituall bond and obligation of the oath of allegiance it being a sacred and spirituall thing and made onely to confirme and corrobarate the former naturall bond of temporall allegiance For it doth not follow as wel noteth Ioannes Parisiensis Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. c. 16. ad 11 and I also obserued in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. that because the Pope can release or take away the sacred and religious bond of temporall allegiance he can also release and dissolue the naturall and ciuill bond wherein all subiects by the law of God and nature stand bound to their temporall Prince before they make any oath of temporall allegiance and very few subiects in comparison of others doe vsually make any such oath of allegiance And therefore perchance the Cardinall would for the cause aforesaid rather discourse of the Popes power to absolue subiects from the oath that is the sacred and spirituall bond of temporall allegiance then to depose Princes and to take away their Crownes and Regall authority which being taken away both their temporall allegiance and also the sacred and spirituall bond thereof is by a necessary consequent foorthwith dissolued 37 And to omit diuerse other cunning shifts which the Cardinall of Peron hath vsed in his discourse touching the deposition of hereticall Princes and which the Kings Maiesty in his answere to the Cardinalls oration hath in my opinion very cleerely and excellently discouered two notable cunnings or rather fraudes he hath vsed in translating into French the decree of the Councell of Lateran whereof now wee treat The first is in translating into French those words Si Dominus temporalis if any Prince whereas it is manifest that those words Dominus temporalis doe signifie euery Land-lord Maior Iudge Consull Potesta Gouernour Shiriffe Bayliffe Constable or any other inferiour Officer or Pettie Lord and although the Cardinall will perchance affirme that in those generall wordes Dominus temporalis all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are included which neuerthelesse I haue aboue confuted yet to translate those words Dominus temporalis any Prince as though the Councell had named Princes expresly and by the name of Princes cannot in my opinion bee excused from an egregious fraud and falshood The second is in translating those words vt ipse Summus Pontifex Vasallos ab eius fidelitate denunciet abfolutos that he the Pope may absolue his subiects from their oath of fidelitie whereas the words of the Councel only are that he may denounce or declare his Vassals absolued from their fidelity which words of the Councell doe expresly signifie that the vassalls were before absolued from their fidelity either by the decrees of Popes or of temporall Princes and that the Pope doth onely denounce or declare them absolued besides that the word vassalls he translateth subiects which haue farre different significations and that word a fidelitate from their fidelity he translateth from their oath of fidelity which in a Translator who is to set downe not only the sense but also the words cannot bee excused from an egregious corruption 38 Lastly I would gladly be resolued of this question either by the Cardinall of Peron or any other learned Catholike whether if the Doctours of Sorbon who hold the doctrine of the Councells superiority aboue the Pope to be true and conforme to the word of God and to the definitions of the generall Councels of Constance and Basil and consequently the contrary doctrine to be false impious and detestable and contrary to the word of God should make a decree that all of their Vniuersity should in their publike Readings Disputations and writings defend it as certaine that is should not maintaine or teach the contrary doctrine as probable or in any sort Or if the Doctours of Mentz who are of opinion that the doctrine for the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin is true conforme to the word of God and to the decree of the Councell of Basil and that the contrary is false and against the word of God and consequently impious and detestable should also make a Decree as Surius affirmeth b Vpon the yeere 1501. they haue done imitating saith he the decree of the Councell of Basil that it should bee altogether held that the most blessed mother of God was conceiued without the spot of originall sinne and did strictly ordaine that none heereafter should in that Vniuersitie bee promoted in sacred Diuinitie vnlesse he should before by oath make promise that he would neither maintaine in his minde nor any wise approoue the contrary opinion and the same question may be made concerning the Iesuites doctrine de auxilijs gratiae whether I say it must
the Popes power in temporalls is declared 1 MY second answere to the obiection before mentioned was taken from an exposition of the Glosse vpon the Canon Adrianus dist 63. Where the Pope commaundeth the goods of those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated and vpon the Canon Delatori 5. q. 6. where he ordaineth the tongues of calumniatours or false accusers to be pulled out or being conuicted their heads to bee stroken off For to these Decrees the Glosse answereth thus Hîc docere Ecclesiam quid facere debeat Iudex Secularis The Church teacheth heere what a Seculiar Iudge ought to doe Which answere of the Glosse may be accommodated or applied to the like Decrees wherein the sacred Canons doe inflict temporall punishments And this answere the words of Siluester doe also fauour c. Thus I answered in the foresaid Preface 2 Now to this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth a Pag. 166. nu 1. 2. that it is as idle as the former For although it were true saith he that this Glosse were to be vnderstood as Widdrington would haue it yet it would not follow thereon that the same may be truely applied to all other Decrees of the Church which concerne the imposition of temporall punishments especially to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran which ordaineth the deposition of Princes for this Glosse doth treate onely of such as are subiect to the iurisdiction of Iudges and Secular Magistrates whereas the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes on whom no Secular Iudge or Magistrate can execute any penaltie and therefore there is such disparitie in these cases that the Glosse obiected by my Aduersarie Widdrington cannot be iustly applied to both alike 3 But this Reply of Mr. Fitzherbert is as idle and insufficient as his former For first he supposeth as certaine that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Emperours Kings and all absolute Princes which as you haue seene he hath not as yet by all the helpes hee hath had from Fa. Lessius sufficiently conuinced Secondly if we respect the force and proprietie of the words these two Canons especially the former are according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne grounds rather to be vnderstood of absolute Princes then is the Decree of the Lateran Councell for that the words of these Canons especially of the former are generall and doe not denote titles of inferiour honour or dignitie The Pope saith the Canon Hadrianus did excommunicate and commaunded vnlesse hee should repent his goods to be proclaimed or confiscated whosoeuer should infringe this Decree whereas the Councell of Lateran doth not speake in such generall tearmes but onely it mentioneth persons of inferiour state dignitie and title then are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes to wit temporall and principall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords or who haue not any principall Landlords Gouernours or Lords aboue them but onely Emperours Kings or absolute Princes But the truth is that both the Decree of the Lateran Councell and these Canons doe not comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour persons and subiects 4 Thirdly if this exposition of the Glosse is to be approoued my Aduersaries can bring no sufficient reason why the same may not also be applied to all other such like Canons of the Church wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained and especially to the Decree of the Lateran Councell to wit that all such Canons doe onely teach or declare what hath beene done or is to be done by Secular Princes or their Officers For besides that the reason which here Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth why the Decree of the Lateran Councell cannot be expounded in this sense because saith he the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes is a meere prtitio principij a giuing that for a reason which is the maine question betweene vs and hath not as yet beene sufficiently prooued by him the words of the Lateran Councell according to their proper signification doe chiefly import this sense For the Councell doth not decree that the Pope may absolue those vassall from their fidelitie but the words of the Councell onely are that the Pope may denounce that is may declare or teach that those vassalls are absolued frō their fidelitie to wit by the consent and authoritie of absolute Princes 5 And if the Glosse and diuerse other Doctors whom I related elsewhere expounding the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. wherein Pope Gregory the 7th in his Epistle to the Bishop of Mentz affirmeth b Xpolog nu 444. that an other Bishop of Rome called Zacharie deposed the King of France from his kingdome and absolued all the French-men from their oath of allegiance doe thus interprete those wordes hee deposed the King and absolued the Frenchmen that is he consented to them that deposed him and declared him to be lawfully deposed and the Frenchmen to be lawfully absolued from their allegiance why may not this Canon of the Lateran Councell bee vnderstood in this sense that from that time the Pope may denounce that is declare and teach that the vassalls of that temporall Landlord Gouernour or Lord who for neglecting to purge his territories from heresie is for a whole yeere excommunicated are absolued from their fealty and their territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes especially seeing that the word denounce or declare is in this Canon expresly contained 6 And if any one obiect that the words of the Lateran Councell cannot be well vnderstood in this sense that the Pope may denounce that is may declare and teach that the vassals are absolued from their fealty to wit by force of some temporall law or constitution made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that before this Councell of Lateran there was no such decree or constitution of temporall Princes by vertue whereof the vassals of such a temporall Land-lord were absolued from their fealty and therefore those words of the Councell are so to bee vnderstood that the Pope may not onely declare and teach that they are absolued but also really absolue such vassals from their fealty To this obiection I answere that albeit I haue not seene any such temporall law or Constitution of any temporall Prince before it is was enacted by Frederike the second Emperour fiue yeeres after this Lateran Councell by vertue whereof such Vassalls are absolued from their fealtie yet wee finde that Pope Gregorie the seuenth long before in the Canon Nos Sanctorum 15. q. 6. did absolue them who either by allegiance or by oath were obliged to excommunicated persons from their oath of fidelitie to which Canon those wordes of the Lateran Councell if they bee vnderstood in the aforesaide sense may haue reference but then wee must consequently to our doctrine say that both this decree of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the inflicting of this temporall punishment and also the Canon Nos sanctorum haue onely force to binde in the territories of the Church
she vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law or to vse Gersons words from the grant of Princes 56 Lastly Mr. Fitzherbert excepteth against that which I brought from the words of the Glosse vpon the Canon Per venerabilem to confirme the doctrine of those who affirme that the Pope hath not authority to make ciuill or temporall lawes or which is all one to ordaine meere temporall things out of his owne temporall dominions And these Authours the Glosse said I vpon the same Canon Per venerabilem doth seeme to fauour where it affirmeth that the Pope cannot legitimate any man who is not subiect to his temporall Iurisdiction to make him succeede in an inheritance as a lawfull heire for this were to put his sickle into another mans haruest and to vsurpe another mans Iurisdiction and to depriue some man of his right to succeede which hee ought not to doe and therefore he cannot legitimate any man for the Secular Court vnlesse the Prince shall permit or giue him leaue But if the Pope cannot legitimate one who is not legitimate nor depriue one of his right to succeede I see not by what authority he can make a lawfull and legitimate heire or Prince to be vnlawfull and not legitimate or depriue one of his inheritance which hee lawfully possesseth 57 But to this Glosse whose words as you see are most plaine and cleare Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth h Page 174. num 20. to the end that this my instance or example taken from the Glosse is no lesse impertinent then the former seeing that it concerneth onely a temporall matter without relation to any spirituall end And is it possible saith he that Widdrington cannot see the difference betwixt these two cases seeing that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end that is to make them capable of a temporall inheritance is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince whereas the deposition of Princes in this our case hauing a spirituall end to wit the extirpation of heresie and punishment of sinne to the exceeding great good of soules and the publike benefite of the Church is not meerely temporall in respect of the spirituall end and therefore may proceede from the spiritvall power of him that hath the supreame charge of soules and the gouernment of the whole Church in whom it may suffice for that purpose to haue an indirect dominion ouer temporall things to bee vsed and exercised in some cases when the necessity of the Church shall require it 58 Whereupon it also followeth that if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church that the Pope should legitimate a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance as for example if a kingdome should otherways fall into the hands or possession of Gods enemies in such a case I say he might doe it by his spirituall power and the indirect dominion he hath ouer temporall things as both Lawyers i See Couerra in 4 Decret 2. par §. 8. nu 16 and Diuines teach and the Glosse alleaged by Widdrington doth not denie it affirming onely that the Pope hath no power to legitimate a bastard out of his owne temporall Dominions to a meere temporall end which as I haue said is a farre different case from ours and not denyed by vs So as you see still how improbably Widdrington argueth and how absurdly he hath answered to his owne obiection And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of his second answere Let vs now heare the third 59 But in this also Mr. Fitzherbert sheweth as much fraude and ignorance as hee hath in the former For first it is euident that this assertion of the Glosse denying the Pope to haue authoritie out of his owne temporall dominions to make one capable of a temporall inheritance vnlesse the Prince giue him leaue is generall and without any relation at all either to a temporall or spirituall end and the onely exception limitation or restriction which the Glosse maketh is vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue so to doe which words being so generall doe plainly signifie that the Pope cannot out of his owne temporall dominions make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that the Pope may for a spirituall end to wit for that the spirituall good of the Church and the saluation of soules make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance this explication corrupteth the text and is contrarie to the plaine words of the Glosse for if the Pope out of his owne temporall Dominions may for a spirituall end make one capable of a temporall inheritance or depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission then it cleerely followeth that the Pope may make one capable of a temporall inheritance and legitimate him for the Secular Court and depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission which the Glosse in expresse words denieth 60 But secondly is it possible that this man cannot see how plainly he contradicteth himselfe in granting first that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end is to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and that so it is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince and afterwards in acknowledging that the legitimation of a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church may bee done by the Popes spirituall power and indirect dominion which he hath ouer temporalls which is plainly repugnant to his former assertion seeing that no reference or relation of the making bastards capable of a temporall inheritance to the necessary good of the Church can make but that according to his former grant it still remaineth a meere temporall thing and is to a temporall end that is saith hee to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince consequently it cannot be done by the spirituall power and indirect dominion which the Pope hath ouer temporall things 61 Wherefore this indirect temporall power authoritie dominion or iurisdiction is in my opinion a meere fiction purposely inuented without sufficient ground by the later Diuines to put a more colourable cloake vpon this pretended temporall authoritie of the Pope because they saw the Canonists doctrine making the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole world to be very false absurd scandalous and odious both to Princes and subiects and yet in effect or substance they differ little or nothing at all For whatsoeuer the Canonists grant that the Pope may doe in temporalls directly the Diuines grant he may doe indirectly which doth in effect as much as the former derogate
of Paris that none should there take any degree in Diuinitie vnlesse hee first should sweare to defend and alwayes maintaine this errour Then should the Kingdome of France haue beleeued Pope Boniface the eight when he affirmed that hee accounted them for heretikes who did not belieue that the King of France was not subiect to him in spiritualls and temporalls and the like may bee said of Pope Nicolas and Pope Celestine 38 Wherefore the plaine truth is that as well Popes may sometimes erre and bee deceiued albeit they are certainely perswaded their doctrine to be true if other learned men after mature deliberation thinke it to bee false as other learned men may erre and bee deceiued albeit they thinke certainely their doctrine to be true if the Pope after mature deliberation thinke it to bee false and whether of them doe really erre when there are such controuersies we cannot certainely know but by the future euent For if the doctrine which the Pope thinketh and teacheth to be certaine be afterwards confirmed by any publike definition of some Orthodoxall generall Councell or be approued by the generall consent or acceptance of the Church it is an euident signe that the iudgement of the Pope and not of those learned men was really true for which cause wee now see and say that Pope Pius and Victor did not erre in their iudgements concerning the celebration of the Feast of Easter and that the Churches of Asia did erre therein and that S. Cyprian and the other Bishops of Afrike did erre in their iudgements concerning the rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretikes and that Pope Stephen and Cornelius who contradicted S. Cyprian did not erre And contrariwise for the same cause we say that Pope Nicholas Pope Celestine and Pope Iohn to omit now Pope Boniface did really erre in their iudgements and the other learned men who were of contrary opinion did not erre for that the doctrine of these is now approued by a publike declaration or generall consent and acceptance of the Church But so long as the question betwixt the Pope and other learned Catholikes shal still remaine afoot and not be decided no man is bound to thinke the Popes iudgement to bee certaine neyther can hee compell any man to belieue the same albeit the Pope bee inwardly perswaded that his iudgement is true or certaine yet hee ought not to bee publikely contradicted by any man but with great submission reuerence and respect 39 But if the Pope when there is a controuersie betwixt him and other learned men should denounce censures against all those who shall preach or teach contrary to his doctrine then wee must doubtlesse be very carefull not to oppose publikely against him without vrgent necessity by reason of scandall in seeming to contemne Ecclesiasticall censures but in such a case wee must haue in minde that golden document of deuout and learned Gerson The second truth is saith he that the Popes sentence bindeth all men not to dogmatike or teach publikely the contrary Gerson in tract de Examinat doctrin §. 2. veritas except those that doe finde a manifest errour against faith and doe perceiue that if they should not oppose themselues great scandall to faith would arise by their silence And if then there should be prosecuting of Censures and punishments against them let them bee assured that blessed are they that suffer persecution for iustice And thus much concerning this poynt whereby the Reader may see whether I or my Aduersarie deserue the note of ridiculous absurdity 40 But much more ridiculous saith Mr. Fitzherbert u Pag. 189. nu 10. 11. is Widdringtons inference that the ground and reason of a generall Decree made by a Pope and generall Councell is vncertaine and subiect to errour because some learned men are of opinion that some Popes had no sufficient reason to doe some particular acts or grant licences or dispensations to some particular persons which is a farre different case from the other and therefore I say his infeâ—ence thereupon is so ridiculous that a Scholler may bee ashamed to make it for albeit we should grant that those Popes erred both in granting those licences and in their grounds yet it would not follow that therefore the Pope together with the whole Lateran Councell might erre in the ground of their Decree except wee may inferre quidlibet ex quolibet And yet forsooth this is one of his probable answeres Therefore if he will argue against the Decree of the Councell of Lateran by instances and examples let him not produce the particular facts of some Popes concerning some particular Countries or persons but some decree of a Pope or generall Councell made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church as this of the Lateran Councell was and then let him prooue also that the ground of the said decree was vncertaine and then I will grant that hee saith somewhat to the purpose 41 But strange and intollerable is the false and fraudulent dealing of this man For I neyther made nor intended to make in any one of my three instances any such inference as he to taxe me of ridiculous absurdity vntruly saith I haue neyther did I apply any one of my instances or examples to the decree of the Lateran Councell neyther in any one of them is the Councell of Lateran so much as named and therefore to cloake his fraud more cunningly he thought best to conceale my instances lest the Reader might by his owne writings and looking ouer my instances forth with discouer his fraud and falshood Wherefore that inference which I intended couertly to make by my first instance was onely this that because the ground and foundation vpon which certaine Popes did by their decrees and sentences ordaine the Feast of the blessed Virgins conception giue leaue to Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and dispence in the solemne vow of Chastity was vncertaine and consequently could not appertaine to faith therefore the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his first argument was not sound but defectiue to wit That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctors doe propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which proposition is generall and may be vnderstood not onely of the decree of the Lateran Councell but of all other Decrees and Sentences eyther generall or particular of Popes or Councels as of the Decree touching the Feast of the blessed Virgins conception of the iudiciall sentences of Pope Gregory the seauenth against Henry the fourth in a Councell held at Rome and of Pope Innocentius the fourth against Frederike the second in the Councell of Lyons and of all other Decrees of Popes touching particular licences and dispensations whereof two are mentioned in my first instance and doe euidently shew the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessus his first argument to be very vnsound 42 But if my Aduersary will haue that Maior proposition of
commandement concerning all subiects not to obey their temporall Prince being deposed by the Pope or to rebell and plot conspiracies against him But if by commanding he vnderstand particular decrees and commandements propounded to particular persons Bishops Churches or Kingdomes against any particular Emperours Kings or temporall Princes then I say that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus the Church and much more the Pope may erre and of this sort are the depositions iudiciall sentences and commandements of Pope Gregory the seauenth in a Councell held at Rome against Henrie the fourth Emperor of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons against Frederike the second Emperour and all other particular depositions of whatsoeuer Emperours Kings or temporall Princes and in these commandements the Popes were euer resisted and contradicted both by Princes themselues and also by learned and vertuous Catholike subiects as it appeareth euidently not onely by the first depositions of Emperours and Princes but also by the two last of our late Queene Elizabeth and the last King of Fraunce who were obeyed in ciuill matters by their Catholike subiects acknowledged by them to be their true and rightfull Soueraignes notwithstanding the Popes particular declaration sentence and commandement to the contrary as I haue shewed at large concerning our late Queene in the first part and of the King of Fraunce the late troubles and ciuill warres in Fraunce which are yet both fresh in most mens memories and recorded also by Histories are sufficient testimonies 22 Thus thou seest good Reader that neither by this third example of Popes dispensations in vowes whereon not onely my third Instance but also the two former were grounded all which Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed did I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell as the silly man to make some shew of confuting them as absurd improbable impertinent fond and ridiculous doth most vntruely affirme neither did I in any one of my examples or Instances make any mention at all of the said Decree seeing that I had before sufficiently answered to this Decree not by impugning but onely by expounding it and by clearely conuincing that according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who are of opinion that the Church cannot by her spirituall power inflict temporall punishments it must according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne principles who acknowledgeth that all lawes and decrees whatsoeuer are to be restrained and limited according to the power of the Law-Maker c. be vnderstood of the deposing not of temporall Princes who are not subiect to the authoritie of the Church forasmuch as concerneth meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end whatsoeuer they bee inflicted but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes but that which I intended by my three examples and instances was to shew the weakenesse and insufficiency of Fa. Lessius his three arguments as I haue sufficiently declared before 23 But if I should presse M. Fitzherbert a little further and grant him for Disputation sake which he is not able to prooue to wit that the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell is to bee vnderstood of the deposition of temporall Princes yet the silly man would haue much adoe to prooue as also I haue signified before that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Cap. 13. nu 7. seq which I haue related aboue it is such a Decree that from thence it can be sufficiently gathered that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith seeing that according to their grounds onely those Decrees and precepts touching faith or manners are infallible and of faith which are generall and vniuersall and belong to the whole Church and all the faithfull and consequently as well Clearkes as Lay-men For onely in this case saith Canus the Councels Canus l. 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. or Fathers are to be vnderstood to pronounce of faith when the sentence or Decree belongeth to all Christians when it bindeth all Therefore the doctrine of Popes and Councells saith hee if it bee propounded to the whole Church if it bee also propounded with an obligation to be beleeued then doth their sentence or Decree concerne a point of faith And concerning Decrees and precepts of manners Canus teacheth the same When the Church saith he in a matter of weight and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all the people she cannot command any thing which is contrary to the Gospell or naturall reason but in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate men or Churches she may erre through ignorance not only in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. 5. And Cardinall Bellarmine also affirmeth that those Decrees or precepts concerning faith or manners wherein the Pope in whom he putteth all the infallibilitie of the Church cannot erre must bee generall and be propounded and belong to all the faithfull 24 Now this Act of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie besides that it is not properly a Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as I signified before containing in it any precept or obligation vnlesse they will grant the Councell to be aboue the Pope nor also propounded as of faith according to the rules of Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus before related and therefore it cannot according to their doctrine appertaine to faith it is not also a generall Decree and which appertaineth to the whole Church and all the faithfull for it doth not concerne Cleargie men who according to my Aduersaries false scandalous and seditious doctrine are not subiect to temporall Princes nor doe owe to them any temporall allegiance but onely the temporall Vassals of temporall Lords and those not all but of such a Lord onely who for a yeere remaineth excommunicated for neglecting to purge his territories of heresie For those words of the Councell vt ex tunc ipse c. that from that time the Pope may denounce his Vassals absolued from their fealtie can onely bind either the Pope to make that denunciation or that temporall Lord not to exact of his Vassals temporall fealtie or the Vassalls not to giue to that temporall Lord temporall fealty and so it cannot binde Cleargy men who doe not owe any temporall fidelity or obedience to temporal Lords according to my Aduersaries false doctrine nor also all Vassals but onely those of that temporall Lord wherevpon the decree is not generall and belonging to all the faithfull which neuerthelesse is necessary that any decree or precept concerning faith or manners doe appertaine to faith 25 And if perchance my Aduersary will say that it bindeth all
affaires his Holinesse meant to include not onely the authority to vse Censures which onely were mentioned in the words next going before and to which onely any man according to the property of the words would restraine them but also to despose them which is not much materiall to the present purpose for be it so that his Holinesse speaking of the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included his power as well to depose as to excommunicate Princes it is nothing to the matter for that which I intend is that his Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines who consulted of the Oath not onely misinformed that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is plainly denied in the Oath but also that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall authority which is verie vntrue as in this Treatise I haue sufficiently declared and prooued 67 But that also which M. Fitzherbert addeth for a confirmation of his saying to wit that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects from their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some censure of Excommunication is both false and also repugnant to the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine For Childericke King of France which example Cardinall Bellarmine bringeth for a proofe that the Pope hath power to depose Princes was deposed and his subiects discharged of their allegiance and not by vertue of any Censure of Excommunication And it is one thing saith Becanus Becanus incōtrou Anglic. c. 3. p. 2. pag. 108. to excommunicate a King and another to depose or depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connexed with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue beene excommunicated and not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and not therefore excommunicated And yet my ignorant Aduersary to patch vp this silly answere of his doth now agreeable to his learning boldly affirme that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication whereas I haue sufficiently prooued aboue m Chap. 1. nu 21. seq chap. 5. sec 2. 131. seq out of the doctrine of Suarez Becanus and from the definition of excommunication that deposition is not an effect of Excommunication that therefore although they are sometimes ioyned together and that some Princes haue beene both excommunicated and deposed by the Pope yet they were not deposed by vertue of the Censure of Excommunication for that as his Maiestie did wel obserue n In his Premonition p. 9. Excommunication being only a spirituall Censure hath not vertue to worke this temporall effect 68 Now you shall see how vncharitably and also vnlearnedly this ignorant man concludeth this point Whereupon it followeth saith hee o p. 219. nu 14 that albeit his Holinesse had beene perswaded by Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and others as doubtlesse he was although this man would seeme to deny the same that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes impugned his spirituall authority he had not beene deluded or deceiued therein nor had erred in the reason why hee forbade the Oath though he had forbidden it for that cause onely as it is euident by the Breue he did not but for many respects And therefore thou seest good Reader what probable exceptions this silly sicke and scabbed sheepe taketh to the iudgement and sentence of his supreame Pastour and what account hee maketh of his Apostolicall authoritie and consequently what a good Catholike hee is 69 But if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance impugneth his spirituall authoritie to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures as needes hee must if hee will speake to the purpose for that all his former discourse hath beene to impugne my second answere to his Holinesse Breues which was that hee was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures is denyed in the Oath then I say that his Holinesse was fowly deluded and deceiued in that reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation although hee did not forbid it for that cause only But if his meaning bee that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes for to these two generall heads and to all that which doth necessarily follow thereon both this man and all my other Aduersaries doe chiefly reduce all their exceptions against the Oath and if for any other respects his Holinesse forbade the Oath let my Aduersarie name them and hee shall heare what wee will say thereunto impugneth his spirituall authoritie for that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes to dispose of their temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to discharge subiects of their temporall allegiance and which consequently are included in his spirituall power then I also say that his Holinesse was deluded dedeceiued and erred also in this reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation for that it is no point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to inflict temporall punishments c. but the contrarie hath euer beene maintained by learned Catholikes 70 Neither was Almaine a famous Doctour of Paris and those very many Doctours related by him or any other of those learned Authours whom partly I cited in my Apologie p nu 4. seq and partly aboue in this Treatise q Part. 1. euer accounted bad Catholikes or silly sicke and scabbed sheepe Neither can Card. Bellarmine euen according to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before and in his owne conscience whereunto I dare appeale heerein affirme that the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell whereon all my Aduersaries doe now at last chiefly rely to proue their doctrine of deposing to be of faith although it should haue mentioned as it doeth not mention absolute Princes is sufficient to make it certaine and of faith And therefore this ignorant and vnconscionable man calling mee a silly sicke and scabbed sheepe and no good Catholike for not beleeuing this doctrine to bee certaine and of faith which so many learned Catholike Doctours haue euer maintained to bee false and for not admitting his Holinesse declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon and consequently hath no greater force to binde according to Suarez doctrine then hath the reason whereon it is grounded sheweth himselfe to haue neither learning nor charitie but a vehement desire to disgrace mee with Catholikes and to take away my good name per fas nefas whether it bee by right or wrong as all the rest of his vncharitable and fraudulent discourse doeth
distinction all sorts of forbidden bookes neither doe all crimes require the same Purgation doth make both the Sea Apostolike odious to the Aduersaries of Catholike Religion who will easily from hence take occasion to perswade themselues that the Bishops of Rome are wont to reiect at their pleasure and to suppresse violently by threatnings and not by reason or argument those opinions which they doe not like and to promote by fauours and not by reasons those opinions which are pleasing to them and also doth littel satisfie prudent Catholikes who can hardly perswade themselues that the Sacred Congregation of the right Honourable Cardinalls who are reputed for the examination of bookes to whose informations your Holinesse giuing credit as we are assuredly perswaded hath condemned those bookes and ordained that the Author shal be seuerely punished vnlesse be purge himselfe forthwith if they could haue found in them any proposition which is certainly knowne to be hereticall erroneous or repugnant to sound doctrine they would haue passed it ouer with such great silence and contrarie to the vsuall manner of the Sea Apostolike in condemning the bookes of Catholike Authors but of such especially who are commaunded vnder paine of Censures to purge themselues foorthwith as by innumerable examples which are extant in the Tomes of the Councells and in the Bulls of Popes I could demonstrate commaund the Author to purge himselfe onely in generall words without shewing any crime either in particular or generall of which he should purge himselfe 19 I therefore the Author of those bookes whom the Sacred Congregation by the commandement of your Holinesse hath enioyned to purge my selfe but as yet I know not of what crime a most dutifull childe of the Catholike Romane Church and of your Holinesse in spiritualls and withall a most loyall subiect of the Kingdome of England and of our Soueraigne Lord KING IAMES in temporalls being summoned before your Holinesse his supreme tribunall to purge my selfe prostrate at your Holinesse feet doe humbly request you by the dreadfull Maiestie of God the Supreme Iudge of all First that your Holinesse will iudge that which is right and doe me iustice and not giue credit to the information of them who are my Aduersaries in this controuersie and haue fowly corrupted my words contrary to my meaning but that you will examine my cause by your owne certaine knowledge and that you will make knowne to me all those things or at least wise some of them which in those my bookes condemned by your Holinesse commandement are cleerely knowne to bee repugnant to faith or good manners For I protest that I am most readie to correct those things that are to bee corrected to purge what is to be purged to explaine what is to be explained and to retract what is to bee retracted 2 Secondly that if your Holinesse after due examination of my writings shall finde that you haue beene misinformed by some persons and that nothing is to be found in those bookes contrarie to Catholike doctrine as some perchance haue suggested to your Holinesse you will bee pleased to recall that sentence of the Sacred Congregation published against me and my bookes through euill information or vehement importunitie of some men or through mis-vnderstanding the true meaning of my words and that you will haue a care of my good name in that good sort as shall beseeme your wisedome charitie and iustice and that you will account me to be a Catholike and a Child of the Catholike Roman Church For that which I did write in another place f f In Disp Theol. in Admon ad Lect. nu 8. I doe heere repeate againe I am a Catholike and a Child of the Catholike Roman Church and if any man of what degree soeuer hee be shall wrongfully accuse mee of heresie let him know assuredly that by the assistance of Almightie God I will by all those meanes which God and Nature hath granted to innocent men to defend themselues to the vttermost of my power defend my selfe from their calumnies or slanders vntill the Church being fully informed of my opinion shall in plaine and particular words for no man can recall errours vntill he know particularly what they bee condemne the same 21 Thirdly that your Holinesse will command that this my purgation and most humble Petition may for future memorie bee registred among the Acts of the holy Office of the Inquisition as the condemnation of my bookes is recorded as it appeareth by the Decree it selfe that those who heereafter shall succeede in that Office may giue their sentence and iudgement as well of this my Purgation as of that condemnation of my bookes and whether I am to bee accounted a Catholike and a child of the Church or an heretike 22 But if your Holinesse will not be pleased to admit this my Purgation and most humble Supplication and to recall the sentence which vpon euill information hath beene denounced against my bookes and to haue a care of my good name which hath beene wrongfully taken away although I know right well that the same most mercifull and great God who in times past preserued the credit of that holy man Robert Grosted Bishop of Lincolne with whom Pope Innocentius the fourth being wonderfully offended g g Mat. Paris in Henrico 3o. ad ann 1253. §. Diebus sub ijsdem ad annu 1254. §. Hoc etiam an Dominus Papa determined to cast his dead bones out of the Church and to bring him into so great obloquie that hee should bee proclaimed throughout the whole world for an Heathen Rebell and diobedient for that hee had written to the said Pope Innocentius in the spirit of humilitie and loue vt errores suos crebros corrigeret that he would correct his frequent or accustomed errours although I know I say that the same God who is not an accepter of persons is able also to deliuer me from the vniust attempts and false informations of any whatsoeuer and to make knowne my innocencie to your Holinesse and to the whole Christian world neuerthelesse prayers teares and patience ioyned with the testimonie of a good conscience shall bee my chiefest refuge and this shall bee my daily comfort that it is no what lesse but rather more happy and gratefull to God to suffer persecution for Iustice sake at the hands of Kinsemen and of the same Houshold who in friendship and societie ought to be more straightly linked then of Strangers 23 Finally if in this Purgation which the Sacred Congregation by commandement of your Holinesse hath enioyned mee I haue offended any man as I hope I haue not by speaking any thig not with that circumspection as is fitting for wittingly I would giue no man any iust cause of offence I doe most humbly craue pardon both of your Holinesse for whose temporall and perpetuall felicitie I will continually pray vnto our most mercifull God and also of the whole Christian world From my Study in the Feast of