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
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
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
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
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
materially of an equall or not inferiour order and excellency then the things figured so that formally as they are figures or in that they are figures they are lesse perfect and excellent then are the things figured Now this Doctour doth craftily take here figures and the things figured not formally and according to that wherein they are figures but materially for otherwise as you shall see he saith nothing to the purpose and to the confuting of my answere For neither Manna nor the Paschall lambe are figures of the Eucharist as the accidents of the Eucharist doe concurre to the nourishing of the body but onely as they are profitable to the nourishing of the soule Neither was corporall leprosie or the separation of lepers from ciuill conuersation a figure of spirituall leprosie and of Ecclesiasticall separation or Excommunication as corporall leprosie doth infect the body and Excommunication doth separate from ciuill conuersation but only as spirituall leprosie doeth infect the soule and Ecclesiasticall Excommunication doth separate from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall communion for that a figure must in all those things wherein it is a figure be more noble and excellent then is the thing which is figured And therefore as Cardinall Bellarmine very well obserueth q Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. to fulfill a figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to bee done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when he himselfe was circumcised but when hee ordained Baptisme in the place thereof Thus Card. Bellarmine 148 From whence it euidently followeth that the separation of corporall lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation could not bee a figure of the separation of spirituall lepers also from ciuill conuersation for that ciuill conuersation is one and the self same thing and not another thing more excellent which according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine must succeede in place of the figure but the fulfilling of this figure must bee the separating of spirituall lepers from spirituall or Ecclesiasticall conuersation And therefore although Ecclesiasticall Excommunication hath by the lawes of the Church annexed vnto it in that manner as I haue before declared the excluding by way of commandement from ciuill conuersation if otherwise by the law of GOD and nature we are not bound ciuilly to conuerse yea and also according to Cardinall Bellarmine the depriuing of temporall kingdomes or at leastwise of the administration thereof yet the separating of lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation or the depriuing them of temporall kingdomes or administration could not according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds bee a figure of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication in the new law as Excommunication is pretended to worke the same effects but onely as it worketh more excellent effects to wit the separating of the faithfull from spirituall conuersation and excluding them from the kingdome of heauen 149 Wherefore if wee doe respect onely the nature and propertie of a figure it is euident that Cardinall Bellarmine according to his owne principles hath not any way prooued that because corporall leprosie and the punishments annexed thereunto in the old law to wit the depriuing of temporall kingdomes Iurisdiction or administration as Cardinall Bellarmine contendeth was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the punishments annexed thereunto in the new law therefore the same punishments to wit the depriuing of temporall dominion Iurisdiction or administration were figured by them and consequently may now by vertue of the figure bee ordained against spirituall lepers for this were not according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine to fulfill the figure and to put in place thereof something more excellent but to put that very same thing which the law in that figure prescribed to be done And therefore Cardinall Bellarmine must bring better arguments vnlesse he will quite discredit himselfe and his cause drawne from other heads then from the figure of leprosie and of separating lepers from ciuill conuersation which according to his owne principles doth as you haue seene make cleere against him to prooue that spirituall Pastours either by vertue of Excommunication or in any other manner haue authoritie to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes and dominions or of any temporall administration or Iurisdiction 150 Lastly whereas in the end of this my answere I affirmed as you haue seene that Cardinall Bellarmine did not truely and entirely set downe the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. And all these things chanced to them in figure for that hee left out that word these which is a relatiue and hath relation onely to those things whereof the Apostle spake before among which corporall leprosie is none and hee affirmeth him to say And all things chanced to the Iewes in figure this Doctour maketh much adoe and laboureth in vaine to excuse Card. Bellarmine And first hee answereth u pag. 553. that Cardinall Bellarmine did not produce the words but the sense of St. Paul but it is certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that Chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure but those and other like to them 151 But first this answere is not agreeable to Card. Bellarmines owne words The Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. saith Cardinall Bellarmine that all things did chance to the Iewes in figure and what I pray you is to say that the Apostle saith so then to produce the Apostles words Secondly although it bee certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure yet it is certaine that the Apostle in that chapter did onely say that all these things and not all things absolutely as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth him to say did chance to the Iewes in figure Thirdly albeit S. Paul knew right well that not onely all those altogethere mentioned but many other such like dioâ—ce to the Iewes in figure yet it was sufficient for his purpose in that place onely to affirme that all those things there mentioned and not that all things absolutely did chance to the Iewes in figure neither was it necessarie that the Apostle should in that chapter say all hee knew it was suffient for him to say in that chapter onely that which did suffice for his present purpose Wherefore this Doctour must distinguish betwixt knowledge which is in the vnderstanding and meaning which is in the will and so hee may see that the Apostle knew right well that not onely those things there mentioned but those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure and yet onely meant to say in that place that all those things there mentioned and not all those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure Neither did St. Paul meane otherwise then the words which he spake did signifie but it is
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
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
properly and directly no temporall power but onely spirituall yet by this spirituall power of his they say he can dispose of all things and inflict all kinde of punishments as well temporall as spirituall as if hee had formally and directly temporall power and therefore they will not call this power of the Pope to dispose of all temporalls formally and directly but vertually and indirectly temporall power or a supreme power to dispose of all temporalls in order to spirituall good Other Diuines and Lawyers whom I cited aboue in the first part doe contend that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath neither formally nor virtually neither directly nor indirectly any temporal power or authority to dispose of temporall things or to inflict temporall punishments but onely spirituall power by which he may dispose or dispence in spirituall things and inflict spirituall punishments and also command enioyne or impose temporall things as in them may be found vertue or vice which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power but no way dispose of temporall things or inflict temporall or ciuill punishments for that these are the acts and obiects onely of ciuill power 24 Neither also can this Doctour be ignorant that there is a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and of Paris about the amplitude greatnesse and fulnesse of the Popes spirituall power insomuch that Iacobus Almainus a famous Doctour of Paris doth affirme e Almain de author Eccles cap. 3. that there is so great a controuersie among Doctours concerning the plenitude or fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and to what things it is extended that in this matter there are few things secure or without doubt so that as William Occam saith it would bee very necessarie in these times that wise men being compelled by Oaths and horrible threatnings to speake the trueth should declare what things doe belong to the plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power and much more of Papall authoritie which Almaine with the other Diuines of Paris doe make inferiour to the power of the Church or of a Generall Councell Gerson de potest Eccles consid 12. which doth represent the Church for as Iohn Gerson and the said Almaine doe affirme deceitfull flatterie hath now ouermuch extended and amplified the greatnesse and fulnesse of Papall authoritie 25 Moreouer although I will not denie that the Pope hath authoritie to make lawes and Canons yet it is not certaine that hee hath authority to make lawes and Canons to binde a generall Councell for that the Doctours of Paris doe affirme that a generall Councell hath authority to make laws Canons to binde the Pope according to the expresse definitions of the Councels of Constance and Basill Conc. Const sess 5. The Councell doth ordaine define decree and determine saith the Councell of Constance as followeth And first it doth declare that the said Councell being gathered in the holy Ghost making a generall Councell and representing the Catholike Church hath immediately from Christ authority which euery man of what state or dignity soeuer although it be papall is bound to obey in those things which belong to faith and to the rooting out of the said Schisme and to the reforming of the said Church in the head and members Also it doth declare that euery man of whatsoeuer condition state or dignity hee bee although it be Papall that shall obstinately contemne to obey the commaundes statutes decrees or precepts of this sacred Synode being lawfully gathered concerning the aforesaid or appertaining to any of them made or to be made vnlesse he shall repent let him be subiect to condigne pennance and be deseruedly punished by hauing also recourse if it shal be needfull to other helps of law Which decrees of the Councell of Constance the Councell also of Basill which was lawfully called by Pope Eugenius the 4. and which at that time when these decrees were made Concil Basil sess 2. was not accounted a Schismaticall but a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell doth in the same expresse words confirme 26 Also although I will not deny that the Pope hath authority to dispence in vowes and oathes yet it is not certaine that hee hath authority to dispense in all vowes and in all oathes for that many Diuines do with S. Thomas maintaine that he hath not power to dispence in the solemne vowe of religious chastity or in those oathes which are made to confirme any thing which wee are otherwise bound to performe by the law of God or nature because the opinion of the Thomists is that the Pope doth dispence in oathes onely by declaring that the thing which is confirmed by oath is not now a sufficient matter of an oath as I haue declared more at large elsewhere f Disputat Theolog. c. 6. sec 6. nu 8. in Resp Apol. nu 148. 149. Lastly although I doe willingly graunt that the Pope hath authority to punish yet it is not certaine that he hath authority to punish with all kinde of punishments for that many learned Catholikes doe holde as you may see more at large aboue in the first part that Ecclesiasticall power is by the institution of Christ restrained onely to Ecclesiasticall Censures and cannot inflict temporall or ciuill punishments as death banishment imprisonment depriuing of temporall goods c. And thus much concerning the first part of the aforesaid distinction now touching the second part 27 Secondly therefore the meaning of Cardinall Bellarmines aforesaid proposition The Ecclesiasticall common-wealth ought to bee perfect and to haue all power sufficient and necessarie c. may bee that the Church hath all power sufficient and necessarie in order to her ende which is the saluation of soules in respect of the power it selfe and not in respect also of all those things which are in any wise necessarie that the power may actually worke her effect As the power for example of the Sunne to giue light may bee vnderstood sufficient either in respect of the power it selfe to giue light or in respect also of those things which doe any way concurre to the actuall giuing of light and which things if they bee wanting will hinder the giuing of light of which sort are a proportionate distance a capable and well disposed subiect And although the Sunne hath not sufficient power to remoue all those impediments which may hinder her actuall giuing of light for so it should draw the body that is to bee enlightened within a sufficient distance and make it also diaphanum cleare or perspicuous which to doe is not is the power of the Sunne neuerthelesse what man can therefore deny that the Sunne hath a perfect power and of it selfe sufficient to enlighten 28 And in this sense the aforesaid antecedent proposition is true For the Christian common-wealth or the Church of Christ hath a perfect and sufficient power for it selfe to bring soules to the kingdome of heauen for as much as belongeth to the power it selfe which neuerthelesse
that they may imply that the Pope can remooue all impediments whatsoeuer which either the world or the Deuill with all their forces and sleights can oppose which proposition may at the first sight bee taken as I haue knowne diuers learned men vnderstand it in that first sense which before I shewed to bee false and therefore what great fault trow you could it bee for me to declare the meaning of those words more plainely seeing that a proposition may without doubt sometimes be false yea and as learned Diuines are of opinion may bee also hereticall according to that vulgar maxime S. Tho. secunda secundae q. 11. ar 2. Magister in 4. dist 13. which Saint Thomas and the Maister of the sentences attribute to Saint Hierome ex verbis inordinate prolatis incurritur haeresis haeresie is incurred by wordes inordinately vttered although hee by whom they were spoken had no badde meaning 33 Thirdly saith this Doctour k Ibid. it is to bee obserued that Widdrington whiles hee declareth what punishments the Church can inflict vpon her subiects that shall offend maketh mention onely of spirituall punishments as though the Church cannot inflict also temporall punishments whereof see what wee haue said aboue cap. 4. vpon the 40.41 and 42. numbers True it is that the maine scope of my Apologie was no other then to prooue it to bee probable that the spirituall power of the Church or Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall or ciuill punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures Neither hath this Doctour in those places to which hee remitteth his Reader prooued any other thing then that the Church by vertue of her spirituall power may command enioyne and impose temporall punishments and by the temporall authoritie giuen her by the grant and consent of temporall Princes may also inflict them vpon inferiour persons which I neuer denyed And so in this kingdome wee see by experience that albeit Bishops haue euer had authoritie to excommunicate disobedient persons and to enioyne temporall penalties as a thing proper to their spirituall power yet to imprison them they procure a Writ out of the temporall Court de excommunicato capiendo for apprehending an excommunicated person 34 Lastly saith this Doctour l Ibid. pag. 354 it is to bee obserued that whiles Widdrington declareth the power of Iurisdiction not without mysterie hee hath said nothing of the power to absolue from oaths and vowes and other things of that kind True it is that although I did not in that place expresly affirme as also I did not deny that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the absoluing from oathes and vowes yet of set purpose and for some mysterie I did then omit to make mention of them and the mysterie was this for that there is a great controuersie among learned Diuines especially betwixt the Thomists and their opposites wherewith I thought it neither necessarie nor expedient at that time to intermeddle not only in what maner the spiritual power of the Church may absolue froÌ„ oaths vowes but also whether the Church hath any authoritie at all to absolue from all Oaths and all vowes seeing that as afterwards m Praefat. ad Resp Apolog. nu 58. in Resp nu 148. I declared S. Thomas and his followers doe contend that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the solemne vow of religious chastitie and also that hee cannot absolue from any vow or oath by releasing the bond and obligation to performe that which is once sworne or vowed for this were to absolue from the law of Nature which commandeth vs to performe that which we haue once lawfully sworne or vowed but onely by declaring and interpreting that the matter which was sworne or vowed is not now in this particular case a sufficient matter to bee sworne or vowed From which doctrine it cleerely followeth that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the oath of true temporall allegiance vnlesse hee also haue authoritie as hee hath not to declare that true temporall allegiance is not in that particular case lawfull or necessary and consequently not a sufficient matter to bee sworne whereas true temporall allegiance is alwayes not onely lawfull but also necessary and commaunded by the law of God and nature And thus much concerning this Doctours obseruations 35 Now you shall see how well he confuteth the answere which I gaue to Cardinall Bellarmines argument supposing the aforesaid distinction Thus therefore I began to answere it Wherefore we grant the antecedent proposition in the sense which wee haue now declared But we deny that the power to vse to dispose of the temporals of all Christians is necessary to the spirituall end for such a power is not proportionate to that end therfore there is no likelyhood that for the spirituall end such a temporall power or which is all one such a power to dispose of temporals was by Christ our Sauiour giuen to his Church which is a spirituall and not temporall common-wealth I answere saith this Doctor n Num. 355. whether the power to vse and to dispose of the temporals of all Christians be necessary to the Church for her end is the principall question which is in controuersie Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth Widdrington denyeth But whiles he denyeth he is so destitute of Patrons and Doctours that also Ioannes Parisiensis whom in his booke he more often citeth for his opinion then any other is flat against him c. 36 But first it is not true that the principall question which is in controuersie is whether the power to dispose of the temporals of all christians be necessary to the Church for her end which is the saluatioÌ„ of soules but the principall question controuersie is whether Christ our Sauior gaue authority to his Church as it is a spirituall Kingdome consisteth onely of spirituall power to dispose of all temporals And Cardinall Bellarmine to proue that Christ gaue vnto his Church this power bringeth this for a reason because this power to dispose of all temporals is necessarie to her spirituall end to wit the saluation of soules which reason I say is not true and from thence it would cleerely follow that our Sauiour was of necessity tied to giue to spiritual Pastours authority to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all temporals which no man I thinke that hath his wits about him will affirme And how did the Church of Christ thinke you dispose of temporals by way of authority when she was persecuted by the Pagan and Arrian Emperours for then if at any time a power to dispose of temporals should haue beene necessary to the saluation of soules Whereupon Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth That it is not absolutely necessary to resist the common enemie Bel. l. 1. de Conâ—l ca. 10. as is the Turke For if the Church could be conuersant vnder the most cruell persecutions of Nero Domitian Decius
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
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
another generall Councell of like authority and why a Bishop for example of Spaine as he is a part of the generall Councell which is a true formall body representing the whole Catholike Church hath power and iurisdiction ouer the Christians of another temporall kingdome for example of France and contrariwise but a temporall or Ciuill law made by the consent of all Christian Princes may bee repealed by euery Prince for as much as concerneth his owne kingdome by whose onely authoritie that law had force to binde in his kingdome which in temporalls is subiect to no other Prince but himselfe alone and therefore as that law had not force to binde in his kingdome from the authoritie of any other Prince so the authoritie and consent of no other Prince is necessarie for the repealing and abrogating of the same So as thou seest good Reader that my third answere is no way defectiue but in euery thing sound and sufficient and that Maister Fitzherbert in the impugning thereof hath very grossely bewrayed his egregious fraude and ignorance CHAP. XIIII VVherein three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby hee laboured in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraude and falshood 1. AFter I had giuen the aforesaide third answere to that Act of the Lateran Councell as you haue seene before I insinuated another difficultie a In the aforesaid Preface nu 51. concerning that Act in these wordes I omit now that those wordes that from that time the Pope may denounce or declare his Vassalls absolued from his fealtie doe containe in them some difficultie for if wee will regard the force or proprietie of the wordes they seeme onely to signifie that it belongeth to the Pope not truely to absolue Vassalls from their fealtie but onely to declare them alreadie absolued which is not the question which wee haue now in hand But this difficultie Mr. Fitzherbert passeth ouer with silence and skippeth to examine three instances which I did not onely imagine or suppose as hee saith would be made against my last answere but which Fa. Lessius in those expresse words by me related in a booke of his called Disputatio Apologetica pro potestate Summi Pontificis which went heere vp and downe for a while in hugger mugger and whereof by chance I had then a view but now it cannot be seene but by very speciall and secret friends which is a manifest token of a great diffidence in his cause did bring to demonstrate and cleerely conuince that it is a manifest point of faith that the Pope hath power and authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance 2 And because Mr. Fitzherbert doth ouer much pare and curtoll those three instances which I brought to confront and paralele with the three arguments or obiections vrged by Fa. Lessius I thinke it not amisse first of all to relate them word by word as there they are set downe by me Wherefore the first argument or obiection of Fa. Lesus is this 1. Argument of Fa Lessius That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of their Decrees and sentences but this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their allegiance is eyther propounded or supposed by Popes Councels and Doctors as a foundation of many Canons and iudiciall sentences therfore this doctrine doth appertaine to faith 2. Argument 3 His second argument is this If a Generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath this authoritie no Catholike could make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that it doth suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of her Decrees and Sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to be accounted no lesse certaine 3. Argument 4 His third argument is this It is a poynt of Faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which is per se of it selfe vnlawfull for such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then is an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to depriue temporall Princes of their dominions the Church should erre in doctrine of manners and that in matters of very great moment For shee teacheth that after a Prince is deposed by the Popes authority all his subiects are absolued from his obedience and that his dominions may bee taken by another as it is manifest by the Councells Also that after a Prince is publikely excommunicated his subiects are absolued from their Oath of Allegiance in so much that they are not bound to obey him vntill hee he reconciled yea and she doth forbid them to obey him if the Censure be denounced All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the subiects shall thereby be incited to rebellions and periuries yea and against their will be compelled thereunto Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and commandeth rebellions and periuries and by her Censures doth compell men thereunto but to affirme this is hereticall therefore that also from whence this followeth is hereticall to wit that the Church hath not authority to absolue subiects from the bond of their oath and from their obedience 5 Thus argueth Fa. Lessius to which his arguments I did not answer in forme but onely propounded three other instances or arguments to confront them with his whereby the learned Reader might cleerely see the weakenesse and insufficiency of his obiections which my arguments I grounded in like manner vpon the dispensations decrees and iudiciall sentences of certaine Popes in these words * Praefatio Apol nu 56. seq 6 And first of all is not the due administration of Sacraments a matter of great moment and chiefly belonging to the Popes office is not an error concerning it to be accounted very pernicious But the Pope hath oftentimes giuen leaue to a Priest who was no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation b As it appeareth by S. Gregory lib. 3. epist 26. and it is related in the Canon peruenit dist 95. and many Abbots at this day haue the same faculty Concil Flor. circa finem in Decreto Eugen. whereas it is a great cōtrouersie among
and Saphyra and of others and from the practise of the Church and the person of man are cleerely confuted CHAP. VIII M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nations and the Ciuill law are answered and first the difference betwixt the Priests of the old and new Testament and the Priests of other Nations and also betwixt the law of Nations and of Nature is declared Secondly from thence it is prooued that among all Nations the ciuill common-wealth was supreme and disposed of all things both spirituall and temporall and punished all persons both Priests and others with temporall punishments and consequently that the new Oath cannot be impugned by the law of Nations Thirdly what M. Fitzherbert obiecteth from the Ciuill Law is confuted CHAP IX First the difficulties which some make concerning the authoritie of the Lateran Councell are propounded Secondly the decree of the Councel which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related Thirdly Widdringtons first answere to the said decree is prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted CHAP. X. Widdringtons second answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell affirming that absolute Princes are not comprehended therein because they are not mentioned by their proper names but by inferiour titles is prooued to be neitheir improbable nor absurd but conforme to the doctrine of learned Diuines and Lawyers and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the said answere are shewed to be very insufficient and fraudulent CHAP. XI Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to bee sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessary to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Secondly the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the Lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined Thirdly M. Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted CHAP. XII An other answere of Widdrington grounded vpon certaine Glossers or Expositours of the Canon Law is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are prooued to be fraudulent and insufficient Secondly it is shewed that from no Canon of the Church it can be prooued that the custome of the Church is or hath beene to inflict by her spirituall authoritie temporall penalties Thirdly the true difference betwixt the Diuines and Canonists concerning the Popes power in temporalls is declared CHAP. XIII Widdringtons third answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell is confirmed Secondly it is shewed how certaine it is according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes that the Church cannot erre in decrees or precepts of manners from whence it is cleerely deduced that from the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell it cannot with any colour of probabilitie be prooued that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes Thridly all M. Fitzherberts arguments to shew the contrary are most plainely confuted CHAP. XIIII Three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes Decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby he laboureth in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the Decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to be sound and sufficient Secondly the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons Instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraud and falshood Thirdly that proposition Many things may be certaine to the Sea Apostolike and yet seeme vncertaine to other learned men is examined CHAP. XV. Widdringtons second example and his Instances grounded thereon are confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in impugning the same is conuinced of manifest fraud and ignorance in taxing therein of fondnesse the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie Also Widdringtons third example and his Instances grounded thereon are prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts fraud in relating the said Instances and applying them to the Lateran Councell is plainely discouered CHAP. XVI Another argument or rather answere of Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in labouring to prooue that Widdrington by his owne grant is fallen into heresie or errour is conuinced of palpable ignorance The Conclusion of all Widdringtons discourse in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere is confirmed and what M. Fitzherbert excepteth against the same and also his briefe Recapitulation of all his Discourse in this his Treatise are confuted CHAP. XVII M. Fitzherberts vncharitable Admonition to the Catholike Reader that Widdrington is no other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that his submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather artificial and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes is clearely confuted and prooued to be voide of charity learning and sincerity and what reasons the King and State may haue to permit such submissions is there declared Widdringtons answere to the Popes Breues forbidding the Oath is confirmed and hee freed from all disobedience and irreuerence for not admitting them The decree of the Cardinals forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes and commanding him to purge himselfe forthwith is fully answered by his Purgation and humble Supplication which he made forthwith to his Holinesse THE PREFACE TO THE READER HOw dangerous and pernicious a thing it is deare Contreymen in any temporall Kingdome or Common-wealth to coyne or willingly to vtter and much more by fraud or violence to force the people to accept of counterfait money any man of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue And truely no lesse dangerous and pernicious is it in the spirituall Kingdome and Church of Christ 1 Tim. 3. which is the pillar and firmament of truth to inuent forge or divulge and which is farre worse to thrust vpon the faithfull by fraud and violence false articles and positions for true and infallible Catholike faith but especially in things which are greatly preiudiciall to the temporall Soueraigntie of Christian Princes whom Christ our Sauiour hath appointed to be Nurcing Fathers and Protectours of his Church Isay 19. Concil Trid. sess 25. cap. 20. de Reform for that thereby not onely Christian Princes are extreamely wronged but also the Christian Religion is greatly scandalized and the soules both of Princes and subiects are much endangered and therfore no lesse thanks doe they deserue at the hands of the Church of God who should discouer a false and forged Catholike faith and the first inuenters or publishers thereof then doe they at the hands of the temporall Kingdome who should disclose false and counterfait money and the first coiners or
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
very first so fraudulent friuolous and contrarie to his owne profession as you haue heard in this Chapter Thus you see with what bitternesse Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth his first Chapter 43 But if hee had beene pleased to haue dealt vprightly and as hee hath in a most spitefull manner vrged against me this obiection which is taken from his Holinesse Breues so also he had set downe the answere which in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation I gaue thereunto the Reader would presently haue perceiued that my Aduersarie hath passed the bounds of Christian charitie and iustice in wrongfully accusing me of impudencie impietie and disobedience to the Apostolicall decree of S. Peters Successour whose obedient child I did there and also I doe heere professe my selfe to be and am readie to obey in all those things wherein according to the grounds of Catholike Religion hee hath authoritie to command Neither can my Aduersarie without blushing affirme either that the Popes Holinesse albeit hee bee Saint Peters Successour cannot erre in his particular commands and decrees which are not propounded to the whole Church but to particular Churches or Kingdomes or that any Catholike is bound to obey him in those things wherein according to the doctrine of learned and vertuous Catholikes hee hath no authoritie to command 44 First therefore I shewed in that place out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez that there are two sorts of humane precepts as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill The one is called a constitutiue precept which of it selfe maketh that thing which it forbiddeth to bee vnlawfull which otherwise if that precept were not would not bee vnlawfull as the eating of flesh in Lent and the doing of seruile workes vpon Sundaies and Holidayes which if they were not forbidden by humane lawes would not be vnlawfull And although a constitutiue precept of humane power may sometimes binde with danger of some great temporall losse as of goods libertie yea also of life yet the Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall and contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doe seldome or neuer binde with very great temporall harme and therefore wee are not bound to abstaine from flesh in Lent or from doing seruile workes vpon Sundaies and holidaies when we are like to incurre thereby any probable danger of some great temporall hurt 45 The other is called a declaratiue precept which doth not of it selfe make but suppose and declare the thing which it forbiddeth to be vnlawfull as being before prohibited by some other former law as theft murder drunkennesse and such like which are otherwise forbidden by the law of God and nature And this kind of precept as well obserueth Suarex dependeth onely vpon the reason for which the act is commanded or forbidden or which is all one vpon the precedent law from whence all the obligation of the declaratiue precept doth proceed Insomuch that if the reason be not true and that there is no such precedent law or obligation as the declaratiue precept affirmeth to be the declaratiue precept hath no force to binde at all and with the same certaintie or probabilitie we are bound or not bound to obey a declaratiue precept as it is certaine or probable that there is or is not any other former bond and obligation 46 As for example his Holinesse doth by his Breues forbidde all English Catholikes to take the new oath of allegiance for that therein are contained many things which are cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation If therefore it be certaine or probable that nothing is contained in this oath which is repugnant to faith or saluation it is also certaine or probable that this declaratiue precept of his Holinesse which is grounded vpon this reason that something is contained therein contrary to faith and saluation is according to the doctrine of Suarez of no force to bind neither are English Catholikes by vertue of this declaratiue prohibition bound to refuse the said oath 47 Secondly I also shewed in that place that this declaratiue command of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation is such a declaratiue precept which is not grounded vpon any infallible reason or definition of the Church but onely vpon his opinatiue iudgement that his reason is true and that either his power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes which is denyed in the oath is a cleere point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall Supremacie and consequently the denyall thereof is plainly repugnant to Catholike faith Which being so it is manifest that wee are no further bound to obey this declaratiue prohibition of his Holinesse then we are bound to follow his opinion and to belieue that eyther his power to excommunicate or some such like is denyed in the oath or that whosoeuer denyeth his power to depose Princes denyeth the Catholike faith 48 Whereupon I concluded that considering neither his power to excommunicate or any such like is denyed in this oath as I haue prooued at large against Card. Bellarmine and others nor that his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith the contrary doctrine being probable and also maintained by many learned Catholikes as partly also I haue already prooued by the testimonie of learned Catholikes before alledged and heere beneath by answering all my Aduersaries obiections I will make it more manifest Part. 1. per. tâ—tum there can bee made no doubt but that any English Catholike may with a safe conscience or without any crime of disobedience to his supreme spirituall Pastour or any preiudice to Catholike faith refuse to obey his Holinesse declaratiue command which is onely grounded vpon such an opinion which considering the contrary is probable and defended by many learned Catholikes may without any note of impudencie impiety or disobedience be reiected by Catholikes 49 Thirdly I also affirmed in that place that no Catholike doth onely for this cause take the oath or thinke it to be lawfull because the Kings Maiestie being of a contrarie Religion doth command it or thinke it to be lawfull as though those Catholikes who take the oath doe it onely vpon the Kings bare word affirming the oath to be lawfull and seeme thereby to preferre the opinion of a Protestant Prince in things which in some sort doe belong to Religion before the opinion of our supreme spirituall Pastour but because the Kings Maiestie being our lawfull Prince and Soueraigne Lord in temporals what religion soeuer hee professeth hath established an oath of allegiance to make a triall how his Catholike subiects stand affected towards him in point of their loyaltie and due obedience and commanded all Catholikes to take the same which oath learned Catholikes for probable reasons doe thinke to be truely in oath of temporall allegiance and to
body which for as much as appertaineth to the power it selfe and not in regard of all other things which are requisite that the power shall haue effect is sufficient and necessarie to the eternall saluation of soules yet that hee must needes haue euen ouer the soule and much lesse ouer the body and temporall goods and states all that power which is conuenient for the good of soule as my Aduersary heere affirmeth is very vntrue for this were a too too large extension of the Popes pastorall power ouer the soule and body and would cleerely prooue that the Pope should haue power to doe miracles as the Apostles had and by miraculous operations to bring actually all Christians to the kingdome of heauen For no man as I thinke can make doubt but that the Pope to haue all that power whereby all Christians shall bee actually saued is very conuenient for the good of soules Neither will my Aduersarie be euer able to prooue that it is necessary to the saluation of soules or to the gouernment of the Church as it was instituted by Christ to bee a spirituall and not a temporall Common-wealth to haue power to dispose of temporals and to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes and liues 12 Secondly that proposition he that hath the greater power hath the lesse which my Aduersary vntruely saith to bee a rule of the Law for that it is not to bee found among the rules either of the Canon or Ciuill Law is very vntrue if it bee taken in those generall wordes and without due limitations which my Aduersary doth not declare as might be conuinced by infinite examples whereof some may be seene in the next Chapter where wee shall treate of this Maxime more at large and for the present this onely shall suffice that if it were vniuersally true it would cleerely conuince that the Pope who by the institution of Christ hath spirituall power which is the greater power should also haue temporall power which is the lesse which my Aduersarie as I thinke will hardly grant vnlesse hee will now become a Canonist and affirme that the Pope as Pope hath both temporall and spirituall power and is both a temporall and spirituall Prince which is repugnant to the common doctrine of the Diuines of his owne Societie 13 True it is that if the lesse be taken for that which is contained in the greater either actually and formally or vertually he that hath the greater power hath formally or vertually also the lesse as because a hundred crownes is actually contained in a hundred pounds and foure degrees of heate is actually contained in eight and heate is vertually contained in light therefore from those rules of the law which rather may bee called rules of naturall reason for that they are grounded vpon the light of nature i De regulis iuris in 6. regula 35. 80. Plus semper continet in se quod est minus into to partem non est dubium contineri The greater doth alwaies containe in it the lesse and there is no doubt but that a part is contained in the whole we may rightly inferre that he who can giue a hundred pounds can giue a hundred crownes and the fire which can produce eight degrees of heate can produce foure and the Sunne that hath power to produce light hath also power to produce heate But temporall power is neither formally nor vertually contained in the spirituall power of the Pope although it be vertually and supereminently contained in the spirituall power of God almightie in whom all create powers are vertually in an infinite and superexcellent manner contained That which is obiected saith Ioannes Parisiensis he that hath power to doe the greater Ioan. Paris de potest Regia Papali cap. 17. ad 17. hath power to doe the lesse therefore the Pope who hath power in spiritualls hath also power in temporalls it is true in the greater and lesser which are per se subordained as because a Bishop hath power to ordaine a Priest therefore he hath also power to ordaine a Deacon but it doeth not hold in those things which are of a diuerse order or kind as because my father could beget a man therefore hee can also beget a dogge or because a Priest can absolue from sinne therefore hee can also absolue from the debt of money 14 Thirdly neither is that true which my Aduersary affirmeth that S. Paul by that proposition he that hath the greater power hath the lesse did iustifie his dealing with temporall affaires when hee aduised the Corinthians to constitute and appoint Iudges amongst themselues to decide their controuersies rather then to haue recourse to the tribunalls of Infidells which Iudges S. Chrysostome vpon this place calleth Arbiters and accorders or reconcilers For S. Paul foreseeing that some might easily obiect as S. Chrysostome obserueth that those Corinthians who were newly become Christians were for the most part rude ignorant and vnnoble and therefore might seeme to bee men vnfit and vnworthie to intermeddle in secular controuersies therefore to preuent this obiection he vseth an argument which the Logicians call a maiori ad minus from the greater to the lesse which argument is not grounded in that maxime he that hath the greater power hath the lesse but in this hee that is worthie to haue the greater power is not vnworthie to haue the lesse To preuent therefore that obiection S. Paul argueth in this maner Know you not that the Saints shall iudge of the world and if the world shall bee iudged by you are you vnworthie to iudge especially as Arbitratours of the least things Know you not that wee shall iudge Angels how much more secular things 15 This therefore is the force of the Apostles argument as Benedictus Iustinianus a learned Iesuite vpon this place doeth well declare The Apostle saith he argueth a maiori from the greater Beâ—ed Iustin in 1. Cor. 6. For if the Saints are accounted worthie to be appointed Iudges of the whole world who can thinke them vnworthie to bee ouer the meanest and least iudgements If to your iudgement the world shall be subiect are you to bee accounted vnworthie to decide and compose the least controuersies and strifes of your brethren If we shall iudge the Angels these bee the wordes of Photius related by Iustinian how much more shall wee bee fit to compose the strifes and controuersies which arise concerning things necessarie to mans life whereupon the Apostles argument doth well conclude saith Iustinian that those who are appointed Iudges of the world cannot bee accounted vnworthie to haue charge of humane iudgements if they bee appointed by them who haue this authoritie or who may by right subiect themselues to their iudgements as those who are in suite may to Arbitratours Neither is this repugnant saith Iustinian to the publike authoritie of Iudges and Magistrates for no man is compelled to goe to the Magistrate if by other waies he may
willingly graunt that it may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests had power to command or enioyne bodily penances to their penitents as fasting prayer lying vpon sackcloth and ashes yea and giuing of almes in satisfaction of their sinnes as the building of Churches Colledges Hospitals or Religious Houses according to the greatnesse of their offence and the qualitie condition and abilitie of the penitent or to vse the tearme of Diuines claâ—e non errante the key not erring For if such penances should be enioyned without discretion and due regard of the greatnesse of the offence or of the state and condition of the penitent the key should erre and would not haue force to bind Secondly I doe also graunt that there is an order and subordination in worth and dignitie betwixt spirituall corporall and temporall goods or of the soule of the body and of fortune and that according to the light of nature the goods of the soule being most worthy are to be preferred and esteemed before the other two and that the goods of the body bodily life health libertie and such like bodily contentments are to be preferred before the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states and that all of them are with due order to be referred to the seruice and glorie of God and to the eternall saluation both of body and soule But what followeth from all this 33 Whereupon I inferre saith my Aduersarie r pag. 33. nu 5.6 according to the axiome of the law accessorium sequitur principale that seeing not onely the body but also temporall goode and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof a must needs follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glorie of God for the which 〈…〉 bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained And this me thinkes our aduersaries should not deny seeing that their Ecclesiasticall discipline admitteth not onely corporall chastisements by imprisonment but also pecuniaris mulcto and penalties Therefore vpon this I inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke and consequently to be fedde and gouerned by the supreme Pastour of the Church may also be chastised by him in their temporall states when it shall be necessarie for the glorie and seruice of God the benefite of soules and good of the whole Church whereto all Christian Kingdomes Isa 60. and Empyres are subordinate and subiect as I haue prooued before out of the holy Scripture and will prooue also after a while by the very law of nature and light of reason 34 But first touching the consequent or conclusion of his inference or argument to wit that the Pope hauing power ouer the soule hath power also ouer the body and goods when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and glory of God I doe willingly graunt the same if it be vnderstoode of a power not to dispose of corporall and temporall goods but to command and enioyne them in order to spirituall good albeit my Aduersarie did vnderstand it of both as I shewed before But as concerning the consequence inference or argument which hee draweth from that rule of the law De Regulis Iuris in 6. regula 42. The accessorie followeth the principall or as it is in the Canon law Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis It is fit or conuenient that the accessorie follow the nature of the principall which rule as the Glosse there affirmeth is taken from that rule of the Ciuill law ff de Regulis Iuris regula 138. Cum principalis causa c. When the principall cause is not consisting for the most part neither those things that follow haue place there can be no conuincing or demonstratiue argument as all my Aduersaries arguments must be if hee will prooue by them that the oath cannot with a safe and probable conscience be taken by any Catholike and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith be drawen from that generall rule of the law which hath so many exceptions restrictions and limitations and which are not as yet made sufficiently knowen by the Lawiers as neither what is vniuersally meant by Accessorie and what by Principall and what is to follow the nature of the principall 35 And therefore not without cause doth the rule of the Ciuill law from which this rule of the Canon law is taken adioyne that word plaerunque for the most part and the rule it selfe of the Canon law doth not absolutely say that the Accessorie must follow or doth follow the nature of the principall but it is fit or conuenient that the accessorie doe follow the nature of the principall to signifie that it doth not alwaies and of necessitie but for the most part and of congruitie follow the principall and that Iudges ought for the most part follow this rule in their iudgements if they haue no speciall reasoned meaning 〈…〉 to the contraries And therefore as the marginall Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doth well obserue Å¿ Leg. Et si is quem Cod. de praedijs alijs c. The accessorie doth not follow his principall when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall 36 Secondly therefore I would gladly know of my Aduersarie whether he will haue this rule to be grounded onely in humane law and hath it force and strength onely from thence so that if the Ciuill or Canon law had not made and ordained that rule it would not be of force and validitie or else it is grounded also in the law of God or nature If he graunt the first as commonly the Lawiers doe and therefore some things which seeme of their owne nature to be accessorie as a saddle and bridle are to a horse are not accessorie according to humane law and therefore he that selleth a horse doth not consequently sell the bridle and faddle and somethings which are not accessorie of their owne nature as a dowrie is not necessarily annexed to marriage are made accessorie according to humane lawe and therefore he that marrieth a woman with the consent of her parents hath right to a dowrie and the parents are bound by the Ciuill Law to giue a dowrie if they be able wherefore the Glosse vpon the aforesaid rule of the Ciuill law doth obserue that the word plaerunque for the most part was purposely added to that rule of the law for that sometimes that rule doth faile to which purpose he alledgeth many texts of the Ciuill law If my Aduersarie I say will graunt the first he can not but easily perceiue that there can no forcible argument be drawne from the
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
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
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
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
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
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
his kingdome and deposed the Queene de facto that is thrust her out of the possession of the kingdome For Ioiada in this sense did make or constitute the King and deposed the Queene by the aide and assistance of the Princes without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter but to make or constitute him King de iure or the rightfull heire to the kingdome onely succession without the aide and assent of Ioiada or the Princes was sufficient Neither dare this Doctour absolutely auerre as you haue seene that Ioas was not before this King de iure but Athalia but he affirmeth it with a credibile est which neuerthelesse I haue prooued to be incredible and to containe a very false scandalous and seditious doctrine 78 Lastly although that question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether Athalia was slaine onely for treason or also for idolatrie be not much materiall to the present controuersie betweene vs which is by what authoritie it was done seeing that whether she was slaine only for treason or also for idolatrie it was done by the authoritie of the King who then was crowned and confirmed by the Princes and people as this Doctour heere is not also vnwilling to grant Neuerthelesse I still affirme that it can not be prooued from the holy Scripture that she was slaine for idolatrie albeit I doe not deny that she deserued death therefore Whereupon the Scripture onely mentioneth that vpon her endeauouring to make a rebellion against the true and now anointed King crying out in the presence of the King Princes and people A conspiracie A conspiracie Treason Treason she was commanded to be slaine Neither can this Doctour sufficiently conclude from those words of holy Scripture Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. as Card. Bellarmine pretended to prooue or from those words immediatly going before And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would be the people of the Lord that Athalia was actually slaine for idolatrie although I doe willingly grant that she was an Idolatresse and therefore deserued death according to the law 79 Neither did I as this Doctour vntruely saith g pag. 570. either slaunder Card. Bellarmine or else knew not what I said my selfe when I affirmed that Card. Bellarmine did not sincerely relate the words of holy Scripture to wit Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. which words as he saith doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For after the killing of Athalia these words And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King c. which as the Glosse affirmeth were a confirmation of the King newly annointed and crowned doe immediately follow and after them doe follow those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. And whereas this Doctour affirmeth that Bellarmine did not meane that those words precisely Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal c. doe immediately follow after the words wherein the killing of Athalia was commanded but his meaning was that the ouerthrowing of the temple of Baal was done immediately after the killing of the Queene and therefore hee did not properly speake of wordes but of things done This is plainely both against the text of holy Scripture for that betwixt the killing of Athalia and the destruction of the temple of Baal was the confirmation of King Ioas newly crowned and annointed and of the couenant which Ioiada made betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would bee the people of our Lord and it is also against Cardinall Bellarmines owne wordes Those wordes saith Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia And yet this Doctour forsooth will haue Cardinall Bellarmine not to speake properly of wordes but of things done contrary to Card. Bellarmines expresse words But truth and plaine dealing cannot colourably be impugned but by such pitifull shifts and fraudulent euasions 71 And thus thou seest good Reader how insufficiently this Doctour hath confuted my answer to Cardinall Bellarmines argument taken from the example of Athalia who was not deposed by Ioiada that is depriued of her right to reigne seeing that shee was neuer a lawfull Queene nor euer had any true right to reigne but shee was by the procurement of Ioiada and by the aide and assistance of the Princes and people thrust out of the possession of the kingdome which she tyrannically had for sixe yeeres vsurped and wrongfully detained from Ioas the true and rightfull King by hereditarie succession as being the onely sonne and heire suruiuing to King Ochozias and that Ioiada that which he did both in putting Ioas in possession and in killing Athalia not by his owne proper authoritie and which was peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by that authoritie which might be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case Now you shall see how bouldly and barely Mr. Fitzherbert repateth againe this example of Athalia without taking any notice of the answere which I made thereunto before in my Apologie and Theologicall Disputation 72 But now our Aduersaries saith Mr. Fitzherbert u Nu. 16. p 77. to answere this exemple of Athalia doe say that shee was no lawfull Queene but a Tyrant and vsurped the state in preiudice of Ioas the right heire whom Ioiada set vp and that therefore the example of her deposition cannot be of consequence to prooue that the high Priest in the old law had authoritie to depose a lawfull Prince But they are to vnderstand that it little importeth for the matter in hand whether shee were a true Queene or a Tyrant for though shee had beene a lawfull Queene yet hee should haue beene her lawfull Superiour it being euident that otherwise hee could not haue beene her Iudge to determine of her right and depose her as vnlawfull especially after shee had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the State for sixe yeeres to which purpose it is to be considered that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom he should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth the Iudge absolue a man when he is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power ouer him in both cases 73 Yes good Syr it much importeth to the matter in hand whether she was a true Queene or a Tyrant for if she had beene a lawfull Queene then he should not haue beene her lawfull Superiour in temporalls neither could he haue beene her lawfull Iudge to determine of her temporal right for that as I shewed before out of many learned Catholikes and which also Card. Bellarmine himselfe holdeth to be probable in
the old law the high Priest was subiect to the king in temporalls and might by him be iudged and punished with temporall punishments But if she were no lawfull Queene but an Vsurper as in deede she was then it is euident that Ioas was the true and rightfull King and that all ciuill authoritie did reside in him and was deriued from him as from the head of all ciuil power whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius himselfe confesseth x Pag. 339. ad num 169. and that therefore Ioiada who was the Kings Protectour and Guardian now in his minoritie and represented the Kings person in all things might be her Iudge both to depose her and also to kill her as a manifest traitour and vsurper 74 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth especially after she had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the whole state for sixe yeeres doe sauour of that false scandalous and seditious doctrine which D. Schulckenius taught before as though either sixe yeeres prescription were sufficient to depriue a lawfull King of his Princely right and giue it to a wicked vsurper or that the kingdome of Iuda either did depriue or had authoritie to depriue the true rightfull and certainly knowne King of his lawfull inheritance and Princely right and that without any offence at all committed by him 75 Neither is that to the purpose which Mr. Fitzherbert would haue his Reader beleeue to wit that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom hee should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth a Iudge absolue a man when hee is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power in both cases For I doe not deny that Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian and therefore representing the Kings person in all things was the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of Athalia and of euery other subiect in the kingdome but that which I contend is that although Ioiada was in spiritualls her Superiour and Iudge as he was high Priest yet in temporalls he was neither her Superiour or Iudge nor of any other subiect in the kingdome as hee was high Priest or by his Priestly authority but as hauing his authority deriued from the true and lawfull King in whom onely all supreme ciuill authority as in the head of all ciuill power doth reside And therefore this his consideration is not to the purpose as also it is not generally true For all Catholikes yea Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe y Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19 doe grant that in time of Schisme when two contend to be the lawfull Pope the Church is the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of both Popes and that it belongeth to her to determine of their right neither yet Cardinall Bellarmine nor my Aduersary will affirme that the Church hath the same authoritie and iudiciall power ouer the true and vndoubted Pope Likewise what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to Cardinall Caietaine and others of his opinion that the Church is Superiour to an hereticall Pope and hath authoritie to iudge him and depose him who neuerthelesse will not admit that the Church is Superiour to a Pope who is no hereticke Moreouer no learned man can deny that when two contend to haue right or a title to any kingdome if they bee members of that kingdome the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to them and hath authoritie to iudge and determine of their right and yet wee may not therefore conclude that the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to a knowne and vndoubted King 76 No lesse idle also is that which followeth z Nu. 17. p. 78. Besides that saith Mr. Fitherbert our Aduersaries must needes graunt either that Ioiada deposed her as her lawfull Iudge being high Priest or else that any peculiar man many of his owne authority take vpon him to depose and kill a Tyrant and vsurper which opinion was worthily condemned by the Councell of Constance as hereticall and with great reason for that no particular man can make himselfe another mans Iudge and much lesse the Iudge of a Prince Neither can there be any doctrine more dangerous to Common-wealths or pernicious to Princes states then that euery subiect may take vpon him to iudge when his Prince is a Tyrant and proceeds against him to his deposition or death 77 True it is that Ioiada deposed Athalia that is put her from the possession of the kingdome which she vniustly vsurped as her lawful Iudge being High-Priest but it is not true that he deposed her as being High-Priest or by his Priestly authoritie nor as a private man or by priuate authoritie but he both deposed her and commanded her to be slaine as her lawfull Iudge being the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his nonage and as representing the Kings person in all things and also with the assent of the Princes and people Neither from hence doth it follow that euery particular and priuate subiect may by his owne authoritie take vpon him to kill a manifest vsurper although S. Thomas a In 2. dist vltima q. 2. ar 2. ad 5. Caietan 2. 2. q. 64. ar 3. Sotus l. 5. de Iustit q. 1. ar 3 Solon 2 2. q. 64 ar 3. controuers 1. Aragon ibidem Lessius l. 2. de Iustit c. 9. dub 4 and many other Diuines are of opinion that euery particular subiect and citizen hath authoritie to kill not a manifest Tyrant in the abuse of gouernment but a manifest vsurper for in this case say they euery priuate Citizen hath sufficient authoritie giuen him by the consent of the rightfull King and also of the Common-wealth against whom this manifest vsurper doth continually make a manifest vniust warre and therefore it can not be called properly priuate but publike authoritie Neither say they is this doctrine aginst the decree of the Councell of Constance which doth not speake particularly of those who are manifest Tyrants by vsurpation but of Tyrants in generall comprehending also those who are true and lawfull Kings and onely Tyrants in gouernment For the proposition which is in that Councell condemned as hereticall scandalous and giuing way to fraudes deceipts treasons and periuries is this Euery Tyrant and consequently also a Tyrant onely in gouernment although otherwise a true and rightfull King may and ought lawfully and meritoriously to be slaine by any his vassall or subiect euen by secret wiles and craftie deceipts or flatteries notwithstanding any oath or confideracie made by them with him not expecting the sentence or commandment of any Iudge whatsoeuer which is in very trueth a most damnable and traiterous doctrine But that a manifest Tyrant by vsurpation may not be lawfully slaine by any priuate man hauing authoritie thereunto from the true rightfull and vndoubted King or from him who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his minoritie and representeth the Kings person in all things this is not condemned
in the Councell of Constance but the contrarie doctrine is damnable scandalous and seditious 78 Marke now what a trim consequence Mr. Fitzherbert gathereth from the premisses Whereupon sayth he b nu 18. pag. 78 it followeth that seeing Ioiada did lawfully depose Athalia being a holy man Matth. 23. Hieron lib. 4. in Num. cap. 23. and therefore called by our Sauiour Barachias that is to say Blessed of our Lord he did it not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person All this is true as you haue seene But that which he addeth to wit as High-Priest to whom it belonged to iudge of her cause is very vntrue neither doth it follow from his premises For his antecedent proposition was this Ioiada being high Priest deposed Athalia as her lawfull Iudge and not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person this I granted now he inferreth that Ioiada as high-Priest did depose her which I euer denied and he brought no shew of argument to proue the same only heere in the next words following he adioineth some colour of an argument for proofe thereof especially saith he c pag. 79. seeing that she was not only a cruell tyrant but also an abhominable Idolairesse hauing drawne her husband Ioram her sonne Ochozias and the people to Idolatrie and transferred the riches of Gods temple to the temples of Idolls which being matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest and therefore I conclude that Ioiada deposed her as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge according to the supreme authoritie that God gaue to the High Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall State So I in my Supplement 79 But how insufficient this conclusion is it will presently appeare onely by laying open the ambiguitie of those wordes Idolatrie being a matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest For it belonged indeed to the tribunall of the high Priest of the old Law and his consistorie to iudge what was Idolatrie as likewise now in the new Law it belongeth to the Pope and Church to iudge what is heresie or idolatrie and so to declare and determine what is heresie or Idolatrie is a matter of Religion both in the olde Law and in the new but it did not belong to the tribunall of the high Priest in the olde law but of the King and temporall state to punish Idolaters with corporall death as likewise in the new law to punish heretikes with corporall death being not a spirituall but a temporall matter doeth not belong to the spirituall power of Priests but to the temporall authoritie of temporall Princes Sot in 4. dist 29 q. 1. ar 4. Bannes secunda secundae q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine as I prooued also out of Sotus and Bannes in my Theologicall Disputation d C. 7. s 2. nu 17 And therefore in the old Law the temporall power was supreame and the spirituall was subiect to it for as much as concerned the power to constraine with temporall punishments and as well Priest as Lay-men were subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of the temporall State as I prooued before e Sec. 1 nu 5. 6. out of St. Thomas St. Bonauenture Abulensis and others whose doctrine also Cardinall Bellarmine doth not account improbable 80 Wherefore although it belonged to the High-Priest to declare the law of GOD yet to execute the law and to punish the transgressours thereof whether they were Priests or Lay-men with temporall punishments belonged to the supreame temporall power of the King and not to the supreame spirituall authoritie of the High-Priest Seeing that Ozias saith Abulensis because he was King Abul q. 4. in c. 15. l. 4. Reg. was the executor of the law of GOD against offenders it belonged to him by his office to destroy all Altars which were without the temple of our Lord and to take away such a worship and consequently all Idolatrie vnder the penaltie of death And therefore I conclude that Ioiada did depose Athalia being a manifest Vsurper as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge but not according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the High-Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall state which as I prooued before was in temporalls supreame and not subiect but superiour to the spirituall power but according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the King to whom both Priests and Lay-men were subiect in temporalls and by whom they were to bee punished with temporall punishments whose place and person Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian while the King was in his minoritie did in all things represent Neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert either in his Supplement or in this his Reply as you haue cleerely seene brought any probable argument much lesse conuincing as hee pretended to impugne the same 81 Now let vs proceede to the example of King Ozias which is the last Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old Testament to which neuerthelesse I did abundantly answere in my Apologie which my answere he passeth ouer altogether with silence But before I set downe what hee saith heere concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to repeate my saide answere and what D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same for thereby the weakenesse of Mr. Fitzherberts obiection will presently appeare and so also hee shall not take occasion after his vsuall manner to remit his English Reader to D. Schulckenius to seeke out a Reply to that which I answered before in my Apologie concerning this example of King Ozias Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 8 82 In this manner therefore Cardinall Bellarmine argued from this example A Priest of the old law had authoritie to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie therefore in the new law the Pope hath authoritie to depriue a King of his kingdome for spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by leprosie The Antecedent proposition hee prooued thus for that wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that King Ozias when hee would vsurpe the office of a Priest was by the High Priest cast out of the temple and when he was for the same sinne stricken by GOD with leprosie hee was also enforced to depart out of the Citie and to renounce his kingdome to his sonne And that he was depriued of the Citie and of the administration of the kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest it is apparant For wee reade Leuit. 13. whosoeuer saith the law shall bee defiled with leprosie and is separated at the abitrement of the Priest shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing therefore that this was a law in Israel and withall wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that the King did dwell without the Citie in a solitary house and that his sonne did in the Citie iudge the people of the land wee are compelled to say that hee was
thrust him out no man enforcing him and the wordes of holy Scripture yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out doe cleerely insinuate the same 87 And thirdly King Ozias saith the Scripture was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house apart full of the leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord. Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land Neither from this can it be gathered that the Priests of the old law did intermeddle in any temporall action or did depriue King Ozias of his kingdome or the administration thereof but the most that from hence can be concluded is that the plague of leprosie did depriue him of the administration of his kingdome by ordaining that a leaper should dwell apart out of the campe or Citie and the Priest did onely declare the law of God and denounce him according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law to be infected with leprosie which is no temporall but a meere spirituall action 88 As likewise spirituall Pastours now in the new law haue authoritie to declare that the goods of the faithfull are to be exposed if the necessitie of the Church doe require the same but not to dispose of them or to take them away by force from the faithfull and also to declare when Princes are to vse the materiall sword for the good of the Church but not to vse it themselues as before e part 1. cap. 3. part 2. cap. 9. I declared out of Ioannes Parisiensis and 8. Bernard And if we should suppose a case which is not to wit that heresie idolatie or any other mortall crime doth ipso facto depriue Princes and Prelates of their dominion and Iurisdiction which was the doctrine of Iohn Wicleffe condemned in the Councell of Constance and therefore those words of the Ordinary Glosse f in cap. 13. lib. 1. Reg. that a wicked King during the time of his wickednesse is not according to trueth to be celled a King but onely equiuocally as a stony or painted eye and the same much more is to be said of a wicked Prelate are to be read warily and expounded fauourably to excuse them from errour then I say that spirituall Pastours may be said to haue authoritie not properly to depose an hereticall King but to declare him to be infected with heresie and consequently according to this false supposition depriued ipso facto But all this is nothing else but to declare authentically the law of God which no man denyeth to be within the limites of spirituall Iurisdiction And this might aboundantly suffice for an answere to this example of King Ozias But because Mr. Fitzherbert shall not as I said take occasion to say that all this hath beene confuted already by D. Schulckenius I am enforced good Reader to intreate thy patience in laying downe before thine eies what I answered in my Apologie to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and what D. Schulckenius hath replyed to the same 89 First therefore I answered that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the example of King Ozias were of force it would prooue more then perchance Card. Bellarmine would willingly grant to wit that not only the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests haue power by the law of God to depriue Princes of their kingdomes for spirituall leprosie seeing that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had power to iudge of leprosie The man saith the law g Leuit. 13. in whose skinne and flesh shall arise a diuers colour or a blisters or any thing as it were shining that is to say the plague of the leprosie shall be brought to Aaron the Priest or any one of his sonnes and at his arbitrement he shall be separated Besides this example doth also prooue that Prince not onely for heresie but also for all other mortall sinnes whatsoeuer may be deposed by Bishops and Priests for that not onely the sinne of heresie but also other sinnes were figured by leprosie Bellar. lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 3. as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth who speaking of the confessing of sinnes saith that the knowledge of sinne which was figured by leprosie and is most aptly named a spirituall leprosie appertaineth to Christian Priests This was my first answere 90 To which D. Schulckenius replyeth thus h pag. 542. ad num 355. I answere It is credible that is the old Testament according to the diuersitie of the leprosie and the diuersitie of the persons there were also diuers iudgements greater and lesser and that it was not lawfull for euery Priest to iudge a King But for this his credibile est it is credible he produceth neither Scripture reason nor any other authoritie and therefore we are rather to beleeue the words of holy Scripture which absolutely affirme that either Aaron the High-Priest or any one of his sonnes might iudge of leprosie without distinguishing either this kind or that kind of leprosie or this kind or that kind of person then the bare credibile est of this Doctour grounded vpon his owne bare word and not vpon any text of holy Scripture Abul q. 1. in cap. 13. Leuit. reason or authoritie Other Priests saith Abulensis had power to iudge in the plague of leprosie as Aaron and therefore to whom soeuer of them that person who had such signes should be showed it was sufficient Therefore when Christ had cured the ten lepers he did not send them specially to the High-Priest but to any one of the Priests saying Goe shew your selues to the Priests 91 But howsoeuer it be saith this Doctour concerning the custome of that nation assuredly in the Church of Christ greater causes are reserued to the See Apostolike as we read cap. Maiores de Baptismo eius effectu in the Decret all Epistles Therefore euery Priest may indeed iudge of the leprosie of sinne and absolue or bind his Subiects but some more heynous crimes are reserued to Bishops others also to the Pope as first of all is the crime of heresie to which the name of leprosie doth autonomasticè agree Therefore it is no meruaile that euery Priest cannot iudge Kings euen for the crime of heresie Adde that in the olde Testament it selfe we haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie then by the high Priest 92 But this Reply doth not answere my argument For my argument did onely proceede of the power of Priests standing in the law of God and abstracting from the positiue lawes of the Church It would follow said I that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea also and Priests haue power by the law of God c. Now who knoweth not that cases are reserued onely by the law of the Church and that by the law of God there is no reseruation of cases but that
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
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
Sauiour Matth. 18. But if he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publicane that is separated from the Church Thus Suarez n Vbi supra Neither is it forbidden by the law of Christ that the faithfull shall not ciuilly conuerse with Heathens publicanes or notorious sinners vnlesse some spirituall danger as of scandall or of infection which by the law of Christ and nature they are otherwise bound to eschew shall arise from such ciuill conuersation as also Becanus doth expresly affirme o In opusc de fide Haereticis seruanda cap. 8. num 3. See also Abulensis q. 50. in cap. 9. Matth. 138 Moreouer this also is gathered from the very light of naturall reason For as in the whole Christian world there be two only common wealths kingdomes or Societies distinguished by their proper acts functions and dignities ad not depending one on the other in those things which are proper and peculiar to each one of them to wit the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ by which precisely and per se we receiue only spirituall graces and benefits and temporall common wealths Societies and kingdomes by which precisely we are made partaker only of temporall goods Greg. Tholos in Syntagmat Iuris lib. 31. cap. 8. num 3. and benefits So also there be two only communions the one in spirituall the other in temporall and ciuill affaires and two only Excommunications in generall as Gregorius Tholosanus and I also obserued aboue p Part. 2. cap. 2. num 7. the one Ecclesiasticall which excludeth from Ecclesiasticall communion as from Sacraments Suffrages or other sacred things the other ciuill which excludeth from ciuill communion which punishments the Ciuill Lawiers account imprisonments confinings relegations deportations and banishments by which the person excommunicated is debarred from the communion of some certaine companie towne City Countrey or kingdome and as ciuill Excommunication precisely and of it owne nature doth not debarre a man from any spirituall good grace or communion◠so neither spirituall Excommunication precisely and of it owne nature doth debarre a man from any temporall good benefit or communion 139 Neuerthelesse albeit the intrinsecall per se and necessarie effects of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication are only to debarre one from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall communion yet because our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to the spirituall Pastours of the Church authoritie to impose but not to inflict certaine temporall punishments vpon persons excommunicated all those temporall punishments which the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue according to different times and occasions adioined by way of commandement to the Censure of Excommunication may be called extrinsecall or accidentall effects of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication or rather temporall effects and punishments annexed by way of command to Excommunication But this with all ought greatly to be considered as Suarez doth well obserue Suarez tom 5. disp 8. sec 1. in fine sec 2. in principio that when Excommunication is said to exclude from Ecclesiasticall communion it is necessarily to be vnderstood of that communion which dependeth vpon the power and will of the Church and ouer which she hath right power or authoritie Whereupon those temporall punishments which spirituall Pastours may annect to Excommunication must be such as by the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to impose And therefore if it be a controuersie among learned Catholikes as in very deede it is whether spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to absolue subiects from the temporall allegiance which they owe to their temporall Princes and to depriue temporall Princes of their temporall dominion administration or Iurisdiction these temporall punishments can neuer so long as this controuersie remaineth vndecided be truly said to be necessarie effects annexed to Excommunication by the spirituall Pastours of the Church 140 Secondly I shewed also in that place that the spirituall Pastours of the Chuch haue authoritie in order to spirituall good to command and impose certaine temporall punishments and so also to annexe them to Ecclesiasticall Excommunication as not to eate or drinke with excommunicated persons or notorious malefactours not to salute them or to conuerse ciuilly with them except in such cases wherein they are bound by the law of God or nature ciuilly to conuerse And so the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue power to command vs in order to spirituall good to abstaine from certaine meates vpon certaine daies to giue almes to the poore not to conuerse ciuilly with excommunicated persons or notorious sinners if otherwise by the law of God or nature we are not bound to conuerse ciuilly with them and the aforesaid and such like temporall things to annexe by way of commandement to Excommunication whensoeuer they shall prudently iudge it to be necessarie to the saluation of soules And this only is confirmed by the institution and custome of the Church approued by perpetuall tradition and grounded in the holy Scripture 1. Cor. 5. With such a one not so much as to take meate and 2. Ioh. 1. Nor say to him God saue you Neither is there any difficultie among Catholikes concerning the power of spirituall Pastours to command and impose temporall things when it shall be necessarie to the spirituall good of the Church for that to command and impose a temporall thing in order to the spirituall good is not a temporall but a spirituall action as I haue often said But all the controuersie among Catholikes is concerning the coerciue power of spirituall Pastours and their authoritie to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments For if contrarie to the commandement of our spirituall Pastours we will neither fast nor giue almes nor abstaine from ciuill conuersation with excommunicated persons the question is how farre then the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ proceed against vs by way of temporall constraint to the inflicting of temporall punishments For in this power to punish temporally or to inflict temporall punishmēts doth consist the whole controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries For I contend that the doctrine which Almaine and very many Doctours as he affirmeth doe maintaine is not repugnant to Catholike faith or the approued grounds of true Diuinitie to wit that the spirituall power of the Church can not inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods c. nay nor so much as to imprison but that her power doth onely extend to the inflicting of spirituall punishments as Excommunication or some such like spirituall Censure and that all other temporall punishments which she vseth to inflict doe proceed from the pure positiue law or to vse Gersons words from the graunt of Princes 142 And therefore thirdly I shewed also in that place that because Secular Princes haue granted many temporall priuiledges to the spirituall Pastours of the Church as to imprison to confine to impose or inflict pecuniarie mulcts and such like all those
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
to vse any corporall violence against him and if it shall please the temporall Prince to pardon his life the spirituall Pastours haue no authority to take it away as out of Dominicus Bannes I shewed in that Disputation f Cap. 7. sec 2. in fine 162 But what if I should grant to Mr. Fitzherbert that the Priests of the old law might lawfully thrust by violence an vncleane person out of the Temple if he will not otherwise depart or that they might lawfully haue taken by force the Censar out of the Kings hands or haue held his hands that he should not haue offered incense as also that in the new law it is lawfull for Priests to thrust an excommunicated person out of the Church in the time of Diuine seruice or if in case a King would in his rage and furie runne his sword through the body of any innocent man should graunt that his Chaplaine or any other of his subiects attending upon his Royall person may lawfully hold his hands and so keepe him from committing so wilfull a murther could Mr. Fitzherbert trow you gather from hence that either Priests or subiects had any authority or superiority ouer the Kings person to hold his hands or to force him by corporall violence No. But from hence it onely can be gathered that euery priuate man may and ought by the law of God and nature and by the bond of charitie to keepe as much as lyeth in him his neighbour from doing euill which argueth no authority or superiority but onely a bond of charity 163 Now you shall see in what fraudulent manner Mr. Fitzherbert vrgeth the authoritie of S. Chrysostome And I cannot omit also saith hee g Pag. 80. seq to touch heere by the way what S. Chrysostome obserueth further in this example to wit that whereas Ozias being leprous did not onely dwell in the City though in a house apart but also raigne still for some yeeres vntill he died he ought to be cast both out of the City and also out of the kingdome and that almighty God was so highly offended because the same was not performed that he withdrew the spirit of Prophecie from Esay and other Prophets during the life and raigne of Ozias 164 Exivit Hom. 4. de verbis Isai vidi Dominum saith S. Chrysostome cum lepra c. The King went out of the Temple with a leprosie and yet they did not cast him out of the City for the respect they bare to the Kingly diademe but hee still sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God What then God being angry with the Iewes interrupted the Prophecy So he And againe a little after speaking in the person of God Ego saith he quod mei muneris feci c I haue done my part that is to say I haue strucken Ozias with leprosie and you are afraide to cast him being vncleane out of the City You beare reuerence to his Kingly dignity violating the law of God c. I doe therefore speake no longer to the Prophets neither doe I giue any more the grace of the spirit c. Silet spiritus gratia non est ostensus Deus eo quod sub impure illo non erat gratis The grace of propheticall spirit was silent or ceased and God did not shew himselfe because that vnder that vncleane man there was grace Thus saith S. Chrysostome vpon occasion of these words of the Prophet Esay Et factum est anno quo mortuus est Ozias Rex vidi Dominum c. For whereas all the Prophets vsed to declare the time and yeere of the Kings reigne when they prophecied S. Chrysostome noteth that Esay here omitted that custome and did not speake of the life and reigne Ioathan in whose time he had his vision but of the death of King Ozias during whose reigne the spirit of prophecy had ceased for the causes before declared 165 Well then heereby it appeareth that God was offended not onely because Ozias was not cast out of the City but because hee was suffered still to reigne Consedit in throno saith the holy Father legem Dei rursus transgrediens Hee sate still his throne transgressing againe the law of God that is to say as he had broken the law of God before in presuming to Sacrifice and threatning the Priests so also did hee againe transgresse and violate the same in retaining his kingdome being leprous and because the same was permitted and more respect borne to his Kingly dignitie then to the execution of Gods law therefore saith S. Chrysostome God punished the whole state not permitting his Prophets to prophecy as they were want 166 Whereupon I inferre that seeing the expresse law of God ordained that the cause of leprosie should be iudged and determined wholly by the Priests and that Ozias was subiect to this law it followeth that as hee was expelled out of the Temple by the Priests and forced by their sentence to liue in a house apart though within the City so ought hee also to haue beene by their sentence cast out both of the City and his Kingdome And if wee consider but onely that which was done by the Priests in this case of Ozias it cannot be denied but that they had a iudiciall power ouer his person seeing that they both commaunded him to goe out of the Temple before he was leprous and afterwards thrust him out yea and confined him to liue in a house apart for though the Scripture doth not expresse that this confining and separation was ordained by them yet it could not bee otherwise seeing that the law had ordained expresly Leuit. 13. Matth. 18. Marke 1. Luke 17. that euery leprous man should be brought vnto the Priest and that Ad arbitrium eius separabitur He shall be separated by his iudgement or arbittement which our Sauiour himselfe acknowledged vvhen hee remitted the leprous vvhom hee cured to the Priests 167 Therefore I will conclude vpon the premisses that forasmuch the law of God assigned a soueraigntie in iudgement to the high Priests and their consistorie as vvell in temporall as spirituall causes and to that end honoured them with a particular and most excellent priuiledge of infallibility in their doctrine and iudiciall sentences as I haue h See before nu 10. 11. 12. 13. c. amply prooued and seeing that the Kings of the old Testament were not any way exempt from the law as appeareth no lesse by diuers reasons alledged by me before i Num. 24.25 26. then by these two last examples of Athalia k Num. 29. 30. and Ozias l Num. 31.32.33 seq it followeth euidently that they were not supreme heads of the Priests but subiect to them and to their tribunall and consequently that if an Oath had beene proposed by any of these Kings to his subiects whereby they should haue sworne that he was free from all subiection and temporall chastisement of
is said And our Lord stroke the King and he was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a free house apart but Ioathan the Kings sonne gouerned the Palace and iudged the people of the Land But from hence it cannot be conuinced that this free house a part was in the City but rather apart out of the City and therefore the opinion of Iosephus seemeth to be more agreeable to the words of holy Scripture Num. 5. And our Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leper 172 Therefore I will conclude vpon the premisses cleane contrarie to Mr. Fitzherberts inference that for as much as the law of GOD assigned no Soueraigntie in iudgement to the High Priests and their consistorie in temporall causes but only in meere spirituall as was to declare the law of God and to iudge one to be infected or not infected with leprosie according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law and to declare them that were infected to be separated and cast out of the campe according to the Prescript of the law which is the plaine meaning of those words ad arbitrium illius separabitur and he shall be separated at his arbitrement or iudgement that is if the Priest doe declare or iudge him a leper he shall be separated and cast out of the campe and seeing that the executing of the law concerning temporall punishments and the separating of lepers by force and temporall constraint did not belong to the Priests but to the supreme temporall authoritie which did reside in the Kings and not in the Priests who were subiect to the Kings in temporalls and might be punished by them with temporall punishments as I haue amply proued in these two Sections and the aforesaid words Num. 5. Command the children of Israel he doth not say command the Priests although then the Israelites had no King neither did the supreme temporall authoritie reside in the Priests but rather in the people that they cast out of the Campe euery leper it followeth euidently that the Priests were not the supreme heads of the Kings in temporalls nor Kings therein subiect to them and their tribunall nor to be punished by them with temporall punishments but contrariwise and consequently that if an Oath had beene proposed by any of these Kings to his subiects whereby they should haue sworne that hee was free from all subiection in temporalls and from all temporall chasticement of the high Priest by way of temporall constraint I say by way of temporall constraint and putting in execution the law of God wherein temporall punishment were ordained and not by way only of declaring the law of God which as it haue sufficiently proued was a spirituall and not a temporall action the said Oath must needes haue beene conforme and not repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament And thus much concerning the arguments taken from the old Testament SECT III. Wherein all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the veritie is proued to make against himselfe 2. Those words of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. And feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted common-wealth are satisfied and D. Schulckenius Reply proued to be fraudulent and insufficient 3. the authoritie of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were ready to revenge all disobedience is answered Mr. Fitzherberts fraude in alledging the authoritie of S. Austin is plainly discouered and the conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be both false and fraudulent NOw from the old Testament Mr. Fitzherbert descendeth to the new and vpon a false supposall as I haue already conuinced to wit that he hath effectually proued that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreme and soueraigne authority to create punish and depose Kings he laboureth in vaine from the number 25 to 32. to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood of the new law not for that he think th that we are now bound to retaine the ceremoniall or iudiciall part thereof but to deduce as he saith a Num. 25. pag 83. a potent argument from thence as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood and especially in the chiefe Priest in the law of Christ And for proofe heereof he setteth downe two positions as the only grounds of this his potent argument 2 The first is that the old law and Testament being but a figure b Num. 26. pag 84. and a shadow of the new was no lesse inferiour there to in authoritie dignitie and perfection then Moses to Christ the dead and killing letter to the quickning spirit or the Priesthood of Aaron to the Priesthood of Melchisedech which was Christs Priesthood he should rather haue said which prefigured the excellencie of Christs Priesthood c See S. Thomas and the Schoolemen 3. part q. 22. ar 6. This position to wit Hebr. 10. that the old Testament was a figure and shadow and not inferiour to the new he proueth by the authoritie of S. Augustine d In Psal 119. who affirmeth that vetus Testamentum promissiones habet terrenas c. The old Testament hath earthly promises an earthly Palestine an earthly Hierusalem an earthly saluation to wit conquest of enemies aboundance of children fertilitie of soyle and plentie of fruites all these things are earthly promises and it is to be vnderstood spiritually in figure how the earthly Hierusalem was a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the heauenly kingdome So S. Austin and thereupon concludeth that if the olde Testament was a shadow of the new non mirum quia ibi tenebrae it is no meruaile though there were darkenesse there pinguiorâ—s enim vmbrae sunt tenebrae for thicker shadowes are darkenesse Thus argueth S. Augustine proouing the imperfection of the old law in respect of the new which the Apostle also proueth amply in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 7. saying that the old law was abolished propter infirmitatem eius inutilitatem for the infirmitie and invtilitie of it Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex for the law brought nothing to perfection 3 His second position is e nu 26.28 that the defects of the old law and Synagogue of the Iewes can not serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ and therefore though the Kings in the olde Testament should haue had authoritie ouer Priests yet it would not follow that Christian Kings should haue the like for that the defects and imperfections of the Synagogue which S. Austin calleth terrenum regnum an earthly kingdome were not to be transferred to the
Church of Christ which is called euery where in the Scripture Regnum Caelorum the kingdome of heauen though on the other side the consequent must needs be good that what excellencie dignitie or perfection soeuer was in the Synagogue the same must needs be farre more eminent and excellent in the Church of Christ as the Apostle taught expressely 2. Cor. 3. arguing thus Si ministratio damnationis c. If the ministration of death with letters figured in stones was in glorie that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moyses for the glorie of his countenance which is euacuated how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more in glorie For if the ministration of damnation be in glorie much more the ministerie of iustice aboundeth in glorie Thus argueth S. Paul proouing à fortiori the supereminent dignitie and glorie of Christs law by the great and eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law Hebr. 6.7.8 9. whereto tendeth also his argument to the Hebrewes concerning the imperfection and infirmitie of the Leuiticall Priesthood in regard of the most excellent and high perfection of the Priesthood of Christ 4 Whereupon it followeth euidently saith Mr. Fitzherbert f nu 29. 30 31. 32. that seeing the Priesthood of the olde Testament had such a supreme and soueraigne authoritie to create anoynt punish and depose Kings as appeareth in the former examples the Priesthood in the new Testament can not haue lesse power and authoritie for it can not be with reason imagined that God hauing taken vpon him our humanitie and honoured the same with a peculiar and mere excellent Priesthood then that of Aaron yea ordained a visible succession of Pastours and Priests for the gouernment of his Church to continue as the Apostle witnesseth g 1. Cor. 11. Ephes 4. Matth. 28. Luk. 10. Matth. 18. Heb. 13. vntill the end of the world commanding also that they should be heard and obeyed as himselfe it were I say against reason to thinke that he would giue lesse honour and priuiledge to these his owne substitute in his owne kingdome then he gaue to the successours of Aaron in the olde law whereby the shadow would be more worthie and perfect then the bodie the figure then the veritie the Leuiticall or Aaronicall Priesthood then the Priesthood of Christ and finally the Iewish Synagogue then Christs owne spouse and mysticall body which is his Church of the glorie maiesty whereof the Prophet I say foretold speaking in the person of God thus Ponam te saith he in superbiam seculorum c. Isay 60. I will place thee as the pride of all worlds or ages a ioy to generation and generation and thou shalt sucke the milke of nations and shalt bee fedde with the paps of Kings and the children of those who haue humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and shall adore the footsteps of thy feete and thy gates shall bee open continually and they shall not bee shut day nor night that the strength of all nations and their Kings may bee brought vnto thee For the Nation and the Kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish c. 5 Thus promised almighty God by his Prophet to raise and aduance the Church of Christ aboue the power of all Nations and kingdomes insomuch that hee threatned ruine and destruction vnto them Matth. 18. if they did not serue her whereby it maye easily be iudged what an excellent and eminent power our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter and his Successours when he not onely promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a rocke and that the gates of hell should not preuaile against it but also gaue him such ample authority to binde and loose that whatsoeuer he should binde or loose on earth should be bound and loosed in heauen yea and finally made him supreme Pastour of his flocke commanding him thrice to feede his sheepe and lambes that is to say to gouerne those that should any way pertaine to his fold the Catholike Church Thus said I in my Supplement Whereby it may appeare that the Popes power to chastice Princes temporally is most conforme to the law of God not onely in the old Testament but also in the new according to Saint Pauls argument a fortiori before mentioned drawne from the figure to the veritie And therefore now to declare how I prooued the same further by the new law c. Thus argeth Mr. Fitzherbert 6 Marke now good Reader what a trimme disourse this man hath made agains himselfe and what grounds he hath laid to ouerthrow his owne argument he groundeth thereon For first I doe willingly grant his first position to wit that the old Testament was a figure of the new the earthly Hierusalem a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the Iewes a figure of the heauenly and spirituall kingdome of Christ the eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law a figure of the supereminent dignitie and glory of the law of Christ the Priesthood in the old law farre inferiour in authoritie excellency and perfection to the Priesthood in the new law yea and that all things for the most part chanced to the Iewes in figure for that nihil as perfectum adduxit lex The law brought nothing to perfection But secondly concerning his second position it followeth euidently from hence that not only the defects of the old law cannot serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ but also that all things in the olde law being compared to the law of Christ were defectiue and imperfect for that the law brought nothing to perfection and that all the authoritie excellency and perfection of the old law was a figure and shadow of the authoritie excellency and perfection of the law of Christ 7 Whereupon it followeth euidently that although wee should suppose only for Disputation sake because the contrarie we haue sufficiently prooued before that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreame and soueraigne authoritie to create annoint punish or depose Kings yet we cannot from thence as from the figure to prooue the veritie conclude that therefore the Priesthood in the new Testament must haue the same authoritie for this were not to fulfill the figure as Cardinall Bellarmine before affirmed but that it must haue a farre more noble and excellent authoritie ouer Princes to create annoint punish and depose Kings in another more excellent degree to wit that considering the promises of the old law were earthly and of the new law heauenly the kingdome of the Iewes was temporall and the kingdome or Church of Christ eternall and spirituall from hence as from the figure to the veritie we may deduce a good argument to prooue that as the Priests of the old law had authoritie to cleanse corporall vncleannesse which did barre men from entering the earthly tabernacle made by the handes of men so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to
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 follow that the authoritie and power of the Church should be no better in effect then a cobweb which holdeth only the little flies and serueth to no purpose against the great ones sufficing to correct all inferiour persons and to preuent and remedy all the inconueniences that may grow from them but not to redresse the most dangerous and pernicious disobedience that may be to wit the rebellion of Princes against the Church from whence the greatest danger and damage to soules may and commonly doth arise if this then should be without remedie it must needes follow as I haue said that Christ hath not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are wont to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or States subiect to them who when they appoint Lieutenants or Deputies any where doe giue them authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects and so much power as may suffice for the remedy of all inconueniences and specially of the greatest which may occurre in the States where they gouerne 30 Therefore it must needes be granted that our Sauiour Christ ordaining a gouernment in his Church gaue to the Gouernours thereof sufficient power and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest and when spirituall correction will not suffice then to chastice them also in their temporalities so farre forth as shall be necessarie for the publike good of the Church and for the due execution of their office and charge For as the Lawler saith Cui iurisdictio data est Iauolen leg 2. â— de Iurisdict ei quoque concessa esse videntur sine quibus iurisdictio explicaâ—i non potuit To whomsoeuer iurisdiction is giueÌ„ those things do seeme to be granted withall without the which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and this is also conforme to the axiome of the Philosophers qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth being giueth also those things that are consequents thereof or necessarily required thereto 31 But first I would demaund of Mr. Fitzherbert what remedie the Church hath against a most potent Christian Prince who shall contemne not only an Ecclesiasticall Censure but also euery sentence of depriuation or of any of other temporall or corporall chasticement denounced against him by the Pope doth he not contemne this Censure and sentence and by his authoritie and example draw his subiects for the most part to a generall reuolt from the Church shall we then say that Christ left not to his Church sufficient authoritie to remedie this How then is that fulfilled which the Apostle said of the most ample power of the Church to reuenge or punish all disobedience seeing that the disobedience of absolute Princes to this sentence of depriuation should be incorrigible and remedilesse Whereupon it would also follow that the authoritie and power of the Church should be in effect no better then a cobweb c. Let Mr. Fitzherbert satisfie this demaund and he will forthwith see that in the like manner his owne argument may be answered 32 Secondly as euery well instituted temporall common wealth and the chiefe gouernours thereof haue alwaies sufficient temporall power taking temporall power for authoritie to punish with temporall punishments all treasons rebellions and contempts whatsoeuer although they haue not alwaies sufficient power taking power for might force or effectuall meanes to redresse actually all disorders that shall arise in the common wealth for that if the perturbers of the common wealth be more potent and strong then the rulers and gouernours thereof they will little regard any sentence or declaration either of exile losse of goods and libertie or also of life that the Gouernours of the common wealth shall denounce against them and yet no man will deny that the chiefe Gouernours of the common wealth haue sufficient authoritie forasmuch as concerneth â—he authoritie it selfe to punish with temporall punishments euery particular contempt of these seditious and wicked subiects and to redresse all inconueniences that possibly may arise So likewise the chiefe Pastours or Gouernours of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ haue alwaies sufficient spiritual power taking spirituall power for authoritie to punish with spirituall punishments all heresies schismes and other crimes whatsoeuer although they haue not alwaies sufficient spirituall power taking power for force might or effectuall meanes to redresse actually by spirituall punishments all inconueniences and disorders that shall arise in the Church of Christ For if the disturbers of the Church be peruerse obstinate and wilfull they will little regard and Censure sentence or declaration that the Pastours of the Church can possibly denounce against them and yet no man will deny that the chiefe Pastours or Gouernours of the Church of Christ haue sufficient authoritie for as much as concerneth the authoritie it selfe to punish with spirituall Censures euery particular contempt of these disobedient persons and that these spirituall Censures are of themselues sufficient to terrifie any Christian whatsoeuer and to withdraw him from sinne seeing that they are farre more grieuous and dreadfull as S. Augustine affirmeth then any temporall punishment whatsoeuer 33 Thirdly I answere that S. Paul had indeede through the gift of miracles which Christ our Sauiour gaue to him and to the rest of the Apostles not only a most ample and extraordinarie authoritie but also power might force and effectuall meanes to punish or reuenge all disobedience euen with temporall and corporall punishments Whereupon as S. Chrysostome obserueth vpon this place Chrysost in 2. Cor 10. Act. 14. Act. 2â— Act. 13. Auselni in 2. Cor. 10. hee did one time cure a lame man an other time hee raised one from death to life and an other time he punished Elymas the Magician with depriuing him of his sight And S. Anselme numbreth among this spirituall armour whereof the Apostle heere speaketh the doing of miracles For we saith S. Anselme speaking in the person of S. Paul doe not warre or fight according to the flesh For the weapons of our warfare are not carnall but spirituall and mighty to God our King for whom we warre or fight For we doe not beare a materiall lance or sword but we doe more mightily ouerthrow our enemies with the word then others doe with carnall weapons For our weapons are the word of preaching wisdome miracles charitie and other vertues c. 34 Wherefore S. Paul speaketh not only of authoritie to fight or punish but also of might force or effectuall meanes to ouercome his enemies Our weapons saith he are mighty to God to destroy munitions that is saith S. Anselme secular doctrines arguments and subtilities by which peruerse men doe strengthen their hearts that the word of truth may not be able to touch them because the art of Apostolicall preaching doth mightily pearce and ouerthrow through the vertue of spirituall grace these kind of munitions And we haue
also in readinesse that is in manifest and speedy effect to reuenge all disobedience that is to punish the offences of them who would not obey vs that they might correct themselues Which we will doe when your obedience shall be fulfilled that is when all the rest of you shall by loue be obedient in all things Thus S. Anselme Now what learned man will thus conclude that because S. Paul and the Apostles had a most ample extraordinarie and miraculous authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to conuert men to the faith of Christ and to reuenge or punish all that were disobedient with temporall punishments euen by death as S. Peter did Ananias and Saphyra or by depriuing them of their sight as S. Paul did Elimas the Magician or by deliuering them to Sathan to be visibly tormented by him as S. Paul did the incestuous Corinthian that therefore the ordinarie Pastours of the Church haue now either an extraordinarie or ordinary authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to doe the like 35 I omit that S. Ambrose or whosoeuer is the Authour of those Commentaries expoūdeth those words to reuenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled of the Corinthians themselues who being perfectly conuerted shall punish in themselues their former disobedience It is manifest saith S. Ambrose that he reuengeth disobedience when he condemneth it by obedience then destroying it when he bringeth to the faith those who doe resist or disobey that infidelitie may be condemned by them by whom it was defended The same also doth S. Anselme insinuate as you haue seene aboue 36 But S. Augustine saith Mr. Fitzherbert vnderstandeth those words of the Apostle hauing in a readinesse to reuenge all disobedience of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties True it is that S. Augustine applyeth those words of the Apostle to the authoritie of the Church to compell heretikes by temporall punishments to returne to the faith of Christ taking the Church as it containeth all the faithfull and consisteth both of temporall and spirituall power but it is not true that he vnderstandeth them of the authoritie of the Church as the Church is taken for Church-men or the spiritual Pastours of the Church Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth herein egregiously abuse his Reader For S. Augustines maine drift both in that 50. epistle in the former 48. epistle is only to proue against the Donatists that heretiks may lawfully be compelled with temporall punishments by the lawes of Christian Emperours to returne to the Catholike faith and that the Pastours of the Church did well in requesting Christian Emperours to make such lawes Wherefore the argument of the 48. epistle to Vincentius is that S. Austin was once of opinion that we must not deale with heretikes by violence but only with the word of God but afterwards being ouercome with the doctrine and example of others he changed his opinion and taught that it is lawfull to implore the lawes of Princes against the enemies of the faith so that it be done with an intention to correct and not with a desire to reuenge And the argument of this 50. Epistle is that S. Augustine sheweth with what moderation heritickes may through feare of Emperiall lawes be reduced to the communion of the Church And in his second booke of Retractations Cap. 48. mentioning this Epistle to Bonifacius he writeth thus At the same time I wrote also a booke meaning this 50. Epistle concerning the correction of the Donatists by reason of those who would not haue them to be corrected by the Emperiall lawes This booke beginneth thus Laudo gratulor admiror fili dilectissime Bonifaci 37 Iudge now good Reader what a shamefull fraud is this of Mr. Fitzherbert to make ignorant Catholikes beleeue that S. Augustine bringeth those words of the Apostle to prooue the authority left by our Sauiour to his Church that is to Churchmen or to the spirituall Pastours of the Church for so hee vnderstandeth the word Church in all this his Discourse to compell her rebellious disobedient children by force of temporall punishments to performe their duties whereas S. Augustines intent onely is to prooue the lawfulnesse of the Emperiall lawes compelling heretickes by temporall punishments to returne backe to the faith and that Church-men or the spirituall Pastours of the Church may lawfully implore the Emperiall lawes and desire Christian Princes to compell heretickes to forsake their heresie by force of temporall punishments so that they desire it with intent to correct them and not with a desire of reuenge 38 But if the Ecclesiasticall authority saith Mr. Fitzherbert y Pag. 90. did not extend it selfe to the chastisement of disobediēt Princes in their temporal states it must needs follow that Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are went to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or states subiect to them who when they appoint lieutenants or deputies any where do giue them authority ouer all sorts of subiects so much power as may suffice for the remedy of all inconueniences and specially of the greatest which may occurre in the States where they gouerne c. But this consequence I haue euer denied For as I haue often said to the good gouernment of the Church of Christ which is a spirituall not a temporall kingdome or common-wealth it is onely required that the Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie to inflict spirituall and not temporall punishments and this authoritie forasmuch as concerneth the authoritie and punishments themselues is sufficient to redresse all inconueniences neither is it necessarie either in a spirituall or a temporall kingdome that the chiefe Gouernours thereof should haue that power might or effectuall meanes whereby all inconueniences must actually at all times be redressed 39 And therefore as temporall Kings doe giue to their Lieutetenants Deputies or Vice-Royes sufficient temporall authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects in the Prouinces or States where they gouerne but not alwayes so much power taking power not for authoritie or iurisdiction but for might force or effectuall meanes as may suffice for the remedie of all inconueniences for this power the Kings themselues doe often times want in those Dominions where they themselues doe personally gouerne so Christ our Sauiour ordaining in his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Gouernment gaue to the spirituall Gouernours thereof sufficient spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest but not sufficient power might or effectuall meanes actually to redresse the same And as the Lieutenants Deputies or Vice-Royes of temporall Kings if they offend cannot be punished with temporall punishments by any subiect in the States where they gouerne but by the King alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So
vntruely affirmeth either that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall States and dignities except by way only of direction or commandement or that the necessitie of the Church doth require that spirituall Pastours should by their spirituall authoritie haue power to vse the temporall sword and to inflict temporall punishments nor hath rightly concluded the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians from the power hee hath ouer their soules by those two axiomes Hee that may doe the greater may doe the lesse and The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall the true sense and meaning wherof I haue amply declared before in the second and third Chapters and haue laid open Mr. Fitzherberts fraude and ignorance in vrging those axiomes 46 Wherefore to conclude with him this Chapter I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether I haue any way abused Mr. Fitzherbert in two things as hee saith I haue done the one in affirming as thou hast heard before in the first Chapter that hee in his Supplement doth first of all suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is abiured in this Oath and the other that hee hath effectually proued nothing else by the law of God but that the temporall power is in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall subiect to the spirituall power so farre foorth as concerneth the authoritie to command and a spirituall manner of punishing by way of coercion and not temporall For as I haue most amply shewed in this Chapter he hath not brought any one pregnant reason or necessarie consequent grounded vpon the law of GOD either in the olde Testament or in the new to proue that the Pope hath power to proceede by way of temporall coercion or which is all one by inflicting temporall punishments to the temporall correction or punishment of any Prince Neither also hath hee brought any one pregnant reason or argument to prooue either that spirituall punishments are not of themselues sufficient although by reason of the indisposition of the person so punished not alwayes effectuall to redresse all inconueniences and to correct or amend all the disobedient children of the Church or that the necessitie of the Church as it is instituted by Christ to be a spirituall and not a temporall common-wealth doth at any time require that the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof must haue authoritie to vse temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments whereupon it euidently followeth that this new Oath which denyeth this authoritie of the Pope is not repugnant to the law of God 47 Thus then thou seest that I haue soundly answered all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments without dissembling the substance or pith of any one of them and haue most cleerely shewed that I haue neither abused him nor the Reader in those two things which heere he mentioneth but that hee hath notably abused mee and bewrayed his manifest fraude and dissimulation in falsly relating the supposition whereon he groundeth his whole Discourse as I haue at large declared in the first Chapter and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate heere the same againe CHAP. VI. Wherein Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the Law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the Law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ. Secondly that Religious Priests by the Law of Nature cannot punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the Law of Nature the ciuill Societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning Religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the Law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers replies of Mr. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted MY Aduersarie T. F. a man as most of our Countreymen know vnskilfull in Philosophie and Schoole-Diuinitie as being sciences which he hath little studied hath in this sixt Chapter taken a hard taske vpon him and which few men except such as are like to himselfe would aduenture but as our English prouerbe saith who is so bold as is blind Bayard For he will forsooth shew in this Chapter that he hath effectually prooued in his Supplement by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes temporally and consequently that the new Oath of Allegiance which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is repugnant to the law of Nature But how vnsoundly he hath prooued this and that by the law of Nature it may rather be conuinced that Religious Priests were subiect to temporall Princes and might be deposed by them and that all things both concerning State and Religion and the publike seruice of God did in the law of Nature depend vpon the authoritie of the temporall common-wealth you shall anon most cleerely perceiue 2 First therefore Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 94. nu 2 setteth downe the words which he wrote in his Supplement in this manner It is euident by the light of naturall reason that in all things wherein there is any naturall composition or combination there is a due subordination and subiection of that which is lesse perfect to the more perfect and of the inferiour to the Superiour as of the meanes to the end which is euident in the Hierarchies of Angels in the Orbes or Spheres in the Elements in the Powers of the soule in the Sciences and to omit other examples in all naturall Societies of Families Common-wealths and Kingdomes in which there is a superioritie and subiection the lesse perfect being inferiour and subordinate to the more perfect whereby nature giueth to euery thing the perfection which is conuenient for it according to the kind degree and qualitie thereof wherein we see nature tendeth still to greater perfection passing and as it were mouing by degrees from the lowest and and most imperfect creature to man from man to Angels and from them to Almightie God who as he is the Creatour of all so also he is the end consummation and perfection of all yea perfection it selfe by whom and in whom all naturall things are consummated and perfected 3 Here you see this man hath brought diuers examples wherein one thing is subiect and subordinate to another but to what purpose he hath brought them and how from any one of them he can well deduce that the Pope hath power to depose Princes by the law of Nature which is the principall subiect of this Chapter I cannot any way conceiue If he had declared in particular after what manner and with what kind of subiection these things are subordained one to the other euery man of meane vnderstanding would presently haue perceiued the non sequitur of all the consequences
which can be gathered from those examples Meanes are subiect and ordained to the end for that the ende cannot be obtained without them will he therefore inferre from hence that the Pope hath power to depose Princes The nine Orders of Angels haue a subiection and subordination of the inferiour to the superiour for that one is more noble more potent and more perfect then another by reason whereof the superiour can illuminate and moue locally the inferiour but will he therefore from hence conclude that the Pope hath power to depose Princes 4 The celestiall Orbes are inferiour one to another in place magnitude and perfection as the Sphere of the Moone is the least and lowest of all and the Planet of the Sunne although it be placed in the middle Orbe is the chiefe and as it were the King of all the seuen Planets and exceedeth them all in magnitude splendour and actiuitie The foure Elements also are inferiour one to an other in place magnitude and perfection Also the powers of the soule haue a kind of subiection one to another the vnderstanding doth guide and direct as a teacher or instructour but the will as the Mistresse doth command Likewise all sciences haue some subordination among themselues and Metaphisicke is in some sort the Mistresse of them all but wil my Aduersarie inferre from any of these that therefore the Pope hath power to depose Princes Families also are subiect to Incorporations Incorporations to Cities Cities to Kingdomes for that one is included in the other as a part in the whole and therefore he that is Superiour or chiefe Gouernour of the whole and can dispose thereof is also Superiour and Gouernour of euery part thereof But the temporall kingdome speaking formally and in abstracto is not a part of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ nor included therein as a part in the whole wherefore from hence it cannot be gathered that spirituall Pastours who are the Superiours and Gouernours of this spirituall kingdome haue authoritie to depose absolute Princes who are the Superiours and Gouernours of temporall kingdomes and in temporalls are subiect to none but God Lastly man Angels and all other creatures are subiect to Almightie God who as he is the Creatour and Conseruatour of all so he is the end consummation perfection of all but how from hence Mr. Fitzherbert can gather that therefore the Pope hath power to depose Princes truly it passeth my vnderstanding to cōceiue 5 Wherefore all that from this Rhetoricall Discourse of my Aduersarie can be rightly concluded is this at the most that in this world there is nothing to be found which is not subiect and subordinate to some other thing and that euery thing which is subiect to another must be subiect onely in that degree of subiection wherein the other is Superiour and therefore that temporall kingdomes whether they be Heathen or Christian are in dignitie inferiour subiect to the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ for that spirituall things are in dignitie superiour to temporall and that Christian Princes being parts and members of the Church of Christ are subiect to the spirituall Pastours and Gouernours thereof in spirituals but not in temporals for in temporals Christian Princes themselues are the supreme Gouernours and subiect to God alone 6 But let vs goe on with Mr. Fitzherberts discourse This being so sayth he b pag. 94. n. 3. it is to be considered that seeing in all common-wealths I speake of such as are Christian there is a composition and combination of diuers Societies all tending to the perfection of mans nature as of husband and wife maister and seruant Prince and subiect of all which resulteth the ciuill Societie and againe seeing that in this ciuill Societie or Common-wealth there is an Ecclesiasticall Societie euident and distinct in it selfe by different Magistrates and lawes whereby the ciuill Societie is vnited with the Celestiall and heauenly Hierarchies and the members thereof made ciues Sanctorum domestici Dei the citizens of Saints and the houshold seruants of God Ephes 2. yea vnited with God himselfe and consequently made as perfect and happie as man can be in this life it must needs follow that as the Societie of the husband and the wife and of the maister and the seruant are ordained for the familie and againe the family for the towne and citie and the citie for the whole common-wealth euery one of them tending to a superiour and more perfect Societie so in like manner the common-wealth it selfe with all her inferiour Societies are naturally ordained for the religious and Ecclesiasticall Societie that is to say the Church tending thereto as to the supreme and most perfect Societie that is on earth whereby it and all other Societies are perfected and humane nature finally aduanced to that supernaturall end and felicitie whereto God hath ordained it And this I suppose is so euident in reason that no man will deny it Whereupon it is also further to be inferred c. 7 But faire and softly Good Syr be not too hasty to make more inferences before you can make good what you haue said already For your comparison betwixt particular Ciuill Societies as families or Oeconomies Cities and temporall common-wealths or kingdomes and betweene temporall common-wealths or kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and also that your consequence and similitude which you make in these wordes It must neede follow that as the Society of the husband and the wife and of the master and the seruant are ordained for the family and againe the family for the Towne and Citie and the Citie for the whole Common-wealth So in like manner the Common-wealth it selfe with all her inferiour Societies are naturally ordained for the Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie that is to say the Church are so far from reason that no man with reason can approue the said comparison similitude and consequence For the reason why the Societie of the husband and wife and of the master and seruant are ordained for the family and againe the family for the Towne and Citie and the Citie for the whole Common-wealth is for that the Societie of man and wife of master and seruant are parts and members of the Family and the Family is a part and member of the Towne and Citie and the Citie is a part and member of the whole Common-wealth or Kingdome and therefore it must needes follow that all these particular Ciuill Societies are naturally ordained for the whole Ciuill Common-wealth or Kingdome which they compose as all parts and members are naturally ordained for the whole bodie which is compounded of them But no man with reason can affirme that in like manner the whole Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe with all the inferiour Societies or parts thereof are parts and members of the religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie which is the spirituall Kingdome or Church of Christ and therefore naturally ordained thereunto For it is euident that Christ
the word vpside downe or peruerted the course of Nature but knew right well that things lesse perfect are not to be preferred before the more perfect the body before the soule sense before reason temporall things before spirituall policie before Religion earth before heauen and the world before God And therefore there is none but such ignorant men as my Aduersarie is that can or will affirme the new Oath of allegiance to be repugnant to the law of Nature or to the light of nature reason for that it denyeth the authoritie of spirituall Pastours to punish temporally ablute Princes or to depriue them of their kingdomes or dominions 44 And by this the insufficiencie of the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Discourse will easily appeare This was some part saith he i Pag. 101. num 12. of my Discourse in my Supplement concerning the law of Nature whereby thou seest good Reader that I haue sufficiently shewed two things the one that according to the law of Nature the temporall state and power is subordinate and subiect to the spirituall when they are conioined in one body no lesse then the familie is subordinate and subiect to the Common-wealth in like case because the end of the temporall power is subordinate to the end of the spirituall power which ouerthroweth my Aduersaries false principle to wit that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill Societie are so distinct in nature and office that though they be ioined together yet they haue no dependance the one of the other vpon which false ground and vaine supposition often affirmed by Barclay and him and neuer proued by either of them they found all their false doctrine 45 But how vntrue this is I haue already shewed For in the law of Nature the temporall state and power was not subiect and subordinate to the spirituall or Religious except only in excellencie and nobilitie whereof there is no question but contrariwise the Priests of the law of Nature were subiect in spirituall and religious affaires to the supreme ciuill Gouernour when they were distinct persons neither did they make two distinct Common-wealths as they doe in the law written but the ciuill Common-wealth had authoritie to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state and not only to make Priests and to giue them Priestly power but also to increase diminish alter or to take away from them their Priestly authoritie and to determine of all things both temporall and spirituall which is not so in the law written wherein Priests haue their authoritie from the positiue institution and law of God himselfe 46 True it is that the Heathen Common-wealths gaue great authoritie priueledges and exemptions to those persons whom they chose and appointed to be their Priests especially to the chiefe Priest or Bishop whereof reade Alexander lib. 2. cap. 8. and lib. 3. cap. 27. to whom the Romanes gaue such great honour that they did esteeme him next to the King or supreme temporall Prince and gaue him authoritie to command and also to punish the King of sacred rites and all the other inferiour Priests Yea euen to Vestall Virgins who were Priests of the Goddesse Vesta such honour was giuen by the Romanes that if by chance they should meete any malefactour that was led to death hee should not for that time be put to death Plutarch in Numa Alex. lib. 5. cap. 12. vpon condition that the Virgin must sweare that her meeting of him was casuall and not of purpose But from hence it cannot be gathered that the religious Priests had by the law of Nature such authoritie priueledges and prerogatiues but only that the Common-wealth in honour of Religion did grant them such temporall honour and authoritie and would haue them to be obeyed in some matters of great moment vnder paine of death 47 Now in the new law in what manner the temporall Common-wealth or rather those persons who are parts and members therof are subiect to spirituall Pastours I haue at large declared aboue in the second part where I haue sufficiently proued out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds that the coniunction of temporall power and of spirituall subiection in the same Christian man is not sufficient to make the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth among Christians one totall body or Common-wealth whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head for then the Pope must be both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of all Christendome and Christians and that although they should make one totall body or Common-wealth whereof Christ only is the head in that manner as I there declared yet from thence it could not be concluded that the temporall power or Common-wealth is per se and naturally subiect and subordinate to the spirituall power or Common-wealth but only that Christian Princes not as they haue temporall power but as being members of the Church of Christ they haue spirituall subiection and consequently in spiritualls and not in temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power or common-wealth and the spirituall Pastours thereof And there also I answered all the arguments which D. Schulckenius brought to proue the contrarie Let Mr. Fitzherbert impugne that Treatise and then he may haue some cause to brag that this doctrine of mine and Barclaies is a false and vaine supposition of our owne In the meane time the Reader may cleerely see how vainely and friuolously he hath proued by the law of Nature that the temporall power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that in the law of Nature Religious Priests as they were such might command and correct temporally the temporall Common-wealth or supreme temporall Prince whereas the quite contrary is manifest by the law of nature 48 The other thing saith Mr. Fitzherbert that I haue shewed is that by reason of this naturall subordination and subiection of the lawes and lesse perfect Societies to the higher and more perfect it is most conforme to nature that the head of the Church who is the supreme spirituall Magistrate may command and correct all inferiour Magistrates as well temporall as spirituall when the necessitie either of the whole body or of the Church only which is the most perfect and supreme Societie doth require it as in like case the supreme ciuill Magistrate who is Prince and head of the Common-wealth iustly commandeth and punisheth the heads of Families or Cities notwithstanding that the said Families and Cities are distinct Societies and bodies and haue their lawes and Magistrates apart no lesse then the Common-wealth and Church haue theirs 49 But first it is vntrue that there is any naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall power or Common-wealth to the spirituall except in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and whereof no man maketh doubt neither doth the dignity and perfection of the more noble and excellent Societie inferre a superioritie in command and authoritie ouer the lesse worthy and lesse noble Societie vnlesse we will haue the companie of Goldsmiths to haue
authoritie and command ouer the Pewterers and I haue shewed a little before most euidently that in the law of Nature the Ciuill common-wealth had the whole charge and command of all things as well belonging to Religion as to State and that the Priests or publike Ministers of religious rites were instituted ordained changed depriued commanded and punished by the ciuill Common-wealth vpon whom euen in all matters belonging to Religion and the publike worship of God they wholy depended and therefore no maruaile that from this vaine and friuolous supposition of the naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall Common-wealth to the spirituall often affirmed by Mr. Fitzherbert but neuer proued by him by any one probable argument none but vaine and friuolous collections can be gathered 50 Secondly I haue also sufficiently shewed that there is not the like case betwixt the supreme ciuill Magistrate and the heads of Families and Cities and betwixt the head of the Church and the supreme Magistrate of the ciuill Common-wealth as my Aduersarie heere vntruly affirmeth for that not only those persons who are the heads of Families and Cities but also the Families and Cities themselues are parts and members of the whole ciuill Common-wealth and therefore in all ciuill matters to be directed commanded and temporally corrected by the supreme ciuill Magistrate but the temporall Common-wealth it selfe or the temporal Prince as he hath temporal power or in meere temporall matters is not a part member of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ but onely as hee hath spirituall subiection and therefore onely in spiritualls and in such which are reduced to the nature of spiritualls hee is to be directed and commanded and to be spiritually not temporally corrected by the supreme spirituall Pastour And so indeed it is conforme to the law of nature that is it is not repugnant to naturall reason but it is fit decent and conuenient although not necessary that the chiefe Religious Priest should haue authoritie graunted him either by the ciuill common-wealth as it was in the law of nature or by the positiue institution and law of God as it was in the law written to punish the transgressours of religious rites with some kinde of punishments but that the law of nature did giue no authoritie at all to those who were appointed to be publike Ministers of religious rites to commaund or punish at all the ciuill common-wealth or Soueraigne Prince thereof vpon whom both in spiritual and ciuill matters they wholly depended is altogether repugnant to naturall reason 51 But Widdrington himselfe saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 102. nu 14. doth not deny but that I haue prooued thus much effectually so farre foorth as concerneth a power to command and a spirituall manner of punishment seeing that hee saith as you haue heard in the beginning of the last Chapter that I haue effectually prooued nothing else by the diuine or naturall law but that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall not a temporall manner of punishment So he 52 But although I doe willingly grant that he hath sufficiently prooued by the law of God that the Church of Christ and the sprituall Pastours thereof haue authoritie granted them by the positiue institution and law of God to command in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall all Christians both Princes and subiects being parts and members of the Church and to punish them with spirituall punishments if they shall contemne his iust command yet my meaning was neuer to affirme that he hath effectually proued either that there is any naturall subiection and subordination of the temporall common-wealth to the head of the Church of Christ except onely in dignitie and perfection or that the law of nature abstracting from the positiue institution and law of Christ hath granted to spirituall Pastours authority to punish or commaund absolute Princes for that all the authority which spirituall Pastours now haue doth either proceed from the positiue institution and law of Christ or from the graunt of Christian Princes and not from the law of nature Wherefore from these wordes of mine which hee hath related this onely can be concluded that he hath effectually prooued by the law of God or nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall in spirituall things and spirituall punishments and that he hath proued nothing else For by what rules of Logicke can my Aduersary inferre that because I grant that he hath effectually proued by the law of God or nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall c. Therefore I must grant that hee hath effectually proued by the law of God and nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall c. sith that euery Logician knoweth that to make an absolute disiunctiue proposition to bee true it sufficeth that one part of the disiunction bee true and therefore to make that proposition of mine to bee true that he hath effectually proued by the law of God or nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall c. it is sufficient that hee hath prooued by the law of God that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall so farre foorth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall not temporall manner of punishment for by the law of nature he hath prooued no such thing nor brought any one probable argument to prooue the same 53 But let vs goe on with his Discourse Whereby it appeareth saith he l Pag. 102. nu 15. that the onely question now betwixt vs is whether the supreme spirituall Superiour may punish temporally according to the law of nature whereof truely there can be no doubt if we consider the ground and substance of my former Discourse proouing a subordination of all Societies and communities to the Church for thereupon it followeth that the head thereof may by way either of commaundement or punishment dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all the inferiour Societies when it shall be absolutely necessarie for the conseruation of the Church by the same reason that the Superiour Magistrate or Prince of the ciuill Societie or common wealth may dispose in like case and to like purpose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all the Societies which are inferiour to the common-wealth or as the soule commandeth Chap 2. per totum or punisheth the body in whatsoeuer is dependent thereon or accessorie thereto as I haue prooued before in the second Chapter 54 But this as you see is only a repetition of his former idle Discourse and therefore it needeth no other answere then that which I gaue before where first I haue shewed that the supreame spirituall superiour of the Church of Christ cannot punish temporally according to the law of Nature and that there
is no naturall subordination of any Ciuill Societie to the Church of Christ except only in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and that in the law of Nature it belonged to the Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe to dispose and order all things as well concerning Religion as Ciuill matters as to ordaine Priests to appoint with what kind of Sacrifices and in what maner and place God should be publikely worshipped to giue or take away to extend or diminish the authoritie dignitie and priuiledges of Religious Priests as the Common-wealth whose Ministers they were and to whom they were subiect not onely in temporalls but also in spiritualls should thinke expedient and therefore to make a naturall subordination subiection not only in dignitie and perfection but also in power and authority of the ciuil common-wealth to the Church of Christ is cleerly repugnant to nature to all natural reason 55 Secondly I also shewed the manifest difference betwixt families cities and all such like inferiour Ciuill Societies being compared to the whole Ciuill Common-wealth and betwixt the whole Ciuill Common-wealth being compared to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ for that not only the persons of all inferiour ciuill Societies but also the Societies themselues which are only compounded of ciuill power are true parts members of the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth and that therefore the supreame ciuill Magistrate or Prince who hath power to dispose of the whole ciuill body or common-wealth hath power also to dispose of euery part and member thereof But the temporall Common-wealth it selfe which is compounded only of ciuill power is not a part and member of the Church of Christ which is compounded onely of spirituall and not ciuill or temporall authoritie as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe confesseth m Contra Barc c. 12. p. 137 in Schulck pag. 203. And therefore it doeth not follow by the same reason as my Aduersarie heere affirmeth that the supreame head of the Church of Christ may dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the ciuill common-wealth because the supreame Prince of the ciuill common-wealth may dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all other inferiour ciuill Societies And whereas hee supposeth that to dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the ciuill common-wealth may bee absolutely necessarie for the conseruation of the Church is a meere fiction and idle supposition of his owne braine and although it were so necessarie yet it should not belong to spirituall Pastours who haue no ciuill power but to Christian Princes to dispose thereof as I haue shewed aboue And as for the comparison of the soule and body which all my Aduersaries doe so often inculcate I haue also shewed before n Part. 2. c. 8. most cleerely that it is no fit similitude to proue their purpose but maketh flat against them both because the temporall and spirituall common-wealth doe not make one totall body or compound in that manner as the body and soule doe make one man and also because albeit the soule may command the body to punish it selfe yet shee her selfe cannot punish the body without the helpe and concurrance of the body it selfe and therefore neither can the Church of Christ inflict temporall punishments without the helpe and concurrance of the temporall common-wealth 56 But now Mr. Fitzherbert will make forsooth all the matter more cleare And all this saith he o p. 103. nu 16 will bee yet more cleare if wee consider the weake reason that Widdrington giueth of his conceipt to prooue that the supreame spirituall power cannot punish temporally Wid. in Admon ad Lect. nu 17. For thus hee saith Atque ita recta ratio dictat vt superior quicunque c. And so right or true reason teacheth that euery Superior may punish his inferiour with some penaltie that is proportionate to his authority but that any other besides him that is supreame Gouernor of the ciuill cōmon-wealth may punish his inferiour with the paine or punishment of death or maiming or of the depriuatiō of all his goods this cannot be deduced from the rule or prescript of true reason Thus saith hee But to omit to speake of bloodie punishments by death or maiming which are neuer vsed by the Church and therefore are idly mentioned heere by my Aduersarie it is to bee noted that in the rest hee contradicteth not onely the ancient and common practise of the Church yea the holy Scriptures as I shall shew p Iufra nu 18.19.20 Item cap. 7.9.10.11 12. per totum after a while but also his owne grant and concession 57 If the prudent Reader had not sufficiently seene before the extreame vanitie palpable ignorance and irreligious conscience of this my Aduersarie hee might easily conceiue me to bee a very bad ignorant and inconsiderate man for contradicting as hee saith not onely the ancient and common practise of the Church yea and the holy Scriptures but also my owne graunt and concession but such bragging and slanderous words are as you haue often seene frequent in this mans mouth First therefore those words of mine Atque ita recta ratio dictat c. And so true reason teacheth c. were not brought by me as a reason but as a conclusion of that I saide before concerning the authoritie of Superiours to punish their subiects or inferiours with some kinde of punishments proportionate to their Coerciue power 58 Secondly it is vntrue that bloodie punishments by death or maiming are idly mentioned heere by mee seeing that hee himselfe in the former paragraph did affirme that the head of the Church may by way not only of commandement but also of punishment dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the Ciuill Common-wealth and consequently both of goods and bodies whereof no doubt the ciuill common-wealth may dispose and in the second Chapter also hee expresly taught that the Pope hauing power ouer my soule and being withall the supreame Gouernour of the whole Church hath also power ouer my life albeit with the liues of Princes it being an odious question hee will not meddle and a little after hee affirmeth that the Pope hath power ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians and consequently according to his doctrine also of all Christian Kings and Princes Why then doth he now say that bloodie punishments by death or maiming are idly mentioned heere by mee when I affirme that none but the supreame ciuill Superiour hath power to punish his subiect or inferiour with the punishment of death maiming or depriuation of goods But marke I pray you his goodly reason because forsooth bloodie punishments by death or maiming are neuer vsed by the Church whereas the question betwixt vs was not whether the Church doeth actually vse bloodie punishments for of this I spake not one word in this place albeit Pope Adrian did ordaine in the Canon law q In cap. Delatori 5. q. 6. that the tongues of some malefactours should bee pulled out and the
Diocletian why can she not also vnder the persecution of the Turkes 37 Secondly neither is it true that I am destitute of Patrons and Doctours who maintaine that the Pope by his spirituall power cannot dispose of temporals or inflict temporall punishments as I haue shewed aboue in the first part where also I prooued that Ioannes Parisiensis doth no way fauour but flatly contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine and also the very ashes of this Doctours booke if they could speake would giue sufficient testimony against him that this my doctrine is not altogether destitute of Patrons and Doctours But whereas this Doctour should haue prooued that the power to dispose of all temporals is necessary to the saluation of soules which Cardinall Bellarmine affirmed and I denied he flyeth from this reason to the authority of Doctours who affirme that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporals which is to runne vp and downe in a circle from intrinsecall grounds to extrinsecall from reason to authority and contrariwise and neuer to persist in any one medium or argument Wherefore whensoeuer any Author or my selfe do seeme to affirme or suppose that temporall things the disposing of them are in some cases necessary to the general good of the Church and to the saluation of soules it is not to be vnderstood of any absolute necessity but onely of some great conuenience or vtility for which in common speech wee oftentimes take necessity as it is well knowen to euery Logician who hath but read the beginning of Porphyries Introduction Cùm necessarium sit Chysaori c. Whereas it is necessarie o Chysaori c. In which case of necessity or great vtility temporall things are by the institution of Christ to be disposed of to a spirituall end by the temporall and ciuill power of Christian Princes and not by the spirituall power as he hath distinguished the acts offices and functions thereof from ciuill authority 38 But thou wilt say saith this Doctour o Pag. 355. that this power to dispose of temporals is not proportionate to the end of the Ecclesisticall power which is spirituall I answere first saith he that this power to dispose of temporals in the Pope is not formally temporall but formally spirituall and eminently temporall and therefore it is very well proportionate to a spirituall end But this is to declare the selfe same thing by it selfe for to haue vertually or eminently a temporal power is nothing else then to haue a power to dispose of temporall things or to doe all that which the temporall power can do which is the maine poynt which I vtterly deny and consequently affirme that according to the institution of Christ who hath left distinguished the acts functions and properties of the temporall power or Common-weath from them of the spirituall power or Church of Christ to dispose of temporall things and to inflict temporall punishments which are temporall and ciuill acts and punishments are not by the institution of Christ proportionate to the spiritual power and to the end thereof as it is by him distinguished from the ciuil power and the end obiects and acts thereof For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall Kingdome or Common-wealth and distinguished her directiue and coerciue power and the acts and obiects thereof from the acts and obiects of the ciuill power or Common-wealth so also hath he assigned spirituall punishments as meanes proportionate to her coerciue or punishing power as temporal punishments are proportionate to the temporall coerciue power 39 Wherefore this Doctor knowing right well that I haue alwayes denied the Church of Christ to haue either formally or eminently temporall power giueth a second answere I answere secondly saith he p Pag. 356. that temporall goods and the power it selfe ouer temporall goods haue indeede no naturall proportion with spirituall but they haue a very great morall proportion which for the present is sufficient For temporall goods are spirituall instruments of good workes in which respect S. Peter calleth Almes other good works 1 Pet. 2. although corporall spirituales hostias spirituall sacrifices Wherfore as the spirit in man disposeth of corporall actions as Almes fastings chastising of the flesh and such like as they are necessary to the health of the soule hee might adde also to the health of the body so the Prince of the Church may in order to a spirituall end and if his similitude were good may likewise in order to a temporall end dispose of temporall goods which for the same reason that they are necessary to the obtaining of that end for the same reason they are said to be proportionate to the same end 40 But this answere I haue confuted aboue partly in the second part q Par. 2. cap. 8. where I haue shewed that this similitude of the soule and body doth manifestly impugne their doctrine and that the soule doth not dispose of any temporall action as Almes fasting whipping and such like but onely by way of command and also not without the actiue concurrance of some corporall organ and besides that if the similitude were good the Pope should haue power not only for spirituall good but also for temporall to depose temporall Princes to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments and partly aboue in the former Chapter r Num. 108. where Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken this answere verbatim from this Doctour For temporall goods to haue a morall proportion with spirituall and to be spirituall instruments of good or bad workes is nothing else then that they may concurre to vertuous or vicious actions and be the obiect of vertue or vice which therefore may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power as it is directiue which hath for her obiect vertue and vice But no morrall proportion reference or relation can alter the nature of temporall goods or puishments or make temporall goods to become spirituall goods and temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments and therefore no such morall proportion is sufficient to cause temporall goods to be disposed or temporall punishments to be inflicted by the spirituall power as it is coerciue whose acts and obiects are onely the disposing of spirituall goods and the inflicting of spirituall punishments for a spirituall end 41 Lastly to the consequence of Cardinal Bellarmines argument whereby he laboured to prooue that the power to vse and dispose of temporals is necessary to the spirituall end I answered thus ſ Apolog. nu 183. by denying his consequence Neither doth it follow from thence as Cardinall Bellarmine doth ill and contrary to himselfe inferre that otherwise wicked Princes may without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For the Church hath as we said power to punish them not indeed with ciuill or temporall but with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments vnlesse perhaps Ecclesiasticall Censures are not woorthy to be reckoned among punishments whereas they are accounted by all men to be most sharpe
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
may be conceiued as not repugnant yet morally it is not possible for that this law being so neere to the law of nature and so conuenient according to naturall reason it is scarse possible that all Nations or the greatest part should agree to the abrogation thereof Neuerthelesse in another manner any one Communitie may command that among themselues onely such or such a law of nations be not kept and this manner is possible and morall And so the law of nations concerning the bondage of captiues taken in a iust warre is changed among Christians by an ancient custome of Chrstians which is as it were a speciall law of Christian nations and also by an expresse Imperiall law of Iustinian the Emperour Cod. de Episcopis Clericis leg Deo auxilium 29 Lastly Suarez distinguisheth the law of nations from the Ciuill law first in this that the law of nations is not written but is introduced by vse and custome wherein it differeth from the law of nature which although it be not written yet it is grounded in nature and not onely in custome but the Ciuill law is both written and not written Secondly that the law of nations is introduced by the vse and custome of all nations or almost all for it is sufficient to the law of nations according to Saint Isidore cited before g Nu. 25. that all nations or almost all nations well gouerned doe vse the same but the Ciuill law although it may also be introduced by custome yet it is introduced by the custome of one or few nations and bindeth onely them Thirdly that the Ciuill law may be altered wholly but the law of nations cannot speaking morally be altered wholly but onely in part which is not to be vnderstood of the whole collection of all the precepts of both lawes for so neither of them can morally be wholly changed because it is morally impossible to alter all the ciuill precepts in any one kingdome but it is to be vnderstood of euery singular precept which may easily be changed and abrogated throughout the whole kingdome but no one precept of the law of nations can throughout all nations bee abrogated although some nation doe not obserue it This is the opinion of Suarez concerning the difference betwixt the law of nature of nations and the Ciuill law 30 But although as well obserueth Salas this question is for the greatest part rather verball and of wordes then reall and of the thing it selfe for that all doe agree in this that whatsoeuer is forbidden by the law of nature is of it selfe euill and what is forbidden by the positiue law of men whether it bee of one nation of many or of all is not euill of it selfe but made euill by that positiue law and prohibition Neuerthelesse concerning that distinction which Suarez and Salas doe make of all nations or the greatest part as they are taken ioyntly and make one Societie or Common-wealth of mankind and of all nations as they are taken seuerally each one by themselues I haue one chiefe difficultie for in my opinion this distinction of theirs is meerely imagined and inuented without any good and sufficient ground because although all Nations doe make one Societie or common-wealth of mankind as they are referred to GOD the inuisible King and Gouernour of all mankind yet as they are referred to their visible Gouernours on earth they doe not make one but diuers totall Ciuill Societies Kingdomes or Common-wealths and consequently the lawes made by them are really diuers and not one law and so the law of nations is not truely and formally one law but diuers lawes obserued or by expresse or vertuall couenant agreed vpon by all or the greatest part of nations and it cannot bee called one law except by aggregation as all or the greatest part of nations as they are referred to their visible Gouernours on earth cannot bee properly and formally but onely by aggregation bee called one Ciuill Societie kingdome or Common-wealth as many stones laide together are by aggregation called one heape of stones no more then England France and Spaine be called one kingdome or parts of one totall kingdome compounded of them three or the lawes commanding or forbidding the same thing made or by couenant agreed vpon by these three kingdomes bee called one singular law 31 From whence it followeth first that the law of nations as it is a positiue humane law is not formally one singular law but many Ciuill lawes of diuers nations together although it may bee called one law of nations for that it commandeth and forbiddeth one and the selfe same thing Secondly that the Christian nation as it is referred to the visible Gouernours thereof is not properly and formally one Ciuill Societie Nation Kingdome or Common-wealth but many temporall Kingdomes professing the same Christian Religion although as it is referred to the supreame spirituall Pastour thereof it bee truely properly and formally one spirituall Societie Kingdome Church and mysticall body of Christ Thirdly that the law of nations as it is a positiue law may bee changed and wholly abrogated by any particular Kingdome or Common-wealth for as much as it concerneth onely that kingdome or Common-wealth because that law as it is in that kingdome or Common-wealth is intrinsecally to speake so a Ciuill law and hath not force by vertue of the law to bind the subiects of that kingdome or Common-wealth but as it was enacted and receiued by the Gouernors and subiects of that kingdome or common-wealth Neuerthelesse by vertue of some expresse or tacite pact couenant or agreement which properly is no law for that a law requireth a superioritie in the maker therof ouer the persons who are bound to obserue that law which superioritie a couenant doth not require made betwixt diuers kingdomes it may binde also the subiects of other kingdomes in which respect the law of nations for as much as it concerneth diuers kingdomes cannot be repealed and abrogated without the consent of both kingdomes because pacts and couenants may not be broken without the consent of all parties but if both parties doe agree it is lawfull not to obserue that couenant for as much as it concerneth onely themselues And so the custome of receiuing Ambassadours in time of hostilitie vnder the law or rather couenant of immunitie which is saide to bee brought in by the law of nations may be abrogated by the mutuall consent of two kingdomes for as much as concerneth themselues although other kingdomes will not for their parts agree thereunto And for the same reason any other lawe of nations as it is a pure positiue law may bee repealed by the consent and agreement of those kingdomes whom it doeth concerne although other nations will still obserue the same And this may suffice concerning the difference betwixt the law of nature of nations and the Ciuill law Now to Mr. Fitzherberts discourse 32 And as for the law of Nations saith hee h pa. 130. nu 5.
spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures And without doubt you would condemne me for a vaine-glorious Thraso if I should take vpon me to prooue by the testimony and grant of Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and of your selfe who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes that the Pope hath no such power for that you and all the rest doe grant the Pope to bee the supreame spirituall Pastour and then by a necessarie consequence in my iudgement though not in yours I should inferre from thence that because the Pope is by the institution of Christ according to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers a spirituall Pastour and not a temporall Prince he hath only authoritie to giue or take away heauenly not earthly kingdomes to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to vse spirituall not temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill punishments This consequence the ancient Fathers made See aboue cha 5· sec 3. nu 11. seq But besides that it is not sufficient to prooue any conclusion by the authority of the Ciuill law vnles the Ciuil law granteth both the premises or propositions from whence that conclusion is deduced the insufficiencie of this consequence grounded vpon those rules The accessorie followeth the principall and he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse See chap. 2. 3. per totum I haue made manifest in the former Chapters 58 Secondly doe not dissemble Mr. Fitzherb nor seeke to delude your Reader but deale sincerely and be not ashamed to acknowledge your errour seeing that not onely your selfe but also Card. Bâ—ll Gretzer Lessius Becanus and also Suarez haue herein grosely erred For your meaning was not by making that long discourse out of the Ciuill law to proue the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes onely to inferre by a necessary consequent in your owne vnderstanding that he may also punish them temporally in their persons and states but your meaning was to proue directly by the Ciuill law the Oath to be vnlawfull for that in your opinion it denieth the Popes power to Excommunicate Princes which the Ciuill law doth expresly acknowledge For in the beginning of your Supplement you tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine namely in respect of those clauses which do exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope and then after you had made an end of your long discourse concerning the Popes spirituall power acknowledged by the Ciuill law you made this inference that the Ciuill law cannot iustifie the Oath but doth flatly impugne it for that the Oath supposeth and implieth the Kings Maiestie to be supreme head of the English Church and not the Pope and thereupon denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince So that the Oath in your opinion contained two clauses the one a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and this was that which you intended to prooue to bee directly repugnant to the Ciuill law the other was a deniall of the Popes power to depose Princes and this in a word or two related before you affirmed to be also repugnant to the ciuill law for that in your iudgement it followeth necessarily froÌ„ the fromer which how vaine an assertion this is you may see by that I haue said before for so you may make one to affirme any thing if to make him to graunt an argument or consequent it bee sufficient that he graunt the antecedent although hee deny the consequence But now it seemeth by your silence as I signified before in the first Chapter that you are ashamed to insist vpon the former clause concerning the Popes power to excommunicate Princes for which you made that long discourse to prooue by the Ciuill law the Popes supremacie in spirituals and yet rather then you will confesse your errour you care not to delude your Reader in dissembling the chiefe and principall cause for which you affirmed the Oath to bee repugnant to the Ciuill law to wit because it denyed the Popes power to excommunicate Princes wherein with many others of your Society you haue most fowlely and shamefully erred 59 Wherefore I may now very well conclude that the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought in his Supplement grounded as well vpon the law of God of nature and nations as vpon the ciuill or imperiall law are very insufficient and that the answeres which in my Admonition I did briefly make to them doe stand sound and good notwithstanding any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary Now you shall see what arguments he bringeth from the Canon law and especially from that so often named decree of the famous Councell of Lateran CHAP. IX Wherein the difficulties which some make concerning the authority of the Lateran Councel are propounded the decree of the Councell which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related and Widdringtons first answere to the said Decree is proued to be sound and sufficient and Mr. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted 1 WE are come now at last courteous Reader to examine what conuincing arguments can bee brought for proofe of this new pretended Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes out of the Canon law and especially from the decree of the great and famous Councell of Lateran whereon my principall Aduersaries seeing belike all their other arguments and authorities to bee cleane shaken and battered doe now chiefly rely Wherefore albeit neither the more ancient of our moderne Diuines who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba D. Sanders and others nor Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken from these men all his chiefe arguments and authorities to confirme his new Catholike faith in this point did in his Controuersies make any great reckoning of the decree of this great Councell for otherwise without doubt he being not ignorant of this decree and also desirous to make his doctrine vnquestionable and therefore feareth not to brand the contrary opinion with the note of heresie would not haue beene contented onely with the fact of Pope Innocent the third in deposing Otho the Emperour and haue neglected to vrge this decree of the Councell of Lateran which was called by the said Pope Innocent yet now hee flyeth to the decree of the great Councell of Lateran as the chiefe pillar to support his new Catholike faith therefore in regard principally of this decree he doubteth not to affirme but how rashly and without sufficient ground you shall see beneath that whosoeuer denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes contemneth the voyce of the Church in this so great and famous a Councell and is to be accounted a Heathen and Publican and in
of honour for those words doe signifie temporall Land-lords Gouernours Magistrates or Officers as Mayors Iudges Sheriffes Bayliffes Constables whether they be Lords or no as any man of iudgement may plainely see for that all these are Domini temporales and many of them may be Domini principales and I will more cleerely shew the same beneath So also when the Councell saith that condemned heretikes are to be left to the Secular Potestaes or their Bailiffes to be deseruedly punished it did not vnderstand absolute Princes as Kings and Emperours but other inferiour Officers and Magistrates as Mayors Consulls chiefe Iustices Captaines and Gouernours of Cities to whom the execution of iustice is committed as both the Italian and French word Potesta doth signifie and so in Italie the Gouernour of a Citie is called the Potesta and also it may more cleerely appeare by the Breues See Director Inquisitor circa finem or Apostolicall letters of Pope Innocent the fourth Alexander the fourth and Clement the fourth cited here beneath by my Aduersary for those of Honorius the third and Vrbanus the fourth I haue not seene neither is there any mention made of them in the Directorie of Inquisitors who direct their letters to all Marcquesses Earles Barons and Potestates Gouernours Consulls and Communities of Cities and other places c. as Pope Innocent doth or onely to Potestaes Counsells and Communities of Cities other places of Italy as Pope Alexander doth or to Potestaes or Gouernours Consulls Captaines Aâ—tians Counsells and Communities of Cities as Pope Clement doth where it is plaine that by the word Potestaes are not vnderstood so much as those Dukes of Italie who are in some sort absolute Princes as the Duke of Sauoy Florence Mantua Parma c. but onely inferiour Magistrates and Officers Rectours or Gouernours of Cities and other places 27 Secondly the ground and reason for which I affirmed that Mr. Fitzherbert dissembled diuers of my answeres to the decree of the Councell of Lateran was for that I supposed he had seene the Preface to my Apologeticall Answere wherein I discoursed at large of this decree against F. Lesâ—ius and the reason why I supposed that he had seene that Answere was for that it was published to the view of the world a yeere before hee wrote his Supplement and whether I might not probably suppose the same considering what particular intelligence the Colledge of Rome where then he liued hath of all things that passe in this Kingdome especially in things that greatly touch the Iesuites as that Preface doth I remit to the iudgement of the prudent Reader But because he now protesteth that he neuer saw that Preface before my Theologicall Disputation whereunto it is annexed came forth I will beleeue him therein and take his protestation for an answere and I doe willingly grant that I was mistaken therein as also I protest that in any other thing wherein I shall find my selfe to be mistaken I will most willingly acknowledge the same and if he and the rest of my Aduersaries will as willingly acknowledge their errours in all those things wherein they doe cleerely find themselues to be mistaken I make no doubt but that this controuersie betwixt vs will quickely be at an end 28 Thirdly obserue good Reader how fraudulently Mr. Fitzherbert hath concealed a principall clause which of set purpose I put downe in this my argument taken from the Constitution of the Emperour Fredericke For whereas I argued thus as you haue seene before that because the Emperour Fredericke enacting the selfe same law fiue yeeres after and vsing the very same words which the Councell did vse to wit a temporall principall Landlord Gouernour or also Lord and not hauing a principall Landlord Gouernour or Lords changing only spirituall penalties into temporall neither did nor could by those words comprehend Kings or absolute Princes therfore from thence it may be probably collected that those words in the Councell could not ex vi sua by force of the words comprehend Kings and Soueraigne Princes who in penall lawes are not to be vnderstood vnder generall words vnlesse they be expressed by name Mr. Fitzherbert concealeth those words ex vi sua by force of the words which neuerthelesse are very materiall to the force of my argument as any man of iudgement may cleerely perceiue For as you shall see beneath for the same reason why Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that Frederickes constitution did not by those Generall words comprehend Kings and absolute Princes I also affirme that Kings and absolute Princes are not vnder those generall words comprehended in the Decree of the Councell of Lateran 29 Now you shall see how well Mr. Fitzher impugneth this my argument taken from the Constitution of the Emperour Fredericke Widdringtons argument is saith he f Nu. 6. seq pag. 139. seq that for as much as the Emperour Fridericke made the same Constitution fiue yeeres after the Councell of Lateran almost in the same words changing onely the spirituall penalties into temporall therefore he did not meane to include therein either himselfe who was free from the subiection of lawes or else other absolute Princes who were not subiect to him Thus argueth he But how doth it follow hereon that the Canon of the Councell of Lateran did not include him and all other Princes For albeit they were free from all temporall lawes yet being members of the Catholike Church they were subiect to the lawes of that Councell and the rather for that their Ambassadours being present there either ratified the Decrees thereof or at least did not contradict them But to the end that this controuersie betwixt my Aduersary Widdrington and me concerning the Emperour Friderickes law may be the better vnderstood I thinke it not amisse to lay downe what I haue already said concerning the same in my Supplement where I proued against M. Iohn Dunne that the said law was so farre from preiudicing any way the Canon of the Councell that it doth notably confirme it to which purpose I said thus 30 Thou shalt therefore vnderstand good Reader that Fredericke the second Emperour of that name being in the beginning of his reigne an obedient child of the Church and willing to giue publike testimonie thereof to the world thought good to imitate the example of many of his predecessours as well in the confirmation of the liberties and priuiledges of the Cleargie as also in imploying his Imperiall authoritie in the extirpation of heresie Concil Lateran sub Innoc. 3. can 44. 46. Com. 4 â—oncil See constitut Frider. §. Ad decus honorem And forasmuch as this Councell of Lateran had then lately before promulgated diuers Canons to both those ends he published also certaine constitutions on his part with manifest relations to the Canons of the Councell For whereas the Councell complained of the small charity of some Secular Princes g The Councell did not complaine of Secular Princes but
euery Princes lawes is extended onely to his owne subiects Whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall termes may comprehend all Christian men aswell absolute Princes as others forasmuch as concerne spirituall matters and the inflicting of spirituall punishments because in these all Christians are subiect thereto yet considering that it is probable that Christian Princes in temporall matters and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable that the Canons of Popes or Councells made in generall tearmes concerning temporall affaires as are the inflicting of temporall punishments cannot comprehend temporall Princes who in these are absolute and supreame and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church which as I haue shewed before doeth extend to the inflicting onely of spirituall punishments Which being so the Reader may cleerely perceiue that the argument I brought from the Emperours constitution is not absurd but very probable and that the absurditie which his foule mouth so often casteth vpon mee falleth vpon himselfe For that which I in bringing that argument intended to affirme was this that for the same reason for which those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or non habeus Dominum principalem did not in the decree of Frederike comprehend either himselfe who was not subiect to his owne law at leastwise as it is coerciue or absolute Princes for that they were not subiect to him at all the same generall wordes in the Canon of the Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments doe not comprehend absolute Princes for that they are subiect to the authoritie of the Church onely in Spirituall matters and not in temporall as are the inflicting of temporall punishments 42 Wherefore I doe not restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power as Mr. Fitzherbert very grosely imposeth vpon mee but I restraine the sense of the Canon thus that if all Christian Princes had made the like law and in the same forme of words as Fredericke did then I say that all these lawes had beene a cleare confirmation of the sense and meaning of the Canon of the aforesaid Councell and that those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis and non habens Dominum principalem in all these lawes together made by all Christian Princes had signified the selfe same persons and no others then now they signifie in the decree of the Councell For that which I contend is that it is probable that this Canon forasmuch as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made by the Councell not as it had spirituall but onely as it had temporall authoritie or which is all one not by vertue of the spirituall power of the Church but by the authoritie and consent of all temporall Princes whose Ambassadours were present thereat because it is probable as I haue shewed aboue out of many learned Catholikes that the spirituall power of the Church doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of spirituall Whereby it is euident that albeit Emperours Kings and all other absolute Princes and inferiour Lords are subiect alike to the decrees of Generall Councells yea and of Prouinciall Councells held in their owne kingdomes in matters spirituall yet they are not subiect alike to the Decrees of generall Councells wherein temporall matters as are the inflicting of temporall punishments are decreed for that these decrees are made by the authority and consent of absolute Princes to whom onely all other inferiour persons are subiect in temporall affaires And heereby all that which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in the rest of this Chapter is already satisfied 43 So as you see saith hee i p. 146. nu 17. what probable arguments Widdrington giueth vs whiles neuerthelesse nothing will satisfie him from vs but demonstrations and therefore whereas I signified all this in effect in my Supplement hee taketh no formall notice of it but onely as it were glanceth at it in a word or two saying as you haue heard before Dicere Imperatorem c. To say that the Emperour did not include Kings in those wordes of his law and that the Pope did meane to doe it in the Canon is to say so but not to demonstrate So hee requiring as you see a demonstration of this point and craftily concealing and dissembling the reason that I gaue for my assertion in my Supplement as if I had giuen none at all but onely had barely said that Dominus temporalis in the Emperours law is not to be vnderstood of Kings as it is to bee taken in the Canon whereas you see the reasons which I haue giuen of the difference of the one and the other being grounded vpon the different power of the Generall Councell and the Emperour is so pregnant and cleare that it may serue for a demonstration to any Catholike man of iudgement 44 For I thinke it is not more cleare to any such that two and two make foure then that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords and that they are included in those words of the Canon because they being members of Christs Church are as subiect to a generall Councell as the meanest temporall Lord in Christendome As also it is no lesse cleare that Dominus temporalis in the Emperours constitution can be extended no further then to such temporall Lords as were some way subiect to him which my Aduersary himselfe acknowledgeth albeit he absurdly denieth that the same words in the Canon are to be vnderstood of Kings 45 But first whether my arguments and answeres bee probable or no and whether that foule aspersion of absurditie wherewith Mr. Fitzherbert so often chargeth me doth fall vpon his owne arguments and answeres or vpon mine I must remit to the iudgement of the learned Reader Secondly no learned man can denie but that to prooue any doctrine to be certaine and of faith it is necessary to bring demonstrations and conuincing proofes and that to prooue any doctrine to bee probable and the contrary not to be certaine nor of faith it sufficeth to bring onely probable arguments and answeres and therefore it is no maruaile that I expect at my Aduersaries hands cleare demonstrations and inuincible proofes seeing that they take vpon them to prooue their doctrine to be certaine and of faith whereas it sufficeth for mee that onely take vpon me at this time to shew their doctrine not to bee certaine and of faith to bring probable arguments and answers 46 Thirdly it is not true that I haue craftily concealed and dissembled the reason that he gaue in his Supplement why the words Dominus temporalis should in the Canon of the Councell comprehend absolute Princes and not in the Emperours constitution For all that hee laboureth as you haue seene to prooue in his
making this Canon was to put in execution the holy lawes before enacted by Christian Princes for the rooting out of heretikes which lawes were not put in practise by the negligence of inferiour Gouernours Magistrates and Officers to whose charge the execution of iustice is immediately committed for which reason it was sufficient to comprehend in that Canon only inferiour Lords Gouernours Magistrates and Land-lords who were negligent to put in execution the godly lawes before enacted by pious Emperours and Kings for the repressing of heretikes but of this reason more beneath 29 Lastly the rule saith Mr. Fitzherbert holdeth not say the Lawyers when there is question of the publike good or the fauour of the Church or of the faith or of soules for in thesâ—â—ases penalties are to bee extended and the law interpreted in preiudice of the delinquent So as these rules doe helpe Widdrington nothing at all seeing that these exceptions which are admitted by the Law doe cleerely exclude the restriction which hee requireth by vertue of the rules 30 And the Lawyers also doe absolutely and without the aforesaide exceptions affirme the aforesaide rules to bee true Wherefore Sayrus citing diuers Lawyers for the same doeth by vertue of this rule except Abbots from Excommunication although Excommunication bee rather medicinall then penall and ought not to bee inflicted but for the good of the soule And Andreas Duuallius did by vertue of this rule exempt the King of France from the Canon Vnam sanctam of Pope Boniface the eight which neuerthelesse was made in fauour of the Church Neither is there any law either spirituall or ciuill which ought not to concerne the publike good neither hath the Pope any authority either directiue or coerciue graunted him but for the good of soules So as these rules according to the opinion of learned Lawyers and Diuines doe helpe mee greatly and fauour my doctrine concerning the not including in penall lawes Abbots Bishops and Kings vnder the generall names of Monkes Priests and Lords although they bee enacted for the publike good the health of soules and in fauour of the Church 31 But the maine and principall ground whereon I stand why absolute Princes are not comprehended in this Canon of the Lateran Councell vnder those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is this as you haue seene before for that albeit I should grant my Aduersarie onely for disputation sake that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are included in the name of Monkes and Bishops in the name of Priests and Kings in the name of temporall Lords which neuerthelesse he will neuer bee able to conuince yet seeing that it is most cleare as Mr. Fitzherbert also confesseth that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation both of Princes and Church lawes is extended onely to their owne subiects it necessarily followeth that temporall Princes cannot bee comprehended vnder any generall words in any Canon or constitution of the Church but onely in those things wherein they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church From whence it cleerely followeth that if it bee probable as in very deede it is that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments or to depose temporall Princes it is also probable that this Canon of the Lateran Councell as also all other such like decrees wherein temporall punishments are in generall words inflicted vpon temporall Lords Gouernours or Land-lords was not made by spirituall but by temporall authoritie and therefore cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are supreame on the earth and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but that it was either made by the authority consent of all temporall Princes if wee will needes haue it to binde all Christian Kingdomes or else that it hath force onely to binde in the Popes dominions wherein he hath the place both of a spirituall Pastour and also of a temporall Prince 32 And whereas Widdrington giueth an instance saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Pag. 153. num 8. without any quotation of Law or Author that Bishops and Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned it is true in Bishops in the case onely of suspension or interdict from the which they are by an expresse Canon exempted except they be named as it appeareth in the Decretals lib. Tit. 11. cap. 4. §. Quia periculosum Glossa ibidem in verbum suspensionis 5. de sententia excommunicationis where also the Glosse saith expressely that they are not priuiledged from a generall penaltie of Excommunication because the Pope who giueth them the aforesaid priuiledge would not haue them to be exmpted from the Canon Si quis suadente and such like which inflict the penalty of Excommunication in generall tearmes and the same is to be said of Abbots or any other persons of dignitie to wit that they haue no exemption from the generall tearmes of penall lawes except they be priuiledged namely by some expresse Canon And therefore when my Aduersary shall shew me such a Canon whereby Princes haue the priuiledge that he pretendeth in their behalfe I will grant that he hath reason to exempt them from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran In the meane time he hath no more probability in this poynt then in the former 33 But first I neuer said as Mr. Fitzherbert to make some colour of a probable answere falsely layeth to my charge that Bishops or Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned For I make no doubt but that they are included in penall lawes vnder such generall words which denote no particular dignity order degree or function of Christian men and that therefore they are included in the Canon Si quis suadente Diabolo and in the Canon Omnis vtriusque sexus but that which I said was that in penall lawes and odious matters Bishops are not included in the generall name of Priests nor Abbots in the generall name of Monkes And for the proofe thereof I brought neither Canon nor Author for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt but that learned Lawyers and Diuines doe affirme the same But now finding my Aduersary for want of reading learning or sincerity to make doubt thereof I haue brought as you haue seene to prooue the same both learned Lawyers and Diuines and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe who called and ended this Councell of Lateran wherein he declareth that he doth not intend in his commissions to comprehend vnder a generall clause greater and worthier persons when lesse worthie and lesse noble persons are expressed And therefore seeing that I haue now shewed him both learned Authours and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe to prooue that Bishops are not in penall lawes comprehended
sufficiently answered 46 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius for the confutation of my answeres to these examples if the Reader will be pleased after he hath read ouer this my Treatise wherein I confute this Doctour but onely to conferre my answeres with his Replies hee will easily perceiue how egregiously hee shuffleth and that he hath much adoe to excuse Cardinall Bellarmine from manifest improbability and bringeth no one argument which prooueth any one of my answeres to bee improbable and if hee desire to see this Doctours Replies more particularly answered I remit him likewise for this present to Maister Iohn Barclay to whom as yet no answere hath beene made in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmines answere to his father but especially to the Bishop of Rochester who although a Protestant yet out of Catholike Authours and Catholike grounds hath very cleerely and particularly confuted all these examples and what Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius if they bee two sundrie men haue brought to confirme the same 47 Besides that saith M. Fitzherbert Å¿ Pag. 184. nu 14. neither the Church nor yet Secular Princes doe vse to declare in their lawes from what authority the execution thereof shall proceede but it sufficeth that their authority to decree ordaine and execute their Lawes is sufficiently knowne and acknowledged by their subiects wherby it appeareth that Widdrington doth very idly require that the Councell of Lateran should haue declared that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie being a matter which they held to bee without all doubt or Controuersie 48 But as for Secular Princes it is not needefull for them to declare by what authoritie they make temporall lawes and ordaine or inflict temporall punishments for that no Catholike euer made doubt but that they had full authoritie to doe the same but seeing that it hath euer beene a Controuersie among Catholikes and very many Doctours doe affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments whensoeuer the Church doth inflict such punishments without declaring by what authoritie she doeth the same we may probably answere according to the grounds of these Doctours that shee doeth it not by her spirituall authoritie which can inflict no such punishments but by the authoritie license and consent of temporall Princes and therefore that we must certainly beleeue that the Councell of Lateran did ordaine the future deposition not of temporall Princes as this man faineth but of inferiour Land-lords Magistrates or Lords by her vndoubted Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same seeing that both Catholike Princes and subiects haue euer made a great doubt and controuersie concerning this point neither could the Fathers of that Councell bee ignorant heereof who both saw and felt what great contradiction and opposition both Philip and Otho t Pag. 184. nu 15. and the Princes of Germanie and their fauourers made against this pretended authoritie of the Pope to depose the Emperour and to dispose of temporall matters belonging to the Empire 49 And as for the consent of Princes saith Mr. Fitzherbert which Widdrington also requireth to Decrees concerning temporall matters I haue alreadie answered him touching that point and shewed u See Chap. 11. nu 7. 8. 9 s and see also my answere to the same as well by the example of the Apostles themselues as by the practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes that their consent is needelesse to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Decrees and that if the same were needefull all Christian Princes should stand bound to obey the Decrees of the Councell because being enacted by their generall consent in a generall Parliament of all Christendome it cannot bee repealed without another generall Councell of like authoritie So as thou seest good Reader that Widdringtons third answere is in euery thing defectiue and no lesse improbable then the former Neuerthelesse hee presumeth so much vpon the probabilitie thereof that hee vndertaketh to answere also a Reply which hee imagineth we will make to his last argument he should rather haue said last answer wherof I will examine the particulars in the next chap. 50 And I also in those places cited heere by my Aduersarie haue fully confuted his answeres and haue cleerely shewed that by no example of the Apostles nor any one practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes it can bee conuinced that the Apostles by their ordinarie power for of their extraordinarie and miraculous power I doe not now dispute or any Pope or Councell in the primitiue Church did inflict temporall punishments And whether a temporall law made in a generall assemblie or Parliament of all Christian Princes or confirmed by the generall consent of them all cannot bee repealed but by such another generall Assemblie or by the generall consent of them all I haue sufficiently declared aboue x Cap. 8. nu 26. seq out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez when I treated of the law of Nations Two things only may for this present be added thereunto The first is that no humane law either Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill doth binde vnlesse it bee approoued by the acceptance of the people as the common opinion of Diuines and Lawyers doeth affirme y See Disput Theol. c. 6. sec 3. nu 25. and that many Decrees of this Lateran Councell and namely this Decree which is now in question that euery temporall Officer Land-Lord or Lord when they come first to their Office or Landes must take an Oath to roote out heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction was neuer obserued or put in execution in this kingdome and in many other Kingdomes and Nations it is manifest for ought wee can gather by the relation of Histories 51 The second is that there is great difference to bee obserued betwixt temporall kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and consequently betwixt the generall assemblies or Parliaments of them both for that all Christians doe make one true proper and totall mysticall body or Common-wealth which is the Catholike Church and spirituall kingdome of Christ really vnited in spiritualls and subiect to one supreame visible head or spirituall Superiour thereof but all Christians doe not make one true and totall Ciuill body or Common-wealth really vnited in temporalls and subiect to one supreame visible head or temporall Prince thereof but they doe make diuers entire temporall kingdomes or Common-wealths so that throughout all the whole world there is but one true entire Catholike Church or mysticall body of Christ but there are many true entire temporall kingdomes and common-wealths From whence the iudicious Reader may easily gather the reason why a Decree made by a Generall Councell or spirituall Parliament can not be repealed but by
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
Princes was euer firmely belieued by the Church as an vndoubted point of faith but at the most as a probable opinion no Catholike man can be iustly impeached of heresie errour or temeritie as the aforesaid Conclusion of mine doth plainely conuince for maintaining the contrary doctrine And whether the instances arguments and answeres which I haue brought be weake friuolous or impertinent or Mr. Fitzh replies altogether vaine and fraudulent wherby he clearely discouereth both the weaknesse of his cause and also his manifest fraude and ignorance I remit to the iudgement of any indifferent Reader And thus much concerning his first obseruation 30 The other thing which I wish saith Mr. Fitzherbert l Pag. 204. nu 11. 12. to be noted is how Widdrington giueth sentence against himselfe as hauing incurred the note of errour or heresie in contemning to heare the voyce of the Church firmely beleeuing for if the Church had not firmely beleeued that the Pope hath power to depose Princes shee neither would nor could haue decreed in the Lateran Councell that Princes should bee deposed by the Pope for albeit shee doth and may in particular cases practise some things vpon a probable opinion when there is no Definition or Decree to the contrary yet it were most absurd and temerarious if not hereticall to say that shee euer made a generall Decree in a Councell touching either faith or manners but vpon a most certaine and assured ground and the reason is for that otherwise the Decrees of generall Councells should sometimes bee vncertaine as being grounded onely vpon a probable opinion yea all their Decrees might alwaies with some shew of reason bee impugned and reiected by any contentious heretike who might and would call the Decree in question and say that the same were onely probable as Widdrington doth in this case 31 Therefore seeing it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued by all Catholike Doctours See Bellar. de Concil l. 2. c. 2. 3. 4. Item Can. l. 5. de locis c. 5. Bannes 2ae 2ae q. 1. ar 10. dub 6. concl 2. that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the veritie of the holy Scriptures or may bee impugned or called in question by any Christian man it followeth euidently that all such Decrees are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions for if the grounds thereof were or might bee onely probable they might bee repugnant to the Scriptures and lawfully impugned or denyed by any man Whereupon it followeth that seeing the Lateran Councell hath for the speciall good of the Church decreed that Princes shall be deposed by the Pope in some cases the said Councell and consequently the Church doth firmely and assuredly beleeue and not thinke onely probably that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and therefore I conclude that Widdrington contemning and reiecting this beliefe of the Church is by his owne confession fallen into errour Luc. 19. or heresie so as I may well say to him with our Sauiour in the Gospell Ex ore tuo te iudicio serue nequam 32 But this obseruation of Mr. Fitzherbert is so childish not to say ridiculous that no Schoole-boy would argue in such a childish manner For what man that hath his wits about him would make this conclusion that his Aduersary by his own sentence grant confession is fallen into errour or heresie and to prooue the same bringeth two propositions whereof the one his Aduersary doth indeed very willingly grant but the other which is the maine difficultie betweene them he vtterly denyeth By the same manner of arguing I might also prooue that Mr. Fitzherbert is by his owne sentence grant and confession fallen into errour or heresie For hee graunteth that the Pope hath no other authority to depose Princes then that which was granted to S. Peter and his Successours by those wordes I will giue thee the keyes c. Whatsoeuer thou shalt lose c. Feede my sheepe or such like and that whosoeuer impugneth that which is decreed in the holy Scriptures is fallen into errour or heresie but in those and such like words of the holy Scriptures was onely granted to Saint Peter and his Successours authority to expell men from the Church of Christ not from temporall kingdomes to binde and loose with spirituall not with temporall bindings or loosings to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments therefore Mr. Fitzherbert contemning and reiecting the holy Scriptures is by his owne confession fallen into errour or heresie so as I may wel say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Gospel ex te ore tuo iudico serue nequam Now if I should haue argued in this manner against him he would quickely haue answered that albeit he grant the Maior proposition yet hee denieth the Minor and therefore cannot bee said to grant the conclusion which must bee inferred from the granting of both the premisses and for my goodly argument hee both would and might deseruedly haue giuen mee his vsuall absurd impertinent fond foolish and ridiculous nicknames 33. In this very like manner hee argueth against mee to prooue that by my owne sentence graunt and confession I am fallen into errour or heresie for contemning and reiecting the voyce of the Church in a generall Councell firmely beleeuing For although I graunt the Maior proposition to wit that whosoeuer contemneth to heare the voyce of the Church or of a General Councell firmely beleeuing or decreeing any doctrine as certaine and of faith is fallen into error or heresie yet I euer denyed the other proposition to wit that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did either Decree the deposition of Princes or firmely beleeue the doctrine thereof as certaine and of faith and therefore it cannot be rightly inferred that I graunt the conclusion which must be inferred from both the premisses for as the conclusion doth follow from both the premisses and not from one onely so he cannot be said to grant the conclusion who granteth not both the premisses or propositions but one onely And therefore those words of our Sauiour Exore tuo te iudico serue nequam may fitly be applied to himselfe who by his owne arguing sheweth himselfe to be a very ignorant fraudulent and slanderous man in charging me to bee fallen into errour or heresie by my owne grant and confession which euery Schoole-boy seeth to be most false 34 And as concerning that generall reason which heere hee bringeth why the Councell of Lateran must firmely and assuredly beleeue as certaine and of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to wit because it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued and taught by all Catholike Doctours that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the verity of the holy Scriptures or called in question by any Christian man and
Catholike Roman Church whereby hee professeth that if by ignorance hee haue failed in any thing which the Roman Church doth not approoue he doth also reprooue it condemne it and wisheth it to be held as not written let not this I say seduce thee or mooue thee to thinke that he teacheth Catholike doctrine concerning the matter now in question seeing that it is euident that all this is but a false luster and glosse cast vpon his counterfeite ware of purpose to deceiue thee 3 It is true all the bookes I haue written hitherto either in Latin or English I did submit to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church and in the first booke of all which I published in defence of the temporall right of Princes against Card. Bellarmines reasons whereby he pretended to demonstrate that it is not so much an opinion as an heresie to hold that the Pope hath no authority by the institution of Christ to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of temporals besides the submission thereof to the said Censure of the Catholike Romane Church I did also solemnely protest and call God to witnesse that neither through the spirit of flattery nor of contradiction but sincerely mooued with a vehement desire to finde out the truth in this difficult controuersie which so neerely concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar I did take vpon me the writing of that Apologie 4 And my third booke which is the Disputation of the Oath against which this man so greatly inueigheth I did not onely submit to the Censure of the said Catholike Romane Church protesting also that if either in that Disputation or elsewhere I had through ignorance written any thing which she did not approoue I also did disprooue it condemne it and would haue it for not written but also I did of set purpose dedicate it to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requesting him that considering we had diligently examined all the parts and parcels of the oath and yet could not finde any one thing among so many contrary to faith or saluation his Holinesse would be pleased in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall office after hee had duely considered all those obiections which we did propound vnto him for and against the Oath to make knowne vnto vs his poore and afflicted Catholikes one onely thing among so many which are so manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation as he had declared by his Breues protesting that if we could be assured of one onely thing contained in the Oath which is any way repugnant to faith or saluation wee would forthwith obey his declaratiue commaundement and would hazard our liues and all our fortunes in defence of the vndoubted Catholike faith 5 Now this vncharitable man notwithstanding all these my protestations and submissions will contrary to the commandement of Christ our Sauiour the knowne rules of charity and iustice iudge censure my inward thoughts which none but God and my owne conscience can know and boldly affirmeth that it is euident b Nu. 1. that all this is but a false luster and glosse cast vpon my counterfait ware of purpose to deceiue the Reader and that I am an hereticke disguised c Nu. 19. and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that all my pretences to bee a Catholike d Nu. 26. and my submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceeds from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes But God knoweth how wrongfully he belyeth me to whose iustice for the infinite wrong he hath done me I doe appeale and I make no doubt but that he will finde him a most iust Iudge and seuere reuenger either in this life or in the next or both vnlesse hee repent and satisfie mee in time for the great wrong he hath done me 6 But let vs heare the reasons which this vnconscionable man bringeth to colour this rash iudgement of his For if Widdrington saith he e Pa. 212. nu 2 so much respect and reuerence his Holinesse and the Romane Church as he pretendeth how chanceth it that vtterly reiecteth three Apostolicall Breues of his Holinesse vpon no better ground and reason but because his Holinesse hath beene ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and absurd 7 But albeit with all my heart and soule I doe greatly respect and reuerence the Popes Holinesse the Sea Apostolike the Romane Church and the Catholike Romane Church each of them in their due place and degree but not all of them with equall respect and reuerence for that no learned Catholike can deny but that betwixt all these a great difference is to be made neither are the errours misdemeanours or imperfections of Popes who being men and subiect to humane infirmities as others are to bee attributed to the Sea Apostolike or to the Roman Church although my ignorant Aduersary seemeth not only to make no distinction betwixt the Pope and the Sea Apostolike whereas if he will but reade S. Robert of Lincolne his life in Matthew Paris he may see what difference hee maketh betwixt Pope Innocent the fourth whom hee calleth Antichrist Mat. Paris in Henrico 3 o. pag. 843. and whose Breues as containing in them something which is hatefull to Christ our Sauiour detestable abhominable and very pernicious to mankind hee refused to obey and betwixt the most holy Sea Apostolike which hee saith can command no such detestable thing but also hee would make his Reader beleeue that I take the Roman Church and the Catholike Roman Church for all one whereas it is manifest that there is betwixt them almost as great difference as is betwixt the Kingdome of England and the Christian world or rather betwixt Rome and Christendome and also very many vertuous and learned Roman Catholikes doe not graunt that infallible authoritie to the Popes Holinesse or to the Roman Church which they grant to the Catholike Roman Church according to that saying of S. Hierome si authoâ—iâ—as quaeritur Hier. epist 85. ad Euangrium orbis maior est vrbe if authoritie bee demanded or sought for the world is greater then a Citie which sentence the Glosse vpon the Canon Legimus dist 93. citing and expounding saith Heere is an argument that the Decrees of a Councell doe preiudicate or goe before the Popes Decree if they contradict it 8 Neuerthelesse I doe also willingly acknowledge that I doe not so much respect and reuerence his Holinesse as to beleeue that all the commandements of Popes are iust and all their Breues and Decrees are grounded vpon infallible truth or that any Catholike is bound to obey his Holinesse declaratiue commandement when it is only grounded vpon a probable opinion which no man is bound to follow it being most euident that where there is no authoritie to command it is no irreuerence or vndutifull respect not to obey As likewise although all Subiects are bound to respect
Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome for of Fa. Parsons misinforming his Holinesse I made no mention at all in that answere but onely of his vrging his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the oath My words were these c Num. 52. Moreouer that his Holinesse was perswaded that in this oath is denied his spirituall authority to inflict Censures is plainely gathered by a letter of Fa. Parsons who did greatly vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues as both some Iesuites here with vs doe freely confesse and also no man who knoweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in his daies can make any doubt thereof This therefore is the true copie of that letter c. About some foure o fiue moneths agoe it was consulted by seauen or eight of the learnedst Diuines that could bee chosen who gaue their iudgement of it Their reasons are many but all reduced to this that the Popes authority in chastising Princes vpon a iust cause is de fide and consequently cannot bee denied when it is called into controuersie without denying of our faith nor that the Pope or any other authoritie can dispense in this c. 50 Now Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale this part of the letter whereby it is manifest that the Diuines of Rome did suppose that the Popes authority to punish Princes and consequently to excommunicate and to inflict spirituall Censures is denied in the oath for otherwise as I shewed in that place d Num. 57. they had argued very vitiously against the knowne rules of Logicke from a particular to inferre an vniuersall as thus The Pope cannot chastice Princes by taking away their liues or dominions therefore the Pope cannot chastise Princes as though the inflicting of spirituall Censures and the denouncing of anathema Aug. lib. 1. contra aduers leg prophet cap. 7. which according to Saint Augustine is more horrible then any corporall death were not to be accounted a chasticing of Princes We grant therefore that the Pope may chastice Princes by vsing Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not denied in the oath but we vtterly deny that to depriue Princes of their dominions or liues are to be ranked among spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures Thus I argued in that place from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter all which my fraudulent Aduersary thought best for his purpose to conceale and to skip ouer to the other part of the letter thinking from thence to take some colourable argument to prooue both that Fa. Parsons did not perswade and draw his Holinesse to the publication of his Breue also that the inference I made frō thence to wit that his Holinesse was perswaded that his authority to inflict Censures is denied in the oath is sorsooth improbable and impertinent wherein as you shall see he continueth still his ancient fraude and falsitie 51 For first I did not intend to prooue by Fa. Parsons letter or by his conference with his Holinesse that he vrged and perswaded his Holinesse to forbid the taking of the oath two other reasons I brought here to confirme the same wich Mr. Fitzherbert after his vsuall manner concealeth the one that some Iesuites heere in England did freely confesse the same the other that no man who konweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in Fa. Parsons time can make any doubt thereof To which may be added two other the first that Mr. Nicholas Fitzherbert whose letter is yet to be seene did send word to a friend of his that Fa. Parsons laboured much to haue the oath forbidden the second that the Prouinciall of the Iesuites at that time who is yet liuing did boast to diuers persons that he would cause to be reuersed what Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest had concluded concerning the lawfulnesse of the oath and would procure a Breue from his Holinesse to forbid all Catholikes to take the oath and which with very great expedition as I signified in my Epistle Dedicatory to his Holinesse was accordingly performed all which are to any man of iudgement very probable coniectures if not morall certainties that Fa. Parsons did vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the taking of the oath But howsoeuer it be it is not much materiall to my second answere or reason which is that his Holinesse was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures and consequently his spirituall supremacy is plainly denied in the oath whether Fa. Parsons did vrge and incite his Holinesse to forbid the oath or no. 52 Besides for the confirmation of my second answere those words of the Breue for that it containeth many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation and also his Holinesse answere to Fa. Parsons that he could not hold them for Catholikes who seemed to incline to the taking of the oath are very considerable for that before these our miserable times wherein so many new fangled Doctours are ready to coyne new articles of faith and to taxe with such facilitie their Catholike brethren of errour and heresie that will not foorth with approoue their nouelties it was neuer in the Church of God accounted an heresie to deny the Popes authoirty to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments neither hath any Catholike Author who writeth of heresies or Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe relating the errours of Marsilius of Padua ranked him among heretickes for denying the Popes power to depose Princes And very many Catholike Doctours with Iacobus Almaine who haue not therefore beene branded by any man with any note of heresie or errour doe resolutely affirme that the authoritie of the Church doth not extend by the institution of Christ to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods much lesse of kingdomes but onely of spirituall Censures And Fa. Suarez himselfe dare not auouch Suarez l. 6. c. 1. that the Popes spirituall authority is plainly and manifestly but onely couertly denied in the oath and this also he gathereth from many farre fetcht consequences all which I haue cleerely answered in my Appendix against him And therefore from the aforesaid words of his Holinesse that he could not take those Priests for Catholikes that inclined to the taking of the oath it may very probably be included that he was fully perswaded that not onely his authority to depose Princes but also his power to excommmicate and to binde and loose in generall as Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome then conceiued is plainly denied in the Oath 53 Secondly whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that hee can testifie vpon his owne knowledge that Fa. Parsons was so farre from perswading or drawing his Holinesse to the resolution which hee tooke concerning the publication of his Breue that he sought to induce him to some other course propounding meanes of mitigation c. I will not now contend about the
plainely conuince 71 To this purpose saith hee r Pag. 219. nu 15. 16. it is to bee noted how peremptorily and arrogantly hee writeth to his Holinesse saying that if hee condemne his bookes or writings as hereticall or erroneous vpon the false informations of his Aduersaries hee leaueth it to the iudgement of his Holinesse and all the Christian world how great an iniurie hee shall doe him and what a great occasion hee shall giue thereby to the Aduersaries to Catholike veritie So Widdrington Wherein you see hee doth not promise his Holinesse to retract or reforme his writings and doctrine in case that hee doe condemne them but anticipateth the iudgement of his Holinesse with a protestation of wrong and of occasion of great scandall insinuating also further that the whole Christian world will iustifie him therein in which respect hee confidently leaueth his cause to the iudgement thereof meaning by the Christian world as may well bee coniectured some generall Councell whereto he meaneth to appeale Disp Theol. cap. 3. nu 8. cap. 10. nu 23. and therfore he teacheth afterwards that it is a probable opinion that the Pope may erre in any definition of his if it bee not approoued by a generall Councell so as he sheweth euidently what starting hole he hath found alreadie to escape away from the Censures of the Sea Apostolike to wit by appealing from the Pope to a generall Councell as that miserable man his fellow Sheldon did all Apostataes and heretikes are wont to doe at their first breach and disunion from the Church 72 Heere Mr. Fitzherbert to confirme his rash and vncharitable iudgement of mee that I am no good Catholike but an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike taxeth mee of diuers things wherein also hee plainely discouereth his great want both of learning and charitie For first no man of iudgement can deny but that the aforesaide conditionall words which I vsed to his Holinesse are very true to wit that if hee should condemne my bookes as hereticall or erroneous which doe sincerely handle this dangerous difficult and great controuersie Azorius tom 2 l. 12. cap. 5. q. 8. which euer hath beene saith Fa. Azor betwixt the Bishops of Rome on the one side and Emperours and Kings on the other touching the Popes power to depriue them of their kingdomes vpon the false informations of my Aduersaries he should both greatly wrong me also giue occasio of great scandal to the Aduersaries of the Catholike faith Now seeing that as I there signified I haue clearely conuinced that my Aduersaries and especially Card. Bell. masked vnder the name of D. Schulckenius hath most shamefully corrupted my words misconstrued my meaning and slanderously accused mee of errour and heresie what shew of arrogancie can any prudent man imagine it to bee to signifie to his Holinesse with humble and decent words and especially in the defence of my innocencie the plaine and manifest trueth and to request his Holinesse not to be mislead in a matter of such importance by the bad informations of my Aduersaries nor to trust ouermuch to their learning and conscience in this case wherein they haue so fowly abused mee and deluded also his Holinesse and withall to admonish or forewarne him that if he should bee thus mislead all the Christian world would plainely see that it would bee both an infinite wrong to mee and an occasion of great scandall to the Aduersaries of the Catholike Religion 73 Secondly Mr. Fitzherberts interpretation of those my words I leaue to the iudgement of all the Christian world to wit that by the Christian world I vnderstand some generall Councell whereto I meant to appeale is a very false and slanderous coniecture For albeit I am indeede of opinion and I thinke that no man of learning reading or iudgement can in his heart bee of the contrarie whatsoeuer in outward shew to speake perchance ad Placebo or for other respects hee may pretend that it is neither heresie errour or temeritie but a doctrine truely probable that the Pope may erre in his definitions if hee define without a generall Councell and that a generall Councell is aboue a true and vndoubted Pope yet by all the Christian world I did not vnderstand any generall Councell neither by those words did I meane as God is my witnesse to appeale to a generall Councell if the Pope vpon the falfe informations of my Aduersaries should condemne my bookes knowing it to bee in vaine for the redresse of any present iniurie to appeale to that which is not and God knoweth when it will be although if the Councell were actually assembled I account it no arrogancie for any man that is wronged by his Holinesse vpon the false suggestions and informations of his potent Aduersaries to appeale thereunto But by all the Christian world I vnderstood all Christian men whatsoeuer whether Clerkes or Laikes Princes or subiects Prelates or priuate men friends or foes and my only meaning was that those words which I spake to his Holinesse with the aforesaid condition are so plainly and euidently true that I durst therein appeale to the iudgment and conscience of any Christian man whatsoeuer yea and of my learned Aduersaries themselues 74 But I doe not promise his Holinesse saith Mr. Fitzherbert to retract and reforme my writings in case that hee condemne them but I anticipate the iudgement of his Holinesse with a protestation of wrong and of occasion of great scandall True it is that I did declare to his Holinesse and admonish him in that place but not anticipate his iudgement how shamefully Cardinall Bellarmine had wronged mee in his publike writings most falsly accusing mee of errour and heresie and vpon what weake and sophisticall grounds hee laboured to coine a new article of faith in a matter which so meerely concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar humbly requesting his Holinesse that he would not giue credit to the false informations of my Aduersaries and especiall of Cardinall Bellarmine nor be ouer confident in his learning or conscience but that hee would bee pleased to examine the whole cause himselfe and not to giue iudgement against mee or censure my bookes vpon the false reports of my accusers and aduersaries otherwise the whole world would plainely see what great wrong is done to me and what great occasion of scandall would thereby arise to the Aduersaries of the Catholike faith and Religion Now what indifferent man that will speake without partialitie can iustly accuse him as arrogant presumptuous or to anticipate the sentence of the Iudge who being falsly accused of most heinous crimes by one who is both his accuser and witnesse against him and also greatly fauoured and esteemed by the Iudge doth in defence of his innocency plainely and modestly declare in particular to the Iudge how fowly and shamefully he is slandered desiring him not to giue sentence against him vpon such false informations but that he
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