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
who hath true and lawfull right to the kingdome albeit he be not in possession thereof or for a King de facto and who doth actually reigne abstracting from that he doth reigne de iure by right and lawfully or by vsurpation Now I granted that Athalia was Queene de facto and in possession of the kingdome for sixe yeeres together but I denyed that shee was Queene de iure and that the kingdome did belong to her by right but to Ioas the rightfull heire as being the onely sonne then liuing of Ochozias King of Iuda and that therefore Ioiada did not create or institute Ioas King that is giue him a true right to reigne which he had not before for that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did reside in Ioas by right of inheritance and succession instantly vpon the death of his eldest brethren and this much the aforesaid words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse doe euidently conuince Wherefore that which this Doctour sayth concerning the couenant of the people with the King is vnderstood of the future King which a little after was to be instituted is also equiuocall for if he vnderstand that Ioas was not then King de facto but a little after by the procurement of Ioiada was made and instituted King de facto that is was put in possession of the kingdome and did actually reigne this was not the controuersie betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine for I neuer denyed but did alwaies in expresse words grant that Ioiada with the assent of the Princes and people did put Ioas in possession of his kingdome which Athalia had vniusty kept from him and in this sense Ioas who before was King de iure was afterwards by Ioiada created and instituted King de facto But if he meane that Ioas was not then King de iure and that the kingdome did not by right of inheritance and by the ordinance of almightie God belong to him this I say is plainely against the words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse Ecce filius Regis c. Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid that is behold the Kings sonne to whom therefore the right to the kingdome by inheritance doth belong although hee doth not actually reigne for that Athalia contrarie to the commandement of God who gaue the kingdome to the sonnes of Dauid hath tyrannically kept it from him shall reigne that is shall be King de facto and actually reigne according as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid 75 But the words of the Glosse are more plaine for he calleth Ioas not onely the true due or rightfull King but also the true due or rightfull heire Neither can this Doctour deny that Ioas was presently after the death of all his brethren the onely sonne of King Ochozias and consequently the true and onely heire to the kingdome of Iuda and therefore the true King de iure or by right For he can not be so ignorant as not to know that the heire to a kingdome hath presently after the death of his father all the right which his father deceased had to the kingdome It is manifest saith the rule of the law q ff de regulis iuris regula 59 approoued by all lawyers that an heire hath the same power and right which the deceased had and againe r Ibidem regula 62. Inheritance is no other thing then a succeeding to all the right which the deceased had Wherefore the words and sense of the Glosse are plaine for the words are not Here is described the institution of the true King but of the true heire whom he called before the due or rightfull heire Now it is manifest that Ioiada did not make or institute Ioas the true and rightfull heire to the kingdome of Iuda but he was made and instituted the rightfull heire by succession and by the ordinance of almightie God for that he was the onely sonne and heire suruiuing of the deceased King Ochozias And therefore those words of this Doctour Assuredly Ioas was not King before although he was the Kings sonne if he meane that he was not King de iure before are very vntrue but rather contrariwise I inferre that assuredly Ioas was King de iure before because he was the Kings sonne to whom by succession and inheritance the kingdome of Iuda did by right and by the ordinance of almightie God belong and those words of holy Scripture Behold the Kings sonne c. doe conuince as much 76 But he that is King by succession sayth this Doctour ought not to be instituted or made but to be declared neither doth he need the assent of the Princes It is true that he who is King de iure and by succession ought not to be instituted or made King de iure neither needeth he the consent of the Princes to make him King de iure But he that is King onely de iure and by succession but not King de facto and by possession ought to be instituted or made King de facto and to this is necessarie the assent and aide of the Princes and people Wherefore as this word to depose is equiuocall and may be taken either for to depriue one of his right or to put him out of possession of the thing he holdeth so also to institute create or make a King or heire is equiuocall and may be taken either for to giue one a right to a kingdome or inheritance which right he had not before or to put him in possession of the kingdome or inheritance whether he hath right thereunto or no. And therefore as well obserueth Gregorius Tholosanus Å¿ In Syntagin Iuâ—is lib. 17. cap. 16. nu 4. because the instituting or giuing of a benefice and the like may be said of a Dukedome Princedome Kingdome or inheritance is sometimes effected by giuing the possession or as it is commonly said by installing or inuesting therefore to institute is sometimes taken for to install or inuest as by deliuering some corporall thing as a ring a crowne a scepter c. by which the real and actuall possession is giuen apprehended or induced cap. ad haec de officio Archidiaconi § 1o. de consuetudine recti feudi lib. 2. de feudis tit 33. And in this sense the Glosse did vnderstand the word institution to wit for inuesting installing or putting Ioas into possession of his kingdome or which is all one making him King de facto For it is too too manifest that he was before the rightfull heire and King by succession and not then made or instituted the rightfull heire by the election of Ioiada and of Princes 77 Wherefore the last inference which this Doctour maketh in these words Therefore Ioiada did institute the King and deposed the Queene c. is very true if he meane that he did constitute the King de facto or put him in possession of
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
ROGER WIDDRINGTONS Last REIOYNDER TO Mr. THOMAS FITZ-HERBERTS REPLY CONCERNING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE And the POPES power to depose PRINCES Wherein all his arguments taken from the Lawes of God in the old and new Testament of Nature of Nations from the Canon and Ciuill Law and from the Popes Breues condemning the Oath and the Cardinalls Decree forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes are answered Also many Replies and Instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered PROVERBS 12. The lip of truth shall be stable for euer but he that is an hasty witnesse frameth a tongue of lying IHS Permissu Superiorum 1619. ⧠The CONTENTS of this TREATISE THE Preface to the Reader wherein it is shewed first how dangerous and pernitious a thing it is vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike Religion and to the Sea Apostolike to coyne teach and publish by fraude and violence false articles of Catholike faith especially in things which doe greatly derogate from the temporall Soueraignty of absolute Princes Secondly how exceedingly Widdringtons Aduersaries doe preiudice themselues and their cause by handling this controuersie concerning the Oath of Allegiance and the Popes power to depose Princes in such a fraudulent vncharitable and slanderous manner and in not permitting learned Catholikes to whom the charge of soules is committed and who ought alwaies to bee ready to satisfie euery one that asketh them a reason of their Catholike faith to try and examine by the true touchstone of Catholike faith and the vndoubted principles of Catholike Religion whether the faith which they pretend to bee Catholike bee a false and forged Catholike faith or no Thirdly what is Widdringtons chiefe drift in making this Reioynder and in continuing still to handle this controuersie CHAP. I. Widdrington freeth himselfe of two fraudes whereof he is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe againe vp his Aduersary Secondly hee discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds Thirdly he plainly sheweth that he hath answeared probably and like a good Catholike CHAP II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersary taken from the rule of the law The accessory followeth the principall is confirmed Secondly Two Instances which he brought against that rule are prooued to be sound and sufficient Thirdly that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue Secular iudgements c. is at large examined CHAP. III. Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime Hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed Secondly the foure Instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polony are confuted CHAP. IIII. Widdringtons interpretation of that clause of the Oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to bee sound and sufficient and is cleered from all absurditie and contradiction euen by M. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike CHAP. V. Widdringtons answeres to all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the olde and new Testament are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrary to his owne doctrine SEC 1. First all the authorities which are brought out of the old law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and other learned Diuines Secondly the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular SEC 2. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the olde law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authority of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastice and depose Kings is disprooued Secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered Thirdly it is shewed that the authority of S. Chrysostome brought by M. Fitzherbert to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authority he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth Saint Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine SEC 3. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the verity is prooued to make against himselfe Secondly those words of our Sauiour Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted Common-wealth are satisfied and Doctor Schulckenius Reply is proued to be fraudulent and insufficient Thirdly the authoritie of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were readie to reuenge all disobedience is answered M. Fitzherberts fraud in alledging the authority of S. Augustine is plainely discouered and the Conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be false and fraudulent CHAP. VI. M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ Secondly that Religious Priests cannot by the law of Nature punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the law of Nature the ciuill societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers Replies of M. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted CHAP. VII 1. Certaine places of the old and new Testament are explained 2. D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere Widdrington made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisburie grounded thereon and fourthly other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias
Chapter 2 To begin therefore with his second accusation whereas in the beginning of my answere to the substance of M. Fitzherberts discourse I affirmed a Disâ—â—â—â—ol in 〈…〉 â—ect 〈◊〉 that first of all he supposeth that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes if they deserue it and the good of the Church and the saluation of soules doe necessarily require it is deniâ—d in this oath whereupon hee concludeth afterwards that although the oath doth not expressely affirme that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the English Church nor in plaine words deny the Pope so to be yet it supposeth and implieth both the one and the other and thereupon denyeth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince and howsoeuer the matter may bee otherwise coloured it is euident that the true reason why the said authoritie of the Pope is impugned by the oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is held to bee no way subiect to the Pope yea and to bee himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England This being presupposed hee goeth about to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the law of God of Nature of Nations Canon and Ciuill c. 3 Now Mr. Fitzherbert doeth bouldly but vntruely affirme that I haue vsed herein two fraudes the one in the relation of his wordes the other in the vse and application of them For albeit saith hee b Chap. 1. nu 7 Widdrington alleadgeth them truely and doth not falsifie my text yet hee relateth them in such sort that his Reader must needes conceiue that I lay them downe in the very beginning of my Discourse for the onely foundation and ground of all my building and therefore as soone as he hath cited them he saith hoc posito probare contendit c. this being supposed hee laboureth to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the Diuine and Naturall law to the law of Nations Ciuill and Canon So hee and then hee proceedeth to the abridgement of all my Discourse beginning with the law of God in the olde Testament and so goeth on with the rest and impugneth my supposition as the onely foundation of all my Discourse and arguments 4. But the trueth is hee findeth those words of mine in the 66. page of my Supplement as it may appeare by his owne quotation thereof after I haue discoursed of the law of God in the old and new Testament and of the lawes of Nature and Nations and of the Ciuill law in the conclusion whereof I haue those words referring them to the Ciuill law onely for hauing prooued that the said law confirmeth and establisheth the Popes supremacie I inferred that it cannot fauour and much lesse enioyne and iustifie the oath for two reasons the one because the said oath is in part grounded vpon the beliefe that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the Church of God in England and no way subiect to the Pope which is repugnant to the Ciuill law and the other because the Ciuill law acknowledging the subiection of temporall Princes to the Pope in matters belonging to their soules and to the good of the Church doth by a necessarie consequent acknowledge that they may bee punished by him temporally in their persons and states where the good of soules and the seruice of God doeth require it according to the rule of the law Accossorium sequitur principale the accessorie followeth the principall Then I say I argued in the place which he citeth and I remitted my Reader for the confirmation of this second reason to a more ample Discourse thereof before in the same chapter c Nu 66. 56. Now then it appeareth as I haue said that hee hath dealt fraudulently with me two wayes the one in referring my supposition to all the lawes whereof I treated whereas I referred the same expresly and only to the Ciuill law the other c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 5 But truly I cannot but wonder that this my Aduersarie should at the very first beginning of his Reply be so inconsiderate as in wrongfully accusing me of fraude to deale so vntruly and fraudulently himselfe which could not but greatly empaire his credit with the â—udicious Reader and cause him to be iealous of his sinceritie in the rest of his Replyes when at the very first entrance hee should finde in him such fraudulent proceeding For that which I affirmed is very true and I meruaile that Mr. Fitzherbert doth not blush to deny the same to wit that hee did first of all that is at the very first beginning of his Discourse in the sixt page of his Supplement before hee began to prooue the oath to bee repugnant to any law Diuine or Humane suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes if they deserue it and the good of the Church and the saluation of soules doe necessarily require it is denied in this oath For these be his expresse words in the sixt page and ninth number of his Supplement 6 Therefore I thinke good to let him vnderstand heere that my meaning is not to contradict any article of the oath that concerneth meerely Ciuill obedience to our Soueraigne but such clauses only as doe either directly or indirectly preiudice the authoritie of our spirituall supreame Pastour and namely those which doe exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope when iust occasion shall be giuen by them and the necessitie of the Church and the good of soules require it to which purpose I will prooue marke well these words that this new oath in respect of such clauses is repugnant to all lawes Humane and Diuine and therefore iustly condemned by his Holinesse and refused by Catholikes First then I will speake of the law of God c. So he 7 Wherefore it is apparant that Mr. Fitzherbert in the very beginning of his Discourse referreth his aforesaid supposition to all lawes both Humane and Diuine and yet now to taxe mee of fraude hee doth not blush to say that I haue dealt fraudulently with him in referring his aforesaide supposition to all the lawes whereof hee treateth whereas saith he hee referred the same expresly and onely to the Ciuill law Which errour of his I would not willingly haue construed in the worser sense but attribute it only to his obliuion and forgetfulnesse of what he himselfe had written in the beginning of his Discourse and not to any fraude in him but that my wordes which hee himselfe doth relate are so plaine that he cannot bee excused either from manifest fraude or from so palpable an errour which no man of vnderstanding can scarcely commit For marke my words which he himselfe setteth downe First of all he M. Fitz. supposeth that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed in this oath wherupon afterwards to wit in the 66. page as it is euident by my quotation hee concludeth that although the oath doth not expresly affirme
it is denied in this oath but supposeth it as being graunted or knowen of it selfe 13 Whereby it is apparant that I am free from all fraude in this point and that my Aduersarie cannot bee excused from fraudulent proceeding both for wrongfully accusing mee of fraude and also for taking vpon him in the beginning of his Discourse to impugne the oath as being repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for that it containeth a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes and yet not bringing any one argument to prooue that his power to excommunicate is denyed therein but supposing it as knowne or granted and cunningly passing ouer to his power to depose which considering It hath euer beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor f Tom. 2. l. 11. cap. 5. q. 8. betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one part and the Bishops of Rome on the other and the Schoolemen saith Trithemius g In Chronico Monast Hirsaug ad annum 1106. doe contend about the same it is no hard matter for a man of meane Theologicall learning to scrape together as Mr. Fitzherbert hath done out of so many Authors who haue written in fauour of the Popes power to depose Princes some colourable arguments to prooue the same all which neuerthelesse haue beene heeretofore by mee and others very cleerely answered 14 Considering therefore that neither his Maiestie did intend to deny in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate him although the lower house of Parliament as his Maiesty himselfe affirmeth h In his Premonition p. 9. at the first framing thereof made it to containe as much which hee forced them to reforme neither is there any one clause in the oath from which it may bee gathered that the saide power to excommunicate is denied therein neither did my Aduersary bring any one argument or shew of an argument to prooue the same although in the very beginning of his Discourse hee promiseth to prooue that the oath in respect of this clause is repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for this cause I vsed these words which now my Aduersary carpeth at That it is a wonder that learned men do not blush to affirme with so great confidence that to be his Maiesties meaning which hee himselfe in publike writings doth expresly professe not to be his meaning and to inculcate so often and so coldly without any solide proofe that very argument concerning the deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate which both by his Maiestie and many others hath beene so often very soundly confuted 15 Now Mr. Fitzherbert taketh great exceptions against these wordes and groundeth vpon them his third accusation that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike Whereto I answere first saith hee i Nu. 14. concerning his vaine bragge of the sound confutation of our argument that seeing the same hath no other ground or proofe heere but his owne word and idle affirmation it deserueth no other answere for this place but a flat deniall But I might likewise returne his owne answere of his vaine brag and idle affirmation to those words of his k Nu. 10. 11. 12. That the oath implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacy and that hee and others haue amply prooued that whosoeuer abiureth the Popes power to depose Princes doth consequently abiure his spirituall authoritie yet I will abstaine from such bitter termes and whether it bee a vaine bragge of my owne and an idle affirmation or rather a very true assertion that their argument concerning the deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate whereof in that place I did onely speake hath beene sufficiently confuted or no the Reader by my answeres may easily perceiue 16 For Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Lessius Gretzer and this my Aduersary doe affirme the oath to be vnlawfull and to deny the Popes spirituall authoritie for that it denieth his power to excommunicate which all Catholikes graunt to bee included in his spirituall Primacy That his power to excommunicate is denied in this oath Fa. Gretzer and my Aduersarie doe suppose as manifest neither doe they bring any one argument for the proofe thereof and therefore their assertion or rather supposition may with a meere deniall bee as easily confuted Cardinall Bellarmine also at the first did barely without any proofe but onely by the way of an interrogation affirme or rather suppose the same And being taxed by his Maiestie of falshood for affirming so boldly That the Popes power to excommunicate are hereticall Kings is plainly denied in the oath seeing that this point converning the Popes power to excommunicate was in this oath purposely declined by his Maiesty yet Cardinall Bellarmine afterwards in his Apologie l Cap. 15. bringeth no other proofe for cleering himselfe of that imputation then which in effect hee had brought before 17 That I did truely affirme saith he that the Popes power to excommunicate euen hereticall Kings is denied in that forme of oath it is manifest by those wordes of the oath Also I doe sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of Excommunication or depriuation made or granted or to bee made or granted by the Pope or his Successours c. I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie his Heires and Successours But whosoeuer sweareth that he will obey an hereticall King notwithstanding the Popes excommunication doth not hee together sweare that he acknowledgeth not in the Pope power to excommunicate hereticall Kings for otherwise it were not an oath but sacriledge to sweare that hee will not obey the sentence of Excommunication made by the Pope against an hereticall King if he should beleeue that the Pope hath power to excommunicate hereticall Kings 18 To this argument I gaue two answeres m In Disput Theol. cap. 4. sect 1. The first was that a Catholike man either terrified with feare or mooued for hope of gaine may sweare that he will not obey a iust Excommunication and by so swearing commit sacriledge who neuerthelesse doth beleeue that the Pope hath power to excommunicate And therefore from those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. I will beare true allegiance to his Maiestie c. or to speake more plainly from these words notwithstanding aiust Excommunication I will not obey it it cannot bee rightly inferred that I therefore deny the Popes power to excommunicate But whosoeuer sweareth in that manner saith Cardinall Bellarmine either denyeth the power to excommunicate or committeth sacriledge Be it so But if this second were freely granted him this neuerthelesse being granted I cannot in any wise perceiue that to bee true which hee before did absolutely and without any disiunction affirme In this branch of the oath the Popes power to excommunicate hereticall Kings is plainly denied 19 My second and principall answere was the very same in effect which his Maiestie before had giuen to wit that by swearing the foresayde
euery odious argument although it be neuer so good and conuincing must needs proceed from malice I confesse indeed that this doctrine concerning the killing of Christian Princes is odious abominable false scandalous neuer taught in the Church of God before these later yeeres and which all good subiects ought with all their hearts to detest and abhorre and Princes more narrowly to looke vnto and whether this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Christian Princes be a point of faith from whence such an odious scandalous and detestable doctrine doth necessarily follow I hope all good Catholikes and true hearted subiects will heereafter more diligently consider 71 And how true it is sayth my Aduersarie that the Pope hath power ouer the life of any Christian with the circumstances and limitations before mentioned I feare me my Aduersarie Widdrington might finde to his cost if he were here at Rome and would not recant his doctrine euen in this point to wit that the Church can not inflict corporall and temporall punishment whereby he impugneth c. But first that the Pope hath power at Rome ouer the liues of those who are his temporall subiects no man calleth in question for that he is now the temporall Prince of Rome But this prooueth not that the Pope as he is Pope and by vertue of his spirituall power hath authoritie to put any man to death If my Aduersarie could bring but one example that the Pope before he was a temporall Prince and when the Citie of Rome was subiect in temporals to the Roman Grecian French or German Emperours did by vertue of his spirituall power put any man to death then he should say something to the purpose if the facts and examples of Popes were a sufficient argument to prooue their right and authoritie 72 Secondly although it be true that the Church by vertue of her spirituall power hath authoritie to command impose or enioyne corporall and temporall punishments as I haue often said and the ancient and generall practise of the Church doth confirme the same yet that Ecclesiasticall authoritie is by the institution of Christ extended to the disposing of temporals or to the inflicting of corporall and temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment very many Doctours with Iacobus Almaine Almainus in libro de Dominio naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico in probatione secundae conclusionis as I haue often said doe expresly deny neither hath the contrarie as yet by any approoued practise and custome of the Church or by any other conuincing argument bene sufficiently prooued and what my Aduersarie doth particularly bring to that purpose from the Ecclesiasticall Canons and decrees of any Councell or Pope and from the late Councell of Trent you shall see in those places where he promiseth to shew it more particularly 73 In the meane time to conclude this Chapter with my Aduersarie he is also to vnderstand that albeit I doe graunt the body to be subordinate and subiect to the soule and that all corporall and temporall things are to serue spirituall things in that manner as I haue at large declared in the second part and in the beginning of the next chapter will briefly insinuate againe and therefore to be commanded by the supreme spirituall Pastour in order to spirituall good yet with good reason I did deny the consequence of his argument to wit that for as much as the accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that hath power ouer the soule and all other spirituall things hath power also ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians when the good of soules and of the whole Church doth necessarily require it if he vnderstand as it is cleere he doth of a power not onely to commaund enioyne or impose but also to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments for that temporall states and bodily goods are not accessorie to the spirituall good of the soule and of the Church as accessorie is and ought to be taken in that maxime because the spirituall good of soules and of the Church may bee without such temporall goods and states yea and in euery particular man perchance better without them then with them Neither is it necessarily required to the good of soules or of the whole Church that the Pope haue power to dispose of the temporall goods states or bodies either of Christian Princes or subiects and therefore the Reader may also well coniecture what he is to expect from my Aduersarie in the rest of his Replies when in this where he maketh a shew to haue so great aduantage against my answere that hee feareth not to call it friuolous impertinent foolish ridiculous and contrary to my owne doctrine yet all his exceptions are so improbable that his virulent speeches might very truely if Christian modestie and charitie would permit be retorted backe vpon himselfe CHAP. III. Wherein Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed and the foure instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Also Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polonie are confuted Mr. Fitzherbert in his third Chapter proceedeth with the like bitternesse and yet with as little probabilitie as hee did in the former For after I had made two instances against his argument drawne from that rule of the Law The accessory followeth the principall I brought foure instances against another like consequence of Fa. Lâ—ssius taken from another maxime The like argument said I a In Admonia nu 15. Fa. Lessius doth vrge The Pope saith he hath power to excommunicate Kings and therefore he hath also power to depose them because hee that hath power to inflict a greater punishmeÌ„t hath also power to inflict a lesse We might also conclude thus if it were lawfull to transcend from one thing to another of a diuers kinde and nature The Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings therefore also to kill them because he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse A man hath power to vnderstand therefore also to flye A priuate Priest hath power to absolue from sinnes therefore also from debts He hath power by force of the Sacraments to giue the kingdome of heauen therefore also to giue an earthly kingdome Are not these and such like goodly arguments to perswade English Catholikes to cast away prodigally all their goods and to deny their allegiance to their Prince Thus I argued in that place 2 Now my Aduersarie after he had repeated my words replieth against these instances in this manner b Nu. 1. 2. seq Thus saith Widdrington scoffing and cogging as you see
to doe God good seruice will be Pharisaicall sinfull and inexcusable and therefore I hope they will be wiser and not suffer themselues to bee carried away hoodwinkt with blinde obedience which is most dangerous when their obedience to man may be a disobedience to God but that they will alwaies remember that golden sentence of our Sauiour Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and the things that are Gods to God CHAP. IIII. Wherein Widdringtons Interpretation of that clause of the oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to be sound and sufficient and is cleared from all absurditie and contradiction euen by Mr. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike ALl that Mr Fitzherbert obiecteth in this Chapter I haue aboue in the end of the second part of this Treatise fully and verbatim already confuted and therefore I thinke it superfluous to repeate here the same againe CHAP. V. Wherein Widdringtons answeres to all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the old Testament and also in the new are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrarie to his owne doctrine BEcause this Chapter will be somwhat longer then the rest for that my Aduersarie hath scraped here together many authorities out of the law of God especially in the old Testament to prooue that the spirituall power not onely in the new law but also in the old hath euer been the supreme power on earth and might chastise Princes temporally and not onely command impose and enioyne temporall penalties but also dispose of temporals and inflict temporall punishments I thinke it not amisse to diuide it into three parts or sections In the first I will treate especially of those authorities which he hath brought out of the olde law before the institution of the Kings of Israel In the second I will confute those examples which he alledgeth out of the said olde Testament since the institution of those Kings and in the third I will examine those texts of holy Scripture which he hath taken out of the new Testament SECT I. Wherein all the authorities which are brought out of the olde law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and other learned Diuines also the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular FIrst therefore Mr. Fitzherbert in his fift chapter pretendeth to prooue that Widdringtons answere to his arguments deduced from the law of God is confuted by the expresse words and text of the Supplement and prooued to be not onely improbable but also fraudulent in that he dissembleth the whole substance and pith of Mr. Fitzherberts discourse for so is the title of his fift Chapter and then he proceedeth thus My Aduersarie Widdrington hauing trifled as you haue heard in the precedent Chapters goeth forward no lesse impertinently in these words Quarto si quis c. Fourthly if a man doe attentiuely read ouer Mr. Fitzherberts discourse he shall most clearely see that he hath effectually prooued nothing else out of the Law either of God or of Nature but that the temporall power in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall is subiect to the spirituall power so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall manner of correction and not temporall So Widdrington 2 Wherein he seemeth to acknowledge as you see that I haue effectually prooued by the law of God and Nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall so farre forth as concerneth the authoritie to command though not to punish temporally meaning that the spirituall power may command temporal and corporall things so farre forth as they are to serue the spirituall for so you haue heard him also confesse before a Sâ—e before chap. 2. nu 1. 2. and that it may punish spiritually that is to say by the way of spirituall censures but no way temporally wherein I wish to be obserued what he granteth and what he denyeth for of his grant will easily follow the confutation of his denyall as I haue partly signified before b Chap. 2. nu 1.2.9 10. and will shew more amply c Chap. 6. nu 14 15 seq See Supplem chap. 1. nu 10. when I shall haue first examined how true it is that I haue prooued effectually nothing else but that which he mentioneth For to this purpose it is to be considered what I haue debated concerning the law of God in my Supplement where I said thus 3 First I will speake of the law of God which if it be considered as it is a written law is diuided into the law of Moyses and the law of Grace deliuered by our Sauiour Iesus Christ and albeit the law of Moyses for so much as concerneth the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof doth not bind vs Christians yet I will make it manifest euen by that law that the spiritual power was then the supreme power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally when it was necessarie for the glorie of God and the good of the Church This appeareth by the law of God set downe in Deuteronomy c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 4 But whether he or I haue trifled in the precedent Chapters you haue already seene and how improbably he hath prooued my answere to his arguments to be improbable or fraudulent and hath confuted it by my owne doctrine as he vainly braggeth you shall presently perceiue And first Mr. Fitzherbert endeauoureth to confute my answere as improbable wherein I said that he hath prooued effectually nothing else by the law of God but that the temporall power in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall is subiect to the spirituall power so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall manner of correction and not temporall to which purpose he maketh a long and tedious repetition of that discourse which he made in his Supplement concerning the law of God especially in the old Testament preteÌ„ding forsooth to make it manifest euen by that law that the spiritual power was then the supreme power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally when it was necessarie for the glorie of God and the good of the Church 5 First therefore to all the arguments which either my Aduersarie here hath brought or any other can bring to conuince demonstrate or prooue effectually that the spirituall power in the old law was the supreme
power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally in order to spirituall good it is sufficient to answere in generall that the contrarie doctrine to wit that in the old law the temporall power and not the spirituall was supreme and that the spirituall power was subiect to the temporall is maintained by many famous and most learned Catholike Diuines S. Bonauentura lib. 2. de Eccles hierarch cap. 1. in 4. dist 24. in litera S. Thom. lib. 1. de Regim Prin. cap. 14. whose opinion in this point Mr. Fitzherbert dare not presume to condemne as temeratious and improbable albeit my answere which is agreeable to their doctrine he sticketh not to call improbable For so teacheth S. Bonauenture a man otherwise addicted to the Popes temporall Monarchie In the old Testament saith he the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and therefore Kings then had power to remooue the high Priests from their office as Salomon remooued Abiathar The same teacheth S. Thomas or whosoeuer is the Author of that booke de regimine Principum Whereupon Card. Bellarmine himselfe writeth thus It is not improbable Bell. l. i. c. 14. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcla that in the olde Testament the King was absolutely greater then the high Priest both for that so teacheth S. Thomas in his first booke de Regimine Principum cap. 14. and also for that in the old Testament the promises were temporall and the sacrifices carnall 6 The same also doe teach Alphonsus Tostatus Abulensis Card. Bellar. de Script Eccles pag. 410. d q. 28 in c. 2. l. 3. Regum q. 48. c. 27. num a man most renowmed saith Card. Bellarmine for holinesse and learning Ioannes de Turrecremata e In sum de Eccles l. 2. c. 96. ad 4 c. obedientiam dest 93. q. 2. ad 2 Franciscus Victoria f Relect. 1. de potest Eccles cited by Corduba Sal s. Antonius Corduba g l. 4 quaest q. 5 ar 2 ss ad Vlti Ioannes Salas h q 95. de leg sec 21. and Burgensis i In Addit lid Nic. de Lyra in 1. Pet. cap. 2. all of them most famous Diuines You must also know saith Abulensis that Salomon had power to kill Abiathar although he was the High Priest for that in the old Testament the Ecclesiastical power was not distinct from the Secular power to wit in punishments for great crimes but Priests were directly subiects to the King as Lay men Also there was not a distinction of punishments for Priests and Lay men but in enormious crimes the sentence of death was common to all and because Abiathar had committed treason hee was to be put to death vnlesse Salomon would pardon him And that Priests were subiect to Lay men it appeareth Numer 27. where God said that Eleazar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue as it hath beene more declared Iosue 3. but Iosue was a secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim Thus Abuâ—ensis 7 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue how ignorantly my vnlearned Aduersarie taxeth my answere of improbabiâ—itie and impertinencie which neuerthelesse is most conformeable to the doctrine of so many famous and learned Catholike Diuines and which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe holdeth for not improbable and how vainely hee braggeth that hee will make it manifest euen by the law of Moyses that the spirituall power was then the supreame power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally whereas so many famous and learned Diuines whose doctrine this ignorant man feareth not to call improbable doe resolutely hold that in the olde Testament the high Priests were subiect to Kings and that the temporall power was superiour to the spirituall and might remooue the high Priests from their office and punish them temporally if they should deserue it 8 But let vs examine in particular the manifest proofes which this man deduceth from the Law of God in the old Testament His first and principall proofe is taken from that which is written in the 17. chapter of Deuteronomie This appeareth saith he k Pag. 70. nu 3.4.5 by the law set downe in Deuteronomie wherein it is ordained expressely that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes should be in the hands of the high Priest The words of the law are these Si defficile ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubfull betweene bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie and not leprosie and thou seest that the words of the Iudges within the gates doe varie arise and goe vp to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come vp to the Priests of the Leuitical stock to the Iudges that shall be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall shew thee the truth of the iudgement and thou shalt do whatsoeuer they that are Presidents of the place which our Lord shall choose shal say and teach thee according to his Law and thou shalt follow their sentence neither shalt thou decline to the right nor to the left but he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away the euill out of Israel and the whole people shall feare that none after swell with pride 9 These are the words of the Law of God in Deuteronomie wherein it is to be noted that albeit there be here mention made of the Iudge to be consulted together with the Priests which some of the Aduersaries take to be a temporall Iudge though he may very well be vnderstood to bee the high Priest who was supreme Iudge in the Councell of Priests neuerthelesse I say that albeit he were a temporall Iudge yet it is euident that the finall decision of the doubts and controuersies in that Consistorie and consequently the supreme authoritie resided in the high Priest seeing that the said Iudge if he were a different person was no other then Minister either to see the high Priests commandement executed or to ordaine and decree the punishment of those who should disobey him it being ordained in the Law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest should die by the decree of the Iudge So that it belonged to the high Priest absolutely to command and to the Iudge to giue sentence of death against the transgressors of his commandement besides that c. 10 But first obserue good Reader the corrupt proceeding of this man who to prooue his purpose doth falsely and otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition alledge the words of holy Scripture
as you haue seene doth deny that the state of the Priesthood in the olde law was more honourable and excellent then of the temporall Princedome about which I will not contend with Abulensis for that I thinke he differeth from me onely in words yet from hence it can not be concluded that the temporall Prince in the olde law was in temporall affaires inferiour or subiect to the high Priest but onely in spirituall causes which is not at this time the question betwixt Mr. Fitzherbert and me 35 The last argument also which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old law before the institution of the Kings of Israel is as silly as any of the former b nu 9. pag. 73. and the most that it prooueth also is that the authoritie and office of the high Priest is more noble then the authoritie and office of the temporall Prince Thus farre sayth he in my Supplement where hauing also c Nu. 23. Leu. 4. Philo. l. de victimis Theod. in Leu. Procop. in Leu. Magdeb. cent 1 l. 1. c. 7. col 257. Calu Instit l. 4. c. 6 ss 12. prooued the preheminence of the Priest aboue the Prince by the difference of their Sacrifices according to the opinion of Philo the Iew. Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus and confirmed it by the testimonie and confession euen of the Magdeburgenses and Caluin himselfe I proceeded to the consideration of the Kings in the old Testament and whether there was any change or diminution of the authoritie of the high Priest by their institution to which purpose I said thus This being so by the ordinance of almightie God himselfe and this law being continued in full force without any alteration or change during the gouernment of Moyses Iosue and the Iudges it is to be considered whether the same was changed or any way altered afterwards at the institution of the Kings I meane whether the Kings were any way exempted from this law and had Superioritie ouer the high Priest and Clergie as our Aduersaries doe absurdly affirme that they had c. 36 But first what is this to the purpose The spirituall Pastour hath preheminence in dignitie and nobilitie ouer the temporall Prince will he therefore from hence inferre that the spirituall Pastour hath power and authoritie ouer the temporall Prince euen in temporall affaires as though because the Goldsmith hath in nobilitie and excellencie preheminence aboue the Cobler therefore we may conclude that the Goldsmith hath power and authoritie ouer the Cobler Secondly neither from the difference of the Sacrifices can there sufficiently be gathered any preheminence especially in authoritie aboue the temporall Prince in temporall affaires For although it be ordained Leuit. 4. that a calfe should be offered for the Priest and a goat for the Prince who should offend through ignorance yet this difference of sacrifices may be appointed not for that the Priest hath any preheminence either in dignitie or authoritie in temporall affaires aboue the temporall Prince but for that as well obserueth Mr. Iohn Barclay d Cap. 15. § 4. the offence of the Priest sinning through ignorance is either greater then of the Prince and therefore to be purged by a more worthie Sacrifice or that the Priest in Ecclesiasticall affaires hath preheminence aboue the Prince which no man denyeth And what man of learning would now conclude that the Priests the new law haue any temporall power ouer Kings for that a greater penâ—â— is enioyned to them if they offend through ignorance then to temporal Kings or that in Churches and Ecclesiasticall rites they are the first and doe first communicate 37 Wherefore Abulensis vpon this place doeth referre the difference of these sacrifices not to any preheminence of the high Priest aboue the temporall Prince but to the greatnesse of the offence committed by them both Abul q. 12. in cap. 4. Leuit. You must know saith hee that these sacrifices are appointed greater according as the sinnes for which they were offered were greater but the sinne of the high Priest taking it in the same kind of sinne is alwayes greater then the sinne of the Prince of the people or then the sinne of all the people therefore the sinne of the high Priest did require the greatest Sacrifice excelling all other Sacrifices for sinnes or at leastwise equall to the greatest Sacrifices Now in what manner and for what causes the sinne of the high Priest was greater both in extension and intension then the sinne of the temporall Prince or of all the people Abulensis doth declare at large in that place 38 Thirdly if Mr. Fitzherbert had examined that place of holy Scripture himselfe and not barely taken that argument from Card. Bellarmine hee might easily haue seene that the same sacrifice of a calfe with the same ceremonies was appointed to bee offered also for the sinne of all the people So that if this argument taken from the difference of the Sacrifices were good to prooue a preheminence of the high Priest aboue the Prince because for the high Priest if hee should offend through ignorance a calfe was to bee offered and for the Prince only a goate it would also prooue that the people were equall in preheminence to the high Priest and that they had preheminence aboue their King or Prince for that for the offence also of the people was to bee offered the same sacrifice of a calfe and for the offence of the Prince only a goate 39 Fourthly heere is no mention made in this place of Kings but only of Princes If a Prince saith the Scripture doth sinne and by ignorance doe of many things one that by the law of our Lord is forbidden and afterwards vnderstandeth his sinne hee shall offer an hoste to our Lord a bucke of the goates without spotte Now at this time the Israelites had no King but 400. yeeres after For the better vnderstanding whereof you must obserue as well declareth Abulensis e q. 8. in c. 21. Leuit. that Moyses was the first Prince of the people vnder whom all the people of Israel did depart out of Aegypt yet Moyses was not a King but a Captaine or a Leader of the people Yea he was not Dominus a Lord or ruler saith Abulensis f q. 19. in cap. 8. Iudic. but onely as making lawes to the Iewes on the behalfe of GOD and hee commanded nothing to the Israelites as from his owne will but as from GOD whereupon hee was not called a Lord but a Doctour of the Israelites And it is apparant that if hee had beene a Lord of the Israelites or as it were a King it had belonged to him to bestow dignities by instituting and deposing and none of the people could resist him or accuse him of this at leastwise de iure by right and if hee were accused de facto hee was not bound to answere but he might represse those who opposed against him by answering nothing and yet Core with a hundred and
company or congregation of the Israelites is diuided into twelue parts which are called twelue tribes for that all the company of the Israelites doth descend from the twelue sonnes of Iacob or Israel and in euery one of these twelue tribes there was alwaies one Prince So that in all Israel there were alwaies twelue men who were greater and more noble then the rest who were called the twelue Princes of the tribes Neither were these made Princes by election or lot but by birth for alwaies the eldest sonne that descended from the head or first Prince of the tribe by the right line of the eldest sonnes was called the Prince of all that tribe So that if he who was Prince or head of any tribe as Iudas or Zabulon had many sonnes the first borne or eldest sonne of them was the Prince of all that tribe and so it alwaies continued afterwards that alwaies the eldest sonne of the Prince of any tribe was Prince of that tribe after his Fathers death 47 Now in euery tribe there were diuers families for as euery one of the twelue sonnes of Iacob or Israel with all their progeny made a tribe so euery sonne of his twelue sonnes with all their progeny made a family So that among all the Israelites there were as many families as euery one of the sonnes of Iacob had sonnes As for example because Ruben the eldest sonne of Iacob had foure sonnes there were foure families in the tribe of Ruben and because Simeon the second sonne of Iacob had sixe sonnes there were sixe families in the tribe of Simeon and so proportionally of the rest and euery one of these families had a Prince who was alwaies the eldest sonne of Iacob his second sonnes for he alwayes descended from the first heads or Princes of the families by the direct line of the eldest sonnes and he was subiect to the Prince or head of the tribe whereof he was so that as the families were vnder the tribes so also the Princes of the families were vnder the Princes of the tribes and as many families as were in euery tribe so many Princes of families the Prince of the tribe had vnder him Abulensis q. 51 in c. 2. Iosue 48 Thirdly a house was taken for a peculiar congregation of companie of many kinsmen vnder the same familie and it comprehendeth all the persons that descend from the same father yet liuing to wit the sonnes daughters and grandchildren although they haue diuers oeconomies or dwell in houses a part from their parents and yet sometimes a house is taken for the congregation of all the tribes of Israel and sometimes for one onely tribe or familie as Psal 113. Psal 113. verse 1. 13. Arist 1. Poliâ— cap. 2. he blessed the house of Israel he blessed the house of Aaron but most strictly it is taken for a peculiar oeconomie consisting of husband wife children seruants And of these Princes of the tribes and families of Israel the holy Scripture maketh mention very often especially in the bookes of Numbers and of Iosue 3. Reg. 8.1 Paralip 5.7.15.26.27 and 2. Paralip 1. and 5. and their dignitie and priuiledges Abulensis declareth q. 5. in cap. 5.1 Paral. and in cap. 5.2 Paralip q 6. and 7. And of these Princes also who neuerthelesse were subiect not only to the Kings of Israel but also to Moyses Iosue and the Iudges may this place of holy Scripture be vnderstood to wit that a hee goate should be offered for euery such Prince offending through ignorance 49 Lastly concerning those three Authours which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken from Card. Bellarmine l lib. 2 de Rom Pont. cap. 29. in tract contra Guiliel Barcl cap. 15. he might haue seene their testimonies long before he wrote against me fully answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay * Aduersus Card. Bell. cap. 15. §. 4. For Philo in that place doth not speake of Kings but of a Prince and which is more he affirmeth that this honour of offering a greater sacrifice to wit a calfe was giuen to the high Priest not in regard of himselfe but because he was a minister of the people doing publike sacrifices in the name of all the people Besides this authoritie of Philo only prooueth that the Priestly dignitie was more noble and excellent then the Princely dignitie whereof I doe not now dispute Neither doth Theodoret speake of Kings nor of the power of the high Priest but only of his dignitie and excellencie God commanded saith he that the Priest who shall transgresse the law shall sacrifice a calfe without spot but if all the people shall commit the like crime he appointeth the like sacrifice to be offered teaching how great the dignitie of the Priest is whom he hath made like or equall to all the people but he commandeth a Prince that shall transgresse the law to offer not a calfe but a hee goate so farre inferiour to Priestly dignitie is he to whom corporall command is committed But this is nothing else but that which S. Gregorie Nazianzen S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and other Fathers doe often say that the spirituall power is more noble excellent and worthy then the temporall which no man now calleth in question But the authoritie of Procopius Gazaeus is of farre lesser force both for that this Procopius as Card. Bellarmine m lib. 1. de Christo cap 6. and Antonius Posseuine n In verbo Prâ—copius doe affirme was a better Rhetorician then a Diuine and also for that he speaketh not of Kings but of a Prince nor of authority but of honour dignitie or reuerence which is due to Priests but especially although we should grant him to speake of authoritie and also of Kings for that he preferreth the people before the Prince and also yeeldeth a reason thereof which is now flat hereticall For he doth not say that a Prince offending shall offer a lesser sacrifice then a Priest for that a Prince is inferiour to a Priest in honour dignitie or authoritie although from hence he gathereth that the Priest and also the people are more honourable then the Prince but for that a Prince as soone as he shall pollute himselfe with sinne doth desist to be a Prince and falleth from his dignity which assertion is now condemned in the Councell of Constance among the articles of Iohn Wicleffe whereof the 15. article is this n Sess 45. Hee is no ciuill Lord Hee is no Prelate Hee is no Bishop whilest hee is in mortall sinne The words of Procopius are these It is to be noted that the Priest and the people doe offer the same sacrifice if they shall burthen themselues with sinne but a Prince doth purge his sinne with a distinct sacrifice because a Prince as soone as hee shall pollute himselfe with sinne doeth desist to bee a Prince and falleth from his dignitie Therefore from hence wee may gather that the Priest is more honourable then the Prince also that the
people doe excell in dignitie the Prince 50 But as touching his second inference for of the first I haue spoken before it is very vntrue that the people are superiour to their absolute Prince in dignitie or authoritie but contrariwise it is manifest that a King is superiour and aboue the people and the people inferiour to their King This shall be the right of the King that shall reigne ouer you saith the holy Scripture 1. Reg. 8. and in the same place the people said there shall bee a King ouer vs and we will bee as all nations and blessed bee the Lord my God said King Dauid o Psal 143. who subdueth my people vnder mee wherefore there is no doubt to bee made but that the Iewes were bound to obey the high Priest in spirituall matters but that all men were bound to obey the high Priest in temporall affaires or that the spiritual power was in the old law the supreme power not only in excellencie nobilitie or dignitie but also in authoritie and chastised Princes temporally which Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth heere to make manifest this hee neither hath nor euer will bee able with any manifest proofe to conuince And thus you haue seene how insufficient are all the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought out of the old law before the institution of the Kings of Israel now you shall see how weake the rest of his arguments are which he bringeth out of the old law since that the Israelites demaunded of Samuel to haue a King ouer them as other nations had 51 But first of all Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to prooue that which no man calleth in question to wit that the authoritie of the high Priest in the old Testament was neither changed nor diminished by the institution of Kings but that as the Law of God deliuered to the Iewes by Moyses did continue in full force without any alteration or change during the time of Moyses of Iosue and the Iudges so the same was not altered or changed afterwards by the institution of Kings and that God did not change the forme and course of the Law in fauour of Kings or turned the same vpside downe contrary to the course of nature as Mr. Fitzherbert auoucheth some of his Aduersaries absurdly to affirme For it is a meere fiction that by the institution of Kings the Law of Moyses was altered or the authoritie of the high Priest changed or diminished or that the same superiority which the high Priest as he was high Priest had aboue the temporall state to wit in spirituall affaires before the institution of Kings did not continue in the high Priest after that the Kings of Israel were instituted And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert faigneth absurd opinions to haue occasion to impugne them For the institution of Kings did not alter or diminish at all the spirituall authoritie of the high Priests but it did only change the maner of the temporall gouernment and it caused that the supreme temporall authoritie or dominion was onely in one man and the temporall gouernment to be simply Regall or Monarchicall whereas before the institution of Kings it was not alwaies so 52 For albeit Moyses and Iosue were appointed by God to bee Iudges and Leaders or Captaines of the people of Israel and they had greater authoritie then the other Iudges had yet they were not properly Kings neither had they speaking properly true Regall dominion and authoritie as Abulensis y Q. 19. in ca. 8. Iudic. doth well obserue And as for the other Iudges of Israel their authoritie was farre inferiour to Regall authoritie or dominion For as the same Abulensis z Q. 5. in prolog D. Hicron in librum Iosue q. 7. 12. in Prolog lib. Iudic. doth also well obserue there was a great difference betwixt Kings and Iudges both in power and iurisdiction For the power of Kings was most ample But the Iudges had ouer the people no authoritie to command as due to them by iurisdiction but they were onely industrious men for warres and for giuing counsell and by their aduice the people were directed in all things yet they had ouer the people no other authoritie then the people would giue them and the people did obey them as it were freely when they did see that they commanded or counsailed nothing but that which was iust whereupon they were not called Lords or did they rule raigne or had proper dominion ouer the people but they did onely gouerne or iudge because Lords or they that reigne and haue proper dominion or Seigniorie are those who doe whatsoeuer they vvill if it be not against law or reason and the subiects are bound to obey them in all things such are Kings but the power of the Iudges did extend to no other thing then to that vvhich vvas vvritten in the law in so much that Kings might doe vvhatsoeuer the law doth not forbid but Iudges might onely doe that vvhich the law commanded So that the power of those Iudges vvas but little 53 First because it vvas giuen them freely by the people neither had they more authority then the people gaue them and they vvere chiefly chosen to make vvarre against the enemies for vvhich cause they vvere called Sauiours And although after they had ouercome their enemies the people had no great neede of them yet by the consent of the people they remained afterwards as long as they liued in their authoritie to iudge And if any one obiect that the power of the Iudges vvas not giuen them by man but by God for as is vvritten Iudic. 3. God raised them a Sauiour called Aod I answere saith Abulensis that the Iudges vvere made by the election of the people and from the people they receiued a limited power but they vvere not chosen by the people alwaies after one manner For some vvere made Iudges because God commanded them that they should fight for the people so vvas Barac For the prophetesse Debbora tolde him on the behalfe of God that he should fight against Sisera Iudic. 4. and yet after he had wonne the battell he vvas not yet a Iudge or Prince of the Israelites but because the people saw that God vvould deliuer them by the meanes of Barac they chose him for their Iudge So also it happened concerning Gedeon For the Angel of our Lord did appeare vnto him and commanded him that he should goe to deliuer Israel from the hand of Madian Iudic. 6. And vvhen he victoriously finished the warre the Israelites tooke him for their Iudge neither vvould they onely haue made him their Iudge but also their Lord and King as it appeareth Iudic. 8. 54 Others vvere taken for Iudges not by the commandement but by the instigation of God to wit because when the Israelites were oppressed vvith these calamities and vvanted a Sauiour God gaue his spirit to certaine men by vvhich they vvere couragious vvise and most fit for vvarres vvhom the Israelites seeing did take
for their Iudges and then God vvas said to haue raised to them Sauiours So it is to be vnderstood of Hothoniel and Aod Iudic. 3. Other Iudges vvere made onely by the vvill of the people to wit because when they were in distresse they inquired who was a fit man among them to be Captaine in their warres And sometimes they tooke not those that were vertuous but onely who were exercised in warre So Iephte was chosen Iudic. 11. vvho vvas a Prince of theeues vvhom the Israelites because they saw him fit for warre desired to be their Captaine and Iudge And sometimes the Iudges were made onely by fauour and as it were by violence of the people as vvas Abimelech the sonne of Gedeon Iudic. 9. to whom also by the sedition of the Sichimites was giuen the title of a King And vvhen it is obiected that God raised a Sauiour I answere saith Abulensis that it is not to be vnderstood that God commanded any one to be Iudge by creating him and giuing him a certaine manner of authoritie but that God did incite the Israelites by some one of the wayes aforesaid to make some their Iudges and yet afterwards it depended vpon the will of the people to receiue them or reiect them and to giue them so much authoritie as they pleased 55 Secondly the authoritie of the Iudges was not deriued by succession to their posteritie but it remained in the power of the people one Iudge being dead to choose another or to choose none at all But to the greatnesse of authoritie it appertaineth to haue power to deriue it to their posterity as those things are properly ours concerning which wee may appoint others to inherite for in other things we are rather Administrators or Procuratours then Lords or hauing dominion and Seigniorie And the difference of this power to be a Iudge from that which by succession is transferred to posteritie is manifest by the example of Gedeon for when Gedeon was a Iudge in Israel the Israelites being desirous to exalt him to greater honour for the great victory he had against the Madianites saids vnto him haue thou dominion or Seignorie ouer vs and thy sonne and thy sonnes sonne that is all of thy posteritie but he being contented with the principalitie or preheminence of a Iudge would not accept thereof saying I will not haue dominion or Seigniory ouer you to wit by exercising the power of a Lord or King neither shall my sonne haue dominion or Seigniory ouer you but the Lord shall haue dominion or Seigniory ouer you and neuerthelesse he kept the principalitie of a Iudge so long as he liued Thirdly the Iudges could not impose tributes or other taxations vpon the people but they liued vpon their owne proper reuenues as other priuate persons except those things which by right appertained to them in warre because it was a custome among all nations that in vvarre a certaine peculiar part of the spoyle should belong to the Prince or chiefe Captaine as it appeareth by the decrees dis 1. cap. ius militare c. 56 Fourthly the Iudges were not Lords neither had they any power dominion or Seigniorie ouer the people but they were only Captaines or Leaders for as much as concerned those things which belonged to their office whereof I will speake beneath And in this there was a difference betwixt Kings and Iudges for Kings were Lords of the people of Israel and they had power to doe whatsoeuer they would which was not against the law therefore they called the Israelites their seruants as Saul called Dauid his seruant 1. Reg. 22. and Dauid called the Israelites his seruants 2. Reg. 20. but the Iudges were not called Lords as it appeareth by those former words of Gedeon refusing to haue that degree of principallitie according to which Princes are called Lords and said to haue dominion or Seigniorie ouer the people Neither were these called Iudges of iudging a Abulens q. 11. in Praefat. lib. Iudic. but as a Iudge is taken for a name of a certaine little principalitie For there is this difference betwixt a Lord and a Iudge for a Lord signifieth one who hath simply power dominion or Seigniorie and he hath power to doe what he will although it be not ordained by the law But a Iudge is he who hath not a libertie to command but he can onely command that which the lawes command and he hath a power giuen him to define according to the law and therefore he who is subiect to a Iudge is not subiect to the man but to the law but he that is subiect to a Lord is subiect to the man And because the principalitie of these Iudges or Sauiours was such that they could doe nothing according to their owne wils as Kings and Lords could doe but that onely which reason and the law did dictate they were called Iudges because Iudges haue the like principalitie 57 Fiftly lastly the office to which the Iudges were assumed was to fight for the people against their enemies as it is manifest by the institution of the Iudges For Iudic. 2. it is said that whensoeuer the Israelites were in the hands of their enemies God raised vp Iudges that should deliuer them And the same also is euident by the peculiar institutions of the Iudges for it is said of Hothoniel who was the first Iudge that when the Israelites were oppressed by the King of Mesopotamia God raised them vp a Sauiour called Hothoniel Iudic. 3. and the like is said of Aod in the same chapter and of Barac chap. 4. and of Gedeon chap. 6. and of Iephte chap. 11. and so of the rest and concerning the warres these Iudges had full power for all things whatsoeuer belonged to warfare were at their dispose and in this all the Israelites did obey them as in all warres the chiefe Captaines haue this full power concerning militarie discipline But the warres being ended these men remained as it were priuate persons to wit that they had not any Dominion or authoritie but yet they were alwaies very much honoured by the people and sometimes the gouernment of Cities was committed to their charge that they might dispose of them as Princes So Iair had thirtie sonnet who were Princes of thirtie Cities Iudic. 10. But to iudge of causes was not directly the office of these albeit sometimes it was committed to them especially when they were Prophets and prudent men So was Samuel who was the last Iudge of Israel and euery yeere he went about all Israel and iudged the people in three places to wit in Bethel Galgatha and Masphath Thus writeth Abulensis who also affirmeth that although Moyses and Iosue were greater then these Iudges for that they were chosen and appointed by God not onely to bc Captaines of the Israelites in the time of warre but also to be their Iudges and Gouernours yet he denyeth that Moyses himselfe was properly a Lord or King of the Israelites but rather that
plot the death of any Prince Wherefore let Widdrington cease by vaine words to put Secular Princes in feare and to make the Pontificall power to be odious The Pontificall power is instituted by the Sauiour of mankind for the saluation and not for the destruction of Princes These arguments doe tend to no other end then to prouoke the hatred of Princes against the Pope for otherwise Widdrington was not ignorant that Ecclesiasticall especially Pontificall lenitie doth shunne bloody punishments 12 But first whether D. Schulckenius by this his answered doth intend to acknowledge that the Pope in order to spirituall good hath authoritie to take away the liues of wicked Princes by all those waies publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie in order to temporall good to take away the liues of their wicked and rebellious subiects which I intended by that argument to conuince in this place he speaketh doubtfully and in expresse words doth neither say I nor no yet afterwards he doth plainly enough affirme the same saying n Cap 9. ad nu 229. pag. 413. that Ecclesiasticall lenitie for as much as concerneth the punishment of death doth shunne bloody punishments not for that it doth by the law of God want power to doe the same but because it doth not beseeme the Ministers of Christ and againe It doth not belong saith he o Cap. 10. ad num 318. pag. 490. to the Ecclesiasticall Court to giue sentence of death not because the Church cannot absolutely giue this sentence but because it is not decent And the Pope himselfe might if he should iudge it expedient both giue this sentence and also grant by a dispensation that other Priests might doe the same For we haue nothing whereby it is forbidden but the positiue Ecclesiasticall law wherein the Pope by the consent of all men may dispence 13 Secondly this Doctor doth egregiously and against Christian charitie and iustice abuse my innocencie in misconstruing my good intentions which God is my witnesse are most pure and sincere For it was neuer my meaning to make the Sea Apostolike odious or dreadfull to Christian Kings and Princes but only to find out the Catholike truth plainly and sincerely in a matter of such great importance which doth so neerely concerne the supreme authoritie of all temporall Princes and the due obedience which all subiects of what religion soeuer they be doe by the law of Christ owe to them in temporall matters It is rather this Doctor and such as embrace his desperate principles who by this their false seditious scandalous and new broached damnable doctrine and vnknowne to the ancient Fathers and the primitiue Church doe seeke as much as lyeth in them to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to all Christian Princes and subiects And if it be so easie a matter to answere my aforesaid arguments as this Doctor affirmeth why then doth he not answere them but shifteth them ouer with a let them passe as not pertaining to the purpose Is it not to the purpose that Card. Bellarmine and his followers should force vpon the Christian world the doctrine touching the Popes spirituall power to depose temporall Princes as a point of Catholike beliefe from which such absurd dangerous desperate scandalous seditious consequents and not heard of before these miserable times doe euidently follow 14 But such strang nouelties must with shufflings and shiftings be cunningly couered and must not be cleerely knowne to Soueraigne Princes and their subiects least forsooth they make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes As thought it were likely that Christ our Sauiour would giue to S. Peter and his Successours any spirituall power which should be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes or that the knowledge of true Catholike faith either concerning the Popes spirituall power to take away the crownes or liues of Christian Princes or concerning any other thing could be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes more then the knowledge of true Catholike faith concerning the power of temporall Princes to take away the temporall goods and liues of their subiects can be a sufficient cause to make temporall authoritie odious to Christian subiects Hostis Herodis impie Christum venire quid times said Sedulius who flourished about the yeere 430. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia which is Englished thus That Christ is come why doest thou dread O Herode thou vngodly foe He doth not earthly Kingdomes reaue that heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow But Herode might iustly haue replyed if this new broacht doctrine were true yes I haue great cause to feare for that not only Christ but S. Peter also and his Successours haue by their ordinarie commission authoritie to bereaue mee not onely of my kingdome but also of my life 15 And the same answere which is also conforme to the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers would Sedulius haue made to any Christian King who should haue feared that the Pope by his spirituall power might depriue him of his kingdome and life to wit that he neede not to feare the Popes power in that respect for that Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to the Apostles and their Successours the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes to absolue from sinnes not from debts to binde the soule with the bond of anathema and not with chaines of Iron 16 But although the Pope should haue power ouer the liues of Princes in order to spirituall good yet Princes sayth this Doctour need not to feare that the Pope will plot the death of any Prince for that no Pope hath euer commanded the killing of Princes or caused them to be slaine by priuie murtherers and it is well knowen that Ecclesiasticall lenitie shunneth bloodie punishments But first if the Pope haue such a power it is euident that it is in his free choise and curtesie to take away the life of any wicked Prince in order to spirituall good as it is in the curtesie of a temporall Prince to take away the life of any wicked subiect in order to temporall good Secondly that the Pope is also bound as I prooued against Suarez to proceed against a Christian Prince See Apendix to Suarez part 1. sec 9. nu 6. seq who is a knowne heretike or persecutor of the Church or publike enemie to spirituall good in that manner and by all those waies publike or secret by which a temporall Prince is bound to proceed against a publike traitour a notorious robber and murtherer by the high way side and a knowne enemie to the common temporall good 17 Thirdly if no Pope hath euer plotted the death of any Christian Prince the reason heereof I thinke to be for that there was neuer any Pope that held this newly inuented and neuer before heard of bloody doctrine that the Pope as Pope or by vertue of his spirituall
in the Councell of Constance but the contrarie doctrine is damnable scandalous and seditious 78 Marke now what a trim consequence Mr. Fitzherbert gathereth from the premisses Whereupon sayth he b nu 18. pag. 78 it followeth that seeing Ioiada did lawfully depose Athalia being a holy man Matth. 23. Hieron lib. 4. in Num. cap. 23. and therefore called by our Sauiour Barachias that is to say Blessed of our Lord he did it not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person All this is true as you haue seene But that which he addeth to wit as High-Priest to whom it belonged to iudge of her cause is very vntrue neither doth it follow from his premises For his antecedent proposition was this Ioiada being high Priest deposed Athalia as her lawfull Iudge and not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person this I granted now he inferreth that Ioiada as high-Priest did depose her which I euer denied and he brought no shew of argument to proue the same only heere in the next words following he adioineth some colour of an argument for proofe thereof especially saith he c pag. 79. seeing that she was not only a cruell tyrant but also an abhominable Idolairesse hauing drawne her husband Ioram her sonne Ochozias and the people to Idolatrie and transferred the riches of Gods temple to the temples of Idolls which being matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest and therefore I conclude that Ioiada deposed her as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge according to the supreme authoritie that God gaue to the High Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall State So I in my Supplement 79 But how insufficient this conclusion is it will presently appeare onely by laying open the ambiguitie of those wordes Idolatrie being a matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest For it belonged indeed to the tribunall of the high Priest of the old Law and his consistorie to iudge what was Idolatrie as likewise now in the new Law it belongeth to the Pope and Church to iudge what is heresie or idolatrie and so to declare and determine what is heresie or Idolatrie is a matter of Religion both in the olde Law and in the new but it did not belong to the tribunall of the high Priest in the olde law but of the King and temporall state to punish Idolaters with corporall death as likewise in the new law to punish heretikes with corporall death being not a spirituall but a temporall matter doeth not belong to the spirituall power of Priests but to the temporall authoritie of temporall Princes Sot in 4. dist 29 q. 1. ar 4. Bannes secunda secundae q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine as I prooued also out of Sotus and Bannes in my Theologicall Disputation d C. 7. s 2. nu 17 And therefore in the old Law the temporall power was supreame and the spirituall was subiect to it for as much as concerned the power to constraine with temporall punishments and as well Priest as Lay-men were subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of the temporall State as I prooued before e Sec. 1 nu 5. 6. out of St. Thomas St. Bonauenture Abulensis and others whose doctrine also Cardinall Bellarmine doth not account improbable 80 Wherefore although it belonged to the High-Priest to declare the law of GOD yet to execute the law and to punish the transgressours thereof whether they were Priests or Lay-men with temporall punishments belonged to the supreame temporall power of the King and not to the supreame spirituall authoritie of the High-Priest Seeing that Ozias saith Abulensis because he was King Abul q. 4. in c. 15. l. 4. Reg. was the executor of the law of GOD against offenders it belonged to him by his office to destroy all Altars which were without the temple of our Lord and to take away such a worship and consequently all Idolatrie vnder the penaltie of death And therefore I conclude that Ioiada did depose Athalia being a manifest Vsurper as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge but not according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the High-Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall state which as I prooued before was in temporalls supreame and not subiect but superiour to the spirituall power but according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the King to whom both Priests and Lay-men were subiect in temporalls and by whom they were to bee punished with temporall punishments whose place and person Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian while the King was in his minoritie did in all things represent Neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert either in his Supplement or in this his Reply as you haue cleerely seene brought any probable argument much lesse conuincing as hee pretended to impugne the same 81 Now let vs proceede to the example of King Ozias which is the last Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old Testament to which neuerthelesse I did abundantly answere in my Apologie which my answere he passeth ouer altogether with silence But before I set downe what hee saith heere concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to repeate my saide answere and what D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same for thereby the weakenesse of Mr. Fitzherberts obiection will presently appeare and so also hee shall not take occasion after his vsuall manner to remit his English Reader to D. Schulckenius to seeke out a Reply to that which I answered before in my Apologie concerning this example of King Ozias Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 8 82 In this manner therefore Cardinall Bellarmine argued from this example A Priest of the old law had authoritie to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie therefore in the new law the Pope hath authoritie to depriue a King of his kingdome for spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by leprosie The Antecedent proposition hee prooued thus for that wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that King Ozias when hee would vsurpe the office of a Priest was by the High Priest cast out of the temple and when he was for the same sinne stricken by GOD with leprosie hee was also enforced to depart out of the Citie and to renounce his kingdome to his sonne And that he was depriued of the Citie and of the administration of the kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest it is apparant For wee reade Leuit. 13. whosoeuer saith the law shall bee defiled with leprosie and is separated at the abitrement of the Priest shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing therefore that this was a law in Israel and withall wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that the King did dwell without the Citie in a solitary house and that his sonne did in the Citie iudge the people of the land wee are compelled to say that hee was
Priest did onely continue for the time they were infected with leprosie for which time neuerthelesse they remained true Kings although others did administer their kingdome For vnablenesse to gouerne the kingdome doth not depriue Kings of their right and authoritie to reigne as it is manifest in a King who is vnder age in whom there is true dominion power and right to reigne although vntill hee come to yeeres of discretion there is appointed him a Protector and Guardian who doth in the Kings name and by the Kings authoritie adminster all the affaires of the kingdome And that King Ozias for all the time of his infirmitie which continued vntill the day of his death did remaine true King the Glosse doth most plainely teach 2. Paralip 26. who writeth thus The Hebrewes are of opinion that this the miraculous striking of Ozias with leprosie happened in the 25th yeere of Ozias the rest of whose yeeres are twentie seuen and he raigned fiftie one yeeres And the same is gathered not obscurely from the Scripture it selfe in that place Wherevpon although we reade in the 21. vers that for the time Ozias was a leper Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house yet wee doe not reade that Ioathan his sonne reigned for him but after that Ozias was dead vers 23. 98 To this my answere D. Schulckenius replieth thus p Pag. â— I answere first although Ozias should haue beene depriued only of the administration of the kingdome and constrained to giue it ouer to his sinne yet had kept the right and authoritie to reigne as my Aduersarie Widdrington will haue it neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmines argument would be strong and vnshaken For from hence also by the grant of my Aduersarie is we doe gather that King Ozias was by the Priest of Aaron depriued not only of the communion of sacred things but also of the administration of his kingdome and punished not only with a spirituall but also with a temporall punishment But my Aduersarie denieth that an hereticall King can be depriued of the administration of his Kingdome and he saith that he can only be depriued of the receiuing of Sacraments 99 But first it is vntrue that I euer granted as this Doctour saith that the Priest of the old law depriued King Ozias of the administration of his kingdome but as you shall beneath q Num. I affirmed the flat contrarie Secondly it is strange how Card. Bellarmines argument can stand firme and vnshaken if the antecedent proposition for as much as concerneth the principall part thereof be not true as this Doctour in this his answere doth suppose For the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument contained two parts the one was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued of his kingdome and authoritie to reigne and from hence he concluded as you haue seene If therefore the Priest of the old law had power to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie why may not a Priest now doe the same for spirituall leprosie and of this part to wit of depriuing Princes of their kingdomes and of their right or authoritie to reigne I did only speake in this part of my answere And if this part which was the principall point of Card. Bellarmines argument be supposed to be false as this Doctour doth suppose how can his argument for as much as concerneth this point stand strong and vnshaken 100 The second part of Card. Bellarmines agrument was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued by the High Priest of the administration of his kingdome and of this second part I did not speake one word in this part of my answere but only of the depriuing him of his kingdome dominion or right to reigne And I affirmed that although the Priests of the old law had authoritie to iudge a leper and by a declaratiue sentence or commandement to denounce that he was to be seuered from the rest of the people which was only to declare the commandement and law of God considering that this separation was ordained by the expresse commandement of God after the Priest had iudged him to be infected with leprosie yet from hence it cannot be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen per accidens and consequently vnlesse their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre as it doth not that they were consequently depriued also of their kingdomes But their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre saith this Doctour that they were depriued at least of the administration of their kingdome and therefore from hence it may be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue per accidens and consequently Princes that were infected with leprosie at least wise of the administration of their kingdome But of this I will treate a little beneath after I haue examined the second Reply which this Doctour maketh to this first part of my answere to his antecedent proposition 101 I answere secondly saith D. Schulckenius r Pag. 546. King Ozias did indeed retaine the name of a King for the residue of his life but a bare and naked name For his sonne did gouerne the kingdome with full power although without the name of a King For so the Scripture speaketh 2. Paralip 26. King Ozias was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house a part full of leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the land The same is said 4. Reg. 15. Therefore we haue not from the Scripture that any part of the gouernment did any way appertaine to Ozias which Iosephus doth more cleerely explicate lib. 9. Antiq. cap. 11. While he saith that the sonne of Ozias did take vpon him the kingdome and that Ozias liued a priuate life vntill his death But howsoeuer it be this is manifest that Ozias was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment 102 But thou wilt say that Ozias retained the name of a King and as it was said in the first answere perchance a right to reigne Therefore from hence it cannot be proued that hereticall Kings may altogether be depriued of their kingdomes by the Pope I answere First from hence it is proued that the Pope may for a iust cause inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome Secondly it is consequently gathered that for a most weightie cause and for a very heinous crime and very pernicious to the Church as for example is heresie he may inflict a more grieuous punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome For both Innocentius the fourth did remoue Sanctius the second King of Portugall from the administration of the
with spirituall leprosie may by Bishops be excluded from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the faithful vntil they shal returne to their former health And therefore if from this that lepers ought vpon the sentence of the Priest to remaine in a house apart out of the campe vntill they were healed it doth necessarily follow that they had not power for that time to gouerne their temporall kingdome no meruaile that consequently also the were for that time depriued of the administration of the kingdome But it is manifest enough among the learneder Diuines and of better note as wee haue seene aboue f Nu. 346. Apolog. that the depriuing either of a temporall kingdome or of the administration thereof doth not necessarily follow Ecclesiasticall excommunication And therefore this similitude of Card. Bellarmine doth also faile in this and therefore his whole argument is not forcible 126 Yea also if Card. Bellarmine in his Treatise of the Eucharist doth argue well from the figure to the thing figured where from the figures of the old Testanment he prooueth that Christ our Lord is truely and really present in the Eucharist albeit we should grant that the Priests of Leui had power to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes not only consequently but also per se and principally yet it would not therefore follow that the Priests of the new law had also that power to depriue hereticall Kings of their kingdomes For by this very same that corporall leprosie and the punishment annexed to it by the law of God was a figure of heresie or spirituall leprosie and of the punishment which is agreeable to it by the law of Christ heresie ought not by the Euangelicall law to be punished with the losse of temporall kingdome in regard of the signification of the figure for that this punishment was in the old law ordained for corporall leprosie but with a punishment of a higher degree to wit spirituall and the losse of an euerlasting kingdome because the figure is alwaies lesse perfect and of an inferiour degree then is the thing figured as the shadow in respect of the body as Card. Bellarmine doth in that place affirme And by this reason some Diuines doe not vnaptly gather that Christ our Lord was an eternall King and of a higher degree because he was figured by Melchisedech who was a temporall King 127. But that which Card. Bellarmine addeth in the end out of the first to the Corinthians chap. 10. that all things chaunced to the Iewes in figure to prooue from thence that corporall leprosie in the old Testament was a figure of heresie and spirituall leprosie he doth not well deduce out of Saint Paul neither doth he entirely and faithfully produce his words For Saint Paul doth onely say in that place All these things to wit those few things before he had rehearsed did chance to them in figure but he maketh no mention at all in that place of this figure of leprosie Thus I answered in my Apologie 128 Now to this my answere D. Schulckenius g Pag. 550. replieth thus I answere First when Bellarmine saide that Ozia was enforced to resigne vp the kingdome to his sonne for my Adversary Widdrington seemeth to wrest this awry by the kingdome he vnderstood not the name of King but the administration at the kingdome with full power or Regall authoritie But I did not wrest awry or misinterprete that word kingdome for I prooued as you haue seene that Ozias did not resigne vp to his sonne his Kingly authority but he still remained King not onely in name but elso and right and in very deede and that his sonne had indeede full authority to gouerne or administer the kingdome as an Administratour Protectour Guardian or if we may say so Vice-Roy but no supreme or Regall authority 129 Besides that saith this Doctour good Diuines cited aboue h Nu. 346. by my Aduersary WiddringtoÌ„ as Paludanus Richardus S. Antoninus Sotâ—s Medina Richeomus and two they are my Aduersary Widdringtons words most famous Diuines of this age and of the same Religious Order with Card. Bellarmine Franciscus Suarez and Martinus Becanus dâ—e teach that which is true and denied by no man to wit that excommucation precisely and per se men are not depriued of the dominion of their temporall goods and thereby not depriued of their Kingdomes and Seignories But that which my Aduersary Widdrington doth impose vpon them to wit that they are not depriued of the administration of their kingdome this they doe not teach For it is the common opinion of Diuines and Cannists that by excommunication men are depriued of their power to iudge and of other acts belonging to the externall Court Forensibus actibus wherein the administraton of ciuill Iurisdiction doth consist 130 For Suarez doth say and prooue three things against my Aduersary Widdrington in the place cited by my Aduersary Tom. 5. disput 15. sec 6. First that by excommunication externall iurisdiction doth cease in the person excommunicated and all acts which doe appertaine thereunto Secondly that in subiects doth cease the obligation of fidelitie being also sworne after the sentence is giuen by an Ecclesiasticall Iudge and hee prooueth it by the chap. Nos sanctorum cap. Iuratos 15. q. 6. Thirdly that dominion and temporall goods doe not cease vnlesse there be mention made of them as truely it is made in the excommunication of heretickes who are depriued of all goods and of all dignitie Wherefore seeing that our principall question is concerning the leprosie of heresie it is plaine that my Aduersary Widdrington hath imposed vpon Catholke Doctors a false doctrine for true 131 But truely it is plaine that this Doctour cannot with any colourable Reply impugne my answeres but either by equiuocating chopping or changing corrupting or misinterpreting my words or meaning For my words in this place which this Doctour after his vsuall manner doth misinterpret are as you haue seene that according to learned Diuines the depriuing either of a temporall kingdome or of the administration of a temporall kingdome doth not necessarily follow Ecclesiasticall excommunication marke that word necessarily fellow And in the number 346 to which also I referred the Reader I affirmed that Excommunication ex se of it selfe or of it owne nature hath not sufficient force to depriue a Prince of his dominion or of the vse thereof Suarez tom 5. desp 8. sec 1. And this I prooued by the definition of Excommunication assigned by Suarez to wit that it is an Ecclesiasticall Censure whereby one is separated from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the faithfull which definition is taken from Saint Augustine as he is cited in the Canon law i 11. q. 3. omnis Christianus who saith that euery Christian who is excommunicated is remooued from Ecclesiasticall communion 132 From whence it necessarily followeth that Excommunication ex se of it selfe of it owne nature or by any intrinsecall and necessarie
temporal punishments which to inflict the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue receiued authoritie from the graunt and consent of temporall Princes may by the Pastours of the Church be adioyned to Ecclesiasticall Excommunication and in this sense be called accidentall effects of Excommunication or rather punishments accidentally or per accidens annexed to the Censure of Excommunication And so the Pope being now by the graunt and consent of Secular Princes and Christian people become also a temporall Prince may annexe to Excommunication all temporall punishments which he as a temporall Prince hath power to inflict 143 Whereupon albeit I doe vtterly deny that Excommunication either of it owne nature or by any necessary consequence deduced from thence abstracting from the graunt and consent of temporall Princes hath sufficient force to depriue one of any ciuill dominion Iurisdiction or conuersation yet I doe willingly graunt that an inferior Magisrate who by the sentence of a spirituall Iudge is declared to haue incurred the Censure of Excommunication is by the expresse ciuill lawes of some kingdomes and in some others by the tacite consent of the Prince deprived of ciuill Iurisdiction and their acts reputed to bee of no force in law yea and that by the Imperiall law q In noua Constit Frederici if for a whole yeere he remaine excommunicated he is in the nature of a proclaimed outlaw or Bandite But to commaund subiects not to obey their lawfull and Soueraigne Prince in temporalls and to absolute subiects from that ciuill and naturall allegiance which by the law of God and nature they owe to their rightfull Prince seeing that according to Suarez r Aboue nu 121 the power to command in the Prince and the bond of obedience in the subiects are correlatiues and one dependeth on the other and that to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince is plainely repugnant saith Card. Bellarmine to the law of God it is not in the power of spirituall Pastours vnlesse they have authoritie to depose Princes and to make Kings no Kings which whether it bee in their power to doe or no is the very question about which I with all my Aduersaries doe now contend and concerning which the Schoolemen are now at variance and as yet the controuersie is not decided by the Iudge saith Iohn Trithemius Å¿ In Chron. Monast Hirsang ad an 1106. 144 To those Canons Nos sanctorum Iuratos Absolutos which Suarez brought for his chiefe ground to prooue that the absoluing of Subiects from the temporall allegiance which by the law of God and nature they owe to their Soueraigne Princes is now a punishment annexed to the Censure of Excommunication I haue heeretofore answered and among other answeres this was one that those Canons are not to bee vnderstood of Soueraigne Princes but onely of inferiour persons who indeede by the consent of their temporall Soueraignes doe loose their temporall Iurisdiction after the sentence is publikely declared yea and in the territories of the Empire if for a yeere they persist excommunicated are as I saide in the nature of persons prescribed out lawes or Bandites 145 This in effect and much more to the same purpose did I answere heeretofore by all which the force of my answere to Card. Bellarmines argument taken from the example of King Ozias and the reason why I denyed his consequence supposing for Disputation sake the antecedent to be true as it is not may euidently appeare For in the old law the dwelling of lepers after they were declared so to be by the Priest in a house apart from the rest of the people was expresly ordained by the law of God and therefore supposing now with Card. Bellarmine that the dwelling of a King being infected with leprosie in a house apart from the rest of the people should by any necessarie consequence inferre that hee is consequently depriued of his kingdome or the administration thereof it is no meruaile that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue such Kings per accidens and consequently that is to declare them depriued by the law of GOD of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof But in the new law neither the depriuation of a temporall kingdome or of the administration thereof nor the losse of any temporall Iurisdiction doth by the law of GOD or by any other necessarie consequence follow spirituall leprosie or any intrinsecall propertie of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication neither is it in power of spirituall Pastours as Almainus said to inflict any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods c. nay nor so much as to imprison as very many Doctours saith hee doe affirme but onely to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments And therefore the similitude of Cardinall Bellarmine betwixt corporall and spirituall leprosie in the old and new law is this defectiue and so the consequence of his argument is altogether insufficient Thus much touching my first answere to the consequence of his argument 146 Marke now how sleightly this Doctour would shuffle ouer my second answere and reason which did cleane ouerthrow Card. Bellarmines consequence grounded vpon the nature of a figure and the thing figured euen according to his owne grounds For whereas I answered as you haue seene that because a figure as Card. Bellarmine saith is alwayes lesse perfect and of an inferiour degree then the thing which is figured it doeth not follow that heresie which is figured by corporall leprosie must bee punished with a temporall punishment because corporall leprosie was punished therewith but with a punishment of a higher degree to wit with a spirituall punishment D. Schulckenius replieth thus I answere saith hee t pag. 552. As heresie which is a spirituall leprosie is farre more pernicious then corporall leprosie so Excommunication is a punishment of a higher degree then the separating of lepers For Excommunication doth not onely depriue of the companie and liuing together of men in one house but also of participation of Sacraments and Suffrages of the Church But that Excommunication besides doeth depriue of ciuill administration and sometimes hath annexed the depriuation of temporall goods and also of the kingdome it selfe doth not diminish but increase the greatnes and excellencie of the punishment of spirituall leprosie aboue the punishment of corporall leprosie Wherefore it is most true that the thing figured is of an higher degree then the figure And in this manner the Eucharist is of an higher degree then manna or the Paschall lambe because these doe nourish the body that nourisheth the soule although also those accidents of the Eucharist are profitable to the nourishment of the body 147 But obserue the egrigious fraude of this Doctour For that proposition of Card. Bellarmine Figures must of necessitie be of an inferiour order and excellencie then the things figured is to be vnderstood of figures formally as they are figures for it little importeth that those things that are figures be
Kings in the olde law were in spirituall matters subiect to the Priests and bound to obey them in spirituals and that the Priests might rebuke Kings and command them to depart out of the temple if contrarie to the law they should presume to offer Sacrifice and that it belonged to the Priests to declare the law of God and to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law whether one were infected with leprosie or no and if he were infected to declare or iudge him to be separated from the rest of the people according as the law of God ordayned All which were spirituall actions and therefore not exceeding the limites of Priestly function 158 But secondly hee seemeth to make some force in those words of the Scripture And they thrust him out in all haste c. as though he would signifie thereby that they thrust him out by head and shoulders as the prouerbe is or by laying violent hands vpon his sacred person which can not sufficiently be prooued to be so but onely that they thrust him out not by violence for he himselfe made haste to goe out but onely by their commandement or admonition and by denouncing Gods wrath against him and by crying against him and perchance with clapping of hands as against an vncleane and polluted person who by the law of God was forbidden to enter or remaine in the Sanctuarie in that manner as before they did endeauour to resist and under him from burning of incense not by force of armes and violently taking the Censar out of his hands but by their words and admonition commanding him to goe out of the Sanctuarie and not to contemne the law of God 2. Paralip 26. And they resisted the King saith the Scripture and sayd It is not thy office Ozias to burne incense to our Lord but to the Priests goe out of the Sanctuarie contemne not because this thing will not be reputed to thee for glory by our Lord. But Ozias contemned their words and bring angrie and holding in his hands the Censar to burne incense be threatned the Priests And foorthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests in the house of our Lord before the altar of incense And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in haste they thrust him out to wit by their admonitions outcries and exclamations whose words and admonitions he himselfe being now sore afraid did willingly obey Yea and himselfe being sore afraid saith the Scripture made haste to goe out because he felt forthwith the plague of our Lord. 159 And that onely by their words and admonitions and not by force and violence they thrust him out Iosephus lib. 9. Antiquit. cap. 11. Iosephus in the words cited aboue c nu 106. doth plainly signifie The Priests sayth he after they perceiued the leprosie in the Kings face c. they admonished him that as a polluted and vncleane person he would goe out the Citie And he with the shame of his calamitie obeyed c. or as the Scripture saith he being sore afraid made haste to goe out And what need had they to thrust him out by force and violence when he himselfe made haste to goe out The same also S. Chrysostome in the place here cited by Mr. Fitzherbert Chrysostom hom 4. de verbis Isaia vidi Dominum doth most cleerly signifie in these words Et egrossus est Rex c. And the King went forth being made an example to all and the temple was purged and he was cast foorth no man thrusting him foorth * Nemine propellente and whereas he would arrogate to himselfe the Priesthood he lost that which he had to wit his corporall health and libertie to come and remaine in the Temple and Citie and he departed out of the temple 160 And the reason why the Priests ought not to lay violent hands on the Kings person and to compell him by force of armes S. Chrysostome did giue a little before in those words But King Ozias did not obey his admonisher but puffed vp with arrogancis he opened the temple and entered into the Sanctuarie with intention to offer incense But what did God After the Priest was contemned and the Priestly dignitie troden vnder foote marke the words following nec quicquam prateras potuit Sacerdos Nam Sacerdotis tantum est arguere c. Neither could the Priest doe anything more For it is the office of a Priest onely to reprooue and to giue a free admonition not to raise armes not to vse targets not to shake a lance not to shoote arrowes not to cast darts but onely to reprooue and to giue a free admonition After therefore the Priest had reprooued and yet the King did not yeeld but tooke weapons shields and sâ— and vsed his power thou the Priests said to God I haue done that which belonged to my office I can doe no more helpe thou the Priesthood which is troden vnder foote c. Thus S. Chrysostome And a little aboue The King saith he doth compell or force the Priest exhort the King by necessity the Priest by counsell the King hath sensible armour the Priest spirituall the King maketh warre against Barbarians the Priest against Deuills So you see that according to S. Chrysostome it belongeth not to the Priest to vse sensible weapons and to force by corporall violence but by counsell admonition or commandement 161 Thirdly although a leper was by the law of God bound to liue apart out of the Campe or City from the rest of the people yet as I obserued in my said Theologicall Disputation d In Admonit nu 28. it cannot bee sufficiently prooued that is belonged to the Priests of the old law to thrust lepers by force and violence out of the Campe or City but onely by iudging them to be lepers and by declaring that by the law of God they were to bee separated seeing that the Kings and not the Priests were the executours of the law against offendours and by force and corporall violence to punish them who did not obserue the law as I declared aboue e Nu. 80. out of Abulensis But that the Priests after they had declared one to be infected with leprosie and had charged him to depart and commanded them who were to execute the law to performe their dutie and what the law did prescribe had any farther authority as they were Priests to thrust him out by violence it cannot be prooued out of the old law Euen as now in the new law it belongeth to spirituall Pastours to declare whether one bee infected with spirituall leprosie but after they haue declared one to be infected with heresie and haue excluded him from the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull leauing him now to the Secular Court they haue no further power by the law of Christ as they are spirituall Pastours
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
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
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
Instit de patr potest Glossa ibidem Moli disp 228. and the Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doe well obserue the authoritie which Parents haue ouer their children was introduced by the Ciuill law of the Romanes from the time as the Glosse saith of Romulus the effects of which fatherly power authoritie or command the Glosse doth in briefe but Molina more at large set downe 93 Wherefore the Reader may by the way obserue that there is a great difference to be made betwixt the power and authority which Parents now liuing in ciuill Society haue ouer their Children consequently the obedience of Children answerable thereunto and the power and authority which the Ciuill Common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince haue ouer subiects because all the authority and command which Parents haue ouer their children proceedeth from the Ciuill Common-wealth and is wholy depending thereon and not from the law of nature and therefore the obedience which children owe to their Parents supposing them to be Parents cannot properly be called naturall but ciuill obedience but the supreme authoritie that the temporall Common-wealth hath ouer her subiects supposing the aduniting of men in Ciuill Societie Bellar. lib. 3. de Laicis cap. 6. is euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine deriued from the law of nature Yea also it is very probable and affirmed by diuers learned men as I haue shewed heretofore x In Append. cōtra D. Schulcken calumnia 16. nu 8. that the supreame power and authority which temporall Princes haue ouer their subiects doth also proceed from the law of nature and prescript of naturall reason although their title or the designing of their persons to be Princes is not deriued from the law of nature but from the Common-wealth it selfe for which cause wee may truely and properly call that obedience which subiects owe to the ciuill Common-wealth or the Soueraigne Prince thereof not onely ciuill but also naturall obedience or allegiance consequently the bond thereof to be greater then the obligation of the Sonne to his Father the wife to the Husband and the slaue to his Lord. 94 Now to Mr Fitzherberts argument I answered in the said Appendix to Suarez that as the power and authority which Parents haue ouer their children is granted to them by the ciuill Common-wealth so also it cannot be taken away from them but by Ciuill authority And therefore those Canons either of Popes or Councels wherein children are exempted from the power and authoritie which by the Ciuill law their Parents haue ouer them doe either confirme that which was first decreed by the Imperiall law or they are made with the expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or they doe onely declare the law of God and nature to wit that children are to forsake the company of their Parents when by conuersing with them they are in danger to offend their Creatour As when the Father is accounted to be dead ciuilly either by some great sinne committed by him as heresie and treason or otherwise or if he make profession in an approued Religion whereby he is accounted dead to the world his Children are discharged by the Ciuill law from the power which he had ouer them as you may see in Molina in the place whereto my Aduersary remitteth his reader For it is a rule of the Ciuill law that naturall and ciuill death are equiualent concerning ciuill acts as noteth the Glosse vpon Leg. si decesserit ff qui satisdare So likewise if one be ordained a Bishop he is discharged thereby from the power and authority which his Father hath ouer him Authent de Sanct. Episcopis cap. 3. § Si uero contigerit And in this particular case which Mr. Fitzherbert here vrgeth that decree of the fourth Councell of Toledo was made by the authority and consent of King Sisennandus as I haue shewed more at large in that Appendix against Suarez Besides the decree of that Councell if it be vnderstood of Children which haue discretion is onely a declaration as I there obserued of the law of God and Nature whereby the baptized children of Iewes are freed not from the power or right which Parents haue ouer their Children but onely from their company for that the law of God and Nature forbiddeth all conuersation whereby one may incurre probable danger of reuolting from the faith or falling into any other sinne 95 And the like is to be said of the discharge of slaues and bondmen from the company of their Lords when the said slaues are Catholikes and their Lords heretikes For although these slaues if they be in danger to be peruerted may by the law of God Nature absent themselus from the company of their Lords vntil the danger be past as likewise a catholike wife may depart frō the company of her husband who is an heretike if she be in danger of being peruerted by his company this the Church hath power to declare and command them vnder paine of spirituall Censures to performe Neuerthelesse the Church hath no authority to dissolue the bond of Matrimony or to take away the right or fatherly power which hereticall Parents haue ouer their Children or to release the bond of slauery by which Lords haue a right or dominion ouer their slaues And therefore when the danger of being peruerted is past the wife is bound to returne to her Husband the Child to his Father and the bondman to his Lord vnlesse by the authority of the temporall Prince the Childe bee freed from the right and power which his Father had ouer him and the slaue from his bondage And therefore à fortiori and by a stronger reason the Church hath not authority to discharge subiects from the bond of obedience and allegiance to an hereticall Prince both for that thisis a temporall and ciuill punishment which therefore to inflict doth not belong to spirituall power and also for that temporall Princes being in temporals next vnder God cannot be temporally punished but by God alone and also because this bond of allegiance is naturall whereas the other obligations by which a wife a childe a slaue are bound to obey her husband his Father his Lord is ciuill and deriued from the Ciuill Common-wealth Neuerthelesse I doe not denie that the Church by a declaratiue precept may command the subiect to forsake the company of his Prince yea and perchance to depart the land if by such staying he be in probable danger to be peruerted yet still hee remaineth subiect to his Prince and when this danger is past he is bound by vertue of his allegiance to returne againe at the commandement of his Prince 96 And by this it is manifest how grossely Mr. Fitzherbert is deceiued in affirming so boldly That the bond of allegiance to the Prince is not greater then the obligation of the Sonne to the Father the Wife to the Husband and the Slaue to his Lord Seeing that all the obedience which a Childe oweth to his
other temporall commodities as I haue shewed in the last Chapter c Num. 18. 6 But truely I cannot but smile to see the vanitie of this man who though he see himselfe altogether vanquished yet he boasteth that hee is victorious and although he clearely perceiueth yea and almost expressely confesseth that his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. Chapter to be quite ouerthrowne yet hee braggeth that his cause is not thereby weakened or hurt any way but rather fortified and strengthened For if you note well what he granteth to wit That the penalty of corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the olde and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by excommunication you cannot but clearely see that his argument taken from Deuteronomy the 17. Chapter which onely text in particular I vndertooke to answere and which speaketh onely of corporall death is quite ouerthrowne and yet forsooth I doe hereby rather fortifie and strengthen then weaken or hurt any way his cause By which you may plainely perceiue what credit is to be giuen to the rest of his vaine-glorious brags seeing that in this so manifest an ouerthrow of his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. he is not ashamed to boast that I haue rather fortified and strengthened then weakened or hurt any way his cause But will Widdrington saith he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication includeth a temporall punishment c. The inference that Widdrington maketh is that from the wordes of Deuteronomy the 17. which speake onely of corporall death Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought no good argument for that according to the doctrine of Saint Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine which hee himselfe also will not denie The penalty of corporall death is now in the new law turned to the death of the soule by Excommunication Neither is it true that Excommunication being of it own nature a separation frō the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull doth of it owne nature include any temporall punishment at all as also I haue shewed in the last Chapter albeit I doe not denie that the Church hath now by way of command annexed to Excommunication some temporall penalties but not by way of inflicting them as I declared in that place for I euer granted that the Church hath power to command enioyne or impose temporall punishments but not to inflict them yet these to command and to inflict to impose and to dispose my Aduersary doth commonly confound 7 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 114. numer 4.5 it is euident that in the olde Testament euen the temporall Princes themselues were punished by depriuation of their right to their temporall states and dominions as e 1 Reg. 16. Saul by Samuel Athalia f 4 Reg. 11. by Ioiada Ioram g 4 Reg. 9. by one of the children of the Prophets who being sent by Elizeus annointed Iehu King of Israel to the end he might destroy Iesabel all the house of Achab. Also Ozias was not only corporally expelled out of the temple by the Priests confined by their sentence to liue priuately is his own house but according to the opinion doctrine of S. Chrysostome he ought also to haue beene wholy depriued of the gouernment as I haue signified before h Cap. 5. nu 21. 22. at large And therefore seeing he telleth vs how the penalty of corporall death which was ordained in the olde Testament is now fulfilled spiritually in the new let him also tell vs to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their states and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end that wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment and in the meane time let him acknowledge according to his owne doctrine and instance here produced that the Church may punish temporally seeing it may excommunicate and consequently depriue men of many temporall commodities 8 But this also is very vntrue that the Priests of the olde Testament had authoritie to punish temporall Princes by depriuing them of their right to their temporall states and dominions as I amply prooued aboue in the 5. Chapter Neither doe these examples brought here by Mr. Fitzherbert prooue any such thing For to the examples of King Ozias and Athalia I haue answered aboue at large And as for the other two besides that Samuel Elias and Elizeus were not Priests it is manifest that what they did concerning the annointing or deposing of any King they did it not by their owne authority but onely as Prophets and speciall messengers sent by God to that purpose How long saith God to Samuel i 1 Reg. 16. dost thou mourne Saul whom I haue reiected that hee rule not ouer Israel Fill thy horne with oyle and come that I may send thee to Isai the Bethleemite for I haue prouided me a King among his Sons And again Goe saith God to k 3 Reg. 19. Elias and returne into thy way by the desert of Damascus and when thou art come thither thou shalt annoint Hazael King ouer Syria and Iehu the Sonne of Namsi thou shalt annoint King ouer Israel and Elizeus the Sonne of Saphat thou shalt annoynt Prophet for thee And therefore he that was sent by Elizeus to annoint Iehu was commanded to speake in the person of God not of Elizeus And holding saith l 4 Reg. 9. Elizeus to him that was sent the little boxe of oyle thou shalt power vpon his head and shalt say Thus saith our Lord I haue annointed thee King ouer Israel Now what man of iudgement would make this inference that because in the olde lawe some Prophets who were no Priests did by the expresse commandement of God make annoint or depose Kings therefore the Priests in the new law haue ordinary power and authority to doe the same Belike Mr. Fitzherbert will approoue also this argument that because Elias was commanded by God to annoint not onely Iehu King ouer Israel but also Hazael King ouer Syria therefore the Pope hath authority to make and depose not onely Christian but also Pagan Kings 9 Wherefore that demand which is heere made by my Aduersary to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their States and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment is friuolous both for that the Priests of the old law had no authority to depriue Kings of their temporall States and Dominions or to inflict temporall punishments and also albeit they had such an authority neuerthelesse it could not bee prooued from thence by deducing an argument from the figure to the veritie that therefore
to prooue that this law of the Emperour Frederike was no way preiuciall to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran but a notable confirmation thereof which is nothing at all against mee For I neuer intended to deny that this Constitution of Frederike was against the Canon of the saide Councell but I expresly affirmed that it was the same law and constitution containing the very same wordes with that of the Councell changing onely spirituall punishments into temporall and that therefore those wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-Lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in both Decrees haue though not equally yet proportionally the like restriction and limitation in both For that which I affirme is that this great and famous Councell of Lateran where almost all the Ambassadours of Christian Kings and Princes were present did represent as the Cardinall of Peron doth well obserue the whole Christian world or Common-wealth as well temporall as spirituall and was as it were a generall Parliament of all Christendome consisting both of temporall and spirituall authoritie of temporall Princes and spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted therein concerning spirituall matters as is the inflicting of spirituall Censures for what crime soeuer either spirituall or temporall did proceede meerely from the authoritie of spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted concerning temporall matters as is this decree whereof now we treate concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they bee inflicted did proceede meerely from the authoritie of Secular Princes who are the head and fountaine of all temporall authoritie and of all power to dispose of temporall matters for that as I haue prooued more at large in the first part of this Treatise by the testimonie of many learned Catholikes the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment but that when the Church or spirituall Pastours doe inflict such temporall punishments it proceedeth from the positiue grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes 38 And from this ground it euidently followeth that not onely in this Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the temporall punishing of heretikes their abetters but also in all other Canons of Popes or Councells when the inflicting of any tēporal punishmēt is ordained it is as probable that all the force which they haue to bind doth proceede originally frō the positiue grant consent and authoritie of temporal Princes as it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not by the institutiō of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporal or ciuill punishments and consequently that temporall Princes are not by any generall wordes included in such decrees as being themselues supreame and next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be punished with temporall punishments but by GOD alone Wherefore vnlesse my Aduersaries doe first prooue which in my iudgement they will neuer bee able to doe by some conuincing argument grounded vpon the authoritie either of the Holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleare definition of the Church that this doctrine which denyeth the Pope to haue by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments is absurd and not probable they spend their time in vaine and beate about the bush to little purpose whiles they bring neuer so many decrees and canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained for still the maine question remaineth yet a foote by what authoritie to wit temporall or spirituall those Canons for as much as concerneth the inflicting of such temporall punishments haue force to binde and the answere of Almaine and of many other Catholike Doctours will bee still readie at hand that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath onely authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and that the other punishments which hee vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law authoritie grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes and that therefore the lawes or Canons of spirituall Pastours enacting them cannot bind or comprehend temporall Princes themselues 39 And by this the Reader may cleerely see both the ground and reason from whence I deduced probably that absolute Princes are not included vnder any generall words whatsoeuer in penall lawes and canons of the Church wherein temporall penalties are inflicted for neither are they included as you shall see beneath in the next Chap. in penall lawes wherein spirituall punishments are inflicted vnder generall words or names which denote titles of inferiour degree place and dignitie as are Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis a temporall or principall Land-Lord Gouernour or also Lord and such like and also how weakely not to vse Mr. Fitzherberts foule word absurdly he prooueth that I shew my selfe to bee very absurd in perswading the Reader that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in the Canon and in the Emperours law haue like restriction though not equally yet proportionally in both For what can be more cleare saith he h p. 145. nu 15 then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince who maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended only to his owne subiects whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall tearmes do comprehend all Christian men as well absolute Princes as others because they are all subiect thereto yet the Lawes of temporall Princes being made in the like or in the same generall tearmes can comprehend none but their owne subiects and this being so what an absurd argument hath Widdrington made who because the words are all one in the Canon of the Councell and the Law of the Emperour will restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne Dominion 40 And therefore though the words Dominus temporalis or principalis or non habens Dominum principalem be generall in his Law yet they can bee vnderstood of none but such as being his subiects held their Lands or states of him or of some other in his Dominions in which respect Kings and other temporall Princes which held not of the Empire could not be comprehended therein though the same generall words in the Canon must needes comprehend as well all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes as other inferiour Lords because all of them being Domini temporales are subiect alike to the decrees of a generall Councell 41 True it is that nothing is more cleere then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of
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
vnder the generall name of Priests or Clearkes nor Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes nor Kings vnder the generall name of Lords Gouernours or Landlords he must according to his owne confession grant that I haue reason to exempt Emperours Kings and absolute Princes from the Canon of the Lateran Councell 34 Neither did I ground this my doctrine vpon the Canon Quia periculosum wherein it is decreed that in the case of Suspension Interdict Bishops are not comprehended vnder any generall words whatsoeuer vnlesse they be expressed by the name of Bishops but vpon the authorities aforesaid chiefly vpon that reason which Mr. Fitzher himselfe acknowledgeth to be most true that all lawes are to be vnderstood according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation of euery Ecclesiasticall Canon is extended onely to those who are subiect to the spirituall authority of the Church as absolute Princes are not in meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes whom I haue named aboue in the first part of this Treatise and defended them from the friuolous exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath made against them 35 Finally saith Mr. Fitzherbert whereas Widdrington saith that the Synode would haue specified Princes by that name as well in this Canon if it had meant to include them therein as it did in some other Canons and Decrees concerning other matters who seeth not the vanitie of this coniecture For why should they be named more particularly then they are seeing that they are sufficiently comprehended in the generall tearme of Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord k He might as wel haue translated it a temporall Landlord n To wit no temporal Landlord aboue thē but the King which is also sufficiently explicated in this very Canon wherein we see that a temporall Lord l He might as well haue said a tempprall Landlord for Dominus temporalis signifieth both is diuided into two sorts the one of those who haue principall Lords m And also Landlords aboue them and the other of such as haue none of which sort are all absolute Princes that hold of none p And also other principall Landlords who haue no principall Landlord aboue them but the King who is not comprehended in odious matters vnder the name of a Landlord and therefore seeing that such are declared by the Canon to be subiect to the penaltie no lesse then those who holde of others it was needlesse to name them in other manner But belike my Aduersary will take vpon him not onely to interprete the Councell but also to teach it how to speake and what words to vse or else it must be of no force 36 No Mr. Fitzherbert God forbid that either I who professe my selfe to be a Catholike should be so arrogant as to take vpon mee to teach the Councell how to speake or what words to vse or that you who professe to be a teacher and to instruct others in this difficult controuersie which you will needes make a point of faith should bee so ignorant as not to know that the sense and meaning of the Councell is to be gathered from the sense and propertie of the words and that by the words we are taught what is the sense meaning of the Councell Now I haue sufficiently shewed before both by the authority of learned Lawyers and Diuines and also by conuincing reason that absolute Princes are not sufficiently comprehended in this Canon vnder the generall name of a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour of Lord both for that it is a penall law wherein an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Landlord Gouernour or Lord and ciefely for that it is such a penall law which is probable to bee a temporall and not a spirituall law for that it inflicteth temporall punishments which according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes cannot be inflicted but by temporall or ciuill power and that therefore those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or Lord cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church for that the words of euery law are to bee limitted according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes law whether hee bee a temporall or spirituall Prince is extended onely to his owne subiects 37 And if my Aduersary flie to his ancient shift that all Emperours Kings and other Christian Princes are children of the Church therfore subiect to the spirituall Pastors thereof It is true in spiritualls but not in temporalls as is the inflicting of temporall punishments wherein they are not subiect but absolute and supreme True also it is that Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord is in this Canon diuided into two sorts of Lords taking a Lord as the canon here doth take him to wit not only for a title of honour which Knights Gentlemen many inferiour Magistrates as Shiriffes Bayliffes Constables haue not but for euery person who hath tenants vassals or other persons any way subiect to him in which sense euery Land-lord Magistrate is called Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord The one sort is of those who haue principall and chiefe Gouernours or Land-lords aboue them as are all inferiour Magistrates and those who hold any land of others The other is of those who although they be subiect to the King yet they haue no other principall Land-lords or Gouernours aboue them and of this sort are both those who let their lands to others and yet hold their lands of none nor perchance of the King and also all principall Gouernours of the common-wealth who are subiect to no other then the King as are all the Lords or the body of the Kings priuie Councell together and in some sort the Lord Chancellour the Lord chiefe Iustice who haue no one principall Lord or Gouernour aboue them as all other subiects haue but the King alone yet neither of these sorts doe sufficiently expresse a King or a supreme and absolute Prince for that they are titles belonging also to subiects and inferiour persons And therefore the premises being considered it is probable that if the Councell had meant to haue comprehended Kings and absolute Princes in that Canon she would haue giuen them their proper titles of honour as she did in other Decrees and not include them in those common titles of honour which are giuen to persons of inferiour state and condition 38 And by this which I haue said in these two Chapters the Reader may cleerely see that these answeres which I haue giuen to the decree of the Lateran
certaine and infallible The third is that the people or Common-wealth haue authority in some cases are bound to depose their Prince and consequently that the Pope may by Ecclesiastical censures compell them thereunto And with this question concerning the power of the Common-wealth as I haue often said I will not intermeddle before it be agreed vpon betwixt my Aduersaries and mee concerning the maine and principall controuersie whether the Pope hath authority to depriue by way of sentence an hereticall King of his right to raigne or which is all one to make by his iuridicall sentence a King to be a priuate man for this is that at which our King and Parliament in making the new oath of allegiance did onely aime 13 And by this it is apparant how fraudulently and perniciously Mr. Fitzherbert following therein D. Schulckenius seeketh to abuse and delude his Reader in labouring to perswade him that it little importeth to the substance of the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me whether the Pope may depose a Prince by a iudiricall sentence of deposition and depriue him of all his Regall authority and right which before that sentence he had to raigne or whether the Common-wealth hath authority and also is bound in some cases to depose their King and consequently whether the Pope hauing authority to declare the law of God and the dutie which all Christians owe to God may by Ecclesiasticall censures compell them thereunto and absolue them from their oath of allegiance by declaring that their oath in that case doth not binde which absoluing as Parisiensis said aboue is rather a declaring of the law then an absoluing from the oath of allegiance And neuerthelesse there is nothing more cleere then that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee is not what authoritie the common-wealth hath ouer their Prince which is rather a philosophicall question and grounded vpon the principles of state and policy then vpon the positiue law of God but what authority the Pope hath to depriue by way of sentence hereticall Princes of their Princely right and authority or which is all one in substance whether the coerciue or punishing power of the Pope for about his derectiue declaratiue and commanding power to which his authority to declare the law of God and what we are bound by the law of God to doe is reduced I doe not contend doth by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as all my Aduersaries most vehemently contend or onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures as Ioannes Parisiensis doth most expresly affirme Whereby the Reader may see to what narrow shifts these men are brought when they seeke to flye from the true state and substance of the maine question and controuersie to by-questions and difficulties altogether impertinent 14 Wherefore to retort backe my Aduersaries words albeit Ioannes Parisiensis giueth more power to subiects then perchance hee ought yet concerning the Popes power hee denieth him as much as sufficeth mee seeing that it little importeth to the substance of the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me which is whether the Pope may inflict temporall punishments and depose temporall Princes by way of iuridiall sentence that is by depriuing them of their right to reigne which Ioannes Parisiensis expresly denyeth I say it little importeth whether the Common-wealth hath authority and sometimes is bound to depose their Prince and consequently the Pope may indirectly l Ioan Pariâ— taketh indirectly in an other sense thâ—â— the Diuines doe take it when they say that the Pope may depose Princes not directly but indirectly or per accidens to wit by declaring the law of God and compelling faithfull subiects by Ecclesiasticall Censures to doe their dutie may concurre to the same which indeed Parisiensis expresly affirmeth Neither doth this manner of deposing Princes indirectly and disposing of temporall things indirectly ouerthrow the foundations of my doctrine touching the maine question of the Popes power to depose and dispose by a iuridicall sentence And all this I answered before against D. Schulckenius neither could I in that briefe Admonition take particular notice of all that which my Aduersary wrote in his Supplement or D. Schulckenius in his Apologie but seeing that I haue now taken particular notice of both their answeres and arguments we will now expect what a learned Reply Mr. Fitzherbert will make against the same And this may suffice for Ioannes Parisiensis 15 But before I goe any further I thinke it not amisse vpon this occasion to admonish the Reader by the way of a briefe digression in what a cunning manner the most Illustrious Cardinall of Peron in his oration to the third estates confoundeth these two questions and consequently saith little or nothing against my doctrine touching the Popes power to depose Princes and the new Oath of Allegiance established heere in England Thus therefore hee propoundeth the state of the question betwixt him and the lower house of Parliament m Pag. 13. according to the English edition There remaines the third point which is this whether if Princes hauing made an Oath to GOD and their people either themselues oâ— their Predecessours to liue and die in the Christian and Catholike Religion and doe afterwards violate their Oath rebell against Christ bidding him open warre that is to say fall not onely to open profession of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion but with all passe to force their subiects consciences and goe about to plant Arrianisme or Mahometisme or any such like infidelitie within their states and thereby to destroy and roote out Christianitie whether I say in this case their subiects on the other side may not bee declared absolued from their Oath of Loyaltie and Fidelitie And this comming to passe to whom it appertaineth to pronounce this absolution 16 This then is the point in controuersie betweene vs For your article containeth the negatiue that is to say that in no case whatsoeuer the subiects may bee absolued from the Oath of Allegiance made to their Princes As on the contrarie side all other parts of the Catholike Church together with this of France since the institution of Schooles of Diuinitie vntill the comming of Caluin held the affirmatiue proposition which is that when the Prince breakes the Oath he hath made to GOD and his subiects to liue and dye in Catholike Religion and doeth not onely become an Arrian or a Mahometan but manifestly warres against Iesus Christ in compelling his subiects in matters of conscience and constraining them to embrace Arianisme or Mahometisme or any other detestable infidelitie That then this Prince may bee declared falne from his right as culpable of felonie towards him to whom hee hath made the Oath of his Realme that is to Christ and his subiects may bee absolued in conscience both at the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Tribunall from the Oath of Allegiance they haue made vnto him And that in this case it belongs to
or Lords who remaine excommunicated for a whole yeare for neglecting to purge their territories of hereticall filth And thus much concerning the Apostles decree 22 And the like also saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 179. nu 4. 5. may bee said concerning other decrees of Popes and Councels the impugners whereof haue beene held and condemned by the Church for heretikes as for example it was decreed e Baron an 159 Euseb lib. 23. cap. 22. 23. 24 25. Theod. lib. 1. c. 9. Athan. in epist de Synod Arimin Ambros epist 83. by Pope Pius the first and confirmed by Pope Victor and after by the Councell of Nice that the feast of Easter should be celebrated at the same time that now it is kept vniuersally throughout Christendome according to the tradition left to the Romane Church by S. Peter whereas the Churches of Asia did celebrate the said feast with the Iewes to wit at the time prescribed in the law of Moyses following therein the tradition or at least the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist And albeit those decrees ordaine onely matter of fact and practise yet they which haue heretofore contradicted the same and adhered to the custome of the Iewes were and are still held by the Church for heretikes Epiphan haer 50 S. Aug haer 29. and registred for such by S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine in their Catalogues of heretikes vnder the name and title of Tessarescedecatitae that is to say Quartadecimani who with this distinction of Widdrington and his arguments might farre more probably defend their opinion then he doth or can defend his For they might say as well as he that those Decrees were not matters of faith but matters of fact onely wherein both the Pope and the Councels might follow their owne priuate opinions and consequently erre which being added to that which they said in defence of their heresie and might truely say to wit that they followed the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist and of the Churches of Asia Euseb vbi supra Beda lib. 3. hist cap. 23. which receiued the same by tradition from him and continued it without interruption for 150. yeares this I say would giue another manner of probability to their doctrine then he can any way pretend for his and yet neuerthelesse they are worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees 23 But this obiection is as friuolous as the former first for that it supposeth that I oppose a matter of fact to a matter of faith and imagine that the one cannot stand with the other which is vntrue as I shewed before Secondly for that it supposeth also that I impugne the decree or rather Act and reason of the Lateran Councell which is also vntrue seeing that I doe not impugne it but onely as you haue seene expound it Thirdly for that there is a great disparity betwixt the decree concerning the celebrating of the Feast of Easter and this Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates seeing that the former is a true and proper decree implying an expresse precept and commandement but this Act is not a true proper decree containing in it any command grant or priuiledge as I shewed before and therefore we cannot rightly apply those arguments which the Diuines doe bring to prooue the Churches infallible authority to make decrees and precepts concerning manners to this Act of the Lateran Councel which is not grounded vpon any doctrine appertaining to faith but onely vpon opinion which may be exposed to errour 24 Fourthly the Quartadecimani Castro lib. 12. contra haer verbo Pascha Bell. lib. 3. de Cultu Sanct. cap. 12. as you may see in Alphonsus de Castro and Cardinall Bellarmine were not accounted heretikes for celebrating the Feast of Easter according to the custome of the Iewes contrary to the decree of the Church but for that they thought it necessary to celebrate that Feast according to the custome of the Iewes which is indeede hereticall And therefore that is very vntrue which Mr. Fitzherbert saith that the Quartadecimani were worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees but because they refused to obey them vpon an hereticall ground Neither is it hereticall as I haue shewed before out of Canus to impugne or disobey a decree of the Church especially concerning facts and manners which are not necessary to saluation vnlesse it be impugned or disobeyed vpon an hereticall ground But if the decree bee grounded onely vpon an opinion which is exposed to errour and not vpon an infallible point of faith it is not hereticall to impugne that decree and to say that the Church may erre in making that decree Wherefore it is one thing to say that the Church may erre in making such or such a law and decree and another thing to say that the Church doth erre or hath erred in making that law and decree Canus lib. 5. q. 5 conclu 2. albeit Melchior Canus feareth not to say that hee doth not approoue all Church-lawes nor commend all punishments Censures Excommunications Irregularities Interdicts I know saith he that there be some such lawes which if they want nothing else yet doubtlesse they want prudence and discretion For in lawes precepts decrees and facts concerning manners which are not necessary to saluation and which are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith it is not hereticall to hold that Christ hath not promised to the Church any infallible assistance and that therefore she may erre in making such decrees yet I do not deny but that it were temerarious and irreligious for any priuate man to impugne any decree of a generall Councell and to say that the Church did erre in making that decree 25 As also it is no false doctrine much lesse hereticall to affirme that Kings and temporall Common-wealths may erre in making lawes and decrees concerning ciuill gouernment for that Christ hath not promised them his infallible assistance therein yet it were scandalous and seditious for a priuate man to impugne any temporall law established by the Prince and the Common-wealth and to say that they did erre in making that temporall law But as I said before I doe not impugne but onely expound this Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell according to the probable doctrine of very many Doctours who affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath not power to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall Censures But no maruaile that my Aduersary discourseth here so vnlearnedly seeing that hee hath so little insight in these Theologicall questions and I accuse rather his temerity then his ignorance that hee will take vpon him with such confidence to bee a teacher in these difficult questions wherein hee himselfe hath neuer beene a Schollar or scarce vnderstandeth the true state of the question And by this which hath beene said the iudicious
likewise Leo the Emperour was before depriued of his rents and reuenewes in Italie for heresie by Pope Gregorie the second Also Childerike King of France and Henry the fourth Emperour of that name had beene deposed from their states and dignities by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike before the Councell of Lateran Therefore the said Councell had reason to thinke it altogether needelesse to determine any thing concerning the lawfulnesse of a matter alreadie admitted and practised 43 But truely any learned man would be ashamed to argue so vnlearnedly that because some Popes before the Councell of Lateran deposed Christian Princes wherein neuerthelesse they were greatly contradicted by Princes and subiects therefore the Popes authoritie to depose is vndoubtedly lawfull or because a matter is alreadie practised and admitted by many though contradicted and not admitted by others there needeth no determination to make the lawfulnesse thereof certaine and manifest It is true that diuers Popes since the time of Gregory the 7. who was the first that contrary to the custome of his Ancestours challenged to himselfe authority to depose the Emperour Onuphrius lib. 4 de varia creat Rom. Pont. saith Onuphrius haue put in practise this their pretended authority but it was euer contradicted both by Christian Princes and subiects And in particular concerning those examples which Mr. Fitzherbert here bringeth it is euident that many Catholike Authours whom I related elsewhere p Apolog. num 404. seq doe denie that Pope Zachary did depose Childerike in any other manner then by consenting to the Peeres of France who deposed him and by declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France and his subiects absolued from their oath of allegiance That of P. Gregory the second or the third for my Aduersaries do not agree which of them it was Onuphrius vbi supra Otho Frsingensis lib. 6 cap. 35. Sigebert ad annum 1088. Godfridus viterb par 17. Trithem in Chron. monast Hirsang ad adnum 1106. Onuphrius calleth a fable Pope Gregory the 7. did indeede depose Henrie the fourth Emperour but how greatly hee was contradicted therein all Histories make mention and how it was accounted a great noueltie it is manifest by Otho Frisingensis Sigebert Godfridus Trithemius Onuphrius and also by the Epistle of Hermanus Bishop of Metz to Pope Gregory q Vide epistol Greg. 7. ad Herman lib. 8. Epist 21. concerning this poynt 44 Also Pope Innocent the third did depose Otho as before he deposed Philip and hereof he wrote a Decretall Epistle or Breue to the Duke of Zaringia which is registred in the Canon Law in Cap. Venerabilem de elect electi potestate which decree or decretall Epistle Albericus a famous Lawyer r In Dictionar in verbo electio Abbas Vrsperg ad annum 1198 affirmeth to be made by Pope Innocent against the liberty and rights of the Empire And Abbas Vrspergensis not onely reprehendeth that decree as containing in it against Philip many absurd things and some falsehoods but he also taxeth the Princes and Barons of periurie who saith he being taught by diabolicall art did not regard to breake their oathes nor violate their faith now forsaking Philip and adhering to Otho and contrariwise And how this deposition of Otho was contradicted by him Naucler gener 41. ad annum 1212. Nauclerus whom my Aduersary citeth doth plainely testifie who writeth that Otho speaking to the Princes of Germany affirmeth that it belongeth to their right and not the Popes to create and depose the Emperour But to see in what manner Otho was made Emperour to the infinite wrong of Fredericke the second being then a childe and without fault and who in his cradle was by almost all the Princes of Germany in the time of his father Henrie the sixt Emperour chosen to be their King and to whom they made their oath of allegiance and for what cause this Otho after hee was made Emperour was deposed by the Pope it would make euen a stonie heart to bleed and truely my Aduersaries in vrging these examples doe in my iudgement shew great want of discretion Naucler generat 41. ad ann 1193. Matth. Paris in Ioanne Rege an 1210. in giuing thereby occasion to rip vp many odious matters and which for reuerence to the Sea Apostolicke it were much better they were buried with perpetuall silence and obliuion See Nauclerus and Mathew Paris cited heere by my Aduersary 45 Also Pope Innocentius the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons but without the approbation of the whole Councell did depose Fredericke the second but how greatly he was contradict therein both by the Emperour himselfe and also by the Princes of Germany and others it is manifest The Pope saith Abbas Stadensis Abbas Stad ad annum 1245. did vpon S. Iames his day renew in the said Councell of Lyons the sentence of Excommunication against the Emperour and by his owne authority therefore not of the Councell did depose him from his Imperiall dignity and this deposition he published throughout all the Church commanding vnder paine of Excommunication that none should hereafter name him Emperour which sentence flying throughout the world certaine of the Princes with many others did gainesay affirming that it doth not belong to the Pope to create or depose the Emperour but to crowne him that is chosen by the Princes And Nauclerus Naucler generat 42. ad ann 1242. seq to whom Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader affirmeth that the Emperour Fredericke in a letter to the King of France contended to prooue that the Popes sentence denounced against him was in law and right inualid and among other reasons of the Emperour hee alledgeth this that although the Bishop of Rome hath full power in spiritualls that he may absolue and binde all sinners yet it was neuer read that by the graunt of the law of God or man he hath power to transferre the Empire at his pleasure or to iudge temporally of Kings and Princes in depriuing them of their kingdomes And also what contradiction Pope Innocent found by that practise Trithemius relateth affirming Trithem in Chron. Monast Hirsang ad ann 1244. that Fredericke after his deposition came into Italy and did afflict the Pope and the people subiect to him with so great euills that he was weary of his life and wished that he had neuer thought of that deposition Iudge now good Reader what Mr. Fitzherbert dare not auouch affirming so boldly and shamefully that the authority of the Pope to depose Princes was not then doubted of or any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth and with what security thou maist repose thy soule and whole estate vpon the learning and conscience of this man who with such grosse fraude and ignorance seekth to delude thee But to these examples I haue heeretofore partly in my Apologie and partly in this Treatise
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
and to the Sea Apostolike yet for my own part I cannot see but that any prudent man may iustly suppose their zeale to bee blind and not according to knowledge but grounded vpon culpable or wilfull ignorance and that they themselues suspect their owne conscience to bee eroneous and their cause to be naught and therefore would not haue it to be further sifted and examined 11 For seing that the nature of truth being like to pure and perfect gold is such that the more it is examined the more cleere and perspicuous it doth still appeare and contrariwise falshood the more it is sifted the absurdity thereof still sheweth it selfe more manifest if my Aduersaries are in their consciences perswaded as in wordes they professe that they haue truth on their side and that the authority of spirituall Pastours to excommunicate vpon iust cause Christian Princes to binde and loose and to dispence in Oathes in generall which all Catholikes acknowledge to be included in their spirituall power be denyed in the late Oath of allegiance as they pretend or that their authoritie to depose Princes which all men confesse to bee denyed in the Oath bee certaine out of controuersie and a cleere point of Catholike faith for which two causes chiefly they cry out against the Oath and condemne it for vnlawfull as containing in it more then temporall allegiance to wit a manifest denyall of Ecclesiasticall authority why are they so much afraide to haue the matter charitably and sincerely debated by learned men Why will they not suffer those Catholikes especially who are learned and to whom the charge of soules is committed and are able to discerne betwixt truth and falshood betwixt Catholike faith and opinion 1. Pet. 3. and who ought to bee alwaies readie and prepared to satisfie euerie one that asketh them a reason of that faith which is in them to reade such bookes as doe sincerely and exactly handle this controuersie and all the difficulties on both sides and doe plainely declare in what particular manner all Christians are bound by the law of Christ according to the true and approoued grounds of Catholike Religion Matth. 22. to render to God and Caesar that which is their due 12 Why doe they so shamefully abuse his Holinesse by misinforming him that his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and to absolue from Oathes in generall is denyed in the Oath and that his power to depose Princes which indeed the Oath denyeth is a point of faith and thereupon by vrging him to condemne the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation and to forbid those bookes of Catholike Writers that doe plainly discouer their forgeries and euidently conuince that no such spirituall power as they pretend is denyed in the Oath and that his power to depose Princes which the Oath denyeth is not a point of faith but hath euer since the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth for before his age the practise thereof was not heard of Onuphrius l. 4. de varia creat Romani Pont. as Onuphrius witnesseth it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Popes and Christian Princes and those Catholikes who haue fauoured either part and which is more extrauagant by vrging him to commaund vnder paine of Censures the Author of those bookes to purge himselfe foorthwith and yet not to signifie vnto him any one crime either in generall or in particular of which he should purge himselfe although hee hath very often most humbly and instantly requested to know the same 13 Why doth not Cardinall Bellarmine my chiefest Aduersarie being accused by mee to his Holinesse in publike writings of manifest fraudes falshoods corruptions and calumnies cleare himselfe all this time of such fowle imputations which cannot but greatly blemish his honour and quite discredite his cause in the vnderstanding of any iudicious man if in his conscience hee thinke himselfe to bee guiltlesse and that I haue falsly accused him why doth hee not answere and iustifie himselfe and shew to the world that I haue belyed him that also thereby I may see my errour and aske him publike forgiuenesse and bee penitent for the same If hee see that I am innocent why doth hee not restore my credit which hee hath wrongfully taken away and in plaine tearmes confesse that hee was deceiued and mistaken in this controuersie and imitating the example of famous Saint Augustine retract all that hee hath written amisse especially to the hurt and disgrace of innocent men Can any man of iudgement imagine that hee being now so neere his graue would take such paines to write euery yeere some one or other little Treatise of deuotion which neuerthelesse will not excuse him before God from restoring the good name of them whom hee hath falsly defamed and that hee would bee so carelesse to purge himselfe of such shamelesse crimes which cannot but leaue his memory tainted with perpetuall infamy if with his credit hee could cleere himselfe And therefore if he did sincerely consider the admonition hee gaue to other Prelates vpon occasion of Pope Innocents examples to examine their conscience carefully whether it bee sound or erroneous hee might truely haue iust cause to bee sore afraide and greatly to suspect that howsoeuer hee maketh an outward shew of zeale sanctitie and deuotion hee hath within an erroneous and seared conscience for which hee must shortly before the tribunall of God render a strict account 14 All which their proceedings being duely considered whether they are not manifest signes that in their owne consciences they suspect the iustice of their cause and doe plainely see that they are not able to make good their newly inuented Catholike faith and yet will still goe on to maintaine by fraude and violence what they cannot by reason and argument wherein also how much they discredit themselues their cause how mightily they scandalize Catholike Religion and make the Sea Apostolike odious to Princes and subiects how egregiously they wrong and slander innocent Catholikes and how greatly they endanger their owne soules and others I leaue to the iudgement of any prudent and pious man 15 Wherefore my chiefe drift good Reader in this my answere to M. Fitzherbert is first to keepe and maintaine entire and inuiolate the puritie of true Catholike faith and Religion which is greatly defiled not onely by impugning true and vndoubted articles of faith but also by forging and defending false articles for true Secondly to defend my innocency which as long as I haue a pen to write or a tongue to speake I will God willing not bee afraide to maintaine against any man whatsoeuer that shall falsly accuse me and my doctrine of heresie and to make knowne my sincere proceeding in handling this great and dangerous controuersie which concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar and the fraudulent and corrupt dealing of my Aduersaries who by fraud and violence seeke to afflict intangle and disturbe the consciences of
scrupulous and vnlearned Catholikes and to nourish in their hearts such dangerous speculations which without manifest treason can neuer bee put in practise Thirdly to make manifest to all men that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not certaine vnquestionable and a point of faith but very doubtfull vncertaine and at the most onely probable and consequently that it cannot bee practised by the Pope or any other whatsoeuer without manifest iniury to the Prince who is in lawfull possession of his Kingdome of which the Pope vnder pretence onely of a probable power or title seeketh by his sentence to depriue him for that according to the approued rule of the law and grounded vpon naturall reason In causa dubia De regulis Iuris in 6. ff de regulis Iuris regula In pari causa siue incerta melior potior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable case the condition of the possessour is to bee preferred And therefore as well obserueth Fa. Lessius in his Singleton a Par. 2. nu 38. potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. A power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished and be depriued of his right and dominion but such a power must be most certaine and not doubtfull or disputable c. 16 So that there is a great difference to be made for as much as concerneth practise betwixt a power onely probable which tendeth to fauour and is hurtfull to none and which is penall and preiudiciall to a third person who is depriued thereby of some thing which he lawfully possesseth For it is most certaine and approoued by all Diuines that one may practise a probable power to vse Lessius words Quando agitur de fauore beneficio nemo cogitur nemo iure propinquo seu in re obtento spoliatur sed potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. When it is treated of a fauour and benefit and no man is forced or compelled no man is spoiled of his next right or which hee possesseth indeed but a power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished or depriued of his right and dominion c. And for this cause my Aduersaries knowing right well that if they should once admit that this power of the Pope is onely probable they must con-consequently grant that it is merus titulus sine re and can neuer bee lawfully put in practise by any Pope Prince or subiect whatsoeuer haue so much laboured to conuince out of all lawes humane and diuine that this power is not onely probable but most certaine and a cleare point of faith But how shamefully they haue spent their labour in vaine and what friuolous and fallacious arguments they haue brought vnder pretence of spirituall good to make Soueraigne Princes whom all the ancient Fathers with uniforme consent acknowledge to bee supreame on earth and next vnder God in temporals to bee in temporals subiect to the Pope and that the more they striue to make their doctrine in this point to be certaine and of faith the more they shew it still to be lesse probable and to bee inuented and maintained onely in fauour of the Pope without sufficient grounds thou shalt see it good Reader in this Treatise made as cleare and manifest as the light at noone-day 17 Onely I must desire thy patience and pardon for my often repeating the selfe same things which may seeme to some to bee both superfluous and tedious but to me for satisfaction chiefly of the vnlearned Reader it seemed very necessary especially for that the chiefe state of the controuersie depends thereon and yet my Aduersaries will scarse take notice thereof yea and are not ashamed to affirme that I doe not teach any such things although they haue beene by mee very often inculcated As among other things for example sake albeit I haue in all my bookes so often repeated that distinction betwixt the directiue and coerciue power betwixt commanding enioyning or imposing and inflicting punishing or disposing and that I doe so often and so expresly affirme that spirituall Pastours haue by the institution of Christ authority to command enioyne and impose temporall and coporall penalties but to inflict them to punish temporally and to dispose of temporall things onely by the consent and grant of temporall Princes Page 258. yet Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius is not ashamed to auerre that Widdrington denieth the Pope to haue authority to command temporall Princes in temporals in order to spirituall good and therevpon taxeth him of teaching flat heresie and the most that M. Fitzherbert prooueth in this his Replie is as you shall see that spirituall Pastours may for the necessitie of the Church and the good of soules command enioyne and impose temporall and corporall afflictions as fasting almes deedes vsing of haire-cloth and the like wherof no Catholike maketh doubt And therefore I thought it necessarie to inculcate as often as occasion should require the aforesaid distinction it being the maine marke to which the greatest part of all my Aduersaries arguments and of my answeres doe principally tend and whereon the whole state of the Controuersie betwixt me and them concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporals doth chiefly depend CHAP. I. Wherein Widdrington freeth himselfe from two fraudes whereof hee is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe vpon his Aduersarie secondly he discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds and thirdly hee plainely sheweth that hee hath answered probably and like a good Catholike 1. THere bee three things Good Reader which my Aduersary Mr. Fitzherbert in the first chapter of his Reply doth wrongfully lay to my charge The first is that I haue lamely and fraudulently set downe the summe and substance of his discourse in the two first Chapters of his Supplement the second that in relating a supposition of his I haue vsed two fraudes the one in the relation of his wordes and the other in the vse and application of them the third is that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike And because the Reader may the better iudge of the sufficiencie and truth of both our answeres for my onely desire is that the trueth in this difficult controuersie may be cleerely knowne I will obserue the same methode order and number of Chapters which he doth and therefore my answere to his first accusation for that he remitteth his Reader for proofe thereof to his fift sixt and seuenth Chapters I will also referre to those places and only his two accusations I will examine with him in this
that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the English Church nor in plaine words deny the Pope so to be yet it supposeth and implieth both the one and the other and thereupon denyeth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince c. 8 Now who seeth not that I did cleerely distinguish betwixt first of all and afterwards betwixt his supposition which I referred to first of all and to the beginning of his discourse in the sixth page before he began to treat of any of the lawes as also it may euidently appeare by those words of mine This being supposed hee laboureth to prooue c and betwixt his conclusion which I referred to afterwards and quoted the 66. page where he treateth in particular of the Ciuill law But because I quoted onely the place where my Aduersarie maketh the aforesaide conclusion for that the Reader could otherwise hardly finde it out vnlesse he should read 66. pages together and did not quote the place where hee made his supposition for that by those words of mine first of all he supposeth and those other This being supposed he laboureth to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the law of God of Nature of Nations Ciuill and Canon the Reader might easily perceiue that this supposition of his was in the beginning of his discourse before he beganne to treat of any of the lawes Belike my Aduersarie thought that hee might easily from hence haue some colour to taxe me of fraudulent proceeding at the very first beginning little imagining that my words should be so narrowly scanned and that the Reader would easily conceiue the difference betwixt first of all and afterwardes betwixt his supposition in the beginning of his discourse page 6. and his conclusion page 66. but guile hath heerein beguiled it selfe and whilest my Aduersarie by taxing mee of fraud thought to discredite mee at the very first entrance hee hath cleerely prooued himselfe to bee guiltie both of fraude and falshood 9 The second fraude which my Aduersarie Widdrington hath vsed saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Nu. 6. is for that he laboureth as it seemeth to perswade his Reader that all my arguments and reasons are grounded vpon a false supposition of my owne which hee sayth I doe not any way prooue but suppose as knowen of it selfe and this hee seemeth to gather out of my owne wordes alleadged by him as you haue heard wherein I affirme that the new oath supposeth and implieth a deniall of the Popes supremacy although it bee not expresly denied therein hee should haue said wherein I affirme that the oath denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince for this is that which I said hee did suppose and no way prooue When neuerthelesse e Nu. 9. hee could not but see euen in the verie same place from whence hee tooke my wordes that I did not prooue the oath to be vnlawfull by that supposition onely but also by the subordination and subiection of temporall things to spiritual when the good of soules and the seruice of God requireth it Besides that it is most euident in my discourse concerning diuers of those lawes that I deduced the vnlawfulnesse of the oath from the very substance of them as it will manifestly appeare heereafter when I shall come to touch them in particular Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 10 But that I haue vsed no fraud at all in my wordes as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth and that rather that imputation of fraude may bee retorted backe vpon himselfe it is very apparant For in the beginning of his discourse to wit in the sixt page of his Supplement he supposeth as you haue seene that the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes is denied in this oath which also afterwards in the 66. page he confirmeth and in regard onely of these two clauses hee taketh vpon him to prooue that the Popes spirituall authoritie is denied therein VVhich his supposition for as much as concerneth his power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie for that the former is according to the doctrine of all Catholikes included in this latter as a particular in the vniuersall I shewed in my Theologicall Disputation against Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Gretzer Disputatio Theol. c. 4. sect â— and Lessius to be cleerely false and withall in my answere to the substance of this my Aduersaries discourse I affirmed that hee doth not prooue it with any one argument at all but supposeth it as knowne of it selfe which any man that will but sleightly run ouer his discourse may presently perceiue to be true 11 For albeit he doeth boldly affirme and suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes is denied in this oath and consequently if the Popes power to excommunicate Princes be not denied therein his position or copulatiue proposition is false for that to the truth of a copulatiue proposition it is required that both parts of the copulation bee true and to make it false it sufficeth that one onely part of the copulation be false yet he bringeth no one argument in his whole Discourse to prooue that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is denied in the oath but cunningly passeth ouer to his power to depose which all men confesse to be expresly denied therein Neither can any man who is not desirous of set purpose to misconstrue my wordes and meaning imagine that I intended either to deny that the Popes power to depose Princes is impugned in the oath for that my whole Disputation and also my answere to this my Aduersaries Discourse doth plainely shew the contrary or to affirme that my Aduersarie doth suppose as knowne of it selfe and by no reason at all endeauour to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that therefore the oath in regard of this clause which is expresly denied therein is vnlawfull for that I haue briefly related and answered many of his arguments to this purpose and those words of mine which he himselfe relateth This being supposed he goeth about to prooue that the oath is repugnant to the law of God c. doe cleerely conuince the same 12. But my onely intention and meaning was to affirme as the Reader may plainely gather from my words that my Aduersarie at the verie first entrance of his Discourse supposeth that the oath doth containe in it a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes and that to these two generall heads hee promised to reduce all the arguments and exceptions which hee should bring against the oath And that although he hath endeuoured by the subordination of temporall things to spirituall and by many other arguments drawne from diuine and humane lawes to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes yet concerning his power to excommunicate which all Catholikes doe beleeue to bee graunted to him by Christ that hee bringeth no one argument or shew of an argument to prooue that
branch neither the Popes power to Excommunicate is abiured nor any sacriledge committed For hee who sweareth that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication to be denounced against the King he will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie although hee doth sweare that hee will obey the King being excommunicated because Excommunication hath not power to depriue Kings of their temporall dominions and Iurisdiction Apol. nu 346. as Becanus with many other learned Diuines whom I cited in my Apologie doth affirme yet he doth not sweare that hee will not obey a iust Excommunication as Cardinall Bellarmine doth ill conclude For albeit he beleeueth that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate hereticall Kings yet hee doth not beleeue that Excommunication being a spirituall Censure worketh this temporall effect to depriue hereticall Kings of their Royall authoritie to make Kings no Kings or to take away from subiects their naturall and ciuill obedience which by the law of God according to Cardinall Bellarmines owne doctrine n In tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. is due to all Kings although they be heretikes so long as they remaine Kings 20 Nowe Fa. Lessius argued in this maner You will say saith he that the power to excommunicate is not here denyed but onely a certaine effect of Excommunication which is that notwithstanding a Prince be excommunicated yet shall not the subiects be released from the bond of their allegiance But this effect doth necessarily follow the sentence of Excommunication as the practise of the Church for the space of more then twelue hundred yeeres doth shew To this argument I answered that by no practise at all of the Church it can be prooued that the absoluing of subiects from the bond of their alleagiance which by the law of God is due to all absolute Princes is an effect of Excommunication but at the most another punishment although sometimes imposed together with Excommunication as Becanus with many other learned Catholikes doe acknowledge concerning which punishment whether it may for any crime be imposed by the Popes authoritie vpon absolute Princes or onely vpon inferiour Princes by the consent of absolute Princes to whom they are subiect in temporals it hath euen bene and is also now a controuersie among learned Catholikes as by the testimonie of those two Authours whom I cited a little before o Nu. 13. and also of many others cited by me else where p in Apolog. nu 4 seq and in this Treatise part 1. per totum Becanus in q. de fide haereticis seruanda cap. 8. nu 16. Becan in Controu Angl. cap. 3. q. 2. Suarez tom 5. disp 15. sec 6. nu 3. it doth cleerely appeare 21 From hence it is very apparant sayth Becanus that heretikes by this precisely that they are excommunicated are not depriued of their dominion or iurisdiction either ouer their subiects or ouer their temporall goods but this depriuation is a distinct punishment and inflicted by a distinct law And againe It is one thing sayth he to excommunicate a King and another thing to depose him or to depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connected with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue bene excommunicated and yet not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and yet not therefore excommunicated 22 Excommunication sayth Suarez can not haue this effect to take away the dominion of a kingdome or of a people and the paying of tributes and doing seruices which are answearable thereunto concerning such subiects vnlesse an other thing be first supposed which is that the Lords be depriued of their dominion or the vse thereof because the dominion remayning still in it force it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey and consequently to communicate at leastwise as much as is necessary to fulfill their obligation according to the chapter Inter alia desentent excommun But Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect because as it doth not depriue of the dominion of other temporall things nor of the vse of them so it doth not depriue of this dominion because there is no more reason of that neither is there any law wherein this is specially ordained of Excommunication I say of Excommunication because this is sometimes ordained in the law concerning some excommunicated persons as heretikes yet by this speciall ordination we may vnderstand that Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect for when this effect is to follow it is necessarie that it be specially expressed in the law or sentence And therefore when this effect is adioyned I doe not call it an effect of Excommunication but a peculiar punishment imposed together with Excommunication as when an heretike is excommunicated and depriued of the dominion of his goods this depriuation is not an effect of Excommunication but a certaine punishment ioyned together with Excommunication Thus Suarez 23 We haue therefore out of Becanus and Suarez that the depriuing Princes of their dominion or iurisdiction is not an effect of Excommunication contrarie to that which Fa. Lessius saide Wee haue also out of Cardinall Bellarmine Bellar. in trac contra Barcl cap. 21. Pag. 202. and the same Suarez that subiects are not released from the bond of their obedience vnlesse the Prince be depriued of his dominion or iurisdiction for that to deny obedience to a Prince sayth Cardinall Bellarmine so long as he remaineth Prince is repugnant to the law of God and the dominion or iurisdiction of a Prince sayth Suarez Suarez in Defens fidei Cath. lib. 6. cap. 3. nu 6. remayning in its force and not being taken away it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey because the obligation of obedience sayth hee in any degree or state whatsoeuer doth so long endure in the subiect as the dignity or power and iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour for these are correlatiues and the one dependeth vpon the other So that you see how well these learned Diuines of the Societie of Iesus doe agree amōg themselues in assigning the reason for which this oath of allegiance doth containe in it a manifest deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and of his spirituall Supremacie And whether English Catholikes for so weake and slender arguments and wherein our learned Aduersaries doe not agree among themselues are bound to hazard their perpetuall libertie In Append. part 2. sect 4. and whole estate with the vtter ruine of their posteritie I remit to the iudgement of the pious and prudent Reader Thus I answered in my Theologicall Disputation which afterwards in my Appendix to Suarez I did more fully explaine Now let the Reader iudge whether this my answere to their argument be a vaine brag and an idle affirmation of my owne or a solid confutation thereof and whether I had not reason to affirme that learned men doe not blush to inculcate so often and secoldly without any solid proofe that very argument which
both by his Maiestie and many others hath bene very soundly confuted considering that my Aduersary doth so boldly affirme that the oath is vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for that it denyeth the Popes power to excommunicate and yet he bringeth no argument at all to prooue the same but it must forsooth be supposed as certaine and besides he concealeth what I before at large had answered to the aforesaid argument And thus much concerning his first answere and exception 24 Secondly saith my Aduersary q Nu. 14 touching the declaration of his Maiesties mind in this point I cannot but meruaile that such a learned man as this Authour is held to bee cannot distinguish betwixt the contents of the oath and the end or intention of him that ordained it For I will not deny but that his Maiestie might intend nothing else by ordaining this oath but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience vnto him and yet neuerthelesse hee that should take the oath should thereby abiure the Popes Supremacie for the reasons before declared notwithstanding his Maiesties protestation of his intention This will be euident See these reasons beneath nu 33. seq if we turne the case to a like oath of the Popes part as for example if the Pope should exact an oath of Catholikes to sweare that the King cannot depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterbury and should withall protest that he meaneth not thereby to make them abiure or deny the Kings authoritie but only to professe their dutie and obedience to the Sea Apostolike I make no doubt but that the Protestants would say according to their grounds that this protestation and declaration of the Popes mind could not excuse the takers of such an oath from the deniall of the Kings Royall authoritie because his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is according to the Protestants opinion so necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently deny the other In which respect I say the Popes protestation of his meaning or intention could not in the Protestants opinion warrant the swearers from periurie 25 And so say we in this case of his Maiesties publike profession and declaration of his intention that it cannot alter the nature of the oath or derogate any thing from the contents thereof or from the Popes Supremacie or from his Maiesties beleefe concerning the same and much lesse can it make any thing in the oath lawfull which is otherwaies vnlawfull and therefore I say that seeing the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included according to our doctrine and beliefe in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie that the takers of the new oath cannot be excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie nor consequently from periurie notwithstanding any protestation of his Maiestie to the contrary for if he should protest that he doth not force the takers of the oath to abiure the Popes Supreamacie it were Protestatio contraria factis a protestation contrary to his deeds which the Lawyers hold to be nothing worth 26 But first my Aduersarie could not but cleerely see howsoeuer here he is pleased to babble that I who as he scoffingly saith am held to be so learned a man not only could distinguish it being no such difficult point of wit or learning but also did oftentimes in my Apologie Apologeticall answere Theologicall Disputation and in my Appendix to Suarez in expresse wordes distinguish betwixt the ende of the worke and of the worker of the Art and Artificer of the law and precepts therein contained and of the Lawmaker and shewed that when the words of any law are ambiguous they are to be vnderstood according to the intention and meaning of the Lawmaker and that neither the intention of his Maiestie was to deny in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate or any other his spirituall authoritie but onely to require of his Catholike subiects a profession of that temporall and ciuill obedience which all subiects by the law of God and nature do owe to their lawfull Prince neither in the oath is contained any clause which by learned Catholikes is not thought to belong to temporall ciuill obedience 27 Wherefore there is a great disparitie betwixt the oath which the Pope should exact concerning his Maiesties power not to depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterburie and this new oath of allegiance concerning the Popes authoritie not to depose his Maiesties because that Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which his Maiestie doth challenge is according to the opinion of all Protestants necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power insomuch that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently in the opinion of all Protestants deny the other but the Popes authoritie to depose Princes is not according to the opinion of all Catholikes necessarily included in the Popes spirituall Supremacie for that many learned Catholikes doe hold that the Pope hath no such power to depose Princes and therefore hee that denieth his power to depose doth not consequently according to the opinion of all Catholikes deny his spirituall Supremacie And albeit Mr. Fitzherbert doeth boldly affirme that according to his beliefe the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie yet I will be bold to say that his beliefe herein is not Catholike or Vniuersall but a particular beliefe or rather an opinion of his owne and of some other Catholikes the contrarie doctrine being as I said euen to this day maintained by many learned and vertuous Catholikes And therefore vntill he bring some better ground for his beliefe then his bare I say I will also be bold to say that the takers of the new oath are according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie seeing that according to the opinion of many learned Catholikes the Pope hath no such power to depose and so neither is his Maiesties protestation repugnant to his deeds nor his intention disagreeable to the contents of the oath 28. Secondly although my Aduersary to prooue the oath vnlawfull and to containe a deniall of the Popes Supremacy doth seeme now to fly from his Maiesties intention to the contents of the oath and expresly saith That he will not deny but that his Maiestie by ordaining this oath might intend nothing else but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience and temporall allegiance and not of his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie neuerthelesse he seemeth before to affirme that his Maiesties intention opinion and vnderstanding is that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured in this oath and his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is acknowledged therein which the iudicious Reader may plainely gather both by those wordes in his Supplement before related wherein hee auoucheth r See his words beneath Nu. seq 29. That it is euident enough that the true reason why the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince is impugned by the
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
bitternesse as he did in the former and as before hee taxed me of fraude impudencie impietie and of being no good Catholike but how wrongfully you haue alreadie seene so now he boldly affirmeth that my arguments and answeres are partly repugnant to my owne doctrine and partly malicious improbable impertinent foolish and ridiculous but how vndeseruedly you shall presently perceiue He tooke vpon him as you haue seene to proue in his Supplement that the oath is vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine in respect of two clauses to wit that it doth exempt temporall Princes from Excommunication and deposition by the Pope and that therefore it was iustly condemned by his Holinesse and refused by Catholikes although for this later hee could not bee ignorant that where one Catholike hath refused it a hundred haue taken it And as for the first clause concerning excommunication hee passeth it ouer altogether with silence neither doth he bring any one argument or shew of argument to proue that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath for which cause I affirmed in my Admonition to the Reader that Mr. Fitzherberts supposition for so much as concerneth the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and consequently his Primacie in spiritualls which he doth not proue with any one reason to be denied in the oath but supposeth it as manifest is very vntrue 2 But as for the second clause concerning the Popes power to depose Princes which is expresly denied in the oath he maketh a long Rhetoricall discourse labouring in vaine to prooue that according to all lawes humane and diuine the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporals And because the breuitie of that Admonition which was made after my Theologicall Disputation was in the presse would not permit to examine in particular all the arguments which he brought to prooue the same I thought good to answere briefly such arguments as seemed most plausible and withall to insinuate a certaine distinction which I had oftentimes in my former bookes declared more at large betweene the Popes power to command temporals and to dispose of temporals to command or impose temporall penalties and to inflict temporall penalties or to punish temporally by way of coercion which distinction doth plainly declare the true state of the question which he seeketh to obscure and quite ouerthroweth all his chiefest grounds 3 Among the rest of his proofes he brought one from this vulgar rule of the law Accessorium sequitur principale The accessorie followeth the principall from whence hee inferred a Cap. 1. Suppl nu 67. that seeing not only the body but also temporall goods and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof it must needes 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 glory of God for the which our soules bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained according to that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall b In Ad. nu 15 4 To this inference I answered briefly in this manner Secondly euery learned man may perceiue how vaine that consequence is which this Authour deduceth The accessorie followeth the principall therefore the Church hauing power ouer the soule hath consequently power ouer the body and goods except it be vnderstood of the power to command corporall things so farre foorth as they serue to spirituall things For we might also from that principle argue thus The accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that is Lord of all horses is Lord of all bridles The Pope hath power ouer the soule of the Prince therefore also ouer his life Let this Authour explicate what the Lawyers vnderstand by the name of accessorie and what by the name of principall in that axiome of theirs which suffereth many exceptions and is limited by them diuers wayes In the meane time wee deny his consequence not consequent as Mr. Fitzherbert translateth So that it is manifest that I did not deny that consequence if it had beene vnderstood of the power to command temporals in order to spirituall good but because the words are generall and so may comprehend both and Mr. Fitzherbert also meant of both therefore I did absolutely deny his consequence 5 Now my Aduersarie will needs haue me forsooth both to contradict my selfe in this answere and also to ouerthrow my owne arguments For hauing set downe my answere hee replyeth thus c Nu. 2. Wherein I wish it to be noted first what Widdrington granteth and after what he denyeth and I doubt not but it will easily appeare that he ouerthroweth his owne arguments and contradicteth himselfe He granteth as you see that my consequence is not vaine if it be vnderstood of a power in the Pope to command corporall things so farre forth as they are to serue spirituall things yet he denyeth my consequence albeit I doe not thereby suppose in the Pope any other power ouer bodies and goods then such as followeth of their subordination to the soule which is in effect the same relation and limitation that he maketh thereof to wit so far forth as corporall temporall things are to serue spirituall things as it may euidētly appeare by the discourse which I make concerning the same in my Supplement from whence he taketh my argument and therefore I thinke good to repeate here what I haue said there touching this point whereby I hope I shall not onely fortifie and prooue my consequence which he denyeth but also explicate fully what I meane by the name of accessorie and principall as you see he commanded me to doe he should rather haue said as I wished him to doe Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 6 And I also wish the Reader to obserue first what my Aduersarie pretendeth to prooue and after what he prooueth and I doubt not but it will easily appeare that I doe neither ouerthrow my owne arguments nor any way contradict my selfe He pretendeth to prooue that the Pope as Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to depose temporall Princes to punish them by depriuing them of their kingdomes and by disposing of all their temporals and not onely to command or enioyne but also to inflict temporall punishments as it appeareth by the whole scope of his Discourse both in his Supplement and also in this Treatise whereupon a little beneath in this chapter c Nu. 10. he calleth that distinction which I made betwixt the power to command corporall things and to punish corporally by way of coercion a friuolous distinction and afterwarde especially in the sixt chapter d nu 14. 15. 16. 17. hee laboureth to impugne the same and to prooue that if the Pope may command corporall and temporall things as they serue the spirituall and are reduced thereto he may also
punish his subiects in their bodies or temporall goods and dispose of all their temporals for the same respect 7 And neuerthelesse neither out of holy Scriptures nor from this rule of the law the Accessorie followeth the principall nor from the subiection of temporall things to spirituall nor by any other argument doth my Aduersarie sufficiently prooue that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporals or to punish temporally by way of coercion which he pretended and would seeme to his Reader to prooue but onely that the Pope as Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to command temporall things and to punish by way of coercion Christian Princes and people with spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures By which it will easily appeare whether I doe contradict my selfe in my answere and ouerthrow my owne arguments or no For I granted that the consequence was not vaine if it were vnderstood of a power in the Pope to command corporall things in order to spirituall good but because he pretended to prooue that the Pope as Pope can not onely command or impose but also dispose of temporals not onely enioyne temporall penalties but also inflict them or punish temporally by way of temporall constraint therefore I did absolutely deny his consequence or the consequence as it was vnderstood by him 8 And if it had pleased my Aduersarie after he saw that I granted the consequence if it were vnderstood of the power to command temporall things as they are to serue spirituall to haue set downe plainly what he intended to prooue by that consequence and whether he meant of the power onely to command temporall things or also to dispose of temporals as to dispose is distinguished from to command the Reader would quickly haue perceiued his fraude and that I doe neither contradict my selfe nor ouerthrow my arguments but to blind the eies of his Reader he doth neither affirme the one nor the other in this place but he vseth as you haue heard such generall Words which may be applyed to both For whereas to cleere the vnderstanding of his Reader he should haue declared of what power he meant for that I granted the consequence if it were vnderstood of the power to command temporals but if it were vnderstood of the power to dispose of temporals in which sense he must needs vnderstood it if be will speake to purpose then I denyed his consequence yet he onely affirmeth that he doth not thereby suppose in the Pope any other power ouer bodies or goods thē such as followeth from the subordination to the soule which is in effect the same relation and limitation that Widdrington maketh thereof to wit so farre forth as corporall and temporall things are to serue spirituall But if he had expressed that according to his doctrine and not mine from the subordination and relation of the soule to the body and of temporall things to spirituall it necessarily followeth that the Pope hath power not onely to command or impose temporall things but also to dispose of temporall things not onely to enioyne temporall penalties but also to punish temporally by depriuing men of their temporals the Reader would presently haue perceiued both the weakenesse of his argument and the sufficiencie of my answere 9 For it is very apparant and my Aduersary knoweth it right well that I alwaies denied that either from the subordination subiection or relation of temporall things to spirituall things of temporall ends to spirituall ends of temporall power to spirituall power of temporall Princes to spirituall Pastours or from any other ground rule or principle it doth necessarily follow that the Pope as Pope and by his Pastorall office hath power to dispose of temporall things to depose temporall Princes to inflict temporall punishments or which is all one to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint as by depriuing any man of his goods libertie or life although I euer graunted that the Pope as Pope hath power to commaund or impose temporall things and to enioyne corporall or temporall punishments in order to spirituall good or which is all one so farre foorth as temporall things are to serue spirituall things that is are to be vsed to the honor of God and the good of soules and to compell by the inflicting of spirituall censures or punishments all Christians to obey his iust command And therefore with good reason and conformably to my owne doctrine I graunted the consequence if it were vnderstood of the power to command temporals and also denied it if it were vnderstood as my Aduersarie must needes vnderstand it of the power to dispose of temporals and to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint Neither doth my Aduersary by that Discourse which hee made in his Supplement and now repeateth againe prooue any other thing then that the Pope by the ordinary power of his Pastorall office may command temporall things and enioyne temporall penalties in order to spirituall good And therefore it had beene needlesse to set downe heere his wordes but that the Reader shall see that I am not willing to conceale any one of his arguments Thus therefore he writeth f Nu. 3. 10 Hauing discoursed in my Supplement g Supplem c. 1 nu 65. of the written Law of God deliuered to vs in the New Testament and prooued thereby that our Sauiour made Saint Peter the supreame Pastour and Gouernour of his Church I prooued also the extension of his spirituall power to temporall things thus The spirituall Pastour said I hauing power ouer the soule must needes haue authoritie ouer the body and temporall goods or states so farre foorth at lest as it shall bee conuenient for the good of the soule according to the rule of the Law to wit hee that hath the greater power hath the lesse By the which reason the Apostle iustified his dealing with temporall affaires yea with such as appertained to politicall gouernment when hee aduised the Corinthians to constitute and appoint Iudges among themselues to decide their controuersies rather then to haue recourse to the tribunals of Infidels Nescitis c. Know you not saith he h 1. Cor. 6. that we shall iudge Angels how much more secular things as who would say Seeing wee haue the greater and more eminent authoritie haue wee not also the lesse if we haue power ouer spirituall things shall wee not haue power ouer temporall and secular things Thus argueth the Apostle and thereupon doubted not to intermeddle in the temporall and politicall gouernement which then belonged to the Pagan Emperours 11 But how weake and altogether insufficient is this Discourse of his to prooue the Popes power to depose temporall Princes to dispose of all their temporals and to punish temporally by way of coertion which is the maine marke at which my Aduersary aymeth any man of indifferent vnderstanding and learning may easily perceiue For first although it be true that the spirituall Pastour hath that spirituall power ouer the soule and
and spirituall power might command the Christians to doe and by spirituall Censures compell them so to doe when otherwise they should scandalize the Christian faith and religion And this very answere did I giue in my Apologie to this text of holy Scripture which was vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue that the Pope had power to depose and put downe Secular Princes as the Apostle had power to appoint and set vp new Iudges in Secular causes for I denyed his consequence because the appointing and setting vp of those Iudges did nothing derogate from the subiection due to Secular Princes for that they were onely Arbiters or peaceable composers of secular causes with the consent of the parties who were at strife but the putting downe of Princes or depriuing them of their Royall authoritie doth greatly derogate or rather quite ouerthrow and abolish their temporall soueraigntie 22 To which answere of mine D. Schulckenius onely replieth l In Apolog. pag. 444. That although these Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint had not indeede vim coactiuam in foro externo a coactiue power in the externall Court and that if either partie would not obey the Apostle and goe to the Iudges appointed by the Church but would bring his cause to the publike tribunals of the heathen Magistrates the other partie was bound there to appeare and there to debate his cause yet they were not meere Arbiters or voluntary Iudges For Arbiters are chosen by the parties but these were chosen by the common consent of the Church and were appointed by publike authoritie by the command of the Apostle who was a spirituall Prince Besides none are bound to admit Arbiters vnlesse they will but Christians were bound to admit these Iudges and were forbidden to goe to the tribunals of Infidell Princes Moreouer the Saints are not to iudge the world and Angels as Arbiters chosen by them but as true Iudges and as sitting with Christ the supreame Iudge 23 But all this is easily satisfied by that which I said before For although the faithfull Corinthians were by the publike spirituall authoritie of the Apostle commaunded to choose those Iudges or Arbiters yet it doth not from thence follow either that those arbitrarie Iudges were to bee chosen by the whole Church and not onely by the parties that were at strife or that the Apostle for that he was a spirituall Prince had either himselfe publike authoritie to decide secular causes or could giue the same to any other But because the Christians were bound by the Law of God to compound their controuersies among themselues by way of arbitriment and not to bring their causes to the hearing of Heathen Iudges in case they should thereby scandalize the Christian Religion therefore the Apostle might by his publike spirituall and Pastorall power command them and also with spirituall Censures compell them so to doe 24 And although these arbitrarie Iudges were to be chosen by the whole Church and by the common consent of all the faithfull Corinthians which neuerthelesse can not bee sufficiently gathered from the Apostles wordes yet it doth not therefore follow that they were not meere Arbiters or voluntarie Iudges in power or which is all one that they had more then arbitrarie priuate or compromissorie power For it is not materiall by whom a publike or legall Iudge or else an Arbitratour or compromissorie Iudge bee chosen but from whom they receiue their authoritie to iudge as a true proper and publike Iudge may sometimes bee chosen by the people as is the Recorder of London by the Citie and the Chancellours of Oxford and Cambridge by the Vniuersities but it is the Kings Maiesty that giueth them publike authoritie to iudge And Achiters or voluntary Iudges may be chosen by the common consent of the people to decide by way of arbitrement or voluntarie submission all ciuill controuersies which shall arise among them yet seeing that they are onely Arbiters or haue onely arbitrarie voluntarie priuate or compromissorie power the parties onely who are at strife doe giue power to iudge and to make a finall end of their controuersies And although abstracting from scandall none are bound to admit Arbiters vnlesse they will yet if by not admitting them they should scandalize the Christian Religion as the Corinthians did they are bound to admit them or which is all one to giue them arbitrarie voluntrary or compromissorie power to decide and determine their controuersies 25 True also it is that the Saints are not to iudge the world or the bad Angels as Arbiters yet in what manner they are to iudge whether by onely assisting our Sauiour and approouing or applauding his sentence or by being Assessores supremi Iudicis Christi by sitting in seates of honour with Christ the supreme Iudge as Noble men and Iustices of peace do sit vpon the bench with the chiefe Iudge of Assises or in any other more peculiar manner it is a controuersie among Catholike Diuines although it be certaine that the Saints shall not be true and proper Iudges as Iudges are properly taken howsoeuer D. Schulckenius doth seeme heere to affirme the same for that to iudge and to giue iudgement doth properly signifie an act of Iurisdiction and superiority of power to giue the definitiue sentence pro or contra which Iurisdiction in respect of the last iudgement of soules is onely communicated to Christ. m Seâ— Suarez tom 2. disp 57. sect 4. But howsoeuer it be the argument of Saint Paul whereby he intended to prooue that Christians were not vnworthy to iudge Secular causes which he calleth the least things is of force as I declared before for if they be not vnworthy to iudge the world and Angels much lesse are they to be accompted vnworthy to decide by way of arbitrement Secular causes or the least things 26 And whereas D. Schulckenius affirmeth that those Iudges had no coactiue power in the externall Court and that if one of the parties should call the other to the tribunall of the Infidell Magistrate he were bound to appeare and debate his cause before the Heathen Iudge this doth make nothing against that which I haue said but is rather a confirmation that these Iudges were onely Arbitratours and voluntary Iudges in power to decide Secular causes For if they had beene true and proper Iudges and had not onely priuate and arbitrary power but also publike authority to iudge why should they not haue as all other true and proper Iudges haue both a commanding and also a coactiue power either temporall or spirituall according as D. Schulckenius will haue them to be temporall or spiritual Iudges And if they were true Iudges and not onely Arbitratours how could the faithfull Corinthians bee bound in conscience to leaue their tribunalls and goe to a Heathen Iudge to haue their cause decided by him if they should be called thither although against then willes seeing that they should thereby offend not only by reason of
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
aforesaid rule to prooue that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath a disposing power ouer the body and ouer corporall and temporall goods because he hath power ouer the soule both for that the aforesaid rule is not generally true and especially as I obserued out of the Glosse when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall as there is not the same reason that a spirituall Pastour can dispose of the bodie and of corporall or temporall goods because he can dispose of the soule and of spirituall goods but chiefly for that our Sauiour Christ gaue to S. Peter and his Apostles all their spirituall and Pastorall power long before that rule of humane law was ordained and whether it were ordained before or after it is manifest that our Sauiour was not tyed to giue any power to S. Peter and the Apostles by force and vertue of any humane law neither can the institution of Christ depend vpon any rule which is grounded onely in humane law 37 But if my Aduersaries meaning bee that the aforesaid rule The accessory followeth the principall is grounded in the Law of God or nature so that abstracting from all humane lawes yet either by the institution of Christ or by a necessary sequell or consequence drawne from the light of naturall reason it is alwayes true I say alwaies true for otherwise if the rule be not generally true there can no inuincible argument be concluded from that rule to prooue that hee who hath the principall must of necessity haue the accessory or who hath power ouer the principall must of necessity haue power ouer the accessory then this rule may rather be called a rule or Maxime of Logike then a rule of Law and it is taken from that Topike place which the Logicians call The place of Antecedents and in sense it is all one with this dialecticall axiome Posito antecedenti necesse est poni consequens the Antecedent being put the consequent must of necessitie be put or follow or if we call the antecedent the principall and the consequent the accessory the principall being put the accessory must of necessity follow or which is all one the accessorie doth necessarily follow the principall 38 But in this sense neither can bridles be said to be accessory to horses for that horses can consist without bridles neither can any separable accident to vse the Logicians terme be said to bee accessory to the substance and so neither musicke physicke or any other Art can be said to be accessory to the soule for that the soule can consist without any of these Arts neither can the mortall body it selfe be said to be accessorie to the immortall soule for the soule can consist without the body neither can the goods of fortune as honour dignitie riches earthly kingdomes c. nor the goods of the body as health libertie and other bodily contentments be said as my Aduersary would haue them to be accessory in any man to the good of his soule and his eternall saluation which is the last end to which hee ought to referre all his corporall and temporall goods and miseries for that any man may attaine to eternall saluation and haue spirituall and iustifying grace which is the onely meanes to attaine thereunto without any worldly riches or preferments and without any bodily comforts and contentments albeit in another sense all the former inferiour things may bee called accessory for that they are ordained and referred to the other more worthy noble and principall things 39 Neuerthelesse I doe not deny as I haue often said that Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to Saint Peter and his Successours sufficient power to gouerne his Church by spirituall meanes and consequently power to command both spirituall and temporall things in order to spirituall good and to chastise the transgressours of his iust command with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures for that all these are spirituall meanes and comprehended in spirituall gouernment And because the commanding of spirituall and temporall things in order to spirituall good is by the institution of Christ annexed to spirituall gouernment or the power to command temporall things which is the lesse noble and therefore may be called accessorie is by the institution of Christ annexed to the power of commanding spiritual things which being the more noble may be called the principall therefore from that maxime of the Logicians there may be drawen a good argument supposing the institution of Christ that if the Pope hath power to command spirituall things in order to spirituall good he hath power also to command temporall things in order to the same spirituall good not for that temporall things are per se and of their owne nature subiect and subordained to spirituall things except onely in worth and nobilitie or that temporall things are the accessorie and spirituall things the principall taking accessorie and principall as I haue before declared but for that the power to command spirituall things is the principall or antecedent and the power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good is the accessorie or consequent and by the institution of Christ annexed to the power of commanding spirituall things 40 But for all this I vtterly deny that the power to dispose of temporall goods is by the institution of Christ annexed to spirituall gouernment or to the Popes power of commanding either spirituall or temporall things for that the disposing of temporall things for what ende soeuer it bee is not a spirituall but a temporall action and doeth belong to a temporall or ciuill power which by the institution of Christ hath it acts offices dignities meanes and ends distinguished from the spirituall power both which as they are supreame in their degree and order and consequently independent one of the other in those things which are proper to either of them so they cannot intermeddle with the actions of each either and as the supreame spirituall power doth reside in spirituall Pastours so the supreame temporall power doth reside in temporall Princes and as spirituall Pastours are by spirituall power spirituall lawes spirituall actions and spirituall meanes and punishments bound to bring all men as much as lyeth in them to euerlasting happinesse so also Christian Princes are bound as much as lyeth in them by temporall power temporall lawes temporall actions and temporall meanes and punishments to bring their subiects to the kingdome of heauen which is the last end to which all Christians ought to referre all that they haue or are 41 Wherefore if that which Mr. Fitzherbert doeth lastly inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke may bee chastised by the supreame Pastour of the Church in their temporall states bee so vnderstood that hee may by way of direction or command enioyne them temporall penalties or punishments as to fast to pray to giue almes or the like in satisfaction of their sinnes or for some other great spirituall good this is
very true and I haue affirmed the same too too often and this only he hath prooued by this Discourse which he hath here repeated out of his Supplement albeit this bee not the marke at which he aimeth and which hee pretended to prooue for as I haue shewed before Nu. 6. his chiefe drift and purpose was to proue that the Pope hath power not onely to command temporals in order to spirituall good but also to dispose of temporals not only to command christians that in satisfaction of their sinnes or in defence of the Church they will dispose of their temporall goods according to the qualitie of their offence and the necessitie of the Church shall require and their abilitie doth extend but also to depriue them of the right power and dominion which they haue ouer their temporall goods and states if they shall refuse to obey his iust command which my Aduersarie by this Discourse in his Supplement hath not as you haue seene so much as probably confirmed and neuerthelesse as I haue often said not onely probable arguments but conuincing authorities or demonstrations are required to prooue his doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of their temporals to bee certaine and a point of faith and that the oath cannot lawfully and with a safe conscience be taken by any Catholike And thus much concerning the Discourse which Mr. Fitzherbert hath made in his Supplement Now you shall see what from thence he doth inferre 42 Thus did I discourse saith he u Pag. 34. nu 7 and argue in my Supplement whereby my Aduersarie Widdrington may perceiue first what I meane by the accessorie and by the principall as that the soule of man and the seruice and glory of God are the principall and that the accessory is the body goods and all temporall states whatsoeuer because they are subordinate to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof and for Gods glory 43 And my Aduersarie also by that which I haue heere answered to his Discourse may perceiue that although the soule of man and the spirituall good thereof and the seruice and glory of God may in some sense bee called the principall and bodily and temporall goods the accessorie for that they are the lesse worthy and lesse noble and therefore though not of their owne nature referred yet by the intention and will of man ought to bee referred to the eternall good and saluation of the soule as to the last end of man in which sense temporall good may bee said to be subiect and ordained to the supernaturall good of the soule whereof I haue treated more at large aboue in the second part Yet in that sense as antecedent and consequent principall and accessorie are taken in that maxime the spirituall good of the soule eternall saluation and the supernaturall seruice and glorie of God cannot be called the principall or antecedent nor corporall goods and temporall states as health wealth honour c. the accessorie or consequent for that God may bee serued and glorified and the soule saued without hauing any such corporall or temporall contentments yea rather they doe hinder then promote the good of the soule for that according to our Sauiours owne wordes x Matth. 19. A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen For they y 1. Tim. 6. that will be made rich fall into tentation and the snare of the Deuill and many desires vnprofitable and hurtfull which drowne men into destruction and perdition and By many tribulations z Act. 14. we must enter into the kingdome of God 44 Neither did I desire my Aduersary to declare what he vnderstood in particular by the names of principall and accessory for I knew right well that hee tooke the good of the soule for principall and the goods of the body and of fortune to be the accessory for that they are referred and ordained to the good of the soule in which sense the words principall and accessory are not taken in that maxime as I shewed before and it will more cleerely appeare beneath but I desired him to declare what the Lawyers vnderstood in generall by the names of principall and accessory in that rule of the Law for that the nature and definition of principall and accessory being once knowne we might the better descend to particulars and more easily perceiue whether the good of the soule was to bee taken for principall and all other corporall and temporall goods for accessory in that rule of the Law and withall he should also haue explained if hee had meant to cleere and satisfie the vnderstanding of his Reader what the Lawyers vnderstood by those wordes to follow the nature of the principall all which my Aduersary hath as you haue seene neglected to declare 45 Secondly Widdrington may see saith Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 34. nu 8 the force and validitie of my consequence to wit because the Church hath power ouer the soule which is the principall therefore it hath power also ouer the accessorie that is to say ouer the body temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God for which our soules bodies goods states and all things else were ordained 46 And hee also may see in what manner his consequence is of force if it be onely vnderstood of a power to commaund temporall things in order to spiritual good to wit not for that the Church hauing power ouer the soule which he calleth the principall must also haue power ouer the body and temporall goods which he calleth the accessorie when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glory of God because temporall goods and states are not necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God but rather lets and hinderances thereof seeing that soules may be saued and God glorified without the enioying of such corporall or temporall goods and therefore temporall goods and states can not rightly be called the accessory or consequent as accessory or consequent ought to be taken in that maxime But the force of his consequence can onely consist in this that because Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to Saint Peter and his Successours sufficient authority to gouerne the Church by spirituall meanes and in order to spirituall good to command not onely spirituall things which is the more noble and principall but also temporall things which power is the lesse noble and so by the institution of Christ annexed to the spirituall power of gouerning the Church and of commaunding spirituall things for which cause it may well be called the accessory or consequent therefore from that rule or maxime not of the law but of the Logicians The accessory or consequent doth necessarily follow the principall or antecedent it may be well inferred that the Pope hauing power to command spirituall things hath also power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good for that
and shewing his malicene lesse then before But how sincerely and truely he alledgeth the argument of Lessius I know not for I haue not his booke neither did I euer reade it and I make no doubt but if it had beene laid downe together with the circumstances thereof it would haue beene cleere enough of it selfe and not haue needed any defence or explication of mine And truely although it were as bare and naked as he makes it yet the consequence would be good and sound for ought he saith against it seeing he saith nothing in effect but that which may be vrged in like manner against the Apostle Saint Paul for the like argument in his Epistle to the Corinthians where commanding them to constitute and appoint Iudges amongst themselues to decide their controuersies he said Nescitis quoniam angelos iudicabimus quanto magis secularia Doe you not know that we shall iudge Angels and much more secular things as who would say seeing wee haue the greater and more eminent power haue we not also the lesse if we haue power ouer spirituall things haue we not also power ouer temporall or secular things Thus argued the Apostle vpon the same ground that Lessius doth to wit vpon this principle qui potest maius potestetiam minus 3 And now will this graue Sophister scoffe at the Apostles argument and say that he might as well haue concluded that Qui potest intelligere potest volare Hee which can vnderstand can flie for what can bee more different in kinde and nature then Angels and secular things and yet neuerthelesse the Apostle prooued soundly by an argument a maiori ad minus that the Church might ordaine and dispose of secular iudgements because it had a greater power to iudge of Angels and the reason that mooued him thereto was the same that mooued Lessius to wit the subordination of secular and temporall things to spirituall for albeit spirituall and temporall things are of different kinde and order being considered in their owne natures yet if they be respected and conioyned in one Ecclesiasticall or mysticall body and referred to one last end which is Gods seruice and glory they are subordinate the one to the other and therefore are not of diuers orders in that respect 4 And if hee grant not this how will he make good his owne former grant that the Pope hath power to command corporall and temporall things quatenus spiritualibus deseruiunt so farre forth as they serue spirituall things doth he not therein acknowledge this subordination and thereupon grant that power in the Pope as a consequent of his spirituall power why then doth he deny the argument of Lessius grounded vpon the same consideration seeing he argueth a maiori ad minus concerning things subordinate one to another as who would say that for as much as spirituall things are superiour in order and dignitie to temporall things and all of them principally ordained and referred to Gods glory and seruice therefore he that hath supreame power ouer the spirituall which is the greater and higher hath power also ouer the temporall which is the lesse and inferiour to dispose thereof as shall be requisite for Gods glorie and seruice where to both spirituall and temporall things are ordained 5 Whereupon it also followeth 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 as also because the temporall state whereof the Pope depriueth the Prince is ordained to serue the spirituall and therefore to be disposed by the supreame spirituall Pastour so far forth as shall be necessarie for Gods seruice and the good of the Church So that you see the argument of Lessius if he made any such hath a good consequence Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 6 But to omit his bitter and slanderous words the maine substance of his reply in this chapter is as it was also in the former chapter grounded vpon the subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall and of temporall things to the eternall saluation of soules whereof I treated at large aboue in the second part which if the Reader will be pleased to peruse he will easily perceiue that all my Aduersaries reply in this chapter is of little worth and that from this subordination no sound argument can be drawne to prooue that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporall things For albeit the temporall power may be said to be subiect to the spirituall or rather temporall Princes are in spirituals and in temporals as they are reduced to spirituals subiect to the direction or command and to the spirituall coercion or correction of the supreame spirituall Pastour And albeit temporall goods and states both of the body and of fortune may be said to be subordained or rather ordained to the eternall saluation of soules although not of their owne nature as I declared in that place but in this sense that all Christians as well Laikes as Clerkes Kings as Popes are bound to refer all their powers and actions to the eternall saluation of their soules in so much that as spirituall Pastours are bound to referre and ordaine their spirituall power and the vse thereof to the eternall saluation of their own soules of those who are subiect to them so Christian Princes are bound to refer their temporall power the vse thereof to the eternall saluation of their own soules of their subiects Neuerthelesse considering that Christ hath left in the Christian world or common-wealth as it containeth both temporall spiritual power earthly kingdomes the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ two distinct supreme powers consequently independant one vpon the other and therfore neither subordained or subiect one to the other in those things which are proper to each other as the disposing of spiritual things and spiritual coercion or correction are proper do belong to the spiritual power so the disposing of temporall things and temporall coercion or correction are proper and doe only belong to the temporall power 7 So that although it belongeth to the supreame spirituall Pastour to direct and instruct a temporall Prince in his temporall power as it is Christian that is to instruct him in what manner hee ought to vse his temporall power according to the grounds of Christian Religion and to command him to vse his temporall power and to dispose of temporalls in that manner as Christ hath ordained to the benefit of his owne soule and of his Subiects and also to command him that he doe compell his Subiects by meanes of his temporall power or with temporall punishments to the obseruing of the lawes of Christ and of his Church and if the Prince refuse to obey the iust commandement of his spirituall Pastour it belongeth also to the spirituall Pastour to compell him thereunto by meanes of his spirituall power or with spirituall punishments and Ecclesiasticall Censures in that manner as the inflicting
of Ecclesiasticall Censures may bee called a compulsion yet the vsing of temporall power the disposing of temporall things the compelling with temporall punishments or the inflicting of temporall punishments and punishing temporally by way of constraint are only proper and doe belong to the temporall power for which cause S. Bernard as I shewed before did affirme that the materiall sword is according to our Sauiours command to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier not of the Priest at the booke or direction of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour 8 Now to come to my Aduersarie although he hath not as he saith Lessius booke nor euer reade it yet I haue both seene it and reade it and I haue alleadged truly his expresse words as they lye and I doubt not but that my Aduersarie may easily get a sight thereof But howsoeuer that which hee saith is very vntrue that I say nothing in effect against Lessius argument but that which may bee vrged in like manner against the Apostle Saint Paul for that Saint Pauls argument as I shewed before in the former chapter was not grounded vpon this maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon Lessius groundeth his argument for this maxime is very vntrue vnlesse the greater doeth actually or vertually include and imply the lesse or which I take for all one vnlesse the greater and the lesse be of the same kind or order But S. Pauls argument was grounded vpon this maxime hee that is not vnworthie to doe the greater is not vnworthie to doe the lesse For S. Paul intended only to prooue as I shewed before that Christians were not vnworthie to iudge of secular things because they were to iudge the world and the Angels and therefore by the argument a maiori ad minus they were not to be accounted vnworthie to decide secular causes Neither hath euery man that power whereof hee is not vnworthie but he hath onely that power which hee who hath authoritie to giue that power hath granted although perchance he be not vnworthie to haue a greater power as to be Lord Chancellour is a more great and eminent authoritie then to be Lord Chamberlaine and yet it is not lawfull thus to argue from that maxime he that hath the greater authoritie hath the lesse therefore he who is Lord Chancellour is also Lord Chamberlaine albeit we might rightly thus conclude as the Apostle did a maiori ad minus he that is not vnworthie to be Lord Chancellour is not vnworthy to be Lord Chamberlaine for that he who is not vnworthie to haue the greater authoritie is not vnworthie to haue the lesse 9 If therefore I had denied the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things because he had beene vnworthy to haue that authoritie then I had indeede disprooued the Apostles argument but seeing that I doe onely for this cause deny the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things for that Christ our Sauiour hath not granted this authoritie to him but onely to temporall Princes I doe not goe against the Apostles argument Neither did the Apostle goe about to prooue that the Church might ordaine and dispose of secular iudgements taking secular iudgements for such as doe proceed from publike authoritie and can not be done by priuate power but hee onely commanded the Corinthians for auoiding of scandall to appoint arbitrarie Iudges among themselues which they might doe by their owne priuate power and without any derogation to the temporall Magistrate and in case of scandall they ought also so to doe and he onely intended to prooue that because they were not vnwoorthy to iudge the Angels and the world much more were they not vnworthy to be Arbitrarie Iudges in secular causes Wherefore Saint Paul did not intend to prooue either by the subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall or by any other argument that the Church might ordaine or dispose of those secular iudgements which belong to temporall authoritie neither can there be drawne any good argument from this subordination to prooue the same as I haue shewed more amply in the second part 10 Neither did I graunt that the spirituall Pastour hath power to command corporall and temporall things quatenus spiritualibus deseruiunt so farre forth as they serue spirituall things for that corporall and temporall things are ordained to spirituall things and to the eternall saluation of soules as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth for then indeede I must also haue granted that the Pope hauing power to dispose of spirituall things hath consequently power to dispose of temporall things so farre soorth as they are to serue spirituall things but my reason was as you haue seene in the former chapter because the power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good is a spirituall power and agreeable to a spirituall Pastour and Gouernour as he is instituted by Christ but the power to dispose of temporall things whether it be in order to temporall or to spirituall good is a temporall power and therefore not agreeable to a spirituall Pastour according at our Sauiour hath in the Christian world or common wealth instituted ordained and distinguished these two supreme powers temporall and spirituall by their proper acts functions and dignities 11 And albeit both spirituall and temporall things are referred to one last end which is Gods honour and glorie as to the center to which both of them ought to tend yet from hence it can not be rightly concluded that the temporall power is subordained to the spirituall or that temporall things as temporall lawes temporal actions temporall punishments and the like are subordained to spirituall things as to spirituall lawes spirituall actions spirituall punishments and the like but that both of them are I doe not say subordained one to the other but ordained to one and the selfe same end which is the glorie and seruice of God and the saluation of soules which is as it were the center to which the temporall power by temporall lawes and by disposing of temporals and the spirituall power by spirituall lawes and by disposing or dispencing of spiriruall things ought to tend By which it is apparant that although it were supposed that the disposing of temporall things and the vsing of temporall power were in some cases necessarie to the honour and seruice of God to the good of the Church and to the saluation of soules yet it can not be performed but by the temporall power for that our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours onely spirituall power to promote and maintaine by spirituall meanes the good of the Church and to bring soules to heauen and temporall meanes and temporall power he hath left to the disposition of temporall Princes whom he forsaw and preordained to be Nurses Patrons and Protectours of his Church 12 Wherefore although my Aduersarie did endeauour as you haue seene in the former
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
the fact and with Bellarmine and with almost all Historiographers and he will confirme the argument drawne from this example which hee endeuoureth to weaken For Bellarmine doth not reiect the Authors which my Aduersary citeth who doe adioyne the people of Rome to the Pope of Rome in the worke of the translation of the Empire so that the true power and authoritie of transferring the Empire be giuen to the Pope alone and assent desire request and acclamation be giuen to the people But if he will say that it was done by the authoritie onely of the people the Pope onely assenting and crowning the Emperour chosen by the people or also by the authoritie of the people and of the Pope together he will most manifestly contradict himselfe for that in this whole booke he hath repeated a thousand times that the people are bound by the Law of God to obey their Prince and that neither in the case of Heresie nor in any other case ciuill obedience can by the people be deuied to the Prince whom once thâ—y haue had and therefore that the people who by the Law of God are subiect cannot depose their Prince Let my Aduersary Widdrington choose what part he will and hee will be compelled either to agree with us or to contradict himselfe 42 Thus you see what a braue flourish D. Schulckenius hath made especially to those who haue not read my Apologie as though forsooth he had said something to the question which was betwixt mee and Cardinall Bellarmine or had brought some new argument which was not answered by me in that place whereas it is as cleere as the Sun that this his Dilemma is a meere euasion and shift and altogether impertinent to the question and that I did fully satisfie it in that very place both by the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine and also by those authorities which hee alledged without contradicting my selfe at all For the maine question betweene mee and Cardinall Bellarmine was whether this translation of the Empire was done by the authoritie onely of the Pope or by the authoritie both of the Pope and also of the people and I proued cleerly by Cardinal Bellarmines owne grounds and also by his owne Authors that it was done both by the Pope and also by the Senate and people of Rome Now D. Schulckenius saith little or nothing to this question but flyeth to another by-question to wit whether it was done iustly or vniustly whereas the principall question was onely of the fact to wit by whom the fact was done whether by the Pope alone or also by the people and not whether the fact was iust or vniust So that you see heere be two questions the first is of the fact to wit whether there was any such fact and by whom and in what manner it was done with all other circumstances which belong to that particular fact the second is of the iustice or iniustice of the fact to wit whether that particular fact considered with all particular circumstances belonging thereunto was iustly or vniustly done 43 The first question as D. Schulckenius himselfe affirmeth t Pag. 591. is to be decided by the testimonies of Historiographers to whom it appertaineth to write barely simply and truely the facts of men and the second which doth necessarily suppose the first by Diuines or Lawyers to whom it appertaineth to decide what is right or wrong Marke now how cunningly D. Schulckenius to confound his Readers vnderstanding inuerteth the order of these questions and putting as it were the Cart before the horse demandeth that first which he should do last and that last which he should first For first he demandeth whether that fact to wit the translation of the Romane Empire from the Grecians to the French was iustly or vniustly done and secondly he demandeth whether it was done by the authoritie of the Pope alone or of the people alone or of the Pope and people together as though one should decide a case of conscience before it be knowen and agreed vpon what the case is and what be all the praticular circumstances which doe alter the case belonging thereunto For it is one case or question to put the translation of the Empire to be done by the Pope alone an other by the people alone a third by the Pope and people together Also it is one case if it be done by the Pope and people together when the Empire is forsaken and abandoned by the Emperour or which is all one with the expresse or tacite consent of the Emperour for that he refuseth to rule or reigne ouer the people any longer and an other case when the Empire is not forsaken by the Emperour or which is all one against the Emperours will and consent for that he will stil remaine to be their Emperour Now if D. Schulckenius had either put downe the case or question plainly with all particular circumstances belonging thereunto it would easily haue beene answered or else if it had pleased him to haue set downe my words and the case as I did put it and prooue it to be lawfull the Reader would presently haue seene that D. Schulckenius might well haue spared to make his aforesaid argument or Dilemma for that I did fully answere it in that place and that neither I contradicted my selfe nor that he did answere at all my argument but that rather by his silence he did sufficiently acknowledge that he could not answere it at all 44 For first I did affirme that the Romane Empire was translated from the Grecians to the French by the authoritie decree ordinance consent and suffrage both of the Pope and also of the people and not of the Pope alone and this I proued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds and also by his owne Authours and diuers others to whom also may be added u Lib. 1. hist Guylielmus Malmesburiensis x In vita Leonis tertij Aâ—astasius Bibliothecarius y lib. ad annum 781. Siffridus z In libro Augustali anno 801. Beneuutus de Rambaldis a Ennead 8. lib. 8. in fine Sabellicus b In Annalibus Galliae Nicolaus Gillius c Lib. 4. de regno Italiae Carolus Sigonius and many more Secondly I affirmed that the Emperours of Greece had the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned by them and that they refused to rule gouerne and protect them any longer and consequently that the translation done with those circumstances was iust and without any wrong done to the Grecian Emperours Neither in affirming this did I contradict my selfe For albeit I did oftentimes affirme that subiects are bound by the law of God to obey in ciuill causes their temporall Prince and that in no case they haue power to iudge him or to withdraw their temporall allegiance from him for that in no case an inferiour can iudge his Superiour as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth d lib. 2. de Concil cap. 18. for which cause
he affirmeth that the Church in no case can iudge an vndoubted Pope so long as he is Pope Neuerthelesse I neuer affirmed that when the Emperour doth abandon and forsake his Empire and people and refuseth to be their Emperour any longer but leaueth them to themselues it is not in their power to choose them an other Emperour or to change the Imperiall Monarchie into Aristocratie or Democratie for that then the supreme temporall power and authoritie is immediately in the people and this also I prooued in that place out of Card. Bellarmines owne principles 45 Wherefore when D. Schulckenius a little aboue affirmed that I doe oftentimes graunt that the people cannot in any case deny ciuill obedience to that Prince whom once they haue had if his meaning be that I doe graunt that he who is once a Prince can not of his owne accord leaue to be a Prince and can not resigne his kingdome to the next heire and that the people are bound to yeeld ciuill obedience to him who was once their Prince but now of his owne accord hath resigned his kingdome to the next heire he doth greatly wrong me and abuse his Reader for to affirme this were foolish and ridiculous and contrarie to all reason and practise but that which I affirmed was that it is very probable and defended by many graue and learned Catholikes that the people who are subiect can in no case nor for any cause iudge or depose their Soueraigne Prince against his will and my reason was the same which Card. Bellarmine oftentimes vseth to prooue that the Church or a Generall Councell can not iudge or depose the Pope for that it is contrarie to all reason for an inferiour or subiect to iudge his Superiour and therefore those Catholikes that holde a Generall Councell may in some cases iudge the Pope doe also holde that it is superiour and aboue the Pope 46 That the Grecian Emperours had the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned by them I affirmed in these words Seeing therefore that as Lupoldus or Ludolphus writeth and diuers other Authors as Nauclerus Aeneas Siluius and Michael Coccinius doe insinuate the Emperours of Greece in the time of Charles the great and also before his time to wit in the time of his father Pipine and of his grandfather Charles Martellus did reigne in the West Empire only in name neither could the Church of Rome nor other Churches of Christ or also any others being by the Longobards vniustly oppressed in the same Empire haue iustice by them or by their authoritie and so the aforesaid Emperours had the West-Empire in a manner forsaken by gouerning therein only in name as it appeareth by diuers Chronicles the Pope Senate and people of Rome at leastwise by the tacite consent of all other Westerne men who were subiect to the Empire had euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine but now related full right and power which they could loose by no custome or translation of the Imperiall Seate as being to them connaturall and due by the law of nature to choose themselues a new Emprour and consequently to transfer the Empire which the Grecians kept in the Westerne parts only in name to Charles the great and his Successours the Imperiall Seate being in those parts at that time as it were vacant or without an Emperour Thus I wrote in my Apologie e Nu. 438. 47 And moreouer that the Greeke Emperours had the Westerne Empire and people for forsaken and abandoned and gaue at leastwise their tacite consent according to that rule of the law qui tacet consentire videtur that they might choose to themselues another Empeperour at leastwise in power and authoritie it is apparant for that they did neuer repugne contradict or gainesay that Charles the great should rule ouer them although perchance it displeased them that hee should haue the name of Emperour Yea and as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe writeth when the Empresse Irene heard that Charles was called and crowed Emperour by Pope Leo shee did not onely gainesay but also she would haue married Charles and had done if certaine perfidious Eunuches had not hindered her as Zonaras and Cedrenus doe write in the life of the said Irene Afterwards Irene being dead Nicephorus the Emperour who did succeede her sent Ambassadours to Charles as to an Emperour as writeth Ado in this Chronicle of the yeere 803. And a little after Nicephorus being dead Michael suceeding him sent Ambassadours to Charles who likewise did publikely honour him as an Emperour as writeth Ado in his Chronicle of the yeere 810. All which doe sufficiently confirme that the Greeke Emperours did not gainesay this translation nor conceiue it to be a wrong done to them and in preiudice of their Imperiall right and Soueraigntie 48 By all which it is manifest first that I doe not any wrong at all to the Latin Emperours who haue beene and shall be from the time of that translation as though their Empire were not grounded vpon any sound title or foundation for that all writers and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe doe agree in this that the Pope together with the rest of the people haue power to choose them another Emperour in case the Emperour will no longer reigne ouer them because in that case the supreame temporall power and authoritie is onely in the people or whole multitude but rather Card. Bellarmine as also I obserued in that place f Nu. 462. doth call in question and make doubtfull the right and title which the Latin Emperours haue to the Empire in that hee affirmeth that they haue all their right and title from the Pope alone seeing that there be many learned and graue Authours who make a great doubt whether the Pope alone hath by the institution of Christ any such power and authoritie to transfer Empires but no Authour not so much as Card. Bellarmine himselfe according to his doctrine which I related in that place doeth deny that the whole multitude hath full power and authoritie to transfer the Empire in the aforesaide case to wit when the Emperour doth abandon the Empire and will no longer reigne ouer the people 49 Secondly it is also manifest that I haue not any way contradicted my selfe in my answere and that I haue cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds and by his owne Authours that the aforesaide translation was done by the authoritie decree ordinance and suffrages both of the Pope and of the people and consequently that the people did more then onely request applaude and assent to that translation to which D. Schulckenius maketh no answere at all and therefore his silence herein is both an euident signe that hee was not able to impugne my answere and that although hee doeth so highly commend his owne booke of the translation of the Empire as exactly soundly and diligently written yet his owne conscience for as much as concerneth this question seeth now the contrarie for that hee being so
whosoeuer hath a flux of seede and is polluted vpon the dead as well man as woman cast ye out of the campe 20 So likewise it belongeth to the Priests of the new Law to declare what is the Law of Christ and to iudge what is heresie vsurie or any other crime forbidden by the law of Christ and to command temporall Princes to roote out hereticks vsurers and such like malefactors by the meanes of temporall punishments for all this doth not exceede the bounds of spirituall authoritie but it doth not belong to the Priests of the new law as they are Priests to giue sentence of death or to punish temporally heretikes vsurers or any other malefactours by inflicting temporall punishments but only to temporall Princes who haue in their hands and power the sword of life and death and who therefore as I obserued o Disputat Theolog. ca. 7. sec 2. nu 17. Bannes 2.2 q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine out of Bannes may pardon sometimes the punishment of death and punish heretikes in some other manner 21 And therefore to as little purpose also is that which Mr. Fitzherbert next adioyneth that God gaue also to the high Priest an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement in causes of doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters For I willingly grant that the high Priests of the old Testament had an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement at least wise for many yeares together in doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters which could not be determined by the law yea and a greater infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement then is now in the new law in doubts and controuersies of particular facts as whether they should ouercome in such a warre how such an inheritance of particular men was to be deuided c. Either because as well obserueth Abulensis Abulensis q. 3. in 17. Deut. in fine Abulensis q. i9 in cap. 22. lib. 1. Reg. in Defensor part â— cap. 41. the high Priest did iudge in the presence of some Prophet to whom the truth was reuealed by God or because they did know the secrets of things by the plaâ—es of the Priests vestement which was called the rationale wherein was contained doctrine and truth whereof we haue treated saith Abulensis Exod. 28. 22 Or thirdly as the same Abulensis obserueth when the high Priest consulted our Lord about any thing by entering into the Sanctuary in the day of Expiation which happened but once a yeere for on that day the Priest did speake vnto our Lord within the Sanctuary and did heare him speake in the Propitiatory as hath beene declared Leuit. 16. For therefore it was commanded that at what time the high Priest did enter into the Sanctuary no man should be in the Tabernacle to wit least he should heare those things which were spoken in the Sanctuary Thus Abulensis none of which wayes to finde out the truth infallibly in any doubtfull matter is ordinarily granted to the Priests of the new Law Neuerthelesse it can not from hence bee sufficiently concluded that the high Priests of the old Law had a soueraigntie of temporall authoritie or in temporall things but onely in spirituall for that as well obserueth the saide Abulensis p Q. 23. in cap. 11. Num. to instruct in the questions of the Law and to consult almighty God was a spirituall thing 23 But that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth that the Leuites and Priests were separated wholly from temporall and ciuill state in such sort that they had no dependance thereon is very vntrue and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth the contrarie to bee probable q Supra nu 6. For as I aboue obserued out of S. Bonauenture S. Thomas Abulensis and many other learned Diuines in the Olde Testament the Priesthood was subiect to the Kingdome and Priests were directly subiect to the King as Laymen were to wit in temporalls as it appeareth saith Abulensis Num. 17. where God said that Eleezar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue who was a Secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim yea and in the time of Moses Aaron who was the high Priest was in temporalls subiect to Moses and for that cause called him his Lord Exod. 32. although in spiritualls Aaron was greater then Moses Q. 10. in 9. Leuit. Moses saith Abulensis expounding those words of Leuit. 9. and Aaron stretching forth his handes to the people hee blessed them was in temporalls greater then Aaron because hee iudged the whole people as it is contained Exod. 18. Chap. and he commanded the people those things which they ought to doe But in spiritualls Aaron was simply greater then Moses For Aaron was the high Priest but Moses one of the simple Leuites Also because Aaron had directly a right to minister but Moyses had onely this for want of Priests but this hee had not by any order or ordination And if thou say that Moses was greater then Aaron because hee commanded him to doe these sacrifices and whatsoeuer he did I answere saith Abulensis that it is not inferred from this because Moyses did not therefore commaund these things as hauing authoritie to commaund by some Prelacie or Order but because hee was the messenger of God relating those things which God had commaunded whereupon it is not properly saide that Moyses did commaund but that hee did declare the things to be done 24 But if thou yet obiect that Moyses was greater then Aaron because Moyses did consecrate Aaron It is answered saith Abulensis that it is not deduced from this for therefore Moyses did consecrate Aaron because there was no high Priest that could consecrate him nor also then any inferiour Priests for that as well the high Priest as the inferiour Priests were consecrated and yet neuerthelesse this consequence is not of force this man doth consecrate that man therefore hee is greater then hee For the Pope is consecrated by a Cardinall Bishop of Hostia who is inferiour to the Pope and after his consecration the Pope doth command him that consecrated him So also it happened among the high Priests in the Olde Testament For except the consecration of Aaron which was done by Moyses who was no Priest to wit by ordination but onely by the speciall priuiledge of God as the same Abulensis declareth q. 7. in cap. 17. Exodi and except the consecration of Eleazar which was done without any ceremonies as we shewed at large Exod. 19. all the later consecrations of the high Priests were done by inferiour Priests therefore Moyses was not greater for that he consecrated Aaron but Aaron was greater and because as the Apostle writeth Hebr. cap. 7. alwaies the lesser is blessed by the greater it was fit that the blessing ouer the people should bee done by Aaron Thus Abulensis See him also q. 2. in cap. 2. Num. 25 Now Mr. Fitzherberts next argument is as insufficient as the former I added further
saith he r Pag. 72. nu 7 concerning the power and authoritie of the high Priest in temporall things that whereas both the dignities spirituall and temporall were sometimes in one person as in Moyses Heli and the Machabees and sometimes disioyned in distinct and seuerall persons as in the time of Iosue the Iudges and the Kings it is manifest that when they were seuered the spirituall was alwaies superiour as it may appeare by the commandement of almighty God to Moyses when he bad h m take Iosue Num. 17. and lay his hands vpon him before Eleazar the Priest and all the multitude and giue him part of his glory and that Eleazar should consult with God all the affaires of Iosue concluding Ad verbum illius egredietur c. according to his word that is to say the word of Eleazar Iosue shall goe out and shall goe in and all the children of Israel with him and the rest of the multitude Wherein Theodoret obserueth Theoderet q 48. in Num. that God commaunded Moyses to distribute his honour or dignitie betwixt Eleazar and Iosue yet so that Iosue should alwaies learne of Eleazar what he was to doe whereby it appeareth that Iosue was to bee directed by Eleazar in all affaires touching the ciuill gouernment which is sufficiently expressed by those words Ad verbum illius egredietur ingredietur Iosue shall goe out and in at the word of Eleazar 26 But truely I am ashamed to see the extreame boldnesse of this my vnlearned Aduersary when I call to minde what silly arguments he hath scraped together to make it forsooth manifest by the Law of God in the Olde Testament that the spirituall power was then the supreme power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally For this very text of holy Scripture which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to prooue that Eleazar was Superiour to Iosue learned Abulensis doth interprete cleane contrary Abulensis q. â—6 in c. 3. Iosue and bringeth it not once or twise but many times to proue that in the old Testament the Priests were subiect to the temporall Princes for that Eleazar was inferior subiect to Iosue Iosue saith Abulensis expounding those words and do thou command the Priests c. was not onely the Captaine of the people but also of the Priests although hee was neither a Priest nor a Leuite but of the Tribe of Ephraim as it appeareth Num. cap. 13. and he did command not onely the inferiour Priests of whom it is spoken in this place but also the high Priest as it appeareth Num. 27. where it is said for him if any thing be to be done Eleazar the Priest shall consult the Lord At his word to wit at the word of Iosue shall he to wit Eleazar and all the children of Israel goe out and shall goe in And the cause hereof is this for that in the Olde Testament the Secular and Ecclesiasticall or the Priestly and Regall Iurisdictions were not distinct as they are now although the offices of the Priests and Leuites were altogether distinct from the actions Å¿ Aboperibus of the Lay men whereupon the Priests when they offended might be put to death by the King as the Lay men might c. 27 But some will say saith the same Abulensis t Q. 2. in cap. 14. Iosue that the state of Eleazar was more honourable because he was the high Priest and Iosue was the Prince of the people but the state of Priests was greater then the state of Lay men as the Pope is more excellent then the Emperour or Kings But it is to be answered that this is false For the state of Priests in the Olde Testament was not more excellent then the state of Kings but the Priests were iudged by Kings and not onely concerning Kings but also Iosue who was no King was greater then the high Priest as it appeareth Num. cap. 27. where it is said that Eleazar the high Priest and euerie one shal at the commandement of Iosue goe in and goe out that is shall doe whatsoeuer they ought to doe Therefore Iosue was Superiour because to command is an act of a Superiour 28 And againe the said Abulensis u Q. 48. in cap. 27. Num. writeth thus At his word he shall goe in and shall goe out that is Eleazer the Priest shall serue at the commandement of Iosue by doing whatsoeuer he shall command For to goe out Num. 27. vers 17. and goe in is by the manner of speech taken for euery worke So it was taken aboue that God would put in authority ouer the Israelites a man who should goe out and goe in before them that is should doe whatsoeuer ought to be done before his people and in all things to be before them commanding and instructing But some may take to goe in and to goe out for to goe into the Sanctuary to consult the Lord for Iosue because it was saide aboue that whatsoeuer was to be done Eleazar should consult the Lord for Iosue And in this place it is added that at his commandement he ought to doe this to wit that whensoeuer Eleazar should be commanded to consult the Lord for Iosue he must be subiect to doe it But this sense cannot stand because Eleazar did not goe into the Sanctuarie to consult the Lord within the Sanctuarie putting on his Priestly vestements but by the rationale and Ephod he did consult the Lord as it hath beene declared Also it can not stand because it is not spoken onely of Eleazar that he shall goe in and goe out at the commandement of Iosue but also of all the children of Israel but they did not goe in to consult the Lord for Iosue therefore the first sense must stand Yet it is to be considered that Iosue because he was the Secular Prince is preferred here directly before the high Priest so that Eleazar was bound to obey Iosue in all things which he should command as likewise all the rest of the people and so it was in the time of Moyses who was not a Priest to wit by ordination and Prelacie yet Aaron who was the high Priest did obey him who was the Prince of the people And so it was in all the old Testament that the high Priests were subiect to the Kings c. Thus Abulensis 29 And thus you see that this learned man vnderstandeth those words of holy Scripture Ad verbum eius c. At his word he shall goe out and shall goe in in the cleane contrarie sense then wherein Mr. Fitzherbert doth expound them and yet forsooth it is manifest out of this place saith he that when the dignities spirituall and temporall were disioyned in distinct and seuerall persons as in the time of Iosue the spirituall was alwaies superiour But secondly I will goe farther with Mr. Fitzherbert and graunt him onely for Disputations sake that those words are so to be vnderstood that at the word of Eleazar Iosue
fiftie men did oppose against him And also the three Princes of the tribe of Reuben to wit Dathan Abiron and Hon for the high Priesthood saying that hee gaue it vniustly to Aaron to wit in giuing all things to his kinred and he purged himselfe saying in this you shall know that our Lord hath sent mee to doe all things that you see Num. 16. and that I haue not forged them of my owne mind if they shall die the accustomed death of men our Lord hath not sent me Also before in the same Chapter Core said to Moyses and Aaron Let it suffice you that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones and our Lord is among them why lift you vp your selues aboue the people of our Lord But if Moyses had beene a Lord or a King no man could haue said this vnto him for that hee who was a Lord might haue lifted himselfe vp yea there is no greater lifting vp then to be a Lord. Thus Abulensis 40 And although Moyses alone did iudge the people without the helpe of any other Iudges who were subordained to him vntill Iethro father in law to Moyses came vnto him into the desert of Sin neere to the mount Sinai which happened either in the ende of the first yeere or in the beginning of the second since their departure out of Aegypt after that the law was giuen to Moyses in the mount Sinai yet afterwards by the aduise of Iethro who perceiuing that Moyses could not long sustaine so great a burden as to iudge himselfe alone the whole people of Israel sitting in iudgement from morning vntill night he was perswaded to impart the burden thereof to others and so choosing substantiall men out of all Israel he appointed them Princes of the people Tribunes and Centurians and Quinquagenarians and Deanes who iudged the people at all times and whatsoeuer was of greater difficultie they referred to Moyses they themselues iudging only the easier causes 41 But because these Iudges who were all subordinate to Moyses iudged onely of smaller causes and all matters of difficultie were referred to Moyses hee was neuerthelesse ouermuch troubled and therefore not long after at the sepulcher of Concupiscence Num. 11. almightie God at the request of Moyses appointed seuentie men of the ancients of Israel whom Moyses had chosen to assist him to whom hee gaue also the spirit of prophecie and to them were committed those things which did peculiarly belong to Moyses to wit that they should iudge of great matters as Moyses did for the iurisdiction of the 70. Iudges appointed by the aduise of Iethro who iudged the smaller matters did still remaine and also that they should consult our Lord and giue answeres concerning the questions of the law as Moyses did g Abul q. 24. in c. 11. nu and so that Iurisdiction which before by the aduise of Iethro did onely belong to Moyses was now by the commandement of God giuen to seuentie ancients or Elders who also were not Priests or Leuites but Lay-men chosen out of the ancients of Israel h Abul q. 61. and yet they had Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes i Abul q. 24. And after these seuentie men were appointed to helpe Moyses hee neuer complained in all the fortie yeeres that the Israelites were in the wildernesse that hee was burdened with the multitude of so many causes of the people k Abul q. 23. Num. 27. 42 Now to succeede Moyses and to bee the Captaine and Prince of all the people God appointed Iosue the sonne of Nun Moyses yet liuing And he was truly a Prince of the people for at his commandement not only the people but also Eleazar the high Priest were moued yet he was not a King but a Prince or Captaine neither also had he authoritie to iudge saith Abulensis but Iudges were appointed otherwise Neither is this against that which God commanded Numer 27. Abulensis q. 19. in cap. 8. Iudic. that as well Eleazar as all Israel were mooued at the commandement of Iosue because this is to be vnderstood concerning those things which appertained to warre and because all or the chiefe time of Iosue was in making warre by subduing the people of Chanaan therefore the power of Iosue was great Yet he was neuer called Lord or King 43 After the death of Iosue God raised other Princes of the people who were called Iudges or Sauiours Iudic. 2. and 3. neither were they Kings but their Princedome or principalitie was lesser neither were they called Lords as it appeareth Iudic. 8. when all the men of Israel said to Gedeon haue thou dominion ouer vs and thy sonne and thy sonnes sonne because thou hast deliuered vs from the hand of Madian To whom hee said I will not domineere or haue dominion ouer you neither shall my sonne haue dominion ouer you but the Lord shall haue dominion ouer you and yet Gedeon was a Captaine in the warres and a Iudge of the people of Israel and this principalitie or gouernment of the Iudges did continue for a long time together to wit for aboue 340. yeeres to the time of Samuel who was the last of the Iudges in whose time the Israelites desired a King as other nations had 44 After the Iudges the Kingly gouernment or principalitie did succeede For the people desired of Samuel a King and God commanded that hee should appoint Saul to bee a King ouer them and this principalitie or Kingly gouernment did endure a long time to wit to the captiuitie of Babylon when Sedechias was King 4. Reg. 45. After the returne of the Iewes from Babylon they had no King but the high Priests as Abulensis saith were the Princes of the people and this principalitie continued vntill the birth of Christ. Abulensis q. 91 in cap. â— Math. Neuerthelesse for a certaine time before the Natiuitie of Christ the high Priests who were Princes of the people did take the Kingly name and diademe and they did continue so vntill the time of Herod the stranger who killed his father in law Hircanus who was the high Priest and King and by the power of the Romanes was made himselfe the King of the Iewes and at this time Christ our Sauiour was borne and how the authoritie of Kings was greater then of the Iudges See beneath nu 52. seq 46 Lastly the Iewes not onely in the time of their Kings but also of Moyses Iosue and the Iudges had other Princes who had great authority and priuiledges among the people of Israel Q 5 in cap. 5. 1. Paralip See Abulensis q. 6. 7. in c. 5. 2. Paralip of which their rights and priuiledges Abulensis treateth at large For all the people of Israel were diuided into tribes families and houses all which are names of companies or congregations and they differ in this that one company is greater an other lesse and one doth containe or is contained in the other And first all the
only be knowne by them who ought to bee annointed and that it might bee done more secretly it was done by them and so it was in all the aforesaid examples for Saul was annointed not by succession seeing that hee was the first King of Israel Dauid also was not annointed by succession for the children of Saul ought to succeede Iehu also who was not of the race of the Kings of Israel and he was annointed to ouerthrow the house of Achab 4. Reg. cap. 9. 3. Reg. cap. 19. and Asael was not of the issue of the Kings of Damascus and he was annointed by Elias to persecute the Israelites Thus Abulensis 3 So likewise the creation institution and deposition of Kings in that manner as the aforesaid Kings were created instituted and deposed were spirituall not temporall actions For the Prophets did not create institute or depose Kings by their owne proper authoritie or by any ordinarie power of theirs but only by an extraordinarie power as they were meere messengers and sent by God with a peculiar and extraordinarie message or ambassage to create institute or depose the aforesaid Kings whereupon they did not speake in their owne names but in the person of almightie God saying this saith the Lord I haue annointed thee to bee King or the Lord hath sent me to annoint thee to bee King or the Lord hath reiected thee that thou shalt not bee King and hath deliuered it to thy neighbour better then thy selfe So that the aforesaide creations institutions and depositions were onely declarations of the will of God which without all doubt are spirituall actions Neither from hence can it bee rightly concluded that therefore the Priests of the old law had authoritie to create depose or chastise Kings temporally or that Kings were subiect to Priests in temporalls because sometimes Prophets were sent by God as his messengers to declare his will and to tell them that God would create depose or chastise them with temporall punishments 4 And who would not blush to heare a man who taketh vpon him to bee learned and to be a teacher of others in such difficult and dangerous points of Diuinitie vrge such pitifull arguments to prooue matters of so great moment as is the dethroning of Kings and absolute Princes and the subiecting of them to Priests in temporall affaires A Priest hath power to blesse the King and all the people as it is vsuall at the ende of Masse therefore the King and all the people are subiect to the Priest in temporall things for without any contradiction saith the Apostle the lesse is blessed by the better The father hath authoritie to blesse his sonne who is a King and consequently supreame in temporalls therefore without doubt hee is greater then his sonne in temporalls One of the Kings priuie chamber is sent by the Kings expresse order to declare to one that it is his Maiesties pleasure to make him Lord Chancelour therefore without doubt one of the Kings priuie chamber hath authoritie to make one Lord Chancelour If God almightie had giuen to the Priests and Prophets of the old testament authoritie to denounce to the King or people concerning temporall affaires as is the creation or deposition of King and Princes not only what God himselfe had reuealed vnto them and commanded them to denounce but also what according to their owne will and iudgement they thought fit and conuenient then there might bee drawne from thence a good argument to prooue that Kings were subiect to the Prophets in temporall affaires but seeing that it was not lawfull for the Prophets of the old law in such cases to commaund or denounce to the King or people but that which by some cleare and assured reuelation God had commanded them to declare and signifie concerning such temporall affaires it is manifest that no colourable argument can be drawne from thence to prooue that the Priests or Prophets of the old law had authoritie to create institute depose or punish Kings temporally 5 Neither doth S. Chrysostome cited by my Aduersarie teach any other thing then that Kings are subiect to Priests in spiritualls and that the office of a Priests is in worth dignitie and nobilitie greater and more excellent then the office of a King for that a King hath power only ouer earthly things but a Priest ouer heauenly to the Priest are committed soules to the King bodies the King taketh away the spots of the bodie the Priest the spots of sinnes c. But St. Chrysostome neuer meant that Kings were subiect to Priessts and Prophets in temporalls or were to be punished by them temporally but hee affirmeth the cleane contrarie to wit that Priests and Prophets are subiect to temporall Princes Omnis anima c. Let euery soule saith he c Hom. 23. in c. 13. ad Rom. bee subiect to higher powers albeit thou be an Apostle albeit an Euangelist albeit a Prophet or lastly whosoeuer thou be for this subiection doth not ouerthrow pietie and hee doeth not say simply let him obey but let him be subiect And againe S. Chrysostome affirmeth d In that place aboue cited by my Aduersarie l. 2. de Sacer. â—nto med that a Priest hath not so great power granted him to punish delinquents and to compell a man to change his euill manners as a temporall Iudge hath to wit by forcing him with temporall punishments but only by reproouing and giuing a free admonition not by raising armes by vsing targets by shaking a lance by shooting arrowes by casting darts but onely saith hee againe by reproouing and giuing a free admonition 6 Neither also can Mr. Fitzherbert sufficiently conuince that when Dauid was first annointed by Samuel Saul was forthwith depriued of his Regall authoritie or right to reigne but onely that Dauid was instituted the future King and heire apparant to the Crowne and to succeede him after his death as likewise when Salomon was annointed King Dauid was not thereby depriued of his Regall authoritie but only Salomon was declared to be the future King and to succeede Dauid in the kingdome But howsoeuer it be it is little to the present controuersie whether Saul after Dauid was annointed by Samuel was true King de facto de iure or Dauid King de iure Salomon de facto for that Samuel in that businesse was only a messenger of GOD and did nothing by his owne proper authoritie but onely what GOD by a peculiar reuelation did commaund him to doe And so if almightie GOD should now in the new Testament by any vndoubted reuelation command a Priest to deliuer this message to such a King that for the sinnes hee had committed hee would depriue him of his kingdome and giue it to another mor vertuous then hee no man will deny but that this Priest hat good and full power and authoritie to doe that message but from hence to argue an ordinarie power to bee in Priest to giue and take away kingdomes were
power which by the law of Christ shunneth bloodie punishments might in order to spirituall good depriue any man of corporall life or concurre to the effusion of blood And therefore if those Popes who haue been so vehement to maintaine their pretended power to depriue Princes of their kingdomes had duely considered what odious detestable and bloodie conclusions doe euidently follow from that doctrine and position I make no doubt but that they would likewise from their heart haue detested abhorred and vtterly forsaken and caused to haue beene hissed out of Christian schooles the doctrine and premisses from whence such horrible hatefull and abhominable conclusion is are so cleerely and certainly deduced Fourthly therefore although it be most true that Ecclesiasticall lenitie doth shunne bloobie punishments yet it is not for that the law of Christ doth forbid Ecclesiasticall persons to concurre in any case to the effusion of blood nor onely for that Ecclesiasticall persons are by the Popes lawes which by force of the lawes doe not bind the Popes themselues commanded not to inflict in any case bloodie punishments or not to vse the materiall sword but also for that it is not lawfull according to the law of Christ for Ecclesiasticall men as they are Ecclesiasticall men or for Popes as they are Popes or by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall power to inflict temporall punishments or which is all one as I obserued before p Part. 2. ca. 9. out of S. Bernard to vse the materiall sword 18 Now you shall see how fraudulently and insufficiently D. Sculckenius answereth this my argument at the number 335. where briefly I did onely touch the same for at the number 43 seq where at large I prooued the same he cunningly as you haue seene passeth it ouer onely with It is not a hard matter to solue the argument let it passe as not belonging to the matter That which Widdrington doth adioyne in the end sayth he q pag. 510. that from the doctrine of deposing Princes it doth manifestly follow that the spirituall Pastour may giue leaue to priuate men to kill by any arte or stratageme an hereticall Prince as a certaine wolfe is a most horrible slander like vnto which I know not that the breast of man hath at any time so despitefully vttered Act. 8. I see plainly that Widdrington is in the gall of bitternesse and the obligation of iniquitie For seeing that the opinion of Bellarmine is commonly receiued by the Catholike Church and also confirmed by most frequent practise whilest my Aduersarie Widdrington doth propound and debate it as spitefully as possibly he can he seemeth to haue no other purpose then to bring the Vicar of Christ his Father and Pastour whether he will or nill into the hatred and that most great of Princes and to make all Catholike Diuines and Lawyers to be odious yea and plainly and of set purpose to sound the alarme to call Princes to armes against the Church of God but iniquitie will belye it selfe 19 For it is one thing to depose one for a iust cause and another thing to kill him by priuie murtherers For it is oftentimes lawfull for one to depose who may not lawfully kill and oftentimes that is a cause of a iust deposing which would not bee a cause of a iust killing wherefore whatsoeuer it be concerning the trueth of the consequent which is not called in question neither doth it make to the purpose the consequence which my Aduersarie Widdrington doth inferre is denied whilest he argueth thus The Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore also to kill them c. for from the power to depose doth not follow the power to kill And to confirme it by examples A Father may for some cause depose his sonne from the right due to the first begotten sonne yet hee may not kill him or giue leaue to kill him A Master may depose a seruant from his office yet hee may not kill him A King may depose a Magistrate from his gouernment for some offence for which hee may not iustly kill him A Biship may depose a Clerke and yet hee may not foorthwith kill him The Pope may sometimes depose a Bishop and yet hee may not for the same cause iustly bereaue him of his life 20 But to omit the railing and slanderous speeches of this vncharitable Doctour whereof I haue spoken somewhat aboue and which more plainely will be discouered by laying open his manifest fraude and fallacious dealing in answering my argument marke good Reader I beseech thee how foulely and shamefully hee seeketh to delude thee in proouing the consequence of my argument not to bee good but to bee false and a most horrible slander and whether of himselfe or me that saying of the Prophet is verified mentita est iniquitas sibi Psal 26. iniquitie hath belyed her selfe For it is one thing saith this Doctour to depose one for a iust cause and another thing to kill him by priuie murtherers Who maketh any doubt of this and oftentimes saith hee one may lawfully depose who may not lawfully kill and oftentimes that may bee a cause of a iust dâ—position which is not a cause of a iust killing And of this also speaking in generall and abstracting from a supreame power to depose and kill and from the crimes for which one may lawfully bee deposed or killed there can be made no question But what of all this how can it from hence bee concluded that from the doctrine of the Popes power to depose hereticall or wicked Princes in order to the publike spirituall good which was the antecedent proposition of my argument it doth not manifestly follow that the Pope in order to the same spirituall good hath not also power to kill hereticall and wicked Princes and knowne perturbers of the common spirituall good by all those wayes publike or priuate and by all those Artes and Stratagemes by which temporall Princes in order to the publike temporall good may kill publike malefactours and perturbers of the publike temporall peace 21 Wherefore whatsoeuer it be saith he concerning the truth of the consequent which is not called in question nor maketh to the purpose the consequence which Widdrington inferreth whilest he concludeth thus The Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore also to kill them c. is denied But first I would gladly know wherefore this Doctor saith that the truth of my consequent which is that the Pope hath power to kill Princes is not called in question nor maketh to the purpose For if his meaning be as it seemeth to be that no Catholike affirmeth that the Pope hath power to kill Christian Kings for otherwise he would not so bouldly haue said that I by vrging this argument did impose vpon the Vicar of Christ a most horrible slander like vnto which the breast of man hath neuer so despitefully vttered then I say the consequence of my argument is good and to the purpose and it proueth that my
Aduersaries by teaching that the Pope hath power to depose Christian Princes and not I who doe not maintaine that doctrine doe consequently impose that most horrible slander vpon the Vicar of Christ our common Father and Pastour 22 For wherefore thinke you doth this Doctour deny the consequence of my argument Marke I pray you his fallacious reason and how he fraudulently altereth my argument and cunningly changeth both the subiect and predicate of my antecedent proposition vpon which my consequence and consequent doe wholly depend For it doth not follow saith he from a power to depose a power to kill I neuer saide that from a power to depose in generall doeth follow a power to kill abstracting both from the persons who are to depose and kill and from the crimes for which the persons that may bee deposed may bee killed but my argument did specifie in particular as well the persons who were to depose and kill as the causes and crimes for which one may by them bee deposed or killed And I affirmed that from the doctrine that maintaineth the Popes power to depose hereticall Princes and publike enemies to the common spirituall good it doeth euidently follow that the Pope in order to the same publike spirituall good hath also power to kill such Princes and that therefore this argument was good The Pope in order to the common spirituall good hath power to depose absolute Princes if the crime deserue deposition therfore in order to the same spirituall good he hath power also to kill them if the crime deserue corporall death 23 And the reason or ground of my consequence was for that according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and those that maintaine the Popes power to depose Soueraigne Princes for this cause and reason they grant vnto the Pope a power to depose Princes in order to spirituall good for that they graunt the Pope to haue in order to spirituall good â—â—otestatem summam in temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater and therefore as great a power in temporals as â—emporall Princes haue Whereupon they are not afraid to affirme â—hat all Christian Princes Kings Emperours and Monarches are the Popes subiects in temporals in order to spirituall good as other infeâ—iour persons are subiect to temporall Princes in temporals in order to â—emporall good But a temporall Prince hath in order to temporall good authoritie not onely to take away the lands and liues of their â—ubiects if the crime deserue that punishment and the common temporall good doth require the same but also if the crime be publike and notorious and the malefactours or perturbers of the publike temporal good be so potent that without rebellion or great temporall harme â—hey can not be apprehended he hath authoritie to condemne them â—riuately and in their absence without any processe citation or deâ—ence and afterwards to giue licence to any priuate man to bereaue â—hem of their liues by any arte or stratageme and by any publike or â—riuie way therefore the Pope according to these desperate grounds â—nd principles which graunt him potestatem summam in temporalibus â—ath the like authoritie ouer temporall Princes in order to spirituall good who according to this false and scandalous doctrine are in order to spirituall good subiect to the Pope in temporals This was my â—rgument 24 wherefore my consequence was onely concerning the Pope â—o whom is therefore graunted by my Aduersaries a power to depose Princes for that he hath in order to spirituall good potestatem summam â—n temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater for â— supreme power in temporals doth necessarily include a power both to depose and kill if the crime deserue the same And therefore who would not admire or rather pitie that so learned a man as is he who â— reputed to be the true Authour of this booke should bring such vnâ—earned instances from those who haue not a supreme power in tempoâ—als or if they haue from a crime which doth not deserue death to imâ—ugne my consequence which speaketh both of one who is supposed â—o haue a supreme power in temporals and also of a crime which is so â—eynous that according to the law it deserueth death if it were committed by subiects or priuate men 25 For the consequences of those fiue examples which this Doâ—tour hath brought to impugne my arugment are all defectiue either â—or that the persons who are to depose and therefore to kill are not â—upposed to haue supreme power in temporals to wit euery Father Maâ—ter or Bishop or else because the crime for which the persons there â—pecified may be deposed doth not deserue so great a punishment as is death But if we once suppose a Father Master and Bishop to haue a supreme power in temporals ouer their sonnes seruants and Clerkes as the Pope is supposed by my Aduersaries to haue ouer all Christian Princes and also the crime to deserue death then I say it doth euidently follow that if such a Father hath power to depriue his sonne of his inheritance he hath also power to depriue him of his life not for that a power to kill is necessarily annexed to euery power to depose but to such a power to depose which is a supreme power ouer all temporals or rather for that a power to depose and to kill to take away goods and life are necessarily included in euery supreme power to dispose of all temporals And therefore all the shuffling shifting and cunning of this Doctour will neuer be able to weaken the force of my consequence but this consequence will euer remaine good and strong that if the Pope hath power to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes for that he is their supreme Lord in temporals in order to spirituall good it doth necessarily follow that he hath power also to depriue them of their liues if the necessitie of the common spirituall good require the same And therefore although the opinion of Card Bellarmine be receaued not by the Catholike Church as this Doctour vntruely affirmeth but by many Catholike Doctours and confirmed by the often practise of many later Popes yet alwaies contradicted by Catholike Kings and subiects neuerthelesse if these Catholike Doctours and Popes had duely considered what odious and detestable consequences doe follow from that opinion they would forthwith in my iudgement haue detested the premisses from which such hatefull conclusions and which this Doctour seemeth here so greatly to abhorre that he feareth not therefore to accuse me of imposing a most horrible slander vpon Christs Vicar are most cleerly and certainly deduced 26 Wherefore to conclude this point that which this Doctour answereth secondly concerning Athalia who was slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest is nothing to the purpose To this argument sayth he r Pag. 556. I answere now that examples are to be taken according to the conuenience of the matter and persons In
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
haue vsurped the kingdome they wholy resigne that authoritie and submit their forces with their person to the iudgement of those who may lawfully giue the kingdome or vnlesse after they haue by tyrannie obtained the kingdome they with their progenie doe by prescription get a lawfull right to the Soueraigntie by possessing it a hundred yeeres or more 35 Secondly there is no likelihood that if Athalia had demanded the consent of the people or common wealth whereof neuerthelesse there is no mention made in the holy Scripture they would haue giuen their free hearty and willing consent thereunto And first as noteth Abulensis t Q. 4 i cap. 11. lib. 4. reg for that she was a woman and it was a disgrace to them to haue a woman who especially had no title to the kingdome to rule ouer them by their owne free and voluntarie consent Secondly for that she was greatly hated by the people both because she had most barbarously murthered her owne sonnes children and all of the blood Royall and also for that she was daughter to Achab whom the people of Iuda did grieuously hate because by the meanes of his issue many mischiefes happened to them to wit for that the house of Achab had instructed the Kings of Iuda in euill and for this the people of Iuda suffered many euills for the sinnes of their Kings as it fell out in the time of Ioram who was a most wicked man by reason of the alliance hee had made with the house of Achab for this Ioram married this wicked Athalia who was daughter to Achab and for this God sent enemies into the land of Iuda who destroyed a great part thereof and they spoiled all the substance that was found in the Kings house as it may be seene 2. Paralip 21. 36 Moreouer seeing that there had beene so long strife and contention betwixt the tribe of Iuda and the people of Israel about the Soueraignitie for there was neuer true and constant amitie betwixt them and the tenne Tribes from the time of King Ieroboam to Achab the father of Athalia it is not credible that the people of Iuda would now yeeld vp the bucklars and freely without feare and compulsion giue there consent that Athalia a woman and not of their tribe an Idolater an Vsurper and who barbarously massacred all the Royall issue of the lineage of King Dauid should now reigne ouer them and sit in the throne of King Dauid to whom they knew God had promised that his seede should reigne ouer the people of Israel for euer 37 Besides that the people did not giue their consent heartily willingly and freely that Athalia should reigne ouer them or at the most that can be imagined only vpon supposition that there was none of the blood Royall left aliue it is manifest by the great ioy which all the people tooke at her death 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paral. 23. and at the crowning of King Ioas Laetatusque est omnis populus terrae saith the Scripture ciuitas conquieuâ—t And all the people of the land reioiced and the Cittie was quiet for that they saw their King saith Abulensis v In fine cap. 11. sit peaceably in his throne and because whilest Athalia liued the people were greatly troubled but now she being slaine all were quiet I said heartily willingly and freely because the consent of the common wealth in the approbation of such a King ought to be most free for if it be enforced from them by any feare or violence it is not be accounted a suffiicient consent but a constraint or compulsion as may easily be gathered from the doctrine of Gregorius Tholosanus before related and also because the contract betwixt the King and the Common wealth is a certaine kind of marriage wherein as in carnall and also in religious matrimonie by making a solemne vow to GOD in an approued Religion if the consent be not most free it can not be called a sufficient consent but a constraint and the contract is not of force before GOD as all Diuines and Lawiers doe affirme but the people of Iuda had iust cause to feare the crueltie of so barbarous a woman who feared not to murther her owne grandchildren and all the blood Royall and therefore by all likelihood would not spare any other that should resist her tyrannie 38 Lastly it is not credible that the people and Princes of Iuda would freely and willingly consent to such a new and exorbitant action as to make an Idolatresse their rightfull Queene without the consent of the Priests and Leuites and that the Priests and Leuites would giue their free consent without the priuitie and approbation of the high Priest whose office was to instruct and direct the people in all difficult matters concerning the law of GOD But it is euident that the high Priest neither did nor would his free consent if it had beene demaunded to such a wicked action both for that he should haue beene a traitour to his lawfull King whom he kept secret in the house of GOD for feare of Athalia and also for that he should haue transgressed the law of GOD in honouring an Idolatresse with the true title of a lawfull Queene who was to be put to death according to the law which is not to be presumed of so holy a man as Ioiada was whose aduise so long as King Ioas followed he did not fall from GOD according to that of 4. Reg. 12. And Ioas did right before our Lord so long as Ioiada the high Priest taught him And therefore this consent of the people which this Doctour faigneth is altogether incredible and is neither grounded in the holy Scripture nor in any other probable reason Neuerthelesse I will not deny but that Athalia being the Kings mother and hauing in his absence the custodie of his Pallace treasure and forces and also hauing cruelly slaine all her grand children as she and the people also thought might haue many fauourers either for feare or gaine but that the people Princes and Priests did either in any publike assembly which representeth the body of the common wealth or also in their hearts without any such assembly giue their free consent to make that wicked Athalia their rightfull Queene it is altogether improbable and hath no colour at all of credibilitie 39 But be it so for Disputation sake that the people imagining vpon a false ground that none of the blood Royall and who by inheritance had a lawfull right to the Kingdome of Iuda were aliue were content that Athalia should be their rightfull Queene yet that this consent of the people did giue her a true lawfull right to the Kingdome the true King and rightfull heire being aliue as this Doctor affirmeth is a very false and seditious doctrine and iniurious to the true rights of all Soueraigne Princes who haue right to their Kingdomes by inheritance but especially of those of the Kingdome of Iuda which
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
power and fauour with the people and being the Kings Protectour and Guardian and presenting the Kings person in all things ought not to defend the true and knowne King against a manifestly surper and to command that vsurper to be slaine who in a manifest rebellion seeketh the crowne and life of the true and annointed King which was the case of Ioiada in commanding Athalia to be slaine How vnconscionably therefore and shamefully doth this Doctour both abuse me and also delude his Reader in misinterpreting so grosly those words of mine Therefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then which euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in the like case that is saith this Doctour euery faithfull subiect if he thinke one to haue by an ill title vsurped the kingdome not onely may but also ought to kill such a King c. As though this were the case of Ioiada whereas it is manifest that Ioiada did not onely thinke but also certainely know that Athalia was an vsurper and that Ioas was the rightfull King Besides he was the Kings Vncle his Protectour and Guardian and represented the Kings person in all things and also he proceeded orderly by procuring first the consent of the Princes and people in putting Ioas in the possession of his kingdome and afterwards commanding Athalia to be slaine for making a manifest rebellion in presence of the King sitting in his Royall throne of all the Princes and people crying a Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason for proofe whereof there needed no accuser or witnesse the fact being so publike and notorious but it was sufficient to vse martiall Law in this case especially seeing that there might haue beene danger in delay 54. Neither doth this giue occcasion to subiect to rebell against their lawfull Kings or to kill them but rather to defend the right of their true Kind and who is euidently knowen so to be and too put down a knowen and manifest Vsurper Neither doe I contend as this Doctour without shame offirmeth mee to doe that it was lawfull for the high Priest whom indeede I granted with S. Thomas S. Bonauenture Abulensis and other Catholike Diuines before g Sec. 1. nu 5. 6. cited to bee subiect to the King in temporalls to exhort the people to rebellion and to conspire with the Peeres and people against the lawfull Queene and to kill her but I onely contend that it was lawfull for Ioiada the high Priest and for euery faithfull subiect to defend the rightfull title of the true and knowen King against a manifest Vsurper especially if such a subiect bee the Kings Vncle Protectour and Guardian and hath the true and knowen King in his protection and custodie and representeth the Kings person in all things as Ioiada was 55 Neither is that example of Queen Elizabeth which this Doctour vrgeth to disgrace mee with our Countreymen to the present purpose Seeing that it was not manifest that Queene Elizabeth was an Vsurper as was Athalia but rather it is manifest that shee was the lawfull Queene considering that the Kingdome was left vnto her by the last Will and Testament of her Father King Henry and also that shee was accepted for lawfull Queene by a publike decree of the Parliament without any contradiction or claime of Queene Mary our now Soueraignes mother or of any other who might pretend a right to the kingdome And although her title to the Crowne had beene doubtfull yet I thinke my Aduersary will hardly deny that in case of doubtfull titles it chiefly belongeth to the Common-wealth or kingdome which the Parliament doeth represent to declare and determine whose title is the best As in the time of Schisme when two pretend to be the true Pope this Doctour will not deny that it belongeth to the Church whom hee maketh inferiour and subiect to the true and vndoubted Pope to declare and determine whether of their titles to the Popedome is the best neither doeth this expose the Crownes of Popes or Kings to the rash leuitie of priuate men 56 But rather this Doctour seemeth heere to insinuate diuers very false and seditious positions As first that the people may depriue a lawfull King and who by a speciall promise and appointment of God hath right to the kingdome of his Princely right and lawfull inheritance without any fault committed by him and giue it to a manifest Vsurper and who also as being a subiect is by the expresse law of God for many crimes to be put to death Secondly that if a manifest Vsurper possesse the kingdome peaceably for sixe yeeres together the true and rightfull King then liuing so that the people fearing his crueltie doe not rise vp in armes against him the true heire is thereby depriued of his Royall right and the Vsurper hath now gotten a lawfull right to the kingdome Thirdly that an Vsurper making an open rebellion against the true and annointed King in presence of the King himselfe sitting in his throne of the Peeres people and all his armie the Kings Protectour and who representeth the Kings person in all things may not by the law of armes or martiall law the King being in his minoritie commaund such a manifest traitour presently to bee slaine the fact being so publike and notorious that it needeth no accuser witnesse or other proofe and especially when by delay there may bee danger of Conspiracie and tumults among the people All these doe euidently follow as you haue seene from Doctors Reply against my answere to this example of Athalia And therefore to retort his bitter inuectiue against mee to Kings and Princes backe vpon himselfe 57 Behold O Kings and Princes you haue heere one who is carefull of the securitie of your Royall issue or rather of those who shall tyrannically vsurpe their kingdomes So obseruant are they of your Princely Maiestie and of your Royall posteritie who so immoderately aduance the Popes temporall authoritie Euery faithfull subiect say they ought not to doe in the like case that which Ioiada did in killing Athalia that is if a manifest Vsurper shall cruelly murther your innocent children and so tyrannically inuade the kingdome euery faithfull subiect who hath preserued one of your Royall issue from cruell death and who is the chiefe Peere of the Realme his Vncle Protectour and Guardian and representeth his Royall person in all things and hath great power and fauour among the people ought not to put your sonne in the possession of his Crowne and commaund the Vsurper to bee slaine by the law of armes if he seeke to make a publike and manifest rebellion in presence of the annointed King Princes and people for this was the case of Ioiada in commanmanding Athalia to bee slaine O miserable state of Princes children whose kingdome and life is by the desperate writings of these men exposed to eminent danger If Widdrington had written such a thing what tumults would not this Doctour make what clamours would he not
raise 58 Another slander not much vnlike to the former doeth this Doctour vnconscionably impose vpon mee in his wordes immediately following Neere also or adioyning to his saith this Doctour h pag. 563. is that which Widdrington teacheth in the number 460. that the Pope in his opinion then subiect to the Emperour and as subiect might and really did with the tacite er expresse consent of the people of Rome lawfully and with validitie take away the Empire of the West from the Emperour of Constantinople and transfer it to Charles the great For how little a part of the Empire was then the people of Rome or what power had they in the election of the Emperour From this therefore it doeth euidently and necessarily follow that euery subiect with the tacite or expresse consent of one Citie that also which hath no voyce or suffrage in the election of the King may depriue his true lawfull and naturall Prince either of all his dominion or of part whereby truly is opened a most broad way to seditions conspiracies rebellions and reuoltings 59 But truly I cannot but greatly meruaile how this my Aduersarie by his Degree a Doctour and by his function a Priest is not ashamed to teach contrarie to his profession such palpable vntrueths and so fowly grosly and shamefully to corrupt my wordes and meaning And therefore whereas in most places hee is very carefull to set downe my expresse words or in some sort the sense of them heere least the Reader should presently perceiue his corrupt dealing hee cleane omitteth to set them downe for almost 40. pages together to wit from the number 413. to 463. wherein I amply declared in what manner the Pope and people of Rome translated the Romane Empire to Charles the great with other obseruations concerning the facts of Popes in deposing Emperours and Princes and why there are so many Authours whose bookes are extant that fauour the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes all which this Doctour passeth ouer with silence For as I haue shewed aboue i Cap. 3. nu 37. seq I prooued there most cleerely by the testimonies of many learned Authours first that the translation of the Romane Empire from the Grecians to Charles the great was done not onely by the authoritie of the Pope but also of the Senate and people of Rome with the expresse or tacite consent of all the people of the West and that none of the Authours brought by Cardinall Bellarmine doe contradict the same And secondly that the Pope and people of Rome and of the Westerne Empire were not at that time subiect to the Grecian Emperour for that hee had then the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned and that therefore the Romane and Westerne Prouinces being left to themselues might choose what Emperour they pleased according to Card. Bellarmines expresse doctrine which I there related 60 Consider therefore good Reader with what conscience this Doctour affirmeth me to say that the Pope in my opinion then subiect to the Emperour and as subiect with the consent of the people of Rome might lawfully depriue the Grecian Emperour of the Westerne Empire and transferre it to Charles the great from whence it euidently folleweth saith he that euery subiect with the consent of one Citty yea and of that Citty which hath no suffrage in the choosing of the King may depriue their true lawfull and naturall Prince either of his whole dominion or of part thereof For I neuer affirmed either that he Pope or people of Rome were then really and in very deed subiect to the Emperour of Greece who had the Romane Empire for abandoned and forsaken or that the whole common wealth being subiect and as subiect much lesse one Citty or Prouince had authoritie ouer their Prince to iudge him depose him or to change the manner of gouernment That which I affirmed is that the common wealth it selfe in case it hath no Prince and consequently is then supreme it selfe and not subiect to any Prince and not that people subiect as this Doctour faigneth haue power I doe not say to iudge or depose their King as hee also shamefully affirmeth mee to say for that the Common wealth in that case hath no King but to choose to them a King or to change the manner or gouernment from a Monarchie to Democratic Aristocratic or mixt And this I affirmed Cardinall Bellarmine to auouch when he teacheth that the supreame temporall power is by the law of nature in the whole multitude or common wealth when they haue no King or Superiour ouer them and that by the same law of nature they man transferre it from the whole multitude to one only or to more and that therefore they may change the Monarchie into Aristosratic or Democratic and contrariwise as we see it was done at Rome 61 Neither can it with any probabilitie be denied that the Citty of Rome which was the chiefe Imperiall Citty and Metropolis of the Romane Empire that is the Pope Senate and people of Rome had by right a great sway in the election of their owne Emperour albeit the armie did de facto commonly choose him to which election the Senate and people of Rome did either willingly or for feare giue their consent and that therefore the Pope Senate and people of Rome with the consent either expresse or tacite of the rest of the Westerne Prouinces had fell power and authoritie to choose to them an Emperour supposing they were left to themselues and forsaken and abandoned by the Emperour of Greece and this is agreeable to Card. Bellarmines doctrine But that one only Subiect or one Citty which is a small part of the kingdome yea or that the whole kingdome it selfe may lawfully and rightly depriue of the whole kingdome or of any part thereof their lawfull King being neither condemned nor heard nor accused yea may lawfully condemne him although he be heard or accused I neuer affirmed neither doth it follow from my doctrine neuerthelesse that euery faithfull subiect is bound to doe in the like case that which Ioiada did either in deposing or killing Athalia this I doe constantly affirme neither can any Catholike deny the same without note of teaching a most false a most scandalous and a most seditious doctrine 62 And therefore I remit to the iudgement of Christian Kings â—nd subiects what censure those last words of this Doctour doe deserue Also that euery faithfull subiect is bound to doe that which Ioiada did in kilâ—ing Athalia Bellarmlne neuer taught it doth not follow from Bellarmines doctrine all Catholikes doe abhorre and detest it and among them without doubt Bellarmine I omit to examine at this present what title Charles â—he great had either by hereditarie succession or by the right of conâ—uest to the Westerne Empire before this translation and what reall â—ower authoritie and dominion this translation gaue to Charles the great for that he and his Father Pipin had before
conquered all Italie â—and before this translation his sonne Pipin was created King of Italie k Sigebert ad ann 774. and others â—nd he himselfe Patritius Romanorum which l Otho Frisingens lib. 5. cap. 28. Sigebert ad ann 781. and others as Card. Bellarmine himâ—elfe confesseth m Lib. 1. de Translat Imper. cap. 9. Lupold Babeng lib. de Iuribus Regn Imperij Rom. cap. 12. is the next dignitie to the Emperour Neither will I now â—ispute what reall difference there is betwixt the Emperour and an abâ—olute King concerning their supreme power and authoritie ouer their â—ubiects This only is sufficient for me at this present that supposing with Card. Bellarmine this translation to haue not only a titular but also â— reall effect whereof Lupoldus of Bamberbeg doth particularly treate if Card. Bellarmine will needes haue this translation to haue all it force â—nd validitie from the Popes authoritie alone and not also of the Romane â—eople or common wealth he calleth in question the right and title which the Latin Emperours haue to the Romane Empire in making it â—o be grounded vpon no so sound title or foundation as I signified beâ—ore cap. 3. num 48. See also that Chapter num 37. seq where I treaâ—ed more amply of this translation 63 But now to returne to that fact of Ioiada from whence with â—his Doctour I haue made this digression Ioiada saith this Doctour n Pag. 565. to â—aue done that which he did through the opinion only of his sanctitie and without any true and lawfull power Widdrington affirmeth we deny Hee â—peaketh of his owne head we follow the words of the Scripture Ioiada saith â—he Scripture 4. Reg. 11. commanded them the Centurions and souldiers â—aying This is the thing which you must doe c. And a little beneath And if any man shall enter the precinct of the temple let him be slaine And forthwith And the Centurions did according to all things that Ioiada the Priest had commanded them And againe Ioiada commanded the Centurions that were ouer the armie and said to them Lead â—er Athalia forth without the precinct of the temple and whosoeuer shall follow her let him be striken with the sword See also 2. Paralip cap. 23. 64 But still this Doctour persisteth in corrupting my words and meaning For I neuer said or meant that Ioiada did that which he did without any true or lawfull power this is a meere fiction of his owne braine That which I said was that all that Ioiada did either concerning the putting the true heire and rightfull King into the possession of his inheritance and kingdome or concerning the putting Athalia to death did not argue in Ioiada either any true authoritie to create a king denouo that is to giue him a right to the kingdome which right he had not before or any proper authoritie due only to the high Priest and which might not also be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case but that which Ioiada did concerning the killing of Athalia he did by the authority and consent of the King Princes and people and what hee did concerning her deposing he was bound to doe by the law of God of nature and nations For Ioiada was the Kings vncle the Kings Protectour his tutour and keeper and represented his person in all things and was the chiefe Captaine and Authour of all this couenant which he made with the Centurions Princes and people to put king Ioas in possession and to defend him from Athalia and therefore no maruaile that he as representing the Kings person gaue commandement to the centurions and souldiers how they should carry themselues either towards Athalia or any other in the kings defence 65 True it is that Ioiada might by his owne proper authoritie as he was high Priest command the Souldiers that Athalia should not be slaine in the temple least the temple whereof the high Priest had the chiefe charge should not be polluted by her blood but absolutely to command her to be slaine none could doe by his owne proper authoritie but he only vpon whom the weale publike common iustice and the temporall sword doth principally depend who only is the King in a kingdome from whom as from the head of ciuill power all temporall authoritie and command in his kingdome is deriued Wherefore I neuer meant that Ioiada did that which he did without any true lawfull and proper authoritie as proper is opposed to improper or metaphoricall but he did that which he did not by any proper authoritie of his owne which was peculiar to him as he was high Priest in which sense proper is distinguished from common but he did that which he did concerning Ioas and Athalia by that true and lawfull authoritie which might also be common to other subiects in the like case to wit to such subiects as are the chiefe Peeres of the Realme the Kings Protectors and Guardians and who represent the Kings person in all things 66 For two principall things Ioiada did the one was that he preserued the true and rightfull King and whom he knew certainely so to bee from being murthered by wicked Athalia and to that ende hee kept him secretly in the Temple for sixe yeeres together and in the seuenth yeere by the aide of the Princes and people hee did put him in possession of his kingdom which Aathalia had tirannically kept from him And this euery faithfull subiect in the like case is bound to doe and by the Law of nature and nations hath authoritie so to doe and the consent of all kingdomes and the authoritie of the rightfull King doth giue sufficient warrant to the same So that this authoritie was not proper to the function of the high Priest as he was high Priest but is common to euery faithfull subiect who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian and representeth the Kings person in all things The second was that Ioiada commanded Athalia to be slaine who endeuoured to make a publike rebellion against the true lawfull and now crowned and anointed King crying out in the presence of the King himselfe the Princes and the people A conspiracy A conspiracy Treason Treason And the authoritie also to commaund this was not proper to the function of the high Priest as hee was high Priest but is common also to euery faithfull subiect who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian and representeth the Kings person in all things And to teach the contrary to any of these two things is to teach a most false scandalous and seditious doctrine 67 This second to wit that the commandement of Ioiada to kill Athalia was done in the Kings name and by his authority this Doctor affirmeth o Pag. 567. not to be incredible because it happened after the creation of the new King neither would this saith he hurt Bellarmines opinion For Bellarmine doth not contend that hereticall Kings ought to bee slaine by the Popes commandement
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
separated at the arbitrement of the Priest and consequently depriued of his authoritie to reigne S. Aug. in q. Euan. l. 2. q. 40. The Consequence Cardinall Bellarmine prooueth out of Saint Austin who teacheth that heresie was figured by leprosie and Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. who sayeth that all things chanced to the Iewes in a figure 83 Thus argued Cardinall Bellarmine from the example of King Ozias which if good Reader thou duely consider doth onely proue that it belonged to the Priests of the old Law to declare the Law of God when any difficultie should arise and that they were the supreame Iudges in spirituall matters as was to declare and iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie or no. For leprosie was not onely in the old Law a naturall disease and a contagious vncleannesse in the body whereupon the leper was by the law commanded to remaine out of the campe apart least others should bee infected by him but it was also a legall vncleannesse Abul q. 2. in c. 13. Leuit. and as well obserueth Abulensis it did principally debarre men from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things and because to iudge whether any one was to bee debarred from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things did belong principally to the Priests who were the ministers of sacred things God appointed them to iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie and gaue them rules and directions whereby to know the same So that the principall thing which the Priest was to doe in the case of leprosie was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law of God whether any one was infected with leprosie or no and if hee found him infected to declare him so to bee and to condemne him of the sayde vncleannesse after which declaration the leper was by the law it selfe foorthwith debarred both from sacred and also ciuill conuersation for that hee was not onely depriued of all sacred rites but also he was to bee seuered from the rest of the people who were not defiled with such vncleannesse and commanded to liue apart out of the Campe or Citie 84 Now the execution of this law forasmuch as concerned the spirituall penaltie did belong principally to the High Priest who was the chiefe minister of sacred things but concerning the temporall or ciuill penaltie which was to bee debarred from ciuill conuersation the execution thereof if the leper would not of his owne accord vndergoe the penaltie did belong to the Ciuill Magistrate who was the minister of ciuill or temporall things As also when any temporall punishment as death whipping or such like was prescribed by the law against malefactours although the crime was spirituall as Idolatrie vsurping the office of a Priest c. the execution belonged to the temporall Iudge who in temporalls had authoritie ouer them Whereupon wee neuer reade in the holy Scripture that any true and lawfull King although he had committed any crime worthy of death according to the law as many Kings of the Israelites were Idolaters and King Ozias heere vsurped the office of a Priest which were crimes that deserued death according to the law were for such crimes put to death by the ordinarie authoritie of any man whatsoeuer for that Kings had no Superiour ouer them in temporalls who had authoritie to execute the law which did chiefly belong to themselues as I a little aboue d Nu. 80 obserued out of Abulensis or to punish them with temporall punishments in which sense King Dauid did truely say that hee had sinned onely to God saying Tibisolipeccaui for that God alone to whom onely he was subiect in temporals had power to punish him with temporall punishments as all the ancient Fathers doe expound that place So likewise in the new law it belongeth to spirituall Pastours to declare and determine what is heresie and whether one befallen into heresie or no but to punish heretikes with temporall punishments doth not belong to the authoritie of spirituall Pastours but of temporall Princes who in temporals are supreme and to whom onely the vsing of the temporall sword doth principally belong 85 Wherefore from this example of King Ozias nothing else can forcibly be prooued but that in the olde law it belonged to the Priests to declare the law of God and that onely Priests and not Lay-men were to intermeddle in sacred things For obserue good Reader what did the Priests 2. Paralip 26. and what was done by King Ozias First therefore King Ozias saith the Scripture entering into the temple of our Lord would burne incense vpon the Altar of incense And incontinently Azarias the Priest going in after him and with him the Priests of our Lord eightie most valiant men they resisted the King and said It is not thy office Ozias to burne incense to our Lord but of the Priests that is of the children of Aaron which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie goe out of the Sanctuarie contemne not because this thing shall not be reputed to thee for glorie by our Lord. Here is nothing done as you see by the Priests which is not spirituall And who maketh any doubt but that the Priests also of the new law may resist Kings if they attempt to intermeddle in sacred things which belong onely to Priests and tell them that it is not their office but of the Priests which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie and command them to goe out of the Church and not to contemne the law of God because it will not be reputed to them for glorie by our Lord God 86 But secondly King Ozias being angrie and holding in his hand the Censar to burne incense threatned the Priests And forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in haste they thrust him out yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out because he felt by and by the plague of our Lord. And here also is nothing which the Priests might not doe by their spirituall authoritie For I doe not deny but that it belongeth to the office of Priests to exclude excommunicated persons as in some sorte leapers were in the old law from the temple of God and from participation in sacred rites as S. Ambrose excluded Theodosius the Emperour Neuerthelesse it cannot be prooued by the words of holy Scripture that they thrust him out of the temple by corporall violence and by laying their hands vpon his sacred person but onely by denouncing with vehement words Gods indignation against him for feare of which he now being stricken by God miraculously with the plague of leprosie did of his owne accord depart in haste out of the temple which also S. Chrysostome doth sufficiently confirme saying Chrys hom 4. de verbis Isae vidi Dominum That they
euery Bishop and Priest to whom the charge of soules is committed haue by the law of God sufficient authoritie and iurisdiction to absolue from all cases I said to whom the charge of soules is committed for I doe not intend now to dispute whether euery Priest by his ordination receiueth authority and iurisdiction to binde and loose For I am not ignorant that diuers Catholike Doctors as Paludanus i In 4. di st 17. q. 3. ar 3. Abulensis k In Defensor part 2. c. 62. seq Syluester l In verbo Confessor 1. q. 2. learned Nauarre m In Sum. c. 27. nu 259. 260. in cap. Placuit de poenitent dist 6. nu 48. doe affirme that standing in the law of God euery Priest hath by vertue of his ordination sufficient iurisdiction to absolue from sinnes which iurisdiction is not hindered but by the prohibition of the Church And therefore I did not speake of all Priests as this Doctour imposeth vpon me but of Priests indefinitely signifying thereby that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were good it would also prooue that standing in the law of God not onely the Pope but also some inferiour Priests should haue authoritie to iudge Kings and Princes for spirituall leprosie considering that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had authoritie to iudge them for corporall leprosie 93 Neither is it to bee marueiled if there bee no example in the old Testament wherein we reade that Kings were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest for that in the olde Testament we haue but one onely example of any King to wit of this Ozias who was infected with leprosie yet the words of the holy Scripture wherein is giuen authoritie to Priests to iudge of leprosie are common as well to inferiour Priests as to the High Priest neither is there any exception made of the persons that are to bee iudged to bee infected or not infected with leprosie Yea and in this very example not onely Azarias the High Priest but also all the other eightie inferiour Priests iudged King Ozias and resisted him saying It is not thy office Ozias c. And therfore Ozias being angry saith the Scripture threatned the Priests and forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in hast they thrust him out And therefore this Doctour doth not well affirme that in the olde law wee haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest seeing that in this example of King Ozias the High Priest did not any thing which the test also of the Priests did not and which if the High Priest had not beene present at that time the other Priests might not according to the law haue done without him 94 Wherefore that also which this Doctour answereth to my second consequence which was that if Card. Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Bishops and also Priests might depose Princes not onely for heresie but also for all other mortal crimes is nothing to the purpose I answere saith hee n Pag. 543. It is true that all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may bee iudged for all sinnes whatsoeuer by euery Priest Because as we now haue saide greater sinnes are reserued to greater Prelates and some to the Pope alone especially when we speake of persons that are placed in the highest degree of dignitie 95 But what is this to my argument For first I spake of Bishops and Priests indefinitely and also standing in the law of God now this Doctour applieth my wordes to euery Priest and flyeth from the law of God by which there is no reseruation of cases to the law of the Church and of Popes by which law onely cases are reserued But secondly and principally hee cunningly concealeth the force and drift of my argument For in this second consequence my principall drift was to speake not so much of the persons who according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument should haue authoritie to depose Princes for of them I spake in the first consequence as the Reader may plainly see as of the crimes for which Princes might according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed And I affirmed that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Princes might for euery mortall sinne be deposed at least wise by the Pope if not by inferiour Bishops and Priests Now this Doctour speaketh not one word concerning the force of this consequence for as much as concerneth the crime for which Princes may according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed whereof I chiefly treated in this second consequence but he cunningly flyeth to the persons who may depose Princes of whom I spake principally in the first consequence and he answereth that indeede all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may be iudged by euery Priest for all sinnes insinuating thereby that Princes may bee deposed for of that iudgement I onely spake at least wise by the Pope for all sinnes which are mortall and may infect others which doctrine how dangerous and pernicious it is to the Soueraigntie and also securitie of Princes I leaue to the consideration of any prudent man 96 But because as the vulgar maxime saith ducere ad inconueniens non est soluere argumentum to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument I did secondly and principally answere that this argument of Cardinall Bellarmine taken from the foresaide example of King Ozias is also most weake seeing that the antecedent proposition is very vncertaine not to say false and the consequence no lesse doubtfull And forasmuch as concerneth the antecedent proposition and the proofe thereof albeit he doth rightly gather from Leuit. 13. 2. Paralip 26. that the Priest of the Leuiticall stocke might iudge Kings infected with leprosie and pronounce sentence against them by declaring the law of God that they ought to dwell apart out of the campe which is the first part of the antecedent proposition seeing that this separation was imposed by God vpon lepers at the arbitrement or declaratiue sentence of the Priest yet hee doth not therefore well conclude that the Priest of the stocke of Leui had authoritie to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen by accident and consequently vnlesse the depriuing them of their kingdome should necessarily follow their dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people which neuerthelesse cannot bee forcibly prooued from the holy Scripture 97 For as Fa. Suarez doth well obserue o Disp 15. de Excommunnicat sec 6. nu 3. the depriuation of dominion doth euer last after it once bee done but that dwelling apart of lepers to be imposed at the arbitrement of the
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
serued him but the rest which belonged to the Kingly affaires Ioathan did and perchance it is called a free house because it was out of the Citie Therefore that the Kingly estate prouision pompe should not cease Ioathan Ozias his sonne gouerned the Kings Pallace to wit he remained in the Kings house and all the Nobles and mightiest men of the Land had recourse to him as they were wont to haue recourse to Ozias and he kept all the seruants and all the other prouision which his Father kept that the Regall state should not seeme to be diminished and yet he was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate and the rest as follow before nu 104. 108 Wherefore D. Schulckenius perceiuing this his assertion not to be grounded either in Scripture reason or any other authoritie flyeth backe againe to his former answere that Ozias was at least wise depriued of the administration of the kingdome from whence first it is prooued sayth he that the Pope may inflict vpon a King for a iust cause a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome and secondly from thence consequently it is gathered that for a most important cause and a very heinous crime as is heresie he may inflict a greater punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome 109 But although I should grant to this Doctour that the High-Priest did depriue King Ozias per accidens and consequently not onely of the administration of the kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and right to reigne that is by declaring him to be a leper which disease did by the law of God as we now suppose but doe not grant depriue him ipso facto of his right to reigne yet froÌ„ thence it cannot be proued that the Pope hath the like authoritie to depriue an hereticall King of his Kingdome or the administration thereof per accidens or consequently for that no punishmeÌ„t is appointed by the law of Christ to heresie as it was in the old law to leprosie but to punish heretikes with this or that kind of spirituall punishment Christ hath left to the discretion of spirituall Pastours and to punish them with temporall punishments to the discretion of temporall Princes who therefore as well said Dominicus Bannes may put heretikes to death or punish them in some other manner But if Christ our Sauiour had in the new law assigned particularly any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods or the like for those who should bee infected with heresie as God in the olde law did ordaine that lepers should dwell out of the Campe in a house apart then the Pope might indeed punish heretikes temporally per accidens and consequently to wit onely by declaring the law of Christ and that they were infected with heresie to which crime such punishments are according to this supposition appointed by the law of Christ Neither should he heerein transcend his spirituall authoritie But to execute this law by putting heretikes to death or by inflicting vpon them temporall punishments and punishing them actually with the same doth exceede the limits of that spirituall authoritie which hath beene giuen to the Priests eyther of the new law or of the olde 110 And albeit Pope Innocent the fourth and also other Popes haue depriued Soueraigne Princes very few times for heresie but often for other crimes not onely of their administration but also of the kingdome it selfe yet this is no sufficient ground to prooue that they had any true and rightfull power so to doe as it is manifest of it selfe and in my Apologie I haue declared more at large z Nu. 444. 445 for that it is one thing saith Cardinall Bellarmine a In Respons ad Apolog. pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so of Popes and other persons and another thing to prooue their authoritie and power And thus much concerning the first part of my answere to the antecedent proposition of Cardinall Bellarmines argument The second part of my answere was contained in these words 111 Neither also doth Cardinal Bellarmine sufficiently confirme that the Leuiticall Priests had authority to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie onely of the administration of their Kingdomes for that time onely that they were infected with leprosie For albeit Ozias after he was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie did not administer the kingdome the cause thereof might bee for that hee being not fit to gouerne the kingdome during the time of his infirmitie did commit the gouernment to Ioathan his sonne and did appoint him the Administratour of the kingdome vntill he should be restored to his former health But that a Priest of the old law had authority to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie either of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof it cannot bee sufficiently gathered from the holy Scripture As also we cannot sufficiently collect from the holy Scripture that a Priest of the old law had authoritie to depriue housholders being infected with leprosie either of their goods or of the administration thereof although it be very like that seeing such householders ought at the iudgement of the Priest declaring them to be leapers to dwell out of the campe they themselues did commit to others the authoritie to bee administratours of their goods for the time they were infected with leprosie And so the weakenesse of the antecedent proposition is manifest 112 Now you shal see in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius replieth to this my answere I answere saith he b Pag 5â—â— These make nothing to the matter It is enough for vs that King Ozias did by the commandement of the High Priest dwell in a house apart from the time of his leprosie vntill his death and that seeing hee could not conuerse with the people he was enforced to permit the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing at all concerning the affaires of the kingdome was referred to him But if he had not beene subiect to the power of the High Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will dwell in the Kings Cittie and gouerne the kingdome either by himselfe or by his Ministers For leprosie doth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne Truly Naaman Syrus was a leeper and because he was not subiect to the high Priest of the Hebrewes he did nâ—t dwell in a house apart but he was the Generall of Warfare and he went wheresoeuer he would See 4. Reg. 5. And in the same manner the High Priest might depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially if they had any in Citties because he did separate them from the people or the conuersation of men and did exclude them from Citties and consequently depriued them of the administration of those goods which they had in Citties albeit they might administer them by
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
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
manifest that those words of the Apostle And all these things chanced to them in figure doe not signifie the same that these words doe And all things chanced to them in figure 152 His second answere is that the ancient Fathers and especially S. Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerdotio doe teach that the iudgement of the Priests in the old law concerning corporall leprosie was a figure of the iudgement of the Priests in the new Testament concerning sinnes But no man denyeth this for I make no doubt but that corporall leprosie and the iudgement thereof in the old law was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the iudgement belonging thereunto in the new law That which I contend is that Cardinall Bellarmine did not truely entirely and faithfully set downe those wordes of Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. And all these things chanced to them in figure for that hee left out that word these and that the Apostle did not say in that place that corporall leprosie and the iudgement thereof in the old law was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the iudgement belonging thereunto in the new Testament and of this there needeth no other proofe then to peruse the words and text of the Apostle in that Chapter 153 Thirdly this Doctor answereth that S. Thomas x Prima secundae q. 104 ar 1. and S. Aug. y In lib viginti vnius sentent l. 16. contra Faustum cap. 28. l. 18. c. 6. l. 22. c. 24. in many places doe cite those words of S. Paul in that maner as Card. Bell. doth therefore C. Bell cannot bee reprehended for citing the wordes of the Apostle not entirely and sincerely vnlesse they also with him bee reprehended But first this is not to take away the aforesaid imputation from Card. Bellarmine but to lay it vpon others Secondly it is not true that St. Augustine citeth those wordes in that manner as Cardinall Bellarmine doeth but hee expresly setteth downe in all the later places All these things as it is in Saint Paul Onely in that booke Viginti vnius sententiarum he citeth indeede those wordes of the Apostle as Cardinall Bellarmine doth leauing out that word these yet D. Shulckenius being so well acquainted with Cardinall Bellarmine and his doctrine could hardly forget that Card. Bellarmine himselfe expressely denyeth z De Scriptoribus Ecclesiast ab anno 400. ad 500. in obseruat ad â—om 4. S. Augustini pag. 187. that booke viginti vnius sententiarum to be S. Augustius worke or to haue in it any graue thing or worthy S. Augustine 154 Neuerthelesse I doe not deny but that S. Austin S. Thomas or any other might by an other consequence gather from that saying of S. Paul that all things for the greater part did chance to the Iewes in figure For although S. Paul doth onely say That all these things did chance to the Iewes in figure yet seeing that there is no more reason why those things mentioned there and not also many other things not mentioned in that place as the Sabboth Circumcision c. which are named by S. Augustine should chance to the Iewes in figure we may from those words of S. Paul rightly inferre by an other consequence that all things for the greatest part did chance to the Iewes in figure But as I said that onely which I contend is that Card. Bellarmine did not truely entirely and faithfully relate those words of S. Paul neither hath this Doctour as you haue seene brought any colourable argument to confute the same 155 Thus thou seest good Reader that Card. Bellarmines argument taken from the example of King Ozias is most weake and insufficient and my answere thereunto to be sound and irreprooueable and D. Schulckenius Reply to be very fraudulent and in all points to be shaken and quite ouerthrowne and to haue wrapped in sentences with vnskilfull and ambiguous words Now you shall see how weakely and nakedly my vnlearned Aduersarie Mr. Fitzherbert notwithstanding he had seene my aforesaid answere to this example vrgeth againe the same But he bringeth nothing in confirmation thereof but what I answered before in my Apologie except the authoritie of S. Chrysostome whose words and meaning neuerthelesse he doth most fowlly corrupt and to which also in my English Theologicall Disputation a in the Admonition nu 23. seq which was published long before his Treatise against me came foorth I did most cleerely answere 156 Ozias was so farre saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Cap. 5. nu 19. pag. 79. Suppl pag. 19. from being supreme head ouer Priests in spirituall matters that he was subiect to them therein and bound to obey them no lesse then was the meanest subiect he had This is manifest by the plaine-words of the Scripture in this place where the high Priest hauing rebuked Ozias for his presumption did not onely command him to depart saying Egredere de Sanctuario c. Goe out of the Sanctuarie c. 2. Paralip 26. but also thrust him out of the same as soone as the leprosie was discouered in his forehead Festinato saith the Scripture expulerunt cum They thrust him out in all hast besides that it is manifest in the same place that God punished him as well for his disobedience in resisting and threatning the Priests as for presuming to Sacrifice and therefore though he had the Censar in his hand to burne the incense yet he was not stroken with leprosie vntill he had threatned the Priests Minabatur Sicerdotibus sayth the Scripture statimque orta est lepra in fronte eius c. He threatned the Priests and foorthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead wherein was fulfilled the menacing admonition that God gaue to the people in the 24. of Deuteronomie as I haue declared before when he commanded them exactly to obey the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke bidding them remember how Mary was punished with leprosie for murmuring against Moyses Moreouer whereas there was a generall law giuen to the people in Leuiticus whereby all men without exception were bound in case of leprosie to vnder goe and obey the iudgement of the Priests and at their arbitrement to be separated from the company and conuersation of other men it is manifest by this example that the Kings were no lesse subiect to this law and bound to obey the Priests then euery other man in which respect Ozias was forced by the sentence of the Priests according to the prescript of the law to liue in a house apart so long as he liued And I can not omit c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 157 But what is all this to the purpose or how from hence doth it follow that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depose temporall Princes and had a Soueraigntie ouer them not onely in spirituall but also in temporall causes as this man pretendeth For all that Mr. Fitzherbert here hath said is briefly this First that the
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
the high Priest this oath must needes haue beene repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament Thus farre I haue thought good to lay downe the words of my Supplement touching the law of God in the old Testament c. 168 To this authority of S. Chrysostome I did answere in my English Disputation of the oath long before Mr. Fitzherbert Reply come foorth And all the force of his argument taken from this authoritie seemeth to consist in those wordes of S. Chrysostome Consedit in throno legem Dei riâ—sus transgrediens He sate in his throne transgressing againe the law of God From whence this man inferreth that God was offended not only because Ozias was not cast out of the City but also because he was suffered still to reigne whereas this only can be gathered from those words and these other and you are afraid to cast him being vncleane out of the City you beare reuerence to his Kingly dignitie violating the law of God c. I doe therefore speake no longer to the Prophets c. That God was offended and speake no longer to the Prophets for that Ozias being a leper and vncleane was not cast out of the City as it was ordained by the law which also S. Chrysostome in the next homily doth more plainly declare 169 Ego vero saith this holy Father si vnum quiddam adhuc addidero c. But if I shall adde yet one other thing I will make an end of my speach And what is this That which not long agoe from the beginning we did demaund What is the cruse that seeing in externall things and in prophecies all are went to set downe the time wherein the Kings did liue this Prophet Esay ommiting that expresseth the time wherein King Ozias dyed speaking in this manner And it came to passe in the yeere wherein King Ozias dyed And yet he might haue expressed the time of the King then reigning as all Prophets vsually did But he did not so For what cause did he not so It was an ancient custome to expell a leprous out of the Citty both to the end that those who liued in the Citty might be in better health and that the leprous should not giue to men prone to vse reprochfull words an occasion of scoffing and derision but that he abyding out of the City might haue solitarines in steede of a vaile or couer against reprochfull calamitie And this ought this King to haue suffered after his leprosie but he did not suffer it those that were in the City reuerencing him for his Soueraignitie but he remained at his house secretly This to wit that he remained at his house secretly and went not forth of the City prouoked GOD to wrath this hindered the prophecie c. Thus saith S. Chrysostome whereby it is manifest that S. Chrysostome doth not affirme that God was offended because Ozias was not thrust out of his kingdom or depriued of his right to reigne but because he liued secretly at his house in the City and did not depart out of the City according as the law in Leuiticus did ordaine 170 Wherefore the meaning of those words of S. Chrysostome He sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God is made more plaine by these later words which I did now relate For as before he being no Priest trangressed the law of God by presuming to offer Sacrifice vpon the Altar of incense contrary to the law so now againe he being for his former offence striken by GOD with leprosie transgressed the law by presuming to remaine in the City which the law did forbid Allo Mr. Fitzherbert may perchance vse some cunning translating those words of S. Chrysostome Sedebat to thrâ—â—â— c. He sate still in his throne breaking againe the law of God as though Ozias had offended againe by remaining still in his throne or which I take for all one by continuing still to reigne and by keeping still his Royall dignitie and authoritie or right to reigne and not resigning it ouer wholy and fully to his sonne Ioathan Wherefore taking those words He sate still in his throne in this sense that word still may be equiuocall and of purpose thrust in by Mr. Fitzherbert to signifie that he offended for keeping still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne whereas the words of S. Chrysostome only are that he sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God not for that he brake againe the law of God because he sate in his throne or which I take for all one kept still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did gouerne the kingdome in his name and by his authoritie and as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy but for that he departed not our of the City as S. Chrysostome himselfe expresly declareth But if Mr. Fitzherbert will haue S. Chrysostome to take that word throne for the materiall Royall seate or chaire of estate which remained in the City for so also the Latin word may be Englished then this sense is in effect all one with the first which I contended to be Chrysostomes meaning to wit that Ozias transgressed the law againe for remaining in the City for leprosie did not debarre him by the law from sitting in a chaire of estate out of the City or from any iote of his Kingly right power or authoritie as I shewed before 171 But lastly it is worth the noting to obserue how well forfooth Mr. Fitzherbert agreeth with Card. Bellarmine in vrging this example of King Ozias For Card. Bellarmine contendeth that Ozias was thrust out both of the City and also of his kingdome but this man laboureth to proue that according to S. Chrysostome hee was neither cast out of his kingdome nor out of the City Others with Iosephus affirme that he liued in deede out of the City but withall that he still reigned or remained King although Ioathan in his name and authoritie or as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy administred the kingdome Neuerthelesse Abulensis Abulens q. 29 in Cap. 25. Exodi although he greatly commendeth Iosephus as a most skillfull Historiographer of the Iewes of whom also hee writeth m Q 9 in cap. 15. lib. 4. Reg. that it is likely he know all the particular facts of those Kings yet he leaueth the opinion of Iosephus in this point Sometimes saith Abulensis n Q. 10 in cap 13 â—euit the plague of leprosie was perpetuall and then the leper remained vntill his death out of the Campe separated from the rest and this was vnlesse perchance he was a man of great excellencie as the King who if he fell into leprosie did not goe out of the campe but remained therein but he was in a certaine separate house as we reade 4. Reg. 15. Of King Ozias who there is called Azarias for he fell into leprosie being stiken by GOD in the forehead because he would burne incense to our Lord as Priests where it
is said And our Lord stroke the King and he was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a free house apart but Ioathan the Kings sonne gouerned the Palace and iudged the people of the Land But from hence it cannot be conuinced that this free house a part was in the City but rather apart out of the City and therefore the opinion of Iosephus seemeth to be more agreeable to the words of holy Scripture Num. 5. And our Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leper 172 Therefore I will conclude vpon the premisses cleane contrarie to Mr. Fitzherberts inference that for as much as the law of GOD assigned no Soueraigntie in iudgement to the High Priests and their consistorie in temporall causes but only in meere spirituall as was to declare the law of God and to iudge one to be infected or not infected with leprosie according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law and to declare them that were infected to be separated and cast out of the campe according to the Prescript of the law which is the plaine meaning of those words ad arbitrium illius separabitur and he shall be separated at his arbitrement or iudgement that is if the Priest doe declare or iudge him a leper he shall be separated and cast out of the campe and seeing that the executing of the law concerning temporall punishments and the separating of lepers by force and temporall constraint did not belong to the Priests but to the supreme temporall authoritie which did reside in the Kings and not in the Priests who were subiect to the Kings in temporalls and might be punished by them with temporall punishments as I haue amply proued in these two Sections and the aforesaid words Num. 5. Command the children of Israel he doth not say command the Priests although then the Israelites had no King neither did the supreme temporall authoritie reside in the Priests but rather in the people that they cast out of the Campe euery leper it followeth euidently that the Priests were not the supreme heads of the Kings in temporalls nor Kings therein subiect to them and their tribunall nor to be punished by them with temporall punishments but contrariwise and consequently that if an Oath had beene proposed by any of these Kings to his subiects whereby they should haue sworne that hee was free from all subiection in temporalls and from all temporall chasticement of the high Priest by way of temporall constraint I say by way of temporall constraint and putting in execution the law of God wherein temporall punishment were ordained and not by way only of declaring the law of God which as it haue sufficiently proued was a spirituall and not a temporall action the said Oath must needes haue beene conforme and not repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament And thus much concerning the arguments taken from the old Testament SECT III. Wherein all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the veritie is proued to make against himselfe 2. Those words of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. And feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted common-wealth are satisfied and D. Schulckenius Reply proued to be fraudulent and insufficient 3. the authoritie of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were ready to revenge all disobedience is answered Mr. Fitzherberts fraude in alledging the authoritie of S. Austin is plainly discouered and the conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be both false and fraudulent NOw from the old Testament Mr. Fitzherbert descendeth to the new and vpon a false supposall as I haue already conuinced to wit that he hath effectually proued that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreme and soueraigne authority to create punish and depose Kings he laboureth in vaine from the number 25 to 32. to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood of the new law not for that he think th that we are now bound to retaine the ceremoniall or iudiciall part thereof but to deduce as he saith a Num. 25. pag 83. a potent argument from thence as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood and especially in the chiefe Priest in the law of Christ And for proofe heereof he setteth downe two positions as the only grounds of this his potent argument 2 The first is that the old law and Testament being but a figure b Num. 26. pag 84. and a shadow of the new was no lesse inferiour there to in authoritie dignitie and perfection then Moses to Christ the dead and killing letter to the quickning spirit or the Priesthood of Aaron to the Priesthood of Melchisedech which was Christs Priesthood he should rather haue said which prefigured the excellencie of Christs Priesthood c See S. Thomas and the Schoolemen 3. part q. 22. ar 6. This position to wit Hebr. 10. that the old Testament was a figure and shadow and not inferiour to the new he proueth by the authoritie of S. Augustine d In Psal 119. who affirmeth that vetus Testamentum promissiones habet terrenas c. The old Testament hath earthly promises an earthly Palestine an earthly Hierusalem an earthly saluation to wit conquest of enemies aboundance of children fertilitie of soyle and plentie of fruites all these things are earthly promises and it is to be vnderstood spiritually in figure how the earthly Hierusalem was a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the heauenly kingdome So S. Austin and thereupon concludeth that if the olde Testament was a shadow of the new non mirum quia ibi tenebrae it is no meruaile though there were darkenesse there pinguiorâ—s enim vmbrae sunt tenebrae for thicker shadowes are darkenesse Thus argueth S. Augustine proouing the imperfection of the old law in respect of the new which the Apostle also proueth amply in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 7. saying that the old law was abolished propter infirmitatem eius inutilitatem for the infirmitie and invtilitie of it Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex for the law brought nothing to perfection 3 His second position is e nu 26.28 that the defects of the old law and Synagogue of the Iewes can not serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ and therefore though the Kings in the olde Testament should haue had authoritie ouer Priests yet it would not follow that Christian Kings should haue the like for that the defects and imperfections of the Synagogue which S. Austin calleth terrenum regnum an earthly kingdome were not to be transferred to the
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
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
likewise if temporall Kings themselues doe offend they cannot bee punished with temporall punishments but by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls Now to giue to temporall Common-wealths the vse of the spirituall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments or to the Church of Christ as it is a spirituall common-wealth the vse of the temporall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict temporall Censures or punishments it were both to confound the acts functions authoritie sword weapons and armour of the spirituall and temporall common-wealths which Christ our Sauiour hath distinguished and it is also repugnant to the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture 2. Cor. 10. nam arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt for the weapons or armour of our warfare are not carnall c. to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers who affirme that Emperours and Kings are in temporalls next to God in authoritie and consequently to be temporally punished by God alone and to the generall practise of the primitiue Church 40 Wherefore that comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth heere of the cobweb which holdeth onely the little flyes and serueth to no purpose against the great ones c. is idle and to no purpose For Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the punishments belonging to the Church of Christ are common both to Princes and Subiects and of themselues they are so dreadfull that they are able and sufficient of their owne nature to hold and keepe in awe all Christians whatsoeuer and to correct amend and bring all sinners as they did the Emperour Theodosius to true repentance But if some persons doe not feare these Censures and be not amended by them this is not to bee attributed to the weakenesse defect or imperfection of the Censure which of it selfe is most dreadfull yea and more horrible saith S. Augustine then any corporall death but to the indisposition of the offender who doth not duly consider the greatnesse and dreadfulnesse of that Ecclesiasticall Censure As likewise temporall punishments as is the sentence of death exile imprisonment whipping confiscation of goods c. are of themselues able and sufficient to withdraw any man from sinfull life yet they doe not actually correct and amend all malefactours but this is not to be attributed to the weakenesse or insufficiencie of the temporall sword but the rashnesse passion malice or inconsideration of such malefactours who for want of due consideration are not afraid of that temporall punishment which of it selfe is able to terrifie any prudent man and to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest 41 Neither is it necessarie for the publike good of the Church as this man supposeth or for the due execution of the office and charge of spirituall Pastours that they should haue authoritie to chastise temporally or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments and to vse the temporall sword which is onely proper to temporall Princes or common-wealths and by the law of Christ forbidden spirituall Pastours as they are spirituall Pastours who haue only spirituall and not temporall authoritie as I proued aboue by the authoritie of S. Bernard Wherefore that axiome of the Lawyer Cui iurisdictio data est c. To whom iurisdiction is giuen those things also doe seeme to bee granted without which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and that other of the Philosophers Qui dat esse c. Hee that giueth being giueth also those things that are consequent to being or necessarily required thereunto are vnaptly applied to this purpose For spirituall iurisdiction can very well bee exercised without vsing temporall weapons or inflicting temporall punishments and to vse temporall weapons or to inflict temporall punishments is not a consequent or necessarily required to the spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely supposeth 42 Now you shall see in what manner hee concludeth this Chapter Thus then saith hee z pag. 91. nu 38.39 thou seest good Reader how I prooued in my Supplement by the law of GOD that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall states and dignities when the necessitie of the Church shall require it which I also prosecuted further there inferring the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians by the power he hath ouer the soule according to the two axiomes Qui potest maius potest minus He which may doe the more may doe the lesse and Accessorium sequitur principalis naturam The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall which I haue amply dâ—bated before with my Aduersarie Widdrington in the second and third chapters hauing also laide downe there the words of my Supplement touching the same and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate them heere 43 Now then I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether my Aduersarie Widdrington hath not notably abused me in two things the one in affirming as you haue heard before in the first Chapter that I grounded all my discourse against the Oath in my Supplement See Chapter 1. nu 3. 7. 9. vpon a bare supposition that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured therein and the other that I haue effectually prooued nothing else by the law of GOD but that the temporal power in spirituall things in temporal as they are reduced to spiritual is subiect to the spirituall power so far forth as concerneth the authoritie to command a spiritual maner of correction not temporall for so you haue heard him say in the beginning of this chap. though it be euident by the premisses Supra nu 1. that I haue grounded my arguments against the oath not vpon any such supposition as he mentioneth but vpon the very substance of the law of God in the old and new Testament and that I haue deduced from thence by most pregnant reasons and necessarie consequents that the Pope hath power to proceede to the temporall correction of Princes when the spirituall will not suffice and the necessitie of the Church doth require it 44 Whereupon it followeth euidently that the new Oath which impugneth this power of the Pope is repugnant to the law of GOD. So that you see how probable my Aduersarie Widdringtons answeres are or rather how fraudulent seeing that he dissembleth all the substance and pith of my arguments abusing therein his Reader no lesse then mee seeking to breede in him a false conceit of the substance and effect of my discourse and then framing his answere according to his owne forgerie So as in fine he answereth nothing of mine but his owne vaine conceits as it will also further appeare by that which resteth to be debated betwixt vs concerning the Lawes of Nature and Nations 45 But contrariwise thou seest good Reader that Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement neither hath sufficiently proued by the law of GOD as hee here
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
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
derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince As for example if a head of a family should bind his wife and children to defend him from the correction of his lawfull Prince when occasion should require I thinke no man will be so absurd to say that it is a lawfull Oath and correspondent to nature though the same should be coloured and shadowed neuer so much with pretence of Oeconomicall and filiall discipline and dutie And no more can the other Oath be lawfull and agreeable to Nature though it be neuer so much coloured with respect of temporall allegiance 17 But first obserue I pray you the egregious shufling of this man For he pretended to prooue in this Chapter by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and that therefore the new Oath which denieth this power to be in the Pope is repugnant to the law of nature And therefore I expected that he would haue brought some effectual argument taken from the law of nature abstracting frō the positiue law of God to confirme this power of the Pope to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and consequently that this Oath is by the law of Nature preiudiciall to the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours But now he flyeth from the law of Nature to the law of God to prooue that the Oath is preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church and supposing that he hath proued this by the law of GOD then it followeth saith he that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature then if a husband should exact of his wife a maiester of his seruant a father of his children an Oath which should derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince So that Mr. Fitzherbert doth only conclude heere that the Oath is vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature supposing that it is by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church 18 Secondly therefore although we should suppose heere with Mr. Fitzherbert that this new Oath is repugnant to the law of God as in very deede it is not yet he cannot therefore rightly conclude that it is also repugnant to the law of Nature which he in this Chapter pretendeth to proue for that euery transgression of the positiue law or institution of almighty God is vnlawfull and yet not repugnant to the law of Nature whereupon the Diuines doe deuide the law of God into the diuine naturall and the diuine positiue law and he that should deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to remit sinnes should contradict the law of God in the new Testament and so this deniall of Priestly authoritie to forgiue sinnes is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours and yet it doth not from thence follow that it is repugnant to the law of Nature which is naturally grafted in the hearts of euery man whether hee be Iew or Gentile infidell or Christian as the law of Nature is by my Aduersaries taken heere Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert concluding heere that the Oath is repugnant to the law of Nature for that it is preiudiciall to the power and iuridiction giuen by the law of Christ to the head of the Church seemeth not to vnderstand himselfe what is the law of Nature and how the law of Nature is distinguished from the positiue law of God But of this law of Nature more beneath e Num. 90. ◠seq and in the next chap. where also you shall see the reason wherefore the obedience in generall which a wife oweth to her husband a seruant to his Maister and children to their parents is not properly naturall but ciuill and yet the obedience in generall which subiects owe to their temporall Prince is not only called ciuill but also naturall allegiance 19 But thirdly it is not true that this Oath now in question is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church for that it denyeth the Popes power to depose Soueraine Princes and to inflict temporall punishments neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert prooued by the law of God that the Pope hath any such power as you haue seene at large in the former Chapter and to say that this Oath is repugnant to the law of nature taking the law of nature as it is distinguished from the positiue law of God or man and is nothing else then the dictamen or prescript of true reason concerning things to be done which either supposeth diuine reuelation and the supernaturall light of faith and is proper onely to true beleeuers and it is called by the Diuines the supernaturall law of nature supernaturall I say to man but connaturall to grace and faith which it supposeth or else supposeth onely naturall knowledge and is common to all men indued with naturall reason and is called properly and absolutely the naturall law for that it is connaturall to euery reasonable man is very vntrue as partly I haue shewed in the former Chapter where I haue answered all my Aduersaries arguments grounded vpon diuine reuelation and partly in this and the two next ensuing Chapters I will more cleerely conuince Now let vs goe on with the rest of his Discourse 20 For as no reason sayth he f Pag. 97. nu 7. 8. of Oeconomie or filiall or coniugall duetie holdeth when it is encountred with the respect of the weale publike or of due obedience to a lawfull Soueraigne So neither can any reason of common-wealth or allegiance to temporall Princes ouerweigh when the same is ballanced with the publike good of the Church of Christ whereto all temporall Princes doe owe more respect duety and subiection euen by the law of Nature then their Vassals and subiects owe to them because the Religion or Ecclesiasticall Societie which is the Church is as I haue said the supreme and most worthie Societie of all other on earth In which respect also all Societies inferiour to the Common-wealth yea euery member thereof haue more obligation owe more dutie to the Church which is the highest Societie then to the Common-wealth or any other whereto they are immediately subordinate as it may also be obserued in humane actions which tend finally to Religion as to their last ende for euery humane action ought to be more specially directed to Religion that is to say to the worship and seruice of God then to any other inferiour action whereto it may haue a more immediate relation 21 In which respect the Philosophers themselues being guided by the law of Nature and light of reason placed the end not onely of mens actions but also of euery man and of the Common-wealth it selfe in Religion because as Plato Plato in Timaeo in Epinomide and all the
Platonists reach man being made to the Image of God and capeable of the knowledge of him was principally ordained to worship and serue him and therefore for as much as neither one man alone can sufficiently performe the woorship of God which is due to him from all mankinde neither yet many men together if they should liue without Lawes See Marsil Ficin in argun Dial. 1. Plat. de Rep. and Magistrates for multitude without order would breed confusion therefore Nature hath inclined men to ciuill Societie that is to say to liue in common-wealths to the end that many men liuing together in communitie may the better discharge their duty to God in yeelding him the due worship and seruice that all mankinde oweth him Whereby the Philosophers euidently saw that the common-wealth was not onely necessary to the perfection of Religion but also naturally ordained and referred thereto as to the end thereof I meane not the next and immediate end of the common-wealth which is temporall tranquillitie commoditie and sufficiency but the last end whereto all temporall commodities are referred Whereupon two consequents follow directly c. 22 But what is all this I pray you to the purpose Who maketh any doubt that the publike spirituall good of the Church is to bee preferred before the publike temporall good of any temporall common-wealth and that the Church of Christ is the highest Societie in worth dignitie and excellencie of all other on earth and that euery Christian man oweth more dutie to the Church of Christ as being the highest and most excellent Societie to which hee is immediately subiect in spiritualls then vnto any other ciuill common-wealth to which he is immediately subiect in temporalls and that euery humane action ought to be more specially directed and referred to the worship and seruice of God then to any other inferiour action whereto it may haue a more immediate relation and finally that the Philosophers themselues as Plato and the Platonists guided by the law of Nature or light of naturall reason thought that man was principally ordained to worship and serue God and therefore placed the ende not onely of mens actions but also of euery man and of the common-wealth it selfe in Religion or the seruice and worship of God and that Nature hath inclined men to liue in ciuill Societie to the end that many men liuing together orderly and guided by Lawes and Magistrates may the better discharge their dutie to God in yeelding him due worship and seruice that all mankinde oweth him All this is conforme to the doctrine which I maintaine and prooueth that the Religious Societie is more noble excellent and woorthy then the ciuill or temporall Societie and that in spiritualls it hath supreme authoritie but it doth not prooue that the Religious Societie is superiour in temporall authoritie to the temporall common-wealth or that it hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes or to inflict temporall but onely spirituall punishments 23 Neuerthelesse I would desire the Reader to obserue some things concerning this Discourse of my Aduersary The first is concerning filiall dutie and the same may be proportionally applied to coniugall For as I obserued else where g In Append. contra Suar. part 1. sec 8. num 12. there be two bonds or obligations wherein children stand bound to their parents the one is natural and proceedeth from the law of Nature whereby children are bound to honour and reuerence their parents and this bond no humane power can take away or release neither can this dutifull respect which children by the law of Nature owe to their parents at any time encounter with any obedience which is due to temporall Princes The other Ciuill which dependeth vpon the positiue lawes of temporall Princes whereby Parents are made Tutors guardians and gouernours of their children and this power which Parents haue ouer their children is greater or lesser according to the lawes and customes of euery kingdome and as it dependeth wholly vpon the ciuill power so it may bee increased diminished or quite taken away by the supreme ciuill power and this ciuill duty or obedience which children owe to their Parents doth not hold when it encountreth with the respect dutie or obedience which they owe to their supreme temporall Prince 24 The second is that temporall allegiance or obedience which is due to temporall Princes if wee will speake properly can neuer encounter with that spirituall obedience which is due to spirituall Pastours For if a temporall Prince doth commaund any thing which is against the seruice or worship due to God and consequently against Religion to obey him in this case is not temporall allegiance for that the Prince hath not authoritie to command any such thing and where there is no authority to command there is no obedience due because according to the doctrine of all Diuines obligation to obey and authoritie to command are correlatiues and doe depend one vpon the other and therefore true temporall allegiance can neuer encounter with true spirituall obedience and bee preiudiciall thereto nor contrariwise 25 The third is that although some Heathen Philosophers by the light of naturall reason did euidently see that the worship and seruice of God as hee is the Authour and end of Nature and of all naturall things is to be preferred before any temporall tranquillitie of commoditie and that therefore euery man both Prince and subiect by the light of naturall reason ought to referre all their actions to the honour and seruice of God and to that happines which according to naturall reason doth follow the worship and seruice of God and is the last end of man although not the last end of all humane actions yet no Heathen Philosopher by the light of naturall reason did or could see that the temporall common-wealth it selfe formally and in abstracto as it consisteth of temporall power is per se intrinsecally or naturally ordained or referred but only per accidens and by the intention of man to that happinesse which is the end of Religion and followeth the worship and seruice of God although man himselfe in whom temporall power doth reside ought by the light of nature ordaine and referre the vse of his temporall power and all his other actions to that blisse happinesse and felicitie which is the last end of man and the immediate end of the worship and seruice of God But of this I haue treated more at large aboue in the Second part where I haue answered all the arguments which Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius haue brought to prooue that the temporall power it selfe among Christians is per se and intrinsecally and not only by the intention of man ordained and referred to euerlasting happinesse 26 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth from his former Discourse Whereupon saith he h pag. 99. nu 9. seq two consequents follow directly according to Philosophie the one that Religion is farre more noble and worthie then the
thereof when any thing was to be handled in the Senate that which corcerned Religion was first of all dispatched whereupon also they gaue great temporall authoritie honour priuiledges and exemptions especially to their chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom all other inferiour Priests as the Flamines the Salij the Augures the Epulones the Aruales the Vestales yea and he that was called Rex sacrorum the King of sacred things were subiect in so much that the dignitie of the chiefe Bishop was accounted the second in the Common-wealth and the next to Kingly dignitie and many times the same man was both a Religious Priest and also a temporall Magistrate as Q. Fabius Maximus was an Augure and a Consull M. Aemilius Lepidus was Proconsull and chiefe Bishop Neuerthelesse it is not true that the chiefe Bishop had any temporall authoritie euen ouer the inferiour Priests as necessarily due to him by the law of nature but onely from the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth or the supreme Gouernours thereof And therefore at sometimes the chiefe Bishops had greater temporall authoritie as in the beginning when the Romanes were gouerned by Kings in whom both Regall and Pontificall authoritie were conioyned and by whom as being both Kings and chiefe Bishops all matters as well concerning State as Religion were determined and executed at some times they had lesse as afterwards Alexand. lib. 3. genial dier cap. 3. Sabellicus lib. 2. Ennead 4. Alexand. ibidem lib. 1. cap. 27. Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 27. when they had put downe their Kings for that they beganne to tyrannize ouer them and were gouerned by the Senate and two Consuls who at the first were chosen out of the Nobilitie but afterwards at the instance of the people the Senate was forced to graunt that they might be chosen also out of the commmunaltie which Consuls least they should challenge to themselues Kingly authoritie could put no Citizen to death without the consent of the people 32 For to the ende that the Kingly name which was by the Romanes fortunately begunne and for many yeeres happily continued should still remaine and also that the Priestly authoritie which the Kings had should not be abolished they did create a King whom they called Rex sacrorum a King of sacred things who had onely the name of a King without Regall authoritie and should performe the sacred rites and ceremonies belonging to Religion which the former Kings did performe Which King of sacred things by reason of the odious and suspected name and authorititie of a King could haue no authoritie or command ouer the armie and legions nor beare any office or haue any temporall gouernment ouer the people but his power and authoritie was limited to Religion and contained onely within the temples of the Gods And this King of sacred things was subiect to the chiefe Bishop as all other Priests were who as they were Priests had onely to intermeddle in sacred things but afterwards they had also great temporall authoritie granted them by the Senate and people For the chiefe Priests or Bishops had not onely power giuen them to punish with pecuniarie mulcts the inferiour Priests who should disobey their command but also they were made Consuls Captaines and chiefe Magistrates in the Common-wealth But all this temporall authoritie of the religious Priests did proceed from the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth and not as necessarily due to them by the law of Nature which those words of Cicero cited by my Aduersarie doe onely confirme to wit that it was notably and diuinely ordained that the Bishops should haue a chiefe command in matters that appertained as well to the Common-wealth as to the religion of the Gods 33 But that the temporall Magistrate sayth Mr. Fitzherbert was commanded and corrected he meaneth with temporall punishments as occasion required by the spirituall was the custome of the Romans because no doubt they held it to be most conforme to the law of Nature But first those words to be most conforme to the law of Nature are equiuocall and may haue a double signification For as euery law for as much as concerneth the directiue power or force thereof for the coerciue power or force of euery law consisteth meerly in punishing hath one of these three effects to command to forbid to permit or graunt some thing so the law of Nature as it is directiue may be taken either as it commandeth or as it forbiddeth or as it permitteth or granteth some thing If therefore my Aduersaries meaning be to signifie by those words that the law of Nature commandeth the spirituall Magistrate or giueth him authoritie as he is a spirituall person to punish the temporall Magistrate transgressing his commandement with temporall punishments that in this sense the custome of the Romans was conforme to the law of Nature this I say is very vntrue neither can he bring any colour of a probable proofe to confirme the same Nay which is more he can not prooue as you shall see beneath that the law of Nature gaue to Religious Priests as they were such authoritie to command in spirituals or to punish with spirituall punishments the supreme temporall Magistrate for that standing in the law of nature there is no publike spirituall authoritie which is not subiect and subordinate to the temporall Common-wealth and the supreme Gouernours thereof 34 But if he meane that the law of nature or the light and dictamen of naturall reason doth not forbid but doth permit that temporall Princes or Common-wealths may giue authoritie to those Religious Priests whom they shall appoint to be in their steed publike Ministers of sacred rites to punish with temporall punishments those that shall contemne their iust command and that in this sense the custome of the Romanes giuing authoritie to their Religious Priests to inflict temporall punishments was conforme that is was not repugnant to the law of nature but agreeable thereunto as a laudable and decent custome but not as necessarily enioyned by the law of nature this is very true but not to the purpose for that which my Aduersarie pretendeth to prooue is that Religious Priests haue by the law of nature and not onely by the free graunt of temporall Princes or Common-wealths authoritie to inflict temporall punishments which neuerthelesse he will neuer be able to prooue by any probable argument or any probable shew thereof 35 Thirdly therfore for the better cleering of the whole matter the Reader may obserue out of learned Abulensis Abulens in cap. 13. Gen. q. 8. 9 seq that there is a great difference betwixt the Priests of the old law of the new the Priests that were in the law of nature For in the law of nature before the law of God was published by Moyses we may cōsider euery man either by himselfe or as he was a part of some communitie If he be considered by himselfe and as dwelling alone in no Societie it was lawfull
to campe againe c. 39 Concerning the ceremonies which were to be vsed and the sacrifices which were to be offered albeit in the law of Nature when there was no law of God which did restraine or limit any man to any kinde of ceremony or Sacrifice it was lawfull for euery man to doe what hee would vnlesse it were euill of it selfe and therefore euery man as being considered by himselfe might offer what sacrifice or vse what kinde of ceremony he pleased but as he was a part and member of some Communitie he could vse no other sacrifice or ceremony then that which the Communitie or the supreme Gouernours thereof whose Minister he was did appoint yet in the law written it was otherwise For as God himselfe did limite and determine the places and ministers to doe sacrifice so also he determined all the rites and ceremonies belonging to the worshipping of him whereof the whole booke of Leuiticus doth treate But concerning the Sacrifices God appointed in generall three kindes to wit Holocausts a sacrifice for sinne and a Pacificke hoste Num. 6. and vnder these three were comprehended all other particular kindes of sacrifices of all which and of the ceremonies belonging to them it is treated from the first Chapter of Leuiticus to the eight What other authority the Priests of the olde Testament had in expounding and interpreting the law of God when any doubt or difficulty should arise I declared aboue in the former Chapter when I examined that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubtfull c. 40 Now lastly concerning the law of Christ wherein all the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawes of the old Testament doe cease insomuch that no Christian now is bound to obserue any one of those lawes by vertue and force of the law it is to be considered that our Sauiour Christ hath now instituted a new Priesthood and a new Sacrifice And albeit he hath determined and limited the persons who are to offer Sacrifice and the Sacrifice which is to be offered for the persons or Priests to offer Sacrifice he hath appointed onely his twelue Apostles and those who are duely consecrated and ordained by them or their Successours and the Sacrifice which they ought to offer is one onely to wit the vnbloody offering of his immaculate body and blood vnder the visible formes of bread and wine by vsing those words which he himselfe in his last Supper did vse and institute yet he did neither limit the place where this Sacrifice should be offered nor the ceremonies which were to be vsed in the offering thereof but he left these to the disposition of the Church and to the supreme Pastours or Gouernours thereof to determine them as they should thinke conuenient Besides this authoritie which Christ gaue to the Priests of the new law ouer his true body he gaue them also authority and Iurisdiction ouer his mysticall body which are the faithfull which authority and Iurisdiction is signified by the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour promised to S. Peter and in his person to the rest of the Apostles whom he did represent of which authority I haue spoken somewhat in the former chapter and also in my Apologie Theologicall Disputation and Appendix thereunto 41 And from hence the Reader may easily gather two things the one is the difference betwixt the Priests in the law of Nature and in the law written for that both in the law of Moyses and of Christ the Priests had not their authoritie from men but from GOD neither was it in the power of the temporall common-wealth to extend or diminish their Priestly authoritie but in the law of Nature the Priests had their authoritie from the ciuill Communitie or common-wealth whereof they were parts and members and in whose name and by whose authoritie they were made Priests and had power to offer sacrifice and it was in the power of the common-wealth to extend or diminish or to take quite away their Priestly authority and to appoint and ordaine in what manner and with what ceremonies and what things they should Sacrifice to God and to determine of all things concerning Religion yea and the common-wealth did also determine what Gods they were to woorship and therefore it was decreed by the Senate of Rome that no Emperour should be canonized or made God Alexand. l â—6 cap. 4. but by the decree of the Senate 42 The second which followeth from the former is that considering in the law of nature the Priesthood was wholly subiect and dependent vpon the ciuill Common-wealth in so much that the Priests in the law of nature were subiect and subordinate not onely in temporals but also in spirituals and in all things which concerned Religion and the publike seruice of God to the supreme Gouernours of the temporall Common-wealth from whom they receiued all their Priestly authoritie Mr. Fitzherbert very vnlearnedly concludeth that according to the law of nature the temporall State and power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that the supreme temporall Magistrate was commanded and corrected with temporall punishments as occasion required by the spirituall seeing that the quite contrarie I haue most cleerly conuinced out of Abulensis and the same may very plainely be gathered from the doctrine of Sotus Valentia Suarez Vasquer and other Diuines treating either of Sacrifices in generall or of the Sacrifice of the Masse or of the Priesthood of Christ And therefore I may bouldly say that if in the law of nature an Oath had beene propounded by the ciuill Common-wealth wherin the Religious Priests should haue acknowledged that they might not only for temporall crimes but also for spirituall and which meerely concerned Religion be punished by the supreme temporall Gouernour with temporall punishments and also be depriued of their Priestly function and authoritie the Priests would haue admitted it as lawfull And if an Oath had beene propounded by the Priests to haue themselues exempted from the authoritie of the supreme temporall Gouernour euen in spirituall or religious affaires much lesse in temporall the Ciuill Common-wealth or supreme Gouernours thereof would not haue admitted it as lawfull but would haue punished the Priests for presuming to vsurpe such an authoritie 43 Wherefore those last words of my Aduersarie to Mr. Barlow are a most vaine friuolous and idle florish For albeit the ancient Philosophers and learned Paynims being guided by the law of Nature and light of naturall reason whose doctrine also in this point our moderne Diuines doe follow did cleerely see that in the law of Nature when no positiue law of God was published the Ciuill common-wealth or supreme gouernours thereof had the chiefe command and authoritie in all matters as well concerning Religion as State to whom the Religious Priests were wholy subiect as well in spirituall or religious as in temporall affaires yet they did not turne
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
heads of others stroken off but the question was whether the Pope hath power and authoritie to vse bloodie punishments and hee himselfe as you haue seene expresly teacheth that the Pope hath such a power and yet now forsooth I in denying it doe mention idly bloodie punishments by death or maiming 59 Thirdly that hee may not take occasion heereafter to cauell at my words when I affirmed that true reason teacheth that euery Superiour hath power to punish his inferiour with some punishment proportionate to his authoritie my meaning was as also my words doe sufficiently signifie to speake onely of supreame Superiours who haue both directiue and coerciue authoritie that is power both to command and punish for a delegate Superiour hath no other authoritie then is granted him by his supreame Superiour And therefore it is not against the law of Nature or the prescript of true naturall reason that such a delegate Superiour may haue power giuen him only to command and not to punish or to punish one man and not another or to inflict one punishment and not another according as his supreame Superiour shall thinke it fit and conuenient 60 Now you shall see in what manner Mr. Fitzherbert prooueth that I contradict my owne grant the holy Scriptures and the ancient and common practise of the Church You haue heard Widdrington graunt r Supra c. 5. nu 1. Wid. in Admon ad Lect. nu 17. saith hee Å¿ Pag. 104. nu 17. that the spirituall Superiour may commaund corporall and temporall things as they serue the spirituall and are reduced thereto Why then may hee not punish his subiect in his body or temporall goods for the same respect But first what contradiction I pray you is it to affirme that the spirituall Superiour may for a spirituall end command or enioyne temporall penalties and to deny that he may not for a spirituall end inflict temporall penalties Contradiction as all Philosophers know is an affirming and denying of the selfe same thing and in the selfe same manner but to affirme one thing and to deny another is no contradiction at all Wherefore to proue that I contradict my owne grant Mr. Fitzherbert must proue which he can neuer doe that I affirme and deny the selfe same thing as to affirme and deny that the spirituall Superiour hath power to commaund temporall penalties to affirme and also to deny that hee hath power to inflict temporall penalties for otherwise to accuse mee of contradiction for affirming one thing to wit that the spirituall Superiour hath power to commaund temporall penalties and for denying another thing to wit that hee hath not power to inflict temporall penalties is to accuse himselfe of most grosse and palpable ignorance 61 Secondly I answere his demaund with other like demaunds Cardinal Bellarmine as you haue seene aboue t Part. 2. cap. 8. affirmeth that the soule may command bodily actions when they are necessary for the good of the soule and I also added which he cunningly concealed when they are necessary for the good also of the body why then may not the soule her selfe also exercise bodily actions for the same respect without the helpe or actiue concurrance of the body it selfe Also the soule may command one corporall member to punish another if it be necessary for the good either of the soule or of the body as the hands to whip the shoulders or to cut off some contagious member as the fingers the toes the feete or legges if they be poysoned why then hath not the soule herselfe for the same respect power to doe the same Moreouer a ghostly father may enioine his penitent for satisfaction of his sinnes and to auoide the danger of falling backe into sinne to giue Almes to build Hospitalls to afflict his body with fasting watching disciplining haire cloth and such like to shunne this or that company c. Why then if the Penitent refuse to doe these things may not his ghostly father for the same respect take away his money from him and giue Almes and build Hospitalls therewith and afflict his penitents body whether hee will or no c Why did S. Bernard affirme that the materiall sword is by Christs commandement to be drawne forth for the Church but not by the Church with the hands of the Souldier but at the becke or declaratiue commaundement of the Priest 62 But the true and proper reason why spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to command temporall punishments and not to inflict temporall punishments or to punish temporally must bee taken not from any naturall subordination or which is all one from any necessarie subiection which according to the law of Nature the ciuill common-wealth or temporall Princes haue to the Religious Societie or to the Ministers of sacred rites for that in the law of Nature it belonged to the ciuill common-wealth to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state as I haue shewed before but it must bee taken from the positiue institution of Christ our Sauiour and from the nature and conditions of the lawes weapons armour and punishments which according to the institution of Christ are due to the Church as he hath distinguished them from the nature and conditions of the lawes weapons armour and punishments which are proper to the temporall Common-wealth For there is no doubt to be made but that our Sauiour if it had pleased him might haue ordained that the chiefe visible head of the Church should bee both a temporall and spirituall Monarch as the Canonists will haue him to be and might haue giuen him authoritie to inflict not only spirituall but also temporall punishments and not only to command but also to vse the materiall temporall or ciuill sword as also if it had pleased him hee might haue giuen him no power to command at all but only to preach the word of God and to declare his law and to minister Sacraments to them that should voluntarily and of their owne accord demaund them wherefore what power the Pope and other spirituall Pastours haue wee cannot gather from the law of Nature or the necessary prescript of naturall reason but onely from the positiue institution and law of Christ. 63 But this difference betwixt the power to command and to inflict temporall punishments will be made more plaine and perspicuous by examining his next Discourse and by declaring morefully the true sense and meaning of those former words of mine The spirituall Superiour may command corporall and temporall things as they serue spirituall and are reduced thereto Which my Aduersarie either doth not or would seeme not to vnderstand For seeing that saith he u Pag. 104. numer 17. the spirituall power to command temporall things in that case resulteth as Widdrington seemeth to grant vpon their reduction to the spirituall that is to say because they are vsed and applied to the seruice of the spirituall whereby they are reduced to a kind of spirituall nature or qualitie why
shall not the same reason hold for the spirituall Superiours power to punish in temporall things which are no lesse vsed and applyed to the seruice of the spirituall in punishment then in commandement as when delinquents are enioyned for the punishment of their sinnes to giue Almes to build Hospitals or Monasteries to goe in Pilgrimage and to afflict their bodies by fasting watching discipline haire-cloth and such like it is cleare that as well the corporall labours as the temporall expences are referred to a spirituall end to wit to Gods glory and the benefite of the Soule no lesse then if the same were imployed otherwayes for Gods seruice by the direction or commandement of the spirituall Superiour Also when heretikes are depriued of their honour fame goods or liues for the iust punishment of their heresie See Siluester verb. Haeres nu 12. 13. 14. according to the custome and Canons of the Church who knoweth not that the same to done for the glory of God and the great benefit of the Church So as there is no lesse relation or reduction of corporall and temporall goods to the spirituall in punishing then in commanding and therefore Widdrington cannot with any probability admit the one and reiect the other 64 The reason why the spirituall Pastours of the Church may command temporall punishments and yet may not inflict them or punish temporally or which is all one why the directiue power of spirituall Pastours is extended to temporall punishments for a spirituall end and yet their coerciue power is not for the same respect extended also to temporall punishments but restrained and limited to spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures I fully declared in my Appendyx to Fa. Suarez which Mr. Fitzherbert might well haue seene seeing that it was published the yeere before this his Reply came forth See Appendix part 1. sec 4. For Fa. Suarez argued in this manner The Ecclesiasticall power of the Church as it is directiue or commanding is not by those words of our Sauiour Quodcunque ligaueris c. Whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. determined to this or that manner of directing or commanding but doth without limitation comprehend all conuenient directing or commanding therefore the same is to be vnderstood of the coerciue or punishing power For we doe now suppose as a thing manifest and knowne to euery man of meane learning that in euery law there is contained the commandement which the Diuines call vis dirigens the directiue or commanding force or power and the punishment for feare of which we are in some sort compelled and constrained to performe the thing commanded which therefore the Diuines call vis cogens or coercens the compelling enforcing or punishing force or power of the law 65 This therefore was a part of my answere to the aforesaid argument of Fa. Suarez which my Aduersaries concealing thereof vrgeth me to repeat heere againe that the Reader may in some sort thereby perceiue that he still vrgeth the same arguments which haue before beenefully satisfied Secondly if that assertion or argument of Suarez be so vnderstood that as the Ecclesiasticall power to command is not limited to any certaine manner of commanding so that it be conuenient and beseeming the nature and condition of an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall body or Societie as it is by the institution of Christ distinguished from the ciuill body or Common-wealth so the Ecclesiasticall power to punish is not limitted to any certaine manner of punishing so that it be conuenient and beseeming the nature and condition of an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall body and society as it is instituted by Christ and distinguished from the ciuill Common-wealth then wee grant also his comparison or the consequence of his argument But then we affirme that as onely temporall correction or punishing is conuenient and proper to the temporall body or Common-wealth so also onely spirituall censures or punishments are by the institution of Christ conuenient and beseeming the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ as out of many Catholike Authours wee haue shewed a little before 66 Wherefore there is a great difference to be obserued betwixt the power to command and to punnish For the Ecclesiasticall power to command is as it were vnlimited and may be extended to all things both spirituall and also temporall not as they are temporall but as in regard of the vertue or sinne therein contained they become spirituall because the obiect of the Ecclesiasticall directiue or commanding power is vertue or vice which may be found in all things whatsoeuer aswell temporall as spirituall And so the Ecclesiasticall power forbidding a temporall thing as it is a sinne or hurtfull to spirituall good doth nothing which is vnbeseeming the nature and condition of a spirituall body or Society but the depriuing one of temporall lands goods libertie or life are alwaies temporall punishments for what crime soeuer either spirituall or temporall they be inflicted and therefore are not conuenient or beseeming the nature or condition of a spirituall Common-wealth as I haue shewed before 67 And this distinction or difference betwixt the commanding and chastising power doth euidently appeare in the ciuill Common-wealth which hauing for the obiect of her directiue or commanding power publike peace or publike disquietnesse as the Ecclesiasticall hath vertue or vice may forbid all things euen Ecclesiasticall matters as they are truely manifest wrongs to the ciuill society and vniust hindrances to the publike peace for that these vniust oppressions although principally and of themselues are spirituall yet secondarily and by accident they are temporall wrongs and in that regard may be punished by the ciuill Magistrate not with spirituall but with temporall punishments as before in this Disputation x Cap. 7. sec 2 nu 17. I haue shewed out of those two famous and learned Dominikes Sotus and Bannes Whereby we may perceiue that this manner of arguing which Suarez vseth in comparing the commanding or directiue power with the punishing or coerciue is not allowable for otherwise wee might in like manner conclude that as the Ciuill power to command is not so limitted but that it may sometimes be extended to Ecclesiasticall or spirituall matters so also the Ciuill power to punish is not so limited but that it may sometimes be extended to punish with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishment Thus I answered in that place 68 By which the Reader may cleerely see that the difference betwixt the directiue or commanding and the coerciue compelling or punishing power must bee taken as the natures and differences of all powers ought to be taken from their proper acts and obiects for the acts and obiects of the Ecclesiasticall power as it is directiue or commaunding are the commaunding of vertuous and the forbidding of vicious acts whereby the spirituall health of soules and euerlasting happinesse which is the last end of the spirituall power is obtained So that what thing soeuer be it temporall or spirituall that may be vertue or
or which is all one with that I said before as by the order and reference to spirituall good that is to the glory of God and the health of soules they become spirituall that is vertuous and vicious actions it is manifest that although this distinction of directly and indirectly may be applyed to the spiriturall directiueâ— or commanding power as I declared before for that spirituall Pastours haue no power to command temporall actions but in order to spirituall good and by that reference become spirituall and capable of vertue or vice which is the health or hurt of soules yet it cannot be applyed to the spirituall coerciue or punishing power vnlesse it be first proued that Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours for the health of soules authoritie to inflict as well temporall as spirituall punishments and that the obiects of the spirituall coerciue power are by the institution of Christ both temporall and spirituall punishments which my Aduersaries will neuer be able to proue from the holy Scriptures or the ancient Fathers and vnpartiall expositours thereof for to proue the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours and Priests by the law of Nature or naturall reason who as I haue shewed before were in the law of Nature subiect to the coerciue power of the ciuill Common-wealth is most idle and friuolous 77 Now you shall see how friuolous the second reason is which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to proue that I contradict my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour may command temporall punishments and yet in denying that he may inflict temporall punishments Furthermore Widdrington granteth saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 105. num 18. that the spirituall Superiour may punish spiritually that is to say by Censures of Excommunication Interdict and Suspension but who seeth not that he granteth consequently that the said spirituall Superiour may also punish temporally For Excommunication doth not only depriue a man of the vse of the Sacraments but also of the communication and conuersation of Christian men and of many temporall commodities euen according to our Sauiours owne commandement who ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication Matth. 18. when he commanded that he which will not heare the Church shall be taken for an Ethnike and a Publican that is to say shall be excluded not only from the participation of the spirituall benefits of the Church but also from the temporall companie 1. Cor. 4.2 Thess 3. and conuersation of the faithfull which was also ordained by the Apostle when he commanded the Corinthians and Thessalonians not to eate with notorious sinners and disobedient persons and by S. Iohn when he commanded that the Christians should not receiue heretikes into their houses nor so much as salute them in all which it cannot be denyed but that the offenders were punished temporally 78 But all this and the rest also which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth in the two next Paragraphes was before obiected by Fa. Suarez and fully answered by me in my Appendix but this man is pleased to repeate still the same obiections which by me and others haue beene before often answered Wherefore it is true that I doe grant that the spirituall Superiour may punish spiritually by Ecclesiasticall Censures but it is not true that I must consequently grant that he may also punish temporally for this I euer denyed and therfore it is a meere fiction of his owne braine that I contradict my selfe in affirming and denying the selfe same thing For First Excommunication as I shewed before l In my Appendix against Suarez part 2. sec 4. See also aboue chap. 1. nu 16. and seq and chap. 5. sec 2. num 131. seq doth not of it owne nature and by any institution of Christ depriue of ciuill conuersation but only of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall participation of the faithfull and therfore all ciuill contracts with excommunicated persons as buying selling changing lending c. are valid and of force if we respect only the law of Christ Secondly it is also true that by the law of the Church some temporall punishments may be annexed to Excommunication by way of command and so the Church hath power to command that we shall not ciuilly conuerse with excommunicated persons except in those cases wherein by the law of Nature and Nations we are bound ciuilly to conuerse with them So also spirituall Pastors as I haue shewed before may annexe to Excommunication the inflicting of those temporall punishments which from the grant and priueledges of temporall Princes they haue authoritie to inflict But this is nothing to that which Mr. Fitzherbert intended to proue For I neuer denyed that the spirituall Superiour may punish temporally by way of command or to speake more properly may command and enioyne temporall penalties and also inflict them by that ciuill authoritie which he hath receiued from the grant of temporall Princes but that which I denyed is that the spirituall Superiour hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments 79 Thirdly Mr. Fitzherbert affirming so boldly that our Sauiour by his owne commandement ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication doth erre most grosly seeing that he cannot proue that our Sauiour ordained any penaltie at all much lesse a temporall penaltie of Excommunication For if he had but sleightly runne ouer Schoole-Diuinitie and especially the Treatise of Ecclesiasticall Censures he could not but haue seene that although the power to excommunicate is de iure diuine and instituted by the law of Christ yet that according to the more common doctrine of Diuines neither Excommunication or any other Ecclesiasticall Censure or penaltie is de iure diuino and ordained by the commandement of Christ but de iure humano and instituted by the Church and that to no sinne is annexed any Censure by the law and commandement of Christ who did neuer by himselfe immediately ordaine that the Church should vse such or such a determinate punishment but he left to the prudent iudgement and arbitrement of the Church to determine in particular this or that punishment according to the authoritie she hath receiued Suarez tom 5. dis 2. sec 1. For thus writeth Fa. Suarez affirming it to be the more common opinion of Doctours and withall he answereth all the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought heere out of the holy Scriptures 80 But the contrarie doctrine saith Suarez may seeme to haue some ground in those word Matth. 18. If he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican For by those words our Sauiour Christ doth seeme to haue sufficiently shewed and instituted the Censure of Excommunication and that the Pastours of the Church are heere vertually commanded to excommunicate disobedient and obstinate Christians because by no other reason the faithfull can be bound to auoid such kind of men But from this place saith Suarez nothing can be gathered For otherwise one might also gather from thence that whosoeuer
Father a Wife to her Husband and a Slaue to his Lord they now liuing in ciuill Societie and being parts and members of the ciuill Common-wealth is ciuill and dependeth vpon the authority of the temporall Prince who may therefore extend diminish or quite dissolue the bond of obedience although not of honour and reuerence which the Childe oweth to his Father and likewise the bond of obedience although not of matrimony by which the Wife is bound to her Husband and finally the bond both of obedience and of seruitude by which a slaue is bound to his Lord But the bond of allegiance whereby subiects are bound to obey the ciuill common-wealth as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe doth not deny is naturall and is due by the law of nature as the power and authority of the ciuill common-wealth ouer euery part and member thereof is in his opinion de lege natura due by the law of nature And therefore I doe not well vnderstand how Cardinall Bellarmine can according to his owne grounds affirme that the power and authority of the ciuill common-wealth ouer euery particular member thereof is de lâ—ge natura due by the law of nature and consequently the obedience and allegiance of the subiect answerable thereunto must also bee de lege natura commanded by the law of nature and withall maintaine that the Church can depriue an hereticall common-wealth of her ciuill power and authoritie and absolue the subiects from their naturall allegiance vnlesse hee will grant that the Church may absolue from the law of nature 97 Now by this which hath beene said you may easily perceiue the insufficiency of all the rest which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in this Chapter Now then saith hee y Pag. 107. nu 11. in all these examples it is euident that the Church disposeth of that which is temporall to spirituall ends and therefore my Aduersary Widdrington hath no probabilitie in the world to deny that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally especially granting as hee doth that he may command corporall and temporall things so farre foorth as they serue the spirituall But contrariwise as you haue seene it is euident that by none of all those examples he hath prooued that the Church I doe not say commaundeth but disposeth of that which is temporall to spirituall endes oâ— hath authority to inflict any temporall punishment or to depriue any man of any temporall right power or authority for what end soeuer And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth euidently discouer his ignorance in affirming that I haue no probabilitie in the world to deny that a spirituall Superiour may inflict temporall punishments or which is all one may punish temporally and to graunt as I doe that he may command corporall and temporall things so farre foorth as they serue the spirituall For this distinction which I haue sufficiently declared before betwixt the directiue or commanding and the coerciue or punishing power both of the spirituall and also of the temporall common-wealth and the reason thereof a priori which is taken from their proper acts and obiects from which according to the knowne principles of Philosophy the essence vnitie and distinction of euery power is to bee taken doth make plaine the whole difficultie and quite ouerthroweth the comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert maketh betwixt the spiritual directiue and the coerciue power or which is all one betwixt the power of spirituall Pastours to command temporall punishments for spirituall ends and to inflict them and which in naturall reason is so cleere and perspicuous that it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be impugned but the more it is sifted and impugned the more it appeareth plaine and manifest as all true doctrine doth as contrariwise falshood the more it is examined the more absurd it doth still appeare 98 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert z Pag. 107. nu 21. Widdrington himselfe teacheth also in his Apologie a Nu 153.154 15â— that spirituall things may come to haue the nature of temporall things and temporall things of spirituall by accident that is to say as he himselfe doth explicate Ratione peccati annexi By reason of some sinne annexed whereof hee also giueth this example when Ecclesiasticall persons doe apply their spirituall power to the hurt of the temporall state or temporall men abuse their power to the preiudice of the spirituall in these cases he saith the temporall power and state becommeth subiect to the spirituall and the spirituall to the temporall by reason of the iniury done and offence committed because temporall things doe thereby come to haue the qualitie of spirituall things and the spirituall also of temporall Thus teacheth he in his Apologie and affirmeth the same in effect in his Theologicall Disputation b Cap. 3. sec 1. nu 19. 99 That doctrine which I taught in my Apologie is very true and cannot with any probabilitie in the world be denied neither hath D. Schulckenius brought any one probable proofe to impugne the same but with railing speeches slaunderous imputations and fraudulent cauills seeketh to ouerbeare it as I haue most cleerely shewed c Calumnia 10.11.12 in the Discouery of his Calumnies For whereas I affirmed that as the spirituall power is not subiect to the temporall per se but onely per accidens by reason of vertue or vice which are the obiects of the spirituall directiue power and are oftentimes found in temporall actions so the temporall power is not subiect per se to the spirituall but onely per accidens by reason of the conseruing or disturbing of temporall peace which are the acts and obiects of the temporall directiue power and are sometimes found in spirituall actions as in vniust Excommunications and Interdicts when by them great tumults and perturbations doe in the common-wealth arise and in the euill administration of Sacraments whereby death or great corporall harme doth ensue And as the spirituall Superiour may for the euill administration of temporall things as they redound to the hurt of soules punish all his subiects that shall offend therein with spirituall punishments which onely are the obiect of the spirituall coerciue power so the temporall Superiour abstracting from the priuiledges of Princes and the Canons of the Church which doe exempt Cleargie men from the coerciue power of Secular Magistrates may for the euill administration of spirituall things as they redound to the perturbation of temporall peace punish all his Subiects that shall offend therein with temporall punishments which onely are the obiect of the temporall coerciue power 100 Now D. Schulckenius first affirmeth d Pag. 208. 292. that this doctrine is altogether intollerable and cannot be affirmed but by one who is giuen to a reprobate sense But how false and intollerable a slaunder this is vnconscionable void of all learning and which could not be vttered but by one who was wholly transported with some vehement passion I haue sufficiently shewed heeretofore e In Append. calumnia 11. Secondly he
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
and effectuall meanes to withdraw men actually from sinne for this were extreame folly to say as my Aduersarie himselfe confesseth For the sufficiencie saith hee of the power which Christ hath left to his Church in this point or any other consisteth in this that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment Wherefore it is manifest that hee who will contend that the Church must haue a more sufficient power to saue soules then which of it selfe is sufficient if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment must needes suppose that the Church must also haue sufficient force might and effectuall meanes to saue soules and a power to make the subiect capable and to remooue all external impediments or which is all one must haue such a sufficient power which is not onely sufficient in regard of the power being considered in it selfe but also in regard of all other things which are necessarie that the power worke the effect for which it was ordained for that these two are opposite parts or members of the distinction I made before and no man that hath any skill in Logike can be ignorant that in euery diuision consisting only of two parts or members we may rightly argue from the affirming of the one part to the denyall of the other and frō the denying of the one to the affirming of the other If therfore the power of the Church to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures be of it selfe a sufficient coerciue power to withdraw men from sinne which is the end of Ecclesiasticall power and if men bee not thereby withdrawne from sinne it is not by reason of the insufficiencie of the power but of the indisposition of the subiect no other coerciue power to inflict temporall punishments can be necessarie And therefore the aforesaid distinction of Ecclesiasticall coerciue power considered in it selfe and in respect of the impediments which may be in regard of the subiect did quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines second argument and the whole discourse of Fa. Parsons which was grounded thereon So that Mr. Fitzherbert might with more credit haue left vntouched the satisfaction which Fa. Parsons pretended to giue to the Earle of Salisburies desire or complaint for ought hee hath beene able to say in defence of the same 62 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert quarelleth with mee for teaching in this my Discourse against Fa. Parsons that the penalties which the Church may I doe not say impose as hee vntruely imposeth vpon me for this power of the Church to impose command or enioyne temporall penalties I neuer denyed but to inflict are not temporall punishments and for remitting my Reader for this point to diuers authorities euen of the ancient Fathers related by mee in my Apologie hee wisheth mee g Pag. 122. nu 21. and the Reader to see the answere to those authorities in D. Schulckenius who giueth as he saith sufficient satisfaction to euery one of them and sheweth euidently that diuers of those Authours doe wholly impugne Widdringtons opinion and doctrine and finally telleth him of his bad fortune in alleadging such witnesses as either make nothing for him or quite ouerthrow him and the like may bee seene saith he in D. Westons Sanctuarie who also answereth the said places particularlay and fully I also in like manner wish him and the Reader to see how their answeres haue beene confuted partly by Mr. Iohn Barclay and partly by my selfe aboue in this Treatise h Part. 1. per totum where also I haue shewed the vanitie of these men that when they see their arguments and answeres most of all to bee shaken then they make the greatest brags to which silly shifts they haue beene driuen by their bad fortune to vndertake the defence of so bad a cause and through a vehement desire not to seeme to bee vanquished and to haue any way erred in hauing coined a new Catholike faith 63 Furthermore the Reader may see i Pag. 122. nu 22. C. Bel. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcl cap. 8. saith Mr. Fitzherbert many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay which Widdrington could not but haue seene no lesse then the former before he wrote against my Supplement and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in those answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Readers to those places and such like which hee knew were alreadie answered but perhaps he perswadeth himselfe that all his writings and assertions are as I haue said in the Preface like to the lawes of the Medes See Preface nu 15. and see also the answere thereunto Dan. 6. and Persians which are inuiolable and immutable And this shall suffice touching Father Parsons whom you see hee might with more credit haue left vntouched for ought hee hath beene able to prooue against him 64 But as the Reader may see many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay so also hee may see the Cardinalls answeres confuted by Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmine which Mr. Fitzherbert could not but haue seene before he wrote now his Reply against mee and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in Mr. Iohn Barclayes answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Reader to Cardinall Bellarmines booke against Barclay which he knew was already answered And therefore that which hee repeateth heere againe concerning the lawes of the Medes and Persians may more aptly be applyed to himselfe and other such like vehement defenders of the Popes power to depose Princes who for that they haue vnaduisedly begun to make their doctrine to be an infallible point of faith which they will neuer bee able to make good will yet defend the same per fas ne fas by right and wrong and perceiuing that they cannot preuaile with reason and arguments endeauour to ouersway their cause by force and authoritie clamours and threatnings as it is euident by the Breues which his Holinesse by their importunitie and sinistrous Information hath published to condemne the new Oath wherein chiefly that doctrine is denied as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation which they will neuer bee able to maintaine and by condemning some of my bookes in such generall wordes and commanding me vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith in so strange a maner not declaring of what crime either in particular or in generall I should purge my selfe although I haue often by diuers Supplications to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requested to bee particularly informed what one thing is contained in the Oath which is so cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation or what one thing I haue written in those bookes whereof I should purge my selfe as being contrarie to faith
the new law and abrogating of the olde to inflict corporall punishments to inferre that the Pope and other inferiour Bishops who succeeded the Apostles not as they were Apostles but as they were Bishops had an ordinary power to doe the like facts and to inflict the like corporall punishments But other arguments must be brought to prooue that the Prelates of the Church may now by their ordinary power doe those things which the Apostles at the first institution of the Church did by a miraculous and extraordinary power 70 For two powers were granted to the Apostles the one ordinary which should also descend to all their Successours who in that power are equall to the Apostles the other extraordinary wherein they did excell all the Prophets of the olde Testament For the Apostles were also Prophets as S. Peter prooueth by the authority of the Prophet Ioel against the Iewes who said that the Apostles were drunke Acts 2. And as well obserueth Abulensis they did excell the Prophets in many things Abulens q. 6. in Praefat. Mat. first in the manner of their Prophesie because God was ready to speake by the Apostles whensoeuer they would insomuch that they ought not to thinke what they should speake but the holy Ghost did immediately speake by them Math. 10. Luke 21. But it was not so in any Prophet of the Old Testament Secondly they did excell the Prophets in regard of the things which were reuealed because more high things were reuealed to the Apostles then were reuealed to the Prophets Thirdly they did also excell in regard of the miracles for they did wonderfull miracles not onely as great as Christ himselfe did but also greater as he said to Philip Iohn 14. Et maiora horum faciet The workes that I doe he also shall doe and greater then these shall he doe For it is read of S. Peter Acts 5. that when he passed through the streetes in Ierusalem they broughtforth the sicke into the streetes and laid them in beds and couches that when Peter came his shadow at the least might ouershadow any of them and they all might be deliuered from their infirmities which neuerthelesse wee doe not reade was euer done by Christ c. Fourthly the Apostles also did excell the Prophets for that they spake with all languages Acts 2. And this extraordinary power of the Apostles did not descend to all their Successours And therefore it is no good argument from an extraordinary and miraculous power which was granted to the Apostles to inflict corporall punishments to inferre an ordinary power in their Successours to inflict the same 71 Neither doe those examples which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth of the miraculous manner of giuing the holy Ghost as it was giuen in the Apostles time in the Sacrament of Baptisme and Confirmation make any thing at all for his purpose for that these Sacraments had in the Apostles time commonly two effects annexed to them the one was ordinary to wit the giuing of inuisible grace which proceeded from their ordinary power and which therefore was to descend to their Successours the other Miraculous and extraordinary to wit the visible appearing of the holy Ghost in the persons baptized or confirmed and this proceeded from a miraculous and extraordinary power and which therefore was not to descend to all their Successours neither is it lawfull to conclude that the Pope can worke that visible effect by his ordinary power which the Apostles did by their miraculous and extraordinary power So likewise Excommunication had in the Apostles time commonly two effects the one ordinary which was that the person excommunicated was depriued of spirituall graces and benefits and of Ecclesiasticall communion and reputed as a Heathen and a Publican and this effect proceeded from ordinary power and which therefore was to bee deriued to all their Successours the other extraordinary and miraculous which was to be corporally afflicted by Sathan and this proceeded from the extordinary and miraculous power granted to the Apostles ouer all Diuels Luc. 9. which therefore was not to descend to all their Successours Wherfore we cannot well conclude that because the Apostles did inflict corporal punishments by their miraculous power therfore their Successors may inflict corporal punishments by an ordinary power but other reasons must be brought to prooue the same for it is apparant to euery Schoole-boy that the former consequence is starke naught 72 But these visible torments saith Mr. Fitzherbert did testifie that the excommunicated person was deliuered ouer to the inuisible power of the Deuil as Widdrington if he do not reforme his pernicious doctrine both can and will ere it be long be excommunicated by the Pope and deliuered ouer to the inuisible power of the Deuill which effect was at the first ordinarily testified by the visible torments of the bodies of excommunicated persons so as Widdrington may if it please him distinguish betwixt the miracles and that which was in the primitiue Church signified expressed and testified thereby And Mr. Fitzherbert may if it please him cleerely see that I haue distinguished betwixt these two and haue granted that the inuisible effect which was signified expressed and testified because it proceeded from the ordinary power which the Apostles had might bee done also by the ordinary power which was granted to the Apostles Successours but not the visible apparitions torments or punishments which did testifie the inuisible effect for that they proceeded not from the ordinary but from the extraordinary power of the Apostles And if his Holinesse shall excommunicate mee as this man threatneth without giuing mee any notice what pernicious doctrine I haue taught that I may reforme and retract it the excommunication will be more hurtfull to their soules that shall bee cause thereof then to mine according to that saying which Gratian l 11 q. 3. Illud plane doth attribute to Saint Augustine Illud plane non temere dixerim c. This plainly will I speake without rashnesse that if any of the faithfull shall bee excommunicated vniustly it will rather hurt him that doth then who suffereth this wrong and I shall comfort my selfe with those words of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam But truely I am fully perswaded that his Holinesse hath had now so sufficient experience to what exorbitant proceedings these bad informers haue drawne him that hee will heereafter bee more warie to proceed against mee in that strange manner as the most Illustrious Cardinals of the Inquisition haue proceeded against mee and my bookes at which all the world doth woonder 73 Wherefore when Mr. Fitzherbert saith that by the miraculous punishment of Ananias and Saphira and of Elymas c. it pleased God te testifie that the Church hath power as well ouer the body as ouer the soule and therefore it cannot with reason be denied but that the power remaineth although the miraculous manner in the execution of it ceased when the Christian faith was generally
prayer or curse two beares came forth of the forrest and tore fourtie two boyes that mocked him saying Come vp balde head come vp balde head Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert may distinguish if it please him betwixt the ordinary and extraordinary power of the Apostles and cleerely see that from the facts and punishments which the Apostles exercised by their extraordinary delegate miraculous power which therefore doth not descend to their Successours it is not lawfull to argue that the Apostles by their ordinary power might do the same or that their successors haue therfore power to inflict the like punishments 77 But heere saith Mr. Fitzherbert m Pag. 125. nu 28. perhaps Widdrinton will say that if Saint Peter exercied his Apostolicall power and iurisdiction therein it followeth that the Pope or other Ecclesiasticall Iudges may also giue sentence of death yea execute vpon such as deserue it which is contrary to the custome and Canons of the Church Whereto I answere that for as much as that time there were no Christian Princes or Magistrates to do iustice in that kind and that it was necessary in the beginning to inflict such an exemplar punishment vpon those two hypocrites for the terrour of other Saint Peter thought good to performe it himselfe although afterwards when Christian Religion was further propagated and Christian Princes held it for an honour to them to serue God and his Church with their temporall lawes and power the Church thought it needlesse to inflict bloodie penalties not because it might not doe it if it would but because it seemed more decent and conuenient for lenitie of a pious Mother to abstaine from the same and to vse more milde and lesse rigorous punishments in which respect the Church hath alwayes retained the vse of some temporall and corporall chastisements although she haue restrained her Ministers by Canons and constitutions from the effusion of blood remitting the iudgement and execution thereof wholy to the secular Magistrates who haue by their lawes sufficiently prouided for the execution of iustice in that kind 78 But first without perhaps I doe say and haue euidently conuinced not from those miraculous facts of the Apostles but from the doctrine and grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine and others who mainetaine the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie also to kill wicked Princes by all those wayes publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie to depriue their subiects of their liues as I haue insinuated aboue in this Treatise n Cha. 3 nu 15 and 16. and chap. 5. sec 2 nu 9 seq and prooued at large in my Apologie o Apolog nu â—3 seq to which D. Schulkenius answereth onely with a transcat let it passe as not belonging to the matter and Mr. Fitzherbert both in other places of this his Reply and also heere by these words not because it might not doe it if it would doth expressely acknowledge as much although forsooth he will not meddle with the liues of Princes to auoid enuy and yet he feareth not to say p Chap 2. nu 15.16 That the Pope can take away my life and the liues of all Christians Now what a scandalous doctrine this is and what feares and iealousies of continuall treasons inhumaine gun-powder plots and bloodie Assassinates against their Royall persons those Christian Princes especially who dissent from the Catholike Romane Religion may iustly conceiue thereby I haue sufficiently prooued in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez q Part. 1. sec 9 nu 5. seq where also I haue cleerely conuinced that this pretence of Ecclesiasticall lenitie and the clemencie of a Pious mother which onely for mildnesse sake as they pretend and not by any obligation doth not vse such rigorous punishments is a meere shift and cloake to dazell the eyes of the simple and vnlearned Catholikes For as it is no clemencie but a plaine crueltie for a mother not to cut off one member of her beloued child when it is in danger to infect and kill the whole body so also the Pope should bee cruell to the Church of God not to cut off an hereticall Prince that is in danger to infect the other members of the Church if we once suppose this scandalous damnable doctrin that the Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to dispose of all the temporals both of Christian Princes subiects as temporall Princes haue in order to temporal good authority to dispose of al the temporal corporal goods of their subiects 79 Secondly it is not true that the Church hath alwayes retained the vse of some temporall and corporall chastisements except onely by way of commaund whereof I neuer made doubt As also that reason which my Aduersary heere bringeth why the Church now since Christian Religion hath beene further propagated and Christian Princes haue held it for an honour to them to serue God and his Church with their temporall lawes thought it needlesse to inflict bloody punishments especially vpon wicked and disobedient Princes for that by their lawes they haue sufficiently prouided for the execution of iustice in that kind is very weake and insufficient because although Christian Princes haue sufficiently prouiued for the execution of iustice with bloodie punishments against their subiects yet they haue no way prouided for the execution of iustice in this kind against themselues and therefore if Christian Princes themselues become heretikes and seeke to draw their subiects to their heresie neither Ecclesiasticall lenitie nor the reason that my Aduersarie heere hath brought why the Church now thought it needlesse to inflict bloodie penalties can be any hinderance why the Pope may not proceed against them with bloody punishments if we once suppose that he hath power and authoritie so to do But the true ancient doctrine is that a Priest as he is a Priest is forbidden by the law of Christ to vse See aboue part 2. cap. 9. and not onely is counselled for decencie sake not to vse the material or temporal sword 80 But now Mr. Fitzherbert for the vpshot and conclusion of this Chapter will cleerely prooue by an argument which no man forsooth of iudgement can denie that the supreme spirituall Pastour hath power to punish his sheepe or subiects not onely in their soules but also in their bodies and goods And truely I cannot but wonder saith hee r Pag. 126. nu 29.30 that any man of iudgement can thinke it vnlawfull for the supreme spirituall Pastour to punish his sheepe or subiects in their bodies or goods seeing that it cannot be denied but that he is their Pastour and superiour in regard not onely of their soules but also of their bodies that is to say of their whole persons wherein their bodie is necessarily included and therefore for as much as euery man is bound to serue God no lesse with his body then
with his soule and that the body concurreth with the soule to the execution of all externall workes good and bad and shall be either glorified or tormented eternally together with it no man can with reason denie but that he who hath the direction and gouernement of the whole person for the eternall good thereof may punish the same as well in the one part as in the other as also in what else soeuer is accessorie to the said person when the same shall be requisite for the eternall good and saluation thereof So as reason it selfe may teach vs that the Apostolicall power and authoritie extended it selfe to the punishment not onely of the soule but also of the body and goods when occasion required And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of Widdringtons answeres concerning the law of God and Nature and therefore I will now briefly examine what he saith concerning the law of Nations and the Ciuill or Imperiall law which shall be the subiect of the next Chapter 81 But truely I cannot but wonder that Mr. Fitzherbert who is taken and commended by many for a man although not of any great Schoole-learning yet of a deepe and rare naturall iudgement should so palpably bewray both his want of learning and also his weakenesse of iudgement For by his owne argument any man of iudgement may conclude that a temporall Prince may punish his subiects not onely in their bodies and goods but also in their soules seeing that it cannot be denied but that he is their Superiour in regard not onely of their bodies but also of their soules that is to say of their whole persons wherein their soule is necessarily included and therefore for as much as euery Christian man is bound to serue his temporall Prince and obey his iust lawes no lesse with his soule and for conscience sake then with his body and that the soule concurreth with the body to the execution of all externall workes good and bad and shall be either glorified or tormented eternally together with it no man can with reason denie but that hee who hath the direction and gouernement of the whole person for the temporall good thereof and the publike good of the whole common-wealth may punish the same as well in the one part as the other as also in what else soeuer is accessorie to the said person when the same shall be requisite for the temporall good of the said person and the publike good of the whole common-weath So as reason it selfe may teach vs that temporall authoritie extendeth it selfe to the punishment not onely of the body but also of the soule when occasion requireth 82 Now what will Mr. Fitzherbert in his iudgement say to this argument Can he denie that a temporall Prince is not Superiour to euery person that is subiect to the lawes of his kingdome Or can hee deny that when a temporall Prince commaundeth his subiects to doe any thing that part which is principally commaunded is the soule which is capable of reason and therefore chiefly subiect to command and not the bodie which is not endued with reason for which cause neither the soule if it want the vse of reason is subiect to command as it appeareth in infants and mad men who although they should kill a man doe no more transgresse the law made against murther then if a wild beast should doe the same And therefore it cannot be denied but that as well a temporall Prince in order to temporall good as a spirituall Pastour in order to spirituall good is superiour to the whole person of man although the soule which is capable of reason and vnderstanding and not the body is chiefly subiect to the commandement as well of temporall Princes in order to temporall good as of spirituall Pastours in order to the spirituall and eternall good of their soules Moreouer a Christian Prince is to direct and gouerne by temporall lawes the persons committed to his charge not onely for their temporall good but also for their spirituall and eternall for that the end of a Christian Prince is also according to Card Bellarmines doctrine ſ In Schulkenio pag. 334. not onely temporall good and externall peace in the common-wealth but also euerlasting happinesse for which man was principally created and to which euery Christian Prince ought as much as lyeth in him to bring the soules of his subiects and therefore he may according to my Aduersaries argument punish them as well in their soules as in their bodies when it shall be requsite to the eternall good and saluation of the whole person Whereby you may see what little reason any man of iudgement can haue to repose his soule and conscience vpon the learning and iudgement of this man who here in a matter of such importance hath so grosly discouered his great want of learning iudgmēt 83 Secondly therefore◠the weakenesse of this argument will cleerely appeare and the confused and cloudie mist of the Popes Superioritie ouer the whole person of euery Christian man which Mr. Fitzherbert for want either of learning and iudgement or of sinceritie hath cast before the eyes of the vnlearned Readers will be easily dispersed and their vnderstandings cleered if they distinguish betwixt the directiue or commanding and the coerciue or punishing power both of temporall Princes and also of spirituall Pastours For to omit now Metaphisicall questions as in what consisteth essentially the person of man and how the person of man is distinguished from his humanitie or which is all one from the body and soule of man being vnited in one essentiall compound and whether the subsistence or personalitie of man be a simple or compound entitie a spirituall or corporall or mixt of both for if it be a simple entitie we cannot properly say the whole person of man as though the personality of man were compounded of parts which difficulties the vulgar sort cannot well comprehend and to take the whole person of man in the common vulgar sense as it is a particular or indiuiduall substance including both body and soule it is euident that the soule of man is if not onely yet principally subiect to the directiue or commanding power not onely of spirituall Pastours but also of temporall Princes for that lawes are not made but for reasonable creatures and who haue free will to obserue or transgresse the law And therefore although a temporall Prince hath power to force or punish the bodies of his subiects yet he cannot command their bodies because they are not capable of reason or vnderstanding 84 But we must not argue in the like manner concerning the coerciue or punishing power For considering that not onely the soule but also the body are subiect to punishments according to their nature to wit the soule to spirituall and the body to temporall punishments therefore as well the body as the soule are subiect to the coerciue or punishing power in generall according as it may inflict corporall
or spirituall punishments Wherefore neither from the superiority or authority which spirituall Pastours haue to direct or commaund the persons of their spirituall subiects nor from the authority which temporall Princes haue to direct or command the persons of their temporall subiects can we rightly conclude what authority either spirituall Pastours or temporall Princes haue to punish the soule or the body or which is all one to inflict spirituall or temporall punishments for that the soule and not the body is principally subiect to the directiue or commanding power So that by this manner of arguing from the directiue power to the coerciue it may rather be concluded that temporall Princes may punish the soule for that they haue power to command the soule rather then that spirituall Pastours may punish the body for that they haue not power to commaund the body which being an vnreasonable creature is not subiect to any externall commaundement But what coerciue authority either spirituall Pastours or temporall Princes haue to punish the body or soule wee must gather from the institution of Christ to wit whether Christ our Sauiour hath giuen authority to spirituall Pastours to inflict onely spirituall punishments and consequently to punish onely the soule and to temporall Princes to inflict onely corporall and temporall punishments and consequently to punish onely the body and not the soule but onely by consequence as being grieued when the body either in it selfe or in some temporall things annexed therunto is punished So that the maine question notwithstanding Mr. Fitzherberts argument still remaineth a foote to wit whether Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to spirituall Pastours authority to inflict onely spirituall or also temporall punishments neither can this question bee decided by any argument grounded vpon naturall reason but only vpon the holy Scriptures wherein the institution and law of Christ is contained 85 And although the holy Scriptures doe expressely testifie that the Apostles did in some sort punish to wit as Abulensis before t Nu. 73. declared by way of prediction or deprecation not onely Christians but also infidels in their bodies as S. Paul foretold the blindnes of Elymas the Magician S. Peter the death of Ananias and Saphira yet because this was done by them miraculously and by that extraordinary power which they had giuen them by Christ which therefore was not of necessity to descend to their Successours we cannot deduce a good argument from thence that therefore spirituall Pastours haue now an ordinary power to inflict the same punishments but onely that they may inflict them in that manner and by that power wherewith the Apostles did to wit by miracle in which case I will not deny but that if perhaps any holy Pope or Bishop haue the grace of miracles he may by prophecie foretell or by prayer obtaine that such a wicked Prince whether he be Christian or Heathen shall by God the Angels or the Deuill bee depriued of his life and kingdome Neither doth reason teach vs that because Saint Peter and the Apostles had so ample and extraordinary Apostolicall power to inflict corporall punishments therefore the Pope and the Apostles Successours should haue an ordinary power to inflict the same For as Christ gaue to the Apostles such an extraordinary and transcendent power so he gaue them an extraordinary grace and vnderstanding that they should not either bee puft vp with pride by reason of so great a power or at any time abuse the same in preiudice of themselues or others which extraordinary grace vnderstanding Christ gaue not to all future Popes and Bishops Wherefore seeing that this plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power to depose Kings and to dispose of all temporalls supposing the humane fragilitie of Popes who therein are like to other men might be occasion to vse Almaines words u Almain de potest â—cces Lâ—â—ca q. 1. c. 9. for the Popes to be puffed vp with exceeding great pride and might also be very hurtfull to subiects there is no likelihood that Christ gaue him such a power 86 Neither doe I make any doubt that either Christian Princes or people would bee any way grieued but rather very glad that the Pope should haue so ample a power and authoritie ouer their bodies and goods if they were assured that he were so confirmed in grace and enlightned with supernaturall knowledge as the Apostles were that hee should alwayes in very deed vse it to the good of their soules and neuer abuse it to the great preiudice of them and their subiects But seeing that Popes are as other men subiect to all humane infirmities and may not onely be tempted but also ouercome with ire enuy hatred flattery and a vehement desire to encrease their temporall States and Dominions no maruaile that Soueraigne Princes who euer haue beene accounted supreme in temporals and therein inferiour onely to God cannot take it well to bee made now subiect to the Pope in temporals vnlesse sufficient reason bee brought to prooue the same And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of all that Mr. Fitzherbert hath replied concerning the law of GOD and Nature and therefore I will now briefly examine what hee saith concerning the law of Nations and the Ciuill or Imperiall law which shall be the subiect of the next Chapter CHAP. VIII VVherein M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the Law of Nations and the Ciuill Law are answered and first the difference betwixt the Priests of the olde and New Testament and the Priests of other Nations and also betwixt the Law of Nations and of Nature is declared and from thence proued that among all Nations the Ciuill Common-wealth was supreame and disposed of all things both spirituall and temporall and punished all persons both Priestes and others with temporall punishments and consequently that the new Oath cannot bee impugned by the Law of Nations and lastly what Maister Fitzherbert obiecteth from the Ciuill Law is confuted 1. IT is a vsuall tricke of Mr. Fitzherbert as you haue seene in the former Chapters and also shall see in this and the rest then most of all to bragge when hee hath least cause and when any answere of mine is most sound and sufficient then to crie out that it is improbable impertinent absurd friuolous foolish idle or ridiculous Hee pretended to prooue in his Supplement by the law of Nations that the new Oath is vnlawfull in regard it denyeth the Popes power to excommunicate and depose temporall Princes not for that hee thought it otherwise needefull hauing as hee saith prooued already but how insufficiently you haue seene that the Oath is contrarie to the law of God and Nature but to satisfie the importunitie of his Aduersarie and to giue his Reader an aboundant satisfaction because as the Lawyers say abundans cautela non nocet a prouiso too much neuer hurteth And to all the arguments he brought from the law of Nations and the Ciuill law I gaue this briefe answere as heere hee
setteth it downe 2 Septimò ex iure Gentium nihil aliud probat hic Author c. Seuenthly this Authour prooueth nothing else by the law of Nations but that all people euer held Religion in the highest price or esteeme and preferred it before policie but that the Priests of the Gentiles had power as they were Priests to punish any man with death or the depriuation of all his goods it did not proceede from the law of Nature granting them such an authoritie but from the municipall lawes of the Gentiles Pro domo sua the which Cicero whom this Authour citeth doth most manifestly confirme saying that it was diuinely inuented and ordained by the ancient Romans that their Bishops should haue the chiefe command both in matters belonging to the Common-wealth and to the religion of the immortall Gods And as for the Ciuill law this Authour onely confirmeth by it that the Bishop of Rome is the supreame Gouernour of the Church in spirituall things Thus I answered in that briefe Admonition 3 Now Mr. Fitzherbert to this my Answere maketh as you shall see no other Reply then that which I did fully satisfie aboue in the sixt Chapter when I treated of the law of Nature and therefore it were needelesse to set downe heere his wordes verbatim but that otherwise hee would take occasion to bragge after his accustomed manner that I haue concealed and dissembled his strongest arguments Obserue therefore well what hee saith But if thou hast saith hee a ip 129. nu 2.3 well noted good Reader what was the effect and substance of my discourse concerning the law of Nature thou wilt easily discouer the weakenesse of this answere For whereas hee would prooue by Cicero his wordes alleadged by me that the authoritie of the Pagan Priests to punish the supreame Secular Magistrates with death or depriuation of goods proceeded not from the law of Nature but from the municipall lawes of the Gentiles I must desire him to call to minde what was my inference vpon the wordes of Cicero and the examples by mee alleadged to wit that this law and custome amongst the Romans had no other ground in their opinion but the Law of Nature because they hauing no other light to guide them but the light of reason held it to bee most conforme to Nature that religion should bee preferred before policie and temporall things subordinate to spirituall by the same reason that things lesse perfect are inferiour to the more perfect the body to the soule earthly things to heauenly men to Angels and the like 4 So albeit I doe not deny but that their custome proceeded from their municipall law yet it doeth not follow thereon that it did not also proceede from the Law of Nature but rather the contrarie because their municipall law in that point had no other ground but the Law of Nature which moued them to make that Law For although the Law of Nature could not teach them the mysteries of Christian Religion nor in what manner GOD was to be worshipped and serued in which respect they both might and did erre in those things which pertained to particular points of religion as also other Nations did which had not the light of grace yet not onely they but also all other Nations being enlightned by nature agreed in certaine generall principles touching religion as concerning the necessitie and dignitie thereof and that all humane actions ought to bee leuelled and referred thereto as to their end whereupon necessarily followed the subordination and subiection of temporall things to spirituall and of the Ciuill or politicall Societie to the Religious in matters that touch religion and all this I explicated further in my Supplement when I treated of the law of Nations in particular in these words Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 5 Whereby first of all you may easily see that all the proofes hee bringeth from the law of Nations he reduceth to the law of nature and that therefore what I said in the sixt Chapter concerning the law of nature doth fully satisfie all that hee saith heere concerning the law of nations And secondly you may see what a prettie circle hee maketh and how cunningly he would prooue the same by the same For in his sixt Chapter hee pretended to prooue that the authoritie of Pagan Priests to punish temporally the supreame Ciuill Magistrate did proceede from the law of nature for that it proceeded from the custome and law of all Nations and now heere hee prooueth that this their authoritie did proceede from the custome and law of all Nations for that it proceeded from the law of nature by which kinde of arguing hee prooueth in very deede idem per seipsum the same thing by the very same 6 Seeing therefore that all hee saith heere is a meere repetition of that hee said in his sixt Chapter I will also reduce into a briefe compendium what I answered there that the Reader may thereby cleerely see that hee hath no way satisfied albeit hee pretend to haue giuen an aboundant satisfaction to that which I answered in my briefe Admonition as well concerning the law of Nations as Nature And to take away all equiuocation and ambiguitie of wordes although the law of nature doth properly signifie the light of naturall reason teaching or prescribing some thing of necessitie to bee done or omitted or which is all one commanding some thing to bee done or not to bee done for that euery law being taken properly doth intrinsecally include some precept or commandement neuerthelesse wee doe not now take the law of nature in this proper and strict sense but more generally for the light of naturall reason not onely as it commandeth or forbiddeth but also as it giueth granteth teacheth or prescribeth any thing abstracting from all positiue lawes grants and ordinances of God or man So that euery right power or authoritie which the light of naturall reason abstracting from the positiue ordinances of God or man teacheth to bee due or belong to any man is said to belong to him by the law of Nature as the right which euery man hath to defend himselfe and his goods although it bee with the death of the inuader is giuen him by the law of nature Likewise the power and authoritie which the Ciuill common-wealth hath ouer euery member thereof supposing the vnion of men in one Ciuill Societie is granted by the law of nature for that the light of naturall reason abstracting from all positiue lawes or graunts of GOD or man doeth teach and ordaine the same 7 Now to the point and to the inference which Mr. Fitzherbert made vpon the wordes of Cicero and the examples by him alleadged first I did willingly grant that the light of naturall reason doeth teach vs that Religion is to bee preferred before pollicie and temporall things are in perfection subordinate to spirituall by the same reason that things lesse perfect are inferiour to the more perfect the body to the soule
earthly things to heauenly men to Angels and the like and that therefore when there are two things concurring and commanded to bee done whereof the one concerneth religion the othe pollicie the one spirituall things the other temporall the one concerneth the soule the other the body wee must preferre caeteris paribus that which concerneth religion before that which concerneth pollicie and that which concerneth spirituall things before that which concerneth temporall and that which concerneth the soule before that which concerneth the body and this the light of true naturall reason doeth teach vs. 8 But what of all this will hee conclude from hence that because Religious Priests are in perfection and nobilitie superiour to temporall Princes by the same reason that policie is in perfection inferiour to Religion therefore the light of naturall reason doeth teach vs that Religious Priests may punish temporally temporall Princes and are superiour to them in temporall authoritie This is a very vicious consequence and by the like argument wee may conclude that because Angels are superiour to men in perfection and excellencie of substance knowledge and naturall strength therefore they are also superiour to men in authoritie and commaund and that men are bound by force of obedience to doe what the Angells shall prescribe which no Diuine will grant vnlesse they bee sent by GOD as his messengers and ministers And likewise wee may conclude that hee who hath one of the liberall sciences is by the law of nature superiour in authoritie to euery trades man by the same reason that things lesse perfect are inferiour to the more perfect and euery seruile trade is subiect and inferiour in perfection to euery one of the liberall arts and yet whosoeuer should argue from the law of nature in this manner would bee esteemed to bee in this point no lesse then a very naturall for that from the law of nature the light of naturall reason we can only conclude that in what degree of superiority one thing is superiour to another in the like degree of subiection this is subiect and subordinate to that and that therefore temporall things are subiect to spirituall in dignity and perfection because these are superiour to them herein but to transcend from one kind of superiority to another and from superiority in perfection dignity to argue a superiority in command and authority or from a superiority in spirituals to argue a superiority in meere temporall things is contrary to the light and prescript of true naturall reason 9 Secondly I did also graunt that all Nations being enlightened by Nature did agree in certaine generall principles touching Religion as concerning the necessity and dignity thereof and that all humane actions ought to be leuelled and directed by the square and rule of Religion and referred thereto as to the end of man although not to the intrinsecall end of the actions themselues as I declared aboue in the second part whereupon doth necessarily follow a subordination and subiection of temporall things to spirituall also of the ciuill Society to the religious in dignity and perfection But it doth not follow from the law of nature or the light of naturall reason that the religious Society as it is distinguished from the ciuill should haue power and authority to command and much lesse to punish especially with temporall punishments the ciuill Societie And the reason hereof I alleaged in that place out of the doctrine of Abulensis b Cap. 6. nu 35. 10 Because euery man liuing according to the law of nature and the light of naturall reason may be considered either as liuing by himselfe alone or else as liuing with other men in ciuill Society If hee bee considered as liuing by himselfe alone what power soeuer hee hath either concerning temporals or spirituals concerning his body or soule is in himselfe alone so that he hath neither power to command or punish but himselfe alone and in this manner euery man is a Priest and by the law of nature hath authority to worship God and to sacrifice to him in all places and at all times and with all kinde of Sacrifices which the prescript of true reason doth not teach to be vnlawfull for that the law of nature or the light of naturall reason doth not limit or determine to a man as liuing by himselfe alone any certaine time place or maner of worshipping God and doing sacrifice to him But if a man be considered as hee is a part and member of some ciuill Societie or Common-wealth then no priuate man but the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernour thereof hath by the law of nature and prescript of naturall reason all authority to command dispose ordaine and punish as well concerning religious as ciuill affaires So that in this manner the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernour thereof is the publike Priest and none hath authority to offer Sacrifice to God or to worship him in any publike manner and as a publike person but the Common-wealth it selfe or those whom in her place she shall appoint neither can any priuate or particular man haue any publike authority to command ordaine or punish for matters belonging to the worshipping of God but that which the ciuill Common-wealth is pleased to grant him 11 Wherefore there is a great difference as I noted in that place betwixt the Priests and the Religious Society in the law of nature before any positiue law of God was published and the Priests and religious Society in the olde and new Testament For in the law of nature there were not two distinct and independent Societies the one Religious the other Ciuill but the ciuill Society had all power and authority to command and dispose as well concerning the publike seruice of God as concerning ciuill gouernment neither did the law of nature determine or appoint any certaine men who should be Priests and should haue full authority to commaund and dispose of those things which belonged to the publike seruice of God but this authority was in the Common-wealth it selfe which appointed certaine men to be the publike ministers as well concerning the publike worshipping of God with religious rites and ceremonies as concerning the ciuill gouernment of the Common-wealth neither had these publike ministers any more authority or command then the Common-wealth did giue them so that it was in the power of the Common-wealth to extend diminish or quite take away the power authority command and priuiledges which by her authority were granted vnto them But since the positiue law of God was written the religious and ciuill Societie are two totall and independent Common-wealths neither hath the ciuill Common-wealth or the supreame Gouernours thereof any authority to determine matters concerning religion and the publike seruice of Almighty God for that hee himselfe hath appointed those that shall be publike Ministers in matters belonging to Religion to wit in the olde Testament the sonnes of Aaron and who by naturall propagation should
constitution of men neither are those lawes which are onely declared by all nations to be easily and directly deduced from the knowne principles of nature to be numbred among humane lawes but among the lawes of nature And if the law of nations is to be accounted a humane lawe for that it is so easily directly deduced from the principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit it why may not many lawes of nature bee accounted humane lawes seeing that they are so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit them Moreouer Mr. Fitzherbert will not as I thinke deny but that many things are forbidden by the law of nature which neuerthelesse are not so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit them as simple fornication vsury drunkennesse perpetuity of marriage and plurality of wiues which according to the doctrine of all Diuines are repugnant to the law of nature and yet some nations haue not thought these to be vnlawfull Wherevpon Vasquez boldly affirmeth Vasq 1 a. 2 ae disp 122. c. 2. tom 1. that one may haue inuincible ignorance for his whole life time of those conclusions of the law of Nature which are more obscure and more remote from the generall principles of Nature then are the morall precepts of the Decalogue Wherefore although Mr. Fitzherbert doth make heere a long discourse about the law of nations and nature yet it seemeth that he doth not hitherto vnderstand what is the law of nations and how it is distinguished from the law of nature 17 Wherefore to omit now the diuers opinions of Doctours concerning the difference of the law of nature and nations it will be sufficient for this present to declare how Vasquez differeth from the other Iesuiâ—es and Diuines in this point Vasq 1 a. 2 ae disp 157. c. 3. tom 2. For Vasquez is of opinion that the law of nations is comprehended vnder the law of nature as a part and member thereof and that it differeth from the law of nature onely in this that the law of nature is that which is deduced by a very good discourse from the principles of nature not onely as permitting but also as commanding some thing to be done or not to bee done insomuch that it is a rule of virtue and vice and this whether wee consider nature by it selfe or which is all one as men liue alone by themselues or else as liuing in common and ciuill Societie But the law of nations is onely a law of permission vtilitie or conueniencie For some things are in this manner conuenient and profitable to men as liuing in Ciuill Society which are not conuenient for a man liuing by himselfe alone therefore this permission of a thing conuenient to the whole nature of man as liuing in Ciuill Societie is called by Vasquez the law of nations that is a licence or power of nations Of this sort is the diuision of lands for without it Cities could very hardly be well gouerned and also a right or power to make warre and by the right of warre to reuenge iniuries for without this Cities would be exposed to a thousand iniuries but a power to marry is not to bee called the law of nations but of nature for that it was not introduced by naturall reason for this consideration that men began to liue in Cities whereupon they were called Nations but because it is conuenient by permission to the nature of man being absolutely considered by it selfe So that according to Vasquez no law of nations is a rule of virtue and vice to wit commanding something as necessarie or forbidding some thing as euill but onely granting or permitting some thing as conuenient and profitable and also as honest but not necessarie but the law of nature both commandeth forbiddeth and permitteth Wherefore the law of nature as it doth permit onely and not command or forbid is by Vasquez called the law of nations For all morall precepts doe according to him belong either to the law of nature or to the Ciuill law for if any thing be commanded or forbidden by force of naturall reason it belongeth to the law of nature but if it bee commaunded or forbidden by the will of man hauing authoritie thereunto it belongeth to the Ciuill law And of this opinion hee thinketh Aristotle and all the ancient Philosophers to haue beene for that all Philosophers before the Ciuill lawyers did deuide euery law in generall into the law of nature and the Ciuill law 18 But this opinion of Vasquez doth not please Suarez Salas Suarez lib. 2. cap. 18. 19. Salas disp 2. sec 2. 3. seq D. sec 3. and many other Diuines albeit Salas thinketh this question concerning the difference of the law of nature and nations is for the greatest part rather a verball question and of words then reall and of any great moment For if it be once knowne that any thing belongeth to the law of nature it little importeth to say that it belongeth also to the law of nations for that all nations doe commonly keepe or vse that law But it greatly importeth to know whether any thing bee commaunded by the law of nature or onely by the positiue law of man if it be commanded by positiue law whether that law be common to all nations or no and whether it be common to all nations as it were per se by it selfe for that all nations as being one totall communitie of mankind haue decreed it or as it were per accidens by accident for that euery Nation decreeing it by it selfe we may gather by Induction that all nations haue decreed it and so that it is a decree common to all nations 19. For the better vnderstanding whereof Suarez Suarez lib. 2. de Leg. pap 19. Salas Tract 14. q. 91. disp 2. sec 3. and Salas doe obserue that a law may be said to be common to all or many nations either for that all or many nations being taken seuerally by themselues doe agree in that law or else for that it is obserued by the vse and custome of all or many nations as they haue among themselues a certaine societie and ciuill communication For although euery Citie common-wealth or Kingdome be in it selfe a perfect communitie and composed of her parts and members yet euery one of them is in some sort a member of this vniuersall world as it appertaineth to mankind neither are those communities so sufficient seuerally for themselues but that they want some helpe societie and communication of others sometime for greater vtilitie or conueniencie and sometime for morall necessitie and want and in regard of this they want some law whereby to be directed in this kind of communication and societie And although for the most part this be done by naturall reason yet it cannot be done sufficiently and immediatly for all things and therefore
some speciall lawes might be introduced by the custome of the said nations For as in one Citie or prouince a custome doth bring in a law so also in the vniuersitie of mankind the law of nations might by custome be introduced and especially for that those things which belong to this law are both few and also very neere to the law of nature and haue from it a very easie inference and are so profitable and conuenient to nature it selfe that although it be not an euident inference as of a thing altogether necessary to morall honesty or vertue yet it is very conuenient to nature and of it selfe acceptable to all men 20 Wherefore the opinion of these Authours doth consist in these points The first is that the law of nations doth not onely permit or graunt somethings but also command and forbid by binding vnder sinne for that otherwise the law of nations would not properly be a law neither should a law in generall being taken properly and as it is a rule of reason or of vertue and vice which intrinsecally includeth some precept be well diuided into the law of nature of nations Vasque disp 157. cap. 4. in fine Thom. prim secun q. 95. ar 4. and the Ciuill Law and yet Vasquez himselfe doth affirme that the law of nations was by S. Thomas rightly numbred among humane lawes Besides the law of naure and the Ciuill law doe permit and grant many things and so the law of nature doth grant or permit but not command a man to marry a wife and to keepe and conserue his proper libertie and therefore it is not proper to the law of nations to permit or grant neither ought it by this to be distinguished from other lawes Moreouer if a permissiue or concessiue law in respect of all mankind as liuing in ciuill societie is called the law of nations why may not also a preceptiue or commanding law although it suppose ciuill societie in the same respect be called a law of nations Neither can there be made any doubt but that from ciuill society and from the positiue law of nations yea and from the ciuill law may arise a naturall obligation as for subiects to obey the positiue lawes of their princes for children to honour their parents for married persons to obserue coniugall duetie for seruants in generall to serue their masters e But see aboue cha 6. nu 23. nu 93. seq not to take away by priuate authoritie the goods of another man which hath beene giuen him by the positiue lawes or grants of temporall Princes and many such like all which doe suppose some ciuill society 21 The second is that the Ciuill Lawes and the Diuines doe not speake commonly of the law of nations after the same manner For the Diuines doe commonly call the law of nations that law which is ordained and made by nations and the law of nature they call that which nature it selfe or the prescript of naturall reason without the will and decree of man doth make and ordained But the Ciuill Lawyers doe oftentimes call the law of nature that law or right which is common also to brute beasts the law of nation that law which all men and onely men doe vse although-otherwise it be grounded vpon naturall reason as you may see in ff de iust iure where the law of nature is described to be that which Nature hath taught all sensible creatures and is not onely proper to men but common also to beastes fishes and birds as carnall copulation getting of children and bringing of them vp and the law of nations is described to be that which all Nations doe vse and which is common onely to men among themselues as Religion towards God to obey our Parents and Countrey to defend our selues from wrong and iniurie And therefore as very well obserueth Paradulphus Prateius cited by Salas Salas Disp 2. seq 4. vnlesse one diligently obserue which hath giuen occasion to many men of errour that the law of nations is by the Lawyers sometimes taken for the true law of nature and sometime it is taken for that law which is made and receiued by the greatest part of mankind and doe very well distinguish these two he will neuer come to the true knowledge of the law And therefore Bartholus to auoide this confusion doth distinguish two lawes of nations the one he calleth Ius primarium the first or principall law and this is the very law of nature which he defineth to bee that law which from the very beginning of Nations was introduced by naturall reason without any decree or constitution of Nations and the other he calleth Ius secundarium the lesse principall law of nations which all Nations doe vse by their owne decree or constitution 22 The third is that the law of nations being taken most properly and rigorously is both a positiue law as many Doctours cited by Salas doe hold that is it is a law made and enacted by the positiue constitution of men and not by the prescript of naturall reason Salas disp 2. sec 3. and also that the law of nature which doth containe in it both the knowne principles of nature or naturall reason and also the conclusions which are clearely easily directly deduced from those principles is not properly the law of nations And this also the Emperour Iustinian doth sufficiently confirme f Institut de Iure nat Gent. ciuile who maketh this distinction betwixt the ciuill law the law of nations that whatsoeuer euery particular people or nation doth enact or ordaine that is called the ciuill law as being a law proper to that citie But the law of nations is common to all mankind for that custome and humane necessities so requiring the nations of men haue made to themselues certaine lawes and truely if those lawes were naturall they could not be well said to bee made by men but by nature it selfe or by God the Authour of nature Seeing therefore that the law of nature is not made by men it cannot properly be called the law of nations Whereupon it followeth that it is not for this cause onely called the law of nations for that all nations doe vse it obserue it receiue or admit it as being easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature but for that they doe vse obserue receiue and admit it as being the Authors and enacters thereof 23 So that as the ciuill law and the law of nature doe take their name or denomination from the Authors or makers thereof so also the law of nations Wherefore the law of nations is that which nations made for themselues and therefore it is a positiue law For all nations as they make one Communitie of mankind haue power to bind euery particular man to those things which are conuenient to all mankind as euery city hath power to bind euery member thereof to those things which are conuenient for 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.
which is a humane law so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit it it is manifest that it cannot dissent from those infallible grounds which I haue laid alreadie as well out of the law of Nature as out of the law of GOD especially seeing that there is nothing wherein all Nations doe more vniformely agree by the very instinct of Nature then that all temporall things are inferiour to spirituall things and subordinate thereto whereupon it necessarily followeth c. But what grounds either infallible or fallible Mr. Fitzherbert hath alreadie laid as well out of the law of nature as out of the law of GOD you haue alreadie seene Neither doth any man make any doubt but that this is an infallible ground wherein all nations by the very instinct of nature doe vniformely agree that as all spirituall things are superiour to all temporall things in dignitie worth and excellencie in generall so all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to spirituall things in the same degree of subiection and subordination wherein spirituall things are superiour to them for no man can bee so foolish as to imagine that temporall things must be subiect to spirituall things in any other degree or kind of subiection or subordination then wherein spirituall things are superiour to them 33 Marke now what Mr. Fitzherbert would conclude from this infallible ground Whereupon it necessarily followeth saith he that all the temporall states of temporall Princes are subordinate to the Church and to the head thereof and to bee disposed by him when the good of the Church shall so require as I haue amply declared But fye for shame that Mr. Fitzherbert who is accounted a man of great iudgement though of small learning should make so childish and improbable a consequence and withall to esteeme it a necessarie inference For what man of iudgement would argue thus All temporall things are inferiour subiect and subordinate to spirituall things to wit in worth dignitie and excellencie therefore the Pope hath power to dispose of all temporall things when the good of the Church shall so require But my Aduersaries vsuall custome is to darken and confound the Readers vnderstanding with a mist of cloudie and ambiguous words which being once dissolued and taken away the plaine and perspicuous trueth will presently appeare For as concerning his antecedent proposition which is that all temporall things are inferiour to spirituall things and subordinate thereto first if his meaning be that all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to all spirituall things in euery kind of subiection this is apparantly false for that all spirituall things are not capeable of all kind of superioritie seeing that onely spirituall persons or substances and not spirituall accidents are capable of spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction which consisteth in a power to commaund to punish or to dispose of something 34 Secondly if his meaning be that all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to all spirituall things in some kind of subiection this is very true for as all spirituall things in that they are spirituall are more excellent and of a more noble more perfect and of a superiour and higher degree or order then is any temporall thing so all temporall things as they are temporall are inferiour and subordinate in nobilitie perfection and excellencie to all spirituall things But from a superioritie in perfection worth and nobilitie to conclude a superioritie of another kind to wit in authoritie iurisdiction or power to dispose thereon is transcendere de genere ad genus to transcend from one kind to another which manner of arguing euery Schoole-boy knoweth to bee vicious as thus Angels both good and bad are superiour to men in substance knowledge might and other natural perfections but to conclude from hence that therefore Angels are superiour to men in authoritie or Iurisdiction and that therefore men are inferiour and subiect therein to Angels and are bound to obey them as their lawfull Superiours vnlesse they bee sent as messengers from God which the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import and which as Saint Gregory saith S. Greg. hom 34. in Euang a. is a word of office not of nature were a very fallacious kinde of arguing Also all seruile trades are inferiour subiect and subordinate to all liberall arts and sciences to wit in woorth perfection and nobilitie and this all trades-men will acknowledge but they would smile at him that should conclude from thence that therefore all they that are endued with any liberall art or science may command and punish all trades-men and dispose of what they haue when the good of the liberall arts or sciences shall so require 35 But thirdly if Mr. Fitzherbert in his antecedent proposition by spirituall things doeth not vnderstand all spirituall things but only spirituall persons who by their office haue charge of Religion and of all spirituall things appertaining to Religion and that all temporall things are by the instinct of nature and the light of naturall reason subiect and subordinate to spirituall persons in such sort that they may bee disposed of by them when the good of Religion shall so require then indeede supposing this antecedant proposition to bee true it doeth necessarily follow that the Pope hath power to dispose of all temporall things in order to spirituall good But then hee supposeth that which he should prooue and which I euer denyed for as I haue amply shewed before by the law of nature the ciuill Common-wealth it selfe and the supreame Gouernours thereof had supreame authoritie to dispose of all things as well concerning Religion as State and policie Neither did the Religious Societie and the ciuill Common-wealth in the law of nature make two totall and independent bodies Societies or Common-wealths as they doe now in the new Law wherein the temporall Prince or the Ciuill Common-wealth haue not to dispose of spirituall and religious affaires as they did in the law of nature and according to the custome of all nations and therefore it cannot bee prooued either by the law of nature or of nations that the Pope hath power to dispose of the bodies States or temporall goods of temporall Princes but contrariwise standing in the law of nature the Ciuill Common-wealth had supreame power and authoritie to dispose of the bodies and goods of Religious Priests and of all things belonging to Religion and the publike seruice of God 36 Wherefore to little purpose are those words which Mr. Fitzherbert next adioyneth And therefore Vlpian the Lawyer saith hee affirming that Ius Gentium the Law of Nations is that which is common onely to men putteth for example Religio erga Deum Religion towards God giuing to vnderstand that all Nations and people doe agree in nothing more then that due honour is to bee giuen to Almightie GOD which is not done when any thing is preferred before his seruice or when temporall things
from the law of nature or nations but in the order of nature from the ciuill or priuate lawes of euery nation as Suarez before affirmed for that as all histories acknowledge in this there was a great variety among all nations Baptist Fulg. lib. 1. as in Aethiopia saith Mr. Fitzherbert where the Priests determined of the life and death of Kings in such sort that when the Priests signified to them that it was Gods will they should die they presently killed themselues 43 But he might haue added if it had pleased him the next words following in Fulgosus whom he citeth in the margent that this custome of theirs did not alwaies continue Diod. Sicul. lib. 3. cap. 1. for it was abolished by King Erganes who liued about the time of Ptolomey King of Egypt who to the end his death should not be foretold him by the Priests hee slew them all and was the first that tooke away that custome Besides neither was this custome obserued among other nations as among the Romans the chiefe Priest or Bishop ought to keepe his hands not onely pure from all bloud but also he ought not to be partaker or priuie to the death of any man insomuch that if any condemned man did flye to him he was freed from death for that day k Alex. lib. 2. geralium dierum cap. 8. Neither did those Priests of Aethiopia properly put their Kings to death by authority but as interpreters of the will of GOD they did declare that it was GODS pleasure they should kill themselues and so this example is little to the purpose 44 Also in Aegypt saith Mr. Fitzherbert none could be a King except he vvere a Priest True it is that the custome of the Aegyptians was Stobaeus se 42. as Stobaeus also affirmeth to create either Priests or vvarlike men their Kings for honour and nobility vvas giuen to vvarlike men for their fortitude and to Priests for their vvisedome But he that vvas chosen out of vvarlike men to be their King vvas foorthwith made a Priest and partaker of philosophy or the study of vvisedome And no doubt but that this was a laudable custome and so much the more for that the King of Aegypt could not iudge Diodor. Sicul. l. 1. c. 6. but according to the lawes and the Kings themselues were subiect to the lawes of their kingdome yet this custome of the Aegyptians was not generall among other nations For although in times past Plutarch in quaest Rom. as Plutarch writeth Kings did the greatest and chiefest part of Sacrifices and they vvith the other Priests did concurre in sacred rites yet after they became to vvax insolent arrogant and cruell the Graecians for the most part taking away from them their Empire left them onely authority to sacrifice to their Gods 45 And the like custome saith my Aduersary vvas also obserued among the Goths whiles they vvere Paynimes That the Goths had this for a continuall custome that none should be their Kings vnlesse they were Priests I haue not read and that it was among them a continuall practise I can hardly beleeue both for that their custome vvas that their Kings should not be learned but among al nations Caelius l. 8. c. 6. the Priests were vsually the most learned of all the people also for that the contrary is signified by Ioannes Magnus in his historie of the Goths who writeth that their Priests werâ— of diuers degrees to wit Pontifices Archiflamines Flamines Salij Augures and that to their chiefe Priests See Procopius Ioan. Magnus in their history of the Goths Olaus l. 3 c. 8. l. 8. c. 15. who were called Pontifices was granted by them equall power with their Kings whose authoritie was so great that whatsoeuer they should either counsell or commaund both the King himselfe and the people did foorthwith wllingly execute as an oracle from heauen And no maruaile if it were so seeing that the reuerence which the Goths did beare to Priests althogh they were of a contrary Religion to them was exceeding great and to be admired insomuch that when they conquered any Citie they did neither violate Temple nor Priests and in the iudgement of all men they were accounted so pious and religious that they would not hurt any one that should flye to the Temples dedicated to God for succour or Sanctuary And when Alaricus King of the Goths otherwise a barbarous and cruell man inuaded Italie in the time of Honorius the Emperour and had subdued Rome before hee would giue leaue to his souldiers to spoyle the City he proclaimed by sound of trumpet that the bodies and goods of those persons Fulgos l. 1. c. 1. who flyed for refuge to the Apostles Church should not be touched and which is more to be admired the souldiers themselues in the very middest of the sacke and spoyle meeting certaine sacred Virgins carrying vpon their heads plate of gold after they were informed that they were consecrated to the Apostles did not extend their hands so much as to touch them Fulosus in the same place 46 And amongst the Gaules saith Mr. Fitzherbert the Druides vvho vvere their Priests had in their hands the chiefe mannage of publike affaires deciding all controuersies and iudging all ciuill and criminall causes Caesar l. 6. de Bello Gallico excommunicating such as vvould not obey them and those that vvere so excommunicated vvere abhorred and detested of all men But this custome of the Gaules proceeded from the priuate and ciuill law of that nation and was not common to all nations as you may see aboue in the Graecians who from their Priests tooke away the temporall gouerment and left them onely authority to sacrifice to their Gods and the great variety which was among nations concerning the authority of their Priests doth euidently conuince the same 47 I haue also signified before l Cap. 6. nu 10 saith Mr. Fitzherbert m Pag. 132. nu 6. vvhat authority and command the chiefe Bishops and Augures had in the Romane Common-wealth aboue the Consulls and temporall Magistrates vvhen consideration of Religion occurred in matters of State Whereupon Valerius Maximus saith Valer. Max. l. 1. c. 1. that the Romane Common-wealth alwaies preferred Religion before all things euen in men of the highest degree dignity and Maiesty and that their Empire did willingly submit it selfe and obey in matters of Religion esteeming that it should in time arriue to the soueraigntie of humane gouernment if it did well and duely obserue the diuine power Thus saith Valerius of the preheminence and soueraigntie of Religion in the Romane Common-wealth And for the time of the Romane Emperours most of them vvere extreame Tyrants and did condemne as vvell all diuine as humane lawes yet all of them seemed to acknowledge the Soueraignty of Religion in that they tooke vpon them the title and dignity of chiefe Bishops because no man should haue any authority ouer them as the
Bishops had ouer the Consulls in the Romane Common-wealth Bapt. Fulgos l. 1. c. 1. and yet neuerthelesse vve read of Alexander Seuerus that he suffered an appellation from himselfe to the Bishops and that they reuersed his sentence vvhen it seemed to them that equitie and iustice required it And heereto may be added vvhat great respect the Emperours of the Turkes and Persians beare at this day to the chiefe Bishop vvho hath power to abrogate any law made by them if it seeme to him to be repugnant to the Alcoron 48 But from these examples or any other such like this onely can be gathered that all nations haue euer preferred Religion and the worship of their Gods before any other temporall thing and that in respect chiefly of Religion they gaue to their Religious Priests whom they appointed to bee their immediate Ministers to offer Sacrifice to their Gods or as certaine messengers or prophets to declare their wills as in Rome were the Augures and Soothsayers certaine temporall honour authority and preheminence greater or lesser according to the custome of euery Nation but it cannot be gathered from hence that this temporall authority which these Religious Priests had to punish any man temporally did proceed from the law of nature or nations as the law of nations is accounted one law but from the municipall lawes of euery nation kingdome or common-wealth as the diuers custome of euery nation touching the temporall authority of their Religious Priests doth cleerely conuince 49 But marke what Mr. Fitzherbert would gather from these examples So that saith hee n Pag. 133. nu 7. by all this it appeareth that howsoeuer all Nations haue differed amongst themselues in particular rites and ceremonies of Religion yet they haue all agreed in this generall principle of nature that there ought to be in all Common-wealths a due subordination and subiection of humane things to diuine of Policy to Religion and of the temporall Magistrate to the spirituall in matters that appertaine any way to Religion Whereupon it followeth that Ius Gentium the law of Nations being grounded vpon the principles of nature cannot patronize or admit an Oath whereby a temporall and Secular Prince shall be exempted in matters that concerne Religion from subiection to his spirituall Pastours and speciall to the supreme Pastour of Christs Church Thus said I in my Supplement concerning the law of Nations vvhereby it appeareth c. 50 No man maketh any doubt but that all Nations haue agreed in this as a principle of nature that there ought to be a due subordination and subiection of humane things to diuine of Policy to Religion and of the temporall Magistrate to the spirituall in matters that appertaine to Religion but in what this due subordination and subiection according to the principles of nature consisteth this is the whole difficulty For if Mr. Fitzherberts meaning be that spirituall things and Religion are more excellent then temporall things and policy and therefore Religion and things belonging thereunto are caeteris paribus to be preferred before things appertaining to ciuill gouernment and that according to the principles of nature it is fit and conuenient that the ciuill common-wealth should for reuerence to Religion giue to Religious Priests some temporall honour authority and prerogatiues and also that Religious Priests should bee honoured and obeyed by all men in those things whereunto the authority which is giuen them either by God himselfe or by the positiue graunt of the ciuill common-wealth doth extend this I willingly graunt to be a principle grounded in nature and naturall reason But if his meaning bee that the ciuill common-wealth is according to the principles of nature and naturall reason subiect and subordinate not onely in dignity and perfection but also in coerciue authority and that the Religious Priests might in the law of nature and according to the knowne principles of naturall reason punish temporally eyther the supreme temporall Prince or any one of the inferiour people this is very vntrue as I haue conuinced before o Cap. 6. nu 35 seq c. 8. nu 40. out of the doctrine of Abulensis and Suarez 51 Wherefore as all the particular power and authoritie which was graunted to Religious Priests in the order of nature before the law of God was written as well in matters concerning Religion as policie did not proceede from the law of nature or of nations among whom there was so great varietie in this point but from the priuate or Ciuill law of euery particular common-wealth to whom the chiefe mannage and disposition of all things as well concerning Religion as Ciuill gouernement did belong so all the particular subordination and subiection especially in coerciue authoritie either of the people or of the Ciuill Magistrate to the Religious Priests as well in matters of Religion as State did wholy proceede from the free grant of the Ciuill common-wealth or the supreme Prince and gouernour thereof Wherevpon it euidently followeth that both the law of nature and nations would haue patronized and admitted an Oath which had beene made before the law of God was written whereby the Ciuill common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince should haue beene exempted from the temporall punishment of any religious Priest who in all matters as well concerning Religion as policie was subordinate and subiect both to the coerciue and directiue power of the Ciuill Societie or common-wealth and that therefore this Oath now in question concerning the Popes authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of temporall kingdomes cannot any way be impugned but altogether patronized by the law of nature and nations And by this all that Mr. Fitzherbert hath said in his Supplement concerning the law of nature and nations and that also which heere he addeth for a conclusion is most cleerely satisfied 52 Thus said I in my Supplement saith he p Pap. 133. nu 8. concerning the law of nations vvhereby it appeareth that the said law vvhich is deduced directly from the law of nature teacheth and confirmeth not onely the supreme dignitie of Religion in the Common-wealth but also the subordination and subiection of the temporall state to the Religious euen in temporall matters that touch Religion and that the custome and municipall law of the Romanes ordaining the same in their Common-wealth vvas most conforme to the lawe of nature being deduced directly from the knowne principles thereof which by the light of naturall reasoâ—n vvere manifest to the Philosophers and vvise law-makers amongst the Paynims and therefore vvhereas Widdrington ascribeth the preheminence of Religion in the Common wealth of the Romans to a municipall law denying it vvithall to proceede from the law of nature vvhich vvas the ground of that law he speaketh as problably as if he should ascribe an effect vvholy to the second cause and denie it to proceede from the first So as it is euident that he hath answered as vnprobably and imperfectly to my arguments drawne
from the law of nations as to the former grounded vpon the law of nature q Nu. 13. 53 But first I haue cleerely shewed as you haue seene from the doctrine of Suarez and the common opinion of Diuines that the law of nations as it is distinguished from the law of nature is not directly deduced from the principles of the law of nature but it is a humane law hauing force to bind onely by the positiue constitution and decree of man Secondly that although according to the principles of naturall reason Religion is in dignitie perfection and nobilitie superiour to policie and policie is therein subordinate and subiect to it yet according to the law of nature and nations all the particular authoritie which the Religious Societie as it was distinguished from the Ciuill had to commaund or punish any man dependeth wholy vpon the Ciuill common-wealth not onely in temporall but also in religious affaires and the particular customes and municipall lawes not onely of the Romanes but also of all other nations graunting some temporall honour authoritie and prerogatiues to Religious Priests did not proceede from the law of nature nor was directly or indirectly deduced from the principles thereof but was deriued meerely from the positiue constitutions and graunts of euery particular Ciuill common-wealth in whose power it was to create depose and punish their Religious Priests and to extend diminish change and quite take away from them all their directiue and coerciue authoritie and Mr. Fitzherbert affirming the contrary speaketh not onely improbably and disagreeably to the doctrine of Suarez and all other learned Diuines but also discouereth heerein his great want of iudgement learning and reading Neuerthelesse I will not denie but that in this sense the particular customes and municipall lawes of nations graunting to their Religious Priests who were their immediate ministers for things belonging to the publike seruice and worship of their Gods some temporall honour and authoritie were most conforme to the law of nature and principles of naturall reason for that the law of nature and light of naturall reason doth approoue and allow such lawes and customes as fit and conuenient but not commaund and ordaine them as necessarie in which sense also the exemption of Cleargie men now in the new law from the coerciue authoritie of Secular Magistrates ordained by humane law may be said to be conforme to the law of nature for that it doth approoue such exemption as conuenient but not command it as necessary And thus much concerning the law of nations and nature 54 Now touching the Ciuill law r Pag. 134. nu 9. 10. Mr. Fitzherb maketh a quicke dispatch therof in these words And as for the Ciuill law saith he whereas Widdrington saith only that I haue proued nothing else thereby but that the Pope is the supreme superiour of the Church in spirituall matters he is to vnderstand that albeit I haue not directly prooued any thing else by the Ciuill law yet I haue also thereupon inferred the extention of his power to temporall things by a necessarie consequent For hauing concluded that the Imperiall or Ciuill law doth not onely establish the Popes Supremacie but also acknowledge the subiection of temporall Princes to him in matters belonging to their soules and the good of the Church I added this inference 55 Whereupon it followeth directly that it acknowledgeth also See Supplement cap. 1. nu 118. pag. 67. by a necessarie consequent that he may punish them temporally in their persons and states vvhen the good of soules and the seruice and glory of God doth require it according to the rule of the said law vvhich I haue touched before to wit that the accessorie followeth the principall and that he which hath the greater power hath also the lesse And therefore I conclude that the Ciuill law doth no way fauour support or iustifie the Oath and much lesse inioyne it Ibid. nu 64 65. but flatly impugne and ouerthrow it Thus said I in my Supplement remitting my Reader for the more ample proofe of this inference to that vvhich I had before handled concerning the same vvhen I treated of the law of God See cap. nu 3. seq vvhich I haue also repeated in the first Chapter as also I haue examined his answeres thereto and shewed them to be very idle and friuolous and therefore I may vvell conclude that the arguments in my Supplement grounded as well vpon the lawes of God Nature and Nations as vpon the Cuiill or Imperial law doe stand sound and good against the Oath notwithstanding any thing that my Aduersary Widdrington hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary 56 But fie Mr. Fitzherbert that you in whose mouth are so frequent absurd ridiculous impertinent friuolous foolish idle fradulent impious malicious as though all your writings were so graue wise substantiall and sincere should thus in euery Chapter delude your Reader and not to vse your owne foule words shew so great want of learning iudgement and sincerity For what man of learning or iudgement can sincerely thinke that the Ciuill law may be said sufficiently to patronize the Popes power to depose Princes and to impugne the new Oath for that it acknowledgeth the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour or with what sinceritie can you make your Reader beleeue that you had no other meaning in spending fourteene whole Pages of your Supplement to prooue by the Ciuill law that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and hath authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes then onely to inferre thereupon by your necessarie or rather improbable consequent that he may therefore punish them temporally in their persons and states For first who would not imagine that when you boasted to prooue the Oath to be repugnant to the Ciuill law because it denieth the Popes power to depose Princes you would haue brought some text out of the Ciuill law where it is written that the Pope hath such a power to depose and not to haue made so much adoe to proue by the Ciuill law the Pope to be head of the Church and to haue authority to inflict spirituall Censures which no Catholike denieth and then forsooth in a word or two to deduce from thence by a farre fetched consequence of your owne and not of the Ciuill law that therefore the Pope may also punish them temporally in their persons and States 57 And truely if it be sufficient to condemne in this manner the Oath by the Ciuill law you might in the like manner for a greater florish haue brought the authoritie of all the auncient Fathers yea and of all Catholikes euen of my selfe and of all those who mainetaine the Oath to be lawfull for a cleere testimony to condemne the same for that all the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes euen my selfe and those who maintaine the Oath to be lawfull and denie the Popes power to depose Princes doe acknowledge the Pope to be the supreme
spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures And without doubt you would condemne me for a vaine-glorious Thraso if I should take vpon me to prooue by the testimony and grant of Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and of your selfe who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes that the Pope hath no such power for that you and all the rest doe grant the Pope to bee the supreame spirituall Pastour and then by a necessarie consequence in my iudgement though not in yours I should inferre from thence that because the Pope is by the institution of Christ according to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers a spirituall Pastour and not a temporall Prince he hath only authoritie to giue or take away heauenly not earthly kingdomes to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to vse spirituall not temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill punishments This consequence the ancient Fathers made See aboue cha 5· sec 3. nu 11. seq But besides that it is not sufficient to prooue any conclusion by the authority of the Ciuill law vnles the Ciuil law granteth both the premises or propositions from whence that conclusion is deduced the insufficiencie of this consequence grounded vpon those rules The accessorie followeth the principall and he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse See chap. 2. 3. per totum I haue made manifest in the former Chapters 58 Secondly doe not dissemble Mr. Fitzherb nor seeke to delude your Reader but deale sincerely and be not ashamed to acknowledge your errour seeing that not onely your selfe but also Card. Bâ—ll Gretzer Lessius Becanus and also Suarez haue herein grosely erred For your meaning was not by making that long discourse out of the Ciuill law to proue the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes onely to inferre by a necessary consequent in your owne vnderstanding that he may also punish them temporally in their persons and states but your meaning was to proue directly by the Ciuill law the Oath to be vnlawfull for that in your opinion it denieth the Popes power to Excommunicate Princes which the Ciuill law doth expresly acknowledge For in the beginning of your Supplement you tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine namely in respect of those clauses which do exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope and then after you had made an end of your long discourse concerning the Popes spirituall power acknowledged by the Ciuill law you made this inference that the Ciuill law cannot iustifie the Oath but doth flatly impugne it for that the Oath supposeth and implieth the Kings Maiestie to be supreme head of the English Church and not the Pope and thereupon denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince So that the Oath in your opinion contained two clauses the one a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and this was that which you intended to prooue to bee directly repugnant to the Ciuill law the other was a deniall of the Popes power to depose Princes and this in a word or two related before you affirmed to be also repugnant to the ciuill law for that in your iudgement it followeth necessarily froÌ„ the fromer which how vaine an assertion this is you may see by that I haue said before for so you may make one to affirme any thing if to make him to graunt an argument or consequent it bee sufficient that he graunt the antecedent although hee deny the consequence But now it seemeth by your silence as I signified before in the first Chapter that you are ashamed to insist vpon the former clause concerning the Popes power to excommunicate Princes for which you made that long discourse to prooue by the Ciuill law the Popes supremacie in spirituals and yet rather then you will confesse your errour you care not to delude your Reader in dissembling the chiefe and principall cause for which you affirmed the Oath to bee repugnant to the Ciuill law to wit because it denyed the Popes power to excommunicate Princes wherein with many others of your Society you haue most fowlely and shamefully erred 59 Wherefore I may now very well conclude that the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought in his Supplement grounded as well vpon the law of God of nature and nations as vpon the ciuill or imperiall law are very insufficient and that the answeres which in my Admonition I did briefly make to them doe stand sound and good notwithstanding any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary Now you shall see what arguments he bringeth from the Canon law and especially from that so often named decree of the famous Councell of Lateran CHAP. IX Wherein the difficulties which some make concerning the authority of the Lateran Councel are propounded the decree of the Councell which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related and Widdringtons first answere to the said Decree is proued to be sound and sufficient and Mr. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted 1 WE are come now at last courteous Reader to examine what conuincing arguments can bee brought for proofe of this new pretended Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes out of the Canon law and especially from the decree of the great and famous Councell of Lateran whereon my principall Aduersaries seeing belike all their other arguments and authorities to bee cleane shaken and battered doe now chiefly rely Wherefore albeit neither the more ancient of our moderne Diuines who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba D. Sanders and others nor Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken from these men all his chiefe arguments and authorities to confirme his new Catholike faith in this point did in his Controuersies make any great reckoning of the decree of this great Councell for otherwise without doubt he being not ignorant of this decree and also desirous to make his doctrine vnquestionable and therefore feareth not to brand the contrary opinion with the note of heresie would not haue beene contented onely with the fact of Pope Innocent the third in deposing Otho the Emperour and haue neglected to vrge this decree of the Councell of Lateran which was called by the said Pope Innocent yet now hee flyeth to the decree of the great Councell of Lateran as the chiefe pillar to support his new Catholike faith therefore in regard principally of this decree he doubteth not to affirme but how rashly and without sufficient ground you shall see beneath that whosoeuer denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes contemneth the voyce of the Church in this so great and famous a Councell and is to be accounted a Heathen and Publican and in
signified to the chiefe Bishop or Pope that from thenceforth he may denounce his vassals absolued from his fealty and expose his Land or territory to be taken by Catholikes who when the heritickes bee rooted out may possesse the same without contradiction and conserue it in the puritie of faith the right of the principall Landlord or Lord being reserued so that he giue no obstacle to this nor put any impediment thereto The same neuerthelesse to be obserued concerning those who haue no principall Landlords This is the decree of the Councell 21 Now all the difficulty consisteth chiefly in this what is to be vnderstood by those words dominus teÌ„poralis dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-lord Officer or if we will needs translate it so Lord Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement pretended to prooue that those words did comprehend Kings and absolute Princes and that therefore the Pope hath authority to depose temporal Princes and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance To which his argument I answered briefly in my aforesaid Admonition c Nu. 21. in this manner 22 Lastly to that decree of the Councell of Laâ—eran so often inculcated and vrged I gaue elsewhere d Widdr. in Praefat. ad Resp Apol. nu 43. diuerse answeres which this Authour F.T. dissembleth He insinuateth one of them and confuteth it mostly coldly to wit that by the name of him that hath not a principall Land-lord or if wee will needes haue him called Lord Emperours and absolute Kings are not to be vnderstood but other inferiour Land-Lords or Officers who are subiect to Kings seeing that the Emperour Fredericke fiue yeeres after this Councell was celebrated made the same decree almost in the very same words changing only spiritual penalties into temporal who by the name of him that hath not a principall Landlord or also Lord could not vnderstand himselfe and other absolute Princes Whereupon I probably gathered that those wordes Non habens Dominum principalem Not hauing a principall Landlord or also Lord could not by force of the words comprehend Kings and absolute Princes who vnlesse they be namely expressed in penall lawes are not to bee vnderstood to wit by the generall names of temporall and principall Landlords or Lords And to say that the Emperour did not comprehend Kings in those words and that the Pope did meane to comprehend them is barely to say not to demonstrate considering that if the Synode of Lateran had meant to haue comprehended Soueraigne Princes in that decree she might as easily haue named them by their proper names of Princes as by the generall names of principall Land-lords Officers or Lords or who haue no principall Land-lords Officers or Lords especially seeing that the same Councell in other decrees hath vsed the peculiar names of Princes Wherfore vntill some man shall clearly demonstrate I say not shall onely show probably that those answeres which I gaue to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable no effectuall argument can bee brought from that Councell whereby it may certainely and euidently be prooued that it is so certaine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes that the contrarie cannot without the note of heresie errour or temeritie be defended by Catholikes 23 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth thus e Chap. 9. nu 3 seq pa. 137. Now then saith he for as much as all our question heere is concerning the Canon of the Councell of Lateran and that some of those who may reade this Reply haue neuer seene that Canon or my Supplement I thinke good to set downe here what I said in my Supplement concerning that Councel Canon Therfore hauing declared that the Councell of Lateran vvas gathered by the generall consent as vvell of the Greeke as of the Latine Church and of the Emperours of the East and West Empire I added that there vvere present thereat S. Antonin tit 19. §. 6. Paul Aemil. lib. 6. Nauclar generat 41. Blond dec 2. lib. 6. in fine Platina in Innoc tert Concil Later sub Innoc. tert tom 3. conc Matth Paris Westmonast ad annum 1215. Can. 3. Supplem cap. 6. nu 2. the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Hierusalem and the substitutes of the two other Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch 70. Archbishops Greekes and Latines 412. Bishops and 800. other Prelates that is to say aboue 1200. Besides that there assisted also the Ambassadours not onely of the Romane and Greeke Emperours but also of the Kings of Hierusalem England France Spaine Hungary and Cyprus and of other absolute Princes So as I conclude that it was the greatest and most generall Councell that euer vvas assembled in the Church of God and then I added further as followeth 24 This was the great Councell of Lateran held vnder Innocentius the third in the yeere of our Lord 1215. wherein it was decreed thus Si Dominus temporalis c. If a temporall Lord being required and so foorth as you may see aboue Thus farre the Decree of this Oecumenicall Councell assembled by the consent of all Christendome wherein you see not only the Popes authoritie to depose Princes was auowed and acknowledged but also the practise thereof expressely ordained and determined when Princes shall neglect their duetie to purge their states of heresies and contemn with all the Ecclesiasticall Censures 25 Thus said I in my Supplement and now to come to Widdringtons answere first he chargeth me as thou hast seene good Reader to haue dissembled many answeres which he made else where concerning this Canon Secondly he saith that I haue neuerthelesse insinuate â—one of them and answered it most coldly and thirdly he layeth downe his said answere vvith some other reasonâ— vvhy he thinketh it to be probable that absolute Princes are not comprehended in that Canon Whereto I answere that I wonder vpon what ground he could charge me with the dissimulation of his former answeres which I protest I neuer saw vntill I chanced to haue a view of this his last Treatise I meane his Theologicall Disputation whereto is annexed the other which hee mentioneth for truely if I had seene those answeres vvhereof he speaketh I would not haue passed them ouer with silence no more then I passed Mr. Dunnes and such other as were then come to my knowledge And as for my cold answere I cannot see how it could be either cold or hoat to an argument which I had neuer seene but how hoatly and wisely he hath answered for his part it may appeare partly by the argument it selfe and partly by my discourse in my Supplement which he will nâ—edes take for an answere thereto His argument you see is that for as much as the Emperour Fredericke c. 26 But first it is to be obserued that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis are not well translated into English a temporall or principall Lord vnderstanding the word Lord as it is taken by vs for a title
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
of Consuls Rectors of cities such like Potestaes not Potentaes as M. Fitzherbert saith Ibid. §. Nos Fridericus Imperator and Potentates who had made lawes and constitutions in preiudice of the Ecclesiasticall immunities and priuiledges which lawes also the Councell did wholly abrogate and disannull the Emperour in like manner in the Preface to his lawes lamenteth of the iniquity of such Potentates and being desirous as hee testifieth that the Church might enioy plena quiete secura libertate full quietnesse and secure libertie abrogated by his first decree all such constitutions as any Cities Places Consulls or other Potentates within the Empire had made against the liberties of the Church 31 And this he ordained vnder great penalties of infamy banishment and confiscation of goods Saluis nihilominus saith he alijs paenis contra tales in generali Concilio promulgatis Reseruing neuerthelesse the other penalties promulgated against such persons in the general Councell So hee meaning by the generall Councell that of Lateran which was held but a few yeeres before he made these Constitutions and therefore for as much as that most famous generall Councell hauing beene held so lately before was then fresh in euery mans memory it was needlesse to name it more particularly which had beene requisite if hee had meant any other Councell Concil Constan in fine Besides that the Councell of Constance layeth downe the substance of the 46. Canon of the said Councell of Lateran made in fauour of the liberties and immunities of the Church and also maketh mention of this law of Fredericke and in relating the same setteth downe particularly the clause aboue mentioned to wit Saluis nihilominus alijs poenis c. Reseruing neuerthelesse the other penalties promulgated against such in the generall Councell Whereby it is euident that those Imperiall Constitutions of Fredericke haue a speciall relation vnto the Canons of the Councell of Lateran and that they were made in confirmation thereof 32 This also appeareth by the other decrees ensuing wherein the Emperour either followed exactly the sense meaning and substance of some Canon of the Councell or else vsed the very words thereof so farre forth as they might stand with the stile and forme of an Imperiall law as it may bee seene not onely in the fragment alleaged by Mr. Dunne but also in diuers other parts of those Constitutions as in that which concerneth the receiuers abetters and defenders of heretickes being alike in the Imperiall Constitutions and in the Canon of the Councell Concil Lateran can 3. §. Credentes vero Constit Freder §. Credentes praterea to wit Credentes praeterea receptores defensores fautores Haereticorum c. And the onely difference betwixt the one and the other is that the Councell saith Excommunicationi decreuimus subiacere We decree them to be subiect to Excommunication and the Emperour in his Constitutions saith Bannimus wee doe out-law them because it did not belong to him to excommunicate And againe the Councell in the end of that Canon imposeth a penalty vpon Cleargie men which the Emperour doth not in his Constitution because they were exempt from his Iurisdiction and in all other things the Canon and Constitution do agree word for word Concil Later can 3. Constitut Freder 33 The like also may be obserued in the Constitution and Canon concerning such as are onely suspected of heresie beginning both alike to wit Qui autem inuenti fuerint sola suspicione notabiles c. and differing onely in that the Canon exposeth them to Excommunication if they doe not cleare themselues within a yeare whereas the Imperiall law inflicteth the penalty of infamie and banishment Also the same forme and stile is kept in another Constitution touching an oath to be taken by all Magistrates to doe their best endeauour to exterminate heretikes And finally to come to the Constitution whereof wee now specially treate it seemeth that the same is no other then as it were a transcript or Copie of that Canon of the Councell concerning the deposition of Princes mutatis mutandis I meane except onely in such things as could not agree with the forme of an Imperial law or exceeded the power of a Secular Prince Concil Later can 3. §. Si vero Dominus 34 Therefore whereas the Canon ordaineth that the Metropolitan and other Bishops should excommunicate such Princes as would not purge their Countries of heresie and afterwards also if they remained obstinate denounce them to the Pope to the end hee might absolue their subiects from their allegiance and expose their States to be taken by Catholikes Constit Freder §. Si vero Dominus the Emperours Constitution maketh no mention of Excommunication or Denunciation as neither compatible with his temporall power nor conforme to the stile of the Imperiall lawes and therefore he saith onely insteed thereof Post annum à tempore admonitionis elapsum c. After a yeere past from the time of the admonition wee doe expose his land to bee taken by Catholikes and in this onely consisteth the difference of the Canon and Constitution for in all other things they are all one 35 Thus I said in my Supplement and afterwards hauing accusion to satisfie an obiection of Mr. Dunne touching these words in the Emperours law Exponimus terras illius Catholicis occupandas We expose his Lands to be taken by Catholikes which words Mr. Dunne vrgeth to prooue that the Emperour tooke the authority out of the Popes hands vpon this occasion I say I showed that fiue seuerall Popes to wit Honorius the third Alexander the fourth Innocentius the fourth Vrbanus the fourth and Clement the fourth knowing right well that the said Constitution of Fredricke might greatly auayle and helpe to purge the Empire of heresie yea and ease them of the labour enuy and murmuration which might be incident sometimes to the deposition of some Prince within the Emperours Dominion did ratifie and confirme it no lesse then his other lawes made in fauour of the Church which they would neuer haue done if hee had sought thereby to take any authority from the Sea Apostolike or to preiudice the Canon of the Councell Thus discoursed I in my Supplement 36 Whereby it is cleere that this Law of the Emperour Fredericke was no way preiudiciall to the Canon of the Councell but a notable confirmation of it ordaining the like to be practised and executed in his Dominions in fauour of the Church to shâ—w his obedience thereto and to the Councell of Lateran and therefore whereas my Aduersary Widdrington will needes perswade his Reader that those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominum principalem which are vsed alike in the Canon and in the Emperours law haue like restriction in both he sheweth himselfe to be very absurd For what can be more cleere then that all lawes are limited c 37 Heere you see Mr. Fitzherbert hath made a long discourse
Supplement is that the Emperours constitution is no way preiudiciall to the Canon of the Councell but a cleare confirmation thereof which I neuer denied and that the Emperours law could extend no further then to his owne subiects and that the Emperour himselfe and all Soueraigne Princes are vnder the iurisdiction of a generall Councell and subiect to her decrees whereof also no man maketh doubt if those decrees concerne spirituall affaires but if they concerne meere temporall matters wherin temporall Princes are supreame and not subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church as are the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted the whole drift of my Apollogie was to prooue it to be probable that the spirituall authority and iurisdiction of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer and consequently that the inflicting of such temporall punishments although it be for a spirituall end is a meere temporall matter wherein temporall Princes are supreame and subiect to none but God Which being so I had no reason to take any formall notice in that briefe Admonition of all the idle discourses hee made in his Supplement and which either were nothing at all against mee or might easily be satisfied by that I had said before in my Apologie But Mr. Fitzherbert doth shamefully corrupt my words and meaning and fowlely abuse me and his Reader in affirming as you haue seene that I doe restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne dominion whereas I made no such restraint but extended the sense of the Canon to the Dominions of all Christian Princes by whose consent and authority that Canon for as much as it concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made and had force to binde 47 Neither as I said doth the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth concerning the distinction of the Canon and of the Emperours decree in extension any way impugne but confirme the argument I brought from the Emperours law because or the same reason which Mr. Fitzherbert alleageth why those generall words Dominus temporalis or principalis cannot in the Emperours decree comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to him in temporals I also affirme that the same generall words cannot in the Canon comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to the Pope or Church in temporals as is the inflicting of temporall punishments to which as I haue often said the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend And if my Aduersary cannot bring more cleare and pregnant demonstrations then these to confirme his new Catholike faith hee neede not to waste any more time and labour in producing such cleare and pregnant demonstrations which euery Catholicke man of iudgement may clearely see to bee apparant sophismes and that notwithstanding all his vaine brags of his cleare and pregnant demonstrations and of my absurd arguments and answeres so often repeated by him in the end the Reader will see that Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus 48 And although it be cleare enough that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords yea and Masters yet because it is cleare that Dominus temporalis is not a proper tearme or title belonging to absolute Princes but common to all others of inferiour degree if any man should speake of them and giue them onely the titles of their Masterships Worships or Lordships he would both be accounted a rude and vnmannerly companion and also he should wrong those persons in giuing them onely those titles of worship or honour which are common to other persons of inferior ranke neither he that should onely vse such inferiour titles would be thought to speake of absolute Princes vnlesse some other circumstance should enforce vs to thinke the same And although it be also cleare that absolute Princes are subiect no lesse then the meanest Lord in Christendome to the decrees of a generall Councell which concerne spirituall matters yet because in meere temporall matters they are supreame and therin not subiect to any decree of Pope or Councell it is also probable that the inflicting of temporall punishments is a meere temporall matter and not belonging to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable and no way absurd to say that Dominus temporalis in the Canon of the Councell wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed is not to be vnderstood of absolute Princes for the same reason that in the Emperours constitution it is not extended to them but to such onely as were subiect to him in temporals 49 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 147. num 19. that he hath added another reason to fortifie the same which was as you haue heard before that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes except they be specified therein by the names of Princes for so indeed he saith inserting the same cunningly into his inference to make his argument grounded on the Emperours law to seeme the more probable and therefore hauing said that the Emperour could not vnderstand either himselfe or other absolute Princes by the name of one who hath no principall Lord hee concludeth ex quo probabiliter collegi c. Whereupon I gathered probably that those words Non habens Dominum principalem not hauing a principall Landlord or Lord could not comprehend absolute Princes who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be namely expressed Thus he sliding subtilly as you see from the Emperours law and the reason grounded thereon to the priuiledges of Princes which belongeth to another question and shall be fully debated and cleared as I hope in the next Chapter And in the meane time I conclude for the present that in all this hee hath shewed himselfe very absurd and that my cold answere as he tearmeth it would haue beene hote enough to dissolue his frozen and friuolous argument if he had not wholly dissembled the force and substance of my discourse in my Supplement concerning this point 50 It is very true that I haue in that briefe Admonition also another reason why absolute Princes are not included in the Canon of the Councell vnder those generall names Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or such like to wit for that in penall lawes they are not comprehended vnder such generall tearmes which denote titles of inferiour degree and dignity and in bringing this reason I vsed no craft or cunning but meant plainly and sincerely neither did I intend to slide cunningly and subtily as Mr. Fitzherbert would guilefully perswade his Reader from the Emperours law and reason grounded thereon to this reason for that the reason why in the Emperours law absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is the
chiefe and principall ground I stand vpon why they are not also included vnder those generall words in the Canon of the Councell as you haue seene before Neuerthelesse there is this difference betwixt these two reasons that this later reason whereof we shal treat more at large in the next Chapter only sheweth why absolute Princes are not in penall lawes of the Church compreheded vnder such generall words which denote names and titles of inferiour place and dignitie but the first reason grounded vpon the Emperours law doth also prooue that absolute Princes cannot vnder any generall tearmes whatsoeuer bee included in any Canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed For to deny that absolute Princes are not vnder any generall words comprehended in such Decrees is no more absurd then to deny that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments which doctrine for that my Aduersary will neuer be able to prooue absurd he might well haue spared to vse such absurd tearmes wherewith he doth so often defile his religious mouth and which as you haue seene doe more fitly agree to his owne arguments and answeres and to the whole discourse he hath made in his Supplement concerning this point if he thereby intend to confute the aforesaid answere I gaue to the decree of the Councell and the reason thereof grounded vpon the like decree of the Emperour CHAP. X. Wherein 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 bee neither improbable nor absurd but conforme to the doctrine of learned Diuines and Lawyers and Mr. Fitzherberts exceptions against the said answere are shewed to be very insufficient and fraudulent 1 YOu haue seene Courteous Reader how weakely Mr. Fitzherbert hath in the former Chapter impugned the answere I gaue to the decree of the Lateran Councell and the reason thereof grounded vpon the like Constitution of the Emperour Fredricke now you shall see how insufficiently also he impugneth in this Chapter the other reason which I brought to prooue that those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or also Lord doe not in the Canon of the Councell cōprehend absolute Princes Thus therefore he beginneth this Chapter 2 You haue heard in the last Chapter how my Aduersary Widdrington teacheth that the Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the deposition of temporall Lords doth not comprehend Kinges and absolute Princes because they are not namely specified therein Qui saith he nisi nominatim exprimantur in legibus paenalibus intelligendi non sunt Who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be expressed by name So he which he also more amply affirmeth in the Preface to his Apologetical answere whereto he remitteth me and his Readers for there he seemeth to ground his opinion in this point Widdrington Apolog. Respōs Praefat. nu 44. vpon the rules of the lawes saying that Secular Princes are not signified in penall Lawes vnder the generall names of Lords Magistrates and temporall Iudges iuxta regulas Iurisprudentium according to the rules of the Lawyers whereto he addeth also for examples sake that an Abbot is not cōprehended in the penall Lawes vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest nor the Pope vnder the name of a Bishop because saith he in paenis benignior pars est eligenda odia restringi fauoures conuenit ampliari The more benigne or milde part is to be chosen in penalties and it is conuenient that odious things be restrained and fauours amplified or enlarged So he 3 Whereto I answere that whereas he saith that Princes are not comprehended in penall Lawes except they be specified by the name of Princes I say first that if this were true this absurdity would follow thereof that absolute Princes should be exempted from diuers Lawes and Canons wherein all the world hath hitherto held them to be included as from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran ordaining that Omnis vtriusque sexus fidelis c. Concil Later 4. can 21. Euery Christian of both sexes shall confesse and communicate at Easter vpon paine of Excommunication and want of Christian buriall as also from the Bulla in caena Domini and from the Canon Si quis suadente Cans 17. q. 4. forbidding the laying of violent hands vpon Cleargie-men and diuers other generall constitutions from the which they were neuer yet exempted in the opinion of any man But if Mr. Fitzherbert had not meant to cauill and to take euery idle occasion to carpe at my wordes without cause hee might easily haue seene by those wordes of mine which heere hee citeth out of my Apologeticall Preface and to which in my Admonition I remitted the Reader that when I affirmed that absolute Princes are not vnderstood to be comprehended in penall lawes vnlesse they be expressed by name my meaning was that they are not vnderstood to bee comprehended in penall lawes vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis of Lords Magistrates Iudges Land-lords and such like generall names which denote some inferiour office dignitie or honour but they must be expressed by the names of the honour and dignitie which are proper to them as an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest nor the Pope vnder the name of a Bishop For to affirme that absolute Princes as likewise Abbots and Bishops are not comprehended in penall lawes enacted by the Church vnder no generall names although they denote no peculiar office honour dignity or function by which some persons are distinguished from others had beene indeede somewhat absurd And so these Canons heere alledged by Mr. Fitzherbert Omnis vtriusque sexus c. Si quis suadente diabolo c. and out of the Bull in caena Domini or such like are nothing to the purpose for that they are not such generall names which denote any peculiar office honour dignitie or function by which some men are distinguished from others and therefore this my Aduersaries first Answere is nothing at all against my doctrine 5 Secondly I say saith Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 150. nu 3. that Widdrington might haue done well to haue told vs or at least quoted in his margent as he doth not in what Lawyers we may finde that priuiledge or exemption of Princes whereof he speaketh for sure I am that they who write of Princes make no mention thereof as may be seene in Restaurus Castaldus Restaur Castald q. 110. de Imper. who setteth downe aboue a hundred priuiledges of the Emperour and yet doth not mention any such 6 But first the Reader may easily perceiue that the reason which I brought why
deserued punishments threatned against them may keepe immooueable and without perturbation the peace of the holy Churches of God Giuen the eight Calends of Iune Asclepius and Deodatus most excellent men being Consulls 17 Now what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to this ancient decree of Pope Liberius which hee wisheth mee well to note wherein it is decreed that Bishops if they perturbe the peace of the Church shall be depriued of their Priesthood by Regall or Kingly indignation For that secular men being placed in dignity may be depriued of their honour and dignity and if they be priuate men yet noble may forfeit all their goods and if they be ignoble may be whipped or perpetually banished by Regall or Kingly power or indignation which this Canon also of what credit soeuer it be doth ordaine is not any way repugnant to my doctrine Thus thou seest good Reader how grosly thou art abused through the fraud or ignorance of this vnlearned man who neuertheles presumeth to direct thy soule and conscience in this so high and dangerous a point of thy allegeance due to God and man wherein he cleerely sheweth himselfe to haue so little skill 18 Thirdly in what sense I affirmed that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes vnder generall words vnlesse they be expressed by name for which respect also Mr. Fitzherbert wisheth me to note well this Canon of Pope Liberius I haue declared before to wit that they are not in such lawes comprehended vnder generall words which denote some inferiour office or title of honour for I neuer intended to denie as this man imposeth vpon me that they are not included in any generall words except they be specified by the name of Princes if such generall words denote no inferiour office or title of honour So that neither Hostiensis for as much as concerneth this Canon of Liberius contradicteth my doctrine because those generall words Qui contra pacem Ecclesiae They who are against the peace of the Church do denote no inferiour office or title of honour and although he were against my doctrine it is too little to the purpose seeing that other Lawyers and Diuines doe contradict him herein and moreouer this Canon cited by Hostiensis is neither authenticall and of sufficient credit nor any way gaine-saith that which I affirme concerning this poynt Pag. 151. nu 5. 19 Now you shall see the third testimony which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of Hostiensis And this saith he c will be much more cleare by the third testimony cited out of the Canon law by Hostiensis which hee taketh out of the title de haereticia Decret lib. 5. tit 7. de Haretices wherin there is no particular mention of absolute Princes by the name of Princes neither is there in any other Decree concerning their deposition but onely this Canon of the Councell of Lateran now in question so as Widdrington may see not onely that Kings and absolute Princes haue no such exemption from penall Lawes as he pretendeth but also that they are included in the generall tearmes ouen of this Canon of the Councell of Lateran in the opinion of a famous Canonist who wrote not past fiftie yeares after the said Councell And if he say that they haue had this exemption or priuiledge since that time let him shew vs when and where they had it which I am sure he cannot doe as it may appeare by the Canonists who comprehend absolute Princes in other penall lawes wherein they are not otherwise mentioned then in generall tearmes as he may see in Simanca in his Institutions d Tit. 23. and Emericus in his third part of the Directorie e Q. 31. and Penna in his Annotations vpon the f Annot. 96. same 20 But first it is vntrue that in the whole title dehaereticis there is not any other Canon or decree concerning the deposition of Princes except this Decree of the Lateran Councell if wee once suppose as Hostiensis doth suppose that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for this once supposed they may very well bee included in the last Canon of this title De haereticis wherein Pope Gregory the ninth doth Decree and declare that whosoeuer are bound or obliged to manifest heretickes by any couenant strengthened with neuer so great securitie are absolued from the bond of all allegiance homage and obedience for in those words whosoeuer and manifest heretickes and such like generall tearmes which denote no title of office honour or dignity inferiour to Kingly maiesty all men whatsoeuer euen Kings and absolute Princes may be included if it be once granted that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes But because it is probable as I haue prooued at large aboue in this Treatise that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath no authority to depose temporall Princes or to inflict temporall punishments it consequently followeth that it is also probable that neither the aforesaid Canon Absolutos nor any other Canon made in such generall words wherein temporall punishments are inflicted can comprehend absolute Princes but that all such like Canons are made either by the Pope as he is a temporall Prince and consequently are of force onely in the territories of the Church or the Popes temporall dominions or else that they are made by the consent of temporall Princes and haue their force to binde from their authority and consequently doe concerne onely inferiour persons or subiects and not absolute Princes themselues who are free from the coerciue power of those lawes which are made by their owne authority 21 So that although I will not now contend neither doe I much regard of what opinion Hostiensis bee concerning the sense and meaning of this Canon of the Lateran Councell yet it is plaine that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not hitherto prooued out of Hostiensis as hee pretended to prooue that absolute Princes are comprehended in the penall lawes of the Church vnder such generall names which denote some office honour dignitie or title inferiour to Kingly Maiestie Neither doeth Simancas Emericus or Pegna in the places cited by my Aduersarie teach contrarie to my doctrine in this point to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are vnderstood by the generall name of Monkes Bishops by the generall name of Priests and Emperours Kings and absolute Princes by the generall name of Dominus temporalis a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord. 22 For Simancas in the 23. title cited by my Aduersarie nu 10. doth cleerely distinguish betwixt Dominos temporales and Reges temporall Lords and Kings and nu 11. hee proueth that hereticall Kings and Princes are forthwith deposed and their subiects absolued from their allegiance by the aforesaide Canon Absolutos of Gregorie the ninth which as I saide is a sufficient proofe supposing as hee doeth that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue
subiects from their temporall allegiance but because this supposition of his is not certaine his proofe grounded thereon cannot bee certaine And Emericus in the 31. question cited by my Aduersarie to prooue that the Inquisitours haue authoritie to proceede against Kings bringeth only the authoritie of Pope Clement the 4. and Vrbanus the 4. and those generall words contained in their Breues of what condition dignitie or degree soeuer they be and the same only confirmeth Pegna in his Commentarie vpon that question which doth not contradict my doctrine for I neuer denyed that in penall lawes absolute Princes may not be comprehended vnder such generall words supposing as they suppose which I deny that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may inflict temporall punishments 23 But secondly and principally albeit these Doctours should as in the places cited by my Aduersarie they doe not contradict my doctrine in this point concerning the not comprehending of Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes Bishops of Priestes and absolute Princes vnder generall names of temporall Lords Gouernours Potestaes and such like yet it were little to the purpose seeing that other learned Lawyers and Diuines as I haue shewed before doe agree with mee in this point And therefore to prooue my doctrine in this point to bee absurd and improbable as this man after his vaine glorious bragging fashion boasteth it to bee it is not sufficient as I said and this I wish him to note well to bring the authoritie of one two twentie yea a hundred Lawyers or Diuines if other learned Lawyers and Diuines although the farre fewer in number doe contradict them therein 24 Now let vs proceede to the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts discourse And whereas saith hee g p. 151. nu 6. Widdrington seemeth also to ground this his deuise vpon two rules of the law to wit that in penall Lawes the milder or more fauourable part is to bee chosen and that odious things are to bee restrained and fauours amplified the same is commonly true when the text of the Law is so obscure or the case so doubtfull that two or more opinions may bee probably gathered thereof touching the quantitie or qualitie of the paine and how farre and to whom the same is to bee extended for in these cases of debt or such like the more fauourable or lesse rigorous opinion is to be followed but in this Canon both the words and sense are so cleare that hitherto no doubt hath beene made amongst the Canonists whether Kings or absolute Princes are comprehended therein 25 It is very true that my aforesaid answere to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters an Abbot is not included in the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop in the generall name of a Priest or Clerke nor a King in the generall name of a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord or the like I did partly ground vpon those rules of the law and partly vpon the authoritie of learned Lawyers and Diuines who as you haue seene doe confirme the same and therefore the wordes and sense of this Canon are not so cleare but that those Authours will consequently deny that Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not in this Canon comprehended vnder those generall words of a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord as neither an Abbot is according to them in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest or Clerke nor a King vnder the generall name of a Land-lord Gouernour or also Lord. And if the wordes and sense of this Canon bee so cleare as this man would make it to bee I wonder that neither Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies nor Molina nor Corduba nor Victoria nor D. Sanders nor Azor vehement defenders of the Popes authoritie to depose absolute Princes could not see the cleare sense of this Canon whereof they could not bee ignorant thereby to confirme their doctrine by a manifest decree of a generall Councell without flying to the particular facts of Popes oftentimes deposing Kings and Emperours which all learned men know to be no good argument to prooue that the Pope hath true right and authoritie so to doe 26 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert h pag. 152. these rules haue many exceptions which are very considerable and haue place in this case For first whereas all the obscuritie that can be imagined in this Canon and case is in the generall words Dominus temporalis and non habens Dominum principalem the Lawyers teach vs that verba generalia non dicuntur obscura generall words are not said to be obscure And the Lawyers also teach that in penall lawes and odious matters such generall words as denote some inferiour dignitie order title office or function as a temporall or principall Lord Gouernour Iudge or Land-lord a Monke a Clerke and a Priest are obscure and are not vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes Abbots or Bishops 27 Secondly this rule of restriction saith hee is not to bee vnderstood quantum ad vim verborum of the force of the words and therefore the Lawyers also teach that penalties are to be extended as farre as the proprietie of the words doe permit And the Lawyers also teach vs that in penall lawes and odious matters such generall words as denote some inferiour title dignitie office order or function are not to bee extended as farre as the priorietie of the wordes doe permit and that therefore an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Lord Gouernour or Land-lord albeit an Abbot bee properly a Monke and a Bishop be properly a Priest and a King be properly a Lord Gouernour and Land-lord But Mr. Fitzherbert doeth not distinguish betwixt proper as it is distinguished from improper or metaphoricall in which sense it is true that the words of penall lawes are to bee vnderstood in a proper sense and not to bee restrained to an improper or metaphoricall sense and as proper is distinguished from common or generall in which sense an Abbot is not properly a Monke nor a Bishop is properly a Priest nor a King is properly a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord for that a Monke is not the proper name of an Abbot nor a Priest the proper name of a Bishop nor a temporall Lord the proper name of a King but they are names which are common also to inferiour Monkes inferiour Priests and inferiour Lords 28 Thirdly the rule saith hee faileth when the reason is expressed as it is in this Canon But Mr. Fitzherbert should haue declared what reason expressed in the law is required to haue the aforesaid rule to faile For in this Canon of the Lateran Councell there is no reason expressed why Dominus temporalis a temporall Land lord Gouernour or Lord must comprehend absolute Princes For the end and reason of
Councell are very probable and sufficient and that therefore Mr. Fitzherberts conclusion of this Chapter to vse his owne words is no lesse vaine impertinent and insufficient then of his former Chapters for these be his words k Pag. 154 nu 10. Thus thou seest good Reader that these few exceptions being all that Widdrington hath taken to the Councell of Lateran in his answere to my Supplement are no lesse vaine and impertinent then his former arguments and answeres to the rest of my discourse and this is as much as at the first I meant and vndertooke to performe neuerthelesse forasmuch as he hath charged me to haue dissembled his other answeres and arguments touching the Councell of Lateran in another worke of his which as I haue signified before I neuer saw till now of late I will take a little more paines and craue thy further patience whiles I examine the validitie thereof which I might forbeare to doe if I did write in Latin because the same arguments and answeres of my Aduersary are very learnedly and cleerely confuted in Latin as well by M. D. Weston l Iuris Pontif. Sanctuar q. 27. per totum in his Sanctuary whereof I haue spoken before as also by M. D. Singleton in an excellent Treatise concerning onely the Decree of the Councell of Lateran to which two Authours I might and would wholly remit my Reader m Disscussio decreti c. nu 4. seq were it not that I desire to giue satisfaction in this point as well to such as doe not vnderstand the Latin tongue as to those that haue not the commodity and meanes to see the said Treatises besides that I shall now and then vpon some speciall occasions touch some things which seeme to me very considerable and are not touched by them or any other for ought I know 39 But on the contrary side thou seest good Reader that these answeres which I haue giuen to the Councell of Lateran are sound sufficient and very probable and that the exceptions which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken against them are no lesse vaine and impertinent then are his arguments and answeres in the former Chapters and that according to his owne confession who granteth that all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and therefore the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Canons is extended onely to them who are subiect to the authoritie of the Church if it be probable that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue by the institution of Christ no authoritie to inflict temporall punishments and that consequently absolute Princes are not subiect to them therein it cleerely followeth that it is also probable that the Councell of Lateran did not intend to include absolute Princes in that penall law vnder the generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis but that this decree inflicting temporall punishments was made by the authority and consent of temporall Princes and did therefore onely include those inferiour Land-lords Gouernours or Lords that were subiect to them 40 Wherefore to conclude this point vnlesse as I said before my Aduersaries doe first prooue out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleere definition of a generall Councell or a demonstratiue reason grounded thereon that it is certaine and of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes they cannot draw any conuincing argument from this Canon of the Lateran Councell to prooue that doctrine to be certaine and of faith for still the aforesaid answere will bee ready at hand that it was made by the authority of temporall Princes seeing all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as Almaine and very many Doctours doe affirme So that vnlesse in arguing from the Lateran Councell they will manifestly petere principium and suppose that which they ought to prooue they can neuer bring any conuincing argument from the aforesaid Canon to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes as any man of iudgement may cleerely see but they must still suppose the same as certaine which is a great vice in the disputer although the answerer who taketh not vpon to prooue but onely to defend may without any fault or note giue such answeres which suppose that the Pope hath no such power vntill by force of argument he be driuen from that his supposition and this I wish the Reader and all my Aduersaries well to note for in most of their arguments they suppose that which is in question which is a fault in the Disputant but not in the Respondent who doth alwaies answere supposing his owne grounds and doctrine but the Disputer must not onely suppose them but also prooue them And as for the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Replies which he confesseth to haue taken out of D. Weston and D. Singleton I will also examine with him in the ensuing Chapters as also that which he hath now and then as he saith vpon some speciall occasions touched and which seeme to him very considerable and yet are not for ought he knoweth touched by them or any other CHAP. XI Wherein Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to be sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessarie to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Also the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined And lastly Mr-Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the Decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the Constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted 1 NOw Mr. Fitzherbert with the helpe of D. Weston and Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name taketh vpon him in the three next ensuing Chapters to prooue three answeres which I gaue to an obiection made in fauour of this Decree of the Lateran Councell to bee absurd And thus he beginneth My Aduersary Widdrinton in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere to an English Doctour hath not onely vrged the arguments Praefat. Ad. Resp Apolog. nu 46. which I haue heere alreadie confuted but vndertaketh also to answere certaine of ours against the same arguments and therefore he obiecteth in our behalfe that although it were true that Kings and absolute Princes are not included per se and principally in that Decree of the Councell yet it seemeth to be manifest that secondarily and consequently they are or at least may be comprehended therein For if the Pope saith he haue power to depriue the subiects of other Princes of their temporall states for heresie without the consent of the said Princes it seemeth that no sufficient reason can be assigned why he may not also for the same cause depriue Soueraigne Princes of their Dominions 2 Thus argueth he for
Decretalls And thus much concerning Hostiensis and his answere alledged by Parisiensis to great purpose whatsoeuer my Aduersarie giuing ouermuch credit to Fa. Lessius hath vntruly saide to the contrary 7 Now concerning Ioannes Parisiensis Mr. Fitzherbert writeth thus a Pag. 158. nu 4. But it is no maruaile if Ioannes Parisiensis shewed himselfe partiall towards Princes in some things concerning the Popes authority seeing that he liued and was a Reader in Paris in the time of the troubles betwixt Pope Boniface the eight and Philip le Bel King of France who being excommunicated by the said Pope and extreamely incensed against him could not want learned men to second his humor especially such as were his borne subiects and liued within his dominions Neuerthelesse howsoeuer Ioannes Parisiensis may seeme in the words alleadged by my Aduersary to affirme that the Pope hath no power at all to dispose of temporall things yet it is cleere that he teacheth elsewhere that in some cases the Pope may dispose of the temporall goods not onely of Ecclesiasticall persons but also of all the faithfull 8 And of this Widdrington might haue taken notice when he wrote against me if it had pleased him seeing that he was admonished thereof by Schulckenius b Shulck pag. 64. who sheweth that Ioannes Parisiensis teacheth expresly c Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Papali cap. 7. that the Pope being the supreme head of Priests and of the faithfull may as the generall informer of faith and manners dispose the goods of the faithfull and decree them to bee exposed so farre foorth as the common and extreame necessitie of faith and manners shall require and f Ibid. cap. 13. further that if the King be an hereticke and incorrigible the Pope may not onely excommunicate him but also force the people to depose him Excommunicando omnes qui ei vt Domino obedirent Excommunicating all those which should obey him as their Lord and againe afterwards he saith g Ibid. cap. 16. that if the Prince be an hereticke his vassall is not bound to follow him and that the Pope may deliuer his subiects from the obligation of their oath of allegiance 9 By all this it appeareth that albeit Ioannes Parisiensis doth giue lesse vnto the Pope then he ought as Schulckenius well noteth yet he giueth him as much as sufficeth for our purpose seeing that it little importeth to the substance of the maine question betwixt our Aduersary and vs which is whether the Pope may depose a temporall Prince I say it little importeth how and in what manner he may doe it whether by a Iuridicall sentence of deposition or otherwise so as it is granted that he hath authoritie to discharge the Princes subiects of their Oath of allegiance yea and to compell them to depose him which Ioannes Parisiensis expresly teacheth wherevpon it may be inferred that his meaning was in the place before obiected that the Pope may not dispose of temporall things directly but onely indirectly and in some cases which ouerthrowe the foundation of our Aduersaries doctrine touching this question and this may suffice for him and Hostiensis 10 But first besides that Ioannes Parisiensis was neuer taxed by any ancient Authour for writing partially in fauour of the King of France the like words that Mr. Fitzherbert heere vseth against Ioannes Parisiensis may be retorted backe vpon Hostiensis and diuers other Diuines and Canonists to wit that it is no maruaile that Cardinall Hostiensis and diuers other Romane Diuines and Canonists shewed themselues partiall towards Popes in some things concerning the Popes authoritie seeing that they liued and were Readers in Rome or in the Popes Dominions in the time of the troubles betwixt the Popes and Christian Princes which Popes since the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth tooke vpon them to dispose of all temporalls and to depose temporall Princes and therefore could not want learned men to second their humours especially such as either were their borne subiects and liued in their Dominions or else might expect spirituall preferment and to be aduanced to Bishoprikes or other spirituall dignities by the Pope and this also the said Ioannes Parisiensis in the same booke doth well obserue But more probably saith he h Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Papali cap. 21. ad 41. arg it may be said on the contrary side that those Doctours who so vndutifully aduance the Popes authoritie doe speake for feare or fauour of him seeing that they are Clergie men who may rather bee promoted by him and especially seeing that they themselues doe say though not well that the Pope doth graciously embrace those that doe extend or amplifie his authoritie and represseth those that speake against the same 11 Secondly Ioannes Parisiensis doth not teach that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporall things and of the temporall goods not onely of Ecclesiasticall persons but also of all the faithfull except onely by declaring the law of God and by compelling the faithfull by Ecclesiasticall censures to obserue the same haec Papae ordinatio non est nisi iuris declaratio this ordaining or disposing of the Pope is nothing else then a declaring of the Law of God saith Parisiensis in that very place i Cap. 7 and this I haue declared and prooued at large aboue in the first part against D. Schulckenus And the same hee teacheth concerning the absoluing of vassalls from their oath of fealtie To that saith hee k Cap. 16. ad 11. which is obiected that the Pope hath sometimes absolued souldiers from their oath of fealtie Besides that it is an argument De facto which is onely introduced concerning French-men I answere that it was rather a declaring of the law to wit that the Oath did not bind in that case then an absoluing from the oath of fealtie Now what Catholike man maketh doubt but that the Pope hath authoritie to declare the Law of God it being a spirituall thing and proceeding from spirituall power 12 Wherefore as I declared at large aboue in the first part Ioannes Parisiensis teacheth three things The one is that the Pope hath no authority to depose or depriue by way of sentence an hereticall Prince of his Royall right and authority and this is the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee The second is that the Pope hath power to declare and interprete the law of God and to compell by Ecclesiasticall Censures all the faithfull to obserue the same and in this I agree with Parisiensis sauing that there is yet a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and Paris what things are required to make the Popes definition declaration or interpretation to be certaine and infallible as also inferiour Bishops haue authority to declare and interpret the law of God and to compell their spirituall subiects to obserue the same yet their declaration and interpretation of the law of God is not alwaies
of Princes confounding and inuoluing both questions concerning the authoritie of the Pope and also of the common-wealth to depose Princes together in one and then in affirming that Widdrington hath not brought any one Authour only D. Barclay excepted who saith that Princes for heresie cannot be deposed to wit neither by the Pope nor the common-wealth which is very true but it is not true that he hath brought no Authours who absolutely affirme that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes and that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments 38 An other cunning the Lord Cardinall of Peron may vse in confounding the oath or religious bond of temporall allegiance with the ciuill or naturall bond thereof which perchance he did for this end that his speech concerning the Popes authority to absolue from the oath of allegiance might seeme more plausible to his audience for that an oath is a sacred and spirituall thing and therefore not exceeding the obiect of the Popes spirituall power and all Diuines doe hold that the Pope hath authority to absolue from oathes either by releasing directly the spirituall bond it selfe or consequently by declaring the thing which is sworne not to be hic nunc in this particular case a fit matter of an oath but temporall allegiance and temporall kingdomes are temporall things and therefore that the Pope by his spirituall power should haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things and to absolue from temporall allegiance and to giue take away translate and dispose of temporall kingdomes would haue seemed very harsh in the yeeres of the greatest part of true French-men z In Apol. nu 148. 149. 39 But besides that as I haue shewed elsewhere the Pope cannot according to the doctrine of S. Thomas and his followers absolue from the oath of temporall allegiance but by declaring the naturall or ciuill bond it selfe of temporall allegiance to be voyd and of no force and consequently to be no fit matter to be sworne it little importeth to the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee touching the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance whether the Pope can release or take away the spirituall bond and obligation of the oath of allegiance it being a sacred and spirituall thing and made onely to confirme and corrobarate the former naturall bond of temporall allegiance For it doth not follow as wel noteth Ioannes Parisiensis Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. c. 16. ad 11 and I also obserued in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. that because the Pope can release or take away the sacred and religious bond of temporall allegiance he can also release and dissolue the naturall and ciuill bond wherein all subiects by the law of God and nature stand bound to their temporall Prince before they make any oath of temporall allegiance and very few subiects in comparison of others doe vsually make any such oath of allegiance And therefore perchance the Cardinall would for the cause aforesaid rather discourse of the Popes power to absolue subiects from the oath that is the sacred and spirituall bond of temporall allegiance then to depose Princes and to take away their Crownes and Regall authority which being taken away both their temporall allegiance and also the sacred and spirituall bond thereof is by a necessary consequent foorthwith dissolued 37 And to omit diuerse other cunning shifts which the Cardinall of Peron hath vsed in his discourse touching the deposition of hereticall Princes and which the Kings Maiesty in his answere to the Cardinalls oration hath in my opinion very cleerely and excellently discouered two notable cunnings or rather fraudes he hath vsed in translating into French the decree of the Councell of Lateran whereof now wee treat The first is in translating into French those words Si Dominus temporalis if any Prince whereas it is manifest that those words Dominus temporalis doe signifie euery Land-lord Maior Iudge Consull Potesta Gouernour Shiriffe Bayliffe Constable or any other inferiour Officer or Pettie Lord and although the Cardinall will perchance affirme that in those generall wordes Dominus temporalis all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are included which neuerthelesse I haue aboue confuted yet to translate those words Dominus temporalis any Prince as though the Councell had named Princes expresly and by the name of Princes cannot in my opinion bee excused from an egregious fraud and falshood The second is in translating those words vt ipse Summus Pontifex Vasallos ab eius fidelitate denunciet abfolutos that he the Pope may absolue his subiects from their oath of fidelitie whereas the words of the Councel only are that he may denounce or declare his Vassals absolued from their fidelity which words of the Councell doe expresly signifie that the vassalls were before absolued from their fidelity either by the decrees of Popes or of temporall Princes and that the Pope doth onely denounce or declare them absolued besides that the word vassalls he translateth subiects which haue farre different significations and that word a fidelitate from their fidelity he translateth from their oath of fidelity which in a Translator who is to set downe not only the sense but also the words cannot bee excused from an egregious corruption 38 Lastly I would gladly be resolued of this question either by the Cardinall of Peron or any other learned Catholike whether if the Doctours of Sorbon who hold the doctrine of the Councells superiority aboue the Pope to be true and conforme to the word of God and to the definitions of the generall Councels of Constance and Basil and consequently the contrary doctrine to be false impious and detestable and contrary to the word of God should make a decree that all of their Vniuersity should in their publike Readings Disputations and writings defend it as certaine that is should not maintaine or teach the contrary doctrine as probable or in any sort Or if the Doctours of Mentz who are of opinion that the doctrine for the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin is true conforme to the word of God and to the decree of the Councell of Basil and that the contrary is false and against the word of God and consequently impious and detestable should also make a Decree as Surius affirmeth b Vpon the yeere 1501. they haue done imitating saith he the decree of the Councell of Basil that it should bee altogether held that the most blessed mother of God was conceiued without the spot of originall sinne and did strictly ordaine that none heereafter should in that Vniuersitie bee promoted in sacred Diuinitie vnlesse he should before by oath make promise that he would neither maintaine in his minde nor any wise approoue the contrary opinion and the same question may be made concerning the Iesuites doctrine de auxilijs gratiae whether I say it must
from hence bee necessarily inferred that the aforesaid Doctours should thereby take vpon them to determine an article of faith to make a manifest and ineuitable schisme in the Church of God yea and to precipitate men into a manifest heresie and account the Pope if he should not hold the same not to bee the head of the Church and Christs Vicar but an hereticke and Antichrist and all the other parts of the Church who should maintaine the contrary not to bee true parts of the Church but members of Antichrist Of this question I would gladly be resolued for the resolution thereof would giue no small light whereby the iudicious Reader may see of what force are the chiefest obiections and inferences that the Cardinall of Peron vrgeth aginst the oath of France and the decree of the Parliament of Paris made the second of Ianuary 1615. 39 And thus much concerning the Lord Cardinall of Peron whom in truth I was very loath to mention for the great reuerence and respect wherewith I honour his Grace in regard of the singular gifts of honour and nature wherewith he is adorned but that the defence of truth in this important question touching our duties to God and Caesar and of my innocency which the slanderous tongues of some haue vniustly branded with the infamous note of errour and heresie for impugning their new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes and also the publishing of his oration to the view of the world wherby many vnlearned Catholikes not being able to discerne his artificiall and cunning manner both in propounding and handling this dangerous question touching the deposition of Princes are pittifully deluded and seduced haue vrged me thereunto Now to the matter from whence vpon this occasion giuen me by my Aduersarie touching the doctrine of Ioannes Parisiensis I haue made this digression 40 And as for the matter it selfe saith Mr. Fitzherbert c pag. 160. n. 7. for the which my Aduersary Widdrington produceth their testimonies to wit to prooue that many decrees of the Popes and generall Councells touching temporall things haue beene alwaies made with the expresse Nu. 47. or secret consent of Princes I cannot see what he could gaine or prooue thereby for the question now in hand if it should be granted him For would hee inferre that because many things haue beene decreed by Popes and Councels touching temporall matters therefore no such thing could be decreed in the Councell of Lateran without them Who seeth not the weakenesse and absurditie of this inference seeing that nothing else can follow of those premisses directly but that as diuers other decrees concerning temporall matters haue beene made with the consent of the Princes so also it may be that this Canon of the Councell of Lateran was made in like manner with their consent which no man will deny yea wee willingly grant not onely that it might bee so but also that it was so and inferre thereupon that forasmuch as all Christian Princes gaue their consent to this Canon in that famous generall Councell which was as I may say the Parliament of all Christendome therefore they are and euer shall be subiect thereto except it be repealed by some other generall Councell of like authoritie But how doth it follow that because this and diuers other Canons concerning politicall matters haue beene ratified by temporall Princes therefore they could not be lawfully made without their consent which is the point that Widdrington must prooue if he will argue to the purpose 41 But if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased to consider with an indifferent eye my answere and the principall drift and scope thereof he might easily haue seene that my answere was good and strong and the authority which I brought from Ioannes Parisiensis and Hostiensis sufficient to confirme the same For my principall answere was this that the decree of the Councell of Lateran did not in those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominos principales comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour Landlords Magistrates or Lords it being made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes as ordaining the inflicting of temporall punishments which to ordaine doth not belong to the spirituall but onely to the temporall power and that therefore not onely it did not but also it could not in those generall words comprehend absolute Princes themselues by whose authority it was made And to preuent an obiection which I foresaw some might make to wit that the decrees and Canons of Popes and Councels haue their force to binde from the authority of the Church and not from the consent approbation ratification or authority of temporall Princes I gaue the aforesaid answere that Popes and Councels doe oftentimes ordaine many things which to ordaine belongeth rather to the ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power by the expresse or tacite consent of Princes who are present by themselues or their Ambassadours or else presuming or at leastwise hoping that temporall Princes will ratifie the same and for the confirmation hereof I brought the authority of Hostiensis who affirmeth that according to the opinion of some Doctors which also Pope Innocent Io. Andreas doe affirme that the Canon Ad abolendam de haereticis wherein it is ordained that if Counts and Barons Rectours and Consuls of Cities and of other places doe refuse to take an oath to defend the Church against heretikes they shall be depriued of their honour had therefore force to binde because the Emperour gaue his consent thereunto And that therefore it is no maruaile if this decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments had therefore force to binde for that temporall Princes consented thereunto 42 And by this it is cleare that my meaning was not onely to affirme that the decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made by the consent of absolute Princes onely in that manner as absolute Princes do giue their consent to the making of Ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons which doe meerely proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authority but also that it was made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that to ordaine the inflicting of temporall punishments belongeth rather to the Ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power and therfore it would not haue had force to binde vnlesse absolute Princes had consented thereunto As likewise the Canon Ad abolendam wherein temporall punishments were inflicted was therefore of force according to the opinion of some Canonists as Hostiensis relateth for that the Emperour consented thereunto although the ordaining or inflicting of Excommunication which in that Canon Ad abolendam was ioyned together with the depriuation of temporall honour as it is also ioyned in the decree of the Lateran Councell did proceed and had force to binde from the spirituall authoritie of the Church to whom onely it belongeth to inflict
temporall Princes impose enioyne or command temporall and corporall penalties afflictions and punishments and in this sense ordaine and depose of them For thus he writeth 59 Heereto may be added saith hee q Pag. 162. nu 10. 11. the Constitution of the Apostles themselues in their Councell held at Hierusalem wherein they imposed vpon the Christians a burden as they called it whereof part was meerely temporall to wit to abstaine from blood and that which was strangled Act. 15. Visum est say they Spiritui sancto nobis c. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from things immolated to Idolls and blood and that which is strangled and fornication Thus said they in their Canon disposing as you see of a temporall thing by their owne Apostolicall authoritie without any hope or expectation of the consent or ratification of any temporall Magistrate as they also did the like in the institution of Lent which as all the Fathers doe acknowledge is an Apostolicall tradition and consisteth in a meere temporall affliction and the like may be said not onely of all the examples alledged by mee before r See c. 2. nu 2 3. 4. concerning the practise of the Apostles partly in Å¿ Act 5.6 13 corporall punishments and partly in the disposition t 1. Cor. 6. of temporall things but also of the custome of the primitiue Church to impose corporall penances u Cypr. epist 10 ad Clerum Tertul. de paenit cap. 10. consisting in fasting watching wearing of haire-cloth and such like which albeit they were temporall things yet were imposed by the Church vpon her children by her owne authority though alwayes for a spirituall end to wit for the good of soules and Gods greater glory and seruice 60 Whereupon it followeth that the Church may also now in like manner dispose of temporall things to the same end by her owne authority without demanding the consent or ratification of any temporall Prince for no sufficient reason can bee assigned why the Church could doe it then and not now neither yet why it may for a spirituall end punish a man temporally in his body by some corporall affliction and in his honour by infamy and not in his temporall goods and state especially seeing that all temporall goods are inferiour to the body and both body and goods ordained for the seruice of the soule and for spirituall ends Whereupon I say it followeth euidently that the consent of temporall Princes is altogether needlesse to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions concerning temporall things albeit the Church hath alwaies vsed to auaile her selfe of their authoritie and power for the execution of all her Decrees as well spirituall as temporall matters and to that end admitteth and requireth the assistance of temporall Princes or their Ambassadours in generall Councells so as by all this it appeareth euidently that the Councell of Lateran needed not the consent or ratification of the Emperour or other temporall Princes for the validitie of the Canon now in question and consequently that my Aduersaries first answere to the obiection proposed by himselfe is to no purpose 61 Heere you see how Mr. Fitzherbert rangeth vp and downe to no purpose spending many words idly to prooue that which no man denieth to wit that the Church by her spirituall authoritie may without the consent of Princes command enioyne or impose temporall and corporall penalties which I haue alwaies granted yet craftily confounding in his inferences ordaining with commanding disposing with imposing and punishing temporally with enioyning temporall punishments which I haue euer distinguished He tooke vpon him as you heard to conuince by the practise of all the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours that corporall and temporall things were not onely commanded but also ordained by the Church without the ratification and consent of any temporall Prince because a little before x See nu 45. he doth acknowledge that I doe grant and expresly teach that the Pope hath power to command corporall and temporall things as they are reduced to spirituall and yet heere hee prooueth nothing else either by the Constitutions of the Apostles or by the practise of the primitiue Church but that spirituall Pastours may by their ordinary power for our question is not concerning the extraordinary power which the Apostles had to worke miracles command impose and enioyne temporall and corporall things as to abstaine from blood and that which is strangled from the eating of flesh vpon certaine daies as in Lent rather to suffer wrong and to appoint arbitrary Iudges among themselues to compose quietly their strifes then to haue recourse to the tribunalls of infidell Iudges and to doe corporall and temporall penances and that the Church may now also doe the same and that therefore the consent of temporall Princes is altogether needlesse to the validitie of such Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions which doe onely command impose or enioyne corporall and temporall penances and punishments and of this no Catholike maketh doubt 62 But that the primitiue Church did by her ordinary power for of miraculous and extraordinary power which is not to descend necessarily to Successours I doe not speake not onely command and impose but also did inflict temporall and corporall punishments without the consent of the party who was punished and did dispose of temporall things as to dispose is distinguished from to impose or command to wit by depriuing Christians of temporall right power and authority or that the consent and authority of temporall Princes is not necessary to the validity of such Ecclesiasticall Canons and Constitutions as is this decree of the Lateran Councell which is now in question wherein temporall punishments are not onely commaunded or imposed but also inflicted or that the assistance of temporall Princes or their Ambassadours is not onely required in generall Councells for the execution and not for the confirmation and validitie of such decrees wherein temporall punishments are inflicted and temporall things not onely commanded or imposed but also disposed of Mr. Fitzherbert hath not brought heere from the practise of the Primitiue Church so much as any probable or colourable much lesse as he vaunted any conuincing proofe and consequently my first answere to the obiection which I propounded standeth yet firme and solid and what he hath obiected to the contrary is to no purpose at all CHAP. XII Wherein an other answere of Widdrington grounded vpon certaine Glossers or Expositours of the Canon Law is confuted and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are prooued to be fraudulent and insufficient and moreouer it is shewed that from no Canon of the Church it can be prooued that the custome of the Church is to inflict by her spirituall power I doe not say to commaund or impose temporall penalties and the true difference betweene the Diuines and Canonists concerning
whereupon not only the Bishops but also 15. Noblemen of the Kings Pallace doe subscribe their names to the decrees of that Councell f See Binnius tom ◠Concil in Conc. Tolet. 12 And the Glosse it selfe expounding those words of this Canon Praeceptum ipsi sesuis meritis a Palatinae dignitatis officio separabunt It is an argument saith the Glosse that if any man contemne Excommunication the Secular Iudge or his Land-Lord hath power to depriue him of his feude or farme 23 Neither from any decree of the Canon law or from any glosse or exposition of Ioannes Teutonicus who glossed these decrees collected by Gratian can it be certainely gathered that the Church by her spirituall power which she receiued from Christ but onely by the grant and authority of temporall Princes may inflict temporall punishments for of her power to inflict spirituall censures and also to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties there is no controuersie betweene my Aduersaries and me Neither also from any of those foure glosses here cited by Mr. Fitzherbert to wit either vpon the Canon Attedendum which Canon as I shewed aboue is falsly attributed to Pope Vrbanus the second and by all probability the whole Canon Attendendū is forged and by some one or other inserted into that decretall Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Pope Vrbanus or vpon the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis or Licet de poenis which last Canon Licet is not glossed by Ioannes Teutonicus whose authority I brought vpon the Canon Hadrianus who expounded only the Decrees collected by Gratian and not the Decretals can it bee forcibly concluded that the Church that is the spirituall Pastours of the Church may without the authority and consent of temporall Princes inflict temporall punishments yea the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet de poenis here cited by my Aduersary doth clearely fauour my doctrine For demanding why Archdeacons doe exact of Lay-men a pecuniary penalty as it is mentioned in that Canon he answereth because perhaps they were vnder their temporall Iurisdiction or they haue this by custome 24 Neither from the practise of the Church which Mr. Fitzherbert doth so inculcate can any thing be conuinced against this my doctrine And hereof saith hee g Page 168. num 7. the practise is and hath alwaies beene most manifest in the Church and acknowledged by the Canonists to bee grounded on the Canons as partly hath appeared already and shall appeare further h Infra nu 12. 13. 14. 15. seq after a while and therefore I say that those Glosses obiected by Widdrington must either bee so vnderstood that they may agree the one with the other and with the Glosses of other Canons yea with the generall opinion and doctrine of the Canonists and with the whole course and practise of the Canon Law or else they are to be reiected as absurd erroneous and false 25 But although it bee true that for many hundreds of yeares since that Christian Princes haue indewed the Church with great power of ciuill Iurisdiction the practise of the Church hath beene to inflict pecuniarie mulcts yet it is not true that it was the practise of the primitiue Church to inflict but onely to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties and this onely can be prooued by any authenticall Canon as I haue shewed aboue by answering all the Canons which my Aduersary hath alleadged And although also since the time of Pope Gregory the 7. who was the first Pope that began to challenge to himselfe authority as due to him by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments to dispose of all temporals and to depose temporall Princes diuers Popes and other learned men haue with might and maine by fauours and threatnings laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise for which cause it is no maruaile as I haue elsewhere obserued i Apol. nu 449. that their opinion hath beene the more common and generall in Schooles yet for that it hath beene euer contradicted by Christian Princes and learned Catholikes for which cause Ioannes Azorius a learned Iesuite expresly saith k Azor. tom 2. lib. 12. ca. 5. q. 8. that it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether the Pope in certaine cases hath right and authority to depriue Kings of their Kingdomes and about this the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet the controuersie saith Trithemius l In Chro. monast Hirsang an 1106. is not decided by the Iudge and very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth doe denie that the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment m De Dominio natur ciuit Eccles conclus 2 in probatione illius but only spirituall censures It canot I say be truly called the general doctrine and practise of the Church neither are those Glosses and expositions of those Canonists who fauour this doctrine sufficient to decide the controuersie neither can the other Glosses and expositions which are grounded vpon the contrary doctrine and contradict the former glosses without grosse temeritie bee reiected as erroneous absurd and false 26 And truely in my opinion it is greatly to be maruailed and worthy also the obseruation that albeit for so many hundreds of yeeres both Popes and other Cleargie men haue so earnestly laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise of Pope Gregory the seuenth touching the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of temporalls which neuerthelesse Sigebert did not feare to call a nouelty Sigebert ad annum 1088. not to say an heresie yet considering the great opposition which this doctrine and practise hath euer had by reason whereof it was behoouing to haue the matter made cleere and out of controuersie yet I say there cannot be found any one Canon constitution or definition either of Pope or Councell generall or Prouinciall wherein it is plainly decreed that the Pope or Church hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose temporall Princes to dispose of temporalls or to inflict temporall punishments but the certaintie of this doctrine must chiefly bee grounded vpon the facts of Popes which how weake a ground it is to prooue a true right and authoritie any man of iudgement may plainly see and I haue also shewed elsewhere n Apol. nu 444 seq 27 Now then saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Page 168. num 8. seeing that the Glosser acknowledgeth in his former glosse that the Church doth by the Canon ordaine the confiscation of Lay-mens goods and depriuation of their dignities which is also confirmed by diuers other Canons and glosses and the practise of the Church it cannot as I haue said bee imagined that hee meant to contradict it by that which followeth either in the same glosse or in the other vpon the Canon
Delatori 28 But this hath beene at large already answered and first that albeit the former glosse doth acknowledge that the Church doth by this Canon ordaine the confiscation of Lay-mens goods and depriuation of their dignities which is also confirmed by the practise of the Church yet the former glosse doth not acknowledge that the Church doth ordaine this by that authoritie which shee hath receiued from Christ and not from the grant and priuiledges of Christian Princes whereof onely wee now dispute Secondly that those words of the former glosse confiscate and depose may well bee vnderstood in that sense wherein the same Glosser expoundeth the word depose in the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. and so as I shewed before the later glosse doth not contradict the former but it is rather an explication thereof and thirdly that albeit we should grant that the later glosse or exposition is repugnant to the former yet it is no absurdity for the same Glosser or Expositour to bring two contrarie glosses or expositions when they are grounded vpon the contrary opinions of learned Authours which may without any errour or absurditie be followed as I declared aboue by diuers examples 29 And therefore wee must distinguish saith Mr. Fitzherbert p Pag. 169. nu 8. betwixt the Canon and the execution thereof and say that when he affirmeth in the former Glosse that the Church teacheth there what ought to bee done and againe in the later that the Church teacheth what the Secular Iudge ought to doe he speaketh onely as the very words import of the execution of these two Canons giuing also to vnderstand that the execution of penall lawes doth belong sometimes to the Secular Iudge and not to the Ecclesiasticall especially in cases touching life and death or effusion of blood albeit in many other cases the Ecclesiasticall Iudge may not onely ordaine but also execute pecuniary and other temporall penalties in which respect the Councell of Trent which my Aduersarie Widdrington if he bee a Catholike as he pretendeth to bee must needes admit for a lawfull Councell decreeth that Ecclesiasticall Iudges shall abstaine from Censures when they may by their owne authority proceed against the delinquents by reall or personall execution So as I will conclude that these glosses which Widdrington alledgeth either doe make nothing against vs or if they doe they doe manifestly contradict as well themselues as other Glosses and many expresse Canons and the doctrine of all learned Canonists yea the whole course and continuall practise of the Canon law 30 But first as no man maketh doubt but that wee must distinguish betwixt Canons or lawes and the execution thereof so also no doubt can be made but that the Prince or Law-maker either spirituall or temporall who hath authority to make the Canon or law hath also authority to execute the same for that the executioner of the law is a meere Minister and Officer of the Prince who enacted the law and what he doth he doth not by his owne authoritie but by the authority committed to him by the Prince and therefore whatsoeuer a Prince either spirituall or temporall hath authority to execute by his Minister or Officer hee hath also authority to execute by himselfe Wherefore seeing that the Glosser doth expound these Canons alike as it may appeare by this that in the second Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus he remitteth the Reader to the Canon Delatori signifying thereby that both the Canon Hadrianus which ordaineth the confiscation of goods and also the Canon Delatori wherein the effusion of blood by mutilation and death is ordained are to bee vnderstood in the same sense if the meaning of the Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori was onely to teach that an Ecclesiasticall Iudge could not execute that Decree which ordaineth the effusion of blood but it must bee executed by a Secular Iudge his meaning also was in the Canon Hadrianus to teach that an Ecclesiasticall Iudge cannot also execute that decree which ordaineth the confiscation of goods which no man of learning can affirme for that Ecclesiasticall persons are not by the Canons of the Church forbidden to execute decrees which ordaine the confiscation of goods but onely those decrees which ordaine the effusion of blood albeit by the graunt and priuiledges of temporall Princes they may haue authority to execute the one and the other 31 Whereby secondly it is apparant that the Glosse affirming that the Church in both those Canons doth teach what a Secular Iudge ought to doe did not intend to speake onely of the execution of those Canons for that also a Secular Iudge whose office is to giue sentence and to declare the meaning of the law in this particular case or crime is not properly an Executioner of the law because after his sentence the law may still remaine not executed but also of the Decrees and Canons themselues and of the authority which the Church hath to make such Canons and to teach that the Church by her proper spirituall power which shee hath receiued from Christ hath not authority to make Decrees which ordaine the inflicting of temporall punishments whatsoeuer whether they bee criminall or onely ciuill for that the making of such Decrees belong onely to the Ciuill and not to the Ecclesiasticall power which according to the doctrine of very many Doctours whom the Glosser in the aforesaid Glosses doth follow is not extended to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures albeit by that ciuill power and iurisdiction which spirituall Pastours haue receiued by the grant of Secular Princes which their ciuill power and iurisdiction may bee also called sacred Ecclesiasticall and their owne power they haue authoritie to inflict as well criminall as ciuill punishments notwithstanding the Church hath forbid them to meddle with the effusion of blood And this temporall and ciuill authoritie and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours which the prohibition of the Church as I said before doth not take away the Councell of Trent calleth their owne authoritie although they haue receiued it not from the institution of Christ but from the grant of Secular Princes in that manner as the temporall goods of Church-men are called sacred Ecclesiasticall and their owne proper goods as I declared a little aboue out of Gerson 32 So as I will conclude that these two Glosses which I haue heere alledged doe greatly fauour my doctrine concerning the vncertaintie of the Popes power to inflict by the institution of Christ temporall punishments and doe no way contradict the course and practise of the Church or any Canon thereof and that albeit they were repugnant to themselues as also according to a probable exposition of the same Glosser I haue shewed they are not yet this were nothing to the purpose seeing that they are grounded vpon two contrary opinions taught and maintained by learned Catholikes although I will not deny that they are repugnant to many other Glosses and to the more common opinion
indeede very cleare for that point especially cap. Quisquis 27. q. 4. Where it is ordained that a sacrilegious person shall pay thirtie pounds of siluer to the Bishop or Abbot or any Ecclesiasticall Iudge to whom the knowledge of the cause shall appertaine as it may appeare both by the Canon and the Glosse Besides that Panormitan Panorm vbi supra whom Siluester citeth teacheth expresly that when the Bishop proceedeth iuridically and no certaine penaltie is ordained by the Law he may impose a penaltie of money though he cannot doe it when the Law ordaineth expresly an other except it be for a crime wherein he hath power to dispence for then he may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie though some other be assigned by the Law as I haue also shewed before u Supra nu 6. out of the Glosse in cap. Licet tit de poenis 38 This being then Panomitans doctrine approoued by Siluester who followeth him altogether in this question it appeareth that Widdrington might haue easily seene if it had pleased him that Siluester doth not any way fauour his opinion nor impugne our doctrine concerning the Popes power to dispose of temporall things in order to spirituall which is the principall question controuersed betwixt vs. You haue heard before x Chap. 11. nu 3. that Hostiensis expresly teacheth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and Siluester doth the like being also both of them of the number of the Canonists who teach y Hostiens in cap. Quod super his de voto voti redempt Siluest in Sum. verbo Papa nu 1. 11. 12. that the Pope hath a direct Dominion ouer temporall things no lesse then ouer spirituall and therefore it is euident that they cannot any way make for my Aduersarie Widdrington 39 But it is vntrue that I either dissembled or omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that the Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion but the reason why I omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to wit Sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this pleaseth not Panormitan was for that it did nothing import our question to know of what opinion either Panormitan or also Siluester himselfe were concerning that point for that which I intended to proue out of Siluesters words was this that it is no vndoubted point of faith but onely an opinion according to Siluester that Bishops can inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto them and the words of Siluester doe sufficiently shew that it is onely an opinion among the Canonists and therefore that either Panormitan or Siluester or any other Canonist be of the contrarie opinion it is nothing to the purpose Neither doth the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis cited by Panormitan and Siluester make against my doctrine foc they doe onely shew that a spirituall Iudge may inflict a pecuniarie mulct but that he may inflict it by his spirituall authoritie and consequently vpon Lay-men that are not temporally subiect vnto him without the consent of their temporall Prince they doe not shew and the Canon Quisquis which Mr. Fitzherbert thinketh to be so cleere in this point is taken out of an Epistle of Pope Iohn the eight wherein he commaunded that the decrees of a Councell called Trecense which was approoued by authoritie of Lewis the Emperour should be obserued and the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet tit de poenis doth expresly fauour my doctrine as I haue signified before 40 And albeit both Hostiensis and Siluester be themselues of opinion that the Pope is by the institution of Christ a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and hath direct dominion not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls and consequently that hee may inflict temporall punishments dispose of all temporalls and depose temporall Princes for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are according to their opinion subiect to him directly in temporalls and so in this point they make nothing for my doctrine yet they make greatly for my doctrine in this that by their answeres it may be plainely gathered that they hold it onely for an opinion as at this present I contend it onely to be and that other Authors doe not agree with them therein as to the answere of Hostiensis to the Canon Ad abolendam I haue shewed before and also by this answere of Siluester you may see more cleerely beneath in this I say it is euident that they greatly make for my doctrine 41 Besides that it little importeth saith Mr. Fitzher z Pag. 172. nu 15. 16. 17. whether the Bishop may according to the Canons impose a temporall penaltie vpon such Lay-men as are not his temporall subiects seeing he may by the opinion of those three whom my Aduersarie Widdrington alledgeth make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge or Magistrate in which case it is done by the Bishops authoritie and the Secular Magistrate is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will Furthermore put the case that the Bishop could not impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect will Widdrington conclude thereupon that therefore the Pope may not doe it Will he be so absurd to restraine the supreme iurisdiction of the Pope to the inferiour power of a Bishop as well might he say that a King can doe no more in like case then an inferiour temporall Magistrate and that because the Iudge cannot pardon a person condemned therefore the King cannot doe it who knoweth not that the Church hath prescribed to her Magistrates certaine limits for the exercise of their authoritie and iurisdiction allowing to some more and to some lesse which they cannot exceede Therefore it were absurd to say that a Bishop cannot excommunicate because a Parish-Priest cannot doe it But much more absurd and ridiculous it is to say that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis cannot dispose of temporall things in some cases because a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vp a Lay man that is not his temporall subiect as Widdrinton seemeth to argue for otherwise his obiection concerning the Bishops power is to no purpose So as you see vpon what probabilities he grounded his doctrine being found to be either fraudulent or impertinent in euery thing that hee vndertaketh to answere or obiect as you shall also further see by that which yet followeth for the confirmation of his pretended answere 42 But Mr. Fitzherbert seeketh still to blind his Readers vnderstanding with a confuse ambiguitie of equiuocall words For although it litle importeth whether a Bishop may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect or make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge by forcing the Iudge thereunto not onely by spirituall but also by temporall compulsion or coercion seeing that in this case it is done by the
Bishops authoritie and the Seculiar Iudge is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will yet that a Bishop may only make a pecuniarie penaltie to be inflicted by a Seculiar Iudge by forcing him thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures and not by temporall compulsion this doth very much import and altogether fauour my doctrine For I doe not now contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as by the institution of Christ it is directiue or which is all one commaunding imposing or inioyning for I doe not denie as I haue often said that spirituall Pastours may by their spirituall authoritie commaund impose and inioyne temporall Princes to make temporall lawes as Saint Ambrose did the Emperour Theodosius and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good in which case those lawes are not made nor those temporall penalties are inflicted by the authoritie of spirituall Pastours as though temporall Princes were only their instruments and Ministers to execute their wills as inferiour Magistrates are onely instruments and Ministers to execute the will of the Prince but I doe now onely contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing and I vtterly denie that it is a certaine and vndoubted point of faith that the spirituall coerciue power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Secondly that fraude and impertinencie which Mr. Fitzherbert doth vntruely attribute to my answeres and obiections I haue clearely shewed to bee found in euery one of his Replies And as touching that absurditie which he now obiecteth against my answere it is cleere that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me is not concerning the power which either the Pope or inferiour Bishops haue by the grant consent and authoritie of temporall Princes I doe not say to commaund impose or inioyne but to inflict temporall penalties vpon Lay-men who are not their temporall subiects but whether any spirituall Pastour whether he be an inferiour Bishop or also the Pope himselfe hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict such temporall penalties And indeed my purpose is to conclude that because it is probable that an inferiour Bishop hath no such authoritie by the institution of Christ iure diuino therefore it is also probable that the Pope iure diuino and by the institution of Christ hath no such authority and vpon what probabilitie this my consequence is grounded and how absurdly Mr. Fitzherbert condemneth it of ridiculous absurditie you shall forthwith perceiue Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. 3 44 And first according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in the particular which assertion he brought to prooue that if the Pope be a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church then euery Bishop is also a direct Lord in temporals of his owne particular Church or Diocesse which consequent he affirmeth to be manifestly false and therefore hee denyeth also that the Pope is a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church Now from the same assertion I may as well conclude that if the Pope be an indirect Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church and may inflict temporall punishments vpon all Christians in order to spirituall good then euery Bishop is also an indirect Lord in temporals in his owne particular Diocesse and may in order to spirituall good inflict temporall punishments vpon the Christians of his Diocesse because euery Bishop in his particular Diocesse is that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church And therefore to argue according to the rules of Logicke à destructione consequentis ad destructionem antecedentis from the ouerthrowing or denying of the consequent to the denying of the antecedent If a Bishop in his owne Diocesse cannot according to the institution of Christ inflict a pecuniarie mulct or temporall penalty of money vpon those Lay-men that are not his temporall subiects neither can the Pope in the vniuersall Church doe the same Victoria in relect 2. de potest Eccles Castro lib. 2. de iusta Haeres punit cap. 24. Vasques 1. 2. disp 152. cap. 3. num 28. 45 Secondly according to the doctrine of the Diuines of Paris which others also as Victoria Castro Vasquez although otherwise vehement maintainers of the Popes power indirectly in temporals doe in this point follow it is euident that Bishops doe not receiue their authority and Iurisdiction from the Pope but immediatly from Christ by vertue of those words which were spoken to all the Apostles Whatsoeuer you shall binde c. Matth. 18. And Whose sinnes you shall forgiue c. Iohn 19. And Feede my sheepe Iohn 20. Which words according to the Exposition of the ancient Fathers a See aboue cap. 5. num 10. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad 1586. which also Cardinall Bellar. did once approoue are vnderstood to be spoken also to all the Apostles Seeing therefore that S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles and consequently the Pope and other Bishops who succeede the Apostles as they were ordinary Pastours and had ordinary spirituall power to gouerne the Church receiued their power and iurisdiction in the selfe-same forme of words without any limitation or restriction from hence it clearely followeth that what Ecclesiastical power iurisdiction soeuer the Pope receiueth ouer the whole Church the same power and iurisdiction if we regard meerely the law of God and the institution of Christ other Bishops receiue ouer those who are subiect to their Bishopricke * A Bishop saith Ledesma 1. 4. ar 11. standing in the law of God hath as great power in his Prouince as the Pope in the whole world So that standing in the law of God and abstracting from the Canons of the Church euery Bishop may in his owne Bishoprick absolue from all cases inflict all censures dispense in oathes and vowes make lawes and Canons no lesse then the Pope may in the Vniuersall Church And therefore it is no absurd argument to conclude that because a Bishop cannot by vertue of that spirituall power which hee hath receiued from Christ inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon those that in spiritualls are subiect to his Diocesse therefore neither can the Pope doe the same in the Vniuersall Church 46 Whereby it is apparant that the comparison which M. Fitzherbert heere maketh betwixt a King and an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge a Bishop and a Parish Priest and betwixt the Pope and other Bishops is idle and impertinent for that no man can make any doubt but that an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge hath all his authoritie and iurisdiction from the King but Bishops according to the doctrine of many learned men haue not their authority and iurisdiction from the Pope but immediately from Christ as the Pope himselfe hath and all Catholikes confesse that Bishops are Peeres and Princes of the Church and principall Iudges in the externall spirituall Court
whereas none will acknowledge that Parish Priests are such and few will grant that they haue iurisdiction in the externall spirituall Court but onely in the Court of conscience Therefore although it were absurd to say that because euery Bishop can excommunicate in his owne Diocesse therefore euery Parish Priest can also excommunicate in his Parish yet as it is not absurd to say that because the Pope can excommunicate in the vniuersall Church therefore a Bishop standing in the law of Christ can also excommunicate in his owne Diocesse so it is not absurd and much lesse ridiculous to say that if the Pope can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon all Christians euery Bishop also standing in the law of Christ can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon those that are subiect to his Bishopricke no more then it is absurd or ridiculous for Cardinall Bellarmine to say that if the Pope hath direct dominion in temporalls in the vniuersall Church euery Bishop hath also direct dominion in temporalls in his owne particular Bishopricke for that according to his doctrine that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euerie Bishop in his particular Diocesse 47 And as concerning that plenitude or fulnesse of the Popes Ecclesiasticall power which Mr. Fitzherbert with full mouth doth so often inculcate little vnderstanding poore man in what this fulnesse doth consist there is a great controuersie among Catholikes to what things this fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power doth extend Almainus de authore Eccles cap. 3. For there is so great a controuersie saith Almaine concerning the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and to what things it doth extend that there are few things in this matter secure or certaine insomuch that it were very necessary in these times as William Occam in the end of the first part of his Dialogue obserueth that wise men being inforced by oathes or horrible threatnings to speake the truth should declare those things which belong to the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power And how farre some Authours perchance for flattery to get priuiledges and benefices saith Almaine doe straine it to the preiudice of Princes so that they doe quite ouerthrow the Soueraigntie of Princes you may see in that his Treatise where hee expoundeth only the doctrine of Occam and how he notwithstandeth the fulnesse thereof in other his bookes where he speaketh according to his owne opinion will not haue it to extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment and this saith he a In lib. de dominio natu Ciu. Eccl. concl 12. is the opinion of most Doctours 48 And also the Doctours of Paris doe make the power and Iurisdiction of Bishops standing meerely in the law of Christ to be as full in intension as is the Popes power that is abstracting from his Primacie and the fulnesse of his power in extension for that the Popes power is extended to the whole Church and the power of Bishops is limited and restrained to their owne Bishoprikes albeit the Canons of the Church haue limited and restrained the fulnesse of Bishops power also in intension Bell. l. 5 de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. reseruing many cases and Censures to Papall authoritie But standing in the law of Christ Card. Bellarmine doeth very well affirme that euery Bishop is that in his owne Diocesse which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church which Mr. Fitzherbert must first proue to bee impertinent absurd and ridiculous and then let him put those imputations vpon my answere and the argument which he draweth from thence 49 A third principall exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against that which in confirmation of my aforesaid second answere I added in these words Adde hereunto that whensoeuer the Pope by a generall constitution decreeth any temporall thing but it pleased my Aduersarie to leaue out that word temporall which is preiudiciall to the right of another man who is not subiect to him in temporalls the same decree as some not improbably doe thinke doeth only extend vnlesse the contrarie bee expressed which last clause also Mr. Fitzherbert leaueth out to the territories of the Roman Church or the patrimonie of S. Peter wherein as Pope Innocent saith b Cap. per venerabil the Pope doth exercise the authoritie of a chiefe Bishop and doth execute the power of a Soueraigne Prince 50 Against this answere Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth in this manner c pag. 173. nu 18. 19. Thus Widdrington telleth vs but who these some men are of whom he speaketh or where they affirme this hee listeth not to tell vs neither in his text nor in his margent lest by the cases which they propound and the circumstances of their doctrine we might discouer his abuse of their testimonie but whosoeuer they bee if there be any such that giue so generall a rule as hee mentioneth it must bee considered whether they speake of constitutions touching matters meerely temporall or else of penall lawes made against heresie or other enormious crimes for the benefit of the whole Church For no Catholike man I am sure hath euer said or will say that any generall Constitution of the Pope made for the reformation of faith or manners and punishment of delinquents in spirituall matters is to bee vnderstood to bee restrained to the Popes owne temporall patrimonie for seeing that hee hath no lesse spirituall authoritie throughout all Christendome then within his owne temporall dominions it were absurd and hereticall to say that his generall Decrees touching spirituall matters such as is the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie to the preiudice of some mans temporall state for so could not heretikes bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes decrees which neuerthelesse are generally executed Cap. vergentis Tit. 7. de haerâ—â— in preiudice not only of the delinquents but also of their children and next heires And this I say is so vniuersally practised by the Church that hee cannot be counted a Canonist nor yet a Catholike that will deny it to be lawfully done 51 But to omit the egregious fraude and falshood of this man in affirming mee to say that whensoeuer the Pope decreeth any thing c. and leauing out the word temporall and also that other clause vnlesse the contrarie be expressed which were the chiefe points whereon I did ground that my answere there is no man of any iudgement who may not cleerely perceiue that all those Catholike Doctours alleadged by mee heretofore d Apol. nu 4. seq and in the first part of this Treatise and among the rest those plerique Doctores very many or most Doctours whom Almaine citeth and followeth who affirme that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall censures must consequently holde that when the Pope by a generall constitution decreeeth any temporall
thing as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what ende soeuer they bee inflicted the sayde Decree can bind onely those of necessitie that belong to the Popes temporall Dominions 52 For seeing that as Suarez e Suarez l. 3. de Leg. c. 6. cap. 8. nu 3. and all other Diuines affirme all lawes enacted by the Pope as they are meerely ciuill and temporall doe bind onely in the Popes territories and as Mr. Fitzherbert himselfe before f Cap. 9. nu 15. acknowledged there can bee nothing more cleare then that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended onely to his owne subiects and whatsoeuer is decreed onely by the Popes temporall authoritie and as hee is a temporall Prince is a meere temporall thing and cannot extend beyond the Popes temporall dominions from hence it cleerely followeth that what Doctour soeuer affirmeth that the Pope hath no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall penalties as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and consequently that the inflicting of them is a meere temporall thing and that the decrees which doe inflict them cannot be made by the Popes spirituall but onely by his temporall authoritie and that therefore they cannot of necessitie binde but onely those who are subiect to his temporall authoritie or as hee is a temporall Prince must also affirme that whensoeuer the Pope by any generall Constitution decreeth the inflicting of any such temporall penaltie the saide Decree doeth extend onely to the Popes temporall Dominions and comprehendeth onely those who are subiect to him as hee is a temporall Prince and endued with temporall authoritie 53 Wherefore it is neither hereticall nor absurd to say as this foule-mouthed ignorant man affirmeth that the Popes generall Decrees touching the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie and that no heretike can bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes Decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes for that according to the doctrine of very many Doctours as I said before the Popes spirituall authoritie doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Eccclesiasticall Censures and that therefore it belongeth only to temporall Princes to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with temporall punishments and to the Pope as hee is a spirituall Pastour to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And this I will boldly say and yet remaine as good a Catholike yea and a farre better then Mr. Fitzherbert is notwithstanding all his bigge and bitter words if hee build his Catholike faith vpon such weake doubtfull and vncertaine principles 54 Whereupon it followeth that euery Decree Canon or Constitution of the Pope which ordaineth the inflicting of temporall penalties for any crime whatsouer if my Aduersarie will needes haue it to be of force out of the Popes territories is either an approbation of some former Imperiall law or is of force by vertue of the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes or is onely a declaring teaching or commanding what the temporall Prince or Iudge ought to doe Neither doth the Canon Vergentis of Pope Innocent the third which Mr. Fitzherbert citeth heere in the margent any way contradict what I haue said but it doth rather confirme the same for the words of the Canon are these Wee ordaine that in the territories subiect to our temporall Iurisdiction the goods of heretikes be confiscated and in other territories wee command the same to bee done by Secular Potestaes and Princes which if perchance they shall bee negligent to performe wee will and command that they be compelled thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures So that this Canon doth rather fauour then contradict what I said seeing that it distinguisheth the Popes territories from other kingdomes and signifieth that the Pope in his owne Dominions hath authoritie by his Decrees to confiscate the goods of heretikes but in other kingdomes he hath no such authoritie but only to command Secular Princes to make such Decrees for the extirpation of heresie and also if they bee negligent therein to compell them by Ecclesiasticall Censures thereunto Neither can Mr. Fitzherbert prooue by any one Canon of Pope or Councell or by any generall or particular practise of the Church that out of the Popes temporall dominions any heretike is temporally punished by vertue of the Popes decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes whereby the Reader may plainly see what an ignorant vncharitable and rash headed man is this my Aduersarie to taxe so easily and vpon such vncertaine grounds learned Catholikes of heresie which among all Christians is accounted so heinous and execrable a crime 53 But his fraude and ignorance will the more cleerely bee discouered if wee obserue the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the acts and obiects of them both For the same spirituall action as heresie blasphemie sacriledge may be forbidden both by the spirituall and temporall power yea also for the same spirituall ende seeing that Christian Princes are bound by the law of Christ to referre all their actions the vse of their tēporall authoritie to Gods honour and glorie and to the good of their own soules of their subiects and by their temporall lawes to maintaine and aduance Christian Religion and to roote out heresie blasphemie and such like spirituall crimes out of their kingdomes so that the directiue or commanding temporall power as I haue signified heeretofore g Cap. 6. nu 66. seq may agree with the spirituall in the same acts obiects and end but the principall distinction betwixt the spirituall and temporall power is to be taken from both the powers as they are coerciue or punishing which alwayes haue distinct acts and obiects for the acts and obiect of the temporall power as it is coerciue or punishing are alwayes the inflicting of temporall punishments and of the spirituall the inflicting of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures so that the forbidding of heresie vnder paine of incurring Ecclesiasticall Censures for what ende soeuer temporall or spirituall it bee done can proceede onely from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and the forbidding of the same heresie vnder paine of incurring temporall punishments as death losse of goods or of any other temporall thing for what end soeuer it bee inflicted can proceede onely from temporall and ciuill authoritie because according to Almaine and those other many Doctours mentioned by him who were as good Catholikes as M. Fitzherbert is and farre more learned then hee is euer like to be the Ecclesiasticall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of ciuill or temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures and the other punishments which
it doeth not ordaine or command any new thing but only declare the law of GOD and Nature and that by things strangled and blood is vnderstood onely man-slaughter Irenae l. 3. c. 12 Cypr. l. 3. ad Quirimum c. vl See Suarez lib. ◠de Leg. ca. 20. either by strangling or by the effusion of blood as Irenaeus S. Cyprian and others doe seeme to vnderstand those words and likewise that meates offered to Idoles are heere onely forbidden to be eaten either with a superstitious worship as though some sacred thing were in those meates in regard of the Idoll or else with the scandall of others both which are against the law of God nature and both which senses may bee gathered from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 8. vers 4. and 7. and 1. Cor. 10. vers 28. 29. 18 And in the like proportionate manner I haue answered to the Decree of the Lateran Councell not by impugning but by expounding the same For considering that it is truly a probable doctrine and maintained by very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and when shee vseth these shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes it is euident that wee may probably answere that decree of the Lateran Councell if wee may call it a decree concerning the future fact of the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates not to proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power but from that temporall authoritie which was granted to the Councell by the consent of temporall Princes whose Ambassadours were present at the making of that act or else to bind only in the Popes temporall Dominions 19 Secondly I answere that there is a great disparitie betwixt the decree of the Apostles and the decree or act of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth that future deposition of temporall Land-lords For the decree of the Apostles is a true and proper law and decree and includeth an expresse commandement to abstaine from those things which are there forbidden but this Decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the aforesaid deposition is not a true and proper law or Decree neither doeth it containe any speciall commandement prohibition grant or priuiledge which euery true and proper law or decree ought to containe as it will cleerely appeare according to my Aduersaries owne grounds if wee consider euery part and parcell of this Decree or Canon For first it is there ordained that Secular Potestaes or Magistrates shall by Ecclesiasticall Censure if neede require be compelled to take an Oath that they will doe their best endeauour to banish all heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction and this no doubt is a true and proper decree Secondly that if a temporall Land-Lord Magistrate or Lord shall neglect to purge his territories from hereticall filth he shall by the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops be excommunicated and this also is a true and proper decree and includeth a precept and commandement Tirdly that if hee shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeere the same shall be signified to the Pope and this also is a proper decree commanding the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops to signifie the same to the Pope Fourthly it is added that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie and his territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes and this which is the maine and only point from whence my Aduersaries conclude that the Pope by his spirituall power may depose temporall Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true and proper decree and containe any commandement grant or priuiledge vnlesse they will graunt the Councell to bee aboue the Pope and that the Councell hath power to impose commandements vpon the Pope or to giue him any authoritie or priuiledge which neuerthelesse they vtterly deny and therefore these wordes as of themselues it is plaine doe onely import and signifie the ende reason or cause of the former Decree to wit wherefore it must bee signified to the Pope that such a temporall Land-Lord hath beene excommunicated for a whole yeere 20 And by this it is euident first that seeing that in generall Councels according to the expresse doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith For neither are of faith the disputations which goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate but onely the bare decrees and those not all but which are propounded as of faith and that this is no decree and though it were it is not propounded as of faith as it is manifest by the rules assigned aboue by Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus to know when any thing is propounded as of faith but it onely containeth the cause and reason of the former decree which reason may bee exposed to errour seeing that it is not greatly to be stood vpon saith Canus Canus l. 6. c. 8. si Pontificum rationes necessariae non sunt if the reasons of the Popes or Councels be not necessary it is I say most euident that from this Act no probable argument can be brought to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith 21 Secondly it is also euident that I do not impugne or call in question this Act of the Councell but do only expound and interpret it and that my expositiō is probable to wit that this Act was made not by spirituall authority but by temporall it is manifest supposing that is probable as in very deede it is and maintained by very many Doctours both Diuines and Lawyers that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall censures and therefore it cannot without grosse ignorance and manifest absurdity be said that this my answere and exposition which is grounded vpon the doctrine not onely of so many learned Authours but also of my owne Aduersaries and who otherwise defend the Popes authority to depose Princes is to bee accounted improbable or absurd I now let passe that the decrees of Popes and Councels which are not referred to all the Church but onely to particular Bishops Churches or persons and doe not concerne and binde all the Church but onely certaine persons may bee exposed to errour Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. q. 4. as I declared before For in that case onely saith Canus the Iudges are to be vnderstood to pronounce or define of faith when the decree or sentence belongeth to all the faithfull when it bindeth all but this Act of the Lateran Councell doth onely concerne temporall Land lords and their Vassals and those not all but onely the Vassals of such Land lords Magistrates
Reader may easily perceiue how vaine and impertinent are the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts inferences and obiections in this Chapter which therefore I might well omit but that to giue satisfaction to the vnlearned Reader I am in a sort compelled to set them downe 26 Whereupon saith he f Page 180. num 6. it followeth first that Widdringtons answere to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran grounded vpon a distinction of a matter of fact and a matter of faith is very vaine and friuolous as well because the one doth not exclude the other as also because by that distinction hee may impugne the Decree of the Apostles themselues of the Popes Pius and Victor and of the Councell of Nice and such other touching matters of fact no lesse probably then hee impugneth the Canon of the Councell of Lateran 27 But to this as you haue seene I haue answered before and haue cleerely shewed that I did not impugne but onely expound the decree of the Lateran Councell and that I did not oppose a matter of faith to euery matter of fact but to a matter of fact onely or which is all one to such a matter of fact which is not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and such a matter of fact doth exclude a matter of faith also that by this distinction I doe not any wise impugne the decree of the Apostles of Pope Pius and Victor of the Councell of Nice or of any other touching matters of fact 28 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Pa. 180. nu 7 it appeareth that as the Quartadecimani were woorthily condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those Decrees so also those who doe with like obstinacy impugne the other Decree of the Councell of Lateran doe much more deserue to be held for heretickes seeing that they haue much lesse probability for their opinion then the other had 29 But this also hath been answered before for neither were the quartadecimani condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those decrees but because they contradicted them vpon an hereticall ground Neither doe I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell but do only expound it according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who since the Councell of Lateran haue affirmed that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but that the Church when she inflicteth such punishments doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes which learned Doctours cannot without grosse temeritie and impudency be therefore condemned of heresie And if this decree of the Lateran Councell bee so cleere a proofe to make this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and the contrary hereticall as these men pretend I would gladly know why Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies Victoria Corduba Moliua or D. Sanders did not vrge it to make their doctrine in this point certaine vnquestionable and of faith and why Marsilius of Padua was not by some one of those who write of heresies accounted an hereticke for impugning this doctrine and why it was not by Castro Prateolus Cardinall Bellarmine or some other reckoned among one of his heresies but it must now forsooth within these few yeeres without any new definition either of Pope or Councell bee made an heresie which for a 1600. yeeres before was not by any ancient Father or Catholike Diuine accounted an heresie 30 Thirdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert h Pa. 181. nu â— whereas Widdrington concludeth this his third answere with this reason that the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran had no more assurance and certaintie for this their Decree then if they had declared their opinion foorth of the Councell because Christ hath not promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit vnto facts and probable opinions of Popes or Councells but to their definitions onely this his conclusion I say is most impertinent not onely because it impugneth the foresaid Decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Nicene Councell no lesse then this other of the Councell of Lateran but also because he flatly ouerthroweth himselfe seeing that this Decree of the Councell of Lateran is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresie and therefore seeing that our Sauiour promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit to the definitions of Popes and Councels as Widdrington hath here expresly affirmed it followeth that the Pope and Fathers in the Councell of Lateran neither did nor could erre in their definition or Decree concerning the deposition of Princes when it shall be necessary for the extirpation of heresie 31 But all this also I haue fully satisfied before and shewed a great disparity betwixt those decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Councell of Nice and betwixt the Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Potestaes both for that this Act of the Lateran Councell is no true and proper Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as those were and also for that no Catholike Authour affâ—rmeth that those Decrees were made by temporall but onely by spirituall authoritie but very many Doctours affirme that this Act was made by the authoritie and consent of temporall Princes seeing that according to their doctrine the Church by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but that when shee vseth or inflicteth them shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes 32 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert saith that this Decree of the Lateran Councell is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresiâ— if hee meane by the Decree of the Lateran Councell this onely Act concerning the absoluing of Vassalls from their fealty whereof onely wee now dispute and by a definition hee vnderstand a Decree containing some precept or obligation either concerning faith or manners this is very vntrue for as I shewed before this Act according to his owne grounds containeth no precept bond or obligation vnlesse he will grant that the Councell hath authoritie to command or bind the Pope and therefore it is not properly a true Decree but onely the reason cause and end of the former Decree and although it were a true decree and in that sense a definition yet for that it was enacted not by spitituall but by temporall authoritie it is euident that no infallible assistance of the holy Ghost was promised by our Sauiour Christ to the making thereof But if by this Decree of the Lateran Councell he vnderstand the whole act which containeth diuers particular decrees coÌ„cerning the rooting out of heresie by spirituall meanes for to root out heresie by temporall meanes and inflicting temporall punishments as I haue often said doth not belong to spirituall but to temporall authoritie then I willingly graunt that this Decree is a true definition
make the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 38 Thirdly when I affirmed that from the vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church this onely can be gathered that Christ hath promised the infalliable assistance of the holy Ghost not to facts or probable opinions of Popes and Councells but to definitions onely by facts I vnderstand such acts as are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and by definitions I meant those Decrees which are propounded as of faith or which without any doubt or controuersie are deduced euidently from such infallible definitions or principles of faith of which sort this Act or Decree of the Lateran Councell is not as it is euident for those many reasons before alledged 39 And whereas Widdrington addeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 133. nu 12. Supra nu 1. an other circumstance to wit that the Councell did not determine by this Decree that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie or from the Ecclesiasticall power onely without the consent of Princes he is no lesse impertinent then in the former for what need was there to determine that the Pope had an vndoubted lawfull authoritie to depose Princes seeing that the same was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth as it is euident for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it Naucler goâ—erat 41. ad ann 12. which they would not haue done if they had doubted of the lawfulnesse of the Popes authoritie in that behalfe But first Mr. Fitzherbert doth egregiously abuse both me and his Reader in adding both heere and aboue the word Princes as though I had acknowledged that Act of the Lateran Councell to concerne the future deposition of Princes whereas I euer affirmed that it did onely concerne inferiour Magistrates Potestaes Landlords and Lords and not Soueraigne Princes and therfore I said onely that future deposition and my Aduersarie addeth of himselfe the word Princes 40 Secondly whether it was needfull or no for the Councell to declare whether that Act concerning the future deposition of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords or rather the denouncing of them ipso facto deposed was made by spirituall or temporall authoritie it is nothing materiall to our question this being sufficient for me that seeing that very many Catholike Doctors do affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the absoluing of Vassals from their temporall fealtie and the Councell did not declare by what authoritie that Act was made any Catholike man may probably and without any note of temeritie much lesse of heresie affirme that it was made not by any vndoubted lawfull Ecclesiasticall authoritie but onely by the authoritie licence and consent of absolute Princes But although it were not absolutely necessarie that the Councell should haue declared whether that future deposition was to proceed from Ecclesiasticall or temporall authoritie yet to make it a point of faith which all men are bound to beleeue that the aforesaid deposition was to proceede from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and not temporall it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same especially supposing that it is truely probable that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments As also if the Pope being now both a spirituall Pastour and also a temporall Prince should make a law whereof there may bee made a probable doubt whether it was made by vertue of his spirituall or of his temporall authoritie it is necessarie to make this point certaine and out of controuersie that he declare by what authoritie temporall or spirituall that lawe was enacted 41 Thirdly it is very vntrue that the Popes power to depose Princes was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth for that from the very first broaching thereof there alwayes hath beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side Azor. tom 2. li. 11. ca. 5. q. 8 and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in certaine causes the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kings of their kingdome And the euident reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth hereof to wit for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it is the maine question which is now betwixt vs and so he bringeth for an euident reason that which is the controuersie and to be prooued which is an euident petitio principij and condemned as vicious by all Logicians Neither doth Nauclerus whom my Aduersarie citeth in the margent as though hee would make his Reader beleeue that Nauclerus affirmeth that the whole Councell decreed the practise therof affirme any such thing For Nauclerus words are onely these There were many things truly then consulted of yet nothing could be plainly decreed for that they of Pisa and Genua made warre one against the other by Sea and those on this side the Alpes by land Yet some Constitutions are reported to be published whereof one is that whensoeuer the Princes of the world shall offend one the other the correcting belongeth to the Bishop of Rome Where you see first that Nauclerus expresly saith that albeit many things were consulted yet nothing at all could be plainely decreed Secondly that it was onely a report that some constitutions were published Thirdly he doth not say that these Constitutions were of the whole Councell or onely of Pope Innocent and recited in the Councell as Matthew Paris said Fourthly that this report was vntrue it is also plaine seeing that there is no such Constitution as hee mentioneth to be found in the Lateran Councell And lastly albeit there were such a Constitution it is nothing to the purpose seeing that it onely saith that when Princes are at variance it belongeth to the Pope to correct them to wit by Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not the question but that it belongeth to the Pope to correct Princes by deposing them and by inflicting temporall punishments which is the maine controuersie and whereof the practise as Mr. Fitzherbert saith citing Nauclerus in the margent was decreed by the whole Councell Nauclerus speaketh not any one word at all 42 Also Pope Innocent the third saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Pag. 183. u. 13. Naucler geuerat 42 ann 1246. Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. See Adolp Schulc pro Card. Bell. ca. 12 14 where he confuteth the answeres of Widdrington to these examples vnder whom the Councell of Lateran was held had not past three or foure yeeres before depriued the Emperour Otho of his right to the Empire by a sentence of Excommunication and deposition by vertue whereof Frederike the second whose Ambassadours were present at the Lateran Councell was made Emperour who also was afterwards deposed by Innocentius the fourth in the Generall Councell held at Lyons as
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
not onely vpon this fact of Popes giuing licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation but also vpon the two other examples before propounded whereas he hath not as you haue seene so much as related my first Instance 24 Secondly besides that not onely my first Instance or argument but also the other two Instances which I brought to comfort them with Fa. Lessius his three arguments were grounded vpon the licences which some Popes haue giuen to inferiour Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation it is very vntrue that I by any of my three instances laboured to prooue as this man affirmeth that the Decree of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition of Princes might be vncertaine seeing that I alwayes contended that the Decree of the Lateran Councell did not concerne the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates and Landlords and also that it was not made by Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie but onely by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes So that Mr. Fitzherbert to shew that I argue most absurdly from the particular facts and dispensations of Popes to the generall Decrees of Popes and generall Councells betwixt which I doe not denie but that there is an euident disparitie sheweth himselfe to be very false and fraudulent For that which I contended by my first instance to prooue was that the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius first argument is not generally true and consequently that his argument could not be good That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctors doe either propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which proposition being generall may be applyed not onely to the decree of the Lateran Councell but also to all other particular decrees and sentences of Popes or Councells which the three aforesaid examples by me propounded touching the particular sentences dispensations licences and decrees of Popes do euidently conuince to be a very false proposition and consequently his argument grounded thereon to be very insufficient 25 And therefore to shew the weaknesse of Fa. Lessius his first argument I did oppose to it an other like instance for if that doctrine doth appertain to faith which Popes Doctors do propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which is the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his first argument then this doctrin that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie and giue licence to inferiour Priests to minister the Sacrament of confirmation must also appertaine to faith seeing that it is propounded and supposed by Popes and Doctours as a certaine foundation of many Canons Decrees and iudiciall sentences of Popes Now by the answere which my Aduersaries will make to this instance I will also satisfie Fa. Lessius his first argument For all the force of that argument doth consist in the true sense and meaning of that Maior proposition for absolutely and in those generall words as it is spoken by him without any limitation it is as I said very vntrue but it must be limited both to those decrees constitutions iudiciall sentences grants and priuiledges which are certainely knowne to proceed from Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill authority and also to such Decrees which are propounded as of Faith or doe ordaine things cleerely and euidently deduced from some vndoubted doctrine of Faith as I shewed aboue out of Card. Bellarmine and Canus 26 For although it bee certaine and a poynt of faith that the Church of Christ as it includeth onely Church-men or Cleargy-men hath a full Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall power in generall and that the foundation of true and proper Ecclesiasticall Lawes Decrees or Canons is true Ecclesiasticall power also in generall yet in particular to what things the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power doth extend there is such a great controuersie among Doctours that in this point few things are sure or certaine as I shewed before out of Almaine as whether the Church hath power to giue licence to inferiour Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastitie to dissolue the bond of Matrimony which is not consummate and many such like and to come neere our matter to dispose of temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to depose temporall Princes for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer So that the foundation of such Decrees Canons constitutions licences dispensations and sentences cannot be certaine and a point of faith so long as it remaineth questionable and controuersed among Catholikes For it is manifest and most worthy to be noted as Canus said Canus lib 5. de loc cap. 5. q. vlt. concl 3. that those decrees of the Church can not be certaine and firme which are not grounded vpon certaine and firme principles and foundations Wherefore if but one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church dependeth be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be vncertaine c. And by this Fa. Lessius his first argument is plainely solued For his Minor proposition is absolutely false and also his Maior is not true if it be vnderstood of Decrees Canons m Pag. 88. nu 7. and sentences which are not certainely knowne to proceed fâ—om spirituall authority 27 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert that he doth not argue against the Decree it selfe but against the reason whereupon it was grounded saying that it may be vncertaine and subiect to error no lesse then the reason which mooued some Popes to giue licence to a Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation But if he say this he is very absurd for he argueth in effect no otherwise then thus Gal. 2. Acts 15. Because S. Peter had no sufficient ground for his dissimulation at Antioch which S. Paul reprehended in him therefore the Apostles had no sufficient reason or ground for their Decree in the Councell at Hierusalem which no man that hath his right wits will say for that the Apostles had the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost in making their Decree which S. Peter had not eyther in his particular fact or in the foundation whereupon he grounded it 28 But first it is manifest as you haue seene before that I neuer argued eyther against the Decree of the Lateran Councell or against the reason of that Decree but I onely impugned the exposition which my Aduersaries make of that Decree and the reason whereby they pretend to prooue from that Decree that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith considering that it is vncertaine whether that Decree was made by true Ecclesiasticall or ciuill authority and also for that it is not a true and proper Decree containing in it any precept or obligation and though it were it is not propounded as of faith nor grounded vpon any cleare and vndoubted doctrine of faith which
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
three Instances or in this Argument whereof now we treate make any mention at all of the Lateran Councell although indeede I haue now by the way and without any necessitie vrging mee thereunto signified as you haue seene aboue that those words of the Lateran Councell vt extuncipse c. that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie which my Aduersaries affirme to bee the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the practise of the Popes power to depose Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true proper and formall Decree containing any precept or obligation but rather the reason cause and end for which the former Decree was made as I haue more amply declared before 24 Secondly neither are all the reasons of Decrees so extrinsecall thereto that they may faile and yet the Decree stand good for some are so intrinsecall and as I may say so essentiall to the Decree that the Decree cannot possibly stand good if the doctrine bee not true or at least-wise presumed to bee true as I shewed before in the reason of the canonizing of Saints and of celebrating their Feast in honour of their Sanctitie and also of celebrating the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception in honour of the vnspotted puritie thereof and of these and such like reasons I chiefly meant when in the aforesaid argument I demanded whether the reasons that mooue Popes and Councells to define or decree something are not as it were certaine grounds and foundations of their definitions and decrees So that I may truely conclude with my Aduersaries owne wordes that hee argueth as ignorantly impertinently and absurdely in impugning this argument as in the former and in the same manner also hee still goeth on 25 But now will you heare saith hee i p. 203. nu 9. how well Widdrington concludeth this his last argument and condemneth himselfe of errour or heresie Thus then hee saith Quapropter c. Wherefore no man can doubt but that great difference is to bee made betwixt the voice Vbi supra nu 63 doctrine and consent of the Church firmely beleeuing or defining any thing as a matter of faith and the voice doctrine and consent of the Church onely probably thinking For no Catholike man doeth deny that hee who contemneth to heare the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing doeth fall into errour or heresie whereas Catholike Doctours whose authoritie the learnedst of my Aduersaries will easily admit doe plainely affirme that hee who being mooued with sufficient reason doeth not embrace the doctrine of the Church onely probably thinking doeth not expose himselfe to the danger of heresie errour or temeritie For Alphonsus Salmeron and Francis Suarez men truely very learned doe bring the practise and consent of the whole Church to confirme the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin and yet that the contrarie opinion may bee defended without any danger of deadly sinne they both plainely acknowledge and cannot also deny without great offence we saith Salmeron do oppose the consent of almost the vniuersall Church the vniforme doctrine of all vniuersities Salmer tom 13. ad Rom. 5. disp 51. §. deinde Suarez tom 2. disp 3. sec 2. And the second ground saith Suarez is to bee taken from the authoritie of the Church And first the vniuersall consent almost of the whole Church and especially for these two hundred yeeres almost all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops almost all Religions and Vniuersities haue subscribed Thus Widdrington 26 But first Mr. Fitzherbert is fouly deceiued in saying or conceiuing that this is a conclusion of this my last argument For it is a conclusion and as it were a briefe collection and explication of all the answeres I made in that Apologeticall Preface to all the arguments by which my Aduersaries laboured to conuince mee and my doctrine touching the Popes power to depose Princes of temeritie errour and heresie For seeing that all the arguments which they brought to prooue my doctrine to bee temerarious erroneous yea and hereticall were grounded chiefly vpon the generall voice doctrine and consent of the Church as they pretend I thought good for a conclusion of all my answeres to these their false imputations to admonish the Reader of the aforesaid difference betwixt the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing and onely probably thinking whereby hee might plainely perceiue that considering all my former discourse and answeres I had clearely freed my selfe from all iust imputation of heresie errour and temerity 27 But secondly let vs now see what exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against this my so manifest and certaine conclusion Wherein I wish saith he i Pag. 203. num 10. to be noted two things the one how confident Widdrington is that he hath prooued by his three instances or examples and this his last argument that the Church ordaining and decreeing in the Lateran Councell that Princes shall in some cases be deposed by the Pope did not firmely belieue but onely probably thinke that the Pope hath lawfull power and authority to doe it whereas you haue seene his instances and arguments to be so weake friuolous and impertinent that they haue serued to no other purpose but to discouer his folly and the weakenesse of his cause 28 But truely I cannot but greatly pitty this poore mans case albeit I am much ashamed to see and discouer his palpable fraud and ignorance For neither did I in those three instances or examples or in this last argument make any mention at all of the decree of the Lateran Councell neither did I intend to make any inference from them concerning that decree neither did I euer graunt that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did ordaine or decree that Princes might in some cases be deposed by the Pope but I alwaies affirmed that the aforesaid decree or rather Act did onely concerne the deposition of inferiour Magistrates or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes that therfore that Act or decree was not made by meere Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently could not be a matter of faith but of fact onely as are all the decrees of temporall Princes concerning meere matters of fact For although it be a matter of faith that temporall Princes haue authority to make temporall Lawes yet it is not a matter of faith that in making such lawes they cannot erre and therefore their lawes are not matters of faith but of fact onely but the Church in making lawes to all the faithfull concerning such matters of fact or manners which are necessary to saluation cannot erre by commanding anything which is contrary to the Gospell or the law of Nature and therefore such lawes are not onely matters of fact but also of faith 29. That wherein I was confident is this that seeing my Aduersaries haue not hitherto brought nor will euer in my iudgement be able to bring any one sufficient argument to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose
heere cited by him and haue beene cleerely confuted by me and more particularly to the Contents Abridgement or as it were Index of all the things which are handled by me in this Treatise which he may see partly in the very beginning of the first part before the Preface to the Reader and partly of this third 43 To conclude therefore this Chaper seeing that I haue made it manifest in his Treatise that no one effectuall argument grounded either vpon the holy Scriptures the law of Nature or Nations the Canonicall or Ciuill law or any other Theologicall reason hath hitherto beene brought by my Aduersaries which is sufficient to perswade any iudicious man that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls or to inflict temporall punishments is certain and of faith and the contrary hereticall erroneous or improbable it is euident that the new Oath of Allegiance which is chiefly grounded vpon the denying and impugning of this doctrine and the practise thereof may with a safe and probable conscience and without any note of dangerous temeritie or mortall sinne be taken by any Catholike man notwithstanding that the Pope by seuerall Breues hath iudged and commaunded or supposed the contrary for that there is no danger of temeritie or disobedience not to follow the iudgement and opinion of the supreme Pastour when it is contrary to the doctrine of other learned Catholikes or not to obey his declaratiue precept when it is not grounded vpon any certaine and infallible doctrine but either vpon the false information and vnderstanding of other learned men or vpon the priuate and probable opinion at the most of his Holinesse as I haue amply proued in my Theologicall Disputation Disput Theol. cap. 10. sâ—c 2. all which Mr. Fitzherbert in this Reply of his doth fraudulently conceale who vrgeth with might and maine to terrifie thereby the consciences of vnlearned and scrupulous Catholikes the Popes declaratiue commaundement who by his Breues forbiddeth the Oath to be taken for that it containeth in it many things which are clearely repugnant to the faith and saluation and craftily dissembleth the answeres which I haue made thereunto and which are sufficient to quiet the conscience of any iudicious Catholike man and to take away all iust feare and terrour of conscience out of his mind 44. And especially seeing that his Holinesse which is very considerable and worthy to be obserued hath beene diuers times with great instance and importunitie most humbly requested and in some sort coniured by his Pastorall office and duety to make manifest to distressed English Catholikes one onely thing among so many which he saith in his Breues are in the Oath manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation which his Holinesse without all doubt in regard of his fatherly care and Pastorall office both would and ought to haue made manifest ere this being vrged thereto by so many and earnest Supplications if he had not clearely seene when he had more diligently examined the whole matter being so greatly vrged and importuned to name but one onely thing among so many which he said were in the Oath plainely repugnant to faith and saluation both that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures was not denied in the Oath as Cardinall Bellarmine and other Romane Diuines by all probable coniectures as you shall see in the next Chapter had informed him and also that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is expresly denied in the Oath and whereon his prohibition to take the Oath according to the opinion of all my Aduersaries was partly grounded was not a point of faith but onely a controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge and m Trithemius in â—ronico Monast Hirsaugiensis ad annum 1106. consequently that it might be denied and impugned by any Catholike man without any note of heresie errour temeritie or any other deadly sinne so long as the question remaineth so vndecided and in controuersie among learned Catholikes CHAP. XVII Wherein 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 an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes is cleerely confuted and proued to be void of charitie learning and sinceritie Also Widdringtons answere to the Popes Breues is confirmed and he freed from all disobedience for not admitting them and lastly the Decree of the Cardinalls forbidding Widdringtons bookes and commaunding him to purge himselfe forthwith is fully answered by his Purgation and humble Supplication which he made forthwith to his Holinesse 1 MY vnlearned Aduersarie T.F. hauing not beene able in the former Chapters as you haue seene to prooue any one answere or position of mine to be improbable or to deserue the least note of temeritie although he often vaunteth that he hath conuinced euery one of them to be either fraudulent malicious impertinent absurd foolish fond ridiculous erroneous or hereticall and then especially his custome is thus to brag when he himselfe most of all discouereth his intollerable fraude or palpable ignorance now this ignorant and vncharitable man doth in this last Chapter turne the sharpenesse of his penne also against my person shewing himselfe therein to haue as great want of charitie as of learning and sinceritie and laboureth to perswade his Reader that albeit I pretend to be a Roman Catholike and doe submit my selfe and all my writings to the Censure of the Catholike Roman Church yet it is euident that this is onely of purpose to deceiue the Reader Sec nu 1. 19 and that no zealous Catholike can take me for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike So aboundant is forsooth the charitie and zeale of this Religious Father that hee feareth not to miscontrue most plaine and manifest words and deepe and solemne Oathes and protestations in the quite contrarie sense to the great discredit of his neighbour whereas by the rules of charity and iustice he is commaunded to interprete euen doubtfull speeches in the better and more fauourable sense * S. Thomas secunda secunda q. 60. ar 4. But let vs heare what he saith 2. Hauing now answered saith he a Pag. 211. num 1. my Aduersarie Widdrington touching that which any way concerneth me either in his Admonition before his Theologicall Disputation or else in those other workes of his whereto hee remitteth his Readers for their further satisfaction I haue tought it conuenient good Catholike Reader to addresse this last Chapter only to thee to admonish thee to take heed that thou be not seduced with his pretence to be a Catholike or with the dedication of his booke to his Holinesse and his submission thereof to the iudgement of the
opinion are vncertaine and fallible and therefore although the Popes definitions made with mature deliberation and graue counsell may be a sufficient ground for Catholikes to thinke with opinion that the doctrine which he defineth is true if they haue no conuincing reasons to perswade them to the contrary yet they cannot be sufficient for Catholikes I doe not say to thinke probably but to beleeue assuredly with Catholike faith the doctrine which he so defineth without the approbation of a generall Councell to bee true The second difference is that albeit euery Catholike ought to be so firme and stedfast in his Catholike beliefe that hee must needes beleeue the contrary doctrine not onely to be false à parte rei but also to be improbable yet he ought not to bee so firme and stedfast in his opinion as to condemne of heresie errour or temeritie other learned Catholikes who hauing duely examined all the reasons and grounds for that opinion shall thinke against him or be of the contrary opinion although he pretend to prooue his doctrine to be true out of some Decree or definition euen of a generall Councell which Decree or definition the other learned Catholikes of the contrary opinion haue seene examined and answered thereunto and this I prooued at large in my Theologicall Disputation Å¿ Cha. 10. sec 2. out of the expresse doctrine of Fa. Vasquez which my ignorant Aduersary doth fraudulently conceale who as you haue seene vrgeth against mee certaine arguments which I there related and answered and dissembleth wholly the answeres which there I made to the same 86 Wherefore although the Pope be the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach and instruct them in the Catholike faith and in all other things which are necessary to saluation as also euery Bishop is a spirituall Pastour in his owne Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach and instruct all those that are committed to his charge in the Catholike faith and in all other things necessarie to the health of their soules because as Cardinall Bellarmine well affirmeth Bell. l. 5. de RoÌ„ Pont. c. 3. that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in his particular Dioecesse and those words Pasce oues meas Feed my sheepe Bell. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12 in sine Edit antiquâ—â— saith he and such like which are spoken to Saint Peter in regard of the Pastorall office are vnderstood to be spoken to all Pastors yet as no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith which the Bishop of the Dioecesse doth define or determine to be of faith so long as there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes concerning the certaintie of that doctrine for that it is certaine and agreed vpon by all Catholikes that euery particular Bishop may erre in his definitions and consequently they cannot be any assured and infallible grounds of the Catholike faith So also proportionally no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith any doctrine whereof there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes albeit the Pope without a generall Councell shall define it to be of faith for that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope defining without a generall Councell can erre or no and consequently vntill this controuersie be decided and determined by a generall Councell or the vniuersall acceptance of the Church as a point of faith such his definitions can be no assured and infallible grounds of true Catholike faith 87 And if you demaund that seeing the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way to saluation why are not all Christians bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund him I answere with the like demaund seeing that euery Bishop is the spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull within his Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way of saluation why are not all the faithfull within his Dioâ—cesse committed to his charge bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund them 88 But perchance you will say that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and his commaundements are Apostolicall as Mr. Fitzherbert in this Treatise often vrgeth against me the authoritie of the supreme spirituall Pastor his Apostolicall Breues and commandement therfore there is a great disparitie betwixt the Pope and the inferiour Bishops True it is that there is a great disparitie and difference betwixt the Pope who is the supreme Pastour and other Bishops who are not supreme but as there is a great disparitie betwixt them so there is a great difficultie and controuersie among learned Catholikes in what this disparitie and this supremacie of the Pope doth consist which were to long to examine at this present perchance hereafter if my Aduersaries will vrge me thereunto I shall treate of this disparitie and the Popes Supremacie more at large In the meane time all Catholikes doe agree in this that the Popes Supremacie doth not consist in this that he cannot command any vnlawfull thing and contrary to the law of God or that he cannot teach false doctrine and contrary to the word of God or that he cannot exceede the authority which Christ hath granted him or that hee cannot challenge to him a power or Iurisdiction as due to him which Christ hath not giuen him Yea and according to the doctrine of many famous and learned Catholikes cited by me elsewhere t In disp Theol. cap. 10. § 2 nu 27. the Popes Supremacy doth not consist in this that he cannot erre and bee deceiued in his definitions albeit they bee directed to the whole Church if he define without the approbation of a generall Councell or the acceptance of the vniuersall Church and consequently such his definitions cannot be certaine and infallible grounds of true Catholike Faith 89 Neyther are his commandements definitions or letters called Apostolicall for that they are alwayes conforme to the law of God and to the doctrine of the Apostles neyther is his authority called Apostolicall for that he hath alwayes the assistance of the holy Ghost anexed to his Decrees and doctrine in that manner as the Apostles had but chiefly and principally for that he is the successour of S. Peter the first Apostle and hath authority and iurisdiction ouer all Christians as the Apostles and principally S. Peter had although not with the like infallibility and continuall assistance of the holy Ghost And so the parity doth still remaine betwixt the Pope and other Bishops notwithstanding his Primacie in that both are Pastours and therefore are bound by their pastorall function to feede their sheepe to instruct them in the Catholike faith and to direct them in
the way to saluation and yet their sheep are not alwaies bound to heare and follow their voyce or call to beleeue with Catholike faith all their doctrine or to obey all their commandements for that their definitions are not certaine and infallible neither are they alwaies so assisted by the holy Ghost that they cannot command vnlawfull things So that albeit the Pope be our supreame spirituall Pastour Superiour and Iudge yet wee are not bound to obey him but in lawfull things and to which his authoritie doth extend 90 And if you aske againe to whom shall it belong to iudge whether the Popes definitions or doctrine be true or false or his commandements conforme to the law of God or no or that he exceed the authority and commission which Christ hath granted him or no I answere that if wee speake of Iudgement as it is an act of Iustice or of a Iudge doing iustice supposeth in him a superiority authority ouer the person whom he iudgeth which the Diuines call iudicium potestatis a iudgement of authority then according to the Diuines of Rome only God can iudge the Popes actions except in case of heresie or of schisme when more then one contend to be Pope for in these cases they graunt that a generall Councell may iudge the Pope But according to the Diuines of Paris not onely in the aforesaid cases but also in many others a Generall Councell whom they grant to be superiour to the Pope may by way of authority iudge the Popes actions and declare determine and define whether his definitions and commandements be conforme to the word and law of God or no. But if wee take iudgement S. Thom. prima secuÌ„da q. 93 ar 2. secunda secundae q. 51. ar 3. q. 60. ar 1. as it is an act of the vnderstanding and is commonly called by the Philosophers the second act or operation thereof and signifieth a right discerning or determination of the vnderstanding betwixt truth falshood good and euill in euery matter whether it be speculatiue or practicall and consisteth in the apprehension of a thing as it is in it selfe which the Diuines call iudicium discretionis a iudgement of discretion then euery learned man may iudge and discerne whether the Popes definitions or doctrine be true or false and whether his commandements bee conforme to the law of God or no neyther is that vulgar saying None can iudge his superiours actions to be vnderstood of this iudgement but of the former for this inward and priuate iudgement is the guide of euery mans conscience by which for that it is the rule of all morall actions he must iudge and discerne all his thoughts words and deeds actions and omissions 91 Seeing therefore it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope can erre in his definitions if hee define without a generall Councell and consequently they cannot be infallible grounds of Catholike faith it is euident that whensoeuer the Pope defineth any doctrine to be of faith which in very deed is Catholike doctrine and of faith we must not beleeue with Catholike faith that doctrin to be Catholike and of faith because the Pope hath defined the same for this reason and ground is as I haue said vncertaine and fallible but because the Catholike Church 1. Tim. 3. which onely is the infallible propounder of Catholike faith and according to the Apostle the pillar and ground of truth hath approued the same to be Catholike and of faith And thus much concerning the Popes definitions and decrees in points of faith and which are to be beleeued with Catholike faith 92 Now concerning manners and things commanded to bee done or not to be done we must carefully distinguish betwixt declaratiue and constitutiue precepts or commandements for in constitutiue commandements which doe make the thing which they forbid to be vnlawfull and doe not suppose it to be otherwise vnlawfull and forbidden by some former law first if the Pope command a thing which is manifestly lawfull and subiect to his commanding power wee are bound to obey but with this caueat or prouiso if by obeying we are not like to incurre any probable danger of some great temporall harme for that no Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall or contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doth seldome or neuer binde with any great temporall losse as I obserued elsewhere u In Disp Theol. cap. 10. § 2. nu 41. out of the common doctrine of Catholike Diuines Secondly if the Pope perchance commaund a thing which is manifestly vnlawfull then we are bound not to obey according to that saying of S. Peter God must be obeyed â—ather then men Acts cap. 5. 93 Thirdly if it be doubtfull whether the thing which the Pope commandeth be vnlawfull or whether he hath authority to command that thing or no In the discouery of D. Schulckenius caâ—umnies calum 15 nu 12. seq Sot de deteg secret memb 3. q. 2. then as I obserued elsewhere according to the doctrine of many learned Diuines as Sotus Corduba Salon Sayrus and others wee must doe that wherein there is lesse danger according to that approoued maxime Of two euils the lesser is to be chosen But Sotus doth more plainely and distinctly declare the whole matter When the Superiours commandement saith hee is of a thing secure and lawfull where no danger ariseth to the publike good or to a third person in a doubtfull matter we must for the most part obey As for example my Superiour commandeth me to study or to helpe sicke persons which are actions wherein there is no danger although it be doubtfull whether hee may impose such a commandement I must obey yet I added saith he for the most part because I am not alwaies bound to obey in a doubtfull matter as if the thing be ouer burdensome or laborious to the subiect For if my Superiour commaund me a long iourney and a hard or vneasie thing and it is doubtfull whether he hath authoritie to commaund the same I am not bound forthwith to obey And a little beneath the same Sotus as I related his words more at large aboue affirmeth that when it is doubtfull whether the Superiour commandeth that which is lawfull if it be in preiudice of a third person because that third person is in possession of his credit and goods we must incline to that part where there is lesse danger For when such danger doth arise to a third person if the subiect be doubtfull he doth not against obedience if hee demand of his Prelate a reason of his commaundement propounding humbly the reasons of his doubt Thus Sotus And by this the Reader may cleerely vnderstand the true sense and meaning of that vulgar maxime In doubts wee must obey our Superiour and stand to his iudgement 94 And as concerning declaratiue precepts which doe not make the thing which they forbid to be vnlawfull but doe onely declare
an heretike and defend obstinately seeing that heresie to be imputed to sinne cannot be without obstinacie some doctrine contrary to the Catholike faith But to say nothing at this time of the doctrine which I maintained in those Bookes which if it were cleerely hereticall why did not that Sacred Congregation condemne those Bookes as hereticall I protested to write nothing obstinately but with an humble and submissiue minde and ready to recall my errour as soone as I should perceiue to haue erred in any thing I confesse indeed that I may erre but by God his assistance I will neuer be an heretike And if perchance in any thing I haue erred it is no errour of malice or obstinacie but of ignorance For I will neuer by God his protection wittingly and willingly defend any thing at all which I shall know to be contrary to sound Doctrine or to the Catholike faith 15 Secondly concerning that which some men to no small scandall to Catholike Religion and to the great disgrace of the Sea Apostolike especially among those who be Aduersaries to the Catholike Religion do giue out that your Holinesse should say that you would not accept the Dedication of my Disputation concerning the Oath or rather the most humble Supplication of my selfe and of other Catholikes as I haue shewed before this onely at this present I will say that we English Catholikes are doubtlesse most miserable who daily enduring so many discommodities of this life for the Catholike faith which we professe and hauing prouoked his Maiestie a Prince otherwise most mercifull who professeth the contrary Religion to take displeasure against vs which of all the rest we account most grieuous and hauing therefore for a long time beene and are daily made a pitifull spectacle to this whole Kingdome now by humble Petition crauing to bee instructed by your Holinesse in those things which you by your Apostolicall Breues haue to our most great temporall preiudice declared to be manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation doe not onely not deserue so much at your hands as to be heard herein but your Holinesse doth forbid and condemne our Petition and doth threaten the Authour to bee punished with Censures and other Ecclesiasticall punishments vnles he purge himselfe forthwith yet after an vnusuall manner impeacheth him of no crime whereof he should purge himselfe 16 For behold most blessed Father how miserable and to be pittied is our case Our Kings most excellent Maiesty to whom by the law of Christ we owe temporall allegiance doth demand of vs vnder paine of incurring most grieuous penalties an Oath which he affirmeth to be onely a temporall Oath and of temporall Allegiance your Holinesse to whom by the law also of Christ wee are bound to obey in spirituals hath by your Breues altogether condemned the same as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation and hath withall declared that all those Priests who either doe take the said Oath or doe teach or shall teach that it may lawfully bee taken shall bee depriued of their faculties Wee English Catholikes being betweene these two narrow straights and fearing least that by auoiding the gulfe of Caribdis we should fall vpon the rocke of Scilla that is least that wee should not render to God or Caesar that which is their due doe most instantly request your Holinesse who is our Superiour Pastour in spirituals and whose proper office is to instruct and confirme the sheepe of Christ in the Christian faith that you will bee pleased to shew vnto vs those many things or at least wise one among those many which in this Oath are so repugnant to faith and saluation to the end that we may both satisfie our owne conscinces and also fulfill your Holinesse and his Maiesties commands as much as in vs lyeth and Catholike Religion will permit And neuerthelesse your Holinesse doth not onely not admit our Petition wherein with all dutifull submission we doe propound the reasons and arguments which are vsually obiected against and for the taking of the Oath to be examined by your Holinesse and affirming nothing of our owne opinion but you doe also by the euill information of others as we are perswaded wholly condemn the same without alleadging any crime either in particular or in generall against it and doe declare that the Authour thereof or your humble Petitioner except he purge himselfe forthwith shall be grieuously punished and neuerthelesse you make no mention of any crime at all whereof hee should purge himselfe 17 Is it perchance a crime for those that are in ignorance errour and doubt to haue recourse to the supreame Pastour and Doctour of the Church to be instructed by him in faith and with due submission to propound to him the doubts and difficulties which trouble both their owne and other mens consciences to be answered and satisfied by him and that not in things of small moment but in such as vnder paine of incurring great penalties doe belong to the yeelding of due obedience to God and Caesar Is it a crime for children that are hungry to craue bread of their Father for sheepe that want Pasture to require foode of their Sheepheard for Disciples that are ignorant to beseech humbly some instruction of their Master and Teacher Wee English Catholikes doe acknowledge your Holinesse to be our spirituall Father Pastour and Master and doe most humbly request to be instructed by your Holinesse in the Catholike faith and in those many things which your Holinesse by your Breues hath declared to be plainly repugnant to faith and saluation and your Holinesse doth damne and forbid our Petition and doeth ordaine after a manner altogether vnusuall that I the Authour thereof who in the name of the rest haue written and composed the same except I purge my selfe very speedily shall bee punished most seuerely For as I thinke in no tribunall on the earth this custome is to bee found that any man is compelled by sentence of the Iudge to purge himselfe vnder paine of incurring most grieuous punishments vnlesse the Iudge doth make knowne vnto him the crime for which if he doe not purge himselfe he is to be condemned Besides that it is impossible for one to purge himselfe of that crime whereof hee is ignorant 18. And to speake freely the truth for now I being summoned before the highest tribunall on earth to purge my selfe am by the law it selfe permitted to speake somewhat more freely so that I speake truely and modestly this new kinde of condemning the bookes of Catholike Authours and of commanding the Author to purge himselfe foorthwith being made by such a publike Decree and vnder paine of incurring the penalties contained in the Councell of Trent and in the Index of forbidden bookes without naming any crime eiher in particular or in generall for which they are condemned and of which the Author should purge himselfe considering that the same punishment is not appointed in the Index for reading without
the necessarie good of their owne soules and of their subiects 36 Neither doe those examples or facts or Popes which my Aduersarie here bringeth or any such like sufficiently prooue a power in the Pope as he is a spirituall Pastour to change transferre giue or take away earthly kingdomes for that it is one thing sayth Card. Bellarmine n in Resp ad Apolog pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so likewise of Popes and an other thing to prooue their power right and authoritie As Leo the third Pope of that name o pag. 47. nu 13 Egmarth in vita Caroli Annales Francof anno 801. Paul Diacon lib. 23. Zonaras tom 3. Annal Cedrenus in vita Constant Irene sayth my Aduersarie gaue to Charles the great the Empyre of the West which was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift c. 37 But to this example I did fully and clecrely answer in my Apologie p nu 414. seq to wit that the Romane Empire was not translated from the Grecians to the Germans by the onely authoritie of the Pope but also by the common consent suffrages ordinance decree and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome both Clerkes and Laikes with the tacite consent at least wise of all others to whom it did belong amongst whom the chiefest of all was the Bishop of Rome who did not by his spirituall or Pontificall authoritie which he as Pope receiued from Christ cause that translation but as he being the principall member and citizen of Rome and of the Romane Empire did by his aduise consent solliciting procurement suffrage and authoritie chiefly set forward that translation and as he was Pope did by his Pontificall authoritie approoue it to be lawfull and no way repugnant to the law of God or nature for which causes he is said by many writers to haue transferred that Empire as the chiefe and principall Authour procurer and approouer thereof 38 And this I did sufficiently prooue in that place both by the grounds of Card. Bellarmine himselfe and also by the testimonies of those Authours whom he alledged For nothing can be concluded saith he q lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. by arguments taken from authoritie negatiuely For it doth not follow Luke Paul and Seneca doe not say that S. Peter was at Rome therefore S. Peter was not at Rome For these three were not bound to say all things and more credite is to be giuen to three witnesses affirming then to a thousand saying nothing so that these doe not deny what the others doe affirme Seeing therefore that none at all of those thirtie two Authours whom Card. Bellarmine brought for witnesses of the translation of the Empire made by the Pope doth deny that the aforesaid translation was done by the authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome and not onely three of Card. Bellarmines Authours but also many more whom I cited there doe most plainly affirme that both the authoritie of the Pope and also the consent decree ordinance suffrage and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome did concurre to that translation more credite is to be giuen to them who doe affirme that the Empire was translated by the Pope Senate people of Rome then to all the rest although they were a thousand who albeit they say that this translation was done by the Pope yet they doe not deny that it was also done by the Senate and people of Rome Thus and much more to the same purpose did I answere in my Apologie r See Apologie 427. seq 39 Now you shall see how cunningly and insufficiently D. Schulckenius doth shift of this my answere For whereas he is very diligent for the most part to set downe my words and text in particular when hee imagineth that with any colourable Reply hee can confute them yet here he relateth Cardinall Bellarmines argument drawne from the translation of the Romane Empire to the French men but hee altogether concealeth my answere thereunto and so passeth ouer twentie pages of my Apologie wherein both by his owne grounds by his owne Authours and many others I cleerly proued that this translation was done not onely by the authoritie of the Pope but also of the Senate and people of Rome and onely with a flourish of words hee endeuoureth to prooue by a Dilemma which as you shall see is neither to the question betwixt me and Cardinall Bellarmine and which I also answered in that place That I must either approoue Card. Bellarmines opinion or else cleerely contradict my selfe in my answere Wherefore although D. Schulckenius maketh this title of his foureteenth Chapter The answere of Widdrington to the rest of the examples which are taken from the facts of Leo the third c. is examined yet hee neither examineth my answere to that fact of Leo nor setteth it downe at all albeit he confesseth that I haue at large disputed thereof But this is all that he replieth r Schulck in Apol. cap. â— pag. 597. 598. 40 And of the translation of the Empire Cardinall Bellarmine hath exactly soundly and diligently written three bookes of a iust bignesse in so much that nothing doth seeme can be added thereunto Onely at this time I doe make this argument against my Aduersary Widdrington Either that translation was true or faigned If hee say it was faigned hee will bee ouerwhelmed with the voyces of all Historiographers and hee will take away all humane faith out of the world But if hee say it was truely done I aske againe whether it was done iustly or vniustly if hee say it was done vniustly first he will contradict almost all Catholike Writers for onely the Magdeburgian Heretikes doe blame it as one of the miracles of Antichrist Besides that hee will wrong all the Latin Emperours who from that time haue beene shall be as though their Empire is not grounded vpon a sound foundation Lastly he will reprehend all the people of the West yea all the world who haue hitherto honoured the Latin Emperour as a true and lawfull possessour of the Empire For also the Grecians themselues with their Emperour and the Persians as wee haue related out of Bellarmine in the former Chapter Å¿ Ad nu 390. haue acknowledged the Latin Emperours as true and lawfull Emperours 41 But if Widdrington say that it was done iustly I demand whether it was done by the authority of the Romane Bishop the Citizens of Rome assenting or also requesting it or whether it was done by the authoritie of the people of Rome the Pope assenting and crowning and blessing the Emperour chosen by the people or whether it was done by the authoritie of the Pope and of the people of Rome together If he will say that it was done by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome the Citizens of Rome assenting and requesting it he will agree both with the truth of
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
the Priests of the new law must haue authoritie to doe the like but things farre more noble and excellent for that the veritie must be of a more high and excellent order then the figure as in the fifth Chapter I proued more at large And therefore as in the olde law all the figures promises and punishments were temporall so in the new law the veritie promises and punishments which correspond thereunto must be spirituall not temporall for otherwise the figure should bee the same with the veritie and not of an higher nature and order then the verity So that temporall life must correspond to spirituall life temporall kingdomes to spirituall kingdomes temporall goods to spirituall goods temporall promises and rewards to spirituall promises and rewards and temporall punishments to spirituall punishments all which spirituall punishments are contained in Excommunication Maior and Minor and in other Ecclesiasticall Censures and punishments And to that which he addeth in the end that I must acknowledge according to my owne doctrine that the Church may punish temporally seeing that shee may excommunicate I haue already fully m Cap. answered and denyed his consequence for that the Church of Christ neither by ExcoÌ„munication nor by any other way hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but only to punish temporally by way of command which no man denyeth And thus much concerning the olde law 10 Now to the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert brought out of the new Testament I answered thus Sixtly those places of the new Testament Quodcunque solueris super terram c. n Matth. 16. Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth c. and Pasce oues meas o Ioan. 21. Feede my sheepe as also the reason which Fa. Parsons bringeth to wit that otherwise the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth should bee imperfect and not sufficient for it selfe are explicated by mee elsewhere And that corporall killing of Ananias and Saphira and the visible deliuering of the fornicatour to Sathan are to be referred to the grace of miracles Neither will this Authour say as I imagine that the Pope hath power to kill wicked men and malefactours with the word of his mouth 11 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth in the same order And first to my answere to those two places Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feede my sheepe which I made in my Apologie p Apolog. nu 35. seq nu 203. seq wherevnto I remitted the Reader he replieth thus q Pag. 115. nu 6.7.8 That which Widdrington saith in his Apologie concerning these two texts allâ—dged out of the Gospell is no other but to prooue that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely which we willingly grant as D. Adolphus Schulckenius r Adolph Schulck in Apolog c. 4. § Respondeo p. 136 in his answere for Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared sufficiently and tolde my Aduersary Widdrington withall how vainely he hath laboured with a long discourse and many idle words to prooue that which neither the Cardinall nor any other Catholike will deny 12 For wee willingly grant saith Schulckenius that the Popes power is formally spirituall though virtually it is also temporall extending it selfe to temporall things so farre forth as they are subordinate to the spirituall and the necessitie of the Church shall require So hee Å¿ Ibidem and afterwards he also explicateth the same in these words Nam animus noster spiritus est c. For our soule saith he is a spirit and hath a spirituall power and yet it doth not onely thereby gouerne the body which is subiect vnto it but doth also chastise it with corporall punishments as watching hairecloth fasting and whipping And therefore if Bellarmine did say that the Pope doth iudge the faults of Princes and vpon their desert depriue them sometimes of their gouernment by a temporall power his Aduersary Widdrington should say somewhat to the purpose but now seeing that Bellarmine saith that the Pope vseth a spirituall power when hee depriueth Princes of their States for spirituall and Ecclesiasticall crimes such as heresies and Schismes are his Aduersary Widdrington doth idlely beate the ayre c. for he should haue prooued that a supreme spirituall power cannot extend it selfe to dispose of temporall things as they are referred to spirituall things Thus saith Schulckenius 13 And thereof my Aduersary Widdrington might haue taken notice if it had pleased him when he referred me and his Readers to his Apologie for answere to those places For albeit he may perhaps pretend that hee had not seene Schulckenius his Apologie for the Cardinall before hee had ended his Theologicall Disputation yet it is euident that he had seene and read it before he wrote his Admonition to the Reader wherein he writeth against me For he not onely maketh mention therein of the Apologie of Schulckenius but also carpeth at him for some things that hee handleth and therefore if he had meant sincerely he would not haue remitted vs to his owne Apologie for this point without some confutation of Schulckenius his Answere thereto I meane of so much as concerneth this matter For otherwise he may multiply bookes and write of this controuersie as long as he liueth and all to no purpose if he will still stand vpon his first grounds and dissemble the answeres that are made thereto and therefore as hee remitteth me to his Apologie so I remit him also to the answere of Schulckenius which I haue partly laide downe heere and may be seene more at large in him And this shall suffice for this point 14 But truely it is intollerable that these men should so shamefully both abuse me and delude their Reader I doe not say onely in dissembling the answere I made to their argument but in plainly corrupting the words and manifest sense thereof in which manner they may multiply bookes and make Replies with ease but with shame enough For it is too too apparantly vntrue that I labored in that place to prooue nothing else as those men falsly affirme but that which neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny to wit that Christ gaue to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely although it be well knowne that the common opinion of the Canonists doth deny the same who contend that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter not onely spirituall but also temporall authoritie and made him thereby not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert is grosly mistaken in saying so boldly that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely For I did not contend in that place about the authority which was giuen to Saint Peter to binde and loose which Cardinall Bellarmine taketh to bee all one with to feede his sheepe whether it was temporall or spirituall or both as the Canonists wil haue it but about the acts