whom I built a Monasterie I had not repented at the last houre And truely I haue escaped eternall death but I shall be tormented with most grieuous punishments vntill the day of Iudgement But the Mother of mercie obtained for me of her Sonne that I might come to thee to desire prayers which when he had said he presently vanished away And Ludgard told his necessities to her Sisters that they might relieue him but she greatly pittying his case did afflict her selfe for his cause with wonderfull punishment Let the Reader know saith Thomas Cantipratensis the writer of her life from whom Surius tooke the same that those three causes are by the reuealing of Ludgard not vnknowne to vs but for the reuerence of so great a Pope we would not relate them 7 Which example saith Card. Bellarmine is wont oftentimes to terrifie mee exceedingly and to cause mee to tremble For if so commendable a Pope and who in the eies of men was accounted not onely honest and prudent but also a Saint and woorthy to bee imitated did scape so narrowly hell fire and is to bee punished vntill the day of Iudgement with the most grieuous fire of Purgatory what Prelate would not tremble who would not examine most exactly the secrets of his conscience For I doe easily perswade my selfe that so great a Pope could not commit deadly sinnes but being deceiued vnder the shew of good by flatterrs and those of his owne houshold of whom it is said in the Gospell Matth. 10 A mans enemyes are they of his owne howshold Therefore let vs all learne by this so great an example to examine carefully our conscience least perchance it be erroneous albeit to vs it seeme to be right and sound Thus Cardinall Bellarmine whose counsell in this point I thinke it necessary that all my Aduersaries with Cardinall Bellarmine the chiefest of them and my selfe should duely consider least that the zeale which all of vs pretend to haue be blind and not according to knowledge and that our conscience albeit to vs it seeme to bee right and sound bee erroneous and grounded vpon culpable ignorance For my owne part I haue examined my conscience very carefully and cannot find my selfe guilty of any fault for examining this controuersie touching the lawfulnesse of the Oath and the Popes power to depose Princes and that I was not mooued thereunto for feare flattery hope of gaine or any other worldly respect but truely and sincerely God is my witnesse for the loue I beare to God Religion my Prince and Countrey to finde out the Catholike truth and being found to embrace professe and follow it and thereby according to our Sauiours commaundement to render to God and Caesar that obedience which doth belong to them 8 Secondly therfore I wish my Aduersaries to consider what may in the iudgemēt of any prudent man be thought of those men who by fraud or violēce should seek to force vpon any one a great sum of gold which he greatly suspecteth to be false and counterfaite and therefore refuseth to accept thereof before hee hath fully tryed whether it be true or forged coyne and whether any fault be to be found in him both for desiring to haue the gold examined by the touchstone and those waies by which true gold is discerned from counterfaite before hee bee compelled to take it for good and currant and also for giuing his reasons why hee thinketh the same to bee false and forged And if they will not suffer him to make triall whether it be good or no but will needes haue him to take it for good gold when not onely himselfe but also diuers other skilfull Gold-Smiths doe greatly suspect yea and are fully perswaded that it is naught and counterfaite and if he refuse to accept thereof in that manner they should seeke to disgrace him with the Prince and people and to accuse him of disobedience to the State and who wilfully refuseth to accept and acknowledge the Kings coyne for lawfull whether these men doe not great wrong to that party and whether it may not be prudently thought that they haue a guilty conscience and that they themselues suspect the said gold not to bee indeed so good and currant as in words they would pretend 9 Now the case betweene mee and my Aduersaries is farre worse then this For they haue sought by false and fraudulent meanes not onely to impose vpon the whole Christian world a false and counterfait Catholike faith for truely Catholike but to slander and defame all those Catholikes and my selfe in particular who for the reasons wee haue often propounded refuse to accept thereof for Catholike vntill it be better prooued so to be and to condemne vs of temerity and disobedience to the Sea Apostolike yea and of flat heresie and they would make the world beleeue that wee are not true Catholikes but heretickes disguised and masked vnder the vizard of Catholikes For so saith M. Fitzherbert c. 17. nu 19. And albeit we doe publikely professe our selues to be true Catholikes and doe submit all our writings to the iudgement and censure of the Catholike Romane Church and doe sincerely and solemnly protest to recall and recant foorthwith our errour if wee haue committed any as soone as it shall be made knowne vnto vs that wee haue written any thing amisse yet they feare not to affirme contrary to all iustice and charity that all this our profession submission and protestation is but a false luster and glosse So saith Fitzherbert c. 17 nu 1. 26. to cast vpon our counterfaite ware of purpose to deceiue and that it proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes 10 Neither will they suffer vs to examine by the true grounds of Catholike Religion their newly inuented Catholike faith and to yeeld our reasons which doe fully perswade vs that their faith which they pretend to be Catholike is not ancient and true but a newly inuented and a false and forged Catholike faith but they haue caused his Holinesse to condemne our bookes which in our iudgement doe plainly discouer their forgeries and to forbid all Catholikes as well learned as vnlearned to read them without signifying vnto vs any one thing in particular which we haue written amisse although wee haue often and earnestly requested to know the same but all that they say or write wee must forsooth without any further examination approoue for good and currant doctrine albeit wee haue most plainely conuinced them of manifest fraude and falshood in almost euery one of their arguments and answeres which they haue brought to prooue their doctrine in this point of the Popes spirituall authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments to be truely Catholike All which being duely considered what infinite wrong they haue done vs it is too too manifest and albeit they pretend true zeale to Catholike Religion
vtterers of the same 2 And this is the very case betweene me and my Aduersaries in this controuersie concerning the Popes pretended authority to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls For I accuse them and also in my iudgement clearely conuince them that they haue if not coined and forged yet at leastwise not onely taught and divulged and which is worse endeauoured by fraud and violence to thrust vpon Catholikes a false and forged Catholike faith but also that they haue wrongfully defamed and slandered those Catholikes and my selfe in particular who doe plainely discouer their falshoods and that they seeke both by deceitfull and violent meanes to hinder aswell the learned as the vnlearned people that they shall not by the true touchstone and vndoubted rules of the Catholike faith by reading those books which doe exactly and sincerely debate this question examine in what a fraudulent manner they seeke to colour this their false and newly forged Catholike faith wherein they doe most egregiously abuse all Christian Princes and people most exceedingly scandalize Catholike Religon and as much as lyeth in them they make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull both to Princes and people and giue occasion of perpetuall discord betwixt the Kingdome and the Priesthood whereby they prepare the way to Antichrist and lay open a wide gap to Schisme heresie Atheisme and infidelity 3 For if vnder the pretence of aduancing the Popes authority in so great preiudice of Regall Soueraignty we once forsake the ancient and approoued rules by which as by an assured touchstone the true Christian and Catholike faith hath alwaies been discerned from the false and counterfeit what vndoubted grounds shal we haue to build our Catholike faith vpon which c In the Creed of S. Athanasius vnlesse euery one shall keepe entire and inuiolate without doubt he shall perish eternally If Christian Princes people once perceiue that the supreame Pastours of Gods Church doe both permit and applaud some learned men who are otherwise potent in the Court of Rome to impose by fraud and violence vpon the Church of Christ in fauour of that authority which they pretend to haue ouer all temporals a false and forged Catholike faith for true and to disgrace and slander all those who shall detect their forgeries why may not the said Princes and people iustly suspect as Fa. Lessius argueth d In his Singleton part 3. num 74. that the Catholike faith and Religion is for a great part thereof a meere inuention of men deuised of set purpose by Popes Bishops and Cleargie men in policie that they may more securely dominiere and vnder a shew of piety and Religion dispose of all temporals at their pleasure And therefore how much these men are to answere at the day of iudgement for so greatly wronging Christian Princes for so mightily scandalizing Catholike Religion for so much endangering the soules of all sorts of people and for so vniustly oppressing and slandering innocent and zealous Catholikes who doe plainely discouer their fraud and falshoods I cannot but tremble when I seriously consider the same 4. And if perhaps my Aduersaries will in their owne defence alledge that one may be excused from all fault before God and man who in zeale should teach any doctrine to be Catholike which he sincerely in his conscience thinketh to bee truely Catholike albeit perchance in very deed it is not so as also he that vttereth counterfait money not knowing it to bee counterfait but sincerely thinking that it is good and lawfull coine is not to be condemned before God or man I answere that all things done in zeale are not free from sinne when the zeale is blinde and grounded vpon an erroneous conscience and culpable ignorance Otherwise we might excuse from all fault the Iewes for crucifying our Sauiour and putting to death his Disciples Luke 23. for that they did it through ignorance and thought thereby to doe seruice to God Iohn 16. and S. Paul for blaspheming and persecuting the Christians before his conuersion Acts 1. because he did it being ignorant in incredulity 5 And therefore first I wish them to remember that admonition Bell. lib 2. de gemitu columbae cap 9. which Cardinall Bellarmine my chiefest Aduersary giueth to the Pastours and Prelates of the Church vpon occasion of relating the fearefull death of Pope Innocent the third who greatly busied himselfe with the deposing of temporall Princes and with the disposing of temporall kingdomes whereby great warres and much effusion of innocent blood were caused in the Church of God which perchance was one of the three causes for which the said Pope as Cardinall Bellarmine rehearseth had beene damned eternally if he had not repented at the houre of his death For first he deposed Philip and set vp Otho Matth. Paris in vita Ioannis ad annū 1210. Page 220. then he deposed Otho for seeking to recouer certaine townes and forts belonging to the Empire which the said Pope in the time of Frederikes minority had taken into his owne possession afterward he sought to thrust out of Italy the said Frederike the second Blondus decad 2. l b. 6. Abbas Vrsperg ad annū 1212. who before at Aquisgraue was crowned Emperour by the said Pope Innocent his authority I omit now to relate how here in England he carried himselfe first in taking part with the Barons and deposing King Iohn Matth Paris in vita Ioannis ad annū 1212. pag. 223. And Stow in the life of King Iohn and which neither Car. Bellarmine nor Suarez dare iustifie who will not admit that the Pope may lawfully depose a King and giue his Kingdome from the next heire who is free from all fault to another in giuing the Kingdome to the King of France and his posterity for euer wherby he depriued the next lawful heire Henry the 3. being a childe of his right without any fault committed by him But after the Popes Legate had cunningly perswaded King Iohn to resigne vp his Crowne and Kingdome to the Pope then he tooke King Iohns part against the King of France and the Barons and commanded them not molest him for that he was now become the Popes Vassall But marke I pray you what Card. Bellarmine writeth of this Pope Innocent 6 About this time saith he Surius ad 16. Iunij relating Surius words in the life of S. Ludgard Pope Innocent the third after the celebrating of the Lateran Councell departed this life and forthwith he appeared visibly to Ludgard But she seeing him compassed about with a great flame of fire demāded who he was He answered that hee was Pope Innocent And what is this saith she with a pittifull grone that the common Father of vs all is so cruelly tormented Hee answered For three causes am I so tormented which also had most iustly adiudged me to euerlasting torments if by the intercession of the most pious Mother of God to
and depriue is necessarily included in his Regall authoritie but all Catholikes doe not beleeue whatsoeuer my Aduersary and some few others doe that the power to depose Princes is necessarily included in that spirituall Supremacie which Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successours as hath bene amply prooued by me and diuers others and what particulars Mr. Fitzherbert hath laide here or in his Supplement concerning this point we will beneath in their due places examine 34 His first reason he deduced from the grounds and principles of the Protestants Religion and from the doctrine and beliefe of his Maiesty and those of the Parliament who made the oath But how silly and insufficient this reason is yea and repugnant to his owne grounds and also of Fa. Parsons in whose defence hee wrote his Supplement any man of iudgement may quickly perceiue For behold his reason It is great reason sayth he to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authours thereof for it is to be presumed that euery one speaketh 〈◊〉 and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion but it is an assertion position and the beliefe not onely of his Maiestie but also of the Parliament which decreed the oath that the Pope cannot depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie therefore it is great reason to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacie 35 But first his Minor proposition is very vntrue For neither his Maiestie nor the Protestants doe hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie This indeed is the reason why they hold that the Pope cannot excommunicate his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie But the reason why they hold that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose his Maiesty is for that deposition being not an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall but a ciuill and temporall censure or punishment for what crime soeuer it be imposed can not be inflicted by any Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie For which reason the Protestants doe holde that although the Protestant Bishops of this Realme haue Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall authoritie herein England yet they haue no authoritie by vertue of their Episcopall power to depose or depriue his Maiestie of his temporall dominions for that they take deposition or any such temporall violence as his Maiestie affirmeth u In his Premonition pag. 9. to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall Censure as Excommunication is 36 And although this be sufficient to shew the insufficiencie of this my Aduersaries reason yet graunting him onely for Disputation sake which he in his Minor proposition vntruely affirmeth that his Maiestie and the Parliament should hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England his reason neuerthelesse is both insufficient and also repugnant to that which Fa. Parsons and he himselfe suppose to be true For albeit Fa. Parsons doth confidently affirme x In his booke intituled The iudgement of a Catholike English man c. part 1. nu 22. pag. 13. and 16. that there is no man who sticketh or maketh difficultie to acknowledge our Soueraigne to be true King and rightfull Lord ouer all his Dominions for that euery English Catholike will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those parts and clauses of the oath that doe any way appertaine to the ciuill and temporall obedience due to his Maiestie whom hee acknowledgeth to be his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his Dominions and the same in effect doth my Aduersarie in his supposition affirme as you haue seene before y Nu. 6. yet according to this his reason neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be our true and lawfull Soueraigne nor can promise to yeeld him all temporall alleagiance nor to defend him from all treasons and traiterous conspiracies nor to disclose them when they shal come to their knowledge when any such acknowledgement shall be demanded at their hands by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of his Maiesty as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included and necessarily deduced from his temporall and Kingly authoritie and all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authoritie are by the lawes of this Realme made treasons and traiterous conspiracies 37 Seeing therefore to vse my Aduersaries wordes It is great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof for it is to bee presumed that euery one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the principles and grounds of his beliefe and Religion it is cleere that if my Aduersaries argument be good neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be their true and lawfull Soueraigne and that they will yeeld him all temporall allegiance and defend him from all treasons and disclose them when they shall come to their knowledge for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie and according to the lawes of this Realme all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authority are treasons and traiterous conspiracies So that you see what contradiction there is in my Aduersaries sayings and what a prettie argument hee hath made to prooue himselfe a traytour seeing that according to his owne grounds hee can not acknowledge King Iames to be his true and lawfull Soueraigne nor promise to yeeld him all temporall allegiance if it should be exacted by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Maiesties spirituall Supremacy is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie 38 But secondly if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased out of the desire of truth to handle this question betweene him and mee sincerely and not with a flourish of words to obscure the difficulty and blind the vnderstanding of simple and scrupulous Catholikes he might eyther out of his owne iudgement or at lest wise from of that which I in my Theologicall Disputation did answere to the arguments of Gretzer Disputatio Theol. c. 2. sect 1 who thought it vnlawfull to acknowledge King Iames to bee our Soueraigne Lord in temporals and of Capellus z Ibid. c. 6. sect 5. who also thought it vnlawfull for any Catholike to promise that he will disclose all treasons and traiterous conspiracies for the reasons aforesaide and also from that which out of the doctrine of Suarez a
Ibid. c. 1. I declared in what manner wee ought to interprete the wordes of any law hee might I say haue quickely perceiued the weakenesse of his reason and in what sense his Maior proposition and the proofe which he bringeth thereof to make it true are to be vnderstood 39 For to repeate againe his wordes It is indeede great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes and decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof whensoeuer the wordes are doubtfull and vnlesse the Author doe in expresse wordes declare his meaning to be the contrary For it is to bee presumed that euery one vnlesse he declare the contrary doth commonly speake write and decree according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion as euery Artisan doth vsually worke according to the grounds and principles of his Art vnlesse hee will take vpon him to doe some worke belonging to another Art as if a Physitian will take vpon him to measure land then hee must worke according to the grounds of Geometrie and not of Physicke And if a Protestant will speake write or decree like a Catholike and vpon Catholike grounds hee must obserue the principles of Catholike Religion and likewise a Catholike if he will speake write or decree like a Protestant and vpon Protestant grounds must obserue the principles of the Protestant Religion And therefore as the positions assertions and decrees of knowen and professed Catholikes are to be interpreted according to the grounds of the Catholike faith vnlesse they declare to haue a contrary meaning so also the positions of all Sectaries are to be vnderstood according to the different doctrines of their Sects vnlesse they declare their meaning to bee otherwise in so much that if a Catholike and a Protestant should affirme both of them one thing which might be controuersed in respect of Religion the sense and meaning of either of them is to bee interpreted according to their different Religions vnlesse they declare the contrary And in this sense my Aduersaries Maior proposition is true otherwise it is false for doubtfull and ambiguous wordes are euer to bee vnderstood according to the declaration of the speaker and the wordes of euery law whensoeuer they are doubtfull are to bee taken in that sense which the Law-maker shall declare his meaning to be 40 Now his Maiestie who with the Parliament deuised this new oath not for the Protestants but to make a triall how his Catholike subiects stand affected towards him in point of their loyaltie and due obedience hath oftentimes as my Aduersary could not but see in my Theologicall Disputation publikely declared his meaning b In an Act of Parliament anno septimo ca. 6. and in his Premonition pag. 9. and in his Apologie pag. 2. nu 2. pag. 246. and that hee intended in this oath to exact of his Catholike subiects nothing else then the profession of that temporall allegiance and ciuill obedience which all subiects what religion soeuer they professe by the law of God doe owe to their lawfull Prince with a promise to disclose all contrary vnciuill violence and to make a distinction not betwixt Catholikes and Protestants but betwixt ciuilly obedient Catholikes and such Catholikes as are the disciples of the Powder-treason And therefore his Maiestie caused the lower house of Parliament to reforme that clause which contained the deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate him So carefull was hee that nothing should bee contained in this Oath except the profession of naturall allegiance and ciuill and temporall obedience Hee saide in this oath for as the oath of Supremacie saith his Maiestie was deuised for putting a difference betweene Papists and them of our profession so was this oath ordained for making a difference betweene the ciuilly obedient Papists and the peruerse disciples of the Powder-Treason And againe This oath saith his Maiestie was ordained only for making of a true distinction betweene Papists of quiet disposition and in all other things good Subiects and such other Papists as in their hearts maintained the like violent bloodie maximes that the Powder-Traitors did The same also but in more ample wordes affirmeth his Maiestie in his Apologie for the oath 41 Seeing therefore that his Maiestie hath so often and so publikely declared that he intended by this oath nothing else but to make a true distinction not betwixt Catholikes and Protestants but betwixt Catholikes and Catholikes and to vrge them only to make a profession of that naturall and ciuill obedience which all Subiects of what Religion soeuer they bee doe by the law of God owe to their lawfull Prince there is no reason to draw an argument from his Maiesties intention or beliefe and from the grounds and principles of the Protestants Religion but only from the contents of the oath it selfe to proue it to be vnlawfull and to containe in it any thing which is repugnant to Catholike faith and Religion And that this is a probable answere and not a vaine bragge and idle affirmation of my owne it is so euident that I dare aduenture to remit it to the iudgement of my Aduersarie himselfe albeit he sticketh not at this time to affirme that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike 42 Concerning which last accusation hee writeth thus c Nu. 17. Now then to conclude this point whereas Widdrington saith as you haue heard that it is meruaile that learned men blush not to affirme the Kings minde to be that which his Maiestie hath declared to be no part of his meaning I may well say that it is a farre greater wonder that hee professing to be a Catholike and knowing and confessing as he doeth in his Epistle Dedicatorie d In Principio and after in his Theologicall Disputation e Cap 10 sec 2. nu 1. 2. that his Holinesse in two Breues hath declared his mind concerning this oath palam ex professo openly and expresly to wit that it containeth many things which are manifestly repugnant to the Catholike faith and saluation of soules it is I say an extreame wonder that he blusheth not extreamely to defend the said oath coÌ„trary to the expresse strickt coÌ„mandement of his spiritual Pastour whose voiâ—e he is bound to heare and obey if he bee a sheepe of Christs fold and child of the Catholike Church And therefore I conclude that hee sheweth himselfe not only impudent but also impious in preferring the declaration of a temporall Prince which neuerthelesse being well weighed doeth nothing helpe his cause or preiudice ours before an Apostolicall decree of S. Peters Successour whose obedient child hee professeth and ought to be wherein he sheweth sufficiently how good a Catholike he is and whom he holdeth for his Supreame head in Ecclesiasticall causes as also what probabilitie we may expect of him hereafter for the confirmation of the rest of his assertions seeing that wee haue found him at the
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
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
Common-wealth because the end doth farre excell the meanes that tend thereto and the other that the Ecclesiasticall Societie which of all Societies doth next approach to GOD and vnite them with him is the most excellent and worthie of all Arist l. 1. Meta. and therefore as Aristotle worthily called Metaphysicke the Mistresse and Goddesse because it immediately considereth the sciences of all things which is God so may we call the Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie the Mistresse Lady Empresse and Goddesse of all Common-wealths and all other Societies because it is properly and immediately dedicated to the seruice of GOD as also because Common-wealths and other Societies cannot performe their dutie to GOD nor arriue to perfect felicitie but by the meanes of the Ecclesiasticall Societie 27 And this is so certaine and euident that no Philosopher or learned Paynim would deny it as it may appeare by the institution and customes of the best Common-wealths among the Paynims in the which the Religious Societie had the preheminence aboue the Common-wealth in all things that any way appertained to Religion as I will make it manifest heereafter when I shall speake of the law of Nations and now only for the present I wish to be obserued that in the Roman Common-wealth the chiefe Bishop who was called Pontifex Maximus had supreame authoritie in matters pertaining not only to Religion but also to State when the same was mixed with Religion in which case he commanded the Consuls themselues who were the Soueraigne temporall Magistrates Valeri l. 1. c. 1. This appeareth in Valerius Maximus who testifieth that Posthumus the Consull being a Priest of the God Mars and intending to goe to Africke with his army was forced by Metellus the chiefe Bishop to stay his iourney to attend to his Priestly function and therefore Cicero saith that it was most notably Cicero pro domo sua and diuinely ordained by the ancient Romans that the Bishops should haue the chiefe command in matters that pertained as well to the Common-wealth as to the Religion of the Gods And no meruaile seeing that the Augures who were inferiour to the Bishops had such absolute authoritie that they might hinder the election of Officers depriue the Magistrates of their Offices and forbid the Senate to treate with the people Cicero de legib lib. 1. 2. in so much that nothing lawfully done by any Magistrate at home or abroad if he were contradicted by them Cicero de Diuiuat lib. 2. and which is more the two Consuls P. Claudius and Lucius Iunius were condemned to death for disobeying them 28 Whereby it appeareth that although the Augures and Pontifices Maximi had no authoritie ouer the temporall Magistrates in matters meerely temporall yet when consideration of Religion entered together with temporall affaires the temporall Magistrate was corrected and commanded by the spirituall as occasion required And this I say was the custome of the Romans because no doubt they held it to be most conforme to the law of Nature in which respect I may boldly say that if an Oath had beene propounded amongst them to haue exempted their Consulls and other temporall Magistrates from the command and correction of the chiefe Bishop notwithstanding any occasion of religion which might occurre they would not haue admitted it as lawfull And this is our very case Thus I said in my Supplement and then I concluded concerning the pretended Oath of allegiance speaking to M. Barlow in these words And thus you see M. Barlow that the Law of Nature is so farre from enioyning and iustifying the Oath as you say it doeth that it vtterly reiecteth and condemneth it except you can turne the world vpside downe and peruert the whole course of nature and prooue that things lesse perfect are to be preferred before the more perfect the body before the soule sense before reason temporall things before spirituall pollicie before religion earth before heauen and the world before God whereto in very truth your doctrine in this point directly tendeth 29 But these two consequents which Mr. Fitzherbert deduceth from his last Discourse are neither against my doctrine nor doe they any way prooue the new Oath of Allegiance to bee repugnant to the Law of Nature For as I saide before I doe willingly grant that Religion and the seruice of GOD and perfect felicitie which is the immediate end thereof is farre more noble and more worthie then the temporall good or immediate end of any temporall Common-wealth which is his first consequent and also which is his second that the Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie is the most excellent and worthie of all and may in some sort be called the Mistresse Lady Empresse and Goddesse of all Common-wealths and Societies because it is properly and immediately dedicated to the seruice of GOD as also because temporall Common-wealths and other Societies cannot performe their dutie to GOD nor arriue to perfect felicitie but by the meanes of the Ecclesiasticall Societie But shee is not called the Mistresse Lady Empresse and Goddesse of temporall Common-wealths for that shee can doe all the actions functions and offices of them and inflict the same temporall punishments that temporall Common-wealths can inflict but only for that shee can doe more noble and more worthie actions functions and offices and inflict more grieuous and more dreadfull punishments to wit spiritual agreeable to the nature and conditions of a spirituall Common-wealth and a Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie 30 Secondly I doe also willingly graunt that amongst the Paynims and ancient Romanes not onely the chiefe Bishop who was called Pontifex Maximus and had the supreame authoritie in matters belonging to Religion or to the seruice of their Gods but also the Augures or Soothsayers who were Priests inferiour to the chiefe Bishop had great authoritie and command in matters belonging to temporall affaires in so much that the yong chickens of certaine birds called pulli Melici and Chalcidici were held in such honour and estimation among them that they would keepe no assemblies they would promote none to any office or dignitie they would neither make warre nor truce and finally neither at home nor abroad would they vndertake any enterprise vnlesse they were foretolde by those yong birds whose prediction they did regard as an oracle and message sent from Iupiter whose messengers and interpreters they accounted those birds to be The particular manner whereof you may see in Alexander ab Alexandro lib. 1. cap. 29. But from hence it doeth not follow that those chiefe Bishops as they were religious Priests had authoritie giuen them by the law of Nature but onely by the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth to punish temporally any man that should transgresse their commaund or otherwise violate the religion of their Gods 31 Thirdly therefore although it be true that the ancient Romans and other Paynims did preferre Religion and the worship of their Gods before any other temporall thing and in regard
cauilleth at the similitude for that saith he as there is not the same reason of the flesh and spirit of the body and soule of sense and reason of earth and heauen of Beasts and Angels of the sheepe and the Pastour especially in the comparing of the subiection and dominion so truely there is not the same reason of the temporall and spirituall power 101 But who seeth not what a friuolous cauill this is Who knoweth not that the body and the soule sense and reason earth and heauen Beasts and Angels Kings and Popes doe agree and are like in somethings and that in those things wherein they agree they may be compared together What man of iudgement would disprooue him that should say that as the body is an imperfect substance and is referred to the soule so the soule is an imperfect substance and is referred to the body as sense is sometimes subiect to reason so reason is sometimes subiect and captiuated by sense as the Pope is head of the Church and of spirituall power so the King is head of the ciuill common-wealth and of ciuill power and to omit that saying of the auncient Glosse f Patricius est Pater Papae in temporalibus sicut Papa est Pater Patricij in spiritualibus which Cardinall Bellarmine with small reuerence to antiquity affirmeth g Bell. contra Barcla c. 13. 16. to be razed out of the Canon law for doting olde age who can iustly mislike the like assertion of the Glosse vpon the twelfth Chapter of S. Marke As the King of France is subiect to the Bishop of Paris in spiritualls and his Lord in temporalls so Christ is the sonne of Dauid according to the flesh and his Lord according to his Dietie What man of learning can deny that although there be not the same reason of Christ and Dauid of the Bishop of Paris and the King of Fraunce of the temporall common-wealth and the spirituall concerning the particular manner of subiection and dominion yet in generall they may agree in this that the one is superiour and subiect to the other in a diuerse kind of superioritie and subiection and that although the King of France be a sheepe and the Bishop of Paris a spirituall Pastour and Dauid bee a man and Christ be God and the spirituall common-wealth be more excellent then the temporall yet they may bee compared one with the other in diuers kindes of superioritie and subiection But in such childish arguments and which are not worth the answering for want of better D. Schulckenius maketh great force 102 Secondly how vntrue it is which this Doctour so boldly affirmeth and which is one of the chiefe pillars whereon his doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is supported that the temporall power is per so subiect to the spirituall and that the spirituall power or spirituall Pastours are not per accident and by reason of vniust perturbing the publike peace subiect to the temporall power I haue shewed at large in the second part where I haue conuinced that this naturall subiection and subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall except only in perfection and excellencie is a meere fiction and that to affirme as this Doctour doth h Pag. 201. that Bishops are exempted omni iure from the ciuill power is a most false and intollerable doctrine and generally repugnant both to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers expounding that place of the Apostle Omnis anima c. Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers and to the common opinion of the Diuines and also the Iesuites who affirme that Cleargie men are not de facto exempted from the directiue power of temporall Princes and that they are bound to obserue their lawes not only by force of reason but also by force and vertue of the law 103 Now Mr. Fitzherbert in like manner being not able to proue as you haue seene this his fained naturall subordination of the temporall common-wealth to the spirituall except only in perfection worth and excellencie as spirituall things are more excellent then temporall which is nothing to the purpose and denyed by no man and hauing brought not so much as one proofe that the temporall power and spirituall doe make one body but barely and briefly supposeth the same whereas aboue in the second part I haue euidently conuinced the contrarie euen according to Card. Bellarmines owne grounds yet he feareth not to impeach of absurditie and impietie this doctrine which denyeth the aforesaid subordination and vnion thinking belike silly man that his bare I say is sufficient to satisfie the vnderstanding of the iudicious Reader But I let passe saith he i Pag. 108. nu 22. Widdringtons absurd and impious doctrine destroying the naturall subordination of temporall things to spirituall when they are ioyned in one body which I haue amply k Supra num 2. 3. seq proued euen by the law of Nature and I only wish to be obserued that albeit we should grant it to be true as it is most false that spirituall and temporall things may take the nature the one of the other equally by reason of some sinne annexed yet it would follow thereon that the spirituall Superiour may punish euen in temporall things because according to this doctrine temporall things doe become spirituall when the consideration of sinne entereth whereby also they are made proper to the spirituall communitie and consequently may be vsed and applyed by the spirituall Superiour to the punishment of his subiects 104 But first to let passe that Mr. Fitzherbert throughout this whole Treatise hath shewed himselfe to be a very vaine absurd ignorant and fowlemouthed man and that heere he hath proued nothing else by the law of Nature then that spirituall things are to be preferred before temporall things as the more perfect before the lesse perfect the soule before the body religion before policie heauen before earth and God before the world and consequently that the temporall common-wealth is in perfection worth and excellencie but not in authoritie subiect to the spirituall which no man calleth in question why doth he adde out of his owne braine that word equally except only to cauill and to perswade his Reader that I affirmed that spirituall and temporall things may be compared together not only in generall but also in euery point in particular and that betwixt them there is no disparitie at all seeing that I did not vse that word equally but the doctrine which I taught was this that not only temporall things by reason of some sinne annexed may oftentimes take the nature of spirituall things and therefore may be forbidden by the spirituall power of the Church which hath for the obiect of her directiue power vertue and vice in what actions so euer either temporall or spirituall they are to be found and consequently may be punished also by the Church with Ecclesiasticall Censures which only are the obiect of her coerciue or
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
are not subordinate to spirituall and due reuerence respect and obedience giuen to his immediate Ministers 37 But what is all this to the purpose what will hee conclude from hence who maketh any doubt but that all Nations and people doe vniformely agree in this that due honour is to be giuen to almighty God and that nothing is to be preferred before his seruice and that temporall things are subordinate to spirituall to wit in perfection worth and excellency and that due reuerence respect and obedience is to be giuen to his immediate Ministers But from hence it onely followeth according to the law of nature and Nations that because in the law of nature the cheife Ministers of God in all things as well concerning his publike seruice as the ciuill gouernment was the ciuill Common-wealth it selfe which because shee could not by her selfe immediatly exercise the said functions she appointed certaine Ministers to execute the same therefore we must giue due reuerence respect and obedience first to the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernours thereof and secondly to those immediate Ministers whom the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernours thereof haue appoynted according to the honour dignity and authority which is graunted them And therefore hee that should make this argument Due honour is to be giuen to almighty God and nothing is to be preferred before his seruice and due reuerence respect and obedience is to be giuen to his immediate Ministers therefore the Pope hath authority by the law of Nature and Nations to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all their temporals it is euident that he shooteth farre wide of the marke and maketh a very vaine and friuolous consequence seeing that according to the law of nature and Nations the ciuill Common-weath hath full authority to dispose of all things both concerning state and Religion 38 Wherefore with these generall propositions which all men vnderstand and approoue he still ioyneth that ambiguous and equiuocall proposition that temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to spirituall things to make the vnlearned Reader beleiue that some great mysterie lyeth hidden therein whereas the plaine meaning of it is that spirituall things are superiour to temporall things in worth excellency and dignity and therefore caeteris paribus to bee preferred before them so that in very deed the meaning thereof is nothing else but that the seruice of God is to be preferred before all temporall things which in the law of nature all ciuill Common-wealths which had supreame authority to dispose of all things both concerning State and Religion did euer acknowledge And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert labouring in his next Paragraph to prooue this spendeth his time and labour in vaine for that no man maketh doubt but that all Nations euer preferred Religion and the seruice of their Gods before all other things 39 But before I come to set downe his words I thinke it not amisse to declare briefly in what sense Religion towards God which Vlpian the Lawyer mentioned here by my Aduersary reduceth to the law of Nations may appertaine both to the law of Nations and Nature And that he may the more easily perceiue his owne errour and ignorance in contending to prooue by the law of Nature and Nations the Popes authority to depose temporall Princes I will relate verbatim Suarez doctrine against which hee neither can nor will as I suppose in this point take any exception 40 Religion or the worshipping of God saith Suarez Suarez lib. 2. Leg. cap. 19. num 10. which example the Lawyer vsed doth absolutely belong to the law of nature but the speciall and particular determination thereof doth belong to the positiue law of God and in the order of nature marke these words it would belong to the ciuill or priuate Law But the meane betwixt both seemeth in some sort to belong to the law of Nations as the right to worship God by Sacrifices is not simply or absolutely commanded by the law of nature and yet all Nations dâ— seeme to haue agreed therein as we haue said treating of this matter and therefore it may worthily be said to belong to the law of Nations Likewise that there should be in the Common-wealth a State of man appointed specially to the seruice of God doth not seeme to belong to the absolute law of nature yet it is so conuenient and agreeable thereunto that almost all Nations and Common-wealths haue agreed in this institution at least wise in the generall although in the particular manner there hath beene great variety and therefore concerning this institution in generall Religion may also be said to belong to the law of Nations Thus Suarez 41 Whereby Mr. Fitzherbert may clearely see that although to worship God in generall is commanded by the law of nature yet both to worship him in this or that particular manner is not ordained by the law of nature but left to the determination of euery priuate man as he is considered to liue by himselfe alone or of the ciuill Common-wealth as he liueth in ciuill Society and also that there should be in the Common-wealth a State of men appointed specially for the publike seruice and worshipping of God is not ordained by the law of nature but onely by the law of nations and this also onely in generall for as concerning the particular manner to wit what honour dignity authority and prerogatiues this State of men should haue it is not determined by the law of nations because in this there hath always among nations beene great variety for that some nations gaue to their religious Priests greater honour authority and prerogatiues and some gaue lesse as partly you haue seene in the sixt Chapter and partly you shall see anone by examining the rest of my Aduersaries discourse So that you may manifestly perceiue that no good argument can be brought from the law of nature or nations to proue that the Pope hath authority to punish temporally the supreame ciuill Magistrate seeing that all the authority which the religious Priests had in the law of nature either in temporals or spirituals did onely proceed from the grant of the ciuill Common-wealth it selfe and not from the law of nature 24 Now let vs go on with Mr. Fitzherberts discourse This saith he i Pag. 131. nu 6 is manifest by the generall consent and practise of all Nations who haue alwaies preferred diuine things before humane and spirituall things before temporall as in Aethiopia c. But this is onely a continuall repeating of that which he hath so often affirmed and which no man calleth in question for no man maketh doubt but by the law of nature wee are bound to preferre the seruice of God before any other thing and to giue due reuerence respect and obedience to his immediate Ministers but to honour or serue God in this or that particular manner and what particular honour respect or obedience is due to religious Priests this doth not proceede
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
hitherto he hath brought are only to demonstrate both the weakenesse of his cause and also his fraud and ignorance in dissembling the true state of the question in almost euery particular difficultie and confounding his Readers vnderstanding with ambiguous words and sentences which being once explained and the ambiguitie of them laid open doe foorthwith discouer either his want of learning or sinceritie as you may see almost in euery Chapter Neither is this his new coined Catholike faith concerning the Popes power to depose Princes agreeable to the vniuersall and continuall custome of the Catholike Church both for that this custome I doe not say of the Church but of some Popes to depose Princes began first by Pope Gregorie the seuenth Onuphr lib. 4. de varia creat Rom. Pont. who was the first Pope saith Onuphrius that contrarie to the custome of his Ancestours deposed the Emperour A thing vnheard of before that age and also for that it hath beene euer euen vnto this day contradicted by learned Catholikes and therefore neither in regard of time or persons can it bee called vniuersall neither can it be conuinced either by the holy Scriptures the practise of the Apostles the decrees of Popes or Councells or any one constitution of the Canon law What Cardinall Bellarmine hath proued against D. Barclay hath beene answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay to whose booke neither Card. Bellarmine not any other for him can in my iudgment make a sufficient Reply and what D. Schulckenius hath prooued against me you haue seene partly in this Treatise and partly in the Discouerie of his calumnies wherein I haue cleerely shewed all the arguments he bringeth to accuse me and my doctrine of heresie to be slanderous and himselfe to bee void of all Christian sinceritie modestie iustice and charitie 114 And as for D. Weston because his zeale is so furious his railing so intemperate and his arguments of so little force and for that very few of our Countrymen for ought I can learne are greatly moued but most men much scandalized with his vncharitable vnlearned and immodest Reply howsoeuer Mr. Fitzherbert expecting be like the same from him doth so exceedingly extoll it I thinke it neither needefull nor expedient vnlesse I should answere him in his railing humour according to the aduice of the wise man respondeaâ— stulto iuxto stultitiam suam which some vncharitable spirits who seeke all meanes to disgrace me would quickly reprehend in me to make him any formall answere especially seeing that all the arguments hee hath scraped together the chiefe heads whereof are heere in generall mentioned by my Aduersarie to wit the holy Scriptures and many examples of the Churches practise as diuers kinde of diuorces relaxation of debts exemption of children from the power of their Parents the abrogation of temporall and Ciuill lawes the dissolution of contracts and bargaines the imposition of temporall penalties and the right which spirituall Pastours haue to haue corporall maintenance and to take water to baptize children haue beene by me alreadie either in particular or in generall sufficiently answered 115 For first his arguments taken from the authoritie of the holy Scriptures I haue answered in particular and secondly all his other proofes and examples which are grounded vpon the practise of the Church and the Canons of Popes or Councells are to be vnderstood either of the disposing of spirituall things as of the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie which is not a meere ciuill contract but also a Sacrament and spirituall contract representing the vnion and coniunction of Christ our Sauiour with the mysticall body of his Church and therefore because it is both a Sacrament and also a ciuill contract it is now the more common opinion of Diuines p See Zanche lib. 7. de matrim disp 3. that Secular Princes if wee regard the nature of ciuill power haue also authoritie to ordaine the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie as it is a ciuill contract And although the Popes haue now reserued to themselues all causes belonging to Matrimonie in so much that Christian Princes cannot now lawfully dispose of the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie yet Petrus a Soto is of opinion Petr. Sot lec 4 de matrim versus finem that the Pope cannot depriue Princes of this their ciuill authoritie but that they of their owne accord and mooued by pietie haue yeelded to this reseruation of the Pope in regard that marriage is not onely a Ciuill contract but also a Sacrament of the Church or else they are so to bee vnderstood that they did confirme the Imperiall and Ciuill lawes or that they were made by the authoritie and expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or that they did declare the law of GOD and nature by which wee are commanded to auoide all probable danger of sinne or that they did only command and enioyne not inflict temporall penalties or finally that they did only argue a priuate right to some temporall thing but not by way of authoritie or superioritie to dispose of the same as not onely Priests but also priuate lay men may lawfully take another mans water to baptize a childe in extreame necessitie and spirituall Pastours haue a right to bee corporally releeued by them to whom they minister spirituall things as Saint Paul prooueth 1. Corinth 9. and in the ende concludeth So also our Lord ordained for them that preach the Gospel to liue of the Gospell 116 And can any iudicious man perswade himselfe that if Mr. Fitzherbert had thought in very deede these arguments of D. Weston to bee such conuincing proofes and demonstrations as in wordes hee boasteth he would for breuities sake haue forborne to vrge some of them in particular seeing that hee did not forbeare for breuities sake to take the greatest part of sixe or seuen chapters of this his Reply which containeth only seuenteene Chapters in all out of Fa Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name concerning the Canon of the Councell of Lateran and by that decree touching the exemption of Children which he hath singled out of the rest for that as I imagine it was also greatly vrged by Fa. Suarez to which aboue I haue fully answered you may easily coniecture what kinde of demonstrations are contained in the rest Wherefore to conclude this Chapter if the Reader will but briefly reduce to some syllogisticall forme or methode all the Rhetoricall flourish which Mr. Fitzherbert hath heere made concerning the law of Nature it will presently appeare that hee hath prooued nothing else by the law of Nature then that spirituall things are more perfect excellent and worthie then temporall and that the temporall common-wealth is in perfection worth and nobilitie subiect and subordinate to the spirituall but that Religious Priests haue authoritie to punish the Ciuill Common-wealth or supreame gouernours thereof especially with temporall punishments he hath no way proued by the law of Nature but the flat contrarie I haue most cleerely conuinced
for that in the law of Nature the Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe had the supreame authoritie to dispose of all things not only concerning State but also Religion CHAP. VII VVherein certaine places of the old and New Testament are explained D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere I made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisbury grounded thereon and other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias and Saphyra and of others and from the practise of the Church and from the person of man are cleerely confuted 1. THE seuenth Chapter Mr. Fitzherbert beginneth in this manner Now let vs see saith he a Pag. 112. how my Aduersarie Widdrington proceedeth who hauing giuen his reason though so weake as you haue heard why hee thinketh it to bee against reason that a spirituall Superiour should punish temporally vndertaketh to answere one place onely alleadged by me out of the old law and foure out of the new omitting to say any thing else in particular to all the other places and arguments which I vrged out of the law of God and Nature 2 But first it is not true as Mr. Fitzherbert saith that I gaue any reason at all why I thought it to bee against reason that a spirituall Superiour should punish temporally for I neuer thought this to bee against naturall reason That which I affirmed onely was that true reason doeth teach that euery Superiour hath power to punish his subiect with some punishment proportionate to his authoritie to wit by depriuing him of those goods which are proper to that Communitie whereof hee is Superiour but that any other Superiour besides the supreame Gouernour of the ciuill common-wealth hath power to punish his subiects with death mayming or depriuation of temporall goods it cannot bee deduced from the necessarie rule or prescript of true reason This was that I said Now what man of learning that knoweth the difference betwixt contra naturam secundū naturam praeter and supra naturam that is against nature according to nature besides and aboue nature would affirme that because I thinke it cannot bee deduced from the law of Nature or the prescript of true naturall reason as Mr. Fitzherbert pretended to prooue that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally therefore I must thinke that it is against Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally as though this proposition It cannot bee prooued by the law of Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally doth according to his logicke necessarily inferre that therefore it is against the law of Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally For I make no doubt but that Christ our Sauiour might if it had pleased him haue giuen authoritie as I am fully perswaded hee hath not to spirituall Pastours to punish temporally and so in this case hee had granted nothing against the law of Nature or against the prescript of true naturall reason but only aboue Nature and the light of naturall reason yet in this case it could not bee prooued by the law of Nature but only by the positiue institution and law of Christ that spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to punish temporally Wherefore the law of Nature hath neither commanded nor forbidden hath neither giuen nor denyed to spirituall Pastours authoritie to punish temporally but if they haue any such authoritie it must be giuen them by the positiue grant of GOD or man and consequently it is neither against nor according but aboue or besides the law of Nature that spiritual Pastors should haue any such authoritie to punish temporally 3 Secondly the reason why I omitted to say something in particular to euery part of his idle Discourse in this Reply of his but answered onely some certaine arguments drawne from those sixe generall heads to wit from the old law and the new the law of Nature and nations the Canon and the Ciuill law was not for that I could not answere particularly euery one of them as the Reader may see by this Treatise wherein I haue answered his whole Reply and euery part thereof but the reason was for that neither the breuitie of such a short Admonition nor the Printer who had then finished the whole Disputation would hardly permit me to make so long a Discourse as there I made and therfore I chose out of purpose certaine arguments drawne from each one of those sixe seuerall heads which I thought to bee the strongest and which being answered the iudicious Reader might easily perceiue how all the rest might in the like maner be fully satisfied 4 Now you shall see what he obiecteth against that which I there did answere And first he setteth downe my words which are these Fiftly he that will diligently consider the vnder written sentences of S. Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine will presently perceiue what a forcible proofe can bee deduced from that of Deuteronomie the 17. and such like places of the Old Testament which is a figure of the new Excommunication Bellar. lib. 2. de Ecclesia cap. 6. S. August q. 39. in Deut. saith Cardinall Bellarmine hath that place in the Church which the punishment of death had in the Old Testament and which the Common-wealth hath in temporals And Saint Augustine saith that Excommunication doth this now in the Church which killing or death did then in the Old Testament In which place hee compareth that which was said in the 24. of Deuteronomy He shall be slaine and thou shalt take away the euill from amidst thee with that which the Apostle saith 1 Corinth 5. Auferte malum ex vobis ipsis Take away euill from among your selues S. August lib. 2. de fide operibus cap. 2. And Saint Augustine teacheth in another place That the materiall sword which Moyses and Phinees vsed in the Old Testament was a figure of the degradations and excommunications which are to be vsed in the new law seeing that in the discipline of the Church saith S. Augustine the visible sword shall cease 5 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth b Pag. 113. nu 2. in this manner Thus saith my Aduersary Widdrington wherein he rather fortifieth and strengtheneth our cause then weakeneth or hurteth it any way For if you note well what Widdrington saith and inferreth he prooueth nothing else but that the penalty of temporall or corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the old and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by Excommunication which we denie not But will 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 which as he himselfe granted supplyeth the place of corporall death includeth a temporall punishment by the separation of the delinquent from the conuersation of men and from diuers