prooue that in the Oath are contained many things flat contrary to faith and saluation were very grossely mistaken And if his Holinesse trusting to the learning and honestie of these men was moued to condemne the Oath for that cause by the instigation of them as by all probable coniectures or rather by morall certainties he was as I conuinced before it is alas too too manifest that he was deluded to the great ignominie of the Sea Apostolike the grieuous scandall of Protestants and to the vtter temporall ruine of very many Catholikes 58 Now you shall see how childishly Mr. Fitzherbert cauilleth at that word if as though now at last I made a doubt and durst not absolutely auerre that his Holinesse was moued by the instigation of Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome to condemne the Oath for the aforesaid causes Wherein I wish to be noted saith he f Pag. 217. nu 11. first vpon what a weake ground Widdrington reiecteth the Popes Breues seeing that he relyeth onely vpon his bare opinion that the Pope was ill informed and deluded by others which he laboureth seriously g Ibid. nu 51. 52. 57. to peswade his Reader to bee very probable although it is so coniecturall and vncertaine that he is faine to conclude all as you heard h Nu. 58. with an if or a peraduenture so as if the Pope was not mooued vnto it by the instigation of those whom he nameth he concludeth or prooueth nothing but his owne impudencie and temeritie in opposing his idle conceipt and fantasie against the Popes serious and solemne testimony protesting in his second Breue as you haue heard that he forbadde the Oath vpon his owne certaine knowledge motion and will after long and graue deliberation and therefore I remit to the prudence and good conscience of any sincere Catholike whether he will beleeue in this case this mans vaine coniecture or the solemne protestation of his Holinesse 59 But in very deed I am ashamed that Mr. Fitzherbert should still so shamefully be wray his egregious fraude and ignorance For it is euident that I made no doubt but expressely and without a peraduenture affirmed that it is very probable yea and morally certaine in my iudgement that his Holinesse vnderstood the words of the Oath in that sense wherin the Diuines of Rome and especially Cardinall Bellarmine c. did conceiue them and that Cardinall Bellarmine who wrote in defence of his Breues did conceiue them in this sense that the Popes Primacie in spiritualls his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and to dispence in Oathes are denied in the Oath And therefore euery Schoole-boy may perceiue that those words And if his Holinesse c. which are a conclusion of the former words and therefore must haue relation thereunto are not to be vnderstood in this sense as my Aduersarie doth childishly glosse them to wit And if his Holinesse was mooued c. as peraduenture he was but as it is very probable yea and morally certaine he was as I said before For what man can with any reason imagine that Cardinall Bellarmine in the vnderstanding of the Oath did dissent from the opinion of the Diuines of Rome who consulted thereon or that his Holinesse did dissent therein from the opinion of them both And therefore this is no idle conceipt or fantasie of mine to conceiue so of his Holinesse but a manifest truth and morall certaintie and to conceiue otherwise of his Holinesse to wit that he followed not herein the aduise of his learned Diuines and vnderstood not the words of the Oath in that sense as they after their long consultation did vnderstand them were rather to taxe his Holinesse of imprudence and temeritie 60 And if the conceipt of mine be so idle and coniecturall and vncertaine as this fraudulent man would seeme to make it why doth not he in plaine words denie the same and say that his Holinesse did not vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherin Card. Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome did conceiue them but childishly would make his Reader beleeue that I my selfe grant it to be very coniecturall and vncertaine by concluding my second answere with an if wheras it is euident that I said plainely it was morally certaine and therefore that if to be referred thereunto and to haue this sense if it be true or morally certaine as true it is that his Holinesse was mooued c. Or why did he not answere the arguments which I brought to prooue that it was morally certaine but passeth them ouer as you haue seene with fraude and silence And when you Mr. Fitzherbert in your Supplement vnderstood the Oath to denie the Popes power to excommunicate and depriue Princes and in respect of those two points tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be against all lawes humane and diuine although now your silence touching excommunication sheweth your former courage to be quailed can any man imagine but that you being then at Rome vnderstood those words of the Oath notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication c. in that sence wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome who consulted thereon did conceiue them 61 All which being considered you may take the impudency and temeritie which you would lay vpon me to your selfe and freely confesse that it is an idle impudent and temerarious conceipt and fantasie for any man to beleeue that his Holinesse did not vnderstand the words of the oath in that sense wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and his other learned Diuines did conceiue them and thereupon was mooued to forbid the â—â—th Neither is this against the Popes serious and solemne testimony protesting in his second Breue that hee forbade the oath vpon his owne certaine knowledge motion and will after long and graue deliberation for these words as I shewed before doe not signifie that he forbade the oath without the aduice and counsell of his learned Diuines for the words after long and graue deliberation doe rather signifie the plaine contrary but by them it is onely signified that his Breue was not surreptitious and counterfait and made without his priuitie or knowledge And therefore M. Fitzherbert vrging those words of his Holinesse which doe onely signifie that his Breue was not false and counterfait and made without his knowledge to prooue that he did not vnderstand the words of the oath in that sense as Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and thereupon was mooued to send hither his Breues for the forbidding of the oath sheweth himselfe to be both childish and malicious and to want both prudence and conscience in taxing me of impudency and temerity for affirming that which no man of iudgement and without great irreuerence to his Holinesse can deny 62 Now therefore M. Fitzherbert will for Disputation sake admit that the Pope was deluded and falsely perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict
and censure of the Catholike Romane Church whose child I professed my selfe to bee and that if perchance any thing through ignorance had escaped mee In Disp Theo. in fine which should not bee approoued by her I did disprooue it condemne it and would haue it for not written In Disp c. 6. sec 3. nu 18. seq 5 Besides I did professe that with all due honour and respect I did reuerence all the Canons of the Catholike Church although I did freely confesse that betwixt the Catholike Church and the Pope who is onely the first and principall member thereof betwixt some Chapters or Decrees of the Canon-Law and betwixt others a great difference is to be made and neuerthelesse I sincerely affirmed that to euery one in his degree and place I gaue dutifull but not equall credit the vast Corps of the Canon-Law and in the volumes of the Councells are contained either sayings or assertions of the ancient Fathers or Decrees or sentences of Popes or Councells and these are either doctrinall and propounded as things to bee belieued by the faithfull or else morall and which in the externall discipline of the Church are commanded to be obserued 6 And first I did acknowledge that the doctrine which the Ancient Fathers either in expounding the holy Scriptures or in questions belonging to faith haue with vniforme consent deliuered I did also vndoubtedly beleeue as being certainly perswaded that it was inspired by the Holy Ghost 7 Secondly I also with Melchior Canus and other Diuines affirmed that the doctrine also of all the holy Fathers in things which doe appertaine to faith may plously and probably bee beleeued by Catholikes yet that it ought not of necessitie to be followed as certaine and infallible 8 Thirdly I did professe that the definitions of Generall Councells lawfully assembled and confirmed by the Pope wherein any doctrine is propounded to the whole Church to be beleeued of all men as of Faith are to be receiued by Catholikes as infallible rules of Faith Neuerthelesse I did freely affirme with the aforesaid Melchior Canus and Cardinall Bellarmine that those the said Councells are defined or else supposed onely as probable and those assertions which either incidently and by the way are inserted or for better declaration or proofe of their decisions be produced are sometimes subiect to errour and may by Catholikes without any wrong to the Catholike faith be reiected This withall obseruing of which also in other places I haue admonished the Reader that although I professing my selfe to be a childe of the Catholike Romane Church doe most willingly imbrace whatsoeuer Generall Councells confirmed by the Pope which represent the Catholike Church doe propound to the faithfull as necessarily to be beleeued of faith and which certainely and euidently is knowne to be the true sense and meaning of the Councells Neuerthelesse I doe not vndoubtedly beleeue euery doctrine which either Cardinall Bellarmine speaking with due reuerence or any other Doctour seeing that they are not appointed by God to be an vndoubted rule of the Catholike Faith doe cry out to be Catholike doctrine to be the voice of the Catholike Church to be the meaning of the Scriptures and Councells if especially some Catholike Doctours doe hold the contrary Them truely as it is meete I doe reuerence with all dutifull respect and I doe much attribute to their authoritie but that all those collections which they in their iudgements doe imagine to be euidently concluded from the holy Scriptures or Councells considering that oftentimes they are deceiued and doe deceiue For Card. Bellarmine himselfe in his old age hath recalled many things which he wrote when he was yonger and perchance he now growing elder will recall more and what they haue written when they were yonger they may recall when they grow elder are to be accounted for vndoubted assertions of faith and the contrary opinion of other Catholikes to be rather esteemed an heresie then an opinion this truely I cannot take in good part 9 Fourthly concerning the Canons or Decrees of Generall Councells belonging to manners and to the externall gouernment of the Church I promised to be most ready to receiue willingly all those Decrees which in places where I shall liue shall be generally receiued for these are properly called the Decrees or Canons of the Catholike or vniuersall Church which are by common consent admitted by the Vniuersall Church Neither doubtlesse is any man bound to admit those Lawes and precepts which in the Countrey where he liueth are not obserued by the people as according to the receiued opinion of Diuines and Lawyers I there affirmed And the same I there auouchâ—d is to be vnderstood proportionally of the Decrees of Popes and Prouinciall Councells For as concerning the Popes definitions belonging to faith if he define without a Generall Councell I confesse that I haue oftentimes auerred that very many especially ancient Diuines of the Vniuersitie of Paris whose names I there c c Cap. 10. sec 2. nu 27. related are of opinion that such Definitions vnlesse they be receiued by the Catholike Church as Definitions of Catholike Faith are subiect to errour whose opinion both for the authoritie of so famous men and also for the reasons and grounds whereon that opinion is founded I with many later Diuines to whose opinion also Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe d d Lib. de Concil cap. 13. doth plainely enough incline howsoeuer he would seeme also e e Lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. li. 2. de concil cap. 17. to auerre the contrary haue also oftentimes affirmed that it is not to be condemned of heresie errour or temeritie which also now againe speaking with all dutifull submission I feare not to confirme 10 Lastly concerning my Disputation of the Oath and the Dedication thereof which seemeth to be that stone of offence and rocke of scandall to some Diuines especially of the Society of Iesus and to those Catholikes who adhere to them I cannot to speake vnfaignedly in any wise vnderstand what can iustly be obiected against it or what fault I haue committed either in making it or else in dedicating it to your Holinesse of which I should purge my selfe For first of all I the Authour of that Disputation and Dedication haue therein professed that I did not write it with any obstinate mind but in manner of an humbly petition sincerely and for many reasons which I there related to informe your Holinesse more fully who as heere we thinke hath not beene rightly informed of the reasons for which English Catholikes are of opinion that the Oath may lawfully be taken and for this cause I did dedicate it to your Holinesse that after you had carefully examined all the reasons for which English Catholikes doe thinke the Oath may lawfully be taken your Holinesse might prouide both for their spirituall and temporall safety as according to your fatherly wisedome and charitie should be thought most conuenient And
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
oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is helde both by himselfe and other Protestants to be no way subiect to the Pope yea and to be himselfe supreme head of the Church of God in England and also by the first of these two reasons which he bringeth heere in his Reply why he suppoposed that the oath implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacy 29 And as for my supposition saith he Å¿ Nu. 10. that the Oath implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacy he should haue said of the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince for this was his supposition as I cleerely shewed before Thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that I was mooued thereto by two reasons which are manifest enough in the very place which Widdrington citeth The one was because it is euident that the faith and beliefe of all English Protestants is that the Kings Maiestie is no way subiect to the Pope but that hee is himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England Whereupon it may with great reason bee inferred that the deniall of the Popes power to depose his Maiestie which is expresly contained in the oath is supposed and implied therein as a necessary consequent of their beliefe who ordained it 30 For 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 euerie one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion as euery Artisan worketh according to the grounds and principles of his Art And therefore as the positions assertions and decrees of knowne and professed Catholikes are to bee interpreted according to the grounds of the Catholike faith so also the positions of all Sectaries whatsoeuer are to be vnderstood according to the different doctrines of their Sects 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 be interpreted according to their different Religions and their different grounds and sense thereof And vpon this consideration I made no doubt to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacie for that not onely his Maiestie but also all they of the Parliament which decreed it doe holde and beleeue that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because hee hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie 31 My other reason was the same that I touched before concerning the necessary deduction of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy for albeit the Supremacy of the Pope be not expresly abiured or denied by this oath yet it is denied couertly by a necessary consequent because his authoritie to depose Princes which is necessarily deduced from the supreame power that Christ gaue him is denied thereby as in like case if wee should deny that his Maiestie hath any lawfull power to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie all Protestants would say that we deny not onely his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy but also his temporall and Kingly authoritie because the power to suspend and depriue Bishops within his Realme is included therein and necessarily deduced from it in the opinion of all Protestants And in like manner we say with much more reason that whosoeuer abiureth the Popes power to depose Princes hee doth consequently abiure his spirituall authoritie because the former is included in the later and doth necessarily follow of it as it hath beene amply prooued by diuers and namely by me in my Supplement t Chap. 5.6 7 whereof I shall haue further occasion to lay downe the particulars heereafter Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 32 But first of all good Reader I wish thee to consider how cunningly this my Aduersary concealeth the first part of his supposition concerning the denyall of the Popes power to excommunicate whereof onely I vnderstood those words whereon hee groundeth his third accusation In the beginning of his Discourse he supposed as you haue seene that the Popes spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath for that his power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed therein And because his Maiesty had in expresse words publikely affirmed that his intention was not to denie in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate answering also the argument which Cardinall Bellarmine out of those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. brought to prooue the contrarie and because my Aduersarie did also without any proofe at all suppose as Fa. Gretzer had done before him that the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed therein for this cause I vsed those words that truely it is a wonder that learned men doe not blush c. which my Aduersary a little before carped at Now forsooth he pretending to yeeld a reason of his supposition yet yeeldeth none at all concerning this parte thereof touching the Popes power to excommunicate for which onely I vsed the aforesaid words and which if he could sufficiently prooue to be denyed in this oath all Catholikes would forthwith graunt him that the oath containeth a denyall of the Popes spirituall Supremacie which includeth as a generall the particular authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures but he cunningly passeth ouer to the Popes power to depose Princes which no man doubteth but is denyed in this oath yeeldeth two reasons such ones as they be why he supposed the oath to containe a denyall of the Popes Supremacy for that the Popes power to depose Princes is denied therein 33 His second reason for thereof I will speake in the first place which he tooke from the contents of the oath is the same which hee touched before concerning the necessarie deduction according to his beliefe and doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie But his beliefe and doctrine herein as also I touched before is not Catholike but a particular beliefe or rather opinion of himselfe and some other and not generall of all Catholikes for that many learned Catholikes as I shewed before are of opinion that Christ hath not giuen to S. Peter or to the Church authoritie to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment but onely Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And therefore there is a great disparitie in the similitude which my Aduersarie bringeth betwixt his Maiesties authoritie to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie in the opinion of Protestants and the Popes power to depose Princes in the opinion of Catholikes for that al Protestants do beleeue that his Maiesties power to suspend or depriue an Arch-bishop taking suspension in that sense wherein the Protestants doe hold that his Maiestie hath power to suspend
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
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
power to command temporall things the accessorie and which by the institution of Christ doth follow the first and more noble power as the principall 56 And by this that Dilemma which he maketh is easily answered For I graunt the consequence in that forme of words as he setteth it downe in one sense and I denye it in an other I graunt it if it be vnderstood of the Popes power to command temporals and to enioyne temporall penalties in order to spirituall good and if he had intended nothing else then this I should indeed haue prooued nothing against him but should haue fortified his consequence But because in his consequence he spake of a power in the Church in generall ouer the soule body and goods therefore the Church sayth he hauing power ouer the soule hath power consequently ouer the body and goods which power may be vnderstood not onely of a power to command but also to dispose not onely to enioyne spirituall and temporall punishments but also to inflict them and because the Pope in order to spirituall good hath a power not only to command spirituall punishments but also to inflict them and by a iuridicall sentence to depriue men of certaine spirituall goods and benefites therefore by his consequence it might seeme to be rightly inferred that the Pope hath also in order to spirituall good a power to dispose of the bodie and of temporall goods euen as temporall Princes haue in order to temporall good a power not onely to command but also to dispose thereof and to depriue by a iuridicall sentence their subiects of their temporall goods and also of their corporall liues and because my Aduersaries drift and meaning was to prooue thus much by his consequence therefore in this sense which his words did beare and he also intend I did absolutely denye his consequence Now what repugnance or contradiction trow you can all his skill in Logike although it were farre greater then most men that know him suppose it to be find in granting his consequence in one sence and denying it in an other and whose folly is discouered and whether my instance or his Reply be ridiculous I dare aduenture to remit euen to his owne iudgement 57 But my Aduersarie perceiuing as it seemes that according to the vulgar axiome ducere ad inconueniens non est soluere argumentum to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument endeauoureth to answere my instance abstracting from my grant But let vs set aside sayth he k nu 13. pag. 36 Widdringtons graunt and consider how probable is the instance that he maketh against me by this argument considered in it selfe and compared with mine The accessorie sayth he followeth the principall and therefore he who is Lord of all horses is Lord of all bridles which no doubt is true if he speake of such a one as hath a supreme dominion or power as I doe in my argument when I speake of the Pope who being supreme head of the Church and in that respect hauing the direct charge of mens soules hath also indirectly the care and charge of whatsoeuer is accessorie to the soule and subordinate thereto so farre forth I meane as is requisite for the good of soules as also in like manner a supreme temporall Prince albeit he be not directly the Lord of all horses and bridles in his kingdome or State yet hauing directly the charge and care of the whole common wealth he may dispose not onely of all the horses but also of all the bridles in the common-wealth when it shall vndoubtedly be conuenient and necessarie for the publike good thereof 58 True it is that this consequence The accessorie or consequent doth necessarily follow the principall or antecedent therefore a supreme temporall Prince who is Lord of all horses is also Lord of all bridles or which is all one who may for the common good dispose of all the horses in his kingdome may also for the same good dispose of all the bridles is a true and good consequence but not for that a bridle is accessorie or necessarily annexed and consequent to a horse as my Aduersarie affirmeth for then it must be true not onely in a Prince but also in all other men who haue power to dispose of the principall and moreouer this consequence would also be good The accessorie followeth the principall therefore a supreme temporall Prince who buyeth all horses which according to my Aduersaries doctrine are the principall must consequently buy all bridles which are the accessorie But the aforesaid consequence is therefore good for that to be a supreme temporall Lord of all bridles is accessorie or consequent to be a supreme temporall Lord of all horses which is the more noble principall or antecedent and so the power in a temporall Prince to dispose of all horses is necessarily connected with his power to dispose of all bridles 59 Wherefore according to my opinion who doe not make bridles to be accessory to horses in that sense as accessory is taken in that maxime but a supreme power to dispose of all bridles to bee accessory or consequent to a supreme power to dispose of all horses for that a supreme power to dispose both of horses and bridles is necessarily included in a supreme power to dispose of all temporall things as a part in the whole the aforesaid argument speaking of a supreme temporall Prince is good not onely vi consequentis to vse the termes of Logicians by vertue of the consequent but also vi consequentiae by vertue of the consequence or which is all one not onely the consequent is true but also the consequence is good But he that will grant the argument to be good in regard that bridles are accessorie to horses as my Aduersarie doth he can not maintaine that argument to be good in a supreme temporall Prince by vertue of the consequence or which is all one by vertue of that maxime The accessorie followeth the principall but by vertue of an other maxime which is that euery part is contained in the whole and therefore a temporall Prince who for the common temporal good hath power to dispose of all temporall things hath power to dispose of all horses bridles and all other temporall things 60 Now although I did grant this consequence in the Pope that because the accessory or consequent doth follow the principall or antecedent therefore the Pope hauing power to commaund spirituals hath also power to command temporals in order to spirituall good not for that temporals are accessory or consequent to spirituals in that sense as accessory and consequent are taken in that maxime but for that a power in the Pope to commaund temporals in order to spirituall good is by the institution of Christ accessory and consequent to his power of commanding spirituals yet I vtterly denyed this consequence The accessory followeth the principall therefore the Pope hauing power to commaund and to dispose of spirituals or
plainly conuinced both by his owne principles and also by his owne Authours and diuers others that this translation was not done by the authoritie only of the Pope as hee pretended to prooue in that his booke of the translation but also of the people hee was engaged for the sauing of his credit to haue in some sort cōfuted my answere but to passe it ouer cunningly with a Dilemma not belonging to the principall question and which was also fully satisfied by mee in that place without setting downe any one word of my answere and so omitting contrarie to his accustomed manner aboue twenty pages of my text together doth argue no good and sincere proceeding And lastly it is also manifest what the Reader may thinke of my Aduersaries sinceritie who in this place doth so barely and nakedly repeate againe this argument without taking any notice of the answere which in my Apologie I gaue to the same 50 But the Empire of the West saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Nu. 13. p. 47 was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift and therefore Emanuel Commenus h Blond dec 2. l. 5. Platina in Alex. 3. Nauclerus generat 39. pag. 848. Emperour of Constantinople in the time of Fridereke the first vnderstanding of the dissention betwixt him and Pope Alexander the third sent Ambassadours to the Pope and offered him not only a great army with great summes of money but also to reunite the Greeke Church with the Latin if hee would restore that Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople 51 But neither Emanuel Commenus nor any other Greeke Emperour although from the particular fact of some one Emperour especially who was desirous to enlarge his Empire no good argumēt can be drawne to proue a right did acknowledge the Empire of the West to be the Popes gift in any other manner then they had read or heard from Historiographers to wit that the Pope was indeede the chiefe and principall but not the onely Authour of that translation And therefore Blondus one of Cardinall Bellarmines owne Authours doeth well affirme it to be manifest Blond decad 1. l. 3. in principle that the first translation of the Roman Empire frō the Constantinopolitans to the French Princes was done by the authoritie and consent not only of the Pope Clergy people of Rome but also by the suffrages of the people and principall men of all Italie Neither did Emanuel Commenus desire of Pope Alexander the third that he alone without the consent and suffrages of the Princes and people would restore the Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople but that he would be a meanes that it might be restored or translated to them againe as he was a chiefe meanes and principall Authour that it was translated from the Grecians to the French 52 In like manner saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Nu. 13. p. 47. the second translation of the West Empire from the French that is to say from the familie of Charles the great vnto the Germans was made especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike Bell. l. 2. c. 2. 3. as Card. Bellarmine prooueth cleerely in his Treatise of the translation of the Empire If my Aduersarie had said only by the authority of the Sea Apostolike he had spoken to the purpose but that word especially cleane ouerthroweth his argument For I will not contend with him at this present whether it was done especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike in that manner as I granted before that the first translation from the Grecians to the French was done especially chiefly or principally by the Popes authoritie but that either the first or second translation was done only by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike and not also of the people this I vtterly deny neither hath Card. Bellarmine in the aforesaid Treatise by any one sufficient argument prooued or is able to prooue the same 53 We reade also saith Mr. Fitzherbert that Clodoueus k Papyrius Maso in vita Henrici primi See Bozius de signis Ecclesiae lib. 10. cap. 12. the first Christian King of France being desirous after his Baptisme to make good and establish his right and title to that kingdome professed to receiue the same from the hands of the Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike But truly it is strange to see what strange arguments and voide of all probabilitie my Aduersaries dare bring for proofe of so great a matter as is the giuing taking away translating of Kingdomes and Empires For what Historiographer euer wrote that Clodoueus the first Christian King of France had no good right and title to his kingdome before he became Christian or that hee receiued his title right and authoritie to reigne from S. Remigius by commission of the Sea Apostolike and that he himselfe professed as much or that it belongeth to the Archbishop of Rhemes to choose the King of France if we will speake properly of choosing as though the Kings of France were Kings by election and not by hereditatie succession or that the right and title which the Kings of France haue to their kingdome depended vpon the election of the Archbishop of Rhemes or the Sea Apostolike If my Aduersarie were in France and would affirme thus much I feare me he would be glad to recant his doctrine in this point or to interpret his words in a better sense or else he might perchance to vse his owne words finde it to his cost 54 Neither doth Papirius Maso affirme as my Aduersarie and Bozius say that King Clodoueus or Lewis the first did professe to receiue his kingdome or his right and title thereunto from the hands of S. Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike neither could he with truth professe the same for that he was long before King of France and had true right and lawfull title to that kingdome before he was baptized by S. Remigius neither doth baptisme make good rights and titles to temporall kingdomes but as it depriueth no man of his temporall right and dominion so it giueth no man any temporall right or dominion but giueth him only a spirituall right and maketh him heire to the kingdome of heauen But all that Papirius Maso doth affirme is that when Philip the first of that name being but seauen yeares old was by the Archbishop of Rhemes consecrated and elected future King of France and to succeede his Father Henry then liuing and present at his consecration the Archbishop after he had declared the Catholike faith vnto him and Philip had professed the same and taken his oath to defend the Church and his kingdome taking S. Remigius staffe into his hands did quietly and peaceably discourse how the election and consecration of the King did belong chiefely to him from the time that S. Remigius did Baptize and consecrate King Lewis Hee did also
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
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
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
so good sincere and zealous a Catholike and yet lyeth lurking and schulking vnder another mans name of purpose as it seemeth to lash out more freely contumelious words which in his owne name he would blush to vtter for otherwise he needed not to disguise himselfe for feare of incurring the displeasure of Princes for the doctrine he teacheth so preiudiciall to their temporall Soueraigntie which also he will needes haue to be forsooth an vndoubted point of Catholike faith both for that he being a man of so high a ranke and place and liuing out of their dominions and subiection can by their indignation taken against him receiue but little harme and also for that he teacheth heere little or nothing in preiudice of their Soueraigne authority which he did not long before in his owne shape and name without putting on any maske or vizard in very plaine words maintaine But in what an exorbitant manner the Court of Rome doth proceede against those Catholikes who for desire to know the truth in matters of greatest moment speake or write any thing be it with neuer so great submission which seemeth in their opinion to derogate from that authoritie which some Popes of late yeres haue claimed as due to them although it is and euer hath beene contradicted by learned Catholikes it is too too manifest and their proceedings against mee and my bookes in commanding mee vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith and yet giuing mee no notice of any crime which I haue committed or any bad doctrine which I haue taught albeit I haue oftentimes with great instance desired to know the same protesting to purge and recall whatsoeuer I ought to purge and recall doth sufficiently confirme the same But now secondly to the matter from whence the virulent speeches of this Doctor hath caused mee to make this digression 21 Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies laboured to prooue from the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. which ought to haue all sufficient and necessary authoritie to the attaining of her end that the Church of Christ must haue authoritie to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to inflict temporall punishmēts and to depose temporall Princes for that this authoritie is necessary to her spirituall end which is the saluation of soules because otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow Religion To this argument I answered in my Apologie Apolog. 176. seq graunting to Card. Bellarmine that euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth ought to haue alwaies sufficient authority for as much as concerneth the authoritie it selfe to the attaining of her ende although she hath not alwaies sufficient power force meanes or abilitie actually to obtaine the same and to remooue all impediments which may hinder the same And so the Church of Christ being a perfect and well instituted spirituall Common-wealth hath all sufficient spirituall authority forasmuch as concerneth the authority it selfe to the attaining of her spirituall and which is the sauing of soules albeit she hath not alwaies sufficient power meanes or ability actually to bring all men to saluation to take away all the lets that may hinder the obtaining thereof But withall I denied that the authoritie to vse and dispose of temporall things or to inflict temporall punishments is necessary in spirituall Pastours to the sauing of soules but that the authority to vse and dispose of spirituall things and to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments is sufficient in spirituall Pastours to bring soules to saluation forasmuch as concerneth the authority and punishment themselues 22 Neither doth it therefore follow as Card. Bellarmine pretended to conclude that if the Church hath not authority to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to depose temporall Princes wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For the Church by her spirituall authority may punish them grieuously with Ecclesiasticall Censures which punishments are so great and dreadfull that of themselues they are able to terrifie any Christian Prince and to withdraw him from euill But if some Christian Prince for want of due consideration bee not terrified with Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall authority of the Church cannot inflict vpon him any temporall or ciuill punishment for that the onely and last punishment which the Church or which is all one the spirituall Pastours thereof by the institution of Christ can inflict is Excommunication or some such like spirituall Censure or punishment Thus I answered in my Apologie 23 Now D. Schulckenius to confute this my answere flyeth from Card. Bellarmines reason grounded vpon the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth which reason I tooke vpon mee in that place to confute to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran which is his common skar crow For when he cannot confute the answere which I giue to any reason or authority brought by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes then his custome is to flye from that reason or authority to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran as though that onely Decree of the Councell of Lateran of which Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies made no account at all were now a sufficient proofe to make good all his other reasons and authorities which Decree neuerthelesse he expoundeth according to his priuate spirit contrary to the words and true meaning of the same Councell and in stead of the Lateran Councell which I doe not impugne he would thrust vpon Catholikes his owne opinion which he violently wresteth from the words of the Councell 24 For as I haue often told him I am a true and sincere Catholike yea and a farre truer then he himselfe is if he build his Catholike faith vpon such weake and fallible grounds which some Catholike◠vnderstand in one sense and some in another it being well knowne to all learned Catholikes that the Catholike faith which is infallible cannot be built vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are in controuersie among Catholikes but vpon vndoubted grounds and so acknowledged by all true and learned Catholikes So likewise I haue often told him that I doe giue all dutifull honour and respect to all the Decrees of any approoued Councell either touching faith or manners and I doe reuerence euery one of them in their due place and order but euery exposition which either Card. Bellarmine or any other priuate Doctour who may both deceiue and be deceiued maketh of any Decree of the Councell of Lateran or of any other Councell especially when other Doctours expound that Decree otherwise I doe not account to bee any good ground or rule of a true Catholike faith And therefore it is not true that I doe freely contradict the Decree of the Councell of Lateran but I doe freely contradict his priuate exposition of the Decree of that Councell it being contrary to the true sense and meaning of the wordes
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
disobeyeth the Church is excommunicated by the law of God Also for that otherwayes the Church doth excommunicate no man but declare him to be excommunicated by the law of God because he doth not obey the Church which how absurd this is it is manifest of it selfe c. First therefore by those words is signified this generall maxime that those who doe not heare the Church doe grieuously sinne and especially if they be obstinate and that therefore they are to be accounted and shunned as grieuous sinners as are Heathens and Publicanes Secondly It is signified that Christ our Lord will giue to his Church power to binde and loose And so in those words is contained the power to inflict the Censure of Excommunication but not the institution of the Censure it selfe or a commandement in particular but onely in generall of auoyding sinners who are disobedient to the Church vnder which generall law is comprehended an accomodate distribution to say so to wit a commandement to shunne euery one that is disobedient to the Church according to the degree and manner of the prohibition and separation which is made by the Church her selfe And this is the common exposition of Interpreters vpon that place and of Diuines handling this matter Thus Suarez Whereby it is apparant how disagreeably to Suarez doctrine Mr. Fitzherbert here affirmeth that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement ordained a temporall penalty of Excommunication when he commanded that he who will not heare the Church shall bee taken for an Ethnicke and a Publicane seeing that according to Suarez he ordained here no penalty or Censure at all of Excommunication 81 But because some Catholike Doctours as Almaine Eckius Clicthoueus and Driedo doe affirme whose doctrine in this poynt both Suarez and the more common opinion of Diuines doe reiect that at least-wise to the sinne of heresie if it be ioyned with obstinacy there is annexed some Censure or punishment by the law of God and their opinion may seeme to haue some ground in those authorities of holie Scripture whereof some are here vrged by Mr. Fitzherbert Suarez also answereth to these authorities and affirmeth that they are not forcible And first that those words of S. Paul ad Tit. 3. A man that is an heretike after the first and second admonition auoyd c. may bee vnderstood of the naturall obligation by which euery man is bound to auoyd danger of being infected and consequently to auoyd the person which is an occasion to him of sinning and such is an heretike whose speech spreadeth as a Canker 2. Tim. 2. So also it is said 1. Cor. 5. But now I wrote to you not to keepe company if he that is named a brother be a fornicator or a couetous person or a seruer of Idols or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner with such an one not so much as to take meate and Galat 5. Know you not that a little leauen corrupteth the whole paste Secondly although we should grant that the Apostle in that place ad Tit. 3. spoke of a proper Censure it doth not follow that this institution is diuine but at the most an institution of the Apostle because it is the commandement of S. Paul c. and especially for that it may be expounded Auoid that is Excommunicate for the Apostle spake to Titus who was a Bishop and had power to excommunicate 82 And according to this sense may be vnderstood those words of S. Iohn Epist 2. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine receiue him not into your house nor say to him God saue you although they rather seeme to be vnderstood of a naturall commandement not to cooperate with such men and not to giue them any signes whereby either wee should seeme to consent to them or that they should be confirmed in their errour And this S. Iohn did signifie in the next words For he that saith to him God saue you communicateth with his wicked workes As also S. Paul 2. Thess 3. said And if any obey not our word note him by an Epistle and doe not company with him that he may be confounded In which last word also the Apostle insinuateth that not onely to auoide communication in sinne but also to rebuke our neighbour charitably it is sometimes counselled or also commanded to abstaine from his companie that hee may be confounded of this sort also are those wordes 1. Cor. 5. which words doe admit almost all the aforesaid interpretations And if they be extended to a proper Censure they are to be vnderstood at what time and in what manner the Pastours of the Church shall iudge that these kinde of sinners are to be auoided And so by all these testimonies conferred together it is euidently gathered that there is no ground in Scripture for vs to say that any Censure is by the law of God annexed to heresie rather then to other sinnes And therefore the contrary opinion is farre more probable and it is the common opinion of other Doctours Thus Suarez And yet forsooth Mr. Fitzherbert maketh no doubt but that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement hath ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication whereas Suarez and the common opinion of Doctors doe resolutely affirme that no penaltie at all of Excommunication is by the commandement of Christ ordained against those that shall disobey the commandement of the Church 83 Wherefore lastly and principally all that Mr. Fitzherbert or any other can conclude from the former places of holy Scripture or such like is that the Church hath power in order to the spirituall good of soules to enioyne temporall punishments and to commaund the faithfull not to conuerse ciuilly with Heathens Publicanes or notorious sinners when otherwise by the law of nature they are not bound to conuerse ciuilly with them whereof I neuer made any doubt And therefore obserue good Reader the fraude and ignorance of this man who pretended to prooue that I contradicted my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour could command temporall punishments but not inflict them seeing that neither frō the reduction of temporall things to spiritual nor from the nature effects of Excommunication nor from those places of holy Scripture which he heere hath brought he concludeth any other thing then that Christians are commaunded to account him an Heathen and a Publican who will not heare the Church that the Apostle commanded the Corinthians and Thessalonians not to eate with notorious sinners and disobedient persons that S. Iohn commanded the faithfull not to receiue heretikes into their houses nor so much as to salute them all which I willingly granted but of the other part of the contradiction which was the principall thing he should haue proued that I must consequently grant that the spirituall Superiour can also inflict temporall punishments hee speaketh not one word 84 For if a Christian should not obserue the aforesaid commandements and will not account them for Heathens and Publicanes
it will not be amisse to set downe the substance of that I answered to Cardinall Bellarmines second argument which is the same in effect with that of Fa. Parsons and also to examine what D. Schulckenius replieth to the same To prooue therefore that the Church hath power to dispose of temporall things and to inflict temporall punishments Cardinall Bellarmine bringeth this argument Bel. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. The Ecclesiasticall common-wealth ought to be perfect and sufficient for it selfe in order to her end for such are all well established Common-wealths therefore shee ought to haue all power necessary to the attaining of her end but power to vse and to dispose of temporalls is necessary to the spirituall end because otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment fauour heretickes and ouerthrow religion therefore she hath also this power 20 To this argument I answered in my Apologie a Nu. 176. 177. seq first by distinguishing that equiuocall proposition The Ecclesiastical Common-wealth ought to be perfect and to haue all power sufficient and necessary to the attaining of her end which is the eternall saluation of soules For first the sense of that proposition may bee that the Church hath such a sufficient power to obtaine her end which is the saluation of soules that she can actually bring all soules to Paradise and can take away all the obstacles and lets which can any wise hinder the saluation of soules which sense those wordes of Cardinall Bellarmine b In Resp ad Tract Gersonii de valid Excom in consid 11. may haue which affirme that the Pope can effect all that which is necessary to bring soules to Paradise and that he can remoue all the impedements which the world or the Deuill withall their forces and sleights can oppose And this sense is plainly false and very well impugned by Paulus Venetus in his Italian Apologie c Fol. 57. colâ—â—n 2. both for that the Pope hath no sufficient meanes to saue an infant in the mothers wombe whom she cannot bring foorth aliue because it is not lawfull to cut the mothers wombe that the childe may be baptized or to saue him who being in mortall sinne is fallen mad vntill he returne to his wits againe which neuerthelesse is not in the Popes power Also the Pope hath no power ouer the internall motions of the minde which are very necessary to saluation Also for that there should neither bee Turkes nor Infidels nor Heretickes nor so much as euill Christians without the Popes great fault if hee could effect all that which is necessarie to bring soules to Paradise and could remooue all those things which doe hinder the obtaining of eternal saluation 21 Now concerning this first part of the distinction D. Schulckenius doth not deny that the aforesaid proposition The Ecclesiasticall common-wealth ought to bee perfect c. is in this sense false but hee denieth that Cardinall Bellarmine vnderstood it in this sense and he only reprehendeth me for omitting to set downe what Cardinall Bellarmine answered to the obiections of Paulus Venetus I answere saith he d Cap. 8. ad nu 177. p. 350. My Aduersarie Widdrington had done well if when hee related Paulus Venetus his arguments and vnnecessarie subtilties hee had also adioyned Cardinall Bellarmines answere For so both hee had done the Reader a pleasure and also had eased vs of the paines to answere But it is well that Paulus Venetus his arguments are not such that we must labour much to answere them For that which Bellarmine said that the Pope can effect all that which is necessarie to bring soules to Paradise and can remoue all the impediments c. is to be vnderstood in this sense that the Popes power is not limited or restrained as it is in men of inferiour Orders but it is most ample and most great and therefore the whole and full Ecclesiasticall power to giue Sacraments Indulgences Benefices to make lawes Decrees Canons to dispense in Oathes lawes vowes to examine iudge punish and that in euery Diocesse Prouince Kingdome It is to be added that these things are to be vnderstood for as much as concerneth the Popes part and in a matter fit to receiue his action And therefore no maruaile if the Pope cannot bring to saluation soules obstinate in heresie or in sinnes especially internall For it is their owne fault not the Popes seeing that he doth apply remedies of themselues effectual if they themselues would admit them So also it is no meruaile if the Pope cannot apply a remedy to an infant being in danger in the mothers wombe because such an infant is not capable of the Popes helpe And the same reason is of a man who when he hath committed a mortall sinne falleth madde c. 22 But first although when I published my Apologie I had seene Cardinall Bellarmines Reply to Paulus Venetus as I did not and therefore could not set downe what the Cardinal answered to his obiection yet I must then also haue affirmed as also I doe now that whatsoeuer Cardinall Bellarmines meaning was yet his words are so generall and without any limitation or declaration that they may very well be vnderstood in the aforesaide sense The Pope saith hee can effect all that which is necessary to bring soules to Paradise and can remooue all the impediments which the world and the Deuill with all their forces and sleights can oppose Seeing therefore that the Diuell can by his power cast a man being in mortall sinne into phrencie by which he is hindered from attaining to eternall saluation and can hinder an infant from being baptized by causing the mother not to deliuer it aliue and also can cause sundry inward motions in the soule of man and because Cardinall Bellarmines words are so generall and without any limitation or declaration The Pope saith he can remooue all the impediments to saluation which the Deuill with all his force and sleight can oppose it is plaine that they may very well bee so vnderstood that the Pope can also remooue the aforesaid impediments for that those impediments are included in all impediments as a particular in a vniuersall and therefore to take away all occasion of errour it was not vnnecessary to declare in what sense those wordes being so generall might bee true or false 23 Besides although the Popes power bee not so limitted and restrained as it is in men of inferiour Orders but it is most ample most great and full in a certaine measure and degree yet this Doctour cannot be ignorant that there is a great controuersie among learned Catholikes concerning the amplitude greatnesse and fulnesse of the Popes power as well in spirituals as in temporals For the Canonists doe hold that he hath formally properly and directly both temporall and spirituall power and that he is not onely a supreme spirituall Pastour but also a temporall Monarch but this Doctour with some other Diuines doe maintaine that he hath formally
that they may imply that the Pope can remooue all impediments whatsoeuer which either the world or the Deuill with all their forces and sleights can oppose which proposition may at the first sight bee taken as I haue knowne diuers learned men vnderstand it in that first sense which before I shewed to bee false and therefore what great fault trow you could it bee for me to declare the meaning of those words more plainely seeing that a proposition may without doubt sometimes be false yea and as learned Diuines are of opinion may bee also hereticall according to that vulgar maxime S. Tho. secunda secundae q. 11. ar 2. Magister in 4. dist 13. which Saint Thomas and the Maister of the sentences attribute to Saint Hierome ex verbis inordinate prolatis incurritur haeresis haeresie is incurred by wordes inordinately vttered although hee by whom they were spoken had no badde meaning 33 Thirdly saith this Doctour k Ibid. it is to bee obserued that Widdrington whiles hee declareth what punishments the Church can inflict vpon her subiects that shall offend maketh mention onely of spirituall punishments as though the Church cannot inflict also temporall punishments whereof see what wee haue said aboue cap. 4. vpon the 40.41 and 42. numbers True it is that the maine scope of my Apologie was no other then to prooue it to bee probable that the spirituall power of the Church or Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall or ciuill punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures Neither hath this Doctour in those places to which hee remitteth his Reader prooued any other thing then that the Church by vertue of her spirituall power may command enioyne and impose temporall punishments and by the temporall authoritie giuen her by the grant and consent of temporall Princes may also inflict them vpon inferiour persons which I neuer denyed And so in this kingdome wee see by experience that albeit Bishops haue euer had authoritie to excommunicate disobedient persons and to enioyne temporall penalties as a thing proper to their spirituall power yet to imprison them they procure a Writ out of the temporall Court de excommunicato capiendo for apprehending an excommunicated person 34 Lastly saith this Doctour l Ibid. pag. 354 it is to bee obserued that whiles Widdrington declareth the power of Iurisdiction not without mysterie hee hath said nothing of the power to absolue from oaths and vowes and other things of that kind True it is that although I did not in that place expresly affirme as also I did not deny that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the absoluing from oathes and vowes yet of set purpose and for some mysterie I did then omit to make mention of them and the mysterie was this for that there is a great controuersie among learned Diuines especially betwixt the Thomists and their opposites wherewith I thought it neither necessarie nor expedient at that time to intermeddle not only in what maner the spiritual power of the Church may absolue froÌ„ oaths vowes but also whether the Church hath any authoritie at all to absolue from all Oaths and all vowes seeing that as afterwards m Praefat. ad Resp Apolog. nu 58. in Resp nu 148. I declared S. Thomas and his followers doe contend that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the solemne vow of religious chastitie and also that hee cannot absolue from any vow or oath by releasing the bond and obligation to performe that which is once sworne or vowed for this were to absolue from the law of Nature which commandeth vs to performe that which we haue once lawfully sworne or vowed but onely by declaring and interpreting that the matter which was sworne or vowed is not now in this particular case a sufficient matter to bee sworne or vowed From which doctrine it cleerely followeth that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the oath of true temporall allegiance vnlesse hee also haue authoritie as hee hath not to declare that true temporall allegiance is not in that particular case lawfull or necessary and consequently not a sufficient matter to bee sworne whereas true temporall allegiance is alwayes not onely lawfull but also necessary and commaunded by the law of God and nature And thus much concerning this Doctours obseruations 35 Now you shall see how well he confuteth the answere which I gaue to Cardinall Bellarmines argument supposing the aforesaid distinction Thus therefore I began to answere it Wherefore we grant the antecedent proposition in the sense which wee haue now declared But we deny that the power to vse to dispose of the temporals of all Christians is necessary to the spirituall end for such a power is not proportionate to that end therfore there is no likelyhood that for the spirituall end such a temporall power or which is all one such a power to dispose of temporals was by Christ our Sauiour giuen to his Church which is a spirituall and not temporall common-wealth I answere saith this Doctor n Num. 355. whether the power to vse and to dispose of the temporals of all Christians be necessary to the Church for her end is the principall question which is in controuersie Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth Widdrington denyeth But whiles he denyeth he is so destitute of Patrons and Doctours that also Ioannes Parisiensis whom in his booke he more often citeth for his opinion then any other is flat against him c. 36 But first it is not true that the principall question which is in controuersie is whether the power to dispose of the temporals of all christians be necessary to the Church for her end which is the saluatioÌ„ of soules but the principall question controuersie is whether Christ our Sauior gaue authority to his Church as it is a spirituall Kingdome consisteth onely of spirituall power to dispose of all temporals And Cardinall Bellarmine to proue that Christ gaue vnto his Church this power bringeth this for a reason because this power to dispose of all temporals is necessarie to her spirituall end to wit the saluation of soules which reason I say is not true and from thence it would cleerely follow that our Sauiour was of necessity tied to giue to spiritual Pastours authority to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all temporals which no man I thinke that hath his wits about him will affirme And how did the Church of Christ thinke you dispose of temporals by way of authority when she was persecuted by the Pagan and Arrian Emperours for then if at any time a power to dispose of temporals should haue beene necessary to the saluation of soules Whereupon Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth That it is not absolutely necessary to resist the common enemie Bel. l. 1. de Conâ—l ca. 10. as is the Turke For if the Church could be conuersant vnder the most cruell persecutions of Nero Domitian Decius
of this great Councell is by some called in question 16 But on the contrary side the most Illustrious Cardinal of Peron doth bring two principall arguments which may seeme to confirme the authority of this Councell and that the decrees now extant were made by the generall consent and approbation of the whole Councell The first is for that otherwise we may impugne the article of Transubstantiation the article of the holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Sonne the precept of annuall confession the condemnation of the errours of Abbot Ioachim c. But to this argument they answere that it doth not therefore follow that we may impugne the aforesaid Decrees because they are now receiued by the generall consent of all Catholikes either by vertue of the Canon law contained in the booke of Decretals which Pope Gregory the ninth commanded to be obserued and practised by all men or because they are approoued by common consent but not by virtue of the authoritie of the Councell wherein nothing was decreed and agreed vpon by any knowne and authenticall approbation of the Fathers although doubtlesse they did by their priuate or tacite consent approoue many of those 60. or 70. Decrees 17 The second argument is for that both Councells Popes and Sholasticall Doctours doe cite some of the aforesaid 60. or 70. Decrees as of the Councell of Lateran But to this also they answere that these Decrees are called Canons of the Councell Lateran for that they were propounded and rehearsed in the Councell but not confirmed or approoued by the generall acceptance and consent of the Fathers because they seemed to some to bee easie and pleasing but to others heauy and burdensome To these may be added a third argument that the Councell of Constance in the 39. Session ordaining what profession the future Pope was to make decreeth that euery future Pope hereafter to bee chosen must make this confession and profession before his election be published that he doth firmely beleeue the holy Catholike faith according to the traditions of the Apostles of generall Councells and of other holy Fathers but especially of the eight Sacred generall Councells to wit of the first Nicene of the second Constantinopolitan of the third Ephesine of the fourth Chalcedon of the fifth and sixth Constantinopolitan of the seuenth Nicene and the eight Constantinopolitan and also of Lateran Lyons and Vienna also generall Councells But to this they also answere that by the Councell of Lateran is not vnderstood this vnder Pope Innocent the third but the former celebrated vnder Pope Alexander the third in the yeere 1180. and if it bee vnderstood of this Councell of Lateran it is only say they forasmuch as concerneth those decrees wherein mention is made of the approbation of the Councell as is that 46. decree which the Councell of Constance mentioneth in the Bull of the confirmation of the Emperour Frederikes constitution As also by the Councell of Lyons it doth not vnderstand that vnder Pope Innocent the 4th who in the presence thereof excommunicated the Emperour Fredricke and whereat only 140. Bishops were present but that vnder Pope Gregory the tenth in the yeere 1274. whereat S. Bonauentura and S. Thomas of Aquina and more then 700. Bishops were present according to Binnius and Ebarhardus whom Binnius citeth 18 These be the principall difficulties both against and for the authoritie of this Councell of Lateran which before I came to examine the sense meaning of the decree which is now in question I thought needfull to set downe that the Reeder may thereby iudge whether if one for the reasons aforesaid should deny the authority of this Councel and affirme that nothing was therein plainly concluded by any publike and authenticall decree approoued by the common consent of the greatest part of the Fathers there present may be excused from all note of heresie errour and temerity in that manner as the Doctors of Paris may be excused from those aspersions for still defending the authority of a Generall Councell aboue a true and vndoubted Pope and denying the authority of the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth wherein the contrary doctrine as Cardinall Bellarmine saith is expresly defined yet for my owne part as I said before I doe willingly embrace and admit the authority of this great Councell of Lateran and of euery Canon and Decree therein contained and namely of this which is now in question and doe onely contend about the true sense and meaning thereof as is vsuall in the holy Scriptures themselues which some expound one way some another not intending thereby to cal in question the authority of Gods word but onely to examine and declare what is the true sense and meaning thereof 19 Now let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert saith in this Chapter against my answere wherein I briefly declared the true sense and meaning of this Decree Thus therefore he beginneth It resteth now saith he that I examine the probability of Widdringtons answeres to my arguments grounded vpon the Canon law and specially vpon a constitution and Canon of the great and famous Councell of Lateran And first of all he setteth downe the answere I gaue in my Admonition which before I relate it will not bee amisse to put downe the decree it selfe of the Councell of Lateran for thereby the sense and true meaning thereof will more easily appeare First therefore the Councell in the third Chapter doth excommunicate and anathematize all heresie and condemne all heretickes by what name soeuer they be called and doth ordaine that they being condemned shall be left to secular potestaes Magistrates or their Bayliffes to be punished according to their deserts but so that Cleargie men shall be first degraded from their Orders or Cleargie and if they bee Lay-men that there goods shall be confiscated but if they be Cleargie men that their goods shall be applyed to the Churches from whence they receiued stipends And then it decreeth thus 20 But let Secular Potestaes what offices soeuer they beare bee admonished and induced and if it shall be needefull be compelled by Ecclesiasticall Censure that as they desire to be reputed and accounted faithfull so for the defending of the faith they doe take publikely an Oath that they will sincerely endeuour to their power to cast out of the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction all heretickes declared by the Church So that from hence foorth when any man shall bee chosen to a perpetuall or temporall potesta or office he be bound to confirme this Chapter by Oath Si vero Dominus temporalis c. But if the temporall Lord Officer or Landlord For Dominus temporalis signifieth also euery Officer Magistrate or Landlord being required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his territory from hereticall filth let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of the same Prouince And if he shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeare let it bee
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
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
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
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
of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion the Subiects could not bee absolued from the oath of allegiance or from the obligation that they owe to their Princes these his words I say doe neither contradict those English Catholickes who defend our English oath to be lawfull nor doe shew or signifie that Widdrington hath not brought any Diuines or Lawyers both French-men and of other Nations who affirme that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For the Cardinals words are to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam according to the matter which he treateth of and which he would perswade his Reader the three estates of France endeauoured to establish by their oath to wit that the subiects of the King of France could not be absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance by any authority whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall 30 Now it is euident that I neither produced nor intended to produce any Authors who in these generall tearmes expresly affirme that the Subiects of an hereticall Prince cannot be discharged of their allegiance neither by the spirituall authority of the Pope nor by the temporall power of the Common-wealth for that it was not my meaning as being a thing altogether impertinent to our Oath of England to examine what authority the ciuil Common-wealth hath ouer their Prince in the case of heresie or Apostacie For our oath onely denieth the Popes authoritie to depose our King and to discharge his subiects from their temporall allegiance and with the authority of the Common-wealth it doth not intermeddle But that the Pope hath no authority to depose temporall Princes and that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment depriuation of goods and such like but onely to Ecclesiasticall censures I haue brought many Authours both French and others to prooue the same among whom are Ioannes Parisiensis and also Iacobus Almainus cited here by the Cardinall in his Treatises Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. de Domino naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico o Concls 2. in probat 2. conclus and de authoritate Ecclesiae p Cap. 2. Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. where he writeth according to his owne opinion though not in his Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica which the Cardinall citeth where he commenteth Occam and speaketh according to Occams doctrine albeit these Doctours doe on the other side affirme that the Common-wealth hath authority to depose a wicked and incorrigible King and so that the Pope may according to them depose him per accidens as Ioan. Parisiensis writeth or to vse Ioannes Maior his words applicando actiua passiuis as he that applieth fire to straw is said to burne the straw to wit by perswading aduising commanding and also by spirituall censures compelling them who haue authority to wit the people or Common-wealth to depose him and after he is deposed by the people or kingdome by declaring his subiects absolued and discharged from the naturall and consequently also spirituall bond of their allegiance but this is impertinent to our oath of England wherein only the Popes authority to depose depriue our King of his Dominions by way of iuridicall sentence is denied 31 Wherefore the English Translatour of the Cardinalls oration doth with as great boldnesse as with little truth shamefully affirme q In his Preface to the Reader that this difference is found between these two oathes that whereas the English oath in one of the clauses seemes to exclude not only the authoritie of the Church ouer Kings but euen of the common-wealth also yea though it should be accōpanied with that of the Church that of France shootes only at the abnegation of the Churches authority For contrariwise although the oath of France may as you shall see at the first sight seeme to deny both the authority of the Church and also of the Common-wealth to depose the King of France yet our Oath shootes onely at the abnegation of the Popes authority to depose our King and to absolue his Subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For as I haue shewed in my Theologicall disputation our oath doth onely affirme r Cap. 3. sec 4 that the Pope neither of himselfe that is by the spirituall authority which is granted him by the institution of Christ nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome for that the Church or Sea of Rome hath no such authority nor by any other meanes with any other that is neither as a totall or partiall as a principal or instrumentall cause hath any power or authority to depose the King c. which last words doe only at the most import that whether the temporall Common-wealth hath any authority ouer the King for any cause or crime whatsoeuer or no with which question the King and Parliament did not intermeddle yet the Common-wealth hath giuen no such authority to the Pope either by himselfe or with any other to depose the King c. 32 But the oath of France doth expresly affirme that there is no power on earth whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall which hath any right ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue the sacred persons of our Kings nor to dispence or absolue their subiects from that loyaltie and obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoeuer for these be the expresse words of the oath of France which our English Translatour as it seemes either hath not seene or maliciously abuseth his Reader in affirming so shamefully that the oath of France shootes onely at the abnegation of the Churches authoritie which words of the oath of France also the Cardinall of Peron seemeth to vnderstand generally of all temporall and spirituall power whatsoeuer either out of the kingdome or of the kingdome it selfe as both by the propounding the state of his question and also by the whole drift of his oration any iudicious man may gather for which cause as I imagine he affirmeth ſ Pag. 115. that our Oath of England is more sweete and modest or moderate then that of France And truely although the words may seeme to any man at the first sight to haue that sense which the Cardinall pretendeth seeing that they expresly deny all power on earth both temporall and spirituall yet both the Translatour of his oration applieth them onely to the Popes authority and also if those words which hath any authority ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue be well obserued they may in my iudgement haue a very true sense to wit that the temporall power which there is mentioned is not to be referred to the authority of the kingdome it selfe seeing that no kingdome hath truely and properly right power and authority ouer itselfe neither hath the kingdome of France any right ouer the kingdome of France to depriue
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
doers but those also that consent to them And a little beneath And these are not to be admitted to the accusing of any man nor the word of thē or of excommunicated persons can hurt or accuse any man 49 But this authority of Pope Calixtus and all other such like as of Pope Anacletus Pope Pius and others related by Gratian 3. q. 4. are easily answered For as there are two sorts of Lawes Courts or Tribunals the spirituall the temporall so also there are two sorts of infamie as infamie is taken for a penalty ordained by the law f Vide Siluest verbo infamia Greg. Tholo in Syntag Iuris lib. 31. cap. 29. num 7. and other Doctors Cod. ex quibus causis infamia irrogatur ff de ijs qui notantur infamiae the one is called infamia iuris Canonica infamie of the spirituall Court by vertue whereof the person made infamous is depriued and made incapable of spirituall dignities and his word or testimonie is of no force to hurt any man in this spirituall Court and for as much as concerneth spirituall dignities punishments or Censures and of this infamy the aforesaid decree of Callixtus and all other Ecclesiasticall Canons made by spirituall authority wherein the penalty of infamie is inflicted are to be vnderstood The other infamie is ordained by the Ciuill law and is called by the Lawyers infamia iuris Ciuilis infamie of the Ciuill law or Court by vertue of which the person made infamous is depriued or made incapable of Secular dignities and his testimonie is not admitted to hurt any man in the Ciuill and criminall Court and for as much as concerneth temporal dignities and temporal punishments And of this ciuill infamie the words of Pope Calixtus are not to be vnderstood Neither can any man be so senselesse as to conceiue that the Popes of the primitiue Church declaring those to be infamous and not to bee admitted to accuse or giue testimony against any man who did forsake the Christian Religion became Apostataes and made conspiracies against Bishops and excommunicated persons did intend to make them incapable of Secular dignities and not to be admitted to accuse or giue testimonie in the Secular Court wherein the Popes themselues and all Christians were punished and persecuted for Christian Religion and Apostataes and accusers of Bishops were rewarded 50 The second conuincing proofe that the Popes of the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours did not onely command but also ordaine temporall punishments Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth from the authority of Pope Vrbanus g Epist Vrbani tom 1. Concil 17. q. 4. can Attendendum est And his Successour Vrbanus saith he h Pa. 161. nu 9 ordained in like sort the penaltie of infamy adding also imprisonment and perpetuall banishment for such as should goe about to vexe and molest Churches and to depriue them of their goods and possessions But this proofe is as insufficient as the former First for that this Epistle of Vrbanus is not authentical but counterfait and falsly imposed vpon Pope Vrbanus as may euidently appeare by the subscriptions of the Consulls to wit of Antoninus and Alexander whereas it is euident as Baronius i Adamū 224 and other Historiographers doe witnesse that Antoninus was slaine in the fourth yeere of Pope Callixtus in the yeere of our Lord 224. two yeeres before Vrbanus was created Pope 51 Secondly for that it is also euident that the whole Canon Attendendum wherein the penaltie of infamy imprisonment and of perpetuall banishment is ordained as it is set downe 17. q. 4. by Gratian hath beene thrust in by some one or other to this Epistle for that it hath no coherence at all with the words of the Epistle which immediately follow wherein the reason of this decree is giuen whereas if the whole Canon Attendendum be left out the sense is perfect and the reason there alledged very apt and sufficient For what coherence I pray you is there betwixt these words of this Canon that if any man molest Churches he shall be condemned of perpetuall infamy and hee imprisoned and banished for euer with these words which in the Epistle immediately follow because we ought according to the Apostle to deliuer such a man to Sathan that the spirit may bee safe in the day of our Lord c. Which neuerthelesse is a very fit reason of that which immediately goeth before this whole Canon Attendendum to wit that Church-goods ought not to be taken away by any man and applied to prophane vses least they incurre the punishment and death of Ananias and Saphira and which is worse bee made Anathema maranatha and if they shall not fall dead in body as Ananias and Saphira did yet there soule which is of more worth then the body doth fall dead and be separated from the company of the faithfull and doth slide into the deepe pit of hell because according to the Apostle wee ought to deliuer such a man to Sathan c. which wordes as you see haue a perfect sense and giue a very fit reason of the former words if the whole Canon Attendendum be left out and with it there is no sense and coherence of the words at all 52 Thirdly what man can be so simple as to imagine that either Pope Vrbanus or any other Pope of the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours when not onely the goods of the Church were prophaned taken away and spoyled but also the Christians themselues imprisoned banished and put to cruell death would make a Decree that whosoeuer did take away or prophane the goods of Churches should be committed to prison or perpetually banished euen as if Mr. Arch-Priest should now make a decree that whatsoeuer Catholike shall take the oath of allegiance or repaire to Protestant Churches shall be imprisoned or perpetually banished and yet these in my Aduersaries iudgement are forsooth conuincing proofes Neuerthelesse this punishment of infamy is to be vnderstood as I shewed before of spirituall infamy to wit forasmuch as concerneth the spirituall Court and the penaltie of perpetuall banishment is to bee vnderstood of spirituall banishment or of banishment from the Church as it is expresly affirmed in the decree of his Predecessour Pope Callixtus And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert may vse some fraud in vrging from the decree of Pope Vrbanus the penaltie of banishment and in concealing the said penaltie in the decree of his Predecessour Pope Callixtus who in expresse words made mention of banishment from the Church 53 The third conuincing proofe Mr. Fitzherbert taketh from the authority of a Prouinciall Councell k pag. 162. nu 9 held at Eliberis l De Consecrat dist 1. can Omnis homo in Spaine in the time of Constantius father to Constantine the great Galerius which enacted that men should abstaine from their wiues not only some daies before they receiued the B. Sacrament m Barchard l.
the Popes power in temporalls is declared 1 MY second answere to the obiection before mentioned was taken from an exposition of the Glosse vpon the Canon Adrianus dist 63. Where the Pope commaundeth the goods of those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated and vpon the Canon Delatori 5. q. 6. where he ordaineth the tongues of calumniatours or false accusers to be pulled out or being conuicted their heads to bee stroken off For to these Decrees the Glosse answereth thus Hîc docere Ecclesiam quid facere debeat Iudex Secularis The Church teacheth heere what a Seculiar Iudge ought to doe Which answere of the Glosse may be accommodated or applied to the like Decrees wherein the sacred Canons doe inflict temporall punishments And this answere the words of Siluester doe also fauour c. Thus I answered in the foresaid Preface 2 Now to this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth a Pag. 166. nu 1. 2. that it is as idle as the former For although it were true saith he that this Glosse were to be vnderstood as Widdrington would haue it yet it would not follow thereon that the same may be truely applied to all other Decrees of the Church which concerne the imposition of temporall punishments especially to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran which ordaineth the deposition of Princes for this Glosse doth treate onely of such as are subiect to the iurisdiction of Iudges and Secular Magistrates whereas the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes on whom no Secular Iudge or Magistrate can execute any penaltie and therefore there is such disparitie in these cases that the Glosse obiected by my Aduersarie Widdrington cannot be iustly applied to both alike 3 But this Reply of Mr. Fitzherbert is as idle and insufficient as his former For first he supposeth as certaine that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Emperours Kings and all absolute Princes which as you haue seene he hath not as yet by all the helpes hee hath had from Fa. Lessius sufficiently conuinced Secondly if we respect the force and proprietie of the words these two Canons especially the former are according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne grounds rather to be vnderstood of absolute Princes then is the Decree of the Lateran Councell for that the words of these Canons especially of the former are generall and doe not denote titles of inferiour honour or dignitie The Pope saith the Canon Hadrianus did excommunicate and commaunded vnlesse hee should repent his goods to be proclaimed or confiscated whosoeuer should infringe this Decree whereas the Councell of Lateran doth not speake in such generall tearmes but onely it mentioneth persons of inferiour state dignitie and title then are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes to wit temporall and principall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords or who haue not any principall Landlords Gouernours or Lords aboue them but onely Emperours Kings or absolute Princes But the truth is that both the Decree of the Lateran Councell and these Canons doe not comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour persons and subiects 4 Thirdly if this exposition of the Glosse is to be approoued my Aduersaries can bring no sufficient reason why the same may not also be applied to all other such like Canons of the Church wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained and especially to the Decree of the Lateran Councell to wit that all such Canons doe onely teach or declare what hath beene done or is to be done by Secular Princes or their Officers For besides that the reason which here Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth why the Decree of the Lateran Councell cannot be expounded in this sense because saith he the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes is a meere prtitio principij a giuing that for a reason which is the maine question betweene vs and hath not as yet beene sufficiently prooued by him the words of the Lateran Councell according to their proper signification doe chiefly import this sense For the Councell doth not decree that the Pope may absolue those vassall from their fidelitie but the words of the Councell onely are that the Pope may denounce that is may declare or teach that those vassalls are absolued frō their fidelitie to wit by the consent and authoritie of absolute Princes 5 And if the Glosse and diuerse other Doctors whom I related elsewhere expounding the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. wherein Pope Gregory the 7th in his Epistle to the Bishop of Mentz affirmeth b Xpolog nu 444. that an other Bishop of Rome called Zacharie deposed the King of France from his kingdome and absolued all the French-men from their oath of allegiance doe thus interprete those wordes hee deposed the King and absolued the Frenchmen that is he consented to them that deposed him and declared him to be lawfully deposed and the Frenchmen to be lawfully absolued from their allegiance why may not this Canon of the Lateran Councell bee vnderstood in this sense that from that time the Pope may denounce that is declare and teach that the vassalls of that temporall Landlord Gouernour or Lord who for neglecting to purge his territories from heresie is for a whole yeere excommunicated are absolued from their fealty and their territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes especially seeing that the word denounce or declare is in this Canon expresly contained 6 And if any one obiect that the words of the Lateran Councell cannot be well vnderstood in this sense that the Pope may denounce that is may declare and teach that the vassals are absolued from their fealty to wit by force of some temporall law or constitution made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that before this Councell of Lateran there was no such decree or constitution of temporall Princes by vertue whereof the vassals of such a temporall Land-lord were absolued from their fealty and therefore those words of the Councell are so to bee vnderstood that the Pope may not onely declare and teach that they are absolued but also really absolue such vassals from their fealty To this obiection I answere that albeit I haue not seene any such temporall law or Constitution of any temporall Prince before it is was enacted by Frederike the second Emperour fiue yeeres after this Lateran Councell by vertue whereof such Vassalls are absolued from their fealtie yet wee finde that Pope Gregorie the seuenth long before in the Canon Nos Sanctorum 15. q. 6. did absolue them who either by allegiance or by oath were obliged to excommunicated persons from their oath of fidelitie to which Canon those wordes of the Lateran Councell if they bee vnderstood in the aforesaide sense may haue reference but then wee must consequently to our doctrine say that both this decree of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the inflicting of this temporall punishment and also the Canon Nos sanctorum haue onely force to binde in the territories of the Church
or the Popes Dominions wherein hee being a temporall Prince hath authoritie to inflict temporall punishments or that they haue force to binde by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes 7 Neither haue I vsed any fraude in alleadging and applying the words of the Glosse to my purpose as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely affirmeth Besides that saith he b pa. 166. nu 3 my Aduersarie Widdrington hath vsed no small fraude in the allegation and application of the Glosse to his purpose for whereas he mentioneth the Glosse vpon two seuerall decretalls hee setteth downe onely the later as though the same might serue indifferently for both and were so meant by the Glosser or that the two Decrees were both of one substance and nature as they are not but farre different and therefore doe require a different consideration 8 But it is not true that in setting downe the words of the later Glosse to wit vpon the Canon Delatori I haue omitted the wordes of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus seeing that the words of both Glosses are in substance all one and haue the same sense and signification For the words of the later Glosse are these Sed qualiter dat Papa c. But how doeth the Pope make lawes concerning the punishment of blood against that decree of the Councell of Toledo 23. q. 8. his a quibus But heere the Pope teacheth what the Secular Iudge ought to doe according to the Imperiall law 27. q. 1. si quis rapuerit And the words of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus where the Pope commandeth the goods of all those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated are these Hîc Ecclesia publicat c. Heere the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes shee deposeth Lay-men from their dignities 3◠q. 5. praeceptum in fine Or else say that heere the Church teacheth what ought to bee done so 24. q. 3. de illicita and 5. q. 6. Delatori Wherefore it is manifest that the wordes of both the Glosses haue the selfe same sense seeing that for the vnderstanding of the former Glosse hee remitteth his Reader to the wordes of the later Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I did set downe 9 Neither did I intend to set downe all the expositions which were brought by the former Glosse It was sufficient for mee to bring that exposition of the Glosse which serued to my purpose to wit that as the Pope in the Canon Delatori ordaining a temporall punishment though criminall did according to the Glosse teach and declare what ought to bee done by the Secular Iudge according to the Imperiall law so also the Pope in the Canon Hadrianus ordaining a temporall punishment though ciuill to wit the confiscation of goods did also according to one exposition of the Glosse teach and declare what ought to be done by the Secular Prince or Iudge and that therefore the same words or answere of the Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I only set downe to which hee remitteth his Reader vpon the Canon Hadrianus might serue indifferently for both And although ciuill and bloodie or criminall punishments as criminall is opposed to Ciuill and the decrees which ordaine and inflict the same are of a different substance and nature in particular yet in generall they are of the same substance and nature for that both of them are temporall punishments and cannot according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes be inflicted by the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but onely by the ciuill or temporall power and that therefore when either of them are inflicted by spirituall Pastours this proceedeth from the ciuill authoritie priuiledges or consent of temporall Princes or if wee will needes haue such decrees to bee made by true spirituall authoritie the Church in making such decrees as well concerning ciuill as criminall or bloodie punishments doeth according to the expositions of the Glosse before rehearsed teach and declare what a Secular Prince or Iudge ought to doe 10 But to the end saith Mr. Fitzherbert c Pag. 166. num 4. that the Reader may the better vnderstand this matter and the true sense and meaning of these two Glosses it is to bee considered first that the Glosses of the Law being commonly very briefe and therefore many times obscure are to bee vnderstood according to the drift sense and circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses in other parts and places of the Law 11 True it is that when the Glosses or expositions of the law are obscure as being commonly briefe although not so briefe and for this respect not so obscure as the law it selfe for to little purpose were that Glosse or exposition which is more obscure then the text it selfe we must gather the sense meaning of such Glosses from the drift sense circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses of the same Expositour or glosser in other parts and places of the law but with this caueat and prouiso that if the same Glosser or Expositour bring two diuers or contrarie Expositions of the same Canon which are grounded vpon two contrary opinions we must haue a regard to distinguish these two contrary opinions and the Glosses grounded thereon and for the vnderstanding of the Glosse or exposition which supposeth one opinion not to flye to that Glosse which supposeth the contrary doctrine and opinion for otherwise we shall make the sense and meaning of the Glosses to be more obscure and intricate then plaine and manifest As for example if the same Glosser or Expositour giue two diuers expositions of the same Canon whereof the one supposeth the Pope to haue either direct or indirect dominion in temporals and to haue authority either directly or indirectly to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishment and the other Glosse supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority in temporals for the vnderstanding of that Glosse which supposeth the Pope to haue such a dominion or authority in temporals wee must not flye to that other Glosse which supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority d Page 167. num 5. 12 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert the penalties imposed in the two decrees here glossed are of different nature and quality the one concerning onely the confiscation of goods which is expresly ordained in diuers places of the law and the other touching onely the effusion of bloud by death or mutilation which is no where ordained or permitted but expresly forbidden to all Ecclesiasticall Iudges 13 But first although it be true that the penalties imposed in these two Canons are of different nature and qualitie in particular for that the one ordaineth a ciuill punishment to wit the confiscation of goods the other a criminall penaltie to wit the effusion of bloud by mutilation and also death yet both of them are as I said before of the
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
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
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
remembrance that this Oath before it was by your Holinesse declared to be manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation might with a probable and consequently with a safe conscience bee taken by any Catholike by reason of the authoritie of so many learned and vertuous Priests and withall they doe now not only consider that your Holinesse prohibition being a meere declaratiue precept can haue no greater force to binde then the reason whereon it is grounded and wholy dependeth as beneath h C. 10. sec 41. seq out of the doctrine of Fr. Suarez shal be made manifest but also they are probably perswaded that your Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons wrongfully informed of the reason for which you forbade Catholikes to take the Oath to wit for that it containeth many things which are plainly repugnant to faith and saluation seeing that neither your authoritie to chastice Princes to excommunicate them to inflict Censures or any spirituall authoritie which is certainly knowne to bee graunted by Christ to Saint Peter and his Successours is in this Oath denyed as Cardinall Bellarmine whom Fa. Parsons and diuers other Diuines of his Societie doe follow by fallacious inferences laboureth to deduce they cannot as yet sufficiently perceiue by what forcible argument they are bound with the perpetuall temporal ouerthrow of themselues and their whole posteritie to obey your Holinesse declaratiue commaundement which at the most is grounded vpon a probable reason Neither doe they conceiue that they ought therefore to bee accounted rebellious to the Sea Apostolike for that they reseruing otherwise all dutifull reuerence to your Holinesse doe not in a matter which is so preiudiciall vnto them obey your Holinesse Apostolicall letters which either are written vpon false information or grounded onely vpon a probable opinion 14 And in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation h Sec. 2. nu 50. 51. I brought to the obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues two answeres which are grounded vpon these two reasons To make therefore said I now at the last a compendious answere to all the three Breues and so also to the whole obiection To the first Breue whereon the other two doe depend it is answered first that although his Holinesse thinking and in his opinion supposing the Oath to bee of it selfe vnlawfull and to containe many things which are contrarie to faith and saluation doeth therefore by his letters or Breues forbid English Catholikes to take it yet seeing that this his prohibition is onely a declaratiue precept and founded in the priuate iudgement and opinion of his Holinesse as before i Num. 44. sequen we haue shewed as we are not bound to follow the Popes opinion against the probable opinion of other Catholike Diuines then especially when by following it very great preiudice is like to come to our selues and many others and when the reasons and grounds for his opinion are for the most part by all men accounted to bee very vnsound as are almost all those arguments which our learned Aduersaries haue obiected against the oath so also we are not bound to obey the Popes declaratiue precept which is founded in his opinion and in the reason which hee alledgeth which precept according to the aforesaid doctrine of Franciscus Suarez hath no greater force to binde then hath his reason and opinion whereon his declaratiue precept doth wholly depend 15 Secondly it is answered that there is no English Catholike who if he be well instructed will take the Oath or approue it to be lawfull in that sense wherein his Holinesse by all probable coniectures hath condemned it For it is probable and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse did vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and especially Cardinall Bellarmine whose aduise and opinion in this so weighty a Theologicall controuersie which must needes bring great good or harme to this kingdome his Holinesse as it is very probable both demanded and followed who therefore according to his Holinesse minde and by his permission wrote in defence of his Breues against his Maiesties Apologie for the oath But Cardinall Bellarmine vnderstood the Oath in this sense as though it denied the Popes Primacie in spirituals his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and also to dispence in Oathes in which sense doubtlesse it cannot be denied but that it containes many things which are flat contrary to faith and saluation but no Catholike doth in this sense either take the Oath or defend it to bee lawfull Neither are the arguments which Cardinall Bellarmine hath brought to prooue the same any way sound and sufficient but very fallacious as I haue shewed at large in the said Disputation 16 All this which is onely a part of the answere I brought from the obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues I thought fit to repeate here againe onely for satisfaction of some scrupulous Catholikes who perchance fearing now to reade my Disputation it being forbidden by the Cardinals of the Inquisition without declaring any cause either in particular or in generall why it it is forbidden of wnich their prohibition I will say more beneath may here most clearley see how soundly and without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse I propound to him the reasons for which English Catholikes thought themselues not bound to obey his declaratiue precept contained in his Breues humbly requesting him that in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall dutie he would vouchsafe to instruct vs in the Catholik faith and to make knowne vnto vs but one of those many things which hee saith are in the Oath so manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation 17 Whereby the Reader may easily perceiue the egregious fraude of this my vnlearned Aduersarie in vrging so vehemently to my disgrace the obiection drawen from the authority of his Holines Breues concealing the principall answer which I brought thereunto whereby I cleared my selfe from all iust imputation of irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse For what irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse can be iustly imagined in propounding to him being the supreame Pastour of our soules with all reuerent and respectiue words the reasons which doe mooue vs to thinke that he hath beene misinformed of the true sense of the Oath and the difficulties which do perplexe our consciences concerning his Breues and humbly requesting him in regard of his Fatherly loue and Pastorall office that he would vouchsafe to teach vs instruct vs in the Catholike faith in those things which he saith are in the oath contrary to faith and saluation No Catholike subiect is bound so to respect and reuerence his superiour albeit he be the Pope as to obey his commandements with blinde obedience when his conscience doth dictate vnto him that they are vniust but hee may with all dutifull respect propound to his Superiour although he be the
Pope the doubts and difficulties which his commandement hath brought to his perplexed conscience desire him yea and charge him in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall office that he will vouchsafe to teach him and instruct him in what manner hee may quiet his minde and take away those difficulties which his commandement hath brought to his troubled conscience 18 Whereupon it is a common doctrine among Diuines that when a Superiour or Prelate commandeth any thing whereof the subiect hath a probable doubt whether it bee lawfull or no hee is not bound forthwith to obey And this is also conforme to the rule and instruction which Pope Alexander the third giueth to the Archbishop of Rauenna and it is recorded in the Canon law among the Popes Decretals Si quando aliqua tuae fraternitati c. If at any time Cap. si quando de Rescriptis saith the Pope we direct any thing to thy brotherhoode which doth seeme to exasperate thy mind thou oughtest not to be troubled c Considering dâ—ligently the quality of the matter for which we write vnto thee either reuerently fulfill our commaundement or by thy letters shew a reasonable cause wherefore thou mayest not fulfill it for wee will suffer patiently if thou doe not that which was suggested vnto vs by bad insinuation or information And among others Dominicus Sotus writeth thus Sot de detegen secret memb 3. q. 2. in Resp ad primum Prelates and Iudges are not in possession in respect of their subiects vnlesse for as much as they command lawfull things and therefore when it is doubtfully whether they commaund a lawfull thing then if it be in preiudice of a third person because that third person is also in possession of his fame goods the subiect must incline to that part where there is the lesse danger Neither are Prelates who command nothing whereby is feared any danger to Religion or the Common-wealth or to a third person bound to render a reason but simply they must bee obeyed also in doubts as it hath beene said before because then there is no danger if it be presumed that the Iudge commandeth iustly But when such a danger to Relegion or to the Common-wealth or to a third person is at hand then if the Subiect doubt he doth not against obedience if he require of his Prelate a reason of his commandement propounding humbly the reason of his doubt 19 And that this is our very case in refusing to obey his Holinesse Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the new Oath of allegiance by which prohibition such great preiudice to Religion to the Common-wealth to his Maiestie and to all his Catholike Subiects is like to arise and in humbly propounding to his Holinesse the reasons of our doubts any man of iudgement may plainely perceiue And if his Holinesse hauing taken vpon him the charge and office of the Supreame spirituall Pastour and thereby is bound by the expresse commaundement of Christ to feede without exception all the sheepe of Christ his flocke that is not onely to punish correct and threaten them but also to teach and instruct them in the Catholike faith and in all things necessary to saluation especially when vpon vrgent cause they require it at his hands if he will not vouchsafe to instruct the soules of vs poore English Catholikes who by his Breues haue beene so greatly troubled and perplexed and declare vnto vs some one of those many things which he saith are in the Oath manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation we hauing by priuate and publike letters and petitions so often so instantly and so reuerently demanded it at his hands but instead of instruction to send threatnings Censures and prohibitions of our humble Supplications to be instructed by him whereby our credit and good name is taken away by the vncharitable courses of some violent men what great an account both his Holinesse and his Counsellers herein haue to render at the day of iudgement to Christ our Sauiour the supreame Pastour and Iudge of all I tremble to consider and I pray Almighty God with all my heart that both his Holinesse and they of his Counsell may more duely consider thereof before it be to late 20 Thus thou hast seene the two reasons and answeres which I brought why any Catholike man may lawfully and without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse not obey his declaratiue precept contained in his Breues now you shall see with what fraud and ignorance my vnlearned Aduersary hauing fraudulently concealed the first reason and answere whereon I did chiefly rely cauilleth against the second and lesse principall reason or answere and taxeth mee of irreuerence and want of respect to his Holinesse for saying that his Holinesse was by all likelihood misinformed of the true sense of the Oath by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome and consequently deceiued and abused by them 21 For can any man saith M. Fitzherbert k Pa. 212. nu 2. with reason perswade himselfe that in such an important matter as is this of the Oath so famous or rather to say truely so infamous throughout Christendome so preiudiciall to the Romane Sea so dangerous and burdensome to the consciences of English Catholikes and so pernicious to their temporall states as the world knoweth it to be can any man I say with reason imagine that his Holinesse did not at the very first before hee published his first Breue see the Oath it selfe maturely weigh and ponder it yea and sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessary to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence this truely cannot be imagined of his Holinesse by any charitable Catholike 22 But first to retort this friuolous argument of my vnlearned Aduersarie vpon Cardinal Bellarmine and his booke published against the Oath can any man with reason perswade himselfe that in such an important matter as is this of the Oath so famous throughout Christendome and which so much concernech the Romane Sea the Soueraigntie of temporall Princes the consciences and temporall states of English Catholikes and their obedience due to God and Caesar as the world knoweth that it doth can any man I say with reason imagine that Cardinall Bellarmine so learned woorthy and reuerent a man did not at the very first before he published his booke against his Maiesties Apologie for the Oath see the Oath it selfe maturely weigh and ponder it yea and sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessary to the publication of his booke and yet it is euident as his Maiestie also hath conuinced that Cardinall Bellarmine did not rightly informe himselfe of the whole matter and of the true sense of some clauses of the Oath and was deceiued and abused English Catholikes in affirming so boldly that the Popes power to inflict Censures and to excommunicate his Maiestie is denied by those words of the Oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. which any
Catholike may without any breach of charity or vndutifull respect not onely imagine but plainly see and say to be euidently vntrue and my Aduersarie himselfe as I signified before l Nu. 10. by his silence in this point doth in effect acknowledge as much 23 Besides can any man with reason perswade himselfe or imagine but that in such an important matter as is this of the Oath so famous throughout Christendome c. his Holinesse did at the very first before he published his first Breue not onely see the Oath it selfe maturely weigh and ponder it yea and sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessary to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence but also that he demaunded yea and followed the aduice and iudgement of his learned Counsell especially of Cardinall Bellarmine whose opinion in Theologicall matters is accounted at Rome as it were an Oracle concerning the true sense and meaning of the Oath and of all the parts and parcels thereof this truly cannot be imagined of his Holinesse by any charitable Catholike Which being so as any charitable Catholike may not onely imagine but also euidently see that Cardinall Bellarmine affirming so resolutely that the Popes power to excommunicate to binde and loose in generall to absolue from Oathes in generall and consequently the Popes Primacy in spiritualls is manifestly denied in the Oath did misinforme himselfe of the true sense and meaning of the Oath and was deceiued so likewise any charitable Catholike may not onely imagine but also with morall certaintie perswade himselfe all circumstances considered that his Holinesse also was ill informed and consequently deceiued and abused by Cardinall Bellarmine of the true sense and meaning of the Oath 24 Wherefore I neuer imagined or conceiued as this man seemeth to impose vpon me and therefore chargeth me with irreuerence vndutifull respect and temerity that his Holinesse did not before hee published his first Breue see the Oath it selfe maturely weigh and ponder it sufficiently as he thought informe himselfe both by his own knowledge and learning and also by the aduice of his learned Diuines and especially of Cardinall Bellarmine of the true sense and meaning of the Oath and of all parts and parcells thereof As likewise I neuer imagined or conceiued that Cardinall Bellarmine did not before he published his first booke against the Oath see the Oath it selfe maturely weigh and ponder it and sufficiently as hee thought informe himselfe both by his owne learning and by the aduice also of other Diuines of Rome of the true sense and meaning of the Oath and of all the parts and parcells thereof yet as it is euident that Cardinall Bellarmine notwithstanding all his seeing weighing pondering and informing himselfe of the true sense and meaning of the Oath was fowly mistaken deceiued misinformed of the true sense and meaning of those words notwithstanding any sententence of Excommunication c. and some other clauses of the Oath so also it is probable that his Holinesse was in the like manner mistaken and deceiued by the euill information of Cardinall Bellarmine of the true sense and meaning of the aforesaid clauses 25 And by this that also which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth to taxe me of temerity and malice and of accusing his Holinesse of lacke of wisedome of impiety and manifest lying is both answered and his fraud and falshood plainly discouered And howsoeuer saith he m Pa. 212. n. 3 my Aduersary Widdrington or any other might be so temerarious to haue that conceit at the first yet hee could not without great malice persist in that opinion after the publication of the second Breue wherein his Holinesse acknowledgeth and auoweth that the former was not false or surreptitious but written vpon his owne certaine knowledge motion and will and after long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained therein and that therefore the Catholikes were bound to obserue it wholly reiecting all interpretations to the contrary This being so according to my Aduersaries owne relation it is most euident that his Holinesse had taken sufficient information of the whole matter Disp Theol. c. 10. sec 2. nu 59 and all the circumstances thereof euen before he published his first Breue and therefore Widdrington affirming the contrary cannot haue that opinion which a charitable and pious Catholike ought to haue either of the wisedome and pietie of his Supreme Pastour or of the authoritie and veritie of his Apostolicall Breues and Decrees but doth in effect charge him to haue lyed manifestly in his second Breue when hee testified that hee made the first with such mature deliberation and certaine knowledge as you haue heard 26 To this second Breue which his Holinesse purposely sent hither as he himselfe in the beginning thereof affirmeth for that it was reported vnto him that some heere did say that his letters or Breue dated the 22. of October 1606. concerning the forbidding of the Oath were not written according to his owne mind and his owne proper will but rather for the respect and at the instigation of others for which cause they went about to perswade others that his commaundements in the said letters were not to be regarded I gaue this answere n Dis Theol. c. 10 sec 2. nu 59. which my fraudulent Aduersary altogether concealeth In the second Breue which was dated the first of September 1607. it is onely declared that the former letters of his Holinesse wherein he strictly commanded English Catholikes that they should in no wise take the said Oath were not false and surreptitious but written not onely vpon his certaine knowledge and by his owne proper motion and will by which words neuerthelesse he doth not intend to denie that he in writing them vsed the aduise and opinion of others but also after long and graue deliberation had concerning all the things which are contained in them and that therefore they were bound to obserue them exactly setting aside all interpretation which may perswade to the contrarie Which last words are so to be vnderstood that there must be made no friuolous interpretation of those letters or no such interpretation which should make any man to think or make any doubt that they were not written with his Holinesse knowledge and priuity and by his owne proper will Salas disp 21. de Leg. sec 2. Sa in Aphoris verbo Interpretatio nu 5. For as Ioannes Salas and Emanuell Sa both of them Diuines of the Society of Iesus doe well obserue It is lawfull for Doctours to interprete all lawes not indeed by a necessarie publike or iuridical but a priuate and not binding interpretation although the Prince should say that it should be lawfull for no man to interprete otherwise this our writing for then he onely forbiddeth friuolous interpretations and which are expressely contrary to his mind Which their doctrine is with far greater reason to be vnderstood of the Popes declaratiue precept which is only
Fitzherbert turneth and windeth in such a running and fraudulent manner that his Reader cannot well perceiue of what imputation he meanes when he saith that if the second Breue be not sufficient to cleare his Holines of this imputation yet his third Breue must needs be aboundantly sufficient to doe it For that which I said onely is that his Holinesse by all likelihoode was not truely informed by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines of the true sense and meaning of some clauses of the Oath against which you haue seene with what fraude and falsitie my ignorant Aduersarie hath wrangled and iangled as though I had taxed his Holinesse for publishing his first Breue before he had seene or maturely weighed and pondered the Oath it selfe and all the clauses thereof and without graue and long deliberation had concerning all things contained in his Breue which how vntrue this imputation is wherewith hee chargeth me I haue alreadie shewed Now this silly man laboureth to prooue as also he insinuated before that because his Holinesse did maturely weigh and ponder the Oath and euery clause thereof before he sent hither his first Breue and did sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessarie to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence as well concerning the forbidding of the Oath by his first Breue as also concerning the punishing of such Priests that should take or defend the Oath to be lawfull by his third Breue sent hither two yeeres after which he could not saith my Aduersarie lawfully doe without due consideration and diligent discussion of the whole controuersie and sufficient information of all the circumstances thereof therefore his Holinesse neither was nor could all this time which was more then two yeeres be ignorant of the nature and qualitie of the Oath and that therefore he could not be ignorant but certainely knew that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation as he had declared by his first Breue 32 But to omit now those words sufficient information c. and that his Holinesse did sufficiently informe himselfe c. which my Aduersarie heere diuers times repeateth which because they are equiuocall and may haue a double sense I will declare beneath it is very vntrue and contrary to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and of all other learned Diuines to say that certaine and infallible knowledge of truth is in the Pope necessarily annexed to his long graue mature and diligent consideration and discussion of any doctrine or matter vnlesse the doctrine and matter be of such a nature and the discussion thereof be done with such circumstances and in such a manner as Christ hath promised him his infallible assistance which euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Christ hath not promised him in such decrees or definitions which are not directed and doe not appertaine to the whole Church as are these his Breues forbidding the Oath whereof the two first are onely directed to English Catholikes and the third onely to Mr. Birket then Arch-Priest For in customes lawes or decrees which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate persons or Churches not onely the Pope but also the Church may erre and be deceiued through ignorance I say saith Canus not onely in her iudgement of facts Canus lib. 5. q. 5. conel 3. or things done as whether such a one committed such a sinne hath lost his faculties ought to be censured and such like but also in her priuate precepts and lawes themselues and the true and proper reason hereof he bringeth from the authority of Pope Innocent the third which I related also aboue q Chap. 13. nu 11. for that albeit the iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued yet the iudgement of the Church is now and then led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue and is deceiued c. 33 Whereupon the Reader may most cleerely perceiue how vnlearnedly my ignorant Aduersarie doth inferre that because his Holinesse had a long graue and mature deliberation and consultation concerning the true sense of the Oath and of euery clause thereof and did send hither his third Breue for punishing those Priests that should take or defend the same therefore he could not be ignorant of the true sense of euery clause thereof but must certainly and infallibly know that many things are therein contained flat contrary to faith and saluation as he by his first Breue had declared as though his sentence and iudgement in Decrees which are directed onely to priuate persons or Churches should be alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither can deceiue nor be deceiued and that he cannot erre through ignorance or be led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue is deceiued in his priuate lawes decrees which are not common to the whole Church but doe belong to priuate men Bishops or Churches and that therefore those Priests whom he bindeth or punisheth by his Censure and sentence may not be free before God and those other Priests whom he doth not Censure may not deserue punishment in the sight of God according to that which Pope Innocent in the end of his aforesaid reason did affirme 34 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert often repeateth that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained in his first Breue among which the principall was that many things are contained in the Oath which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation was sufficiently informed of the whole matter are very equiuocall and may haue a double sense For first these words may signifie that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation was sufficiently informed to excuse him from sinne for doing what hee did and for sending hither his Breues to forbid the Oath and to punish those Priests that should take the Oath or teach it to be lawfull and with this point for that it little importeth our present question whether the Oath not onely in the Popes opinion and conscience but also really truely and certainely containeth in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation or no and for that it is a thing secret and vnknowne to me I will not inter meddle but leaue it to the conscience of his Holinesse and to the iudgement of God who searcheth the hearts and reines of men Yet this I dare boldly say that in my iudgement his Holinesse might haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter if hee had consulted this question concerning the certainty of his authority to depose Princes and whether his spirituall Supremacie or any other doctrine of faith or manners necessarie to saluation is denyed in the Oath not onely with his owne Diuines who are knowne to maintaine with such violence both his authority in temporals ouer temporall Princes which is the principall marke at which the Oath doth aime and his spirituall authority
ouer the whole Church or a Generall Councell but also with the Diuines of Fraunce who are not so vehement for either of them and with the learned Priests and Catholikes of England whom it did most concerne and I am fully perswaded or rather morally certaine that both the Cardinall Peron and many other learned Catholikes both of France and England would at that time plainely haue told his Holinesse and giuen him sufficient reasons for their saying that neither the doctrine for his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith or the contrary improbable nor that his power to excommunicate or any other spirituall authority of his which is certaine and of faith is denied in the oath 35 And this also of my owne knowledge is very true as I haue signified heeretofore r In the Epistle dedicatory nu 6. to his Holinesse that a certaine Priest not of meaner sort did presently vpon the resolution of Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest and of diuers other learned Priests and Catholikes that the Oath might lawfully be taken with all the speed he might write to Mr. Nicolas Fitzherbert being then at Rome and sincerely related vnto him how all things heere had past concerning the conference and resolution of learned Priests end Catholikes about the Oath earnestly requesting him that either by himselfe or by meanes of a certaine Cardinal whom he nam'd to him he would deale effectually with his Holinesse not to bee perswaded to send hither any Breue against the taking of the Oath things standing as they did for that otherwise his authority as well temporall to depose Princes as spirituall to define without a generall Councell would be more strongly called in question by English Catholikes then it hath beene in former times Now if his Holinesse had deferred for a time the sending hither of his first Breue and in the meane space had demaunded the opinion of English Catholikes whom most of all it concerned in this difficult controuersie about the lawfulnesse of the Oath he might doubtlesse haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter then he was or could be informed by his owne Diuines of Rome whom besides that they had not taken such paines in canuassing this question touching the certaintie of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes as many of our English Catholikes had he might haue some cause to suspect that they would speake partially in fauour of his authority either for hope of promotion as being men feruent to aduance all his pretended authoritie or for feare of incurring his displeasure and to bee accounted Aduersaries to the Sea Apostolicall as the euent alas hath prooued to bee ouer true 37 Or secondly the sense and meaning of those wordes may bee that his Holinesse by that long graue and mature deliberation and consultation was sufficiently that is truely and certainely informed of the whole matter and of the true sense and meaning of all the clauses of the Oath and this I say is very vntrue as likewise it is very vntrue that Cardinall Bellarmine notwithstanding all his graue mature and long deliberation and consultation had concerning this controuersie for betwixt this consultation of his Holinesse at which Cardinall Bellarmine was one of the chiefest and the publishing of his second booke against his Maiestie there passed almost foure whole yeeres and the consultation of his Holinesse could continue but few moneths seeing that the Oath was published heere about Iune and his Holinesse first Breue was dated the first of October next following hee was greatly mistaken and deceiued both in the vnderstanding of those wordes of the Oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. and of diuers other clauses thereof as I haue sufficiently conuinced in my Theologicall Disputation and Mr. Fitzherbert by his silence and not replying to this point being vrged by me thereunto doeth in effect acknowledge as much and also in his opinion touching the certaintie and infallibilitie of the doctrine for the Popes power to depose temporall Princes which without any sufficient ground euen according to his owne principles hee will needes haue to bee a point of faith 38 And heereby you may see how falsly and slaunderously and with small respect to his Holinesse whom Mr. Fitzherbert would seeme so much to reuerence hee concludeth in these words Å¿ P. 214. nu 5. Disp Theol. c. 10. s 2. nu 46. Therefore he that thinketh otherwise of his Holinesse as Widdrington doth affirming that his Breues were grounded vpon light foundations and false informations must needes hold him to be the most carelesse and negligent Pastour that euer gouerned the Church of God whereby any man may iudge what account Widdrington maketh of his Holinesse and his authoritie notwithstanding his submission of his writings to the Catholike Roman Church 39 But first it is very vntrue that from my wordes any such inference can bee gathered as Mr. Fitzherbert heere maketh I gaue indeede as you haue seene two answeres to his Holinesse Breues which are briefly comprised in those few words light foundations and false informations My first and principall answere which this fraudulent man altogeth concealeth was this that if his Holinesse Breue forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation was grounded vpon the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance as all my Aduersaries grant it was chiefly grounded thereon then I say it was not grounded vpon any certaine doctrine infallible and of faith but vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which were alwayes impugned by learned Catholikes which vncertaine and fallible grounds I called light for that they are not sufficient and weightie enough let them be neuer so probable to build thereon any certaine and infallible doctrine of faith and which euery Catholike vnlesse hee will deny his faith is bound to follow My second answere which this man doth also in great part conceale for that I did particularly set downe wherein his Holinesse was misinformed which he wholly dissembleth was that if his Holinesse Breue was grounded as by all likelihood it was vpon this foundation that his power to excommunicate his power to bind and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie which according to the common doctrine of Catholikes is indeede cleerely repugnant to faith is denyed and impugned in the Oath then I say that his Breues were grounded vpon false informations for that there is no such thing denyed in the Oath as I haue euidently conuinced howsoeuer Cardinall Bellarmine hath laboured to prooue the contrarie And neither of these answeres can bee sufficiently confuted by any of my Aduersaries neither are they repugnant to the submission of my writings to the Catholike Roman Church 40 So as you see that I made not that irreuerent inference which Mr. Fitzherbert heere concludeth I
affirmed onely the Minor proposition to wit that his Holinesse Breues condemning the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation were grounded vpon an vncertaine and fallible foundation or doctrine and light that is not weightie enough to make a matter of faith to wit that it is against faith to say that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes c. and vpon false informations to wit that his power to excommunicate to binde and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in the Oath and both these my assertions I haue sufficiently conuinced to bee true But this silly man thinking thereby to lay a foule aspersion vpon mee of irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse doth himselfe adde the Maior proposition not affirmed by mee and therein he plainly sheweth his owne irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse and to many other Popes accusing him and them by this Maior proposition which hee addeth to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastours that euer gouerned the Church of God For this is his Maior proposition whosoeuer affirmeth that his Holinesse Breues were grounded vpon light or vncertaine foundations and false informations must needes hold him to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastour that euer gouerned the Church of God by which his assertion hee plainely sheweth what little respect and reuerence hee beareth to his Holinesse and sundrie other Popes who oftentimes as I shewed before out of Pope Innocent the third t In the Canon Anobis 2. de sent Eucom are oftentimes lead in their iudgements and Apostolicall sentences by vncertaine opinions which both deceiue and are deceiued and not alwayes by true informations for which cause saith Pope Innocent it happeneth sometimes that hee who is bound before God is not bound before the Church and he that is free before God is bound by a Censure of the Church So that you see what account Mr. Fitzherbert to vse his owne wordes maketh of these Popes holding them according to this his assertion to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastours that euer gouerned the Church of God 41 For my owne part I neither made that irreuerent inference which Mr. Fitzherbert heere collected but hee himselfe out of his want of learning and iudgement broached and inuented that irreuerent Maior proposition from whence if it were generally true that inference may indeed be gathered as well concerning his Holinesse Breues as also the Decrees and iudiciall sentences of other Popes wherein as Pope Innocentius himselfe acknowledged they are sometimes lead not by trueth but by opinion and information which oftentimes is false and both deceiueth and is deceiued neither did I deny that his Holinesse before hee published his Breues vsed graue long and mature deliberation concerning all things contained therein albeit I must needes confesse that hee might haue vsed a more graue long and mature deliberation if hee would haue consulted the matter not onely with his owne Diuines of Rome but also with those of France and these of England whom most of all it concerned and doubtlesse hee might by them haue had a more sufficient information of the whole matter and controuersie then hee had by his owne Diuines alone as the euent sheweth to bee very true But whether this his graue mature and long deliberation and consultation with his Diuines onely of Rome was sufficient to excuse him from all carelesnesse and negligence before the sight and iudgment of God I will not as I said before it being a thing not knowne to mee meddle therewith neither will I accuse or excuse his Holinesse from sinne for sending hither his Breues so preiudiciall to the Kings Maiestie and to all his Catholike subiects without making a more graue long and mature deliberation and discussion but I leaue it to the iudgement of almightie God who onely knoweth the secrets of all mens hearts when through ignorance or negligence they commit any offence And thus you haue seene that fraude hath beguiled it selfe and how in that snare which Mr. Fitzherbert to taxe me of irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse hath said for me is wily beguily caught himselfe Now you shall see with what fraude and falsitie this silly ignorant and deceitfull man doth still goe on 42 And whereas Widdrington signifieth saith he u P. 214. nu 6. that his Holinesse was deceiued by Cardinall Bellarmine x Ibid. nu 51. 52. Item epi. Dedic nu 8. and Fa. Parsons hee sheweth himselfe very vaine and absurd in this coniecture For how can any man perswade himselfe with reason that his Holinesse meaning to giue his Apostolicall sentence in a matter of so great importance as was this of the Oath which sentence hee was well assured should be skanned and censured to the vttermost by all the Heretikes and Politikes of Christendome would suffer himselfe to bee led or guided by any two three or few persons were they neuer so learned or well steemed of him Besides that it is euident to all those that know how that matter passed that it was long debated in certaine Congregations of Cardinalls and other great Diuines wherein Cardinall Bellarmine had onely but one voice as other Cardinalls had and Fa. Parsons none at all for that hee did not enter therein 43 But obserue good Reader the egregious fraude and falsitie of this man who would make thee beleeue that I did say that his Holinesse was deceiued and misinformed of the true sense and meaning of certaine clauses of the Oath only by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa Parsons and not also by the other Diuines of Rome who consulted of this matter for which cause hee omitted to set downe entirely my second answere to his Holinesse Breues and also the particular points wherein I said his Holinesse was misinformed by them least that his manifest fraude and falsitie should presently haue beene discouered For albeit in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse I named only Card. Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons for that they were the two chiefe and principall men that first stirred in this Controuersie by publike writings the one of the Italian and the other of our English Nation yet I did not there affirme that his Holinesse was misinformed deceiued led or guided onely by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons and in my second answere whereto also Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader I expresly signified the flat contrarie and with Card. Bellarmine for Fa. Parsons there I named not I also ioyned the other Diuines of Rome It is probable said I y Disp Theo. c. 10. s 2. nu 51. and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse did vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and especially Card. Bellar. c. z See the rest aboue nu 15. And a little after I set downe a copie of Fa. Parsons letter wherein at the very beginning
thereof and no sufficient proofe to confirme his new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes as I will at large make plaine beneath p Chap. 9. seq 25 Secondly it is also vntrue that I onely am the man who denieth the spirituall Pastours of the Church to haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments and consequently to proceed to no other temporall chastisement after they haue cast the dart of Excommunication Many other learned Catholikes as I haue shewed aboue q Part. 2. per totum doe also deny the same and Almaine affirmeth that it is the doctrine of most Doctours that the Ecclesiasticall power cannot by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall or ciuill punishment as death exile priuation of goods c. Yea nor so much as to imprison With what face therefore dare this Doctour to terrifie simple Catholikes cry out so often Onely Widdrington or ely Widdrington as Card. Bellarmine did onely Barclay onely Barclay doe oppose themselues against all Catholikes But God be praised that my Aduersaries themselues haue liued to see what little credit is giuen by Catholikes to their vaunting words and with what disgrace their bookes haue beene handled by the State of France For Card. Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay was condemned and forbidden by the Parliament of Paris vnder paine of treason this Doctours booke against me was disgacefully burnt by the hangman before the great staires of the Pallace and the same fire but by a more publike sentence and in a more solemne manner Fa. Suarez booke also hat passed 26 Thirdly this Doctour very learnedly forsooth carpeth at me for abusing words in calling deposition and killing temporall armour or weapons My Aduersarie Widdrington saith he r Cap. 8. pag. 375. abuseth words when he affirmeth deposition and killing to be temporall armour or weapons F. who euer heard that deposition or killing are armour or weapons They are effects of armour or weapons but they themselues are not armour or weapons But first this Doctour hath so vigilant on eye ouer my words and writings to carpe at them that he quite forgetteth what words he himselfe doth vse For he himselfe heere confesseth that Ecclesiasticall Censures are spirituall armour or weapons whereupon in this very Chapter he callet Å¿ Cap. 8. pag. 360. Excommunication a dart and Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay t Cap. 19. pag. 185. calleth Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall sword and yet Excommunication and other Ecclesiasticall Censures are according to his owne doctrine effects of spirituall armour or weapons to wit of the Ecclesiasticall power which he calleth v Pag. 386. 387. in tract contra Barclai cap. 19. pag. â—88 the spirituall sword And if spirituall Censures or punishments may be called spirituall armour or weapons although they be an effect of the spirituall power or sword why may not I pray you temporall censures or punishments as are deposition and killing be called temporall weapons or armour although they be effects of the temporall power or sword If therefore I abuse words in calling temporall Censures or punishments temporall armour or weapons how can he excuse himselfe from abusing words in calling spirituall Censures or punishments spirituall armour or weapons 27 Secondly it is vsuall among Philosophers to nominate and describe a thing by the name of the cause whereupon they deuide a definition into a formall and causall definition or description as the Eclipse of the Moone is commonly described to be an interposition of the earth betwixt the body of they Sunne and of the Moone not for that the Eclipse of the Moone is formally that interposition for it is formally nothing else then a want of light in the Moone but for that it is caused by that interposition and Thunder according to the opinion of Empedocles and Anaxagoras is defined to be a quenching of fire inclosed in a cloude See Aristotle lib. 2. Meoteor sum 3. cap. 1. 2. but according to the doctrine of Aristotle a violent breaking out of a fiery exhalation inclosed in a cloud not for that Thunder is formally the aforesaid quenching or breaking forth for it is formally a sound or noice but for that this sound is caused from thence so likewise spirituall and temporall Censures may be called spirituall and temporall armour or weapons not for that formally they are so but for that they are effects caused from thence But lastly what man is so ignorant who knoweth not that the same thing may be both an effect and also a cause being considered diuers waies and so the same spirituall or temporall Censure and punishment as it proceedeth from the spirituall or temporall power which is rightly called the spirituall or temporall sword is an effect and not to be called a sword weapon or armour yet as it is a cause to bring great griefe to the person so punished or to redresse great euill it may well be called armour offensiue or defensiue yea and griefe it selfe may without abusing of words be called a sword according to that of the holy Scripture Luc. 2. And thy owne soule a sword shall pearce And thus you see how weakely and fraudulently this Doctour hath impugned my answere 28 Now to returne to Mr. Fitzherbert He forsooth bringeth an other reason but as insufficient as his former to proue that the Pastors of the Church haue authoritie to inflict temporall or corporall punishments vpon hereticall or schismaticall Princes if they shall contemne Ecclesiasticall Censures For otherwise how is that saith he x Num. 35. pag. 89. 2. Cor. 10. fulfilled which the Apostle said of the most ample power that he and other Apostles had to destroy Munitions Counsells and all Altitude or Lostinesse extolling it selfe against the knowledge of God yea and to reuenge or punish omnem inobedientiam all disobedience Which words S. Augustine August ad Bonifac Com. epist 50. vnderstandeth of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties and the same is also acknowledged by some of our principall Aduersaries namely Caluin Caluin vpon this place who not only expoundeth this place of the coercitiue and coactiue power that is in the Church but also groundeth the same vpon the words of our Sauiour to his Apostles Quicquid ligaueritis super terram Matth. 18. erit ligatum in caelis c. Whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen 29 Whereupon I inferre that if the Ecclesiasticall authoritie dâ—d not extend it selfe to the chasticement of disobedient Princes in their temporall states the Church should not haue the power whereof S. Paul speaketh that is to reuenge all disobedience seeing that the disobedience of absolute Princes to Ecclesiasticall Censures should be incorrigible and remedilesse Whereupon it would
therof which words Mr. Fitzherbert fraudulently concealeth he said that about some foure or fiue months agoe it was consulted at Rome by seuen or eight of the learnedst Diuines that could be chosen who gaue their iudgement of it There reasons ar many but all deduced to this that the Popes authoritie in chastising Princes vpon a iust cause is de fide and consequently cannot bee denyed when it is called into controuersie without denying of our faith nor that the Pope or any other authoritie can dispence in this 44 Now what a false and fraudulent man is this to make his Reader belieue that I should say that his Holinesse was deceiued onely by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons and in a matter of so great importance as was this of the Oath c. would suffer himselfe to bee led or guided any two or three or a few persons c. for which cause hee concealed my words which did expresly signifie the flat contrary thinking belike that my Disputation of the Oath being forbidden by the Cardinals of the Inquisition no man would aduenture to skan the matter and examine whether he had dealt sincerely or no but must beleeue all to bee true that hee said and so all his forgeries should goe for currant ware But truely such corrupt dealings is shamefull in a Heathen writer or any other morall honest man much more in Mr. T-F. then Priest Esquire and now an eminent man of the Society of Iesus But now Mr. T. F. laboureth much to free not Cardinall Bellarmine but his olde freind Fa. Parsons from this Calumnie as he tearmeth it and to shew that his Holinesse was not misinformed by Fa. Parsons and induced by him to send hither his Breues to forbid Catholikes to take the Oath 45 Whereto I also adde saith hee a Page 215. num 7. 8. 9. Disp Theol. ca. 10. sec 2. num 52. 53. seq that Widdrington contradicteth and ouerthroweeh his owne calumnie touching Fa. Parsons with a relation which hee maketh to iustifie it in his Theologicall disputation wherein hee layeth downe the contents of a letter written by Fa. Parsons to a freind of his in England signifying that a consultation had beene made by seauen or eight of the best Diuines in Rome about the Oath and that hee himselfe had conferred twice with his Holinesse touching the same and that in the first conference hee and Thomas Fitzherbert propounded to his Holinesse a certaine meane of mitigation or moderation suggested by friends to the which his Holinesse answered that his meaning was not to proceed to Censures against his Maiestie but rather to vse all gentle and milde proceeding with him but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires hee was fully resolued rather to suffer death then to yeeld one iot therein And in the other conference his Holinesse being aduertised that certaine Priests did incline to the taking of the Oath answered that hee could not take such for Catholikes 46 Thus doth Widdrington related Fa. Parsons letters touching his conference with his Holinesse before the first Breue was sent into England whereby it is manifest that Fa. Parsons was so farre from perswading or drawing his Holinesse to the resolution which he tooke concerning the publication of his Breue that hee sought to induce him to some other course propounding meanes of mitigation which indeede I can testifie to be true vpon my owne knowledge as it may appeare by my subscription to that letter of Fa. Parsons which Widdrington mentioneth if the originall bee yet extant 47 And therefore to the end that thou maiest good Reader know somewhat more of this matter and vpon what occasion his Holinesse spake of Censures against his Maiesty thou shalt vnderstand that among other things tending to the mitigation which Fa. Parsons propounded one was that it might please his Holinesse to offer to his Maiestie that if his Maiestie would vse at least some conniuencie and moderation towards the poore afflicted Catholikes his subiects his Holinesse would giue sufficient assurance by meanes of Catholike Princes that hee would neuer proceede with Censures against him but binde his said subiects vnder the paine of grieuous Censure to yeeld vnto his Maiestie all temporall and ciuill obedience for the security of his state and person which motion his Holines seemed not to mislike and therefore signified that the same was conforme to his intention which was not to proceed to the rigour of Censures against his Maiestie but to vse all indulgent and courteous dealing towards him albeit he was resolued rather to lose his head then to yeeld any iot of his authority in such affaires 48 But whether his Holinesse misunderstood some clauses of the Oath and was induced to forbid the said Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation onely by the information and instigation of Cardinall Bellarmine and of other Diuines of Rome or also by the sollicitation of Fa. Parsons it is not much materiall to the substance of my second answere which was as you haue seene that it is probable and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse vnderstood the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome and especially Cardinall Bellarmine for the reason I there alleadged did conceiue them But Cardinall Bellarmine vnderstood the Oath in that sense as though it denied the Popes primacie in spiritualls his power to excommunicate to binde and lose and to dispence in oaths wherein hee was fowly mistaken as I conuinced in the said Disputation And doubtlesse both Fa. Parsons and the Diuines of Rome did agree with Cardinall Bellarmine in the vnderstanding of the aforesaid clauses of the Oath as also Mr. Fitzherbert himselfe did in his Supplement as I shewed before b Chap. 1. follow their opinion and conceiue that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the Oath although now by his silence and not answering to that point which I vrged against him it seemeth that hee seeth himselfe to be deceiued therein Neither can there be made any doubt in the iudgement of any prudent man that if the Diuines of Rome had dissented from Cardinall Bellarmines opinion in that point hee durst neuer haue aduentured to affirme so confidently in his first booke against his Maiesties Apologie for the oath that the Popes power to excommunicate hereticall Kings is plainely denied in the Oath and especially after his Maiestie had clearely conuinced him of falsity in this point againe in his second booke against his Maiestie so boldly to confirme the same 49 Moreouer that his Holinesse was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine with whom the other Diuines of Rome did herein agree I brought an another sufficient reason taken from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter which Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale and relateth onely the last part thereof whereon I did not so much relie as vpon the former to prooue that his Holinesse was misinformed by Cardinall