same nature and quality in generall for that both of them ordaine temporall punishments which cannot be inflicted by spirituall Pastours by that authority which they haue receiued from Christ but onely by the authority priuiledges and consent of temporall Princes who onely haue authority to inflict temporall punishments as death exile confiscation of goods imprisonment and such like But with all this difference is to be obserued betwixt these two punishments that although some Ecclesiasticall persons as diuers Bishops of Germany being temporall Princes haue authority to inflict both kinde of punishments and to hang and draw as our English prouerbe saith within their temporall Dominions yet Ecclesiasticall leuitie as Saint Leo saith doth shun these bloudy punishments and the Canons of the Church doe forbid Cleargie-men to vse the same and to pronounce the sentence of death against any malefactour whatsoeuer immediately by themselues but onely by their Officers Neuerthelesse seeing that these Ecclesiasticall persons haue by the grant of temporall Princes authority as we say to hang and draw and what their Officers or Ministers doe in this case they doe it by their authority the aforesaid prohibition of the Church doth not take away or depriue them of their authority and iurisdiction but doth onely forbid them to execute the same by themselues immediately but onely by their Ministers So that if a Cleargie-man who is a temporall Prince as are the Bishops of Collen and Ments should notwithstanding the prohibition of the Church pronounce the sentence of death against any malefactour who deserueth the same although hee should offend against the prohibition of the Church yet he should not offend against iustice vsurping the power which he hath not by doing that which for want of temporall iurisdiction he hath no authority to doe in that manner as an other man who hauing no temporall iurisdiction and condemning one to death should offend 14 Secondly therefore although I doe not deny that the confiscation of goods is expresly ordained in diuers places of the Canon law as also the effusion of bloud by mutilation and death is expresly ordained in this Canon howsoeuer my Aduersary very boldly saith that the effusion of bloud by mutilation or death is no way ordained therein yet if wee distinguish ordaining from commanding or imposing because I haue euer granted that spirituall Pastours haue authority to command impose and enioyne but not to inflict temporall punishments all such Canons wherein temporall punishments are inflicted are either an approbation of the Imperiall law or a teaching and declaring what ought to be done by the Secular Prince or Iudge as the Glosse expoundeth both this Canon Delatori wherein the effusion of bloud by death and mutilation is decreed and also the Canon Hadrianus wherein onely the confiscation of goods is ordained or they were made and had force to binde by the consent of temporall Princes as other Doctours according to Hostiensis Ioannes Andreas and Pope Innocent interprete that so often vrged Canon Ad abolendam wherein Earles Barons Gouernours and Consuls of Cities and other places if they neglect to helpe the Church against heretikes are depriued of their honour 15 Neuerthelesse these Canons wherein temporall punishments are ordained for that they are made by sacred spirituall or Ecclesiasticall persons though not by sacred spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but by temporall and ciuill authority granted them by the priuiledges gift or consent of temporall Princes may be called sacred Ecclesiasticall and Apostolicall Canons Gerson de potest Eccles consider 4. according to that which I. Gerson writeth that there are some of opinion that Excommunication is the last punishment which the Ecclesiasticall power of Iurisdiction by the first institution of Christ can inflict so that it is not extended to imprisonment nor that any man be adiudged to death or corporall whipping but when the Ecclesiasticall Iudge doth this he doth it by the grant of Princes as the Cleargie by the deuotion of Princes hath receiued great authority of temporall Iurisdiction which iurisdiction or censure is neuerthelesse called spirituall as also the temporall goods of Ecclesiasticall persons are called spirituall because they are dedicated and applyed to them who serue the Church as also the breads of proposition the first fruites the tithes also the vessels of the Temple the Vestments and such like were in the old law called sacred or holy so also the new law doth obserue the same Thus Gerson 16 Thirdly the Glosse it selfe doth teach saith Mr. Fitzherbert e Pag. 167. num 6. Glossa in verb. publicat that by the former decree the Church doth ordaine the confiscation of goods and deposition from dignities saying Hìc Ecclesia publicat bona Laicorum quandoque deponit à dignitatibus Here the Church doth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth from dignities Thus saith the Glosse here which Widdrington wholly dissembleth because it maketh flatly against him and he taketh hold as it seemeth of the words immediately following though he doe not alleage them the words are Vel dic c. Or say that the Church teacheth here what ought to be done Wherein it cannot be with reason imagined that the Glosse contradicteth the former interpretation seeing that it teacheth also in many other places that the Church may and doth vse to impose temporall penalties by confiscation of goods imprisonment infamie and banishment as it may bee seene in the Glosses Lib. Detret cap. Licet tit de Paenis vpon 17. q. 4. Attendendum est 16. q. 1. Statuimus 27. q. 4. Quisquis and vpon the Decree Licet tit de poenis where the Glosse affirmeth expresly that if the Law doe ordaine only a spirituall punishment or a corporall the Iudge cannot change it into another except hee can dispence in the crime committed and that when the Law determineth nothing concerning the penaltie of the crime it is left to the will of the Iudge whether he will impose a pecuniarie penaltie or any other and lastly when the Iudge can dispence touching the crime he may inflict a penaltie of or some other Thus saith the Glosse 17 But first it is not true as you haue seene aboue that I either omitted to alleadge the second answere of the Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus seeing that it is all one with that which I did alleadge vpon the Canon Delatori to which the Glosse remitteth himselfe for his second answere or that I dissembled the first answere of the Glosse which teacheth that the Church doeth ordaine the confiscation of goods seeing that I onely intended to bring there those answeres of the Glosse which made for my doctrine and not those which made against it as if a man intend only to set downe Authours who fauour any one opinion may without any dissimulation omit to relate those Authours who are against it 18 Secondly is it possible that Mr. Fitzherbert can be so ignorant as to conceiue that the Glosse doeth then contradict
Bishops authoritie and the Seculiar Iudge is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will yet that a Bishop may only make a pecuniarie penaltie to be inflicted by a Seculiar Iudge by forcing him thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures and not by temporall compulsion this doth very much import and altogether fauour my doctrine For I doe not now contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as by the institution of Christ it is directiue or which is all one commaunding imposing or inioyning for I doe not denie as I haue often said that spirituall Pastours may by their spirituall authoritie commaund impose and inioyne temporall Princes to make temporall lawes as Saint Ambrose did the Emperour Theodosius and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good in which case those lawes are not made nor those temporall penalties are inflicted by the authoritie of spirituall Pastours as though temporall Princes were only their instruments and Ministers to execute their wills as inferiour Magistrates are onely instruments and Ministers to execute the will of the Prince but I doe now onely contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing and I vtterly denie that it is a certaine and vndoubted point of faith that the spirituall coerciue power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Secondly that fraude and impertinencie which Mr. Fitzherbert doth vntruely attribute to my answeres and obiections I haue clearely shewed to bee found in euery one of his Replies And as touching that absurditie which he now obiecteth against my answere it is cleere that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me is not concerning the power which either the Pope or inferiour Bishops haue by the grant consent and authoritie of temporall Princes I doe not say to commaund impose or inioyne but to inflict temporall penalties vpon Lay-men who are not their temporall subiects but whether any spirituall Pastour whether he be an inferiour Bishop or also the Pope himselfe hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict such temporall penalties And indeed my purpose is to conclude that because it is probable that an inferiour Bishop hath no such authoritie by the institution of Christ iure diuino therefore it is also probable that the Pope iure diuino and by the institution of Christ hath no such authority and vpon what probabilitie this my consequence is grounded and how absurdly Mr. Fitzherbert condemneth it of ridiculous absurditie you shall forthwith perceiue Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. 3 44 And first according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in the particular which assertion he brought to prooue that if the Pope be a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church then euery Bishop is also a direct Lord in temporals of his owne particular Church or Diocesse which consequent he affirmeth to be manifestly false and therefore hee denyeth also that the Pope is a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church Now from the same assertion I may as well conclude that if the Pope be an indirect Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church and may inflict temporall punishments vpon all Christians in order to spirituall good then euery Bishop is also an indirect Lord in temporals in his owne particular Diocesse and may in order to spirituall good inflict temporall punishments vpon the Christians of his Diocesse because euery Bishop in his particular Diocesse is that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church And therefore to argue according to the rules of Logicke à destructione consequentis ad destructionem antecedentis from the ouerthrowing or denying of the consequent to the denying of the antecedent If a Bishop in his owne Diocesse cannot according to the institution of Christ inflict a pecuniarie mulct or temporall penalty of money vpon those Lay-men that are not his temporall subiects neither can the Pope in the vniuersall Church doe the same Victoria in relect 2. de potest Eccles Castro lib. 2. de iusta Haeres punit cap. 24. Vasques 1. 2. disp 152. cap. 3. num 28. 45 Secondly according to the doctrine of the Diuines of Paris which others also as Victoria Castro Vasquez although otherwise vehement maintainers of the Popes power indirectly in temporals doe in this point follow it is euident that Bishops doe not receiue their authority and Iurisdiction from the Pope but immediatly from Christ by vertue of those words which were spoken to all the Apostles Whatsoeuer you shall binde c. Matth. 18. And Whose sinnes you shall forgiue c. Iohn 19. And Feede my sheepe Iohn 20. Which words according to the Exposition of the ancient Fathers a See aboue cap. 5. num 10. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad 1586. which also Cardinall Bellar. did once approoue are vnderstood to be spoken also to all the Apostles Seeing therefore that S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles and consequently the Pope and other Bishops who succeede the Apostles as they were ordinary Pastours and had ordinary spirituall power to gouerne the Church receiued their power and iurisdiction in the selfe-same forme of words without any limitation or restriction from hence it clearely followeth that what Ecclesiastical power iurisdiction soeuer the Pope receiueth ouer the whole Church the same power and iurisdiction if we regard meerely the law of God and the institution of Christ other Bishops receiue ouer those who are subiect to their Bishopricke * A Bishop saith Ledesma 1. 4. ar 11. standing in the law of God hath as great power in his Prouince as the Pope in the whole world So that standing in the law of God and abstracting from the Canons of the Church euery Bishop may in his owne Bishoprick absolue from all cases inflict all censures dispense in oathes and vowes make lawes and Canons no lesse then the Pope may in the Vniuersall Church And therefore it is no absurd argument to conclude that because a Bishop cannot by vertue of that spirituall power which hee hath receiued from Christ inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon those that in spiritualls are subiect to his Diocesse therefore neither can the Pope doe the same in the Vniuersall Church 46 Whereby it is apparant that the comparison which M. Fitzherbert heere maketh betwixt a King and an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge a Bishop and a Parish Priest and betwixt the Pope and other Bishops is idle and impertinent for that no man can make any doubt but that an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge hath all his authoritie and iurisdiction from the King but Bishops according to the doctrine of many learned men haue not their authority and iurisdiction from the Pope but immediately from Christ as the Pope himselfe hath and all Catholikes confesse that Bishops are Peeres and Princes of the Church and principall Iudges in the externall spirituall Court
whereas none will acknowledge that Parish Priests are such and few will grant that they haue iurisdiction in the externall spirituall Court but onely in the Court of conscience Therefore although it were absurd to say that because euery Bishop can excommunicate in his owne Diocesse therefore euery Parish Priest can also excommunicate in his Parish yet as it is not absurd to say that because the Pope can excommunicate in the vniuersall Church therefore a Bishop standing in the law of Christ can also excommunicate in his owne Diocesse so it is not absurd and much lesse ridiculous to say that if the Pope can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon all Christians euery Bishop also standing in the law of Christ can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon those that are subiect to his Bishopricke no more then it is absurd or ridiculous for Cardinall Bellarmine to say that if the Pope hath direct dominion in temporalls in the vniuersall Church euery Bishop hath also direct dominion in temporalls in his owne particular Bishopricke for that according to his doctrine that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euerie Bishop in his particular Diocesse 47 And as concerning that plenitude or fulnesse of the Popes Ecclesiasticall power which Mr. Fitzherbert with full mouth doth so often inculcate little vnderstanding poore man in what this fulnesse doth consist there is a great controuersie among Catholikes to what things this fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power doth extend Almainus de authore Eccles cap. 3. For there is so great a controuersie saith Almaine concerning the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and to what things it doth extend that there are few things in this matter secure or certaine insomuch that it were very necessary in these times as William Occam in the end of the first part of his Dialogue obserueth that wise men being inforced by oathes or horrible threatnings to speake the truth should declare those things which belong to the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power And how farre some Authours perchance for flattery to get priuiledges and benefices saith Almaine doe straine it to the preiudice of Princes so that they doe quite ouerthrow the Soueraigntie of Princes you may see in that his Treatise where hee expoundeth only the doctrine of Occam and how he notwithstandeth the fulnesse thereof in other his bookes where he speaketh according to his owne opinion will not haue it to extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment and this saith he a In lib. de dominio natu Ciu. Eccl. concl 12. is the opinion of most Doctours 48 And also the Doctours of Paris doe make the power and Iurisdiction of Bishops standing meerely in the law of Christ to be as full in intension as is the Popes power that is abstracting from his Primacie and the fulnesse of his power in extension for that the Popes power is extended to the whole Church and the power of Bishops is limited and restrained to their owne Bishoprikes albeit the Canons of the Church haue limited and restrained the fulnesse of Bishops power also in intension Bell. l. 5 de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. reseruing many cases and Censures to Papall authoritie But standing in the law of Christ Card. Bellarmine doeth very well affirme that euery Bishop is that in his owne Diocesse which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church which Mr. Fitzherbert must first proue to bee impertinent absurd and ridiculous and then let him put those imputations vpon my answere and the argument which he draweth from thence 49 A third principall exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against that which in confirmation of my aforesaid second answere I added in these words Adde hereunto that whensoeuer the Pope by a generall constitution decreeth any temporall thing but it pleased my Aduersarie to leaue out that word temporall which is preiudiciall to the right of another man who is not subiect to him in temporalls the same decree as some not improbably doe thinke doeth only extend vnlesse the contrarie bee expressed which last clause also Mr. Fitzherbert leaueth out to the territories of the Roman Church or the patrimonie of S. Peter wherein as Pope Innocent saith b Cap. per venerabil the Pope doth exercise the authoritie of a chiefe Bishop and doth execute the power of a Soueraigne Prince 50 Against this answere Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth in this manner c pag. 173. nu 18. 19. Thus Widdrington telleth vs but who these some men are of whom he speaketh or where they affirme this hee listeth not to tell vs neither in his text nor in his margent lest by the cases which they propound and the circumstances of their doctrine we might discouer his abuse of their testimonie but whosoeuer they bee if there be any such that giue so generall a rule as hee mentioneth it must bee considered whether they speake of constitutions touching matters meerely temporall or else of penall lawes made against heresie or other enormious crimes for the benefit of the whole Church For no Catholike man I am sure hath euer said or will say that any generall Constitution of the Pope made for the reformation of faith or manners and punishment of delinquents in spirituall matters is to bee vnderstood to bee restrained to the Popes owne temporall patrimonie for seeing that hee hath no lesse spirituall authoritie throughout all Christendome then within his owne temporall dominions it were absurd and hereticall to say that his generall Decrees touching spirituall matters such as is the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie to the preiudice of some mans temporall state for so could not heretikes bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes decrees which neuerthelesse are generally executed Cap. vergentis Tit. 7. de haerâ—â— in preiudice not only of the delinquents but also of their children and next heires And this I say is so vniuersally practised by the Church that hee cannot be counted a Canonist nor yet a Catholike that will deny it to be lawfully done 51 But to omit the egregious fraude and falshood of this man in affirming mee to say that whensoeuer the Pope decreeth any thing c. and leauing out the word temporall and also that other clause vnlesse the contrarie be expressed which were the chiefe points whereon I did ground that my answere there is no man of any iudgement who may not cleerely perceiue that all those Catholike Doctours alleadged by mee heretofore d Apol. nu 4. seq and in the first part of this Treatise and among the rest those plerique Doctores very many or most Doctours whom Almaine citeth and followeth who affirme that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall censures must consequently holde that when the Pope by a generall constitution decreeeth any temporall
another generall Councell of like authority and why a Bishop for example of Spaine as he is a part of the generall Councell which is a true formall body representing the whole Catholike Church hath power and iurisdiction ouer the Christians of another temporall kingdome for example of France and contrariwise but a temporall or Ciuill law made by the consent of all Christian Princes may bee repealed by euery Prince for as much as concerneth his owne kingdome by whose onely authoritie that law had force to binde in his kingdome which in temporalls is subiect to no other Prince but himselfe alone and therefore as that law had not force to binde in his kingdome from the authoritie of any other Prince so the authoritie and consent of no other Prince is necessarie for the repealing and abrogating of the same So as thou seest good Reader that my third answere is no way defectiue but in euery thing sound and sufficient and that Maister Fitzherbert in the impugning thereof hath very grossely bewrayed his egregious fraude and ignorance CHAP. XIIII VVherein three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby hee laboured in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraude and falshood 1. AFter I had giuen the aforesaide third answere to that Act of the Lateran Councell as you haue seene before I insinuated another difficultie a In the aforesaid Preface nu 51. concerning that Act in these wordes I omit now that those wordes that from that time the Pope may denounce or declare his Vassalls absolued from his fealtie doe containe in them some difficultie for if wee will regard the force or proprietie of the wordes they seeme onely to signifie that it belongeth to the Pope not truely to absolue Vassalls from their fealtie but onely to declare them alreadie absolued which is not the question which wee haue now in hand But this difficultie Mr. Fitzherbert passeth ouer with silence and skippeth to examine three instances which I did not onely imagine or suppose as hee saith would be made against my last answere but which Fa. Lessius in those expresse words by me related in a booke of his called Disputatio Apologetica pro potestate Summi Pontificis which went heere vp and downe for a while in hugger mugger and whereof by chance I had then a view but now it cannot be seene but by very speciall and secret friends which is a manifest token of a great diffidence in his cause did bring to demonstrate and cleerely conuince that it is a manifest point of faith that the Pope hath power and authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance 2 And because Mr. Fitzherbert doth ouer much pare and curtoll those three instances which I brought to confront and paralele with the three arguments or obiections vrged by Fa. Lessius I thinke it not amisse first of all to relate them word by word as there they are set downe by me Wherefore the first argument or obiection of Fa. Lesus is this 1. Argument of Fa Lessius That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of their Decrees and sentences but this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their allegiance is eyther propounded or supposed by Popes Councels and Doctors as a foundation of many Canons and iudiciall sentences therfore this doctrine doth appertaine to faith 2. Argument 3 His second argument is this If a Generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath this authoritie no Catholike could make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that it doth suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of her Decrees and Sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to be accounted no lesse certaine 3. Argument 4 His third argument is this It is a poynt of Faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which is per se of it selfe vnlawfull for such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then is an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to depriue temporall Princes of their dominions the Church should erre in doctrine of manners and that in matters of very great moment For shee teacheth that after a Prince is deposed by the Popes authority all his subiects are absolued from his obedience and that his dominions may bee taken by another as it is manifest by the Councells Also that after a Prince is publikely excommunicated his subiects are absolued from their Oath of Allegiance in so much that they are not bound to obey him vntill hee he reconciled yea and she doth forbid them to obey him if the Censure be denounced All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the subiects shall thereby be incited to rebellions and periuries yea and against their will be compelled thereunto Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and commandeth rebellions and periuries and by her Censures doth compell men thereunto but to affirme this is hereticall therefore that also from whence this followeth is hereticall to wit that the Church hath not authority to absolue subiects from the bond of their oath and from their obedience 5 Thus argueth Fa. Lessius to which his arguments I did not answer in forme but onely propounded three other instances or arguments to confront them with his whereby the learned Reader might cleerely see the weakenesse and insufficiency of his obiections which my arguments I grounded in like manner vpon the dispensations decrees and iudiciall sentences of certaine Popes in these words * Praefatio Apol nu 56. seq 6 And first of all is not the due administration of Sacraments a matter of great moment and chiefly belonging to the Popes office is not an error concerning it to be accounted very pernicious But the Pope hath oftentimes giuen leaue to a Priest who was no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation b As it appeareth by S. Gregory lib. 3. epist 26. and it is related in the Canon peruenit dist 95. and many Abbots at this day haue the same faculty Concil Flor. circa finem in Decreto Eugen. whereas it is a great cōtrouersie among
the vniuersall 27 And therefore I haue sufficiently without altering the case confuted that maxime he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse by this instance of a priuate Priest who is contained in that subiect hee that can as a particular in the vniuersall for that a priuate Priest can doe the greater to wit can absolue from sinnes and yet he can not doe the lesse to wit absolue from debts from whence it followeth that the aforesaid generall maxime is not true and therefore neither the consequence of that argument concerning the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently to depose which consequence is grounded vpon that generall maxime can be good By which it is apparant that from that maxime it can not be rightly concluded that because the Pope hath power to excommunicate which is the greater he hath power either to depriue Princes of their kingdomes or to absolue subiects from their debts which are the lesse 28 Neither is the deposing of Princes or the discharging of subiects from paying their debts necessary for the spirituall good and publike benefite of the Church or which is all one to the saluation of soules although they were necessary yet seeing they are temporall and not spirituall actions they must be performed for the same spirituall end by temporall and not spirituall power And therefore that argument which my Aduersarie vseth a maiori ad minus that because a temporall Prince may absolue his subiect from the payment of his debt therefore much more the supreame spirituall Pastour of the Church may doe the same is of little worth for that the disposing of temporall things and the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the discharging of subiects from paying their debts doe belong only to the temporall power of Secular Princes and not to Ecclesiasticall authoritie which by the institution of Christ is not extended to the inflicting of temporal punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. but only of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall censures as I haue shewed more at large in the first part 29 To my fourth and last instance which was this He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse therefore a priuate Priest who hath power to giue the kingdome of heauen to wit by vertue of the Sacraments hath power to giue an earthly kingdome Mr. Fitzherbert answereth as before k Nu. 12. 13. pag. 46. that Widdrington changeth the state of the question transferring it from the Pope to a priuate Priest for albeit this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if we change the consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto my Aduersarie Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreame authoritie and therefore the argument would be good thus Potest Papa per plenitudinem potestatis c The Pope may by the plenitude of his power giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore he may giue an earthly for the later being a necessarie consequent of the former is necessarily comprehended in it because the Pope by the plenitude of his power hath as much authoritie and iurisdiction as is necessarie for the gouernment and good of the Church Whereupon it followeth that whensoeuer it shall be absolutely necessarie and behoouefull for the Church that he change or transferre a kingdome or Empire he may doe it and giue not only the Kingly or Imperiall title but also the right to the crowne as Leo the third c. 30 But Mr Fitzherbert doth also in this answere bewray his ignorance and want of Logicke as he did in the former for it is cleere that he himselfe and not I doth alter the case and change the state of the question For the question is not concerning the consequent of Lessius argument but concerning the consequence or that antecedent proposition and maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon his consequence or argument is grounded and therefore by changing the consequent the case or state of the question is not altered when the consequent is included in the antecedent proposition as a particular in the vniuersall as in the former part of this argument a Priest can giue the kingdome of heauen is included in the former part of that maxime he that can doe the greater and the second part therefore he can giue an earthly kingdome is included in the second part of that maxime therefore he can doe the lesse for that to giue the kingdome of heauen is greater then to giue an earthly kingdome And to make the case more plaine to the vulgar sort put the case that I should argue thus Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore sugar is pleasant to the taste the consequent you see is true yet the consequence is not good for that the antecedent proposition is false And if my Aduersarie should impugne my consequence and prooue my antecedent proposition to be false by this instance Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore chalke is pleasant to the taste and I should reply to this instance and say that he altereth the case changeth the state of the question in transferring it from sugar which is sweet to chalke which is vnsauoury would not my Aduersarie trow you according to his accustomed manner affirme that my reply is impertinent absurd foolish and ridiculous and send me backe to learne Logicke againe 32 Now you shall see how plainely Mr. Fitzherbert whiles hee vntruely chargeth mee as you haue seene with altering the case and changing the state of the question he doth alter and change it himselfe For albeit saith he this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if wee changet he consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreme authoritie c. But first it is vntrue and I wonder that Mr. Fitzherbert blusheth not to say that I ascribe the Popes power to the force of the Sacraments seeing that I speake not one word in my instance of the Pope but onely of priuate Priests And if I had ascribed the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace whereby we are made children of God and heires to the kingdome of heauen to the force and vertue of the Sacraments had this beene forsooth any vnsound or bad doctrine Will my Aduersarie ascribe the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace not to the force and vertue of the Sacraments but to the plenitude of his power as though the Pope by the plenitude of his power could without the Sacraments remit sinnes and giue iustifying grace If this be his meaning all Catholikes know what Censure this doctrine deserueth and it is in some sort agreeable to that which he said a little before that the Pope by excommunication doeth take away the life
of the soule which is iustifying grace 32 Secondly obserue good Reader how my Aduersarie himselfe altereth the case and changeth the state of the question and the reason or principle whereon Lessius consequence or argument which I did impugne was grounded For Lessius his argument was this The Pope can excommunicate Kings therefore he can depose them because hee that can inflict the greater punishment can inflict the lesse which proposition supposeth that generall maxime he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse and this maxime was the reason and ground of his consequence or argument Now my Aduersary changeth this reason and ground and flieth to another The Pope saith hee may giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore hee may giue an earthly but for what reason thinke you I expected that he would haue yeelded Lessius reason because hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse which reason by those foure instances I did impugne but he flyeth from this reason to another because the Pope saith he hath a plenitude of power by which hee may giue the heauenly and consequently an earthly kingdome Before he affirmed as you haue seene that the Pope hauing power to excommunicate Kings may depose them as well because the power to excommunicate is greater then the power to depose and this was Lessius his reason which I impugned in this Chapter as also because the temporall state whereof the Pope depriueth the Prince is ordained to serue the spirituall and therefore to bee disposed by the supreme spirituall Pastour so farre soorth as shall be necessarie for Gods seruice and the good of the Church and this is the reason which my Aduersary brought in the former Chapter and was grounded in that rule of the Law The accessory followeth the principall which I impugned in that place Now he yeeldeth another reason which is taken from the plenitude of power which the supreme spirituall Pastour hath 33 So that you see how he himselfe now changeth the state of the question and flyeth from Lessius reason which I impugned to wit that hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse to the plenitude of the Popes power which reason neuerthelesse is of small force and it is rather petitio principij or a giuing that for a reason which is the question For albeit I doe not deny that the supreme spirituall Pastour hath in spirituals a plenitude of power that is a full spirituall power to gouerne the Church which is the spirituall kingdome of Christ as likewise all Soueraigne Princes haue in temporalls a plenitude of power that is a full temporall power to gouerne their temporall kingdomes yet how farre this plenitude or fulnesse of spirituall power is extended whether to the disposing of temporall things and to the giuing or depriuing of temporall kingdomes in order to spirituall good as my Aduersaries imagine or onely to the disposing or dispensing of spirituall things as many other learned Catholikes are of opinion this is that which is now in controuersie betwixt mee and Mr. Fitzherbert and which he taketh vpon him by all lawes humane and diuine cleerely to conuince and therefore to giue that for a reason which is the question is to commit that fault which the Logicians call petitio principij 34 If Mr. Fitzherbert had argued in that manner as Lessius did to wit that the Pope by the plenitude of his power may giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore hee may giue an earthly because hee that can doe the greater can do the lesse then he had not altered the state of the questiō or changed Lessius medium or reason but then I would also haue denied his consequence and haue impugned that reason of maxime by those foure instances and infinite other which might be brought which do cleerely directly confute and ouerthrow that maxime But seeing that he flyeth from that maxime which Lessius brought for his medium or reason to the plenitude of the Popes power he both altereth the state of the question and also giueth that for a reason which is the question For I vtterly deny that the Pope by that plenitude of power which Christ hath graunted to his Church can I doe not say command impose or enioyne temporall things as temporall penalties but dispose of temporall things or inflict temporall punishments although it bee imagined that they are necessary as they are not to the good of the Church and the saluation of soules it belonging only to the temporall power of Secular Princes whom Christ hath appointed to be Protectours of his Church to vse the temporall sword to inflict temporall punishments and to dispose of temporall things 35 Wherefore neither the plenitude of spirituall power in the supreme spirituall Pastour to giue the heauenly kingdome doth necessarily inferre a power in him to giue an earthly kingdome as a necessarie consequent of the former as my Aduersarie heere affirmeth although the supreme spirituall Pastour by the plenitude of his spirituall power hath as much spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction as is necessarie for the gouernment and good of the Church as it is instituted by Christ our Sauiour neither is the changing transferring or giuing of an earthly kingdome and the disposing of all temporall things absolutely necessarie for the spirituall good of the Church or which is all one for the sauing of soules as also my Aduersarie here supposeth from which necessitie for the most part he draweth an argument to prooue the aforesaid power to dispose of all temporall things to be in the Pope although sometimes he graunteth l cap. 2. nu 3. that the Pope hath the aforesaid power ouer temporall goods and States yea and of the bodies of all Christians so farre forth at least as it shall be conuenient for the good of the soule and of the Church which is a too too large and exorbitant extension of the Popes plenitude of power to take away the kingdomes and liues of Christian Princes and to dispose of all temporals for that as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth it is not absolutely necessarie for the good of the Church to resist the common enemie as is the Turke For if the Church sayth he m lib. 1. de Concil cap. 10 could conuerse * conuersari vnder the most cruell persecutions of Nero Domitian Decius and Diocletian why may it not also vnder the persecutiō of the Turks And although the disposing of temporal things the changing transferring giuing and taking away of temporall kingdomes were necessary for the spiritual good of soules or of the Church yet they being temporall actions and proper to the temporall power as God almightie hath distinguished in the Christian world or common-wealth the temporall and spirituall power by their proper actions functions and dignities they can not be performed by the spirituall but onely by the temporall and ciuill power which Christian Princes are by the law of Christ bound to vse in defence of the Church and for
discourse how by that staffe Pope Hormisda gaue to S. Remigius this power consecrating and the whole principalitie or Primacie of France and how Pope Victor did grant it to him and his Church Then his Father Henry beckoning he chose him to be King after him 55 This is all that Papirius Maso writeth So that all the difficultie of these words consisteth in that word election which cannot be vnderstood properly and for that election whereby one is made King or heire apparant to the crowne who was not King or heire apparant before the election For the Kings of France before that time and euer since haue their right and title to the crowne not by election but by hereditarie succession but it is taken for the religious ceremonie of consecration and a solemne declaration of the Archbishop that the person whom he consecrateth is chosen or rather acknowledged and accepted by the whole kingdome for King or heire apparant to the crowne Neither doth the consecration and declaration or if we will improperly call it election of the Archbishop giue any more right authoritie or Soueraignitie to the King of France then he had before neither if hee were not consecrated elected or declared to be King by the Archbishop should he want any temporall right authoritie or Soueraignitie for that the Kings authoritie Soueraignitie doth not necessarily depend on the Archbishops consecration election or declaration although some of the vulgar sort of people may perchance imagine that he is not a perfect King before he be consecrated and annointed 56 As likewise the Pope after he is chosen by the Cardinals is true Pope and hath all Papall power and iurisdiction before he is consecrated or crowned Pope neither doth his Papall authoritie necessarily depend vpon his coronation which belongs only to a religious ceremonie and a complementall but not needfull solemnitie But this I vnderstand for this present only of those Kings who haue their right and title by hereditarie succession and not of those who are Kings by election as is the Romane Emperour and the King of Polonia For it is a question among the Lawyers whether the Emperour before he bee crowned by the Pope or by his commission is truly Emperour and hath full Imperiall power or no whereof and from whence this may proceede I will not now dispute and so it may perchance be a custome among the Polonians that the King elect is not accounted a complete and perfect King before he be crowned and consecrated by the Metropolitan but this may proceede originally and chiefely from the people or Kingdome in whom the supreme Regall authoritie doth reside vntill they haue chosen a King in which time of vacancie they may extend or limite his authoritie or make him with what conditions they please yea and if they will change the Monarchie into Aristocratie or Democratie which cannot be likewise said of those Kingdomes which haue their Kings not by election but by hereditarie succession of whom that vulgar saying is verified that the King doth neuer die 57 Also when Boleslaus King of Polonia saith Mr. Fitzherbert had killed the holy Bishop Stanislaus Pope Gregorie the seuenth did not only excommunicate and depose him but also commanded the Bishops of that Realme that they should not annoint and crowne any King of Polonia without his expresse leaue and order whereby he that succeeded Boleslaus had but the title of Duke which remained also to his Successours for the space of two hundred and fiftie yeares So as this matter is cleare not only in reason but also in practise and so hath been for many ages whereby it appeareth that the Pope may giue as well the earthly as the heauenly kingdome for the good of the Church by the same reason and power that he may depriue Princes of their states when they deserue it and the good of the Church requireth it 58 And thus thou seest good Reader how probably this man Widdrington hath impugned the argument of Lessius seeing that of foure arguments that he hath scoffingly framed to counterfeit the same and to prooue a bad consequence therein there is not any one to his purpose and some of them being truly vnderstood and vrged according to the true state of the question which he hath changed in them doe make directly for vs so that his scoffes doe fall vpon one but himselfe and his owne ridiculous arguments and therefore whereas he concludeth them with a gybing demand asking whether these and the like are not goodly arguments to perswade the English Catholikes to cast away prodigally their goods and to deny their fidelitie to their Prince I may with much more reason demand of him whether these and such other answeres and arguments of his are not goodly ones to mooue the English Catholikes to be so prodigall of their soules as to cast them away vpon his word by denying fidelitie and obedience to their spirituall Pastour who hath the charge of their soules 59 But it seemeth that his minde and hand is altogether vpon his halfe penny as the prouerbe speaketh seeing that he hath so great care of the Catholikes goods and so little of their soules that he would haue them venter and hazard their eternall saluation to saue their temporall goods but I hope God will inspire them to be wiser and alwaies to remember the golden sentence of our Sauiour Marc. 8. Luc. 9. quid prodest homini c. What doth it profit a man to gaine all the world if he loose his soule Thus Mr. Fitzherbert endeth this chapter 60 But as for the example and practise of Pope Gregory the seuenth I doe freely acknowledge that hee was the first Authour and Writer that did in expresse wordes teach that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes also that he was the first Pope who contrary to the custome of his Ancestours as Onuphrius witnesseth b Li. 4. de varsa creat Rom. Pont. did practise the same but first he did practise it and then he endeuoured to prooue that he might lawfully doe it since which time it hath indeede beene practised by many Popes Neuerthelesse both the doctrine and the practise was not knowne to the ancient Fathers and also it hath euer beene resisted and contradicted by Catholike Princes and people both Diuines and Lawyers and therefore it cannot rightly bee called the practise of the Church And although the Pope might for sufficient cause command the Bishops of Polonia that they should not consecrate any King without his expresse leaue and order it being onely a religious ceremony yet it cannot bee sufficiently prooued either that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by way of sentence for of his power to depriue by way of command I doe not now dispute any Countrey of the title and name of a Kingdome without the consent of the Countrey or of him to whom the Countrey is subiect in temporalls it being no spirituall but a meere temporall title and
euery Bishop and Priest to whom the charge of soules is committed haue by the law of God sufficient authoritie and iurisdiction to absolue from all cases I said to whom the charge of soules is committed for I doe not intend now to dispute whether euery Priest by his ordination receiueth authority and iurisdiction to binde and loose For I am not ignorant that diuers Catholike Doctors as Paludanus i In 4. di st 17. q. 3. ar 3. Abulensis k In Defensor part 2. c. 62. seq Syluester l In verbo Confessor 1. q. 2. learned Nauarre m In Sum. c. 27. nu 259. 260. in cap. Placuit de poenitent dist 6. nu 48. doe affirme that standing in the law of God euery Priest hath by vertue of his ordination sufficient iurisdiction to absolue from sinnes which iurisdiction is not hindered but by the prohibition of the Church And therefore I did not speake of all Priests as this Doctour imposeth vpon me but of Priests indefinitely signifying thereby that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were good it would also prooue that standing in the law of God not onely the Pope but also some inferiour Priests should haue authoritie to iudge Kings and Princes for spirituall leprosie considering that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had authoritie to iudge them for corporall leprosie 93 Neither is it to bee marueiled if there bee no example in the old Testament wherein we reade that Kings were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest for that in the olde Testament we haue but one onely example of any King to wit of this Ozias who was infected with leprosie yet the words of the holy Scripture wherein is giuen authoritie to Priests to iudge of leprosie are common as well to inferiour Priests as to the High Priest neither is there any exception made of the persons that are to bee iudged to bee infected or not infected with leprosie Yea and in this very example not onely Azarias the High Priest but also all the other eightie inferiour Priests iudged King Ozias and resisted him saying It is not thy office Ozias c. And therfore Ozias being angry saith the Scripture threatned the Priests and forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in hast they thrust him out And therefore this Doctour doth not well affirme that in the olde law wee haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest seeing that in this example of King Ozias the High Priest did not any thing which the test also of the Priests did not and which if the High Priest had not beene present at that time the other Priests might not according to the law haue done without him 94 Wherefore that also which this Doctour answereth to my second consequence which was that if Card. Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Bishops and also Priests might depose Princes not onely for heresie but also for all other mortal crimes is nothing to the purpose I answere saith hee n Pag. 543. It is true that all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may bee iudged for all sinnes whatsoeuer by euery Priest Because as we now haue saide greater sinnes are reserued to greater Prelates and some to the Pope alone especially when we speake of persons that are placed in the highest degree of dignitie 95 But what is this to my argument For first I spake of Bishops and Priests indefinitely and also standing in the law of God now this Doctour applieth my wordes to euery Priest and flyeth from the law of God by which there is no reseruation of cases to the law of the Church and of Popes by which law onely cases are reserued But secondly and principally hee cunningly concealeth the force and drift of my argument For in this second consequence my principall drift was to speake not so much of the persons who according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument should haue authoritie to depose Princes for of them I spake in the first consequence as the Reader may plainly see as of the crimes for which Princes might according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed And I affirmed that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Princes might for euery mortall sinne be deposed at least wise by the Pope if not by inferiour Bishops and Priests Now this Doctour speaketh not one word concerning the force of this consequence for as much as concerneth the crime for which Princes may according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed whereof I chiefly treated in this second consequence but he cunningly flyeth to the persons who may depose Princes of whom I spake principally in the first consequence and he answereth that indeede all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may be iudged by euery Priest for all sinnes insinuating thereby that Princes may bee deposed for of that iudgement I onely spake at least wise by the Pope for all sinnes which are mortall and may infect others which doctrine how dangerous and pernicious it is to the Soueraigntie and also securitie of Princes I leaue to the consideration of any prudent man 96 But because as the vulgar maxime saith ducere ad inconueniens non est soluere argumentum to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument I did secondly and principally answere that this argument of Cardinall Bellarmine taken from the foresaide example of King Ozias is also most weake seeing that the antecedent proposition is very vncertaine not to say false and the consequence no lesse doubtfull And forasmuch as concerneth the antecedent proposition and the proofe thereof albeit he doth rightly gather from Leuit. 13. 2. Paralip 26. that the Priest of the Leuiticall stocke might iudge Kings infected with leprosie and pronounce sentence against them by declaring the law of God that they ought to dwell apart out of the campe which is the first part of the antecedent proposition seeing that this separation was imposed by God vpon lepers at the arbitrement or declaratiue sentence of the Priest yet hee doth not therefore well conclude that the Priest of the stocke of Leui had authoritie to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen by accident and consequently vnlesse the depriuing them of their kingdome should necessarily follow their dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people which neuerthelesse cannot bee forcibly prooued from the holy Scripture 97 For as Fa. Suarez doth well obserue o Disp 15. de Excommunnicat sec 6. nu 3. the depriuation of dominion doth euer last after it once bee done but that dwelling apart of lepers to be imposed at the arbitrement of the
also in readinesse that is in manifest and speedy effect to reuenge all disobedience that is to punish the offences of them who would not obey vs that they might correct themselues Which we will doe when your obedience shall be fulfilled that is when all the rest of you shall by loue be obedient in all things Thus S. Anselme Now what learned man will thus conclude that because S. Paul and the Apostles had a most ample extraordinarie and miraculous authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to conuert men to the faith of Christ and to reuenge or punish all that were disobedient with temporall punishments euen by death as S. Peter did Ananias and Saphyra or by depriuing them of their sight as S. Paul did Elimas the Magician or by deliuering them to Sathan to be visibly tormented by him as S. Paul did the incestuous Corinthian that therefore the ordinarie Pastours of the Church haue now either an extraordinarie or ordinary authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to doe the like 35 I omit that S. Ambrose or whosoeuer is the Authour of those Commentaries expoūdeth those words to reuenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled of the Corinthians themselues who being perfectly conuerted shall punish in themselues their former disobedience It is manifest saith S. Ambrose that he reuengeth disobedience when he condemneth it by obedience then destroying it when he bringeth to the faith those who doe resist or disobey that infidelitie may be condemned by them by whom it was defended The same also doth S. Anselme insinuate as you haue seene aboue 36 But S. Augustine saith Mr. Fitzherbert vnderstandeth those words of the Apostle hauing in a readinesse to reuenge all disobedience of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties True it is that S. Augustine applyeth those words of the Apostle to the authoritie of the Church to compell heretikes by temporall punishments to returne to the faith of Christ taking the Church as it containeth all the faithfull and consisteth both of temporall and spirituall power but it is not true that he vnderstandeth them of the authoritie of the Church as the Church is taken for Church-men or the spiritual Pastours of the Church Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth herein egregiously abuse his Reader For S. Augustines maine drift both in that 50. epistle in the former 48. epistle is only to proue against the Donatists that heretiks may lawfully be compelled with temporall punishments by the lawes of Christian Emperours to returne to the Catholike faith and that the Pastours of the Church did well in requesting Christian Emperours to make such lawes Wherefore the argument of the 48. epistle to Vincentius is that S. Austin was once of opinion that we must not deale with heretikes by violence but only with the word of God but afterwards being ouercome with the doctrine and example of others he changed his opinion and taught that it is lawfull to implore the lawes of Princes against the enemies of the faith so that it be done with an intention to correct and not with a desire to reuenge And the argument of this 50. Epistle is that S. Augustine sheweth with what moderation heritickes may through feare of Emperiall lawes be reduced to the communion of the Church And in his second booke of Retractations Cap. 48. mentioning this Epistle to Bonifacius he writeth thus At the same time I wrote also a booke meaning this 50. Epistle concerning the correction of the Donatists by reason of those who would not haue them to be corrected by the Emperiall lawes This booke beginneth thus Laudo gratulor admiror fili dilectissime Bonifaci 37 Iudge now good Reader what a shamefull fraud is this of Mr. Fitzherbert to make ignorant Catholikes beleeue that S. Augustine bringeth those words of the Apostle to prooue the authority left by our Sauiour to his Church that is to Churchmen or to the spirituall Pastours of the Church for so hee vnderstandeth the word Church in all this his Discourse to compell her rebellious disobedient children by force of temporall punishments to performe their duties whereas S. Augustines intent onely is to prooue the lawfulnesse of the Emperiall lawes compelling heretickes by temporall punishments to returne backe to the faith and that Church-men or the spirituall Pastours of the Church may lawfully implore the Emperiall lawes and desire Christian Princes to compell heretickes to forsake their heresie by force of temporall punishments so that they desire it with intent to correct them and not with a desire of reuenge 38 But if the Ecclesiasticall authority saith Mr. Fitzherbert y Pag. 90. did not extend it selfe to the chastisement of disobediēt Princes in their temporal states it must needs follow that Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are went to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or states subiect to them who when they appoint lieutenants or deputies any where do giue them authority ouer all sorts of subiects so much power as may suffice for the remedy of all inconueniences and specially of the greatest which may occurre in the States where they gouerne c. But this consequence I haue euer denied For as I haue often said to the good gouernment of the Church of Christ which is a spirituall not a temporall kingdome or common-wealth it is onely required that the Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie to inflict spirituall and not temporall punishments and this authoritie forasmuch as concerneth the authoritie and punishments themselues is sufficient to redresse all inconueniences neither is it necessarie either in a spirituall or a temporall kingdome that the chiefe Gouernours thereof should haue that power might or effectuall meanes whereby all inconueniences must actually at all times be redressed 39 And therefore as temporall Kings doe giue to their Lieutetenants Deputies or Vice-Royes sufficient temporall authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects in the Prouinces or States where they gouerne but not alwayes so much power taking power not for authoritie or iurisdiction but for might force or effectuall meanes as may suffice for the remedie of all inconueniences for this power the Kings themselues doe often times want in those Dominions where they themselues doe personally gouerne so Christ our Sauiour ordaining in his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Gouernment gaue to the spirituall Gouernours thereof sufficient spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest but not sufficient power might or effectuall meanes actually to redresse the same And as the Lieutenants Deputies or Vice-Royes of temporall Kings if they offend cannot be punished with temporall punishments by any subiect in the States where they gouerne but by the King alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So
derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince As for example if a head of a family should bind his wife and children to defend him from the correction of his lawfull Prince when occasion should require I thinke no man will be so absurd to say that it is a lawfull Oath and correspondent to nature though the same should be coloured and shadowed neuer so much with pretence of Oeconomicall and filiall discipline and dutie And no more can the other Oath be lawfull and agreeable to Nature though it be neuer so much coloured with respect of temporall allegiance 17 But first obserue I pray you the egregious shufling of this man For he pretended to prooue in this Chapter by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and that therefore the new Oath which denieth this power to be in the Pope is repugnant to the law of nature And therefore I expected that he would haue brought some effectual argument taken from the law of nature abstracting frō the positiue law of God to confirme this power of the Pope to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and consequently that this Oath is by the law of Nature preiudiciall to the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours But now he flyeth from the law of Nature to the law of God to prooue that the Oath is preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church and supposing that he hath proued this by the law of GOD then it followeth saith he that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature then if a husband should exact of his wife a maiester of his seruant a father of his children an Oath which should derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince So that Mr. Fitzherbert doth only conclude heere that the Oath is vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature supposing that it is by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church 18 Secondly therefore although we should suppose heere with Mr. Fitzherbert that this new Oath is repugnant to the law of God as in very deede it is not yet he cannot therefore rightly conclude that it is also repugnant to the law of Nature which he in this Chapter pretendeth to proue for that euery transgression of the positiue law or institution of almighty God is vnlawfull and yet not repugnant to the law of Nature whereupon the Diuines doe deuide the law of God into the diuine naturall and the diuine positiue law and he that should deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to remit sinnes should contradict the law of God in the new Testament and so this deniall of Priestly authoritie to forgiue sinnes is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours and yet it doth not from thence follow that it is repugnant to the law of Nature which is naturally grafted in the hearts of euery man whether hee be Iew or Gentile infidell or Christian as the law of Nature is by my Aduersaries taken heere Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert concluding heere that the Oath is repugnant to the law of Nature for that it is preiudiciall to the power and iuridiction giuen by the law of Christ to the head of the Church seemeth not to vnderstand himselfe what is the law of Nature and how the law of Nature is distinguished from the positiue law of God But of this law of Nature more beneath e Num. 90. ◠seq and in the next chap. where also you shall see the reason wherefore the obedience in generall which a wife oweth to her husband a seruant to his Maister and children to their parents is not properly naturall but ciuill and yet the obedience in generall which subiects owe to their temporall Prince is not only called ciuill but also naturall allegiance 19 But thirdly it is not true that this Oath now in question is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church for that it denyeth the Popes power to depose Soueraine Princes and to inflict temporall punishments neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert prooued by the law of God that the Pope hath any such power as you haue seene at large in the former Chapter and to say that this Oath is repugnant to the law of nature taking the law of nature as it is distinguished from the positiue law of God or man and is nothing else then the dictamen or prescript of true reason concerning things to be done which either supposeth diuine reuelation and the supernaturall light of faith and is proper onely to true beleeuers and it is called by the Diuines the supernaturall law of nature supernaturall I say to man but connaturall to grace and faith which it supposeth or else supposeth onely naturall knowledge and is common to all men indued with naturall reason and is called properly and absolutely the naturall law for that it is connaturall to euery reasonable man is very vntrue as partly I haue shewed in the former Chapter where I haue answered all my Aduersaries arguments grounded vpon diuine reuelation and partly in this and the two next ensuing Chapters I will more cleerely conuince Now let vs goe on with the rest of his Discourse 20 For as no reason sayth he f Pag. 97. nu 7. 8. of Oeconomie or filiall or coniugall duetie holdeth when it is encountred with the respect of the weale publike or of due obedience to a lawfull Soueraigne So neither can any reason of common-wealth or allegiance to temporall Princes ouerweigh when the same is ballanced with the publike good of the Church of Christ whereto all temporall Princes doe owe more respect duety and subiection euen by the law of Nature then their Vassals and subiects owe to them because the Religion or Ecclesiasticall Societie which is the Church is as I haue said the supreme and most worthie Societie of all other on earth In which respect also all Societies inferiour to the Common-wealth yea euery member thereof haue more obligation owe more dutie to the Church which is the highest Societie then to the Common-wealth or any other whereto they are immediately subordinate as it may also be obserued in humane actions which tend finally to Religion as to their last ende for euery humane action ought to be more specially directed to Religion that is to say to the worship and seruice of God then to any other inferiour action whereto it may haue a more immediate relation 21 In which respect the Philosophers themselues being guided by the law of Nature and light of reason placed the end not onely of mens actions but also of euery man and of the Common-wealth it selfe in Religion because as Plato Plato in Timaeo in Epinomide and all the
no wise a Christian. 2 And Mr. Fitzherbert also maketh so great account of this decree that whereas hee spendeth onely three Chapters concerning the law of God in the olde and new Testament the law of Nature of Nations and the Ciuill law yet in examining this decree of the Councell of Lateran he consumeth seuen whole Chapters wherein hee hath borrowed of Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name the greatest part of a whole Treatise which he made in the defence of this Decree and in the end he boldly affirmeth a P. 204. 205. that I am falne into flat heresie yea which is more by my owne grant and confession and why forsooth for not vnderstanding the Decree in that sense wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and some later Diuines specially Iesuites doe vnderstand it as though the authoritie of these men is so great that wee are bound to accept their priuate expositions concerning any text of holy Scriptures or sacred Canons for the voice of the Catholike Church But how vaine are the bragges of this boasting man and how palpable are his slanders taxing me of ridiculous absurditie folly temeritie malice impietie impudencie and heresie and then especially when my answeres are most strong and his Replyes most childish and impertinent you haue partly seene in the former Chapters and in the rest also you shall more cleerely perceiue 3 But before I come to shew what is the true sense and meaning of this decree it will not bee amisse first to see of what authoritie and credit among all Catholikes this great and famous Councell of Lateran is and ought to bee for this is very materiall to know whether any decree therein contained bee of it selfe sufficient to make any matter of faith which all Catholikes are bound to beleeue to be of faith as also because some make doubt Bel. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 13. saith Cardinall Bellarmine whether the last Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth which most expresly defined that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell was truely a Generall Councell therefore euen to this day it remaineth a question also among Catholikes whether a Generall Councell be aboue the Pope or no. And although I doe not intend to deny or call in question the authoritie of this Councell but for my owne part doe willingly admit and approue the same yet for satisfaction of the Reader and that the trueth may the more easily bee found out and followed I thinke it necessarie to set downe the doubts and difficulties which some haue made against the authoritie of this so great and famous a Councell 4 First therefore it is certaine and out of controuersie that the aforesaid Councell of Lateran was called by Pope Innocent the third to which came all those Ambassadours Bishops and other inferiour Prelates mentioned heere beneath by my Aduersarie and in this all Histories doe agree in which respect it may truely be called the greatest and most famous Councell that euer was assembled in the Church of God albeit if we respect onely the number of the Bishops who were present thereat and who only according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine haue authoritie to decide determine and define as Iudges matters belonging to Christian faith and Religion the Councell of Chalcedon was farre greater whereat were present 630. Bishops and the Councell of Lyons vnder Pope Gregorie the tenth was also farre greater whereat were present according to Genebrard 500. Bishops and according to Binnius more then 700. whereas at this Councell of Lateran were onely 412. Bishops according to Matthew Paris and Abbas Vspergensis whom Binnius followeth who comprehend the two Patriarchs and 70. Archbishops in the number of the 412. Bishops But all the difficultie consisteth in this whether this decree which is now in question and all the other Canons which now are published as decrees of the Councell of Lateran were confirmed by the generall consent of all or the greatest part of all the Fathers or were onely propounded and rehearsed in the Councell but not approoued by common consent And one chiefe ground of this difficultie is taken from the testomonie of our countrey-man Matthew Paris a Benedictiue Monke of the Monasterie of S. Alban who both liued neere the time of this Councell See his Historie of Henrie the 3. in the yeere 1248. and was also reputed a man probatae vitae religionis expertae of an approoued life and tried religion as Pope Innocent the 4. doth testifie in regard whereof he was by the same Pope Innocent sent into the kingdome of Norway to reforme the Monasterie of Holme although in regard of his freedome of speech and vpright dealing he is vndeseruedly taxed by the most Illustrious and renowmed Cardinall de Peron as a great enemie to Popes in which respect he might also taxe him as a great enemie to all both Popes and Kings Clerkes and Laikes yea and to those of his owne Order for that hee freely and without partialitie rehearseth and taxeth the vices of all But the ancient prouerbe is by dayly experience found true Ohsequium amicos veritas odium parit Flatterie causeth friends trueth enmitie 5 Thus therefore hee writeth of that Councell b Mat. Paris vpon the yeere 1215. in the life of King Iohn after hee hath set downe the time and place where it was held and the number of persons who were present thereat All these being gathered together in the place aforesaid and according to the manner of Generall Councells euery man being placed in his order the Pope hauing made first an exhortation 60. Chapters were rehearsed in the full Councell which to some did seeme pleasing or easie to others burdensome At length he beginning his speech concerning the businesse of the Crucifix subioyned saying c. And the same Matthew Paris in his lesser Chronicle writeth thus But that Generall Councell which after the Papall manner did pretend great things at the beginning ended in scorne and mockerie whereby the Pope cunningly deluded the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Deanes Archdeacons and all that came to the Councell For when they now perceiued nothing to bee done in so great a businesse they being desirous to returne home desired leaue one after another which the Pope did not grant them before they had promised him a great summe of money which they were constrained first to borrow of Romane merchants and pay it to the Pope before they were permitted to depart from Rome The Pope now hauing receiued the money did freely dissolue this gainefull Councell and all the Cleargie departed sorrowfull 6 From which worde of Matthew Paris it seemeth to follow that neither all these 60. Chapters mentioned by him were made by the order of the whole Councell but rather by Pope Innocent himselfe or by his direction before the Councell began both for that at the very beginning of the Councell after the Pope had made his sermon it seemeth that they were rehearsed in the full Councell and also
Supplement is that the Emperours constitution is no way preiudiciall to the Canon of the Councell but a cleare confirmation thereof which I neuer denied and that the Emperours law could extend no further then to his owne subiects and that the Emperour himselfe and all Soueraigne Princes are vnder the iurisdiction of a generall Councell and subiect to her decrees whereof also no man maketh doubt if those decrees concerne spirituall affaires but if they concerne meere temporall matters wherin temporall Princes are supreame and not subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church as are the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted the whole drift of my Apollogie was to prooue it to be probable that the spirituall authority and iurisdiction of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer and consequently that the inflicting of such temporall punishments although it be for a spirituall end is a meere temporall matter wherein temporall Princes are supreame and subiect to none but God Which being so I had no reason to take any formall notice in that briefe Admonition of all the idle discourses hee made in his Supplement and which either were nothing at all against mee or might easily be satisfied by that I had said before in my Apologie But Mr. Fitzherbert doth shamefully corrupt my words and meaning and fowlely abuse me and his Reader in affirming as you haue seene that I doe restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne dominion whereas I made no such restraint but extended the sense of the Canon to the Dominions of all Christian Princes by whose consent and authority that Canon for as much as it concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made and had force to binde 47 Neither as I said doth the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth concerning the distinction of the Canon and of the Emperours decree in extension any way impugne but confirme the argument I brought from the Emperours law because or the same reason which Mr. Fitzherbert alleageth why those generall words Dominus temporalis or principalis cannot in the Emperours decree comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to him in temporals I also affirme that the same generall words cannot in the Canon comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to the Pope or Church in temporals as is the inflicting of temporall punishments to which as I haue often said the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend And if my Aduersary cannot bring more cleare and pregnant demonstrations then these to confirme his new Catholike faith hee neede not to waste any more time and labour in producing such cleare and pregnant demonstrations which euery Catholicke man of iudgement may clearely see to bee apparant sophismes and that notwithstanding all his vaine brags of his cleare and pregnant demonstrations and of my absurd arguments and answeres so often repeated by him in the end the Reader will see that Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus 48 And although it be cleare enough that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords yea and Masters yet because it is cleare that Dominus temporalis is not a proper tearme or title belonging to absolute Princes but common to all others of inferiour degree if any man should speake of them and giue them onely the titles of their Masterships Worships or Lordships he would both be accounted a rude and vnmannerly companion and also he should wrong those persons in giuing them onely those titles of worship or honour which are common to other persons of inferior ranke neither he that should onely vse such inferiour titles would be thought to speake of absolute Princes vnlesse some other circumstance should enforce vs to thinke the same And although it be also cleare that absolute Princes are subiect no lesse then the meanest Lord in Christendome to the decrees of a generall Councell which concerne spirituall matters yet because in meere temporall matters they are supreame and therin not subiect to any decree of Pope or Councell it is also probable that the inflicting of temporall punishments is a meere temporall matter and not belonging to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable and no way absurd to say that Dominus temporalis in the Canon of the Councell wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed is not to be vnderstood of absolute Princes for the same reason that in the Emperours constitution it is not extended to them but to such onely as were subiect to him in temporals 49 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 147. num 19. that he hath added another reason to fortifie the same which was as you haue heard before that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes except they be specified therein by the names of Princes for so indeed he saith inserting the same cunningly into his inference to make his argument grounded on the Emperours law to seeme the more probable and therefore hauing said that the Emperour could not vnderstand either himselfe or other absolute Princes by the name of one who hath no principall Lord hee concludeth ex quo probabiliter collegi c. Whereupon I gathered probably that those words Non habens Dominum principalem not hauing a principall Landlord or Lord could not comprehend absolute Princes who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be namely expressed Thus he sliding subtilly as you see from the Emperours law and the reason grounded thereon to the priuiledges of Princes which belongeth to another question and shall be fully debated and cleared as I hope in the next Chapter And in the meane time I conclude for the present that in all this hee hath shewed himselfe very absurd and that my cold answere as he tearmeth it would haue beene hote enough to dissolue his frozen and friuolous argument if he had not wholly dissembled the force and substance of my discourse in my Supplement concerning this point 50 It is very true that I haue in that briefe Admonition also another reason why absolute Princes are not included in the Canon of the Councell vnder those generall names Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or such like to wit for that in penall lawes they are not comprehended vnder such generall tearmes which denote titles of inferiour degree and dignity and in bringing this reason I vsed no craft or cunning but meant plainly and sincerely neither did I intend to slide cunningly and subtily as Mr. Fitzherbert would guilefully perswade his Reader from the Emperours law and reason grounded thereon to this reason for that the reason why in the Emperours law absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is the
dominion and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that the Iewes persecuting Christ and Christian Religion lost thereby ipso facto their ciuill dominion and all those Romane Emperours who either being Pagans or Arrians did persecute the Church of Christ were not true and rightfull Emperours but falne from their right as being culpable of fellony towards Christ bidding him open warre and compelling their Christian subiects to rebell against Christ and to embrace heresie or infidelity and seeking thereby to destroy and roote out Christianity For this declaration of the Pope or Church which the Cardinall mentioneth doth not depriue them of their right to reigne but supposeth them depriued thereof and serueth onely to make it certainly knowne that they are not rightfull Kings but by their heresie or infidelity to which they seeke to draw their subiects to be actually falne from all Royall right and authority From whence it followeth that this declaration is not necessary in euident and manifest but onely in doubtfull cases as also in all vowes and oathes when it is euident that one is not bound to obserue the vow or oath there needeth no dispensation which according to the Thomists doctrine is onely a declaration concerning the matter of the vow or oath but onely when it is doubtfull or not certaine whether the thing which is sworne or vowed bee now a sufficient matter of an oath and vow or no. Whereupon experience teacheth that when a King either for age or infirmitie doth publikely resigne ouer to this sonne and heire not onely the administration but also all his Kingly authority and right to reigne the subiects neede not to procure any declaration dispensation or absolution of the Pope or Church from the oath of their temporall allegiance for that it is now euident that their temporall allegiance to their former King ceaseth and is no sufficient matter of an oath and consequently their oath is void which was made to confirme the same 21 And albeit the Cardinall in propounding the state of his question maketh mention of an Oath which Princes either themselues or their predecessours haue made to God and their people to liue and die in the Christian Catholike faith as though the breach of this promise and oath were the chiefe or onely cause why hereticall and Apostata Princes seeking to draw their subiects to their heresie or Apostacie doe fall from their Royall right yet in my opinion this oath which the Cardinall hath put downe in the state of his question is a meere cloake and colour to cast ouer the eyes of the vnlearned and to make his doctrine and position to seeme the lesse improbable and yet it doth not take away the improbabilitie thereof For first if this oath which Christian Princes or their predecessours haue made to God and their people to liue and die in the Catholike faith be the onely effectuall cause why Christian Princes doe fall from their Royall right and their subiects absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance and consequently from the oath or sacred and spirituall bond which was made to confirme the same then if a Prince become an Arian or Mahomitan or professe any other heresie or infidelity without drawing his subiects to the same he doth neither fall from his Royall right nor his subiects are thereby absolued from the bond of their naturall and ciuill allegiance 22 Secondly all Christians do in baptisme according to the opinion of some Diuines also ancient Fathers n See Suarez in 3. par q. 71. art 1. make a certaine vow and promise to liue die in the Christian Catholike faith yet I think neither the Cardinall nor any other learned man will affirme that if they break this vow or promise forsake the Catholike faith they are fallen thereby ipso facto from that ciuill dominion right power authority which they did not receiue by Baptisme or by making that vow or promise to liue die in the Christian Catholike faith Thirdly no promise vow or oath to do any thing doth ipso facto depriue any man of any ciuil right authority dominion or iurisdiction vnles that ciuill right or authority be giuen or receiued with a condition and couenant that if hee doe not performe that oath or promise hee shall forthwith fall ipso facto from his right dominion or iurisdiction but no probable shew or colour of an argument can be brought to prooue that Christian Princes although they or their predecessours haue made an oath to liue and die in the Christian Catholike faith haue receiued their kingly power and authority with this condition and couenant that if they shall forsake the Catholike faith they shall forthwith fall from their Royall dignity seeing that this oath which Christian Princes who come to their Crowne by inheritance do make to liue die in the Christian Catholike faith belongeth only to a certain ceremony vsed at the time of their coronation wheras all their Kingly power authority they had before by the right of succession instantly vpon the death of their Predecessor 23 Fourthly abstracting from all oaths which Christian Princes or their Predecssours haue made to liue and die in the Catholike faith yet if they sorsake the faith which they haue professed in Baptisme and doe become Arians or Mahometans and seeke to draw their subiects to the same they doe rebell against Christ and bid him open warre and doe force their subiects consciences and goe about to destroy and roote out Christianitie within their states which are the chiefest causes which the Cardinall of Peron setteth downe in propounding the state of his question why such wicked Princes doe fall from their Royall right or which is all one are ipso facto and actually depriued thereof And therefore that Oath which he mentioneth to liue and die in the Catholike faith is onely a shift and colour to make some shew of a faigned contract and couenant betwixt the King and his subiects that if he forsake the Catholike faith he shall forthwith fall from his Royall dignity seeing that the chiefest reasons of the Cardinall why hee doth fall from his Royall right are of force although no such oath or couenant be supposed 24 Fiftly albeit we should graunt which cannot in my iudgement with any probable argument be prooued that Christian Princes or their predecessours doe make an oath to God and their people with an expresse condition pact or couenant that if they forsake the Catholike faith they shall forthwith fall from their Royall dignity and be ipso facto depriued thereof yet supposing that in heretikes and infidels although they seeke to draw others to their heresie infidelity there is true ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction no learned man can make any doubt but that as it was in the power of that hereticall or pagan Kingdome or Commonwealth to make or admit confirme approue this pact or couenant established by oath so it may be released by the
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.
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
of the Canonists who make the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and to haue dominion and authoritie in temporalls not onely directly but also indirectly And therefore the common doctrine of the Canonists who as Pope Pius the fifth q See Nauar. in c. Nō liceat 12. q. 2. §. tertio nu 6 did freely acknowledge doe attribute more authority to the Pope then is fit in points concerning the Popes authoritie especially when they are therein contradicted by other learned Catholikes is but a very weake ground to build any infallible doctrine or point of faith thereon 33 Besides that it is to be considered r Pag. 169. nu 9. 10 saith Mr. Fitzherbert that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties seeing it hath the power and authoritie not onely to inflict them but also to force the Secular Magistrate to execute them which shall appeare further ſ Infra nu 11 15. after a while and is not contradicted by the Glosse obiected by Widdrington except onely concerning the imposition of bloody penalties which indeed the said Glosse doth exclude by an expresse Canon as wee also doe in this question affirming onely as I haue said before that the Church may in some cases both ordaine and execute certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood by mutilation or death And this is so manifest in the Canon law that truely a man may wonder with what face Widdrington can seeke by some peece of an obscure Glosse to ouerthrow the cleere and manifest sense of the law it selfe and the euident and ancient practise of the Church which hee knoweth in his conscience to bee grounded vpon the Ecclesiasticall Canons but heereby wee may see that his intent is no other but to patch vp his pretended probability with shifts and shewes of whatsoeuer hee can wring and wrest to his purpose 34 But truely I cannot but maruaile with what face this man dare so boldly affirme that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties or no yet granting as you see he doth that the Church hath power and authority to inflict them for of the power of the Church to compell or force by Ecclesiasticall Censures the Secular Magistrate wee doe not now dispute seeing that authority to inflict temporall penalties and to execute them are either all one or if we will distinguish them by taking authority to inflict them for authority to make lawes to inflict them the former doth necessarily inferre the later For what man euen of meane learning or vnderstanding can bee so ignorant as to imagine that euery Prince either spirituall or temporall who hath supreme authoritie to inflict any penalties hath not authoritie also to execute the same Neither can it bee denied but that the Pope and also other Bishops of Germany who are both spirituall Pastours and also temporall Princes haue authoritie to ordaine inflict and execute not onely certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood as is the confiscation of goods but all corporall and temporall penalties euen with effusion of blood by mutilation and death For although they are forbidden by expresse Canons of the Church not to concurre to the effusion of blood yet this prohibition doth not depriue them of any iote of their temporall authoritie which they did not receiue from the Church but from the grant of temporall Princes insomuch that if contrary to the Canons of the Church they should pronounce the sentence of death yea execute the same vpon any malefactour that deserueth death according to the law they should not offend against iustice for vsurping that ciuill authoritie which they haue not in that manner as another priuate man who hath no temporall authority should offend but against Religion for not obeying the iust commandement of their supreme spirituall Superiour 35 And this is so manifest in the knowne principles of Morall Philosophie of Schoole Diuinitie of the Canon and Ciuill law and in the practise of the whole Christian world that no man of any learning can with any face denie the same But this is the vsuall tricke of my Aduersarie to blind his Readers vnderstanding with the obscuritie of generall words not distinguishing the true state of the question and then crying out against me that I denie the Decrees of Generall Councells the Ecclesiastiall Canuos and the practise of the Church which is a meere fiction of his owne braine For all the Canons of the holy Church I doe embrace with all dutifull respect but I doe not vnderstand them alwayes in that sense as he and others of his opinion doe expound them and I doe willingly grant that the practise of the Church since she hath beene endewed by Christian Princes with many temporall priuiledges of Ciuill Iurisdiction hath beene to inflict and execute certaine temporall penalties without effusion of blood by death or mutilation but that which I contend is that it cannot be sufficiently prooued by any Canon or practise of the Church that spirituall Pastours doe ordaine inflict or execute such temporall penalties by their spirituall authoritie which they haue receiued from Christ but onely by their ciuill and temporall power which hath beene graunted them by the free gift and liberalitie of temporall Princes And thus much concerning these two Glosses of Ioannes Teutonicus vpon the Canon Hadrianus Delatori which without any wringing or wresting of their words or meaning I haue shewed to make cleere for my purpose 36 The second principall exception which M. Fitzherbert taketh against me in this my second answere to the obiection which I propounded is for adding immediately certaine words out of Siluester as fauouring my aforesaid answere Also Siluesters words said I doe fauour this answere who writeth thus Ioannes Andreas following Hostiensis is of opinion that a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him but that he ought to make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge 37 Against this Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth t Pag. 170. nu 12. seq that Widdrington hath dissembled that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that his Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion whereas Siluester hauing said that which Widdrington obiecteth addeth presently sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this doctrine doth not please Panormitan because when the case is such that the Iudge doth challenge iurisdiction ouer a Lay-man there appeareth no reason why he cannot in the foresaid cases impose vpon him a pecuniarie penaltie as it may be seene in cap. Statuimus 16. q. 1. and 27. q. 4. cap. Quisquis Thus saith Siluester alledging Pà normitans words and the Canons by the which hee prooueth that a Bishop may impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him which Canons are
indeede very cleare for that point especially cap. Quisquis 27. q. 4. Where it is ordained that a sacrilegious person shall pay thirtie pounds of siluer to the Bishop or Abbot or any Ecclesiasticall Iudge to whom the knowledge of the cause shall appertaine as it may appeare both by the Canon and the Glosse Besides that Panormitan Panorm vbi supra whom Siluester citeth teacheth expresly that when the Bishop proceedeth iuridically and no certaine penaltie is ordained by the Law he may impose a penaltie of money though he cannot doe it when the Law ordaineth expresly an other except it be for a crime wherein he hath power to dispence for then he may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie though some other be assigned by the Law as I haue also shewed before u Supra nu 6. out of the Glosse in cap. Licet tit de poenis 38 This being then Panomitans doctrine approoued by Siluester who followeth him altogether in this question it appeareth that Widdrington might haue easily seene if it had pleased him that Siluester doth not any way fauour his opinion nor impugne our doctrine concerning the Popes power to dispose of temporall things in order to spirituall which is the principall question controuersed betwixt vs. You haue heard before x Chap. 11. nu 3. that Hostiensis expresly teacheth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and Siluester doth the like being also both of them of the number of the Canonists who teach y Hostiens in cap. Quod super his de voto voti redempt Siluest in Sum. verbo Papa nu 1. 11. 12. that the Pope hath a direct Dominion ouer temporall things no lesse then ouer spirituall and therefore it is euident that they cannot any way make for my Aduersarie Widdrington 39 But it is vntrue that I either dissembled or omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that the Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion but the reason why I omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to wit Sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this pleaseth not Panormitan was for that it did nothing import our question to know of what opinion either Panormitan or also Siluester himselfe were concerning that point for that which I intended to proue out of Siluesters words was this that it is no vndoubted point of faith but onely an opinion according to Siluester that Bishops can inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto them and the words of Siluester doe sufficiently shew that it is onely an opinion among the Canonists and therefore that either Panormitan or Siluester or any other Canonist be of the contrarie opinion it is nothing to the purpose Neither doth the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis cited by Panormitan and Siluester make against my doctrine foc they doe onely shew that a spirituall Iudge may inflict a pecuniarie mulct but that he may inflict it by his spirituall authoritie and consequently vpon Lay-men that are not temporally subiect vnto him without the consent of their temporall Prince they doe not shew and the Canon Quisquis which Mr. Fitzherbert thinketh to be so cleere in this point is taken out of an Epistle of Pope Iohn the eight wherein he commaunded that the decrees of a Councell called Trecense which was approoued by authoritie of Lewis the Emperour should be obserued and the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet tit de poenis doth expresly fauour my doctrine as I haue signified before 40 And albeit both Hostiensis and Siluester be themselues of opinion that the Pope is by the institution of Christ a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and hath direct dominion not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls and consequently that hee may inflict temporall punishments dispose of all temporalls and depose temporall Princes for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are according to their opinion subiect to him directly in temporalls and so in this point they make nothing for my doctrine yet they make greatly for my doctrine in this that by their answeres it may be plainely gathered that they hold it onely for an opinion as at this present I contend it onely to be and that other Authors doe not agree with them therein as to the answere of Hostiensis to the Canon Ad abolendam I haue shewed before and also by this answere of Siluester you may see more cleerely beneath in this I say it is euident that they greatly make for my doctrine 41 Besides that it little importeth saith Mr. Fitzher z Pag. 172. nu 15. 16. 17. whether the Bishop may according to the Canons impose a temporall penaltie vpon such Lay-men as are not his temporall subiects seeing he may by the opinion of those three whom my Aduersarie Widdrington alledgeth make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge or Magistrate in which case it is done by the Bishops authoritie and the Secular Magistrate is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will Furthermore put the case that the Bishop could not impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect will Widdrington conclude thereupon that therefore the Pope may not doe it Will he be so absurd to restraine the supreme iurisdiction of the Pope to the inferiour power of a Bishop as well might he say that a King can doe no more in like case then an inferiour temporall Magistrate and that because the Iudge cannot pardon a person condemned therefore the King cannot doe it who knoweth not that the Church hath prescribed to her Magistrates certaine limits for the exercise of their authoritie and iurisdiction allowing to some more and to some lesse which they cannot exceede Therefore it were absurd to say that a Bishop cannot excommunicate because a Parish-Priest cannot doe it But much more absurd and ridiculous it is to say that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis cannot dispose of temporall things in some cases because a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vp a Lay man that is not his temporall subiect as Widdrinton seemeth to argue for otherwise his obiection concerning the Bishops power is to no purpose So as you see vpon what probabilities he grounded his doctrine being found to be either fraudulent or impertinent in euery thing that hee vndertaketh to answere or obiect as you shall also further see by that which yet followeth for the confirmation of his pretended answere 42 But Mr. Fitzherbert seeketh still to blind his Readers vnderstanding with a confuse ambiguitie of equiuocall words For although it litle importeth whether a Bishop may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect or make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge by forcing the Iudge thereunto not onely by spirituall but also by temporall compulsion or coercion seeing that in this case it is done by the
held with Catholike faith was truely a generall Councell therefore vnto this day it remaineth a question euen among Catholikes And all the world seeth that the Diuines of Paris are admitted to Sacraments which ought not to bee tolerated if they committed any heresie errour or temerity for defending this doctrine as publike harlots are in some sort permitted at Rome but not suffered to receiue Sacraments so long as they persist in that wicked life 81 And from hence it euidently followeth first that it is not certaine and infallible that the Pope with his Cardinalls and Diuines yea and with the particular Romane Church defining determining or propounding to the whole Church any thing to be beleeued formally as of faith without a generall Councell cannot erre and be deceiued and consequently such definitions cannot be certaine and infallible nor can be an assured ground of Catholike faith nor a sufficient reason motiue medium or cause to beleeue any thing by him so defined with Catholike faith for that the fundamentall reason medium cause and motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine and infallible as I shewed before out of Bannes from whom other Diuines doe not dissent herein and if that reason be vncertaine doubtfull or fallible the faith or beliefe which is grounded and dependeth thereon cannot be truely Catholike and infallible 82 Secondly if the Popes decrees and definitions in things to be beleeued as of faith albeit directed to the whole Church and in things which doe not concerne his owne particular interest honour authority or prerogatiue and wherein therefore there can be no suspicion that he himselfe is led by affection or his Counsellers and Diuines by flattery to the making of such Decrees are not certaine and infallible but may be false and exposed to errour and consequently can be no sure ground of Catholike faith what iudgement can any sensible man make of such decrees or definitions which are neither directed to the whole Church but to particular persons or Churches nor are propounded as of faith nor grounded vpon any doctrine which is certaine and out of controuersie but onely vpon a question maintained on both sides by learned Catholikes and which also concerneth the Popes owne interest authority and prerogatiue as are his Breues directed to English Catholikes which are neither propounded to the whole Church nor containe any definition as of faith but onely a declaratiue precept which is grounded vpon a controuersie which began in Pope Gregory the seuenth his time and hath since continued betwixt the Bishops of Rome and Christian Princes concerning the authority which Popes pretend to haue ouer all their temporalls 83 Thirdly if the Popes Decrees together with the Romane Church by which he declareth and defineth any doctrine to be of faith or against faith may be fallible and exposed to errour and consequently can be no certaine rule or ground of Catholike faith nor any sufficient reason cause or motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith so long as this controuersie among Catholikes concerning the Popes infallibility in his definitions remaineth vndecided much lesse can a Decree of any Congregation of Cardinalls declaring any doctrine to be of faith or condemning any doctrine as hereticall erroneous temerarious or scandalous be an assured ground of Catholike faith or a sufficient reason for any man to beleeue with Catholike faith that doctrine to be such as their Decrees doe declare or condâ—mne Which being so what iudgement I pray you can any reasonable man make of such their Decrees which condemne no doctrine at all either in generall or particular but onely forbid certaine bookes to be read or kept without declaring for what cause or crime either in particular or in generall they are forbidden and such bookes also as are written against one of the chiefest of their Congregation of which sort is that Decree of the Cardinalls wherein two bookes of mine written chiefly against Cardinall Bellarmine are forbidden without expressing any cause or crime at all either in particular or generall why they are forbidden 84 Fourthly by all this it is euident what infinite wrong this my ignorant Aduersary whether onely through blinde and inconsiderate zeale or also through some passionate splene taken against me for contradicting his writings and some others of his Societie I leaue to God his own conscience to iudge hath both done to me in so falsly and yet vpon such childish grounds accusing me to be no Catholike but an hereticke disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike for not admitting the Popes Breues and declaratiue precept grounded at the most vpon an opinion which learned Catholikes haue euer impugned and taxing my doctrine of heresie for that my bookes are forbidden by the Cardinalls of the Inquisition without condemning any position contained in them of any crime either in particular or generall and also into what eminent danger he both casteth himselfe headlong and seeketh also to draw after him vnlearned Catholikes if they will follow such a blinde guide in waies which he himselfe for want of Scholasticall learning hath neuer gone by endeauouring to ouerthrow their Catholike faith and to perswade them to build it vpon fallible grounds as vpon Popes Breues which neither are directed to the whole Church nor doe containe any definition or declaration of any particular doctrine and vpon the Decrees of certaine Cardinalls condemning bookes onely in generall tearmes which perchance some of them neuer read nor for want of sufficient learning doe well vnderstand but doe relie either vpon the relation or iudgement of other men to whom the charge of ouerseeing such bookes is committed by them whereas the grounds of true Catholike faith and the fundamentall reason why a man ought to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine infallible and without all controuersie And thus you see in what a labyrinth this silly man hath wound himselfe who seeking to perswade his Reader that I am no true Catholike but a disguised and masked hereticke vnder the name of a Catholike for not building my Catholike faith vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are controuersed among learned Catholikes plainly bewraieth what a sound Catholike he himselfe is and vpon what sure grounds he buildeth his Catholike faith and would haue other Catholikes to build the same whereas according to the approoued doctrine of all learned Catholikes vnlesse it be built vpon certaine vndoubted and infallible grounds it cannot be a true Catholike faith but onely an vncertaine and fallible opinion masked vnder the vizard of Catholike faith 85 Lastly that vnlearned Catholikes may walke warily securely and without danger and bee not misled blindfold by this my ignorant Aduersary they must carefully obserue the difference betwixt the Church firmely beleeuing and probably thinking or which is all one betwixt Catholike faith and opinion The first difference is that the grounds of Catholike faith must bee certaine and infallible but the grounds of
no Catholike is bound to admit his Holinesse Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath and to obey his declaratiue commandement contained therein for the reasons signified before which I humbly propounded to his Holinesse desiring him most earnestly as being our chiefe Pastour Teacher and Instructer to giue vs some satisfaction therein yet I cannot therefore in the iudgement of any learned man bee iustly accounted a disobedient childe to his Holinesse seeing that it is euident as I shewed before out of Dominicus Sotus that if a Superiour imposâ— a commandement whereby danger is feared to Religion or to the common-wealth or to a third person as all the world knoweth that the forbidding of the Oath is heere in England preiudiciall to Catholike Religion to his Maiestie and the temporall State and to all his Catholike subiects if the subiect be doubtfull that such a danger will arise he is not bound foorthwith to obey but he may without any disobedience demaund of his Prelate a reason of his commandement propounding humbly the reasons of his doubts 103 Besides Luthers doctrine was within two yeeres condemned not onely in generall words but also his propositions were specified in particular both by Pope Leo himselfe in his particular Bull concerning the same and also by the famous Vniuersities of Paris Louan and Collen But albeit two of my bookes are by a particular decree of the Cardinall forbidden in generall and I commanded vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe forthwith yet they haue neither expressed any one proposition in particular neither as yet can I get them to name one proposition which is repugnant to faith or good manners although I haue most earnestly requested to know the same protesting from my heart to bee most readie to correct what is to bee corrected to purge what is to bee purged to explaine what is to be explained and to retract what is to bee retracted which their different proceeding against me and Luther doth plainly argue that they haue begun a worke which they cannot with their reputation continue and that there is no such dangerous doctrine contained in my bookes as Cardinall Bellarmine against whom I did chiefly write and who is my accuser Aduersarie and Iudge hath by all likelihood informed them and would gladly to saue his owne credit and that he hath not falsly to his great dishonour accused me and my doctrine of errour heresie and of being no good Catholike would make the world beleeue for which at the day of iudgement hee shall render a strict account And thus you see that this comparison which my indiscreete Aduersarie hath to disgrace me made betwixt me and Luther doth nothing helpe but greatly hurt his cause 104 Now you shall see what a fraudulent and vncharitable obseruation hee gathereth from hence That which I wish saith he z Pag. 121. nu 18. 19. to bee obserued heerein is how little heed is to bee taken to Widdringtons submission of his writings to the Roman Church he should haue saide Catholike Roman Church considering his doctrine and the course he holdeth in the maintaining thereof For as Cicero saide by Epicurus who wrote sometimes very vertuously and thereby deceiued many it is not so much to be considered what hee writeth as what his grounds and principles are and how well his writings agree therewith as for example what opinion he or any other hath or can haue of the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike who purposely impugneth the iurisdiction thereof contradicting as I haue shewed sufficiently in this Reply the ancient and generall practise of the Church the expresse Canons thereof and the Decrees of Popes and Generall Councells vpon an absurd supposition partly of a bare probabilitie in his own doctrine partly of a possibilitie of errour in Decrees touching matters of fact which he is not ashamed to say of the Decree of the famous Oecumenical Councel of Lateran albeit all Catholikes doe vniformely teach that generall Councells lawfully assembled and confirmed by the Pope cannot erre in any generall Decree touching either faith or manners as I haue sufficiently signified before a See chap. 16. nu 11. and 12. Besides that he vseth the very obiections arguments answeres shifts and euasions of heretikes discouering now and then such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade him without great disgust and indignation or can take him for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike 105 But to answer the false and fraudulent obseruation or rather shamefull calumniation of this malignant spirit which hee would gladly colour with the luster of a faigned intemperate and Pharisaicall zeale to the Sea Apostolike I may rightly say to him as Saint Paul sayde to Elymas the Magician O plene omnidole omnifallacia Act. 13. c. O full of all guile and of all deceipt c. For to begin with his later wordes I doe not vse any other obiections arguments and answeres then which vertuous and learned Catholikes haued vsed before mee neither doe I discouer any arrogant proude or malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike whom I reuerence and respect with all my heart onely the plaine truth which Catholike Doctours haue said before me and which oftentimes breedeth enmitie I doe modestly reuerently and without any flattery which commonly procureth friends â—â—â—downe And this vncharitable and ignorant man might haue done well to haue named some one particular shift or euation which I haue vsed and which onely heretikes and no Catholikes doe vse or wherein I discouer such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade it without disgust and indignation or take me for any other than an heretike disguished and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike But this is a vsuall tricke of slanderers and backbiters to vse such generall speeches lest if they should descend to particulars their malicious and lying spirit would presently bee discouered 106 Secondly this silly man cannot prooue that any one thing either concerning my doctrine and the grounds and principles thereof or concerning the course which I hold in the maintenance thereof doth not agree with the submission I made of my writings to the censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church For I doe not impugne any authoritie or iurisdiction which the Catholike Romane Church acknowledgeth as due to the Sea Apostolike but I impugne onely the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishment as a thing certaine and necessarily to be belieued or maintained by Catholikes for that the Catholike Church neuer acknowledged this authoritie to be due to him neither was this doctrine in the primitiue Church and for many hundred yeares after by the ancient Fathers so much as dreamed on but it hath been challenged practised by some Popes since the time of P. Gregorie the 7. Res ante ea secula inaudita
A thing not heard of before that age saith Onuphrius which their practise and the doctrine thereof hath neuerthelesse been euer contradicted by Christian Princes and their Catholike subiects and therefore it cannot be rightly called the generall practise of the Church nor ancient but in respect of this our age not from that practise can any sufficient argument be drawne to proue the doctrine to be certaine and of faith and that the contrary cannot be maintained by any Catholike without the note of heresie errours or temeritie Neither doe I contradict or impugne the expresse Canons of the Church the decrees of Popes and generall Councels and especially of that famous Lateran Councell but I expound them according to the probable doctrine of learned Diuines * See aboue in the first part of this Treatise See aboue chap. 11. from nu 3. cha 12. from nu 56. and Hostiensis vpon the same Canon Per venerabilem and exposition of the Canonists cited by Innotentius Hostiensis and Ioaâ—â—r Andreas vpon the Canon Ad abolendam and as the Glosse with those Doctors whom Hostiensis mentioneth and calleth them Masters vnderstand the Canon Per venerabitem Qui sily sint legitims and I impugne and contradict the doctrine and expositions which my Aduersaries make of the Canons of the Church and especially of the Decree or Act of this famous Lateran Councell 107 Thirdly that obseruation which my spightfull Aduersary vrgeth against me may be also vrged against Cardinall Bellarmine and many other zealous and learned Catholikes who notwithstanding their submission to the Catholike Romane Church yet they purposely impugne the authoritie and iurisdiction of the Sea Apostolike contradicting the Popes authority and dominion directly in temporals his power to dispence in certaine vowes and in marriage which is not consummated to giue leaue to inferiour Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation to define infallibly without a generall Councell c. albeit diuers Popes haue practised and maintained the contrary And therefore if this mans inference be good little heede is to bee taken to their submission of their writings to the Catholike Romane Church seeing that they purposely impugne the authority and iurisdiction of the Sea Apostolike But the plaine truth is that little heede is to be taken to the writings of this ignorant and vncharitable man seeing that to prooue me to be no other than an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike he bringeth such childish and witlesse arguments which may bee retorted vpon Cardinall Bellarmine and many other learned and zealous Catholikes who purposely impugne that authority and iurisdiction which some onely or a great part of Catholikes but not the Catholike Church or all Catholikes doe acknowledge as due to the Pope 108 But now this vncharitable man at the last vpshot will not shoot at randome as he hath hitherto done but he will forsooth hit the very marke and will manifestly prooue that no zealous Catholike can take me for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike And what more manifest argument saith he b Pag. 222. num 20. can a man desire of the truth hereof then that his Bookes are printed Cosmopoli and Albionopoli that is to say in good English in London with the consent and approbation of my Lord of Canterbury his fellowes Can any man perswade himselfe that their Lordships are turned Papists of late or that they would suffer books to be printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatorie to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Censure of the Romane Church hee should haue added also Catholike if they did not know that the Authour thereof meant the same for a meere mockery and derision of his Holinesse honouring him as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex Iudaeorum and spitting in his face 109 But although I am infinitely wronged and slandered by this vncharitable man in falsly accusing me of the greatest and most infamous crime that may be to wit of heresie and Apostacie and bringing such ridiculous arguments to prooue the same for the which at the day of iudgement he hath much to answere yet in very deed I doe in some sort pitty the silly man for that before he began to enter into this difficult controuersie wherein he shewed himselfe to haue so little skill he was of some account among English Catholikes and now hee hath so much empaired or rather quite lost that credit and good estimation they had of him by discouering so grosly his great want not onely of Theologicall learning but also of morall honestie The like vncharitable proceeding and vpon the like vncharitable friuolous grounds this zealous Father vsed against the Appellant Priests in the time of Pope Clement the eight to disgrace them with his Holinesse as hauing intelligence with the State and to be no good Catholikes c. but the effect hath prooued and Pope Clement also to the confusion of my backebiting Aduersary and his adherents hath confirmed and which also I make no doubt but that his Holinesse and all the world will ere it be long see and acknowledge concerning their course taken against mee that Mentita est iniquitas sibi Iniquitie hath belide it selfe 110 Marke now vpon what goodly principles hee relyeth to prooue mee to be no other then a hereticke disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike My bookes saith he are printed at London with the consent and approbation of my Lord of Canterbury and his fellowet Be it so therefore from hence we may very well conclude that all English Catholikes are infinitely bound to his Maiesty and the State who albeit by reason of that execrable Gun-powder plot the damnable grounds and principles from whence it was deriued might haue taken a fit occasion to repute all Catholikes without any distinction or difference of persons to be capitall enemies to his Maiestie and his temporall State and to perswade themselues and all the Protestant Subiects of the Realme that no true and constant Romane Catholike can be a true and constant subiect to his Maiestie yet his Maiestie and the State out of their most gracious fauour and clemencie were contented to permit his Catholike subiects to cleere themselues if they could of this most foule imputation so dangerous to themselues and so scandalous to their Religion and to make knowne to the whole world that according to the true grounds and principles of Catholike Religion his Maiestie might be assured that they might continue both his true obedient and constant subiects in all temporall affaires by vertue of the naturall bond of their temporall allegiance which the Pope hath not power to dissolue and also dutifull children of the Catholike Romane Church and of his Holinesse in all spirituall matters among which the deposing of Princes and the disposing of temporals are not according to the doctrine of
both by his Maiestie and many others hath bene very soundly confuted considering that my Aduersary doth so boldly affirme that the oath is vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for that it denyeth the Popes power to excommunicate and yet he bringeth no argument at all to prooue the same but it must forsooth be supposed as certaine and besides he concealeth what I before at large had answered to the aforesaid argument And thus much concerning his first answere and exception 24 Secondly saith my Aduersary q Nu. 14 touching the declaration of his Maiesties mind in this point I cannot but meruaile that such a learned man as this Authour is held to bee cannot distinguish betwixt the contents of the oath and the end or intention of him that ordained it For I will not deny but that his Maiestie might intend nothing else by ordaining this oath but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience vnto him and yet neuerthelesse hee that should take the oath should thereby abiure the Popes Supremacie for the reasons before declared notwithstanding his Maiesties protestation of his intention This will be euident See these reasons beneath nu 33. seq if we turne the case to a like oath of the Popes part as for example if the Pope should exact an oath of Catholikes to sweare that the King cannot depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterbury and should withall protest that he meaneth not thereby to make them abiure or deny the Kings authoritie but only to professe their dutie and obedience to the Sea Apostolike I make no doubt but that the Protestants would say according to their grounds that this protestation and declaration of the Popes mind could not excuse the takers of such an oath from the deniall of the Kings Royall authoritie because his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is according to the Protestants opinion so necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently deny the other In which respect I say the Popes protestation of his meaning or intention could not in the Protestants opinion warrant the swearers from periurie 25 And so say we in this case of his Maiesties publike profession and declaration of his intention that it cannot alter the nature of the oath or derogate any thing from the contents thereof or from the Popes Supremacie or from his Maiesties beleefe concerning the same and much lesse can it make any thing in the oath lawfull which is otherwaies vnlawfull and therefore I say that seeing the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included according to our doctrine and beliefe in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie that the takers of the new oath cannot be excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie nor consequently from periurie notwithstanding any protestation of his Maiestie to the contrary for if he should protest that he doth not force the takers of the oath to abiure the Popes Supreamacie it were Protestatio contraria factis a protestation contrary to his deeds which the Lawyers hold to be nothing worth 26 But first my Aduersarie could not but cleerely see howsoeuer here he is pleased to babble that I who as he scoffingly saith am held to be so learned a man not only could distinguish it being no such difficult point of wit or learning but also did oftentimes in my Apologie Apologeticall answere Theologicall Disputation and in my Appendix to Suarez in expresse wordes distinguish betwixt the ende of the worke and of the worker of the Art and Artificer of the law and precepts therein contained and of the Lawmaker and shewed that when the words of any law are ambiguous they are to be vnderstood according to the intention and meaning of the Lawmaker and that neither the intention of his Maiestie was to deny in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate or any other his spirituall authoritie but onely to require of his Catholike subiects a profession of that temporall and ciuill obedience which all subiects by the law of God and nature do owe to their lawfull Prince neither in the oath is contained any clause which by learned Catholikes is not thought to belong to temporall ciuill obedience 27 Wherefore there is a great disparitie betwixt the oath which the Pope should exact concerning his Maiesties power not to depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterburie and this new oath of allegiance concerning the Popes authoritie not to depose his Maiesties because that Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which his Maiestie doth challenge is according to the opinion of all Protestants necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power insomuch that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently in the opinion of all Protestants deny the other but the Popes authoritie to depose Princes is not according to the opinion of all Catholikes necessarily included in the Popes spirituall Supremacie for that many learned Catholikes doe hold that the Pope hath no such power to depose Princes and therefore hee that denieth his power to depose doth not consequently according to the opinion of all Catholikes deny his spirituall Supremacie And albeit Mr. Fitzherbert doeth boldly affirme that according to his beliefe the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie yet I will be bold to say that his beliefe herein is not Catholike or Vniuersall but a particular beliefe or rather an opinion of his owne and of some other Catholikes the contrarie doctrine being as I said euen to this day maintained by many learned and vertuous Catholikes And therefore vntill he bring some better ground for his beliefe then his bare I say I will also be bold to say that the takers of the new oath are according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie seeing that according to the opinion of many learned Catholikes the Pope hath no such power to depose and so neither is his Maiesties protestation repugnant to his deeds nor his intention disagreeable to the contents of the oath 28. Secondly although my Aduersary to prooue the oath vnlawfull and to containe a deniall of the Popes Supremacy doth seeme now to fly from his Maiesties intention to the contents of the oath and expresly saith That he will not deny but that his Maiestie by ordaining this oath might intend nothing else but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience and temporall allegiance and not of his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie neuerthelesse he seemeth before to affirme that his Maiesties intention opinion and vnderstanding is that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured in this oath and his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is acknowledged therein which the iudicious Reader may plainely gather both by those wordes in his Supplement before related wherein hee auoucheth r See his words beneath Nu. seq 29. That it is euident enough that the true reason why the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince is impugned by the
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
and depriue is necessarily included in his Regall authoritie but all Catholikes doe not beleeue whatsoeuer my Aduersary and some few others doe that the power to depose Princes is necessarily included in that spirituall Supremacie which Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successours as hath bene amply prooued by me and diuers others and what particulars Mr. Fitzherbert hath laide here or in his Supplement concerning this point we will beneath in their due places examine 34 His first reason he deduced from the grounds and principles of the Protestants Religion and from the doctrine and beliefe of his Maiesty and those of the Parliament who made the oath But how silly and insufficient this reason is yea and repugnant to his owne grounds and also of Fa. Parsons in whose defence hee wrote his Supplement any man of iudgement may quickly perceiue For behold his reason It is great reason sayth he to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authours thereof for it is to be presumed that euery one speaketh 〈◊〉 and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion but it is an assertion position and the beliefe not onely of his Maiestie but also of the Parliament which decreed the oath that the Pope cannot depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie therefore it is great reason to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacie 35 But first his Minor proposition is very vntrue For neither his Maiestie nor the Protestants doe hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie This indeed is the reason why they hold that the Pope cannot excommunicate his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie But the reason why they hold that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose his Maiesty is for that deposition being not an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall but a ciuill and temporall censure or punishment for what crime soeuer it be imposed can not be inflicted by any Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie For which reason the Protestants doe holde that although the Protestant Bishops of this Realme haue Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall authoritie herein England yet they haue no authoritie by vertue of their Episcopall power to depose or depriue his Maiestie of his temporall dominions for that they take deposition or any such temporall violence as his Maiestie affirmeth u In his Premonition pag. 9. to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall Censure as Excommunication is 36 And although this be sufficient to shew the insufficiencie of this my Aduersaries reason yet graunting him onely for Disputation sake which he in his Minor proposition vntruely affirmeth that his Maiestie and the Parliament should hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England his reason neuerthelesse is both insufficient and also repugnant to that which Fa. Parsons and he himselfe suppose to be true For albeit Fa. Parsons doth confidently affirme x In his booke intituled The iudgement of a Catholike English man c. part 1. nu 22. pag. 13. and 16. that there is no man who sticketh or maketh difficultie to acknowledge our Soueraigne to be true King and rightfull Lord ouer all his Dominions for that euery English Catholike will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those parts and clauses of the oath that doe any way appertaine to the ciuill and temporall obedience due to his Maiestie whom hee acknowledgeth to be his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his Dominions and the same in effect doth my Aduersarie in his supposition affirme as you haue seene before y Nu. 6. yet according to this his reason neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be our true and lawfull Soueraigne nor can promise to yeeld him all temporall alleagiance nor to defend him from all treasons and traiterous conspiracies nor to disclose them when they shal come to their knowledge when any such acknowledgement shall be demanded at their hands by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of his Maiesty as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included and necessarily deduced from his temporall and Kingly authoritie and all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authoritie are by the lawes of this Realme made treasons and traiterous conspiracies 37 Seeing therefore to vse my Aduersaries wordes It is great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof for it is to bee presumed that euery one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the principles and grounds of his beliefe and Religion it is cleere that if my Aduersaries argument be good neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be their true and lawfull Soueraigne and that they will yeeld him all temporall allegiance and defend him from all treasons and disclose them when they shall come to their knowledge for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie and according to the lawes of this Realme all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authority are treasons and traiterous conspiracies So that you see what contradiction there is in my Aduersaries sayings and what a prettie argument hee hath made to prooue himselfe a traytour seeing that according to his owne grounds hee can not acknowledge King Iames to be his true and lawfull Soueraigne nor promise to yeeld him all temporall allegiance if it should be exacted by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Maiesties spirituall Supremacy is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie 38 But secondly if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased out of the desire of truth to handle this question betweene him and mee sincerely and not with a flourish of words to obscure the difficulty and blind the vnderstanding of simple and scrupulous Catholikes he might eyther out of his owne iudgement or at lest wise from of that which I in my Theologicall Disputation did answere to the arguments of Gretzer Disputatio Theol. c. 2. sect 1 who thought it vnlawfull to acknowledge King Iames to bee our Soueraigne Lord in temporals and of Capellus z Ibid. c. 6. sect 5. who also thought it vnlawfull for any Catholike to promise that he will disclose all treasons and traiterous conspiracies for the reasons aforesaide and also from that which out of the doctrine of Suarez a
scandall but also against obedience and against legall and morall iustice by declining the iudgement of their lawfull Superiours and Iudges and by wronging their Aduersarie in drawing him against his will from the tribunall of his lawfull Iudge and who had good and sufficient authoritie to make a small end of his suite 27 But considering that these Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint were not lawfull and proper Superiours and Iudges but only Arbaratours and consequently to whose iudgement they were not bound to stand by vertue of any subiection and obedience due to them but only by reason of scandall whereon the declaratiue precept of the Apostle was only grounded and which scandall being taken away the commandement of the Apostle doth also cease this difficultie is easily cleared For albeit it was very scandalous and therefore iustly reprehended by the Apostle that the faithfull Corinthians should of their owne accord without any necessitie for in that case Disp Theol. c. 10. s 3. nu 10. Salmer tom 8. tract 29. in Euang. as I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation out of Alphonsus Salmeron the actiue scandall doth cease and if it be any scandall it is not giuen but taken goe to the tribunalls of Heathen Magistrates yet it is not scandalous to appeare before them when they are called for in this case they must of necessitie by vertue of their subiection appeare and so the scandall ceaseth which would still remaine by their appearing if those Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint had beene true and lawfull Superiours and Iudges for then they had also beene bound by vertue of their subiection not to forgoe the iudgement of their lawfull Superiours and Iudges and consequently not to appeare before the tribunall of the Heathen Magistrate in derogation of the authoritie of their Christian Superiour and Iudge And this may suffice for this point 28 Moreouer we read in the old Testament saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Nu. 4. pa. 31 3 Reg. 18. that Elias the Prophet had power to inflict temporall punishment yea death vpon the false Prophets of Achab whom he commanded the people to kill in his presence as also he caused fire to fall from heauen and consume the two Captaines of King Ochozias and their troupes 4 Reg. 1. In like manner wee reade in the new Testament that the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul extended their spirituall authoritie to the temporall punishment of the body when it seemed to them conuenient for the glory of God and good of soules and therefore S. Peter stroâ—ke Ananias and Saphyra with suddaine death Act. 6. and S. Paul depriued Elymas the Magician of his sight Act. 13. 1. Cor. 5. and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to the deuill to be bodily 〈◊〉 and tormented for the example and terrour of others vt spiritus saluus fiat that his soule might be saued and the same iudgements and corporall punishments these Apostles might no doubt as lawfully haue executed vpon any Prince in the world if hee had then beene a Christian and giuen the like occasion 29 But who would not wonder that any man of ordinarie iudgment should from an extraordinarie and miraculous power of the Apostles yea and of the Prophets who were no Priests or from a speciall command or inspiration of God to kill men and to doe other miracles inferre that the Pope hath an ordinarie Pastorall and Episcopall power to doe the like as are those examples which my Aduersarie bringeth of Elias the Prophet who was no Priest and by the commandement of God o 3. Reg. 18. ver 36. Abul in 3. Reg. 18. q. 35 and not by any ordinarie authoritie or iurisdiction caused the false prophets of Ashab to be slaine and by miracle caused fire to fall from heauen to consume the two captaines of King Ochozias and their troupes and of S. Peter who by miracle either killed Ananias and Saphyra or foretold their death and of S. Paul who also by miracle depriued Elymas of his sight or foretold his blindnesse and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to the deuill to bee bodily vexed and tormented which manner of deliuering men to Satan did proceede from an extraordinarie and miraculous power giuen to the Apostles and not from any ordinarie power which was to descend to all their Successours But of these examples I shall haue occasion to speake againe beneath p Cap. 6. 30 And the same iudgements and corporall punishments saith Mr. Fitzherbert might no doubt these Apostles as lawfully haue executed vpon any Prince in the world if hee had beene a Christian and giuen the like occasion But first I meruaile why he addeth that condition if he had then beene a Christian for the example of Elymas who was no Christian doth proue that the same iudgements and corporall punishments they might haue executed not only vpon Christians but also vpon infidels Besides if any one will reduce those examples to a dialecticall forme of arguing hee will easily perceiue that they are very weake and insufficient not to vse those his foule and vnseemely wordes of absurd impertinent foolish and ridiculous to proue that the Pope by his ordinarie Pastorall power can doe the like As that because Elias who was no Priest had an extraordinarie commission and power giuen him by God to kill the false Prophets and to cause fire to fall from heauen to consume those two Captaines and their troopes therefore the Pope by his ordinarie Episcopall and Pastorall office hath power to doe the same in the like cases and so of the rest that because S. Peter and S. Paul had an extraordinarie power giuen them c. 31 And all this saith my Aduersarie q Nu. 5. may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church to enioyne bodily penance to publike penitents as to attend to continuall fasting and prayer Tertull. de penitent Ambros ad virg lap sam cap. 28. and to lye vpon sackcloth and ashes as it may be seene in Tertullian S. Ambrose and others whereupon it followeth that if the Church may chastise a man in his body for the good of his soule much more may she chastise him in his goods and temporall state which are ordained by the law of nature to serue both the body and the soule as the Philosophers touch namely Plato Plato epist 8. ad Dionys who therefore aduised a Law-maker to procure by his lawes that the three kinds of goods to wit of the mind the body and fortune be sought and possessed in due and ordinate manner that is to say that the goods of the mind be preferred before the other two and the goods of the body esteemed only so farre forth as they may serue the mind and lastly that the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states be accounted no better then ministers and seruants of both the other 32 But first I doe
the necessarie good of their owne soules and of their subiects 36 Neither doe those examples or facts or Popes which my Aduersarie here bringeth or any such like sufficiently prooue a power in the Pope as he is a spirituall Pastour to change transferre giue or take away earthly kingdomes for that it is one thing sayth Card. Bellarmine n in Resp ad Apolog pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so likewise of Popes and an other thing to prooue their power right and authoritie As Leo the third Pope of that name o pag. 47. nu 13 Egmarth in vita Caroli Annales Francof anno 801. Paul Diacon lib. 23. Zonaras tom 3. Annal Cedrenus in vita Constant Irene sayth my Aduersarie gaue to Charles the great the Empyre of the West which was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift c. 37 But to this example I did fully and clecrely answer in my Apologie p nu 414. seq to wit that the Romane Empire was not translated from the Grecians to the Germans by the onely authoritie of the Pope but also by the common consent suffrages ordinance decree and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome both Clerkes and Laikes with the tacite consent at least wise of all others to whom it did belong amongst whom the chiefest of all was the Bishop of Rome who did not by his spirituall or Pontificall authoritie which he as Pope receiued from Christ cause that translation but as he being the principall member and citizen of Rome and of the Romane Empire did by his aduise consent solliciting procurement suffrage and authoritie chiefly set forward that translation and as he was Pope did by his Pontificall authoritie approoue it to be lawfull and no way repugnant to the law of God or nature for which causes he is said by many writers to haue transferred that Empire as the chiefe and principall Authour procurer and approouer thereof 38 And this I did sufficiently prooue in that place both by the grounds of Card. Bellarmine himselfe and also by the testimonies of those Authours whom he alledged For nothing can be concluded saith he q lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. by arguments taken from authoritie negatiuely For it doth not follow Luke Paul and Seneca doe not say that S. Peter was at Rome therefore S. Peter was not at Rome For these three were not bound to say all things and more credite is to be giuen to three witnesses affirming then to a thousand saying nothing so that these doe not deny what the others doe affirme Seeing therefore that none at all of those thirtie two Authours whom Card. Bellarmine brought for witnesses of the translation of the Empire made by the Pope doth deny that the aforesaid translation was done by the authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome and not onely three of Card. Bellarmines Authours but also many more whom I cited there doe most plainly affirme that both the authoritie of the Pope and also the consent decree ordinance suffrage and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome did concurre to that translation more credite is to be giuen to them who doe affirme that the Empire was translated by the Pope Senate people of Rome then to all the rest although they were a thousand who albeit they say that this translation was done by the Pope yet they doe not deny that it was also done by the Senate and people of Rome Thus and much more to the same purpose did I answere in my Apologie r See Apologie 427. seq 39 Now you shall see how cunningly and insufficiently D. Schulckenius doth shift of this my answere For whereas he is very diligent for the most part to set downe my words and text in particular when hee imagineth that with any colourable Reply hee can confute them yet here he relateth Cardinall Bellarmines argument drawne from the translation of the Romane Empire to the French men but hee altogether concealeth my answere thereunto and so passeth ouer twentie pages of my Apologie wherein both by his owne grounds by his owne Authours and many others I cleerly proued that this translation was done not onely by the authoritie of the Pope but also of the Senate and people of Rome and onely with a flourish of words hee endeuoureth to prooue by a Dilemma which as you shall see is neither to the question betwixt me and Cardinall Bellarmine and which I also answered in that place That I must either approoue Card. Bellarmines opinion or else cleerely contradict my selfe in my answere Wherefore although D. Schulckenius maketh this title of his foureteenth Chapter The answere of Widdrington to the rest of the examples which are taken from the facts of Leo the third c. is examined yet hee neither examineth my answere to that fact of Leo nor setteth it downe at all albeit he confesseth that I haue at large disputed thereof But this is all that he replieth r Schulck in Apol. cap. â— pag. 597. 598. 40 And of the translation of the Empire Cardinall Bellarmine hath exactly soundly and diligently written three bookes of a iust bignesse in so much that nothing doth seeme can be added thereunto Onely at this time I doe make this argument against my Aduersary Widdrington Either that translation was true or faigned If hee say it was faigned hee will bee ouerwhelmed with the voyces of all Historiographers and hee will take away all humane faith out of the world But if hee say it was truely done I aske againe whether it was done iustly or vniustly if hee say it was done vniustly first he will contradict almost all Catholike Writers for onely the Magdeburgian Heretikes doe blame it as one of the miracles of Antichrist Besides that hee will wrong all the Latin Emperours who from that time haue beene shall be as though their Empire is not grounded vpon a sound foundation Lastly he will reprehend all the people of the West yea all the world who haue hitherto honoured the Latin Emperour as a true and lawfull possessour of the Empire For also the Grecians themselues with their Emperour and the Persians as wee haue related out of Bellarmine in the former Chapter Å¿ Ad nu 390. haue acknowledged the Latin Emperours as true and lawfull Emperours 41 But if Widdrington say that it was done iustly I demand whether it was done by the authority of the Romane Bishop the Citizens of Rome assenting or also requesting it or whether it was done by the authoritie of the people of Rome the Pope assenting and crowning and blessing the Emperour chosen by the people or whether it was done by the authoritie of the Pope and of the people of Rome together If he will say that it was done by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome the Citizens of Rome assenting and requesting it he will agree both with the truth of
shall go out and go in and not that Eleazar at the word of Iosue shall goe out and goe in yet from thence it can not rightly be concluded that Iosue was subiect to Eleazar in temporals but onely in spirituals for that to consult the Lord and declare to Iosue and the people the commandement of God when any difficultie should arise yea and to command Iosue and the people to obey his declaration and to follow that which God had reuealed which Theodoret doth onely affirme was not a temporall but a meere spirituall thing as before I declared out of Abulensis Abulens q. 11. in cap. 33. Exodi Neither can my Aduersarie denie but that Iosue did succeed Moyses in the temporall gouernment and therefore vnlesse he will denie as I thinke he dare not that Aaron the high Priest was subiect to Moyses in temporals and might be punished by him temporally if he should transgresse the law of God he can not with any probabilitie deny but that Eleazar the high Priest was also in temporals subiect to Iosue who succeeded Moyses in the temporall gouernment and that he might be punished by him temporally if he should offend against the law of God 30 The next argument of Mr. Fitzherbert is also as weake as the former Also the holy Scripture sayth he x Nu. 8. pag. 7â— Iosue 19. declaring how the Land of Promise was diuided setteth it downe in this manner Hae sunt possessiones c. These are the possessions which Eleazar the Priest and Iosue the sonne of Nun and the Princes of the families and of the tribes of the children of Israel diuided by lot in Silo c. Thus sayth the Scripture giuing the preheminence in the diuision of the land to the high Priest before the temporall Prince 31 But this argument prooueth at the most that the spirituall Priesthood is in worth dignitie and nobilitie more excellent then the temporall Soueraigntie but it doth not prooue that Priests are in temporall Soueraigntie greater then temporall Princes As likewise Cardinall Bishops haue the precedence and preheminence before Cardinall Priests and Cardinall Priests before Cardinall Deacons and a Cardinall who is first created hath the precedence and preheminence before an other Cardinall who is afterwards created yet from hence it cannot be concluded that one Cardinall is greater in authoritie then another or that one Cardinall hath power to command and punish another 32 Also learned Abulensis expounding those words of holy Scripture y Iosue 14. This is it which the children of Israel possessed in the land of Canaan which Eleazar the Priest and Iosue the sonne of Nun and the princes of the families by the tribes of Israel gaue to them c. answereth this argument at large Here saith he are related the persons diuiding the land of the nine tribes Abulens q. 1. 2. in cap. 14. Iosue and a halfe to wit Eleazar Iosue and the ancients or elders of Israel Wherein it is to be considered that Moyses alone before the passage of Iordan diuided the land of two tribes and a halfe although Eleazar the Priest and the multitude of the Israelites to wit the Princes of the multitude did assist him as it appeareth Num. 32. and if he had liued none other had diuided the land But when he was dead there did succeed other diuiders and it was not giuen to Iosue as the onely diuider because God would not giue to any one after the death of Moyses all this power as he had giuen to Moyses for that he would not appoint any one equall to him Therefore before the death of Moyses he caused that there should be assigned diuiders of the land of Canaan whereof the principall power he gaue to Iosue as it appeareth Deuter. cap. 3. 31. to wit that Iosue should take the land from the hands of the enemies and he should diuide it by lots But there were giuen other coadiutors of euery tribe and Eleazar was giuen For Eleazar the high Priest is put as a helper of Iosue in all things as it appeareth Num. 27. And Eleazar is put here in the first place not for that he was the more worthie either for state or holinesse Iosue did sufficiently excell seeing that he was greatly beloued of God and God did speake vnto him very often which is not apparant of Eleazar 33 Neither was the state of Priests in the old Testament more excellent then the state of Kings but Priests were iudged by Kings and this not onely concerning Kings but also Iosue who was not a King was greater then the high Priest as it appeareth Num. cap. 27. where it is said that Eleazar the high Priest and euery one shall at the commandement of Iosue goe in and goe out that is shall doe whatsoeuer they ought to doe Therefore Iosue was the greater because to command is an act of the greater Yet Eleazar is here put before because Samuel the writer of this booke would obserue the order of the writing of Moyses But when Moyses described the diuiders of the land of Canaan he put Eleazar before Iosue and all the Israelites as it appeareth Num. 34. and therefore he did here keepe the same order Thus Abulensis And the cause why Moyses did preferre Eleazar before Iosue may be easily gathered out of the same Abulensis z q. 1. in cap. 27. Num. q. 42. for that Eleazar was then the high Priest and in that respect most honoured among the people next to Moyses Whereupon both Moyses and Eleazar did sit to iudge great causes both of them also did number the people Cap. 26. Num. as it appeareth in the former chapter and this honour did appertaine to all the high Priests c. But Iosue was then a minister and seruant of Moyses and was not the chiefe temporall Prince of the people but after Moyses death although Moyses in his life time did by Gods commandement appoint him to be his successour in the temporall gouernment of the people 34 The next argument of Mr. Fitzherbert is all one with the former And when the daughters of Salphaad saith he a Iosue 17. demanded their inheritance venerunt sayth the Scripture in conspectu c. they came into the presence of Eleazar and of Iosue the sonne of Nun and of the Princes wherein you see also that as Iosue who was the chiefe temporall Prince is preferred before the other Princes so is also the chiefe Priest preferred before Iosue Thus farre in my Supplement c. But why Eleazar the high Priest was named in the first place before Iosue the temporall Prince I haue shewed before out of Abulensis and from hence it doth onely follow that the state or office of the high Priest which was to consult the Lord in doubtfull matters and to be the chiefe minister in the sacrifices and worship of God was in worth dignitie or nobilitie more excellent then the temporall state or Princedome albeit Abulensis
people doe excell in dignitie the Prince 50 But as touching his second inference for of the first I haue spoken before it is very vntrue that the people are superiour to their absolute Prince in dignitie or authoritie but contrariwise it is manifest that a King is superiour and aboue the people and the people inferiour to their King This shall be the right of the King that shall reigne ouer you saith the holy Scripture 1. Reg. 8. and in the same place the people said there shall bee a King ouer vs and we will bee as all nations and blessed bee the Lord my God said King Dauid o Psal 143. who subdueth my people vnder mee wherefore there is no doubt to bee made but that the Iewes were bound to obey the high Priest in spirituall matters but that all men were bound to obey the high Priest in temporall affaires or that the spiritual power was in the old law the supreme power not only in excellencie nobilitie or dignitie but also in authoritie and chastised Princes temporally which Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth heere to make manifest this hee neither hath nor euer will bee able with any manifest proofe to conuince And thus you haue seene how insufficient are all the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought out of the old law before the institution of the Kings of Israel now you shall see how weake the rest of his arguments are which he bringeth out of the old law since that the Israelites demaunded of Samuel to haue a King ouer them as other nations had 51 But first of all Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to prooue that which no man calleth in question to wit that the authoritie of the high Priest in the old Testament was neither changed nor diminished by the institution of Kings but that as the Law of God deliuered to the Iewes by Moyses did continue in full force without any alteration or change during the time of Moyses of Iosue and the Iudges so the same was not altered or changed afterwards by the institution of Kings and that God did not change the forme and course of the Law in fauour of Kings or turned the same vpside downe contrary to the course of nature as Mr. Fitzherbert auoucheth some of his Aduersaries absurdly to affirme For it is a meere fiction that by the institution of Kings the Law of Moyses was altered or the authoritie of the high Priest changed or diminished or that the same superiority which the high Priest as he was high Priest had aboue the temporall state to wit in spirituall affaires before the institution of Kings did not continue in the high Priest after that the Kings of Israel were instituted And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert faigneth absurd opinions to haue occasion to impugne them For the institution of Kings did not alter or diminish at all the spirituall authoritie of the high Priests but it did only change the maner of the temporall gouernment and it caused that the supreme temporall authoritie or dominion was onely in one man and the temporall gouernment to be simply Regall or Monarchicall whereas before the institution of Kings it was not alwaies so 52 For albeit Moyses and Iosue were appointed by God to bee Iudges and Leaders or Captaines of the people of Israel and they had greater authoritie then the other Iudges had yet they were not properly Kings neither had they speaking properly true Regall dominion and authoritie as Abulensis y Q. 19. in ca. 8. Iudic. doth well obserue And as for the other Iudges of Israel their authoritie was farre inferiour to Regall authoritie or dominion For as the same Abulensis z Q. 5. in prolog D. Hicron in librum Iosue q. 7. 12. in Prolog lib. Iudic. doth also well obserue there was a great difference betwixt Kings and Iudges both in power and iurisdiction For the power of Kings was most ample But the Iudges had ouer the people no authoritie to command as due to them by iurisdiction but they were onely industrious men for warres and for giuing counsell and by their aduice the people were directed in all things yet they had ouer the people no other authoritie then the people would giue them and the people did obey them as it were freely when they did see that they commanded or counsailed nothing but that which was iust whereupon they were not called Lords or did they rule raigne or had proper dominion ouer the people but they did onely gouerne or iudge because Lords or they that reigne and haue proper dominion or Seigniorie are those who doe whatsoeuer they vvill if it be not against law or reason and the subiects are bound to obey them in all things such are Kings but the power of the Iudges did extend to no other thing then to that vvhich vvas vvritten in the law in so much that Kings might doe vvhatsoeuer the law doth not forbid but Iudges might onely doe that vvhich the law commanded So that the power of those Iudges vvas but little 53 First because it vvas giuen them freely by the people neither had they more authority then the people gaue them and they vvere chiefly chosen to make vvarre against the enemies for vvhich cause they vvere called Sauiours And although after they had ouercome their enemies the people had no great neede of them yet by the consent of the people they remained afterwards as long as they liued in their authoritie to iudge And if any one obiect that the power of the Iudges vvas not giuen them by man but by God for as is vvritten Iudic. 3. God raised them a Sauiour called Aod I answere saith Abulensis that the Iudges vvere made by the election of the people and from the people they receiued a limited power but they vvere not chosen by the people alwaies after one manner For some vvere made Iudges because God commanded them that they should fight for the people so vvas Barac For the prophetesse Debbora tolde him on the behalfe of God that he should fight against Sisera Iudic. 4. and yet after he had wonne the battell he vvas not yet a Iudge or Prince of the Israelites but because the people saw that God vvould deliuer them by the meanes of Barac they chose him for their Iudge So also it happened concerning Gedeon For the Angel of our Lord did appeare vnto him and commanded him that he should goe to deliuer Israel from the hand of Madian Iudic. 6. And vvhen he victoriously finished the warre the Israelites tooke him for their Iudge neither vvould they onely haue made him their Iudge but also their Lord and King as it appeareth Iudic. 8. 54 Others vvere taken for Iudges not by the commandement but by the instigation of God to wit because when the Israelites were oppressed vvith these calamities and vvanted a Sauiour God gaue his spirit to certaine men by vvhich they vvere couragious vvise and most fit for vvarres vvhom the Israelites seeing did take
thrust him out no man enforcing him and the wordes of holy Scripture yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out doe cleerely insinuate the same 87 And thirdly King Ozias saith the Scripture was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house apart full of the leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord. Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land Neither from this can it be gathered that the Priests of the old law did intermeddle in any temporall action or did depriue King Ozias of his kingdome or the administration thereof but the most that from hence can be concluded is that the plague of leprosie did depriue him of the administration of his kingdome by ordaining that a leaper should dwell apart out of the campe or Citie and the Priest did onely declare the law of God and denounce him according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law to be infected with leprosie which is no temporall but a meere spirituall action 88 As likewise spirituall Pastours now in the new law haue authoritie to declare that the goods of the faithfull are to be exposed if the necessitie of the Church doe require the same but not to dispose of them or to take them away by force from the faithfull and also to declare when Princes are to vse the materiall sword for the good of the Church but not to vse it themselues as before e part 1. cap. 3. part 2. cap. 9. I declared out of Ioannes Parisiensis and 8. Bernard And if we should suppose a case which is not to wit that heresie idolatie or any other mortall crime doth ipso facto depriue Princes and Prelates of their dominion and Iurisdiction which was the doctrine of Iohn Wicleffe condemned in the Councell of Constance and therefore those words of the Ordinary Glosse f in cap. 13. lib. 1. Reg. that a wicked King during the time of his wickednesse is not according to trueth to be celled a King but onely equiuocally as a stony or painted eye and the same much more is to be said of a wicked Prelate are to be read warily and expounded fauourably to excuse them from errour then I say that spirituall Pastours may be said to haue authoritie not properly to depose an hereticall King but to declare him to be infected with heresie and consequently according to this false supposition depriued ipso facto But all this is nothing else but to declare authentically the law of God which no man denyeth to be within the limites of spirituall Iurisdiction And this might aboundantly suffice for an answere to this example of King Ozias But because Mr. Fitzherbert shall not as I said take occasion to say that all this hath beene confuted already by D. Schulckenius I am enforced good Reader to intreate thy patience in laying downe before thine eies what I answered in my Apologie to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and what D. Schulckenius hath replyed to the same 89 First therefore I answered that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the example of King Ozias were of force it would prooue more then perchance Card. Bellarmine would willingly grant to wit that not only the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests haue power by the law of God to depriue Princes of their kingdomes for spirituall leprosie seeing that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had power to iudge of leprosie The man saith the law g Leuit. 13. in whose skinne and flesh shall arise a diuers colour or a blisters or any thing as it were shining that is to say the plague of the leprosie shall be brought to Aaron the Priest or any one of his sonnes and at his arbitrement he shall be separated Besides this example doth also prooue that Prince not onely for heresie but also for all other mortall sinnes whatsoeuer may be deposed by Bishops and Priests for that not onely the sinne of heresie but also other sinnes were figured by leprosie Bellar. lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 3. as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth who speaking of the confessing of sinnes saith that the knowledge of sinne which was figured by leprosie and is most aptly named a spirituall leprosie appertaineth to Christian Priests This was my first answere 90 To which D. Schulckenius replyeth thus h pag. 542. ad num 355. I answere It is credible that is the old Testament according to the diuersitie of the leprosie and the diuersitie of the persons there were also diuers iudgements greater and lesser and that it was not lawfull for euery Priest to iudge a King But for this his credibile est it is credible he produceth neither Scripture reason nor any other authoritie and therefore we are rather to beleeue the words of holy Scripture which absolutely affirme that either Aaron the High-Priest or any one of his sonnes might iudge of leprosie without distinguishing either this kind or that kind of leprosie or this kind or that kind of person then the bare credibile est of this Doctour grounded vpon his owne bare word and not vpon any text of holy Scripture Abul q. 1. in cap. 13. Leuit. reason or authoritie Other Priests saith Abulensis had power to iudge in the plague of leprosie as Aaron and therefore to whom soeuer of them that person who had such signes should be showed it was sufficient Therefore when Christ had cured the ten lepers he did not send them specially to the High-Priest but to any one of the Priests saying Goe shew your selues to the Priests 91 But howsoeuer it be saith this Doctour concerning the custome of that nation assuredly in the Church of Christ greater causes are reserued to the See Apostolike as we read cap. Maiores de Baptismo eius effectu in the Decret all Epistles Therefore euery Priest may indeed iudge of the leprosie of sinne and absolue or bind his Subiects but some more heynous crimes are reserued to Bishops others also to the Pope as first of all is the crime of heresie to which the name of leprosie doth autonomasticè agree Therefore it is no meruaile that euery Priest cannot iudge Kings euen for the crime of heresie Adde that in the olde Testament it selfe we haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie then by the high Priest 92 But this Reply doth not answere my argument For my argument did onely proceede of the power of Priests standing in the law of God and abstracting from the positiue lawes of the Church It would follow said I that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea also and Priests haue power by the law of God c. Now who knoweth not that cases are reserued onely by the law of the Church and that by the law of God there is no reseruation of cases but that
Sauiour Matth. 18. But if he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publicane that is separated from the Church Thus Suarez n Vbi supra Neither is it forbidden by the law of Christ that the faithfull shall not ciuilly conuerse with Heathens publicanes or notorious sinners vnlesse some spirituall danger as of scandall or of infection which by the law of Christ and nature they are otherwise bound to eschew shall arise from such ciuill conuersation as also Becanus doth expresly affirme o In opusc de fide Haereticis seruanda cap. 8. num 3. See also Abulensis q. 50. in cap. 9. Matth. 138 Moreouer this also is gathered from the very light of naturall reason For as in the whole Christian world there be two only common wealths kingdomes or Societies distinguished by their proper acts functions and dignities ad not depending one on the other in those things which are proper and peculiar to each one of them to wit the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ by which precisely and per se we receiue only spirituall graces and benefits and temporall common wealths Societies and kingdomes by which precisely we are made partaker only of temporall goods Greg. Tholos in Syntagmat Iuris lib. 31. cap. 8. num 3. and benefits So also there be two only communions the one in spirituall the other in temporall and ciuill affaires and two only Excommunications in generall as Gregorius Tholosanus and I also obserued aboue p Part. 2. cap. 2. num 7. the one Ecclesiasticall which excludeth from Ecclesiasticall communion as from Sacraments Suffrages or other sacred things the other ciuill which excludeth from ciuill communion which punishments the Ciuill Lawiers account imprisonments confinings relegations deportations and banishments by which the person excommunicated is debarred from the communion of some certaine companie towne City Countrey or kingdome and as ciuill Excommunication precisely and of it owne nature doth not debarre a man from any spirituall good grace or communion◠so neither spirituall Excommunication precisely and of it owne nature doth debarre a man from any temporall good benefit or communion 139 Neuerthelesse albeit the intrinsecall per se and necessarie effects of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication are only to debarre one from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall communion yet because our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to the spirituall Pastours of the Church authoritie to impose but not to inflict certaine temporall punishments vpon persons excommunicated all those temporall punishments which the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue according to different times and occasions adioined by way of commandement to the Censure of Excommunication may be called extrinsecall or accidentall effects of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication or rather temporall effects and punishments annexed by way of command to Excommunication But this with all ought greatly to be considered as Suarez doth well obserue Suarez tom 5. disp 8. sec 1. in fine sec 2. in principio that when Excommunication is said to exclude from Ecclesiasticall communion it is necessarily to be vnderstood of that communion which dependeth vpon the power and will of the Church and ouer which she hath right power or authoritie Whereupon those temporall punishments which spirituall Pastours may annect to Excommunication must be such as by the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to impose And therefore if it be a controuersie among learned Catholikes as in very deede it is whether spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to absolue subiects from the temporall allegiance which they owe to their temporall Princes and to depriue temporall Princes of their temporall dominion administration or Iurisdiction these temporall punishments can neuer so long as this controuersie remaineth vndecided be truly said to be necessarie effects annexed to Excommunication by the spirituall Pastours of the Church 140 Secondly I shewed also in that place that the spirituall Pastours of the Chuch haue authoritie in order to spirituall good to command and impose certaine temporall punishments and so also to annexe them to Ecclesiasticall Excommunication as not to eate or drinke with excommunicated persons or notorious malefactours not to salute them or to conuerse ciuilly with them except in such cases wherein they are bound by the law of God or nature ciuilly to conuerse And so the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue power to command vs in order to spirituall good to abstaine from certaine meates vpon certaine daies to giue almes to the poore not to conuerse ciuilly with excommunicated persons or notorious sinners if otherwise by the law of God or nature we are not bound to conuerse ciuilly with them and the aforesaid and such like temporall things to annexe by way of commandement to Excommunication whensoeuer they shall prudently iudge it to be necessarie to the saluation of soules And this only is confirmed by the institution and custome of the Church approued by perpetuall tradition and grounded in the holy Scripture 1. Cor. 5. With such a one not so much as to take meate and 2. Ioh. 1. Nor say to him God saue you Neither is there any difficultie among Catholikes concerning the power of spirituall Pastours to command and impose temporall things when it shall be necessarie to the spirituall good of the Church for that to command and impose a temporall thing in order to the spirituall good is not a temporall but a spirituall action as I haue often said But all the controuersie among Catholikes is concerning the coerciue power of spirituall Pastours and their authoritie to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments For if contrarie to the commandement of our spirituall Pastours we will neither fast nor giue almes nor abstaine from ciuill conuersation with excommunicated persons the question is how farre then the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ proceed against vs by way of temporall constraint to the inflicting of temporall punishments For in this power to punish temporally or to inflict temporall punishmēts doth consist the whole controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries For I contend that the doctrine which Almaine and very many Doctours as he affirmeth doe maintaine is not repugnant to Catholike faith or the approued grounds of true Diuinitie to wit that the spirituall power of the Church can not inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods c. nay nor so much as to imprison but that her power doth onely extend to the inflicting of spirituall punishments as Excommunication or some such like spirituall Censure and that all other temporall punishments which she vseth to inflict doe proceed from the pure positiue law or to vse Gersons words from the graunt of Princes 142 And therefore thirdly I shewed also in that place that because Secular Princes haue granted many temporall priuiledges to the spirituall Pastours of the Church as to imprison to confine to impose or inflict pecuniarie mulcts and such like all those
materially of an equall or not inferiour order and excellency then the things figured so that formally as they are figures or in that they are figures they are lesse perfect and excellent then are the things figured Now this Doctour doth craftily take here figures and the things figured not formally and according to that wherein they are figures but materially for otherwise as you shall see he saith nothing to the purpose and to the confuting of my answere For neither Manna nor the Paschall lambe are figures of the Eucharist as the accidents of the Eucharist doe concurre to the nourishing of the body but onely as they are profitable to the nourishing of the soule Neither was corporall leprosie or the separation of lepers from ciuill conuersation a figure of spirituall leprosie and of Ecclesiasticall separation or Excommunication as corporall leprosie doth infect the body and Excommunication doth separate from ciuill conuersation but only as spirituall leprosie doeth infect the soule and Ecclesiasticall Excommunication doth separate from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall communion for that a figure must in all those things wherein it is a figure be more noble and excellent then is the thing which is figured And therefore as Cardinall Bellarmine very well obserueth q Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. to fulfill a figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to bee done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when he himselfe was circumcised but when hee ordained Baptisme in the place thereof Thus Card. Bellarmine 148 From whence it euidently followeth that the separation of corporall lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation could not bee a figure of the separation of spirituall lepers also from ciuill conuersation for that ciuill conuersation is one and the self same thing and not another thing more excellent which according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine must succeede in place of the figure but the fulfilling of this figure must bee the separating of spirituall lepers from spirituall or Ecclesiasticall conuersation And therefore although Ecclesiasticall Excommunication hath by the lawes of the Church annexed vnto it in that manner as I haue before declared the excluding by way of commandement from ciuill conuersation if otherwise by the law of GOD and nature we are not bound ciuilly to conuerse yea and also according to Cardinall Bellarmine the depriuing of temporall kingdomes or at leastwise of the administration thereof yet the separating of lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation or the depriuing them of temporall kingdomes or administration could not according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds bee a figure of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication in the new law as Excommunication is pretended to worke the same effects but onely as it worketh more excellent effects to wit the separating of the faithfull from spirituall conuersation and excluding them from the kingdome of heauen 149 Wherefore if wee doe respect onely the nature and propertie of a figure it is euident that Cardinall Bellarmine according to his owne principles hath not any way prooued that because corporall leprosie and the punishments annexed thereunto in the old law to wit the depriuing of temporall kingdomes Iurisdiction or administration as Cardinall Bellarmine contendeth was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the punishments annexed thereunto in the new law therefore the same punishments to wit the depriuing of temporall dominion Iurisdiction or administration were figured by them and consequently may now by vertue of the figure bee ordained against spirituall lepers for this were not according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine to fulfill the figure and to put in place thereof something more excellent but to put that very same thing which the law in that figure prescribed to be done And therefore Cardinall Bellarmine must bring better arguments vnlesse he will quite discredit himselfe and his cause drawne from other heads then from the figure of leprosie and of separating lepers from ciuill conuersation which according to his owne principles doth as you haue seene make cleere against him to prooue that spirituall Pastours either by vertue of Excommunication or in any other manner haue authoritie to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes and dominions or of any temporall administration or Iurisdiction 150 Lastly whereas in the end of this my answere I affirmed as you haue seene that Cardinall Bellarmine did not truely and entirely set downe the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. And all these things chanced to them in figure for that hee left out that word these which is a relatiue and hath relation onely to those things whereof the Apostle spake before among which corporall leprosie is none and hee affirmeth him to say And all things chanced to the Iewes in figure this Doctour maketh much adoe and laboureth in vaine to excuse Card. Bellarmine And first hee answereth u pag. 553. that Cardinall Bellarmine did not produce the words but the sense of St. Paul but it is certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that Chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure but those and other like to them 151 But first this answere is not agreeable to Card. Bellarmines owne words The Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. saith Cardinall Bellarmine that all things did chance to the Iewes in figure and what I pray you is to say that the Apostle saith so then to produce the Apostles words Secondly although it bee certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure yet it is certaine that the Apostle in that chapter did onely say that all these things and not all things absolutely as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth him to say did chance to the Iewes in figure Thirdly albeit S. Paul knew right well that not onely all those altogethere mentioned but many other such like dioâ—ce to the Iewes in figure yet it was sufficient for his purpose in that place onely to affirme that all those things there mentioned and not that all things absolutely did chance to the Iewes in figure neither was it necessarie that the Apostle should in that chapter say all hee knew it was suffient for him to say in that chapter onely that which did suffice for his present purpose Wherefore this Doctour must distinguish betwixt knowledge which is in the vnderstanding and meaning which is in the will and so hee may see that the Apostle knew right well that not onely those things there mentioned but those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure and yet onely meant to say in that place that all those things there mentioned and not all those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure Neither did St. Paul meane otherwise then the words which he spake did signifie but it is
likewise if temporall Kings themselues doe offend they cannot bee punished with temporall punishments but by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls Now to giue to temporall Common-wealths the vse of the spirituall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments or to the Church of Christ as it is a spirituall common-wealth the vse of the temporall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict temporall Censures or punishments it were both to confound the acts functions authoritie sword weapons and armour of the spirituall and temporall common-wealths which Christ our Sauiour hath distinguished and it is also repugnant to the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture 2. Cor. 10. nam arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt for the weapons or armour of our warfare are not carnall c. to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers who affirme that Emperours and Kings are in temporalls next to God in authoritie and consequently to be temporally punished by God alone and to the generall practise of the primitiue Church 40 Wherefore that comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth heere of the cobweb which holdeth onely the little flyes and serueth to no purpose against the great ones c. is idle and to no purpose For Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the punishments belonging to the Church of Christ are common both to Princes and Subiects and of themselues they are so dreadfull that they are able and sufficient of their owne nature to hold and keepe in awe all Christians whatsoeuer and to correct amend and bring all sinners as they did the Emperour Theodosius to true repentance But if some persons doe not feare these Censures and be not amended by them this is not to bee attributed to the weakenesse defect or imperfection of the Censure which of it selfe is most dreadfull yea and more horrible saith S. Augustine then any corporall death but to the indisposition of the offender who doth not duly consider the greatnesse and dreadfulnesse of that Ecclesiasticall Censure As likewise temporall punishments as is the sentence of death exile imprisonment whipping confiscation of goods c. are of themselues able and sufficient to withdraw any man from sinfull life yet they doe not actually correct and amend all malefactours but this is not to be attributed to the weakenesse or insufficiencie of the temporall sword but the rashnesse passion malice or inconsideration of such malefactours who for want of due consideration are not afraid of that temporall punishment which of it selfe is able to terrifie any prudent man and to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest 41 Neither is it necessarie for the publike good of the Church as this man supposeth or for the due execution of the office and charge of spirituall Pastours that they should haue authoritie to chastise temporally or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments and to vse the temporall sword which is onely proper to temporall Princes or common-wealths and by the law of Christ forbidden spirituall Pastours as they are spirituall Pastours who haue only spirituall and not temporall authoritie as I proued aboue by the authoritie of S. Bernard Wherefore that axiome of the Lawyer Cui iurisdictio data est c. To whom iurisdiction is giuen those things also doe seeme to bee granted without which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and that other of the Philosophers Qui dat esse c. Hee that giueth being giueth also those things that are consequent to being or necessarily required thereunto are vnaptly applied to this purpose For spirituall iurisdiction can very well bee exercised without vsing temporall weapons or inflicting temporall punishments and to vse temporall weapons or to inflict temporall punishments is not a consequent or necessarily required to the spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely supposeth 42 Now you shall see in what manner hee concludeth this Chapter Thus then saith hee z pag. 91. nu 38.39 thou seest good Reader how I prooued in my Supplement by the law of GOD that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall states and dignities when the necessitie of the Church shall require it which I also prosecuted further there inferring the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians by the power he hath ouer the soule according to the two axiomes Qui potest maius potest minus He which may doe the more may doe the lesse and Accessorium sequitur principalis naturam The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall which I haue amply dâ—bated before with my Aduersarie Widdrington in the second and third chapters hauing also laide downe there the words of my Supplement touching the same and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate them heere 43 Now then I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether my Aduersarie Widdrington hath not notably abused me in two things the one in affirming as you haue heard before in the first Chapter that I grounded all my discourse against the Oath in my Supplement See Chapter 1. nu 3. 7. 9. vpon a bare supposition that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured therein and the other that I haue effectually prooued nothing else by the law of GOD but that the temporal power in spirituall things in temporal as they are reduced to spiritual is subiect to the spirituall power so far forth as concerneth the authoritie to command a spiritual maner of correction not temporall for so you haue heard him say in the beginning of this chap. though it be euident by the premisses Supra nu 1. that I haue grounded my arguments against the oath not vpon any such supposition as he mentioneth but vpon the very substance of the law of God in the old and new Testament and that I haue deduced from thence by most pregnant reasons and necessarie consequents that the Pope hath power to proceede to the temporall correction of Princes when the spirituall will not suffice and the necessitie of the Church doth require it 44 Whereupon it followeth euidently that the new Oath which impugneth this power of the Pope is repugnant to the law of GOD. So that you see how probable my Aduersarie Widdringtons answeres are or rather how fraudulent seeing that he dissembleth all the substance and pith of my arguments abusing therein his Reader no lesse then mee seeking to breede in him a false conceit of the substance and effect of my discourse and then framing his answere according to his owne forgerie So as in fine he answereth nothing of mine but his owne vaine conceits as it will also further appeare by that which resteth to be debated betwixt vs concerning the Lawes of Nature and Nations 45 But contrariwise thou seest good Reader that Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement neither hath sufficiently proued by the law of GOD as hee here
Common-wealth because the end doth farre excell the meanes that tend thereto and the other that the Ecclesiasticall Societie which of all Societies doth next approach to GOD and vnite them with him is the most excellent and worthie of all Arist l. 1. Meta. and therefore as Aristotle worthily called Metaphysicke the Mistresse and Goddesse because it immediately considereth the sciences of all things which is God so may we call the Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie the Mistresse Lady Empresse and Goddesse of all Common-wealths and all other Societies because it is properly and immediately dedicated to the seruice of GOD as also because Common-wealths and other Societies cannot performe their dutie to GOD nor arriue to perfect felicitie but by the meanes of the Ecclesiasticall Societie 27 And this is so certaine and euident that no Philosopher or learned Paynim would deny it as it may appeare by the institution and customes of the best Common-wealths among the Paynims in the which the Religious Societie had the preheminence aboue the Common-wealth in all things that any way appertained to Religion as I will make it manifest heereafter when I shall speake of the law of Nations and now only for the present I wish to be obserued that in the Roman Common-wealth the chiefe Bishop who was called Pontifex Maximus had supreame authoritie in matters pertaining not only to Religion but also to State when the same was mixed with Religion in which case he commanded the Consuls themselues who were the Soueraigne temporall Magistrates Valeri l. 1. c. 1. This appeareth in Valerius Maximus who testifieth that Posthumus the Consull being a Priest of the God Mars and intending to goe to Africke with his army was forced by Metellus the chiefe Bishop to stay his iourney to attend to his Priestly function and therefore Cicero saith that it was most notably Cicero pro domo sua and diuinely ordained by the ancient Romans that the Bishops should haue the chiefe command in matters that pertained as well to the Common-wealth as to the Religion of the Gods And no meruaile seeing that the Augures who were inferiour to the Bishops had such absolute authoritie that they might hinder the election of Officers depriue the Magistrates of their Offices and forbid the Senate to treate with the people Cicero de legib lib. 1. 2. in so much that nothing lawfully done by any Magistrate at home or abroad if he were contradicted by them Cicero de Diuiuat lib. 2. and which is more the two Consuls P. Claudius and Lucius Iunius were condemned to death for disobeying them 28 Whereby it appeareth that although the Augures and Pontifices Maximi had no authoritie ouer the temporall Magistrates in matters meerely temporall yet when consideration of Religion entered together with temporall affaires the temporall Magistrate was corrected and commanded by the spirituall as occasion required And this I say was the custome of the Romans because no doubt they held it to be most conforme to the law of Nature in which respect I may boldly say that if an Oath had beene propounded amongst them to haue exempted their Consulls and other temporall Magistrates from the command and correction of the chiefe Bishop notwithstanding any occasion of religion which might occurre they would not haue admitted it as lawfull And this is our very case Thus I said in my Supplement and then I concluded concerning the pretended Oath of allegiance speaking to M. Barlow in these words And thus you see M. Barlow that the Law of Nature is so farre from enioyning and iustifying the Oath as you say it doeth that it vtterly reiecteth and condemneth it except you can turne the world vpside downe and peruert the whole course of nature and prooue that things lesse perfect are to be preferred before the more perfect the body before the soule sense before reason temporall things before spirituall pollicie before religion earth before heauen and the world before God whereto in very truth your doctrine in this point directly tendeth 29 But these two consequents which Mr. Fitzherbert deduceth from his last Discourse are neither against my doctrine nor doe they any way prooue the new Oath of Allegiance to bee repugnant to the Law of Nature For as I saide before I doe willingly grant that Religion and the seruice of GOD and perfect felicitie which is the immediate end thereof is farre more noble and more worthie then the temporall good or immediate end of any temporall Common-wealth which is his first consequent and also which is his second that the Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie is the most excellent and worthie of all and may in some sort be called the Mistresse Lady Empresse and Goddesse of all Common-wealths and Societies because it is properly and immediately dedicated to the seruice of GOD as also because temporall Common-wealths and other Societies cannot performe their dutie to GOD nor arriue to perfect felicitie but by the meanes of the Ecclesiasticall Societie But shee is not called the Mistresse Lady Empresse and Goddesse of temporall Common-wealths for that shee can doe all the actions functions and offices of them and inflict the same temporall punishments that temporall Common-wealths can inflict but only for that shee can doe more noble and more worthie actions functions and offices and inflict more grieuous and more dreadfull punishments to wit spiritual agreeable to the nature and conditions of a spirituall Common-wealth and a Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie 30 Secondly I doe also willingly graunt that amongst the Paynims and ancient Romanes not onely the chiefe Bishop who was called Pontifex Maximus and had the supreame authoritie in matters belonging to Religion or to the seruice of their Gods but also the Augures or Soothsayers who were Priests inferiour to the chiefe Bishop had great authoritie and command in matters belonging to temporall affaires in so much that the yong chickens of certaine birds called pulli Melici and Chalcidici were held in such honour and estimation among them that they would keepe no assemblies they would promote none to any office or dignitie they would neither make warre nor truce and finally neither at home nor abroad would they vndertake any enterprise vnlesse they were foretolde by those yong birds whose prediction they did regard as an oracle and message sent from Iupiter whose messengers and interpreters they accounted those birds to be The particular manner whereof you may see in Alexander ab Alexandro lib. 1. cap. 29. But from hence it doeth not follow that those chiefe Bishops as they were religious Priests had authoritie giuen them by the law of Nature but onely by the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth to punish temporally any man that should transgresse their commaund or otherwise violate the religion of their Gods 31 Thirdly therefore although it be true that the ancient Romans and other Paynims did preferre Religion and the worship of their Gods before any other temporall thing and in regard
thereof when any thing was to be handled in the Senate that which corcerned Religion was first of all dispatched whereupon also they gaue great temporall authoritie honour priuiledges and exemptions especially to their chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom all other inferiour Priests as the Flamines the Salij the Augures the Epulones the Aruales the Vestales yea and he that was called Rex sacrorum the King of sacred things were subiect in so much that the dignitie of the chiefe Bishop was accounted the second in the Common-wealth and the next to Kingly dignitie and many times the same man was both a Religious Priest and also a temporall Magistrate as Q. Fabius Maximus was an Augure and a Consull M. Aemilius Lepidus was Proconsull and chiefe Bishop Neuerthelesse it is not true that the chiefe Bishop had any temporall authoritie euen ouer the inferiour Priests as necessarily due to him by the law of nature but onely from the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth or the supreme Gouernours thereof And therefore at sometimes the chiefe Bishops had greater temporall authoritie as in the beginning when the Romanes were gouerned by Kings in whom both Regall and Pontificall authoritie were conioyned and by whom as being both Kings and chiefe Bishops all matters as well concerning State as Religion were determined and executed at some times they had lesse as afterwards Alexand. lib. 3. genial dier cap. 3. Sabellicus lib. 2. Ennead 4. Alexand. ibidem lib. 1. cap. 27. Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 27. when they had put downe their Kings for that they beganne to tyrannize ouer them and were gouerned by the Senate and two Consuls who at the first were chosen out of the Nobilitie but afterwards at the instance of the people the Senate was forced to graunt that they might be chosen also out of the commmunaltie which Consuls least they should challenge to themselues Kingly authoritie could put no Citizen to death without the consent of the people 32 For to the ende that the Kingly name which was by the Romanes fortunately begunne and for many yeeres happily continued should still remaine and also that the Priestly authoritie which the Kings had should not be abolished they did create a King whom they called Rex sacrorum a King of sacred things who had onely the name of a King without Regall authoritie and should performe the sacred rites and ceremonies belonging to Religion which the former Kings did performe Which King of sacred things by reason of the odious and suspected name and authorititie of a King could haue no authoritie or command ouer the armie and legions nor beare any office or haue any temporall gouernment ouer the people but his power and authoritie was limited to Religion and contained onely within the temples of the Gods And this King of sacred things was subiect to the chiefe Bishop as all other Priests were who as they were Priests had onely to intermeddle in sacred things but afterwards they had also great temporall authoritie granted them by the Senate and people For the chiefe Priests or Bishops had not onely power giuen them to punish with pecuniarie mulcts the inferiour Priests who should disobey their command but also they were made Consuls Captaines and chiefe Magistrates in the Common-wealth But all this temporall authoritie of the religious Priests did proceed from the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth and not as necessarily due to them by the law of Nature which those words of Cicero cited by my Aduersarie doe onely confirme to wit that it was notably and diuinely ordained that the Bishops should haue a chiefe command in matters that appertained as well to the Common-wealth as to the religion of the Gods 33 But that the temporall Magistrate sayth Mr. Fitzherbert was commanded and corrected he meaneth with temporall punishments as occasion required by the spirituall was the custome of the Romans because no doubt they held it to be most conforme to the law of Nature But first those words to be most conforme to the law of Nature are equiuocall and may haue a double signification For as euery law for as much as concerneth the directiue power or force thereof for the coerciue power or force of euery law consisteth meerly in punishing hath one of these three effects to command to forbid to permit or graunt some thing so the law of Nature as it is directiue may be taken either as it commandeth or as it forbiddeth or as it permitteth or granteth some thing If therefore my Aduersaries meaning be to signifie by those words that the law of Nature commandeth the spirituall Magistrate or giueth him authoritie as he is a spirituall person to punish the temporall Magistrate transgressing his commandement with temporall punishments that in this sense the custome of the Romans was conforme to the law of Nature this I say is very vntrue neither can he bring any colour of a probable proofe to confirme the same Nay which is more he can not prooue as you shall see beneath that the law of Nature gaue to Religious Priests as they were such authoritie to command in spirituals or to punish with spirituall punishments the supreme temporall Magistrate for that standing in the law of nature there is no publike spirituall authoritie which is not subiect and subordinate to the temporall Common-wealth and the supreme Gouernours thereof 34 But if he meane that the law of nature or the light and dictamen of naturall reason doth not forbid but doth permit that temporall Princes or Common-wealths may giue authoritie to those Religious Priests whom they shall appoint to be in their steed publike Ministers of sacred rites to punish with temporall punishments those that shall contemne their iust command and that in this sense the custome of the Romanes giuing authoritie to their Religious Priests to inflict temporall punishments was conforme that is was not repugnant to the law of nature but agreeable thereunto as a laudable and decent custome but not as necessarily enioyned by the law of nature this is very true but not to the purpose for that which my Aduersarie pretendeth to prooue is that Religious Priests haue by the law of nature and not onely by the free graunt of temporall Princes or Common-wealths authoritie to inflict temporall punishments which neuerthelesse he will neuer be able to prooue by any probable argument or any probable shew thereof 35 Thirdly therfore for the better cleering of the whole matter the Reader may obserue out of learned Abulensis Abulens in cap. 13. Gen. q. 8. 9 seq that there is a great difference betwixt the Priests of the old law of the new the Priests that were in the law of nature For in the law of nature before the law of God was published by Moyses we may cōsider euery man either by himselfe or as he was a part of some communitie If he be considered by himselfe and as dwelling alone in no Societie it was lawfull
to campe againe c. 39 Concerning the ceremonies which were to be vsed and the sacrifices which were to be offered albeit in the law of Nature when there was no law of God which did restraine or limit any man to any kinde of ceremony or Sacrifice it was lawfull for euery man to doe what hee would vnlesse it were euill of it selfe and therefore euery man as being considered by himselfe might offer what sacrifice or vse what kinde of ceremony he pleased but as he was a part and member of some Communitie he could vse no other sacrifice or ceremony then that which the Communitie or the supreme Gouernours thereof whose Minister he was did appoint yet in the law written it was otherwise For as God himselfe did limite and determine the places and ministers to doe sacrifice so also he determined all the rites and ceremonies belonging to the worshipping of him whereof the whole booke of Leuiticus doth treate But concerning the Sacrifices God appointed in generall three kindes to wit Holocausts a sacrifice for sinne and a Pacificke hoste Num. 6. and vnder these three were comprehended all other particular kindes of sacrifices of all which and of the ceremonies belonging to them it is treated from the first Chapter of Leuiticus to the eight What other authority the Priests of the olde Testament had in expounding and interpreting the law of God when any doubt or difficulty should arise I declared aboue in the former Chapter when I examined that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubtfull c. 40 Now lastly concerning the law of Christ wherein all the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawes of the old Testament doe cease insomuch that no Christian now is bound to obserue any one of those lawes by vertue and force of the law it is to be considered that our Sauiour Christ hath now instituted a new Priesthood and a new Sacrifice And albeit he hath determined and limited the persons who are to offer Sacrifice and the Sacrifice which is to be offered for the persons or Priests to offer Sacrifice he hath appointed onely his twelue Apostles and those who are duely consecrated and ordained by them or their Successours and the Sacrifice which they ought to offer is one onely to wit the vnbloody offering of his immaculate body and blood vnder the visible formes of bread and wine by vsing those words which he himselfe in his last Supper did vse and institute yet he did neither limit the place where this Sacrifice should be offered nor the ceremonies which were to be vsed in the offering thereof but he left these to the disposition of the Church and to the supreme Pastours or Gouernours thereof to determine them as they should thinke conuenient Besides this authoritie which Christ gaue to the Priests of the new law ouer his true body he gaue them also authority and Iurisdiction ouer his mysticall body which are the faithfull which authority and Iurisdiction is signified by the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour promised to S. Peter and in his person to the rest of the Apostles whom he did represent of which authority I haue spoken somewhat in the former chapter and also in my Apologie Theologicall Disputation and Appendix thereunto 41 And from hence the Reader may easily gather two things the one is the difference betwixt the Priests in the law of Nature and in the law written for that both in the law of Moyses and of Christ the Priests had not their authoritie from men but from GOD neither was it in the power of the temporall common-wealth to extend or diminish their Priestly authoritie but in the law of Nature the Priests had their authoritie from the ciuill Communitie or common-wealth whereof they were parts and members and in whose name and by whose authoritie they were made Priests and had power to offer sacrifice and it was in the power of the common-wealth to extend or diminish or to take quite away their Priestly authority and to appoint and ordaine in what manner and with what ceremonies and what things they should Sacrifice to God and to determine of all things concerning Religion yea and the common-wealth did also determine what Gods they were to woorship and therefore it was decreed by the Senate of Rome that no Emperour should be canonized or made God Alexand. l â—6 cap. 4. but by the decree of the Senate 42 The second which followeth from the former is that considering in the law of nature the Priesthood was wholly subiect and dependent vpon the ciuill Common-wealth in so much that the Priests in the law of nature were subiect and subordinate not onely in temporals but also in spirituals and in all things which concerned Religion and the publike seruice of God to the supreme Gouernours of the temporall Common-wealth from whom they receiued all their Priestly authoritie Mr. Fitzherbert very vnlearnedly concludeth that according to the law of nature the temporall State and power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that the supreme temporall Magistrate was commanded and corrected with temporall punishments as occasion required by the spirituall seeing that the quite contrarie I haue most cleerly conuinced out of Abulensis and the same may very plainely be gathered from the doctrine of Sotus Valentia Suarez Vasquer and other Diuines treating either of Sacrifices in generall or of the Sacrifice of the Masse or of the Priesthood of Christ And therefore I may bouldly say that if in the law of nature an Oath had beene propounded by the ciuill Common-wealth wherin the Religious Priests should haue acknowledged that they might not only for temporall crimes but also for spirituall and which meerely concerned Religion be punished by the supreme temporall Gouernour with temporall punishments and also be depriued of their Priestly function and authoritie the Priests would haue admitted it as lawfull And if an Oath had beene propounded by the Priests to haue themselues exempted from the authoritie of the supreme temporall Gouernour euen in spirituall or religious affaires much lesse in temporall the Ciuill Common-wealth or supreme Gouernours thereof would not haue admitted it as lawfull but would haue punished the Priests for presuming to vsurpe such an authoritie 43 Wherefore those last words of my Aduersarie to Mr. Barlow are a most vaine friuolous and idle florish For albeit the ancient Philosophers and learned Paynims being guided by the law of Nature and light of naturall reason whose doctrine also in this point our moderne Diuines doe follow did cleerely see that in the law of Nature when no positiue law of God was published the Ciuill common-wealth or supreme gouernours thereof had the chiefe command and authoritie in all matters as well concerning Religion as State to whom the Religious Priests were wholy subiect as well in spirituall or religious as in temporall affaires yet they did not turne
the word vpside downe or peruerted the course of Nature but knew right well that things lesse perfect are not to be preferred before the more perfect the body before the soule sense before reason temporall things before spirituall policie before Religion earth before heauen and the world before God And therefore there is none but such ignorant men as my Aduersarie is that can or will affirme the new Oath of allegiance to be repugnant to the law of Nature or to the light of nature reason for that it denyeth the authoritie of spirituall Pastours to punish temporally ablute Princes or to depriue them of their kingdomes or dominions 44 And by this the insufficiencie of the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Discourse will easily appeare This was some part saith he i Pag. 101. num 12. of my Discourse in my Supplement concerning the law of Nature whereby thou seest good Reader that I haue sufficiently shewed two things the one that according to the law of Nature the temporall state and power is subordinate and subiect to the spirituall when they are conioined in one body no lesse then the familie is subordinate and subiect to the Common-wealth in like case because the end of the temporall power is subordinate to the end of the spirituall power which ouerthroweth my Aduersaries false principle to wit that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill Societie are so distinct in nature and office that though they be ioined together yet they haue no dependance the one of the other vpon which false ground and vaine supposition often affirmed by Barclay and him and neuer proued by either of them they found all their false doctrine 45 But how vntrue this is I haue already shewed For in the law of Nature the temporall state and power was not subiect and subordinate to the spirituall or Religious except only in excellencie and nobilitie whereof there is no question but contrariwise the Priests of the law of Nature were subiect in spirituall and religious affaires to the supreme ciuill Gouernour when they were distinct persons neither did they make two distinct Common-wealths as they doe in the law written but the ciuill Common-wealth had authoritie to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state and not only to make Priests and to giue them Priestly power but also to increase diminish alter or to take away from them their Priestly authoritie and to determine of all things both temporall and spirituall which is not so in the law written wherein Priests haue their authoritie from the positiue institution and law of God himselfe 46 True it is that the Heathen Common-wealths gaue great authoritie priueledges and exemptions to those persons whom they chose and appointed to be their Priests especially to the chiefe Priest or Bishop whereof reade Alexander lib. 2. cap. 8. and lib. 3. cap. 27. to whom the Romanes gaue such great honour that they did esteeme him next to the King or supreme temporall Prince and gaue him authoritie to command and also to punish the King of sacred rites and all the other inferiour Priests Yea euen to Vestall Virgins who were Priests of the Goddesse Vesta such honour was giuen by the Romanes that if by chance they should meete any malefactour that was led to death hee should not for that time be put to death Plutarch in Numa Alex. lib. 5. cap. 12. vpon condition that the Virgin must sweare that her meeting of him was casuall and not of purpose But from hence it cannot be gathered that the religious Priests had by the law of Nature such authoritie priueledges and prerogatiues but only that the Common-wealth in honour of Religion did grant them such temporall honour and authoritie and would haue them to be obeyed in some matters of great moment vnder paine of death 47 Now in the new law in what manner the temporall Common-wealth or rather those persons who are parts and members therof are subiect to spirituall Pastours I haue at large declared aboue in the second part where I haue sufficiently proued out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds that the coniunction of temporall power and of spirituall subiection in the same Christian man is not sufficient to make the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth among Christians one totall body or Common-wealth whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head for then the Pope must be both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of all Christendome and Christians and that although they should make one totall body or Common-wealth whereof Christ only is the head in that manner as I there declared yet from thence it could not be concluded that the temporall power or Common-wealth is per se and naturally subiect and subordinate to the spirituall power or Common-wealth but only that Christian Princes not as they haue temporall power but as being members of the Church of Christ they haue spirituall subiection and consequently in spiritualls and not in temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power or common-wealth and the spirituall Pastours thereof And there also I answered all the arguments which D. Schulckenius brought to proue the contrarie Let Mr. Fitzherbert impugne that Treatise and then he may haue some cause to brag that this doctrine of mine and Barclaies is a false and vaine supposition of our owne In the meane time the Reader may cleerely see how vainely and friuolously he hath proued by the law of Nature that the temporall power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that in the law of Nature Religious Priests as they were such might command and correct temporally the temporall Common-wealth or supreme temporall Prince whereas the quite contrary is manifest by the law of nature 48 The other thing saith Mr. Fitzherbert that I haue shewed is that by reason of this naturall subordination and subiection of the lawes and lesse perfect Societies to the higher and more perfect it is most conforme to nature that the head of the Church who is the supreme spirituall Magistrate may command and correct all inferiour Magistrates as well temporall as spirituall when the necessitie either of the whole body or of the Church only which is the most perfect and supreme Societie doth require it as in like case the supreme ciuill Magistrate who is Prince and head of the Common-wealth iustly commandeth and punisheth the heads of Families or Cities notwithstanding that the said Families and Cities are distinct Societies and bodies and haue their lawes and Magistrates apart no lesse then the Common-wealth and Church haue theirs 49 But first it is vntrue that there is any naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall power or Common-wealth to the spirituall except in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and whereof no man maketh doubt neither doth the dignity and perfection of the more noble and excellent Societie inferre a superioritie in command and authoritie ouer the lesse worthy and lesse noble Societie vnlesse we will haue the companie of Goldsmiths to haue
Instit de patr potest Glossa ibidem Moli disp 228. and the Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doe well obserue the authoritie which Parents haue ouer their children was introduced by the Ciuill law of the Romanes from the time as the Glosse saith of Romulus the effects of which fatherly power authoritie or command the Glosse doth in briefe but Molina more at large set downe 93 Wherefore the Reader may by the way obserue that there is a great difference to be made betwixt the power and authority which Parents now liuing in ciuill Society haue ouer their Children consequently the obedience of Children answerable thereunto and the power and authority which the Ciuill Common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince haue ouer subiects because all the authority and command which Parents haue ouer their children proceedeth from the Ciuill Common-wealth and is wholy depending thereon and not from the law of nature and therefore the obedience which children owe to their Parents supposing them to be Parents cannot properly be called naturall but ciuill obedience but the supreme authoritie that the temporall Common-wealth hath ouer her subiects supposing the aduniting of men in Ciuill Societie Bellar. lib. 3. de Laicis cap. 6. is euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine deriued from the law of nature Yea also it is very probable and affirmed by diuers learned men as I haue shewed heretofore x In Append. cōtra D. Schulcken calumnia 16. nu 8. that the supreame power and authority which temporall Princes haue ouer their subiects doth also proceed from the law of nature and prescript of naturall reason although their title or the designing of their persons to be Princes is not deriued from the law of nature but from the Common-wealth it selfe for which cause wee may truely and properly call that obedience which subiects owe to the ciuill Common-wealth or the Soueraigne Prince thereof not onely ciuill but also naturall obedience or allegiance consequently the bond thereof to be greater then the obligation of the Sonne to his Father the wife to the Husband and the slaue to his Lord. 94 Now to Mr Fitzherberts argument I answered in the said Appendix to Suarez that as the power and authority which Parents haue ouer their children is granted to them by the ciuill Common-wealth so also it cannot be taken away from them but by Ciuill authority And therefore those Canons either of Popes or Councels wherein children are exempted from the power and authoritie which by the Ciuill law their Parents haue ouer them doe either confirme that which was first decreed by the Imperiall law or they are made with the expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or they doe onely declare the law of God and nature to wit that children are to forsake the company of their Parents when by conuersing with them they are in danger to offend their Creatour As when the Father is accounted to be dead ciuilly either by some great sinne committed by him as heresie and treason or otherwise or if he make profession in an approued Religion whereby he is accounted dead to the world his Children are discharged by the Ciuill law from the power which he had ouer them as you may see in Molina in the place whereto my Aduersary remitteth his reader For it is a rule of the Ciuill law that naturall and ciuill death are equiualent concerning ciuill acts as noteth the Glosse vpon Leg. si decesserit ff qui satisdare So likewise if one be ordained a Bishop he is discharged thereby from the power and authority which his Father hath ouer him Authent de Sanct. Episcopis cap. 3. § Si uero contigerit And in this particular case which Mr. Fitzherbert here vrgeth that decree of the fourth Councell of Toledo was made by the authority and consent of King Sisennandus as I haue shewed more at large in that Appendix against Suarez Besides the decree of that Councell if it be vnderstood of Children which haue discretion is onely a declaration as I there obserued of the law of God and Nature whereby the baptized children of Iewes are freed not from the power or right which Parents haue ouer their Children but onely from their company for that the law of God and Nature forbiddeth all conuersation whereby one may incurre probable danger of reuolting from the faith or falling into any other sinne 95 And the like is to be said of the discharge of slaues and bondmen from the company of their Lords when the said slaues are Catholikes and their Lords heretikes For although these slaues if they be in danger to be peruerted may by the law of God Nature absent themselus from the company of their Lords vntil the danger be past as likewise a catholike wife may depart frō the company of her husband who is an heretike if she be in danger of being peruerted by his company this the Church hath power to declare and command them vnder paine of spirituall Censures to performe Neuerthelesse the Church hath no authority to dissolue the bond of Matrimony or to take away the right or fatherly power which hereticall Parents haue ouer their Children or to release the bond of slauery by which Lords haue a right or dominion ouer their slaues And therefore when the danger of being peruerted is past the wife is bound to returne to her Husband the Child to his Father and the bondman to his Lord vnlesse by the authority of the temporall Prince the Childe bee freed from the right and power which his Father had ouer him and the slaue from his bondage And therefore à fortiori and by a stronger reason the Church hath not authority to discharge subiects from the bond of obedience and allegiance to an hereticall Prince both for that thisis a temporall and ciuill punishment which therefore to inflict doth not belong to spirituall power and also for that temporall Princes being in temporals next vnder God cannot be temporally punished but by God alone and also because this bond of allegiance is naturall whereas the other obligations by which a wife a childe a slaue are bound to obey her husband his Father his Lord is ciuill and deriued from the Ciuill Common-wealth Neuerthelesse I doe not denie that the Church by a declaratiue precept may command the subiect to forsake the company of his Prince yea and perchance to depart the land if by such staying he be in probable danger to be peruerted yet still hee remaineth subiect to his Prince and when this danger is past he is bound by vertue of his allegiance to returne againe at the commandement of his Prince 96 And by this it is manifest how grossely Mr. Fitzherbert is deceiued in affirming so boldly That the bond of allegiance to the Prince is not greater then the obligation of the Sonne to the Father the Wife to the Husband and the Slaue to his Lord Seeing that all the obedience which a Childe oweth to his
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
also of Lateran or at least wise Pope Innocent in the Councell of Lateran perceiuing that many sensuall men are more afraide of sensible and temporall punishments then of spirituall therefore to withdraw them more easily from sinne they commanded enioyned and imposed by their spirituall authoritie as it is directiue corporall and temporall punishments which sensuall men doe most abhorre and also they inflicted the same punishments not by their spirituall authoritie as it is coerciue which is extended onely as I haue often said to Ecclesiastical Censures but by the temporall authoritie which they haue receiued from the expresse or tacite consent graunt and priuiledges of temporall Princes seeing that it is well knowne as I haue related elsewhere out of Iohn Gerson Gerson de potest Eccles considerat 4. that Princes out of their deuotion haue giuen to the Cleargie great authoritie of temporall Iurisdiction 46 Thirdly obserue the goodly reason that this man bringeth why the Councell of Lateran began first with spirituall punishments and the Councell of Trent with temporall For that saith hee the decree of the Councell of Lateran was made against those who knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication and the decree of the Councell of Trent was made against those that knew the greatnesse thereof as though either Christian Princes or people knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication at the time of the Councell of Lateran or that either in very truth or according to the Doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine Suarez and other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes or in the iudgement of this Doctour himselfe it be commendable or lawfull first to depose Princes and to thrust them out of their kingdomes and afterwardes to excommunicate them and to declare them to be accounted as Heathens and Publicanes Be like this Doctour is perswaded that all his idle conceits must goe for an vndoubted oracle But he is deceiued for howsoeuer his fauourites will applaude all his sayings esteeming him as an other Pythagoras yet other men will require of him a more sufficient reason then a bare ipse dixit 47. Lastly it is not true that the Councell of Lateran did first commaund that Princes who fauour heretikes should be excommunicated and afterwards if this remedie did not auaile their subiects should be absolued from their allegiance because in that decree there is no mention made of Princes but onely of inferiour Officers and Magistrates But of this Decree we shall haue occasion to treate anon more at large As also it is a slaunder vsuall in this mans mouth that I contemne the foresaid decrees of the Councell of Lateran and of Trent which I doe reuerence with as much respect as he or any other Catholike ought to doe albeit I must needes confesse that although this Doctours interpretation of those decrees I doe not contemne for this is a word of arrogancie yet truely I doe not much regard vnlesse he shall bring better reasons to confirme the same then hitherto he hath brought And thus you see part of the answere I made to Cardinall Bellarmines second reason which afterwards I did prosecute more at large and in the end I did briefly insinuate how insufficiently Father Parsons grounding himselfe chiefly vpon this second argument of Cardinall Bellarmine did satisfie the Earle of Salisburies complaint 48 For the Earle of Salisburie saith Father Parsons y In the Preface to the Treatise tending to Mitigation nu 19. hath bin a long time sorrie that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie hath not bin made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. That not onely those Princes which acknowledge this superioritie might be secured from feares and iealosies of continuall treasons and bloodie Assassinates against their persons but those Kings also which doe not approoue the same and yet would faine reserue a charitable opinion of their subiects might know how farre to repose themselues in their fidelitie in ciuill obedience howsoeuer they see them diuided from them in point of conscience c. Now to this complaint or desire of the Earle of Salisbury to haue the matter defined and declared Father Parsons answereth that among Catholike people the matter is cleare and sufficiently defined and declared in all points wherein there may be made any doubt concerning this affaire And for the clearing of the whole matter he diuideth it into three questions 49 The first is whether any authority were left by Christ in his Church and Christian Common-wealth to restraine or represse censure or iudge any exorbitant and pernicious excesse of great men States or Princes or that he hath left them remedilesse wholy by any ordinarie authoritie And to this question the substance of his answere is this that as in all other common-wealths that are not Christian all Philosophers and other men of soundest wisedome prudence and experience either Iew or Gentile haue from the beginning of the world concurred in this that God and nature hath left some sufficient authoritie in euery common-wealth for the lawfull and orderly repressing of those euils euen in the highest persons So when Christ our Sauiour came to found his Common-wealth of Christians in farre more perfection then other states had beene established before subiecting temporall things to spirituall according to the degree of their natures ends and eminencies and appointing a supreme vniuersall Gouernour in the one with a generall charge to looke to all his sheepe without exception of great or small people or potentates vpon these suppositions I say all Catholike learned men doe ground and haue euer grounded that in Christian Common-wealthes not only the foresaid ordinary authoritie is left which euery other state and kingdome had by God and nature to preserue and protect themselues in the cases before laid down but further also for more sure orderly proceeding therin that the supreme care iudgement direction and censure of this matter was left principally by Christ our Sauiour vnto the said supreme Gouernour and Pastour of his Church and Common-wealth And in this there is no difference in opinion or beliefe betweene any sort of Catholikes whatsoeuer so they be Catholikes though in particular cases diuersitie of persons time place cause and other circumstances may mooue some diuersitie of opinions And thus much of the first question 50 The second question may bee about the manner how this authoritie or in what sort it was giuen by Christ to his said supreme Pastour whether directly or indirectly immediately or by a certaine consequence And to this question he answereth that albeit the Canonists doe commonly defend the first part and Catholike Diuines for the most part the second yet both parts fully agree that there is such an authoritie left by Christ in his Church for remedie of vrgent cases for that otherwise hee should not haue sufficiently prouided for the necessitie thereof So as this difference in the manner maketh no difference at all in the thing it selfe 51 The third
which is a humane law so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit it it is manifest that it cannot dissent from those infallible grounds which I haue laid alreadie as well out of the law of Nature as out of the law of GOD especially seeing that there is nothing wherein all Nations doe more vniformely agree by the very instinct of Nature then that all temporall things are inferiour to spirituall things and subordinate thereto whereupon it necessarily followeth c. But what grounds either infallible or fallible Mr. Fitzherbert hath alreadie laid as well out of the law of nature as out of the law of GOD you haue alreadie seene Neither doth any man make any doubt but that this is an infallible ground wherein all nations by the very instinct of nature doe vniformely agree that as all spirituall things are superiour to all temporall things in dignitie worth and excellencie in generall so all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to spirituall things in the same degree of subiection and subordination wherein spirituall things are superiour to them for no man can bee so foolish as to imagine that temporall things must be subiect to spirituall things in any other degree or kind of subiection or subordination then wherein spirituall things are superiour to them 33 Marke now what Mr. Fitzherbert would conclude from this infallible ground Whereupon it necessarily followeth saith he that all the temporall states of temporall Princes are subordinate to the Church and to the head thereof and to bee disposed by him when the good of the Church shall so require as I haue amply declared But fye for shame that Mr. Fitzherbert who is accounted a man of great iudgement though of small learning should make so childish and improbable a consequence and withall to esteeme it a necessarie inference For what man of iudgement would argue thus All temporall things are inferiour subiect and subordinate to spirituall things to wit in worth dignitie and excellencie therefore the Pope hath power to dispose of all temporall things when the good of the Church shall so require But my Aduersaries vsuall custome is to darken and confound the Readers vnderstanding with a mist of cloudie and ambiguous words which being once dissolued and taken away the plaine and perspicuous trueth will presently appeare For as concerning his antecedent proposition which is that all temporall things are inferiour to spirituall things and subordinate thereto first if his meaning be that all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to all spirituall things in euery kind of subiection this is apparantly false for that all spirituall things are not capeable of all kind of superioritie seeing that onely spirituall persons or substances and not spirituall accidents are capable of spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction which consisteth in a power to commaund to punish or to dispose of something 34 Secondly if his meaning be that all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to all spirituall things in some kind of subiection this is very true for as all spirituall things in that they are spirituall are more excellent and of a more noble more perfect and of a superiour and higher degree or order then is any temporall thing so all temporall things as they are temporall are inferiour and subordinate in nobilitie perfection and excellencie to all spirituall things But from a superioritie in perfection worth and nobilitie to conclude a superioritie of another kind to wit in authoritie iurisdiction or power to dispose thereon is transcendere de genere ad genus to transcend from one kind to another which manner of arguing euery Schoole-boy knoweth to bee vicious as thus Angels both good and bad are superiour to men in substance knowledge might and other natural perfections but to conclude from hence that therefore Angels are superiour to men in authoritie or Iurisdiction and that therefore men are inferiour and subiect therein to Angels and are bound to obey them as their lawfull Superiours vnlesse they bee sent as messengers from God which the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import and which as Saint Gregory saith S. Greg. hom 34. in Euang a. is a word of office not of nature were a very fallacious kinde of arguing Also all seruile trades are inferiour subiect and subordinate to all liberall arts and sciences to wit in woorth perfection and nobilitie and this all trades-men will acknowledge but they would smile at him that should conclude from thence that therefore all they that are endued with any liberall art or science may command and punish all trades-men and dispose of what they haue when the good of the liberall arts or sciences shall so require 35 But thirdly if Mr. Fitzherbert in his antecedent proposition by spirituall things doeth not vnderstand all spirituall things but only spirituall persons who by their office haue charge of Religion and of all spirituall things appertaining to Religion and that all temporall things are by the instinct of nature and the light of naturall reason subiect and subordinate to spirituall persons in such sort that they may bee disposed of by them when the good of Religion shall so require then indeede supposing this antecedant proposition to bee true it doeth necessarily follow that the Pope hath power to dispose of all temporall things in order to spirituall good But then hee supposeth that which he should prooue and which I euer denyed for as I haue amply shewed before by the law of nature the ciuill Common-wealth it selfe and the supreame Gouernours thereof had supreame authoritie to dispose of all things as well concerning Religion as State and policie Neither did the Religious Societie and the ciuill Common-wealth in the law of nature make two totall and independent bodies Societies or Common-wealths as they doe now in the new Law wherein the temporall Prince or the Ciuill Common-wealth haue not to dispose of spirituall and religious affaires as they did in the law of nature and according to the custome of all nations and therefore it cannot bee prooued either by the law of nature or of nations that the Pope hath power to dispose of the bodies States or temporall goods of temporall Princes but contrariwise standing in the law of nature the Ciuill Common-wealth had supreame power and authoritie to dispose of the bodies and goods of Religious Priests and of all things belonging to Religion and the publike seruice of God 36 Wherefore to little purpose are those words which Mr. Fitzherbert next adioyneth And therefore Vlpian the Lawyer saith hee affirming that Ius Gentium the Law of Nations is that which is common onely to men putteth for example Religio erga Deum Religion towards God giuing to vnderstand that all Nations and people doe agree in nothing more then that due honour is to bee giuen to Almightie GOD which is not done when any thing is preferred before his seruice or when temporall things
from the law of nature or nations but in the order of nature from the ciuill or priuate lawes of euery nation as Suarez before affirmed for that as all histories acknowledge in this there was a great variety among all nations Baptist Fulg. lib. 1. as in Aethiopia saith Mr. Fitzherbert where the Priests determined of the life and death of Kings in such sort that when the Priests signified to them that it was Gods will they should die they presently killed themselues 43 But he might haue added if it had pleased him the next words following in Fulgosus whom he citeth in the margent that this custome of theirs did not alwaies continue Diod. Sicul. lib. 3. cap. 1. for it was abolished by King Erganes who liued about the time of Ptolomey King of Egypt who to the end his death should not be foretold him by the Priests hee slew them all and was the first that tooke away that custome Besides neither was this custome obserued among other nations as among the Romans the chiefe Priest or Bishop ought to keepe his hands not onely pure from all bloud but also he ought not to be partaker or priuie to the death of any man insomuch that if any condemned man did flye to him he was freed from death for that day k Alex. lib. 2. geralium dierum cap. 8. Neither did those Priests of Aethiopia properly put their Kings to death by authority but as interpreters of the will of GOD they did declare that it was GODS pleasure they should kill themselues and so this example is little to the purpose 44 Also in Aegypt saith Mr. Fitzherbert none could be a King except he vvere a Priest True it is that the custome of the Aegyptians was Stobaeus se 42. as Stobaeus also affirmeth to create either Priests or vvarlike men their Kings for honour and nobility vvas giuen to vvarlike men for their fortitude and to Priests for their vvisedome But he that vvas chosen out of vvarlike men to be their King vvas foorthwith made a Priest and partaker of philosophy or the study of vvisedome And no doubt but that this was a laudable custome and so much the more for that the King of Aegypt could not iudge Diodor. Sicul. l. 1. c. 6. but according to the lawes and the Kings themselues were subiect to the lawes of their kingdome yet this custome of the Aegyptians was not generall among other nations For although in times past Plutarch in quaest Rom. as Plutarch writeth Kings did the greatest and chiefest part of Sacrifices and they vvith the other Priests did concurre in sacred rites yet after they became to vvax insolent arrogant and cruell the Graecians for the most part taking away from them their Empire left them onely authority to sacrifice to their Gods 45 And the like custome saith my Aduersary vvas also obserued among the Goths whiles they vvere Paynimes That the Goths had this for a continuall custome that none should be their Kings vnlesse they were Priests I haue not read and that it was among them a continuall practise I can hardly beleeue both for that their custome vvas that their Kings should not be learned but among al nations Caelius l. 8. c. 6. the Priests were vsually the most learned of all the people also for that the contrary is signified by Ioannes Magnus in his historie of the Goths who writeth that their Priests werâ— of diuers degrees to wit Pontifices Archiflamines Flamines Salij Augures and that to their chiefe Priests See Procopius Ioan. Magnus in their history of the Goths Olaus l. 3 c. 8. l. 8. c. 15. who were called Pontifices was granted by them equall power with their Kings whose authoritie was so great that whatsoeuer they should either counsell or commaund both the King himselfe and the people did foorthwith wllingly execute as an oracle from heauen And no maruaile if it were so seeing that the reuerence which the Goths did beare to Priests althogh they were of a contrary Religion to them was exceeding great and to be admired insomuch that when they conquered any Citie they did neither violate Temple nor Priests and in the iudgement of all men they were accounted so pious and religious that they would not hurt any one that should flye to the Temples dedicated to God for succour or Sanctuary And when Alaricus King of the Goths otherwise a barbarous and cruell man inuaded Italie in the time of Honorius the Emperour and had subdued Rome before hee would giue leaue to his souldiers to spoyle the City he proclaimed by sound of trumpet that the bodies and goods of those persons Fulgos l. 1. c. 1. who flyed for refuge to the Apostles Church should not be touched and which is more to be admired the souldiers themselues in the very middest of the sacke and spoyle meeting certaine sacred Virgins carrying vpon their heads plate of gold after they were informed that they were consecrated to the Apostles did not extend their hands so much as to touch them Fulosus in the same place 46 And amongst the Gaules saith Mr. Fitzherbert the Druides vvho vvere their Priests had in their hands the chiefe mannage of publike affaires deciding all controuersies and iudging all ciuill and criminall causes Caesar l. 6. de Bello Gallico excommunicating such as vvould not obey them and those that vvere so excommunicated vvere abhorred and detested of all men But this custome of the Gaules proceeded from the priuate and ciuill law of that nation and was not common to all nations as you may see aboue in the Graecians who from their Priests tooke away the temporall gouerment and left them onely authority to sacrifice to their Gods and the great variety which was among nations concerning the authority of their Priests doth euidently conuince the same 47 I haue also signified before l Cap. 6. nu 10 saith Mr. Fitzherbert m Pag. 132. nu 6. vvhat authority and command the chiefe Bishops and Augures had in the Romane Common-wealth aboue the Consulls and temporall Magistrates vvhen consideration of Religion occurred in matters of State Whereupon Valerius Maximus saith Valer. Max. l. 1. c. 1. that the Romane Common-wealth alwaies preferred Religion before all things euen in men of the highest degree dignity and Maiesty and that their Empire did willingly submit it selfe and obey in matters of Religion esteeming that it should in time arriue to the soueraigntie of humane gouernment if it did well and duely obserue the diuine power Thus saith Valerius of the preheminence and soueraigntie of Religion in the Romane Common-wealth And for the time of the Romane Emperours most of them vvere extreame Tyrants and did condemne as vvell all diuine as humane lawes yet all of them seemed to acknowledge the Soueraignty of Religion in that they tooke vpon them the title and dignity of chiefe Bishops because no man should haue any authority ouer them as the
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
absolute Princes are not in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder the generall names of temporall Land-lords Gouernours Iudges Lords or such like was not grounded vpon any peculiar priuiledge proper to absolute Princes for the like I affirmed of a Bishop and an Abbot but vpon the knowne rules of the law which there I cited and vpon the authority of learned Lawyers and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert might haue saued his labour in seeking out of Restaurus Castaldus or others any such priuiledge peculiar to absolute Princes Neither also did I affirme that all Lawyers are of opinion that in penall lawes and odious matters an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest or Clearke nor an absolute Prince vnder the name of a temporall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord but that some Lawyers are of this opinion and this is enough to prooue it to be probable that in the Canon of the Lateran Councell Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall wordes of a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord. Wherefore although the opinion of Hostiensis of whom I will speake beneath or of any other Lawyer or Diuine whatsoeuer be expresly against this doctrine it is nothing to the purpose except it be also against the opinion of all Lawyers and Diuines 7 Secondly therefore that M. Fitzherbert may also see that I haue not inuented this doctrine of my owne head I will now for proofe of the same relate some Catholike Authors whom then I omitted to rehearse for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt thereof An Abbot saith Bartholomaeus Fumus in his Armilla aurea Armilla verbo Abbas nu 11. in an odious matter is not comprehended by the name of Monkes although he be in a fauourable matter according to the Doctours in cap. Armilla verbo Clericus nu 2. finali de Simonia And againe by the name of Clearkes saith hee in a fauourable matter are vnderstood all that haue any Clearkely dignity but in an odious matter vnder the name of a Clerke are not comprehended Bishops no Canons nor others placed in dignity nor Monkes nor Religious men that are exempted Vide Panormit in cap. bonae memoriae de postulat Praelatorum Armilla verbo Sacerdos nu 1 And againe by the name of a Priest saith he in a fauourable matter are vnderstood not onely Prasbyters but also Deacons and Subdeacons but in an odious matter onely Presbyters and not therefore Bishops are to bee vnderstood arg cap. si quisque de cohab Cleric mulierum where Panormitan obserueth the same Thus writeth Armilla Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia 8 The like hath Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia § prima conclusio By the name of Monkes saith he Abbots are vnderstood in a fauourable matter but this conclusion is not true in an odious matter and for the same hee citeth Panormitan Pope Innocent and others And a little before out of diuers textes of the Canon Law he deduceth this general rule Quoties species aliquid addit generi nunquam appellatione generis venit species Whensoeuer the particular doth adde something to the generall the particular is not to be comprehended vnder the name of the generall which is the same in sense with that rule which he afterwards relateth out of Antonius de Butrio that in penall things the mixt or compound is not comprehended vnder the simple which rules Felinus limiteth thus vnlesse the punishment or odious matter doth tend principally to fauour the soule but how to know this for certaine it is very heard as you shall see beneath Sayrus tom 1. lib. 3. cap. 33. 9 The like teacheth our learned Countreyman Gregorius Sayrus expounding the Canon Vt periculosa Ne Clerici vel Monachi lib. 6. Wherein are excommunicated all Religious men who goe to any Schooles of learning vnlesse they haue first license graunted them by their Prelate with the aduise of the greater part of the Conuent An Abbot saith he going to Schooles without the license of his Superiour and Conuent doth not incurre this punishment according to Archidiaconus Geminianus Angelus Antoninus and Nauarrus in the places aboue cited because it is a penall constitution and therefore rather to be restrained then extended The same hath Nauarre vpon cap. finali de Simonia From the aforesaid it is also saith he inferred that the disposition Nauar. tom 2. Comment in cap. finali de Simonia nu 5. or constitution which speaketh of a Monke doth not comprehend an Abbot if the matter be not fauourable as Doctors here vpon this Canon do seeme to be of opinion 10 And Syluester treating of the Canon in Clement Vnica de vsuris wherein are excommunicated quicunque communitatum ipsarum Potestates Capitanei Rectores c. All Potestaes of Communities themselues Captaines Rectours or Gouernours Consulls Iudges Counsellers or any other Officiall or Officer who doe make write or dictate Constitutions that vsurers are to bee paid or being paid are not to be restored Siluest verbo Excommunicatio 19. nu 82. §. quadragessima tertia c. affirmeth that because this is a penall constitution consequently it is not extended to persons that are not expressed or which is all one expresly named therein and he proueth this by that rule of the Law in Sexto In penalties the milder part is to be chosen Moreouer Pope Innocent the third himselfe vnder whom this Councell of Lateran was held In can Sedes Apostolica de Rescriptis doth expresly decree that when in his Commissions persons of lesse worth more base are onely signified persons of greater worth and dignitie are not vnderstood to be included in a generall clause Now what man of iudgement can make any doubt but that Dominus temporalis is a person of lesse worth honour and dignitie then Dominus principalis who in the Canon is distinguished from Dominus temporalis and both of them are persons of lesse worth honour and authoritie then are Domini supremi as are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes And therefore these generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis being names of lesse worth and dignitie then are Domini supremi must not according to Pope Innocent his owne rule comprehend Emperours Kings and absolute Princes who are the most worthy most noble and most principall Lords and persons vpon earth 11 But wee will conclude this point with so plaine and manifest an authoritie that my Aduersarie both in respect of the Authour and also of his words being so cleere can take against it no colourable exception Lastly therefore Andreas Duuallius a famous Doctour of Paris and at this present the Kings Publike professour of Diuinitie and also a man otherwise much fauouring the Popes temporall authoritie ouer absolute Princes Andr. Duual de suprema Rom Pont. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q.
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
Decretalls And thus much concerning Hostiensis and his answere alledged by Parisiensis to great purpose whatsoeuer my Aduersarie giuing ouermuch credit to Fa. Lessius hath vntruly saide to the contrary 7 Now concerning Ioannes Parisiensis Mr. Fitzherbert writeth thus a Pag. 158. nu 4. But it is no maruaile if Ioannes Parisiensis shewed himselfe partiall towards Princes in some things concerning the Popes authority seeing that he liued and was a Reader in Paris in the time of the troubles betwixt Pope Boniface the eight and Philip le Bel King of France who being excommunicated by the said Pope and extreamely incensed against him could not want learned men to second his humor especially such as were his borne subiects and liued within his dominions Neuerthelesse howsoeuer Ioannes Parisiensis may seeme in the words alleadged by my Aduersary to affirme that the Pope hath no power at all to dispose of temporall things yet it is cleere that he teacheth elsewhere that in some cases the Pope may dispose of the temporall goods not onely of Ecclesiasticall persons but also of all the faithfull 8 And of this Widdrington might haue taken notice when he wrote against me if it had pleased him seeing that he was admonished thereof by Schulckenius b Shulck pag. 64. who sheweth that Ioannes Parisiensis teacheth expresly c Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Papali cap. 7. that the Pope being the supreme head of Priests and of the faithfull may as the generall informer of faith and manners dispose the goods of the faithfull and decree them to bee exposed so farre foorth as the common and extreame necessitie of faith and manners shall require and f Ibid. cap. 13. further that if the King be an hereticke and incorrigible the Pope may not onely excommunicate him but also force the people to depose him Excommunicando omnes qui ei vt Domino obedirent Excommunicating all those which should obey him as their Lord and againe afterwards he saith g Ibid. cap. 16. that if the Prince be an hereticke his vassall is not bound to follow him and that the Pope may deliuer his subiects from the obligation of their oath of allegiance 9 By all this it appeareth that albeit Ioannes Parisiensis doth giue lesse vnto the Pope then he ought as Schulckenius well noteth yet he giueth him as much as sufficeth for our purpose seeing that it little importeth to the substance of the maine question betwixt our Aduersary and vs which is whether the Pope may depose a temporall Prince I say it little importeth how and in what manner he may doe it whether by a Iuridicall sentence of deposition or otherwise so as it is granted that he hath authoritie to discharge the Princes subiects of their Oath of allegiance yea and to compell them to depose him which Ioannes Parisiensis expresly teacheth wherevpon it may be inferred that his meaning was in the place before obiected that the Pope may not dispose of temporall things directly but onely indirectly and in some cases which ouerthrowe the foundation of our Aduersaries doctrine touching this question and this may suffice for him and Hostiensis 10 But first besides that Ioannes Parisiensis was neuer taxed by any ancient Authour for writing partially in fauour of the King of France the like words that Mr. Fitzherbert heere vseth against Ioannes Parisiensis may be retorted backe vpon Hostiensis and diuers other Diuines and Canonists to wit that it is no maruaile that Cardinall Hostiensis and diuers other Romane Diuines and Canonists shewed themselues partiall towards Popes in some things concerning the Popes authoritie seeing that they liued and were Readers in Rome or in the Popes Dominions in the time of the troubles betwixt the Popes and Christian Princes which Popes since the time of Pope Gregorie the seuenth tooke vpon them to dispose of all temporalls and to depose temporall Princes and therefore could not want learned men to second their humours especially such as either were their borne subiects and liued in their Dominions or else might expect spirituall preferment and to be aduanced to Bishoprikes or other spirituall dignities by the Pope and this also the said Ioannes Parisiensis in the same booke doth well obserue But more probably saith he h Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Papali cap. 21. ad 41. arg it may be said on the contrary side that those Doctours who so vndutifully aduance the Popes authoritie doe speake for feare or fauour of him seeing that they are Clergie men who may rather bee promoted by him and especially seeing that they themselues doe say though not well that the Pope doth graciously embrace those that doe extend or amplifie his authoritie and represseth those that speake against the same 11 Secondly Ioannes Parisiensis doth not teach that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporall things and of the temporall goods not onely of Ecclesiasticall persons but also of all the faithfull except onely by declaring the law of God and by compelling the faithfull by Ecclesiasticall censures to obserue the same haec Papae ordinatio non est nisi iuris declaratio this ordaining or disposing of the Pope is nothing else then a declaring of the Law of God saith Parisiensis in that very place i Cap. 7 and this I haue declared and prooued at large aboue in the first part against D. Schulckenus And the same hee teacheth concerning the absoluing of vassalls from their oath of fealtie To that saith hee k Cap. 16. ad 11. which is obiected that the Pope hath sometimes absolued souldiers from their oath of fealtie Besides that it is an argument De facto which is onely introduced concerning French-men I answere that it was rather a declaring of the law to wit that the Oath did not bind in that case then an absoluing from the oath of fealtie Now what Catholike man maketh doubt but that the Pope hath authoritie to declare the Law of God it being a spirituall thing and proceeding from spirituall power 12 Wherefore as I declared at large aboue in the first part Ioannes Parisiensis teacheth three things The one is that the Pope hath no authority to depose or depriue by way of sentence an hereticall Prince of his Royall right and authority and this is the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee The second is that the Pope hath power to declare and interprete the law of God and to compell by Ecclesiasticall Censures all the faithfull to obserue the same and in this I agree with Parisiensis sauing that there is yet a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and Paris what things are required to make the Popes definition declaration or interpretation to be certaine and infallible as also inferiour Bishops haue authority to declare and interpret the law of God and to compell their spirituall subiects to obserue the same yet their declaration and interpretation of the law of God is not alwaies
the authoritie of the Church resident either in her head the Pope or in her body a Councell to publish this declaration And not onely all the other parts of the Catholike Church but likewise all the Doctours who liued in Farance from the first setting vp of Schooles of Diuinitie amongst them haue held the affirmatiue opinion that in the case of hereticall or infidell Princes and such as persecute Christianitie or Catholike Religion their subiects may bee absolued from their Oath of Allegiance By meanes whereof though the contrarie doctrine were the truest yet notwithstanding all the other parts of the Church being against it you cannot hold it for more them problematicall in matter of faith I call that doctrine problematicall in matter of faith which we are not bound to beleeue by necessity of faith and the contradictorie thereof doth not binde them that belieue it with Excommunication and disunion or separation from the communitie Otherwise you must acknowledge that the communion which you exercise with the other parts of the Church holding the contrary doctrine yea euen that communion which you conserue with the memorie of your predecessours was vnlawfull defiled with heresie and excommunication 17 Thus you see that the Cardinall of Peron doth altogether auoide the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee to wit concerning the Popes power to depriue a Prince of his Regall authority wherewith before his sentence of depriuation he was endued and ioyneth two questions together which nothing belong to our new Oath The first is whether if a Prince who either by himselfe or by his Predecessours hath made an oath to liue and die in the Christian Catholike Religion and afterwards becommeth an hereticke or infidell and laboureth to draw his subiects to the same may not bee declared fallen from his right as culpable of felony towards Christ to whom he hath made his Oath and his subiects may not bee declared absolued from their oath of allegiance The second question is whether the Pope or Church haue not authority to publish this declaration Now neither of these two questions appertaine to our new Oath nor are as yet called in question by mee For as concerning the later supposing that a Prince by reason of heresie or Apostacy either is actually depriued and fallen from his right to raigne which the Cardinall of Peron following therein Philopater seemeth heere to maintaine or else may for the same be depriued thereof by the Common-wealth no Catholike will make any doubt but that this being supposed the Pope or Church may declare him an hereticke or Apostata and consequently to be fallen thereby from his Royall dignity according to Philopaters doctrine or to bee depriued thereof by the Common-wealth as others contend and to declare that his subiects are either actually discharged or to be discharged of the naturall and ciuill bond of their temporall allegiance and consequently of their Oath or sacred bond which was made to confirme the same For no Catholike can make any doubt that to declare the law of God and who is an hereticke or infidell is a spirituall action and belongeth to the spirituall authority of the Church 18 But with the former question forasmuch as it may concerne what authority the Common-wealth hath to depriue hir Soueraigne Prince of his Royall right in case that he should forsake the Catholike faith which he hath once professed although as I haue often said I wil not intermeddle for not giuing my Aduersaries occasion to decline the principall question concerning the Popes authority to depriue hereticall Kings of their Regall power which they had before his sentence of depriuation neuerthelesse this scandalous and desperate position of Philopater against which I was somewhat vehement in my Apologie and yet is quite passed ouer with silence by D. Schulckenius which may bee some coniecture that hee also fauoureth that doctrine to wit that a Prince who maketh open profession of Arianisme or Mahometisme or any such like infidelitie and goeth about to plant the same within his dominions doth fall thereby ipso facto from his Regall authority and right to raigne albeit either himselfe or his predecessours haue made an oath to liue and die in the Catholike faith I account to be a very false damnable and seditious doctrine tending to the perturbation and subuersion of all temporall States wherein there is not a perfect vnitie of Religion giuing occasion to hereticall and infidell Princes not to become Catholikes fauouring that damnable doctrine which teacheth that among heretickes and infidells there is no true ciuill dominion authoritie or Iurisdiction and what Romane Catholike soeuer hee bee that maintaineth and teacheth the same in this kingdome I account him to speake plainly a manifest Arch-traitour for that hee must consequently maintaine that our Soueraigne Lord KING IAMES is not our true and rightfull King because albeit not he himselfe yet some of his predecessours haue solemnly sworne to liue and die in the Catholike Romane faith 19 For seeing that by Gods permission heresies must be according to that of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. Oportet haereses esse what State can be secure from continuall feares of tumults and insurrections when the subiects according to this doctrine must bee perswaded that their Prince if hee bee of a contrary Religion to that which they in their hearts professe and thinke to bee Catholike and seeke to draw them to his Religion as all Princes vsually doe is not a true and rightfull Prince but falne from his right to raigne and by their Church which they as also all heretickes thinke to be the true Catholike Church may be declared so to be With what security can any King whether he be a Catholike or no permit in his dominions any Religion contrary to his owne when his subiects of the contrary Religion must be perswaded that he is falne from his right to raigne if hee seeke to draw them as all Princes vsually do to his owne Religion With what security also can any hereticall or infidell Prince whose kingdome is wholly or for the greatest part infected with heresie or infidelity become a Catholike and seeke to draw his subiects to Catholike Religion when his subiects who are no Catholikes must according to the principles of this doctrine be perswaded that he is a rebell to God and an enemy to that Religion which they thinke to bee true and hath broken the oath which he or some of his predecessours haue made to liue and die in their faith and religion and consequently is fallen from his right as culpable of felony towardes GOD to whom hee hath made the oath of this Realme 20 Besides this assertion fauoureth that false not to say erroneous doctrine which teacheth that ciuill dominion is founded in grace or faith that in heretickes or infidells especially who seeke to draw their subiects to their heresie or infidelity as all heretickes and infidels commonly doe there is no ciuill authority
whereupon not only the Bishops but also 15. Noblemen of the Kings Pallace doe subscribe their names to the decrees of that Councell f See Binnius tom ◠Concil in Conc. Tolet. 12 And the Glosse it selfe expounding those words of this Canon Praeceptum ipsi sesuis meritis a Palatinae dignitatis officio separabunt It is an argument saith the Glosse that if any man contemne Excommunication the Secular Iudge or his Land-Lord hath power to depriue him of his feude or farme 23 Neither from any decree of the Canon law or from any glosse or exposition of Ioannes Teutonicus who glossed these decrees collected by Gratian can it be certainely gathered that the Church by her spirituall power which she receiued from Christ but onely by the grant and authority of temporall Princes may inflict temporall punishments for of her power to inflict spirituall censures and also to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties there is no controuersie betweene my Aduersaries and me Neither also from any of those foure glosses here cited by Mr. Fitzherbert to wit either vpon the Canon Attedendum which Canon as I shewed aboue is falsly attributed to Pope Vrbanus the second and by all probability the whole Canon Attendendū is forged and by some one or other inserted into that decretall Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Pope Vrbanus or vpon the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis or Licet de poenis which last Canon Licet is not glossed by Ioannes Teutonicus whose authority I brought vpon the Canon Hadrianus who expounded only the Decrees collected by Gratian and not the Decretals can it bee forcibly concluded that the Church that is the spirituall Pastours of the Church may without the authority and consent of temporall Princes inflict temporall punishments yea the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet de poenis here cited by my Aduersary doth clearely fauour my doctrine For demanding why Archdeacons doe exact of Lay-men a pecuniary penalty as it is mentioned in that Canon he answereth because perhaps they were vnder their temporall Iurisdiction or they haue this by custome 24 Neither from the practise of the Church which Mr. Fitzherbert doth so inculcate can any thing be conuinced against this my doctrine And hereof saith hee g Page 168. num 7. the practise is and hath alwaies beene most manifest in the Church and acknowledged by the Canonists to bee grounded on the Canons as partly hath appeared already and shall appeare further h Infra nu 12. 13. 14. 15. seq after a while and therefore I say that those Glosses obiected by Widdrington must either bee so vnderstood that they may agree the one with the other and with the Glosses of other Canons yea with the generall opinion and doctrine of the Canonists and with the whole course and practise of the Canon Law or else they are to be reiected as absurd erroneous and false 25 But although it bee true that for many hundreds of yeares since that Christian Princes haue indewed the Church with great power of ciuill Iurisdiction the practise of the Church hath beene to inflict pecuniarie mulcts yet it is not true that it was the practise of the primitiue Church to inflict but onely to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties and this onely can be prooued by any authenticall Canon as I haue shewed aboue by answering all the Canons which my Aduersary hath alleadged And although also since the time of Pope Gregory the 7. who was the first Pope that began to challenge to himselfe authority as due to him by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments to dispose of all temporals and to depose temporall Princes diuers Popes and other learned men haue with might and maine by fauours and threatnings laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise for which cause it is no maruaile as I haue elsewhere obserued i Apol. nu 449. that their opinion hath beene the more common and generall in Schooles yet for that it hath beene euer contradicted by Christian Princes and learned Catholikes for which cause Ioannes Azorius a learned Iesuite expresly saith k Azor. tom 2. lib. 12. ca. 5. q. 8. that it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether the Pope in certaine cases hath right and authority to depriue Kings of their Kingdomes and about this the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet the controuersie saith Trithemius l In Chro. monast Hirsang an 1106. is not decided by the Iudge and very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth doe denie that the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment m De Dominio natur ciuit Eccles conclus 2 in probatione illius but only spirituall censures It canot I say be truly called the general doctrine and practise of the Church neither are those Glosses and expositions of those Canonists who fauour this doctrine sufficient to decide the controuersie neither can the other Glosses and expositions which are grounded vpon the contrary doctrine and contradict the former glosses without grosse temeritie bee reiected as erroneous absurd and false 26 And truely in my opinion it is greatly to be maruailed and worthy also the obseruation that albeit for so many hundreds of yeeres both Popes and other Cleargie men haue so earnestly laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise of Pope Gregory the seuenth touching the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of temporalls which neuerthelesse Sigebert did not feare to call a nouelty Sigebert ad annum 1088. not to say an heresie yet considering the great opposition which this doctrine and practise hath euer had by reason whereof it was behoouing to haue the matter made cleere and out of controuersie yet I say there cannot be found any one Canon constitution or definition either of Pope or Councell generall or Prouinciall wherein it is plainly decreed that the Pope or Church hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose temporall Princes to dispose of temporalls or to inflict temporall punishments but the certaintie of this doctrine must chiefly bee grounded vpon the facts of Popes which how weake a ground it is to prooue a true right and authoritie any man of iudgement may plainly see and I haue also shewed elsewhere n Apol. nu 444 seq 27 Now then saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Page 168. num 8. seeing that the Glosser acknowledgeth in his former glosse that the Church doth by the Canon ordaine the confiscation of Lay-mens goods and depriuation of their dignities which is also confirmed by diuers other Canons and glosses and the practise of the Church it cannot as I haue said bee imagined that hee meant to contradict it by that which followeth either in the same glosse or in the other vpon the Canon
she vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law or to vse Gersons words from the grant of Princes 56 Lastly Mr. Fitzherbert excepteth against that which I brought from the words of the Glosse vpon the Canon Per venerabilem to confirme the doctrine of those who affirme that the Pope hath not authority to make ciuill or temporall lawes or which is all one to ordaine meere temporall things out of his owne temporall dominions And these Authours the Glosse said I vpon the same Canon Per venerabilem doth seeme to fauour where it affirmeth that the Pope cannot legitimate any man who is not subiect to his temporall Iurisdiction to make him succeede in an inheritance as a lawfull heire for this were to put his sickle into another mans haruest and to vsurpe another mans Iurisdiction and to depriue some man of his right to succeede which hee ought not to doe and therefore he cannot legitimate any man for the Secular Court vnlesse the Prince shall permit or giue him leaue But if the Pope cannot legitimate one who is not legitimate nor depriue one of his right to succeede I see not by what authority he can make a lawfull and legitimate heire or Prince to be vnlawfull and not legitimate or depriue one of his inheritance which hee lawfully possesseth 57 But to this Glosse whose words as you see are most plaine and cleare Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth h Page 174. num 20. to the end that this my instance or example taken from the Glosse is no lesse impertinent then the former seeing that it concerneth onely a temporall matter without relation to any spirituall end And is it possible saith he that Widdrington cannot see the difference betwixt these two cases seeing that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end that is to make them capable of a temporall inheritance is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince whereas the deposition of Princes in this our case hauing a spirituall end to wit the extirpation of heresie and punishment of sinne to the exceeding great good of soules and the publike benefite of the Church is not meerely temporall in respect of the spirituall end and therefore may proceede from the spiritvall power of him that hath the supreame charge of soules and the gouernment of the whole Church in whom it may suffice for that purpose to haue an indirect dominion ouer temporall things to bee vsed and exercised in some cases when the necessity of the Church shall require it 58 Whereupon it also followeth that if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church that the Pope should legitimate a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance as for example if a kingdome should otherways fall into the hands or possession of Gods enemies in such a case I say he might doe it by his spirituall power and the indirect dominion he hath ouer temporall things as both Lawyers i See Couerra in 4 Decret 2. par §. 8. nu 16 and Diuines teach and the Glosse alleaged by Widdrington doth not denie it affirming onely that the Pope hath no power to legitimate a bastard out of his owne temporall Dominions to a meere temporall end which as I haue said is a farre different case from ours and not denyed by vs So as you see still how improbably Widdrington argueth and how absurdly he hath answered to his owne obiection And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of his second answere Let vs now heare the third 59 But in this also Mr. Fitzherbert sheweth as much fraude and ignorance as hee hath in the former For first it is euident that this assertion of the Glosse denying the Pope to haue authoritie out of his owne temporall dominions to make one capable of a temporall inheritance vnlesse the Prince giue him leaue is generall and without any relation at all either to a temporall or spirituall end and the onely exception limitation or restriction which the Glosse maketh is vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue so to doe which words being so generall doe plainly signifie that the Pope cannot out of his owne temporall dominions make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that the Pope may for a spirituall end to wit for that the spirituall good of the Church and the saluation of soules make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance this explication corrupteth the text and is contrarie to the plaine words of the Glosse for if the Pope out of his owne temporall Dominions may for a spirituall end make one capable of a temporall inheritance or depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission then it cleerely followeth that the Pope may make one capable of a temporall inheritance and legitimate him for the Secular Court and depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission which the Glosse in expresse words denieth 60 But secondly is it possible that this man cannot see how plainly he contradicteth himselfe in granting first that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end is to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and that so it is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince and afterwards in acknowledging that the legitimation of a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church may bee done by the Popes spirituall power and indirect dominion which he hath ouer temporalls which is plainly repugnant to his former assertion seeing that no reference or relation of the making bastards capable of a temporall inheritance to the necessary good of the Church can make but that according to his former grant it still remaineth a meere temporall thing and is to a temporall end that is saith hee to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince consequently it cannot be done by the spirituall power and indirect dominion which the Pope hath ouer temporall things 61 Wherefore this indirect temporall power authoritie dominion or iurisdiction is in my opinion a meere fiction purposely inuented without sufficient ground by the later Diuines to put a more colourable cloake vpon this pretended temporall authoritie of the Pope because they saw the Canonists doctrine making the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole world to be very false absurd scandalous and odious both to Princes and subiects and yet in effect or substance they differ little or nothing at all For whatsoeuer the Canonists grant that the Pope may doe in temporalls directly the Diuines grant he may doe indirectly which doth in effect as much as the former derogate
he thinketh or insinuateth at least that they haue most grieuously and perniciously erred therein many times and yet one of the Popes that did dispence in the case here mentioned to wit in the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation was the famous S. Gregorie the great who granted that licence to some Priests in Sardinia by reason of the great want of Bishops in that Iland 18 But first although the first instance which I brought be partly grounded vpon this practise of Popes to giue authoritie to Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation yet this is not my first instance but my first instance is this That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which is propounded or supposed by Popes as a sure and certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences for so saith Fa. Lessius But this doctrine that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemne vow of chastite and giue leaue to a Priest to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation is propounded or supposed by Popes as a ground and foundation of many their Decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences Therefore c. 19 Now I expected that Mr. Fitzherbert would haue answered this my instance in forme which if he had done I would also by his answere haue satisfied Fa. Lessius his first argument but he neither answereth nor propoundeth my first instance but cunningly flyeth to the Councell of Lateran affirming that there is a great disparitie betwixt the decree of the Lateran Councell and the licences which some Popes giue to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation whereas Fa. Lessius did not apply his first argument particularly to the Councell of Lateran but spake generally of the grounds and foundations of all Decrees and sentences of Councells or Popes affirming that doctrine to appertaine to faith which Popes Councells and Doctours doe propound or suppose as a sure foundation of their decrees and sentences c. which assertion may be applied not onely to the decree of the Lateran Counell but also to the decree sentence of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons and it doth also prooue that the ground and foundation of euery sentence whereby any Emperour or King hath beene deposed by the Pope doth consequently belong to faith which because it is repugnant to the common doctrine of all Diuines Mr. Fitzherbert would onely apply to the decree of the Lateran Councell and thereupon he did fraudulently as you haue seene both conceale my first instance and also change and curtoll the first argument of Fa. Lessius which doth plainely shew that he hath a great diffidence in his cause and that his meaning is not to deale sincerely in the examining of this dangerous and difficult controuersie 20 Secondly wheras Mr. Fitzherbert accuseth me of irreuerence to the Sea Apostolike seeing that I thinke or insinuate at least as he saith that Popes haue most grieuously and perniciously erred many times in their licences dispensations and other actions he sheweth euidently therein rather his want of Christian charitie then any solid learning wisedome or discretion seeing that I neuer said or insinuated that Popes haue most grieuously erred many times in their licences dispensations and other actions but I onely related the opinions of learned and vertuous Catholikes and who were also much deuoted to the Sea Apostolike and one of them also a Pope from whose doctrine it cleerely followeth that if to erre in the due administration of the Sacraments be a most grieuous and pernicious errour both in regard of the irreuerence done to the Sacrament and also the wrong done to the person who is defrauded of the benefite thereof then those Popes who haue giuen authoritie to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation whereby the administration thereof is inualid and repugnant to the institution of Christ haue most grieuously and perniciously erred 21 But if Mr. Fitzherbert will needes haue vs to approoue all the licences dispensations decrees and other actions of Popes vnlesse wee must haue an irreuerent opinion of the Sea Apostolike what will hee say of Melchior Canus a learned religious man much deuoted to the Pope who boldly saith that he doth not approoue all Church-lawes Canus lib. 5. de locis cap. 5. q. vlt concl nor commend all punishments Censures Excommunications Suspensions Irregularities interdicts and a little beneath hee affirmeth l Cap. 5. propo finem that those who rashly and without election doe defend euery sentence or iudgement of the Pope concerning euery thing doe weaken not strengthen doe ouerthrow not establish the authority of the Sea Apostolike What will he say of Siluester a man also no lesse addicted to the aduancing of the Popes temporall authoritie who affirming that the Pope hath no authoritie to dispence in the solemne vow of religious chastitie and some obiecting that they haue seene the Pope so to haue dispenced de facto answereth boldly Siluist in Sum. verbo votum 4. q. 5. in fine See Aluarus pelag lib. 2. de Planctu Eccles ar 5 in fine See Bell lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. that he also hath seene the Pope done greater things with the scandal all Christianity And to omit Aluarus Pelagius others who taxe freely the facts of many Popes what will he say of Cardinall Bellarmine who affirmeth that Pope Nicolas and Pope Celestine haue in their Decrees or Decretall Epistles expresly taught false doctrine concerning the Sacraments of Baptisme and Matrimony But this is a vsuall tricke of my Aduersaries when they are pressed with any argument to flie to rayling and disgracefull speeches and which with the same facilitie and vpon the like grounds may be retorted backe vpon themselues 22 But to answere Widdringtons argument saith Mr. Fitzherbert Pag. 187. nu 6. grounded vpon this instance or example whereas he laboureth to proue thereby that the foundation or ground of the Decree of the Councell of Lateran concerning the deposition of Princes may be vncertaine because the ground of some Popes dispensations in the administration of a Sacrament is vncertaine he argueth most absurdly For there is such an euident disparity betwixt the particular facts or dispensations of Popes touching particular persons Countreys or Churches and the generall Decrees of Popes and Generall Councells made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church that a man may wonder how he could forget himselfe so farre as by an instance of a supposed possibility of errour in a particular fact of some Pope to impugne a generall Decree of a Pope together with a generall Councell 23 What a great distrust Mr. Fitzherbert hath of his cause the Reader may easily perceiue by this that he seldome propoundeth any one argument or answere of mine but he vseth therein some notable fraud or falshood And first he would heere make his Reader beleeue that he hath fully answered my first instance or argument which was grounded
neuerthelesse according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus are necessary to make any Decree of a generall Councell to appertaine to faith And secondly heere in this place I did only argue against the first argument brought by Fa. Lessius who in his Maior proposition speaketh generally of all decrees and sentences of Popes and Councels That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe either propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences c. And against this argument I did oppose as you haue seene another like instance grounded vpon three examples of decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences of diuers Popes which instance of mine Mr. Fitzherbert concealeth and by the word foundation I did not onely vnderstand the reason which mooued those Popes to make such decrees and to grant such dispensations and licences as for example that S. Gregory as my Aduersary saith graunted licence to some Priests in Sardinia to administer the Sacrament of confirmation by reason of the great want of Bishops in that Iland but by the word foundation I vnderstood the authority it selfe which those Popes pretended to haue to make such decrees and to grant such licences and dispensations and the reasons and foundations whereon that pretended authority of theirs was grounded which authority of theirs I shewed to be vncertaine and consequently not to belong to faith and therefore the first argument of Fa. Lessius to be defectiue 29 And although there bee an euident disparitie betwixt the Decrees of Popes and the Decrees of generall Councels yet it is apparant that according to my Aduersaries principles who affirme that all the infallibility of the Decrees of Generall Councels doth wholly depend vpon the Pope wee may according to their grounds proportionally argue of the infallibilitie of the Decrees of Popes and of General Councels and that if the Pope may erre in his priuate iudgement particular facts and decrees concerning manners which are referred to particular persons Bishops or Churches a Generall Councell also may erre in the like and if to make a Decree of a Generall Councell to belong to faith it bee necessary according to their doctrine that it bee a true and proper Decree and must also be propounded as of faith or necessarily grounded vpon some vndoubted doctrine of faith the like also they must say of the Decrees of Popes From whence it cleerely followeth that according to their owne principles no forcible argument can bee drawne either from the iudiciall sentence of Pope Gregory the seuenth against Henry the fourth Emperour or of Pope Innocent the third against Philip and Otho or of Pope Innocent the fourth in the Councell of Lyons against Fredericke the second or from any other deposition of whatsoeuer King or Emperour or also from the Decree of the Lateran Councell although we should suppose as wee doe not that it doth concerne the deposition of temporall Princes and was made by true Ecclesiasticall authority without any necessitie that Christian Princes should approoue and confirme the same yet I say no forcible argument can bee drawne from thence to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted doctrine of faith seeing that the former sentences and depositions doe onely concerne particular persons and this Act of the Lateran Councell is not according to their owne grounds a true and proper Decree and none of them are propounded as of faith as any man of iudgement out of those rules which Card. Bellarmine and Canus haue brought to know when any Decree is propounded as of faith may very easily perceiue 30 Besides that Widdrington inferreth absurdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 188. nu 8. 9. that because the reason which mooued some Popes to grant that licence was vncertaine or seemed erroneous to some learned men therefore it was vncertaine also in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence as who would say that because the reason of Pope Pius his Decree concerning the obseruation of the Feast of Easter seemed vncertaine to the Churches of Asia therefore it was vncertaine in it selfe or to Pope Pius who made the Decree whereas the reason or gound of the said Decree to wit the tradition of the Romane Church was not onely certaine to Pope Pius and his Successour Victor o Euseb l. 5. hist c. 24. 25 who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for resisting it but also to the first Councell of Nice which afterwards decreed the same yea to the whole Church which followeth the Decrees of the said Pope and Nicen Councell accounting them for heretikes that doe contradict them as I haue shewed before p See Chap. 13 nu 4. 7. And see also the answere therevnto chap. 13. nu 22. seq 31 The like also may bee said of the rebaptization of such as are baptized by heretikes which was condemned by the Sea Apostolike vpon an assured ground albeit the same seemed vncertaine and erroneous to Saint Cyprian and to a Synode of Bishops with him who were of contrarie opinion So as it is euident that many things may seeme vncertaine to some learned men and yet bee most certaine to the Sea Apostolike and therefore Widdrington argueth very ridiculously if hee inferre as hee seemeth to doe that the reason which mooued some Popes to giue licence to Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation is vncertaine or erroneous because it seemeth so to some learned men 32 But besides that I made no such inference as this man faigneth and the Reader may plainely see by the examples and instances which I haue entirely set downe and Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed it is euident that hee heere insinuateth giuing credit therein to Fa. Lessius a most dangerous and pernicious doctrine to wit that all Catholikes are bound to follow in matters which are in controuersie among learned men the Popes priuate spirit faith and knowledge as though the Church of God were to bee guided and gouerned in matters which are questionable among learned Catholikes by the priuate faith spirit or knowledge of any man yea of the Pope himselfe or that Christ had promised his infallible assistance to the Popes priuate knowledge or iudgement 33 And first whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that although the reason which mooued some Popes to grant licence to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation seemed vncertaine to some learned men yet it was not therefore vncertaine in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence hee speaketh very improperly For albeit truth and falshood are taken from the thing it selfe according to that knowne maxime of Aristotle ex eo quod res est vel non est propositio dicitur vera vel falsa and so may bee said to bee in the thing it selfe yet certaintie as certaine is opposed to doubtfull vncertaine fallible probable erroneous is not properly in the thing it selfe but in the vnderstanding
thing it selfe which he testifieth for that this may very well be true that Fa. Parsons did seeke to perswade and induce his Holinesse to that course of mitigation which M. Fitzherbert mentioneth to wit not to proceed with Censures against his Maiesty to which course Fa. Parsons might imagine his Holinesse to haue at that time some inclination in regard both of the new oath then established by his Maiestie and the Parliament which doth so much derogate from the pretended authority which the Bishops of Rome since the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth doe challenge ouer temporall Princes to depriue them of their Princely authority and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance and also of the seuere lawes which were then newly enacted against Catholikes vpon occasion of that horrible Gun-powder conspiracy plotted onely by Catholikes and yet withall it may also be true as onely by the way I did affirme and by many probable coniectures sufficiently confirme that Fa. Parsons did also induce and mooue his Holinesse to the publication of his Breue against the taking of the oath for that betwixt these two there is no repugnance at all and whether hee did or no it is not much materiall to my second answere or reason which M. Fitzherbert tooke vpon him to impugne 54 Neuertheles concerning Mr. Fitzher testification vpon his own knowledge I must tell him in plaine words that I can giue no credit to his testimonie albeit he should confirme it by solemne Oath vnlesse I could be morally certaine that he vseth heerein no equiuocation or mentall reseruation whereof I can hardly be assured considering especially his owne particular practise of equiuocation or mentall reseruation in the time of Pope Clement the eight in slandering and traducing so falsly and shamefully those foure Reuerend Appellant Priests for Schismatikes Spies Rebells and disobedient persons to the Sea Apostolike c. notwithstanding they being present them at Rome to craue iustice and to make manifest their oppression and innocencie and also in giuing testimonie to his Holinesse vpon his Oath that those English bookes which Fa. Parsons had deliuered to the Inquisition with diuers propositions therein contained shewing them to be heretical erroneous c. were truely translated wherein how fowly he and Fa. Parsons with diuers other their adherents did equiuocate to defend Fa. Parsons credit not onely his owne conscience but diuers other persons yet liuing can be a sufficient witnesse and considering also the common doctrine and practise of many of his Societie not onely touching equiuocation but also mentall reseruation which in very deede is flat lying grounded vpon that Chimericall and not intelligible vnion mixtion and composition or rather meere fiction of thoughts and words in one true mixt and compound or rather faigned proposition This I say being considered to omit now diuers other scandalous and pernicious positions and practises to this purpose which some of them especially of our English Nation doe maintaine and whereof I will hereafter if they vrge me thereunto more particularly treate I can giue no credit to any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert shall testifie vpon his owne knowledge vnlesse by some other meanes I shall finde it to be true 55 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert obserueth out of his owne testimonie concerning Fa. Parsons conference with his Holinesse to taxe me of improbabilitie and impertinencie This being so saith he e Pag. 217. I cannot omit vpon this occasion to desire thee good Reader to note the improbable and impertinent inference which Widdrington maketh vpon this answere of his Holinesse Dispu Theol. cap. 10. sec 2. nu 57. for he inferreth thereupon that his Holinesse did condemne the Oath by his Breues and held them for no Catholikes who inclined to take it because he was perswaded that his authoritie to proceed with Censures against the King and consequently his spirituall authoritie was denied thereby and then he concludeth Ibid. nu 58. that if his Holinesse was moued to condemne it for that cause by the instigation of Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and those seuen or eight Diuines mentioned in the letter aboue said Nimis proh dolor saith he manifestum est c. it is alas too manifest that his Holinesse was deluded to the great ignominie of the Sea Apostolike the grieuous scandall of Protestants and the vtter temporall ruine of very many Catholikes So Widdrington But I also must desire the Reader to note the egregios fraud and falshood of this man For I did not there inferre from the answere of his Holinesse as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruly affirmeth that his Holinesse did condemne the Oath by his Breues and held them for no Catholikes who inclined to take the Oath because he was perswaded that his authoritie to proceede with Censures against the King and consequently his spirituall authority was denied thereby but I made this inference first from the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine for that he was of opinion from which Diuines of Rome and consequently neither his Holinesse did dissent that the Popes power to excommunicate and inflict Censures his power to binde and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is plainely denied in the Oath and secondly from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter concerning the consultation of the Diuines of Rome had touching the Oath for that the Diuines of Rome did also suppose as I prooued in that place that the Popes power to chastice in generall and consequently his power to chastice by spirituall Censures is denied in the Oath So that I made there no inference from his Holinesse answere to Fa. Parsons but I onely made an explication of the said answere from the aforesaid inferences shewing from them the cause and reason why his Holinesse thought them to bee no Catholikes who inclined to take the Oath for that he was perswaded by the aduise of Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommuniate and to chastice Princes by Ecclesiasticall Censures is plainely denied in the Oath And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert to conceale his fraude omitteth to set downe my expresse words and the first part of Fa. Parsons letter and what I inferred from thence 57 Wherefore from the discourse which there I made and which Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale I concluded that Cardinal Bellarmine Fa. Parsons the other Diuines of Rome vsing such sophisticall inferences to wit that because we must sweare that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication made or to be made against his Maiestie we will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie c. therefore the Popes power to Excommunicate Kings is denied in the Oath and because the Popes power to punish Kings by deposing them and by absoluing their subiects from their allegiance is denied in the Oath therefore the Popes power to punish Kings in generall and to binde and loose in generall is denied in the Oath vsing I say such sophisticall inferences to
opinion are vncertaine and fallible and therefore although the Popes definitions made with mature deliberation and graue counsell may be a sufficient ground for Catholikes to thinke with opinion that the doctrine which he defineth is true if they haue no conuincing reasons to perswade them to the contrary yet they cannot be sufficient for Catholikes I doe not say to thinke probably but to beleeue assuredly with Catholike faith the doctrine which he so defineth without the approbation of a generall Councell to bee true The second difference is that albeit euery Catholike ought to be so firme and stedfast in his Catholike beliefe that hee must needes beleeue the contrary doctrine not onely to be false à parte rei but also to be improbable yet he ought not to bee so firme and stedfast in his opinion as to condemne of heresie errour or temeritie other learned Catholikes who hauing duely examined all the reasons and grounds for that opinion shall thinke against him or be of the contrary opinion although he pretend to prooue his doctrine to be true out of some Decree or definition euen of a generall Councell which Decree or definition the other learned Catholikes of the contrary opinion haue seene examined and answered thereunto and this I prooued at large in my Theologicall Disputation Å¿ Cha. 10. sec 2. out of the expresse doctrine of Fa. Vasquez which my ignorant Aduersary doth fraudulently conceale who as you haue seene vrgeth against mee certaine arguments which I there related and answered and dissembleth wholly the answeres which there I made to the same 86 Wherefore although the Pope be the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach and instruct them in the Catholike faith and in all other things which are necessary to saluation as also euery Bishop is a spirituall Pastour in his owne Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach and instruct all those that are committed to his charge in the Catholike faith and in all other things necessarie to the health of their soules because as Cardinall Bellarmine well affirmeth Bell. l. 5. de RoÌ„ Pont. c. 3. that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in his particular Dioecesse and those words Pasce oues meas Feed my sheepe Bell. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12 in sine Edit antiquâ—â— saith he and such like which are spoken to Saint Peter in regard of the Pastorall office are vnderstood to be spoken to all Pastors yet as no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith which the Bishop of the Dioecesse doth define or determine to be of faith so long as there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes concerning the certaintie of that doctrine for that it is certaine and agreed vpon by all Catholikes that euery particular Bishop may erre in his definitions and consequently they cannot be any assured and infallible grounds of the Catholike faith So also proportionally no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith any doctrine whereof there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes albeit the Pope without a generall Councell shall define it to be of faith for that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope defining without a generall Councell can erre or no and consequently vntill this controuersie be decided and determined by a generall Councell or the vniuersall acceptance of the Church as a point of faith such his definitions can be no assured and infallible grounds of true Catholike faith 87 And if you demaund that seeing the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way to saluation why are not all Christians bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund him I answere with the like demaund seeing that euery Bishop is the spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull within his Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way of saluation why are not all the faithfull within his Dioâ—cesse committed to his charge bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund them 88 But perchance you will say that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and his commaundements are Apostolicall as Mr. Fitzherbert in this Treatise often vrgeth against me the authoritie of the supreme spirituall Pastor his Apostolicall Breues and commandement therfore there is a great disparitie betwixt the Pope and the inferiour Bishops True it is that there is a great disparitie and difference betwixt the Pope who is the supreme Pastour and other Bishops who are not supreme but as there is a great disparitie betwixt them so there is a great difficultie and controuersie among learned Catholikes in what this disparitie and this supremacie of the Pope doth consist which were to long to examine at this present perchance hereafter if my Aduersaries will vrge me thereunto I shall treate of this disparitie and the Popes Supremacie more at large In the meane time all Catholikes doe agree in this that the Popes Supremacie doth not consist in this that he cannot command any vnlawfull thing and contrary to the law of God or that he cannot teach false doctrine and contrary to the word of God or that he cannot exceede the authority which Christ hath granted him or that hee cannot challenge to him a power or Iurisdiction as due to him which Christ hath not giuen him Yea and according to the doctrine of many famous and learned Catholikes cited by me elsewhere t In disp Theol. cap. 10. § 2 nu 27. the Popes Supremacy doth not consist in this that he cannot erre and bee deceiued in his definitions albeit they bee directed to the whole Church if he define without the approbation of a generall Councell or the acceptance of the vniuersall Church and consequently such his definitions cannot be certaine and infallible grounds of true Catholike Faith 89 Neyther are his commandements definitions or letters called Apostolicall for that they are alwayes conforme to the law of God and to the doctrine of the Apostles neyther is his authority called Apostolicall for that he hath alwayes the assistance of the holy Ghost anexed to his Decrees and doctrine in that manner as the Apostles had but chiefly and principally for that he is the successour of S. Peter the first Apostle and hath authority and iurisdiction ouer all Christians as the Apostles and principally S. Peter had although not with the like infallibility and continuall assistance of the holy Ghost And so the parity doth still remaine betwixt the Pope and other Bishops notwithstanding his Primacie in that both are Pastours and therefore are bound by their pastorall function to feede their sheepe to instruct them in the Catholike faith and to direct them in