ROGER WIDDRINGTONS Last REIOYNDER TO Mr. THOMAS FITZ-HERBERTS REPLY CONCERNING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE And the POPES power to depose PRINCES Wherein all his arguments taken from the Lawes of God in the old and new Testament of Nature of Nations from the Canon and Ciuill Law and from the Popes Breues condemning the Oath and the Cardinalls Decree forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes are answered Also many Replies and Instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered PROVERBS 12. The lip of truth shall be stable for euer but he that is an hasty witnesse frameth a tongue of lying IHS Permissu Superiorum 1619. ⧠The CONTENTS of this TREATISE THE Preface to the Reader wherein it is shewed first how dangerous and pernitious a thing it is vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike Religion and to the Sea Apostolike to coyne teach and publish by fraude and violence false articles of Catholike faith especially in things which doe greatly derogate from the temporall Soueraignty of absolute Princes Secondly how exceedingly Widdringtons Aduersaries doe preiudice themselues and their cause by handling this controuersie concerning the Oath of Allegiance and the Popes power to depose Princes in such a fraudulent vncharitable and slanderous manner and in not permitting learned Catholikes to whom the charge of soules is committed and who ought alwaies to bee ready to satisfie euery one that asketh them a reason of their Catholike faith to try and examine by the true touchstone of Catholike faith and the vndoubted principles of Catholike Religion whether the faith which they pretend to bee Catholike bee a false and forged Catholike faith or no Thirdly what is Widdringtons chiefe drift in making this Reioynder and in continuing still to handle this controuersie CHAP. I. Widdrington freeth himselfe of two fraudes whereof he is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe againe vp his Aduersary Secondly hee discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds Thirdly he plainly sheweth that he hath answeared probably and like a good Catholike CHAP II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersary taken from the rule of the law The accessory followeth the principall is confirmed Secondly Two Instances which he brought against that rule are prooued to be sound and sufficient Thirdly that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue Secular iudgements c. is at large examined CHAP. III. Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime Hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed Secondly the foure Instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polony are confuted CHAP. IIII. Widdringtons interpretation of that clause of the Oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to bee sound and sufficient and is cleered from all absurditie and contradiction euen by M. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike CHAP. V. Widdringtons answeres to all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the olde and new Testament are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrary to his owne doctrine SEC 1. First all the authorities which are brought out of the old law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and other learned Diuines Secondly the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular SEC 2. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the olde law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authority of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastice and depose Kings is disprooued Secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered Thirdly it is shewed that the authority of S. Chrysostome brought by M. Fitzherbert to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authority he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth Saint Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine SEC 3. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the verity is prooued to make against himselfe Secondly those words of our Sauiour Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted Common-wealth are satisfied and Doctor Schulckenius Reply is proued to be fraudulent and insufficient Thirdly the authoritie of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were readie to reuenge all disobedience is answered M. Fitzherberts fraud in alledging the authority of S. Augustine is plainely discouered and the Conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be false and fraudulent CHAP. VI. M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ Secondly that Religious Priests cannot by the law of Nature punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the law of Nature the ciuill societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers Replies of M. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted CHAP. VII 1. Certaine places of the old and new Testament are explained 2. D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere Widdrington made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisburie grounded thereon and fourthly other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias
branch neither the Popes power to Excommunicate is abiured nor any sacriledge committed For hee who sweareth that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication to be denounced against the King he will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie although hee doth sweare that hee will obey the King being excommunicated because Excommunication hath not power to depriue Kings of their temporall dominions and Iurisdiction Apol. nu 346. as Becanus with many other learned Diuines whom I cited in my Apologie doth affirme yet he doth not sweare that hee will not obey a iust Excommunication as Cardinall Bellarmine doth ill conclude For albeit he beleeueth that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate hereticall Kings yet hee doth not beleeue that Excommunication being a spirituall Censure worketh this temporall effect to depriue hereticall Kings of their Royall authoritie to make Kings no Kings or to take away from subiects their naturall and ciuill obedience which by the law of God according to Cardinall Bellarmines owne doctrine n In tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. is due to all Kings although they be heretikes so long as they remaine Kings 20 Nowe Fa. Lessius argued in this maner You will say saith he that the power to excommunicate is not here denyed but onely a certaine effect of Excommunication which is that notwithstanding a Prince be excommunicated yet shall not the subiects be released from the bond of their allegiance But this effect doth necessarily follow the sentence of Excommunication as the practise of the Church for the space of more then twelue hundred yeeres doth shew To this argument I answered that by no practise at all of the Church it can be prooued that the absoluing of subiects from the bond of their alleagiance which by the law of God is due to all absolute Princes is an effect of Excommunication but at the most another punishment although sometimes imposed together with Excommunication as Becanus with many other learned Catholikes doe acknowledge concerning which punishment whether it may for any crime be imposed by the Popes authoritie vpon absolute Princes or onely vpon inferiour Princes by the consent of absolute Princes to whom they are subiect in temporals it hath euen bene and is also now a controuersie among learned Catholikes as by the testimonie of those two Authours whom I cited a little before o Nu. 13. and also of many others cited by me else where p in Apolog. nu 4 seq and in this Treatise part 1. per totum Becanus in q. de fide haereticis seruanda cap. 8. nu 16. Becan in Controu Angl. cap. 3. q. 2. Suarez tom 5. disp 15. sec 6. nu 3. it doth cleerely appeare 21 From hence it is very apparant sayth Becanus that heretikes by this precisely that they are excommunicated are not depriued of their dominion or iurisdiction either ouer their subiects or ouer their temporall goods but this depriuation is a distinct punishment and inflicted by a distinct law And againe It is one thing sayth he to excommunicate a King and another thing to depose him or to depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connected with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue bene excommunicated and yet not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and yet not therefore excommunicated 22 Excommunication sayth Suarez can not haue this effect to take away the dominion of a kingdome or of a people and the paying of tributes and doing seruices which are answearable thereunto concerning such subiects vnlesse an other thing be first supposed which is that the Lords be depriued of their dominion or the vse thereof because the dominion remayning still in it force it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey and consequently to communicate at leastwise as much as is necessary to fulfill their obligation according to the chapter Inter alia desentent excommun But Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect because as it doth not depriue of the dominion of other temporall things nor of the vse of them so it doth not depriue of this dominion because there is no more reason of that neither is there any law wherein this is specially ordained of Excommunication I say of Excommunication because this is sometimes ordained in the law concerning some excommunicated persons as heretikes yet by this speciall ordination we may vnderstand that Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect for when this effect is to follow it is necessarie that it be specially expressed in the law or sentence And therefore when this effect is adioyned I doe not call it an effect of Excommunication but a peculiar punishment imposed together with Excommunication as when an heretike is excommunicated and depriued of the dominion of his goods this depriuation is not an effect of Excommunication but a certaine punishment ioyned together with Excommunication Thus Suarez 23 We haue therefore out of Becanus and Suarez that the depriuing Princes of their dominion or iurisdiction is not an effect of Excommunication contrarie to that which Fa. Lessius saide Wee haue also out of Cardinall Bellarmine Bellar. in trac contra Barcl cap. 21. Pag. 202. and the same Suarez that subiects are not released from the bond of their obedience vnlesse the Prince be depriued of his dominion or iurisdiction for that to deny obedience to a Prince sayth Cardinall Bellarmine so long as he remaineth Prince is repugnant to the law of God and the dominion or iurisdiction of a Prince sayth Suarez Suarez in Defens fidei Cath. lib. 6. cap. 3. nu 6. remayning in its force and not being taken away it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey because the obligation of obedience sayth hee in any degree or state whatsoeuer doth so long endure in the subiect as the dignity or power and iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour for these are correlatiues and the one dependeth vpon the other So that you see how well these learned Diuines of the Societie of Iesus doe agree amōg themselues in assigning the reason for which this oath of allegiance doth containe in it a manifest deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and of his spirituall Supremacie And whether English Catholikes for so weake and slender arguments and wherein our learned Aduersaries doe not agree among themselues are bound to hazard their perpetuall libertie In Append. part 2. sect 4. and whole estate with the vtter ruine of their posteritie I remit to the iudgement of the pious and prudent Reader Thus I answered in my Theologicall Disputation which afterwards in my Appendix to Suarez I did more fully explaine Now let the Reader iudge whether this my answere to their argument be a vaine brag and an idle affirmation of my owne or a solid confutation thereof and whether I had not reason to affirme that learned men doe not blush to inculcate so often and secoldly without any solid proofe that very argument which
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
that they would bee the people of the Lord and after them doe immediately follow those words related by Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. Wherefore these last words which he bringeth for his onely ground are not so much to bee referred to the killing of Athalia as to the couenant made after Athalia was slaine betwixt Ioiada the people and the King that they would bee the people of God through which couenant made with God that they would bee his people they were mooued to destroy the house of Baal and his Images Therefore Cardinall Bellarmine doeth not well conclude from this place that Queene Athalia was slaine either by the proper authoritie of the high Priest as hee was high Priest or for Idolatrie in doing worship to Baal And although wee should also graunt him both yet how vicious it is to draw an argument from the killing of an vnlawfull Queene and vniustly vsurping the kingdome to prooue that a true King who is an Idolater may lawfully bee slaine any man that is not voide of naturall reason may presently perceiue Thus I answered to this example of Athalia in my Apologie 31 Now you shall see what a weake fallacious and slanderous Reply D. Schulckenius hath made to this my answere I answere saith hee r Pag. 558. that Athalia without doubt did tyrannically inuade the kingdome but seeing that shee ruled peaceably for sixe yeeres it is credible that by little and little by the consent of the people shee did get a lawfull right to the kingdome For so many Kings who are Tyrants in the beginning are afterwards by the consent of the people made lawfull Princes Surely Octauian Augustus himselfe who is numbred among the best Princes did oppresse the common wealth by force and armes and spoiled her of her libertie yet afterwards by the consent of the people hee began to bee accounted a lawfull Prince and did lawfully transfer the Empire to his posteritie Otho killed Galba Vitellius killed Otho Vespasian killed Vitellius Philip killed Gordian and yet they were all saluted Emperours by the Senate and people of Rome How did the Ostrogoths inuade and possesse Italie the Visigothe Spaine the Francks France the English Britanie and yet afterwards by the consent of the people they were accounted lawfull Kings of those Dominions 32 But any man though of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue the weakenesse of this his first Reply For first the maine controuersie betwixt mee and Cardinall Bellarmine as I haue often signified in other places at this present onely is whether it be certaine and a point of faith and by demonstratiue arguments it can be conuinced that the Pope hath power to depose temporall Princes and hee pretendeth to demonstrate the same and therefore hee calleth the contrarie opinion not so much an opinion as an heresie and his doctrine to bee the doctrine and voyce of the Catholike Church which euery Christian is bound to heare and follow otherwise hee is to bee accounted as a Heathen and a Publicane and now this Doctour for proofe of this his new Catholike faith bringeth a bare credibile est it is credible or which in sense is all one it is not incredible that although Athalia was without doubt an vsurpresse in the beginning yet afterwards by the consent of the people shee was lawfull Queene or did get a lawfull right to the kingdome as though a bare credibile est and sleight coniectures of his owne inuention are sufficient proofes to demonstrate a matter of so great moment as is the Popes authoritie to take away the kingdomes and liues of Soueraigne Princes who in temporalls are subiect to none but to GOD alone 33 Obserue now good Reader the reason for which this Doctour affirmeth that it is credible that Athalia did by little and little by the consent of the people get a lawfull right to the kingdome Because forsooth shee reigned peaceably sixe yeeres together as though either sixe yeeres prescription or peaceable possession is sufficient to giue to a most cruell Tyrant and Vsurper a true and lawfull right to the kingdome which he hath tyrannically vsurped especially the true and lawfull heire being aliue or thar sixe yeeres peaceable possession can be a credible presumption that the whole common-wealth hath giuen their free heartie and altogether willing consent that the said vsurper should be their true and rightfull King or thirdly that the common wealth can depriue the true heire and rightfull King of his right to the kingdome without any fault or negligence committed by him and giue it to another who hath no right thereunto For it is the common doctrine of the Lawyers Molina de Inst trac 2. disp 69. 74. as Molina well obserueth that ten yeeres at the least are required that a priuate man may against another priuate man get by prescription a lawfull right to any immoueable thing as lands houses or the like which hee bona fide with a good conscience possesseth and to get a lawfull right by prescription to those lands or houses which belong to the Crowne and yet may bee prescribed by a priuate man are required a hundred yeeres for those things which are intrinsecally due and proper to the Prince in signe of subiection due to him by his subiects as is the paying of tributes and which doe belong intrinsecally to his supreame temporall power as to punish offenders to bee subiect to the lawes to appeale to him from inferiour Iudges cannot by any subiect by continuall possession of neuer so long a time be prescribed besides that it is a common and approued rule of the law Å¿ Regula possessor de Reg. iuris in 60. and all Diuines that write de Iust Iure as Sotus Salon Aragona c. that whosoeuer possesseth any thing with a bad conscience can neuer prescribe or get a lawfull right to the thing which he possesseth See Molina tract 2. de Iustitia disput 72. 73. 74. and Lessius disp 2. cap. 6. dub 8. 12. 34 And therefore can any man be so senselesse as to imagine that only sixe yeeres possession are sufficient for a notorious tyrant and manifest vsurper who therefore can not with any probable presumption be thought to possesse with a good conscience the kingdome to get by prescription a lawfull right to a whole Realme against the true and rightfull heire who is liuing There is this deceipt Gregor Tholos lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 7. num 4. saith Gregorius Tholosanus of Tyrants or Vsurpers that after they haue inuaded the kingdome they would be partakers of the titles or rights of the true Princes whom they haue dethroned by vsing the generall Assemblies of the people or by forcing the authoritie of some Superiour which neuerthelesse doth not make them not to be true Tyrants and not to be contained in the lawes of Tyrants vnlesse as some are of opinion after they
in the Councell of Constance but the contrarie doctrine is damnable scandalous and seditious 78 Marke now what a trim consequence Mr. Fitzherbert gathereth from the premisses Whereupon sayth he b nu 18. pag. 78 it followeth that seeing Ioiada did lawfully depose Athalia being a holy man Matth. 23. Hieron lib. 4. in Num. cap. 23. and therefore called by our Sauiour Barachias that is to say Blessed of our Lord he did it not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person All this is true as you haue seene But that which he addeth to wit as High-Priest to whom it belonged to iudge of her cause is very vntrue neither doth it follow from his premises For his antecedent proposition was this Ioiada being high Priest deposed Athalia as her lawfull Iudge and not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person this I granted now he inferreth that Ioiada as high-Priest did depose her which I euer denied and he brought no shew of argument to proue the same only heere in the next words following he adioineth some colour of an argument for proofe thereof especially saith he c pag. 79. seeing that she was not only a cruell tyrant but also an abhominable Idolairesse hauing drawne her husband Ioram her sonne Ochozias and the people to Idolatrie and transferred the riches of Gods temple to the temples of Idolls which being matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest and therefore I conclude that Ioiada deposed her as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge according to the supreme authoritie that God gaue to the High Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall State So I in my Supplement 79 But how insufficient this conclusion is it will presently appeare onely by laying open the ambiguitie of those wordes Idolatrie being a matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest For it belonged indeed to the tribunall of the high Priest of the old Law and his consistorie to iudge what was Idolatrie as likewise now in the new Law it belongeth to the Pope and Church to iudge what is heresie or idolatrie and so to declare and determine what is heresie or Idolatrie is a matter of Religion both in the olde Law and in the new but it did not belong to the tribunall of the high Priest in the olde law but of the King and temporall state to punish Idolaters with corporall death as likewise in the new law to punish heretikes with corporall death being not a spirituall but a temporall matter doeth not belong to the spirituall power of Priests but to the temporall authoritie of temporall Princes Sot in 4. dist 29 q. 1. ar 4. Bannes secunda secundae q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine as I prooued also out of Sotus and Bannes in my Theologicall Disputation d C. 7. s 2. nu 17 And therefore in the old Law the temporall power was supreame and the spirituall was subiect to it for as much as concerned the power to constraine with temporall punishments and as well Priest as Lay-men were subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of the temporall State as I prooued before e Sec. 1 nu 5. 6. out of St. Thomas St. Bonauenture Abulensis and others whose doctrine also Cardinall Bellarmine doth not account improbable 80 Wherefore although it belonged to the High-Priest to declare the law of GOD yet to execute the law and to punish the transgressours thereof whether they were Priests or Lay-men with temporall punishments belonged to the supreame temporall power of the King and not to the supreame spirituall authoritie of the High-Priest Seeing that Ozias saith Abulensis because he was King Abul q. 4. in c. 15. l. 4. Reg. was the executor of the law of GOD against offenders it belonged to him by his office to destroy all Altars which were without the temple of our Lord and to take away such a worship and consequently all Idolatrie vnder the penaltie of death And therefore I conclude that Ioiada did depose Athalia being a manifest Vsurper as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge but not according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the High-Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall state which as I prooued before was in temporalls supreame and not subiect but superiour to the spirituall power but according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the King to whom both Priests and Lay-men were subiect in temporalls and by whom they were to bee punished with temporall punishments whose place and person Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian while the King was in his minoritie did in all things represent Neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert either in his Supplement or in this his Reply as you haue cleerely seene brought any probable argument much lesse conuincing as hee pretended to impugne the same 81 Now let vs proceede to the example of King Ozias which is the last Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old Testament to which neuerthelesse I did abundantly answere in my Apologie which my answere he passeth ouer altogether with silence But before I set downe what hee saith heere concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to repeate my saide answere and what D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same for thereby the weakenesse of Mr. Fitzherberts obiection will presently appeare and so also hee shall not take occasion after his vsuall manner to remit his English Reader to D. Schulckenius to seeke out a Reply to that which I answered before in my Apologie concerning this example of King Ozias Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 8 82 In this manner therefore Cardinall Bellarmine argued from this example A Priest of the old law had authoritie to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie therefore in the new law the Pope hath authoritie to depriue a King of his kingdome for spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by leprosie The Antecedent proposition hee prooued thus for that wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that King Ozias when hee would vsurpe the office of a Priest was by the High Priest cast out of the temple and when he was for the same sinne stricken by GOD with leprosie hee was also enforced to depart out of the Citie and to renounce his kingdome to his sonne And that he was depriued of the Citie and of the administration of the kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest it is apparant For wee reade Leuit. 13. whosoeuer saith the law shall bee defiled with leprosie and is separated at the abitrement of the Priest shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing therefore that this was a law in Israel and withall wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that the King did dwell without the Citie in a solitary house and that his sonne did in the Citie iudge the people of the land wee are compelled to say that hee was
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
serued him but the rest which belonged to the Kingly affaires Ioathan did and perchance it is called a free house because it was out of the Citie Therefore that the Kingly estate prouision pompe should not cease Ioathan Ozias his sonne gouerned the Kings Pallace to wit he remained in the Kings house and all the Nobles and mightiest men of the Land had recourse to him as they were wont to haue recourse to Ozias and he kept all the seruants and all the other prouision which his Father kept that the Regall state should not seeme to be diminished and yet he was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate and the rest as follow before nu 104. 108 Wherefore D. Schulckenius perceiuing this his assertion not to be grounded either in Scripture reason or any other authoritie flyeth backe againe to his former answere that Ozias was at least wise depriued of the administration of the kingdome from whence first it is prooued sayth he that the Pope may inflict vpon a King for a iust cause a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome and secondly from thence consequently it is gathered that for a most important cause and a very heinous crime as is heresie he may inflict a greater punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome 109 But although I should grant to this Doctour that the High-Priest did depriue King Ozias per accidens and consequently not onely of the administration of the kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and right to reigne that is by declaring him to be a leper which disease did by the law of God as we now suppose but doe not grant depriue him ipso facto of his right to reigne yet froÌ„ thence it cannot be proued that the Pope hath the like authoritie to depriue an hereticall King of his Kingdome or the administration thereof per accidens or consequently for that no punishmeÌ„t is appointed by the law of Christ to heresie as it was in the old law to leprosie but to punish heretikes with this or that kind of spirituall punishment Christ hath left to the discretion of spirituall Pastours and to punish them with temporall punishments to the discretion of temporall Princes who therefore as well said Dominicus Bannes may put heretikes to death or punish them in some other manner But if Christ our Sauiour had in the new law assigned particularly any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods or the like for those who should bee infected with heresie as God in the olde law did ordaine that lepers should dwell out of the Campe in a house apart then the Pope might indeed punish heretikes temporally per accidens and consequently to wit onely by declaring the law of Christ and that they were infected with heresie to which crime such punishments are according to this supposition appointed by the law of Christ Neither should he heerein transcend his spirituall authoritie But to execute this law by putting heretikes to death or by inflicting vpon them temporall punishments and punishing them actually with the same doth exceede the limits of that spirituall authoritie which hath beene giuen to the Priests eyther of the new law or of the olde 110 And albeit Pope Innocent the fourth and also other Popes haue depriued Soueraigne Princes very few times for heresie but often for other crimes not onely of their administration but also of the kingdome it selfe yet this is no sufficient ground to prooue that they had any true and rightfull power so to doe as it is manifest of it selfe and in my Apologie I haue declared more at large z Nu. 444. 445 for that it is one thing saith Cardinall Bellarmine a In Respons ad Apolog. pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so of Popes and other persons and another thing to prooue their authoritie and power And thus much concerning the first part of my answere to the antecedent proposition of Cardinall Bellarmines argument The second part of my answere was contained in these words 111 Neither also doth Cardinal Bellarmine sufficiently confirme that the Leuiticall Priests had authority to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie onely of the administration of their Kingdomes for that time onely that they were infected with leprosie For albeit Ozias after he was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie did not administer the kingdome the cause thereof might bee for that hee being not fit to gouerne the kingdome during the time of his infirmitie did commit the gouernment to Ioathan his sonne and did appoint him the Administratour of the kingdome vntill he should be restored to his former health But that a Priest of the old law had authority to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie either of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof it cannot bee sufficiently gathered from the holy Scripture As also we cannot sufficiently collect from the holy Scripture that a Priest of the old law had authoritie to depriue housholders being infected with leprosie either of their goods or of the administration thereof although it be very like that seeing such householders ought at the iudgement of the Priest declaring them to be leapers to dwell out of the campe they themselues did commit to others the authoritie to bee administratours of their goods for the time they were infected with leprosie And so the weakenesse of the antecedent proposition is manifest 112 Now you shal see in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius replieth to this my answere I answere saith he b Pag 5â—â— These make nothing to the matter It is enough for vs that King Ozias did by the commandement of the High Priest dwell in a house apart from the time of his leprosie vntill his death and that seeing hee could not conuerse with the people he was enforced to permit the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing at all concerning the affaires of the kingdome was referred to him But if he had not beene subiect to the power of the High Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will dwell in the Kings Cittie and gouerne the kingdome either by himselfe or by his Ministers For leprosie doth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne Truly Naaman Syrus was a leeper and because he was not subiect to the high Priest of the Hebrewes he did nâ—t dwell in a house apart but he was the Generall of Warfare and he went wheresoeuer he would See 4. Reg. 5. And in the same manner the High Priest might depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially if they had any in Citties because he did separate them from the people or the conuersation of men and did exclude them from Citties and consequently depriued them of the administration of those goods which they had in Citties albeit they might administer them by
Church of Christ which is called euery where in the Scripture Regnum Caelorum the kingdome of heauen though on the other side the consequent must needs be good that what excellencie dignitie or perfection soeuer was in the Synagogue the same must needs be farre more eminent and excellent in the Church of Christ as the Apostle taught expressely 2. Cor. 3. arguing thus Si ministratio damnationis c. If the ministration of death with letters figured in stones was in glorie that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moyses for the glorie of his countenance which is euacuated how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more in glorie For if the ministration of damnation be in glorie much more the ministerie of iustice aboundeth in glorie Thus argueth S. Paul proouing à fortiori the supereminent dignitie and glorie of Christs law by the great and eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law Hebr. 6.7.8 9. whereto tendeth also his argument to the Hebrewes concerning the imperfection and infirmitie of the Leuiticall Priesthood in regard of the most excellent and high perfection of the Priesthood of Christ 4 Whereupon it followeth euidently saith Mr. Fitzherbert f nu 29. 30 31. 32. that seeing the Priesthood of the olde Testament had such a supreme and soueraigne authoritie to create anoynt punish and depose Kings as appeareth in the former examples the Priesthood in the new Testament can not haue lesse power and authoritie for it can not be with reason imagined that God hauing taken vpon him our humanitie and honoured the same with a peculiar and mere excellent Priesthood then that of Aaron yea ordained a visible succession of Pastours and Priests for the gouernment of his Church to continue as the Apostle witnesseth g 1. Cor. 11. Ephes 4. Matth. 28. Luk. 10. Matth. 18. Heb. 13. vntill the end of the world commanding also that they should be heard and obeyed as himselfe it were I say against reason to thinke that he would giue lesse honour and priuiledge to these his owne substitute in his owne kingdome then he gaue to the successours of Aaron in the olde law whereby the shadow would be more worthie and perfect then the bodie the figure then the veritie the Leuiticall or Aaronicall Priesthood then the Priesthood of Christ and finally the Iewish Synagogue then Christs owne spouse and mysticall body which is his Church of the glorie maiesty whereof the Prophet I say foretold speaking in the person of God thus Ponam te saith he in superbiam seculorum c. Isay 60. I will place thee as the pride of all worlds or ages a ioy to generation and generation and thou shalt sucke the milke of nations and shalt bee fedde with the paps of Kings and the children of those who haue humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and shall adore the footsteps of thy feete and thy gates shall bee open continually and they shall not bee shut day nor night that the strength of all nations and their Kings may bee brought vnto thee For the Nation and the Kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish c. 5 Thus promised almighty God by his Prophet to raise and aduance the Church of Christ aboue the power of all Nations and kingdomes insomuch that hee threatned ruine and destruction vnto them Matth. 18. if they did not serue her whereby it maye easily be iudged what an excellent and eminent power our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter and his Successours when he not onely promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a rocke and that the gates of hell should not preuaile against it but also gaue him such ample authority to binde and loose that whatsoeuer he should binde or loose on earth should be bound and loosed in heauen yea and finally made him supreme Pastour of his flocke commanding him thrice to feede his sheepe and lambes that is to say to gouerne those that should any way pertaine to his fold the Catholike Church Thus said I in my Supplement Whereby it may appeare that the Popes power to chastice Princes temporally is most conforme to the law of God not onely in the old Testament but also in the new according to Saint Pauls argument a fortiori before mentioned drawne from the figure to the veritie And therefore now to declare how I prooued the same further by the new law c. Thus argeth Mr. Fitzherbert 6 Marke now good Reader what a trimme disourse this man hath made agains himselfe and what grounds he hath laid to ouerthrow his owne argument he groundeth thereon For first I doe willingly grant his first position to wit that the old Testament was a figure of the new the earthly Hierusalem a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the Iewes a figure of the heauenly and spirituall kingdome of Christ the eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law a figure of the supereminent dignitie and glory of the law of Christ the Priesthood in the old law farre inferiour in authoritie excellency and perfection to the Priesthood in the new law yea and that all things for the most part chanced to the Iewes in figure for that nihil as perfectum adduxit lex The law brought nothing to perfection But secondly concerning his second position it followeth euidently from hence that not only the defects of the old law cannot serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ but also that all things in the olde law being compared to the law of Christ were defectiue and imperfect for that the law brought nothing to perfection and that all the authoritie excellency and perfection of the old law was a figure and shadow of the authoritie excellency and perfection of the law of Christ 7 Whereupon it followeth euidently that although wee should suppose only for Disputation sake because the contrarie we haue sufficiently prooued before that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreame and soueraigne authoritie to create annoint punish or depose Kings yet we cannot from thence as from the figure to prooue the veritie conclude that therefore the Priesthood in the new Testament must haue the same authoritie for this were not to fulfill the figure as Cardinall Bellarmine before affirmed but that it must haue a farre more noble and excellent authoritie ouer Princes to create annoint punish and depose Kings in another more excellent degree to wit that considering the promises of the old law were earthly and of the new law heauenly the kingdome of the Iewes was temporall and the kingdome or Church of Christ eternall and spirituall from hence as from the figure to the veritie we may deduce a good argument to prooue that as the Priests of the old law had authoritie to cleanse corporall vncleannesse which did barre men from entering the earthly tabernacle made by the handes of men so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to
to prooue that this law of the Emperour Frederike was no way preiuciall to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran but a notable confirmation thereof which is nothing at all against mee For I neuer intended to deny that this Constitution of Frederike was against the Canon of the saide Councell but I expresly affirmed that it was the same law and constitution containing the very same wordes with that of the Councell changing onely spirituall punishments into temporall and that therefore those wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-Lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in both Decrees haue though not equally yet proportionally the like restriction and limitation in both For that which I affirme is that this great and famous Councell of Lateran where almost all the Ambassadours of Christian Kings and Princes were present did represent as the Cardinall of Peron doth well obserue the whole Christian world or Common-wealth as well temporall as spirituall and was as it were a generall Parliament of all Christendome consisting both of temporall and spirituall authoritie of temporall Princes and spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted therein concerning spirituall matters as is the inflicting of spirituall Censures for what crime soeuer either spirituall or temporall did proceede meerely from the authoritie of spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted concerning temporall matters as is this decree whereof now we treate concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they bee inflicted did proceede meerely from the authoritie of Secular Princes who are the head and fountaine of all temporall authoritie and of all power to dispose of temporall matters for that as I haue prooued more at large in the first part of this Treatise by the testimonie of many learned Catholikes the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment but that when the Church or spirituall Pastours doe inflict such temporall punishments it proceedeth from the positiue grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes 38 And from this ground it euidently followeth that not onely in this Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the temporall punishing of heretikes their abetters but also in all other Canons of Popes or Councells when the inflicting of any tēporal punishmēt is ordained it is as probable that all the force which they haue to bind doth proceede originally frō the positiue grant consent and authoritie of temporal Princes as it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not by the institutiō of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporal or ciuill punishments and consequently that temporall Princes are not by any generall wordes included in such decrees as being themselues supreame and next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be punished with temporall punishments but by GOD alone Wherefore vnlesse my Aduersaries doe first prooue which in my iudgement they will neuer bee able to doe by some conuincing argument grounded vpon the authoritie either of the Holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleare definition of the Church that this doctrine which denyeth the Pope to haue by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments is absurd and not probable they spend their time in vaine and beate about the bush to little purpose whiles they bring neuer so many decrees and canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained for still the maine question remaineth yet a foote by what authoritie to wit temporall or spirituall those Canons for as much as concerneth the inflicting of such temporall punishments haue force to binde and the answere of Almaine and of many other Catholike Doctours will bee still readie at hand that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath onely authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and that the other punishments which hee vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law authoritie grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes and that therefore the lawes or Canons of spirituall Pastours enacting them cannot bind or comprehend temporall Princes themselues 39 And by this the Reader may cleerely see both the ground and reason from whence I deduced probably that absolute Princes are not included vnder any generall words whatsoeuer in penall lawes and canons of the Church wherein temporall penalties are inflicted for neither are they included as you shall see beneath in the next Chap. in penall lawes wherein spirituall punishments are inflicted vnder generall words or names which denote titles of inferiour degree place and dignitie as are Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis a temporall or principall Land-Lord Gouernour or also Lord and such like and also how weakely not to vse Mr. Fitzherberts foule word absurdly he prooueth that I shew my selfe to bee very absurd in perswading the Reader that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in the Canon and in the Emperours law haue like restriction though not equally yet proportionally in both For what can be more cleare saith he h p. 145. nu 15 then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince who maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended only to his owne subiects whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall tearmes do comprehend all Christian men as well absolute Princes as others because they are all subiect thereto yet the Lawes of temporall Princes being made in the like or in the same generall tearmes can comprehend none but their owne subiects and this being so what an absurd argument hath Widdrington made who because the words are all one in the Canon of the Councell and the Law of the Emperour will restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne Dominion 40 And therefore though the words Dominus temporalis or principalis or non habens Dominum principalem be generall in his Law yet they can bee vnderstood of none but such as being his subiects held their Lands or states of him or of some other in his Dominions in which respect Kings and other temporall Princes which held not of the Empire could not be comprehended therein though the same generall words in the Canon must needes comprehend as well all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes as other inferiour Lords because all of them being Domini temporales are subiect alike to the decrees of a generall Councell 41 True it is that nothing is more cleere then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of
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
scrupulous and vnlearned Catholikes and to nourish in their hearts such dangerous speculations which without manifest treason can neuer bee put in practise Thirdly to make manifest to all men that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not certaine vnquestionable and a point of faith but very doubtfull vncertaine and at the most onely probable and consequently that it cannot bee practised by the Pope or any other whatsoeuer without manifest iniury to the Prince who is in lawfull possession of his Kingdome of which the Pope vnder pretence onely of a probable power or title seeketh by his sentence to depriue him for that according to the approued rule of the law and grounded vpon naturall reason In causa dubia De regulis Iuris in 6. ff de regulis Iuris regula In pari causa siue incerta melior potior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable case the condition of the possessour is to bee preferred And therefore as well obserueth Fa. Lessius in his Singleton a Par. 2. nu 38. potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. A power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished and be depriued of his right and dominion but such a power must be most certaine and not doubtfull or disputable c. 16 So that there is a great difference to be made for as much as concerneth practise betwixt a power onely probable which tendeth to fauour and is hurtfull to none and which is penall and preiudiciall to a third person who is depriued thereby of some thing which he lawfully possesseth For it is most certaine and approoued by all Diuines that one may practise a probable power to vse Lessius words Quando agitur de fauore beneficio nemo cogitur nemo iure propinquo seu in re obtento spoliatur sed potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. When it is treated of a fauour and benefit and no man is forced or compelled no man is spoiled of his next right or which hee possesseth indeed but a power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished or depriued of his right and dominion c. And for this cause my Aduersaries knowing right well that if they should once admit that this power of the Pope is onely probable they must con-consequently grant that it is merus titulus sine re and can neuer bee lawfully put in practise by any Pope Prince or subiect whatsoeuer haue so much laboured to conuince out of all lawes humane and diuine that this power is not onely probable but most certaine and a cleare point of faith But how shamefully they haue spent their labour in vaine and what friuolous and fallacious arguments they haue brought vnder pretence of spirituall good to make Soueraigne Princes whom all the ancient Fathers with uniforme consent acknowledge to bee supreame on earth and next vnder God in temporals to bee in temporals subiect to the Pope and that the more they striue to make their doctrine in this point to be certaine and of faith the more they shew it still to be lesse probable and to bee inuented and maintained onely in fauour of the Pope without sufficient grounds thou shalt see it good Reader in this Treatise made as cleare and manifest as the light at noone-day 17 Onely I must desire thy patience and pardon for my often repeating the selfe same things which may seeme to some to bee both superfluous and tedious but to me for satisfaction chiefly of the vnlearned Reader it seemed very necessary especially for that the chiefe state of the controuersie depends thereon and yet my Aduersaries will scarse take notice thereof yea and are not ashamed to affirme that I doe not teach any such things although they haue beene by mee very often inculcated As among other things for example sake albeit I haue in all my bookes so often repeated that distinction betwixt the directiue and coerciue power betwixt commanding enioyning or imposing and inflicting punishing or disposing and that I doe so often and so expresly affirme that spirituall Pastours haue by the institution of Christ authority to command enioyne and impose temporall and coporall penalties but to inflict them to punish temporally and to dispose of temporall things onely by the consent and grant of temporall Princes Page 258. yet Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius is not ashamed to auerre that Widdrington denieth the Pope to haue authority to command temporall Princes in temporals in order to spirituall good and therevpon taxeth him of teaching flat heresie and the most that M. Fitzherbert prooueth in this his Replie is as you shall see that spirituall Pastours may for the necessitie of the Church and the good of soules command enioyne and impose temporall and corporall afflictions as fasting almes deedes vsing of haire-cloth and the like wherof no Catholike maketh doubt And therefore I thought it necessarie to inculcate as often as occasion should require the aforesaid distinction it being the maine marke to which the greatest part of all my Aduersaries arguments and of my answeres doe principally tend and whereon the whole state of the Controuersie betwixt me and them concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporals doth chiefly depend CHAP. I. Wherein Widdrington freeth himselfe from two fraudes whereof hee is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe vpon his Aduersarie secondly he discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds and thirdly hee plainely sheweth that hee hath answered probably and like a good Catholike 1. THere bee three things Good Reader which my Aduersary Mr. Fitzherbert in the first chapter of his Reply doth wrongfully lay to my charge The first is that I haue lamely and fraudulently set downe the summe and substance of his discourse in the two first Chapters of his Supplement the second that in relating a supposition of his I haue vsed two fraudes the one in the relation of his wordes and the other in the vse and application of them the third is that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike And because the Reader may the better iudge of the sufficiencie and truth of both our answeres for my onely desire is that the trueth in this difficult controuersie may be cleerely knowne I will obserue the same methode order and number of Chapters which he doth and therefore my answere to his first accusation for that he remitteth his Reader for proofe thereof to his fift sixt and seuenth Chapters I will also referre to those places and only his two accusations I will examine with him in this
it is denied in this oath but supposeth it as being graunted or knowen of it selfe 13 Whereby it is apparant that I am free from all fraude in this point and that my Aduersarie cannot bee excused from fraudulent proceeding both for wrongfully accusing mee of fraude and also for taking vpon him in the beginning of his Discourse to impugne the oath as being repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for that it containeth a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes and yet not bringing any one argument to prooue that his power to excommunicate is denyed therein but supposing it as knowne or granted and cunningly passing ouer to his power to depose which considering It hath euer beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor f Tom. 2. l. 11. cap. 5. q. 8. betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one part and the Bishops of Rome on the other and the Schoolemen saith Trithemius g In Chronico Monast Hirsaug ad annum 1106. doe contend about the same it is no hard matter for a man of meane Theologicall learning to scrape together as Mr. Fitzherbert hath done out of so many Authors who haue written in fauour of the Popes power to depose Princes some colourable arguments to prooue the same all which neuerthelesse haue beene heeretofore by mee and others very cleerely answered 14 Considering therefore that neither his Maiestie did intend to deny in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate him although the lower house of Parliament as his Maiesty himselfe affirmeth h In his Premonition p. 9. at the first framing thereof made it to containe as much which hee forced them to reforme neither is there any one clause in the oath from which it may bee gathered that the saide power to excommunicate is denied therein neither did my Aduersary bring any one argument or shew of an argument to prooue the same although in the very beginning of his Discourse hee promiseth to prooue that the oath in respect of this clause is repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for this cause I vsed these words which now my Aduersary carpeth at That it is a wonder that learned men do not blush to affirme with so great confidence that to be his Maiesties meaning which hee himselfe in publike writings doth expresly professe not to be his meaning and to inculcate so often and so coldly without any solide proofe that very argument concerning the deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate which both by his Maiestie and many others hath beene so often very soundly confuted 15 Now Mr. Fitzherbert taketh great exceptions against these wordes and groundeth vpon them his third accusation that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike Whereto I answere first saith hee i Nu. 14. concerning his vaine bragge of the sound confutation of our argument that seeing the same hath no other ground or proofe heere but his owne word and idle affirmation it deserueth no other answere for this place but a flat deniall But I might likewise returne his owne answere of his vaine brag and idle affirmation to those words of his k Nu. 10. 11. 12. That the oath implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacy and that hee and others haue amply prooued that whosoeuer abiureth the Popes power to depose Princes doth consequently abiure his spirituall authoritie yet I will abstaine from such bitter termes and whether it bee a vaine bragge of my owne and an idle affirmation or rather a very true assertion that their argument concerning the deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate whereof in that place I did onely speake hath beene sufficiently confuted or no the Reader by my answeres may easily perceiue 16 For Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Lessius Gretzer and this my Aduersary doe affirme the oath to be vnlawfull and to deny the Popes spirituall authoritie for that it denieth his power to excommunicate which all Catholikes graunt to bee included in his spirituall Primacy That his power to excommunicate is denied in this oath Fa. Gretzer and my Aduersarie doe suppose as manifest neither doe they bring any one argument for the proofe thereof and therefore their assertion or rather supposition may with a meere deniall bee as easily confuted Cardinall Bellarmine also at the first did barely without any proofe but onely by the way of an interrogation affirme or rather suppose the same And being taxed by his Maiestie of falshood for affirming so boldly That the Popes power to excommunicate are hereticall Kings is plainly denied in the oath seeing that this point converning the Popes power to excommunicate was in this oath purposely declined by his Maiesty yet Cardinall Bellarmine afterwards in his Apologie l Cap. 15. bringeth no other proofe for cleering himselfe of that imputation then which in effect hee had brought before 17 That I did truely affirme saith he that the Popes power to excommunicate euen hereticall Kings is denied in that forme of oath it is manifest by those wordes of the oath Also I doe sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of Excommunication or depriuation made or granted or to bee made or granted by the Pope or his Successours c. I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie his Heires and Successours But whosoeuer sweareth that he will obey an hereticall King notwithstanding the Popes excommunication doth not hee together sweare that he acknowledgeth not in the Pope power to excommunicate hereticall Kings for otherwise it were not an oath but sacriledge to sweare that hee will not obey the sentence of Excommunication made by the Pope against an hereticall King if he should beleeue that the Pope hath power to excommunicate hereticall Kings 18 To this argument I gaue two answeres m In Disput Theol. cap. 4. sect 1. The first was that a Catholike man either terrified with feare or mooued for hope of gaine may sweare that he will not obey a iust Excommunication and by so swearing commit sacriledge who neuerthelesse doth beleeue that the Pope hath power to excommunicate And therefore from those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. I will beare true allegiance to his Maiestie c. or to speake more plainly from these words notwithstanding aiust Excommunication I will not obey it it cannot bee rightly inferred that I therefore deny the Popes power to excommunicate But whosoeuer sweareth in that manner saith Cardinall Bellarmine either denyeth the power to excommunicate or committeth sacriledge Be it so But if this second were freely granted him this neuerthelesse being granted I cannot in any wise perceiue that to bee true which hee before did absolutely and without any disiunction affirme In this branch of the oath the Popes power to excommunicate hereticall Kings is plainly denied 19 My second and principall answere was the very same in effect which his Maiestie before had giuen to wit that by swearing the foresayde
the fact and with Bellarmine and with almost all Historiographers and he will confirme the argument drawne from this example which hee endeuoureth to weaken For Bellarmine doth not reiect the Authors which my Aduersary citeth who doe adioyne the people of Rome to the Pope of Rome in the worke of the translation of the Empire so that the true power and authoritie of transferring the Empire be giuen to the Pope alone and assent desire request and acclamation be giuen to the people But if he will say that it was done by the authoritie onely of the people the Pope onely assenting and crowning the Emperour chosen by the people or also by the authoritie of the people and of the Pope together he will most manifestly contradict himselfe for that in this whole booke he hath repeated a thousand times that the people are bound by the Law of God to obey their Prince and that neither in the case of Heresie nor in any other case ciuill obedience can by the people be deuied to the Prince whom once thâ—y haue had and therefore that the people who by the Law of God are subiect cannot depose their Prince Let my Aduersary Widdrington choose what part he will and hee will be compelled either to agree with us or to contradict himselfe 42 Thus you see what a braue flourish D. Schulckenius hath made especially to those who haue not read my Apologie as though forsooth he had said something to the question which was betwixt mee and Cardinall Bellarmine or had brought some new argument which was not answered by me in that place whereas it is as cleere as the Sun that this his Dilemma is a meere euasion and shift and altogether impertinent to the question and that I did fully satisfie it in that very place both by the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine and also by those authorities which hee alledged without contradicting my selfe at all For the maine question betweene mee and Cardinall Bellarmine was whether this translation of the Empire was done by the authoritie onely of the Pope or by the authoritie both of the Pope and also of the people and I proued cleerly by Cardinal Bellarmines owne grounds and also by his owne Authors that it was done both by the Pope and also by the Senate and people of Rome Now D. Schulckenius saith little or nothing to this question but flyeth to another by-question to wit whether it was done iustly or vniustly whereas the principall question was onely of the fact to wit by whom the fact was done whether by the Pope alone or also by the people and not whether the fact was iust or vniust So that you see heere be two questions the first is of the fact to wit whether there was any such fact and by whom and in what manner it was done with all other circumstances which belong to that particular fact the second is of the iustice or iniustice of the fact to wit whether that particular fact considered with all particular circumstances belonging thereunto was iustly or vniustly done 43 The first question as D. Schulckenius himselfe affirmeth t Pag. 591. is to be decided by the testimonies of Historiographers to whom it appertaineth to write barely simply and truely the facts of men and the second which doth necessarily suppose the first by Diuines or Lawyers to whom it appertaineth to decide what is right or wrong Marke now how cunningly D. Schulckenius to confound his Readers vnderstanding inuerteth the order of these questions and putting as it were the Cart before the horse demandeth that first which he should do last and that last which he should first For first he demandeth whether that fact to wit the translation of the Romane Empire from the Grecians to the French was iustly or vniustly done and secondly he demandeth whether it was done by the authoritie of the Pope alone or of the people alone or of the Pope and people together as though one should decide a case of conscience before it be knowen and agreed vpon what the case is and what be all the praticular circumstances which doe alter the case belonging thereunto For it is one case or question to put the translation of the Empire to be done by the Pope alone an other by the people alone a third by the Pope and people together Also it is one case if it be done by the Pope and people together when the Empire is forsaken and abandoned by the Emperour or which is all one with the expresse or tacite consent of the Emperour for that he refuseth to rule or reigne ouer the people any longer and an other case when the Empire is not forsaken by the Emperour or which is all one against the Emperours will and consent for that he will stil remaine to be their Emperour Now if D. Schulckenius had either put downe the case or question plainly with all particular circumstances belonging thereunto it would easily haue beene answered or else if it had pleased him to haue set downe my words and the case as I did put it and prooue it to be lawfull the Reader would presently haue seene that D. Schulckenius might well haue spared to make his aforesaid argument or Dilemma for that I did fully answere it in that place and that neither I contradicted my selfe nor that he did answere at all my argument but that rather by his silence he did sufficiently acknowledge that he could not answere it at all 44 For first I did affirme that the Romane Empire was translated from the Grecians to the French by the authoritie decree ordinance consent and suffrage both of the Pope and also of the people and not of the Pope alone and this I proued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds and also by his owne Authours and diuers others to whom also may be added u Lib. 1. hist Guylielmus Malmesburiensis x In vita Leonis tertij Aâ—astasius Bibliothecarius y lib. ad annum 781. Siffridus z In libro Augustali anno 801. Beneuutus de Rambaldis a Ennead 8. lib. 8. in fine Sabellicus b In Annalibus Galliae Nicolaus Gillius c Lib. 4. de regno Italiae Carolus Sigonius and many more Secondly I affirmed that the Emperours of Greece had the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned by them and that they refused to rule gouerne and protect them any longer and consequently that the translation done with those circumstances was iust and without any wrong done to the Grecian Emperours Neither in affirming this did I contradict my selfe For albeit I did oftentimes affirme that subiects are bound by the law of God to obey in ciuill causes their temporall Prince and that in no case they haue power to iudge him or to withdraw their temporall allegiance from him for that in no case an inferiour can iudge his Superiour as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth d lib. 2. de Concil cap. 18. for which cause
he affirmeth that the Church in no case can iudge an vndoubted Pope so long as he is Pope Neuerthelesse I neuer affirmed that when the Emperour doth abandon and forsake his Empire and people and refuseth to be their Emperour any longer but leaueth them to themselues it is not in their power to choose them an other Emperour or to change the Imperiall Monarchie into Aristocratie or Democratie for that then the supreme temporall power and authoritie is immediately in the people and this also I prooued in that place out of Card. Bellarmines owne principles 45 Wherefore when D. Schulckenius a little aboue affirmed that I doe oftentimes graunt that the people cannot in any case deny ciuill obedience to that Prince whom once they haue had if his meaning be that I doe graunt that he who is once a Prince can not of his owne accord leaue to be a Prince and can not resigne his kingdome to the next heire and that the people are bound to yeeld ciuill obedience to him who was once their Prince but now of his owne accord hath resigned his kingdome to the next heire he doth greatly wrong me and abuse his Reader for to affirme this were foolish and ridiculous and contrarie to all reason and practise but that which I affirmed was that it is very probable and defended by many graue and learned Catholikes that the people who are subiect can in no case nor for any cause iudge or depose their Soueraigne Prince against his will and my reason was the same which Card. Bellarmine oftentimes vseth to prooue that the Church or a Generall Councell can not iudge or depose the Pope for that it is contrarie to all reason for an inferiour or subiect to iudge his Superiour and therefore those Catholikes that holde a Generall Councell may in some cases iudge the Pope doe also holde that it is superiour and aboue the Pope 46 That the Grecian Emperours had the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned by them I affirmed in these words Seeing therefore that as Lupoldus or Ludolphus writeth and diuers other Authors as Nauclerus Aeneas Siluius and Michael Coccinius doe insinuate the Emperours of Greece in the time of Charles the great and also before his time to wit in the time of his father Pipine and of his grandfather Charles Martellus did reigne in the West Empire only in name neither could the Church of Rome nor other Churches of Christ or also any others being by the Longobards vniustly oppressed in the same Empire haue iustice by them or by their authoritie and so the aforesaid Emperours had the West-Empire in a manner forsaken by gouerning therein only in name as it appeareth by diuers Chronicles the Pope Senate and people of Rome at leastwise by the tacite consent of all other Westerne men who were subiect to the Empire had euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine but now related full right and power which they could loose by no custome or translation of the Imperiall Seate as being to them connaturall and due by the law of nature to choose themselues a new Emprour and consequently to transfer the Empire which the Grecians kept in the Westerne parts only in name to Charles the great and his Successours the Imperiall Seate being in those parts at that time as it were vacant or without an Emperour Thus I wrote in my Apologie e Nu. 438. 47 And moreouer that the Greeke Emperours had the Westerne Empire and people for forsaken and abandoned and gaue at leastwise their tacite consent according to that rule of the law qui tacet consentire videtur that they might choose to themselues another Empeperour at leastwise in power and authoritie it is apparant for that they did neuer repugne contradict or gainesay that Charles the great should rule ouer them although perchance it displeased them that hee should haue the name of Emperour Yea and as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe writeth when the Empresse Irene heard that Charles was called and crowed Emperour by Pope Leo shee did not onely gainesay but also she would haue married Charles and had done if certaine perfidious Eunuches had not hindered her as Zonaras and Cedrenus doe write in the life of the said Irene Afterwards Irene being dead Nicephorus the Emperour who did succeede her sent Ambassadours to Charles as to an Emperour as writeth Ado in this Chronicle of the yeere 803. And a little after Nicephorus being dead Michael suceeding him sent Ambassadours to Charles who likewise did publikely honour him as an Emperour as writeth Ado in his Chronicle of the yeere 810. All which doe sufficiently confirme that the Greeke Emperours did not gainesay this translation nor conceiue it to be a wrong done to them and in preiudice of their Imperiall right and Soueraigntie 48 By all which it is manifest first that I doe not any wrong at all to the Latin Emperours who haue beene and shall be from the time of that translation as though their Empire were not grounded vpon any sound title or foundation for that all writers and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe doe agree in this that the Pope together with the rest of the people haue power to choose them another Emperour in case the Emperour will no longer reigne ouer them because in that case the supreame temporall power and authoritie is onely in the people or whole multitude but rather Card. Bellarmine as also I obserued in that place f Nu. 462. doth call in question and make doubtfull the right and title which the Latin Emperours haue to the Empire in that hee affirmeth that they haue all their right and title from the Pope alone seeing that there be many learned and graue Authours who make a great doubt whether the Pope alone hath by the institution of Christ any such power and authoritie to transfer Empires but no Authour not so much as Card. Bellarmine himselfe according to his doctrine which I related in that place doeth deny that the whole multitude hath full power and authoritie to transfer the Empire in the aforesaide case to wit when the Emperour doth abandon the Empire and will no longer reigne ouer the people 49 Secondly it is also manifest that I haue not any way contradicted my selfe in my answere and that I haue cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds and by his owne Authours that the aforesaide translation was done by the authoritie decree ordinance and suffrages both of the Pope and of the people and consequently that the people did more then onely request applaude and assent to that translation to which D. Schulckenius maketh no answere at all and therefore his silence herein is both an euident signe that hee was not able to impugne my answere and that although hee doeth so highly commend his owne booke of the translation of the Empire as exactly soundly and diligently written yet his owne conscience for as much as concerneth this question seeth now the contrarie for that hee being so
plainly conuinced both by his owne principles and also by his owne Authours and diuers others that this translation was not done by the authoritie only of the Pope as hee pretended to prooue in that his booke of the translation but also of the people hee was engaged for the sauing of his credit to haue in some sort cōfuted my answere but to passe it ouer cunningly with a Dilemma not belonging to the principall question and which was also fully satisfied by mee in that place without setting downe any one word of my answere and so omitting contrarie to his accustomed manner aboue twenty pages of my text together doth argue no good and sincere proceeding And lastly it is also manifest what the Reader may thinke of my Aduersaries sinceritie who in this place doth so barely and nakedly repeate againe this argument without taking any notice of the answere which in my Apologie I gaue to the same 50 But the Empire of the West saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Nu. 13. p. 47 was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift and therefore Emanuel Commenus h Blond dec 2. l. 5. Platina in Alex. 3. Nauclerus generat 39. pag. 848. Emperour of Constantinople in the time of Fridereke the first vnderstanding of the dissention betwixt him and Pope Alexander the third sent Ambassadours to the Pope and offered him not only a great army with great summes of money but also to reunite the Greeke Church with the Latin if hee would restore that Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople 51 But neither Emanuel Commenus nor any other Greeke Emperour although from the particular fact of some one Emperour especially who was desirous to enlarge his Empire no good argumēt can be drawne to proue a right did acknowledge the Empire of the West to be the Popes gift in any other manner then they had read or heard from Historiographers to wit that the Pope was indeede the chiefe and principall but not the onely Authour of that translation And therefore Blondus one of Cardinall Bellarmines owne Authours doeth well affirme it to be manifest Blond decad 1. l. 3. in principle that the first translation of the Roman Empire frō the Constantinopolitans to the French Princes was done by the authoritie and consent not only of the Pope Clergy people of Rome but also by the suffrages of the people and principall men of all Italie Neither did Emanuel Commenus desire of Pope Alexander the third that he alone without the consent and suffrages of the Princes and people would restore the Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople but that he would be a meanes that it might be restored or translated to them againe as he was a chiefe meanes and principall Authour that it was translated from the Grecians to the French 52 In like manner saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Nu. 13. p. 47. the second translation of the West Empire from the French that is to say from the familie of Charles the great vnto the Germans was made especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike Bell. l. 2. c. 2. 3. as Card. Bellarmine prooueth cleerely in his Treatise of the translation of the Empire If my Aduersarie had said only by the authority of the Sea Apostolike he had spoken to the purpose but that word especially cleane ouerthroweth his argument For I will not contend with him at this present whether it was done especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike in that manner as I granted before that the first translation from the Grecians to the French was done especially chiefly or principally by the Popes authoritie but that either the first or second translation was done only by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike and not also of the people this I vtterly deny neither hath Card. Bellarmine in the aforesaid Treatise by any one sufficient argument prooued or is able to prooue the same 53 We reade also saith Mr. Fitzherbert that Clodoueus k Papyrius Maso in vita Henrici primi See Bozius de signis Ecclesiae lib. 10. cap. 12. the first Christian King of France being desirous after his Baptisme to make good and establish his right and title to that kingdome professed to receiue the same from the hands of the Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike But truly it is strange to see what strange arguments and voide of all probabilitie my Aduersaries dare bring for proofe of so great a matter as is the giuing taking away translating of Kingdomes and Empires For what Historiographer euer wrote that Clodoueus the first Christian King of France had no good right and title to his kingdome before he became Christian or that hee receiued his title right and authoritie to reigne from S. Remigius by commission of the Sea Apostolike and that he himselfe professed as much or that it belongeth to the Archbishop of Rhemes to choose the King of France if we will speake properly of choosing as though the Kings of France were Kings by election and not by hereditatie succession or that the right and title which the Kings of France haue to their kingdome depended vpon the election of the Archbishop of Rhemes or the Sea Apostolike If my Aduersarie were in France and would affirme thus much I feare me he would be glad to recant his doctrine in this point or to interpret his words in a better sense or else he might perchance to vse his owne words finde it to his cost 54 Neither doth Papirius Maso affirme as my Aduersarie and Bozius say that King Clodoueus or Lewis the first did professe to receiue his kingdome or his right and title thereunto from the hands of S. Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike neither could he with truth professe the same for that he was long before King of France and had true right and lawfull title to that kingdome before he was baptized by S. Remigius neither doth baptisme make good rights and titles to temporall kingdomes but as it depriueth no man of his temporall right and dominion so it giueth no man any temporall right or dominion but giueth him only a spirituall right and maketh him heire to the kingdome of heauen But all that Papirius Maso doth affirme is that when Philip the first of that name being but seauen yeares old was by the Archbishop of Rhemes consecrated and elected future King of France and to succeede his Father Henry then liuing and present at his consecration the Archbishop after he had declared the Catholike faith vnto him and Philip had professed the same and taken his oath to defend the Church and his kingdome taking S. Remigius staffe into his hands did quietly and peaceably discourse how the election and consecration of the King did belong chiefely to him from the time that S. Remigius did Baptize and consecrate King Lewis Hee did also
power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally in order to spirituall good it is sufficient to answere in generall that the contrarie doctrine to wit that in the old law the temporall power and not the spirituall was supreme and that the spirituall power was subiect to the temporall is maintained by many famous and most learned Catholike Diuines S. Bonauentura lib. 2. de Eccles hierarch cap. 1. in 4. dist 24. in litera S. Thom. lib. 1. de Regim Prin. cap. 14. whose opinion in this point Mr. Fitzherbert dare not presume to condemne as temeratious and improbable albeit my answere which is agreeable to their doctrine he sticketh not to call improbable For so teacheth S. Bonauenture a man otherwise addicted to the Popes temporall Monarchie In the old Testament saith he the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and therefore Kings then had power to remooue the high Priests from their office as Salomon remooued Abiathar The same teacheth S. Thomas or whosoeuer is the Author of that booke de regimine Principum Whereupon Card. Bellarmine himselfe writeth thus It is not improbable Bell. l. i. c. 14. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcla that in the olde Testament the King was absolutely greater then the high Priest both for that so teacheth S. Thomas in his first booke de Regimine Principum cap. 14. and also for that in the old Testament the promises were temporall and the sacrifices carnall 6 The same also doe teach Alphonsus Tostatus Abulensis Card. Bellar. de Script Eccles pag. 410. d q. 28 in c. 2. l. 3. Regum q. 48. c. 27. num a man most renowmed saith Card. Bellarmine for holinesse and learning Ioannes de Turrecremata e In sum de Eccles l. 2. c. 96. ad 4 c. obedientiam dest 93. q. 2. ad 2 Franciscus Victoria f Relect. 1. de potest Eccles cited by Corduba Sal s. Antonius Corduba g l. 4 quaest q. 5 ar 2 ss ad Vlti Ioannes Salas h q 95. de leg sec 21. and Burgensis i In Addit lid Nic. de Lyra in 1. Pet. cap. 2. all of them most famous Diuines You must also know saith Abulensis that Salomon had power to kill Abiathar although he was the High Priest for that in the old Testament the Ecclesiastical power was not distinct from the Secular power to wit in punishments for great crimes but Priests were directly subiects to the King as Lay men Also there was not a distinction of punishments for Priests and Lay men but in enormious crimes the sentence of death was common to all and because Abiathar had committed treason hee was to be put to death vnlesse Salomon would pardon him And that Priests were subiect to Lay men it appeareth Numer 27. where God said that Eleazar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue as it hath beene more declared Iosue 3. but Iosue was a secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim Thus Abuâ—ensis 7 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue how ignorantly my vnlearned Aduersarie taxeth my answere of improbabiâ—itie and impertinencie which neuerthelesse is most conformeable to the doctrine of so many famous and learned Catholike Diuines and which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe holdeth for not improbable and how vainely hee braggeth that hee will make it manifest euen by the law of Moyses that the spirituall power was then the supreame power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally whereas so many famous and learned Diuines whose doctrine this ignorant man feareth not to call improbable doe resolutely hold that in the olde Testament the high Priests were subiect to Kings and that the temporall power was superiour to the spirituall and might remooue the high Priests from their office and punish them temporally if they should deserue it 8 But let vs examine in particular the manifest proofes which this man deduceth from the Law of God in the old Testament His first and principall proofe is taken from that which is written in the 17. chapter of Deuteronomie This appeareth saith he k Pag. 70. nu 3.4.5 by the law set downe in Deuteronomie wherein it is ordained expressely that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes should be in the hands of the high Priest The words of the law are these Si defficile ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubfull betweene bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie and not leprosie and thou seest that the words of the Iudges within the gates doe varie arise and goe vp to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come vp to the Priests of the Leuitical stock to the Iudges that shall be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall shew thee the truth of the iudgement and thou shalt do whatsoeuer they that are Presidents of the place which our Lord shall choose shal say and teach thee according to his Law and thou shalt follow their sentence neither shalt thou decline to the right nor to the left but he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away the euill out of Israel and the whole people shall feare that none after swell with pride 9 These are the words of the Law of God in Deuteronomie wherein it is to be noted that albeit there be here mention made of the Iudge to be consulted together with the Priests which some of the Aduersaries take to be a temporall Iudge though he may very well be vnderstood to bee the high Priest who was supreme Iudge in the Councell of Priests neuerthelesse I say that albeit he were a temporall Iudge yet it is euident that the finall decision of the doubts and controuersies in that Consistorie and consequently the supreme authoritie resided in the high Priest seeing that the said Iudge if he were a different person was no other then Minister either to see the high Priests commandement executed or to ordaine and decree the punishment of those who should disobey him it being ordained in the Law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest should die by the decree of the Iudge So that it belonged to the high Priest absolutely to command and to the Iudge to giue sentence of death against the transgressors of his commandement besides that c. 10 But first obserue good Reader the corrupt proceeding of this man who to prooue his purpose doth falsely and otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition alledge the words of holy Scripture
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
the old law the high Priest was subiect to the king in temporalls and might by him be iudged and punished with temporall punishments But if she were no lawfull Queene but an Vsurper as in deede she was then it is euident that Ioas was the true and rightfull King and that all ciuill authoritie did reside in him and was deriued from him as from the head of all ciuil power whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius himselfe confesseth x Pag. 339. ad num 169. and that therefore Ioiada who was the Kings Protectour and Guardian now in his minoritie and represented the Kings person in all things might be her Iudge both to depose her and also to kill her as a manifest traitour and vsurper 74 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth especially after she had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the whole state for sixe yeeres doe sauour of that false scandalous and seditious doctrine which D. Schulckenius taught before as though either sixe yeeres prescription were sufficient to depriue a lawfull King of his Princely right and giue it to a wicked vsurper or that the kingdome of Iuda either did depriue or had authoritie to depriue the true rightfull and certainly knowne King of his lawfull inheritance and Princely right and that without any offence at all committed by him 75 Neither is that to the purpose which Mr. Fitzherbert would haue his Reader beleeue to wit that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom hee should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth a Iudge absolue a man when hee is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power in both cases For I doe not deny that Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian and therefore representing the Kings person in all things was the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of Athalia and of euery other subiect in the kingdome but that which I contend is that although Ioiada was in spiritualls her Superiour and Iudge as he was high Priest yet in temporalls he was neither her Superiour or Iudge nor of any other subiect in the kingdome as hee was high Priest or by his Priestly authority but as hauing his authority deriued from the true and lawfull King in whom onely all supreme ciuill authority as in the head of all ciuill power doth reside And therefore this his consideration is not to the purpose as also it is not generally true For all Catholikes yea Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe y Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19 doe grant that in time of Schisme when two contend to be the lawfull Pope the Church is the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of both Popes and that it belongeth to her to determine of their right neither yet Cardinall Bellarmine nor my Aduersary will affirme that the Church hath the same authoritie and iudiciall power ouer the true and vndoubted Pope Likewise what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to Cardinall Caietaine and others of his opinion that the Church is Superiour to an hereticall Pope and hath authoritie to iudge him and depose him who neuerthelesse will not admit that the Church is Superiour to a Pope who is no hereticke Moreouer no learned man can deny that when two contend to haue right or a title to any kingdome if they bee members of that kingdome the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to them and hath authoritie to iudge and determine of their right and yet wee may not therefore conclude that the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to a knowne and vndoubted King 76 No lesse idle also is that which followeth z Nu. 17. p. 78. Besides that saith Mr. Fitherbert our Aduersaries must needes graunt either that Ioiada deposed her as her lawfull Iudge being high Priest or else that any peculiar man many of his owne authority take vpon him to depose and kill a Tyrant and vsurper which opinion was worthily condemned by the Councell of Constance as hereticall and with great reason for that no particular man can make himselfe another mans Iudge and much lesse the Iudge of a Prince Neither can there be any doctrine more dangerous to Common-wealths or pernicious to Princes states then that euery subiect may take vpon him to iudge when his Prince is a Tyrant and proceeds against him to his deposition or death 77 True it is that Ioiada deposed Athalia that is put her from the possession of the kingdome which she vniustly vsurped as her lawful Iudge being High-Priest but it is not true that he deposed her as being High-Priest or by his Priestly authoritie nor as a private man or by priuate authoritie but he both deposed her and commanded her to be slaine as her lawfull Iudge being the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his nonage and as representing the Kings person in all things and also with the assent of the Princes and people Neither from hence doth it follow that euery particular and priuate subiect may by his owne authoritie take vpon him to kill a manifest vsurper although S. Thomas a In 2. dist vltima q. 2. ar 2. ad 5. Caietan 2. 2. q. 64. ar 3. Sotus l. 5. de Iustit q. 1. ar 3 Solon 2 2. q. 64 ar 3. controuers 1. Aragon ibidem Lessius l. 2. de Iustit c. 9. dub 4 and many other Diuines are of opinion that euery particular subiect and citizen hath authoritie to kill not a manifest Tyrant in the abuse of gouernment but a manifest vsurper for in this case say they euery priuate Citizen hath sufficient authoritie giuen him by the consent of the rightfull King and also of the Common-wealth against whom this manifest vsurper doth continually make a manifest vniust warre and therefore it can not be called properly priuate but publike authoritie Neither say they is this doctrine aginst the decree of the Councell of Constance which doth not speake particularly of those who are manifest Tyrants by vsurpation but of Tyrants in generall comprehending also those who are true and lawfull Kings and onely Tyrants in gouernment For the proposition which is in that Councell condemned as hereticall scandalous and giuing way to fraudes deceipts treasons and periuries is this Euery Tyrant and consequently also a Tyrant onely in gouernment although otherwise a true and rightfull King may and ought lawfully and meritoriously to be slaine by any his vassall or subiect euen by secret wiles and craftie deceipts or flatteries notwithstanding any oath or confideracie made by them with him not expecting the sentence or commandment of any Iudge whatsoeuer which is in very trueth a most damnable and traiterous doctrine But that a manifest Tyrant by vsurpation may not be lawfully slaine by any priuate man hauing authoritie thereunto from the true rightfull and vndoubted King or from him who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his minoritie and representeth the Kings person in all things this is not condemned
also follow that the authoritie and power of the Church should be no better in effect then a cobweb which holdeth only the little flies and serueth to no purpose against the great ones sufficing to correct all inferiour persons and to preuent and remedy all the inconueniences that may grow from them but not to redresse the most dangerous and pernicious disobedience that may be to wit the rebellion of Princes against the Church from whence the greatest danger and damage to soules may and commonly doth arise if this then should be without remedie it must needes follow as I haue said that Christ hath not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are wont to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or States subiect to them who when they appoint Lieutenants or Deputies any where doe giue them authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects and so much power as may suffice for the remedy of all inconueniences and specially of the greatest which may occurre in the States where they gouerne 30 Therefore it must needes be granted that our Sauiour Christ ordaining a gouernment in his Church gaue to the Gouernours thereof sufficient power and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest and when spirituall correction will not suffice then to chastice them also in their temporalities so farre forth as shall be necessarie for the publike good of the Church and for the due execution of their office and charge For as the Lawler saith Cui iurisdictio data est Iauolen leg 2. â— de Iurisdict ei quoque concessa esse videntur sine quibus iurisdictio explicaâ—i non potuit To whomsoeuer iurisdiction is giueÌ„ those things do seeme to be granted withall without the which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and this is also conforme to the axiome of the Philosophers qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth being giueth also those things that are consequents thereof or necessarily required thereto 31 But first I would demaund of Mr. Fitzherbert what remedie the Church hath against a most potent Christian Prince who shall contemne not only an Ecclesiasticall Censure but also euery sentence of depriuation or of any of other temporall or corporall chasticement denounced against him by the Pope doth he not contemne this Censure and sentence and by his authoritie and example draw his subiects for the most part to a generall reuolt from the Church shall we then say that Christ left not to his Church sufficient authoritie to remedie this How then is that fulfilled which the Apostle said of the most ample power of the Church to reuenge or punish all disobedience seeing that the disobedience of absolute Princes to this sentence of depriuation should be incorrigible and remedilesse Whereupon it would also follow that the authoritie and power of the Church should be in effect no better then a cobweb c. Let Mr. Fitzherbert satisfie this demaund and he will forthwith see that in the like manner his owne argument may be answered 32 Secondly as euery well instituted temporall common wealth and the chiefe gouernours thereof haue alwaies sufficient temporall power taking temporall power for authoritie to punish with temporall punishments all treasons rebellions and contempts whatsoeuer although they haue not alwaies sufficient power taking power for might force or effectuall meanes to redresse actually all disorders that shall arise in the common wealth for that if the perturbers of the common wealth be more potent and strong then the rulers and gouernours thereof they will little regard any sentence or declaration either of exile losse of goods and libertie or also of life that the Gouernours of the common wealth shall denounce against them and yet no man will deny that the chiefe Gouernours of the common wealth haue sufficient authoritie forasmuch as concerneth â—he authoritie it selfe to punish with temporall punishments euery particular contempt of these seditious and wicked subiects and to redresse all inconueniences that possibly may arise So likewise the chiefe Pastours or Gouernours of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ haue alwaies sufficient spiritual power taking spirituall power for authoritie to punish with spirituall punishments all heresies schismes and other crimes whatsoeuer although they haue not alwaies sufficient spirituall power taking power for force might or effectuall meanes to redresse actually by spirituall punishments all inconueniences and disorders that shall arise in the Church of Christ For if the disturbers of the Church be peruerse obstinate and wilfull they will little regard and Censure sentence or declaration that the Pastours of the Church can possibly denounce against them and yet no man will deny that the chiefe Pastours or Gouernours of the Church of Christ haue sufficient authoritie for as much as concerneth the authoritie it selfe to punish with spirituall Censures euery particular contempt of these disobedient persons and that these spirituall Censures are of themselues sufficient to terrifie any Christian whatsoeuer and to withdraw him from sinne seeing that they are farre more grieuous and dreadfull as S. Augustine affirmeth then any temporall punishment whatsoeuer 33 Thirdly I answere that S. Paul had indeede through the gift of miracles which Christ our Sauiour gaue to him and to the rest of the Apostles not only a most ample and extraordinarie authoritie but also power might force and effectuall meanes to punish or reuenge all disobedience euen with temporall and corporall punishments Whereupon as S. Chrysostome obserueth vpon this place Chrysost in 2. Cor 10. Act. 14. Act. 2â— Act. 13. Auselni in 2. Cor. 10. hee did one time cure a lame man an other time hee raised one from death to life and an other time he punished Elymas the Magician with depriuing him of his sight And S. Anselme numbreth among this spirituall armour whereof the Apostle heere speaketh the doing of miracles For we saith S. Anselme speaking in the person of S. Paul doe not warre or fight according to the flesh For the weapons of our warfare are not carnall but spirituall and mighty to God our King for whom we warre or fight For we doe not beare a materiall lance or sword but we doe more mightily ouerthrow our enemies with the word then others doe with carnall weapons For our weapons are the word of preaching wisdome miracles charitie and other vertues c. 34 Wherefore S. Paul speaketh not only of authoritie to fight or punish but also of might force or effectuall meanes to ouercome his enemies Our weapons saith he are mighty to God to destroy munitions that is saith S. Anselme secular doctrines arguments and subtilities by which peruerse men doe strengthen their hearts that the word of truth may not be able to touch them because the art of Apostolicall preaching doth mightily pearce and ouerthrow through the vertue of spirituall grace these kind of munitions And we haue
Father a Wife to her Husband and a Slaue to his Lord they now liuing in ciuill Societie and being parts and members of the ciuill Common-wealth is ciuill and dependeth vpon the authority of the temporall Prince who may therefore extend diminish or quite dissolue the bond of obedience although not of honour and reuerence which the Childe oweth to his Father and likewise the bond of obedience although not of matrimony by which the Wife is bound to her Husband and finally the bond both of obedience and of seruitude by which a slaue is bound to his Lord But the bond of allegiance whereby subiects are bound to obey the ciuill common-wealth as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe doth not deny is naturall and is due by the law of nature as the power and authority of the ciuill common-wealth ouer euery part and member thereof is in his opinion de lege natura due by the law of nature And therefore I doe not well vnderstand how Cardinall Bellarmine can according to his owne grounds affirme that the power and authority of the ciuill common-wealth ouer euery particular member thereof is de lâ—ge natura due by the law of nature and consequently the obedience and allegiance of the subiect answerable thereunto must also bee de lege natura commanded by the law of nature and withall maintaine that the Church can depriue an hereticall common-wealth of her ciuill power and authoritie and absolue the subiects from their naturall allegiance vnlesse hee will grant that the Church may absolue from the law of nature 97 Now by this which hath beene said you may easily perceiue the insufficiency of all the rest which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in this Chapter Now then saith hee y Pag. 107. nu 11. in all these examples it is euident that the Church disposeth of that which is temporall to spirituall ends and therefore my Aduersary Widdrington hath no probabilitie in the world to deny that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally especially granting as hee doth that he may command corporall and temporall things so farre foorth as they serue the spirituall But contrariwise as you haue seene it is euident that by none of all those examples he hath prooued that the Church I doe not say commaundeth but disposeth of that which is temporall to spirituall endes oâ— hath authority to inflict any temporall punishment or to depriue any man of any temporall right power or authority for what end soeuer And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth euidently discouer his ignorance in affirming that I haue no probabilitie in the world to deny that a spirituall Superiour may inflict temporall punishments or which is all one may punish temporally and to graunt as I doe that he may command corporall and temporall things so farre foorth as they serue the spirituall For this distinction which I haue sufficiently declared before betwixt the directiue or commanding and the coerciue or punishing power both of the spirituall and also of the temporall common-wealth and the reason thereof a priori which is taken from their proper acts and obiects from which according to the knowne principles of Philosophy the essence vnitie and distinction of euery power is to bee taken doth make plaine the whole difficultie and quite ouerthroweth the comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert maketh betwixt the spiritual directiue and the coerciue power or which is all one betwixt the power of spirituall Pastours to command temporall punishments for spirituall ends and to inflict them and which in naturall reason is so cleere and perspicuous that it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be impugned but the more it is sifted and impugned the more it appeareth plaine and manifest as all true doctrine doth as contrariwise falshood the more it is examined the more absurd it doth still appeare 98 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert z Pag. 107. nu 21. Widdrington himselfe teacheth also in his Apologie a Nu 153.154 15â— that spirituall things may come to haue the nature of temporall things and temporall things of spirituall by accident that is to say as he himselfe doth explicate Ratione peccati annexi By reason of some sinne annexed whereof hee also giueth this example when Ecclesiasticall persons doe apply their spirituall power to the hurt of the temporall state or temporall men abuse their power to the preiudice of the spirituall in these cases he saith the temporall power and state becommeth subiect to the spirituall and the spirituall to the temporall by reason of the iniury done and offence committed because temporall things doe thereby come to haue the qualitie of spirituall things and the spirituall also of temporall Thus teacheth he in his Apologie and affirmeth the same in effect in his Theologicall Disputation b Cap. 3. sec 1. nu 19. 99 That doctrine which I taught in my Apologie is very true and cannot with any probabilitie in the world be denied neither hath D. Schulckenius brought any one probable proofe to impugne the same but with railing speeches slaunderous imputations and fraudulent cauills seeketh to ouerbeare it as I haue most cleerely shewed c Calumnia 10.11.12 in the Discouery of his Calumnies For whereas I affirmed that as the spirituall power is not subiect to the temporall per se but onely per accidens by reason of vertue or vice which are the obiects of the spirituall directiue power and are oftentimes found in temporall actions so the temporall power is not subiect per se to the spirituall but onely per accidens by reason of the conseruing or disturbing of temporall peace which are the acts and obiects of the temporall directiue power and are sometimes found in spirituall actions as in vniust Excommunications and Interdicts when by them great tumults and perturbations doe in the common-wealth arise and in the euill administration of Sacraments whereby death or great corporall harme doth ensue And as the spirituall Superiour may for the euill administration of temporall things as they redound to the hurt of soules punish all his subiects that shall offend therein with spirituall punishments which onely are the obiect of the spirituall coerciue power so the temporall Superiour abstracting from the priuiledges of Princes and the Canons of the Church which doe exempt Cleargie men from the coerciue power of Secular Magistrates may for the euill administration of spirituall things as they redound to the perturbation of temporall peace punish all his Subiects that shall offend therein with temporall punishments which onely are the obiect of the temporall coerciue power 100 Now D. Schulckenius first affirmeth d Pag. 208. 292. that this doctrine is altogether intollerable and cannot be affirmed but by one who is giuen to a reprobate sense But how false and intollerable a slaunder this is vnconscionable void of all learning and which could not be vttered but by one who was wholly transported with some vehement passion I haue sufficiently shewed heeretofore e In Append. calumnia 11. Secondly he
the Priests of the new law must haue authoritie to doe the like but things farre more noble and excellent for that the veritie must be of a more high and excellent order then the figure as in the fifth Chapter I proued more at large And therefore as in the olde law all the figures promises and punishments were temporall so in the new law the veritie promises and punishments which correspond thereunto must be spirituall not temporall for otherwise the figure should bee the same with the veritie and not of an higher nature and order then the verity So that temporall life must correspond to spirituall life temporall kingdomes to spirituall kingdomes temporall goods to spirituall goods temporall promises and rewards to spirituall promises and rewards and temporall punishments to spirituall punishments all which spirituall punishments are contained in Excommunication Maior and Minor and in other Ecclesiasticall Censures and punishments And to that which he addeth in the end that I must acknowledge according to my owne doctrine that the Church may punish temporally seeing that shee may excommunicate I haue already fully m Cap. answered and denyed his consequence for that the Church of Christ neither by ExcoÌ„munication nor by any other way hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but only to punish temporally by way of command which no man denyeth And thus much concerning the olde law 10 Now to the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert brought out of the new Testament I answered thus Sixtly those places of the new Testament Quodcunque solueris super terram c. n Matth. 16. Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth c. and Pasce oues meas o Ioan. 21. Feede my sheepe as also the reason which Fa. Parsons bringeth to wit that otherwise the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth should bee imperfect and not sufficient for it selfe are explicated by mee elsewhere And that corporall killing of Ananias and Saphira and the visible deliuering of the fornicatour to Sathan are to be referred to the grace of miracles Neither will this Authour say as I imagine that the Pope hath power to kill wicked men and malefactours with the word of his mouth 11 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth in the same order And first to my answere to those two places Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feede my sheepe which I made in my Apologie p Apolog. nu 35. seq nu 203. seq wherevnto I remitted the Reader he replieth thus q Pag. 115. nu 6.7.8 That which Widdrington saith in his Apologie concerning these two texts allâ—dged out of the Gospell is no other but to prooue that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely which we willingly grant as D. Adolphus Schulckenius r Adolph Schulck in Apolog c. 4. § Respondeo p. 136 in his answere for Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared sufficiently and tolde my Aduersary Widdrington withall how vainely he hath laboured with a long discourse and many idle words to prooue that which neither the Cardinall nor any other Catholike will deny 12 For wee willingly grant saith Schulckenius that the Popes power is formally spirituall though virtually it is also temporall extending it selfe to temporall things so farre forth as they are subordinate to the spirituall and the necessitie of the Church shall require So hee Å¿ Ibidem and afterwards he also explicateth the same in these words Nam animus noster spiritus est c. For our soule saith he is a spirit and hath a spirituall power and yet it doth not onely thereby gouerne the body which is subiect vnto it but doth also chastise it with corporall punishments as watching hairecloth fasting and whipping And therefore if Bellarmine did say that the Pope doth iudge the faults of Princes and vpon their desert depriue them sometimes of their gouernment by a temporall power his Aduersary Widdrington should say somewhat to the purpose but now seeing that Bellarmine saith that the Pope vseth a spirituall power when hee depriueth Princes of their States for spirituall and Ecclesiasticall crimes such as heresies and Schismes are his Aduersary Widdrington doth idlely beate the ayre c. for he should haue prooued that a supreme spirituall power cannot extend it selfe to dispose of temporall things as they are referred to spirituall things Thus saith Schulckenius 13 And thereof my Aduersary Widdrington might haue taken notice if it had pleased him when he referred me and his Readers to his Apologie for answere to those places For albeit he may perhaps pretend that hee had not seene Schulckenius his Apologie for the Cardinall before hee had ended his Theologicall Disputation yet it is euident that he had seene and read it before he wrote his Admonition to the Reader wherein he writeth against me For he not onely maketh mention therein of the Apologie of Schulckenius but also carpeth at him for some things that hee handleth and therefore if he had meant sincerely he would not haue remitted vs to his owne Apologie for this point without some confutation of Schulckenius his Answere thereto I meane of so much as concerneth this matter For otherwise he may multiply bookes and write of this controuersie as long as he liueth and all to no purpose if he will still stand vpon his first grounds and dissemble the answeres that are made thereto and therefore as hee remitteth me to his Apologie so I remit him also to the answere of Schulckenius which I haue partly laide downe heere and may be seene more at large in him And this shall suffice for this point 14 But truely it is intollerable that these men should so shamefully both abuse me and delude their Reader I doe not say onely in dissembling the answere I made to their argument but in plainly corrupting the words and manifest sense thereof in which manner they may multiply bookes and make Replies with ease but with shame enough For it is too too apparantly vntrue that I labored in that place to prooue nothing else as those men falsly affirme but that which neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny to wit that Christ gaue to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely although it be well knowne that the common opinion of the Canonists doth deny the same who contend that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter not onely spirituall but also temporall authoritie and made him thereby not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert is grosly mistaken in saying so boldly that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely For I did not contend in that place about the authority which was giuen to Saint Peter to binde and loose which Cardinall Bellarmine taketh to bee all one with to feede his sheepe whether it was temporall or spirituall or both as the Canonists wil haue it but about the acts
Diocletian why can she not also vnder the persecution of the Turkes 37 Secondly neither is it true that I am destitute of Patrons and Doctours who maintaine that the Pope by his spirituall power cannot dispose of temporals or inflict temporall punishments as I haue shewed aboue in the first part where also I prooued that Ioannes Parisiensis doth no way fauour but flatly contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine and also the very ashes of this Doctours booke if they could speake would giue sufficient testimony against him that this my doctrine is not altogether destitute of Patrons and Doctours But whereas this Doctour should haue prooued that the power to dispose of all temporals is necessary to the saluation of soules which Cardinall Bellarmine affirmed and I denied he flyeth from this reason to the authority of Doctours who affirme that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporals which is to runne vp and downe in a circle from intrinsecall grounds to extrinsecall from reason to authority and contrariwise and neuer to persist in any one medium or argument Wherefore whensoeuer any Author or my selfe do seeme to affirme or suppose that temporall things the disposing of them are in some cases necessary to the general good of the Church and to the saluation of soules it is not to be vnderstood of any absolute necessity but onely of some great conuenience or vtility for which in common speech wee oftentimes take necessity as it is well knowen to euery Logician who hath but read the beginning of Porphyries Introduction Cùm necessarium sit Chysaori c. Whereas it is necessarie o Chysaori c. In which case of necessity or great vtility temporall things are by the institution of Christ to be disposed of to a spirituall end by the temporall and ciuill power of Christian Princes and not by the spirituall power as he hath distinguished the acts offices and functions thereof from ciuill authority 38 But thou wilt say saith this Doctour o Pag. 355. that this power to dispose of temporals is not proportionate to the end of the Ecclesisticall power which is spirituall I answere first saith he that this power to dispose of temporals in the Pope is not formally temporall but formally spirituall and eminently temporall and therefore it is very well proportionate to a spirituall end But this is to declare the selfe same thing by it selfe for to haue vertually or eminently a temporal power is nothing else then to haue a power to dispose of temporall things or to doe all that which the temporall power can do which is the maine poynt which I vtterly deny and consequently affirme that according to the institution of Christ who hath left distinguished the acts functions and properties of the temporall power or Common-weath from them of the spirituall power or Church of Christ to dispose of temporall things and to inflict temporall punishments which are temporall and ciuill acts and punishments are not by the institution of Christ proportionate to the spiritual power and to the end thereof as it is by him distinguished from the ciuil power and the end obiects and acts thereof For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall Kingdome or Common-wealth and distinguished her directiue and coerciue power and the acts and obiects thereof from the acts and obiects of the ciuill power or Common-wealth so also hath he assigned spirituall punishments as meanes proportionate to her coerciue or punishing power as temporal punishments are proportionate to the temporall coerciue power 39 Wherefore this Doctor knowing right well that I haue alwayes denied the Church of Christ to haue either formally or eminently temporall power giueth a second answere I answere secondly saith he p Pag. 356. that temporall goods and the power it selfe ouer temporall goods haue indeede no naturall proportion with spirituall but they haue a very great morall proportion which for the present is sufficient For temporall goods are spirituall instruments of good workes in which respect S. Peter calleth Almes other good works 1 Pet. 2. although corporall spirituales hostias spirituall sacrifices Wherfore as the spirit in man disposeth of corporall actions as Almes fastings chastising of the flesh and such like as they are necessary to the health of the soule hee might adde also to the health of the body so the Prince of the Church may in order to a spirituall end and if his similitude were good may likewise in order to a temporall end dispose of temporall goods which for the same reason that they are necessary to the obtaining of that end for the same reason they are said to be proportionate to the same end 40 But this answere I haue confuted aboue partly in the second part q Par. 2. cap. 8. where I haue shewed that this similitude of the soule and body doth manifestly impugne their doctrine and that the soule doth not dispose of any temporall action as Almes fasting whipping and such like but onely by way of command and also not without the actiue concurrance of some corporall organ and besides that if the similitude were good the Pope should haue power not only for spirituall good but also for temporall to depose temporall Princes to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments and partly aboue in the former Chapter r Num. 108. where Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken this answere verbatim from this Doctour For temporall goods to haue a morall proportion with spirituall and to be spirituall instruments of good or bad workes is nothing else then that they may concurre to vertuous or vicious actions and be the obiect of vertue or vice which therefore may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power as it is directiue which hath for her obiect vertue and vice But no morrall proportion reference or relation can alter the nature of temporall goods or puishments or make temporall goods to become spirituall goods and temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments and therefore no such morall proportion is sufficient to cause temporall goods to be disposed or temporall punishments to be inflicted by the spirituall power as it is coerciue whose acts and obiects are onely the disposing of spirituall goods and the inflicting of spirituall punishments for a spirituall end 41 Lastly to the consequence of Cardinal Bellarmines argument whereby he laboured to prooue that the power to vse and dispose of temporals is necessary to the spirituall end I answered thus ſ Apolog. nu 183. by denying his consequence Neither doth it follow from thence as Cardinall Bellarmine doth ill and contrary to himselfe inferre that otherwise wicked Princes may without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For the Church hath as we said power to punish them not indeed with ciuill or temporall but with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments vnlesse perhaps Ecclesiasticall Censures are not woorthy to be reckoned among punishments whereas they are accounted by all men to be most sharpe
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
question may be about the causes for which this authoritie may bee vsed as also the forme of proceeding to bee obserued therein whereunto he answereth that herein there are so many particularities to be considered as are ouerlong for this place onely it is sufficient for Catholike men to know that this may not be done without iust cause graue and vrgent motiues and due forme also of proceeding by admonition preuention intercession and other like preambles prescribed by Ecclesiasticall Canons to bee obserued whereby my Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloody Assassinates may iustly bee remooued For that this authoritie doth not onely not allow any such wicked or vnlawfull attempts but doth also expresly and publikely condemne the same and the doctrine thereof as may appeare not onely by the condemnation of Wickliffes wicked article in the Councell of Constance z Sess 15. wherein he affirmed That it was lawfull for euery priuate man to kill any Prince whom he held to bee a Tyrant but also by like condemnation of Caluin Beza c. 52 Thus you see that Father Parsons hath not answered to the Earle of Salisburies complaint in particular to wit that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie ouer the kingdomes and liues of temporall Princes hath not beene made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. But he supposeth it as certaine and graunted by Catholikes and in steade of some cleere and publike definition orthodoxall c. Which the Earle of Salisburie desired he bringeth onely certaine reasons which are in some sort grounded vpon the Law of Nature and the light of naturall reason to wit that Christ hath in his Church subiected temporall things to spirituall which also is true in the Law of Nature and that otherwise he had not so sufficiently prouided for the necessitie of his Church as God and Nature haue prouided for other temporall common-wealthes which are not so perfect as is his Church which reasons how weake and insufficient they are the Reader may presently perceiue by that which hath beene said before concerning the Law of Nature and against Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and also if he will but apply them to the Church and Synagogue in the old law in which without doubt God Almightie did both subiect temporall things to spirituall and for the necessitie whereof he did also sufficiently prouide and yet Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth it to probable that in the old Law the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and that Kings were not to bee temporally by the High Priest but contrariwise the High Priest was subiect in temporalls to the King and to bee punished by him with temporall punishments Wherefore after I had cleerely ouerthrowne Cardinall Bellarmines reason concluding thus And so it is manifest by that which I haue said how weake this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine is euen according to his owne principles I forthwith answered Father Parsons in this manner a Apolog. nu 203. 53 By which it is also apparant how weakely the Author of the English Treatise tending to Mitigation who groundeth his whole discourse for the Popes power to depose Princes vpon this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine doth satisfie the Earle of Salisburies desire whereof we made mention aboue For although it be-true that Christ our Sauiour left in his Church which is a spirituall common-wealth as in all other well established common-wealths sufficient authoritie and power for as much as concerneth the power it selfe to defend her selfe from the iniuries of all men whatsoeuer to correct iudge punish all wicked persons of what state or condition soeuer they be that are subiect to the supreme Prince of this spirituall common-wealth as members of the head sheepe to their Pastours children to their Father Neuerthelesse that Christ left in his Church sufficient power might or force to represse at all times all excesses whatsoeuer of Christian Princes or that the punishments wherewith such Princes may be punished by the Church are temporall which doe passe the limits appointed by Christ to a spirituall common-wealth this besides that it seemeth to be supposed by this Authour as certaine without any reason at all is also most clearely repugnant to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers who doe teach as I related aboue b Nu. 5 seq that the armour or weapons of the Church are spirituall not temporall and that Princes if they offend are for as much as concerneth temporall punishments to be left to the examination and iudgement of God alone 54 Wherefore there remaineth in the Church sufficient remedie and spirituall authoritie for temporall authoritie or which now I take for all one authoritie to dispose of temporalls is not agreeable to the condition of a spirituall common-wealth to represse by spirituall punishments the exorbitant excesses of all her subiects whatsoeuer and of this there is no controuersie among Catholikes as also to euery temporall common-wealth the law of God and nature hath giuen full and perfect temporall authoritie to punish all her subiects that shall offend with temporall punishments but not with spirituall which are not agreeable to a temporall common-wealth and to defend her selfe with corporall weapons from the wrongs and violence of all men though of forraine countreys how strong and potent soeuer they be albeit she hath not alwayes an effectuall remedie or sufficient force might or power to free her selfe from the vniust oppressions not onely of forraine countreys but also of her owne subiects by reason of their excessiue power and might 55 And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath authority to dispose of temporals and to depose temporall Princes to wit whether directly or indirectly immediatly or by a certaine consequence as this Authour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose as certaine and not doubted of by Catholikes but as I haue often said out of Trithemius It is a controuersie among the Schoolemen about the thing it selfe Trithem in Chron. monast Hirsang ad ann 1106. whether the Pope hath any such authority in any manner at all and as yet it is not determined by the Iudge whether hee hath any power to depose the Emperour or no. 56 Lastly if in euery well established Common-weath there is left sufficient remedy and authority by God and nature to represse and punish the more hainous offences of their Soueraigne Prince whereon the Discourse of this Authour in his first question whereupon the other two questions doe depend is chiefly grounded I doe not see in what manner and with what reason he can rid himselfe but that consequently hee must also grant that the Pope himselfe may for all enormous crimes be corrected iudged and punished by the Church Bel. li. 2. de Concil cap. 19. ad 2. nu whereas Cardinall Bellarmine as you haue seene aboue c Nu. 188. Apolog doth teach that
the Church hath not any effectuall remedie or which in his opinion is all one any sufficient authority to punish a knowen and vndoubted Pope for any crime whatsoeuer only heresie excepted Therefore you see what a foundation this Authour hath laid to subiect Popes to the examination censure and correction of a generall Councell which representeth the vniuersall Church and to quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine touching the Popes authority ouer a generall Councell which is also receiued by all the writers of his Society Thus I answered Father Parsons discourse in my Apologie 57 By which the Reader may easily perceiue what small satisfaction Fa. Parsons gaue to the Earle of Salisburies complaint both for that hee brought no cleare definition orthodoxall which the Earle required to prooue that the Pope hath authority to depose wicked Princes and to dispose of all their temporals but supposed it as graunted by all Catholikes for these silly reasons which I before rehearsed and also that from the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls it necessarily followeth as I conuinced in my Apologie d Nu. 43. Seg. that he may also takeaway their liues and giue leaue to others to kill them by all those wayes publike or secret by which temporall Princes may take away the liues of their wicked subiects and consequently his Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloudy Assassinates was not remooued by Father Parsons answere for that they who would attempt to kill such wicked and tyrannicall Princes and obstinate in their wickednesse might easily answere the decree of the Councell of Constance and affirme that what they did was not done by priuate but by publike and lawfull authoritie and that they had sufficient warrant from the virtuall at least wise and interpretatiue consent of the Pope who was bound by the law of God to giue his consent thereunto as in my Appendix against Suarez I did cleerely deduce e Part. 1. sec 9. nu 7. 8. and so those wicked miscreants that murthered the last two Kings of France and attempted to haue blowne vp with gun-powder our most noble King Queene with their Royall issue and all the nobility with the Knights and Burgeses of the Parliament did easily shift off the Decree of the Councell of Constance pretending that what they did was done by lawfull and publike authoritie 58 Now albeit Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth to defend Fa. Parsons against that which I did answere for the respect and reuerence which hee beareth to the memorie of so woorthy a man and his old friend whereof I will say nothing at this time because as he was respected and reuerenced by many Catholikes so also hee was by many not reputed woorthy of such respect and reuerence the cause whereof I will omit now to relate neuerthelesse hee saith little or nothing as you shall see against that which I vrged against him For first the greatest part of his defence hee spendeth f Pag. 120. nu 16. seq in excusing him from that whereof I did not accuse him to wit that Fa. Parsons did not say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power to worke the effect for which it was ordained but also sufficientes vires sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same but onely that the power of the Church being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment which may bee exemplified in the power to remit sinnes to giue holy Orders to excommunicate and such like For albeit the Church haue sufficient power to doe all this yet the same cannot be executed either at all times or in all places or vpon all persons by reason aswell of the in capacitie of subiects as of other externall impediments which may hinder the execution So as it were extreme folly to say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power but also sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same And the like we say concerning the power left by our Sauiour Christ to punish absolute Princes in their temporall states to wit that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient albeit the same cannot alwaies be executed and Fa. Parsons neuer taught or thought otherwise And therefore I must needes say as I said before that Widdrington hath either most grosly mistaken him which truely I cannot see how hee could doe in this place or else most maliciously abused and belyed him 59 But truely I must needes say that Mr. Fitzherbert to returne him backe his owne wordes hath either most grosly mistaken mee or else most maliciously abused and belyed me For I neither said nor meant to say that Fa. Parsons supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that Christ hath left to his Church sufficient force power or might to represse at all times all exorbitant excesses of Christian Princes or people but that he supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that the penalties wherewith the Church may punish her spirituall Children may be temporall punishments which supposition also of Fa. Parsons I declared afterwards as you haue seene in these wordes And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath power in temporalls to wit directly or indirectiy as this Au. hour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose but about the thing it selfe whether he hath in any manner at all such an authoritie whereof the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet it is not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath authoritie to depose the Emperour as we haue often said out of Trithemius 60 Neuerthelesse this also I must needes say that both D. Schulekenius and Mr. Fitzherbert and also Fa. Parsons cannot make good Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and sufficiently confute the answere I made thereunto but that they will bee driuen to suppose that the Church must haue not onely sufficient power and authoritie but also sufficient force power might and effectuall meanes to bring soules to paradise as any man of learning by that which I haue saide before may easily perceiue For the substance of Cardinall Bellarmines argument was this The Church must haue all necessarie and sufficient power or authoritie to saue soules for which the Ecclesiasticall power is ordained but the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures is not sufficient for this end therfore another power to wit to inflict also temporal punishments is necessary 61 To this argument I answered that the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures being considered in it selfe is sufficient to saue soules and that Ecclesiasticall Censures being so dreadfull punishments as I haue shewed are of themselues sufficient if they meete with a capable subiect to withdraw men from sinne neither is it necessarie that the Church must haue besides a power sufficient of it selfe sufficient force might
prayer or curse two beares came forth of the forrest and tore fourtie two boyes that mocked him saying Come vp balde head come vp balde head Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert may distinguish if it please him betwixt the ordinary and extraordinary power of the Apostles and cleerely see that from the facts and punishments which the Apostles exercised by their extraordinary delegate miraculous power which therefore doth not descend to their Successours it is not lawfull to argue that the Apostles by their ordinary power might do the same or that their successors haue therfore power to inflict the like punishments 77 But heere saith Mr. Fitzherbert m Pag. 125. nu 28. perhaps Widdrinton will say that if Saint Peter exercied his Apostolicall power and iurisdiction therein it followeth that the Pope or other Ecclesiasticall Iudges may also giue sentence of death yea execute vpon such as deserue it which is contrary to the custome and Canons of the Church Whereto I answere that for as much as that time there were no Christian Princes or Magistrates to do iustice in that kind and that it was necessary in the beginning to inflict such an exemplar punishment vpon those two hypocrites for the terrour of other Saint Peter thought good to performe it himselfe although afterwards when Christian Religion was further propagated and Christian Princes held it for an honour to them to serue God and his Church with their temporall lawes and power the Church thought it needlesse to inflict bloodie penalties not because it might not doe it if it would but because it seemed more decent and conuenient for lenitie of a pious Mother to abstaine from the same and to vse more milde and lesse rigorous punishments in which respect the Church hath alwayes retained the vse of some temporall and corporall chastisements although she haue restrained her Ministers by Canons and constitutions from the effusion of blood remitting the iudgement and execution thereof wholy to the secular Magistrates who haue by their lawes sufficiently prouided for the execution of iustice in that kind 78 But first without perhaps I doe say and haue euidently conuinced not from those miraculous facts of the Apostles but from the doctrine and grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine and others who mainetaine the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie also to kill wicked Princes by all those wayes publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie to depriue their subiects of their liues as I haue insinuated aboue in this Treatise n Cha. 3 nu 15 and 16. and chap. 5. sec 2 nu 9 seq and prooued at large in my Apologie o Apolog nu â—3 seq to which D. Schulkenius answereth onely with a transcat let it passe as not belonging to the matter and Mr. Fitzherbert both in other places of this his Reply and also heere by these words not because it might not doe it if it would doth expressely acknowledge as much although forsooth he will not meddle with the liues of Princes to auoid enuy and yet he feareth not to say p Chap 2. nu 15.16 That the Pope can take away my life and the liues of all Christians Now what a scandalous doctrine this is and what feares and iealousies of continuall treasons inhumaine gun-powder plots and bloodie Assassinates against their Royall persons those Christian Princes especially who dissent from the Catholike Romane Religion may iustly conceiue thereby I haue sufficiently prooued in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez q Part. 1. sec 9 nu 5. seq where also I haue cleerely conuinced that this pretence of Ecclesiasticall lenitie and the clemencie of a Pious mother which onely for mildnesse sake as they pretend and not by any obligation doth not vse such rigorous punishments is a meere shift and cloake to dazell the eyes of the simple and vnlearned Catholikes For as it is no clemencie but a plaine crueltie for a mother not to cut off one member of her beloued child when it is in danger to infect and kill the whole body so also the Pope should bee cruell to the Church of God not to cut off an hereticall Prince that is in danger to infect the other members of the Church if we once suppose this scandalous damnable doctrin that the Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to dispose of all the temporals both of Christian Princes subiects as temporall Princes haue in order to temporal good authority to dispose of al the temporal corporal goods of their subiects 79 Secondly it is not true that the Church hath alwayes retained the vse of some temporall and corporall chastisements except onely by way of commaund whereof I neuer made doubt As also that reason which my Aduersary heere bringeth why the Church now since Christian Religion hath beene further propagated and Christian Princes haue held it for an honour to them to serue God and his Church with their temporall lawes thought it needlesse to inflict bloody punishments especially vpon wicked and disobedient Princes for that by their lawes they haue sufficiently prouided for the execution of iustice in that kind is very weake and insufficient because although Christian Princes haue sufficiently prouiued for the execution of iustice with bloodie punishments against their subiects yet they haue no way prouided for the execution of iustice in this kind against themselues and therefore if Christian Princes themselues become heretikes and seeke to draw their subiects to their heresie neither Ecclesiasticall lenitie nor the reason that my Aduersarie heere hath brought why the Church now thought it needlesse to inflict bloodie penalties can be any hinderance why the Pope may not proceed against them with bloody punishments if we once suppose that he hath power and authoritie so to do But the true ancient doctrine is that a Priest as he is a Priest is forbidden by the law of Christ to vse See aboue part 2. cap. 9. and not onely is counselled for decencie sake not to vse the material or temporal sword 80 But now Mr. Fitzherbert for the vpshot and conclusion of this Chapter will cleerely prooue by an argument which no man forsooth of iudgement can denie that the supreme spirituall Pastour hath power to punish his sheepe or subiects not onely in their soules but also in their bodies and goods And truely I cannot but wonder saith hee r Pag. 126. nu 29.30 that any man of iudgement can thinke it vnlawfull for the supreme spirituall Pastour to punish his sheepe or subiects in their bodies or goods seeing that it cannot be denied but that he is their Pastour and superiour in regard not onely of their soules but also of their bodies that is to say of their whole persons wherein their bodie is necessarily included and therefore for as much as euery man is bound to serue God no lesse with his body then
spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures And without doubt you would condemne me for a vaine-glorious Thraso if I should take vpon me to prooue by the testimony and grant of Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and of your selfe who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes that the Pope hath no such power for that you and all the rest doe grant the Pope to bee the supreame spirituall Pastour and then by a necessarie consequence in my iudgement though not in yours I should inferre from thence that because the Pope is by the institution of Christ according to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers a spirituall Pastour and not a temporall Prince he hath only authoritie to giue or take away heauenly not earthly kingdomes to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to vse spirituall not temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill punishments This consequence the ancient Fathers made See aboue cha 5· sec 3. nu 11. seq But besides that it is not sufficient to prooue any conclusion by the authority of the Ciuill law vnles the Ciuil law granteth both the premises or propositions from whence that conclusion is deduced the insufficiencie of this consequence grounded vpon those rules The accessorie followeth the principall and he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse See chap. 2. 3. per totum I haue made manifest in the former Chapters 58 Secondly doe not dissemble Mr. Fitzherb nor seeke to delude your Reader but deale sincerely and be not ashamed to acknowledge your errour seeing that not onely your selfe but also Card. Bâ—ll Gretzer Lessius Becanus and also Suarez haue herein grosely erred For your meaning was not by making that long discourse out of the Ciuill law to proue the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes onely to inferre by a necessary consequent in your owne vnderstanding that he may also punish them temporally in their persons and states but your meaning was to proue directly by the Ciuill law the Oath to be vnlawfull for that in your opinion it denieth the Popes power to Excommunicate Princes which the Ciuill law doth expresly acknowledge For in the beginning of your Supplement you tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine namely in respect of those clauses which do exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope and then after you had made an end of your long discourse concerning the Popes spirituall power acknowledged by the Ciuill law you made this inference that the Ciuill law cannot iustifie the Oath but doth flatly impugne it for that the Oath supposeth and implieth the Kings Maiestie to be supreme head of the English Church and not the Pope and thereupon denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince So that the Oath in your opinion contained two clauses the one a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and this was that which you intended to prooue to bee directly repugnant to the Ciuill law the other was a deniall of the Popes power to depose Princes and this in a word or two related before you affirmed to be also repugnant to the ciuill law for that in your iudgement it followeth necessarily froÌ„ the fromer which how vaine an assertion this is you may see by that I haue said before for so you may make one to affirme any thing if to make him to graunt an argument or consequent it bee sufficient that he graunt the antecedent although hee deny the consequence But now it seemeth by your silence as I signified before in the first Chapter that you are ashamed to insist vpon the former clause concerning the Popes power to excommunicate Princes for which you made that long discourse to prooue by the Ciuill law the Popes supremacie in spirituals and yet rather then you will confesse your errour you care not to delude your Reader in dissembling the chiefe and principall cause for which you affirmed the Oath to bee repugnant to the Ciuill law to wit because it denyed the Popes power to excommunicate Princes wherein with many others of your Society you haue most fowlely and shamefully erred 59 Wherefore I may now very well conclude that the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought in his Supplement grounded as well vpon the law of God of nature and nations as vpon the ciuill or imperiall law are very insufficient and that the answeres which in my Admonition I did briefly make to them doe stand sound and good notwithstanding any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary Now you shall see what arguments he bringeth from the Canon law and especially from that so often named decree of the famous Councell of Lateran CHAP. IX Wherein the difficulties which some make concerning the authority of the Lateran Councel are propounded the decree of the Councell which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related and Widdringtons first answere to the said Decree is proued to be sound and sufficient and Mr. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted 1 WE are come now at last courteous Reader to examine what conuincing arguments can bee brought for proofe of this new pretended Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes out of the Canon law and especially from the decree of the great and famous Councell of Lateran whereon my principall Aduersaries seeing belike all their other arguments and authorities to bee cleane shaken and battered doe now chiefly rely Wherefore albeit neither the more ancient of our moderne Diuines who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba D. Sanders and others nor Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken from these men all his chiefe arguments and authorities to confirme his new Catholike faith in this point did in his Controuersies make any great reckoning of the decree of this great Councell for otherwise without doubt he being not ignorant of this decree and also desirous to make his doctrine vnquestionable and therefore feareth not to brand the contrary opinion with the note of heresie would not haue beene contented onely with the fact of Pope Innocent the third in deposing Otho the Emperour and haue neglected to vrge this decree of the Councell of Lateran which was called by the said Pope Innocent yet now hee flyeth to the decree of the great Councell of Lateran as the chiefe pillar to support his new Catholike faith therefore in regard principally of this decree he doubteth not to affirme but how rashly and without sufficient ground you shall see beneath that whosoeuer denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes contemneth the voyce of the Church in this so great and famous a Councell and is to be accounted a Heathen and Publican and in
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
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
4. p. 264. and his spirituall authoritie ouer a generall Councell contrary to the custome of that renowmed Vniuersitie writeth thus Notum est nomine Clericorum c. It is manifest that in an odious matter Bishops are not comprehended vnder the name of Clerkes nor sometimes in the same matter Religious men vnder the name of Monkes neque similiter nomine Dominorum Reges nor likewise Kings vnder the name of Landlords Gouernours or Lords in regard of the height and Maiestie of Kingly dignitie I will say more that perchance in an odious matter the King of France in regard of the singular prerogatiues wherein he excelleth other Kings is not comprehended vnder the name of Kings Thus D. Duual 12 And by this the iudicious Reader may cleerely perceiue both what censure my ignorant Aduersary deserueth both in branding this doctrine with the temerarious note of absurditie and also that from hence it followeth euidently that the answere which I gaue to the decree of the Laeteran Councell is not absurd or improbable For all this may be not onely a probable perswasion but also a manifest demonstration to any Catholike man of iudgement that in the foresaid Canon wherein temporall penalties are inflicted Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not included in those generall names of Dominus temporalis and Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which denote titles of honour office or dignitie farre inferiour to the height and Maiestie of Kingly Soueraingtie and that therfore no conuincing or demonstratiue argument can be brought from this Canon to prooue that the Pope hath authoritie to depose absolute Princes who according to the doctrine of so many learned men and also the decree of Pope Innocent himselfe are not in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder generall words which denote titles of inferiour worth honour or dignitie Wherefore although it bee needlesse the premises considered to make any further answere to the rest of my Aduersaries discourse in this Chapter yet for better satisfaction of the studious Reader I will set downe what weake obiections he continueth still to vrge 13 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzher b Pag. 150. nu 3. 4. I finde the opinion of Lawyers expresly contrary thereto For wheras the famous Canonist and Card. Hostiensis who wrote aboue 300. yeeres agoe saith that Deponitur haereticus c. Hostiens in Sum. tit de haereticis §. qua paena nu 9. an heretike is deposed from all dignity whether he be a Clerke or a Lay-man Pope Emperour or any inferiour he alledgeth for the same three Lawes whereof the second and the third doe directly proue our intent For the second is an ancient Decree of Liberius the Pope wherein he ordained that 24. q. 1. Qui contra Ecclesiae pacem Qui contra Ecclesiae pacem sunt c. They who are against the peace of the Church if they haue any dignitie or the militarie girdle let them be depriued of it if they bee priuate men and yet nobly borne let them forfeit all their substance or goods but if they bee ignoble or base people let them bee not onely whipped but also banished which I wish my Aduersary Widdrington well to note for two respects the one for albeit he seemeth to admit the authority of the Ecclesiasticall Canons yet he denieth often as you haue heard that the Church can inflict any corporall and temporall punishment which he may see was ordained by this ancient Decree admitted and set downe in the body of the Canon law besides many other cleare Canons and Decrees to the same purpose The other because he saith that Princes are not included in penall lawes if they be not specified by the name of Princes whereas neuerthelesse he may see that this ancient Canonist Hostiensis includeth them in this Decree though the tearmes thereof are very generall without any particular mention of Princes 14 But first what Cardinall Hostiensis a man wholly addicted to the aduancing of the Popes temporall Monarchy and his authority in temporals ouer absolute Princes not only indirectly but also directly or any other Canonist Ciuill Lawyer or Diuine affirmeth concerning this point is little to our purpose considering that other Diuines and Lawyers are contrary to him heerein And therefore it is not sufficient for Mr. Fitzherbert to bring the testimony onely of Hostiensis or of many other Doctours ioyned together with him to prooue my aforesaid doctrine to bee improbable but it is necessary for him to bring conuincing proofes and he must also shew that no other approoued Authours mooued with probable grounds doe maintaine the same 15 Secondly obserue good Reader what kind of conuincing proofes this man bringeth out of Hostiensis and how grosly thou art abused through the manifest fraud or ignorance of this my vnlearned Aduersarie For first this Decree of Pope Liberius admitted as hee saith and set downe in the bodie of the Canon law is not authenticall but of a suspected credit whereof also Mr. Fitzherbert could not haue bene ignorant if he had read in the Councells set out by Binnius the whole Decree which is taken out of a Decretall Epistle which is pretended to haue beene written by Pope Liberius to S. Athanasius which Epistle Binnius himselfe calleth in question The Consulls saith Binnius Binnius tom 1 Concil pag 470 in fine Epistolae 13. Liberij which are added to this Epistle to wit Asclepius and Deodatus doe shew it to be of a suspected credit for I could neuer find their names to be in oth r places subscribed to deedes writings or Calender bookes 16 Secondly if Mr. Fitzherbert had related the words immediatly going before that which heere he citeth out of the Canon and wisheth me to note well for two respects the Reader would presently haue perceiued his fraude or ignorance and that from this Canon no argument at all can be brought to prooue that the Pope hath authoritie to inflict temporall penalties but rather that temporall Kings haue authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments For the entire words of this Canon as it is set downe by Binnius are these Binnius vbi supra Whosoeuer shall presume to transgresse these things first let them be subiect to the terrible iudgement of Almightie God Deinde autem qualem cunque Regalem indignationem reuereantur per quam si Episcopi c. and afterwards let them reuerence or feare all Regall indignation by which if they be Bishops or Cleargie men let them fall or be depriued wholy from the order of their Priesthood or Cleargie but if they be Monkes let them be separated from their places but if they be in dignitie or haue the militarie girdle let them be depriued thereof but if they be priuate men yet noble let them forfeit all their substance or goods but if they be ignoble let them not onely be whipped but also perpetually banished that all men being repressed by the feare of God and fearing
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
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
of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion the Subiects could not bee absolued from the oath of allegiance or from the obligation that they owe to their Princes these his words I say doe neither contradict those English Catholickes who defend our English oath to be lawfull nor doe shew or signifie that Widdrington hath not brought any Diuines or Lawyers both French-men and of other Nations who affirme that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For the Cardinals words are to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam according to the matter which he treateth of and which he would perswade his Reader the three estates of France endeauoured to establish by their oath to wit that the subiects of the King of France could not be absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance by any authority whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall 30 Now it is euident that I neither produced nor intended to produce any Authors who in these generall tearmes expresly affirme that the Subiects of an hereticall Prince cannot be discharged of their allegiance neither by the spirituall authority of the Pope nor by the temporall power of the Common-wealth for that it was not my meaning as being a thing altogether impertinent to our Oath of England to examine what authority the ciuil Common-wealth hath ouer their Prince in the case of heresie or Apostacie For our oath onely denieth the Popes authoritie to depose our King and to discharge his subiects from their temporall allegiance and with the authority of the Common-wealth it doth not intermeddle But that the Pope hath no authority to depose temporall Princes and that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment depriuation of goods and such like but onely to Ecclesiasticall censures I haue brought many Authours both French and others to prooue the same among whom are Ioannes Parisiensis and also Iacobus Almainus cited here by the Cardinall in his Treatises Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. de Domino naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico o Concls 2. in probat 2. conclus and de authoritate Ecclesiae p Cap. 2. Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. where he writeth according to his owne opinion though not in his Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica which the Cardinall citeth where he commenteth Occam and speaketh according to Occams doctrine albeit these Doctours doe on the other side affirme that the Common-wealth hath authority to depose a wicked and incorrigible King and so that the Pope may according to them depose him per accidens as Ioan. Parisiensis writeth or to vse Ioannes Maior his words applicando actiua passiuis as he that applieth fire to straw is said to burne the straw to wit by perswading aduising commanding and also by spirituall censures compelling them who haue authority to wit the people or Common-wealth to depose him and after he is deposed by the people or kingdome by declaring his subiects absolued and discharged from the naturall and consequently also spirituall bond of their allegiance but this is impertinent to our oath of England wherein only the Popes authority to depose depriue our King of his Dominions by way of iuridicall sentence is denied 31 Wherefore the English Translatour of the Cardinalls oration doth with as great boldnesse as with little truth shamefully affirme q In his Preface to the Reader that this difference is found between these two oathes that whereas the English oath in one of the clauses seemes to exclude not only the authoritie of the Church ouer Kings but euen of the common-wealth also yea though it should be accōpanied with that of the Church that of France shootes only at the abnegation of the Churches authority For contrariwise although the oath of France may as you shall see at the first sight seeme to deny both the authority of the Church and also of the Common-wealth to depose the King of France yet our Oath shootes onely at the abnegation of the Popes authority to depose our King and to absolue his Subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For as I haue shewed in my Theologicall disputation our oath doth onely affirme r Cap. 3. sec 4 that the Pope neither of himselfe that is by the spirituall authority which is granted him by the institution of Christ nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome for that the Church or Sea of Rome hath no such authority nor by any other meanes with any other that is neither as a totall or partiall as a principal or instrumentall cause hath any power or authority to depose the King c. which last words doe only at the most import that whether the temporall Common-wealth hath any authority ouer the King for any cause or crime whatsoeuer or no with which question the King and Parliament did not intermeddle yet the Common-wealth hath giuen no such authority to the Pope either by himselfe or with any other to depose the King c. 32 But the oath of France doth expresly affirme that there is no power on earth whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall which hath any right ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue the sacred persons of our Kings nor to dispence or absolue their subiects from that loyaltie and obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoeuer for these be the expresse words of the oath of France which our English Translatour as it seemes either hath not seene or maliciously abuseth his Reader in affirming so shamefully that the oath of France shootes onely at the abnegation of the Churches authoritie which words of the oath of France also the Cardinall of Peron seemeth to vnderstand generally of all temporall and spirituall power whatsoeuer either out of the kingdome or of the kingdome it selfe as both by the propounding the state of his question and also by the whole drift of his oration any iudicious man may gather for which cause as I imagine he affirmeth ſ Pag. 115. that our Oath of England is more sweete and modest or moderate then that of France And truely although the words may seeme to any man at the first sight to haue that sense which the Cardinall pretendeth seeing that they expresly deny all power on earth both temporall and spirituall yet both the Translatour of his oration applieth them onely to the Popes authority and also if those words which hath any authority ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue be well obserued they may in my iudgement haue a very true sense to wit that the temporall power which there is mentioned is not to be referred to the authority of the kingdome it selfe seeing that no kingdome hath truely and properly right power and authority ouer itselfe neither hath the kingdome of France any right ouer the kingdome of France to depriue
of Princes confounding and inuoluing both questions concerning the authoritie of the Pope and also of the common-wealth to depose Princes together in one and then in affirming that Widdrington hath not brought any one Authour only D. Barclay excepted who saith that Princes for heresie cannot be deposed to wit neither by the Pope nor the common-wealth which is very true but it is not true that he hath brought no Authours who absolutely affirme that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes and that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments 38 An other cunning the Lord Cardinall of Peron may vse in confounding the oath or religious bond of temporall allegiance with the ciuill or naturall bond thereof which perchance he did for this end that his speech concerning the Popes authority to absolue from the oath of allegiance might seeme more plausible to his audience for that an oath is a sacred and spirituall thing and therefore not exceeding the obiect of the Popes spirituall power and all Diuines doe hold that the Pope hath authority to absolue from oathes either by releasing directly the spirituall bond it selfe or consequently by declaring the thing which is sworne not to be hic nunc in this particular case a fit matter of an oath but temporall allegiance and temporall kingdomes are temporall things and therefore that the Pope by his spirituall power should haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things and to absolue from temporall allegiance and to giue take away translate and dispose of temporall kingdomes would haue seemed very harsh in the yeeres of the greatest part of true French-men z In Apol. nu 148. 149. 39 But besides that as I haue shewed elsewhere the Pope cannot according to the doctrine of S. Thomas and his followers absolue from the oath of temporall allegiance but by declaring the naturall or ciuill bond it selfe of temporall allegiance to be voyd and of no force and consequently to be no fit matter to be sworne it little importeth to the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee touching the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance whether the Pope can release or take away the spirituall bond and obligation of the oath of allegiance it being a sacred and spirituall thing and made onely to confirme and corrobarate the former naturall bond of temporall allegiance For it doth not follow as wel noteth Ioannes Parisiensis Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. c. 16. ad 11 and I also obserued in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. that because the Pope can release or take away the sacred and religious bond of temporall allegiance he can also release and dissolue the naturall and ciuill bond wherein all subiects by the law of God and nature stand bound to their temporall Prince before they make any oath of temporall allegiance and very few subiects in comparison of others doe vsually make any such oath of allegiance And therefore perchance the Cardinall would for the cause aforesaid rather discourse of the Popes power to absolue subiects from the oath that is the sacred and spirituall bond of temporall allegiance then to depose Princes and to take away their Crownes and Regall authority which being taken away both their temporall allegiance and also the sacred and spirituall bond thereof is by a necessary consequent foorthwith dissolued 37 And to omit diuerse other cunning shifts which the Cardinall of Peron hath vsed in his discourse touching the deposition of hereticall Princes and which the Kings Maiesty in his answere to the Cardinalls oration hath in my opinion very cleerely and excellently discouered two notable cunnings or rather fraudes he hath vsed in translating into French the decree of the Councell of Lateran whereof now wee treat The first is in translating into French those words Si Dominus temporalis if any Prince whereas it is manifest that those words Dominus temporalis doe signifie euery Land-lord Maior Iudge Consull Potesta Gouernour Shiriffe Bayliffe Constable or any other inferiour Officer or Pettie Lord and although the Cardinall will perchance affirme that in those generall wordes Dominus temporalis all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are included which neuerthelesse I haue aboue confuted yet to translate those words Dominus temporalis any Prince as though the Councell had named Princes expresly and by the name of Princes cannot in my opinion bee excused from an egregious fraud and falshood The second is in translating those words vt ipse Summus Pontifex Vasallos ab eius fidelitate denunciet abfolutos that he the Pope may absolue his subiects from their oath of fidelitie whereas the words of the Councel only are that he may denounce or declare his Vassals absolued from their fidelity which words of the Councell doe expresly signifie that the vassalls were before absolued from their fidelity either by the decrees of Popes or of temporall Princes and that the Pope doth onely denounce or declare them absolued besides that the word vassalls he translateth subiects which haue farre different significations and that word a fidelitate from their fidelity he translateth from their oath of fidelity which in a Translator who is to set downe not only the sense but also the words cannot bee excused from an egregious corruption 38 Lastly I would gladly be resolued of this question either by the Cardinall of Peron or any other learned Catholike whether if the Doctours of Sorbon who hold the doctrine of the Councells superiority aboue the Pope to be true and conforme to the word of God and to the definitions of the generall Councels of Constance and Basil and consequently the contrary doctrine to be false impious and detestable and contrary to the word of God should make a decree that all of their Vniuersity should in their publike Readings Disputations and writings defend it as certaine that is should not maintaine or teach the contrary doctrine as probable or in any sort Or if the Doctours of Mentz who are of opinion that the doctrine for the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin is true conforme to the word of God and to the decree of the Councell of Basil and that the contrary is false and against the word of God and consequently impious and detestable should also make a Decree as Surius affirmeth b Vpon the yeere 1501. they haue done imitating saith he the decree of the Councell of Basil that it should bee altogether held that the most blessed mother of God was conceiued without the spot of originall sinne and did strictly ordaine that none heereafter should in that Vniuersitie bee promoted in sacred Diuinitie vnlesse he should before by oath make promise that he would neither maintaine in his minde nor any wise approoue the contrary opinion and the same question may be made concerning the Iesuites doctrine de auxilijs gratiae whether I say it must
sufficiently answered 46 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius for the confutation of my answeres to these examples if the Reader will be pleased after he hath read ouer this my Treatise wherein I confute this Doctour but onely to conferre my answeres with his Replies hee will easily perceiue how egregiously hee shuffleth and that he hath much adoe to excuse Cardinall Bellarmine from manifest improbability and bringeth no one argument which prooueth any one of my answeres to bee improbable and if hee desire to see this Doctours Replies more particularly answered I remit him likewise for this present to Maister Iohn Barclay to whom as yet no answere hath beene made in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmines answere to his father but especially to the Bishop of Rochester who although a Protestant yet out of Catholike Authours and Catholike grounds hath very cleerely and particularly confuted all these examples and what Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius if they bee two sundrie men haue brought to confirme the same 47 Besides that saith M. Fitzherbert Å¿ Pag. 184. nu 14. neither the Church nor yet Secular Princes doe vse to declare in their lawes from what authority the execution thereof shall proceede but it sufficeth that their authority to decree ordaine and execute their Lawes is sufficiently knowne and acknowledged by their subiects wherby it appeareth that Widdrington doth very idly require that the Councell of Lateran should haue declared that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie being a matter which they held to bee without all doubt or Controuersie 48 But as for Secular Princes it is not needefull for them to declare by what authoritie they make temporall lawes and ordaine or inflict temporall punishments for that no Catholike euer made doubt but that they had full authoritie to doe the same but seeing that it hath euer beene a Controuersie among Catholikes and very many Doctours doe affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments whensoeuer the Church doth inflict such punishments without declaring by what authoritie she doeth the same we may probably answere according to the grounds of these Doctours that shee doeth it not by her spirituall authoritie which can inflict no such punishments but by the authoritie license and consent of temporall Princes and therefore that we must certainly beleeue that the Councell of Lateran did ordaine the future deposition not of temporall Princes as this man faineth but of inferiour Land-lords Magistrates or Lords by her vndoubted Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same seeing that both Catholike Princes and subiects haue euer made a great doubt and controuersie concerning this point neither could the Fathers of that Councell bee ignorant heereof who both saw and felt what great contradiction and opposition both Philip and Otho t Pag. 184. nu 15. and the Princes of Germanie and their fauourers made against this pretended authoritie of the Pope to depose the Emperour and to dispose of temporall matters belonging to the Empire 49 And as for the consent of Princes saith Mr. Fitzherbert which Widdrington also requireth to Decrees concerning temporall matters I haue alreadie answered him touching that point and shewed u See Chap. 11. nu 7. 8. 9 s and see also my answere to the same as well by the example of the Apostles themselues as by the practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes that their consent is needelesse to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Decrees and that if the same were needefull all Christian Princes should stand bound to obey the Decrees of the Councell because being enacted by their generall consent in a generall Parliament of all Christendome it cannot bee repealed without another generall Councell of like authoritie So as thou seest good Reader that Widdringtons third answere is in euery thing defectiue and no lesse improbable then the former Neuerthelesse hee presumeth so much vpon the probabilitie thereof that hee vndertaketh to answere also a Reply which hee imagineth we will make to his last argument he should rather haue said last answer wherof I will examine the particulars in the next chap. 50 And I also in those places cited heere by my Aduersarie haue fully confuted his answeres and haue cleerely shewed that by no example of the Apostles nor any one practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes it can bee conuinced that the Apostles by their ordinarie power for of their extraordinarie and miraculous power I doe not now dispute or any Pope or Councell in the primitiue Church did inflict temporall punishments And whether a temporall law made in a generall assemblie or Parliament of all Christian Princes or confirmed by the generall consent of them all cannot bee repealed but by such another generall Assemblie or by the generall consent of them all I haue sufficiently declared aboue x Cap. 8. nu 26. seq out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez when I treated of the law of Nations Two things only may for this present be added thereunto The first is that no humane law either Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill doth binde vnlesse it bee approoued by the acceptance of the people as the common opinion of Diuines and Lawyers doeth affirme y See Disput Theol. c. 6. sec 3. nu 25. and that many Decrees of this Lateran Councell and namely this Decree which is now in question that euery temporall Officer Land-Lord or Lord when they come first to their Office or Landes must take an Oath to roote out heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction was neuer obserued or put in execution in this kingdome and in many other Kingdomes and Nations it is manifest for ought wee can gather by the relation of Histories 51 The second is that there is great difference to bee obserued betwixt temporall kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and consequently betwixt the generall assemblies or Parliaments of them both for that all Christians doe make one true proper and totall mysticall body or Common-wealth which is the Catholike Church and spirituall kingdome of Christ really vnited in spiritualls and subiect to one supreame visible head or spirituall Superiour thereof but all Christians doe not make one true and totall Ciuill body or Common-wealth really vnited in temporalls and subiect to one supreame visible head or temporall Prince thereof but they doe make diuers entire temporall kingdomes or Common-wealths so that throughout all the whole world there is but one true entire Catholike Church or mysticall body of Christ but there are many true entire temporall kingdomes and common-wealths From whence the iudicious Reader may easily gather the reason why a Decree made by a Generall Councell or spirituall Parliament can not be repealed but by
and reuerence their temporall Prince and to obey him in temporalls as with all my heart and soule I doe greatly respect and reuerence my Soueraigne Lord King IAMES acknowledging him to bee my onely Soueraigne Lord in temporalls to whom I owe all temporall allegiance as I acknowledge his Holinesse to bee my supreame spirituall Pastour to whom I owe spirituall obedience yet if the temporall Prince should command any thing which to his Suâ—iects consciences is manifestly vniust they may without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to their Prince not obey that vniust commandement knowing in that case they are bound rather to obey God then men especially if they bee readie to suffer without resistance the penaltie imposed by the law 9. Secondly that any Catholike might lawfully and without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse not obey or admit his Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation I yeelded in my Theological Disputation f Cap. 10 sec 2 nu 50. seq two sufficient reasons whereof the first and principall Mr. Fitzherbert heere fraudulently concealeth and both vnlearnedly and guilefully as you shall foorthwith see hee cauelleth onely against the second and lesse principall reason For I did not affirme that no Catholike is bound to admit his Holinesse Breues onely for that hee was ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines albeit this alone had beene a very sufficient reason but chiefly and principally for that his Breues were grounded vpon probable opinion at the most that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to dispose of all temporalls and to depose temporall Princes which doctrine being not certaine but in controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge no Catholike is bound to follow and consequently according to the doctrine of Fa. Suarez neither bound to obey his declaratiue commandement which is grounded thereon for that a declaratiue precept as is this of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath hath no greater force then the reason whereon is grounded but this first reason which I brought for the chiefe and principall Mr. Fitzherbert cunnigly dissembleth 10. For seeing that his Holinesse did onely in generall worde forbid English Catholikes to take the Oath for that therein are contained many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation without specifying in particular any one of those many things I by probable coniectures or rather by morall certainties all circumstances considered did gather that his Holinesse by those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation did either vnderstand as by all likelihood hee did his power to inflict Censures to excommunicate his Maiestie to binde and loose in generall c. and consequently his spirituall Supremacie which hee conceiued were denyed in the Oath for that Cardinall Bellarmine did publikely in his booke against his Maiesties Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance also in this sense vnderstand the same and then it is apparant that his Holinesse was misinformed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused for that it is too too manifest as his Maiestie himselfe hath against Cardinall Bellarmine conuinced that the Popes power to inflict spirituall Censures and to excommunicate his Maiestie was not treated of at all in the Oath but purposely declined and Mr. Fitzherbert also seemeth couertly to confesse as much for that albeit in his Supplement he affirmed See aâ—oue chap. â— that the Oath is vnlawfull for that therein is denyed the Popes powers to excommunicate for which in my Admonition I taxed him of falsitie yet now in his Reply he altogether flyeth from that point acknowledging in effect by his silence that hee dare not now maintaine his former assertion 11 But because I could not certainely know and affirme although it bee very probable that his Holinesse vnderstood those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation of his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures c. as Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius and Suarez did vnderstand them I added the second part of the disiunction to wit that his Holinesse vnderstood those many things c. in the former sense or else by those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation hee vnderstood his power to depose Princes to dispose of all temporalls and to inflict temporall punishments for that his Holinesse was of opinion that the doctrine for his power to depose Princes c. which is expresly denyed in the Oath is certaine and of faith And if this bee the meaning of his Holinesse then if hee did adhere to this opinion by his owne reading studie and learning whereof I haue no certaintie for that I know not whether his Holinesse being accounted onely a Lawyer and not to make profession of Schoole-Diuinitie had before the publishing of his Breues exactly studied this question and throughly examined all that could bee obiected on either side then I say that his Holinesse was greatly mistaken for that it is euident that this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes c. is not certaine and of faith but in controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge 12 But if his Holinesse did adhere to this opinion and conceiue that this doctrine for his power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith as it is very pobable hee did by the information of Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome who consulted of the Oath as Fa. Parsons relateth in his letter then I say that his Holinesse hath also beene ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused by them for that it is a controuersie among the Schoole-men saith Trithemius Trithem in Chron. Monast Hirsang ad an 1106. Almain de dominat ciuil Eccles conclus 2. in probat and as yet not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no And Almaine a very famous Schoole-Diuine and Doctour of Sorbon with very many or most Doctours as hee saith doeth resolutely affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes but onely of spirituall Censures neither was he euer taxed by any man of heresie errour or temeritie for holding this opinion 13 These were the reasons which I propounded to his Holinesse why English Catholikes thought themselues not bound to obey his declaratiue precept contained in his Breues For these are my expresse words in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse g Cap. 10. sec 2 nu 8. seq And this is the reason most holy Father why very few Lay Catholikes of any name or worth with vs doe refuse to take the Oath being tendered them by the Magistrate For while they aduisedly cal to
remembrance that this Oath before it was by your Holinesse declared to be manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation might with a probable and consequently with a safe conscience bee taken by any Catholike by reason of the authoritie of so many learned and vertuous Priests and withall they doe now not only consider that your Holinesse prohibition being a meere declaratiue precept can haue no greater force to binde then the reason whereon it is grounded and wholy dependeth as beneath h C. 10. sec 41. seq out of the doctrine of Fr. Suarez shal be made manifest but also they are probably perswaded that your Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons wrongfully informed of the reason for which you forbade Catholikes to take the Oath to wit for that it containeth many things which are plainly repugnant to faith and saluation seeing that neither your authoritie to chastice Princes to excommunicate them to inflict Censures or any spirituall authoritie which is certainly knowne to bee graunted by Christ to Saint Peter and his Successours is in this Oath denyed as Cardinall Bellarmine whom Fa. Parsons and diuers other Diuines of his Societie doe follow by fallacious inferences laboureth to deduce they cannot as yet sufficiently perceiue by what forcible argument they are bound with the perpetuall temporal ouerthrow of themselues and their whole posteritie to obey your Holinesse declaratiue commaundement which at the most is grounded vpon a probable reason Neither doe they conceiue that they ought therefore to bee accounted rebellious to the Sea Apostolike for that they reseruing otherwise all dutifull reuerence to your Holinesse doe not in a matter which is so preiudiciall vnto them obey your Holinesse Apostolicall letters which either are written vpon false information or grounded onely vpon a probable opinion 14 And in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation h Sec. 2. nu 50. 51. I brought to the obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues two answeres which are grounded vpon these two reasons To make therefore said I now at the last a compendious answere to all the three Breues and so also to the whole obiection To the first Breue whereon the other two doe depend it is answered first that although his Holinesse thinking and in his opinion supposing the Oath to bee of it selfe vnlawfull and to containe many things which are contrarie to faith and saluation doeth therefore by his letters or Breues forbid English Catholikes to take it yet seeing that this his prohibition is onely a declaratiue precept and founded in the priuate iudgement and opinion of his Holinesse as before i Num. 44. sequen we haue shewed as we are not bound to follow the Popes opinion against the probable opinion of other Catholike Diuines then especially when by following it very great preiudice is like to come to our selues and many others and when the reasons and grounds for his opinion are for the most part by all men accounted to bee very vnsound as are almost all those arguments which our learned Aduersaries haue obiected against the oath so also we are not bound to obey the Popes declaratiue precept which is founded in his opinion and in the reason which hee alledgeth which precept according to the aforesaid doctrine of Franciscus Suarez hath no greater force to binde then hath his reason and opinion whereon his declaratiue precept doth wholly depend 15 Secondly it is answered that there is no English Catholike who if he be well instructed will take the Oath or approue it to be lawfull in that sense wherein his Holinesse by all probable coniectures hath condemned it For it is probable and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse did vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and especially Cardinall Bellarmine whose aduise and opinion in this so weighty a Theologicall controuersie which must needes bring great good or harme to this kingdome his Holinesse as it is very probable both demanded and followed who therefore according to his Holinesse minde and by his permission wrote in defence of his Breues against his Maiesties Apologie for the oath But Cardinall Bellarmine vnderstood the Oath in this sense as though it denied the Popes Primacie in spirituals his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and also to dispence in Oathes in which sense doubtlesse it cannot be denied but that it containes many things which are flat contrary to faith and saluation but no Catholike doth in this sense either take the Oath or defend it to bee lawfull Neither are the arguments which Cardinall Bellarmine hath brought to prooue the same any way sound and sufficient but very fallacious as I haue shewed at large in the said Disputation 16 All this which is onely a part of the answere I brought from the obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues I thought fit to repeate here againe onely for satisfaction of some scrupulous Catholikes who perchance fearing now to reade my Disputation it being forbidden by the Cardinals of the Inquisition without declaring any cause either in particular or in generall why it it is forbidden of wnich their prohibition I will say more beneath may here most clearley see how soundly and without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse I propound to him the reasons for which English Catholikes thought themselues not bound to obey his declaratiue precept contained in his Breues humbly requesting him that in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall dutie he would vouchsafe to instruct vs in the Catholik faith and to make knowne vnto vs but one of those many things which hee saith are in the Oath so manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation 17 Whereby the Reader may easily perceiue the egregious fraude of this my vnlearned Aduersarie in vrging so vehemently to my disgrace the obiection drawen from the authority of his Holines Breues concealing the principall answer which I brought thereunto whereby I cleared my selfe from all iust imputation of irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse For what irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse can be iustly imagined in propounding to him being the supreame Pastour of our soules with all reuerent and respectiue words the reasons which doe mooue vs to thinke that he hath beene misinformed of the true sense of the Oath and the difficulties which do perplexe our consciences concerning his Breues and humbly requesting him in regard of his Fatherly loue and Pastorall office that he would vouchsafe to teach vs instruct vs in the Catholike faith in those things which he saith are in the oath contrary to faith and saluation No Catholike subiect is bound so to respect and reuerence his superiour albeit he be the Pope as to obey his commandements with blinde obedience when his conscience doth dictate vnto him that they are vniust but hee may with all dutifull respect propound to his Superiour although he be the
ouer the whole Church or a Generall Councell but also with the Diuines of Fraunce who are not so vehement for either of them and with the learned Priests and Catholikes of England whom it did most concerne and I am fully perswaded or rather morally certaine that both the Cardinall Peron and many other learned Catholikes both of France and England would at that time plainely haue told his Holinesse and giuen him sufficient reasons for their saying that neither the doctrine for his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith or the contrary improbable nor that his power to excommunicate or any other spirituall authority of his which is certaine and of faith is denied in the oath 35 And this also of my owne knowledge is very true as I haue signified heeretofore r In the Epistle dedicatory nu 6. to his Holinesse that a certaine Priest not of meaner sort did presently vpon the resolution of Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest and of diuers other learned Priests and Catholikes that the Oath might lawfully be taken with all the speed he might write to Mr. Nicolas Fitzherbert being then at Rome and sincerely related vnto him how all things heere had past concerning the conference and resolution of learned Priests end Catholikes about the Oath earnestly requesting him that either by himselfe or by meanes of a certaine Cardinal whom he nam'd to him he would deale effectually with his Holinesse not to bee perswaded to send hither any Breue against the taking of the Oath things standing as they did for that otherwise his authority as well temporall to depose Princes as spirituall to define without a generall Councell would be more strongly called in question by English Catholikes then it hath beene in former times Now if his Holinesse had deferred for a time the sending hither of his first Breue and in the meane space had demaunded the opinion of English Catholikes whom most of all it concerned in this difficult controuersie about the lawfulnesse of the Oath he might doubtlesse haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter then he was or could be informed by his owne Diuines of Rome whom besides that they had not taken such paines in canuassing this question touching the certaintie of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes as many of our English Catholikes had he might haue some cause to suspect that they would speake partially in fauour of his authority either for hope of promotion as being men feruent to aduance all his pretended authoritie or for feare of incurring his displeasure and to bee accounted Aduersaries to the Sea Apostolicall as the euent alas hath prooued to bee ouer true 37 Or secondly the sense and meaning of those wordes may bee that his Holinesse by that long graue and mature deliberation and consultation was sufficiently that is truely and certainely informed of the whole matter and of the true sense and meaning of all the clauses of the Oath and this I say is very vntrue as likewise it is very vntrue that Cardinall Bellarmine notwithstanding all his graue mature and long deliberation and consultation had concerning this controuersie for betwixt this consultation of his Holinesse at which Cardinall Bellarmine was one of the chiefest and the publishing of his second booke against his Maiestie there passed almost foure whole yeeres and the consultation of his Holinesse could continue but few moneths seeing that the Oath was published heere about Iune and his Holinesse first Breue was dated the first of October next following hee was greatly mistaken and deceiued both in the vnderstanding of those wordes of the Oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. and of diuers other clauses thereof as I haue sufficiently conuinced in my Theologicall Disputation and Mr. Fitzherbert by his silence and not replying to this point being vrged by me thereunto doeth in effect acknowledge as much and also in his opinion touching the certaintie and infallibilitie of the doctrine for the Popes power to depose temporall Princes which without any sufficient ground euen according to his owne principles hee will needes haue to bee a point of faith 38 And heereby you may see how falsly and slaunderously and with small respect to his Holinesse whom Mr. Fitzherbert would seeme so much to reuerence hee concludeth in these words Å¿ P. 214. nu 5. Disp Theol. c. 10. s 2. nu 46. Therefore he that thinketh otherwise of his Holinesse as Widdrington doth affirming that his Breues were grounded vpon light foundations and false informations must needes hold him to be the most carelesse and negligent Pastour that euer gouerned the Church of God whereby any man may iudge what account Widdrington maketh of his Holinesse and his authoritie notwithstanding his submission of his writings to the Catholike Roman Church 39 But first it is very vntrue that from my wordes any such inference can bee gathered as Mr. Fitzherbert heere maketh I gaue indeede as you haue seene two answeres to his Holinesse Breues which are briefly comprised in those few words light foundations and false informations My first and principall answere which this fraudulent man altogeth concealeth was this that if his Holinesse Breue forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation was grounded vpon the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance as all my Aduersaries grant it was chiefly grounded thereon then I say it was not grounded vpon any certaine doctrine infallible and of faith but vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which were alwayes impugned by learned Catholikes which vncertaine and fallible grounds I called light for that they are not sufficient and weightie enough let them be neuer so probable to build thereon any certaine and infallible doctrine of faith and which euery Catholike vnlesse hee will deny his faith is bound to follow My second answere which this man doth also in great part conceale for that I did particularly set downe wherein his Holinesse was misinformed which he wholly dissembleth was that if his Holinesse Breue was grounded as by all likelihood it was vpon this foundation that his power to excommunicate his power to bind and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie which according to the common doctrine of Catholikes is indeede cleerely repugnant to faith is denyed and impugned in the Oath then I say that his Breues were grounded vpon false informations for that there is no such thing denyed in the Oath as I haue euidently conuinced howsoeuer Cardinall Bellarmine hath laboured to prooue the contrarie And neither of these answeres can bee sufficiently confuted by any of my Aduersaries neither are they repugnant to the submission of my writings to the Catholike Roman Church 40 So as you see that I made not that irreuerent inference which Mr. Fitzherbert heere concludeth I
Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome for of Fa. Parsons misinforming his Holinesse I made no mention at all in that answere but onely of his vrging his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the oath My words were these c Num. 52. Moreouer that his Holinesse was perswaded that in this oath is denied his spirituall authority to inflict Censures is plainely gathered by a letter of Fa. Parsons who did greatly vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues as both some Iesuites here with vs doe freely confesse and also no man who knoweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in his daies can make any doubt thereof This therefore is the true copie of that letter c. About some foure o fiue moneths agoe it was consulted by seauen or eight of the learnedst Diuines that could bee chosen who gaue their iudgement of it Their reasons are many but all reduced to this that the Popes authority in chastising Princes vpon a iust cause is de fide and consequently cannot bee denied when it is called into controuersie without denying of our faith nor that the Pope or any other authoritie can dispense in this c. 50 Now Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale this part of the letter whereby it is manifest that the Diuines of Rome did suppose that the Popes authority to punish Princes and consequently to excommunicate and to inflict spirituall Censures is denied in the oath for otherwise as I shewed in that place d Num. 57. they had argued very vitiously against the knowne rules of Logicke from a particular to inferre an vniuersall as thus The Pope cannot chastice Princes by taking away their liues or dominions therefore the Pope cannot chastise Princes as though the inflicting of spirituall Censures and the denouncing of anathema Aug. lib. 1. contra aduers leg prophet cap. 7. which according to Saint Augustine is more horrible then any corporall death were not to be accounted a chasticing of Princes We grant therefore that the Pope may chastice Princes by vsing Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not denied in the oath but we vtterly deny that to depriue Princes of their dominions or liues are to be ranked among spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures Thus I argued in that place from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter all which my fraudulent Aduersary thought best for his purpose to conceale and to skip ouer to the other part of the letter thinking from thence to take some colourable argument to prooue both that Fa. Parsons did not perswade and draw his Holinesse to the publication of his Breue also that the inference I made frō thence to wit that his Holinesse was perswaded that his authority to inflict Censures is denied in the oath is sorsooth improbable and impertinent wherein as you shall see he continueth still his ancient fraude and falsitie 51 For first I did not intend to prooue by Fa. Parsons letter or by his conference with his Holinesse that he vrged and perswaded his Holinesse to forbid the taking of the oath two other reasons I brought here to confirme the same wich Mr. Fitzherbert after his vsuall manner concealeth the one that some Iesuites heere in England did freely confesse the same the other that no man who konweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in Fa. Parsons time can make any doubt thereof To which may be added two other the first that Mr. Nicholas Fitzherbert whose letter is yet to be seene did send word to a friend of his that Fa. Parsons laboured much to haue the oath forbidden the second that the Prouinciall of the Iesuites at that time who is yet liuing did boast to diuers persons that he would cause to be reuersed what Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest had concluded concerning the lawfulnesse of the oath and would procure a Breue from his Holinesse to forbid all Catholikes to take the oath and which with very great expedition as I signified in my Epistle Dedicatory to his Holinesse was accordingly performed all which are to any man of iudgement very probable coniectures if not morall certainties that Fa. Parsons did vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the taking of the oath But howsoeuer it be it is not much materiall to my second answere or reason which is that his Holinesse was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures and consequently his spirituall supremacy is plainly denied in the oath whether Fa. Parsons did vrge and incite his Holinesse to forbid the oath or no. 52 Besides for the confirmation of my second answere those words of the Breue for that it containeth many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation and also his Holinesse answere to Fa. Parsons that he could not hold them for Catholikes who seemed to incline to the taking of the oath are very considerable for that before these our miserable times wherein so many new fangled Doctours are ready to coyne new articles of faith and to taxe with such facilitie their Catholike brethren of errour and heresie that will not foorth with approoue their nouelties it was neuer in the Church of God accounted an heresie to deny the Popes authoirty to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments neither hath any Catholike Author who writeth of heresies or Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe relating the errours of Marsilius of Padua ranked him among heretickes for denying the Popes power to depose Princes And very many Catholike Doctours with Iacobus Almaine who haue not therefore beene branded by any man with any note of heresie or errour doe resolutely affirme that the authoritie of the Church doth not extend by the institution of Christ to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods much lesse of kingdomes but onely of spirituall Censures And Fa. Suarez himselfe dare not auouch Suarez l. 6. c. 1. that the Popes spirituall authority is plainly and manifestly but onely couertly denied in the oath and this also he gathereth from many farre fetcht consequences all which I haue cleerely answered in my Appendix against him And therefore from the aforesaid words of his Holinesse that he could not take those Priests for Catholikes that inclined to the taking of the oath it may very probably be included that he was fully perswaded that not onely his authority to depose Princes but also his power to excommmicate and to binde and loose in generall as Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome then conceiued is plainly denied in the Oath 53 Secondly whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that hee can testifie vpon his owne knowledge that Fa. Parsons was so farre from perswading or drawing his Holinesse to the resolution which hee tooke concerning the publication of his Breue that he sought to induce him to some other course propounding meanes of mitigation c. I will not now contend about the
affaires his Holinesse meant to include not onely the authority to vse Censures which onely were mentioned in the words next going before and to which onely any man according to the property of the words would restraine them but also to despose them which is not much materiall to the present purpose for be it so that his Holinesse speaking of the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included his power as well to depose as to excommunicate Princes it is nothing to the matter for that which I intend is that his Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines who consulted of the Oath not onely misinformed that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is plainly denied in the Oath but also that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall authority which is verie vntrue as in this Treatise I haue sufficiently declared and prooued 67 But that also which M. Fitzherbert addeth for a confirmation of his saying to wit that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects from their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some censure of Excommunication is both false and also repugnant to the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine For Childericke King of France which example Cardinall Bellarmine bringeth for a proofe that the Pope hath power to depose Princes was deposed and his subiects discharged of their allegiance and not by vertue of any Censure of Excommunication And it is one thing saith Becanus Becanus incōtrou Anglic. c. 3. p. 2. pag. 108. to excommunicate a King and another to depose or depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connexed with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue beene excommunicated and not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and not therefore excommunicated And yet my ignorant Aduersary to patch vp this silly answere of his doth now agreeable to his learning boldly affirme that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication whereas I haue sufficiently prooued aboue m Chap. 1. nu 21. seq chap. 5. sec 2. 131. seq out of the doctrine of Suarez Becanus and from the definition of excommunication that deposition is not an effect of Excommunication that therefore although they are sometimes ioyned together and that some Princes haue beene both excommunicated and deposed by the Pope yet they were not deposed by vertue of the Censure of Excommunication for that as his Maiestie did wel obserue n In his Premonition p. 9. Excommunication being only a spirituall Censure hath not vertue to worke this temporall effect 68 Now you shall see how vncharitably and also vnlearnedly this ignorant man concludeth this point Whereupon it followeth saith hee o p. 219. nu 14 that albeit his Holinesse had beene perswaded by Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and others as doubtlesse he was although this man would seeme to deny the same that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes impugned his spirituall authority he had not beene deluded or deceiued therein nor had erred in the reason why hee forbade the Oath though he had forbidden it for that cause onely as it is euident by the Breue he did not but for many respects And therefore thou seest good Reader what probable exceptions this silly sicke and scabbed sheepe taketh to the iudgement and sentence of his supreame Pastour and what account hee maketh of his Apostolicall authoritie and consequently what a good Catholike hee is 69 But if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance impugneth his spirituall authoritie to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures as needes hee must if hee will speake to the purpose for that all his former discourse hath beene to impugne my second answere to his Holinesse Breues which was that hee was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures is denyed in the Oath then I say that his Holinesse was fowly deluded and deceiued in that reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation although hee did not forbid it for that cause only But if his meaning bee that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes for to these two generall heads and to all that which doth necessarily follow thereon both this man and all my other Aduersaries doe chiefly reduce all their exceptions against the Oath and if for any other respects his Holinesse forbade the Oath let my Aduersarie name them and hee shall heare what wee will say thereunto impugneth his spirituall authoritie for that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes to dispose of their temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to discharge subiects of their temporall allegiance and which consequently are included in his spirituall power then I also say that his Holinesse was deluded dedeceiued and erred also in this reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation for that it is no point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to inflict temporall punishments c. but the contrarie hath euer beene maintained by learned Catholikes 70 Neither was Almaine a famous Doctour of Paris and those very many Doctours related by him or any other of those learned Authours whom partly I cited in my Apologie p nu 4. seq and partly aboue in this Treatise q Part. 1. euer accounted bad Catholikes or silly sicke and scabbed sheepe Neither can Card. Bellarmine euen according to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before and in his owne conscience whereunto I dare appeale heerein affirme that the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell whereon all my Aduersaries doe now at last chiefly rely to proue their doctrine of deposing to be of faith although it should haue mentioned as it doeth not mention absolute Princes is sufficient to make it certaine and of faith And therefore this ignorant and vnconscionable man calling mee a silly sicke and scabbed sheepe and no good Catholike for not beleeuing this doctrine to bee certaine and of faith which so many learned Catholike Doctours haue euer maintained to bee false and for not admitting his Holinesse declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon and consequently hath no greater force to binde according to Suarez doctrine then hath the reason whereon it is grounded sheweth himselfe to haue neither learning nor charitie but a vehement desire to disgrace mee with Catholikes and to take away my good name per fas nefas whether it bee by right or wrong as all the rest of his vncharitable and fraudulent discourse doeth
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
learned Catholikes to be numbred 111 And for this cause and vpon this motiue as I coniecture his Maiestie and the State suffered vs to write like Catholikes of this point and according to the grounds and principles of the Catholike Religion which wee professe and to submit our writings to the Censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church and to dedicate them to his Holinesse to the end they might see what he or other Catholikes would or could except against our doctrine But this fradulent and vncharitable man who like the diligent and carefull Bee might as you haue seene from this permission consent or approbation of his Maiestie and the State gather hony to comfort the afflicted hearts of distressed Catholikes and to appease and mollifie the wrath indignation and bad opinion of his Maiestie and the whole kingdome conceiued against vs by reason of that most horrible and abhominable Powder-Treason plotted and attempted by Catholikes doth like the craftie and malignant serpent gather from thence poyson to inflict and afflict the hearts of his Catholike Countrey-men and to exasperate his Maiestie and the State against himselfe and other Catholikes and to increase the indignation and bad opinion which the whole Realme hath conceiued against vs wherein hee discouereth his ill affected minde towards his Maiestie and his great want of charitie towards his afflicted brethren 112 But let vs goe on and see his childish collection For can any man saith he perswade himselfe that their Lordships are turned Papists of late or that they would suffer bookes to bee printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Catholike Romane Church if they did not know that the Author 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 113 It is very true that no reasonable man can perswade himselfe that their Lordships and the State are turned Papists of late for permitting Catholikes to free themselues from this scandalous and slanderous imputation which this ignorant and vncharitable man and his fellowes would lay vpon them and to suffer their bookes to bee printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Catholike Romane Church as likewise no reasonable man can perswade himselfe that Bishop Bancroft and the State were turned Papists for permitting the Apellant Priests to defend their innocency and to free themselues from so many scandalous and slanderous crimes which this vncharitable fellow with Fa. Parsons and his adherents did obiect against them and to suffer their bookes to be printed vnder the name of Catholikes and some of them to be dedicated to the Pope and to the Cardinalls of the Inquisition and with submission of the whole to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church and also for furthering their Appeale by releasing some out of prison for that purpose and by letters moouing the king of France in their behalfe that he would be a meanes to his Holinesse that their cause might be heard and they not to be oppressed through the potency of their Auersaries in the Court of Rome and that if they were wronged they might bee freed of those slanderous imputations and if faultie they might accordingly be censured for which fauours those Priests and all their adherents were bound to giue most heartie thankes to her Maiestie and the State by whose meanes they made knowne to the world their innocencie and oppression to the euerlasting shame and discredit of their Aduersaries who in the like manner doe now proceed against me and other Catholikes who are desirous to make manifest to all the world their dutifull allegiance which they owe to God and Caesar and which their violent and vncharitable proceeding I make no doubt but in the end will turne to their great shame and confusion for truth and innocency although for a time it may be oppressed will in the end preuaile 114 Wherefore any man may perswade himselfe that his Maiestie and the State still remaining Protestants may for many good reasons permit such bookes of Catholikes which cleerely prooue that no Protestant Prince can according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes be deposed by the Pope to be printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church yet knowing that the Author thereof meant the same truely and sincerely and not for a meere mockerie and derision of his Holinesse c. as my Aduersary falsly and childishly inferreth which his inference as I signified elsewhere may be retorted against Cardinall Bellarmine who impugneth the Popes direct authority and dominion in temporals and yet he dedicated his booke to the Pope and submitted the whole to his Censure belike honouring him as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex ludaeorum and spitting in his face A chife and principall reason why the State may prudently permit some bookes of Catholikes to be printed in the aforesaid manner may bee thereby to know truely and vnfainedly whether Catholike religion and temporall subiection to a Prince of another Religion true spirituall obedience of Catholike subiects to the Pope and true temporall allegiance of the said Catholike subiects to a King who acknowledgeth no such spirituall obedience to the Pope may stand together and how farre the Popes authority by the institution of Christ doth according to the grounds of Catholike Religion extend in temporall affaires to wit whether to the deposing of hereticall or wicked Princes to the disposing of all temporalls and to the inflicting of all temporall punishments in order to spirituall good or onely to the inflicting of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures 115 For what man of iudgement can deny that it is very necessary for his Maiestie considering the Religion which he professeth to know how farre he may be assured of the vnfaigned and constant loyalty of his Catholike subiects and how farre he may prudently permit tolerate or fauour them when occasion shall require without any probable danger of new gun-powder plots or other innouations or conspiracies against the State to be attempted by them publikely or secretly with the expresse or tacite commandement or licence of the Pope Other reasons may be alledged which may mooue the State to suffer my bookes to be printed in the aforesaid manner one may be a tender commiseration of distressed Catholikes who for yeelding their temporall allegiance to his Maiesty as he by the new Oath hath required at their hands and making knowne to the whole world the lawfulnesse thereof euen according to the grounds of Catholike Religion are slandered and defamed as being no good Catholikes but heretickes disguisâ—d and masked vnder the Vizards of Catholikes which might mooue his Maiestie and
whole to the censure of the Catholike Romane Church in that manner as bookes are vsually printed by Catholikes And if S. Ambrose or any other of the ancient Fathers were now aliue and should see bookes of certaine Catholikes directly impugning the Soueraigne power and authority of Kings and absolute that Princes whom they did so highly honor and reuerence affirming them to be inferiour in temporals to none but God alone vnder pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike and subiecting them to the coerciue temporall power of spirituall Pastours whereas their generall doctrine was that with temporall punishments they are not to be punished but by God alone and broaching by violence and without sufficient ground with scandall to Catholike Religion and contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles and the whole primitiue Church new articles of faith in preiudice of temporall authority and not permitting any man eyther to call their new faith in question or for his better instruction or discussion of the controuersie to propound any difficulty against the same with a desire to be satisfied therein albeit he submit himselfe and all his writings to the censure of the Catholike Roman Church but with open mouth crying out against him and calling him an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike what would S. Ambrose trow you or any other of the ancient Fathers if they were now aliue say of such Catholikes Truly that nothing can be more dangerous then such Catholikes who vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike religion and to the Sea Apostolike inuent new articles of faith in preiudice of Christian Princes by wresting many places of the holy Scriptures as Quodcunque solueris Pasce oues meas Secularia iudicia si habueritis c. to a sense not dreamed of by the ancient Fathers by reason of their potency in the Court of Rome and their fauour with his Holinesse whose authority they pretend to aduance vniustly persecuting those that discouer their manifest frauds and falshoods 122 Lastly that which Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth heere against me migh Bartholus Carerius and other Canonists obiecteth against Cardinall Bellarmines booke directly impugning the authority of the Sea Apostolike vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church But the plaine truth is that neyther of vs both doe impugne that authority whiCh is certainely knowne and acknowledged by all Catholikes to belong to the Sea Apostolike but as hee impugneth the direct power of the Pope to dispose of temporalls for that there is no sufficient ground to proue the same albeit some Popes haue challenged the same as due to them and some Canonists affirme that it is hereticall to deny the same so I impugne the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine who holdeth that it is certaine and a point of faith that the Pope hath at least wise an indirect power to dispose of all temporals and consequently to depose temporall Princes in order to spirituall good for that there is no sufficient ground to confirme the same 123 And the like argument might Mr. Fitzherbert vrge against all those learned Catholikes who constantly deny the Pope to haue authority to dispence in any true and lawfull marriage which is not consummated notwithstanding so many practises of Popes to the contrary impugning directly the Sea Apostolike and the whole course of Ecclesiasticall gouernment vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church For Saint Antoninus doth of affirme Antonin 3. part tit 1. cap. 21. § 3. Caiet tom 1. opusc trac 28. de Matrim q. vnica Nauar. in Manual cap. 22. nu 21. Henriq lib. 11. de matrim cap. 8. nu 11. in Com. lit F. Sot in 4. dist 27. q. 1. ar 4. that hee saw the Bulles of Pope Martin the fifth and Pope Eugenius the fourth who dispenced therein and Card. Caietane relateth that in his time Popes did oftentimes dispence therein and Nauar affirmeth that Pope Paulus the third and Pope Pius the fourth did dispence therein three or foure times by his Counsell and aduise And Henriquez the Iesuite saith that Pope Gregorie the thirteenth did in one day dispence therein with eleuen persons Whereupon Dominicus Sotus although he submitteth himselfe and all his writings to the Censure of the Church is not afraide notwithstanding this often practise of Popes which my ignorant Aduersarie calleth the practise of the Church to say that those Popes erred therein following the Canonists opinion which he affirmeth to haue in it no shew of probabilitie And why then may it not be said in like manner that his Holinesse condemning the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation followed Cardinall Bellarmines opinion and other Diuines of Rome who hold that the Popes power to excommunicate and inflict Censures is denied in the Oath and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is denied in the Oath is certaine and of faith which their doctrine in my opinion hath in it no shew of probabilitie at all euen according to those rules which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe requireth to make any doctrine of Pope or generall Councell to be of faith Whereby is plainely discouered the manifest fraude and ignorance of my vncharitable Aduersarie in affirming my doctrine to be hereticall and my selfe to be an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholik for denying the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be of faith whereas euen according to the rules which Cardinall Bellarmine requireth to make a matter of faith he cannot bring any one argument Which hath so much as a shew of probabilitie to conuince the same 124 Marke now the fraudulent Admonition which Mr. Fitzherbert giueth to his Catholike Reader vnder pretence forsooth of sinceritie and the feruent zeale he hath of his soules health And therefore I hope saith he e Pag. 223. nu 22. thou wilt be wary good Catholike Reader and diligent to discouer Widdringtons fraude thereby to auoide the danger of his poysoned pen pondering all this matter in the iust ballance of prudence that is to say that thou wilt counterpoise his vaine pretence of probabilitie not onely with the graue and sacred authoritie of the Churches practise for many ages but also with the Canons of generall and Prouinciall Councells with the Decrees of Popes and with cleere doctrine of so many famous and learned Writers as hee impugneth Also that thou wilt weigh his presumption in defending and iustifying the Oath with the iudgement authority of thy supreame Pastour who condemneth and forbiddeth it the pretended force and soliditie of his doctrine and arguments with the ridiculous absurdities which thou hast euidently seene in his answeres to mee outward shewes of affection to thee and desire of thy good with the inward intelligence he hath with Gods enemies and thine who employ him to deceiue thee seruing themselues of him as Fowlers doe of birds which they keepe in
Cages for stalles to draw other birds with their chirping into their nets and snares Also that thou wilt ballance thy obligation to man with thy dutie to God and the losse of thy temporall goods with the gaine of euerlasting glory from the which the Diuell seeketh by his meanes to debarre thee and therefore I wish thee euer to beare in minde this comfortable lesson of the Apostle 2 Cor. 4. Quod momentaneum leue est tribulationis nostrae aeternum gloriae pondus operatur in nobis 125 But on the contrary side I hope thou wilt bee warie good Catholike Reader and diligent first to discouer the manifest fraud and falshood of this vnlearned and vncharitable man thereby to auoyde the danger of his slanderous and poisoned pen in propounding to thee a new article of faith so preiudiciall to the supreame authority of temporall Princes so dangerous to thy owne spirituall and temporall good so repugnant to the example and practise of Christ and his Apostles and of the whole primitiue Church vnknowen to the ancient Fathers vntill the time of Pope Gregory the seauenth which at the first broaching thereof was branded with the marke of nouelty This nouelty not to say heresie Sigeb ad ann 1080. Onuph lib. 4. de varia creat Rom. Pont. saith Sigebert A thing vnheard of before that age saith Onuphrius and lastly not confirmed by any one argument which hath any shew of a probable proofe to confirme euen according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds any doctrine which hath beene in controuersie among learned Catholikes to be certaine and of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 126 Secondly that thou wilt ponder all this matter in the iust ballance of prudence that is to say that thou wilt counterpoise his vaine pretended Catholike faith newly broached in the Christian world and the childish and ridiculous arguments brought to conuince the same with the example of Christ and his Apostles with the practise of the primitiue Church with the doctrine of the ancient Fathers with the authority of learned Catholikes who were neuer accounted heretikes or ill belieuers for impugning the same 127 Thirdly that thou wilt call to minde what is required euen according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds to make a matter of faith so that all Catholikes are bound to beleeue the same and that all the Acts euen of generall Councells doe not appertaine to faith but onely the bare Decrees and those not all but those onely which are propounded as of faith * See also Estius in Praefat epist ad Hebraeos Where also he affirmeth it to be probable that Dauid did not make all the 150. Psalmes although the Councell of Trent in the Decree of Canonical Scriptures expresly mentioneth Dauids Psalter of a 150. Psalmes Whereby thou maiest plainly see that he hath brought no one argument which hath any colour of a probable proofe drawne either from the practise of some Popes which he falsly and fraudulently calleth the practise of the Church or from any Canon or Decree of Pope or generall Councell or from any other authoritie whatsoeuer to prooue this doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and that the Councell of Lateran doth neither treate of the deposition of absolute Princes nor propound the doctrine whereof it treateth as of faith 128 Fourthly that thou wilt consider the doctrine of Sotus before rehearshed not onely concerning the Popes dispensations in lawfull and valide matrimony when carnall copulation doth not follow so often practised by diuers Popes which neuerthelesse hee impugneth as not hauing any shew of probabilitie but also touching the dutie of subiects towards their Superiours when they command any thing which is preiudiciall to a third person and the Subiect is doubtfull of the lawfulnesse thereof Whereby thou wilt cleerely perceiue that it is no presumption to reiect the iudgement of his Superiour albeit he be our supreme Pastour when it is contrary to the iudgement of other learned Catholikes or not to obey his declaratiue commandement grounded thereon especially humbly propounding to him the reasons of his doubts Neither is it more presumption for any man to say that the Pope was deceiued in his Breues following the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and some other Diuines of Rome who hold it a matter of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes seeing that many learned Catholikes haue euer maintained the contrary then it was for Sotus and many others of his opinion to say that all those Popes that dispenced in the aforesaid Marriages were deceiued following the doctrine of the Canonists 129 Fifthly that thou wilt weigh my sound Replyes and plaine dealing in propounding to thee sincerely the true state of euery difficultie and omitting nothing which he obiecteth against me with his childish and ridiculous arguments and answeres and false and fraudulent proceeding in seeking to confound thy vnderstanding with generall and ambiguous words and which haue diuers senses which hee omitteth to explaine and in vrging those arguments which I my selfe obiected and concealing the answeres which I made thereunto and in imposing vpon me many vntruths thereby to make some shew of impugning my answeres and in particular concerning the Lateran Councell which hee so often saith I doe impugne and then especially when I make no mention at all thereof whereas it is manifest that I doe not at any time impugne that Decree or Act but the exposition which he and some others make thereof and I doe expound it according to the grounds and principles of learned Catholikes both Diuines and Lawyers Also that thou wilt ballance thy dutie towards God with thy obedience due to Caesar and render to either of them that which is their due neither for feare of disgrace humane respect or any other temporall losse thou wilt so adhere to the Pope as to renounce thy allegiance due to thy temporall Prince from which the Deuill by my Aduersaries meanes vnder pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike seeketh to draw thee And therefore I wish thee euer to beare in minde the expresse commandent of our Sauiour Matth. 22. Render the things that are Caesars to Caesar and the things that are Gods to God and for thy more particular direction heerein especially to remember that vnboubted principle of Fa. Lessius which aboue in the Preface * nu 15. 16. I did also recommend to thy memorie A power which is not most certaine but probable cannot bee a ground or foundation to punish any man or to depriue him of his right and dominion De Regulis Iuris in 6o. and ff de Regulis Iuris In pari causa which he really possesseth for that according to the approued maxime both of the Canon and Ciuill law In a doubtfull or disputable case the state or condition of the possessor is to bee preferred 130 Lastly to that which this spitefull man obiecteth against me concerning my inward intelligence
bee published euery where made by the Sacred Congregation of the most Honourable Cardinalls of the holy Roman Church specially deputed by our most holy Lord Pope Paul the fift and the holy Apostolike Sea for the examination of bookes and their permission prohibition purgation and impression throughout the vniuersall Christian Common-wealth The Sacred Congregation of the most Honourable Cardinalls of the holy Roman Church deputed for the examination of bookes hauing seene a booke falsly intituled An Apologie of Cardinall Bellarmine for the right of Princes against his owne reasons for the Popes authoritie to depose Secular Princes in order to spirituall good written by Roger Widdrington an English Catholike in the yeere of our Lord 1611. and another booke of the same Authour intituled A Theologicall Disputation concerning the Oath of Allegiance dedicated to the most holy Father Pope Paul the fift Printed at Albinopolis in the yeere of our Lord 1613. hath iudged both the bookes worthy to bee condemned and prohibited and by the commandement of our most holy Lord Pope Paul the fift doeth by this present Decree vtterly condemne and prohibite them in what language soeuer they are printed or to be printed and except the Authour of them who professeth himselfe to be a Catholike doe cleare himselfe foorthwith hee is to vnderstand that hee shall bee throughly punished with Censures and other Ecclesiasticall penalties Furthermore it commandeth vnder the penalties contained in the holy Councell of Trent and the Index of forbidden bookes that none of what degree or condition soeuer be so bold from hencefoorth to print the foresaide bookes or cause them to bee printed or keepe them with him in any sort or reade them Also it commandeth vnder the same penalties that whosoeuer hath them now or shall haue them heereafter hee shall presently vpon the knowledge of this present Decree exhibite them to the Ordinaries of the places where he is or to the Inquisitours In testimonie whereof this present Decree was signed and sealed with the hand and seale of the most Honourable and most Reuerend Lord the Lord Cardinall of S. Caecila Bishop of Alba the 16. of March 1614. P. Bishop of Alba Cardinall of S. Caecilia The place ✚ for the seale Regist fol. 50. Fr. Thomas Pallauicinus of the Order of the Preachers Secretarie Printed in Rome by the Printer of the Apostolicall Chamber 1614. 134 To this Decree may bee added a Letter which the Popes Nuncius in Flaunders wrote from Bruxels to Mr. George Birket then Arch-Priest touching my Theologicall Disputation dedicated to his Holinesse the Copie whereof is this Admodum Reuerende Domine vti frater in Christo dilectissimé PEruenit in vrbem Disputatio Theologica de Iuramento Fidelitatis tertium sub Widdringtoni nomine evulgatum opus Ibi cum diligenter examinatum sit declarauit Sanctissimus D. N. nullo modo se dicti operis dedicationem acceptare illius Authorem neque Ecclesiae filium neque Catholicum existimare omnesque insuper Catholicos ab illius lectione abstinere prorsus debere De his ante paucos dies per Sanctae Romanae Inquisitionis Congregationis literas de mandato suae Sanctitatis edoctus sum vt de ijsdem ad Dominationem tuam imprimis scriberem quò eadem istic Catholicis significes ac pro tua prudentia innotescere cures Deus Dominationem tuam Coelesti sua custodia muniat Bruxellis 26. Nouembr 1613. Admodum Reuerendae Dominationis tuae Amantissimus studiosus Very Reuerend Sir and as a Brother most beloued in Christ THere came into the Citie of Rome a Theologicall Disputation concerning the Oath of Allegiance the third worke published vnder the name of Widdrington After it was there diligently examined our most Holy Lord declared that he in no wise accepted the Dedication of the said Worke and that hee thought the Authour thereof to bee neither a childe of the Church nor a Catholike and moreouer that all Catholikes should abstaine from the reading thereof Of these things I was certified some few daies since by Letters of the Congregation of the Holy Romane Inquisition by the commandement of his Holinesse to the end that first of all I should write thereof to your Reuerence that you may signifie the same to Catholikes there according to your wisedome to make it knowne to them God defend your Reuerence with his heauenly custodie From Bruxels the 26. of Nouemb. 1613. Of your Reuerence most louing and respectiue 135 Now from this Decree Mr. Fitzh concludeth this last Chapter and his whole Replie in this manner So as saith he f Pag. 225. num 25. 26. I hope Catholike Reader thou shalt shortly be out of all doubt of what Religion Widdrington is for if now after that this controuersie of the Oath hath beene many yeares debated and discussed by the learned Catholikes of diuers Nations and determined by two Apostolicall Breues yea and that his owne Bookes written in defence of the Oath are condemned by his Holinesse and hee himselfe peremptorily admonished vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures to cleare and conforme himselfe without further delay if now I say after all this he will pretend as hitherto he hath done that his Holinesse is still ignorant of the true state of the question or that he is deceiued deluded by others or else if he seeke other new shifts euasions or delaies to excuse or deferre his conformitie to the iudgement of his supreame Pastour he shall shew himselfe to he either a scabbed or rotten sheepe worthy to be excluded out of the folde for feare hee infect others or else a rauening Wolfe clad in a sheepes skinne Besides that it will euidently appeare that all his former pretences to de a Catholike and his submissions to the Sea Apostolike g He should haue said to the Catholike Romane Church for these be Widdringtons expresse words haue proceeded from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes which I leaue good Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration and humbly beseeching Almighty God from the bottome of my heart to illuminate and inspire him with his grace that he may see his owne lamentable estate and preuent the danger of his soule wherein be runneth headlong if he continue his wonted course 136 But to this Decree of the Lord Cardinals and to the letter of the Pope Nuncius to Mr. Birkett and also to all that which Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth from the aforesaid Decree there needeth no other answer then to set down my Purgation humble Supplication to his Holines wherein I desired to know any one thing which in the Oath is repugnant to faith or saluation as his Holinesse in his Breues declared that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation or any one thing in my bookes which are against faith or good manners protesting with all sinceritie to correct what is to be
and effects of that power and authority and I affirme that the effects of that power which was giuen to S. Peter to binde and loose to wit the bindings and loosings themselues were spirituall and not temporall bindings and loosings For this was my answere in that place t Apolog. â— 35.36 15 And although it be generally said by Christ our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. yet without doubt neither is that word whatsoeuer to bee taken in it whole latitude or generality or as the Logicians say with a complete distribution but with some limitatioÌ„ or accommodate distribution neither did Christ our Sauiour speake of euery binding but only of a certaine determinate binding And by the words that go before to wit the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and by those that follow in caelis also in heauen it is plaine enough that this bond which the Ecclesiasticall power may by the institution of Christ binde and loose is not a temporall â—â—nd but that it appertaineth to a heauenly and spirituall binding Whereupon the Interlineall Glosse expounding those wordes Matth. 18. What things soeuer you shall binde with the bond saith hee of Anathema Which also Franciscus Suarez a most famous Diuine of the Societie of Iesus doth expresly affirme But that which is added saith he u Tom. â— disp 1. sec 2. nu 5. Erit ligatum in caelo Shall bee bound also in heauen doth sufficiently declare this power not to be naturall but supernaturall and that bond marke this word bond to be spirituall and of a superiour or higher order And Ioannes Parisiensis To that saith hee x In Tract de potest Regia Papaâ— c. 15. which is secondly obiected Whatsoeuer you shall loose c. I answere according to Chrysostome and Rabanus that by this no other power is vnderstood to bee giuen but spirituall to wit obserue that which followeth to absolue from the bond of sinnes For it were foolish to vnderstand that by this is giuen authoritie to absolue from the bond of debts Thus I answered in my Apologie 16 Consider now Good Reader with what face or conscience these men can affirme that I haue laboured houre euen with sweate and vainly spent many words only to proue by those two authorities of holy Scripture that the Pontificall power is spiritually which neither Card. Bellarmine nor they doe deny but willingly grant whereas I doe not contend that the power to bind and loose which was giuen to S. Peter and to the rest of the Apostles is spirituall and not temporall but that the bond which the Ecclesiasticall power is to bind and loose is a spirituall and not a temporall bond which if my Aduersarie hence will grant it must needs follow that corporall and temporall punishments as watching haire-cloath fasting whipping imprisonment depriuing of corporall life or temporall goods all which are corporall and temporall bonds and punishments cannot be inflicted by that Ecclesiasticall power which Christ gaue to S. Peter and the other Apostles And therefore with what safetie our English Catholikes can aduenture their soules and whole estates vpon these men 1. Tim. 4. who haue according to the Apostles saying such wounded seared or canteriate consciences and in their publike writings doe so grosly and shamefully corrupt the words and meaning of their Aduersarie in a matter of such importance as is their obedience due to God and Caesar I remit to the consideration of any prudent man 17 The soule is a spirit saith D. Schulckenius related heere by my Aduersarie and hath a spirituall power yet it doth also chastice the body but in that manner as I declared in the second part with corporall punishments as watching hairecloath fasting and whipping And what then will they therefore inferre that because watching wearing of hairecloath fasting and whipping are commanded by the spirituall power of the foule therefore they are spirituall and not corporall actions and punishments No man maketh any doubt but that the power whereby God created the world the Angell moued the water y Ioan. 5. Ananias and Saphira were striken dead z Acts 5. was a spirituall power yet no man can deny that the creation of the world and the mouing of the water were corporall actions and the sudden putting to death of Ananias and Saphira were also corporall actions and punishments So likewise it cannot be denyed that the binding of men with fetters be it done by God Angells or men that is by a spirituall or temporall power is a corporall binding and the depriuing of any man of his temporall goods libertie or life let it be done by a spirituall or temporall power is still a temporall and not a spirituall punishment 18 If therefore these men as they make a shew in words will in very deede and sincerely grant what I affirmed and proued in that place they must needes confesse that the Pope by vertue of that commission which Christ gaue to Saint Peter and the other Apostles to binde and loose hath no authoritie to imprison men to bind them with corporall chaines to absolue or loose them from their temporall bonds debts or allegiance for that these are temporall and not spirituall bindings and loosings for what end or by what power soeuer they be done Neither did I contend in that place that the power and authority of the Apostles to binde and loose was not temporall but spirituall but onely that the bindings and loosings which were the effects of that power were onely spirituall and not temporall bindings and loosings See aboue a Cap. 5 sec 3. nu 10. sec more of these bonds to which the Ecclesiasticall power to binde and loose is by the ancient Fathers limited and restrained And heereby the Reader may easily perceiue that I had no great reason to confute in that briefe Admonition D. Schulckenius his Reply for as much as concerneth this point but it was sufficient to remit the Reader to my aforesaid answere seeing that D. Schulckenius saide nothing at all against it but cunningly flyed from the effects of the Apostles power to binde and loose which I there prooued to be onely spirituall and not temporall bonds to the power it selfe to binde and loose whereof I did not intend to dispute in that place knowing well that although the effects of that power had beene as they were not temporall bindings and loosings yet the power it selfe to binde and loose might for diuers reasons be called as Diuines doe call it a spirituall and not formally a temporall or ciuil power although as I said aboue b Cap. nu 7â— See also beneath cap. 12. nu 61. seq I thinke this question betwixt the Diuines and Canonists whether it be a spirituall or a temporall power to be more verball and of wordes then reall and of the thing it selfe And this may suffice for this point 19 Now before wee come to examine Fa. Parsons reason
c. Which are the expresse words of the oath of France and therefore they must be applyed to the temporall power of some other forraine Prince or Kingdome and they seeme chiefely to shoot at the abnegation of that doctrine and position which Iohn Tanquarell by a Decree of the Parliament of Paris t Anno 1561. in Tract de Iuribus c. p. 289 was enioyned to recall and to aske pardon of the King for his offence in defending the same to wit that the Pope Christs Vicar and a Monarch hauing spirituall and secular power hath authoritie to depriue Princes who rebell against his precepts of their kingdomes and dignities 33 But howsoeuer it be whether in the oath of France the authority of the temporall Common-wealth ouer the King be denied or no it is plaine that neither our King and Parliament who established our oath did intend thereby to meddle with the authority of the Common-wealth but onely of the Pope nor I who disputed of our oath did meane to treat of any other authority then of the Pope which onely in our oath is denied And therefore the Lord Cardinall of Peron to impugne the oath of France dealeth very cunningly when he affirmeth as you haue seene before that Widdrington hath not found out one Authour either Diuine or Lawyer who hath said that in case of heresie or infidelity the subiects cannot bee absolued from the oath of fidelity and the obligation which they owe to their Princes 34 For albeit I haue not brought any one Authour onely D. Barclay excepted who affirmeth these two things together to wit that in the case of heresie or infidelity Princes can neither by the authority of the Pope nor of the Common-wealth be deposed and their subiects released of the bond and oath of their temporall allegiance for that those Doctours of France who absolutely deny the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments doe commonly maintaine that the temporall Common-wealth may depose their Prince for heresie or infidelity and consequently discharge the subiects of their temporall allegiance which being once released the spirituall bond of the oath made to confirme the same is foorthwith dissolued neuerthelesse I haue brought diuers Authours both Diuines and Lawyers who absolutely and without any exception of heresie or infidelitie doe in expresse words affirme though not ioyntly and together yet seuerally and apart that neither the Pope hath any authority to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments not that the kingdome or common-wealth hath any power or authority ouer their absolute Prince to depose him 35 For among those Doctours who affirme that the common-wealth hath authority ouer their Prince in some cases to depose him there are many whom I cited in the former part of this Treatise and also answered all the obiections that D. Schulckenius hath made against some of them who doe absolutely and without any exception affirme that the Pope hath not authority to depose Princes and that the power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment c. which their generall assertion would be false if the Pope had authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer For if the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments for heresie then it would be true that the power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments and if the Pope can depose temporall Princes for heresie then it followeth that the Pope can depose temporall Princes which those Doctors doe absolutely deny 36 And among those Doctours who are vehement for the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments I brought u In Apol. nu 411. also diuers who deny that the people or common-wealth hath authority to depose their Prince The Pope onely hath authority to depriue or depose Emperours Kings and Princes saith Bartholus Baldus and Petrus Andreas Gambara And Gregorius Tholosnus Barth in leg si Imperator Cod. de Legibus nu 4. Bald. in proaemio ff veteris Gambara in tract de officio potest legati l. 2. tit de varijs ordinar titulis nu 220. Gregor Thol l 26. de Rep. c. 5 nu 14. 24. 25 albeit a French Doctour yet denieth that the people or common-wealth hath authority to iudge punish or depose their King And therefore he doth not approoue that fact of the Peeres of France in depriuing Childericke and expresly affirmeth that Pipin vsurped the Kingdome and he reprehendeth also the Pope who called saith he Pipin into Italy to helpe him against the Longobards and when he came he absolued him from the oath he had made to his King Childerike being neither heard nor called nor defended nor accused as Abbas Vspergensis and Entropius doe affirme and afterwards he saith that the Pope might bee deceiued in his opinion for that hee would reward Pipin bringing an army in his defence with the hurt of another And this in my iudgement is one of the chiefe causes that mooued the other French Doctours to be commonly of this opinion that the common-wealth may depose their King in some cases to excuse that fact of the French Peeres in deposing Childerike their true and rightfull King 37 Also Alexander Carerius a vehement defender of the Popes direct power in temporalls Carer l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. 3 in fauour of the Canonists against Cardinall Bellarmine is of the same opinion Hee that hath no Iudge vpon earth saith he Cap. 3. we must confesse that many Iudges cannot Iudge For in denying a singularitie by a collectiue and generall word pluralls are accounted to bee denied It is manifest therefore as hath beene said before that the Barons and people for want of coactiue power or authoritie which Vassalls haue not ouer their Lord cannot iudge nor depose their Prince And in the former Chapter answering the authoritie of Aristotle The Philosopher saith he speaketh of a King who is instituted by the election of the Communitie for such a one is punished and deposed by the Communitie which doth principally institute him as the Venetians and people of Genoa who choose to themselues a Duke and if he offend against the common-wealth shee may depose him But it is otherwise in a King who naturally and by succession and descending of a certaine race doth raigne And this assertion of Carerius and others seemeth agreeable to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers cited by me elsewhere y Apol. nu 5. seq in Append. ad Supplicat calū 17. nu 14. who expresly affirme that Kings and Emperours are inferiour to none but God to wit in temporalls and that they can bee punished to wit with temporall punishments by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So that you see how cunningly the Cardinall of Peron handleth this controuersie touching the deposition