authoritie and command ouer the Pewterers and I haue shewed a little before most euidently that in the law of Nature the Ciuill common-wealth had the whole charge and command of all things as well belonging to Religion as to State and that the Priests or publike Ministers of religious rites were instituted ordained changed depriued commanded and punished by the ciuill Common-wealth vpon whom euen in all matters belonging to Religion and the publike worship of God they wholy depended and therefore no maruaile that from this vaine and friuolous supposition of the naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall Common-wealth to the spirituall often affirmed by Mr. Fitzherbert but neuer proued by him by any one probable argument none but vaine and friuolous collections can be gathered 50 Secondly I haue also sufficiently shewed that there is not the like case betwixt the supreme ciuill Magistrate and the heads of Families and Cities and betwixt the head of the Church and the supreme Magistrate of the ciuill Common-wealth as my Aduersarie heere vntruly affirmeth for that not only those persons who are the heads of Families and Cities but also the Families and Cities themselues are parts and members of the whole ciuill Common-wealth and therefore in all ciuill matters to be directed commanded and temporally corrected by the supreme ciuill Magistrate but the temporall Common-wealth it selfe or the temporal Prince as he hath temporal power or in meere temporall matters is not a part member of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ but onely as hee hath spirituall subiection and therefore onely in spiritualls and in such which are reduced to the nature of spiritualls hee is to be directed and commanded and to be spiritually not temporally corrected by the supreme spirituall Pastour And so indeed it is conforme to the law of nature that is it is not repugnant to naturall reason but it is fit decent and conuenient although not necessary that the chiefe Religious Priest should haue authoritie graunted him either by the ciuill common-wealth as it was in the law of nature or by the positiue institution and law of God as it was in the law written to punish the transgressours of religious rites with some kinde of punishments but that the law of nature did giue no authoritie at all to those who were appointed to be publike Ministers of religious rites to commaund or punish at all the ciuill common-wealth or Soueraigne Prince thereof vpon whom both in spiritual and ciuill matters they wholly depended is altogether repugnant to naturall reason 51 But Widdrington himselfe saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 102. nu 14. doth not deny but that I haue prooued thus much effectually so farre foorth as concerneth a power to command and a spirituall manner of punishment seeing that hee saith as you haue heard in the beginning of the last Chapter that I haue effectually prooued nothing else by the diuine or naturall law but that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall not a temporall manner of punishment So he 52 But although I doe willingly grant that he hath sufficiently prooued by the law of God that the Church of Christ and the sprituall Pastours thereof haue authoritie granted them by the positiue institution and law of God to command in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall all Christians both Princes and subiects being parts and members of the Church and to punish them with spirituall punishments if they shall contemne his iust command yet my meaning was neuer to affirme that he hath effectually proued either that there is any naturall subiection and subordination of the temporall common-wealth to the head of the Church of Christ except onely in dignitie and perfection or that the law of nature abstracting from the positiue institution and law of Christ hath granted to spirituall Pastours authority to punish or commaund absolute Princes for that all the authority which spirituall Pastours now haue doth either proceed from the positiue institution and law of Christ or from the graunt of Christian Princes and not from the law of nature Wherefore from these wordes of mine which hee hath related this onely can be concluded that he hath effectually prooued by the law of God or nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall in spirituall things and spirituall punishments and that he hath proued nothing else For by what rules of Logicke can my Aduersary inferre that because I grant that he hath effectually proued by the law of God or nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall c. Therefore I must grant that hee hath effectually proued by the law of God and nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall c. sith that euery Logician knoweth that to make an absolute disiunctiue proposition to bee true it sufficeth that one part of the disiunction bee true and therefore to make that proposition of mine to bee true that he hath effectually proued by the law of God or nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall c. it is sufficient that hee hath prooued by the law of God that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall so farre foorth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall not temporall manner of punishment for by the law of nature he hath prooued no such thing nor brought any one probable argument to prooue the same 53 But let vs goe on with his Discourse Whereby it appeareth saith he l Pag. 102. nu 15. that the onely question now betwixt vs is whether the supreme spirituall Superiour may punish temporally according to the law of nature whereof truely there can be no doubt if we consider the ground and substance of my former Discourse proouing a subordination of all Societies and communities to the Church for thereupon it followeth that the head thereof may by way either of commaundement or punishment dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all the inferiour Societies when it shall be absolutely necessarie for the conseruation of the Church by the same reason that the Superiour Magistrate or Prince of the ciuill Societie or common wealth may dispose in like case and to like purpose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all the Societies which are inferiour to the common-wealth or as the soule commandeth Chap 2. per totum or punisheth the body in whatsoeuer is dependent thereon or accessorie thereto as I haue prooued before in the second Chapter 54 But this as you see is only a repetition of his former idle Discourse and therefore it needeth no other answere then that which I gaue before where first I haue shewed that the supreame spirituall superiour of the Church of Christ cannot punish temporally according to the law of Nature and that there
bitternesse as he did in the former and as before hee taxed me of fraude impudencie impietie and of being no good Catholike but how wrongfully you haue alreadie seene so now he boldly affirmeth that my arguments and answeres are partly repugnant to my owne doctrine and partly malicious improbable impertinent foolish and ridiculous but how vndeseruedly you shall presently perceiue He tooke vpon him as you haue seene to proue in his Supplement that the oath is vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine in respect of two clauses to wit that it doth exempt temporall Princes from Excommunication and deposition by the Pope and that therefore it was iustly condemned by his Holinesse and refused by Catholikes although for this later hee could not bee ignorant that where one Catholike hath refused it a hundred haue taken it And as for the first clause concerning excommunication hee passeth it ouer altogether with silence neither doth he bring any one argument or shew of argument to proue that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath for which cause I affirmed in my Admonition to the Reader that Mr. Fitzherberts supposition for so much as concerneth the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and consequently his Primacie in spiritualls which he doth not proue with any one reason to be denied in the oath but supposeth it as manifest is very vntrue 2 But as for the second clause concerning the Popes power to depose Princes which is expresly denied in the oath he maketh a long Rhetoricall discourse labouring in vaine to prooue that according to all lawes humane and diuine the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporals And because the breuitie of that Admonition which was made after my Theologicall Disputation was in the presse would not permit to examine in particular all the arguments which he brought to prooue the same I thought good to answere briefly such arguments as seemed most plausible and withall to insinuate a certaine distinction which I had oftentimes in my former bookes declared more at large betweene the Popes power to command temporals and to dispose of temporals to command or impose temporall penalties and to inflict temporall penalties or to punish temporally by way of coercion which distinction doth plainly declare the true state of the question which he seeketh to obscure and quite ouerthroweth all his chiefest grounds 3 Among the rest of his proofes he brought one from this vulgar rule of the law Accessorium sequitur principale The accessorie followeth the principall from whence hee inferred a Cap. 1. Suppl nu 67. that seeing not only the body but also temporall goods and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof it must needes follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glory of God for the which our soules bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained according to that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall b In Ad. nu 15 4 To this inference I answered briefly in this manner Secondly euery learned man may perceiue how vaine that consequence is which this Authour deduceth The accessorie followeth the principall therefore the Church hauing power ouer the soule hath consequently power ouer the body and goods except it be vnderstood of the power to command corporall things so farre foorth as they serue to spirituall things For we might also from that principle argue thus The accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that is Lord of all horses is Lord of all bridles The Pope hath power ouer the soule of the Prince therefore also ouer his life Let this Authour explicate what the Lawyers vnderstand by the name of accessorie and what by the name of principall in that axiome of theirs which suffereth many exceptions and is limited by them diuers wayes In the meane time wee deny his consequence not consequent as Mr. Fitzherbert translateth So that it is manifest that I did not deny that consequence if it had beene vnderstood of the power to command temporals in order to spirituall good but because the words are generall and so may comprehend both and Mr. Fitzherbert also meant of both therefore I did absolutely deny his consequence 5 Now my Aduersarie will needs haue me forsooth both to contradict my selfe in this answere and also to ouerthrow my owne arguments For hauing set downe my answere hee replyeth thus c Nu. 2. Wherein I wish it to be noted first what Widdrington granteth and after what he denyeth and I doubt not but it will easily appeare that he ouerthroweth his owne arguments and contradicteth himselfe He granteth as you see that my consequence is not vaine if it be vnderstood of a power in the Pope to command corporall things so farre forth as they are to serue spirituall things yet he denyeth my consequence albeit I doe not thereby suppose in the Pope any other power ouer bodies and goods then such as followeth of their subordination to the soule which is in effect the same relation and limitation that he maketh thereof to wit so far forth as corporall temporall things are to serue spirituall things as it may euidētly appeare by the discourse which I make concerning the same in my Supplement from whence he taketh my argument and therefore I thinke good to repeate here what I haue said there touching this point whereby I hope I shall not onely fortifie and prooue my consequence which he denyeth but also explicate fully what I meane by the name of accessorie and principall as you see he commanded me to doe he should rather haue said as I wished him to doe Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 6 And I also wish the Reader to obserue first what my Aduersarie pretendeth to prooue and after what he prooueth and I doubt not but it will easily appeare that I doe neither ouerthrow my owne arguments nor any way contradict my selfe He pretendeth to prooue that the Pope as Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to depose temporall Princes to punish them by depriuing them of their kingdomes and by disposing of all their temporals and not onely to command or enioyne but also to inflict temporall punishments as it appeareth by the whole scope of his Discourse both in his Supplement and also in this Treatise whereupon a little beneath in this chapter c Nu. 10. he calleth that distinction which I made betwixt the power to command corporall things and to punish corporally by way of coercion a friuolous distinction and afterwarde especially in the sixt chapter d nu 14. 15. 16. 17. hee laboureth to impugne the same and to prooue that if the Pope may command corporall and temporall things as they serue the spirituall and are reduced thereto he may also
willingly graunt that it may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests had power to command or enioyne bodily penances to their penitents as fasting prayer lying vpon sackcloth and ashes yea and giuing of almes in satisfaction of their sinnes as the building of Churches Colledges Hospitals or Religious Houses according to the greatnesse of their offence and the qualitie condition and abilitie of the penitent or to vse the tearme of Diuines claâ—e non errante the key not erring For if such penances should be enioyned without discretion and due regard of the greatnesse of the offence or of the state and condition of the penitent the key should erre and would not haue force to bind Secondly I doe also graunt that there is an order and subordination in worth and dignitie betwixt spirituall corporall and temporall goods or of the soule of the body and of fortune and that according to the light of nature the goods of the soule being most worthy are to be preferred and esteemed before the other two and that the goods of the body bodily life health libertie and such like bodily contentments are to be preferred before the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states and that all of them are with due order to be referred to the seruice and glorie of God and to the eternall saluation both of body and soule But what followeth from all this 33 Whereupon I inferre saith my Aduersarie r pag. 33. nu 5.6 according to the axiome of the law accessorium sequitur principale that seeing not onely the body but also temporall goode and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof a must needs follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glorie of God for the which 〈…〉 bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained And this me thinkes our aduersaries should not deny seeing that their Ecclesiasticall discipline admitteth not onely corporall chastisements by imprisonment but also pecuniaris mulcto and penalties Therefore vpon this I inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke and consequently to be fedde and gouerned by the supreme Pastour of the Church may also be chastised by him in their temporall states when it shall be necessarie for the glorie and seruice of God the benefite of soules and good of the whole Church whereto all Christian Kingdomes Isa 60. and Empyres are subordinate and subiect as I haue prooued before out of the holy Scripture and will prooue also after a while by the very law of nature and light of reason 34 But first touching the consequent or conclusion of his inference or argument to wit that the Pope hauing power ouer the soule hath power also ouer the body and goods when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and glory of God I doe willingly graunt the same if it be vnderstoode of a power not to dispose of corporall and temporall goods but to command and enioyne them in order to spirituall good albeit my Aduersarie did vnderstand it of both as I shewed before But as concerning the consequence inference or argument which hee draweth from that rule of the law De Regulis Iuris in 6. regula 42. The accessorie followeth the principall or as it is in the Canon law Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis It is fit or conuenient that the accessorie follow the nature of the principall which rule as the Glosse there affirmeth is taken from that rule of the Ciuill law ff de Regulis Iuris regula 138. Cum principalis causa c. When the principall cause is not consisting for the most part neither those things that follow haue place there can be no conuincing or demonstratiue argument as all my Aduersaries arguments must be if hee will prooue by them that the oath cannot with a safe and probable conscience be taken by any Catholike and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith be drawen from that generall rule of the law which hath so many exceptions restrictions and limitations and which are not as yet made sufficiently knowen by the Lawiers as neither what is vniuersally meant by Accessorie and what by Principall and what is to follow the nature of the principall 35 And therefore not without cause doth the rule of the Ciuill law from which this rule of the Canon law is taken adioyne that word plaerunque for the most part and the rule it selfe of the Canon law doth not absolutely say that the Accessorie must follow or doth follow the nature of the principall but it is fit or conuenient that the accessorie doe follow the nature of the principall to signifie that it doth not alwaies and of necessitie but for the most part and of congruitie follow the principall and that Iudges ought for the most part follow this rule in their iudgements if they haue no speciall reasoned meaning 〈…〉 to the contraries And therefore as the marginall Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doth well obserue Å¿ Leg. Et si is quem Cod. de praedijs alijs c. The accessorie doth not follow his principall when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall 36 Secondly therefore I would gladly know of my Aduersarie whether he will haue this rule to be grounded onely in humane law and hath it force and strength onely from thence so that if the Ciuill or Canon law had not made and ordained that rule it would not be of force and validitie or else it is grounded also in the law of God or nature If he graunt the first as commonly the Lawiers doe and therefore some things which seeme of their owne nature to be accessorie as a saddle and bridle are to a horse are not accessorie according to humane law and therefore he that selleth a horse doth not consequently sell the bridle and faddle and somethings which are not accessorie of their owne nature as a dowrie is not necessarily annexed to marriage are made accessorie according to humane lawe and therefore he that marrieth a woman with the consent of her parents hath right to a dowrie and the parents are bound by the Ciuill Law to giue a dowrie if they be able wherefore the Glosse vpon the aforesaid rule of the Ciuill law doth obserue that the word plaerunque for the most part was purposely added to that rule of the law for that sometimes that rule doth faile to which purpose he alledgeth many texts of the Ciuill law If my Aduersarie I say will graunt the first he can not but easily perceiue that there can no forcible argument be drawne from the
of Ecclesiasticall Censures may bee called a compulsion yet the vsing of temporall power the disposing of temporall things the compelling with temporall punishments or the inflicting of temporall punishments and punishing temporally by way of constraint are only proper and doe belong to the temporall power for which cause S. Bernard as I shewed before did affirme that the materiall sword is according to our Sauiours command to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier not of the Priest at the booke or direction of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour 8 Now to come to my Aduersarie although he hath not as he saith Lessius booke nor euer reade it yet I haue both seene it and reade it and I haue alleadged truly his expresse words as they lye and I doubt not but that my Aduersarie may easily get a sight thereof But howsoeuer that which hee saith is very vntrue that I say nothing in effect against Lessius argument but that which may bee vrged in like manner against the Apostle Saint Paul for that Saint Pauls argument as I shewed before in the former chapter was not grounded vpon this maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon Lessius groundeth his argument for this maxime is very vntrue vnlesse the greater doeth actually or vertually include and imply the lesse or which I take for all one vnlesse the greater and the lesse be of the same kind or order But S. Pauls argument was grounded vpon this maxime hee that is not vnworthie to doe the greater is not vnworthie to doe the lesse For S. Paul intended only to prooue as I shewed before that Christians were not vnworthie to iudge of secular things because they were to iudge the world and the Angels and therefore by the argument a maiori ad minus they were not to be accounted vnworthie to decide secular causes Neither hath euery man that power whereof hee is not vnworthie but he hath onely that power which hee who hath authoritie to giue that power hath granted although perchance he be not vnworthie to haue a greater power as to be Lord Chancellour is a more great and eminent authoritie then to be Lord Chamberlaine and yet it is not lawfull thus to argue from that maxime he that hath the greater authoritie hath the lesse therefore he who is Lord Chancellour is also Lord Chamberlaine albeit we might rightly thus conclude as the Apostle did a maiori ad minus he that is not vnworthie to be Lord Chancellour is not vnworthy to be Lord Chamberlaine for that he who is not vnworthie to haue the greater authoritie is not vnworthie to haue the lesse 9 If therefore I had denied the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things because he had beene vnworthy to haue that authoritie then I had indeede disprooued the Apostles argument but seeing that I doe onely for this cause deny the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things for that Christ our Sauiour hath not granted this authoritie to him but onely to temporall Princes I doe not goe against the Apostles argument Neither did the Apostle goe about to prooue that the Church might ordaine and dispose of secular iudgements taking secular iudgements for such as doe proceed from publike authoritie and can not be done by priuate power but hee onely commanded the Corinthians for auoiding of scandall to appoint arbitrarie Iudges among themselues which they might doe by their owne priuate power and without any derogation to the temporall Magistrate and in case of scandall they ought also so to doe and he onely intended to prooue that because they were not vnwoorthy to iudge the Angels and the world much more were they not vnworthy to be Arbitrarie Iudges in secular causes Wherefore Saint Paul did not intend to prooue either by the subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall or by any other argument that the Church might ordaine or dispose of those secular iudgements which belong to temporall authoritie neither can there be drawne any good argument from this subordination to prooue the same as I haue shewed more amply in the second part 10 Neither did I graunt that the spirituall Pastour hath power to command corporall and temporall things quatenus spiritualibus deseruiunt so farre forth as they serue spirituall things for that corporall and temporall things are ordained to spirituall things and to the eternall saluation of soules as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth for then indeede I must also haue granted that the Pope hauing power to dispose of spirituall things hath consequently power to dispose of temporall things so farre soorth as they are to serue spirituall things but my reason was as you haue seene in the former chapter because the power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good is a spirituall power and agreeable to a spirituall Pastour and Gouernour as he is instituted by Christ but the power to dispose of temporall things whether it be in order to temporall or to spirituall good is a temporall power and therefore not agreeable to a spirituall Pastour according at our Sauiour hath in the Christian world or common wealth instituted ordained and distinguished these two supreme powers temporall and spirituall by their proper acts functions and dignities 11 And albeit both spirituall and temporall things are referred to one last end which is Gods honour and glorie as to the center to which both of them ought to tend yet from hence it can not be rightly concluded that the temporall power is subordained to the spirituall or that temporall things as temporall lawes temporal actions temporall punishments and the like are subordained to spirituall things as to spirituall lawes spirituall actions spirituall punishments and the like but that both of them are I doe not say subordained one to the other but ordained to one and the selfe same end which is the glorie and seruice of God and the saluation of soules which is as it were the center to which the temporall power by temporall lawes and by disposing of temporals and the spirituall power by spirituall lawes and by disposing or dispencing of spiriruall things ought to tend By which it is apparant that although it were supposed that the disposing of temporall things and the vsing of temporall power were in some cases necessarie to the honour and seruice of God to the good of the Church and to the saluation of soules yet it can not be performed but by the temporall power for that our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours onely spirituall power to promote and maintaine by spirituall meanes the good of the Church and to bring soules to heauen and temporall meanes and temporall power he hath left to the disposition of temporall Princes whom he forsaw and preordained to be Nurses Patrons and Protectours of his Church 12 Wherefore although my Aduersarie did endeauour as you haue seene in the former
also in readinesse that is in manifest and speedy effect to reuenge all disobedience that is to punish the offences of them who would not obey vs that they might correct themselues Which we will doe when your obedience shall be fulfilled that is when all the rest of you shall by loue be obedient in all things Thus S. Anselme Now what learned man will thus conclude that because S. Paul and the Apostles had a most ample extraordinarie and miraculous authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to conuert men to the faith of Christ and to reuenge or punish all that were disobedient with temporall punishments euen by death as S. Peter did Ananias and Saphyra or by depriuing them of their sight as S. Paul did Elimas the Magician or by deliuering them to Sathan to be visibly tormented by him as S. Paul did the incestuous Corinthian that therefore the ordinarie Pastours of the Church haue now either an extraordinarie or ordinary authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to doe the like 35 I omit that S. Ambrose or whosoeuer is the Authour of those Commentaries expoūdeth those words to reuenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled of the Corinthians themselues who being perfectly conuerted shall punish in themselues their former disobedience It is manifest saith S. Ambrose that he reuengeth disobedience when he condemneth it by obedience then destroying it when he bringeth to the faith those who doe resist or disobey that infidelitie may be condemned by them by whom it was defended The same also doth S. Anselme insinuate as you haue seene aboue 36 But S. Augustine saith Mr. Fitzherbert vnderstandeth those words of the Apostle hauing in a readinesse to reuenge all disobedience of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties True it is that S. Augustine applyeth those words of the Apostle to the authoritie of the Church to compell heretikes by temporall punishments to returne to the faith of Christ taking the Church as it containeth all the faithfull and consisteth both of temporall and spirituall power but it is not true that he vnderstandeth them of the authoritie of the Church as the Church is taken for Church-men or the spiritual Pastours of the Church Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth herein egregiously abuse his Reader For S. Augustines maine drift both in that 50. epistle in the former 48. epistle is only to proue against the Donatists that heretiks may lawfully be compelled with temporall punishments by the lawes of Christian Emperours to returne to the Catholike faith and that the Pastours of the Church did well in requesting Christian Emperours to make such lawes Wherefore the argument of the 48. epistle to Vincentius is that S. Austin was once of opinion that we must not deale with heretikes by violence but only with the word of God but afterwards being ouercome with the doctrine and example of others he changed his opinion and taught that it is lawfull to implore the lawes of Princes against the enemies of the faith so that it be done with an intention to correct and not with a desire to reuenge And the argument of this 50. Epistle is that S. Augustine sheweth with what moderation heritickes may through feare of Emperiall lawes be reduced to the communion of the Church And in his second booke of Retractations Cap. 48. mentioning this Epistle to Bonifacius he writeth thus At the same time I wrote also a booke meaning this 50. Epistle concerning the correction of the Donatists by reason of those who would not haue them to be corrected by the Emperiall lawes This booke beginneth thus Laudo gratulor admiror fili dilectissime Bonifaci 37 Iudge now good Reader what a shamefull fraud is this of Mr. Fitzherbert to make ignorant Catholikes beleeue that S. Augustine bringeth those words of the Apostle to prooue the authority left by our Sauiour to his Church that is to Churchmen or to the spirituall Pastours of the Church for so hee vnderstandeth the word Church in all this his Discourse to compell her rebellious disobedient children by force of temporall punishments to performe their duties whereas S. Augustines intent onely is to prooue the lawfulnesse of the Emperiall lawes compelling heretickes by temporall punishments to returne backe to the faith and that Church-men or the spirituall Pastours of the Church may lawfully implore the Emperiall lawes and desire Christian Princes to compell heretickes to forsake their heresie by force of temporall punishments so that they desire it with intent to correct them and not with a desire of reuenge 38 But if the Ecclesiasticall authority saith Mr. Fitzherbert y Pag. 90. did not extend it selfe to the chastisement of disobediēt Princes in their temporal states it must needs follow that Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are went to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or states subiect to them who when they appoint lieutenants or deputies any where do giue them authority ouer all sorts of subiects so much power as may suffice for the remedy of all inconueniences and specially of the greatest which may occurre in the States where they gouerne c. But this consequence I haue euer denied For as I haue often said to the good gouernment of the Church of Christ which is a spirituall not a temporall kingdome or common-wealth it is onely required that the Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie to inflict spirituall and not temporall punishments and this authoritie forasmuch as concerneth the authoritie and punishments themselues is sufficient to redresse all inconueniences neither is it necessarie either in a spirituall or a temporall kingdome that the chiefe Gouernours thereof should haue that power might or effectuall meanes whereby all inconueniences must actually at all times be redressed 39 And therefore as temporall Kings doe giue to their Lieutetenants Deputies or Vice-Royes sufficient temporall authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects in the Prouinces or States where they gouerne but not alwayes so much power taking power not for authoritie or iurisdiction but for might force or effectuall meanes as may suffice for the remedie of all inconueniences for this power the Kings themselues doe often times want in those Dominions where they themselues doe personally gouerne so Christ our Sauiour ordaining in his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Gouernment gaue to the spirituall Gouernours thereof sufficient spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest but not sufficient power might or effectuall meanes actually to redresse the same And as the Lieutenants Deputies or Vice-Royes of temporall Kings if they offend cannot be punished with temporall punishments by any subiect in the States where they gouerne but by the King alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So
heads of others stroken off but the question was whether the Pope hath power and authoritie to vse bloodie punishments and hee himselfe as you haue seene expresly teacheth that the Pope hath such a power and yet now forsooth I in denying it doe mention idly bloodie punishments by death or maiming 59 Thirdly that hee may not take occasion heereafter to cauell at my words when I affirmed that true reason teacheth that euery Superiour hath power to punish his inferiour with some punishment proportionate to his authoritie my meaning was as also my words doe sufficiently signifie to speake onely of supreame Superiours who haue both directiue and coerciue authoritie that is power both to command and punish for a delegate Superiour hath no other authoritie then is granted him by his supreame Superiour And therefore it is not against the law of Nature or the prescript of true naturall reason that such a delegate Superiour may haue power giuen him only to command and not to punish or to punish one man and not another or to inflict one punishment and not another according as his supreame Superiour shall thinke it fit and conuenient 60 Now you shall see in what manner Mr. Fitzherbert prooueth that I contradict my owne grant the holy Scriptures and the ancient and common practise of the Church You haue heard Widdrington graunt r Supra c. 5. nu 1. Wid. in Admon ad Lect. nu 17. saith hee Å¿ Pag. 104. nu 17. that the spirituall Superiour may commaund corporall and temporall things as they serue the spirituall and are reduced thereto Why then may hee not punish his subiect in his body or temporall goods for the same respect But first what contradiction I pray you is it to affirme that the spirituall Superiour may for a spirituall end command or enioyne temporall penalties and to deny that he may not for a spirituall end inflict temporall penalties Contradiction as all Philosophers know is an affirming and denying of the selfe same thing and in the selfe same manner but to affirme one thing and to deny another is no contradiction at all Wherefore to proue that I contradict my owne grant Mr. Fitzherbert must proue which he can neuer doe that I affirme and deny the selfe same thing as to affirme and deny that the spirituall Superiour hath power to commaund temporall penalties to affirme and also to deny that hee hath power to inflict temporall penalties for otherwise to accuse mee of contradiction for affirming one thing to wit that the spirituall Superiour hath power to commaund temporall penalties and for denying another thing to wit that hee hath not power to inflict temporall penalties is to accuse himselfe of most grosse and palpable ignorance 61 Secondly I answere his demaund with other like demaunds Cardinal Bellarmine as you haue seene aboue t Part. 2. cap. 8. affirmeth that the soule may command bodily actions when they are necessary for the good of the soule and I also added which he cunningly concealed when they are necessary for the good also of the body why then may not the soule her selfe also exercise bodily actions for the same respect without the helpe or actiue concurrance of the body it selfe Also the soule may command one corporall member to punish another if it be necessary for the good either of the soule or of the body as the hands to whip the shoulders or to cut off some contagious member as the fingers the toes the feete or legges if they be poysoned why then hath not the soule herselfe for the same respect power to doe the same Moreouer a ghostly father may enioine his penitent for satisfaction of his sinnes and to auoide the danger of falling backe into sinne to giue Almes to build Hospitalls to afflict his body with fasting watching disciplining haire cloth and such like to shunne this or that company c. Why then if the Penitent refuse to doe these things may not his ghostly father for the same respect take away his money from him and giue Almes and build Hospitalls therewith and afflict his penitents body whether hee will or no c Why did S. Bernard affirme that the materiall sword is by Christs commandement to be drawne forth for the Church but not by the Church with the hands of the Souldier but at the becke or declaratiue commaundement of the Priest 62 But the true and proper reason why spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to command temporall punishments and not to inflict temporall punishments or to punish temporally must bee taken not from any naturall subordination or which is all one from any necessarie subiection which according to the law of Nature the ciuill common-wealth or temporall Princes haue to the Religious Societie or to the Ministers of sacred rites for that in the law of Nature it belonged to the ciuill common-wealth to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state as I haue shewed before but it must bee taken from the positiue institution of Christ our Sauiour and from the nature and conditions of the lawes weapons armour and punishments which according to the institution of Christ are due to the Church as he hath distinguished them from the nature and conditions of the lawes weapons armour and punishments which are proper to the temporall Common-wealth For there is no doubt to be made but that our Sauiour if it had pleased him might haue ordained that the chiefe visible head of the Church should bee both a temporall and spirituall Monarch as the Canonists will haue him to be and might haue giuen him authoritie to inflict not only spirituall but also temporall punishments and not only to command but also to vse the materiall temporall or ciuill sword as also if it had pleased him hee might haue giuen him no power to command at all but only to preach the word of God and to declare his law and to minister Sacraments to them that should voluntarily and of their owne accord demaund them wherefore what power the Pope and other spirituall Pastours haue wee cannot gather from the law of Nature or the necessary prescript of naturall reason but onely from the positiue institution and law of Christ. 63 But this difference betwixt the power to command and to inflict temporall punishments will be made more plaine and perspicuous by examining his next Discourse and by declaring morefully the true sense and meaning of those former words of mine The spirituall Superiour may command corporall and temporall things as they serue spirituall and are reduced thereto Which my Aduersarie either doth not or would seeme not to vnderstand For seeing that saith he u Pag. 104. numer 17. the spirituall power to command temporall things in that case resulteth as Widdrington seemeth to grant vpon their reduction to the spirituall that is to say because they are vsed and applied to the seruice of the spirituall whereby they are reduced to a kind of spirituall nature or qualitie why
or which is all one with that I said before as by the order and reference to spirituall good that is to the glory of God and the health of soules they become spirituall that is vertuous and vicious actions it is manifest that although this distinction of directly and indirectly may be applyed to the spiriturall directiueâ— or commanding power as I declared before for that spirituall Pastours haue no power to command temporall actions but in order to spirituall good and by that reference become spirituall and capable of vertue or vice which is the health or hurt of soules yet it cannot be applyed to the spirituall coerciue or punishing power vnlesse it be first proued that Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours for the health of soules authoritie to inflict as well temporall as spirituall punishments and that the obiects of the spirituall coerciue power are by the institution of Christ both temporall and spirituall punishments which my Aduersaries will neuer be able to proue from the holy Scriptures or the ancient Fathers and vnpartiall expositours thereof for to proue the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours and Priests by the law of Nature or naturall reason who as I haue shewed before were in the law of Nature subiect to the coerciue power of the ciuill Common-wealth is most idle and friuolous 77 Now you shall see how friuolous the second reason is which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to proue that I contradict my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour may command temporall punishments and yet in denying that he may inflict temporall punishments Furthermore Widdrington granteth saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 105. num 18. that the spirituall Superiour may punish spiritually that is to say by Censures of Excommunication Interdict and Suspension but who seeth not that he granteth consequently that the said spirituall Superiour may also punish temporally For Excommunication doth not only depriue a man of the vse of the Sacraments but also of the communication and conuersation of Christian men and of many temporall commodities euen according to our Sauiours owne commandement who ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication Matth. 18. when he commanded that he which will not heare the Church shall be taken for an Ethnike and a Publican that is to say shall be excluded not only from the participation of the spirituall benefits of the Church but also from the temporall companie 1. Cor. 4.2 Thess 3. and conuersation of the faithfull which was also ordained by the Apostle when he commanded the Corinthians and Thessalonians not to eate with notorious sinners and disobedient persons and by S. Iohn when he commanded that the Christians should not receiue heretikes into their houses nor so much as salute them in all which it cannot be denyed but that the offenders were punished temporally 78 But all this and the rest also which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth in the two next Paragraphes was before obiected by Fa. Suarez and fully answered by me in my Appendix but this man is pleased to repeate still the same obiections which by me and others haue beene before often answered Wherefore it is true that I doe grant that the spirituall Superiour may punish spiritually by Ecclesiasticall Censures but it is not true that I must consequently grant that he may also punish temporally for this I euer denyed and therfore it is a meere fiction of his owne braine that I contradict my selfe in affirming and denying the selfe same thing For First Excommunication as I shewed before l In my Appendix against Suarez part 2. sec 4. See also aboue chap. 1. nu 16. and seq and chap. 5. sec 2. num 131. seq doth not of it owne nature and by any institution of Christ depriue of ciuill conuersation but only of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall participation of the faithfull and therfore all ciuill contracts with excommunicated persons as buying selling changing lending c. are valid and of force if we respect only the law of Christ Secondly it is also true that by the law of the Church some temporall punishments may be annexed to Excommunication by way of command and so the Church hath power to command that we shall not ciuilly conuerse with excommunicated persons except in those cases wherein by the law of Nature and Nations we are bound ciuilly to conuerse with them So also spirituall Pastors as I haue shewed before may annexe to Excommunication the inflicting of those temporall punishments which from the grant and priueledges of temporall Princes they haue authoritie to inflict But this is nothing to that which Mr. Fitzherbert intended to proue For I neuer denyed that the spirituall Superiour may punish temporally by way of command or to speake more properly may command and enioyne temporall penalties and also inflict them by that ciuill authoritie which he hath receiued from the grant of temporall Princes but that which I denyed is that the spirituall Superiour hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments 79 Thirdly Mr. Fitzherbert affirming so boldly that our Sauiour by his owne commandement ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication doth erre most grosly seeing that he cannot proue that our Sauiour ordained any penaltie at all much lesse a temporall penaltie of Excommunication For if he had but sleightly runne ouer Schoole-Diuinitie and especially the Treatise of Ecclesiasticall Censures he could not but haue seene that although the power to excommunicate is de iure diuine and instituted by the law of Christ yet that according to the more common doctrine of Diuines neither Excommunication or any other Ecclesiasticall Censure or penaltie is de iure diuino and ordained by the commandement of Christ but de iure humano and instituted by the Church and that to no sinne is annexed any Censure by the law and commandement of Christ who did neuer by himselfe immediately ordaine that the Church should vse such or such a determinate punishment but he left to the prudent iudgement and arbitrement of the Church to determine in particular this or that punishment according to the authoritie she hath receiued Suarez tom 5. dis 2. sec 1. For thus writeth Fa. Suarez affirming it to be the more common opinion of Doctours and withall he answereth all the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought heere out of the holy Scriptures 80 But the contrarie doctrine saith Suarez may seeme to haue some ground in those word Matth. 18. If he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican For by those words our Sauiour Christ doth seeme to haue sufficiently shewed and instituted the Censure of Excommunication and that the Pastours of the Church are heere vertually commanded to excommunicate disobedient and obstinate Christians because by no other reason the faithfull can be bound to auoid such kind of men But from this place saith Suarez nothing can be gathered For otherwise one might also gather from thence that whosoeuer
who shall not heare the Church if hee will eate and drinke with notorious sinners and receiue heretikes into his house and salute them what punishments then can the spirituall Superiour inflict vpon such a person can hee depriue him of his temporall life libertie dignities or goods can hee by temporall force whip him send him into banishment or such like or onely exclude him from the spirituall conuersation of the faithfull depriue him of spirituall graces dignities and priuiledges and command other Christians to account him as a Heathen Publican and notorious sinner This is the maine difficultie betwixt vs which Mr. Fitzherbert cunningly passeth ouer with silence and yet he would make his Reader beleeue that he hath sufficiently conuinced me of contradiction in granting that the spirituall Superiour may command temporall punishments but not inflict them whereas of this second which was the maine point and onely question betwixt vs hee speaketh not one word in this place And therefore consider I pray you Deare Countreymen what small reason you haue in a matter which doeth so neerely concerne your conscience your temporall ouerthrow and the allegiance which by the expresse commandement of Christ you are bound to giue to God and Caesar to rely vpon so ignorant and vnsincere a man who so palpably and wilfully seeketh to delude you 85 Now you shall see the rest of his goodly Discourse wherein he also setteth aside the law of Nature as he did in the former paragraph which neuerthelesse was the maine subiect whereof hee pretended to treate in this Chapter and flyeth to the holy Scriptures and the practise of the Church but as fraudulently and ignorantly as he hath done before Moreouer it is euident saith he m Pa. 106. nu 19. in the holy Scripture that our Sauiour himselfe n Ioan. 2. droue the buyers and sellers out of the temple with whips and Saint Peter inflicted the punishment of death o Act. 5. vpon Ananias and Saphyra whereof I shall haue occasion to speake more amply in the next Chapter p Cap. 7. nu 23 seq and that S. Paul stroke Elymas the Magician blinde q Act. 13. and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian r 1. Cor. 5. to the Deuill to bee corporally afflicted in interitum carnis saith he vt spiritus saluus fiat for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saued All which were corporall and temporall punishments 1. Cor. 7. Besides that the saide Apostle permitted the separation of man and wife when the same should be necessarie for the saluation of the soule of either of them and the Church also doeth and may in like case permit and ordaine the same not only for the benefite of the party innocent but also for the iust punishment of the offender 86 But truely it is an intollerable shame that any Christian subiect to aduance so immoderately the Papall authoritie in so great preiudice of Regall Maiestie should vnder the cloake of Religion and of zeale to the Sea Apostolike vse such friuolous not to say ridiculous arguments and from the miraculous facts not only of the Apostles but also of Christ himselfe conclude in ordinarie power in the Pope to doe the like For the onely propounding of these arguments will sufficiently shew to any sensible man how friuolous and ridiculous they are Our Sauiour Christ saith my Aduersarie droue the buyers and sellers out of the Temple with whips Hieronom epist 8. ad Demetriad Abul q. 97. in c. 18. Mat. q. 96. in cap. 20. and S. Peter inflicted the punishment of death vpon Ananias and Saphyra or rather foretold and prophecied their death as S. Hierome and Abulensis doe affirme and S. Paul stroke Elymas the Magician blind or at least-wise foretold his blindnesse and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to the Deuill to bee corporally tormented by him therefore the Pope hath power to doe the like as though because Christ and the Apostles had an extraordinarie and miraculous power to inflict or foretell corporall punishments we may rightly inferre that the Pope hath an ordinarie power to inflict or foretell the same See Abul q. 96 in cap. 20. Mat. That these facts of S. Peter and S. Paul were miraculous no man can make any doubt and that the driuing of the buyers and sellers out of the temple was also miraculous S. Hierome doth expresly affirme and the reason which hee bringeth doeth euidently conuince the same for marke his words 87 Many men saith S. Hierome are of opinion S. Hieronyme in Matth. 21. that the greatest signes our Sauiour did was that Lazarus was raised from death to life that he that was blinde from his mothers wombe receiued his sight that at Iordan the voice of the Father was heard that hee being transfigured in the mountaine shewed the glory of a Triumpher Among all the signes which hee did this seemeth to me more wonderfull that one onely man and at that time contemptible and so abiect that afterwards he was crucified the Scribes and Pharises being in a rage against him and seeing their commodities destroyed he could with the strokes of one onely whip thrust out so great a multitude and ouerthrow the tables and breake the chaires and doe other things which an infinite armie had not done For some certaine fierie Abul q. 79. in cap. 21. Matth. and starry thing did glister out of his eyes and the maiestie of Deitie did shine in his face Besides not only his countenance saith Abulensis but also his voice might be terrible to them as it was to those armed men whom the Iewes sent to apprehend our Sauiour who hearing only those words Ego sum I am he Ioan. 18. fell backeward Origen also attributeth this casting out of the buyers and sellers to a great miracle Let vs consider saith he Origin c. 2. Iâ— least that perchance it should seeme to bee out of square that the sonne of GOD taking little coards doth make a whip to cast them out yet one refuge is left the diuine power of Iesus that when he would hee could stop the anger of his enemies although they were innumerable And againe This present historie saith Origen doth in nothing shew lesse power then did those things which were done by him more miraculously yea it is manifest that this doth shew a greater power then the miracle wherein water was turned into wine for that there a matter without life doeth subsist but heere the wits of so many thousand men are made tame or ouerruled 88 Also no lesse impertinent is that argument which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth from the separation of man and wife Besides that saith he the said Apostle permitted the separation of man and wife when the same should be necessarie for the saluation of the soule of either of them And what then I grant also that spirituall Pastours may doe the like For S. Paul did only permit that if the wife or husband
properly and directly no temporall power but onely spirituall yet by this spirituall power of his they say he can dispose of all things and inflict all kinde of punishments as well temporall as spirituall as if hee had formally and directly temporall power and therefore they will not call this power of the Pope to dispose of all temporalls formally and directly but vertually and indirectly temporall power or a supreme power to dispose of all temporalls in order to spirituall good Other Diuines and Lawyers whom I cited aboue in the first part doe contend that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath neither formally nor virtually neither directly nor indirectly any temporal power or authority to dispose of temporall things or to inflict temporall punishments but onely spirituall power by which he may dispose or dispence in spirituall things and inflict spirituall punishments and also command enioyne or impose temporall things as in them may be found vertue or vice which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power but no way dispose of temporall things or inflict temporall or ciuill punishments for that these are the acts and obiects onely of ciuill power 24 Neither also can this Doctour be ignorant that there is a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and of Paris about the amplitude greatnesse and fulnesse of the Popes spirituall power insomuch that Iacobus Almainus a famous Doctour of Paris doth affirme e Almain de author Eccles cap. 3. that there is so great a controuersie among Doctours concerning the plenitude or fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and to what things it is extended that in this matter there are few things secure or without doubt so that as William Occam saith it would bee very necessarie in these times that wise men being compelled by Oaths and horrible threatnings to speake the trueth should declare what things doe belong to the plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power and much more of Papall authoritie which Almaine with the other Diuines of Paris doe make inferiour to the power of the Church or of a Generall Councell Gerson de potest Eccles consid 12. which doth represent the Church for as Iohn Gerson and the said Almaine doe affirme deceitfull flatterie hath now ouermuch extended and amplified the greatnesse and fulnesse of Papall authoritie 25 Moreouer although I will not denie that the Pope hath authoritie to make lawes and Canons yet it is not certaine that hee hath authority to make lawes and Canons to binde a generall Councell for that the Doctours of Paris doe affirme that a generall Councell hath authority to make laws Canons to binde the Pope according to the expresse definitions of the Councels of Constance and Basill Conc. Const sess 5. The Councell doth ordaine define decree and determine saith the Councell of Constance as followeth And first it doth declare that the said Councell being gathered in the holy Ghost making a generall Councell and representing the Catholike Church hath immediately from Christ authority which euery man of what state or dignity soeuer although it be papall is bound to obey in those things which belong to faith and to the rooting out of the said Schisme and to the reforming of the said Church in the head and members Also it doth declare that euery man of whatsoeuer condition state or dignity hee bee although it be Papall that shall obstinately contemne to obey the commaundes statutes decrees or precepts of this sacred Synode being lawfully gathered concerning the aforesaid or appertaining to any of them made or to be made vnlesse he shall repent let him be subiect to condigne pennance and be deseruedly punished by hauing also recourse if it shal be needfull to other helps of law Which decrees of the Councell of Constance the Councell also of Basill which was lawfully called by Pope Eugenius the 4. and which at that time when these decrees were made Concil Basil sess 2. was not accounted a Schismaticall but a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell doth in the same expresse words confirme 26 Also although I will not deny that the Pope hath authority to dispence in vowes and oathes yet it is not certaine that hee hath authority to dispense in all vowes and in all oathes for that many Diuines do with S. Thomas maintaine that he hath not power to dispence in the solemne vowe of religious chastity or in those oathes which are made to confirme any thing which wee are otherwise bound to performe by the law of God or nature because the opinion of the Thomists is that the Pope doth dispence in oathes onely by declaring that the thing which is confirmed by oath is not now a sufficient matter of an oath as I haue declared more at large elsewhere f Disputat Theolog. c. 6. sec 6. nu 8. in Resp Apol. nu 148. 149. Lastly although I doe willingly graunt that the Pope hath authority to punish yet it is not certaine that he hath authority to punish with all kinde of punishments for that many learned Catholikes doe holde as you may see more at large aboue in the first part that Ecclesiasticall power is by the institution of Christ restrained onely to Ecclesiasticall Censures and cannot inflict temporall or ciuill punishments as death banishment imprisonment depriuing of temporall goods c. And thus much concerning the first part of the aforesaid distinction now touching the second part 27 Secondly therefore the meaning of Cardinall Bellarmines aforesaid proposition The Ecclesiasticall common-wealth ought to bee perfect and to haue all power sufficient and necessarie c. may bee that the Church hath all power sufficient and necessarie in order to her ende which is the saluation of soules in respect of the power it selfe and not in respect also of all those things which are in any wise necessarie that the power may actually worke her effect As the power for example of the Sunne to giue light may bee vnderstood sufficient either in respect of the power it selfe to giue light or in respect also of those things which doe any way concurre to the actuall giuing of light and which things if they bee wanting will hinder the giuing of light of which sort are a proportionate distance a capable and well disposed subiect And although the Sunne hath not sufficient power to remoue all those impediments which may hinder her actuall giuing of light for so it should draw the body that is to bee enlightened within a sufficient distance and make it also diaphanum cleare or perspicuous which to doe is not is the power of the Sunne neuerthelesse what man can therefore deny that the Sunne hath a perfect power and of it selfe sufficient to enlighten 28 And in this sense the aforesaid antecedent proposition is true For the Christian common-wealth or the Church of Christ hath a perfect and sufficient power for it selfe to bring soules to the kingdome of heauen for as much as belongeth to the power it selfe which neuerthelesse
Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Now Mr. Fitzherbert is it possible that you should be so ignorant as not to vnderstand the force of my answere and that I brought the testimonies of Ioannes Parisiensis and Hostiensis to great purpose Doe not you see what I gaine for the question which is in hand if you graunt me that the decree of the Lateran Counsell as also that Canon Ad abolendam according to those Doctours cited by Hostiensis had their force to binde from the consent of temporall Princes Can you bee so blinde as not to see how this inference is not weake and absurd but strong and certaine that because this and other decrees of Popes and Councels concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments were I do not onely say ratified by temporall Princes but had their force to binde from the consent of temporal Princes therfore they could not be lawfully made without their ratification and consent which is the point you say I must prooue if I will argue to the purpose vnlesse your weaknesse will admit that a law may lawfully or legally be made without that by vertue whereof it hath force to binde as those Canonists cited by Hostiensis Pope Innocent and Ioannes Andreas doe affirme that the Canon Ad abolendā ideo valuisse quia Imperator aut Princeps consensit Was therefore of force because the Emperour or Prince gaue his consent 44 And as for that inference you make that if that Canon of the Lateran Councell which was as it were a Parliament of all Christendome was made by the consent and I also adde by the authority of all Christian Princes therefore it cannot be repealed but by some other generall Councell of like authority although it nothing concerneth the deposition of absolute Princes by whose authority it was made but onely of inferiour Landlords Magistrates or Lords yet of what force this inference is you may for your better instruction see aboue d Ch. 8. nu 27. by the doctrine of Suarez who declareth in what manner the law of Nations may in this or that Nation be repealed for that a law of a generall Councell made by the consent and authority of all Christian Princes is as I may say a law of all Christian Nations 45 But let vs goe on and see how well you prooue that it is absurd to say that the Canon of the Lateran Councell and diuers other Canons concerning politicall matters could not be lawfully made without the consent of temporall Princes But how absurd is this saith Mr. Fitzherbert e Pag. 161. num 8. it may appeare euen by Widdringtons former graunt and expresse doctrine f Chap. 2. num 1. 2. touching the Popes power to command corporall and temporall things as they serue or are reduced to spirituall for this power being spirituall in respect of the spirituall end whereto it reduceth all temporall things must needes bee independent of temporall Princes vnlesse we shall also grant them a supreame spirituall authority 46 But how vaine this inference is I haue clearely shewed before g Chap. 6. num 66 seq by declaring the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of them both which my Aduersary not distinguishing doth thereby confound the vnderstanding of his vnlearned Reader For the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue or commanding are all those things spirituall or temporall which by the reference or reduction of them to a spirituall end may become spirituall things to wit vertuous or vicious actions which are the acts obiects of the spirituall power as it is directiue this spirituall power is independant of temporall Princes but the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing are not all spirituall things but onely spirituall punishments and because no reduction of temporall punishments to a spirituall end can make temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments therefore temporall punishments although by reducing them to a spirituall end may become spirituall things which are the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue yet still they remaine temporall punishments and therefore cannot by any reduction become the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing whereupon the inflicting of such punishments for what end soeuer they be inflicted must needes remaine dependant vpon the consent and authority of temporall Princes Neither also can my Aduersary be so ignorant as to affirme that temporall Princes cannot vse their supreame temporall power to a spirituall end as to the rooting out of heresie adultery and all other crimes vnlesse we grant them a supreame spirituall authority 47 Besides that this may be conuinced saith Mr. Fitzherbert h Pag. 161. num 8. by the practise of all the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours when not only corporall and temporall things were commanded by the Church but temporall and comporall penalties ordained without the ratification or consent of any temporall Prince This indeed were somewhat to the purpose if Mr. Fitzherbert could conuince that in the primitiue Church before Kings and Emperour were Christians temporall penalties were not onely commanded but also ordained as to ordaine is distinguished from to command for then it must needes follow that the primitiue Church did not onely command the inflicting of temporall punishments without the consent and authority of temporall Princes and that temporall punishments were then the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue which I neuer denied but also did inflict temporall punishments and that temporall punishments were then the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing which I vtterly denie Obserue now what pittifull arguments this silly man bringeth for conuincing proofes 48 This may appeare saith he by a decree of Pope Calixtus e Epist 2. Callixt tom 1. Concil in the time of the Emperour Alexander Seuerus whereby as well Lay-men as Priests and Cleargie-men were forbidden vpon paine of infamie to make conspiracies against their Bishops 48 The words of Pope Calixtus to the Bishops of Fraunce are these Wee haue heard that the crimes of conspiracies doe raigne in your parts and it hath beene made manifest vnto vs that their people doe conspire against their Bishops The subtilty or malice of which offence is abhominable not onely among Christians but also among Heathens and is forbidden by externall lawes And therefore not onely Ecclesiasticall but also Secular laws do condemne them that are guilty of this crime and not onely those that do conspire but those also who consent to them And our predecessours with a great company of Bishops haue commanded all them that are placed in Priestly dignity or are Clergy-men to fall from the dignity which they haue haue commanded that the rest be depriued of Communion and to be banished from the Church and haue thought or iudged all men together of either order to be infamous not onely the
doers but those also that consent to them And a little beneath And these are not to be admitted to the accusing of any man nor the word of thē or of excommunicated persons can hurt or accuse any man 49 But this authority of Pope Calixtus and all other such like as of Pope Anacletus Pope Pius and others related by Gratian 3. q. 4. are easily answered For as there are two sorts of Lawes Courts or Tribunals the spirituall the temporall so also there are two sorts of infamie as infamie is taken for a penalty ordained by the law f Vide Siluest verbo infamia Greg. Tholo in Syntag Iuris lib. 31. cap. 29. num 7. and other Doctors Cod. ex quibus causis infamia irrogatur ff de ijs qui notantur infamiae the one is called infamia iuris Canonica infamie of the spirituall Court by vertue whereof the person made infamous is depriued and made incapable of spirituall dignities and his word or testimonie is of no force to hurt any man in this spirituall Court and for as much as concerneth spirituall dignities punishments or Censures and of this infamy the aforesaid decree of Callixtus and all other Ecclesiasticall Canons made by spirituall authority wherein the penalty of infamie is inflicted are to be vnderstood The other infamie is ordained by the Ciuill law and is called by the Lawyers infamia iuris Ciuilis infamie of the Ciuill law or Court by vertue of which the person made infamous is depriued or made incapable of Secular dignities and his testimonie is not admitted to hurt any man in the Ciuill and criminall Court and for as much as concerneth temporal dignities and temporal punishments And of this ciuill infamie the words of Pope Calixtus are not to be vnderstood Neither can any man be so senselesse as to conceiue that the Popes of the primitiue Church declaring those to be infamous and not to bee admitted to accuse or giue testimony against any man who did forsake the Christian Religion became Apostataes and made conspiracies against Bishops and excommunicated persons did intend to make them incapable of Secular dignities and not to be admitted to accuse or giue testimonie in the Secular Court wherein the Popes themselues and all Christians were punished and persecuted for Christian Religion and Apostataes and accusers of Bishops were rewarded 50 The second conuincing proofe that the Popes of the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours did not onely command but also ordaine temporall punishments Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth from the authority of Pope Vrbanus g Epist Vrbani tom 1. Concil 17. q. 4. can Attendendum est And his Successour Vrbanus saith he h Pa. 161. nu 9 ordained in like sort the penaltie of infamy adding also imprisonment and perpetuall banishment for such as should goe about to vexe and molest Churches and to depriue them of their goods and possessions But this proofe is as insufficient as the former First for that this Epistle of Vrbanus is not authentical but counterfait and falsly imposed vpon Pope Vrbanus as may euidently appeare by the subscriptions of the Consulls to wit of Antoninus and Alexander whereas it is euident as Baronius i Adamū 224 and other Historiographers doe witnesse that Antoninus was slaine in the fourth yeere of Pope Callixtus in the yeere of our Lord 224. two yeeres before Vrbanus was created Pope 51 Secondly for that it is also euident that the whole Canon Attendendum wherein the penaltie of infamy imprisonment and of perpetuall banishment is ordained as it is set downe 17. q. 4. by Gratian hath beene thrust in by some one or other to this Epistle for that it hath no coherence at all with the words of the Epistle which immediately follow wherein the reason of this decree is giuen whereas if the whole Canon Attendendum be left out the sense is perfect and the reason there alledged very apt and sufficient For what coherence I pray you is there betwixt these words of this Canon that if any man molest Churches he shall be condemned of perpetuall infamy and hee imprisoned and banished for euer with these words which in the Epistle immediately follow because we ought according to the Apostle to deliuer such a man to Sathan that the spirit may bee safe in the day of our Lord c. Which neuerthelesse is a very fit reason of that which immediately goeth before this whole Canon Attendendum to wit that Church-goods ought not to be taken away by any man and applied to prophane vses least they incurre the punishment and death of Ananias and Saphira and which is worse bee made Anathema maranatha and if they shall not fall dead in body as Ananias and Saphira did yet there soule which is of more worth then the body doth fall dead and be separated from the company of the faithfull and doth slide into the deepe pit of hell because according to the Apostle wee ought to deliuer such a man to Sathan c. which wordes as you see haue a perfect sense and giue a very fit reason of the former words if the whole Canon Attendendum be left out and with it there is no sense and coherence of the words at all 52 Thirdly what man can be so simple as to imagine that either Pope Vrbanus or any other Pope of the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours when not onely the goods of the Church were prophaned taken away and spoyled but also the Christians themselues imprisoned banished and put to cruell death would make a Decree that whosoeuer did take away or prophane the goods of Churches should be committed to prison or perpetually banished euen as if Mr. Arch-Priest should now make a decree that whatsoeuer Catholike shall take the oath of allegiance or repaire to Protestant Churches shall be imprisoned or perpetually banished and yet these in my Aduersaries iudgement are forsooth conuincing proofes Neuerthelesse this punishment of infamy is to be vnderstood as I shewed before of spirituall infamy to wit forasmuch as concerneth the spirituall Court and the penaltie of perpetuall banishment is to bee vnderstood of spirituall banishment or of banishment from the Church as it is expresly affirmed in the decree of his Predecessour Pope Callixtus And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert may vse some fraud in vrging from the decree of Pope Vrbanus the penaltie of banishment and in concealing the said penaltie in the decree of his Predecessour Pope Callixtus who in expresse words made mention of banishment from the Church 53 The third conuincing proofe Mr. Fitzherbert taketh from the authority of a Prouinciall Councell k pag. 162. nu 9 held at Eliberis l De Consecrat dist 1. can Omnis homo in Spaine in the time of Constantius father to Constantine the great Galerius which enacted that men should abstaine from their wiues not only some daies before they receiued the B. Sacrament m Barchard l.
19. c. 17. Iuo p. 15. c. 88 vide Binium tom 1. Concil in notis in Concil Eliber Baron tom 2. Annal. anno 305. in fine but also in time of Lent and Easter assigning for the later ayeeres penance or to pay fiue and twentie shillings to the Church or to the poore and in another Canon they ordained that Bishops and their Ministers n Burchard l. 11. c. 67. Iuo p. 14. c. 115. might whip husband-men with rods for great crimes to make them doe penance against their wills least they might perish eternally in which Canons as also in the former Decrees of the Popes Callixtus and Vrbanus the penalties imposed were meere temporall albeit there was not then as I haue said any Christian Prince to ratifie the same 54 But this proofe also is as insufficient as the former First for that many learned men as the Reader may see in Binnius to whom Mr. Fitzherbert remitteth him doe reiect this Councell and account it erroneous for decreeing certaine errours so Melchior Canus Canus l. 5. de locis c. 4. Bellar. l. 2. de Imaginib c. 9. and Cardinall Bellarmine And although Baronius cited also by Binnius excuseth the Fathers of that Councell yet for that they seemed in diuers of their decrees to fauour the errours of Nouatian which were displeasing to their Successors his opinion is that there is no mention made by name of this Synode by ancient writers and so it did remaine almost abolished and yet my Aduersary will from this Councell bring forsooth a conuincing proofe 55 Secondly for that these two decrees cited here by Mr. Fitzherbert are not placed with the other Canons of the Councell but are adioyned as certaine fragments belonging thereunto Wherefore if some Authours as Vasquez witnesseth sticke not to affirme Vasq 3. part disp 105 cap. 2 tom 1. that diuers decrees which are placed among the Canons of this Councell were not made by the Councell but by some one or other adioyned afterwards with farre greater reason it may be said that these two decrees which by Binnius are reputed onely as fragments and not placed among the rest of the Canons were not made by the Councell but adioyned afterwards by some one or other whom Burchardus Iuo others following did attribute them to this Councell in that manner as diuers books are attributed to S. Augustine S. Chrysostome and other Fathers are printed among their works vnder their names which were neuer made by them 56 Thirdly for that some learned men as Garsias Loaisa o Whom Binnius in the place aboue cited calleth a most learned Interpreter a Collectour of all the Councells held in Spaine are of opinion that this Councell was not celebrated in the time of Constantius and Galerius but after the Councell of Nice in the time of Constantine the great and therefore no conuincing proofe can bee brought from the authority of this Councell as my Aduersary pretendeth to shew that in the time of the Pagan Emperours temporall and corporall punishments were not onely commanded but also ordained by the Church without the ratification and consent of any temporall Prince seeing that according to the opinion of learned men this Councell was not held in the time of the Pagan Emperours but after the Councell of Nice in the time of Constantine the great who as wee may well suppose would ratifie whatsoeuer the Pastours of the Church should thinke expedient and necessary for the spirituall good thereof and the eternall saluation of soules 57 But lastly from these two Canons heere cited by my Aduersary this onely at the most can be forcibly deduced that spirituall Pastours haue authority to impose command and enioyne temporall and corporall penances punishments and afflictions as to abstaine for certaine daies from carnall copulation and likewise to fast to weare haire-cloth to giue almes and such like which was ordained in the first Canon or to beat themselues or else to suffer themselues for their penance to be beaten with rods which was ordained in the second Canon and of this I neuer made doubt but I did euer grant that the Church hath authority by the institution of Christ to impose enioyne or command temporall and corporall afflictions penalties or punishments but all the difficulty betwixt my Aduersaries and mee is concerning the coerciue compulsiue or punishing power of the Church that is if they should refuse to obey the commandement of their Pastours and would not abstaine from the acts of matrimony nor beat themselues nor suffer themselues to be beaten with rods with what kinde of punishments could the Church by her spirituall authority which shee hath receiued from Christ force and compell them therevnto to wit whether by inflicting vpon them temporall and corporall punishments as my Aduersaries contend or only spirituall Censures by depriuing them either wholly or in part of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall communion as many other Catholikes doe probably according to my doctrine affirme this is the plaine and maine controuersie as I haue often said 58 Neither can it be prooued by any of these Canons that the coerciue or compulsiue spirituall power of spirituall Pastours doth extend to the inflicting of corporall or temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures as it may sufficiently appeare by the second Canon heere cited wherein is decreed that Si seniores ipsorum colonorum c. If the more ancient of these husband-men giuing thereby to vnderstand that the husband-men who were to be whipped by the Bishops or their Ministers for penance were boyes or youths shall take it in ill part or will therefore vse any reuenge or shall presume to defend them that they be not beaten they shall be punished with the sentence of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication Wherefore those wordes of this Canon that they may doe penance against their wills are not to bee vnderstood against their wills simply and absolutely by corporall force and violence which taketh away all willingnesse for such kind of penance or satisfaction is not acceptable before almightie God or of any merite at all before God but they are to be vnderstood against their wills secundum quid in some sort as Merchants against their wills for feare of being drowned cast their goods into the Sea to wit that they shall be compelled to doe penance and suffer themselues to be beaten against their wills for feare of being otherwise thrust out of the Church and depriued of Ecclesiasticall communion which kinde of compulsion being simply voluntary p See Disputat Theol. c. 9. sec vnit and inuoluntarie onely secundum quid may stand with that free will which is the ground and roote of meritorious and willing satisfaction acceptable in the sight of God Neither doth Mr. Fitzherbert by the rest of his examples grounded vpon the authority of the Apostles prooue any other thing but that spirituall Pastours may by their spirituall authority without the consent and authority of
temporall Princes impose enioyne or command temporall and corporall penalties afflictions and punishments and in this sense ordaine and depose of them For thus he writeth 59 Heereto may be added saith hee q Pag. 162. nu 10. 11. the Constitution of the Apostles themselues in their Councell held at Hierusalem wherein they imposed vpon the Christians a burden as they called it whereof part was meerely temporall to wit to abstaine from blood and that which was strangled Act. 15. Visum est say they Spiritui sancto nobis c. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from things immolated to Idolls and blood and that which is strangled and fornication Thus said they in their Canon disposing as you see of a temporall thing by their owne Apostolicall authoritie without any hope or expectation of the consent or ratification of any temporall Magistrate as they also did the like in the institution of Lent which as all the Fathers doe acknowledge is an Apostolicall tradition and consisteth in a meere temporall affliction and the like may be said not onely of all the examples alledged by mee before r See c. 2. nu 2 3. 4. concerning the practise of the Apostles partly in Å¿ Act 5.6 13 corporall punishments and partly in the disposition t 1. Cor. 6. of temporall things but also of the custome of the primitiue Church to impose corporall penances u Cypr. epist 10 ad Clerum Tertul. de paenit cap. 10. consisting in fasting watching wearing of haire-cloth and such like which albeit they were temporall things yet were imposed by the Church vpon her children by her owne authority though alwayes for a spirituall end to wit for the good of soules and Gods greater glory and seruice 60 Whereupon it followeth that the Church may also now in like manner dispose of temporall things to the same end by her owne authority without demanding the consent or ratification of any temporall Prince for no sufficient reason can bee assigned why the Church could doe it then and not now neither yet why it may for a spirituall end punish a man temporally in his body by some corporall affliction and in his honour by infamy and not in his temporall goods and state especially seeing that all temporall goods are inferiour to the body and both body and goods ordained for the seruice of the soule and for spirituall ends Whereupon I say it followeth euidently that the consent of temporall Princes is altogether needlesse to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions concerning temporall things albeit the Church hath alwaies vsed to auaile her selfe of their authoritie and power for the execution of all her Decrees as well spirituall as temporall matters and to that end admitteth and requireth the assistance of temporall Princes or their Ambassadours in generall Councells so as by all this it appeareth euidently that the Councell of Lateran needed not the consent or ratification of the Emperour or other temporall Princes for the validitie of the Canon now in question and consequently that my Aduersaries first answere to the obiection proposed by himselfe is to no purpose 61 Heere you see how Mr. Fitzherbert rangeth vp and downe to no purpose spending many words idly to prooue that which no man denieth to wit that the Church by her spirituall authoritie may without the consent of Princes command enioyne or impose temporall and corporall penalties which I haue alwaies granted yet craftily confounding in his inferences ordaining with commanding disposing with imposing and punishing temporally with enioyning temporall punishments which I haue euer distinguished He tooke vpon him as you heard to conuince by the practise of all the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours that corporall and temporall things were not onely commanded but also ordained by the Church without the ratification and consent of any temporall Prince because a little before x See nu 45. he doth acknowledge that I doe grant and expresly teach that the Pope hath power to command corporall and temporall things as they are reduced to spirituall and yet heere hee prooueth nothing else either by the Constitutions of the Apostles or by the practise of the primitiue Church but that spirituall Pastours may by their ordinary power for our question is not concerning the extraordinary power which the Apostles had to worke miracles command impose and enioyne temporall and corporall things as to abstaine from blood and that which is strangled from the eating of flesh vpon certaine daies as in Lent rather to suffer wrong and to appoint arbitrary Iudges among themselues to compose quietly their strifes then to haue recourse to the tribunalls of infidell Iudges and to doe corporall and temporall penances and that the Church may now also doe the same and that therefore the consent of temporall Princes is altogether needlesse to the validitie of such Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions which doe onely command impose or enioyne corporall and temporall penances and punishments and of this no Catholike maketh doubt 62 But that the primitiue Church did by her ordinary power for of miraculous and extraordinary power which is not to descend necessarily to Successours I doe not speake not onely command and impose but also did inflict temporall and corporall punishments without the consent of the party who was punished and did dispose of temporall things as to dispose is distinguished from to impose or command to wit by depriuing Christians of temporall right power and authority or that the consent and authority of temporall Princes is not necessary to the validity of such Ecclesiasticall Canons and Constitutions as is this decree of the Lateran Councell which is now in question wherein temporall punishments are not onely commaunded or imposed but also inflicted or that the assistance of temporall Princes or their Ambassadours is not onely required in generall Councells for the execution and not for the confirmation and validitie of such decrees wherein temporall punishments are inflicted and temporall things not onely commanded or imposed but also disposed of Mr. Fitzherbert hath not brought heere from the practise of the Primitiue Church so much as any probable or colourable much lesse as he vaunted any conuincing proofe and consequently my first answere to the obiection which I propounded standeth yet firme and solid and what he hath obiected to the contrary is to no purpose at all CHAP. XII Wherein an other answere of Widdrington grounded vpon certaine Glossers or Expositours of the Canon Law is confuted and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are prooued to be fraudulent and insufficient and moreouer it is shewed that from no Canon of the Church it can be prooued that the custome of the Church is to inflict by her spirituall power I doe not say to commaund or impose temporall penalties and the true difference betweene the Diuines and Canonists concerning
same nature and quality in generall for that both of them ordaine temporall punishments which cannot be inflicted by spirituall Pastours by that authority which they haue receiued from Christ but onely by the authority priuiledges and consent of temporall Princes who onely haue authority to inflict temporall punishments as death exile confiscation of goods imprisonment and such like But with all this difference is to be obserued betwixt these two punishments that although some Ecclesiasticall persons as diuers Bishops of Germany being temporall Princes haue authority to inflict both kinde of punishments and to hang and draw as our English prouerbe saith within their temporall Dominions yet Ecclesiasticall leuitie as Saint Leo saith doth shun these bloudy punishments and the Canons of the Church doe forbid Cleargie-men to vse the same and to pronounce the sentence of death against any malefactour whatsoeuer immediately by themselues but onely by their Officers Neuerthelesse seeing that these Ecclesiasticall persons haue by the grant of temporall Princes authority as we say to hang and draw and what their Officers or Ministers doe in this case they doe it by their authority the aforesaid prohibition of the Church doth not take away or depriue them of their authority and iurisdiction but doth onely forbid them to execute the same by themselues immediately but onely by their Ministers So that if a Cleargie-man who is a temporall Prince as are the Bishops of Collen and Ments should notwithstanding the prohibition of the Church pronounce the sentence of death against any malefactour who deserueth the same although hee should offend against the prohibition of the Church yet he should not offend against iustice vsurping the power which he hath not by doing that which for want of temporall iurisdiction he hath no authority to doe in that manner as an other man who hauing no temporall iurisdiction and condemning one to death should offend 14 Secondly therefore although I doe not deny that the confiscation of goods is expresly ordained in diuers places of the Canon law as also the effusion of bloud by mutilation and death is expresly ordained in this Canon howsoeuer my Aduersary very boldly saith that the effusion of bloud by mutilation or death is no way ordained therein yet if wee distinguish ordaining from commanding or imposing because I haue euer granted that spirituall Pastours haue authority to command impose and enioyne but not to inflict temporall punishments all such Canons wherein temporall punishments are inflicted are either an approbation of the Imperiall law or a teaching and declaring what ought to be done by the Secular Prince or Iudge as the Glosse expoundeth both this Canon Delatori wherein the effusion of bloud by death and mutilation is decreed and also the Canon Hadrianus wherein onely the confiscation of goods is ordained or they were made and had force to binde by the consent of temporall Princes as other Doctours according to Hostiensis Ioannes Andreas and Pope Innocent interprete that so often vrged Canon Ad abolendam wherein Earles Barons Gouernours and Consuls of Cities and other places if they neglect to helpe the Church against heretikes are depriued of their honour 15 Neuerthelesse these Canons wherein temporall punishments are ordained for that they are made by sacred spirituall or Ecclesiasticall persons though not by sacred spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but by temporall and ciuill authority granted them by the priuiledges gift or consent of temporall Princes may be called sacred Ecclesiasticall and Apostolicall Canons Gerson de potest Eccles consider 4. according to that which I. Gerson writeth that there are some of opinion that Excommunication is the last punishment which the Ecclesiasticall power of Iurisdiction by the first institution of Christ can inflict so that it is not extended to imprisonment nor that any man be adiudged to death or corporall whipping but when the Ecclesiasticall Iudge doth this he doth it by the grant of Princes as the Cleargie by the deuotion of Princes hath receiued great authority of temporall Iurisdiction which iurisdiction or censure is neuerthelesse called spirituall as also the temporall goods of Ecclesiasticall persons are called spirituall because they are dedicated and applyed to them who serue the Church as also the breads of proposition the first fruites the tithes also the vessels of the Temple the Vestments and such like were in the old law called sacred or holy so also the new law doth obserue the same Thus Gerson 16 Thirdly the Glosse it selfe doth teach saith Mr. Fitzherbert e Pag. 167. num 6. Glossa in verb. publicat that by the former decree the Church doth ordaine the confiscation of goods and deposition from dignities saying Hìc Ecclesia publicat bona Laicorum quandoque deponit à dignitatibus Here the Church doth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth from dignities Thus saith the Glosse here which Widdrington wholly dissembleth because it maketh flatly against him and he taketh hold as it seemeth of the words immediately following though he doe not alleage them the words are Vel dic c. Or say that the Church teacheth here what ought to be done Wherein it cannot be with reason imagined that the Glosse contradicteth the former interpretation seeing that it teacheth also in many other places that the Church may and doth vse to impose temporall penalties by confiscation of goods imprisonment infamie and banishment as it may bee seene in the Glosses Lib. Detret cap. Licet tit de Paenis vpon 17. q. 4. Attendendum est 16. q. 1. Statuimus 27. q. 4. Quisquis and vpon the Decree Licet tit de poenis where the Glosse affirmeth expresly that if the Law doe ordaine only a spirituall punishment or a corporall the Iudge cannot change it into another except hee can dispence in the crime committed and that when the Law determineth nothing concerning the penaltie of the crime it is left to the will of the Iudge whether he will impose a pecuniarie penaltie or any other and lastly when the Iudge can dispence touching the crime he may inflict a penaltie of or some other Thus saith the Glosse 17 But first it is not true as you haue seene aboue that I either omitted to alleadge the second answere of the Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus seeing that it is all one with that which I did alleadge vpon the Canon Delatori to which the Glosse remitteth himselfe for his second answere or that I dissembled the first answere of the Glosse which teacheth that the Church doeth ordaine the confiscation of goods seeing that I onely intended to bring there those answeres of the Glosse which made for my doctrine and not those which made against it as if a man intend only to set downe Authours who fauour any one opinion may without any dissimulation omit to relate those Authours who are against it 18 Secondly is it possible that Mr. Fitzherbert can be so ignorant as to conceiue that the Glosse doeth then contradict
Delatori 28 But this hath beene at large already answered and first that albeit the former glosse doth acknowledge that the Church doth by this Canon ordaine the confiscation of Lay-mens goods and depriuation of their dignities which is also confirmed by the practise of the Church yet the former glosse doth not acknowledge that the Church doth ordaine this by that authoritie which shee hath receiued from Christ and not from the grant and priuiledges of Christian Princes whereof onely wee now dispute Secondly that those words of the former glosse confiscate and depose may well bee vnderstood in that sense wherein the same Glosser expoundeth the word depose in the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. and so as I shewed before the later glosse doth not contradict the former but it is rather an explication thereof and thirdly that albeit we should grant that the later glosse or exposition is repugnant to the former yet it is no absurdity for the same Glosser or Expositour to bring two contrarie glosses or expositions when they are grounded vpon the contrary opinions of learned Authours which may without any errour or absurditie be followed as I declared aboue by diuers examples 29 And therefore wee must distinguish saith Mr. Fitzherbert p Pag. 169. nu 8. betwixt the Canon and the execution thereof and say that when he affirmeth in the former Glosse that the Church teacheth there what ought to bee done and againe in the later that the Church teacheth what the Secular Iudge ought to doe he speaketh onely as the very words import of the execution of these two Canons giuing also to vnderstand that the execution of penall lawes doth belong sometimes to the Secular Iudge and not to the Ecclesiasticall especially in cases touching life and death or effusion of blood albeit in many other cases the Ecclesiasticall Iudge may not onely ordaine but also execute pecuniary and other temporall penalties in which respect the Councell of Trent which my Aduersarie Widdrington if he bee a Catholike as he pretendeth to bee must needes admit for a lawfull Councell decreeth that Ecclesiasticall Iudges shall abstaine from Censures when they may by their owne authority proceed against the delinquents by reall or personall execution So as I will conclude that these glosses which Widdrington alledgeth either doe make nothing against vs or if they doe they doe manifestly contradict as well themselues as other Glosses and many expresse Canons and the doctrine of all learned Canonists yea the whole course and continuall practise of the Canon law 30 But first as no man maketh doubt but that wee must distinguish betwixt Canons or lawes and the execution thereof so also no doubt can be made but that the Prince or Law-maker either spirituall or temporall who hath authority to make the Canon or law hath also authority to execute the same for that the executioner of the law is a meere Minister and Officer of the Prince who enacted the law and what he doth he doth not by his owne authoritie but by the authority committed to him by the Prince and therefore whatsoeuer a Prince either spirituall or temporall hath authority to execute by his Minister or Officer hee hath also authority to execute by himselfe Wherefore seeing that the Glosser doth expound these Canons alike as it may appeare by this that in the second Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus he remitteth the Reader to the Canon Delatori signifying thereby that both the Canon Hadrianus which ordaineth the confiscation of goods and also the Canon Delatori wherein the effusion of blood by mutilation and death is ordained are to bee vnderstood in the same sense if the meaning of the Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori was onely to teach that an Ecclesiasticall Iudge could not execute that Decree which ordaineth the effusion of blood but it must bee executed by a Secular Iudge his meaning also was in the Canon Hadrianus to teach that an Ecclesiasticall Iudge cannot also execute that decree which ordaineth the confiscation of goods which no man of learning can affirme for that Ecclesiasticall persons are not by the Canons of the Church forbidden to execute decrees which ordaine the confiscation of goods but onely those decrees which ordaine the effusion of blood albeit by the graunt and priuiledges of temporall Princes they may haue authority to execute the one and the other 31 Whereby secondly it is apparant that the Glosse affirming that the Church in both those Canons doth teach what a Secular Iudge ought to doe did not intend to speake onely of the execution of those Canons for that also a Secular Iudge whose office is to giue sentence and to declare the meaning of the law in this particular case or crime is not properly an Executioner of the law because after his sentence the law may still remaine not executed but also of the Decrees and Canons themselues and of the authority which the Church hath to make such Canons and to teach that the Church by her proper spirituall power which shee hath receiued from Christ hath not authority to make Decrees which ordaine the inflicting of temporall punishments whatsoeuer whether they bee criminall or onely ciuill for that the making of such Decrees belong onely to the Ciuill and not to the Ecclesiasticall power which according to the doctrine of very many Doctours whom the Glosser in the aforesaid Glosses doth follow is not extended to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures albeit by that ciuill power and iurisdiction which spirituall Pastours haue receiued by the grant of Secular Princes which their ciuill power and iurisdiction may bee also called sacred Ecclesiasticall and their owne power they haue authoritie to inflict as well criminall as ciuill punishments notwithstanding the Church hath forbid them to meddle with the effusion of blood And this temporall and ciuill authoritie and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours which the prohibition of the Church as I said before doth not take away the Councell of Trent calleth their owne authoritie although they haue receiued it not from the institution of Christ but from the grant of Secular Princes in that manner as the temporall goods of Church-men are called sacred Ecclesiasticall and their owne proper goods as I declared a little aboue out of Gerson 32 So as I will conclude that these two Glosses which I haue heere alledged doe greatly fauour my doctrine concerning the vncertaintie of the Popes power to inflict by the institution of Christ temporall punishments and doe no way contradict the course and practise of the Church or any Canon thereof and that albeit they were repugnant to themselues as also according to a probable exposition of the same Glosser I haue shewed they are not yet this were nothing to the purpose seeing that they are grounded vpon two contrary opinions taught and maintained by learned Catholikes although I will not deny that they are repugnant to many other Glosses and to the more common opinion
of the Canonists who make the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and to haue dominion and authoritie in temporalls not onely directly but also indirectly And therefore the common doctrine of the Canonists who as Pope Pius the fifth q See Nauar. in c. Nō liceat 12. q. 2. §. tertio nu 6 did freely acknowledge doe attribute more authority to the Pope then is fit in points concerning the Popes authoritie especially when they are therein contradicted by other learned Catholikes is but a very weake ground to build any infallible doctrine or point of faith thereon 33 Besides that it is to be considered r Pag. 169. nu 9. 10 saith Mr. Fitzherbert that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties seeing it hath the power and authoritie not onely to inflict them but also to force the Secular Magistrate to execute them which shall appeare further ſ Infra nu 11 15. after a while and is not contradicted by the Glosse obiected by Widdrington except onely concerning the imposition of bloody penalties which indeed the said Glosse doth exclude by an expresse Canon as wee also doe in this question affirming onely as I haue said before that the Church may in some cases both ordaine and execute certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood by mutilation or death And this is so manifest in the Canon law that truely a man may wonder with what face Widdrington can seeke by some peece of an obscure Glosse to ouerthrow the cleere and manifest sense of the law it selfe and the euident and ancient practise of the Church which hee knoweth in his conscience to bee grounded vpon the Ecclesiasticall Canons but heereby wee may see that his intent is no other but to patch vp his pretended probability with shifts and shewes of whatsoeuer hee can wring and wrest to his purpose 34 But truely I cannot but maruaile with what face this man dare so boldly affirme that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties or no yet granting as you see he doth that the Church hath power and authority to inflict them for of the power of the Church to compell or force by Ecclesiasticall Censures the Secular Magistrate wee doe not now dispute seeing that authority to inflict temporall penalties and to execute them are either all one or if we will distinguish them by taking authority to inflict them for authority to make lawes to inflict them the former doth necessarily inferre the later For what man euen of meane learning or vnderstanding can bee so ignorant as to imagine that euery Prince either spirituall or temporall who hath supreme authoritie to inflict any penalties hath not authoritie also to execute the same Neither can it bee denied but that the Pope and also other Bishops of Germany who are both spirituall Pastours and also temporall Princes haue authoritie to ordaine inflict and execute not onely certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood as is the confiscation of goods but all corporall and temporall penalties euen with effusion of blood by mutilation and death For although they are forbidden by expresse Canons of the Church not to concurre to the effusion of blood yet this prohibition doth not depriue them of any iote of their temporall authoritie which they did not receiue from the Church but from the grant of temporall Princes insomuch that if contrary to the Canons of the Church they should pronounce the sentence of death yea execute the same vpon any malefactour that deserueth death according to the law they should not offend against iustice for vsurping that ciuill authoritie which they haue not in that manner as another priuate man who hath no temporall authority should offend but against Religion for not obeying the iust commandement of their supreme spirituall Superiour 35 And this is so manifest in the knowne principles of Morall Philosophie of Schoole Diuinitie of the Canon and Ciuill law and in the practise of the whole Christian world that no man of any learning can with any face denie the same But this is the vsuall tricke of my Aduersarie to blind his Readers vnderstanding with the obscuritie of generall words not distinguishing the true state of the question and then crying out against me that I denie the Decrees of Generall Councells the Ecclesiastiall Canuos and the practise of the Church which is a meere fiction of his owne braine For all the Canons of the holy Church I doe embrace with all dutifull respect but I doe not vnderstand them alwayes in that sense as he and others of his opinion doe expound them and I doe willingly grant that the practise of the Church since she hath beene endewed by Christian Princes with many temporall priuiledges of Ciuill Iurisdiction hath beene to inflict and execute certaine temporall penalties without effusion of blood by death or mutilation but that which I contend is that it cannot be sufficiently prooued by any Canon or practise of the Church that spirituall Pastours doe ordaine inflict or execute such temporall penalties by their spirituall authoritie which they haue receiued from Christ but onely by their ciuill and temporall power which hath beene graunted them by the free gift and liberalitie of temporall Princes And thus much concerning these two Glosses of Ioannes Teutonicus vpon the Canon Hadrianus Delatori which without any wringing or wresting of their words or meaning I haue shewed to make cleere for my purpose 36 The second principall exception which M. Fitzherbert taketh against me in this my second answere to the obiection which I propounded is for adding immediately certaine words out of Siluester as fauouring my aforesaid answere Also Siluesters words said I doe fauour this answere who writeth thus Ioannes Andreas following Hostiensis is of opinion that a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him but that he ought to make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge 37 Against this Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth t Pag. 170. nu 12. seq that Widdrington hath dissembled that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that his Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion whereas Siluester hauing said that which Widdrington obiecteth addeth presently sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this doctrine doth not please Panormitan because when the case is such that the Iudge doth challenge iurisdiction ouer a Lay-man there appeareth no reason why he cannot in the foresaid cases impose vpon him a pecuniarie penaltie as it may be seene in cap. Statuimus 16. q. 1. and 27. q. 4. cap. Quisquis Thus saith Siluester alledging Pà normitans words and the Canons by the which hee prooueth that a Bishop may impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him which Canons are
three Instances or in this Argument whereof now we treate make any mention at all of the Lateran Councell although indeede I haue now by the way and without any necessitie vrging mee thereunto signified as you haue seene aboue that those words of the Lateran Councell vt extuncipse c. that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie which my Aduersaries affirme to bee the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the practise of the Popes power to depose Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true proper and formall Decree containing any precept or obligation but rather the reason cause and end for which the former Decree was made as I haue more amply declared before 24 Secondly neither are all the reasons of Decrees so extrinsecall thereto that they may faile and yet the Decree stand good for some are so intrinsecall and as I may say so essentiall to the Decree that the Decree cannot possibly stand good if the doctrine bee not true or at least-wise presumed to bee true as I shewed before in the reason of the canonizing of Saints and of celebrating their Feast in honour of their Sanctitie and also of celebrating the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception in honour of the vnspotted puritie thereof and of these and such like reasons I chiefly meant when in the aforesaid argument I demanded whether the reasons that mooue Popes and Councells to define or decree something are not as it were certaine grounds and foundations of their definitions and decrees So that I may truely conclude with my Aduersaries owne wordes that hee argueth as ignorantly impertinently and absurdely in impugning this argument as in the former and in the same manner also hee still goeth on 25 But now will you heare saith hee i p. 203. nu 9. how well Widdrington concludeth this his last argument and condemneth himselfe of errour or heresie Thus then hee saith Quapropter c. Wherefore no man can doubt but that great difference is to bee made betwixt the voice Vbi supra nu 63 doctrine and consent of the Church firmely beleeuing or defining any thing as a matter of faith and the voice doctrine and consent of the Church onely probably thinking For no Catholike man doeth deny that hee who contemneth to heare the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing doeth fall into errour or heresie whereas Catholike Doctours whose authoritie the learnedst of my Aduersaries will easily admit doe plainely affirme that hee who being mooued with sufficient reason doeth not embrace the doctrine of the Church onely probably thinking doeth not expose himselfe to the danger of heresie errour or temeritie For Alphonsus Salmeron and Francis Suarez men truely very learned doe bring the practise and consent of the whole Church to confirme the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin and yet that the contrarie opinion may bee defended without any danger of deadly sinne they both plainely acknowledge and cannot also deny without great offence we saith Salmeron do oppose the consent of almost the vniuersall Church the vniforme doctrine of all vniuersities Salmer tom 13. ad Rom. 5. disp 51. §. deinde Suarez tom 2. disp 3. sec 2. And the second ground saith Suarez is to bee taken from the authoritie of the Church And first the vniuersall consent almost of the whole Church and especially for these two hundred yeeres almost all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops almost all Religions and Vniuersities haue subscribed Thus Widdrington 26 But first Mr. Fitzherbert is fouly deceiued in saying or conceiuing that this is a conclusion of this my last argument For it is a conclusion and as it were a briefe collection and explication of all the answeres I made in that Apologeticall Preface to all the arguments by which my Aduersaries laboured to conuince mee and my doctrine touching the Popes power to depose Princes of temeritie errour and heresie For seeing that all the arguments which they brought to prooue my doctrine to bee temerarious erroneous yea and hereticall were grounded chiefly vpon the generall voice doctrine and consent of the Church as they pretend I thought good for a conclusion of all my answeres to these their false imputations to admonish the Reader of the aforesaid difference betwixt the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing and onely probably thinking whereby hee might plainely perceiue that considering all my former discourse and answeres I had clearely freed my selfe from all iust imputation of heresie errour and temerity 27 But secondly let vs now see what exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against this my so manifest and certaine conclusion Wherein I wish saith he i Pag. 203. num 10. to be noted two things the one how confident Widdrington is that he hath prooued by his three instances or examples and this his last argument that the Church ordaining and decreeing in the Lateran Councell that Princes shall in some cases be deposed by the Pope did not firmely belieue but onely probably thinke that the Pope hath lawfull power and authority to doe it whereas you haue seene his instances and arguments to be so weake friuolous and impertinent that they haue serued to no other purpose but to discouer his folly and the weakenesse of his cause 28 But truely I cannot but greatly pitty this poore mans case albeit I am much ashamed to see and discouer his palpable fraud and ignorance For neither did I in those three instances or examples or in this last argument make any mention at all of the decree of the Lateran Councell neither did I intend to make any inference from them concerning that decree neither did I euer graunt that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did ordaine or decree that Princes might in some cases be deposed by the Pope but I alwaies affirmed that the aforesaid decree or rather Act did onely concerne the deposition of inferiour Magistrates or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes that therfore that Act or decree was not made by meere Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently could not be a matter of faith but of fact onely as are all the decrees of temporall Princes concerning meere matters of fact For although it be a matter of faith that temporall Princes haue authority to make temporall Lawes yet it is not a matter of faith that in making such lawes they cannot erre and therefore their lawes are not matters of faith but of fact onely but the Church in making lawes to all the faithfull concerning such matters of fact or manners which are necessary to saluation cannot erre by commanding anything which is contrary to the Gospell or the law of Nature and therefore such lawes are not onely matters of fact but also of faith 29. That wherein I was confident is this that seeing my Aduersaries haue not hitherto brought nor will euer in my iudgement be able to bring any one sufficient argument to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose
and Saphyra and of others and from the practise of the Church and the person of man are cleerely confuted CHAP. VIII M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nations and the Ciuill law are answered and first the difference betwixt the Priests of the old and new Testament and the Priests of other Nations and also betwixt the law of Nations and of Nature is declared Secondly from thence it is prooued that among all Nations the ciuill common-wealth was supreme and disposed of all things both spirituall and temporall and punished all persons both Priests and others with temporall punishments and consequently that the new Oath cannot be impugned by the law of Nations Thirdly what M. Fitzherbert obiecteth from the Ciuill Law is confuted CHAP IX First the difficulties which some make concerning the authoritie of the Lateran Councell are propounded Secondly the decree of the Councel which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related Thirdly Widdringtons first answere to the said decree is prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted CHAP. X. Widdringtons second answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell affirming that absolute Princes are not comprehended therein because they are not mentioned by their proper names but by inferiour titles is prooued to be neitheir improbable nor absurd but conforme to the doctrine of learned Diuines and Lawyers and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the said answere are shewed to be very insufficient and fraudulent CHAP. XI Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to bee sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessary to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Secondly the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the Lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined Thirdly M. Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted CHAP. XII An other answere of Widdrington grounded vpon certaine Glossers or Expositours of the Canon Law is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are prooued to be fraudulent and insufficient Secondly it is shewed that from no Canon of the Church it can be prooued that the custome of the Church is or hath beene to inflict by her spirituall authoritie temporall penalties Thirdly the true difference betwixt the Diuines and Canonists concerning the Popes power in temporalls is declared CHAP. XIII Widdringtons third answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell is confirmed Secondly it is shewed how certaine it is according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes that the Church cannot erre in decrees or precepts of manners from whence it is cleerely deduced that from the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell it cannot with any colour of probabilitie be prooued that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes Thridly all M. Fitzherberts arguments to shew the contrary are most plainely confuted CHAP. XIIII Three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes Decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby he laboureth in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the Decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to be sound and sufficient Secondly the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons Instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraud and falshood Thirdly that proposition Many things may be certaine to the Sea Apostolike and yet seeme vncertaine to other learned men is examined CHAP. XV. Widdringtons second example and his Instances grounded thereon are confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in impugning the same is conuinced of manifest fraud and ignorance in taxing therein of fondnesse the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie Also Widdringtons third example and his Instances grounded thereon are prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts fraud in relating the said Instances and applying them to the Lateran Councell is plainely discouered CHAP. XVI Another argument or rather answere of Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in labouring to prooue that Widdrington by his owne grant is fallen into heresie or errour is conuinced of palpable ignorance The Conclusion of all Widdringtons discourse in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere is confirmed and what M. Fitzherbert excepteth against the same and also his briefe Recapitulation of all his Discourse in this his Treatise are confuted CHAP. XVII M. Fitzherberts vncharitable Admonition to the Catholike Reader that Widdrington is no other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that his submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather artificial and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes is clearely confuted and prooued to be voide of charity learning and sincerity and what reasons the King and State may haue to permit such submissions is there declared Widdringtons answere to the Popes Breues forbidding the Oath is confirmed and hee freed from all disobedience and irreuerence for not admitting them The decree of the Cardinals forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes and commanding him to purge himselfe forthwith is fully answered by his Purgation and humble Supplication which he made forthwith to his Holinesse THE PREFACE TO THE READER HOw dangerous and pernicious a thing it is deare Contreymen in any temporall Kingdome or Common-wealth to coyne or willingly to vtter and much more by fraud or violence to force the people to accept of counterfait money any man of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue And truely no lesse dangerous and pernicious is it in the spirituall Kingdome and Church of Christ 1 Tim. 3. which is the pillar and firmament of truth to inuent forge or divulge and which is farre worse to thrust vpon the faithfull by fraud and violence false articles and positions for true and infallible Catholike faith but especially in things which are greatly preiudiciall to the temporall Soueraigntie of Christian Princes whom Christ our Sauiour hath appointed to be Nurcing Fathers and Protectours of his Church Isay 19. Concil Trid. sess 25. cap. 20. de Reform for that thereby not onely Christian Princes are extreamely wronged but also the Christian Religion is greatly scandalized and the soules both of Princes and subiects are much endangered and therfore no lesse thanks doe they deserue at the hands of the Church of God who should discouer a false and forged Catholike faith and the first inuenters or publishers thereof then doe they at the hands of the temporall Kingdome who should disclose false and counterfait money and the first coiners or
vtterers of the same 2 And this is the very case betweene me and my Aduersaries in this controuersie concerning the Popes pretended authority to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls For I accuse them and also in my iudgement clearely conuince them that they haue if not coined and forged yet at leastwise not onely taught and divulged and which is worse endeauoured by fraud and violence to thrust vpon Catholikes a false and forged Catholike faith but also that they haue wrongfully defamed and slandered those Catholikes and my selfe in particular who doe plainely discouer their falshoods and that they seeke both by deceitfull and violent meanes to hinder aswell the learned as the vnlearned people that they shall not by the true touchstone and vndoubted rules of the Catholike faith by reading those books which doe exactly and sincerely debate this question examine in what a fraudulent manner they seeke to colour this their false and newly forged Catholike faith wherein they doe most egregiously abuse all Christian Princes and people most exceedingly scandalize Catholike Religon and as much as lyeth in them they make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull both to Princes and people and giue occasion of perpetuall discord betwixt the Kingdome and the Priesthood whereby they prepare the way to Antichrist and lay open a wide gap to Schisme heresie Atheisme and infidelity 3 For if vnder the pretence of aduancing the Popes authority in so great preiudice of Regall Soueraignty we once forsake the ancient and approoued rules by which as by an assured touchstone the true Christian and Catholike faith hath alwaies been discerned from the false and counterfeit what vndoubted grounds shal we haue to build our Catholike faith vpon which c In the Creed of S. Athanasius vnlesse euery one shall keepe entire and inuiolate without doubt he shall perish eternally If Christian Princes people once perceiue that the supreame Pastours of Gods Church doe both permit and applaud some learned men who are otherwise potent in the Court of Rome to impose by fraud and violence vpon the Church of Christ in fauour of that authority which they pretend to haue ouer all temporals a false and forged Catholike faith for true and to disgrace and slander all those who shall detect their forgeries why may not the said Princes and people iustly suspect as Fa. Lessius argueth d In his Singleton part 3. num 74. that the Catholike faith and Religion is for a great part thereof a meere inuention of men deuised of set purpose by Popes Bishops and Cleargie men in policie that they may more securely dominiere and vnder a shew of piety and Religion dispose of all temporals at their pleasure And therefore how much these men are to answere at the day of iudgement for so greatly wronging Christian Princes for so mightily scandalizing Catholike Religion for so much endangering the soules of all sorts of people and for so vniustly oppressing and slandering innocent and zealous Catholikes who doe plainely discouer their fraud and falshoods I cannot but tremble when I seriously consider the same 4. And if perhaps my Aduersaries will in their owne defence alledge that one may be excused from all fault before God and man who in zeale should teach any doctrine to be Catholike which he sincerely in his conscience thinketh to bee truely Catholike albeit perchance in very deed it is not so as also he that vttereth counterfait money not knowing it to bee counterfait but sincerely thinking that it is good and lawfull coine is not to be condemned before God or man I answere that all things done in zeale are not free from sinne when the zeale is blinde and grounded vpon an erroneous conscience and culpable ignorance Otherwise we might excuse from all fault the Iewes for crucifying our Sauiour and putting to death his Disciples Luke 23. for that they did it through ignorance and thought thereby to doe seruice to God Iohn 16. and S. Paul for blaspheming and persecuting the Christians before his conuersion Acts 1. because he did it being ignorant in incredulity 5 And therefore first I wish them to remember that admonition Bell. lib 2. de gemitu columbae cap 9. which Cardinall Bellarmine my chiefest Aduersary giueth to the Pastours and Prelates of the Church vpon occasion of relating the fearefull death of Pope Innocent the third who greatly busied himselfe with the deposing of temporall Princes and with the disposing of temporall kingdomes whereby great warres and much effusion of innocent blood were caused in the Church of God which perchance was one of the three causes for which the said Pope as Cardinall Bellarmine rehearseth had beene damned eternally if he had not repented at the houre of his death For first he deposed Philip and set vp Otho Matth. Paris in vita Ioannis ad annū 1210. Page 220. then he deposed Otho for seeking to recouer certaine townes and forts belonging to the Empire which the said Pope in the time of Frederikes minority had taken into his owne possession afterward he sought to thrust out of Italy the said Frederike the second Blondus decad 2. l b. 6. Abbas Vrsperg ad annū 1212. who before at Aquisgraue was crowned Emperour by the said Pope Innocent his authority I omit now to relate how here in England he carried himselfe first in taking part with the Barons and deposing King Iohn Matth Paris in vita Ioannis ad annū 1212. pag. 223. And Stow in the life of King Iohn and which neither Car. Bellarmine nor Suarez dare iustifie who will not admit that the Pope may lawfully depose a King and giue his Kingdome from the next heire who is free from all fault to another in giuing the Kingdome to the King of France and his posterity for euer wherby he depriued the next lawful heire Henry the 3. being a childe of his right without any fault committed by him But after the Popes Legate had cunningly perswaded King Iohn to resigne vp his Crowne and Kingdome to the Pope then he tooke King Iohns part against the King of France and the Barons and commanded them not molest him for that he was now become the Popes Vassall But marke I pray you what Card. Bellarmine writeth of this Pope Innocent 6 About this time saith he Surius ad 16. Iunij relating Surius words in the life of S. Ludgard Pope Innocent the third after the celebrating of the Lateran Councell departed this life and forthwith he appeared visibly to Ludgard But she seeing him compassed about with a great flame of fire demāded who he was He answered that hee was Pope Innocent And what is this saith she with a pittifull grone that the common Father of vs all is so cruelly tormented Hee answered For three causes am I so tormented which also had most iustly adiudged me to euerlasting torments if by the intercession of the most pious Mother of God to
Chapter 2 To begin therefore with his second accusation whereas in the beginning of my answere to the substance of M. Fitzherberts discourse I affirmed a Disâ—â—â—â—ol in 〈…〉 â—ect 〈◊〉 that first of all he supposeth that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes if they deserue it and the good of the Church and the saluation of soules doe necessarily require it is deniâ—d in this oath whereupon hee concludeth afterwards that although the oath doth not expressely affirme that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the English Church nor in plaine words deny the Pope so to be yet it supposeth and implieth both the one and the other and thereupon denyeth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince and howsoeuer the matter may bee otherwise coloured it is euident that the true reason why the said authoritie of the Pope is impugned by the oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is held to bee no way subiect to the Pope yea and to bee himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England This being presupposed hee goeth about to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the law of God of Nature of Nations Canon and Ciuill c. 3 Now Mr. Fitzherbert doeth bouldly but vntruely affirme that I haue vsed herein two fraudes the one in the relation of his wordes the other in the vse and application of them For albeit saith hee b Chap. 1. nu 7 Widdrington alleadgeth them truely and doth not falsifie my text yet hee relateth them in such sort that his Reader must needes conceiue that I lay them downe in the very beginning of my Discourse for the onely foundation and ground of all my building and therefore as soone as he hath cited them he saith hoc posito probare contendit c. this being supposed hee laboureth to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the Diuine and Naturall law to the law of Nations Ciuill and Canon So hee and then hee proceedeth to the abridgement of all my Discourse beginning with the law of God in the olde Testament and so goeth on with the rest and impugneth my supposition as the onely foundation of all my Discourse and arguments 4. But the trueth is hee findeth those words of mine in the 66. page of my Supplement as it may appeare by his owne quotation thereof after I haue discoursed of the law of God in the old and new Testament and of the lawes of Nature and Nations and of the Ciuill law in the conclusion whereof I haue those words referring them to the Ciuill law onely for hauing prooued that the said law confirmeth and establisheth the Popes supremacie I inferred that it cannot fauour and much lesse enioyne and iustifie the oath for two reasons the one because the said oath is in part grounded vpon the beliefe that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the Church of God in England and no way subiect to the Pope which is repugnant to the Ciuill law and the other because the Ciuill law acknowledging the subiection of temporall Princes to the Pope in matters belonging to their soules and to the good of the Church doth by a necessarie consequent acknowledge that they may bee punished by him temporally in their persons and states where the good of soules and the seruice of God doeth require it according to the rule of the law Accossorium sequitur principale the accessorie followeth the principall Then I say I argued in the place which he citeth and I remitted my Reader for the confirmation of this second reason to a more ample Discourse thereof before in the same chapter c Nu 66. 56. Now then it appeareth as I haue said that hee hath dealt fraudulently with me two wayes the one in referring my supposition to all the lawes whereof I treated whereas I referred the same expresly and only to the Ciuill law the other c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 5 But truly I cannot but wonder that this my Aduersarie should at the very first beginning of his Reply be so inconsiderate as in wrongfully accusing me of fraude to deale so vntruly and fraudulently himselfe which could not but greatly empaire his credit with the â—udicious Reader and cause him to be iealous of his sinceritie in the rest of his Replyes when at the very first entrance hee should finde in him such fraudulent proceeding For that which I affirmed is very true and I meruaile that Mr. Fitzherbert doth not blush to deny the same to wit that hee did first of all that is at the very first beginning of his Discourse in the sixt page of his Supplement before hee began to prooue the oath to bee repugnant to any law Diuine or Humane suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes if they deserue it and the good of the Church and the saluation of soules doe necessarily require it is denied in this oath For these be his expresse words in the sixt page and ninth number of his Supplement 6 Therefore I thinke good to let him vnderstand heere that my meaning is not to contradict any article of the oath that concerneth meerely Ciuill obedience to our Soueraigne but such clauses only as doe either directly or indirectly preiudice the authoritie of our spirituall supreame Pastour and namely those which doe exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope when iust occasion shall be giuen by them and the necessitie of the Church and the good of soules require it to which purpose I will prooue marke well these words that this new oath in respect of such clauses is repugnant to all lawes Humane and Diuine and therefore iustly condemned by his Holinesse and refused by Catholikes First then I will speake of the law of God c. So he 7 Wherefore it is apparant that Mr. Fitzherbert in the very beginning of his Discourse referreth his aforesaid supposition to all lawes both Humane and Diuine and yet now to taxe mee of fraude hee doth not blush to say that I haue dealt fraudulently with him in referring his aforesaide supposition to all the lawes whereof hee treateth whereas saith he hee referred the same expresly and onely to the Ciuill law Which errour of his I would not willingly haue construed in the worser sense but attribute it only to his obliuion and forgetfulnesse of what he himselfe had written in the beginning of his Discourse and not to any fraude in him but that my wordes which hee himselfe doth relate are so plaine that he cannot bee excused either from manifest fraude or from so palpable an errour which no man of vnderstanding can scarcely commit For marke my words which he himselfe setteth downe First of all he M. Fitz. supposeth that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed in this oath wherupon afterwards to wit in the 66. page as it is euident by my quotation hee concludeth that although the oath doth not expresly affirme
that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the English Church nor in plaine words deny the Pope so to be yet it supposeth and implieth both the one and the other and thereupon denyeth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince c. 8 Now who seeth not that I did cleerely distinguish betwixt first of all and afterwards betwixt his supposition which I referred to first of all and to the beginning of his discourse in the sixth page before he began to treat of any of the lawes as also it may euidently appeare by those words of mine This being supposed hee laboureth to prooue c and betwixt his conclusion which I referred to afterwards and quoted the 66. page where he treateth in particular of the Ciuill law But because I quoted onely the place where my Aduersarie maketh the aforesaide conclusion for that the Reader could otherwise hardly finde it out vnlesse he should read 66. pages together and did not quote the place where hee made his supposition for that by those words of mine first of all he supposeth and those other This being supposed he laboureth to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the law of God of Nature of Nations Ciuill and Canon the Reader might easily perceiue that this supposition of his was in the beginning of his discourse before he beganne to treat of any of the lawes Belike my Aduersarie thought that hee might easily from hence haue some colour to taxe me of fraudulent proceeding at the very first beginning little imagining that my words should be so narrowly scanned and that the Reader would easily conceiue the difference betwixt first of all and afterwardes betwixt his supposition in the beginning of his discourse page 6. and his conclusion page 66. but guile hath heerein beguiled it selfe and whilest my Aduersarie by taxing mee of fraud thought to discredite mee at the very first entrance hee hath cleerely prooued himselfe to bee guiltie both of fraude and falshood 9 The second fraude which my Aduersarie Widdrington hath vsed saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Nu. 6. is for that he laboureth as it seemeth to perswade his Reader that all my arguments and reasons are grounded vpon a false supposition of my owne which hee sayth I doe not any way prooue but suppose as knowen of it selfe and this hee seemeth to gather out of my owne wordes alleadged by him as you haue heard wherein I affirme that the new oath supposeth and implieth a deniall of the Popes supremacy although it bee not expresly denied therein hee should haue said wherein I affirme that the oath denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince for this is that which I said hee did suppose and no way prooue When neuerthelesse e Nu. 9. hee could not but see euen in the verie same place from whence hee tooke my wordes that I did not prooue the oath to be vnlawfull by that supposition onely but also by the subordination and subiection of temporall things to spiritual when the good of soules and the seruice of God requireth it Besides that it is most euident in my discourse concerning diuers of those lawes that I deduced the vnlawfulnesse of the oath from the very substance of them as it will manifestly appeare heereafter when I shall come to touch them in particular Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 10 But that I haue vsed no fraud at all in my wordes as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth and that rather that imputation of fraude may bee retorted backe vpon himselfe it is very apparant For in the beginning of his discourse to wit in the sixt page of his Supplement he supposeth as you haue seene that the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes is denied in this oath which also afterwards in the 66. page he confirmeth and in regard onely of these two clauses hee taketh vpon him to prooue that the Popes spirituall authoritie is denied therein VVhich his supposition for as much as concerneth his power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie for that the former is according to the doctrine of all Catholikes included in this latter as a particular in the vniuersall I shewed in my Theologicall Disputation against Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Gretzer Disputatio Theol. c. 4. sect â— and Lessius to be cleerely false and withall in my answere to the substance of this my Aduersaries discourse I affirmed that hee doth not prooue it with any one argument at all but supposeth it as knowne of it selfe which any man that will but sleightly run ouer his discourse may presently perceiue to be true 11 For albeit he doeth boldly affirme and suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes is denied in this oath and consequently if the Popes power to excommunicate Princes be not denied therein his position or copulatiue proposition is false for that to the truth of a copulatiue proposition it is required that both parts of the copulation bee true and to make it false it sufficeth that one onely part of the copulation be false yet he bringeth no one argument in his whole Discourse to prooue that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is denied in the oath but cunningly passeth ouer to his power to depose which all men confesse to be expresly denied therein Neither can any man who is not desirous of set purpose to misconstrue my wordes and meaning imagine that I intended either to deny that the Popes power to depose Princes is impugned in the oath for that my whole Disputation and also my answere to this my Aduersaries Discourse doth plainely shew the contrary or to affirme that my Aduersarie doth suppose as knowne of it selfe and by no reason at all endeauour to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and that therefore the oath in regard of this clause which is expresly denied therein is vnlawfull for that I haue briefly related and answered many of his arguments to this purpose and those words of mine which he himselfe relateth This being supposed he goeth about to prooue that the oath is repugnant to the law of God c. doe cleerely conuince the same 12. But my onely intention and meaning was to affirme as the Reader may plainely gather from my words that my Aduersarie at the verie first entrance of his Discourse supposeth that the oath doth containe in it a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes and that to these two generall heads hee promised to reduce all the arguments and exceptions which hee should bring against the oath And that although he hath endeuoured by the subordination of temporall things to spirituall and by many other arguments drawne from diuine and humane lawes to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes yet concerning his power to excommunicate which all Catholikes doe beleeue to bee graunted to him by Christ that hee bringeth no one argument or shew of an argument to prooue that
oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is helde both by himselfe and other Protestants to be no way subiect to the Pope yea and to be himselfe supreme head of the Church of God in England and also by the first of these two reasons which he bringeth heere in his Reply why he suppoposed that the oath implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacy 29 And as for my supposition saith he Å¿ Nu. 10. that the Oath implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacy he should haue said of the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince for this was his supposition as I cleerely shewed before Thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that I was mooued thereto by two reasons which are manifest enough in the very place which Widdrington citeth The one was because it is euident that the faith and beliefe of all English Protestants is that the Kings Maiestie is no way subiect to the Pope but that hee is himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England Whereupon it may with great reason bee inferred that the deniall of the Popes power to depose his Maiestie which is expresly contained in the oath is supposed and implied therein as a necessary consequent of their beliefe who ordained it 30 For it is great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof for it is to bee presumed that euerie one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion as euery Artisan worketh according to the grounds and principles of his Art And therefore as the positions assertions and decrees of knowne and professed Catholikes are to bee interpreted according to the grounds of the Catholike faith so also the positions of all Sectaries whatsoeuer are to be vnderstood according to the different doctrines of their Sects In so much that if a Catholike and a Protestant should affirme both of them one thing which might be controuersed in respect of Religion the sense and meaning of either of them is to be interpreted according to their different Religions and their different grounds and sense thereof And vpon this consideration I made no doubt to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacie for that not onely his Maiestie but also all they of the Parliament which decreed it doe holde and beleeue that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because hee hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie 31 My other reason was the same that I touched before concerning the necessary deduction of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy for albeit the Supremacy of the Pope be not expresly abiured or denied by this oath yet it is denied couertly by a necessary consequent because his authoritie to depose Princes which is necessarily deduced from the supreame power that Christ gaue him is denied thereby as in like case if wee should deny that his Maiestie hath any lawfull power to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie all Protestants would say that we deny not onely his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy but also his temporall and Kingly authoritie because the power to suspend and depriue Bishops within his Realme is included therein and necessarily deduced from it in the opinion of all Protestants And in like manner we say with much more reason that whosoeuer abiureth the Popes power to depose Princes hee doth consequently abiure his spirituall authoritie because the former is included in the later and doth necessarily follow of it as it hath beene amply prooued by diuers and namely by me in my Supplement t Chap. 5.6 7 whereof I shall haue further occasion to lay downe the particulars heereafter Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 32 But first of all good Reader I wish thee to consider how cunningly this my Aduersary concealeth the first part of his supposition concerning the denyall of the Popes power to excommunicate whereof onely I vnderstood those words whereon hee groundeth his third accusation In the beginning of his Discourse he supposed as you haue seene that the Popes spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath for that his power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed therein And because his Maiesty had in expresse words publikely affirmed that his intention was not to denie in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate answering also the argument which Cardinall Bellarmine out of those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. brought to prooue the contrarie and because my Aduersarie did also without any proofe at all suppose as Fa. Gretzer had done before him that the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed therein for this cause I vsed those words that truely it is a wonder that learned men doe not blush c. which my Aduersary a little before carped at Now forsooth he pretending to yeeld a reason of his supposition yet yeeldeth none at all concerning this parte thereof touching the Popes power to excommunicate for which onely I vsed the aforesaid words and which if he could sufficiently prooue to be denyed in this oath all Catholikes would forthwith graunt him that the oath containeth a denyall of the Popes spirituall Supremacie which includeth as a generall the particular authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures but he cunningly passeth ouer to the Popes power to depose Princes which no man doubteth but is denyed in this oath yeeldeth two reasons such ones as they be why he supposed the oath to containe a denyall of the Popes Supremacy for that the Popes power to depose Princes is denied therein 33 His second reason for thereof I will speake in the first place which he tooke from the contents of the oath is the same which hee touched before concerning the necessarie deduction according to his beliefe and doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie But his beliefe and doctrine herein as also I touched before is not Catholike but a particular beliefe or rather opinion of himselfe and some other and not generall of all Catholikes for that many learned Catholikes as I shewed before are of opinion that Christ hath not giuen to S. Peter or to the Church authoritie to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment but onely Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And therefore there is a great disparitie in the similitude which my Aduersarie bringeth betwixt his Maiesties authoritie to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie in the opinion of Protestants and the Popes power to depose Princes in the opinion of Catholikes for that al Protestants do beleeue that his Maiesties power to suspend or depriue an Arch-bishop taking suspension in that sense wherein the Protestants doe hold that his Maiestie hath power to suspend
very first so fraudulent friuolous and contrarie to his owne profession as you haue heard in this Chapter Thus you see with what bitternesse Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth his first Chapter 43 But if hee had beene pleased to haue dealt vprightly and as hee hath in a most spitefull manner vrged against me this obiection which is taken from his Holinesse Breues so also he had set downe the answere which in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation I gaue thereunto the Reader would presently haue perceiued that my Aduersarie hath passed the bounds of Christian charitie and iustice in wrongfully accusing me of impudencie impietie and disobedience to the Apostolicall decree of S. Peters Successour whose obedient child I did there and also I doe heere professe my selfe to be and am readie to obey in all those things wherein according to the grounds of Catholike Religion hee hath authoritie to command Neither can my Aduersarie without blushing affirme either that the Popes Holinesse albeit hee bee Saint Peters Successour cannot erre in his particular commands and decrees which are not propounded to the whole Church but to particular Churches or Kingdomes or that any Catholike is bound to obey him in those things wherein according to the doctrine of learned and vertuous Catholikes hee hath no authoritie to command 44 First therefore I shewed in that place out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez that there are two sorts of humane precepts as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill The one is called a constitutiue precept which of it selfe maketh that thing which it forbiddeth to bee vnlawfull which otherwise if that precept were not would not bee vnlawfull as the eating of flesh in Lent and the doing of seruile workes vpon Sundaies and Holidayes which if they were not forbidden by humane lawes would not be vnlawfull And although a constitutiue precept of humane power may sometimes binde with danger of some great temporall losse as of goods libertie yea also of life yet the Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall and contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doe seldome or neuer binde with very great temporall harme and therefore wee are not bound to abstaine from flesh in Lent or from doing seruile workes vpon Sundaies and holidaies when we are like to incurre thereby any probable danger of some great temporall hurt 45 The other is called a declaratiue precept which doth not of it selfe make but suppose and declare the thing which it forbiddeth to be vnlawfull as being before prohibited by some other former law as theft murder drunkennesse and such like which are otherwise forbidden by the law of God and nature And this kind of precept as well obserueth Suarex dependeth onely vpon the reason for which the act is commanded or forbidden or which is all one vpon the precedent law from whence all the obligation of the declaratiue precept doth proceed Insomuch that if the reason be not true and that there is no such precedent law or obligation as the declaratiue precept affirmeth to be the declaratiue precept hath no force to binde at all and with the same certaintie or probabilitie we are bound or not bound to obey a declaratiue precept as it is certaine or probable that there is or is not any other former bond and obligation 46 As for example his Holinesse doth by his Breues forbidde all English Catholikes to take the new oath of allegiance for that therein are contained many things which are cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation If therefore it be certaine or probable that nothing is contained in this oath which is repugnant to faith or saluation it is also certaine or probable that this declaratiue precept of his Holinesse which is grounded vpon this reason that something is contained therein contrary to faith and saluation is according to the doctrine of Suarez of no force to bind neither are English Catholikes by vertue of this declaratiue prohibition bound to refuse the said oath 47 Secondly I also shewed in that place that this declaratiue command of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation is such a declaratiue precept which is not grounded vpon any infallible reason or definition of the Church but onely vpon his opinatiue iudgement that his reason is true and that either his power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes which is denyed in the oath is a cleere point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall Supremacie and consequently the denyall thereof is plainly repugnant to Catholike faith Which being so it is manifest that wee are no further bound to obey this declaratiue prohibition of his Holinesse then we are bound to follow his opinion and to belieue that eyther his power to excommunicate or some such like is denyed in the oath or that whosoeuer denyeth his power to depose Princes denyeth the Catholike faith 48 Whereupon I concluded that considering neither his power to excommunicate or any such like is denyed in this oath as I haue prooued at large against Card. Bellarmine and others nor that his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith the contrary doctrine being probable and also maintained by many learned Catholikes as partly also I haue already prooued by the testimonie of learned Catholikes before alledged and heere beneath by answering all my Aduersaries obiections I will make it more manifest Part. 1. per. tâ—tum there can bee made no doubt but that any English Catholike may with a safe conscience or without any crime of disobedience to his supreme spirituall Pastour or any preiudice to Catholike faith refuse to obey his Holinesse declaratiue command which is onely grounded vpon such an opinion which considering the contrary is probable and defended by many learned Catholikes may without any note of impudencie impiety or disobedience be reiected by Catholikes 49 Thirdly I also affirmed in that place that no Catholike doth onely for this cause take the oath or thinke it to be lawfull because the Kings Maiestie being of a contrarie Religion doth command it or thinke it to be lawfull as though those Catholikes who take the oath doe it onely vpon the Kings bare word affirming the oath to be lawfull and seeme thereby to preferre the opinion of a Protestant Prince in things which in some sort doe belong to Religion before the opinion of our supreme spirituall Pastour but because the Kings Maiestie being our lawfull Prince and Soueraigne Lord in temporals what religion soeuer hee professeth hath established an oath of allegiance to make a triall how his Catholike subiects stand affected towards him in point of their loyaltie and due obedience and commanded all Catholikes to take the same which oath learned Catholikes for probable reasons doe thinke to be truely in oath of temporall allegiance and to
punish his subiects in their bodies or temporall goods and dispose of all their temporals for the same respect 7 And neuerthelesse neither out of holy Scriptures nor from this rule of the law the Accessorie followeth the principall nor from the subiection of temporall things to spirituall nor by any other argument doth my Aduersarie sufficiently prooue that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporals or to punish temporally by way of coercion which he pretended and would seeme to his Reader to prooue but onely that the Pope as Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to command temporall things and to punish by way of coercion Christian Princes and people with spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures By which it will easily appeare whether I doe contradict my selfe in my answere and ouerthrow my owne arguments or no For I granted that the consequence was not vaine if it were vnderstood of a power in the Pope to command corporall things in order to spirituall good but because he pretended to prooue that the Pope as Pope can not onely command or impose but also dispose of temporals not onely enioyne temporall penalties but also inflict them or punish temporally by way of temporall constraint therefore I did absolutely deny his consequence or the consequence as it was vnderstood by him 8 And if it had pleased my Aduersarie after he saw that I granted the consequence if it were vnderstood of the power to command temporall things as they are to serue spirituall to haue set downe plainly what he intended to prooue by that consequence and whether he meant of the power onely to command temporall things or also to dispose of temporals as to dispose is distinguished from to command the Reader would quickly haue perceiued his fraude and that I doe neither contradict my selfe nor ouerthrow my arguments but to blind the eies of his Reader he doth neither affirme the one nor the other in this place but he vseth as you haue heard such generall Words which may be applyed to both For whereas to cleere the vnderstanding of his Reader he should haue declared of what power he meant for that I granted the consequence if it were vnderstood of the power to command temporals but if it were vnderstood of the power to dispose of temporals in which sense he must needs vnderstood it if be will speake to purpose then I denyed his consequence yet he onely affirmeth that he doth not thereby suppose in the Pope any other power ouer bodies or goods thē such as followeth from the subordination to the soule which is in effect the same relation and limitation that Widdrington maketh thereof to wit so farre forth as corporall and temporall things are to serue spirituall But if he had expressed that according to his doctrine and not mine from the subordination and relation of the soule to the body and of temporall things to spirituall it necessarily followeth that the Pope hath power not onely to command or impose temporall things but also to dispose of temporall things not onely to enioyne temporall penalties but also to punish temporally by depriuing men of their temporals the Reader would presently haue perceiued both the weakenesse of his argument and the sufficiencie of my answere 9 For it is very apparant and my Aduersary knoweth it right well that I alwaies denied that either from the subordination subiection or relation of temporall things to spirituall things of temporall ends to spirituall ends of temporall power to spirituall power of temporall Princes to spirituall Pastours or from any other ground rule or principle it doth necessarily follow that the Pope as Pope and by his Pastorall office hath power to dispose of temporall things to depose temporall Princes to inflict temporall punishments or which is all one to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint as by depriuing any man of his goods libertie or life although I euer graunted that the Pope as Pope hath power to commaund or impose temporall things and to enioyne corporall or temporall punishments in order to spirituall good or which is all one so farre foorth as temporall things are to serue spirituall things that is are to be vsed to the honor of God and the good of soules and to compell by the inflicting of spirituall censures or punishments all Christians to obey his iust command And therefore with good reason and conformably to my owne doctrine I graunted the consequence if it were vnderstood of the power to command temporals and also denied it if it were vnderstood as my Aduersarie must needes vnderstand it of the power to dispose of temporals and to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint Neither doth my Aduersary by that Discourse which hee made in his Supplement and now repeateth againe prooue any other thing then that the Pope by the ordinary power of his Pastorall office may command temporall things and enioyne temporall penalties in order to spirituall good And therefore it had beene needlesse to set downe heere his wordes but that the Reader shall see that I am not willing to conceale any one of his arguments Thus therefore he writeth f Nu. 3. 10 Hauing discoursed in my Supplement g Supplem c. 1 nu 65. of the written Law of God deliuered to vs in the New Testament and prooued thereby that our Sauiour made Saint Peter the supreame Pastour and Gouernour of his Church I prooued also the extension of his spirituall power to temporall things thus The spirituall Pastour said I hauing power ouer the soule must needes haue authoritie ouer the body and temporall goods or states so farre foorth at lest as it shall bee conuenient for the good of the soule according to the rule of the Law to wit hee that hath the greater power hath the lesse By the which reason the Apostle iustified his dealing with temporall affaires yea with such as appertained to politicall gouernment when hee aduised the Corinthians to constitute and appoint Iudges among themselues to decide their controuersies rather then to haue recourse to the tribunals of Infidels Nescitis c. Know you not saith he h 1. Cor. 6. that we shall iudge Angels how much more secular things as who would say Seeing wee haue the greater and more eminent authoritie haue wee not also the lesse if we haue power ouer spirituall things shall wee not haue power ouer temporall and secular things Thus argueth the Apostle and thereupon doubted not to intermeddle in the temporall and politicall gouernement which then belonged to the Pagan Emperours 11 But how weake and altogether insufficient is this Discourse of his to prooue the Popes power to depose temporall Princes to dispose of all their temporals and to punish temporally by way of coertion which is the maine marke at which my Aduersary aymeth any man of indifferent vnderstanding and learning may easily perceiue For first although it be true that the spirituall Pastour hath that spirituall power ouer the soule and
and spirituall power might command the Christians to doe and by spirituall Censures compell them so to doe when otherwise they should scandalize the Christian faith and religion And this very answere did I giue in my Apologie to this text of holy Scripture which was vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue that the Pope had power to depose and put downe Secular Princes as the Apostle had power to appoint and set vp new Iudges in Secular causes for I denyed his consequence because the appointing and setting vp of those Iudges did nothing derogate from the subiection due to Secular Princes for that they were onely Arbiters or peaceable composers of secular causes with the consent of the parties who were at strife but the putting downe of Princes or depriuing them of their Royall authoritie doth greatly derogate or rather quite ouerthrow and abolish their temporall soueraigntie 22 To which answere of mine D. Schulckenius onely replieth l In Apolog. pag. 444. That although these Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint had not indeede vim coactiuam in foro externo a coactiue power in the externall Court and that if either partie would not obey the Apostle and goe to the Iudges appointed by the Church but would bring his cause to the publike tribunals of the heathen Magistrates the other partie was bound there to appeare and there to debate his cause yet they were not meere Arbiters or voluntary Iudges For Arbiters are chosen by the parties but these were chosen by the common consent of the Church and were appointed by publike authoritie by the command of the Apostle who was a spirituall Prince Besides none are bound to admit Arbiters vnlesse they will but Christians were bound to admit these Iudges and were forbidden to goe to the tribunals of Infidell Princes Moreouer the Saints are not to iudge the world and Angels as Arbiters chosen by them but as true Iudges and as sitting with Christ the supreame Iudge 23 But all this is easily satisfied by that which I said before For although the faithfull Corinthians were by the publike spirituall authoritie of the Apostle commaunded to choose those Iudges or Arbiters yet it doth not from thence follow either that those arbitrarie Iudges were to bee chosen by the whole Church and not onely by the parties that were at strife or that the Apostle for that he was a spirituall Prince had either himselfe publike authoritie to decide secular causes or could giue the same to any other But because the Christians were bound by the Law of God to compound their controuersies among themselues by way of arbitriment and not to bring their causes to the hearing of Heathen Iudges in case they should thereby scandalize the Christian Religion therefore the Apostle might by his publike spirituall and Pastorall power command them and also with spirituall Censures compell them so to doe 24 And although these arbitrarie Iudges were to be chosen by the whole Church and by the common consent of all the faithfull Corinthians which neuerthelesse can not bee sufficiently gathered from the Apostles wordes yet it doth not therefore follow that they were not meere Arbiters or voluntarie Iudges in power or which is all one that they had more then arbitrarie priuate or compromissorie power For it is not materiall by whom a publike or legall Iudge or else an Arbitratour or compromissorie Iudge bee chosen but from whom they receiue their authoritie to iudge as a true proper and publike Iudge may sometimes bee chosen by the people as is the Recorder of London by the Citie and the Chancellours of Oxford and Cambridge by the Vniuersities but it is the Kings Maiesty that giueth them publike authoritie to iudge And Achiters or voluntary Iudges may be chosen by the common consent of the people to decide by way of arbitrement or voluntarie submission all ciuill controuersies which shall arise among them yet seeing that they are onely Arbiters or haue onely arbitrarie voluntarie priuate or compromissorie power the parties onely who are at strife doe giue power to iudge and to make a finall end of their controuersies And although abstracting from scandall none are bound to admit Arbiters vnlesse they will yet if by not admitting them they should scandalize the Christian Religion as the Corinthians did they are bound to admit them or which is all one to giue them arbitrarie voluntrary or compromissorie power to decide and determine their controuersies 25 True also it is that the Saints are not to iudge the world or the bad Angels as Arbiters yet in what manner they are to iudge whether by onely assisting our Sauiour and approouing or applauding his sentence or by being Assessores supremi Iudicis Christi by sitting in seates of honour with Christ the supreme Iudge as Noble men and Iustices of peace do sit vpon the bench with the chiefe Iudge of Assises or in any other more peculiar manner it is a controuersie among Catholike Diuines although it be certaine that the Saints shall not be true and proper Iudges as Iudges are properly taken howsoeuer D. Schulckenius doth seeme heere to affirme the same for that to iudge and to giue iudgement doth properly signifie an act of Iurisdiction and superiority of power to giue the definitiue sentence pro or contra which Iurisdiction in respect of the last iudgement of soules is onely communicated to Christ. m Seâ— Suarez tom 2. disp 57. sect 4. But howsoeuer it be the argument of Saint Paul whereby he intended to prooue that Christians were not vnworthy to iudge Secular causes which he calleth the least things is of force as I declared before for if they be not vnworthy to iudge the world and Angels much lesse are they to be accompted vnworthy to decide by way of arbitrement Secular causes or the least things 26 And whereas D. Schulckenius affirmeth that those Iudges had no coactiue power in the externall Court and that if one of the parties should call the other to the tribunall of the Infidell Magistrate he were bound to appeare and debate his cause before the Heathen Iudge this doth make nothing against that which I haue said but is rather a confirmation that these Iudges were onely Arbitratours and voluntary Iudges in power to decide Secular causes For if they had beene true and proper Iudges and had not onely priuate and arbitrary power but also publike authority to iudge why should they not haue as all other true and proper Iudges haue both a commanding and also a coactiue power either temporall or spirituall according as D. Schulckenius will haue them to be temporall or spiritual Iudges And if they were true Iudges and not onely Arbitratours how could the faithfull Corinthians bee bound in conscience to leaue their tribunalls and goe to a Heathen Iudge to haue their cause decided by him if they should be called thither although against then willes seeing that they should thereby offend not only by reason of
euery odious argument although it be neuer so good and conuincing must needs proceed from malice I confesse indeed that this doctrine concerning the killing of Christian Princes is odious abominable false scandalous neuer taught in the Church of God before these later yeeres and which all good subiects ought with all their hearts to detest and abhorre and Princes more narrowly to looke vnto and whether this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Christian Princes be a point of faith from whence such an odious scandalous and detestable doctrine doth necessarily follow I hope all good Catholikes and true hearted subiects will heereafter more diligently consider 71 And how true it is sayth my Aduersarie that the Pope hath power ouer the life of any Christian with the circumstances and limitations before mentioned I feare me my Aduersarie Widdrington might finde to his cost if he were here at Rome and would not recant his doctrine euen in this point to wit that the Church can not inflict corporall and temporall punishment whereby he impugneth c. But first that the Pope hath power at Rome ouer the liues of those who are his temporall subiects no man calleth in question for that he is now the temporall Prince of Rome But this prooueth not that the Pope as he is Pope and by vertue of his spirituall power hath authoritie to put any man to death If my Aduersarie could bring but one example that the Pope before he was a temporall Prince and when the Citie of Rome was subiect in temporals to the Roman Grecian French or German Emperours did by vertue of his spirituall power put any man to death then he should say something to the purpose if the facts and examples of Popes were a sufficient argument to prooue their right and authoritie 72 Secondly although it be true that the Church by vertue of her spirituall power hath authoritie to command impose or enioyne corporall and temporall punishments as I haue often said and the ancient and generall practise of the Church doth confirme the same yet that Ecclesiasticall authoritie is by the institution of Christ extended to the disposing of temporals or to the inflicting of corporall and temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment very many Doctours with Iacobus Almaine Almainus in libro de Dominio naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico in probatione secundae conclusionis as I haue often said doe expresly deny neither hath the contrarie as yet by any approoued practise and custome of the Church or by any other conuincing argument bene sufficiently prooued and what my Aduersarie doth particularly bring to that purpose from the Ecclesiasticall Canons and decrees of any Councell or Pope and from the late Councell of Trent you shall see in those places where he promiseth to shew it more particularly 73 In the meane time to conclude this Chapter with my Aduersarie he is also to vnderstand that albeit I doe graunt the body to be subordinate and subiect to the soule and that all corporall and temporall things are to serue spirituall things in that manner as I haue at large declared in the second part and in the beginning of the next chapter will briefly insinuate againe and therefore to be commanded by the supreme spirituall Pastour in order to spirituall good yet with good reason I did deny the consequence of his argument to wit that for as much as the accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that hath power ouer the soule and all other spirituall things hath power also ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians when the good of soules and of the whole Church doth necessarily require it if he vnderstand as it is cleere he doth of a power not onely to commaund enioyne or impose but also to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments for that temporall states and bodily goods are not accessorie to the spirituall good of the soule and of the Church as accessorie is and ought to be taken in that maxime because the spirituall good of soules and of the Church may bee without such temporall goods and states yea and in euery particular man perchance better without them then with them Neither is it necessarily required to the good of soules or of the whole Church that the Pope haue power to dispose of the temporall goods states or bodies either of Christian Princes or subiects and therefore the Reader may also well coniecture what he is to expect from my Aduersarie in the rest of his Replies when in this where he maketh a shew to haue so great aduantage against my answere that hee feareth not to call it friuolous impertinent foolish ridiculous and contrary to my owne doctrine yet all his exceptions are so improbable that his virulent speeches might very truely if Christian modestie and charitie would permit be retorted backe vpon himselfe CHAP. III. Wherein Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed and the foure instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Also Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polonie are confuted Mr. Fitzherbert in his third Chapter proceedeth with the like bitternesse and yet with as little probabilitie as hee did in the former For after I had made two instances against his argument drawne from that rule of the Law The accessory followeth the principall I brought foure instances against another like consequence of Fa. Lâ—ssius taken from another maxime The like argument said I a In Admonia nu 15. Fa. Lessius doth vrge The Pope saith he hath power to excommunicate Kings and therefore he hath also power to depose them because hee that hath power to inflict a greater punishmeÌ„t hath also power to inflict a lesse We might also conclude thus if it were lawfull to transcend from one thing to another of a diuers kinde and nature The Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings therefore also to kill them because he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse A man hath power to vnderstand therefore also to flye A priuate Priest hath power to absolue from sinnes therefore also from debts He hath power by force of the Sacraments to giue the kingdome of heauen therefore also to giue an earthly kingdome Are not these and such like goodly arguments to perswade English Catholikes to cast away prodigally all their goods and to deny their allegiance to their Prince Thus I argued in that place 2 Now my Aduersarie after he had repeated my words replieth against these instances in this manner b Nu. 1. 2. seq Thus saith Widdrington scoffing and cogging as you see
depose a Prince yet no man holdeth that a priuate Priest can doe either of them both yea and wee see that in the great Councell of Lateran where the deposition of Princes was ordained to be practised in some cases the sentence of their deposition was reserued to the Pope himselfe though the Metropolitan might excommunicate him 22 Besides that it is to be considered concerning the absolution of sinnes and debts that as neither Priest nor Pope can absolue from sinnes in all cases as when the sinner is not penitent or will not make restitution of fame or goods when he may conueniently doe it so may the Pope absolue from debts in some cases for the very same reason and in the very same case that he may depose a Prince to wit for the iust punishment of an offender when the same shall be very necessarie for the benefite of the whole Church for in such a case all priuate respects of temporall good or harme ought to yeeld to the common good of soules and the publike weale of the Church as in like manner all ciuill obligations cease when they are encountred and ouerweighed with the consideration of some great benefite or inconuenience to the whole common wealth for which respect the temporall Prince might in such a case iustly ordaine that a debter should bee discharged in law from the payment of his debt whereby the sayde debter should bee also discharged in conscience 23 And much more may the supreame spirituall Pastour of the Church discharge a man from all obligation in conscience to pay a debt when the same shall bee necessarie for the spirituall good and publike benefite of the Church whereto all temporall things ought to yeeld so as the Pope may in some cases absolue from debts as well as from sinnes and when hee cannot the reason is such as doth nothing derogate from his supreame authoritie and power to depose Princes and therfore this argument of my Aduersarie is as impertinent as the former 24 But it is too too apparant that I haue not any way altered the case or question For the case and question betweene mee and Lessius is not at this present whether the Pope can excommunicate or whether he can depose or whether this consequence The Pope can excommunicate therfore he can depose be good by reason of the Popes plenitude of power but whether it be good by vertue of that maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse and I affirme his consequence not to be good because that maxime is not true in those generall wordes as it is set downe So that the onely case and question betweene mee and Lessius now is whether that maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse be true and that therefore hee doeth from thence rightly inferre that because the Pope can excommunicate which is the greater hee can also depose which is the lesse And that this generall maxime of Lessius is not true I prooued by the two former instances and also by this for that if it bee true that whosoeuer can doe the greater can doe the lesse as Lessius affirmeth it doeth consequently follow that a priuate Priest who can absolue from sinnes which is the greater can also absolue from debts which is the lesse If Lessius maxime had beene euery Pope that can doe the greater can do the lesse and I would haue impugned this maxime by priuate Priests for that priuate Priests who can do the greater as to absolue from sins cannot doe the lesse as to absolue from debts then indeede I should haue altered the case in transferring the question from Popes to priuate Priests who are not contained in the subiect of that maxime euery Pope c. but seeing that Lessius maxime is generall qui potest maius potest minus he that can which includeth Clerkes and Laikes Kings and Subiects Pope and Priests and all other men whatsoeuer doe the greater can doe the lesse it is sufficient to prooue this maxime to bee false without altering the case if I can bring but one particular instāce whether it be of Pope or Priest King or subiect wherein this maxime is not true 25 And if I should haue argued in this manner hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse therefore a priuate Priest who can build a Church can build a Chappell would my Aduersarie trow you haue said that I had altered the case for that he speaketh of the Pope and I speake of priuate Priests and I would wish also my Aduersarie to call to mind what hee said a little before that S. Paul argued from that maxime which Lessius did hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse and yet I thinke hee will not say that either S. Paul or Lessius altered the case although Lessius spake only of the Pope in his consequent and S. Paul of priuate men Also I would gladly learne of my Aduersarie in what manner the maior proposition or antecedent of any argument and consequently the argument or consequence it selfe may according to his skill in Logicke bee impugned without altering the case as whether to impugne the maior proposition of this syllogisme he that was neuer taught Logicke cannot bee a good Logician but F. T. was neuer taught Logicke therefore F. T. cannot bee a good Logician it bee not sufficient without altering the case to bring this instance Mr. T. F. was neuer taught Logicke and yet hee is a good Logician and therefore that Maior proposition hee that was neuer taught Logicke cannot bee a good Logician is not true and so the consequence deduced from it cannot bee good which Maior proposition whether it bee sufficiently impugned or no without altering the case albeit I transferre the subiect of the minor proposition from F. T. to T. F. Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert knoweth full well 26 Wherefore it is sufficient without altering the case to impugne any vniuersall proposition which is the antecedent of any consequence and thereby to impugne the consequence it selfe which is grounded vpon that antecedent by bringing any one instance wherein that antecedent proposition is not found to be true although that instance be different either in subiect or in praedicate or in both from the consequent of the former argument or consequence so that the instance be contained in that antecedent proposition as a particular in the vniuersall And herein Mr. Fitzherbert doth bewray his want of of Logicke as before he bewrayed his want of Diuinitie in affirming that the Pope by Excommunication doth take away the life of the soule For if his skill in Logicke had beene but meane he would quickly haue perceiued that if one impugne the antecedent proposition of any consequence or argument by altering the consequent he doth not alter the case so that the praedicate and subiect of the consequent which is brought to impugne the antecedent be contained in the praedicate and subiect of the antecedent as a particular in
the vniuersall 27 And therefore I haue sufficiently without altering the case confuted that maxime he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse by this instance of a priuate Priest who is contained in that subiect hee that can as a particular in the vniuersall for that a priuate Priest can doe the greater to wit can absolue from sinnes and yet he can not doe the lesse to wit absolue from debts from whence it followeth that the aforesaid generall maxime is not true and therefore neither the consequence of that argument concerning the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently to depose which consequence is grounded vpon that generall maxime can be good By which it is apparant that from that maxime it can not be rightly concluded that because the Pope hath power to excommunicate which is the greater he hath power either to depriue Princes of their kingdomes or to absolue subiects from their debts which are the lesse 28 Neither is the deposing of Princes or the discharging of subiects from paying their debts necessary for the spirituall good and publike benefite of the Church or which is all one to the saluation of soules although they were necessary yet seeing they are temporall and not spirituall actions they must be performed for the same spirituall end by temporall and not spirituall power And therefore that argument which my Aduersarie vseth a maiori ad minus that because a temporall Prince may absolue his subiect from the payment of his debt therefore much more the supreame spirituall Pastour of the Church may doe the same is of little worth for that the disposing of temporall things and the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the discharging of subiects from paying their debts doe belong only to the temporall power of Secular Princes and not to Ecclesiasticall authoritie which by the institution of Christ is not extended to the inflicting of temporal punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. but only of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall censures as I haue shewed more at large in the first part 29 To my fourth and last instance which was this He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse therefore a priuate Priest who hath power to giue the kingdome of heauen to wit by vertue of the Sacraments hath power to giue an earthly kingdome Mr. Fitzherbert answereth as before k Nu. 12. 13. pag. 46. that Widdrington changeth the state of the question transferring it from the Pope to a priuate Priest for albeit this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if we change the consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto my Aduersarie Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreame authoritie and therefore the argument would be good thus Potest Papa per plenitudinem potestatis c The Pope may by the plenitude of his power giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore he may giue an earthly for the later being a necessarie consequent of the former is necessarily comprehended in it because the Pope by the plenitude of his power hath as much authoritie and iurisdiction as is necessarie for the gouernment and good of the Church Whereupon it followeth that whensoeuer it shall be absolutely necessarie and behoouefull for the Church that he change or transferre a kingdome or Empire he may doe it and giue not only the Kingly or Imperiall title but also the right to the crowne as Leo the third c. 30 But Mr Fitzherbert doth also in this answere bewray his ignorance and want of Logicke as he did in the former for it is cleere that he himselfe and not I doth alter the case and change the state of the question For the question is not concerning the consequent of Lessius argument but concerning the consequence or that antecedent proposition and maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon his consequence or argument is grounded and therefore by changing the consequent the case or state of the question is not altered when the consequent is included in the antecedent proposition as a particular in the vniuersall as in the former part of this argument a Priest can giue the kingdome of heauen is included in the former part of that maxime he that can doe the greater and the second part therefore he can giue an earthly kingdome is included in the second part of that maxime therefore he can doe the lesse for that to giue the kingdome of heauen is greater then to giue an earthly kingdome And to make the case more plaine to the vulgar sort put the case that I should argue thus Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore sugar is pleasant to the taste the consequent you see is true yet the consequence is not good for that the antecedent proposition is false And if my Aduersarie should impugne my consequence and prooue my antecedent proposition to be false by this instance Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore chalke is pleasant to the taste and I should reply to this instance and say that he altereth the case changeth the state of the question in transferring it from sugar which is sweet to chalke which is vnsauoury would not my Aduersarie trow you according to his accustomed manner affirme that my reply is impertinent absurd foolish and ridiculous and send me backe to learne Logicke againe 32 Now you shall see how plainely Mr. Fitzherbert whiles hee vntruely chargeth mee as you haue seene with altering the case and changing the state of the question he doth alter and change it himselfe For albeit saith he this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if wee changet he consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreme authoritie c. But first it is vntrue and I wonder that Mr. Fitzherbert blusheth not to say that I ascribe the Popes power to the force of the Sacraments seeing that I speake not one word in my instance of the Pope but onely of priuate Priests And if I had ascribed the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace whereby we are made children of God and heires to the kingdome of heauen to the force and vertue of the Sacraments had this beene forsooth any vnsound or bad doctrine Will my Aduersarie ascribe the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace not to the force and vertue of the Sacraments but to the plenitude of his power as though the Pope by the plenitude of his power could without the Sacraments remit sinnes and giue iustifying grace If this be his meaning all Catholikes know what Censure this doctrine deserueth and it is in some sort agreeable to that which he said a little before that the Pope by excommunication doeth take away the life
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
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
Iudges within the gates doe not agree the Iewes ought to haue recourse did consist only of Priests and not of temporall but of spirituall Iudges and that the Iudge mentioned in this place they ought obey was either the high Priest himselfe or rather some other inferiour Priest subordinate to him neuerthelesse he cannot prooue from hence as he pretendeth that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes was in the hands of the high Priest For all that is ordained for the Priests and Iudges to do in this place of Deuteronomie is only to decide determine and declare the doubts and difficulties of the law to whose commandement and decree euery man was bound by the expresse law of God vnder paine of death to stand but to decide and declare what is the law of God to instruct the people therin and to command the people to obey their declaration instruction commandement is not a temporall but a pure spirituall cause as well obserueth Abulensis in cap. 11. Num. q. 23. 24. in cap. 18. Exodi q. 5.8 11. 16 And what Catholike man will deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue also authoritie to declare and determine what is the law of God when any doubt or difficulty shall arise and to command all Christians euen temporall Princes who are subiect to them in spirituals to obey their decree and determination and yet from hence it can not be rightly inferred in that manner as my Aduersarie from those words of Deuteronomie would conclude that the highest tribunall for iudgement in the new law not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes is in the hands of the chiefe spirituall Pastour for that to decide and determine what is the law of Christ and to command Christian Princes to obey their decision and determination is not a temporall but a meere spirituall cause 17 But if my Aduersarie had prooued as he hath not that the Priests of the old law had authoritie not only to interpret the law and to command the people to follow their interpretation but also to pronounce the sentence of death and to execute the same against those who should not obey their declaration and decree then hee had said something to the purpose for to inflict temporall punishments and to pronounce the sentence of death and to execute or inflict the same for what crime soeuer it be either temporal or spiritual is a temporal not a spiritual actiō I say to inflict temporal punishmēts c. For as I haue often said to impose or enioine temporal punishments and to command temporall Iudges to do iustice according to the law by punishing malefactours with corporall death if it be so ordained by the law may if it be done for a spiritual end be a spiritualactiō belonging to the authority of spiritual Pastors Neither can my Aduersarie prooue that the Iudge who was to giue sentence of death against those who either did not obey the commandement of the Priest and the decree of the Iudge or committed any other crime worthie of death by the law as blasphemie adulterie Sodomie c. was either a Priest or a temporall Iudge who had his authoritie deriued from the high Priest as he was a Priest I say as he was a Priest for that sometimes the chiefe temporall Iudge as I obserued before out of the Glosse was also a Priest as in the time of Holy Moyses and the Machabees and then he had authoritie to giue sentence of death not as he was a Priest but as hee was a temporall Prince or Iudge 18 Wherefore to little purpose is that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth Besides that saith he m Pap. 71. nu 6. afterwards God commanded the people exactly to obey the Priests Deut. 24. without mention of any other Iudge threatening to punish them him selfe in case they should transgresse the same saying Obserua diligenter c. Obserue diligently that thou incurre not the plague of Leprosie but shalt doe whatsoeuer the Priests of the Leuitical stocke shal teach thee according to that which I commanded them and doe thou fulfill it carefully So said Almightie God And to mooue them the rather to this exact obedience which he commanded he added presently Remember what our Lord God did to Mary in the way when you came out of Egypt that is to say how seuerely God punished Mary the Prophetesse sister to Moyses for her disobedience to him was stroken with leprosie for the same by which example Almightie God did notably inculcate vnto the people the necessitie of their obedience to the Priest and the danger of his indignation and seuere punishment which they should incurre by neglecting their dutie therein Thus said I in my Supplement and hauing prooued afterwards most n Nu. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. amply that God gaue also to the high Priest not only a soueraignitie of authoritie but also an infallibilitie of doctrine iudgement in causes of doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters and hauing also shewed the great priuiledges of the Leuites and Priests who were separated wholly c. 19 But what followeth from all this No man maketh any doubt but that the Priests of the old law were to be obeyed in those things wherein they had authoritie to comand as likewise neither Mr. Fitz. can make any doubt but that the cōmandement of the temporall Prince or Iudge was exactly to be followed in those things wherein they had authoritie to command True it is that the Priests were the chiefe interpreters of the law of God in the old Testament according to those words of the Prophet Malachie The lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge Malach. cap. 2. and the law they shall require of his mouth because he is the Angell or Messenger of the Lord of Hosts and that it belonged to the Priests to declare whether one was infected with leprosie or no But from hence it can not rightly be concluded that it belonged to the Priests as they were Priests but to the temporall Iudges of the people or to the children of Israel that is the whole multitude from whom the temporarall Iudges had commonly their election and authoritie to giue sentence of death and to inflict any temporall punishment appointed by the law And therefore although God ordained Leuit. 13. that Aaron or any one of his sonnes should declare and iudge who was infected with leprosie and after his declaration and iudgement that he was a leaper he should be separated yet it belonged to the children of Israel not as they were ministers of the Priests but of God who was their King and ordained that punishment to separate him and cast him out of the campe according to that of Num. 5. And the Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leaper and
by a peculiar and speciall promise of GOD was giuen to King Dauid and his seede for euer from whom Queene Athalia did not descend And therefore Fa. Becanus who in the former edition of his Controuersia Anglicana taught this pestiferous doctrine fearing belike least it would haue beene censured by the Vniuersitie of Paris as in very deede it had beene x As it may appeare by the Acts of the Facultie of Paris held in their ordinarie Congregation the first day of February in the yeere 1613. if some had not cunningly preuented the same by procuring it to be first condemned at Rome y By apeculiar decree against his booke dated at Rome the third day of Ianuarie 1613. by a speciall command of his Holinesse as containing in it somethings which are false temerarious scandalous and seditious respectiuely vntill it should be corrected was carefull that in the later Edition of his booke which was forthwith published this dangerous position should be quite blotted out And yet this Doctour following therein Card. Bellarmine in his booke against D. Barclay is not afraid most desperately and seditiously to renew the same But with what strang paradoxes and seditious doctrines these vehement manitainers of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls being so famous for their learning so reuerent for their Order so great in authoritie so potent by friends and so violent in maintaining their nouelties wil in the end infect a great part of the Church of Christ whereof these men are accounted to be the chiefe pillars vnlesse God by his infinite mercy preuent their exorbitant courses I tremble to consider and how little beholding are Soueraigne Princes to such extrauagant Writers who will also haue their people who are subiect to them to haue authoritie ouer them in temporalls and to take away their lawfull right which they haue to their Crownes and to giue it to another who by inheritance hath no true right thereunto and that without any fault or negligence committed by them any prudent man may easily perceiue 40 To conclude therefore this point that which this Doctor addeth concerning those Emperours and Kings who although in the beginning were Tyrants and Vsurpers yet afterwards by the consent of the people and of those who had true right to those kingdomes were made lawfull Princes are nothing like to this example of Queene Athalia and all those examples are particularly answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay z Cap. 38. paragraph 2. against Cardinall Bellarmine who also in the very like words vrged the same Neither can they be rightly applied to the kingdome of Iuda which by the expresse promise and appointment of almightie God was due to the posterity of King Dauid neither was it in the power of the high Priests Princes and people without violating the ordinance of almightie God to transferre the kingdome of Iuda from the race of King Dauid to another tribe and especially to an Idolatresse as was wicked Athalia who by the Law of God as being a subiect was commanded to be put to death 41 Wherefore this which this Doctor in the end adioyneth to wit that the Scripture doth manifestly teach that Ioiada together with the people did make Ioas King and they made him King 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. cap. 24. Ioas was seuen yeeres old when hee beganne to raigne where the beginning of his kingdome is put from the death of Athalia and his institution to be King and although before his coronation the Scripture called him King 2. Paralip 23. this was onely by anticipation as a designed King and therefore hee was first called King and afterwardes it is said he shall raigne because he was a King not present but future this I say is either a manifest equiuocation or a plaine vntruth for if he meane that they did make him King that is did put him in possession of his kingdome which was wrongfully and tyrannically kept from him by Athalia or which is all one they did make him King de facto or to raigne de facto this is most true and the Scripture doth plainely shew the same but if he meane that they did make him King de iure and giue him his right to the kingdome as though before their making him King he had not right to the kingdome and was not King de iure it is most false and also implieth a very seditious doctrine to wit either that those who are Kings by hereditarie succession doe not as other heires albeit they be in minoritie succeede in all their Fathers rights presently after he is departed the world or else that the people may depriue them of their lawfull right to the kingdome without any fault or negligence committed by them 42 And to this I plainely answered before as you haue seene in my Apologie by declaring the sense of those equiuocall words they created or made Ioas King sort I said in expresse words that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did create Ioas King as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that is did giue him a right to reigne which he had not before seeing that presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously murthered the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by inheritance belong to Ioas although Athalia did tyrannically keepe the possession For as soone as a King is dead the next heire apparant to the Crowne is foorthwith the lawfull King neither doth his annointing crowning or acceptance of the people giue but onely confirme his former Kingly right And this is so cleere that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor this Doctour if they be not the same person dare deny the same but such false and seditious positions cannot but by equiuocations with any shew of credibilitie be maintained If this Doctour had declared the ambiguitie of those words they did make him King as I did the Reader would quickly haue perceiued that out of those wordes of holy Scripture it cannot be prooued that Ioiada with the people did make Ioas King that is did giue him a lawfull right to the kingdome which before he had not but onely that they did make him King de facto and put him in possession of his kingdome whereof before he was King de iure although the possession was tyrannically kept from him by Athalia And thus much concerning the incredibilitie of this Doctours credibile est 43 Now you shal see how weake fallacious and slanderous are the other Replies of this Doctor to the rest of my answere For whereas I affirmed as you haue seene that Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then which euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case this Doctor very falsly and slanderously affirmeth that Widdrington doth heere in plaine words giue occasion to subiects to rebell against their Kings and to kill them and if they thinke that any man hath by an ill title vsurped the
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
separated at the arbitrement of the Priest and consequently depriued of his authoritie to reigne S. Aug. in q. Euan. l. 2. q. 40. The Consequence Cardinall Bellarmine prooueth out of Saint Austin who teacheth that heresie was figured by leprosie and Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. who sayeth that all things chanced to the Iewes in a figure 83 Thus argued Cardinall Bellarmine from the example of King Ozias which if good Reader thou duely consider doth onely proue that it belonged to the Priests of the old Law to declare the Law of God when any difficultie should arise and that they were the supreame Iudges in spirituall matters as was to declare and iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie or no. For leprosie was not onely in the old Law a naturall disease and a contagious vncleannesse in the body whereupon the leper was by the law commanded to remaine out of the campe apart least others should bee infected by him but it was also a legall vncleannesse Abul q. 2. in c. 13. Leuit. and as well obserueth Abulensis it did principally debarre men from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things and because to iudge whether any one was to bee debarred from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things did belong principally to the Priests who were the ministers of sacred things God appointed them to iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie and gaue them rules and directions whereby to know the same So that the principall thing which the Priest was to doe in the case of leprosie was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law of God whether any one was infected with leprosie or no and if hee found him infected to declare him so to bee and to condemne him of the sayde vncleannesse after which declaration the leper was by the law it selfe foorthwith debarred both from sacred and also ciuill conuersation for that hee was not onely depriued of all sacred rites but also he was to bee seuered from the rest of the people who were not defiled with such vncleannesse and commanded to liue apart out of the Campe or Citie 84 Now the execution of this law forasmuch as concerned the spirituall penaltie did belong principally to the High Priest who was the chiefe minister of sacred things but concerning the temporall or ciuill penaltie which was to bee debarred from ciuill conuersation the execution thereof if the leper would not of his owne accord vndergoe the penaltie did belong to the Ciuill Magistrate who was the minister of ciuill or temporall things As also when any temporall punishment as death whipping or such like was prescribed by the law against malefactours although the crime was spirituall as Idolatrie vsurping the office of a Priest c. the execution belonged to the temporall Iudge who in temporalls had authoritie ouer them Whereupon wee neuer reade in the holy Scripture that any true and lawfull King although he had committed any crime worthy of death according to the law as many Kings of the Israelites were Idolaters and King Ozias heere vsurped the office of a Priest which were crimes that deserued death according to the law were for such crimes put to death by the ordinarie authoritie of any man whatsoeuer for that Kings had no Superiour ouer them in temporalls who had authoritie to execute the law which did chiefly belong to themselues as I a little aboue d Nu. 80 obserued out of Abulensis or to punish them with temporall punishments in which sense King Dauid did truely say that hee had sinned onely to God saying Tibisolipeccaui for that God alone to whom onely he was subiect in temporals had power to punish him with temporall punishments as all the ancient Fathers doe expound that place So likewise in the new law it belongeth to spirituall Pastours to declare and determine what is heresie and whether one befallen into heresie or no but to punish heretikes with temporall punishments doth not belong to the authoritie of spirituall Pastours but of temporall Princes who in temporals are supreme and to whom onely the vsing of the temporall sword doth principally belong 85 Wherefore from this example of King Ozias nothing else can forcibly be prooued but that in the olde law it belonged to the Priests to declare the law of God and that onely Priests and not Lay-men were to intermeddle in sacred things For obserue good Reader what did the Priests 2. Paralip 26. and what was done by King Ozias First therefore King Ozias saith the Scripture entering into the temple of our Lord would burne incense vpon the Altar of incense And incontinently Azarias the Priest going in after him and with him the Priests of our Lord eightie most valiant men they resisted the King and said It is not thy office Ozias to burne incense to our Lord but of the Priests that is of the children of Aaron which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie goe out of the Sanctuarie contemne not because this thing shall not be reputed to thee for glorie by our Lord. Here is nothing done as you see by the Priests which is not spirituall And who maketh any doubt but that the Priests also of the new law may resist Kings if they attempt to intermeddle in sacred things which belong onely to Priests and tell them that it is not their office but of the Priests which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie and command them to goe out of the Church and not to contemne the law of God because it will not be reputed to them for glorie by our Lord God 86 But secondly King Ozias being angrie and holding in his hand the Censar to burne incense threatned the Priests And forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in haste they thrust him out yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out because he felt by and by the plague of our Lord. And here also is nothing which the Priests might not doe by their spirituall authoritie For I doe not deny but that it belongeth to the office of Priests to exclude excommunicated persons as in some sorte leapers were in the old law from the temple of God and from participation in sacred rites as S. Ambrose excluded Theodosius the Emperour Neuerthelesse it cannot be prooued by the words of holy Scripture that they thrust him out of the temple by corporall violence and by laying their hands vpon his sacred person but onely by denouncing with vehement words Gods indignation against him for feare of which he now being stricken by God miraculously with the plague of leprosie did of his owne accord depart in haste out of the temple which also S. Chrysostome doth sufficiently confirme saying Chrys hom 4. de verbis Isae vidi Dominum That they
euery Bishop and Priest to whom the charge of soules is committed haue by the law of God sufficient authoritie and iurisdiction to absolue from all cases I said to whom the charge of soules is committed for I doe not intend now to dispute whether euery Priest by his ordination receiueth authority and iurisdiction to binde and loose For I am not ignorant that diuers Catholike Doctors as Paludanus i In 4. di st 17. q. 3. ar 3. Abulensis k In Defensor part 2. c. 62. seq Syluester l In verbo Confessor 1. q. 2. learned Nauarre m In Sum. c. 27. nu 259. 260. in cap. Placuit de poenitent dist 6. nu 48. doe affirme that standing in the law of God euery Priest hath by vertue of his ordination sufficient iurisdiction to absolue from sinnes which iurisdiction is not hindered but by the prohibition of the Church And therefore I did not speake of all Priests as this Doctour imposeth vpon me but of Priests indefinitely signifying thereby that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were good it would also prooue that standing in the law of God not onely the Pope but also some inferiour Priests should haue authoritie to iudge Kings and Princes for spirituall leprosie considering that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had authoritie to iudge them for corporall leprosie 93 Neither is it to bee marueiled if there bee no example in the old Testament wherein we reade that Kings were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest for that in the olde Testament we haue but one onely example of any King to wit of this Ozias who was infected with leprosie yet the words of the holy Scripture wherein is giuen authoritie to Priests to iudge of leprosie are common as well to inferiour Priests as to the High Priest neither is there any exception made of the persons that are to bee iudged to bee infected or not infected with leprosie Yea and in this very example not onely Azarias the High Priest but also all the other eightie inferiour Priests iudged King Ozias and resisted him saying It is not thy office Ozias c. And therfore Ozias being angry saith the Scripture threatned the Priests and forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in hast they thrust him out And therefore this Doctour doth not well affirme that in the olde law wee haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest seeing that in this example of King Ozias the High Priest did not any thing which the test also of the Priests did not and which if the High Priest had not beene present at that time the other Priests might not according to the law haue done without him 94 Wherefore that also which this Doctour answereth to my second consequence which was that if Card. Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Bishops and also Priests might depose Princes not onely for heresie but also for all other mortal crimes is nothing to the purpose I answere saith hee n Pag. 543. It is true that all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may bee iudged for all sinnes whatsoeuer by euery Priest Because as we now haue saide greater sinnes are reserued to greater Prelates and some to the Pope alone especially when we speake of persons that are placed in the highest degree of dignitie 95 But what is this to my argument For first I spake of Bishops and Priests indefinitely and also standing in the law of God now this Doctour applieth my wordes to euery Priest and flyeth from the law of God by which there is no reseruation of cases to the law of the Church and of Popes by which law onely cases are reserued But secondly and principally hee cunningly concealeth the force and drift of my argument For in this second consequence my principall drift was to speake not so much of the persons who according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument should haue authoritie to depose Princes for of them I spake in the first consequence as the Reader may plainly see as of the crimes for which Princes might according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed And I affirmed that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Princes might for euery mortall sinne be deposed at least wise by the Pope if not by inferiour Bishops and Priests Now this Doctour speaketh not one word concerning the force of this consequence for as much as concerneth the crime for which Princes may according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed whereof I chiefly treated in this second consequence but he cunningly flyeth to the persons who may depose Princes of whom I spake principally in the first consequence and he answereth that indeede all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may be iudged by euery Priest for all sinnes insinuating thereby that Princes may bee deposed for of that iudgement I onely spake at least wise by the Pope for all sinnes which are mortall and may infect others which doctrine how dangerous and pernicious it is to the Soueraigntie and also securitie of Princes I leaue to the consideration of any prudent man 96 But because as the vulgar maxime saith ducere ad inconueniens non est soluere argumentum to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument I did secondly and principally answere that this argument of Cardinall Bellarmine taken from the foresaide example of King Ozias is also most weake seeing that the antecedent proposition is very vncertaine not to say false and the consequence no lesse doubtfull And forasmuch as concerneth the antecedent proposition and the proofe thereof albeit he doth rightly gather from Leuit. 13. 2. Paralip 26. that the Priest of the Leuiticall stocke might iudge Kings infected with leprosie and pronounce sentence against them by declaring the law of God that they ought to dwell apart out of the campe which is the first part of the antecedent proposition seeing that this separation was imposed by God vpon lepers at the arbitrement or declaratiue sentence of the Priest yet hee doth not therefore well conclude that the Priest of the stocke of Leui had authoritie to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen by accident and consequently vnlesse the depriuing them of their kingdome should necessarily follow their dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people which neuerthelesse cannot bee forcibly prooued from the holy Scripture 97 For as Fa. Suarez doth well obserue o Disp 15. de Excommunnicat sec 6. nu 3. the depriuation of dominion doth euer last after it once bee done but that dwelling apart of lepers to be imposed at the arbitrement of the
kingdome because he was vnfit and gaue him his brother Alphonsus the third for a Coadiutor and also he depriued of the Empire Friderike the second in the Councell of Lyons being declared an enemie to the Church 103 But first that King Ozias retained only the bare name of a King without any Royall right authoritie or dominion it is very false and affirmed by this Doctour without any colourable ground at all For the Scripture doth not only call Ozias a King after hee was infected with leprosie and recounteth the yeeres of his reigne in the same manner as he recounteth the yeeres of the reigne of other Kings who had not only the bare name but also the true authoritie of other Kings but it doth also affirme that the reigned all the rest of his life and that Ioathan beganne to reigne only after his Fathers death Sixteene yeeres old saith the Scripture Å¿ 2. Paralip 26. 4. Reg. 15. was Ozias who also was called Azarias 4. Reg. 15. When he beganne to reigne and he reigned two and fiftie yeeres in Ierusalem And againe t 2. Paralip 26. 27. And Ozias slept with his Fathers and they buried him in the Kings sepulchres field because he was a leaper and Ioathan his sonne reigned for him Fiue and twentie yeeres old was Ioathan when he beganne to reigne and therefore he did not reigne in his Fathers time and he reigned sixteene yeeres in Ierusalem 104 Ioathan saith Abulensis v 4 Reg. 15. â—â— was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate but Ozias was called King all the time he liued and vnder him is reckoned the time of the kingdome and the power or authoritie concerning those things which were done in the kingdome did depend on him although they were administred by Ioathan his sonne and beneath This Ioathan saith Abulensis was the only or at least wise the eldest sonne of Ozias therefore he did succeede in the Kingdome his Father being dead for his Father being aliue he did gouerne the Palace and sustained the whole weight of the Kingly labour Also x lib. 26 de Repub. cap. 5. num â— Gregorius Tholosanus among other reasons which he brought to proue that a Prince ought not to be depriued of his kingdome for that hee is or seemeth to be vnfit to gouerne the same he produceth this example of King Ozias Seeing that saith he also Azarias or Ozias for he was called by both these names King of Iuda was striken by God with leprosie for this sinne that he did not destroy the Altars of the Idolls after he was become a leaper he liued indeede vntill the day of his death in a free house apart yet he was not depriued of his kingdome but Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings Palace and did iudge the people of the Land at his Coadiutor And another cause of his leprosie is alledged for that he presumed to burne incense vpon the Altar of incense which was only the office of a Priest yet in both places it is said that Ioathan reigned for him only after his death but that before his death he only administred the kingdome in his Fathers name 105 Wherefore that which this Doctour affirmeth that the Kings sonne administred the kingdome with full power is equiuocall although the Scripture maketh no mention that he administred the kingdome with full power but only that he gouerned the Kings Palace and iudged the people of the Land for if he meane that he administred the kingdome with a full absolute and supreme authoritie this is very vntrue for this authoritie did belong only to the King in whose name and by whose authoritie he gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people but if his meaning be that he administred the kingdome with a full delegate power and which in some cases the King may communicate to a subiect who is onely an administratour and gouernour but not a King this I will easily grant Belike this Doctour will haue the Kings Protectour and Guardian in the time of his minoritie or who administreth the kingdome when the King is absent in some forraine countrey or when hee is taken prisoner by his enemie or when by reason of some great infirmitie hee cannot gouerne by himselfe to haue full absolute and supreame power and consequently to be in very deede the Soueraigne King and to haue Kingly authoritie to gouerne the kingdome which how absurd it is any man but of meane capacitie may easily perceiue 106 Neither from Iosephus can any other thing bee gathered then which the Scripture it selfe affirmeth to wit that King Ozias liued in a house a-part and his sonne Ioathan gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land For the words of Iosephus as they are related by this Doctour are not so bee vnderstood that Ioathan tooke vpon him the kingdome and to reigne for Ozias all the time of his life was King and did reigne as Iosephus affirmeth in the same place but that hee tooke vpon him to administer or gouerne the kingdome in his Fathers name who by reason of his infirmitie for which hee was bound by the law of God to liue in a house a part from the rest of the people could not conueniently gouerne the same But the words of Iosephus according to the Edition which I haue and which also Cardinall Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay followeth are these After the Priests had perceiued the leprosie in the Kings face they tolde him or if the word bee iudicauerunt and not indicauerunt they iudged that hee was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie and they admonished him that hee would depart the Citie as one polluted and vncleane And hee with the shame of his calamitie obeyed being so miserably punished for his pride ioyned with impietie and when for a time hee liued priuate out of the Citie his sonne Ioathan administring the kindome at length being consumed with sorrow hee dyed the sixtie eight yeere of his age and the fiftie second of his kingdome or reigne 107 From which wordes this onely can bee gathered that Ioathan administred the kingdome and gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people as the Scripture saith yet that Ozias was stil King and reigned although he liued priuate that is not depriued of his kingdome for he still remained King and did reigne vntill his death as Iosephus confesseth but priuately to wit he did not meddle with the publike affaires of the kingdome but liued in a free house apart as the Scripture saith which words Abulensis expoundeth thus y 〈…〉 And hee dwelled in a free house apart that is hee did not dwell in the Kings Pallace for he being a leper ought not to giue himselfe to businesses neither did he dispose of the kingdome but Ioathan his sonne and it is called a free house that is sequestred from all businesse and frequentation of people for none did resort to him but those who
Sauiour Matth. 18. But if he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publicane that is separated from the Church Thus Suarez n Vbi supra Neither is it forbidden by the law of Christ that the faithfull shall not ciuilly conuerse with Heathens publicanes or notorious sinners vnlesse some spirituall danger as of scandall or of infection which by the law of Christ and nature they are otherwise bound to eschew shall arise from such ciuill conuersation as also Becanus doth expresly affirme o In opusc de fide Haereticis seruanda cap. 8. num 3. See also Abulensis q. 50. in cap. 9. Matth. 138 Moreouer this also is gathered from the very light of naturall reason For as in the whole Christian world there be two only common wealths kingdomes or Societies distinguished by their proper acts functions and dignities ad not depending one on the other in those things which are proper and peculiar to each one of them to wit the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ by which precisely and per se we receiue only spirituall graces and benefits and temporall common wealths Societies and kingdomes by which precisely we are made partaker only of temporall goods Greg. Tholos in Syntagmat Iuris lib. 31. cap. 8. num 3. and benefits So also there be two only communions the one in spirituall the other in temporall and ciuill affaires and two only Excommunications in generall as Gregorius Tholosanus and I also obserued aboue p Part. 2. cap. 2. num 7. the one Ecclesiasticall which excludeth from Ecclesiasticall communion as from Sacraments Suffrages or other sacred things the other ciuill which excludeth from ciuill communion which punishments the Ciuill Lawiers account imprisonments confinings relegations deportations and banishments by which the person excommunicated is debarred from the communion of some certaine companie towne City Countrey or kingdome and as ciuill Excommunication precisely and of it owne nature doth not debarre a man from any spirituall good grace or communion◠so neither spirituall Excommunication precisely and of it owne nature doth debarre a man from any temporall good benefit or communion 139 Neuerthelesse albeit the intrinsecall per se and necessarie effects of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication are only to debarre one from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall communion yet because our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to the spirituall Pastours of the Church authoritie to impose but not to inflict certaine temporall punishments vpon persons excommunicated all those temporall punishments which the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue according to different times and occasions adioined by way of commandement to the Censure of Excommunication may be called extrinsecall or accidentall effects of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication or rather temporall effects and punishments annexed by way of command to Excommunication But this with all ought greatly to be considered as Suarez doth well obserue Suarez tom 5. disp 8. sec 1. in fine sec 2. in principio that when Excommunication is said to exclude from Ecclesiasticall communion it is necessarily to be vnderstood of that communion which dependeth vpon the power and will of the Church and ouer which she hath right power or authoritie Whereupon those temporall punishments which spirituall Pastours may annect to Excommunication must be such as by the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to impose And therefore if it be a controuersie among learned Catholikes as in very deede it is whether spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to absolue subiects from the temporall allegiance which they owe to their temporall Princes and to depriue temporall Princes of their temporall dominion administration or Iurisdiction these temporall punishments can neuer so long as this controuersie remaineth vndecided be truly said to be necessarie effects annexed to Excommunication by the spirituall Pastours of the Church 140 Secondly I shewed also in that place that the spirituall Pastours of the Chuch haue authoritie in order to spirituall good to command and impose certaine temporall punishments and so also to annexe them to Ecclesiasticall Excommunication as not to eate or drinke with excommunicated persons or notorious malefactours not to salute them or to conuerse ciuilly with them except in such cases wherein they are bound by the law of God or nature ciuilly to conuerse And so the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue power to command vs in order to spirituall good to abstaine from certaine meates vpon certaine daies to giue almes to the poore not to conuerse ciuilly with excommunicated persons or notorious sinners if otherwise by the law of God or nature we are not bound to conuerse ciuilly with them and the aforesaid and such like temporall things to annexe by way of commandement to Excommunication whensoeuer they shall prudently iudge it to be necessarie to the saluation of soules And this only is confirmed by the institution and custome of the Church approued by perpetuall tradition and grounded in the holy Scripture 1. Cor. 5. With such a one not so much as to take meate and 2. Ioh. 1. Nor say to him God saue you Neither is there any difficultie among Catholikes concerning the power of spirituall Pastours to command and impose temporall things when it shall be necessarie to the spirituall good of the Church for that to command and impose a temporall thing in order to the spirituall good is not a temporall but a spirituall action as I haue often said But all the controuersie among Catholikes is concerning the coerciue power of spirituall Pastours and their authoritie to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments For if contrarie to the commandement of our spirituall Pastours we will neither fast nor giue almes nor abstaine from ciuill conuersation with excommunicated persons the question is how farre then the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ proceed against vs by way of temporall constraint to the inflicting of temporall punishments For in this power to punish temporally or to inflict temporall punishmēts doth consist the whole controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries For I contend that the doctrine which Almaine and very many Doctours as he affirmeth doe maintaine is not repugnant to Catholike faith or the approued grounds of true Diuinitie to wit that the spirituall power of the Church can not inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods c. nay nor so much as to imprison but that her power doth onely extend to the inflicting of spirituall punishments as Excommunication or some such like spirituall Censure and that all other temporall punishments which she vseth to inflict doe proceed from the pure positiue law or to vse Gersons words from the graunt of Princes 142 And therefore thirdly I shewed also in that place that because Secular Princes haue granted many temporall priuiledges to the spirituall Pastours of the Church as to imprison to confine to impose or inflict pecuniarie mulcts and such like all those
temporal punishments which to inflict the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue receiued authoritie from the graunt and consent of temporall Princes may by the Pastours of the Church be adioyned to Ecclesiasticall Excommunication and in this sense be called accidentall effects of Excommunication or rather punishments accidentally or per accidens annexed to the Censure of Excommunication And so the Pope being now by the graunt and consent of Secular Princes and Christian people become also a temporall Prince may annexe to Excommunication all temporall punishments which he as a temporall Prince hath power to inflict 143 Whereupon albeit I doe vtterly deny that Excommunication either of it owne nature or by any necessary consequence deduced from thence abstracting from the graunt and consent of temporall Princes hath sufficient force to depriue one of any ciuill dominion Iurisdiction or conuersation yet I doe willingly graunt that an inferior Magisrate who by the sentence of a spirituall Iudge is declared to haue incurred the Censure of Excommunication is by the expresse ciuill lawes of some kingdomes and in some others by the tacite consent of the Prince deprived of ciuill Iurisdiction and their acts reputed to bee of no force in law yea and that by the Imperiall law q In noua Constit Frederici if for a whole yeere he remaine excommunicated he is in the nature of a proclaimed outlaw or Bandite But to commaund subiects not to obey their lawfull and Soueraigne Prince in temporalls and to absolute subiects from that ciuill and naturall allegiance which by the law of God and nature they owe to their rightfull Prince seeing that according to Suarez r Aboue nu 121 the power to command in the Prince and the bond of obedience in the subiects are correlatiues and one dependeth on the other and that to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince is plainely repugnant saith Card. Bellarmine to the law of God it is not in the power of spirituall Pastours vnlesse they have authoritie to depose Princes and to make Kings no Kings which whether it bee in their power to doe or no is the very question about which I with all my Aduersaries doe now contend and concerning which the Schoolemen are now at variance and as yet the controuersie is not decided by the Iudge saith Iohn Trithemius Å¿ In Chron. Monast Hirsang ad an 1106. 144 To those Canons Nos sanctorum Iuratos Absolutos which Suarez brought for his chiefe ground to prooue that the absoluing of Subiects from the temporall allegiance which by the law of God and nature they owe to their Soueraigne Princes is now a punishment annexed to the Censure of Excommunication I haue heeretofore answered and among other answeres this was one that those Canons are not to bee vnderstood of Soueraigne Princes but onely of inferiour persons who indeede by the consent of their temporall Soueraignes doe loose their temporall Iurisdiction after the sentence is publikely declared yea and in the territories of the Empire if for a yeere they persist excommunicated are as I saide in the nature of persons prescribed out lawes or Bandites 145 This in effect and much more to the same purpose did I answere heeretofore by all which the force of my answere to Card. Bellarmines argument taken from the example of King Ozias and the reason why I denyed his consequence supposing for Disputation sake the antecedent to be true as it is not may euidently appeare For in the old law the dwelling of lepers after they were declared so to be by the Priest in a house apart from the rest of the people was expresly ordained by the law of God and therefore supposing now with Card. Bellarmine that the dwelling of a King being infected with leprosie in a house apart from the rest of the people should by any necessarie consequence inferre that hee is consequently depriued of his kingdome or the administration thereof it is no meruaile that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue such Kings per accidens and consequently that is to declare them depriued by the law of GOD of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof But in the new law neither the depriuation of a temporall kingdome or of the administration thereof nor the losse of any temporall Iurisdiction doth by the law of GOD or by any other necessarie consequence follow spirituall leprosie or any intrinsecall propertie of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication neither is it in power of spirituall Pastours as Almainus said to inflict any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods c. nay nor so much as to imprison as very many Doctours saith hee doe affirme but onely to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments And therefore the similitude of Cardinall Bellarmine betwixt corporall and spirituall leprosie in the old and new law is this defectiue and so the consequence of his argument is altogether insufficient Thus much touching my first answere to the consequence of his argument 146 Marke now how sleightly this Doctour would shuffle ouer my second answere and reason which did cleane ouerthrow Card. Bellarmines consequence grounded vpon the nature of a figure and the thing figured euen according to his owne grounds For whereas I answered as you haue seene that because a figure as Card. Bellarmine saith is alwayes lesse perfect and of an inferiour degree then the thing which is figured it doeth not follow that heresie which is figured by corporall leprosie must bee punished with a temporall punishment because corporall leprosie was punished therewith but with a punishment of a higher degree to wit with a spirituall punishment D. Schulckenius replieth thus I answere saith hee t pag. 552. As heresie which is a spirituall leprosie is farre more pernicious then corporall leprosie so Excommunication is a punishment of a higher degree then the separating of lepers For Excommunication doth not onely depriue of the companie and liuing together of men in one house but also of participation of Sacraments and Suffrages of the Church But that Excommunication besides doeth depriue of ciuill administration and sometimes hath annexed the depriuation of temporall goods and also of the kingdome it selfe doth not diminish but increase the greatnes and excellencie of the punishment of spirituall leprosie aboue the punishment of corporall leprosie Wherefore it is most true that the thing figured is of an higher degree then the figure And in this manner the Eucharist is of an higher degree then manna or the Paschall lambe because these doe nourish the body that nourisheth the soule although also those accidents of the Eucharist are profitable to the nourishment of the body 147 But obserue the egrigious fraude of this Doctour For that proposition of Card. Bellarmine Figures must of necessitie be of an inferiour order and excellencie then the things figured is to be vnderstood of figures formally as they are figures for it little importeth that those things that are figures be
is said And our Lord stroke the King and he was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a free house apart but Ioathan the Kings sonne gouerned the Palace and iudged the people of the Land But from hence it cannot be conuinced that this free house a part was in the City but rather apart out of the City and therefore the opinion of Iosephus seemeth to be more agreeable to the words of holy Scripture Num. 5. And our Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leper 172 Therefore I will conclude vpon the premisses cleane contrarie to Mr. Fitzherberts inference that for as much as the law of GOD assigned no Soueraigntie in iudgement to the High Priests and their consistorie in temporall causes but only in meere spirituall as was to declare the law of God and to iudge one to be infected or not infected with leprosie according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law and to declare them that were infected to be separated and cast out of the campe according to the Prescript of the law which is the plaine meaning of those words ad arbitrium illius separabitur and he shall be separated at his arbitrement or iudgement that is if the Priest doe declare or iudge him a leper he shall be separated and cast out of the campe and seeing that the executing of the law concerning temporall punishments and the separating of lepers by force and temporall constraint did not belong to the Priests but to the supreme temporall authoritie which did reside in the Kings and not in the Priests who were subiect to the Kings in temporalls and might be punished by them with temporall punishments as I haue amply proued in these two Sections and the aforesaid words Num. 5. Command the children of Israel he doth not say command the Priests although then the Israelites had no King neither did the supreme temporall authoritie reside in the Priests but rather in the people that they cast out of the Campe euery leper it followeth euidently that the Priests were not the supreme heads of the Kings in temporalls nor Kings therein subiect to them and their tribunall nor to be punished by them with temporall punishments but contrariwise and consequently that if an Oath had beene proposed by any of these Kings to his subiects whereby they should haue sworne that hee was free from all subiection in temporalls and from all temporall chasticement of the high Priest by way of temporall constraint I say by way of temporall constraint and putting in execution the law of God wherein temporall punishment were ordained and not by way only of declaring the law of God which as it haue sufficiently proued was a spirituall and not a temporall action the said Oath must needes haue beene conforme and not repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament And thus much concerning the arguments taken from the old Testament SECT III. Wherein all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the veritie is proued to make against himselfe 2. Those words of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. And feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted common-wealth are satisfied and D. Schulckenius Reply proued to be fraudulent and insufficient 3. the authoritie of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were ready to revenge all disobedience is answered Mr. Fitzherberts fraude in alledging the authoritie of S. Austin is plainly discouered and the conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be both false and fraudulent NOw from the old Testament Mr. Fitzherbert descendeth to the new and vpon a false supposall as I haue already conuinced to wit that he hath effectually proued that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreme and soueraigne authority to create punish and depose Kings he laboureth in vaine from the number 25 to 32. to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood of the new law not for that he think th that we are now bound to retaine the ceremoniall or iudiciall part thereof but to deduce as he saith a Num. 25. pag 83. a potent argument from thence as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood and especially in the chiefe Priest in the law of Christ And for proofe heereof he setteth downe two positions as the only grounds of this his potent argument 2 The first is that the old law and Testament being but a figure b Num. 26. pag 84. and a shadow of the new was no lesse inferiour there to in authoritie dignitie and perfection then Moses to Christ the dead and killing letter to the quickning spirit or the Priesthood of Aaron to the Priesthood of Melchisedech which was Christs Priesthood he should rather haue said which prefigured the excellencie of Christs Priesthood c See S. Thomas and the Schoolemen 3. part q. 22. ar 6. This position to wit Hebr. 10. that the old Testament was a figure and shadow and not inferiour to the new he proueth by the authoritie of S. Augustine d In Psal 119. who affirmeth that vetus Testamentum promissiones habet terrenas c. The old Testament hath earthly promises an earthly Palestine an earthly Hierusalem an earthly saluation to wit conquest of enemies aboundance of children fertilitie of soyle and plentie of fruites all these things are earthly promises and it is to be vnderstood spiritually in figure how the earthly Hierusalem was a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the heauenly kingdome So S. Austin and thereupon concludeth that if the olde Testament was a shadow of the new non mirum quia ibi tenebrae it is no meruaile though there were darkenesse there pinguiorâ—s enim vmbrae sunt tenebrae for thicker shadowes are darkenesse Thus argueth S. Augustine proouing the imperfection of the old law in respect of the new which the Apostle also proueth amply in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 7. saying that the old law was abolished propter infirmitatem eius inutilitatem for the infirmitie and invtilitie of it Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex for the law brought nothing to perfection 3 His second position is e nu 26.28 that the defects of the old law and Synagogue of the Iewes can not serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ and therefore though the Kings in the olde Testament should haue had authoritie ouer Priests yet it would not follow that Christian Kings should haue the like for that the defects and imperfections of the Synagogue which S. Austin calleth terrenum regnum an earthly kingdome were not to be transferred to the
Church of Christ which is called euery where in the Scripture Regnum Caelorum the kingdome of heauen though on the other side the consequent must needs be good that what excellencie dignitie or perfection soeuer was in the Synagogue the same must needs be farre more eminent and excellent in the Church of Christ as the Apostle taught expressely 2. Cor. 3. arguing thus Si ministratio damnationis c. If the ministration of death with letters figured in stones was in glorie that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moyses for the glorie of his countenance which is euacuated how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more in glorie For if the ministration of damnation be in glorie much more the ministerie of iustice aboundeth in glorie Thus argueth S. Paul proouing à fortiori the supereminent dignitie and glorie of Christs law by the great and eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law Hebr. 6.7.8 9. whereto tendeth also his argument to the Hebrewes concerning the imperfection and infirmitie of the Leuiticall Priesthood in regard of the most excellent and high perfection of the Priesthood of Christ 4 Whereupon it followeth euidently saith Mr. Fitzherbert f nu 29. 30 31. 32. that seeing the Priesthood of the olde Testament had such a supreme and soueraigne authoritie to create anoynt punish and depose Kings as appeareth in the former examples the Priesthood in the new Testament can not haue lesse power and authoritie for it can not be with reason imagined that God hauing taken vpon him our humanitie and honoured the same with a peculiar and mere excellent Priesthood then that of Aaron yea ordained a visible succession of Pastours and Priests for the gouernment of his Church to continue as the Apostle witnesseth g 1. Cor. 11. Ephes 4. Matth. 28. Luk. 10. Matth. 18. Heb. 13. vntill the end of the world commanding also that they should be heard and obeyed as himselfe it were I say against reason to thinke that he would giue lesse honour and priuiledge to these his owne substitute in his owne kingdome then he gaue to the successours of Aaron in the olde law whereby the shadow would be more worthie and perfect then the bodie the figure then the veritie the Leuiticall or Aaronicall Priesthood then the Priesthood of Christ and finally the Iewish Synagogue then Christs owne spouse and mysticall body which is his Church of the glorie maiesty whereof the Prophet I say foretold speaking in the person of God thus Ponam te saith he in superbiam seculorum c. Isay 60. I will place thee as the pride of all worlds or ages a ioy to generation and generation and thou shalt sucke the milke of nations and shalt bee fedde with the paps of Kings and the children of those who haue humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and shall adore the footsteps of thy feete and thy gates shall bee open continually and they shall not bee shut day nor night that the strength of all nations and their Kings may bee brought vnto thee For the Nation and the Kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish c. 5 Thus promised almighty God by his Prophet to raise and aduance the Church of Christ aboue the power of all Nations and kingdomes insomuch that hee threatned ruine and destruction vnto them Matth. 18. if they did not serue her whereby it maye easily be iudged what an excellent and eminent power our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter and his Successours when he not onely promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a rocke and that the gates of hell should not preuaile against it but also gaue him such ample authority to binde and loose that whatsoeuer he should binde or loose on earth should be bound and loosed in heauen yea and finally made him supreme Pastour of his flocke commanding him thrice to feede his sheepe and lambes that is to say to gouerne those that should any way pertaine to his fold the Catholike Church Thus said I in my Supplement Whereby it may appeare that the Popes power to chastice Princes temporally is most conforme to the law of God not onely in the old Testament but also in the new according to Saint Pauls argument a fortiori before mentioned drawne from the figure to the veritie And therefore now to declare how I prooued the same further by the new law c. Thus argeth Mr. Fitzherbert 6 Marke now good Reader what a trimme disourse this man hath made agains himselfe and what grounds he hath laid to ouerthrow his owne argument he groundeth thereon For first I doe willingly grant his first position to wit that the old Testament was a figure of the new the earthly Hierusalem a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the Iewes a figure of the heauenly and spirituall kingdome of Christ the eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law a figure of the supereminent dignitie and glory of the law of Christ the Priesthood in the old law farre inferiour in authoritie excellency and perfection to the Priesthood in the new law yea and that all things for the most part chanced to the Iewes in figure for that nihil as perfectum adduxit lex The law brought nothing to perfection But secondly concerning his second position it followeth euidently from hence that not only the defects of the old law cannot serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ but also that all things in the olde law being compared to the law of Christ were defectiue and imperfect for that the law brought nothing to perfection and that all the authoritie excellency and perfection of the old law was a figure and shadow of the authoritie excellency and perfection of the law of Christ 7 Whereupon it followeth euidently that although wee should suppose only for Disputation sake because the contrarie we haue sufficiently prooued before that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreame and soueraigne authoritie to create annoint punish or depose Kings yet we cannot from thence as from the figure to prooue the veritie conclude that therefore the Priesthood in the new Testament must haue the same authoritie for this were not to fulfill the figure as Cardinall Bellarmine before affirmed but that it must haue a farre more noble and excellent authoritie ouer Princes to create annoint punish and depose Kings in another more excellent degree to wit that considering the promises of the old law were earthly and of the new law heauenly the kingdome of the Iewes was temporall and the kingdome or Church of Christ eternall and spirituall from hence as from the figure to the veritie we may deduce a good argument to prooue that as the Priests of the old law had authoritie to cleanse corporall vncleannesse which did barre men from entering the earthly tabernacle made by the handes of men so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to
cleanse the soule of spirituall vncleannesse which doeth barre men from entring the Celestiall tabernacle created by God alone and as the Priests the old law had authoritie according to my Aduersaries false Doctrine to create annoint punish and depose earthly Kings so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to create institute and make them heires to the kingdome of heauen by the Sacrament of Baptisme to annoint them with the oile of grace by the sacrament of Confirmation to punish them with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures to depose or exclude them in some sort from the kingdome of heauen by denying them sacramentall absolution 8 In this manner should Mr. Fitzherbert haue argued from the figure to the veritie by which wee can onely proue that the Priests of the new law can create annoint punish and depose Kings in a more higher Bell. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. and not in the same degree for as Cardinall Bellarmine well obserued to fulfill the figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to be done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when hee was circumcised himselfe but when hee ordained Baptisme in place thereof and so the Priests of the new law doe not fulfill the figure of the Leuiticall Priesthood by creating annointing punishing and deposing earthly Kings in the same materiall manner as the Priests of Leui did but when they create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to wit Christians who by Baptisme are made heires to the kingdome of heauen with spirituall creation vnction chastisement and deposition as I haue declared before And by this the Reader may cleerely perceiue that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not sufficiently prooued either that the Priests of the old Testament had authoritie to create depose or punish temporally their Kings by way of temporall constraint for no man maketh doubt but that the Priests hoth of the olde and new law haue authoritie to annoint Kings it being only a sacred and religious ceremonie and to punish temporally by way of command and by declaring the law of GOD as to enioyne fastings almes-deedes and other corporall afflictions c. and to declare that this or that King shall be deposed if GOD shall so reueale because all these are meere spirituall actions or else that albeit wee should grant as my Aduersaries vntruely suppose that the Priests of the old law had the aforesaid authoritie to create depose and punish Kings temporally yet therefore from thence any probable and much lesse a potent argument as this man pretendeth can be drawne as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the Priests of the new law must have authoritie to doe the same things but onely to do things more excellent and of an higher degree and order as the body is more excellent and more perfect then the shadow the verity then the figure Christ then Moyses the new Law then the old heauenly kingdomes then earthly and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures are of another nature order and degree then temporall or ciuill punishments 9 Now Mr. Fitzherbert goeth on to prooue also out of the new Testament that the Priests of the new law especially the chiefe Pastour of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to punish Princes not onely with spirituall but also with temporall and corporall punishments And therefore now to declare saith hee g nu 32. p. 87. how I proued the same further by the new law it is to bee vnderstood Psal 77. Isa 44. Psal 2. Matth. 2. Apoc. 19. Aug. in Ioan. Bel. l. 1. de Rom. Pont c. 12. ad 6. obiect that I vrged h Suppl vbi supra nu 59. to that end the commission giuen by our Sauiour to St. Peter not onely to binde and loose but also to feede his sheepe shewing by many texts of Scripture as also by the authoritie of S. Augustine that Pascere to feede is taken for Regere to gouerne whereupon I drew certaine necessarie consequents in those words c. 10 But concerning the authoritie giuen by Christ our Sauiour to S. Peter to bind and loose or which euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine is all one in substance with to feede his sheepe for that by those words I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. was onely promised to S. Peter saith Cardinall Bellarmine not giuen the power to binde and loose and the keyes of the kingdome which keyes hee as the principall and ordinarie Prefect Prelate or Gouernour then onely receiued when he heard Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe I answere first that not onely S. Peter but also all the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and power to binde and loose and to feede the sheepe of Christs flocke seeing that as Christ saide to Saint Peter whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. so he said to the rest of the Apostles what things soeuer you shall binde c. albeit I will not deny that Saint Peter was the first of the Apostles but in what consisteth this prioritie principalitie primacie or superioritie of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles as likewise of the Pope ouer all other Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops and Bishops of Christs Church there is yet a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and of Paris and perchance hereafter I shall haue occasion to treate thereof more at large But that which for this present I intend to affirme is this that considering in those wordes of our Sauiour Tibi dabo claues c. I will giue thee the keyes c. Saint Peter represented the whole Church and not only to him but also to the rest of the Apostles and to the whole Church and Priesthood which Saint Peter did represent were promised the keyes and power to binde and loose as the holy Fathers and ancient Diuines doe commonly expound i As to omit Origen tract 1. in Matth. 16. Euseb Emis hom in Natali S. Petri. Theophylac in 1. Mat. 16. S. Ambr. in psa 38. lib. 1. de Paenit c. 2. Hieron lib. 1. contra Iouinian Aug. tra 50. 124. in Ioan. tract 10. in Epi. Ioan. in psal 108. Leo serm 3. in Anniu assumpt Fulgentius de fide ad Petr. l. 1. de remis pec c. 24. Beda Ansel in Mat. 16. Euthym. c. 33. in Matth. Haymo hom in fest Petri Pauli Hugo de S. vic l. 1. de Sacram. c. 26. alibi Durand in 4. dist 18. q. 2. â—yra in Mat. 16 Walden tom 2. doct fid c. 138. Cusanus l. 2. de Concord Cat. c. 13. 34. and commonly all the ancient Doctors of Paris if from the power to bind and loose promised to Saint Peter it doth necessarily follow that S. Peter and
his Successours haue authoritie to create depose and punish Princes temporally it doth likewise follow that the rest of the Apostles and their Successours haue the same authoritie ouer Kings and Princes who are subiect to them spiritually 11 Secondly those wordes of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood as I answered in my Apologie nu 36. of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings to absolue from sinnes not from debts to vnloose the bonds of the soule not of the body to open or shut the gates of the kingdome of heauen not of earthly kingdomes to giue or take away spirituall goods graces and benefits not temporall goods lands kingdomes or liues When it was said to S. Peter saith S. Augustine I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. he signified the vniuersall Church The rocke is not from Peter but Peter from the rocke vpon this rocke which thou hast confessed Aug. trac 124. in Ioan. I will build my Church The Church therefore which is founded on Christ receiueth from Christ the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that is power to binde and loose sinnes And againe beneath saith S. Augustine Peter the first of the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to bind and loose sinnes So also S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Fulgentius Ambr. lib. 1. de paenit c. 2. Chrysost Theoph. in Mat. 16. Fulgent Eus Emiss vbi supra Bernard l. 2. c. 6 de considerat Hug. Vict. tom 2. serm 64. Iust Monast Laurent Iust de casto connub verbi animae c. 10. Eusebius Emissen Theophylact S. Bernard Hugo de S. Victore Laurentius Iustinanus and infinite others vnderstand those words of our Sauiour of binding and loosing soules and sinnes Neither is there any one of the ancient Fathers or Doctours before Pope Gregorie the seuenth that wrested them to the giuing or taking away from any man whatsoeuer according to their deserts Empires Kingdomes Princedomes Dukedomes Earledomes and the possessions of all men Quia si potestis saith hee k In the Excommunication of Henry the 4. in the eight Roman Councel held by him in the yeere 1080. Iansenius c. 148. Concord Theophy in c. 21. Ioan. Basil in l. de vita solitar c. 23. in caelo ligare soluere potestis in terra Imperia Regna Principatus Ducatus Marchias Comitatus omnium hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere vnicuique concedere 12 I grant likewise that Pascere to feede is taken also for Regere to gouerne but not as a King gouerneth his kingdome but as a Sheepheard gouerneth his flocke as well obserueth Iansenius vpon this place of S. Iohn Christ saith Theophylact doeth not make Peter a Lord nor a King nor a Prince but commandeth him to be a Sheepheard Wherefore as those words whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings and were spoken not only to Saint Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles so also these wordes Feede my sheepe are to be vnderstood of spirituall feeding or gouernment and doe belong not onely to S. Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles whom S. Peter did represent Atque hoc ab ipso Christo docemur c. saith S. Basill And this wee are taught by Christ himselfe who appointed Peter the Pastour of his Church after him For Peter saith he doest thou loue me more then these Feede my sheepe and consequently hee giueth to all Pastours and Doctours the same power whereof this is a signe that all doe equally bind and loose after that manner as he Feede my sheepe saith S. Ambrose which sheepe and which flocke Amb. de dignit sacerd c. 2. not only blessed Peter did then take to his charge but hee did take charge of them with vs and all we tooke charge of them with him For not without cause Aug. de agone Christiano c. 30. saith S. Augustine among all the Apostles Peter sustained the person of this Catholike Church for to this Church the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter amd when it is said to him it is said to all Doest thou loue Feede my sheepe Let Bishops and Preachers of the word heare saith Theophylact what is commended to them Theoph. in c. 21. Ioan. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad anno 1580. Feede saith Christ my sheepe c. Certaine things saith Cardinall Bellarmine are said to Peter in regard of the Pastorall office which therefore are vnderstood to bee said to all Pastours as Feede my sheepe and confirme thy brethren and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. But of this my second answere more beneath l nu 21. seq where you shall see in what fraudulent manner D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same 13 Now you shall see what necessarie consequents Mr. Fitzherbert hath drawen from those words of our Sauiour spoken to S. Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. and Feede my sheepe For as much saith he m nu 33. p 87 Suppl nu 61. at there can be no good gouernment of men without chastisement when iust occasion requireth it followeth that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and so consequently to his Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish such as should deserue it Whereupon it followeth that seeing all Christian Princes are sheepe of Christs fould and to be gouerned and guided by their supreme Pastour they cannot exempt themselues from his iust chastisement when their owne demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it And this I say not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction 14 But first I willingly grant that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and also to the rest of his Apostles and also consequently to their Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish all those that are sheepe of Christs fould and consequently also all Christian Princes when their demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it But I vtterly denie that this chastisement is to be vnderstood as Mr. Fitzherbert saith not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Commmon-wealth and consequently granted her power to giue only spirituall goods graces and benefites not temporall goods lands or kingdomes so also the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to chastise and punish spiritually not temporally or which is all one to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments and to depriue their spirituall sheepe and subiects of those spirituall goods which they haue receiued from the Church and by being Christians and not of those temporall goods which they had before they became Christians and which they
receiue not from the Church but from the temporall kingdome or Common-wealth And therefore small credite is to be giuen to Mr. Fitzherberts bare I say vnlesse he could more sufficiently prooue and make good what he sayth 15 Marke now secondly how well he confirmeth this his I say For if bad Princes sayth he could not be temporally chastised by their Pastour when they contemne the spirituall rod of Ecclesiasticall Censures as wicked Princes commonly doe Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of the Church But this consequence which is so barely and without any proofe at all affirmed by him I vtterly denie For to the good gouernment of a spirituall kingdome or Common-wealth as is the Church of Christ t is sufficient for the Pastours and Gouernours thereof to haue authoritie to punish spiritually not temporally or to inflict spirituall noâ— temporall punishments as also to the good gouernment of temporall kingdomes or Common-wealths it is sufficient that their Kings Princes and other Gouernours haue authoritie to punish temporally or to inflict temporall not spirituall punishments But of this consequence more beneath m nu 21. seq for in effect it is all one with Card. Bellarmines second reason which D. Schulckenius as you shall see laboureth in vaine to make good against the answere which in my Apologie I brought thereunto 16 But this may yet be more euident saith Mr. Fitzherbert if we consider that the greatest inconuenience and harme that can happen to the Church of God groweth commonly by the negligence opposition rebellion or apostasie of Christian Princes who so long as they remaine obedient and dutifull to the Church are as the Prophet calleth them her Nutritij that is to say Isay 59. her Foster-fathers or as it were her Armes not onely to defend her against all forraine enemies but also to retaine all her subiects in their due obedience executing her lawes and decrees and confirming the same with her owne constitutions and therefore we see that in a Christian Countrey where the Prince is Catholike if any subiect doe contemne or resist an Excommunication or other Censure of the Church he is euen by the temporall and publike lawes and by the authoritie of the Prince forced presently to doe his dutie or else is seuerely punished so that while the Prince remaineth obedient to the Church there is no doubt or danger of disobedience in his subiects or of any other great inconuenience to ensue on their parts But if he become disobedient himselfe and fall into heresie Schisme or Apostasie what remedie hath the Church against him by a bare Ecclesiasticall Censure doth he not contemne it 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 17 If a Christian Prince become disobedient to the Pastours of the Church and shall contemne all Ecclesiasticall Censures fearing not to be declared as a Heathen and Publican and to be deliuered ouer to Sathan by Excommunication which is a greater punishment saith S. Augustine then to be stricken with the sword to be consumed by fire Augustin lib. 1 contra Aduersar leg prophet cap. 17. or to be exposed to the deuouring of wild beasts the Church hath no other punishment to inflict vpon him and therefore in this case she hauing performed her office and inflicted her last punishment hath no other remedie then to leaue him to the iudgement and punishment of almightie God who will euer protect his Church and to flie to prayer fasting almes-deeds patience and such kind of spirituall armour or weapons which are proper saith the Glosse n ad Ephes 4. to the souldiers of Christ neither must she therefore vsurpe temporall and ciuill weapons or armour as are the depriuing of temporall and corporall goods which doe not belong to spirituall Pastours but to temporall Princes Kingdomes and Common-wealth Thus I answered in my Apologie o nu 184. and the reason hereof I gaue a little before for that Excommunication or such like spirituall Censure is the last and onely punishment which the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power by the institution of Christ can inflict Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. Almain in lib. de dominio nat ciu Eccles conclus 2. Bell. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19. ad secundum as Ioannes Parisiensis Iacobus Almaine and very many Doctours sayth Almaine doe affirme 18 And what if a wicked Pope shall afflict the Church and seeke to ouerthrow the spirituall good thereof and to draw soules into perdition what authoritie thinke you hath Christ our Sauiour the spouse Protectour and King of the Church according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine left to his Church to remedie this I answere saith he that it is no meruaile that the Church in this case remaineth without any effectuall humane remedie seeing that her safetie doth not chiefly relie vpon the industrie of mâ—n but vpon the protection of God who is her King Therefore although the Church hath not power to depose the Pope yet she may and ought to pray humbly to God that he will bring some remedie And it is certaine that God will haue a care of her safetie who will either conuert such a Pope or else take him out of the way before he destroy the Church And yet against this answere which may in like manner be applyed to wicked Princes persecuting the Church and contemning Ecclesiasticall Censures Mr. Fitzherbert dare not conclude that therefore Christ our Sauiour hath not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church 19 But what thinke you doth D. Schulckenius reply to that which I answered that if wicked Princes shall contemne all Ecclesiasticall censures the Church hauing vsed her last punishment cannot proceed against them by inflicting temporall punishments Euen as he vsually doth throughout his whole booke by cunningly shifting of the difficultie and flying from one argument to an other and in the ende to his accustomed rayling Schulcken pag. 359. ad nu 184. and slanderous speeches I answere saith he The temeritie of this man who will haue himselfe to be accounted a Catholike is wonderfull A generall Councell of the Christian world saith that Princes favouring heretikes and contemning Excommunication are to be depriued of their dominions by the Sea Apostolike and one man doth freely contradict and affirme that the Church hath no other thing to doe but hath performed her office after she hath throwen the dart of Excommunication To whom ought Catholike men giue credite whether to the vniuersall Church giuing testimonie of her authoritie receiued from God unto one I know not whom who lying hid vnder another mans name lasheth out words 20 But first to returne him backe his bitter inuectiue truely I cannot but admire the fraudulent and vncharitable dealing of this Doctour who would haue himselfe to be accounted
so good sincere and zealous a Catholike and yet lyeth lurking and schulking vnder another mans name of purpose as it seemeth to lash out more freely contumelious words which in his owne name he would blush to vtter for otherwise he needed not to disguise himselfe for feare of incurring the displeasure of Princes for the doctrine he teacheth so preiudiciall to their temporall Soueraigntie which also he will needes haue to be forsooth an vndoubted point of Catholike faith both for that he being a man of so high a ranke and place and liuing out of their dominions and subiection can by their indignation taken against him receiue but little harme and also for that he teacheth heere little or nothing in preiudice of their Soueraigne authority which he did not long before in his owne shape and name without putting on any maske or vizard in very plaine words maintaine But in what an exorbitant manner the Court of Rome doth proceede against those Catholikes who for desire to know the truth in matters of greatest moment speake or write any thing be it with neuer so great submission which seemeth in their opinion to derogate from that authoritie which some Popes of late yeres haue claimed as due to them although it is and euer hath beene contradicted by learned Catholikes it is too too manifest and their proceedings against mee and my bookes in commanding mee vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith and yet giuing mee no notice of any crime which I haue committed or any bad doctrine which I haue taught albeit I haue oftentimes with great instance desired to know the same protesting to purge and recall whatsoeuer I ought to purge and recall doth sufficiently confirme the same But now secondly to the matter from whence the virulent speeches of this Doctor hath caused mee to make this digression 21 Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies laboured to prooue from the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. which ought to haue all sufficient and necessary authoritie to the attaining of her end that the Church of Christ must haue authoritie to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to inflict temporall punishmēts and to depose temporall Princes for that this authoritie is necessary to her spirituall end which is the saluation of soules because otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow Religion To this argument I answered in my Apologie Apolog. 176. seq graunting to Card. Bellarmine that euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth ought to haue alwaies sufficient authority for as much as concerneth the authoritie it selfe to the attaining of her ende although she hath not alwaies sufficient power force meanes or abilitie actually to obtaine the same and to remooue all impediments which may hinder the same And so the Church of Christ being a perfect and well instituted spirituall Common-wealth hath all sufficient spirituall authority forasmuch as concerneth the authority it selfe to the attaining of her spirituall and which is the sauing of soules albeit she hath not alwaies sufficient power meanes or ability actually to bring all men to saluation to take away all the lets that may hinder the obtaining thereof But withall I denied that the authoritie to vse and dispose of temporall things or to inflict temporall punishments is necessary in spirituall Pastours to the sauing of soules but that the authority to vse and dispose of spirituall things and to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments is sufficient in spirituall Pastours to bring soules to saluation forasmuch as concerneth the authority and punishment themselues 22 Neither doth it therefore follow as Card. Bellarmine pretended to conclude that if the Church hath not authority to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to depose temporall Princes wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For the Church by her spirituall authority may punish them grieuously with Ecclesiasticall Censures which punishments are so great and dreadfull that of themselues they are able to terrifie any Christian Prince and to withdraw him from euill But if some Christian Prince for want of due consideration bee not terrified with Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall authority of the Church cannot inflict vpon him any temporall or ciuill punishment for that the onely and last punishment which the Church or which is all one the spirituall Pastours thereof by the institution of Christ can inflict is Excommunication or some such like spirituall Censure or punishment Thus I answered in my Apologie 23 Now D. Schulckenius to confute this my answere flyeth from Card. Bellarmines reason grounded vpon the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth which reason I tooke vpon mee in that place to confute to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran which is his common skar crow For when he cannot confute the answere which I giue to any reason or authority brought by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes then his custome is to flye from that reason or authority to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran as though that onely Decree of the Councell of Lateran of which Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies made no account at all were now a sufficient proofe to make good all his other reasons and authorities which Decree neuerthelesse he expoundeth according to his priuate spirit contrary to the words and true meaning of the same Councell and in stead of the Lateran Councell which I doe not impugne he would thrust vpon Catholikes his owne opinion which he violently wresteth from the words of the Councell 24 For as I haue often told him I am a true and sincere Catholike yea and a farre truer then he himselfe is if he build his Catholike faith vpon such weake and fallible grounds which some Catholike◠vnderstand in one sense and some in another it being well knowne to all learned Catholikes that the Catholike faith which is infallible cannot be built vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are in controuersie among Catholikes but vpon vndoubted grounds and so acknowledged by all true and learned Catholikes So likewise I haue often told him that I doe giue all dutifull honour and respect to all the Decrees of any approoued Councell either touching faith or manners and I doe reuerence euery one of them in their due place and order but euery exposition which either Card. Bellarmine or any other priuate Doctour who may both deceiue and be deceiued maketh of any Decree of the Councell of Lateran or of any other Councell especially when other Doctours expound that Decree otherwise I doe not account to bee any good ground or rule of a true Catholike faith And therefore it is not true that I doe freely contradict the Decree of the Councell of Lateran but I doe freely contradict his priuate exposition of the Decree of that Councell it being contrary to the true sense and meaning of the wordes
thereof and no sufficient proofe to confirme his new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes as I will at large make plaine beneath p Chap. 9. seq 25 Secondly it is also vntrue that I onely am the man who denieth the spirituall Pastours of the Church to haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments and consequently to proceed to no other temporall chastisement after they haue cast the dart of Excommunication Many other learned Catholikes as I haue shewed aboue q Part. 2. per totum doe also deny the same and Almaine affirmeth that it is the doctrine of most Doctours that the Ecclesiasticall power cannot by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall or ciuill punishment as death exile priuation of goods c. Yea nor so much as to imprison With what face therefore dare this Doctour to terrifie simple Catholikes cry out so often Onely Widdrington or ely Widdrington as Card. Bellarmine did onely Barclay onely Barclay doe oppose themselues against all Catholikes But God be praised that my Aduersaries themselues haue liued to see what little credit is giuen by Catholikes to their vaunting words and with what disgrace their bookes haue beene handled by the State of France For Card. Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay was condemned and forbidden by the Parliament of Paris vnder paine of treason this Doctours booke against me was disgacefully burnt by the hangman before the great staires of the Pallace and the same fire but by a more publike sentence and in a more solemne manner Fa. Suarez booke also hat passed 26 Thirdly this Doctour very learnedly forsooth carpeth at me for abusing words in calling deposition and killing temporall armour or weapons My Aduersarie Widdrington saith he r Cap. 8. pag. 375. abuseth words when he affirmeth deposition and killing to be temporall armour or weapons F. who euer heard that deposition or killing are armour or weapons They are effects of armour or weapons but they themselues are not armour or weapons But first this Doctour hath so vigilant on eye ouer my words and writings to carpe at them that he quite forgetteth what words he himselfe doth vse For he himselfe heere confesseth that Ecclesiasticall Censures are spirituall armour or weapons whereupon in this very Chapter he callet Å¿ Cap. 8. pag. 360. Excommunication a dart and Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay t Cap. 19. pag. 185. calleth Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall sword and yet Excommunication and other Ecclesiasticall Censures are according to his owne doctrine effects of spirituall armour or weapons to wit of the Ecclesiasticall power which he calleth v Pag. 386. 387. in tract contra Barclai cap. 19. pag. â—88 the spirituall sword And if spirituall Censures or punishments may be called spirituall armour or weapons although they be an effect of the spirituall power or sword why may not I pray you temporall censures or punishments as are deposition and killing be called temporall weapons or armour although they be effects of the temporall power or sword If therefore I abuse words in calling temporall Censures or punishments temporall armour or weapons how can he excuse himselfe from abusing words in calling spirituall Censures or punishments spirituall armour or weapons 27 Secondly it is vsuall among Philosophers to nominate and describe a thing by the name of the cause whereupon they deuide a definition into a formall and causall definition or description as the Eclipse of the Moone is commonly described to be an interposition of the earth betwixt the body of they Sunne and of the Moone not for that the Eclipse of the Moone is formally that interposition for it is formally nothing else then a want of light in the Moone but for that it is caused by that interposition and Thunder according to the opinion of Empedocles and Anaxagoras is defined to be a quenching of fire inclosed in a cloude See Aristotle lib. 2. Meoteor sum 3. cap. 1. 2. but according to the doctrine of Aristotle a violent breaking out of a fiery exhalation inclosed in a cloud not for that Thunder is formally the aforesaid quenching or breaking forth for it is formally a sound or noice but for that this sound is caused from thence so likewise spirituall and temporall Censures may be called spirituall and temporall armour or weapons not for that formally they are so but for that they are effects caused from thence But lastly what man is so ignorant who knoweth not that the same thing may be both an effect and also a cause being considered diuers waies and so the same spirituall or temporall Censure and punishment as it proceedeth from the spirituall or temporall power which is rightly called the spirituall or temporall sword is an effect and not to be called a sword weapon or armour yet as it is a cause to bring great griefe to the person so punished or to redresse great euill it may well be called armour offensiue or defensiue yea and griefe it selfe may without abusing of words be called a sword according to that of the holy Scripture Luc. 2. And thy owne soule a sword shall pearce And thus you see how weakely and fraudulently this Doctour hath impugned my answere 28 Now to returne to Mr. Fitzherbert He forsooth bringeth an other reason but as insufficient as his former to proue that the Pastors of the Church haue authoritie to inflict temporall or corporall punishments vpon hereticall or schismaticall Princes if they shall contemne Ecclesiasticall Censures For otherwise how is that saith he x Num. 35. pag. 89. 2. Cor. 10. fulfilled which the Apostle said of the most ample power that he and other Apostles had to destroy Munitions Counsells and all Altitude or Lostinesse extolling it selfe against the knowledge of God yea and to reuenge or punish omnem inobedientiam all disobedience Which words S. Augustine August ad Bonifac Com. epist 50. vnderstandeth of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties and the same is also acknowledged by some of our principall Aduersaries namely Caluin Caluin vpon this place who not only expoundeth this place of the coercitiue and coactiue power that is in the Church but also groundeth the same vpon the words of our Sauiour to his Apostles Quicquid ligaueritis super terram Matth. 18. erit ligatum in caelis c. Whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen 29 Whereupon I inferre that if the Ecclesiasticall authoritie dâ—d not extend it selfe to the chasticement of disobedient Princes in their temporall states the Church should not haue the power whereof S. Paul speaketh that is to reuenge all disobedience seeing that the disobedience of absolute Princes to Ecclesiasticall Censures should be incorrigible and remedilesse Whereupon it would
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
likewise if temporall Kings themselues doe offend they cannot bee punished with temporall punishments but by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls Now to giue to temporall Common-wealths the vse of the spirituall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments or to the Church of Christ as it is a spirituall common-wealth the vse of the temporall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict temporall Censures or punishments it were both to confound the acts functions authoritie sword weapons and armour of the spirituall and temporall common-wealths which Christ our Sauiour hath distinguished and it is also repugnant to the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture 2. Cor. 10. nam arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt for the weapons or armour of our warfare are not carnall c. to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers who affirme that Emperours and Kings are in temporalls next to God in authoritie and consequently to be temporally punished by God alone and to the generall practise of the primitiue Church 40 Wherefore that comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth heere of the cobweb which holdeth onely the little flyes and serueth to no purpose against the great ones c. is idle and to no purpose For Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the punishments belonging to the Church of Christ are common both to Princes and Subiects and of themselues they are so dreadfull that they are able and sufficient of their owne nature to hold and keepe in awe all Christians whatsoeuer and to correct amend and bring all sinners as they did the Emperour Theodosius to true repentance But if some persons doe not feare these Censures and be not amended by them this is not to bee attributed to the weakenesse defect or imperfection of the Censure which of it selfe is most dreadfull yea and more horrible saith S. Augustine then any corporall death but to the indisposition of the offender who doth not duly consider the greatnesse and dreadfulnesse of that Ecclesiasticall Censure As likewise temporall punishments as is the sentence of death exile imprisonment whipping confiscation of goods c. are of themselues able and sufficient to withdraw any man from sinfull life yet they doe not actually correct and amend all malefactours but this is not to be attributed to the weakenesse or insufficiencie of the temporall sword but the rashnesse passion malice or inconsideration of such malefactours who for want of due consideration are not afraid of that temporall punishment which of it selfe is able to terrifie any prudent man and to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest 41 Neither is it necessarie for the publike good of the Church as this man supposeth or for the due execution of the office and charge of spirituall Pastours that they should haue authoritie to chastise temporally or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments and to vse the temporall sword which is onely proper to temporall Princes or common-wealths and by the law of Christ forbidden spirituall Pastours as they are spirituall Pastours who haue only spirituall and not temporall authoritie as I proued aboue by the authoritie of S. Bernard Wherefore that axiome of the Lawyer Cui iurisdictio data est c. To whom iurisdiction is giuen those things also doe seeme to bee granted without which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and that other of the Philosophers Qui dat esse c. Hee that giueth being giueth also those things that are consequent to being or necessarily required thereunto are vnaptly applied to this purpose For spirituall iurisdiction can very well bee exercised without vsing temporall weapons or inflicting temporall punishments and to vse temporall weapons or to inflict temporall punishments is not a consequent or necessarily required to the spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely supposeth 42 Now you shall see in what manner hee concludeth this Chapter Thus then saith hee z pag. 91. nu 38.39 thou seest good Reader how I prooued in my Supplement by the law of GOD that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall states and dignities when the necessitie of the Church shall require it which I also prosecuted further there inferring the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians by the power he hath ouer the soule according to the two axiomes Qui potest maius potest minus He which may doe the more may doe the lesse and Accessorium sequitur principalis naturam The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall which I haue amply dâ—bated before with my Aduersarie Widdrington in the second and third chapters hauing also laide downe there the words of my Supplement touching the same and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate them heere 43 Now then I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether my Aduersarie Widdrington hath not notably abused me in two things the one in affirming as you haue heard before in the first Chapter that I grounded all my discourse against the Oath in my Supplement See Chapter 1. nu 3. 7. 9. vpon a bare supposition that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured therein and the other that I haue effectually prooued nothing else by the law of GOD but that the temporal power in spirituall things in temporal as they are reduced to spiritual is subiect to the spirituall power so far forth as concerneth the authoritie to command a spiritual maner of correction not temporall for so you haue heard him say in the beginning of this chap. though it be euident by the premisses Supra nu 1. that I haue grounded my arguments against the oath not vpon any such supposition as he mentioneth but vpon the very substance of the law of God in the old and new Testament and that I haue deduced from thence by most pregnant reasons and necessarie consequents that the Pope hath power to proceede to the temporall correction of Princes when the spirituall will not suffice and the necessitie of the Church doth require it 44 Whereupon it followeth euidently that the new Oath which impugneth this power of the Pope is repugnant to the law of GOD. So that you see how probable my Aduersarie Widdringtons answeres are or rather how fraudulent seeing that he dissembleth all the substance and pith of my arguments abusing therein his Reader no lesse then mee seeking to breede in him a false conceit of the substance and effect of my discourse and then framing his answere according to his owne forgerie So as in fine he answereth nothing of mine but his owne vaine conceits as it will also further appeare by that which resteth to be debated betwixt vs concerning the Lawes of Nature and Nations 45 But contrariwise thou seest good Reader that Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement neither hath sufficiently proued by the law of GOD as hee here
vntruely affirmeth either that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall States and dignities except by way only of direction or commandement or that the necessitie of the Church doth require that spirituall Pastours should by their spirituall authoritie haue power to vse the temporall sword and to inflict temporall punishments nor hath rightly concluded the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians from the power hee hath ouer their soules by those two axiomes Hee that may doe the greater may doe the lesse and The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall the true sense and meaning wherof I haue amply declared before in the second and third Chapters and haue laid open Mr. Fitzherberts fraude and ignorance in vrging those axiomes 46 Wherefore to conclude with him this Chapter I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether I haue any way abused Mr. Fitzherbert in two things as hee saith I haue done the one in affirming as thou hast heard before in the first Chapter that hee in his Supplement doth first of all suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is abiured in this Oath and the other that hee hath effectually proued nothing else by the law of God but that the temporall power is in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall subiect to the spirituall power so farre foorth as concerneth the authoritie to command and a spirituall manner of punishing by way of coercion and not temporall For as I haue most amply shewed in this Chapter he hath not brought any one pregnant reason or necessarie consequent grounded vpon the law of GOD either in the olde Testament or in the new to proue that the Pope hath power to proceede by way of temporall coercion or which is all one by inflicting temporall punishments to the temporall correction or punishment of any Prince Neither also hath hee brought any one pregnant reason or argument to prooue either that spirituall punishments are not of themselues sufficient although by reason of the indisposition of the person so punished not alwayes effectuall to redresse all inconueniences and to correct or amend all the disobedient children of the Church or that the necessitie of the Church as it is instituted by Christ to be a spirituall and not a temporall common-wealth doth at any time require that the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof must haue authoritie to vse temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments whereupon it euidently followeth that this new Oath which denyeth this authoritie of the Pope is not repugnant to the law of God 47 Thus then thou seest that I haue soundly answered all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments without dissembling the substance or pith of any one of them and haue most cleerely shewed that I haue neither abused him nor the Reader in those two things which heere he mentioneth but that hee hath notably abused mee and bewrayed his manifest fraude and dissimulation in falsly relating the supposition whereon he groundeth his whole Discourse as I haue at large declared in the first Chapter and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate heere the same againe CHAP. VI. Wherein Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the Law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the Law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ. Secondly that Religious Priests by the Law of Nature cannot punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the Law of Nature the ciuill Societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning Religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the Law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers replies of Mr. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted MY Aduersarie T. F. a man as most of our Countreymen know vnskilfull in Philosophie and Schoole-Diuinitie as being sciences which he hath little studied hath in this sixt Chapter taken a hard taske vpon him and which few men except such as are like to himselfe would aduenture but as our English prouerbe saith who is so bold as is blind Bayard For he will forsooth shew in this Chapter that he hath effectually prooued in his Supplement by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes temporally and consequently that the new Oath of Allegiance which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is repugnant to the law of Nature But how vnsoundly he hath prooued this and that by the law of Nature it may rather be conuinced that Religious Priests were subiect to temporall Princes and might be deposed by them and that all things both concerning State and Religion and the publike seruice of God did in the law of Nature depend vpon the authoritie of the temporall common-wealth you shall anon most cleerely perceiue 2 First therefore Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 94. nu 2 setteth downe the words which he wrote in his Supplement in this manner It is euident by the light of naturall reason that in all things wherein there is any naturall composition or combination there is a due subordination and subiection of that which is lesse perfect to the more perfect and of the inferiour to the Superiour as of the meanes to the end which is euident in the Hierarchies of Angels in the Orbes or Spheres in the Elements in the Powers of the soule in the Sciences and to omit other examples in all naturall Societies of Families Common-wealths and Kingdomes in which there is a superioritie and subiection the lesse perfect being inferiour and subordinate to the more perfect whereby nature giueth to euery thing the perfection which is conuenient for it according to the kind degree and qualitie thereof wherein we see nature tendeth still to greater perfection passing and as it were mouing by degrees from the lowest and and most imperfect creature to man from man to Angels and from them to Almightie God who as he is the Creatour of all so also he is the end consummation and perfection of all yea perfection it selfe by whom and in whom all naturall things are consummated and perfected 3 Here you see this man hath brought diuers examples wherein one thing is subiect and subordinate to another but to what purpose he hath brought them and how from any one of them he can well deduce that the Pope hath power to depose Princes by the law of Nature which is the principall subiect of this Chapter I cannot any way conceiue If he had declared in particular after what manner and with what kind of subiection these things are subordained one to the other euery man of meane vnderstanding would presently haue perceiued the non sequitur of all the consequences
which can be gathered from those examples Meanes are subiect and ordained to the end for that the ende cannot be obtained without them will he therefore inferre from hence that the Pope hath power to depose Princes The nine Orders of Angels haue a subiection and subordination of the inferiour to the superiour for that one is more noble more potent and more perfect then another by reason whereof the superiour can illuminate and moue locally the inferiour but will he therefore from hence conclude that the Pope hath power to depose Princes 4 The celestiall Orbes are inferiour one to another in place magnitude and perfection as the Sphere of the Moone is the least and lowest of all and the Planet of the Sunne although it be placed in the middle Orbe is the chiefe and as it were the King of all the seuen Planets and exceedeth them all in magnitude splendour and actiuitie The foure Elements also are inferiour one to an other in place magnitude and perfection Also the powers of the soule haue a kind of subiection one to another the vnderstanding doth guide and direct as a teacher or instructour but the will as the Mistresse doth command Likewise all sciences haue some subordination among themselues and Metaphisicke is in some sort the Mistresse of them all but wil my Aduersarie inferre from any of these that therefore the Pope hath power to depose Princes Families also are subiect to Incorporations Incorporations to Cities Cities to Kingdomes for that one is included in the other as a part in the whole and therefore he that is Superiour or chiefe Gouernour of the whole and can dispose thereof is also Superiour and Gouernour of euery part thereof But the temporall kingdome speaking formally and in abstracto is not a part of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ nor included therein as a part in the whole wherefore from hence it cannot be gathered that spirituall Pastours who are the Superiours and Gouernours of this spirituall kingdome haue authoritie to depose absolute Princes who are the Superiours and Gouernours of temporall kingdomes and in temporalls are subiect to none but God Lastly man Angels and all other creatures are subiect to Almightie God who as he is the Creatour and Conseruatour of all so he is the end consummation perfection of all but how from hence Mr. Fitzherbert can gather that therefore the Pope hath power to depose Princes truly it passeth my vnderstanding to cōceiue 5 Wherefore all that from this Rhetoricall Discourse of my Aduersarie can be rightly concluded is this at the most that in this world there is nothing to be found which is not subiect and subordinate to some other thing and that euery thing which is subiect to another must be subiect onely in that degree of subiection wherein the other is Superiour and therefore that temporall kingdomes whether they be Heathen or Christian are in dignitie inferiour subiect to the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ for that spirituall things are in dignitie superiour to temporall and that Christian Princes being parts and members of the Church of Christ are subiect to the spirituall Pastours and Gouernours thereof in spirituals but not in temporals for in temporals Christian Princes themselues are the supreme Gouernours and subiect to God alone 6 But let vs goe on with Mr. Fitzherberts discourse This being so sayth he b pag. 94. n. 3. it is to be considered that seeing in all common-wealths I speake of such as are Christian there is a composition and combination of diuers Societies all tending to the perfection of mans nature as of husband and wife maister and seruant Prince and subiect of all which resulteth the ciuill Societie and againe seeing that in this ciuill Societie or Common-wealth there is an Ecclesiasticall Societie euident and distinct in it selfe by different Magistrates and lawes whereby the ciuill Societie is vnited with the Celestiall and heauenly Hierarchies and the members thereof made ciues Sanctorum domestici Dei the citizens of Saints and the houshold seruants of God Ephes 2. yea vnited with God himselfe and consequently made as perfect and happie as man can be in this life it must needs follow that as the Societie of the husband and the wife and of the maister and the seruant are ordained for the familie and againe the family for the towne and citie and the citie for the whole common-wealth euery one of them tending to a superiour and more perfect Societie so in like manner the common-wealth it selfe with all her inferiour Societies are naturally ordained for the religious and Ecclesiasticall Societie that is to say the Church tending thereto as to the supreme and most perfect Societie that is on earth whereby it and all other Societies are perfected and humane nature finally aduanced to that supernaturall end and felicitie whereto God hath ordained it And this I suppose is so euident in reason that no man will deny it Whereupon it is also further to be inferred c. 7 But faire and softly Good Syr be not too hasty to make more inferences before you can make good what you haue said already For your comparison betwixt particular Ciuill Societies as families or Oeconomies Cities and temporall common-wealths or kingdomes and betweene temporall common-wealths or kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and also that your consequence and similitude which you make in these wordes It must neede follow that as the Society of the husband and the wife and of the master and the seruant are ordained for the family and againe the family for the Towne and Citie and the Citie for the whole Common-wealth So in like manner the Common-wealth it selfe with all her inferiour Societies are naturally ordained for the Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie that is to say the Church are so far from reason that no man with reason can approue the said comparison similitude and consequence For the reason why the Societie of the husband and wife and of the master and seruant are ordained for the family and againe the family for the Towne and Citie and the Citie for the whole Common-wealth is for that the Societie of man and wife of master and seruant are parts and members of the Family and the Family is a part and member of the Towne and Citie and the Citie is a part and member of the whole Common-wealth or Kingdome and therefore it must needes follow that all these particular Ciuill Societies are naturally ordained for the whole Ciuill Common-wealth or Kingdome which they compose as all parts and members are naturally ordained for the whole bodie which is compounded of them But no man with reason can affirme that in like manner the whole Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe with all the inferiour Societies or parts thereof are parts and members of the religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie which is the spirituall Kingdome or Church of Christ and therefore naturally ordained thereunto For it is euident that Christ
our Sauiour by instituting his spirituall Kingdome or Church hath not changed the nature of temporal kingdomes or ciuill common-wealths from whence it cleerely followeth that all temporall kingdomes or common-wealths whether they consist of Christians or Pagans haue the same nature and are naturally ordained to one and the selfe same and which is a peaceable liuing in humane Societie 8 True it is that the same Christian man as well Prince as subiect is a part and member of the true ciuill common-wealth and also of the true spirituall or Ecclesiasticall kingdome or Church of Christ as also the same Paynim is a part and member of the true ciuill common-wealth and of a false Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie and the reason heereof I declared more at large aboue in the second part because either temporal authoritie spiritual authoritie or temporal authoritie and spiritual subiection or temporal subiection spiritual subiection to omit spirituall authoritie and temporall subiection are vnited conioyned in one the selfe same Christian man by reason of which vnion and coniunction the same Christian man is either a temporall Prince and also a spirituall Prince or a temporal Prince and a spirituall subiect or a temporall subiect and also a spirituall subiect to omit now whether the same man may be a spirituall Prince and a temporall subiect for this dependeth vpon that question whether and in what manner our Sauiour Christ hath exempted Clergy men and especially the supreme spirituall Pastour from subiection to temporall Princes As likewise the same man may be of diuers trades as a Musition and a Physition the same man may bee Citizen of diuers cities as of London and Yorke the same man may be a King of diuers kingdomes as of England and Scotland But from hence it doth not follow that the temporall kingdome or common-wealth it selfe although the lesse noble and perfect must be subiect or naturally ordained to the spirituall Kingdome or Church of Christ which is the more noble and perfect Societie As likewise it doth not follow that because a man hath two trades the one more woorthy the other lesse woorthy or a citizen of two cities the one more noble the other lesse noble or a King of two Kingdomes the one more excellent the other lesse excellent that therefore the lesse worthy noble and excellent trade citie or kingdome it selfe must be subiect and subordained to the more worthy noble and excellent trade citie or kingdome 9 But this onely doth follow from the light of true reason that as the same man who hath two trades or artes to wit of Musicke and Physicke or a citizen of two cities as of London and Yorke or a King of two kingdomes as of England and Scotland must preferre cateris paribus the more noble and excellent before the lesse noble and excellent trade citie or kingdome and that as he is a Musition he is to bee guided and directed by the rules of Musicke and not of Physicke and as he is a citizen of London to be subiect to and gouerned by the lawes and customes of London and not of Yorke and as hee is King of England to rule and gouerne according to the lawes and customes of England and not of Scotland but that therefore Musicke must bee subiect to Physicke Yorke to London or Scotland to England except in worth dignitie or nobilitie or contrariwise it doth not follow from the light of true reason So in like manner it doth follow from the light of true reason that the same man who is a citizen of the temporall kingdome or common-wealth by his naturall birth or ciuill conuersation and also of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ by Baptisme or spirituall regeneration must in temporalls bee subiect onely to the temporall Prince and be directed and gouerned by temporall authoritie which doth onely reside in the temporall Prince and in spiritualls must be subiect onely to spirituall Pastours and be directed and gouerned by spirituall authoritie which doth onely reside in the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours of the Church But that the temporall kingdome it selfe or which is all one the temporall Prince as hee hath temporall authoritie or as hee is a temporall Prince must bee subiect to the spirituall kingdome or which is all one to spirituall Pastours as they haue spirituall authoritie but onely as the temporall Prince hath spirituall subiection this cannot be inferred from the light of true reason But Mr. Fitzherbert forsooth supposeth this to bee so euident in reason that no man will deny it to wit that the temporall common-wealth it selfe is subiect and subordained to the Ecclesiasticall Society and naturally ordained to her whereas in the Second part of this Treatise I haue at large against Card. Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius confuted the same and out of their owne grounds cleerely prooued that there is no such vnion subiection or naturall ordination of temporall common-wealths to the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ as they pretend but that temporall kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome of Christ doe make two totall bodies or common-wealths supreme and independent one vpon the other in those things which are proper to either of them to wit that temporall kingdomes are supreme in temporalls and consequently not subiect therein to the Church of Christ or the Pastours thereof and the Church supreme in spiritualls and not subiect to temporall kingdomes or the supreme Gouernours thereof 10 Now let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert inferreth from the premisses Whereupon saith he c Pag. 75. nu 4 it is also further to be inferred that as all Common-wealths are subordinate and subiect to the Church so also the heads of them all I meane the temporall Princes that gouerne them are subordinate and subiect to the head of the Church For although they be absolute heads of the States which they gouerne in things pertaining only to their temporall States yet they are but members of the mysticall body of Christ which is the Church and therefore no lesse subiect to the visible head thereof in matters belonging thereto then their owne proper Vassalls are subiect to them and therefore as the King or Ciuill Magistrate iustly correcteth the head of any familie when he passeth the limits and bounds of true Oeconomie to the hâ—rt of the Common-wealth though neuerthelesse a familie is a distinct Societie from a Common-wealth hauing a peculiar end with different lawes and manner of gouernment so the head of the Church may correct any King or Ciuill Magistrate when he doth any thing to the preiudice of the Church pag. 96. num 5. 11 For although the spirituall Prince or Magistrate haue no dominion ouer temporall States and the Gouernours thereof in matters appertaining only and meerely to State no more then the temporall Prince hath to doe with priuate families in matters that belong only thereto yet as the temporall Prince may giue lawes to a familie or to the head thereof when the
necessitie of the Common-wealth shall require it so also the Ecclesiasticall Prince or head of the Church may giue lawes to temporall Common-wealths and the Gouernour thereof according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church the publike good whereof is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or Common-wealth by the same reason and law of Nature that the good of the soule is to be preferred before the good of the body spirituall good before temporall heauen before earth and the seruice of GOD before the seruice of any man or of all the men in the world 12 But first although it be true that Christian Princes who are the absolute heads of the temporall States or kingdomes which they gouerne being also parts and members of the mysticall body or spirituall kingdome of Christ which is the Church are consequently subiect in things belonging to the Church to wit in spirituall matters to the visible Pastours Gouernours or heads thereof yet it is not true that temporall kingdomes or common-wealths themselues being taken properly formally and in abstracto are either parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ or subiect and subordained to the Church or the visible heads thereof for then it must needes follow that temporall Princes not only as they are Christians in spirituall matters but also as they are temporall Princes and in temporall things are subiect to the visible heads or Gouernours of the Church which is cleerely repugnant to Mr. Fitzherberts owne words in that place pag. 95. num 4. who affirmeth that temporall Princes are absolute heads of the States which they gouerne in things pertaining only to their temporall States and consequently in them they cannot be subordinate and subiect to the visible heads of the Church 13 Wherefore that comparison which he maketh heere and is the chiefe ground of his Discourse betwixt families cities and kingdomes or ciuill common-wealths and betwixt ciuill common-wealths or kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ is no fit comparison and therefore neither can the Discourse which is grounded thereon be sound and sufficient For families and cities being taken properly formally and in abstracto are parts and members of the whole kingdome or common-wealth and consequently subordinate and subiect to the kingdome and absolute heads thereof seeing that they are particular ciuill Societies and consequently subiect to the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth as euery part is to the whole body and to the chiefe head thereof but temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto are not parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ vnlesse we will hold with the Canonists that the Church of Christ is compounded both of spirituall and ciuill power and that the Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of the whole Christian world And therefore although it be true that spirituall Pastours haue nothing to doe in matters meerely temporall and which belong to ciuill gouernment yet it is not true that temporall Princes haue not to doe with priuate families and cities in matters that belong to the ciuill gouernment of them for that priuate families and cities are true parts and members of the whole ciuill common-wealth or kingdome and I hope that the Prince who hath to doe with the whole kingdome and gouernment thereof hath also to doe with the gouernment of euery part thereof 14 Secondly no man maketh any doubt but that the spirituall Pastours and Gouernours of the Church may correct any King or ciuill Magistrate when hee doth any thing to the preiudice of the Church and that they may giue lawes to the Gouernours of temporall common-wealths according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church and also that the publike good of the Church is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or common-wealth But all the difficultie consisteth in these points first whether authoritie to correct malefactours by the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods c. hath by the institution of Christ beene communicated to the spirituall Pastours of the Church or was leaft only to temporall Princes and the supreme Gouernours of temporall common-wealths Secondly whether spirituall Pastours may giue lawes to temporall Princes I doe not say as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ for of this no Catholike maketh doubt but to temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto or which is all one to temporall Princes not as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection but as they are temporall Princes and haue supreme temporall power which doth only reside in them and not in spirituall Pastours 15 Thirdly whether the particular or publike good of temporall Princes or common-wealths is to be preferred before the particular or publike good of the Church for that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one totall body or common-wealth which is the Church as Card. Bellarmine contendeth in which totall body the temporall common-wealth is per se and naturally subordained and subiect to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ or whether the spirituall good is to be preferred before the temporall by all Christians both Princes and subiects for that euery man who is a part and member of two cities or common-wealths the one more noble and excellent then the other is by the order of charitie bound to preferre caeteris paribus the more noble and excellent citie or common-wealth and the good thereof before the lesse noble and excellent city or common-wealth and the good of it These be the chiefe heads of this controuersie concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes or common-wealths among Christians and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof I haue at large debated in the second part where the Reader may see all these points distinctly handled against Card. Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius and also touching all that which Mr. Fitzherbert doth confusedly discourse in this Chapter concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes and the Church of Christ And therefore remitting the Reader to my former Treatise where he may cleerely see in what manner the temporall and spirituall power or the temporall and spirituall common-wealth are vnited and subordained let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert would at length conclude 16 Whereupon I conclude saith he d Pag. 96. nu 6 that seeing this Oath now in question is as I haue proued by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church to whom all Christian Princes are subiect euen by the law of Nature it followeth that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to nature then if a husband should exact the like Oath of his wife or a Maister of his seruant or the father of his children I meane an Oath which should
derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince As for example if a head of a family should bind his wife and children to defend him from the correction of his lawfull Prince when occasion should require I thinke no man will be so absurd to say that it is a lawfull Oath and correspondent to nature though the same should be coloured and shadowed neuer so much with pretence of Oeconomicall and filiall discipline and dutie And no more can the other Oath be lawfull and agreeable to Nature though it be neuer so much coloured with respect of temporall allegiance 17 But first obserue I pray you the egregious shufling of this man For he pretended to prooue in this Chapter by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and that therefore the new Oath which denieth this power to be in the Pope is repugnant to the law of nature And therefore I expected that he would haue brought some effectual argument taken from the law of nature abstracting frō the positiue law of God to confirme this power of the Pope to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and consequently that this Oath is by the law of Nature preiudiciall to the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours But now he flyeth from the law of Nature to the law of God to prooue that the Oath is preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church and supposing that he hath proued this by the law of GOD then it followeth saith he that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature then if a husband should exact of his wife a maiester of his seruant a father of his children an Oath which should derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince So that Mr. Fitzherbert doth only conclude heere that the Oath is vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature supposing that it is by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church 18 Secondly therefore although we should suppose heere with Mr. Fitzherbert that this new Oath is repugnant to the law of God as in very deede it is not yet he cannot therefore rightly conclude that it is also repugnant to the law of Nature which he in this Chapter pretendeth to proue for that euery transgression of the positiue law or institution of almighty God is vnlawfull and yet not repugnant to the law of Nature whereupon the Diuines doe deuide the law of God into the diuine naturall and the diuine positiue law and he that should deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to remit sinnes should contradict the law of God in the new Testament and so this deniall of Priestly authoritie to forgiue sinnes is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours and yet it doth not from thence follow that it is repugnant to the law of Nature which is naturally grafted in the hearts of euery man whether hee be Iew or Gentile infidell or Christian as the law of Nature is by my Aduersaries taken heere Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert concluding heere that the Oath is repugnant to the law of Nature for that it is preiudiciall to the power and iuridiction giuen by the law of Christ to the head of the Church seemeth not to vnderstand himselfe what is the law of Nature and how the law of Nature is distinguished from the positiue law of God But of this law of Nature more beneath e Num. 90. ◠seq and in the next chap. where also you shall see the reason wherefore the obedience in generall which a wife oweth to her husband a seruant to his Maister and children to their parents is not properly naturall but ciuill and yet the obedience in generall which subiects owe to their temporall Prince is not only called ciuill but also naturall allegiance 19 But thirdly it is not true that this Oath now in question is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church for that it denyeth the Popes power to depose Soueraine Princes and to inflict temporall punishments neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert prooued by the law of God that the Pope hath any such power as you haue seene at large in the former Chapter and to say that this Oath is repugnant to the law of nature taking the law of nature as it is distinguished from the positiue law of God or man and is nothing else then the dictamen or prescript of true reason concerning things to be done which either supposeth diuine reuelation and the supernaturall light of faith and is proper onely to true beleeuers and it is called by the Diuines the supernaturall law of nature supernaturall I say to man but connaturall to grace and faith which it supposeth or else supposeth onely naturall knowledge and is common to all men indued with naturall reason and is called properly and absolutely the naturall law for that it is connaturall to euery reasonable man is very vntrue as partly I haue shewed in the former Chapter where I haue answered all my Aduersaries arguments grounded vpon diuine reuelation and partly in this and the two next ensuing Chapters I will more cleerely conuince Now let vs goe on with the rest of his Discourse 20 For as no reason sayth he f Pag. 97. nu 7. 8. of Oeconomie or filiall or coniugall duetie holdeth when it is encountred with the respect of the weale publike or of due obedience to a lawfull Soueraigne So neither can any reason of common-wealth or allegiance to temporall Princes ouerweigh when the same is ballanced with the publike good of the Church of Christ whereto all temporall Princes doe owe more respect duety and subiection euen by the law of Nature then their Vassals and subiects owe to them because the Religion or Ecclesiasticall Societie which is the Church is as I haue said the supreme and most worthie Societie of all other on earth In which respect also all Societies inferiour to the Common-wealth yea euery member thereof haue more obligation owe more dutie to the Church which is the highest Societie then to the Common-wealth or any other whereto they are immediately subordinate as it may also be obserued in humane actions which tend finally to Religion as to their last ende for euery humane action ought to be more specially directed to Religion that is to say to the worship and seruice of God then to any other inferiour action whereto it may haue a more immediate relation 21 In which respect the Philosophers themselues being guided by the law of Nature and light of reason placed the end not onely of mens actions but also of euery man and of the Common-wealth it selfe in Religion because as Plato Plato in Timaeo in Epinomide and all the
thereof when any thing was to be handled in the Senate that which corcerned Religion was first of all dispatched whereupon also they gaue great temporall authoritie honour priuiledges and exemptions especially to their chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom all other inferiour Priests as the Flamines the Salij the Augures the Epulones the Aruales the Vestales yea and he that was called Rex sacrorum the King of sacred things were subiect in so much that the dignitie of the chiefe Bishop was accounted the second in the Common-wealth and the next to Kingly dignitie and many times the same man was both a Religious Priest and also a temporall Magistrate as Q. Fabius Maximus was an Augure and a Consull M. Aemilius Lepidus was Proconsull and chiefe Bishop Neuerthelesse it is not true that the chiefe Bishop had any temporall authoritie euen ouer the inferiour Priests as necessarily due to him by the law of nature but onely from the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth or the supreme Gouernours thereof And therefore at sometimes the chiefe Bishops had greater temporall authoritie as in the beginning when the Romanes were gouerned by Kings in whom both Regall and Pontificall authoritie were conioyned and by whom as being both Kings and chiefe Bishops all matters as well concerning State as Religion were determined and executed at some times they had lesse as afterwards Alexand. lib. 3. genial dier cap. 3. Sabellicus lib. 2. Ennead 4. Alexand. ibidem lib. 1. cap. 27. Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 27. when they had put downe their Kings for that they beganne to tyrannize ouer them and were gouerned by the Senate and two Consuls who at the first were chosen out of the Nobilitie but afterwards at the instance of the people the Senate was forced to graunt that they might be chosen also out of the commmunaltie which Consuls least they should challenge to themselues Kingly authoritie could put no Citizen to death without the consent of the people 32 For to the ende that the Kingly name which was by the Romanes fortunately begunne and for many yeeres happily continued should still remaine and also that the Priestly authoritie which the Kings had should not be abolished they did create a King whom they called Rex sacrorum a King of sacred things who had onely the name of a King without Regall authoritie and should performe the sacred rites and ceremonies belonging to Religion which the former Kings did performe Which King of sacred things by reason of the odious and suspected name and authorititie of a King could haue no authoritie or command ouer the armie and legions nor beare any office or haue any temporall gouernment ouer the people but his power and authoritie was limited to Religion and contained onely within the temples of the Gods And this King of sacred things was subiect to the chiefe Bishop as all other Priests were who as they were Priests had onely to intermeddle in sacred things but afterwards they had also great temporall authoritie granted them by the Senate and people For the chiefe Priests or Bishops had not onely power giuen them to punish with pecuniarie mulcts the inferiour Priests who should disobey their command but also they were made Consuls Captaines and chiefe Magistrates in the Common-wealth But all this temporall authoritie of the religious Priests did proceed from the free grant of the temporall Common-wealth and not as necessarily due to them by the law of Nature which those words of Cicero cited by my Aduersarie doe onely confirme to wit that it was notably and diuinely ordained that the Bishops should haue a chiefe command in matters that appertained as well to the Common-wealth as to the religion of the Gods 33 But that the temporall Magistrate sayth Mr. Fitzherbert was commanded and corrected he meaneth with temporall punishments as occasion required by the spirituall was the custome of the Romans because no doubt they held it to be most conforme to the law of Nature But first those words to be most conforme to the law of Nature are equiuocall and may haue a double signification For as euery law for as much as concerneth the directiue power or force thereof for the coerciue power or force of euery law consisteth meerly in punishing hath one of these three effects to command to forbid to permit or graunt some thing so the law of Nature as it is directiue may be taken either as it commandeth or as it forbiddeth or as it permitteth or granteth some thing If therefore my Aduersaries meaning be to signifie by those words that the law of Nature commandeth the spirituall Magistrate or giueth him authoritie as he is a spirituall person to punish the temporall Magistrate transgressing his commandement with temporall punishments that in this sense the custome of the Romans was conforme to the law of Nature this I say is very vntrue neither can he bring any colour of a probable proofe to confirme the same Nay which is more he can not prooue as you shall see beneath that the law of Nature gaue to Religious Priests as they were such authoritie to command in spirituals or to punish with spirituall punishments the supreme temporall Magistrate for that standing in the law of nature there is no publike spirituall authoritie which is not subiect and subordinate to the temporall Common-wealth and the supreme Gouernours thereof 34 But if he meane that the law of nature or the light and dictamen of naturall reason doth not forbid but doth permit that temporall Princes or Common-wealths may giue authoritie to those Religious Priests whom they shall appoint to be in their steed publike Ministers of sacred rites to punish with temporall punishments those that shall contemne their iust command and that in this sense the custome of the Romanes giuing authoritie to their Religious Priests to inflict temporall punishments was conforme that is was not repugnant to the law of nature but agreeable thereunto as a laudable and decent custome but not as necessarily enioyned by the law of nature this is very true but not to the purpose for that which my Aduersarie pretendeth to prooue is that Religious Priests haue by the law of nature and not onely by the free graunt of temporall Princes or Common-wealths authoritie to inflict temporall punishments which neuerthelesse he will neuer be able to prooue by any probable argument or any probable shew thereof 35 Thirdly therfore for the better cleering of the whole matter the Reader may obserue out of learned Abulensis Abulens in cap. 13. Gen. q. 8. 9 seq that there is a great difference betwixt the Priests of the old law of the new the Priests that were in the law of nature For in the law of nature before the law of God was published by Moyses we may cōsider euery man either by himselfe or as he was a part of some communitie If he be considered by himselfe and as dwelling alone in no Societie it was lawfull
for euery man to offer sacrifice to God of whatsoeuer was his owne in what maner he would and in what place he would because it was not by any law forbidden any man to doe these things For to offer sacrifice in the honour of God was of it selfe a good and commendable act and it was forbidden no man and therefore it was lawfull for euery man So that in the law of nature euery man being considered by himselfe was a Priest in this sense that he might lawfully offer sacrifice in the honour of God of what thing in what manner and in what place he would But if man be considered as he was a part of some communitie and as liuing in ciuill Societie it was farre otherwise For euery ciuill Communitie had certaine rites and ceremonies for the worshipping either of the true or of false Gods and in the name and by the authoritie of the whole communitie there were done religious rites and ceremonies in honour of that God which that communitie professed to be God And because one particular act could not be done by the whole communitie the communitie appointed certaine Ministers who in the name and place of the whole communitie should doe that acte And these Ministers for as much as concerned the doing of holy rites were commonly called Priests and so some certaine men onely were appointed Priests and all men were not Priests and to these Priests onely it belonged to doe those Sacrifices in the name and by the authoritie of the whole communitie And this custome was among all Nations both Iewes and Gentiles before the law of God was giuen to Moyses and so among all Nations there were some persons specially appointed Priests by the communitie and all men were not Priests 36 But after the law was written and deliuered by Moyses to the Israelites both the place where sacrifices were to be offered and the Ministers which were to offer and also the sacrifices which were to be offered and the manner of offering them were limitted and determined by God himselfe Concerning the place there were two limitations The first was that Sacrifices should not bee offered in many places the second that they should not be offered in many Altars Of the first we may see in Deuteron Chap. 12. 16. where it is said that the Israelites should not offer sacrifice in euery place but onely in that place which God should choose to put his name there And this was onely one City although it was not alwaies the same For the Israelites had a Sanctuary which by Gods commandement Moyses made in the desert and this was placed in one Citie and this Citie was that which God did choose to place there his Sanctuary as it was first in Sile then in Nobe afterwards in Gabaon and lastly in Hierusalem and onely in that Citie it was lawfull for the Iewes to offer sacrifices and not in other places nor in the fields because then they should be accounted Idolaters Leuit. Chap. 17. 37 The second limitation was that they should not doe sacrifices in many Altars For albeit there was but one onely City where Sacrifices could be offered yet it might bee thought that there were many Altars vpon which they might be offered especially for that all Israel came sometimes to that place to offer sacrifices and yet it was not so For there was one onely Altar vpon which all things were burned and blood was offered And this Altar was not made by any of them that did offer sacrifice but it was that Altar which Moyses made in the desert after the manner and forme that God himselfe did describe vnto him Exod. 27. and it was called the Altar of Holocaust Exod. 38. Besides it was not lawfull to offer sacrifice in euery part of the City but only within the Sanctuary which remained firme in one part of the City and moreouer within the Sanctuary Sacrifice was not offered in euery place but onely vpon the Altar of Holocaust which was placed without the doore of the Tabernacle and to offer Sacrifice in another place it was vnlawfull Leuit. 17. and Iosue 22. Neuerthelesse in the same Sanctuary there were two Altars The one was called of Holocausts which had fiue cubites in length and as many in breadth and three in height The other of Incense which was onely one Cubite in length and another in breadth and two Cubites in height vpon the first all Sacrifices were offered Exod. 27. Leuit. 17. vpon the second Sacrifice was neuer offered but onely Incense was burned euery day twice morning and euening Exod. 30. But after that Salomon had built the Temple the Tabernacle of Moyses and that Altar ceased and then was made a greater Altar of Holocausts which was of brasse and it had twentie cubites in length and as many in breadth 2. Paralip 4. which according to the rules of Arithmeticke containeth foure hundred cubites square and was able to comprehend many sacrifices together but how great was the Altar of Incense made by Solomon the Scripture doth not mention The Altar of Incense was within the Temple but the Altar of Holocausts was without in the Court of the Temple which was called the Court of the Priests 38 Concerning the persons who were to offer sacrifice it is to be considered that almighty God to take away occasion of Idolatrie as he limited the places wherein sacrifices were to be offered so also hee would haue the Ministers therof to be limited for if euery man had bin permitted to offer sacrifice either Idolatrie it selfe or the rites and ceremonies of Idolaters might the more easily haue crept in and therefore he ordained that only Aaron and his sonnes and they that should descend from them should be consecrated Priests in Israel to whom he gaue authority to doe all rites and ceremonies as well of Sacrifices as of other things which ought to be done within the Sanctuary Num. 3.17.18 And hee appointed the rest of the Tribe of Leui whom as by a proper name we call Leuites to serue Aaron and his sonnes Num. 3. For these could doe nothing concerning those foure things which did peculiarly belong to the Priests to wit to offer Sacrifice to burne Incense to put vpon the Table holy breads which were called loaues of proposition Exod. 25. whereof the Priests onely could eate and to put the seuen lampes vpon the golden candlesticke and to haue care of them that they should giue light for these foure offices or ministeries did belong onely to the Priests but the office and ministerie of the Leuites was to serue the Priests in their office and to doe those things which are ordained Num. Chap. 1.3 8. as to haue a care and custody of the Tabernacle and all the furniture thereof of the Arke Table Candlesticke Altars vessels of the Sanctuary veile c. and to take downe and carry the Tabernacle when the campe was to goe forward and to set it vp when the people were
to campe againe c. 39 Concerning the ceremonies which were to be vsed and the sacrifices which were to be offered albeit in the law of Nature when there was no law of God which did restraine or limit any man to any kinde of ceremony or Sacrifice it was lawfull for euery man to doe what hee would vnlesse it were euill of it selfe and therefore euery man as being considered by himselfe might offer what sacrifice or vse what kinde of ceremony he pleased but as he was a part and member of some Communitie he could vse no other sacrifice or ceremony then that which the Communitie or the supreme Gouernours thereof whose Minister he was did appoint yet in the law written it was otherwise For as God himselfe did limite and determine the places and ministers to doe sacrifice so also he determined all the rites and ceremonies belonging to the worshipping of him whereof the whole booke of Leuiticus doth treate But concerning the Sacrifices God appointed in generall three kindes to wit Holocausts a sacrifice for sinne and a Pacificke hoste Num. 6. and vnder these three were comprehended all other particular kindes of sacrifices of all which and of the ceremonies belonging to them it is treated from the first Chapter of Leuiticus to the eight What other authority the Priests of the olde Testament had in expounding and interpreting the law of God when any doubt or difficulty should arise I declared aboue in the former Chapter when I examined that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubtfull c. 40 Now lastly concerning the law of Christ wherein all the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawes of the old Testament doe cease insomuch that no Christian now is bound to obserue any one of those lawes by vertue and force of the law it is to be considered that our Sauiour Christ hath now instituted a new Priesthood and a new Sacrifice And albeit he hath determined and limited the persons who are to offer Sacrifice and the Sacrifice which is to be offered for the persons or Priests to offer Sacrifice he hath appointed onely his twelue Apostles and those who are duely consecrated and ordained by them or their Successours and the Sacrifice which they ought to offer is one onely to wit the vnbloody offering of his immaculate body and blood vnder the visible formes of bread and wine by vsing those words which he himselfe in his last Supper did vse and institute yet he did neither limit the place where this Sacrifice should be offered nor the ceremonies which were to be vsed in the offering thereof but he left these to the disposition of the Church and to the supreme Pastours or Gouernours thereof to determine them as they should thinke conuenient Besides this authoritie which Christ gaue to the Priests of the new law ouer his true body he gaue them also authority and Iurisdiction ouer his mysticall body which are the faithfull which authority and Iurisdiction is signified by the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour promised to S. Peter and in his person to the rest of the Apostles whom he did represent of which authority I haue spoken somewhat in the former chapter and also in my Apologie Theologicall Disputation and Appendix thereunto 41 And from hence the Reader may easily gather two things the one is the difference betwixt the Priests in the law of Nature and in the law written for that both in the law of Moyses and of Christ the Priests had not their authoritie from men but from GOD neither was it in the power of the temporall common-wealth to extend or diminish their Priestly authoritie but in the law of Nature the Priests had their authoritie from the ciuill Communitie or common-wealth whereof they were parts and members and in whose name and by whose authoritie they were made Priests and had power to offer sacrifice and it was in the power of the common-wealth to extend or diminish or to take quite away their Priestly authority and to appoint and ordaine in what manner and with what ceremonies and what things they should Sacrifice to God and to determine of all things concerning Religion yea and the common-wealth did also determine what Gods they were to woorship and therefore it was decreed by the Senate of Rome that no Emperour should be canonized or made God Alexand. l â—6 cap. 4. but by the decree of the Senate 42 The second which followeth from the former is that considering in the law of nature the Priesthood was wholly subiect and dependent vpon the ciuill Common-wealth in so much that the Priests in the law of nature were subiect and subordinate not onely in temporals but also in spirituals and in all things which concerned Religion and the publike seruice of God to the supreme Gouernours of the temporall Common-wealth from whom they receiued all their Priestly authoritie Mr. Fitzherbert very vnlearnedly concludeth that according to the law of nature the temporall State and power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that the supreme temporall Magistrate was commanded and corrected with temporall punishments as occasion required by the spirituall seeing that the quite contrarie I haue most cleerly conuinced out of Abulensis and the same may very plainely be gathered from the doctrine of Sotus Valentia Suarez Vasquer and other Diuines treating either of Sacrifices in generall or of the Sacrifice of the Masse or of the Priesthood of Christ And therefore I may bouldly say that if in the law of nature an Oath had beene propounded by the ciuill Common-wealth wherin the Religious Priests should haue acknowledged that they might not only for temporall crimes but also for spirituall and which meerely concerned Religion be punished by the supreme temporall Gouernour with temporall punishments and also be depriued of their Priestly function and authoritie the Priests would haue admitted it as lawfull And if an Oath had beene propounded by the Priests to haue themselues exempted from the authoritie of the supreme temporall Gouernour euen in spirituall or religious affaires much lesse in temporall the Ciuill Common-wealth or supreme Gouernours thereof would not haue admitted it as lawfull but would haue punished the Priests for presuming to vsurpe such an authoritie 43 Wherefore those last words of my Aduersarie to Mr. Barlow are a most vaine friuolous and idle florish For albeit the ancient Philosophers and learned Paynims being guided by the law of Nature and light of naturall reason whose doctrine also in this point our moderne Diuines doe follow did cleerely see that in the law of Nature when no positiue law of God was published the Ciuill common-wealth or supreme gouernours thereof had the chiefe command and authoritie in all matters as well concerning Religion as State to whom the Religious Priests were wholy subiect as well in spirituall or religious as in temporall affaires yet they did not turne
the word vpside downe or peruerted the course of Nature but knew right well that things lesse perfect are not to be preferred before the more perfect the body before the soule sense before reason temporall things before spirituall policie before Religion earth before heauen and the world before God And therefore there is none but such ignorant men as my Aduersarie is that can or will affirme the new Oath of allegiance to be repugnant to the law of Nature or to the light of nature reason for that it denyeth the authoritie of spirituall Pastours to punish temporally ablute Princes or to depriue them of their kingdomes or dominions 44 And by this the insufficiencie of the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Discourse will easily appeare This was some part saith he i Pag. 101. num 12. of my Discourse in my Supplement concerning the law of Nature whereby thou seest good Reader that I haue sufficiently shewed two things the one that according to the law of Nature the temporall state and power is subordinate and subiect to the spirituall when they are conioined in one body no lesse then the familie is subordinate and subiect to the Common-wealth in like case because the end of the temporall power is subordinate to the end of the spirituall power which ouerthroweth my Aduersaries false principle to wit that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill Societie are so distinct in nature and office that though they be ioined together yet they haue no dependance the one of the other vpon which false ground and vaine supposition often affirmed by Barclay and him and neuer proued by either of them they found all their false doctrine 45 But how vntrue this is I haue already shewed For in the law of Nature the temporall state and power was not subiect and subordinate to the spirituall or Religious except only in excellencie and nobilitie whereof there is no question but contrariwise the Priests of the law of Nature were subiect in spirituall and religious affaires to the supreme ciuill Gouernour when they were distinct persons neither did they make two distinct Common-wealths as they doe in the law written but the ciuill Common-wealth had authoritie to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state and not only to make Priests and to giue them Priestly power but also to increase diminish alter or to take away from them their Priestly authoritie and to determine of all things both temporall and spirituall which is not so in the law written wherein Priests haue their authoritie from the positiue institution and law of God himselfe 46 True it is that the Heathen Common-wealths gaue great authoritie priueledges and exemptions to those persons whom they chose and appointed to be their Priests especially to the chiefe Priest or Bishop whereof reade Alexander lib. 2. cap. 8. and lib. 3. cap. 27. to whom the Romanes gaue such great honour that they did esteeme him next to the King or supreme temporall Prince and gaue him authoritie to command and also to punish the King of sacred rites and all the other inferiour Priests Yea euen to Vestall Virgins who were Priests of the Goddesse Vesta such honour was giuen by the Romanes that if by chance they should meete any malefactour that was led to death hee should not for that time be put to death Plutarch in Numa Alex. lib. 5. cap. 12. vpon condition that the Virgin must sweare that her meeting of him was casuall and not of purpose But from hence it cannot be gathered that the religious Priests had by the law of Nature such authoritie priueledges and prerogatiues but only that the Common-wealth in honour of Religion did grant them such temporall honour and authoritie and would haue them to be obeyed in some matters of great moment vnder paine of death 47 Now in the new law in what manner the temporall Common-wealth or rather those persons who are parts and members therof are subiect to spirituall Pastours I haue at large declared aboue in the second part where I haue sufficiently proued out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds that the coniunction of temporall power and of spirituall subiection in the same Christian man is not sufficient to make the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth among Christians one totall body or Common-wealth whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head for then the Pope must be both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of all Christendome and Christians and that although they should make one totall body or Common-wealth whereof Christ only is the head in that manner as I there declared yet from thence it could not be concluded that the temporall power or Common-wealth is per se and naturally subiect and subordinate to the spirituall power or Common-wealth but only that Christian Princes not as they haue temporall power but as being members of the Church of Christ they haue spirituall subiection and consequently in spiritualls and not in temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power or common-wealth and the spirituall Pastours thereof And there also I answered all the arguments which D. Schulckenius brought to proue the contrarie Let Mr. Fitzherbert impugne that Treatise and then he may haue some cause to brag that this doctrine of mine and Barclaies is a false and vaine supposition of our owne In the meane time the Reader may cleerely see how vainely and friuolously he hath proued by the law of Nature that the temporall power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that in the law of Nature Religious Priests as they were such might command and correct temporally the temporall Common-wealth or supreme temporall Prince whereas the quite contrary is manifest by the law of nature 48 The other thing saith Mr. Fitzherbert that I haue shewed is that by reason of this naturall subordination and subiection of the lawes and lesse perfect Societies to the higher and more perfect it is most conforme to nature that the head of the Church who is the supreme spirituall Magistrate may command and correct all inferiour Magistrates as well temporall as spirituall when the necessitie either of the whole body or of the Church only which is the most perfect and supreme Societie doth require it as in like case the supreme ciuill Magistrate who is Prince and head of the Common-wealth iustly commandeth and punisheth the heads of Families or Cities notwithstanding that the said Families and Cities are distinct Societies and bodies and haue their lawes and Magistrates apart no lesse then the Common-wealth and Church haue theirs 49 But first it is vntrue that there is any naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall power or Common-wealth to the spirituall except in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and whereof no man maketh doubt neither doth the dignity and perfection of the more noble and excellent Societie inferre a superioritie in command and authoritie ouer the lesse worthy and lesse noble Societie vnlesse we will haue the companie of Goldsmiths to haue
is no naturall subordination of any Ciuill Societie to the Church of Christ except only in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and that in the law of Nature it belonged to the Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe to dispose and order all things as well concerning Religion as Ciuill matters as to ordaine Priests to appoint with what kind of Sacrifices and in what maner and place God should be publikely worshipped to giue or take away to extend or diminish the authoritie dignitie and priuiledges of Religious Priests as the Common-wealth whose Ministers they were and to whom they were subiect not onely in temporalls but also in spiritualls should thinke expedient and therefore to make a naturall subordination subiection not only in dignitie and perfection but also in power and authority of the ciuil common-wealth to the Church of Christ is cleerly repugnant to nature to all natural reason 55 Secondly I also shewed the manifest difference betwixt families cities and all such like inferiour Ciuill Societies being compared to the whole Ciuill Common-wealth and betwixt the whole Ciuill Common-wealth being compared to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ for that not only the persons of all inferiour ciuill Societies but also the Societies themselues which are only compounded of ciuill power are true parts members of the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth and that therefore the supreame ciuill Magistrate or Prince who hath power to dispose of the whole ciuill body or common-wealth hath power also to dispose of euery part and member thereof But the temporall Common-wealth it selfe which is compounded only of ciuill power is not a part and member of the Church of Christ which is compounded onely of spirituall and not ciuill or temporall authoritie as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe confesseth m Contra Barc c. 12. p. 137 in Schulck pag. 203. And therefore it doeth not follow by the same reason as my Aduersarie heere affirmeth that the supreame head of the Church of Christ may dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the ciuill common-wealth because the supreame Prince of the ciuill common-wealth may dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all other inferiour ciuill Societies And whereas hee supposeth that to dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the ciuill common-wealth may bee absolutely necessarie for the conseruation of the Church is a meere fiction and idle supposition of his owne braine and although it were so necessarie yet it should not belong to spirituall Pastours who haue no ciuill power but to Christian Princes to dispose thereof as I haue shewed aboue And as for the comparison of the soule and body which all my Aduersaries doe so often inculcate I haue also shewed before n Part. 2. c. 8. most cleerely that it is no fit similitude to proue their purpose but maketh flat against them both because the temporall and spirituall common-wealth doe not make one totall body or compound in that manner as the body and soule doe make one man and also because albeit the soule may command the body to punish it selfe yet shee her selfe cannot punish the body without the helpe and concurrance of the body it selfe and therefore neither can the Church of Christ inflict temporall punishments without the helpe and concurrance of the temporall common-wealth 56 But now Mr. Fitzherbert will make forsooth all the matter more cleare And all this saith he o p. 103. nu 16 will bee yet more cleare if wee consider the weake reason that Widdrington giueth of his conceipt to prooue that the supreame spirituall power cannot punish temporally Wid. in Admon ad Lect. nu 17. For thus hee saith Atque ita recta ratio dictat vt superior quicunque c. And so right or true reason teacheth that euery Superior may punish his inferiour with some penaltie that is proportionate to his authority but that any other besides him that is supreame Gouernor of the ciuill cōmon-wealth may punish his inferiour with the paine or punishment of death or maiming or of the depriuatiō of all his goods this cannot be deduced from the rule or prescript of true reason Thus saith hee But to omit to speake of bloodie punishments by death or maiming which are neuer vsed by the Church and therefore are idly mentioned heere by my Aduersarie it is to bee noted that in the rest hee contradicteth not onely the ancient and common practise of the Church yea the holy Scriptures as I shall shew p Iufra nu 18.19.20 Item cap. 7.9.10.11 12. per totum after a while but also his owne grant and concession 57 If the prudent Reader had not sufficiently seene before the extreame vanitie palpable ignorance and irreligious conscience of this my Aduersarie hee might easily conceiue me to bee a very bad ignorant and inconsiderate man for contradicting as hee saith not onely the ancient and common practise of the Church yea and the holy Scriptures but also my owne graunt and concession but such bragging and slanderous words are as you haue often seene frequent in this mans mouth First therefore those words of mine Atque ita recta ratio dictat c. And so true reason teacheth c. were not brought by me as a reason but as a conclusion of that I saide before concerning the authoritie of Superiours to punish their subiects or inferiours with some kinde of punishments proportionate to their Coerciue power 58 Secondly it is vntrue that bloodie punishments by death or maiming are idly mentioned heere by mee seeing that hee himselfe in the former paragraph did affirme that the head of the Church may by way not only of commandement but also of punishment dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the Ciuill Common-wealth and consequently both of goods and bodies whereof no doubt the ciuill common-wealth may dispose and in the second Chapter also hee expresly taught that the Pope hauing power ouer my soule and being withall the supreame Gouernour of the whole Church hath also power ouer my life albeit with the liues of Princes it being an odious question hee will not meddle and a little after hee affirmeth that the Pope hath power ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians and consequently according to his doctrine also of all Christian Kings and Princes Why then doth he now say that bloodie punishments by death or maiming are idly mentioned heere by mee when I affirme that none but the supreame ciuill Superiour hath power to punish his subiect or inferiour with the punishment of death maiming or depriuation of goods But marke I pray you his goodly reason because forsooth bloodie punishments by death or maiming are neuer vsed by the Church whereas the question betwixt vs was not whether the Church doeth actually vse bloodie punishments for of this I spake not one word in this place albeit Pope Adrian did ordaine in the Canon law q In cap. Delatori 5. q. 6. that the tongues of some malefactours should bee pulled out and the
this no lesse in commanding then in punishing For corporall or temporall things to become spirituall things or to be reduced thereto is nothing else then that in corporall and temporall things there may bee found vertue or vice which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power and that therefore all temporall things and also all temporall punishments as they may become spirituall things or reduced thereto that is as by the relaâ—ion of them to Gods gloty and the health of soules there may reside in them vertue or vice may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall directiue or commanding power which hath for her acts and obiects the commaunding of vertue and the forbidding of vice but the act and obiect of the spirituall coerciue power is the inflicting and not the commanding of spirituall punishments and no relation of temporall punishments to Gods glory or to the health of soules can make them to bee spirituall punishments for that death exile priuation of goods c. although by the reference of them to Gods glory and the health of soules they may become spirituall actions that is in them may reside vertue or vice yet they can neuer become spirituall punishments and therefore although they may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power for that the obiect of the spirituall commanding power are all things wherein vertue or vice may be found yet they cannot be inflicted by the spirituall coerciue power which hath for her obiect the inflicting onely of spirituall and not of temporall punishments vnlesse the reference of temporall punishments to the glory of God and the health of soules can make temporall punishments to become I doe not say spirituall things but spirituall and not temporall punishments which is impossible And therefore with great reason I did admit the one to wit that the spirituall Superiour may commaund temporall punishments as they become spirituall things or are reduced thereunto that is to things wherein vertue or vice may be found and did reiect the other to wit that the Spirituall Superiour may in regard of the same reference or reduction inflict also temporall punishments for that no reference or reduction of the inflicting of temporall punishments to Gods glory and the health of soules can make temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments or the inflicting of temporall punishments to be the inflicting of spirituall punishments And therefore you may see I will not say with what probabilitie but with what palpable ignorance Mr. Fitzherbert i Suprat 2. nu 10. accuseth me of contradiction in this point and calleth it before a friuolous distinction of mine 74 And from this also which I haue said two other things may easily bee gathered The one is that to know what punishments are the obiect of the spirituall coerciue or punishing power wee haue no other way a priori then the holy Scriptures wherein the institution and law of Christ is contained and the reason is because there is no naturall necessitie that spirituall Pastours must haue authority to inflict temporall punishments and by the law of nature and the auncient Romanes and other Heathen common-wealths who were guided by the light of naturall reason I haue sufficiently prooued before that this naturall subordination and subiection especially in coerciue or punishing temporall authority or authority to punish temporally of the ciuill common-wealth to religious Priests which my Aduersary supposeth is a very vaine and idle fiction or Chymaera faigned without any colour or shew of true naturall reason Wherefore seeing that Christ our Sauiour might by his absolute power haue giuen to the spirituall Pastours of his Church a greater or lesser coerciue or punishing authority then hee hath giuen them yea and might haue giuen them no coerciue authority or power to punish at all so much as with spirituall Censures to know what coerciue or punishing power he hath actually giuen them cannot be proued by the law of Nature or by naturall reason but onely by the holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers who are the sincere Expositours thereof and liued before this controuersie concerning the Popes temporall authority ouer temporall Princes arose and therefore could neither fauour the one side nor the other 75 The second is that there is but little difference except in words betwixt the doctrine of the Diuines and Canonists concerning the spirituall coerciue or punishing power For although the Canonists doe suppose that all the power as well coerciue as directiue which Christ hath giuen to the Pastors of his Church is in ordine ad bonum spirituale in order to spirituall good or for the sauing of soules which the Diuines call indirectly yet because the Canonists hold that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath supreme authoritie to inflict as well temporall as spirituall punishments and consequently to punish all Christians euen temporall Princes as well temporally as spiritually therefore they feare not to affirme conformably to their grounds that the Pope is the supreme temporall and spirituall Monarch of the whole Christian world and hath true temporall coerciue authoritie But the Diuines although in effect grant as much yet they differ in words and that coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours which the Canonists call temporall for that it worketh the same temporall effect and hath the selfe same obiect which the temporall or ciuill coerciue authoritie hath wil not forsooth call it temporall authoritie but spirituall authoritie in temporalls and that not directly but indirectly or in order to spirituall good whereas the Canonists doe also hold that the Popes temporall coerciue authoritie or his coerciue authoritie in temporalls is also in order to spirituall good But this distinction of directly and indirectly was purposely inuented by the later Diuines to make their doctrine concerning the Popes authoritie to dispose of all temporalls and to inflict temporall punishments to be more plausible to the vulgar sort and to be lesse odious to Christian Princes and their loyall subiects who can not brooke to heare any man say that absolute and Soueraigne Princes are not supreme but subiect in temporalls to spirituall Pastours whereas in effect and very deed the Diuines notwithstanding this their distinction doe make absolute Princes whom the ancient Fathers with vniforme consent haue euer accounted to be next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be temporally punished but by GOD alone to be as much subiect in temporalls to spirituall Pastors and to be no lesse temporally punished by them then the Canonists doe So that the difference betwixt their opinions concerning the coerciue power of spirituall Pastours is rather verball and only about words them reall and in very deede 76 Seeing therefore that to haue power and authoritie directly in temporalls is nothing else then to haue power in temporalls as they are temporall and to haue power indirectly in temporalls is to haue power in temporalls not as they are temporall but as the Diuines say in order to spirituall good
being conuerted to the faith cannot remaine with the other consort who is not conuerted without offence or iniurie to GOD or if the partie who is not conuerted will needes depart from the Christian it is lawfull also for the Christian to depart and marrie another and the Church also may in the like case permit and ordaine the same for this is only to declare the law of GOD. But that which Fitzherbert addeth that in the like case the Church may ordaine the same not only for the benefit of the partie innocent but also for the iust punishment of the offender is repugnant to the common doctrine of Diuines for the offender in S. Pauls case was an infidell and not a Christian who only according to the common opinion of Diuines can be punished by the Church for what is it to me saith S. Paul ſ 1. Cor. 5. to iudge of them that are without for them that are without GOD will iudge But if Mr. Fitzherb meaning be that the Church may permit and ordaine the same concerning the separation of man and wife who both are Christians which the Apostle did permit and ordaine concerning the separation of man and wife whereof the one is become a Christian and the other remaineth still an infidell this also is most vntrue For the Apostle did not onely permit that the conuerted wife might depart from the companie of her husband who still remained an infidell and would not conuerse with her without iniurie to the Creatour but also that shee might dissolue the bond of matrimonie although by carnall copulation it were consummated and might marrie another husband but the Church cannot dissolue the bond of matrimonie if it be once consummated betwixt man and wife who both are Christians either for the punishment of the offender or for the benefit of the partie innocent 89 Neuerthelesse I doe not deny that when both the man and wife are Christians and the one cannot liue with the other without danger of being drawne into heresie or some other grieuous sinne the Church hath authoritie to command the partie that is in danger of being peruerted to leaue the companie of the other consort and so by way of command to punish the offender but this is nothing to that which Mr. Fitzherbert pretended to prooue to wit that the Church hath power to inflict temporall punishments and that I contradicted my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour might command temporall punishments but not inflict them For if the wife or husband in this case of spiritual danger will stil remaine with the other consort against the commandement of the Church or rather against the law of GOD and Nature which do forbid all spirituall danger can the Church in this case either dissolue the bond of matrimonie or depriue them of the right which either of them haue to performe the acts of matrimonie or else depriue the offender of his life libertie or goods or only punish him by inflicting spirituall or Ecclesiasticall censures This is the maine difficultie which is not so much as mentioned in all the arguments and authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert heere hath brought 90 But now in the next paragraph it may seeme that hee commeth somewhat neere to the point of the difficultie And in like maner saith hee t pag. 106. nu 20. there is no doubt but that the Church may punish an heretike by discharging his children from their filiall and naturall obligation to him exempting them from his authoritie when it shall bee necessarie for their spirituall good Concil Tolet. 4. can 59. as it may appeare by a Canon of the fourth Councell of Toledo which ordaineth that the baptized children of Iewes shall bee separated from their parents least they may be infected with their errour See Molina de Instit tract 2. disp 229. And the like is to bee said of the discharge of slaues and bondmen from the power and authoritie of their Lords when the said slaues are Catholikes and their Lords Heretikes for in that case the Church may not onely prouide for the soule of the Catholike but also iustly punish the hereticall Lord by granting freedome to the slaue And for the same reason the Church hath power to discharge subiects from their bond of obedience and allegiance to an hereticall Prince when there is euident danger of their soules and great detriment to the Church for the bond of allegiance to the Prince is not greater then the obligation of the Sonne to the Father the Wife to the Husband and the slaue to his Lord. 91 But all this I did fully answere in my Appendix u Part. 1. sec 9. to Suarez of whom my Aduersarie hath borrowed these arguments For albeit there be a naturall obligation whereby children are bound to honour and reuerence their Parents and from which without doubt the Church hath not authoritie to discharge the children of an heretike Sot l. 2. de Iust q. 3. ar 8. Valentia tom 2. disp 7. q. 4. punct 6. Vasq in 1am secundae tom 2. disp 179 cap. 2. Suarez lib. 2. de Leg. cap. 14. Salas q. 94. s◠9 vnlesse my vnlearned Aduersarie will graunt that the Church hath power to discharge one from that to which hee is otherwise bound by the law of Nature which is a Paradox in Diuinitie as you may see in Sotus Valentia Vasquez Suarez Salas and others who treate of lawes in so much that S. Thomas and his followers whose opinion Vasquez and many others doe approoue for the more probable doe affirme that God himselfe cannot dispence in the law of Nature or in any naturall precept contained in the Decalogue or ten Commandements as is this to honour Father and Mother Neuerthelesse what other naturall obligation there is besides this by which children are by the law of nature bound to honour and reuerence their Parents and from which the Church as Mr. Fitzherbert saith hath authority to discharge the children of an heretike I thinke he himselfe doth not well vnderstand but it seemeth he taketh honour or reuerence obedience which is due to Parents for all one which neuerthelesse are very much different 92 For all the power and authoritie which Parents haue now de facto to command their children considering that both Parents and children are now de facto euen in things belonging to the particular Family or Oeconomie parts and members of the Ciuill Common-wealth is ciuill and proceedeth from ciuill authority and may be enlarged diminished altered yea and quite taken away by the temporall Common-wealth or the supreame gouernour thereof and all obedience which children now de facto being parts and members of the Ciuill Common-wealth doe owe to their Parents is ciuill and dependeth vpon the lawes and ordinances of temporall Princes by whom it may be enlarged or restrained or quite taken away And therefore as Molina cited by my Aduersary Molina tract 2. de Instit disp 237. Glossa § ius autem
Instit de patr potest Glossa ibidem Moli disp 228. and the Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doe well obserue the authoritie which Parents haue ouer their children was introduced by the Ciuill law of the Romanes from the time as the Glosse saith of Romulus the effects of which fatherly power authoritie or command the Glosse doth in briefe but Molina more at large set downe 93 Wherefore the Reader may by the way obserue that there is a great difference to be made betwixt the power and authority which Parents now liuing in ciuill Society haue ouer their Children consequently the obedience of Children answerable thereunto and the power and authority which the Ciuill Common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince haue ouer subiects because all the authority and command which Parents haue ouer their children proceedeth from the Ciuill Common-wealth and is wholy depending thereon and not from the law of nature and therefore the obedience which children owe to their Parents supposing them to be Parents cannot properly be called naturall but ciuill obedience but the supreme authoritie that the temporall Common-wealth hath ouer her subiects supposing the aduniting of men in Ciuill Societie Bellar. lib. 3. de Laicis cap. 6. is euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine deriued from the law of nature Yea also it is very probable and affirmed by diuers learned men as I haue shewed heretofore x In Append. cōtra D. Schulcken calumnia 16. nu 8. that the supreame power and authority which temporall Princes haue ouer their subiects doth also proceed from the law of nature and prescript of naturall reason although their title or the designing of their persons to be Princes is not deriued from the law of nature but from the Common-wealth it selfe for which cause wee may truely and properly call that obedience which subiects owe to the ciuill Common-wealth or the Soueraigne Prince thereof not onely ciuill but also naturall obedience or allegiance consequently the bond thereof to be greater then the obligation of the Sonne to his Father the wife to the Husband and the slaue to his Lord. 94 Now to Mr Fitzherberts argument I answered in the said Appendix to Suarez that as the power and authority which Parents haue ouer their children is granted to them by the ciuill Common-wealth so also it cannot be taken away from them but by Ciuill authority And therefore those Canons either of Popes or Councels wherein children are exempted from the power and authoritie which by the Ciuill law their Parents haue ouer them doe either confirme that which was first decreed by the Imperiall law or they are made with the expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or they doe onely declare the law of God and nature to wit that children are to forsake the company of their Parents when by conuersing with them they are in danger to offend their Creatour As when the Father is accounted to be dead ciuilly either by some great sinne committed by him as heresie and treason or otherwise or if he make profession in an approued Religion whereby he is accounted dead to the world his Children are discharged by the Ciuill law from the power which he had ouer them as you may see in Molina in the place whereto my Aduersary remitteth his reader For it is a rule of the Ciuill law that naturall and ciuill death are equiualent concerning ciuill acts as noteth the Glosse vpon Leg. si decesserit ff qui satisdare So likewise if one be ordained a Bishop he is discharged thereby from the power and authority which his Father hath ouer him Authent de Sanct. Episcopis cap. 3. § Si uero contigerit And in this particular case which Mr. Fitzherbert here vrgeth that decree of the fourth Councell of Toledo was made by the authority and consent of King Sisennandus as I haue shewed more at large in that Appendix against Suarez Besides the decree of that Councell if it be vnderstood of Children which haue discretion is onely a declaration as I there obserued of the law of God and Nature whereby the baptized children of Iewes are freed not from the power or right which Parents haue ouer their Children but onely from their company for that the law of God and Nature forbiddeth all conuersation whereby one may incurre probable danger of reuolting from the faith or falling into any other sinne 95 And the like is to be said of the discharge of slaues and bondmen from the company of their Lords when the said slaues are Catholikes and their Lords heretikes For although these slaues if they be in danger to be peruerted may by the law of God Nature absent themselus from the company of their Lords vntil the danger be past as likewise a catholike wife may depart frō the company of her husband who is an heretike if she be in danger of being peruerted by his company this the Church hath power to declare and command them vnder paine of spirituall Censures to performe Neuerthelesse the Church hath no authority to dissolue the bond of Matrimony or to take away the right or fatherly power which hereticall Parents haue ouer their Children or to release the bond of slauery by which Lords haue a right or dominion ouer their slaues And therefore when the danger of being peruerted is past the wife is bound to returne to her Husband the Child to his Father and the bondman to his Lord vnlesse by the authority of the temporall Prince the Childe bee freed from the right and power which his Father had ouer him and the slaue from his bondage And therefore à fortiori and by a stronger reason the Church hath not authority to discharge subiects from the bond of obedience and allegiance to an hereticall Prince both for that thisis a temporall and ciuill punishment which therefore to inflict doth not belong to spirituall power and also for that temporall Princes being in temporals next vnder God cannot be temporally punished but by God alone and also because this bond of allegiance is naturall whereas the other obligations by which a wife a childe a slaue are bound to obey her husband his Father his Lord is ciuill and deriued from the Ciuill Common-wealth Neuerthelesse I doe not denie that the Church by a declaratiue precept may command the subiect to forsake the company of his Prince yea and perchance to depart the land if by such staying he be in probable danger to be peruerted yet still hee remaineth subiect to his Prince and when this danger is past he is bound by vertue of his allegiance to returne againe at the commandement of his Prince 96 And by this it is manifest how grossely Mr. Fitzherbert is deceiued in affirming so boldly That the bond of allegiance to the Prince is not greater then the obligation of the Sonne to the Father the Wife to the Husband and the Slaue to his Lord Seeing that all the obedience which a Childe oweth to his
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
punishing power but also spirituall things by reason of some vnlawfull disturbance of the publike temporall peace annexed vnto them may sometimes take the nature of temporall things and therefore may be forbidden by the temporall power of the Ciuill common-wealth which hath for the obiect of her directiue power the procuring and maintaining of publike peace and the shunning of all vnlawfull disturbance of this temporall peace in what actions soeuer either temporall or spirituall they are to be found and consequently may be also punished if we abstract from the priueledges of Princes and Ecclesiasticall Canons with temporall punishments which only are the obiect of the temporall coerciue power For what sensible man can deny that temporall Princes haue authoritie if we regard the nature and obiects of temporall power to forbid all men whatsoeuer that are subiect to their directiue power as also according to the common doctrine of Diuines are Cleargie men not to disturbe wrongfully the publike temporall peace by any actions whatsoeuer and to punish all them that shall transgresse their iust command and are subiect to their coerciue power with temporall punishments and that when the temporall Prince forbiddeth all vnlawfull poysonings the vnlawfull poysoning of men by spirituall actions as by baptizing with poisoned water is not contained vnder this command 105 Secondly it is not true that granting once as I often doe that temporall things may take the nature of spirituall things by reason of sinne annexed it must follow thereon as Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth that the spirituall Superiour may punish in temporall things or which he taketh for all one may inflict temporall punishments and the perspicuous reason heereof I alledged before for although temporall punishments doe become spirituall things when the consideration of sinne entereth for which they may be subiect to the directiue power of the Church which hath for her obiect vertue or vice and consequently they may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power of the Church as it is directiue yet still they remaine temporall punishments which are only subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of temporall Princes and therefore cannot be vsed or inflicted by the coerciue or punishing power of the Church which hath for her obiect spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures and not temporall punishments Wherefore vnlesse the consideration of sinne can make which is impossible temporall punishments to be I doe not say spirituall things but spirituall punishments it can neuer make temporall punishments to be the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue although it maketh them to be the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue But my Aduersarie by not distinguishing these two powers and their proper acts and obiects would blind the vnderstanding of his vnlearned Reader with a confused reduction of temporall things to spirituall which this distinction of the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of either of them doth make most plaine and manifest 106 Also if temporall things saith Mr. Fitzherbert l Pag. 1. 8. nu 23. 24. may be come spirituall by reason of sinne annexed why shall they not also haue a spirituall nature and qualitie by the connexion of some vertue and specially when they are applied as I haue said before to a spirituall end as to the seruice and glory of God which is the end of all things spirituall and temporall to which purpose it may be obserued Rom. 12. that S. Paul exhorted the Romaines to exhibite their bodies hostiam viuentem sanctam Deo placentem c. a liuing sacrifice holy and pleasing God giuing to vnderstand that our bodies goods and what temporall thing soeuer is subiect to our soule being dedicated and applyed to Gods seruice and the good of the soule is sanctified therby and becommeth spirituall Whereupon it followeth that whensoeuer a spirituall Superiour punisheth his temporall subiects in their bodies or goods for satisfaction of their sinnes and for the seruice of God and the Church and the good of soules their corporall and temporall punishments becommeth spirituall by reason of the end and the vertue annexed and consequently is most lawfull and iust euen according to my Aduersarie Widdringtons owne doctrine 107 Whereto I also adde that whereas Widdrington saith that euerie Superiour may punish his subiects with penalties proportionate to his authoritie he must needes grant the same in this case for albeit temporall goods haue no naturall proportion with spirituall things yet they haue a morall proportion therewith because they are not able instruments of good workes â— Pet. 2. in which respect S. Peter calleth Almes and other good workes spirituales Hostias spirituall Sacrifices albeit they consist in the vse and imployment of temporall things and therefore when temporall things are necessarie to a spirituall end they may be disposed of by the Church as proportionate to the end whereto they are necessarie 108 No man maketh any doubt but that temporall things may become spirituall not only by reason of sinne but also of vertue annexed especially when they are applyed to a spirituall end as to the seruice and glory of God who is the end of all things spirituall and temporall and therefore when one doth punish his body by fasting discipline hairecloath or such like for the satisfaction of his sinnes and for the seruice of God although they be corporall punishments yet they are vertuous actions and in that regard spirituall things and consequently subiect to the spirituall power of the Church as it is directiue But from hence it doth not follow that these temporall punishments by reason of vertue annexed doe become spirituall punishments but only vertuous actions and in that regard spirituall things for still they remaine temporall punishments and therefore not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church as it is coerciue which hath for her obiect only the vsing and inflicting of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall not temporall or Ciuill punishments Wherefore a spirituall Superiour hath no authoritie by the institution of Christ to punish in body or goods for any end whatsoeuer by way of constraint his spirituall subiects whether they be Clearkes or Lay-men whom Mr. Fitzherbert improperly calleth his temporall Subiects for although they be temporall men yet comparing them to spirituall Superiours they are spirituall not temporall Subiects for that the obiect of the spirituall coerciue power are not temporall or corporall but only spirituall Censures or punishments although he may as I said command such corporall punishments when they are necessarie for the good of the soule in which case they become spirituall things to wit vertuous actions which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power But the cause of Mr. Fitzherberts errour is for that he doth not distinguish betwixt spirituall or temporall things and spirituall or temporall punishments and betwixt the acts and obiects of the spirituall directiue and of the spirituall coerciue power for although temporall punishments by reason of
hitherto he hath brought are only to demonstrate both the weakenesse of his cause and also his fraud and ignorance in dissembling the true state of the question in almost euery particular difficultie and confounding his Readers vnderstanding with ambiguous words and sentences which being once explained and the ambiguitie of them laid open doe foorthwith discouer either his want of learning or sinceritie as you may see almost in euery Chapter Neither is this his new coined Catholike faith concerning the Popes power to depose Princes agreeable to the vniuersall and continuall custome of the Catholike Church both for that this custome I doe not say of the Church but of some Popes to depose Princes began first by Pope Gregorie the seuenth Onuphr lib. 4. de varia creat Rom. Pont. who was the first Pope saith Onuphrius that contrarie to the custome of his Ancestours deposed the Emperour A thing vnheard of before that age and also for that it hath beene euer euen vnto this day contradicted by learned Catholikes and therefore neither in regard of time or persons can it bee called vniuersall neither can it be conuinced either by the holy Scriptures the practise of the Apostles the decrees of Popes or Councells or any one constitution of the Canon law What Cardinall Bellarmine hath proued against D. Barclay hath beene answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay to whose booke neither Card. Bellarmine not any other for him can in my iudgment make a sufficient Reply and what D. Schulckenius hath prooued against me you haue seene partly in this Treatise and partly in the Discouerie of his calumnies wherein I haue cleerely shewed all the arguments he bringeth to accuse me and my doctrine of heresie to be slanderous and himselfe to bee void of all Christian sinceritie modestie iustice and charitie 114 And as for D. Weston because his zeale is so furious his railing so intemperate and his arguments of so little force and for that very few of our Countrymen for ought I can learne are greatly moued but most men much scandalized with his vncharitable vnlearned and immodest Reply howsoeuer Mr. Fitzherbert expecting be like the same from him doth so exceedingly extoll it I thinke it neither needefull nor expedient vnlesse I should answere him in his railing humour according to the aduice of the wise man respondeaâ— stulto iuxto stultitiam suam which some vncharitable spirits who seeke all meanes to disgrace me would quickly reprehend in me to make him any formall answere especially seeing that all the arguments hee hath scraped together the chiefe heads whereof are heere in generall mentioned by my Aduersarie to wit the holy Scriptures and many examples of the Churches practise as diuers kinde of diuorces relaxation of debts exemption of children from the power of their Parents the abrogation of temporall and Ciuill lawes the dissolution of contracts and bargaines the imposition of temporall penalties and the right which spirituall Pastours haue to haue corporall maintenance and to take water to baptize children haue beene by me alreadie either in particular or in generall sufficiently answered 115 For first his arguments taken from the authoritie of the holy Scriptures I haue answered in particular and secondly all his other proofes and examples which are grounded vpon the practise of the Church and the Canons of Popes or Councells are to be vnderstood either of the disposing of spirituall things as of the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie which is not a meere ciuill contract but also a Sacrament and spirituall contract representing the vnion and coniunction of Christ our Sauiour with the mysticall body of his Church and therefore because it is both a Sacrament and also a ciuill contract it is now the more common opinion of Diuines p See Zanche lib. 7. de matrim disp 3. that Secular Princes if wee regard the nature of ciuill power haue also authoritie to ordaine the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie as it is a ciuill contract And although the Popes haue now reserued to themselues all causes belonging to Matrimonie in so much that Christian Princes cannot now lawfully dispose of the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie yet Petrus a Soto is of opinion Petr. Sot lec 4 de matrim versus finem that the Pope cannot depriue Princes of this their ciuill authoritie but that they of their owne accord and mooued by pietie haue yeelded to this reseruation of the Pope in regard that marriage is not onely a Ciuill contract but also a Sacrament of the Church or else they are so to bee vnderstood that they did confirme the Imperiall and Ciuill lawes or that they were made by the authoritie and expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or that they did declare the law of GOD and nature by which wee are commanded to auoide all probable danger of sinne or that they did only command and enioyne not inflict temporall penalties or finally that they did only argue a priuate right to some temporall thing but not by way of authoritie or superioritie to dispose of the same as not onely Priests but also priuate lay men may lawfully take another mans water to baptize a childe in extreame necessitie and spirituall Pastours haue a right to bee corporally releeued by them to whom they minister spirituall things as Saint Paul prooueth 1. Corinth 9. and in the ende concludeth So also our Lord ordained for them that preach the Gospel to liue of the Gospell 116 And can any iudicious man perswade himselfe that if Mr. Fitzherbert had thought in very deede these arguments of D. Weston to bee such conuincing proofes and demonstrations as in wordes hee boasteth he would for breuities sake haue forborne to vrge some of them in particular seeing that hee did not forbeare for breuities sake to take the greatest part of sixe or seuen chapters of this his Reply which containeth only seuenteene Chapters in all out of Fa Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name concerning the Canon of the Councell of Lateran and by that decree touching the exemption of Children which he hath singled out of the rest for that as I imagine it was also greatly vrged by Fa. Suarez to which aboue I haue fully answered you may easily coniecture what kinde of demonstrations are contained in the rest Wherefore to conclude this Chapter if the Reader will but briefly reduce to some syllogisticall forme or methode all the Rhetoricall flourish which Mr. Fitzherbert hath heere made concerning the law of Nature it will presently appeare that hee hath prooued nothing else by the law of Nature then that spirituall things are more perfect excellent and worthie then temporall and that the temporall common-wealth is in perfection worth and nobilitie subiect and subordinate to the spirituall but that Religious Priests haue authoritie to punish the Ciuill Common-wealth or supreame gouernours thereof especially with temporall punishments he hath no way proued by the law of Nature but the flat contrarie I haue most cleerely conuinced
other temporall commodities as I haue shewed in the last Chapter c Num. 18. 6 But truely I cannot but smile to see the vanitie of this man who though he see himselfe altogether vanquished yet he boasteth that hee is victorious and although he clearely perceiueth yea and almost expressely confesseth that his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. Chapter to be quite ouerthrowne yet hee braggeth that his cause is not thereby weakened or hurt any way but rather fortified and strengthened For if you note well what he granteth to wit That the penalty of corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the olde and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by excommunication you cannot but clearely see that his argument taken from Deuteronomy the 17. Chapter which onely text in particular I vndertooke to answere and which speaketh onely of corporall death is quite ouerthrowne and yet forsooth I doe hereby rather fortifie and strengthen then weaken or hurt any way his cause By which you may plainely perceiue what credit is to be giuen to the rest of his vaine-glorious brags seeing that in this so manifest an ouerthrow of his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. he is not ashamed to boast that I haue rather fortified and strengthened then weakened or hurt any way his cause But will Widdrington saith he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication includeth a temporall punishment c. The inference that Widdrington maketh is that from the wordes of Deuteronomy the 17. which speake onely of corporall death Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought no good argument for that according to the doctrine of Saint Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine which hee himselfe also will not denie The penalty of corporall death is now in the new law turned to the death of the soule by Excommunication Neither is it true that Excommunication being of it own nature a separation frō the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull doth of it owne nature include any temporall punishment at all as also I haue shewed in the last Chapter albeit I doe not denie that the Church hath now by way of command annexed to Excommunication some temporall penalties but not by way of inflicting them as I declared in that place for I euer granted that the Church hath power to command enioyne or impose temporall punishments but not to inflict them yet these to command and to inflict to impose and to dispose my Aduersary doth commonly confound 7 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 114. numer 4.5 it is euident that in the olde Testament euen the temporall Princes themselues were punished by depriuation of their right to their temporall states and dominions as e 1 Reg. 16. Saul by Samuel Athalia f 4 Reg. 11. by Ioiada Ioram g 4 Reg. 9. by one of the children of the Prophets who being sent by Elizeus annointed Iehu King of Israel to the end he might destroy Iesabel all the house of Achab. Also Ozias was not only corporally expelled out of the temple by the Priests confined by their sentence to liue priuately is his own house but according to the opinion doctrine of S. Chrysostome he ought also to haue beene wholy depriued of the gouernment as I haue signified before h Cap. 5. nu 21. 22. at large And therefore seeing he telleth vs how the penalty of corporall death which was ordained in the olde Testament is now fulfilled spiritually in the new let him also tell vs to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their states and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end that wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment and in the meane time let him acknowledge according to his owne doctrine and instance here produced that the Church may punish temporally seeing it may excommunicate and consequently depriue men of many temporall commodities 8 But this also is very vntrue that the Priests of the olde Testament had authoritie to punish temporall Princes by depriuing them of their right to their temporall states and dominions as I amply prooued aboue in the 5. Chapter Neither doe these examples brought here by Mr. Fitzherbert prooue any such thing For to the examples of King Ozias and Athalia I haue answered aboue at large And as for the other two besides that Samuel Elias and Elizeus were not Priests it is manifest that what they did concerning the annointing or deposing of any King they did it not by their owne authority but onely as Prophets and speciall messengers sent by God to that purpose How long saith God to Samuel i 1 Reg. 16. dost thou mourne Saul whom I haue reiected that hee rule not ouer Israel Fill thy horne with oyle and come that I may send thee to Isai the Bethleemite for I haue prouided me a King among his Sons And again Goe saith God to k 3 Reg. 19. Elias and returne into thy way by the desert of Damascus and when thou art come thither thou shalt annoint Hazael King ouer Syria and Iehu the Sonne of Namsi thou shalt annoint King ouer Israel and Elizeus the Sonne of Saphat thou shalt annoynt Prophet for thee And therefore he that was sent by Elizeus to annoint Iehu was commanded to speake in the person of God not of Elizeus And holding saith l 4 Reg. 9. Elizeus to him that was sent the little boxe of oyle thou shalt power vpon his head and shalt say Thus saith our Lord I haue annointed thee King ouer Israel Now what man of iudgement would make this inference that because in the olde lawe some Prophets who were no Priests did by the expresse commandement of God make annoint or depose Kings therefore the Priests in the new law haue ordinary power and authority to doe the same Belike Mr. Fitzherbert will approoue also this argument that because Elias was commanded by God to annoint not onely Iehu King ouer Israel but also Hazael King ouer Syria therefore the Pope hath authority to make and depose not onely Christian but also Pagan Kings 9 Wherefore that demand which is heere made by my Aduersary to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their States and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment is friuolous both for that the Priests of the old law had no authority to depriue Kings of their temporall States and Dominions or to inflict temporall punishments and also albeit they had such an authority neuerthelesse it could not bee prooued from thence by deducing an argument from the figure to the veritie that therefore
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
doeth suppose the subiect to bee otherwise apt and well disposed For she hath power granted her by Christ to giue grace whereby we may come to the kingdome of heauen to Infants by the Sacrament of Baptisme and to men of discretion also by other Sacraments but especially of Penance by which the Priest as a Minister of Christ by vertue of the keyes which he hath receiued from Christ absolueth from sinnes and giueth grace neuerthelesse this power to worke actually her effect supposeth certaine necessarie dispositions on the behalfe of the persons who are to receiue the Sacraments as well in Infants as in men of discretion which dispositions the Church hath not alwayes power to procure Also besides this power which the Diuines call of Order the Church hath also power of Iurisdiction for shee hath authoritie to preach the word of GOD to correct sinners to make lawes and to punish the transgressours with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments For as the Church and the Ecclesiasticall power is spirituall so also she ought to haue meanes proportionate to such an end Wee graunt therefore the antecedent proposition in this sense which we haue now declared but we deny c. 29 Now this Doctour although hee granteth all this which I haue said to bee true yet he cannot forbeare to take certaine idle exceptions against the same I answere saith he g Pag. 353. ad nu 179. seq although all this doe make little or nothing to the soluing of Cardinall Bellarmines argument but to the enlarging of the volume of his booke they make much yet I would relate what hee hath said for that I saw certaine things to bee noted therein But whether they make little or nothing to solue Cardinall Bellarmines argument you shall see anon this is a vsuall tricke of this Doctour especially when my answere or argument is of greatest force that hee knoweth not well what to reply thereunto then with some idle or despitefull words to shift it of as that it is spoken either to disgrace Cardinall Bellarmine or to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes or that it is nothing to the purpose but to enlarge my booke and to make it seeme to bee of a competent volume and such like trifling toies which doe argue rather want of matter and a spirit of contradiction then a true desire to examine sincerely this important and difficult controuersie and which with as great facilitie and farre greater reason may bee retorted backe vpon himselfe for his often repeating of the same sentences and which are nothing to the purpose as that of S. Leo Ecclesiastica lenitas refugit cruentas vltiones Ecclesiasticall lenitie doeth shunne cruell punishments which is nothing to the soluing of my argument and spending many wordes to prooue that the Pope hath power to command and enioyne temporall penalties whereof I made no question and consuming twentie eight whole pages to prooue that S. Peter and his Successours are the heads of the Church which no Catholike doth deny and which make little or nothing to the impugning of my doctrine but to the enlarging the volume of his booke they make much 30 Now you shall see what goodly obseruations this Doctour hath found out in this part of my answere First saith he h Pag. 353. it is to bee obserued that my Aduersarie Widdrington I know not with what cunning hath transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian Common-wealth or the Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels For in Bellarmines argument the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth is taken in the first and not in the later sense But Widdrington answereth of the Christian common-wealth as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men Let he himselfe see with what simplicitie hee did it who otherwise doeth seeme so scrupulously to shunne equiuocations 31 But first it is to bee obserued with what cunning or ignorance this Doctour affirmeth that I haue transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels See Apolog. nu 176. 180. seq seeing that I expresly spake of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth as it is a spirituall common-wealth and as it hath spirituall power Now with what colour of probabilitie can this Doctour inferre from any one word of mine that I euer saide that Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth reside in Lay-men or that when I treate of the spirituall power of the Church or of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth I take the Church as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men True it is that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Common-wealth kingdome or Church of Christ when wee speake properly and generally is taken both by Cardinall Bellarmine and my selfe as it comprehendeth Cleargie-men and Lay-men that is as it containeth both spirituall power and spirituall subiection spirituall Pastours and spirituall subiects and therefore Cardinall Bellarmine before in his first reason affirmed that Kings and Bishops Cleargie-men and Lay-men doe not make two common-wealths but one onely that is one Church As likewise a temporall common-wealth or kingdome when we speake properly and generally is taken as it comprehendeth both temporall Kings and temporall subiects that is as it containeth both ciuill power and ciuill subiection For what man of iudgement speaking generally of a temporall kingdome by the name of the kingdome vnderstandeth onely the King himselfe but when he speaketh of the temporall power of a kingdome as I expresly spake heere of the spirituall power of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth no iudicious man can vnderstand that he speaketh of subiects wherein no temporall power doeth reside Let this Doctour therefore see himselfe with what simplicitie he said that I comprehended heere in this answere vnder the name of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth Cleargie-men and Lay-men when I treated of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the Church 32 Secondly it is to bee obserued saith this Doctour i Pag. 354. that which Widdrington heere disputeth of an apt and well disposed subiect that the Ecclesiasticall power may therein worke her effect to be true and that Cardinall Bellarmine hath the same in his answere to the obiections of Paulus Venetus and yet that Widdrington after his accustomed vprightnesse commended the argument of Paulus Venetus and dissembled Card. Bellarmines answere Heere you see that this Doctour granteth the distinction which I made to bee true and that Card. Bellarmine approoueth the same but that which he addeth that I dissembled Cardinall Bellarmines answere is very vntrue for I neuer saw his answere and although I had seene it and so might haue commended his meaning and his declaration yet truely I should not haue commended his words being spoken so generally and without any limitation or declaration seeing
that they may imply that the Pope can remooue all impediments whatsoeuer which either the world or the Deuill with all their forces and sleights can oppose which proposition may at the first sight bee taken as I haue knowne diuers learned men vnderstand it in that first sense which before I shewed to bee false and therefore what great fault trow you could it bee for me to declare the meaning of those words more plainely seeing that a proposition may without doubt sometimes be false yea and as learned Diuines are of opinion may bee also hereticall according to that vulgar maxime S. Tho. secunda secundae q. 11. ar 2. Magister in 4. dist 13. which Saint Thomas and the Maister of the sentences attribute to Saint Hierome ex verbis inordinate prolatis incurritur haeresis haeresie is incurred by wordes inordinately vttered although hee by whom they were spoken had no badde meaning 33 Thirdly saith this Doctour k Ibid. it is to bee obserued that Widdrington whiles hee declareth what punishments the Church can inflict vpon her subiects that shall offend maketh mention onely of spirituall punishments as though the Church cannot inflict also temporall punishments whereof see what wee haue said aboue cap. 4. vpon the 40.41 and 42. numbers True it is that the maine scope of my Apologie was no other then to prooue it to bee probable that the spirituall power of the Church or Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall or ciuill punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures Neither hath this Doctour in those places to which hee remitteth his Reader prooued any other thing then that the Church by vertue of her spirituall power may command enioyne and impose temporall punishments and by the temporall authoritie giuen her by the grant and consent of temporall Princes may also inflict them vpon inferiour persons which I neuer denyed And so in this kingdome wee see by experience that albeit Bishops haue euer had authoritie to excommunicate disobedient persons and to enioyne temporall penalties as a thing proper to their spirituall power yet to imprison them they procure a Writ out of the temporall Court de excommunicato capiendo for apprehending an excommunicated person 34 Lastly saith this Doctour l Ibid. pag. 354 it is to bee obserued that whiles Widdrington declareth the power of Iurisdiction not without mysterie hee hath said nothing of the power to absolue from oaths and vowes and other things of that kind True it is that although I did not in that place expresly affirme as also I did not deny that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the absoluing from oathes and vowes yet of set purpose and for some mysterie I did then omit to make mention of them and the mysterie was this for that there is a great controuersie among learned Diuines especially betwixt the Thomists and their opposites wherewith I thought it neither necessarie nor expedient at that time to intermeddle not only in what maner the spiritual power of the Church may absolue froÌ„ oaths vowes but also whether the Church hath any authoritie at all to absolue from all Oaths and all vowes seeing that as afterwards m Praefat. ad Resp Apolog. nu 58. in Resp nu 148. I declared S. Thomas and his followers doe contend that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the solemne vow of religious chastitie and also that hee cannot absolue from any vow or oath by releasing the bond and obligation to performe that which is once sworne or vowed for this were to absolue from the law of Nature which commandeth vs to performe that which we haue once lawfully sworne or vowed but onely by declaring and interpreting that the matter which was sworne or vowed is not now in this particular case a sufficient matter to bee sworne or vowed From which doctrine it cleerely followeth that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the oath of true temporall allegiance vnlesse hee also haue authoritie as hee hath not to declare that true temporall allegiance is not in that particular case lawfull or necessary and consequently not a sufficient matter to bee sworne whereas true temporall allegiance is alwayes not onely lawfull but also necessary and commaunded by the law of God and nature And thus much concerning this Doctours obseruations 35 Now you shall see how well he confuteth the answere which I gaue to Cardinall Bellarmines argument supposing the aforesaid distinction Thus therefore I began to answere it Wherefore we grant the antecedent proposition in the sense which wee haue now declared But we deny that the power to vse to dispose of the temporals of all Christians is necessary to the spirituall end for such a power is not proportionate to that end therfore there is no likelyhood that for the spirituall end such a temporall power or which is all one such a power to dispose of temporals was by Christ our Sauiour giuen to his Church which is a spirituall and not temporall common-wealth I answere saith this Doctor n Num. 355. whether the power to vse and to dispose of the temporals of all Christians be necessary to the Church for her end is the principall question which is in controuersie Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth Widdrington denyeth But whiles he denyeth he is so destitute of Patrons and Doctours that also Ioannes Parisiensis whom in his booke he more often citeth for his opinion then any other is flat against him c. 36 But first it is not true that the principall question which is in controuersie is whether the power to dispose of the temporals of all christians be necessary to the Church for her end which is the saluatioÌ„ of soules but the principall question controuersie is whether Christ our Sauior gaue authority to his Church as it is a spirituall Kingdome consisteth onely of spirituall power to dispose of all temporals And Cardinall Bellarmine to proue that Christ gaue vnto his Church this power bringeth this for a reason because this power to dispose of all temporals is necessarie to her spirituall end to wit the saluation of soules which reason I say is not true and from thence it would cleerely follow that our Sauiour was of necessity tied to giue to spiritual Pastours authority to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all temporals which no man I thinke that hath his wits about him will affirme And how did the Church of Christ thinke you dispose of temporals by way of authority when she was persecuted by the Pagan and Arrian Emperours for then if at any time a power to dispose of temporals should haue beene necessary to the saluation of soules Whereupon Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth That it is not absolutely necessary to resist the common enemie Bel. l. 1. de Conâ—l ca. 10. as is the Turke For if the Church could be conuersant vnder the most cruell persecutions of Nero Domitian Decius
also of Lateran or at least wise Pope Innocent in the Councell of Lateran perceiuing that many sensuall men are more afraide of sensible and temporall punishments then of spirituall therefore to withdraw them more easily from sinne they commanded enioyned and imposed by their spirituall authoritie as it is directiue corporall and temporall punishments which sensuall men doe most abhorre and also they inflicted the same punishments not by their spirituall authoritie as it is coerciue which is extended onely as I haue often said to Ecclesiastical Censures but by the temporall authoritie which they haue receiued from the expresse or tacite consent graunt and priuiledges of temporall Princes seeing that it is well knowne as I haue related elsewhere out of Iohn Gerson Gerson de potest Eccles considerat 4. that Princes out of their deuotion haue giuen to the Cleargie great authoritie of temporall Iurisdiction 46 Thirdly obserue the goodly reason that this man bringeth why the Councell of Lateran began first with spirituall punishments and the Councell of Trent with temporall For that saith hee the decree of the Councell of Lateran was made against those who knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication and the decree of the Councell of Trent was made against those that knew the greatnesse thereof as though either Christian Princes or people knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication at the time of the Councell of Lateran or that either in very truth or according to the Doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine Suarez and other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes or in the iudgement of this Doctour himselfe it be commendable or lawfull first to depose Princes and to thrust them out of their kingdomes and afterwardes to excommunicate them and to declare them to be accounted as Heathens and Publicanes Be like this Doctour is perswaded that all his idle conceits must goe for an vndoubted oracle But he is deceiued for howsoeuer his fauourites will applaude all his sayings esteeming him as an other Pythagoras yet other men will require of him a more sufficient reason then a bare ipse dixit 47. Lastly it is not true that the Councell of Lateran did first commaund that Princes who fauour heretikes should be excommunicated and afterwards if this remedie did not auaile their subiects should be absolued from their allegiance because in that decree there is no mention made of Princes but onely of inferiour Officers and Magistrates But of this Decree we shall haue occasion to treate anon more at large As also it is a slaunder vsuall in this mans mouth that I contemne the foresaid decrees of the Councell of Lateran and of Trent which I doe reuerence with as much respect as he or any other Catholike ought to doe albeit I must needes confesse that although this Doctours interpretation of those decrees I doe not contemne for this is a word of arrogancie yet truely I doe not much regard vnlesse he shall bring better reasons to confirme the same then hitherto he hath brought And thus you see part of the answere I made to Cardinall Bellarmines second reason which afterwards I did prosecute more at large and in the end I did briefly insinuate how insufficiently Father Parsons grounding himselfe chiefly vpon this second argument of Cardinall Bellarmine did satisfie the Earle of Salisburies complaint 48 For the Earle of Salisburie saith Father Parsons y In the Preface to the Treatise tending to Mitigation nu 19. hath bin a long time sorrie that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie hath not bin made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. That not onely those Princes which acknowledge this superioritie might be secured from feares and iealosies of continuall treasons and bloodie Assassinates against their persons but those Kings also which doe not approoue the same and yet would faine reserue a charitable opinion of their subiects might know how farre to repose themselues in their fidelitie in ciuill obedience howsoeuer they see them diuided from them in point of conscience c. Now to this complaint or desire of the Earle of Salisbury to haue the matter defined and declared Father Parsons answereth that among Catholike people the matter is cleare and sufficiently defined and declared in all points wherein there may be made any doubt concerning this affaire And for the clearing of the whole matter he diuideth it into three questions 49 The first is whether any authority were left by Christ in his Church and Christian Common-wealth to restraine or represse censure or iudge any exorbitant and pernicious excesse of great men States or Princes or that he hath left them remedilesse wholy by any ordinarie authoritie And to this question the substance of his answere is this that as in all other common-wealths that are not Christian all Philosophers and other men of soundest wisedome prudence and experience either Iew or Gentile haue from the beginning of the world concurred in this that God and nature hath left some sufficient authoritie in euery common-wealth for the lawfull and orderly repressing of those euils euen in the highest persons So when Christ our Sauiour came to found his Common-wealth of Christians in farre more perfection then other states had beene established before subiecting temporall things to spirituall according to the degree of their natures ends and eminencies and appointing a supreme vniuersall Gouernour in the one with a generall charge to looke to all his sheepe without exception of great or small people or potentates vpon these suppositions I say all Catholike learned men doe ground and haue euer grounded that in Christian Common-wealthes not only the foresaid ordinary authoritie is left which euery other state and kingdome had by God and nature to preserue and protect themselues in the cases before laid down but further also for more sure orderly proceeding therin that the supreme care iudgement direction and censure of this matter was left principally by Christ our Sauiour vnto the said supreme Gouernour and Pastour of his Church and Common-wealth And in this there is no difference in opinion or beliefe betweene any sort of Catholikes whatsoeuer so they be Catholikes though in particular cases diuersitie of persons time place cause and other circumstances may mooue some diuersitie of opinions And thus much of the first question 50 The second question may bee about the manner how this authoritie or in what sort it was giuen by Christ to his said supreme Pastour whether directly or indirectly immediately or by a certaine consequence And to this question he answereth that albeit the Canonists doe commonly defend the first part and Catholike Diuines for the most part the second yet both parts fully agree that there is such an authoritie left by Christ in his Church for remedie of vrgent cases for that otherwise hee should not haue sufficiently prouided for the necessitie thereof So as this difference in the manner maketh no difference at all in the thing it selfe 51 The third
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
and effectuall meanes to withdraw men actually from sinne for this were extreame folly to say as my Aduersarie himselfe confesseth For the sufficiencie saith hee of the power which Christ hath left to his Church in this point or any other consisteth in this that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment Wherefore it is manifest that hee who will contend that the Church must haue a more sufficient power to saue soules then which of it selfe is sufficient if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment must needes suppose that the Church must also haue sufficient force might and effectuall meanes to saue soules and a power to make the subiect capable and to remooue all external impediments or which is all one must haue such a sufficient power which is not onely sufficient in regard of the power being considered in it selfe but also in regard of all other things which are necessarie that the power worke the effect for which it was ordained for that these two are opposite parts or members of the distinction I made before and no man that hath any skill in Logike can be ignorant that in euery diuision consisting only of two parts or members we may rightly argue from the affirming of the one part to the denyall of the other and frō the denying of the one to the affirming of the other If therfore the power of the Church to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures be of it selfe a sufficient coerciue power to withdraw men from sinne which is the end of Ecclesiasticall power and if men bee not thereby withdrawne from sinne it is not by reason of the insufficiencie of the power but of the indisposition of the subiect no other coerciue power to inflict temporall punishments can be necessarie And therefore the aforesaid distinction of Ecclesiasticall coerciue power considered in it selfe and in respect of the impediments which may be in regard of the subiect did quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines second argument and the whole discourse of Fa. Parsons which was grounded thereon So that Mr. Fitzherbert might with more credit haue left vntouched the satisfaction which Fa. Parsons pretended to giue to the Earle of Salisburies desire or complaint for ought hee hath beene able to say in defence of the same 62 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert quarelleth with mee for teaching in this my Discourse against Fa. Parsons that the penalties which the Church may I doe not say impose as hee vntruely imposeth vpon me for this power of the Church to impose command or enioyne temporall penalties I neuer denyed but to inflict are not temporall punishments and for remitting my Reader for this point to diuers authorities euen of the ancient Fathers related by mee in my Apologie hee wisheth mee g Pag. 122. nu 21. and the Reader to see the answere to those authorities in D. Schulckenius who giueth as he saith sufficient satisfaction to euery one of them and sheweth euidently that diuers of those Authours doe wholly impugne Widdringtons opinion and doctrine and finally telleth him of his bad fortune in alleadging such witnesses as either make nothing for him or quite ouerthrow him and the like may bee seene saith he in D. Westons Sanctuarie who also answereth the said places particularlay and fully I also in like manner wish him and the Reader to see how their answeres haue beene confuted partly by Mr. Iohn Barclay and partly by my selfe aboue in this Treatise h Part. 1. per totum where also I haue shewed the vanitie of these men that when they see their arguments and answeres most of all to bee shaken then they make the greatest brags to which silly shifts they haue beene driuen by their bad fortune to vndertake the defence of so bad a cause and through a vehement desire not to seeme to bee vanquished and to haue any way erred in hauing coined a new Catholike faith 63 Furthermore the Reader may see i Pag. 122. nu 22. C. Bel. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcl cap. 8. saith Mr. Fitzherbert many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay which Widdrington could not but haue seene no lesse then the former before he wrote against my Supplement and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in those answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Readers to those places and such like which hee knew were alreadie answered but perhaps he perswadeth himselfe that all his writings and assertions are as I haue said in the Preface like to the lawes of the Medes See Preface nu 15. and see also the answere thereunto Dan. 6. and Persians which are inuiolable and immutable And this shall suffice touching Father Parsons whom you see hee might with more credit haue left vntouched for ought hee hath beene able to prooue against him 64 But as the Reader may see many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay so also hee may see the Cardinalls answeres confuted by Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmine which Mr. Fitzherbert could not but haue seene before he wrote now his Reply against mee and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in Mr. Iohn Barclayes answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Reader to Cardinall Bellarmines booke against Barclay which he knew was already answered And therefore that which hee repeateth heere againe concerning the lawes of the Medes and Persians may more aptly be applyed to himselfe and other such like vehement defenders of the Popes power to depose Princes who for that they haue vnaduisedly begun to make their doctrine to be an infallible point of faith which they will neuer bee able to make good will yet defend the same per fas ne fas by right and wrong and perceiuing that they cannot preuaile with reason and arguments endeauour to ouersway their cause by force and authoritie clamours and threatnings as it is euident by the Breues which his Holinesse by their importunitie and sinistrous Information hath published to condemne the new Oath wherein chiefly that doctrine is denied as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation which they will neuer bee able to maintaine and by condemning some of my bookes in such generall wordes and commanding me vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith in so strange a maner not declaring of what crime either in particular or in generall I should purge my selfe although I haue often by diuers Supplications to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requested to bee particularly informed what one thing is contained in the Oath which is so cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation or what one thing I haue written in those bookes whereof I should purge my selfe as being contrarie to faith
or good manners For what man can be so simple as to imagine that if those most Illustrious Cardinalls of the Inquisition could plainely haue shewed any one thing which either in the Oath or in any of my bookes is repugnant to saith or good manners wee should not haue heard it proclaimed by my Aduersaries with open mouth And what else is this I pray you but to contend that their assertions are like to the lawes of the Medes and Persians which are inuiolable and immutable 65 And this may suffice touching Fa. Parsons discourse which Mr. Fitzherbert might with more credite to himselfe and with more respect and reuerence to his old friend haue left vntouched seeing that hee hath brought nothing against that which I obiected against Fa. Parsons discourse to satisfie the Earle of Salisburies desire but cauelleth onely about trifles which make nothing to the defence of Fa. Parsons as that I did not in that briefe Admonition to the Reader confute D. Schulckenius booke written against mee and Cardinall Bellarmines booke written against D. Barclay and also the whole particular discourse which hee himselfe made in his Supplement to prooue the Oath vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine but remitted the Reader to some things which more at large I declared in my Apologie to the end that he duely considering my answeres and their Replyes and also what Mr. Iohn Barclay had written in defence of his Father against Cardinall Bellarmine might giue his iudgement accordingly vntill I had time to make a more full answere to them all And therefore seeing that now I haue in this Treatise more fully confuted both Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius if he bee another man and also Mr. Fitzherberts whole Reply which he hath patched together by the helpes of Cardinall Bellarmine or D. Schulckenius Fa. Suarez and Lessius wee shall see what a learned Reply hee will make to this my Treatise being destitute now of those helpes which hee had before of those mens writings and being left only to his owne wit and learning and to the aide which he can get from others of his Societie who are more expert in Schoole points then is himselfe whom all men know to haue little skill either in Philosophie or Schoole-Diuinitie And for a conclusion I wish the Reader to call to mind how hee imposeth vpon me heere two manifest falshoods the one that I affirme Fa. Parsons to suppose that Christ hath left to his Church not onely sufficient power and authoritie but also sufficient force might or effectuall meanes to represse at all times all excesses whatsoeuer of Christian Princes and the other that I quarrell with Father Parsons for teaching that the Church may impose temporall penalties which as you haue seene is very vntrue 66 Now let vs proceede to the examining of the rest of his Discourse After this saith he k Pag. 123. nu 23.24.25 Acts 5. 1 Cor. 5. Widdring in admoni nu 19. Widdrington taketh hold of two examples in my Supplement to wit the punishment of Ananias and Saphira and of the incestuous Corinthian which I alleaged to proue the power of the Church to inflict temporall penalties Whereof he saith thus Illa corporalis Ananiae Saphirae interfectio c. That corporall killing of Ananias and Saphira and the visible deliuery of the fornicatour to Sathan are to be referred to the grace of miracles neither will this Authour say as I thinke that the Pope hath power to kill wicked men and malefactours with the word of his mouth So he Whereto I answere that he trifleth no lesse in this then in his former answeres for albeit I will not say that the Pope hath power to kill with the word of his mouth that is to say to doe miracles yet I say he hath power to doe and ordaine those things in the Church which at their first institution were testified and confirmed by miracles 67 As for example I will not say that the Pope can giue the holy Ghost in some visible forme in the Sacrament of Baptisme and Confirmation as the holy Ghost was giuen in the Apostles time Acts 8. 10. yet I make no doubt but that the Pope may minister those Sacraments with the iuisible effect and fruite thereof which was visibly shewed and testified in the Apostles time by that miracle neither will I say that the Pope can deliuer a man to the visible possession of the Diuell to be bodily tormented as S. Paul did when he excommunicated the Corinthian 1 Cor. 5. and others neuerthelesse I say that if Widdrington doe not reforme and retract his pernicious doctrine the Pope both can See cap. 17. nu 23. seq Item Decretum Sacrae Cong and see them also there answered Chrys hom 15 in cap. 5. epist 1. ad Corinth Acts 5. Acts 12. 1 Cor. 5. Greg. hom 10. in Euang. and will ere it be long excommunicate him and deliuer him ouer to the inuisible power of the Diuell which effect was at the first ordinarily testified by the visible torments of the bodies of excommunicated persons vt castigaretur caro saith S. Chrysostome that their flesh might be chastised So as Widdrington may if it please him distinguish betwixt the miracles and that which was in the primatiue Church signified expressed and testified thereby 68 And therefore I say that for as much as it pleased God to testifie by the miraculous punishment of Ananias and Saphira and of Elymas the Magycian whom S. Paul stroke blinde and of the excommunicated Corinthian and others that the Church hath power as well ouer the body as ouer the soule it cannot with reason be denied but â—hat the power remaineth although the miraculous manner in the execution of it ceased when the Christian faith was once propagated and generally receiued because as S. Gregorie saith Signa data sunt fidelibus c. Signes or miracles are giuen or ordained for infidels and not for the faithfull 69 But it is Mr. Fitzherbert himselfe that trifleth no lesse in this then in his former answeres For the question here betwixt vs is not now whether the Pope hath an ordinary power granted him by Christ to inflict corporall and temporall punishments and to depriue the faithfull of their liues and dominions but whether from this miraculous fact of killing of Ananias and Sâ—phira at the word of S. Peter or from the miraculous deliuering of the incestuous Corinthian to Sathan to be coporally tormented by him that his soule might be saued or froÌ„ any other miraculous and extraordinary power which the Apostles had to inflict coporall punishments it can bee rightly concluded that the Pope hath an ordinary power to inflict also corporall punishments And whatsoeuer Mr. Fitzherbert saith I doe confidently auerro that it is a most vicious kinde of arguing from miraculous facts and from an extraordinary power which was graunted to the Apostles as they were Apostles at the first instituting of
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
earthly things to heauenly men to Angels and the like and that therefore when there are two things concurring and commanded to bee done whereof the one concerneth religion the othe pollicie the one spirituall things the other temporall the one concerneth the soule the other the body wee must preferre caeteris paribus that which concerneth religion before that which concerneth pollicie and that which concerneth spirituall things before that which concerneth temporall and that which concerneth the soule before that which concerneth the body and this the light of true naturall reason doeth teach vs. 8 But what of all this will hee conclude from hence that because Religious Priests are in perfection and nobilitie superiour to temporall Princes by the same reason that policie is in perfection inferiour to Religion therefore the light of naturall reason doeth teach vs that Religious Priests may punish temporally temporall Princes and are superiour to them in temporall authoritie This is a very vicious consequence and by the like argument wee may conclude that because Angels are superiour to men in perfection and excellencie of substance knowledge and naturall strength therefore they are also superiour to men in authoritie and commaund and that men are bound by force of obedience to doe what the Angells shall prescribe which no Diuine will grant vnlesse they bee sent by GOD as his messengers and ministers And likewise wee may conclude that hee who hath one of the liberall sciences is by the law of nature superiour in authoritie to euery trades man by the same reason that things lesse perfect are inferiour to the more perfect and euery seruile trade is subiect and inferiour in perfection to euery one of the liberall arts and yet whosoeuer should argue from the law of nature in this manner would bee esteemed to bee in this point no lesse then a very naturall for that from the law of nature the light of naturall reason we can only conclude that in what degree of superiority one thing is superiour to another in the like degree of subiection this is subiect and subordinate to that and that therefore temporall things are subiect to spirituall in dignity and perfection because these are superiour to them herein but to transcend from one kind of superiority to another and from superiority in perfection dignity to argue a superiority in command and authority or from a superiority in spirituals to argue a superiority in meere temporall things is contrary to the light and prescript of true naturall reason 9 Secondly I did also graunt that all Nations being enlightened by Nature did agree in certaine generall principles touching Religion as concerning the necessity and dignity thereof and that all humane actions ought to be leuelled and directed by the square and rule of Religion and referred thereto as to the end of man although not to the intrinsecall end of the actions themselues as I declared aboue in the second part whereupon doth necessarily follow a subordination and subiection of temporall things to spirituall also of the ciuill Society to the religious in dignity and perfection But it doth not follow from the law of nature or the light of naturall reason that the religious Society as it is distinguished from the ciuill should haue power and authority to command and much lesse to punish especially with temporall punishments the ciuill Societie And the reason hereof I alleaged in that place out of the doctrine of Abulensis b Cap. 6. nu 35. 10 Because euery man liuing according to the law of nature and the light of naturall reason may be considered either as liuing by himselfe alone or else as liuing with other men in ciuill Society If hee bee considered as liuing by himselfe alone what power soeuer hee hath either concerning temporals or spirituals concerning his body or soule is in himselfe alone so that he hath neither power to command or punish but himselfe alone and in this manner euery man is a Priest and by the law of nature hath authority to worship God and to sacrifice to him in all places and at all times and with all kinde of Sacrifices which the prescript of true reason doth not teach to be vnlawfull for that the law of nature or the light of naturall reason doth not limit or determine to a man as liuing by himselfe alone any certaine time place or maner of worshipping God and doing sacrifice to him But if a man be considered as hee is a part and member of some ciuill Societie or Common-wealth then no priuate man but the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernour thereof hath by the law of nature and prescript of naturall reason all authority to command dispose ordaine and punish as well concerning religious as ciuill affaires So that in this manner the Common-wealth it selfe or the supreame Gouernour thereof is the publike Priest and none hath authority to offer Sacrifice to God or to worship him in any publike manner and as a publike person but the Common-wealth it selfe or those whom in her place she shall appoint neither can any priuate or particular man haue any publike authority to command ordaine or punish for matters belonging to the worshipping of God but that which the ciuill Common-wealth is pleased to grant him 11 Wherefore there is a great difference as I noted in that place betwixt the Priests and the Religious Society in the law of nature before any positiue law of God was published and the Priests and religious Society in the olde and new Testament For in the law of nature there were not two distinct and independent Societies the one Religious the other Ciuill but the ciuill Society had all power and authority to command and dispose as well concerning the publike seruice of God as concerning ciuill gouernment neither did the law of nature determine or appoint any certaine men who should be Priests and should haue full authority to commaund and dispose of those things which belonged to the publike seruice of God but this authority was in the Common-wealth it selfe which appointed certaine men to be the publike ministers as well concerning the publike worshipping of God with religious rites and ceremonies as concerning the ciuill gouernment of the Common-wealth neither had these publike ministers any more authority or command then the Common-wealth did giue them so that it was in the power of the Common-wealth to extend diminish or quite take away the power authority command and priuiledges which by her authority were granted vnto them But since the positiue law of God was written the religious and ciuill Societie are two totall and independent Common-wealths neither hath the ciuill Common-wealth or the supreame Gouernours thereof any authority to determine matters concerning religion and the publike seruice of Almighty God for that hee himselfe hath appointed those that shall be publike Ministers in matters belonging to Religion to wit in the olde Testament the sonnes of Aaron and who by naturall propagation should
descend from him and in the new Testament his Apostles and who by lawfull ordination shall descend from them and what spirituall authority these Ministers haue they doe not receiue from the ciuill Common-wealth but from God himselfe 12 Whereupon it is euident that we cannot gather what authority and priuiledges the Priests either of the olde Testament had or of the new Testament haue from the law of nature for that all the authoritie and priuiledges which the Priests in the law of nature had did wholly depend vpon the ciuill Common-wealth by whose authority those Priests and Ministers of religious rites and ceremonies were made but what authority either to cōmand or to punish either Lay-men or Clergie-men the Priests of the olde Testament had and of the new Testament haue we can onely gather from the positiue institution and graunt of God who hath giuen and determined their authority and not from the law of nature wherein the Priests were subiect to the ciuill Common-wealth and had all their authority from the Common-wealth it selfe And by this which I haue now said here and more at large declared in the sixt Chapter is fully satisfied all that Mr. Fitzherbert hath said aboue and repeateth heere out of his Supplement concerning the law of nature in these words 13 First then saith hee c Pag. 130. nu 5. it is to be considered that humane law is commonly diuided into Ius Gentium Ius Ciuile and Ius Ecclesiasticum vel Canonicum the law of Nations the Ciuill law and the Canon or Ecclesiasticall law And as for the law of Nations which is a humane law so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of Nature that all Nations doe receiue and admit it it is manifest c. But before wee goe any farther it will not be amisse to obserue the difference which the learnedst Diuines of this age doe make betwixt the law of Nations and Nature for vnlesse wee know and agree what the law of Nations is we shall dispute thereof to little purpose First therefore Mr. Fitzherbert by those words which is a humane law so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of Nature that all Nations doe receiue and admit it doth seeme to signifie that onely the knowne morall principles or generall maximes of Nature or naturall reason doe belong to the law of Nature and the conclusions which are easily and directly deduced from them doe belong to the law of Nations which doctrine neuerthelesse all the Diuines of this age euen of his owne Societie doe commonly reiect Vasq 1 a. 2 ae disp 154. cap. 3 Salas Disp 5. de Leg. sec 5. Suarez l. 2. de Leg. c. 7. as you may see in Vasquez Salas Suarez who doe therefore affirme that the law of Nature doth comprehend not onely all morall principles but also all conclusions which are easily and directly or by an euident and necessary consequence deduced from those principles of Nature 14 For all morall things which are knowne by naturall reason are either the first generall principles of manners as virtue is to be embraced vice to be shunned Doe not that to another which thou wilt not haue done to thy selfe and these without all doubt doe belong to the law of Nature or else they are principles not so generall but yet euidently knowne of themselues as Iustice is to be kept God is to be worshipped Parents are to be honoured and such like and these also without all question doe appertaine to the law of Nature or thirdly they are conclusions which are euidently deduced from the morall principles of nature and cannot be knowne but by discourse among which some are knowne more easily as adultery murther periury and such like to bee euill some are not so easily knowne but to know them there is required a greater discourse as simple fornication to be of it owne nature euill vsury to bee vniust an officious lye not to be lawfull for any cause whatsoeuer and such like And all these and other morall conclusions of what degree soeuer so that they bee deduced as conclusions from the morall principles of nature by a certaine and euident consequence doe also according to the common doctrine of Diuines belong to the law of Nature I said by a certaine and euident consequence for as well obserueth Salas Salas tract 14. disp 5. sec 5. as conclusions which are euidently deduced from morall principles and doe binde without any positiue law doe euidently containe the law of nature so those conclusions which are probably deduced doe containe it porbably and are lawes of nature not certaine but probable in which if in very deede falshood bee affirmed they are not the lawes of nature truely and in very deed but apparantly for that an erroneous conscience is not truely a law 15 The reason why not onely morall principles but also the conclusions which are deduced from them doe belong to the law of nature and not of nations as the law of nations is a positiue and humane law is both for that all actions which by the light of naturall reason abstracting from all positiue precepts of God or man are knowne to be euill and for that cause are forbidden by the law of God or man because they are euill of themselues although they had neuer beene forbidden by any such positiue law doe belong to the law of nature and also for that otherwise the morall precepts of the Decalogue and others contained in them as the precept forbidding simple fornication vsurie and to be reuenged of ones enemy by his owne priuate authority and such like should not belong to the law of nature because none of those precepts are generall principles but conclusions deduced by discourse from them nay nor to honour and woorship God should belong to the law of nature for that it is not knowne but by discourse that there is a God 16 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue that Mr. Fitzherbert in defining the law of nations to be a humane law which is so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of Nature that all Natitions doe receiue and admit it doth not onely dissent from all the learned Diuines euen of his owne Societie but hee must also vnlesse hee will maintaine strange paradoxes plainly contradict himselfe For first if the law of nations bee so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit it it cannot be a humane law which hath it force and obligation to binde onely from the constitution of men but it must haue it force and obligation to binde from the very principles of nature and consequently it must be reduced to the law of nature and not of nations Besides euery humane law is therefore a positiue and humane law not onely for that it is receiued and admitted by men but also for that it is made by men and hath it force to binde onely by the positiue
Bishops had ouer the Consulls in the Romane Common-wealth Bapt. Fulgos l. 1. c. 1. and yet neuerthelesse vve read of Alexander Seuerus that he suffered an appellation from himselfe to the Bishops and that they reuersed his sentence vvhen it seemed to them that equitie and iustice required it And heereto may be added vvhat great respect the Emperours of the Turkes and Persians beare at this day to the chiefe Bishop vvho hath power to abrogate any law made by them if it seeme to him to be repugnant to the Alcoron 48 But from these examples or any other such like this onely can be gathered that all nations haue euer preferred Religion and the worship of their Gods before any other temporall thing and that in respect chiefly of Religion they gaue to their Religious Priests whom they appointed to bee their immediate Ministers to offer Sacrifice to their Gods or as certaine messengers or prophets to declare their wills as in Rome were the Augures and Soothsayers certaine temporall honour authority and preheminence greater or lesser according to the custome of euery Nation but it cannot be gathered from hence that this temporall authority which these Religious Priests had to punish any man temporally did proceed from the law of nature or nations as the law of nations is accounted one law but from the municipall lawes of euery nation kingdome or common-wealth as the diuers custome of euery nation touching the temporall authority of their Religious Priests doth cleerely conuince 49 But marke what Mr. Fitzherbert would gather from these examples So that saith hee n Pag. 133. nu 7. by all this it appeareth that howsoeuer all Nations haue differed amongst themselues in particular rites and ceremonies of Religion yet they haue all agreed in this generall principle of nature that there ought to be in all Common-wealths a due subordination and subiection of humane things to diuine of Policy to Religion and of the temporall Magistrate to the spirituall in matters that appertaine any way to Religion Whereupon it followeth that Ius Gentium the law of Nations being grounded vpon the principles of nature cannot patronize or admit an Oath whereby a temporall and Secular Prince shall be exempted in matters that concerne Religion from subiection to his spirituall Pastours and speciall to the supreme Pastour of Christs Church Thus said I in my Supplement concerning the law of Nations vvhereby it appeareth c. 50 No man maketh any doubt but that all Nations haue agreed in this as a principle of nature that there ought to be a due subordination and subiection of humane things to diuine of Policy to Religion and of the temporall Magistrate to the spirituall in matters that appertaine to Religion but in what this due subordination and subiection according to the principles of nature consisteth this is the whole difficulty For if Mr. Fitzherberts meaning be that spirituall things and Religion are more excellent then temporall things and policy and therefore Religion and things belonging thereunto are caeteris paribus to be preferred before things appertaining to ciuill gouernment and that according to the principles of nature it is fit and conuenient that the ciuill common-wealth should for reuerence to Religion giue to Religious Priests some temporall honour authority and prerogatiues and also that Religious Priests should bee honoured and obeyed by all men in those things whereunto the authority which is giuen them either by God himselfe or by the positiue graunt of the ciuill common-wealth doth extend this I willingly graunt to be a principle grounded in nature and naturall reason But if his meaning bee that the ciuill common-wealth is according to the principles of nature and naturall reason subiect and subordinate not onely in dignity and perfection but also in coerciue authority and that the Religious Priests might in the law of nature and according to the knowne principles of naturall reason punish temporally eyther the supreme temporall Prince or any one of the inferiour people this is very vntrue as I haue conuinced before o Cap. 6. nu 35 seq c. 8. nu 40. out of the doctrine of Abulensis and Suarez 51 Wherefore as all the particular power and authoritie which was graunted to Religious Priests in the order of nature before the law of God was written as well in matters concerning Religion as policie did not proceede from the law of nature or of nations among whom there was so great varietie in this point but from the priuate or Ciuill law of euery particular common-wealth to whom the chiefe mannage and disposition of all things as well concerning Religion as Ciuill gouernement did belong so all the particular subordination and subiection especially in coerciue authoritie either of the people or of the Ciuill Magistrate to the Religious Priests as well in matters of Religion as State did wholy proceede from the free grant of the Ciuill common-wealth or the supreme Prince and gouernour thereof Wherevpon it euidently followeth that both the law of nature and nations would haue patronized and admitted an Oath which had beene made before the law of God was written whereby the Ciuill common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince should haue beene exempted from the temporall punishment of any religious Priest who in all matters as well concerning Religion as policie was subordinate and subiect both to the coerciue and directiue power of the Ciuill Societie or common-wealth and that therefore this Oath now in question concerning the Popes authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of temporall kingdomes cannot any way be impugned but altogether patronized by the law of nature and nations And by this all that Mr. Fitzherbert hath said in his Supplement concerning the law of nature and nations and that also which heere he addeth for a conclusion is most cleerely satisfied 52 Thus said I in my Supplement saith he p Pap. 133. nu 8. concerning the law of nations vvhereby it appeareth that the said law vvhich is deduced directly from the law of nature teacheth and confirmeth not onely the supreme dignitie of Religion in the Common-wealth but also the subordination and subiection of the temporall state to the Religious euen in temporall matters that touch Religion and that the custome and municipall law of the Romanes ordaining the same in their Common-wealth vvas most conforme to the lawe of nature being deduced directly from the knowne principles thereof which by the light of naturall reasoâ—n vvere manifest to the Philosophers and vvise law-makers amongst the Paynims and therefore vvhereas Widdrington ascribeth the preheminence of Religion in the Common wealth of the Romans to a municipall law denying it vvithall to proceede from the law of nature vvhich vvas the ground of that law he speaketh as problably as if he should ascribe an effect vvholy to the second cause and denie it to proceede from the first So as it is euident that he hath answered as vnprobably and imperfectly to my arguments drawne
from the law of nations as to the former grounded vpon the law of nature q Nu. 13. 53 But first I haue cleerely shewed as you haue seene from the doctrine of Suarez and the common opinion of Diuines that the law of nations as it is distinguished from the law of nature is not directly deduced from the principles of the law of nature but it is a humane law hauing force to bind onely by the positiue constitution and decree of man Secondly that although according to the principles of naturall reason Religion is in dignitie perfection and nobilitie superiour to policie and policie is therein subordinate and subiect to it yet according to the law of nature and nations all the particular authoritie which the Religious Societie as it was distinguished from the Ciuill had to commaund or punish any man dependeth wholy vpon the Ciuill common-wealth not onely in temporall but also in religious affaires and the particular customes and municipall lawes not onely of the Romanes but also of all other nations graunting some temporall honour authoritie and prerogatiues to Religious Priests did not proceede from the law of nature nor was directly or indirectly deduced from the principles thereof but was deriued meerely from the positiue constitutions and graunts of euery particular Ciuill common-wealth in whose power it was to create depose and punish their Religious Priests and to extend diminish change and quite take away from them all their directiue and coerciue authoritie and Mr. Fitzherbert affirming the contrary speaketh not onely improbably and disagreeably to the doctrine of Suarez and all other learned Diuines but also discouereth heerein his great want of iudgement learning and reading Neuerthelesse I will not denie but that in this sense the particular customes and municipall lawes of nations graunting to their Religious Priests who were their immediate ministers for things belonging to the publike seruice and worship of their Gods some temporall honour and authoritie were most conforme to the law of nature and principles of naturall reason for that the law of nature and light of naturall reason doth approoue and allow such lawes and customes as fit and conuenient but not commaund and ordaine them as necessarie in which sense also the exemption of Cleargie men now in the new law from the coerciue authoritie of Secular Magistrates ordained by humane law may be said to be conforme to the law of nature for that it doth approoue such exemption as conuenient but not command it as necessary And thus much concerning the law of nations and nature 54 Now touching the Ciuill law r Pag. 134. nu 9. 10. Mr. Fitzherb maketh a quicke dispatch therof in these words And as for the Ciuill law saith he whereas Widdrington saith only that I haue proued nothing else thereby but that the Pope is the supreme superiour of the Church in spirituall matters he is to vnderstand that albeit I haue not directly prooued any thing else by the Ciuill law yet I haue also thereupon inferred the extention of his power to temporall things by a necessarie consequent For hauing concluded that the Imperiall or Ciuill law doth not onely establish the Popes Supremacie but also acknowledge the subiection of temporall Princes to him in matters belonging to their soules and the good of the Church I added this inference 55 Whereupon it followeth directly that it acknowledgeth also See Supplement cap. 1. nu 118. pag. 67. by a necessarie consequent that he may punish them temporally in their persons and states vvhen the good of soules and the seruice and glory of God doth require it according to the rule of the said law vvhich I haue touched before to wit that the accessorie followeth the principall and that he which hath the greater power hath also the lesse And therefore I conclude that the Ciuill law doth no way fauour support or iustifie the Oath and much lesse inioyne it Ibid. nu 64 65. but flatly impugne and ouerthrow it Thus said I in my Supplement remitting my Reader for the more ample proofe of this inference to that vvhich I had before handled concerning the same vvhen I treated of the law of God See cap. nu 3. seq vvhich I haue also repeated in the first Chapter as also I haue examined his answeres thereto and shewed them to be very idle and friuolous and therefore I may vvell conclude that the arguments in my Supplement grounded as well vpon the lawes of God Nature and Nations as vpon the Cuiill or Imperial law doe stand sound and good against the Oath notwithstanding any thing that my Aduersary Widdrington hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary 56 But fie Mr. Fitzherbert that you in whose mouth are so frequent absurd ridiculous impertinent friuolous foolish idle fradulent impious malicious as though all your writings were so graue wise substantiall and sincere should thus in euery Chapter delude your Reader and not to vse your owne foule words shew so great want of learning iudgement and sincerity For what man of learning or iudgement can sincerely thinke that the Ciuill law may be said sufficiently to patronize the Popes power to depose Princes and to impugne the new Oath for that it acknowledgeth the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour or with what sinceritie can you make your Reader beleeue that you had no other meaning in spending fourteene whole Pages of your Supplement to prooue by the Ciuill law that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and hath authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes then onely to inferre thereupon by your necessarie or rather improbable consequent that he may therefore punish them temporally in their persons and states For first who would not imagine that when you boasted to prooue the Oath to be repugnant to the Ciuill law because it denieth the Popes power to depose Princes you would haue brought some text out of the Ciuill law where it is written that the Pope hath such a power to depose and not to haue made so much adoe to proue by the Ciuill law the Pope to be head of the Church and to haue authority to inflict spirituall Censures which no Catholike denieth and then forsooth in a word or two to deduce from thence by a farre fetched consequence of your owne and not of the Ciuill law that therefore the Pope may also punish them temporally in their persons and States 57 And truely if it be sufficient to condemne in this manner the Oath by the Ciuill law you might in the like manner for a greater florish haue brought the authoritie of all the auncient Fathers yea and of all Catholikes euen of my selfe and of all those who mainetaine the Oath to be lawfull for a cleere testimony to condemne the same for that all the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes euen my selfe and those who maintaine the Oath to be lawfull and denie the Popes power to depose Princes doe acknowledge the Pope to be the supreme
spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures And without doubt you would condemne me for a vaine-glorious Thraso if I should take vpon me to prooue by the testimony and grant of Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and of your selfe who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes that the Pope hath no such power for that you and all the rest doe grant the Pope to bee the supreame spirituall Pastour and then by a necessarie consequence in my iudgement though not in yours I should inferre from thence that because the Pope is by the institution of Christ according to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers a spirituall Pastour and not a temporall Prince he hath only authoritie to giue or take away heauenly not earthly kingdomes to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to vse spirituall not temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill punishments This consequence the ancient Fathers made See aboue cha 5· sec 3. nu 11. seq But besides that it is not sufficient to prooue any conclusion by the authority of the Ciuill law vnles the Ciuil law granteth both the premises or propositions from whence that conclusion is deduced the insufficiencie of this consequence grounded vpon those rules The accessorie followeth the principall and he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse See chap. 2. 3. per totum I haue made manifest in the former Chapters 58 Secondly doe not dissemble Mr. Fitzherb nor seeke to delude your Reader but deale sincerely and be not ashamed to acknowledge your errour seeing that not onely your selfe but also Card. Bâ—ll Gretzer Lessius Becanus and also Suarez haue herein grosely erred For your meaning was not by making that long discourse out of the Ciuill law to proue the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes onely to inferre by a necessary consequent in your owne vnderstanding that he may also punish them temporally in their persons and states but your meaning was to proue directly by the Ciuill law the Oath to be vnlawfull for that in your opinion it denieth the Popes power to Excommunicate Princes which the Ciuill law doth expresly acknowledge For in the beginning of your Supplement you tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine namely in respect of those clauses which do exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope and then after you had made an end of your long discourse concerning the Popes spirituall power acknowledged by the Ciuill law you made this inference that the Ciuill law cannot iustifie the Oath but doth flatly impugne it for that the Oath supposeth and implieth the Kings Maiestie to be supreme head of the English Church and not the Pope and thereupon denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince So that the Oath in your opinion contained two clauses the one a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and this was that which you intended to prooue to bee directly repugnant to the Ciuill law the other was a deniall of the Popes power to depose Princes and this in a word or two related before you affirmed to be also repugnant to the ciuill law for that in your iudgement it followeth necessarily froÌ„ the fromer which how vaine an assertion this is you may see by that I haue said before for so you may make one to affirme any thing if to make him to graunt an argument or consequent it bee sufficient that he graunt the antecedent although hee deny the consequence But now it seemeth by your silence as I signified before in the first Chapter that you are ashamed to insist vpon the former clause concerning the Popes power to excommunicate Princes for which you made that long discourse to prooue by the Ciuill law the Popes supremacie in spirituals and yet rather then you will confesse your errour you care not to delude your Reader in dissembling the chiefe and principall cause for which you affirmed the Oath to bee repugnant to the Ciuill law to wit because it denyed the Popes power to excommunicate Princes wherein with many others of your Society you haue most fowlely and shamefully erred 59 Wherefore I may now very well conclude that the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought in his Supplement grounded as well vpon the law of God of nature and nations as vpon the ciuill or imperiall law are very insufficient and that the answeres which in my Admonition I did briefly make to them doe stand sound and good notwithstanding any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary Now you shall see what arguments he bringeth from the Canon law and especially from that so often named decree of the famous Councell of Lateran CHAP. IX Wherein the difficulties which some make concerning the authority of the Lateran Councel are propounded the decree of the Councell which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related and Widdringtons first answere to the said Decree is proued to be sound and sufficient and Mr. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted 1 WE are come now at last courteous Reader to examine what conuincing arguments can bee brought for proofe of this new pretended Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes out of the Canon law and especially from the decree of the great and famous Councell of Lateran whereon my principall Aduersaries seeing belike all their other arguments and authorities to bee cleane shaken and battered doe now chiefly rely Wherefore albeit neither the more ancient of our moderne Diuines who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba D. Sanders and others nor Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken from these men all his chiefe arguments and authorities to confirme his new Catholike faith in this point did in his Controuersies make any great reckoning of the decree of this great Councell for otherwise without doubt he being not ignorant of this decree and also desirous to make his doctrine vnquestionable and therefore feareth not to brand the contrary opinion with the note of heresie would not haue beene contented onely with the fact of Pope Innocent the third in deposing Otho the Emperour and haue neglected to vrge this decree of the Councell of Lateran which was called by the said Pope Innocent yet now hee flyeth to the decree of the great Councell of Lateran as the chiefe pillar to support his new Catholike faith therefore in regard principally of this decree he doubteth not to affirme but how rashly and without sufficient ground you shall see beneath that whosoeuer denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes contemneth the voyce of the Church in this so great and famous a Councell and is to be accounted a Heathen and Publican and in
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 honour for those words doe signifie temporall Land-lords Gouernours Magistrates or Officers as Mayors Iudges Sheriffes Bayliffes Constables whether they be Lords or no as any man of iudgement may plainely see for that all these are Domini temporales and many of them may be Domini principales and I will more cleerely shew the same beneath So also when the Councell saith that condemned heretikes are to be left to the Secular Potestaes or their Bailiffes to be deseruedly punished it did not vnderstand absolute Princes as Kings and Emperours but other inferiour Officers and Magistrates as Mayors Consulls chiefe Iustices Captaines and Gouernours of Cities to whom the execution of iustice is committed as both the Italian and French word Potesta doth signifie and so in Italie the Gouernour of a Citie is called the Potesta and also it may more cleerely appeare by the Breues See Director Inquisitor circa finem or Apostolicall letters of Pope Innocent the fourth Alexander the fourth and Clement the fourth cited here beneath by my Aduersary for those of Honorius the third and Vrbanus the fourth I haue not seene neither is there any mention made of them in the Directorie of Inquisitors who direct their letters to all Marcquesses Earles Barons and Potestates Gouernours Consulls and Communities of Cities and other places c. as Pope Innocent doth or onely to Potestaes Counsells and Communities of Cities other places of Italy as Pope Alexander doth or to Potestaes or Gouernours Consulls Captaines Aâ—tians Counsells and Communities of Cities as Pope Clement doth where it is plaine that by the word Potestaes are not vnderstood so much as those Dukes of Italie who are in some sort absolute Princes as the Duke of Sauoy Florence Mantua Parma c. but onely inferiour Magistrates and Officers Rectours or Gouernours of Cities and other places 27 Secondly the ground and reason for which I affirmed that Mr. Fitzherbert dissembled diuers of my answeres to the decree of the Councell of Lateran was for that I supposed he had seene the Preface to my Apologeticall Answere wherein I discoursed at large of this decree against F. Lesâ—ius and the reason why I supposed that he had seene that Answere was for that it was published to the view of the world a yeere before hee wrote his Supplement and whether I might not probably suppose the same considering what particular intelligence the Colledge of Rome where then he liued hath of all things that passe in this Kingdome especially in things that greatly touch the Iesuites as that Preface doth I remit to the iudgement of the prudent Reader But because he now protesteth that he neuer saw that Preface before my Theologicall Disputation whereunto it is annexed came forth I will beleeue him therein and take his protestation for an answere and I doe willingly grant that I was mistaken therein as also I protest that in any other thing wherein I shall find my selfe to be mistaken I will most willingly acknowledge the same and if he and the rest of my Aduersaries will as willingly acknowledge their errours in all those things wherein they doe cleerely find themselues to be mistaken I make no doubt but that this controuersie betwixt vs will quickely be at an end 28 Thirdly obserue good Reader how fraudulently Mr. Fitzherbert hath concealed a principall clause which of set purpose I put downe in this my argument taken from the Constitution of the Emperour Fredericke For whereas I argued thus as you haue seene before that because the Emperour Fredericke enacting the selfe same law fiue yeeres after and vsing the very same words which the Councell did vse to wit a temporall principall Landlord Gouernour or also Lord and not hauing a principall Landlord Gouernour or Lords changing only spirituall penalties into temporall neither did nor could by those words comprehend Kings or absolute Princes therfore from thence it may be probably collected that those words in the Councell could not ex vi sua by force of the words comprehend Kings and Soueraigne Princes who in penall lawes are not to be vnderstood vnder generall words vnlesse they be expressed by name Mr. Fitzherbert concealeth those words ex vi sua by force of the words which neuerthelesse are very materiall to the force of my argument as any man of iudgement may cleerely perceiue For as you shall see beneath for the same reason why Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that Frederickes constitution did not by those Generall words comprehend Kings and absolute Princes I also affirme that Kings and absolute Princes are not vnder those generall words comprehended in the Decree of the Councell of Lateran 29 Now you shall see how well Mr. Fitzher impugneth this my argument taken from the Constitution of the Emperour Fredericke Widdringtons argument is saith he f Nu. 6. seq pag. 139. seq that for as much as the Emperour Fridericke made the same Constitution fiue yeeres after the Councell of Lateran almost in the same words changing onely the spirituall penalties into temporall therefore he did not meane to include therein either himselfe who was free from the subiection of lawes or else other absolute Princes who were not subiect to him Thus argueth he But how doth it follow hereon that the Canon of the Councell of Lateran did not include him and all other Princes For albeit they were free from all temporall lawes yet being members of the Catholike Church they were subiect to the lawes of that Councell and the rather for that their Ambassadours being present there either ratified the Decrees thereof or at least did not contradict them But to the end that this controuersie betwixt my Aduersary Widdrington and me concerning the Emperour Friderickes law may be the better vnderstood I thinke it not amisse to lay downe what I haue already said concerning the same in my Supplement where I proued against M. Iohn Dunne that the said law was so farre from preiudicing any way the Canon of the Councell that it doth notably confirme it to which purpose I said thus 30 Thou shalt therefore vnderstand good Reader that Fredericke the second Emperour of that name being in the beginning of his reigne an obedient child of the Church and willing to giue publike testimonie thereof to the world thought good to imitate the example of many of his predecessours as well in the confirmation of the liberties and priuiledges of the Cleargie as also in imploying his Imperiall authoritie in the extirpation of heresie Concil Lateran sub Innoc. 3. can 44. 46. Com. 4 â—oncil See constitut Frider. §. Ad decus honorem And forasmuch as this Councell of Lateran had then lately before promulgated diuers Canons to both those ends he published also certaine constitutions on his part with manifest relations to the Canons of the Councell For whereas the Councell complained of the small charity of some Secular Princes g The Councell did not complaine of Secular Princes but
of Consuls Rectors of cities such like Potestaes not Potentaes as M. Fitzherbert saith Ibid. §. Nos Fridericus Imperator and Potentates who had made lawes and constitutions in preiudice of the Ecclesiasticall immunities and priuiledges which lawes also the Councell did wholly abrogate and disannull the Emperour in like manner in the Preface to his lawes lamenteth of the iniquity of such Potentates and being desirous as hee testifieth that the Church might enioy plena quiete secura libertate full quietnesse and secure libertie abrogated by his first decree all such constitutions as any Cities Places Consulls or other Potentates within the Empire had made against the liberties of the Church 31 And this he ordained vnder great penalties of infamy banishment and confiscation of goods Saluis nihilominus saith he alijs paenis contra tales in generali Concilio promulgatis Reseruing neuerthelesse the other penalties promulgated against such persons in the general Councell So hee meaning by the generall Councell that of Lateran which was held but a few yeeres before he made these Constitutions and therefore for as much as that most famous generall Councell hauing beene held so lately before was then fresh in euery mans memory it was needlesse to name it more particularly which had beene requisite if hee had meant any other Councell Concil Constan in fine Besides that the Councell of Constance layeth downe the substance of the 46. Canon of the said Councell of Lateran made in fauour of the liberties and immunities of the Church and also maketh mention of this law of Fredericke and in relating the same setteth downe particularly the clause aboue mentioned to wit Saluis nihilominus alijs poenis c. Reseruing neuerthelesse the other penalties promulgated against such in the generall Councell Whereby it is euident that those Imperiall Constitutions of Fredericke haue a speciall relation vnto the Canons of the Councell of Lateran and that they were made in confirmation thereof 32 This also appeareth by the other decrees ensuing wherein the Emperour either followed exactly the sense meaning and substance of some Canon of the Councell or else vsed the very words thereof so farre forth as they might stand with the stile and forme of an Imperiall law as it may bee seene not onely in the fragment alleaged by Mr. Dunne but also in diuers other parts of those Constitutions as in that which concerneth the receiuers abetters and defenders of heretickes being alike in the Imperiall Constitutions and in the Canon of the Councell Concil Lateran can 3. §. Credentes vero Constit Freder §. Credentes praterea to wit Credentes praeterea receptores defensores fautores Haereticorum c. And the onely difference betwixt the one and the other is that the Councell saith Excommunicationi decreuimus subiacere We decree them to be subiect to Excommunication and the Emperour in his Constitutions saith Bannimus wee doe out-law them because it did not belong to him to excommunicate And againe the Councell in the end of that Canon imposeth a penalty vpon Cleargie men which the Emperour doth not in his Constitution because they were exempt from his Iurisdiction and in all other things the Canon and Constitution do agree word for word Concil Later can 3. Constitut Freder 33 The like also may be obserued in the Constitution and Canon concerning such as are onely suspected of heresie beginning both alike to wit Qui autem inuenti fuerint sola suspicione notabiles c. and differing onely in that the Canon exposeth them to Excommunication if they doe not cleare themselues within a yeare whereas the Imperiall law inflicteth the penalty of infamie and banishment Also the same forme and stile is kept in another Constitution touching an oath to be taken by all Magistrates to doe their best endeauour to exterminate heretikes And finally to come to the Constitution whereof wee now specially treate it seemeth that the same is no other then as it were a transcript or Copie of that Canon of the Councell concerning the deposition of Princes mutatis mutandis I meane except onely in such things as could not agree with the forme of an Imperial law or exceeded the power of a Secular Prince Concil Later can 3. §. Si vero Dominus 34 Therefore whereas the Canon ordaineth that the Metropolitan and other Bishops should excommunicate such Princes as would not purge their Countries of heresie and afterwards also if they remained obstinate denounce them to the Pope to the end hee might absolue their subiects from their allegiance and expose their States to be taken by Catholikes Constit Freder §. Si vero Dominus the Emperours Constitution maketh no mention of Excommunication or Denunciation as neither compatible with his temporall power nor conforme to the stile of the Imperiall lawes and therefore he saith onely insteed thereof Post annum à tempore admonitionis elapsum c. After a yeere past from the time of the admonition wee doe expose his land to bee taken by Catholikes and in this onely consisteth the difference of the Canon and Constitution for in all other things they are all one 35 Thus I said in my Supplement and afterwards hauing accusion to satisfie an obiection of Mr. Dunne touching these words in the Emperours law Exponimus terras illius Catholicis occupandas We expose his Lands to be taken by Catholikes which words Mr. Dunne vrgeth to prooue that the Emperour tooke the authority out of the Popes hands vpon this occasion I say I showed that fiue seuerall Popes to wit Honorius the third Alexander the fourth Innocentius the fourth Vrbanus the fourth and Clement the fourth knowing right well that the said Constitution of Fredricke might greatly auayle and helpe to purge the Empire of heresie yea and ease them of the labour enuy and murmuration which might be incident sometimes to the deposition of some Prince within the Emperours Dominion did ratifie and confirme it no lesse then his other lawes made in fauour of the Church which they would neuer haue done if hee had sought thereby to take any authority from the Sea Apostolike or to preiudice the Canon of the Councell Thus discoursed I in my Supplement 36 Whereby it is cleere that this Law of the Emperour Fredericke was no way preiudiciall to the Canon of the Councell but a notable confirmation of it ordaining the like to be practised and executed in his Dominions in fauour of the Church to shâ—w his obedience thereto and to the Councell of Lateran and therefore whereas my Aduersary Widdrington will needes perswade his Reader that those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominum principalem which are vsed alike in the Canon and in the Emperours law haue like restriction in both he sheweth himselfe to be very absurd For what can be more cleere then that all lawes are limited c 37 Heere you see Mr. Fitzherbert hath made a long discourse
to prooue that this law of the Emperour Frederike was no way preiuciall to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran but a notable confirmation thereof which is nothing at all against mee For I neuer intended to deny that this Constitution of Frederike was against the Canon of the saide Councell but I expresly affirmed that it was the same law and constitution containing the very same wordes with that of the Councell changing onely spirituall punishments into temporall and that therefore those wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-Lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in both Decrees haue though not equally yet proportionally the like restriction and limitation in both For that which I affirme is that this great and famous Councell of Lateran where almost all the Ambassadours of Christian Kings and Princes were present did represent as the Cardinall of Peron doth well obserue the whole Christian world or Common-wealth as well temporall as spirituall and was as it were a generall Parliament of all Christendome consisting both of temporall and spirituall authoritie of temporall Princes and spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted therein concerning spirituall matters as is the inflicting of spirituall Censures for what crime soeuer either spirituall or temporall did proceede meerely from the authoritie of spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted concerning temporall matters as is this decree whereof now we treate concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they bee inflicted did proceede meerely from the authoritie of Secular Princes who are the head and fountaine of all temporall authoritie and of all power to dispose of temporall matters for that as I haue prooued more at large in the first part of this Treatise by the testimonie of many learned Catholikes the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment but that when the Church or spirituall Pastours doe inflict such temporall punishments it proceedeth from the positiue grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes 38 And from this ground it euidently followeth that not onely in this Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the temporall punishing of heretikes their abetters but also in all other Canons of Popes or Councells when the inflicting of any tēporal punishmēt is ordained it is as probable that all the force which they haue to bind doth proceede originally frō the positiue grant consent and authoritie of temporal Princes as it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not by the institutiō of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporal or ciuill punishments and consequently that temporall Princes are not by any generall wordes included in such decrees as being themselues supreame and next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be punished with temporall punishments but by GOD alone Wherefore vnlesse my Aduersaries doe first prooue which in my iudgement they will neuer bee able to doe by some conuincing argument grounded vpon the authoritie either of the Holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleare definition of the Church that this doctrine which denyeth the Pope to haue by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments is absurd and not probable they spend their time in vaine and beate about the bush to little purpose whiles they bring neuer so many decrees and canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained for still the maine question remaineth yet a foote by what authoritie to wit temporall or spirituall those Canons for as much as concerneth the inflicting of such temporall punishments haue force to binde and the answere of Almaine and of many other Catholike Doctours will bee still readie at hand that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath onely authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and that the other punishments which hee vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law authoritie grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes and that therefore the lawes or Canons of spirituall Pastours enacting them cannot bind or comprehend temporall Princes themselues 39 And by this the Reader may cleerely see both the ground and reason from whence I deduced probably that absolute Princes are not included vnder any generall words whatsoeuer in penall lawes and canons of the Church wherein temporall penalties are inflicted for neither are they included as you shall see beneath in the next Chap. in penall lawes wherein spirituall punishments are inflicted vnder generall words or names which denote titles of inferiour degree place and dignitie as are Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis a temporall or principall Land-Lord Gouernour or also Lord and such like and also how weakely not to vse Mr. Fitzherberts foule word absurdly he prooueth that I shew my selfe to bee very absurd in perswading the Reader that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in the Canon and in the Emperours law haue like restriction though not equally yet proportionally in both For what can be more cleare saith he h p. 145. nu 15 then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince who maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended only to his owne subiects whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall tearmes do comprehend all Christian men as well absolute Princes as others because they are all subiect thereto yet the Lawes of temporall Princes being made in the like or in the same generall tearmes can comprehend none but their owne subiects and this being so what an absurd argument hath Widdrington made who because the words are all one in the Canon of the Councell and the Law of the Emperour will restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne Dominion 40 And therefore though the words Dominus temporalis or principalis or non habens Dominum principalem be generall in his Law yet they can bee vnderstood of none but such as being his subiects held their Lands or states of him or of some other in his Dominions in which respect Kings and other temporall Princes which held not of the Empire could not be comprehended therein though the same generall words in the Canon must needes comprehend as well all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes as other inferiour Lords because all of them being Domini temporales are subiect alike to the decrees of a generall Councell 41 True it is that nothing is more cleere then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of
euery Princes lawes is extended onely to his owne subiects Whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall termes may comprehend all Christian men aswell absolute Princes as others forasmuch as concerne spirituall matters and the inflicting of spirituall punishments because in these all Christians are subiect thereto yet considering that it is probable that Christian Princes in temporall matters and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable that the Canons of Popes or Councells made in generall tearmes concerning temporall affaires as are the inflicting of temporall punishments cannot comprehend temporall Princes who in these are absolute and supreame and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church which as I haue shewed before doeth extend to the inflicting onely of spirituall punishments Which being so the Reader may cleerely perceiue that the argument I brought from the Emperours constitution is not absurd but very probable and that the absurditie which his foule mouth so often casteth vpon mee falleth vpon himselfe For that which I in bringing that argument intended to affirme was this that for the same reason for which those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or non habeus Dominum principalem did not in the decree of Frederike comprehend either himselfe who was not subiect to his owne law at leastwise as it is coerciue or absolute Princes for that they were not subiect to him at all the same generall wordes in the Canon of the Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments doe not comprehend absolute Princes for that they are subiect to the authoritie of the Church onely in Spirituall matters and not in temporall as are the inflicting of temporall punishments 42 Wherefore I doe not restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power as Mr. Fitzherbert very grosely imposeth vpon mee but I restraine the sense of the Canon thus that if all Christian Princes had made the like law and in the same forme of words as Fredericke did then I say that all these lawes had beene a cleare confirmation of the sense and meaning of the Canon of the aforesaid Councell and that those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis and non habens Dominum principalem in all these lawes together made by all Christian Princes had signified the selfe same persons and no others then now they signifie in the decree of the Councell For that which I contend is that it is probable that this Canon forasmuch as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made by the Councell not as it had spirituall but onely as it had temporall authoritie or which is all one not by vertue of the spirituall power of the Church but by the authoritie and consent of all temporall Princes whose Ambassadours were present thereat because it is probable as I haue shewed aboue out of many learned Catholikes that the spirituall power of the Church doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of spirituall Whereby it is euident that albeit Emperours Kings and all other absolute Princes and inferiour Lords are subiect alike to the decrees of Generall Councells yea and of Prouinciall Councells held in their owne kingdomes in matters spirituall yet they are not subiect alike to the Decrees of generall Councells wherein temporall matters as are the inflicting of temporall punishments are decreed for that these decrees are made by the authority and consent of absolute Princes to whom onely all other inferiour persons are subiect in temporall affaires And heereby all that which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in the rest of this Chapter is already satisfied 43 So as you see saith hee i p. 146. nu 17. what probable arguments Widdrington giueth vs whiles neuerthelesse nothing will satisfie him from vs but demonstrations and therefore whereas I signified all this in effect in my Supplement hee taketh no formall notice of it but onely as it were glanceth at it in a word or two saying as you haue heard before Dicere Imperatorem c. To say that the Emperour did not include Kings in those wordes of his law and that the Pope did meane to doe it in the Canon is to say so but not to demonstrate So hee requiring as you see a demonstration of this point and craftily concealing and dissembling the reason that I gaue for my assertion in my Supplement as if I had giuen none at all but onely had barely said that Dominus temporalis in the Emperours law is not to be vnderstood of Kings as it is to bee taken in the Canon whereas you see the reasons which I haue giuen of the difference of the one and the other being grounded vpon the different power of the Generall Councell and the Emperour is so pregnant and cleare that it may serue for a demonstration to any Catholike man of iudgement 44 For I thinke it is not more cleare to any such that two and two make foure then that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords and that they are included in those words of the Canon because they being members of Christs Church are as subiect to a generall Councell as the meanest temporall Lord in Christendome As also it is no lesse cleare that Dominus temporalis in the Emperours constitution can be extended no further then to such temporall Lords as were some way subiect to him which my Aduersary himselfe acknowledgeth albeit he absurdly denieth that the same words in the Canon are to be vnderstood of Kings 45 But first whether my arguments and answeres bee probable or no and whether that foule aspersion of absurditie wherewith Mr. Fitzherbert so often chargeth me doth fall vpon his owne arguments and answeres or vpon mine I must remit to the iudgement of the learned Reader Secondly no learned man can denie but that to prooue any doctrine to be certaine and of faith it is necessary to bring demonstrations and conuincing proofes and that to prooue any doctrine to bee probable and the contrary not to be certaine nor of faith it sufficeth to bring onely probable arguments and answeres and therefore it is no maruaile that I expect at my Aduersaries hands cleare demonstrations and inuincible proofes seeing that they take vpon them to prooue their doctrine to be certaine and of faith whereas it sufficeth for mee that onely take vpon me at this time to shew their doctrine not to bee certaine and of faith to bring probable arguments and answers 46 Thirdly it is not true that I haue craftily concealed and dissembled the reason that he gaue in his Supplement why the words Dominus temporalis should in the Canon of the Councell comprehend absolute Princes and not in the Emperours constitution For all that hee laboureth as you haue seene to prooue in his
Supplement is that the Emperours constitution is no way preiudiciall to the Canon of the Councell but a cleare confirmation thereof which I neuer denied and that the Emperours law could extend no further then to his owne subiects and that the Emperour himselfe and all Soueraigne Princes are vnder the iurisdiction of a generall Councell and subiect to her decrees whereof also no man maketh doubt if those decrees concerne spirituall affaires but if they concerne meere temporall matters wherin temporall Princes are supreame and not subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church as are the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted the whole drift of my Apollogie was to prooue it to be probable that the spirituall authority and iurisdiction of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer and consequently that the inflicting of such temporall punishments although it be for a spirituall end is a meere temporall matter wherein temporall Princes are supreame and subiect to none but God Which being so I had no reason to take any formall notice in that briefe Admonition of all the idle discourses hee made in his Supplement and which either were nothing at all against mee or might easily be satisfied by that I had said before in my Apologie But Mr. Fitzherbert doth shamefully corrupt my words and meaning and fowlely abuse me and his Reader in affirming as you haue seene that I doe restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne dominion whereas I made no such restraint but extended the sense of the Canon to the Dominions of all Christian Princes by whose consent and authority that Canon for as much as it concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made and had force to binde 47 Neither as I said doth the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth concerning the distinction of the Canon and of the Emperours decree in extension any way impugne but confirme the argument I brought from the Emperours law because or the same reason which Mr. Fitzherbert alleageth why those generall words Dominus temporalis or principalis cannot in the Emperours decree comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to him in temporals I also affirme that the same generall words cannot in the Canon comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to the Pope or Church in temporals as is the inflicting of temporall punishments to which as I haue often said the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend And if my Aduersary cannot bring more cleare and pregnant demonstrations then these to confirme his new Catholike faith hee neede not to waste any more time and labour in producing such cleare and pregnant demonstrations which euery Catholicke man of iudgement may clearely see to bee apparant sophismes and that notwithstanding all his vaine brags of his cleare and pregnant demonstrations and of my absurd arguments and answeres so often repeated by him in the end the Reader will see that Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus 48 And although it be cleare enough that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords yea and Masters yet because it is cleare that Dominus temporalis is not a proper tearme or title belonging to absolute Princes but common to all others of inferiour degree if any man should speake of them and giue them onely the titles of their Masterships Worships or Lordships he would both be accounted a rude and vnmannerly companion and also he should wrong those persons in giuing them onely those titles of worship or honour which are common to other persons of inferior ranke neither he that should onely vse such inferiour titles would be thought to speake of absolute Princes vnlesse some other circumstance should enforce vs to thinke the same And although it be also cleare that absolute Princes are subiect no lesse then the meanest Lord in Christendome to the decrees of a generall Councell which concerne spirituall matters yet because in meere temporall matters they are supreame and therin not subiect to any decree of Pope or Councell it is also probable that the inflicting of temporall punishments is a meere temporall matter and not belonging to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable and no way absurd to say that Dominus temporalis in the Canon of the Councell wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed is not to be vnderstood of absolute Princes for the same reason that in the Emperours constitution it is not extended to them but to such onely as were subiect to him in temporals 49 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 147. num 19. that he hath added another reason to fortifie the same which was as you haue heard before that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes except they be specified therein by the names of Princes for so indeed he saith inserting the same cunningly into his inference to make his argument grounded on the Emperours law to seeme the more probable and therefore hauing said that the Emperour could not vnderstand either himselfe or other absolute Princes by the name of one who hath no principall Lord hee concludeth ex quo probabiliter collegi c. Whereupon I gathered probably that those words Non habens Dominum principalem not hauing a principall Landlord or Lord could not comprehend absolute Princes who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be namely expressed Thus he sliding subtilly as you see from the Emperours law and the reason grounded thereon to the priuiledges of Princes which belongeth to another question and shall be fully debated and cleared as I hope in the next Chapter And in the meane time I conclude for the present that in all this hee hath shewed himselfe very absurd and that my cold answere as he tearmeth it would haue beene hote enough to dissolue his frozen and friuolous argument if he had not wholly dissembled the force and substance of my discourse in my Supplement concerning this point 50 It is very true that I haue in that briefe Admonition also another reason why absolute Princes are not included in the Canon of the Councell vnder those generall names Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or such like to wit for that in penall lawes they are not comprehended vnder such generall tearmes which denote titles of inferiour degree and dignity and in bringing this reason I vsed no craft or cunning but meant plainly and sincerely neither did I intend to slide cunningly and subtily as Mr. Fitzherbert would guilefully perswade his Reader from the Emperours law and reason grounded thereon to this reason for that the reason why in the Emperours law absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is the
deserued punishments threatned against them may keepe immooueable and without perturbation the peace of the holy Churches of God Giuen the eight Calends of Iune Asclepius and Deodatus most excellent men being Consulls 17 Now what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to this ancient decree of Pope Liberius which hee wisheth mee well to note wherein it is decreed that Bishops if they perturbe the peace of the Church shall be depriued of their Priesthood by Regall or Kingly indignation For that secular men being placed in dignity may be depriued of their honour and dignity and if they be priuate men yet noble may forfeit all their goods and if they be ignoble may be whipped or perpetually banished by Regall or Kingly power or indignation which this Canon also of what credit soeuer it be doth ordaine is not any way repugnant to my doctrine Thus thou seest good Reader how grosly thou art abused through the fraud or ignorance of this vnlearned man who neuertheles presumeth to direct thy soule and conscience in this so high and dangerous a point of thy allegeance due to God and man wherein he cleerely sheweth himselfe to haue so little skill 18 Thirdly in what sense I affirmed that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes vnder generall words vnlesse they be expressed by name for which respect also Mr. Fitzherbert wisheth me to note well this Canon of Pope Liberius I haue declared before to wit that they are not in such lawes comprehended vnder generall words which denote some inferiour office or title of honour for I neuer intended to denie as this man imposeth vpon me that they are not included in any generall words except they be specified by the name of Princes if such generall words denote no inferiour office or title of honour So that neither Hostiensis for as much as concerneth this Canon of Liberius contradicteth my doctrine because those generall words Qui contra pacem Ecclesiae They who are against the peace of the Church do denote no inferiour office or title of honour and although he were against my doctrine it is too little to the purpose seeing that other Lawyers and Diuines doe contradict him herein and moreouer this Canon cited by Hostiensis is neither authenticall and of sufficient credit nor any way gaine-saith that which I affirme concerning this poynt Pag. 151. nu 5. 19 Now you shall see the third testimony which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of Hostiensis And this saith he c will be much more cleare by the third testimony cited out of the Canon law by Hostiensis which hee taketh out of the title de haereticia Decret lib. 5. tit 7. de Haretices wherin there is no particular mention of absolute Princes by the name of Princes neither is there in any other Decree concerning their deposition but onely this Canon of the Councell of Lateran now in question so as Widdrington may see not onely that Kings and absolute Princes haue no such exemption from penall Lawes as he pretendeth but also that they are included in the generall tearmes ouen of this Canon of the Councell of Lateran in the opinion of a famous Canonist who wrote not past fiftie yeares after the said Councell And if he say that they haue had this exemption or priuiledge since that time let him shew vs when and where they had it which I am sure he cannot doe as it may appeare by the Canonists who comprehend absolute Princes in other penall lawes wherein they are not otherwise mentioned then in generall tearmes as he may see in Simanca in his Institutions d Tit. 23. and Emericus in his third part of the Directorie e Q. 31. and Penna in his Annotations vpon the f Annot. 96. same 20 But first it is vntrue that in the whole title dehaereticis there is not any other Canon or decree concerning the deposition of Princes except this Decree of the Lateran Councell if wee once suppose as Hostiensis doth suppose that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for this once supposed they may very well bee included in the last Canon of this title De haereticis wherein Pope Gregory the ninth doth Decree and declare that whosoeuer are bound or obliged to manifest heretickes by any couenant strengthened with neuer so great securitie are absolued from the bond of all allegiance homage and obedience for in those words whosoeuer and manifest heretickes and such like generall tearmes which denote no title of office honour or dignity inferiour to Kingly maiesty all men whatsoeuer euen Kings and absolute Princes may be included if it be once granted that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes But because it is probable as I haue prooued at large aboue in this Treatise that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath no authority to depose temporall Princes or to inflict temporall punishments it consequently followeth that it is also probable that neither the aforesaid Canon Absolutos nor any other Canon made in such generall words wherein temporall punishments are inflicted can comprehend absolute Princes but that all such like Canons are made either by the Pope as he is a temporall Prince and consequently are of force onely in the territories of the Church or the Popes temporall dominions or else that they are made by the consent of temporall Princes and haue their force to binde from their authority and consequently doe concerne onely inferiour persons or subiects and not absolute Princes themselues who are free from the coerciue power of those lawes which are made by their owne authority 21 So that although I will not now contend neither doe I much regard of what opinion Hostiensis bee concerning the sense and meaning of this Canon of the Lateran Councell yet it is plaine that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not hitherto prooued out of Hostiensis as hee pretended to prooue that absolute Princes are comprehended in the penall lawes of the Church vnder such generall names which denote some office honour dignitie or title inferiour to Kingly Maiestie Neither doeth Simancas Emericus or Pegna in the places cited by my Aduersarie teach contrarie to my doctrine in this point to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are vnderstood by the generall name of Monkes Bishops by the generall name of Priests and Emperours Kings and absolute Princes by the generall name of Dominus temporalis a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord. 22 For Simancas in the 23. title cited by my Aduersarie nu 10. doth cleerely distinguish betwixt Dominos temporales and Reges temporall Lords and Kings and nu 11. hee proueth that hereticall Kings and Princes are forthwith deposed and their subiects absolued from their allegiance by the aforesaide Canon Absolutos of Gregorie the ninth which as I saide is a sufficient proofe supposing as hee doeth that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue
making this Canon was to put in execution the holy lawes before enacted by Christian Princes for the rooting out of heretikes which lawes were not put in practise by the negligence of inferiour Gouernours Magistrates and Officers to whose charge the execution of iustice is immediately committed for which reason it was sufficient to comprehend in that Canon only inferiour Lords Gouernours Magistrates and Land-lords who were negligent to put in execution the godly lawes before enacted by pious Emperours and Kings for the repressing of heretikes but of this reason more beneath 29 Lastly the rule saith Mr. Fitzherbert holdeth not say the Lawyers when there is question of the publike good or the fauour of the Church or of the faith or of soules for in thesâ—â—ases penalties are to bee extended and the law interpreted in preiudice of the delinquent So as these rules doe helpe Widdrington nothing at all seeing that these exceptions which are admitted by the Law doe cleerely exclude the restriction which hee requireth by vertue of the rules 30 And the Lawyers also doe absolutely and without the aforesaide exceptions affirme the aforesaide rules to bee true Wherefore Sayrus citing diuers Lawyers for the same doeth by vertue of this rule except Abbots from Excommunication although Excommunication bee rather medicinall then penall and ought not to bee inflicted but for the good of the soule And Andreas Duuallius did by vertue of this rule exempt the King of France from the Canon Vnam sanctam of Pope Boniface the eight which neuerthelesse was made in fauour of the Church Neither is there any law either spirituall or ciuill which ought not to concerne the publike good neither hath the Pope any authority either directiue or coerciue graunted him but for the good of soules So as these rules according to the opinion of learned Lawyers and Diuines doe helpe mee greatly and fauour my doctrine concerning the not including in penall lawes Abbots Bishops and Kings vnder the generall names of Monkes Priests and Lords although they bee enacted for the publike good the health of soules and in fauour of the Church 31 But the maine and principall ground whereon I stand why absolute Princes are not comprehended in this Canon of the Lateran Councell vnder those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is this as you haue seene before for that albeit I should grant my Aduersarie onely for disputation sake that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are included in the name of Monkes and Bishops in the name of Priests and Kings in the name of temporall Lords which neuerthelesse he will neuer bee able to conuince yet seeing that it is most cleare as Mr. Fitzherbert also confesseth that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation both of Princes and Church lawes is extended onely to their owne subiects it necessarily followeth that temporall Princes cannot bee comprehended vnder any generall words in any Canon or constitution of the Church but onely in those things wherein they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church From whence it cleerely followeth that if it bee probable as in very deede it is that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments or to depose temporall Princes it is also probable that this Canon of the Lateran Councell as also all other such like decrees wherein temporall punishments are in generall words inflicted vpon temporall Lords Gouernours or Land-lords was not made by spirituall but by temporall authoritie and therefore cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are supreame on the earth and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but that it was either made by the authority consent of all temporall Princes if wee will needes haue it to binde all Christian Kingdomes or else that it hath force onely to binde in the Popes dominions wherein he hath the place both of a spirituall Pastour and also of a temporall Prince 32 And whereas Widdrington giueth an instance saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Pag. 153. num 8. without any quotation of Law or Author that Bishops and Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned it is true in Bishops in the case onely of suspension or interdict from the which they are by an expresse Canon exempted except they be named as it appeareth in the Decretals lib. Tit. 11. cap. 4. §. Quia periculosum Glossa ibidem in verbum suspensionis 5. de sententia excommunicationis where also the Glosse saith expressely that they are not priuiledged from a generall penaltie of Excommunication because the Pope who giueth them the aforesaid priuiledge would not haue them to be exmpted from the Canon Si quis suadente and such like which inflict the penalty of Excommunication in generall tearmes and the same is to be said of Abbots or any other persons of dignitie to wit that they haue no exemption from the generall tearmes of penall lawes except they be priuiledged namely by some expresse Canon And therefore when my Aduersary shall shew me such a Canon whereby Princes haue the priuiledge that he pretendeth in their behalfe I will grant that he hath reason to exempt them from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran In the meane time he hath no more probability in this poynt then in the former 33 But first I neuer said as Mr. Fitzherbert to make some colour of a probable answere falsely layeth to my charge that Bishops or Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned For I make no doubt but that they are included in penall lawes vnder such generall words which denote no particular dignity order degree or function of Christian men and that therefore they are included in the Canon Si quis suadente Diabolo and in the Canon Omnis vtriusque sexus but that which I said was that in penall lawes and odious matters Bishops are not included in the generall name of Priests nor Abbots in the generall name of Monkes And for the proofe thereof I brought neither Canon nor Author for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt but that learned Lawyers and Diuines doe affirme the same But now finding my Aduersary for want of reading learning or sincerity to make doubt thereof I haue brought as you haue seene to prooue the same both learned Lawyers and Diuines and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe who called and ended this Councell of Lateran wherein he declareth that he doth not intend in his commissions to comprehend vnder a generall clause greater and worthier persons when lesse worthie and lesse noble persons are expressed And therefore seeing that I haue now shewed him both learned Authours and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe to prooue that Bishops are not in penall lawes comprehended
Councell are very probable and sufficient and that therefore Mr. Fitzherberts conclusion of this Chapter to vse his owne words is no lesse vaine impertinent and insufficient then of his former Chapters for these be his words k Pag. 154 nu 10. Thus thou seest good Reader that these few exceptions being all that Widdrington hath taken to the Councell of Lateran in his answere to my Supplement are no lesse vaine and impertinent then his former arguments and answeres to the rest of my discourse and this is as much as at the first I meant and vndertooke to performe neuerthelesse forasmuch as he hath charged me to haue dissembled his other answeres and arguments touching the Councell of Lateran in another worke of his which as I haue signified before I neuer saw till now of late I will take a little more paines and craue thy further patience whiles I examine the validitie thereof which I might forbeare to doe if I did write in Latin because the same arguments and answeres of my Aduersary are very learnedly and cleerely confuted in Latin as well by M. D. Weston l Iuris Pontif. Sanctuar q. 27. per totum in his Sanctuary whereof I haue spoken before as also by M. D. Singleton in an excellent Treatise concerning onely the Decree of the Councell of Lateran to which two Authours I might and would wholly remit my Reader m Disscussio decreti c. nu 4. seq were it not that I desire to giue satisfaction in this point as well to such as doe not vnderstand the Latin tongue as to those that haue not the commodity and meanes to see the said Treatises besides that I shall now and then vpon some speciall occasions touch some things which seeme to me very considerable and are not touched by them or any other for ought I know 39 But on the contrary side thou seest good Reader that these answeres which I haue giuen to the Councell of Lateran are sound sufficient and very probable and that the exceptions which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken against them are no lesse vaine and impertinent then are his arguments and answeres in the former Chapters and that according to his owne confession who granteth that all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and therefore the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Canons is extended onely to them who are subiect to the authoritie of the Church if it be probable that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue by the institution of Christ no authoritie to inflict temporall punishments and that consequently absolute Princes are not subiect to them therein it cleerely followeth that it is also probable that the Councell of Lateran did not intend to include absolute Princes in that penall law vnder the generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis but that this decree inflicting temporall punishments was made by the authority and consent of temporall Princes and did therefore onely include those inferiour Land-lords Gouernours or Lords that were subiect to them 40 Wherefore to conclude this point vnlesse as I said before my Aduersaries doe first prooue out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleere definition of a generall Councell or a demonstratiue reason grounded thereon that it is certaine and of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes they cannot draw any conuincing argument from this Canon of the Lateran Councell to prooue that doctrine to be certaine and of faith for still the aforesaid answere will bee ready at hand that it was made by the authority of temporall Princes seeing all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as Almaine and very many Doctours doe affirme So that vnlesse in arguing from the Lateran Councell they will manifestly petere principium and suppose that which they ought to prooue they can neuer bring any conuincing argument from the aforesaid Canon to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes as any man of iudgement may cleerely see but they must still suppose the same as certaine which is a great vice in the disputer although the answerer who taketh not vpon to prooue but onely to defend may without any fault or note giue such answeres which suppose that the Pope hath no such power vntill by force of argument he be driuen from that his supposition and this I wish the Reader and all my Aduersaries well to note for in most of their arguments they suppose that which is in question which is a fault in the Disputant but not in the Respondent who doth alwaies answere supposing his owne grounds and doctrine but the Disputer must not onely suppose them but also prooue them And as for the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Replies which he confesseth to haue taken out of D. Weston and D. Singleton I will also examine with him in the ensuing Chapters as also that which he hath now and then as he saith vpon some speciall occasions touched and which seeme to him very considerable and yet are not for ought he knoweth touched by them or any other CHAP. XI Wherein Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to be sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessarie to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Also the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined And lastly Mr-Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the Decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the Constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted 1 NOw Mr. Fitzherbert with the helpe of D. Weston and Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name taketh vpon him in the three next ensuing Chapters to prooue three answeres which I gaue to an obiection made in fauour of this Decree of the Lateran Councell to bee absurd And thus he beginneth My Aduersary Widdrinton in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere to an English Doctour hath not onely vrged the arguments Praefat. Ad. Resp Apolog. nu 46. which I haue heere alreadie confuted but vndertaketh also to answere certaine of ours against the same arguments and therefore he obiecteth in our behalfe that although it were true that Kings and absolute Princes are not included per se and principally in that Decree of the Councell yet it seemeth to be manifest that secondarily and consequently they are or at least may be comprehended therein For if the Pope saith he haue power to depriue the subiects of other Princes of their temporall states for heresie without the consent of the said Princes it seemeth that no sufficient reason can be assigned why he may not also for the same cause depriue Soueraigne Princes of their Dominions 2 Thus argueth he for
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
same Kingdome or Common-wealth and also that it may be truly presumed that they doe release the same if they choose or admit confirme and allow likewise an infidell or hereticke to bee their King For if the hereticall or infidell Kingdome hath true ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction why shall not likewise the hereticall or infidell Prince whom they shall choose or confirme be capable of the same ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction So that this pact couenant and agreement which is pretended to be made betwixt the predecessours of an hereticall Prince and his people can bee no sufficient cause and ground to make an hereticall Prince who is chosen or confirmed by an hereticall Kingdome to fall from his Royall dignity and be ipso facto depriued thereof for the confirming and establishing of that heresie which that Kingdome doth professe 25 Wherefore concerning the deposition of hereticall Princes as the state of this question is propounded by the Cardinall of Peron many particular questions are inuolued The first may be whether a Prince hauing either himselfe or his predecessours made an oath to liue and die in the Catholicke faith and doe afterwards fall to open profession of heresie and seeke to force his subiects consciences to doe the same is fallen thereby forthwith before any declaration of the Pope or Church from his Royall right and dignity and his subiects are absolued or freed ipso facto from the ciuill and sacred bond of their temporall allegiance and the affirmatiue part which Philopater teacheth and affirmeth to be certaine and vndoubted I account to be a very false scandalous seditious yea and flat traiterous doctrine The second question may be supposing this damnable doctrine to be true touching the cause and ground why such an hereticall Prince doth fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity to wit whether the breaking of the oath which he or his predecessours made to liue and die in the Catholike faith or his open profession of heresie or forcing of his subiects to doe the same whether I say all these or some of them together may be necessary or else any one of them bee sufficient that an hereticall Prince bee ipso facto depriued of his princely power and authority 26 The third question may be supposing still this false doctrine to be true whether the Pope or Church haue authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke a breaker of his oath and promise and a persecutor or enemy to Christ and Christian Religion and consequently to be fallen from all his Princely right And of this no doubt can be made supposing the former seeing that to declare authentically what is heresie who is infected therwth is a spiritual action consequently belonging to the authority of the Pope or Church The fourth question may be what effect this declaration of the Pope or Church doth worke seeing that before this declaration the aforesaid hereticall Prince hath lost and is depriued of all his princely authority and whether this declaration of the Pope or Church be necessary when the fact is so notorious and publike that no Subiect in the Realme can make any doubt but that the Prince is become an hereticke hath broken his oath to liue and die in the Catholike faith and doth force his Subiects consciences to follow his heresie And of this question also no great doubt in my opinion can be made supposing the former false doctrine to be true seeing that this declaration doth not depriue the Prince of any right at all but onely serueth to make it knowne and publike that he is depriued thereof and therefore is not greatly necessary when the fact is so publike and manifest to the view of the whole Kingdome that no man can make any doubt thereof 24 The fift question may be that supposing such a Prince doth not fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity neither by his open profession of heresie nor by breach of his oath nor by forcing his Subiects consciences to forsake their Religion whether the whole Kingdome or Common-wealth which the Parliament doth represent hath authority to depriue him of the same or which is all one whether the whole Kingdome or the King be the supreame and absolute temporall Iudge and Superiour And this question doth nothing appertaine to the Oath of England and it is grounded rather vpon the principles of morall Philosophie and Aristotles Politikes then of Diuinitie The last and principall question is whether the Pope or Church hath authority to depriue such a Prince for the aforesaid crimes of his right to raigne really truly to absolue his subiects from the natural bond of their temporall allegiance which being once dissolued the sacred or spirituall bond of the oath of allegiance which is grounded vpon the former ciuill bond and obligation and was made onely to corroborate the same is forthwith vnloosed or whether the Pope or Church hath only authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke and an enemy to Catholicke Religion and a breaker of his oath and promise and to command compell by Ecclesiasticall censures the Common-wealth supposing they haue such an authority to depriue him of his Regall power and authority and consequently to discharge euery subiect from the naturall and ciuill bond of his temporall allegiance which being taken away the sacred obligation of the oath without any other absolution dispensation or declaration of the Pope or Church is forthwith dissolued 28 All these questions the Lord Cardinall of Peron doth so cunningly inuolue in his question touching the oath of France that if wee descend to particulars I cannot see either what opinion hee doth follow concerning the deposing of hereticall Princes or how his doctrine impugneth our English oath although he would seeme to disprooue the same which onely denyeth the Popes authority to depriue the Kings Maiestie of his Royall dignity and to absolue his subiects from the ciuill bond of their temporall allegiance and doth not meddle at all with the temporall authority which a Kingdome or Common-wealth hath to depose their Prince 29 Wherefore these words of the Cardinall of Peron affirming that not onely all the other parts of the Catholicke Church Page 15. but likewise all the Doctours that liued in France from the first setting vp of Schooles of Diuinitie amongst them haue held that in the case of hereticall or infidell Princes and such as persecute Christianity or Catholicke Religion their subiects may be absolued from their oath of allegiance And againe Page 63. saith he citing Widdrington in the margent The English writers who haue put their hand to pen for the defence of the Oath made by the present King of England against the Pope hauing vsed all their endeauour to finde some Doctours and in particular French who had held their opinion before these last troubles could hitherto bring forth neuer any one neither Diuine Page 65. nor Lawyer who saith that in case
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
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
of Princes confounding and inuoluing both questions concerning the authoritie of the Pope and also of the common-wealth to depose Princes together in one and then in affirming that Widdrington hath not brought any one Authour only D. Barclay excepted who saith that Princes for heresie cannot be deposed to wit neither by the Pope nor the common-wealth which is very true but it is not true that he hath brought no Authours who absolutely affirme that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes and that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments 38 An other cunning the Lord Cardinall of Peron may vse in confounding the oath or religious bond of temporall allegiance with the ciuill or naturall bond thereof which perchance he did for this end that his speech concerning the Popes authority to absolue from the oath of allegiance might seeme more plausible to his audience for that an oath is a sacred and spirituall thing and therefore not exceeding the obiect of the Popes spirituall power and all Diuines doe hold that the Pope hath authority to absolue from oathes either by releasing directly the spirituall bond it selfe or consequently by declaring the thing which is sworne not to be hic nunc in this particular case a fit matter of an oath but temporall allegiance and temporall kingdomes are temporall things and therefore that the Pope by his spirituall power should haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things and to absolue from temporall allegiance and to giue take away translate and dispose of temporall kingdomes would haue seemed very harsh in the yeeres of the greatest part of true French-men z In Apol. nu 148. 149. 39 But besides that as I haue shewed elsewhere the Pope cannot according to the doctrine of S. Thomas and his followers absolue from the oath of temporall allegiance but by declaring the naturall or ciuill bond it selfe of temporall allegiance to be voyd and of no force and consequently to be no fit matter to be sworne it little importeth to the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee touching the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance whether the Pope can release or take away the spirituall bond and obligation of the oath of allegiance it being a sacred and spirituall thing and made onely to confirme and corrobarate the former naturall bond of temporall allegiance For it doth not follow as wel noteth Ioannes Parisiensis Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. c. 16. ad 11 and I also obserued in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. that because the Pope can release or take away the sacred and religious bond of temporall allegiance he can also release and dissolue the naturall and ciuill bond wherein all subiects by the law of God and nature stand bound to their temporall Prince before they make any oath of temporall allegiance and very few subiects in comparison of others doe vsually make any such oath of allegiance And therefore perchance the Cardinall would for the cause aforesaid rather discourse of the Popes power to absolue subiects from the oath that is the sacred and spirituall bond of temporall allegiance then to depose Princes and to take away their Crownes and Regall authority which being taken away both their temporall allegiance and also the sacred and spirituall bond thereof is by a necessary consequent foorthwith dissolued 37 And to omit diuerse other cunning shifts which the Cardinall of Peron hath vsed in his discourse touching the deposition of hereticall Princes and which the Kings Maiesty in his answere to the Cardinalls oration hath in my opinion very cleerely and excellently discouered two notable cunnings or rather fraudes he hath vsed in translating into French the decree of the Councell of Lateran whereof now wee treat The first is in translating into French those words Si Dominus temporalis if any Prince whereas it is manifest that those words Dominus temporalis doe signifie euery Land-lord Maior Iudge Consull Potesta Gouernour Shiriffe Bayliffe Constable or any other inferiour Officer or Pettie Lord and although the Cardinall will perchance affirme that in those generall wordes Dominus temporalis all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are included which neuerthelesse I haue aboue confuted yet to translate those words Dominus temporalis any Prince as though the Councell had named Princes expresly and by the name of Princes cannot in my opinion bee excused from an egregious fraud and falshood The second is in translating those words vt ipse Summus Pontifex Vasallos ab eius fidelitate denunciet abfolutos that he the Pope may absolue his subiects from their oath of fidelitie whereas the words of the Councel only are that he may denounce or declare his Vassals absolued from their fidelity which words of the Councell doe expresly signifie that the vassalls were before absolued from their fidelity either by the decrees of Popes or of temporall Princes and that the Pope doth onely denounce or declare them absolued besides that the word vassalls he translateth subiects which haue farre different significations and that word a fidelitate from their fidelity he translateth from their oath of fidelity which in a Translator who is to set downe not only the sense but also the words cannot bee excused from an egregious corruption 38 Lastly I would gladly be resolued of this question either by the Cardinall of Peron or any other learned Catholike whether if the Doctours of Sorbon who hold the doctrine of the Councells superiority aboue the Pope to be true and conforme to the word of God and to the definitions of the generall Councels of Constance and Basil and consequently the contrary doctrine to be false impious and detestable and contrary to the word of God should make a decree that all of their Vniuersity should in their publike Readings Disputations and writings defend it as certaine that is should not maintaine or teach the contrary doctrine as probable or in any sort Or if the Doctours of Mentz who are of opinion that the doctrine for the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin is true conforme to the word of God and to the decree of the Councell of Basil and that the contrary is false and against the word of God and consequently impious and detestable should also make a Decree as Surius affirmeth b Vpon the yeere 1501. they haue done imitating saith he the decree of the Councell of Basil that it should bee altogether held that the most blessed mother of God was conceiued without the spot of originall sinne and did strictly ordaine that none heereafter should in that Vniuersitie bee promoted in sacred Diuinitie vnlesse he should before by oath make promise that he would neither maintaine in his minde nor any wise approoue the contrary opinion and the same question may be made concerning the Iesuites doctrine de auxilijs gratiae whether I say it must
from hence bee necessarily inferred that the aforesaid Doctours should thereby take vpon them to determine an article of faith to make a manifest and ineuitable schisme in the Church of God yea and to precipitate men into a manifest heresie and account the Pope if he should not hold the same not to bee the head of the Church and Christs Vicar but an hereticke and Antichrist and all the other parts of the Church who should maintaine the contrary not to bee true parts of the Church but members of Antichrist Of this question I would gladly be resolued for the resolution thereof would giue no small light whereby the iudicious Reader may see of what force are the chiefest obiections and inferences that the Cardinall of Peron vrgeth aginst the oath of France and the decree of the Parliament of Paris made the second of Ianuary 1615. 39 And thus much concerning the Lord Cardinall of Peron whom in truth I was very loath to mention for the great reuerence and respect wherewith I honour his Grace in regard of the singular gifts of honour and nature wherewith he is adorned but that the defence of truth in this important question touching our duties to God and Caesar and of my innocency which the slanderous tongues of some haue vniustly branded with the infamous note of errour and heresie for impugning their new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes and also the publishing of his oration to the view of the world wherby many vnlearned Catholikes not being able to discerne his artificiall and cunning manner both in propounding and handling this dangerous question touching the deposition of Princes are pittifully deluded and seduced haue vrged me thereunto Now to the matter from whence vpon this occasion giuen me by my Aduersarie touching the doctrine of Ioannes Parisiensis I haue made this digression 40 And as for the matter it selfe saith Mr. Fitzherbert c pag. 160. n. 7. for the which my Aduersary Widdrington produceth their testimonies to wit to prooue that many decrees of the Popes and generall Councells touching temporall things haue beene alwaies made with the expresse Nu. 47. or secret consent of Princes I cannot see what he could gaine or prooue thereby for the question now in hand if it should be granted him For would hee inferre that because many things haue beene decreed by Popes and Councels touching temporall matters therefore no such thing could be decreed in the Councell of Lateran without them Who seeth not the weakenesse and absurditie of this inference seeing that nothing else can follow of those premisses directly but that as diuers other decrees concerning temporall matters haue beene made with the consent of the Princes so also it may be that this Canon of the Councell of Lateran was made in like manner with their consent which no man will deny yea wee willingly grant not onely that it might bee so but also that it was so and inferre thereupon that forasmuch as all Christian Princes gaue their consent to this Canon in that famous generall Councell which was as I may say the Parliament of all Christendome therefore they are and euer shall be subiect thereto except it be repealed by some other generall Councell of like authoritie But how doth it follow that because this and diuers other Canons concerning politicall matters haue beene ratified by temporall Princes therefore they could not be lawfully made without their consent which is the point that Widdrington must prooue if he will argue to the purpose 41 But if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased to consider with an indifferent eye my answere and the principall drift and scope thereof he might easily haue seene that my answere was good and strong and the authority which I brought from Ioannes Parisiensis and Hostiensis sufficient to confirme the same For my principall answere was this that the decree of the Councell of Lateran did not in those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominos principales comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour Landlords Magistrates or Lords it being made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes as ordaining the inflicting of temporall punishments which to ordaine doth not belong to the spirituall but onely to the temporall power and that therefore not onely it did not but also it could not in those generall words comprehend absolute Princes themselues by whose authority it was made And to preuent an obiection which I foresaw some might make to wit that the decrees and Canons of Popes and Councels haue their force to binde from the authority of the Church and not from the consent approbation ratification or authority of temporall Princes I gaue the aforesaid answere that Popes and Councels doe oftentimes ordaine many things which to ordaine belongeth rather to the ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power by the expresse or tacite consent of Princes who are present by themselues or their Ambassadours or else presuming or at leastwise hoping that temporall Princes will ratifie the same and for the confirmation hereof I brought the authority of Hostiensis who affirmeth that according to the opinion of some Doctors which also Pope Innocent Io. Andreas doe affirme that the Canon Ad abolendam de haereticis wherein it is ordained that if Counts and Barons Rectours and Consuls of Cities and of other places doe refuse to take an oath to defend the Church against heretikes they shall be depriued of their honour had therefore force to binde because the Emperour gaue his consent thereunto And that therefore it is no maruaile if this decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments had therefore force to binde for that temporall Princes consented thereunto 42 And by this it is cleare that my meaning was not onely to affirme that the decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made by the consent of absolute Princes onely in that manner as absolute Princes do giue their consent to the making of Ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons which doe meerely proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authority but also that it was made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that to ordaine the inflicting of temporall punishments belongeth rather to the Ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power and therfore it would not haue had force to binde vnlesse absolute Princes had consented thereunto As likewise the Canon Ad abolendam wherein temporall punishments were inflicted was therefore of force according to the opinion of some Canonists as Hostiensis relateth for that the Emperour consented thereunto although the ordaining or inflicting of Excommunication which in that Canon Ad abolendam was ioyned together with the depriuation of temporall honour as it is also ioyned in the decree of the Lateran Councell did proceed and had force to binde from the spirituall authoritie of the Church to whom onely it belongeth to inflict
it selfe when it bringeth two diuerse expositions of one text or Canon which suppose two contrarie opinions of Doctours and whereof the one contradicteth the other Will hee say Bell. l. 2. de Rom. â—ont cap. 29. that Cardinall Bellarmine contradicteth himselfe when to that text of holy Scripture Iohn 19. Thou shouldest not haue any power against me vnlesse it were giuen thee from aboue bringeth two answeres or expositions whereof the one contradicteth the other the first of Saint Cyrill and Saint Chrysostome that our Sauiour did not speake in that place of true power of Iurisdiction but onely of diuine permission and the other of S. Augustine and S. Bernard that Christ spake there of true power of Iurisdiction and likewise when to that text I appeale to Caesar Act. 25. hee answereth first that Saint Paul did appeale to Caesar de facto but not de iure and secondly that hee did appeale to him both de facto and de iure or when in the same place to another obiection hee giueth two answeres whereof the one contradicteth the other the first is that in the old law the kingdome was aboue the Priesthood and the second that the Priesthood was aboue the kingdome 19 For this is a most vsuall thing for the same Authour to bring to the same Canon text or obiection two contrarie answeres when they are grounded vpon two contrarie opinions whereof both are taught and maintained by learned men Wherefore Ioannes Teutonicus the Glosser of this Canon Hadrianus may without any contradiction bring two contrarie expositions of this Canon when they are grounded vpon the doctrine of learned men whose opinions in that point are one contrarie to the other As the first glosse of this Canon Hadrianus seemeth to follow the doctrine of those who hold that the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ inflict temporall punishments and the second of those who holde the contrarie to wit that it can onely command impose or enioyne temporall penalties and teach or declare what a temporall Prince or Iudge ought to doe and compell them also to doe their duties but not by inflicting temporall punishments but onely spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures and in like maner Hostiensis Ioannes Andreas and Pope Innocent before cited brought two contrarie expositions of the same Canon Ad abolendam which were grounded vpon these two contrarie opinions touching the Popes power to depriue Lay-men of their temporall honour 20 But the reason of Mr. Fitzherberts errour is for that hee silly man seemeth to bee ignorant how according to the rules of Logike modall propositions are contradictorie one to the other for to make them contradictorie the contradiction must bee in the modus and not in the dictum as these two propositions are not contradictorie for that both them may be together true It is the opinion of learned men that our Sauiours words to Pilate Thou shouldest not c. are to bee vnderstood of true power of iurisdiction for so teacheth Saint Augustine and Saint Bernard and It is the opinion of learned men that they are not to bee vnderstood of true power of Iurisdiction but only of diuine permission for so Saint Cyrill and Saint Chrysostome doe affirme but to make them contradictorie the contradiction must bee in the modus as thus It is the opinion of learned men that those words of our Sauiour are to bee vnderstood of true power of Iurisdiction and It is not the opinion of learned men that they are to bee vnderstood of true power of Iurisdiction for these two propositions cannot bee both true but if the one bee true the other must of necessitie bee false and contrariwise Seeing therefore that the Glosse heere vpon the Canon Hadrianus did not intend to bring only those expositions of this Canon which were certaine and out of controuersie but which were agreeable to the doctrine and opinions of learned men although the first Glosse were contradictorie to the second in the dictum yet because they are not contradictorie in the modus for that both of them are approoued by learned men the Glosser cannot be truly said to contradict himselfe in bringing these two contrarie Glosses of the same words both which learned Authours doe maintaine 21 But thirdly neither can Mr. Fitzherbert sufficiently prooue that the former Glosse maketh flat against me and contradicteth the second so much as in the dictum For albeit the expresse wordes of the former Glosse are these Heere the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth them from dignities Yet these words confiscate and depose may very well bee vnderstood as the same Glosse expoundeth the word depose vpon the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. where it is written that Pope Zacharie did depose the King of France for after the Glosse had brought arguments pro and contra for and against the Popes power to depose the Emperour at the last hee answereth thus Hee is saide to haue deposed the King who consented to them that deposed him or which in sense is all one as others expound who taught or declared that hee might bee deposed And according to this exposition the later Glosse doth not contradict the former but is rather an explication thereof For it is all one in sense to say that the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth them from dignities to wit by consenting to them who doe depose and confiscate or which is all one by teaching and declaring that they ought to bee deposed and their goods confiscated which is the former Glosse and to say that the Church doeth teach or declare what ought to bee done by the Secular Prince or Iudge concerning the deposing of Lay-men and confiscating their goods which is the later Glosse and as you haue seene all one in sense with the former 22 Besides the former of these two glosses heere doth only teach that the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth them from dignities which I neuer denyed but that the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay men and deposeth them from dignities by that spirituall power which she hath receiued from Christ and not onely from that temporall authoritie wherewith shee is endued by the graunt and consent of temporall Princes this the former Glosse which my Aduersarie vntruely saith to bee flat against me doeth not teach in this place but rather the flat contrarie seeing that for proofe of the aforesaid assertion the Glosse alledgeth the Canon Praeceptum 32. q. 5. which Canon is a decree of the 12. Councell of Toledo in Spaine which was gathered by the command of King Eringius who confirmed that Decree and whereat not onely the Bishops of Spaine but also the King and the Officers of the Kings Pallace were present and the King himselfe in his speech to the Councell did coniure not only the Bishops but also the Officers of his Pallace to examine and approoue the things which were there propounded
whereupon not only the Bishops but also 15. Noblemen of the Kings Pallace doe subscribe their names to the decrees of that Councell f See Binnius tom ◠Concil in Conc. Tolet. 12 And the Glosse it selfe expounding those words of this Canon Praeceptum ipsi sesuis meritis a Palatinae dignitatis officio separabunt It is an argument saith the Glosse that if any man contemne Excommunication the Secular Iudge or his Land-Lord hath power to depriue him of his feude or farme 23 Neither from any decree of the Canon law or from any glosse or exposition of Ioannes Teutonicus who glossed these decrees collected by Gratian can it be certainely gathered that the Church by her spirituall power which she receiued from Christ but onely by the grant and authority of temporall Princes may inflict temporall punishments for of her power to inflict spirituall censures and also to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties there is no controuersie betweene my Aduersaries and me Neither also from any of those foure glosses here cited by Mr. Fitzherbert to wit either vpon the Canon Attedendum which Canon as I shewed aboue is falsly attributed to Pope Vrbanus the second and by all probability the whole Canon Attendendū is forged and by some one or other inserted into that decretall Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Pope Vrbanus or vpon the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis or Licet de poenis which last Canon Licet is not glossed by Ioannes Teutonicus whose authority I brought vpon the Canon Hadrianus who expounded only the Decrees collected by Gratian and not the Decretals can it bee forcibly concluded that the Church that is the spirituall Pastours of the Church may without the authority and consent of temporall Princes inflict temporall punishments yea the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet de poenis here cited by my Aduersary doth clearely fauour my doctrine For demanding why Archdeacons doe exact of Lay-men a pecuniary penalty as it is mentioned in that Canon he answereth because perhaps they were vnder their temporall Iurisdiction or they haue this by custome 24 Neither from the practise of the Church which Mr. Fitzherbert doth so inculcate can any thing be conuinced against this my doctrine And hereof saith hee g Page 168. num 7. the practise is and hath alwaies beene most manifest in the Church and acknowledged by the Canonists to bee grounded on the Canons as partly hath appeared already and shall appeare further h Infra nu 12. 13. 14. 15. seq after a while and therefore I say that those Glosses obiected by Widdrington must either bee so vnderstood that they may agree the one with the other and with the Glosses of other Canons yea with the generall opinion and doctrine of the Canonists and with the whole course and practise of the Canon Law or else they are to be reiected as absurd erroneous and false 25 But although it bee true that for many hundreds of yeares since that Christian Princes haue indewed the Church with great power of ciuill Iurisdiction the practise of the Church hath beene to inflict pecuniarie mulcts yet it is not true that it was the practise of the primitiue Church to inflict but onely to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties and this onely can be prooued by any authenticall Canon as I haue shewed aboue by answering all the Canons which my Aduersary hath alleadged And although also since the time of Pope Gregory the 7. who was the first Pope that began to challenge to himselfe authority as due to him by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments to dispose of all temporals and to depose temporall Princes diuers Popes and other learned men haue with might and maine by fauours and threatnings laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise for which cause it is no maruaile as I haue elsewhere obserued i Apol. nu 449. that their opinion hath beene the more common and generall in Schooles yet for that it hath beene euer contradicted by Christian Princes and learned Catholikes for which cause Ioannes Azorius a learned Iesuite expresly saith k Azor. tom 2. lib. 12. ca. 5. q. 8. that it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether the Pope in certaine cases hath right and authority to depriue Kings of their Kingdomes and about this the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet the controuersie saith Trithemius l In Chro. monast Hirsang an 1106. is not decided by the Iudge and very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth doe denie that the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment m De Dominio natur ciuit Eccles conclus 2 in probatione illius but only spirituall censures It canot I say be truly called the general doctrine and practise of the Church neither are those Glosses and expositions of those Canonists who fauour this doctrine sufficient to decide the controuersie neither can the other Glosses and expositions which are grounded vpon the contrary doctrine and contradict the former glosses without grosse temeritie bee reiected as erroneous absurd and false 26 And truely in my opinion it is greatly to be maruailed and worthy also the obseruation that albeit for so many hundreds of yeeres both Popes and other Cleargie men haue so earnestly laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise of Pope Gregory the seuenth touching the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of temporalls which neuerthelesse Sigebert did not feare to call a nouelty Sigebert ad annum 1088. not to say an heresie yet considering the great opposition which this doctrine and practise hath euer had by reason whereof it was behoouing to haue the matter made cleere and out of controuersie yet I say there cannot be found any one Canon constitution or definition either of Pope or Councell generall or Prouinciall wherein it is plainly decreed that the Pope or Church hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose temporall Princes to dispose of temporalls or to inflict temporall punishments but the certaintie of this doctrine must chiefly bee grounded vpon the facts of Popes which how weake a ground it is to prooue a true right and authoritie any man of iudgement may plainly see and I haue also shewed elsewhere n Apol. nu 444 seq 27 Now then saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Page 168. num 8. seeing that the Glosser acknowledgeth in his former glosse that the Church doth by the Canon ordaine the confiscation of Lay-mens goods and depriuation of their dignities which is also confirmed by diuers other Canons and glosses and the practise of the Church it cannot as I haue said bee imagined that hee meant to contradict it by that which followeth either in the same glosse or in the other vpon the Canon
indeede very cleare for that point especially cap. Quisquis 27. q. 4. Where it is ordained that a sacrilegious person shall pay thirtie pounds of siluer to the Bishop or Abbot or any Ecclesiasticall Iudge to whom the knowledge of the cause shall appertaine as it may appeare both by the Canon and the Glosse Besides that Panormitan Panorm vbi supra whom Siluester citeth teacheth expresly that when the Bishop proceedeth iuridically and no certaine penaltie is ordained by the Law he may impose a penaltie of money though he cannot doe it when the Law ordaineth expresly an other except it be for a crime wherein he hath power to dispence for then he may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie though some other be assigned by the Law as I haue also shewed before u Supra nu 6. out of the Glosse in cap. Licet tit de poenis 38 This being then Panomitans doctrine approoued by Siluester who followeth him altogether in this question it appeareth that Widdrington might haue easily seene if it had pleased him that Siluester doth not any way fauour his opinion nor impugne our doctrine concerning the Popes power to dispose of temporall things in order to spirituall which is the principall question controuersed betwixt vs. You haue heard before x Chap. 11. nu 3. that Hostiensis expresly teacheth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and Siluester doth the like being also both of them of the number of the Canonists who teach y Hostiens in cap. Quod super his de voto voti redempt Siluest in Sum. verbo Papa nu 1. 11. 12. that the Pope hath a direct Dominion ouer temporall things no lesse then ouer spirituall and therefore it is euident that they cannot any way make for my Aduersarie Widdrington 39 But it is vntrue that I either dissembled or omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that the Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion but the reason why I omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to wit Sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this pleaseth not Panormitan was for that it did nothing import our question to know of what opinion either Panormitan or also Siluester himselfe were concerning that point for that which I intended to proue out of Siluesters words was this that it is no vndoubted point of faith but onely an opinion according to Siluester that Bishops can inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto them and the words of Siluester doe sufficiently shew that it is onely an opinion among the Canonists and therefore that either Panormitan or Siluester or any other Canonist be of the contrarie opinion it is nothing to the purpose Neither doth the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis cited by Panormitan and Siluester make against my doctrine foc they doe onely shew that a spirituall Iudge may inflict a pecuniarie mulct but that he may inflict it by his spirituall authoritie and consequently vpon Lay-men that are not temporally subiect vnto him without the consent of their temporall Prince they doe not shew and the Canon Quisquis which Mr. Fitzherbert thinketh to be so cleere in this point is taken out of an Epistle of Pope Iohn the eight wherein he commaunded that the decrees of a Councell called Trecense which was approoued by authoritie of Lewis the Emperour should be obserued and the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet tit de poenis doth expresly fauour my doctrine as I haue signified before 40 And albeit both Hostiensis and Siluester be themselues of opinion that the Pope is by the institution of Christ a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and hath direct dominion not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls and consequently that hee may inflict temporall punishments dispose of all temporalls and depose temporall Princes for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are according to their opinion subiect to him directly in temporalls and so in this point they make nothing for my doctrine yet they make greatly for my doctrine in this that by their answeres it may be plainely gathered that they hold it onely for an opinion as at this present I contend it onely to be and that other Authors doe not agree with them therein as to the answere of Hostiensis to the Canon Ad abolendam I haue shewed before and also by this answere of Siluester you may see more cleerely beneath in this I say it is euident that they greatly make for my doctrine 41 Besides that it little importeth saith Mr. Fitzher z Pag. 172. nu 15. 16. 17. whether the Bishop may according to the Canons impose a temporall penaltie vpon such Lay-men as are not his temporall subiects seeing he may by the opinion of those three whom my Aduersarie Widdrington alledgeth make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge or Magistrate in which case it is done by the Bishops authoritie and the Secular Magistrate is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will Furthermore put the case that the Bishop could not impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect will Widdrington conclude thereupon that therefore the Pope may not doe it Will he be so absurd to restraine the supreme iurisdiction of the Pope to the inferiour power of a Bishop as well might he say that a King can doe no more in like case then an inferiour temporall Magistrate and that because the Iudge cannot pardon a person condemned therefore the King cannot doe it who knoweth not that the Church hath prescribed to her Magistrates certaine limits for the exercise of their authoritie and iurisdiction allowing to some more and to some lesse which they cannot exceede Therefore it were absurd to say that a Bishop cannot excommunicate because a Parish-Priest cannot doe it But much more absurd and ridiculous it is to say that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis cannot dispose of temporall things in some cases because a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vp a Lay man that is not his temporall subiect as Widdrinton seemeth to argue for otherwise his obiection concerning the Bishops power is to no purpose So as you see vpon what probabilities he grounded his doctrine being found to be either fraudulent or impertinent in euery thing that hee vndertaketh to answere or obiect as you shall also further see by that which yet followeth for the confirmation of his pretended answere 42 But Mr. Fitzherbert seeketh still to blind his Readers vnderstanding with a confuse ambiguitie of equiuocall words For although it litle importeth whether a Bishop may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect or make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge by forcing the Iudge thereunto not onely by spirituall but also by temporall compulsion or coercion seeing that in this case it is done by the
whereas none will acknowledge that Parish Priests are such and few will grant that they haue iurisdiction in the externall spirituall Court but onely in the Court of conscience Therefore although it were absurd to say that because euery Bishop can excommunicate in his owne Diocesse therefore euery Parish Priest can also excommunicate in his Parish yet as it is not absurd to say that because the Pope can excommunicate in the vniuersall Church therefore a Bishop standing in the law of Christ can also excommunicate in his owne Diocesse so it is not absurd and much lesse ridiculous to say that if the Pope can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon all Christians euery Bishop also standing in the law of Christ can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon those that are subiect to his Bishopricke no more then it is absurd or ridiculous for Cardinall Bellarmine to say that if the Pope hath direct dominion in temporalls in the vniuersall Church euery Bishop hath also direct dominion in temporalls in his owne particular Bishopricke for that according to his doctrine that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euerie Bishop in his particular Diocesse 47 And as concerning that plenitude or fulnesse of the Popes Ecclesiasticall power which Mr. Fitzherbert with full mouth doth so often inculcate little vnderstanding poore man in what this fulnesse doth consist there is a great controuersie among Catholikes to what things this fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power doth extend Almainus de authore Eccles cap. 3. For there is so great a controuersie saith Almaine concerning the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and to what things it doth extend that there are few things in this matter secure or certaine insomuch that it were very necessary in these times as William Occam in the end of the first part of his Dialogue obserueth that wise men being inforced by oathes or horrible threatnings to speake the truth should declare those things which belong to the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power And how farre some Authours perchance for flattery to get priuiledges and benefices saith Almaine doe straine it to the preiudice of Princes so that they doe quite ouerthrow the Soueraigntie of Princes you may see in that his Treatise where hee expoundeth only the doctrine of Occam and how he notwithstandeth the fulnesse thereof in other his bookes where he speaketh according to his owne opinion will not haue it to extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment and this saith he a In lib. de dominio natu Ciu. Eccl. concl 12. is the opinion of most Doctours 48 And also the Doctours of Paris doe make the power and Iurisdiction of Bishops standing meerely in the law of Christ to be as full in intension as is the Popes power that is abstracting from his Primacie and the fulnesse of his power in extension for that the Popes power is extended to the whole Church and the power of Bishops is limited and restrained to their owne Bishoprikes albeit the Canons of the Church haue limited and restrained the fulnesse of Bishops power also in intension Bell. l. 5 de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. reseruing many cases and Censures to Papall authoritie But standing in the law of Christ Card. Bellarmine doeth very well affirme that euery Bishop is that in his owne Diocesse which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church which Mr. Fitzherbert must first proue to bee impertinent absurd and ridiculous and then let him put those imputations vpon my answere and the argument which he draweth from thence 49 A third principall exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against that which in confirmation of my aforesaid second answere I added in these words Adde hereunto that whensoeuer the Pope by a generall constitution decreeth any temporall thing but it pleased my Aduersarie to leaue out that word temporall which is preiudiciall to the right of another man who is not subiect to him in temporalls the same decree as some not improbably doe thinke doeth only extend vnlesse the contrarie bee expressed which last clause also Mr. Fitzherbert leaueth out to the territories of the Roman Church or the patrimonie of S. Peter wherein as Pope Innocent saith b Cap. per venerabil the Pope doth exercise the authoritie of a chiefe Bishop and doth execute the power of a Soueraigne Prince 50 Against this answere Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth in this manner c pag. 173. nu 18. 19. Thus Widdrington telleth vs but who these some men are of whom he speaketh or where they affirme this hee listeth not to tell vs neither in his text nor in his margent lest by the cases which they propound and the circumstances of their doctrine we might discouer his abuse of their testimonie but whosoeuer they bee if there be any such that giue so generall a rule as hee mentioneth it must bee considered whether they speake of constitutions touching matters meerely temporall or else of penall lawes made against heresie or other enormious crimes for the benefit of the whole Church For no Catholike man I am sure hath euer said or will say that any generall Constitution of the Pope made for the reformation of faith or manners and punishment of delinquents in spirituall matters is to bee vnderstood to bee restrained to the Popes owne temporall patrimonie for seeing that hee hath no lesse spirituall authoritie throughout all Christendome then within his owne temporall dominions it were absurd and hereticall to say that his generall Decrees touching spirituall matters such as is the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie to the preiudice of some mans temporall state for so could not heretikes bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes decrees which neuerthelesse are generally executed Cap. vergentis Tit. 7. de haerâ—â— in preiudice not only of the delinquents but also of their children and next heires And this I say is so vniuersally practised by the Church that hee cannot be counted a Canonist nor yet a Catholike that will deny it to be lawfully done 51 But to omit the egregious fraude and falshood of this man in affirming mee to say that whensoeuer the Pope decreeth any thing c. and leauing out the word temporall and also that other clause vnlesse the contrarie be expressed which were the chiefe points whereon I did ground that my answere there is no man of any iudgement who may not cleerely perceiue that all those Catholike Doctours alleadged by mee heretofore d Apol. nu 4. seq and in the first part of this Treatise and among the rest those plerique Doctores very many or most Doctours whom Almaine citeth and followeth who affirme that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall censures must consequently holde that when the Pope by a generall constitution decreeeth any temporall
thing as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what ende soeuer they bee inflicted the sayde Decree can bind onely those of necessitie that belong to the Popes temporall Dominions 52 For seeing that as Suarez e Suarez l. 3. de Leg. c. 6. cap. 8. nu 3. and all other Diuines affirme all lawes enacted by the Pope as they are meerely ciuill and temporall doe bind onely in the Popes territories and as Mr. Fitzherbert himselfe before f Cap. 9. nu 15. acknowledged there can bee nothing more cleare then that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended onely to his owne subiects and whatsoeuer is decreed onely by the Popes temporall authoritie and as hee is a temporall Prince is a meere temporall thing and cannot extend beyond the Popes temporall dominions from hence it cleerely followeth that what Doctour soeuer affirmeth that the Pope hath no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall penalties as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and consequently that the inflicting of them is a meere temporall thing and that the decrees which doe inflict them cannot be made by the Popes spirituall but onely by his temporall authoritie and that therefore they cannot of necessitie binde but onely those who are subiect to his temporall authoritie or as hee is a temporall Prince must also affirme that whensoeuer the Pope by any generall Constitution decreeth the inflicting of any such temporall penaltie the saide Decree doeth extend onely to the Popes temporall Dominions and comprehendeth onely those who are subiect to him as hee is a temporall Prince and endued with temporall authoritie 53 Wherefore it is neither hereticall nor absurd to say as this foule-mouthed ignorant man affirmeth that the Popes generall Decrees touching the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie and that no heretike can bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes Decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes for that according to the doctrine of very many Doctours as I said before the Popes spirituall authoritie doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Eccclesiasticall Censures and that therefore it belongeth only to temporall Princes to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with temporall punishments and to the Pope as hee is a spirituall Pastour to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And this I will boldly say and yet remaine as good a Catholike yea and a farre better then Mr. Fitzherbert is notwithstanding all his bigge and bitter words if hee build his Catholike faith vpon such weake doubtfull and vncertaine principles 54 Whereupon it followeth that euery Decree Canon or Constitution of the Pope which ordaineth the inflicting of temporall penalties for any crime whatsouer if my Aduersarie will needes haue it to be of force out of the Popes territories is either an approbation of some former Imperiall law or is of force by vertue of the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes or is onely a declaring teaching or commanding what the temporall Prince or Iudge ought to doe Neither doth the Canon Vergentis of Pope Innocent the third which Mr. Fitzherbert citeth heere in the margent any way contradict what I haue said but it doth rather confirme the same for the words of the Canon are these Wee ordaine that in the territories subiect to our temporall Iurisdiction the goods of heretikes be confiscated and in other territories wee command the same to bee done by Secular Potestaes and Princes which if perchance they shall bee negligent to performe wee will and command that they be compelled thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures So that this Canon doth rather fauour then contradict what I said seeing that it distinguisheth the Popes territories from other kingdomes and signifieth that the Pope in his owne Dominions hath authoritie by his Decrees to confiscate the goods of heretikes but in other kingdomes he hath no such authoritie but only to command Secular Princes to make such Decrees for the extirpation of heresie and also if they bee negligent therein to compell them by Ecclesiasticall Censures thereunto Neither can Mr. Fitzherbert prooue by any one Canon of Pope or Councell or by any generall or particular practise of the Church that out of the Popes temporall dominions any heretike is temporally punished by vertue of the Popes decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes whereby the Reader may plainly see what an ignorant vncharitable and rash headed man is this my Aduersarie to taxe so easily and vpon such vncertaine grounds learned Catholikes of heresie which among all Christians is accounted so heinous and execrable a crime 53 But his fraude and ignorance will the more cleerely bee discouered if wee obserue the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the acts and obiects of them both For the same spirituall action as heresie blasphemie sacriledge may be forbidden both by the spirituall and temporall power yea also for the same spirituall ende seeing that Christian Princes are bound by the law of Christ to referre all their actions the vse of their tēporall authoritie to Gods honour and glorie and to the good of their own soules of their subiects and by their temporall lawes to maintaine and aduance Christian Religion and to roote out heresie blasphemie and such like spirituall crimes out of their kingdomes so that the directiue or commanding temporall power as I haue signified heeretofore g Cap. 6. nu 66. seq may agree with the spirituall in the same acts obiects and end but the principall distinction betwixt the spirituall and temporall power is to be taken from both the powers as they are coerciue or punishing which alwayes haue distinct acts and obiects for the acts and obiect of the temporall power as it is coerciue or punishing are alwayes the inflicting of temporall punishments and of the spirituall the inflicting of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures so that the forbidding of heresie vnder paine of incurring Ecclesiasticall Censures for what ende soeuer temporall or spirituall it bee done can proceede onely from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and the forbidding of the same heresie vnder paine of incurring temporall punishments as death losse of goods or of any other temporall thing for what end soeuer it bee inflicted can proceede onely from temporall and ciuill authoritie because according to Almaine and those other many Doctours mentioned by him who were as good Catholikes as M. Fitzherbert is and farre more learned then hee is euer like to be the Ecclesiasticall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of ciuill or temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures and the other punishments which
from the Soueraigntie of absolute Princes for it little importeth to the substance of the matter whether the Pope may depose hereticall or wicked Princes by a power or dominion ouer temporals which must bee called temporall or by a power which must bee called spirituall so that he may depose them or whether the Pope bee superiour to absolute Princes in temporals directly or indirectly so that they must acknowledge themselues not to be absolute but subiect to the Pope in temporals But as I haue signified heeretofore all the difficultie and ambiguitie of these words directly and indirectly will presently appeare and the whole mist which the Diuines by this distinction doe cast ouer the eyes of the vnlearned wil foorthwith vanish away if we will but duly consider the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of either of them 62 For as in all arts sciences faculties and powers whatsoeuer is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of that art science facultie or power is directly subiect to that art science facultie or power so what thing soeuer whether it be temporall or spirituall is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of the directiue or coerciue power is directly subiect to that power Seeing therefore that the proper acts and formall obiects by which all powers are distinguished of the spirituall directiue or commanding power are the commanding of vertue and the forbidding of vice from hence it followeth that all actions whatsoeuer whether they be spirituall or temporall as they are vertuous or vicious actions and necessary or hurtfull to the spirituall and eternall good of soules are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power So that the reference or relation of temporall actions to the spirituall good of soules doth nothing hinder but rather is a cause that as they are vertuous or vicious actions they are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power 63 But if these Diuines will further say that the spirituall directiue power dominion or iurisdiction ouer temporall things is therefore said to be indirect for that it doth not command or forbid temporall things as they are temporall but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions no man maketh doubt of the matter or of the thing it selfe it being too too manifest to euery man of iudgement that temporall things are not subiect to the spirituall directiue power as they are temporall things but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions but the speech is not so proper and giueth occasion to the vnlearned to be confounded and deluded with a superfluous ambiguitie and multiplicitie of words For what Diuine or Phylosopher can deny that all those things whatsoeuer which doe truly participate the definition or nature of the formall obiect of any art science facultie or power by what meanes or consideration soeuer they doe participate the same are directly subiect to that art science facultie or power And in the same proportionate manner as these men say that the Pope hath an indirect temporall directiue power or authoritie ouer temporall things it may bee said that temporall Princes haue an indirect spirituall directiue power ouer spirituall things for that as the Pope doth forbid temporall things not as they are temporall but as they are spirituall and hurtfull to the good of soules so temporall Princes may forbid spirituall things as Heresie Schisme periurie ministring of Sacraments with a poysoned matter whereby danger of death doth ensue not as they are spirituall but as they are temporall wrongs and hurtfull to the publike peace in the Common-wealth which is the formall obiect of the temporall directiue power So that this distinction of directly and indirectly cannot bee well applied to the spiritual directiue power but that in the like proportionate manner it may be also applied to the temporall directiue power dominion and Iurisdiction 64 And as concerning the Ecclesiasticall coerciue power we must discourse in the same manner and likewise consider what are the proper acts and formall obiects of this power as it is coerciue or punishing for whatsoeuer doth participate the nature and definition of the acts and obiects of this power is directly subiect thereunto Now concerning this point there are two principall opinions among Catholikes The first opinion and which now adaies is the more common for the causes by mee heeretofore l Apol. nu 449 alledged is that the inflicting of all punishments whatsoeuer being referred to spirituall good are the acts and obiects of the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing But the Authours of this opinion albeit they all agree in this that whatsoeuer authoritie the Church hath by the institution of Christ call it spirituall or temporall is in order to spirituall good and is giuen her by Christ for the eternall saluation of soules for which end Christ also himselfe descended from heauen and tooke our flesh vpon him yet in this they differ that the Canonists that commonly follow this opinion measuring the nature of the powers by their acts and obiects and graunting as they doe that Christ hath giuen to his Church authoritie to inflict both temporall and spirituall punishments doe also affirme that the Church hath by the institution of Christ truely properly directly and formally both temporall and spirituall power But the Diuines commonly perceiuing the absurdity of this doctrine and that it confoundeth the acts and obiects of the temporall and spirituall power and subiecteth the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes who by the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers are accounted to bee supreme in temporalls and therein subiect to none but to God alone to the Popes temporall authoritie to giue the more probable colour as they thinke to this pretended authoritie of the Church to dispose of all temporals and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good and to make it seeme lesse odious to Christian Princes and subiects doe differ from the Canonists at lest wise in words and therefore they affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath no true proper direct and formall temporall authoritie but onely vertuall or in effect which they call but verie improperly in my opinion indirect as I haue shewed before as the power of God and of the Angels to worke corporall effects although it be truely and formally spirituall as God and the Angels are truely and formally spirituall substances yet eminently vertually and in effect is corporall for that by their spirituall power they can worke corporall effects So that the Canonists and these Diuines doe not differ in effect and these Diuines doe in effect no lesse derogate from the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes subiecting them in temporals who are supreme then the Canonists doe 65 The second principall opinion is of other m Apol. nu 4 seq and aboue in the first part of this Treatise learned
Catholikes both Diuines and Canonists whom I haue heeretofore related that the acts and obiects of the spirituall coerciue power are onely the inflicting of spirituall punishments or Ecclesiasticall Censures as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and not of temporall or ciuill penalties as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and consequently that the inflicting of temporall punishments are neither directly nor indirectly formally nor vertually subiect to the spirituall coerciue power of the Church but onely to the coerciue temporall power of temporall Princes for that no reference relation or reduction of the inflicting of temporall punishments to the glory of GOD or the saluation of soules can make temporall punishments to bee Ecclesiasticall Censures or the inflicting of temporall and ciuill punishments to bee the inflicting of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures 66 And although this opinion bee the lesse common among Catholikes for the reasons heretofore alledged especially through the watchfulnes of the coÌ„trary side since the time that some Popes haue challenged to themselues this temporall authoritie ouer Kings call it direct or indirect formall or vertuall as you please and the indiligence to speake with all reuerence of Christian Princes in suffering their temporall Soueraigntie to be so greatly and cunningly depressed and subiected yet in my iudgement it is more conforme to the true sense and meaning of the holy Scriptures to the practise of the primitiue Church to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers and to the true grounds and principles of morall Philosophy and Diuinitie and therefore to affirme this opinion which is embraced by so many Doctours as Almaine witnesseth and which is grounded vpon such plaine and pregnant reasons to be impious absurd improbable erroneous yea and hereticall as this foule mouth'd and rash headed ignorant man doth so often brand it is cleerely repugnant to the rules of Christian prudence charitie and modestie and to the knowne principles of Schoole-Diuinitie 67 And according to this opinion although we should suppose which is altogether vntrue though often inculcated by my Aduersarie that the inflicting of temporall punishments and the disposing of temporall things were absolutely necessarie for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules yet they should not therefore be subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but onely to the temporall authoritie of Christian Princes who as the Prophet Isay foretold Isa c. 49. were by Gods speciall prouidence appointed to be her nourcing Fathers Nources and Protectours In such cases of necessitie spirituall Pastours must implore the aide of Christian Princes and the Brachium Seculare or temporall power is bound by her lawes and other meanes to helpe the spirituall and both of them hauing neede one of the other being so vnited linked and conioyned as I haue shewed before m Paâ—t 2. c. 1. one with the other among Christians ought to vse all due meanes to helpe each other yet without breaking the bounds and limits prescribed by Christ to either of them 68 But truely in my opinion the weakenesse of their cause and of the grounds of this their doctrine touching the Popes temporall Monarchie ouer absolute Princes call it direct or indirect as you please may to any man of iudgement sufficiently appeare by their so often declining the true state of the question and not standing vpon any sure or certaine ground but flying from one argument to another as from conuenience to absolute necessitie sometimes affirming that the Pope may depose Princes and dispose of temporall things when it is conuenient for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules other times when it is absolutely necessarie thereunto But as I haue shewed before o Cap. 7. nu 36 seq this absolute necessitie is a meere fiction and onely supposed but neuer prooued and this pretended temporall authoritie of the Pope Almain de potest Eccle. q. 1 cap. 9. as Almaine said is rather very hurtfull then any way necessarie either for the good of the Pope or of Christian people And if by the practise of depositions as of Henrie the fourth by Pope Gregorie the seuenth of Fredrike the second by Innocent the fourth of Philip the the faire by Boniface the eight of our King Henrie the eight by Paul the third and Queene Elizabeth by Pope Pius the fifth which are the most famous depositions of all we may gather whether this authoritie be necessarie or hurtfull to the Church of God all histories make mention what infinite harme rather then any good at all came to the Church of God thereby And this I hope may suffice for the confirmation of my second answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell and for the confutation of my Aduersaries Reply Now let vs see the third answere CHAP. XIII Wherein Widdringtons third answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell is confirmed and also it is shewed how certaine it is according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes that the Church cannot erre in Decrees or precepts of manners from whence it is cleerely deduced that from the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell it cannot with any colour of probabilitie be prooued that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and all M. Fitzherberts arguments to shew the contrarie are most plainely confuted 1 BEcause my Aduersaries did so much relie vpon this Decree of the Lateran Councell that they thought it alone to be sufficient to make their doctrine certaine and of faith and therefore feared not to brand the contrarie with the note of heresie my third answere to their argument grounded vpon the authoritie of the Lateran Councell was that the Canon or decree for so we call it yet of the said Councell touching the deposition of temporall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords was no matter of faith but of fact onely wherein as well the Pope as those Fathers following their owne opinions might erre and that the Councell did not determine or define that the future deposition not of Princes as Mr. Fitzherbert translateth it but of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull power or from the Ecclesiasticall power alone without the consent of Princes And therefore the opinion of those Fathers yeeldeth no more certainety for the Popes power to depose Princes then if they had declared their opinions forth of the Councell seeing that this onely can bee gathered from the certaine and vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church that the infalable assistance of the Holy Ghost is promised by our Sauiour Christ not to the facts or probable opinions of Popes or Councells but onely to their definitions 2 Against this answere Mr. Fitzherbert taketh some idle and friuolous exceptions And first he carpeth at that distinction or Antithesis betwixt rem facti duntaxat and rem fidei a matter of fact onely and a matter of faith which he would haue me to reforme and to make it according to the
vsuall manner rem facti and rem iuris a matter of fact a matter of law or right But here saith he a Pag. 17. 8. nu 2. I must desire Widdrington first to reforme his distinction or rather Antithesis which he maketh betwixt rem facti and rem fidei a matter of fact and a matter of faith Wherein there is no such opposition as hee seemeth to imagine or would at least haue to bee conceiued for if by a matter of fact onely he meanes a matter that is not speculatiue but consisteth onely in action or practise then matters of fact and faith may so well stand together that they may be and often are one and the selfe same thing I meane that a matter of fact not onely may but ought also to be beleeued vnder paine of damnation as it is euident in diuers Articles of our faith consisting in the beliefe of things done or to be done as in all the Historie of our Sauiours Incarnation life and death already past and in his last Iudgement our Resurrection and euerlasting reward or punishment which are yet to come and being matters of fact are neuerthelesse matters of faith and therefore Widdrington may doe well as I haue said to reforme his distinction and to make it according to the vsuall manner to wit rem facti and rem iuris a matter of fact and a matter of law or right which are indeed alwayes distinct 3 But first is it possible that this man should be so blind or ignorant as not to see that a matter of faith is alwayes a matter of law for that it is commaunded to be beleeued by the law of God and so how childishly he carpeth at that distinction or Antithesis a matter of fact onely and not a matter of faith desiring me to reforme that distinction and to make it according to the vsuall manner to wit rem facti and rem iuris a matter of faith and a matter of law seeing that it is manifest to euery Schoole-boy that a matter of faith is alwayes a matter of law as being a thing commanded to be beleeued by the law of God But matters of fact and of faith saith Mr. Fitzherbert may well stand together c. And therefore a matter of fact is not opposite to a matter of faith as Widdrington seemeth to imagine or would at least haue to be conceiued 4 But in the like manner I may say that matters of fact and matters of law may well stand together as it is euident in diuers Articles of our faith concerning our Sauiours Incarnation Passion Resurrection c. which are both matters of fact and of law seeing that they are things appertaining to the law of God and therefore a matter of fact is not opposite to a matter of law and alwayes distinct as Mr. Fitzherbert following therein Fa. Lessius from whom he tooke this friuolous exception not onely seemeth to imagine but also expresly affirmeth So that these men haue neede first to reforme their owne distinction or Antithesis which they make betwixt a matter of fact and a matter of law before they vndertake to be reformers of other men But the plaine truth is that I neither said nor imagined as these men vntruly affirme that I made an opposition or Antithesis betwixt a matter of faith and a matter of fact but betwixt a matter of faith and of fact onely which word onely if they had well considered they might easily haue perceiued that it doth exclude a matter of faith and that I did not make an opposition betwixt euery matter of fact and of faith but betwixt a matter of faith and of fact onely that is of such facts whic are onely grounded vpon a probable opinion or at the most not vpon any vndoubted doctrine of faith and such matters of fact and of faith can neuer stand together 5 For whereas Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Lessius against whom principally I wrote that Preface wherein I answered this Decree of the Lateran Councell did so much insist vpon this Decree that as I said before they would make the world beleeue that it alone were sufficient to make their doctrine to be of faith and the contrary flat hereticall my meaning was in this third answere to shew that no such thing could be proued from this Councell as they pretended for that this Decree for as much as it concerneth the future deposition of temporall Landlords or Lords was no matter of faith but of fact onely and that the Councell did not declare determine or define that this future deposition of them was therein decreed to proceede from the spirituall authority of the Church without the consent licence or authoritie of temporall Princes which my Aduersarie must first prooue or else they will speake little to the purpose Now Mr. Fitzherbert falsly supposing as you haue seene that I make an opposition betwixt a matter of fact and a matter of faith as though a matter of fact and a matter of faith cannot stand together which euery Schoole-boy knoweth to bee false you shall see what an idle discourse he maketh throughout this whole Chapter it being grounded vpon this false supposall 6 But because Mr. Fitzher in his ensuing discourse giueth me occasion to enter into a question which not a litle concerneth our present controuersie I thinke it not amisse before I goe any further to speake something thereof to wit with what kind of certainetie we are to beleeue that the Church cannot erre in making Decrees or precepts of manners that is whether as it is hereticall to hold that the Church can erre in making matters of faith so also it is hereticall to hold that she can erre in making lawes Decrees or precepts belonging to manners And albeit my meaning is not at this time to set downe what is my owne opinion concerning this matter because I doe not intend to relie much thereon for the answering of my Aduersaries obiections and so will not giue him occasion to flie from the principall controuersie to other by-questions and of lesse importance yet for the better instruction of the vnlearned Reader who may perchance imagine that euery Popes Breue is sufficient to make a matter of faith I will briefly relate what is the opinion of learned Catholikes and namely of Melchior Canus in this point 7 First therefore concerning matters of faith or things to beleeued Melchior Canus affirmeth that a Generall Councell being confirmed by the Popes authoritie cannot erre in the defining of Catholike doctrine Canus lib. 1. de locis cap. 4. concl 3. and this conclusion he taketh to be so certaine that the contrarie he accounteth hereticall But as I obserued in an other place b In disp Theol cap 10. sec 2. nu 13. to make such definitions to be certaine infallible and without errour he requireth two conditions the one is that the doctrine must bee propounded to the whole Church and not onely to priuate
or particular Churches or Bishops and the other that it be propounded with an obligation to bee beleeued as of faith which also Cardinall Bellarmine confirmeth For in Councells Bellar. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 42. saith he the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith for neither are of faith the disputations that goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate but onely the bare decrees and those not all but those onely which are propounded as of faith And it is easie say they to know when the Councell doth propound any thing with an obligation to be beleeued as of faith by the wordes of the Councell it selfe For they alwayes vse to say that they declare the Catholike faith or account them for heretickes or which is most common denounce anathema or excommunicate them who shall beleeue the contrary but when none of these things are said it is not certaine saith Cardinall Bellarmine that it is a point of faith Whereby may be plainly seene the insolent temeritie of some especially this my Aduersary who feare not to call them heretickes that deny the Popes power to depose Princes seeing that neither from the Councell of Lateran nor from any other Councell either Generall or Prouinciall nor which is more from any one Canon of any particular Pope they can bring so much as a colourable shew of any such decree which according to the aforesaid rules of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus haue the conditions required to make a point of faith Canus lib. 5. de loc cap. 5. q. 5. 8 Now concerning decrees and precepts belonging to manners or things commanded or forbidden to bee done the said Canus hauing first supposed and distinguished that the question may be either of such things as are necessary to saluation as being commaunded or forbidden by the law of God or Nature or of such things that are not so necessary he setteth downe this conclusion that the Church cannot erre in the doctrine of such manners as are necessary to saluation Therefore if the Church by a firme decree doe define that any thing is to bee done or to bee auoided she cannot erre therein as for example in commanding Lay-men to receiue the Sacrament vnder one onely kinde From whence hee inferreth this second conclusion that when the Church in a matter of moment and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all Christian people she cannot command any thing which is contrarie to the Gospell or naturall reason wherefore as a generall Councell cannot propound false things to be belieued by the people so it cannot propound euill things to be done propound saith he by a firme and certaine decree by which all men are bound to belieue and doe vnder paine of eternall damnation 9 But as concerning the certainty of this doctrine especially touching things which are not so necessary to saluation as not being repugnant to the Gospell or naturall reason whether it bee hereticall to affirme that some custome of the Church is euill or some law of the Church is vniust I dare not saith Canus define or determine Whereupon hee excuseth those from heresie who should affirme that the Church doth erre in the custome of communicating the people vnder one kinde only and hee answereth to the Councell of Constance which ordaineth that those are to be condemned as heretickes who affirme the Church to erre therein that the Councell at that time was without a head and that Pope Martin doth not simply or absolutely approue that article but hee onely defineth that those who shall teach that the Church doth erre in that manner of custome are to bee condemned as heretikes or as sauouring heresie Therefore that which Pope Martin being President of the Councell durst not condemne by the name of heresie neither I saith Canus dare nor ought to impeach of a greater censure But if in a custome necessary to saluation which that seemed to be whereof there was a controuersie in the Councell of Constance the modesty of Pope Martin was so great how much more modest ought we to be in condemning other errours which are repugnant to the custome of the Church which is not necessary to saluation Thus Canus which doctrine I would desire my Aduersary and such other vnlearned hoat-spurres who haue heresie and hereticall so frequent in their mouthes little knowing themselues what heresie is diligently to consider 10 Also the said Canus excuseth from heresie those who disprooue the custome of the Church to carry about in solemne procession the B. Sacrament For albeit saith hee to reprehend this custome vpon this ground that Christ is not really and truely present in the Eucharist bee heresie yet if thou regard the errour in it selfe it sauoureth heresie it is rashnesse and imprudence and although it be to be censured for many respects yet it is not heresie seeing that albeit in this custome the Church should not erre yet her authority would not therefore be endangered in matters of greater moment Neither doth the Councell of Trent simply or absolutely say anathema to those that shall reprehend this custome of the Church but to those that therefore reprehend it because they doe not admit the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist and therefore neither the adoration and woorship thereof 11 In like manner he excuseth from heresie those who affirme that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints For it is to bee obserued saith hee that some manners or customes of the Church are deliuered to the Church by Christ and the Apostles wherein hee that should say the Church to erre doth make Christ and the Apostles to be Authors of that errour but other manners or customes are brought in since the Apostles wherein although the Church should erre yet faith would not therefore bee endangered Therefore without danger of heresie it may bee held that the Church may in some law and custome erre And hee bringeth a reason wherefore it is not hereticall to say that the Church may erre in the Canonization of Saints by which he prooued a little before that in manners customes precepts and lawes which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate men or Churches the Church may erre through ignorance not onely in the iudgement of things done but also in the priuate precepts and lawes themselues And of this conclusion saith hee Pope Innocent gaue a true and fit reason in cap. A nobis desent Excom in these words The iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued but the iudgement of the Church doth sometimes follow opinion which oftentimes deceiueth and is deceiued whereupon it happeneth sometimes that he who is bound before God is loosed before the Church he that is free before God is tyed by an Ecclesiasticall Censure Thus Pope Innocent 12 For from hence saith Canus it is
manifest which is most woorthy the obseruation that decrees of the Church cannot be certaine and firme which are not grounded vpon certaine and firme principles and foundations Wherefore if but one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church dependeth be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be certaine whether the question bee speculatiue or practicall For the Conclusion according to the maxime of the Logicians followeth the weaker part and if one of the principles or premisses bee weake it is necessarie that the conclusion in regard of that part bee weakened Wherby it is easily vnderstood that the iudgements of the Church which proceede from the vncertaine testimonies of men are weake to make a certaine and vndoubted beliefe of which sort is that whereby she iudgeth any one to be numbred in the Catalogue of Saints yet it is not lawfull to call in question such decrees without punishment but it is temerarious and irreligious not to giue credit to the Church in the canonizing of Saints which because he that doth doeth rashly and inconsiderately hee shall indeede deseruedly bee punished by the Church Thus Canus Canus l. 12. c. 1. 13 Lastly hee excuseth from heresie those who should affirme that the B. Virgin is not corporally assumpted into heauen which although saith hee it bee not contrary to faith yet because it is repugnant to the common consent of the Church it would bee taxed of malapert temeritie And albeit Fa. Suarez also doth affirme Suarez tom 2. disp 21. sec 2. that now it is so receiued an opinion that it cannot be called in question by any pious and Catholike man yet hee acknowledgeth that it is not of faith because it is neither defined by the Church neither is there any testimonie of Scripture or sufficient tradition Sot in 4. dist 43 q. 2. ar 1. Caiet tom 2. opu trac 2. de Concept cap. 1. which may cause infallible faith But Sotus saith only that it ought to bee beleeued most piously but yet it is not put among the articles of faith necessarily to bee beleeued And Caietane affirmeth that it is not to bee beleeued of necessitie but probably and piously For there is two manner of wayes saith hee whereby a thing may bee decreed to bee beleeued For some things are decreed to bee beleeued in such sort that hee who thinkes the contrarie is an heretike but some things as probably to bee beleeued as the common pietie of the Church doth probably beleeue concerning the corporall Assumption of the B. Virgin and her Sanctification in her mothers wombe Abul in cap. 22. Matth. q. 230. and other such like Abulensis also saith that it is not necessarie to holde this because it is not among the articles of faith neither also is there any thing defined by the Church that it ought to be held therefore it is lawfull for euery man to thinke as he will And the reasons which are brought to prooue her Resurrection are certaine persuasions and do not conuince yet because it is commonly held that she is risen it is more reasonable to hold it yet if any one doe affirme the contrarie wee doe not contend And neuerthelesse the aforesaid Authours knew right well that this doctrine concerning the corporall Assumption of the B. Virgin was neuer denyed by any Catholike and was also the ground and foundation of an Ecclesiasticall decree and custome to celebrate the Feast of the B. Virgins Assumption 14 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue what things are required to make one an heretike that should deny the decrees of the Church concerning manners to bee infallible and how rashly and vnchristianly my Aduersaries doe charge mee with heresie for denying the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith seeing that they cannot bring any one decree either of Pope or Councell whereby according to the conditions before required by Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus to the infallibilitie of decrees either touching faith or manners it can with any probable colour bee prooued that this doctrine is certaine and of faith but we must forsooth take their owne interpretations or rather wrestings of the Canons and false suppositions to bee sufficient decrees to determine matters of faith Now to Mr. Fitzherberts discourse 15 Secondly saith he c Pag. 178. nu 3. I wish Widdrington to consider that by this his distinction and the argument which hee deduceth from it hee may in like manner impugne the decree of the Apostles themselues made in their Councell at Hierusalem wherein they ordained and defined nothing else but matters of fact to wit that the Christians should abstaine from meates offered to Idols from things strangled and blood and fornication in all which the Apostles might according to this mans doctrine follow their owne priuate opinions and erre because their Decree concerned only matters of fact 16 But first this man supposeth that I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell which is very vntrue for I only expound and declare the sense and meaning of the Decree and disprooue the exposition which my Aduersaries make thereof Wherefore if wee may suppose that this Decree of the Apostles was concerning such a matter of fact which is not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith but only vpon opinions which are exposed to errour as I contend this Decree if wee may truely call it so of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Land-lords Magistrates or Lords to be such a matter of fact then I say we may in the like proportionate manner I doe not say impugne but expound this decree of the Apostles as I haue and shall beneath expound the decree of the Lateran Councell in such sort that from thence no infallible doctrine of faith can be concluded to prooue that which some Authours from thence pretend to conclude to wit that the Church hath authoritie to make new lawes which shall haue force to bind in conscience 17 As for example supposing onely for Disputation sake but not affirming that the Church hath not authoritie to make new lawes and precepts which shall haue force to bind in conscience which doctrine some Authours attribute to Gerson but onely to declare the lawes and precepts of GOD and Nature and also to determine those lawes and praecepts which GOD and Nature haue left vndetermined either concerning the time place or manner as for example wee are commanded by the law of GOD and Nature to honour GOD and his Saints to fast to receiue the Eucharist to confesse our sinnes c. yet the time place and manner are not determined but left to the determination of the Church and so the Church appointeth Holy-dayes fasting-dayes the time of Easter to receiue and confesse our sinnes and such like which being supposed for probable but not granted wee may I doe not say impugne but probably expound that decree of the Apostles as some ancient Fathers doe expound it so that
or Lords who remaine excommunicated for a whole yeare for neglecting to purge their territories of hereticall filth And thus much concerning the Apostles decree 22 And the like also saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 179. nu 4. 5. may bee said concerning other decrees of Popes and Councels the impugners whereof haue beene held and condemned by the Church for heretikes as for example it was decreed e Baron an 159 Euseb lib. 23. cap. 22. 23. 24 25. Theod. lib. 1. c. 9. Athan. in epist de Synod Arimin Ambros epist 83. by Pope Pius the first and confirmed by Pope Victor and after by the Councell of Nice that the feast of Easter should be celebrated at the same time that now it is kept vniuersally throughout Christendome according to the tradition left to the Romane Church by S. Peter whereas the Churches of Asia did celebrate the said feast with the Iewes to wit at the time prescribed in the law of Moyses following therein the tradition or at least the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist And albeit those decrees ordaine onely matter of fact and practise yet they which haue heretofore contradicted the same and adhered to the custome of the Iewes were and are still held by the Church for heretikes Epiphan haer 50 S. Aug haer 29. and registred for such by S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine in their Catalogues of heretikes vnder the name and title of Tessarescedecatitae that is to say Quartadecimani who with this distinction of Widdrington and his arguments might farre more probably defend their opinion then he doth or can defend his For they might say as well as he that those Decrees were not matters of faith but matters of fact onely wherein both the Pope and the Councels might follow their owne priuate opinions and consequently erre which being added to that which they said in defence of their heresie and might truely say to wit that they followed the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist and of the Churches of Asia Euseb vbi supra Beda lib. 3. hist cap. 23. which receiued the same by tradition from him and continued it without interruption for 150. yeares this I say would giue another manner of probability to their doctrine then he can any way pretend for his and yet neuerthelesse they are worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees 23 But this obiection is as friuolous as the former first for that it supposeth that I oppose a matter of fact to a matter of faith and imagine that the one cannot stand with the other which is vntrue as I shewed before Secondly for that it supposeth also that I impugne the decree or rather Act and reason of the Lateran Councell which is also vntrue seeing that I doe not impugne it but onely as you haue seene expound it Thirdly for that there is a great disparity betwixt the decree concerning the celebrating of the Feast of Easter and this Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates seeing that the former is a true and proper decree implying an expresse precept and commandement but this Act is not a true proper decree containing in it any command grant or priuiledge as I shewed before and therefore we cannot rightly apply those arguments which the Diuines doe bring to prooue the Churches infallible authority to make decrees and precepts concerning manners to this Act of the Lateran Councel which is not grounded vpon any doctrine appertaining to faith but onely vpon opinion which may be exposed to errour 24 Fourthly the Quartadecimani Castro lib. 12. contra haer verbo Pascha Bell. lib. 3. de Cultu Sanct. cap. 12. as you may see in Alphonsus de Castro and Cardinall Bellarmine were not accounted heretikes for celebrating the Feast of Easter according to the custome of the Iewes contrary to the decree of the Church but for that they thought it necessary to celebrate that Feast according to the custome of the Iewes which is indeede hereticall And therefore that is very vntrue which Mr. Fitzherbert saith that the Quartadecimani were worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees but because they refused to obey them vpon an hereticall ground Neither is it hereticall as I haue shewed before out of Canus to impugne or disobey a decree of the Church especially concerning facts and manners which are not necessary to saluation vnlesse it be impugned or disobeyed vpon an hereticall ground But if the decree bee grounded onely vpon an opinion which is exposed to errour and not vpon an infallible point of faith it is not hereticall to impugne that decree and to say that the Church may erre in making that decree Wherefore it is one thing to say that the Church may erre in making such or such a law and decree and another thing to say that the Church doth erre or hath erred in making that law and decree Canus lib. 5. q. 5 conclu 2. albeit Melchior Canus feareth not to say that hee doth not approoue all Church-lawes nor commend all punishments Censures Excommunications Irregularities Interdicts I know saith he that there be some such lawes which if they want nothing else yet doubtlesse they want prudence and discretion For in lawes precepts decrees and facts concerning manners which are not necessary to saluation and which are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith it is not hereticall to hold that Christ hath not promised to the Church any infallible assistance and that therefore she may erre in making such decrees yet I do not deny but that it were temerarious and irreligious for any priuate man to impugne any decree of a generall Councell and to say that the Church did erre in making that decree 25 As also it is no false doctrine much lesse hereticall to affirme that Kings and temporall Common-wealths may erre in making lawes and decrees concerning ciuill gouernment for that Christ hath not promised them his infallible assistance therein yet it were scandalous and seditious for a priuate man to impugne any temporall law established by the Prince and the Common-wealth and to say that they did erre in making that temporall law But as I said before I doe not impugne but onely expound this Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell according to the probable doctrine of very many Doctours who affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath not power to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall Censures But no maruaile that my Aduersary discourseth here so vnlearnedly seeing that hee hath so little insight in these Theologicall questions and I accuse rather his temerity then his ignorance that hee will take vpon him with such confidence to bee a teacher in these difficult questions wherein hee himselfe hath neuer beene a Schollar or scarce vnderstandeth the true state of the question And by this which hath beene said the iudicious
Reader may easily perceiue how vaine and impertinent are the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts inferences and obiections in this Chapter which therefore I might well omit but that to giue satisfaction to the vnlearned Reader I am in a sort compelled to set them downe 26 Whereupon saith he f Page 180. num 6. it followeth first that Widdringtons answere to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran grounded vpon a distinction of a matter of fact and a matter of faith is very vaine and friuolous as well because the one doth not exclude the other as also because by that distinction hee may impugne the Decree of the Apostles themselues of the Popes Pius and Victor and of the Councell of Nice and such other touching matters of fact no lesse probably then hee impugneth the Canon of the Councell of Lateran 27 But to this as you haue seene I haue answered before and haue cleerely shewed that I did not impugne but onely expound the decree of the Lateran Councell and that I did not oppose a matter of faith to euery matter of fact but to a matter of fact onely or which is all one to such a matter of fact which is not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and such a matter of fact doth exclude a matter of faith also that by this distinction I doe not any wise impugne the decree of the Apostles of Pope Pius and Victor of the Councell of Nice or of any other touching matters of fact 28 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Pa. 180. nu 7 it appeareth that as the Quartadecimani were woorthily condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those Decrees so also those who doe with like obstinacy impugne the other Decree of the Councell of Lateran doe much more deserue to be held for heretickes seeing that they haue much lesse probability for their opinion then the other had 29 But this also hath been answered before for neither were the quartadecimani condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those decrees but because they contradicted them vpon an hereticall ground Neither doe I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell but do only expound it according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who since the Councell of Lateran haue affirmed that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but that the Church when she inflicteth such punishments doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes which learned Doctours cannot without grosse temeritie and impudency be therefore condemned of heresie And if this decree of the Lateran Councell bee so cleere a proofe to make this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and the contrary hereticall as these men pretend I would gladly know why Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies Victoria Corduba Moliua or D. Sanders did not vrge it to make their doctrine in this point certaine vnquestionable and of faith and why Marsilius of Padua was not by some one of those who write of heresies accounted an hereticke for impugning this doctrine and why it was not by Castro Prateolus Cardinall Bellarmine or some other reckoned among one of his heresies but it must now forsooth within these few yeeres without any new definition either of Pope or Councell bee made an heresie which for a 1600. yeeres before was not by any ancient Father or Catholike Diuine accounted an heresie 30 Thirdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert h Pa. 181. nu â— whereas Widdrington concludeth this his third answere with this reason that the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran had no more assurance and certaintie for this their Decree then if they had declared their opinion foorth of the Councell because Christ hath not promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit vnto facts and probable opinions of Popes or Councells but to their definitions onely this his conclusion I say is most impertinent not onely because it impugneth the foresaid Decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Nicene Councell no lesse then this other of the Councell of Lateran but also because he flatly ouerthroweth himselfe seeing that this Decree of the Councell of Lateran is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresie and therefore seeing that our Sauiour promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit to the definitions of Popes and Councels as Widdrington hath here expresly affirmed it followeth that the Pope and Fathers in the Councell of Lateran neither did nor could erre in their definition or Decree concerning the deposition of Princes when it shall be necessary for the extirpation of heresie 31 But all this also I haue fully satisfied before and shewed a great disparity betwixt those decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Councell of Nice and betwixt the Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Potestaes both for that this Act of the Lateran Councell is no true and proper Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as those were and also for that no Catholike Authour affâ—rmeth that those Decrees were made by temporall but onely by spirituall authoritie but very many Doctours affirme that this Act was made by the authoritie and consent of temporall Princes seeing that according to their doctrine the Church by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but that when shee vseth or inflicteth them shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes 32 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert saith that this Decree of the Lateran Councell is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresiâ— if hee meane by the Decree of the Lateran Councell this onely Act concerning the absoluing of Vassalls from their fealty whereof onely wee now dispute and by a definition hee vnderstand a Decree containing some precept or obligation either concerning faith or manners this is very vntrue for as I shewed before this Act according to his owne grounds containeth no precept bond or obligation vnlesse he will grant that the Councell hath authoritie to command or bind the Pope and therefore it is not properly a true Decree but onely the reason cause and end of the former Decree and although it were a true decree and in that sense a definition yet for that it was enacted not by spitituall but by temporall authoritie it is euident that no infallible assistance of the holy Ghost was promised by our Sauiour Christ to the making thereof But if by this Decree of the Lateran Councell he vnderstand the whole act which containeth diuers particular decrees coÌ„cerning the rooting out of heresie by spirituall meanes for to root out heresie by temporall meanes and inflicting temporall punishments as I haue often said doth not belong to spirituall but to temporall authoritie then I willingly graunt that this Decree is a true definition
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
another generall Councell of like authority and why a Bishop for example of Spaine as he is a part of the generall Councell which is a true formall body representing the whole Catholike Church hath power and iurisdiction ouer the Christians of another temporall kingdome for example of France and contrariwise but a temporall or Ciuill law made by the consent of all Christian Princes may bee repealed by euery Prince for as much as concerneth his owne kingdome by whose onely authoritie that law had force to binde in his kingdome which in temporalls is subiect to no other Prince but himselfe alone and therefore as that law had not force to binde in his kingdome from the authoritie of any other Prince so the authoritie and consent of no other Prince is necessarie for the repealing and abrogating of the same So as thou seest good Reader that my third answere is no way defectiue but in euery thing sound and sufficient and that Maister Fitzherbert in the impugning thereof hath very grossely bewrayed his egregious fraude and ignorance CHAP. XIIII VVherein three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby hee laboured in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraude and falshood 1. AFter I had giuen the aforesaide third answere to that Act of the Lateran Councell as you haue seene before I insinuated another difficultie a In the aforesaid Preface nu 51. concerning that Act in these wordes I omit now that those wordes that from that time the Pope may denounce or declare his Vassalls absolued from his fealtie doe containe in them some difficultie for if wee will regard the force or proprietie of the wordes they seeme onely to signifie that it belongeth to the Pope not truely to absolue Vassalls from their fealtie but onely to declare them alreadie absolued which is not the question which wee haue now in hand But this difficultie Mr. Fitzherbert passeth ouer with silence and skippeth to examine three instances which I did not onely imagine or suppose as hee saith would be made against my last answere but which Fa. Lessius in those expresse words by me related in a booke of his called Disputatio Apologetica pro potestate Summi Pontificis which went heere vp and downe for a while in hugger mugger and whereof by chance I had then a view but now it cannot be seene but by very speciall and secret friends which is a manifest token of a great diffidence in his cause did bring to demonstrate and cleerely conuince that it is a manifest point of faith that the Pope hath power and authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance 2 And because Mr. Fitzherbert doth ouer much pare and curtoll those three instances which I brought to confront and paralele with the three arguments or obiections vrged by Fa. Lessius I thinke it not amisse first of all to relate them word by word as there they are set downe by me Wherefore the first argument or obiection of Fa. Lesus is this 1. Argument of Fa Lessius That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of their Decrees and sentences but this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their allegiance is eyther propounded or supposed by Popes Councels and Doctors as a foundation of many Canons and iudiciall sentences therfore this doctrine doth appertaine to faith 2. Argument 3 His second argument is this If a Generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath this authoritie no Catholike could make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that it doth suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of her Decrees and Sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to be accounted no lesse certaine 3. Argument 4 His third argument is this It is a poynt of Faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which is per se of it selfe vnlawfull for such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then is an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to depriue temporall Princes of their dominions the Church should erre in doctrine of manners and that in matters of very great moment For shee teacheth that after a Prince is deposed by the Popes authority all his subiects are absolued from his obedience and that his dominions may bee taken by another as it is manifest by the Councells Also that after a Prince is publikely excommunicated his subiects are absolued from their Oath of Allegiance in so much that they are not bound to obey him vntill hee he reconciled yea and she doth forbid them to obey him if the Censure be denounced All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the subiects shall thereby be incited to rebellions and periuries yea and against their will be compelled thereunto Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and commandeth rebellions and periuries and by her Censures doth compell men thereunto but to affirme this is hereticall therefore that also from whence this followeth is hereticall to wit that the Church hath not authority to absolue subiects from the bond of their oath and from their obedience 5 Thus argueth Fa. Lessius to which his arguments I did not answer in forme but onely propounded three other instances or arguments to confront them with his whereby the learned Reader might cleerely see the weakenesse and insufficiency of his obiections which my arguments I grounded in like manner vpon the dispensations decrees and iudiciall sentences of certaine Popes in these words * Praefatio Apol nu 56. seq 6 And first of all is not the due administration of Sacraments a matter of great moment and chiefly belonging to the Popes office is not an error concerning it to be accounted very pernicious But the Pope hath oftentimes giuen leaue to a Priest who was no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation b As it appeareth by S. Gregory lib. 3. epist 26. and it is related in the Canon peruenit dist 95. and many Abbots at this day haue the same faculty Concil Flor. circa finem in Decreto Eugen. whereas it is a great cōtrouersie among
Diuines whether the Pope can giue leaue to such a Priest to administer this Sacrament Seeing therefore that to the Sacraments of the new Law as the Councell of Florence declareth are required three things the matter the forme and the Minister of which if any one be wanting it is not a true and perfect Sacrament and that it is a very great sacriledge that the due and lawfull matter and forme of a Sacrament should be seriously applied by an vnlawfull Minister if the Pope in whom only according to these Diuines the whole Ecclesiastiall power and authority to define infallibly matters of faith doth chiefly reside cannot grant authority to a Priest who is no Bishop to administer this Sacrament as very learned Diuines c Adrianus Papa in 4. in q. de confess ar 3. Durand in 4. dist 7. q. 3. 4 Bonauent ibid. Alphon. de Cast in l. de haer verbo confirmatio Petrus Soto lec 2. de confirm and others without any note of heresie or errour doe hold is it not a very great errour to grant such licences whereby there is danger that most heinous sacriledges to wit the inualid administrations of Sacraments should be committed 7 Moreouer Pope Sixtus the fourth did in honor of the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary make a Decree d It is to be seen in the 4. tome of the Councels after the life of Pope Sixtus for celebrating the Feast of her Conception to the end that all faithfull Christians should giue thanks and praise to almighty God for her wonderfull conception which he also cals immaculate e In the second decree of the immaculate Virgin and notwithstanding it is vncertaine and disputed by Diuines on both sides whether the B. Virgin was conceiued in originall sinne or by the speciall prouidence of God preserued from the same Is it not therefore from hence manifest that the doctrine which is propounded or supposed as a foundation of an Apostolicall constitution and decree and which belongeth to the religious seruice of God is not so certaine and vndoubted a truth but that without danger of deadly sinne it may be impugned 8 Lastly some Popes haue oftentimes dispenced with Princes who haue made a solemne vow of chastity in approoued Religions to contract matrimonie f See Azor. tom 1. li. 12. c. 7. q. 1. as it is recorded by Historiographers of Constantia daughter to Roger King of Sicilie of Casimirus King of Poland and of Ramirus King of Aragon and of Nicholas Iustinian a noble Venetian but if the Pope hath no authority to dispence in the solemne vowe of religious chastitie whereof there is a great controuersie among Catholike Doctours g For S. Thomas and all his followers whom Zanchez a Iesuite relateth lib. 8 de Matrimon disp 8. doe deny that the Pope hath such a power and Zanchez also saith that it is probable doubtlesse such dispensations would cause very many hainous sinnes and doe also great wrong to other Princes who by such dispensations should be vniustly depriued of their iust title to raigne and to succeede in their inheritance These bee the examples whereon I grounded my three arguments or instances to confront them with the former three of Fa. Lessius in these words 1. Instance of Widdrington 9 May we not therefore according to our aduersaries principles argue in this manner That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which the Pope in whom onely according to these Doctours all authoritie to define infallibly matters of faith doth reside h For they grant that the Pope alone without a Coūcell hath this insallibility the Councell without the Pope hath it not doth eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of his Decrees and sentences this is the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius first argument But this doctrine that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemn vow of chastity and giue leaue to a Priest who is no Bishop to Minister the Sacrament of Confirmation is propounded or supposed by Popes as a ground or foundation of many their decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences therefore that doctrine doth appertaine to faith This is the substance of my first instance but in forme made like to Fa Lessius his first argument 2. Instance 10 Secondly if the Pope should expresly define that the Church hath such a power to wit to dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and to define that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne no Catholike of those especially who hold that the Pope defining without a Generall Councell cannot erre can make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that Popes doe suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences they are thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to bee accounted no lesse certaine 3. Instance 11 Thirdly it is a point of faith as our Aduersaries suppose that the Pope cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or to bee vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which per se of it selfe is vnlawfull For such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to dispence in the solemne vow of chastity or to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation the Pope should erre in doctrine and precepts of manners and that in matters of very great moment For he teacheth that the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by an inferiour Priest who is no Bishop is a true Sacrament Also that if a Prince by the Popes dispensation doe marry a professed Nunne that marriage to be lawfull and valid and that their children are lawfully begotten and ought to succeed in the Kingdome and notwithstanding that the next of the blood Royall should for want of the lawfull issue of this Prince pretend a right to the Crowne yet the Pope may without doubt according to our Aduersaries doctrine commaund and also by Censures compell the Subiects to acknowledge the issue begotten by that marriage wherein the Pope did dispence to be their true vndoubted and rightfull Prince All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the Subiects shall be incited thereby to doe iniuries and against their wills be compelled thereunto and Princes shall obtaine free liberty and licence from the Pope to commit incests and sacriledges Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and counsaileth sacriledge and commandeth iniustice and by Censures compelleth thereunto But to affirme this it is heritical therefore that also from whence followeth is hereticall to wit that the Pope hath not authority to dispence
and knowledge of men For if wee take certaintie as it is in the thing it selfe which is rather to bee called necessitie there is nothing that is past which is not certaine or rather necessarily true So that all the power and authoritie which Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and consequently to the Pope as hee is Saint Peters Successour is most certaine in it selfe that is most true and necessarie yet all the power in particular which Christ hath giuen to Saint Peter and the Pope is not certaine quoad nos that is to the vnderstanding and knowledge of the faithfull nor of the Popes themselues 34 Secondly whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that albeit the reason which mooued some Popes to grant that licence to Priests seemed erroneous to some learned men yet it was not therefore vncertaine to the Popes that gaue it and againe It is euident saith he that many things may seeme vncertaine to some learned men and yet bee most certaine hee doth not say may seeme to be most certaine to the Sea Apostolike insinuating thereby that those Popes who gaue such licences did not only thinke or perswade themselues that they did certainely know but also that they did in very deede certainely knowe which is a farre different thing that they had authoritie giuen them from Christ to doe the same I would gladly learne of Fa. Lessius from whom Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken this assertion by what meanes those Popes came to such a certaine knowledge of things reuealed by Christ our Sauiour whereof other men and perhaps farre more learned then those Popes were in all sorts of learning both diuine and humane were so ignorant vncertaine and doubtfull For my owne part I doe not know by what way any man whatsoeuer hee bee can haue a certaine knowledge which is truely certaine and not onely imagined or thought to bee certaine of things supernaturall and reuealed by GOD but by diuine reuelation and this must bee either a priuate reuelation whereby God reuealeth himselfe to the priuate soule or spirit of a man as hee did in the old Law to the Patriarchs and Prophets and in the New to the Apostles and to diuers other holy men or else it must bee a publike reuelation knowne and approoued so to bee by the publike declaration or acceptance of the Church for the publike definitions of Popes without the approbation of a generall Councell or generall acceptance of the Church doe still remaine vncertaine seeing that it is as yet vncertaine and disputable among learned Catholikes whether the Pope hath authoritie to define certainely and infallibly that this or that thing which is in controuersie among famous and learned Catholike Diuines hath beene reuealed by God or no. 35 If therefore when Mr. Fitzherbert taxing mee most ignorantly of ridiculous absurditie doeth so confidently affirme it to bee euident that many things may seeme vncertaine to some learned men and yet bee most certaine to the Sea Apostolike his meaning bee that the Sea Apostolike hath this certaine knowledge by publike reuelation or by some necessarie consequence which is euidently deduced from publike reuelation I cannot possibly see how this can bee true for that publike reuelations and those things which are euidently deduced from publike reuelations are not proper onely to the Pope but are common also to other learned men and therefore also other learned men who are as skilfull and perchance farre more skilfull in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures and of publike reuelations traditions definitions declarations and of the generall consent and acceptance of the Church then those Popes are may haue as certaine a knowledge of things supernaturall and reuealed by publike reuelation as those Popes either haue or morally can haue 36 But if hee meane that the Sea Apostolike hath that certaintie of knowledge touching things reuealed by priuate reuelations or secret instincts and inspirations any learned man may plainely see that this is spoken without sufficient ground seeing that Christ our Sauiour hath not promised an infallibilitie of trueth to the priuate knowledge of any Pope or of the Prelates of the Church assembled together in a Generall Councell but onely to their Decrees and those not all but to such only which are propounded as of faith Neither also is it certaine that Christ hath promised an infallibilitie of truth so much as to the Popes publike definitions and decrees which are propounded as of faith if hee define without a Generall Councell and much lesse to his priuate knowledge and iudgement as it is manifest by the decrees of Pope Nicholas the first and of Pope Celestine the third whereof the first declared q De cons dist 4 can A quodam Iudaeo that Baptisme giuen in the name of Christ without expressing the three persons of the Trinitie is valid and of force and the second r Quondam in cap. Laudabilem de conuers coniugat that Marriage is so dissolued by heresie that the partie whose consort is fallen into heresie may lawfully marry another which doctrine is now condemned in the Councell of Trent and also by Pope Iohn the 22. who publikely taught Å¿ See Adrian Papa in q. 2. de Confirm circa finem Castro lib. 3. contra haeres verbo Beatitudo haer 62. Bell. l. 4. de Ro. Pont. c. 14 and if hee had not beene preuented by death was resolued to define that the soules of the Blessed should not see God before the Resurrection and by Pope Boniface the eight who in a letter to Philip le Bell King of France affirmed t See Nicol. Vignerius ad an 1300. Ioan. Tilius ad ann 1302. that he accounted them for heretikes who did not beleeue that the said King of France was not subiect to him in spiritualls and temporalls And as for these priuate reuelations they may also bee common to other vertuous and holy men as well as to Popes and with the same facilitie and vpon the same grounds wee may attribute priuate reuelations and certaintie of priuate knowledge as well to the one as to the other 37 And albeit it were so that many things are certaine to the priuate vnderstanding and knowledge of some Popes which are vncertaine and seeme erroneous to other learned men will my Aduersaries therefore affirme that those learned men are bound to follow the Popes priuate iudgement and to beleeue him vpon his bare word if hee say that hee is certaine his iudgement and knowledge to bee true vntill hee make manifest to them the certaintie thereof and vpon what grounds hee is so certainely perswaded his iudgement to bee certainely true This were doubtlesse a most pernicious doctrine and the opening of a wide gappe to errours and heresies For then should the Doctours of Paris See Pope Adr. in the place aboue cited who caused Pope Iohn to recall his errour haue beleeued him when hee commanded his doctrine or rather errour to bee held by all men and induced the Vniuersitie
Fa. Lessius his first argument which he produced without any restriction or limitation to be restrained and limited only to the decrees of Popes and generall Councels which are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and doe not onely concerne particular facts licences dispensations and iudiciall sentences concerning some particular Countries or persons besides that I haue declared aboue in what sence that proposition is true to wit that such decrees must be made by true Ecclesiasticall and not ciuill authority and also that they must be such decrees and sentences wherein it is certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre I haue also here produced a decree of Pope Sixtus the fourth concerning the Feast of the blessed Virgins conception which was made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and yet the ground and foundation of that decree was vncertaine as I prooued aboue and will more cleerely confirme beneath and euidently shew how Mr. Fitzherbert to answere this decree is forced to forsake the doctrine of the most learnedst Diuines of his own Society And also I might adde hereunto the decrees of Popes touching the canonization of Saints the ground and foundation whereof doth not appertaine to faith seeing that as I shewed before out of Canus that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints and yet these decrees are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church But as concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell touching the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates it is euident that I made no inference or any mention at all thereof in any one of my three Instances or examples as this man most shamefully affirmeth 43 Yet if he will needes haue me to apply this doctrine touching the vncertainty of the grounds and foundations of Popes decrees and sentences to the decrees of generall Councels and in particular to the often named Act of the Lateran Councell I doe confidently affirme that whensoeuer it is vncertaine and disputable among learned Catholikes whether a generall Councell hath authority to make this or that decree by her spirituall power without the consent and authority of temporall Princes as to inflict temporall punishments and to dispose of temporals wherein temporall Princes onely are supreame and the Councell maketh such a decree concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments or the disposing of temporals without declaring that she doth make that decree by her spirituall authority then I say it is lawfull for any man without any note of heresie errour or temerity to expound the decree of that Councell according to the probable opinion of those learned men and to affirme that the Councell made that decree not by spirituall power but by the consent and authority of temporall Princes And this is our case concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell Neither is this to impugne the decree of the Councell but onely to expound it according to the probable doctrine of Catholikes And if Mr. Fitzherbert will say that this inference is ridiculous absurd improbable and not to the purpose and that hereby we may inferre quidlibet ex quolibet he sheweth himselfe as the plaine truth is to haue small skill in Theologicall learning 44 In the meane time saith he x Pag. 190 nu 12. ad finem Widdrington is to vnderstand further concerning this point that whereas hee demandeth whether it is not a most grieuous errour to graunt such licences whereupon most grieuous Sacriledges may follow to wit the inualid administration of Sacraments I answere that the Church both doth and may minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a propable opinion without any danger of formall sacriledge or sinne as when a childe is baptized in one of his feet or hands before he be fully borne into the world or when the Sacrament of Extreame Vnction is giuen to one of whom it is not certaine whether he be fully dead In these cases I say and diuers other such the Church doth administer Sacraments with some danger of inualiditie and yet without danger of formall Sacriledge in respect of the great hope of benefit which may follow to the soules of those to whom they are administred and I verily thinke that there was neuer any Catholike so impious hitherto as to condemne the same as sacrilegious either in the most famous and holy Father S. Gregory the Pope or in any other of his successors for albeit some learned men haue indeed denied that they had authority to giue such licence yet they were not so inconsiderate as either to condemne them of most grieuous or sacrilegious errour or to deny that the other opinion was probable seeing that it had beene practised so long since by S. Gregory and approoued not onely by so many most famous and learned Doctours but also by the Councell of Florence which treating of the Sacrament of Confirmation and hauing said that the Bishop is the Ordinary Minister thereof addeth afterwards Legitur tamen c. yet it is read that a simple Priest hath administred it by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike with Chrisme or holy Oyle made by a Bishop 45 So saith the Councell giuing to vnderstand that although a Bishop is the ordinary Minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation yet a Priest may be the extraordinary Minister of it by dispensation of the Sea Apostolike And this I hope may suffice to free as well S. Gregory as other Popes his Successours from all errour and much more all danger of sacriledge in this point Besides that the grant of such licences being meere matters of fact and concerning onely particular persons and Countries could not any way preiudice our cause albeit they were erroneous or sacrilegious seeing that as I haue sufficiently signified before the question betwixt him and vs for the present is only about a generall Decree of a Generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefit of the whole Church wherein wee doe indeed acknowledge the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost though not in euerie particular fact of a Pope Thus much for his first Instance 45 But still this man discouereth either his grosse ignorance or his accustomed fraud For first whereas I spake onely of errour of materiall sacriledge and of inualid administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation this man replieth of sinne of formall sacriledge and of vnlawfull administration of Sacraments For although it be certaine that a man may lawfully and without sinne or formall sacriledge minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a probable opinion yet it is not certaine that in such cases the Sacrament is ministred with effect and without errour or materiall sacriledge for truth falshood and errour haue their denomination from the effect or thing it selfe and probable ignorance and errour doe make the act lawfull though not valid and with effect 46 Secondly there is a great disparity betwixt
yea it would haue been very lawfull iust and conuenient though he had held the contrary opinion whereby it is manifest that his opinion concerning the immaculate puritie of her Conception was not the ground of his Decree as Widdrington doth very fondly suppose it to bee whereas in our question touching the Canon of the Lateran Councell the case is farre different seeing that the said Canon hath such dependance on the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes which is necessarily supposed and included in it that if the Pope haue no such power the Canon is vtterly void being altogether vniust vnlawfull and erroneous Whereupon it euidently followeth that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is the foundation of the Canon 7 So as you see that to impugne this vndoubted ground of the Canon hee is faine to suppose and vrge a false ground of Pope Sixtus his decree and consequently faileth wholly in the proofe of that which he pretendeth and therefore to make his Instance good and the cases like he should haue prooued that the doctrine of the Popes power to institute Feasts is vncertaine and imagined by learned Catholikes without danger of sinne for Pope Sixtus his Decree touching the celebration of the Feast supposeth the truth of that doctrine as in like sort the Canon of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition of Princes supposeth that the doctrine of the Popes power to despose Princes is certaine and true and therefore I conclude that his second Instance wherein he supposeth a false ground is as improbable and impertinent as the former 8 Thus you see that the whole substance of this Discourse which Mr. Fitzherbert here hath made against my second example which hee truely affirmeth to be my second Instance consisteth in this that he denieth the ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree to be his opinion and perswasion that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne and affirmeth that I doe very fondly suppose the same wherein I know not whether to taxe him of manifest fraud or palpable ignorance for to shift off my instance and to censure it according to his vsuall manner as fond improbable and impertinent he is faine to forsake the common doctrine of the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie as of Salmeron Salmeron ad Rom. 15. tom 13. disp 22. Suarez tom 2. in 3. part disp 3. sec 5. Vasquez tom 2. in 3. part disp 117. cap. 5. Suarez and Vasquez who doe constantly hold that the immaculate pure and holy conception of the blessed Virgin was the ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree and to taxe very rashly and arrogantly their doctrine as fond improbable and impertinent and very fraudulently or vnlearnedly to take hold for a colour of his fraud or ignorance of certaine answeres of their Aduersaries which were seene propounded confuted by them Which to make most plaine and manifest I thinke it not amisse to set downe verbatim what Suarez with whom Vasquez and Salmeron doe agree in this point writeth of this matter 9 But at the last saith Suarez to proue from the authority of the Church that the blessed Virgin was preserued from originall sin and sanctified in the first instant of her conception the Church of Rome two hundred yeeres since generally receauing the celebration of this Feast giueth speciall indulgences to the worshippers thereof Whereupon she seemeth in some sort to haue canonized the conception of the blessed Virgin But perchance it will be said that this conception is not celebrated for that it is holy but because it hath beene a great benefit of God and a beginning of greater But this by no meanes is to be approued because as it is manifest by the vnderstanding of the faithfull the Church doth not celebrate this Feast onely for giuing thankes in respect of God but also in honour of the Virgin but the Virgin should not bee worthy of honour for her conception vnlesse therein she had beene holy Moreouer S. Thomas Bernard and Ildefonsus doe thinke that it is sufficiently proued that the blessed Virgin at the time of her Natiuity was holy for that the Church doth celebrate her Natiuity therefore the same iudgement would they make of her Conception if they should see the Feast to be celebrated Lastly Galatinus lib. 7. cap. 5. saith that the Feast of her Conception is in some Martyrologies expresly set downe for the most great purity and sanctity thereof and this will be made more euident by that which shall be said 10 But some others say that the Feast of the Conception was not celebrated but of the Sanctification at what time soeuer it was done or truly if the Feast of her conception be celebrated it is not therfore because she was sanctified in the first instant but because she was sanctified perchance that day But this also is against the meaning of the Church which euer intended to celebrate some speciall priuiledge and immunity of the Virgin vpon this feastiuall day whereof are manifest signes First because Saint Bernard in the aforesaid 147. Epistle did vnderstand in this sense the meaning of the Churches which began to celebrate this Feast For if they should celebrate onely the sanctification there were no cause why he should reprehend them Besides the Councell of Basil doth plainly say that it is an ancient custome of the Church to celebrate this Feast in honour of the Conception of the immaclate Virgin or of the immaculate Conception of the Virgin for the Latin wordes may beare both senses 11 Thirdly in a certaine Roman office of this Feast which is confirmed by the authoritie of Pope Sixtus the fourth this oftentimes is expresly said and the intention of this Feast is declared And after the same manner Pope Sixtus the fourth doth speake in the Extrauagant Cum praeexcelsa and in the Extrauagant Graue nimis de reliquijs venerat Sanctorum calling her Conception pure and immaculate and granting Indulgences to those who doe piously beleeue and celebrate the same And so also the Councell of Trent vnderstood these Decrees sess 5. where she confirmeth them Whereupon the same Pope Sixtus the fourth saith that those doe not sinne who thinke that the B. Virgin was conceiued without sinne and for that cause doe celebrate her Feast Therefore without doubt this is the intention and reason of this festiuitie Adde that in the same manner one may say that when the Church doeth celebrate the Natiuitie of the Virgin it is not for that shee was holy in her Natiuitie but because shee was sanctified within that day but this is plainely false and absurd as it is manifest by that which hath beene saide therefore the same is for the present And the reason is generall because the Church doth properly worship and celebrate the mysteries and priuiledges of the holy Conception and Natiuitie Thus Fa. Suarez 12 So as you see how Fa. Suarez not only saith but also proueth that
commandement concerning all subiects not to obey their temporall Prince being deposed by the Pope or to rebell and plot conspiracies against him But if by commanding he vnderstand particular decrees and commandements propounded to particular persons Bishops Churches or Kingdomes against any particular Emperours Kings or temporall Princes then I say that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus the Church and much more the Pope may erre and of this sort are the depositions iudiciall sentences and commandements of Pope Gregory the seauenth in a Councell held at Rome against Henrie the fourth Emperor of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons against Frederike the second Emperour and all other particular depositions of whatsoeuer Emperours Kings or temporall Princes and in these commandements the Popes were euer resisted and contradicted both by Princes themselues and also by learned and vertuous Catholike subiects as it appeareth euidently not onely by the first depositions of Emperours and Princes but also by the two last of our late Queene Elizabeth and the last King of Fraunce who were obeyed in ciuill matters by their Catholike subiects acknowledged by them to be their true and rightfull Soueraignes notwithstanding the Popes particular declaration sentence and commandement to the contrary as I haue shewed at large concerning our late Queene in the first part and of the King of Fraunce the late troubles and ciuill warres in Fraunce which are yet both fresh in most mens memories and recorded also by Histories are sufficient testimonies 22 Thus thou seest good Reader that neither by this third example of Popes dispensations in vowes whereon not onely my third Instance but also the two former were grounded all which Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed did I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell as the silly man to make some shew of confuting them as absurd improbable impertinent fond and ridiculous doth most vntruely affirme neither did I in any one of my examples or Instances make any mention at all of the said Decree seeing that I had before sufficiently answered to this Decree not by impugning but onely by expounding it and by clearely conuincing that according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who are of opinion that the Church cannot by her spirituall power inflict temporall punishments it must according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne principles who acknowledgeth that all lawes and decrees whatsoeuer are to be restrained and limited according to the power of the Law-Maker c. be vnderstood of the deposing not of temporall Princes who are not subiect to the authoritie of the Church forasmuch as concerneth meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end whatsoeuer they bee inflicted but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes but that which I intended by my three examples and instances was to shew the weakenesse and insufficiency of Fa. Lessius his three arguments as I haue sufficiently declared before 23 But if I should presse M. Fitzherbert a little further and grant him for Disputation sake which he is not able to prooue to wit that the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell is to bee vnderstood of the deposition of temporall Princes yet the silly man would haue much adoe to prooue as also I haue signified before that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Cap. 13. nu 7. seq which I haue related aboue it is such a Decree that from thence it can be sufficiently gathered that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith seeing that according to their grounds onely those Decrees and precepts touching faith or manners are infallible and of faith which are generall and vniuersall and belong to the whole Church and all the faithfull and consequently as well Clearkes as Lay-men For onely in this case saith Canus the Councels Canus l. 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. or Fathers are to be vnderstood to pronounce of faith when the sentence or Decree belongeth to all Christians when it bindeth all Therefore the doctrine of Popes and Councells saith hee if it bee propounded to the whole Church if it bee also propounded with an obligation to be beleeued then doth their sentence or Decree concerne a point of faith And concerning Decrees and precepts of manners Canus teacheth the same When the Church saith he in a matter of weight and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all the people she cannot command any thing which is contrary to the Gospell or naturall reason but in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate men or Churches she may erre through ignorance not only in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. 5. And Cardinall Bellarmine also affirmeth that those Decrees or precepts concerning faith or manners wherein the Pope in whom he putteth all the infallibilitie of the Church cannot erre must bee generall and be propounded and belong to all the faithfull 24 Now this Act of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie besides that it is not properly a Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as I signified before containing in it any precept or obligation vnlesse they will grant the Councell to be aboue the Pope nor also propounded as of faith according to the rules of Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus before related and therefore it cannot according to their doctrine appertaine to faith it is not also a generall Decree and which appertaineth to the whole Church and all the faithfull for it doth not concerne Cleargie men who according to my Aduersaries false scandalous and seditious doctrine are not subiect to temporall Princes nor doe owe to them any temporall allegiance but onely the temporall Vassals of temporall Lords and those not all but of such a Lord onely who for a yeere remaineth excommunicated for neglecting to purge his territories of heresie For those words of the Councell vt ex tunc ipse c. that from that time the Pope may denounce his Vassals absolued from their fealtie can onely bind either the Pope to make that denunciation or that temporall Lord not to exact of his Vassals temporall fealtie or the Vassalls not to giue to that temporall Lord temporall fealty and so it cannot binde Cleargy men who doe not owe any temporall fidelity or obedience to temporal Lords according to my Aduersaries false doctrine nor also all Vassals but onely those of that temporall Lord wherevpon the decree is not generall and belonging to all the faithfull which neuerthelesse is necessary that any decree or precept concerning faith or manners doe appertaine to faith 25 And if perchance my Aduersary will say that it bindeth all
the Councels as some grounds and foundations of their definitions and decrees therefore the grounds and foundations of Ecclesiasticall definitions and decrees are not so certaine and infallible as the definitions decrees themselues Now what absurdity or impertinency trow you can be found in this my argument For I neyther applyed it to the Lateran Councell or to any other Decree of Pope or Councell or to the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes neyther did I say that because the reasons of Ecclesiasticall definitions and decrees are sometimes vncertain and fallible therefore they may bee denied without offence but all this is forged by my Aduersary that so hee might haue some colour to charge me with absurdity and impertinency for so exorbitant is the bitternesse of his zeale not to vse a more bitter word that he will not haue me to say scarce any one thing throughout all my writings without some note either of heresie errour temerity fraud malice irreuerence ignorance falshood impertinency fondnes or ridiculous absurdity from which imputations I haue neuerthelesse cleared all my assertions and euidently shewed that they are farre more agreeable to his arguments and answeres And if my Aduersary had not beene blinded with some intemperate passion he might plainely haue seene that to no other end purpose I brought that argument but to shew that the proposition whereon Fa. Lessius grounded his two first arguments whereof I did treate immediately before to wit that the grounds and foundations of Ecclesiasticall decrees and sentences must be certaine infallible and of faith is not so generally true but that it is needfull for Fa. Lessius to make a more cleere explication thereof 6 And albeit this be sufficient to iustifie this my argument and to free it from all imputation of absurditie and impertinencie yet for the better satisfaction of the Reader I will examine more particularly what he excepteth against the same Wherefore after he had so falsly and fraudulently as you haue seene set downe the aforesaid argument applying it to the Popes power to depose Princes and to the decree of the Lateran Councell and also affirming me to say that because the reasons of Eccesiasticall Canons be sometimes vncertaine therefore they may be denied without offence all which three things are forged by himselfe and not spoken by me and therefore to colour his fraude the better he thought it best not to set downe my argument verbatim as there he found it he writeth thus a Pag. 200. nu 2. Whereunto I answere that by this argument Widdrington impugneth none so much as himselfe granting that the Decrees of Councells may be certaine though the reasons whereupon they are grounded be vncertaine 7 But as I doe not grant that all the reasons of Ecclesiasticall Decrees are vncertaine and not of faith for some no doubt are certaine and of faith so also I doe not grant that all Decrees of Councells are certaine and of faith for some no doubt are not of faith seeing that all Decrees of Councells Bell. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 12. saith Cardinall Bellarmine doe not belong to faith but those onely which are propounded as of faith but of this I haue aboue treated more at large So that if all decrees of Councells are not certaine infallible and of faith no meruaile that the reasons grounds and foundations of such Decrees as they are reasons grounds and foundations thereof may be vncertaine fallible and not of faith I said as they are reasons grounds and foundations thereof for if otherwise they be decisions definitions or conclusions of some other generall Councell in this respect they may be certaine infallible and of faith And this doth euidently impugne the two first arguments of Fa. Lessius and the often named proposition whereupon they are grounded but how by this argument I impugne none so much as my selfe as this man saith but doth not prooue or any way impugne my selfe I cannot comprehend 8 Whereupon it followeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Pag. 200. nu 2. that the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the deposition of Princes may bee certaine and iust albeit the reasons or doctrine which was the foundation of it were not certaine and so Princes may be lawfully deposed by the Pope in such case as the Lateran Councell hath ordained though the said Councell might be mooued thereto by an vncertaine or erroneous reason so that albeit Widdrington should prooue that the ground of the Canon in question were vncertaine or erroneous yet hee should prooue nothing against the Canon it selfe 9 But fie Mr. Fitzherbert that you should shew your selfe to be so grossely ignorant and then especially when you taxe your Aduersarie of absurditie and impertinencie and to impugne him euen by his owne argument Are not you ashamed to argue so childishly ex puris particularibus from pure particular propositions against the knowne principles and rules of Logike Some Decrees of Councells may bee certaine though the reasons doctrine whereupon they are grounded be vncertaine therefore the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the deposition of Princes may be certaine though the reasons doctrine and foundations thereof be vncertaine As who should say Some men may be very skilfull in Diuinitie although they neuer studied it to wit by supernaturall infusion and diuine reuelation as Adam Salomon and our Sauiour Christ according to his humanitie therefore M. Fitzherbert may be very skilfull in Diuinitie although he neuer studied the same 10 But secondly it is not true that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates Landlords or Lords by the consent and authority of temporall Princes and therfore that Decree or rather Act being not made by true Ecclesiasticall authoritie doth not appertaine to the present question concerning the certaintie infallibility of Ecclesiasticall Decrees which are made by the spirituall Pastours of the Church as they haue spirituall and not temporall authoritie Thirdly my Aduersarie standing in his own principles will haue much ado to proue as I said before that those words of the Councell vt extunc ipse c. That then the Pope may denounce the vassalls absolued from their fealtie do containe a proper decree or precept concerning faith or manners but the end reason and cause of the former decree wherein it is ordained that the Pope shall be certified if the temporall landlord or Lord being excommunicated shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeere to the end that the Pope may denounce c. vnlesse he will haue the Councell to make lawes decrees and Canons to bind the Pope And that although it were a proper decree concerning manners yet that is such a generall decree and belonging to all the faithfull as according to Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus is required to make Ecclesiasticall decrees to be infallible and of faith So that the more my Aduersarie striueth to prooue out of the aforesaid words of the
that therefore all such Decrees are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions c. Besides that this reason supposeth which I euer denyed that in the Lateran Councell was decreed the deposition of temporall Princes which is the maine question betwixt vs it needeth also some further explication For if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that no Decree of a generall Councell made for the whole Church touching manners or things commanded or forbidden to be done whether it bee made by meere Ecclesiasticall power or by that temporall authority which spirituall Pastours haue receiued from the expresse and formall graunt and priuiledges or the vertuall and tacite consent or conniuence of temporall Princes may bee impugned or called in question by any Christian man without some note or aspersion of temeritie and impietie of this I will not contend with him for this also may bee said of meere temporall lawes which are made by the Princes Peeres and Commons of temporall kingdomes for the temporall good thereof which cannot bee impugned or called in question by any priuate man without some note of temeritie and impietie 35 But if his meaning be that all Catholike Doctours doe vniformly beleeue and teach that no Decree of a generall Councell made for the whole Church touching manners which are not otherwise necessary to saluation may not bee impugned or called in question without note of heresie this is very vntrue and therein he sheweth either to be little conuersant in the reading of Catholike Doctors or not to haue well obserued what they teach For as I shewed aboue learned Canus dare not resolue whether it be hereticall to affirme that some custome or law of the Church is euill or vniust and he plainly affirmeth that it is not hereticall to hold that the Church may erre in the canonizing of Saints and the grounds of such Decrees may be vncertaine S. Tho. quod 9. ar vlt. S. Antonin 3. part tit 12. c. 8. Caiet tom 1. Opusc trac 15. de Indulg c. 8. and fallible Whereupon Saint Thomas Saint Antoninus and Cardinall Caietane doe onely say that it is piously to be beleeued that the Church cannot erre in the canonizing of them And besides that Salmeron Suarez and Vasquez as I shewed aboue doe constantly hold that the ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree touching the celebration of the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception Chap. 15. nu 8 9. seq Suarez disp 21 sec 2. was not certaine but onely probable Suarez also affirmeth that it is not a point of faith that the B. Virgin is corporally assumpted into heauen although the Church doth celebrate the Feast of her Assumption and the reason heereof he giueth for that it is not as yet defined by the Church neither is there any testimony of Scripture or sufficient tradition which may make the beliefe therof infallible See S. August tom 10. ser 34. 35. de Sāctis 36 Whereupon S. Augustine in the booke of the B. Virgins Assumption and serm 35. de Sanctis if he be the Authour of them doth seeme to leaue it as doubtfull although he doth not deny but that it may piously be beleeued Caiet in opusc de Concept tō 2. opusc trac 1. c. 1 Sotus in 4. d. 43. q. 2. ar 1. Abul in c. 22. Matth. q. 230. And Cardinal Caietane and Sotus say onely that it is a very pious opinion and Abulensis saith that it is onely the more probable opinion And as concerning the Resurrection of the Virgin saith he It is not necessary to hold the same because it is not among the articles of our faith neither is there any thing defined by the Church that it ought to be held therefore it is lawfull for euery one to thinke as he will And the reasons which are brought to prooue her Resurrection are certaine perswasions and doe not conuince and yet because it is commonly held that she is risen it is more reasonable to hold the same but if any man doe affirme the contrary wee doe not repugne Thus Abulensis And heereof I thought good to admonish the iudicious Reader that heereby hee may most cleerely perceiue both the ignorance of Mr. Fitzherbert who so boldly affirmeth that all Ecclesiasticall Decrees which are made for the whole Church touching manners are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions and also that we ought not to condemne so easily any doctrine of heresie or errour vnlesse wee see the contrary by some cleere definition of the Church or some euident and vndoubted consequence deduced from thence to be determined as a point of faith neither is it sufficient in this case to bring onely probable arguments or which in our owne iudgement seeme to demonstrate out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers Decrees of Councels or Theologicall reasons which in the opinion of other learned Catholikes doe not conuince it to be a point of faith 37 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth touching his Reply to all the answeres I gaue especially to the Decree of the Lateran Councell And now hauing confuted saith hee l Pag. 205. nu 13. seq all that which I find in the Preface of his Apologeticall answere concerning the Councell of Lateran I will returne to examine the rest of his text in his Admonition from the which I haue beene a while diuerted by his remission of his Reader to the said Preface Thus thou Widdrington concludeth in his Admonition concerning as well the Councell of Lateran as my whole Discourse Priusquam igitur aliquis clare demonstrauerit c. Therefore before some one shall cleerely demonstrate I doe not say shall onely shew probably that the answeres which I haue giuen to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable no effectuall argument can be deduced from that Councell whereby it may certainly and euidently be prooued that it is so certaine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes that the contrary may not be defended by Catholikes without the note of heresie errour or temeritie And this for the present may suffice to confute this Authours more prolixe then solide discourse for I will perhaps in another place more exactly examine of what small force or moment are euery one of his arguments Thus saith Widdrington for the vpshot of his answeres to me wherein we may obserue these points following 38 First whereas he exacteth as you see some cleere demonstrations that his answeres to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable I hope he or at least the indifferent Reader may rest satisfied therein seeing that I haue made it cleere that his answeres to the said Councell are not onely improbable but also friuolous and sometimes ridiculous as being wholly impertinent to the matter or else preiudiciall to himselfe Secondly whereas he saith that no effectuall argument can be deduced from that Councell against him vntill it be demonstrated that his answeres thereto are improbable I may now
Catholike Roman Church whereby hee professeth that if by ignorance hee haue failed in any thing which the Roman Church doth not approoue he doth also reprooue it condemne it and wisheth it to be held as not written let not this I say seduce thee or mooue thee to thinke that he teacheth Catholike doctrine concerning the matter now in question seeing that it is euident that all this is but a false luster and glosse cast vpon his counterfeite ware of purpose to deceiue thee 3 It is true all the bookes I haue written hitherto either in Latin or English I did submit to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church and in the first booke of all which I published in defence of the temporall right of Princes against Card. Bellarmines reasons whereby he pretended to demonstrate that it is not so much an opinion as an heresie to hold that the Pope hath no authority by the institution of Christ to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of temporals besides the submission thereof to the said Censure of the Catholike Romane Church I did also solemnely protest and call God to witnesse that neither through the spirit of flattery nor of contradiction but sincerely mooued with a vehement desire to finde out the truth in this difficult controuersie which so neerely concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar I did take vpon me the writing of that Apologie 4 And my third booke which is the Disputation of the Oath against which this man so greatly inueigheth I did not onely submit to the Censure of the said Catholike Romane Church protesting also that if either in that Disputation or elsewhere I had through ignorance written any thing which she did not approoue I also did disprooue it condemne it and would haue it for not written but also I did of set purpose dedicate it to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requesting him that considering we had diligently examined all the parts and parcels of the oath and yet could not finde any one thing among so many contrary to faith or saluation his Holinesse would be pleased in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall office after hee had duely considered all those obiections which we did propound vnto him for and against the Oath to make knowne vnto vs his poore and afflicted Catholikes one onely thing among so many which are so manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation as he had declared by his Breues protesting that if we could be assured of one onely thing contained in the Oath which is any way repugnant to faith or saluation wee would forthwith obey his declaratiue commaundement and would hazard our liues and all our fortunes in defence of the vndoubted Catholike faith 5 Now this vncharitable man notwithstanding all these my protestations and submissions will contrary to the commandement of Christ our Sauiour the knowne rules of charity and iustice iudge censure my inward thoughts which none but God and my owne conscience can know and boldly affirmeth that it is euident b Nu. 1. that all this is but a false luster and glosse cast vpon my counterfait ware of purpose to deceiue the Reader and that I am an hereticke disguised c Nu. 19. and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that all my pretences to bee a Catholike d Nu. 26. and my submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceeds from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes But God knoweth how wrongfully he belyeth me to whose iustice for the infinite wrong he hath done me I doe appeale and I make no doubt but that he will finde him a most iust Iudge and seuere reuenger either in this life or in the next or both vnlesse hee repent and satisfie mee in time for the great wrong he hath done me 6 But let vs heare the reasons which this vnconscionable man bringeth to colour this rash iudgement of his For if Widdrington saith he e Pa. 212. nu 2 so much respect and reuerence his Holinesse and the Romane Church as he pretendeth how chanceth it that vtterly reiecteth three Apostolicall Breues of his Holinesse vpon no better ground and reason but because his Holinesse hath beene ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and absurd 7 But albeit with all my heart and soule I doe greatly respect and reuerence the Popes Holinesse the Sea Apostolike the Romane Church and the Catholike Romane Church each of them in their due place and degree but not all of them with equall respect and reuerence for that no learned Catholike can deny but that betwixt all these a great difference is to be made neither are the errours misdemeanours or imperfections of Popes who being men and subiect to humane infirmities as others are to bee attributed to the Sea Apostolike or to the Roman Church although my ignorant Aduersary seemeth not only to make no distinction betwixt the Pope and the Sea Apostolike whereas if he will but reade S. Robert of Lincolne his life in Matthew Paris he may see what difference hee maketh betwixt Pope Innocent the fourth whom hee calleth Antichrist Mat. Paris in Henrico 3 o. pag. 843. and whose Breues as containing in them something which is hatefull to Christ our Sauiour detestable abhominable and very pernicious to mankind hee refused to obey and betwixt the most holy Sea Apostolike which hee saith can command no such detestable thing but also hee would make his Reader beleeue that I take the Roman Church and the Catholike Roman Church for all one whereas it is manifest that there is betwixt them almost as great difference as is betwixt the Kingdome of England and the Christian world or rather betwixt Rome and Christendome and also very many vertuous and learned Roman Catholikes doe not graunt that infallible authoritie to the Popes Holinesse or to the Roman Church which they grant to the Catholike Roman Church according to that saying of S. Hierome si authoâ—iâ—as quaeritur Hier. epist 85. ad Euangrium orbis maior est vrbe if authoritie bee demanded or sought for the world is greater then a Citie which sentence the Glosse vpon the Canon Legimus dist 93. citing and expounding saith Heere is an argument that the Decrees of a Councell doe preiudicate or goe before the Popes Decree if they contradict it 8 Neuerthelesse I doe also willingly acknowledge that I doe not so much respect and reuerence his Holinesse as to beleeue that all the commandements of Popes are iust and all their Breues and Decrees are grounded vpon infallible truth or that any Catholike is bound to obey his Holinesse declaratiue commandement when it is only grounded vpon a probable opinion which no man is bound to follow it being most euident that where there is no authoritie to command it is no irreuerence or vndutifull respect not to obey As likewise although all Subiects are bound to respect
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
held with Catholike faith was truely a generall Councell therefore vnto this day it remaineth a question euen among Catholikes And all the world seeth that the Diuines of Paris are admitted to Sacraments which ought not to bee tolerated if they committed any heresie errour or temerity for defending this doctrine as publike harlots are in some sort permitted at Rome but not suffered to receiue Sacraments so long as they persist in that wicked life 81 And from hence it euidently followeth first that it is not certaine and infallible that the Pope with his Cardinalls and Diuines yea and with the particular Romane Church defining determining or propounding to the whole Church any thing to be beleeued formally as of faith without a generall Councell cannot erre and be deceiued and consequently such definitions cannot be certaine and infallible nor can be an assured ground of Catholike faith nor a sufficient reason motiue medium or cause to beleeue any thing by him so defined with Catholike faith for that the fundamentall reason medium cause and motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine and infallible as I shewed before out of Bannes from whom other Diuines doe not dissent herein and if that reason be vncertaine doubtfull or fallible the faith or beliefe which is grounded and dependeth thereon cannot be truely Catholike and infallible 82 Secondly if the Popes decrees and definitions in things to be beleeued as of faith albeit directed to the whole Church and in things which doe not concerne his owne particular interest honour authority or prerogatiue and wherein therefore there can be no suspicion that he himselfe is led by affection or his Counsellers and Diuines by flattery to the making of such Decrees are not certaine and infallible but may be false and exposed to errour and consequently can be no sure ground of Catholike faith what iudgement can any sensible man make of such decrees or definitions which are neither directed to the whole Church but to particular persons or Churches nor are propounded as of faith nor grounded vpon any doctrine which is certaine and out of controuersie but onely vpon a question maintained on both sides by learned Catholikes and which also concerneth the Popes owne interest authority and prerogatiue as are his Breues directed to English Catholikes which are neither propounded to the whole Church nor containe any definition as of faith but onely a declaratiue precept which is grounded vpon a controuersie which began in Pope Gregory the seuenth his time and hath since continued betwixt the Bishops of Rome and Christian Princes concerning the authority which Popes pretend to haue ouer all their temporalls 83 Thirdly if the Popes Decrees together with the Romane Church by which he declareth and defineth any doctrine to be of faith or against faith may be fallible and exposed to errour and consequently can be no certaine rule or ground of Catholike faith nor any sufficient reason cause or motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith so long as this controuersie among Catholikes concerning the Popes infallibility in his definitions remaineth vndecided much lesse can a Decree of any Congregation of Cardinalls declaring any doctrine to be of faith or condemning any doctrine as hereticall erroneous temerarious or scandalous be an assured ground of Catholike faith or a sufficient reason for any man to beleeue with Catholike faith that doctrine to be such as their Decrees doe declare or condâ—mne Which being so what iudgement I pray you can any reasonable man make of such their Decrees which condemne no doctrine at all either in generall or particular but onely forbid certaine bookes to be read or kept without declaring for what cause or crime either in particular or in generall they are forbidden and such bookes also as are written against one of the chiefest of their Congregation of which sort is that Decree of the Cardinalls wherein two bookes of mine written chiefly against Cardinall Bellarmine are forbidden without expressing any cause or crime at all either in particular or generall why they are forbidden 84 Fourthly by all this it is euident what infinite wrong this my ignorant Aduersary whether onely through blinde and inconsiderate zeale or also through some passionate splene taken against me for contradicting his writings and some others of his Societie I leaue to God his own conscience to iudge hath both done to me in so falsly and yet vpon such childish grounds accusing me to be no Catholike but an hereticke disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike for not admitting the Popes Breues and declaratiue precept grounded at the most vpon an opinion which learned Catholikes haue euer impugned and taxing my doctrine of heresie for that my bookes are forbidden by the Cardinalls of the Inquisition without condemning any position contained in them of any crime either in particular or generall and also into what eminent danger he both casteth himselfe headlong and seeketh also to draw after him vnlearned Catholikes if they will follow such a blinde guide in waies which he himselfe for want of Scholasticall learning hath neuer gone by endeauouring to ouerthrow their Catholike faith and to perswade them to build it vpon fallible grounds as vpon Popes Breues which neither are directed to the whole Church nor doe containe any definition or declaration of any particular doctrine and vpon the Decrees of certaine Cardinalls condemning bookes onely in generall tearmes which perchance some of them neuer read nor for want of sufficient learning doe well vnderstand but doe relie either vpon the relation or iudgement of other men to whom the charge of ouerseeing such bookes is committed by them whereas the grounds of true Catholike faith and the fundamentall reason why a man ought to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine infallible and without all controuersie And thus you see in what a labyrinth this silly man hath wound himselfe who seeking to perswade his Reader that I am no true Catholike but a disguised and masked hereticke vnder the name of a Catholike for not building my Catholike faith vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are controuersed among learned Catholikes plainly bewraieth what a sound Catholike he himselfe is and vpon what sure grounds he buildeth his Catholike faith and would haue other Catholikes to build the same whereas according to the approoued doctrine of all learned Catholikes vnlesse it be built vpon certaine vndoubted and infallible grounds it cannot be a true Catholike faith but onely an vncertaine and fallible opinion masked vnder the vizard of Catholike faith 85 Lastly that vnlearned Catholikes may walke warily securely and without danger and bee not misled blindfold by this my ignorant Aduersary they must carefully obserue the difference betwixt the Church firmely beleeuing and probably thinking or which is all one betwixt Catholike faith and opinion The first difference is that the grounds of Catholike faith must bee certaine and infallible but the grounds of
opinion are vncertaine and fallible and therefore although the Popes definitions made with mature deliberation and graue counsell may be a sufficient ground for Catholikes to thinke with opinion that the doctrine which he defineth is true if they haue no conuincing reasons to perswade them to the contrary yet they cannot be sufficient for Catholikes I doe not say to thinke probably but to beleeue assuredly with Catholike faith the doctrine which he so defineth without the approbation of a generall Councell to bee true The second difference is that albeit euery Catholike ought to be so firme and stedfast in his Catholike beliefe that hee must needes beleeue the contrary doctrine not onely to be false à parte rei but also to be improbable yet he ought not to bee so firme and stedfast in his opinion as to condemne of heresie errour or temeritie other learned Catholikes who hauing duely examined all the reasons and grounds for that opinion shall thinke against him or be of the contrary opinion although he pretend to prooue his doctrine to be true out of some Decree or definition euen of a generall Councell which Decree or definition the other learned Catholikes of the contrary opinion haue seene examined and answered thereunto and this I prooued at large in my Theologicall Disputation Å¿ Cha. 10. sec 2. out of the expresse doctrine of Fa. Vasquez which my ignorant Aduersary doth fraudulently conceale who as you haue seene vrgeth against mee certaine arguments which I there related and answered and dissembleth wholly the answeres which there I made to the same 86 Wherefore although the Pope be the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach and instruct them in the Catholike faith and in all other things which are necessary to saluation as also euery Bishop is a spirituall Pastour in his owne Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach and instruct all those that are committed to his charge in the Catholike faith and in all other things necessarie to the health of their soules because as Cardinall Bellarmine well affirmeth Bell. l. 5. de RoÌ„ Pont. c. 3. that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in his particular Dioecesse and those words Pasce oues meas Feed my sheepe Bell. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12 in sine Edit antiquâ—â— saith he and such like which are spoken to Saint Peter in regard of the Pastorall office are vnderstood to be spoken to all Pastors yet as no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith which the Bishop of the Dioecesse doth define or determine to be of faith so long as there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes concerning the certaintie of that doctrine for that it is certaine and agreed vpon by all Catholikes that euery particular Bishop may erre in his definitions and consequently they cannot be any assured and infallible grounds of the Catholike faith So also proportionally no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith any doctrine whereof there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes albeit the Pope without a generall Councell shall define it to be of faith for that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope defining without a generall Councell can erre or no and consequently vntill this controuersie be decided and determined by a generall Councell or the vniuersall acceptance of the Church as a point of faith such his definitions can be no assured and infallible grounds of true Catholike faith 87 And if you demaund that seeing the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way to saluation why are not all Christians bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund him I answere with the like demaund seeing that euery Bishop is the spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull within his Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way of saluation why are not all the faithfull within his Dioâ—cesse committed to his charge bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund them 88 But perchance you will say that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and his commaundements are Apostolicall as Mr. Fitzherbert in this Treatise often vrgeth against me the authoritie of the supreme spirituall Pastor his Apostolicall Breues and commandement therfore there is a great disparitie betwixt the Pope and the inferiour Bishops True it is that there is a great disparitie and difference betwixt the Pope who is the supreme Pastour and other Bishops who are not supreme but as there is a great disparitie betwixt them so there is a great difficultie and controuersie among learned Catholikes in what this disparitie and this supremacie of the Pope doth consist which were to long to examine at this present perchance hereafter if my Aduersaries will vrge me thereunto I shall treate of this disparitie and the Popes Supremacie more at large In the meane time all Catholikes doe agree in this that the Popes Supremacie doth not consist in this that he cannot command any vnlawfull thing and contrary to the law of God or that he cannot teach false doctrine and contrary to the word of God or that he cannot exceede the authority which Christ hath granted him or that hee cannot challenge to him a power or Iurisdiction as due to him which Christ hath not giuen him Yea and according to the doctrine of many famous and learned Catholikes cited by me elsewhere t In disp Theol. cap. 10. § 2 nu 27. the Popes Supremacy doth not consist in this that he cannot erre and bee deceiued in his definitions albeit they bee directed to the whole Church if he define without the approbation of a generall Councell or the acceptance of the vniuersall Church and consequently such his definitions cannot be certaine and infallible grounds of true Catholike Faith 89 Neyther are his commandements definitions or letters called Apostolicall for that they are alwayes conforme to the law of God and to the doctrine of the Apostles neyther is his authority called Apostolicall for that he hath alwayes the assistance of the holy Ghost anexed to his Decrees and doctrine in that manner as the Apostles had but chiefly and principally for that he is the successour of S. Peter the first Apostle and hath authority and iurisdiction ouer all Christians as the Apostles and principally S. Peter had although not with the like infallibility and continuall assistance of the holy Ghost And so the parity doth still remaine betwixt the Pope and other Bishops notwithstanding his Primacie in that both are Pastours and therefore are bound by their pastorall function to feede their sheepe to instruct them in the Catholike faith and to direct them in
no Catholike is bound to admit his Holinesse Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath and to obey his declaratiue commandement contained therein for the reasons signified before which I humbly propounded to his Holinesse desiring him most earnestly as being our chiefe Pastour Teacher and Instructer to giue vs some satisfaction therein yet I cannot therefore in the iudgement of any learned man bee iustly accounted a disobedient childe to his Holinesse seeing that it is euident as I shewed before out of Dominicus Sotus that if a Superiour imposâ— a commandement whereby danger is feared to Religion or to the common-wealth or to a third person as all the world knoweth that the forbidding of the Oath is heere in England preiudiciall to Catholike Religion to his Maiestie and the temporall State and to all his Catholike subiects if the subiect be doubtfull that such a danger will arise he is not bound foorthwith to obey but he may without any disobedience demaund of his Prelate a reason of his commandement propounding humbly the reasons of his doubts 103 Besides Luthers doctrine was within two yeeres condemned not onely in generall words but also his propositions were specified in particular both by Pope Leo himselfe in his particular Bull concerning the same and also by the famous Vniuersities of Paris Louan and Collen But albeit two of my bookes are by a particular decree of the Cardinall forbidden in generall and I commanded vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe forthwith yet they haue neither expressed any one proposition in particular neither as yet can I get them to name one proposition which is repugnant to faith or good manners although I haue most earnestly requested to know the same protesting from my heart to bee most readie to correct what is to bee corrected to purge what is to bee purged to explaine what is to be explained and to retract what is to bee retracted which their different proceeding against me and Luther doth plainly argue that they haue begun a worke which they cannot with their reputation continue and that there is no such dangerous doctrine contained in my bookes as Cardinall Bellarmine against whom I did chiefly write and who is my accuser Aduersarie and Iudge hath by all likelihood informed them and would gladly to saue his owne credit and that he hath not falsly to his great dishonour accused me and my doctrine of errour heresie and of being no good Catholike would make the world beleeue for which at the day of iudgement hee shall render a strict account And thus you see that this comparison which my indiscreete Aduersarie hath to disgrace me made betwixt me and Luther doth nothing helpe but greatly hurt his cause 104 Now you shall see what a fraudulent and vncharitable obseruation hee gathereth from hence That which I wish saith he z Pag. 121. nu 18. 19. to bee obserued heerein is how little heed is to bee taken to Widdringtons submission of his writings to the Roman Church he should haue saide Catholike Roman Church considering his doctrine and the course he holdeth in the maintaining thereof For as Cicero saide by Epicurus who wrote sometimes very vertuously and thereby deceiued many it is not so much to be considered what hee writeth as what his grounds and principles are and how well his writings agree therewith as for example what opinion he or any other hath or can haue of the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike who purposely impugneth the iurisdiction thereof contradicting as I haue shewed sufficiently in this Reply the ancient and generall practise of the Church the expresse Canons thereof and the Decrees of Popes and Generall Councells vpon an absurd supposition partly of a bare probabilitie in his own doctrine partly of a possibilitie of errour in Decrees touching matters of fact which he is not ashamed to say of the Decree of the famous Oecumenical Councel of Lateran albeit all Catholikes doe vniformely teach that generall Councells lawfully assembled and confirmed by the Pope cannot erre in any generall Decree touching either faith or manners as I haue sufficiently signified before a See chap. 16. nu 11. and 12. Besides that he vseth the very obiections arguments answeres shifts and euasions of heretikes discouering now and then such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade him without great disgust and indignation or can take him for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike 105 But to answer the false and fraudulent obseruation or rather shamefull calumniation of this malignant spirit which hee would gladly colour with the luster of a faigned intemperate and Pharisaicall zeale to the Sea Apostolike I may rightly say to him as Saint Paul sayde to Elymas the Magician O plene omnidole omnifallacia Act. 13. c. O full of all guile and of all deceipt c. For to begin with his later wordes I doe not vse any other obiections arguments and answeres then which vertuous and learned Catholikes haued vsed before mee neither doe I discouer any arrogant proude or malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike whom I reuerence and respect with all my heart onely the plaine truth which Catholike Doctours haue said before me and which oftentimes breedeth enmitie I doe modestly reuerently and without any flattery which commonly procureth friends â—â—â—downe And this vncharitable and ignorant man might haue done well to haue named some one particular shift or euation which I haue vsed and which onely heretikes and no Catholikes doe vse or wherein I discouer such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade it without disgust and indignation or take me for any other than an heretike disguished and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike But this is a vsuall tricke of slanderers and backbiters to vse such generall speeches lest if they should descend to particulars their malicious and lying spirit would presently bee discouered 106 Secondly this silly man cannot prooue that any one thing either concerning my doctrine and the grounds and principles thereof or concerning the course which I hold in the maintenance thereof doth not agree with the submission I made of my writings to the censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church For I doe not impugne any authoritie or iurisdiction which the Catholike Romane Church acknowledgeth as due to the Sea Apostolike but I impugne onely the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishment as a thing certaine and necessarily to be belieued or maintained by Catholikes for that the Catholike Church neuer acknowledged this authoritie to be due to him neither was this doctrine in the primitiue Church and for many hundred yeares after by the ancient Fathers so much as dreamed on but it hath been challenged practised by some Popes since the time of P. Gregorie the 7. Res ante ea secula inaudita
A thing not heard of before that age saith Onuphrius which their practise and the doctrine thereof hath neuerthelesse been euer contradicted by Christian Princes and their Catholike subiects and therefore it cannot be rightly called the generall practise of the Church nor ancient but in respect of this our age not from that practise can any sufficient argument be drawne to proue the doctrine to be certaine and of faith and that the contrary cannot be maintained by any Catholike without the note of heresie errours or temeritie Neither doe I contradict or impugne the expresse Canons of the Church the decrees of Popes and generall Councels and especially of that famous Lateran Councell but I expound them according to the probable doctrine of learned Diuines * See aboue in the first part of this Treatise See aboue chap. 11. from nu 3. cha 12. from nu 56. and Hostiensis vpon the same Canon Per venerabilem and exposition of the Canonists cited by Innotentius Hostiensis and Ioaâ—â—r Andreas vpon the Canon Ad abolendam and as the Glosse with those Doctors whom Hostiensis mentioneth and calleth them Masters vnderstand the Canon Per venerabitem Qui sily sint legitims and I impugne and contradict the doctrine and expositions which my Aduersaries make of the Canons of the Church and especially of the Decree or Act of this famous Lateran Councell 107 Thirdly that obseruation which my spightfull Aduersary vrgeth against me may be also vrged against Cardinall Bellarmine and many other zealous and learned Catholikes who notwithstanding their submission to the Catholike Romane Church yet they purposely impugne the authoritie and iurisdiction of the Sea Apostolike contradicting the Popes authority and dominion directly in temporals his power to dispence in certaine vowes and in marriage which is not consummated to giue leaue to inferiour Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation to define infallibly without a generall Councell c. albeit diuers Popes haue practised and maintained the contrary And therefore if this mans inference be good little heede is to bee taken to their submission of their writings to the Catholike Romane Church seeing that they purposely impugne the authority and iurisdiction of the Sea Apostolike But the plaine truth is that little heede is to be taken to the writings of this ignorant and vncharitable man seeing that to prooue me to be no other than an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike he bringeth such childish and witlesse arguments which may bee retorted vpon Cardinall Bellarmine and many other learned and zealous Catholikes who purposely impugne that authority and iurisdiction which some onely or a great part of Catholikes but not the Catholike Church or all Catholikes doe acknowledge as due to the Pope 108 But now this vncharitable man at the last vpshot will not shoot at randome as he hath hitherto done but he will forsooth hit the very marke and will manifestly prooue that no zealous Catholike can take me for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike And what more manifest argument saith he b Pag. 222. num 20. can a man desire of the truth hereof then that his Bookes are printed Cosmopoli and Albionopoli that is to say in good English in London with the consent and approbation of my Lord of Canterbury his fellowes Can any man perswade himselfe that their Lordships are turned Papists of late or that they would suffer books to be printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatorie to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Censure of the Romane Church hee should haue added also Catholike if they did not know that the Authour thereof meant the same for a meere mockery and derision of his Holinesse honouring him as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex Iudaeorum and spitting in his face 109 But although I am infinitely wronged and slandered by this vncharitable man in falsly accusing me of the greatest and most infamous crime that may be to wit of heresie and Apostacie and bringing such ridiculous arguments to prooue the same for the which at the day of iudgement he hath much to answere yet in very deed I doe in some sort pitty the silly man for that before he began to enter into this difficult controuersie wherein he shewed himselfe to haue so little skill he was of some account among English Catholikes and now hee hath so much empaired or rather quite lost that credit and good estimation they had of him by discouering so grosly his great want not onely of Theologicall learning but also of morall honestie The like vncharitable proceeding and vpon the like vncharitable friuolous grounds this zealous Father vsed against the Appellant Priests in the time of Pope Clement the eight to disgrace them with his Holinesse as hauing intelligence with the State and to be no good Catholikes c. but the effect hath prooued and Pope Clement also to the confusion of my backebiting Aduersary and his adherents hath confirmed and which also I make no doubt but that his Holinesse and all the world will ere it be long see and acknowledge concerning their course taken against mee that Mentita est iniquitas sibi Iniquitie hath belide it selfe 110 Marke now vpon what goodly principles hee relyeth to prooue mee to be no other then a hereticke disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike My bookes saith he are printed at London with the consent and approbation of my Lord of Canterbury and his fellowet Be it so therefore from hence we may very well conclude that all English Catholikes are infinitely bound to his Maiesty and the State who albeit by reason of that execrable Gun-powder plot the damnable grounds and principles from whence it was deriued might haue taken a fit occasion to repute all Catholikes without any distinction or difference of persons to be capitall enemies to his Maiestie and his temporall State and to perswade themselues and all the Protestant Subiects of the Realme that no true and constant Romane Catholike can be a true and constant subiect to his Maiestie yet his Maiestie and the State out of their most gracious fauour and clemencie were contented to permit his Catholike subiects to cleere themselues if they could of this most foule imputation so dangerous to themselues and so scandalous to their Religion and to make knowne to the whole world that according to the true grounds and principles of Catholike Religion his Maiestie might be assured that they might continue both his true obedient and constant subiects in all temporall affaires by vertue of the naturall bond of their temporall allegiance which the Pope hath not power to dissolue and also dutifull children of the Catholike Romane Church and of his Holinesse in all spirituall matters among which the deposing of Princes and the disposing of temporals are not according to the doctrine of
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 censure of the Catholike Romane Church whose child I professed my selfe to bee and that if perchance any thing through ignorance had escaped mee In Disp Theo. in fine which should not bee approoued by her I did disprooue it condemne it and would haue it for not written In Disp c. 6. sec 3. nu 18. seq 5 Besides I did professe that with all due honour and respect I did reuerence all the Canons of the Catholike Church although I did freely confesse that betwixt the Catholike Church and the Pope who is onely the first and principall member thereof betwixt some Chapters or Decrees of the Canon-Law and betwixt others a great difference is to be made and neuerthelesse I sincerely affirmed that to euery one in his degree and place I gaue dutifull but not equall credit the vast Corps of the Canon-Law and in the volumes of the Councells are contained either sayings or assertions of the ancient Fathers or Decrees or sentences of Popes or Councells and these are either doctrinall and propounded as things to bee belieued by the faithfull or else morall and which in the externall discipline of the Church are commanded to be obserued 6 And first I did acknowledge that the doctrine which the Ancient Fathers either in expounding the holy Scriptures or in questions belonging to faith haue with vniforme consent deliuered I did also vndoubtedly beleeue as being certainly perswaded that it was inspired by the Holy Ghost 7 Secondly I also with Melchior Canus and other Diuines affirmed that the doctrine also of all the holy Fathers in things which doe appertaine to faith may plously and probably bee beleeued by Catholikes yet that it ought not of necessitie to be followed as certaine and infallible 8 Thirdly I did professe that the definitions of Generall Councells lawfully assembled and confirmed by the Pope wherein any doctrine is propounded to the whole Church to be beleeued of all men as of Faith are to be receiued by Catholikes as infallible rules of Faith Neuerthelesse I did freely affirme with the aforesaid Melchior Canus and Cardinall Bellarmine that those the said Councells are defined or else supposed onely as probable and those assertions which either incidently and by the way are inserted or for better declaration or proofe of their decisions be produced are sometimes subiect to errour and may by Catholikes without any wrong to the Catholike faith be reiected This withall obseruing of which also in other places I haue admonished the Reader that although I professing my selfe to be a childe of the Catholike Romane Church doe most willingly imbrace whatsoeuer Generall Councells confirmed by the Pope which represent the Catholike Church doe propound to the faithfull as necessarily to be beleeued of faith and which certainely and euidently is knowne to be the true sense and meaning of the Councells Neuerthelesse I doe not vndoubtedly beleeue euery doctrine which either Cardinall Bellarmine speaking with due reuerence or any other Doctour seeing that they are not appointed by God to be an vndoubted rule of the Catholike Faith doe cry out to be Catholike doctrine to be the voice of the Catholike Church to be the meaning of the Scriptures and Councells if especially some Catholike Doctours doe hold the contrary Them truely as it is meete I doe reuerence with all dutifull respect and I doe much attribute to their authoritie but that all those collections which they in their iudgements doe imagine to be euidently concluded from the holy Scriptures or Councells considering that oftentimes they are deceiued and doe deceiue For Card. Bellarmine himselfe in his old age hath recalled many things which he wrote when he was yonger and perchance he now growing elder will recall more and what they haue written when they were yonger they may recall when they grow elder are to be accounted for vndoubted assertions of faith and the contrary opinion of other Catholikes to be rather esteemed an heresie then an opinion this truely I cannot take in good part 9 Fourthly concerning the Canons or Decrees of Generall Councells belonging to manners and to the externall gouernment of the Church I promised to be most ready to receiue willingly all those Decrees which in places where I shall liue shall be generally receiued for these are properly called the Decrees or Canons of the Catholike or vniuersall Church which are by common consent admitted by the Vniuersall Church Neither doubtlesse is any man bound to admit those Lawes and precepts which in the Countrey where he liueth are not obserued by the people as according to the receiued opinion of Diuines and Lawyers I there affirmed And the same I there auouchâ—d is to be vnderstood proportionally of the Decrees of Popes and Prouinciall Councells For as concerning the Popes definitions belonging to faith if he define without a Generall Councell I confesse that I haue oftentimes auerred that very many especially ancient Diuines of the Vniuersitie of Paris whose names I there c c Cap. 10. sec 2. nu 27. related are of opinion that such Definitions vnlesse they be receiued by the Catholike Church as Definitions of Catholike Faith are subiect to errour whose opinion both for the authoritie of so famous men and also for the reasons and grounds whereon that opinion is founded I with many later Diuines to whose opinion also Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe d d Lib. de Concil cap. 13. doth plainely enough incline howsoeuer he would seeme also e e Lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. li. 2. de concil cap. 17. to auerre the contrary haue also oftentimes affirmed that it is not to be condemned of heresie errour or temeritie which also now againe speaking with all dutifull submission I feare not to confirme 10 Lastly concerning my Disputation of the Oath and the Dedication thereof which seemeth to be that stone of offence and rocke of scandall to some Diuines especially of the Society of Iesus and to those Catholikes who adhere to them I cannot to speake vnfaignedly in any wise vnderstand what can iustly be obiected against it or what fault I haue committed either in making it or else in dedicating it to your Holinesse of which I should purge my selfe For first of all I the Authour of that Disputation and Dedication haue therein professed that I did not write it with any obstinate mind but in manner of an humbly petition sincerely and for many reasons which I there related to informe your Holinesse more fully who as heere we thinke hath not beene rightly informed of the reasons for which English Catholikes are of opinion that the Oath may lawfully be taken and for this cause I did dedicate it to your Holinesse that after you had carefully examined all the reasons for which English Catholikes doe thinke the Oath may lawfully be taken your Holinesse might prouide both for their spirituall and temporall safety as according to your fatherly wisedome and charitie should be thought most conuenient And
thrust him out no man enforcing him and the wordes of holy Scripture yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out doe cleerely insinuate the same 87 And thirdly King Ozias saith the Scripture was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house apart full of the leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord. Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land Neither from this can it be gathered that the Priests of the old law did intermeddle in any temporall action or did depriue King Ozias of his kingdome or the administration thereof but the most that from hence can be concluded is that the plague of leprosie did depriue him of the administration of his kingdome by ordaining that a leaper should dwell apart out of the campe or Citie and the Priest did onely declare the law of God and denounce him according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law to be infected with leprosie which is no temporall but a meere spirituall action 88 As likewise spirituall Pastours now in the new law haue authoritie to declare that the goods of the faithfull are to be exposed if the necessitie of the Church doe require the same but not to dispose of them or to take them away by force from the faithfull and also to declare when Princes are to vse the materiall sword for the good of the Church but not to vse it themselues as before e part 1. cap. 3. part 2. cap. 9. I declared out of Ioannes Parisiensis and 8. Bernard And if we should suppose a case which is not to wit that heresie idolatie or any other mortall crime doth ipso facto depriue Princes and Prelates of their dominion and Iurisdiction which was the doctrine of Iohn Wicleffe condemned in the Councell of Constance and therefore those words of the Ordinary Glosse f in cap. 13. lib. 1. Reg. that a wicked King during the time of his wickednesse is not according to trueth to be celled a King but onely equiuocally as a stony or painted eye and the same much more is to be said of a wicked Prelate are to be read warily and expounded fauourably to excuse them from errour then I say that spirituall Pastours may be said to haue authoritie not properly to depose an hereticall King but to declare him to be infected with heresie and consequently according to this false supposition depriued ipso facto But all this is nothing else but to declare authentically the law of God which no man denyeth to be within the limites of spirituall Iurisdiction And this might aboundantly suffice for an answere to this example of King Ozias But because Mr. Fitzherbert shall not as I said take occasion to say that all this hath beene confuted already by D. Schulckenius I am enforced good Reader to intreate thy patience in laying downe before thine eies what I answered in my Apologie to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and what D. Schulckenius hath replyed to the same 89 First therefore I answered that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the example of King Ozias were of force it would prooue more then perchance Card. Bellarmine would willingly grant to wit that not only the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests haue power by the law of God to depriue Princes of their kingdomes for spirituall leprosie seeing that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had power to iudge of leprosie The man saith the law g Leuit. 13. in whose skinne and flesh shall arise a diuers colour or a blisters or any thing as it were shining that is to say the plague of the leprosie shall be brought to Aaron the Priest or any one of his sonnes and at his arbitrement he shall be separated Besides this example doth also prooue that Prince not onely for heresie but also for all other mortall sinnes whatsoeuer may be deposed by Bishops and Priests for that not onely the sinne of heresie but also other sinnes were figured by leprosie Bellar. lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 3. as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth who speaking of the confessing of sinnes saith that the knowledge of sinne which was figured by leprosie and is most aptly named a spirituall leprosie appertaineth to Christian Priests This was my first answere 90 To which D. Schulckenius replyeth thus h pag. 542. ad num 355. I answere It is credible that is the old Testament according to the diuersitie of the leprosie and the diuersitie of the persons there were also diuers iudgements greater and lesser and that it was not lawfull for euery Priest to iudge a King But for this his credibile est it is credible he produceth neither Scripture reason nor any other authoritie and therefore we are rather to beleeue the words of holy Scripture which absolutely affirme that either Aaron the High-Priest or any one of his sonnes might iudge of leprosie without distinguishing either this kind or that kind of leprosie or this kind or that kind of person then the bare credibile est of this Doctour grounded vpon his owne bare word and not vpon any text of holy Scripture Abul q. 1. in cap. 13. Leuit. reason or authoritie Other Priests saith Abulensis had power to iudge in the plague of leprosie as Aaron and therefore to whom soeuer of them that person who had such signes should be showed it was sufficient Therefore when Christ had cured the ten lepers he did not send them specially to the High-Priest but to any one of the Priests saying Goe shew your selues to the Priests 91 But howsoeuer it be saith this Doctour concerning the custome of that nation assuredly in the Church of Christ greater causes are reserued to the See Apostolike as we read cap. Maiores de Baptismo eius effectu in the Decret all Epistles Therefore euery Priest may indeed iudge of the leprosie of sinne and absolue or bind his Subiects but some more heynous crimes are reserued to Bishops others also to the Pope as first of all is the crime of heresie to which the name of leprosie doth autonomasticè agree Therefore it is no meruaile that euery Priest cannot iudge Kings euen for the crime of heresie Adde that in the olde Testament it selfe we haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie then by the high Priest 92 But this Reply doth not answere my argument For my argument did onely proceede of the power of Priests standing in the law of God and abstracting from the positiue lawes of the Church It would follow said I that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea also and Priests haue power by the law of God c. Now who knoweth not that cases are reserued onely by the law of the Church and that by the law of God there is no reseruation of cases but that
the Popes power in temporalls is declared 1 MY second answere to the obiection before mentioned was taken from an exposition of the Glosse vpon the Canon Adrianus dist 63. Where the Pope commaundeth the goods of those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated and vpon the Canon Delatori 5. q. 6. where he ordaineth the tongues of calumniatours or false accusers to be pulled out or being conuicted their heads to bee stroken off For to these Decrees the Glosse answereth thus Hîc docere Ecclesiam quid facere debeat Iudex Secularis The Church teacheth heere what a Seculiar Iudge ought to doe Which answere of the Glosse may be accommodated or applied to the like Decrees wherein the sacred Canons doe inflict temporall punishments And this answere the words of Siluester doe also fauour c. Thus I answered in the foresaid Preface 2 Now to this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth a Pag. 166. nu 1. 2. that it is as idle as the former For although it were true saith he that this Glosse were to be vnderstood as Widdrington would haue it yet it would not follow thereon that the same may be truely applied to all other Decrees of the Church which concerne the imposition of temporall punishments especially to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran which ordaineth the deposition of Princes for this Glosse doth treate onely of such as are subiect to the iurisdiction of Iudges and Secular Magistrates whereas the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes on whom no Secular Iudge or Magistrate can execute any penaltie and therefore there is such disparitie in these cases that the Glosse obiected by my Aduersarie Widdrington cannot be iustly applied to both alike 3 But this Reply of Mr. Fitzherbert is as idle and insufficient as his former For first he supposeth as certaine that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Emperours Kings and all absolute Princes which as you haue seene he hath not as yet by all the helpes hee hath had from Fa. Lessius sufficiently conuinced Secondly if we respect the force and proprietie of the words these two Canons especially the former are according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne grounds rather to be vnderstood of absolute Princes then is the Decree of the Lateran Councell for that the words of these Canons especially of the former are generall and doe not denote titles of inferiour honour or dignitie The Pope saith the Canon Hadrianus did excommunicate and commaunded vnlesse hee should repent his goods to be proclaimed or confiscated whosoeuer should infringe this Decree whereas the Councell of Lateran doth not speake in such generall tearmes but onely it mentioneth persons of inferiour state dignitie and title then are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes to wit temporall and principall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords or who haue not any principall Landlords Gouernours or Lords aboue them but onely Emperours Kings or absolute Princes But the truth is that both the Decree of the Lateran Councell and these Canons doe not comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour persons and subiects 4 Thirdly if this exposition of the Glosse is to be approoued my Aduersaries can bring no sufficient reason why the same may not also be applied to all other such like Canons of the Church wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained and especially to the Decree of the Lateran Councell to wit that all such Canons doe onely teach or declare what hath beene done or is to be done by Secular Princes or their Officers For besides that the reason which here Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth why the Decree of the Lateran Councell cannot be expounded in this sense because saith he the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes is a meere prtitio principij a giuing that for a reason which is the maine question betweene vs and hath not as yet beene sufficiently prooued by him the words of the Lateran Councell according to their proper signification doe chiefly import this sense For the Councell doth not decree that the Pope may absolue those vassall from their fidelitie but the words of the Councell onely are that the Pope may denounce that is may declare or teach that those vassalls are absolued frō their fidelitie to wit by the consent and authoritie of absolute Princes 5 And if the Glosse and diuerse other Doctors whom I related elsewhere expounding the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. wherein Pope Gregory the 7th in his Epistle to the Bishop of Mentz affirmeth b Xpolog nu 444. that an other Bishop of Rome called Zacharie deposed the King of France from his kingdome and absolued all the French-men from their oath of allegiance doe thus interprete those wordes hee deposed the King and absolued the Frenchmen that is he consented to them that deposed him and declared him to be lawfully deposed and the Frenchmen to be lawfully absolued from their allegiance why may not this Canon of the Lateran Councell bee vnderstood in this sense that from that time the Pope may denounce that is declare and teach that the vassalls of that temporall Landlord Gouernour or Lord who for neglecting to purge his territories from heresie is for a whole yeere excommunicated are absolued from their fealty and their territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes especially seeing that the word denounce or declare is in this Canon expresly contained 6 And if any one obiect that the words of the Lateran Councell cannot be well vnderstood in this sense that the Pope may denounce that is may declare and teach that the vassals are absolued from their fealty to wit by force of some temporall law or constitution made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that before this Councell of Lateran there was no such decree or constitution of temporall Princes by vertue whereof the vassals of such a temporall Land-lord were absolued from their fealty and therefore those words of the Councell are so to bee vnderstood that the Pope may not onely declare and teach that they are absolued but also really absolue such vassals from their fealty To this obiection I answere that albeit I haue not seene any such temporall law or Constitution of any temporall Prince before it is was enacted by Frederike the second Emperour fiue yeeres after this Lateran Councell by vertue whereof such Vassalls are absolued from their fealtie yet wee finde that Pope Gregorie the seuenth long before in the Canon Nos Sanctorum 15. q. 6. did absolue them who either by allegiance or by oath were obliged to excommunicated persons from their oath of fidelitie to which Canon those wordes of the Lateran Councell if they bee vnderstood in the aforesaide sense may haue reference but then wee must consequently to our doctrine say that both this decree of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the inflicting of this temporall punishment and also the Canon Nos sanctorum haue onely force to binde in the territories of the Church
or the Popes Dominions wherein hee being a temporall Prince hath authoritie to inflict temporall punishments or that they haue force to binde by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes 7 Neither haue I vsed any fraude in alleadging and applying the words of the Glosse to my purpose as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely affirmeth Besides that saith he b pa. 166. nu 3 my Aduersarie Widdrington hath vsed no small fraude in the allegation and application of the Glosse to his purpose for whereas he mentioneth the Glosse vpon two seuerall decretalls hee setteth downe onely the later as though the same might serue indifferently for both and were so meant by the Glosser or that the two Decrees were both of one substance and nature as they are not but farre different and therefore doe require a different consideration 8 But it is not true that in setting downe the words of the later Glosse to wit vpon the Canon Delatori I haue omitted the wordes of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus seeing that the words of both Glosses are in substance all one and haue the same sense and signification For the words of the later Glosse are these Sed qualiter dat Papa c. But how doeth the Pope make lawes concerning the punishment of blood against that decree of the Councell of Toledo 23. q. 8. his a quibus But heere the Pope teacheth what the Secular Iudge ought to doe according to the Imperiall law 27. q. 1. si quis rapuerit And the words of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus where the Pope commandeth the goods of all those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated are these Hîc Ecclesia publicat c. Heere the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes shee deposeth Lay-men from their dignities 3◠q. 5. praeceptum in fine Or else say that heere the Church teacheth what ought to bee done so 24. q. 3. de illicita and 5. q. 6. Delatori Wherefore it is manifest that the wordes of both the Glosses haue the selfe same sense seeing that for the vnderstanding of the former Glosse hee remitteth his Reader to the wordes of the later Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I did set downe 9 Neither did I intend to set downe all the expositions which were brought by the former Glosse It was sufficient for mee to bring that exposition of the Glosse which serued to my purpose to wit that as the Pope in the Canon Delatori ordaining a temporall punishment though criminall did according to the Glosse teach and declare what ought to bee done by the Secular Iudge according to the Imperiall law so also the Pope in the Canon Hadrianus ordaining a temporall punishment though ciuill to wit the confiscation of goods did also according to one exposition of the Glosse teach and declare what ought to be done by the Secular Prince or Iudge and that therefore the same words or answere of the Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I only set downe to which hee remitteth his Reader vpon the Canon Hadrianus might serue indifferently for both And although ciuill and bloodie or criminall punishments as criminall is opposed to Ciuill and the decrees which ordaine and inflict the same are of a different substance and nature in particular yet in generall they are of the same substance and nature for that both of them are temporall punishments and cannot according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes be inflicted by the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but onely by the ciuill or temporall power and that therefore when either of them are inflicted by spirituall Pastours this proceedeth from the ciuill authoritie priuiledges or consent of temporall Princes or if wee will needes haue such decrees to bee made by true spirituall authoritie the Church in making such decrees as well concerning ciuill as criminall or bloodie punishments doeth according to the expositions of the Glosse before rehearsed teach and declare what a Secular Prince or Iudge ought to doe 10 But to the end saith Mr. Fitzherbert c Pag. 166. num 4. that the Reader may the better vnderstand this matter and the true sense and meaning of these two Glosses it is to bee considered first that the Glosses of the Law being commonly very briefe and therefore many times obscure are to bee vnderstood according to the drift sense and circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses in other parts and places of the Law 11 True it is that when the Glosses or expositions of the law are obscure as being commonly briefe although not so briefe and for this respect not so obscure as the law it selfe for to little purpose were that Glosse or exposition which is more obscure then the text it selfe we must gather the sense meaning of such Glosses from the drift sense circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses of the same Expositour or glosser in other parts and places of the law but with this caueat and prouiso that if the same Glosser or Expositour bring two diuers or contrarie Expositions of the same Canon which are grounded vpon two contrary opinions we must haue a regard to distinguish these two contrary opinions and the Glosses grounded thereon and for the vnderstanding of the Glosse or exposition which supposeth one opinion not to flye to that Glosse which supposeth the contrary doctrine and opinion for otherwise we shall make the sense and meaning of the Glosses to be more obscure and intricate then plaine and manifest As for example if the same Glosser or Expositour giue two diuers expositions of the same Canon whereof the one supposeth the Pope to haue either direct or indirect dominion in temporals and to haue authority either directly or indirectly to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishment and the other Glosse supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority in temporals for the vnderstanding of that Glosse which supposeth the Pope to haue such a dominion or authority in temporals wee must not flye to that other Glosse which supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority d Page 167. num 5. 12 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert the penalties imposed in the two decrees here glossed are of different nature and quality the one concerning onely the confiscation of goods which is expresly ordained in diuers places of the law and the other touching onely the effusion of bloud by death or mutilation which is no where ordained or permitted but expresly forbidden to all Ecclesiasticall Iudges 13 But first although it be true that the penalties imposed in these two Canons are of different nature and qualitie in particular for that the one ordaineth a ciuill punishment to wit the confiscation of goods the other a criminall penaltie to wit the effusion of bloud by mutilation and also death yet both of them are as I said before of the