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
both by his Maiestie and many others hath bene very soundly confuted considering that my Aduersary doth so boldly affirme that the oath is vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for that it denyeth the Popes power to excommunicate and yet he bringeth no argument at all to prooue the same but it must forsooth be supposed as certaine and besides he concealeth what I before at large had answered to the aforesaid argument And thus much concerning his first answere and exception 24 Secondly saith my Aduersary q Nu. 14 touching the declaration of his Maiesties mind in this point I cannot but meruaile that such a learned man as this Authour is held to bee cannot distinguish betwixt the contents of the oath and the end or intention of him that ordained it For I will not deny but that his Maiestie might intend nothing else by ordaining this oath but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience vnto him and yet neuerthelesse hee that should take the oath should thereby abiure the Popes Supremacie for the reasons before declared notwithstanding his Maiesties protestation of his intention This will be euident See these reasons beneath nu 33. seq if we turne the case to a like oath of the Popes part as for example if the Pope should exact an oath of Catholikes to sweare that the King cannot depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterbury and should withall protest that he meaneth not thereby to make them abiure or deny the Kings authoritie but only to professe their dutie and obedience to the Sea Apostolike I make no doubt but that the Protestants would say according to their grounds that this protestation and declaration of the Popes mind could not excuse the takers of such an oath from the deniall of the Kings Royall authoritie because his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is according to the Protestants opinion so necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently deny the other In which respect I say the Popes protestation of his meaning or intention could not in the Protestants opinion warrant the swearers from periurie 25 And so say we in this case of his Maiesties publike profession and declaration of his intention that it cannot alter the nature of the oath or derogate any thing from the contents thereof or from the Popes Supremacie or from his Maiesties beleefe concerning the same and much lesse can it make any thing in the oath lawfull which is otherwaies vnlawfull and therefore I say that seeing the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included according to our doctrine and beliefe in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie that the takers of the new oath cannot be excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie nor consequently from periurie notwithstanding any protestation of his Maiestie to the contrary for if he should protest that he doth not force the takers of the oath to abiure the Popes Supreamacie it were Protestatio contraria factis a protestation contrary to his deeds which the Lawyers hold to be nothing worth 26 But first my Aduersarie could not but cleerely see howsoeuer here he is pleased to babble that I who as he scoffingly saith am held to be so learned a man not only could distinguish it being no such difficult point of wit or learning but also did oftentimes in my Apologie Apologeticall answere Theologicall Disputation and in my Appendix to Suarez in expresse wordes distinguish betwixt the ende of the worke and of the worker of the Art and Artificer of the law and precepts therein contained and of the Lawmaker and shewed that when the words of any law are ambiguous they are to be vnderstood according to the intention and meaning of the Lawmaker and that neither the intention of his Maiestie was to deny in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate or any other his spirituall authoritie but onely to require of his Catholike subiects a profession of that temporall and ciuill obedience which all subiects by the law of God and nature do owe to their lawfull Prince neither in the oath is contained any clause which by learned Catholikes is not thought to belong to temporall ciuill obedience 27 Wherefore there is a great disparitie betwixt the oath which the Pope should exact concerning his Maiesties power not to depriue a lawfull Bishop of Canterburie and this new oath of allegiance concerning the Popes authoritie not to depose his Maiesties because that Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which his Maiestie doth challenge is according to the opinion of all Protestants necessarily included in his Regall or Kingly power insomuch that whosoeuer denieth the one doth consequently in the opinion of all Protestants deny the other but the Popes authoritie to depose Princes is not according to the opinion of all Catholikes necessarily included in the Popes spirituall Supremacie for that many learned Catholikes doe hold that the Pope hath no such power to depose Princes and therefore hee that denieth his power to depose doth not consequently according to the opinion of all Catholikes deny his spirituall Supremacie And albeit Mr. Fitzherbert doeth boldly affirme that according to his beliefe the Popes power to depose Princes is necessarily included in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie yet I will be bold to say that his beliefe herein is not Catholike or Vniuersall but a particular beliefe or rather an opinion of his owne and of some other Catholikes the contrarie doctrine being as I said euen to this day maintained by many learned and vertuous Catholikes And therefore vntill he bring some better ground for his beliefe then his bare I say I will also be bold to say that the takers of the new oath are according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes excused from the deniall of the Popes supreame authoritie seeing that according to the opinion of many learned Catholikes the Pope hath no such power to depose and so neither is his Maiesties protestation repugnant to his deeds nor his intention disagreeable to the contents of the oath 28. Secondly although my Aduersary to prooue the oath vnlawfull and to containe a deniall of the Popes Supremacy doth seeme now to fly from his Maiesties intention to the contents of the oath and expresly saith That he will not deny but that his Maiestie by ordaining this oath might intend nothing else but to exact of his subiects a profession of their obedience and temporall allegiance and not of his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie neuerthelesse he seemeth before to affirme that his Maiesties intention opinion and vnderstanding is that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured in this oath and his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie is acknowledged therein which the iudicious Reader may plainely gather both by those wordes in his Supplement before related wherein hee auoucheth r See his words beneath Nu. seq 29. That it is euident enough that the true reason why the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince is impugned by the
and depriue is necessarily included in his Regall authoritie but all Catholikes doe not beleeue whatsoeuer my Aduersary and some few others doe that the power to depose Princes is necessarily included in that spirituall Supremacie which Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successours as hath bene amply prooued by me and diuers others and what particulars Mr. Fitzherbert hath laide here or in his Supplement concerning this point we will beneath in their due places examine 34 His first reason he deduced from the grounds and principles of the Protestants Religion and from the doctrine and beliefe of his Maiesty and those of the Parliament who made the oath But how silly and insufficient this reason is yea and repugnant to his owne grounds and also of Fa. Parsons in whose defence hee wrote his Supplement any man of iudgement may quickly perceiue For behold his reason It is great reason sayth he to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authours thereof for it is to be presumed that euery one speaketh 〈◊〉 and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion but it is an assertion position and the beliefe not onely of his Maiestie but also of the Parliament which decreed the oath that the Pope cannot depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie therefore it is great reason to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacie 35 But first his Minor proposition is very vntrue For neither his Maiestie nor the Protestants doe hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie This indeed is the reason why they hold that the Pope cannot excommunicate his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie But the reason why they hold that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose his Maiesty is for that deposition being not an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall but a ciuill and temporall censure or punishment for what crime soeuer it be imposed can not be inflicted by any Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie For which reason the Protestants doe holde that although the Protestant Bishops of this Realme haue Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall authoritie herein England yet they haue no authoritie by vertue of their Episcopall power to depose or depriue his Maiestie of his temporall dominions for that they take deposition or any such temporall violence as his Maiestie affirmeth u In his Premonition pag. 9. to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall Censure as Excommunication is 36 And although this be sufficient to shew the insufficiencie of this my Aduersaries reason yet graunting him onely for Disputation sake which he in his Minor proposition vntruely affirmeth that his Maiestie and the Parliament should hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England his reason neuerthelesse is both insufficient and also repugnant to that which Fa. Parsons and he himselfe suppose to be true For albeit Fa. Parsons doth confidently affirme x In his booke intituled The iudgement of a Catholike English man c. part 1. nu 22. pag. 13. and 16. that there is no man who sticketh or maketh difficultie to acknowledge our Soueraigne to be true King and rightfull Lord ouer all his Dominions for that euery English Catholike will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those parts and clauses of the oath that doe any way appertaine to the ciuill and temporall obedience due to his Maiestie whom hee acknowledgeth to be his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his Dominions and the same in effect doth my Aduersarie in his supposition affirme as you haue seene before y Nu. 6. yet according to this his reason neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be our true and lawfull Soueraigne nor can promise to yeeld him all temporall alleagiance nor to defend him from all treasons and traiterous conspiracies nor to disclose them when they shal come to their knowledge when any such acknowledgement shall be demanded at their hands by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of his Maiesty as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included and necessarily deduced from his temporall and Kingly authoritie and all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authoritie are by the lawes of this Realme made treasons and traiterous conspiracies 37 Seeing therefore to vse my Aduersaries wordes It is great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof for it is to bee presumed that euery one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the principles and grounds of his beliefe and Religion it is cleere that if my Aduersaries argument be good neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be their true and lawfull Soueraigne and that they will yeeld him all temporall allegiance and defend him from all treasons and disclose them when they shall come to their knowledge for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie and according to the lawes of this Realme all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authority are treasons and traiterous conspiracies So that you see what contradiction there is in my Aduersaries sayings and what a prettie argument hee hath made to prooue himselfe a traytour seeing that according to his owne grounds hee can not acknowledge King Iames to be his true and lawfull Soueraigne nor promise to yeeld him all temporall allegiance if it should be exacted by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Maiesties spirituall Supremacy is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie 38 But secondly if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased out of the desire of truth to handle this question betweene him and mee sincerely and not with a flourish of words to obscure the difficulty and blind the vnderstanding of simple and scrupulous Catholikes he might eyther out of his owne iudgement or at lest wise from of that which I in my Theologicall Disputation did answere to the arguments of Gretzer Disputatio Theol. c. 2. sect 1 who thought it vnlawfull to acknowledge King Iames to bee our Soueraigne Lord in temporals and of Capellus z Ibid. c. 6. sect 5. who also thought it vnlawfull for any Catholike to promise that he will disclose all treasons and traiterous conspiracies for the reasons aforesaide and also from that which out of the doctrine of Suarez a
thing it selfe which he testifieth for that this may very well be true that Fa. Parsons did seeke to perswade and induce his Holinesse to that course of mitigation which M. Fitzherbert mentioneth to wit not to proceed with Censures against his Maiesty to which course Fa. Parsons might imagine his Holinesse to haue at that time some inclination in regard both of the new oath then established by his Maiestie and the Parliament which doth so much derogate from the pretended authority which the Bishops of Rome since the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth doe challenge ouer temporall Princes to depriue them of their Princely authority and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance and also of the seuere lawes which were then newly enacted against Catholikes vpon occasion of that horrible Gun-powder conspiracy plotted onely by Catholikes and yet withall it may also be true as onely by the way I did affirme and by many probable coniectures sufficiently confirme that Fa. Parsons did also induce and mooue his Holinesse to the publication of his Breue against the taking of the oath for that betwixt these two there is no repugnance at all and whether hee did or no it is not much materiall to my second answere or reason which M. Fitzherbert tooke vpon him to impugne 54 Neuertheles concerning Mr. Fitzher testification vpon his own knowledge I must tell him in plaine words that I can giue no credit to his testimonie albeit he should confirme it by solemne Oath vnlesse I could be morally certaine that he vseth heerein no equiuocation or mentall reseruation whereof I can hardly be assured considering especially his owne particular practise of equiuocation or mentall reseruation in the time of Pope Clement the eight in slandering and traducing so falsly and shamefully those foure Reuerend Appellant Priests for Schismatikes Spies Rebells and disobedient persons to the Sea Apostolike c. notwithstanding they being present them at Rome to craue iustice and to make manifest their oppression and innocencie and also in giuing testimonie to his Holinesse vpon his Oath that those English bookes which Fa. Parsons had deliuered to the Inquisition with diuers propositions therein contained shewing them to be heretical erroneous c. were truely translated wherein how fowly he and Fa. Parsons with diuers other their adherents did equiuocate to defend Fa. Parsons credit not onely his owne conscience but diuers other persons yet liuing can be a sufficient witnesse and considering also the common doctrine and practise of many of his Societie not onely touching equiuocation but also mentall reseruation which in very deede is flat lying grounded vpon that Chimericall and not intelligible vnion mixtion and composition or rather meere fiction of thoughts and words in one true mixt and compound or rather faigned proposition This I say being considered to omit now diuers other scandalous and pernicious positions and practises to this purpose which some of them especially of our English Nation doe maintaine and whereof I will hereafter if they vrge me thereunto more particularly treate I can giue no credit to any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert shall testifie vpon his owne knowledge vnlesse by some other meanes I shall finde it to be true 55 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert obserueth out of his owne testimonie concerning Fa. Parsons conference with his Holinesse to taxe me of improbabilitie and impertinencie This being so saith he e Pag. 217. I cannot omit vpon this occasion to desire thee good Reader to note the improbable and impertinent inference which Widdrington maketh vpon this answere of his Holinesse Dispu Theol. cap. 10. sec 2. nu 57. for he inferreth thereupon that his Holinesse did condemne the Oath by his Breues and held them for no Catholikes who inclined to take it because he was perswaded that his authoritie to proceed with Censures against the King and consequently his spirituall authoritie was denied thereby and then he concludeth Ibid. nu 58. that if his Holinesse was moued to condemne it for that cause by the instigation of Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and those seuen or eight Diuines mentioned in the letter aboue said Nimis proh dolor saith he manifestum est c. it is alas too manifest that his Holinesse was deluded to the great ignominie of the Sea Apostolike the grieuous scandall of Protestants and the vtter temporall ruine of very many Catholikes So Widdrington But I also must desire the Reader to note the egregios fraud and falshood of this man For I did not there inferre from the answere of his Holinesse as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruly affirmeth that his Holinesse did condemne the Oath by his Breues and held them for no Catholikes who inclined to take the Oath because he was perswaded that his authoritie to proceede with Censures against the King and consequently his spirituall authority was denied thereby but I made this inference first from the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine for that he was of opinion from which Diuines of Rome and consequently neither his Holinesse did dissent that the Popes power to excommunicate and inflict Censures his power to binde and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is plainely denied in the Oath and secondly from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter concerning the consultation of the Diuines of Rome had touching the Oath for that the Diuines of Rome did also suppose as I prooued in that place that the Popes power to chastice in generall and consequently his power to chastice by spirituall Censures is denied in the Oath So that I made there no inference from his Holinesse answere to Fa. Parsons but I onely made an explication of the said answere from the aforesaid inferences shewing from them the cause and reason why his Holinesse thought them to bee no Catholikes who inclined to take the Oath for that he was perswaded by the aduise of Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommuniate and to chastice Princes by Ecclesiasticall Censures is plainely denied in the Oath And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert to conceale his fraude omitteth to set downe my expresse words and the first part of Fa. Parsons letter and what I inferred from thence 57 Wherefore from the discourse which there I made and which Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale I concluded that Cardinal Bellarmine Fa. Parsons the other Diuines of Rome vsing such sophisticall inferences to wit that because we must sweare that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication made or to be made against his Maiestie we will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie c. therefore the Popes power to Excommunicate Kings is denied in the Oath and because the Popes power to punish Kings by deposing them and by absoluing their subiects from their allegiance is denied in the Oath therefore the Popes power to punish Kings in generall and to binde and loose in generall is denied in the Oath vsing I say such sophisticall inferences to
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
the necessarie good of their owne soules and of their subiects 36 Neither doe those examples or facts or Popes which my Aduersarie here bringeth or any such like sufficiently prooue a power in the Pope as he is a spirituall Pastour to change transferre giue or take away earthly kingdomes for that it is one thing sayth Card. Bellarmine n in Resp ad Apolog pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so likewise of Popes and an other thing to prooue their power right and authoritie As Leo the third Pope of that name o pag. 47. nu 13 Egmarth in vita Caroli Annales Francof anno 801. Paul Diacon lib. 23. Zonaras tom 3. Annal Cedrenus in vita Constant Irene sayth my Aduersarie gaue to Charles the great the Empyre of the West which was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift c. 37 But to this example I did fully and clecrely answer in my Apologie p nu 414. seq to wit that the Romane Empire was not translated from the Grecians to the Germans by the onely authoritie of the Pope but also by the common consent suffrages ordinance decree and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome both Clerkes and Laikes with the tacite consent at least wise of all others to whom it did belong amongst whom the chiefest of all was the Bishop of Rome who did not by his spirituall or Pontificall authoritie which he as Pope receiued from Christ cause that translation but as he being the principall member and citizen of Rome and of the Romane Empire did by his aduise consent solliciting procurement suffrage and authoritie chiefly set forward that translation and as he was Pope did by his Pontificall authoritie approoue it to be lawfull and no way repugnant to the law of God or nature for which causes he is said by many writers to haue transferred that Empire as the chiefe and principall Authour procurer and approouer thereof 38 And this I did sufficiently prooue in that place both by the grounds of Card. Bellarmine himselfe and also by the testimonies of those Authours whom he alledged For nothing can be concluded saith he q lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. by arguments taken from authoritie negatiuely For it doth not follow Luke Paul and Seneca doe not say that S. Peter was at Rome therefore S. Peter was not at Rome For these three were not bound to say all things and more credite is to be giuen to three witnesses affirming then to a thousand saying nothing so that these doe not deny what the others doe affirme Seeing therefore that none at all of those thirtie two Authours whom Card. Bellarmine brought for witnesses of the translation of the Empire made by the Pope doth deny that the aforesaid translation was done by the authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome and not onely three of Card. Bellarmines Authours but also many more whom I cited there doe most plainly affirme that both the authoritie of the Pope and also the consent decree ordinance suffrage and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome did concurre to that translation more credite is to be giuen to them who doe affirme that the Empire was translated by the Pope Senate people of Rome then to all the rest although they were a thousand who albeit they say that this translation was done by the Pope yet they doe not deny that it was also done by the Senate and people of Rome Thus and much more to the same purpose did I answere in my Apologie r See Apologie 427. seq 39 Now you shall see how cunningly and insufficiently D. Schulckenius doth shift of this my answere For whereas he is very diligent for the most part to set downe my words and text in particular when hee imagineth that with any colourable Reply hee can confute them yet here he relateth Cardinall Bellarmines argument drawne from the translation of the Romane Empire to the French men but hee altogether concealeth my answere thereunto and so passeth ouer twentie pages of my Apologie wherein both by his owne grounds by his owne Authours and many others I cleerly proued that this translation was done not onely by the authoritie of the Pope but also of the Senate and people of Rome and onely with a flourish of words hee endeuoureth to prooue by a Dilemma which as you shall see is neither to the question betwixt me and Cardinall Bellarmine and which I also answered in that place That I must either approoue Card. Bellarmines opinion or else cleerely contradict my selfe in my answere Wherefore although D. Schulckenius maketh this title of his foureteenth Chapter The answere of Widdrington to the rest of the examples which are taken from the facts of Leo the third c. is examined yet hee neither examineth my answere to that fact of Leo nor setteth it downe at all albeit he confesseth that I haue at large disputed thereof But this is all that he replieth r Schulck in Apol. cap. â— pag. 597. 598. 40 And of the translation of the Empire Cardinall Bellarmine hath exactly soundly and diligently written three bookes of a iust bignesse in so much that nothing doth seeme can be added thereunto Onely at this time I doe make this argument against my Aduersary Widdrington Either that translation was true or faigned If hee say it was faigned hee will bee ouerwhelmed with the voyces of all Historiographers and hee will take away all humane faith out of the world But if hee say it was truely done I aske againe whether it was done iustly or vniustly if hee say it was done vniustly first he will contradict almost all Catholike Writers for onely the Magdeburgian Heretikes doe blame it as one of the miracles of Antichrist Besides that hee will wrong all the Latin Emperours who from that time haue beene shall be as though their Empire is not grounded vpon a sound foundation Lastly he will reprehend all the people of the West yea all the world who haue hitherto honoured the Latin Emperour as a true and lawfull possessour of the Empire For also the Grecians themselues with their Emperour and the Persians as wee haue related out of Bellarmine in the former Chapter Å¿ Ad nu 390. haue acknowledged the Latin Emperours as true and lawfull Emperours 41 But if Widdrington say that it was done iustly I demand whether it was done by the authority of the Romane Bishop the Citizens of Rome assenting or also requesting it or whether it was done by the authoritie of the people of Rome the Pope assenting and crowning and blessing the Emperour chosen by the people or whether it was done by the authoritie of the Pope and of the people of Rome together If he will say that it was done by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome the Citizens of Rome assenting and requesting it he will agree both with the truth of
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
as you haue seene doth deny that the state of the Priesthood in the olde law was more honourable and excellent then of the temporall Princedome about which I will not contend with Abulensis for that I thinke he differeth from me onely in words yet from hence it can not be concluded that the temporall Prince in the olde law was in temporall affaires inferiour or subiect to the high Priest but onely in spirituall causes which is not at this time the question betwixt Mr. Fitzherbert and me 35 The last argument also which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old law before the institution of the Kings of Israel is as silly as any of the former b nu 9. pag. 73. and the most that it prooueth also is that the authoritie and office of the high Priest is more noble then the authoritie and office of the temporall Prince Thus farre sayth he in my Supplement where hauing also c Nu. 23. Leu. 4. Philo. l. de victimis Theod. in Leu. Procop. in Leu. Magdeb. cent 1 l. 1. c. 7. col 257. Calu Instit l. 4. c. 6 ss 12. prooued the preheminence of the Priest aboue the Prince by the difference of their Sacrifices according to the opinion of Philo the Iew. Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus and confirmed it by the testimonie and confession euen of the Magdeburgenses and Caluin himselfe I proceeded to the consideration of the Kings in the old Testament and whether there was any change or diminution of the authoritie of the high Priest by their institution to which purpose I said thus This being so by the ordinance of almightie God himselfe and this law being continued in full force without any alteration or change during the gouernment of Moyses Iosue and the Iudges it is to be considered whether the same was changed or any way altered afterwards at the institution of the Kings I meane whether the Kings were any way exempted from this law and had Superioritie ouer the high Priest and Clergie as our Aduersaries doe absurdly affirme that they had c. 36 But first what is this to the purpose The spirituall Pastour hath preheminence in dignitie and nobilitie ouer the temporall Prince will he therefore from hence inferre that the spirituall Pastour hath power and authoritie ouer the temporall Prince euen in temporall affaires as though because the Goldsmith hath in nobilitie and excellencie preheminence aboue the Cobler therefore we may conclude that the Goldsmith hath power and authoritie ouer the Cobler Secondly neither from the difference of the Sacrifices can there sufficiently be gathered any preheminence especially in authoritie aboue the temporall Prince in temporall affaires For although it be ordained Leuit. 4. that a calfe should be offered for the Priest and a goat for the Prince who should offend through ignorance yet this difference of sacrifices may be appointed not for that the Priest hath any preheminence either in dignitie or authoritie in temporall affaires aboue the temporall Prince but for that as well obserueth Mr. Iohn Barclay d Cap. 15. § 4. the offence of the Priest sinning through ignorance is either greater then of the Prince and therefore to be purged by a more worthie Sacrifice or that the Priest in Ecclesiasticall affaires hath preheminence aboue the Prince which no man denyeth And what man of learning would now conclude that the Priests the new law haue any temporall power ouer Kings for that a greater penâ—â— is enioyned to them if they offend through ignorance then to temporal Kings or that in Churches and Ecclesiasticall rites they are the first and doe first communicate 37 Wherefore Abulensis vpon this place doeth referre the difference of these sacrifices not to any preheminence of the high Priest aboue the temporall Prince but to the greatnesse of the offence committed by them both Abul q. 12. in cap. 4. Leuit. You must know saith hee that these sacrifices are appointed greater according as the sinnes for which they were offered were greater but the sinne of the high Priest taking it in the same kind of sinne is alwayes greater then the sinne of the Prince of the people or then the sinne of all the people therefore the sinne of the high Priest did require the greatest Sacrifice excelling all other Sacrifices for sinnes or at leastwise equall to the greatest Sacrifices Now in what manner and for what causes the sinne of the high Priest was greater both in extension and intension then the sinne of the temporall Prince or of all the people Abulensis doth declare at large in that place 38 Thirdly if Mr. Fitzherbert had examined that place of holy Scripture himselfe and not barely taken that argument from Card. Bellarmine hee might easily haue seene that the same sacrifice of a calfe with the same ceremonies was appointed to bee offered also for the sinne of all the people So that if this argument taken from the difference of the Sacrifices were good to prooue a preheminence of the high Priest aboue the Prince because for the high Priest if hee should offend through ignorance a calfe was to bee offered and for the Prince only a goate it would also prooue that the people were equall in preheminence to the high Priest and that they had preheminence aboue their King or Prince for that for the offence also of the people was to bee offered the same sacrifice of a calfe and for the offence of the Prince only a goate 39 Fourthly heere is no mention made in this place of Kings but only of Princes If a Prince saith the Scripture doth sinne and by ignorance doe of many things one that by the law of our Lord is forbidden and afterwards vnderstandeth his sinne hee shall offer an hoste to our Lord a bucke of the goates without spotte Now at this time the Israelites had no King but 400. yeeres after For the better vnderstanding whereof you must obserue as well declareth Abulensis e q. 8. in c. 21. Leuit. that Moyses was the first Prince of the people vnder whom all the people of Israel did depart out of Aegypt yet Moyses was not a King but a Captaine or a Leader of the people Yea he was not Dominus a Lord or ruler saith Abulensis f q. 19. in cap. 8. Iudic. but onely as making lawes to the Iewes on the behalfe of GOD and hee commanded nothing to the Israelites as from his owne will but as from GOD whereupon hee was not called a Lord but a Doctour of the Israelites And it is apparant that if hee had beene a Lord of the Israelites or as it were a King it had belonged to him to bestow dignities by instituting and deposing and none of the people could resist him or accuse him of this at leastwise de iure by right and if hee were accused de facto hee was not bound to answere but he might represse those who opposed against him by answering nothing and yet Core with a hundred and
fiftie men did oppose against him And also the three Princes of the tribe of Reuben to wit Dathan Abiron and Hon for the high Priesthood saying that hee gaue it vniustly to Aaron to wit in giuing all things to his kinred and he purged himselfe saying in this you shall know that our Lord hath sent mee to doe all things that you see Num. 16. and that I haue not forged them of my owne mind if they shall die the accustomed death of men our Lord hath not sent me Also before in the same Chapter Core said to Moyses and Aaron Let it suffice you that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones and our Lord is among them why lift you vp your selues aboue the people of our Lord But if Moyses had beene a Lord or a King no man could haue said this vnto him for that hee who was a Lord might haue lifted himselfe vp yea there is no greater lifting vp then to be a Lord. Thus Abulensis 40 And although Moyses alone did iudge the people without the helpe of any other Iudges who were subordained to him vntill Iethro father in law to Moyses came vnto him into the desert of Sin neere to the mount Sinai which happened either in the ende of the first yeere or in the beginning of the second since their departure out of Aegypt after that the law was giuen to Moyses in the mount Sinai yet afterwards by the aduise of Iethro who perceiuing that Moyses could not long sustaine so great a burden as to iudge himselfe alone the whole people of Israel sitting in iudgement from morning vntill night he was perswaded to impart the burden thereof to others and so choosing substantiall men out of all Israel he appointed them Princes of the people Tribunes and Centurians and Quinquagenarians and Deanes who iudged the people at all times and whatsoeuer was of greater difficultie they referred to Moyses they themselues iudging only the easier causes 41 But because these Iudges who were all subordinate to Moyses iudged onely of smaller causes and all matters of difficultie were referred to Moyses hee was neuerthelesse ouermuch troubled and therefore not long after at the sepulcher of Concupiscence Num. 11. almightie God at the request of Moyses appointed seuentie men of the ancients of Israel whom Moyses had chosen to assist him to whom hee gaue also the spirit of prophecie and to them were committed those things which did peculiarly belong to Moyses to wit that they should iudge of great matters as Moyses did for the iurisdiction of the 70. Iudges appointed by the aduise of Iethro who iudged the smaller matters did still remaine and also that they should consult our Lord and giue answeres concerning the questions of the law as Moyses did g Abul q. 24. in c. 11. nu and so that Iurisdiction which before by the aduise of Iethro did onely belong to Moyses was now by the commandement of God giuen to seuentie ancients or Elders who also were not Priests or Leuites but Lay-men chosen out of the ancients of Israel h Abul q. 61. and yet they had Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes i Abul q. 24. And after these seuentie men were appointed to helpe Moyses hee neuer complained in all the fortie yeeres that the Israelites were in the wildernesse that hee was burdened with the multitude of so many causes of the people k Abul q. 23. Num. 27. 42 Now to succeede Moyses and to bee the Captaine and Prince of all the people God appointed Iosue the sonne of Nun Moyses yet liuing And he was truly a Prince of the people for at his commandement not only the people but also Eleazar the high Priest were moued yet he was not a King but a Prince or Captaine neither also had he authoritie to iudge saith Abulensis but Iudges were appointed otherwise Neither is this against that which God commanded Numer 27. Abulensis q. 19. in cap. 8. Iudic. that as well Eleazar as all Israel were mooued at the commandement of Iosue because this is to be vnderstood concerning those things which appertained to warre and because all or the chiefe time of Iosue was in making warre by subduing the people of Chanaan therefore the power of Iosue was great Yet he was neuer called Lord or King 43 After the death of Iosue God raised other Princes of the people who were called Iudges or Sauiours Iudic. 2. and 3. neither were they Kings but their Princedome or principalitie was lesser neither were they called Lords as it appeareth Iudic. 8. when all the men of Israel said to Gedeon haue thou dominion ouer vs and thy sonne and thy sonnes sonne because thou hast deliuered vs from the hand of Madian To whom hee said I will not domineere or haue dominion ouer you neither shall my sonne haue dominion ouer you but the Lord shall haue dominion ouer you and yet Gedeon was a Captaine in the warres and a Iudge of the people of Israel and this principalitie or gouernment of the Iudges did continue for a long time together to wit for aboue 340. yeeres to the time of Samuel who was the last of the Iudges in whose time the Israelites desired a King as other nations had 44 After the Iudges the Kingly gouernment or principalitie did succeede For the people desired of Samuel a King and God commanded that hee should appoint Saul to bee a King ouer them and this principalitie or Kingly gouernment did endure a long time to wit to the captiuitie of Babylon when Sedechias was King 4. Reg. 45. After the returne of the Iewes from Babylon they had no King but the high Priests as Abulensis saith were the Princes of the people and this principalitie continued vntill the birth of Christ. Abulensis q. 91 in cap. â— Math. Neuerthelesse for a certaine time before the Natiuitie of Christ the high Priests who were Princes of the people did take the Kingly name and diademe and they did continue so vntill the time of Herod the stranger who killed his father in law Hircanus who was the high Priest and King and by the power of the Romanes was made himselfe the King of the Iewes and at this time Christ our Sauiour was borne and how the authoritie of Kings was greater then of the Iudges See beneath nu 52. seq 46 Lastly the Iewes not onely in the time of their Kings but also of Moyses Iosue and the Iudges had other Princes who had great authority and priuiledges among the people of Israel Q 5 in cap. 5. 1. Paralip See Abulensis q. 6. 7. in c. 5. 2. Paralip of which their rights and priuiledges Abulensis treateth at large For all the people of Israel were diuided into tribes families and houses all which are names of companies or congregations and they differ in this that one company is greater an other lesse and one doth containe or is contained in the other And first all the
people doe excell in dignitie the Prince 50 But as touching his second inference for of the first I haue spoken before it is very vntrue that the people are superiour to their absolute Prince in dignitie or authoritie but contrariwise it is manifest that a King is superiour and aboue the people and the people inferiour to their King This shall be the right of the King that shall reigne ouer you saith the holy Scripture 1. Reg. 8. and in the same place the people said there shall bee a King ouer vs and we will bee as all nations and blessed bee the Lord my God said King Dauid o Psal 143. who subdueth my people vnder mee wherefore there is no doubt to bee made but that the Iewes were bound to obey the high Priest in spirituall matters but that all men were bound to obey the high Priest in temporall affaires or that the spiritual power was in the old law the supreme power not only in excellencie nobilitie or dignitie but also in authoritie and chastised Princes temporally which Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth heere to make manifest this hee neither hath nor euer will bee able with any manifest proofe to conuince And thus you haue seene how insufficient are all the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought out of the old law before the institution of the Kings of Israel now you shall see how weake the rest of his arguments are which he bringeth out of the old law since that the Israelites demaunded of Samuel to haue a King ouer them as other nations had 51 But first of all Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to prooue that which no man calleth in question to wit that the authoritie of the high Priest in the old Testament was neither changed nor diminished by the institution of Kings but that as the Law of God deliuered to the Iewes by Moyses did continue in full force without any alteration or change during the time of Moyses of Iosue and the Iudges so the same was not altered or changed afterwards by the institution of Kings and that God did not change the forme and course of the Law in fauour of Kings or turned the same vpside downe contrary to the course of nature as Mr. Fitzherbert auoucheth some of his Aduersaries absurdly to affirme For it is a meere fiction that by the institution of Kings the Law of Moyses was altered or the authoritie of the high Priest changed or diminished or that the same superiority which the high Priest as he was high Priest had aboue the temporall state to wit in spirituall affaires before the institution of Kings did not continue in the high Priest after that the Kings of Israel were instituted And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert faigneth absurd opinions to haue occasion to impugne them For the institution of Kings did not alter or diminish at all the spirituall authoritie of the high Priests but it did only change the maner of the temporall gouernment and it caused that the supreme temporall authoritie or dominion was onely in one man and the temporall gouernment to be simply Regall or Monarchicall whereas before the institution of Kings it was not alwaies so 52 For albeit Moyses and Iosue were appointed by God to bee Iudges and Leaders or Captaines of the people of Israel and they had greater authoritie then the other Iudges had yet they were not properly Kings neither had they speaking properly true Regall dominion and authoritie as Abulensis y Q. 19. in ca. 8. Iudic. doth well obserue And as for the other Iudges of Israel their authoritie was farre inferiour to Regall authoritie or dominion For as the same Abulensis z Q. 5. in prolog D. Hicron in librum Iosue q. 7. 12. in Prolog lib. Iudic. doth also well obserue there was a great difference betwixt Kings and Iudges both in power and iurisdiction For the power of Kings was most ample But the Iudges had ouer the people no authoritie to command as due to them by iurisdiction but they were onely industrious men for warres and for giuing counsell and by their aduice the people were directed in all things yet they had ouer the people no other authoritie then the people would giue them and the people did obey them as it were freely when they did see that they commanded or counsailed nothing but that which was iust whereupon they were not called Lords or did they rule raigne or had proper dominion ouer the people but they did onely gouerne or iudge because Lords or they that reigne and haue proper dominion or Seigniorie are those who doe whatsoeuer they vvill if it be not against law or reason and the subiects are bound to obey them in all things such are Kings but the power of the Iudges did extend to no other thing then to that vvhich vvas vvritten in the law in so much that Kings might doe vvhatsoeuer the law doth not forbid but Iudges might onely doe that vvhich the law commanded So that the power of those Iudges vvas but little 53 First because it vvas giuen them freely by the people neither had they more authority then the people gaue them and they vvere chiefly chosen to make vvarre against the enemies for vvhich cause they vvere called Sauiours And although after they had ouercome their enemies the people had no great neede of them yet by the consent of the people they remained afterwards as long as they liued in their authoritie to iudge And if any one obiect that the power of the Iudges vvas not giuen them by man but by God for as is vvritten Iudic. 3. God raised them a Sauiour called Aod I answere saith Abulensis that the Iudges vvere made by the election of the people and from the people they receiued a limited power but they vvere not chosen by the people alwaies after one manner For some vvere made Iudges because God commanded them that they should fight for the people so vvas Barac For the prophetesse Debbora tolde him on the behalfe of God that he should fight against Sisera Iudic. 4. and yet after he had wonne the battell he vvas not yet a Iudge or Prince of the Israelites but because the people saw that God vvould deliuer them by the meanes of Barac they chose him for their Iudge So also it happened concerning Gedeon For the Angel of our Lord did appeare vnto him and commanded him that he should goe to deliuer Israel from the hand of Madian Iudic. 6. And vvhen he victoriously finished the warre the Israelites tooke him for their Iudge neither vvould they onely haue made him their Iudge but also their Lord and King as it appeareth Iudic. 8. 54 Others vvere taken for Iudges not by the commandement but by the instigation of God to wit because when the Israelites were oppressed vvith these calamities and vvanted a Sauiour God gaue his spirit to certaine men by vvhich they vvere couragious vvise and most fit for vvarres vvhom the Israelites seeing did take
he was chosen to be their Law-maker and Prince not by manner of reigning or hauing properly dominion but rather b Abulensis q. 8. in cap. 6.2 Paralip per modum iudicantis by manner of iudging 58 And by this you may plainly see in what manner the temporall gouernment of the Iewes and not the spirituall was altered by the institution of Kings for that the supreme temporall power or dominion which before their institution did reside in the whole multitude or people of Israel was after their institution wholly translated to the King But that the course of the law was changed and turned vpside downe in fauour of Kings or that the spirituall gouernment of the high Priests was altered by the institution of Kings is a meere fiction For the same spirituall authoritie and superioritie that the Priests had before the institution of Kings they kept also after their institution and as all the people of Israel in whom the supreme spirituall power did before reside were neuerthelesse subiect in spirituals to the high Priests so also were Kings afterwards subiect also in spirituals to the same high Priests although in temporals they were supreme and the high Priests subiect and inferiour to them 59 And therefore to auoide tediousnesse I will omit to relate Mr. Fitzherberts text which he setteth down in the three next pages to prooue that the law of God was not altered and turned vpside downe by the institution of Kings and that the institution of Regall authoritie did not worke any alteration of the diuine law touching the authority of the high Priest and matters belonging to Religion nor brought any preiudice to the Ecclesiasticall dignitie nor did derogate from the obedience due to the high Priest in matters meere spirituall nor from the Soueraigntie of the spirituall power and function in things spirituall for of this there is no controuersie for ought I know albeit Mr. Fitzherbert saith that his Aduersaries but who they are I know not neither doth he expresse who they be doe make question about the same And therefore supposing that the high Priest retained the same spirituall power authoritie and dignitie after the institution of Kings which he had before their institution I will proceede to the examining of Mr. Fitzherberts arguments which he bringeth to proue that in the old law the high Priests were superiour not onely in dignitie and nobilitie but also in power and authoritie to the Kings as well in temporall as spirituall causes and that the Kings might be chastised temporally by the high Priest SECT II. Wherein all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the old law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authoritie of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastise and depose Kings is disprooued secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered and thirdly it is shewed that the authoritie of S. Chrysostome brought by my Aduersarie to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authoritie he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth S. Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine THe first argument which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old law since the institution of the Kings of Israel is taken from their institution creation and vnction For almightie God sayth Mr. Fitzherbert a nu 14.15 pag 76. ordained that the Kings should receiue their very institution creation and vnction from the high Priests and Prophets Whereupon it followeth from the vndoubted maxime of the Apostle Hebr. 7. that the said Priests and Prophets were superiour to Kings for sine vlla contradictione sayth the Apostle quod minus est a meliore benedicitur without any contradiction the lesse is blessed by the better which argument S. Chrysostome vseth in like manner saying Chrysost de verbis Isa hom Deus ipsum Regale caput c. God hath subiected the very head of the King to the hands of the Priest teaching vs that this Prince to wit the Priest is greater then the other for that which is lesse receiueth benediction from that which is more worthie So he who vrgeth also to the same end that the Kings in the old Testament were annointed by Priests and inferreth thereupon that maior hic principatus the principalitie of the Priest is greater then the Kings Ibid. hom 4. Whereby he also acknowledgeth that the Priests of the old Testament were superiour to Kings And what meruaile seeing that the said Kings were not onely created and annointed but also chastised yea deposed sometimes by Prophets and Priests 1. Reg. 9. Ibid. cap. 16. 4. Reg. 9. 3. Reg. 19. 4. Reg. 11. Samuel first created and anoynted Saul King of the Iewes and after deposed him for his offences and anointed Dauid to reigne in his place In like manner the kingdome of Israel was translated from the children of Achab to Iehu by the Prophet Elizaeus and the kingdome of Syria from Benhadab to a subiect and seruant of his called Hazael by the Prophet Elias Also in the kingdome of Iuda the wicked Queene Athalia c. 2 But this argument only prooueth that which is not in controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries to wit that the Priests and Prophets were superiour to Kings in spirituall affaires and also that the spirituall power is more noble excellent and worthie then the temporall as spirituall things doe in worth dignitie and nobilitie excell temporall things For to annoint create institute and depose Kings in that manner as Kings in the old law were annointed created and deposed by Priests or Prophets were spirituall and not temporall actions b Qu. 38. in c. 1. lib. 3. Reg. For the annointing of Kings was a religious ceremonie and appertained to the office of a Priest especially when it was done with solemnitie and as well obserueth Abulensis it did directly belong to Priests seeing that it was a sacred thing and sacred oile was powred vpon them the making and handling whereof did belong onely to Priests yet sometimes it was done by Prophets for want of Priests to wit when by no meanes it could be done by Priests as when it was secret and vnknowne whom God would haue to be annointed for King for if it were manifest who was to bee annointed hee was annointed by Priests so was Salomon and afterwards Ioas and so it is to be thought of all others who were annointed for that the kingdome did belong to them by hereditarie succession but sometimes it was vnknowne who was to bee annointed to wit when one was annointed to whom it did not appertaine by right of succession and this was done by the commandement of God for seeing that the will of God was not made manifest but to the Prophets it could
only be knowne by them who ought to bee annointed and that it might bee done more secretly it was done by them and so it was in all the aforesaid examples for Saul was annointed not by succession seeing that hee was the first King of Israel Dauid also was not annointed by succession for the children of Saul ought to succeede Iehu also who was not of the race of the Kings of Israel and he was annointed to ouerthrow the house of Achab 4. Reg. cap. 9. 3. Reg. cap. 19. and Asael was not of the issue of the Kings of Damascus and he was annointed by Elias to persecute the Israelites Thus Abulensis 3 So likewise the creation institution and deposition of Kings in that manner as the aforesaid Kings were created instituted and deposed were spirituall not temporall actions For the Prophets did not create institute or depose Kings by their owne proper authoritie or by any ordinarie power of theirs but only by an extraordinarie power as they were meere messengers and sent by God with a peculiar and extraordinarie message or ambassage to create institute or depose the aforesaid Kings whereupon they did not speake in their owne names but in the person of almightie God saying this saith the Lord I haue annointed thee to bee King or the Lord hath sent me to annoint thee to bee King or the Lord hath reiected thee that thou shalt not bee King and hath deliuered it to thy neighbour better then thy selfe So that the aforesaide creations institutions and depositions were onely declarations of the will of God which without all doubt are spirituall actions Neither from hence can it bee rightly concluded that therefore the Priests of the old law had authoritie to create depose or chastise Kings temporally or that Kings were subiect to Priests in temporalls because sometimes Prophets were sent by God as his messengers to declare his will and to tell them that God would create depose or chastise them with temporall punishments 4 And who would not blush to heare a man who taketh vpon him to bee learned and to be a teacher of others in such difficult and dangerous points of Diuinitie vrge such pitifull arguments to prooue matters of so great moment as is the dethroning of Kings and absolute Princes and the subiecting of them to Priests in temporall affaires A Priest hath power to blesse the King and all the people as it is vsuall at the ende of Masse therefore the King and all the people are subiect to the Priest in temporall things for without any contradiction saith the Apostle the lesse is blessed by the better The father hath authoritie to blesse his sonne who is a King and consequently supreame in temporalls therefore without doubt hee is greater then his sonne in temporalls One of the Kings priuie chamber is sent by the Kings expresse order to declare to one that it is his Maiesties pleasure to make him Lord Chancelour therefore without doubt one of the Kings priuie chamber hath authoritie to make one Lord Chancelour If God almightie had giuen to the Priests and Prophets of the old testament authoritie to denounce to the King or people concerning temporall affaires as is the creation or deposition of King and Princes not only what God himselfe had reuealed vnto them and commanded them to denounce but also what according to their owne will and iudgement they thought fit and conuenient then there might bee drawne from thence a good argument to prooue that Kings were subiect to the Prophets in temporall affaires but seeing that it was not lawfull for the Prophets of the old law in such cases to commaund or denounce to the King or people but that which by some cleare and assured reuelation God had commanded them to declare and signifie concerning such temporall affaires it is manifest that no colourable argument can be drawne from thence to prooue that the Priests or Prophets of the old law had authoritie to create institute depose or punish Kings temporally 5 Neither doth S. Chrysostome cited by my Aduersarie teach any other thing then that Kings are subiect to Priests in spiritualls and that the office of a Priests is in worth dignitie and nobilitie greater and more excellent then the office of a King for that a King hath power only ouer earthly things but a Priest ouer heauenly to the Priest are committed soules to the King bodies the King taketh away the spots of the bodie the Priest the spots of sinnes c. But St. Chrysostome neuer meant that Kings were subiect to Priessts and Prophets in temporalls or were to be punished by them temporally but hee affirmeth the cleane contrarie to wit that Priests and Prophets are subiect to temporall Princes Omnis anima c. Let euery soule saith he c Hom. 23. in c. 13. ad Rom. bee subiect to higher powers albeit thou be an Apostle albeit an Euangelist albeit a Prophet or lastly whosoeuer thou be for this subiection doth not ouerthrow pietie and hee doeth not say simply let him obey but let him be subiect And againe S. Chrysostome affirmeth d In that place aboue cited by my Aduersarie l. 2. de Sacer. â—nto med that a Priest hath not so great power granted him to punish delinquents and to compell a man to change his euill manners as a temporall Iudge hath to wit by forcing him with temporall punishments but only by reproouing and giuing a free admonition not by raising armes by vsing targets by shaking a lance by shooting arrowes by casting darts but onely saith hee againe by reproouing and giuing a free admonition 6 Neither also can Mr. Fitzherbert sufficiently conuince that when Dauid was first annointed by Samuel Saul was forthwith depriued of his Regall authoritie or right to reigne but onely that Dauid was instituted the future King and heire apparant to the Crowne and to succeede him after his death as likewise when Salomon was annointed King Dauid was not thereby depriued of his Regall authoritie but only Salomon was declared to be the future King and to succeede Dauid in the kingdome But howsoeuer it be it is little to the present controuersie whether Saul after Dauid was annointed by Samuel was true King de facto de iure or Dauid King de iure Salomon de facto for that Samuel in that businesse was only a messenger of GOD and did nothing by his owne proper authoritie but onely what GOD by a peculiar reuelation did commaund him to doe And so if almightie GOD should now in the new Testament by any vndoubted reuelation command a Priest to deliuer this message to such a King that for the sinnes hee had committed hee would depriue him of his kingdome and giue it to another mor vertuous then hee no man will deny but that this Priest hat good and full power and authoritie to doe that message but from hence to argue an ordinarie power to bee in Priest to giue and take away kingdomes were
the old Testament Priests did make warre and fight with the rest of the Israelites against their enemies but in the new Testament Priests doe abstaine from the shedding of blood and if they find any to be worthy of death they deliuer them ouer to the Secular power to be punished But this I say is nothing at all to the purpose For my argument was not concerning inferiour Priests but onely concerning the Pope neither also what Popes in practise and de facto doe but what according to the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to doe Now it is euident and approoued by the common consent of Catholike Diuines that the shedding of blood is not by the institution of Christ forbidden either the Pope or inferiour Bishops and Priests who therefore with the Popes licence make warre and concurre directly to the effusion of blood as oftentimes they haue done yea now at Rome all effusion of blood by a iuridicall sentence and condemning malefactours to death and all making of warres by the Popes subiects are deriued from the Popes authoritie not as he is Pope but as he is a temporall Prince for that which I contend is that Priests neither in the old law nor in the new as they are Priests or by their Priestly power haue authoritie to condemne any man to death or to inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment or the like 27 Secondly and principally to this example of Athalia I answered Å¿ Apolog. nu 366. seq that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did as Card. Bellarmine af firmeth in this place create Ioas King that is did giue him a right or true title to reigne which before he had not seeing that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by hereditarie right belong to Ioas presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously slaine although Athalia did tyrannically vsurpe the possession thereof For it is not vnusuall for one to possesse sometimes either with a good or bad conscience that thing whereof another man is the true lord or owner And therefore betwixt right and possession a great difference is commonly made by all Diuines and Lawyers Wherefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then what euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case For seeing that for his innocent life opinion of sanctitie and the dignitie of his office he was in great veneration among the people and Peeres of the kingdome his authoritie or fauour did preuaile so much with them that all men with vniforme consent would very easily be drawen especially by his perswasion to kill the treacherous vsurpresse and to seate the lawfull King who was vniustly detained from the possession of his kingdome in the possession thereof But this did onely argue the strength and power of Ioiada and his great fauour with the people and Peeres and not any authoritie in him to create a King who by right was not a lawfull King before 28 Wherefore from this example of Athalia nothing at all can by any true or probable consequence bee concluded in fauour of Cardinall Bellarmine because from the holy Scripture it cannot sufficiently be gathered either that Athalia was by the commandement of Ioiada slaine for Idolatrie but onely for manifest tyrannie for that shee had cruelly murthered the Royall issue and had vniustly vsurped the kingdome the true heire being aliue and therefore shee could not bee the lawfull Queene or that Ioiada the high Priest did command her to be slaine by his owne proper authoritie but by the consent of the King Peeres and people And therefore this example doeth nothing auaile to proue that true Kings and Princes albeit heretikes and Idolaters who are in lawfull possession of their kingdomes may bee depriued of their kingdomes or liues by the Popes authoritie 29 This second to wit that Ioiada the high Priest did onely by his aide and counsell sollicite and not by his owne proper authoritie but with the consent of the States command in the Kings name Athalia to bee slaine 2. Paral. 23. is manifest by those words And in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage tooke the Centurions c. and made a couenant with them to wit to kill Athalia and to seate Ioas the Kings sonne and lawfull King in the possession of his kingdome which shee had vniustly vsurped who going about Iuda saith the Scripture gathered together the Leuites out of all the cities of Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Hierusalem Therefore all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of GOD And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as the Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid which words the Glosse expounding 4. Reg. 11. writeth thus Heere is described the institution of the true heire whom also hee calleth the due King through the carefulnesse of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent and aide of the Princes and Nobles of the kingdome when it is saide And hee made a couenant with them Wherefore that commandement which Ioiada gaue to the Centurions to kill Athalia did proceede from that former couenant which before hee had made with them and the King And therefore as euery priuate subiect may and ought to command any man in the Kings name to aide him for the apprehending of a traitour to his Prince and Countrey without hauing any authoritie proper or peculiar to him to doe the same so it is not necessarie that any peculiar authoritie to command bee giuen to Ioiada onely for that hee with the consent of the King and the comon wealth commaunded Athalia vniustly vsurping the kingdome to bee slaine although wee should vnderstand that commandement of Ioiada of a commandement being taken strictly and not largely or commonly in which sense to command doth little differ from to counsell or perswade 30 But the first which is affirmed by Cardinall Bellarmine to wit that Athalia was slaine not onely for tyrannie but also for idolatrie albeit if this were true it nothing auaileth to prooue that a true and lawfull Prince although an Idolater may lawfully be slaine seeing that it is manifest that Athalia was not a true and lawfull Queene but an vsurper of the kingdome the true heire being aliue hee very insufficiently concludeth from they holy Scripture seeing that he relateth not truely those words which doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it and they brake his Altars and his Images doe not immediately follow either 4. Reg. 11. or 2. Paralip 23. the killing of Athalia as Cardinall Bellarmine vntruely affirmeth intending to proue from thence that shee was slaine for idolatrie but these wordes doe immediately follow her killing And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King
conquered all Italie â—and before this translation his sonne Pipin was created King of Italie k Sigebert ad ann 774. and others â—nd he himselfe Patritius Romanorum which l Otho Frisingens lib. 5. cap. 28. Sigebert ad ann 781. and others as Card. Bellarmine himâ—elfe confesseth m Lib. 1. de Translat Imper. cap. 9. Lupold Babeng lib. de Iuribus Regn Imperij Rom. cap. 12. is the next dignitie to the Emperour Neither will I now â—ispute what reall difference there is betwixt the Emperour and an abâ—olute King concerning their supreme power and authoritie ouer their â—ubiects This only is sufficient for me at this present that supposing with Card. Bellarmine this translation to haue not only a titular but also â— reall effect whereof Lupoldus of Bamberbeg doth particularly treate if Card. Bellarmine will needes haue this translation to haue all it force â—nd validitie from the Popes authoritie alone and not also of the Romane â—eople or common wealth he calleth in question the right and title which the Latin Emperours haue to the Romane Empire in making it â—o be grounded vpon no so sound title or foundation as I signified beâ—ore cap. 3. num 48. See also that Chapter num 37. seq where I treaâ—ed more amply of this translation 63 But now to returne to that fact of Ioiada from whence with â—his Doctour I haue made this digression Ioiada saith this Doctour n Pag. 565. to â—aue done that which he did through the opinion only of his sanctitie and without any true and lawfull power Widdrington affirmeth we deny Hee â—peaketh of his owne head we follow the words of the Scripture Ioiada saith â—he Scripture 4. Reg. 11. commanded them the Centurions and souldiers â—aying This is the thing which you must doe c. And a little beneath And if any man shall enter the precinct of the temple let him be slaine And forthwith And the Centurions did according to all things that Ioiada the Priest had commanded them And againe Ioiada commanded the Centurions that were ouer the armie and said to them Lead â—er Athalia forth without the precinct of the temple and whosoeuer shall follow her let him be striken with the sword See also 2. Paralip cap. 23. 64 But still this Doctour persisteth in corrupting my words and meaning For I neuer said or meant that Ioiada did that which he did without any true or lawfull power this is a meere fiction of his owne braine That which I said was that all that Ioiada did either concerning the putting the true heire and rightfull King into the possession of his inheritance and kingdome or concerning the putting Athalia to death did not argue in Ioiada either any true authoritie to create a king denouo that is to giue him a right to the kingdome which right he had not before or any proper authoritie due only to the high Priest and which might not also be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case but that which Ioiada did concerning the killing of Athalia he did by the authority and consent of the King Princes and people and what hee did concerning her deposing he was bound to doe by the law of God of nature and nations For Ioiada was the Kings vncle the Kings Protectour his tutour and keeper and represented his person in all things and was the chiefe Captaine and Authour of all this couenant which he made with the Centurions Princes and people to put king Ioas in possession and to defend him from Athalia and therefore no maruaile that he as representing the Kings person gaue commandement to the centurions and souldiers how they should carry themselues either towards Athalia or any other in the kings defence 65 True it is that Ioiada might by his owne proper authoritie as he was high Priest command the Souldiers that Athalia should not be slaine in the temple least the temple whereof the high Priest had the chiefe charge should not be polluted by her blood but absolutely to command her to be slaine none could doe by his owne proper authoritie but he only vpon whom the weale publike common iustice and the temporall sword doth principally depend who only is the King in a kingdome from whom as from the head of ciuill power all temporall authoritie and command in his kingdome is deriued Wherefore I neuer meant that Ioiada did that which he did without any true lawfull and proper authoritie as proper is opposed to improper or metaphoricall but he did that which he did not by any proper authoritie of his owne which was peculiar to him as he was high Priest in which sense proper is distinguished from common but he did that which he did concerning Ioas and Athalia by that true and lawfull authoritie which might also be common to other subiects in the like case to wit to such subiects as are the chiefe Peeres of the Realme the Kings Protectors and Guardians and who represent the Kings person in all things 66 For two principall things Ioiada did the one was that he preserued the true and rightfull King and whom he knew certainely so to bee from being murthered by wicked Athalia and to that ende hee kept him secretly in the Temple for sixe yeeres together and in the seuenth yeere by the aide of the Princes and people hee did put him in possession of his kingdom which Aathalia had tirannically kept from him And this euery faithfull subiect in the like case is bound to doe and by the Law of nature and nations hath authoritie so to doe and the consent of all kingdomes and the authoritie of the rightfull King doth giue sufficient warrant to the same So that this authoritie was not proper to the function of the high Priest as he was high Priest but is common to euery faithfull subiect who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian and representeth the Kings person in all things The second was that Ioiada commanded Athalia to be slaine who endeuoured to make a publike rebellion against the true lawfull and now crowned and anointed King crying out in the presence of the King himselfe the Princes and the people A conspiracy A conspiracy Treason Treason And the authoritie also to commaund this was not proper to the function of the high Priest as hee was high Priest but is common also to euery faithfull subiect who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian and representeth the Kings person in all things And to teach the contrary to any of these two things is to teach a most false scandalous and seditious doctrine 67 This second to wit that the commandement of Ioiada to kill Athalia was done in the Kings name and by his authority this Doctor affirmeth o Pag. 567. not to be incredible because it happened after the creation of the new King neither would this saith he hurt Bellarmines opinion For Bellarmine doth not contend that hereticall Kings ought to bee slaine by the Popes commandement
but onely to be deposed But this is very vntrue For although Card. Bellarmine doth not in expresse wordes yet by a cleere and necessary consequence he doth contend that the Pope hath power to depriue hereticall Kings not onely of their kingdomes but also of their liues seeing that he contendeth that the Pope hath authoritie in oder to spirituall good to dispose of all temporalls and I hope that the liues of Princes are not to bee excluded from temporall things See aboue nu 9 seq And although Ioas was made King de facto by the procurement of Ioiada yet it cannot with any credibilitie be denied but that all the time that Athalia raigned de facto and vniustly vsurped the kingdome Ioas was King de iure and that the kingdome and all Kingly authoritie did by right belong to him 68 But Widdrington doth not vvell prooue saith this Doctour that all those things were done onely by the counsell and not by the authoritie of Ioiada For as the Scripture testifieth both 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. Ioiada called the Centurions together Ioiada armed the Souldiers Ioiada commanded that if any one should enter within the precinct of the Temple he should be slaine if any one should follow the Queene he should likewise bee slaine Ioiada as saith the Glosse cited by Widdrington did institute the King Ioiada crowned the King Ioiada commaunded the Queene to be slaine Ioiada made a couenant betwixt himselfe the King and the people that they should be the people of our Lord Ioiada commanded the Temple of Baal to bee ouerthrowne the Altars of the Idols to be destroyed the Priest of Baal to be slaine Ioiada set the watch in the house of our Lord c. All these things Ioiada the high Priest did but because he alone could not accomplish the whole matter he adiured the Centurions that they would helpe valiantly and faithfully and therefore he made a couenant with them for the execution Wherefore nothing is giuen to the Centurions but obeying and executing at the commandement of Ioiada The Centurions saith the Scripture did according to all things that Ioiada the high Priest had commanded them 69 But why doth this Doctour still corrupt my wordes and meaning why doth he omit that word propria authoritate by his owne proper authoritie which of set purpose to expresse plainely my meaning I did set downe I neuer affirmed that all those things here mentioned by this Doctour were done by Ioiada without true and lawfull authoritie but I alwaies added that they were not done propria authoritate by his owne proper authority to wit which was proper and peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by the authority and consent of the King Princes and people and which things euery faithfull subiect might doe and was bound to doe in the like case that is if he were the Kings Protectour and Guardian and represented in all things the Kings person and such a King whom he did not onely probably imagine but also certainly knew to bee the rightfull and vndoubted King and heire of the kingdome 70 Neuerthelesse I doe willingly grant as I haue said before and oftentimes in all my bookes I haue freely confessed that Ioiada by his owne proper authoritie that is by his Priestly power had authoritie to declare to the people the Law of God and to command them to obserue the same but not to constraine them by temporall punishment to the obseruation thereof and that therefore he might commaund them in generall to put Ioas in possession of his kingdome knowing that it did by the Law of God and by the right of his inheritance belong to him as being descended by a direct line from the stocke of King Dauid according as God almighty had promised to Dauid and Salomon But concerning the particular manner how Athalia was to be deposed and Ioas was to be put in possession of his kingdome which was not contained in the Law of God this I said Ioiada could onely doe by his aduice and counsell if we respect him onely as he was high Priest but if we respect him as he was the Kings Protectour Keeper and Guardian and represented the Kings person in all things this I said hee did by authoritie but not by his owne proper authoritie as he was high Priest and which could not be common also to all other subiects in the like case but by the authority of the King and commonwealth and as he being the Kings Protectour and Guardian represented the Kings person in all things And therefore I doe not deny that Ioiada did all those things mentioned by this Doctour by authoritie but not by his owne proper authority which this Doctor hath not as yet any way impugned nor will be euer able to impugne 71 That Ioiada did not those things by his owne proper authoritie but in the name and by the authoritie of the King with the consent of the Princes and people I prooued by the words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse vpon that place Therefore all the multitude saith the Scripture made a couenant with the King in the house of God and Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sone shall raigne as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid The words of the Glosse are these Heere is described the institution of the true heire the due heire and which ought to be the due King and which ought to be for all these names veri haeredis haeredis debiti Regis debiti the Glosse vseth by the procurement of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent of the Princes and Nobles of the Realme when it is said And he made a couenant with them 72 Marke now how cunningly this Doctor would shift of these testimonies That which is added saith hee p Pag. 568. concerning the couenant with the King is vnderstood of the future King to wit with him who a little after was to be instituted King as it is manifest by the same place for presently it is added And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne And the Glosse is against Widdrington for if heere be described the institution of the true King and to this is required the assent of the Princes assuredly Ioas was not King before albeit he was the Kings sonne For he that is King by succession ought not to be instituted but declared neither doth he neede the assent of the Princes Therefore Ioiada did constitute the King and depose the Queene but the Princes ayding and assisting him without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter 73 But if this Doctor had beene pleased to declare plainely the true state of the present question betwixt me and Cardinal Bellarmine as I did and not delude his Reader with ambiguous and equiuocall words the plaine trueth of this controuersie would presently haue appeared For this word King is equiuocal and may be taken either for a King de iure and
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
in the Councell of Constance but the contrarie doctrine is damnable scandalous and seditious 78 Marke now what a trim consequence Mr. Fitzherbert gathereth from the premisses Whereupon sayth he b nu 18. pag. 78 it followeth that seeing Ioiada did lawfully depose Athalia being a holy man Matth. 23. Hieron lib. 4. in Num. cap. 23. and therefore called by our Sauiour Barachias that is to say Blessed of our Lord he did it not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person All this is true as you haue seene But that which he addeth to wit as High-Priest to whom it belonged to iudge of her cause is very vntrue neither doth it follow from his premises For his antecedent proposition was this Ioiada being high Priest deposed Athalia as her lawfull Iudge and not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person this I granted now he inferreth that Ioiada as high-Priest did depose her which I euer denied and he brought no shew of argument to proue the same only heere in the next words following he adioineth some colour of an argument for proofe thereof especially saith he c pag. 79. seeing that she was not only a cruell tyrant but also an abhominable Idolairesse hauing drawne her husband Ioram her sonne Ochozias and the people to Idolatrie and transferred the riches of Gods temple to the temples of Idolls which being matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest and therefore I conclude that Ioiada deposed her as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge according to the supreme authoritie that God gaue to the High Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall State So I in my Supplement 79 But how insufficient this conclusion is it will presently appeare onely by laying open the ambiguitie of those wordes Idolatrie being a matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest For it belonged indeed to the tribunall of the high Priest of the old Law and his consistorie to iudge what was Idolatrie as likewise now in the new Law it belongeth to the Pope and Church to iudge what is heresie or idolatrie and so to declare and determine what is heresie or Idolatrie is a matter of Religion both in the olde Law and in the new but it did not belong to the tribunall of the high Priest in the olde law but of the King and temporall state to punish Idolaters with corporall death as likewise in the new law to punish heretikes with corporall death being not a spirituall but a temporall matter doeth not belong to the spirituall power of Priests but to the temporall authoritie of temporall Princes Sot in 4. dist 29 q. 1. ar 4. Bannes secunda secundae q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine as I prooued also out of Sotus and Bannes in my Theologicall Disputation d C. 7. s 2. nu 17 And therefore in the old Law the temporall power was supreame and the spirituall was subiect to it for as much as concerned the power to constraine with temporall punishments and as well Priest as Lay-men were subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of the temporall State as I prooued before e Sec. 1 nu 5. 6. out of St. Thomas St. Bonauenture Abulensis and others whose doctrine also Cardinall Bellarmine doth not account improbable 80 Wherefore although it belonged to the High-Priest to declare the law of GOD yet to execute the law and to punish the transgressours thereof whether they were Priests or Lay-men with temporall punishments belonged to the supreame temporall power of the King and not to the supreame spirituall authoritie of the High-Priest Seeing that Ozias saith Abulensis because he was King Abul q. 4. in c. 15. l. 4. Reg. was the executor of the law of GOD against offenders it belonged to him by his office to destroy all Altars which were without the temple of our Lord and to take away such a worship and consequently all Idolatrie vnder the penaltie of death And therefore I conclude that Ioiada did depose Athalia being a manifest Vsurper as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge but not according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the High-Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall state which as I prooued before was in temporalls supreame and not subiect but superiour to the spirituall power but according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the King to whom both Priests and Lay-men were subiect in temporalls and by whom they were to bee punished with temporall punishments whose place and person Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian while the King was in his minoritie did in all things represent Neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert either in his Supplement or in this his Reply as you haue cleerely seene brought any probable argument much lesse conuincing as hee pretended to impugne the same 81 Now let vs proceede to the example of King Ozias which is the last Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old Testament to which neuerthelesse I did abundantly answere in my Apologie which my answere he passeth ouer altogether with silence But before I set downe what hee saith heere concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to repeate my saide answere and what D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same for thereby the weakenesse of Mr. Fitzherberts obiection will presently appeare and so also hee shall not take occasion after his vsuall manner to remit his English Reader to D. Schulckenius to seeke out a Reply to that which I answered before in my Apologie concerning this example of King Ozias Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 8 82 In this manner therefore Cardinall Bellarmine argued from this example A Priest of the old law had authoritie to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie therefore in the new law the Pope hath authoritie to depriue a King of his kingdome for spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by leprosie The Antecedent proposition hee prooued thus for that wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that King Ozias when hee would vsurpe the office of a Priest was by the High Priest cast out of the temple and when he was for the same sinne stricken by GOD with leprosie hee was also enforced to depart out of the Citie and to renounce his kingdome to his sonne And that he was depriued of the Citie and of the administration of the kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest it is apparant For wee reade Leuit. 13. whosoeuer saith the law shall bee defiled with leprosie and is separated at the abitrement of the Priest shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing therefore that this was a law in Israel and withall wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that the King did dwell without the Citie in a solitary house and that his sonne did in the Citie iudge the people of the land wee are compelled to say that hee was
Priest did onely continue for the time they were infected with leprosie for which time neuerthelesse they remained true Kings although others did administer their kingdome For vnablenesse to gouerne the kingdome doth not depriue Kings of their right and authoritie to reigne as it is manifest in a King who is vnder age in whom there is true dominion power and right to reigne although vntill hee come to yeeres of discretion there is appointed him a Protector and Guardian who doth in the Kings name and by the Kings authoritie adminster all the affaires of the kingdome And that King Ozias for all the time of his infirmitie which continued vntill the day of his death did remaine true King the Glosse doth most plainely teach 2. Paralip 26. who writeth thus The Hebrewes are of opinion that this the miraculous striking of Ozias with leprosie happened in the 25th yeere of Ozias the rest of whose yeeres are twentie seuen and he raigned fiftie one yeeres And the same is gathered not obscurely from the Scripture it selfe in that place Wherevpon although we reade in the 21. vers that for the time Ozias was a leper Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house yet wee doe not reade that Ioathan his sonne reigned for him but after that Ozias was dead vers 23. 98 To this my answere D. Schulckenius replieth thus p Pag. â— I answere first although Ozias should haue beene depriued only of the administration of the kingdome and constrained to giue it ouer to his sinne yet had kept the right and authoritie to reigne as my Aduersarie Widdrington will haue it neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmines argument would be strong and vnshaken For from hence also by the grant of my Aduersarie is we doe gather that King Ozias was by the Priest of Aaron depriued not only of the communion of sacred things but also of the administration of his kingdome and punished not only with a spirituall but also with a temporall punishment But my Aduersarie denieth that an hereticall King can be depriued of the administration of his Kingdome and he saith that he can only be depriued of the receiuing of Sacraments 99 But first it is vntrue that I euer granted as this Doctour saith that the Priest of the old law depriued King Ozias of the administration of his kingdome but as you shall beneath q Num. I affirmed the flat contrarie Secondly it is strange how Card. Bellarmines argument can stand firme and vnshaken if the antecedent proposition for as much as concerneth the principall part thereof be not true as this Doctour in this his answere doth suppose For the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument contained two parts the one was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued of his kingdome and authoritie to reigne and from hence he concluded as you haue seene If therefore the Priest of the old law had power to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie why may not a Priest now doe the same for spirituall leprosie and of this part to wit of depriuing Princes of their kingdomes and of their right or authoritie to reigne I did only speake in this part of my answere And if this part which was the principall point of Card. Bellarmines argument be supposed to be false as this Doctour doth suppose how can his argument for as much as concerneth this point stand strong and vnshaken 100 The second part of Card. Bellarmines agrument was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued by the High Priest of the administration of his kingdome and of this second part I did not speake one word in this part of my answere but only of the depriuing him of his kingdome dominion or right to reigne And I affirmed that although the Priests of the old law had authoritie to iudge a leper and by a declaratiue sentence or commandement to denounce that he was to be seuered from the rest of the people which was only to declare the commandement and law of God considering that this separation was ordained by the expresse commandement of God after the Priest had iudged him to be infected with leprosie yet from hence it cannot be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen per accidens and consequently vnlesse their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre as it doth not that they were consequently depriued also of their kingdomes But their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre saith this Doctour that they were depriued at least of the administration of their kingdome and therefore from hence it may be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue per accidens and consequently Princes that were infected with leprosie at least wise of the administration of their kingdome But of this I will treate a little beneath after I haue examined the second Reply which this Doctour maketh to this first part of my answere to his antecedent proposition 101 I answere secondly saith D. Schulckenius r Pag. 546. King Ozias did indeed retaine the name of a King for the residue of his life but a bare and naked name For his sonne did gouerne the kingdome with full power although without the name of a King For so the Scripture speaketh 2. Paralip 26. King Ozias was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house a part full of 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 The same is said 4. Reg. 15. Therefore we haue not from the Scripture that any part of the gouernment did any way appertaine to Ozias which Iosephus doth more cleerely explicate lib. 9. Antiq. cap. 11. While he saith that the sonne of Ozias did take vpon him the kingdome and that Ozias liued a priuate life vntill his death But howsoeuer it be this is manifest that Ozias was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment 102 But thou wilt say that Ozias retained the name of a King and as it was said in the first answere perchance a right to reigne Therefore from hence it cannot be proued that hereticall Kings may altogether be depriued of their kingdomes by the Pope I answere First from hence it is proued that the Pope may for a iust cause inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome Secondly it is consequently gathered that for a most weightie cause and for a very heinous crime and very pernicious to the Church as for example is heresie he may inflict a more grieuous punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome For both Innocentius the fourth did remoue Sanctius the second King of Portugall from the administration 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
with spirituall leprosie may by Bishops be excluded from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the faithful vntil they shal returne to their former health And therefore if from this that lepers ought vpon the sentence of the Priest to remaine in a house apart out of the campe vntill they were healed it doth necessarily follow that they had not power for that time to gouerne their temporall kingdome no meruaile that consequently also the were for that time depriued of the administration of the kingdome But it is manifest enough among the learneder Diuines and of better note as wee haue seene aboue f Nu. 346. Apolog. that the depriuing either of a temporall kingdome or of the administration thereof doth not necessarily follow Ecclesiasticall excommunication And therefore this similitude of Card. Bellarmine doth also faile in this and therefore his whole argument is not forcible 126 Yea also if Card. Bellarmine in his Treatise of the Eucharist doth argue well from the figure to the thing figured where from the figures of the old Testanment he prooueth that Christ our Lord is truely and really present in the Eucharist albeit we should grant that the Priests of Leui had power to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes not only consequently but also per se and principally yet it would not therefore follow that the Priests of the new law had also that power to depriue hereticall Kings of their kingdomes For by this very same that corporall leprosie and the punishment annexed to it by the law of God was a figure of heresie or spirituall leprosie and of the punishment which is agreeable to it by the law of Christ heresie ought not by the Euangelicall law to be punished with the losse of temporall kingdome in regard of the signification of the figure for that this punishment was in the old law ordained for corporall leprosie but with a punishment of a higher degree to wit spirituall and the losse of an euerlasting kingdome because the figure is alwaies lesse perfect and of an inferiour degree then is the thing figured as the shadow in respect of the body as Card. Bellarmine doth in that place affirme And by this reason some Diuines doe not vnaptly gather that Christ our Lord was an eternall King and of a higher degree because he was figured by Melchisedech who was a temporall King 127. But that which Card. Bellarmine addeth in the end out of the first to the Corinthians chap. 10. that all things chaunced to the Iewes in figure to prooue from thence that corporall leprosie in the old Testament was a figure of heresie and spirituall leprosie he doth not well deduce out of Saint Paul neither doth he entirely and faithfully produce his words For Saint Paul doth onely say in that place All these things to wit those few things before he had rehearsed did chance to them in figure but he maketh no mention at all in that place of this figure of leprosie Thus I answered in my Apologie 128 Now to this my answere D. Schulckenius g Pag. 550. replieth thus I answere First when Bellarmine saide that Ozia was enforced to resigne vp the kingdome to his sonne for my Adversary Widdrington seemeth to wrest this awry by the kingdome he vnderstood not the name of King but the administration at the kingdome with full power or Regall authoritie But I did not wrest awry or misinterprete that word kingdome for I prooued as you haue seene that Ozias did not resigne vp to his sonne his Kingly authority but he still remained King not onely in name but elso and right and in very deede and that his sonne had indeede full authority to gouerne or administer the kingdome as an Administratour Protectour Guardian or if we may say so Vice-Roy but no supreme or Regall authority 129 Besides that saith this Doctour good Diuines cited aboue h Nu. 346. by my Aduersary WiddringtoÌ„ as Paludanus Richardus S. Antoninus Sotâ—s Medina Richeomus and two they are my Aduersary Widdringtons words most famous Diuines of this age and of the same Religious Order with Card. Bellarmine Franciscus Suarez and Martinus Becanus dâ—e teach that which is true and denied by no man to wit that excommucation precisely and per se men are not depriued of the dominion of their temporall goods and thereby not depriued of their Kingdomes and Seignories But that which my Aduersary Widdrington doth impose vpon them to wit that they are not depriued of the administration of their kingdome this they doe not teach For it is the common opinion of Diuines and Cannists that by excommunication men are depriued of their power to iudge and of other acts belonging to the externall Court Forensibus actibus wherein the administraton of ciuill Iurisdiction doth consist 130 For Suarez doth say and prooue three things against my Aduersary Widdrington in the place cited by my Aduersary Tom. 5. disput 15. sec 6. First that by excommunication externall iurisdiction doth cease in the person excommunicated and all acts which doe appertaine thereunto Secondly that in subiects doth cease the obligation of fidelitie being also sworne after the sentence is giuen by an Ecclesiasticall Iudge and hee prooueth it by the chap. Nos sanctorum cap. Iuratos 15. q. 6. Thirdly that dominion and temporall goods doe not cease vnlesse there be mention made of them as truely it is made in the excommunication of heretickes who are depriued of all goods and of all dignitie Wherefore seeing that our principall question is concerning the leprosie of heresie it is plaine that my Aduersary Widdrington hath imposed vpon Catholke Doctors a false doctrine for true 131 But truely it is plaine that this Doctour cannot with any colourable Reply impugne my answeres but either by equiuocating chopping or changing corrupting or misinterpreting my words or meaning For my words in this place which this Doctour after his vsuall manner doth misinterpret are as you haue seene that according to learned Diuines the depriuing either of a temporall kingdome or of the administration of a temporall kingdome doth not necessarily follow Ecclesiasticall excommunication marke that word necessarily fellow And in the number 346 to which also I referred the Reader I affirmed that Excommunication ex se of it selfe or of it owne nature hath not sufficient force to depriue a Prince of his dominion or of the vse thereof Suarez tom 5. desp 8. sec 1. And this I prooued by the definition of Excommunication assigned by Suarez to wit that it is an Ecclesiasticall Censure whereby one is separated from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the faithfull which definition is taken from Saint Augustine as he is cited in the Canon law i 11. q. 3. omnis Christianus who saith that euery Christian who is excommunicated is remooued from Ecclesiasticall communion 132 From whence it necessarily followeth that Excommunication ex se of it selfe of it owne nature or by any intrinsecall and necessarie
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
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
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
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
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
from the law of nature or nations but in the order of nature from the ciuill or priuate lawes of euery nation as Suarez before affirmed for that as all histories acknowledge in this there was a great variety among all nations Baptist Fulg. lib. 1. as in Aethiopia saith Mr. Fitzherbert where the Priests determined of the life and death of Kings in such sort that when the Priests signified to them that it was Gods will they should die they presently killed themselues 43 But he might haue added if it had pleased him the next words following in Fulgosus whom he citeth in the margent that this custome of theirs did not alwaies continue Diod. Sicul. lib. 3. cap. 1. for it was abolished by King Erganes who liued about the time of Ptolomey King of Egypt who to the end his death should not be foretold him by the Priests hee slew them all and was the first that tooke away that custome Besides neither was this custome obserued among other nations as among the Romans the chiefe Priest or Bishop ought to keepe his hands not onely pure from all bloud but also he ought not to be partaker or priuie to the death of any man insomuch that if any condemned man did flye to him he was freed from death for that day k Alex. lib. 2. geralium dierum cap. 8. Neither did those Priests of Aethiopia properly put their Kings to death by authority but as interpreters of the will of GOD they did declare that it was GODS pleasure they should kill themselues and so this example is little to the purpose 44 Also in Aegypt saith Mr. Fitzherbert none could be a King except he vvere a Priest True it is that the custome of the Aegyptians was Stobaeus se 42. as Stobaeus also affirmeth to create either Priests or vvarlike men their Kings for honour and nobility vvas giuen to vvarlike men for their fortitude and to Priests for their vvisedome But he that vvas chosen out of vvarlike men to be their King vvas foorthwith made a Priest and partaker of philosophy or the study of vvisedome And no doubt but that this was a laudable custome and so much the more for that the King of Aegypt could not iudge Diodor. Sicul. l. 1. c. 6. but according to the lawes and the Kings themselues were subiect to the lawes of their kingdome yet this custome of the Aegyptians was not generall among other nations For although in times past Plutarch in quaest Rom. as Plutarch writeth Kings did the greatest and chiefest part of Sacrifices and they vvith the other Priests did concurre in sacred rites yet after they became to vvax insolent arrogant and cruell the Graecians for the most part taking away from them their Empire left them onely authority to sacrifice to their Gods 45 And the like custome saith my Aduersary vvas also obserued among the Goths whiles they vvere Paynimes That the Goths had this for a continuall custome that none should be their Kings vnlesse they were Priests I haue not read and that it was among them a continuall practise I can hardly beleeue both for that their custome vvas that their Kings should not be learned but among al nations Caelius l. 8. c. 6. the Priests were vsually the most learned of all the people also for that the contrary is signified by Ioannes Magnus in his historie of the Goths who writeth that their Priests werâ— of diuers degrees to wit Pontifices Archiflamines Flamines Salij Augures and that to their chiefe Priests See Procopius Ioan. Magnus in their history of the Goths Olaus l. 3 c. 8. l. 8. c. 15. who were called Pontifices was granted by them equall power with their Kings whose authoritie was so great that whatsoeuer they should either counsell or commaund both the King himselfe and the people did foorthwith wllingly execute as an oracle from heauen And no maruaile if it were so seeing that the reuerence which the Goths did beare to Priests althogh they were of a contrary Religion to them was exceeding great and to be admired insomuch that when they conquered any Citie they did neither violate Temple nor Priests and in the iudgement of all men they were accounted so pious and religious that they would not hurt any one that should flye to the Temples dedicated to God for succour or Sanctuary And when Alaricus King of the Goths otherwise a barbarous and cruell man inuaded Italie in the time of Honorius the Emperour and had subdued Rome before hee would giue leaue to his souldiers to spoyle the City he proclaimed by sound of trumpet that the bodies and goods of those persons Fulgos l. 1. c. 1. who flyed for refuge to the Apostles Church should not be touched and which is more to be admired the souldiers themselues in the very middest of the sacke and spoyle meeting certaine sacred Virgins carrying vpon their heads plate of gold after they were informed that they were consecrated to the Apostles did not extend their hands so much as to touch them Fulosus in the same place 46 And amongst the Gaules saith Mr. Fitzherbert the Druides vvho vvere their Priests had in their hands the chiefe mannage of publike affaires deciding all controuersies and iudging all ciuill and criminall causes Caesar l. 6. de Bello Gallico excommunicating such as vvould not obey them and those that vvere so excommunicated vvere abhorred and detested of all men But this custome of the Gaules proceeded from the priuate and ciuill law of that nation and was not common to all nations as you may see aboue in the Graecians who from their Priests tooke away the temporall gouerment and left them onely authority to sacrifice to their Gods and the great variety which was among nations concerning the authority of their Priests doth euidently conuince the same 47 I haue also signified before l Cap. 6. nu 10 saith Mr. Fitzherbert m Pag. 132. nu 6. vvhat authority and command the chiefe Bishops and Augures had in the Romane Common-wealth aboue the Consulls and temporall Magistrates vvhen consideration of Religion occurred in matters of State Whereupon Valerius Maximus saith Valer. Max. l. 1. c. 1. that the Romane Common-wealth alwaies preferred Religion before all things euen in men of the highest degree dignity and Maiesty and that their Empire did willingly submit it selfe and obey in matters of Religion esteeming that it should in time arriue to the soueraigntie of humane gouernment if it did well and duely obserue the diuine power Thus saith Valerius of the preheminence and soueraigntie of Religion in the Romane Common-wealth And for the time of the Romane Emperours most of them vvere extreame Tyrants and did condemne as vvell all diuine as humane lawes yet all of them seemed to acknowledge the Soueraignty of Religion in that they tooke vpon them the title and dignity of chiefe Bishops because no man should haue any authority ouer them as the
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
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
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
ROGER WIDDRINGTONS Last REIOYNDER TO Mr. THOMAS FITZ-HERBERTS REPLY CONCERNING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE And the POPES power to depose PRINCES Wherein all his arguments taken from the Lawes of God in the old and new Testament of Nature of Nations from the Canon and Ciuill Law and from the Popes Breues condemning the Oath and the Cardinalls Decree forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes are answered Also many Replies and Instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered PROVERBS 12. The lip of truth shall be stable for euer but he that is an hasty witnesse frameth a tongue of lying IHS Permissu Superiorum 1619. ⧠The CONTENTS of this TREATISE THE Preface to the Reader wherein it is shewed first how dangerous and pernitious a thing it is vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike Religion and to the Sea Apostolike to coyne teach and publish by fraude and violence false articles of Catholike faith especially in things which doe greatly derogate from the temporall Soueraignty of absolute Princes Secondly how exceedingly Widdringtons Aduersaries doe preiudice themselues and their cause by handling this controuersie concerning the Oath of Allegiance and the Popes power to depose Princes in such a fraudulent vncharitable and slanderous manner and in not permitting learned Catholikes to whom the charge of soules is committed and who ought alwaies to bee ready to satisfie euery one that asketh them a reason of their Catholike faith to try and examine by the true touchstone of Catholike faith and the vndoubted principles of Catholike Religion whether the faith which they pretend to bee Catholike bee a false and forged Catholike faith or no Thirdly what is Widdringtons chiefe drift in making this Reioynder and in continuing still to handle this controuersie CHAP. I. Widdrington freeth himselfe of two fraudes whereof he is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe againe vp his Aduersary Secondly hee discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds Thirdly he plainly sheweth that he hath answeared probably and like a good Catholike CHAP II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersary taken from the rule of the law The accessory followeth the principall is confirmed Secondly Two Instances which he brought against that rule are prooued to be sound and sufficient Thirdly that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue Secular iudgements c. is at large examined CHAP. III. Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime Hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed Secondly the foure Instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polony are confuted CHAP. IIII. Widdringtons interpretation of that clause of the Oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to bee sound and sufficient and is cleered from all absurditie and contradiction euen by M. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike CHAP. V. Widdringtons answeres to all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the olde and new Testament are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrary to his owne doctrine SEC 1. First all the authorities which are brought out of the old law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and other learned Diuines Secondly the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular SEC 2. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the olde law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authority of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastice and depose Kings is disprooued Secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered Thirdly it is shewed that the authority of S. Chrysostome brought by M. Fitzherbert to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authority he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth Saint Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine SEC 3. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the verity is prooued to make against himselfe Secondly those words of our Sauiour Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted Common-wealth are satisfied and Doctor Schulckenius Reply is proued to be fraudulent and insufficient Thirdly the authoritie of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were readie to reuenge all disobedience is answered M. Fitzherberts fraud in alledging the authority of S. Augustine is plainely discouered and the Conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be false and fraudulent CHAP. VI. M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ Secondly that Religious Priests cannot by the law of Nature punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the law of Nature the ciuill societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers Replies of M. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted CHAP. VII 1. Certaine places of the old and new Testament are explained 2. D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere Widdrington made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisburie grounded thereon and fourthly other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias
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
branch neither the Popes power to Excommunicate is abiured nor any sacriledge committed For hee who sweareth that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication to be denounced against the King he will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie although hee doth sweare that hee will obey the King being excommunicated because Excommunication hath not power to depriue Kings of their temporall dominions and Iurisdiction Apol. nu 346. as Becanus with many other learned Diuines whom I cited in my Apologie doth affirme yet he doth not sweare that hee will not obey a iust Excommunication as Cardinall Bellarmine doth ill conclude For albeit he beleeueth that the Pope hath authoritie to excommunicate hereticall Kings yet hee doth not beleeue that Excommunication being a spirituall Censure worketh this temporall effect to depriue hereticall Kings of their Royall authoritie to make Kings no Kings or to take away from subiects their naturall and ciuill obedience which by the law of God according to Cardinall Bellarmines owne doctrine n In tract contra Barcl cap. 21. pag. 202. is due to all Kings although they be heretikes so long as they remaine Kings 20 Nowe Fa. Lessius argued in this maner You will say saith he that the power to excommunicate is not here denyed but onely a certaine effect of Excommunication which is that notwithstanding a Prince be excommunicated yet shall not the subiects be released from the bond of their allegiance But this effect doth necessarily follow the sentence of Excommunication as the practise of the Church for the space of more then twelue hundred yeeres doth shew To this argument I answered that by no practise at all of the Church it can be prooued that the absoluing of subiects from the bond of their alleagiance which by the law of God is due to all absolute Princes is an effect of Excommunication but at the most another punishment although sometimes imposed together with Excommunication as Becanus with many other learned Catholikes doe acknowledge concerning which punishment whether it may for any crime be imposed by the Popes authoritie vpon absolute Princes or onely vpon inferiour Princes by the consent of absolute Princes to whom they are subiect in temporals it hath euen bene and is also now a controuersie among learned Catholikes as by the testimonie of those two Authours whom I cited a little before o Nu. 13. and also of many others cited by me else where p in Apolog. nu 4 seq and in this Treatise part 1. per totum Becanus in q. de fide haereticis seruanda cap. 8. nu 16. Becan in Controu Angl. cap. 3. q. 2. Suarez tom 5. disp 15. sec 6. nu 3. it doth cleerely appeare 21 From hence it is very apparant sayth Becanus that heretikes by this precisely that they are excommunicated are not depriued of their dominion or iurisdiction either ouer their subiects or ouer their temporall goods but this depriuation is a distinct punishment and inflicted by a distinct law And againe It is one thing sayth he to excommunicate a King and another thing to depose him or to depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connected with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue bene excommunicated and yet not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and yet not therefore excommunicated 22 Excommunication sayth Suarez can not haue this effect to take away the dominion of a kingdome or of a people and the paying of tributes and doing seruices which are answearable thereunto concerning such subiects vnlesse an other thing be first supposed which is that the Lords be depriued of their dominion or the vse thereof because the dominion remayning still in it force it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey and consequently to communicate at leastwise as much as is necessary to fulfill their obligation according to the chapter Inter alia desentent excommun But Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect because as it doth not depriue of the dominion of other temporall things nor of the vse of them so it doth not depriue of this dominion because there is no more reason of that neither is there any law wherein this is specially ordained of Excommunication I say of Excommunication because this is sometimes ordained in the law concerning some excommunicated persons as heretikes yet by this speciall ordination we may vnderstand that Excommunication of it selfe hath not this effect for when this effect is to follow it is necessarie that it be specially expressed in the law or sentence And therefore when this effect is adioyned I doe not call it an effect of Excommunication but a peculiar punishment imposed together with Excommunication as when an heretike is excommunicated and depriued of the dominion of his goods this depriuation is not an effect of Excommunication but a certaine punishment ioyned together with Excommunication Thus Suarez 23 We haue therefore out of Becanus and Suarez that the depriuing Princes of their dominion or iurisdiction is not an effect of Excommunication contrarie to that which Fa. Lessius saide Wee haue also out of Cardinall Bellarmine Bellar. in trac contra Barcl cap. 21. Pag. 202. and the same Suarez that subiects are not released from the bond of their obedience vnlesse the Prince be depriued of his dominion or iurisdiction for that to deny obedience to a Prince sayth Cardinall Bellarmine so long as he remaineth Prince is repugnant to the law of God and the dominion or iurisdiction of a Prince sayth Suarez Suarez in Defens fidei Cath. lib. 6. cap. 3. nu 6. remayning in its force and not being taken away it can not be but that the subiects are bound to obey because the obligation of obedience sayth hee in any degree or state whatsoeuer doth so long endure in the subiect as the dignity or power and iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour for these are correlatiues and the one dependeth vpon the other So that you see how well these learned Diuines of the Societie of Iesus doe agree amōg themselues in assigning the reason for which this oath of allegiance doth containe in it a manifest deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and of his spirituall Supremacie And whether English Catholikes for so weake and slender arguments and wherein our learned Aduersaries doe not agree among themselues are bound to hazard their perpetuall libertie In Append. part 2. sect 4. and whole estate with the vtter ruine of their posteritie I remit to the iudgement of the pious and prudent Reader Thus I answered in my Theologicall Disputation which afterwards in my Appendix to Suarez I did more fully explaine Now let the Reader iudge whether this my answere to their argument be a vaine brag and an idle affirmation of my owne or a solid confutation thereof and whether I had not reason to affirme that learned men doe not blush to inculcate so often and secoldly without any solid proofe that very argument which
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
scandall but also against obedience and against legall and morall iustice by declining the iudgement of their lawfull Superiours and Iudges and by wronging their Aduersarie in drawing him against his will from the tribunall of his lawfull Iudge and who had good and sufficient authoritie to make a small end of his suite 27 But considering that these Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint were not lawfull and proper Superiours and Iudges but only Arbaratours and consequently to whose iudgement they were not bound to stand by vertue of any subiection and obedience due to them but only by reason of scandall whereon the declaratiue precept of the Apostle was only grounded and which scandall being taken away the commandement of the Apostle doth also cease this difficultie is easily cleared For albeit it was very scandalous and therefore iustly reprehended by the Apostle that the faithfull Corinthians should of their owne accord without any necessitie for in that case Disp Theol. c. 10. s 3. nu 10. Salmer tom 8. tract 29. in Euang. as I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation out of Alphonsus Salmeron the actiue scandall doth cease and if it be any scandall it is not giuen but taken goe to the tribunalls of Heathen Magistrates yet it is not scandalous to appeare before them when they are called for in this case they must of necessitie by vertue of their subiection appeare and so the scandall ceaseth which would still remaine by their appearing if those Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint had beene true and lawfull Superiours and Iudges for then they had also beene bound by vertue of their subiection not to forgoe the iudgement of their lawfull Superiours and Iudges and consequently not to appeare before the tribunall of the Heathen Magistrate in derogation of the authoritie of their Christian Superiour and Iudge And this may suffice for this point 28 Moreouer we read in the old Testament saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Nu. 4. pa. 31 3 Reg. 18. that Elias the Prophet had power to inflict temporall punishment yea death vpon the false Prophets of Achab whom he commanded the people to kill in his presence as also he caused fire to fall from heauen and consume the two Captaines of King Ochozias and their troupes 4 Reg. 1. In like manner wee reade in the new Testament that the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul extended their spirituall authoritie to the temporall punishment of the body when it seemed to them conuenient for the glory of God and good of soules and therefore S. Peter stroâ—ke Ananias and Saphyra with suddaine death Act. 6. and S. Paul depriued Elymas the Magician of his sight Act. 13. 1. Cor. 5. and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to the deuill to be bodily 〈◊〉 and tormented for the example and terrour of others vt spiritus saluus fiat that his soule might be saued and the same iudgements and corporall punishments these Apostles might no doubt as lawfully haue executed vpon any Prince in the world if hee had then beene a Christian and giuen the like occasion 29 But who would not wonder that any man of ordinarie iudgment should from an extraordinarie and miraculous power of the Apostles yea and of the Prophets who were no Priests or from a speciall command or inspiration of God to kill men and to doe other miracles inferre that the Pope hath an ordinarie Pastorall and Episcopall power to doe the like as are those examples which my Aduersarie bringeth of Elias the Prophet who was no Priest and by the commandement of God o 3. Reg. 18. ver 36. Abul in 3. Reg. 18. q. 35 and not by any ordinarie authoritie or iurisdiction caused the false prophets of Ashab to be slaine and by miracle caused fire to fall from heauen to consume the two captaines of King Ochozias and their troupes and of S. Peter who by miracle either killed Ananias and Saphyra or foretold their death and of S. Paul who also by miracle depriued Elymas of his sight or foretold his blindnesse and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to the deuill to bee bodily vexed and tormented which manner of deliuering men to Satan did proceede from an extraordinarie and miraculous power giuen to the Apostles and not from any ordinarie power which was to descend to all their Successours But of these examples I shall haue occasion to speake againe beneath p Cap. 6. 30 And the same iudgements and corporall punishments saith Mr. Fitzherbert might no doubt these Apostles as lawfully haue executed vpon any Prince in the world if hee had beene a Christian and giuen the like occasion But first I meruaile why he addeth that condition if he had then beene a Christian for the example of Elymas who was no Christian doth proue that the same iudgements and corporall punishments they might haue executed not only vpon Christians but also vpon infidels Besides if any one will reduce those examples to a dialecticall forme of arguing hee will easily perceiue that they are very weake and insufficient not to vse those his foule and vnseemely wordes of absurd impertinent foolish and ridiculous to proue that the Pope by his ordinarie Pastorall power can doe the like As that because Elias who was no Priest had an extraordinarie commission and power giuen him by God to kill the false Prophets and to cause fire to fall from heauen to consume those two Captaines and their troopes therefore the Pope by his ordinarie Episcopall and Pastorall office hath power to doe the same in the like cases and so of the rest that because S. Peter and S. Paul had an extraordinarie power giuen them c. 31 And all this saith my Aduersarie q Nu. 5. may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church to enioyne bodily penance to publike penitents as to attend to continuall fasting and prayer Tertull. de penitent Ambros ad virg lap sam cap. 28. and to lye vpon sackcloth and ashes as it may be seene in Tertullian S. Ambrose and others whereupon it followeth that if the Church may chastise a man in his body for the good of his soule much more may she chastise him in his goods and temporall state which are ordained by the law of nature to serue both the body and the soule as the Philosophers touch namely Plato Plato epist 8. ad Dionys who therefore aduised a Law-maker to procure by his lawes that the three kinds of goods to wit of the mind the body and fortune be sought and possessed in due and ordinate manner that is to say that the goods of the mind be preferred before the other two and the goods of the body esteemed only so farre forth as they may serue the mind and lastly that the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states be accounted no better then ministers and seruants of both the other 32 But first I doe
plainly conuinced both by his owne principles and also by his owne Authours and diuers others that this translation was not done by the authoritie only of the Pope as hee pretended to prooue in that his booke of the translation but also of the people hee was engaged for the sauing of his credit to haue in some sort cōfuted my answere but to passe it ouer cunningly with a Dilemma not belonging to the principall question and which was also fully satisfied by mee in that place without setting downe any one word of my answere and so omitting contrarie to his accustomed manner aboue twenty pages of my text together doth argue no good and sincere proceeding And lastly it is also manifest what the Reader may thinke of my Aduersaries sinceritie who in this place doth so barely and nakedly repeate againe this argument without taking any notice of the answere which in my Apologie I gaue to the same 50 But the Empire of the West saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Nu. 13. p. 47 was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift and therefore Emanuel Commenus h Blond dec 2. l. 5. Platina in Alex. 3. Nauclerus generat 39. pag. 848. Emperour of Constantinople in the time of Fridereke the first vnderstanding of the dissention betwixt him and Pope Alexander the third sent Ambassadours to the Pope and offered him not only a great army with great summes of money but also to reunite the Greeke Church with the Latin if hee would restore that Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople 51 But neither Emanuel Commenus nor any other Greeke Emperour although from the particular fact of some one Emperour especially who was desirous to enlarge his Empire no good argumēt can be drawne to proue a right did acknowledge the Empire of the West to be the Popes gift in any other manner then they had read or heard from Historiographers to wit that the Pope was indeede the chiefe and principall but not the onely Authour of that translation And therefore Blondus one of Cardinall Bellarmines owne Authours doeth well affirme it to be manifest Blond decad 1. l. 3. in principle that the first translation of the Roman Empire frō the Constantinopolitans to the French Princes was done by the authoritie and consent not only of the Pope Clergy people of Rome but also by the suffrages of the people and principall men of all Italie Neither did Emanuel Commenus desire of Pope Alexander the third that he alone without the consent and suffrages of the Princes and people would restore the Empire of the West to the Emperours of Constantinople but that he would be a meanes that it might be restored or translated to them againe as he was a chiefe meanes and principall Authour that it was translated from the Grecians to the French 52 In like manner saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Nu. 13. p. 47. the second translation of the West Empire from the French that is to say from the familie of Charles the great vnto the Germans was made especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike Bell. l. 2. c. 2. 3. as Card. Bellarmine prooueth cleerely in his Treatise of the translation of the Empire If my Aduersarie had said only by the authority of the Sea Apostolike he had spoken to the purpose but that word especially cleane ouerthroweth his argument For I will not contend with him at this present whether it was done especially by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike in that manner as I granted before that the first translation from the Grecians to the French was done especially chiefly or principally by the Popes authoritie but that either the first or second translation was done only by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike and not also of the people this I vtterly deny neither hath Card. Bellarmine in the aforesaid Treatise by any one sufficient argument prooued or is able to prooue the same 53 We reade also saith Mr. Fitzherbert that Clodoueus k Papyrius Maso in vita Henrici primi See Bozius de signis Ecclesiae lib. 10. cap. 12. the first Christian King of France being desirous after his Baptisme to make good and establish his right and title to that kingdome professed to receiue the same from the hands of the Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike But truly it is strange to see what strange arguments and voide of all probabilitie my Aduersaries dare bring for proofe of so great a matter as is the giuing taking away translating of Kingdomes and Empires For what Historiographer euer wrote that Clodoueus the first Christian King of France had no good right and title to his kingdome before he became Christian or that hee receiued his title right and authoritie to reigne from S. Remigius by commission of the Sea Apostolike and that he himselfe professed as much or that it belongeth to the Archbishop of Rhemes to choose the King of France if we will speake properly of choosing as though the Kings of France were Kings by election and not by hereditatie succession or that the right and title which the Kings of France haue to their kingdome depended vpon the election of the Archbishop of Rhemes or the Sea Apostolike If my Aduersarie were in France and would affirme thus much I feare me he would be glad to recant his doctrine in this point or to interpret his words in a better sense or else he might perchance to vse his owne words finde it to his cost 54 Neither doth Papirius Maso affirme as my Aduersarie and Bozius say that King Clodoueus or Lewis the first did professe to receiue his kingdome or his right and title thereunto from the hands of S. Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes by authoritie and commission of the Sea Apostolike neither could he with truth professe the same for that he was long before King of France and had true right and lawfull title to that kingdome before he was baptized by S. Remigius neither doth baptisme make good rights and titles to temporall kingdomes but as it depriueth no man of his temporall right and dominion so it giueth no man any temporall right or dominion but giueth him only a spirituall right and maketh him heire to the kingdome of heauen But all that Papirius Maso doth affirme is that when Philip the first of that name being but seauen yeares old was by the Archbishop of Rhemes consecrated and elected future King of France and to succeede his Father Henry then liuing and present at his consecration the Archbishop after he had declared the Catholike faith vnto him and Philip had professed the same and taken his oath to defend the Church and his kingdome taking S. Remigius staffe into his hands did quietly and peaceably discourse how the election and consecration of the King did belong chiefely to him from the time that S. Remigius did Baptize and consecrate King Lewis Hee did also
to doe God good seruice will be Pharisaicall sinfull and inexcusable and therefore I hope they will be wiser and not suffer themselues to bee carried away hoodwinkt with blinde obedience which is most dangerous when their obedience to man may be a disobedience to God but that they will alwaies remember that golden sentence of our Sauiour Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and the things that are Gods to God CHAP. IIII. Wherein Widdringtons Interpretation of that clause of the oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to be sound and sufficient and is cleared from all absurditie and contradiction euen by Mr. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike ALl that Mr Fitzherbert obiecteth in this Chapter I haue aboue in the end of the second part of this Treatise fully and verbatim already confuted and therefore I thinke it superfluous to repeate here the same againe CHAP. V. Wherein Widdringtons answeres to all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the old Testament and also in the new are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrarie to his owne doctrine BEcause this Chapter will be somwhat longer then the rest for that my Aduersarie hath scraped here together many authorities out of the law of God especially in the old Testament to prooue that the spirituall power not onely in the new law but also in the old hath euer been the supreme power on earth and might chastise Princes temporally and not onely command impose and enioyne temporall penalties but also dispose of temporals and inflict temporall punishments I thinke it not amisse to diuide it into three parts or sections In the first I will treate especially of those authorities which he hath brought out of the olde law before the institution of the Kings of Israel In the second I will confute those examples which he alledgeth out of the said olde Testament since the institution of those Kings and in the third I will examine those texts of holy Scripture which he hath taken out of the new Testament SECT I. Wherein all the authorities which are brought out of the olde law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and other learned Diuines also the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular FIrst therefore Mr. Fitzherbert in his fift chapter pretendeth to prooue that Widdringtons answere to his arguments deduced from the law of God is confuted by the expresse words and text of the Supplement and prooued to be not onely improbable but also fraudulent in that he dissembleth the whole substance and pith of Mr. Fitzherberts discourse for so is the title of his fift Chapter and then he proceedeth thus My Aduersarie Widdrington hauing trifled as you haue heard in the precedent Chapters goeth forward no lesse impertinently in these words Quarto si quis c. Fourthly if a man doe attentiuely read ouer Mr. Fitzherberts discourse he shall most clearely see that he hath effectually prooued nothing else out of the Law either of God or of Nature but that the temporall power in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall is subiect to the spirituall power so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall manner of correction and not temporall So Widdrington 2 Wherein he seemeth to acknowledge as you see that I haue effectually prooued by the law of God and Nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall so farre forth as concerneth the authoritie to command though not to punish temporally meaning that the spirituall power may command temporal and corporall things so farre forth as they are to serue the spirituall for so you haue heard him also confesse before a Sâ—e before chap. 2. nu 1. 2. and that it may punish spiritually that is to say by the way of spirituall censures but no way temporally wherein I wish to be obserued what he granteth and what he denyeth for of his grant will easily follow the confutation of his denyall as I haue partly signified before b Chap. 2. nu 1.2.9 10. and will shew more amply c Chap. 6. nu 14 15 seq See Supplem chap. 1. nu 10. when I shall haue first examined how true it is that I haue prooued effectually nothing else but that which he mentioneth For to this purpose it is to be considered what I haue debated concerning the law of God in my Supplement where I said thus 3 First I will speake of the law of God which if it be considered as it is a written law is diuided into the law of Moyses and the law of Grace deliuered by our Sauiour Iesus Christ and albeit the law of Moyses for so much as concerneth the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof doth not bind vs Christians yet I will make it manifest euen by that law that the spiritual power was then the supreme power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally when it was necessarie for the glorie of God and the good of the Church This appeareth by the law of God set downe in Deuteronomy c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 4 But whether he or I haue trifled in the precedent Chapters you haue already seene and how improbably he hath prooued my answere to his arguments to be improbable or fraudulent and hath confuted it by my owne doctrine as he vainly braggeth you shall presently perceiue And first Mr. Fitzherbert endeauoureth to confute my answere as improbable wherein I said that he hath prooued effectually nothing else by the law of God but that the temporall power in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall is subiect to the spirituall power so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall manner of correction and not temporall to which purpose he maketh a long and tedious repetition of that discourse which he made in his Supplement concerning the law of God especially in the old Testament preteÌ„ding forsooth to make it manifest euen by that law that the spiritual power was then the supreme power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally when it was necessarie for the glorie of God and the good of the Church 5 First therefore to all the arguments which either my Aduersarie here hath brought or any other can bring to conuince demonstrate or prooue effectually that the spirituall power in the old law was the supreme
company or congregation of the Israelites is diuided into twelue parts which are called twelue tribes for that all the company of the Israelites doth descend from the twelue sonnes of Iacob or Israel and in euery one of these twelue tribes there was alwaies one Prince So that in all Israel there were alwaies twelue men who were greater and more noble then the rest who were called the twelue Princes of the tribes Neither were these made Princes by election or lot but by birth for alwaies the eldest sonne that descended from the head or first Prince of the tribe by the right line of the eldest sonnes was called the Prince of all that tribe So that if he who was Prince or head of any tribe as Iudas or Zabulon had many sonnes the first borne or eldest sonne of them was the Prince of all that tribe and so it alwaies continued afterwards that alwaies the eldest sonne of the Prince of any tribe was Prince of that tribe after his Fathers death 47 Now in euery tribe there were diuers families for as euery one of the twelue sonnes of Iacob or Israel with all their progeny made a tribe so euery sonne of his twelue sonnes with all their progeny made a family So that among all the Israelites there were as many families as euery one of the sonnes of Iacob had sonnes As for example because Ruben the eldest sonne of Iacob had foure sonnes there were foure families in the tribe of Ruben and because Simeon the second sonne of Iacob had sixe sonnes there were sixe families in the tribe of Simeon and so proportionally of the rest and euery one of these families had a Prince who was alwaies the eldest sonne of Iacob his second sonnes for he alwayes descended from the first heads or Princes of the families by the direct line of the eldest sonnes and he was subiect to the Prince or head of the tribe whereof he was so that as the families were vnder the tribes so also the Princes of the families were vnder the Princes of the tribes and as many families as were in euery tribe so many Princes of families the Prince of the tribe had vnder him Abulensis q. 51 in c. 2. Iosue 48 Thirdly a house was taken for a peculiar congregation of companie of many kinsmen vnder the same familie and it comprehendeth all the persons that descend from the same father yet liuing to wit the sonnes daughters and grandchildren although they haue diuers oeconomies or dwell in houses a part from their parents and yet sometimes a house is taken for the congregation of all the tribes of Israel and sometimes for one onely tribe or familie as Psal 113. Psal 113. verse 1. 13. Arist 1. Poliâ— cap. 2. he blessed the house of Israel he blessed the house of Aaron but most strictly it is taken for a peculiar oeconomie consisting of husband wife children seruants And of these Princes of the tribes and families of Israel the holy Scripture maketh mention very often especially in the bookes of Numbers and of Iosue 3. Reg. 8.1 Paralip 5.7.15.26.27 and 2. Paralip 1. and 5. and their dignitie and priuiledges Abulensis declareth q. 5. in cap. 5.1 Paral. and in cap. 5.2 Paralip q 6. and 7. And of these Princes also who neuerthelesse were subiect not only to the Kings of Israel but also to Moyses Iosue and the Iudges may this place of holy Scripture be vnderstood to wit that a hee goate should be offered for euery such Prince offending through ignorance 49 Lastly concerning those three Authours which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken from Card. Bellarmine l lib. 2 de Rom Pont. cap. 29. in tract contra Guiliel Barcl cap. 15. he might haue seene their testimonies long before he wrote against me fully answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay * Aduersus Card. Bell. cap. 15. §. 4. For Philo in that place doth not speake of Kings but of a Prince and which is more he affirmeth that this honour of offering a greater sacrifice to wit a calfe was giuen to the high Priest not in regard of himselfe but because he was a minister of the people doing publike sacrifices in the name of all the people Besides this authoritie of Philo only prooueth that the Priestly dignitie was more noble and excellent then the Princely dignitie whereof I doe not now dispute Neither doth Theodoret speake of Kings nor of the power of the high Priest but only of his dignitie and excellencie God commanded saith he that the Priest who shall transgresse the law shall sacrifice a calfe without spot but if all the people shall commit the like crime he appointeth the like sacrifice to be offered teaching how great the dignitie of the Priest is whom he hath made like or equall to all the people but he commandeth a Prince that shall transgresse the law to offer not a calfe but a hee goate so farre inferiour to Priestly dignitie is he to whom corporall command is committed But this is nothing else but that which S. Gregorie Nazianzen S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and other Fathers doe often say that the spirituall power is more noble excellent and worthy then the temporall which no man now calleth in question But the authoritie of Procopius Gazaeus is of farre lesser force both for that this Procopius as Card. Bellarmine m lib. 1. de Christo cap 6. and Antonius Posseuine n In verbo Prâ—copius doe affirme was a better Rhetorician then a Diuine and also for that he speaketh not of Kings but of a Prince nor of authority but of honour dignitie or reuerence which is due to Priests but especially although we should grant him to speake of authoritie and also of Kings for that he preferreth the people before the Prince and also yeeldeth a reason thereof which is now flat hereticall For he doth not say that a Prince offending shall offer a lesser sacrifice then a Priest for that a Prince is inferiour to a Priest in honour dignitie or authoritie although from hence he gathereth that the Priest and also the people are more honourable then the Prince but for that a Prince as soone as he shall pollute himselfe with sinne doth desist to be a Prince and falleth from his dignity which assertion is now condemned in the Councell of Constance among the articles of Iohn Wicleffe whereof the 15. article is this n Sess 45. Hee is no ciuill Lord Hee is no Prelate Hee is no Bishop whilest hee is in mortall sinne The words of Procopius are these It is to be noted that the Priest and the people doe offer the same sacrifice if they shall burthen themselues with sinne but a Prince doth purge his sinne with a distinct sacrifice because a Prince as soone as hee shall pollute himselfe with sinne doeth desist to bee a Prince and falleth from his dignitie Therefore from hence wee may gather that the Priest is more honourable then the Prince also that the
for their Iudges and then God vvas said to haue raised to them Sauiours So it is to be vnderstood of Hothoniel and Aod Iudic. 3. Other Iudges vvere made onely by the vvill of the people to wit because when they were in distresse they inquired who was a fit man among them to be Captaine in their warres And sometimes they tooke not those that were vertuous but onely who were exercised in warre So Iephte was chosen Iudic. 11. vvho vvas a Prince of theeues vvhom the Israelites because they saw him fit for warre desired to be their Captaine and Iudge And sometimes the Iudges were made onely by fauour and as it were by violence of the people as vvas Abimelech the sonne of Gedeon Iudic. 9. to whom also by the sedition of the Sichimites was giuen the title of a King And vvhen it is obiected that God raised a Sauiour I answere saith Abulensis that it is not to be vnderstood that God commanded any one to be Iudge by creating him and giuing him a certaine manner of authoritie but that God did incite the Israelites by some one of the wayes aforesaid to make some their Iudges and yet afterwards it depended vpon the will of the people to receiue them or reiect them and to giue them so much authoritie as they pleased 55 Secondly the authoritie of the Iudges was not deriued by succession to their posteritie but it remained in the power of the people one Iudge being dead to choose another or to choose none at all But to the greatnesse of authoritie it appertaineth to haue power to deriue it to their posterity as those things are properly ours concerning which wee may appoint others to inherite for in other things we are rather Administrators or Procuratours then Lords or hauing dominion and Seigniorie And the difference of this power to be a Iudge from that which by succession is transferred to posteritie is manifest by the example of Gedeon for when Gedeon was a Iudge in Israel the Israelites being desirous to exalt him to greater honour for the great victory he had against the Madianites saids vnto him haue thou dominion or Seignorie ouer vs and thy sonne and thy sonnes sonne that is all of thy posteritie but he being contented with the principalitie or preheminence of a Iudge would not accept thereof saying I will not haue dominion or Seigniory ouer you to wit by exercising the power of a Lord or King neither shall my sonne haue dominion or Seigniory ouer you but the Lord shall haue dominion or Seigniory ouer you and neuerthelesse he kept the principalitie of a Iudge so long as he liued Thirdly the Iudges could not impose tributes or other taxations vpon the people but they liued vpon their owne proper reuenues as other priuate persons except those things which by right appertained to them in warre because it was a custome among all nations that in vvarre a certaine peculiar part of the spoyle should belong to the Prince or chiefe Captaine as it appeareth by the decrees dis 1. cap. ius militare c. 56 Fourthly the Iudges were not Lords neither had they any power dominion or Seigniorie ouer the people but they were only Captaines or Leaders for as much as concerned those things which belonged to their office whereof I will speake beneath And in this there was a difference betwixt Kings and Iudges for Kings were Lords of the people of Israel and they had power to doe whatsoeuer they would which was not against the law therefore they called the Israelites their seruants as Saul called Dauid his seruant 1. Reg. 22. and Dauid called the Israelites his seruants 2. Reg. 20. but the Iudges were not called Lords as it appeareth by those former words of Gedeon refusing to haue that degree of principallitie according to which Princes are called Lords and said to haue dominion or Seigniorie ouer the people Neither were these called Iudges of iudging a Abulens q. 11. in Praefat. lib. Iudic. but as a Iudge is taken for a name of a certaine little principalitie For there is this difference betwixt a Lord and a Iudge for a Lord signifieth one who hath simply power dominion or Seigniorie and he hath power to doe what he will although it be not ordained by the law But a Iudge is he who hath not a libertie to command but he can onely command that which the lawes command and he hath a power giuen him to define according to the law and therefore he who is subiect to a Iudge is not subiect to the man but to the law but he that is subiect to a Lord is subiect to the man And because the principalitie of these Iudges or Sauiours was such that they could doe nothing according to their owne wils as Kings and Lords could doe but that onely which reason and the law did dictate they were called Iudges because Iudges haue the like principalitie 57 Fiftly lastly the office to which the Iudges were assumed was to fight for the people against their enemies as it is manifest by the institution of the Iudges For Iudic. 2. it is said that whensoeuer the Israelites were in the hands of their enemies God raised vp Iudges that should deliuer them And the same also is euident by the peculiar institutions of the Iudges for it is said of Hothoniel who was the first Iudge that when the Israelites were oppressed by the King of Mesopotamia God raised them vp a Sauiour called Hothoniel Iudic. 3. and the like is said of Aod in the same chapter and of Barac chap. 4. and of Gedeon chap. 6. and of Iephte chap. 11. and so of the rest and concerning the warres these Iudges had full power for all things whatsoeuer belonged to warfare were at their dispose and in this all the Israelites did obey them as in all warres the chiefe Captaines haue this full power concerning militarie discipline But the warres being ended these men remained as it were priuate persons to wit that they had not any Dominion or authoritie but yet they were alwaies very much honoured by the people and sometimes the gouernment of Cities was committed to their charge that they might dispose of them as Princes So Iair had thirtie sonnet who were Princes of thirtie Cities Iudic. 10. But to iudge of causes was not directly the office of these albeit sometimes it was committed to them especially when they were Prophets and prudent men So was Samuel who was the last Iudge of Israel and euery yeere he went about all Israel and iudged the people in three places to wit in Bethel Galgatha and Masphath Thus writeth Abulensis who also affirmeth that although Moyses and Iosue were greater then these Iudges for that they were chosen and appointed by God not onely to bc Captaines of the Israelites in the time of warre but also to be their Iudges and Gouernours yet he denyeth that Moyses himselfe was properly a Lord or King of the Israelites but rather that
plot the death of any Prince Wherefore let Widdrington cease by vaine words to put Secular Princes in feare and to make the Pontificall power to be odious The Pontificall power is instituted by the Sauiour of mankind for the saluation and not for the destruction of Princes These arguments doe tend to no other end then to prouoke the hatred of Princes against the Pope for otherwise Widdrington was not ignorant that Ecclesiasticall especially Pontificall lenitie doth shunne bloody punishments 12 But first whether D. Schulckenius by this his answered doth intend to acknowledge that the Pope in order to spirituall good hath authoritie to take away the liues of wicked Princes by all those waies publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie in order to temporall good to take away the liues of their wicked and rebellious subiects which I intended by that argument to conuince in this place he speaketh doubtfully and in expresse words doth neither say I nor no yet afterwards he doth plainly enough affirme the same saying n Cap 9. ad nu 229. pag. 413. that Ecclesiasticall lenitie for as much as concerneth the punishment of death doth shunne bloody punishments not for that it doth by the law of God want power to doe the same but because it doth not beseeme the Ministers of Christ and againe It doth not belong saith he o Cap. 10. ad num 318. pag. 490. to the Ecclesiasticall Court to giue sentence of death not because the Church cannot absolutely giue this sentence but because it is not decent And the Pope himselfe might if he should iudge it expedient both giue this sentence and also grant by a dispensation that other Priests might doe the same For we haue nothing whereby it is forbidden but the positiue Ecclesiasticall law wherein the Pope by the consent of all men may dispence 13 Secondly this Doctor doth egregiously and against Christian charitie and iustice abuse my innocencie in misconstruing my good intentions which God is my witnesse are most pure and sincere For it was neuer my meaning to make the Sea Apostolike odious or dreadfull to Christian Kings and Princes but only to find out the Catholike truth plainly and sincerely in a matter of such great importance which doth so neerely concerne the supreme authoritie of all temporall Princes and the due obedience which all subiects of what religion soeuer they be doe by the law of Christ owe to them in temporall matters It is rather this Doctor and such as embrace his desperate principles who by this their false seditious scandalous and new broached damnable doctrine and vnknowne to the ancient Fathers and the primitiue Church doe seeke as much as lyeth in them to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to all Christian Princes and subiects And if it be so easie a matter to answere my aforesaid arguments as this Doctor affirmeth why then doth he not answere them but shifteth them ouer with a let them passe as not pertaining to the purpose Is it not to the purpose that Card. Bellarmine and his followers should force vpon the Christian world the doctrine touching the Popes spirituall power to depose temporall Princes as a point of Catholike beliefe from which such absurd dangerous desperate scandalous seditious consequents and not heard of before these miserable times doe euidently follow 14 But such strang nouelties must with shufflings and shiftings be cunningly couered and must not be cleerely knowne to Soueraigne Princes and their subiects least forsooth they make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes As thought it were likely that Christ our Sauiour would giue to S. Peter and his Successours any spirituall power which should be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes or that the knowledge of true Catholike faith either concerning the Popes spirituall power to take away the crownes or liues of Christian Princes or concerning any other thing could be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes more then the knowledge of true Catholike faith concerning the power of temporall Princes to take away the temporall goods and liues of their subiects can be a sufficient cause to make temporall authoritie odious to Christian subiects Hostis Herodis impie Christum venire quid times said Sedulius who flourished about the yeere 430. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia which is Englished thus That Christ is come why doest thou dread O Herode thou vngodly foe He doth not earthly Kingdomes reaue that heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow But Herode might iustly haue replyed if this new broacht doctrine were true yes I haue great cause to feare for that not only Christ but S. Peter also and his Successours haue by their ordinarie commission authoritie to bereaue mee not onely of my kingdome but also of my life 15 And the same answere which is also conforme to the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers would Sedulius haue made to any Christian King who should haue feared that the Pope by his spirituall power might depriue him of his kingdome and life to wit that he neede not to feare the Popes power in that respect for that Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to the Apostles and their Successours the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes to absolue from sinnes not from debts to binde the soule with the bond of anathema and not with chaines of Iron 16 But although the Pope should haue power ouer the liues of Princes in order to spirituall good yet Princes sayth this Doctour need not to feare that the Pope will plot the death of any Prince for that no Pope hath euer commanded the killing of Princes or caused them to be slaine by priuie murtherers and it is well knowen that Ecclesiasticall lenitie shunneth bloodie punishments But first if the Pope haue such a power it is euident that it is in his free choise and curtesie to take away the life of any wicked Prince in order to spirituall good as it is in the curtesie of a temporall Prince to take away the life of any wicked subiect in order to temporall good Secondly that the Pope is also bound as I prooued against Suarez to proceed against a Christian Prince See Apendix to Suarez part 1. sec 9. nu 6. seq who is a knowne heretike or persecutor of the Church or publike enemie to spirituall good in that manner and by all those waies publike or secret by which a temporall Prince is bound to proceed against a publike traitour a notorious robber and murtherer by the high way side and a knowne enemie to the common temporall good 17 Thirdly if no Pope hath euer plotted the death of any Christian Prince the reason heereof I thinke to be for that there was neuer any Pope that held this newly inuented and neuer before heard of bloody doctrine that the Pope as Pope or by vertue of his spirituall
Aduersaries by teaching that the Pope hath power to depose Christian Princes and not I who doe not maintaine that doctrine doe consequently impose that most horrible slander vpon the Vicar of Christ our common Father and Pastour 22 For wherefore thinke you doth this Doctour deny the consequence of my argument Marke I pray you his fallacious reason and how he fraudulently altereth my argument and cunningly changeth both the subiect and predicate of my antecedent proposition vpon which my consequence and consequent doe wholly depend For it doth not follow saith he from a power to depose a power to kill I neuer saide that from a power to depose in generall doeth follow a power to kill abstracting both from the persons who are to depose and kill and from the crimes for which the persons that may bee deposed may bee killed but my argument did specifie in particular as well the persons who were to depose and kill as the causes and crimes for which one may by them bee deposed or killed And I affirmed that from the doctrine that maintaineth the Popes power to depose hereticall Princes and publike enemies to the common spirituall good it doeth euidently follow that the Pope in order to the same publike spirituall good hath also power to kill such Princes and that therefore this argument was good The Pope in order to the common spirituall good hath power to depose absolute Princes if the crime deserue deposition therfore in order to the same spirituall good he hath power also to kill them if the crime deserue corporall death 23 And the reason or ground of my consequence was for that according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and those that maintaine the Popes power to depose Soueraigne Princes for this cause and reason they grant vnto the Pope a power to depose Princes in order to spirituall good for that they graunt the Pope to haue in order to spirituall good â—â—otestatem summam in temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater and therefore as great a power in temporals as â—emporall Princes haue Whereupon they are not afraid to affirme â—hat all Christian Princes Kings Emperours and Monarches are the Popes subiects in temporals in order to spirituall good as other infeâ—iour persons are subiect to temporall Princes in temporals in order to â—emporall good But a temporall Prince hath in order to temporall good authoritie not onely to take away the lands and liues of their â—ubiects if the crime deserue that punishment and the common temporall good doth require the same but also if the crime be publike and notorious and the malefactours or perturbers of the publike temporal good be so potent that without rebellion or great temporall harme â—hey can not be apprehended he hath authoritie to condemne them â—riuately and in their absence without any processe citation or deâ—ence and afterwards to giue licence to any priuate man to bereaue â—hem of their liues by any arte or stratageme and by any publike or â—riuie way therefore the Pope according to these desperate grounds â—nd principles which graunt him potestatem summam in temporalibus â—ath the like authoritie ouer temporall Princes in order to spirituall good who according to this false and scandalous doctrine are in order to spirituall good subiect to the Pope in temporals This was my â—rgument 24 wherefore my consequence was onely concerning the Pope â—o whom is therefore graunted by my Aduersaries a power to depose Princes for that he hath in order to spirituall good potestatem summam â—n temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater for â— supreme power in temporals doth necessarily include a power both to depose and kill if the crime deserue the same And therefore who would not admire or rather pitie that so learned a man as is he who â— reputed to be the true Authour of this booke should bring such vnâ—earned instances from those who haue not a supreme power in tempoâ—als or if they haue from a crime which doth not deserue death to imâ—ugne my consequence which speaketh both of one who is supposed â—o haue a supreme power in temporals and also of a crime which is so â—eynous that according to the law it deserueth death if it were committed by subiects or priuate men 25 For the consequences of those fiue examples which this Doâ—tour hath brought to impugne my arugment are all defectiue either â—or that the persons who are to depose and therefore to kill are not â—upposed to haue supreme power in temporals to wit euery Father Maâ—ter or Bishop or else because the crime for which the persons there â—pecified may be deposed doth not deserue so great a punishment as is death But if we once suppose a Father Master and Bishop to haue a supreme power in temporals ouer their sonnes seruants and Clerkes as the Pope is supposed by my Aduersaries to haue ouer all Christian Princes and also the crime to deserue death then I say it doth euidently follow that if such a Father hath power to depriue his sonne of his inheritance he hath also power to depriue him of his life not for that a power to kill is necessarily annexed to euery power to depose but to such a power to depose which is a supreme power ouer all temporals or rather for that a power to depose and to kill to take away goods and life are necessarily included in euery supreme power to dispose of all temporals And therefore all the shuffling shifting and cunning of this Doctour will neuer be able to weaken the force of my consequence but this consequence will euer remaine good and strong that if the Pope hath power to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes for that he is their supreme Lord in temporals in order to spirituall good it doth necessarily follow that he hath power also to depriue them of their liues if the necessitie of the common spirituall good require the same And therefore although the opinion of Card Bellarmine be receaued not by the Catholike Church as this Doctour vntruely affirmeth but by many Catholike Doctours and confirmed by the often practise of many later Popes yet alwaies contradicted by Catholike Kings and subiects neuerthelesse if these Catholike Doctours and Popes had duely considered what odious and detestable consequences doe follow from that opinion they would forthwith in my iudgement haue detested the premisses from which such hatefull conclusions and which this Doctour seemeth here so greatly to abhorre that he feareth not therefore to accuse me of imposing a most horrible slander vpon Christs Vicar are most cleerly and certainly deduced 26 Wherefore to conclude this point that which this Doctour answereth secondly concerning Athalia who was slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest is nothing to the purpose To this argument sayth he r Pag. 556. I answere now that examples are to be taken according to the conuenience of the matter and persons In
kingdome they may and not onely may but also are a bound to kill such a King c. But marke his words I answere saith he a Pag. 560. that my Aduersary Widdrington hath sometimes falsly and slanderously obiected to Bellarmine that he should giue occasion to subiects to rise vp against their Kings and to kill them and nor he in plaine words doth teach the same For Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother and now her selfe a Queene reigned peaceably the seuenth yeere she was accused by no man condemned by no Iudge and yet Widdrington doth contend that it was lawfull for the high Priest who according to his opinion and words was a subiect to exhort the people to rebellion and with the Peeres and people to conspire against the Queene and to kill her 44 But saith Widdrington she had vsurped the kingdome tyrannically I answere Be it so but now the people assenting shee reigned the seuenth yeere Who gaue to subiects authority ouer their Prince peaceably reigning Who iudged at that time Athalia to be a Tyrant not a Queene if she did not acknowledge a Superiour to her Let my Aduersary Widdrington diligently consider whether it be not by farre more dangerous to the life of Kings and Princes and to the safetie of Kingdomes and Common-wealths to giue power to the people and to subiects to rebell and conspire and at the last to kill Kings whom they rashly oftentimes and falsly account Tyrants then to say that in the Pope as head of the vniuersall Church and Christs Vicar is a iudiciall power to iudge Kings and if the deserue it to depose them b Why doth he not adde also to kill them as Ioiada did Athalia For who maketh any doubt that Kings are safer if they be subiect to the Popes equity and grauity to which Christ hath subiected them then if they be subiect to the rash leuity the people to which my Aduersary Widdrington doth subiect them 45 Euery faithfull subiect saith Widdrington ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did by killing Athalia VVhat did Ioiada Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother hauing killed all the Royall issue as it was thought had vsurped the kingdome of Iuda possessed the same peaceably now the seuenth yeere Ioiada the seuenth yeere commanded her to be slaine she suspecting no such thing and declared Ioas to be King The same saith my Aduersary Widdrington euery faithfull subiect in the like case ought to doe that is euery faithfull subiect if he thinke that one hath by an ill title vsurped the kingdom may and not onely may but also altogether ought to kill such a Prince notwithstāding that he hath possessed the kingdom peaceably now many yeeres that all the people haue obeyed him many yeeres that this Prince acknowledgeth no Superiour that he is not rightly or as it should bee accused heard condemned to haue vsurped the kingdome by an ill title 46 I declare it by an example Let vs suppose that Elizabeth did by an ill title vsurpe the kingdome of England and that the same by all right was fallen to the most excellent and most holy Mary Queene of Scotland and after her to her sonne now the most excellent and most potent King of great Brittaine In the meane time Elizabeth possessed the kingdome peaceably for many yeeres and did gouerne all things belonging to Kingly function no man contradicting that shee was condemned by no man what doe I say condemned that shee was accused by no man to vsurpe the kingdome tyrannically what ought the subiects here to doe Euery faithfull Subiect sayth my Aduersarie Widdrington ought in the like case to doe that Ioiada did by killing Athalia that is he ought to kill Queene Elizabeth and to transferre the kingdome to Mary and her sonne 47 Behold O Kings and Princes you haue one who is carefull of your securitie So obseruant of your Royall Maiestie are they who doe violate and calumniate the Pontificall authoritie Euery subiect saith Widdrington not onely may but also ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did O miserable state of Princes whose kingdome and life is subiect to the iudgement of euery priuate man If Card. Bellarmine had written the like thing what tumults would not my Aduersarie Widdrington make what clamours would he not raise Thus writeth this Doctour 48 But how false fraudulent and vnconscionable is this Doctours Reply I haue most cleerely conuinced heretofore c Disp Theolog in Admonit nu 6. For I neuer affirmed as this Doctour most slanderously and shamefully imposeth vpon me that euery faithfull subiect if he thinke any one to haue by an ill title vsurped the kingdome not onely may but also ought to kill such a King I onely said that Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then that euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in the like case Nowe this Doctour cleane altereth the case and turneth it from the case of Ioiada in killing Athalia which was this Athalia daughter to Achab king of Israel and wife to Ioram King of Iuda and mother to Ochozias King Iorams sonne who then reigned hearing that her sonne King Ochozias was slaine by Iehu did cruelly murther all the Kings stocke of the house was Ioram as she thought thereby to vsurpe the kingdome her selfe But Iosabeth King Iorams daughter the sister of Ochozias and the wife of Ioiada the high Priest taking Ioas the sonne of Ochozias stole him out of the middest of the Kings children that were slaine and his nurce out of the bed-chamber and hid them in the temple where they liued with Ioiada and Iosabeth sixe yeeres in the which Athalia reigned ouer the land But in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage for all the time before both Ioas was very yong and now began to haue some vnderstanding and hee also feared the power of Arthalia and by little and little procured the fauour of the people and souldiers to take his part in so iust a cause sent for the Centurions and communicating the whole matter with them made with them a couenant adiuring them in the house of our Lord to wit that they would constantly take his part in putting downe Athalia and setting vp Ioas the lawfull heire and rightful King from whom Athalia had now six yeeres tyrannically kept the kingdome who going about Iuda gathered together the Leuites out of all Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Ierusalem 49 And then Ioida brought them into the temple and shewed them the Kings sonne saying to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reign as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid and all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of God Then Ioiada gaue order and commandement to the Centurions in what manner they should stand in the temple with their souldiers to guarde the Kings person which the Centurions performed according to all things that Ioiada had commanded
them and after he had giuen them the speares and weapons of King Dauid which were in the temple with commandement that if any person should enter into the temple to disturbe them he should be slaine he brought foorth the Kings sonne and put the crowne vpon him and the testimonie and they made him King and anointed him and clapping with their hands said God saue the King Which noise when Athalia being in the Kings Palace neere to the temple heard shee went into the temple and seeing the King standing vpon the tribunall seate according to the manner and the Princes and the companies about him and the singers and trumpets neere him and all the people reioycing and sounding the trumpets shee rent her garments and cryed A Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason But Ioiada the high Priest commanded the Centurions that were ouer the armie not to kill her in the Temple but that shee should bee slaine with the sword without and that whosoeuer should follow her should bee stroken with the sword And they laid hands vpon her and when shee was entred within the gate of the horses of the Kings house they killed her there Thus it its written 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. 50 This therefore as you see was the case of Ioiada in commanding Athalia to bee slaine Ioiada not onely being the high Priest and therefore next in authoritie to the King for that next to the King there was none greater among the people then the high Priest d Abul q. 15. in c. 11. l. 4. Reg. but also being the Kings vncle by his wife and the Kings Protectour and Guardian did put in possession of the kingdome of Iuda Ioas the Kings sonne being but seuen yeeres old to whom the kingdome by the right of inheritance did appertaine whom hee kept secretly in the temple for sixe yeeres together and therefore did not onely by probable coniectures thinke but hee did certainely know that hee was the lawfull King and neuerthelesse before hee would accomplish the same hee communicated the matter with the Centurions and Princes of the people and made a couenant with them and hee also caused Athalia to bee slaine not onely for that shee had most tyrannically and barbarously vsurped the kingdome by killing all as shee thought of the Kings issue but also for that shee sought to make an open rebellion against the annointed King crying out in the Temple in the presence of the new crowned King of the high Priest being the King Vncle and Protectour of all the Peeres and people a Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason And this I say Ioiada and euery faithfull subiect in such a case that is hauing the protection of the true and whom for certaintie he knew to be the rightfull King not only might but also if it were in his power was bound to doe neither dare this Doctour vnlesse he will rashly and seditiously teach a most false and pernicious doctrine deny the same 51 But marke I pray you how learned Abulensis answereth to this question whether Ioiada was bound to make Ioas King that is put him in possession of the Kingdome to which he had right by hereditarie succession It was saith he e Q. 15. in cap. 11. lib. 4. Reg. a manifest sinne that Athalia should vsurpe to her selfe the kingdome Ioas being aliue to whom it did by lawfull right appertaine therefore Ioiada was bound to doe as much as lyed in his power that Ioas should not by Athalia be depriued of his right to the kingdome therefore he was bound when it did lye in his power to make Ioas King Secondly this is manifest because Ioiada was in a certain manner by his office to make Ioas King because after the King there was none greater among the people then was the high Priest and then there was no King therefore it belonged to Ioiada as to the high Priest to redresse the agreeuances which happened among the people and this was the greatest agreeuance that the King should be depriued of his right and therefore Ioiada was in this bound as much of lied in his power to procure a remedy by annointing Ioas King to whom the kingdome did of right belong Thirdly this is manifest because euery man is bound to execute the knowne will of God forasmuch as it doth preiudice charity or some commandement of God but God had said that of the seede of Dauid there should bee Kings for euer and it was not against charitie or any other commandement of God alwaies to annoint Kings of that tribe therefore Ioiada was bound as much as lied in his power to accomplish that will of God to wit that hee should annoint Ioas King And this was that whereon Ioiada grounded himselfe when he annointed Ioas King saying to the people Beholde the Kings sonne shall raigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid 2. Paralip 23â— as though hee should say because God commanded that the sonnes of Dauid should alwaies reigne therefore we ought to annoint this for King who was of the stocke of Dauid 52 And as concerning the killing of Athalia the said Abulensis f Ibidem â— 20. writeth thus I answere that it was lawfull for Ioiada to command Athalia to be slaine For the cause was iust to wit for that she intended to kill the King seeing that she had vsurped the Kingdome and also she was guiltie of death for many other causes or she had slaine all the Kings sonnes and she was a disturber of the people and a corrupter of the worship of GOD seeing that she brought in the worship of Baal into Ierusalem and had made there a temple and had Priests Therefore any one of these things were sufficient that she might be slaine Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard of the power For that now that is the King being in his minoritie he was the Prince of the people as being the high Priest who was alwaies the greatest Iudge in Israel from whose sentence it was not lawfull for any man to appeale vnder paine of death or to contemne in any wise his commandement Deut. 17. Neuerthelesse the high Priest was subiect to the King in temporalls and might be iudged by him as the said Abulensis before affirmed where he assigned the difference betwixt a Iudge and a King Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard he now represented the Kings person For he made a couenant in the place or person of the King with all the people and with GOD and he represented the Kings person in all things for that he had hitherto kept him hidden and now he annointed him King but it was lawfull for the King to command Athalia to be slaine who had vsurped the kingdome therefore it was lawfull also for Ioiada who represented the Kings person in all things 53 Now I remit to the iudgement of any vnderstanding man although he be neuer so partiall whether euery faithfull subiect hauing great
power and fauour with the people and being the Kings Protectour and Guardian and presenting the Kings person in all things ought not to defend the true and knowne King against a manifestly surper and to command that vsurper to be slaine who in a manifest rebellion seeketh the crowne and life of the true and annointed King which was the case of Ioiada in commanding Athalia to be slaine How vnconscionably therefore and shamefully doth this Doctour both abuse me and also delude his Reader in misinterpreting so grosly those words of mine Therefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then which euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in the like case that is saith this Doctour euery faithfull subiect if he thinke one to haue by an ill title vsurped the kingdome not onely may but also ought to kill such a King c. As though this were the case of Ioiada whereas it is manifest that Ioiada did not onely thinke but also certainely know that Athalia was an vsurper and that Ioas was the rightfull King Besides he was the Kings Vncle his Protectour and Guardian and represented the Kings person in all things and also he proceeded orderly by procuring first the consent of the Princes and people in putting Ioas in the possession of his kingdome and afterwards commanding Athalia to be slaine for making a manifest rebellion in presence of the King sitting in his Royall throne of all the Princes and people crying a Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason for proofe whereof there needed no accuser or witnesse the fact being so publike and notorious but it was sufficient to vse martiall Law in this case especially seeing that there might haue beene danger in delay 54. Neither doth this giue occcasion to subiect to rebell against their lawfull Kings or to kill them but rather to defend the right of their true Kind and who is euidently knowen so to be and too put down a knowen and manifest Vsurper Neither doe I contend as this Doctour without shame offirmeth mee to doe that it was lawfull for the high Priest whom indeede I granted with S. Thomas S. Bonauenture Abulensis and other Catholike Diuines before g Sec. 1. nu 5. 6. cited to bee subiect to the King in temporalls to exhort the people to rebellion and to conspire with the Peeres and people against the lawfull Queene and to kill her but I onely contend that it was lawfull for Ioiada the high Priest and for euery faithfull subiect to defend the rightfull title of the true and knowen King against a manifest Vsurper especially if such a subiect bee the Kings Vncle Protectour and Guardian and hath the true and knowen King in his protection and custodie and representeth the Kings person in all things as Ioiada was 55 Neither is that example of Queen Elizabeth which this Doctour vrgeth to disgrace mee with our Countreymen to the present purpose Seeing that it was not manifest that Queene Elizabeth was an Vsurper as was Athalia but rather it is manifest that shee was the lawfull Queene considering that the Kingdome was left vnto her by the last Will and Testament of her Father King Henry and also that shee was accepted for lawfull Queene by a publike decree of the Parliament without any contradiction or claime of Queene Mary our now Soueraignes mother or of any other who might pretend a right to the kingdome And although her title to the Crowne had beene doubtfull yet I thinke my Aduersary will hardly deny that in case of doubtfull titles it chiefly belongeth to the Common-wealth or kingdome which the Parliament doeth represent to declare and determine whose title is the best As in the time of Schisme when two pretend to be the true Pope this Doctour will not deny that it belongeth to the Church whom hee maketh inferiour and subiect to the true and vndoubted Pope to declare and determine whether of their titles to the Popedome is the best neither doeth this expose the Crownes of Popes or Kings to the rash leuitie of priuate men 56 But rather this Doctour seemeth heere to insinuate diuers very false and seditious positions As first that the people may depriue a lawfull King and who by a speciall promise and appointment of God hath right to the kingdome of his Princely right and lawfull inheritance without any fault committed by him and giue it to a manifest Vsurper and who also as being a subiect is by the expresse law of God for many crimes to be put to death Secondly that if a manifest Vsurper possesse the kingdome peaceably for sixe yeeres together the true and rightfull King then liuing so that the people fearing his crueltie doe not rise vp in armes against him the true heire is thereby depriued of his Royall right and the Vsurper hath now gotten a lawfull right to the kingdome Thirdly that an Vsurper making an open rebellion against the true and annointed King in presence of the King himselfe sitting in his throne of the Peeres people and all his armie the Kings Protectour and who representeth the Kings person in all things may not by the law of armes or martiall law the King being in his minoritie commaund such a manifest traitour presently to bee slaine the fact being so publike and notorious that it needeth no accuser witnesse or other proofe and especially when by delay there may bee danger of Conspiracie and tumults among the people All these doe euidently follow as you haue seene from Doctors Reply against my answere to this example of Athalia And therefore to retort his bitter inuectiue against mee to Kings and Princes backe vpon himselfe 57 Behold O Kings and Princes you haue heere one who is carefull of the securitie of your Royall issue or rather of those who shall tyrannically vsurpe their kingdomes So obseruant are they of your Princely Maiestie and of your Royall posteritie who so immoderately aduance the Popes temporall authoritie Euery faithfull subiect say they ought not to doe in the like case that which Ioiada did in killing Athalia that is if a manifest Vsurper shall cruelly murther your innocent children and so tyrannically inuade the kingdome euery faithfull subiect who hath preserued one of your Royall issue from cruell death and who is the chiefe Peere of the Realme his Vncle Protectour and Guardian and representeth his Royall person in all things and hath great power and fauour among the people ought not to put your sonne in the possession of his Crowne and commaund the Vsurper to bee slaine by the law of armes if he seeke to make a publike and manifest rebellion in presence of the annointed King Princes and people for this was the case of Ioiada in commanmanding Athalia to bee slaine O miserable state of Princes children whose kingdome and life is by the desperate writings of these men exposed to eminent danger If Widdrington had written such a thing what tumults would not this Doctour make what clamours would he not
his kingdome and deposed the Queene de facto that is thrust her out of the possession of the kingdome For Ioiada in this sense did make or constitute the King and deposed the Queene by the aide and assistance of the Princes without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter but to make or constitute him King de iure or the rightfull heire to the kingdome onely succession without the aide and assent of Ioiada or the Princes was sufficient Neither dare this Doctour absolutely auerre as you haue seene that Ioas was not before this King de iure but Athalia but he affirmeth it with a credibile est which neuerthelesse I haue prooued to be incredible and to containe a very false scandalous and seditious doctrine 78 Lastly although that question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether Athalia was slaine onely for treason or also for idolatrie be not much materiall to the present controuersie betweene vs which is by what authoritie it was done seeing that whether she was slaine only for treason or also for idolatrie it was done by the authoritie of the King who then was crowned and confirmed by the Princes and people as this Doctour heere is not also vnwilling to grant Neuerthelesse I still affirme that it can not be prooued from the holy Scripture that she was slaine for idolatrie albeit I doe not deny that she deserued death therefore Whereupon the Scripture onely mentioneth that vpon her endeauouring to make a rebellion against the true and now anointed King crying out in the presence of the King Princes and people A conspiracie A conspiracie Treason Treason she was commanded to be slaine Neither can this Doctour sufficiently conclude from those words of holy Scripture Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. as Card. Bellarmine pretended to prooue or from those words immediatly going before And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would be the people of the Lord that Athalia was actually slaine for idolatrie although I doe willingly grant that she was an Idolatresse and therefore deserued death according to the law 79 Neither did I as this Doctour vntruely saith g pag. 570. either slaunder Card. Bellarmine or else knew not what I said my selfe when I affirmed that Card. Bellarmine did not sincerely relate the words of holy Scripture to wit Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. which words as he saith doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For after the killing of Athalia these words And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King c. which as the Glosse affirmeth were a confirmation of the King newly annointed and crowned doe immediately follow and after them doe follow those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. And whereas this Doctour affirmeth that Bellarmine did not meane that those words precisely Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal c. doe immediately follow after the words wherein the killing of Athalia was commanded but his meaning was that the ouerthrowing of the temple of Baal was done immediately after the killing of the Queene and therefore hee did not properly speake of wordes but of things done This is plainely both against the text of holy Scripture for that betwixt the killing of Athalia and the destruction of the temple of Baal was the confirmation of King Ioas newly crowned and annointed and of the couenant which Ioiada made betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would bee the people of our Lord and it is also against Cardinall Bellarmines owne wordes Those wordes saith Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia And yet this Doctour forsooth will haue Cardinall Bellarmine not to speake properly of wordes but of things done contrary to Card. Bellarmines expresse words But truth and plaine dealing cannot colourably be impugned but by such pitifull shifts and fraudulent euasions 71 And thus thou seest good Reader how insufficiently this Doctour hath confuted my answer to Cardinall Bellarmines argument taken from the example of Athalia who was not deposed by Ioiada that is depriued of her right to reigne seeing that shee was neuer a lawfull Queene nor euer had any true right to reigne but shee was by the procurement of Ioiada and by the aide and assistance of the Princes and people thrust out of the possession of the kingdome which she tyrannically had for sixe yeeres vsurped and wrongfully detained from Ioas the true and rightfull King by hereditarie succession as being the onely sonne and heire suruiuing to King Ochozias and that Ioiada that which he did both in putting Ioas in possession and in killing Athalia not by his owne proper authoritie and which was peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by that authoritie which might be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case Now you shall see how bouldly and barely Mr. Fitzherbert repateth againe this example of Athalia without taking any notice of the answere which I made thereunto before in my Apologie and Theologicall Disputation 72 But now our Aduersaries saith Mr. Fitzherbert u Nu. 16. p 77. to answere this exemple of Athalia doe say that shee was no lawfull Queene but a Tyrant and vsurped the state in preiudice of Ioas the right heire whom Ioiada set vp and that therefore the example of her deposition cannot be of consequence to prooue that the high Priest in the old law had authoritie to depose a lawfull Prince But they are to vnderstand that it little importeth for the matter in hand whether shee were a true Queene or a Tyrant for though shee had beene a lawfull Queene yet hee should haue beene her lawfull Superiour it being euident that otherwise hee could not haue beene her Iudge to determine of her right and depose her as vnlawfull especially after shee had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the State for sixe yeeres to which purpose it is to be considered that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom he should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth the Iudge absolue a man when he is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power ouer him in both cases 73 Yes good Syr it much importeth to the matter in hand whether she was a true Queene or a Tyrant for if she had beene a lawfull Queene then he should not haue beene her lawfull Superiour in temporalls neither could he haue beene her lawfull Iudge to determine of her temporal right for that as I shewed before out of many learned Catholikes and which also Card. Bellarmine himselfe holdeth to be probable in
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
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
euery Bishop and Priest to whom the charge of soules is committed haue by the law of God sufficient authoritie and iurisdiction to absolue from all cases I said to whom the charge of soules is committed for I doe not intend now to dispute whether euery Priest by his ordination receiueth authority and iurisdiction to binde and loose For I am not ignorant that diuers Catholike Doctors as Paludanus i In 4. di st 17. q. 3. ar 3. Abulensis k In Defensor part 2. c. 62. seq Syluester l In verbo Confessor 1. q. 2. learned Nauarre m In Sum. c. 27. nu 259. 260. in cap. Placuit de poenitent dist 6. nu 48. doe affirme that standing in the law of God euery Priest hath by vertue of his ordination sufficient iurisdiction to absolue from sinnes which iurisdiction is not hindered but by the prohibition of the Church And therefore I did not speake of all Priests as this Doctour imposeth vpon me but of Priests indefinitely signifying thereby that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were good it would also prooue that standing in the law of God not onely the Pope but also some inferiour Priests should haue authoritie to iudge Kings and Princes for spirituall leprosie considering that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had authoritie to iudge them for corporall leprosie 93 Neither is it to bee marueiled if there bee no example in the old Testament wherein we reade that Kings were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest for that in the olde Testament we haue but one onely example of any King to wit of this Ozias who was infected with leprosie yet the words of the holy Scripture wherein is giuen authoritie to Priests to iudge of leprosie are common as well to inferiour Priests as to the High Priest neither is there any exception made of the persons that are to bee iudged to bee infected or not infected with leprosie Yea and in this very example not onely Azarias the High Priest but also all the other eightie inferiour Priests iudged King Ozias and resisted him saying It is not thy office Ozias c. And therfore Ozias being angry saith the Scripture threatned the Priests and forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in hast they thrust him out And therefore this Doctour doth not well affirme that in the olde law wee haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest seeing that in this example of King Ozias the High Priest did not any thing which the test also of the Priests did not and which if the High Priest had not beene present at that time the other Priests might not according to the law haue done without him 94 Wherefore that also which this Doctour answereth to my second consequence which was that if Card. Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Bishops and also Priests might depose Princes not onely for heresie but also for all other mortal crimes is nothing to the purpose I answere saith hee n Pag. 543. It is true that all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may bee iudged for all sinnes whatsoeuer by euery Priest Because as we now haue saide greater sinnes are reserued to greater Prelates and some to the Pope alone especially when we speake of persons that are placed in the highest degree of dignitie 95 But what is this to my argument For first I spake of Bishops and Priests indefinitely and also standing in the law of God now this Doctour applieth my wordes to euery Priest and flyeth from the law of God by which there is no reseruation of cases to the law of the Church and of Popes by which law onely cases are reserued But secondly and principally hee cunningly concealeth the force and drift of my argument For in this second consequence my principall drift was to speake not so much of the persons who according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument should haue authoritie to depose Princes for of them I spake in the first consequence as the Reader may plainly see as of the crimes for which Princes might according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed And I affirmed that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Princes might for euery mortall sinne be deposed at least wise by the Pope if not by inferiour Bishops and Priests Now this Doctour speaketh not one word concerning the force of this consequence for as much as concerneth the crime for which Princes may according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed whereof I chiefly treated in this second consequence but he cunningly flyeth to the persons who may depose Princes of whom I spake principally in the first consequence and he answereth that indeede all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may be iudged by euery Priest for all sinnes insinuating thereby that Princes may bee deposed for of that iudgement I onely spake at least wise by the Pope for all sinnes which are mortall and may infect others which doctrine how dangerous and pernicious it is to the Soueraigntie and also securitie of Princes I leaue to the consideration of any prudent man 96 But because as the vulgar maxime saith ducere ad inconueniens non est soluere argumentum to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument I did secondly and principally answere that this argument of Cardinall Bellarmine taken from the foresaide example of King Ozias is also most weake seeing that the antecedent proposition is very vncertaine not to say false and the consequence no lesse doubtfull And forasmuch as concerneth the antecedent proposition and the proofe thereof albeit he doth rightly gather from Leuit. 13. 2. Paralip 26. that the Priest of the Leuiticall stocke might iudge Kings infected with leprosie and pronounce sentence against them by declaring the law of God that they ought to dwell apart out of the campe which is the first part of the antecedent proposition seeing that this separation was imposed by God vpon lepers at the arbitrement or declaratiue sentence of the Priest yet hee doth not therefore well conclude that the Priest of the stocke of Leui had authoritie to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen by accident and consequently vnlesse the depriuing them of their kingdome should necessarily follow their dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people which neuerthelesse cannot bee forcibly prooued from the holy Scripture 97 For as Fa. Suarez doth well obserue o Disp 15. de Excommunnicat sec 6. nu 3. the depriuation of dominion doth euer last after it once bee done but that dwelling apart of lepers to be imposed at the arbitrement of the
serued him but the rest which belonged to the Kingly affaires Ioathan did and perchance it is called a free house because it was out of the Citie Therefore that the Kingly estate prouision pompe should not cease Ioathan Ozias his sonne gouerned the Kings Pallace to wit he remained in the Kings house and all the Nobles and mightiest men of the Land had recourse to him as they were wont to haue recourse to Ozias and he kept all the seruants and all the other prouision which his Father kept that the Regall state should not seeme to be diminished and yet he was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate and the rest as follow before nu 104. 108 Wherefore D. Schulckenius perceiuing this his assertion not to be grounded either in Scripture reason or any other authoritie flyeth backe againe to his former answere that Ozias was at least wise depriued of the administration of the kingdome from whence first it is prooued sayth he that the Pope may inflict vpon a King for a iust cause a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome and secondly from thence consequently it is gathered that for a most important cause and a very heinous crime as is heresie he may inflict a greater punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome 109 But although I should grant to this Doctour that the High-Priest did depriue King Ozias per accidens and consequently not onely of the administration of the kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and right to reigne that is by declaring him to be a leper which disease did by the law of God as we now suppose but doe not grant depriue him ipso facto of his right to reigne yet froÌ„ thence it cannot be proued that the Pope hath the like authoritie to depriue an hereticall King of his Kingdome or the administration thereof per accidens or consequently for that no punishmeÌ„t is appointed by the law of Christ to heresie as it was in the old law to leprosie but to punish heretikes with this or that kind of spirituall punishment Christ hath left to the discretion of spirituall Pastours and to punish them with temporall punishments to the discretion of temporall Princes who therefore as well said Dominicus Bannes may put heretikes to death or punish them in some other manner But if Christ our Sauiour had in the new law assigned particularly any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods or the like for those who should bee infected with heresie as God in the olde law did ordaine that lepers should dwell out of the Campe in a house apart then the Pope might indeed punish heretikes temporally per accidens and consequently to wit onely by declaring the law of Christ and that they were infected with heresie to which crime such punishments are according to this supposition appointed by the law of Christ Neither should he heerein transcend his spirituall authoritie But to execute this law by putting heretikes to death or by inflicting vpon them temporall punishments and punishing them actually with the same doth exceede the limits of that spirituall authoritie which hath beene giuen to the Priests eyther of the new law or of the olde 110 And albeit Pope Innocent the fourth and also other Popes haue depriued Soueraigne Princes very few times for heresie but often for other crimes not onely of their administration but also of the kingdome it selfe yet this is no sufficient ground to prooue that they had any true and rightfull power so to doe as it is manifest of it selfe and in my Apologie I haue declared more at large z Nu. 444. 445 for that it is one thing saith Cardinall Bellarmine a In Respons ad Apolog. pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so of Popes and other persons and another thing to prooue their authoritie and power And thus much concerning the first part of my answere to the antecedent proposition of Cardinall Bellarmines argument The second part of my answere was contained in these words 111 Neither also doth Cardinal Bellarmine sufficiently confirme that the Leuiticall Priests had authority to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie onely of the administration of their Kingdomes for that time onely that they were infected with leprosie For albeit Ozias after he was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie did not administer the kingdome the cause thereof might bee for that hee being not fit to gouerne the kingdome during the time of his infirmitie did commit the gouernment to Ioathan his sonne and did appoint him the Administratour of the kingdome vntill he should be restored to his former health But that a Priest of the old law had authority to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie either of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof it cannot bee sufficiently gathered from the holy Scripture As also we cannot sufficiently collect from the holy Scripture that a Priest of the old law had authoritie to depriue housholders being infected with leprosie either of their goods or of the administration thereof although it be very like that seeing such householders ought at the iudgement of the Priest declaring them to be leapers to dwell out of the campe they themselues did commit to others the authoritie to bee administratours of their goods for the time they were infected with leprosie And so the weakenesse of the antecedent proposition is manifest 112 Now you shal see in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius replieth to this my answere I answere saith he b Pag 5â—â— These make nothing to the matter It is enough for vs that King Ozias did by the commandement of the High Priest dwell in a house apart from the time of his leprosie vntill his death and that seeing hee could not conuerse with the people he was enforced to permit the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing at all concerning the affaires of the kingdome was referred to him But if he had not beene subiect to the power of the High Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will dwell in the Kings Cittie and gouerne the kingdome either by himselfe or by his Ministers For leprosie doth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne Truly Naaman Syrus was a leeper and because he was not subiect to the high Priest of the Hebrewes he did nâ—t dwell in a house apart but he was the Generall of Warfare and he went wheresoeuer he would See 4. Reg. 5. And in the same manner the High Priest might depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially if they had any in Citties because he did separate them from the people or the conuersation of men and did exclude them from Citties and consequently depriued them of the administration of those goods which they had in Citties albeit they might administer them by
others Thus D Schulckenius 113 But truly it is a shame to see with what face this Doctour can so boldly affirme that the principall question which is now betwixt Card. Bellarmine and me to wit whether King Ozias was depriued either of his kingdome or of the administration thereof by the High Priest is nothing to the matter Before as you haue seene both Card. Bellarmine and also this Doctour if they be two different men haue laboured to proue that King Ozias was for corporall leprosie depriued by the high Priest not only of the administration of his kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and of his right or authoritie to reigne from whence they inferred that therefore the Pope might for spirituall leprosie depriue temporall Princes not only of the administration of their kingdomes but also of their kingdomes and all Regall authoritie or right to reigne And the second part of this antecedent proposition I did confute aboue and proued cleerely that Ozias did still remaine true King de iure vntill his death and was not depriued of his Royall authoritie or right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did de facto in his fathers name and by his Fathers authoritie administer the kingdome To the first part of the antecedent proposition which this Doctour affirmed to be manifest but howsoeuer it be saith he to wit whether Ozias remained King only in name or also with Regall authoritie it is manifest that he was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment I did now answere affirming that Card. Bellarmine had not sufficiently proued the same for that it might be that he perceiuing himselfe to be vnfit by reason of leprosie for which he was by the law to dwell in a house apart to gouerne the kingdome by himselfe did willingly and of his owne accord commit the gouernment thereof to his sonne Ioathan from whence it cannot bee gathered that hee was depriued of the gouernment by the high Priest And now this Doctour being pressed with this answere blusheth not to say That this is nothing to the matter as though to confute that which hee himselfe affirmetn to bee manifest to wit that King Ozias was by the high Priest depriued of his Kingly gouernment for corporall leprosie is nothing to the matter But to such shamefull windings turnings and shiftings are sometime brought men otherwise learned rather then they will plainly and sincerely confesse themselues to haue grosly erred in coyning their false or fallible opinions for true and vndoubted points of Catholike faith 114 Obserue now good Reader in what a fraudulent maner this Doctour would seeme to prooue that my aforesaid answere is nothing to the matter It is enough for vs saith he that King Ozias did by the high Priests commandement dwell in a house apart all the time of his leprosie vntill his death c. If this bee enough for this Doctour I shall easily agree with him heerein for that I doe willingly grant that the high Priest might commaund King Ozias being infected with leprosie to dwell in a house apart Onely this I must admonish him that Ozias was bound to dwell in a house apart not so much by the commandement of the high Priest if wee will speake properly as by the commandement of almightie God who by his law did expresly ordaine that all lepers should dwell apart from the rest of the people and the Priests office only was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law whether they were infected with leprosie or no and to declare the law of GOD which are spirituall not temporall actions abstracting from which law the high Priest had no authoritie to command King Ozias or any other leper to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people Wherefore this commandement of the high Priest was not any constitutiue commandement of his owne imposing a new obligation vpon King Ozias to which he was not tyed before although the high Priest had not commanded him but it was onely a declaratiue commandement or a declaration of Gods law and commandement whereby all lepers were long before commaunded to dwell in a place apart from the rest of the people But from hence this Doctour cannot gather that the Priests of the new law may for spirituall leprosie depriue Kings of their kingdomes or the administration thereof or of their right and freedome to dwell in their Cities or Pallaces and separate them by way of temporall constraint from all ciuill conuersation of men vnlesse hee will grant with Iohn Wicklefe that these punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to spirituall leprosie as in the old law the dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people was annexed to corporall leprosie Neuerthelesse I doe not deny that the Priests all of the new law haue authority to declare what is spirituall leprosie and what crimes doe notably infect the soule and what punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to such maladies and also to separate heretikes and other spirituall lepers from the sacred religious or spirituall conuersation of the faithfull for these are spirituall not temporall actions and punishments 115 But Ozias liuing in a house apart could not saith this Doctour conuerse with the people and so he was enforced to permit absolutely to to his sonne the administration of the kingdome that nothing at all should be referred to him concerning the affaires of the kingdome But first it is not true that King Ozias speaking properly was coactus that is enforced or compelled by corporall force and violence or by the coactiue force of the law which consisteth in the inflicting of temporall punishments to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people but onely he was bound thereunto by the directiue or commanding force of the law of God which ordained that all lepers should bee separated from the rest of the people and dwell alone by themselues out of the Campe for seeing that the King was supreame in temporalls and subiect therein to none but God alone and the High Priests were subiect to him therein and might bee punished by him with temporall punishments as I shewed before hee could not bee subiect to the coactiue or enforcing power of the law which ordained the inflicting of any temporall punishment And therefore wee neuer read in the holy Scripture that the High Priest of the old law whom my Aduersaries affirme to haue authoritie to inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment did euer attempt to put any King to death who had committed any crime that deserued death according to the law as you find many Kings to haue committed such crimes as Dauid committed adulterie which according to the law of God was to bee punished with death and most of the Kings of Israel were Idolaters whom God commanded to be put to death and this crime also of King Ozias for vsurping the office of a Priest
was not the law of God but onely the law and commandement of the high Priest and that therefore King Ozias and other lepers might with the leaue and licence of the high Priest dwell in the Citie among the rest of the people 121 Secondly if King Ozias had contemned the high Priest and had against his will dwelled in the Regall Citie although he had geatly offended therein by transgressing the law of God which the high Priest ought by his Office to declare to all the people yet he could not therefore be punished by the high Priest with any temporall punishment for that he himselfe was supreme in temporals and subiect to none but God and the high Priest was as I shewed before subiect to him therein and might be punished by him with temporall punishments But as for the administration of the kingdome he should no way haue transgressed the law of God albeit he had gouerned the same against the high Priests will for that he was not by his leprosie depriued of any iote of his Regall authoritie Neither can this Doctour well declare how King Ozias being a man of iudgement and wisedome notwithstanding his corporall leprosie could be depriued of the administration of his kingdome or which is all one of his right and authoritie to gouerne the same for the time of his leprosie if he once suppose that he still remained true King and had true Regall authoritie seeing that to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince is plainly repugnant to the law of God sayth Card. Bellarmine d in Tract contra Barcla cap. 21. pag. 202. and as Suarez doth well affirme e in Defens fidei Cathol c. lib. 6. cap. 3. nu 6. the obligation of obedience in any degree or state doth so long endure in the subiect as the dignitie or power and iurisdiction doth endure in the Superiour for these are correlatiues and the one dependeth on the other 122 And in the same manner saith this Doctor might the high Priest depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially which they had in Citie because he did separate them from the people or conuersation of men and did exclude them from Cities and consequently did depriue them of the administration of those goods which they had in Cities although they might administer them by others But this also is apparantly vntrue For although the high Priest had authoritie to declare that house-holders being infected with leprosie were to dwell apart out of the campe or Citie but yet so that they might talke and speake a farre of to others that should come to visite them as I signified before and in this sense the high Priest may be said to haue authoritie to separate them from the rest of the people to wit by declaring the law of God and not by any constitutiue commandement of his owne yet from hence it doth not follow as this Doctour affirmeth that the high Priest did consequently depriue them of the administration of their goods which they had in the Citie For he that is depriued of the administration of his goods can neither set let sell or giue away his goods or make any other contract concerning them which is valid and of force by law as it is apparant in all those who are depriued of the administration of their goods as are orphanes vnder age mad-men and many times also vnthrifts or ouer prodigall persons are by the law depriued of the administration of their goods and can make no bargaine which is valid by law and therefore they haue Ouerseers Guardians or Administratours appointed them 123 Now what man of learning will affirme that he who either by sicknesse imprisonment confinement or banishment is separated from the places where his goods doe remaine is consequently depriued of the administration of his goods Is an Englishman who for some crime or cause is banished his Countrey consequently depriued of the administration of his goods which he hath in England and can not he by authenticall writings set them sell them or giue them away Must he that is rightfully detained in prison be consequently depriued of the administration of his goods which he hath out of prison can he not set or sell his lands or goods which he hath in the Citie or Countrey What an vnsound consequence is therefore this which this Doctour maketh The high Priest did exclude lepers out of the Citie therefore he did consequently depriue them of the administration of those goods which they had in the Citie But they can not come to the Citie to set or sell their goods Who doubteth of this if they be banished the Cities as neither he that is detained in prison or banished the kingdome can goe out of prison into the Citie or returne into the kingdome to administer his goods and to set them sell them or giue them away without incurring the danger of the law But will any man of learning from thence conclude that therefore he is consequently depriued of the administration of his goods which he hath in the Citie or kingdome Or that if he should against the law aduenture to goe out of prison or the place of his confinement to administer or make away his goods the contract should be vniust and of no effect for want of right and authoritie to administer the same And thus you see that both parts of the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument are very vntrue 124 But although we should graunt onely for Disputation sake both parts of the antecedent proposition to wit that the Priests of the olde law had authoritie to depriue in that manner as I declared that is not by any constitutiue commandement of the high Priest but onely by the declaring the law of God the Kings of Iuda being infected with leprosie not onely of the administration of their kingdomes but also of their kingdomes or which is all one of their Regall authoritie and right to reigne yet how weake and insufficient is also the consequence of his argument and so the whole argument and euery parte thereof altogether defectiue I shewed in these words 125 As concerning the consequence albeit wee should grant the antecedent proposition to wit that the Priests of the olde law had authoritie to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie at least wise of the administration of their kingdomes not per se but consequently as Card. Bellarmine deduceth to wit for that the had authority to separate them from the company of the rest of the people and consequently as he saith to depriue them of their kingdome yet we deny his consequence For that figure of the lepers doth consist in this that as in the old law they that were infected with corporall leprosie oughts to be separated at the arbitrement of the high Priest from the company of the rest of the people so long as they were infected with leprosie so in the Euangelical law they that are infected
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
the high Priest this oath must needes haue beene repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament Thus farre I haue thought good to lay downe the words of my Supplement touching the law of God in the old Testament c. 168 To this authority of S. Chrysostome I did answere in my English Disputation of the oath long before Mr. Fitzherbert Reply come foorth And all the force of his argument taken from this authoritie seemeth to consist in those wordes of S. Chrysostome Consedit in throno legem Dei riâ—sus transgrediens He sate in his throne transgressing againe the law of God From whence this man inferreth that God was offended not only because Ozias was not cast out of the City but also because he was suffered still to reigne whereas this only can be gathered from those words and these other and you are afraid to cast him being vncleane out of the City you beare reuerence to his Kingly dignitie violating the law of God c. I doe therefore speake no longer to the Prophets c. That God was offended and speake no longer to the Prophets for that Ozias being a leper and vncleane was not cast out of the City as it was ordained by the law which also S. Chrysostome in the next homily doth more plainly declare 169 Ego vero saith this holy Father si vnum quiddam adhuc addidero c. But if I shall adde yet one other thing I will make an end of my speach And what is this That which not long agoe from the beginning we did demaund What is the cruse that seeing in externall things and in prophecies all are went to set downe the time wherein the Kings did liue this Prophet Esay ommiting that expresseth the time wherein King Ozias dyed speaking in this manner And it came to passe in the yeere wherein King Ozias dyed And yet he might haue expressed the time of the King then reigning as all Prophets vsually did But he did not so For what cause did he not so It was an ancient custome to expell a leprous out of the Citty both to the end that those who liued in the Citty might be in better health and that the leprous should not giue to men prone to vse reprochfull words an occasion of scoffing and derision but that he abyding out of the City might haue solitarines in steede of a vaile or couer against reprochfull calamitie And this ought this King to haue suffered after his leprosie but he did not suffer it those that were in the City reuerencing him for his Soueraignitie but he remained at his house secretly This to wit that he remained at his house secretly and went not forth of the City prouoked GOD to wrath this hindered the prophecie c. Thus saith S. Chrysostome whereby it is manifest that S. Chrysostome doth not affirme that God was offended because Ozias was not thrust out of his kingdom or depriued of his right to reigne but because he liued secretly at his house in the City and did not depart out of the City according as the law in Leuiticus did ordaine 170 Wherefore the meaning of those words of S. Chrysostome He sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God is made more plaine by these later words which I did now relate For as before he being no Priest trangressed the law of God by presuming to offer Sacrifice vpon the Altar of incense contrary to the law so now againe he being for his former offence striken by GOD with leprosie transgressed the law by presuming to remaine in the City which the law did forbid Allo Mr. Fitzherbert may perchance vse some cunning translating those words of S. Chrysostome Sedebat to thrâ—â—â— c. He sate still in his throne breaking againe the law of God as though Ozias had offended againe by remaining still in his throne or which I take for all one by continuing still to reigne and by keeping still his Royall dignitie and authoritie or right to reigne and not resigning it ouer wholy and fully to his sonne Ioathan Wherefore taking those words He sate still in his throne in this sense that word still may be equiuocall and of purpose thrust in by Mr. Fitzherbert to signifie that he offended for keeping still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne whereas the words of S. Chrysostome only are that he sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God not for that he brake againe the law of God because he sate in his throne or which I take for all one kept still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did gouerne the kingdome in his name and by his authoritie and as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy but for that he departed not our of the City as S. Chrysostome himselfe expresly declareth But if Mr. Fitzherbert will haue S. Chrysostome to take that word throne for the materiall Royall seate or chaire of estate which remained in the City for so also the Latin word may be Englished then this sense is in effect all one with the first which I contended to be Chrysostomes meaning to wit that Ozias transgressed the law againe for remaining in the City for leprosie did not debarre him by the law from sitting in a chaire of estate out of the City or from any iote of his Kingly right power or authoritie as I shewed before 171 But lastly it is worth the noting to obserue how well forfooth Mr. Fitzherbert agreeth with Card. Bellarmine in vrging this example of King Ozias For Card. Bellarmine contendeth that Ozias was thrust out both of the City and also of his kingdome but this man laboureth to proue that according to S. Chrysostome hee was neither cast out of his kingdome nor out of the City Others with Iosephus affirme that he liued in deede out of the City but withall that he still reigned or remained King although Ioathan in his name and authoritie or as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy administred the kingdome Neuerthelesse Abulensis Abulens q. 29 in Cap. 25. Exodi although he greatly commendeth Iosephus as a most skillfull Historiographer of the Iewes of whom also hee writeth m Q 9 in cap. 15. lib. 4. Reg. that it is likely he know all the particular facts of those Kings yet he leaueth the opinion of Iosephus in this point Sometimes saith Abulensis n Q. 10 in cap 13 â—euit the plague of leprosie was perpetuall and then the leper remained vntill his death out of the Campe separated from the rest and this was vnlesse perchance he was a man of great excellencie as the King who if he fell into leprosie did not goe out of the campe but remained therein but he was in a certaine separate house as we reade 4. Reg. 15. Of King Ozias who there is called Azarias for he fell into leprosie being stiken by GOD in the forehead because he would burne incense to our Lord as Priests where it
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
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
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
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
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
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
the Councels but three yeares before did cleane omit this Councell of Lateran Now what prudent man say they can imagine that if this Councell and all the decrees which are now therein contained had beene approoued by the generall consent of the Fathers who were present thereat either Pope Innoncent himselfe who would haue caused the said decrees forthwith to be published as other approoued Councels haue euer beene published or that his Nephew and next Successour but one Pope Gregory the ninth as he was carefull to publish all his Vncles decretall Epistles and these decrees also which were propounded by him in this Councell of Lateran whereof the greatest part of the Canon law called the decretals of the Pope Gregory the ninth is compounded so also hee would not haue neglected to publish this so great and famous Councell of Lateran and the Canons therein decreed if it had beene certaine that they were approoued and confirmed by the consent of the whole Councell or if there had beene any authenticall copie of this Councell preserued in the Vatican as by all likelihood there would haue beene if the Councell had beene complete and Oecumenicall and the decrees therein propounded had beene approoued by the generall consent of the Fathers some one or other Romane Antiquary would in 300. yeares space haue caused it to be published and that we should not haue needed a Germans helpe to seeke out in Germanie after 300. yeares a copie of this Councell to publish as authenticall 13 But it seemeth say they that this ancient Booke which this first publisher of the Councell mentioneth was by some one or other collected out of the Booke of the Canon law called the decretals of Pope Gregory the ninth for that it containeth iust as many Chapters and no fewer then are in the Decretals to wit 72. Chapters and they haue the very same beginning and ending and also the very same notes and obseruations euen in the middle of the Chapters which is not so in other Councels as may be seene in the Councell of Lateran held vnder Pope Alexander the third whereas the Chapters propounded and rehearsed in this great Councell os Lateran were according to Mathew Paris onely 60. And this will appeare more cleare if we consider that the 40. and 41. Chapter and the 60. 63. and 64. in the Edition of this Councell set out by this German make 4. chapters as they do in the Decretals and not two onely as in the Councels now published they are diuided that thereby they may make iust 70. Chapt. not 72. and so it might more credibly be answered as the most illustrious Cardinall of Peron doth answere that it was an errour in Mathew Paris of the Writer or Printer to put 60. for 70. whereas to put 60. for 72. and so to change both the letters had beene an errour too egregious and hardly to be beleeued 14 To these circumstances may be added that there is no mention made of the approbation of the Councell but onely of some few decrees as of the 2. 4. 5. 18. 42. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 51. 66. 69. and the 72. or last decree concerning the holy land whereof the third decree which is now in controuersie betwixt my Aduersaries and mee is none As also neither Pope Gregory the ninth doth in the Decretalls intitle any one of those Chapters or decrees as made by the Councell of Lateran howsoeuer the most Illustrious Cardinall of Peron doth vntruely affirme the same but onely by Pope Innocent in the Councell which words doe not properly and in rigour of speech signifie that they were made or approoued by the Councell but onely by Pope Innocent in the Councell or as Mat. Paris saith rehearsed in the full Councell by the commandement of Pope Innocent to be approoued and confirmed by the common suffrage and consent of the Fathers which neuerthelesse seemed to be easie and pleasing to some but burdensome to others And therefore the Fathers did not agree about them neither was there time sufficient to examine them more throughly by reason of the great hast which Pope Innocent made to depart from Rome to appease the stirres in Italy For the Councell began at S. Andrews tide and the Pope dyed at Perugia the next Iuly following neither doe any Histories that I haue read make mention when the Pope dissolued this great and famous Councell Onely Blondus affirmeth that he departed from Rome primo vere at the first beginning of the spring Blond dec 2. lib 6. in fine So that the Councell might continue onely for a moneth or two for ought by any History wee can know to the contrary Whereupon Platina after he had said that many things were consulted of and nothing could be plainely decreed for the reason before mentioned of the Popes suddaine departure from Rome ascribeth the condemnation of Almaricus his errours and of Abbot Ioachim his Booke against the Master of the sentences not to the Councell but onely to Pope Innocent Pope Innocent saith he did disprooue a certaine Booke of Abbot Ioachim and hee condemned the errours of Almaricus 15 All these things being considered it is very probable say they that albeit many things were consulted of in the Councell yet nothing at all especially concerning those decrees which to some seemed easie and to others burdensome could be plainely decreed that is concluded and agreed vpon by any publike and knowne authenticall decree of the whole Councell or greatest part thereof hitherto published to the view of the world yet it may very well be that most of those Fathers gaue at least wise their priuate or tacite consent to the publishing of many of those 60. Chapters or decrees although also all those 13. decrees wherein mention is made of the approbation and consent of the Councell might by the appointment of Pope Innocent be written in that forme of words before the Councell began and also rehearsed in that manner in the very beginning thereof Wherefore we haue not say they any true authenticall Copie of the Councell of Lateran yet published taking the Councell as it containeth onely those decrees which were made by the common consent and approbation of the whole Councell but the Councell of Lateran which is now extant is onely a collection of those decrees registred in the Booke of Decretals which Pope Innocent propounded to the Councell and were rehearsed as Matthew Paris saith in the full Councell at the very beginning thereof Paul Emilius lib. 6. in Philip. po 2. Seuebr lib 4. ad annum 1215. Vignerius eodâ—m anno especially seeing that the Earledome of Tholosa was by a peculiar decree of the Councell of Lateran with the consent no doubt of the King of Fraunce giuen to Simon Earle of Montfort which decree is not to bee found in the Councell of Lateran now extant for that it was not by Pope Gregorie the ninth put among the Decretals These be reasons for which the authority
signified to the chiefe Bishop or Pope that from thenceforth he may denounce his vassals absolued from his fealty and expose his Land or territory to be taken by Catholikes who when the heritickes bee rooted out may possesse the same without contradiction and conserue it in the puritie of faith the right of the principall Landlord or Lord being reserued so that he giue no obstacle to this nor put any impediment thereto The same neuerthelesse to be obserued concerning those who haue no principall Landlords This is the decree of the Councell 21 Now all the difficulty consisteth chiefly in this what is to be vnderstood by those words dominus teÌ„poralis dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-lord Officer or if we will needs translate it so Lord Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement pretended to prooue that those words did comprehend Kings and absolute Princes and that therefore the Pope hath authority to depose temporal Princes and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance To which his argument I answered briefly in my aforesaid Admonition c Nu. 21. in this manner 22 Lastly to that decree of the Councell of Laâ—eran so often inculcated and vrged I gaue elsewhere d Widdr. in Praefat. ad Resp Apol. nu 43. diuerse answeres which this Authour F.T. dissembleth He insinuateth one of them and confuteth it mostly coldly to wit that by the name of him that hath not a principall Land-lord or if wee will needes haue him called Lord Emperours and absolute Kings are not to be vnderstood but other inferiour Land-Lords or Officers who are subiect to Kings seeing that the Emperour Fredericke fiue yeeres after this Councell was celebrated made the same decree almost in the very same words changing only spiritual penalties into temporal who by the name of him that hath not a principall Landlord or also Lord could not vnderstand himselfe and other absolute Princes Whereupon I probably gathered that those wordes Non habens Dominum principalem Not hauing a principall Landlord or also Lord could not by force of the words comprehend Kings and absolute Princes who vnlesse they be namely expressed in penall lawes are not to bee vnderstood to wit by the generall names of temporall and principall Landlords or Lords And to say that the Emperour did not comprehend Kings in those words and that the Pope did meane to comprehend them is barely to say not to demonstrate considering that if the Synode of Lateran had meant to haue comprehended Soueraigne Princes in that decree she might as easily haue named them by their proper names of Princes as by the generall names of principall Land-lords Officers or Lords or who haue no principall Land-lords Officers or Lords especially seeing that the same Councell in other decrees hath vsed the peculiar names of Princes Wherfore vntill some man shall clearly demonstrate I say not shall onely show probably that those answeres which I gaue to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable no effectuall argument can bee brought from that Councell whereby it may certainely and euidently be prooued that it is so certaine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes that the contrarie cannot without the note of heresie errour or temeritie be defended by Catholikes 23 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth thus e Chap. 9. nu 3 seq pa. 137. Now then saith he for as much as all our question heere is concerning the Canon of the Councell of Lateran and that some of those who may reade this Reply haue neuer seene that Canon or my Supplement I thinke good to set downe here what I said in my Supplement concerning that Councel Canon Therfore hauing declared that the Councell of Lateran vvas gathered by the generall consent as vvell of the Greeke as of the Latine Church and of the Emperours of the East and West Empire I added that there vvere present thereat S. Antonin tit 19. §. 6. Paul Aemil. lib. 6. Nauclar generat 41. Blond dec 2. lib. 6. in fine Platina in Innoc tert Concil Later sub Innoc. tert tom 3. conc Matth Paris Westmonast ad annum 1215. Can. 3. Supplem cap. 6. nu 2. the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Hierusalem and the substitutes of the two other Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch 70. Archbishops Greekes and Latines 412. Bishops and 800. other Prelates that is to say aboue 1200. Besides that there assisted also the Ambassadours not onely of the Romane and Greeke Emperours but also of the Kings of Hierusalem England France Spaine Hungary and Cyprus and of other absolute Princes So as I conclude that it was the greatest and most generall Councell that euer vvas assembled in the Church of God and then I added further as followeth 24 This was the great Councell of Lateran held vnder Innocentius the third in the yeere of our Lord 1215. wherein it was decreed thus Si Dominus temporalis c. If a temporall Lord being required and so foorth as you may see aboue Thus farre the Decree of this Oecumenicall Councell assembled by the consent of all Christendome wherein you see not only the Popes authoritie to depose Princes was auowed and acknowledged but also the practise thereof expressely ordained and determined when Princes shall neglect their duetie to purge their states of heresies and contemn with all the Ecclesiasticall Censures 25 Thus said I in my Supplement and now to come to Widdringtons answere first he chargeth me as thou hast seene good Reader to haue dissembled many answeres which he made else where concerning this Canon Secondly he saith that I haue neuerthelesse insinuate â—one of them and answered it most coldly and thirdly he layeth downe his said answere vvith some other reasonâ— vvhy he thinketh it to be probable that absolute Princes are not comprehended in that Canon Whereto I answere that I wonder vpon what ground he could charge me with the dissimulation of his former answeres which I protest I neuer saw vntill I chanced to haue a view of this his last Treatise I meane his Theologicall Disputation whereto is annexed the other which hee mentioneth for truely if I had seene those answeres vvhereof he speaketh I would not haue passed them ouer with silence no more then I passed Mr. Dunnes and such other as were then come to my knowledge And as for my cold answere I cannot see how it could be either cold or hoat to an argument which I had neuer seene but how hoatly and wisely he hath answered for his part it may appeare partly by the argument it selfe and partly by my discourse in my Supplement which he will nâ—edes take for an answere thereto His argument you see is that for as much as the Emperour Fredericke c. 26 But first it is to be obserued that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis are not well translated into English a temporall or principall Lord vnderstanding the word Lord as it is taken by vs for a title
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
absolute Princes are not in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder the generall names of temporall Land-lords Gouernours Iudges Lords or such like was not grounded vpon any peculiar priuiledge proper to absolute Princes for the like I affirmed of a Bishop and an Abbot but vpon the knowne rules of the law which there I cited and vpon the authority of learned Lawyers and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert might haue saued his labour in seeking out of Restaurus Castaldus or others any such priuiledge peculiar to absolute Princes Neither also did I affirme that all Lawyers are of opinion that in penall lawes and odious matters an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest or Clearke nor an absolute Prince vnder the name of a temporall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord but that some Lawyers are of this opinion and this is enough to prooue it to be probable that in the Canon of the Lateran Councell Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall wordes of a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord. Wherefore although the opinion of Hostiensis of whom I will speake beneath or of any other Lawyer or Diuine whatsoeuer be expresly against this doctrine it is nothing to the purpose except it be also against the opinion of all Lawyers and Diuines 7 Secondly therefore that M. Fitzherbert may also see that I haue not inuented this doctrine of my owne head I will now for proofe of the same relate some Catholike Authors whom then I omitted to rehearse for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt thereof An Abbot saith Bartholomaeus Fumus in his Armilla aurea Armilla verbo Abbas nu 11. in an odious matter is not comprehended by the name of Monkes although he be in a fauourable matter according to the Doctours in cap. Armilla verbo Clericus nu 2. finali de Simonia And againe by the name of Clearkes saith hee in a fauourable matter are vnderstood all that haue any Clearkely dignity but in an odious matter vnder the name of a Clerke are not comprehended Bishops no Canons nor others placed in dignity nor Monkes nor Religious men that are exempted Vide Panormit in cap. bonae memoriae de postulat Praelatorum Armilla verbo Sacerdos nu 1 And againe by the name of a Priest saith he in a fauourable matter are vnderstood not onely Prasbyters but also Deacons and Subdeacons but in an odious matter onely Presbyters and not therefore Bishops are to bee vnderstood arg cap. si quisque de cohab Cleric mulierum where Panormitan obserueth the same Thus writeth Armilla Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia 8 The like hath Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia § prima conclusio By the name of Monkes saith he Abbots are vnderstood in a fauourable matter but this conclusion is not true in an odious matter and for the same hee citeth Panormitan Pope Innocent and others And a little before out of diuers textes of the Canon Law he deduceth this general rule Quoties species aliquid addit generi nunquam appellatione generis venit species Whensoeuer the particular doth adde something to the generall the particular is not to be comprehended vnder the name of the generall which is the same in sense with that rule which he afterwards relateth out of Antonius de Butrio that in penall things the mixt or compound is not comprehended vnder the simple which rules Felinus limiteth thus vnlesse the punishment or odious matter doth tend principally to fauour the soule but how to know this for certaine it is very heard as you shall see beneath Sayrus tom 1. lib. 3. cap. 33. 9 The like teacheth our learned Countreyman Gregorius Sayrus expounding the Canon Vt periculosa Ne Clerici vel Monachi lib. 6. Wherein are excommunicated all Religious men who goe to any Schooles of learning vnlesse they haue first license graunted them by their Prelate with the aduise of the greater part of the Conuent An Abbot saith he going to Schooles without the license of his Superiour and Conuent doth not incurre this punishment according to Archidiaconus Geminianus Angelus Antoninus and Nauarrus in the places aboue cited because it is a penall constitution and therefore rather to be restrained then extended The same hath Nauarre vpon cap. finali de Simonia From the aforesaid it is also saith he inferred that the disposition Nauar. tom 2. Comment in cap. finali de Simonia nu 5. or constitution which speaketh of a Monke doth not comprehend an Abbot if the matter be not fauourable as Doctors here vpon this Canon do seeme to be of opinion 10 And Syluester treating of the Canon in Clement Vnica de vsuris wherein are excommunicated quicunque communitatum ipsarum Potestates Capitanei Rectores c. All Potestaes of Communities themselues Captaines Rectours or Gouernours Consulls Iudges Counsellers or any other Officiall or Officer who doe make write or dictate Constitutions that vsurers are to bee paid or being paid are not to be restored Siluest verbo Excommunicatio 19. nu 82. §. quadragessima tertia c. affirmeth that because this is a penall constitution consequently it is not extended to persons that are not expressed or which is all one expresly named therein and he proueth this by that rule of the Law in Sexto In penalties the milder part is to be chosen Moreouer Pope Innocent the third himselfe vnder whom this Councell of Lateran was held In can Sedes Apostolica de Rescriptis doth expresly decree that when in his Commissions persons of lesse worth more base are onely signified persons of greater worth and dignitie are not vnderstood to be included in a generall clause Now what man of iudgement can make any doubt but that Dominus temporalis is a person of lesse worth honour and dignitie then Dominus principalis who in the Canon is distinguished from Dominus temporalis and both of them are persons of lesse worth honour and authoritie then are Domini supremi as are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes And therefore these generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis being names of lesse worth and dignitie then are Domini supremi must not according to Pope Innocent his owne rule comprehend Emperours Kings and absolute Princes who are the most worthy most noble and most principall Lords and persons vpon earth 11 But wee will conclude this point with so plaine and manifest an authoritie that my Aduersarie both in respect of the Authour and also of his words being so cleere can take against it no colourable exception Lastly therefore Andreas Duuallius a famous Doctour of Paris and at this present the Kings Publike professour of Diuinitie and also a man otherwise much fauouring the Popes temporall authoritie ouer absolute Princes Andr. Duual de suprema Rom Pont. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q.
4. p. 264. and his spirituall authoritie ouer a generall Councell contrary to the custome of that renowmed Vniuersitie writeth thus Notum est nomine Clericorum c. It is manifest that in an odious matter Bishops are not comprehended vnder the name of Clerkes nor sometimes in the same matter Religious men vnder the name of Monkes neque similiter nomine Dominorum Reges nor likewise Kings vnder the name of Landlords Gouernours or Lords in regard of the height and Maiestie of Kingly dignitie I will say more that perchance in an odious matter the King of France in regard of the singular prerogatiues wherein he excelleth other Kings is not comprehended vnder the name of Kings Thus D. Duual 12 And by this the iudicious Reader may cleerely perceiue both what censure my ignorant Aduersary deserueth both in branding this doctrine with the temerarious note of absurditie and also that from hence it followeth euidently that the answere which I gaue to the decree of the Laeteran Councell is not absurd or improbable For all this may be not onely a probable perswasion but also a manifest demonstration to any Catholike man of iudgement that in the foresaid Canon wherein temporall penalties are inflicted Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not included in those generall names of Dominus temporalis and Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which denote titles of honour office or dignitie farre inferiour to the height and Maiestie of Kingly Soueraingtie and that therfore no conuincing or demonstratiue argument can be brought from this Canon to prooue that the Pope hath authoritie to depose absolute Princes who according to the doctrine of so many learned men and also the decree of Pope Innocent himselfe are not in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder generall words which denote titles of inferiour worth honour or dignitie Wherefore although it bee needlesse the premises considered to make any further answere to the rest of my Aduersaries discourse in this Chapter yet for better satisfaction of the studious Reader I will set downe what weake obiections he continueth still to vrge 13 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzher b Pag. 150. nu 3. 4. I finde the opinion of Lawyers expresly contrary thereto For wheras the famous Canonist and Card. Hostiensis who wrote aboue 300. yeeres agoe saith that Deponitur haereticus c. Hostiens in Sum. tit de haereticis §. qua paena nu 9. an heretike is deposed from all dignity whether he be a Clerke or a Lay-man Pope Emperour or any inferiour he alledgeth for the same three Lawes whereof the second and the third doe directly proue our intent For the second is an ancient Decree of Liberius the Pope wherein he ordained that 24. q. 1. Qui contra Ecclesiae pacem Qui contra Ecclesiae pacem sunt c. They who are against the peace of the Church if they haue any dignitie or the militarie girdle let them be depriued of it if they bee priuate men and yet nobly borne let them forfeit all their substance or goods but if they bee ignoble or base people let them bee not onely whipped but also banished which I wish my Aduersary Widdrington well to note for two respects the one for albeit he seemeth to admit the authority of the Ecclesiasticall Canons yet he denieth often as you haue heard that the Church can inflict any corporall and temporall punishment which he may see was ordained by this ancient Decree admitted and set downe in the body of the Canon law besides many other cleare Canons and Decrees to the same purpose The other because he saith that Princes are not included in penall lawes if they be not specified by the name of Princes whereas neuerthelesse he may see that this ancient Canonist Hostiensis includeth them in this Decree though the tearmes thereof are very generall without any particular mention of Princes 14 But first what Cardinall Hostiensis a man wholly addicted to the aduancing of the Popes temporall Monarchy and his authority in temporals ouer absolute Princes not only indirectly but also directly or any other Canonist Ciuill Lawyer or Diuine affirmeth concerning this point is little to our purpose considering that other Diuines and Lawyers are contrary to him heerein And therefore it is not sufficient for Mr. Fitzherbert to bring the testimony onely of Hostiensis or of many other Doctours ioyned together with him to prooue my aforesaid doctrine to bee improbable but it is necessary for him to bring conuincing proofes and he must also shew that no other approoued Authours mooued with probable grounds doe maintaine the same 15 Secondly obserue good Reader what kind of conuincing proofes this man bringeth out of Hostiensis and how grosly thou art abused through the manifest fraud or ignorance of this my vnlearned Aduersarie For first this Decree of Pope Liberius admitted as hee saith and set downe in the bodie of the Canon law is not authenticall but of a suspected credit whereof also Mr. Fitzherbert could not haue bene ignorant if he had read in the Councells set out by Binnius the whole Decree which is taken out of a Decretall Epistle which is pretended to haue beene written by Pope Liberius to S. Athanasius which Epistle Binnius himselfe calleth in question The Consulls saith Binnius Binnius tom 1 Concil pag 470 in fine Epistolae 13. Liberij which are added to this Epistle to wit Asclepius and Deodatus doe shew it to be of a suspected credit for I could neuer find their names to be in oth r places subscribed to deedes writings or Calender bookes 16 Secondly if Mr. Fitzherbert had related the words immediatly going before that which heere he citeth out of the Canon and wisheth me to note well for two respects the Reader would presently haue perceiued his fraude or ignorance and that from this Canon no argument at all can be brought to prooue that the Pope hath authoritie to inflict temporall penalties but rather that temporall Kings haue authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments For the entire words of this Canon as it is set downe by Binnius are these Binnius vbi supra Whosoeuer shall presume to transgresse these things first let them be subiect to the terrible iudgement of Almightie God Deinde autem qualem cunque Regalem indignationem reuereantur per quam si Episcopi c. and afterwards let them reuerence or feare all Regall indignation by which if they be Bishops or Cleargie men let them fall or be depriued wholy from the order of their Priesthood or Cleargie but if they be Monkes let them be separated from their places but if they be in dignitie or haue the militarie girdle let them be depriued thereof but if they be priuate men yet noble let them forfeit all their substance or goods but if they be ignoble let them not onely be whipped but also perpetually banished that all men being repressed by the feare of God and fearing
subiects from their temporall allegiance but because this supposition of his is not certaine his proofe grounded thereon cannot bee certaine And Emericus in the 31. question cited by my Aduersarie to prooue that the Inquisitours haue authoritie to proceede against Kings bringeth only the authoritie of Pope Clement the 4. and Vrbanus the 4. and those generall words contained in their Breues of what condition dignitie or degree soeuer they be and the same only confirmeth Pegna in his Commentarie vpon that question which doth not contradict my doctrine for I neuer denyed that in penall lawes absolute Princes may not be comprehended vnder such generall words supposing as they suppose which I deny that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may inflict temporall punishments 23 But secondly and principally albeit these Doctours should as in the places cited by my Aduersarie they doe not contradict my doctrine in this point concerning the not comprehending of Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes Bishops of Priestes and absolute Princes vnder generall names of temporall Lords Gouernours Potestaes and such like yet it were little to the purpose seeing that other learned Lawyers and Diuines as I haue shewed before doe agree with mee in this point And therefore to prooue my doctrine in this point to bee absurd and improbable as this man after his vaine glorious bragging fashion boasteth it to bee it is not sufficient as I said and this I wish him to note well to bring the authoritie of one two twentie yea a hundred Lawyers or Diuines if other learned Lawyers and Diuines although the farre fewer in number doe contradict them therein 24 Now let vs proceede to the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts discourse And whereas saith hee g p. 151. nu 6. Widdrington seemeth also to ground this his deuise vpon two rules of the law to wit that in penall Lawes the milder or more fauourable part is to bee chosen and that odious things are to bee restrained and fauours amplified the same is commonly true when the text of the Law is so obscure or the case so doubtfull that two or more opinions may bee probably gathered thereof touching the quantitie or qualitie of the paine and how farre and to whom the same is to bee extended for in these cases of debt or such like the more fauourable or lesse rigorous opinion is to be followed but in this Canon both the words and sense are so cleare that hitherto no doubt hath beene made amongst the Canonists whether Kings or absolute Princes are comprehended therein 25 It is very true that my aforesaid answere to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters an Abbot is not included in the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop in the generall name of a Priest or Clerke nor a King in the generall name of a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord or the like I did partly ground vpon those rules of the law and partly vpon the authoritie of learned Lawyers and Diuines who as you haue seene doe confirme the same and therefore the wordes and sense of this Canon are not so cleare but that those Authours will consequently deny that Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not in this Canon comprehended vnder those generall words of a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord as neither an Abbot is according to them in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest or Clerke nor a King vnder the generall name of a Land-lord Gouernour or also Lord. And if the wordes and sense of this Canon bee so cleare as this man would make it to bee I wonder that neither Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies nor Molina nor Corduba nor Victoria nor D. Sanders nor Azor vehement defenders of the Popes authoritie to depose absolute Princes could not see the cleare sense of this Canon whereof they could not bee ignorant thereby to confirme their doctrine by a manifest decree of a generall Councell without flying to the particular facts of Popes oftentimes deposing Kings and Emperours which all learned men know to be no good argument to prooue that the Pope hath true right and authoritie so to doe 26 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert h pag. 152. these rules haue many exceptions which are very considerable and haue place in this case For first whereas all the obscuritie that can be imagined in this Canon and case is in the generall words Dominus temporalis and non habens Dominum principalem the Lawyers teach vs that verba generalia non dicuntur obscura generall words are not said to be obscure And the Lawyers also teach that in penall lawes and odious matters such generall words as denote some inferiour dignitie order title office or function as a temporall or principall Lord Gouernour Iudge or Land-lord a Monke a Clerke and a Priest are obscure and are not vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes Abbots or Bishops 27 Secondly this rule of restriction saith hee is not to bee vnderstood quantum ad vim verborum of the force of the words and therefore the Lawyers also teach that penalties are to be extended as farre as the proprietie of the words doe permit And the Lawyers also teach vs that in penall lawes and odious matters such generall words as denote some inferiour title dignitie office order or function are not to bee extended as farre as the priorietie of the wordes doe permit and that therefore an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Lord Gouernour or Land-lord albeit an Abbot bee properly a Monke and a Bishop be properly a Priest and a King be properly a Lord Gouernour and Land-lord But Mr. Fitzherbert doeth not distinguish betwixt proper as it is distinguished from improper or metaphoricall in which sense it is true that the words of penall lawes are to bee vnderstood in a proper sense and not to bee restrained to an improper or metaphoricall sense and as proper is distinguished from common or generall in which sense an Abbot is not properly a Monke nor a Bishop is properly a Priest nor a King is properly a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord for that a Monke is not the proper name of an Abbot nor a Priest the proper name of a Bishop nor a temporall Lord the proper name of a King but they are names which are common also to inferiour Monkes inferiour Priests and inferiour Lords 28 Thirdly the rule saith hee faileth when the reason is expressed as it is in this Canon But Mr. Fitzherbert should haue declared what reason expressed in the law is required to haue the aforesaid rule to faile For in this Canon of the Lateran Councell there is no reason expressed why Dominus temporalis a temporall Land lord Gouernour or Lord must comprehend absolute Princes For the end and reason of
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
certaine and infallible The third is that the people or Common-wealth haue authority in some cases are bound to depose their Prince and consequently that the Pope may by Ecclesiastical censures compell them thereunto And with this question concerning the power of the Common-wealth as I haue often said I will not intermeddle before it be agreed vpon betwixt my Aduersaries and mee concerning the maine and principall controuersie whether the Pope hath authority to depriue by way of sentence an hereticall King of his right to raigne or which is all one to make by his iuridicall sentence a King to be a priuate man for this is that at which our King and Parliament in making the new oath of allegiance did onely aime 13 And by this it is apparant how fraudulently and perniciously Mr. Fitzherbert following therein D. Schulckenius seeketh to abuse and delude his Reader in labouring to perswade him that it little importeth to the substance of the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me whether the Pope may depose a Prince by a iudiricall sentence of deposition and depriue him of all his Regall authority and right which before that sentence he had to raigne or whether the Common-wealth hath authority and also is bound in some cases to depose their King and consequently whether the Pope hauing authority to declare the law of God and the dutie which all Christians owe to God may by Ecclesiasticall censures compell them thereunto and absolue them from their oath of allegiance by declaring that their oath in that case doth not binde which absoluing as Parisiensis said aboue is rather a declaring of the law then an absoluing from the oath of allegiance And neuerthelesse there is nothing more cleere then that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee is not what authoritie the common-wealth hath ouer their Prince which is rather a philosophicall question and grounded vpon the principles of state and policy then vpon the positiue law of God but what authority the Pope hath to depriue by way of sentence hereticall Princes of their Princely right and authority or which is all one in substance whether the coerciue or punishing power of the Pope for about his derectiue declaratiue and commanding power to which his authority to declare the law of God and what we are bound by the law of God to doe is reduced I doe not contend doth by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as all my Aduersaries most vehemently contend or onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures as Ioannes Parisiensis doth most expresly affirme Whereby the Reader may see to what narrow shifts these men are brought when they seeke to flye from the true state and substance of the maine question and controuersie to by-questions and difficulties altogether impertinent 14 Wherefore to retort backe my Aduersaries words albeit Ioannes Parisiensis giueth more power to subiects then perchance hee ought yet concerning the Popes power hee denieth him as much as sufficeth mee seeing that it little importeth to the substance of the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me which is whether the Pope may inflict temporall punishments and depose temporall Princes by way of iuridiall sentence that is by depriuing them of their right to reigne which Ioannes Parisiensis expresly denyeth I say it little importeth whether the Common-wealth hath authority and sometimes is bound to depose their Prince and consequently the Pope may indirectly l Ioan Pariâ— taketh indirectly in an other sense thâ—â— the Diuines doe take it when they say that the Pope may depose Princes not directly but indirectly or per accidens to wit by declaring the law of God and compelling faithfull subiects by Ecclesiasticall Censures to doe their dutie may concurre to the same which indeed Parisiensis expresly affirmeth Neither doth this manner of deposing Princes indirectly and disposing of temporall things indirectly ouerthrow the foundations of my doctrine touching the maine question of the Popes power to depose and dispose by a iuridicall sentence And all this I answered before against D. Schulckenius neither could I in that briefe Admonition take particular notice of all that which my Aduersary wrote in his Supplement or D. Schulckenius in his Apologie but seeing that I haue now taken particular notice of both their answeres and arguments we will now expect what a learned Reply Mr. Fitzherbert will make against the same And this may suffice for Ioannes Parisiensis 15 But before I goe any further I thinke it not amisse vpon this occasion to admonish the Reader by the way of a briefe digression in what a cunning manner the most Illustrious Cardinall of Peron in his oration to the third estates confoundeth these two questions and consequently saith little or nothing against my doctrine touching the Popes power to depose Princes and the new Oath of Allegiance established heere in England Thus therefore hee propoundeth the state of the question betwixt him and the lower house of Parliament m Pag. 13. according to the English edition There remaines the third point which is this whether if Princes hauing made an Oath to GOD and their people either themselues oâ— their Predecessours to liue and die in the Christian and Catholike Religion and doe afterwards violate their Oath rebell against Christ bidding him open warre that is to say fall not onely to open profession of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion but with all passe to force their subiects consciences and goe about to plant Arrianisme or Mahometisme or any such like infidelitie within their states and thereby to destroy and roote out Christianitie whether I say in this case their subiects on the other side may not bee declared absolued from their Oath of Loyaltie and Fidelitie And this comming to passe to whom it appertaineth to pronounce this absolution 16 This then is the point in controuersie betweene vs For your article containeth the negatiue that is to say that in no case whatsoeuer the subiects may bee absolued from the Oath of Allegiance made to their Princes As on the contrarie side all other parts of the Catholike Church together with this of France since the institution of Schooles of Diuinitie vntill the comming of Caluin held the affirmatiue proposition which is that when the Prince breakes the Oath he hath made to GOD and his subiects to liue and dye in Catholike Religion and doeth not onely become an Arrian or a Mahometan but manifestly warres against Iesus Christ in compelling his subiects in matters of conscience and constraining them to embrace Arianisme or Mahometisme or any other detestable infidelitie That then this Prince may bee declared falne from his right as culpable of felonie towards him to whom hee hath made the Oath of his Realme that is to Christ and his subiects may bee absolued in conscience both at the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Tribunall from the Oath of Allegiance they haue made vnto him And that in this case it belongs to
dominion and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that the Iewes persecuting Christ and Christian Religion lost thereby ipso facto their ciuill dominion and all those Romane Emperours who either being Pagans or Arrians did persecute the Church of Christ were not true and rightfull Emperours but falne from their right as being culpable of fellony towards Christ bidding him open warre and compelling their Christian subiects to rebell against Christ and to embrace heresie or infidelity and seeking thereby to destroy and roote out Christianity For this declaration of the Pope or Church which the Cardinall mentioneth doth not depriue them of their right to reigne but supposeth them depriued thereof and serueth onely to make it certainly knowne that they are not rightfull Kings but by their heresie or infidelity to which they seeke to draw their subiects to be actually falne from all Royall right and authority From whence it followeth that this declaration is not necessary in euident and manifest but onely in doubtfull cases as also in all vowes and oathes when it is euident that one is not bound to obserue the vow or oath there needeth no dispensation which according to the Thomists doctrine is onely a declaration concerning the matter of the vow or oath but onely when it is doubtfull or not certaine whether the thing which is sworne or vowed bee now a sufficient matter of an oath and vow or no. Whereupon experience teacheth that when a King either for age or infirmitie doth publikely resigne ouer to this sonne and heire not onely the administration but also all his Kingly authority and right to reigne the subiects neede not to procure any declaration dispensation or absolution of the Pope or Church from the oath of their temporall allegiance for that it is now euident that their temporall allegiance to their former King ceaseth and is no sufficient matter of an oath and consequently their oath is void which was made to confirme the same 21 And albeit the Cardinall in propounding the state of his question maketh mention of an Oath which Princes either themselues or their predecessours haue made to God and their people to liue and die in the Christian Catholike faith as though the breach of this promise and oath were the chiefe or onely cause why hereticall and Apostata Princes seeking to draw their subiects to their heresie or Apostacie doe fall from their Royall right yet in my opinion this oath which the Cardinall hath put downe in the state of his question is a meere cloake and colour to cast ouer the eyes of the vnlearned and to make his doctrine and position to seeme the lesse improbable and yet it doth not take away the improbabilitie thereof For first if this oath which Christian Princes or their predecessours haue made to God and their people to liue and die in the Catholike faith be the onely effectuall cause why Christian Princes doe fall from their Royall right and their subiects absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance and consequently from the oath or sacred and spirituall bond which was made to confirme the same then if a Prince become an Arian or Mahomitan or professe any other heresie or infidelity without drawing his subiects to the same he doth neither fall from his Royall right nor his subiects are thereby absolued from the bond of their naturall and ciuill allegiance 22 Secondly all Christians do in baptisme according to the opinion of some Diuines also ancient Fathers n See Suarez in 3. par q. 71. art 1. make a certaine vow and promise to liue die in the Christian Catholike faith yet I think neither the Cardinall nor any other learned man will affirme that if they break this vow or promise forsake the Catholike faith they are fallen thereby ipso facto from that ciuill dominion right power authority which they did not receiue by Baptisme or by making that vow or promise to liue die in the Christian Catholike faith Thirdly no promise vow or oath to do any thing doth ipso facto depriue any man of any ciuil right authority dominion or iurisdiction vnles that ciuill right or authority be giuen or receiued with a condition and couenant that if hee doe not performe that oath or promise hee shall forthwith fall ipso facto from his right dominion or iurisdiction but no probable shew or colour of an argument can be brought to prooue that Christian Princes although they or their predecessours haue made an oath to liue and die in the Christian Catholike faith haue receiued their kingly power and authority with this condition and couenant that if they shall forsake the Catholike faith they shall forthwith fall from their Royall dignity seeing that this oath which Christian Princes who come to their Crowne by inheritance do make to liue die in the Christian Catholike faith belongeth only to a certain ceremony vsed at the time of their coronation wheras all their Kingly power authority they had before by the right of succession instantly vpon the death of their Predecessor 23 Fourthly abstracting from all oaths which Christian Princes or their Predecssours haue made to liue and die in the Catholike faith yet if they sorsake the faith which they haue professed in Baptisme and doe become Arians or Mahometans and seeke to draw their subiects to the same they doe rebell against Christ and bid him open warre and doe force their subiects consciences and goe about to destroy and roote out Christianitie within their states which are the chiefest causes which the Cardinall of Peron setteth downe in propounding the state of his question why such wicked Princes doe fall from their Royall right or which is all one are ipso facto and actually depriued thereof And therefore that Oath which he mentioneth to liue and die in the Catholike faith is onely a shift and colour to make some shew of a faigned contract and couenant betwixt the King and his subiects that if he forsake the Catholike faith he shall forthwith fall from his Royall dignity seeing that the chiefest reasons of the Cardinall why hee doth fall from his Royall right are of force although no such oath or couenant be supposed 24 Fiftly albeit we should graunt which cannot in my iudgement with any probable argument be prooued that Christian Princes or their predecessours doe make an oath to God and their people with an expresse condition pact or couenant that if they forsake the Catholike faith they shall forthwith fall from their Royall dignity and be ipso facto depriued thereof yet supposing that in heretikes and infidels although they seeke to draw others to their heresie infidelity there is true ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction no learned man can make any doubt but that as it was in the power of that hereticall or pagan Kingdome or Commonwealth to make or admit confirme approue this pact or couenant established by oath so it may be released by the
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
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
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
Bishops authoritie and the Seculiar Iudge is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will yet that a Bishop may only make a pecuniarie penaltie to be inflicted by a Seculiar Iudge by forcing him thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures and not by temporall compulsion this doth very much import and altogether fauour my doctrine For I doe not now contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as by the institution of Christ it is directiue or which is all one commaunding imposing or inioyning for I doe not denie as I haue often said that spirituall Pastours may by their spirituall authoritie commaund impose and inioyne temporall Princes to make temporall lawes as Saint Ambrose did the Emperour Theodosius and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good in which case those lawes are not made nor those temporall penalties are inflicted by the authoritie of spirituall Pastours as though temporall Princes were only their instruments and Ministers to execute their wills as inferiour Magistrates are onely instruments and Ministers to execute the will of the Prince but I doe now onely contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing and I vtterly denie that it is a certaine and vndoubted point of faith that the spirituall coerciue power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Secondly that fraude and impertinencie which Mr. Fitzherbert doth vntruely attribute to my answeres and obiections I haue clearely shewed to bee found in euery one of his Replies And as touching that absurditie which he now obiecteth against my answere it is cleere that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me is not concerning the power which either the Pope or inferiour Bishops haue by the grant consent and authoritie of temporall Princes I doe not say to commaund impose or inioyne but to inflict temporall penalties vpon Lay-men who are not their temporall subiects but whether any spirituall Pastour whether he be an inferiour Bishop or also the Pope himselfe hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict such temporall penalties And indeed my purpose is to conclude that because it is probable that an inferiour Bishop hath no such authoritie by the institution of Christ iure diuino therefore it is also probable that the Pope iure diuino and by the institution of Christ hath no such authority and vpon what probabilitie this my consequence is grounded and how absurdly Mr. Fitzherbert condemneth it of ridiculous absurditie you shall forthwith perceiue Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. 3 44 And first according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in the particular which assertion he brought to prooue that if the Pope be a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church then euery Bishop is also a direct Lord in temporals of his owne particular Church or Diocesse which consequent he affirmeth to be manifestly false and therefore hee denyeth also that the Pope is a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church Now from the same assertion I may as well conclude that if the Pope be an indirect Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church and may inflict temporall punishments vpon all Christians in order to spirituall good then euery Bishop is also an indirect Lord in temporals in his owne particular Diocesse and may in order to spirituall good inflict temporall punishments vpon the Christians of his Diocesse because euery Bishop in his particular Diocesse is that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church And therefore to argue according to the rules of Logicke à destructione consequentis ad destructionem antecedentis from the ouerthrowing or denying of the consequent to the denying of the antecedent If a Bishop in his owne Diocesse cannot according to the institution of Christ inflict a pecuniarie mulct or temporall penalty of money vpon those Lay-men that are not his temporall subiects neither can the Pope in the vniuersall Church doe the same Victoria in relect 2. de potest Eccles Castro lib. 2. de iusta Haeres punit cap. 24. Vasques 1. 2. disp 152. cap. 3. num 28. 45 Secondly according to the doctrine of the Diuines of Paris which others also as Victoria Castro Vasquez although otherwise vehement maintainers of the Popes power indirectly in temporals doe in this point follow it is euident that Bishops doe not receiue their authority and Iurisdiction from the Pope but immediatly from Christ by vertue of those words which were spoken to all the Apostles Whatsoeuer you shall binde c. Matth. 18. And Whose sinnes you shall forgiue c. Iohn 19. And Feede my sheepe Iohn 20. Which words according to the Exposition of the ancient Fathers a See aboue cap. 5. num 10. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad 1586. which also Cardinall Bellar. did once approoue are vnderstood to be spoken also to all the Apostles Seeing therefore that S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles and consequently the Pope and other Bishops who succeede the Apostles as they were ordinary Pastours and had ordinary spirituall power to gouerne the Church receiued their power and iurisdiction in the selfe-same forme of words without any limitation or restriction from hence it clearely followeth that what Ecclesiastical power iurisdiction soeuer the Pope receiueth ouer the whole Church the same power and iurisdiction if we regard meerely the law of God and the institution of Christ other Bishops receiue ouer those who are subiect to their Bishopricke * A Bishop saith Ledesma 1. 4. ar 11. standing in the law of God hath as great power in his Prouince as the Pope in the whole world So that standing in the law of God and abstracting from the Canons of the Church euery Bishop may in his owne Bishoprick absolue from all cases inflict all censures dispense in oathes and vowes make lawes and Canons no lesse then the Pope may in the Vniuersall Church And therefore it is no absurd argument to conclude that because a Bishop cannot by vertue of that spirituall power which hee hath receiued from Christ inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon those that in spiritualls are subiect to his Diocesse therefore neither can the Pope doe the same in the Vniuersall Church 46 Whereby it is apparant that the comparison which M. Fitzherbert heere maketh betwixt a King and an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge a Bishop and a Parish Priest and betwixt the Pope and other Bishops is idle and impertinent for that no man can make any doubt but that an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge hath all his authoritie and iurisdiction from the King but Bishops according to the doctrine of many learned men haue not their authority and iurisdiction from the Pope but immediately from Christ as the Pope himselfe hath and all Catholikes confesse that Bishops are Peeres and Princes of the Church and principall Iudges in the externall spirituall Court
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
likewise Leo the Emperour was before depriued of his rents and reuenewes in Italie for heresie by Pope Gregorie the second Also Childerike King of France and Henry the fourth Emperour of that name had beene deposed from their states and dignities by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike before the Councell of Lateran Therefore the said Councell had reason to thinke it altogether needelesse to determine any thing concerning the lawfulnesse of a matter alreadie admitted and practised 43 But truely any learned man would be ashamed to argue so vnlearnedly that because some Popes before the Councell of Lateran deposed Christian Princes wherein neuerthelesse they were greatly contradicted by Princes and subiects therefore the Popes authoritie to depose is vndoubtedly lawfull or because a matter is alreadie practised and admitted by many though contradicted and not admitted by others there needeth no determination to make the lawfulnesse thereof certaine and manifest It is true that diuers Popes since the time of Gregory the 7. who was the first that contrary to the custome of his Ancestours challenged to himselfe authority to depose the Emperour Onuphrius lib. 4 de varia creat Rom. Pont. saith Onuphrius haue put in practise this their pretended authority but it was euer contradicted both by Christian Princes and subiects And in particular concerning those examples which Mr. Fitzherbert here bringeth it is euident that many Catholike Authours whom I related elsewhere p Apolog. num 404. seq doe denie that Pope Zachary did depose Childerike in any other manner then by consenting to the Peeres of France who deposed him and by declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France and his subiects absolued from their oath of allegiance That of P. Gregory the second or the third for my Aduersaries do not agree which of them it was Onuphrius vbi supra Otho Frsingensis lib. 6 cap. 35. Sigebert ad annum 1088. Godfridus viterb par 17. Trithem in Chron. monast Hirsang ad adnum 1106. Onuphrius calleth a fable Pope Gregory the 7. did indeede depose Henrie the fourth Emperour but how greatly hee was contradicted therein all Histories make mention and how it was accounted a great noueltie it is manifest by Otho Frisingensis Sigebert Godfridus Trithemius Onuphrius and also by the Epistle of Hermanus Bishop of Metz to Pope Gregory q Vide epistol Greg. 7. ad Herman lib. 8. Epist 21. concerning this poynt 44 Also Pope Innocent the third did depose Otho as before he deposed Philip and hereof he wrote a Decretall Epistle or Breue to the Duke of Zaringia which is registred in the Canon Law in Cap. Venerabilem de elect electi potestate which decree or decretall Epistle Albericus a famous Lawyer r In Dictionar in verbo electio Abbas Vrsperg ad annum 1198 affirmeth to be made by Pope Innocent against the liberty and rights of the Empire And Abbas Vrspergensis not onely reprehendeth that decree as containing in it against Philip many absurd things and some falsehoods but he also taxeth the Princes and Barons of periurie who saith he being taught by diabolicall art did not regard to breake their oathes nor violate their faith now forsaking Philip and adhering to Otho and contrariwise And how this deposition of Otho was contradicted by him Naucler gener 41. ad annum 1212. Nauclerus whom my Aduersary citeth doth plainely testifie who writeth that Otho speaking to the Princes of Germany affirmeth that it belongeth to their right and not the Popes to create and depose the Emperour But to see in what manner Otho was made Emperour to the infinite wrong of Fredericke the second being then a childe and without fault and who in his cradle was by almost all the Princes of Germany in the time of his father Henrie the sixt Emperour chosen to be their King and to whom they made their oath of allegiance and for what cause this Otho after hee was made Emperour was deposed by the Pope it would make euen a stonie heart to bleed and truely my Aduersaries in vrging these examples doe in my iudgement shew great want of discretion Naucler generat 41. ad ann 1193. Matth. Paris in Ioanne Rege an 1210. in giuing thereby occasion to rip vp many odious matters and which for reuerence to the Sea Apostolicke it were much better they were buried with perpetuall silence and obliuion See Nauclerus and Mathew Paris cited heere by my Aduersary 45 Also Pope Innocentius the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons but without the approbation of the whole Councell did depose Fredericke the second but how greatly he was contradict therein both by the Emperour himselfe and also by the Princes of Germany and others it is manifest The Pope saith Abbas Stadensis Abbas Stad ad annum 1245. did vpon S. Iames his day renew in the said Councell of Lyons the sentence of Excommunication against the Emperour and by his owne authority therefore not of the Councell did depose him from his Imperiall dignity and this deposition he published throughout all the Church commanding vnder paine of Excommunication that none should hereafter name him Emperour which sentence flying throughout the world certaine of the Princes with many others did gainesay affirming that it doth not belong to the Pope to create or depose the Emperour but to crowne him that is chosen by the Princes And Nauclerus Naucler generat 42. ad ann 1242. seq to whom Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader affirmeth that the Emperour Fredericke in a letter to the King of France contended to prooue that the Popes sentence denounced against him was in law and right inualid and among other reasons of the Emperour hee alledgeth this that although the Bishop of Rome hath full power in spiritualls that he may absolue and binde all sinners yet it was neuer read that by the graunt of the law of God or man he hath power to transferre the Empire at his pleasure or to iudge temporally of Kings and Princes in depriuing them of their kingdomes And also what contradiction Pope Innocent found by that practise Trithemius relateth affirming Trithem in Chron. Monast Hirsang ad ann 1244. that Fredericke after his deposition came into Italy and did afflict the Pope and the people subiect to him with so great euills that he was weary of his life and wished that he had neuer thought of that deposition Iudge now good Reader what Mr. Fitzherbert dare not auouch affirming so boldly and shamefully that the authority of the Pope to depose Princes was not then doubted of or any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth and with what security thou maist repose thy soule and whole estate vpon the learning and conscience of this man who with such grosse fraude and ignorance seekth to delude thee But to these examples I haue heeretofore partly in my Apologie and partly in this Treatise
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
neuerthelesse according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus are necessary to make any Decree of a generall Councell to appertaine to faith And secondly heere in this place I did only argue against the first argument brought by Fa. Lessius who in his Maior proposition speaketh generally of all decrees and sentences of Popes and Councels That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe either propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences c. And against this argument I did oppose as you haue seene another like instance grounded vpon three examples of decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences of diuers Popes which instance of mine Mr. Fitzherbert concealeth and by the word foundation I did not onely vnderstand the reason which mooued those Popes to make such decrees and to grant such dispensations and licences as for example that S. Gregory as my Aduersary saith graunted licence to some Priests in Sardinia to administer the Sacrament of confirmation by reason of the great want of Bishops in that Iland but by the word foundation I vnderstood the authority it selfe which those Popes pretended to haue to make such decrees and to grant such licences and dispensations and the reasons and foundations whereon that pretended authority of theirs was grounded which authority of theirs I shewed to be vncertaine and consequently not to belong to faith and therefore the first argument of Fa. Lessius to be defectiue 29 And although there bee an euident disparitie betwixt the Decrees of Popes and the Decrees of generall Councels yet it is apparant that according to my Aduersaries principles who affirme that all the infallibility of the Decrees of Generall Councels doth wholly depend vpon the Pope wee may according to their grounds proportionally argue of the infallibilitie of the Decrees of Popes and of General Councels and that if the Pope may erre in his priuate iudgement particular facts and decrees concerning manners which are referred to particular persons Bishops or Churches a Generall Councell also may erre in the like and if to make a Decree of a Generall Councell to belong to faith it bee necessary according to their doctrine that it bee a true and proper Decree and must also be propounded as of faith or necessarily grounded vpon some vndoubted doctrine of faith the like also they must say of the Decrees of Popes From whence it cleerely followeth that according to their owne principles no forcible argument can bee drawne either from the iudiciall sentence of Pope Gregory the seuenth against Henry the fourth Emperour or of Pope Innocent the third against Philip and Otho or of Pope Innocent the fourth in the Councell of Lyons against Fredericke the second or from any other deposition of whatsoeuer King or Emperour or also from the Decree of the Lateran Councell although we should suppose as wee doe not that it doth concerne the deposition of temporall Princes and was made by true Ecclesiasticall authority without any necessitie that Christian Princes should approoue and confirme the same yet I say no forcible argument can bee drawne from thence to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted doctrine of faith seeing that the former sentences and depositions doe onely concerne particular persons and this Act of the Lateran Councell is not according to their owne grounds a true and proper Decree and none of them are propounded as of faith as any man of iudgement out of those rules which Card. Bellarmine and Canus haue brought to know when any Decree is propounded as of faith may very easily perceiue 30 Besides that Widdrington inferreth absurdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 188. nu 8. 9. that because the reason which mooued some Popes to grant that licence was vncertaine or seemed erroneous to some learned men therefore it was vncertaine also in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence as who would say that because the reason of Pope Pius his Decree concerning the obseruation of the Feast of Easter seemed vncertaine to the Churches of Asia therefore it was vncertaine in it selfe or to Pope Pius who made the Decree whereas the reason or gound of the said Decree to wit the tradition of the Romane Church was not onely certaine to Pope Pius and his Successour Victor o Euseb l. 5. hist c. 24. 25 who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for resisting it but also to the first Councell of Nice which afterwards decreed the same yea to the whole Church which followeth the Decrees of the said Pope and Nicen Councell accounting them for heretikes that doe contradict them as I haue shewed before p See Chap. 13 nu 4. 7. And see also the answere therevnto chap. 13. nu 22. seq 31 The like also may bee said of the rebaptization of such as are baptized by heretikes which was condemned by the Sea Apostolike vpon an assured ground albeit the same seemed vncertaine and erroneous to Saint Cyprian and to a Synode of Bishops with him who were of contrarie opinion So as it is euident that many things may seeme vncertaine to some learned men and yet bee most certaine to the Sea Apostolike and therefore Widdrington argueth very ridiculously if hee inferre as hee seemeth to doe that the reason which mooued some Popes to giue licence to Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation is vncertaine or erroneous because it seemeth so to some learned men 32 But besides that I made no such inference as this man faigneth and the Reader may plainely see by the examples and instances which I haue entirely set downe and Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed it is euident that hee heere insinuateth giuing credit therein to Fa. Lessius a most dangerous and pernicious doctrine to wit that all Catholikes are bound to follow in matters which are in controuersie among learned men the Popes priuate spirit faith and knowledge as though the Church of God were to bee guided and gouerned in matters which are questionable among learned Catholikes by the priuate faith spirit or knowledge of any man yea of the Pope himselfe or that Christ had promised his infallible assistance to the Popes priuate knowledge or iudgement 33 And first whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that although the reason which mooued some Popes to grant licence to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation seemed vncertaine to some learned men yet it was not therefore vncertaine in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence hee speaketh very improperly For albeit truth and falshood are taken from the thing it selfe according to that knowne maxime of Aristotle ex eo quod res est vel non est propositio dicitur vera vel falsa and so may bee said to bee in the thing it selfe yet certaintie as certaine is opposed to doubtfull vncertaine fallible probable erroneous is not properly in the thing it selfe but in the vnderstanding
Fitzherbert turneth and windeth in such a running and fraudulent manner that his Reader cannot well perceiue of what imputation he meanes when he saith that if the second Breue be not sufficient to cleare his Holines of this imputation yet his third Breue must needs be aboundantly sufficient to doe it For that which I said onely is that his Holinesse by all likelihoode was not truely informed by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines of the true sense and meaning of some clauses of the Oath against which you haue seene with what fraude and falsitie my ignorant Aduersarie hath wrangled and iangled as though I had taxed his Holinesse for publishing his first Breue before he had seene or maturely weighed and pondered the Oath it selfe and all the clauses thereof and without graue and long deliberation had concerning all things contained in his Breue which how vntrue this imputation is wherewith hee chargeth me I haue alreadie shewed Now this silly man laboureth to prooue as also he insinuated before that because his Holinesse did maturely weigh and ponder the Oath and euery clause thereof before he sent hither his first Breue and did sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessarie to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence as well concerning the forbidding of the Oath by his first Breue as also concerning the punishing of such Priests that should take or defend the Oath to be lawfull by his third Breue sent hither two yeeres after which he could not saith my Aduersarie lawfully doe without due consideration and diligent discussion of the whole controuersie and sufficient information of all the circumstances thereof therefore his Holinesse neither was nor could all this time which was more then two yeeres be ignorant of the nature and qualitie of the Oath and that therefore he could not be ignorant but certainely knew that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation as he had declared by his first Breue 32 But to omit now those words sufficient information c. and that his Holinesse did sufficiently informe himselfe c. which my Aduersarie heere diuers times repeateth which because they are equiuocall and may haue a double sense I will declare beneath it is very vntrue and contrary to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and of all other learned Diuines to say that certaine and infallible knowledge of truth is in the Pope necessarily annexed to his long graue mature and diligent consideration and discussion of any doctrine or matter vnlesse the doctrine and matter be of such a nature and the discussion thereof be done with such circumstances and in such a manner as Christ hath promised him his infallible assistance which euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Christ hath not promised him in such decrees or definitions which are not directed and doe not appertaine to the whole Church as are these his Breues forbidding the Oath whereof the two first are onely directed to English Catholikes and the third onely to Mr. Birket then Arch-Priest For in customes lawes or decrees which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate persons or Churches not onely the Pope but also the Church may erre and be deceiued through ignorance I say saith Canus not onely in her iudgement of facts Canus lib. 5. q. 5. conel 3. or things done as whether such a one committed such a sinne hath lost his faculties ought to be censured and such like but also in her priuate precepts and lawes themselues and the true and proper reason hereof he bringeth from the authority of Pope Innocent the third which I related also aboue q Chap. 13. nu 11. for that albeit the iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued yet the iudgement of the Church is now and then led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue and is deceiued c. 33 Whereupon the Reader may most cleerely perceiue how vnlearnedly my ignorant Aduersarie doth inferre that because his Holinesse had a long graue and mature deliberation and consultation concerning the true sense of the Oath and of euery clause thereof and did send hither his third Breue for punishing those Priests that should take or defend the same therefore he could not be ignorant of the true sense of euery clause thereof but must certainly and infallibly know that many things are therein contained flat contrary to faith and saluation as he by his first Breue had declared as though his sentence and iudgement in Decrees which are directed onely to priuate persons or Churches should be alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither can deceiue nor be deceiued and that he cannot erre through ignorance or be led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue is deceiued in his priuate lawes decrees which are not common to the whole Church but doe belong to priuate men Bishops or Churches and that therefore those Priests whom he bindeth or punisheth by his Censure and sentence may not be free before God and those other Priests whom he doth not Censure may not deserue punishment in the sight of God according to that which Pope Innocent in the end of his aforesaid reason did affirme 34 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert often repeateth that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained in his first Breue among which the principall was that many things are contained in the Oath which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation was sufficiently informed of the whole matter are very equiuocall and may haue a double sense For first these words may signifie that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation was sufficiently informed to excuse him from sinne for doing what hee did and for sending hither his Breues to forbid the Oath and to punish those Priests that should take the Oath or teach it to be lawfull and with this point for that it little importeth our present question whether the Oath not onely in the Popes opinion and conscience but also really truely and certainely containeth in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation or no and for that it is a thing secret and vnknowne to me I will not inter meddle but leaue it to the conscience of his Holinesse and to the iudgement of God who searcheth the hearts and reines of men Yet this I dare boldly say that in my iudgement his Holinesse might haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter if hee had consulted this question concerning the certainty of his authority to depose Princes and whether his spirituall Supremacie or any other doctrine of faith or manners necessarie to saluation is denyed in the Oath not onely with his owne Diuines who are knowne to maintaine with such violence both his authority in temporals ouer temporall Princes which is the principall marke at which the Oath doth aime and his spirituall authority
learned Catholikes to be numbred 111 And for this cause and vpon this motiue as I coniecture his Maiestie and the State suffered vs to write like Catholikes of this point and according to the grounds and principles of the Catholike Religion which wee professe and to submit our writings to the Censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church and to dedicate them to his Holinesse to the end they might see what he or other Catholikes would or could except against our doctrine But this fradulent and vncharitable man who like the diligent and carefull Bee might as you haue seene from this permission consent or approbation of his Maiestie and the State gather hony to comfort the afflicted hearts of distressed Catholikes and to appease and mollifie the wrath indignation and bad opinion of his Maiestie and the whole kingdome conceiued against vs by reason of that most horrible and abhominable Powder-Treason plotted and attempted by Catholikes doth like the craftie and malignant serpent gather from thence poyson to inflict and afflict the hearts of his Catholike Countrey-men and to exasperate his Maiestie and the State against himselfe and other Catholikes and to increase the indignation and bad opinion which the whole Realme hath conceiued against vs wherein hee discouereth his ill affected minde towards his Maiestie and his great want of charitie towards his afflicted brethren 112 But let vs goe on and see his childish collection For can any man saith he perswade himselfe that their Lordships are turned Papists of late or that they would suffer bookes to bee printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Catholike Romane Church if they did not know that the Author thereof meant the same for a meere mockery and derision of his Holinesse honouring him as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex Iudaeorum and spitting in his face 113 It is very true that no reasonable man can perswade himselfe that their Lordships and the State are turned Papists of late for permitting Catholikes to free themselues from this scandalous and slanderous imputation which this ignorant and vncharitable man and his fellowes would lay vpon them and to suffer their bookes to bee printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Catholike Romane Church as likewise no reasonable man can perswade himselfe that Bishop Bancroft and the State were turned Papists for permitting the Apellant Priests to defend their innocency and to free themselues from so many scandalous and slanderous crimes which this vncharitable fellow with Fa. Parsons and his adherents did obiect against them and to suffer their bookes to be printed vnder the name of Catholikes and some of them to be dedicated to the Pope and to the Cardinalls of the Inquisition and with submission of the whole to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church and also for furthering their Appeale by releasing some out of prison for that purpose and by letters moouing the king of France in their behalfe that he would be a meanes to his Holinesse that their cause might be heard and they not to be oppressed through the potency of their Auersaries in the Court of Rome and that if they were wronged they might bee freed of those slanderous imputations and if faultie they might accordingly be censured for which fauours those Priests and all their adherents were bound to giue most heartie thankes to her Maiestie and the State by whose meanes they made knowne to the world their innocencie and oppression to the euerlasting shame and discredit of their Aduersaries who in the like manner doe now proceed against me and other Catholikes who are desirous to make manifest to all the world their dutifull allegiance which they owe to God and Caesar and which their violent and vncharitable proceeding I make no doubt but in the end will turne to their great shame and confusion for truth and innocency although for a time it may be oppressed will in the end preuaile 114 Wherefore any man may perswade himselfe that his Maiestie and the State still remaining Protestants may for many good reasons permit such bookes of Catholikes which cleerely prooue that no Protestant Prince can according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes be deposed by the Pope to be printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church yet knowing that the Author thereof meant the same truely and sincerely and not for a meere mockerie and derision of his Holinesse c. as my Aduersary falsly and childishly inferreth which his inference as I signified elsewhere may be retorted against Cardinall Bellarmine who impugneth the Popes direct authority and dominion in temporals and yet he dedicated his booke to the Pope and submitted the whole to his Censure belike honouring him as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex ludaeorum and spitting in his face A chife and principall reason why the State may prudently permit some bookes of Catholikes to be printed in the aforesaid manner may bee thereby to know truely and vnfainedly whether Catholike religion and temporall subiection to a Prince of another Religion true spirituall obedience of Catholike subiects to the Pope and true temporall allegiance of the said Catholike subiects to a King who acknowledgeth no such spirituall obedience to the Pope may stand together and how farre the Popes authority by the institution of Christ doth according to the grounds of Catholike Religion extend in temporall affaires to wit whether to the deposing of hereticall or wicked Princes to the disposing of all temporalls and to the inflicting of all temporall punishments in order to spirituall good or onely to the inflicting of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures 115 For what man of iudgement can deny that it is very necessary for his Maiestie considering the Religion which he professeth to know how farre he may be assured of the vnfaigned and constant loyalty of his Catholike subiects and how farre he may prudently permit tolerate or fauour them when occasion shall require without any probable danger of new gun-powder plots or other innouations or conspiracies against the State to be attempted by them publikely or secretly with the expresse or tacite commandement or licence of the Pope Other reasons may be alledged which may mooue the State to suffer my bookes to be printed in the aforesaid manner one may be a tender commiseration of distressed Catholikes who for yeelding their temporall allegiance to his Maiesty as he by the new Oath hath required at their hands and making knowne to the whole world the lawfulnesse thereof euen according to the grounds of Catholike Religion are slandered and defamed as being no good Catholikes but heretickes disguisâ—d and masked vnder the Vizards of Catholikes which might mooue his Maiestie and
therefore as in the end of that Disputation I affirmed I did faithfully set downe all the chiefest arguments which are vsually alledged as well against the taking of the Oath as in fauour thereof neither did I affirme any thing of my owne opinion but onely as representing the persons of them who of set purpose do publikely maintain that the Oath either may or may not be lawfully taken leauing it to the Fatherly care of your Holinesse that when you haue bin fully informed of the whole progresse of the matter and haue diligently examined all the reasons for which English Catholikes obeying the Kings cōmandement haue taken the Oath you will be pleased particularly to approue them or to condemne them that Catholikes in this so most weightie a matter which doth so neerely concerne the prerogatiue of your spirituall Authoritie and of his Maiesties Royaltie being fearefull to resist your Holinesse precept declared in your Breues and also being desirous to obey as much as with a safe conscience they may his Maiesties commaund may cleerely perceiue which particular clauses of the Oath they are bound to admit and which they are bound to reiect and may in plaine and expresse tearmes without any ambiguity of words be instructed by your Holinesse in what manner they may satisfie their owne conscience your Holinesse will and also his Maiesties desire concerning all the particular parts of the Oath For as they are very ready to hazard their whole temporall estate and also to loose their liues for the Catholike faith which by the Church to whom this office belongeth to define matters of faith and not to priuate Doctours who may deceiue and be deceiued is declared to be truely the Catholike faith so doubtlesse they are vnwilling to expose themselues their whole Family and Posterity which this our age doth so much labour to aduance to eminent danger of their temporall vtter ruine onely for opinions although they be maintained by the greater and better part of Diuines so that others although farre fewer in number doe defend the contrary But as they are desirous with all their hearts to obey your Holinesse in spirituall matters and in those things which cannot be omitted without sinne so also they might iustly thinke themselues to be more hardly vsed then children are wont by their Parents if in these times specially wherein by reason of the Catholike faith which they professe they haue grieuously incurred his Maiesties high displeasure who is of a contrary Religion they should without sufficient reason be forbidden to giue that temporall Allegiance to his Maiestie which they perswade themselues to be by the Law of Christ due to him hauing alwayes before their eyes that commaundement of Christ our Sauiour Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and the things that are Gods Matth. 22. to God 11 And that your Holinesse may yet more cleerely perceiue that this my Disputation of the Oath which is rather to be called a most humble Supplication to your Holinesse was written in manner of an humble Petition I thinke it not amisse to repeate also word by word these very last words of my Epistle to your Holinesse 12 This therefore most Holy Father is our most humble Supplication to your Holinesse First that your Holinesse will be pleased to examine diligently the reasons for which our English Catholikes doe thinke the Oath may lawfully be taken and whereof they are perswaded your Holinesse is not yet rightly informed Secondly that after you haue throughly examined them you will vouchsafe in regard of your Pastorall carefulnesse to instruct them what parts of the Oath are I doe not say according to the probable opinion of some Dhctours but according to Catholike doctrine necessarily to be belieued by all Christians repugnant to faith and saluation and therefore cannot be taken by any Catholike with a safe and probable conscience Thirdly that if your Holinesse shall find that you haue not beene rightly informed of those reasons for which our English Catholikes are of opinion that the Oath may lawfully be taken and that therfore they haue not in a matter of so great weight proceeded rashly and vnaduisedly you will be pleased receiue them and their Priests into your ancient fauour and that if they or any of them haue not through their owne fault but through the indiscreet zeale of others suffered any losse or detriment in their good names or other wayes it may be restored againe to them in that best manner as shall seeme conuenient to the charitie iustice and wisedome of your Holinesse 13 Now what there is contained in this our humble Petition against which your Holinesse hath iust cause to take so high displeasure that you will not accept thereof I remit to the iudgement of indifferent men but especially of your Holinesse For by that which we haue said it doth manifestly appeare that this Disputation of the Oath was for that end composed by me to informe your Holinesse who is the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church and to whom Christ our Lord hath giuen charge to feede his sheepe not onely with precepts and Censures but also with the word of Doctrine and to instruct them in the Catholike faith truely of our state and to propound vnto your Holinesse sincerely and with all dutifull submission those doubts and difficulties which both to my selfe and to other Catholikes doe occure about this new Oath which is commaunded by his Maiestie forbidden by your Holinesse and daily taken by almost all Catholikes of the better sort to whom it is tendred yea euen by those who haue the Iesuits for their Directours howsoeuer these Fathers doe in outward shew seeme to condemne the same that after your Holinesse had duely examined the reasons and arguments which are vsually alledged on both sides against and for the taking of the Oath you would be pleased to satisfie our consciences and to make knowne vnto vs what parts of the Oath may according to the principles of the Catholike faith be lawfully and what parts may not lawfully be taken and lastly to declare vnto vs which be those many things which your Holinesse being not rightly informed by some as we imagine hath affirmed in your Breues to be cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation for no man be he neuer so great an enemie to the Oath dare auouch that all things contained in the Oath are repugnant to faith or saluation 14 Now I beseech your Holinesse to iudge first whether I the Authour of those Bookes who haue professed my selfe to be a Catholike and a Child of the Catholike Romane Church and haue subiected all my writings to her iudgement and Censure with that submission that whatsoeuer should not be approoued by her I would disprooue condemne and haue it for not written ought to be iudged by the Supreme Pastour and Father of the Catholike Church to be no Catholike nor a child of the Catholike Church If I be no Catholike doubtlesse I must bee