Ibid. c. 1. I declared in what manner wee ought to interprete the wordes of any law hee might I say haue quickely perceiued the weakenesse of his reason and in what sense his Maior proposition and the proofe which he bringeth thereof to make it true are to be vnderstood 39 For to repeate againe his wordes It is indeede great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes and decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof whensoeuer the wordes are doubtfull and vnlesse the Author doe in expresse wordes declare his meaning to be the contrary For it is to bee presumed that euery one vnlesse he declare the contrary doth commonly speake write and decree according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion as euery Artisan doth vsually worke according to the grounds and principles of his Art vnlesse hee will take vpon him to doe some worke belonging to another Art as if a Physitian will take vpon him to measure land then hee must worke according to the grounds of Geometrie and not of Physicke And if a Protestant will speake write or decree like a Catholike and vpon Catholike grounds hee must obserue the principles of Catholike Religion and likewise a Catholike if he will speake write or decree like a Protestant and vpon Protestant grounds must obserue the principles of the Protestant Religion And therefore as the positions assertions and decrees of knowen and professed Catholikes are to be interpreted according to the grounds of the Catholike faith vnlesse they declare to haue a contrary meaning so also the positions of all Sectaries are to be vnderstood according to the different doctrines of their Sects vnlesse they declare their meaning to bee otherwise in so much that if a Catholike and a Protestant should affirme both of them one thing which might be controuersed in respect of Religion the sense and meaning of either of them is to bee interpreted according to their different Religions vnlesse they declare the contrary And in this sense my Aduersaries Maior proposition is true otherwise it is false for doubtfull and ambiguous wordes are euer to bee vnderstood according to the declaration of the speaker and the wordes of euery law whensoeuer they are doubtfull are to bee taken in that sense which the Law-maker shall declare his meaning to be 40 Now his Maiestie who with the Parliament deuised this new oath not for the Protestants but to make a triall how his Catholike subiects stand affected towards him in point of their loyaltie and due obedience hath oftentimes as my Aduersary could not but see in my Theologicall Disputation publikely declared his meaning b In an Act of Parliament anno septimo ca. 6. and in his Premonition pag. 9. and in his Apologie pag. 2. nu 2. pag. 246. and that hee intended in this oath to exact of his Catholike subiects nothing else then the profession of that temporall allegiance and ciuill obedience which all subiects what religion soeuer they professe by the law of God doe owe to their lawfull Prince with a promise to disclose all contrary vnciuill violence and to make a distinction not betwixt Catholikes and Protestants but betwixt ciuilly obedient Catholikes and such Catholikes as are the disciples of the Powder-treason And therefore his Maiestie caused the lower house of Parliament to reforme that clause which contained the deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate him So carefull was hee that nothing should bee contained in this Oath except the profession of naturall allegiance and ciuill and temporall obedience Hee saide in this oath for as the oath of Supremacie saith his Maiestie was deuised for putting a difference betweene Papists and them of our profession so was this oath ordained for making a difference betweene the ciuilly obedient Papists and the peruerse disciples of the Powder-Treason And againe This oath saith his Maiestie was ordained only for making of a true distinction betweene Papists of quiet disposition and in all other things good Subiects and such other Papists as in their hearts maintained the like violent bloodie maximes that the Powder-Traitors did The same also but in more ample wordes affirmeth his Maiestie in his Apologie for the oath 41 Seeing therefore that his Maiestie hath so often and so publikely declared that he intended by this oath nothing else but to make a true distinction not betwixt Catholikes and Protestants but betwixt Catholikes and Catholikes and to vrge them only to make a profession of that naturall and ciuill obedience which all Subiects of what Religion soeuer they bee doe by the law of God owe to their lawfull Prince there is no reason to draw an argument from his Maiesties intention or beliefe and from the grounds and principles of the Protestants Religion but only from the contents of the oath it selfe to proue it to be vnlawfull and to containe in it any thing which is repugnant to Catholike faith and Religion And that this is a probable answere and not a vaine bragge and idle affirmation of my owne it is so euident that I dare aduenture to remit it to the iudgement of my Aduersarie himselfe albeit he sticketh not at this time to affirme that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike 42 Concerning which last accusation hee writeth thus c Nu. 17. Now then to conclude this point whereas Widdrington saith as you haue heard that it is meruaile that learned men blush not to affirme the Kings minde to be that which his Maiestie hath declared to be no part of his meaning I may well say that it is a farre greater wonder that hee professing to be a Catholike and knowing and confessing as he doeth in his Epistle Dedicatorie d In Principio and after in his Theologicall Disputation e Cap 10 sec 2. nu 1. 2. that his Holinesse in two Breues hath declared his mind concerning this oath palam ex professo openly and expresly to wit that it containeth many things which are manifestly repugnant to the Catholike faith and saluation of soules it is I say an extreame wonder that he blusheth not extreamely to defend the said oath coÌ„trary to the expresse strickt coÌ„mandement of his spiritual Pastour whose voiâ—e he is bound to heare and obey if he bee a sheepe of Christs fold and child of the Catholike Church And therefore I conclude that hee sheweth himselfe not only impudent but also impious in preferring the declaration of a temporall Prince which neuerthelesse being well weighed doeth nothing helpe his cause or preiudice ours before an Apostolicall decree of S. Peters Successour whose obedient child hee professeth and ought to be wherein he sheweth sufficiently how good a Catholike he is and whom he holdeth for his Supreame head in Ecclesiasticall causes as also what probabilitie we may expect of him hereafter for the confirmation of the rest of his assertions seeing that wee haue found him at the
vice that may be necessary or hurtfull to the spirituall good of soules may also be commaunded or forbidden by the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power as it is directiue And this is the reason why the spirituall power as it is directiue may be extended to temporall punishments that is may command or forbid temporall penalties or afflictions for that vertue and vice which are the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue may be found in them 69 So likewise the obiect of the ciuill power as it is directiue is the obtaining and conseruing of temporall peace and quietnesse in the temporall common-wealth and her acts are the commanding or forbidding of those things which are necessary or hurtfull to the publike peace which is the last end of the temporall power it selfe although it be not the last end of the temporall Christian Prince as I shewed aboue in the second part So that what thing soeuer be it spirituall or temporall that doth iniuriously disturbe the publike peace may be forbidden by the temporall power as it is directiue And this is the reason why the temporall power as it is directiue may be extended sometimes to spirituall actions not as they are spirituall but as they are reduced to temporall actions for that the iniurious disturbance of the publike temporall peace which is the obiect of the temporall power as it is dâ—rectiue may sometimes be found in them As the baptizing of one with poysoned water or the ministring of the B. Sacrament which is also poysoned as they are spirituall actions to wit the ministring of Sacraments which worke a spirituall effect are not subiect to the directiue power of the temporall Prince but as they worke a temporall effect which is iniurious to the temporal peace they are subiect to the temporall power as it is directiue And so a temporall Prince may forbid a spirituall Pastour who is subiect to him in temporalls to minister hic nunc the Sacrament of Baptisme whereby the party baptized shall be poysoned So also vniust Excommunications if they cause tumults and perturbations in the common-wealth or vnfit conuenticles by night with armour and weapons whereby probable danger of seditions or of other temporall wrongs may arise although these assemblies be made to preach the Gospell or instruct the people in the faith of Christ may be forbidden by the temporall power not as they are temporall actions but as they are temporall wrongs and truely iniurious to the publike temporall peace 70 And this doctrine is of it selfe so manifest and perspicuous that no man of any learning can deny it and to affirme that it is a doctrine altogether intollerable and which cannot be vttered but by one who is giuen to a reprobate sense for that it maketh the temporall Prince to bee Iudge of spirituall things and thereby maketh him truely the head of the Church as D. Schulckenius most rashly affirmeth y Pag. 7. 208. is an intollerable slaunder and which could not be vttered by any learned man vnlesse with some vehement passion of ire hee had beene altogether transported and his vnderstanding therewith had beene wholly blinded as I haue shewed more amply in the Discouery of his slaunders z In Appendice ad Supplicationem § 11. calumnia 11. For this doctrine doth not make the temporall Prince to be iudge of spirituall matters but of temporall nor to be the head of the Church that is of the mysticall body of Christ and his spirituall kingdome or of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall causes but onely of the politicke body and temporall common-wealth and of ciuill matters or which by reason of some true temporall wrong are reduced to ciuill matters 71 But the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power as it is coerciue compelling or punishing doth not consist in commaunding but in punishing and her proper act and obiect is the inflicting of spirituall Censures or punishments For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall kingdome so he hath giuen her correspondent weapons armour and punishments which she is to vse to wit Ecclesiasticall Censures as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and not ciuill punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. as I haue shewed before a Part. 1. per totum out of Almaine and many others both ancient Fathers and moderne Catholike Diuines and Lawyers which also is sufficiently grounded in the holy Scriptures And if hee will not heare the Church let him bee to thee as a Heathen and Publicane b Matth. 18 and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c Matth. 16 not of earthly kingdomes and the weapons of our warfare are not carnall d 2. Cor. 10. 72 So likewise the Ciuill power as it is coerciue doth not consist in commanding but in punishing and her proper act and obiect is the inflicting or vsing of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. Which S. Bernard f Lib. de considerat ad Eugenium called the drawing forth or vsing and exercising the materiall or temporall sword for although he affirmed the materiall or temporall sword to belong in some sort to the Church for that it was to be drawne forth or vsed for the Church but not by the Church yet he also affirmed that Christ our Sauiour did forbid spirituall Pastours to wit as they were such to draw forth or vse the materiall or temporall sword And therefore well said Petrus Damianus g In Epist ad Firnim that the kingdome and Priesthood are by their proper offices and functions so distinguished that the King should vse Secular weapons and the Priests be girded with the spirituall sword which in sense is all one with that saying of Gratian h 2. q. 7. cap. Nos si the Compiler of the Canon law called the Decree It belongeth to Kings to inflict corporall and to Priests to inflict spirituall punishments Now as the end both of the directiue and also of the coerciue power is temporall peace so the end both of the directiue or commanding and also of the coerciue or punishing spirituall power is the spirituall health of soules and euerlasting happinesse which as I haue shewed aboue in the second part is also the last end of euery Christian man to which spirituall Pastours by Ecclesiasticall lawes and spirituall Censures and Christian Princes by ciuill lawes and temporal punishments are by the law of Christ bound as much as lyeth in them to bring their Subiects 73 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue both the true meaning of those words of mine The spirituall Superiour may command corporall and temporall things as they serue spirituall and are reduced thereto but not inflict temporall punishments and also what Mr. Fitzherbert can rightly conclude from that assertion of his All temporall things and temporall punishments may bee referred to a spirituall ende to wit to Gods glory and the benefit of soules and
Supplement is that the Emperours constitution is no way preiudiciall to the Canon of the Councell but a cleare confirmation thereof which I neuer denied and that the Emperours law could extend no further then to his owne subiects and that the Emperour himselfe and all Soueraigne Princes are vnder the iurisdiction of a generall Councell and subiect to her decrees whereof also no man maketh doubt if those decrees concerne spirituall affaires but if they concerne meere temporall matters wherin temporall Princes are supreame and not subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church as are the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted the whole drift of my Apollogie was to prooue it to be probable that the spirituall authority and iurisdiction of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer and consequently that the inflicting of such temporall punishments although it be for a spirituall end is a meere temporall matter wherein temporall Princes are supreame and subiect to none but God Which being so I had no reason to take any formall notice in that briefe Admonition of all the idle discourses hee made in his Supplement and which either were nothing at all against mee or might easily be satisfied by that I had said before in my Apologie But Mr. Fitzherbert doth shamefully corrupt my words and meaning and fowlely abuse me and his Reader in affirming as you haue seene that I doe restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne dominion whereas I made no such restraint but extended the sense of the Canon to the Dominions of all Christian Princes by whose consent and authority that Canon for as much as it concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made and had force to binde 47 Neither as I said doth the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth concerning the distinction of the Canon and of the Emperours decree in extension any way impugne but confirme the argument I brought from the Emperours law because or the same reason which Mr. Fitzherbert alleageth why those generall words Dominus temporalis or principalis cannot in the Emperours decree comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to him in temporals I also affirme that the same generall words cannot in the Canon comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to the Pope or Church in temporals as is the inflicting of temporall punishments to which as I haue often said the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend And if my Aduersary cannot bring more cleare and pregnant demonstrations then these to confirme his new Catholike faith hee neede not to waste any more time and labour in producing such cleare and pregnant demonstrations which euery Catholicke man of iudgement may clearely see to bee apparant sophismes and that notwithstanding all his vaine brags of his cleare and pregnant demonstrations and of my absurd arguments and answeres so often repeated by him in the end the Reader will see that Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus 48 And although it be cleare enough that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords yea and Masters yet because it is cleare that Dominus temporalis is not a proper tearme or title belonging to absolute Princes but common to all others of inferiour degree if any man should speake of them and giue them onely the titles of their Masterships Worships or Lordships he would both be accounted a rude and vnmannerly companion and also he should wrong those persons in giuing them onely those titles of worship or honour which are common to other persons of inferior ranke neither he that should onely vse such inferiour titles would be thought to speake of absolute Princes vnlesse some other circumstance should enforce vs to thinke the same And although it be also cleare that absolute Princes are subiect no lesse then the meanest Lord in Christendome to the decrees of a generall Councell which concerne spirituall matters yet because in meere temporall matters they are supreame and therin not subiect to any decree of Pope or Councell it is also probable that the inflicting of temporall punishments is a meere temporall matter and not belonging to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable and no way absurd to say that Dominus temporalis in the Canon of the Councell wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed is not to be vnderstood of absolute Princes for the same reason that in the Emperours constitution it is not extended to them but to such onely as were subiect to him in temporals 49 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 147. num 19. that he hath added another reason to fortifie the same which was as you haue heard before that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes except they be specified therein by the names of Princes for so indeed he saith inserting the same cunningly into his inference to make his argument grounded on the Emperours law to seeme the more probable and therefore hauing said that the Emperour could not vnderstand either himselfe or other absolute Princes by the name of one who hath no principall Lord hee concludeth ex quo probabiliter collegi c. Whereupon I gathered probably that those words Non habens Dominum principalem not hauing a principall Landlord or Lord could not comprehend absolute Princes who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be namely expressed Thus he sliding subtilly as you see from the Emperours law and the reason grounded thereon to the priuiledges of Princes which belongeth to another question and shall be fully debated and cleared as I hope in the next Chapter And in the meane time I conclude for the present that in all this hee hath shewed himselfe very absurd and that my cold answere as he tearmeth it would haue beene hote enough to dissolue his frozen and friuolous argument if he had not wholly dissembled the force and substance of my discourse in my Supplement concerning this point 50 It is very true that I haue in that briefe Admonition also another reason why absolute Princes are not included in the Canon of the Councell vnder those generall names Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or such like to wit for that in penall lawes they are not comprehended vnder such generall tearmes which denote titles of inferiour degree and dignity and in bringing this reason I vsed no craft or cunning but meant plainly and sincerely neither did I intend to slide cunningly and subtily as Mr. Fitzherbert would guilefully perswade his Reader from the Emperours law and reason grounded thereon to this reason for that the reason why in the Emperours law absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is the
vnder the generall name of Priests or Clearkes nor Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes nor Kings vnder the generall name of Lords Gouernours or Landlords he must according to his owne confession grant that I haue reason to exempt Emperours Kings and absolute Princes from the Canon of the Lateran Councell 34 Neither did I ground this my doctrine vpon the Canon Quia periculosum wherein it is decreed that in the case of Suspension Interdict Bishops are not comprehended vnder any generall words whatsoeuer vnlesse they be expressed by the name of Bishops but vpon the authorities aforesaid chiefly vpon that reason which Mr. Fitzher himselfe acknowledgeth to be most true that all lawes are to be vnderstood according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation of euery Ecclesiasticall Canon is extended onely to those who are subiect to the spirituall authority of the Church as absolute Princes are not in meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes whom I haue named aboue in the first part of this Treatise and defended them from the friuolous exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath made against them 35 Finally saith Mr. Fitzherbert whereas Widdrington saith that the Synode would haue specified Princes by that name as well in this Canon if it had meant to include them therein as it did in some other Canons and Decrees concerning other matters who seeth not the vanitie of this coniecture For why should they be named more particularly then they are seeing that they are sufficiently comprehended in the generall tearme of Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord k He might as wel haue translated it a temporall Landlord n To wit no temporal Landlord aboue thē but the King which is also sufficiently explicated in this very Canon wherein we see that a temporall Lord l He might as well haue said a tempprall Landlord for Dominus temporalis signifieth both is diuided into two sorts the one of those who haue principall Lords m And also Landlords aboue them and the other of such as haue none of which sort are all absolute Princes that hold of none p And also other principall Landlords who haue no principall Landlord aboue them but the King who is not comprehended in odious matters vnder the name of a Landlord and therefore seeing that such are declared by the Canon to be subiect to the penaltie no lesse then those who holde of others it was needlesse to name them in other manner But belike my Aduersary will take vpon him not onely to interprete the Councell but also to teach it how to speake and what words to vse or else it must be of no force 36 No Mr. Fitzherbert God forbid that either I who professe my selfe to be a Catholike should be so arrogant as to take vpon mee to teach the Councell how to speake or what words to vse or that you who professe to be a teacher and to instruct others in this difficult controuersie which you will needes make a point of faith should bee so ignorant as not to know that the sense and meaning of the Councell is to be gathered from the sense and propertie of the words and that by the words we are taught what is the sense meaning of the Councell Now I haue sufficiently shewed before both by the authority of learned Lawyers and Diuines and also by conuincing reason that absolute Princes are not sufficiently comprehended in this Canon vnder the generall name of a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour of Lord both for that it is a penall law wherein an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Landlord Gouernour or Lord and ciefely for that it is such a penall law which is probable to bee a temporall and not a spirituall law for that it inflicteth temporall punishments which according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes cannot be inflicted but by temporall or ciuill power and that therefore those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or Lord cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church for that the words of euery law are to bee limitted according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes law whether hee bee a temporall or spirituall Prince is extended onely to his owne subiects 37 And if my Aduersary flie to his ancient shift that all Emperours Kings and other Christian Princes are children of the Church therfore subiect to the spirituall Pastors thereof It is true in spiritualls but not in temporalls as is the inflicting of temporall punishments wherein they are not subiect but absolute and supreme True also it is that Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord is in this Canon diuided into two sorts of Lords taking a Lord as the canon here doth take him to wit not only for a title of honour which Knights Gentlemen many inferiour Magistrates as Shiriffes Bayliffes Constables haue not but for euery person who hath tenants vassals or other persons any way subiect to him in which sense euery Land-lord Magistrate is called Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord The one sort is of those who haue principall and chiefe Gouernours or Land-lords aboue them as are all inferiour Magistrates and those who hold any land of others The other is of those who although they be subiect to the King yet they haue no other principall Land-lords or Gouernours aboue them and of this sort are both those who let their lands to others and yet hold their lands of none nor perchance of the King and also all principall Gouernours of the common-wealth who are subiect to no other then the King as are all the Lords or the body of the Kings priuie Councell together and in some sort the Lord Chancellour the Lord chiefe Iustice who haue no one principall Lord or Gouernour aboue them as all other subiects haue but the King alone yet neither of these sorts doe sufficiently expresse a King or a supreme and absolute Prince for that they are titles belonging also to subiects and inferiour persons And therefore the premises being considered it is probable that if the Councell had meant to haue comprehended Kings and absolute Princes in that Canon she would haue giuen them their proper titles of honour as she did in other Decrees and not include them in those common titles of honour which are giuen to persons of inferiour state and condition 38 And by this which I haue said in these two Chapters the Reader may cleerely see that these answeres which I haue giuen to the decree of the Lateran
life and soule 17 Wherefore my Aduersarie for his better instruction may obserue that Caiet tom 1. opusc tract 15. de Indulg c. 8. which Cardinall Caietane who neuerthelesse putteth all the infallibilitie of ihe Church in the Pope writeth of Indulgences and the canonization of Saints and hee may if it please him learne from thence some speciall documents for his present purpose It is alwayes saith hee presumed de iure by the law for the Iudge vnlesse there manifestly appeare an errour and hee that supposeth vpon a lawfull cause such an Indulgence to bee giuen doth affirme the trueth as hee without falsitie affirmeth such a one to bee a Saint supposing him to bee rightly canonized So that granting that such a man who is canonized should not bee a Saint but damned the doctrine or preaching of the Church would not bee lying or false for heere those things that doe not appertaine to faith are not vnderstood to bee affirmed but with a graine of salt that is supposing those things which are commonly presumed For the Church doeth presume the canonization to bee rightly done and likewise the Indulgence to bee rightly giuen but as humane errour may perchance happen in the canonization of some Saint as Saint Thomas affirmeth so humane errour may happen in the giuing of an Indulgence But if any man thinke that the Pope cannot erre in these particular actions as are dispensations as well of the temporall as of the spirituall goods of the Church let him also thinke that he is not a man 18 The like is also to be said saith Mr. Fitzherbert e P. 201. nu 6. of the Decree of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition of Princes to wit that the holy Ghost assisted and guided them first to resolue what was lawfull and conuenient to bee decreed that is to say that Princes should be deposed by the Pope if they would not purge their Countreys of heresie and afterwards to ordaine and decree it for if it had not beene lawfull and conuenient that the Pope should depose Princes in that case the Councell could neuer haue lawfully decreed it neither could the Decree possibly be lawful if the Pope had not that power so as it is euident that the Decree being iust as proceeding from the assistance of the holy Ghost the determination not only of the iustice and conueniencie of it but also of the Popes power to performe it must needes be granted to proceede in like manner from the holy Ghost inspiring as well the ground and foundation of the Decree as the Decree it selfe 19 But that the like cannot bee said of the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell I haue sufficiently shewed before both for that there is no mention made in that Councell of the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords and also because that Act was not made by Ecclesiasticall power but by the consent and authoritie of absolute Princes and moreouer for that it is not properly a Decree containing any precept of faith or manners but rather the end reason and cause of the former Decree 20 And therefore howsoeuer Widdrington may cauill saith Mr. Fitzherbert f Pag. 202. nu 7. about the certainetie of some reasons that haue beene or may bee alleadged in some Decrees of Councells hee cannot with any shew of reason or probabilitie deny or call in question those foundations and necessarie grounds of this Canon or say that they are lesse certaine then the Canon it selfe as hee seemeth most absurdly to affirme in this argument wherein I wish also to bee noted how ignorantly hee confoundeth the foundation of a Decree with the reasons which mooue the Councell to make it or are added thereto as though all the reasons which are brought and alleadged by a Councell or mooue them to determine any thing were the foundations of their Decrees whereas many reasons yea texts of Scriptures are probably alleadged in Councells for the explicotion onely or some confirmation of their Decrees and not as the foundations of them 21 But how grosly this man seeketh to delude his Reader in this whole Discourse of his I haue alreadie made most manifest and therefore the aspersions of absurditie ignorance and impertinencie wherewith he chargeth me doe agree to none so much as to himselfe For neither did I make in the aforesaid argument any such inference concerning either the Decree or the reason of the Decree of the Lateran Councell as hee very shamefully would perswade his Reader neither did I confound the foundation of a Decree with euery reason which mooueth the Pope or Councell to make it or are added thereunto but onely with fundamentall reasons and whereon that Decree doeth wholly depend in so much that the Pope or Councell would not haue made that Decree but vpon supposall that such a reason or doctrine is true as is the reason which mooueth Popes to canonize any Saint or to celebrate his Feast for that they suppose him to haue died in finall sanctitie which reason is the foundation of their Decree and yet is not infallible and of faith according to the doctrine of many learned Diuines as I shewed before And the like is also of the reason which mooued Pope Sixtus the fourth according to the doctrine of the learned Iesuites to celebrate the Feast of the Blessed Virgins Conception for that hee supposed her Conception to bee pure holy and immaculate which reason and ground is neuerthelesse vncertaine although it was the foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree which according to Suarez was also confirmed in the Councell of Trent 22 Whereby it appeareth also saith Mr. Fitzherbert g p. 202. nu 8. how absurdly Widdrington comprehendeth the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes vnder the title of reasons moouing the Councell of Lateran to decree the deposition of them seeing that the reasons of Decrees are so extrinsecall thereto that they may faile and yet the Decree stand good and bee of force whereas the foresaid doctrine of the Popes power is so intrinsecall and as I may say essentiall to the Decree of the Lateran Councell that it is necessarily included and supposed in it in so much that the saide Decree cannot possibly stand or bee good if that doctrine bee not true as I haue signified before h nu 6. and therefore hee argueth as impertinently in this as in the rest 23 But first it is very vntrue that I comprehended the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes vnder the title of reasons moouing the Councell of Lateran to decree the deposition of them as this man not to vse his owne absurd and impertinent wordes very shamefully affirmeth Seeing that I neuer granted that either the Decree of the Lateran Councell or the reason thereof doeth concerne the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Lords and Magistrates by the consent authoritie of Soueraigne Princes neither did I in any of my
of Ecclesiasticall Censures may bee called a compulsion yet the vsing of temporall power the disposing of temporall things the compelling with temporall punishments or the inflicting of temporall punishments and punishing temporally by way of constraint are only proper and doe belong to the temporall power for which cause S. Bernard as I shewed before did affirme that the materiall sword is according to our Sauiours command to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier not of the Priest at the booke or direction of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour 8 Now to come to my Aduersarie although he hath not as he saith Lessius booke nor euer reade it yet I haue both seene it and reade it and I haue alleadged truly his expresse words as they lye and I doubt not but that my Aduersarie may easily get a sight thereof But howsoeuer that which hee saith is very vntrue that I say nothing in effect against Lessius argument but that which may bee vrged in like manner against the Apostle Saint Paul for that Saint Pauls argument as I shewed before in the former chapter was not grounded vpon this maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon Lessius groundeth his argument for this maxime is very vntrue vnlesse the greater doeth actually or vertually include and imply the lesse or which I take for all one vnlesse the greater and the lesse be of the same kind or order But S. Pauls argument was grounded vpon this maxime hee that is not vnworthie to doe the greater is not vnworthie to doe the lesse For S. Paul intended only to prooue as I shewed before that Christians were not vnworthie to iudge of secular things because they were to iudge the world and the Angels and therefore by the argument a maiori ad minus they were not to be accounted vnworthie to decide secular causes Neither hath euery man that power whereof hee is not vnworthie but he hath onely that power which hee who hath authoritie to giue that power hath granted although perchance he be not vnworthie to haue a greater power as to be Lord Chancellour is a more great and eminent authoritie then to be Lord Chamberlaine and yet it is not lawfull thus to argue from that maxime he that hath the greater authoritie hath the lesse therefore he who is Lord Chancellour is also Lord Chamberlaine albeit we might rightly thus conclude as the Apostle did a maiori ad minus he that is not vnworthie to be Lord Chancellour is not vnworthy to be Lord Chamberlaine for that he who is not vnworthie to haue the greater authoritie is not vnworthie to haue the lesse 9 If therefore I had denied the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things because he had beene vnworthy to haue that authoritie then I had indeede disprooued the Apostles argument but seeing that I doe onely for this cause deny the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things for that Christ our Sauiour hath not granted this authoritie to him but onely to temporall Princes I doe not goe against the Apostles argument Neither did the Apostle goe about to prooue that the Church might ordaine and dispose of secular iudgements taking secular iudgements for such as doe proceed from publike authoritie and can not be done by priuate power but hee onely commanded the Corinthians for auoiding of scandall to appoint arbitrarie Iudges among themselues which they might doe by their owne priuate power and without any derogation to the temporall Magistrate and in case of scandall they ought also so to doe and he onely intended to prooue that because they were not vnwoorthy to iudge the Angels and the world much more were they not vnworthy to be Arbitrarie Iudges in secular causes Wherefore Saint Paul did not intend to prooue either by the subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall or by any other argument that the Church might ordaine or dispose of those secular iudgements which belong to temporall authoritie neither can there be drawne any good argument from this subordination to prooue the same as I haue shewed more amply in the second part 10 Neither did I graunt that the spirituall Pastour hath power to command corporall and temporall things quatenus spiritualibus deseruiunt so farre forth as they serue spirituall things for that corporall and temporall things are ordained to spirituall things and to the eternall saluation of soules as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth for then indeede I must also haue granted that the Pope hauing power to dispose of spirituall things hath consequently power to dispose of temporall things so farre soorth as they are to serue spirituall things but my reason was as you haue seene in the former chapter because the power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good is a spirituall power and agreeable to a spirituall Pastour and Gouernour as he is instituted by Christ but the power to dispose of temporall things whether it be in order to temporall or to spirituall good is a temporall power and therefore not agreeable to a spirituall Pastour according at our Sauiour hath in the Christian world or common wealth instituted ordained and distinguished these two supreme powers temporall and spirituall by their proper acts functions and dignities 11 And albeit both spirituall and temporall things are referred to one last end which is Gods honour and glorie as to the center to which both of them ought to tend yet from hence it can not be rightly concluded that the temporall power is subordained to the spirituall or that temporall things as temporall lawes temporal actions temporall punishments and the like are subordained to spirituall things as to spirituall lawes spirituall actions spirituall punishments and the like but that both of them are I doe not say subordained one to the other but ordained to one and the selfe same end which is the glorie and seruice of God and the saluation of soules which is as it were the center to which the temporall power by temporall lawes and by disposing of temporals and the spirituall power by spirituall lawes and by disposing or dispencing of spiriruall things ought to tend By which it is apparant that although it were supposed that the disposing of temporall things and the vsing of temporall power were in some cases necessarie to the honour and seruice of God to the good of the Church and to the saluation of soules yet it can not be performed but by the temporall power for that our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours onely spirituall power to promote and maintaine by spirituall meanes the good of the Church and to bring soules to heauen and temporall meanes and temporall power he hath left to the disposition of temporall Princes whom he forsaw and preordained to be Nurses Patrons and Protectours of his Church 12 Wherefore although my Aduersarie did endeauour as you haue seene in the former
power which by the law of Christ shunneth bloodie punishments might in order to spirituall good depriue any man of corporall life or concurre to the effusion of blood And therefore if those Popes who haue been so vehement to maintaine their pretended power to depriue Princes of their kingdomes had duely considered what odious detestable and bloodie conclusions doe euidently follow from that doctrine and position I make no doubt but that they would likewise from their heart haue detested abhorred and vtterly forsaken and caused to haue beene hissed out of Christian schooles the doctrine and premisses from whence such horrible hatefull and abhominable conclusion is are so cleerely and certainly deduced Fourthly therefore although it be most true that Ecclesiasticall lenitie doth shunne bloobie punishments yet it is not for that the law of Christ doth forbid Ecclesiasticall persons to concurre in any case to the effusion of blood nor onely for that Ecclesiasticall persons are by the Popes lawes which by force of the lawes doe not bind the Popes themselues commanded not to inflict in any case bloodie punishments or not to vse the materiall sword but also for that it is not lawfull according to the law of Christ for Ecclesiasticall men as they are Ecclesiasticall men or for Popes as they are Popes or by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall power to inflict temporall punishments or which is all one as I obserued before p Part. 2. ca. 9. out of S. Bernard to vse the materiall sword 18 Now you shall see how fraudulently and insufficiently D. Sculckenius answereth this my argument at the number 335. where briefly I did onely touch the same for at the number 43 seq where at large I prooued the same he cunningly as you haue seene passeth it ouer onely with It is not a hard matter to solue the argument let it passe as not belonging to the matter That which Widdrington doth adioyne in the end sayth he q pag. 510. that from the doctrine of deposing Princes it doth manifestly follow that the spirituall Pastour may giue leaue to priuate men to kill by any arte or stratageme an hereticall Prince as a certaine wolfe is a most horrible slander like vnto which I know not that the breast of man hath at any time so despitefully vttered Act. 8. I see plainly that Widdrington is in the gall of bitternesse and the obligation of iniquitie For seeing that the opinion of Bellarmine is commonly receiued by the Catholike Church and also confirmed by most frequent practise whilest my Aduersarie Widdrington doth propound and debate it as spitefully as possibly he can he seemeth to haue no other purpose then to bring the Vicar of Christ his Father and Pastour whether he will or nill into the hatred and that most great of Princes and to make all Catholike Diuines and Lawyers to be odious yea and plainly and of set purpose to sound the alarme to call Princes to armes against the Church of God but iniquitie will belye it selfe 19 For it is one thing to depose one for a iust cause and another thing to kill him by priuie murtherers For it is oftentimes lawfull for one to depose who may not lawfully kill and oftentimes that is a cause of a iust deposing which would not bee a cause of a iust killing wherefore whatsoeuer it be concerning the trueth of the consequent which is not called in question neither doth it make to the purpose the consequence which my Aduersarie Widdrington doth inferre is denied whilest he argueth thus The Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore also to kill them c. for from the power to depose doth not follow the power to kill And to confirme it by examples A Father may for some cause depose his sonne from the right due to the first begotten sonne yet hee may not kill him or giue leaue to kill him A Master may depose a seruant from his office yet hee may not kill him A King may depose a Magistrate from his gouernment for some offence for which hee may not iustly kill him A Biship may depose a Clerke and yet hee may not foorthwith kill him The Pope may sometimes depose a Bishop and yet hee may not for the same cause iustly bereaue him of his life 20 But to omit the railing and slanderous speeches of this vncharitable Doctour whereof I haue spoken somewhat aboue and which more plainely will be discouered by laying open his manifest fraude and fallacious dealing in answering my argument marke good Reader I beseech thee how foulely and shamefully hee seeketh to delude thee in proouing the consequence of my argument not to bee good but to bee false and a most horrible slander and whether of himselfe or me that saying of the Prophet is verified mentita est iniquitas sibi Psal 26. iniquitie hath belyed her selfe For it is one thing saith this Doctour to depose one for a iust cause and another thing to kill him by priuie murtherers Who maketh any doubt of this and oftentimes saith hee one may lawfully depose who may not lawfully kill and oftentimes that may bee a cause of a iust dâ—position which is not a cause of a iust killing And of this also speaking in generall and abstracting from a supreame power to depose and kill and from the crimes for which one may lawfully bee deposed or killed there can be made no question But what of all this how can it from hence bee concluded that from the doctrine of the Popes power to depose hereticall or wicked Princes in order to the publike spirituall good which was the antecedent proposition of my argument it doth not manifestly follow that the Pope in order to the same spirituall good hath not also power to kill hereticall and wicked Princes and knowne perturbers of the common spirituall good by all those wayes publike or priuate and by all those Artes and Stratagemes by which temporall Princes in order to the publike temporall good may kill publike malefactours and perturbers of the publike temporall peace 21 Wherefore whatsoeuer it be saith he concerning the truth of the consequent which is not called in question nor maketh to the purpose the consequence which Widdrington inferreth whilest he concludeth thus The Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore also to kill them c. is denied But first I would gladly know wherefore this Doctor saith that the truth of my consequent which is that the Pope hath power to kill Princes is not called in question nor maketh to the purpose For if his meaning be as it seemeth to be that no Catholike affirmeth that the Pope hath power to kill Christian Kings for otherwise he would not so bouldly haue said that I by vrging this argument did impose vpon the Vicar of Christ a most horrible slander like vnto which the breast of man hath neuer so despitefully vttered then I say the consequence of my argument is good and to the purpose and it proueth that my
also of Lateran or at least wise Pope Innocent in the Councell of Lateran perceiuing that many sensuall men are more afraide of sensible and temporall punishments then of spirituall therefore to withdraw them more easily from sinne they commanded enioyned and imposed by their spirituall authoritie as it is directiue corporall and temporall punishments which sensuall men doe most abhorre and also they inflicted the same punishments not by their spirituall authoritie as it is coerciue which is extended onely as I haue often said to Ecclesiastical Censures but by the temporall authoritie which they haue receiued from the expresse or tacite consent graunt and priuiledges of temporall Princes seeing that it is well knowne as I haue related elsewhere out of Iohn Gerson Gerson de potest Eccles considerat 4. that Princes out of their deuotion haue giuen to the Cleargie great authoritie of temporall Iurisdiction 46 Thirdly obserue the goodly reason that this man bringeth why the Councell of Lateran began first with spirituall punishments and the Councell of Trent with temporall For that saith hee the decree of the Councell of Lateran was made against those who knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication and the decree of the Councell of Trent was made against those that knew the greatnesse thereof as though either Christian Princes or people knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication at the time of the Councell of Lateran or that either in very truth or according to the Doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine Suarez and other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes or in the iudgement of this Doctour himselfe it be commendable or lawfull first to depose Princes and to thrust them out of their kingdomes and afterwardes to excommunicate them and to declare them to be accounted as Heathens and Publicanes Be like this Doctour is perswaded that all his idle conceits must goe for an vndoubted oracle But he is deceiued for howsoeuer his fauourites will applaude all his sayings esteeming him as an other Pythagoras yet other men will require of him a more sufficient reason then a bare ipse dixit 47. Lastly it is not true that the Councell of Lateran did first commaund that Princes who fauour heretikes should be excommunicated and afterwards if this remedie did not auaile their subiects should be absolued from their allegiance because in that decree there is no mention made of Princes but onely of inferiour Officers and Magistrates But of this Decree we shall haue occasion to treate anon more at large As also it is a slaunder vsuall in this mans mouth that I contemne the foresaid decrees of the Councell of Lateran and of Trent which I doe reuerence with as much respect as he or any other Catholike ought to doe albeit I must needes confesse that although this Doctours interpretation of those decrees I doe not contemne for this is a word of arrogancie yet truely I doe not much regard vnlesse he shall bring better reasons to confirme the same then hitherto he hath brought And thus you see part of the answere I made to Cardinall Bellarmines second reason which afterwards I did prosecute more at large and in the end I did briefly insinuate how insufficiently Father Parsons grounding himselfe chiefly vpon this second argument of Cardinall Bellarmine did satisfie the Earle of Salisburies complaint 48 For the Earle of Salisburie saith Father Parsons y In the Preface to the Treatise tending to Mitigation nu 19. hath bin a long time sorrie that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie hath not bin made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. That not onely those Princes which acknowledge this superioritie might be secured from feares and iealosies of continuall treasons and bloodie Assassinates against their persons but those Kings also which doe not approoue the same and yet would faine reserue a charitable opinion of their subiects might know how farre to repose themselues in their fidelitie in ciuill obedience howsoeuer they see them diuided from them in point of conscience c. Now to this complaint or desire of the Earle of Salisbury to haue the matter defined and declared Father Parsons answereth that among Catholike people the matter is cleare and sufficiently defined and declared in all points wherein there may be made any doubt concerning this affaire And for the clearing of the whole matter he diuideth it into three questions 49 The first is whether any authority were left by Christ in his Church and Christian Common-wealth to restraine or represse censure or iudge any exorbitant and pernicious excesse of great men States or Princes or that he hath left them remedilesse wholy by any ordinarie authoritie And to this question the substance of his answere is this that as in all other common-wealths that are not Christian all Philosophers and other men of soundest wisedome prudence and experience either Iew or Gentile haue from the beginning of the world concurred in this that God and nature hath left some sufficient authoritie in euery common-wealth for the lawfull and orderly repressing of those euils euen in the highest persons So when Christ our Sauiour came to found his Common-wealth of Christians in farre more perfection then other states had beene established before subiecting temporall things to spirituall according to the degree of their natures ends and eminencies and appointing a supreme vniuersall Gouernour in the one with a generall charge to looke to all his sheepe without exception of great or small people or potentates vpon these suppositions I say all Catholike learned men doe ground and haue euer grounded that in Christian Common-wealthes not only the foresaid ordinary authoritie is left which euery other state and kingdome had by God and nature to preserue and protect themselues in the cases before laid down but further also for more sure orderly proceeding therin that the supreme care iudgement direction and censure of this matter was left principally by Christ our Sauiour vnto the said supreme Gouernour and Pastour of his Church and Common-wealth And in this there is no difference in opinion or beliefe betweene any sort of Catholikes whatsoeuer so they be Catholikes though in particular cases diuersitie of persons time place cause and other circumstances may mooue some diuersitie of opinions And thus much of the first question 50 The second question may bee about the manner how this authoritie or in what sort it was giuen by Christ to his said supreme Pastour whether directly or indirectly immediately or by a certaine consequence And to this question he answereth that albeit the Canonists doe commonly defend the first part and Catholike Diuines for the most part the second yet both parts fully agree that there is such an authoritie left by Christ in his Church for remedie of vrgent cases for that otherwise hee should not haue sufficiently prouided for the necessitie thereof So as this difference in the manner maketh no difference at all in the thing it selfe 51 The third
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
Lateran Councell that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith the more he bewraieth his owne ignorance and the weakenesse of his cause and the vncertaintie of his new broached Catholike faith 11 And truely it cannot be denied saith Mr. Fitzherbert c Pag. 200. nu 3. but that great difference is to be made as Widdrington saith well out of Cardinall Bellarmine betwixt the certaintie of the Decrees of Councells and of the reasons which are alledged therein it being euident that all reasons are not of like weight certaintie or probability neuerthelesse it were absurd to say that the fundamentall reason or doctrine which is necessarily included and supposed in any decree of an Oecumenicall Councell can be false for so also the decree it selfe should be false and the errour of both iustly ascribed to the holy Ghost as Authour thereof 12 But heere my Aduersary shooteth his bolt farre beyond the marke for as not all Decrees of Oecumenicall Councells are certaine infallible and of faith but onely those which are made by true Ecclesiasticall authority and are propounded as of faith and which are generall to the whole Church and doe binde all the faithfull so neyther must the fundamentall reason or doctrine which is necessarily included in euery decree of an Oecumenial Councell be of necessity certain infallible and of faith but it may be false and exposed to error as the decree it selfe whereof it is a fundamentall reason 13 And this I say of decrees saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 194. num 4. 5. that concerne not onely matters of beliefe but also manners or matters of fact such as was the decree of the Apostles at Hierusalem wherein they doubted not to say Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis Acts 15. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs ascribing to the holy Ghosts assistance their determination not onely of the decree it selfe but also of the foundation whereupon it was grounded I meane the equalitie iustice and conueniencie of it For it cannot bee denied but that the holy Ghost assisted and guided them first to determine what was lawfull and conuenient to be decreed and executed and then after to ordaine and decree it the one so depending on the other that if they had failed in the former they would not haue iustly decreed the latter that is to say if it had not beene lawfull and conuenient for Christians at that time to abstaine from strangled meates and bloud the Apostles could not haue lawfully ordained and decreed it and therefore the Decree being iust and ascribed to the assistance of the holy Ghost the foundation or ground and all the necessary consequents thereof must needs be granted to be lawfull and iust and to flow from one fountaine that is to say from the holy Ghosts inspiration and assistance 14 But first as concerning matters of beliefe I grant with Canus that it is certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre when shee propoundeth a doctrine of faith with an obligation to binde all the faithfull to beleeue the same and likewise in Decrees concerning such manners and matters of fact as are necessary to saluation I grant also with the same Canus that it is certaine that shee cannot erre in making such Decrees for that consequently it would follow as Canus well deduceth that she may also erre in doctrine of faith and so the Church cannot command any thing to all the faithfull which is repugnant to the Gospel or to the law of nature But whether it be likewise certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre in Decrees concerning manners and matters of fact which are not necessary to saluation I will not now dispute for not giuing occasion to my Aduersaries to flye from the principall question touching the Decrees or Act of the Lateran Councell it being sufficient at this time that the iudicious Reader by that which I haue before related out of the doctrine of Canus may haue some light how to iudge of this question For hee granteth that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Charch may erre in the canonizing of Saints for that her iudgement heerein dependeth vpon an vncertaine ground to wit vpon the relation information and iudgement of other men which is vncertaine and fallible and consequently according to his grounds she may erre in all such Decrees which depend vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and foundations And the leardnest Diuines of his owne Societie as Salmeron Suarez and Vasquez who according to the Censure of this my rash and ignorant Aduersarie are very absurd and impertinent therein doe constantly hold that the fundamental reason of the Churches Decree concerning the celebration of the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception is not certaine and a point of faith but controuersed by learned Catholikes without any offence to wit that shee was sanctified in the first instant of her Conception and that to honour this her pure holy and immaculate Conception the said Feast was instituted 15 Secondly it is not certaine that the Church now hath the same infallibility in making Decrees concerning such manners and matters of fact as are not necessary to saluation which the Apostles had in making such Decrees for that the iudgement of the Apostles being extraordinarily illuminated and assisted by the holy Ghost did not onely depend vpon the relation information and iudgement of men but also vpon the speciall and extraordinary assistance of the holy Ghost and therefore from that Decree of the Apostles concerning the not eating of blood and strangled meates who were peculiarly and extraordinarily assisted and replenished with the holy Ghost and therefore might well say Visum est spiritui nobis Acts 2. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs no sufficient argument can bee brought to prooue that therefore it is a point of faith that the Church now cannot likewise erre in making such Decrees 16 Thirdly Mr. Fitzherbert must also distinguish betwixt the lawfulnesse of an Ecclesiasticall decree concerning manners and matters of fact and the certainty or infallibilitie thereof for that many Decrees may bee lawfull and consequently ought to bee obeyed vntill the vnlawfulnesse or iniustice thereof be manifest and yet not infallible as it is euident in the ciuill lawes of temporall Princes and Common-wealths whose lawes are lawfull and ought to be obeyed by their subiects so long as the vnlawfulnesse or iniustice of them is not apparant and yet they are not therefore infallible And so a Decree of the Church after due examination approouing the finall sanctitie of such or such a man deceased and vpon that ground commanding all the faithfull to celebrate his Feast is lawfull and ought to bee obeyed vntill it be manifest that she was deceiued and misinformed by false relation and yet it is not therefore infallible and a point of faith that he is truely a Saint and died in true sanctitie and holinesse of
affaires his Holinesse meant to include not onely the authority to vse Censures which onely were mentioned in the words next going before and to which onely any man according to the property of the words would restraine them but also to despose them which is not much materiall to the present purpose for be it so that his Holinesse speaking of the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included his power as well to depose as to excommunicate Princes it is nothing to the matter for that which I intend is that his Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines who consulted of the Oath not onely misinformed that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is plainly denied in the Oath but also that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall authority which is verie vntrue as in this Treatise I haue sufficiently declared and prooued 67 But that also which M. Fitzherbert addeth for a confirmation of his saying to wit that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects from their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some censure of Excommunication is both false and also repugnant to the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine For Childericke King of France which example Cardinall Bellarmine bringeth for a proofe that the Pope hath power to depose Princes was deposed and his subiects discharged of their allegiance and not by vertue of any Censure of Excommunication And it is one thing saith Becanus Becanus incōtrou Anglic. c. 3. p. 2. pag. 108. to excommunicate a King and another to depose or depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connexed with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue beene excommunicated and not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and not therefore excommunicated And yet my ignorant Aduersary to patch vp this silly answere of his doth now agreeable to his learning boldly affirme that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication whereas I haue sufficiently prooued aboue m Chap. 1. nu 21. seq chap. 5. sec 2. 131. seq out of the doctrine of Suarez Becanus and from the definition of excommunication that deposition is not an effect of Excommunication that therefore although they are sometimes ioyned together and that some Princes haue beene both excommunicated and deposed by the Pope yet they were not deposed by vertue of the Censure of Excommunication for that as his Maiestie did wel obserue n In his Premonition p. 9. Excommunication being only a spirituall Censure hath not vertue to worke this temporall effect 68 Now you shall see how vncharitably and also vnlearnedly this ignorant man concludeth this point Whereupon it followeth saith hee o p. 219. nu 14 that albeit his Holinesse had beene perswaded by Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and others as doubtlesse he was although this man would seeme to deny the same that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes impugned his spirituall authority he had not beene deluded or deceiued therein nor had erred in the reason why hee forbade the Oath though he had forbidden it for that cause onely as it is euident by the Breue he did not but for many respects And therefore thou seest good Reader what probable exceptions this silly sicke and scabbed sheepe taketh to the iudgement and sentence of his supreame Pastour and what account hee maketh of his Apostolicall authoritie and consequently what a good Catholike hee is 69 But if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance impugneth his spirituall authoritie to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures as needes hee must if hee will speake to the purpose for that all his former discourse hath beene to impugne my second answere to his Holinesse Breues which was that hee was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures is denyed in the Oath then I say that his Holinesse was fowly deluded and deceiued in that reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation although hee did not forbid it for that cause only But if his meaning bee that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes for to these two generall heads and to all that which doth necessarily follow thereon both this man and all my other Aduersaries doe chiefly reduce all their exceptions against the Oath and if for any other respects his Holinesse forbade the Oath let my Aduersarie name them and hee shall heare what wee will say thereunto impugneth his spirituall authoritie for that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes to dispose of their temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to discharge subiects of their temporall allegiance and which consequently are included in his spirituall power then I also say that his Holinesse was deluded dedeceiued and erred also in this reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation for that it is no point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to inflict temporall punishments c. but the contrarie hath euer beene maintained by learned Catholikes 70 Neither was Almaine a famous Doctour of Paris and those very many Doctours related by him or any other of those learned Authours whom partly I cited in my Apologie p nu 4. seq and partly aboue in this Treatise q Part. 1. euer accounted bad Catholikes or silly sicke and scabbed sheepe Neither can Card. Bellarmine euen according to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before and in his owne conscience whereunto I dare appeale heerein affirme that the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell whereon all my Aduersaries doe now at last chiefly rely to proue their doctrine of deposing to be of faith although it should haue mentioned as it doeth not mention absolute Princes is sufficient to make it certaine and of faith And therefore this ignorant and vnconscionable man calling mee a silly sicke and scabbed sheepe and no good Catholike for not beleeuing this doctrine to bee certaine and of faith which so many learned Catholike Doctours haue euer maintained to bee false and for not admitting his Holinesse declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon and consequently hath no greater force to binde according to Suarez doctrine then hath the reason whereon it is grounded sheweth himselfe to haue neither learning nor charitie but a vehement desire to disgrace mee with Catholikes and to take away my good name per fas nefas whether it bee by right or wrong as all the rest of his vncharitable and fraudulent discourse doeth
S. Iohn Baptist 1614. A most humble Child and Seruant of your Holinesse and of the Holy Sea Apostolike The Authour of the Bookes as aforesaid c. 138 THis is the Purgation humble Supplication which I sent to his Holinesse vpon the Decree and commandement of the Lord Cardinals to purge my selfe forthwith which their Decree if all things be duely considered doth rather confirme strengthen then any way condemne disprooue or weaken any particular doctrine contained in my bookes For can a man with reason imagine that those most Illustrious Cardinalls would not for their honour sake and for satisfaction of the Christian world haue expressed some bad doctrine contained in my bookes but haue forbidden them in such generall words without expressing any one proposition which is in them repugnant to faith or good manners and after such an vnvsuall manner haue commaunded me to purge my selfe foorthwith and that vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures without declaring any crime either in particular or in generall whereof I should purge my selfe if the could haue named any one proposition which they could haue cleerely maintained to be repugnant to the Catholike faith or Christian manners especially seeing that my Theologicall Disputatation as I haue shewed aboue in my Purgation was onely an humble Petition to his Holinesse and a sincere propounding to his Fatherly consideration the great and many difficulties which by occasion of his Breues condemning the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation did vexe trouble and perplexe the soules and consciences of his poore afflicted Catholikes earnestly requesting him and in regard of his Pastorall office as it were coniuring him that he would be pleased to satisfie their difficulties and to make knowne to them any one thing in the Oath of those many which by his Breues he had declared to be cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation 139 Now to say as some Priests heere with vs to excuse this strange proceeding of his Holinesse and the Cardinalls doe very indiscreetly and vnlearnedly affirme that it is against the Maiestie of the Court of Rome to giue English Catholikes particular satisfaction in these points and that they must obey with blind obedience and without any further examining of the matter whatsoeuer his Holinesse and the Cardinalls of the Inquisition doe decree and command although it be in preiudice to themselues and to their temporall Prince and State it is alas rather to be pittied then answered For no man of learning or iudgement can make any doubt but that if a spirituall Superiour or Prelate of what dignitie or preheminence soeuer hee bee shall command or forbid any thing which is dangerous to Religion to the Common-wealth or to a third person as all the world seeth the forbidding of English Catholikes to take the new Oath of Allegiance to be heere in England thus dangerous and the subiect is doubtfull whether his prohibition or commandement bee lawfull or proceedeth from lawfull and vndoubted authoritie or no hee is not bound foorthwith to obey but hee may without any note of disobedience propound humbly to his Superiour or Prelate the reasons of his doubt and the causes which mooue him to thinke assuredly that his Superiour or Prelate was misled either by false information or by his owne fallible opinion in imposing such a dangerous command and the Superiour or Prelate and much more if he be the Supreme Pastour of our soules is bound by his Pastorall office to feed all the sheepe of Christs flocke with the word of doctrine and instruction in things necessary to saluation when they shall humbly and earnestly desire to be therein instructed by him to whom the charge of their soules is principally committed by Christ our Sauiour in those words spoken to S. Peter Pasce agos meos Pasce oues meas Feed my lambes Feede my sheepe 140 Seeing therefore that wee haue diuers times most humbly and earnestly requested his Holinesse being the Supreme Pastour of our soules to make knowne to vs any one thing of those many which he in his Breues hath onely in generall words declared to be flat contrary to faith and saluation or any one proposition contained in my bookes which is repugnant to faith or good manners protesting with all sinceritie to purge and retract forthwith whatsoeuer is to be purged and retracted and haue also propounded vnto him most humbly the reasons of our doubts and why we are perswaded that he hath heerein beene misled and drawne to this course either by his owne fallible opinion or by the bad information of Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines most instantly requesting to be satisfied herein and as yet cannot receiue from him any satisfaction at all And which also is very considerable seeing that I haue since that time made knowne to his Holinesse and to all the world by publike writings the manifest slaunders which Cardinall Bellarmine masked vnder the name of Doctour Schulckenius and who also in that Congregation of Cardinals deputed for the examining of bookes is one of the chiefest men and which is more strange both my principall Aduersary Accuser and Iudge hath very falsly imposed vpon me and how shamefully he hath corrupted my words and meaning to prooue me an heretike disguised vnder the faire colourable name of a Catholike and to impeach my doctrine of errour and heresie And besides the discouery of these shamefull calumnies for the which I demaunded iustice at his Holinesse hands I haue also made an other Supplication to his Holinesse most humbly requesting him either to declare vnto vs what one thing in the Oath is repugnant to faith and saluation and what one proposition in my bookes is contrary to faith or good manners or else to cause that Decree of the Cardinalls against my bookes to be reuersed and to account me and other Catholikes not to be disobedient children to the Sea Apostolike for not admitting his Breues which are grounded either vpon such an opinion which no Catholike is bound to follow or vpon the false information of Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines or rather vpon both And considering also that not onely neither Cardinall Bellarmine hath for his credit sake cleared himselfe as yet of those fowle aspersions and crimes wherewith I haue charged him nor his Holinesse hath as yet vouchsafed to giue any fatherly instruction or satisfaction in these our important difficulties and necessarie requests but also the said Cardinalls haue after their former manner condemned that my Supplication onely in generall words without taking notice of the slaunders which Cardinall Bellarmine did falsly impose vpon me or expressing any one proposition contained in that Supplication or in any other my bookes contrary to Catholike doctrine or Christian manners as in that Supplication I desired to know All which things being considered I leaue good Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration whether this strange proceeding of theirs be not an euident signe to any indifferent man that they can find no one thing in the Oath which is repugnant to faith or saluation nor any one proposition in my bookes contrarie to faith or good manners and that in they haue entred into such an exorbitant vncharitable and iniurious course and also drawne his Holinesse thereunto wherein with their honours they can hardly goe forward and yet rather then they will seeme to goe backeward and acknowledge freely that by the aduise of Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome they haue beene deceiued they will still goe on and care not to haue innocent Catholikes by their vniust proceedings to be accounted heretikes or disobedient children to the Sea Apostolike which in the end will turne to their great shame and dishonour and in the meane time cannot be but very scandalous to Catholike Religion very dishonourable to the Popes Holinesse and themselues very iniurious to English Catholikes and very burdensome to their owne consciences which so many dangers I beseech Almighty God with all my heart that he will inspire them to preuent in time and before it be to late So that it were farre better for the credit of my Aduersaries and of their cause and for the honour of the Sea Apostolike not to vrge any more the Popes Breues against the Oath or the Cardinalls Decree against my bookes but to bury them with perpetuall obliuion vnlesse his Holinesse and the Lord Cardinals of the Inquisition will descend to some particular points which with their reputation and honour they are able to maintaine The same submission * What reasons the State may haue to permit such submissions see aboue in this Chapter from num 110. which I made heretofore of all my writings to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church I doe heere repeate againe FINIS Errata Page Line Errours Corrected 9 25 euen euer 30 8 soule soules 55 35 with them with him 108 34 the 70. Iudges the Iudges 116 28 Galgatha Galgala 131 1 make may make 144 19 presenting representing 155 36 of Princes of the Princes 170 14 shall beneath shall see beneath 200 31 was grace was not grace 200 36 reigne Ionathan reigne of Ionathan 250 43 nature naturall 286 29 not of malice not malice 286 37 amongst our amongst others our 287 8 pertienent impertinent 330 4 exercied exercised 330 7 as that as at that 347 7 Lawes Lawyers 372 25 selfe who would selfe would 389 17 or for 394 13 no nor 396 2 deserueth both in deserueth in 408 27 vpon to vpon him to 411 37 valued valid 418 37 of of his 435 19 Canonica Canonici 442 3 confuted confirmed 450 19 both them both of them 469 21 for that the for the 477 20 to belieued to be belieued 505 17 lilence licence 508 2 comfort confront 509 27 vncertaine certaine 515 42 dogmatike dogmatize 542 41 Decrees Decree 565 2 propound propounded 572 26 running cunning 576 32 altogeth altogether 584 12 included concluded 585 7 them then 591 15 meat means 591 23 despose depose 596 26 artificall artificiall 596 28 aimeth at in aimeth in 630 19 nud and 636 11 Dhctours Doctours
the Councels as some grounds and foundations of their definitions and decrees therefore the grounds and foundations of Ecclesiasticall definitions and decrees are not so certaine and infallible as the definitions decrees themselues Now what absurdity or impertinency trow you can be found in this my argument For I neyther applyed it to the Lateran Councell or to any other Decree of Pope or Councell or to the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes neyther did I say that because the reasons of Ecclesiasticall definitions and decrees are sometimes vncertain and fallible therefore they may bee denied without offence but all this is forged by my Aduersary that so hee might haue some colour to charge me with absurdity and impertinency for so exorbitant is the bitternesse of his zeale not to vse a more bitter word that he will not haue me to say scarce any one thing throughout all my writings without some note either of heresie errour temerity fraud malice irreuerence ignorance falshood impertinency fondnes or ridiculous absurdity from which imputations I haue neuerthelesse cleared all my assertions and euidently shewed that they are farre more agreeable to his arguments and answeres And if my Aduersary had not beene blinded with some intemperate passion he might plainely haue seene that to no other end purpose I brought that argument but to shew that the proposition whereon Fa. Lessius grounded his two first arguments whereof I did treate immediately before to wit that the grounds and foundations of Ecclesiasticall decrees and sentences must be certaine infallible and of faith is not so generally true but that it is needfull for Fa. Lessius to make a more cleere explication thereof 6 And albeit this be sufficient to iustifie this my argument and to free it from all imputation of absurditie and impertinencie yet for the better satisfaction of the Reader I will examine more particularly what he excepteth against the same Wherefore after he had so falsly and fraudulently as you haue seene set downe the aforesaid argument applying it to the Popes power to depose Princes and to the decree of the Lateran Councell and also affirming me to say that because the reasons of Eccesiasticall Canons be sometimes vncertaine therefore they may be denied without offence all which three things are forged by himselfe and not spoken by me and therefore to colour his fraude the better he thought it best not to set downe my argument verbatim as there he found it he writeth thus a Pag. 200. nu 2. Whereunto I answere that by this argument Widdrington impugneth none so much as himselfe granting that the Decrees of Councells may be certaine though the reasons whereupon they are grounded be vncertaine 7 But as I doe not grant that all the reasons of Ecclesiasticall Decrees are vncertaine and not of faith for some no doubt are certaine and of faith so also I doe not grant that all Decrees of Councells are certaine and of faith for some no doubt are not of faith seeing that all Decrees of Councells Bell. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 12. saith Cardinall Bellarmine doe not belong to faith but those onely which are propounded as of faith but of this I haue aboue treated more at large So that if all decrees of Councells are not certaine infallible and of faith no meruaile that the reasons grounds and foundations of such Decrees as they are reasons grounds and foundations thereof may be vncertaine fallible and not of faith I said as they are reasons grounds and foundations thereof for if otherwise they be decisions definitions or conclusions of some other generall Councell in this respect they may be certaine infallible and of faith And this doth euidently impugne the two first arguments of Fa. Lessius and the often named proposition whereupon they are grounded but how by this argument I impugne none so much as my selfe as this man saith but doth not prooue or any way impugne my selfe I cannot comprehend 8 Whereupon it followeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Pag. 200. nu 2. that the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the deposition of Princes may bee certaine and iust albeit the reasons or doctrine which was the foundation of it were not certaine and so Princes may be lawfully deposed by the Pope in such case as the Lateran Councell hath ordained though the said Councell might be mooued thereto by an vncertaine or erroneous reason so that albeit Widdrington should prooue that the ground of the Canon in question were vncertaine or erroneous yet hee should prooue nothing against the Canon it selfe 9 But fie Mr. Fitzherbert that you should shew your selfe to be so grossely ignorant and then especially when you taxe your Aduersarie of absurditie and impertinencie and to impugne him euen by his owne argument Are not you ashamed to argue so childishly ex puris particularibus from pure particular propositions against the knowne principles and rules of Logike Some Decrees of Councells may bee certaine though the reasons doctrine whereupon they are grounded be vncertaine therefore the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the deposition of Princes may be certaine though the reasons doctrine and foundations thereof be vncertaine As who should say Some men may be very skilfull in Diuinitie although they neuer studied it to wit by supernaturall infusion and diuine reuelation as Adam Salomon and our Sauiour Christ according to his humanitie therefore M. Fitzherbert may be very skilfull in Diuinitie although he neuer studied the same 10 But secondly it is not true that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates Landlords or Lords by the consent and authority of temporall Princes and therfore that Decree or rather Act being not made by true Ecclesiasticall authoritie doth not appertaine to the present question concerning the certaintie infallibility of Ecclesiasticall Decrees which are made by the spirituall Pastours of the Church as they haue spirituall and not temporall authoritie Thirdly my Aduersarie standing in his own principles will haue much ado to proue as I said before that those words of the Councell vt extunc ipse c. That then the Pope may denounce the vassalls absolued from their fealtie do containe a proper decree or precept concerning faith or manners but the end reason and cause of the former decree wherein it is ordained that the Pope shall be certified if the temporall landlord or Lord being excommunicated shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeere to the end that the Pope may denounce c. vnlesse he will haue the Councell to make lawes decrees and Canons to bind the Pope And that although it were a proper decree concerning manners yet that is such a generall decree and belonging to all the faithfull as according to Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus is required to make Ecclesiasticall decrees to be infallible and of faith So that the more my Aduersarie striueth to prooue out of the aforesaid words of the