them and after he had giuen them the speares and weapons of King Dauid which were in the temple with commandement that if any person should enter into the temple to disturbe them he should be slaine he brought foorth the Kings sonne and put the crowne vpon him and the testimonie and they made him King and anointed him and clapping with their hands said God saue the King Which noise when Athalia being in the Kings Palace neere to the temple heard shee went into the temple and seeing the King standing vpon the tribunall seate according to the manner and the Princes and the companies about him and the singers and trumpets neere him and all the people reioycing and sounding the trumpets shee rent her garments and cryed A Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason But Ioiada the high Priest commanded the Centurions that were ouer the armie not to kill her in the Temple but that shee should bee slaine with the sword without and that whosoeuer should follow her should bee stroken with the sword And they laid hands vpon her and when shee was entred within the gate of the horses of the Kings house they killed her there Thus it its written 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. 50 This therefore as you see was the case of Ioiada in commanding Athalia to bee slaine Ioiada not onely being the high Priest and therefore next in authoritie to the King for that next to the King there was none greater among the people then the high Priest d Abul q. 15. in c. 11. l. 4. Reg. but also being the Kings vncle by his wife and the Kings Protectour and Guardian did put in possession of the kingdome of Iuda Ioas the Kings sonne being but seuen yeeres old to whom the kingdome by the right of inheritance did appertaine whom hee kept secretly in the temple for sixe yeeres together and therefore did not onely by probable coniectures thinke but hee did certainely know that hee was the lawfull King and neuerthelesse before hee would accomplish the same hee communicated the matter with the Centurions and Princes of the people and made a couenant with them and hee also caused Athalia to bee slaine not onely for that shee had most tyrannically and barbarously vsurped the kingdome by killing all as shee thought of the Kings issue but also for that shee sought to make an open rebellion against the annointed King crying out in the Temple in the presence of the new crowned King of the high Priest being the King Vncle and Protectour of all the Peeres and people a Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason And this I say Ioiada and euery faithfull subiect in such a case that is hauing the protection of the true and whom for certaintie he knew to be the rightfull King not only might but also if it were in his power was bound to doe neither dare this Doctour vnlesse he will rashly and seditiously teach a most false and pernicious doctrine deny the same 51 But marke I pray you how learned Abulensis answereth to this question whether Ioiada was bound to make Ioas King that is put him in possession of the Kingdome to which he had right by hereditarie succession It was saith he e Q. 15. in cap. 11. lib. 4. Reg. a manifest sinne that Athalia should vsurpe to her selfe the kingdome Ioas being aliue to whom it did by lawfull right appertaine therefore Ioiada was bound to doe as much as lyed in his power that Ioas should not by Athalia be depriued of his right to the kingdome therefore he was bound when it did lye in his power to make Ioas King Secondly this is manifest because Ioiada was in a certain manner by his office to make Ioas King because after the King there was none greater among the people then was the high Priest and then there was no King therefore it belonged to Ioiada as to the high Priest to redresse the agreeuances which happened among the people and this was the greatest agreeuance that the King should be depriued of his right and therefore Ioiada was in this bound as much of lied in his power to procure a remedy by annointing Ioas King to whom the kingdome did of right belong Thirdly this is manifest because euery man is bound to execute the knowne will of God forasmuch as it doth preiudice charity or some commandement of God but God had said that of the seede of Dauid there should bee Kings for euer and it was not against charitie or any other commandement of God alwaies to annoint Kings of that tribe therefore Ioiada was bound as much as lied in his power to accomplish that will of God to wit that hee should annoint Ioas King And this was that whereon Ioiada grounded himselfe when he annointed Ioas King saying to the people Beholde the Kings sonne shall raigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid 2. Paralip 23â— as though hee should say because God commanded that the sonnes of Dauid should alwaies reigne therefore we ought to annoint this for King who was of the stocke of Dauid 52 And as concerning the killing of Athalia the said Abulensis f Ibidem â— 20. writeth thus I answere that it was lawfull for Ioiada to command Athalia to be slaine For the cause was iust to wit for that she intended to kill the King seeing that she had vsurped the Kingdome and also she was guiltie of death for many other causes or she had slaine all the Kings sonnes and she was a disturber of the people and a corrupter of the worship of GOD seeing that she brought in the worship of Baal into Ierusalem and had made there a temple and had Priests Therefore any one of these things were sufficient that she might be slaine Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard of the power For that now that is the King being in his minoritie he was the Prince of the people as being the high Priest who was alwaies the greatest Iudge in Israel from whose sentence it was not lawfull for any man to appeale vnder paine of death or to contemne in any wise his commandement Deut. 17. Neuerthelesse the high Priest was subiect to the King in temporalls and might be iudged by him as the said Abulensis before affirmed where he assigned the difference betwixt a Iudge and a King Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard he now represented the Kings person For he made a couenant in the place or person of the King with all the people and with GOD and he represented the Kings person in all things for that he had hitherto kept him hidden and now he annointed him King but it was lawfull for the King to command Athalia to be slaine who had vsurped the kingdome therefore it was lawfull also for Ioiada who represented the Kings person in all things 53 Now I remit to the iudgement of any vnderstanding man although he be neuer so partiall whether euery faithfull subiect hauing great
chapter to prooue by the subordination of temporall things to spirituall that the Pope because he hath power to command and to dispose of spirituall things which as he said are the principall and to which temporall things are subordained hath power also to dispose of temporals and thereupon grounded his argument vpon that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall which argument neuerthelesse how weake and insufficient it is I haue shewed in that place yet Lessius doth not ground his argument vpon that rule The accessorie followeth the principall but vpon this maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse from whence he concludeth that the Pope because he can excommunicate a King which is the greater punishment can also depose a King which is the lesse But this argument also is very insufficient for that the aforesaid maxime is not generally true as I prooued by foure instances except the lesse be actually or vertually included in the greater as deposition or the power to depose a King is neither actually nor vertually included in excommunication or in the power to excommunicate Therefore vnlesse it be first prooued as hitherto it hath not bene that deposition is actually or vertually included in excommunication or the power to depose in the power to excommunicate it is euident that no good argument can be drawne from that maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse to proue that the Pope because he hath power to excommunicate a King which is the greater hath power also to depose him which is the lesse 13 Now you shall see how well Mr. Fitz. confuteth the foure instances I brought against Lessius argument This being so saith he c Nu. 67. pag. pag. 33. let vs examine a little what goodly arguments Widdring hath made to confront with the former to discouer the absurdity which he supposeth therein The first is Potest Papa Reges excommunicare ergo occidere The Pope may excommunicate Kings and therfore he may kill them whereto I answere as I did in the like before that he bewrayeth herein his malice seeking to draw vs to a most odious question supposing as it seemeth and maliciously insinuating that wee hold and teach that the Pope hauing excommunicated and deposed a King may murther him or cause him to be murthered and that some Popes haue practised the same as some shamelesse Sectaries haue impudently affirmed wherein he sheweth his good affection to Catholike Religion and the reuerend respect he beareth to the Sea Apostolike 14 But if he vnderstand nothing else by the word occidere but to take away the life of a delinquent by lawfull meanes I haue answered him already that if hee make the case his owne for with Princes liues I will not meddle I make no doubt but the Pope hath power ouer his life and therefore I also say further now concerning the argument whereof we treate that the consequence thereof is good in him and such a hee for seeing that it is a greater power to take away the life of the soule by excommunication then of the body by temporall death it followeth that the supreame Pastour hauing the greater power hath the lesse by reason of the subordination of the body to the soule and his supreame power to dispose of the body for the good of the soule and the publike benefite of the Church And thus much for this point 15 But to this Reply I will at this time answere no otherwise then I did before that in very deede it is a most odious question and the doctrine is worthie to bee hated and detested by all good Catholikes and whether such an odious detestable doctrine can be a most plaine necessarie cosequence of an vndoubted point of the Catholike faith as my Aduersaries will needes haue the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and consequently to kill them which by an euident and necessarie consequence followeth from the former to be an infallible point of Catholike faith I remit to the consideration of any iudicious man Neither is it true that I did vrge this argument of malice God is my witnes and therefore in this my Aduersarie doth greatly wrong me neither doe I suppose or maliciously insinuate that some Popes haue practised the murthering of Kings as this vncharitable man vntruly affirmeth thinking thereby to perswade his Reader that I beare no good affection to Catholike Religion nor any reuerend respect to the Sea Apostolike but that which I suppose and insinuate is that he the rest of his Societie who hold that the Pope hath power to dispose of all the temporals both of Princes and subiects in order to spirituall good in as ample a maner as temporal Princes haue power to dispose of all the temporals of their subiects in order to temporall good must consequently hold that the Pope hauing excōmunicated deposed by his sentence an heretical King yea also without excōmunicatiō or deposition if the Pope shal think that neither of them wil preuaile but cause the said King to be more watchful may which I speak with horror murther him or cause him to be murthered that is may kil him or cause him to be slaine by all those meanes publike or secret by which a temporal Prince hath power to murther or cause to be murthered that is to kill or cause to be slaine any traiterous subiect or manifest rebel that cānot easily be apprehēded 16 And this I did demonstrate in my d Nu. 43 s Apologie against Cardinall Bellarmine to which my demonstration D. Schulckenius e In Apol ad nu 43 p. 144. answereth no otherwise then with a transeat let it passe For whither all this doth tend saith hee euery man seeth neither is it hard to solue the arguments Let them passe as making nothing to the matter and then hee maketh a long discourse to shew that neuer any Pope hath beene the cause of the death of any King which is nothing to the purpose so that in effect he granteth my argument and Suarez f In Defens c. l. 9. c. 4. n. 10 See my Appen against Suarez part 1. sec 9. hath now more expresly taught the same and my Aduersarie also doth heere plainly confirme as much for although forsooth with the liues of Princes he will not intermeddle because it is an odious question yet he maketh no doubt but that the Pope hath power ouer my life and ouer the life of any Christian marke these generall words for that he hath power to take away the life of my soule by excommunication and consequently the life of my body by corporall death which his reason proueth also the same of Christian Princes who according to his own grounds can be excōmunicated by the Pope But I'meruaile where this man hath learned this new diuinity that the Pope hath power to take away the life of the soule by excommunication The ancient and true Catholike doctrine
people doe excell in dignitie the Prince 50 But as touching his second inference for of the first I haue spoken before it is very vntrue that the people are superiour to their absolute Prince in dignitie or authoritie but contrariwise it is manifest that a King is superiour and aboue the people and the people inferiour to their King This shall be the right of the King that shall reigne ouer you saith the holy Scripture 1. Reg. 8. and in the same place the people said there shall bee a King ouer vs and we will bee as all nations and blessed bee the Lord my God said King Dauid o Psal 143. who subdueth my people vnder mee wherefore there is no doubt to bee made but that the Iewes were bound to obey the high Priest in spirituall matters but that all men were bound to obey the high Priest in temporall affaires or that the spiritual power was in the old law the supreme power not only in excellencie nobilitie or dignitie but also in authoritie and chastised Princes temporally which Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth heere to make manifest this hee neither hath nor euer will bee able with any manifest proofe to conuince And thus you haue seene how insufficient are all the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought out of the old law before the institution of the Kings of Israel now you shall see how weake the rest of his arguments are which he bringeth out of the old law since that the Israelites demaunded of Samuel to haue a King ouer them as other nations had 51 But first of all Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to prooue that which no man calleth in question to wit that the authoritie of the high Priest in the old Testament was neither changed nor diminished by the institution of Kings but that as the Law of God deliuered to the Iewes by Moyses did continue in full force without any alteration or change during the time of Moyses of Iosue and the Iudges so the same was not altered or changed afterwards by the institution of Kings and that God did not change the forme and course of the Law in fauour of Kings or turned the same vpside downe contrary to the course of nature as Mr. Fitzherbert auoucheth some of his Aduersaries absurdly to affirme For it is a meere fiction that by the institution of Kings the Law of Moyses was altered or the authoritie of the high Priest changed or diminished or that the same superiority which the high Priest as he was high Priest had aboue the temporall state to wit in spirituall affaires before the institution of Kings did not continue in the high Priest after that the Kings of Israel were instituted And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert faigneth absurd opinions to haue occasion to impugne them For the institution of Kings did not alter or diminish at all the spirituall authoritie of the high Priests but it did only change the maner of the temporall gouernment and it caused that the supreme temporall authoritie or dominion was onely in one man and the temporall gouernment to be simply Regall or Monarchicall whereas before the institution of Kings it was not alwaies so 52 For albeit Moyses and Iosue were appointed by God to bee Iudges and Leaders or Captaines of the people of Israel and they had greater authoritie then the other Iudges had yet they were not properly Kings neither had they speaking properly true Regall dominion and authoritie as Abulensis y Q. 19. in ca. 8. Iudic. doth well obserue And as for the other Iudges of Israel their authoritie was farre inferiour to Regall authoritie or dominion For as the same Abulensis z Q. 5. in prolog D. Hicron in librum Iosue q. 7. 12. in Prolog lib. Iudic. doth also well obserue there was a great difference betwixt Kings and Iudges both in power and iurisdiction For the power of Kings was most ample But the Iudges had ouer the people no authoritie to command as due to them by iurisdiction but they were onely industrious men for warres and for giuing counsell and by their aduice the people were directed in all things yet they had ouer the people no other authoritie then the people would giue them and the people did obey them as it were freely when they did see that they commanded or counsailed nothing but that which was iust whereupon they were not called Lords or did they rule raigne or had proper dominion ouer the people but they did onely gouerne or iudge because Lords or they that reigne and haue proper dominion or Seigniorie are those who doe whatsoeuer they vvill if it be not against law or reason and the subiects are bound to obey them in all things such are Kings but the power of the Iudges did extend to no other thing then to that vvhich vvas vvritten in the law in so much that Kings might doe vvhatsoeuer the law doth not forbid but Iudges might onely doe that vvhich the law commanded So that the power of those Iudges vvas but little 53 First because it vvas giuen them freely by the people neither had they more authority then the people gaue them and they vvere chiefly chosen to make vvarre against the enemies for vvhich cause they vvere called Sauiours And although after they had ouercome their enemies the people had no great neede of them yet by the consent of the people they remained afterwards as long as they liued in their authoritie to iudge And if any one obiect that the power of the Iudges vvas not giuen them by man but by God for as is vvritten Iudic. 3. God raised them a Sauiour called Aod I answere saith Abulensis that the Iudges vvere made by the election of the people and from the people they receiued a limited power but they vvere not chosen by the people alwaies after one manner For some vvere made Iudges because God commanded them that they should fight for the people so vvas Barac For the prophetesse Debbora tolde him on the behalfe of God that he should fight against Sisera Iudic. 4. and yet after he had wonne the battell he vvas not yet a Iudge or Prince of the Israelites but because the people saw that God vvould deliuer them by the meanes of Barac they chose him for their Iudge So also it happened concerning Gedeon For the Angel of our Lord did appeare vnto him and commanded him that he should goe to deliuer Israel from the hand of Madian Iudic. 6. And vvhen he victoriously finished the warre the Israelites tooke him for their Iudge neither vvould they onely haue made him their Iudge but also their Lord and King as it appeareth Iudic. 8. 54 Others vvere taken for Iudges not by the commandement but by the instigation of God to wit because when the Israelites were oppressed vvith these calamities and vvanted a Sauiour God gaue his spirit to certaine men by vvhich they vvere couragious vvise and most fit for vvarres vvhom the Israelites seeing did take
kingdome because he was vnfit and gaue him his brother Alphonsus the third for a Coadiutor and also he depriued of the Empire Friderike the second in the Councell of Lyons being declared an enemie to the Church 103 But first that King Ozias retained only the bare name of a King without any Royall right authoritie or dominion it is very false and affirmed by this Doctour without any colourable ground at all For the Scripture doth not only call Ozias a King after hee was infected with leprosie and recounteth the yeeres of his reigne in the same manner as he recounteth the yeeres of the reigne of other Kings who had not only the bare name but also the true authoritie of other Kings but it doth also affirme that the reigned all the rest of his life and that Ioathan beganne to reigne only after his Fathers death Sixteene yeeres old saith the Scripture Å¿ 2. Paralip 26. 4. Reg. 15. was Ozias who also was called Azarias 4. Reg. 15. When he beganne to reigne and he reigned two and fiftie yeeres in Ierusalem And againe t 2. Paralip 26. 27. And Ozias slept with his Fathers and they buried him in the Kings sepulchres field because he was a leaper and Ioathan his sonne reigned for him Fiue and twentie yeeres old was Ioathan when he beganne to reigne and therefore he did not reigne in his Fathers time and he reigned sixteene yeeres in Ierusalem 104 Ioathan saith Abulensis v 4 Reg. 15. â—â— was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate but Ozias was called King all the time he liued and vnder him is reckoned the time of the kingdome and the power or authoritie concerning those things which were done in the kingdome did depend on him although they were administred by Ioathan his sonne and beneath This Ioathan saith Abulensis was the only or at least wise the eldest sonne of Ozias therefore he did succeede in the Kingdome his Father being dead for his Father being aliue he did gouerne the Palace and sustained the whole weight of the Kingly labour Also x lib. 26 de Repub. cap. 5. num â— Gregorius Tholosanus among other reasons which he brought to proue that a Prince ought not to be depriued of his kingdome for that hee is or seemeth to be vnfit to gouerne the same he produceth this example of King Ozias Seeing that saith he also Azarias or Ozias for he was called by both these names King of Iuda was striken by God with leprosie for this sinne that he did not destroy the Altars of the Idolls after he was become a leaper he liued indeede vntill the day of his death in a free house apart yet he was not depriued of his kingdome but Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings Palace and did iudge the people of the Land at his Coadiutor And another cause of his leprosie is alledged for that he presumed to burne incense vpon the Altar of incense which was only the office of a Priest yet in both places it is said that Ioathan reigned for him only after his death but that before his death he only administred the kingdome in his Fathers name 105 Wherefore that which this Doctour affirmeth that the Kings sonne administred the kingdome with full power is equiuocall although the Scripture maketh no mention that he administred the kingdome with full power but only that he gouerned the Kings Palace and iudged the people of the Land for if he meane that he administred the kingdome with a full absolute and supreme authoritie this is very vntrue for this authoritie did belong only to the King in whose name and by whose authoritie he gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people but if his meaning be that he administred the kingdome with a full delegate power and which in some cases the King may communicate to a subiect who is onely an administratour and gouernour but not a King this I will easily grant Belike this Doctour will haue the Kings Protectour and Guardian in the time of his minoritie or who administreth the kingdome when the King is absent in some forraine countrey or when hee is taken prisoner by his enemie or when by reason of some great infirmitie hee cannot gouerne by himselfe to haue full absolute and supreame power and consequently to be in very deede the Soueraigne King and to haue Kingly authoritie to gouerne the kingdome which how absurd it is any man but of meane capacitie may easily perceiue 106 Neither from Iosephus can any other thing bee gathered then which the Scripture it selfe affirmeth to wit that King Ozias liued in a house a-part and his sonne Ioathan gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land For the words of Iosephus as they are related by this Doctour are not so bee vnderstood that Ioathan tooke vpon him the kingdome and to reigne for Ozias all the time of his life was King and did reigne as Iosephus affirmeth in the same place but that hee tooke vpon him to administer or gouerne the kingdome in his Fathers name who by reason of his infirmitie for which hee was bound by the law of God to liue in a house a part from the rest of the people could not conueniently gouerne the same But the words of Iosephus according to the Edition which I haue and which also Cardinall Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay followeth are these After the Priests had perceiued the leprosie in the Kings face they tolde him or if the word bee iudicauerunt and not indicauerunt they iudged that hee was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie and they admonished him that hee would depart the Citie as one polluted and vncleane And hee with the shame of his calamitie obeyed being so miserably punished for his pride ioyned with impietie and when for a time hee liued priuate out of the Citie his sonne Ioathan administring the kindome at length being consumed with sorrow hee dyed the sixtie eight yeere of his age and the fiftie second of his kingdome or reigne 107 From which wordes this onely can bee gathered that Ioathan administred the kingdome and gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people as the Scripture saith yet that Ozias was stil King and reigned although he liued priuate that is not depriued of his kingdome for he still remained King and did reigne vntill his death as Iosephus confesseth but priuately to wit he did not meddle with the publike affaires of the kingdome but liued in a free house apart as the Scripture saith which words Abulensis expoundeth thus y 〈…〉 And hee dwelled in a free house apart that is hee did not dwell in the Kings Pallace for he being a leper ought not to giue himselfe to businesses neither did he dispose of the kingdome but Ioathan his sonne and it is called a free house that is sequestred from all businesse and frequentation of people for none did resort to him but those who
to vse any corporall violence against him and if it shall please the temporall Prince to pardon his life the spirituall Pastours haue no authority to take it away as out of Dominicus Bannes I shewed in that Disputation f Cap. 7. sec 2. in fine 162 But what if I should grant to Mr. Fitzherbert that the Priests of the old law might lawfully thrust by violence an vncleane person out of the Temple if he will not otherwise depart or that they might lawfully haue taken by force the Censar out of the Kings hands or haue held his hands that he should not haue offered incense as also that in the new law it is lawfull for Priests to thrust an excommunicated person out of the Church in the time of Diuine seruice or if in case a King would in his rage and furie runne his sword through the body of any innocent man should graunt that his Chaplaine or any other of his subiects attending upon his Royall person may lawfully hold his hands and so keepe him from committing so wilfull a murther could Mr. Fitzherbert trow you gather from hence that either Priests or subiects had any authority or superiority ouer the Kings person to hold his hands or to force him by corporall violence No. But from hence it onely can be gathered that euery priuate man may and ought by the law of God and nature and by the bond of charitie to keepe as much as lyeth in him his neighbour from doing euill which argueth no authority or superiority but onely a bond of charity 163 Now you shall see in what fraudulent manner Mr. Fitzherbert vrgeth the authoritie of S. Chrysostome And I cannot omit also saith hee g Pag. 80. seq to touch heere by the way what S. Chrysostome obserueth further in this example to wit that whereas Ozias being leprous did not onely dwell in the City though in a house apart but also raigne still for some yeeres vntill he died he ought to be cast both out of the City and also out of the kingdome and that almighty God was so highly offended because the same was not performed that he withdrew the spirit of Prophecie from Esay and other Prophets during the life and raigne of Ozias 164 Exivit Hom. 4. de verbis Isai vidi Dominum saith S. Chrysostome cum lepra c. The King went out of the Temple with a leprosie and yet they did not cast him out of the City for the respect they bare to the Kingly diademe but hee still sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God What then God being angry with the Iewes interrupted the Prophecy So he And againe a little after speaking in the person of God Ego saith he quod mei muneris feci c I haue done my part that is to say I haue strucken Ozias with leprosie and you are afraide to cast him being vncleane out of the City You beare reuerence to his Kingly dignity violating the law of God c. I doe therefore speake no longer to the Prophets neither doe I giue any more the grace of the spirit c. Silet spiritus gratia non est ostensus Deus eo quod sub impure illo non erat gratis The grace of propheticall spirit was silent or ceased and God did not shew himselfe because that vnder that vncleane man there was grace Thus saith S. Chrysostome vpon occasion of these words of the Prophet Esay Et factum est anno quo mortuus est Ozias Rex vidi Dominum c. For whereas all the Prophets vsed to declare the time and yeere of the Kings reigne when they prophecied S. Chrysostome noteth that Esay here omitted that custome and did not speake of the life and reigne Ioathan in whose time he had his vision but of the death of King Ozias during whose reigne the spirit of prophecy had ceased for the causes before declared 165 Well then heereby it appeareth that God was offended not onely because Ozias was not cast out of the City but because hee was suffered still to reigne Consedit in throno saith the holy Father legem Dei rursus transgrediens Hee sate still his throne transgressing againe the law of God that is to say as he had broken the law of God before in presuming to Sacrifice and threatning the Priests so also did hee againe transgresse and violate the same in retaining his kingdome being leprous and because the same was permitted and more respect borne to his Kingly dignitie then to the execution of Gods law therefore saith S. Chrysostome God punished the whole state not permitting his Prophets to prophecy as they were want 166 Whereupon I inferre that seeing the expresse law of God ordained that the cause of leprosie should be iudged and determined wholly by the Priests and that Ozias was subiect to this law it followeth that as hee was expelled out of the Temple by the Priests and forced by their sentence to liue in a house apart though within the City so ought hee also to haue beene by their sentence cast out both of the City and his Kingdome And if wee consider but onely that which was done by the Priests in this case of Ozias it cannot be denied but that they had a iudiciall power ouer his person seeing that they both commaunded him to goe out of the Temple before he was leprous and afterwards thrust him out yea and confined him to liue in a house apart for though the Scripture doth not expresse that this confining and separation was ordained by them yet it could not bee otherwise seeing that the law had ordained expresly Leuit. 13. Matth. 18. Marke 1. Luke 17. that euery leprous man should be brought vnto the Priest and that Ad arbitrium eius separabitur He shall be separated by his iudgement or arbittement which our Sauiour himselfe acknowledged vvhen hee remitted the leprous vvhom hee cured to the Priests 167 Therefore I will conclude vpon the premisses that forasmuch the law of God assigned a soueraigntie in iudgement to the high Priests and their consistorie as vvell in temporall as spirituall causes and to that end honoured them with a particular and most excellent priuiledge of infallibility in their doctrine and iudiciall sentences as I haue h See before nu 10. 11. 12. 13. c. amply prooued and seeing that the Kings of the old Testament were not any way exempt from the law as appeareth no lesse by diuers reasons alledged by me before i Num. 24.25 26. then by these two last examples of Athalia k Num. 29. 30. and Ozias l Num. 31.32.33 seq it followeth euidently that they were not supreme heads of the Priests but subiect to them and to their tribunall and consequently that if an Oath had beene proposed by any of these Kings to his subiects whereby they should haue sworne that he was free from all subiection and temporall chastisement of
of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion the Subiects could not bee absolued from the oath of allegiance or from the obligation that they owe to their Princes these his words I say doe neither contradict those English Catholickes who defend our English oath to be lawfull nor doe shew or signifie that Widdrington hath not brought any Diuines or Lawyers both French-men and of other Nations who affirme that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For the Cardinals words are to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam according to the matter which he treateth of and which he would perswade his Reader the three estates of France endeauoured to establish by their oath to wit that the subiects of the King of France could not be absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance by any authority whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall 30 Now it is euident that I neither produced nor intended to produce any Authors who in these generall tearmes expresly affirme that the Subiects of an hereticall Prince cannot be discharged of their allegiance neither by the spirituall authority of the Pope nor by the temporall power of the Common-wealth for that it was not my meaning as being a thing altogether impertinent to our Oath of England to examine what authority the ciuil Common-wealth hath ouer their Prince in the case of heresie or Apostacie For our oath onely denieth the Popes authoritie to depose our King and to discharge his subiects from their temporall allegiance and with the authority of the Common-wealth it doth not intermeddle But that the Pope hath no authority to depose temporall Princes and that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment depriuation of goods and such like but onely to Ecclesiasticall censures I haue brought many Authours both French and others to prooue the same among whom are Ioannes Parisiensis and also Iacobus Almainus cited here by the Cardinall in his Treatises Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. de Domino naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico o Concls 2. in probat 2. conclus and de authoritate Ecclesiae p Cap. 2. Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. where he writeth according to his owne opinion though not in his Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica which the Cardinall citeth where he commenteth Occam and speaketh according to Occams doctrine albeit these Doctours doe on the other side affirme that the Common-wealth hath authority to depose a wicked and incorrigible King and so that the Pope may according to them depose him per accidens as Ioan. Parisiensis writeth or to vse Ioannes Maior his words applicando actiua passiuis as he that applieth fire to straw is said to burne the straw to wit by perswading aduising commanding and also by spirituall censures compelling them who haue authority to wit the people or Common-wealth to depose him and after he is deposed by the people or kingdome by declaring his subiects absolued and discharged from the naturall and consequently also spirituall bond of their allegiance but this is impertinent to our oath of England wherein only the Popes authority to depose depriue our King of his Dominions by way of iuridicall sentence is denied 31 Wherefore the English Translatour of the Cardinalls oration doth with as great boldnesse as with little truth shamefully affirme q In his Preface to the Reader that this difference is found between these two oathes that whereas the English oath in one of the clauses seemes to exclude not only the authoritie of the Church ouer Kings but euen of the common-wealth also yea though it should be accōpanied with that of the Church that of France shootes only at the abnegation of the Churches authority For contrariwise although the oath of France may as you shall see at the first sight seeme to deny both the authority of the Church and also of the Common-wealth to depose the King of France yet our Oath shootes onely at the abnegation of the Popes authority to depose our King and to absolue his Subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For as I haue shewed in my Theologicall disputation our oath doth onely affirme r Cap. 3. sec 4 that the Pope neither of himselfe that is by the spirituall authority which is granted him by the institution of Christ nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome for that the Church or Sea of Rome hath no such authority nor by any other meanes with any other that is neither as a totall or partiall as a principal or instrumentall cause hath any power or authority to depose the King c. which last words doe only at the most import that whether the temporall Common-wealth hath any authority ouer the King for any cause or crime whatsoeuer or no with which question the King and Parliament did not intermeddle yet the Common-wealth hath giuen no such authority to the Pope either by himselfe or with any other to depose the King c. 32 But the oath of France doth expresly affirme that there is no power on earth whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall which hath any right ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue the sacred persons of our Kings nor to dispence or absolue their subiects from that loyaltie and obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoeuer for these be the expresse words of the oath of France which our English Translatour as it seemes either hath not seene or maliciously abuseth his Reader in affirming so shamefully that the oath of France shootes onely at the abnegation of the Churches authoritie which words of the oath of France also the Cardinall of Peron seemeth to vnderstand generally of all temporall and spirituall power whatsoeuer either out of the kingdome or of the kingdome it selfe as both by the propounding the state of his question and also by the whole drift of his oration any iudicious man may gather for which cause as I imagine he affirmeth ſ Pag. 115. that our Oath of England is more sweete and modest or moderate then that of France And truely although the words may seeme to any man at the first sight to haue that sense which the Cardinall pretendeth seeing that they expresly deny all power on earth both temporall and spirituall yet both the Translatour of his oration applieth them onely to the Popes authority and also if those words which hath any authority ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue be well obserued they may in my iudgement haue a very true sense to wit that the temporall power which there is mentioned is not to be referred to the authority of the kingdome it selfe seeing that no kingdome hath truely and properly right power and authority ouer itselfe neither hath the kingdome of France any right ouer the kingdome of France to depriue
Censures is impugned by the oath and will shew withall that I gaine nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and for the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues Secondly saith hee i Pag. 218. na 12. although wee should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath yet Widdrington gaineth nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues and this I say for two reasons the one because it doth not follow vpon the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that cause as any man may easily see who list to examine it the other reason is for that the Oath is forbidden in the Breue expresly because it contained many things contrarie to faith and the saluation of soules whereby it is euident that albeit his Holinesse had beene falsly perswaded that his spirituall authoritie was impugned by the Oath yet the prohibition of the said Oath in his Breue might bee iust as being grounded vpon other respects seeing that the Breue declareth it to bee vnlawfull for many causes and doeth not mention this for any of them 63 Yes Mr. Fitzherbert I gaine much thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues for seeing that as you your selfe confesse the Oath is vnlawfull and condemned by the Breues as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation in respect of two principall points to wit the exemption of temtemporall Princes from the Popes power to excommunicate and depose them if you admit as needes you must and doe that his Holinesse was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is denied in the Oath you can giue no sufficient reason why his Holinesse might not also be misinformed by them of the later and be falsly perswaded by them that his power to depose Princes to dispose of their Kingdomes and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance which is indeede expresly denied in the Oath is a point of faith and the contrary doctrine hereticall yea it is as morally certaine that his Holinesse was misinformed by them of this second point of all the clauses of the Oath which are pretended to be flat contrary to faith and saluation as he was misinformed by them of the former point and so you may see the weakenesse of your second reason 64 And as for your first reason I cannot see what coherence at all it hath with that whereof you alledge it to bee a reason For what connexion or coherence I pray you is there betwixt this your assertion that though you should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsely perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is denyed by the Oath yet Widdrington should gaine nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues and this assertion which you alledge as a reason of the former that it doth not follow vpon the answeres of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that cause For who would not thinke that man not well to know what he spake that should argue thus It doth not follow vpon the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that hee was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath therefore though we should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath yet my Aduersary gaineth nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues For besides that I did not say in that place that from the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons it followeth that hee forbade the Oath for that cause but I said indeed that from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter touching the consultation of the Diuines of Rome about the Oath and the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine from whom the Diuines of Rome did not dissent who teacheth that the Popes power to excommunicate euen heretical kings is plainly denied in the oath it followeth that his Holinesse forbade the Oath for that cause Neuerthelesse it is euident that albeit we abstract wholly from Fa. Parsons letter if my Aduersary once admit as he doth that his Holinesse was deluded and misinformed by others concerning this so manifest a point he can giue no reason why he might not also bee deluded and misinformed by others concerning the other points which are pretended to be in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation and so by this my Aduersaries grant I gaine much for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues to wit that they were grounded vpon false informations either that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is denied in the Oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and the contrary hereticall which also is manifestly false as I haue sufficiently conuinced in this Treatise 65 And hereby that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth is easily answered Besides that saith he k p. 218. nu 13 the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons concerning the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires for so were the word of Fa. Parsons letter did not exclude the deposition of Princes from his spirituall authority but necessarily include it because his said answere was to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam that is to say according to the meaning and drift of the Oath which was the speciall subiect of that Conference and therefore forasmuch as the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is directly denyed by the Oath and that the same is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication it is manifest that his Holinesse answering a demaund concerning the Oath and speaking of the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included therein his power aswell to depose as to excommunicate Princes especially knowing well as he did that the Oath denying his power to depose Princes doth by a necessary consequent deny his spiritual authority which includeth that power as I haue sufficiently declared and prooued in this Treatise l Chap. 2. per totum Item chap. 5. 6. 66 You haue heard before that the words which his Holinesse vsed to Fa. Parsons were that as for any actuall vsing Censures against his Maiestie he meat not but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires which last words in such affaires are now added by Mr. Fitzherbert he was resolued and would rather lose his head then lose one iote Now my Aduersary laboureth to shew that by those words but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such
and to the Sea Apostolike yet for my own part I cannot see but that any prudent man may iustly suppose their zeale to bee blind and not according to knowledge but grounded vpon culpable or wilfull ignorance and that they themselues suspect their owne conscience to bee eroneous and their cause to be naught and therefore would not haue it to be further sifted and examined 11 For seing that the nature of truth being like to pure and perfect gold is such that the more it is examined the more cleere and perspicuous it doth still appeare and contrariwise falshood the more it is sifted the absurdity thereof still sheweth it selfe more manifest if my Aduersaries are in their consciences perswaded as in wordes they professe that they haue truth on their side and that the authority of spirituall Pastours to excommunicate vpon iust cause Christian Princes to binde and loose and to dispence in Oathes in generall which all Catholikes acknowledge to be included in their spirituall power be denyed in the late Oath of allegiance as they pretend or that their authoritie to depose Princes which all men confesse to bee denyed in the Oath bee certaine out of controuersie and a cleere point of Catholike faith for which two causes chiefly they cry out against the Oath and condemne it for vnlawfull as containing in it more then temporall allegiance to wit a manifest denyall of Ecclesiasticall authority why are they so much afraide to haue the matter charitably and sincerely debated by learned men Why will they not suffer those Catholikes especially who are learned and to whom the charge of soules is committed and are able to discerne betwixt truth and falshood betwixt Catholike faith and opinion 1. Pet. 3. and who ought to bee alwaies readie and prepared to satisfie euerie one that asketh them a reason of that faith which is in them to reade such bookes as doe sincerely and exactly handle this controuersie and all the difficulties on both sides and doe plainely declare in what particular manner all Christians are bound by the law of Christ according to the true and approoued grounds of Catholike Religion Matth. 22. to render to God and Caesar that which is their due 12 Why doe they so shamefully abuse his Holinesse by misinforming him that his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and to absolue from Oathes in generall is denyed in the Oath and that his power to depose Princes which indeed the Oath denyeth is a point of faith and thereupon by vrging him to condemne the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation and to forbid those bookes of Catholike Writers that doe plainly discouer their forgeries and euidently conuince that no such spirituall power as they pretend is denyed in the Oath and that his power to depose Princes which the Oath denyeth is not a point of faith but hath euer since the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth for before his age the practise thereof was not heard of Onuphrius l. 4. de varia creat Romani Pont. as Onuphrius witnesseth it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Popes and Christian Princes and those Catholikes who haue fauoured either part and which is more extrauagant by vrging him to commaund vnder paine of Censures the Author of those bookes to purge himselfe foorthwith and yet not to signifie vnto him any one crime either in generall or in particular of which he should purge himselfe although hee hath very often most humbly and instantly requested to know the same 13 Why doth not Cardinall Bellarmine my chiefest Aduersarie being accused by mee to his Holinesse in publike writings of manifest fraudes falshoods corruptions and calumnies cleare himselfe all this time of such fowle imputations which cannot but greatly blemish his honour and quite discredite his cause in the vnderstanding of any iudicious man if in his conscience hee thinke himselfe to bee guiltlesse and that I haue falsly accused him why doth hee not answere and iustifie himselfe and shew to the world that I haue belyed him that also thereby I may see my errour and aske him publike forgiuenesse and bee penitent for the same If hee see that I am innocent why doth hee not restore my credit which hee hath wrongfully taken away and in plaine tearmes confesse that hee was deceiued and mistaken in this controuersie and imitating the example of famous Saint Augustine retract all that hee hath written amisse especially to the hurt and disgrace of innocent men Can any man of iudgement imagine that hee being now so neere his graue would take such paines to write euery yeere some one or other little Treatise of deuotion which neuerthelesse will not excuse him before God from restoring the good name of them whom hee hath falsly defamed and that hee would bee so carelesse to purge himselfe of such shamelesse crimes which cannot but leaue his memory tainted with perpetuall infamy if with his credit hee could cleere himselfe And therefore if he did sincerely consider the admonition hee gaue to other Prelates vpon occasion of Pope Innocents examples to examine their conscience carefully whether it bee sound or erroneous hee might truely haue iust cause to bee sore afraide and greatly to suspect that howsoeuer hee maketh an outward shew of zeale sanctitie and deuotion hee hath within an erroneous and seared conscience for which hee must shortly before the tribunall of God render a strict account 14 All which their proceedings being duely considered whether they are not manifest signes that in their owne consciences they suspect the iustice of their cause and doe plainely see that they are not able to make good their newly inuented Catholike faith and yet will still goe on to maintaine by fraude and violence what they cannot by reason and argument wherein also how much they discredit themselues their cause how mightily they scandalize Catholike Religion and make the Sea Apostolike odious to Princes and subiects how egregiously they wrong and slander innocent Catholikes and how greatly they endanger their owne soules and others I leaue to the iudgement of any prudent and pious man 15 Wherefore my chiefe drift good Reader in this my answere to M. Fitzherbert is first to keepe and maintaine entire and inuiolate the puritie of true Catholike faith and Religion which is greatly defiled not onely by impugning true and vndoubted articles of faith but also by forging and defending false articles for true Secondly to defend my innocency which as long as I haue a pen to write or a tongue to speake I will God willing not bee afraide to maintaine against any man whatsoeuer that shall falsly accuse me and my doctrine of heresie and to make knowne my sincere proceeding in handling this great and dangerous controuersie which concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar and the fraudulent and corrupt dealing of my Aduersaries who by fraud and violence seeke to afflict intangle and disturbe the consciences of
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
and spirituall power might command the Christians to doe and by spirituall Censures compell them so to doe when otherwise they should scandalize the Christian faith and religion And this very answere did I giue in my Apologie to this text of holy Scripture which was vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue that the Pope had power to depose and put downe Secular Princes as the Apostle had power to appoint and set vp new Iudges in Secular causes for I denyed his consequence because the appointing and setting vp of those Iudges did nothing derogate from the subiection due to Secular Princes for that they were onely Arbiters or peaceable composers of secular causes with the consent of the parties who were at strife but the putting downe of Princes or depriuing them of their Royall authoritie doth greatly derogate or rather quite ouerthrow and abolish their temporall soueraigntie 22 To which answere of mine D. Schulckenius onely replieth l In Apolog. pag. 444. That although these Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint had not indeede vim coactiuam in foro externo a coactiue power in the externall Court and that if either partie would not obey the Apostle and goe to the Iudges appointed by the Church but would bring his cause to the publike tribunals of the heathen Magistrates the other partie was bound there to appeare and there to debate his cause yet they were not meere Arbiters or voluntary Iudges For Arbiters are chosen by the parties but these were chosen by the common consent of the Church and were appointed by publike authoritie by the command of the Apostle who was a spirituall Prince Besides none are bound to admit Arbiters vnlesse they will but Christians were bound to admit these Iudges and were forbidden to goe to the tribunals of Infidell Princes Moreouer the Saints are not to iudge the world and Angels as Arbiters chosen by them but as true Iudges and as sitting with Christ the supreame Iudge 23 But all this is easily satisfied by that which I said before For although the faithfull Corinthians were by the publike spirituall authoritie of the Apostle commaunded to choose those Iudges or Arbiters yet it doth not from thence follow either that those arbitrarie Iudges were to bee chosen by the whole Church and not onely by the parties that were at strife or that the Apostle for that he was a spirituall Prince had either himselfe publike authoritie to decide secular causes or could giue the same to any other But because the Christians were bound by the Law of God to compound their controuersies among themselues by way of arbitriment and not to bring their causes to the hearing of Heathen Iudges in case they should thereby scandalize the Christian Religion therefore the Apostle might by his publike spirituall and Pastorall power command them and also with spirituall Censures compell them so to doe 24 And although these arbitrarie Iudges were to be chosen by the whole Church and by the common consent of all the faithfull Corinthians which neuerthelesse can not bee sufficiently gathered from the Apostles wordes yet it doth not therefore follow that they were not meere Arbiters or voluntarie Iudges in power or which is all one that they had more then arbitrarie priuate or compromissorie power For it is not materiall by whom a publike or legall Iudge or else an Arbitratour or compromissorie Iudge bee chosen but from whom they receiue their authoritie to iudge as a true proper and publike Iudge may sometimes bee chosen by the people as is the Recorder of London by the Citie and the Chancellours of Oxford and Cambridge by the Vniuersities but it is the Kings Maiesty that giueth them publike authoritie to iudge And Achiters or voluntary Iudges may be chosen by the common consent of the people to decide by way of arbitrement or voluntarie submission all ciuill controuersies which shall arise among them yet seeing that they are onely Arbiters or haue onely arbitrarie voluntarie priuate or compromissorie power the parties onely who are at strife doe giue power to iudge and to make a finall end of their controuersies And although abstracting from scandall none are bound to admit Arbiters vnlesse they will yet if by not admitting them they should scandalize the Christian Religion as the Corinthians did they are bound to admit them or which is all one to giue them arbitrarie voluntrary or compromissorie power to decide and determine their controuersies 25 True also it is that the Saints are not to iudge the world or the bad Angels as Arbiters yet in what manner they are to iudge whether by onely assisting our Sauiour and approouing or applauding his sentence or by being Assessores supremi Iudicis Christi by sitting in seates of honour with Christ the supreme Iudge as Noble men and Iustices of peace do sit vpon the bench with the chiefe Iudge of Assises or in any other more peculiar manner it is a controuersie among Catholike Diuines although it be certaine that the Saints shall not be true and proper Iudges as Iudges are properly taken howsoeuer D. Schulckenius doth seeme heere to affirme the same for that to iudge and to giue iudgement doth properly signifie an act of Iurisdiction and superiority of power to giue the definitiue sentence pro or contra which Iurisdiction in respect of the last iudgement of soules is onely communicated to Christ. m Seâ— Suarez tom 2. disp 57. sect 4. But howsoeuer it be the argument of Saint Paul whereby he intended to prooue that Christians were not vnworthy to iudge Secular causes which he calleth the least things is of force as I declared before for if they be not vnworthy to iudge the world and Angels much lesse are they to be accompted vnworthy to decide by way of arbitrement Secular causes or the least things 26 And whereas D. Schulckenius affirmeth that those Iudges had no coactiue power in the externall Court and that if one of the parties should call the other to the tribunall of the Infidell Magistrate he were bound to appeare and debate his cause before the Heathen Iudge this doth make nothing against that which I haue said but is rather a confirmation that these Iudges were onely Arbitratours and voluntary Iudges in power to decide Secular causes For if they had beene true and proper Iudges and had not onely priuate and arbitrary power but also publike authority to iudge why should they not haue as all other true and proper Iudges haue both a commanding and also a coactiue power either temporall or spirituall according as D. Schulckenius will haue them to be temporall or spiritual Iudges And if they were true Iudges and not onely Arbitratours how could the faithfull Corinthians bee bound in conscience to leaue their tribunalls and goe to a Heathen Iudge to haue their cause decided by him if they should be called thither although against then willes seeing that they should thereby offend not only by reason of
by vertue of that maxime The accessorie followeth the principall but by vertue of this that hee who is Lord of any bridle hath power to dispose thereof or he that is Lord and can dispose of all temporall things hath consequently power to dispose both of all horses and all bridles fortifie my Aduersaries argument concerning the Popes power to dispose of all temporall things vnlesse it bee first prooued as hitherto it hath not beene that the Pope is Lord both in temporalls and spiritualls in such sort that for the common spirituall good hee may dispose of all temporall things as it is certaine that absolute Princes may for the common temporall good dispose of all temporalls and priuate men may dispose of those goods which are their owne And therefore the comparison which my Aduersarie heere maketh betwixt the Lord of a horse who only disposeth of his owne bridles and not of another mans and the Pope who to punish a Prince disposeth only of the Princes goods and states and not of other mens is to little purpose for that it doth suppose that which is in question and which hitherto hee hath not prooued to wit that the Pope hath power to dispose of the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians and that the publike good of the Church doth necessarily require that the Pope haue power to dispose of all temporalls And thus much concerning my first instance wherein whether I haue plaid bootie with them and helped vnder-hand to defend his cause and whether it be foolish ridiculous and repugnant to my owne doctrine I remit to the iudgement of any learned man 66 Now you shall see how well Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth to my second instance His other argument or instance saith he m Pag. 38. nu 15. 16. 17. is as I haue said no lesse malicious then his last was foolish and ridiculous The Pope saith hee hath power ouer the Princes soule ergo ouer his life because the accessorie followeth the principall wherein you see hee seeketh to draw vs to an odious question touching the liues of Princes Neuerthelesse to say somewhat vnto his argument and yet not to enter into such an odious matter let him make the case his owne and I will not deny but that the Pope hauing power ouer his soule and being withall supreame Gouernour of the whole Church hath power also ouer his life so farre foorth as it may be conuenient for the good of the Church I meane not that the Pope hath power to take his life without iust cause or by vniust or vnlawfull meanes which neither the temporall Prince who hath direct power ouer his body can doe but vpon iust occasion giuen by him and according to the ordinarie manner prescribed by the Ecclesiasticall Canons that is to say by deliuering him ouer to the secular Iustice S. Leo epist ad Turbium Astâ—ricens Episc because the Church as S. Leo saith refugit cruentas vltiones doth fly bloodie punishment and therefore the Church vseth not by her owne ministers to giue and much lesse to execute the sentence of death vpon any though shee might doe it if shee would for seeing there is nothing that hindreth it but Ecclesiasticall Canons the Pope being head of the Church might dispence therewith and make it lawfull if iust occasion required 67 And how true it is that the Pope hath power ouer the life of any Christian with the circumstances and limitations before mentioned I feare me my Aduersarie Widdrington might find to his cost if hee were heere and would not recant his doctrine euen in this point to wit that the Church cannot inflict temporall and corporall punishments whereby hee impugneth not only the ancient and vniuersall practise and custome of the Church but also the Ecclesiasticall Canons n Cap. ab abolendam cap. vergentis cap. excommunicamus extra de haeretic cap. licet de voto cap. 1. de homicidio in 6. Concil Trid. sess 24. c. 8. 25. cap. 3. and decrees of many Councells and Popes and finally of the Councell of Trent as I shall haue good occasion to shew more particularly heereafter o Inf. c. 11. nu 3. 9. item c. 12. nu 6. 7. s 68 In the meane time hee is to vnderstand that granting as hee doeth that the body is subordinate and subiect to the soule and that all corporall and temporall things are to serue spirituall things yea and to bee commanded by the supreame spirituall Pastour to that end and consequently that they are accessorie in the respect of the soule and good of the Church hee cannot with reason deny the consequence of my argument to wit that forasmuch as the accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that hath power ouer the soule and all other spirituall things hath power also ouer all things that are accessorie thereto namely the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians when the good of soules and of the whole Church doth necessarily require it as shall bee further declared after a while p Cap. 5. nu 37. 38. item c. 6. nu 12. 13. 14. seq vpon further occasion giuen by my Aduersarie 69 Heere you see that Mr. Fitzherbert doeth not deny my consequence but alloweth it for good in those his wordes And how true it is that the Pope hath power ouer the life of any Christian and consequently of Christian Kings with the circumstances and limitations before mentioned to wit so farre foorth as it may be conuenient for the good of the Church a large and intollerable extension of the Popes spirituall power to take away the liues of Christian Princes and subiects and vpon iust occasion giuen by him and againe that the Pope hath power ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians and consequently of Christian Princes when the good of soules and of the whole Church doth necessarily require it So that you see he graunteth my argument to be good but yet to be malicious that I speake the trueth but of malice But truely it is strange to what virulent and slanderous speeches some intemperate spirit hath drawen the libertie of this mans pen. If he imagine that with any colourable reply he can except against my aunswere then it is friuolous impertinent foolish and ridiculous if he can not then it is malicious God almightie who is the onely searcher of all mens hearts knoweth herein my innocencie and that zeale to the Catholike religion desire to know the trueth loue to my Prince and countrey and not any splene or malice hath mooued me to write both this and all the rest and therefore I humbly beseech his Diuine Maiestie to forgiue him and to graunt him true repentance for that which is past and that hereafter he may haue a more milde and temperate spirit 70 But wherefore trow you is my argument malicious because it draweth him sayth he to an odious question as though forsooth the propounding of
power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally in order to spirituall good it is sufficient to answere in generall that the contrarie doctrine to wit that in the old law the temporall power and not the spirituall was supreme and that the spirituall power was subiect to the temporall is maintained by many famous and most learned Catholike Diuines S. Bonauentura lib. 2. de Eccles hierarch cap. 1. in 4. dist 24. in litera S. Thom. lib. 1. de Regim Prin. cap. 14. whose opinion in this point Mr. Fitzherbert dare not presume to condemne as temeratious and improbable albeit my answere which is agreeable to their doctrine he sticketh not to call improbable For so teacheth S. Bonauenture a man otherwise addicted to the Popes temporall Monarchie In the old Testament saith he the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and therefore Kings then had power to remooue the high Priests from their office as Salomon remooued Abiathar The same teacheth S. Thomas or whosoeuer is the Author of that booke de regimine Principum Whereupon Card. Bellarmine himselfe writeth thus It is not improbable Bell. l. i. c. 14. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcla that in the olde Testament the King was absolutely greater then the high Priest both for that so teacheth S. Thomas in his first booke de Regimine Principum cap. 14. and also for that in the old Testament the promises were temporall and the sacrifices carnall 6 The same also doe teach Alphonsus Tostatus Abulensis Card. Bellar. de Script Eccles pag. 410. d q. 28 in c. 2. l. 3. Regum q. 48. c. 27. num a man most renowmed saith Card. Bellarmine for holinesse and learning Ioannes de Turrecremata e In sum de Eccles l. 2. c. 96. ad 4 c. obedientiam dest 93. q. 2. ad 2 Franciscus Victoria f Relect. 1. de potest Eccles cited by Corduba Sal s. Antonius Corduba g l. 4 quaest q. 5 ar 2 ss ad Vlti Ioannes Salas h q 95. de leg sec 21. and Burgensis i In Addit lid Nic. de Lyra in 1. Pet. cap. 2. all of them most famous Diuines You must also know saith Abulensis that Salomon had power to kill Abiathar although he was the High Priest for that in the old Testament the Ecclesiastical power was not distinct from the Secular power to wit in punishments for great crimes but Priests were directly subiects to the King as Lay men Also there was not a distinction of punishments for Priests and Lay men but in enormious crimes the sentence of death was common to all and because Abiathar had committed treason hee was to be put to death vnlesse Salomon would pardon him And that Priests were subiect to Lay men it appeareth Numer 27. where God said that Eleazar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue as it hath beene more declared Iosue 3. but Iosue was a secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim Thus Abuâ—ensis 7 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue how ignorantly my vnlearned Aduersarie taxeth my answere of improbabiâ—itie and impertinencie which neuerthelesse is most conformeable to the doctrine of so many famous and learned Catholike Diuines and which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe holdeth for not improbable and how vainely hee braggeth that hee will make it manifest euen by the law of Moyses that the spirituall power was then the supreame power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally whereas so many famous and learned Diuines whose doctrine this ignorant man feareth not to call improbable doe resolutely hold that in the olde Testament the high Priests were subiect to Kings and that the temporall power was superiour to the spirituall and might remooue the high Priests from their office and punish them temporally if they should deserue it 8 But let vs examine in particular the manifest proofes which this man deduceth from the Law of God in the old Testament His first and principall proofe is taken from that which is written in the 17. chapter of Deuteronomie This appeareth saith he k Pag. 70. nu 3.4.5 by the law set downe in Deuteronomie wherein it is ordained expressely that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes should be in the hands of the high Priest The words of the law are these Si defficile ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubfull betweene bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie and not leprosie and thou seest that the words of the Iudges within the gates doe varie arise and goe vp to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come vp to the Priests of the Leuitical stock to the Iudges that shall be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall shew thee the truth of the iudgement and thou shalt do whatsoeuer they that are Presidents of the place which our Lord shall choose shal say and teach thee according to his Law and thou shalt follow their sentence neither shalt thou decline to the right nor to the left but he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away the euill out of Israel and the whole people shall feare that none after swell with pride 9 These are the words of the Law of God in Deuteronomie wherein it is to be noted that albeit there be here mention made of the Iudge to be consulted together with the Priests which some of the Aduersaries take to be a temporall Iudge though he may very well be vnderstood to bee the high Priest who was supreme Iudge in the Councell of Priests neuerthelesse I say that albeit he were a temporall Iudge yet it is euident that the finall decision of the doubts and controuersies in that Consistorie and consequently the supreme authoritie resided in the high Priest seeing that the said Iudge if he were a different person was no other then Minister either to see the high Priests commandement executed or to ordaine and decree the punishment of those who should disobey him it being ordained in the Law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest should die by the decree of the Iudge So that it belonged to the high Priest absolutely to command and to the Iudge to giue sentence of death against the transgressors of his commandement besides that c. 10 But first obserue good Reader the corrupt proceeding of this man who to prooue his purpose doth falsely and otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition alledge the words of holy Scripture
For although the Councell of Trent hath denounced anathema l Sess 4. against all them who shall not receiue for sacred and canonicall the entire bookes of holy Scripture with all their parts as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholike Church and are extant in the ancient vulgate Latine edition and hath ordained and declared that this ancient and vulgate Edition which by long custome of so many ages hath beene approoued in the Church shall be receiued for Canonicall in publike lessons disputations sermons and expositions and that no man shall dare or presume to reiect it vnder any pretence for which cause the said Councell hath moreouer ordained that heereafter the holy Scripture and especially this ancient and vulgar Edition shall bee printed very correctly which Decree of the Councell Pope Sixtus the fifth vndertooke to execute printing that vulgate Edition in the Vaticane and by a speciall Bull prefixed to the beginning thereof commanded that all men should take that and none other for holy Scripture which Edition because sundry errours were found therein Pope Clement the eight printed more correctly Neuerthelesse Mr. Fitzherbert is not afraide to cite contrary to the said decrees this place of holy Scripture otherwise then it is found in the vulgate Edition 11 For whereas in the vulgate Edition wee reade thus and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke and to the Iudge that shall be at that time Mr. Fitzherbert translateth it and to the Iudges in the plurall number But which importeth more whereas the wordes following a little after are thus in the vulgate Edition But he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at that time ministreth to our Lord thy God and the decree of the Iudge that man shall die and thou shalt take away c. Mr. Fitzherbert with small respect to the aforesaid Decrees citeth the wordes thus But he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away c. So that the sentence of death is in this place denounced by the expresse appointment of God not onely against him who shall not obey the commandement of the Priest but also against him that shall not obey the decree of the Iudge 12 Now whether this Iudge was a temporall or a spirituall Iudge and if he was a temporall Iudge whether he was subordinate to the High Priest or no it is a controuersie among Catholike Diuines Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that this Iudge may very well be vnderstood to be the High Priest himselfe who was the supreme Iudge in the Councel of Priests and albeit he were a temporall Iudge neuerthelesse I say saith Mr. Fitzherbert it is euident that the finall decision of doubts and controuersies in that consistory and consequently the supreame authoritie resided in the High Priest seeing that the said Iudge if hee were a different person was no other then a Minister c. 13 But albeit this Iudge may be vnderstood to be an inferiour spirituall Iudge subordinate to the high Priest as Abulensis affirmeth vpon that place and not the high Priest himselfe by reason of the coniunction copulatiue and but he that is proud refusing to obey the commandement of the high Priest and the decree of the Iudge which coniunction and saith Abulensis denoteth the Iudge to be a different person frō the high Priest neuerthelesse this Iudge may also be very well vnderstood to be a temporall Iudge and in temporall causes independent on the high Priest And truely the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to prooue that this Iudge if he were a temporall Iudge was onely a Minister of the high Priest is of small force for that to prooue the same he alledgeth as you haue seene the words of the holy Scripture otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition seeing that it is onely ordained in the law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest and the decree of the Iudge should die those words by the decree of the Iudge are neither in the Hebrew nor in the vulgate Edition declared so to be by Pope Sixtus and Clement And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert must not take it ill if I giue no credite to his bare I say and that I doe preferre the exposition of the Glosse of Nicolaus de Lyra vpon that place who affirmeth that this tribunall to which in doubtfull cases the Iewes were bound to haue recourse did consist both of spirituall of temporal power and that the one was independent on the other before his bare I say which is onely grounded vpon a false allegation of the words of the holy Scripture 14 The words of the Glosse vpon that place are these Hîc agitur c. Here it is treated sayth he of superiour Iudges to whom there ought to be made recourse in doubtfull and difficult matters and some things are put for example when it is said betweene bloud and bloud that is when one part of the Iudges doe say that the shedding of bloud of such a man is to be punished with death because it is reduced to wilfull murther an other part saith no because it is to be reduced to chance-medley Cause and cause to wit when one part of the Iudges saith that the cause of the plaintife is iust and an other the cause of the defendant Leprosie and not leprosie to wit when one part saith that the disease of such a man is leprosie and an other saith it is not Arise and goe vp c. In these cases and such like there must be had recourse to superiour Iudges to wit to the high Priest and to the Iudge of the people of Israel And sometimes it happened that both offices did concurre in one person as it is manifest in Holy who was Iudge and high Priest of the people 1. Reg. 4. but more commonly they were distinct persons as also offices Therefore this recourse may be vnderstood to both ioyntly and this was in causes which could not be decided by one without the other as in the building of the temple which could not be performed without Kingly authoritie nor ordered without the direction of the Priest or seuerally to both that in spirituall causes there should be recourse to the high Priest and in temporalls to the Iudge And from this grew the custome that from inferiour Ecclesiasticall Iudges there is made appeale to the chiefest Bishop and from inferiour Princes and Secular Iudges to the King or Emperour Thus writeth the Glosse whose doctrine in this point Mr. Fitzherbert will neuer be able to prooue to be improbable 15 But secondly although I should for Disputation sake grant Mr. Fitzherbert which he is neuer able to conuince that this tribunall Consistorie or Councell to which in doubts and difficulties of the law when the
he was chosen to be their Law-maker and Prince not by manner of reigning or hauing properly dominion but rather b Abulensis q. 8. in cap. 6.2 Paralip per modum iudicantis by manner of iudging 58 And by this you may plainly see in what manner the temporall gouernment of the Iewes and not the spirituall was altered by the institution of Kings for that the supreme temporall power or dominion which before their institution did reside in the whole multitude or people of Israel was after their institution wholly translated to the King But that the course of the law was changed and turned vpside downe in fauour of Kings or that the spirituall gouernment of the high Priests was altered by the institution of Kings is a meere fiction For the same spirituall authoritie and superioritie that the Priests had before the institution of Kings they kept also after their institution and as all the people of Israel in whom the supreme spirituall power did before reside were neuerthelesse subiect in spirituals to the high Priests so also were Kings afterwards subiect also in spirituals to the same high Priests although in temporals they were supreme and the high Priests subiect and inferiour to them 59 And therefore to auoide tediousnesse I will omit to relate Mr. Fitzherberts text which he setteth down in the three next pages to prooue that the law of God was not altered and turned vpside downe by the institution of Kings and that the institution of Regall authoritie did not worke any alteration of the diuine law touching the authority of the high Priest and matters belonging to Religion nor brought any preiudice to the Ecclesiasticall dignitie nor did derogate from the obedience due to the high Priest in matters meere spirituall nor from the Soueraigntie of the spirituall power and function in things spirituall for of this there is no controuersie for ought I know albeit Mr. Fitzherbert saith that his Aduersaries but who they are I know not neither doth he expresse who they be doe make question about the same And therefore supposing that the high Priest retained the same spirituall power authoritie and dignitie after the institution of Kings which he had before their institution I will proceede to the examining of Mr. Fitzherberts arguments which he bringeth to proue that in the old law the high Priests were superiour not onely in dignitie and nobilitie but also in power and authoritie to the Kings as well in temporall as spirituall causes and that the Kings might be chastised temporally by the high Priest SECT II. Wherein all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the old law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authoritie of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastise and depose Kings is disprooued secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered and thirdly it is shewed that the authoritie of S. Chrysostome brought by my Aduersarie to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authoritie he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth S. Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine THe first argument which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old law since the institution of the Kings of Israel is taken from their institution creation and vnction For almightie God sayth Mr. Fitzherbert a nu 14.15 pag 76. ordained that the Kings should receiue their very institution creation and vnction from the high Priests and Prophets Whereupon it followeth from the vndoubted maxime of the Apostle Hebr. 7. that the said Priests and Prophets were superiour to Kings for sine vlla contradictione sayth the Apostle quod minus est a meliore benedicitur without any contradiction the lesse is blessed by the better which argument S. Chrysostome vseth in like manner saying Chrysost de verbis Isa hom Deus ipsum Regale caput c. God hath subiected the very head of the King to the hands of the Priest teaching vs that this Prince to wit the Priest is greater then the other for that which is lesse receiueth benediction from that which is more worthie So he who vrgeth also to the same end that the Kings in the old Testament were annointed by Priests and inferreth thereupon that maior hic principatus the principalitie of the Priest is greater then the Kings Ibid. hom 4. Whereby he also acknowledgeth that the Priests of the old Testament were superiour to Kings And what meruaile seeing that the said Kings were not onely created and annointed but also chastised yea deposed sometimes by Prophets and Priests 1. Reg. 9. Ibid. cap. 16. 4. Reg. 9. 3. Reg. 19. 4. Reg. 11. Samuel first created and anoynted Saul King of the Iewes and after deposed him for his offences and anointed Dauid to reigne in his place In like manner the kingdome of Israel was translated from the children of Achab to Iehu by the Prophet Elizaeus and the kingdome of Syria from Benhadab to a subiect and seruant of his called Hazael by the Prophet Elias Also in the kingdome of Iuda the wicked Queene Athalia c. 2 But this argument only prooueth that which is not in controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries to wit that the Priests and Prophets were superiour to Kings in spirituall affaires and also that the spirituall power is more noble excellent and worthie then the temporall as spirituall things doe in worth dignitie and nobilitie excell temporall things For to annoint create institute and depose Kings in that manner as Kings in the old law were annointed created and deposed by Priests or Prophets were spirituall and not temporall actions b Qu. 38. in c. 1. lib. 3. Reg. For the annointing of Kings was a religious ceremonie and appertained to the office of a Priest especially when it was done with solemnitie and as well obserueth Abulensis it did directly belong to Priests seeing that it was a sacred thing and sacred oile was powred vpon them the making and handling whereof did belong onely to Priests yet sometimes it was done by Prophets for want of Priests to wit when by no meanes it could be done by Priests as when it was secret and vnknowne whom God would haue to be annointed for King for if it were manifest who was to bee annointed hee was annointed by Priests so was Salomon and afterwards Ioas and so it is to be thought of all others who were annointed for that the kingdome did belong to them by hereditarie succession but sometimes it was vnknowne who was to bee annointed to wit when one was annointed to whom it did not appertaine by right of succession and this was done by the commandement of God for seeing that the will of God was not made manifest but to the Prophets it could
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
thrust him out no man enforcing him and the wordes of holy Scripture yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out doe cleerely insinuate the same 87 And thirdly King Ozias saith the Scripture was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house apart full of the leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord. Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land Neither from this can it be gathered that the Priests of the old law did intermeddle in any temporall action or did depriue King Ozias of his kingdome or the administration thereof but the most that from hence can be concluded is that the plague of leprosie did depriue him of the administration of his kingdome by ordaining that a leaper should dwell apart out of the campe or Citie and the Priest did onely declare the law of God and denounce him according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law to be infected with leprosie which is no temporall but a meere spirituall action 88 As likewise spirituall Pastours now in the new law haue authoritie to declare that the goods of the faithfull are to be exposed if the necessitie of the Church doe require the same but not to dispose of them or to take them away by force from the faithfull and also to declare when Princes are to vse the materiall sword for the good of the Church but not to vse it themselues as before e part 1. cap. 3. part 2. cap. 9. I declared out of Ioannes Parisiensis and 8. Bernard And if we should suppose a case which is not to wit that heresie idolatie or any other mortall crime doth ipso facto depriue Princes and Prelates of their dominion and Iurisdiction which was the doctrine of Iohn Wicleffe condemned in the Councell of Constance and therefore those words of the Ordinary Glosse f in cap. 13. lib. 1. Reg. that a wicked King during the time of his wickednesse is not according to trueth to be celled a King but onely equiuocally as a stony or painted eye and the same much more is to be said of a wicked Prelate are to be read warily and expounded fauourably to excuse them from errour then I say that spirituall Pastours may be said to haue authoritie not properly to depose an hereticall King but to declare him to be infected with heresie and consequently according to this false supposition depriued ipso facto But all this is nothing else but to declare authentically the law of God which no man denyeth to be within the limites of spirituall Iurisdiction And this might aboundantly suffice for an answere to this example of King Ozias But because Mr. Fitzherbert shall not as I said take occasion to say that all this hath beene confuted already by D. Schulckenius I am enforced good Reader to intreate thy patience in laying downe before thine eies what I answered in my Apologie to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and what D. Schulckenius hath replyed to the same 89 First therefore I answered that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the example of King Ozias were of force it would prooue more then perchance Card. Bellarmine would willingly grant to wit that not only the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests haue power by the law of God to depriue Princes of their kingdomes for spirituall leprosie seeing that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had power to iudge of leprosie The man saith the law g Leuit. 13. in whose skinne and flesh shall arise a diuers colour or a blisters or any thing as it were shining that is to say the plague of the leprosie shall be brought to Aaron the Priest or any one of his sonnes and at his arbitrement he shall be separated Besides this example doth also prooue that Prince not onely for heresie but also for all other mortall sinnes whatsoeuer may be deposed by Bishops and Priests for that not onely the sinne of heresie but also other sinnes were figured by leprosie Bellar. lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 3. as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth who speaking of the confessing of sinnes saith that the knowledge of sinne which was figured by leprosie and is most aptly named a spirituall leprosie appertaineth to Christian Priests This was my first answere 90 To which D. Schulckenius replyeth thus h pag. 542. ad num 355. I answere It is credible that is the old Testament according to the diuersitie of the leprosie and the diuersitie of the persons there were also diuers iudgements greater and lesser and that it was not lawfull for euery Priest to iudge a King But for this his credibile est it is credible he produceth neither Scripture reason nor any other authoritie and therefore we are rather to beleeue the words of holy Scripture which absolutely affirme that either Aaron the High-Priest or any one of his sonnes might iudge of leprosie without distinguishing either this kind or that kind of leprosie or this kind or that kind of person then the bare credibile est of this Doctour grounded vpon his owne bare word and not vpon any text of holy Scripture Abul q. 1. in cap. 13. Leuit. reason or authoritie Other Priests saith Abulensis had power to iudge in the plague of leprosie as Aaron and therefore to whom soeuer of them that person who had such signes should be showed it was sufficient Therefore when Christ had cured the ten lepers he did not send them specially to the High-Priest but to any one of the Priests saying Goe shew your selues to the Priests 91 But howsoeuer it be saith this Doctour concerning the custome of that nation assuredly in the Church of Christ greater causes are reserued to the See Apostolike as we read cap. Maiores de Baptismo eius effectu in the Decret all Epistles Therefore euery Priest may indeed iudge of the leprosie of sinne and absolue or bind his Subiects but some more heynous crimes are reserued to Bishops others also to the Pope as first of all is the crime of heresie to which the name of leprosie doth autonomasticè agree Therefore it is no meruaile that euery Priest cannot iudge Kings euen for the crime of heresie Adde that in the olde Testament it selfe we haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie then by the high Priest 92 But this Reply doth not answere my argument For my argument did onely proceede of the power of Priests standing in the law of God and abstracting from the positiue lawes of the Church It would follow said I that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea also and Priests haue power by the law of God c. Now who knoweth not that cases are reserued onely by the law of the Church and that by the law of God there is no reseruation of cases but that
Priest did onely continue for the time they were infected with leprosie for which time neuerthelesse they remained true Kings although others did administer their kingdome For vnablenesse to gouerne the kingdome doth not depriue Kings of their right and authoritie to reigne as it is manifest in a King who is vnder age in whom there is true dominion power and right to reigne although vntill hee come to yeeres of discretion there is appointed him a Protector and Guardian who doth in the Kings name and by the Kings authoritie adminster all the affaires of the kingdome And that King Ozias for all the time of his infirmitie which continued vntill the day of his death did remaine true King the Glosse doth most plainely teach 2. Paralip 26. who writeth thus The Hebrewes are of opinion that this the miraculous striking of Ozias with leprosie happened in the 25th yeere of Ozias the rest of whose yeeres are twentie seuen and he raigned fiftie one yeeres And the same is gathered not obscurely from the Scripture it selfe in that place Wherevpon although we reade in the 21. vers that for the time Ozias was a leper Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house yet wee doe not reade that Ioathan his sonne reigned for him but after that Ozias was dead vers 23. 98 To this my answere D. Schulckenius replieth thus p Pag. â— I answere first although Ozias should haue beene depriued only of the administration of the kingdome and constrained to giue it ouer to his sinne yet had kept the right and authoritie to reigne as my Aduersarie Widdrington will haue it neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmines argument would be strong and vnshaken For from hence also by the grant of my Aduersarie is we doe gather that King Ozias was by the Priest of Aaron depriued not only of the communion of sacred things but also of the administration of his kingdome and punished not only with a spirituall but also with a temporall punishment But my Aduersarie denieth that an hereticall King can be depriued of the administration of his Kingdome and he saith that he can only be depriued of the receiuing of Sacraments 99 But first it is vntrue that I euer granted as this Doctour saith that the Priest of the old law depriued King Ozias of the administration of his kingdome but as you shall beneath q Num. I affirmed the flat contrarie Secondly it is strange how Card. Bellarmines argument can stand firme and vnshaken if the antecedent proposition for as much as concerneth the principall part thereof be not true as this Doctour in this his answere doth suppose For the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument contained two parts the one was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued of his kingdome and authoritie to reigne and from hence he concluded as you haue seene If therefore the Priest of the old law had power to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie why may not a Priest now doe the same for spirituall leprosie and of this part to wit of depriuing Princes of their kingdomes and of their right or authoritie to reigne I did only speake in this part of my answere And if this part which was the principall point of Card. Bellarmines argument be supposed to be false as this Doctour doth suppose how can his argument for as much as concerneth this point stand strong and vnshaken 100 The second part of Card. Bellarmines agrument was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued by the High Priest of the administration of his kingdome and of this second part I did not speake one word in this part of my answere but only of the depriuing him of his kingdome dominion or right to reigne And I affirmed that although the Priests of the old law had authoritie to iudge a leper and by a declaratiue sentence or commandement to denounce that he was to be seuered from the rest of the people which was only to declare the commandement and law of God considering that this separation was ordained by the expresse commandement of God after the Priest had iudged him to be infected with leprosie yet from hence it cannot be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen per accidens and consequently vnlesse their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre as it doth not that they were consequently depriued also of their kingdomes But their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre saith this Doctour that they were depriued at least of the administration of their kingdome and therefore from hence it may be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue per accidens and consequently Princes that were infected with leprosie at least wise of the administration of their kingdome But of this I will treate a little beneath after I haue examined the second Reply which this Doctour maketh to this first part of my answere to his antecedent proposition 101 I answere secondly saith D. Schulckenius r Pag. 546. King Ozias did indeed retaine the name of a King for the residue of his life but a bare and naked name For his sonne did gouerne the kingdome with full power although without the name of a King For so the Scripture speaketh 2. Paralip 26. King Ozias was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house a part full of leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the land The same is said 4. Reg. 15. Therefore we haue not from the Scripture that any part of the gouernment did any way appertaine to Ozias which Iosephus doth more cleerely explicate lib. 9. Antiq. cap. 11. While he saith that the sonne of Ozias did take vpon him the kingdome and that Ozias liued a priuate life vntill his death But howsoeuer it be this is manifest that Ozias was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment 102 But thou wilt say that Ozias retained the name of a King and as it was said in the first answere perchance a right to reigne Therefore from hence it cannot be proued that hereticall Kings may altogether be depriued of their kingdomes by the Pope I answere First from hence it is proued that the Pope may for a iust cause inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome Secondly it is consequently gathered that for a most weightie cause and for a very heinous crime and very pernicious to the Church as for example is heresie he may inflict a more grieuous punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome For both Innocentius the fourth did remoue Sanctius the second King of Portugall from the administration of the
serued him but the rest which belonged to the Kingly affaires Ioathan did and perchance it is called a free house because it was out of the Citie Therefore that the Kingly estate prouision pompe should not cease Ioathan Ozias his sonne gouerned the Kings Pallace to wit he remained in the Kings house and all the Nobles and mightiest men of the Land had recourse to him as they were wont to haue recourse to Ozias and he kept all the seruants and all the other prouision which his Father kept that the Regall state should not seeme to be diminished and yet he was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate and the rest as follow before nu 104. 108 Wherefore D. Schulckenius perceiuing this his assertion not to be grounded either in Scripture reason or any other authoritie flyeth backe againe to his former answere that Ozias was at least wise depriued of the administration of the kingdome from whence first it is prooued sayth he that the Pope may inflict vpon a King for a iust cause a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome and secondly from thence consequently it is gathered that for a most important cause and a very heinous crime as is heresie he may inflict a greater punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome 109 But although I should grant to this Doctour that the High-Priest did depriue King Ozias per accidens and consequently not onely of the administration of the kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and right to reigne that is by declaring him to be a leper which disease did by the law of God as we now suppose but doe not grant depriue him ipso facto of his right to reigne yet froÌ„ thence it cannot be proued that the Pope hath the like authoritie to depriue an hereticall King of his Kingdome or the administration thereof per accidens or consequently for that no punishmeÌ„t is appointed by the law of Christ to heresie as it was in the old law to leprosie but to punish heretikes with this or that kind of spirituall punishment Christ hath left to the discretion of spirituall Pastours and to punish them with temporall punishments to the discretion of temporall Princes who therefore as well said Dominicus Bannes may put heretikes to death or punish them in some other manner But if Christ our Sauiour had in the new law assigned particularly any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods or the like for those who should bee infected with heresie as God in the olde law did ordaine that lepers should dwell out of the Campe in a house apart then the Pope might indeed punish heretikes temporally per accidens and consequently to wit onely by declaring the law of Christ and that they were infected with heresie to which crime such punishments are according to this supposition appointed by the law of Christ Neither should he heerein transcend his spirituall authoritie But to execute this law by putting heretikes to death or by inflicting vpon them temporall punishments and punishing them actually with the same doth exceede the limits of that spirituall authoritie which hath beene giuen to the Priests eyther of the new law or of the olde 110 And albeit Pope Innocent the fourth and also other Popes haue depriued Soueraigne Princes very few times for heresie but often for other crimes not onely of their administration but also of the kingdome it selfe yet this is no sufficient ground to prooue that they had any true and rightfull power so to doe as it is manifest of it selfe and in my Apologie I haue declared more at large z Nu. 444. 445 for that it is one thing saith Cardinall Bellarmine a In Respons ad Apolog. pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so of Popes and other persons and another thing to prooue their authoritie and power And thus much concerning the first part of my answere to the antecedent proposition of Cardinall Bellarmines argument The second part of my answere was contained in these words 111 Neither also doth Cardinal Bellarmine sufficiently confirme that the Leuiticall Priests had authority to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie onely of the administration of their Kingdomes for that time onely that they were infected with leprosie For albeit Ozias after he was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie did not administer the kingdome the cause thereof might bee for that hee being not fit to gouerne the kingdome during the time of his infirmitie did commit the gouernment to Ioathan his sonne and did appoint him the Administratour of the kingdome vntill he should be restored to his former health But that a Priest of the old law had authority to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie either of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof it cannot bee sufficiently gathered from the holy Scripture As also we cannot sufficiently collect from the holy Scripture that a Priest of the old law had authoritie to depriue housholders being infected with leprosie either of their goods or of the administration thereof although it be very like that seeing such householders ought at the iudgement of the Priest declaring them to be leapers to dwell out of the campe they themselues did commit to others the authoritie to bee administratours of their goods for the time they were infected with leprosie And so the weakenesse of the antecedent proposition is manifest 112 Now you shal see in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius replieth to this my answere I answere saith he b Pag 5â—â— These make nothing to the matter It is enough for vs that King Ozias did by the commandement of the High Priest dwell in a house apart from the time of his leprosie vntill his death and that seeing hee could not conuerse with the people he was enforced to permit the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing at all concerning the affaires of the kingdome was referred to him But if he had not beene subiect to the power of the High Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will dwell in the Kings Cittie and gouerne the kingdome either by himselfe or by his Ministers For leprosie doth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne Truly Naaman Syrus was a leeper and because he was not subiect to the high Priest of the Hebrewes he did nâ—t dwell in a house apart but he was the Generall of Warfare and he went wheresoeuer he would See 4. Reg. 5. And in the same manner the High Priest might depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially if they had any in Citties because he did separate them from the people or the conuersation of men and did exclude them from Citties and consequently depriued them of the administration of those goods which they had in Citties albeit they might administer them by
materially of an equall or not inferiour order and excellency then the things figured so that formally as they are figures or in that they are figures they are lesse perfect and excellent then are the things figured Now this Doctour doth craftily take here figures and the things figured not formally and according to that wherein they are figures but materially for otherwise as you shall see he saith nothing to the purpose and to the confuting of my answere For neither Manna nor the Paschall lambe are figures of the Eucharist as the accidents of the Eucharist doe concurre to the nourishing of the body but onely as they are profitable to the nourishing of the soule Neither was corporall leprosie or the separation of lepers from ciuill conuersation a figure of spirituall leprosie and of Ecclesiasticall separation or Excommunication as corporall leprosie doth infect the body and Excommunication doth separate from ciuill conuersation but only as spirituall leprosie doeth infect the soule and Ecclesiasticall Excommunication doth separate from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall communion for that a figure must in all those things wherein it is a figure be more noble and excellent then is the thing which is figured And therefore as Cardinall Bellarmine very well obserueth q Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. to fulfill a figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to bee done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when he himselfe was circumcised but when hee ordained Baptisme in the place thereof Thus Card. Bellarmine 148 From whence it euidently followeth that the separation of corporall lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation could not bee a figure of the separation of spirituall lepers also from ciuill conuersation for that ciuill conuersation is one and the self same thing and not another thing more excellent which according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine must succeede in place of the figure but the fulfilling of this figure must bee the separating of spirituall lepers from spirituall or Ecclesiasticall conuersation And therefore although Ecclesiasticall Excommunication hath by the lawes of the Church annexed vnto it in that manner as I haue before declared the excluding by way of commandement from ciuill conuersation if otherwise by the law of GOD and nature we are not bound ciuilly to conuerse yea and also according to Cardinall Bellarmine the depriuing of temporall kingdomes or at leastwise of the administration thereof yet the separating of lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation or the depriuing them of temporall kingdomes or administration could not according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds bee a figure of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication in the new law as Excommunication is pretended to worke the same effects but onely as it worketh more excellent effects to wit the separating of the faithfull from spirituall conuersation and excluding them from the kingdome of heauen 149 Wherefore if wee doe respect onely the nature and propertie of a figure it is euident that Cardinall Bellarmine according to his owne principles hath not any way prooued that because corporall leprosie and the punishments annexed thereunto in the old law to wit the depriuing of temporall kingdomes Iurisdiction or administration as Cardinall Bellarmine contendeth was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the punishments annexed thereunto in the new law therefore the same punishments to wit the depriuing of temporall dominion Iurisdiction or administration were figured by them and consequently may now by vertue of the figure bee ordained against spirituall lepers for this were not according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine to fulfill the figure and to put in place thereof something more excellent but to put that very same thing which the law in that figure prescribed to be done And therefore Cardinall Bellarmine must bring better arguments vnlesse he will quite discredit himselfe and his cause drawne from other heads then from the figure of leprosie and of separating lepers from ciuill conuersation which according to his owne principles doth as you haue seene make cleere against him to prooue that spirituall Pastours either by vertue of Excommunication or in any other manner haue authoritie to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes and dominions or of any temporall administration or Iurisdiction 150 Lastly whereas in the end of this my answere I affirmed as you haue seene that Cardinall Bellarmine did not truely and entirely set downe the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. And all these things chanced to them in figure for that hee left out that word these which is a relatiue and hath relation onely to those things whereof the Apostle spake before among which corporall leprosie is none and hee affirmeth him to say And all things chanced to the Iewes in figure this Doctour maketh much adoe and laboureth in vaine to excuse Card. Bellarmine And first hee answereth u pag. 553. that Cardinall Bellarmine did not produce the words but the sense of St. Paul but it is certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that Chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure but those and other like to them 151 But first this answere is not agreeable to Card. Bellarmines owne words The Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. saith Cardinall Bellarmine that all things did chance to the Iewes in figure and what I pray you is to say that the Apostle saith so then to produce the Apostles words Secondly although it bee certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure yet it is certaine that the Apostle in that chapter did onely say that all these things and not all things absolutely as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth him to say did chance to the Iewes in figure Thirdly albeit S. Paul knew right well that not onely all those altogethere mentioned but many other such like dioâ—ce to the Iewes in figure yet it was sufficient for his purpose in that place onely to affirme that all those things there mentioned and not that all things absolutely did chance to the Iewes in figure neither was it necessarie that the Apostle should in that chapter say all hee knew it was suffient for him to say in that chapter onely that which did suffice for his present purpose Wherefore this Doctour must distinguish betwixt knowledge which is in the vnderstanding and meaning which is in the will and so hee may see that the Apostle knew right well that not onely those things there mentioned but those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure and yet onely meant to say in that place that all those things there mentioned and not all those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure Neither did St. Paul meane otherwise then the words which he spake did signifie but it is
the high Priest this oath must needes haue beene repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament Thus farre I haue thought good to lay downe the words of my Supplement touching the law of God in the old Testament c. 168 To this authority of S. Chrysostome I did answere in my English Disputation of the oath long before Mr. Fitzherbert Reply come foorth And all the force of his argument taken from this authoritie seemeth to consist in those wordes of S. Chrysostome Consedit in throno legem Dei riâ—sus transgrediens He sate in his throne transgressing againe the law of God From whence this man inferreth that God was offended not only because Ozias was not cast out of the City but also because he was suffered still to reigne whereas this only can be gathered from those words and these other and you are afraid to cast him being vncleane out of the City you beare reuerence to his Kingly dignitie violating the law of God c. I doe therefore speake no longer to the Prophets c. That God was offended and speake no longer to the Prophets for that Ozias being a leper and vncleane was not cast out of the City as it was ordained by the law which also S. Chrysostome in the next homily doth more plainly declare 169 Ego vero saith this holy Father si vnum quiddam adhuc addidero c. But if I shall adde yet one other thing I will make an end of my speach And what is this That which not long agoe from the beginning we did demaund What is the cruse that seeing in externall things and in prophecies all are went to set downe the time wherein the Kings did liue this Prophet Esay ommiting that expresseth the time wherein King Ozias dyed speaking in this manner And it came to passe in the yeere wherein King Ozias dyed And yet he might haue expressed the time of the King then reigning as all Prophets vsually did But he did not so For what cause did he not so It was an ancient custome to expell a leprous out of the Citty both to the end that those who liued in the Citty might be in better health and that the leprous should not giue to men prone to vse reprochfull words an occasion of scoffing and derision but that he abyding out of the City might haue solitarines in steede of a vaile or couer against reprochfull calamitie And this ought this King to haue suffered after his leprosie but he did not suffer it those that were in the City reuerencing him for his Soueraignitie but he remained at his house secretly This to wit that he remained at his house secretly and went not forth of the City prouoked GOD to wrath this hindered the prophecie c. Thus saith S. Chrysostome whereby it is manifest that S. Chrysostome doth not affirme that God was offended because Ozias was not thrust out of his kingdom or depriued of his right to reigne but because he liued secretly at his house in the City and did not depart out of the City according as the law in Leuiticus did ordaine 170 Wherefore the meaning of those words of S. Chrysostome He sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God is made more plaine by these later words which I did now relate For as before he being no Priest trangressed the law of God by presuming to offer Sacrifice vpon the Altar of incense contrary to the law so now againe he being for his former offence striken by GOD with leprosie transgressed the law by presuming to remaine in the City which the law did forbid Allo Mr. Fitzherbert may perchance vse some cunning translating those words of S. Chrysostome Sedebat to thrâ—â—â— c. He sate still in his throne breaking againe the law of God as though Ozias had offended againe by remaining still in his throne or which I take for all one by continuing still to reigne and by keeping still his Royall dignitie and authoritie or right to reigne and not resigning it ouer wholy and fully to his sonne Ioathan Wherefore taking those words He sate still in his throne in this sense that word still may be equiuocall and of purpose thrust in by Mr. Fitzherbert to signifie that he offended for keeping still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne whereas the words of S. Chrysostome only are that he sate in his throne breaking againe the law of God not for that he brake againe the law of God because he sate in his throne or which I take for all one kept still his Royall authoritie and right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did gouerne the kingdome in his name and by his authoritie and as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy but for that he departed not our of the City as S. Chrysostome himselfe expresly declareth But if Mr. Fitzherbert will haue S. Chrysostome to take that word throne for the materiall Royall seate or chaire of estate which remained in the City for so also the Latin word may be Englished then this sense is in effect all one with the first which I contended to be Chrysostomes meaning to wit that Ozias transgressed the law againe for remaining in the City for leprosie did not debarre him by the law from sitting in a chaire of estate out of the City or from any iote of his Kingly right power or authoritie as I shewed before 171 But lastly it is worth the noting to obserue how well forfooth Mr. Fitzherbert agreeth with Card. Bellarmine in vrging this example of King Ozias For Card. Bellarmine contendeth that Ozias was thrust out both of the City and also of his kingdome but this man laboureth to proue that according to S. Chrysostome hee was neither cast out of his kingdome nor out of the City Others with Iosephus affirme that he liued in deede out of the City but withall that he still reigned or remained King although Ioathan in his name and authoritie or as his Deputie Lieutenant or Vice-Roy administred the kingdome Neuerthelesse Abulensis Abulens q. 29 in Cap. 25. Exodi although he greatly commendeth Iosephus as a most skillfull Historiographer of the Iewes of whom also hee writeth m Q 9 in cap. 15. lib. 4. Reg. that it is likely he know all the particular facts of those Kings yet he leaueth the opinion of Iosephus in this point Sometimes saith Abulensis n Q. 10 in cap 13 â—euit the plague of leprosie was perpetuall and then the leper remained vntill his death out of the Campe separated from the rest and this was vnlesse perchance he was a man of great excellencie as the King who if he fell into leprosie did not goe out of the campe but remained therein but he was in a certaine separate house as we reade 4. Reg. 15. Of King Ozias who there is called Azarias for he fell into leprosie being stiken by GOD in the forehead because he would burne incense to our Lord as Priests where it
the word vpside downe or peruerted the course of Nature but knew right well that things lesse perfect are not to be preferred before the more perfect the body before the soule sense before reason temporall things before spirituall policie before Religion earth before heauen and the world before God And therefore there is none but such ignorant men as my Aduersarie is that can or will affirme the new Oath of allegiance to be repugnant to the law of Nature or to the light of nature reason for that it denyeth the authoritie of spirituall Pastours to punish temporally ablute Princes or to depriue them of their kingdomes or dominions 44 And by this the insufficiencie of the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Discourse will easily appeare This was some part saith he i Pag. 101. num 12. of my Discourse in my Supplement concerning the law of Nature whereby thou seest good Reader that I haue sufficiently shewed two things the one that according to the law of Nature the temporall state and power is subordinate and subiect to the spirituall when they are conioined in one body no lesse then the familie is subordinate and subiect to the Common-wealth in like case because the end of the temporall power is subordinate to the end of the spirituall power which ouerthroweth my Aduersaries false principle to wit that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill Societie are so distinct in nature and office that though they be ioined together yet they haue no dependance the one of the other vpon which false ground and vaine supposition often affirmed by Barclay and him and neuer proued by either of them they found all their false doctrine 45 But how vntrue this is I haue already shewed For in the law of Nature the temporall state and power was not subiect and subordinate to the spirituall or Religious except only in excellencie and nobilitie whereof there is no question but contrariwise the Priests of the law of Nature were subiect in spirituall and religious affaires to the supreme ciuill Gouernour when they were distinct persons neither did they make two distinct Common-wealths as they doe in the law written but the ciuill Common-wealth had authoritie to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state and not only to make Priests and to giue them Priestly power but also to increase diminish alter or to take away from them their Priestly authoritie and to determine of all things both temporall and spirituall which is not so in the law written wherein Priests haue their authoritie from the positiue institution and law of God himselfe 46 True it is that the Heathen Common-wealths gaue great authoritie priueledges and exemptions to those persons whom they chose and appointed to be their Priests especially to the chiefe Priest or Bishop whereof reade Alexander lib. 2. cap. 8. and lib. 3. cap. 27. to whom the Romanes gaue such great honour that they did esteeme him next to the King or supreme temporall Prince and gaue him authoritie to command and also to punish the King of sacred rites and all the other inferiour Priests Yea euen to Vestall Virgins who were Priests of the Goddesse Vesta such honour was giuen by the Romanes that if by chance they should meete any malefactour that was led to death hee should not for that time be put to death Plutarch in Numa Alex. lib. 5. cap. 12. vpon condition that the Virgin must sweare that her meeting of him was casuall and not of purpose But from hence it cannot be gathered that the religious Priests had by the law of Nature such authoritie priueledges and prerogatiues but only that the Common-wealth in honour of Religion did grant them such temporall honour and authoritie and would haue them to be obeyed in some matters of great moment vnder paine of death 47 Now in the new law in what manner the temporall Common-wealth or rather those persons who are parts and members therof are subiect to spirituall Pastours I haue at large declared aboue in the second part where I haue sufficiently proued out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds that the coniunction of temporall power and of spirituall subiection in the same Christian man is not sufficient to make the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth among Christians one totall body or Common-wealth whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head for then the Pope must be both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of all Christendome and Christians and that although they should make one totall body or Common-wealth whereof Christ only is the head in that manner as I there declared yet from thence it could not be concluded that the temporall power or Common-wealth is per se and naturally subiect and subordinate to the spirituall power or Common-wealth but only that Christian Princes not as they haue temporall power but as being members of the Church of Christ they haue spirituall subiection and consequently in spiritualls and not in temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power or common-wealth and the spirituall Pastours thereof And there also I answered all the arguments which D. Schulckenius brought to proue the contrarie Let Mr. Fitzherbert impugne that Treatise and then he may haue some cause to brag that this doctrine of mine and Barclaies is a false and vaine supposition of our owne In the meane time the Reader may cleerely see how vainely and friuolously he hath proued by the law of Nature that the temporall power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that in the law of Nature Religious Priests as they were such might command and correct temporally the temporall Common-wealth or supreme temporall Prince whereas the quite contrary is manifest by the law of nature 48 The other thing saith Mr. Fitzherbert that I haue shewed is that by reason of this naturall subordination and subiection of the lawes and lesse perfect Societies to the higher and more perfect it is most conforme to nature that the head of the Church who is the supreme spirituall Magistrate may command and correct all inferiour Magistrates as well temporall as spirituall when the necessitie either of the whole body or of the Church only which is the most perfect and supreme Societie doth require it as in like case the supreme ciuill Magistrate who is Prince and head of the Common-wealth iustly commandeth and punisheth the heads of Families or Cities notwithstanding that the said Families and Cities are distinct Societies and bodies and haue their lawes and Magistrates apart no lesse then the Common-wealth and Church haue theirs 49 But first it is vntrue that there is any naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall power or Common-wealth to the spirituall except in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and whereof no man maketh doubt neither doth the dignity and perfection of the more noble and excellent Societie inferre a superioritie in command and authoritie ouer the lesse worthy and lesse noble Societie vnlesse we will haue the companie of Goldsmiths to haue
other temporall commodities as I haue shewed in the last Chapter c Num. 18. 6 But truely I cannot but smile to see the vanitie of this man who though he see himselfe altogether vanquished yet he boasteth that hee is victorious and although he clearely perceiueth yea and almost expressely confesseth that his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. Chapter to be quite ouerthrowne yet hee braggeth that his cause is not thereby weakened or hurt any way but rather fortified and strengthened For if you note well what he granteth to wit That the penalty of corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the olde and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by excommunication you cannot but clearely see that his argument taken from Deuteronomy the 17. Chapter which onely text in particular I vndertooke to answere and which speaketh onely of corporall death is quite ouerthrowne and yet forsooth I doe hereby rather fortifie and strengthen then weaken or hurt any way his cause By which you may plainely perceiue what credit is to be giuen to the rest of his vaine-glorious brags seeing that in this so manifest an ouerthrow of his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. he is not ashamed to boast that I haue rather fortified and strengthened then weakened or hurt any way his cause But will Widdrington saith he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication includeth a temporall punishment c. The inference that Widdrington maketh is that from the wordes of Deuteronomy the 17. which speake onely of corporall death Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought no good argument for that according to the doctrine of Saint Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine which hee himselfe also will not denie The penalty of corporall death is now in the new law turned to the death of the soule by Excommunication Neither is it true that Excommunication being of it own nature a separation frō the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull doth of it owne nature include any temporall punishment at all as also I haue shewed in the last Chapter albeit I doe not denie that the Church hath now by way of command annexed to Excommunication some temporall penalties but not by way of inflicting them as I declared in that place for I euer granted that the Church hath power to command enioyne or impose temporall punishments but not to inflict them yet these to command and to inflict to impose and to dispose my Aduersary doth commonly confound 7 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 114. numer 4.5 it is euident that in the olde Testament euen the temporall Princes themselues were punished by depriuation of their right to their temporall states and dominions as e 1 Reg. 16. Saul by Samuel Athalia f 4 Reg. 11. by Ioiada Ioram g 4 Reg. 9. by one of the children of the Prophets who being sent by Elizeus annointed Iehu King of Israel to the end he might destroy Iesabel all the house of Achab. Also Ozias was not only corporally expelled out of the temple by the Priests confined by their sentence to liue priuately is his own house but according to the opinion doctrine of S. Chrysostome he ought also to haue beene wholy depriued of the gouernment as I haue signified before h Cap. 5. nu 21. 22. at large And therefore seeing he telleth vs how the penalty of corporall death which was ordained in the olde Testament is now fulfilled spiritually in the new let him also tell vs to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their states and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end that wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment and in the meane time let him acknowledge according to his owne doctrine and instance here produced that the Church may punish temporally seeing it may excommunicate and consequently depriue men of many temporall commodities 8 But this also is very vntrue that the Priests of the olde Testament had authoritie to punish temporall Princes by depriuing them of their right to their temporall states and dominions as I amply prooued aboue in the 5. Chapter Neither doe these examples brought here by Mr. Fitzherbert prooue any such thing For to the examples of King Ozias and Athalia I haue answered aboue at large And as for the other two besides that Samuel Elias and Elizeus were not Priests it is manifest that what they did concerning the annointing or deposing of any King they did it not by their owne authority but onely as Prophets and speciall messengers sent by God to that purpose How long saith God to Samuel i 1 Reg. 16. dost thou mourne Saul whom I haue reiected that hee rule not ouer Israel Fill thy horne with oyle and come that I may send thee to Isai the Bethleemite for I haue prouided me a King among his Sons And again Goe saith God to k 3 Reg. 19. Elias and returne into thy way by the desert of Damascus and when thou art come thither thou shalt annoint Hazael King ouer Syria and Iehu the Sonne of Namsi thou shalt annoint King ouer Israel and Elizeus the Sonne of Saphat thou shalt annoynt Prophet for thee And therefore he that was sent by Elizeus to annoint Iehu was commanded to speake in the person of God not of Elizeus And holding saith l 4 Reg. 9. Elizeus to him that was sent the little boxe of oyle thou shalt power vpon his head and shalt say Thus saith our Lord I haue annointed thee King ouer Israel Now what man of iudgement would make this inference that because in the olde lawe some Prophets who were no Priests did by the expresse commandement of God make annoint or depose Kings therefore the Priests in the new law haue ordinary power and authority to doe the same Belike Mr. Fitzherbert will approoue also this argument that because Elias was commanded by God to annoint not onely Iehu King ouer Israel but also Hazael King ouer Syria therefore the Pope hath authority to make and depose not onely Christian but also Pagan Kings 9 Wherefore that demand which is heere made by my Aduersary to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their States and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment is friuolous both for that the Priests of the old law had no authority to depriue Kings of their temporall States and Dominions or to inflict temporall punishments and also albeit they had such an authority neuerthelesse it could not bee prooued from thence by deducing an argument from the figure to the veritie that therefore
the Church hath not any effectuall remedie or which in his opinion is all one any sufficient authority to punish a knowen and vndoubted Pope for any crime whatsoeuer only heresie excepted Therefore you see what a foundation this Authour hath laid to subiect Popes to the examination censure and correction of a generall Councell which representeth the vniuersall Church and to quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine touching the Popes authority ouer a generall Councell which is also receiued by all the writers of his Society Thus I answered Father Parsons discourse in my Apologie 57 By which the Reader may easily perceiue what small satisfaction Fa. Parsons gaue to the Earle of Salisburies complaint both for that hee brought no cleare definition orthodoxall which the Earle required to prooue that the Pope hath authority to depose wicked Princes and to dispose of all their temporals but supposed it as graunted by all Catholikes for these silly reasons which I before rehearsed and also that from the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls it necessarily followeth as I conuinced in my Apologie d Nu. 43. Seg. that he may also takeaway their liues and giue leaue to others to kill them by all those wayes publike or secret by which temporall Princes may take away the liues of their wicked subiects and consequently his Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloudy Assassinates was not remooued by Father Parsons answere for that they who would attempt to kill such wicked and tyrannicall Princes and obstinate in their wickednesse might easily answere the decree of the Councell of Constance and affirme that what they did was not done by priuate but by publike and lawfull authoritie and that they had sufficient warrant from the virtuall at least wise and interpretatiue consent of the Pope who was bound by the law of God to giue his consent thereunto as in my Appendix against Suarez I did cleerely deduce e Part. 1. sec 9. nu 7. 8. and so those wicked miscreants that murthered the last two Kings of France and attempted to haue blowne vp with gun-powder our most noble King Queene with their Royall issue and all the nobility with the Knights and Burgeses of the Parliament did easily shift off the Decree of the Councell of Constance pretending that what they did was done by lawfull and publike authoritie 58 Now albeit Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth to defend Fa. Parsons against that which I did answere for the respect and reuerence which hee beareth to the memorie of so woorthy a man and his old friend whereof I will say nothing at this time because as he was respected and reuerenced by many Catholikes so also hee was by many not reputed woorthy of such respect and reuerence the cause whereof I will omit now to relate neuerthelesse hee saith little or nothing as you shall see against that which I vrged against him For first the greatest part of his defence hee spendeth f Pag. 120. nu 16. seq in excusing him from that whereof I did not accuse him to wit that Fa. Parsons did not say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power to worke the effect for which it was ordained but also sufficientes vires sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same but onely that the power of the Church being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment which may bee exemplified in the power to remit sinnes to giue holy Orders to excommunicate and such like For albeit the Church haue sufficient power to doe all this yet the same cannot be executed either at all times or in all places or vpon all persons by reason aswell of the in capacitie of subiects as of other externall impediments which may hinder the execution So as it were extreme folly to say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power but also sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same And the like we say concerning the power left by our Sauiour Christ to punish absolute Princes in their temporall states to wit that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient albeit the same cannot alwaies be executed and Fa. Parsons neuer taught or thought otherwise And therefore I must needes say as I said before that Widdrington hath either most grosly mistaken him which truely I cannot see how hee could doe in this place or else most maliciously abused and belyed him 59 But truely I must needes say that Mr. Fitzherbert to returne him backe his owne wordes hath either most grosly mistaken mee or else most maliciously abused and belyed me For I neither said nor meant to say that Fa. Parsons supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that Christ hath left to his Church sufficient force power or might to represse at all times all exorbitant excesses of Christian Princes or people but that he supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that the penalties wherewith the Church may punish her spirituall Children may be temporall punishments which supposition also of Fa. Parsons I declared afterwards as you haue seene in these wordes And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath power in temporalls to wit directly or indirectiy as this Au. hour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose but about the thing it selfe whether he hath in any manner at all such an authoritie whereof the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet it is not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath authoritie to depose the Emperour as we haue often said out of Trithemius 60 Neuerthelesse this also I must needes say that both D. Schulekenius and Mr. Fitzherbert and also Fa. Parsons cannot make good Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and sufficiently confute the answere I made thereunto but that they will bee driuen to suppose that the Church must haue not onely sufficient power and authoritie but also sufficient force power might and effectuall meanes to bring soules to paradise as any man of learning by that which I haue saide before may easily perceiue For the substance of Cardinall Bellarmines argument was this The Church must haue all necessarie and sufficient power or authoritie to saue soules for which the Ecclesiasticall power is ordained but the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures is not sufficient for this end therfore another power to wit to inflict also temporal punishments is necessary 61 To this argument I answered that the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures being considered in it selfe is sufficient to saue soules and that Ecclesiasticall Censures being so dreadfull punishments as I haue shewed are of themselues sufficient if they meete with a capable subiect to withdraw men from sinne neither is it necessarie that the Church must haue besides a power sufficient of it selfe sufficient force might
and effectuall meanes to withdraw men actually from sinne for this were extreame folly to say as my Aduersarie himselfe confesseth For the sufficiencie saith hee of the power which Christ hath left to his Church in this point or any other consisteth in this that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment Wherefore it is manifest that hee who will contend that the Church must haue a more sufficient power to saue soules then which of it selfe is sufficient if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment must needes suppose that the Church must also haue sufficient force might and effectuall meanes to saue soules and a power to make the subiect capable and to remooue all external impediments or which is all one must haue such a sufficient power which is not onely sufficient in regard of the power being considered in it selfe but also in regard of all other things which are necessarie that the power worke the effect for which it was ordained for that these two are opposite parts or members of the distinction I made before and no man that hath any skill in Logike can be ignorant that in euery diuision consisting only of two parts or members we may rightly argue from the affirming of the one part to the denyall of the other and frō the denying of the one to the affirming of the other If therfore the power of the Church to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures be of it selfe a sufficient coerciue power to withdraw men from sinne which is the end of Ecclesiasticall power and if men bee not thereby withdrawne from sinne it is not by reason of the insufficiencie of the power but of the indisposition of the subiect no other coerciue power to inflict temporall punishments can be necessarie And therefore the aforesaid distinction of Ecclesiasticall coerciue power considered in it selfe and in respect of the impediments which may be in regard of the subiect did quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines second argument and the whole discourse of Fa. Parsons which was grounded thereon So that Mr. Fitzherbert might with more credit haue left vntouched the satisfaction which Fa. Parsons pretended to giue to the Earle of Salisburies desire or complaint for ought hee hath beene able to say in defence of the same 62 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert quarelleth with mee for teaching in this my Discourse against Fa. Parsons that the penalties which the Church may I doe not say impose as hee vntruely imposeth vpon me for this power of the Church to impose command or enioyne temporall penalties I neuer denyed but to inflict are not temporall punishments and for remitting my Reader for this point to diuers authorities euen of the ancient Fathers related by mee in my Apologie hee wisheth mee g Pag. 122. nu 21. and the Reader to see the answere to those authorities in D. Schulckenius who giueth as he saith sufficient satisfaction to euery one of them and sheweth euidently that diuers of those Authours doe wholly impugne Widdringtons opinion and doctrine and finally telleth him of his bad fortune in alleadging such witnesses as either make nothing for him or quite ouerthrow him and the like may bee seene saith he in D. Westons Sanctuarie who also answereth the said places particularlay and fully I also in like manner wish him and the Reader to see how their answeres haue beene confuted partly by Mr. Iohn Barclay and partly by my selfe aboue in this Treatise h Part. 1. per totum where also I haue shewed the vanitie of these men that when they see their arguments and answeres most of all to bee shaken then they make the greatest brags to which silly shifts they haue beene driuen by their bad fortune to vndertake the defence of so bad a cause and through a vehement desire not to seeme to bee vanquished and to haue any way erred in hauing coined a new Catholike faith 63 Furthermore the Reader may see i Pag. 122. nu 22. C. Bel. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcl cap. 8. saith Mr. Fitzherbert many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay which Widdrington could not but haue seene no lesse then the former before he wrote against my Supplement and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in those answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Readers to those places and such like which hee knew were alreadie answered but perhaps he perswadeth himselfe that all his writings and assertions are as I haue said in the Preface like to the lawes of the Medes See Preface nu 15. and see also the answere thereunto Dan. 6. and Persians which are inuiolable and immutable And this shall suffice touching Father Parsons whom you see hee might with more credit haue left vntouched for ought hee hath beene able to prooue against him 64 But as the Reader may see many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay so also hee may see the Cardinalls answeres confuted by Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmine which Mr. Fitzherbert could not but haue seene before he wrote now his Reply against mee and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in Mr. Iohn Barclayes answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Reader to Cardinall Bellarmines booke against Barclay which he knew was already answered And therefore that which hee repeateth heere againe concerning the lawes of the Medes and Persians may more aptly be applyed to himselfe and other such like vehement defenders of the Popes power to depose Princes who for that they haue vnaduisedly begun to make their doctrine to be an infallible point of faith which they will neuer bee able to make good will yet defend the same per fas ne fas by right and wrong and perceiuing that they cannot preuaile with reason and arguments endeauour to ouersway their cause by force and authoritie clamours and threatnings as it is euident by the Breues which his Holinesse by their importunitie and sinistrous Information hath published to condemne the new Oath wherein chiefly that doctrine is denied as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation which they will neuer bee able to maintaine and by condemning some of my bookes in such generall wordes and commanding me vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith in so strange a maner not declaring of what crime either in particular or in generall I should purge my selfe although I haue often by diuers Supplications to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requested to bee particularly informed what one thing is contained in the Oath which is so cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation or what one thing I haue written in those bookes whereof I should purge my selfe as being contrarie to faith
chiefe and principall ground I stand vpon why they are not also included vnder those generall words in the Canon of the Councell as you haue seene before Neuerthelesse there is this difference betwixt these two reasons that this later reason whereof we shal treat more at large in the next Chapter only sheweth why absolute Princes are not in penall lawes of the Church compreheded vnder such generall words which denote names and titles of inferiour place and dignitie but the first reason grounded vpon the Emperours law doth also prooue that absolute Princes cannot vnder any generall tearmes whatsoeuer bee included in any Canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed For to deny that absolute Princes are not vnder any generall words comprehended in such Decrees is no more absurd then to deny that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments which doctrine for that my Aduersary will neuer be able to prooue absurd he might well haue spared to vse such absurd tearmes wherewith he doth so often defile his religious mouth and which as you haue seene doe more fitly agree to his owne arguments and answeres and to the whole discourse he hath made in his Supplement concerning this point if he thereby intend to confute the aforesaid answere I gaue to the decree of the Councell and the reason thereof grounded vpon the like decree of the Emperour CHAP. X. Wherein Widdringtons second answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell affirming that absolute Princes are not comprehended therein because they are not mentioned by their proper names but by inferiour titles is prooued to bee neither improbable nor absurd but conforme to the doctrine of learned Diuines and Lawyers and Mr. Fitzherberts exceptions against the said answere are shewed to be very insufficient and fraudulent 1 YOu haue seene Courteous Reader how weakely Mr. Fitzherbert hath in the former Chapter impugned the answere I gaue to the decree of the Lateran Councell and the reason thereof grounded vpon the like Constitution of the Emperour Fredricke now you shall see how insufficiently also he impugneth in this Chapter the other reason which I brought to prooue that those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or also Lord doe not in the Canon of the Councell cōprehend absolute Princes Thus therefore he beginneth this Chapter 2 You haue heard in the last Chapter how my Aduersary Widdrington teacheth that the Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the deposition of temporall Lords doth not comprehend Kinges and absolute Princes because they are not namely specified therein Qui saith he nisi nominatim exprimantur in legibus paenalibus intelligendi non sunt Who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be expressed by name So he which he also more amply affirmeth in the Preface to his Apologetical answere whereto he remitteth me and his Readers for there he seemeth to ground his opinion in this point Widdrington Apolog. Respōs Praefat. nu 44. vpon the rules of the lawes saying that Secular Princes are not signified in penall Lawes vnder the generall names of Lords Magistrates and temporall Iudges iuxta regulas Iurisprudentium according to the rules of the Lawyers whereto he addeth also for examples sake that an Abbot is not cōprehended in the penall Lawes vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest nor the Pope vnder the name of a Bishop because saith he in paenis benignior pars est eligenda odia restringi fauoures conuenit ampliari The more benigne or milde part is to be chosen in penalties and it is conuenient that odious things be restrained and fauours amplified or enlarged So he 3 Whereto I answere that whereas he saith that Princes are not comprehended in penall Lawes except they be specified by the name of Princes I say first that if this were true this absurdity would follow thereof that absolute Princes should be exempted from diuers Lawes and Canons wherein all the world hath hitherto held them to be included as from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran ordaining that Omnis vtriusque sexus fidelis c. Concil Later 4. can 21. Euery Christian of both sexes shall confesse and communicate at Easter vpon paine of Excommunication and want of Christian buriall as also from the Bulla in caena Domini and from the Canon Si quis suadente Cans 17. q. 4. forbidding the laying of violent hands vpon Cleargie-men and diuers other generall constitutions from the which they were neuer yet exempted in the opinion of any man But if Mr. Fitzherbert had not meant to cauill and to take euery idle occasion to carpe at my wordes without cause hee might easily haue seene by those wordes of mine which heere hee citeth out of my Apologeticall Preface and to which in my Admonition I remitted the Reader that when I affirmed that absolute Princes are not vnderstood to be comprehended in penall lawes vnlesse they be expressed by name my meaning was that they are not vnderstood to bee comprehended in penall lawes vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis of Lords Magistrates Iudges Land-lords and such like generall names which denote some inferiour office dignitie or honour but they must be expressed by the names of the honour and dignitie which are proper to them as an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest nor the Pope vnder the name of a Bishop For to affirme that absolute Princes as likewise Abbots and Bishops are not comprehended in penall lawes enacted by the Church vnder no generall names although they denote no peculiar office honour dignity or function by which some persons are distinguished from others had beene indeede somewhat absurd And so these Canons heere alledged by Mr. Fitzherbert Omnis vtriusque sexus c. Si quis suadente diabolo c. and out of the Bull in caena Domini or such like are nothing to the purpose for that they are not such generall names which denote any peculiar office honour dignitie or function by which some men are distinguished from others and therefore this my Aduersaries first Answere is nothing at all against my doctrine 5 Secondly I say saith Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 150. nu 3. that Widdrington might haue done well to haue told vs or at least quoted in his margent as he doth not in what Lawyers we may finde that priuiledge or exemption of Princes whereof he speaketh for sure I am that they who write of Princes make no mention thereof as may be seene in Restaurus Castaldus Restaur Castald q. 110. de Imper. who setteth downe aboue a hundred priuiledges of the Emperour and yet doth not mention any such 6 But first the Reader may easily perceiue that the reason which I brought why
it doeth not ordaine or command any new thing but only declare the law of GOD and Nature and that by things strangled and blood is vnderstood onely man-slaughter Irenae l. 3. c. 12 Cypr. l. 3. ad Quirimum c. vl See Suarez lib. ◠de Leg. ca. 20. either by strangling or by the effusion of blood as Irenaeus S. Cyprian and others doe seeme to vnderstand those words and likewise that meates offered to Idoles are heere onely forbidden to be eaten either with a superstitious worship as though some sacred thing were in those meates in regard of the Idoll or else with the scandall of others both which are against the law of God nature and both which senses may bee gathered from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 8. vers 4. and 7. and 1. Cor. 10. vers 28. 29. 18 And in the like proportionate manner I haue answered to the Decree of the Lateran Councell not by impugning but by expounding the same For considering that it is truly a probable doctrine and maintained by very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and when shee vseth these shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes it is euident that wee may probably answere that decree of the Lateran Councell if wee may call it a decree concerning the future fact of the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates not to proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power but from that temporall authoritie which was granted to the Councell by the consent of temporall Princes whose Ambassadours were present at the making of that act or else to bind only in the Popes temporall Dominions 19 Secondly I answere that there is a great disparitie betwixt the decree of the Apostles and the decree or act of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth that future deposition of temporall Land-lords For the decree of the Apostles is a true and proper law and decree and includeth an expresse commandement to abstaine from those things which are there forbidden but this Decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the aforesaid deposition is not a true and proper law or Decree neither doeth it containe any speciall commandement prohibition grant or priuiledge which euery true and proper law or decree ought to containe as it will cleerely appeare according to my Aduersaries owne grounds if wee consider euery part and parcell of this Decree or Canon For first it is there ordained that Secular Potestaes or Magistrates shall by Ecclesiasticall Censure if neede require be compelled to take an Oath that they will doe their best endeauour to banish all heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction and this no doubt is a true and proper decree Secondly that if a temporall Land-Lord Magistrate or Lord shall neglect to purge his territories from hereticall filth he shall by the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops be excommunicated and this also is a true and proper decree and includeth a precept and commandement Tirdly that if hee shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeere the same shall be signified to the Pope and this also is a proper decree commanding the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops to signifie the same to the Pope Fourthly it is added that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie and his territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes and this which is the maine and only point from whence my Aduersaries conclude that the Pope by his spirituall power may depose temporall Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true and proper decree and containe any commandement grant or priuiledge vnlesse they will graunt the Councell to bee aboue the Pope and that the Councell hath power to impose commandements vpon the Pope or to giue him any authoritie or priuiledge which neuerthelesse they vtterly deny and therefore these wordes as of themselues it is plaine doe onely import and signifie the ende reason or cause of the former Decree to wit wherefore it must bee signified to the Pope that such a temporall Land-Lord hath beene excommunicated for a whole yeere 20 And by this it is euident first that seeing that in generall Councels according to the expresse doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith For neither are of faith the disputations which goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate but onely the bare decrees and those not all but which are propounded as of faith and that this is no decree and though it were it is not propounded as of faith as it is manifest by the rules assigned aboue by Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus to know when any thing is propounded as of faith but it onely containeth the cause and reason of the former decree which reason may bee exposed to errour seeing that it is not greatly to be stood vpon saith Canus Canus l. 6. c. 8. si Pontificum rationes necessariae non sunt if the reasons of the Popes or Councels be not necessary it is I say most euident that from this Act no probable argument can be brought to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith 21 Secondly it is also euident that I do not impugne or call in question this Act of the Councell but do only expound and interpret it and that my expositiō is probable to wit that this Act was made not by spirituall authority but by temporall it is manifest supposing that is probable as in very deede it is and maintained by very many Doctours both Diuines and Lawyers that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall censures and therefore it cannot without grosse ignorance and manifest absurdity be said that this my answere and exposition which is grounded vpon the doctrine not onely of so many learned Authours but also of my owne Aduersaries and who otherwise defend the Popes authority to depose Princes is to bee accounted improbable or absurd I now let passe that the decrees of Popes and Councels which are not referred to all the Church but onely to particular Bishops Churches or persons and doe not concerne and binde all the Church but onely certaine persons may bee exposed to errour Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. q. 4. as I declared before For in that case onely saith Canus the Iudges are to be vnderstood to pronounce or define of faith when the decree or sentence belongeth to all the faithfull when it bindeth all but this Act of the Lateran Councell doth onely concerne temporall Land lords and their Vassals and those not all but onely the Vassals of such Land lords Magistrates
make the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 38 Thirdly when I affirmed that from the vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church this onely can be gathered that Christ hath promised the infalliable assistance of the holy Ghost not to facts or probable opinions of Popes and Councells but to definitions onely by facts I vnderstand such acts as are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and by definitions I meant those Decrees which are propounded as of faith or which without any doubt or controuersie are deduced euidently from such infallible definitions or principles of faith of which sort this Act or Decree of the Lateran Councell is not as it is euident for those many reasons before alledged 39 And whereas Widdrington addeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 133. nu 12. Supra nu 1. an other circumstance to wit that the Councell did not determine by this Decree that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie or from the Ecclesiasticall power onely without the consent of Princes he is no lesse impertinent then in the former for what need was there to determine that the Pope had an vndoubted lawfull authoritie to depose Princes seeing that the same was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth as it is euident for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it Naucler goâ—erat 41. ad ann 12. which they would not haue done if they had doubted of the lawfulnesse of the Popes authoritie in that behalfe But first Mr. Fitzherbert doth egregiously abuse both me and his Reader in adding both heere and aboue the word Princes as though I had acknowledged that Act of the Lateran Councell to concerne the future deposition of Princes whereas I euer affirmed that it did onely concerne inferiour Magistrates Potestaes Landlords and Lords and not Soueraigne Princes and therfore I said onely that future deposition and my Aduersarie addeth of himselfe the word Princes 40 Secondly whether it was needfull or no for the Councell to declare whether that Act concerning the future deposition of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords or rather the denouncing of them ipso facto deposed was made by spirituall or temporall authoritie it is nothing materiall to our question this being sufficient for me that seeing that very many Catholike Doctors do affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the absoluing of Vassals from their temporall fealtie and the Councell did not declare by what authoritie that Act was made any Catholike man may probably and without any note of temeritie much lesse of heresie affirme that it was made not by any vndoubted lawfull Ecclesiasticall authoritie but onely by the authoritie licence and consent of absolute Princes But although it were not absolutely necessarie that the Councell should haue declared whether that future deposition was to proceed from Ecclesiasticall or temporall authoritie yet to make it a point of faith which all men are bound to beleeue that the aforesaid deposition was to proceede from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and not temporall it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same especially supposing that it is truely probable that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments As also if the Pope being now both a spirituall Pastour and also a temporall Prince should make a law whereof there may bee made a probable doubt whether it was made by vertue of his spirituall or of his temporall authoritie it is necessarie to make this point certaine and out of controuersie that he declare by what authoritie temporall or spirituall that lawe was enacted 41 Thirdly it is very vntrue that the Popes power to depose Princes was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth for that from the very first broaching thereof there alwayes hath beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side Azor. tom 2. li. 11. ca. 5. q. 8 and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in certaine causes the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kings of their kingdome And the euident reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth hereof to wit for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it is the maine question which is now betwixt vs and so he bringeth for an euident reason that which is the controuersie and to be prooued which is an euident petitio principij and condemned as vicious by all Logicians Neither doth Nauclerus whom my Aduersarie citeth in the margent as though hee would make his Reader beleeue that Nauclerus affirmeth that the whole Councell decreed the practise therof affirme any such thing For Nauclerus words are onely these There were many things truly then consulted of yet nothing could be plainly decreed for that they of Pisa and Genua made warre one against the other by Sea and those on this side the Alpes by land Yet some Constitutions are reported to be published whereof one is that whensoeuer the Princes of the world shall offend one the other the correcting belongeth to the Bishop of Rome Where you see first that Nauclerus expresly saith that albeit many things were consulted yet nothing at all could be plainely decreed Secondly that it was onely a report that some constitutions were published Thirdly he doth not say that these Constitutions were of the whole Councell or onely of Pope Innocent and recited in the Councell as Matthew Paris said Fourthly that this report was vntrue it is also plaine seeing that there is no such Constitution as hee mentioneth to be found in the Lateran Councell And lastly albeit there were such a Constitution it is nothing to the purpose seeing that it onely saith that when Princes are at variance it belongeth to the Pope to correct them to wit by Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not the question but that it belongeth to the Pope to correct Princes by deposing them and by inflicting temporall punishments which is the maine controuersie and whereof the practise as Mr. Fitzherbert saith citing Nauclerus in the margent was decreed by the whole Councell Nauclerus speaketh not any one word at all 42 Also Pope Innocent the third saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Pag. 183. u. 13. Naucler geuerat 42 ann 1246. Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. See Adolp Schulc pro Card. Bell. ca. 12 14 where he confuteth the answeres of Widdrington to these examples vnder whom the Councell of Lateran was held had not past three or foure yeeres before depriued the Emperour Otho of his right to the Empire by a sentence of Excommunication and deposition by vertue whereof Frederike the second whose Ambassadours were present at the Lateran Councell was made Emperour who also was afterwards deposed by Innocentius the fourth in the Generall Councell held at Lyons as
likewise Leo the Emperour was before depriued of his rents and reuenewes in Italie for heresie by Pope Gregorie the second Also Childerike King of France and Henry the fourth Emperour of that name had beene deposed from their states and dignities by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike before the Councell of Lateran Therefore the said Councell had reason to thinke it altogether needelesse to determine any thing concerning the lawfulnesse of a matter alreadie admitted and practised 43 But truely any learned man would be ashamed to argue so vnlearnedly that because some Popes before the Councell of Lateran deposed Christian Princes wherein neuerthelesse they were greatly contradicted by Princes and subiects therefore the Popes authoritie to depose is vndoubtedly lawfull or because a matter is alreadie practised and admitted by many though contradicted and not admitted by others there needeth no determination to make the lawfulnesse thereof certaine and manifest It is true that diuers Popes since the time of Gregory the 7. who was the first that contrary to the custome of his Ancestours challenged to himselfe authority to depose the Emperour Onuphrius lib. 4 de varia creat Rom. Pont. saith Onuphrius haue put in practise this their pretended authority but it was euer contradicted both by Christian Princes and subiects And in particular concerning those examples which Mr. Fitzherbert here bringeth it is euident that many Catholike Authours whom I related elsewhere p Apolog. num 404. seq doe denie that Pope Zachary did depose Childerike in any other manner then by consenting to the Peeres of France who deposed him and by declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France and his subiects absolued from their oath of allegiance That of P. Gregory the second or the third for my Aduersaries do not agree which of them it was Onuphrius vbi supra Otho Frsingensis lib. 6 cap. 35. Sigebert ad annum 1088. Godfridus viterb par 17. Trithem in Chron. monast Hirsang ad adnum 1106. Onuphrius calleth a fable Pope Gregory the 7. did indeede depose Henrie the fourth Emperour but how greatly hee was contradicted therein all Histories make mention and how it was accounted a great noueltie it is manifest by Otho Frisingensis Sigebert Godfridus Trithemius Onuphrius and also by the Epistle of Hermanus Bishop of Metz to Pope Gregory q Vide epistol Greg. 7. ad Herman lib. 8. Epist 21. concerning this poynt 44 Also Pope Innocent the third did depose Otho as before he deposed Philip and hereof he wrote a Decretall Epistle or Breue to the Duke of Zaringia which is registred in the Canon Law in Cap. Venerabilem de elect electi potestate which decree or decretall Epistle Albericus a famous Lawyer r In Dictionar in verbo electio Abbas Vrsperg ad annum 1198 affirmeth to be made by Pope Innocent against the liberty and rights of the Empire And Abbas Vrspergensis not onely reprehendeth that decree as containing in it against Philip many absurd things and some falsehoods but he also taxeth the Princes and Barons of periurie who saith he being taught by diabolicall art did not regard to breake their oathes nor violate their faith now forsaking Philip and adhering to Otho and contrariwise And how this deposition of Otho was contradicted by him Naucler gener 41. ad annum 1212. Nauclerus whom my Aduersary citeth doth plainely testifie who writeth that Otho speaking to the Princes of Germany affirmeth that it belongeth to their right and not the Popes to create and depose the Emperour But to see in what manner Otho was made Emperour to the infinite wrong of Fredericke the second being then a childe and without fault and who in his cradle was by almost all the Princes of Germany in the time of his father Henrie the sixt Emperour chosen to be their King and to whom they made their oath of allegiance and for what cause this Otho after hee was made Emperour was deposed by the Pope it would make euen a stonie heart to bleed and truely my Aduersaries in vrging these examples doe in my iudgement shew great want of discretion Naucler generat 41. ad ann 1193. Matth. Paris in Ioanne Rege an 1210. in giuing thereby occasion to rip vp many odious matters and which for reuerence to the Sea Apostolicke it were much better they were buried with perpetuall silence and obliuion See Nauclerus and Mathew Paris cited heere by my Aduersary 45 Also Pope Innocentius the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons but without the approbation of the whole Councell did depose Fredericke the second but how greatly he was contradict therein both by the Emperour himselfe and also by the Princes of Germany and others it is manifest The Pope saith Abbas Stadensis Abbas Stad ad annum 1245. did vpon S. Iames his day renew in the said Councell of Lyons the sentence of Excommunication against the Emperour and by his owne authority therefore not of the Councell did depose him from his Imperiall dignity and this deposition he published throughout all the Church commanding vnder paine of Excommunication that none should hereafter name him Emperour which sentence flying throughout the world certaine of the Princes with many others did gainesay affirming that it doth not belong to the Pope to create or depose the Emperour but to crowne him that is chosen by the Princes And Nauclerus Naucler generat 42. ad ann 1242. seq to whom Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader affirmeth that the Emperour Fredericke in a letter to the King of France contended to prooue that the Popes sentence denounced against him was in law and right inualid and among other reasons of the Emperour hee alledgeth this that although the Bishop of Rome hath full power in spiritualls that he may absolue and binde all sinners yet it was neuer read that by the graunt of the law of God or man he hath power to transferre the Empire at his pleasure or to iudge temporally of Kings and Princes in depriuing them of their kingdomes And also what contradiction Pope Innocent found by that practise Trithemius relateth affirming Trithem in Chron. Monast Hirsang ad ann 1244. that Fredericke after his deposition came into Italy and did afflict the Pope and the people subiect to him with so great euills that he was weary of his life and wished that he had neuer thought of that deposition Iudge now good Reader what Mr. Fitzherbert dare not auouch affirming so boldly and shamefully that the authority of the Pope to depose Princes was not then doubted of or any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth and with what security thou maist repose thy soule and whole estate vpon the learning and conscience of this man who with such grosse fraude and ignorance seekth to delude thee But to these examples I haue heeretofore partly in my Apologie and partly in this Treatise
he thinketh or insinuateth at least that they haue most grieuously and perniciously erred therein many times and yet one of the Popes that did dispence in the case here mentioned to wit in the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation was the famous S. Gregorie the great who granted that licence to some Priests in Sardinia by reason of the great want of Bishops in that Iland 18 But first although the first instance which I brought be partly grounded vpon this practise of Popes to giue authoritie to Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation yet this is not my first instance but my first instance is this That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which is propounded or supposed by Popes as a sure and certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences for so saith Fa. Lessius But this doctrine that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemne vow of chastite and giue leaue to a Priest to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation is propounded or supposed by Popes as a ground and foundation of many their Decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences Therefore c. 19 Now I expected that Mr. Fitzherbert would haue answered this my instance in forme which if he had done I would also by his answere haue satisfied Fa. Lessius his first argument but he neither answereth nor propoundeth my first instance but cunningly flyeth to the Councell of Lateran affirming that there is a great disparitie betwixt the decree of the Lateran Councell and the licences which some Popes giue to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation whereas Fa. Lessius did not apply his first argument particularly to the Councell of Lateran but spake generally of the grounds and foundations of all Decrees and sentences of Councells or Popes affirming that doctrine to appertaine to faith which Popes Councells and Doctours doe propound or suppose as a sure foundation of their decrees and sentences c. which assertion may be applied not onely to the decree of the Lateran Counell but also to the decree sentence of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons and it doth also prooue that the ground and foundation of euery sentence whereby any Emperour or King hath beene deposed by the Pope doth consequently belong to faith which because it is repugnant to the common doctrine of all Diuines Mr. Fitzherbert would onely apply to the decree of the Lateran Councell and thereupon he did fraudulently as you haue seene both conceale my first instance and also change and curtoll the first argument of Fa. Lessius which doth plainely shew that he hath a great diffidence in his cause and that his meaning is not to deale sincerely in the examining of this dangerous and difficult controuersie 20 Secondly wheras Mr. Fitzherbert accuseth me of irreuerence to the Sea Apostolike seeing that I thinke or insinuate at least as he saith that Popes haue most grieuously and perniciously erred many times in their licences dispensations and other actions he sheweth euidently therein rather his want of Christian charitie then any solid learning wisedome or discretion seeing that I neuer said or insinuated that Popes haue most grieuously erred many times in their licences dispensations and other actions but I onely related the opinions of learned and vertuous Catholikes and who were also much deuoted to the Sea Apostolike and one of them also a Pope from whose doctrine it cleerely followeth that if to erre in the due administration of the Sacraments be a most grieuous and pernicious errour both in regard of the irreuerence done to the Sacrament and also the wrong done to the person who is defrauded of the benefite thereof then those Popes who haue giuen authoritie to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation whereby the administration thereof is inualid and repugnant to the institution of Christ haue most grieuously and perniciously erred 21 But if Mr. Fitzherbert will needes haue vs to approoue all the licences dispensations decrees and other actions of Popes vnlesse wee must haue an irreuerent opinion of the Sea Apostolike what will hee say of Melchior Canus a learned religious man much deuoted to the Pope who boldly saith that he doth not approoue all Church-lawes Canus lib. 5. de locis cap. 5. q. vlt concl nor commend all punishments Censures Excommunications Suspensions Irregularities interdicts and a little beneath hee affirmeth l Cap. 5. propo finem that those who rashly and without election doe defend euery sentence or iudgement of the Pope concerning euery thing doe weaken not strengthen doe ouerthrow not establish the authority of the Sea Apostolike What will he say of Siluester a man also no lesse addicted to the aduancing of the Popes temporall authoritie who affirming that the Pope hath no authoritie to dispence in the solemne vow of religious chastitie and some obiecting that they haue seene the Pope so to haue dispenced de facto answereth boldly Siluist in Sum. verbo votum 4. q. 5. in fine See Aluarus pelag lib. 2. de Planctu Eccles ar 5 in fine See Bell lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. that he also hath seene the Pope done greater things with the scandal all Christianity And to omit Aluarus Pelagius others who taxe freely the facts of many Popes what will he say of Cardinall Bellarmine who affirmeth that Pope Nicolas and Pope Celestine haue in their Decrees or Decretall Epistles expresly taught false doctrine concerning the Sacraments of Baptisme and Matrimony But this is a vsuall tricke of my Aduersaries when they are pressed with any argument to flie to rayling and disgracefull speeches and which with the same facilitie and vpon the like grounds may be retorted backe vpon themselues 22 But to answere Widdringtons argument saith Mr. Fitzherbert Pag. 187. nu 6. grounded vpon this instance or example whereas he laboureth to proue thereby that the foundation or ground of the Decree of the Councell of Lateran concerning the deposition of Princes may be vncertaine because the ground of some Popes dispensations in the administration of a Sacrament is vncertaine he argueth most absurdly For there is such an euident disparity betwixt the particular facts or dispensations of Popes touching particular persons Countreys or Churches and the generall Decrees of Popes and Generall Councells made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church that a man may wonder how he could forget himselfe so farre as by an instance of a supposed possibility of errour in a particular fact of some Pope to impugne a generall Decree of a Pope together with a generall Councell 23 What a great distrust Mr. Fitzherbert hath of his cause the Reader may easily perceiue by this that he seldome propoundeth any one argument or answere of mine but he vseth therein some notable fraud or falshood And first he would heere make his Reader beleeue that he hath fully answered my first instance or argument which was grounded
of Paris that none should there take any degree in Diuinitie vnlesse hee first should sweare to defend and alwayes maintaine this errour Then should the Kingdome of France haue beleeued Pope Boniface the eight when he affirmed that hee accounted them for heretikes who did not belieue that the King of France was not subiect to him in spiritualls and temporalls and the like may bee said of Pope Nicolas and Pope Celestine 38 Wherefore the plaine truth is that as well Popes may sometimes erre and bee deceiued albeit they are certainely perswaded their doctrine to be true if other learned men after mature deliberation thinke it to bee false as other learned men may erre and bee deceiued albeit they thinke certainely their doctrine to be true if the Pope after mature deliberation thinke it to bee false and whether of them doe really erre when there are such controuersies we cannot certainely know but by the future euent For if the doctrine which the Pope thinketh and teacheth to be certaine be afterwards confirmed by any publike definition of some Orthodoxall generall Councell or be approued by the generall consent or acceptance of the Church it is an euident signe that the iudgement of the Pope and not of those learned men was really true for which cause wee now see and say that Pope Pius and Victor did not erre in their iudgements concerning the celebration of the Feast of Easter and that the Churches of Asia did erre therein and that S. Cyprian and the other Bishops of Afrike did erre in their iudgements concerning the rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretikes and that Pope Stephen and Cornelius who contradicted S. Cyprian did not erre And contrariwise for the same cause we say that Pope Nicholas Pope Celestine and Pope Iohn to omit now Pope Boniface did really erre in their iudgements and the other learned men who were of contrary opinion did not erre for that the doctrine of these is now approued by a publike declaration or generall consent and acceptance of the Church But so long as the question betwixt the Pope and other learned Catholikes shal still remaine afoot and not be decided no man is bound to thinke the Popes iudgement to bee certaine neyther can hee compell any man to belieue the same albeit the Pope bee inwardly perswaded that his iudgement is true or certaine yet hee ought not to bee publikely contradicted by any man but with great submission reuerence and respect 39 But if the Pope when there is a controuersie betwixt him and other learned men should denounce censures against all those who shall preach or teach contrary to his doctrine then wee must doubtlesse be very carefull not to oppose publikely against him without vrgent necessity by reason of scandall in seeming to contemne Ecclesiasticall censures but in such a case wee must haue in minde that golden document of deuout and learned Gerson The second truth is saith he that the Popes sentence bindeth all men not to dogmatike or teach publikely the contrary Gerson in tract de Examinat doctrin §. 2. veritas except those that doe finde a manifest errour against faith and doe perceiue that if they should not oppose themselues great scandall to faith would arise by their silence And if then there should be prosecuting of Censures and punishments against them let them bee assured that blessed are they that suffer persecution for iustice And thus much concerning this poynt whereby the Reader may see whether I or my Aduersarie deserue the note of ridiculous absurdity 40 But much more ridiculous saith Mr. Fitzherbert u Pag. 189. nu 10. 11. is Widdringtons inference that the ground and reason of a generall Decree made by a Pope and generall Councell is vncertaine and subiect to errour because some learned men are of opinion that some Popes had no sufficient reason to doe some particular acts or grant licences or dispensations to some particular persons which is a farre different case from the other and therefore I say his infeâ—ence thereupon is so ridiculous that a Scholler may bee ashamed to make it for albeit we should grant that those Popes erred both in granting those licences and in their grounds yet it would not follow that therefore the Pope together with the whole Lateran Councell might erre in the ground of their Decree except wee may inferre quidlibet ex quolibet And yet forsooth this is one of his probable answeres Therefore if he will argue against the Decree of the Councell of Lateran by instances and examples let him not produce the particular facts of some Popes concerning some particular Countries or persons but some decree of a Pope or generall Councell made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church as this of the Lateran Councell was and then let him prooue also that the ground of the said decree was vncertaine and then I will grant that hee saith somewhat to the purpose 41 But strange and intollerable is the false and fraudulent dealing of this man For I neyther made nor intended to make in any one of my three instances any such inference as he to taxe me of ridiculous absurdity vntruly saith I haue neyther did I apply any one of my instances or examples to the decree of the Lateran Councell neyther in any one of them is the Councell of Lateran so much as named and therefore to cloake his fraud more cunningly he thought best to conceale my instances lest the Reader might by his owne writings and looking ouer my instances forth with discouer his fraud and falshood Wherefore that inference which I intended couertly to make by my first instance was onely this that because the ground and foundation vpon which certaine Popes did by their decrees and sentences ordaine the Feast of the blessed Virgins conception giue leaue to Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and dispence in the solemne vow of Chastity was vncertaine and consequently could not appertaine to faith therefore the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his first argument was not sound but defectiue to wit That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctors doe propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which proposition is generall and may be vnderstood not onely of the decree of the Lateran Councell but of all other Decrees and Sentences eyther generall or particular of Popes or Councels as of the Decree touching the Feast of the blessed Virgins conception of the iudiciall sentences of Pope Gregory the seauenth against Henry the fourth in a Councell held at Rome and of Pope Innocentius the fourth against Frederike the second in the Councell of Lyons and of all other Decrees of Popes touching particular licences and dispensations whereof two are mentioned in my first instance and doe euidently shew the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessus his first argument to be very vnsound 42 But if my Aduersary will haue that Maior proposition of
Fa. Lessius his first argument which he produced without any restriction or limitation to be restrained and limited only to the decrees of Popes and generall Councels which are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and doe not onely concerne particular facts licences dispensations and iudiciall sentences concerning some particular Countries or persons besides that I haue declared aboue in what sence that proposition is true to wit that such decrees must be made by true Ecclesiasticall and not ciuill authority and also that they must be such decrees and sentences wherein it is certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre I haue also here produced a decree of Pope Sixtus the fourth concerning the Feast of the blessed Virgins conception which was made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and yet the ground and foundation of that decree was vncertaine as I prooued aboue and will more cleerely confirme beneath and euidently shew how Mr. Fitzherbert to answere this decree is forced to forsake the doctrine of the most learnedst Diuines of his own Society And also I might adde hereunto the decrees of Popes touching the canonization of Saints the ground and foundation whereof doth not appertaine to faith seeing that as I shewed before out of Canus that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints and yet these decrees are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church But as concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell touching the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates it is euident that I made no inference or any mention at all thereof in any one of my three Instances or examples as this man most shamefully affirmeth 43 Yet if he will needes haue me to apply this doctrine touching the vncertainty of the grounds and foundations of Popes decrees and sentences to the decrees of generall Councels and in particular to the often named Act of the Lateran Councell I doe confidently affirme that whensoeuer it is vncertaine and disputable among learned Catholikes whether a generall Councell hath authority to make this or that decree by her spirituall power without the consent and authority of temporall Princes as to inflict temporall punishments and to dispose of temporals wherein temporall Princes onely are supreame and the Councell maketh such a decree concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments or the disposing of temporals without declaring that she doth make that decree by her spirituall authority then I say it is lawfull for any man without any note of heresie errour or temerity to expound the decree of that Councell according to the probable opinion of those learned men and to affirme that the Councell made that decree not by spirituall power but by the consent and authority of temporall Princes And this is our case concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell Neither is this to impugne the decree of the Councell but onely to expound it according to the probable doctrine of Catholikes And if Mr. Fitzherbert will say that this inference is ridiculous absurd improbable and not to the purpose and that hereby we may inferre quidlibet ex quolibet he sheweth himselfe as the plaine truth is to haue small skill in Theologicall learning 44 In the meane time saith he x Pag. 190 nu 12. ad finem Widdrington is to vnderstand further concerning this point that whereas hee demandeth whether it is not a most grieuous errour to graunt such licences whereupon most grieuous Sacriledges may follow to wit the inualid administration of Sacraments I answere that the Church both doth and may minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a propable opinion without any danger of formall sacriledge or sinne as when a childe is baptized in one of his feet or hands before he be fully borne into the world or when the Sacrament of Extreame Vnction is giuen to one of whom it is not certaine whether he be fully dead In these cases I say and diuers other such the Church doth administer Sacraments with some danger of inualiditie and yet without danger of formall Sacriledge in respect of the great hope of benefit which may follow to the soules of those to whom they are administred and I verily thinke that there was neuer any Catholike so impious hitherto as to condemne the same as sacrilegious either in the most famous and holy Father S. Gregory the Pope or in any other of his successors for albeit some learned men haue indeed denied that they had authority to giue such licence yet they were not so inconsiderate as either to condemne them of most grieuous or sacrilegious errour or to deny that the other opinion was probable seeing that it had beene practised so long since by S. Gregory and approoued not onely by so many most famous and learned Doctours but also by the Councell of Florence which treating of the Sacrament of Confirmation and hauing said that the Bishop is the Ordinary Minister thereof addeth afterwards Legitur tamen c. yet it is read that a simple Priest hath administred it by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike with Chrisme or holy Oyle made by a Bishop 45 So saith the Councell giuing to vnderstand that although a Bishop is the ordinary Minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation yet a Priest may be the extraordinary Minister of it by dispensation of the Sea Apostolike And this I hope may suffice to free as well S. Gregory as other Popes his Successours from all errour and much more all danger of sacriledge in this point Besides that the grant of such licences being meere matters of fact and concerning onely particular persons and Countries could not any way preiudice our cause albeit they were erroneous or sacrilegious seeing that as I haue sufficiently signified before the question betwixt him and vs for the present is only about a generall Decree of a Generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefit of the whole Church wherein wee doe indeed acknowledge the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost though not in euerie particular fact of a Pope Thus much for his first Instance 45 But still this man discouereth either his grosse ignorance or his accustomed fraud For first whereas I spake onely of errour of materiall sacriledge and of inualid administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation this man replieth of sinne of formall sacriledge and of vnlawfull administration of Sacraments For although it be certaine that a man may lawfully and without sinne or formall sacriledge minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a probable opinion yet it is not certaine that in such cases the Sacrament is ministred with effect and without errour or materiall sacriledge for truth falshood and errour haue their denomination from the effect or thing it selfe and probable ignorance and errour doe make the act lawfull though not valid and with effect 46 Secondly there is a great disparity betwixt
not onely as they are sinnes to the conscience of man but also as they are so a parte rei and are commonly called materiall not formall or sinfull errours rebellions and periuries the same also may bee answered to Fa. Lessius his argument to wit that it cannot be well inferred from that Maior proposition that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes must be of faith because it is no pernicious and sinnefull errour in his opinion to teach those doctrines by him mentioned and to incite men to such rebellions and periuries which according to his opinion are not formall and sinfull rebellions and periuries 51 Whereupon it is euident that in the same manner as my Aduersaries will answere my third instance I will answere Fa. Lessius his third argument and that if from Fa. Lessius his argument it may be well inferred that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith it may also by my instance be well inferred that the doctrines for the Popes power to giue authoritie to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and to dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie and also for the preseruation of the B. Virgin from originall sinne are certaine and of faith which how absurd it is to affirme it is too too apparant But more of this third argument beneath 52 Lastly to that which Mr. Fitzherbert saith in the end of this Chapter that the grant of such licences being meere matters of fact and concerning onely particular persons and Countreys could not any way preiudice his cause albeit they were erroneous and sacriledgious seeing that the question saith he betwixt me and them for the present is onely about a generall decree of a generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefite of the whole Church wherein Widdrington acknowledgeth the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost though not in euery particular fact of a Pope I answere first albeit I will not condemne those Popes of any pernicious errour that in time of necessitie grant such licences vpon a probable opinion yet I cannot see but that to grant such licences either as certaine when they are doubtfull or to grant them without necessitie onely vpon a probable opinion is a very dangerous and pernicious errour seeing that they concerne the valid and effectuall administration of a Sacrament which all men know to be a matter of great moment 53 And albeit the grant of such licences be meere matters of fact and concerne onely particular persons and Countreys yet from thence it may be cleerely gathered that those Popes who granted them did generally teach that the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by those Priests is a true valid and substantiall Sacrament which if it bee not so is a very great and pernicious errour in doctrine of manners and also that the instances drawne from thence doe quite ouerthrow all Fa. Lessius his three arguments and namely the first whereof the Maior proposition as you haue seene is generall and without limitation and may be applied to all decrees and sentences whatsoeuer of Popes or Councells whether they are generall Decrees or concerne only particular persons or Countreys Neither is it true as this man very shamefully affirmeth that the question betwixt me and them for the present is onely about a generall decree of a generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefite of the whole Church for the question betwixt them and me for the present is onely about the first argument of Fa. Lessius and my first instance made against the same and especially about the truth of his Maior proposition which as you haue seene speaketh of the ground and foundation generally of all Decrees and sentences both of Popes and Councells That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councells and Doctours doe propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences So that my Aduersarie very vntruely affirmeth that the question betwixt me and them for the present is onely about a generall Decree of a generall Councell And this may suffice for the confirmation of my first instance and the confutation of all that which Mr. Fitzherbert would seeme to haue made against the same whereas he hath not as you haue seene so much as set it downe at all Now you shall see how fraudulently and ignorantly he hath in the next Chapter obiected against my other two instances CHAP. XV. Wherein Widdringtons second example and his instances grounded thereon are confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in impugning the same is conuinced of manifest fraude and ignorance in taxing therein of fondnesse the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie Also the third example of Widdrington and his instances grounded thereon are prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts fraude in relating of the said instances and applying them to the Lateran Councell is plainely discouered 1 MY Aduersarie in this Chapter sheweth also the like fraude and ignorance as he did in the former Thus therefore he beginneth Widdringtons second instance is Widdr. vbi supra nu 57. that Pope Sixtus the fourth made a Decree concerning the celebration of the B. Virgins Conception notwithstanding that it is vncertaine and disputed amongst the Diuines without any blot of heresie errour or mortall sinne whether the blessed Virgin cantracted originall sinne in her Conception or was preserued from it by a peculiar prouidence of God Ibidem and therefore saith he it is manifest that the Doctrine which is either proposed or supposed by the Pope as the foundation of his Apostolicall Decree and Constitution concerning euen the religious worship of God is not so certaine and vndoubtedly true but that it may be impugned without danger of grieuous sinne So he whereupon he inferreth that the ground of the Canon of the Lateran Councell may also be vncertaine or impugned without note of heresie or sinne 2 But first it is very vntrue that this was my second instance which I brought to confront with Fa. Lessius his second argument although it be true that it was my second example whereon both my first and second instance were grounded For whereas Fa. Lessius to proue that the Popes power to depose Princes doth belong to faith argueth thus in his second argument If a generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath power to depose Princes no Catholike can make doubt but that it should belong to faith but seeing that she supposeth it as a certaine foundation of her Decrees and sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to bee accounted no lesse certaine To this argument I opposed an other instance not much vnlike to it which was this If the Pope should expresly define that he hath authoritie to giue licence to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastitie or that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne
three Instances or in this Argument whereof now we treate make any mention at all of the Lateran Councell although indeede I haue now by the way and without any necessitie vrging mee thereunto signified as you haue seene aboue that those words of the Lateran Councell vt extuncipse c. that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie which my Aduersaries affirme to bee the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the practise of the Popes power to depose Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true proper and formall Decree containing any precept or obligation but rather the reason cause and end for which the former Decree was made as I haue more amply declared before 24 Secondly neither are all the reasons of Decrees so extrinsecall thereto that they may faile and yet the Decree stand good for some are so intrinsecall and as I may say so essentiall to the Decree that the Decree cannot possibly stand good if the doctrine bee not true or at least-wise presumed to bee true as I shewed before in the reason of the canonizing of Saints and of celebrating their Feast in honour of their Sanctitie and also of celebrating the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception in honour of the vnspotted puritie thereof and of these and such like reasons I chiefly meant when in the aforesaid argument I demanded whether the reasons that mooue Popes and Councells to define or decree something are not as it were certaine grounds and foundations of their definitions and decrees So that I may truely conclude with my Aduersaries owne wordes that hee argueth as ignorantly impertinently and absurdely in impugning this argument as in the former and in the same manner also hee still goeth on 25 But now will you heare saith hee i p. 203. nu 9. how well Widdrington concludeth this his last argument and condemneth himselfe of errour or heresie Thus then hee saith Quapropter c. Wherefore no man can doubt but that great difference is to bee made betwixt the voice Vbi supra nu 63 doctrine and consent of the Church firmely beleeuing or defining any thing as a matter of faith and the voice doctrine and consent of the Church onely probably thinking For no Catholike man doeth deny that hee who contemneth to heare the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing doeth fall into errour or heresie whereas Catholike Doctours whose authoritie the learnedst of my Aduersaries will easily admit doe plainely affirme that hee who being mooued with sufficient reason doeth not embrace the doctrine of the Church onely probably thinking doeth not expose himselfe to the danger of heresie errour or temeritie For Alphonsus Salmeron and Francis Suarez men truely very learned doe bring the practise and consent of the whole Church to confirme the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin and yet that the contrarie opinion may bee defended without any danger of deadly sinne they both plainely acknowledge and cannot also deny without great offence we saith Salmeron do oppose the consent of almost the vniuersall Church the vniforme doctrine of all vniuersities Salmer tom 13. ad Rom. 5. disp 51. §. deinde Suarez tom 2. disp 3. sec 2. And the second ground saith Suarez is to bee taken from the authoritie of the Church And first the vniuersall consent almost of the whole Church and especially for these two hundred yeeres almost all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops almost all Religions and Vniuersities haue subscribed Thus Widdrington 26 But first Mr. Fitzherbert is fouly deceiued in saying or conceiuing that this is a conclusion of this my last argument For it is a conclusion and as it were a briefe collection and explication of all the answeres I made in that Apologeticall Preface to all the arguments by which my Aduersaries laboured to conuince mee and my doctrine touching the Popes power to depose Princes of temeritie errour and heresie For seeing that all the arguments which they brought to prooue my doctrine to bee temerarious erroneous yea and hereticall were grounded chiefly vpon the generall voice doctrine and consent of the Church as they pretend I thought good for a conclusion of all my answeres to these their false imputations to admonish the Reader of the aforesaid difference betwixt the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing and onely probably thinking whereby hee might plainely perceiue that considering all my former discourse and answeres I had clearely freed my selfe from all iust imputation of heresie errour and temerity 27 But secondly let vs now see what exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against this my so manifest and certaine conclusion Wherein I wish saith he i Pag. 203. num 10. to be noted two things the one how confident Widdrington is that he hath prooued by his three instances or examples and this his last argument that the Church ordaining and decreeing in the Lateran Councell that Princes shall in some cases be deposed by the Pope did not firmely belieue but onely probably thinke that the Pope hath lawfull power and authority to doe it whereas you haue seene his instances and arguments to be so weake friuolous and impertinent that they haue serued to no other purpose but to discouer his folly and the weakenesse of his cause 28 But truely I cannot but greatly pitty this poore mans case albeit I am much ashamed to see and discouer his palpable fraud and ignorance For neither did I in those three instances or examples or in this last argument make any mention at all of the decree of the Lateran Councell neither did I intend to make any inference from them concerning that decree neither did I euer graunt that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did ordaine or decree that Princes might in some cases be deposed by the Pope but I alwaies affirmed that the aforesaid decree or rather Act did onely concerne the deposition of inferiour Magistrates or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes that therfore that Act or decree was not made by meere Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently could not be a matter of faith but of fact onely as are all the decrees of temporall Princes concerning meere matters of fact For although it be a matter of faith that temporall Princes haue authority to make temporall Lawes yet it is not a matter of faith that in making such lawes they cannot erre and therefore their lawes are not matters of faith but of fact onely but the Church in making lawes to all the faithfull concerning such matters of fact or manners which are necessary to saluation cannot erre by commanding anything which is contrary to the Gospell or the law of Nature and therefore such lawes are not onely matters of fact but also of faith 29. That wherein I was confident is this that seeing my Aduersaries haue not hitherto brought nor will euer in my iudgement be able to bring any one sufficient argument to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose
conclude that seeing I haue performed as much as he requireth in that behalfe hauing euidently shewed the impobability of his answeres hee cannot deny but that our arguments deduced from that Councell are effectuall to prooue our intent and that to shew that neither he nor any Catholike can auoid the aspersion and note of heresie if he perscuere obstinately to impugne or deny the Popes power to depose Princes seeing that the practise of that power is most cleerely decreed and the veritie of the doctrine necessarily included and supposed in the Decree 39 Thirdly whereas that which he hath said to so little purpose as you haue seene seemeth to him sufficient to ouerthrow my whole discourse which he termeth more prolixe then solid I remit the solidity as well of my Discourse as of his answeres to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader who may easily iudge of both by that which hath beene heere debated bâ—twixt vs seeing that of all his answeres arguments and obiections no one hath appeared to be of any weight worth or probability And truely I doe not maruale that my Discourse seemed prolixe yea very teadious to him considering the little pleasure or gift that he could take therein for a short way seemeth long to such as passe it with difficulty and disgust finding where to stumble or fall at euery step Finally whereas he promiseth though with a perhaps to examine elsewhere euery particular argument in my Supplement hee may doe well for his Reputation first to make good that which hee hath said already least such as shall haue read this my Reply and seene therein how he hath trifled hitherto may care little to read what hee shall write heereafter but if he list to take the paines to performe his promise I hope he shall reape as little credit and contentment thereby as he is like to doe by these his former labours for how weake soeuer and insufficient I may be to encounter such a Hercules or Golias who dare alone oppose himselfe to the whole army of Israel yet I doubt not but he shall finde that magna est veritas praeualet and that the further he wadeth in this matter the more hee shall ingulfe himselfe in a sea of absurdities In the meane time I hope thou hast noted good Reader that he hath not beene able to dispâ—ooue any one thing in these two Chapters of my Supplement which he impugneth and that in examining his answeres thereto I haue sufficiently ouerthrowne the grounds of his Doctrine and shewed his vanity and folly diuers wayes For first I haue c. 40 But to Mr. Fitzherberts three first obseruations there needeth no other answere then to deny them with the same facility wherewith he affirmeth them for neither he nor I must heerein be each others Iudge but the indifferent and iudicious Reader who hauing duly examined both our writings may easily discerne whether my answeres be of no worth weight or probability and his arguments and Replies effectuall conuincing and demonstratiue or no and to whose arguments and answeres those fowle aspersions of improbable absurd malicious fond foolish impertinent and ridiculous which are so frequent in this mans mouth doe more properly agree And for his fourth and last obseruation he may see now that I haue performed my promise and that without a perhaps I haue confuted euery particular argument which hee hath brought against my doctrine either in the two first Chapters of his Supplement or in this his Reply against the answere I made to his arguments in that briefe Admonition so that hee or at least the Reader may plainly perceiue that the reason why I did not then answere euery particular point of his Discourse was not for that I found therein any great difficultie seeing that what there I said it was more prolixe then solid I haue now conuinced to be true but because the breuitie of that short Admonition or Preface would not conueniently permit me to answere more particularly so prolixe and verball Discourse 41 Wherefore I shall now expect what a learned Replie this vnlearned man will make to saue his credit and to cleare himselfe of those imputations of palpable fraude and ignorance wherewith in this Treatise I do often charge him also of great want of charitie as in the next Chapter you shall more cleerely see But perhaps the best course and lesse preiudiciall to his reputation that he can take will be as D. Schulcknius or rather Cardinall Bellarmine hath done before him not to answere at all to the crimes whereof he is accused but to procure from the Cardinals of the Inquisition that my booke be forbidden without telling why or wherefore for what cause or crime or what bad doctrine either against faith or manners is contained therein and by this meanes many men at least will be hindered from seeing his shamefull fraude and ignorance Fo seeing that I haue cleerely shewed that all his vaunts and bragges of hauing conuinced my arguments and answeres to be improbable absurd impertinent fond foolish and ridiculous c. are very vaine and idle notwithstanding that for the patching vp of his Replie he hath had the helpes of Cardinall Bellarmine D. Schulckenius Suarez and Lessius if now being left to himselfe alone and destitute of their helpes and of their arguments and answeres which I haue heere confuted he should wade any further in these deepe Theologicall questions wherein he hath already beene so often ouer head and eares it is euident that he will cast himselfe headlong into the deepe gulfe of perpetuall infamie And therefore he may perchance thinke it his best way to get my booke forbidden without declaring why or wherefore which course although it may seeme to him to be the wisest according to the wisedome of the world yet to omit what it is to his soule and conscience and before the sight of Almightie God how preiudiciall this course is both to his cause and credit how scandalous it is to Protestants and what little satisfaction it giueth to Catholikes who are desirous and are also bound to search out the truth in this dangerous and difficult point touching their obedience due to God and Caesar and by such exorbitant prohibitions are hindered from the fully examining thereof there is no indifferent man of any iudgement but may most cleerely perceiue 52 All the rest which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in this Chapter it being onely a Recapitulaton of that he saith he hath prooued against me in this his whole Reply needeth no other answere then to affirme the quite contrarie and for confirmation thereof for auoiding of an ouer tedious repetition of what I haue proued against him in this whole Treatise and how I haue cleared my selfe and my doctrine from all note of heresie errour and temeritie and proued it to be truely probable and himselfe to be a very ignorant corrupt and very vaine-glorious and vnconscionable man to remit the Reader to all the places which are
remembrance that this Oath before it was by your Holinesse declared to be manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation might with a probable and consequently with a safe conscience bee taken by any Catholike by reason of the authoritie of so many learned and vertuous Priests and withall they doe now not only consider that your Holinesse prohibition being a meere declaratiue precept can haue no greater force to binde then the reason whereon it is grounded and wholy dependeth as beneath h C. 10. sec 41. seq out of the doctrine of Fr. Suarez shal be made manifest but also they are probably perswaded that your Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons wrongfully informed of the reason for which you forbade Catholikes to take the Oath to wit for that it containeth many things which are plainly repugnant to faith and saluation seeing that neither your authoritie to chastice Princes to excommunicate them to inflict Censures or any spirituall authoritie which is certainly knowne to bee graunted by Christ to Saint Peter and his Successours is in this Oath denyed as Cardinall Bellarmine whom Fa. Parsons and diuers other Diuines of his Societie doe follow by fallacious inferences laboureth to deduce they cannot as yet sufficiently perceiue by what forcible argument they are bound with the perpetuall temporal ouerthrow of themselues and their whole posteritie to obey your Holinesse declaratiue commaundement which at the most is grounded vpon a probable reason Neither doe they conceiue that they ought therefore to bee accounted rebellious to the Sea Apostolike for that they reseruing otherwise all dutifull reuerence to your Holinesse doe not in a matter which is so preiudiciall vnto them obey your Holinesse Apostolicall letters which either are written vpon false information or grounded onely vpon a probable opinion 14 And in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation h Sec. 2. nu 50. 51. I brought to the obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues two answeres which are grounded vpon these two reasons To make therefore said I now at the last a compendious answere to all the three Breues and so also to the whole obiection To the first Breue whereon the other two doe depend it is answered first that although his Holinesse thinking and in his opinion supposing the Oath to bee of it selfe vnlawfull and to containe many things which are contrarie to faith and saluation doeth therefore by his letters or Breues forbid English Catholikes to take it yet seeing that this his prohibition is onely a declaratiue precept and founded in the priuate iudgement and opinion of his Holinesse as before i Num. 44. sequen we haue shewed as we are not bound to follow the Popes opinion against the probable opinion of other Catholike Diuines then especially when by following it very great preiudice is like to come to our selues and many others and when the reasons and grounds for his opinion are for the most part by all men accounted to bee very vnsound as are almost all those arguments which our learned Aduersaries haue obiected against the oath so also we are not bound to obey the Popes declaratiue precept which is founded in his opinion and in the reason which hee alledgeth which precept according to the aforesaid doctrine of Franciscus Suarez hath no greater force to binde then hath his reason and opinion whereon his declaratiue precept doth wholly depend 15 Secondly it is answered that there is no English Catholike who if he be well instructed will take the Oath or approue it to be lawfull in that sense wherein his Holinesse by all probable coniectures hath condemned it For it is probable and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse did vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and especially Cardinall Bellarmine whose aduise and opinion in this so weighty a Theologicall controuersie which must needes bring great good or harme to this kingdome his Holinesse as it is very probable both demanded and followed who therefore according to his Holinesse minde and by his permission wrote in defence of his Breues against his Maiesties Apologie for the oath But Cardinall Bellarmine vnderstood the Oath in this sense as though it denied the Popes Primacie in spirituals his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and also to dispence in Oathes in which sense doubtlesse it cannot be denied but that it containes many things which are flat contrary to faith and saluation but no Catholike doth in this sense either take the Oath or defend it to bee lawfull Neither are the arguments which Cardinall Bellarmine hath brought to prooue the same any way sound and sufficient but very fallacious as I haue shewed at large in the said Disputation 16 All this which is onely a part of the answere I brought from the obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues I thought fit to repeate here againe onely for satisfaction of some scrupulous Catholikes who perchance fearing now to reade my Disputation it being forbidden by the Cardinals of the Inquisition without declaring any cause either in particular or in generall why it it is forbidden of wnich their prohibition I will say more beneath may here most clearley see how soundly and without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse I propound to him the reasons for which English Catholikes thought themselues not bound to obey his declaratiue precept contained in his Breues humbly requesting him that in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall dutie he would vouchsafe to instruct vs in the Catholik faith and to make knowne vnto vs but one of those many things which hee saith are in the Oath so manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation 17 Whereby the Reader may easily perceiue the egregious fraude of this my vnlearned Aduersarie in vrging so vehemently to my disgrace the obiection drawen from the authority of his Holines Breues concealing the principall answer which I brought thereunto whereby I cleared my selfe from all iust imputation of irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse For what irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse can be iustly imagined in propounding to him being the supreame Pastour of our soules with all reuerent and respectiue words the reasons which doe mooue vs to thinke that he hath beene misinformed of the true sense of the Oath and the difficulties which do perplexe our consciences concerning his Breues and humbly requesting him in regard of his Fatherly loue and Pastorall office that he would vouchsafe to teach vs instruct vs in the Catholike faith in those things which he saith are in the oath contrary to faith and saluation No Catholike subiect is bound so to respect and reuerence his superiour albeit he be the Pope as to obey his commandements with blinde obedience when his conscience doth dictate vnto him that they are vniust but hee may with all dutifull respect propound to his Superiour although he be the
affirmed onely the Minor proposition to wit that his Holinesse Breues condemning the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation were grounded vpon an vncertaine and fallible foundation or doctrine and light that is not weightie enough to make a matter of faith to wit that it is against faith to say that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes c. and vpon false informations to wit that his power to excommunicate to binde and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in the Oath and both these my assertions I haue sufficiently conuinced to bee true But this silly man thinking thereby to lay a foule aspersion vpon mee of irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse doth himselfe adde the Maior proposition not affirmed by mee and therein he plainly sheweth his owne irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse and to many other Popes accusing him and them by this Maior proposition which hee addeth to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastours that euer gouerned the Church of God For this is his Maior proposition whosoeuer affirmeth that his Holinesse Breues were grounded vpon light or vncertaine foundations and false informations must needes hold him to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastour that euer gouerned the Church of God by which his assertion hee plainely sheweth what little respect and reuerence hee beareth to his Holinesse and sundrie other Popes who oftentimes as I shewed before out of Pope Innocent the third t In the Canon Anobis 2. de sent Eucom are oftentimes lead in their iudgements and Apostolicall sentences by vncertaine opinions which both deceiue and are deceiued and not alwayes by true informations for which cause saith Pope Innocent it happeneth sometimes that hee who is bound before God is not bound before the Church and he that is free before God is bound by a Censure of the Church So that you see what account Mr. Fitzherbert to vse his owne wordes maketh of these Popes holding them according to this his assertion to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastours that euer gouerned the Church of God 41 For my owne part I neither made that irreuerent inference which Mr. Fitzherbert heere collected but hee himselfe out of his want of learning and iudgement broached and inuented that irreuerent Maior proposition from whence if it were generally true that inference may indeed be gathered as well concerning his Holinesse Breues as also the Decrees and iudiciall sentences of other Popes wherein as Pope Innocentius himselfe acknowledged they are sometimes lead not by trueth but by opinion and information which oftentimes is false and both deceiueth and is deceiued neither did I deny that his Holinesse before hee published his Breues vsed graue long and mature deliberation concerning all things contained therein albeit I must needes confesse that hee might haue vsed a more graue long and mature deliberation if hee would haue consulted the matter not onely with his owne Diuines of Rome but also with those of France and these of England whom most of all it concerned and doubtlesse hee might by them haue had a more sufficient information of the whole matter and controuersie then hee had by his owne Diuines alone as the euent sheweth to bee very true But whether this his graue mature and long deliberation and consultation with his Diuines onely of Rome was sufficient to excuse him from all carelesnesse and negligence before the sight and iudgment of God I will not as I said before it being a thing not knowne to mee meddle therewith neither will I accuse or excuse his Holinesse from sinne for sending hither his Breues so preiudiciall to the Kings Maiestie and to all his Catholike subiects without making a more graue long and mature deliberation and discussion but I leaue it to the iudgement of almightie God who onely knoweth the secrets of all mens hearts when through ignorance or negligence they commit any offence And thus you haue seene that fraude hath beguiled it selfe and how in that snare which Mr. Fitzherbert to taxe me of irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse hath said for me is wily beguily caught himselfe Now you shall see with what fraude and falsitie this silly ignorant and deceitfull man doth still goe on 42 And whereas Widdrington signifieth saith he u P. 214. nu 6. that his Holinesse was deceiued by Cardinall Bellarmine x Ibid. nu 51. 52. Item epi. Dedic nu 8. and Fa. Parsons hee sheweth himselfe very vaine and absurd in this coniecture For how can any man perswade himselfe with reason that his Holinesse meaning to giue his Apostolicall sentence in a matter of so great importance as was this of the Oath which sentence hee was well assured should be skanned and censured to the vttermost by all the Heretikes and Politikes of Christendome would suffer himselfe to bee led or guided by any two three or few persons were they neuer so learned or well steemed of him Besides that it is euident to all those that know how that matter passed that it was long debated in certaine Congregations of Cardinalls and other great Diuines wherein Cardinall Bellarmine had onely but one voice as other Cardinalls had and Fa. Parsons none at all for that hee did not enter therein 43 But obserue good Reader the egregious fraude and falsitie of this man who would make thee beleeue that I did say that his Holinesse was deceiued and misinformed of the true sense and meaning of certaine clauses of the Oath only by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa Parsons and not also by the other Diuines of Rome who consulted of this matter for which cause hee omitted to set downe entirely my second answere to his Holinesse Breues and also the particular points wherein I said his Holinesse was misinformed by them least that his manifest fraude and falsitie should presently haue beene discouered For albeit in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse I named only Card. Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons for that they were the two chiefe and principall men that first stirred in this Controuersie by publike writings the one of the Italian and the other of our English Nation yet I did not there affirme that his Holinesse was misinformed deceiued led or guided onely by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons and in my second answere whereto also Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader I expresly signified the flat contrarie and with Card. Bellarmine for Fa. Parsons there I named not I also ioyned the other Diuines of Rome It is probable said I y Disp Theo. c. 10. s 2. nu 51. and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse did vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and especially Card. Bellar. c. z See the rest aboue nu 15. And a little after I set downe a copie of Fa. Parsons letter wherein at the very beginning
thing it selfe which he testifieth for that this may very well be true that Fa. Parsons did seeke to perswade and induce his Holinesse to that course of mitigation which M. Fitzherbert mentioneth to wit not to proceed with Censures against his Maiesty to which course Fa. Parsons might imagine his Holinesse to haue at that time some inclination in regard both of the new oath then established by his Maiestie and the Parliament which doth so much derogate from the pretended authority which the Bishops of Rome since the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth doe challenge ouer temporall Princes to depriue them of their Princely authority and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance and also of the seuere lawes which were then newly enacted against Catholikes vpon occasion of that horrible Gun-powder conspiracy plotted onely by Catholikes and yet withall it may also be true as onely by the way I did affirme and by many probable coniectures sufficiently confirme that Fa. Parsons did also induce and mooue his Holinesse to the publication of his Breue against the taking of the oath for that betwixt these two there is no repugnance at all and whether hee did or no it is not much materiall to my second answere or reason which M. Fitzherbert tooke vpon him to impugne 54 Neuertheles concerning Mr. Fitzher testification vpon his own knowledge I must tell him in plaine words that I can giue no credit to his testimonie albeit he should confirme it by solemne Oath vnlesse I could be morally certaine that he vseth heerein no equiuocation or mentall reseruation whereof I can hardly be assured considering especially his owne particular practise of equiuocation or mentall reseruation in the time of Pope Clement the eight in slandering and traducing so falsly and shamefully those foure Reuerend Appellant Priests for Schismatikes Spies Rebells and disobedient persons to the Sea Apostolike c. notwithstanding they being present them at Rome to craue iustice and to make manifest their oppression and innocencie and also in giuing testimonie to his Holinesse vpon his Oath that those English bookes which Fa. Parsons had deliuered to the Inquisition with diuers propositions therein contained shewing them to be heretical erroneous c. were truely translated wherein how fowly he and Fa. Parsons with diuers other their adherents did equiuocate to defend Fa. Parsons credit not onely his owne conscience but diuers other persons yet liuing can be a sufficient witnesse and considering also the common doctrine and practise of many of his Societie not onely touching equiuocation but also mentall reseruation which in very deede is flat lying grounded vpon that Chimericall and not intelligible vnion mixtion and composition or rather meere fiction of thoughts and words in one true mixt and compound or rather faigned proposition This I say being considered to omit now diuers other scandalous and pernicious positions and practises to this purpose which some of them especially of our English Nation doe maintaine and whereof I will hereafter if they vrge me thereunto more particularly treate I can giue no credit to any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert shall testifie vpon his owne knowledge vnlesse by some other meanes I shall finde it to be true 55 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert obserueth out of his owne testimonie concerning Fa. Parsons conference with his Holinesse to taxe me of improbabilitie and impertinencie This being so saith he e Pag. 217. I cannot omit vpon this occasion to desire thee good Reader to note the improbable and impertinent inference which Widdrington maketh vpon this answere of his Holinesse Dispu Theol. cap. 10. sec 2. nu 57. for he inferreth thereupon that his Holinesse did condemne the Oath by his Breues and held them for no Catholikes who inclined to take it because he was perswaded that his authoritie to proceed with Censures against the King and consequently his spirituall authoritie was denied thereby and then he concludeth Ibid. nu 58. that if his Holinesse was moued to condemne it for that cause by the instigation of Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and those seuen or eight Diuines mentioned in the letter aboue said Nimis proh dolor saith he manifestum est c. it is alas too manifest that his Holinesse was deluded to the great ignominie of the Sea Apostolike the grieuous scandall of Protestants and the vtter temporall ruine of very many Catholikes So Widdrington But I also must desire the Reader to note the egregios fraud and falshood of this man For I did not there inferre from the answere of his Holinesse as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruly affirmeth that his Holinesse did condemne the Oath by his Breues and held them for no Catholikes who inclined to take the Oath because he was perswaded that his authoritie to proceede with Censures against the King and consequently his spirituall authority was denied thereby but I made this inference first from the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine for that he was of opinion from which Diuines of Rome and consequently neither his Holinesse did dissent that the Popes power to excommunicate and inflict Censures his power to binde and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is plainely denied in the Oath and secondly from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter concerning the consultation of the Diuines of Rome had touching the Oath for that the Diuines of Rome did also suppose as I prooued in that place that the Popes power to chastice in generall and consequently his power to chastice by spirituall Censures is denied in the Oath So that I made there no inference from his Holinesse answere to Fa. Parsons but I onely made an explication of the said answere from the aforesaid inferences shewing from them the cause and reason why his Holinesse thought them to bee no Catholikes who inclined to take the Oath for that he was perswaded by the aduise of Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommuniate and to chastice Princes by Ecclesiasticall Censures is plainely denied in the Oath And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert to conceale his fraude omitteth to set downe my expresse words and the first part of Fa. Parsons letter and what I inferred from thence 57 Wherefore from the discourse which there I made and which Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale I concluded that Cardinal Bellarmine Fa. Parsons the other Diuines of Rome vsing such sophisticall inferences to wit that because we must sweare that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication made or to be made against his Maiestie we will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie c. therefore the Popes power to Excommunicate Kings is denied in the Oath and because the Popes power to punish Kings by deposing them and by absoluing their subiects from their allegiance is denied in the Oath therefore the Popes power to punish Kings in generall and to binde and loose in generall is denied in the Oath vsing I say such sophisticall inferences to
prooue that in the Oath are contained many things flat contrary to faith and saluation were very grossely mistaken And if his Holinesse trusting to the learning and honestie of these men was moued to condemne the Oath for that cause by the instigation of them as by all probable coniectures or rather by morall certainties he was as I conuinced before it is alas too too manifest that he was deluded to the great ignominie of the Sea Apostolike the grieuous scandall of Protestants and to the vtter temporall ruine of very many Catholikes 58 Now you shall see how childishly Mr. Fitzherbert cauilleth at that word if as though now at last I made a doubt and durst not absolutely auerre that his Holinesse was moued by the instigation of Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome to condemne the Oath for the aforesaid causes Wherein I wish to be noted saith he f Pag. 217. nu 11. first vpon what a weake ground Widdrington reiecteth the Popes Breues seeing that he relyeth onely vpon his bare opinion that the Pope was ill informed and deluded by others which he laboureth seriously g Ibid. nu 51. 52. 57. to peswade his Reader to bee very probable although it is so coniecturall and vncertaine that he is faine to conclude all as you heard h Nu. 58. with an if or a peraduenture so as if the Pope was not mooued vnto it by the instigation of those whom he nameth he concludeth or prooueth nothing but his owne impudencie and temeritie in opposing his idle conceipt and fantasie against the Popes serious and solemne testimony protesting in his second Breue as you haue heard that he forbadde the Oath vpon his owne certaine knowledge motion and will after long and graue deliberation and therefore I remit to the prudence and good conscience of any sincere Catholike whether he will beleeue in this case this mans vaine coniecture or the solemne protestation of his Holinesse 59 But in very deed I am ashamed that Mr. Fitzherbert should still so shamefully be wray his egregious fraude and ignorance For it is euident that I made no doubt but expressely and without a peraduenture affirmed that it is very probable yea and morally certaine in my iudgement that his Holinesse vnderstood the words of the Oath in that sense wherin the Diuines of Rome and especially Cardinall Bellarmine c. did conceiue them and that Cardinall Bellarmine who wrote in defence of his Breues did conceiue them in this sense that the Popes Primacie in spiritualls his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and to dispence in Oathes are denied in the Oath And therefore euery Schoole-boy may perceiue that those words And if his Holinesse c. which are a conclusion of the former words and therefore must haue relation thereunto are not to be vnderstood in this sense as my Aduersarie doth childishly glosse them to wit And if his Holinesse was mooued c. as peraduenture he was but as it is very probable yea and morally certaine he was as I said before For what man can with any reason imagine that Cardinall Bellarmine in the vnderstanding of the Oath did dissent from the opinion of the Diuines of Rome who consulted thereon or that his Holinesse did dissent therein from the opinion of them both And therefore this is no idle conceipt or fantasie of mine to conceiue so of his Holinesse but a manifest truth and morall certaintie and to conceiue otherwise of his Holinesse to wit that he followed not herein the aduise of his learned Diuines and vnderstood not the words of the Oath in that sense as they after their long consultation did vnderstand them were rather to taxe his Holinesse of imprudence and temeritie 60 And if the conceipt of mine be so idle and coniecturall and vncertaine as this fraudulent man would seeme to make it why doth not he in plaine words denie the same and say that his Holinesse did not vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherin Card. Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome did conceiue them but childishly would make his Reader beleeue that I my selfe grant it to be very coniecturall and vncertaine by concluding my second answere with an if wheras it is euident that I said plainely it was morally certaine and therefore that if to be referred thereunto and to haue this sense if it be true or morally certaine as true it is that his Holinesse was mooued c. Or why did he not answere the arguments which I brought to prooue that it was morally certaine but passeth them ouer as you haue seene with fraude and silence And when you Mr. Fitzherbert in your Supplement vnderstood the Oath to denie the Popes power to excommunicate and depriue Princes and in respect of those two points tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be against all lawes humane and diuine although now your silence touching excommunication sheweth your former courage to be quailed can any man imagine but that you being then at Rome vnderstood those words of the Oath notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication c. in that sence wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome who consulted thereon did conceiue them 61 All which being considered you may take the impudency and temeritie which you would lay vpon me to your selfe and freely confesse that it is an idle impudent and temerarious conceipt and fantasie for any man to beleeue that his Holinesse did not vnderstand the words of the oath in that sense wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and his other learned Diuines did conceiue them and thereupon was mooued to forbid the â—â—th Neither is this against the Popes serious and solemne testimony protesting in his second Breue that hee forbade the oath vpon his owne certaine knowledge motion and will after long and graue deliberation for these words as I shewed before doe not signifie that he forbade the oath without the aduice and counsell of his learned Diuines for the words after long and graue deliberation doe rather signifie the plaine contrary but by them it is onely signified that his Breue was not surreptitious and counterfait and made without his priuitie or knowledge And therefore M. Fitzherbert vrging those words of his Holinesse which doe onely signifie that his Breue was not false and counterfait and made without his knowledge to prooue that he did not vnderstand the words of the oath in that sense as Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and thereupon was mooued to send hither his Breues for the forbidding of the oath sheweth himselfe to be both childish and malicious and to want both prudence and conscience in taxing me of impudency and temerity for affirming that which no man of iudgement and without great irreuerence to his Holinesse can deny 62 Now therefore M. Fitzherbert will for Disputation sake admit that the Pope was deluded and falsely perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict
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
plainely conuince 71 To this purpose saith hee r Pag. 219. nu 15. 16. it is to bee noted how peremptorily and arrogantly hee writeth to his Holinesse saying that if hee condemne his bookes or writings as hereticall or erroneous vpon the false informations of his Aduersaries hee leaueth it to the iudgement of his Holinesse and all the Christian world how great an iniurie hee shall doe him and what a great occasion hee shall giue thereby to the Aduersaries to Catholike veritie So Widdrington Wherein you see hee doth not promise his Holinesse to retract or reforme his writings and doctrine in case that hee doe condemne them but anticipateth the iudgement of his Holinesse with a protestation of wrong and of occasion of great scandall insinuating also further that the whole Christian world will iustifie him therein in which respect hee confidently leaueth his cause to the iudgement thereof meaning by the Christian world as may well bee coniectured some generall Councell whereto he meaneth to appeale Disp Theol. cap. 3. nu 8. cap. 10. nu 23. and therfore he teacheth afterwards that it is a probable opinion that the Pope may erre in any definition of his if it bee not approoued by a generall Councell so as he sheweth euidently what starting hole he hath found alreadie to escape away from the Censures of the Sea Apostolike to wit by appealing from the Pope to a generall Councell as that miserable man his fellow Sheldon did all Apostataes and heretikes are wont to doe at their first breach and disunion from the Church 72 Heere Mr. Fitzherbert to confirme his rash and vncharitable iudgement of mee that I am no good Catholike but an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike taxeth mee of diuers things wherein also hee plainely discouereth his great want both of learning and charitie For first no man of iudgement can deny but that the aforesaide conditionall words which I vsed to his Holinesse are very true to wit that if hee should condemne my bookes as hereticall or erroneous which doe sincerely handle this dangerous difficult and great controuersie Azorius tom 2 l. 12. cap. 5. q. 8. which euer hath beene saith Fa. Azor betwixt the Bishops of Rome on the one side and Emperours and Kings on the other touching the Popes power to depriue them of their kingdomes vpon the false informations of my Aduersaries he should both greatly wrong me also giue occasio of great scandal to the Aduersaries of the Catholike faith Now seeing that as I there signified I haue clearely conuinced that my Aduersaries and especially Card. Bell. masked vnder the name of D. Schulckenius hath most shamefully corrupted my words misconstrued my meaning and slanderously accused mee of errour and heresie what shew of arrogancie can any prudent man imagine it to bee to signifie to his Holinesse with humble and decent words and especially in the defence of my innocencie the plaine and manifest trueth and to request his Holinesse not to be mislead in a matter of such importance by the bad informations of my Aduersaries nor to trust ouermuch to their learning and conscience in this case wherein they haue so fowly abused mee and deluded also his Holinesse and withall to admonish or forewarne him that if he should bee thus mislead all the Christian world would plainely see that it would bee both an infinite wrong to mee and an occasion of great scandall to the Aduersaries of the Catholike Religion 73 Secondly Mr. Fitzherberts interpretation of those my words I leaue to the iudgement of all the Christian world to wit that by the Christian world I vnderstand some generall Councell whereto I meant to appeale is a very false and slanderous coniecture For albeit I am indeede of opinion and I thinke that no man of learning reading or iudgement can in his heart bee of the contrarie whatsoeuer in outward shew to speake perchance ad Placebo or for other respects hee may pretend that it is neither heresie errour or temeritie but a doctrine truely probable that the Pope may erre in his definitions if hee define without a generall Councell and that a generall Councell is aboue a true and vndoubted Pope yet by all the Christian world I did not vnderstand any generall Councell neither by those words did I meane as God is my witnesse to appeale to a generall Councell if the Pope vpon the falfe informations of my Aduersaries should condemne my bookes knowing it to bee in vaine for the redresse of any present iniurie to appeale to that which is not and God knoweth when it will be although if the Councell were actually assembled I account it no arrogancie for any man that is wronged by his Holinesse vpon the false suggestions and informations of his potent Aduersaries to appeale thereunto But by all the Christian world I vnderstood all Christian men whatsoeuer whether Clerkes or Laikes Princes or subiects Prelates or priuate men friends or foes and my only meaning was that those words which I spake to his Holinesse with the aforesaid condition are so plainly and euidently true that I durst therein appeale to the iudgment and conscience of any Christian man whatsoeuer yea and of my learned Aduersaries themselues 74 But I doe not promise his Holinesse saith Mr. Fitzherbert to retract and reforme my writings in case that hee condemne them but I anticipate the iudgement of his Holinesse with a protestation of wrong and of occasion of great scandall True it is that I did declare to his Holinesse and admonish him in that place but not anticipate his iudgement how shamefully Cardinall Bellarmine had wronged mee in his publike writings most falsly accusing mee of errour and heresie and vpon what weake and sophisticall grounds hee laboured to coine a new article of faith in a matter which so meerely concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar humbly requesting his Holinesse that he would not giue credit to the false informations of my Aduersaries and especiall of Cardinall Bellarmine nor be ouer confident in his learning or conscience but that hee would bee pleased to examine the whole cause himselfe and not to giue iudgement against mee or censure my bookes vpon the false reports of my accusers and aduersaries otherwise the whole world would plainely see what great wrong is done to me and what great occasion of scandall would thereby arise to the Aduersaries of the Catholike faith and Religion Now what indifferent man that will speake without partialitie can iustly accuse him as arrogant presumptuous or to anticipate the sentence of the Iudge who being falsly accused of most heinous crimes by one who is both his accuser and witnesse against him and also greatly fauoured and esteemed by the Iudge doth in defence of his innocency plainely and modestly declare in particular to the Iudge how fowly and shamefully he is slandered desiring him not to giue sentence against him vpon such false informations but that he
and suppose it to be vnlawfull as being forbidden by some former law they haue no more force to binde as Fa. Suarez expresly affirmeth Suarez l. 3. de Leg. c. 20 nu 10. then hath the reason whereon they are grounded So that if the reason be certaine then we are bound to obey if it be onely probable wee are no more bound to obey that declaratiue commaundement then we are bound to follow the Popes opinion against the probable opinion of other learned Catholikes All this and much more touching declaratiue and constitutiue precepts and his Holinesse Breues in particular which doe onely containe a declaratiue precept forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation I declared in my Theologicall Disputation x Ch. 10. sec 2. which is aboundantly sufficient to free me and other English Catholikes from all note of disobedience for not obeying in this doubtfull and disputable matter his Holinesse Breues and his declaratiue precept contained therein which is so preiudiciall to his Maiesties authority and so dangerous to his Catholike subiects not being able to finde any one thing therein which is repugnant to faith and saluation especially humbly propounding to his Holinesse the reasons of our doubts and earnestly requesting to bee satisfied therein But Mr. Fitzherbert thought it fit for his purpose to vrge against mee the obiections which I there answered and to taxe me not onely of disobedience but also of errour and heresie and to conceale the answeres which I made thereunto wherein he plainely discouereth his vnsincere dishonest and vncharitable proceeding and that his onely drift is to disgrace mee with his Reader and not to examine vprightly the truth of the cause 95 To conclude therefore this digression it is euident by the premises that if the Pope without a generall Councell define any doctrine to be hereticall erroneous or temerarious and command all Catholikes to belieue the same no Catholike is bound or ought to belieue with Catholike faith that doctrine to be hereticall erroneous or temerarious for this respect onely because the Pope hath defined and commanded the same for that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether he hath any such authority infallibly to define or no and consequently neither his definitions nor his declaratiue commandements grounded thereon can be certaine and infallible grounds of Catholike faith And thus much touching inward beliefe But secondly if the Pope command that none shall preach or teach against his definitions or Breues then wee must obserue that golden rule of learned and deuout Gerson that if we neither perceiue any manifest errour against faith in his definitions or Breues nor that by our silence some great scandall shall arise to Catholike faith we must not dogmatize against them otherwise wee must speake freely and feare no Censures See his words aboue Chap. 14. num 39. But notwithstanding this document of Gerson if any learned man hath doubts and difficulties which doe trouble his conscience concerning the verity or lawfulnesse of the Popes definitions or Breues when they are greatly prejudiciall to a third person especially to a whole kingdome it is lawfull for him according to the doctrine of Sotus and others before rehearsed to propound humbly to his Holinesse the reasons of his doubts desiring to bee satisfied therein for this is not to dogmatize or to teach or preach publikely against them although this also according to Gerson be sometimes commendable yea and necessary but it is a desire to bee taught and instructed concerning the veritie or lawfulnesse of them 96 Thirdly if the Pope should excommunicate nominatim by name all those that shall teach preach or write against his definitions or Breues in case they perceiue great scandall to arise to Catholike faith if they be silent and doe not oppose themselues or should excommunicate nominatim those who shall write Supplications to his Holinesse to be taught and instructed concerning the veritie or lawfulnesse of his definitions or Breues whereof they haue great doubts and difficulties which doe perplexe their conscience then they must remember that saying of our Sauiour wherewith Gerson concludeth his golden document that Blessed are they that suffer persecution for iustice and let them assure themselues that they are vniustly excommunicated and free before God howsoeuer the Pope hath tyed them by his Censure and therefore they may in this case carry themselues in that manner as those who are not excommunicated in the sight of God though by presumption which often deceiueth and is deceiued they may bee thought by many persons who know not their innocency to bee excommunicated Yet they must not contemne the Censure but also for feare of scandall obserue it in the face of the Church although secretly and when no scandall is like to arise they may doe all that which if they had not beene excommunicated they might haue done and they who know their innocency may in like manner conuerse with them secretly and without scandall as they might before But notwithstanding any such excommunication they may still write supplications to his Holinesse vntill hee shall instruct them and may still appeale to his Holinesse ad melius informandum to informe him better and to desire to be fully instructed propounding humbly the reasons of thâ—â—rdoubts 97 Lastly if the Pope or the Cardinalls of the Inquisition shall forbid Catholikes to read or keepe certaine bookes to know whether and by whom such bookes may without any licence be read and kept or no learned Catholikes must diligently obserue for what reason ground cause or end they are forbidden to be read to wit whether for that they are repugnant to faith or good manners and also they must carefully consider the natures properties and differences of declaratiue and constitutiue precepts and that according to the common doctrine of Diuines whensoeuer the reason or end of any law doth generally cease the obligation also of that law doth cease So that if the bookes are forbidden for that they are repugnant to faith and therevpon may be dangerous to soules and this reason is not true but onely pretended and falsly supposed the reason end and cause of this prohibition doth altogether cease to him who seeth this false pretence And this obseruation I haue set downe chiefly for learned men For those that be vnlearned must bee guided and directed by vertuous discreet and learned men which learned men who take vpon them to guide and direct others if through affectate and wilfull ignorance they doe erre for that they will not duly examine the matter when they haue sufficient cause to doubt thereof but either for feare or flattery will beleeue with blinde obedience the Popes or Cardinalls words knowing certainly that they may erre and oftentimes haue erred and now haue sufficient cause to doubt and consequently to examine whether at this present they haue erred or no seeing that learned Catholikes doe in
publike writings dedicated to his Holinesse make great doubts and giue great reasons to shew that they haue erred at this very present desiring to be satisfied therein these learned men I say shall render a strict account at the day of iudgement for the temporall or spirituall harme which those poore ignorant soules who haue trusted to their learning and conscience haue sustained by their aduise and counsell and also they are bound to make satisfaction and restitution in this world for all the temporall losse which those poore soules haue incurred by their rash and pernicious counsell proceeding from wilfull and affectate or desired ignorance 98 Neuerthelesse also vnlearned Catholikes when they haue iust cause to doubt of the truth lawfulnes of any Decrees either of Pope or Cardinalls which are preiudiciall to a third person and especially to their temporall Prince and the whole kingdome are bound for as much as by their naturall wit and capacitie they are able to examine the matter and not to be led blindfold without sufficient reason which may fully satisfie their vnderstanding and conscience And this doctrine which I haue heere in this digression set downe is so sound easie and perspicuous that no learned man can take any iust exception thereat Yet I haue not set it downe for that it is necessarie to satisfie my Aduersaries obiections which before I clearely answered seeing that neither the Pope by his Breues nor the Cardinalls of the Inquisition by forbidding my bookes haue defined determined or declared this doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes to bee of faith because there is no mention at all made of this doctrine either in the Popes Breues or in the aforesaid Decree of the Cardinalls but I haue set it downe onely for satisfaction and instruction of the Catholike Reader that hee bee not led hood-winckt by the grosse ignorance of my vnlearned Aduersarie T.F. who as it seemeth doth not know what heresie or disobedience is yet pretendeth to be their guide and director therin but both of them may doe well to remember that saying of our Sauiour Si caecus caeco ducatum praestet ambo in foueam cadunt If the blinde bee guide to the blinde both fall into the ditch And by all this it is euident that I and other Catholikes cannot any way bee iustly taxed of disobedience for propounding to his Holinesse with all humilitie the doubts and reasons which wee haue not to admit his Breues which are so preiudiciall to his Maiestie and our selues and most humbly requesting him that he will satisfie and instruct vs therein but alas what little satisfaction wee haue receiued from his Holinesse you shall see beneath 99 Now to returne to my ignorant and vncharitable Aduersarie who hath laboured in vaine to prooue not onely that I am disobedient and irreuerent to the Sea Apostolike but also an heretike disguised and that my submission to the Censure of the Catholike Roman Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes and also that my meaning is to escape the Censures of the Church by appealing from the Pope to a generall Councell all which how false and slanderous they are you haue alreadie seene and yet wee reade that the Doctours and Catholikes of Paris haue diuers times appealed from the Pope being not well informed and aduised to a future Councell now this silly and vnconscionable man will forsooth confirme his aforesaid rash iudgement of mee concerning the last point of my appealing to a Councell by the example of Luther who at his first breach and disunion from the Church did as all Anostataes and heretikes are wont to doe appeale from the Pope to a generall Councell 100 This is manifest saith hee y p. 220. nu 17 euen in Luther himselfe who after hee had begunne to set abroach his heresie retained for a while the good opinion of many Catholikes with his pretence still to reuerence and highly esteeme the Popes authoritie insomuch that he wrote to Pope Leo in these words Quare Beatissime Pater Surius an 1517 prostratum me pedibus tuae Beatitudinis offero c. Wherefore most holy Father I offer my selfe prostrate at the feete of your Holinesse with all that I haue or am do you quicken or kill call or recall approoue or reprooue as it shall please you I will acknowledge your voyce as the voyce of Christ gouerning in you So he making as you see a farre greater and more absolute submission then Widdrington doth albeit within a while after being condemned first by a Legate of the Pope and after by the Pope himselfe he appealed first from the Legate to the Pope and afterward from the Pope to a future Councell and what became of him in the ende the world hath seene and felt by the bad fruites of his Apostacie Ibid. anno 1519 Sed Deus meliora 102 But first this silly man will not as I suppose finde fault with Luther for the humble submission hee made to the Pope but all that hee can reprehend in him may be two things the one is that he did it not sincerely and from his heart which if it be so as also it may be otherwise I cannot but much dislike such deepe dissimulation But for my owne part I protest before almightie God that the submission I made of my selfe and all my writings to the iudgement and Censure of the Catholike Roman Church I did it with all my heart and without any dissimulation at all The second may bee that hee did appeale afterwards from the Pope to a future Councell which although I doe not intend euer to doe but will take patiently all the Censures which shall bee imposed vpon mee I will onely appeale still to the Pope himselfe to informe him better and to make knowne to him and to the whole world my oppression and the iustice of my cause yet neither Luther nor any other can bee accounted an heretike Apostata or Schismatike for appealing from the Pope to a future Councell vpon a iust cause seeing it is well knowne that the Masters Doctours and the whole Vniuersitie of Paris did also appeale from the saide Pope Leo to a future Councell The copie of this Appeale which was made in the yeere 1517. the 27. of March is to bee seene in Bochell lib. 8. Decret Eccles Gallic cap. 8. who were not therefore accounted heretikes Apostataes Schismatikes silly sicke scabbed or rotten sheepe 102 Secondly Luther within two yeeres after hee began to publish his doctrine reuolted wholly from the Catholike Roman Church and renounced all obedience to the Bishop of Rome but since I began to write there be seuen yeeres fully expired and yet I continue still in the vnitie of the Catholike Roman Church and doe acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to bee my supreame spirituall Pastour Father and Superiour And albeit my opinion be that
no Catholike is bound to admit his Holinesse Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath and to obey his declaratiue commandement contained therein for the reasons signified before which I humbly propounded to his Holinesse desiring him most earnestly as being our chiefe Pastour Teacher and Instructer to giue vs some satisfaction therein yet I cannot therefore in the iudgement of any learned man bee iustly accounted a disobedient childe to his Holinesse seeing that it is euident as I shewed before out of Dominicus Sotus that if a Superiour imposâ— a commandement whereby danger is feared to Religion or to the common-wealth or to a third person as all the world knoweth that the forbidding of the Oath is heere in England preiudiciall to Catholike Religion to his Maiestie and the temporall State and to all his Catholike subiects if the subiect be doubtfull that such a danger will arise he is not bound foorthwith to obey but he may without any disobedience demaund of his Prelate a reason of his commandement propounding humbly the reasons of his doubts 103 Besides Luthers doctrine was within two yeeres condemned not onely in generall words but also his propositions were specified in particular both by Pope Leo himselfe in his particular Bull concerning the same and also by the famous Vniuersities of Paris Louan and Collen But albeit two of my bookes are by a particular decree of the Cardinall forbidden in generall and I commanded vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe forthwith yet they haue neither expressed any one proposition in particular neither as yet can I get them to name one proposition which is repugnant to faith or good manners although I haue most earnestly requested to know the same protesting from my heart to bee most readie to correct what is to bee corrected to purge what is to bee purged to explaine what is to be explained and to retract what is to bee retracted which their different proceeding against me and Luther doth plainly argue that they haue begun a worke which they cannot with their reputation continue and that there is no such dangerous doctrine contained in my bookes as Cardinall Bellarmine against whom I did chiefly write and who is my accuser Aduersarie and Iudge hath by all likelihood informed them and would gladly to saue his owne credit and that he hath not falsly to his great dishonour accused me and my doctrine of errour heresie and of being no good Catholike would make the world beleeue for which at the day of iudgement hee shall render a strict account And thus you see that this comparison which my indiscreete Aduersarie hath to disgrace me made betwixt me and Luther doth nothing helpe but greatly hurt his cause 104 Now you shall see what a fraudulent and vncharitable obseruation hee gathereth from hence That which I wish saith he z Pag. 121. nu 18. 19. to bee obserued heerein is how little heed is to bee taken to Widdringtons submission of his writings to the Roman Church he should haue saide Catholike Roman Church considering his doctrine and the course he holdeth in the maintaining thereof For as Cicero saide by Epicurus who wrote sometimes very vertuously and thereby deceiued many it is not so much to be considered what hee writeth as what his grounds and principles are and how well his writings agree therewith as for example what opinion he or any other hath or can haue of the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike who purposely impugneth the iurisdiction thereof contradicting as I haue shewed sufficiently in this Reply the ancient and generall practise of the Church the expresse Canons thereof and the Decrees of Popes and Generall Councells vpon an absurd supposition partly of a bare probabilitie in his own doctrine partly of a possibilitie of errour in Decrees touching matters of fact which he is not ashamed to say of the Decree of the famous Oecumenical Councel of Lateran albeit all Catholikes doe vniformely teach that generall Councells lawfully assembled and confirmed by the Pope cannot erre in any generall Decree touching either faith or manners as I haue sufficiently signified before a See chap. 16. nu 11. and 12. Besides that he vseth the very obiections arguments answeres shifts and euasions of heretikes discouering now and then such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade him without great disgust and indignation or can take him for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike 105 But to answer the false and fraudulent obseruation or rather shamefull calumniation of this malignant spirit which hee would gladly colour with the luster of a faigned intemperate and Pharisaicall zeale to the Sea Apostolike I may rightly say to him as Saint Paul sayde to Elymas the Magician O plene omnidole omnifallacia Act. 13. c. O full of all guile and of all deceipt c. For to begin with his later wordes I doe not vse any other obiections arguments and answeres then which vertuous and learned Catholikes haued vsed before mee neither doe I discouer any arrogant proude or malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike whom I reuerence and respect with all my heart onely the plaine truth which Catholike Doctours haue said before me and which oftentimes breedeth enmitie I doe modestly reuerently and without any flattery which commonly procureth friends â—â—â—downe And this vncharitable and ignorant man might haue done well to haue named some one particular shift or euation which I haue vsed and which onely heretikes and no Catholikes doe vse or wherein I discouer such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade it without disgust and indignation or take me for any other than an heretike disguished and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike But this is a vsuall tricke of slanderers and backbiters to vse such generall speeches lest if they should descend to particulars their malicious and lying spirit would presently bee discouered 106 Secondly this silly man cannot prooue that any one thing either concerning my doctrine and the grounds and principles thereof or concerning the course which I hold in the maintenance thereof doth not agree with the submission I made of my writings to the censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church For I doe not impugne any authoritie or iurisdiction which the Catholike Romane Church acknowledgeth as due to the Sea Apostolike but I impugne onely the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishment as a thing certaine and necessarily to be belieued or maintained by Catholikes for that the Catholike Church neuer acknowledged this authoritie to be due to him neither was this doctrine in the primitiue Church and for many hundred yeares after by the ancient Fathers so much as dreamed on but it hath been challenged practised by some Popes since the time of P. Gregorie the 7. Res ante ea secula inaudita
learned Catholikes to be numbred 111 And for this cause and vpon this motiue as I coniecture his Maiestie and the State suffered vs to write like Catholikes of this point and according to the grounds and principles of the Catholike Religion which wee professe and to submit our writings to the Censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church and to dedicate them to his Holinesse to the end they might see what he or other Catholikes would or could except against our doctrine But this fradulent and vncharitable man who like the diligent and carefull Bee might as you haue seene from this permission consent or approbation of his Maiestie and the State gather hony to comfort the afflicted hearts of distressed Catholikes and to appease and mollifie the wrath indignation and bad opinion of his Maiestie and the whole kingdome conceiued against vs by reason of that most horrible and abhominable Powder-Treason plotted and attempted by Catholikes doth like the craftie and malignant serpent gather from thence poyson to inflict and afflict the hearts of his Catholike Countrey-men and to exasperate his Maiestie and the State against himselfe and other Catholikes and to increase the indignation and bad opinion which the whole Realme hath conceiued against vs wherein hee discouereth his ill affected minde towards his Maiestie and his great want of charitie towards his afflicted brethren 112 But let vs goe on and see his childish collection For can any man saith he perswade himselfe that their Lordships are turned Papists of late or that they would suffer bookes to bee printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Catholike Romane Church if they did not know that the Author thereof meant the same for a meere mockery and derision of his Holinesse honouring him as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex Iudaeorum and spitting in his face 113 It is very true that no reasonable man can perswade himselfe that their Lordships and the State are turned Papists of late for permitting Catholikes to free themselues from this scandalous and slanderous imputation which this ignorant and vncharitable man and his fellowes would lay vpon them and to suffer their bookes to bee printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Catholike Romane Church as likewise no reasonable man can perswade himselfe that Bishop Bancroft and the State were turned Papists for permitting the Apellant Priests to defend their innocency and to free themselues from so many scandalous and slanderous crimes which this vncharitable fellow with Fa. Parsons and his adherents did obiect against them and to suffer their bookes to be printed vnder the name of Catholikes and some of them to be dedicated to the Pope and to the Cardinalls of the Inquisition and with submission of the whole to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church and also for furthering their Appeale by releasing some out of prison for that purpose and by letters moouing the king of France in their behalfe that he would be a meanes to his Holinesse that their cause might be heard and they not to be oppressed through the potency of their Auersaries in the Court of Rome and that if they were wronged they might bee freed of those slanderous imputations and if faultie they might accordingly be censured for which fauours those Priests and all their adherents were bound to giue most heartie thankes to her Maiestie and the State by whose meanes they made knowne to the world their innocencie and oppression to the euerlasting shame and discredit of their Aduersaries who in the like manner doe now proceed against me and other Catholikes who are desirous to make manifest to all the world their dutifull allegiance which they owe to God and Caesar and which their violent and vncharitable proceeding I make no doubt but in the end will turne to their great shame and confusion for truth and innocency although for a time it may be oppressed will in the end preuaile 114 Wherefore any man may perswade himselfe that his Maiestie and the State still remaining Protestants may for many good reasons permit such bookes of Catholikes which cleerely prooue that no Protestant Prince can according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes be deposed by the Pope to be printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church yet knowing that the Author thereof meant the same truely and sincerely and not for a meere mockerie and derision of his Holinesse c. as my Aduersary falsly and childishly inferreth which his inference as I signified elsewhere may be retorted against Cardinall Bellarmine who impugneth the Popes direct authority and dominion in temporals and yet he dedicated his booke to the Pope and submitted the whole to his Censure belike honouring him as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex ludaeorum and spitting in his face A chife and principall reason why the State may prudently permit some bookes of Catholikes to be printed in the aforesaid manner may bee thereby to know truely and vnfainedly whether Catholike religion and temporall subiection to a Prince of another Religion true spirituall obedience of Catholike subiects to the Pope and true temporall allegiance of the said Catholike subiects to a King who acknowledgeth no such spirituall obedience to the Pope may stand together and how farre the Popes authority by the institution of Christ doth according to the grounds of Catholike Religion extend in temporall affaires to wit whether to the deposing of hereticall or wicked Princes to the disposing of all temporalls and to the inflicting of all temporall punishments in order to spirituall good or onely to the inflicting of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures 115 For what man of iudgement can deny that it is very necessary for his Maiestie considering the Religion which he professeth to know how farre he may be assured of the vnfaigned and constant loyalty of his Catholike subiects and how farre he may prudently permit tolerate or fauour them when occasion shall require without any probable danger of new gun-powder plots or other innouations or conspiracies against the State to be attempted by them publikely or secretly with the expresse or tacite commandement or licence of the Pope Other reasons may be alledged which may mooue the State to suffer my bookes to be printed in the aforesaid manner one may be a tender commiseration of distressed Catholikes who for yeelding their temporall allegiance to his Maiesty as he by the new Oath hath required at their hands and making knowne to the whole world the lawfulnesse thereof euen according to the grounds of Catholike Religion are slandered and defamed as being no good Catholikes but heretickes disguisâ—d and masked vnder the Vizards of Catholikes which might mooue his Maiestie and
Councell are very probable and sufficient and that therefore Mr. Fitzherberts conclusion of this Chapter to vse his owne words is no lesse vaine impertinent and insufficient then of his former Chapters for these be his words k Pag. 154 nu 10. Thus thou seest good Reader that these few exceptions being all that Widdrington hath taken to the Councell of Lateran in his answere to my Supplement are no lesse vaine and impertinent then his former arguments and answeres to the rest of my discourse and this is as much as at the first I meant and vndertooke to performe neuerthelesse forasmuch as he hath charged me to haue dissembled his other answeres and arguments touching the Councell of Lateran in another worke of his which as I haue signified before I neuer saw till now of late I will take a little more paines and craue thy further patience whiles I examine the validitie thereof which I might forbeare to doe if I did write in Latin because the same arguments and answeres of my Aduersary are very learnedly and cleerely confuted in Latin as well by M. D. Weston l Iuris Pontif. Sanctuar q. 27. per totum in his Sanctuary whereof I haue spoken before as also by M. D. Singleton in an excellent Treatise concerning onely the Decree of the Councell of Lateran to which two Authours I might and would wholly remit my Reader m Disscussio decreti c. nu 4. seq were it not that I desire to giue satisfaction in this point as well to such as doe not vnderstand the Latin tongue as to those that haue not the commodity and meanes to see the said Treatises besides that I shall now and then vpon some speciall occasions touch some things which seeme to me very considerable and are not touched by them or any other for ought I know 39 But on the contrary side thou seest good Reader that these answeres which I haue giuen to the Councell of Lateran are sound sufficient and very probable and that the exceptions which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken against them are no lesse vaine and impertinent then are his arguments and answeres in the former Chapters and that according to his owne confession who granteth that all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and therefore the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Canons is extended onely to them who are subiect to the authoritie of the Church if it be probable that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue by the institution of Christ no authoritie to inflict temporall punishments and that consequently absolute Princes are not subiect to them therein it cleerely followeth that it is also probable that the Councell of Lateran did not intend to include absolute Princes in that penall law vnder the generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis but that this decree inflicting temporall punishments was made by the authority and consent of temporall Princes and did therefore onely include those inferiour Land-lords Gouernours or Lords that were subiect to them 40 Wherefore to conclude this point vnlesse as I said before my Aduersaries doe first prooue out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleere definition of a generall Councell or a demonstratiue reason grounded thereon that it is certaine and of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes they cannot draw any conuincing argument from this Canon of the Lateran Councell to prooue that doctrine to be certaine and of faith for still the aforesaid answere will bee ready at hand that it was made by the authority of temporall Princes seeing all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as Almaine and very many Doctours doe affirme So that vnlesse in arguing from the Lateran Councell they will manifestly petere principium and suppose that which they ought to prooue they can neuer bring any conuincing argument from the aforesaid Canon to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes as any man of iudgement may cleerely see but they must still suppose the same as certaine which is a great vice in the disputer although the answerer who taketh not vpon to prooue but onely to defend may without any fault or note giue such answeres which suppose that the Pope hath no such power vntill by force of argument he be driuen from that his supposition and this I wish the Reader and all my Aduersaries well to note for in most of their arguments they suppose that which is in question which is a fault in the Disputant but not in the Respondent who doth alwaies answere supposing his owne grounds and doctrine but the Disputer must not onely suppose them but also prooue them And as for the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Replies which he confesseth to haue taken out of D. Weston and D. Singleton I will also examine with him in the ensuing Chapters as also that which he hath now and then as he saith vpon some speciall occasions touched and which seeme to him very considerable and yet are not for ought he knoweth touched by them or any other CHAP. XI Wherein Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to be sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessarie to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Also the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined And lastly Mr-Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the Decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the Constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted 1 NOw Mr. Fitzherbert with the helpe of D. Weston and Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name taketh vpon him in the three next ensuing Chapters to prooue three answeres which I gaue to an obiection made in fauour of this Decree of the Lateran Councell to bee absurd And thus he beginneth My Aduersary Widdrinton in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere to an English Doctour hath not onely vrged the arguments Praefat. Ad. Resp Apolog. nu 46. which I haue heere alreadie confuted but vndertaketh also to answere certaine of ours against the same arguments and therefore he obiecteth in our behalfe that although it were true that Kings and absolute Princes are not included per se and principally in that Decree of the Councell yet it seemeth to be manifest that secondarily and consequently they are or at least may be comprehended therein For if the Pope saith he haue power to depriue the subiects of other Princes of their temporall states for heresie without the consent of the said Princes it seemeth that no sufficient reason can be assigned why he may not also for the same cause depriue Soueraigne Princes of their Dominions 2 Thus argueth he for
vs and not much amisse and therefore let vs see how he will answere it He giueth to this obiection three answeres The first is that both Popes and Councells doe oftentimes decree many things which belong rather to the politicall or temporall then to the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power to decree with the expresse or tacite consent of Princes who are there present by themselues or their Ambassadours or at leastwise presuming or hoping that Princes will ratifie the same And this say some Expositours of the Canon law saith Ioannes Parisiensis For Hostiensis extra de haereticis cap. Ad abolendam where the Pope commaundeth the goods of heretikes to be confiscated demaundeth what the Pope hath to doe with temporalls And he answereth with his Lord Pope Innocent that in very deede he hath nothing to doe therewith but he made this Decree with the assent of the Emperor who being then present at Padua gaue his consent 3 This is Widdringtons first answere wherein you see he relyeth specially vpon the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis who grounding his opinion vpon Hostiensis alledgeth him to no purpose at all partly for that no such thing is to be found in Hostiensis in the place which he quoteth to wit extra de haereticis cap. Hostiens in cap. Quod super his de voto volt redempt ad Abolendam and partly because Hostiensis not onely teacheth euidently elsewhere that the Pope hath direct Dominion ouer all temporall States whereupon it followeth that he may dispose thereof and of temporall things as he shall haue iust cause but also affirmeth and teacheth expresly that absolute Princes may bee deposed by the Pope and their states exposed to bee taken by other Catholikes Hostiensi lib. 5 Rub. de haereticis § qua poena if they bee negligent to purge their states of heresie and to this end he citeth this very Canon of the Councell of Lateran whereof we now treate to wit cap. Excommunicamus Si vero Dominus temporalis yea and addeth further that the Pope may depose a Prince for his negligence in Gouernement alledging for the same not onely 17. q. 4. Si quis deinceps but also the example of Zacharias the Pope who saith he deposuit Childericum Regem Franciae deposed Childericke King of France How then can Ioannes Parisiensis or any man else truely say that Hostiensis was of opinion that the Pope hath nothing to doe with temporall things 4 But first where doth Mr. Fitzherbert finde Ioannes Parisiensis to say that Hostiensis was of opinion that the Pope hath nothing to doe with temporall things For that which Parisiensis saith is onely this that Hostiensis giueth this answere that the Pope hath nothing to doe with temporall things and that it belongeth not to him to make generall decrees concerning the confiscation of goods and that this Decree was made with the assent of the Emperour who was then present at Padua and gaue his consent thereto but whether Hostiensis gaue this answere according to his owne opinion or of other Lawyers whom he doth not condemne Ioannes Parisiensis neither affirmeth nor denieth but onely saith that Hostiensis gaue this answere which is very true But these be vsuall trickes of Mr. Fitzherbert as you haue often seene aboue to misconstrue the words and meaning of his Aduersarie thereby to make some colourable shew of a probable answere Wherfore although it be most true that Hostiensis is of opinion that the Pope may vpon iust cause dispose of the Dominions of all Christian Princes and of all temporall things for that he expresly teacheth that the Pope is not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch of the whole world and hath direct dominion ouer all temporall States yet I doe not find Hostiensis to be so peremptorie in his opinion as to condemne the contrarie doctrine of heresie or of absurd and temerarious improbabilitie as all my Aduersaries not without great temeritie now vsallly doe 5 Secondly therefore it is also true that Hostiensis vpon the aforesaid Chapter Ad abolendam giueth also that answere whereof Ioannes Parisiensis maketh mention and doth not reiect it as improbable in which sense Parisiensis did call it Hostiensis his answere And this answere Mr. Fitzherbert might haue easily found in the foresaid place if he had not relyed vpon Fa. Lessius word who saith as much but had read ouer the whole Chapter himselfe For whereas Pope Lucius the third did in that Canon Ad abolendam ordaine from whom it is probable Pope Innocent the third tooke that decree of the Lateran Councell seeing that in substance they little differ vt Comites Barones Rectores c. that Earles Barons Gouernours and Consulls of Cities and of other places whom the Councell of Lateran comprehendeth vnder the names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominos principale shall promise by making a corporall oath according as they shall be admonished by the Bishops that they will faithfully and effectually when they shall be required by them helpe the Church against heretikes and their partakers vnfainedly according to their office and power and if they shall not obserue the same let them be depriued of the honour which they haue and let them in no wise be assumed to other honours c. The Cardinall Hostiensis vpon these wordes vt Comites c. to prooue the validitie of this Canon among other answeres he giueth also this which he doth not confute that some Doctors doe say that therefore this Canon was of force because the Emperour was present and gaue his consent secundum D. N. according to Pope Innocent the fourth whom he called Dominum nostrum 6 The same answere also hath Ioannes Andreas expounding that word Comites Note saith hee that the Pope doth decree concerning lay-men but this is in regard of sinne Others say that therefore these decrees were of force because the Prince gaue his consent and was present And also the same answere maketh Pope Innocent the fourth expounding the same word Comites Note saith he that the Pope may ordaine concerning Lay-men but this is in regard of sinne Others say that these decrees are therefore of force because the Prince was present Wherefore it is very true which Ioannes Parisiensis said that Hostiensis with his Lord Pope Innocent among other answeres concerning the validitie of this Canon gaue also this which they did not confute that it was therefore valued and of force because the Prince was present and gaue his consent And therefore I maruaile how Fa. Lessius a man otherwise very learned and as I euer supposed of great reading should be so ignorant in the studie of the Canon law as not to know and much more so boldly to denie that Hostiensis did write vpon the Chapter Ad abolendam or vpon other textes whereas there is no booke more knowne and more commonly cited by the Canon Lawyers then is the Lecture of Hostiensis vpon the