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
discourse how by that staffe Pope Hormisda gaue to S. Remigius this power consecrating and the whole principalitie or Primacie of France and how Pope Victor did grant it to him and his Church Then his Father Henry beckoning he chose him to be King after him 55 This is all that Papirius Maso writeth So that all the difficultie of these words consisteth in that word election which cannot be vnderstood properly and for that election whereby one is made King or heire apparant to the crowne who was not King or heire apparant before the election For the Kings of France before that time and euer since haue their right and title to the crowne not by election but by hereditarie succession but it is taken for the religious ceremonie of consecration and a solemne declaration of the Archbishop that the person whom he consecrateth is chosen or rather acknowledged and accepted by the whole kingdome for King or heire apparant to the crowne Neither doth the consecration and declaration or if we will improperly call it election of the Archbishop giue any more right authoritie or Soueraignitie to the King of France then he had before neither if hee were not consecrated elected or declared to be King by the Archbishop should he want any temporall right authoritie or Soueraignitie for that the Kings authoritie Soueraignitie doth not necessarily depend on the Archbishops consecration election or declaration although some of the vulgar sort of people may perchance imagine that he is not a perfect King before he be consecrated and annointed 56 As likewise the Pope after he is chosen by the Cardinals is true Pope and hath all Papall power and iurisdiction before he is consecrated or crowned Pope neither doth his Papall authoritie necessarily depend vpon his coronation which belongs only to a religious ceremonie and a complementall but not needfull solemnitie But this I vnderstand for this present only of those Kings who haue their right and title by hereditarie succession and not of those who are Kings by election as is the Romane Emperour and the King of Polonia For it is a question among the Lawyers whether the Emperour before he bee crowned by the Pope or by his commission is truly Emperour and hath full Imperiall power or no whereof and from whence this may proceede I will not now dispute and so it may perchance be a custome among the Polonians that the King elect is not accounted a complete and perfect King before he be crowned and consecrated by the Metropolitan but this may proceede originally and chiefely from the people or Kingdome in whom the supreme Regall authoritie doth reside vntill they haue chosen a King in which time of vacancie they may extend or limite his authoritie or make him with what conditions they please yea and if they will change the Monarchie into Aristocratie or Democratie which cannot be likewise said of those Kingdomes which haue their Kings not by election but by hereditarie succession of whom that vulgar saying is verified that the King doth neuer die 57 Also when Boleslaus King of Polonia saith Mr. Fitzherbert had killed the holy Bishop Stanislaus Pope Gregorie the seuenth did not only excommunicate and depose him but also commanded the Bishops of that Realme that they should not annoint and crowne any King of Polonia without his expresse leaue and order whereby he that succeeded Boleslaus had but the title of Duke which remained also to his Successours for the space of two hundred and fiftie yeares So as this matter is cleare not only in reason but also in practise and so hath been for many ages whereby it appeareth that the Pope may giue as well the earthly as the heauenly kingdome for the good of the Church by the same reason and power that he may depriue Princes of their states when they deserue it and the good of the Church requireth it 58 And thus thou seest good Reader how probably this man Widdrington hath impugned the argument of Lessius seeing that of foure arguments that he hath scoffingly framed to counterfeit the same and to prooue a bad consequence therein there is not any one to his purpose and some of them being truly vnderstood and vrged according to the true state of the question which he hath changed in them doe make directly for vs so that his scoffes doe fall vpon one but himselfe and his owne ridiculous arguments and therefore whereas he concludeth them with a gybing demand asking whether these and the like are not goodly arguments to perswade the English Catholikes to cast away prodigally their goods and to deny their fidelitie to their Prince I may with much more reason demand of him whether these and such other answeres and arguments of his are not goodly ones to mooue the English Catholikes to be so prodigall of their soules as to cast them away vpon his word by denying fidelitie and obedience to their spirituall Pastour who hath the charge of their soules 59 But it seemeth that his minde and hand is altogether vpon his halfe penny as the prouerbe speaketh seeing that he hath so great care of the Catholikes goods and so little of their soules that he would haue them venter and hazard their eternall saluation to saue their temporall goods but I hope God will inspire them to be wiser and alwaies to remember the golden sentence of our Sauiour Marc. 8. Luc. 9. quid prodest homini c. What doth it profit a man to gaine all the world if he loose his soule Thus Mr. Fitzherbert endeth this chapter 60 But as for the example and practise of Pope Gregory the seuenth I doe freely acknowledge that hee was the first Authour and Writer that did in expresse wordes teach that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes also that he was the first Pope who contrary to the custome of his Ancestours as Onuphrius witnesseth b Li. 4. de varsa creat Rom. Pont. did practise the same but first he did practise it and then he endeuoured to prooue that he might lawfully doe it since which time it hath indeede beene practised by many Popes Neuerthelesse both the doctrine and the practise was not knowne to the ancient Fathers and also it hath euer beene resisted and contradicted by Catholike Princes and people both Diuines and Lawyers and therefore it cannot rightly bee called the practise of the Church And although the Pope might for sufficient cause command the Bishops of Polonia that they should not consecrate any King without his expresse leaue and order it being onely a religious ceremony yet it cannot bee sufficiently prooued either that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by way of sentence for of his power to depriue by way of command I doe not now dispute any Countrey of the title and name of a Kingdome without the consent of the Countrey or of him to whom the Countrey is subiect in temporalls it being no spirituall but a meere temporall title and
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
of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion the Subiects could not bee absolued from the oath of allegiance or from the obligation that they owe to their Princes these his words I say doe neither contradict those English Catholickes who defend our English oath to be lawfull nor doe shew or signifie that Widdrington hath not brought any Diuines or Lawyers both French-men and of other Nations who affirme that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For the Cardinals words are to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam according to the matter which he treateth of and which he would perswade his Reader the three estates of France endeauoured to establish by their oath to wit that the subiects of the King of France could not be absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance by any authority whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall 30 Now it is euident that I neither produced nor intended to produce any Authors who in these generall tearmes expresly affirme that the Subiects of an hereticall Prince cannot be discharged of their allegiance neither by the spirituall authority of the Pope nor by the temporall power of the Common-wealth for that it was not my meaning as being a thing altogether impertinent to our Oath of England to examine what authority the ciuil Common-wealth hath ouer their Prince in the case of heresie or Apostacie For our oath onely denieth the Popes authoritie to depose our King and to discharge his subiects from their temporall allegiance and with the authority of the Common-wealth it doth not intermeddle But that the Pope hath no authority to depose temporall Princes and that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment depriuation of goods and such like but onely to Ecclesiasticall censures I haue brought many Authours both French and others to prooue the same among whom are Ioannes Parisiensis and also Iacobus Almainus cited here by the Cardinall in his Treatises Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. de Domino naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico o Concls 2. in probat 2. conclus and de authoritate Ecclesiae p Cap. 2. Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. where he writeth according to his owne opinion though not in his Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica which the Cardinall citeth where he commenteth Occam and speaketh according to Occams doctrine albeit these Doctours doe on the other side affirme that the Common-wealth hath authority to depose a wicked and incorrigible King and so that the Pope may according to them depose him per accidens as Ioan. Parisiensis writeth or to vse Ioannes Maior his words applicando actiua passiuis as he that applieth fire to straw is said to burne the straw to wit by perswading aduising commanding and also by spirituall censures compelling them who haue authority to wit the people or Common-wealth to depose him and after he is deposed by the people or kingdome by declaring his subiects absolued and discharged from the naturall and consequently also spirituall bond of their allegiance but this is impertinent to our oath of England wherein only the Popes authority to depose depriue our King of his Dominions by way of iuridicall sentence is denied 31 Wherefore the English Translatour of the Cardinalls oration doth with as great boldnesse as with little truth shamefully affirme q In his Preface to the Reader that this difference is found between these two oathes that whereas the English oath in one of the clauses seemes to exclude not only the authoritie of the Church ouer Kings but euen of the common-wealth also yea though it should be accōpanied with that of the Church that of France shootes only at the abnegation of the Churches authority For contrariwise although the oath of France may as you shall see at the first sight seeme to deny both the authority of the Church and also of the Common-wealth to depose the King of France yet our Oath shootes onely at the abnegation of the Popes authority to depose our King and to absolue his Subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For as I haue shewed in my Theologicall disputation our oath doth onely affirme r Cap. 3. sec 4 that the Pope neither of himselfe that is by the spirituall authority which is granted him by the institution of Christ nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome for that the Church or Sea of Rome hath no such authority nor by any other meanes with any other that is neither as a totall or partiall as a principal or instrumentall cause hath any power or authority to depose the King c. which last words doe only at the most import that whether the temporall Common-wealth hath any authority ouer the King for any cause or crime whatsoeuer or no with which question the King and Parliament did not intermeddle yet the Common-wealth hath giuen no such authority to the Pope either by himselfe or with any other to depose the King c. 32 But the oath of France doth expresly affirme that there is no power on earth whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall which hath any right ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue the sacred persons of our Kings nor to dispence or absolue their subiects from that loyaltie and obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoeuer for these be the expresse words of the oath of France which our English Translatour as it seemes either hath not seene or maliciously abuseth his Reader in affirming so shamefully that the oath of France shootes onely at the abnegation of the Churches authoritie which words of the oath of France also the Cardinall of Peron seemeth to vnderstand generally of all temporall and spirituall power whatsoeuer either out of the kingdome or of the kingdome it selfe as both by the propounding the state of his question and also by the whole drift of his oration any iudicious man may gather for which cause as I imagine he affirmeth ſ Pag. 115. that our Oath of England is more sweete and modest or moderate then that of France And truely although the words may seeme to any man at the first sight to haue that sense which the Cardinall pretendeth seeing that they expresly deny all power on earth both temporall and spirituall yet both the Translatour of his oration applieth them onely to the Popes authority and also if those words which hath any authority ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue be well obserued they may in my iudgement haue a very true sense to wit that the temporall power which there is mentioned is not to be referred to the authority of the kingdome it selfe seeing that no kingdome hath truely and properly right power and authority ouer itselfe neither hath the kingdome of France any right ouer the kingdome of France to depriue
c. Which are the expresse words of the oath of France and therefore they must be applyed to the temporall power of some other forraine Prince or Kingdome and they seeme chiefely to shoot at the abnegation of that doctrine and position which Iohn Tanquarell by a Decree of the Parliament of Paris t Anno 1561. in Tract de Iuribus c. p. 289 was enioyned to recall and to aske pardon of the King for his offence in defending the same to wit that the Pope Christs Vicar and a Monarch hauing spirituall and secular power hath authoritie to depriue Princes who rebell against his precepts of their kingdomes and dignities 33 But howsoeuer it be whether in the oath of France the authority of the temporall Common-wealth ouer the King be denied or no it is plaine that neither our King and Parliament who established our oath did intend thereby to meddle with the authority of the Common-wealth but onely of the Pope nor I who disputed of our oath did meane to treat of any other authority then of the Pope which onely in our oath is denied And therefore the Lord Cardinall of Peron to impugne the oath of France dealeth very cunningly when he affirmeth as you haue seene before that Widdrington hath not found out one Authour either Diuine or Lawyer who hath said that in case of heresie or infidelity the subiects cannot bee absolued from the oath of fidelity and the obligation which they owe to their Princes 34 For albeit I haue not brought any one Authour onely D. Barclay excepted who affirmeth these two things together to wit that in the case of heresie or infidelity Princes can neither by the authority of the Pope nor of the Common-wealth be deposed and their subiects released of the bond and oath of their temporall allegiance for that those Doctours of France who absolutely deny the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments doe commonly maintaine that the temporall Common-wealth may depose their Prince for heresie or infidelity and consequently discharge the subiects of their temporall allegiance which being once released the spirituall bond of the oath made to confirme the same is foorthwith dissolued neuerthelesse I haue brought diuers Authours both Diuines and Lawyers who absolutely and without any exception of heresie or infidelitie doe in expresse words affirme though not ioyntly and together yet seuerally and apart that neither the Pope hath any authority to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments not that the kingdome or common-wealth hath any power or authority ouer their absolute Prince to depose him 35 For among those Doctours who affirme that the common-wealth hath authority ouer their Prince in some cases to depose him there are many whom I cited in the former part of this Treatise and also answered all the obiections that D. Schulckenius hath made against some of them who doe absolutely and without any exception affirme that the Pope hath not authority to depose Princes and that the power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment c. which their generall assertion would be false if the Pope had authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer For if the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments for heresie then it would be true that the power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments and if the Pope can depose temporall Princes for heresie then it followeth that the Pope can depose temporall Princes which those Doctors doe absolutely deny 36 And among those Doctours who are vehement for the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments I brought u In Apol. nu 411. also diuers who deny that the people or common-wealth hath authority to depose their Prince The Pope onely hath authority to depriue or depose Emperours Kings and Princes saith Bartholus Baldus and Petrus Andreas Gambara And Gregorius Tholosnus Barth in leg si Imperator Cod. de Legibus nu 4. Bald. in proaemio ff veteris Gambara in tract de officio potest legati l. 2. tit de varijs ordinar titulis nu 220. Gregor Thol l 26. de Rep. c. 5 nu 14. 24. 25 albeit a French Doctour yet denieth that the people or common-wealth hath authority to iudge punish or depose their King And therefore he doth not approoue that fact of the Peeres of France in depriuing Childericke and expresly affirmeth that Pipin vsurped the Kingdome and he reprehendeth also the Pope who called saith he Pipin into Italy to helpe him against the Longobards and when he came he absolued him from the oath he had made to his King Childerike being neither heard nor called nor defended nor accused as Abbas Vspergensis and Entropius doe affirme and afterwards he saith that the Pope might bee deceiued in his opinion for that hee would reward Pipin bringing an army in his defence with the hurt of another And this in my iudgement is one of the chiefe causes that mooued the other French Doctours to be commonly of this opinion that the common-wealth may depose their King in some cases to excuse that fact of the French Peeres in deposing Childerike their true and rightfull King 37 Also Alexander Carerius a vehement defender of the Popes direct power in temporalls Carer l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. 3 in fauour of the Canonists against Cardinall Bellarmine is of the same opinion Hee that hath no Iudge vpon earth saith he Cap. 3. we must confesse that many Iudges cannot Iudge For in denying a singularitie by a collectiue and generall word pluralls are accounted to bee denied It is manifest therefore as hath beene said before that the Barons and people for want of coactiue power or authoritie which Vassalls haue not ouer their Lord cannot iudge nor depose their Prince And in the former Chapter answering the authoritie of Aristotle The Philosopher saith he speaketh of a King who is instituted by the election of the Communitie for such a one is punished and deposed by the Communitie which doth principally institute him as the Venetians and people of Genoa who choose to themselues a Duke and if he offend against the common-wealth shee may depose him But it is otherwise in a King who naturally and by succession and descending of a certaine race doth raigne And this assertion of Carerius and others seemeth agreeable to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers cited by me elsewhere y Apol. nu 5. seq in Append. ad Supplicat calū 17. nu 14. who expresly affirme that Kings and Emperours are inferiour to none but God to wit in temporalls and that they can bee punished to wit with temporall punishments by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So that you see how cunningly the Cardinall of Peron handleth this controuersie touching the deposition
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
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
ROGER WIDDRINGTONS Last REIOYNDER TO Mr. THOMAS FITZ-HERBERTS REPLY CONCERNING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE And the POPES power to depose PRINCES Wherein all his arguments taken from the Lawes of God in the old and new Testament of Nature of Nations from the Canon and Ciuill Law and from the Popes Breues condemning the Oath and the Cardinalls Decree forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes are answered Also many Replies and Instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered PROVERBS 12. The lip of truth shall be stable for euer but he that is an hasty witnesse frameth a tongue of lying IHS Permissu Superiorum 1619. ⧠The CONTENTS of this TREATISE THE Preface to the Reader wherein it is shewed first how dangerous and pernitious a thing it is vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike Religion and to the Sea Apostolike to coyne teach and publish by fraude and violence false articles of Catholike faith especially in things which doe greatly derogate from the temporall Soueraignty of absolute Princes Secondly how exceedingly Widdringtons Aduersaries doe preiudice themselues and their cause by handling this controuersie concerning the Oath of Allegiance and the Popes power to depose Princes in such a fraudulent vncharitable and slanderous manner and in not permitting learned Catholikes to whom the charge of soules is committed and who ought alwaies to bee ready to satisfie euery one that asketh them a reason of their Catholike faith to try and examine by the true touchstone of Catholike faith and the vndoubted principles of Catholike Religion whether the faith which they pretend to bee Catholike bee a false and forged Catholike faith or no Thirdly what is Widdringtons chiefe drift in making this Reioynder and in continuing still to handle this controuersie CHAP. I. Widdrington freeth himselfe of two fraudes whereof he is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe againe vp his Aduersary Secondly hee discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds Thirdly he plainly sheweth that he hath answeared probably and like a good Catholike CHAP II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersary taken from the rule of the law The accessory followeth the principall is confirmed Secondly Two Instances which he brought against that rule are prooued to be sound and sufficient Thirdly that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue Secular iudgements c. is at large examined CHAP. III. Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime Hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed Secondly the foure Instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polony are confuted CHAP. IIII. Widdringtons interpretation of that clause of the Oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to bee sound and sufficient and is cleered from all absurditie and contradiction euen by M. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike CHAP. V. Widdringtons answeres to all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the olde and new Testament are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrary to his owne doctrine SEC 1. First all the authorities which are brought out of the old law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and other learned Diuines Secondly the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular SEC 2. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the olde law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authority of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastice and depose Kings is disprooued Secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered Thirdly it is shewed that the authority of S. Chrysostome brought by M. Fitzherbert to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authority he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth Saint Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine SEC 3. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the verity is prooued to make against himselfe Secondly those words of our Sauiour Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted Common-wealth are satisfied and Doctor Schulckenius Reply is proued to be fraudulent and insufficient Thirdly the authoritie of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were readie to reuenge all disobedience is answered M. Fitzherberts fraud in alledging the authority of S. Augustine is plainely discouered and the Conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be false and fraudulent CHAP. VI. M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ Secondly that Religious Priests cannot by the law of Nature punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the law of Nature the ciuill societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers Replies of M. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted CHAP. VII 1. Certaine places of the old and new Testament are explained 2. D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere Widdrington made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisburie grounded thereon and fourthly other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias
scrupulous and vnlearned Catholikes and to nourish in their hearts such dangerous speculations which without manifest treason can neuer bee put in practise Thirdly to make manifest to all men that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not certaine vnquestionable and a point of faith but very doubtfull vncertaine and at the most onely probable and consequently that it cannot bee practised by the Pope or any other whatsoeuer without manifest iniury to the Prince who is in lawfull possession of his Kingdome of which the Pope vnder pretence onely of a probable power or title seeketh by his sentence to depriue him for that according to the approued rule of the law and grounded vpon naturall reason In causa dubia De regulis Iuris in 6. ff de regulis Iuris regula In pari causa siue incerta melior potior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable case the condition of the possessour is to bee preferred And therefore as well obserueth Fa. Lessius in his Singleton a Par. 2. nu 38. potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. A power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished and be depriued of his right and dominion but such a power must be most certaine and not doubtfull or disputable c. 16 So that there is a great difference to be made for as much as concerneth practise betwixt a power onely probable which tendeth to fauour and is hurtfull to none and which is penall and preiudiciall to a third person who is depriued thereby of some thing which he lawfully possesseth For it is most certaine and approoued by all Diuines that one may practise a probable power to vse Lessius words Quando agitur de fauore beneficio nemo cogitur nemo iure propinquo seu in re obtento spoliatur sed potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. When it is treated of a fauour and benefit and no man is forced or compelled no man is spoiled of his next right or which hee possesseth indeed but a power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished or depriued of his right and dominion c. And for this cause my Aduersaries knowing right well that if they should once admit that this power of the Pope is onely probable they must con-consequently grant that it is merus titulus sine re and can neuer bee lawfully put in practise by any Pope Prince or subiect whatsoeuer haue so much laboured to conuince out of all lawes humane and diuine that this power is not onely probable but most certaine and a cleare point of faith But how shamefully they haue spent their labour in vaine and what friuolous and fallacious arguments they haue brought vnder pretence of spirituall good to make Soueraigne Princes whom all the ancient Fathers with uniforme consent acknowledge to bee supreame on earth and next vnder God in temporals to bee in temporals subiect to the Pope and that the more they striue to make their doctrine in this point to be certaine and of faith the more they shew it still to be lesse probable and to bee inuented and maintained onely in fauour of the Pope without sufficient grounds thou shalt see it good Reader in this Treatise made as cleare and manifest as the light at noone-day 17 Onely I must desire thy patience and pardon for my often repeating the selfe same things which may seeme to some to bee both superfluous and tedious but to me for satisfaction chiefly of the vnlearned Reader it seemed very necessary especially for that the chiefe state of the controuersie depends thereon and yet my Aduersaries will scarse take notice thereof yea and are not ashamed to affirme that I doe not teach any such things although they haue beene by mee very often inculcated As among other things for example sake albeit I haue in all my bookes so often repeated that distinction betwixt the directiue and coerciue power betwixt commanding enioyning or imposing and inflicting punishing or disposing and that I doe so often and so expresly affirme that spirituall Pastours haue by the institution of Christ authority to command enioyne and impose temporall and coporall penalties but to inflict them to punish temporally and to dispose of temporall things onely by the consent and grant of temporall Princes Page 258. yet Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius is not ashamed to auerre that Widdrington denieth the Pope to haue authority to command temporall Princes in temporals in order to spirituall good and therevpon taxeth him of teaching flat heresie and the most that M. Fitzherbert prooueth in this his Replie is as you shall see that spirituall Pastours may for the necessitie of the Church and the good of soules command enioyne and impose temporall and corporall afflictions as fasting almes deedes vsing of haire-cloth and the like wherof no Catholike maketh doubt And therefore I thought it necessarie to inculcate as often as occasion should require the aforesaid distinction it being the maine marke to which the greatest part of all my Aduersaries arguments and of my answeres doe principally tend and whereon the whole state of the Controuersie betwixt me and them concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporals doth chiefly depend CHAP. I. Wherein Widdrington freeth himselfe from two fraudes whereof hee is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe vpon his Aduersarie secondly he discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds and thirdly hee plainely sheweth that hee hath answered probably and like a good Catholike 1. THere bee three things Good Reader which my Aduersary Mr. Fitzherbert in the first chapter of his Reply doth wrongfully lay to my charge The first is that I haue lamely and fraudulently set downe the summe and substance of his discourse in the two first Chapters of his Supplement the second that in relating a supposition of his I haue vsed two fraudes the one in the relation of his wordes and the other in the vse and application of them the third is that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike And because the Reader may the better iudge of the sufficiencie and truth of both our answeres for my onely desire is that the trueth in this difficult controuersie may be cleerely knowne I will obserue the same methode order and number of Chapters which he doth and therefore my answere to his first accusation for that he remitteth his Reader for proofe thereof to his fift sixt and seuenth Chapters I will also referre to those places and only his two accusations I will examine with him in this
oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is helde both by himselfe and other Protestants to be no way subiect to the Pope yea and to be himselfe supreme head of the Church of God in England and also by the first of these two reasons which he bringeth heere in his Reply why he suppoposed that the oath implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacy 29 And as for my supposition saith he Å¿ Nu. 10. that the Oath implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacy he should haue said of the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince for this was his supposition as I cleerely shewed before Thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that I was mooued thereto by two reasons which are manifest enough in the very place which Widdrington citeth The one was because it is euident that the faith and beliefe of all English Protestants is that the Kings Maiestie is no way subiect to the Pope but that hee is himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England Whereupon it may with great reason bee inferred that the deniall of the Popes power to depose his Maiestie which is expresly contained in the oath is supposed and implied therein as a necessary consequent of their beliefe who ordained it 30 For it is great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof for it is to bee presumed that euerie one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion as euery Artisan worketh according to the grounds and principles of his Art And therefore as the positions assertions and decrees of knowne and professed Catholikes are to bee interpreted according to the grounds of the Catholike faith so also the positions of all Sectaries whatsoeuer are to be vnderstood according to the different doctrines of their Sects In so much that if a Catholike and a Protestant should affirme both of them one thing which might be controuersed in respect of Religion the sense and meaning of either of them is to be interpreted according to their different Religions and their different grounds and sense thereof And vpon this consideration I made no doubt to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacie for that not onely his Maiestie but also all they of the Parliament which decreed it doe holde and beleeue that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because hee hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie 31 My other reason was the same that I touched before concerning the necessary deduction of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy for albeit the Supremacy of the Pope be not expresly abiured or denied by this oath yet it is denied couertly by a necessary consequent because his authoritie to depose Princes which is necessarily deduced from the supreame power that Christ gaue him is denied thereby as in like case if wee should deny that his Maiestie hath any lawfull power to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie all Protestants would say that we deny not onely his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy but also his temporall and Kingly authoritie because the power to suspend and depriue Bishops within his Realme is included therein and necessarily deduced from it in the opinion of all Protestants And in like manner we say with much more reason that whosoeuer abiureth the Popes power to depose Princes hee doth consequently abiure his spirituall authoritie because the former is included in the later and doth necessarily follow of it as it hath beene amply prooued by diuers and namely by me in my Supplement t Chap. 5.6 7 whereof I shall haue further occasion to lay downe the particulars heereafter Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 32 But first of all good Reader I wish thee to consider how cunningly this my Aduersary concealeth the first part of his supposition concerning the denyall of the Popes power to excommunicate whereof onely I vnderstood those words whereon hee groundeth his third accusation In the beginning of his Discourse he supposed as you haue seene that the Popes spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath for that his power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed therein And because his Maiesty had in expresse words publikely affirmed that his intention was not to denie in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate answering also the argument which Cardinall Bellarmine out of those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. brought to prooue the contrarie and because my Aduersarie did also without any proofe at all suppose as Fa. Gretzer had done before him that the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed therein for this cause I vsed those words that truely it is a wonder that learned men doe not blush c. which my Aduersary a little before carped at Now forsooth he pretending to yeeld a reason of his supposition yet yeeldeth none at all concerning this parte thereof touching the Popes power to excommunicate for which onely I vsed the aforesaid words and which if he could sufficiently prooue to be denyed in this oath all Catholikes would forthwith graunt him that the oath containeth a denyall of the Popes spirituall Supremacie which includeth as a generall the particular authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures but he cunningly passeth ouer to the Popes power to depose Princes which no man doubteth but is denyed in this oath yeeldeth two reasons such ones as they be why he supposed the oath to containe a denyall of the Popes Supremacy for that the Popes power to depose Princes is denied therein 33 His second reason for thereof I will speake in the first place which he tooke from the contents of the oath is the same which hee touched before concerning the necessarie deduction according to his beliefe and doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie But his beliefe and doctrine herein as also I touched before is not Catholike but a particular beliefe or rather opinion of himselfe and some other and not generall of all Catholikes for that many learned Catholikes as I shewed before are of opinion that Christ hath not giuen to S. Peter or to the Church authoritie to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment but onely Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And therefore there is a great disparitie in the similitude which my Aduersarie bringeth betwixt his Maiesties authoritie to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie in the opinion of Protestants and the Popes power to depose Princes in the opinion of Catholikes for that al Protestants do beleeue that his Maiesties power to suspend or depriue an Arch-bishop taking suspension in that sense wherein the Protestants doe hold that his Maiestie hath power to suspend
bitternesse as he did in the former and as before hee taxed me of fraude impudencie impietie and of being no good Catholike but how wrongfully you haue alreadie seene so now he boldly affirmeth that my arguments and answeres are partly repugnant to my owne doctrine and partly malicious improbable impertinent foolish and ridiculous but how vndeseruedly you shall presently perceiue He tooke vpon him as you haue seene to proue in his Supplement that the oath is vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine in respect of two clauses to wit that it doth exempt temporall Princes from Excommunication and deposition by the Pope and that therefore it was iustly condemned by his Holinesse and refused by Catholikes although for this later hee could not bee ignorant that where one Catholike hath refused it a hundred haue taken it And as for the first clause concerning excommunication hee passeth it ouer altogether with silence neither doth he bring any one argument or shew of argument to proue that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath for which cause I affirmed in my Admonition to the Reader that Mr. Fitzherberts supposition for so much as concerneth the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and consequently his Primacie in spiritualls which he doth not proue with any one reason to be denied in the oath but supposeth it as manifest is very vntrue 2 But as for the second clause concerning the Popes power to depose Princes which is expresly denied in the oath he maketh a long Rhetoricall discourse labouring in vaine to prooue that according to all lawes humane and diuine the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporals And because the breuitie of that Admonition which was made after my Theologicall Disputation was in the presse would not permit to examine in particular all the arguments which he brought to prooue the same I thought good to answere briefly such arguments as seemed most plausible and withall to insinuate a certaine distinction which I had oftentimes in my former bookes declared more at large betweene the Popes power to command temporals and to dispose of temporals to command or impose temporall penalties and to inflict temporall penalties or to punish temporally by way of coercion which distinction doth plainly declare the true state of the question which he seeketh to obscure and quite ouerthroweth all his chiefest grounds 3 Among the rest of his proofes he brought one from this vulgar rule of the law Accessorium sequitur principale The accessorie followeth the principall from whence hee inferred a Cap. 1. Suppl nu 67. that seeing not only the body but also temporall goods and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof it must needes follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glory of God for the which our soules bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained according to that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall b In Ad. nu 15 4 To this inference I answered briefly in this manner Secondly euery learned man may perceiue how vaine that consequence is which this Authour deduceth The accessorie followeth the principall therefore the Church hauing power ouer the soule hath consequently power ouer the body and goods except it be vnderstood of the power to command corporall things so farre foorth as they serue to spirituall things For we might also from that principle argue thus The accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that is Lord of all horses is Lord of all bridles The Pope hath power ouer the soule of the Prince therefore also ouer his life Let this Authour explicate what the Lawyers vnderstand by the name of accessorie and what by the name of principall in that axiome of theirs which suffereth many exceptions and is limited by them diuers wayes In the meane time wee deny his consequence not consequent as Mr. Fitzherbert translateth So that it is manifest that I did not deny that consequence if it had beene vnderstood of the power to command temporals in order to spirituall good but because the words are generall and so may comprehend both and Mr. Fitzherbert also meant of both therefore I did absolutely deny his consequence 5 Now my Aduersarie will needs haue me forsooth both to contradict my selfe in this answere and also to ouerthrow my owne arguments For hauing set downe my answere hee replyeth thus c Nu. 2. Wherein I wish it to be noted first what Widdrington granteth and after what he denyeth and I doubt not but it will easily appeare that he ouerthroweth his owne arguments and contradicteth himselfe He granteth as you see that my consequence is not vaine if it be vnderstood of a power in the Pope to command corporall things so farre forth as they are to serue spirituall things yet he denyeth my consequence albeit I doe not thereby suppose in the Pope any other power ouer bodies and goods then such as followeth of their subordination to the soule which is in effect the same relation and limitation that he maketh thereof to wit so far forth as corporall temporall things are to serue spirituall things as it may euidētly appeare by the discourse which I make concerning the same in my Supplement from whence he taketh my argument and therefore I thinke good to repeate here what I haue said there touching this point whereby I hope I shall not onely fortifie and prooue my consequence which he denyeth but also explicate fully what I meane by the name of accessorie and principall as you see he commanded me to doe he should rather haue said as I wished him to doe Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 6 And I also wish the Reader to obserue first what my Aduersarie pretendeth to prooue and after what he prooueth and I doubt not but it will easily appeare that I doe neither ouerthrow my owne arguments nor any way contradict my selfe He pretendeth to prooue that the Pope as Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to depose temporall Princes to punish them by depriuing them of their kingdomes and by disposing of all their temporals and not onely to command or enioyne but also to inflict temporall punishments as it appeareth by the whole scope of his Discourse both in his Supplement and also in this Treatise whereupon a little beneath in this chapter c Nu. 10. he calleth that distinction which I made betwixt the power to command corporall things and to punish corporally by way of coercion a friuolous distinction and afterwarde especially in the sixt chapter d nu 14. 15. 16. 17. hee laboureth to impugne the same and to prooue that if the Pope may command corporall and temporall things as they serue the spirituall and are reduced thereto he may also
scandall but also against obedience and against legall and morall iustice by declining the iudgement of their lawfull Superiours and Iudges and by wronging their Aduersarie in drawing him against his will from the tribunall of his lawfull Iudge and who had good and sufficient authoritie to make a small end of his suite 27 But considering that these Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint were not lawfull and proper Superiours and Iudges but only Arbaratours and consequently to whose iudgement they were not bound to stand by vertue of any subiection and obedience due to them but only by reason of scandall whereon the declaratiue precept of the Apostle was only grounded and which scandall being taken away the commandement of the Apostle doth also cease this difficultie is easily cleared For albeit it was very scandalous and therefore iustly reprehended by the Apostle that the faithfull Corinthians should of their owne accord without any necessitie for in that case Disp Theol. c. 10. s 3. nu 10. Salmer tom 8. tract 29. in Euang. as I obserued in my Theologicall Disputation out of Alphonsus Salmeron the actiue scandall doth cease and if it be any scandall it is not giuen but taken goe to the tribunalls of Heathen Magistrates yet it is not scandalous to appeare before them when they are called for in this case they must of necessitie by vertue of their subiection appeare and so the scandall ceaseth which would still remaine by their appearing if those Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint had beene true and lawfull Superiours and Iudges for then they had also beene bound by vertue of their subiection not to forgoe the iudgement of their lawfull Superiours and Iudges and consequently not to appeare before the tribunall of the Heathen Magistrate in derogation of the authoritie of their Christian Superiour and Iudge And this may suffice for this point 28 Moreouer we read in the old Testament saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Nu. 4. pa. 31 3 Reg. 18. that Elias the Prophet had power to inflict temporall punishment yea death vpon the false Prophets of Achab whom he commanded the people to kill in his presence as also he caused fire to fall from heauen and consume the two Captaines of King Ochozias and their troupes 4 Reg. 1. In like manner wee reade in the new Testament that the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul extended their spirituall authoritie to the temporall punishment of the body when it seemed to them conuenient for the glory of God and good of soules and therefore S. Peter stroâ—ke Ananias and Saphyra with suddaine death Act. 6. and S. Paul depriued Elymas the Magician of his sight Act. 13. 1. Cor. 5. and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to the deuill to be bodily 〈◊〉 and tormented for the example and terrour of others vt spiritus saluus fiat that his soule might be saued and the same iudgements and corporall punishments these Apostles might no doubt as lawfully haue executed vpon any Prince in the world if hee had then beene a Christian and giuen the like occasion 29 But who would not wonder that any man of ordinarie iudgment should from an extraordinarie and miraculous power of the Apostles yea and of the Prophets who were no Priests or from a speciall command or inspiration of God to kill men and to doe other miracles inferre that the Pope hath an ordinarie Pastorall and Episcopall power to doe the like as are those examples which my Aduersarie bringeth of Elias the Prophet who was no Priest and by the commandement of God o 3. Reg. 18. ver 36. Abul in 3. Reg. 18. q. 35 and not by any ordinarie authoritie or iurisdiction caused the false prophets of Ashab to be slaine and by miracle caused fire to fall from heauen to consume the two captaines of King Ochozias and their troupes and of S. Peter who by miracle either killed Ananias and Saphyra or foretold their death and of S. Paul who also by miracle depriued Elymas of his sight or foretold his blindnesse and deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to the deuill to bee bodily vexed and tormented which manner of deliuering men to Satan did proceede from an extraordinarie and miraculous power giuen to the Apostles and not from any ordinarie power which was to descend to all their Successours But of these examples I shall haue occasion to speake againe beneath p Cap. 6. 30 And the same iudgements and corporall punishments saith Mr. Fitzherbert might no doubt these Apostles as lawfully haue executed vpon any Prince in the world if hee had beene a Christian and giuen the like occasion But first I meruaile why he addeth that condition if he had then beene a Christian for the example of Elymas who was no Christian doth proue that the same iudgements and corporall punishments they might haue executed not only vpon Christians but also vpon infidels Besides if any one will reduce those examples to a dialecticall forme of arguing hee will easily perceiue that they are very weake and insufficient not to vse those his foule and vnseemely wordes of absurd impertinent foolish and ridiculous to proue that the Pope by his ordinarie Pastorall power can doe the like As that because Elias who was no Priest had an extraordinarie commission and power giuen him by God to kill the false Prophets and to cause fire to fall from heauen to consume those two Captaines and their troopes therefore the Pope by his ordinarie Episcopall and Pastorall office hath power to doe the same in the like cases and so of the rest that because S. Peter and S. Paul had an extraordinarie power giuen them c. 31 And all this saith my Aduersarie q Nu. 5. may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church to enioyne bodily penance to publike penitents as to attend to continuall fasting and prayer Tertull. de penitent Ambros ad virg lap sam cap. 28. and to lye vpon sackcloth and ashes as it may be seene in Tertullian S. Ambrose and others whereupon it followeth that if the Church may chastise a man in his body for the good of his soule much more may she chastise him in his goods and temporall state which are ordained by the law of nature to serue both the body and the soule as the Philosophers touch namely Plato Plato epist 8. ad Dionys who therefore aduised a Law-maker to procure by his lawes that the three kinds of goods to wit of the mind the body and fortune be sought and possessed in due and ordinate manner that is to say that the goods of the mind be preferred before the other two and the goods of the body esteemed only so farre forth as they may serue the mind and lastly that the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states be accounted no better then ministers and seruants of both the other 32 But first I doe
very true and I haue affirmed the same too too often and this only he hath prooued by this Discourse which he hath here repeated out of his Supplement albeit this bee not the marke at which he aimeth and which hee pretended to prooue for as I haue shewed before Nu. 6. his chiefe drift and purpose was to proue that the Pope hath power not onely to command temporals in order to spirituall good but also to dispose of temporals not only to command christians that in satisfaction of their sinnes or in defence of the Church they will dispose of their temporall goods according to the qualitie of their offence and the necessitie of the Church shall require and their abilitie doth extend but also to depriue them of the right power and dominion which they haue ouer their temporall goods and states if they shall refuse to obey his iust command which my Aduersarie by this Discourse in his Supplement hath not as you haue seene so much as probably confirmed and neuerthelesse as I haue often said not onely probable arguments but conuincing authorities or demonstrations are required to prooue his doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of their temporals to bee certaine and a point of faith and that the oath cannot lawfully and with a safe conscience be taken by any Catholike And thus much concerning the Discourse which Mr. Fitzherbert hath made in his Supplement Now you shall see what from thence he doth inferre 42 Thus did I discourse saith he u Pag. 34. nu 7 and argue in my Supplement whereby my Aduersarie Widdrington may perceiue first what I meane by the accessorie and by the principall as that the soule of man and the seruice and glory of God are the principall and that the accessory is the body goods and all temporall states whatsoeuer because they are subordinate to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof and for Gods glory 43 And my Aduersarie also by that which I haue heere answered to his Discourse may perceiue that although the soule of man and the spirituall good thereof and the seruice and glory of God may in some sense bee called the principall and bodily and temporall goods the accessorie for that they are the lesse worthy and lesse noble and therefore though not of their owne nature referred yet by the intention and will of man ought to bee referred to the eternall good and saluation of the soule as to the last end of man in which sense temporall good may bee said to be subiect and ordained to the supernaturall good of the soule whereof I haue treated more at large aboue in the second part Yet in that sense as antecedent and consequent principall and accessorie are taken in that maxime the spirituall good of the soule eternall saluation and the supernaturall seruice and glorie of God cannot be called the principall or antecedent nor corporall goods and temporall states as health wealth honour c. the accessorie or consequent for that God may bee serued and glorified and the soule saued without hauing any such corporall or temporall contentments yea rather they doe hinder then promote the good of the soule for that according to our Sauiours owne wordes x Matth. 19. A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen For they y 1. Tim. 6. that will be made rich fall into tentation and the snare of the Deuill and many desires vnprofitable and hurtfull which drowne men into destruction and perdition and By many tribulations z Act. 14. we must enter into the kingdome of God 44 Neither did I desire my Aduersary to declare what he vnderstood in particular by the names of principall and accessory for I knew right well that hee tooke the good of the soule for principall and the goods of the body and of fortune to be the accessory for that they are referred and ordained to the good of the soule in which sense the words principall and accessory are not taken in that maxime as I shewed before and it will more cleerely appeare beneath but I desired him to declare what the Lawyers vnderstood in generall by the names of principall and accessory in that rule of the Law for that the nature and definition of principall and accessory being once knowne we might the better descend to particulars and more easily perceiue whether the good of the soule was to bee taken for principall and all other corporall and temporall goods for accessory in that rule of the Law and withall he should also haue explained if hee had meant to cleere and satisfie the vnderstanding of his Reader what the Lawyers vnderstood by those wordes to follow the nature of the principall all which my Aduersary hath as you haue seene neglected to declare 45 Secondly Widdrington may see saith Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 34. nu 8 the force and validitie of my consequence to wit because the Church hath power ouer the soule which is the principall therefore it hath power also ouer the accessorie that is to say ouer the body temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God for which our soules bodies goods states and all things else were ordained 46 And hee also may see in what manner his consequence is of force if it be onely vnderstood of a power to commaund temporall things in order to spiritual good to wit not for that the Church hauing power ouer the soule which he calleth the principall must also haue power ouer the body and temporall goods which he calleth the accessorie when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glory of God because temporall goods and states are not necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God but rather lets and hinderances thereof seeing that soules may be saued and God glorified without the enioying of such corporall or temporall goods and therefore temporall goods and states can not rightly be called the accessory or consequent as accessory or consequent ought to be taken in that maxime But the force of his consequence can onely consist in this that because Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to Saint Peter and his Successours sufficient authority to gouerne the Church by spirituall meanes and in order to spirituall good to command not onely spirituall things which is the more noble and principall but also temporall things which power is the lesse noble and so by the institution of Christ annexed to the spirituall power of gouerning the Church and of commaunding spirituall things for which cause it may well be called the accessory or consequent therefore from that rule or maxime not of the law but of the Logicians The accessory or consequent doth necessarily follow the principall or antecedent it may be well inferred that the Pope hauing power to command spirituall things hath also power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good for that
to inflict spirituall punishments hath also power to dispose of temporals and not onely to command or inioyne but also to inflict temporall punishments or to punish temporally by way of constraint For although temporals are ordained to spirituals in that sense as I haue often declared and for that cause may be called accessory to spirituals yet as accessory is taken in that maxime they are neither accessory to spirituals for that spirituall good may in any man be very well without them neither is the Popes pretended power to dispose of temporalls in order to spirituall good and to punish with temporall punishments by way of constraint accessory or consequent to his power to dispose of spirituals or to punish with spirituall punishments or Ecclesiasticall censures 61 And by this is easily answered that which Mr. Fitzherbert saith in the next Paragraph concerning priuate men And if wee consider saith he l Nu. 14. p. 3â— also Widdringtons argument euen in particular and priuate men it may haue a very true sense and will fortifie mine for whosoeuer is Lord of any horse is Lord also of the bridles that belong to that horse because according to Widdringtons supposition they are accessory of the said horse and therefore according to my axiome doe follow their principall and the same must needes bee granted in this our case seeing that the Pope doth no otherwise dispose of temporall goods then the same doe belong to particular men whom he hath occasion to chastise for the benefit of their soules and the publike good of the Church and therefore when he punisheth any Prince temporally hee neither doth nor can doe it in other mens goods but onely in those goods or states which belong to that Prince as a Lord of a horse disposeth not of other mens bridles but of the bridles that belong to his owne horse for as other mens bridles are not accessory of that horse so neither are other mens goods accessory to the Prince who is to be punished but such goods or states onely as belong to him and may consequently be disposed of by his supreme Pastour when his and the publike good of the Church shall necessarily require it So as you see how well Widdrington argueth for mee and therefore the probabilitie that I see in this his argument is no other but that he playeth as I may say booty with me and helpeth vnder hand to defend my cause Thus much for the first argument 62 But first it is vntrue that I according to my owne doctrine doe suppose that bridles are accessory to horses as accessory is taken in the aforesaid maxime but I doe suppose and that truely according to my Aduersaries doctrine that bridles are accessory to horses for that they are made and ordained for horses in which sense hee taketh accessorie in that maxime and therefore he affirmeth that corporall and temporall goods are accessory to the spirituall good of the soule for that they are ordained and referred to the said spirituall good 63 Secondly it is also vntrue that the argument which I made against his consequence if it be considered in particular and priuate men can haue a very true sense as it is grounded in that rule or maxime the accessory followeth the principall and that it doth fortifie his consequence For whosoeuer saith he is Lord of any horse is Lord also of the bridles that belong to that horse because according to his owne supposition and not mine they are the accessory of the saide horse Obserue now good Reader how cunningly this man would shift off the argument or instance which I made against his consequence and delude thee with ambiguous words For what can any man imagine my Aduersary to vnderstand by these wordes the bridles that belong to that horse for surely no man can be so simple as to thinke that any bridle can be said to belong to a horse as to the true owner thereof or so proper to a horse that the horse can not be without that bridle for so indeede it would very well follow from that maxime that he who is Lord of that horse is also Lord of that bridle and he that should buy that horse should also buy that bridle which belongeth to that horse And therefore either it must be said that such a bridle doth belong to such a horse for that the bridlemaker did make it serue such a horse and for this respect it can not be truely said that he who is Lord of that horse is Lord also of that bridle for the bridlemaker and not he who is owner of that horse may be Lord and owner of the bridle or else for that such a bridle is for the most part or alwaies vsed for such a horse neither for this respect or any such like can it be truly said that he who is Lord of that horse is consequently Lord of that bridle and can dispose thereof because that bridle may be lent for the vse of that horse by some other man who is the true Lord and owner of that bridle and consequently may dispose thereof and not of the horse 64 It remaineth therefore that for this cause onely as my Aduersary himselfe here insinuateth such a bridle can bee said to belong to such a horse for that the same man who is the true Lord and owner both of the horse and bridle and consequently hath power to dispose of them both doth appoint that bridle to serue that horse and although in this sense that consequent bee true to wit that hee who is Lord of any horse is also Lord and can dispose of the bridles which belong to such a horse or to speake more properly which belong to the Lord of such a horse for that the same man is Lord of them both yet it is not true by vertue of the consequence or by vertue of that maxime The accessory followeth the principall or for that the horse is the principall and the bridle the accessorie in that sense as principall and accessorie ought to be taken in that maxime for then it must also follow that hee who buyeth that horse and consequently can dispose thereof as being the true owner of that horse hath also power to dispose of that bridle for that the accessorie must follow the principall which consequence is false but the consequent is true not by vertue of that maxime The accessorie followeth the principall but by vertue of another maxime which is that he who is the true Lord or owner of any horse bridle or of any such like temporall thing hath power to dispose thereof 65 Wherefore it is apparant that my aforesaid instance argument or consequence The accessorie followeth the principall therefore hee who is Lord of all horses is consequently Lord and can dispose of all bridles is neither true in Soueraigne Princes nor in priuate men vnderstanding as my Aduersarie doth that bridles are accessorie to horses neither doth that consequent although it bee true not
plot the death of any Prince Wherefore let Widdrington cease by vaine words to put Secular Princes in feare and to make the Pontificall power to be odious The Pontificall power is instituted by the Sauiour of mankind for the saluation and not for the destruction of Princes These arguments doe tend to no other end then to prouoke the hatred of Princes against the Pope for otherwise Widdrington was not ignorant that Ecclesiasticall especially Pontificall lenitie doth shunne bloody punishments 12 But first whether D. Schulckenius by this his answered doth intend to acknowledge that the Pope in order to spirituall good hath authoritie to take away the liues of wicked Princes by all those waies publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie in order to temporall good to take away the liues of their wicked and rebellious subiects which I intended by that argument to conuince in this place he speaketh doubtfully and in expresse words doth neither say I nor no yet afterwards he doth plainly enough affirme the same saying n Cap 9. ad nu 229. pag. 413. that Ecclesiasticall lenitie for as much as concerneth the punishment of death doth shunne bloody punishments not for that it doth by the law of God want power to doe the same but because it doth not beseeme the Ministers of Christ and againe It doth not belong saith he o Cap. 10. ad num 318. pag. 490. to the Ecclesiasticall Court to giue sentence of death not because the Church cannot absolutely giue this sentence but because it is not decent And the Pope himselfe might if he should iudge it expedient both giue this sentence and also grant by a dispensation that other Priests might doe the same For we haue nothing whereby it is forbidden but the positiue Ecclesiasticall law wherein the Pope by the consent of all men may dispence 13 Secondly this Doctor doth egregiously and against Christian charitie and iustice abuse my innocencie in misconstruing my good intentions which God is my witnesse are most pure and sincere For it was neuer my meaning to make the Sea Apostolike odious or dreadfull to Christian Kings and Princes but only to find out the Catholike truth plainly and sincerely in a matter of such great importance which doth so neerely concerne the supreme authoritie of all temporall Princes and the due obedience which all subiects of what religion soeuer they be doe by the law of Christ owe to them in temporall matters It is rather this Doctor and such as embrace his desperate principles who by this their false seditious scandalous and new broached damnable doctrine and vnknowne to the ancient Fathers and the primitiue Church doe seeke as much as lyeth in them to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to all Christian Princes and subiects And if it be so easie a matter to answere my aforesaid arguments as this Doctor affirmeth why then doth he not answere them but shifteth them ouer with a let them passe as not pertaining to the purpose Is it not to the purpose that Card. Bellarmine and his followers should force vpon the Christian world the doctrine touching the Popes spirituall power to depose temporall Princes as a point of Catholike beliefe from which such absurd dangerous desperate scandalous seditious consequents and not heard of before these miserable times doe euidently follow 14 But such strang nouelties must with shufflings and shiftings be cunningly couered and must not be cleerely knowne to Soueraigne Princes and their subiects least forsooth they make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes As thought it were likely that Christ our Sauiour would giue to S. Peter and his Successours any spirituall power which should be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes or that the knowledge of true Catholike faith either concerning the Popes spirituall power to take away the crownes or liues of Christian Princes or concerning any other thing could be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes more then the knowledge of true Catholike faith concerning the power of temporall Princes to take away the temporall goods and liues of their subiects can be a sufficient cause to make temporall authoritie odious to Christian subiects Hostis Herodis impie Christum venire quid times said Sedulius who flourished about the yeere 430. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia which is Englished thus That Christ is come why doest thou dread O Herode thou vngodly foe He doth not earthly Kingdomes reaue that heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow But Herode might iustly haue replyed if this new broacht doctrine were true yes I haue great cause to feare for that not only Christ but S. Peter also and his Successours haue by their ordinarie commission authoritie to bereaue mee not onely of my kingdome but also of my life 15 And the same answere which is also conforme to the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers would Sedulius haue made to any Christian King who should haue feared that the Pope by his spirituall power might depriue him of his kingdome and life to wit that he neede not to feare the Popes power in that respect for that Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to the Apostles and their Successours the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes to absolue from sinnes not from debts to binde the soule with the bond of anathema and not with chaines of Iron 16 But although the Pope should haue power ouer the liues of Princes in order to spirituall good yet Princes sayth this Doctour need not to feare that the Pope will plot the death of any Prince for that no Pope hath euer commanded the killing of Princes or caused them to be slaine by priuie murtherers and it is well knowen that Ecclesiasticall lenitie shunneth bloodie punishments But first if the Pope haue such a power it is euident that it is in his free choise and curtesie to take away the life of any wicked Prince in order to spirituall good as it is in the curtesie of a temporall Prince to take away the life of any wicked subiect in order to temporall good Secondly that the Pope is also bound as I prooued against Suarez to proceed against a Christian Prince See Apendix to Suarez part 1. sec 9. nu 6. seq who is a knowne heretike or persecutor of the Church or publike enemie to spirituall good in that manner and by all those waies publike or secret by which a temporall Prince is bound to proceed against a publike traitour a notorious robber and murtherer by the high way side and a knowne enemie to the common temporall good 17 Thirdly if no Pope hath euer plotted the death of any Christian Prince the reason heereof I thinke to be for that there was neuer any Pope that held this newly inuented and neuer before heard of bloody doctrine that the Pope as Pope or by vertue of his spirituall
Aduersaries by teaching that the Pope hath power to depose Christian Princes and not I who doe not maintaine that doctrine doe consequently impose that most horrible slander vpon the Vicar of Christ our common Father and Pastour 22 For wherefore thinke you doth this Doctour deny the consequence of my argument Marke I pray you his fallacious reason and how he fraudulently altereth my argument and cunningly changeth both the subiect and predicate of my antecedent proposition vpon which my consequence and consequent doe wholly depend For it doth not follow saith he from a power to depose a power to kill I neuer saide that from a power to depose in generall doeth follow a power to kill abstracting both from the persons who are to depose and kill and from the crimes for which the persons that may bee deposed may bee killed but my argument did specifie in particular as well the persons who were to depose and kill as the causes and crimes for which one may by them bee deposed or killed And I affirmed that from the doctrine that maintaineth the Popes power to depose hereticall Princes and publike enemies to the common spirituall good it doeth euidently follow that the Pope in order to the same publike spirituall good hath also power to kill such Princes and that therefore this argument was good The Pope in order to the common spirituall good hath power to depose absolute Princes if the crime deserue deposition therfore in order to the same spirituall good he hath power also to kill them if the crime deserue corporall death 23 And the reason or ground of my consequence was for that according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and those that maintaine the Popes power to depose Soueraigne Princes for this cause and reason they grant vnto the Pope a power to depose Princes in order to spirituall good for that they graunt the Pope to haue in order to spirituall good â—â—otestatem summam in temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater and therefore as great a power in temporals as â—emporall Princes haue Whereupon they are not afraid to affirme â—hat all Christian Princes Kings Emperours and Monarches are the Popes subiects in temporals in order to spirituall good as other infeâ—iour persons are subiect to temporall Princes in temporals in order to â—emporall good But a temporall Prince hath in order to temporall good authoritie not onely to take away the lands and liues of their â—ubiects if the crime deserue that punishment and the common temporall good doth require the same but also if the crime be publike and notorious and the malefactours or perturbers of the publike temporal good be so potent that without rebellion or great temporall harme â—hey can not be apprehended he hath authoritie to condemne them â—riuately and in their absence without any processe citation or deâ—ence and afterwards to giue licence to any priuate man to bereaue â—hem of their liues by any arte or stratageme and by any publike or â—riuie way therefore the Pope according to these desperate grounds â—nd principles which graunt him potestatem summam in temporalibus â—ath the like authoritie ouer temporall Princes in order to spirituall good who according to this false and scandalous doctrine are in order to spirituall good subiect to the Pope in temporals This was my â—rgument 24 wherefore my consequence was onely concerning the Pope â—o whom is therefore graunted by my Aduersaries a power to depose Princes for that he hath in order to spirituall good potestatem summam â—n temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater for â— supreme power in temporals doth necessarily include a power both to depose and kill if the crime deserue the same And therefore who would not admire or rather pitie that so learned a man as is he who â— reputed to be the true Authour of this booke should bring such vnâ—earned instances from those who haue not a supreme power in tempoâ—als or if they haue from a crime which doth not deserue death to imâ—ugne my consequence which speaketh both of one who is supposed â—o haue a supreme power in temporals and also of a crime which is so â—eynous that according to the law it deserueth death if it were committed by subiects or priuate men 25 For the consequences of those fiue examples which this Doâ—tour hath brought to impugne my arugment are all defectiue either â—or that the persons who are to depose and therefore to kill are not â—upposed to haue supreme power in temporals to wit euery Father Maâ—ter or Bishop or else because the crime for which the persons there â—pecified may be deposed doth not deserue so great a punishment as is death But if we once suppose a Father Master and Bishop to haue a supreme power in temporals ouer their sonnes seruants and Clerkes as the Pope is supposed by my Aduersaries to haue ouer all Christian Princes and also the crime to deserue death then I say it doth euidently follow that if such a Father hath power to depriue his sonne of his inheritance he hath also power to depriue him of his life not for that a power to kill is necessarily annexed to euery power to depose but to such a power to depose which is a supreme power ouer all temporals or rather for that a power to depose and to kill to take away goods and life are necessarily included in euery supreme power to dispose of all temporals And therefore all the shuffling shifting and cunning of this Doctour will neuer be able to weaken the force of my consequence but this consequence will euer remaine good and strong that if the Pope hath power to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes for that he is their supreme Lord in temporals in order to spirituall good it doth necessarily follow that he hath power also to depriue them of their liues if the necessitie of the common spirituall good require the same And therefore although the opinion of Card Bellarmine be receaued not by the Catholike Church as this Doctour vntruely affirmeth but by many Catholike Doctours and confirmed by the often practise of many later Popes yet alwaies contradicted by Catholike Kings and subiects neuerthelesse if these Catholike Doctours and Popes had duely considered what odious and detestable consequences doe follow from that opinion they would forthwith in my iudgement haue detested the premisses from which such hatefull conclusions and which this Doctour seemeth here so greatly to abhorre that he feareth not therefore to accuse me of imposing a most horrible slander vpon Christs Vicar are most cleerly and certainly deduced 26 Wherefore to conclude this point that which this Doctour answereth secondly concerning Athalia who was slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest is nothing to the purpose To this argument sayth he r Pag. 556. I answere now that examples are to be taken according to the conuenience of the matter and persons In
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
or spirituall punishments Wherefore neither from the superiority or authority which spirituall Pastours haue to direct or commaund the persons of their spirituall subiects nor from the authority which temporall Princes haue to direct or command the persons of their temporall subiects can we rightly conclude what authority either spirituall Pastours or temporall Princes haue to punish the soule or the body or which is all one to inflict spirituall or temporall punishments for that the soule and not the body is principally subiect to the directiue or commanding power So that by this manner of arguing from the directiue power to the coerciue it may rather be concluded that temporall Princes may punish the soule for that they haue power to command the soule rather then that spirituall Pastours may punish the body for that they haue not power to commaund the body which being an vnreasonable creature is not subiect to any externall commaundement But what coerciue authority either spirituall Pastours or temporall Princes haue to punish the body or soule wee must gather from the institution of Christ to wit whether Christ our Sauiour hath giuen authority to spirituall Pastours to inflict onely spirituall punishments and consequently to punish onely the soule and to temporall Princes to inflict onely corporall and temporall punishments and consequently to punish onely the body and not the soule but onely by consequence as being grieued when the body either in it selfe or in some temporall things annexed therunto is punished So that the maine question notwithstanding Mr. Fitzherberts argument still remaineth a foote to wit whether Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to spirituall Pastours authority to inflict onely spirituall or also temporall punishments neither can this question bee decided by any argument grounded vpon naturall reason but only vpon the holy Scriptures wherein the institution and law of Christ is contained 85 And although the holy Scriptures doe expressely testifie that the Apostles did in some sort punish to wit as Abulensis before t Nu. 73. declared by way of prediction or deprecation not onely Christians but also infidels in their bodies as S. Paul foretold the blindnes of Elymas the Magician S. Peter the death of Ananias and Saphira yet because this was done by them miraculously and by that extraordinary power which they had giuen them by Christ which therefore was not of necessity to descend to their Successours we cannot deduce a good argument from thence that therefore spirituall Pastours haue now an ordinary power to inflict the same punishments but onely that they may inflict them in that manner and by that power wherewith the Apostles did to wit by miracle in which case I will not deny but that if perhaps any holy Pope or Bishop haue the grace of miracles he may by prophecie foretell or by prayer obtaine that such a wicked Prince whether he be Christian or Heathen shall by God the Angels or the Deuill bee depriued of his life and kingdome Neither doth reason teach vs that because Saint Peter and the Apostles had so ample and extraordinary Apostolicall power to inflict corporall punishments therefore the Pope and the Apostles Successours should haue an ordinary power to inflict the same For as Christ gaue to the Apostles such an extraordinary and transcendent power so he gaue them an extraordinary grace and vnderstanding that they should not either bee puft vp with pride by reason of so great a power or at any time abuse the same in preiudice of themselues or others which extraordinary grace vnderstanding Christ gaue not to all future Popes and Bishops Wherefore seeing that this plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power to depose Kings and to dispose of all temporalls supposing the humane fragilitie of Popes who therein are like to other men might be occasion to vse Almaines words u Almain de potest â—cces Lâ—â—ca q. 1. c. 9. for the Popes to be puffed vp with exceeding great pride and might also be very hurtfull to subiects there is no likelihood that Christ gaue him such a power 86 Neither doe I make any doubt that either Christian Princes or people would bee any way grieued but rather very glad that the Pope should haue so ample a power and authoritie ouer their bodies and goods if they were assured that he were so confirmed in grace and enlightned with supernaturall knowledge as the Apostles were that hee should alwayes in very deed vse it to the good of their soules and neuer abuse it to the great preiudice of them and their subiects But seeing that Popes are as other men subiect to all humane infirmities and may not onely be tempted but also ouercome with ire enuy hatred flattery and a vehement desire to encrease their temporall States and Dominions no maruaile that Soueraigne Princes who euer haue beene accounted supreme in temporals and therein inferiour onely to God cannot take it well to bee made now subiect to the Pope in temporals vnlesse sufficient reason bee brought to prooue the same And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of all that Mr. Fitzherbert hath replied concerning the law of GOD and Nature and therefore I will now briefly examine what hee saith concerning the law of Nations and the Ciuill or Imperiall law which shall be the subiect of the next Chapter CHAP. VIII VVherein M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the Law of Nations and the Ciuill Law are answered and first the difference betwixt the Priests of the olde and New Testament and the Priests of other Nations and also betwixt the Law of Nations and of Nature is declared and from thence proued that among all Nations the Ciuill Common-wealth was supreame and disposed of all things both spirituall and temporall and punished all persons both Priestes and others with temporall punishments and consequently that the new Oath cannot bee impugned by the Law of Nations and lastly what Maister Fitzherbert obiecteth from the Ciuill Law is confuted 1. IT is a vsuall tricke of Mr. Fitzherbert as you haue seene in the former Chapters and also shall see in this and the rest then most of all to bragge when hee hath least cause and when any answere of mine is most sound and sufficient then to crie out that it is improbable impertinent absurd friuolous foolish idle or ridiculous Hee pretended to prooue in his Supplement by the law of Nations that the new Oath is vnlawfull in regard it denyeth the Popes power to excommunicate and depose temporall Princes not for that hee thought it otherwise needefull hauing as hee saith prooued already but how insufficiently you haue seene that the Oath is contrarie to the law of God and Nature but to satisfie the importunitie of his Aduersarie and to giue his Reader an aboundant satisfaction because as the Lawyers say abundans cautela non nocet a prouiso too much neuer hurteth And to all the arguments he brought from the law of Nations and the Ciuill law I gaue this briefe answere as heere hee
spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures And without doubt you would condemne me for a vaine-glorious Thraso if I should take vpon me to prooue by the testimony and grant of Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and of your selfe who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes that the Pope hath no such power for that you and all the rest doe grant the Pope to bee the supreame spirituall Pastour and then by a necessarie consequence in my iudgement though not in yours I should inferre from thence that because the Pope is by the institution of Christ according to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers a spirituall Pastour and not a temporall Prince he hath only authoritie to giue or take away heauenly not earthly kingdomes to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to vse spirituall not temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill punishments This consequence the ancient Fathers made See aboue cha 5· sec 3. nu 11. seq But besides that it is not sufficient to prooue any conclusion by the authority of the Ciuill law vnles the Ciuil law granteth both the premises or propositions from whence that conclusion is deduced the insufficiencie of this consequence grounded vpon those rules The accessorie followeth the principall and he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse See chap. 2. 3. per totum I haue made manifest in the former Chapters 58 Secondly doe not dissemble Mr. Fitzherb nor seeke to delude your Reader but deale sincerely and be not ashamed to acknowledge your errour seeing that not onely your selfe but also Card. Bâ—ll Gretzer Lessius Becanus and also Suarez haue herein grosely erred For your meaning was not by making that long discourse out of the Ciuill law to proue the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes onely to inferre by a necessary consequent in your owne vnderstanding that he may also punish them temporally in their persons and states but your meaning was to proue directly by the Ciuill law the Oath to be vnlawfull for that in your opinion it denieth the Popes power to Excommunicate Princes which the Ciuill law doth expresly acknowledge For in the beginning of your Supplement you tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine namely in respect of those clauses which do exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope and then after you had made an end of your long discourse concerning the Popes spirituall power acknowledged by the Ciuill law you made this inference that the Ciuill law cannot iustifie the Oath but doth flatly impugne it for that the Oath supposeth and implieth the Kings Maiestie to be supreme head of the English Church and not the Pope and thereupon denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince So that the Oath in your opinion contained two clauses the one a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and this was that which you intended to prooue to bee directly repugnant to the Ciuill law the other was a deniall of the Popes power to depose Princes and this in a word or two related before you affirmed to be also repugnant to the ciuill law for that in your iudgement it followeth necessarily froÌ„ the fromer which how vaine an assertion this is you may see by that I haue said before for so you may make one to affirme any thing if to make him to graunt an argument or consequent it bee sufficient that he graunt the antecedent although hee deny the consequence But now it seemeth by your silence as I signified before in the first Chapter that you are ashamed to insist vpon the former clause concerning the Popes power to excommunicate Princes for which you made that long discourse to prooue by the Ciuill law the Popes supremacie in spirituals and yet rather then you will confesse your errour you care not to delude your Reader in dissembling the chiefe and principall cause for which you affirmed the Oath to bee repugnant to the Ciuill law to wit because it denyed the Popes power to excommunicate Princes wherein with many others of your Society you haue most fowlely and shamefully erred 59 Wherefore I may now very well conclude that the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought in his Supplement grounded as well vpon the law of God of nature and nations as vpon the ciuill or imperiall law are very insufficient and that the answeres which in my Admonition I did briefly make to them doe stand sound and good notwithstanding any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary Now you shall see what arguments he bringeth from the Canon law and especially from that so often named decree of the famous Councell of Lateran CHAP. IX Wherein the difficulties which some make concerning the authority of the Lateran Councel are propounded the decree of the Councell which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related and Widdringtons first answere to the said Decree is proued to be sound and sufficient and Mr. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted 1 WE are come now at last courteous Reader to examine what conuincing arguments can bee brought for proofe of this new pretended Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes out of the Canon law and especially from the decree of the great and famous Councell of Lateran whereon my principall Aduersaries seeing belike all their other arguments and authorities to bee cleane shaken and battered doe now chiefly rely Wherefore albeit neither the more ancient of our moderne Diuines who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba D. Sanders and others nor Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken from these men all his chiefe arguments and authorities to confirme his new Catholike faith in this point did in his Controuersies make any great reckoning of the decree of this great Councell for otherwise without doubt he being not ignorant of this decree and also desirous to make his doctrine vnquestionable and therefore feareth not to brand the contrary opinion with the note of heresie would not haue beene contented onely with the fact of Pope Innocent the third in deposing Otho the Emperour and haue neglected to vrge this decree of the Councell of Lateran which was called by the said Pope Innocent yet now hee flyeth to the decree of the great Councell of Lateran as the chiefe pillar to support his new Catholike faith therefore in regard principally of this decree he doubteth not to affirme but how rashly and without sufficient ground you shall see beneath that whosoeuer denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes contemneth the voyce of the Church in this so great and famous a Councell and is to be accounted a Heathen and Publican and in
of Princes confounding and inuoluing both questions concerning the authoritie of the Pope and also of the common-wealth to depose Princes together in one and then in affirming that Widdrington hath not brought any one Authour only D. Barclay excepted who saith that Princes for heresie cannot be deposed to wit neither by the Pope nor the common-wealth which is very true but it is not true that he hath brought no Authours who absolutely affirme that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes and that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments 38 An other cunning the Lord Cardinall of Peron may vse in confounding the oath or religious bond of temporall allegiance with the ciuill or naturall bond thereof which perchance he did for this end that his speech concerning the Popes authority to absolue from the oath of allegiance might seeme more plausible to his audience for that an oath is a sacred and spirituall thing and therefore not exceeding the obiect of the Popes spirituall power and all Diuines doe hold that the Pope hath authority to absolue from oathes either by releasing directly the spirituall bond it selfe or consequently by declaring the thing which is sworne not to be hic nunc in this particular case a fit matter of an oath but temporall allegiance and temporall kingdomes are temporall things and therefore that the Pope by his spirituall power should haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things and to absolue from temporall allegiance and to giue take away translate and dispose of temporall kingdomes would haue seemed very harsh in the yeeres of the greatest part of true French-men z In Apol. nu 148. 149. 39 But besides that as I haue shewed elsewhere the Pope cannot according to the doctrine of S. Thomas and his followers absolue from the oath of temporall allegiance but by declaring the naturall or ciuill bond it selfe of temporall allegiance to be voyd and of no force and consequently to be no fit matter to be sworne it little importeth to the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee touching the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance whether the Pope can release or take away the spirituall bond and obligation of the oath of allegiance it being a sacred and spirituall thing and made onely to confirme and corrobarate the former naturall bond of temporall allegiance For it doth not follow as wel noteth Ioannes Parisiensis Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. c. 16. ad 11 and I also obserued in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. that because the Pope can release or take away the sacred and religious bond of temporall allegiance he can also release and dissolue the naturall and ciuill bond wherein all subiects by the law of God and nature stand bound to their temporall Prince before they make any oath of temporall allegiance and very few subiects in comparison of others doe vsually make any such oath of allegiance And therefore perchance the Cardinall would for the cause aforesaid rather discourse of the Popes power to absolue subiects from the oath that is the sacred and spirituall bond of temporall allegiance then to depose Princes and to take away their Crownes and Regall authority which being taken away both their temporall allegiance and also the sacred and spirituall bond thereof is by a necessary consequent foorthwith dissolued 37 And to omit diuerse other cunning shifts which the Cardinall of Peron hath vsed in his discourse touching the deposition of hereticall Princes and which the Kings Maiesty in his answere to the Cardinalls oration hath in my opinion very cleerely and excellently discouered two notable cunnings or rather fraudes he hath vsed in translating into French the decree of the Councell of Lateran whereof now wee treat The first is in translating into French those words Si Dominus temporalis if any Prince whereas it is manifest that those words Dominus temporalis doe signifie euery Land-lord Maior Iudge Consull Potesta Gouernour Shiriffe Bayliffe Constable or any other inferiour Officer or Pettie Lord and although the Cardinall will perchance affirme that in those generall wordes Dominus temporalis all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are included which neuerthelesse I haue aboue confuted yet to translate those words Dominus temporalis any Prince as though the Councell had named Princes expresly and by the name of Princes cannot in my opinion bee excused from an egregious fraud and falshood The second is in translating those words vt ipse Summus Pontifex Vasallos ab eius fidelitate denunciet abfolutos that he the Pope may absolue his subiects from their oath of fidelitie whereas the words of the Councel only are that he may denounce or declare his Vassals absolued from their fidelity which words of the Councell doe expresly signifie that the vassalls were before absolued from their fidelity either by the decrees of Popes or of temporall Princes and that the Pope doth onely denounce or declare them absolued besides that the word vassalls he translateth subiects which haue farre different significations and that word a fidelitate from their fidelity he translateth from their oath of fidelity which in a Translator who is to set downe not only the sense but also the words cannot bee excused from an egregious corruption 38 Lastly I would gladly be resolued of this question either by the Cardinall of Peron or any other learned Catholike whether if the Doctours of Sorbon who hold the doctrine of the Councells superiority aboue the Pope to be true and conforme to the word of God and to the definitions of the generall Councels of Constance and Basil and consequently the contrary doctrine to be false impious and detestable and contrary to the word of God should make a decree that all of their Vniuersity should in their publike Readings Disputations and writings defend it as certaine that is should not maintaine or teach the contrary doctrine as probable or in any sort Or if the Doctours of Mentz who are of opinion that the doctrine for the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin is true conforme to the word of God and to the decree of the Councell of Basil and that the contrary is false and against the word of God and consequently impious and detestable should also make a Decree as Surius affirmeth b Vpon the yeere 1501. they haue done imitating saith he the decree of the Councell of Basil that it should bee altogether held that the most blessed mother of God was conceiued without the spot of originall sinne and did strictly ordaine that none heereafter should in that Vniuersitie bee promoted in sacred Diuinitie vnlesse he should before by oath make promise that he would neither maintaine in his minde nor any wise approoue the contrary opinion and the same question may be made concerning the Iesuites doctrine de auxilijs gratiae whether I say it must
another generall Councell of like authority and why a Bishop for example of Spaine as he is a part of the generall Councell which is a true formall body representing the whole Catholike Church hath power and iurisdiction ouer the Christians of another temporall kingdome for example of France and contrariwise but a temporall or Ciuill law made by the consent of all Christian Princes may bee repealed by euery Prince for as much as concerneth his owne kingdome by whose onely authoritie that law had force to binde in his kingdome which in temporalls is subiect to no other Prince but himselfe alone and therefore as that law had not force to binde in his kingdome from the authoritie of any other Prince so the authoritie and consent of no other Prince is necessarie for the repealing and abrogating of the same So as thou seest good Reader that my third answere is no way defectiue but in euery thing sound and sufficient and that Maister Fitzherbert in the impugning thereof hath very grossely bewrayed his egregious fraude and ignorance CHAP. XIIII VVherein three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby hee laboured in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraude and falshood 1. AFter I had giuen the aforesaide third answere to that Act of the Lateran Councell as you haue seene before I insinuated another difficultie a In the aforesaid Preface nu 51. concerning that Act in these wordes I omit now that those wordes that from that time the Pope may denounce or declare his Vassalls absolued from his fealtie doe containe in them some difficultie for if wee will regard the force or proprietie of the wordes they seeme onely to signifie that it belongeth to the Pope not truely to absolue Vassalls from their fealtie but onely to declare them alreadie absolued which is not the question which wee haue now in hand But this difficultie Mr. Fitzherbert passeth ouer with silence and skippeth to examine three instances which I did not onely imagine or suppose as hee saith would be made against my last answere but which Fa. Lessius in those expresse words by me related in a booke of his called Disputatio Apologetica pro potestate Summi Pontificis which went heere vp and downe for a while in hugger mugger and whereof by chance I had then a view but now it cannot be seene but by very speciall and secret friends which is a manifest token of a great diffidence in his cause did bring to demonstrate and cleerely conuince that it is a manifest point of faith that the Pope hath power and authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance 2 And because Mr. Fitzherbert doth ouer much pare and curtoll those three instances which I brought to confront and paralele with the three arguments or obiections vrged by Fa. Lessius I thinke it not amisse first of all to relate them word by word as there they are set downe by me Wherefore the first argument or obiection of Fa. Lesus is this 1. Argument of Fa Lessius That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of their Decrees and sentences but this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their allegiance is eyther propounded or supposed by Popes Councels and Doctors as a foundation of many Canons and iudiciall sentences therfore this doctrine doth appertaine to faith 2. Argument 3 His second argument is this If a Generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath this authoritie no Catholike could make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that it doth suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of her Decrees and Sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to be accounted no lesse certaine 3. Argument 4 His third argument is this It is a poynt of Faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which is per se of it selfe vnlawfull for such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then is an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to depriue temporall Princes of their dominions the Church should erre in doctrine of manners and that in matters of very great moment For shee teacheth that after a Prince is deposed by the Popes authority all his subiects are absolued from his obedience and that his dominions may bee taken by another as it is manifest by the Councells Also that after a Prince is publikely excommunicated his subiects are absolued from their Oath of Allegiance in so much that they are not bound to obey him vntill hee he reconciled yea and she doth forbid them to obey him if the Censure be denounced All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the subiects shall thereby be incited to rebellions and periuries yea and against their will be compelled thereunto Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and commandeth rebellions and periuries and by her Censures doth compell men thereunto but to affirme this is hereticall therefore that also from whence this followeth is hereticall to wit that the Church hath not authority to absolue subiects from the bond of their oath and from their obedience 5 Thus argueth Fa. Lessius to which his arguments I did not answer in forme but onely propounded three other instances or arguments to confront them with his whereby the learned Reader might cleerely see the weakenesse and insufficiency of his obiections which my arguments I grounded in like manner vpon the dispensations decrees and iudiciall sentences of certaine Popes in these words * Praefatio Apol nu 56. seq 6 And first of all is not the due administration of Sacraments a matter of great moment and chiefly belonging to the Popes office is not an error concerning it to be accounted very pernicious But the Pope hath oftentimes giuen leaue to a Priest who was no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation b As it appeareth by S. Gregory lib. 3. epist 26. and it is related in the Canon peruenit dist 95. and many Abbots at this day haue the same faculty Concil Flor. circa finem in Decreto Eugen. whereas it is a great cōtrouersie among
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
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
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
peaceably maintaine his owne right 16 Neither were those Iudges whom the Apostle commanded or aduised the Corinthians to appoint any other then Arbiters or Arbitratours in power although we should grant that they were to be chosen by common consent and not by the parties only who were in suite which neuerthelesse cannot be conuinced by the Apostles words For albeit the Apostle doeth not say which is the onely reason that D. Schulckenius bringeth to prooue D. Schulck in Apol. ad nu 269 pag. 445. that they were to be chosen by common consent that euery man must choose to himselfe an Arbiter for Arbiters are not to be chosen by the consent of one only partie but by the consent of both yet the Apostle doeth not say that the whole Church of the Corinthians is by common consent of all to choose the Iudges of such causes as D. Schulckenius without any sufficient ground affirmeth but rather Saint Paul saith the cleane contrarie For these bee his words If therefore you shall haue secular iudgements the contemptible that are in the Church set them to iudge wherefore the Apostle speaketh only to those Corinthians who shall haue secular iudgements that is as Iustinian well expoundeth who shall haue controuersies strifes to bee debated and not to the whole Church vnlesse we suppose that the whole Church shall bee at strife among themselues and also hee speaketh with a condition that if the Corinthians shall bee at strife they shall appoint men to decide their controuersie so that the parties who shall bee at strife and not the whole Church vnlesse the whole Church shall bee at strife are according to the Apostles command or aduise to appoint men to iudge or decide their controuersie 17 But be it so that the Apostle should not say if you shall haue secular iudgements appoint contemptible persons to iudge and decide your controuersies but he should say because it may be and it is very like to fall out that you shall haue now and then secular iudgements therefore I will haue you to choose before hand by common consent same contemptible persons to iudge and decide those controuersies which shall heereafter arise among you which neuerthelesse were to wrest the words of the Apostle which of themselues are very plaine yet it is cleere that these Iudges were in power meere Arbiters or Arbitratours and had no publike and lawfull authoritie of themselues to giue iudgement to which the parties were in iustice bound to stand but they receiued their power and authoritie to giue iudgement and to make a finall end of controuersies from the parties who were at strife and who for the auoyding of scandall which the infidels might take seeing their strifes and contentions submitted themselues to their decision and arbitrement 18 That they were Arbiters or Arbitratours S. Chrysostome Chrysost in 1. Cor. 6 Almain de potest Eccle. Laica q. 1. cap. 10. Abulens q 96. in cap. 20. Mat. Salmeron tom 14. disp 9. Iacobus Almainus Abulensis and Salmeron a learned Iesuite doe in expresse words affirme And also that they had no publike power but onely priuate and if we may so call it compromissorie which they receiued from those priuate persons who werein suite and by their mutuall promise and consent gaue power to those Arbiters to iudge and make a finall end of their controuersies k in Apol. nu 271. I prooued by the authoritie of S. Thomas and the glosse of Nicolaus de Lyra vpon that place for that according to their doctrine the appointing of those arbitrarie Iudges did nothing derogate from the subiection and obedience which the Christians did owe to Heathen Princes and that they were bound to appeare before the Heathen Magistrate and consequently to stand to his iudgement when they should be called to his tribunall and that the Apostle doth onely forbid the faithfull Corinthians to goe willingly and haue recourse to Heathen Iudges in those causes which may bee determined by the faithfull 19 From whence it euidently followeth that the power of these Iudges was onely priuate arbitrarie or compromissorie and not publike for if they had publike authoritie to decide Secular causes without the expresse or tacite consent of the Secular Prince it must needs derogate from the subiection which they did owe to the Secular Prince neither could the Heathen Iugdes haue lawfull power to reuerse that sentence which was giuen by those Christian Iudges if the cause had bâ—ne before decided by sufficient and publike authoritie of a more eminent power and tribunall which must also be a derogation to their authoritie and to the subiection which in Secular causes is due to Secular Princes And this also Benedictus Iustinian doth very plainly insinuate when he affirmeth that by this any man may easily vnderstand that the Apostle doth not speake of lawfull iudgements which are exercised by Magistrates and publike Iudges by publike authoritie but of those who by the common consent to wit of those who are at strife are appointed debaâ—â—rs of ciuill controuersies and that this right and authoritie of the Apostle to command humane and ciuill things doth not repugne to the publike authoritie of Iudges and Magistrates for that no man is compelled to goe to the Magistrate if by other waies he may peaceably maintaine his owne right 20 By which it is euident that this manner of iudging which the Apostle commands was not legall or done by publike authoritie and that these Iudges were not Magistrates and who had publike authoritie And therefore although these arbitrarie Iudges were appointed by the declaratiue commandement of the Apostle for the auoyding of scandall yet their power was only priuate and compromissorie and was giuen them by the mutuall consent of both parties in so much that if either of the parties who were in suite would not haue obeyed the Apostles commandement admitted of those Arbiters but would haue had recourse to the tribunal of the Heathen Magistrate although by disobeying the Apostles commandement and by scandalizing Christian Religion he should haue greatly offended yet he should not haue offended against iustice in wronging either of those Christian Iudges or the other partie that would not willingly goe to the Heathen Magistrate against which without doubt he should haue offended if hee had refused to obey the sentence of his lawfull and legall Iudge and who had full power and authoritie to decide and end the cause 21 And by this it is very cleere that my Aduersaries conclusion is very vntrue to wit that the Apostle did intermeddle in the temporall and politike gouernment which then belonged to the Pagan Emperour for this had bene to derogate from the ciuill subiection due to temporall Princes but he did onely intermeddle with the priuate and peaceable composition of secular controuersies among the faithfull Corinthians which euery Christian without any publike authoritie or any preiudice to the same might doe and which the Apostle by his Apostolicall
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
of Ecclesiasticall Censures may bee called a compulsion yet the vsing of temporall power the disposing of temporall things the compelling with temporall punishments or the inflicting of temporall punishments and punishing temporally by way of constraint are only proper and doe belong to the temporall power for which cause S. Bernard as I shewed before did affirme that the materiall sword is according to our Sauiours command to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier not of the Priest at the booke or direction of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour 8 Now to come to my Aduersarie although he hath not as he saith Lessius booke nor euer reade it yet I haue both seene it and reade it and I haue alleadged truly his expresse words as they lye and I doubt not but that my Aduersarie may easily get a sight thereof But howsoeuer that which hee saith is very vntrue that I say nothing in effect against Lessius argument but that which may bee vrged in like manner against the Apostle Saint Paul for that Saint Pauls argument as I shewed before in the former chapter was not grounded vpon this maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon Lessius groundeth his argument for this maxime is very vntrue vnlesse the greater doeth actually or vertually include and imply the lesse or which I take for all one vnlesse the greater and the lesse be of the same kind or order But S. Pauls argument was grounded vpon this maxime hee that is not vnworthie to doe the greater is not vnworthie to doe the lesse For S. Paul intended only to prooue as I shewed before that Christians were not vnworthie to iudge of secular things because they were to iudge the world and the Angels and therefore by the argument a maiori ad minus they were not to be accounted vnworthie to decide secular causes Neither hath euery man that power whereof hee is not vnworthie but he hath onely that power which hee who hath authoritie to giue that power hath granted although perchance he be not vnworthie to haue a greater power as to be Lord Chancellour is a more great and eminent authoritie then to be Lord Chamberlaine and yet it is not lawfull thus to argue from that maxime he that hath the greater authoritie hath the lesse therefore he who is Lord Chancellour is also Lord Chamberlaine albeit we might rightly thus conclude as the Apostle did a maiori ad minus he that is not vnworthie to be Lord Chancellour is not vnworthy to be Lord Chamberlaine for that he who is not vnworthie to haue the greater authoritie is not vnworthie to haue the lesse 9 If therefore I had denied the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things because he had beene vnworthy to haue that authoritie then I had indeede disprooued the Apostles argument but seeing that I doe onely for this cause deny the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things for that Christ our Sauiour hath not granted this authoritie to him but onely to temporall Princes I doe not goe against the Apostles argument Neither did the Apostle goe about to prooue that the Church might ordaine and dispose of secular iudgements taking secular iudgements for such as doe proceed from publike authoritie and can not be done by priuate power but hee onely commanded the Corinthians for auoiding of scandall to appoint arbitrarie Iudges among themselues which they might doe by their owne priuate power and without any derogation to the temporall Magistrate and in case of scandall they ought also so to doe and he onely intended to prooue that because they were not vnwoorthy to iudge the Angels and the world much more were they not vnworthy to be Arbitrarie Iudges in secular causes Wherefore Saint Paul did not intend to prooue either by the subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall or by any other argument that the Church might ordaine or dispose of those secular iudgements which belong to temporall authoritie neither can there be drawne any good argument from this subordination to prooue the same as I haue shewed more amply in the second part 10 Neither did I graunt that the spirituall Pastour hath power to command corporall and temporall things quatenus spiritualibus deseruiunt so farre forth as they serue spirituall things for that corporall and temporall things are ordained to spirituall things and to the eternall saluation of soules as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth for then indeede I must also haue granted that the Pope hauing power to dispose of spirituall things hath consequently power to dispose of temporall things so farre soorth as they are to serue spirituall things but my reason was as you haue seene in the former chapter because the power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good is a spirituall power and agreeable to a spirituall Pastour and Gouernour as he is instituted by Christ but the power to dispose of temporall things whether it be in order to temporall or to spirituall good is a temporall power and therefore not agreeable to a spirituall Pastour according at our Sauiour hath in the Christian world or common wealth instituted ordained and distinguished these two supreme powers temporall and spirituall by their proper acts functions and dignities 11 And albeit both spirituall and temporall things are referred to one last end which is Gods honour and glorie as to the center to which both of them ought to tend yet from hence it can not be rightly concluded that the temporall power is subordained to the spirituall or that temporall things as temporall lawes temporal actions temporall punishments and the like are subordained to spirituall things as to spirituall lawes spirituall actions spirituall punishments and the like but that both of them are I doe not say subordained one to the other but ordained to one and the selfe same end which is the glorie and seruice of God and the saluation of soules which is as it were the center to which the temporall power by temporall lawes and by disposing of temporals and the spirituall power by spirituall lawes and by disposing or dispencing of spiriruall things ought to tend By which it is apparant that although it were supposed that the disposing of temporall things and the vsing of temporall power were in some cases necessarie to the honour and seruice of God to the good of the Church and to the saluation of soules yet it can not be performed but by the temporall power for that our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours onely spirituall power to promote and maintaine by spirituall meanes the good of the Church and to bring soules to heauen and temporall meanes and temporall power he hath left to the disposition of temporall Princes whom he forsaw and preordained to be Nurses Patrons and Protectours of his Church 12 Wherefore although my Aduersarie did endeauour as you haue seene in the former
the fact and with Bellarmine and with almost all Historiographers and he will confirme the argument drawne from this example which hee endeuoureth to weaken For Bellarmine doth not reiect the Authors which my Aduersary citeth who doe adioyne the people of Rome to the Pope of Rome in the worke of the translation of the Empire so that the true power and authoritie of transferring the Empire be giuen to the Pope alone and assent desire request and acclamation be giuen to the people But if he will say that it was done by the authoritie onely of the people the Pope onely assenting and crowning the Emperour chosen by the people or also by the authoritie of the people and of the Pope together he will most manifestly contradict himselfe for that in this whole booke he hath repeated a thousand times that the people are bound by the Law of God to obey their Prince and that neither in the case of Heresie nor in any other case ciuill obedience can by the people be deuied to the Prince whom once thâ—y haue had and therefore that the people who by the Law of God are subiect cannot depose their Prince Let my Aduersary Widdrington choose what part he will and hee will be compelled either to agree with us or to contradict himselfe 42 Thus you see what a braue flourish D. Schulckenius hath made especially to those who haue not read my Apologie as though forsooth he had said something to the question which was betwixt mee and Cardinall Bellarmine or had brought some new argument which was not answered by me in that place whereas it is as cleere as the Sun that this his Dilemma is a meere euasion and shift and altogether impertinent to the question and that I did fully satisfie it in that very place both by the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine and also by those authorities which hee alledged without contradicting my selfe at all For the maine question betweene mee and Cardinall Bellarmine was whether this translation of the Empire was done by the authoritie onely of the Pope or by the authoritie both of the Pope and also of the people and I proued cleerly by Cardinal Bellarmines owne grounds and also by his owne Authors that it was done both by the Pope and also by the Senate and people of Rome Now D. Schulckenius saith little or nothing to this question but flyeth to another by-question to wit whether it was done iustly or vniustly whereas the principall question was onely of the fact to wit by whom the fact was done whether by the Pope alone or also by the people and not whether the fact was iust or vniust So that you see heere be two questions the first is of the fact to wit whether there was any such fact and by whom and in what manner it was done with all other circumstances which belong to that particular fact the second is of the iustice or iniustice of the fact to wit whether that particular fact considered with all particular circumstances belonging thereunto was iustly or vniustly done 43 The first question as D. Schulckenius himselfe affirmeth t Pag. 591. is to be decided by the testimonies of Historiographers to whom it appertaineth to write barely simply and truely the facts of men and the second which doth necessarily suppose the first by Diuines or Lawyers to whom it appertaineth to decide what is right or wrong Marke now how cunningly D. Schulckenius to confound his Readers vnderstanding inuerteth the order of these questions and putting as it were the Cart before the horse demandeth that first which he should do last and that last which he should first For first he demandeth whether that fact to wit the translation of the Romane Empire from the Grecians to the French was iustly or vniustly done and secondly he demandeth whether it was done by the authoritie of the Pope alone or of the people alone or of the Pope and people together as though one should decide a case of conscience before it be knowen and agreed vpon what the case is and what be all the praticular circumstances which doe alter the case belonging thereunto For it is one case or question to put the translation of the Empire to be done by the Pope alone an other by the people alone a third by the Pope and people together Also it is one case if it be done by the Pope and people together when the Empire is forsaken and abandoned by the Emperour or which is all one with the expresse or tacite consent of the Emperour for that he refuseth to rule or reigne ouer the people any longer and an other case when the Empire is not forsaken by the Emperour or which is all one against the Emperours will and consent for that he will stil remaine to be their Emperour Now if D. Schulckenius had either put downe the case or question plainly with all particular circumstances belonging thereunto it would easily haue beene answered or else if it had pleased him to haue set downe my words and the case as I did put it and prooue it to be lawfull the Reader would presently haue seene that D. Schulckenius might well haue spared to make his aforesaid argument or Dilemma for that I did fully answere it in that place and that neither I contradicted my selfe nor that he did answere at all my argument but that rather by his silence he did sufficiently acknowledge that he could not answere it at all 44 For first I did affirme that the Romane Empire was translated from the Grecians to the French by the authoritie decree ordinance consent and suffrage both of the Pope and also of the people and not of the Pope alone and this I proued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds and also by his owne Authours and diuers others to whom also may be added u Lib. 1. hist Guylielmus Malmesburiensis x In vita Leonis tertij Aâ—astasius Bibliothecarius y lib. ad annum 781. Siffridus z In libro Augustali anno 801. Beneuutus de Rambaldis a Ennead 8. lib. 8. in fine Sabellicus b In Annalibus Galliae Nicolaus Gillius c Lib. 4. de regno Italiae Carolus Sigonius and many more Secondly I affirmed that the Emperours of Greece had the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned by them and that they refused to rule gouerne and protect them any longer and consequently that the translation done with those circumstances was iust and without any wrong done to the Grecian Emperours Neither in affirming this did I contradict my selfe For albeit I did oftentimes affirme that subiects are bound by the law of God to obey in ciuill causes their temporall Prince and that in no case they haue power to iudge him or to withdraw their temporall allegiance from him for that in no case an inferiour can iudge his Superiour as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth d lib. 2. de Concil cap. 18. for which cause
people doe excell in dignitie the Prince 50 But as touching his second inference for of the first I haue spoken before it is very vntrue that the people are superiour to their absolute Prince in dignitie or authoritie but contrariwise it is manifest that a King is superiour and aboue the people and the people inferiour to their King This shall be the right of the King that shall reigne ouer you saith the holy Scripture 1. Reg. 8. and in the same place the people said there shall bee a King ouer vs and we will bee as all nations and blessed bee the Lord my God said King Dauid o Psal 143. who subdueth my people vnder mee wherefore there is no doubt to bee made but that the Iewes were bound to obey the high Priest in spirituall matters but that all men were bound to obey the high Priest in temporall affaires or that the spiritual power was in the old law the supreme power not only in excellencie nobilitie or dignitie but also in authoritie and chastised Princes temporally which Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth heere to make manifest this hee neither hath nor euer will bee able with any manifest proofe to conuince And thus you haue seene how insufficient are all the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought out of the old law before the institution of the Kings of Israel now you shall see how weake the rest of his arguments are which he bringeth out of the old law since that the Israelites demaunded of Samuel to haue a King ouer them as other nations had 51 But first of all Mr. Fitzherbert laboureth in vaine to prooue that which no man calleth in question to wit that the authoritie of the high Priest in the old Testament was neither changed nor diminished by the institution of Kings but that as the Law of God deliuered to the Iewes by Moyses did continue in full force without any alteration or change during the time of Moyses of Iosue and the Iudges so the same was not altered or changed afterwards by the institution of Kings and that God did not change the forme and course of the Law in fauour of Kings or turned the same vpside downe contrary to the course of nature as Mr. Fitzherbert auoucheth some of his Aduersaries absurdly to affirme For it is a meere fiction that by the institution of Kings the Law of Moyses was altered or the authoritie of the high Priest changed or diminished or that the same superiority which the high Priest as he was high Priest had aboue the temporall state to wit in spirituall affaires before the institution of Kings did not continue in the high Priest after that the Kings of Israel were instituted And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert faigneth absurd opinions to haue occasion to impugne them For the institution of Kings did not alter or diminish at all the spirituall authoritie of the high Priests but it did only change the maner of the temporall gouernment and it caused that the supreme temporall authoritie or dominion was onely in one man and the temporall gouernment to be simply Regall or Monarchicall whereas before the institution of Kings it was not alwaies so 52 For albeit Moyses and Iosue were appointed by God to bee Iudges and Leaders or Captaines of the people of Israel and they had greater authoritie then the other Iudges had yet they were not properly Kings neither had they speaking properly true Regall dominion and authoritie as Abulensis y Q. 19. in ca. 8. Iudic. doth well obserue And as for the other Iudges of Israel their authoritie was farre inferiour to Regall authoritie or dominion For as the same Abulensis z Q. 5. in prolog D. Hicron in librum Iosue q. 7. 12. in Prolog lib. Iudic. doth also well obserue there was a great difference betwixt Kings and Iudges both in power and iurisdiction For the power of Kings was most ample But the Iudges had ouer the people no authoritie to command as due to them by iurisdiction but they were onely industrious men for warres and for giuing counsell and by their aduice the people were directed in all things yet they had ouer the people no other authoritie then the people would giue them and the people did obey them as it were freely when they did see that they commanded or counsailed nothing but that which was iust whereupon they were not called Lords or did they rule raigne or had proper dominion ouer the people but they did onely gouerne or iudge because Lords or they that reigne and haue proper dominion or Seigniorie are those who doe whatsoeuer they vvill if it be not against law or reason and the subiects are bound to obey them in all things such are Kings but the power of the Iudges did extend to no other thing then to that vvhich vvas vvritten in the law in so much that Kings might doe vvhatsoeuer the law doth not forbid but Iudges might onely doe that vvhich the law commanded So that the power of those Iudges vvas but little 53 First because it vvas giuen them freely by the people neither had they more authority then the people gaue them and they vvere chiefly chosen to make vvarre against the enemies for vvhich cause they vvere called Sauiours And although after they had ouercome their enemies the people had no great neede of them yet by the consent of the people they remained afterwards as long as they liued in their authoritie to iudge And if any one obiect that the power of the Iudges vvas not giuen them by man but by God for as is vvritten Iudic. 3. God raised them a Sauiour called Aod I answere saith Abulensis that the Iudges vvere made by the election of the people and from the people they receiued a limited power but they vvere not chosen by the people alwaies after one manner For some vvere made Iudges because God commanded them that they should fight for the people so vvas Barac For the prophetesse Debbora tolde him on the behalfe of God that he should fight against Sisera Iudic. 4. and yet after he had wonne the battell he vvas not yet a Iudge or Prince of the Israelites but because the people saw that God vvould deliuer them by the meanes of Barac they chose him for their Iudge So also it happened concerning Gedeon For the Angel of our Lord did appeare vnto him and commanded him that he should goe to deliuer Israel from the hand of Madian Iudic. 6. And vvhen he victoriously finished the warre the Israelites tooke him for their Iudge neither vvould they onely haue made him their Iudge but also their Lord and King as it appeareth Iudic. 8. 54 Others vvere taken for Iudges not by the commandement but by the instigation of God to wit because when the Israelites were oppressed vvith these calamities and vvanted a Sauiour God gaue his spirit to certaine men by vvhich they vvere couragious vvise and most fit for vvarres vvhom the Israelites seeing did take
he was chosen to be their Law-maker and Prince not by manner of reigning or hauing properly dominion but rather b Abulensis q. 8. in cap. 6.2 Paralip per modum iudicantis by manner of iudging 58 And by this you may plainly see in what manner the temporall gouernment of the Iewes and not the spirituall was altered by the institution of Kings for that the supreme temporall power or dominion which before their institution did reside in the whole multitude or people of Israel was after their institution wholly translated to the King But that the course of the law was changed and turned vpside downe in fauour of Kings or that the spirituall gouernment of the high Priests was altered by the institution of Kings is a meere fiction For the same spirituall authoritie and superioritie that the Priests had before the institution of Kings they kept also after their institution and as all the people of Israel in whom the supreme spirituall power did before reside were neuerthelesse subiect in spirituals to the high Priests so also were Kings afterwards subiect also in spirituals to the same high Priests although in temporals they were supreme and the high Priests subiect and inferiour to them 59 And therefore to auoide tediousnesse I will omit to relate Mr. Fitzherberts text which he setteth down in the three next pages to prooue that the law of God was not altered and turned vpside downe by the institution of Kings and that the institution of Regall authoritie did not worke any alteration of the diuine law touching the authority of the high Priest and matters belonging to Religion nor brought any preiudice to the Ecclesiasticall dignitie nor did derogate from the obedience due to the high Priest in matters meere spirituall nor from the Soueraigntie of the spirituall power and function in things spirituall for of this there is no controuersie for ought I know albeit Mr. Fitzherbert saith that his Aduersaries but who they are I know not neither doth he expresse who they be doe make question about the same And therefore supposing that the high Priest retained the same spirituall power authoritie and dignitie after the institution of Kings which he had before their institution I will proceede to the examining of Mr. Fitzherberts arguments which he bringeth to proue that in the old law the high Priests were superiour not onely in dignitie and nobilitie but also in power and authoritie to the Kings as well in temporall as spirituall causes and that the Kings might be chastised temporally by the high Priest SECT II. Wherein all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the old law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authoritie of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastise and depose Kings is disprooued secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered and thirdly it is shewed that the authoritie of S. Chrysostome brought by my Aduersarie to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authoritie he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth S. Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine THe first argument which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old law since the institution of the Kings of Israel is taken from their institution creation and vnction For almightie God sayth Mr. Fitzherbert a nu 14.15 pag 76. ordained that the Kings should receiue their very institution creation and vnction from the high Priests and Prophets Whereupon it followeth from the vndoubted maxime of the Apostle Hebr. 7. that the said Priests and Prophets were superiour to Kings for sine vlla contradictione sayth the Apostle quod minus est a meliore benedicitur without any contradiction the lesse is blessed by the better which argument S. Chrysostome vseth in like manner saying Chrysost de verbis Isa hom Deus ipsum Regale caput c. God hath subiected the very head of the King to the hands of the Priest teaching vs that this Prince to wit the Priest is greater then the other for that which is lesse receiueth benediction from that which is more worthie So he who vrgeth also to the same end that the Kings in the old Testament were annointed by Priests and inferreth thereupon that maior hic principatus the principalitie of the Priest is greater then the Kings Ibid. hom 4. Whereby he also acknowledgeth that the Priests of the old Testament were superiour to Kings And what meruaile seeing that the said Kings were not onely created and annointed but also chastised yea deposed sometimes by Prophets and Priests 1. Reg. 9. Ibid. cap. 16. 4. Reg. 9. 3. Reg. 19. 4. Reg. 11. Samuel first created and anoynted Saul King of the Iewes and after deposed him for his offences and anointed Dauid to reigne in his place In like manner the kingdome of Israel was translated from the children of Achab to Iehu by the Prophet Elizaeus and the kingdome of Syria from Benhadab to a subiect and seruant of his called Hazael by the Prophet Elias Also in the kingdome of Iuda the wicked Queene Athalia c. 2 But this argument only prooueth that which is not in controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries to wit that the Priests and Prophets were superiour to Kings in spirituall affaires and also that the spirituall power is more noble excellent and worthie then the temporall as spirituall things doe in worth dignitie and nobilitie excell temporall things For to annoint create institute and depose Kings in that manner as Kings in the old law were annointed created and deposed by Priests or Prophets were spirituall and not temporall actions b Qu. 38. in c. 1. lib. 3. Reg. For the annointing of Kings was a religious ceremonie and appertained to the office of a Priest especially when it was done with solemnitie and as well obserueth Abulensis it did directly belong to Priests seeing that it was a sacred thing and sacred oile was powred vpon them the making and handling whereof did belong onely to Priests yet sometimes it was done by Prophets for want of Priests to wit when by no meanes it could be done by Priests as when it was secret and vnknowne whom God would haue to be annointed for King for if it were manifest who was to bee annointed hee was annointed by Priests so was Salomon and afterwards Ioas and so it is to be thought of all others who were annointed for that the kingdome did belong to them by hereditarie succession but sometimes it was vnknowne who was to bee annointed to wit when one was annointed to whom it did not appertaine by right of succession and this was done by the commandement of God for seeing that the will of God was not made manifest but to the Prophets it could
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
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
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
thereof and no sufficient proofe to confirme his new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes as I will at large make plaine beneath p Chap. 9. seq 25 Secondly it is also vntrue that I onely am the man who denieth the spirituall Pastours of the Church to haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments and consequently to proceed to no other temporall chastisement after they haue cast the dart of Excommunication Many other learned Catholikes as I haue shewed aboue q Part. 2. per totum doe also deny the same and Almaine affirmeth that it is the doctrine of most Doctours that the Ecclesiasticall power cannot by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall or ciuill punishment as death exile priuation of goods c. Yea nor so much as to imprison With what face therefore dare this Doctour to terrifie simple Catholikes cry out so often Onely Widdrington or ely Widdrington as Card. Bellarmine did onely Barclay onely Barclay doe oppose themselues against all Catholikes But God be praised that my Aduersaries themselues haue liued to see what little credit is giuen by Catholikes to their vaunting words and with what disgrace their bookes haue beene handled by the State of France For Card. Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay was condemned and forbidden by the Parliament of Paris vnder paine of treason this Doctours booke against me was disgacefully burnt by the hangman before the great staires of the Pallace and the same fire but by a more publike sentence and in a more solemne manner Fa. Suarez booke also hat passed 26 Thirdly this Doctour very learnedly forsooth carpeth at me for abusing words in calling deposition and killing temporall armour or weapons My Aduersarie Widdrington saith he r Cap. 8. pag. 375. abuseth words when he affirmeth deposition and killing to be temporall armour or weapons F. who euer heard that deposition or killing are armour or weapons They are effects of armour or weapons but they themselues are not armour or weapons But first this Doctour hath so vigilant on eye ouer my words and writings to carpe at them that he quite forgetteth what words he himselfe doth vse For he himselfe heere confesseth that Ecclesiasticall Censures are spirituall armour or weapons whereupon in this very Chapter he callet Å¿ Cap. 8. pag. 360. Excommunication a dart and Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay t Cap. 19. pag. 185. calleth Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall sword and yet Excommunication and other Ecclesiasticall Censures are according to his owne doctrine effects of spirituall armour or weapons to wit of the Ecclesiasticall power which he calleth v Pag. 386. 387. in tract contra Barclai cap. 19. pag. â—88 the spirituall sword And if spirituall Censures or punishments may be called spirituall armour or weapons although they be an effect of the spirituall power or sword why may not I pray you temporall censures or punishments as are deposition and killing be called temporall weapons or armour although they be effects of the temporall power or sword If therefore I abuse words in calling temporall Censures or punishments temporall armour or weapons how can he excuse himselfe from abusing words in calling spirituall Censures or punishments spirituall armour or weapons 27 Secondly it is vsuall among Philosophers to nominate and describe a thing by the name of the cause whereupon they deuide a definition into a formall and causall definition or description as the Eclipse of the Moone is commonly described to be an interposition of the earth betwixt the body of they Sunne and of the Moone not for that the Eclipse of the Moone is formally that interposition for it is formally nothing else then a want of light in the Moone but for that it is caused by that interposition and Thunder according to the opinion of Empedocles and Anaxagoras is defined to be a quenching of fire inclosed in a cloude See Aristotle lib. 2. Meoteor sum 3. cap. 1. 2. but according to the doctrine of Aristotle a violent breaking out of a fiery exhalation inclosed in a cloud not for that Thunder is formally the aforesaid quenching or breaking forth for it is formally a sound or noice but for that this sound is caused from thence so likewise spirituall and temporall Censures may be called spirituall and temporall armour or weapons not for that formally they are so but for that they are effects caused from thence But lastly what man is so ignorant who knoweth not that the same thing may be both an effect and also a cause being considered diuers waies and so the same spirituall or temporall Censure and punishment as it proceedeth from the spirituall or temporall power which is rightly called the spirituall or temporall sword is an effect and not to be called a sword weapon or armour yet as it is a cause to bring great griefe to the person so punished or to redresse great euill it may well be called armour offensiue or defensiue yea and griefe it selfe may without abusing of words be called a sword according to that of the holy Scripture Luc. 2. And thy owne soule a sword shall pearce And thus you see how weakely and fraudulently this Doctour hath impugned my answere 28 Now to returne to Mr. Fitzherbert He forsooth bringeth an other reason but as insufficient as his former to proue that the Pastors of the Church haue authoritie to inflict temporall or corporall punishments vpon hereticall or schismaticall Princes if they shall contemne Ecclesiasticall Censures For otherwise how is that saith he x Num. 35. pag. 89. 2. Cor. 10. fulfilled which the Apostle said of the most ample power that he and other Apostles had to destroy Munitions Counsells and all Altitude or Lostinesse extolling it selfe against the knowledge of God yea and to reuenge or punish omnem inobedientiam all disobedience Which words S. Augustine August ad Bonifac Com. epist 50. vnderstandeth of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties and the same is also acknowledged by some of our principall Aduersaries namely Caluin Caluin vpon this place who not only expoundeth this place of the coercitiue and coactiue power that is in the Church but also groundeth the same vpon the words of our Sauiour to his Apostles Quicquid ligaueritis super terram Matth. 18. erit ligatum in caelis c. Whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen 29 Whereupon I inferre that if the Ecclesiasticall authoritie dâ—d not extend it selfe to the chasticement of disobedient Princes in their temporall states the Church should not haue the power whereof S. Paul speaketh that is to reuenge all disobedience seeing that the disobedience of absolute Princes to Ecclesiasticall Censures should be incorrigible and remedilesse Whereupon it would
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
vice that may be necessary or hurtfull to the spirituall good of soules may also be commaunded or forbidden by the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power as it is directiue And this is the reason why the spirituall power as it is directiue may be extended to temporall punishments that is may command or forbid temporall penalties or afflictions for that vertue and vice which are the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue may be found in them 69 So likewise the obiect of the ciuill power as it is directiue is the obtaining and conseruing of temporall peace and quietnesse in the temporall common-wealth and her acts are the commanding or forbidding of those things which are necessary or hurtfull to the publike peace which is the last end of the temporall power it selfe although it be not the last end of the temporall Christian Prince as I shewed aboue in the second part So that what thing soeuer be it spirituall or temporall that doth iniuriously disturbe the publike peace may be forbidden by the temporall power as it is directiue And this is the reason why the temporall power as it is directiue may be extended sometimes to spirituall actions not as they are spirituall but as they are reduced to temporall actions for that the iniurious disturbance of the publike temporall peace which is the obiect of the temporall power as it is dâ—rectiue may sometimes be found in them As the baptizing of one with poysoned water or the ministring of the B. Sacrament which is also poysoned as they are spirituall actions to wit the ministring of Sacraments which worke a spirituall effect are not subiect to the directiue power of the temporall Prince but as they worke a temporall effect which is iniurious to the temporal peace they are subiect to the temporall power as it is directiue And so a temporall Prince may forbid a spirituall Pastour who is subiect to him in temporalls to minister hic nunc the Sacrament of Baptisme whereby the party baptized shall be poysoned So also vniust Excommunications if they cause tumults and perturbations in the common-wealth or vnfit conuenticles by night with armour and weapons whereby probable danger of seditions or of other temporall wrongs may arise although these assemblies be made to preach the Gospell or instruct the people in the faith of Christ may be forbidden by the temporall power not as they are temporall actions but as they are temporall wrongs and truely iniurious to the publike temporall peace 70 And this doctrine is of it selfe so manifest and perspicuous that no man of any learning can deny it and to affirme that it is a doctrine altogether intollerable and which cannot be vttered but by one who is giuen to a reprobate sense for that it maketh the temporall Prince to bee Iudge of spirituall things and thereby maketh him truely the head of the Church as D. Schulckenius most rashly affirmeth y Pag. 7. 208. is an intollerable slaunder and which could not be vttered by any learned man vnlesse with some vehement passion of ire hee had beene altogether transported and his vnderstanding therewith had beene wholly blinded as I haue shewed more amply in the Discouery of his slaunders z In Appendice ad Supplicationem § 11. calumnia 11. For this doctrine doth not make the temporall Prince to be iudge of spirituall matters but of temporall nor to be the head of the Church that is of the mysticall body of Christ and his spirituall kingdome or of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall causes but onely of the politicke body and temporall common-wealth and of ciuill matters or which by reason of some true temporall wrong are reduced to ciuill matters 71 But the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power as it is coerciue compelling or punishing doth not consist in commaunding but in punishing and her proper act and obiect is the inflicting of spirituall Censures or punishments For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall kingdome so he hath giuen her correspondent weapons armour and punishments which she is to vse to wit Ecclesiasticall Censures as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and not ciuill punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. as I haue shewed before a Part. 1. per totum out of Almaine and many others both ancient Fathers and moderne Catholike Diuines and Lawyers which also is sufficiently grounded in the holy Scriptures And if hee will not heare the Church let him bee to thee as a Heathen and Publicane b Matth. 18 and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c Matth. 16 not of earthly kingdomes and the weapons of our warfare are not carnall d 2. Cor. 10. 72 So likewise the Ciuill power as it is coerciue doth not consist in commanding but in punishing and her proper act and obiect is the inflicting or vsing of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. Which S. Bernard f Lib. de considerat ad Eugenium called the drawing forth or vsing and exercising the materiall or temporall sword for although he affirmed the materiall or temporall sword to belong in some sort to the Church for that it was to be drawne forth or vsed for the Church but not by the Church yet he also affirmed that Christ our Sauiour did forbid spirituall Pastours to wit as they were such to draw forth or vse the materiall or temporall sword And therefore well said Petrus Damianus g In Epist ad Firnim that the kingdome and Priesthood are by their proper offices and functions so distinguished that the King should vse Secular weapons and the Priests be girded with the spirituall sword which in sense is all one with that saying of Gratian h 2. q. 7. cap. Nos si the Compiler of the Canon law called the Decree It belongeth to Kings to inflict corporall and to Priests to inflict spirituall punishments Now as the end both of the directiue and also of the coerciue power is temporall peace so the end both of the directiue or commanding and also of the coerciue or punishing spirituall power is the spirituall health of soules and euerlasting happinesse which as I haue shewed aboue in the second part is also the last end of euery Christian man to which spirituall Pastours by Ecclesiasticall lawes and spirituall Censures and Christian Princes by ciuill lawes and temporal punishments are by the law of Christ bound as much as lyeth in them to bring their Subiects 73 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue both the true meaning of those words of mine The spirituall Superiour may command corporall and temporall things as they serue spirituall and are reduced thereto but not inflict temporall punishments and also what Mr. Fitzherbert can rightly conclude from that assertion of his All temporall things and temporall punishments may bee referred to a spirituall ende to wit to Gods glory and the benefit of soules and
punishing power but also spirituall things by reason of some vnlawfull disturbance of the publike temporall peace annexed vnto them may sometimes take the nature of temporall things and therefore may be forbidden by the temporall power of the Ciuill common-wealth which hath for the obiect of her directiue power the procuring and maintaining of publike peace and the shunning of all vnlawfull disturbance of this temporall peace in what actions soeuer either temporall or spirituall they are to be found and consequently may be also punished if we abstract from the priueledges of Princes and Ecclesiasticall Canons with temporall punishments which only are the obiect of the temporall coerciue power For what sensible man can deny that temporall Princes haue authoritie if we regard the nature and obiects of temporall power to forbid all men whatsoeuer that are subiect to their directiue power as also according to the common doctrine of Diuines are Cleargie men not to disturbe wrongfully the publike temporall peace by any actions whatsoeuer and to punish all them that shall transgresse their iust command and are subiect to their coerciue power with temporall punishments and that when the temporall Prince forbiddeth all vnlawfull poysonings the vnlawfull poysoning of men by spirituall actions as by baptizing with poisoned water is not contained vnder this command 105 Secondly it is not true that granting once as I often doe that temporall things may take the nature of spirituall things by reason of sinne annexed it must follow thereon as Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth that the spirituall Superiour may punish in temporall things or which he taketh for all one may inflict temporall punishments and the perspicuous reason heereof I alledged before for although temporall punishments doe become spirituall things when the consideration of sinne entereth for which they may be subiect to the directiue power of the Church which hath for her obiect vertue or vice and consequently they may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power of the Church as it is directiue yet still they remaine temporall punishments which are only subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of temporall Princes and therefore cannot be vsed or inflicted by the coerciue or punishing power of the Church which hath for her obiect spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures and not temporall punishments Wherefore vnlesse the consideration of sinne can make which is impossible temporall punishments to be I doe not say spirituall things but spirituall punishments it can neuer make temporall punishments to be the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue although it maketh them to be the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue But my Aduersarie by not distinguishing these two powers and their proper acts and obiects would blind the vnderstanding of his vnlearned Reader with a confused reduction of temporall things to spirituall which this distinction of the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of either of them doth make most plaine and manifest 106 Also if temporall things saith Mr. Fitzherbert l Pag. 1. 8. nu 23. 24. may be come spirituall by reason of sinne annexed why shall they not also haue a spirituall nature and qualitie by the connexion of some vertue and specially when they are applied as I haue said before to a spirituall end as to the seruice and glory of God which is the end of all things spirituall and temporall to which purpose it may be obserued Rom. 12. that S. Paul exhorted the Romaines to exhibite their bodies hostiam viuentem sanctam Deo placentem c. a liuing sacrifice holy and pleasing God giuing to vnderstand that our bodies goods and what temporall thing soeuer is subiect to our soule being dedicated and applyed to Gods seruice and the good of the soule is sanctified therby and becommeth spirituall Whereupon it followeth that whensoeuer a spirituall Superiour punisheth his temporall subiects in their bodies or goods for satisfaction of their sinnes and for the seruice of God and the Church and the good of soules their corporall and temporall punishments becommeth spirituall by reason of the end and the vertue annexed and consequently is most lawfull and iust euen according to my Aduersarie Widdringtons owne doctrine 107 Whereto I also adde that whereas Widdrington saith that euerie Superiour may punish his subiects with penalties proportionate to his authoritie he must needes grant the same in this case for albeit temporall goods haue no naturall proportion with spirituall things yet they haue a morall proportion therewith because they are not able instruments of good workes â— Pet. 2. in which respect S. Peter calleth Almes and other good workes spirituales Hostias spirituall Sacrifices albeit they consist in the vse and imployment of temporall things and therefore when temporall things are necessarie to a spirituall end they may be disposed of by the Church as proportionate to the end whereto they are necessarie 108 No man maketh any doubt but that temporall things may become spirituall not only by reason of sinne but also of vertue annexed especially when they are applyed to a spirituall end as to the seruice and glory of God who is the end of all things spirituall and temporall and therefore when one doth punish his body by fasting discipline hairecloath or such like for the satisfaction of his sinnes and for the seruice of God although they be corporall punishments yet they are vertuous actions and in that regard spirituall things and consequently subiect to the spirituall power of the Church as it is directiue But from hence it doth not follow that these temporall punishments by reason of vertue annexed doe become spirituall punishments but only vertuous actions and in that regard spirituall things for still they remaine temporall punishments and therefore not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church as it is coerciue which hath for her obiect only the vsing and inflicting of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall not temporall or Ciuill punishments Wherefore a spirituall Superiour hath no authoritie by the institution of Christ to punish in body or goods for any end whatsoeuer by way of constraint his spirituall subiects whether they be Clearkes or Lay-men whom Mr. Fitzherbert improperly calleth his temporall Subiects for although they be temporall men yet comparing them to spirituall Superiours they are spirituall not temporall Subiects for that the obiect of the spirituall coerciue power are not temporall or corporall but only spirituall Censures or punishments although he may as I said command such corporall punishments when they are necessarie for the good of the soule in which case they become spirituall things to wit vertuous actions which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power But the cause of Mr. Fitzherberts errour is for that he doth not distinguish betwixt spirituall or temporall things and spirituall or temporall punishments and betwixt the acts and obiects of the spirituall directiue and of the spirituall coerciue power for although temporall punishments by reason of
to prooue that this law of the Emperour Frederike was no way preiuciall to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran but a notable confirmation thereof which is nothing at all against mee For I neuer intended to deny that this Constitution of Frederike was against the Canon of the saide Councell but I expresly affirmed that it was the same law and constitution containing the very same wordes with that of the Councell changing onely spirituall punishments into temporall and that therefore those wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-Lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in both Decrees haue though not equally yet proportionally the like restriction and limitation in both For that which I affirme is that this great and famous Councell of Lateran where almost all the Ambassadours of Christian Kings and Princes were present did represent as the Cardinall of Peron doth well obserue the whole Christian world or Common-wealth as well temporall as spirituall and was as it were a generall Parliament of all Christendome consisting both of temporall and spirituall authoritie of temporall Princes and spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted therein concerning spirituall matters as is the inflicting of spirituall Censures for what crime soeuer either spirituall or temporall did proceede meerely from the authoritie of spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted concerning temporall matters as is this decree whereof now we treate concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they bee inflicted did proceede meerely from the authoritie of Secular Princes who are the head and fountaine of all temporall authoritie and of all power to dispose of temporall matters for that as I haue prooued more at large in the first part of this Treatise by the testimonie of many learned Catholikes the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment but that when the Church or spirituall Pastours doe inflict such temporall punishments it proceedeth from the positiue grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes 38 And from this ground it euidently followeth that not onely in this Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the temporall punishing of heretikes their abetters but also in all other Canons of Popes or Councells when the inflicting of any tēporal punishmēt is ordained it is as probable that all the force which they haue to bind doth proceede originally frō the positiue grant consent and authoritie of temporal Princes as it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not by the institutiō of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporal or ciuill punishments and consequently that temporall Princes are not by any generall wordes included in such decrees as being themselues supreame and next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be punished with temporall punishments but by GOD alone Wherefore vnlesse my Aduersaries doe first prooue which in my iudgement they will neuer bee able to doe by some conuincing argument grounded vpon the authoritie either of the Holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleare definition of the Church that this doctrine which denyeth the Pope to haue by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments is absurd and not probable they spend their time in vaine and beate about the bush to little purpose whiles they bring neuer so many decrees and canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained for still the maine question remaineth yet a foote by what authoritie to wit temporall or spirituall those Canons for as much as concerneth the inflicting of such temporall punishments haue force to binde and the answere of Almaine and of many other Catholike Doctours will bee still readie at hand that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath onely authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and that the other punishments which hee vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law authoritie grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes and that therefore the lawes or Canons of spirituall Pastours enacting them cannot bind or comprehend temporall Princes themselues 39 And by this the Reader may cleerely see both the ground and reason from whence I deduced probably that absolute Princes are not included vnder any generall words whatsoeuer in penall lawes and canons of the Church wherein temporall penalties are inflicted for neither are they included as you shall see beneath in the next Chap. in penall lawes wherein spirituall punishments are inflicted vnder generall words or names which denote titles of inferiour degree place and dignitie as are Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis a temporall or principall Land-Lord Gouernour or also Lord and such like and also how weakely not to vse Mr. Fitzherberts foule word absurdly he prooueth that I shew my selfe to bee very absurd in perswading the Reader that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in the Canon and in the Emperours law haue like restriction though not equally yet proportionally in both For what can be more cleare saith he h p. 145. nu 15 then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince who maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended only to his owne subiects whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall tearmes do comprehend all Christian men as well absolute Princes as others because they are all subiect thereto yet the Lawes of temporall Princes being made in the like or in the same generall tearmes can comprehend none but their owne subiects and this being so what an absurd argument hath Widdrington made who because the words are all one in the Canon of the Councell and the Law of the Emperour will restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne Dominion 40 And therefore though the words Dominus temporalis or principalis or non habens Dominum principalem be generall in his Law yet they can bee vnderstood of none but such as being his subiects held their Lands or states of him or of some other in his Dominions in which respect Kings and other temporall Princes which held not of the Empire could not be comprehended therein though the same generall words in the Canon must needes comprehend as well all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes as other inferiour Lords because all of them being Domini temporales are subiect alike to the decrees of a generall Councell 41 True it is that nothing is more cleere then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of
from the Soueraigntie of absolute Princes for it little importeth to the substance of the matter whether the Pope may depose hereticall or wicked Princes by a power or dominion ouer temporals which must bee called temporall or by a power which must bee called spirituall so that he may depose them or whether the Pope bee superiour to absolute Princes in temporals directly or indirectly so that they must acknowledge themselues not to be absolute but subiect to the Pope in temporals But as I haue signified heeretofore all the difficultie and ambiguitie of these words directly and indirectly will presently appeare and the whole mist which the Diuines by this distinction doe cast ouer the eyes of the vnlearned wil foorthwith vanish away if we will but duly consider the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of either of them 62 For as in all arts sciences faculties and powers whatsoeuer is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of that art science facultie or power is directly subiect to that art science facultie or power so what thing soeuer whether it be temporall or spirituall is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of the directiue or coerciue power is directly subiect to that power Seeing therefore that the proper acts and formall obiects by which all powers are distinguished of the spirituall directiue or commanding power are the commanding of vertue and the forbidding of vice from hence it followeth that all actions whatsoeuer whether they be spirituall or temporall as they are vertuous or vicious actions and necessary or hurtfull to the spirituall and eternall good of soules are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power So that the reference or relation of temporall actions to the spirituall good of soules doth nothing hinder but rather is a cause that as they are vertuous or vicious actions they are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power 63 But if these Diuines will further say that the spirituall directiue power dominion or iurisdiction ouer temporall things is therefore said to be indirect for that it doth not command or forbid temporall things as they are temporall but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions no man maketh doubt of the matter or of the thing it selfe it being too too manifest to euery man of iudgement that temporall things are not subiect to the spirituall directiue power as they are temporall things but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions but the speech is not so proper and giueth occasion to the vnlearned to be confounded and deluded with a superfluous ambiguitie and multiplicitie of words For what Diuine or Phylosopher can deny that all those things whatsoeuer which doe truly participate the definition or nature of the formall obiect of any art science facultie or power by what meanes or consideration soeuer they doe participate the same are directly subiect to that art science facultie or power And in the same proportionate manner as these men say that the Pope hath an indirect temporall directiue power or authoritie ouer temporall things it may bee said that temporall Princes haue an indirect spirituall directiue power ouer spirituall things for that as the Pope doth forbid temporall things not as they are temporall but as they are spirituall and hurtfull to the good of soules so temporall Princes may forbid spirituall things as Heresie Schisme periurie ministring of Sacraments with a poysoned matter whereby danger of death doth ensue not as they are spirituall but as they are temporall wrongs and hurtfull to the publike peace in the Common-wealth which is the formall obiect of the temporall directiue power So that this distinction of directly and indirectly cannot bee well applied to the spiritual directiue power but that in the like proportionate manner it may be also applied to the temporall directiue power dominion and Iurisdiction 64 And as concerning the Ecclesiasticall coerciue power we must discourse in the same manner and likewise consider what are the proper acts and formall obiects of this power as it is coerciue or punishing for whatsoeuer doth participate the nature and definition of the acts and obiects of this power is directly subiect thereunto Now concerning this point there are two principall opinions among Catholikes The first opinion and which now adaies is the more common for the causes by mee heeretofore l Apol. nu 449 alledged is that the inflicting of all punishments whatsoeuer being referred to spirituall good are the acts and obiects of the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing But the Authours of this opinion albeit they all agree in this that whatsoeuer authoritie the Church hath by the institution of Christ call it spirituall or temporall is in order to spirituall good and is giuen her by Christ for the eternall saluation of soules for which end Christ also himselfe descended from heauen and tooke our flesh vpon him yet in this they differ that the Canonists that commonly follow this opinion measuring the nature of the powers by their acts and obiects and graunting as they doe that Christ hath giuen to his Church authoritie to inflict both temporall and spirituall punishments doe also affirme that the Church hath by the institution of Christ truely properly directly and formally both temporall and spirituall power But the Diuines commonly perceiuing the absurdity of this doctrine and that it confoundeth the acts and obiects of the temporall and spirituall power and subiecteth the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes who by the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers are accounted to bee supreme in temporalls and therein subiect to none but to God alone to the Popes temporall authoritie to giue the more probable colour as they thinke to this pretended authoritie of the Church to dispose of all temporals and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good and to make it seeme lesse odious to Christian Princes and subiects doe differ from the Canonists at lest wise in words and therefore they affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath no true proper direct and formall temporall authoritie but onely vertuall or in effect which they call but verie improperly in my opinion indirect as I haue shewed before as the power of God and of the Angels to worke corporall effects although it be truely and formally spirituall as God and the Angels are truely and formally spirituall substances yet eminently vertually and in effect is corporall for that by their spirituall power they can worke corporall effects So that the Canonists and these Diuines doe not differ in effect and these Diuines doe in effect no lesse derogate from the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes subiecting them in temporals who are supreme then the Canonists doe 65 The second principall opinion is of other m Apol. nu 4 seq and aboue in the first part of this Treatise learned
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
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