whosoeuer hath a flux of seede and is polluted vpon the dead as well man as woman cast ye out of the campe 20 So likewise it belongeth to the Priests of the new Law to declare what is the Law of Christ and to iudge what is heresie vsurie or any other crime forbidden by the law of Christ and to command temporall Princes to roote out hereticks vsurers and such like malefactors by the meanes of temporall punishments for all this doth not exceede the bounds of spirituall authoritie but it doth not belong to the Priests of the new law as they are Priests to giue sentence of death or to punish temporally heretikes vsurers or any other malefactours by inflicting temporall punishments but only to temporall Princes who haue in their hands and power the sword of life and death and who therefore as I obserued o Disputat Theolog. ca. 7. sec 2. nu 17. Bannes 2.2 q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine out of Bannes may pardon sometimes the punishment of death and punish heretikes in some other manner 21 And therefore to as little purpose also is that which Mr. Fitzherbert next adioyneth that God gaue also to the high Priest an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement in causes of doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters For I willingly grant that the high Priests of the old Testament had an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement at least wise for many yeares together in doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters which could not be determined by the law yea and a greater infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement then is now in the new law in doubts and controuersies of particular facts as whether they should ouercome in such a warre how such an inheritance of particular men was to be deuided c. Either because as well obserueth Abulensis Abulensis q. 3. in 17. Deut. in fine Abulensis q. i9 in cap. 22. lib. 1. Reg. in Defensor part â— cap. 41. the high Priest did iudge in the presence of some Prophet to whom the truth was reuealed by God or because they did know the secrets of things by the plaâ—es of the Priests vestement which was called the rationale wherein was contained doctrine and truth whereof we haue treated saith Abulensis Exod. 28. 22 Or thirdly as the same Abulensis obserueth when the high Priest consulted our Lord about any thing by entering into the Sanctuary in the day of Expiation which happened but once a yeere for on that day the Priest did speake vnto our Lord within the Sanctuary and did heare him speake in the Propitiatory as hath beene declared Leuit. 16. For therefore it was commanded that at what time the high Priest did enter into the Sanctuary no man should be in the Tabernacle to wit least he should heare those things which were spoken in the Sanctuary Thus Abulensis none of which wayes to finde out the truth infallibly in any doubtfull matter is ordinarily granted to the Priests of the new Law Neuerthelesse it can not from hence bee sufficiently concluded that the high Priests of the old Law had a soueraigntie of temporall authoritie or in temporall things but onely in spirituall for that as well obserueth the saide Abulensis p Q. 23. in cap. 11. Num. to instruct in the questions of the Law and to consult almighty God was a spirituall thing 23 But that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth that the Leuites and Priests were separated wholly from temporall and ciuill state in such sort that they had no dependance thereon is very vntrue and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth the contrarie to bee probable q Supra nu 6. For as I aboue obserued out of S. Bonauenture S. Thomas Abulensis and many other learned Diuines in the Olde Testament the Priesthood was subiect to the Kingdome and Priests were directly subiect to the King as Laymen were to wit in temporalls as it appeareth saith Abulensis Num. 17. where God said that Eleezar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue who was a Secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim yea and in the time of Moses Aaron who was the high Priest was in temporalls subiect to Moses and for that cause called him his Lord Exod. 32. although in spiritualls Aaron was greater then Moses Q. 10. in 9. Leuit. Moses saith Abulensis expounding those words of Leuit. 9. and Aaron stretching forth his handes to the people hee blessed them was in temporalls greater then Aaron because hee iudged the whole people as it is contained Exod. 18. Chap. and he commanded the people those things which they ought to doe But in spiritualls Aaron was simply greater then Moses For Aaron was the high Priest but Moses one of the simple Leuites Also because Aaron had directly a right to minister but Moyses had onely this for want of Priests but this hee had not by any order or ordination And if thou say that Moses was greater then Aaron because hee commanded him to doe these sacrifices and whatsoeuer he did I answere saith Abulensis that it is not inferred from this because Moyses did not therefore commaund these things as hauing authoritie to commaund by some Prelacie or Order but because hee was the messenger of God relating those things which God had commaunded whereupon it is not properly saide that Moyses did commaund but that hee did declare the things to be done 24 But if thou yet obiect that Moyses was greater then Aaron because Moyses did consecrate Aaron It is answered saith Abulensis that it is not deduced from this for therefore Moyses did consecrate Aaron because there was no high Priest that could consecrate him nor also then any inferiour Priests for that as well the high Priest as the inferiour Priests were consecrated and yet neuerthelesse this consequence is not of force this man doth consecrate that man therefore hee is greater then hee For the Pope is consecrated by a Cardinall Bishop of Hostia who is inferiour to the Pope and after his consecration the Pope doth command him that consecrated him So also it happened among the high Priests in the Olde Testament For except the consecration of Aaron which was done by Moyses who was no Priest to wit by ordination but onely by the speciall priuiledge of God as the same Abulensis declareth q. 7. in cap. 17. Exodi and except the consecration of Eleazar which was done without any ceremonies as we shewed at large Exod. 19. all the later consecrations of the high Priests were done by inferiour Priests therefore Moyses was not greater for that he consecrated Aaron but Aaron was greater and because as the Apostle writeth Hebr. cap. 7. alwaies the lesser is blessed by the greater it was fit that the blessing ouer the people should bee done by Aaron Thus Abulensis See him also q. 2. in cap. 2. Num. 25 Now Mr. Fitzherberts next argument is as insufficient as the former I added further
ridiculous and vnbeseeming a man but meanely learned 7 The second argument which M. Fitzherbert maketh is taken from the example of Queene Athalia Also in the kingdome of Iuda saith he c P. 77. nu 15. 4 Reg. 11. the wicked Queene Athalia ws deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and Ioas set vp in her place But now our Aduersaries to answere this example fo Athalia doe say c. But before I come to examine what M. Fitzherbert obiecteth and answereth concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to set downe what I answered to the said example in my Apologie f Apol. nu 364 seq and Theologicall Disputation g Disp Theolâ— in Admon nu 6. and what Doctor Schulckenius of whom M. Fitzherbert hath beene bould to borrow his answeres without acknowledging so much hath replyed to the same Thus therefore Card. Bellarmine argued from this example h L. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. 8 The second example saith he is 2. Paralip 23. Where when Athalia had tyrannically vsurped the kingdome and did maintaine the worship of Baal Ioiada the high Priest called the Centurions and souldiers and commanded them to kill Athalia which also they did and for her he created Ioas King For that the high Priest did not counsaile but command it is apparant by those word 4. Reg. 11. And the Centurions did according to all things that Ioaida the Priest had commanded them Also by those words 2. Paralip 23. And Ioiada the high Priest going forth to the Centurions and captaines of the armie said to them Bring her Queene Athalia forth without the precinct of the temple and let her be killed with the sword without And that the cause of this deposition and killing of Athalia was not only her tyrannie but also for that she did maintaine the worship of Baal it is manifest by those words which are set downe immediately after her killing Therefore all the people saith the Scripture entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it and they brake his altars and his images * Simulachra Mathan also the Priest of Baal they slew before the Altars 9 To this example I answered first that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine were of any force as in very deede it is not it would also demonstrate that the Pope hath power to depriue Soueraigne Princes both for heresie Idolatrie and also tyrannie not only of their dominions but also of their liues which although I haue before i Num 43. seq num 329. euidently deduced to follow manifestly from his doctrine yet he now bringing this example of Athalia who by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest was deposed and also slaine for proofe of his opinion doth cleerely insinuate the same That this is clearely deduced from his doctrine I proued principally by this argument for that according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine the Pope is the supreme Prince of all Christians yea and of Soueraigne Princes not only in spiritualls but also in temporalls in order to spirituall good and that in order to the same spirituall good he hath a most ample power in temporalls and so great that greater there cannot be and consequently he hath as great and ample authoritie ouer temporall Princes in temporalls in order to the same spirituall good as temporall Princes haue in temporalls ouer their subiects in order to temporall good but temporall Princes haue in order to the common temporall good not only authoritie to depriue them of their liues but also if the crime be publike and notorious or if the knowne and manifest perturbers of the common temporall good be so potent that they cannot without danger of rebellion and great manslaughter be apprehended the Prince may without citation defence or processe condemne them in their absence and without their priuitie as there I proued out of Nauarre k Nauar. in Manual cap. 25. num 10. and Sayrus l Sayrus lib. 7. Thesauri cap. â—1 num 11. and also he may giue leaue to priuate men to kill such notorious malefactors by poyson or in any other publike or secret manner therefore the Pope may in order to spirituall good proceed in the same manner with temporall Princes who in order to spirituall good are according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine subiect to the Pope in all temporalls 10 Which doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and others of his Societie whose bookes haue beene therefore condemned and some of them burned by a publike decree of the Parliament of Paris how dangerous and preiudiciall it is not only to the supreme authoritie of absolute Princes who in temporalls are supreme and subiect to none but God alone by whom only with temporall punishments they can be punished as I haue proued in other places by the common consent of all the holy Fathers and ancient Diuines but also to their persons and liues I haue insinuated else where and leaue it to the consideration of any iudicious man especially considering that Popes are also now temporall Princes and subiect to humane infirmities as other men are who with the passions of ire enuie couetousnesse and desire to augment and enlarge their temporall States and Dominions may not only be moued but vnder pretence also of aduancing or defending the common spirituall good may be sometimes ouercome and moreouer that according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine it belongeth to the Pope to iudge what hindereth hurteth or aduanceth the spirituall good neither must his iudgement or sentence be contradicted by any man as it is declared in can Patet and can Aliorum 9. q. 3. 11 Now you shall see D. Schulcke in Apolog. ad num 363. pag. 556. in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius would shift of this argument And first heere he remitteth himselfe to the numbers 43. and 329. before cited where he saith that he hath cleerely answered the argument but how cleerely or rather obscurely he hath answered the same you shall presently perceiue For as touching the principall argument which I did set downe at large in the 43. number and seq and haue briefely signified the same aboue first he concealeth the whole proofe of my consequence for sixe entire numbers together and he only answereth thus I answere saith he m Pag. 144. that so prolixe a discourse is needlesse for there is none but seeth to what all this doth tend neither is it a hard matter to solue the arguments let them passe as not making to the purpose For I haue aboue not once only commended that not able sentence of Pope Leo the great and receiued by the Church in vse and practise Ecclesiastica lenitas refugit cruentas vltiones Ecclesiasticall Lenitie doth shunne bloody reuengings or punishments And afterwards he maketh a long discourse that no Pope hath ouer commanded the killing of Princes or caused them to be slaine by priuie murtherers and that Princes neede not to feare that any Pope will
it is denied in this oath but supposeth it as being graunted or knowen of it selfe 13 Whereby it is apparant that I am free from all fraude in this point and that my Aduersarie cannot bee excused from fraudulent proceeding both for wrongfully accusing mee of fraude and also for taking vpon him in the beginning of his Discourse to impugne the oath as being repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for that it containeth a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate and to depose Princes and yet not bringing any one argument to prooue that his power to excommunicate is denyed therein but supposing it as knowne or granted and cunningly passing ouer to his power to depose which considering It hath euer beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor f Tom. 2. l. 11. cap. 5. q. 8. betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one part and the Bishops of Rome on the other and the Schoolemen saith Trithemius g In Chronico Monast Hirsaug ad annum 1106. doe contend about the same it is no hard matter for a man of meane Theologicall learning to scrape together as Mr. Fitzherbert hath done out of so many Authors who haue written in fauour of the Popes power to depose Princes some colourable arguments to prooue the same all which neuerthelesse haue beene heeretofore by mee and others very cleerely answered 14 Considering therefore that neither his Maiestie did intend to deny in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate him although the lower house of Parliament as his Maiesty himselfe affirmeth h In his Premonition p. 9. at the first framing thereof made it to containe as much which hee forced them to reforme neither is there any one clause in the oath from which it may bee gathered that the saide power to excommunicate is denied therein neither did my Aduersary bring any one argument or shew of an argument to prooue the same although in the very beginning of his Discourse hee promiseth to prooue that the oath in respect of this clause is repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine for this cause I vsed these words which now my Aduersary carpeth at That it is a wonder that learned men do not blush to affirme with so great confidence that to be his Maiesties meaning which hee himselfe in publike writings doth expresly professe not to be his meaning and to inculcate so often and so coldly without any solide proofe that very argument concerning the deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate which both by his Maiestie and many others hath beene so often very soundly confuted 15 Now Mr. Fitzherbert taketh great exceptions against these wordes and groundeth vpon them his third accusation that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike Whereto I answere first saith hee i Nu. 14. concerning his vaine bragge of the sound confutation of our argument that seeing the same hath no other ground or proofe heere but his owne word and idle affirmation it deserueth no other answere for this place but a flat deniall But I might likewise returne his owne answere of his vaine brag and idle affirmation to those words of his k Nu. 10. 11. 12. That the oath implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacy and that hee and others haue amply prooued that whosoeuer abiureth the Popes power to depose Princes doth consequently abiure his spirituall authoritie yet I will abstaine from such bitter termes and whether it bee a vaine bragge of my owne and an idle affirmation or rather a very true assertion that their argument concerning the deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate whereof in that place I did onely speake hath beene sufficiently confuted or no the Reader by my answeres may easily perceiue 16 For Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Lessius Gretzer and this my Aduersary doe affirme the oath to be vnlawfull and to deny the Popes spirituall authoritie for that it denieth his power to excommunicate which all Catholikes graunt to bee included in his spirituall Primacy That his power to excommunicate is denied in this oath Fa. Gretzer and my Aduersarie doe suppose as manifest neither doe they bring any one argument for the proofe thereof and therefore their assertion or rather supposition may with a meere deniall bee as easily confuted Cardinall Bellarmine also at the first did barely without any proofe but onely by the way of an interrogation affirme or rather suppose the same And being taxed by his Maiestie of falshood for affirming so boldly That the Popes power to excommunicate are hereticall Kings is plainly denied in the oath seeing that this point converning the Popes power to excommunicate was in this oath purposely declined by his Maiesty yet Cardinall Bellarmine afterwards in his Apologie l Cap. 15. bringeth no other proofe for cleering himselfe of that imputation then which in effect hee had brought before 17 That I did truely affirme saith he that the Popes power to excommunicate euen hereticall Kings is denied in that forme of oath it is manifest by those wordes of the oath Also I doe sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of Excommunication or depriuation made or granted or to bee made or granted by the Pope or his Successours c. I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie his Heires and Successours But whosoeuer sweareth that he will obey an hereticall King notwithstanding the Popes excommunication doth not hee together sweare that he acknowledgeth not in the Pope power to excommunicate hereticall Kings for otherwise it were not an oath but sacriledge to sweare that hee will not obey the sentence of Excommunication made by the Pope against an hereticall King if he should beleeue that the Pope hath power to excommunicate hereticall Kings 18 To this argument I gaue two answeres m In Disput Theol. cap. 4. sect 1. The first was that a Catholike man either terrified with feare or mooued for hope of gaine may sweare that he will not obey a iust Excommunication and by so swearing commit sacriledge who neuerthelesse doth beleeue that the Pope hath power to excommunicate And therefore from those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. I will beare true allegiance to his Maiestie c. or to speake more plainly from these words notwithstanding aiust Excommunication I will not obey it it cannot bee rightly inferred that I therefore deny the Popes power to excommunicate But whosoeuer sweareth in that manner saith Cardinall Bellarmine either denyeth the power to excommunicate or committeth sacriledge Be it so But if this second were freely granted him this neuerthelesse being granted I cannot in any wise perceiue that to bee true which hee before did absolutely and without any disiunction affirme In this branch of the oath the Popes power to excommunicate hereticall Kings is plainly denied 19 My second and principall answere was the very same in effect which his Maiestie before had giuen to wit that by swearing the foresayde
oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is helde both by himselfe and other Protestants to be no way subiect to the Pope yea and to be himselfe supreme head of the Church of God in England and also by the first of these two reasons which he bringeth heere in his Reply why he suppoposed that the oath implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacy 29 And as for my supposition saith he Å¿ Nu. 10. that the Oath implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacy he should haue said of the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince for this was his supposition as I cleerely shewed before Thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that I was mooued thereto by two reasons which are manifest enough in the very place which Widdrington citeth The one was because it is euident that the faith and beliefe of all English Protestants is that the Kings Maiestie is no way subiect to the Pope but that hee is himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England Whereupon it may with great reason bee inferred that the deniall of the Popes power to depose his Maiestie which is expresly contained in the oath is supposed and implied therein as a necessary consequent of their beliefe who ordained it 30 For it is great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof for it is to bee presumed that euerie one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion as euery Artisan worketh according to the grounds and principles of his Art And therefore as the positions assertions and decrees of knowne and professed Catholikes are to bee interpreted according to the grounds of the Catholike faith so also the positions of all Sectaries whatsoeuer are to be vnderstood according to the different doctrines of their Sects In so much that if a Catholike and a Protestant should affirme both of them one thing which might be controuersed in respect of Religion the sense and meaning of either of them is to be interpreted according to their different Religions and their different grounds and sense thereof And vpon this consideration I made no doubt to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacie for that not onely his Maiestie but also all they of the Parliament which decreed it doe holde and beleeue that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because hee hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie 31 My other reason was the same that I touched before concerning the necessary deduction of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy for albeit the Supremacy of the Pope be not expresly abiured or denied by this oath yet it is denied couertly by a necessary consequent because his authoritie to depose Princes which is necessarily deduced from the supreame power that Christ gaue him is denied thereby as in like case if wee should deny that his Maiestie hath any lawfull power to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie all Protestants would say that we deny not onely his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy but also his temporall and Kingly authoritie because the power to suspend and depriue Bishops within his Realme is included therein and necessarily deduced from it in the opinion of all Protestants And in like manner we say with much more reason that whosoeuer abiureth the Popes power to depose Princes hee doth consequently abiure his spirituall authoritie because the former is included in the later and doth necessarily follow of it as it hath beene amply prooued by diuers and namely by me in my Supplement t Chap. 5.6 7 whereof I shall haue further occasion to lay downe the particulars heereafter Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 32 But first of all good Reader I wish thee to consider how cunningly this my Aduersary concealeth the first part of his supposition concerning the denyall of the Popes power to excommunicate whereof onely I vnderstood those words whereon hee groundeth his third accusation In the beginning of his Discourse he supposed as you haue seene that the Popes spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath for that his power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed therein And because his Maiesty had in expresse words publikely affirmed that his intention was not to denie in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate answering also the argument which Cardinall Bellarmine out of those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. brought to prooue the contrarie and because my Aduersarie did also without any proofe at all suppose as Fa. Gretzer had done before him that the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed therein for this cause I vsed those words that truely it is a wonder that learned men doe not blush c. which my Aduersary a little before carped at Now forsooth he pretending to yeeld a reason of his supposition yet yeeldeth none at all concerning this parte thereof touching the Popes power to excommunicate for which onely I vsed the aforesaid words and which if he could sufficiently prooue to be denyed in this oath all Catholikes would forthwith graunt him that the oath containeth a denyall of the Popes spirituall Supremacie which includeth as a generall the particular authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures but he cunningly passeth ouer to the Popes power to depose Princes which no man doubteth but is denyed in this oath yeeldeth two reasons such ones as they be why he supposed the oath to containe a denyall of the Popes Supremacy for that the Popes power to depose Princes is denied therein 33 His second reason for thereof I will speake in the first place which he tooke from the contents of the oath is the same which hee touched before concerning the necessarie deduction according to his beliefe and doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie But his beliefe and doctrine herein as also I touched before is not Catholike but a particular beliefe or rather opinion of himselfe and some other and not generall of all Catholikes for that many learned Catholikes as I shewed before are of opinion that Christ hath not giuen to S. Peter or to the Church authoritie to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment but onely Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And therefore there is a great disparitie in the similitude which my Aduersarie bringeth betwixt his Maiesties authoritie to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie in the opinion of Protestants and the Popes power to depose Princes in the opinion of Catholikes for that al Protestants do beleeue that his Maiesties power to suspend or depriue an Arch-bishop taking suspension in that sense wherein the Protestants doe hold that his Maiestie hath power to suspend
very first so fraudulent friuolous and contrarie to his owne profession as you haue heard in this Chapter Thus you see with what bitternesse Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth his first Chapter 43 But if hee had beene pleased to haue dealt vprightly and as hee hath in a most spitefull manner vrged against me this obiection which is taken from his Holinesse Breues so also he had set downe the answere which in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation I gaue thereunto the Reader would presently haue perceiued that my Aduersarie hath passed the bounds of Christian charitie and iustice in wrongfully accusing me of impudencie impietie and disobedience to the Apostolicall decree of S. Peters Successour whose obedient child I did there and also I doe heere professe my selfe to be and am readie to obey in all those things wherein according to the grounds of Catholike Religion hee hath authoritie to command Neither can my Aduersarie without blushing affirme either that the Popes Holinesse albeit hee bee Saint Peters Successour cannot erre in his particular commands and decrees which are not propounded to the whole Church but to particular Churches or Kingdomes or that any Catholike is bound to obey him in those things wherein according to the doctrine of learned and vertuous Catholikes hee hath no authoritie to command 44 First therefore I shewed in that place out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez that there are two sorts of humane precepts as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill The one is called a constitutiue precept which of it selfe maketh that thing which it forbiddeth to bee vnlawfull which otherwise if that precept were not would not bee vnlawfull as the eating of flesh in Lent and the doing of seruile workes vpon Sundaies and Holidayes which if they were not forbidden by humane lawes would not be vnlawfull And although a constitutiue precept of humane power may sometimes binde with danger of some great temporall losse as of goods libertie yea also of life yet the Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall and contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doe seldome or neuer binde with very great temporall harme and therefore wee are not bound to abstaine from flesh in Lent or from doing seruile workes vpon Sundaies and holidaies when we are like to incurre thereby any probable danger of some great temporall hurt 45 The other is called a declaratiue precept which doth not of it selfe make but suppose and declare the thing which it forbiddeth to be vnlawfull as being before prohibited by some other former law as theft murder drunkennesse and such like which are otherwise forbidden by the law of God and nature And this kind of precept as well obserueth Suarex dependeth onely vpon the reason for which the act is commanded or forbidden or which is all one vpon the precedent law from whence all the obligation of the declaratiue precept doth proceed Insomuch that if the reason be not true and that there is no such precedent law or obligation as the declaratiue precept affirmeth to be the declaratiue precept hath no force to binde at all and with the same certaintie or probabilitie we are bound or not bound to obey a declaratiue precept as it is certaine or probable that there is or is not any other former bond and obligation 46 As for example his Holinesse doth by his Breues forbidde all English Catholikes to take the new oath of allegiance for that therein are contained many things which are cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation If therefore it be certaine or probable that nothing is contained in this oath which is repugnant to faith or saluation it is also certaine or probable that this declaratiue precept of his Holinesse which is grounded vpon this reason that something is contained therein contrary to faith and saluation is according to the doctrine of Suarez of no force to bind neither are English Catholikes by vertue of this declaratiue prohibition bound to refuse the said oath 47 Secondly I also shewed in that place that this declaratiue command of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation is such a declaratiue precept which is not grounded vpon any infallible reason or definition of the Church but onely vpon his opinatiue iudgement that his reason is true and that either his power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes which is denyed in the oath is a cleere point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall Supremacie and consequently the denyall thereof is plainly repugnant to Catholike faith Which being so it is manifest that wee are no further bound to obey this declaratiue prohibition of his Holinesse then we are bound to follow his opinion and to belieue that eyther his power to excommunicate or some such like is denyed in the oath or that whosoeuer denyeth his power to depose Princes denyeth the Catholike faith 48 Whereupon I concluded that considering neither his power to excommunicate or any such like is denyed in this oath as I haue prooued at large against Card. Bellarmine and others nor that his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith the contrary doctrine being probable and also maintained by many learned Catholikes as partly also I haue already prooued by the testimonie of learned Catholikes before alledged and heere beneath by answering all my Aduersaries obiections I will make it more manifest Part. 1. per. tâ—tum there can bee made no doubt but that any English Catholike may with a safe conscience or without any crime of disobedience to his supreme spirituall Pastour or any preiudice to Catholike faith refuse to obey his Holinesse declaratiue command which is onely grounded vpon such an opinion which considering the contrary is probable and defended by many learned Catholikes may without any note of impudencie impiety or disobedience be reiected by Catholikes 49 Thirdly I also affirmed in that place that no Catholike doth onely for this cause take the oath or thinke it to be lawfull because the Kings Maiestie being of a contrarie Religion doth command it or thinke it to be lawfull as though those Catholikes who take the oath doe it onely vpon the Kings bare word affirming the oath to be lawfull and seeme thereby to preferre the opinion of a Protestant Prince in things which in some sort doe belong to Religion before the opinion of our supreme spirituall Pastour but because the Kings Maiestie being our lawfull Prince and Soueraigne Lord in temporals what religion soeuer hee professeth hath established an oath of allegiance to make a triall how his Catholike subiects stand affected towards him in point of their loyaltie and due obedience and commanded all Catholikes to take the same which oath learned Catholikes for probable reasons doe thinke to be truely in oath of temporall allegiance and to
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
willingly graunt that it may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests had power to command or enioyne bodily penances to their penitents as fasting prayer lying vpon sackcloth and ashes yea and giuing of almes in satisfaction of their sinnes as the building of Churches Colledges Hospitals or Religious Houses according to the greatnesse of their offence and the qualitie condition and abilitie of the penitent or to vse the tearme of Diuines claâ—e non errante the key not erring For if such penances should be enioyned without discretion and due regard of the greatnesse of the offence or of the state and condition of the penitent the key should erre and would not haue force to bind Secondly I doe also graunt that there is an order and subordination in worth and dignitie betwixt spirituall corporall and temporall goods or of the soule of the body and of fortune and that according to the light of nature the goods of the soule being most worthy are to be preferred and esteemed before the other two and that the goods of the body bodily life health libertie and such like bodily contentments are to be preferred before the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states and that all of them are with due order to be referred to the seruice and glorie of God and to the eternall saluation both of body and soule But what followeth from all this 33 Whereupon I inferre saith my Aduersarie r pag. 33. nu 5.6 according to the axiome of the law accessorium sequitur principale that seeing not onely the body but also temporall goode and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof a must needs follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glorie of God for the which 〈…〉 bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained And this me thinkes our aduersaries should not deny seeing that their Ecclesiasticall discipline admitteth not onely corporall chastisements by imprisonment but also pecuniaris mulcto and penalties Therefore vpon this I inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke and consequently to be fedde and gouerned by the supreme Pastour of the Church may also be chastised by him in their temporall states when it shall be necessarie for the glorie and seruice of God the benefite of soules and good of the whole Church whereto all Christian Kingdomes Isa 60. and Empyres are subordinate and subiect as I haue prooued before out of the holy Scripture and will prooue also after a while by the very law of nature and light of reason 34 But first touching the consequent or conclusion of his inference or argument to wit that the Pope hauing power ouer the soule hath power also ouer the body and goods when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and glory of God I doe willingly graunt the same if it be vnderstoode of a power not to dispose of corporall and temporall goods but to command and enioyne them in order to spirituall good albeit my Aduersarie did vnderstand it of both as I shewed before But as concerning the consequence inference or argument which hee draweth from that rule of the law De Regulis Iuris in 6. regula 42. The accessorie followeth the principall or as it is in the Canon law Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis It is fit or conuenient that the accessorie follow the nature of the principall which rule as the Glosse there affirmeth is taken from that rule of the Ciuill law ff de Regulis Iuris regula 138. Cum principalis causa c. When the principall cause is not consisting for the most part neither those things that follow haue place there can be no conuincing or demonstratiue argument as all my Aduersaries arguments must be if hee will prooue by them that the oath cannot with a safe and probable conscience be taken by any Catholike and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith be drawen from that generall rule of the law which hath so many exceptions restrictions and limitations and which are not as yet made sufficiently knowen by the Lawiers as neither what is vniuersally meant by Accessorie and what by Principall and what is to follow the nature of the principall 35 And therefore not without cause doth the rule of the Ciuill law from which this rule of the Canon law is taken adioyne that word plaerunque for the most part and the rule it selfe of the Canon law doth not absolutely say that the Accessorie must follow or doth follow the nature of the principall but it is fit or conuenient that the accessorie doe follow the nature of the principall to signifie that it doth not alwaies and of necessitie but for the most part and of congruitie follow the principall and that Iudges ought for the most part follow this rule in their iudgements if they haue no speciall reasoned meaning 〈…〉 to the contraries And therefore as the marginall Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doth well obserue Å¿ Leg. Et si is quem Cod. de praedijs alijs c. The accessorie doth not follow his principall when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall 36 Secondly therefore I would gladly know of my Aduersarie whether he will haue this rule to be grounded onely in humane law and hath it force and strength onely from thence so that if the Ciuill or Canon law had not made and ordained that rule it would not be of force and validitie or else it is grounded also in the law of God or nature If he graunt the first as commonly the Lawiers doe and therefore some things which seeme of their owne nature to be accessorie as a saddle and bridle are to a horse are not accessorie according to humane law and therefore he that selleth a horse doth not consequently sell the bridle and faddle and somethings which are not accessorie of their owne nature as a dowrie is not necessarily annexed to marriage are made accessorie according to humane lawe and therefore he that marrieth a woman with the consent of her parents hath right to a dowrie and the parents are bound by the Ciuill Law to giue a dowrie if they be able wherefore the Glosse vpon the aforesaid rule of the Ciuill law doth obserue that the word plaerunque for the most part was purposely added to that rule of the law for that sometimes that rule doth faile to which purpose he alledgeth many texts of the Ciuill law If my Aduersarie I say will graunt the first he can not but easily perceiue that there can no forcible argument be drawne from the
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
power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally in order to spirituall good it is sufficient to answere in generall that the contrarie doctrine to wit that in the old law the temporall power and not the spirituall was supreme and that the spirituall power was subiect to the temporall is maintained by many famous and most learned Catholike Diuines S. Bonauentura lib. 2. de Eccles hierarch cap. 1. in 4. dist 24. in litera S. Thom. lib. 1. de Regim Prin. cap. 14. whose opinion in this point Mr. Fitzherbert dare not presume to condemne as temeratious and improbable albeit my answere which is agreeable to their doctrine he sticketh not to call improbable For so teacheth S. Bonauenture a man otherwise addicted to the Popes temporall Monarchie In the old Testament saith he the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and therefore Kings then had power to remooue the high Priests from their office as Salomon remooued Abiathar The same teacheth S. Thomas or whosoeuer is the Author of that booke de regimine Principum Whereupon Card. Bellarmine himselfe writeth thus It is not improbable Bell. l. i. c. 14. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcla that in the olde Testament the King was absolutely greater then the high Priest both for that so teacheth S. Thomas in his first booke de Regimine Principum cap. 14. and also for that in the old Testament the promises were temporall and the sacrifices carnall 6 The same also doe teach Alphonsus Tostatus Abulensis Card. Bellar. de Script Eccles pag. 410. d q. 28 in c. 2. l. 3. Regum q. 48. c. 27. num a man most renowmed saith Card. Bellarmine for holinesse and learning Ioannes de Turrecremata e In sum de Eccles l. 2. c. 96. ad 4 c. obedientiam dest 93. q. 2. ad 2 Franciscus Victoria f Relect. 1. de potest Eccles cited by Corduba Sal s. Antonius Corduba g l. 4 quaest q. 5 ar 2 ss ad Vlti Ioannes Salas h q 95. de leg sec 21. and Burgensis i In Addit lid Nic. de Lyra in 1. Pet. cap. 2. all of them most famous Diuines You must also know saith Abulensis that Salomon had power to kill Abiathar although he was the High Priest for that in the old Testament the Ecclesiastical power was not distinct from the Secular power to wit in punishments for great crimes but Priests were directly subiects to the King as Lay men Also there was not a distinction of punishments for Priests and Lay men but in enormious crimes the sentence of death was common to all and because Abiathar had committed treason hee was to be put to death vnlesse Salomon would pardon him And that Priests were subiect to Lay men it appeareth Numer 27. where God said that Eleazar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue as it hath beene more declared Iosue 3. but Iosue was a secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim Thus Abuâ—ensis 7 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue how ignorantly my vnlearned Aduersarie taxeth my answere of improbabiâ—itie and impertinencie which neuerthelesse is most conformeable to the doctrine of so many famous and learned Catholike Diuines and which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe holdeth for not improbable and how vainely hee braggeth that hee will make it manifest euen by the law of Moyses that the spirituall power was then the supreame power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally whereas so many famous and learned Diuines whose doctrine this ignorant man feareth not to call improbable doe resolutely hold that in the olde Testament the high Priests were subiect to Kings and that the temporall power was superiour to the spirituall and might remooue the high Priests from their office and punish them temporally if they should deserue it 8 But let vs examine in particular the manifest proofes which this man deduceth from the Law of God in the old Testament His first and principall proofe is taken from that which is written in the 17. chapter of Deuteronomie This appeareth saith he k Pag. 70. nu 3.4.5 by the law set downe in Deuteronomie wherein it is ordained expressely that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes should be in the hands of the high Priest The words of the law are these Si defficile ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubfull betweene bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie and not leprosie and thou seest that the words of the Iudges within the gates doe varie arise and goe vp to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come vp to the Priests of the Leuitical stock to the Iudges that shall be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall shew thee the truth of the iudgement and thou shalt do whatsoeuer they that are Presidents of the place which our Lord shall choose shal say and teach thee according to his Law and thou shalt follow their sentence neither shalt thou decline to the right nor to the left but he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away the euill out of Israel and the whole people shall feare that none after swell with pride 9 These are the words of the Law of God in Deuteronomie wherein it is to be noted that albeit there be here mention made of the Iudge to be consulted together with the Priests which some of the Aduersaries take to be a temporall Iudge though he may very well be vnderstood to bee the high Priest who was supreme Iudge in the Councell of Priests neuerthelesse I say that albeit he were a temporall Iudge yet it is euident that the finall decision of the doubts and controuersies in that Consistorie and consequently the supreme authoritie resided in the high Priest seeing that the said Iudge if he were a different person was no other then Minister either to see the high Priests commandement executed or to ordaine and decree the punishment of those who should disobey him it being ordained in the Law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest should die by the decree of the Iudge So that it belonged to the high Priest absolutely to command and to the Iudge to giue sentence of death against the transgressors of his commandement besides that c. 10 But first obserue good Reader the corrupt proceeding of this man who to prooue his purpose doth falsely and otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition alledge the words of holy Scripture
For although the Councell of Trent hath denounced anathema l Sess 4. against all them who shall not receiue for sacred and canonicall the entire bookes of holy Scripture with all their parts as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholike Church and are extant in the ancient vulgate Latine edition and hath ordained and declared that this ancient and vulgate Edition which by long custome of so many ages hath beene approoued in the Church shall be receiued for Canonicall in publike lessons disputations sermons and expositions and that no man shall dare or presume to reiect it vnder any pretence for which cause the said Councell hath moreouer ordained that heereafter the holy Scripture and especially this ancient and vulgar Edition shall bee printed very correctly which Decree of the Councell Pope Sixtus the fifth vndertooke to execute printing that vulgate Edition in the Vaticane and by a speciall Bull prefixed to the beginning thereof commanded that all men should take that and none other for holy Scripture which Edition because sundry errours were found therein Pope Clement the eight printed more correctly Neuerthelesse Mr. Fitzherbert is not afraide to cite contrary to the said decrees this place of holy Scripture otherwise then it is found in the vulgate Edition 11 For whereas in the vulgate Edition wee reade thus and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke and to the Iudge that shall be at that time Mr. Fitzherbert translateth it and to the Iudges in the plurall number But which importeth more whereas the wordes following a little after are thus in the vulgate Edition But he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at that time ministreth to our Lord thy God and the decree of the Iudge that man shall die and thou shalt take away c. Mr. Fitzherbert with small respect to the aforesaid Decrees citeth the wordes thus But he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away c. So that the sentence of death is in this place denounced by the expresse appointment of God not onely against him who shall not obey the commandement of the Priest but also against him that shall not obey the decree of the Iudge 12 Now whether this Iudge was a temporall or a spirituall Iudge and if he was a temporall Iudge whether he was subordinate to the High Priest or no it is a controuersie among Catholike Diuines Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that this Iudge may very well be vnderstood to be the High Priest himselfe who was the supreme Iudge in the Councel of Priests and albeit he were a temporall Iudge neuerthelesse I say saith Mr. Fitzherbert it is euident that the finall decision of doubts and controuersies in that consistory and consequently the supreame authoritie resided in the High Priest seeing that the said Iudge if hee were a different person was no other then a Minister c. 13 But albeit this Iudge may be vnderstood to be an inferiour spirituall Iudge subordinate to the high Priest as Abulensis affirmeth vpon that place and not the high Priest himselfe by reason of the coniunction copulatiue and but he that is proud refusing to obey the commandement of the high Priest and the decree of the Iudge which coniunction and saith Abulensis denoteth the Iudge to be a different person frō the high Priest neuerthelesse this Iudge may also be very well vnderstood to be a temporall Iudge and in temporall causes independent on the high Priest And truely the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to prooue that this Iudge if he were a temporall Iudge was onely a Minister of the high Priest is of small force for that to prooue the same he alledgeth as you haue seene the words of the holy Scripture otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition seeing that it is onely ordained in the law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest and the decree of the Iudge should die those words by the decree of the Iudge are neither in the Hebrew nor in the vulgate Edition declared so to be by Pope Sixtus and Clement And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert must not take it ill if I giue no credite to his bare I say and that I doe preferre the exposition of the Glosse of Nicolaus de Lyra vpon that place who affirmeth that this tribunall to which in doubtfull cases the Iewes were bound to haue recourse did consist both of spirituall of temporal power and that the one was independent on the other before his bare I say which is onely grounded vpon a false allegation of the words of the holy Scripture 14 The words of the Glosse vpon that place are these Hîc agitur c. Here it is treated sayth he of superiour Iudges to whom there ought to be made recourse in doubtfull and difficult matters and some things are put for example when it is said betweene bloud and bloud that is when one part of the Iudges doe say that the shedding of bloud of such a man is to be punished with death because it is reduced to wilfull murther an other part saith no because it is to be reduced to chance-medley Cause and cause to wit when one part of the Iudges saith that the cause of the plaintife is iust and an other the cause of the defendant Leprosie and not leprosie to wit when one part saith that the disease of such a man is leprosie and an other saith it is not Arise and goe vp c. In these cases and such like there must be had recourse to superiour Iudges to wit to the high Priest and to the Iudge of the people of Israel And sometimes it happened that both offices did concurre in one person as it is manifest in Holy who was Iudge and high Priest of the people 1. Reg. 4. but more commonly they were distinct persons as also offices Therefore this recourse may be vnderstood to both ioyntly and this was in causes which could not be decided by one without the other as in the building of the temple which could not be performed without Kingly authoritie nor ordered without the direction of the Priest or seuerally to both that in spirituall causes there should be recourse to the high Priest and in temporalls to the Iudge And from this grew the custome that from inferiour Ecclesiasticall Iudges there is made appeale to the chiefest Bishop and from inferiour Princes and Secular Iudges to the King or Emperour Thus writeth the Glosse whose doctrine in this point Mr. Fitzherbert will neuer be able to prooue to be improbable 15 But secondly although I should for Disputation sake grant Mr. Fitzherbert which he is neuer able to conuince that this tribunall Consistorie or Councell to which in doubts and difficulties of the law when the
saith he r Pag. 72. nu 7 concerning the power and authoritie of the high Priest in temporall things that whereas both the dignities spirituall and temporall were sometimes in one person as in Moyses Heli and the Machabees and sometimes disioyned in distinct and seuerall persons as in the time of Iosue the Iudges and the Kings it is manifest that when they were seuered the spirituall was alwaies superiour as it may appeare by the commandement of almighty God to Moyses when he bad h m take Iosue Num. 17. and lay his hands vpon him before Eleazar the Priest and all the multitude and giue him part of his glory and that Eleazar should consult with God all the affaires of Iosue concluding Ad verbum illius egredietur c. according to his word that is to say the word of Eleazar Iosue shall goe out and shall goe in and all the children of Israel with him and the rest of the multitude Wherein Theodoret obserueth Theoderet q 48. in Num. that God commaunded Moyses to distribute his honour or dignitie betwixt Eleazar and Iosue yet so that Iosue should alwaies learne of Eleazar what he was to doe whereby it appeareth that Iosue was to bee directed by Eleazar in all affaires touching the ciuill gouernment which is sufficiently expressed by those words Ad verbum illius egredietur ingredietur Iosue shall goe out and in at the word of Eleazar 26 But truely I am ashamed to see the extreame boldnesse of this my vnlearned Aduersary when I call to minde what silly arguments he hath scraped together to make it forsooth manifest by the Law of God in the Olde Testament that the spirituall power was then the supreme power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally For this very text of holy Scripture which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to prooue that Eleazar was Superiour to Iosue learned Abulensis doth interprete cleane contrary Abulensis q. â—6 in c. 3. Iosue and bringeth it not once or twise but many times to proue that in the old Testament the Priests were subiect to the temporall Princes for that Eleazar was inferior subiect to Iosue Iosue saith Abulensis expounding those words and do thou command the Priests c. was not onely the Captaine of the people but also of the Priests although hee was neither a Priest nor a Leuite but of the Tribe of Ephraim as it appeareth Num. cap. 13. and he did command not onely the inferiour Priests of whom it is spoken in this place but also the high Priest as it appeareth Num. 27. where it is said for him if any thing be to be done Eleazar the Priest shall consult the Lord At his word to wit at the word of Iosue shall he to wit Eleazar and all the children of Israel goe out and shall goe in And the cause hereof is this for that in the Olde Testament the Secular and Ecclesiasticall or the Priestly and Regall Iurisdictions were not distinct as they are now although the offices of the Priests and Leuites were altogether distinct from the actions Å¿ Aboperibus of the Lay men whereupon the Priests when they offended might be put to death by the King as the Lay men might c. 27 But some will say saith the same Abulensis t Q. 2. in cap. 14. Iosue that the state of Eleazar was more honourable because he was the high Priest and Iosue was the Prince of the people but the state of Priests was greater then the state of Lay men as the Pope is more excellent then the Emperour or Kings But it is to be answered that this is false For the state of Priests in the Olde Testament was not more excellent then the state of Kings but the Priests were iudged by Kings and not onely concerning Kings but also Iosue who was no King was greater then the high Priest as it appeareth Num. cap. 27. where it is said that Eleazar the high Priest and euerie one shal at the commandement of Iosue goe in and goe out that is shall doe whatsoeuer they ought to doe Therefore Iosue was Superiour because to command is an act of a Superiour 28 And againe the said Abulensis u Q. 48. in cap. 27. Num. writeth thus At his word he shall goe in and shall goe out that is Eleazer the Priest shall serue at the commandement of Iosue by doing whatsoeuer he shall command For to goe out Num. 27. vers 17. and goe in is by the manner of speech taken for euery worke So it was taken aboue that God would put in authority ouer the Israelites a man who should goe out and goe in before them that is should doe whatsoeuer ought to be done before his people and in all things to be before them commanding and instructing But some may take to goe in and to goe out for to goe into the Sanctuary to consult the Lord for Iosue because it was saide aboue that whatsoeuer was to be done Eleazar should consult the Lord for Iosue And in this place it is added that at his commandement he ought to doe this to wit that whensoeuer Eleazar should be commanded to consult the Lord for Iosue he must be subiect to doe it But this sense cannot stand because Eleazar did not goe into the Sanctuarie to consult the Lord within the Sanctuarie putting on his Priestly vestements but by the rationale and Ephod he did consult the Lord as it hath beene declared Also it can not stand because it is not spoken onely of Eleazar that he shall goe in and goe out at the commandement of Iosue but also of all the children of Israel but they did not goe in to consult the Lord for Iosue therefore the first sense must stand Yet it is to be considered that Iosue because he was the Secular Prince is preferred here directly before the high Priest so that Eleazar was bound to obey Iosue in all things which he should command as likewise all the rest of the people and so it was in the time of Moyses who was not a Priest to wit by ordination and Prelacie yet Aaron who was the high Priest did obey him who was the Prince of the people And so it was in all the old Testament that the high Priests were subiect to the Kings c. Thus Abulensis 29 And thus you see that this learned man vnderstandeth those words of holy Scripture Ad verbum eius c. At his word he shall goe out and shall goe in in the cleane contrarie sense then wherein Mr. Fitzherbert doth expound them and yet forsooth it is manifest out of this place saith he that when the dignities spirituall and temporall were disioyned in distinct and seuerall persons as in the time of Iosue the spirituall was alwaies superiour But secondly I will goe farther with Mr. Fitzherbert and graunt him onely for Disputations sake that those words are so to be vnderstood that at the word of Eleazar Iosue
in the Councell of Constance but the contrarie doctrine is damnable scandalous and seditious 78 Marke now what a trim consequence Mr. Fitzherbert gathereth from the premisses Whereupon sayth he b nu 18. pag. 78 it followeth that seeing Ioiada did lawfully depose Athalia being a holy man Matth. 23. Hieron lib. 4. in Num. cap. 23. and therefore called by our Sauiour Barachias that is to say Blessed of our Lord he did it not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person All this is true as you haue seene But that which he addeth to wit as High-Priest to whom it belonged to iudge of her cause is very vntrue neither doth it follow from his premises For his antecedent proposition was this Ioiada being high Priest deposed Athalia as her lawfull Iudge and not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person this I granted now he inferreth that Ioiada as high-Priest did depose her which I euer denied and he brought no shew of argument to proue the same only heere in the next words following he adioineth some colour of an argument for proofe thereof especially saith he c pag. 79. seeing that she was not only a cruell tyrant but also an abhominable Idolairesse hauing drawne her husband Ioram her sonne Ochozias and the people to Idolatrie and transferred the riches of Gods temple to the temples of Idolls which being matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest and therefore I conclude that Ioiada deposed her as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge according to the supreme authoritie that God gaue to the High Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall State So I in my Supplement 79 But how insufficient this conclusion is it will presently appeare onely by laying open the ambiguitie of those wordes Idolatrie being a matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest For it belonged indeed to the tribunall of the high Priest of the old Law and his consistorie to iudge what was Idolatrie as likewise now in the new Law it belongeth to the Pope and Church to iudge what is heresie or idolatrie and so to declare and determine what is heresie or Idolatrie is a matter of Religion both in the olde Law and in the new but it did not belong to the tribunall of the high Priest in the olde law but of the King and temporall state to punish Idolaters with corporall death as likewise in the new law to punish heretikes with corporall death being not a spirituall but a temporall matter doeth not belong to the spirituall power of Priests but to the temporall authoritie of temporall Princes Sot in 4. dist 29 q. 1. ar 4. Bannes secunda secundae q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine as I prooued also out of Sotus and Bannes in my Theologicall Disputation d C. 7. s 2. nu 17 And therefore in the old Law the temporall power was supreame and the spirituall was subiect to it for as much as concerned the power to constraine with temporall punishments and as well Priest as Lay-men were subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of the temporall State as I prooued before e Sec. 1 nu 5. 6. out of St. Thomas St. Bonauenture Abulensis and others whose doctrine also Cardinall Bellarmine doth not account improbable 80 Wherefore although it belonged to the High-Priest to declare the law of GOD yet to execute the law and to punish the transgressours thereof whether they were Priests or Lay-men with temporall punishments belonged to the supreame temporall power of the King and not to the supreame spirituall authoritie of the High-Priest Seeing that Ozias saith Abulensis because he was King Abul q. 4. in c. 15. l. 4. Reg. was the executor of the law of GOD against offenders it belonged to him by his office to destroy all Altars which were without the temple of our Lord and to take away such a worship and consequently all Idolatrie vnder the penaltie of death And therefore I conclude that Ioiada did depose Athalia being a manifest Vsurper as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge but not according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the High-Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall state which as I prooued before was in temporalls supreame and not subiect but superiour to the spirituall power but according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the King to whom both Priests and Lay-men were subiect in temporalls and by whom they were to bee punished with temporall punishments whose place and person Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian while the King was in his minoritie did in all things represent Neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert either in his Supplement or in this his Reply as you haue cleerely seene brought any probable argument much lesse conuincing as hee pretended to impugne the same 81 Now let vs proceede to the example of King Ozias which is the last Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old Testament to which neuerthelesse I did abundantly answere in my Apologie which my answere he passeth ouer altogether with silence But before I set downe what hee saith heere concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to repeate my saide answere and what D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same for thereby the weakenesse of Mr. Fitzherberts obiection will presently appeare and so also hee shall not take occasion after his vsuall manner to remit his English Reader to D. Schulckenius to seeke out a Reply to that which I answered before in my Apologie concerning this example of King Ozias Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 8 82 In this manner therefore Cardinall Bellarmine argued from this example A Priest of the old law had authoritie to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie therefore in the new law the Pope hath authoritie to depriue a King of his kingdome for spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by leprosie The Antecedent proposition hee prooued thus for that wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that King Ozias when hee would vsurpe the office of a Priest was by the High Priest cast out of the temple and when he was for the same sinne stricken by GOD with leprosie hee was also enforced to depart out of the Citie and to renounce his kingdome to his sonne And that he was depriued of the Citie and of the administration of the kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest it is apparant For wee reade Leuit. 13. whosoeuer saith the law shall bee defiled with leprosie and is separated at the abitrement of the Priest shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing therefore that this was a law in Israel and withall wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that the King did dwell without the Citie in a solitary house and that his sonne did in the Citie iudge the people of the land wee are compelled to say that hee was
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
hitherto he hath brought are only to demonstrate both the weakenesse of his cause and also his fraud and ignorance in dissembling the true state of the question in almost euery particular difficultie and confounding his Readers vnderstanding with ambiguous words and sentences which being once explained and the ambiguitie of them laid open doe foorthwith discouer either his want of learning or sinceritie as you may see almost in euery Chapter Neither is this his new coined Catholike faith concerning the Popes power to depose Princes agreeable to the vniuersall and continuall custome of the Catholike Church both for that this custome I doe not say of the Church but of some Popes to depose Princes began first by Pope Gregorie the seuenth Onuphr lib. 4. de varia creat Rom. Pont. who was the first Pope saith Onuphrius that contrarie to the custome of his Ancestours deposed the Emperour A thing vnheard of before that age and also for that it hath beene euer euen vnto this day contradicted by learned Catholikes and therefore neither in regard of time or persons can it bee called vniuersall neither can it be conuinced either by the holy Scriptures the practise of the Apostles the decrees of Popes or Councells or any one constitution of the Canon law What Cardinall Bellarmine hath proued against D. Barclay hath beene answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay to whose booke neither Card. Bellarmine not any other for him can in my iudgment make a sufficient Reply and what D. Schulckenius hath prooued against me you haue seene partly in this Treatise and partly in the Discouerie of his calumnies wherein I haue cleerely shewed all the arguments he bringeth to accuse me and my doctrine of heresie to be slanderous and himselfe to bee void of all Christian sinceritie modestie iustice and charitie 114 And as for D. Weston because his zeale is so furious his railing so intemperate and his arguments of so little force and for that very few of our Countrymen for ought I can learne are greatly moued but most men much scandalized with his vncharitable vnlearned and immodest Reply howsoeuer Mr. Fitzherbert expecting be like the same from him doth so exceedingly extoll it I thinke it neither needefull nor expedient vnlesse I should answere him in his railing humour according to the aduice of the wise man respondeaâ— stulto iuxto stultitiam suam which some vncharitable spirits who seeke all meanes to disgrace me would quickly reprehend in me to make him any formall answere especially seeing that all the arguments hee hath scraped together the chiefe heads whereof are heere in generall mentioned by my Aduersarie to wit the holy Scriptures and many examples of the Churches practise as diuers kinde of diuorces relaxation of debts exemption of children from the power of their Parents the abrogation of temporall and Ciuill lawes the dissolution of contracts and bargaines the imposition of temporall penalties and the right which spirituall Pastours haue to haue corporall maintenance and to take water to baptize children haue beene by me alreadie either in particular or in generall sufficiently answered 115 For first his arguments taken from the authoritie of the holy Scriptures I haue answered in particular and secondly all his other proofes and examples which are grounded vpon the practise of the Church and the Canons of Popes or Councells are to be vnderstood either of the disposing of spirituall things as of the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie which is not a meere ciuill contract but also a Sacrament and spirituall contract representing the vnion and coniunction of Christ our Sauiour with the mysticall body of his Church and therefore because it is both a Sacrament and also a ciuill contract it is now the more common opinion of Diuines p See Zanche lib. 7. de matrim disp 3. that Secular Princes if wee regard the nature of ciuill power haue also authoritie to ordaine the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie as it is a ciuill contract And although the Popes haue now reserued to themselues all causes belonging to Matrimonie in so much that Christian Princes cannot now lawfully dispose of the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie yet Petrus a Soto is of opinion Petr. Sot lec 4 de matrim versus finem that the Pope cannot depriue Princes of this their ciuill authoritie but that they of their owne accord and mooued by pietie haue yeelded to this reseruation of the Pope in regard that marriage is not onely a Ciuill contract but also a Sacrament of the Church or else they are so to bee vnderstood that they did confirme the Imperiall and Ciuill lawes or that they were made by the authoritie and expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or that they did declare the law of GOD and nature by which wee are commanded to auoide all probable danger of sinne or that they did only command and enioyne not inflict temporall penalties or finally that they did only argue a priuate right to some temporall thing but not by way of authoritie or superioritie to dispose of the same as not onely Priests but also priuate lay men may lawfully take another mans water to baptize a childe in extreame necessitie and spirituall Pastours haue a right to bee corporally releeued by them to whom they minister spirituall things as Saint Paul prooueth 1. Corinth 9. and in the ende concludeth So also our Lord ordained for them that preach the Gospel to liue of the Gospell 116 And can any iudicious man perswade himselfe that if Mr. Fitzherbert had thought in very deede these arguments of D. Weston to bee such conuincing proofes and demonstrations as in wordes hee boasteth he would for breuities sake haue forborne to vrge some of them in particular seeing that hee did not forbeare for breuities sake to take the greatest part of sixe or seuen chapters of this his Reply which containeth only seuenteene Chapters in all out of Fa Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name concerning the Canon of the Councell of Lateran and by that decree touching the exemption of Children which he hath singled out of the rest for that as I imagine it was also greatly vrged by Fa. Suarez to which aboue I haue fully answered you may easily coniecture what kinde of demonstrations are contained in the rest Wherefore to conclude this Chapter if the Reader will but briefly reduce to some syllogisticall forme or methode all the Rhetoricall flourish which Mr. Fitzherbert hath heere made concerning the law of Nature it will presently appeare that hee hath prooued nothing else by the law of Nature then that spirituall things are more perfect excellent and worthie then temporall and that the temporall common-wealth is in perfection worth and nobilitie subiect and subordinate to the spirituall but that Religious Priests haue authoritie to punish the Ciuill Common-wealth or supreame gouernours thereof especially with temporall punishments he hath no way proued by the law of Nature but the flat contrarie I haue most cleerely conuinced
other temporall commodities as I haue shewed in the last Chapter c Num. 18. 6 But truely I cannot but smile to see the vanitie of this man who though he see himselfe altogether vanquished yet he boasteth that hee is victorious and although he clearely perceiueth yea and almost expressely confesseth that his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. Chapter to be quite ouerthrowne yet hee braggeth that his cause is not thereby weakened or hurt any way but rather fortified and strengthened For if you note well what he granteth to wit That the penalty of corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the olde and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by excommunication you cannot but clearely see that his argument taken from Deuteronomy the 17. Chapter which onely text in particular I vndertooke to answere and which speaketh onely of corporall death is quite ouerthrowne and yet forsooth I doe hereby rather fortifie and strengthen then weaken or hurt any way his cause By which you may plainely perceiue what credit is to be giuen to the rest of his vaine-glorious brags seeing that in this so manifest an ouerthrow of his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. he is not ashamed to boast that I haue rather fortified and strengthened then weakened or hurt any way his cause But will Widdrington saith he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication includeth a temporall punishment c. The inference that Widdrington maketh is that from the wordes of Deuteronomy the 17. which speake onely of corporall death Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought no good argument for that according to the doctrine of Saint Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine which hee himselfe also will not denie The penalty of corporall death is now in the new law turned to the death of the soule by Excommunication Neither is it true that Excommunication being of it own nature a separation frō the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull doth of it owne nature include any temporall punishment at all as also I haue shewed in the last Chapter albeit I doe not denie that the Church hath now by way of command annexed to Excommunication some temporall penalties but not by way of inflicting them as I declared in that place for I euer granted that the Church hath power to command enioyne or impose temporall punishments but not to inflict them yet these to command and to inflict to impose and to dispose my Aduersary doth commonly confound 7 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 114. numer 4.5 it is euident that in the olde Testament euen the temporall Princes themselues were punished by depriuation of their right to their temporall states and dominions as e 1 Reg. 16. Saul by Samuel Athalia f 4 Reg. 11. by Ioiada Ioram g 4 Reg. 9. by one of the children of the Prophets who being sent by Elizeus annointed Iehu King of Israel to the end he might destroy Iesabel all the house of Achab. Also Ozias was not only corporally expelled out of the temple by the Priests confined by their sentence to liue priuately is his own house but according to the opinion doctrine of S. Chrysostome he ought also to haue beene wholy depriued of the gouernment as I haue signified before h Cap. 5. nu 21. 22. at large And therefore seeing he telleth vs how the penalty of corporall death which was ordained in the olde Testament is now fulfilled spiritually in the new let him also tell vs to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their states and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end that wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment and in the meane time let him acknowledge according to his owne doctrine and instance here produced that the Church may punish temporally seeing it may excommunicate and consequently depriue men of many temporall commodities 8 But this also is very vntrue that the Priests of the olde Testament had authoritie to punish temporall Princes by depriuing them of their right to their temporall states and dominions as I amply prooued aboue in the 5. Chapter Neither doe these examples brought here by Mr. Fitzherbert prooue any such thing For to the examples of King Ozias and Athalia I haue answered aboue at large And as for the other two besides that Samuel Elias and Elizeus were not Priests it is manifest that what they did concerning the annointing or deposing of any King they did it not by their owne authority but onely as Prophets and speciall messengers sent by God to that purpose How long saith God to Samuel i 1 Reg. 16. dost thou mourne Saul whom I haue reiected that hee rule not ouer Israel Fill thy horne with oyle and come that I may send thee to Isai the Bethleemite for I haue prouided me a King among his Sons And again Goe saith God to k 3 Reg. 19. Elias and returne into thy way by the desert of Damascus and when thou art come thither thou shalt annoint Hazael King ouer Syria and Iehu the Sonne of Namsi thou shalt annoint King ouer Israel and Elizeus the Sonne of Saphat thou shalt annoynt Prophet for thee And therefore he that was sent by Elizeus to annoint Iehu was commanded to speake in the person of God not of Elizeus And holding saith l 4 Reg. 9. Elizeus to him that was sent the little boxe of oyle thou shalt power vpon his head and shalt say Thus saith our Lord I haue annointed thee King ouer Israel Now what man of iudgement would make this inference that because in the olde lawe some Prophets who were no Priests did by the expresse commandement of God make annoint or depose Kings therefore the Priests in the new law haue ordinary power and authority to doe the same Belike Mr. Fitzherbert will approoue also this argument that because Elias was commanded by God to annoint not onely Iehu King ouer Israel but also Hazael King ouer Syria therefore the Pope hath authority to make and depose not onely Christian but also Pagan Kings 9 Wherefore that demand which is heere made by my Aduersary to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their States and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment is friuolous both for that the Priests of the old law had no authority to depriue Kings of their temporall States and Dominions or to inflict temporall punishments and also albeit they had such an authority neuerthelesse it could not bee prooued from thence by deducing an argument from the figure to the veritie that therefore
chiefe and principall ground I stand vpon why they are not also included vnder those generall words in the Canon of the Councell as you haue seene before Neuerthelesse there is this difference betwixt these two reasons that this later reason whereof we shal treat more at large in the next Chapter only sheweth why absolute Princes are not in penall lawes of the Church compreheded vnder such generall words which denote names and titles of inferiour place and dignitie but the first reason grounded vpon the Emperours law doth also prooue that absolute Princes cannot vnder any generall tearmes whatsoeuer bee included in any Canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed For to deny that absolute Princes are not vnder any generall words comprehended in such Decrees is no more absurd then to deny that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments which doctrine for that my Aduersary will neuer be able to prooue absurd he might well haue spared to vse such absurd tearmes wherewith he doth so often defile his religious mouth and which as you haue seene doe more fitly agree to his owne arguments and answeres and to the whole discourse he hath made in his Supplement concerning this point if he thereby intend to confute the aforesaid answere I gaue to the decree of the Councell and the reason thereof grounded vpon the like decree of the Emperour CHAP. X. Wherein Widdringtons second answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell affirming that absolute Princes are not comprehended therein because they are not mentioned by their proper names but by inferiour titles is prooued to bee neither improbable nor absurd but conforme to the doctrine of learned Diuines and Lawyers and Mr. Fitzherberts exceptions against the said answere are shewed to be very insufficient and fraudulent 1 YOu haue seene Courteous Reader how weakely Mr. Fitzherbert hath in the former Chapter impugned the answere I gaue to the decree of the Lateran Councell and the reason thereof grounded vpon the like Constitution of the Emperour Fredricke now you shall see how insufficiently also he impugneth in this Chapter the other reason which I brought to prooue that those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or also Lord doe not in the Canon of the Councell cōprehend absolute Princes Thus therefore he beginneth this Chapter 2 You haue heard in the last Chapter how my Aduersary Widdrington teacheth that the Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the deposition of temporall Lords doth not comprehend Kinges and absolute Princes because they are not namely specified therein Qui saith he nisi nominatim exprimantur in legibus paenalibus intelligendi non sunt Who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be expressed by name So he which he also more amply affirmeth in the Preface to his Apologetical answere whereto he remitteth me and his Readers for there he seemeth to ground his opinion in this point Widdrington Apolog. Respōs Praefat. nu 44. vpon the rules of the lawes saying that Secular Princes are not signified in penall Lawes vnder the generall names of Lords Magistrates and temporall Iudges iuxta regulas Iurisprudentium according to the rules of the Lawyers whereto he addeth also for examples sake that an Abbot is not cōprehended in the penall Lawes vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest nor the Pope vnder the name of a Bishop because saith he in paenis benignior pars est eligenda odia restringi fauoures conuenit ampliari The more benigne or milde part is to be chosen in penalties and it is conuenient that odious things be restrained and fauours amplified or enlarged So he 3 Whereto I answere that whereas he saith that Princes are not comprehended in penall Lawes except they be specified by the name of Princes I say first that if this were true this absurdity would follow thereof that absolute Princes should be exempted from diuers Lawes and Canons wherein all the world hath hitherto held them to be included as from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran ordaining that Omnis vtriusque sexus fidelis c. Concil Later 4. can 21. Euery Christian of both sexes shall confesse and communicate at Easter vpon paine of Excommunication and want of Christian buriall as also from the Bulla in caena Domini and from the Canon Si quis suadente Cans 17. q. 4. forbidding the laying of violent hands vpon Cleargie-men and diuers other generall constitutions from the which they were neuer yet exempted in the opinion of any man But if Mr. Fitzherbert had not meant to cauill and to take euery idle occasion to carpe at my wordes without cause hee might easily haue seene by those wordes of mine which heere hee citeth out of my Apologeticall Preface and to which in my Admonition I remitted the Reader that when I affirmed that absolute Princes are not vnderstood to be comprehended in penall lawes vnlesse they be expressed by name my meaning was that they are not vnderstood to bee comprehended in penall lawes vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis of Lords Magistrates Iudges Land-lords and such like generall names which denote some inferiour office dignitie or honour but they must be expressed by the names of the honour and dignitie which are proper to them as an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest nor the Pope vnder the name of a Bishop For to affirme that absolute Princes as likewise Abbots and Bishops are not comprehended in penall lawes enacted by the Church vnder no generall names although they denote no peculiar office honour dignity or function by which some persons are distinguished from others had beene indeede somewhat absurd And so these Canons heere alledged by Mr. Fitzherbert Omnis vtriusque sexus c. Si quis suadente diabolo c. and out of the Bull in caena Domini or such like are nothing to the purpose for that they are not such generall names which denote any peculiar office honour dignitie or function by which some men are distinguished from others and therefore this my Aduersaries first Answere is nothing at all against my doctrine 5 Secondly I say saith Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 150. nu 3. that Widdrington might haue done well to haue told vs or at least quoted in his margent as he doth not in what Lawyers we may finde that priuiledge or exemption of Princes whereof he speaketh for sure I am that they who write of Princes make no mention thereof as may be seene in Restaurus Castaldus Restaur Castald q. 110. de Imper. who setteth downe aboue a hundred priuiledges of the Emperour and yet doth not mention any such 6 But first the Reader may easily perceiue that the reason which I brought why
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
in the solemne vow of chastity and to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest who is no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation 12 Thus I argued in my Apologeticall Preface and then I concluded thus Let my Aduersaries solue these difficulties and I will forthwith by their owne solutions vntie the aforesaid knots which they imagine cannot in any wise be solued or loosed Whereby it is apparant that I did not oppose or apply any one of these three instances either to the decree of the Lateran Councell or to any other Canon of Pope or Councell which are vsually brought by my Aduersaries to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith but as Fa. Lessius did not apply in particular those his three arguments either to the Canon of the Lateran Councell or to any other Canon or iudiciall sentence of the Pope or Councell but left them to be applyed by others to this or that Canon except onely his second agument which he seemeth to apply to the Lateran Councell so I thought it sufficient for that time to propound onely three other like instances in generall and not to compare or parellel any of them to any decree Canon or iudiciall sentence of Pope or Councell in particular whereby my Aduersaries contend to make manifest that this their doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith but left the application of them to this or that Canon in particular vntill such time that they themselues would either apply those three arguments to some particular Canon of Pope or Councell or answere in forme to the three instances which I brought to confront with theirs 13 Now Mr. Fitzherbert neither answereth in forme to those three instances of mine which I grounded vpon those three examples of Popes nor so much as setteth them downe to bee seene by his Reader but cauilleth onely as you shal see at those three examples whereon my three instances were grounded and pretendeth to shew a great disparitie betweene those three examples and the Decree of the Lateran Councell and also hee would seeme to haue plaid the man and to haue quite ouerthrowne my three instances whereas hee hath not so much as touched or mentioned them at all Thus therefore hee beginneth this Chapter i Pag. 185. nu 1 My Aduersary Widdrington hauing hitherto shewed great weakenesse in himselfe and his cause by his answeres to our arguments Widdr. vbi supra nu 52. pretendeth to confute a Reply which he supposeth we will make to his last answere diuiding the said Reply into three points whereof the first is that the foundations and grounds of the Ecclesiasticall Canons and Decrees of Popes and Councells doe belong to faith whereupon Widdrington saith we inferre that seeing the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran grounded their Decree vpon this doctrine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore the said doctrine must needs be certaine and a matter of faith Ibid. nu 53. 14 The second point is that seeing no Catholike man would doubt but that all Christians were bound to beleeue as a matter of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes if a generall Councell should expresly define it therefore we say that forasmuch as the Councell of Lateran doth suppose the same as a sure foundation of their foresaid Canon and Decree all Christians are no lesse bound to beleeue it then if they had expresly determined or defined it Ibid. nu 54. 15 The third point is that it being a matter of faith that the Church cannot erre in generall precepts or Decrees concerning manners it followeth that the Councell of Lateran hauing ordained the deposition of Princes neither hath erred nor could erre in it especially seeing that the errour would be most grieuous and pernicious to all Christians for thereupon would follow tumults seditions and warres by reason of the reuolts and rebellions of subiects against their Princes and the breach of their Oathes of fidelity which were no lesse then periury if the Pope had not authority to discharge subiects of their allegiance and fidelity to their Princes Thus in effect though somewhat more amply doth Widdrington argue for vs. 16 But first whether I or my Aduersary haue shewed great weakenesse in our selues and in our cause neither hee nor I but the iudicious Reader must bee the Iudge for with the same facilitie I may retort his owne words backe vpon himselfe Secondly I did not onely suppose that they would make those three arguments but I related them word by word as I found them in Fa. Lessius which neuerthelesse Mr. Fitzherbert hath very lamely recited especially the first and last argument leauing out many principal and very important words as you may see if you will compare them together Thirdly I did not say that hereupon they did inferre as this man vntruely saith I did that seeing the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran grounded their Decree vpon this doctrine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore this doctrine must be certaine and of faith For albeit Fa. Lessius may seeme to apply his second argument to the Decree of the Lateran Councell which neuerthelesse he may also apply to the Decree of the Councell of Lyons yet his other arguments especially his first are so generall that they may be applyed to many other Decrees Canons dispensations and iudiciall sentences of Popes or Councells and if Fa. Lessius had particularly applied them to the Lateran Councell I might without more adoe haue easily answered them by denying as there I did that the Councell did suppose as a foundation of that Decree or Act concerning the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie this doctrine that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes but onely inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the authoritie and consent of absolute Princes 17 Now for the answere and confutation saith k Pag. 186. nu 4. 5. Mr. Fitzherbert of these three arguments Widdrington produceth three instances to proue that the Pope doth somtimes exercise his power with danger of pernicious most grieuous errour when neuerthelesse it is vncertaine whether he haue such power or no. His first instance is that the Pope hath often giuen lilence to a Priest to minister and conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation notwithstanding that diuers great Doctours doe denie that the Pope can giue such licence or commission whereupon he concludeth that it is not certaine Durand Bonauent Adrian alij whether the Pope hath the power which he exercieth in giuing such licenses and addeth further An non saith he grauissimus error est c Is it not a most grieuous errour to grant such licences whereby there is danger to commit most grieuous sacriledges to wit the inualide administration of Sacraments So he shewing euidently how vnreuerent an opinion he hath of the licences dispensations and other actions of Popes seeing that
yea it would haue been very lawfull iust and conuenient though he had held the contrary opinion whereby it is manifest that his opinion concerning the immaculate puritie of her Conception was not the ground of his Decree as Widdrington doth very fondly suppose it to bee whereas in our question touching the Canon of the Lateran Councell the case is farre different seeing that the said Canon hath such dependance on the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes which is necessarily supposed and included in it that if the Pope haue no such power the Canon is vtterly void being altogether vniust vnlawfull and erroneous Whereupon it euidently followeth that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is the foundation of the Canon 7 So as you see that to impugne this vndoubted ground of the Canon hee is faine to suppose and vrge a false ground of Pope Sixtus his decree and consequently faileth wholly in the proofe of that which he pretendeth and therefore to make his Instance good and the cases like he should haue prooued that the doctrine of the Popes power to institute Feasts is vncertaine and imagined by learned Catholikes without danger of sinne for Pope Sixtus his Decree touching the celebration of the Feast supposeth the truth of that doctrine as in like sort the Canon of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition of Princes supposeth that the doctrine of the Popes power to despose Princes is certaine and true and therefore I conclude that his second Instance wherein he supposeth a false ground is as improbable and impertinent as the former 8 Thus you see that the whole substance of this Discourse which Mr. Fitzherbert here hath made against my second example which hee truely affirmeth to be my second Instance consisteth in this that he denieth the ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree to be his opinion and perswasion that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne and affirmeth that I doe very fondly suppose the same wherein I know not whether to taxe him of manifest fraud or palpable ignorance for to shift off my instance and to censure it according to his vsuall manner as fond improbable and impertinent he is faine to forsake the common doctrine of the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie as of Salmeron Salmeron ad Rom. 15. tom 13. disp 22. Suarez tom 2. in 3. part disp 3. sec 5. Vasquez tom 2. in 3. part disp 117. cap. 5. Suarez and Vasquez who doe constantly hold that the immaculate pure and holy conception of the blessed Virgin was the ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree and to taxe very rashly and arrogantly their doctrine as fond improbable and impertinent and very fraudulently or vnlearnedly to take hold for a colour of his fraud or ignorance of certaine answeres of their Aduersaries which were seene propounded confuted by them Which to make most plaine and manifest I thinke it not amisse to set downe verbatim what Suarez with whom Vasquez and Salmeron doe agree in this point writeth of this matter 9 But at the last saith Suarez to proue from the authority of the Church that the blessed Virgin was preserued from originall sin and sanctified in the first instant of her conception the Church of Rome two hundred yeeres since generally receauing the celebration of this Feast giueth speciall indulgences to the worshippers thereof Whereupon she seemeth in some sort to haue canonized the conception of the blessed Virgin But perchance it will be said that this conception is not celebrated for that it is holy but because it hath beene a great benefit of God and a beginning of greater But this by no meanes is to be approued because as it is manifest by the vnderstanding of the faithfull the Church doth not celebrate this Feast onely for giuing thankes in respect of God but also in honour of the Virgin but the Virgin should not bee worthy of honour for her conception vnlesse therein she had beene holy Moreouer S. Thomas Bernard and Ildefonsus doe thinke that it is sufficiently proued that the blessed Virgin at the time of her Natiuity was holy for that the Church doth celebrate her Natiuity therefore the same iudgement would they make of her Conception if they should see the Feast to be celebrated Lastly Galatinus lib. 7. cap. 5. saith that the Feast of her Conception is in some Martyrologies expresly set downe for the most great purity and sanctity thereof and this will be made more euident by that which shall be said 10 But some others say that the Feast of the Conception was not celebrated but of the Sanctification at what time soeuer it was done or truly if the Feast of her conception be celebrated it is not therfore because she was sanctified in the first instant but because she was sanctified perchance that day But this also is against the meaning of the Church which euer intended to celebrate some speciall priuiledge and immunity of the Virgin vpon this feastiuall day whereof are manifest signes First because Saint Bernard in the aforesaid 147. Epistle did vnderstand in this sense the meaning of the Churches which began to celebrate this Feast For if they should celebrate onely the sanctification there were no cause why he should reprehend them Besides the Councell of Basil doth plainly say that it is an ancient custome of the Church to celebrate this Feast in honour of the Conception of the immaclate Virgin or of the immaculate Conception of the Virgin for the Latin wordes may beare both senses 11 Thirdly in a certaine Roman office of this Feast which is confirmed by the authoritie of Pope Sixtus the fourth this oftentimes is expresly said and the intention of this Feast is declared And after the same manner Pope Sixtus the fourth doth speake in the Extrauagant Cum praeexcelsa and in the Extrauagant Graue nimis de reliquijs venerat Sanctorum calling her Conception pure and immaculate and granting Indulgences to those who doe piously beleeue and celebrate the same And so also the Councell of Trent vnderstood these Decrees sess 5. where she confirmeth them Whereupon the same Pope Sixtus the fourth saith that those doe not sinne who thinke that the B. Virgin was conceiued without sinne and for that cause doe celebrate her Feast Therefore without doubt this is the intention and reason of this festiuitie Adde that in the same manner one may say that when the Church doeth celebrate the Natiuitie of the Virgin it is not for that shee was holy in her Natiuitie but because shee was sanctified within that day but this is plainely false and absurd as it is manifest by that which hath beene saide therefore the same is for the present And the reason is generall because the Church doth properly worship and celebrate the mysteries and priuiledges of the holy Conception and Natiuitie Thus Fa. Suarez 12 So as you see how Fa. Suarez not only saith but also proueth that
life and soule 17 Wherefore my Aduersarie for his better instruction may obserue that Caiet tom 1. opusc tract 15. de Indulg c. 8. which Cardinall Caietane who neuerthelesse putteth all the infallibilitie of ihe Church in the Pope writeth of Indulgences and the canonization of Saints and hee may if it please him learne from thence some speciall documents for his present purpose It is alwayes saith hee presumed de iure by the law for the Iudge vnlesse there manifestly appeare an errour and hee that supposeth vpon a lawfull cause such an Indulgence to bee giuen doth affirme the trueth as hee without falsitie affirmeth such a one to bee a Saint supposing him to bee rightly canonized So that granting that such a man who is canonized should not bee a Saint but damned the doctrine or preaching of the Church would not bee lying or false for heere those things that doe not appertaine to faith are not vnderstood to bee affirmed but with a graine of salt that is supposing those things which are commonly presumed For the Church doeth presume the canonization to bee rightly done and likewise the Indulgence to bee rightly giuen but as humane errour may perchance happen in the canonization of some Saint as Saint Thomas affirmeth so humane errour may happen in the giuing of an Indulgence But if any man thinke that the Pope cannot erre in these particular actions as are dispensations as well of the temporall as of the spirituall goods of the Church let him also thinke that he is not a man 18 The like is also to be said saith Mr. Fitzherbert e P. 201. nu 6. of the Decree of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition of Princes to wit that the holy Ghost assisted and guided them first to resolue what was lawfull and conuenient to bee decreed that is to say that Princes should be deposed by the Pope if they would not purge their Countreys of heresie and afterwards to ordaine and decree it for if it had not beene lawfull and conuenient that the Pope should depose Princes in that case the Councell could neuer haue lawfully decreed it neither could the Decree possibly be lawful if the Pope had not that power so as it is euident that the Decree being iust as proceeding from the assistance of the holy Ghost the determination not only of the iustice and conueniencie of it but also of the Popes power to performe it must needes be granted to proceede in like manner from the holy Ghost inspiring as well the ground and foundation of the Decree as the Decree it selfe 19 But that the like cannot bee said of the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell I haue sufficiently shewed before both for that there is no mention made in that Councell of the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords and also because that Act was not made by Ecclesiasticall power but by the consent and authoritie of absolute Princes and moreouer for that it is not properly a Decree containing any precept of faith or manners but rather the end reason and cause of the former Decree 20 And therefore howsoeuer Widdrington may cauill saith Mr. Fitzherbert f Pag. 202. nu 7. about the certainetie of some reasons that haue beene or may bee alleadged in some Decrees of Councells hee cannot with any shew of reason or probabilitie deny or call in question those foundations and necessarie grounds of this Canon or say that they are lesse certaine then the Canon it selfe as hee seemeth most absurdly to affirme in this argument wherein I wish also to bee noted how ignorantly hee confoundeth the foundation of a Decree with the reasons which mooue the Councell to make it or are added thereto as though all the reasons which are brought and alleadged by a Councell or mooue them to determine any thing were the foundations of their Decrees whereas many reasons yea texts of Scriptures are probably alleadged in Councells for the explicotion onely or some confirmation of their Decrees and not as the foundations of them 21 But how grosly this man seeketh to delude his Reader in this whole Discourse of his I haue alreadie made most manifest and therefore the aspersions of absurditie ignorance and impertinencie wherewith he chargeth me doe agree to none so much as to himselfe For neither did I make in the aforesaid argument any such inference concerning either the Decree or the reason of the Decree of the Lateran Councell as hee very shamefully would perswade his Reader neither did I confound the foundation of a Decree with euery reason which mooueth the Pope or Councell to make it or are added thereunto but onely with fundamentall reasons and whereon that Decree doeth wholly depend in so much that the Pope or Councell would not haue made that Decree but vpon supposall that such a reason or doctrine is true as is the reason which mooueth Popes to canonize any Saint or to celebrate his Feast for that they suppose him to haue died in finall sanctitie which reason is the foundation of their Decree and yet is not infallible and of faith according to the doctrine of many learned Diuines as I shewed before And the like is also of the reason which mooued Pope Sixtus the fourth according to the doctrine of the learned Iesuites to celebrate the Feast of the Blessed Virgins Conception for that hee supposed her Conception to bee pure holy and immaculate which reason and ground is neuerthelesse vncertaine although it was the foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree which according to Suarez was also confirmed in the Councell of Trent 22 Whereby it appeareth also saith Mr. Fitzherbert g p. 202. nu 8. how absurdly Widdrington comprehendeth the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes vnder the title of reasons moouing the Councell of Lateran to decree the deposition of them seeing that the reasons of Decrees are so extrinsecall thereto that they may faile and yet the Decree stand good and bee of force whereas the foresaid doctrine of the Popes power is so intrinsecall and as I may say essentiall to the Decree of the Lateran Councell that it is necessarily included and supposed in it in so much that the saide Decree cannot possibly stand or bee good if that doctrine bee not true as I haue signified before h nu 6. and therefore hee argueth as impertinently in this as in the rest 23 But first it is very vntrue that I comprehended the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes vnder the title of reasons moouing the Councell of Lateran to decree the deposition of them as this man not to vse his owne absurd and impertinent wordes very shamefully affirmeth Seeing that I neuer granted that either the Decree of the Lateran Councell or the reason thereof doeth concerne the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Lords and Magistrates by the consent authoritie of Soueraigne Princes neither did I in any of my
affirmed onely the Minor proposition to wit that his Holinesse Breues condemning the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation were grounded vpon an vncertaine and fallible foundation or doctrine and light that is not weightie enough to make a matter of faith to wit that it is against faith to say that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes c. and vpon false informations to wit that his power to excommunicate to binde and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in the Oath and both these my assertions I haue sufficiently conuinced to bee true But this silly man thinking thereby to lay a foule aspersion vpon mee of irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse doth himselfe adde the Maior proposition not affirmed by mee and therein he plainly sheweth his owne irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse and to many other Popes accusing him and them by this Maior proposition which hee addeth to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastours that euer gouerned the Church of God For this is his Maior proposition whosoeuer affirmeth that his Holinesse Breues were grounded vpon light or vncertaine foundations and false informations must needes hold him to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastour that euer gouerned the Church of God by which his assertion hee plainely sheweth what little respect and reuerence hee beareth to his Holinesse and sundrie other Popes who oftentimes as I shewed before out of Pope Innocent the third t In the Canon Anobis 2. de sent Eucom are oftentimes lead in their iudgements and Apostolicall sentences by vncertaine opinions which both deceiue and are deceiued and not alwayes by true informations for which cause saith Pope Innocent it happeneth sometimes that hee who is bound before God is not bound before the Church and he that is free before God is bound by a Censure of the Church So that you see what account Mr. Fitzherbert to vse his owne wordes maketh of these Popes holding them according to this his assertion to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastours that euer gouerned the Church of God 41 For my owne part I neither made that irreuerent inference which Mr. Fitzherbert heere collected but hee himselfe out of his want of learning and iudgement broached and inuented that irreuerent Maior proposition from whence if it were generally true that inference may indeed be gathered as well concerning his Holinesse Breues as also the Decrees and iudiciall sentences of other Popes wherein as Pope Innocentius himselfe acknowledged they are sometimes lead not by trueth but by opinion and information which oftentimes is false and both deceiueth and is deceiued neither did I deny that his Holinesse before hee published his Breues vsed graue long and mature deliberation concerning all things contained therein albeit I must needes confesse that hee might haue vsed a more graue long and mature deliberation if hee would haue consulted the matter not onely with his owne Diuines of Rome but also with those of France and these of England whom most of all it concerned and doubtlesse hee might by them haue had a more sufficient information of the whole matter and controuersie then hee had by his owne Diuines alone as the euent sheweth to bee very true But whether this his graue mature and long deliberation and consultation with his Diuines onely of Rome was sufficient to excuse him from all carelesnesse and negligence before the sight and iudgment of God I will not as I said before it being a thing not knowne to mee meddle therewith neither will I accuse or excuse his Holinesse from sinne for sending hither his Breues so preiudiciall to the Kings Maiestie and to all his Catholike subiects without making a more graue long and mature deliberation and discussion but I leaue it to the iudgement of almightie God who onely knoweth the secrets of all mens hearts when through ignorance or negligence they commit any offence And thus you haue seene that fraude hath beguiled it selfe and how in that snare which Mr. Fitzherbert to taxe me of irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse hath said for me is wily beguily caught himselfe Now you shall see with what fraude and falsitie this silly ignorant and deceitfull man doth still goe on 42 And whereas Widdrington signifieth saith he u P. 214. nu 6. that his Holinesse was deceiued by Cardinall Bellarmine x Ibid. nu 51. 52. Item epi. Dedic nu 8. and Fa. Parsons hee sheweth himselfe very vaine and absurd in this coniecture For how can any man perswade himselfe with reason that his Holinesse meaning to giue his Apostolicall sentence in a matter of so great importance as was this of the Oath which sentence hee was well assured should be skanned and censured to the vttermost by all the Heretikes and Politikes of Christendome would suffer himselfe to bee led or guided by any two three or few persons were they neuer so learned or well steemed of him Besides that it is euident to all those that know how that matter passed that it was long debated in certaine Congregations of Cardinalls and other great Diuines wherein Cardinall Bellarmine had onely but one voice as other Cardinalls had and Fa. Parsons none at all for that hee did not enter therein 43 But obserue good Reader the egregious fraude and falsitie of this man who would make thee beleeue that I did say that his Holinesse was deceiued and misinformed of the true sense and meaning of certaine clauses of the Oath only by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa Parsons and not also by the other Diuines of Rome who consulted of this matter for which cause hee omitted to set downe entirely my second answere to his Holinesse Breues and also the particular points wherein I said his Holinesse was misinformed by them least that his manifest fraude and falsitie should presently haue beene discouered For albeit in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse I named only Card. Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons for that they were the two chiefe and principall men that first stirred in this Controuersie by publike writings the one of the Italian and the other of our English Nation yet I did not there affirme that his Holinesse was misinformed deceiued led or guided onely by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons and in my second answere whereto also Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader I expresly signified the flat contrarie and with Card. Bellarmine for Fa. Parsons there I named not I also ioyned the other Diuines of Rome It is probable said I y Disp Theo. c. 10. s 2. nu 51. and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse did vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and especially Card. Bellar. c. z See the rest aboue nu 15. And a little after I set downe a copie of Fa. Parsons letter wherein at the very beginning
therof which words Mr. Fitzherbert fraudulently concealeth he said that about some foure or fiue months agoe it was consulted at Rome by seuen or eight of the learnedst Diuines that could be chosen who gaue their iudgement of it There reasons ar many but all deduced to this that the Popes authoritie in chastising Princes vpon a iust cause is de fide and consequently cannot bee denyed when it is called into controuersie without denying of our faith nor that the Pope or any other authoritie can dispence in this 44 Now what a false and fraudulent man is this to make his Reader belieue that I should say that his Holinesse was deceiued onely by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons and in a matter of so great importance as was this of the Oath c. would suffer himselfe to bee led or guided any two or three or a few persons c. for which cause hee concealed my words which did expresly signifie the flat contrary thinking belike that my Disputation of the Oath being forbidden by the Cardinals of the Inquisition no man would aduenture to skan the matter and examine whether he had dealt sincerely or no but must beleeue all to bee true that hee said and so all his forgeries should goe for currant ware But truely such corrupt dealings is shamefull in a Heathen writer or any other morall honest man much more in Mr. T-F. then Priest Esquire and now an eminent man of the Society of Iesus But now Mr. T. F. laboureth much to free not Cardinall Bellarmine but his olde freind Fa. Parsons from this Calumnie as he tearmeth it and to shew that his Holinesse was not misinformed by Fa. Parsons and induced by him to send hither his Breues to forbid Catholikes to take the Oath 45 Whereto I also adde saith hee a Page 215. num 7. 8. 9. Disp Theol. ca. 10. sec 2. num 52. 53. seq that Widdrington contradicteth and ouerthroweeh his owne calumnie touching Fa. Parsons with a relation which hee maketh to iustifie it in his Theologicall disputation wherein hee layeth downe the contents of a letter written by Fa. Parsons to a freind of his in England signifying that a consultation had beene made by seauen or eight of the best Diuines in Rome about the Oath and that hee himselfe had conferred twice with his Holinesse touching the same and that in the first conference hee and Thomas Fitzherbert propounded to his Holinesse a certaine meane of mitigation or moderation suggested by friends to the which his Holinesse answered that his meaning was not to proceed to Censures against his Maiestie but rather to vse all gentle and milde proceeding with him but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires hee was fully resolued rather to suffer death then to yeeld one iot therein And in the other conference his Holinesse being aduertised that certaine Priests did incline to the taking of the Oath answered that hee could not take such for Catholikes 46 Thus doth Widdrington related Fa. Parsons letters touching his conference with his Holinesse before the first Breue was sent into England whereby it is manifest that Fa. Parsons was so farre from perswading or drawing his Holinesse to the resolution which he tooke concerning the publication of his Breue that hee sought to induce him to some other course propounding meanes of mitigation which indeede I can testifie to be true vpon my owne knowledge as it may appeare by my subscription to that letter of Fa. Parsons which Widdrington mentioneth if the originall bee yet extant 47 And therefore to the end that thou maiest good Reader know somewhat more of this matter and vpon what occasion his Holinesse spake of Censures against his Maiesty thou shalt vnderstand that among other things tending to the mitigation which Fa. Parsons propounded one was that it might please his Holinesse to offer to his Maiestie that if his Maiestie would vse at least some conniuencie and moderation towards the poore afflicted Catholikes his subiects his Holinesse would giue sufficient assurance by meanes of Catholike Princes that hee would neuer proceede with Censures against him but binde his said subiects vnder the paine of grieuous Censure to yeeld vnto his Maiestie all temporall and ciuill obedience for the security of his state and person which motion his Holines seemed not to mislike and therefore signified that the same was conforme to his intention which was not to proceed to the rigour of Censures against his Maiestie but to vse all indulgent and courteous dealing towards him albeit he was resolued rather to lose his head then to yeeld any iot of his authority in such affaires 48 But whether his Holinesse misunderstood some clauses of the Oath and was induced to forbid the said Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation onely by the information and instigation of Cardinall Bellarmine and of other Diuines of Rome or also by the sollicitation of Fa. Parsons it is not much materiall to the substance of my second answere which was as you haue seene that it is probable and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse vnderstood the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome and especially Cardinall Bellarmine for the reason I there alleadged did conceiue them But Cardinall Bellarmine vnderstood the Oath in that sense as though it denied the Popes primacie in spiritualls his power to excommunicate to binde and lose and to dispence in oaths wherein hee was fowly mistaken as I conuinced in the said Disputation And doubtlesse both Fa. Parsons and the Diuines of Rome did agree with Cardinall Bellarmine in the vnderstanding of the aforesaid clauses of the Oath as also Mr. Fitzherbert himselfe did in his Supplement as I shewed before b Chap. 1. follow their opinion and conceiue that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the Oath although now by his silence and not answering to that point which I vrged against him it seemeth that hee seeth himselfe to be deceiued therein Neither can there be made any doubt in the iudgement of any prudent man that if the Diuines of Rome had dissented from Cardinall Bellarmines opinion in that point hee durst neuer haue aduentured to affirme so confidently in his first booke against his Maiesties Apologie for the oath that the Popes power to excommunicate hereticall Kings is plainely denied in the Oath and especially after his Maiestie had clearely conuinced him of falsity in this point againe in his second booke against his Maiestie so boldly to confirme the same 49 Moreouer that his Holinesse was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine with whom the other Diuines of Rome did herein agree I brought an another sufficient reason taken from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter which Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale and relateth onely the last part thereof whereon I did not so much relie as vpon the former to prooue that his Holinesse was misinformed by Cardinall
and suppose it to be vnlawfull as being forbidden by some former law they haue no more force to binde as Fa. Suarez expresly affirmeth Suarez l. 3. de Leg. c. 20 nu 10. then hath the reason whereon they are grounded So that if the reason be certaine then we are bound to obey if it be onely probable wee are no more bound to obey that declaratiue commaundement then we are bound to follow the Popes opinion against the probable opinion of other learned Catholikes All this and much more touching declaratiue and constitutiue precepts and his Holinesse Breues in particular which doe onely containe a declaratiue precept forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation I declared in my Theologicall Disputation x Ch. 10. sec 2. which is aboundantly sufficient to free me and other English Catholikes from all note of disobedience for not obeying in this doubtfull and disputable matter his Holinesse Breues and his declaratiue precept contained therein which is so preiudiciall to his Maiesties authority and so dangerous to his Catholike subiects not being able to finde any one thing therein which is repugnant to faith and saluation especially humbly propounding to his Holinesse the reasons of our doubts and earnestly requesting to bee satisfied therein But Mr. Fitzherbert thought it fit for his purpose to vrge against mee the obiections which I there answered and to taxe me not onely of disobedience but also of errour and heresie and to conceale the answeres which I made thereunto wherein he plainely discouereth his vnsincere dishonest and vncharitable proceeding and that his onely drift is to disgrace mee with his Reader and not to examine vprightly the truth of the cause 95 To conclude therefore this digression it is euident by the premises that if the Pope without a generall Councell define any doctrine to be hereticall erroneous or temerarious and command all Catholikes to belieue the same no Catholike is bound or ought to belieue with Catholike faith that doctrine to be hereticall erroneous or temerarious for this respect onely because the Pope hath defined and commanded the same for that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether he hath any such authority infallibly to define or no and consequently neither his definitions nor his declaratiue commandements grounded thereon can be certaine and infallible grounds of Catholike faith And thus much touching inward beliefe But secondly if the Pope command that none shall preach or teach against his definitions or Breues then wee must obserue that golden rule of learned and deuout Gerson that if we neither perceiue any manifest errour against faith in his definitions or Breues nor that by our silence some great scandall shall arise to Catholike faith we must not dogmatize against them otherwise wee must speake freely and feare no Censures See his words aboue Chap. 14. num 39. But notwithstanding this document of Gerson if any learned man hath doubts and difficulties which doe trouble his conscience concerning the verity or lawfulnesse of the Popes definitions or Breues when they are greatly prejudiciall to a third person especially to a whole kingdome it is lawfull for him according to the doctrine of Sotus and others before rehearsed to propound humbly to his Holinesse the reasons of his doubts desiring to bee satisfied therein for this is not to dogmatize or to teach or preach publikely against them although this also according to Gerson be sometimes commendable yea and necessary but it is a desire to bee taught and instructed concerning the veritie or lawfulnesse of them 96 Thirdly if the Pope should excommunicate nominatim by name all those that shall teach preach or write against his definitions or Breues in case they perceiue great scandall to arise to Catholike faith if they be silent and doe not oppose themselues or should excommunicate nominatim those who shall write Supplications to his Holinesse to be taught and instructed concerning the veritie or lawfulnesse of his definitions or Breues whereof they haue great doubts and difficulties which doe perplexe their conscience then they must remember that saying of our Sauiour wherewith Gerson concludeth his golden document that Blessed are they that suffer persecution for iustice and let them assure themselues that they are vniustly excommunicated and free before God howsoeuer the Pope hath tyed them by his Censure and therefore they may in this case carry themselues in that manner as those who are not excommunicated in the sight of God though by presumption which often deceiueth and is deceiued they may bee thought by many persons who know not their innocency to bee excommunicated Yet they must not contemne the Censure but also for feare of scandall obserue it in the face of the Church although secretly and when no scandall is like to arise they may doe all that which if they had not beene excommunicated they might haue done and they who know their innocency may in like manner conuerse with them secretly and without scandall as they might before But notwithstanding any such excommunication they may still write supplications to his Holinesse vntill hee shall instruct them and may still appeale to his Holinesse ad melius informandum to informe him better and to desire to be fully instructed propounding humbly the reasons of thâ—â—rdoubts 97 Lastly if the Pope or the Cardinalls of the Inquisition shall forbid Catholikes to read or keepe certaine bookes to know whether and by whom such bookes may without any licence be read and kept or no learned Catholikes must diligently obserue for what reason ground cause or end they are forbidden to be read to wit whether for that they are repugnant to faith or good manners and also they must carefully consider the natures properties and differences of declaratiue and constitutiue precepts and that according to the common doctrine of Diuines whensoeuer the reason or end of any law doth generally cease the obligation also of that law doth cease So that if the bookes are forbidden for that they are repugnant to faith and therevpon may be dangerous to soules and this reason is not true but onely pretended and falsly supposed the reason end and cause of this prohibition doth altogether cease to him who seeth this false pretence And this obseruation I haue set downe chiefly for learned men For those that be vnlearned must bee guided and directed by vertuous discreet and learned men which learned men who take vpon them to guide and direct others if through affectate and wilfull ignorance they doe erre for that they will not duly examine the matter when they haue sufficient cause to doubt thereof but either for feare or flattery will beleeue with blinde obedience the Popes or Cardinalls words knowing certainly that they may erre and oftentimes haue erred and now haue sufficient cause to doubt and consequently to examine whether at this present they haue erred or no seeing that learned Catholikes doe in