shall go out and go in and not that Eleazar at the word of Iosue shall goe out and goe in yet from thence it can not rightly be concluded that Iosue was subiect to Eleazar in temporals but onely in spirituals for that to consult the Lord and declare to Iosue and the people the commandement of God when any difficultie should arise yea and to command Iosue and the people to obey his declaration and to follow that which God had reuealed which Theodoret doth onely affirme was not a temporall but a meere spirituall thing as before I declared out of Abulensis Abulens q. 11. in cap. 33. Exodi Neither can my Aduersarie denie but that Iosue did succeed Moyses in the temporall gouernment and therefore vnlesse he will denie as I thinke he dare not that Aaron the high Priest was subiect to Moyses in temporals and might be punished by him temporally if he should transgresse the law of God he can not with any probabilitie deny but that Eleazar the high Priest was also in temporals subiect to Iosue who succeeded Moyses in the temporall gouernment and that he might be punished by him temporally if he should offend against the law of God 30 The next argument of Mr. Fitzherbert is also as weake as the former Also the holy Scripture sayth he x Nu. 8. pag. 7â— Iosue 19. declaring how the Land of Promise was diuided setteth it downe in this manner Hae sunt possessiones c. These are the possessions which Eleazar the Priest and Iosue the sonne of Nun and the Princes of the families and of the tribes of the children of Israel diuided by lot in Silo c. Thus sayth the Scripture giuing the preheminence in the diuision of the land to the high Priest before the temporall Prince 31 But this argument prooueth at the most that the spirituall Priesthood is in worth dignitie and nobilitie more excellent then the temporall Soueraigntie but it doth not prooue that Priests are in temporall Soueraigntie greater then temporall Princes As likewise Cardinall Bishops haue the precedence and preheminence before Cardinall Priests and Cardinall Priests before Cardinall Deacons and a Cardinall who is first created hath the precedence and preheminence before an other Cardinall who is afterwards created yet from hence it cannot be concluded that one Cardinall is greater in authoritie then another or that one Cardinall hath power to command and punish another 32 Also learned Abulensis expounding those words of holy Scripture y Iosue 14. This is it which the children of Israel possessed in the land of Canaan which Eleazar the Priest and Iosue the sonne of Nun and the princes of the families by the tribes of Israel gaue to them c. answereth this argument at large Here saith he are related the persons diuiding the land of the nine tribes Abulens q. 1. 2. in cap. 14. Iosue and a halfe to wit Eleazar Iosue and the ancients or elders of Israel Wherein it is to be considered that Moyses alone before the passage of Iordan diuided the land of two tribes and a halfe although Eleazar the Priest and the multitude of the Israelites to wit the Princes of the multitude did assist him as it appeareth Num. 32. and if he had liued none other had diuided the land But when he was dead there did succeed other diuiders and it was not giuen to Iosue as the onely diuider because God would not giue to any one after the death of Moyses all this power as he had giuen to Moyses for that he would not appoint any one equall to him Therefore before the death of Moyses he caused that there should be assigned diuiders of the land of Canaan whereof the principall power he gaue to Iosue as it appeareth Deuter. cap. 3. 31. to wit that Iosue should take the land from the hands of the enemies and he should diuide it by lots But there were giuen other coadiutors of euery tribe and Eleazar was giuen For Eleazar the high Priest is put as a helper of Iosue in all things as it appeareth Num. 27. And Eleazar is put here in the first place not for that he was the more worthie either for state or holinesse Iosue did sufficiently excell seeing that he was greatly beloued of God and God did speake vnto him very often which is not apparant of Eleazar 33 Neither was the state of Priests in the old Testament more excellent then the state of Kings but Priests were iudged by Kings and this not onely concerning Kings but also Iosue who was not a King was greater then the high Priest as it appeareth Num. cap. 27. where it is said that Eleazar the high Priest and euery one shall at the commandement of Iosue goe in and goe out that is shall doe whatsoeuer they ought to doe Therefore Iosue was the greater because to command is an act of the greater Yet Eleazar is here put before because Samuel the writer of this booke would obserue the order of the writing of Moyses But when Moyses described the diuiders of the land of Canaan he put Eleazar before Iosue and all the Israelites as it appeareth Num. 34. and therefore he did here keepe the same order Thus Abulensis And the cause why Moyses did preferre Eleazar before Iosue may be easily gathered out of the same Abulensis z q. 1. in cap. 27. Num. q. 42. for that Eleazar was then the high Priest and in that respect most honoured among the people next to Moyses Whereupon both Moyses and Eleazar did sit to iudge great causes both of them also did number the people Cap. 26. Num. as it appeareth in the former chapter and this honour did appertaine to all the high Priests c. But Iosue was then a minister and seruant of Moyses and was not the chiefe temporall Prince of the people but after Moyses death although Moyses in his life time did by Gods commandement appoint him to be his successour in the temporall gouernment of the people 34 The next argument of Mr. Fitzherbert is all one with the former And when the daughters of Salphaad saith he a Iosue 17. demanded their inheritance venerunt sayth the Scripture in conspectu c. they came into the presence of Eleazar and of Iosue the sonne of Nun and of the Princes wherein you see also that as Iosue who was the chiefe temporall Prince is preferred before the other Princes so is also the chiefe Priest preferred before Iosue Thus farre in my Supplement c. But why Eleazar the high Priest was named in the first place before Iosue the temporall Prince I haue shewed before out of Abulensis and from hence it doth onely follow that the state or office of the high Priest which was to consult the Lord in doubtfull matters and to be the chiefe minister in the sacrifices and worship of God was in worth dignitie or nobilitie more excellent then the temporall state or Princedome albeit Abulensis
Instit de patr potest Glossa ibidem Moli disp 228. and the Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doe well obserue the authoritie which Parents haue ouer their children was introduced by the Ciuill law of the Romanes from the time as the Glosse saith of Romulus the effects of which fatherly power authoritie or command the Glosse doth in briefe but Molina more at large set downe 93 Wherefore the Reader may by the way obserue that there is a great difference to be made betwixt the power and authority which Parents now liuing in ciuill Society haue ouer their Children consequently the obedience of Children answerable thereunto and the power and authority which the Ciuill Common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince haue ouer subiects because all the authority and command which Parents haue ouer their children proceedeth from the Ciuill Common-wealth and is wholy depending thereon and not from the law of nature and therefore the obedience which children owe to their Parents supposing them to be Parents cannot properly be called naturall but ciuill obedience but the supreme authoritie that the temporall Common-wealth hath ouer her subiects supposing the aduniting of men in Ciuill Societie Bellar. lib. 3. de Laicis cap. 6. is euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine deriued from the law of nature Yea also it is very probable and affirmed by diuers learned men as I haue shewed heretofore x In Append. cōtra D. Schulcken calumnia 16. nu 8. that the supreame power and authority which temporall Princes haue ouer their subiects doth also proceed from the law of nature and prescript of naturall reason although their title or the designing of their persons to be Princes is not deriued from the law of nature but from the Common-wealth it selfe for which cause wee may truely and properly call that obedience which subiects owe to the ciuill Common-wealth or the Soueraigne Prince thereof not onely ciuill but also naturall obedience or allegiance consequently the bond thereof to be greater then the obligation of the Sonne to his Father the wife to the Husband and the slaue to his Lord. 94 Now to Mr Fitzherberts argument I answered in the said Appendix to Suarez that as the power and authority which Parents haue ouer their children is granted to them by the ciuill Common-wealth so also it cannot be taken away from them but by Ciuill authority And therefore those Canons either of Popes or Councels wherein children are exempted from the power and authoritie which by the Ciuill law their Parents haue ouer them doe either confirme that which was first decreed by the Imperiall law or they are made with the expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or they doe onely declare the law of God and nature to wit that children are to forsake the company of their Parents when by conuersing with them they are in danger to offend their Creatour As when the Father is accounted to be dead ciuilly either by some great sinne committed by him as heresie and treason or otherwise or if he make profession in an approued Religion whereby he is accounted dead to the world his Children are discharged by the Ciuill law from the power which he had ouer them as you may see in Molina in the place whereto my Aduersary remitteth his reader For it is a rule of the Ciuill law that naturall and ciuill death are equiualent concerning ciuill acts as noteth the Glosse vpon Leg. si decesserit ff qui satisdare So likewise if one be ordained a Bishop he is discharged thereby from the power and authority which his Father hath ouer him Authent de Sanct. Episcopis cap. 3. § Si uero contigerit And in this particular case which Mr. Fitzherbert here vrgeth that decree of the fourth Councell of Toledo was made by the authority and consent of King Sisennandus as I haue shewed more at large in that Appendix against Suarez Besides the decree of that Councell if it be vnderstood of Children which haue discretion is onely a declaration as I there obserued of the law of God and Nature whereby the baptized children of Iewes are freed not from the power or right which Parents haue ouer their Children but onely from their company for that the law of God and Nature forbiddeth all conuersation whereby one may incurre probable danger of reuolting from the faith or falling into any other sinne 95 And the like is to be said of the discharge of slaues and bondmen from the company of their Lords when the said slaues are Catholikes and their Lords heretikes For although these slaues if they be in danger to be peruerted may by the law of God Nature absent themselus from the company of their Lords vntil the danger be past as likewise a catholike wife may depart frō the company of her husband who is an heretike if she be in danger of being peruerted by his company this the Church hath power to declare and command them vnder paine of spirituall Censures to performe Neuerthelesse the Church hath no authority to dissolue the bond of Matrimony or to take away the right or fatherly power which hereticall Parents haue ouer their Children or to release the bond of slauery by which Lords haue a right or dominion ouer their slaues And therefore when the danger of being peruerted is past the wife is bound to returne to her Husband the Child to his Father and the bondman to his Lord vnlesse by the authority of the temporall Prince the Childe bee freed from the right and power which his Father had ouer him and the slaue from his bondage And therefore à fortiori and by a stronger reason the Church hath not authority to discharge subiects from the bond of obedience and allegiance to an hereticall Prince both for that thisis a temporall and ciuill punishment which therefore to inflict doth not belong to spirituall power and also for that temporall Princes being in temporals next vnder God cannot be temporally punished but by God alone and also because this bond of allegiance is naturall whereas the other obligations by which a wife a childe a slaue are bound to obey her husband his Father his Lord is ciuill and deriued from the Ciuill Common-wealth Neuerthelesse I doe not denie that the Church by a declaratiue precept may command the subiect to forsake the company of his Prince yea and perchance to depart the land if by such staying he be in probable danger to be peruerted yet still hee remaineth subiect to his Prince and when this danger is past he is bound by vertue of his allegiance to returne againe at the commandement of his Prince 96 And by this it is manifest how grossely Mr. Fitzherbert is deceiued in affirming so boldly That the bond of allegiance to the Prince is not greater then the obligation of the Sonne to the Father the Wife to the Husband and the Slaue to his Lord Seeing that all the obedience which a Childe oweth to his
Ibid. c. 1. I declared in what manner wee ought to interprete the wordes of any law hee might I say haue quickely perceiued the weakenesse of his reason and in what sense his Maior proposition and the proofe which he bringeth thereof to make it true are to be vnderstood 39 For to repeate againe his wordes It is indeede great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes and decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof whensoeuer the wordes are doubtfull and vnlesse the Author doe in expresse wordes declare his meaning to be the contrary For it is to bee presumed that euery one vnlesse he declare the contrary doth commonly speake write and decree according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion as euery Artisan doth vsually worke according to the grounds and principles of his Art vnlesse hee will take vpon him to doe some worke belonging to another Art as if a Physitian will take vpon him to measure land then hee must worke according to the grounds of Geometrie and not of Physicke And if a Protestant will speake write or decree like a Catholike and vpon Catholike grounds hee must obserue the principles of Catholike Religion and likewise a Catholike if he will speake write or decree like a Protestant and vpon Protestant grounds must obserue the principles of the Protestant Religion And therefore as the positions assertions and decrees of knowen and professed Catholikes are to be interpreted according to the grounds of the Catholike faith vnlesse they declare to haue a contrary meaning so also the positions of all Sectaries are to be vnderstood according to the different doctrines of their Sects vnlesse they declare their meaning to bee otherwise in so much that if a Catholike and a Protestant should affirme both of them one thing which might be controuersed in respect of Religion the sense and meaning of either of them is to bee interpreted according to their different Religions vnlesse they declare the contrary And in this sense my Aduersaries Maior proposition is true otherwise it is false for doubtfull and ambiguous wordes are euer to bee vnderstood according to the declaration of the speaker and the wordes of euery law whensoeuer they are doubtfull are to bee taken in that sense which the Law-maker shall declare his meaning to be 40 Now his Maiestie who with the Parliament deuised this new oath not for the Protestants but to make a triall how his Catholike subiects stand affected towards him in point of their loyaltie and due obedience hath oftentimes as my Aduersary could not but see in my Theologicall Disputation publikely declared his meaning b In an Act of Parliament anno septimo ca. 6. and in his Premonition pag. 9. and in his Apologie pag. 2. nu 2. pag. 246. and that hee intended in this oath to exact of his Catholike subiects nothing else then the profession of that temporall allegiance and ciuill obedience which all subiects what religion soeuer they professe by the law of God doe owe to their lawfull Prince with a promise to disclose all contrary vnciuill violence and to make a distinction not betwixt Catholikes and Protestants but betwixt ciuilly obedient Catholikes and such Catholikes as are the disciples of the Powder-treason And therefore his Maiestie caused the lower house of Parliament to reforme that clause which contained the deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate him So carefull was hee that nothing should bee contained in this Oath except the profession of naturall allegiance and ciuill and temporall obedience Hee saide in this oath for as the oath of Supremacie saith his Maiestie was deuised for putting a difference betweene Papists and them of our profession so was this oath ordained for making a difference betweene the ciuilly obedient Papists and the peruerse disciples of the Powder-Treason And againe This oath saith his Maiestie was ordained only for making of a true distinction betweene Papists of quiet disposition and in all other things good Subiects and such other Papists as in their hearts maintained the like violent bloodie maximes that the Powder-Traitors did The same also but in more ample wordes affirmeth his Maiestie in his Apologie for the oath 41 Seeing therefore that his Maiestie hath so often and so publikely declared that he intended by this oath nothing else but to make a true distinction not betwixt Catholikes and Protestants but betwixt Catholikes and Catholikes and to vrge them only to make a profession of that naturall and ciuill obedience which all Subiects of what Religion soeuer they bee doe by the law of God owe to their lawfull Prince there is no reason to draw an argument from his Maiesties intention or beliefe and from the grounds and principles of the Protestants Religion but only from the contents of the oath it selfe to proue it to be vnlawfull and to containe in it any thing which is repugnant to Catholike faith and Religion And that this is a probable answere and not a vaine bragge and idle affirmation of my owne it is so euident that I dare aduenture to remit it to the iudgement of my Aduersarie himselfe albeit he sticketh not at this time to affirme that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike 42 Concerning which last accusation hee writeth thus c Nu. 17. Now then to conclude this point whereas Widdrington saith as you haue heard that it is meruaile that learned men blush not to affirme the Kings minde to be that which his Maiestie hath declared to be no part of his meaning I may well say that it is a farre greater wonder that hee professing to be a Catholike and knowing and confessing as he doeth in his Epistle Dedicatorie d In Principio and after in his Theologicall Disputation e Cap 10 sec 2. nu 1. 2. that his Holinesse in two Breues hath declared his mind concerning this oath palam ex professo openly and expresly to wit that it containeth many things which are manifestly repugnant to the Catholike faith and saluation of soules it is I say an extreame wonder that he blusheth not extreamely to defend the said oath coÌ„trary to the expresse strickt coÌ„mandement of his spiritual Pastour whose voiâ—e he is bound to heare and obey if he bee a sheepe of Christs fold and child of the Catholike Church And therefore I conclude that hee sheweth himselfe not only impudent but also impious in preferring the declaration of a temporall Prince which neuerthelesse being well weighed doeth nothing helpe his cause or preiudice ours before an Apostolicall decree of S. Peters Successour whose obedient child hee professeth and ought to be wherein he sheweth sufficiently how good a Catholike he is and whom he holdeth for his Supreame head in Ecclesiasticall causes as also what probabilitie we may expect of him hereafter for the confirmation of the rest of his assertions seeing that wee haue found him at the
company or congregation of the Israelites is diuided into twelue parts which are called twelue tribes for that all the company of the Israelites doth descend from the twelue sonnes of Iacob or Israel and in euery one of these twelue tribes there was alwaies one Prince So that in all Israel there were alwaies twelue men who were greater and more noble then the rest who were called the twelue Princes of the tribes Neither were these made Princes by election or lot but by birth for alwaies the eldest sonne that descended from the head or first Prince of the tribe by the right line of the eldest sonnes was called the Prince of all that tribe So that if he who was Prince or head of any tribe as Iudas or Zabulon had many sonnes the first borne or eldest sonne of them was the Prince of all that tribe and so it alwaies continued afterwards that alwaies the eldest sonne of the Prince of any tribe was Prince of that tribe after his Fathers death 47 Now in euery tribe there were diuers families for as euery one of the twelue sonnes of Iacob or Israel with all their progeny made a tribe so euery sonne of his twelue sonnes with all their progeny made a family So that among all the Israelites there were as many families as euery one of the sonnes of Iacob had sonnes As for example because Ruben the eldest sonne of Iacob had foure sonnes there were foure families in the tribe of Ruben and because Simeon the second sonne of Iacob had sixe sonnes there were sixe families in the tribe of Simeon and so proportionally of the rest and euery one of these families had a Prince who was alwaies the eldest sonne of Iacob his second sonnes for he alwayes descended from the first heads or Princes of the families by the direct line of the eldest sonnes and he was subiect to the Prince or head of the tribe whereof he was so that as the families were vnder the tribes so also the Princes of the families were vnder the Princes of the tribes and as many families as were in euery tribe so many Princes of families the Prince of the tribe had vnder him Abulensis q. 51 in c. 2. Iosue 48 Thirdly a house was taken for a peculiar congregation of companie of many kinsmen vnder the same familie and it comprehendeth all the persons that descend from the same father yet liuing to wit the sonnes daughters and grandchildren although they haue diuers oeconomies or dwell in houses a part from their parents and yet sometimes a house is taken for the congregation of all the tribes of Israel and sometimes for one onely tribe or familie as Psal 113. Psal 113. verse 1. 13. Arist 1. Poliâ— cap. 2. he blessed the house of Israel he blessed the house of Aaron but most strictly it is taken for a peculiar oeconomie consisting of husband wife children seruants And of these Princes of the tribes and families of Israel the holy Scripture maketh mention very often especially in the bookes of Numbers and of Iosue 3. Reg. 8.1 Paralip 5.7.15.26.27 and 2. Paralip 1. and 5. and their dignitie and priuiledges Abulensis declareth q. 5. in cap. 5.1 Paral. and in cap. 5.2 Paralip q 6. and 7. And of these Princes also who neuerthelesse were subiect not only to the Kings of Israel but also to Moyses Iosue and the Iudges may this place of holy Scripture be vnderstood to wit that a hee goate should be offered for euery such Prince offending through ignorance 49 Lastly concerning those three Authours which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken from Card. Bellarmine l lib. 2 de Rom Pont. cap. 29. in tract contra Guiliel Barcl cap. 15. he might haue seene their testimonies long before he wrote against me fully answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay * Aduersus Card. Bell. cap. 15. §. 4. For Philo in that place doth not speake of Kings but of a Prince and which is more he affirmeth that this honour of offering a greater sacrifice to wit a calfe was giuen to the high Priest not in regard of himselfe but because he was a minister of the people doing publike sacrifices in the name of all the people Besides this authoritie of Philo only prooueth that the Priestly dignitie was more noble and excellent then the Princely dignitie whereof I doe not now dispute Neither doth Theodoret speake of Kings nor of the power of the high Priest but only of his dignitie and excellencie God commanded saith he that the Priest who shall transgresse the law shall sacrifice a calfe without spot but if all the people shall commit the like crime he appointeth the like sacrifice to be offered teaching how great the dignitie of the Priest is whom he hath made like or equall to all the people but he commandeth a Prince that shall transgresse the law to offer not a calfe but a hee goate so farre inferiour to Priestly dignitie is he to whom corporall command is committed But this is nothing else but that which S. Gregorie Nazianzen S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and other Fathers doe often say that the spirituall power is more noble excellent and worthy then the temporall which no man now calleth in question But the authoritie of Procopius Gazaeus is of farre lesser force both for that this Procopius as Card. Bellarmine m lib. 1. de Christo cap 6. and Antonius Posseuine n In verbo Prâ—copius doe affirme was a better Rhetorician then a Diuine and also for that he speaketh not of Kings but of a Prince nor of authority but of honour dignitie or reuerence which is due to Priests but especially although we should grant him to speake of authoritie and also of Kings for that he preferreth the people before the Prince and also yeeldeth a reason thereof which is now flat hereticall For he doth not say that a Prince offending shall offer a lesser sacrifice then a Priest for that a Prince is inferiour to a Priest in honour dignitie or authoritie although from hence he gathereth that the Priest and also the people are more honourable then the Prince but for that a Prince as soone as he shall pollute himselfe with sinne doth desist to be a Prince and falleth from his dignity which assertion is now condemned in the Councell of Constance among the articles of Iohn Wicleffe whereof the 15. article is this n Sess 45. Hee is no ciuill Lord Hee is no Prelate Hee is no Bishop whilest hee is in mortall sinne The words of Procopius are these It is to be noted that the Priest and the people doe offer the same sacrifice if they shall burthen themselues with sinne but a Prince doth purge his sinne with a distinct sacrifice because a Prince as soone as hee shall pollute himselfe with sinne doeth desist to bee a Prince and falleth from his dignitie Therefore from hence wee may gather that the Priest is more honourable then the Prince also that the
power and fauour with the people and being the Kings Protectour and Guardian and presenting the Kings person in all things ought not to defend the true and knowne King against a manifestly surper and to command that vsurper to be slaine who in a manifest rebellion seeketh the crowne and life of the true and annointed King which was the case of Ioiada in commanding Athalia to be slaine How vnconscionably therefore and shamefully doth this Doctour both abuse me and also delude his Reader in misinterpreting so grosly those words of mine Therefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then which euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in the like case that is saith this Doctour euery faithfull subiect if he thinke one to haue by an ill title vsurped the kingdome not onely may but also ought to kill such a King c. As though this were the case of Ioiada whereas it is manifest that Ioiada did not onely thinke but also certainely know that Athalia was an vsurper and that Ioas was the rightfull King Besides he was the Kings Vncle his Protectour and Guardian and represented the Kings person in all things and also he proceeded orderly by procuring first the consent of the Princes and people in putting Ioas in the possession of his kingdome and afterwards commanding Athalia to be slaine for making a manifest rebellion in presence of the King sitting in his Royall throne of all the Princes and people crying a Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason for proofe whereof there needed no accuser or witnesse the fact being so publike and notorious but it was sufficient to vse martiall Law in this case especially seeing that there might haue beene danger in delay 54. Neither doth this giue occcasion to subiect to rebell against their lawfull Kings or to kill them but rather to defend the right of their true Kind and who is euidently knowen so to be and too put down a knowen and manifest Vsurper Neither doe I contend as this Doctour without shame offirmeth mee to doe that it was lawfull for the high Priest whom indeede I granted with S. Thomas S. Bonauenture Abulensis and other Catholike Diuines before g Sec. 1. nu 5. 6. cited to bee subiect to the King in temporalls to exhort the people to rebellion and to conspire with the Peeres and people against the lawfull Queene and to kill her but I onely contend that it was lawfull for Ioiada the high Priest and for euery faithfull subiect to defend the rightfull title of the true and knowen King against a manifest Vsurper especially if such a subiect bee the Kings Vncle Protectour and Guardian and hath the true and knowen King in his protection and custodie and representeth the Kings person in all things as Ioiada was 55 Neither is that example of Queen Elizabeth which this Doctour vrgeth to disgrace mee with our Countreymen to the present purpose Seeing that it was not manifest that Queene Elizabeth was an Vsurper as was Athalia but rather it is manifest that shee was the lawfull Queene considering that the Kingdome was left vnto her by the last Will and Testament of her Father King Henry and also that shee was accepted for lawfull Queene by a publike decree of the Parliament without any contradiction or claime of Queene Mary our now Soueraignes mother or of any other who might pretend a right to the kingdome And although her title to the Crowne had beene doubtfull yet I thinke my Aduersary will hardly deny that in case of doubtfull titles it chiefly belongeth to the Common-wealth or kingdome which the Parliament doeth represent to declare and determine whose title is the best As in the time of Schisme when two pretend to be the true Pope this Doctour will not deny that it belongeth to the Church whom hee maketh inferiour and subiect to the true and vndoubted Pope to declare and determine whether of their titles to the Popedome is the best neither doeth this expose the Crownes of Popes or Kings to the rash leuitie of priuate men 56 But rather this Doctour seemeth heere to insinuate diuers very false and seditious positions As first that the people may depriue a lawfull King and who by a speciall promise and appointment of God hath right to the kingdome of his Princely right and lawfull inheritance without any fault committed by him and giue it to a manifest Vsurper and who also as being a subiect is by the expresse law of God for many crimes to be put to death Secondly that if a manifest Vsurper possesse the kingdome peaceably for sixe yeeres together the true and rightfull King then liuing so that the people fearing his crueltie doe not rise vp in armes against him the true heire is thereby depriued of his Royall right and the Vsurper hath now gotten a lawfull right to the kingdome Thirdly that an Vsurper making an open rebellion against the true and annointed King in presence of the King himselfe sitting in his throne of the Peeres people and all his armie the Kings Protectour and who representeth the Kings person in all things may not by the law of armes or martiall law the King being in his minoritie commaund such a manifest traitour presently to bee slaine the fact being so publike and notorious that it needeth no accuser witnesse or other proofe and especially when by delay there may bee danger of Conspiracie and tumults among the people All these doe euidently follow as you haue seene from Doctors Reply against my answere to this example of Athalia And therefore to retort his bitter inuectiue against mee to Kings and Princes backe vpon himselfe 57 Behold O Kings and Princes you haue heere one who is carefull of the securitie of your Royall issue or rather of those who shall tyrannically vsurpe their kingdomes So obseruant are they of your Princely Maiestie and of your Royall posteritie who so immoderately aduance the Popes temporall authoritie Euery faithfull subiect say they ought not to doe in the like case that which Ioiada did in killing Athalia that is if a manifest Vsurper shall cruelly murther your innocent children and so tyrannically inuade the kingdome euery faithfull subiect who hath preserued one of your Royall issue from cruell death and who is the chiefe Peere of the Realme his Vncle Protectour and Guardian and representeth his Royall person in all things and hath great power and fauour among the people ought not to put your sonne in the possession of his Crowne and commaund the Vsurper to bee slaine by the law of armes if he seeke to make a publike and manifest rebellion in presence of the annointed King Princes and people for this was the case of Ioiada in commanmanding Athalia to bee slaine O miserable state of Princes children whose kingdome and life is by the desperate writings of these men exposed to eminent danger If Widdrington had written such a thing what tumults would not this Doctour make what clamours would he not
vntruely affirmeth either that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall States and dignities except by way only of direction or commandement or that the necessitie of the Church doth require that spirituall Pastours should by their spirituall authoritie haue power to vse the temporall sword and to inflict temporall punishments nor hath rightly concluded the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians from the power hee hath ouer their soules by those two axiomes Hee that may doe the greater may doe the lesse and The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall the true sense and meaning wherof I haue amply declared before in the second and third Chapters and haue laid open Mr. Fitzherberts fraude and ignorance in vrging those axiomes 46 Wherefore to conclude with him this Chapter I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether I haue any way abused Mr. Fitzherbert in two things as hee saith I haue done the one in affirming as thou hast heard before in the first Chapter that hee in his Supplement doth first of all suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is abiured in this Oath and the other that hee hath effectually proued nothing else by the law of God but that the temporall power is in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall subiect to the spirituall power so farre foorth as concerneth the authoritie to command and a spirituall manner of punishing by way of coercion and not temporall For as I haue most amply shewed in this Chapter he hath not brought any one pregnant reason or necessarie consequent grounded vpon the law of GOD either in the olde Testament or in the new to proue that the Pope hath power to proceede by way of temporall coercion or which is all one by inflicting temporall punishments to the temporall correction or punishment of any Prince Neither also hath hee brought any one pregnant reason or argument to prooue either that spirituall punishments are not of themselues sufficient although by reason of the indisposition of the person so punished not alwayes effectuall to redresse all inconueniences and to correct or amend all the disobedient children of the Church or that the necessitie of the Church as it is instituted by Christ to be a spirituall and not a temporall common-wealth doth at any time require that the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof must haue authoritie to vse temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments whereupon it euidently followeth that this new Oath which denyeth this authoritie of the Pope is not repugnant to the law of God 47 Thus then thou seest that I haue soundly answered all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments without dissembling the substance or pith of any one of them and haue most cleerely shewed that I haue neither abused him nor the Reader in those two things which heere he mentioneth but that hee hath notably abused mee and bewrayed his manifest fraude and dissimulation in falsly relating the supposition whereon he groundeth his whole Discourse as I haue at large declared in the first Chapter and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate heere the same againe CHAP. VI. Wherein Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the Law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the Law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ. Secondly that Religious Priests by the Law of Nature cannot punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the Law of Nature the ciuill Societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning Religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the Law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers replies of Mr. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted MY Aduersarie T. F. a man as most of our Countreymen know vnskilfull in Philosophie and Schoole-Diuinitie as being sciences which he hath little studied hath in this sixt Chapter taken a hard taske vpon him and which few men except such as are like to himselfe would aduenture but as our English prouerbe saith who is so bold as is blind Bayard For he will forsooth shew in this Chapter that he hath effectually prooued in his Supplement by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes temporally and consequently that the new Oath of Allegiance which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is repugnant to the law of Nature But how vnsoundly he hath prooued this and that by the law of Nature it may rather be conuinced that Religious Priests were subiect to temporall Princes and might be deposed by them and that all things both concerning State and Religion and the publike seruice of God did in the law of Nature depend vpon the authoritie of the temporall common-wealth you shall anon most cleerely perceiue 2 First therefore Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 94. nu 2 setteth downe the words which he wrote in his Supplement in this manner It is euident by the light of naturall reason that in all things wherein there is any naturall composition or combination there is a due subordination and subiection of that which is lesse perfect to the more perfect and of the inferiour to the Superiour as of the meanes to the end which is euident in the Hierarchies of Angels in the Orbes or Spheres in the Elements in the Powers of the soule in the Sciences and to omit other examples in all naturall Societies of Families Common-wealths and Kingdomes in which there is a superioritie and subiection the lesse perfect being inferiour and subordinate to the more perfect whereby nature giueth to euery thing the perfection which is conuenient for it according to the kind degree and qualitie thereof wherein we see nature tendeth still to greater perfection passing and as it were mouing by degrees from the lowest and and most imperfect creature to man from man to Angels and from them to Almightie God who as he is the Creatour of all so also he is the end consummation and perfection of all yea perfection it selfe by whom and in whom all naturall things are consummated and perfected 3 Here you see this man hath brought diuers examples wherein one thing is subiect and subordinate to another but to what purpose he hath brought them and how from any one of them he can well deduce that the Pope hath power to depose Princes by the law of Nature which is the principall subiect of this Chapter I cannot any way conceiue If he had declared in particular after what manner and with what kind of subiection these things are subordained one to the other euery man of meane vnderstanding would presently haue perceiued the non sequitur of all the consequences
necessitie of the Common-wealth shall require it so also the Ecclesiasticall Prince or head of the Church may giue lawes to temporall Common-wealths and the Gouernour thereof according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church the publike good whereof is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or Common-wealth by the same reason and law of Nature that the good of the soule is to be preferred before the good of the body spirituall good before temporall heauen before earth and the seruice of GOD before the seruice of any man or of all the men in the world 12 But first although it be true that Christian Princes who are the absolute heads of the temporall States or kingdomes which they gouerne being also parts and members of the mysticall body or spirituall kingdome of Christ which is the Church are consequently subiect in things belonging to the Church to wit in spirituall matters to the visible Pastours Gouernours or heads thereof yet it is not true that temporall kingdomes or common-wealths themselues being taken properly formally and in abstracto are either parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ or subiect and subordained to the Church or the visible heads thereof for then it must needes follow that temporall Princes not only as they are Christians in spirituall matters but also as they are temporall Princes and in temporall things are subiect to the visible heads or Gouernours of the Church which is cleerely repugnant to Mr. Fitzherberts owne words in that place pag. 95. num 4. who affirmeth that temporall Princes are absolute heads of the States which they gouerne in things pertaining only to their temporall States and consequently in them they cannot be subordinate and subiect to the visible heads of the Church 13 Wherefore that comparison which he maketh heere and is the chiefe ground of his Discourse betwixt families cities and kingdomes or ciuill common-wealths and betwixt ciuill common-wealths or kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ is no fit comparison and therefore neither can the Discourse which is grounded thereon be sound and sufficient For families and cities being taken properly formally and in abstracto are parts and members of the whole kingdome or common-wealth and consequently subordinate and subiect to the kingdome and absolute heads thereof seeing that they are particular ciuill Societies and consequently subiect to the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth as euery part is to the whole body and to the chiefe head thereof but temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto are not parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ vnlesse we will hold with the Canonists that the Church of Christ is compounded both of spirituall and ciuill power and that the Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of the whole Christian world And therefore although it be true that spirituall Pastours haue nothing to doe in matters meerely temporall and which belong to ciuill gouernment yet it is not true that temporall Princes haue not to doe with priuate families and cities in matters that belong to the ciuill gouernment of them for that priuate families and cities are true parts and members of the whole ciuill common-wealth or kingdome and I hope that the Prince who hath to doe with the whole kingdome and gouernment thereof hath also to doe with the gouernment of euery part thereof 14 Secondly no man maketh any doubt but that the spirituall Pastours and Gouernours of the Church may correct any King or ciuill Magistrate when hee doth any thing to the preiudice of the Church and that they may giue lawes to the Gouernours of temporall common-wealths according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church and also that the publike good of the Church is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or common-wealth But all the difficultie consisteth in these points first whether authoritie to correct malefactours by the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods c. hath by the institution of Christ beene communicated to the spirituall Pastours of the Church or was leaft only to temporall Princes and the supreme Gouernours of temporall common-wealths Secondly whether spirituall Pastours may giue lawes to temporall Princes I doe not say as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ for of this no Catholike maketh doubt but to temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto or which is all one to temporall Princes not as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection but as they are temporall Princes and haue supreme temporall power which doth only reside in them and not in spirituall Pastours 15 Thirdly whether the particular or publike good of temporall Princes or common-wealths is to be preferred before the particular or publike good of the Church for that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one totall body or common-wealth which is the Church as Card. Bellarmine contendeth in which totall body the temporall common-wealth is per se and naturally subordained and subiect to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ or whether the spirituall good is to be preferred before the temporall by all Christians both Princes and subiects for that euery man who is a part and member of two cities or common-wealths the one more noble and excellent then the other is by the order of charitie bound to preferre caeteris paribus the more noble and excellent citie or common-wealth and the good thereof before the lesse noble and excellent city or common-wealth and the good of it These be the chiefe heads of this controuersie concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes or common-wealths among Christians and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof I haue at large debated in the second part where the Reader may see all these points distinctly handled against Card. Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius and also touching all that which Mr. Fitzherbert doth confusedly discourse in this Chapter concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes and the Church of Christ And therefore remitting the Reader to my former Treatise where he may cleerely see in what manner the temporall and spirituall power or the temporall and spirituall common-wealth are vnited and subordained let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert would at length conclude 16 Whereupon I conclude saith he d Pag. 96. nu 6 that seeing this Oath now in question is as I haue proued by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church to whom all Christian Princes are subiect euen by the law of Nature it followeth that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to nature then if a husband should exact the like Oath of his wife or a Maister of his seruant or the father of his children I meane an Oath which should
derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince As for example if a head of a family should bind his wife and children to defend him from the correction of his lawfull Prince when occasion should require I thinke no man will be so absurd to say that it is a lawfull Oath and correspondent to nature though the same should be coloured and shadowed neuer so much with pretence of Oeconomicall and filiall discipline and dutie And no more can the other Oath be lawfull and agreeable to Nature though it be neuer so much coloured with respect of temporall allegiance 17 But first obserue I pray you the egregious shufling of this man For he pretended to prooue in this Chapter by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and that therefore the new Oath which denieth this power to be in the Pope is repugnant to the law of nature And therefore I expected that he would haue brought some effectual argument taken from the law of nature abstracting frō the positiue law of God to confirme this power of the Pope to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and consequently that this Oath is by the law of Nature preiudiciall to the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours But now he flyeth from the law of Nature to the law of God to prooue that the Oath is preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church and supposing that he hath proued this by the law of GOD then it followeth saith he that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature then if a husband should exact of his wife a maiester of his seruant a father of his children an Oath which should derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince So that Mr. Fitzherbert doth only conclude heere that the Oath is vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature supposing that it is by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church 18 Secondly therefore although we should suppose heere with Mr. Fitzherbert that this new Oath is repugnant to the law of God as in very deede it is not yet he cannot therefore rightly conclude that it is also repugnant to the law of Nature which he in this Chapter pretendeth to proue for that euery transgression of the positiue law or institution of almighty God is vnlawfull and yet not repugnant to the law of Nature whereupon the Diuines doe deuide the law of God into the diuine naturall and the diuine positiue law and he that should deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to remit sinnes should contradict the law of God in the new Testament and so this deniall of Priestly authoritie to forgiue sinnes is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours and yet it doth not from thence follow that it is repugnant to the law of Nature which is naturally grafted in the hearts of euery man whether hee be Iew or Gentile infidell or Christian as the law of Nature is by my Aduersaries taken heere Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert concluding heere that the Oath is repugnant to the law of Nature for that it is preiudiciall to the power and iuridiction giuen by the law of Christ to the head of the Church seemeth not to vnderstand himselfe what is the law of Nature and how the law of Nature is distinguished from the positiue law of God But of this law of Nature more beneath e Num. 90. ◠seq and in the next chap. where also you shall see the reason wherefore the obedience in generall which a wife oweth to her husband a seruant to his Maister and children to their parents is not properly naturall but ciuill and yet the obedience in generall which subiects owe to their temporall Prince is not only called ciuill but also naturall allegiance 19 But thirdly it is not true that this Oath now in question is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church for that it denyeth the Popes power to depose Soueraine Princes and to inflict temporall punishments neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert prooued by the law of God that the Pope hath any such power as you haue seene at large in the former Chapter and to say that this Oath is repugnant to the law of nature taking the law of nature as it is distinguished from the positiue law of God or man and is nothing else then the dictamen or prescript of true reason concerning things to be done which either supposeth diuine reuelation and the supernaturall light of faith and is proper onely to true beleeuers and it is called by the Diuines the supernaturall law of nature supernaturall I say to man but connaturall to grace and faith which it supposeth or else supposeth onely naturall knowledge and is common to all men indued with naturall reason and is called properly and absolutely the naturall law for that it is connaturall to euery reasonable man is very vntrue as partly I haue shewed in the former Chapter where I haue answered all my Aduersaries arguments grounded vpon diuine reuelation and partly in this and the two next ensuing Chapters I will more cleerely conuince Now let vs goe on with the rest of his Discourse 20 For as no reason sayth he f Pag. 97. nu 7. 8. of Oeconomie or filiall or coniugall duetie holdeth when it is encountred with the respect of the weale publike or of due obedience to a lawfull Soueraigne So neither can any reason of common-wealth or allegiance to temporall Princes ouerweigh when the same is ballanced with the publike good of the Church of Christ whereto all temporall Princes doe owe more respect duety and subiection euen by the law of Nature then their Vassals and subiects owe to them because the Religion or Ecclesiasticall Societie which is the Church is as I haue said the supreme and most worthie Societie of all other on earth In which respect also all Societies inferiour to the Common-wealth yea euery member thereof haue more obligation owe more dutie to the Church which is the highest Societie then to the Common-wealth or any other whereto they are immediately subordinate as it may also be obserued in humane actions which tend finally to Religion as to their last ende for euery humane action ought to be more specially directed to Religion that is to say to the worship and seruice of God then to any other inferiour action whereto it may haue a more immediate relation 21 In which respect the Philosophers themselues being guided by the law of Nature and light of reason placed the end not onely of mens actions but also of euery man and of the Common-wealth it selfe in Religion because as Plato Plato in Timaeo in Epinomide and all the
Platonists reach man being made to the Image of God and capeable of the knowledge of him was principally ordained to worship and serue him and therefore for as much as neither one man alone can sufficiently performe the woorship of God which is due to him from all mankinde neither yet many men together if they should liue without Lawes See Marsil Ficin in argun Dial. 1. Plat. de Rep. and Magistrates for multitude without order would breed confusion therefore Nature hath inclined men to ciuill Societie that is to say to liue in common-wealths to the end that many men liuing together in communitie may the better discharge their duty to God in yeelding him the due worship and seruice that all mankinde oweth him Whereby the Philosophers euidently saw that the common-wealth was not onely necessary to the perfection of Religion but also naturally ordained and referred thereto as to the end thereof I meane not the next and immediate end of the common-wealth which is temporall tranquillitie commoditie and sufficiency but the last end whereto all temporall commodities are referred Whereupon two consequents follow directly c. 22 But what is all this I pray you to the purpose Who maketh any doubt that the publike spirituall good of the Church is to bee preferred before the publike temporall good of any temporall common-wealth and that the Church of Christ is the highest Societie in worth dignitie and excellencie of all other on earth and that euery Christian man oweth more dutie to the Church of Christ as being the highest and most excellent Societie to which hee is immediately subiect in spiritualls then vnto any other ciuill common-wealth to which he is immediately subiect in temporalls and that euery humane action ought to be more specially directed and referred to the worship and seruice of God then to any other inferiour action whereto it may haue a more immediate relation and finally that the Philosophers themselues as Plato and the Platonists guided by the law of Nature or light of naturall reason thought that man was principally ordained to worship and serue God and therefore placed the ende not onely of mens actions but also of euery man and of the common-wealth it selfe in Religion or the seruice and worship of God and that Nature hath inclined men to liue in ciuill Societie to the end that many men liuing together orderly and guided by Lawes and Magistrates may the better discharge their dutie to God in yeelding him due worship and seruice that all mankinde oweth him All this is conforme to the doctrine which I maintaine and prooueth that the Religious Societie is more noble excellent and woorthy then the ciuill or temporall Societie and that in spiritualls it hath supreme authoritie but it doth not prooue that the Religious Societie is superiour in temporall authoritie to the temporall common-wealth or that it hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes or to inflict temporall but onely spirituall punishments 23 Neuerthelesse I would desire the Reader to obserue some things concerning this Discourse of my Aduersary The first is concerning filiall dutie and the same may be proportionally applied to coniugall For as I obserued else where g In Append. contra Suar. part 1. sec 8. num 12. there be two bonds or obligations wherein children stand bound to their parents the one is natural and proceedeth from the law of Nature whereby children are bound to honour and reuerence their parents and this bond no humane power can take away or release neither can this dutifull respect which children by the law of Nature owe to their parents at any time encounter with any obedience which is due to temporall Princes The other Ciuill which dependeth vpon the positiue lawes of temporall Princes whereby Parents are made Tutors guardians and gouernours of their children and this power which Parents haue ouer their children is greater or lesser according to the lawes and customes of euery kingdome and as it dependeth wholly vpon the ciuill power so it may bee increased diminished or quite taken away by the supreme ciuill power and this ciuill duty or obedience which children owe to their Parents doth not hold when it encountreth with the respect dutie or obedience which they owe to their supreme temporall Prince 24 The second is that temporall allegiance or obedience which is due to temporall Princes if wee will speake properly can neuer encounter with that spirituall obedience which is due to spirituall Pastours For if a temporall Prince doth commaund any thing which is against the seruice or worship due to God and consequently against Religion to obey him in this case is not temporall allegiance for that the Prince hath not authoritie to command any such thing and where there is no authority to command there is no obedience due because according to the doctrine of all Diuines obligation to obey and authoritie to command are correlatiues and doe depend one vpon the other and therefore true temporall allegiance can neuer encounter with true spirituall obedience and bee preiudiciall thereto nor contrariwise 25 The third is that although some Heathen Philosophers by the light of naturall reason did euidently see that the worship and seruice of God as hee is the Authour and end of Nature and of all naturall things is to be preferred before any temporall tranquillitie of commoditie and that therefore euery man both Prince and subiect by the light of naturall reason ought to referre all their actions to the honour and seruice of God and to that happines which according to naturall reason doth follow the worship and seruice of God and is the last end of man although not the last end of all humane actions yet no Heathen Philosopher by the light of naturall reason did or could see that the temporall common-wealth it selfe formally and in abstracto as it consisteth of temporall power is per se intrinsecally or naturally ordained or referred but only per accidens and by the intention of man to that happinesse which is the end of Religion and followeth the worship and seruice of God although man himselfe in whom temporall power doth reside ought by the light of nature ordaine and referre the vse of his temporall power and all his other actions to that blisse happinesse and felicitie which is the last end of man and the immediate end of the worship and seruice of God But of this I haue treated more at large aboue in the Second part where I haue answered all the arguments which Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius haue brought to prooue that the temporall power it selfe among Christians is per se and intrinsecally and not only by the intention of man ordained and referred to euerlasting happinesse 26 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth from his former Discourse Whereupon saith he h pag. 99. nu 9. seq two consequents follow directly according to Philosophie the one that Religion is farre more noble and worthie then the
Father a Wife to her Husband and a Slaue to his Lord they now liuing in ciuill Societie and being parts and members of the ciuill Common-wealth is ciuill and dependeth vpon the authority of the temporall Prince who may therefore extend diminish or quite dissolue the bond of obedience although not of honour and reuerence which the Childe oweth to his Father and likewise the bond of obedience although not of matrimony by which the Wife is bound to her Husband and finally the bond both of obedience and of seruitude by which a slaue is bound to his Lord But the bond of allegiance whereby subiects are bound to obey the ciuill common-wealth as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe doth not deny is naturall and is due by the law of nature as the power and authority of the ciuill common-wealth ouer euery part and member thereof is in his opinion de lege natura due by the law of nature And therefore I doe not well vnderstand how Cardinall Bellarmine can according to his owne grounds affirme that the power and authority of the ciuill common-wealth ouer euery particular member thereof is de lâ—ge natura due by the law of nature and consequently the obedience and allegiance of the subiect answerable thereunto must also bee de lege natura commanded by the law of nature and withall maintaine that the Church can depriue an hereticall common-wealth of her ciuill power and authoritie and absolue the subiects from their naturall allegiance vnlesse hee will grant that the Church may absolue from the law of nature 97 Now by this which hath beene said you may easily perceiue the insufficiency of all the rest which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in this Chapter Now then saith hee y Pag. 107. nu 11. in all these examples it is euident that the Church disposeth of that which is temporall to spirituall ends and therefore my Aduersary Widdrington hath no probabilitie in the world to deny that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally especially granting as hee doth that he may command corporall and temporall things so farre foorth as they serue the spirituall But contrariwise as you haue seene it is euident that by none of all those examples he hath prooued that the Church I doe not say commaundeth but disposeth of that which is temporall to spirituall endes oâ— hath authority to inflict any temporall punishment or to depriue any man of any temporall right power or authority for what end soeuer And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth euidently discouer his ignorance in affirming that I haue no probabilitie in the world to deny that a spirituall Superiour may inflict temporall punishments or which is all one may punish temporally and to graunt as I doe that he may command corporall and temporall things so farre foorth as they serue the spirituall For this distinction which I haue sufficiently declared before betwixt the directiue or commanding and the coerciue or punishing power both of the spirituall and also of the temporall common-wealth and the reason thereof a priori which is taken from their proper acts and obiects from which according to the knowne principles of Philosophy the essence vnitie and distinction of euery power is to bee taken doth make plaine the whole difficultie and quite ouerthroweth the comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert maketh betwixt the spiritual directiue and the coerciue power or which is all one betwixt the power of spirituall Pastours to command temporall punishments for spirituall ends and to inflict them and which in naturall reason is so cleere and perspicuous that it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be impugned but the more it is sifted and impugned the more it appeareth plaine and manifest as all true doctrine doth as contrariwise falshood the more it is examined the more absurd it doth still appeare 98 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert z Pag. 107. nu 21. Widdrington himselfe teacheth also in his Apologie a Nu 153.154 15â— that spirituall things may come to haue the nature of temporall things and temporall things of spirituall by accident that is to say as he himselfe doth explicate Ratione peccati annexi By reason of some sinne annexed whereof hee also giueth this example when Ecclesiasticall persons doe apply their spirituall power to the hurt of the temporall state or temporall men abuse their power to the preiudice of the spirituall in these cases he saith the temporall power and state becommeth subiect to the spirituall and the spirituall to the temporall by reason of the iniury done and offence committed because temporall things doe thereby come to haue the qualitie of spirituall things and the spirituall also of temporall Thus teacheth he in his Apologie and affirmeth the same in effect in his Theologicall Disputation b Cap. 3. sec 1. nu 19. 99 That doctrine which I taught in my Apologie is very true and cannot with any probabilitie in the world be denied neither hath D. Schulckenius brought any one probable proofe to impugne the same but with railing speeches slaunderous imputations and fraudulent cauills seeketh to ouerbeare it as I haue most cleerely shewed c Calumnia 10.11.12 in the Discouery of his Calumnies For whereas I affirmed that as the spirituall power is not subiect to the temporall per se but onely per accidens by reason of vertue or vice which are the obiects of the spirituall directiue power and are oftentimes found in temporall actions so the temporall power is not subiect per se to the spirituall but onely per accidens by reason of the conseruing or disturbing of temporall peace which are the acts and obiects of the temporall directiue power and are sometimes found in spirituall actions as in vniust Excommunications and Interdicts when by them great tumults and perturbations doe in the common-wealth arise and in the euill administration of Sacraments whereby death or great corporall harme doth ensue And as the spirituall Superiour may for the euill administration of temporall things as they redound to the hurt of soules punish all his subiects that shall offend therein with spirituall punishments which onely are the obiect of the spirituall coerciue power so the temporall Superiour abstracting from the priuiledges of Princes and the Canons of the Church which doe exempt Cleargie men from the coerciue power of Secular Magistrates may for the euill administration of spirituall things as they redound to the perturbation of temporall peace punish all his Subiects that shall offend therein with temporall punishments which onely are the obiect of the temporall coerciue power 100 Now D. Schulckenius first affirmeth d Pag. 208. 292. that this doctrine is altogether intollerable and cannot be affirmed but by one who is giuen to a reprobate sense But how false and intollerable a slaunder this is vnconscionable void of all learning and which could not be vttered but by one who was wholly transported with some vehement passion I haue sufficiently shewed heeretofore e In Append. calumnia 11. Secondly he
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
and dreadfull punishments Wherefore Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe doth in expresse words affirme t Lib. 3. de Eccles c. 6. that there is no greater punishment which can be inflicted by the Church then is Excommunition and againe u Lib. 3. de Laic c. 22. Aug. l. 1. contra Aduersar leg proph c. 17. that Excommunication is a greater punishment then corporall death and to this purpose hee citeth Saint Augustine affirming that it is more horrible to be deliuered ouer to Sathan by Excommunication then to be strucken with the sword to be consumed by fire or to be deuoured by wilde beasts 42 Now to this answere D. Schulckenius replieth in this manner x Pag. 357. I doe not see saith he in what thing Cardinall Bellarmine doth according to Widdringtons iudgement contradict himselfe That Excommunication is greater then all temporall punishments Bellarmine did write which is most true and no man vnlesse he be impious or madde can deny it but not therefore did he ill or contrary to himselfe write that it is necessary for the Church to haue power to dispose of temporals least that the Prince may without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For many are more afraide of temporall punishments then of Excommunication although this be without comparison the greater as boyes are more afraide of the rod then of loosing their inheritance And this is the cause why the Councell of Lateran cap. 3. did command that Princes who nourish heretickes should first be excommunicated and afterwards if this remedy doth not auaile that the subiects be absolued from their oath of allegiance and their territories be deliuered ouer to others to be possessed by them What will Widdrington say here that a Councell of the whole world was ignorant of the greatnesse of Excommunication or that she did contradict her selfe when she wrote those things Truely prudent men will condemne Widdrington of temerity and ignorance and will not in any wise reprehend the Councell Besides as the Councell of Lateran against those who are ignorant of the greatnesse of Excommunication doth command that the fauourers of heretickes be first excommunicated and afterwards depriued of their temporall dominions so contrariwise the Councell of Trent sess 25. cap. 3. against those who do know the greatnesse of Excommunication commaundeth first that malefactours be punished with temporall punishments with imprisonment exile pecuniary mulcts and at last if these doe not auaile to be strucken with the dart of Excommunication Neither doth the Councell of Trent contradict the Councell of Lateran or contradicteth her selfe or knoweth not the force of Excommunication But my Aduersary Widdrington who contemneth the decrees of so great Councels and yet professeth himselfe to be a Catholike is by his words repugnant to his profession 43 Obserue now good Reader the fraud and falshood of this man And first hee doth not see forsooth how Cardinall Bellarmine contradicteth himselfe in yeelding the reason why it is necessary that the Church haue power to dispose of temporals to wit for that otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretikes and ouerthrow religion as though he were so blind that hee cannot see light at-noone dayes For what a more manifest contradiction can there bee then this that Excommunication is the greatest punishment that may be and yet that a Prince who is excommunicated for fauouring heretickes doth fauour heretickes without being punished But many men saith this Doctour are more afraide of lesser punishments then of greater as of corporall punishments more then of Excommunication as children are more afraid to be whipped then to be disinherited And what then Can any man of vnderstanding inferre from hence that therefore a Prince who is excommunicated for fauouring heretickes is not most grieuously punished or that a boy who is disinherited for his misdemeanor is not more grieuously punished then if he had beene onely whipped for the same 44 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue how true that is which this Doctour said aboue that the dictinction which I made there concerning the sufficiency of Ecclesiasticall power and of Ecclesiasticall Censures to bring soules to eternall saluation in regard of the power and of the Censures themselues and in regard of all other things which on the behalfe of the subiect or otherwise are required that the Ecclesiasticall power and Ecclesiasticall Censures doe actually worke their effect that is actually withdraw wicked Christians from sinne and so actually saue their soules doth little or nothing make to the saluing of Cardinall Bellarmines argument Seeing that you now thereby see most plainly that the spirituall power is of it selfe so great and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments are of themselues so dreadfull and terrible that they are of themselues sufficient to withdraw any man from his wicked life And that therefore if this spirituall coerciue power and these spirituall Censures or punishments be of themselues sufficient for the spirituall end no other power of the Church to inflict temporall punishments is necessary to obtaine the same end for if spirituall punishments be sufficient temporall punishments are not necessary as any man of meane vnderstanding who knoweth the difference betwixt sufficient and necessary may easily perceiue And if any man be so wilfull that he is not terrified with Ecclesiasticall Censures it is not by reason of their insufficiency but by reason of the malice of the person and the indisposition of the subiect for to vse this Doctors owne words aboue it is their fault and not the Popes seeing that he applieth remedies and punishments which are effectuall of themselues if they thēselues will admit them And what if the Prince whom this Doctor saith the Pope hath power to depose doth not regard his sentence of deposition what other remedie trow you wil this Doctor faigne that the Pope hath authoritie afterwards to apply vnlesse he will say that hee must then haue sufficient force and might to thrust him by head and shoulders as the prouerbe saith out of his kingdome 45 Secondly neither did the Councell of Lateran nor of Trent inflict or impose temporall punishments for that reason which Cardinall Bellarmine heere giueth to wit because they thought that Christians who were excommunicated for fauouring heretickes or other crimes were not most grieuously punished and consequently that they might therefore by their spirituall power dispose of temporalls and inflict temporall punishments because otherwise they might fauour heretickes and commit other crimes without being punished as Cardinall Bellarmine did argue in his aforesaid reason for then the said Councells must also haue granted that Excommunication is not a most grieuous punishment yea and no punishment at all and so they must haue contradicted themselues and the receiued doctrine of the Church for that no man vnlesse hee bee impious or mad as this Doctour heere affirmeth can deny that Excommunication is more grieuous then any temporall punishment but the reason is because both the Councell of Trent and
question may be about the causes for which this authoritie may bee vsed as also the forme of proceeding to bee obserued therein whereunto he answereth that herein there are so many particularities to be considered as are ouerlong for this place onely it is sufficient for Catholike men to know that this may not be done without iust cause graue and vrgent motiues and due forme also of proceeding by admonition preuention intercession and other like preambles prescribed by Ecclesiasticall Canons to bee obserued whereby my Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloody Assassinates may iustly bee remooued For that this authoritie doth not onely not allow any such wicked or vnlawfull attempts but doth also expresly and publikely condemne the same and the doctrine thereof as may appeare not onely by the condemnation of Wickliffes wicked article in the Councell of Constance z Sess 15. wherein he affirmed That it was lawfull for euery priuate man to kill any Prince whom he held to bee a Tyrant but also by like condemnation of Caluin Beza c. 52 Thus you see that Father Parsons hath not answered to the Earle of Salisburies complaint in particular to wit that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie ouer the kingdomes and liues of temporall Princes hath not beene made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. But he supposeth it as certaine and graunted by Catholikes and in steade of some cleere and publike definition orthodoxall c. Which the Earle of Salisburie desired he bringeth onely certaine reasons which are in some sort grounded vpon the Law of Nature and the light of naturall reason to wit that Christ hath in his Church subiected temporall things to spirituall which also is true in the Law of Nature and that otherwise he had not so sufficiently prouided for the necessitie of his Church as God and Nature haue prouided for other temporall common-wealthes which are not so perfect as is his Church which reasons how weake and insufficient they are the Reader may presently perceiue by that which hath beene said before concerning the Law of Nature and against Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and also if he will but apply them to the Church and Synagogue in the old law in which without doubt God Almightie did both subiect temporall things to spirituall and for the necessitie whereof he did also sufficiently prouide and yet Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth it to probable that in the old Law the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and that Kings were not to bee temporally by the High Priest but contrariwise the High Priest was subiect in temporalls to the King and to bee punished by him with temporall punishments Wherefore after I had cleerely ouerthrowne Cardinall Bellarmines reason concluding thus And so it is manifest by that which I haue said how weake this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine is euen according to his owne principles I forthwith answered Father Parsons in this manner a Apolog. nu 203. 53 By which it is also apparant how weakely the Author of the English Treatise tending to Mitigation who groundeth his whole discourse for the Popes power to depose Princes vpon this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine doth satisfie the Earle of Salisburies desire whereof we made mention aboue For although it be-true that Christ our Sauiour left in his Church which is a spirituall common-wealth as in all other well established common-wealths sufficient authoritie and power for as much as concerneth the power it selfe to defend her selfe from the iniuries of all men whatsoeuer to correct iudge punish all wicked persons of what state or condition soeuer they be that are subiect to the supreme Prince of this spirituall common-wealth as members of the head sheepe to their Pastours children to their Father Neuerthelesse that Christ left in his Church sufficient power might or force to represse at all times all excesses whatsoeuer of Christian Princes or that the punishments wherewith such Princes may be punished by the Church are temporall which doe passe the limits appointed by Christ to a spirituall common-wealth this besides that it seemeth to be supposed by this Authour as certaine without any reason at all is also most clearely repugnant to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers who doe teach as I related aboue b Nu. 5 seq that the armour or weapons of the Church are spirituall not temporall and that Princes if they offend are for as much as concerneth temporall punishments to be left to the examination and iudgement of God alone 54 Wherefore there remaineth in the Church sufficient remedie and spirituall authoritie for temporall authoritie or which now I take for all one authoritie to dispose of temporalls is not agreeable to the condition of a spirituall common-wealth to represse by spirituall punishments the exorbitant excesses of all her subiects whatsoeuer and of this there is no controuersie among Catholikes as also to euery temporall common-wealth the law of God and nature hath giuen full and perfect temporall authoritie to punish all her subiects that shall offend with temporall punishments but not with spirituall which are not agreeable to a temporall common-wealth and to defend her selfe with corporall weapons from the wrongs and violence of all men though of forraine countreys how strong and potent soeuer they be albeit she hath not alwayes an effectuall remedie or sufficient force might or power to free her selfe from the vniust oppressions not onely of forraine countreys but also of her owne subiects by reason of their excessiue power and might 55 And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath authority to dispose of temporals and to depose temporall Princes to wit whether directly or indirectly immediatly or by a certaine consequence as this Authour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose as certaine and not doubted of by Catholikes but as I haue often said out of Trithemius It is a controuersie among the Schoolemen about the thing it selfe Trithem in Chron. monast Hirsang ad ann 1106. whether the Pope hath any such authority in any manner at all and as yet it is not determined by the Iudge whether hee hath any power to depose the Emperour or no. 56 Lastly if in euery well established Common-weath there is left sufficient remedy and authority by God and nature to represse and punish the more hainous offences of their Soueraigne Prince whereon the Discourse of this Authour in his first question whereupon the other two questions doe depend is chiefly grounded I doe not see in what manner and with what reason he can rid himselfe but that consequently hee must also grant that the Pope himselfe may for all enormous crimes be corrected iudged and punished by the Church Bel. li. 2. de Concil cap. 19. ad 2. nu whereas Cardinall Bellarmine as you haue seene aboue c Nu. 188. Apolog doth teach that
the Church hath not any effectuall remedie or which in his opinion is all one any sufficient authority to punish a knowen and vndoubted Pope for any crime whatsoeuer only heresie excepted Therefore you see what a foundation this Authour hath laid to subiect Popes to the examination censure and correction of a generall Councell which representeth the vniuersall Church and to quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine touching the Popes authority ouer a generall Councell which is also receiued by all the writers of his Society Thus I answered Father Parsons discourse in my Apologie 57 By which the Reader may easily perceiue what small satisfaction Fa. Parsons gaue to the Earle of Salisburies complaint both for that hee brought no cleare definition orthodoxall which the Earle required to prooue that the Pope hath authority to depose wicked Princes and to dispose of all their temporals but supposed it as graunted by all Catholikes for these silly reasons which I before rehearsed and also that from the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls it necessarily followeth as I conuinced in my Apologie d Nu. 43. Seg. that he may also takeaway their liues and giue leaue to others to kill them by all those wayes publike or secret by which temporall Princes may take away the liues of their wicked subiects and consequently his Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloudy Assassinates was not remooued by Father Parsons answere for that they who would attempt to kill such wicked and tyrannicall Princes and obstinate in their wickednesse might easily answere the decree of the Councell of Constance and affirme that what they did was not done by priuate but by publike and lawfull authoritie and that they had sufficient warrant from the virtuall at least wise and interpretatiue consent of the Pope who was bound by the law of God to giue his consent thereunto as in my Appendix against Suarez I did cleerely deduce e Part. 1. sec 9. nu 7. 8. and so those wicked miscreants that murthered the last two Kings of France and attempted to haue blowne vp with gun-powder our most noble King Queene with their Royall issue and all the nobility with the Knights and Burgeses of the Parliament did easily shift off the Decree of the Councell of Constance pretending that what they did was done by lawfull and publike authoritie 58 Now albeit Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth to defend Fa. Parsons against that which I did answere for the respect and reuerence which hee beareth to the memorie of so woorthy a man and his old friend whereof I will say nothing at this time because as he was respected and reuerenced by many Catholikes so also hee was by many not reputed woorthy of such respect and reuerence the cause whereof I will omit now to relate neuerthelesse hee saith little or nothing as you shall see against that which I vrged against him For first the greatest part of his defence hee spendeth f Pag. 120. nu 16. seq in excusing him from that whereof I did not accuse him to wit that Fa. Parsons did not say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power to worke the effect for which it was ordained but also sufficientes vires sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same but onely that the power of the Church being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment which may bee exemplified in the power to remit sinnes to giue holy Orders to excommunicate and such like For albeit the Church haue sufficient power to doe all this yet the same cannot be executed either at all times or in all places or vpon all persons by reason aswell of the in capacitie of subiects as of other externall impediments which may hinder the execution So as it were extreme folly to say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power but also sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same And the like we say concerning the power left by our Sauiour Christ to punish absolute Princes in their temporall states to wit that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient albeit the same cannot alwaies be executed and Fa. Parsons neuer taught or thought otherwise And therefore I must needes say as I said before that Widdrington hath either most grosly mistaken him which truely I cannot see how hee could doe in this place or else most maliciously abused and belyed him 59 But truely I must needes say that Mr. Fitzherbert to returne him backe his owne wordes hath either most grosly mistaken mee or else most maliciously abused and belyed me For I neither said nor meant to say that Fa. Parsons supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that Christ hath left to his Church sufficient force power or might to represse at all times all exorbitant excesses of Christian Princes or people but that he supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that the penalties wherewith the Church may punish her spirituall Children may be temporall punishments which supposition also of Fa. Parsons I declared afterwards as you haue seene in these wordes And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath power in temporalls to wit directly or indirectiy as this Au. hour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose but about the thing it selfe whether he hath in any manner at all such an authoritie whereof the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet it is not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath authoritie to depose the Emperour as we haue often said out of Trithemius 60 Neuerthelesse this also I must needes say that both D. Schulekenius and Mr. Fitzherbert and also Fa. Parsons cannot make good Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and sufficiently confute the answere I made thereunto but that they will bee driuen to suppose that the Church must haue not onely sufficient power and authoritie but also sufficient force power might and effectuall meanes to bring soules to paradise as any man of learning by that which I haue saide before may easily perceiue For the substance of Cardinall Bellarmines argument was this The Church must haue all necessarie and sufficient power or authoritie to saue soules for which the Ecclesiasticall power is ordained but the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures is not sufficient for this end therfore another power to wit to inflict also temporal punishments is necessary 61 To this argument I answered that the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures being considered in it selfe is sufficient to saue soules and that Ecclesiasticall Censures being so dreadfull punishments as I haue shewed are of themselues sufficient if they meete with a capable subiect to withdraw men from sinne neither is it necessarie that the Church must haue besides a power sufficient of it selfe sufficient force might
some speciall lawes might be introduced by the custome of the said nations For as in one Citie or prouince a custome doth bring in a law so also in the vniuersitie of mankind the law of nations might by custome be introduced and especially for that those things which belong to this law are both few and also very neere to the law of nature and haue from it a very easie inference and are so profitable and conuenient to nature it selfe that although it be not an euident inference as of a thing altogether necessary to morall honesty or vertue yet it is very conuenient to nature and of it selfe acceptable to all men 20 Wherefore the opinion of these Authours doth consist in these points The first is that the law of nations doth not onely permit or graunt somethings but also command and forbid by binding vnder sinne for that otherwise the law of nations would not properly be a law neither should a law in generall being taken properly and as it is a rule of reason or of vertue and vice which intrinsecally includeth some precept be well diuided into the law of nature of nations Vasque disp 157. cap. 4. in fine Thom. prim secun q. 95. ar 4. and the Ciuill Law and yet Vasquez himselfe doth affirme that the law of nations was by S. Thomas rightly numbred among humane lawes Besides the law of naure and the Ciuill law doe permit and grant many things and so the law of nature doth grant or permit but not command a man to marry a wife and to keepe and conserue his proper libertie and therefore it is not proper to the law of nations to permit or grant neither ought it by this to be distinguished from other lawes Moreouer if a permissiue or concessiue law in respect of all mankind as liuing in ciuill societie is called the law of nations why may not also a preceptiue or commanding law although it suppose ciuill societie in the same respect be called a law of nations Neither can there be made any doubt but that from ciuill society and from the positiue law of nations yea and from the ciuill law may arise a naturall obligation as for subiects to obey the positiue lawes of their princes for children to honour their parents for married persons to obserue coniugall duetie for seruants in generall to serue their masters e But see aboue cha 6. nu 23. nu 93. seq not to take away by priuate authoritie the goods of another man which hath beene giuen him by the positiue lawes or grants of temporall Princes and many such like all which doe suppose some ciuill society 21 The second is that the Ciuill Lawes and the Diuines doe not speake commonly of the law of nations after the same manner For the Diuines doe commonly call the law of nations that law which is ordained and made by nations and the law of nature they call that which nature it selfe or the prescript of naturall reason without the will and decree of man doth make and ordained But the Ciuill Lawyers doe oftentimes call the law of nature that law or right which is common also to brute beasts the law of nation that law which all men and onely men doe vse although-otherwise it be grounded vpon naturall reason as you may see in ff de iust iure where the law of nature is described to be that which Nature hath taught all sensible creatures and is not onely proper to men but common also to beastes fishes and birds as carnall copulation getting of children and bringing of them vp and the law of nations is described to be that which all Nations doe vse and which is common onely to men among themselues as Religion towards God to obey our Parents and Countrey to defend our selues from wrong and iniurie And therefore as very well obserueth Paradulphus Prateius cited by Salas Salas Disp 2. seq 4. vnlesse one diligently obserue which hath giuen occasion to many men of errour that the law of nations is by the Lawyers sometimes taken for the true law of nature and sometime it is taken for that law which is made and receiued by the greatest part of mankind and doe very well distinguish these two he will neuer come to the true knowledge of the law And therefore Bartholus to auoide this confusion doth distinguish two lawes of nations the one he calleth Ius primarium the first or principall law and this is the very law of nature which he defineth to bee that law which from the very beginning of Nations was introduced by naturall reason without any decree or constitution of Nations and the other he calleth Ius secundarium the lesse principall law of nations which all Nations doe vse by their owne decree or constitution 22 The third is that the law of nations being taken most properly and rigorously is both a positiue law as many Doctours cited by Salas doe hold that is it is a law made and enacted by the positiue constitution of men and not by the prescript of naturall reason Salas disp 2. sec 3. and also that the law of nature which doth containe in it both the knowne principles of nature or naturall reason and also the conclusions which are clearely easily directly deduced from those principles is not properly the law of nations And this also the Emperour Iustinian doth sufficiently confirme f Institut de Iure nat Gent. ciuile who maketh this distinction betwixt the ciuill law the law of nations that whatsoeuer euery particular people or nation doth enact or ordaine that is called the ciuill law as being a law proper to that citie But the law of nations is common to all mankind for that custome and humane necessities so requiring the nations of men haue made to themselues certaine lawes and truely if those lawes were naturall they could not be well said to bee made by men but by nature it selfe or by God the Authour of nature Seeing therefore that the law of nature is not made by men it cannot properly be called the law of nations Whereupon it followeth that it is not for this cause onely called the law of nations for that all nations doe vse it obserue it receiue or admit it as being easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature but for that they doe vse obserue receiue and admit it as being the Authors and enacters thereof 23 So that as the ciuill law and the law of nature doe take their name or denomination from the Authors or makers thereof so also the law of nations Wherefore the law of nations is that which nations made for themselues and therefore it is a positiue law For all nations as they make one Communitie of mankind haue power to bind euery particular man to those things which are conuenient to all mankind as euery city hath power to bind euery member thereof to those things which are conuenient for that
vnder the generall name of Priests or Clearkes nor Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes nor Kings vnder the generall name of Lords Gouernours or Landlords he must according to his owne confession grant that I haue reason to exempt Emperours Kings and absolute Princes from the Canon of the Lateran Councell 34 Neither did I ground this my doctrine vpon the Canon Quia periculosum wherein it is decreed that in the case of Suspension Interdict Bishops are not comprehended vnder any generall words whatsoeuer vnlesse they be expressed by the name of Bishops but vpon the authorities aforesaid chiefly vpon that reason which Mr. Fitzher himselfe acknowledgeth to be most true that all lawes are to be vnderstood according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation of euery Ecclesiasticall Canon is extended onely to those who are subiect to the spirituall authority of the Church as absolute Princes are not in meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes whom I haue named aboue in the first part of this Treatise and defended them from the friuolous exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath made against them 35 Finally saith Mr. Fitzherbert whereas Widdrington saith that the Synode would haue specified Princes by that name as well in this Canon if it had meant to include them therein as it did in some other Canons and Decrees concerning other matters who seeth not the vanitie of this coniecture For why should they be named more particularly then they are seeing that they are sufficiently comprehended in the generall tearme of Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord k He might as wel haue translated it a temporall Landlord n To wit no temporal Landlord aboue thē but the King which is also sufficiently explicated in this very Canon wherein we see that a temporall Lord l He might as well haue said a tempprall Landlord for Dominus temporalis signifieth both is diuided into two sorts the one of those who haue principall Lords m And also Landlords aboue them and the other of such as haue none of which sort are all absolute Princes that hold of none p And also other principall Landlords who haue no principall Landlord aboue them but the King who is not comprehended in odious matters vnder the name of a Landlord and therefore seeing that such are declared by the Canon to be subiect to the penaltie no lesse then those who holde of others it was needlesse to name them in other manner But belike my Aduersary will take vpon him not onely to interprete the Councell but also to teach it how to speake and what words to vse or else it must be of no force 36 No Mr. Fitzherbert God forbid that either I who professe my selfe to be a Catholike should be so arrogant as to take vpon mee to teach the Councell how to speake or what words to vse or that you who professe to be a teacher and to instruct others in this difficult controuersie which you will needes make a point of faith should bee so ignorant as not to know that the sense and meaning of the Councell is to be gathered from the sense and propertie of the words and that by the words we are taught what is the sense meaning of the Councell Now I haue sufficiently shewed before both by the authority of learned Lawyers and Diuines and also by conuincing reason that absolute Princes are not sufficiently comprehended in this Canon vnder the generall name of a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour of Lord both for that it is a penall law wherein an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Landlord Gouernour or Lord and ciefely for that it is such a penall law which is probable to bee a temporall and not a spirituall law for that it inflicteth temporall punishments which according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes cannot be inflicted but by temporall or ciuill power and that therefore those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or Lord cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church for that the words of euery law are to bee limitted according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes law whether hee bee a temporall or spirituall Prince is extended onely to his owne subiects 37 And if my Aduersary flie to his ancient shift that all Emperours Kings and other Christian Princes are children of the Church therfore subiect to the spirituall Pastors thereof It is true in spiritualls but not in temporalls as is the inflicting of temporall punishments wherein they are not subiect but absolute and supreme True also it is that Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord is in this Canon diuided into two sorts of Lords taking a Lord as the canon here doth take him to wit not only for a title of honour which Knights Gentlemen many inferiour Magistrates as Shiriffes Bayliffes Constables haue not but for euery person who hath tenants vassals or other persons any way subiect to him in which sense euery Land-lord Magistrate is called Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord The one sort is of those who haue principall and chiefe Gouernours or Land-lords aboue them as are all inferiour Magistrates and those who hold any land of others The other is of those who although they be subiect to the King yet they haue no other principall Land-lords or Gouernours aboue them and of this sort are both those who let their lands to others and yet hold their lands of none nor perchance of the King and also all principall Gouernours of the common-wealth who are subiect to no other then the King as are all the Lords or the body of the Kings priuie Councell together and in some sort the Lord Chancellour the Lord chiefe Iustice who haue no one principall Lord or Gouernour aboue them as all other subiects haue but the King alone yet neither of these sorts doe sufficiently expresse a King or a supreme and absolute Prince for that they are titles belonging also to subiects and inferiour persons And therefore the premises being considered it is probable that if the Councell had meant to haue comprehended Kings and absolute Princes in that Canon she would haue giuen them their proper titles of honour as she did in other Decrees and not include them in those common titles of honour which are giuen to persons of inferiour state and condition 38 And by this which I haue said in these two Chapters the Reader may cleerely see that these answeres which I haue giuen to the decree of the Lateran
likewise Leo the Emperour was before depriued of his rents and reuenewes in Italie for heresie by Pope Gregorie the second Also Childerike King of France and Henry the fourth Emperour of that name had beene deposed from their states and dignities by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike before the Councell of Lateran Therefore the said Councell had reason to thinke it altogether needelesse to determine any thing concerning the lawfulnesse of a matter alreadie admitted and practised 43 But truely any learned man would be ashamed to argue so vnlearnedly that because some Popes before the Councell of Lateran deposed Christian Princes wherein neuerthelesse they were greatly contradicted by Princes and subiects therefore the Popes authoritie to depose is vndoubtedly lawfull or because a matter is alreadie practised and admitted by many though contradicted and not admitted by others there needeth no determination to make the lawfulnesse thereof certaine and manifest It is true that diuers Popes since the time of Gregory the 7. who was the first that contrary to the custome of his Ancestours challenged to himselfe authority to depose the Emperour Onuphrius lib. 4 de varia creat Rom. Pont. saith Onuphrius haue put in practise this their pretended authority but it was euer contradicted both by Christian Princes and subiects And in particular concerning those examples which Mr. Fitzherbert here bringeth it is euident that many Catholike Authours whom I related elsewhere p Apolog. num 404. seq doe denie that Pope Zachary did depose Childerike in any other manner then by consenting to the Peeres of France who deposed him and by declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France and his subiects absolued from their oath of allegiance That of P. Gregory the second or the third for my Aduersaries do not agree which of them it was Onuphrius vbi supra Otho Frsingensis lib. 6 cap. 35. Sigebert ad annum 1088. Godfridus viterb par 17. Trithem in Chron. monast Hirsang ad adnum 1106. Onuphrius calleth a fable Pope Gregory the 7. did indeede depose Henrie the fourth Emperour but how greatly hee was contradicted therein all Histories make mention and how it was accounted a great noueltie it is manifest by Otho Frisingensis Sigebert Godfridus Trithemius Onuphrius and also by the Epistle of Hermanus Bishop of Metz to Pope Gregory q Vide epistol Greg. 7. ad Herman lib. 8. Epist 21. concerning this poynt 44 Also Pope Innocent the third did depose Otho as before he deposed Philip and hereof he wrote a Decretall Epistle or Breue to the Duke of Zaringia which is registred in the Canon Law in Cap. Venerabilem de elect electi potestate which decree or decretall Epistle Albericus a famous Lawyer r In Dictionar in verbo electio Abbas Vrsperg ad annum 1198 affirmeth to be made by Pope Innocent against the liberty and rights of the Empire And Abbas Vrspergensis not onely reprehendeth that decree as containing in it against Philip many absurd things and some falsehoods but he also taxeth the Princes and Barons of periurie who saith he being taught by diabolicall art did not regard to breake their oathes nor violate their faith now forsaking Philip and adhering to Otho and contrariwise And how this deposition of Otho was contradicted by him Naucler gener 41. ad annum 1212. Nauclerus whom my Aduersary citeth doth plainely testifie who writeth that Otho speaking to the Princes of Germany affirmeth that it belongeth to their right and not the Popes to create and depose the Emperour But to see in what manner Otho was made Emperour to the infinite wrong of Fredericke the second being then a childe and without fault and who in his cradle was by almost all the Princes of Germany in the time of his father Henrie the sixt Emperour chosen to be their King and to whom they made their oath of allegiance and for what cause this Otho after hee was made Emperour was deposed by the Pope it would make euen a stonie heart to bleed and truely my Aduersaries in vrging these examples doe in my iudgement shew great want of discretion Naucler generat 41. ad ann 1193. Matth. Paris in Ioanne Rege an 1210. in giuing thereby occasion to rip vp many odious matters and which for reuerence to the Sea Apostolicke it were much better they were buried with perpetuall silence and obliuion See Nauclerus and Mathew Paris cited heere by my Aduersary 45 Also Pope Innocentius the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons but without the approbation of the whole Councell did depose Fredericke the second but how greatly he was contradict therein both by the Emperour himselfe and also by the Princes of Germany and others it is manifest The Pope saith Abbas Stadensis Abbas Stad ad annum 1245. did vpon S. Iames his day renew in the said Councell of Lyons the sentence of Excommunication against the Emperour and by his owne authority therefore not of the Councell did depose him from his Imperiall dignity and this deposition he published throughout all the Church commanding vnder paine of Excommunication that none should hereafter name him Emperour which sentence flying throughout the world certaine of the Princes with many others did gainesay affirming that it doth not belong to the Pope to create or depose the Emperour but to crowne him that is chosen by the Princes And Nauclerus Naucler generat 42. ad ann 1242. seq to whom Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader affirmeth that the Emperour Fredericke in a letter to the King of France contended to prooue that the Popes sentence denounced against him was in law and right inualid and among other reasons of the Emperour hee alledgeth this that although the Bishop of Rome hath full power in spiritualls that he may absolue and binde all sinners yet it was neuer read that by the graunt of the law of God or man he hath power to transferre the Empire at his pleasure or to iudge temporally of Kings and Princes in depriuing them of their kingdomes And also what contradiction Pope Innocent found by that practise Trithemius relateth affirming Trithem in Chron. Monast Hirsang ad ann 1244. that Fredericke after his deposition came into Italy and did afflict the Pope and the people subiect to him with so great euills that he was weary of his life and wished that he had neuer thought of that deposition Iudge now good Reader what Mr. Fitzherbert dare not auouch affirming so boldly and shamefully that the authority of the Pope to depose Princes was not then doubted of or any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth and with what security thou maist repose thy soule and whole estate vpon the learning and conscience of this man who with such grosse fraude and ignorance seekth to delude thee But to these examples I haue heeretofore partly in my Apologie and partly in this Treatise
Diuines whether the Pope can giue leaue to such a Priest to administer this Sacrament Seeing therefore that to the Sacraments of the new Law as the Councell of Florence declareth are required three things the matter the forme and the Minister of which if any one be wanting it is not a true and perfect Sacrament and that it is a very great sacriledge that the due and lawfull matter and forme of a Sacrament should be seriously applied by an vnlawfull Minister if the Pope in whom only according to these Diuines the whole Ecclesiastiall power and authority to define infallibly matters of faith doth chiefly reside cannot grant authority to a Priest who is no Bishop to administer this Sacrament as very learned Diuines c Adrianus Papa in 4. in q. de confess ar 3. Durand in 4. dist 7. q. 3. 4 Bonauent ibid. Alphon. de Cast in l. de haer verbo confirmatio Petrus Soto lec 2. de confirm and others without any note of heresie or errour doe hold is it not a very great errour to grant such licences whereby there is danger that most heinous sacriledges to wit the inualid administrations of Sacraments should be committed 7 Moreouer Pope Sixtus the fourth did in honor of the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary make a Decree d It is to be seen in the 4. tome of the Councels after the life of Pope Sixtus for celebrating the Feast of her Conception to the end that all faithfull Christians should giue thanks and praise to almighty God for her wonderfull conception which he also cals immaculate e In the second decree of the immaculate Virgin and notwithstanding it is vncertaine and disputed by Diuines on both sides whether the B. Virgin was conceiued in originall sinne or by the speciall prouidence of God preserued from the same Is it not therefore from hence manifest that the doctrine which is propounded or supposed as a foundation of an Apostolicall constitution and decree and which belongeth to the religious seruice of God is not so certaine and vndoubted a truth but that without danger of deadly sinne it may be impugned 8 Lastly some Popes haue oftentimes dispenced with Princes who haue made a solemne vow of chastity in approoued Religions to contract matrimonie f See Azor. tom 1. li. 12. c. 7. q. 1. as it is recorded by Historiographers of Constantia daughter to Roger King of Sicilie of Casimirus King of Poland and of Ramirus King of Aragon and of Nicholas Iustinian a noble Venetian but if the Pope hath no authority to dispence in the solemne vowe of religious chastitie whereof there is a great controuersie among Catholike Doctours g For S. Thomas and all his followers whom Zanchez a Iesuite relateth lib. 8 de Matrimon disp 8. doe deny that the Pope hath such a power and Zanchez also saith that it is probable doubtlesse such dispensations would cause very many hainous sinnes and doe also great wrong to other Princes who by such dispensations should be vniustly depriued of their iust title to raigne and to succeede in their inheritance These bee the examples whereon I grounded my three arguments or instances to confront them with the former three of Fa. Lessius in these words 1. Instance of Widdrington 9 May we not therefore according to our aduersaries principles argue in this manner That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which the Pope in whom onely according to these Doctours all authoritie to define infallibly matters of faith doth reside h For they grant that the Pope alone without a Coūcell hath this insallibility the Councell without the Pope hath it not doth eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of his Decrees and sentences this is the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius first argument But this doctrine that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemn vow of chastity and giue leaue to a Priest who is no Bishop to Minister the Sacrament of Confirmation is propounded or supposed by Popes as a ground or foundation of many their decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences therefore that doctrine doth appertaine to faith This is the substance of my first instance but in forme made like to Fa Lessius his first argument 2. Instance 10 Secondly if the Pope should expresly define that the Church hath such a power to wit to dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and to define that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne no Catholike of those especially who hold that the Pope defining without a Generall Councell cannot erre can make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that Popes doe suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences they are thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to bee accounted no lesse certaine 3. Instance 11 Thirdly it is a point of faith as our Aduersaries suppose that the Pope cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or to bee vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which per se of it selfe is vnlawfull For such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to dispence in the solemne vow of chastity or to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation the Pope should erre in doctrine and precepts of manners and that in matters of very great moment For he teacheth that the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by an inferiour Priest who is no Bishop is a true Sacrament Also that if a Prince by the Popes dispensation doe marry a professed Nunne that marriage to be lawfull and valid and that their children are lawfully begotten and ought to succeed in the Kingdome and notwithstanding that the next of the blood Royall should for want of the lawfull issue of this Prince pretend a right to the Crowne yet the Pope may without doubt according to our Aduersaries doctrine commaund and also by Censures compell the Subiects to acknowledge the issue begotten by that marriage wherein the Pope did dispence to be their true vndoubted and rightfull Prince All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the Subiects shall be incited thereby to doe iniuries and against their wills be compelled thereunto and Princes shall obtaine free liberty and licence from the Pope to commit incests and sacriledges Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and counsaileth sacriledge and commandeth iniustice and by Censures compelleth thereunto But to affirme this it is heritical therefore that also from whence followeth is hereticall to wit that the Pope hath not authority to dispence