setteth it downe 2 Septimò ex iure Gentium nihil aliud probat hic Author c. Seuenthly this Authour prooueth nothing else by the law of Nations but that all people euer held Religion in the highest price or esteeme and preferred it before policie but that the Priests of the Gentiles had power as they were Priests to punish any man with death or the depriuation of all his goods it did not proceede from the law of Nature granting them such an authoritie but from the municipall lawes of the Gentiles Pro domo sua the which Cicero whom this Authour citeth doth most manifestly confirme saying that it was diuinely inuented and ordained by the ancient Romans that their Bishops should haue the chiefe command both in matters belonging to the Common-wealth and to the religion of the immortall Gods And as for the Ciuill law this Authour onely confirmeth by it that the Bishop of Rome is the supreame Gouernour of the Church in spirituall things Thus I answered in that briefe Admonition 3 Now Mr. Fitzherbert to this my Answere maketh as you shall see no other Reply then that which I did fully satisfie aboue in the sixt Chapter when I treated of the law of Nature and therefore it were needelesse to set downe heere his wordes verbatim but that otherwise hee would take occasion to bragge after his accustomed manner that I haue concealed and dissembled his strongest arguments Obserue therefore well what hee saith But if thou hast saith hee a ip 129. nu 2.3 well noted good Reader what was the effect and substance of my discourse concerning the law of Nature thou wilt easily discouer the weakenesse of this answere For whereas hee would prooue by Cicero his wordes alleadged by me that the authoritie of the Pagan Priests to punish the supreame Secular Magistrates with death or depriuation of goods proceeded not from the law of Nature but from the municipall lawes of the Gentiles I must desire him to call to minde what was my inference vpon the wordes of Cicero and the examples by mee alleadged to wit that this law and custome amongst the Romans had no other ground in their opinion but the Law of Nature because they hauing no other light to guide them but the light of reason held it to bee most conforme to Nature that religion should bee preferred before policie and temporall things subordinate to spirituall by the same reason that things lesse perfect are inferiour to the more perfect the body to the soule earthly things to heauenly men to Angels and the like 4 So albeit I doe not deny but that their custome proceeded from their municipall law yet it doeth not follow thereon that it did not also proceede from the Law of Nature but rather the contrarie because their municipall law in that point had no other ground but the Law of Nature which moued them to make that Law For although the Law of Nature could not teach them the mysteries of Christian Religion nor in what manner GOD was to be worshipped and serued in which respect they both might and did erre in those things which pertained to particular points of religion as also other Nations did which had not the light of grace yet not onely they but also all other Nations being enlightned by nature agreed in certaine generall principles touching religion as concerning the necessitie and dignitie thereof and that all humane actions ought to bee leuelled and referred thereto as to their end whereupon necessarily followed the subordination and subiection of temporall things to spirituall and of the Ciuill or politicall Societie to the Religious in matters that touch religion and all this I explicated further in my Supplement when I treated of the law of Nations in particular in these words Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 5 Whereby first of all you may easily see that all the proofes hee bringeth from the law of Nations he reduceth to the law of nature and that therefore what I said in the sixt Chapter concerning the law of nature doth fully satisfie all that hee saith heere concerning the law of nations And secondly you may see what a prettie circle hee maketh and how cunningly he would prooue the same by the same For in his sixt Chapter hee pretended to prooue that the authoritie of Pagan Priests to punish temporally the supreame Ciuill Magistrate did proceede from the law of nature for that it proceeded from the custome and law of all Nations and now heere hee prooueth that this their authoritie did proceede from the custome and law of all Nations for that it proceeded from the law of nature by which kinde of arguing hee prooueth in very deede idem per seipsum the same thing by the very same 6 Seeing therefore that all hee saith heere is a meere repetition of that hee said in his sixt Chapter I will also reduce into a briefe compendium what I answered there that the Reader may thereby cleerely see that hee hath no way satisfied albeit hee pretend to haue giuen an aboundant satisfaction to that which I answered in my briefe Admonition as well concerning the law of Nations as Nature And to take away all equiuocation and ambiguitie of wordes although the law of nature doth properly signifie the light of naturall reason teaching or prescribing some thing of necessitie to bee done or omitted or which is all one commanding some thing to bee done or not to bee done for that euery law being taken properly doth intrinsecally include some precept or commandement neuerthelesse wee doe not now take the law of nature in this proper and strict sense but more generally for the light of naturall reason not onely as it commandeth or forbiddeth but also as it giueth granteth teacheth or prescribeth any thing abstracting from all positiue lawes grants and ordinances of God or man So that euery right power or authoritie which the light of naturall reason abstracting from the positiue ordinances of God or man teacheth to bee due or belong to any man is said to belong to him by the law of Nature as the right which euery man hath to defend himselfe and his goods although it bee with the death of the inuader is giuen him by the law of nature Likewise the power and authoritie which the Ciuill common-wealth hath ouer euery member thereof supposing the vnion of men in one Ciuill Societie is granted by the law of nature for that the light of naturall reason abstracting from all positiue lawes or graunts of GOD or man doeth teach and ordaine the same 7 Now to the point and to the inference which Mr. Fitzherbert made vpon the wordes of Cicero and the examples by him alleadged first I did willingly grant that the light of naturall reason doeth teach vs that Religion is to bee preferred before pollicie and temporall things are in perfection subordinate to spirituall by the same reason that things lesse perfect are inferiour to the more perfect the body to the soule
because they seemed to some pleasing and to others burdensome nor that they were approoued by the common consent of the Fathers because there is no likelihood that they would giue their free consent to the publishing of such decrees which seemed to them heauie and burdensome And therefore the most Illustrious Cardinall of Peron was greatly mistaken when hee affirmed Matthew Paris to say that the Councell of Lateran made 60. Chapters for that Matthew Paris as you haue seene onely saith that 60. Chapters which seemed pleasing to some and burdensome to others were rehearsed he doth not say made in the full Councell Platina in vita Innocentij 3â— Nauclerus generat 41. ad annum 1215. 7 Another ground why the authoritie of this Councell is by some called in question is taken from the testimonies of Platina and Nauclerus and some other circumstances annexed thereunto For both these Authours doe expresly affirme that nothing at all could be plainely decreed by the Councell by reason of the suddaine departure of Pope Innocent from Rome giuing to vnderstand thereby that something was by the common consent of the Fathers decreed but nothing plainly The words of Nauclerus are these In the yeere of our Lord 1215. Pope Innocent did celebrate at Rome in the Lateran Church a Councell or Synode at which were present the Patriarches of Ierusalem and Constantinople c. Many things were then consulted of but nothing could bee plainely decreed for that that those of Pisa and Genoa made warre one against the other by Sea and those on this side the Alpes by land therefore the Pope going thither saith Platina to take away this discord dyeth at Perugia Neuerthelesse some Constitutions saith Nauclerus are reported to bee published among which one is that wheâ—soeuer the Princes of the world shall offend one the other it belongeth to the Pope to correct them Many things in conclusion were treated of for the recouering of the holy Land 8 Neither are those words say they of Nauclerus that nothing was plainely decreed in the Councell to be vnderstood onely concerning the recouering of the holy Land both for that his words are generall and without limitation and to bee referred to those many things that were consulted of which did not only concerne the recouering of the holy Land but also the reformation of the vniuersall Church in faith and manners for both which causes the Councell was called as Pope Innocent himselfe in his speech which hee made to the Councell at the beginning thereof and in his Bull of calling the Councell related by Abbas Vspergensis doeth expresly affirme Abbas Vesper ad annu 1212. and also those wordes of Nauclerus immediately following yet some Constitutions are reported to bee published among which c. and his putting in the last place that many things were treated of for the recouering of the holy land doe sufficiently shew that those first words of his Many things were consulted of yet nothing at all could bee plainely decreed he did not vnderstand touching onely the holy Land 9 And although those very same words that Platina hath to wit that many things were then consulted of but nothing could be plainly decreed may be wrested to the recouering only of the holy Land if wee onely regard his wordes immediately going before to wit that the Pope seeing the power of the Sarracens to increase in Asia doth celebrate a very great Councell at Lateran at which were present c. Many things were consulted of c. yet if wee consider say they many other circumstances together also with that which Matthew Paris said before it is probable that Platina his meaning was that many things were consulted of not onely concerning the increase of the Sarracens power in Asia but also touching the reformation of the Church in faith and manners contained in those 60. Chapters rehearsed in the full Councell and that nothing at all especially concerning those Chapters which seemed to some easie to others burdensome could bee plainely and manifestly decreed for that the Pope did so suddainely depart from Rome to appease the discord betwixt the people of Pisa and Genoa that there was not time sufficient duely and maturely to debate the same 10 The first circumstance is that although the increase of the Sarracens power in Asia was an occasion to hasten the calling of this Councell yet it was not called onely for the recouering of the holy Land but also for the reforming of the vniuersall Church in faith manners See Abbas Vsperg ad annu 1212. to wit as Pope Innocent himselfe confesseth to roote out vices and plant vertues to correct excesses reforme manners to expell heresies strengthen faith to appease discords and establish peace to suppresse oppressions and nourish libertie to induce Christian Princes and people to giue aide and succour to the holy Land c. whereof Platina could not be ignorant and that therefore according to Platina his meaning many things were consulted of concerning the things for which the Councell was called but nothing was plainly and manifestly decreed by any authenticall and publike approbation of the whole Councell And in this sense that which writeth Godefridus who liued at the same time may be well vnderstood Godefridus monarchus ad annum 1215. The same yeere 1215. saith he the Pope held a Councell at Rome where Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops Abbots Prelates of Churches as well from the parts beyond the Sea as from all the coastes of Christendome were gathered together in the Church of Saint Iohn Baptist which began at the feast of S. Martin and was prorogued vntill the feast of Saint Andrew wherein nothing was there done worthy to bee remembred but that which before was vnheard of the East Church did submit her selfe to the West 11 The second circumstance is that there was as much decreed in the Councell concerning the recouery of the holy Land and as plainely as touching any other thing as it is manifest by the last Chapter Being mooued saith the Pope with a vehement desire to deliuer the Holy land from the hands of the wicked by the aduice of prudent men who fully know the circumstances of times Sabel ennead 9. lib. 6. and places the sacred Councell approouing we define c. Whereupon as writeth Sabellicus it was sufficiently agreed vpon to make warre against the wicked in Asia but the discord betwixt those of Genoa and Pisa hindred the preparation thereof 12 The third circumstance is that this so great and famous Councell which was celebrated in the yeare 1215. was not published to the view of the world and placed among the other Councels but 300. yeares after it was celebrated to wit in the yeare 1538. and that by a German who affirmeth that he had these decrees out of an ancient Booke but from whence or from whom he had this Booke or of what credit it was he maketh no mention and Iacobus Merlin who printed
held with Catholike faith was truely a generall Councell therefore vnto this day it remaineth a question euen among Catholikes And all the world seeth that the Diuines of Paris are admitted to Sacraments which ought not to bee tolerated if they committed any heresie errour or temerity for defending this doctrine as publike harlots are in some sort permitted at Rome but not suffered to receiue Sacraments so long as they persist in that wicked life 81 And from hence it euidently followeth first that it is not certaine and infallible that the Pope with his Cardinalls and Diuines yea and with the particular Romane Church defining determining or propounding to the whole Church any thing to be beleeued formally as of faith without a generall Councell cannot erre and be deceiued and consequently such definitions cannot be certaine and infallible nor can be an assured ground of Catholike faith nor a sufficient reason motiue medium or cause to beleeue any thing by him so defined with Catholike faith for that the fundamentall reason medium cause and motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine and infallible as I shewed before out of Bannes from whom other Diuines doe not dissent herein and if that reason be vncertaine doubtfull or fallible the faith or beliefe which is grounded and dependeth thereon cannot be truely Catholike and infallible 82 Secondly if the Popes decrees and definitions in things to be beleeued as of faith albeit directed to the whole Church and in things which doe not concerne his owne particular interest honour authority or prerogatiue and wherein therefore there can be no suspicion that he himselfe is led by affection or his Counsellers and Diuines by flattery to the making of such Decrees are not certaine and infallible but may be false and exposed to errour and consequently can be no sure ground of Catholike faith what iudgement can any sensible man make of such decrees or definitions which are neither directed to the whole Church but to particular persons or Churches nor are propounded as of faith nor grounded vpon any doctrine which is certaine and out of controuersie but onely vpon a question maintained on both sides by learned Catholikes and which also concerneth the Popes owne interest authority and prerogatiue as are his Breues directed to English Catholikes which are neither propounded to the whole Church nor containe any definition as of faith but onely a declaratiue precept which is grounded vpon a controuersie which began in Pope Gregory the seuenth his time and hath since continued betwixt the Bishops of Rome and Christian Princes concerning the authority which Popes pretend to haue ouer all their temporalls 83 Thirdly if the Popes Decrees together with the Romane Church by which he declareth and defineth any doctrine to be of faith or against faith may be fallible and exposed to errour and consequently can be no certaine rule or ground of Catholike faith nor any sufficient reason cause or motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith so long as this controuersie among Catholikes concerning the Popes infallibility in his definitions remaineth vndecided much lesse can a Decree of any Congregation of Cardinalls declaring any doctrine to be of faith or condemning any doctrine as hereticall erroneous temerarious or scandalous be an assured ground of Catholike faith or a sufficient reason for any man to beleeue with Catholike faith that doctrine to be such as their Decrees doe declare or condâ—mne Which being so what iudgement I pray you can any reasonable man make of such their Decrees which condemne no doctrine at all either in generall or particular but onely forbid certaine bookes to be read or kept without declaring for what cause or crime either in particular or in generall they are forbidden and such bookes also as are written against one of the chiefest of their Congregation of which sort is that Decree of the Cardinalls wherein two bookes of mine written chiefly against Cardinall Bellarmine are forbidden without expressing any cause or crime at all either in particular or generall why they are forbidden 84 Fourthly by all this it is euident what infinite wrong this my ignorant Aduersary whether onely through blinde and inconsiderate zeale or also through some passionate splene taken against me for contradicting his writings and some others of his Societie I leaue to God his own conscience to iudge hath both done to me in so falsly and yet vpon such childish grounds accusing me to be no Catholike but an hereticke disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike for not admitting the Popes Breues and declaratiue precept grounded at the most vpon an opinion which learned Catholikes haue euer impugned and taxing my doctrine of heresie for that my bookes are forbidden by the Cardinalls of the Inquisition without condemning any position contained in them of any crime either in particular or generall and also into what eminent danger he both casteth himselfe headlong and seeketh also to draw after him vnlearned Catholikes if they will follow such a blinde guide in waies which he himselfe for want of Scholasticall learning hath neuer gone by endeauouring to ouerthrow their Catholike faith and to perswade them to build it vpon fallible grounds as vpon Popes Breues which neither are directed to the whole Church nor doe containe any definition or declaration of any particular doctrine and vpon the Decrees of certaine Cardinalls condemning bookes onely in generall tearmes which perchance some of them neuer read nor for want of sufficient learning doe well vnderstand but doe relie either vpon the relation or iudgement of other men to whom the charge of ouerseeing such bookes is committed by them whereas the grounds of true Catholike faith and the fundamentall reason why a man ought to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine infallible and without all controuersie And thus you see in what a labyrinth this silly man hath wound himselfe who seeking to perswade his Reader that I am no true Catholike but a disguised and masked hereticke vnder the name of a Catholike for not building my Catholike faith vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are controuersed among learned Catholikes plainly bewraieth what a sound Catholike he himselfe is and vpon what sure grounds he buildeth his Catholike faith and would haue other Catholikes to build the same whereas according to the approoued doctrine of all learned Catholikes vnlesse it be built vpon certaine vndoubted and infallible grounds it cannot be a true Catholike faith but onely an vncertaine and fallible opinion masked vnder the vizard of Catholike faith 85 Lastly that vnlearned Catholikes may walke warily securely and without danger and bee not misled blindfold by this my ignorant Aduersary they must carefully obserue the difference betwixt the Church firmely beleeuing and probably thinking or which is all one betwixt Catholike faith and opinion The first difference is that the grounds of Catholike faith must bee certaine and infallible but the grounds of
publike writings dedicated to his Holinesse make great doubts and giue great reasons to shew that they haue erred at this very present desiring to be satisfied therein these learned men I say shall render a strict account at the day of iudgement for the temporall or spirituall harme which those poore ignorant soules who haue trusted to their learning and conscience haue sustained by their aduise and counsell and also they are bound to make satisfaction and restitution in this world for all the temporall losse which those poore soules haue incurred by their rash and pernicious counsell proceeding from wilfull and affectate or desired ignorance 98 Neuerthelesse also vnlearned Catholikes when they haue iust cause to doubt of the truth lawfulnes of any Decrees either of Pope or Cardinalls which are preiudiciall to a third person and especially to their temporall Prince and the whole kingdome are bound for as much as by their naturall wit and capacitie they are able to examine the matter and not to be led blindfold without sufficient reason which may fully satisfie their vnderstanding and conscience And this doctrine which I haue heere in this digression set downe is so sound easie and perspicuous that no learned man can take any iust exception thereat Yet I haue not set it downe for that it is necessarie to satisfie my Aduersaries obiections which before I clearely answered seeing that neither the Pope by his Breues nor the Cardinalls of the Inquisition by forbidding my bookes haue defined determined or declared this doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes to bee of faith because there is no mention at all made of this doctrine either in the Popes Breues or in the aforesaid Decree of the Cardinalls but I haue set it downe onely for satisfaction and instruction of the Catholike Reader that hee bee not led hood-winckt by the grosse ignorance of my vnlearned Aduersarie T.F. who as it seemeth doth not know what heresie or disobedience is yet pretendeth to be their guide and director therin but both of them may doe well to remember that saying of our Sauiour Si caecus caeco ducatum praestet ambo in foueam cadunt If the blinde bee guide to the blinde both fall into the ditch And by all this it is euident that I and other Catholikes cannot any way bee iustly taxed of disobedience for propounding to his Holinesse with all humilitie the doubts and reasons which wee haue not to admit his Breues which are so preiudiciall to his Maiestie and our selues and most humbly requesting him that he will satisfie and instruct vs therein but alas what little satisfaction wee haue receiued from his Holinesse you shall see beneath 99 Now to returne to my ignorant and vncharitable Aduersarie who hath laboured in vaine to prooue not onely that I am disobedient and irreuerent to the Sea Apostolike but also an heretike disguised and that my submission to the Censure of the Catholike Roman Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes and also that my meaning is to escape the Censures of the Church by appealing from the Pope to a generall Councell all which how false and slanderous they are you haue alreadie seene and yet wee reade that the Doctours and Catholikes of Paris haue diuers times appealed from the Pope being not well informed and aduised to a future Councell now this silly and vnconscionable man will forsooth confirme his aforesaid rash iudgement of mee concerning the last point of my appealing to a Councell by the example of Luther who at his first breach and disunion from the Church did as all Anostataes and heretikes are wont to doe appeale from the Pope to a generall Councell 100 This is manifest saith hee y p. 220. nu 17 euen in Luther himselfe who after hee had begunne to set abroach his heresie retained for a while the good opinion of many Catholikes with his pretence still to reuerence and highly esteeme the Popes authoritie insomuch that he wrote to Pope Leo in these words Quare Beatissime Pater Surius an 1517 prostratum me pedibus tuae Beatitudinis offero c. Wherefore most holy Father I offer my selfe prostrate at the feete of your Holinesse with all that I haue or am do you quicken or kill call or recall approoue or reprooue as it shall please you I will acknowledge your voyce as the voyce of Christ gouerning in you So he making as you see a farre greater and more absolute submission then Widdrington doth albeit within a while after being condemned first by a Legate of the Pope and after by the Pope himselfe he appealed first from the Legate to the Pope and afterward from the Pope to a future Councell and what became of him in the ende the world hath seene and felt by the bad fruites of his Apostacie Ibid. anno 1519 Sed Deus meliora 102 But first this silly man will not as I suppose finde fault with Luther for the humble submission hee made to the Pope but all that hee can reprehend in him may be two things the one is that he did it not sincerely and from his heart which if it be so as also it may be otherwise I cannot but much dislike such deepe dissimulation But for my owne part I protest before almightie God that the submission I made of my selfe and all my writings to the iudgement and Censure of the Catholike Roman Church I did it with all my heart and without any dissimulation at all The second may bee that hee did appeale afterwards from the Pope to a future Councell which although I doe not intend euer to doe but will take patiently all the Censures which shall bee imposed vpon mee I will onely appeale still to the Pope himselfe to informe him better and to make knowne to him and to the whole world my oppression and the iustice of my cause yet neither Luther nor any other can bee accounted an heretike Apostata or Schismatike for appealing from the Pope to a future Councell vpon a iust cause seeing it is well knowne that the Masters Doctours and the whole Vniuersitie of Paris did also appeale from the saide Pope Leo to a future Councell The copie of this Appeale which was made in the yeere 1517. the 27. of March is to bee seene in Bochell lib. 8. Decret Eccles Gallic cap. 8. who were not therefore accounted heretikes Apostataes Schismatikes silly sicke scabbed or rotten sheepe 102 Secondly Luther within two yeeres after hee began to publish his doctrine reuolted wholly from the Catholike Roman Church and renounced all obedience to the Bishop of Rome but since I began to write there be seuen yeeres fully expired and yet I continue still in the vnitie of the Catholike Roman Church and doe acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to bee my supreame spirituall Pastour Father and Superiour And albeit my opinion be that
willingly graunt that it may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests had power to command or enioyne bodily penances to their penitents as fasting prayer lying vpon sackcloth and ashes yea and giuing of almes in satisfaction of their sinnes as the building of Churches Colledges Hospitals or Religious Houses according to the greatnesse of their offence and the qualitie condition and abilitie of the penitent or to vse the tearme of Diuines claâ—e non errante the key not erring For if such penances should be enioyned without discretion and due regard of the greatnesse of the offence or of the state and condition of the penitent the key should erre and would not haue force to bind Secondly I doe also graunt that there is an order and subordination in worth and dignitie betwixt spirituall corporall and temporall goods or of the soule of the body and of fortune and that according to the light of nature the goods of the soule being most worthy are to be preferred and esteemed before the other two and that the goods of the body bodily life health libertie and such like bodily contentments are to be preferred before the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states and that all of them are with due order to be referred to the seruice and glorie of God and to the eternall saluation both of body and soule But what followeth from all this 33 Whereupon I inferre saith my Aduersarie r pag. 33. nu 5.6 according to the axiome of the law accessorium sequitur principale that seeing not onely the body but also temporall goode and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof a must needs follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glorie of God for the which 〈…〉 bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained And this me thinkes our aduersaries should not deny seeing that their Ecclesiasticall discipline admitteth not onely corporall chastisements by imprisonment but also pecuniaris mulcto and penalties Therefore vpon this I inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke and consequently to be fedde and gouerned by the supreme Pastour of the Church may also be chastised by him in their temporall states when it shall be necessarie for the glorie and seruice of God the benefite of soules and good of the whole Church whereto all Christian Kingdomes Isa 60. and Empyres are subordinate and subiect as I haue prooued before out of the holy Scripture and will prooue also after a while by the very law of nature and light of reason 34 But first touching the consequent or conclusion of his inference or argument to wit that the Pope hauing power ouer the soule hath power also ouer the body and goods when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and glory of God I doe willingly graunt the same if it be vnderstoode of a power not to dispose of corporall and temporall goods but to command and enioyne them in order to spirituall good albeit my Aduersarie did vnderstand it of both as I shewed before But as concerning the consequence inference or argument which hee draweth from that rule of the law De Regulis Iuris in 6. regula 42. The accessorie followeth the principall or as it is in the Canon law Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis It is fit or conuenient that the accessorie follow the nature of the principall which rule as the Glosse there affirmeth is taken from that rule of the Ciuill law ff de Regulis Iuris regula 138. Cum principalis causa c. When the principall cause is not consisting for the most part neither those things that follow haue place there can be no conuincing or demonstratiue argument as all my Aduersaries arguments must be if hee will prooue by them that the oath cannot with a safe and probable conscience be taken by any Catholike and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith be drawen from that generall rule of the law which hath so many exceptions restrictions and limitations and which are not as yet made sufficiently knowen by the Lawiers as neither what is vniuersally meant by Accessorie and what by Principall and what is to follow the nature of the principall 35 And therefore not without cause doth the rule of the Ciuill law from which this rule of the Canon law is taken adioyne that word plaerunque for the most part and the rule it selfe of the Canon law doth not absolutely say that the Accessorie must follow or doth follow the nature of the principall but it is fit or conuenient that the accessorie doe follow the nature of the principall to signifie that it doth not alwaies and of necessitie but for the most part and of congruitie follow the principall and that Iudges ought for the most part follow this rule in their iudgements if they haue no speciall reasoned meaning 〈…〉 to the contraries And therefore as the marginall Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doth well obserue Å¿ Leg. Et si is quem Cod. de praedijs alijs c. The accessorie doth not follow his principall when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall 36 Secondly therefore I would gladly know of my Aduersarie whether he will haue this rule to be grounded onely in humane law and hath it force and strength onely from thence so that if the Ciuill or Canon law had not made and ordained that rule it would not be of force and validitie or else it is grounded also in the law of God or nature If he graunt the first as commonly the Lawiers doe and therefore some things which seeme of their owne nature to be accessorie as a saddle and bridle are to a horse are not accessorie according to humane law and therefore he that selleth a horse doth not consequently sell the bridle and faddle and somethings which are not accessorie of their owne nature as a dowrie is not necessarily annexed to marriage are made accessorie according to humane lawe and therefore he that marrieth a woman with the consent of her parents hath right to a dowrie and the parents are bound by the Ciuill Law to giue a dowrie if they be able wherefore the Glosse vpon the aforesaid rule of the Ciuill law doth obserue that the word plaerunque for the most part was purposely added to that rule of the law for that sometimes that rule doth faile to which purpose he alledgeth many texts of the Ciuill law If my Aduersarie I say will graunt the first he can not but easily perceiue that there can no forcible argument be drawne from the
therefore belonging to temporall and not to spirituall power or that the Successours of Boleslaus had onely the title of Dukes for that the Pope depriued them by way of a iuridicall sentence of the title of Kings but this might proceed either from the people themselues who by reason of that heynous fact of Boleslaus in killing that holy Bishop Stanislaus with his owne hands in the Church whiles he was saying Masse and after he had miraculously cleered himselfe by raising a man from death in open Parliament to giue testimony whether he had iniutiously taken from that dead man certaine lands or no whereof he was falsly accused by the King in a publike assembly of the Realme would not giue any longer that title of Kings or for that the Emperour to whom that kingdome was perchance m Dubranius l. 5. Aeneas Siluius cap. 19. Bohemiae who relateth that in the time of Otho the first Emperour the kingdome of Polonia was subiect to the Romane Empire then feudarie would not suffer them by reason of the execrable crime to haue any longer that title of Kings but onely of Dukes 61 Wherefore neither by any sufficient reason or approoued practise it can bee prooued that the Pope as Pope hath power to giue earthly kingdomes for the good of the Church or to depriue Princes of their states although they should deserue it and the good also of the Church should require it which last supposition neuerthelesse is vntrue for that to depriue Princes of their temporall States is not necessary for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules as I haue shewed before and although it were necessary yet considering that it is a temporall or ciuill and not a spirituall action for what end soeuer we suppose it to be done it cannot be performed by a spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but by temporall or ciuill power 62 And thus thou seest good Reader to conclude this Chapter with my Aduersary how soundly and without any scoffing I haue confuted Lessius argument and that generall maxime whereon his consequence was grounded by those foure instances which I haue heere examined and cleerely prooued that they are all to the purpose and doe not any whit alter the state of the question but that my Aduersarie himselfe in impugning them doth alter the case and change the state of the question or medius terminus which Lessius vsed and flyeth from his argument to others of his owne inuenting wherein he discouereth his great ignorance in Logicke and that therefore all those vnseemely nickenames of absurd impertinent foolish ridiculous and malicious agree to none so much as to himselfe All which being duly considered I referre to the iudgement of any indifferent man whether I had not reason without any cogging scoffing gibing or malice as my Aduersary is pleased to vnburden his fowle and bitter stomacke but with a sincere compassion of the miserable state of poore English Catholikes in soule body goods and credit into which this man seeketh to draw them headlong and with an earnest desire that they should according to our Sauiours commandement Render to God and Caesar that which is their due to affirme by way of interrogation that these and such like reasons are no good arguments to mooue the English Catholikes prodigally to cast away their goods and to deny their allegiance to his Maiestie 63 Neither is it my desire that Catholikes should bee prodigall of their soules or should deny their fidelitie and due obedience to their spirituall Pastour neither is it true that I haue greater care of their goods then of their soules or that I would haue them venteâ— and hazard their eternall saluation to saue their temporall goods as Mr. Fitzherbert little caring what he saith so that by his saying he may any way disgrace me very vntruely God forgiue him affirmeth For I doe chiefly respect God is my witnesse their eternall saluation and I would haue them to render all due obedience both to their spirituall Pastour and also to their temporall Prince but my desire is that they will sincerely consider that not onely in denying spirituall obedience to their spirituall Pastour but also in denying temporall allegiance to their temporall Prince they doe venter and hazard their eternall saluation for that they are bound by the expresse commaundement of our Sauiour and vnder paine of eternall damnation to render both to God and Caesar that which is their due But it seemeth that my Aduersaries minde is all vpon the Pope and little vpon his Prince seeing that he hath so great care to enlarge the Popes Monarchy and so little to maintaine his Kings Soueraigntie but I hope God will inspire English Catholikes to be wiser and not to runne headlong on either side but to examine and weigh their temporall and spirituall fidelity with an equall ballance and to consider that they may as well offend and hazard their saluation in giuing too much as too little to their spirituall Pastour as also in giuing too little as too much to their temporall Prince 64 Wherefore my humble request to English Catholikes is that seeing this controuersie of their temporall and spirituall obedience betweene their temporall Prince and spirituall Pastour doth so neerely concerne their eternall saluation they will not venter their soules vpon any mans bare word nor giue credit either to my sayings or the sayings of my Aduersaries without examining sincerely the reasons on both sides and the substance and manner of both our writings and diligently considering how farre forth they are bound to obey the command of their spirituall Pastour when it is only declaratiue and grounded vpon no sure definition against the commandement of their temporall Prince who is in lawfull possession of his kingdome from which the Pope the matter being as yet in controuersie and not decided pretendeth to haue power to exclude him For neither ignorance nor pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike can now in my opinion excuse them from not examining what duty they owe both to their spirituall Pastour and also to their temporal Prince and to what things both their temporall and also spirituall obedience doth extend for now they hauing so many and so sufficient causes prudently to doubt both in regard of so many bookes that haue beene written and also of the strange carriage of my Aduersaries in commanding me to purge my selfe vnder paine of Censures and not telling of what and forbidding my bookes and not declaring for why although I haue often desired to know some one particular thing whereof I should purge my selfe or which is blame worthy in my bookes faithfully promising to purge whatsoeuer is to be purged and to recall whatsoeuer I haue written amisse they are bound according to the doctrine of all Diuines to examine the truth so farre forth as the learning and capacitie of euery man will permit otherwise their ignorance will bee wilfull and damnable and their zeale albeit they shall thinke
thrust him out no man enforcing him and the wordes of holy Scripture yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out doe cleerely insinuate the same 87 And thirdly King Ozias saith the Scripture was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house apart full of the leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord. Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land Neither from this can it be gathered that the Priests of the old law did intermeddle in any temporall action or did depriue King Ozias of his kingdome or the administration thereof but the most that from hence can be concluded is that the plague of leprosie did depriue him of the administration of his kingdome by ordaining that a leaper should dwell apart out of the campe or Citie and the Priest did onely declare the law of God and denounce him according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law to be infected with leprosie which is no temporall but a meere spirituall action 88 As likewise spirituall Pastours now in the new law haue authoritie to declare that the goods of the faithfull are to be exposed if the necessitie of the Church doe require the same but not to dispose of them or to take them away by force from the faithfull and also to declare when Princes are to vse the materiall sword for the good of the Church but not to vse it themselues as before e part 1. cap. 3. part 2. cap. 9. I declared out of Ioannes Parisiensis and 8. Bernard And if we should suppose a case which is not to wit that heresie idolatie or any other mortall crime doth ipso facto depriue Princes and Prelates of their dominion and Iurisdiction which was the doctrine of Iohn Wicleffe condemned in the Councell of Constance and therefore those words of the Ordinary Glosse f in cap. 13. lib. 1. Reg. that a wicked King during the time of his wickednesse is not according to trueth to be celled a King but onely equiuocally as a stony or painted eye and the same much more is to be said of a wicked Prelate are to be read warily and expounded fauourably to excuse them from errour then I say that spirituall Pastours may be said to haue authoritie not properly to depose an hereticall King but to declare him to be infected with heresie and consequently according to this false supposition depriued ipso facto But all this is nothing else but to declare authentically the law of God which no man denyeth to be within the limites of spirituall Iurisdiction And this might aboundantly suffice for an answere to this example of King Ozias But because Mr. Fitzherbert shall not as I said take occasion to say that all this hath beene confuted already by D. Schulckenius I am enforced good Reader to intreate thy patience in laying downe before thine eies what I answered in my Apologie to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and what D. Schulckenius hath replyed to the same 89 First therefore I answered that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the example of King Ozias were of force it would prooue more then perchance Card. Bellarmine would willingly grant to wit that not only the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests haue power by the law of God to depriue Princes of their kingdomes for spirituall leprosie seeing that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had power to iudge of leprosie The man saith the law g Leuit. 13. in whose skinne and flesh shall arise a diuers colour or a blisters or any thing as it were shining that is to say the plague of the leprosie shall be brought to Aaron the Priest or any one of his sonnes and at his arbitrement he shall be separated Besides this example doth also prooue that Prince not onely for heresie but also for all other mortall sinnes whatsoeuer may be deposed by Bishops and Priests for that not onely the sinne of heresie but also other sinnes were figured by leprosie Bellar. lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 3. as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth who speaking of the confessing of sinnes saith that the knowledge of sinne which was figured by leprosie and is most aptly named a spirituall leprosie appertaineth to Christian Priests This was my first answere 90 To which D. Schulckenius replyeth thus h pag. 542. ad num 355. I answere It is credible that is the old Testament according to the diuersitie of the leprosie and the diuersitie of the persons there were also diuers iudgements greater and lesser and that it was not lawfull for euery Priest to iudge a King But for this his credibile est it is credible he produceth neither Scripture reason nor any other authoritie and therefore we are rather to beleeue the words of holy Scripture which absolutely affirme that either Aaron the High-Priest or any one of his sonnes might iudge of leprosie without distinguishing either this kind or that kind of leprosie or this kind or that kind of person then the bare credibile est of this Doctour grounded vpon his owne bare word and not vpon any text of holy Scripture Abul q. 1. in cap. 13. Leuit. reason or authoritie Other Priests saith Abulensis had power to iudge in the plague of leprosie as Aaron and therefore to whom soeuer of them that person who had such signes should be showed it was sufficient Therefore when Christ had cured the ten lepers he did not send them specially to the High-Priest but to any one of the Priests saying Goe shew your selues to the Priests 91 But howsoeuer it be saith this Doctour concerning the custome of that nation assuredly in the Church of Christ greater causes are reserued to the See Apostolike as we read cap. Maiores de Baptismo eius effectu in the Decret all Epistles Therefore euery Priest may indeed iudge of the leprosie of sinne and absolue or bind his Subiects but some more heynous crimes are reserued to Bishops others also to the Pope as first of all is the crime of heresie to which the name of leprosie doth autonomasticè agree Therefore it is no meruaile that euery Priest cannot iudge Kings euen for the crime of heresie Adde that in the olde Testament it selfe we haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie then by the high Priest 92 But this Reply doth not answere my argument For my argument did onely proceede of the power of Priests standing in the law of God and abstracting from the positiue lawes of the Church It would follow said I that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea also and Priests haue power by the law of God c. Now who knoweth not that cases are reserued onely by the law of the Church and that by the law of God there is no reseruation of cases but that
euery Bishop and Priest to whom the charge of soules is committed haue by the law of God sufficient authoritie and iurisdiction to absolue from all cases I said to whom the charge of soules is committed for I doe not intend now to dispute whether euery Priest by his ordination receiueth authority and iurisdiction to binde and loose For I am not ignorant that diuers Catholike Doctors as Paludanus i In 4. di st 17. q. 3. ar 3. Abulensis k In Defensor part 2. c. 62. seq Syluester l In verbo Confessor 1. q. 2. learned Nauarre m In Sum. c. 27. nu 259. 260. in cap. Placuit de poenitent dist 6. nu 48. doe affirme that standing in the law of God euery Priest hath by vertue of his ordination sufficient iurisdiction to absolue from sinnes which iurisdiction is not hindered but by the prohibition of the Church And therefore I did not speake of all Priests as this Doctour imposeth vpon me but of Priests indefinitely signifying thereby that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were good it would also prooue that standing in the law of God not onely the Pope but also some inferiour Priests should haue authoritie to iudge Kings and Princes for spirituall leprosie considering that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had authoritie to iudge them for corporall leprosie 93 Neither is it to bee marueiled if there bee no example in the old Testament wherein we reade that Kings were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest for that in the olde Testament we haue but one onely example of any King to wit of this Ozias who was infected with leprosie yet the words of the holy Scripture wherein is giuen authoritie to Priests to iudge of leprosie are common as well to inferiour Priests as to the High Priest neither is there any exception made of the persons that are to bee iudged to bee infected or not infected with leprosie Yea and in this very example not onely Azarias the High Priest but also all the other eightie inferiour Priests iudged King Ozias and resisted him saying It is not thy office Ozias c. And therfore Ozias being angry saith the Scripture threatned the Priests and forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in hast they thrust him out And therefore this Doctour doth not well affirme that in the olde law wee haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie by any other then by the High Priest seeing that in this example of King Ozias the High Priest did not any thing which the test also of the Priests did not and which if the High Priest had not beene present at that time the other Priests might not according to the law haue done without him 94 Wherefore that also which this Doctour answereth to my second consequence which was that if Card. Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Bishops and also Priests might depose Princes not onely for heresie but also for all other mortal crimes is nothing to the purpose I answere saith hee n Pag. 543. It is true that all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may bee iudged for all sinnes whatsoeuer by euery Priest Because as we now haue saide greater sinnes are reserued to greater Prelates and some to the Pope alone especially when we speake of persons that are placed in the highest degree of dignitie 95 But what is this to my argument For first I spake of Bishops and Priests indefinitely and also standing in the law of God now this Doctour applieth my wordes to euery Priest and flyeth from the law of God by which there is no reseruation of cases to the law of the Church and of Popes by which law onely cases are reserued But secondly and principally hee cunningly concealeth the force and drift of my argument For in this second consequence my principall drift was to speake not so much of the persons who according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument should haue authoritie to depose Princes for of them I spake in the first consequence as the Reader may plainly see as of the crimes for which Princes might according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed And I affirmed that if Cardinall Bellarmines argument were of force it would prooue that Princes might for euery mortall sinne be deposed at least wise by the Pope if not by inferiour Bishops and Priests Now this Doctour speaketh not one word concerning the force of this consequence for as much as concerneth the crime for which Princes may according to Cardinall Bellarmines argument be deposed whereof I chiefly treated in this second consequence but he cunningly flyeth to the persons who may depose Princes of whom I spake principally in the first consequence and he answereth that indeede all sinnes are signified by leprosie but not therefore Princes may be iudged by euery Priest for all sinnes insinuating thereby that Princes may bee deposed for of that iudgement I onely spake at least wise by the Pope for all sinnes which are mortall and may infect others which doctrine how dangerous and pernicious it is to the Soueraigntie and also securitie of Princes I leaue to the consideration of any prudent man 96 But because as the vulgar maxime saith ducere ad inconueniens non est soluere argumentum to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument I did secondly and principally answere that this argument of Cardinall Bellarmine taken from the foresaide example of King Ozias is also most weake seeing that the antecedent proposition is very vncertaine not to say false and the consequence no lesse doubtfull And forasmuch as concerneth the antecedent proposition and the proofe thereof albeit he doth rightly gather from Leuit. 13. 2. Paralip 26. that the Priest of the Leuiticall stocke might iudge Kings infected with leprosie and pronounce sentence against them by declaring the law of God that they ought to dwell apart out of the campe which is the first part of the antecedent proposition seeing that this separation was imposed by God vpon lepers at the arbitrement or declaratiue sentence of the Priest yet hee doth not therefore well conclude that the Priest of the stocke of Leui had authoritie to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen by accident and consequently vnlesse the depriuing them of their kingdome should necessarily follow their dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people which neuerthelesse cannot bee forcibly prooued from the holy Scripture 97 For as Fa. Suarez doth well obserue o Disp 15. de Excommunnicat sec 6. nu 3. the depriuation of dominion doth euer last after it once bee done but that dwelling apart of lepers to be imposed at the arbitrement of the
cleanse the soule of spirituall vncleannesse which doeth barre men from entring the Celestiall tabernacle created by God alone and as the Priests the old law had authoritie according to my Aduersaries false Doctrine to create annoint punish and depose earthly Kings so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to create institute and make them heires to the kingdome of heauen by the Sacrament of Baptisme to annoint them with the oile of grace by the sacrament of Confirmation to punish them with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures to depose or exclude them in some sort from the kingdome of heauen by denying them sacramentall absolution 8 In this manner should Mr. Fitzherbert haue argued from the figure to the veritie by which wee can onely proue that the Priests of the new law can create annoint punish and depose Kings in a more higher Bell. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. and not in the same degree for as Cardinall Bellarmine well obserued to fulfill the figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to be done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when hee was circumcised himselfe but when hee ordained Baptisme in place thereof and so the Priests of the new law doe not fulfill the figure of the Leuiticall Priesthood by creating annointing punishing and deposing earthly Kings in the same materiall manner as the Priests of Leui did but when they create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to wit Christians who by Baptisme are made heires to the kingdome of heauen with spirituall creation vnction chastisement and deposition as I haue declared before And by this the Reader may cleerely perceiue that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not sufficiently prooued either that the Priests of the old Testament had authoritie to create depose or punish temporally their Kings by way of temporall constraint for no man maketh doubt but that the Priests hoth of the olde and new law haue authoritie to annoint Kings it being only a sacred and religious ceremonie and to punish temporally by way of command and by declaring the law of GOD as to enioyne fastings almes-deedes and other corporall afflictions c. and to declare that this or that King shall be deposed if GOD shall so reueale because all these are meere spirituall actions or else that albeit wee should grant as my Aduersaries vntruely suppose that the Priests of the old law had the aforesaid authoritie to create depose and punish Kings temporally yet therefore from thence any probable and much lesse a potent argument as this man pretendeth can be drawne as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the Priests of the new law must have authoritie to doe the same things but onely to do things more excellent and of an higher degree and order as the body is more excellent and more perfect then the shadow the verity then the figure Christ then Moyses the new Law then the old heauenly kingdomes then earthly and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures are of another nature order and degree then temporall or ciuill punishments 9 Now Mr. Fitzherbert goeth on to prooue also out of the new Testament that the Priests of the new law especially the chiefe Pastour of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to punish Princes not onely with spirituall but also with temporall and corporall punishments And therefore now to declare saith hee g nu 32. p. 87. how I proued the same further by the new law it is to bee vnderstood Psal 77. Isa 44. Psal 2. Matth. 2. Apoc. 19. Aug. in Ioan. Bel. l. 1. de Rom. Pont c. 12. ad 6. obiect that I vrged h Suppl vbi supra nu 59. to that end the commission giuen by our Sauiour to St. Peter not onely to binde and loose but also to feede his sheepe shewing by many texts of Scripture as also by the authoritie of S. Augustine that Pascere to feede is taken for Regere to gouerne whereupon I drew certaine necessarie consequents in those words c. 10 But concerning the authoritie giuen by Christ our Sauiour to S. Peter to bind and loose or which euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine is all one in substance with to feede his sheepe for that by those words I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. was onely promised to S. Peter saith Cardinall Bellarmine not giuen the power to binde and loose and the keyes of the kingdome which keyes hee as the principall and ordinarie Prefect Prelate or Gouernour then onely receiued when he heard Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe I answere first that not onely S. Peter but also all the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and power to binde and loose and to feede the sheepe of Christs flocke seeing that as Christ saide to Saint Peter whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. so he said to the rest of the Apostles what things soeuer you shall binde c. albeit I will not deny that Saint Peter was the first of the Apostles but in what consisteth this prioritie principalitie primacie or superioritie of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles as likewise of the Pope ouer all other Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops and Bishops of Christs Church there is yet a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and of Paris and perchance hereafter I shall haue occasion to treate thereof more at large But that which for this present I intend to affirme is this that considering in those wordes of our Sauiour Tibi dabo claues c. I will giue thee the keyes c. Saint Peter represented the whole Church and not only to him but also to the rest of the Apostles and to the whole Church and Priesthood which Saint Peter did represent were promised the keyes and power to binde and loose as the holy Fathers and ancient Diuines doe commonly expound i As to omit Origen tract 1. in Matth. 16. Euseb Emis hom in Natali S. Petri. Theophylac in 1. Mat. 16. S. Ambr. in psa 38. lib. 1. de Paenit c. 2. Hieron lib. 1. contra Iouinian Aug. tra 50. 124. in Ioan. tract 10. in Epi. Ioan. in psal 108. Leo serm 3. in Anniu assumpt Fulgentius de fide ad Petr. l. 1. de remis pec c. 24. Beda Ansel in Mat. 16. Euthym. c. 33. in Matth. Haymo hom in fest Petri Pauli Hugo de S. vic l. 1. de Sacram. c. 26. alibi Durand in 4. dist 18. q. 2. â—yra in Mat. 16 Walden tom 2. doct fid c. 138. Cusanus l. 2. de Concord Cat. c. 13. 34. and commonly all the ancient Doctors of Paris if from the power to bind and loose promised to Saint Peter it doth necessarily follow that S. Peter and
doeth suppose the subiect to bee otherwise apt and well disposed For she hath power granted her by Christ to giue grace whereby we may come to the kingdome of heauen to Infants by the Sacrament of Baptisme and to men of discretion also by other Sacraments but especially of Penance by which the Priest as a Minister of Christ by vertue of the keyes which he hath receiued from Christ absolueth from sinnes and giueth grace neuerthelesse this power to worke actually her effect supposeth certaine necessarie dispositions on the behalfe of the persons who are to receiue the Sacraments as well in Infants as in men of discretion which dispositions the Church hath not alwayes power to procure Also besides this power which the Diuines call of Order the Church hath also power of Iurisdiction for shee hath authoritie to preach the word of GOD to correct sinners to make lawes and to punish the transgressours with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments For as the Church and the Ecclesiasticall power is spirituall so also she ought to haue meanes proportionate to such an end Wee graunt therefore the antecedent proposition in this sense which we haue now declared but we deny c. 29 Now this Doctour although hee granteth all this which I haue said to bee true yet he cannot forbeare to take certaine idle exceptions against the same I answere saith he g Pag. 353. ad nu 179. seq although all this doe make little or nothing to the soluing of Cardinall Bellarmines argument but to the enlarging of the volume of his booke they make much yet I would relate what hee hath said for that I saw certaine things to bee noted therein But whether they make little or nothing to solue Cardinall Bellarmines argument you shall see anon this is a vsuall tricke of this Doctour especially when my answere or argument is of greatest force that hee knoweth not well what to reply thereunto then with some idle or despitefull words to shift it of as that it is spoken either to disgrace Cardinall Bellarmine or to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes or that it is nothing to the purpose but to enlarge my booke and to make it seeme to bee of a competent volume and such like trifling toies which doe argue rather want of matter and a spirit of contradiction then a true desire to examine sincerely this important and difficult controuersie and which with as great facilitie and farre greater reason may bee retorted backe vpon himselfe for his often repeating of the same sentences and which are nothing to the purpose as that of S. Leo Ecclesiastica lenitas refugit cruentas vltiones Ecclesiasticall lenitie doeth shunne cruell punishments which is nothing to the soluing of my argument and spending many wordes to prooue that the Pope hath power to command and enioyne temporall penalties whereof I made no question and consuming twentie eight whole pages to prooue that S. Peter and his Successours are the heads of the Church which no Catholike doth deny and which make little or nothing to the impugning of my doctrine but to the enlarging the volume of his booke they make much 30 Now you shall see what goodly obseruations this Doctour hath found out in this part of my answere First saith he h Pag. 353. it is to bee obserued that my Aduersarie Widdrington I know not with what cunning hath transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian Common-wealth or the Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels For in Bellarmines argument the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth is taken in the first and not in the later sense But Widdrington answereth of the Christian common-wealth as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men Let he himselfe see with what simplicitie hee did it who otherwise doeth seeme so scrupulously to shunne equiuocations 31 But first it is to bee obserued with what cunning or ignorance this Doctour affirmeth that I haue transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels See Apolog. nu 176. 180. seq seeing that I expresly spake of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth as it is a spirituall common-wealth and as it hath spirituall power Now with what colour of probabilitie can this Doctour inferre from any one word of mine that I euer saide that Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth reside in Lay-men or that when I treate of the spirituall power of the Church or of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth I take the Church as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men True it is that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Common-wealth kingdome or Church of Christ when wee speake properly and generally is taken both by Cardinall Bellarmine and my selfe as it comprehendeth Cleargie-men and Lay-men that is as it containeth both spirituall power and spirituall subiection spirituall Pastours and spirituall subiects and therefore Cardinall Bellarmine before in his first reason affirmed that Kings and Bishops Cleargie-men and Lay-men doe not make two common-wealths but one onely that is one Church As likewise a temporall common-wealth or kingdome when we speake properly and generally is taken as it comprehendeth both temporall Kings and temporall subiects that is as it containeth both ciuill power and ciuill subiection For what man of iudgement speaking generally of a temporall kingdome by the name of the kingdome vnderstandeth onely the King himselfe but when he speaketh of the temporall power of a kingdome as I expresly spake heere of the spirituall power of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth no iudicious man can vnderstand that he speaketh of subiects wherein no temporall power doeth reside Let this Doctour therefore see himselfe with what simplicitie he said that I comprehended heere in this answere vnder the name of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth Cleargie-men and Lay-men when I treated of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the Church 32 Secondly it is to bee obserued saith this Doctour i Pag. 354. that which Widdrington heere disputeth of an apt and well disposed subiect that the Ecclesiasticall power may therein worke her effect to be true and that Cardinall Bellarmine hath the same in his answere to the obiections of Paulus Venetus and yet that Widdrington after his accustomed vprightnesse commended the argument of Paulus Venetus and dissembled Card. Bellarmines answere Heere you see that this Doctour granteth the distinction which I made to bee true and that Card. Bellarmine approoueth the same but that which he addeth that I dissembled Cardinall Bellarmines answere is very vntrue for I neuer saw his answere and although I had seene it and so might haue commended his meaning and his declaration yet truely I should not haue commended his words being spoken so generally and without any limitation or declaration seeing
the new law and abrogating of the olde to inflict corporall punishments to inferre that the Pope and other inferiour Bishops who succeeded the Apostles not as they were Apostles but as they were Bishops had an ordinary power to doe the like facts and to inflict the like corporall punishments But other arguments must be brought to prooue that the Prelates of the Church may now by their ordinary power doe those things which the Apostles at the first institution of the Church did by a miraculous and extraordinary power 70 For two powers were granted to the Apostles the one ordinary which should also descend to all their Successours who in that power are equall to the Apostles the other extraordinary wherein they did excell all the Prophets of the olde Testament For the Apostles were also Prophets as S. Peter prooueth by the authority of the Prophet Ioel against the Iewes who said that the Apostles were drunke Acts 2. And as well obserueth Abulensis they did excell the Prophets in many things Abulens q. 6. in Praefat. Mat. first in the manner of their Prophesie because God was ready to speake by the Apostles whensoeuer they would insomuch that they ought not to thinke what they should speake but the holy Ghost did immediately speake by them Math. 10. Luke 21. But it was not so in any Prophet of the Old Testament Secondly they did excell the Prophets in regard of the things which were reuealed because more high things were reuealed to the Apostles then were reuealed to the Prophets Thirdly they did also excell in regard of the miracles for they did wonderfull miracles not onely as great as Christ himselfe did but also greater as he said to Philip Iohn 14. Et maiora horum faciet The workes that I doe he also shall doe and greater then these shall he doe For it is read of S. Peter Acts 5. that when he passed through the streetes in Ierusalem they broughtforth the sicke into the streetes and laid them in beds and couches that when Peter came his shadow at the least might ouershadow any of them and they all might be deliuered from their infirmities which neuerthelesse wee doe not reade was euer done by Christ c. Fourthly the Apostles also did excell the Prophets for that they spake with all languages Acts 2. And this extraordinary power of the Apostles did not descend to all their Successours And therefore it is no good argument from an extraordinary and miraculous power which was granted to the Apostles to inflict corporall punishments to inferre an ordinary power in their Successours to inflict the same 71 Neither doe those examples which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth of the miraculous manner of giuing the holy Ghost as it was giuen in the Apostles time in the Sacrament of Baptisme and Confirmation make any thing at all for his purpose for that these Sacraments had in the Apostles time commonly two effects annexed to them the one was ordinary to wit the giuing of inuisible grace which proceeded from their ordinary power and which therefore was to descend to their Successours the other Miraculous and extraordinary to wit the visible appearing of the holy Ghost in the persons baptized or confirmed and this proceeded from a miraculous and extraordinary power and which therefore was not to descend to all their Successours neither is it lawfull to conclude that the Pope can worke that visible effect by his ordinary power which the Apostles did by their miraculous and extraordinary power So likewise Excommunication had in the Apostles time commonly two effects the one ordinary which was that the person excommunicated was depriued of spirituall graces and benefits and of Ecclesiasticall communion and reputed as a Heathen and a Publican and this effect proceeded from ordinary power and which therefore was to bee deriued to all their Successours the other extraordinary and miraculous which was to be corporally afflicted by Sathan and this proceeded from the extordinary and miraculous power granted to the Apostles ouer all Diuels Luc. 9. which therefore was not to descend to all their Successours Wherfore we cannot well conclude that because the Apostles did inflict corporal punishments by their miraculous power therfore their Successors may inflict corporal punishments by an ordinary power but other reasons must be brought to prooue the same for it is apparant to euery Schoole-boy that the former consequence is starke naught 72 But these visible torments saith Mr. Fitzherbert did testifie that the excommunicated person was deliuered ouer to the inuisible power of the Deuil as Widdrington if he do not reforme his pernicious doctrine both can and will ere it be long be excommunicated by the Pope and deliuered ouer to the inuisible power of the Deuill which effect was at the first ordinarily testified by the visible torments of the bodies of excommunicated persons so as Widdrington may if it please him distinguish betwixt the miracles and that which was in the primitiue Church signified expressed and testified thereby And Mr. Fitzherbert may if it please him cleerely see that I haue distinguished betwixt these two and haue granted that the inuisible effect which was signified expressed and testified because it proceeded from the ordinary power which the Apostles had might bee done also by the ordinary power which was granted to the Apostles Successours but not the visible apparitions torments or punishments which did testifie the inuisible effect for that they proceeded not from the ordinary but from the extraordinary power of the Apostles And if his Holinesse shall excommunicate mee as this man threatneth without giuing mee any notice what pernicious doctrine I haue taught that I may reforme and retract it the excommunication will be more hurtfull to their soules that shall bee cause thereof then to mine according to that saying which Gratian l 11 q. 3. Illud plane doth attribute to Saint Augustine Illud plane non temere dixerim c. This plainly will I speake without rashnesse that if any of the faithfull shall bee excommunicated vniustly it will rather hurt him that doth then who suffereth this wrong and I shall comfort my selfe with those words of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam But truely I am fully perswaded that his Holinesse hath had now so sufficient experience to what exorbitant proceedings these bad informers haue drawne him that hee will heereafter bee more warie to proceed against mee in that strange manner as the most Illustrious Cardinals of the Inquisition haue proceeded against mee and my bookes at which all the world doth woonder 73 Wherefore when Mr. Fitzherbert saith that by the miraculous punishment of Ananias and Saphira and of Elymas c. it pleased God te testifie that the Church hath power as well ouer the body as ouer the soule and therefore it cannot with reason be denied but that the power remaineth although the miraculous manner in the execution of it ceased when the Christian faith was generally
no wise a Christian. 2 And Mr. Fitzherbert also maketh so great account of this decree that whereas hee spendeth onely three Chapters concerning the law of God in the olde and new Testament the law of Nature of Nations and the Ciuill law yet in examining this decree of the Councell of Lateran he consumeth seuen whole Chapters wherein hee hath borrowed of Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name the greatest part of a whole Treatise which he made in the defence of this Decree and in the end he boldly affirmeth a P. 204. 205. that I am falne into flat heresie yea which is more by my owne grant and confession and why forsooth for not vnderstanding the Decree in that sense wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and some later Diuines specially Iesuites doe vnderstand it as though the authoritie of these men is so great that wee are bound to accept their priuate expositions concerning any text of holy Scriptures or sacred Canons for the voice of the Catholike Church But how vaine are the bragges of this boasting man and how palpable are his slanders taxing me of ridiculous absurditie folly temeritie malice impietie impudencie and heresie and then especially when my answeres are most strong and his Replyes most childish and impertinent you haue partly seene in the former Chapters and in the rest also you shall more cleerely perceiue 3 But before I come to shew what is the true sense and meaning of this decree it will not bee amisse first to see of what authoritie and credit among all Catholikes this great and famous Councell of Lateran is and ought to bee for this is very materiall to know whether any decree therein contained bee of it selfe sufficient to make any matter of faith which all Catholikes are bound to beleeue to be of faith as also because some make doubt Bel. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 13. saith Cardinall Bellarmine whether the last Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth which most expresly defined that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell was truely a Generall Councell therefore euen to this day it remaineth a question also among Catholikes whether a Generall Councell be aboue the Pope or no. And although I doe not intend to deny or call in question the authoritie of this Councell but for my owne part doe willingly admit and approue the same yet for satisfaction of the Reader and that the trueth may the more easily bee found out and followed I thinke it necessarie to set downe the doubts and difficulties which some haue made against the authoritie of this so great and famous a Councell 4 First therefore it is certaine and out of controuersie that the aforesaid Councell of Lateran was called by Pope Innocent the third to which came all those Ambassadours Bishops and other inferiour Prelates mentioned heere beneath by my Aduersarie and in this all Histories doe agree in which respect it may truely be called the greatest and most famous Councell that euer was assembled in the Church of God albeit if we respect onely the number of the Bishops who were present thereat and who only according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine haue authoritie to decide determine and define as Iudges matters belonging to Christian faith and Religion the Councell of Chalcedon was farre greater whereat were present 630. Bishops and the Councell of Lyons vnder Pope Gregorie the tenth was also farre greater whereat were present according to Genebrard 500. Bishops and according to Binnius more then 700. whereas at this Councell of Lateran were onely 412. Bishops according to Matthew Paris and Abbas Vspergensis whom Binnius followeth who comprehend the two Patriarchs and 70. Archbishops in the number of the 412. Bishops But all the difficultie consisteth in this whether this decree which is now in question and all the other Canons which now are published as decrees of the Councell of Lateran were confirmed by the generall consent of all or the greatest part of all the Fathers or were onely propounded and rehearsed in the Councell but not approoued by common consent And one chiefe ground of this difficultie is taken from the testomonie of our countrey-man Matthew Paris a Benedictiue Monke of the Monasterie of S. Alban who both liued neere the time of this Councell See his Historie of Henrie the 3. in the yeere 1248. and was also reputed a man probatae vitae religionis expertae of an approoued life and tried religion as Pope Innocent the 4. doth testifie in regard whereof he was by the same Pope Innocent sent into the kingdome of Norway to reforme the Monasterie of Holme although in regard of his freedome of speech and vpright dealing he is vndeseruedly taxed by the most Illustrious and renowmed Cardinall de Peron as a great enemie to Popes in which respect he might also taxe him as a great enemie to all both Popes and Kings Clerkes and Laikes yea and to those of his owne Order for that hee freely and without partialitie rehearseth and taxeth the vices of all But the ancient prouerbe is by dayly experience found true Ohsequium amicos veritas odium parit Flatterie causeth friends trueth enmitie 5 Thus therefore hee writeth of that Councell b Mat. Paris vpon the yeere 1215. in the life of King Iohn after hee hath set downe the time and place where it was held and the number of persons who were present thereat All these being gathered together in the place aforesaid and according to the manner of Generall Councells euery man being placed in his order the Pope hauing made first an exhortation 60. Chapters were rehearsed in the full Councell which to some did seeme pleasing or easie to others burdensome At length he beginning his speech concerning the businesse of the Crucifix subioyned saying c. And the same Matthew Paris in his lesser Chronicle writeth thus But that Generall Councell which after the Papall manner did pretend great things at the beginning ended in scorne and mockerie whereby the Pope cunningly deluded the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Deanes Archdeacons and all that came to the Councell For when they now perceiued nothing to bee done in so great a businesse they being desirous to returne home desired leaue one after another which the Pope did not grant them before they had promised him a great summe of money which they were constrained first to borrow of Romane merchants and pay it to the Pope before they were permitted to depart from Rome The Pope now hauing receiued the money did freely dissolue this gainefull Councell and all the Cleargie departed sorrowfull 6 From which worde of Matthew Paris it seemeth to follow that neither all these 60. Chapters mentioned by him were made by the order of the whole Councell but rather by Pope Innocent himselfe or by his direction before the Councell began both for that at the very beginning of the Councell after the Pope had made his sermon it seemeth that they were rehearsed in the full Councell and also
chiefe and principall ground I stand vpon why they are not also included vnder those generall words in the Canon of the Councell as you haue seene before Neuerthelesse there is this difference betwixt these two reasons that this later reason whereof we shal treat more at large in the next Chapter only sheweth why absolute Princes are not in penall lawes of the Church compreheded vnder such generall words which denote names and titles of inferiour place and dignitie but the first reason grounded vpon the Emperours law doth also prooue that absolute Princes cannot vnder any generall tearmes whatsoeuer bee included in any Canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed For to deny that absolute Princes are not vnder any generall words comprehended in such Decrees is no more absurd then to deny that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments which doctrine for that my Aduersary will neuer be able to prooue absurd he might well haue spared to vse such absurd tearmes wherewith he doth so often defile his religious mouth and which as you haue seene doe more fitly agree to his owne arguments and answeres and to the whole discourse he hath made in his Supplement concerning this point if he thereby intend to confute the aforesaid answere I gaue to the decree of the Councell and the reason thereof grounded vpon the like decree of the Emperour CHAP. X. Wherein Widdringtons second answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell affirming that absolute Princes are not comprehended therein because they are not mentioned by their proper names but by inferiour titles is prooued to bee neither improbable nor absurd but conforme to the doctrine of learned Diuines and Lawyers and Mr. Fitzherberts exceptions against the said answere are shewed to be very insufficient and fraudulent 1 YOu haue seene Courteous Reader how weakely Mr. Fitzherbert hath in the former Chapter impugned the answere I gaue to the decree of the Lateran Councell and the reason thereof grounded vpon the like Constitution of the Emperour Fredricke now you shall see how insufficiently also he impugneth in this Chapter the other reason which I brought to prooue that those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or also Lord doe not in the Canon of the Councell cōprehend absolute Princes Thus therefore he beginneth this Chapter 2 You haue heard in the last Chapter how my Aduersary Widdrington teacheth that the Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the deposition of temporall Lords doth not comprehend Kinges and absolute Princes because they are not namely specified therein Qui saith he nisi nominatim exprimantur in legibus paenalibus intelligendi non sunt Who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be expressed by name So he which he also more amply affirmeth in the Preface to his Apologetical answere whereto he remitteth me and his Readers for there he seemeth to ground his opinion in this point Widdrington Apolog. Respōs Praefat. nu 44. vpon the rules of the lawes saying that Secular Princes are not signified in penall Lawes vnder the generall names of Lords Magistrates and temporall Iudges iuxta regulas Iurisprudentium according to the rules of the Lawyers whereto he addeth also for examples sake that an Abbot is not cōprehended in the penall Lawes vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest nor the Pope vnder the name of a Bishop because saith he in paenis benignior pars est eligenda odia restringi fauoures conuenit ampliari The more benigne or milde part is to be chosen in penalties and it is conuenient that odious things be restrained and fauours amplified or enlarged So he 3 Whereto I answere that whereas he saith that Princes are not comprehended in penall Lawes except they be specified by the name of Princes I say first that if this were true this absurdity would follow thereof that absolute Princes should be exempted from diuers Lawes and Canons wherein all the world hath hitherto held them to be included as from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran ordaining that Omnis vtriusque sexus fidelis c. Concil Later 4. can 21. Euery Christian of both sexes shall confesse and communicate at Easter vpon paine of Excommunication and want of Christian buriall as also from the Bulla in caena Domini and from the Canon Si quis suadente Cans 17. q. 4. forbidding the laying of violent hands vpon Cleargie-men and diuers other generall constitutions from the which they were neuer yet exempted in the opinion of any man But if Mr. Fitzherbert had not meant to cauill and to take euery idle occasion to carpe at my wordes without cause hee might easily haue seene by those wordes of mine which heere hee citeth out of my Apologeticall Preface and to which in my Admonition I remitted the Reader that when I affirmed that absolute Princes are not vnderstood to be comprehended in penall lawes vnlesse they be expressed by name my meaning was that they are not vnderstood to bee comprehended in penall lawes vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis of Lords Magistrates Iudges Land-lords and such like generall names which denote some inferiour office dignitie or honour but they must be expressed by the names of the honour and dignitie which are proper to them as an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest nor the Pope vnder the name of a Bishop For to affirme that absolute Princes as likewise Abbots and Bishops are not comprehended in penall lawes enacted by the Church vnder no generall names although they denote no peculiar office honour dignity or function by which some persons are distinguished from others had beene indeede somewhat absurd And so these Canons heere alledged by Mr. Fitzherbert Omnis vtriusque sexus c. Si quis suadente diabolo c. and out of the Bull in caena Domini or such like are nothing to the purpose for that they are not such generall names which denote any peculiar office honour dignitie or function by which some men are distinguished from others and therefore this my Aduersaries first Answere is nothing at all against my doctrine 5 Secondly I say saith Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 150. nu 3. that Widdrington might haue done well to haue told vs or at least quoted in his margent as he doth not in what Lawyers we may finde that priuiledge or exemption of Princes whereof he speaketh for sure I am that they who write of Princes make no mention thereof as may be seene in Restaurus Castaldus Restaur Castald q. 110. de Imper. who setteth downe aboue a hundred priuiledges of the Emperour and yet doth not mention any such 6 But first the Reader may easily perceiue that the reason which I brought why
deserued punishments threatned against them may keepe immooueable and without perturbation the peace of the holy Churches of God Giuen the eight Calends of Iune Asclepius and Deodatus most excellent men being Consulls 17 Now what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to this ancient decree of Pope Liberius which hee wisheth mee well to note wherein it is decreed that Bishops if they perturbe the peace of the Church shall be depriued of their Priesthood by Regall or Kingly indignation For that secular men being placed in dignity may be depriued of their honour and dignity and if they be priuate men yet noble may forfeit all their goods and if they be ignoble may be whipped or perpetually banished by Regall or Kingly power or indignation which this Canon also of what credit soeuer it be doth ordaine is not any way repugnant to my doctrine Thus thou seest good Reader how grosly thou art abused through the fraud or ignorance of this vnlearned man who neuertheles presumeth to direct thy soule and conscience in this so high and dangerous a point of thy allegeance due to God and man wherein he cleerely sheweth himselfe to haue so little skill 18 Thirdly in what sense I affirmed that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes vnder generall words vnlesse they be expressed by name for which respect also Mr. Fitzherbert wisheth me to note well this Canon of Pope Liberius I haue declared before to wit that they are not in such lawes comprehended vnder generall words which denote some inferiour office or title of honour for I neuer intended to denie as this man imposeth vpon me that they are not included in any generall words except they be specified by the name of Princes if such generall words denote no inferiour office or title of honour So that neither Hostiensis for as much as concerneth this Canon of Liberius contradicteth my doctrine because those generall words Qui contra pacem Ecclesiae They who are against the peace of the Church do denote no inferiour office or title of honour and although he were against my doctrine it is too little to the purpose seeing that other Lawyers and Diuines doe contradict him herein and moreouer this Canon cited by Hostiensis is neither authenticall and of sufficient credit nor any way gaine-saith that which I affirme concerning this poynt Pag. 151. nu 5. 19 Now you shall see the third testimony which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of Hostiensis And this saith he c will be much more cleare by the third testimony cited out of the Canon law by Hostiensis which hee taketh out of the title de haereticia Decret lib. 5. tit 7. de Haretices wherin there is no particular mention of absolute Princes by the name of Princes neither is there in any other Decree concerning their deposition but onely this Canon of the Councell of Lateran now in question so as Widdrington may see not onely that Kings and absolute Princes haue no such exemption from penall Lawes as he pretendeth but also that they are included in the generall tearmes ouen of this Canon of the Councell of Lateran in the opinion of a famous Canonist who wrote not past fiftie yeares after the said Councell And if he say that they haue had this exemption or priuiledge since that time let him shew vs when and where they had it which I am sure he cannot doe as it may appeare by the Canonists who comprehend absolute Princes in other penall lawes wherein they are not otherwise mentioned then in generall tearmes as he may see in Simanca in his Institutions d Tit. 23. and Emericus in his third part of the Directorie e Q. 31. and Penna in his Annotations vpon the f Annot. 96. same 20 But first it is vntrue that in the whole title dehaereticis there is not any other Canon or decree concerning the deposition of Princes except this Decree of the Lateran Councell if wee once suppose as Hostiensis doth suppose that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for this once supposed they may very well bee included in the last Canon of this title De haereticis wherein Pope Gregory the ninth doth Decree and declare that whosoeuer are bound or obliged to manifest heretickes by any couenant strengthened with neuer so great securitie are absolued from the bond of all allegiance homage and obedience for in those words whosoeuer and manifest heretickes and such like generall tearmes which denote no title of office honour or dignity inferiour to Kingly maiesty all men whatsoeuer euen Kings and absolute Princes may be included if it be once granted that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes But because it is probable as I haue prooued at large aboue in this Treatise that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath no authority to depose temporall Princes or to inflict temporall punishments it consequently followeth that it is also probable that neither the aforesaid Canon Absolutos nor any other Canon made in such generall words wherein temporall punishments are inflicted can comprehend absolute Princes but that all such like Canons are made either by the Pope as he is a temporall Prince and consequently are of force onely in the territories of the Church or the Popes temporall dominions or else that they are made by the consent of temporall Princes and haue their force to binde from their authority and consequently doe concerne onely inferiour persons or subiects and not absolute Princes themselues who are free from the coerciue power of those lawes which are made by their owne authority 21 So that although I will not now contend neither doe I much regard of what opinion Hostiensis bee concerning the sense and meaning of this Canon of the Lateran Councell yet it is plaine that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not hitherto prooued out of Hostiensis as hee pretended to prooue that absolute Princes are comprehended in the penall lawes of the Church vnder such generall names which denote some office honour dignitie or title inferiour to Kingly Maiestie Neither doeth Simancas Emericus or Pegna in the places cited by my Aduersarie teach contrarie to my doctrine in this point to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are vnderstood by the generall name of Monkes Bishops by the generall name of Priests and Emperours Kings and absolute Princes by the generall name of Dominus temporalis a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord. 22 For Simancas in the 23. title cited by my Aduersarie nu 10. doth cleerely distinguish betwixt Dominos temporales and Reges temporall Lords and Kings and nu 11. hee proueth that hereticall Kings and Princes are forthwith deposed and their subiects absolued from their allegiance by the aforesaide Canon Absolutos of Gregorie the ninth which as I saide is a sufficient proofe supposing as hee doeth that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue
making this Canon was to put in execution the holy lawes before enacted by Christian Princes for the rooting out of heretikes which lawes were not put in practise by the negligence of inferiour Gouernours Magistrates and Officers to whose charge the execution of iustice is immediately committed for which reason it was sufficient to comprehend in that Canon only inferiour Lords Gouernours Magistrates and Land-lords who were negligent to put in execution the godly lawes before enacted by pious Emperours and Kings for the repressing of heretikes but of this reason more beneath 29 Lastly the rule saith Mr. Fitzherbert holdeth not say the Lawyers when there is question of the publike good or the fauour of the Church or of the faith or of soules for in thesâ—â—ases penalties are to bee extended and the law interpreted in preiudice of the delinquent So as these rules doe helpe Widdrington nothing at all seeing that these exceptions which are admitted by the Law doe cleerely exclude the restriction which hee requireth by vertue of the rules 30 And the Lawyers also doe absolutely and without the aforesaide exceptions affirme the aforesaide rules to bee true Wherefore Sayrus citing diuers Lawyers for the same doeth by vertue of this rule except Abbots from Excommunication although Excommunication bee rather medicinall then penall and ought not to bee inflicted but for the good of the soule And Andreas Duuallius did by vertue of this rule exempt the King of France from the Canon Vnam sanctam of Pope Boniface the eight which neuerthelesse was made in fauour of the Church Neither is there any law either spirituall or ciuill which ought not to concerne the publike good neither hath the Pope any authority either directiue or coerciue graunted him but for the good of soules So as these rules according to the opinion of learned Lawyers and Diuines doe helpe mee greatly and fauour my doctrine concerning the not including in penall lawes Abbots Bishops and Kings vnder the generall names of Monkes Priests and Lords although they bee enacted for the publike good the health of soules and in fauour of the Church 31 But the maine and principall ground whereon I stand why absolute Princes are not comprehended in this Canon of the Lateran Councell vnder those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is this as you haue seene before for that albeit I should grant my Aduersarie onely for disputation sake that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are included in the name of Monkes and Bishops in the name of Priests and Kings in the name of temporall Lords which neuerthelesse he will neuer bee able to conuince yet seeing that it is most cleare as Mr. Fitzherbert also confesseth that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation both of Princes and Church lawes is extended onely to their owne subiects it necessarily followeth that temporall Princes cannot bee comprehended vnder any generall words in any Canon or constitution of the Church but onely in those things wherein they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church From whence it cleerely followeth that if it bee probable as in very deede it is that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments or to depose temporall Princes it is also probable that this Canon of the Lateran Councell as also all other such like decrees wherein temporall punishments are in generall words inflicted vpon temporall Lords Gouernours or Land-lords was not made by spirituall but by temporall authoritie and therefore cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are supreame on the earth and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but that it was either made by the authority consent of all temporall Princes if wee will needes haue it to binde all Christian Kingdomes or else that it hath force onely to binde in the Popes dominions wherein he hath the place both of a spirituall Pastour and also of a temporall Prince 32 And whereas Widdrington giueth an instance saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Pag. 153. num 8. without any quotation of Law or Author that Bishops and Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned it is true in Bishops in the case onely of suspension or interdict from the which they are by an expresse Canon exempted except they be named as it appeareth in the Decretals lib. Tit. 11. cap. 4. §. Quia periculosum Glossa ibidem in verbum suspensionis 5. de sententia excommunicationis where also the Glosse saith expressely that they are not priuiledged from a generall penaltie of Excommunication because the Pope who giueth them the aforesaid priuiledge would not haue them to be exmpted from the Canon Si quis suadente and such like which inflict the penalty of Excommunication in generall tearmes and the same is to be said of Abbots or any other persons of dignitie to wit that they haue no exemption from the generall tearmes of penall lawes except they be priuiledged namely by some expresse Canon And therefore when my Aduersary shall shew me such a Canon whereby Princes haue the priuiledge that he pretendeth in their behalfe I will grant that he hath reason to exempt them from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran In the meane time he hath no more probability in this poynt then in the former 33 But first I neuer said as Mr. Fitzherbert to make some colour of a probable answere falsely layeth to my charge that Bishops or Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned For I make no doubt but that they are included in penall lawes vnder such generall words which denote no particular dignity order degree or function of Christian men and that therefore they are included in the Canon Si quis suadente Diabolo and in the Canon Omnis vtriusque sexus but that which I said was that in penall lawes and odious matters Bishops are not included in the generall name of Priests nor Abbots in the generall name of Monkes And for the proofe thereof I brought neither Canon nor Author for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt but that learned Lawyers and Diuines doe affirme the same But now finding my Aduersary for want of reading learning or sincerity to make doubt thereof I haue brought as you haue seene to prooue the same both learned Lawyers and Diuines and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe who called and ended this Councell of Lateran wherein he declareth that he doth not intend in his commissions to comprehend vnder a generall clause greater and worthier persons when lesse worthie and lesse noble persons are expressed And therefore seeing that I haue now shewed him both learned Authours and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe to prooue that Bishops are not in penall lawes comprehended
vs and not much amisse and therefore let vs see how he will answere it He giueth to this obiection three answeres The first is that both Popes and Councells doe oftentimes decree many things which belong rather to the politicall or temporall then to the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power to decree with the expresse or tacite consent of Princes who are there present by themselues or their Ambassadours or at leastwise presuming or hoping that Princes will ratifie the same And this say some Expositours of the Canon law saith Ioannes Parisiensis For Hostiensis extra de haereticis cap. Ad abolendam where the Pope commaundeth the goods of heretikes to be confiscated demaundeth what the Pope hath to doe with temporalls And he answereth with his Lord Pope Innocent that in very deede he hath nothing to doe therewith but he made this Decree with the assent of the Emperor who being then present at Padua gaue his consent 3 This is Widdringtons first answere wherein you see he relyeth specially vpon the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis who grounding his opinion vpon Hostiensis alledgeth him to no purpose at all partly for that no such thing is to be found in Hostiensis in the place which he quoteth to wit extra de haereticis cap. Hostiens in cap. Quod super his de voto volt redempt ad Abolendam and partly because Hostiensis not onely teacheth euidently elsewhere that the Pope hath direct Dominion ouer all temporall States whereupon it followeth that he may dispose thereof and of temporall things as he shall haue iust cause but also affirmeth and teacheth expresly that absolute Princes may bee deposed by the Pope and their states exposed to bee taken by other Catholikes Hostiensi lib. 5 Rub. de haereticis § qua poena if they bee negligent to purge their states of heresie and to this end he citeth this very Canon of the Councell of Lateran whereof we now treate to wit cap. Excommunicamus Si vero Dominus temporalis yea and addeth further that the Pope may depose a Prince for his negligence in Gouernement alledging for the same not onely 17. q. 4. Si quis deinceps but also the example of Zacharias the Pope who saith he deposuit Childericum Regem Franciae deposed Childericke King of France How then can Ioannes Parisiensis or any man else truely say that Hostiensis was of opinion that the Pope hath nothing to doe with temporall things 4 But first where doth Mr. Fitzherbert finde Ioannes Parisiensis to say that Hostiensis was of opinion that the Pope hath nothing to doe with temporall things For that which Parisiensis saith is onely this that Hostiensis giueth this answere that the Pope hath nothing to doe with temporall things and that it belongeth not to him to make generall decrees concerning the confiscation of goods and that this Decree was made with the assent of the Emperour who was then present at Padua and gaue his consent thereto but whether Hostiensis gaue this answere according to his owne opinion or of other Lawyers whom he doth not condemne Ioannes Parisiensis neither affirmeth nor denieth but onely saith that Hostiensis gaue this answere which is very true But these be vsuall trickes of Mr. Fitzherbert as you haue often seene aboue to misconstrue the words and meaning of his Aduersarie thereby to make some colourable shew of a probable answere Wherfore although it be most true that Hostiensis is of opinion that the Pope may vpon iust cause dispose of the Dominions of all Christian Princes and of all temporall things for that he expresly teacheth that the Pope is not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch of the whole world and hath direct dominion ouer all temporall States yet I doe not find Hostiensis to be so peremptorie in his opinion as to condemne the contrarie doctrine of heresie or of absurd and temerarious improbabilitie as all my Aduersaries not without great temeritie now vsallly doe 5 Secondly therefore it is also true that Hostiensis vpon the aforesaid Chapter Ad abolendam giueth also that answere whereof Ioannes Parisiensis maketh mention and doth not reiect it as improbable in which sense Parisiensis did call it Hostiensis his answere And this answere Mr. Fitzherbert might haue easily found in the foresaid place if he had not relyed vpon Fa. Lessius word who saith as much but had read ouer the whole Chapter himselfe For whereas Pope Lucius the third did in that Canon Ad abolendam ordaine from whom it is probable Pope Innocent the third tooke that decree of the Lateran Councell seeing that in substance they little differ vt Comites Barones Rectores c. that Earles Barons Gouernours and Consulls of Cities and of other places whom the Councell of Lateran comprehendeth vnder the names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominos principale shall promise by making a corporall oath according as they shall be admonished by the Bishops that they will faithfully and effectually when they shall be required by them helpe the Church against heretikes and their partakers vnfainedly according to their office and power and if they shall not obserue the same let them be depriued of the honour which they haue and let them in no wise be assumed to other honours c. The Cardinall Hostiensis vpon these wordes vt Comites c. to prooue the validitie of this Canon among other answeres he giueth also this which he doth not confute that some Doctors doe say that therefore this Canon was of force because the Emperour was present and gaue his consent secundum D. N. according to Pope Innocent the fourth whom he called Dominum nostrum 6 The same answere also hath Ioannes Andreas expounding that word Comites Note saith hee that the Pope doth decree concerning lay-men but this is in regard of sinne Others say that therefore these decrees were of force because the Prince gaue his consent and was present And also the same answere maketh Pope Innocent the fourth expounding the same word Comites Note saith he that the Pope may ordaine concerning Lay-men but this is in regard of sinne Others say that these decrees are therefore of force because the Prince was present Wherefore it is very true which Ioannes Parisiensis said that Hostiensis with his Lord Pope Innocent among other answeres concerning the validitie of this Canon gaue also this which they did not confute that it was therefore valued and of force because the Prince was present and gaue his consent And therefore I maruaile how Fa. Lessius a man otherwise very learned and as I euer supposed of great reading should be so ignorant in the studie of the Canon law as not to know and much more so boldly to denie that Hostiensis did write vpon the Chapter Ad abolendam or vpon other textes whereas there is no booke more knowne and more commonly cited by the Canon Lawyers then is the Lecture of Hostiensis vpon the
Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Now Mr. Fitzherbert is it possible that you should be so ignorant as not to vnderstand the force of my answere and that I brought the testimonies of Ioannes Parisiensis and Hostiensis to great purpose Doe not you see what I gaine for the question which is in hand if you graunt me that the decree of the Lateran Counsell as also that Canon Ad abolendam according to those Doctours cited by Hostiensis had their force to binde from the consent of temporall Princes Can you bee so blinde as not to see how this inference is not weake and absurd but strong and certaine that because this and other decrees of Popes and Councels concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments were I do not onely say ratified by temporall Princes but had their force to binde from the consent of temporal Princes therfore they could not be lawfully made without their ratification and consent which is the point you say I must prooue if I will argue to the purpose vnlesse your weaknesse will admit that a law may lawfully or legally be made without that by vertue whereof it hath force to binde as those Canonists cited by Hostiensis Pope Innocent and Ioannes Andreas doe affirme that the Canon Ad abolendā ideo valuisse quia Imperator aut Princeps consensit Was therefore of force because the Emperour or Prince gaue his consent 44 And as for that inference you make that if that Canon of the Lateran Councell which was as it were a Parliament of all Christendome was made by the consent and I also adde by the authority of all Christian Princes therefore it cannot be repealed but by some other generall Councell of like authority although it nothing concerneth the deposition of absolute Princes by whose authority it was made but onely of inferiour Landlords Magistrates or Lords yet of what force this inference is you may for your better instruction see aboue d Ch. 8. nu 27. by the doctrine of Suarez who declareth in what manner the law of Nations may in this or that Nation be repealed for that a law of a generall Councell made by the consent and authority of all Christian Princes is as I may say a law of all Christian Nations 45 But let vs goe on and see how well you prooue that it is absurd to say that the Canon of the Lateran Councell and diuers other Canons concerning politicall matters could not be lawfully made without the consent of temporall Princes But how absurd is this saith Mr. Fitzherbert e Pag. 161. num 8. it may appeare euen by Widdringtons former graunt and expresse doctrine f Chap. 2. num 1. 2. touching the Popes power to command corporall and temporall things as they serue or are reduced to spirituall for this power being spirituall in respect of the spirituall end whereto it reduceth all temporall things must needes bee independent of temporall Princes vnlesse we shall also grant them a supreame spirituall authority 46 But how vaine this inference is I haue clearely shewed before g Chap. 6. num 66 seq by declaring the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of them both which my Aduersary not distinguishing doth thereby confound the vnderstanding of his vnlearned Reader For the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue or commanding are all those things spirituall or temporall which by the reference or reduction of them to a spirituall end may become spirituall things to wit vertuous or vicious actions which are the acts obiects of the spirituall power as it is directiue this spirituall power is independant of temporall Princes but the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing are not all spirituall things but onely spirituall punishments and because no reduction of temporall punishments to a spirituall end can make temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments therefore temporall punishments although by reducing them to a spirituall end may become spirituall things which are the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue yet still they remaine temporall punishments and therefore cannot by any reduction become the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing whereupon the inflicting of such punishments for what end soeuer they be inflicted must needes remaine dependant vpon the consent and authority of temporall Princes Neither also can my Aduersary be so ignorant as to affirme that temporall Princes cannot vse their supreame temporall power to a spirituall end as to the rooting out of heresie adultery and all other crimes vnlesse we grant them a supreame spirituall authority 47 Besides that this may be conuinced saith Mr. Fitzherbert h Pag. 161. num 8. by the practise of all the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours when not only corporall and temporall things were commanded by the Church but temporall and comporall penalties ordained without the ratification or consent of any temporall Prince This indeed were somewhat to the purpose if Mr. Fitzherbert could conuince that in the primitiue Church before Kings and Emperour were Christians temporall penalties were not onely commanded but also ordained as to ordaine is distinguished from to command for then it must needes follow that the primitiue Church did not onely command the inflicting of temporall punishments without the consent and authority of temporall Princes and that temporall punishments were then the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue which I neuer denied but also did inflict temporall punishments and that temporall punishments were then the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing which I vtterly denie Obserue now what pittifull arguments this silly man bringeth for conuincing proofes 48 This may appeare saith he by a decree of Pope Calixtus e Epist 2. Callixt tom 1. Concil in the time of the Emperour Alexander Seuerus whereby as well Lay-men as Priests and Cleargie-men were forbidden vpon paine of infamie to make conspiracies against their Bishops 48 The words of Pope Calixtus to the Bishops of Fraunce are these Wee haue heard that the crimes of conspiracies doe raigne in your parts and it hath beene made manifest vnto vs that their people doe conspire against their Bishops The subtilty or malice of which offence is abhominable not onely among Christians but also among Heathens and is forbidden by externall lawes And therefore not onely Ecclesiasticall but also Secular laws do condemne them that are guilty of this crime and not onely those that do conspire but those also who consent to them And our predecessours with a great company of Bishops haue commanded all them that are placed in Priestly dignity or are Clergy-men to fall from the dignity which they haue haue commanded that the rest be depriued of Communion and to be banished from the Church and haue thought or iudged all men together of either order to be infamous not onely the
doers but those also that consent to them And a little beneath And these are not to be admitted to the accusing of any man nor the word of thē or of excommunicated persons can hurt or accuse any man 49 But this authority of Pope Calixtus and all other such like as of Pope Anacletus Pope Pius and others related by Gratian 3. q. 4. are easily answered For as there are two sorts of Lawes Courts or Tribunals the spirituall the temporall so also there are two sorts of infamie as infamie is taken for a penalty ordained by the law f Vide Siluest verbo infamia Greg. Tholo in Syntag Iuris lib. 31. cap. 29. num 7. and other Doctors Cod. ex quibus causis infamia irrogatur ff de ijs qui notantur infamiae the one is called infamia iuris Canonica infamie of the spirituall Court by vertue whereof the person made infamous is depriued and made incapable of spirituall dignities and his word or testimonie is of no force to hurt any man in this spirituall Court and for as much as concerneth spirituall dignities punishments or Censures and of this infamy the aforesaid decree of Callixtus and all other Ecclesiasticall Canons made by spirituall authority wherein the penalty of infamie is inflicted are to be vnderstood The other infamie is ordained by the Ciuill law and is called by the Lawyers infamia iuris Ciuilis infamie of the Ciuill law or Court by vertue of which the person made infamous is depriued or made incapable of Secular dignities and his testimonie is not admitted to hurt any man in the Ciuill and criminall Court and for as much as concerneth temporal dignities and temporal punishments And of this ciuill infamie the words of Pope Calixtus are not to be vnderstood Neither can any man be so senselesse as to conceiue that the Popes of the primitiue Church declaring those to be infamous and not to bee admitted to accuse or giue testimony against any man who did forsake the Christian Religion became Apostataes and made conspiracies against Bishops and excommunicated persons did intend to make them incapable of Secular dignities and not to be admitted to accuse or giue testimonie in the Secular Court wherein the Popes themselues and all Christians were punished and persecuted for Christian Religion and Apostataes and accusers of Bishops were rewarded 50 The second conuincing proofe that the Popes of the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours did not onely command but also ordaine temporall punishments Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth from the authority of Pope Vrbanus g Epist Vrbani tom 1. Concil 17. q. 4. can Attendendum est And his Successour Vrbanus saith he h Pa. 161. nu 9 ordained in like sort the penaltie of infamy adding also imprisonment and perpetuall banishment for such as should goe about to vexe and molest Churches and to depriue them of their goods and possessions But this proofe is as insufficient as the former First for that this Epistle of Vrbanus is not authentical but counterfait and falsly imposed vpon Pope Vrbanus as may euidently appeare by the subscriptions of the Consulls to wit of Antoninus and Alexander whereas it is euident as Baronius i Adamū 224 and other Historiographers doe witnesse that Antoninus was slaine in the fourth yeere of Pope Callixtus in the yeere of our Lord 224. two yeeres before Vrbanus was created Pope 51 Secondly for that it is also euident that the whole Canon Attendendum wherein the penaltie of infamy imprisonment and of perpetuall banishment is ordained as it is set downe 17. q. 4. by Gratian hath beene thrust in by some one or other to this Epistle for that it hath no coherence at all with the words of the Epistle which immediately follow wherein the reason of this decree is giuen whereas if the whole Canon Attendendum be left out the sense is perfect and the reason there alledged very apt and sufficient For what coherence I pray you is there betwixt these words of this Canon that if any man molest Churches he shall be condemned of perpetuall infamy and hee imprisoned and banished for euer with these words which in the Epistle immediately follow because we ought according to the Apostle to deliuer such a man to Sathan that the spirit may bee safe in the day of our Lord c. Which neuerthelesse is a very fit reason of that which immediately goeth before this whole Canon Attendendum to wit that Church-goods ought not to be taken away by any man and applied to prophane vses least they incurre the punishment and death of Ananias and Saphira and which is worse bee made Anathema maranatha and if they shall not fall dead in body as Ananias and Saphira did yet there soule which is of more worth then the body doth fall dead and be separated from the company of the faithfull and doth slide into the deepe pit of hell because according to the Apostle wee ought to deliuer such a man to Sathan c. which wordes as you see haue a perfect sense and giue a very fit reason of the former words if the whole Canon Attendendum be left out and with it there is no sense and coherence of the words at all 52 Thirdly what man can be so simple as to imagine that either Pope Vrbanus or any other Pope of the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours when not onely the goods of the Church were prophaned taken away and spoyled but also the Christians themselues imprisoned banished and put to cruell death would make a Decree that whosoeuer did take away or prophane the goods of Churches should be committed to prison or perpetually banished euen as if Mr. Arch-Priest should now make a decree that whatsoeuer Catholike shall take the oath of allegiance or repaire to Protestant Churches shall be imprisoned or perpetually banished and yet these in my Aduersaries iudgement are forsooth conuincing proofes Neuerthelesse this punishment of infamy is to be vnderstood as I shewed before of spirituall infamy to wit forasmuch as concerneth the spirituall Court and the penaltie of perpetuall banishment is to bee vnderstood of spirituall banishment or of banishment from the Church as it is expresly affirmed in the decree of his Predecessour Pope Callixtus And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert may vse some fraud in vrging from the decree of Pope Vrbanus the penaltie of banishment and in concealing the said penaltie in the decree of his Predecessour Pope Callixtus who in expresse words made mention of banishment from the Church 53 The third conuincing proofe Mr. Fitzherbert taketh from the authority of a Prouinciall Councell k pag. 162. nu 9 held at Eliberis l De Consecrat dist 1. can Omnis homo in Spaine in the time of Constantius father to Constantine the great Galerius which enacted that men should abstaine from their wiues not only some daies before they receiued the B. Sacrament m Barchard l.
same nature and quality in generall for that both of them ordaine temporall punishments which cannot be inflicted by spirituall Pastours by that authority which they haue receiued from Christ but onely by the authority priuiledges and consent of temporall Princes who onely haue authority to inflict temporall punishments as death exile confiscation of goods imprisonment and such like But with all this difference is to be obserued betwixt these two punishments that although some Ecclesiasticall persons as diuers Bishops of Germany being temporall Princes haue authority to inflict both kinde of punishments and to hang and draw as our English prouerbe saith within their temporall Dominions yet Ecclesiasticall leuitie as Saint Leo saith doth shun these bloudy punishments and the Canons of the Church doe forbid Cleargie-men to vse the same and to pronounce the sentence of death against any malefactour whatsoeuer immediately by themselues but onely by their Officers Neuerthelesse seeing that these Ecclesiasticall persons haue by the grant of temporall Princes authority as we say to hang and draw and what their Officers or Ministers doe in this case they doe it by their authority the aforesaid prohibition of the Church doth not take away or depriue them of their authority and iurisdiction but doth onely forbid them to execute the same by themselues immediately but onely by their Ministers So that if a Cleargie-man who is a temporall Prince as are the Bishops of Collen and Ments should notwithstanding the prohibition of the Church pronounce the sentence of death against any malefactour who deserueth the same although hee should offend against the prohibition of the Church yet he should not offend against iustice vsurping the power which he hath not by doing that which for want of temporall iurisdiction he hath no authority to doe in that manner as an other man who hauing no temporall iurisdiction and condemning one to death should offend 14 Secondly therefore although I doe not deny that the confiscation of goods is expresly ordained in diuers places of the Canon law as also the effusion of bloud by mutilation and death is expresly ordained in this Canon howsoeuer my Aduersary very boldly saith that the effusion of bloud by mutilation or death is no way ordained therein yet if wee distinguish ordaining from commanding or imposing because I haue euer granted that spirituall Pastours haue authority to command impose and enioyne but not to inflict temporall punishments all such Canons wherein temporall punishments are inflicted are either an approbation of the Imperiall law or a teaching and declaring what ought to be done by the Secular Prince or Iudge as the Glosse expoundeth both this Canon Delatori wherein the effusion of bloud by death and mutilation is decreed and also the Canon Hadrianus wherein onely the confiscation of goods is ordained or they were made and had force to binde by the consent of temporall Princes as other Doctours according to Hostiensis Ioannes Andreas and Pope Innocent interprete that so often vrged Canon Ad abolendam wherein Earles Barons Gouernours and Consuls of Cities and other places if they neglect to helpe the Church against heretikes are depriued of their honour 15 Neuerthelesse these Canons wherein temporall punishments are ordained for that they are made by sacred spirituall or Ecclesiasticall persons though not by sacred spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but by temporall and ciuill authority granted them by the priuiledges gift or consent of temporall Princes may be called sacred Ecclesiasticall and Apostolicall Canons Gerson de potest Eccles consider 4. according to that which I. Gerson writeth that there are some of opinion that Excommunication is the last punishment which the Ecclesiasticall power of Iurisdiction by the first institution of Christ can inflict so that it is not extended to imprisonment nor that any man be adiudged to death or corporall whipping but when the Ecclesiasticall Iudge doth this he doth it by the grant of Princes as the Cleargie by the deuotion of Princes hath receiued great authority of temporall Iurisdiction which iurisdiction or censure is neuerthelesse called spirituall as also the temporall goods of Ecclesiasticall persons are called spirituall because they are dedicated and applyed to them who serue the Church as also the breads of proposition the first fruites the tithes also the vessels of the Temple the Vestments and such like were in the old law called sacred or holy so also the new law doth obserue the same Thus Gerson 16 Thirdly the Glosse it selfe doth teach saith Mr. Fitzherbert e Pag. 167. num 6. Glossa in verb. publicat that by the former decree the Church doth ordaine the confiscation of goods and deposition from dignities saying Hìc Ecclesia publicat bona Laicorum quandoque deponit à dignitatibus Here the Church doth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth from dignities Thus saith the Glosse here which Widdrington wholly dissembleth because it maketh flatly against him and he taketh hold as it seemeth of the words immediately following though he doe not alleage them the words are Vel dic c. Or say that the Church teacheth here what ought to be done Wherein it cannot be with reason imagined that the Glosse contradicteth the former interpretation seeing that it teacheth also in many other places that the Church may and doth vse to impose temporall penalties by confiscation of goods imprisonment infamie and banishment as it may bee seene in the Glosses Lib. Detret cap. Licet tit de Paenis vpon 17. q. 4. Attendendum est 16. q. 1. Statuimus 27. q. 4. Quisquis and vpon the Decree Licet tit de poenis where the Glosse affirmeth expresly that if the Law doe ordaine only a spirituall punishment or a corporall the Iudge cannot change it into another except hee can dispence in the crime committed and that when the Law determineth nothing concerning the penaltie of the crime it is left to the will of the Iudge whether he will impose a pecuniarie penaltie or any other and lastly when the Iudge can dispence touching the crime he may inflict a penaltie of or some other Thus saith the Glosse 17 But first it is not true as you haue seene aboue that I either omitted to alleadge the second answere of the Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus seeing that it is all one with that which I did alleadge vpon the Canon Delatori to which the Glosse remitteth himselfe for his second answere or that I dissembled the first answere of the Glosse which teacheth that the Church doeth ordaine the confiscation of goods seeing that I onely intended to bring there those answeres of the Glosse which made for my doctrine and not those which made against it as if a man intend only to set downe Authours who fauour any one opinion may without any dissimulation omit to relate those Authours who are against it 18 Secondly is it possible that Mr. Fitzherbert can be so ignorant as to conceiue that the Glosse doeth then contradict
indeede very cleare for that point especially cap. Quisquis 27. q. 4. Where it is ordained that a sacrilegious person shall pay thirtie pounds of siluer to the Bishop or Abbot or any Ecclesiasticall Iudge to whom the knowledge of the cause shall appertaine as it may appeare both by the Canon and the Glosse Besides that Panormitan Panorm vbi supra whom Siluester citeth teacheth expresly that when the Bishop proceedeth iuridically and no certaine penaltie is ordained by the Law he may impose a penaltie of money though he cannot doe it when the Law ordaineth expresly an other except it be for a crime wherein he hath power to dispence for then he may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie though some other be assigned by the Law as I haue also shewed before u Supra nu 6. out of the Glosse in cap. Licet tit de poenis 38 This being then Panomitans doctrine approoued by Siluester who followeth him altogether in this question it appeareth that Widdrington might haue easily seene if it had pleased him that Siluester doth not any way fauour his opinion nor impugne our doctrine concerning the Popes power to dispose of temporall things in order to spirituall which is the principall question controuersed betwixt vs. You haue heard before x Chap. 11. nu 3. that Hostiensis expresly teacheth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and Siluester doth the like being also both of them of the number of the Canonists who teach y Hostiens in cap. Quod super his de voto voti redempt Siluest in Sum. verbo Papa nu 1. 11. 12. that the Pope hath a direct Dominion ouer temporall things no lesse then ouer spirituall and therefore it is euident that they cannot any way make for my Aduersarie Widdrington 39 But it is vntrue that I either dissembled or omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that the Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion but the reason why I omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to wit Sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this pleaseth not Panormitan was for that it did nothing import our question to know of what opinion either Panormitan or also Siluester himselfe were concerning that point for that which I intended to proue out of Siluesters words was this that it is no vndoubted point of faith but onely an opinion according to Siluester that Bishops can inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto them and the words of Siluester doe sufficiently shew that it is onely an opinion among the Canonists and therefore that either Panormitan or Siluester or any other Canonist be of the contrarie opinion it is nothing to the purpose Neither doth the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis cited by Panormitan and Siluester make against my doctrine foc they doe onely shew that a spirituall Iudge may inflict a pecuniarie mulct but that he may inflict it by his spirituall authoritie and consequently vpon Lay-men that are not temporally subiect vnto him without the consent of their temporall Prince they doe not shew and the Canon Quisquis which Mr. Fitzherbert thinketh to be so cleere in this point is taken out of an Epistle of Pope Iohn the eight wherein he commaunded that the decrees of a Councell called Trecense which was approoued by authoritie of Lewis the Emperour should be obserued and the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet tit de poenis doth expresly fauour my doctrine as I haue signified before 40 And albeit both Hostiensis and Siluester be themselues of opinion that the Pope is by the institution of Christ a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and hath direct dominion not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls and consequently that hee may inflict temporall punishments dispose of all temporalls and depose temporall Princes for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are according to their opinion subiect to him directly in temporalls and so in this point they make nothing for my doctrine yet they make greatly for my doctrine in this that by their answeres it may be plainely gathered that they hold it onely for an opinion as at this present I contend it onely to be and that other Authors doe not agree with them therein as to the answere of Hostiensis to the Canon Ad abolendam I haue shewed before and also by this answere of Siluester you may see more cleerely beneath in this I say it is euident that they greatly make for my doctrine 41 Besides that it little importeth saith Mr. Fitzher z Pag. 172. nu 15. 16. 17. whether the Bishop may according to the Canons impose a temporall penaltie vpon such Lay-men as are not his temporall subiects seeing he may by the opinion of those three whom my Aduersarie Widdrington alledgeth make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge or Magistrate in which case it is done by the Bishops authoritie and the Secular Magistrate is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will Furthermore put the case that the Bishop could not impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect will Widdrington conclude thereupon that therefore the Pope may not doe it Will he be so absurd to restraine the supreme iurisdiction of the Pope to the inferiour power of a Bishop as well might he say that a King can doe no more in like case then an inferiour temporall Magistrate and that because the Iudge cannot pardon a person condemned therefore the King cannot doe it who knoweth not that the Church hath prescribed to her Magistrates certaine limits for the exercise of their authoritie and iurisdiction allowing to some more and to some lesse which they cannot exceede Therefore it were absurd to say that a Bishop cannot excommunicate because a Parish-Priest cannot doe it But much more absurd and ridiculous it is to say that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis cannot dispose of temporall things in some cases because a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vp a Lay man that is not his temporall subiect as Widdrinton seemeth to argue for otherwise his obiection concerning the Bishops power is to no purpose So as you see vpon what probabilities he grounded his doctrine being found to be either fraudulent or impertinent in euery thing that hee vndertaketh to answere or obiect as you shall also further see by that which yet followeth for the confirmation of his pretended answere 42 But Mr. Fitzherbert seeketh still to blind his Readers vnderstanding with a confuse ambiguitie of equiuocall words For although it litle importeth whether a Bishop may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect or make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge by forcing the Iudge thereunto not onely by spirituall but also by temporall compulsion or coercion seeing that in this case it is done by the
Bishops authoritie and the Seculiar Iudge is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will yet that a Bishop may only make a pecuniarie penaltie to be inflicted by a Seculiar Iudge by forcing him thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures and not by temporall compulsion this doth very much import and altogether fauour my doctrine For I doe not now contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as by the institution of Christ it is directiue or which is all one commaunding imposing or inioyning for I doe not denie as I haue often said that spirituall Pastours may by their spirituall authoritie commaund impose and inioyne temporall Princes to make temporall lawes as Saint Ambrose did the Emperour Theodosius and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good in which case those lawes are not made nor those temporall penalties are inflicted by the authoritie of spirituall Pastours as though temporall Princes were only their instruments and Ministers to execute their wills as inferiour Magistrates are onely instruments and Ministers to execute the will of the Prince but I doe now onely contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing and I vtterly denie that it is a certaine and vndoubted point of faith that the spirituall coerciue power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Secondly that fraude and impertinencie which Mr. Fitzherbert doth vntruely attribute to my answeres and obiections I haue clearely shewed to bee found in euery one of his Replies And as touching that absurditie which he now obiecteth against my answere it is cleere that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me is not concerning the power which either the Pope or inferiour Bishops haue by the grant consent and authoritie of temporall Princes I doe not say to commaund impose or inioyne but to inflict temporall penalties vpon Lay-men who are not their temporall subiects but whether any spirituall Pastour whether he be an inferiour Bishop or also the Pope himselfe hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict such temporall penalties And indeed my purpose is to conclude that because it is probable that an inferiour Bishop hath no such authoritie by the institution of Christ iure diuino therefore it is also probable that the Pope iure diuino and by the institution of Christ hath no such authority and vpon what probabilitie this my consequence is grounded and how absurdly Mr. Fitzherbert condemneth it of ridiculous absurditie you shall forthwith perceiue Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. 3 44 And first according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in the particular which assertion he brought to prooue that if the Pope be a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church then euery Bishop is also a direct Lord in temporals of his owne particular Church or Diocesse which consequent he affirmeth to be manifestly false and therefore hee denyeth also that the Pope is a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church Now from the same assertion I may as well conclude that if the Pope be an indirect Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church and may inflict temporall punishments vpon all Christians in order to spirituall good then euery Bishop is also an indirect Lord in temporals in his owne particular Diocesse and may in order to spirituall good inflict temporall punishments vpon the Christians of his Diocesse because euery Bishop in his particular Diocesse is that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church And therefore to argue according to the rules of Logicke à destructione consequentis ad destructionem antecedentis from the ouerthrowing or denying of the consequent to the denying of the antecedent If a Bishop in his owne Diocesse cannot according to the institution of Christ inflict a pecuniarie mulct or temporall penalty of money vpon those Lay-men that are not his temporall subiects neither can the Pope in the vniuersall Church doe the same Victoria in relect 2. de potest Eccles Castro lib. 2. de iusta Haeres punit cap. 24. Vasques 1. 2. disp 152. cap. 3. num 28. 45 Secondly according to the doctrine of the Diuines of Paris which others also as Victoria Castro Vasquez although otherwise vehement maintainers of the Popes power indirectly in temporals doe in this point follow it is euident that Bishops doe not receiue their authority and Iurisdiction from the Pope but immediatly from Christ by vertue of those words which were spoken to all the Apostles Whatsoeuer you shall binde c. Matth. 18. And Whose sinnes you shall forgiue c. Iohn 19. And Feede my sheepe Iohn 20. Which words according to the Exposition of the ancient Fathers a See aboue cap. 5. num 10. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad 1586. which also Cardinall Bellar. did once approoue are vnderstood to be spoken also to all the Apostles Seeing therefore that S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles and consequently the Pope and other Bishops who succeede the Apostles as they were ordinary Pastours and had ordinary spirituall power to gouerne the Church receiued their power and iurisdiction in the selfe-same forme of words without any limitation or restriction from hence it clearely followeth that what Ecclesiastical power iurisdiction soeuer the Pope receiueth ouer the whole Church the same power and iurisdiction if we regard meerely the law of God and the institution of Christ other Bishops receiue ouer those who are subiect to their Bishopricke * A Bishop saith Ledesma 1. 4. ar 11. standing in the law of God hath as great power in his Prouince as the Pope in the whole world So that standing in the law of God and abstracting from the Canons of the Church euery Bishop may in his owne Bishoprick absolue from all cases inflict all censures dispense in oathes and vowes make lawes and Canons no lesse then the Pope may in the Vniuersall Church And therefore it is no absurd argument to conclude that because a Bishop cannot by vertue of that spirituall power which hee hath receiued from Christ inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon those that in spiritualls are subiect to his Diocesse therefore neither can the Pope doe the same in the Vniuersall Church 46 Whereby it is apparant that the comparison which M. Fitzherbert heere maketh betwixt a King and an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge a Bishop and a Parish Priest and betwixt the Pope and other Bishops is idle and impertinent for that no man can make any doubt but that an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge hath all his authoritie and iurisdiction from the King but Bishops according to the doctrine of many learned men haue not their authority and iurisdiction from the Pope but immediately from Christ as the Pope himselfe hath and all Catholikes confesse that Bishops are Peeres and Princes of the Church and principall Iudges in the externall spirituall Court
whereas none will acknowledge that Parish Priests are such and few will grant that they haue iurisdiction in the externall spirituall Court but onely in the Court of conscience Therefore although it were absurd to say that because euery Bishop can excommunicate in his owne Diocesse therefore euery Parish Priest can also excommunicate in his Parish yet as it is not absurd to say that because the Pope can excommunicate in the vniuersall Church therefore a Bishop standing in the law of Christ can also excommunicate in his owne Diocesse so it is not absurd and much lesse ridiculous to say that if the Pope can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon all Christians euery Bishop also standing in the law of Christ can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon those that are subiect to his Bishopricke no more then it is absurd or ridiculous for Cardinall Bellarmine to say that if the Pope hath direct dominion in temporalls in the vniuersall Church euery Bishop hath also direct dominion in temporalls in his owne particular Bishopricke for that according to his doctrine that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euerie Bishop in his particular Diocesse 47 And as concerning that plenitude or fulnesse of the Popes Ecclesiasticall power which Mr. Fitzherbert with full mouth doth so often inculcate little vnderstanding poore man in what this fulnesse doth consist there is a great controuersie among Catholikes to what things this fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power doth extend Almainus de authore Eccles cap. 3. For there is so great a controuersie saith Almaine concerning the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and to what things it doth extend that there are few things in this matter secure or certaine insomuch that it were very necessary in these times as William Occam in the end of the first part of his Dialogue obserueth that wise men being inforced by oathes or horrible threatnings to speake the truth should declare those things which belong to the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power And how farre some Authours perchance for flattery to get priuiledges and benefices saith Almaine doe straine it to the preiudice of Princes so that they doe quite ouerthrow the Soueraigntie of Princes you may see in that his Treatise where hee expoundeth only the doctrine of Occam and how he notwithstandeth the fulnesse thereof in other his bookes where he speaketh according to his owne opinion will not haue it to extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment and this saith he a In lib. de dominio natu Ciu. Eccl. concl 12. is the opinion of most Doctours 48 And also the Doctours of Paris doe make the power and Iurisdiction of Bishops standing meerely in the law of Christ to be as full in intension as is the Popes power that is abstracting from his Primacie and the fulnesse of his power in extension for that the Popes power is extended to the whole Church and the power of Bishops is limited and restrained to their owne Bishoprikes albeit the Canons of the Church haue limited and restrained the fulnesse of Bishops power also in intension Bell. l. 5 de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. reseruing many cases and Censures to Papall authoritie But standing in the law of Christ Card. Bellarmine doeth very well affirme that euery Bishop is that in his owne Diocesse which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church which Mr. Fitzherbert must first proue to bee impertinent absurd and ridiculous and then let him put those imputations vpon my answere and the argument which he draweth from thence 49 A third principall exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against that which in confirmation of my aforesaid second answere I added in these words Adde hereunto that whensoeuer the Pope by a generall constitution decreeth any temporall thing but it pleased my Aduersarie to leaue out that word temporall which is preiudiciall to the right of another man who is not subiect to him in temporalls the same decree as some not improbably doe thinke doeth only extend vnlesse the contrarie bee expressed which last clause also Mr. Fitzherbert leaueth out to the territories of the Roman Church or the patrimonie of S. Peter wherein as Pope Innocent saith b Cap. per venerabil the Pope doth exercise the authoritie of a chiefe Bishop and doth execute the power of a Soueraigne Prince 50 Against this answere Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth in this manner c pag. 173. nu 18. 19. Thus Widdrington telleth vs but who these some men are of whom he speaketh or where they affirme this hee listeth not to tell vs neither in his text nor in his margent lest by the cases which they propound and the circumstances of their doctrine we might discouer his abuse of their testimonie but whosoeuer they bee if there be any such that giue so generall a rule as hee mentioneth it must bee considered whether they speake of constitutions touching matters meerely temporall or else of penall lawes made against heresie or other enormious crimes for the benefit of the whole Church For no Catholike man I am sure hath euer said or will say that any generall Constitution of the Pope made for the reformation of faith or manners and punishment of delinquents in spirituall matters is to bee vnderstood to bee restrained to the Popes owne temporall patrimonie for seeing that hee hath no lesse spirituall authoritie throughout all Christendome then within his owne temporall dominions it were absurd and hereticall to say that his generall Decrees touching spirituall matters such as is the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie to the preiudice of some mans temporall state for so could not heretikes bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes decrees which neuerthelesse are generally executed Cap. vergentis Tit. 7. de haerâ—â— in preiudice not only of the delinquents but also of their children and next heires And this I say is so vniuersally practised by the Church that hee cannot be counted a Canonist nor yet a Catholike that will deny it to be lawfully done 51 But to omit the egregious fraude and falshood of this man in affirming mee to say that whensoeuer the Pope decreeth any thing c. and leauing out the word temporall and also that other clause vnlesse the contrarie be expressed which were the chiefe points whereon I did ground that my answere there is no man of any iudgement who may not cleerely perceiue that all those Catholike Doctours alleadged by mee heretofore d Apol. nu 4. seq and in the first part of this Treatise and among the rest those plerique Doctores very many or most Doctours whom Almaine citeth and followeth who affirme that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall censures must consequently holde that when the Pope by a generall constitution decreeeth any temporall
she vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law or to vse Gersons words from the grant of Princes 56 Lastly Mr. Fitzherbert excepteth against that which I brought from the words of the Glosse vpon the Canon Per venerabilem to confirme the doctrine of those who affirme that the Pope hath not authority to make ciuill or temporall lawes or which is all one to ordaine meere temporall things out of his owne temporall dominions And these Authours the Glosse said I vpon the same Canon Per venerabilem doth seeme to fauour where it affirmeth that the Pope cannot legitimate any man who is not subiect to his temporall Iurisdiction to make him succeede in an inheritance as a lawfull heire for this were to put his sickle into another mans haruest and to vsurpe another mans Iurisdiction and to depriue some man of his right to succeede which hee ought not to doe and therefore he cannot legitimate any man for the Secular Court vnlesse the Prince shall permit or giue him leaue But if the Pope cannot legitimate one who is not legitimate nor depriue one of his right to succeede I see not by what authority he can make a lawfull and legitimate heire or Prince to be vnlawfull and not legitimate or depriue one of his inheritance which hee lawfully possesseth 57 But to this Glosse whose words as you see are most plaine and cleare Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth h Page 174. num 20. to the end that this my instance or example taken from the Glosse is no lesse impertinent then the former seeing that it concerneth onely a temporall matter without relation to any spirituall end And is it possible saith he that Widdrington cannot see the difference betwixt these two cases seeing that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end that is to make them capable of a temporall inheritance is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince whereas the deposition of Princes in this our case hauing a spirituall end to wit the extirpation of heresie and punishment of sinne to the exceeding great good of soules and the publike benefite of the Church is not meerely temporall in respect of the spirituall end and therefore may proceede from the spiritvall power of him that hath the supreame charge of soules and the gouernment of the whole Church in whom it may suffice for that purpose to haue an indirect dominion ouer temporall things to bee vsed and exercised in some cases when the necessity of the Church shall require it 58 Whereupon it also followeth that if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church that the Pope should legitimate a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance as for example if a kingdome should otherways fall into the hands or possession of Gods enemies in such a case I say he might doe it by his spirituall power and the indirect dominion he hath ouer temporall things as both Lawyers i See Couerra in 4 Decret 2. par §. 8. nu 16 and Diuines teach and the Glosse alleaged by Widdrington doth not denie it affirming onely that the Pope hath no power to legitimate a bastard out of his owne temporall Dominions to a meere temporall end which as I haue said is a farre different case from ours and not denyed by vs So as you see still how improbably Widdrington argueth and how absurdly he hath answered to his owne obiection And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of his second answere Let vs now heare the third 59 But in this also Mr. Fitzherbert sheweth as much fraude and ignorance as hee hath in the former For first it is euident that this assertion of the Glosse denying the Pope to haue authoritie out of his owne temporall dominions to make one capable of a temporall inheritance vnlesse the Prince giue him leaue is generall and without any relation at all either to a temporall or spirituall end and the onely exception limitation or restriction which the Glosse maketh is vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue so to doe which words being so generall doe plainly signifie that the Pope cannot out of his owne temporall dominions make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that the Pope may for a spirituall end to wit for that the spirituall good of the Church and the saluation of soules make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance this explication corrupteth the text and is contrarie to the plaine words of the Glosse for if the Pope out of his owne temporall Dominions may for a spirituall end make one capable of a temporall inheritance or depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission then it cleerely followeth that the Pope may make one capable of a temporall inheritance and legitimate him for the Secular Court and depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission which the Glosse in expresse words denieth 60 But secondly is it possible that this man cannot see how plainly he contradicteth himselfe in granting first that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end is to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and that so it is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince and afterwards in acknowledging that the legitimation of a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church may bee done by the Popes spirituall power and indirect dominion which he hath ouer temporalls which is plainly repugnant to his former assertion seeing that no reference or relation of the making bastards capable of a temporall inheritance to the necessary good of the Church can make but that according to his former grant it still remaineth a meere temporall thing and is to a temporall end that is saith hee to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince consequently it cannot be done by the spirituall power and indirect dominion which the Pope hath ouer temporall things 61 Wherefore this indirect temporall power authoritie dominion or iurisdiction is in my opinion a meere fiction purposely inuented without sufficient ground by the later Diuines to put a more colourable cloake vpon this pretended temporall authoritie of the Pope because they saw the Canonists doctrine making the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole world to be very false absurd scandalous and odious both to Princes and subiects and yet in effect or substance they differ little or nothing at all For whatsoeuer the Canonists grant that the Pope may doe in temporalls directly the Diuines grant he may doe indirectly which doth in effect as much as the former derogate
it doeth not ordaine or command any new thing but only declare the law of GOD and Nature and that by things strangled and blood is vnderstood onely man-slaughter Irenae l. 3. c. 12 Cypr. l. 3. ad Quirimum c. vl See Suarez lib. ◠de Leg. ca. 20. either by strangling or by the effusion of blood as Irenaeus S. Cyprian and others doe seeme to vnderstand those words and likewise that meates offered to Idoles are heere onely forbidden to be eaten either with a superstitious worship as though some sacred thing were in those meates in regard of the Idoll or else with the scandall of others both which are against the law of God nature and both which senses may bee gathered from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 8. vers 4. and 7. and 1. Cor. 10. vers 28. 29. 18 And in the like proportionate manner I haue answered to the Decree of the Lateran Councell not by impugning but by expounding the same For considering that it is truly a probable doctrine and maintained by very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and when shee vseth these shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes it is euident that wee may probably answere that decree of the Lateran Councell if wee may call it a decree concerning the future fact of the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates not to proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power but from that temporall authoritie which was granted to the Councell by the consent of temporall Princes whose Ambassadours were present at the making of that act or else to bind only in the Popes temporall Dominions 19 Secondly I answere that there is a great disparitie betwixt the decree of the Apostles and the decree or act of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth that future deposition of temporall Land-lords For the decree of the Apostles is a true and proper law and decree and includeth an expresse commandement to abstaine from those things which are there forbidden but this Decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the aforesaid deposition is not a true and proper law or Decree neither doeth it containe any speciall commandement prohibition grant or priuiledge which euery true and proper law or decree ought to containe as it will cleerely appeare according to my Aduersaries owne grounds if wee consider euery part and parcell of this Decree or Canon For first it is there ordained that Secular Potestaes or Magistrates shall by Ecclesiasticall Censure if neede require be compelled to take an Oath that they will doe their best endeauour to banish all heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction and this no doubt is a true and proper decree Secondly that if a temporall Land-Lord Magistrate or Lord shall neglect to purge his territories from hereticall filth he shall by the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops be excommunicated and this also is a true and proper decree and includeth a precept and commandement Tirdly that if hee shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeere the same shall be signified to the Pope and this also is a proper decree commanding the Metropolitan and other Comprouinciall Bishops to signifie the same to the Pope Fourthly it is added that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie and his territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes and this which is the maine and only point from whence my Aduersaries conclude that the Pope by his spirituall power may depose temporall Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true and proper decree and containe any commandement grant or priuiledge vnlesse they will graunt the Councell to bee aboue the Pope and that the Councell hath power to impose commandements vpon the Pope or to giue him any authoritie or priuiledge which neuerthelesse they vtterly deny and therefore these wordes as of themselues it is plaine doe onely import and signifie the ende reason or cause of the former Decree to wit wherefore it must bee signified to the Pope that such a temporall Land-Lord hath beene excommunicated for a whole yeere 20 And by this it is euident first that seeing that in generall Councels according to the expresse doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith For neither are of faith the disputations which goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate but onely the bare decrees and those not all but which are propounded as of faith and that this is no decree and though it were it is not propounded as of faith as it is manifest by the rules assigned aboue by Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus to know when any thing is propounded as of faith but it onely containeth the cause and reason of the former decree which reason may bee exposed to errour seeing that it is not greatly to be stood vpon saith Canus Canus l. 6. c. 8. si Pontificum rationes necessariae non sunt if the reasons of the Popes or Councels be not necessary it is I say most euident that from this Act no probable argument can be brought to proue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith 21 Secondly it is also euident that I do not impugne or call in question this Act of the Councell but do only expound and interpret it and that my expositiō is probable to wit that this Act was made not by spirituall authority but by temporall it is manifest supposing that is probable as in very deede it is and maintained by very many Doctours both Diuines and Lawyers that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall censures and therefore it cannot without grosse ignorance and manifest absurdity be said that this my answere and exposition which is grounded vpon the doctrine not onely of so many learned Authours but also of my owne Aduersaries and who otherwise defend the Popes authority to depose Princes is to bee accounted improbable or absurd I now let passe that the decrees of Popes and Councels which are not referred to all the Church but onely to particular Bishops Churches or persons and doe not concerne and binde all the Church but onely certaine persons may bee exposed to errour Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. q. 4. as I declared before For in that case onely saith Canus the Iudges are to be vnderstood to pronounce or define of faith when the decree or sentence belongeth to all the faithfull when it bindeth all but this Act of the Lateran Councell doth onely concerne temporall Land lords and their Vassals and those not all but onely the Vassals of such Land lords Magistrates
another generall Councell of like authority and why a Bishop for example of Spaine as he is a part of the generall Councell which is a true formall body representing the whole Catholike Church hath power and iurisdiction ouer the Christians of another temporall kingdome for example of France and contrariwise but a temporall or Ciuill law made by the consent of all Christian Princes may bee repealed by euery Prince for as much as concerneth his owne kingdome by whose onely authoritie that law had force to binde in his kingdome which in temporalls is subiect to no other Prince but himselfe alone and therefore as that law had not force to binde in his kingdome from the authoritie of any other Prince so the authoritie and consent of no other Prince is necessarie for the repealing and abrogating of the same So as thou seest good Reader that my third answere is no way defectiue but in euery thing sound and sufficient and that Maister Fitzherbert in the impugning thereof hath very grossely bewrayed his egregious fraude and ignorance CHAP. XIIII VVherein three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby hee laboured in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraude and falshood 1. AFter I had giuen the aforesaide third answere to that Act of the Lateran Councell as you haue seene before I insinuated another difficultie a In the aforesaid Preface nu 51. concerning that Act in these wordes I omit now that those wordes that from that time the Pope may denounce or declare his Vassalls absolued from his fealtie doe containe in them some difficultie for if wee will regard the force or proprietie of the wordes they seeme onely to signifie that it belongeth to the Pope not truely to absolue Vassalls from their fealtie but onely to declare them alreadie absolued which is not the question which wee haue now in hand But this difficultie Mr. Fitzherbert passeth ouer with silence and skippeth to examine three instances which I did not onely imagine or suppose as hee saith would be made against my last answere but which Fa. Lessius in those expresse words by me related in a booke of his called Disputatio Apologetica pro potestate Summi Pontificis which went heere vp and downe for a while in hugger mugger and whereof by chance I had then a view but now it cannot be seene but by very speciall and secret friends which is a manifest token of a great diffidence in his cause did bring to demonstrate and cleerely conuince that it is a manifest point of faith that the Pope hath power and authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance 2 And because Mr. Fitzherbert doth ouer much pare and curtoll those three instances which I brought to confront and paralele with the three arguments or obiections vrged by Fa. Lessius I thinke it not amisse first of all to relate them word by word as there they are set downe by me Wherefore the first argument or obiection of Fa. Lesus is this 1. Argument of Fa Lessius That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of their Decrees and sentences but this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their allegiance is eyther propounded or supposed by Popes Councels and Doctors as a foundation of many Canons and iudiciall sentences therfore this doctrine doth appertaine to faith 2. Argument 3 His second argument is this If a Generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath this authoritie no Catholike could make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that it doth suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of her Decrees and Sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to be accounted no lesse certaine 3. Argument 4 His third argument is this It is a poynt of Faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which is per se of it selfe vnlawfull for such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then is an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to depriue temporall Princes of their dominions the Church should erre in doctrine of manners and that in matters of very great moment For shee teacheth that after a Prince is deposed by the Popes authority all his subiects are absolued from his obedience and that his dominions may bee taken by another as it is manifest by the Councells Also that after a Prince is publikely excommunicated his subiects are absolued from their Oath of Allegiance in so much that they are not bound to obey him vntill hee he reconciled yea and she doth forbid them to obey him if the Censure be denounced All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the subiects shall thereby be incited to rebellions and periuries yea and against their will be compelled thereunto Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and commandeth rebellions and periuries and by her Censures doth compell men thereunto but to affirme this is hereticall therefore that also from whence this followeth is hereticall to wit that the Church hath not authority to absolue subiects from the bond of their oath and from their obedience 5 Thus argueth Fa. Lessius to which his arguments I did not answer in forme but onely propounded three other instances or arguments to confront them with his whereby the learned Reader might cleerely see the weakenesse and insufficiency of his obiections which my arguments I grounded in like manner vpon the dispensations decrees and iudiciall sentences of certaine Popes in these words * Praefatio Apol nu 56. seq 6 And first of all is not the due administration of Sacraments a matter of great moment and chiefly belonging to the Popes office is not an error concerning it to be accounted very pernicious But the Pope hath oftentimes giuen leaue to a Priest who was no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation b As it appeareth by S. Gregory lib. 3. epist 26. and it is related in the Canon peruenit dist 95. and many Abbots at this day haue the same faculty Concil Flor. circa finem in Decreto Eugen. whereas it is a great cōtrouersie among
neuerthelesse according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus are necessary to make any Decree of a generall Councell to appertaine to faith And secondly heere in this place I did only argue against the first argument brought by Fa. Lessius who in his Maior proposition speaketh generally of all decrees and sentences of Popes and Councels That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe either propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences c. And against this argument I did oppose as you haue seene another like instance grounded vpon three examples of decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences of diuers Popes which instance of mine Mr. Fitzherbert concealeth and by the word foundation I did not onely vnderstand the reason which mooued those Popes to make such decrees and to grant such dispensations and licences as for example that S. Gregory as my Aduersary saith graunted licence to some Priests in Sardinia to administer the Sacrament of confirmation by reason of the great want of Bishops in that Iland but by the word foundation I vnderstood the authority it selfe which those Popes pretended to haue to make such decrees and to grant such licences and dispensations and the reasons and foundations whereon that pretended authority of theirs was grounded which authority of theirs I shewed to be vncertaine and consequently not to belong to faith and therefore the first argument of Fa. Lessius to be defectiue 29 And although there bee an euident disparitie betwixt the Decrees of Popes and the Decrees of generall Councels yet it is apparant that according to my Aduersaries principles who affirme that all the infallibility of the Decrees of Generall Councels doth wholly depend vpon the Pope wee may according to their grounds proportionally argue of the infallibilitie of the Decrees of Popes and of General Councels and that if the Pope may erre in his priuate iudgement particular facts and decrees concerning manners which are referred to particular persons Bishops or Churches a Generall Councell also may erre in the like and if to make a Decree of a Generall Councell to belong to faith it bee necessary according to their doctrine that it bee a true and proper Decree and must also be propounded as of faith or necessarily grounded vpon some vndoubted doctrine of faith the like also they must say of the Decrees of Popes From whence it cleerely followeth that according to their owne principles no forcible argument can bee drawne either from the iudiciall sentence of Pope Gregory the seuenth against Henry the fourth Emperour or of Pope Innocent the third against Philip and Otho or of Pope Innocent the fourth in the Councell of Lyons against Fredericke the second or from any other deposition of whatsoeuer King or Emperour or also from the Decree of the Lateran Councell although we should suppose as wee doe not that it doth concerne the deposition of temporall Princes and was made by true Ecclesiasticall authority without any necessitie that Christian Princes should approoue and confirme the same yet I say no forcible argument can bee drawne from thence to prooue that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted doctrine of faith seeing that the former sentences and depositions doe onely concerne particular persons and this Act of the Lateran Councell is not according to their owne grounds a true and proper Decree and none of them are propounded as of faith as any man of iudgement out of those rules which Card. Bellarmine and Canus haue brought to know when any Decree is propounded as of faith may very easily perceiue 30 Besides that Widdrington inferreth absurdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 188. nu 8. 9. that because the reason which mooued some Popes to grant that licence was vncertaine or seemed erroneous to some learned men therefore it was vncertaine also in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence as who would say that because the reason of Pope Pius his Decree concerning the obseruation of the Feast of Easter seemed vncertaine to the Churches of Asia therefore it was vncertaine in it selfe or to Pope Pius who made the Decree whereas the reason or gound of the said Decree to wit the tradition of the Romane Church was not onely certaine to Pope Pius and his Successour Victor o Euseb l. 5. hist c. 24. 25 who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for resisting it but also to the first Councell of Nice which afterwards decreed the same yea to the whole Church which followeth the Decrees of the said Pope and Nicen Councell accounting them for heretikes that doe contradict them as I haue shewed before p See Chap. 13 nu 4. 7. And see also the answere therevnto chap. 13. nu 22. seq 31 The like also may bee said of the rebaptization of such as are baptized by heretikes which was condemned by the Sea Apostolike vpon an assured ground albeit the same seemed vncertaine and erroneous to Saint Cyprian and to a Synode of Bishops with him who were of contrarie opinion So as it is euident that many things may seeme vncertaine to some learned men and yet bee most certaine to the Sea Apostolike and therefore Widdrington argueth very ridiculously if hee inferre as hee seemeth to doe that the reason which mooued some Popes to giue licence to Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation is vncertaine or erroneous because it seemeth so to some learned men 32 But besides that I made no such inference as this man faigneth and the Reader may plainely see by the examples and instances which I haue entirely set downe and Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed it is euident that hee heere insinuateth giuing credit therein to Fa. Lessius a most dangerous and pernicious doctrine to wit that all Catholikes are bound to follow in matters which are in controuersie among learned men the Popes priuate spirit faith and knowledge as though the Church of God were to bee guided and gouerned in matters which are questionable among learned Catholikes by the priuate faith spirit or knowledge of any man yea of the Pope himselfe or that Christ had promised his infallible assistance to the Popes priuate knowledge or iudgement 33 And first whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that although the reason which mooued some Popes to grant licence to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation seemed vncertaine to some learned men yet it was not therefore vncertaine in it selfe or to the Popes that gaue the licence hee speaketh very improperly For albeit truth and falshood are taken from the thing it selfe according to that knowne maxime of Aristotle ex eo quod res est vel non est propositio dicitur vera vel falsa and so may bee said to bee in the thing it selfe yet certaintie as certaine is opposed to doubtfull vncertaine fallible probable erroneous is not properly in the thing it selfe but in the vnderstanding
commandement concerning all subiects not to obey their temporall Prince being deposed by the Pope or to rebell and plot conspiracies against him But if by commanding he vnderstand particular decrees and commandements propounded to particular persons Bishops Churches or Kingdomes against any particular Emperours Kings or temporall Princes then I say that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus the Church and much more the Pope may erre and of this sort are the depositions iudiciall sentences and commandements of Pope Gregory the seauenth in a Councell held at Rome against Henrie the fourth Emperor of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons against Frederike the second Emperour and all other particular depositions of whatsoeuer Emperours Kings or temporall Princes and in these commandements the Popes were euer resisted and contradicted both by Princes themselues and also by learned and vertuous Catholike subiects as it appeareth euidently not onely by the first depositions of Emperours and Princes but also by the two last of our late Queene Elizabeth and the last King of Fraunce who were obeyed in ciuill matters by their Catholike subiects acknowledged by them to be their true and rightfull Soueraignes notwithstanding the Popes particular declaration sentence and commandement to the contrary as I haue shewed at large concerning our late Queene in the first part and of the King of Fraunce the late troubles and ciuill warres in Fraunce which are yet both fresh in most mens memories and recorded also by Histories are sufficient testimonies 22 Thus thou seest good Reader that neither by this third example of Popes dispensations in vowes whereon not onely my third Instance but also the two former were grounded all which Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed did I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell as the silly man to make some shew of confuting them as absurd improbable impertinent fond and ridiculous doth most vntruely affirme neither did I in any one of my examples or Instances make any mention at all of the said Decree seeing that I had before sufficiently answered to this Decree not by impugning but onely by expounding it and by clearely conuincing that according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who are of opinion that the Church cannot by her spirituall power inflict temporall punishments it must according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne principles who acknowledgeth that all lawes and decrees whatsoeuer are to be restrained and limited according to the power of the Law-Maker c. be vnderstood of the deposing not of temporall Princes who are not subiect to the authoritie of the Church forasmuch as concerneth meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end whatsoeuer they bee inflicted but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes but that which I intended by my three examples and instances was to shew the weakenesse and insufficiency of Fa. Lessius his three arguments as I haue sufficiently declared before 23 But if I should presse M. Fitzherbert a little further and grant him for Disputation sake which he is not able to prooue to wit that the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell is to bee vnderstood of the deposition of temporall Princes yet the silly man would haue much adoe to prooue as also I haue signified before that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Cap. 13. nu 7. seq which I haue related aboue it is such a Decree that from thence it can be sufficiently gathered that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith seeing that according to their grounds onely those Decrees and precepts touching faith or manners are infallible and of faith which are generall and vniuersall and belong to the whole Church and all the faithfull and consequently as well Clearkes as Lay-men For onely in this case saith Canus the Councels Canus l. 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. or Fathers are to be vnderstood to pronounce of faith when the sentence or Decree belongeth to all Christians when it bindeth all Therefore the doctrine of Popes and Councells saith hee if it bee propounded to the whole Church if it bee also propounded with an obligation to be beleeued then doth their sentence or Decree concerne a point of faith And concerning Decrees and precepts of manners Canus teacheth the same When the Church saith he in a matter of weight and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all the people she cannot command any thing which is contrary to the Gospell or naturall reason but in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate men or Churches she may erre through ignorance not only in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. 5. And Cardinall Bellarmine also affirmeth that those Decrees or precepts concerning faith or manners wherein the Pope in whom he putteth all the infallibilitie of the Church cannot erre must bee generall and be propounded and belong to all the faithfull 24 Now this Act of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie besides that it is not properly a Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as I signified before containing in it any precept or obligation vnlesse they will grant the Councell to be aboue the Pope nor also propounded as of faith according to the rules of Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus before related and therefore it cannot according to their doctrine appertaine to faith it is not also a generall Decree and which appertaineth to the whole Church and all the faithfull for it doth not concerne Cleargie men who according to my Aduersaries false scandalous and seditious doctrine are not subiect to temporall Princes nor doe owe to them any temporall allegiance but onely the temporall Vassals of temporall Lords and those not all but of such a Lord onely who for a yeere remaineth excommunicated for neglecting to purge his territories of heresie For those words of the Councell vt ex tunc ipse c. that from that time the Pope may denounce his Vassals absolued from their fealtie can onely bind either the Pope to make that denunciation or that temporall Lord not to exact of his Vassals temporall fealtie or the Vassalls not to giue to that temporall Lord temporall fealty and so it cannot binde Cleargy men who doe not owe any temporall fidelity or obedience to temporal Lords according to my Aduersaries false doctrine nor also all Vassals but onely those of that temporall Lord wherevpon the decree is not generall and belonging to all the faithfull which neuerthelesse is necessary that any decree or precept concerning faith or manners doe appertaine to faith 25 And if perchance my Aduersary will say that it bindeth all
Fitzherbert turneth and windeth in such a running and fraudulent manner that his Reader cannot well perceiue of what imputation he meanes when he saith that if the second Breue be not sufficient to cleare his Holines of this imputation yet his third Breue must needs be aboundantly sufficient to doe it For that which I said onely is that his Holinesse by all likelihoode was not truely informed by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines of the true sense and meaning of some clauses of the Oath against which you haue seene with what fraude and falsitie my ignorant Aduersarie hath wrangled and iangled as though I had taxed his Holinesse for publishing his first Breue before he had seene or maturely weighed and pondered the Oath it selfe and all the clauses thereof and without graue and long deliberation had concerning all things contained in his Breue which how vntrue this imputation is wherewith hee chargeth me I haue alreadie shewed Now this silly man laboureth to prooue as also he insinuated before that because his Holinesse did maturely weigh and ponder the Oath and euery clause thereof before he sent hither his first Breue and did sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessarie to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence as well concerning the forbidding of the Oath by his first Breue as also concerning the punishing of such Priests that should take or defend the Oath to be lawfull by his third Breue sent hither two yeeres after which he could not saith my Aduersarie lawfully doe without due consideration and diligent discussion of the whole controuersie and sufficient information of all the circumstances thereof therefore his Holinesse neither was nor could all this time which was more then two yeeres be ignorant of the nature and qualitie of the Oath and that therefore he could not be ignorant but certainely knew that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation as he had declared by his first Breue 32 But to omit now those words sufficient information c. and that his Holinesse did sufficiently informe himselfe c. which my Aduersarie heere diuers times repeateth which because they are equiuocall and may haue a double sense I will declare beneath it is very vntrue and contrary to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and of all other learned Diuines to say that certaine and infallible knowledge of truth is in the Pope necessarily annexed to his long graue mature and diligent consideration and discussion of any doctrine or matter vnlesse the doctrine and matter be of such a nature and the discussion thereof be done with such circumstances and in such a manner as Christ hath promised him his infallible assistance which euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Christ hath not promised him in such decrees or definitions which are not directed and doe not appertaine to the whole Church as are these his Breues forbidding the Oath whereof the two first are onely directed to English Catholikes and the third onely to Mr. Birket then Arch-Priest For in customes lawes or decrees which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate persons or Churches not onely the Pope but also the Church may erre and be deceiued through ignorance I say saith Canus not onely in her iudgement of facts Canus lib. 5. q. 5. conel 3. or things done as whether such a one committed such a sinne hath lost his faculties ought to be censured and such like but also in her priuate precepts and lawes themselues and the true and proper reason hereof he bringeth from the authority of Pope Innocent the third which I related also aboue q Chap. 13. nu 11. for that albeit the iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued yet the iudgement of the Church is now and then led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue and is deceiued c. 33 Whereupon the Reader may most cleerely perceiue how vnlearnedly my ignorant Aduersarie doth inferre that because his Holinesse had a long graue and mature deliberation and consultation concerning the true sense of the Oath and of euery clause thereof and did send hither his third Breue for punishing those Priests that should take or defend the same therefore he could not be ignorant of the true sense of euery clause thereof but must certainly and infallibly know that many things are therein contained flat contrary to faith and saluation as he by his first Breue had declared as though his sentence and iudgement in Decrees which are directed onely to priuate persons or Churches should be alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither can deceiue nor be deceiued and that he cannot erre through ignorance or be led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue is deceiued in his priuate lawes decrees which are not common to the whole Church but doe belong to priuate men Bishops or Churches and that therefore those Priests whom he bindeth or punisheth by his Censure and sentence may not be free before God and those other Priests whom he doth not Censure may not deserue punishment in the sight of God according to that which Pope Innocent in the end of his aforesaid reason did affirme 34 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert often repeateth that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained in his first Breue among which the principall was that many things are contained in the Oath which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation was sufficiently informed of the whole matter are very equiuocall and may haue a double sense For first these words may signifie that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation was sufficiently informed to excuse him from sinne for doing what hee did and for sending hither his Breues to forbid the Oath and to punish those Priests that should take the Oath or teach it to be lawfull and with this point for that it little importeth our present question whether the Oath not onely in the Popes opinion and conscience but also really truely and certainely containeth in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation or no and for that it is a thing secret and vnknowne to me I will not inter meddle but leaue it to the conscience of his Holinesse and to the iudgement of God who searcheth the hearts and reines of men Yet this I dare boldly say that in my iudgement his Holinesse might haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter if hee had consulted this question concerning the certainty of his authority to depose Princes and whether his spirituall Supremacie or any other doctrine of faith or manners necessarie to saluation is denyed in the Oath not onely with his owne Diuines who are knowne to maintaine with such violence both his authority in temporals ouer temporall Princes which is the principall marke at which the Oath doth aime and his spirituall authority