Iudges within the gates doe not agree the Iewes ought to haue recourse did consist only of Priests and not of temporall but of spirituall Iudges and that the Iudge mentioned in this place they ought obey was either the high Priest himselfe or rather some other inferiour Priest subordinate to him neuerthelesse he cannot prooue from hence as he pretendeth that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes was in the hands of the high Priest For all that is ordained for the Priests and Iudges to do in this place of Deuteronomie is only to decide determine and declare the doubts and difficulties of the law to whose commandement and decree euery man was bound by the expresse law of God vnder paine of death to stand but to decide and declare what is the law of God to instruct the people therin and to command the people to obey their declaration instruction commandement is not a temporall but a pure spirituall cause as well obserueth Abulensis in cap. 11. Num. q. 23. 24. in cap. 18. Exodi q. 5.8 11. 16 And what Catholike man will deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue also authoritie to declare and determine what is the law of God when any doubt or difficulty shall arise and to command all Christians euen temporall Princes who are subiect to them in spirituals to obey their decree and determination and yet from hence it can not be rightly inferred in that manner as my Aduersarie from those words of Deuteronomie would conclude that the highest tribunall for iudgement in the new law not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes is in the hands of the chiefe spirituall Pastour for that to decide and determine what is the law of Christ and to command Christian Princes to obey their decision and determination is not a temporall but a meere spirituall cause 17 But if my Aduersarie had prooued as he hath not that the Priests of the old law had authoritie not only to interpret the law and to command the people to follow their interpretation but also to pronounce the sentence of death and to execute the same against those who should not obey their declaration and decree then hee had said something to the purpose for to inflict temporall punishments and to pronounce the sentence of death and to execute or inflict the same for what crime soeuer it be either temporal or spiritual is a temporal not a spiritual actiō I say to inflict temporal punishmēts c. For as I haue often said to impose or enioine temporal punishments and to command temporall Iudges to do iustice according to the law by punishing malefactours with corporall death if it be so ordained by the law may if it be done for a spiritual end be a spiritualactiō belonging to the authority of spiritual Pastors Neither can my Aduersarie prooue that the Iudge who was to giue sentence of death against those who either did not obey the commandement of the Priest and the decree of the Iudge or committed any other crime worthie of death by the law as blasphemie adulterie Sodomie c. was either a Priest or a temporall Iudge who had his authoritie deriued from the high Priest as he was a Priest I say as he was a Priest for that sometimes the chiefe temporall Iudge as I obserued before out of the Glosse was also a Priest as in the time of Holy Moyses and the Machabees and then he had authoritie to giue sentence of death not as he was a Priest but as hee was a temporall Prince or Iudge 18 Wherefore to little purpose is that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth Besides that saith he m Pap. 71. nu 6. afterwards God commanded the people exactly to obey the Priests Deut. 24. without mention of any other Iudge threatening to punish them him selfe in case they should transgresse the same saying Obserua diligenter c. Obserue diligently that thou incurre not the plague of Leprosie but shalt doe whatsoeuer the Priests of the Leuitical stocke shal teach thee according to that which I commanded them and doe thou fulfill it carefully So said Almightie God And to mooue them the rather to this exact obedience which he commanded he added presently Remember what our Lord God did to Mary in the way when you came out of Egypt that is to say how seuerely God punished Mary the Prophetesse sister to Moyses for her disobedience to him was stroken with leprosie for the same by which example Almightie God did notably inculcate vnto the people the necessitie of their obedience to the Priest and the danger of his indignation and seuere punishment which they should incurre by neglecting their dutie therein Thus said I in my Supplement and hauing prooued afterwards most n Nu. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. amply that God gaue also to the high Priest not only a soueraignitie of authoritie but also an infallibilitie of doctrine iudgement in causes of doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters and hauing also shewed the great priuiledges of the Leuites and Priests who were separated wholly c. 19 But what followeth from all this No man maketh any doubt but that the Priests of the old law were to be obeyed in those things wherein they had authoritie to comand as likewise neither Mr. Fitz. can make any doubt but that the cōmandement of the temporall Prince or Iudge was exactly to be followed in those things wherein they had authoritie to command True it is that the Priests were the chiefe interpreters of the law of God in the old Testament according to those words of the Prophet Malachie The lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge Malach. cap. 2. and the law they shall require of his mouth because he is the Angell or Messenger of the Lord of Hosts and that it belonged to the Priests to declare whether one was infected with leprosie or no But from hence it can not rightly be concluded that it belonged to the Priests as they were Priests but to the temporall Iudges of the people or to the children of Israel that is the whole multitude from whom the temporarall Iudges had commonly their election and authoritie to giue sentence of death and to inflict any temporall punishment appointed by the law And therefore although God ordained Leuit. 13. that Aaron or any one of his sonnes should declare and iudge who was infected with leprosie and after his declaration and iudgement that he was a leaper he should be separated yet it belonged to the children of Israel not as they were ministers of the Priests but of God who was their King and ordained that punishment to separate him and cast him out of the campe according to that of Num. 5. And the Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leaper and
plot the death of any Prince Wherefore let Widdrington cease by vaine words to put Secular Princes in feare and to make the Pontificall power to be odious The Pontificall power is instituted by the Sauiour of mankind for the saluation and not for the destruction of Princes These arguments doe tend to no other end then to prouoke the hatred of Princes against the Pope for otherwise Widdrington was not ignorant that Ecclesiasticall especially Pontificall lenitie doth shunne bloody punishments 12 But first whether D. Schulckenius by this his answered doth intend to acknowledge that the Pope in order to spirituall good hath authoritie to take away the liues of wicked Princes by all those waies publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie in order to temporall good to take away the liues of their wicked and rebellious subiects which I intended by that argument to conuince in this place he speaketh doubtfully and in expresse words doth neither say I nor no yet afterwards he doth plainly enough affirme the same saying n Cap 9. ad nu 229. pag. 413. that Ecclesiasticall lenitie for as much as concerneth the punishment of death doth shunne bloody punishments not for that it doth by the law of God want power to doe the same but because it doth not beseeme the Ministers of Christ and againe It doth not belong saith he o Cap. 10. ad num 318. pag. 490. to the Ecclesiasticall Court to giue sentence of death not because the Church cannot absolutely giue this sentence but because it is not decent And the Pope himselfe might if he should iudge it expedient both giue this sentence and also grant by a dispensation that other Priests might doe the same For we haue nothing whereby it is forbidden but the positiue Ecclesiasticall law wherein the Pope by the consent of all men may dispence 13 Secondly this Doctor doth egregiously and against Christian charitie and iustice abuse my innocencie in misconstruing my good intentions which God is my witnesse are most pure and sincere For it was neuer my meaning to make the Sea Apostolike odious or dreadfull to Christian Kings and Princes but only to find out the Catholike truth plainly and sincerely in a matter of such great importance which doth so neerely concerne the supreme authoritie of all temporall Princes and the due obedience which all subiects of what religion soeuer they be doe by the law of Christ owe to them in temporall matters It is rather this Doctor and such as embrace his desperate principles who by this their false seditious scandalous and new broached damnable doctrine and vnknowne to the ancient Fathers and the primitiue Church doe seeke as much as lyeth in them to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to all Christian Princes and subiects And if it be so easie a matter to answere my aforesaid arguments as this Doctor affirmeth why then doth he not answere them but shifteth them ouer with a let them passe as not pertaining to the purpose Is it not to the purpose that Card. Bellarmine and his followers should force vpon the Christian world the doctrine touching the Popes spirituall power to depose temporall Princes as a point of Catholike beliefe from which such absurd dangerous desperate scandalous seditious consequents and not heard of before these miserable times doe euidently follow 14 But such strang nouelties must with shufflings and shiftings be cunningly couered and must not be cleerely knowne to Soueraigne Princes and their subiects least forsooth they make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes As thought it were likely that Christ our Sauiour would giue to S. Peter and his Successours any spirituall power which should be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes or that the knowledge of true Catholike faith either concerning the Popes spirituall power to take away the crownes or liues of Christian Princes or concerning any other thing could be a sufficient cause to make the Sea Apostolike odious to Christian Princes more then the knowledge of true Catholike faith concerning the power of temporall Princes to take away the temporall goods and liues of their subiects can be a sufficient cause to make temporall authoritie odious to Christian subiects Hostis Herodis impie Christum venire quid times said Sedulius who flourished about the yeere 430. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia which is Englished thus That Christ is come why doest thou dread O Herode thou vngodly foe He doth not earthly Kingdomes reaue that heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow But Herode might iustly haue replyed if this new broacht doctrine were true yes I haue great cause to feare for that not only Christ but S. Peter also and his Successours haue by their ordinarie commission authoritie to bereaue mee not onely of my kingdome but also of my life 15 And the same answere which is also conforme to the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers would Sedulius haue made to any Christian King who should haue feared that the Pope by his spirituall power might depriue him of his kingdome and life to wit that he neede not to feare the Popes power in that respect for that Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to the Apostles and their Successours the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and not of earthly kingdomes to absolue from sinnes not from debts to binde the soule with the bond of anathema and not with chaines of Iron 16 But although the Pope should haue power ouer the liues of Princes in order to spirituall good yet Princes sayth this Doctour need not to feare that the Pope will plot the death of any Prince for that no Pope hath euer commanded the killing of Princes or caused them to be slaine by priuie murtherers and it is well knowen that Ecclesiasticall lenitie shunneth bloodie punishments But first if the Pope haue such a power it is euident that it is in his free choise and curtesie to take away the life of any wicked Prince in order to spirituall good as it is in the curtesie of a temporall Prince to take away the life of any wicked subiect in order to temporall good Secondly that the Pope is also bound as I prooued against Suarez to proceed against a Christian Prince See Apendix to Suarez part 1. sec 9. nu 6. seq who is a knowne heretike or persecutor of the Church or publike enemie to spirituall good in that manner and by all those waies publike or secret by which a temporall Prince is bound to proceed against a publike traitour a notorious robber and murtherer by the high way side and a knowne enemie to the common temporall good 17 Thirdly if no Pope hath euer plotted the death of any Christian Prince the reason heereof I thinke to be for that there was neuer any Pope that held this newly inuented and neuer before heard of bloody doctrine that the Pope as Pope or by vertue of his spirituall
Aduersaries by teaching that the Pope hath power to depose Christian Princes and not I who doe not maintaine that doctrine doe consequently impose that most horrible slander vpon the Vicar of Christ our common Father and Pastour 22 For wherefore thinke you doth this Doctour deny the consequence of my argument Marke I pray you his fallacious reason and how he fraudulently altereth my argument and cunningly changeth both the subiect and predicate of my antecedent proposition vpon which my consequence and consequent doe wholly depend For it doth not follow saith he from a power to depose a power to kill I neuer saide that from a power to depose in generall doeth follow a power to kill abstracting both from the persons who are to depose and kill and from the crimes for which the persons that may bee deposed may bee killed but my argument did specifie in particular as well the persons who were to depose and kill as the causes and crimes for which one may by them bee deposed or killed And I affirmed that from the doctrine that maintaineth the Popes power to depose hereticall Princes and publike enemies to the common spirituall good it doeth euidently follow that the Pope in order to the same publike spirituall good hath also power to kill such Princes and that therefore this argument was good The Pope in order to the common spirituall good hath power to depose absolute Princes if the crime deserue deposition therfore in order to the same spirituall good he hath power also to kill them if the crime deserue corporall death 23 And the reason or ground of my consequence was for that according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and those that maintaine the Popes power to depose Soueraigne Princes for this cause and reason they grant vnto the Pope a power to depose Princes in order to spirituall good for that they graunt the Pope to haue in order to spirituall good â—â—otestatem summam in temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater and therefore as great a power in temporals as â—emporall Princes haue Whereupon they are not afraid to affirme â—hat all Christian Princes Kings Emperours and Monarches are the Popes subiects in temporals in order to spirituall good as other infeâ—iour persons are subiect to temporall Princes in temporals in order to â—emporall good But a temporall Prince hath in order to temporall good authoritie not onely to take away the lands and liues of their â—ubiects if the crime deserue that punishment and the common temporall good doth require the same but also if the crime be publike and notorious and the malefactours or perturbers of the publike temporal good be so potent that without rebellion or great temporall harme â—hey can not be apprehended he hath authoritie to condemne them â—riuately and in their absence without any processe citation or deâ—ence and afterwards to giue licence to any priuate man to bereaue â—hem of their liues by any arte or stratageme and by any publike or â—riuie way therefore the Pope according to these desperate grounds â—nd principles which graunt him potestatem summam in temporalibus â—ath the like authoritie ouer temporall Princes in order to spirituall good who according to this false and scandalous doctrine are in order to spirituall good subiect to the Pope in temporals This was my â—rgument 24 wherefore my consequence was onely concerning the Pope â—o whom is therefore graunted by my Aduersaries a power to depose Princes for that he hath in order to spirituall good potestatem summam â—n temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater for â— supreme power in temporals doth necessarily include a power both to depose and kill if the crime deserue the same And therefore who would not admire or rather pitie that so learned a man as is he who â— reputed to be the true Authour of this booke should bring such vnâ—earned instances from those who haue not a supreme power in tempoâ—als or if they haue from a crime which doth not deserue death to imâ—ugne my consequence which speaketh both of one who is supposed â—o haue a supreme power in temporals and also of a crime which is so â—eynous that according to the law it deserueth death if it were committed by subiects or priuate men 25 For the consequences of those fiue examples which this Doâ—tour hath brought to impugne my arugment are all defectiue either â—or that the persons who are to depose and therefore to kill are not â—upposed to haue supreme power in temporals to wit euery Father Maâ—ter or Bishop or else because the crime for which the persons there â—pecified may be deposed doth not deserue so great a punishment as is death But if we once suppose a Father Master and Bishop to haue a supreme power in temporals ouer their sonnes seruants and Clerkes as the Pope is supposed by my Aduersaries to haue ouer all Christian Princes and also the crime to deserue death then I say it doth euidently follow that if such a Father hath power to depriue his sonne of his inheritance he hath also power to depriue him of his life not for that a power to kill is necessarily annexed to euery power to depose but to such a power to depose which is a supreme power ouer all temporals or rather for that a power to depose and to kill to take away goods and life are necessarily included in euery supreme power to dispose of all temporals And therefore all the shuffling shifting and cunning of this Doctour will neuer be able to weaken the force of my consequence but this consequence will euer remaine good and strong that if the Pope hath power to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes for that he is their supreme Lord in temporals in order to spirituall good it doth necessarily follow that he hath power also to depriue them of their liues if the necessitie of the common spirituall good require the same And therefore although the opinion of Card Bellarmine be receaued not by the Catholike Church as this Doctour vntruely affirmeth but by many Catholike Doctours and confirmed by the often practise of many later Popes yet alwaies contradicted by Catholike Kings and subiects neuerthelesse if these Catholike Doctours and Popes had duely considered what odious and detestable consequences doe follow from that opinion they would forthwith in my iudgement haue detested the premisses from which such hatefull conclusions and which this Doctour seemeth here so greatly to abhorre that he feareth not therefore to accuse me of imposing a most horrible slander vpon Christs Vicar are most cleerly and certainly deduced 26 Wherefore to conclude this point that which this Doctour answereth secondly concerning Athalia who was slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest is nothing to the purpose To this argument sayth he r Pag. 556. I answere now that examples are to be taken according to the conuenience of the matter and persons In
the old Testament Priests did make warre and fight with the rest of the Israelites against their enemies but in the new Testament Priests doe abstaine from the shedding of blood and if they find any to be worthy of death they deliuer them ouer to the Secular power to be punished But this I say is nothing at all to the purpose For my argument was not concerning inferiour Priests but onely concerning the Pope neither also what Popes in practise and de facto doe but what according to the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to doe Now it is euident and approoued by the common consent of Catholike Diuines that the shedding of blood is not by the institution of Christ forbidden either the Pope or inferiour Bishops and Priests who therefore with the Popes licence make warre and concurre directly to the effusion of blood as oftentimes they haue done yea now at Rome all effusion of blood by a iuridicall sentence and condemning malefactours to death and all making of warres by the Popes subiects are deriued from the Popes authoritie not as he is Pope but as he is a temporall Prince for that which I contend is that Priests neither in the old law nor in the new as they are Priests or by their Priestly power haue authoritie to condemne any man to death or to inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment or the like 27 Secondly and principally to this example of Athalia I answered Å¿ Apolog. nu 366. seq that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did as Card. Bellarmine af firmeth in this place create Ioas King that is did giue him a right or true title to reigne which before he had not seeing that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by hereditarie right belong to Ioas presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously slaine although Athalia did tyrannically vsurpe the possession thereof For it is not vnusuall for one to possesse sometimes either with a good or bad conscience that thing whereof another man is the true lord or owner And therefore betwixt right and possession a great difference is commonly made by all Diuines and Lawyers Wherefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then what euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case For seeing that for his innocent life opinion of sanctitie and the dignitie of his office he was in great veneration among the people and Peeres of the kingdome his authoritie or fauour did preuaile so much with them that all men with vniforme consent would very easily be drawen especially by his perswasion to kill the treacherous vsurpresse and to seate the lawfull King who was vniustly detained from the possession of his kingdome in the possession thereof But this did onely argue the strength and power of Ioiada and his great fauour with the people and Peeres and not any authoritie in him to create a King who by right was not a lawfull King before 28 Wherefore from this example of Athalia nothing at all can by any true or probable consequence bee concluded in fauour of Cardinall Bellarmine because from the holy Scripture it cannot sufficiently be gathered either that Athalia was by the commandement of Ioiada slaine for Idolatrie but onely for manifest tyrannie for that shee had cruelly murthered the Royall issue and had vniustly vsurped the kingdome the true heire being aliue and therefore shee could not bee the lawfull Queene or that Ioiada the high Priest did command her to be slaine by his owne proper authoritie but by the consent of the King Peeres and people And therefore this example doeth nothing auaile to proue that true Kings and Princes albeit heretikes and Idolaters who are in lawfull possession of their kingdomes may bee depriued of their kingdomes or liues by the Popes authoritie 29 This second to wit that Ioiada the high Priest did onely by his aide and counsell sollicite and not by his owne proper authoritie but with the consent of the States command in the Kings name Athalia to bee slaine 2. Paral. 23. is manifest by those words And in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage tooke the Centurions c. and made a couenant with them to wit to kill Athalia and to seate Ioas the Kings sonne and lawfull King in the possession of his kingdome which shee had vniustly vsurped who going about Iuda saith the Scripture gathered together the Leuites out of all the cities of Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Hierusalem Therefore all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of GOD And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as the Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid which words the Glosse expounding 4. Reg. 11. writeth thus Heere is described the institution of the true heire whom also hee calleth the due King through the carefulnesse of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent and aide of the Princes and Nobles of the kingdome when it is saide And hee made a couenant with them Wherefore that commandement which Ioiada gaue to the Centurions to kill Athalia did proceede from that former couenant which before hee had made with them and the King And therefore as euery priuate subiect may and ought to command any man in the Kings name to aide him for the apprehending of a traitour to his Prince and Countrey without hauing any authoritie proper or peculiar to him to doe the same so it is not necessarie that any peculiar authoritie to command bee giuen to Ioiada onely for that hee with the consent of the King and the comon wealth commaunded Athalia vniustly vsurping the kingdome to bee slaine although wee should vnderstand that commandement of Ioiada of a commandement being taken strictly and not largely or commonly in which sense to command doth little differ from to counsell or perswade 30 But the first which is affirmed by Cardinall Bellarmine to wit that Athalia was slaine not onely for tyrannie but also for idolatrie albeit if this were true it nothing auaileth to prooue that a true and lawfull Prince although an Idolater may lawfully be slaine seeing that it is manifest that Athalia was not a true and lawfull Queene but an vsurper of the kingdome the true heire being aliue hee very insufficiently concludeth from they holy Scripture seeing that he relateth not truely those words which doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it and they brake his Altars and his Images doe not immediately follow either 4. Reg. 11. or 2. Paralip 23. the killing of Athalia as Cardinall Bellarmine vntruely affirmeth intending to proue from thence that shee was slaine for idolatrie but these wordes doe immediately follow her killing And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King
haue vsurped the kingdome they wholy resigne that authoritie and submit their forces with their person to the iudgement of those who may lawfully giue the kingdome or vnlesse after they haue by tyrannie obtained the kingdome they with their progenie doe by prescription get a lawfull right to the Soueraigntie by possessing it a hundred yeeres or more 35 Secondly there is no likelihood that if Athalia had demanded the consent of the people or common wealth whereof neuerthelesse there is no mention made in the holy Scripture they would haue giuen their free hearty and willing consent thereunto And first as noteth Abulensis t Q. 4 i cap. 11. lib. 4. reg for that she was a woman and it was a disgrace to them to haue a woman who especially had no title to the kingdome to rule ouer them by their owne free and voluntarie consent Secondly for that she was greatly hated by the people both because she had most barbarously murthered her owne sonnes children and all of the blood Royall and also for that she was daughter to Achab whom the people of Iuda did grieuously hate because by the meanes of his issue many mischiefes happened to them to wit for that the house of Achab had instructed the Kings of Iuda in euill and for this the people of Iuda suffered many euills for the sinnes of their Kings as it fell out in the time of Ioram who was a most wicked man by reason of the alliance hee had made with the house of Achab for this Ioram married this wicked Athalia who was daughter to Achab and for this God sent enemies into the land of Iuda who destroyed a great part thereof and they spoiled all the substance that was found in the Kings house as it may be seene 2. Paralip 21. 36 Moreouer seeing that there had beene so long strife and contention betwixt the tribe of Iuda and the people of Israel about the Soueraignitie for there was neuer true and constant amitie betwixt them and the tenne Tribes from the time of King Ieroboam to Achab the father of Athalia it is not credible that the people of Iuda would now yeeld vp the bucklars and freely without feare and compulsion giue there consent that Athalia a woman and not of their tribe an Idolater an Vsurper and who barbarously massacred all the Royall issue of the lineage of King Dauid should now reigne ouer them and sit in the throne of King Dauid to whom they knew God had promised that his seede should reigne ouer the people of Israel for euer 37 Besides that the people did not giue their consent heartily willingly and freely that Athalia should reigne ouer them or at the most that can be imagined only vpon supposition that there was none of the blood Royall left aliue it is manifest by the great ioy which all the people tooke at her death 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paral. 23. and at the crowning of King Ioas Laetatusque est omnis populus terrae saith the Scripture ciuitas conquieuâ—t And all the people of the land reioiced and the Cittie was quiet for that they saw their King saith Abulensis v In fine cap. 11. sit peaceably in his throne and because whilest Athalia liued the people were greatly troubled but now she being slaine all were quiet I said heartily willingly and freely because the consent of the common wealth in the approbation of such a King ought to be most free for if it be enforced from them by any feare or violence it is not be accounted a suffiicient consent but a constraint or compulsion as may easily be gathered from the doctrine of Gregorius Tholosanus before related and also because the contract betwixt the King and the Common wealth is a certaine kind of marriage wherein as in carnall and also in religious matrimonie by making a solemne vow to GOD in an approued Religion if the consent be not most free it can not be called a sufficient consent but a constraint and the contract is not of force before GOD as all Diuines and Lawiers doe affirme but the people of Iuda had iust cause to feare the crueltie of so barbarous a woman who feared not to murther her owne grandchildren and all the blood Royall and therefore by all likelihood would not spare any other that should resist her tyrannie 38 Lastly it is not credible that the people and Princes of Iuda would freely and willingly consent to such a new and exorbitant action as to make an Idolatresse their rightfull Queene without the consent of the Priests and Leuites and that the Priests and Leuites would giue their free consent without the priuitie and approbation of the high Priest whose office was to instruct and direct the people in all difficult matters concerning the law of GOD But it is euident that the high Priest neither did nor would his free consent if it had beene demaunded to such a wicked action both for that he should haue beene a traitour to his lawfull King whom he kept secret in the house of GOD for feare of Athalia and also for that he should haue transgressed the law of GOD in honouring an Idolatresse with the true title of a lawfull Queene who was to be put to death according to the law which is not to be presumed of so holy a man as Ioiada was whose aduise so long as King Ioas followed he did not fall from GOD according to that of 4. Reg. 12. And Ioas did right before our Lord so long as Ioiada the high Priest taught him And therefore this consent of the people which this Doctour faigneth is altogether incredible and is neither grounded in the holy Scripture nor in any other probable reason Neuerthelesse I will not deny but that Athalia being the Kings mother and hauing in his absence the custodie of his Pallace treasure and forces and also hauing cruelly slaine all her grand children as she and the people also thought might haue many fauourers either for feare or gaine but that the people Princes and Priests did either in any publike assembly which representeth the body of the common wealth or also in their hearts without any such assembly giue their free consent to make that wicked Athalia their rightfull Queene it is altogether improbable and hath no colour at all of credibilitie 39 But be it so for Disputation sake that the people imagining vpon a false ground that none of the blood Royall and who by inheritance had a lawfull right to the Kingdome of Iuda were aliue were content that Athalia should be their rightfull Queene yet that this consent of the people did giue her a true lawfull right to the Kingdome the true King and rightfull heire being aliue as this Doctor affirmeth is a very false and seditious doctrine and iniurious to the true rights of all Soueraigne Princes who haue right to their Kingdomes by inheritance but especially of those of the Kingdome of Iuda which
who hath true and lawfull right to the kingdome albeit he be not in possession thereof or for a King de facto and who doth actually reigne abstracting from that he doth reigne de iure by right and lawfully or by vsurpation Now I granted that Athalia was Queene de facto and in possession of the kingdome for sixe yeeres together but I denyed that shee was Queene de iure and that the kingdome did belong to her by right but to Ioas the rightfull heire as being the onely sonne then liuing of Ochozias King of Iuda and that therefore Ioiada did not create or institute Ioas King that is giue him a true right to reigne which he had not before for that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did reside in Ioas by right of inheritance and succession instantly vpon the death of his eldest brethren and this much the aforesaid words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse doe euidently conuince Wherefore that which this Doctour sayth concerning the couenant of the people with the King is vnderstood of the future King which a little after was to be instituted is also equiuocall for if he vnderstand that Ioas was not then King de facto but a little after by the procurement of Ioiada was made and instituted King de facto that is was put in possession of the kingdome and did actually reigne this was not the controuersie betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine for I neuer denyed but did alwaies in expresse words grant that Ioiada with the assent of the Princes and people did put Ioas in possession of his kingdome which Athalia had vniusty kept from him and in this sense Ioas who before was King de iure was afterwards by Ioiada created and instituted King de facto But if he meane that Ioas was not then King de iure and that the kingdome did not by right of inheritance and by the ordinance of almightie God belong to him this I say is plainely against the words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse Ecce filius Regis c. Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid that is behold the Kings sonne to whom therefore the right to the kingdome by inheritance doth belong although hee doth not actually reigne for that Athalia contrarie to the commandement of God who gaue the kingdome to the sonnes of Dauid hath tyrannically kept it from him shall reigne that is shall be King de facto and actually reigne according as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid 75 But the words of the Glosse are more plaine for he calleth Ioas not onely the true due or rightfull King but also the true due or rightfull heire Neither can this Doctour deny that Ioas was presently after the death of all his brethren the onely sonne of King Ochozias and consequently the true and onely heire to the kingdome of Iuda and therefore the true King de iure or by right For he can not be so ignorant as not to know that the heire to a kingdome hath presently after the death of his father all the right which his father deceased had to the kingdome It is manifest saith the rule of the law q ff de regulis iuris regula 59 approoued by all lawyers that an heire hath the same power and right which the deceased had and againe r Ibidem regula 62. Inheritance is no other thing then a succeeding to all the right which the deceased had Wherefore the words and sense of the Glosse are plaine for the words are not Here is described the institution of the true King but of the true heire whom he called before the due or rightfull heire Now it is manifest that Ioiada did not make or institute Ioas the true and rightfull heire to the kingdome of Iuda but he was made and instituted the rightfull heire by succession and by the ordinance of almightie God for that he was the onely sonne and heire suruiuing of the deceased King Ochozias And therefore those words of this Doctour Assuredly Ioas was not King before although he was the Kings sonne if he meane that he was not King de iure before are very vntrue but rather contrariwise I inferre that assuredly Ioas was King de iure before because he was the Kings sonne to whom by succession and inheritance the kingdome of Iuda did by right and by the ordinance of almightie God belong and those words of holy Scripture Behold the Kings sonne c. doe conuince as much 76 But he that is King by succession sayth this Doctour ought not to be instituted or made but to be declared neither doth he need the assent of the Princes It is true that he who is King de iure and by succession ought not to be instituted or made King de iure neither needeth he the consent of the Princes to make him King de iure But he that is King onely de iure and by succession but not King de facto and by possession ought to be instituted or made King de facto and to this is necessarie the assent and aide of the Princes and people Wherefore as this word to depose is equiuocall and may be taken either for to depriue one of his right or to put him out of possession of the thing he holdeth so also to institute create or make a King or heire is equiuocall and may be taken either for to giue one a right to a kingdome or inheritance which right he had not before or to put him in possession of the kingdome or inheritance whether he hath right thereunto or no. And therefore as well obserueth Gregorius Tholosanus Å¿ In Syntagin Iuâ—is lib. 17. cap. 16. nu 4. because the instituting or giuing of a benefice and the like may be said of a Dukedome Princedome Kingdome or inheritance is sometimes effected by giuing the possession or as it is commonly said by installing or inuesting therefore to institute is sometimes taken for to install or inuest as by deliuering some corporall thing as a ring a crowne a scepter c. by which the real and actuall possession is giuen apprehended or induced cap. ad haec de officio Archidiaconi § 1o. de consuetudine recti feudi lib. 2. de feudis tit 33. And in this sense the Glosse did vnderstand the word institution to wit for inuesting installing or putting Ioas into possession of his kingdome or which is all one making him King de facto For it is too too manifest that he was before the rightfull heire and King by succession and not then made or instituted the rightfull heire by the election of Ioiada and of Princes 77 Wherefore the last inference which this Doctour maketh in these words Therefore Ioiada did institute the King and deposed the Queene c. is very true if he meane that he did constitute the King de facto or put him in possession of
his kingdome and deposed the Queene de facto that is thrust her out of the possession of the kingdome For Ioiada in this sense did make or constitute the King and deposed the Queene by the aide and assistance of the Princes without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter but to make or constitute him King de iure or the rightfull heire to the kingdome onely succession without the aide and assent of Ioiada or the Princes was sufficient Neither dare this Doctour absolutely auerre as you haue seene that Ioas was not before this King de iure but Athalia but he affirmeth it with a credibile est which neuerthelesse I haue prooued to be incredible and to containe a very false scandalous and seditious doctrine 78 Lastly although that question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether Athalia was slaine onely for treason or also for idolatrie be not much materiall to the present controuersie betweene vs which is by what authoritie it was done seeing that whether she was slaine only for treason or also for idolatrie it was done by the authoritie of the King who then was crowned and confirmed by the Princes and people as this Doctour heere is not also vnwilling to grant Neuerthelesse I still affirme that it can not be prooued from the holy Scripture that she was slaine for idolatrie albeit I doe not deny that she deserued death therefore Whereupon the Scripture onely mentioneth that vpon her endeauouring to make a rebellion against the true and now anointed King crying out in the presence of the King Princes and people A conspiracie A conspiracie Treason Treason she was commanded to be slaine Neither can this Doctour sufficiently conclude from those words of holy Scripture Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. as Card. Bellarmine pretended to prooue or from those words immediatly going before And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would be the people of the Lord that Athalia was actually slaine for idolatrie although I doe willingly grant that she was an Idolatresse and therefore deserued death according to the law 79 Neither did I as this Doctour vntruely saith g pag. 570. either slaunder Card. Bellarmine or else knew not what I said my selfe when I affirmed that Card. Bellarmine did not sincerely relate the words of holy Scripture to wit Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. which words as he saith doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For after the killing of Athalia these words And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King c. which as the Glosse affirmeth were a confirmation of the King newly annointed and crowned doe immediately follow and after them doe follow those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. And whereas this Doctour affirmeth that Bellarmine did not meane that those words precisely Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal c. doe immediately follow after the words wherein the killing of Athalia was commanded but his meaning was that the ouerthrowing of the temple of Baal was done immediately after the killing of the Queene and therefore hee did not properly speake of wordes but of things done This is plainely both against the text of holy Scripture for that betwixt the killing of Athalia and the destruction of the temple of Baal was the confirmation of King Ioas newly crowned and annointed and of the couenant which Ioiada made betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would bee the people of our Lord and it is also against Cardinall Bellarmines owne wordes Those wordes saith Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia And yet this Doctour forsooth will haue Cardinall Bellarmine not to speake properly of wordes but of things done contrary to Card. Bellarmines expresse words But truth and plaine dealing cannot colourably be impugned but by such pitifull shifts and fraudulent euasions 71 And thus thou seest good Reader how insufficiently this Doctour hath confuted my answer to Cardinall Bellarmines argument taken from the example of Athalia who was not deposed by Ioiada that is depriued of her right to reigne seeing that shee was neuer a lawfull Queene nor euer had any true right to reigne but shee was by the procurement of Ioiada and by the aide and assistance of the Princes and people thrust out of the possession of the kingdome which she tyrannically had for sixe yeeres vsurped and wrongfully detained from Ioas the true and rightfull King by hereditarie succession as being the onely sonne and heire suruiuing to King Ochozias and that Ioiada that which he did both in putting Ioas in possession and in killing Athalia not by his owne proper authoritie and which was peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by that authoritie which might be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case Now you shall see how bouldly and barely Mr. Fitzherbert repateth againe this example of Athalia without taking any notice of the answere which I made thereunto before in my Apologie and Theologicall Disputation 72 But now our Aduersaries saith Mr. Fitzherbert u Nu. 16. p 77. to answere this exemple of Athalia doe say that shee was no lawfull Queene but a Tyrant and vsurped the state in preiudice of Ioas the right heire whom Ioiada set vp and that therefore the example of her deposition cannot be of consequence to prooue that the high Priest in the old law had authoritie to depose a lawfull Prince But they are to vnderstand that it little importeth for the matter in hand whether shee were a true Queene or a Tyrant for though shee had beene a lawfull Queene yet hee should haue beene her lawfull Superiour it being euident that otherwise hee could not haue beene her Iudge to determine of her right and depose her as vnlawfull especially after shee had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the State for sixe yeeres to which purpose it is to be considered that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom he should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth the Iudge absolue a man when he is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power ouer him in both cases 73 Yes good Syr it much importeth to the matter in hand whether she was a true Queene or a Tyrant for if she had beene a lawfull Queene then he should not haue beene her lawfull Superiour in temporalls neither could he haue beene her lawfull Iudge to determine of her temporal right for that as I shewed before out of many learned Catholikes and which also Card. Bellarmine himselfe holdeth to be probable in
in the Councell of Constance but the contrarie doctrine is damnable scandalous and seditious 78 Marke now what a trim consequence Mr. Fitzherbert gathereth from the premisses Whereupon sayth he b nu 18. pag. 78 it followeth that seeing Ioiada did lawfully depose Athalia being a holy man Matth. 23. Hieron lib. 4. in Num. cap. 23. and therefore called by our Sauiour Barachias that is to say Blessed of our Lord he did it not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person All this is true as you haue seene But that which he addeth to wit as High-Priest to whom it belonged to iudge of her cause is very vntrue neither doth it follow from his premises For his antecedent proposition was this Ioiada being high Priest deposed Athalia as her lawfull Iudge and not as a particular and priuate man but as a publike person this I granted now he inferreth that Ioiada as high-Priest did depose her which I euer denied and he brought no shew of argument to proue the same only heere in the next words following he adioineth some colour of an argument for proofe thereof especially saith he c pag. 79. seeing that she was not only a cruell tyrant but also an abhominable Idolairesse hauing drawne her husband Ioram her sonne Ochozias and the people to Idolatrie and transferred the riches of Gods temple to the temples of Idolls which being matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest and therefore I conclude that Ioiada deposed her as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge according to the supreme authoritie that God gaue to the High Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall State So I in my Supplement 79 But how insufficient this conclusion is it will presently appeare onely by laying open the ambiguitie of those wordes Idolatrie being a matter of Religion belonged directly to the tribunall of the high Priest For it belonged indeed to the tribunall of the high Priest of the old Law and his consistorie to iudge what was Idolatrie as likewise now in the new Law it belongeth to the Pope and Church to iudge what is heresie or idolatrie and so to declare and determine what is heresie or Idolatrie is a matter of Religion both in the olde Law and in the new but it did not belong to the tribunall of the high Priest in the olde law but of the King and temporall state to punish Idolaters with corporall death as likewise in the new law to punish heretikes with corporall death being not a spirituall but a temporall matter doeth not belong to the spirituall power of Priests but to the temporall authoritie of temporall Princes Sot in 4. dist 29 q. 1. ar 4. Bannes secunda secundae q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine as I prooued also out of Sotus and Bannes in my Theologicall Disputation d C. 7. s 2. nu 17 And therefore in the old Law the temporall power was supreame and the spirituall was subiect to it for as much as concerned the power to constraine with temporall punishments and as well Priest as Lay-men were subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of the temporall State as I prooued before e Sec. 1 nu 5. 6. out of St. Thomas St. Bonauenture Abulensis and others whose doctrine also Cardinall Bellarmine doth not account improbable 80 Wherefore although it belonged to the High-Priest to declare the law of GOD yet to execute the law and to punish the transgressours thereof whether they were Priests or Lay-men with temporall punishments belonged to the supreame temporall power of the King and not to the supreame spirituall authoritie of the High-Priest Seeing that Ozias saith Abulensis because he was King Abul q. 4. in c. 15. l. 4. Reg. was the executor of the law of GOD against offenders it belonged to him by his office to destroy all Altars which were without the temple of our Lord and to take away such a worship and consequently all Idolatrie vnder the penaltie of death And therefore I conclude that Ioiada did depose Athalia being a manifest Vsurper as her Superiour and lawfull Iudge but not according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the High-Priest in the old Testament ouer the temporall state which as I prooued before was in temporalls supreame and not subiect but superiour to the spirituall power but according to the supreame coerciue authoritie that GOD gaue to the King to whom both Priests and Lay-men were subiect in temporalls and by whom they were to bee punished with temporall punishments whose place and person Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian while the King was in his minoritie did in all things represent Neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert either in his Supplement or in this his Reply as you haue cleerely seene brought any probable argument much lesse conuincing as hee pretended to impugne the same 81 Now let vs proceede to the example of King Ozias which is the last Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of the old Testament to which neuerthelesse I did abundantly answere in my Apologie which my answere he passeth ouer altogether with silence But before I set downe what hee saith heere concerning this example I thinke it not amisse to repeate my saide answere and what D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same for thereby the weakenesse of Mr. Fitzherberts obiection will presently appeare and so also hee shall not take occasion after his vsuall manner to remit his English Reader to D. Schulckenius to seeke out a Reply to that which I answered before in my Apologie concerning this example of King Ozias Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 8 82 In this manner therefore Cardinall Bellarmine argued from this example A Priest of the old law had authoritie to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie therefore in the new law the Pope hath authoritie to depriue a King of his kingdome for spirituall leprosie that is for heresie which was figured by leprosie The Antecedent proposition hee prooued thus for that wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that King Ozias when hee would vsurpe the office of a Priest was by the High Priest cast out of the temple and when he was for the same sinne stricken by GOD with leprosie hee was also enforced to depart out of the Citie and to renounce his kingdome to his sonne And that he was depriued of the Citie and of the administration of the kingdome not of his owne accord but by the sentence of the Priest it is apparant For wee reade Leuit. 13. whosoeuer saith the law shall bee defiled with leprosie and is separated at the abitrement of the Priest shall dwell alone without the Campe. Seeing therefore that this was a law in Israel and withall wee reade 2. Paralip 26. that the King did dwell without the Citie in a solitary house and that his sonne did in the Citie iudge the people of the land wee are compelled to say that hee was
separated at the arbitrement of the Priest and consequently depriued of his authoritie to reigne S. Aug. in q. Euan. l. 2. q. 40. The Consequence Cardinall Bellarmine prooueth out of Saint Austin who teacheth that heresie was figured by leprosie and Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. who sayeth that all things chanced to the Iewes in a figure 83 Thus argued Cardinall Bellarmine from the example of King Ozias which if good Reader thou duely consider doth onely proue that it belonged to the Priests of the old Law to declare the Law of God when any difficultie should arise and that they were the supreame Iudges in spirituall matters as was to declare and iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie or no. For leprosie was not onely in the old Law a naturall disease and a contagious vncleannesse in the body whereupon the leper was by the law commanded to remaine out of the campe apart least others should bee infected by him but it was also a legall vncleannesse Abul q. 2. in c. 13. Leuit. and as well obserueth Abulensis it did principally debarre men from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things and because to iudge whether any one was to bee debarred from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things did belong principally to the Priests who were the ministers of sacred things God appointed them to iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie and gaue them rules and directions whereby to know the same So that the principall thing which the Priest was to doe in the case of leprosie was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law of God whether any one was infected with leprosie or no and if hee found him infected to declare him so to bee and to condemne him of the sayde vncleannesse after which declaration the leper was by the law it selfe foorthwith debarred both from sacred and also ciuill conuersation for that hee was not onely depriued of all sacred rites but also he was to bee seuered from the rest of the people who were not defiled with such vncleannesse and commanded to liue apart out of the Campe or Citie 84 Now the execution of this law forasmuch as concerned the spirituall penaltie did belong principally to the High Priest who was the chiefe minister of sacred things but concerning the temporall or ciuill penaltie which was to bee debarred from ciuill conuersation the execution thereof if the leper would not of his owne accord vndergoe the penaltie did belong to the Ciuill Magistrate who was the minister of ciuill or temporall things As also when any temporall punishment as death whipping or such like was prescribed by the law against malefactours although the crime was spirituall as Idolatrie vsurping the office of a Priest c. the execution belonged to the temporall Iudge who in temporalls had authoritie ouer them Whereupon wee neuer reade in the holy Scripture that any true and lawfull King although he had committed any crime worthy of death according to the law as many Kings of the Israelites were Idolaters and King Ozias heere vsurped the office of a Priest which were crimes that deserued death according to the law were for such crimes put to death by the ordinarie authoritie of any man whatsoeuer for that Kings had no Superiour ouer them in temporalls who had authoritie to execute the law which did chiefly belong to themselues as I a little aboue d Nu. 80 obserued out of Abulensis or to punish them with temporall punishments in which sense King Dauid did truely say that hee had sinned onely to God saying Tibisolipeccaui for that God alone to whom onely he was subiect in temporals had power to punish him with temporall punishments as all the ancient Fathers doe expound that place So likewise in the new law it belongeth to spirituall Pastours to declare and determine what is heresie and whether one befallen into heresie or no but to punish heretikes with temporall punishments doth not belong to the authoritie of spirituall Pastours but of temporall Princes who in temporals are supreme and to whom onely the vsing of the temporall sword doth principally belong 85 Wherefore from this example of King Ozias nothing else can forcibly be prooued but that in the olde law it belonged to the Priests to declare the law of God and that onely Priests and not Lay-men were to intermeddle in sacred things For obserue good Reader what did the Priests 2. Paralip 26. and what was done by King Ozias First therefore King Ozias saith the Scripture entering into the temple of our Lord would burne incense vpon the Altar of incense And incontinently Azarias the Priest going in after him and with him the Priests of our Lord eightie most valiant men they resisted the King and said It is not thy office Ozias to burne incense to our Lord but of the Priests that is of the children of Aaron which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie goe out of the Sanctuarie contemne not because this thing shall not be reputed to thee for glorie by our Lord. Here is nothing done as you see by the Priests which is not spirituall And who maketh any doubt but that the Priests also of the new law may resist Kings if they attempt to intermeddle in sacred things which belong onely to Priests and tell them that it is not their office but of the Priests which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie and command them to goe out of the Church and not to contemne the law of God because it will not be reputed to them for glorie by our Lord God 86 But secondly King Ozias being angrie and holding in his hand the Censar to burne incense 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 haste they thrust him out yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out because he felt by and by the plague of our Lord. And here also is nothing which the Priests might not doe by their spirituall authoritie For I doe not deny but that it belongeth to the office of Priests to exclude excommunicated persons as in some sorte leapers were in the old law from the temple of God and from participation in sacred rites as S. Ambrose excluded Theodosius the Emperour Neuerthelesse it cannot be prooued by the words of holy Scripture that they thrust him out of the temple by corporall violence and by laying their hands vpon his sacred person but onely by denouncing with vehement words Gods indignation against him for feare of which he now being stricken by God miraculously with the plague of leprosie did of his owne accord depart in haste out of the temple which also S. Chrysostome doth sufficiently confirme saying Chrys hom 4. de verbis Isae vidi Dominum That they
serued him but the rest which belonged to the Kingly affaires Ioathan did and perchance it is called a free house because it was out of the Citie Therefore that the Kingly estate prouision pompe should not cease Ioathan Ozias his sonne gouerned the Kings Pallace to wit he remained in the Kings house and all the Nobles and mightiest men of the Land had recourse to him as they were wont to haue recourse to Ozias and he kept all the seruants and all the other prouision which his Father kept that the Regall state should not seeme to be diminished and yet he was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate and the rest as follow before nu 104. 108 Wherefore D. Schulckenius perceiuing this his assertion not to be grounded either in Scripture reason or any other authoritie flyeth backe againe to his former answere that Ozias was at least wise depriued of the administration of the kingdome from whence first it is prooued sayth he that the Pope may inflict vpon a King for a iust cause a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome and secondly from thence consequently it is gathered that for a most important cause and a very heinous crime as is heresie he may inflict a greater punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome 109 But although I should grant to this Doctour that the High-Priest did depriue King Ozias per accidens and consequently not onely of the administration of the kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and right to reigne that is by declaring him to be a leper which disease did by the law of God as we now suppose but doe not grant depriue him ipso facto of his right to reigne yet froÌ„ thence it cannot be proued that the Pope hath the like authoritie to depriue an hereticall King of his Kingdome or the administration thereof per accidens or consequently for that no punishmeÌ„t is appointed by the law of Christ to heresie as it was in the old law to leprosie but to punish heretikes with this or that kind of spirituall punishment Christ hath left to the discretion of spirituall Pastours and to punish them with temporall punishments to the discretion of temporall Princes who therefore as well said Dominicus Bannes may put heretikes to death or punish them in some other manner But if Christ our Sauiour had in the new law assigned particularly any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods or the like for those who should bee infected with heresie as God in the olde law did ordaine that lepers should dwell out of the Campe in a house apart then the Pope might indeed punish heretikes temporally per accidens and consequently to wit onely by declaring the law of Christ and that they were infected with heresie to which crime such punishments are according to this supposition appointed by the law of Christ Neither should he heerein transcend his spirituall authoritie But to execute this law by putting heretikes to death or by inflicting vpon them temporall punishments and punishing them actually with the same doth exceede the limits of that spirituall authoritie which hath beene giuen to the Priests eyther of the new law or of the olde 110 And albeit Pope Innocent the fourth and also other Popes haue depriued Soueraigne Princes very few times for heresie but often for other crimes not onely of their administration but also of the kingdome it selfe yet this is no sufficient ground to prooue that they had any true and rightfull power so to doe as it is manifest of it selfe and in my Apologie I haue declared more at large z Nu. 444. 445 for that it is one thing saith Cardinall Bellarmine a In Respons ad Apolog. pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so of Popes and other persons and another thing to prooue their authoritie and power And thus much concerning the first part of my answere to the antecedent proposition of Cardinall Bellarmines argument The second part of my answere was contained in these words 111 Neither also doth Cardinal Bellarmine sufficiently confirme that the Leuiticall Priests had authority to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie onely of the administration of their Kingdomes for that time onely that they were infected with leprosie For albeit Ozias after he was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie did not administer the kingdome the cause thereof might bee for that hee being not fit to gouerne the kingdome during the time of his infirmitie did commit the gouernment to Ioathan his sonne and did appoint him the Administratour of the kingdome vntill he should be restored to his former health But that a Priest of the old law had authority to depriue Kings being infected with leprosie either of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof it cannot bee sufficiently gathered from the holy Scripture As also we cannot sufficiently collect from the holy Scripture that a Priest of the old law had authoritie to depriue housholders being infected with leprosie either of their goods or of the administration thereof although it be very like that seeing such householders ought at the iudgement of the Priest declaring them to be leapers to dwell out of the campe they themselues did commit to others the authoritie to bee administratours of their goods for the time they were infected with leprosie And so the weakenesse of the antecedent proposition is manifest 112 Now you shal see in what a shuffling manner D. Schulckenius replieth to this my answere I answere saith he b Pag 5â—â— These make nothing to the matter It is enough for vs that King Ozias did by the commandement of the High Priest dwell in a house apart from the time of his leprosie vntill his death and that seeing hee could not conuerse with the people he was enforced to permit the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing at all concerning the affaires of the kingdome was referred to him But if he had not beene subiect to the power of the High Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will dwell in the Kings Cittie and gouerne the kingdome either by himselfe or by his Ministers For leprosie doth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne Truly Naaman Syrus was a leeper and because he was not subiect to the high Priest of the Hebrewes he did nâ—t dwell in a house apart but he was the Generall of Warfare and he went wheresoeuer he would See 4. Reg. 5. And in the same manner the High Priest might depriue housholders of the administration of their goods especially if they had any in Citties because he did separate them from the people or the conuersation of men and did exclude them from Citties and consequently depriued them of the administration of those goods which they had in Citties albeit they might administer them by
others Thus D Schulckenius 113 But truly it is a shame to see with what face this Doctour can so boldly affirme that the principall question which is now betwixt Card. Bellarmine and me to wit whether King Ozias was depriued either of his kingdome or of the administration thereof by the High Priest is nothing to the matter Before as you haue seene both Card. Bellarmine and also this Doctour if they be two different men haue laboured to proue that King Ozias was for corporall leprosie depriued by the high Priest not only of the administration of his kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and of his right or authoritie to reigne from whence they inferred that therefore the Pope might for spirituall leprosie depriue temporall Princes not only of the administration of their kingdomes but also of their kingdomes and all Regall authoritie or right to reigne And the second part of this antecedent proposition I did confute aboue and proued cleerely that Ozias did still remaine true King de iure vntill his death and was not depriued of his Royall authoritie or right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did de facto in his fathers name and by his Fathers authoritie administer the kingdome To the first part of the antecedent proposition which this Doctour affirmed to be manifest but howsoeuer it be saith he to wit whether Ozias remained King only in name or also with Regall authoritie it is manifest that he was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment I did now answere affirming that Card. Bellarmine had not sufficiently proued the same for that it might be that he perceiuing himselfe to be vnfit by reason of leprosie for which he was by the law to dwell in a house apart to gouerne the kingdome by himselfe did willingly and of his owne accord commit the gouernment thereof to his sonne Ioathan from whence it cannot bee gathered that hee was depriued of the gouernment by the high Priest And now this Doctour being pressed with this answere blusheth not to say That this is nothing to the matter as though to confute that which hee himselfe affirmetn to bee manifest to wit that King Ozias was by the high Priest depriued of his Kingly gouernment for corporall leprosie is nothing to the matter But to such shamefull windings turnings and shiftings are sometime brought men otherwise learned rather then they will plainly and sincerely confesse themselues to haue grosly erred in coyning their false or fallible opinions for true and vndoubted points of Catholike faith 114 Obserue now good Reader in what a fraudulent maner this Doctour would seeme to prooue that my aforesaid answere is nothing to the matter It is enough for vs saith he that King Ozias did by the high Priests commandement dwell in a house apart all the time of his leprosie vntill his death c. If this bee enough for this Doctour I shall easily agree with him heerein for that I doe willingly grant that the high Priest might commaund King Ozias being infected with leprosie to dwell in a house apart Onely this I must admonish him that Ozias was bound to dwell in a house apart not so much by the commandement of the high Priest if wee will speake properly as by the commandement of almightie God who by his law did expresly ordaine that all lepers should dwell apart from the rest of the people and the Priests office only was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law whether they were infected with leprosie or no and to declare the law of GOD which are spirituall not temporall actions abstracting from which law the high Priest had no authoritie to command King Ozias or any other leper to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people Wherefore this commandement of the high Priest was not any constitutiue commandement of his owne imposing a new obligation vpon King Ozias to which he was not tyed before although the high Priest had not commanded him but it was onely a declaratiue commandement or a declaration of Gods law and commandement whereby all lepers were long before commaunded to dwell in a place apart from the rest of the people But from hence this Doctour cannot gather that the Priests of the new law may for spirituall leprosie depriue Kings of their kingdomes or the administration thereof or of their right and freedome to dwell in their Cities or Pallaces and separate them by way of temporall constraint from all ciuill conuersation of men vnlesse hee will grant with Iohn Wicklefe that these punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to spirituall leprosie as in the old law the dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people was annexed to corporall leprosie Neuerthelesse I doe not deny that the Priests all of the new law haue authority to declare what is spirituall leprosie and what crimes doe notably infect the soule and what punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to such maladies and also to separate heretikes and other spirituall lepers from the sacred religious or spirituall conuersation of the faithfull for these are spirituall not temporall actions and punishments 115 But Ozias liuing in a house apart could not saith this Doctour conuerse with the people and so he was enforced to permit absolutely to to his sonne the administration of the kingdome that nothing at all should be referred to him concerning the affaires of the kingdome But first it is not true that King Ozias speaking properly was coactus that is enforced or compelled by corporall force and violence or by the coactiue force of the law which consisteth in the inflicting of temporall punishments to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people but onely he was bound thereunto by the directiue or commanding force of the law of God which ordained that all lepers should bee separated from the rest of the people and dwell alone by themselues out of the Campe for seeing that the King was supreame in temporalls and subiect therein to none but God alone and the High Priests were subiect to him therein and might bee punished by him with temporall punishments as I shewed before hee could not bee subiect to the coactiue or enforcing power of the law which ordained the inflicting of any temporall punishment And therefore wee neuer read in the holy Scripture that the High Priest of the old law whom my Aduersaries affirme to haue authoritie to inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment did euer attempt to put any King to death who had committed any crime that deserued death according to the law as you find many Kings to haue committed such crimes as Dauid committed adulterie which according to the law of God was to bee punished with death and most of the Kings of Israel were Idolaters whom God commanded to be put to death and this crime also of King Ozias for vsurping the office of a Priest
deserued death according to the Law 116 Secondly therefore although he was in some sort speaking improperly enforced or compelled that is he was bound by the law vnder paine of sinne to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people by reason of his leprosie yet it was the law of God and not the high Priest but onely as iudging him to bee a leper and declaring the law of God and his indignation against those who should transgresse his law that compelled him thereunto which declaration being a meere spirituall action without doubt did according to the law of God in the old law belong to the function of the high Priest and therefore the most that from hence can be inferred is this that the Priests of the new law haue also authoritie to declare the law of Christ and to iudge what is spirituall leprosie and what punishments are by the law of Christ appointed against heresie and other crimes which may infect the soule but that spirituall Pastours haue now authoritie to inflict temporall punishments vpon heretikes or any other spirituall lepers it cannot from hence be gathered by any probable reason 117 Thirdly it is very vntrue that because King Ozias was by the law commanded to liue in a house apart so long as hee remained a leper it doeth consequently follow from thence that he was also enforced bound or compelled to permit absolutely the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing concerning the affaires of the kingdome should bee referred to him for that a King may liue in a house apart not onely out of the Citie but also out of the kingdome and yet he may gouerne his kingdome by his Ministers in such sort that the chiefest things hee may reserue to himselfe as diuers Kings by their Vice-Roys doe gouerne forraine kingdomes reseruing diuers things as the placing or displacing of the chiefest Officers the making of warre against their neighbour Princes or such like important affaires to themselues and therefore from the dwelling of Ozias in a house apart either in the Citie or out of the Citie it cannot bee sufficiently gathered that hee was therefore enforced to permit absolutely the administration of the kingdome to his sonne so that nothing concerning the affaires of the kingdome should bee referred to him especially seeing that as this Doctour sayeth leprosie doeth not take away the iudgement of the mind and wisedome necessarie to gouerne 118 Neither also is it true that King Ozias could not conuerse with the people as this Doctour so bouldly affirmeth For although it was ordained by the law that lepers should dwell alone out of the campe and be separated from the rest of the people yet the law did not forbid any man to speake or talke with them or than with others yea which is more it was not forbidden by the law as well obserueth Abulensis c In ca. 8. Mat. q. 12. 13. to touch a leper for although the touching of a leper dâ—d cause a legall vncleanesse yet it was not any sinne or imperfection to incurre a legall vncleannesse but sometimes it was meritorious to bee legally polluted for to touch dead bodies and graues was a legall vncleannesse Num. 19. and yet to bury the dead was a meritorious worke for which Tobias is greatly commended and sometimes also a man was bound to incurre a legall vncleannesse as children were bound to bury their parents and yet by this they were legally polluted Leuit. 10. 21. and not only in prophane things but also in diuine mysteries Priests were sometimes bound by the law to be legally polluted as the Priest who offered a red cow in a burnt sacrifice was polluted and yet this was done by the commandement of God Num. 19. See also the like Leuit. 16. Wherefore to incurre a legall vncleannesse was not forbidden by the law but it was onely forbidden to enter into the Sanctuarie or to touch sacred things before he should be cleansed Leuit. 15. and therfore it was not a sinne according to the law to touch a leper after what maner soeuer vnlesse he that was so polluted would before his purification enter into the Tabernacle or participate in sacred things Leuit. 15. So that it is manifest that King Ozias was so debarred rom all ciuill conuersation but that he might sufficiently declare to his Deputies and ministers what he would haue done concerning any important businesse in the kingdome 119 Wherefore it can not be prooued that King Ozias was depriued for his leprosie of the administration of his kingdome and enforced to permit absolutely to his sonne the gouernment thereof that nothing at all should be referred to him concerning the affaires of the kingdome although it might very well be that he seeing himselfe for his great pride and arrogancie stricken by God with the plague of leprosie and that he could not so conueniently and in such Royall maner and remaining in his owne Pallace gouerne the kingdome as he did before did freely and of his owne accord and not vpon any constraint or absolute necessitie appoint his sonne the sole administratour of the kingdome and that he being now humbled by the potent hand of God would not for the time of his infirmitie meddle at all with the gouernment which is more to be attributed to his humilitie then to any necessitie for that he might if he had beene pleased haue reserued some affaires of greatest moment to his owne iudgement and referred the rest to those ministers whom he should appoint and as his sonne Ioathan was made administratour of the kingdome by his appointment and gouerned in his name and by his authoritie so also if Ioathan had caried himselfe partially and tyrannically in the gouernment he might by the authoritie of his father who still remained the true and rightfull King haue beene displaced and another put in his roume 120 But if King Ozias had not beene subiect saith this Doctour to the power of the high Priest he might haue contemned the high Priest and against his will haue dwelled in the Regall Citie and also haue gouerned the kingdome But first no man maketh any doubt but that King Ozias was subiect to the high Priest in spirituals as was euery sentence or iudgement wherein he declared the law of God And therefore the King was bound not to contemne in such things the commandement of the high Priest neither could he being now declared a leper either with the leaue or against the leaue of the high Priest dwell in the kingly Citie among the rest of the people for that by the law of God and not by any constitutiue commandement of the high Priest he was to dwell apart from the rest of the people Wherefore that clause and against his will he might haue dwelt in the Regall Citie is added by this Doctour to no purpose vnlesse he would signifie thereby that the law concerning the dwelling of lepers apart from the rest of the people
temporal punishments which to inflict the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue receiued authoritie from the graunt and consent of temporall Princes may by the Pastours of the Church be adioyned to Ecclesiasticall Excommunication and in this sense be called accidentall effects of Excommunication or rather punishments accidentally or per accidens annexed to the Censure of Excommunication And so the Pope being now by the graunt and consent of Secular Princes and Christian people become also a temporall Prince may annexe to Excommunication all temporall punishments which he as a temporall Prince hath power to inflict 143 Whereupon albeit I doe vtterly deny that Excommunication either of it owne nature or by any necessary consequence deduced from thence abstracting from the graunt and consent of temporall Princes hath sufficient force to depriue one of any ciuill dominion Iurisdiction or conuersation yet I doe willingly graunt that an inferior Magisrate who by the sentence of a spirituall Iudge is declared to haue incurred the Censure of Excommunication is by the expresse ciuill lawes of some kingdomes and in some others by the tacite consent of the Prince deprived of ciuill Iurisdiction and their acts reputed to bee of no force in law yea and that by the Imperiall law q In noua Constit Frederici if for a whole yeere he remaine excommunicated he is in the nature of a proclaimed outlaw or Bandite But to commaund subiects not to obey their lawfull and Soueraigne Prince in temporalls and to absolute subiects from that ciuill and naturall allegiance which by the law of God and nature they owe to their rightfull Prince seeing that according to Suarez r Aboue nu 121 the power to command in the Prince and the bond of obedience in the subiects are correlatiues and one dependeth on the other and that to deny obedience to a Prince so long as he remaineth Prince is plainely repugnant saith Card. Bellarmine to the law of God it is not in the power of spirituall Pastours vnlesse they have authoritie to depose Princes and to make Kings no Kings which whether it bee in their power to doe or no is the very question about which I with all my Aduersaries doe now contend and concerning which the Schoolemen are now at variance and as yet the controuersie is not decided by the Iudge saith Iohn Trithemius Å¿ In Chron. Monast Hirsang ad an 1106. 144 To those Canons Nos sanctorum Iuratos Absolutos which Suarez brought for his chiefe ground to prooue that the absoluing of Subiects from the temporall allegiance which by the law of God and nature they owe to their Soueraigne Princes is now a punishment annexed to the Censure of Excommunication I haue heeretofore answered and among other answeres this was one that those Canons are not to bee vnderstood of Soueraigne Princes but onely of inferiour persons who indeede by the consent of their temporall Soueraignes doe loose their temporall Iurisdiction after the sentence is publikely declared yea and in the territories of the Empire if for a yeere they persist excommunicated are as I saide in the nature of persons prescribed out lawes or Bandites 145 This in effect and much more to the same purpose did I answere heeretofore by all which the force of my answere to Card. Bellarmines argument taken from the example of King Ozias and the reason why I denyed his consequence supposing for Disputation sake the antecedent to be true as it is not may euidently appeare For in the old law the dwelling of lepers after they were declared so to be by the Priest in a house apart from the rest of the people was expresly ordained by the law of God and therefore supposing now with Card. Bellarmine that the dwelling of a King being infected with leprosie in a house apart from the rest of the people should by any necessarie consequence inferre that hee is consequently depriued of his kingdome or the administration thereof it is no meruaile that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue such Kings per accidens and consequently that is to declare them depriued by the law of GOD of their kingdomes or of the administration thereof But in the new law neither the depriuation of a temporall kingdome or of the administration thereof nor the losse of any temporall Iurisdiction doth by the law of GOD or by any other necessarie consequence follow spirituall leprosie or any intrinsecall propertie of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication neither is it in power of spirituall Pastours as Almainus said to inflict any temporall punishment as death banishment priuation of goods c. nay nor so much as to imprison as very many Doctours saith hee doe affirme but onely to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments And therefore the similitude of Cardinall Bellarmine betwixt corporall and spirituall leprosie in the old and new law is this defectiue and so the consequence of his argument is altogether insufficient Thus much touching my first answere to the consequence of his argument 146 Marke now how sleightly this Doctour would shuffle ouer my second answere and reason which did cleane ouerthrow Card. Bellarmines consequence grounded vpon the nature of a figure and the thing figured euen according to his owne grounds For whereas I answered as you haue seene that because a figure as Card. Bellarmine saith is alwayes lesse perfect and of an inferiour degree then the thing which is figured it doeth not follow that heresie which is figured by corporall leprosie must bee punished with a temporall punishment because corporall leprosie was punished therewith but with a punishment of a higher degree to wit with a spirituall punishment D. Schulckenius replieth thus I answere saith hee t pag. 552. As heresie which is a spirituall leprosie is farre more pernicious then corporall leprosie so Excommunication is a punishment of a higher degree then the separating of lepers For Excommunication doth not onely depriue of the companie and liuing together of men in one house but also of participation of Sacraments and Suffrages of the Church But that Excommunication besides doeth depriue of ciuill administration and sometimes hath annexed the depriuation of temporall goods and also of the kingdome it selfe doth not diminish but increase the greatnes and excellencie of the punishment of spirituall leprosie aboue the punishment of corporall leprosie Wherefore it is most true that the thing figured is of an higher degree then the figure And in this manner the Eucharist is of an higher degree then manna or the Paschall lambe because these doe nourish the body that nourisheth the soule although also those accidents of the Eucharist are profitable to the nourishment of the body 147 But obserue the egrigious fraude of this Doctour For that proposition of Card. Bellarmine Figures must of necessitie be of an inferiour order and excellencie then the things figured is to be vnderstood of figures formally as they are figures for it little importeth that those things that are figures be
necessitie of the Common-wealth shall require it so also the Ecclesiasticall Prince or head of the Church may giue lawes to temporall Common-wealths and the Gouernour thereof according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church the publike good whereof is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or Common-wealth by the same reason and law of Nature that the good of the soule is to be preferred before the good of the body spirituall good before temporall heauen before earth and the seruice of GOD before the seruice of any man or of all the men in the world 12 But first although it be true that Christian Princes who are the absolute heads of the temporall States or kingdomes which they gouerne being also parts and members of the mysticall body or spirituall kingdome of Christ which is the Church are consequently subiect in things belonging to the Church to wit in spirituall matters to the visible Pastours Gouernours or heads thereof yet it is not true that temporall kingdomes or common-wealths themselues being taken properly formally and in abstracto are either parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ or subiect and subordained to the Church or the visible heads thereof for then it must needes follow that temporall Princes not only as they are Christians in spirituall matters but also as they are temporall Princes and in temporall things are subiect to the visible heads or Gouernours of the Church which is cleerely repugnant to Mr. Fitzherberts owne words in that place pag. 95. num 4. who affirmeth that temporall Princes are absolute heads of the States which they gouerne in things pertaining only to their temporall States and consequently in them they cannot be subordinate and subiect to the visible heads of the Church 13 Wherefore that comparison which he maketh heere and is the chiefe ground of his Discourse betwixt families cities and kingdomes or ciuill common-wealths and betwixt ciuill common-wealths or kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ is no fit comparison and therefore neither can the Discourse which is grounded thereon be sound and sufficient For families and cities being taken properly formally and in abstracto are parts and members of the whole kingdome or common-wealth and consequently subordinate and subiect to the kingdome and absolute heads thereof seeing that they are particular ciuill Societies and consequently subiect to the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth as euery part is to the whole body and to the chiefe head thereof but temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto are not parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ vnlesse we will hold with the Canonists that the Church of Christ is compounded both of spirituall and ciuill power and that the Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of the whole Christian world And therefore although it be true that spirituall Pastours haue nothing to doe in matters meerely temporall and which belong to ciuill gouernment yet it is not true that temporall Princes haue not to doe with priuate families and cities in matters that belong to the ciuill gouernment of them for that priuate families and cities are true parts and members of the whole ciuill common-wealth or kingdome and I hope that the Prince who hath to doe with the whole kingdome and gouernment thereof hath also to doe with the gouernment of euery part thereof 14 Secondly no man maketh any doubt but that the spirituall Pastours and Gouernours of the Church may correct any King or ciuill Magistrate when hee doth any thing to the preiudice of the Church and that they may giue lawes to the Gouernours of temporall common-wealths according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church and also that the publike good of the Church is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or common-wealth But all the difficultie consisteth in these points first whether authoritie to correct malefactours by the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods c. hath by the institution of Christ beene communicated to the spirituall Pastours of the Church or was leaft only to temporall Princes and the supreme Gouernours of temporall common-wealths Secondly whether spirituall Pastours may giue lawes to temporall Princes I doe not say as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ for of this no Catholike maketh doubt but to temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto or which is all one to temporall Princes not as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection but as they are temporall Princes and haue supreme temporall power which doth only reside in them and not in spirituall Pastours 15 Thirdly whether the particular or publike good of temporall Princes or common-wealths is to be preferred before the particular or publike good of the Church for that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one totall body or common-wealth which is the Church as Card. Bellarmine contendeth in which totall body the temporall common-wealth is per se and naturally subordained and subiect to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ or whether the spirituall good is to be preferred before the temporall by all Christians both Princes and subiects for that euery man who is a part and member of two cities or common-wealths the one more noble and excellent then the other is by the order of charitie bound to preferre caeteris paribus the more noble and excellent citie or common-wealth and the good thereof before the lesse noble and excellent city or common-wealth and the good of it These be the chiefe heads of this controuersie concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes or common-wealths among Christians and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof I haue at large debated in the second part where the Reader may see all these points distinctly handled against Card. Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius and also touching all that which Mr. Fitzherbert doth confusedly discourse in this Chapter concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes and the Church of Christ And therefore remitting the Reader to my former Treatise where he may cleerely see in what manner the temporall and spirituall power or the temporall and spirituall common-wealth are vnited and subordained let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert would at length conclude 16 Whereupon I conclude saith he d Pag. 96. nu 6 that seeing this Oath now in question is as I haue proued by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church to whom all Christian Princes are subiect euen by the law of Nature it followeth that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to nature then if a husband should exact the like Oath of his wife or a Maister of his seruant or the father of his children I meane an Oath which should
the word vpside downe or peruerted the course of Nature but knew right well that things lesse perfect are not to be preferred before the more perfect the body before the soule sense before reason temporall things before spirituall policie before Religion earth before heauen and the world before God And therefore there is none but such ignorant men as my Aduersarie is that can or will affirme the new Oath of allegiance to be repugnant to the law of Nature or to the light of nature reason for that it denyeth the authoritie of spirituall Pastours to punish temporally ablute Princes or to depriue them of their kingdomes or dominions 44 And by this the insufficiencie of the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Discourse will easily appeare This was some part saith he i Pag. 101. num 12. of my Discourse in my Supplement concerning the law of Nature whereby thou seest good Reader that I haue sufficiently shewed two things the one that according to the law of Nature the temporall state and power is subordinate and subiect to the spirituall when they are conioined in one body no lesse then the familie is subordinate and subiect to the Common-wealth in like case because the end of the temporall power is subordinate to the end of the spirituall power which ouerthroweth my Aduersaries false principle to wit that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill Societie are so distinct in nature and office that though they be ioined together yet they haue no dependance the one of the other vpon which false ground and vaine supposition often affirmed by Barclay and him and neuer proued by either of them they found all their false doctrine 45 But how vntrue this is I haue already shewed For in the law of Nature the temporall state and power was not subiect and subordinate to the spirituall or Religious except only in excellencie and nobilitie whereof there is no question but contrariwise the Priests of the law of Nature were subiect in spirituall and religious affaires to the supreme ciuill Gouernour when they were distinct persons neither did they make two distinct Common-wealths as they doe in the law written but the ciuill Common-wealth had authoritie to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state and not only to make Priests and to giue them Priestly power but also to increase diminish alter or to take away from them their Priestly authoritie and to determine of all things both temporall and spirituall which is not so in the law written wherein Priests haue their authoritie from the positiue institution and law of God himselfe 46 True it is that the Heathen Common-wealths gaue great authoritie priueledges and exemptions to those persons whom they chose and appointed to be their Priests especially to the chiefe Priest or Bishop whereof reade Alexander lib. 2. cap. 8. and lib. 3. cap. 27. to whom the Romanes gaue such great honour that they did esteeme him next to the King or supreme temporall Prince and gaue him authoritie to command and also to punish the King of sacred rites and all the other inferiour Priests Yea euen to Vestall Virgins who were Priests of the Goddesse Vesta such honour was giuen by the Romanes that if by chance they should meete any malefactour that was led to death hee should not for that time be put to death Plutarch in Numa Alex. lib. 5. cap. 12. vpon condition that the Virgin must sweare that her meeting of him was casuall and not of purpose But from hence it cannot be gathered that the religious Priests had by the law of Nature such authoritie priueledges and prerogatiues but only that the Common-wealth in honour of Religion did grant them such temporall honour and authoritie and would haue them to be obeyed in some matters of great moment vnder paine of death 47 Now in the new law in what manner the temporall Common-wealth or rather those persons who are parts and members therof are subiect to spirituall Pastours I haue at large declared aboue in the second part where I haue sufficiently proued out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds that the coniunction of temporall power and of spirituall subiection in the same Christian man is not sufficient to make the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth among Christians one totall body or Common-wealth whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head for then the Pope must be both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of all Christendome and Christians and that although they should make one totall body or Common-wealth whereof Christ only is the head in that manner as I there declared yet from thence it could not be concluded that the temporall power or Common-wealth is per se and naturally subiect and subordinate to the spirituall power or Common-wealth but only that Christian Princes not as they haue temporall power but as being members of the Church of Christ they haue spirituall subiection and consequently in spiritualls and not in temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power or common-wealth and the spirituall Pastours thereof And there also I answered all the arguments which D. Schulckenius brought to proue the contrarie Let Mr. Fitzherbert impugne that Treatise and then he may haue some cause to brag that this doctrine of mine and Barclaies is a false and vaine supposition of our owne In the meane time the Reader may cleerely see how vainely and friuolously he hath proued by the law of Nature that the temporall power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that in the law of Nature Religious Priests as they were such might command and correct temporally the temporall Common-wealth or supreme temporall Prince whereas the quite contrary is manifest by the law of nature 48 The other thing saith Mr. Fitzherbert that I haue shewed is that by reason of this naturall subordination and subiection of the lawes and lesse perfect Societies to the higher and more perfect it is most conforme to nature that the head of the Church who is the supreme spirituall Magistrate may command and correct all inferiour Magistrates as well temporall as spirituall when the necessitie either of the whole body or of the Church only which is the most perfect and supreme Societie doth require it as in like case the supreme ciuill Magistrate who is Prince and head of the Common-wealth iustly commandeth and punisheth the heads of Families or Cities notwithstanding that the said Families and Cities are distinct Societies and bodies and haue their lawes and Magistrates apart no lesse then the Common-wealth and Church haue theirs 49 But first it is vntrue that there is any naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall power or Common-wealth to the spirituall except in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and whereof no man maketh doubt neither doth the dignity and perfection of the more noble and excellent Societie inferre a superioritie in command and authoritie ouer the lesse worthy and lesse noble Societie vnlesse we will haue the companie of Goldsmiths to haue
is no naturall subordination of any Ciuill Societie to the Church of Christ except only in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and that in the law of Nature it belonged to the Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe to dispose and order all things as well concerning Religion as Ciuill matters as to ordaine Priests to appoint with what kind of Sacrifices and in what maner and place God should be publikely worshipped to giue or take away to extend or diminish the authoritie dignitie and priuiledges of Religious Priests as the Common-wealth whose Ministers they were and to whom they were subiect not onely in temporalls but also in spiritualls should thinke expedient and therefore to make a naturall subordination subiection not only in dignitie and perfection but also in power and authority of the ciuil common-wealth to the Church of Christ is cleerly repugnant to nature to all natural reason 55 Secondly I also shewed the manifest difference betwixt families cities and all such like inferiour Ciuill Societies being compared to the whole Ciuill Common-wealth and betwixt the whole Ciuill Common-wealth being compared to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ for that not only the persons of all inferiour ciuill Societies but also the Societies themselues which are only compounded of ciuill power are true parts members of the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth and that therefore the supreame ciuill Magistrate or Prince who hath power to dispose of the whole ciuill body or common-wealth hath power also to dispose of euery part and member thereof But the temporall Common-wealth it selfe which is compounded only of ciuill power is not a part and member of the Church of Christ which is compounded onely of spirituall and not ciuill or temporall authoritie as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe confesseth m Contra Barc c. 12. p. 137 in Schulck pag. 203. And therefore it doeth not follow by the same reason as my Aduersarie heere affirmeth that the supreame head of the Church of Christ may dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the ciuill common-wealth because the supreame Prince of the ciuill common-wealth may dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all other inferiour ciuill Societies And whereas hee supposeth that to dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the ciuill common-wealth may bee absolutely necessarie for the conseruation of the Church is a meere fiction and idle supposition of his owne braine and although it were so necessarie yet it should not belong to spirituall Pastours who haue no ciuill power but to Christian Princes to dispose thereof as I haue shewed aboue And as for the comparison of the soule and body which all my Aduersaries doe so often inculcate I haue also shewed before n Part. 2. c. 8. most cleerely that it is no fit similitude to proue their purpose but maketh flat against them both because the temporall and spirituall common-wealth doe not make one totall body or compound in that manner as the body and soule doe make one man and also because albeit the soule may command the body to punish it selfe yet shee her selfe cannot punish the body without the helpe and concurrance of the body it selfe and therefore neither can the Church of Christ inflict temporall punishments without the helpe and concurrance of the temporall common-wealth 56 But now Mr. Fitzherbert will make forsooth all the matter more cleare And all this saith he o p. 103. nu 16 will bee yet more cleare if wee consider the weake reason that Widdrington giueth of his conceipt to prooue that the supreame spirituall power cannot punish temporally Wid. in Admon ad Lect. nu 17. For thus hee saith Atque ita recta ratio dictat vt superior quicunque c. And so right or true reason teacheth that euery Superior may punish his inferiour with some penaltie that is proportionate to his authority but that any other besides him that is supreame Gouernor of the ciuill cōmon-wealth may punish his inferiour with the paine or punishment of death or maiming or of the depriuatiō of all his goods this cannot be deduced from the rule or prescript of true reason Thus saith hee But to omit to speake of bloodie punishments by death or maiming which are neuer vsed by the Church and therefore are idly mentioned heere by my Aduersarie it is to bee noted that in the rest hee contradicteth not onely the ancient and common practise of the Church yea the holy Scriptures as I shall shew p Iufra nu 18.19.20 Item cap. 7.9.10.11 12. per totum after a while but also his owne grant and concession 57 If the prudent Reader had not sufficiently seene before the extreame vanitie palpable ignorance and irreligious conscience of this my Aduersarie hee might easily conceiue me to bee a very bad ignorant and inconsiderate man for contradicting as hee saith not onely the ancient and common practise of the Church yea and the holy Scriptures but also my owne graunt and concession but such bragging and slanderous words are as you haue often seene frequent in this mans mouth First therefore those words of mine Atque ita recta ratio dictat c. And so true reason teacheth c. were not brought by me as a reason but as a conclusion of that I saide before concerning the authoritie of Superiours to punish their subiects or inferiours with some kinde of punishments proportionate to their Coerciue power 58 Secondly it is vntrue that bloodie punishments by death or maiming are idly mentioned heere by mee seeing that hee himselfe in the former paragraph did affirme that the head of the Church may by way not only of commandement but also of punishment dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the Ciuill Common-wealth and consequently both of goods and bodies whereof no doubt the ciuill common-wealth may dispose and in the second Chapter also hee expresly taught that the Pope hauing power ouer my soule and being withall the supreame Gouernour of the whole Church hath also power ouer my life albeit with the liues of Princes it being an odious question hee will not meddle and a little after hee affirmeth that the Pope hath power ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians and consequently according to his doctrine also of all Christian Kings and Princes Why then doth he now say that bloodie punishments by death or maiming are idly mentioned heere by mee when I affirme that none but the supreame ciuill Superiour hath power to punish his subiect or inferiour with the punishment of death maiming or depriuation of goods But marke I pray you his goodly reason because forsooth bloodie punishments by death or maiming are neuer vsed by the Church whereas the question betwixt vs was not whether the Church doeth actually vse bloodie punishments for of this I spake not one word in this place albeit Pope Adrian did ordaine in the Canon law q In cap. Delatori 5. q. 6. that the tongues of some malefactours should bee pulled out and the
other temporall commodities as I haue shewed in the last Chapter c Num. 18. 6 But truely I cannot but smile to see the vanitie of this man who though he see himselfe altogether vanquished yet he boasteth that hee is victorious and although he clearely perceiueth yea and almost expressely confesseth that his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. Chapter to be quite ouerthrowne yet hee braggeth that his cause is not thereby weakened or hurt any way but rather fortified and strengthened For if you note well what he granteth to wit That the penalty of corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the olde and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by excommunication you cannot but clearely see that his argument taken from Deuteronomy the 17. Chapter which onely text in particular I vndertooke to answere and which speaketh onely of corporall death is quite ouerthrowne and yet forsooth I doe hereby rather fortifie and strengthen then weaken or hurt any way his cause By which you may plainely perceiue what credit is to be giuen to the rest of his vaine-glorious brags seeing that in this so manifest an ouerthrow of his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. he is not ashamed to boast that I haue rather fortified and strengthened then weakened or hurt any way his cause But will Widdrington saith he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication includeth a temporall punishment c. The inference that Widdrington maketh is that from the wordes of Deuteronomy the 17. which speake onely of corporall death Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought no good argument for that according to the doctrine of Saint Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine which hee himselfe also will not denie The penalty of corporall death is now in the new law turned to the death of the soule by Excommunication Neither is it true that Excommunication being of it own nature a separation frō the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull doth of it owne nature include any temporall punishment at all as also I haue shewed in the last Chapter albeit I doe not denie that the Church hath now by way of command annexed to Excommunication some temporall penalties but not by way of inflicting them as I declared in that place for I euer granted that the Church hath power to command enioyne or impose temporall punishments but not to inflict them yet these to command and to inflict to impose and to dispose my Aduersary doth commonly confound 7 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 114. numer 4.5 it is euident that in the olde Testament euen the temporall Princes themselues were punished by depriuation of their right to their temporall states and dominions as e 1 Reg. 16. Saul by Samuel Athalia f 4 Reg. 11. by Ioiada Ioram g 4 Reg. 9. by one of the children of the Prophets who being sent by Elizeus annointed Iehu King of Israel to the end he might destroy Iesabel all the house of Achab. Also Ozias was not only corporally expelled out of the temple by the Priests confined by their sentence to liue priuately is his own house but according to the opinion doctrine of S. Chrysostome he ought also to haue beene wholy depriued of the gouernment as I haue signified before h Cap. 5. nu 21. 22. at large And therefore seeing he telleth vs how the penalty of corporall death which was ordained in the olde Testament is now fulfilled spiritually in the new let him also tell vs to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their states and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end that wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment and in the meane time let him acknowledge according to his owne doctrine and instance here produced that the Church may punish temporally seeing it may excommunicate and consequently depriue men of many temporall commodities 8 But this also is very vntrue that the Priests of the olde Testament had authoritie to punish temporall Princes by depriuing them of their right to their temporall states and dominions as I amply prooued aboue in the 5. Chapter Neither doe these examples brought here by Mr. Fitzherbert prooue any such thing For to the examples of King Ozias and Athalia I haue answered aboue at large And as for the other two besides that Samuel Elias and Elizeus were not Priests it is manifest that what they did concerning the annointing or deposing of any King they did it not by their owne authority but onely as Prophets and speciall messengers sent by God to that purpose How long saith God to Samuel i 1 Reg. 16. dost thou mourne Saul whom I haue reiected that hee rule not ouer Israel Fill thy horne with oyle and come that I may send thee to Isai the Bethleemite for I haue prouided me a King among his Sons And again Goe saith God to k 3 Reg. 19. Elias and returne into thy way by the desert of Damascus and when thou art come thither thou shalt annoint Hazael King ouer Syria and Iehu the Sonne of Namsi thou shalt annoint King ouer Israel and Elizeus the Sonne of Saphat thou shalt annoynt Prophet for thee And therefore he that was sent by Elizeus to annoint Iehu was commanded to speake in the person of God not of Elizeus And holding saith l 4 Reg. 9. Elizeus to him that was sent the little boxe of oyle thou shalt power vpon his head and shalt say Thus saith our Lord I haue annointed thee King ouer Israel Now what man of iudgement would make this inference that because in the olde lawe some Prophets who were no Priests did by the expresse commandement of God make annoint or depose Kings therefore the Priests in the new law haue ordinary power and authority to doe the same Belike Mr. Fitzherbert will approoue also this argument that because Elias was commanded by God to annoint not onely Iehu King ouer Israel but also Hazael King ouer Syria therefore the Pope hath authority to make and depose not onely Christian but also Pagan Kings 9 Wherefore that demand which is heere made by my Aduersary to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their States and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment is friuolous both for that the Priests of the old law had no authority to depriue Kings of their temporall States and Dominions or to inflict temporall punishments and also albeit they had such an authority neuerthelesse it could not bee prooued from thence by deducing an argument from the figure to the veritie that therefore
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
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
of the Canonists who make the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and to haue dominion and authoritie in temporalls not onely directly but also indirectly And therefore the common doctrine of the Canonists who as Pope Pius the fifth q See Nauar. in c. Nō liceat 12. q. 2. §. tertio nu 6 did freely acknowledge doe attribute more authority to the Pope then is fit in points concerning the Popes authoritie especially when they are therein contradicted by other learned Catholikes is but a very weake ground to build any infallible doctrine or point of faith thereon 33 Besides that it is to be considered r Pag. 169. nu 9. 10 saith Mr. Fitzherbert that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties seeing it hath the power and authoritie not onely to inflict them but also to force the Secular Magistrate to execute them which shall appeare further ſ Infra nu 11 15. after a while and is not contradicted by the Glosse obiected by Widdrington except onely concerning the imposition of bloody penalties which indeed the said Glosse doth exclude by an expresse Canon as wee also doe in this question affirming onely as I haue said before that the Church may in some cases both ordaine and execute certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood by mutilation or death And this is so manifest in the Canon law that truely a man may wonder with what face Widdrington can seeke by some peece of an obscure Glosse to ouerthrow the cleere and manifest sense of the law it selfe and the euident and ancient practise of the Church which hee knoweth in his conscience to bee grounded vpon the Ecclesiasticall Canons but heereby wee may see that his intent is no other but to patch vp his pretended probability with shifts and shewes of whatsoeuer hee can wring and wrest to his purpose 34 But truely I cannot but maruaile with what face this man dare so boldly affirme that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties or no yet granting as you see he doth that the Church hath power and authority to inflict them for of the power of the Church to compell or force by Ecclesiasticall Censures the Secular Magistrate wee doe not now dispute seeing that authority to inflict temporall penalties and to execute them are either all one or if we will distinguish them by taking authority to inflict them for authority to make lawes to inflict them the former doth necessarily inferre the later For what man euen of meane learning or vnderstanding can bee so ignorant as to imagine that euery Prince either spirituall or temporall who hath supreme authoritie to inflict any penalties hath not authoritie also to execute the same Neither can it bee denied but that the Pope and also other Bishops of Germany who are both spirituall Pastours and also temporall Princes haue authoritie to ordaine inflict and execute not onely certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood as is the confiscation of goods but all corporall and temporall penalties euen with effusion of blood by mutilation and death For although they are forbidden by expresse Canons of the Church not to concurre to the effusion of blood yet this prohibition doth not depriue them of any iote of their temporall authoritie which they did not receiue from the Church but from the grant of temporall Princes insomuch that if contrary to the Canons of the Church they should pronounce the sentence of death yea execute the same vpon any malefactour that deserueth death according to the law they should not offend against iustice for vsurping that ciuill authoritie which they haue not in that manner as another priuate man who hath no temporall authority should offend but against Religion for not obeying the iust commandement of their supreme spirituall Superiour 35 And this is so manifest in the knowne principles of Morall Philosophie of Schoole Diuinitie of the Canon and Ciuill law and in the practise of the whole Christian world that no man of any learning can with any face denie the same But this is the vsuall tricke of my Aduersarie to blind his Readers vnderstanding with the obscuritie of generall words not distinguishing the true state of the question and then crying out against me that I denie the Decrees of Generall Councells the Ecclesiastiall Canuos and the practise of the Church which is a meere fiction of his owne braine For all the Canons of the holy Church I doe embrace with all dutifull respect but I doe not vnderstand them alwayes in that sense as he and others of his opinion doe expound them and I doe willingly grant that the practise of the Church since she hath beene endewed by Christian Princes with many temporall priuiledges of Ciuill Iurisdiction hath beene to inflict and execute certaine temporall penalties without effusion of blood by death or mutilation but that which I contend is that it cannot be sufficiently prooued by any Canon or practise of the Church that spirituall Pastours doe ordaine inflict or execute such temporall penalties by their spirituall authoritie which they haue receiued from Christ but onely by their ciuill and temporall power which hath beene graunted them by the free gift and liberalitie of temporall Princes And thus much concerning these two Glosses of Ioannes Teutonicus vpon the Canon Hadrianus Delatori which without any wringing or wresting of their words or meaning I haue shewed to make cleere for my purpose 36 The second principall exception which M. Fitzherbert taketh against me in this my second answere to the obiection which I propounded is for adding immediately certaine words out of Siluester as fauouring my aforesaid answere Also Siluesters words said I doe fauour this answere who writeth thus Ioannes Andreas following Hostiensis is of opinion that a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him but that he ought to make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge 37 Against this Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth t Pag. 170. nu 12. seq that Widdrington hath dissembled that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that his Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion whereas Siluester hauing said that which Widdrington obiecteth addeth presently sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this doctrine doth not please Panormitan because when the case is such that the Iudge doth challenge iurisdiction ouer a Lay-man there appeareth no reason why he cannot in the foresaid cases impose vpon him a pecuniarie penaltie as it may be seene in cap. Statuimus 16. q. 1. and 27. q. 4. cap. Quisquis Thus saith Siluester alledging Pà normitans words and the Canons by the which hee prooueth that a Bishop may impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him which Canons are
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
Reader may easily perceiue how vaine and impertinent are the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts inferences and obiections in this Chapter which therefore I might well omit but that to giue satisfaction to the vnlearned Reader I am in a sort compelled to set them downe 26 Whereupon saith he f Page 180. num 6. it followeth first that Widdringtons answere to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran grounded vpon a distinction of a matter of fact and a matter of faith is very vaine and friuolous as well because the one doth not exclude the other as also because by that distinction hee may impugne the Decree of the Apostles themselues of the Popes Pius and Victor and of the Councell of Nice and such other touching matters of fact no lesse probably then hee impugneth the Canon of the Councell of Lateran 27 But to this as you haue seene I haue answered before and haue cleerely shewed that I did not impugne but onely expound the decree of the Lateran Councell and that I did not oppose a matter of faith to euery matter of fact but to a matter of fact onely or which is all one to such a matter of fact which is not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and such a matter of fact doth exclude a matter of faith also that by this distinction I doe not any wise impugne the decree of the Apostles of Pope Pius and Victor of the Councell of Nice or of any other touching matters of fact 28 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Pa. 180. nu 7 it appeareth that as the Quartadecimani were woorthily condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those Decrees so also those who doe with like obstinacy impugne the other Decree of the Councell of Lateran doe much more deserue to be held for heretickes seeing that they haue much lesse probability for their opinion then the other had 29 But this also hath been answered before for neither were the quartadecimani condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those decrees but because they contradicted them vpon an hereticall ground Neither doe I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell but do only expound it according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who since the Councell of Lateran haue affirmed that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but that the Church when she inflicteth such punishments doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes which learned Doctours cannot without grosse temeritie and impudency be therefore condemned of heresie And if this decree of the Lateran Councell bee so cleere a proofe to make this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and the contrary hereticall as these men pretend I would gladly know why Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies Victoria Corduba Moliua or D. Sanders did not vrge it to make their doctrine in this point certaine vnquestionable and of faith and why Marsilius of Padua was not by some one of those who write of heresies accounted an hereticke for impugning this doctrine and why it was not by Castro Prateolus Cardinall Bellarmine or some other reckoned among one of his heresies but it must now forsooth within these few yeeres without any new definition either of Pope or Councell bee made an heresie which for a 1600. yeeres before was not by any ancient Father or Catholike Diuine accounted an heresie 30 Thirdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert h Pa. 181. nu â— whereas Widdrington concludeth this his third answere with this reason that the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran had no more assurance and certaintie for this their Decree then if they had declared their opinion foorth of the Councell because Christ hath not promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit vnto facts and probable opinions of Popes or Councells but to their definitions onely this his conclusion I say is most impertinent not onely because it impugneth the foresaid Decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Nicene Councell no lesse then this other of the Councell of Lateran but also because he flatly ouerthroweth himselfe seeing that this Decree of the Councell of Lateran is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresie and therefore seeing that our Sauiour promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit to the definitions of Popes and Councels as Widdrington hath here expresly affirmed it followeth that the Pope and Fathers in the Councell of Lateran neither did nor could erre in their definition or Decree concerning the deposition of Princes when it shall be necessary for the extirpation of heresie 31 But all this also I haue fully satisfied before and shewed a great disparity betwixt those decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Councell of Nice and betwixt the Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Potestaes both for that this Act of the Lateran Councell is no true and proper Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as those were and also for that no Catholike Authour affâ—rmeth that those Decrees were made by temporall but onely by spirituall authoritie but very many Doctours affirme that this Act was made by the authoritie and consent of temporall Princes seeing that according to their doctrine the Church by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but that when shee vseth or inflicteth them shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes 32 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert saith that this Decree of the Lateran Councell is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresiâ— if hee meane by the Decree of the Lateran Councell this onely Act concerning the absoluing of Vassalls from their fealty whereof onely wee now dispute and by a definition hee vnderstand a Decree containing some precept or obligation either concerning faith or manners this is very vntrue for as I shewed before this Act according to his owne grounds containeth no precept bond or obligation vnlesse he will grant that the Councell hath authoritie to command or bind the Pope and therefore it is not properly a true Decree but onely the reason cause and end of the former Decree and although it were a true decree and in that sense a definition yet for that it was enacted not by spitituall but by temporall authoritie it is euident that no infallible assistance of the holy Ghost was promised by our Sauiour Christ to the making thereof But if by this Decree of the Lateran Councell he vnderstand the whole act which containeth diuers particular decrees coÌ„cerning the rooting out of heresie by spirituall meanes for to root out heresie by temporall meanes and inflicting temporall punishments as I haue often said doth not belong to spirituall but to temporall authoritie then I willingly graunt that this Decree is a true definition
power which by the law of Christ shunneth bloodie punishments might in order to spirituall good depriue any man of corporall life or concurre to the effusion of blood And therefore if those Popes who haue been so vehement to maintaine their pretended power to depriue Princes of their kingdomes had duely considered what odious detestable and bloodie conclusions doe euidently follow from that doctrine and position I make no doubt but that they would likewise from their heart haue detested abhorred and vtterly forsaken and caused to haue beene hissed out of Christian schooles the doctrine and premisses from whence such horrible hatefull and abhominable conclusion is are so cleerely and certainly deduced Fourthly therefore although it be most true that Ecclesiasticall lenitie doth shunne bloobie punishments yet it is not for that the law of Christ doth forbid Ecclesiasticall persons to concurre in any case to the effusion of blood nor onely for that Ecclesiasticall persons are by the Popes lawes which by force of the lawes doe not bind the Popes themselues commanded not to inflict in any case bloodie punishments or not to vse the materiall sword but also for that it is not lawfull according to the law of Christ for Ecclesiasticall men as they are Ecclesiasticall men or for Popes as they are Popes or by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall power to inflict temporall punishments or which is all one as I obserued before p Part. 2. ca. 9. out of S. Bernard to vse the materiall sword 18 Now you shall see how fraudulently and insufficiently D. Sculckenius answereth this my argument at the number 335. where briefly I did onely touch the same for at the number 43 seq where at large I prooued the same he cunningly as you haue seene passeth it ouer onely with It is not a hard matter to solue the argument let it passe as not belonging to the matter That which Widdrington doth adioyne in the end sayth he q pag. 510. that from the doctrine of deposing Princes it doth manifestly follow that the spirituall Pastour may giue leaue to priuate men to kill by any arte or stratageme an hereticall Prince as a certaine wolfe is a most horrible slander like vnto which I know not that the breast of man hath at any time so despitefully vttered Act. 8. I see plainly that Widdrington is in the gall of bitternesse and the obligation of iniquitie For seeing that the opinion of Bellarmine is commonly receiued by the Catholike Church and also confirmed by most frequent practise whilest my Aduersarie Widdrington doth propound and debate it as spitefully as possibly he can he seemeth to haue no other purpose then to bring the Vicar of Christ his Father and Pastour whether he will or nill into the hatred and that most great of Princes and to make all Catholike Diuines and Lawyers to be odious yea and plainly and of set purpose to sound the alarme to call Princes to armes against the Church of God but iniquitie will belye it selfe 19 For it is one thing to depose one for a iust cause and another thing to kill him by priuie murtherers For it is oftentimes lawfull for one to depose who may not lawfully kill and oftentimes that is a cause of a iust deposing which would not bee a cause of a iust killing wherefore whatsoeuer it be concerning the trueth of the consequent which is not called in question neither doth it make to the purpose the consequence which my Aduersarie Widdrington doth inferre is denied whilest he argueth thus The Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore also to kill them c. for from the power to depose doth not follow the power to kill And to confirme it by examples A Father may for some cause depose his sonne from the right due to the first begotten sonne yet hee may not kill him or giue leaue to kill him A Master may depose a seruant from his office yet hee may not kill him A King may depose a Magistrate from his gouernment for some offence for which hee may not iustly kill him A Biship may depose a Clerke and yet hee may not foorthwith kill him The Pope may sometimes depose a Bishop and yet hee may not for the same cause iustly bereaue him of his life 20 But to omit the railing and slanderous speeches of this vncharitable Doctour whereof I haue spoken somewhat aboue and which more plainely will be discouered by laying open his manifest fraude and fallacious dealing in answering my argument marke good Reader I beseech thee how foulely and shamefully hee seeketh to delude thee in proouing the consequence of my argument not to bee good but to bee false and a most horrible slander and whether of himselfe or me that saying of the Prophet is verified mentita est iniquitas sibi Psal 26. iniquitie hath belyed her selfe For it is one thing saith this Doctour to depose one for a iust cause and another thing to kill him by priuie murtherers Who maketh any doubt of this and oftentimes saith hee one may lawfully depose who may not lawfully kill and oftentimes that may bee a cause of a iust dâ—position which is not a cause of a iust killing And of this also speaking in generall and abstracting from a supreame power to depose and kill and from the crimes for which one may lawfully bee deposed or killed there can be made no question But what of all this how can it from hence bee concluded that from the doctrine of the Popes power to depose hereticall or wicked Princes in order to the publike spirituall good which was the antecedent proposition of my argument it doth not manifestly follow that the Pope in order to the same spirituall good hath not also power to kill hereticall and wicked Princes and knowne perturbers of the common spirituall good by all those wayes publike or priuate and by all those Artes and Stratagemes by which temporall Princes in order to the publike temporall good may kill publike malefactours and perturbers of the publike temporall peace 21 Wherefore whatsoeuer it be saith he concerning the truth of the consequent which is not called in question nor maketh to the purpose the consequence which Widdrington inferreth whilest he concludeth thus The Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore also to kill them c. is denied But first I would gladly know wherefore this Doctor saith that the truth of my consequent which is that the Pope hath power to kill Princes is not called in question nor maketh to the purpose For if his meaning be as it seemeth to be that no Catholike affirmeth that the Pope hath power to kill Christian Kings for otherwise he would not so bouldly haue said that I by vrging this argument did impose vpon the Vicar of Christ a most horrible slander like vnto which the breast of man hath neuer so despitefully vttered then I say the consequence of my argument is good and to the purpose and it proueth that my
thing as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what ende soeuer they bee inflicted the sayde Decree can bind onely those of necessitie that belong to the Popes temporall Dominions 52 For seeing that as Suarez e Suarez l. 3. de Leg. c. 6. cap. 8. nu 3. and all other Diuines affirme all lawes enacted by the Pope as they are meerely ciuill and temporall doe bind onely in the Popes territories and as Mr. Fitzherbert himselfe before f Cap. 9. nu 15. acknowledged there can bee nothing more cleare then that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended onely to his owne subiects and whatsoeuer is decreed onely by the Popes temporall authoritie and as hee is a temporall Prince is a meere temporall thing and cannot extend beyond the Popes temporall dominions from hence it cleerely followeth that what Doctour soeuer affirmeth that the Pope hath no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall penalties as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and consequently that the inflicting of them is a meere temporall thing and that the decrees which doe inflict them cannot be made by the Popes spirituall but onely by his temporall authoritie and that therefore they cannot of necessitie binde but onely those who are subiect to his temporall authoritie or as hee is a temporall Prince must also affirme that whensoeuer the Pope by any generall Constitution decreeth the inflicting of any such temporall penaltie the saide Decree doeth extend onely to the Popes temporall Dominions and comprehendeth onely those who are subiect to him as hee is a temporall Prince and endued with temporall authoritie 53 Wherefore it is neither hereticall nor absurd to say as this foule-mouthed ignorant man affirmeth that the Popes generall Decrees touching the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie and that no heretike can bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes Decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes for that according to the doctrine of very many Doctours as I said before the Popes spirituall authoritie doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Eccclesiasticall Censures and that therefore it belongeth only to temporall Princes to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with temporall punishments and to the Pope as hee is a spirituall Pastour to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And this I will boldly say and yet remaine as good a Catholike yea and a farre better then Mr. Fitzherbert is notwithstanding all his bigge and bitter words if hee build his Catholike faith vpon such weake doubtfull and vncertaine principles 54 Whereupon it followeth that euery Decree Canon or Constitution of the Pope which ordaineth the inflicting of temporall penalties for any crime whatsouer if my Aduersarie will needes haue it to be of force out of the Popes territories is either an approbation of some former Imperiall law or is of force by vertue of the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes or is onely a declaring teaching or commanding what the temporall Prince or Iudge ought to doe Neither doth the Canon Vergentis of Pope Innocent the third which Mr. Fitzherbert citeth heere in the margent any way contradict what I haue said but it doth rather confirme the same for the words of the Canon are these Wee ordaine that in the territories subiect to our temporall Iurisdiction the goods of heretikes be confiscated and in other territories wee command the same to bee done by Secular Potestaes and Princes which if perchance they shall bee negligent to performe wee will and command that they be compelled thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures So that this Canon doth rather fauour then contradict what I said seeing that it distinguisheth the Popes territories from other kingdomes and signifieth that the Pope in his owne Dominions hath authoritie by his Decrees to confiscate the goods of heretikes but in other kingdomes he hath no such authoritie but only to command Secular Princes to make such Decrees for the extirpation of heresie and also if they bee negligent therein to compell them by Ecclesiasticall Censures thereunto Neither can Mr. Fitzherbert prooue by any one Canon of Pope or Councell or by any generall or particular practise of the Church that out of the Popes temporall dominions any heretike is temporally punished by vertue of the Popes decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes whereby the Reader may plainly see what an ignorant vncharitable and rash headed man is this my Aduersarie to taxe so easily and vpon such vncertaine grounds learned Catholikes of heresie which among all Christians is accounted so heinous and execrable a crime 53 But his fraude and ignorance will the more cleerely bee discouered if wee obserue the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the acts and obiects of them both For the same spirituall action as heresie blasphemie sacriledge may be forbidden both by the spirituall and temporall power yea also for the same spirituall ende seeing that Christian Princes are bound by the law of Christ to referre all their actions the vse of their tēporall authoritie to Gods honour and glorie and to the good of their own soules of their subiects and by their temporall lawes to maintaine and aduance Christian Religion and to roote out heresie blasphemie and such like spirituall crimes out of their kingdomes so that the directiue or commanding temporall power as I haue signified heeretofore g Cap. 6. nu 66. seq may agree with the spirituall in the same acts obiects and end but the principall distinction betwixt the spirituall and temporall power is to be taken from both the powers as they are coerciue or punishing which alwayes haue distinct acts and obiects for the acts and obiect of the temporall power as it is coerciue or punishing are alwayes the inflicting of temporall punishments and of the spirituall the inflicting of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures so that the forbidding of heresie vnder paine of incurring Ecclesiasticall Censures for what ende soeuer temporall or spirituall it bee done can proceede onely from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and the forbidding of the same heresie vnder paine of incurring temporall punishments as death losse of goods or of any other temporall thing for what end soeuer it bee inflicted can proceede onely from temporall and ciuill authoritie because according to Almaine and those other many Doctours mentioned by him who were as good Catholikes as M. Fitzherbert is and farre more learned then hee is euer like to be the Ecclesiasticall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of ciuill or temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures and the other punishments which
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