manifest which is most woorthy the obseruation that decrees of the Church cannot be certaine and firme which are not grounded vpon certaine and firme principles and foundations Wherefore if but one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church dependeth be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be certaine whether the question bee speculatiue or practicall For the Conclusion according to the maxime of the Logicians followeth the weaker part and if one of the principles or premisses bee weake it is necessarie that the conclusion in regard of that part bee weakened Wherby it is easily vnderstood that the iudgements of the Church which proceede from the vncertaine testimonies of men are weake to make a certaine and vndoubted beliefe of which sort is that whereby she iudgeth any one to be numbred in the Catalogue of Saints yet it is not lawfull to call in question such decrees without punishment but it is temerarious and irreligious not to giue credit to the Church in the canonizing of Saints which because he that doth doeth rashly and inconsiderately hee shall indeede deseruedly bee punished by the Church Thus Canus Canus l. 12. c. 1. 13 Lastly hee excuseth from heresie those who should affirme that the B. Virgin is not corporally assumpted into heauen which although saith hee it bee not contrary to faith yet because it is repugnant to the common consent of the Church it would bee taxed of malapert temeritie And albeit Fa. Suarez also doth affirme Suarez tom 2. disp 21. sec 2. that now it is so receiued an opinion that it cannot be called in question by any pious and Catholike man yet hee acknowledgeth that it is not of faith because it is neither defined by the Church neither is there any testimonie of Scripture or sufficient tradition Sot in 4. dist 43 q. 2. ar 1. Caiet tom 2. opu trac 2. de Concept cap. 1. which may cause infallible faith But Sotus saith only that it ought to bee beleeued most piously but yet it is not put among the articles of faith necessarily to bee beleeued And Caietane affirmeth that it is not to bee beleeued of necessitie but probably and piously For there is two manner of wayes saith hee whereby a thing may bee decreed to bee beleeued For some things are decreed to bee beleeued in such sort that hee who thinkes the contrarie is an heretike but some things as probably to bee beleeued as the common pietie of the Church doth probably beleeue concerning the corporall Assumption of the B. Virgin and her Sanctification in her mothers wombe Abul in cap. 22. Matth. q. 230. and other such like Abulensis also saith that it is not necessarie to holde this because it is not among the articles of faith neither also is there any thing defined by the Church that it ought to be held therefore it is lawfull for euery man to thinke as he will And the reasons which are brought to prooue her Resurrection are certaine persuasions and do not conuince yet because it is commonly held that she is risen it is more reasonable to hold it yet if any one doe affirme the contrarie wee doe not contend And neuerthelesse the aforesaid Authours knew right well that this doctrine concerning the corporall Assumption of the B. Virgin was neuer denyed by any Catholike and was also the ground and foundation of an Ecclesiasticall decree and custome to celebrate the Feast of the B. Virgins Assumption 14 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue what things are required to make one an heretike that should deny the decrees of the Church concerning manners to bee infallible and how rashly and vnchristianly my Aduersaries doe charge mee with heresie for denying the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith seeing that they cannot bring any one decree either of Pope or Councell whereby according to the conditions before required by Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus to the infallibilitie of decrees either touching faith or manners it can with any probable colour bee prooued that this doctrine is certaine and of faith but we must forsooth take their owne interpretations or rather wrestings of the Canons and false suppositions to bee sufficient decrees to determine matters of faith Now to Mr. Fitzherberts discourse 15 Secondly saith he c Pag. 178. nu 3. I wish Widdrington to consider that by this his distinction and the argument which hee deduceth from it hee may in like manner impugne the decree of the Apostles themselues made in their Councell at Hierusalem wherein they ordained and defined nothing else but matters of fact to wit that the Christians should abstaine from meates offered to Idols from things strangled and blood and fornication in all which the Apostles might according to this mans doctrine follow their owne priuate opinions and erre because their Decree concerned only matters of fact 16 But first this man supposeth that I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell which is very vntrue for I only expound and declare the sense and meaning of the Decree and disprooue the exposition which my Aduersaries make thereof Wherefore if wee may suppose that this Decree of the Apostles was concerning such a matter of fact which is not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith but only vpon opinions which are exposed to errour as I contend this Decree if wee may truely call it so of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Land-lords Magistrates or Lords to be such a matter of fact then I say we may in the like proportionate manner I doe not say impugne but expound this decree of the Apostles as I haue and shall beneath expound the decree of the Lateran Councell in such sort that from thence no infallible doctrine of faith can be concluded to prooue that which some Authours from thence pretend to conclude to wit that the Church hath authoritie to make new lawes which shall haue force to bind in conscience 17 As for example supposing onely for Disputation sake but not affirming that the Church hath not authoritie to make new lawes and precepts which shall haue force to bind in conscience which doctrine some Authours attribute to Gerson but onely to declare the lawes and precepts of GOD and Nature and also to determine those lawes and praecepts which GOD and Nature haue left vndetermined either concerning the time place or manner as for example wee are commanded by the law of GOD and Nature to honour GOD and his Saints to fast to receiue the Eucharist to confesse our sinnes c. yet the time place and manner are not determined but left to the determination of the Church and so the Church appointeth Holy-dayes fasting-dayes the time of Easter to receiue and confesse our sinnes and such like which being supposed for probable but not granted wee may I doe not say impugne but probably expound that decree of the Apostles as some ancient Fathers doe expound it so that
that therefore all such Decrees are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions c. Besides that this reason supposeth which I euer denyed that in the Lateran Councell was decreed the deposition of temporall Princes which is the maine question betwixt vs it needeth also some further explication For if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that no Decree of a generall Councell made for the whole Church touching manners or things commanded or forbidden to be done whether it bee made by meere Ecclesiasticall power or by that temporall authority which spirituall Pastours haue receiued from the expresse and formall graunt and priuiledges or the vertuall and tacite consent or conniuence of temporall Princes may bee impugned or called in question by any Christian man without some note or aspersion of temeritie and impietie of this I will not contend with him for this also may bee said of meere temporall lawes which are made by the Princes Peeres and Commons of temporall kingdomes for the temporall good thereof which cannot bee impugned or called in question by any priuate man without some note of temeritie and impietie 35 But if his meaning be that all Catholike Doctours doe vniformly beleeue and teach that no Decree of a generall Councell made for the whole Church touching manners which are not otherwise necessary to saluation may not bee impugned or called in question without note of heresie this is very vntrue and therein he sheweth either to be little conuersant in the reading of Catholike Doctors or not to haue well obserued what they teach For as I shewed aboue learned Canus dare not resolue whether it be hereticall to affirme that some custome or law of the Church is euill or vniust and he plainly affirmeth that it is not hereticall to hold that the Church may erre in the canonizing of Saints and the grounds of such Decrees may be vncertaine S. Tho. quod 9. ar vlt. S. Antonin 3. part tit 12. c. 8. Caiet tom 1. Opusc trac 15. de Indulg c. 8. and fallible Whereupon Saint Thomas Saint Antoninus and Cardinall Caietane doe onely say that it is piously to be beleeued that the Church cannot erre in the canonizing of them And besides that Salmeron Suarez and Vasquez as I shewed aboue doe constantly hold that the ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree touching the celebration of the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception Chap. 15. nu 8 9. seq Suarez disp 21 sec 2. was not certaine but onely probable Suarez also affirmeth that it is not a point of faith that the B. Virgin is corporally assumpted into heauen although the Church doth celebrate the Feast of her Assumption and the reason heereof he giueth for that it is not as yet defined by the Church neither is there any testimony of Scripture or sufficient tradition which may make the beliefe therof infallible See S. August tom 10. ser 34. 35. de Sāctis 36 Whereupon S. Augustine in the booke of the B. Virgins Assumption and serm 35. de Sanctis if he be the Authour of them doth seeme to leaue it as doubtfull although he doth not deny but that it may piously be beleeued Caiet in opusc de Concept tō 2. opusc trac 1. c. 1 Sotus in 4. d. 43. q. 2. ar 1. Abul in c. 22. Matth. q. 230. And Cardinal Caietane and Sotus say onely that it is a very pious opinion and Abulensis saith that it is onely the more probable opinion And as concerning the Resurrection of the Virgin saith he It is not necessary to hold the same because it is not among the articles of our faith neither is there any thing defined by the Church that it ought to be held therefore it is lawfull for euery one to thinke as he will And the reasons which are brought to prooue her Resurrection are certaine perswasions and doe not conuince and yet because it is commonly held that she is risen it is more reasonable to hold the same but if any man doe affirme the contrary wee doe not repugne Thus Abulensis And heereof I thought good to admonish the iudicious Reader that heereby hee may most cleerely perceiue both the ignorance of Mr. Fitzherbert who so boldly affirmeth that all Ecclesiasticall Decrees which are made for the whole Church touching manners are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions and also that we ought not to condemne so easily any doctrine of heresie or errour vnlesse wee see the contrary by some cleere definition of the Church or some euident and vndoubted consequence deduced from thence to be determined as a point of faith neither is it sufficient in this case to bring onely probable arguments or which in our owne iudgement seeme to demonstrate out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers Decrees of Councels or Theologicall reasons which in the opinion of other learned Catholikes doe not conuince it to be a point of faith 37 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth touching his Reply to all the answeres I gaue especially to the Decree of the Lateran Councell And now hauing confuted saith hee l Pag. 205. nu 13. seq all that which I find in the Preface of his Apologeticall answere concerning the Councell of Lateran I will returne to examine the rest of his text in his Admonition from the which I haue beene a while diuerted by his remission of his Reader to the said Preface Thus thou Widdrington concludeth in his Admonition concerning as well the Councell of Lateran as my whole Discourse Priusquam igitur aliquis clare demonstrauerit c. Therefore before some one shall cleerely demonstrate I doe not say shall onely shew probably that the answeres which I haue giuen to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable no effectuall argument can be deduced from that Councell whereby it may certainly and euidently be prooued that it is so certaine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes that the contrary may not be defended by Catholikes without the note of heresie errour or temeritie And this for the present may suffice to confute this Authours more prolixe then solide discourse for I will perhaps in another place more exactly examine of what small force or moment are euery one of his arguments Thus saith Widdrington for the vpshot of his answeres to me wherein we may obserue these points following 38 First whereas he exacteth as you see some cleere demonstrations that his answeres to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable I hope he or at least the indifferent Reader may rest satisfied therein seeing that I haue made it cleere that his answeres to the said Councell are not onely improbable but also friuolous and sometimes ridiculous as being wholly impertinent to the matter or else preiudiciall to himselfe Secondly whereas he saith that no effectuall argument can be deduced from that Councell against him vntill it be demonstrated that his answeres thereto are improbable I may now
Councell are very probable and sufficient and that therefore Mr. Fitzherberts conclusion of this Chapter to vse his owne words is no lesse vaine impertinent and insufficient then of his former Chapters for these be his words k Pag. 154 nu 10. Thus thou seest good Reader that these few exceptions being all that Widdrington hath taken to the Councell of Lateran in his answere to my Supplement are no lesse vaine and impertinent then his former arguments and answeres to the rest of my discourse and this is as much as at the first I meant and vndertooke to performe neuerthelesse forasmuch as he hath charged me to haue dissembled his other answeres and arguments touching the Councell of Lateran in another worke of his which as I haue signified before I neuer saw till now of late I will take a little more paines and craue thy further patience whiles I examine the validitie thereof which I might forbeare to doe if I did write in Latin because the same arguments and answeres of my Aduersary are very learnedly and cleerely confuted in Latin as well by M. D. Weston l Iuris Pontif. Sanctuar q. 27. per totum in his Sanctuary whereof I haue spoken before as also by M. D. Singleton in an excellent Treatise concerning onely the Decree of the Councell of Lateran to which two Authours I might and would wholly remit my Reader m Disscussio decreti c. nu 4. seq were it not that I desire to giue satisfaction in this point as well to such as doe not vnderstand the Latin tongue as to those that haue not the commodity and meanes to see the said Treatises besides that I shall now and then vpon some speciall occasions touch some things which seeme to me very considerable and are not touched by them or any other for ought I know 39 But on the contrary side thou seest good Reader that these answeres which I haue giuen to the Councell of Lateran are sound sufficient and very probable and that the exceptions which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken against them are no lesse vaine and impertinent then are his arguments and answeres in the former Chapters and that according to his owne confession who granteth that all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and therefore the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Canons is extended onely to them who are subiect to the authoritie of the Church if it be probable that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue by the institution of Christ no authoritie to inflict temporall punishments and that consequently absolute Princes are not subiect to them therein it cleerely followeth that it is also probable that the Councell of Lateran did not intend to include absolute Princes in that penall law vnder the generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis but that this decree inflicting temporall punishments was made by the authority and consent of temporall Princes and did therefore onely include those inferiour Land-lords Gouernours or Lords that were subiect to them 40 Wherefore to conclude this point vnlesse as I said before my Aduersaries doe first prooue out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleere definition of a generall Councell or a demonstratiue reason grounded thereon that it is certaine and of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes they cannot draw any conuincing argument from this Canon of the Lateran Councell to prooue that doctrine to be certaine and of faith for still the aforesaid answere will bee ready at hand that it was made by the authority of temporall Princes seeing all lawes are limitted according to the power of the Law-maker and it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as Almaine and very many Doctours doe affirme So that vnlesse in arguing from the Lateran Councell they will manifestly petere principium and suppose that which they ought to prooue they can neuer bring any conuincing argument from the aforesaid Canon to prooue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes as any man of iudgement may cleerely see but they must still suppose the same as certaine which is a great vice in the disputer although the answerer who taketh not vpon to prooue but onely to defend may without any fault or note giue such answeres which suppose that the Pope hath no such power vntill by force of argument he be driuen from that his supposition and this I wish the Reader and all my Aduersaries well to note for in most of their arguments they suppose that which is in question which is a fault in the Disputant but not in the Respondent who doth alwaies answere supposing his owne grounds and doctrine but the Disputer must not onely suppose them but also prooue them And as for the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Replies which he confesseth to haue taken out of D. Weston and D. Singleton I will also examine with him in the ensuing Chapters as also that which he hath now and then as he saith vpon some speciall occasions touched and which seeme to him very considerable and yet are not for ought he knoweth touched by them or any other CHAP. XI Wherein Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to be sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessarie to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Also the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined And lastly Mr-Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the Decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the Constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted 1 NOw Mr. Fitzherbert with the helpe of D. Weston and Fa. Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name taketh vpon him in the three next ensuing Chapters to prooue three answeres which I gaue to an obiection made in fauour of this Decree of the Lateran Councell to bee absurd And thus he beginneth My Aduersary Widdrinton in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere to an English Doctour hath not onely vrged the arguments Praefat. Ad. Resp Apolog. nu 46. which I haue heere alreadie confuted but vndertaketh also to answere certaine of ours against the same arguments and therefore he obiecteth in our behalfe that although it were true that Kings and absolute Princes are not included per se and principally in that Decree of the Councell yet it seemeth to be manifest that secondarily and consequently they are or at least may be comprehended therein For if the Pope saith he haue power to depriue the subiects of other Princes of their temporall states for heresie without the consent of the said Princes it seemeth that no sufficient reason can be assigned why he may not also for the same cause depriue Soueraigne Princes of their Dominions 2 Thus argueth he for
taking a definition as he doth for a Decree but besides that this is nothing against mee hee must withall remember that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine not all definitions or decrees doe appertaine to faith but those Decrees only which are propounded as of faith Now if Mr. Fitzherbert will but call to minde the rules which I haue alledged before out of Cardinall Bellarmine to know when any Decree is propounded as of faith he will euidently see that this Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the absoluing of vassalls from their fealty is no such Decree and will therefore bee hereafter shamed to vrge any longer the Councell of Lateran for the confirming of his new Catholke or rather particular faith and priuate spirit 33 And if Widdrington say saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Pa. 191. nu 9 that Decrees concerning matters of fact are not definitions he sheweth himselfe very absurd For it cannot be denied but that Popes and Councells ordaining Decrees concerning matters of fact doe as well define what is to be done or practised as they define what is to be beleeued and taught when they make Decrees concerning matters of faith and the one is no lesse necessary for the good gouernment of the Church then the other and therefore their Decrees of both sorts are definitions the one of a thing to be beleeued and the other of a thing to be done for otherwise we must say that the Apostles after all their consultation in their Councell at Hierusalem defined nothing which were absurd 34 But because I will not contend of words I doe not say Act. 15. that Decrees concerning matters of fact and manners which are true and proper Decrees are not definitions or that such Decrees or definitions are not necessarie for the good gouernement of the Church but that which I say is that this Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition not of Princes as this man supposeth but of Landlords Potestaes or Lords is not according to my Aduersaries grounds a true and proper Decree or definition including any precept bond or obligation which all true and proper decrees doe include and I also say that according to the expresse doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine not all the Decrees or definitions of generall Councells doe appertaine to faith but those onely which are propounded as of faith and that to know when any Decree is propounded as of faith he assigneth these rules to wit If the Councell doe excommunicate those or account them for heretikes who shall beleeue the contrary or if it declare by a firme decree that what is defined or decreed ought to be receiued as a doctrine of the Catholike faith and to be firmely beleeued by all the faithfull or the contrarie to be hereticall or repugnant to the holy Scriptures and that when none of these things be affirmed it is not certaine that it is a point of faith Now that there is no such thing decreed defined or affirmed in this manner in the Lateran Councell touching the absoluing of vassals from their fealtie it is too too apparant 35 Wherein also saith M. Fitzherbert k Pag. 182. nu 10. 11. it is to be considered that the error which may be incident to a definition or Decree concerning matters of fact cannot fall vpon the Decree or definition it selfe for so should the errour redound to the holy Ghost whose assistance our Sauiour hath promised to the definitions of Councells and Popes as Widdrington himselfe n See before u. 1. granteth but it must fall vpon the execution of the Decree as if some Prince should be deposed vpon wrong information or without due circumstances required in the Decree But the question is not heere of errour in matters of fact of this kind I meane in the execution of Decrees and therefore if Widdrington speake of such facts when he saith that Christ hath not promised the assistance of his spirit to facts but to definitions he changeth the question and fighteth with his owne shadow affirming that which we denie not who speake onely of the veritie iustice and equitie of the Decree it selfe from the which we exclude all errour and iniustice acknowledging the assistance of the holy Ghost in the making therof in which respect all Catholike Doctours that haue euer written haue vniformely taught hitherto that the Church being guided by the holy Ghost cannot erre in her generall Decrees made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners as I will declare m See Cha. 16. nu 11. 12. further hereafter Whereupon I conclude that Widdrington admitting as hee doth the assistance of the holy Ghost in the definitions of Councells and Popes and yet impugning the veritie or iustice of the Decree ascribeth errour or iniustice to the holy Ghost 36 But first whether a Generall Councell can erre or no in her definitions or decrees which are made by her spirituall authoritie concerning matters of fact or manners for that the Pope cannot erre euen in his definitions concerning faith if hee define without a Generall Councell I neuer intended to affirme it is altogether impertinent to the present Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the absoluing of vassals from their fealty seeing that this Act as I contend was not made by her spirituall authoritie but by the authoritie license and consent of temporall Princes to the making of which Decrees no Catholike Authour affirmeth that Christ hath promised his infalible assistance or that the Church is guided therein by the holy Ghost 37 Secondly albeit at this present I doe not say that the Church or a Generall Councell can erre in her generall Decrees concerning matters of fact and manners yet I say as I said before that Melchior Canus a man of such learning and pietie that Mr. Fitzherbert dare not as I thinke accuse him of heresie doth confidently say that without danger of heresie it may be held that the Church in some such law or custome may erre and that hee dare not affirme it to bee hereticall to say that some such law or custome of the Church is vniust and also that in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate persons or Churches the Church may erre through ignorance not onely in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes and generally he saith that if any one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church doth depend be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be firme and certaine whether the question be speculatiue or practicall of which sort saith he is that decree by which she doth canonize or iudge holy men to be numbred in the Catalogue of Saints By all which it is euident that from the Act or Decree if we will needes call it so of the Lateran Councell concerning the absoluing of vassalls from their fealtie stretch it as farre as may be no colourable much lesse conuincing argument can bee brought to
and Saphyra and of others and from the practise of the Church and the person of man are cleerely confuted CHAP. VIII M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nations and the Ciuill law are answered and first the difference betwixt the Priests of the old and new Testament and the Priests of other Nations and also betwixt the law of Nations and of Nature is declared Secondly from thence it is prooued that among all Nations the ciuill common-wealth was supreme and disposed of all things both spirituall and temporall and punished all persons both Priests and others with temporall punishments and consequently that the new Oath cannot be impugned by the law of Nations Thirdly what M. Fitzherbert obiecteth from the Ciuill Law is confuted CHAP IX First the difficulties which some make concerning the authoritie of the Lateran Councell are propounded Secondly the decree of the Councel which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related Thirdly Widdringtons first answere to the said decree is prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted CHAP. X. Widdringtons second answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell affirming that absolute Princes are not comprehended therein because they are not mentioned by their proper names but by inferiour titles is prooued to be neitheir improbable nor absurd but conforme to the doctrine of learned Diuines and Lawyers and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the said answere are shewed to be very insufficient and fraudulent CHAP. XI Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to bee sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessary to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Secondly the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the Lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined Thirdly M. Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted CHAP. XII An other answere of Widdrington grounded vpon certaine Glossers or Expositours of the Canon Law is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are prooued to be fraudulent and insufficient Secondly it is shewed that from no Canon of the Church it can be prooued that the custome of the Church is or hath beene to inflict by her spirituall authoritie temporall penalties Thirdly the true difference betwixt the Diuines and Canonists concerning the Popes power in temporalls is declared CHAP. XIII Widdringtons third answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell is confirmed Secondly it is shewed how certaine it is according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes that the Church cannot erre in decrees or precepts of manners from whence it is cleerely deduced that from the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell it cannot with any colour of probabilitie be prooued that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes Thridly all M. Fitzherberts arguments to shew the contrary are most plainely confuted CHAP. XIIII Three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes Decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby he laboureth in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the Decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to be sound and sufficient Secondly the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons Instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraud and falshood Thirdly that proposition Many things may be certaine to the Sea Apostolike and yet seeme vncertaine to other learned men is examined CHAP. XV. Widdringtons second example and his Instances grounded thereon are confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in impugning the same is conuinced of manifest fraud and ignorance in taxing therein of fondnesse the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie Also Widdringtons third example and his Instances grounded thereon are prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts fraud in relating the said Instances and applying them to the Lateran Councell is plainely discouered CHAP. XVI Another argument or rather answere of Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in labouring to prooue that Widdrington by his owne grant is fallen into heresie or errour is conuinced of palpable ignorance The Conclusion of all Widdringtons discourse in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere is confirmed and what M. Fitzherbert excepteth against the same and also his briefe Recapitulation of all his Discourse in this his Treatise are confuted CHAP. XVII M. Fitzherberts vncharitable Admonition to the Catholike Reader that Widdrington is no other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that his submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather artificial and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes is clearely confuted and prooued to be voide of charity learning and sincerity and what reasons the King and State may haue to permit such submissions is there declared Widdringtons answere to the Popes Breues forbidding the Oath is confirmed and hee freed from all disobedience and irreuerence for not admitting them The decree of the Cardinals forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes and commanding him to purge himselfe forthwith is fully answered by his Purgation and humble Supplication which he made forthwith to his Holinesse THE PREFACE TO THE READER HOw dangerous and pernicious a thing it is deare Contreymen in any temporall Kingdome or Common-wealth to coyne or willingly to vtter and much more by fraud or violence to force the people to accept of counterfait money any man of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue And truely no lesse dangerous and pernicious is it in the spirituall Kingdome and Church of Christ 1 Tim. 3. which is the pillar and firmament of truth to inuent forge or divulge and which is farre worse to thrust vpon the faithfull by fraud and violence false articles and positions for true and infallible Catholike faith but especially in things which are greatly preiudiciall to the temporall Soueraigntie of Christian Princes whom Christ our Sauiour hath appointed to be Nurcing Fathers and Protectours of his Church Isay 19. Concil Trid. sess 25. cap. 20. de Reform for that thereby not onely Christian Princes are extreamely wronged but also the Christian Religion is greatly scandalized and the soules both of Princes and subiects are much endangered and therfore no lesse thanks doe they deserue at the hands of the Church of God who should discouer a false and forged Catholike faith and the first inuenters or publishers thereof then doe they at the hands of the temporall Kingdome who should disclose false and counterfait money and the first coiners or
and to the Sea Apostolike yet for my own part I cannot see but that any prudent man may iustly suppose their zeale to bee blind and not according to knowledge but grounded vpon culpable or wilfull ignorance and that they themselues suspect their owne conscience to bee eroneous and their cause to be naught and therefore would not haue it to be further sifted and examined 11 For seing that the nature of truth being like to pure and perfect gold is such that the more it is examined the more cleere and perspicuous it doth still appeare and contrariwise falshood the more it is sifted the absurdity thereof still sheweth it selfe more manifest if my Aduersaries are in their consciences perswaded as in wordes they professe that they haue truth on their side and that the authority of spirituall Pastours to excommunicate vpon iust cause Christian Princes to binde and loose and to dispence in Oathes in generall which all Catholikes acknowledge to be included in their spirituall power be denyed in the late Oath of allegiance as they pretend or that their authoritie to depose Princes which all men confesse to bee denyed in the Oath bee certaine out of controuersie and a cleere point of Catholike faith for which two causes chiefly they cry out against the Oath and condemne it for vnlawfull as containing in it more then temporall allegiance to wit a manifest denyall of Ecclesiasticall authority why are they so much afraide to haue the matter charitably and sincerely debated by learned men Why will they not suffer those Catholikes especially who are learned and to whom the charge of soules is committed and are able to discerne betwixt truth and falshood betwixt Catholike faith and opinion 1. Pet. 3. and who ought to bee alwaies readie and prepared to satisfie euerie one that asketh them a reason of that faith which is in them to reade such bookes as doe sincerely and exactly handle this controuersie and all the difficulties on both sides and doe plainely declare in what particular manner all Christians are bound by the law of Christ according to the true and approoued grounds of Catholike Religion Matth. 22. to render to God and Caesar that which is their due 12 Why doe they so shamefully abuse his Holinesse by misinforming him that his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and to absolue from Oathes in generall is denyed in the Oath and that his power to depose Princes which indeed the Oath denyeth is a point of faith and thereupon by vrging him to condemne the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation and to forbid those bookes of Catholike Writers that doe plainly discouer their forgeries and euidently conuince that no such spirituall power as they pretend is denyed in the Oath and that his power to depose Princes which the Oath denyeth is not a point of faith but hath euer since the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth for before his age the practise thereof was not heard of Onuphrius l. 4. de varia creat Romani Pont. as Onuphrius witnesseth it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Popes and Christian Princes and those Catholikes who haue fauoured either part and which is more extrauagant by vrging him to commaund vnder paine of Censures the Author of those bookes to purge himselfe foorthwith and yet not to signifie vnto him any one crime either in generall or in particular of which he should purge himselfe although hee hath very often most humbly and instantly requested to know the same 13 Why doth not Cardinall Bellarmine my chiefest Aduersarie being accused by mee to his Holinesse in publike writings of manifest fraudes falshoods corruptions and calumnies cleare himselfe all this time of such fowle imputations which cannot but greatly blemish his honour and quite discredite his cause in the vnderstanding of any iudicious man if in his conscience hee thinke himselfe to bee guiltlesse and that I haue falsly accused him why doth hee not answere and iustifie himselfe and shew to the world that I haue belyed him that also thereby I may see my errour and aske him publike forgiuenesse and bee penitent for the same If hee see that I am innocent why doth hee not restore my credit which hee hath wrongfully taken away and in plaine tearmes confesse that hee was deceiued and mistaken in this controuersie and imitating the example of famous Saint Augustine retract all that hee hath written amisse especially to the hurt and disgrace of innocent men Can any man of iudgement imagine that hee being now so neere his graue would take such paines to write euery yeere some one or other little Treatise of deuotion which neuerthelesse will not excuse him before God from restoring the good name of them whom hee hath falsly defamed and that hee would bee so carelesse to purge himselfe of such shamelesse crimes which cannot but leaue his memory tainted with perpetuall infamy if with his credit hee could cleere himselfe And therefore if he did sincerely consider the admonition hee gaue to other Prelates vpon occasion of Pope Innocents examples to examine their conscience carefully whether it bee sound or erroneous hee might truely haue iust cause to bee sore afraide and greatly to suspect that howsoeuer hee maketh an outward shew of zeale sanctitie and deuotion hee hath within an erroneous and seared conscience for which hee must shortly before the tribunall of God render a strict account 14 All which their proceedings being duely considered whether they are not manifest signes that in their owne consciences they suspect the iustice of their cause and doe plainely see that they are not able to make good their newly inuented Catholike faith and yet will still goe on to maintaine by fraude and violence what they cannot by reason and argument wherein also how much they discredit themselues their cause how mightily they scandalize Catholike Religion and make the Sea Apostolike odious to Princes and subiects how egregiously they wrong and slander innocent Catholikes and how greatly they endanger their owne soules and others I leaue to the iudgement of any prudent and pious man 15 Wherefore my chiefe drift good Reader in this my answere to M. Fitzherbert is first to keepe and maintaine entire and inuiolate the puritie of true Catholike faith and Religion which is greatly defiled not onely by impugning true and vndoubted articles of faith but also by forging and defending false articles for true Secondly to defend my innocency which as long as I haue a pen to write or a tongue to speake I will God willing not bee afraide to maintaine against any man whatsoeuer that shall falsly accuse me and my doctrine of heresie and to make knowne my sincere proceeding in handling this great and dangerous controuersie which concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar and the fraudulent and corrupt dealing of my Aduersaries who by fraud and violence seeke to afflict intangle and disturbe the consciences of
scrupulous and vnlearned Catholikes and to nourish in their hearts such dangerous speculations which without manifest treason can neuer bee put in practise Thirdly to make manifest to all men that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is not certaine vnquestionable and a point of faith but very doubtfull vncertaine and at the most onely probable and consequently that it cannot bee practised by the Pope or any other whatsoeuer without manifest iniury to the Prince who is in lawfull possession of his Kingdome of which the Pope vnder pretence onely of a probable power or title seeketh by his sentence to depriue him for that according to the approued rule of the law and grounded vpon naturall reason In causa dubia De regulis Iuris in 6. ff de regulis Iuris regula In pari causa siue incerta melior potior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable case the condition of the possessour is to bee preferred And therefore as well obserueth Fa. Lessius in his Singleton a Par. 2. nu 38. potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. A power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished and be depriued of his right and dominion but such a power must be most certaine and not doubtfull or disputable c. 16 So that there is a great difference to be made for as much as concerneth practise betwixt a power onely probable which tendeth to fauour and is hurtfull to none and which is penall and preiudiciall to a third person who is depriued thereby of some thing which he lawfully possesseth For it is most certaine and approoued by all Diuines that one may practise a probable power to vse Lessius words Quando agitur de fauore beneficio nemo cogitur nemo iure propinquo seu in re obtento spoliatur sed potestas quae non omnino certa sed probabilis non potest esse fundamentum c. When it is treated of a fauour and benefit and no man is forced or compelled no man is spoiled of his next right or which hee possesseth indeed but a power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a ground or foundation whereby immediately one may be punished or depriued of his right and dominion c. And for this cause my Aduersaries knowing right well that if they should once admit that this power of the Pope is onely probable they must con-consequently grant that it is merus titulus sine re and can neuer bee lawfully put in practise by any Pope Prince or subiect whatsoeuer haue so much laboured to conuince out of all lawes humane and diuine that this power is not onely probable but most certaine and a cleare point of faith But how shamefully they haue spent their labour in vaine and what friuolous and fallacious arguments they haue brought vnder pretence of spirituall good to make Soueraigne Princes whom all the ancient Fathers with uniforme consent acknowledge to bee supreame on earth and next vnder God in temporals to bee in temporals subiect to the Pope and that the more they striue to make their doctrine in this point to be certaine and of faith the more they shew it still to be lesse probable and to bee inuented and maintained onely in fauour of the Pope without sufficient grounds thou shalt see it good Reader in this Treatise made as cleare and manifest as the light at noone-day 17 Onely I must desire thy patience and pardon for my often repeating the selfe same things which may seeme to some to bee both superfluous and tedious but to me for satisfaction chiefly of the vnlearned Reader it seemed very necessary especially for that the chiefe state of the controuersie depends thereon and yet my Aduersaries will scarse take notice thereof yea and are not ashamed to affirme that I doe not teach any such things although they haue beene by mee very often inculcated As among other things for example sake albeit I haue in all my bookes so often repeated that distinction betwixt the directiue and coerciue power betwixt commanding enioyning or imposing and inflicting punishing or disposing and that I doe so often and so expresly affirme that spirituall Pastours haue by the institution of Christ authority to command enioyne and impose temporall and coporall penalties but to inflict them to punish temporally and to dispose of temporall things onely by the consent and grant of temporall Princes Page 258. yet Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius is not ashamed to auerre that Widdrington denieth the Pope to haue authority to command temporall Princes in temporals in order to spirituall good and therevpon taxeth him of teaching flat heresie and the most that M. Fitzherbert prooueth in this his Replie is as you shall see that spirituall Pastours may for the necessitie of the Church and the good of soules command enioyne and impose temporall and corporall afflictions as fasting almes deedes vsing of haire-cloth and the like wherof no Catholike maketh doubt And therefore I thought it necessarie to inculcate as often as occasion should require the aforesaid distinction it being the maine marke to which the greatest part of all my Aduersaries arguments and of my answeres doe principally tend and whereon the whole state of the Controuersie betwixt me and them concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporals doth chiefly depend CHAP. I. Wherein Widdrington freeth himselfe from two fraudes whereof hee is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe vpon his Aduersarie secondly he discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds and thirdly hee plainely sheweth that hee hath answered probably and like a good Catholike 1. THere bee three things Good Reader which my Aduersary Mr. Fitzherbert in the first chapter of his Reply doth wrongfully lay to my charge The first is that I haue lamely and fraudulently set downe the summe and substance of his discourse in the two first Chapters of his Supplement the second that in relating a supposition of his I haue vsed two fraudes the one in the relation of his wordes and the other in the vse and application of them the third is that I haue neither answered probably nor like a good Catholike And because the Reader may the better iudge of the sufficiencie and truth of both our answeres for my onely desire is that the trueth in this difficult controuersie may be cleerely knowne I will obserue the same methode order and number of Chapters which he doth and therefore my answere to his first accusation for that he remitteth his Reader for proofe thereof to his fift sixt and seuenth Chapters I will also referre to those places and only his two accusations I will examine with him in this
very first so fraudulent friuolous and contrarie to his owne profession as you haue heard in this Chapter Thus you see with what bitternesse Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth his first Chapter 43 But if hee had beene pleased to haue dealt vprightly and as hee hath in a most spitefull manner vrged against me this obiection which is taken from his Holinesse Breues so also he had set downe the answere which in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation I gaue thereunto the Reader would presently haue perceiued that my Aduersarie hath passed the bounds of Christian charitie and iustice in wrongfully accusing me of impudencie impietie and disobedience to the Apostolicall decree of S. Peters Successour whose obedient child I did there and also I doe heere professe my selfe to be and am readie to obey in all those things wherein according to the grounds of Catholike Religion hee hath authoritie to command Neither can my Aduersarie without blushing affirme either that the Popes Holinesse albeit hee bee Saint Peters Successour cannot erre in his particular commands and decrees which are not propounded to the whole Church but to particular Churches or Kingdomes or that any Catholike is bound to obey him in those things wherein according to the doctrine of learned and vertuous Catholikes hee hath no authoritie to command 44 First therefore I shewed in that place out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez that there are two sorts of humane precepts as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill The one is called a constitutiue precept which of it selfe maketh that thing which it forbiddeth to bee vnlawfull which otherwise if that precept were not would not bee vnlawfull as the eating of flesh in Lent and the doing of seruile workes vpon Sundaies and Holidayes which if they were not forbidden by humane lawes would not be vnlawfull And although a constitutiue precept of humane power may sometimes binde with danger of some great temporall losse as of goods libertie yea also of life yet the Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall and contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doe seldome or neuer binde with very great temporall harme and therefore wee are not bound to abstaine from flesh in Lent or from doing seruile workes vpon Sundaies and holidaies when we are like to incurre thereby any probable danger of some great temporall hurt 45 The other is called a declaratiue precept which doth not of it selfe make but suppose and declare the thing which it forbiddeth to be vnlawfull as being before prohibited by some other former law as theft murder drunkennesse and such like which are otherwise forbidden by the law of God and nature And this kind of precept as well obserueth Suarex dependeth onely vpon the reason for which the act is commanded or forbidden or which is all one vpon the precedent law from whence all the obligation of the declaratiue precept doth proceed Insomuch that if the reason be not true and that there is no such precedent law or obligation as the declaratiue precept affirmeth to be the declaratiue precept hath no force to binde at all and with the same certaintie or probabilitie we are bound or not bound to obey a declaratiue precept as it is certaine or probable that there is or is not any other former bond and obligation 46 As for example his Holinesse doth by his Breues forbidde all English Catholikes to take the new oath of allegiance for that therein are contained many things which are cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation If therefore it be certaine or probable that nothing is contained in this oath which is repugnant to faith or saluation it is also certaine or probable that this declaratiue precept of his Holinesse which is grounded vpon this reason that something is contained therein contrary to faith and saluation is according to the doctrine of Suarez of no force to bind neither are English Catholikes by vertue of this declaratiue prohibition bound to refuse the said oath 47 Secondly I also shewed in that place that this declaratiue command of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation is such a declaratiue precept which is not grounded vpon any infallible reason or definition of the Church but onely vpon his opinatiue iudgement that his reason is true and that either his power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes which is denyed in the oath is a cleere point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall Supremacie and consequently the denyall thereof is plainly repugnant to Catholike faith Which being so it is manifest that wee are no further bound to obey this declaratiue prohibition of his Holinesse then we are bound to follow his opinion and to belieue that eyther his power to excommunicate or some such like is denyed in the oath or that whosoeuer denyeth his power to depose Princes denyeth the Catholike faith 48 Whereupon I concluded that considering neither his power to excommunicate or any such like is denyed in this oath as I haue prooued at large against Card. Bellarmine and others nor that his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith the contrary doctrine being probable and also maintained by many learned Catholikes as partly also I haue already prooued by the testimonie of learned Catholikes before alledged and heere beneath by answering all my Aduersaries obiections I will make it more manifest Part. 1. per. tâ—tum there can bee made no doubt but that any English Catholike may with a safe conscience or without any crime of disobedience to his supreme spirituall Pastour or any preiudice to Catholike faith refuse to obey his Holinesse declaratiue command which is onely grounded vpon such an opinion which considering the contrary is probable and defended by many learned Catholikes may without any note of impudencie impiety or disobedience be reiected by Catholikes 49 Thirdly I also affirmed in that place that no Catholike doth onely for this cause take the oath or thinke it to be lawfull because the Kings Maiestie being of a contrarie Religion doth command it or thinke it to be lawfull as though those Catholikes who take the oath doe it onely vpon the Kings bare word affirming the oath to be lawfull and seeme thereby to preferre the opinion of a Protestant Prince in things which in some sort doe belong to Religion before the opinion of our supreme spirituall Pastour but because the Kings Maiestie being our lawfull Prince and Soueraigne Lord in temporals what religion soeuer hee professeth hath established an oath of allegiance to make a triall how his Catholike subiects stand affected towards him in point of their loyaltie and due obedience and commanded all Catholikes to take the same which oath learned Catholikes for probable reasons doe thinke to be truely in oath of temporall allegiance and to
containe nothing which is repugnant to faith and saluation therefore English Catholikes to obey the iust command of their Prince doe take the oath and thinke it to be lawfull both for that they hauing duely examined all the clauses of the oath doe find nothing therein contrarie to faith and saluation and also for that many learned Catholikes whose opinion they may lawfully follow albeit other Diuines with the Popes Holinesse doe thinke otherwise doe constantly maintaine the same 50 Neither doe I giue more credite to his Maiestie then to his Holinesse but both of them with all dutifull respect I doe honour and also beleeue in those things which they of their certaine knowledge doe affirme to be true And therefore as I beleeue his Maiesties Royall word affirming that his intention was not by this new oath of allegiance to deny the Popes power to excommunicate so also I beleeue that first Breue of his Holinesse was not surreptitious and written without his knowledge or priuitie for that in his second Breue he doth auerre as much But as for the first Breue wherein English Catholikes are commanded not to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation it being as I saide onely a declaratiue precept and grounded vpon a fallible and in my iudgement a very false opinion that either the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath or that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power so depose Princes it is euident according to Suarez doctrine that no Catholike is bound to obey this his declaratiue precept vnlesse hee be also bound either to beleeue that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath which is apparently vntrue or to follow his opinion concerning the certainety of his power to depose which being in controuersie among Schoolemen and learned Doctours and as yet not decided by the Iudge as no man is bound according to the common doctrine of Vasquez and many others to follow it so also no man is bound according to the approued doctrine of Suarez to obey his declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon 51 Lastly I obserued in that place that if his Maiestie should by Act of Parliament commaund all his Catholike subiects to acknowledge by oath that the Pope is not by the institution of Christ the direct temporall Lord of this Kingdome or of any other and that hee hath no direct power to depose his Maiestie and that they will beare faith and true allegiance onely to his Maiestie as to their direct Lord and Soueraigne c. and his Holinesse following the Canonists opinion who hold it hereticall to affirme that the Pope hath not direct dominion ouer the whole Christian world should by his Apostolicall Breues forbid all English Catholikes to take such an oath for that it containeth as the Canonists imagine many things contrary to faith and saluation as Pope Sixtus the fifth if any credit may bee giuen to the Iesuites themselues did intend to condenme if he had liued Cardinall Bellarmine his first tome of controuersies for impugning the Popes direct dominion in temporals the very same inuectiue which Mr. Fitzherbert maketh against mee accusing me of impudencie impietie disobedience and of being no good Catholike for not obeying the Popes declaratiue precept which is only grounded vpon such an opion which no Catholike is bound to follow for that the contrary is maintained by many learned Diuines hee might also make against all those Catholikes who following heerein Cardinall Bellarmine and the common doctrine of Diuines should take that oath and thinke it to bee lawfull notwithstanding the Popes declaratiue precept to the contrary And doubtlesse Cardinall Bellarmine who vehemently impugneth the Canonists opinion would easily in the like manner as I haue cleered my selfe defend those Catholikes from all imputation of impudency impietie disobedience or any other crime notwithstanding the Popes declaratiue precept to the contrarie 52 Thus did I answere to this obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues but more amply in my Theologicall Disputation shewing also by sundry examples that diuers Popes haue in their Apostolicall Breues or decretall letters registred in the Canon law maintained false opinions and which now are flat hereticall and that therefore their opinions and consequently their declaratiue precepts grounded thereon are not alwaies to bee followed by Catholikes and withal that many learned Diuines haue impugned diuers decrees of Popes concerning the licences which they haue giuen to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and their dispensations in the solemne vow of religious chastitie and in marriage not consummate who were not therefore accounted impudent impious or disobedient children of the Catholike Church for that such decrees were not grounded vpon any infallible definition but onely vpon the Popes fallible opinion which they of set purpose did impugne Sot in 4. dist 27. q. 1. ar 4. insomuch that learned Sotus feareth not to confesse that the Popes who haue dispensed in marriage not consummate did erre following therein the Canonists opinion and which he boldly affirmeth to haue no shew or colour of probabilitie notwithstanding so many practises of sundry Popes who haue dispensed therein 53 But this my answere my Aduersary doth heere altogether conceale compelling me for cleering my selfe to repeate a great part thereof which if he had beene pleased sincerely to haue set downe the Reader would presently haue perceiued that the voyce of our supreme Pastour is not alwaies to be followed that it is no great wonder for a sheepe of Christs fold and childe of the Catholike Church to disobey without blushing the declaratiue commaund of his supreme Pastour when it is onely grounded vpon such an opinion which no Catholike is bound to follow for that the contrary is maintained by learned and vertuous Catholikes as is this which denieth the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary improbable and that the Popes power to excommunicate is impugned in the oath By which it is euident how iniuriously Mr. Fitzherbert to disgrace mee with his Reader hath accused me of the aforesaid ignominious crimes which rather may be retorted vpon himselfe And so I will conclude with him this chapter remitting to the consideration of the iudicious Reader what probabilitie and sinceritie we may expect of him heereafter for the confirmation of the rest of his Replies and answeres seeing that wee haue found him at the very first so fraudulent friuolous and repugnant to himselfe as you haue heard in this Chapter CHAP. II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersarie taken from that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall is confirmed and two instances which hee brought against that rule are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue secular iudgements c. is at large examined 1. MY Aduersarie in this Chapter goeth on with the like
willingly graunt that it may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests had power to command or enioyne bodily penances to their penitents as fasting prayer lying vpon sackcloth and ashes yea and giuing of almes in satisfaction of their sinnes as the building of Churches Colledges Hospitals or Religious Houses according to the greatnesse of their offence and the qualitie condition and abilitie of the penitent or to vse the tearme of Diuines claâ—e non errante the key not erring For if such penances should be enioyned without discretion and due regard of the greatnesse of the offence or of the state and condition of the penitent the key should erre and would not haue force to bind Secondly I doe also graunt that there is an order and subordination in worth and dignitie betwixt spirituall corporall and temporall goods or of the soule of the body and of fortune and that according to the light of nature the goods of the soule being most worthy are to be preferred and esteemed before the other two and that the goods of the body bodily life health libertie and such like bodily contentments are to be preferred before the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states and that all of them are with due order to be referred to the seruice and glorie of God and to the eternall saluation both of body and soule But what followeth from all this 33 Whereupon I inferre saith my Aduersarie r pag. 33. nu 5.6 according to the axiome of the law accessorium sequitur principale that seeing not onely the body but also temporall goode and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof a must needs follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glorie of God for the which 〈…〉 bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained And this me thinkes our aduersaries should not deny seeing that their Ecclesiasticall discipline admitteth not onely corporall chastisements by imprisonment but also pecuniaris mulcto and penalties Therefore vpon this I inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke and consequently to be fedde and gouerned by the supreme Pastour of the Church may also be chastised by him in their temporall states when it shall be necessarie for the glorie and seruice of God the benefite of soules and good of the whole Church whereto all Christian Kingdomes Isa 60. and Empyres are subordinate and subiect as I haue prooued before out of the holy Scripture and will prooue also after a while by the very law of nature and light of reason 34 But first touching the consequent or conclusion of his inference or argument to wit that the Pope hauing power ouer the soule hath power also ouer the body and goods when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and glory of God I doe willingly graunt the same if it be vnderstoode of a power not to dispose of corporall and temporall goods but to command and enioyne them in order to spirituall good albeit my Aduersarie did vnderstand it of both as I shewed before But as concerning the consequence inference or argument which hee draweth from that rule of the law De Regulis Iuris in 6. regula 42. The accessorie followeth the principall or as it is in the Canon law Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis It is fit or conuenient that the accessorie follow the nature of the principall which rule as the Glosse there affirmeth is taken from that rule of the Ciuill law ff de Regulis Iuris regula 138. Cum principalis causa c. When the principall cause is not consisting for the most part neither those things that follow haue place there can be no conuincing or demonstratiue argument as all my Aduersaries arguments must be if hee will prooue by them that the oath cannot with a safe and probable conscience be taken by any Catholike and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith be drawen from that generall rule of the law which hath so many exceptions restrictions and limitations and which are not as yet made sufficiently knowen by the Lawiers as neither what is vniuersally meant by Accessorie and what by Principall and what is to follow the nature of the principall 35 And therefore not without cause doth the rule of the Ciuill law from which this rule of the Canon law is taken adioyne that word plaerunque for the most part and the rule it selfe of the Canon law doth not absolutely say that the Accessorie must follow or doth follow the nature of the principall but it is fit or conuenient that the accessorie doe follow the nature of the principall to signifie that it doth not alwaies and of necessitie but for the most part and of congruitie follow the principall and that Iudges ought for the most part follow this rule in their iudgements if they haue no speciall reasoned meaning 〈…〉 to the contraries And therefore as the marginall Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doth well obserue Å¿ Leg. Et si is quem Cod. de praedijs alijs c. The accessorie doth not follow his principall when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall 36 Secondly therefore I would gladly know of my Aduersarie whether he will haue this rule to be grounded onely in humane law and hath it force and strength onely from thence so that if the Ciuill or Canon law had not made and ordained that rule it would not be of force and validitie or else it is grounded also in the law of God or nature If he graunt the first as commonly the Lawiers doe and therefore some things which seeme of their owne nature to be accessorie as a saddle and bridle are to a horse are not accessorie according to humane law and therefore he that selleth a horse doth not consequently sell the bridle and faddle and somethings which are not accessorie of their owne nature as a dowrie is not necessarily annexed to marriage are made accessorie according to humane lawe and therefore he that marrieth a woman with the consent of her parents hath right to a dowrie and the parents are bound by the Ciuill Law to giue a dowrie if they be able wherefore the Glosse vpon the aforesaid rule of the Ciuill law doth obserue that the word plaerunque for the most part was purposely added to that rule of the law for that sometimes that rule doth faile to which purpose he alledgeth many texts of the Ciuill law If my Aduersarie I say will graunt the first he can not but easily perceiue that there can no forcible argument be drawne from the
very true and I haue affirmed the same too too often and this only he hath prooued by this Discourse which he hath here repeated out of his Supplement albeit this bee not the marke at which he aimeth and which hee pretended to prooue for as I haue shewed before Nu. 6. his chiefe drift and purpose was to proue that the Pope hath power not onely to command temporals in order to spirituall good but also to dispose of temporals not only to command christians that in satisfaction of their sinnes or in defence of the Church they will dispose of their temporall goods according to the qualitie of their offence and the necessitie of the Church shall require and their abilitie doth extend but also to depriue them of the right power and dominion which they haue ouer their temporall goods and states if they shall refuse to obey his iust command which my Aduersarie by this Discourse in his Supplement hath not as you haue seene so much as probably confirmed and neuerthelesse as I haue often said not onely probable arguments but conuincing authorities or demonstrations are required to prooue his doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of their temporals to bee certaine and a point of faith and that the oath cannot lawfully and with a safe conscience be taken by any Catholike And thus much concerning the Discourse which Mr. Fitzherbert hath made in his Supplement Now you shall see what from thence he doth inferre 42 Thus did I discourse saith he u Pag. 34. nu 7 and argue in my Supplement whereby my Aduersarie Widdrington may perceiue first what I meane by the accessorie and by the principall as that the soule of man and the seruice and glory of God are the principall and that the accessory is the body goods and all temporall states whatsoeuer because they are subordinate to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof and for Gods glory 43 And my Aduersarie also by that which I haue heere answered to his Discourse may perceiue that although the soule of man and the spirituall good thereof and the seruice and glory of God may in some sense bee called the principall and bodily and temporall goods the accessorie for that they are the lesse worthy and lesse noble and therefore though not of their owne nature referred yet by the intention and will of man ought to bee referred to the eternall good and saluation of the soule as to the last end of man in which sense temporall good may bee said to be subiect and ordained to the supernaturall good of the soule whereof I haue treated more at large aboue in the second part Yet in that sense as antecedent and consequent principall and accessorie are taken in that maxime the spirituall good of the soule eternall saluation and the supernaturall seruice and glorie of God cannot be called the principall or antecedent nor corporall goods and temporall states as health wealth honour c. the accessorie or consequent for that God may bee serued and glorified and the soule saued without hauing any such corporall or temporall contentments yea rather they doe hinder then promote the good of the soule for that according to our Sauiours owne wordes x Matth. 19. A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen For they y 1. Tim. 6. that will be made rich fall into tentation and the snare of the Deuill and many desires vnprofitable and hurtfull which drowne men into destruction and perdition and By many tribulations z Act. 14. we must enter into the kingdome of God 44 Neither did I desire my Aduersary to declare what he vnderstood in particular by the names of principall and accessory for I knew right well that hee tooke the good of the soule for principall and the goods of the body and of fortune to be the accessory for that they are referred and ordained to the good of the soule in which sense the words principall and accessory are not taken in that maxime as I shewed before and it will more cleerely appeare beneath but I desired him to declare what the Lawyers vnderstood in generall by the names of principall and accessory in that rule of the Law for that the nature and definition of principall and accessory being once knowne we might the better descend to particulars and more easily perceiue whether the good of the soule was to bee taken for principall and all other corporall and temporall goods for accessory in that rule of the Law and withall he should also haue explained if hee had meant to cleere and satisfie the vnderstanding of his Reader what the Lawyers vnderstood by those wordes to follow the nature of the principall all which my Aduersary hath as you haue seene neglected to declare 45 Secondly Widdrington may see saith Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 34. nu 8 the force and validitie of my consequence to wit because the Church hath power ouer the soule which is the principall therefore it hath power also ouer the accessorie that is to say ouer the body temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God for which our soules bodies goods states and all things else were ordained 46 And hee also may see in what manner his consequence is of force if it be onely vnderstood of a power to commaund temporall things in order to spiritual good to wit not for that the Church hauing power ouer the soule which he calleth the principall must also haue power ouer the body and temporall goods which he calleth the accessorie when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glory of God because temporall goods and states are not necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God but rather lets and hinderances thereof seeing that soules may be saued and God glorified without the enioying of such corporall or temporall goods and therefore temporall goods and states can not rightly be called the accessory or consequent as accessory or consequent ought to be taken in that maxime But the force of his consequence can onely consist in this that because Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to Saint Peter and his Successours sufficient authority to gouerne the Church by spirituall meanes and in order to spirituall good to command not onely spirituall things which is the more noble and principall but also temporall things which power is the lesse noble and so by the institution of Christ annexed to the spirituall power of gouerning the Church and of commaunding spirituall things for which cause it may well be called the accessory or consequent therefore from that rule or maxime not of the law but of the Logicians The accessory or consequent doth necessarily follow the principall or antecedent it may be well inferred that the Pope hauing power to command spirituall things hath also power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good for that
euery odious argument although it be neuer so good and conuincing must needs proceed from malice I confesse indeed that this doctrine concerning the killing of Christian Princes is odious abominable false scandalous neuer taught in the Church of God before these later yeeres and which all good subiects ought with all their hearts to detest and abhorre and Princes more narrowly to looke vnto and whether this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Christian Princes be a point of faith from whence such an odious scandalous and detestable doctrine doth necessarily follow I hope all good Catholikes and true hearted subiects will heereafter more diligently consider 71 And how true it is sayth my Aduersarie that the Pope hath power ouer the life of any Christian with the circumstances and limitations before mentioned I feare me my Aduersarie Widdrington might finde to his cost if he were here at Rome and would not recant his doctrine euen in this point to wit that the Church can not inflict corporall and temporall punishment whereby he impugneth c. But first that the Pope hath power at Rome ouer the liues of those who are his temporall subiects no man calleth in question for that he is now the temporall Prince of Rome But this prooueth not that the Pope as he is Pope and by vertue of his spirituall power hath authoritie to put any man to death If my Aduersarie could bring but one example that the Pope before he was a temporall Prince and when the Citie of Rome was subiect in temporals to the Roman Grecian French or German Emperours did by vertue of his spirituall power put any man to death then he should say something to the purpose if the facts and examples of Popes were a sufficient argument to prooue their right and authoritie 72 Secondly although it be true that the Church by vertue of her spirituall power hath authoritie to command impose or enioyne corporall and temporall punishments as I haue often said and the ancient and generall practise of the Church doth confirme the same yet that Ecclesiasticall authoritie is by the institution of Christ extended to the disposing of temporals or to the inflicting of corporall and temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment very many Doctours with Iacobus Almaine Almainus in libro de Dominio naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico in probatione secundae conclusionis as I haue often said doe expresly deny neither hath the contrarie as yet by any approoued practise and custome of the Church or by any other conuincing argument bene sufficiently prooued and what my Aduersarie doth particularly bring to that purpose from the Ecclesiasticall Canons and decrees of any Councell or Pope and from the late Councell of Trent you shall see in those places where he promiseth to shew it more particularly 73 In the meane time to conclude this Chapter with my Aduersarie he is also to vnderstand that albeit I doe graunt the body to be subordinate and subiect to the soule and that all corporall and temporall things are to serue spirituall things in that manner as I haue at large declared in the second part and in the beginning of the next chapter will briefly insinuate againe and therefore to be commanded by the supreme spirituall Pastour in order to spirituall good yet with good reason I did deny the consequence of his argument to wit that for as much as the accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that hath power ouer the soule and all other spirituall things hath power also ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians when the good of soules and of the whole Church doth necessarily require it if he vnderstand as it is cleere he doth of a power not onely to commaund enioyne or impose but also to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments for that temporall states and bodily goods are not accessorie to the spirituall good of the soule and of the Church as accessorie is and ought to be taken in that maxime because the spirituall good of soules and of the Church may bee without such temporall goods and states yea and in euery particular man perchance better without them then with them Neither is it necessarily required to the good of soules or of the whole Church that the Pope haue power to dispose of the temporall goods states or bodies either of Christian Princes or subiects and therefore the Reader may also well coniecture what he is to expect from my Aduersarie in the rest of his Replies when in this where he maketh a shew to haue so great aduantage against my answere that hee feareth not to call it friuolous impertinent foolish ridiculous and contrary to my owne doctrine yet all his exceptions are so improbable that his virulent speeches might very truely if Christian modestie and charitie would permit be retorted backe vpon himselfe CHAP. III. Wherein Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed and the foure instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Also Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polonie are confuted Mr. Fitzherbert in his third Chapter proceedeth with the like bitternesse and yet with as little probabilitie as hee did in the former For after I had made two instances against his argument drawne from that rule of the Law The accessory followeth the principall I brought foure instances against another like consequence of Fa. Lâ—ssius taken from another maxime The like argument said I a In Admonia nu 15. Fa. Lessius doth vrge The Pope saith he hath power to excommunicate Kings and therefore he hath also power to depose them because hee that hath power to inflict a greater punishmeÌ„t hath also power to inflict a lesse We might also conclude thus if it were lawfull to transcend from one thing to another of a diuers kinde and nature The Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings therefore also to kill them because he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse A man hath power to vnderstand therefore also to flye A priuate Priest hath power to absolue from sinnes therefore also from debts He hath power by force of the Sacraments to giue the kingdome of heauen therefore also to giue an earthly kingdome Are not these and such like goodly arguments to perswade English Catholikes to cast away prodigally all their goods and to deny their allegiance to their Prince Thus I argued in that place 2 Now my Aduersarie after he had repeated my words replieth against these instances in this manner b Nu. 1. 2. seq Thus saith Widdrington scoffing and cogging as you see
chapter to prooue by the subordination of temporall things to spirituall that the Pope because he hath power to command and to dispose of spirituall things which as he said are the principall and to which temporall things are subordained hath power also to dispose of temporals and thereupon grounded his argument vpon that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall which argument neuerthelesse how weake and insufficient it is I haue shewed in that place yet Lessius doth not ground his argument vpon that rule The accessorie followeth the principall but vpon this maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse from whence he concludeth that the Pope because he can excommunicate a King which is the greater punishment can also depose a King which is the lesse But this argument also is very insufficient for that the aforesaid maxime is not generally true as I prooued by foure instances except the lesse be actually or vertually included in the greater as deposition or the power to depose a King is neither actually nor vertually included in excommunication or in the power to excommunicate Therefore vnlesse it be first prooued as hitherto it hath not bene that deposition is actually or vertually included in excommunication or the power to depose in the power to excommunicate it is euident that no good argument can be drawne from that maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse to proue that the Pope because he hath power to excommunicate a King which is the greater hath power also to depose him which is the lesse 13 Now you shall see how well Mr. Fitz. confuteth the foure instances I brought against Lessius argument This being so saith he c Nu. 67. pag. pag. 33. let vs examine a little what goodly arguments Widdring hath made to confront with the former to discouer the absurdity which he supposeth therein The first is Potest Papa Reges excommunicare ergo occidere The Pope may excommunicate Kings and therfore he may kill them whereto I answere as I did in the like before that he bewrayeth herein his malice seeking to draw vs to a most odious question supposing as it seemeth and maliciously insinuating that wee hold and teach that the Pope hauing excommunicated and deposed a King may murther him or cause him to be murthered and that some Popes haue practised the same as some shamelesse Sectaries haue impudently affirmed wherein he sheweth his good affection to Catholike Religion and the reuerend respect he beareth to the Sea Apostolike 14 But if he vnderstand nothing else by the word occidere but to take away the life of a delinquent by lawfull meanes I haue answered him already that if hee make the case his owne for with Princes liues I will not meddle I make no doubt but the Pope hath power ouer his life and therefore I also say further now concerning the argument whereof we treate that the consequence thereof is good in him and such a hee for seeing that it is a greater power to take away the life of the soule by excommunication then of the body by temporall death it followeth that the supreame Pastour hauing the greater power hath the lesse by reason of the subordination of the body to the soule and his supreame power to dispose of the body for the good of the soule and the publike benefite of the Church And thus much for this point 15 But to this Reply I will at this time answere no otherwise then I did before that in very deede it is a most odious question and the doctrine is worthie to bee hated and detested by all good Catholikes and whether such an odious detestable doctrine can be a most plaine necessarie cosequence of an vndoubted point of the Catholike faith as my Aduersaries will needes haue the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and consequently to kill them which by an euident and necessarie consequence followeth from the former to be an infallible point of Catholike faith I remit to the consideration of any iudicious man Neither is it true that I did vrge this argument of malice God is my witnes and therefore in this my Aduersarie doth greatly wrong me neither doe I suppose or maliciously insinuate that some Popes haue practised the murthering of Kings as this vncharitable man vntruly affirmeth thinking thereby to perswade his Reader that I beare no good affection to Catholike Religion nor any reuerend respect to the Sea Apostolike but that which I suppose and insinuate is that he the rest of his Societie who hold that the Pope hath power to dispose of all the temporals both of Princes and subiects in order to spirituall good in as ample a maner as temporal Princes haue power to dispose of all the temporals of their subiects in order to temporall good must consequently hold that the Pope hauing excōmunicated deposed by his sentence an heretical King yea also without excōmunicatiō or deposition if the Pope shal think that neither of them wil preuaile but cause the said King to be more watchful may which I speak with horror murther him or cause him to be murthered that is may kil him or cause him to be slaine by all those meanes publike or secret by which a temporal Prince hath power to murther or cause to be murthered that is to kill or cause to be slaine any traiterous subiect or manifest rebel that cānot easily be apprehēded 16 And this I did demonstrate in my d Nu. 43 s Apologie against Cardinall Bellarmine to which my demonstration D. Schulckenius e In Apol ad nu 43 p. 144. answereth no otherwise then with a transeat let it passe For whither all this doth tend saith hee euery man seeth neither is it hard to solue the arguments Let them passe as making nothing to the matter and then hee maketh a long discourse to shew that neuer any Pope hath beene the cause of the death of any King which is nothing to the purpose so that in effect he granteth my argument and Suarez f In Defens c. l. 9. c. 4. n. 10 See my Appen against Suarez part 1. sec 9. hath now more expresly taught the same and my Aduersarie also doth heere plainly confirme as much for although forsooth with the liues of Princes he will not intermeddle because it is an odious question yet he maketh no doubt but that the Pope hath power ouer my life and ouer the life of any Christian marke these generall words for that he hath power to take away the life of my soule by excommunication and consequently the life of my body by corporall death which his reason proueth also the same of Christian Princes who according to his own grounds can be excōmunicated by the Pope But I'meruaile where this man hath learned this new diuinity that the Pope hath power to take away the life of the soule by excommunication The ancient and true Catholike doctrine
that they would bee the people of the Lord and after them doe immediately follow those words related by Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. Wherefore these last words which he bringeth for his onely ground are not so much to bee referred to the killing of Athalia as to the couenant made after Athalia was slaine betwixt Ioiada the people and the King that they would bee the people of God through which couenant made with God that they would bee his people they were mooued to destroy the house of Baal and his Images Therefore Cardinall Bellarmine doeth not well conclude from this place that Queene Athalia was slaine either by the proper authoritie of the high Priest as hee was high Priest or for Idolatrie in doing worship to Baal And although wee should also graunt him both yet how vicious it is to draw an argument from the killing of an vnlawfull Queene and vniustly vsurping the kingdome to prooue that a true King who is an Idolater may lawfully bee slaine any man that is not voide of naturall reason may presently perceiue Thus I answered to this example of Athalia in my Apologie 31 Now you shall see what a weake fallacious and slanderous Reply D. Schulckenius hath made to this my answere I answere saith hee r Pag. 558. that Athalia without doubt did tyrannically inuade the kingdome but seeing that shee ruled peaceably for sixe yeeres it is credible that by little and little by the consent of the people shee did get a lawfull right to the kingdome For so many Kings who are Tyrants in the beginning are afterwards by the consent of the people made lawfull Princes Surely Octauian Augustus himselfe who is numbred among the best Princes did oppresse the common wealth by force and armes and spoiled her of her libertie yet afterwards by the consent of the people hee began to bee accounted a lawfull Prince and did lawfully transfer the Empire to his posteritie Otho killed Galba Vitellius killed Otho Vespasian killed Vitellius Philip killed Gordian and yet they were all saluted Emperours by the Senate and people of Rome How did the Ostrogoths inuade and possesse Italie the Visigothe Spaine the Francks France the English Britanie and yet afterwards by the consent of the people they were accounted lawfull Kings of those Dominions 32 But any man though of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue the weakenesse of this his first Reply For first the maine controuersie betwixt mee and Cardinall Bellarmine as I haue often signified in other places at this present onely is whether it be certaine and a point of faith and by demonstratiue arguments it can be conuinced that the Pope hath power to depose temporall Princes and hee pretendeth to demonstrate the same and therefore hee calleth the contrarie opinion not so much an opinion as an heresie and his doctrine to bee the doctrine and voyce of the Catholike Church which euery Christian is bound to heare and follow otherwise hee is to bee accounted as a Heathen and a Publicane and now this Doctour for proofe of this his new Catholike faith bringeth a bare credibile est it is credible or which in sense is all one it is not incredible that although Athalia was without doubt an vsurpresse in the beginning yet afterwards by the consent of the people shee was lawfull Queene or did get a lawfull right to the kingdome as though a bare credibile est and sleight coniectures of his owne inuention are sufficient proofes to demonstrate a matter of so great moment as is the Popes authoritie to take away the kingdomes and liues of Soueraigne Princes who in temporalls are subiect to none but to GOD alone 33 Obserue now good Reader the reason for which this Doctour affirmeth that it is credible that Athalia did by little and little by the consent of the people get a lawfull right to the kingdome Because forsooth shee reigned peaceably sixe yeeres together as though either sixe yeeres prescription or peaceable possession is sufficient to giue to a most cruell Tyrant and Vsurper a true and lawfull right to the kingdome which he hath tyrannically vsurped especially the true and lawfull heire being aliue or thar sixe yeeres peaceable possession can be a credible presumption that the whole common-wealth hath giuen their free heartie and altogether willing consent that the said vsurper should be their true and rightfull King or thirdly that the common wealth can depriue the true heire and rightfull King of his right to the kingdome without any fault or negligence committed by him and giue it to another who hath no right thereunto For it is the common doctrine of the Lawyers Molina de Inst trac 2. disp 69. 74. as Molina well obserueth that ten yeeres at the least are required that a priuate man may against another priuate man get by prescription a lawfull right to any immoueable thing as lands houses or the like which hee bona fide with a good conscience possesseth and to get a lawfull right by prescription to those lands or houses which belong to the Crowne and yet may bee prescribed by a priuate man are required a hundred yeeres for those things which are intrinsecally due and proper to the Prince in signe of subiection due to him by his subiects as is the paying of tributes and which doe belong intrinsecally to his supreame temporall power as to punish offenders to bee subiect to the lawes to appeale to him from inferiour Iudges cannot by any subiect by continuall possession of neuer so long a time be prescribed besides that it is a common and approued rule of the law Å¿ Regula possessor de Reg. iuris in 60. and all Diuines that write de Iust Iure as Sotus Salon Aragona c. that whosoeuer possesseth any thing with a bad conscience can neuer prescribe or get a lawfull right to the thing which he possesseth See Molina tract 2. de Iustitia disput 72. 73. 74. and Lessius disp 2. cap. 6. dub 8. 12. 34 And therefore can any man be so senselesse as to imagine that only sixe yeeres possession are sufficient for a notorious tyrant and manifest vsurper who therefore can not with any probable presumption be thought to possesse with a good conscience the kingdome to get by prescription a lawfull right to a whole Realme against the true and rightfull heire who is liuing There is this deceipt Gregor Tholos lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 7. num 4. saith Gregorius Tholosanus of Tyrants or Vsurpers that after they haue inuaded the kingdome they would be partakers of the titles or rights of the true Princes whom they haue dethroned by vsing the generall Assemblies of the people or by forcing the authoritie of some Superiour which neuerthelesse doth not make them not to be true Tyrants and not to be contained in the lawes of Tyrants vnlesse as some are of opinion after they
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
so good sincere and zealous a Catholike and yet lyeth lurking and schulking vnder another mans name of purpose as it seemeth to lash out more freely contumelious words which in his owne name he would blush to vtter for otherwise he needed not to disguise himselfe for feare of incurring the displeasure of Princes for the doctrine he teacheth so preiudiciall to their temporall Soueraigntie which also he will needes haue to be forsooth an vndoubted point of Catholike faith both for that he being a man of so high a ranke and place and liuing out of their dominions and subiection can by their indignation taken against him receiue but little harme and also for that he teacheth heere little or nothing in preiudice of their Soueraigne authority which he did not long before in his owne shape and name without putting on any maske or vizard in very plaine words maintaine But in what an exorbitant manner the Court of Rome doth proceede against those Catholikes who for desire to know the truth in matters of greatest moment speake or write any thing be it with neuer so great submission which seemeth in their opinion to derogate from that authoritie which some Popes of late yeres haue claimed as due to them although it is and euer hath beene contradicted by learned Catholikes it is too too manifest and their proceedings against mee and my bookes in commanding mee vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith and yet giuing mee no notice of any crime which I haue committed or any bad doctrine which I haue taught albeit I haue oftentimes with great instance desired to know the same protesting to purge and recall whatsoeuer I ought to purge and recall doth sufficiently confirme the same But now secondly to the matter from whence the virulent speeches of this Doctor hath caused mee to make this digression 21 Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies laboured to prooue from the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. which ought to haue all sufficient and necessary authoritie to the attaining of her end that the Church of Christ must haue authoritie to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to inflict temporall punishmēts and to depose temporall Princes for that this authoritie is necessary to her spirituall end which is the saluation of soules because otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow Religion To this argument I answered in my Apologie Apolog. 176. seq graunting to Card. Bellarmine that euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth ought to haue alwaies sufficient authority for as much as concerneth the authoritie it selfe to the attaining of her ende although she hath not alwaies sufficient power force meanes or abilitie actually to obtaine the same and to remooue all impediments which may hinder the same And so the Church of Christ being a perfect and well instituted spirituall Common-wealth hath all sufficient spirituall authority forasmuch as concerneth the authority it selfe to the attaining of her spirituall and which is the sauing of soules albeit she hath not alwaies sufficient power meanes or ability actually to bring all men to saluation to take away all the lets that may hinder the obtaining thereof But withall I denied that the authoritie to vse and dispose of temporall things or to inflict temporall punishments is necessary in spirituall Pastours to the sauing of soules but that the authority to vse and dispose of spirituall things and to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments is sufficient in spirituall Pastours to bring soules to saluation forasmuch as concerneth the authority and punishment themselues 22 Neither doth it therefore follow as Card. Bellarmine pretended to conclude that if the Church hath not authority to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to depose temporall Princes wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For the Church by her spirituall authority may punish them grieuously with Ecclesiasticall Censures which punishments are so great and dreadfull that of themselues they are able to terrifie any Christian Prince and to withdraw him from euill But if some Christian Prince for want of due consideration bee not terrified with Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall authority of the Church cannot inflict vpon him any temporall or ciuill punishment for that the onely and last punishment which the Church or which is all one the spirituall Pastours thereof by the institution of Christ can inflict is Excommunication or some such like spirituall Censure or punishment Thus I answered in my Apologie 23 Now D. Schulckenius to confute this my answere flyeth from Card. Bellarmines reason grounded vpon the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth which reason I tooke vpon mee in that place to confute to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran which is his common skar crow For when he cannot confute the answere which I giue to any reason or authority brought by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes then his custome is to flye from that reason or authority to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran as though that onely Decree of the Councell of Lateran of which Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies made no account at all were now a sufficient proofe to make good all his other reasons and authorities which Decree neuerthelesse he expoundeth according to his priuate spirit contrary to the words and true meaning of the same Councell and in stead of the Lateran Councell which I doe not impugne he would thrust vpon Catholikes his owne opinion which he violently wresteth from the words of the Councell 24 For as I haue often told him I am a true and sincere Catholike yea and a farre truer then he himselfe is if he build his Catholike faith vpon such weake and fallible grounds which some Catholike◠vnderstand in one sense and some in another it being well knowne to all learned Catholikes that the Catholike faith which is infallible cannot be built vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are in controuersie among Catholikes but vpon vndoubted grounds and so acknowledged by all true and learned Catholikes So likewise I haue often told him that I doe giue all dutifull honour and respect to all the Decrees of any approoued Councell either touching faith or manners and I doe reuerence euery one of them in their due place and order but euery exposition which either Card. Bellarmine or any other priuate Doctour who may both deceiue and be deceiued maketh of any Decree of the Councell of Lateran or of any other Councell especially when other Doctours expound that Decree otherwise I doe not account to bee any good ground or rule of a true Catholike faith And therefore it is not true that I doe freely contradict the Decree of the Councell of Lateran but I doe freely contradict his priuate exposition of the Decree of that Councell it being contrary to the true sense and meaning of the wordes
vertue annexed doe become spirituall things that is vertuous actions and therefore subiect to the spirituall directiue power yet they doe not become spirituall Censures and therefore not subiect to the spirituall power as it is coerciue but they still remaine temporall punishments which are the obiect only of the temporall coerciue power 109 Wherefore that also which he addeth that euery Superiour may according to my doctrine punish his Subiect with penalties proportionate to his authoritie is very true but he must still distinguish betwixt the directiue and coerciue power or authoritie and in what manner temporall punishments are proportionate to either of them For because as well temporall as spirituall punishments may be vertuous or vicious actions therefore they are proportionate to the spirituall directiue power whose proper acts and obiects are the commanding of vertue and the forbidding of vice but because not the commanding either of temporall or spirituall punishments but only the actuall punishing with Ecclesiasticall censures or the inflicting of spirituall punishments is the proper act and obiect of the spirituall coerciue power therefore the inflicting onely of spirituall punishments and not of temporall is proportionate to the spirituall coerciue power From whence it euidently followeth that the Church for a spirituall end may command temporall things but not dispose of temporall things may command one to giue Almes for the satisfaction of his sinnes but may not take away his purse from him to giue Almes for that end may commaund one to punish and macerate his body when it rebelleth against the soule but not inflict vpon him corporall punishments for the same end 110 And by this also all the rest which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in this Chapter is clearely answered and the manifest absurditie which hee would put vpon mee doth manifestly fall vpon himselfe But now saith he m Pag. 109. nu 25.26.27 if together with all this we consider the naturall subordination of temporall things to spirituall whereof I haue sufficiently treated before n Supra num 2 3.4 seq Widdringtons absurdity will be most manifest as well in denying that the spirituall Superiour may punish his subiect in his person or temporall goods for a spirituall end as in affirming that the spirituall power may become subiect to the temporall no lesse then the temporall to the spirituall as though there were no subordination or subiection of the one to the other wherein he peruerteth the whole course of Nature no lesse then if he should say that in some cases the soule may be subiect to the body heauen to earth religion to policie Angels to men and God to the world whereby you may still see what probable arguments and answers he affordeth his Reader for the assurance and security of their consciences See Preface num 9. See also the answere therto nu 9. seq and that he had great reason to protest as you may remember I haue signified in the Preface that his meaning is not to lay downe any demonstrations or infallible arguments for the proofe or defence of his opinion 111 For truely all that he saith doth demonstrate nothing else but the weakenesse of his cause and his owne wilfulnesse if not of malice in defending such an improbable and extrauagant Paradoxe as this is which hee holdeth and defendeth contrary to the vniuersall and continuall custome of the Church grounded vpon the holy Scriptures the practise of the Apostles and the decrees of Popes and Councels and finally contrary to the whole course of the Canon law as it will euidently appeare in the ensuing Chapters and as Cardinall Bellarmine against Barclay and Doctour Schulckenius in his late Apologie for the Cardinall and diuers others haue sufficiently shewed and amongst our learned Countrimen Mr. Doctor Weston hath clerely soundly proued it in his booke intituled Iuris Pontificij Sanctuarium wherein he battereth all the foundations of my Aduersarie Widdringtons doctrine and fully confuteth him as well in all other points as in this touching the Popes power to punish temporally which hee o Quest 17.18.19.20.21 22. doth learnedly and amply demonstrate as well by the holy Scriptures as by many examples of the Churches practise to wit by diuers kinde of diuorces by the relaxation of debts exemption of children frō the power of their parents the abrogation of temporall and Ciuill lawes the dissolution of contracts and bargaines and finally by the imposition of temporall penalties almost vsuall and ordinarie in the practise of the Church as hee sheweth very particularly by the Ecclesiasticall Canons I forbeare for breuities sake to prosecute these points in particular only I shall haue iust occasion to treate now and then of the infliction of temporall penalties in answer of my Aduersaries pertinent obiections out of the Canons and Canonists which I hope may suffice for as much as I haue vndertaken to performe in this briefe Reply 112 But all that my Aduersary heere obiecteth I haue alreadie sufficiently confuted And first I haue cleerely conuinced that there is no naturall subordination of the temporall power to the spiritual except in nobilitie and therefore that neither the spirituall power speaking properly and in abstracto is subiect to the temporall nor the temporall to the spirituall except as I said in worth excellency and nobilitie wherein the spirituall doth excell but not in authoritie wherein they are both supreme vnlesse my Aduersaries will grant that temporall Princes are not supreme and absolute in temporall matters and spirituall Pastours are not supreme and absolute in spirituall causes which is a Paradox in true Diuinity Secondly I haue proued also most plainly that not onely temporall Princes being parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ are subiect to spirituall Pastours in spirituall things but also spirituall Pastours being parts and members of the temporall common-wealth are subiect to temporall Princes in all temporall things except wherein the law of God or man hath exempted them and to affirme the contrary were to peruert the whole course of Nature no lesse then if one should say that members are not subiect to the whole body and to the head thereof the bodie and soule to man heauen and earth to the whole world religion pollicy men Angels and the whole world to God Whereby you still see what improbable arguments answeres my Aduersary affoordeth his Readers for the assurance and securitie of their consciences in a matter belonging to their obedience due to God and Caesar and which forsooth he will needes haue to be a point of faith to the proofe whereof it is not sufficient to bring probable arguments but conuincing demonstrations as contrariwise it sufficeth to bring probable arguments and probable answeres to prooue any doctrine not to be certaine and of faith as I haue shewed more amply in the answere to his Preface whereto heere he remitteth his Reader 113 For truely all the effectuall proofes and cleere demonstrations which
and effectuall meanes to withdraw men actually from sinne for this were extreame folly to say as my Aduersarie himselfe confesseth For the sufficiencie saith hee of the power which Christ hath left to his Church in this point or any other consisteth in this that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment Wherefore it is manifest that hee who will contend that the Church must haue a more sufficient power to saue soules then which of it selfe is sufficient if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment must needes suppose that the Church must also haue sufficient force might and effectuall meanes to saue soules and a power to make the subiect capable and to remooue all external impediments or which is all one must haue such a sufficient power which is not onely sufficient in regard of the power being considered in it selfe but also in regard of all other things which are necessarie that the power worke the effect for which it was ordained for that these two are opposite parts or members of the distinction I made before and no man that hath any skill in Logike can be ignorant that in euery diuision consisting only of two parts or members we may rightly argue from the affirming of the one part to the denyall of the other and frō the denying of the one to the affirming of the other If therfore the power of the Church to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures be of it selfe a sufficient coerciue power to withdraw men from sinne which is the end of Ecclesiasticall power and if men bee not thereby withdrawne from sinne it is not by reason of the insufficiencie of the power but of the indisposition of the subiect no other coerciue power to inflict temporall punishments can be necessarie And therefore the aforesaid distinction of Ecclesiasticall coerciue power considered in it selfe and in respect of the impediments which may be in regard of the subiect did quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines second argument and the whole discourse of Fa. Parsons which was grounded thereon So that Mr. Fitzherbert might with more credit haue left vntouched the satisfaction which Fa. Parsons pretended to giue to the Earle of Salisburies desire or complaint for ought hee hath beene able to say in defence of the same 62 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert quarelleth with mee for teaching in this my Discourse against Fa. Parsons that the penalties which the Church may I doe not say impose as hee vntruely imposeth vpon me for this power of the Church to impose command or enioyne temporall penalties I neuer denyed but to inflict are not temporall punishments and for remitting my Reader for this point to diuers authorities euen of the ancient Fathers related by mee in my Apologie hee wisheth mee g Pag. 122. nu 21. and the Reader to see the answere to those authorities in D. Schulckenius who giueth as he saith sufficient satisfaction to euery one of them and sheweth euidently that diuers of those Authours doe wholly impugne Widdringtons opinion and doctrine and finally telleth him of his bad fortune in alleadging such witnesses as either make nothing for him or quite ouerthrow him and the like may bee seene saith he in D. Westons Sanctuarie who also answereth the said places particularlay and fully I also in like manner wish him and the Reader to see how their answeres haue beene confuted partly by Mr. Iohn Barclay and partly by my selfe aboue in this Treatise h Part. 1. per totum where also I haue shewed the vanitie of these men that when they see their arguments and answeres most of all to bee shaken then they make the greatest brags to which silly shifts they haue beene driuen by their bad fortune to vndertake the defence of so bad a cause and through a vehement desire not to seeme to bee vanquished and to haue any way erred in hauing coined a new Catholike faith 63 Furthermore the Reader may see i Pag. 122. nu 22. C. Bel. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcl cap. 8. saith Mr. Fitzherbert many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay which Widdrington could not but haue seene no lesse then the former before he wrote against my Supplement and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in those answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Readers to those places and such like which hee knew were alreadie answered but perhaps he perswadeth himselfe that all his writings and assertions are as I haue said in the Preface like to the lawes of the Medes See Preface nu 15. and see also the answere thereunto Dan. 6. and Persians which are inuiolable and immutable And this shall suffice touching Father Parsons whom you see hee might with more credit haue left vntouched for ought hee hath beene able to prooue against him 64 But as the Reader may see many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay so also hee may see the Cardinalls answeres confuted by Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmine which Mr. Fitzherbert could not but haue seene before he wrote now his Reply against mee and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in Mr. Iohn Barclayes answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Reader to Cardinall Bellarmines booke against Barclay which he knew was already answered And therefore that which hee repeateth heere againe concerning the lawes of the Medes and Persians may more aptly be applyed to himselfe and other such like vehement defenders of the Popes power to depose Princes who for that they haue vnaduisedly begun to make their doctrine to be an infallible point of faith which they will neuer bee able to make good will yet defend the same per fas ne fas by right and wrong and perceiuing that they cannot preuaile with reason and arguments endeauour to ouersway their cause by force and authoritie clamours and threatnings as it is euident by the Breues which his Holinesse by their importunitie and sinistrous Information hath published to condemne the new Oath wherein chiefly that doctrine is denied as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation which they will neuer bee able to maintaine and by condemning some of my bookes in such generall wordes and commanding me vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith in so strange a maner not declaring of what crime either in particular or in generall I should purge my selfe although I haue often by diuers Supplications to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requested to bee particularly informed what one thing is contained in the Oath which is so cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation or what one thing I haue written in those bookes whereof I should purge my selfe as being contrarie to faith
of this great Councell is by some called in question 16 But on the contrary side the most Illustrious Cardinal of Peron doth bring two principall arguments which may seeme to confirme the authority of this Councell and that the decrees now extant were made by the generall consent and approbation of the whole Councell The first is for that otherwise we may impugne the article of Transubstantiation the article of the holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Sonne the precept of annuall confession the condemnation of the errours of Abbot Ioachim c. But to this argument they answere that it doth not therefore follow that we may impugne the aforesaid Decrees because they are now receiued by the generall consent of all Catholikes either by vertue of the Canon law contained in the booke of Decretals which Pope Gregory the ninth commanded to be obserued and practised by all men or because they are approoued by common consent but not by virtue of the authoritie of the Councell wherein nothing was decreed and agreed vpon by any knowne and authenticall approbation of the Fathers although doubtlesse they did by their priuate or tacite consent approoue many of those 60. or 70. Decrees 17 The second argument is for that both Councells Popes and Sholasticall Doctours doe cite some of the aforesaid 60. or 70. Decrees as of the Councell of Lateran But to this also they answere that these Decrees are called Canons of the Councell Lateran for that they were propounded and rehearsed in the Councell but not confirmed or approoued by the generall acceptance and consent of the Fathers because they seemed to some to bee easie and pleasing but to others heauy and burdensome To these may be added a third argument that the Councell of Constance in the 39. Session ordaining what profession the future Pope was to make decreeth that euery future Pope hereafter to bee chosen must make this confession and profession before his election be published that he doth firmely beleeue the holy Catholike faith according to the traditions of the Apostles of generall Councells and of other holy Fathers but especially of the eight Sacred generall Councells to wit of the first Nicene of the second Constantinopolitan of the third Ephesine of the fourth Chalcedon of the fifth and sixth Constantinopolitan of the seuenth Nicene and the eight Constantinopolitan and also of Lateran Lyons and Vienna also generall Councells But to this they also answere that by the Councell of Lateran is not vnderstood this vnder Pope Innocent the third but the former celebrated vnder Pope Alexander the third in the yeere 1180. and if it bee vnderstood of this Councell of Lateran it is only say they forasmuch as concerneth those decrees wherein mention is made of the approbation of the Councell as is that 46. decree which the Councell of Constance mentioneth in the Bull of the confirmation of the Emperour Frederikes constitution As also by the Councell of Lyons it doth not vnderstand that vnder Pope Innocent the 4th who in the presence thereof excommunicated the Emperour Fredricke and whereat only 140. Bishops were present but that vnder Pope Gregory the tenth in the yeere 1274. whereat S. Bonauentura and S. Thomas of Aquina and more then 700. Bishops were present according to Binnius and Ebarhardus whom Binnius citeth 18 These be the principall difficulties both against and for the authoritie of this Councell of Lateran which before I came to examine the sense meaning of the decree which is now in question I thought needfull to set downe that the Reeder may thereby iudge whether if one for the reasons aforesaid should deny the authority of this Councel and affirme that nothing was therein plainly concluded by any publike and authenticall decree approoued by the common consent of the greatest part of the Fathers there present may be excused from all note of heresie errour and temerity in that manner as the Doctors of Paris may be excused from those aspersions for still defending the authority of a Generall Councell aboue a true and vndoubted Pope and denying the authority of the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo the tenth wherein the contrary doctrine as Cardinall Bellarmine saith is expresly defined yet for my owne part as I said before I doe willingly embrace and admit the authority of this great Councell of Lateran and of euery Canon and Decree therein contained and namely of this which is now in question and doe onely contend about the true sense and meaning thereof as is vsuall in the holy Scriptures themselues which some expound one way some another not intending thereby to cal in question the authority of Gods word but onely to examine and declare what is the true sense and meaning thereof 19 Now let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert saith in this Chapter against my answere wherein I briefly declared the true sense and meaning of this Decree Thus therefore he beginneth It resteth now saith he that I examine the probability of Widdringtons answeres to my arguments grounded vpon the Canon law and specially vpon a constitution and Canon of the great and famous Councell of Lateran And first of all he setteth downe the answere I gaue in my Admonition which before I relate it will not bee amisse to put downe the decree it selfe of the Councell of Lateran for thereby the sense and true meaning thereof will more easily appeare First therefore the Councell in the third Chapter doth excommunicate and anathematize all heresie and condemne all heretickes by what name soeuer they be called and doth ordaine that they being condemned shall be left to secular potestaes Magistrates or their Bayliffes to be punished according to their deserts but so that Cleargie men shall be first degraded from their Orders or Cleargie and if they bee Lay-men that there goods shall be confiscated but if they be Cleargie men that their goods shall be applyed to the Churches from whence they receiued stipends And then it decreeth thus 20 But let Secular Potestaes what offices soeuer they beare bee admonished and induced and if it shall be needefull be compelled by Ecclesiasticall Censure that as they desire to be reputed and accounted faithfull so for the defending of the faith they doe take publikely an Oath that they will sincerely endeuour to their power to cast out of the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction all heretickes declared by the Church So that from hence foorth when any man shall bee chosen to a perpetuall or temporall potesta or office he be bound to confirme this Chapter by Oath Si vero Dominus temporalis c. But if the temporall Lord Officer or Landlord For Dominus temporalis signifieth also euery Officer Magistrate or Landlord being required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his territory from hereticall filth let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of the same Prouince And if he shall contemne to giue satisfaction within a yeare let it bee
vnder the generall name of Priests or Clearkes nor Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes nor Kings vnder the generall name of Lords Gouernours or Landlords he must according to his owne confession grant that I haue reason to exempt Emperours Kings and absolute Princes from the Canon of the Lateran Councell 34 Neither did I ground this my doctrine vpon the Canon Quia periculosum wherein it is decreed that in the case of Suspension Interdict Bishops are not comprehended vnder any generall words whatsoeuer vnlesse they be expressed by the name of Bishops but vpon the authorities aforesaid chiefly vpon that reason which Mr. Fitzher himselfe acknowledgeth to be most true that all lawes are to be vnderstood according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation of euery Ecclesiasticall Canon is extended onely to those who are subiect to the spirituall authority of the Church as absolute Princes are not in meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes whom I haue named aboue in the first part of this Treatise and defended them from the friuolous exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath made against them 35 Finally saith Mr. Fitzherbert whereas Widdrington saith that the Synode would haue specified Princes by that name as well in this Canon if it had meant to include them therein as it did in some other Canons and Decrees concerning other matters who seeth not the vanitie of this coniecture For why should they be named more particularly then they are seeing that they are sufficiently comprehended in the generall tearme of Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord k He might as wel haue translated it a temporall Landlord n To wit no temporal Landlord aboue thē but the King which is also sufficiently explicated in this very Canon wherein we see that a temporall Lord l He might as well haue said a tempprall Landlord for Dominus temporalis signifieth both is diuided into two sorts the one of those who haue principall Lords m And also Landlords aboue them and the other of such as haue none of which sort are all absolute Princes that hold of none p And also other principall Landlords who haue no principall Landlord aboue them but the King who is not comprehended in odious matters vnder the name of a Landlord and therefore seeing that such are declared by the Canon to be subiect to the penaltie no lesse then those who holde of others it was needlesse to name them in other manner But belike my Aduersary will take vpon him not onely to interprete the Councell but also to teach it how to speake and what words to vse or else it must be of no force 36 No Mr. Fitzherbert God forbid that either I who professe my selfe to be a Catholike should be so arrogant as to take vpon mee to teach the Councell how to speake or what words to vse or that you who professe to be a teacher and to instruct others in this difficult controuersie which you will needes make a point of faith should bee so ignorant as not to know that the sense and meaning of the Councell is to be gathered from the sense and propertie of the words and that by the words we are taught what is the sense meaning of the Councell Now I haue sufficiently shewed before both by the authority of learned Lawyers and Diuines and also by conuincing reason that absolute Princes are not sufficiently comprehended in this Canon vnder the generall name of a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour of Lord both for that it is a penall law wherein an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Landlord Gouernour or Lord and ciefely for that it is such a penall law which is probable to bee a temporall and not a spirituall law for that it inflicteth temporall punishments which according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes cannot be inflicted but by temporall or ciuill power and that therefore those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or Lord cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church for that the words of euery law are to bee limitted according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes law whether hee bee a temporall or spirituall Prince is extended onely to his owne subiects 37 And if my Aduersary flie to his ancient shift that all Emperours Kings and other Christian Princes are children of the Church therfore subiect to the spirituall Pastors thereof It is true in spiritualls but not in temporalls as is the inflicting of temporall punishments wherein they are not subiect but absolute and supreme True also it is that Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord is in this Canon diuided into two sorts of Lords taking a Lord as the canon here doth take him to wit not only for a title of honour which Knights Gentlemen many inferiour Magistrates as Shiriffes Bayliffes Constables haue not but for euery person who hath tenants vassals or other persons any way subiect to him in which sense euery Land-lord Magistrate is called Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord The one sort is of those who haue principall and chiefe Gouernours or Land-lords aboue them as are all inferiour Magistrates and those who hold any land of others The other is of those who although they be subiect to the King yet they haue no other principall Land-lords or Gouernours aboue them and of this sort are both those who let their lands to others and yet hold their lands of none nor perchance of the King and also all principall Gouernours of the common-wealth who are subiect to no other then the King as are all the Lords or the body of the Kings priuie Councell together and in some sort the Lord Chancellour the Lord chiefe Iustice who haue no one principall Lord or Gouernour aboue them as all other subiects haue but the King alone yet neither of these sorts doe sufficiently expresse a King or a supreme and absolute Prince for that they are titles belonging also to subiects and inferiour persons And therefore the premises being considered it is probable that if the Councell had meant to haue comprehended Kings and absolute Princes in that Canon she would haue giuen them their proper titles of honour as she did in other Decrees and not include them in those common titles of honour which are giuen to persons of inferiour state and condition 38 And by this which I haue said in these two Chapters the Reader may cleerely see that these answeres which I haue giuen to the decree of the Lateran
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
indeede very cleare for that point especially cap. Quisquis 27. q. 4. Where it is ordained that a sacrilegious person shall pay thirtie pounds of siluer to the Bishop or Abbot or any Ecclesiasticall Iudge to whom the knowledge of the cause shall appertaine as it may appeare both by the Canon and the Glosse Besides that Panormitan Panorm vbi supra whom Siluester citeth teacheth expresly that when the Bishop proceedeth iuridically and no certaine penaltie is ordained by the Law he may impose a penaltie of money though he cannot doe it when the Law ordaineth expresly an other except it be for a crime wherein he hath power to dispence for then he may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie though some other be assigned by the Law as I haue also shewed before u Supra nu 6. out of the Glosse in cap. Licet tit de poenis 38 This being then Panomitans doctrine approoued by Siluester who followeth him altogether in this question it appeareth that Widdrington might haue easily seene if it had pleased him that Siluester doth not any way fauour his opinion nor impugne our doctrine concerning the Popes power to dispose of temporall things in order to spirituall which is the principall question controuersed betwixt vs. You haue heard before x Chap. 11. nu 3. that Hostiensis expresly teacheth that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and Siluester doth the like being also both of them of the number of the Canonists who teach y Hostiens in cap. Quod super his de voto voti redempt Siluest in Sum. verbo Papa nu 1. 11. 12. that the Pope hath a direct Dominion ouer temporall things no lesse then ouer spirituall and therefore it is euident that they cannot any way make for my Aduersarie Widdrington 39 But it is vntrue that I either dissembled or omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that the Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion but the reason why I omitted that which immediately followeth in Siluester to wit Sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this pleaseth not Panormitan was for that it did nothing import our question to know of what opinion either Panormitan or also Siluester himselfe were concerning that point for that which I intended to proue out of Siluesters words was this that it is no vndoubted point of faith but onely an opinion according to Siluester that Bishops can inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto them and the words of Siluester doe sufficiently shew that it is onely an opinion among the Canonists and therefore that either Panormitan or Siluester or any other Canonist be of the contrarie opinion it is nothing to the purpose Neither doth the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis cited by Panormitan and Siluester make against my doctrine foc they doe onely shew that a spirituall Iudge may inflict a pecuniarie mulct but that he may inflict it by his spirituall authoritie and consequently vpon Lay-men that are not temporally subiect vnto him without the consent of their temporall Prince they doe not shew and the Canon Quisquis which Mr. Fitzherbert thinketh to be so cleere in this point is taken out of an Epistle of Pope Iohn the eight wherein he commaunded that the decrees of a Councell called Trecense which was approoued by authoritie of Lewis the Emperour should be obserued and the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet tit de poenis doth expresly fauour my doctrine as I haue signified before 40 And albeit both Hostiensis and Siluester be themselues of opinion that the Pope is by the institution of Christ a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and hath direct dominion not onely in spiritualls but also in temporalls and consequently that hee may inflict temporall punishments dispose of all temporalls and depose temporall Princes for that all Christians both Princes and subiects are according to their opinion subiect to him directly in temporalls and so in this point they make nothing for my doctrine yet they make greatly for my doctrine in this that by their answeres it may be plainely gathered that they hold it onely for an opinion as at this present I contend it onely to be and that other Authors doe not agree with them therein as to the answere of Hostiensis to the Canon Ad abolendam I haue shewed before and also by this answere of Siluester you may see more cleerely beneath in this I say it is euident that they greatly make for my doctrine 41 Besides that it little importeth saith Mr. Fitzher z Pag. 172. nu 15. 16. 17. whether the Bishop may according to the Canons impose a temporall penaltie vpon such Lay-men as are not his temporall subiects seeing he may by the opinion of those three whom my Aduersarie Widdrington alledgeth make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge or Magistrate in which case it is done by the Bishops authoritie and the Secular Magistrate is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will Furthermore put the case that the Bishop could not impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect will Widdrington conclude thereupon that therefore the Pope may not doe it Will he be so absurd to restraine the supreme iurisdiction of the Pope to the inferiour power of a Bishop as well might he say that a King can doe no more in like case then an inferiour temporall Magistrate and that because the Iudge cannot pardon a person condemned therefore the King cannot doe it who knoweth not that the Church hath prescribed to her Magistrates certaine limits for the exercise of their authoritie and iurisdiction allowing to some more and to some lesse which they cannot exceede Therefore it were absurd to say that a Bishop cannot excommunicate because a Parish-Priest cannot doe it But much more absurd and ridiculous it is to say that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis cannot dispose of temporall things in some cases because a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vp a Lay man that is not his temporall subiect as Widdrinton seemeth to argue for otherwise his obiection concerning the Bishops power is to no purpose So as you see vpon what probabilities he grounded his doctrine being found to be either fraudulent or impertinent in euery thing that hee vndertaketh to answere or obiect as you shall also further see by that which yet followeth for the confirmation of his pretended answere 42 But Mr. Fitzherbert seeketh still to blind his Readers vnderstanding with a confuse ambiguitie of equiuocall words For although it litle importeth whether a Bishop may inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not his temporall subiect or make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge by forcing the Iudge thereunto not onely by spirituall but also by temporall compulsion or coercion seeing that in this case it is done by the
Bishops authoritie and the Seculiar Iudge is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will yet that a Bishop may only make a pecuniarie penaltie to be inflicted by a Seculiar Iudge by forcing him thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures and not by temporall compulsion this doth very much import and altogether fauour my doctrine For I doe not now contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as by the institution of Christ it is directiue or which is all one commaunding imposing or inioyning for I doe not denie as I haue often said that spirituall Pastours may by their spirituall authoritie commaund impose and inioyne temporall Princes to make temporall lawes as Saint Ambrose did the Emperour Theodosius and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good in which case those lawes are not made nor those temporall penalties are inflicted by the authoritie of spirituall Pastours as though temporall Princes were only their instruments and Ministers to execute their wills as inferiour Magistrates are onely instruments and Ministers to execute the will of the Prince but I doe now onely contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing and I vtterly denie that it is a certaine and vndoubted point of faith that the spirituall coerciue power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Secondly that fraude and impertinencie which Mr. Fitzherbert doth vntruely attribute to my answeres and obiections I haue clearely shewed to bee found in euery one of his Replies And as touching that absurditie which he now obiecteth against my answere it is cleere that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me is not concerning the power which either the Pope or inferiour Bishops haue by the grant consent and authoritie of temporall Princes I doe not say to commaund impose or inioyne but to inflict temporall penalties vpon Lay-men who are not their temporall subiects but whether any spirituall Pastour whether he be an inferiour Bishop or also the Pope himselfe hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict such temporall penalties And indeed my purpose is to conclude that because it is probable that an inferiour Bishop hath no such authoritie by the institution of Christ iure diuino therefore it is also probable that the Pope iure diuino and by the institution of Christ hath no such authority and vpon what probabilitie this my consequence is grounded and how absurdly Mr. Fitzherbert condemneth it of ridiculous absurditie you shall forthwith perceiue Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. 3 44 And first according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in the particular which assertion he brought to prooue that if the Pope be a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church then euery Bishop is also a direct Lord in temporals of his owne particular Church or Diocesse which consequent he affirmeth to be manifestly false and therefore hee denyeth also that the Pope is a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church Now from the same assertion I may as well conclude that if the Pope be an indirect Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church and may inflict temporall punishments vpon all Christians in order to spirituall good then euery Bishop is also an indirect Lord in temporals in his owne particular Diocesse and may in order to spirituall good inflict temporall punishments vpon the Christians of his Diocesse because euery Bishop in his particular Diocesse is that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church And therefore to argue according to the rules of Logicke à destructione consequentis ad destructionem antecedentis from the ouerthrowing or denying of the consequent to the denying of the antecedent If a Bishop in his owne Diocesse cannot according to the institution of Christ inflict a pecuniarie mulct or temporall penalty of money vpon those Lay-men that are not his temporall subiects neither can the Pope in the vniuersall Church doe the same Victoria in relect 2. de potest Eccles Castro lib. 2. de iusta Haeres punit cap. 24. Vasques 1. 2. disp 152. cap. 3. num 28. 45 Secondly according to the doctrine of the Diuines of Paris which others also as Victoria Castro Vasquez although otherwise vehement maintainers of the Popes power indirectly in temporals doe in this point follow it is euident that Bishops doe not receiue their authority and Iurisdiction from the Pope but immediatly from Christ by vertue of those words which were spoken to all the Apostles Whatsoeuer you shall binde c. Matth. 18. And Whose sinnes you shall forgiue c. Iohn 19. And Feede my sheepe Iohn 20. Which words according to the Exposition of the ancient Fathers a See aboue cap. 5. num 10. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad 1586. which also Cardinall Bellar. did once approoue are vnderstood to be spoken also to all the Apostles Seeing therefore that S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles and consequently the Pope and other Bishops who succeede the Apostles as they were ordinary Pastours and had ordinary spirituall power to gouerne the Church receiued their power and iurisdiction in the selfe-same forme of words without any limitation or restriction from hence it clearely followeth that what Ecclesiastical power iurisdiction soeuer the Pope receiueth ouer the whole Church the same power and iurisdiction if we regard meerely the law of God and the institution of Christ other Bishops receiue ouer those who are subiect to their Bishopricke * A Bishop saith Ledesma 1. 4. ar 11. standing in the law of God hath as great power in his Prouince as the Pope in the whole world So that standing in the law of God and abstracting from the Canons of the Church euery Bishop may in his owne Bishoprick absolue from all cases inflict all censures dispense in oathes and vowes make lawes and Canons no lesse then the Pope may in the Vniuersall Church And therefore it is no absurd argument to conclude that because a Bishop cannot by vertue of that spirituall power which hee hath receiued from Christ inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon those that in spiritualls are subiect to his Diocesse therefore neither can the Pope doe the same in the Vniuersall Church 46 Whereby it is apparant that the comparison which M. Fitzherbert heere maketh betwixt a King and an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge a Bishop and a Parish Priest and betwixt the Pope and other Bishops is idle and impertinent for that no man can make any doubt but that an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge hath all his authoritie and iurisdiction from the King but Bishops according to the doctrine of many learned men haue not their authority and iurisdiction from the Pope but immediately from Christ as the Pope himselfe hath and all Catholikes confesse that Bishops are Peeres and Princes of the Church and principall Iudges in the externall spirituall Court
Catholikes both Diuines and Canonists whom I haue heeretofore related that the acts and obiects of the spirituall coerciue power are onely the inflicting of spirituall punishments or Ecclesiasticall Censures as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and not of temporall or ciuill penalties as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and consequently that the inflicting of temporall punishments are neither directly nor indirectly formally nor vertually subiect to the spirituall coerciue power of the Church but onely to the coerciue temporall power of temporall Princes for that no reference relation or reduction of the inflicting of temporall punishments to the glory of GOD or the saluation of soules can make temporall punishments to bee Ecclesiasticall Censures or the inflicting of temporall and ciuill punishments to bee the inflicting of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures 66 And although this opinion bee the lesse common among Catholikes for the reasons heretofore alledged especially through the watchfulnes of the coÌ„trary side since the time that some Popes haue challenged to themselues this temporall authoritie ouer Kings call it direct or indirect formall or vertuall as you please and the indiligence to speake with all reuerence of Christian Princes in suffering their temporall Soueraigntie to be so greatly and cunningly depressed and subiected yet in my iudgement it is more conforme to the true sense and meaning of the holy Scriptures to the practise of the primitiue Church to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers and to the true grounds and principles of morall Philosophy and Diuinitie and therefore to affirme this opinion which is embraced by so many Doctours as Almaine witnesseth and which is grounded vpon such plaine and pregnant reasons to be impious absurd improbable erroneous yea and hereticall as this foule mouth'd and rash headed ignorant man doth so often brand it is cleerely repugnant to the rules of Christian prudence charitie and modestie and to the knowne principles of Schoole-Diuinitie 67 And according to this opinion although we should suppose which is altogether vntrue though often inculcated by my Aduersarie that the inflicting of temporall punishments and the disposing of temporall things were absolutely necessarie for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules yet they should not therefore be subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but onely to the temporall authoritie of Christian Princes who as the Prophet Isay foretold Isa c. 49. were by Gods speciall prouidence appointed to be her nourcing Fathers Nources and Protectours In such cases of necessitie spirituall Pastours must implore the aide of Christian Princes and the Brachium Seculare or temporall power is bound by her lawes and other meanes to helpe the spirituall and both of them hauing neede one of the other being so vnited linked and conioyned as I haue shewed before m Paâ—t 2. c. 1. one with the other among Christians ought to vse all due meanes to helpe each other yet without breaking the bounds and limits prescribed by Christ to either of them 68 But truely in my opinion the weakenesse of their cause and of the grounds of this their doctrine touching the Popes temporall Monarchie ouer absolute Princes call it direct or indirect as you please may to any man of iudgement sufficiently appeare by their so often declining the true state of the question and not standing vpon any sure or certaine ground but flying from one argument to another as from conuenience to absolute necessitie sometimes affirming that the Pope may depose Princes and dispose of temporall things when it is conuenient for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules other times when it is absolutely necessarie thereunto But as I haue shewed before o Cap. 7. nu 36 seq this absolute necessitie is a meere fiction and onely supposed but neuer prooued and this pretended temporall authoritie of the Pope Almain de potest Eccle. q. 1 cap. 9. as Almaine said is rather very hurtfull then any way necessarie either for the good of the Pope or of Christian people And if by the practise of depositions as of Henrie the fourth by Pope Gregorie the seuenth of Fredrike the second by Innocent the fourth of Philip the the faire by Boniface the eight of our King Henrie the eight by Paul the third and Queene Elizabeth by Pope Pius the fifth which are the most famous depositions of all we may gather whether this authoritie be necessarie or hurtfull to the Church of God all histories make mention what infinite harme rather then any good at all came to the Church of God thereby And this I hope may suffice for the confirmation of my second answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell and for the confutation of my Aduersaries Reply Now let vs see the third answere CHAP. XIII Wherein Widdringtons third answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell is confirmed and also it is shewed how certaine it is according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes that the Church cannot erre in Decrees or precepts of manners from whence it is cleerely deduced that from the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell it cannot with any colour of probabilitie be prooued that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and all M. Fitzherberts arguments to shew the contrarie are most plainely confuted 1 BEcause my Aduersaries did so much relie vpon this Decree of the Lateran Councell that they thought it alone to be sufficient to make their doctrine certaine and of faith and therefore feared not to brand the contrarie with the note of heresie my third answere to their argument grounded vpon the authoritie of the Lateran Councell was that the Canon or decree for so we call it yet of the said Councell touching the deposition of temporall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords was no matter of faith but of fact onely wherein as well the Pope as those Fathers following their owne opinions might erre and that the Councell did not determine or define that the future deposition not of Princes as Mr. Fitzherbert translateth it but of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull power or from the Ecclesiasticall power alone without the consent of Princes And therefore the opinion of those Fathers yeeldeth no more certainety for the Popes power to depose Princes then if they had declared their opinions forth of the Councell seeing that this onely can bee gathered from the certaine and vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church that the infalable assistance of the Holy Ghost is promised by our Sauiour Christ not to the facts or probable opinions of Popes or Councells but onely to their definitions 2 Against this answere Mr. Fitzherbert taketh some idle and friuolous exceptions And first he carpeth at that distinction or Antithesis betwixt rem facti duntaxat and rem fidei a matter of fact onely and a matter of faith which he would haue me to reforme and to make it according to the
vsuall manner rem facti and rem iuris a matter of fact a matter of law or right But here saith he a Pag. 17. 8. nu 2. I must desire Widdrington first to reforme his distinction or rather Antithesis which he maketh betwixt rem facti and rem fidei a matter of fact and a matter of faith Wherein there is no such opposition as hee seemeth to imagine or would at least haue to bee conceiued for if by a matter of fact onely he meanes a matter that is not speculatiue but consisteth onely in action or practise then matters of fact and faith may so well stand together that they may be and often are one and the selfe same thing I meane that a matter of fact not onely may but ought also to be beleeued vnder paine of damnation as it is euident in diuers Articles of our faith consisting in the beliefe of things done or to be done as in all the Historie of our Sauiours Incarnation life and death already past and in his last Iudgement our Resurrection and euerlasting reward or punishment which are yet to come and being matters of fact are neuerthelesse matters of faith and therefore Widdrington may doe well as I haue said to reforme his distinction and to make it according to the vsuall manner to wit rem facti and rem iuris a matter of fact and a matter of law or right which are indeed alwayes distinct 3 But first is it possible that this man should be so blind or ignorant as not to see that a matter of faith is alwayes a matter of law for that it is commaunded to be beleeued by the law of God and so how childishly he carpeth at that distinction or Antithesis a matter of fact onely and not a matter of faith desiring me to reforme that distinction and to make it according to the vsuall manner to wit rem facti and rem iuris a matter of faith and a matter of law seeing that it is manifest to euery Schoole-boy that a matter of faith is alwayes a matter of law as being a thing commanded to be beleeued by the law of God But matters of fact and of faith saith Mr. Fitzherbert may well stand together c. And therefore a matter of fact is not opposite to a matter of faith as Widdrington seemeth to imagine or would at least haue to be conceiued 4 But in the like manner I may say that matters of fact and matters of law may well stand together as it is euident in diuers Articles of our faith concerning our Sauiours Incarnation Passion Resurrection c. which are both matters of fact and of law seeing that they are things appertaining to the law of God and therefore a matter of fact is not opposite to a matter of law and alwayes distinct as Mr. Fitzherbert following therein Fa. Lessius from whom he tooke this friuolous exception not onely seemeth to imagine but also expresly affirmeth So that these men haue neede first to reforme their owne distinction or Antithesis which they make betwixt a matter of fact and a matter of law before they vndertake to be reformers of other men But the plaine truth is that I neither said nor imagined as these men vntruly affirme that I made an opposition or Antithesis betwixt a matter of faith and a matter of fact but betwixt a matter of faith and of fact onely which word onely if they had well considered they might easily haue perceiued that it doth exclude a matter of faith and that I did not make an opposition betwixt euery matter of fact and of faith but betwixt a matter of faith and of fact onely that is of such facts whic are onely grounded vpon a probable opinion or at the most not vpon any vndoubted doctrine of faith and such matters of fact and of faith can neuer stand together 5 For whereas Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Lessius against whom principally I wrote that Preface wherein I answered this Decree of the Lateran Councell did so much insist vpon this Decree that as I said before they would make the world beleeue that it alone were sufficient to make their doctrine to be of faith and the contrary flat hereticall my meaning was in this third answere to shew that no such thing could be proued from this Councell as they pretended for that this Decree for as much as it concerneth the future deposition of temporall Landlords or Lords was no matter of faith but of fact onely and that the Councell did not declare determine or define that this future deposition of them was therein decreed to proceede from the spirituall authority of the Church without the consent licence or authoritie of temporall Princes which my Aduersarie must first prooue or else they will speake little to the purpose Now Mr. Fitzherbert falsly supposing as you haue seene that I make an opposition betwixt a matter of fact and a matter of faith as though a matter of fact and a matter of faith cannot stand together which euery Schoole-boy knoweth to bee false you shall see what an idle discourse he maketh throughout this whole Chapter it being grounded vpon this false supposall 6 But because Mr. Fitzher in his ensuing discourse giueth me occasion to enter into a question which not a litle concerneth our present controuersie I thinke it not amisse before I goe any further to speake something thereof to wit with what kind of certainetie we are to beleeue that the Church cannot erre in making Decrees or precepts of manners that is whether as it is hereticall to hold that the Church can erre in making matters of faith so also it is hereticall to hold that she can erre in making lawes Decrees or precepts belonging to manners And albeit my meaning is not at this time to set downe what is my owne opinion concerning this matter because I doe not intend to relie much thereon for the answering of my Aduersaries obiections and so will not giue him occasion to flie from the principall controuersie to other by-questions and of lesse importance yet for the better instruction of the vnlearned Reader who may perchance imagine that euery Popes Breue is sufficient to make a matter of faith I will briefly relate what is the opinion of learned Catholikes and namely of Melchior Canus in this point 7 First therefore concerning matters of faith or things to beleeued Melchior Canus affirmeth that a Generall Councell being confirmed by the Popes authoritie cannot erre in the defining of Catholike doctrine Canus lib. 1. de locis cap. 4. concl 3. and this conclusion he taketh to be so certaine that the contrarie he accounteth hereticall But as I obserued in an other place b In disp Theol cap 10. sec 2. nu 13. to make such definitions to be certaine infallible and without errour he requireth two conditions the one is that the doctrine must bee propounded to the whole Church and not onely to priuate
or particular Churches or Bishops and the other that it be propounded with an obligation to bee beleeued as of faith which also Cardinall Bellarmine confirmeth For in Councells Bellar. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 42. saith he the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith for neither are of faith the disputations that 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 those onely which are propounded as of faith And it is easie say they to know when the Councell doth propound any thing with an obligation to be beleeued as of faith by the wordes of the Councell it selfe For they alwayes vse to say that they declare the Catholike faith or account them for heretickes or which is most common denounce anathema or excommunicate them who shall beleeue the contrary but when none of these things are said it is not certaine saith Cardinall Bellarmine that it is a point of faith Whereby may be plainly seene the insolent temeritie of some especially this my Aduersary who feare not to call them heretickes that deny the Popes power to depose Princes seeing that neither from the Councell of Lateran nor from any other Councell either Generall or Prouinciall nor which is more from any one Canon of any particular Pope they can bring so much as a colourable shew of any such decree which according to the aforesaid rules of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus haue the conditions required to make a point of faith Canus lib. 5. de loc cap. 5. q. 5. 8 Now concerning decrees and precepts belonging to manners or things commanded or forbidden to bee done the said Canus hauing first supposed and distinguished that the question may be either of such things as are necessary to saluation as being commaunded or forbidden by the law of God or Nature or of such things that are not so necessary he setteth downe this conclusion that the Church cannot erre in the doctrine of such manners as are necessary to saluation Therefore if the Church by a firme decree doe define that any thing is to bee done or to bee auoided she cannot erre therein as for example in commanding Lay-men to receiue the Sacrament vnder one onely kinde From whence hee inferreth this second conclusion that when the Church in a matter of moment and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all Christian people she cannot command any thing which is contrarie to the Gospell or naturall reason wherefore as a generall Councell cannot propound false things to be belieued by the people so it cannot propound euill things to be done propound saith he by a firme and certaine decree by which all men are bound to belieue and doe vnder paine of eternall damnation 9 But as concerning the certainty of this doctrine especially touching things which are not so necessary to saluation as not being repugnant to the Gospell or naturall reason whether it bee hereticall to affirme that some custome of the Church is euill or some law of the Church is vniust I dare not saith Canus define or determine Whereupon hee excuseth those from heresie who should affirme that the Church doth erre in the custome of communicating the people vnder one kinde only and hee answereth to the Councell of Constance which ordaineth that those are to be condemned as heretickes who affirme the Church to erre therein that the Councell at that time was without a head and that Pope Martin doth not simply or absolutely approue that article but hee onely defineth that those who shall teach that the Church doth erre in that manner of custome are to bee condemned as heretikes or as sauouring heresie Therefore that which Pope Martin being President of the Councell durst not condemne by the name of heresie neither I saith Canus dare nor ought to impeach of a greater censure But if in a custome necessary to saluation which that seemed to be whereof there was a controuersie in the Councell of Constance the modesty of Pope Martin was so great how much more modest ought we to be in condemning other errours which are repugnant to the custome of the Church which is not necessary to saluation Thus Canus which doctrine I would desire my Aduersary and such other vnlearned hoat-spurres who haue heresie and hereticall so frequent in their mouthes little knowing themselues what heresie is diligently to consider 10 Also the said Canus excuseth from heresie those who disprooue the custome of the Church to carry about in solemne procession the B. Sacrament For albeit saith hee to reprehend this custome vpon this ground that Christ is not really and truely present in the Eucharist bee heresie yet if thou regard the errour in it selfe it sauoureth heresie it is rashnesse and imprudence and although it be to be censured for many respects yet it is not heresie seeing that albeit in this custome the Church should not erre yet her authority would not therefore be endangered in matters of greater moment Neither doth the Councell of Trent simply or absolutely say anathema to those that shall reprehend this custome of the Church but to those that therefore reprehend it because they doe not admit the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist and therefore neither the adoration and woorship thereof 11 In like manner he excuseth from heresie those who affirme that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints For it is to bee obserued saith hee that some manners or customes of the Church are deliuered to the Church by Christ and the Apostles wherein hee that should say the Church to erre doth make Christ and the Apostles to be Authors of that errour but other manners or customes are brought in since the Apostles wherein although the Church should erre yet faith would not therefore bee endangered Therefore without danger of heresie it may bee held that the Church may in some law and custome erre And hee bringeth a reason wherefore it is not hereticall to say that the Church may erre in the Canonization of Saints by which he prooued a little before that in manners customes precepts and lawes which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate men or Churches the Church may erre through ignorance not onely in the iudgement of things done but also in the priuate precepts and lawes themselues And of this conclusion saith hee Pope Innocent gaue a true and fit reason in cap. A nobis desent Excom in these words The iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued but the iudgement of the Church doth sometimes follow opinion which oftentimes deceiueth and is deceiued whereupon it happeneth sometimes that he who is bound before God is loosed before the Church he that is free before God is tyed by an Ecclesiasticall Censure Thus Pope Innocent 12 For from hence saith Canus it is
or Lords who remaine excommunicated for a whole yeare for neglecting to purge their territories of hereticall filth And thus much concerning the Apostles decree 22 And the like also saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 179. nu 4. 5. may bee said concerning other decrees of Popes and Councels the impugners whereof haue beene held and condemned by the Church for heretikes as for example it was decreed e Baron an 159 Euseb lib. 23. cap. 22. 23. 24 25. Theod. lib. 1. c. 9. Athan. in epist de Synod Arimin Ambros epist 83. by Pope Pius the first and confirmed by Pope Victor and after by the Councell of Nice that the feast of Easter should be celebrated at the same time that now it is kept vniuersally throughout Christendome according to the tradition left to the Romane Church by S. Peter whereas the Churches of Asia did celebrate the said feast with the Iewes to wit at the time prescribed in the law of Moyses following therein the tradition or at least the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist And albeit those decrees ordaine onely matter of fact and practise yet they which haue heretofore contradicted the same and adhered to the custome of the Iewes were and are still held by the Church for heretikes Epiphan haer 50 S. Aug haer 29. and registred for such by S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine in their Catalogues of heretikes vnder the name and title of Tessarescedecatitae that is to say Quartadecimani who with this distinction of Widdrington and his arguments might farre more probably defend their opinion then he doth or can defend his For they might say as well as he that those Decrees were not matters of faith but matters of fact onely wherein both the Pope and the Councels might follow their owne priuate opinions and consequently erre which being added to that which they said in defence of their heresie and might truely say to wit that they followed the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist and of the Churches of Asia Euseb vbi supra Beda lib. 3. hist cap. 23. which receiued the same by tradition from him and continued it without interruption for 150. yeares this I say would giue another manner of probability to their doctrine then he can any way pretend for his and yet neuerthelesse they are worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees 23 But this obiection is as friuolous as the former first for that it supposeth that I oppose a matter of fact to a matter of faith and imagine that the one cannot stand with the other which is vntrue as I shewed before Secondly for that it supposeth also that I impugne the decree or rather Act and reason of the Lateran Councell which is also vntrue seeing that I doe not impugne it but onely as you haue seene expound it Thirdly for that there is a great disparity betwixt the decree concerning the celebrating of the Feast of Easter and this Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates seeing that the former is a true and proper decree implying an expresse precept and commandement but this Act is not a true proper decree containing in it any command grant or priuiledge as I shewed before and therefore we cannot rightly apply those arguments which the Diuines doe bring to prooue the Churches infallible authority to make decrees and precepts concerning manners to this Act of the Lateran Councel which is not grounded vpon any doctrine appertaining to faith but onely vpon opinion which may be exposed to errour 24 Fourthly the Quartadecimani Castro lib. 12. contra haer verbo Pascha Bell. lib. 3. de Cultu Sanct. cap. 12. as you may see in Alphonsus de Castro and Cardinall Bellarmine were not accounted heretikes for celebrating the Feast of Easter according to the custome of the Iewes contrary to the decree of the Church but for that they thought it necessary to celebrate that Feast according to the custome of the Iewes which is indeede hereticall And therefore that is very vntrue which Mr. Fitzherbert saith that the Quartadecimani were worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees but because they refused to obey them vpon an hereticall ground Neither is it hereticall as I haue shewed before out of Canus to impugne or disobey a decree of the Church especially concerning facts and manners which are not necessary to saluation vnlesse it be impugned or disobeyed vpon an hereticall ground But if the decree bee grounded onely vpon an opinion which is exposed to errour and not vpon an infallible point of faith it is not hereticall to impugne that decree and to say that the Church may erre in making that decree Wherefore it is one thing to say that the Church may erre in making such or such a law and decree and another thing to say that the Church doth erre or hath erred in making that law and decree Canus lib. 5. q. 5 conclu 2. albeit Melchior Canus feareth not to say that hee doth not approoue all Church-lawes nor commend all punishments Censures Excommunications Irregularities Interdicts I know saith he that there be some such lawes which if they want nothing else yet doubtlesse they want prudence and discretion For in lawes precepts decrees and facts concerning manners which are not necessary to saluation and which are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith it is not hereticall to hold that Christ hath not promised to the Church any infallible assistance and that therefore she may erre in making such decrees yet I do not deny but that it were temerarious and irreligious for any priuate man to impugne any decree of a generall Councell and to say that the Church did erre in making that decree 25 As also it is no false doctrine much lesse hereticall to affirme that Kings and temporall Common-wealths may erre in making lawes and decrees concerning ciuill gouernment for that Christ hath not promised them his infallible assistance therein yet it were scandalous and seditious for a priuate man to impugne any temporall law established by the Prince and the Common-wealth and to say that they did erre in making that temporall law But as I said before I doe not impugne but onely expound this Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell according to the probable doctrine of very many Doctours who affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath not power to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall Censures But no maruaile that my Aduersary discourseth here so vnlearnedly seeing that hee hath so little insight in these Theologicall questions and I accuse rather his temerity then his ignorance that hee will take vpon him with such confidence to bee a teacher in these difficult questions wherein hee himselfe hath neuer beene a Schollar or scarce vnderstandeth the true state of the question And by this which hath beene said the iudicious
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
make the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 38 Thirdly when I affirmed that from the vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church this onely can be gathered that Christ hath promised the infalliable assistance of the holy Ghost not to facts or probable opinions of Popes and Councells but to definitions onely by facts I vnderstand such acts as are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and by definitions I meant those Decrees which are propounded as of faith or which without any doubt or controuersie are deduced euidently from such infallible definitions or principles of faith of which sort this Act or Decree of the Lateran Councell is not as it is euident for those many reasons before alledged 39 And whereas Widdrington addeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 133. nu 12. Supra nu 1. an other circumstance to wit that the Councell did not determine by this Decree that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie or from the Ecclesiasticall power onely without the consent of Princes he is no lesse impertinent then in the former for what need was there to determine that the Pope had an vndoubted lawfull authoritie to depose Princes seeing that the same was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth as it is euident for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it Naucler goâ—erat 41. ad ann 12. which they would not haue done if they had doubted of the lawfulnesse of the Popes authoritie in that behalfe But first Mr. Fitzherbert doth egregiously abuse both me and his Reader in adding both heere and aboue the word Princes as though I had acknowledged that Act of the Lateran Councell to concerne the future deposition of Princes whereas I euer affirmed that it did onely concerne inferiour Magistrates Potestaes Landlords and Lords and not Soueraigne Princes and therfore I said onely that future deposition and my Aduersarie addeth of himselfe the word Princes 40 Secondly whether it was needfull or no for the Councell to declare whether that Act concerning the future deposition of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords or rather the denouncing of them ipso facto deposed was made by spirituall or temporall authoritie it is nothing materiall to our question this being sufficient for me that seeing that very many Catholike Doctors do affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the absoluing of Vassals from their temporall fealtie and the Councell did not declare by what authoritie that Act was made any Catholike man may probably and without any note of temeritie much lesse of heresie affirme that it was made not by any vndoubted lawfull Ecclesiasticall authoritie but onely by the authoritie licence and consent of absolute Princes But although it were not absolutely necessarie that the Councell should haue declared whether that future deposition was to proceed from Ecclesiasticall or temporall authoritie yet to make it a point of faith which all men are bound to beleeue that the aforesaid deposition was to proceede from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and not temporall it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same especially supposing that it is truely probable that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments As also if the Pope being now both a spirituall Pastour and also a temporall Prince should make a law whereof there may bee made a probable doubt whether it was made by vertue of his spirituall or of his temporall authoritie it is necessarie to make this point certaine and out of controuersie that he declare by what authoritie temporall or spirituall that lawe was enacted 41 Thirdly it is very vntrue that the Popes power to depose Princes was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth for that from the very first broaching thereof there alwayes hath beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side Azor. tom 2. li. 11. ca. 5. q. 8 and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in certaine causes the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kings of their kingdome And the euident reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth hereof to wit for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it is the maine question which is now betwixt vs and so he bringeth for an euident reason that which is the controuersie and to be prooued which is an euident petitio principij and condemned as vicious by all Logicians Neither doth Nauclerus whom my Aduersarie citeth in the margent as though hee would make his Reader beleeue that Nauclerus affirmeth that the whole Councell decreed the practise therof affirme any such thing For Nauclerus words are onely these There were many things truly then consulted of yet nothing could be plainly decreed for that they of Pisa and Genua made warre one against the other by Sea and those on this side the Alpes by land Yet some Constitutions are reported to be published whereof one is that whensoeuer the Princes of the world shall offend one the other the correcting belongeth to the Bishop of Rome Where you see first that Nauclerus expresly saith that albeit many things were consulted yet nothing at all could be plainely decreed Secondly that it was onely a report that some constitutions were published Thirdly he doth not say that these Constitutions were of the whole Councell or onely of Pope Innocent and recited in the Councell as Matthew Paris said Fourthly that this report was vntrue it is also plaine seeing that there is no such Constitution as hee mentioneth to be found in the Lateran Councell And lastly albeit there were such a Constitution it is nothing to the purpose seeing that it onely saith that when Princes are at variance it belongeth to the Pope to correct them to wit by Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not the question but that it belongeth to the Pope to correct Princes by deposing them and by inflicting temporall punishments which is the maine controuersie and whereof the practise as Mr. Fitzherbert saith citing Nauclerus in the margent was decreed by the whole Councell Nauclerus speaketh not any one word at all 42 Also Pope Innocent the third saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Pag. 183. u. 13. Naucler geuerat 42 ann 1246. Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. See Adolp Schulc pro Card. Bell. ca. 12 14 where he confuteth the answeres of Widdrington to these examples vnder whom the Councell of Lateran was held had not past three or foure yeeres before depriued the Emperour Otho of his right to the Empire by a sentence of Excommunication and deposition by vertue whereof Frederike the second whose Ambassadours were present at the Lateran Councell was made Emperour who also was afterwards deposed by Innocentius the fourth in the Generall Councell held at Lyons as
another generall Councell of like authority and why a Bishop for example of Spaine as he is a part of the generall Councell which is a true formall body representing the whole Catholike Church hath power and iurisdiction ouer the Christians of another temporall kingdome for example of France and contrariwise but a temporall or Ciuill law made by the consent of all Christian Princes may bee repealed by euery Prince for as much as concerneth his owne kingdome by whose onely authoritie that law had force to binde in his kingdome which in temporalls is subiect to no other Prince but himselfe alone and therefore as that law had not force to binde in his kingdome from the authoritie of any other Prince so the authoritie and consent of no other Prince is necessarie for the repealing and abrogating of the same So as thou seest good Reader that my third answere is no way defectiue but in euery thing sound and sufficient and that Maister Fitzherbert in the impugning thereof hath very grossely bewrayed his egregious fraude and ignorance CHAP. XIIII VVherein three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby hee laboured in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraude and falshood 1. AFter I had giuen the aforesaide third answere to that Act of the Lateran Councell as you haue seene before I insinuated another difficultie a In the aforesaid Preface nu 51. concerning that Act in these wordes I omit now that those wordes that from that time the Pope may denounce or declare his Vassalls absolued from his fealtie doe containe in them some difficultie for if wee will regard the force or proprietie of the wordes they seeme onely to signifie that it belongeth to the Pope not truely to absolue Vassalls from their fealtie but onely to declare them alreadie absolued which is not the question which wee haue now in hand But this difficultie Mr. Fitzherbert passeth ouer with silence and skippeth to examine three instances which I did not onely imagine or suppose as hee saith would be made against my last answere but which Fa. Lessius in those expresse words by me related in a booke of his called Disputatio Apologetica pro potestate Summi Pontificis which went heere vp and downe for a while in hugger mugger and whereof by chance I had then a view but now it cannot be seene but by very speciall and secret friends which is a manifest token of a great diffidence in his cause did bring to demonstrate and cleerely conuince that it is a manifest point of faith that the Pope hath power and authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance 2 And because Mr. Fitzherbert doth ouer much pare and curtoll those three instances which I brought to confront and paralele with the three arguments or obiections vrged by Fa. Lessius I thinke it not amisse first of all to relate them word by word as there they are set downe by me Wherefore the first argument or obiection of Fa. Lesus is this 1. Argument of Fa Lessius That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of their Decrees and sentences but this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their allegiance is eyther propounded or supposed by Popes Councels and Doctors as a foundation of many Canons and iudiciall sentences therfore this doctrine doth appertaine to faith 2. Argument 3 His second argument is this If a Generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath this authoritie no Catholike could make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that it doth suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of her Decrees and Sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to be accounted no lesse certaine 3. Argument 4 His third argument is this It is a poynt of Faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which is per se of it selfe vnlawfull for such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then is an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to depriue temporall Princes of their dominions the Church should erre in doctrine of manners and that in matters of very great moment For shee teacheth that after a Prince is deposed by the Popes authority all his subiects are absolued from his obedience and that his dominions may bee taken by another as it is manifest by the Councells Also that after a Prince is publikely excommunicated his subiects are absolued from their Oath of Allegiance in so much that they are not bound to obey him vntill hee he reconciled yea and she doth forbid them to obey him if the Censure be denounced All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the subiects shall thereby be incited to rebellions and periuries yea and against their will be compelled thereunto Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and commandeth rebellions and periuries and by her Censures doth compell men thereunto but to affirme this is hereticall therefore that also from whence this followeth is hereticall to wit that the Church hath not authority to absolue subiects from the bond of their oath and from their obedience 5 Thus argueth Fa. Lessius to which his arguments I did not answer in forme but onely propounded three other instances or arguments to confront them with his whereby the learned Reader might cleerely see the weakenesse and insufficiency of his obiections which my arguments I grounded in like manner vpon the dispensations decrees and iudiciall sentences of certaine Popes in these words * Praefatio Apol nu 56. seq 6 And first of all is not the due administration of Sacraments a matter of great moment and chiefly belonging to the Popes office is not an error concerning it to be accounted very pernicious But the Pope hath oftentimes giuen leaue to a Priest who was no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation b As it appeareth by S. Gregory lib. 3. epist 26. and it is related in the Canon peruenit dist 95. and many Abbots at this day haue the same faculty Concil Flor. circa finem in Decreto Eugen. whereas it is a great cōtrouersie among
Diuines whether the Pope can giue leaue to such a Priest to administer this Sacrament Seeing therefore that to the Sacraments of the new Law as the Councell of Florence declareth are required three things the matter the forme and the Minister of which if any one be wanting it is not a true and perfect Sacrament and that it is a very great sacriledge that the due and lawfull matter and forme of a Sacrament should be seriously applied by an vnlawfull Minister if the Pope in whom only according to these Diuines the whole Ecclesiastiall power and authority to define infallibly matters of faith doth chiefly reside cannot grant authority to a Priest who is no Bishop to administer this Sacrament as very learned Diuines c Adrianus Papa in 4. in q. de confess ar 3. Durand in 4. dist 7. q. 3. 4 Bonauent ibid. Alphon. de Cast in l. de haer verbo confirmatio Petrus Soto lec 2. de confirm and others without any note of heresie or errour doe hold is it not a very great errour to grant such licences whereby there is danger that most heinous sacriledges to wit the inualid administrations of Sacraments should be committed 7 Moreouer Pope Sixtus the fourth did in honor of the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary make a Decree d It is to be seen in the 4. tome of the Councels after the life of Pope Sixtus for celebrating the Feast of her Conception to the end that all faithfull Christians should giue thanks and praise to almighty God for her wonderfull conception which he also cals immaculate e In the second decree of the immaculate Virgin and notwithstanding it is vncertaine and disputed by Diuines on both sides whether the B. Virgin was conceiued in originall sinne or by the speciall prouidence of God preserued from the same Is it not therefore from hence manifest that the doctrine which is propounded or supposed as a foundation of an Apostolicall constitution and decree and which belongeth to the religious seruice of God is not so certaine and vndoubted a truth but that without danger of deadly sinne it may be impugned 8 Lastly some Popes haue oftentimes dispenced with Princes who haue made a solemne vow of chastity in approoued Religions to contract matrimonie f See Azor. tom 1. li. 12. c. 7. q. 1. as it is recorded by Historiographers of Constantia daughter to Roger King of Sicilie of Casimirus King of Poland and of Ramirus King of Aragon and of Nicholas Iustinian a noble Venetian but if the Pope hath no authority to dispence in the solemne vowe of religious chastitie whereof there is a great controuersie among Catholike Doctours g For S. Thomas and all his followers whom Zanchez a Iesuite relateth lib. 8 de Matrimon disp 8. doe deny that the Pope hath such a power and Zanchez also saith that it is probable doubtlesse such dispensations would cause very many hainous sinnes and doe also great wrong to other Princes who by such dispensations should be vniustly depriued of their iust title to raigne and to succeede in their inheritance These bee the examples whereon I grounded my three arguments or instances to confront them with the former three of Fa. Lessius in these words 1. Instance of Widdrington 9 May we not therefore according to our aduersaries principles argue in this manner That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which the Pope in whom onely according to these Doctours all authoritie to define infallibly matters of faith doth reside h For they grant that the Pope alone without a Coūcell hath this insallibility the Councell without the Pope hath it not doth eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of his Decrees and sentences this is the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius first argument But this doctrine that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemn vow of chastity and giue leaue to a Priest who is no Bishop to Minister the Sacrament of Confirmation is propounded or supposed by Popes as a ground or foundation of many their decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences therefore that doctrine doth appertaine to faith This is the substance of my first instance but in forme made like to Fa Lessius his first argument 2. Instance 10 Secondly if the Pope should expresly define that the Church hath such a power to wit to dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and to define that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne no Catholike of those especially who hold that the Pope defining without a Generall Councell cannot erre can make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that Popes doe suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences they are thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to bee accounted no lesse certaine 3. Instance 11 Thirdly it is a point of faith as our Aduersaries suppose that the Pope cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or to bee vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which per se of it selfe is vnlawfull For such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to dispence in the solemne vow of chastity or to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation the Pope should erre in doctrine and precepts of manners and that in matters of very great moment For he teacheth that the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by an inferiour Priest who is no Bishop is a true Sacrament Also that if a Prince by the Popes dispensation doe marry a professed Nunne that marriage to be lawfull and valid and that their children are lawfully begotten and ought to succeed in the Kingdome and notwithstanding that the next of the blood Royall should for want of the lawfull issue of this Prince pretend a right to the Crowne yet the Pope may without doubt according to our Aduersaries doctrine commaund and also by Censures compell the Subiects to acknowledge the issue begotten by that marriage wherein the Pope did dispence to be their true vndoubted and rightfull Prince All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the Subiects shall be incited thereby to doe iniuries and against their wills be compelled thereunto and Princes shall obtaine free liberty and licence from the Pope to commit incests and sacriledges Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and counsaileth sacriledge and commandeth iniustice and by Censures compelleth thereunto But to affirme this it is heritical therefore that also from whence followeth is hereticall to wit that the Pope hath not authority to dispence
in the solemne vow of chastity and to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest who is no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation 12 Thus I argued in my Apologeticall Preface and then I concluded thus Let my Aduersaries solue these difficulties and I will forthwith by their owne solutions vntie the aforesaid knots which they imagine cannot in any wise be solued or loosed Whereby it is apparant that I did not oppose or apply any one of these three instances either to the decree of the Lateran Councell or to any other Canon of Pope or Councell which are vsually brought by my Aduersaries to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith but as Fa. Lessius did not apply in particular those his three arguments either to the Canon of the Lateran Councell or to any other Canon or iudiciall sentence of the Pope or Councell but left them to be applyed by others to this or that Canon except onely his second agument which he seemeth to apply to the Lateran Councell so I thought it sufficient for that time to propound onely three other like instances in generall and not to compare or parellel any of them to any decree Canon or iudiciall sentence of Pope or Councell in particular whereby my Aduersaries contend to make manifest that this their doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith but left the application of them to this or that Canon in particular vntill such time that they themselues would either apply those three arguments to some particular Canon of Pope or Councell or answere in forme to the three instances which I brought to confront with theirs 13 Now Mr. Fitzherbert neither answereth in forme to those three instances of mine which I grounded vpon those three examples of Popes nor so much as setteth them downe to bee seene by his Reader but cauilleth onely as you shal see at those three examples whereon my three instances were grounded and pretendeth to shew a great disparitie betweene those three examples and the Decree of the Lateran Councell and also hee would seeme to haue plaid the man and to haue quite ouerthrowne my three instances whereas hee hath not so much as touched or mentioned them at all Thus therefore hee beginneth this Chapter i Pag. 185. nu 1 My Aduersary Widdrington hauing hitherto shewed great weakenesse in himselfe and his cause by his answeres to our arguments Widdr. vbi supra nu 52. pretendeth to confute a Reply which he supposeth we will make to his last answere diuiding the said Reply into three points whereof the first is that the foundations and grounds of the Ecclesiasticall Canons and Decrees of Popes and Councells doe belong to faith whereupon Widdrington saith we inferre that seeing the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran grounded their Decree vpon this doctrine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore the said doctrine must needs be certaine and a matter of faith Ibid. nu 53. 14 The second point is that seeing no Catholike man would doubt but that all Christians were bound to beleeue as a matter of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes if a generall Councell should expresly define it therefore we say that forasmuch as the Councell of Lateran doth suppose the same as a sure foundation of their foresaid Canon and Decree all Christians are no lesse bound to beleeue it then if they had expresly determined or defined it Ibid. nu 54. 15 The third point is that it being a matter of faith that the Church cannot erre in generall precepts or Decrees concerning manners it followeth that the Councell of Lateran hauing ordained the deposition of Princes neither hath erred nor could erre in it especially seeing that the errour would be most grieuous and pernicious to all Christians for thereupon would follow tumults seditions and warres by reason of the reuolts and rebellions of subiects against their Princes and the breach of their Oathes of fidelity which were no lesse then periury if the Pope had not authority to discharge subiects of their allegiance and fidelity to their Princes Thus in effect though somewhat more amply doth Widdrington argue for vs. 16 But first whether I or my Aduersary haue shewed great weakenesse in our selues and in our cause neither hee nor I but the iudicious Reader must bee the Iudge for with the same facilitie I may retort his owne words backe vpon himselfe Secondly I did not onely suppose that they would make those three arguments but I related them word by word as I found them in Fa. Lessius which neuerthelesse Mr. Fitzherbert hath very lamely recited especially the first and last argument leauing out many principal and very important words as you may see if you will compare them together Thirdly I did not say that hereupon they did inferre as this man vntruely saith I did that seeing the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran grounded their Decree vpon this doctrine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore this doctrine must be certaine and of faith For albeit Fa. Lessius may seeme to apply his second argument to the Decree of the Lateran Councell which neuerthelesse he may also apply to the Decree of the Councell of Lyons yet his other arguments especially his first are so generall that they may be applyed to many other Decrees Canons dispensations and iudiciall sentences of Popes or Councells and if Fa. Lessius had particularly applied them to the Lateran Councell I might without more adoe haue easily answered them by denying as there I did that the Councell did suppose as a foundation of that Decree or Act concerning the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie this doctrine that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes but onely inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the authoritie and consent of absolute Princes 17 Now for the answere and confutation saith k Pag. 186. nu 4. 5. Mr. Fitzherbert of these three arguments Widdrington produceth three instances to proue that the Pope doth somtimes exercise his power with danger of pernicious most grieuous errour when neuerthelesse it is vncertaine whether he haue such power or no. His first instance is that the Pope hath often giuen lilence to a Priest to minister and conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation notwithstanding that diuers great Doctours doe denie that the Pope can giue such licence or commission whereupon he concludeth that it is not certaine Durand Bonauent Adrian alij whether the Pope hath the power which he exercieth in giuing such licenses and addeth further An non saith he grauissimus error est c Is it not a most grieuous errour to grant such licences whereby there is danger to commit most grieuous sacriledges to wit the inualide administration of Sacraments So he shewing euidently how vnreuerent an opinion he hath of the licences dispensations and other actions of Popes seeing that
not onely vpon this fact of Popes giuing licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation but also vpon the two other examples before propounded whereas he hath not as you haue seene so much as related my first Instance 24 Secondly besides that not onely my first Instance or argument but also the other two Instances which I brought to comfort them with Fa. Lessius his three arguments were grounded vpon the licences which some Popes haue giuen to inferiour Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation it is very vntrue that I by any of my three instances laboured to prooue as this man affirmeth that the Decree of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition of Princes might be vncertaine seeing that I alwayes contended that the Decree of the Lateran Councell did not concerne the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates and Landlords and also that it was not made by Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie but onely by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes So that Mr. Fitzherbert to shew that I argue most absurdly from the particular facts and dispensations of Popes to the generall Decrees of Popes and generall Councells betwixt which I doe not denie but that there is an euident disparitie sheweth himselfe to be very false and fraudulent For that which I contended by my first instance to prooue was that the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius first argument is not generally true and consequently that his argument could not be good That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctors doe either propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which proposition being generall may be applyed not onely to the decree of the Lateran Councell but also to all other particular decrees and sentences of Popes or Councells which the three aforesaid examples by me propounded touching the particular sentences dispensations licences and decrees of Popes do euidently conuince to be a very false proposition and consequently his argument grounded thereon to be very insufficient 25 And therefore to shew the weaknesse of Fa. Lessius his first argument I did oppose to it an other like instance for if that doctrine doth appertain to faith which Popes Doctors do propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which is the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his first argument then this doctrin that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie and giue licence to inferiour Priests to minister the Sacrament of confirmation must also appertaine to faith seeing that it is propounded and supposed by Popes and Doctours as a certaine foundation of many Canons Decrees and iudiciall sentences of Popes Now by the answere which my Aduersaries will make to this instance I will also satisfie Fa. Lessius his first argument For all the force of that argument doth consist in the true sense and meaning of that Maior proposition for absolutely and in those generall words as it is spoken by him without any limitation it is as I said very vntrue but it must be limited both to those decrees constitutions iudiciall sentences grants and priuiledges which are certainely knowne to proceed from Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill authority and also to such Decrees which are propounded as of Faith or doe ordaine things cleerely and euidently deduced from some vndoubted doctrine of Faith as I shewed aboue out of Card. Bellarmine and Canus 26 For although it bee certaine and a poynt of faith that the Church of Christ as it includeth onely Church-men or Cleargy-men hath a full Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall power in generall and that the foundation of true and proper Ecclesiasticall Lawes Decrees or Canons is true Ecclesiasticall power also in generall yet in particular to what things the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power doth extend there is such a great controuersie among Doctours that in this point few things are sure or certaine as I shewed before out of Almaine as whether the Church hath power to giue licence to inferiour Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastitie to dissolue the bond of Matrimony which is not consummate and many such like and to come neere our matter to dispose of temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to depose temporall Princes for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer So that the foundation of such Decrees Canons constitutions licences dispensations and sentences cannot be certaine and a point of faith so long as it remaineth questionable and controuersed among Catholikes For it is manifest and most worthy to be noted as Canus said Canus lib 5. de loc cap. 5. q. vlt. concl 3. that those decrees of the Church can not be certaine and firme which are not grounded vpon certaine and firme principles and foundations Wherefore if but one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church dependeth be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be vncertaine c. And by this Fa. Lessius his first argument is plainely solued For his Minor proposition is absolutely false and also his Maior is not true if it be vnderstood of Decrees Canons m Pag. 88. nu 7. and sentences which are not certainely knowne to proceed fâ—om spirituall authority 27 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert that he doth not argue against the Decree it selfe but against the reason whereupon it was grounded saying that it may be vncertaine and subiect to error no lesse then the reason which mooued some Popes to giue licence to a Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation But if he say this he is very absurd for he argueth in effect no otherwise then thus Gal. 2. Acts 15. Because S. Peter had no sufficient ground for his dissimulation at Antioch which S. Paul reprehended in him therefore the Apostles had no sufficient reason or ground for their Decree in the Councell at Hierusalem which no man that hath his right wits will say for that the Apostles had the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost in making their Decree which S. Peter had not eyther in his particular fact or in the foundation whereupon he grounded it 28 But first it is manifest as you haue seene before that I neuer argued eyther against the Decree of the Lateran Councell or against the reason of that Decree but I onely impugned the exposition which my Aduersaries make of that Decree and the reason whereby they pretend to prooue from that Decree that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith considering that it is vncertaine whether that Decree was made by true Ecclesiasticall or ciuill authority and also for that it is not a true and proper Decree containing in it any precept or obligation and though it were it is not propounded as of faith nor grounded vpon any cleare and vndoubted doctrine of faith which
the examples which Mr. Fitzherbert heere bringeth concerning the lawfulnesse of ministring Sacraments vpon a probable opinion and the example which I brought concerning the licences graunted by some Popes to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation For the common doctrine and practise among Catholikes is that it is not lawfull to minister vpon a probable opinion those Sacraments mentioned by my Aduersary but in case of necessitie and when the necessitie is past because it was vncertaine or doubtfull whether they were valid and had effect or no to reiterate them againe vpon condition according to that doctrine which is certaine and without all controuersie doubt or danger But neither doe Popes giue licence to inferiour Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation onely in time of necessitie neither is it the common practise among Catholikes to reiterate againe after the necessitie is past the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by those Priests of whom there is a great controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope hath authority to giue them any such licence or no. 47 Neither doth the Councell of Florence * See Estius in 4. sent dist 7. §. 22. who answereth this authoritie of the Councell of Florence Castro vbi supra either approoue or disprooue this practise but onely relateth that some Popes haue giuen such licences as the words before rehearsed by my Aduersary doe plainly shew And although S. Gregorie did grant or as Alphonsus de Castro doth expound him did for auoiding of scandall onely permit which before he had forbidden as a thing contrary to the ancient custome of the Romane Church that certaine Priests in Sardinia might conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation when Bishops were wanting or Adrianus vbi supra as Pope Adrian doth interprete S. Gregorie he did not giue leaue to Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation but onely to annoint the forehead of the person baptized with Chrisme in that manner as Pope Siluester is said to haue ordained that the Priest should annoint with Chrisme the person baptized in the crowne of the head which he ordained Hugo lib. 2. de Sacram. part 7. cap. 3. as Hugo de S. Victore affirmeth least the person baptized should depart this life without Confirmation according to al which expositions there is no Catholike as I verily think so impious or inconsiderate that wil condemne S. Gregory of any sin or formall sacriledge yet other Popes haue giuen that licence to inferiour Priests who are no Bishops to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation without any such necessitie as to diuers Abbots and namely to the Abbot of Monte Cassino where there is no such want but rather ouer great plenty of Bishops being so many thereabout and hauing so small reuenues to maintaine their Episcopall dignity Neither is it the custome or practise of those Countries to confirme againe those persons who are confirmed by those Abbots although it may very conueniently be done And therefore albeit there be no danger or preiudice to soules to minister the Sacrament of Baptisme of Extreame vnction of Pennance or of holy Orders in time of necessitie vpon a probable opinion for that the practise and custome is in such a case to minister them againe when the necessity is past yet it is a very dangerous and pernicious errour to minister either the Sacrament of Confirmation or any other Sacrament onely vpon a probable opinion if it may be ministred without any such probable doubt or danger or when the necessity is past not to reiterate vpon condition the Sacrament againe So that although it be no dangerous or pernicious errour to minister that Sacrament as doubtfull which is indeed among learned Catholikes accounted doubtfull yet it is most a dangerous and pernicious errour to minister that Sacrament as certainly to haue effect which neuerthelesse is by famous and learned Catholikes vpon probable grounds accounted doubtfull 48 Thirdly the Reader may plainly perceiue the fraudulent dealing of this man who wholly dissembleth in what manner I applied this example to all the three arguments brought by Fa. Lessius and not onely to his first argument as he would make his Reader beleeue and therefore hee altogether concealeth the three instances which I brought to confront with Fa. Lessius his three arguments For this assertion touching the inualid administration of Sacraments which by way of an interrogation as you haue seene I brought in my first example to wit that to erre in the inualid administration of Sacraments is a very pernicious errour I did not affirme absolutely but onely ad hominem with reference to the like assertion which Fa. Lessius brought in his third argument to which third argument and not to his first as my Aduersary would seeme to make his Reader beleeue I afterwards applied this assertion 49 For whereas Fa. Lessius in the Maior proposition of his third argument affirmed as you haue seene that it is a point of faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally something to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or also by commanding something of it selfe vnlawfull for that such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then an errour in faith from which proposition he did inferre that it is therefore a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes for that otherwise the Church should teach a most pernicious errour and subiects should be incited to rebellions and periuries I in my third instance which my Aduersarie hath wholly concealed made as you haue seene the like argument and from the same Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his argument I likewise inferred that it is also a point of faith that the Pope hath power to giue leaue to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and to dispence in the solemne vow of chastity and so likewise it may be inferred that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne for that otherwise the Pope in whom according to my Aduersaries doctrine all the infallibilitie of the Church doth consist should teach most pernicious errors and the faithfull should be incited to sacriledges and iniuries 50 And if Mr. Fitzherbert to answere my third instance wil affirme that from the foresaid Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his third argument it cannot be well inferred that the aforesaid doctrines mentioned in my third instance must be of faith because it is no pernicious or sinfull errour it being grounded vpon a probable opinion of learned Catholikes which excuseth from all sinne to teach such doctrines and to incite to such sacriledges and iniuries seeing that to erre in this case is no sinne neither are the sacriledges and iniuries grounded vpon so probable an errour formall or sinfull sacriledges and iniuries if I say he will answere thus besides that he taketh errour sacriledges and iniuries otherwise then errour rebellions and periuries are taken by Fa. Lessius who as it is euident taketh them
none of those Catholikes that hold as Fa. Lessius doth that the Pope cannot erre in his definitions although hee define without a generall Councell can make any doubt but that the aforesaid things should appertaine to faith but seeing that diuers Popes doe suppose the same as a certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences they are thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore they ought to be accounted no lesse certaine This was my second instance and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert in affirming my second example to be my second instance discouereth no lesse his fraude then he doth both his fraude and ignorance in impugning the same 3 Secondly it is also very vntrue that I from this example inferred as this man shamefully affirmeth that the ground of the Canon of the Lateran Councell may also be vncertaine and impugned without note of heresie or sinne seeing that it is euident as you haue seene before that I neither impugned but onely expounded the Canon or rather Act of the Lateran Councell neither did I apply any one of those three examples to the Canon of the Lateran Councell or in any one of my three instances made any mention of the Lateran Councell at all But as Fa. Lessius referred his second argument to the foundations not onely of the Decrees of deposition as he supposeth this decree of the Lateran Councell to be but also of the sentences of generall Councells as in his opinion was that denounced against Frederike the second by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons so also I referred my second Instance to the foundations of Popes D crees and sentences vpon whom all the infallibility of the Church according to his doctrine doth depend And the same answere which my Aduersaries shall giue to my second instance will forthwith satisfie Fa. Lessius his second argument 4 For all the difficulty thereof as also of his former argument consisteth in this whether euery doctrine which Popes and Councells suppose as a ground and foundation of their Decrees and sentences is alwaies to be accounted a certaine and infallible ground and not subiect to errour or it may sometimes bee onely a probable ground and not alwayes an infallible point of faith and my second Instance doth sufficiently conuince that it is not alwaies a certaine and infallible ground whereby Fa. Lessius his argument is quite ouerthrowne Besides that the ground and foundation onely of those Decrees of Popes or generall Councells can be certaine and infallible which are made by spirituall and not temporall authoritie as I haue said before so that this argument of Fa. Lessius can little concerne the decree or Act of the Lateran Councell touching the deposition not of temporall Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates and Lords seeing that it was made by the consent and authority of temporall Princes to whom onely according to the probable doctrine of very many Doctours the inflicting of temporall punishments as of death exile priuation of goods imprisonment doth belong 3 Now let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert can say against this second example which he would make his Reader belieue to be my second Instance But Widdringtons instance saith he a Pag. 194. nu 2. seq is as little to the purpose as the former for albeit he alleadgeth not here a particular fact but a generall decree of a Pope directed to the whole Church yet he abuseth his Reader in seeking to perswade him that the foundation of that decree was the opinion or particular perswasion of Pope Sixtus Tom. 4. Concil post vitam Sixti 4. §. cum prae exelsa that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne whereas no such thing can be gathered by the decree but onely that his desire was by the concession of Indulgences to stirre vp the people to the deuote celebration of the Feast and thereby to giue thankes and praise to Almighty God for the benefite which all Cristian men haue receiued by her Conception to which end it imported nothing at all how she was conceiued I meane whether she were sanctified in the first instant of her conception as very many doe hold or shortly after as others teach and therefore the decree of Pope Sixtus is obserued as well by those that affirme her to haue beene conceiued in originall sinne as by those that denye it because nothing is ordained in the decree in fauour Ibid. §. Graue nimis or preiudice of either opinion 4 This may appeare as well by a latter Decree of his whereby hee ordained that both the opinions might be held and taught without note of heresie because saith he the question is not determined and decided by the Church as also by the expresse words of this Decree wherein hee signifieth that considering the ineffable dignity and worthinesse of the most blessed Virgin it is conuenient and necessary that all faithfull Christians giue praise and thanks to God for her meruellous conception Note that word meruailous to the end that by her merits and intercession they may be made more capable of Gods grace Thus saith Pope Sixtus in his Decree and then addeth Hac igitur consideratione inducti c. Therefore beeing moued with this consideration we determine and decree c. So he And his determination and Decree was no other but that all such as did with due deuotion assist at the diuine office and seruice appointed for the celebration of that Feast should gaine all those Indulgences which had beene granted before to such as celebrated the Feast of Corpus Christi 5 This then being the whole substance and effect as well of the Decree as of the motiue thereof expressed therein it is euident that Pope Sixtus had no other meaning in all this then to mooue all Christians to the deuout celebration of the feast of the conception of the blessed Virgin no lesse then of her Natiuity and other Feasts without any preiudice to the different opinions that eyther then were or after might be held concerning the manner of her conception in which respect the said Feast is celebrated by all Christians no lesse then her other Feasts which is as much as Pope Sixtus desired and intended whereby it appeareth that his Decree is indifferent to both opinions being obserued by the maintainers of both and that therefore it is not grounded vpon either of both 6 And now to apply this to our purpose whereas Widdrington pretendeth by this Instance to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is as vncertaine as the doctrine that the B. Virgin was conceiued without originall sinne which is impugned by very learned men it is to be considered that there is such disparitie in the cases and such weakenesse in his Instance that hee prooueth nothing at all against vs. For the Decree of Pope Sixtus had so little dependance on the doctrine of her immaculate Conception that he might haue made it
argument as you haue seen before although it be indeed my third example whereon all my three Instances were partly grounded neyther did I by this example eyther impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell or inferre from thence as this man vntruely affirmeth that the Decree of the Lateran Councell might be impugned without sinne For neyther did I impugne but onely expound the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell neyther did I in any one of my three Instances or also examples make mention at all of the Lateran Councell nor also did I euer acknowledge that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes was the ground and foundation of the Decree of the Lateran Councell But for this cause I produced this example of Popes dispensations in the solemne vow of chastitie to shew that the ground and foundation especially of Popes sentences of deposition as was that sentence of Gregorie the 7. against Henrie the 4. in a Councell held at Rome and of Innocent the 4. against Fredericke the second in the Councell of Lyons and other such sentences which concerne particular men doth not appertaine to faith by vertue of this proposition whereon both the first and second argument of Fa. Lessius was principally grounded That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes and Councels suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences for it is euident that there is no more reason why the ground and foundation of Popes particular sentences of depositions or punishments should appertaine to faith then of his particular grants of dispensations and priuiledges whereby it appeareth euidently that this was a fit example to confute Fa. Lessius his first and second argument which there I tooke in hand in my first and second Instance to confute 18 Besides I brought this example in my third Instance against Fa. Lessius his third argument whereby he laboured to prooue that it is a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes for that otherwise the Church and Pope should erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally something to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or contrariwise and also by commanding something of it selfe vnlawfull seeing that she teacheth that a Prince being deposed yea and excommunicated by the sentence of the Pope his subiects are absolued from his obedience yea and are bound not to obey him vntill he be reconciled if the Censure bee denounced whereby subiects are incited by the Pope to rebellions and periuries Against this argument I brought my third Instance which my Aduersary fraudulently concealeth and which was grounded not only vpon this third example of Popes licences giuen to Priests to Minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and might likewise bee grounded vpon the second of Pope Sixtus his decree for the celebrating of the blessed Virgins Conception 19 For if Fa. Lessius his third argument be good it may likewise be prooued as you may see by my third Instance that it is a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastity to giue licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and also that the blessed Virgines Conception was pure holy and immaculate seeing that from these dispensations licences and decree of Pope Sixtus it euidently followeth that the Pope teacheth generally that the marriage of professed religious persons is a true Sacrament and the children begotten and borne by them are legitimate and if the Parents be Kings their children ought to be preferred in the Kindome before all others who may pretend otherwise a right thereto and the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by an inferiour Priest with the Popes licence is a true and valid Sacrament and also that the honour and worship which is giuen to the blessed Virgines conception is a true and religious honour all which would according to Fa. Lessius his third argument bee false and pernicious because the faithfull should thereby be incited to commit iniuries and sacriledges yea and against their wils by Censures bee compelled thereunto if the Pope hath no such power to dispence in the solemne vowe of chastity nor to giue licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and that the blessed Virgin was not in her Conception pure holy and immaculate But my Aduersary to obscure the whole difficulty and to blinde the Readers vnderstanding thought it best not to set downe fully but in that lame manner as you haue seene Fa. Lessius his three arguments and wholy to conceale the three Instances I made against them whereby hee might with a lesse shew of falsity boldly affirme that the three examples were my three Instances and that they were brought by me of purpose to impugne the decree of the Lateran Councell both which how vntrue they are and also of what little force are all Fa. Lessius his three arguments against which onely I brought my three Instances you haue seene before 20 For all the difficulty of Fa. Lessius his third argument consisteth in the vnderstanding of that Maior proposition It is a point of faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally something to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding something of it selfe vnlawfull For if by doctrine of maners teaching generally he meane a definitiue teaching or a propounding any thing as of faith with an obligation to bind all the faithfull to belieue that doctrine I grant that it is a point of faith that the Church or a generall Councell cannot erre in such doctrine or teaching for whether the Pope can erre or no in such teaching it is not a point of faith but as yet a controuersie betwixt the Roman and French Diuines but then I vtterly deny that any generall Councell yea or any Pope hath euer defined or taught generally that the Pope by vertue of his Ecclesiasticall power hath authority to depose temporall Princes to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance or to inflict temporall punishments But if by doctrine and teaching he meane opinatiue and probable doctrine and teaching besides that it cannot be conuinced that the Lateran Councell or any other generall Councell taught generally in this sense that the Pope by vertue of his spirituall power hath authority to depose temporall Princes his Maior proposition is very vntrue and therefore from thence it doth not follow that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith 21 Likewise if by commanding something of it selfe euill Fa. Lessius vnderstand a generall commaundement propounded to the whole Church or all the faithfull I grant also that a generall Councell cannot erre in imposing such generall commandements although this be not so cleare a point of faith as the former as I haue shewed before out of the doctrine of learned Canus but then I deny that any generall Councell hath euer giuen any such generall
commandement concerning all subiects not to obey their temporall Prince being deposed by the Pope or to rebell and plot conspiracies against him But if by commanding he vnderstand particular decrees and commandements propounded to particular persons Bishops Churches or Kingdomes against any particular Emperours Kings or temporall Princes then I say that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus the Church and much more the Pope may erre and of this sort are the depositions iudiciall sentences and commandements of Pope Gregory the seauenth in a Councell held at Rome against Henrie the fourth Emperor of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons against Frederike the second Emperour and all other particular depositions of whatsoeuer Emperours Kings or temporall Princes and in these commandements the Popes were euer resisted and contradicted both by Princes themselues and also by learned and vertuous Catholike subiects as it appeareth euidently not onely by the first depositions of Emperours and Princes but also by the two last of our late Queene Elizabeth and the last King of Fraunce who were obeyed in ciuill matters by their Catholike subiects acknowledged by them to be their true and rightfull Soueraignes notwithstanding the Popes particular declaration sentence and commandement to the contrary as I haue shewed at large concerning our late Queene in the first part and of the King of Fraunce the late troubles and ciuill warres in Fraunce which are yet both fresh in most mens memories and recorded also by Histories are sufficient testimonies 22 Thus thou seest good Reader that neither by this third example of Popes dispensations in vowes whereon not onely my third Instance but also the two former were grounded all which Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed did I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell as the silly man to make some shew of confuting them as absurd improbable impertinent fond and ridiculous doth most vntruely affirme neither did I in any one of my examples or Instances make any mention at all of the said Decree seeing that I had before sufficiently answered to this Decree not by impugning but onely by expounding it and by clearely conuincing that according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who are of opinion that the Church cannot by her spirituall power inflict temporall punishments it must according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne principles who acknowledgeth that all lawes and decrees whatsoeuer are to be restrained and limited according to the power of the Law-Maker c. be vnderstood of the deposing not of temporall Princes who are not subiect to the authoritie of the Church forasmuch as concerneth meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end whatsoeuer they bee inflicted but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes but that which I intended by my three examples and instances was to shew the weakenesse and insufficiency of Fa. Lessius his three arguments as I haue sufficiently declared before 23 But if I should presse M. Fitzherbert a little further and grant him for Disputation sake which he is not able to prooue to wit that the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell is to bee vnderstood of the deposition of temporall Princes yet the silly man would haue much adoe to prooue as also I haue signified before that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Cap. 13. nu 7. seq which I haue related aboue it is such a Decree that from thence it can be sufficiently gathered that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith seeing that according to their grounds onely those Decrees and precepts touching faith or manners are infallible and of faith which are generall and vniuersall and belong to the whole Church and all the faithfull and consequently as well Clearkes as Lay-men For onely in this case saith Canus the Councels Canus l. 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. or Fathers are to be vnderstood to pronounce of faith when the sentence or Decree belongeth to all Christians when it bindeth all Therefore the doctrine of Popes and Councells saith hee if it bee propounded to the whole Church if it bee also propounded with an obligation to be beleeued then doth their sentence or Decree concerne a point of faith And concerning Decrees and precepts of manners Canus teacheth the same When the Church saith he in a matter of weight and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all the people she cannot command any thing which is contrary to the Gospell or naturall reason but in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate men or Churches she may erre through ignorance not only in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. 5. And Cardinall Bellarmine also affirmeth that those Decrees or precepts concerning faith or manners wherein the Pope in whom he putteth all the infallibilitie of the Church cannot erre must bee generall and be propounded and belong to all the faithfull 24 Now this Act of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie besides that it is not properly a Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as I signified before containing in it any precept or obligation vnlesse they will grant the Councell to be aboue the Pope nor also propounded as of faith according to the rules of Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus before related and therefore it cannot according to their doctrine appertaine to faith it is not also a generall Decree and which appertaineth to the whole Church and all the faithfull for it doth not concerne Cleargie men who according to my Aduersaries false scandalous and seditious doctrine are not subiect to temporall Princes nor doe owe to them any temporall allegiance but onely the temporall Vassals of temporall Lords and those not all but of such a Lord onely who for a yeere remaineth excommunicated for neglecting to purge his territories of heresie For those words of the Councell vt ex tunc ipse c. that from that time the Pope may denounce his Vassals absolued from their fealtie can onely bind either the Pope to make that denunciation or that temporall Lord not to exact of his Vassals temporall fealtie or the Vassalls not to giue to that temporall Lord temporall fealty and so it cannot binde Cleargy men who doe not owe any temporall fidelity or obedience to temporal Lords according to my Aduersaries false doctrine nor also all Vassals but onely those of that temporall Lord wherevpon the decree is not generall and belonging to all the faithfull which neuerthelesse is necessary that any decree or precept concerning faith or manners doe appertaine to faith 25 And if perchance my Aduersary will say that it bindeth all
Lateran Councell that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith the more he bewraieth his owne ignorance and the weakenesse of his cause and the vncertaintie of his new broached Catholike faith 11 And truely it cannot be denied saith Mr. Fitzherbert c Pag. 200. nu 3. but that great difference is to be made as Widdrington saith well out of Cardinall Bellarmine betwixt the certaintie of the Decrees of Councells and of the reasons which are alledged therein it being euident that all reasons are not of like weight certaintie or probability neuerthelesse it were absurd to say that the fundamentall reason or doctrine which is necessarily included and supposed in any decree of an Oecumenicall Councell can be false for so also the decree it selfe should be false and the errour of both iustly ascribed to the holy Ghost as Authour thereof 12 But heere my Aduersary shooteth his bolt farre beyond the marke for as not all Decrees of Oecumenicall Councells are certaine infallible and of faith but onely those which are made by true Ecclesiasticall authority and are propounded as of faith and which are generall to the whole Church and doe binde all the faithfull so neyther must the fundamentall reason or doctrine which is necessarily included in euery decree of an Oecumenial Councell be of necessity certain infallible and of faith but it may be false and exposed to error as the decree it selfe whereof it is a fundamentall reason 13 And this I say of decrees saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 194. num 4. 5. that concerne not onely matters of beliefe but also manners or matters of fact such as was the decree of the Apostles at Hierusalem wherein they doubted not to say Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis Acts 15. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs ascribing to the holy Ghosts assistance their determination not onely of the decree it selfe but also of the foundation whereupon it was grounded I meane the equalitie iustice and conueniencie of it For it cannot bee denied but that the holy Ghost assisted and guided them first to determine what was lawfull and conuenient to be decreed and executed and then after to ordaine and decree it the one so depending on the other that if they had failed in the former they would not haue iustly decreed the latter that is to say if it had not beene lawfull and conuenient for Christians at that time to abstaine from strangled meates and bloud the Apostles could not haue lawfully ordained and decreed it and therefore the Decree being iust and ascribed to the assistance of the holy Ghost the foundation or ground and all the necessary consequents thereof must needs be granted to be lawfull and iust and to flow from one fountaine that is to say from the holy Ghosts inspiration and assistance 14 But first as concerning matters of beliefe I grant with Canus that it is certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre when shee propoundeth a doctrine of faith with an obligation to binde all the faithfull to beleeue the same and likewise in Decrees concerning such manners and matters of fact as are necessary to saluation I grant also with the same Canus that it is certaine that shee cannot erre in making such Decrees for that consequently it would follow as Canus well deduceth that she may also erre in doctrine of faith and so the Church cannot command any thing to all the faithfull which is repugnant to the Gospel or to the law of nature But whether it be likewise certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre in Decrees concerning manners and matters of fact which are not necessary to saluation I will not now dispute for not giuing occasion to my Aduersaries to flye from the principall question touching the Decrees or Act of the Lateran Councell it being sufficient at this time that the iudicious Reader by that which I haue before related out of the doctrine of Canus may haue some light how to iudge of this question For hee granteth that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Charch may erre in the canonizing of Saints for that her iudgement heerein dependeth vpon an vncertaine ground to wit vpon the relation information and iudgement of other men which is vncertaine and fallible and consequently according to his grounds she may erre in all such Decrees which depend vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and foundations And the leardnest Diuines of his owne Societie as Salmeron Suarez and Vasquez who according to the Censure of this my rash and ignorant Aduersarie are very absurd and impertinent therein doe constantly hold that the fundamental reason of the Churches Decree concerning the celebration of the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception is not certaine and a point of faith but controuersed by learned Catholikes without any offence to wit that shee was sanctified in the first instant of her Conception and that to honour this her pure holy and immaculate Conception the said Feast was instituted 15 Secondly it is not certaine that the Church now hath the same infallibility in making Decrees concerning such manners and matters of fact as are not necessary to saluation which the Apostles had in making such Decrees for that the iudgement of the Apostles being extraordinarily illuminated and assisted by the holy Ghost did not onely depend vpon the relation information and iudgement of men but also vpon the speciall and extraordinary assistance of the holy Ghost and therefore from that Decree of the Apostles concerning the not eating of blood and strangled meates who were peculiarly and extraordinarily assisted and replenished with the holy Ghost and therefore might well say Visum est spiritui nobis Acts 2. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs no sufficient argument can bee brought to prooue that therefore it is a point of faith that the Church now cannot likewise erre in making such Decrees 16 Thirdly Mr. Fitzherbert must also distinguish betwixt the lawfulnesse of an Ecclesiasticall decree concerning manners and matters of fact and the certainty or infallibilitie thereof for that many Decrees may bee lawfull and consequently ought to bee obeyed vntill the vnlawfulnesse or iniustice thereof be manifest and yet not infallible as it is euident in the ciuill lawes of temporall Princes and Common-wealths whose lawes are lawfull and ought to be obeyed by their subiects so long as the vnlawfulnesse or iniustice of them is not apparant and yet they are not therefore infallible And so a Decree of the Church after due examination approouing the finall sanctitie of such or such a man deceased and vpon that ground commanding all the faithfull to celebrate his Feast is lawfull and ought to bee obeyed vntill it be manifest that she was deceiued and misinformed by false relation and yet it is not therefore infallible and a point of faith that he is truely a Saint and died in true sanctitie and holinesse of
Princes was euer firmely belieued by the Church as an vndoubted point of faith but at the most as a probable opinion no Catholike man can be iustly impeached of heresie errour or temeritie as the aforesaid Conclusion of mine doth plainely conuince for maintaining the contrary doctrine And whether the instances arguments and answeres which I haue brought be weake friuolous or impertinent or Mr. Fitzh replies altogether vaine and fraudulent wherby he clearely discouereth both the weaknesse of his cause and also his manifest fraude and ignorance I remit to the iudgement of any indifferent Reader And thus much concerning his first obseruation 30 The other thing which I wish saith Mr. Fitzherbert l Pag. 204. nu 11. 12. to be noted is how Widdrington giueth sentence against himselfe as hauing incurred the note of errour or heresie in contemning to heare the voyce of the Church firmely beleeuing for if the Church had not firmely beleeued that the Pope hath power to depose Princes shee neither would nor could haue decreed in the Lateran Councell that Princes should bee deposed by the Pope for albeit shee doth and may in particular cases practise some things vpon a probable opinion when there is no Definition or Decree to the contrary yet it were most absurd and temerarious if not hereticall to say that shee euer made a generall Decree in a Councell touching either faith or manners but vpon a most certaine and assured ground and the reason is for that otherwise the Decrees of generall Councells should sometimes bee vncertaine as being grounded onely vpon a probable opinion yea all their Decrees might alwaies with some shew of reason bee impugned and reiected by any contentious heretike who might and would call the Decree in question and say that the same were onely probable as Widdrington doth in this case 31 Therefore seeing it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued by all Catholike Doctours See Bellar. de Concil l. 2. c. 2. 3. 4. Item Can. l. 5. de locis c. 5. Bannes 2ae 2ae q. 1. ar 10. dub 6. concl 2. that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the veritie of the holy Scriptures or may bee impugned or called in question by any Christian man it followeth euidently that all such Decrees are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions for if the grounds thereof were or might bee onely probable they might bee repugnant to the Scriptures and lawfully impugned or denyed by any man Whereupon it followeth that seeing the Lateran Councell hath for the speciall good of the Church decreed that Princes shall be deposed by the Pope in some cases the said Councell and consequently the Church doth firmely and assuredly beleeue and not thinke onely probably that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and therefore I conclude that Widdrington contemning and reiecting this beliefe of the Church is by his owne confession fallen into errour Luc. 19. or heresie so as I may well say to him with our Sauiour in the Gospell Ex ore tuo te iudicio serue nequam 32 But this obseruation of Mr. Fitzherbert is so childish not to say ridiculous that no Schoole-boy would argue in such a childish manner For what man that hath his wits about him would make this conclusion that his Aduersary by his own sentence grant confession is fallen into errour or heresie and to prooue the same bringeth two propositions whereof the one his Aduersary doth indeed very willingly grant but the other which is the maine difficultie betweene them he vtterly denyeth By the same manner of arguing I might also prooue that Mr. Fitzherbert is by his owne sentence grant and confession fallen into errour or heresie For hee graunteth that the Pope hath no other authority to depose Princes then that which was granted to S. Peter and his Successours by those wordes I will giue thee the keyes c. Whatsoeuer thou shalt lose c. Feede my sheepe or such like and that whosoeuer impugneth that which is decreed in the holy Scriptures is fallen into errour or heresie but in those and such like words of the holy Scriptures was onely granted to Saint Peter and his Successours authority to expell men from the Church of Christ not from temporall kingdomes to binde and loose with spirituall not with temporall bindings or loosings to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments therefore Mr. Fitzherbert contemning and reiecting the holy Scriptures is by his owne confession fallen into errour or heresie so as I may wel say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Gospel ex te ore tuo iudico serue nequam Now if I should haue argued in this manner against him he would quickely haue answered that albeit he grant the Maior proposition yet hee denieth the Minor and therefore cannot bee said to grant the conclusion which must bee inferred from the granting of both the premisses and for my goodly argument hee both would and might deseruedly haue giuen mee his vsuall absurd impertinent fond foolish and ridiculous nicknames 33. In this very like manner hee argueth against mee to prooue that by my owne sentence graunt and confession I am fallen into errour or heresie for contemning and reiecting the voyce of the Church in a generall Councell firmely beleeuing For although I graunt the Maior proposition to wit that whosoeuer contemneth to heare the voyce of the Church or of a General Councell firmely beleeuing or decreeing any doctrine as certaine and of faith is fallen into error or heresie yet I euer denyed the other proposition to wit that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did either Decree the deposition of Princes or firmely beleeue the doctrine thereof as certaine and of faith and therefore it cannot be rightly inferred that I graunt the conclusion which must be inferred from both the premisses for as the conclusion doth follow from both the premisses and not from one onely so he cannot be said to grant the conclusion who granteth not both the premisses or propositions but one onely And therefore those words of our Sauiour Exore tuo te iudico serue nequam may fitly be applied to himselfe who by his owne arguing sheweth himselfe to be a very ignorant fraudulent and slanderous man in charging me to bee fallen into errour or heresie by my owne grant and confession which euery Schoole-boy seeth to be most false 34 And as concerning that generall reason which heere hee bringeth why the Councell of Lateran must firmely and assuredly beleeue as certaine and of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to wit because it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued and taught by all Catholike Doctours that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the verity of the holy Scriptures or called in question by any Christian man and
heere cited by him and haue beene cleerely confuted by me and more particularly to the Contents Abridgement or as it were Index of all the things which are handled by me in this Treatise which he may see partly in the very beginning of the first part before the Preface to the Reader and partly of this third 43 To conclude therefore this Chaper seeing that I haue made it manifest in his Treatise that no one effectuall argument grounded either vpon the holy Scriptures the law of Nature or Nations the Canonicall or Ciuill law or any other Theologicall reason hath hitherto beene brought by my Aduersaries which is sufficient to perswade any iudicious man that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls or to inflict temporall punishments is certain and of faith and the contrary hereticall erroneous or improbable it is euident that the new Oath of Allegiance which is chiefly grounded vpon the denying and impugning of this doctrine and the practise thereof may with a safe and probable conscience and without any note of dangerous temeritie or mortall sinne be taken by any Catholike man notwithstanding that the Pope by seuerall Breues hath iudged and commaunded or supposed the contrary for that there is no danger of temeritie or disobedience not to follow the iudgement and opinion of the supreme Pastour when it is contrary to the doctrine of other learned Catholikes or not to obey his declaratiue precept when it is not grounded vpon any certaine and infallible doctrine but either vpon the false information and vnderstanding of other learned men or vpon the priuate and probable opinion at the most of his Holinesse as I haue amply proued in my Theologicall Disputation Disput Theol. cap. 10. sâ—c 2. all which Mr. Fitzherbert in this Reply of his doth fraudulently conceale who vrgeth with might and maine to terrifie thereby the consciences of vnlearned and scrupulous Catholikes the Popes declaratiue commaundement who by his Breues forbiddeth the Oath to be taken for that it containeth in it many things which are clearely repugnant to the faith and saluation and craftily dissembleth the answeres which I haue made thereunto and which are sufficient to quiet the conscience of any iudicious Catholike man and to take away all iust feare and terrour of conscience out of his mind 44. And especially seeing that his Holinesse which is very considerable and worthy to be obserued hath beene diuers times with great instance and importunitie most humbly requested and in some sort coniured by his Pastorall office and duety to make manifest to distressed English Catholikes one onely thing among so many which he saith in his Breues are in the Oath manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation which his Holinesse without all doubt in regard of his fatherly care and Pastorall office both would and ought to haue made manifest ere this being vrged thereto by so many and earnest Supplications if he had not clearely seene when he had more diligently examined the whole matter being so greatly vrged and importuned to name but one onely thing among so many which he said were in the Oath plainely repugnant to faith and saluation both that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures was not denied in the Oath as Cardinall Bellarmine and other Romane Diuines by all probable coniectures as you shall see in the next Chapter had informed him and also that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is expresly denied in the Oath and whereon his prohibition to take the Oath according to the opinion of all my Aduersaries was partly grounded was not a point of faith but onely a controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge and m Trithemius in â—ronico Monast Hirsaugiensis ad annum 1106. consequently that it might be denied and impugned by any Catholike man without any note of heresie errour temeritie or any other deadly sinne so long as the question remaineth so vndecided and in controuersie among learned Catholikes CHAP. XVII Wherein M. Fitzherberts vncharitable Admonition to the Catholike Reader that Widdrington is no other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that his submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes is cleerely confuted and proued to be void of charitie learning and sinceritie Also Widdringtons answere to the Popes Breues is confirmed and he freed from all disobedience for not admitting them and lastly the Decree of the Cardinalls forbidding Widdringtons bookes and commaunding him to purge himselfe forthwith is fully answered by his Purgation and humble Supplication which he made forthwith to his Holinesse 1 MY vnlearned Aduersarie T.F. hauing not beene able in the former Chapters as you haue seene to prooue any one answere or position of mine to be improbable or to deserue the least note of temeritie although he often vaunteth that he hath conuinced euery one of them to be either fraudulent malicious impertinent absurd foolish fond ridiculous erroneous or hereticall and then especially his custome is thus to brag when he himselfe most of all discouereth his intollerable fraude or palpable ignorance now this ignorant and vncharitable man doth in this last Chapter turne the sharpenesse of his penne also against my person shewing himselfe therein to haue as great want of charitie as of learning and sinceritie and laboureth to perswade his Reader that albeit I pretend to be a Roman Catholike and doe submit my selfe and all my writings to the Censure of the Catholike Roman Church yet it is euident that this is onely of purpose to deceiue the Reader Sec nu 1. 19 and that no zealous Catholike can take me for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike So aboundant is forsooth the charitie and zeale of this Religious Father that hee feareth not to miscontrue most plaine and manifest words and deepe and solemne Oathes and protestations in the quite contrarie sense to the great discredit of his neighbour whereas by the rules of charity and iustice he is commaunded to interprete euen doubtfull speeches in the better and more fauourable sense * S. Thomas secunda secunda q. 60. ar 4. But let vs heare what he saith 2. Hauing now answered saith he a Pag. 211. num 1. my Aduersarie Widdrington touching that which any way concerneth me either in his Admonition before his Theologicall Disputation or else in those other workes of his whereto hee remitteth his Readers for their further satisfaction I haue tought it conuenient good Catholike Reader to addresse this last Chapter only to thee to admonish thee to take heed that thou be not seduced with his pretence to be a Catholike or with the dedication of his booke to his Holinesse and his submission thereof to the iudgement of the
and reuerence their temporall Prince and to obey him in temporalls as with all my heart and soule I doe greatly respect and reuerence my Soueraigne Lord King IAMES acknowledging him to bee my onely Soueraigne Lord in temporalls to whom I owe all temporall allegiance as I acknowledge his Holinesse to bee my supreame spirituall Pastour to whom I owe spirituall obedience yet if the temporall Prince should command any thing which to his Suâ—iects consciences is manifestly vniust they may without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to their Prince not obey that vniust commandement knowing in that case they are bound rather to obey God then men especially if they bee readie to suffer without resistance the penaltie imposed by the law 9. Secondly that any Catholike might lawfully and without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse not obey or admit his Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation I yeelded in my Theological Disputation f Cap. 10 sec 2 nu 50. seq two sufficient reasons whereof the first and principall Mr. Fitzherbert heere fraudulently concealeth and both vnlearnedly and guilefully as you shall foorthwith see hee cauelleth onely against the second and lesse principall reason For I did not affirme that no Catholike is bound to admit his Holinesse Breues onely for that hee was ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines albeit this alone had beene a very sufficient reason but chiefly and principally for that his Breues were grounded vpon probable opinion at the most that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to dispose of all temporalls and to depose temporall Princes which doctrine being not certaine but in controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge no Catholike is bound to follow and consequently according to the doctrine of Fa. Suarez neither bound to obey his declaratiue commandement which is grounded thereon for that a declaratiue precept as is this of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath hath no greater force then the reason whereon is grounded but this first reason which I brought for the chiefe and principall Mr. Fitzherbert cunnigly dissembleth 10. For seeing that his Holinesse did onely in generall worde forbid English Catholikes to take the Oath for that therein are contained many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation without specifying in particular any one of those many things I by probable coniectures or rather by morall certainties all circumstances considered did gather that his Holinesse by those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation did either vnderstand as by all likelihood hee did his power to inflict Censures to excommunicate his Maiestie to binde and loose in generall c. and consequently his spirituall Supremacie which hee conceiued were denyed in the Oath for that Cardinall Bellarmine did publikely in his booke against his Maiesties Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance also in this sense vnderstand the same and then it is apparant that his Holinesse was misinformed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused for that it is too too manifest as his Maiestie himselfe hath against Cardinall Bellarmine conuinced that the Popes power to inflict spirituall Censures and to excommunicate his Maiestie was not treated of at all in the Oath but purposely declined and Mr. Fitzherbert also seemeth couertly to confesse as much for that albeit in his Supplement he affirmed See aâ—oue chap. â— that the Oath is vnlawfull for that therein is denyed the Popes powers to excommunicate for which in my Admonition I taxed him of falsitie yet now in his Reply he altogether flyeth from that point acknowledging in effect by his silence that hee dare not now maintaine his former assertion 11 But because I could not certainely know and affirme although it bee very probable that his Holinesse vnderstood those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation of his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures c. as Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius and Suarez did vnderstand them I added the second part of the disiunction to wit that his Holinesse vnderstood those many things c. in the former sense or else by those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation hee vnderstood his power to depose Princes to dispose of all temporalls and to inflict temporall punishments for that his Holinesse was of opinion that the doctrine for his power to depose Princes c. which is expresly denyed in the Oath is certaine and of faith And if this bee the meaning of his Holinesse then if hee did adhere to this opinion by his owne reading studie and learning whereof I haue no certaintie for that I know not whether his Holinesse being accounted onely a Lawyer and not to make profession of Schoole-Diuinitie had before the publishing of his Breues exactly studied this question and throughly examined all that could bee obiected on either side then I say that his Holinesse was greatly mistaken for that it is euident that this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes c. is not certaine and of faith but in controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge 12 But if his Holinesse did adhere to this opinion and conceiue that this doctrine for his power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith as it is very pobable hee did by the information of Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome who consulted of the Oath as Fa. Parsons relateth in his letter then I say that his Holinesse hath also beene ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused by them for that it is a controuersie among the Schoole-men saith Trithemius Trithem in Chron. Monast Hirsang ad an 1106. Almain de dominat ciuil Eccles conclus 2. in probat and as yet not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no And Almaine a very famous Schoole-Diuine and Doctour of Sorbon with very many or most Doctours as hee saith doeth resolutely affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes but onely of spirituall Censures neither was he euer taxed by any man of heresie errour or temeritie for holding this opinion 13 These were the reasons which I propounded to his Holinesse why English Catholikes thought themselues not bound to obey his declaratiue precept contained in his Breues For these are my expresse words in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse g Cap. 10. sec 2 nu 8. seq And this is the reason most holy Father why very few Lay Catholikes of any name or worth with vs doe refuse to take the Oath being tendered them by the Magistrate For while they aduisedly cal to
grounded vpon presumption and vpon his owne opinion and priuate iudgement wherby he perswadeth himselfe that the thing which he forbiddeth is otherwise vnlawfull as being forbidden by some former law whose opinion and also declaratiue commaundement grounded onely vpon his opinion when it is against the probable doctrine of other Catholike Diuines may not onely be interpreted but also contradicted as I shewed before out of the doctrine of Suarez Seeing therefore that this second Breue is onely an approouing and confirming of the former it can haue no more force to bind then the former hath for confirming whereof it was written by his Holinesse 27 By this you may see that I did not say as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely affirmeth me to say that his Holinesse before he published his first Breue did not see maturely weigh and ponder the Oath and sufficiently as he thought informe himselfe of all the clauses contained therein or that his first Breue was false or surreptitious and not written vpon his owne certaine knowledge motion and will and after long and graue deliberation concerning all things contained therein But that which I said is that notwithstanding all his long and graue deliberation first either his first Breue was grounded not vpon any certaine doctrine and of faith but onely vpon his owne opinion and of the rest of his Diuines that the doctrine for his power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith which for that the contrary is truely probable and hath euer beene maintained by learned Catholikes no Catholike is bound to follow and consequently neither to obey his declaratiue precept which was grounded thereon as from the doctrine of Fa. Suarez I clearely deduced and this was my first and principall answere to the first Breue whereon the two other Breues did wholy depend or else secondly that if his Holinesse was perswaded by the information of Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines as by all likelihood he was that in the Oath were contained many things flat contrary to faith and saluation for that he thought his power to inflict Censures to excommunicate to binde and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie were denied in the Oath that then he was ill informed deceiued and abused by the aduise of Cardinall Bellarmine and of his other Diuines for that it is euident as I conuinced in my Theologicall Disputation that no such thing is denyed in the Oath and this was my second and lesse principall answere 28 Besides that Mr. Fitzherbert may in those last words of his to wit that the Pope testified that he made the first Breue with mature deliberation and certaine knowledge vse some cunning fraude For his meaning may be that his Holinesse testified that he made the first Breue not onely with mature deliberation had concerning all things contained therein but also with certaine knowledge of the trueth and veritie of all that he affirmed therein as though his Holinesse should haue said that he knew certainely that many things were contained in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation as hee affirmed in his first Breue whereas it is euident that his Holinesse said no such thing but those words certaine knowledge which in his second Breue were placed before and not after those words long and graue deliberation c. as this fraudulent man placeth them as though his certaine knowledge did proceede from his long and graue deliberation doe onely signifie that his Breue was not surreptitious false faigned forged or written without his priuitie and knowledge but that it was his true and vndoubted letter or Breue and that he certainely knew that all therein contained was written by his owne power will and motion which I neuer denied or meant to call in question 29 And therefore very falsly and dishonestly doth Mr. Fitzherbert say that I in effect charge his Holinesse to haue lied manifestly in his second Breue when he testified that he made the first with such mature deliberation and certaine knowledge as you haue heard For I euer acknowledged as his Holinesse in his second Breue doth testifie that his former Breue was not false or surreptitious but written as you haue heard vpon his certain knowledge motion and will and after long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained therein yet from this long and graue deliberation it doth not follow that therefore his Holinesse and his Diuines found out the truth in all points and were not in very deede mistaken and deceiued in the true vnderstanding of some clauses of the Oath and that they certainely knew that the Popes power to depose Princes which is denied in the Oath is a point of faith or that his power to excommunicate to binde and loose c. which is a point of faith is denied in the Oath As also I doe willingly grant that Cardinall Bellarmines booke against his Maiesties Apologie was his owne true booke although masked vnder his Chaplaines name and not false or surreptitious but written vpon his certaine knowledge motion and will and after long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained therein and notwithstanding all this I dare boldly affirme that he knew not certainely that all the things which he said therein were true and that in many things concerning the Oath whereof some I haue named before he was fowly mistaken and deceiued as I haue conuinced in my Theologicall Disputation 30 Now with the like fraude and falsitie doth Mr. Fitzherbert run from the second Breue to the third as he did before from the first to the second And if the second Breue saith he o Pag. 213. nu 4. did not suffice to cleare his Holinesse of this imputation yet his third Breue must be aboundantly sufficient to doe it in the opinion of any reasonable man seeing that he confirmed thereby his former iudgement giuing expresse order and facultie to Master George Birket the late Archpriest as Widdrington himselfe also signifieth p Ibid. nu 60. to punish by the depriuation of faculties all such English Priests of the Seminaries as being subiect to his iurisdiction had already taken the Oath or had taught or did still teach it to be lawfull and not abstaine from the same and resorme their errour vpon due admonition giuen them and within a certaine time to be prescribed vnto them whereby I say any reasonable man must needes be induced to thinke that his Holinesse neither was nor could be all this time which was more then two yeeres ignorant of the true nature and qualitie of the Oath and of the state of the question betwixt the Catholikes and their Aduersaries especially seeing that now he began to draw his Apostolicall sword proceeding to the punishment of such as did take or defend the Oath which he could not lawfully doe without due consideration and diligent discussion of the whole controuersie and sufficient information of all the circumstances thereof 31 Thus you see how Mr.
Fitzherbert turneth and windeth in such a running and fraudulent manner that his Reader cannot well perceiue of what imputation he meanes when he saith that if the second Breue be not sufficient to cleare his Holines of this imputation yet his third Breue must needs be aboundantly sufficient to doe it For that which I said onely is that his Holinesse by all likelihoode was not truely informed by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines of the true sense and meaning of some clauses of the Oath against which you haue seene with what fraude and falsitie my ignorant Aduersarie hath wrangled and iangled as though I had taxed his Holinesse for publishing his first Breue before he had seene or maturely weighed and pondered the Oath it selfe and all the clauses thereof and without graue and long deliberation had concerning all things contained in his Breue which how vntrue this imputation is wherewith hee chargeth me I haue alreadie shewed Now this silly man laboureth to prooue as also he insinuated before that because his Holinesse did maturely weigh and ponder the Oath and euery clause thereof before he sent hither his first Breue and did sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessarie to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence as well concerning the forbidding of the Oath by his first Breue as also concerning the punishing of such Priests that should take or defend the Oath to be lawfull by his third Breue sent hither two yeeres after which he could not saith my Aduersarie lawfully doe without due consideration and diligent discussion of the whole controuersie and sufficient information of all the circumstances thereof therefore his Holinesse neither was nor could all this time which was more then two yeeres be ignorant of the nature and qualitie of the Oath and that therefore he could not be ignorant but certainely knew that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation as he had declared by his first Breue 32 But to omit now those words sufficient information c. and that his Holinesse did sufficiently informe himselfe c. which my Aduersarie heere diuers times repeateth which because they are equiuocall and may haue a double sense I will declare beneath it is very vntrue and contrary to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and of all other learned Diuines to say that certaine and infallible knowledge of truth is in the Pope necessarily annexed to his long graue mature and diligent consideration and discussion of any doctrine or matter vnlesse the doctrine and matter be of such a nature and the discussion thereof be done with such circumstances and in such a manner as Christ hath promised him his infallible assistance which euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Christ hath not promised him in such decrees or definitions which are not directed and doe not appertaine to the whole Church as are these his Breues forbidding the Oath whereof the two first are onely directed to English Catholikes and the third onely to Mr. Birket then Arch-Priest For in customes lawes or decrees which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate persons or Churches not onely the Pope but also the Church may erre and be deceiued through ignorance I say saith Canus not onely in her iudgement of facts Canus lib. 5. q. 5. conel 3. or things done as whether such a one committed such a sinne hath lost his faculties ought to be censured and such like but also in her priuate precepts and lawes themselues and the true and proper reason hereof he bringeth from the authority of Pope Innocent the third which I related also aboue q Chap. 13. nu 11. for that albeit the iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued yet the iudgement of the Church is now and then led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue and is deceiued c. 33 Whereupon the Reader may most cleerely perceiue how vnlearnedly my ignorant Aduersarie doth inferre that because his Holinesse had a long graue and mature deliberation and consultation concerning the true sense of the Oath and of euery clause thereof and did send hither his third Breue for punishing those Priests that should take or defend the same therefore he could not be ignorant of the true sense of euery clause thereof but must certainly and infallibly know that many things are therein contained flat contrary to faith and saluation as he by his first Breue had declared as though his sentence and iudgement in Decrees which are directed onely to priuate persons or Churches should be alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither can deceiue nor be deceiued and that he cannot erre through ignorance or be led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue is deceiued in his priuate lawes decrees which are not common to the whole Church but doe belong to priuate men Bishops or Churches and that therefore those Priests whom he bindeth or punisheth by his Censure and sentence may not be free before God and those other Priests whom he doth not Censure may not deserue punishment in the sight of God according to that which Pope Innocent in the end of his aforesaid reason did affirme 34 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert often repeateth that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained in his first Breue among which the principall was that many things are contained in the Oath which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation was sufficiently informed of the whole matter are very equiuocall and may haue a double sense For first these words may signifie that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation was sufficiently informed to excuse him from sinne for doing what hee did and for sending hither his Breues to forbid the Oath and to punish those Priests that should take the Oath or teach it to be lawfull and with this point for that it little importeth our present question whether the Oath not onely in the Popes opinion and conscience but also really truely and certainely containeth in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation or no and for that it is a thing secret and vnknowne to me I will not inter meddle but leaue it to the conscience of his Holinesse and to the iudgement of God who searcheth the hearts and reines of men Yet this I dare boldly say that in my iudgement his Holinesse might haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter if hee had consulted this question concerning the certainty of his authority to depose Princes and whether his spirituall Supremacie or any other doctrine of faith or manners necessarie to saluation is denyed in the Oath not onely with his owne Diuines who are knowne to maintaine with such violence both his authority in temporals ouer temporall Princes which is the principall marke at which the Oath doth aime and his spirituall authority
ouer the whole Church or a Generall Councell but also with the Diuines of Fraunce who are not so vehement for either of them and with the learned Priests and Catholikes of England whom it did most concerne and I am fully perswaded or rather morally certaine that both the Cardinall Peron and many other learned Catholikes both of France and England would at that time plainely haue told his Holinesse and giuen him sufficient reasons for their saying that neither the doctrine for his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith or the contrary improbable nor that his power to excommunicate or any other spirituall authority of his which is certaine and of faith is denied in the oath 35 And this also of my owne knowledge is very true as I haue signified heeretofore r In the Epistle dedicatory nu 6. to his Holinesse that a certaine Priest not of meaner sort did presently vpon the resolution of Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest and of diuers other learned Priests and Catholikes that the Oath might lawfully be taken with all the speed he might write to Mr. Nicolas Fitzherbert being then at Rome and sincerely related vnto him how all things heere had past concerning the conference and resolution of learned Priests end Catholikes about the Oath earnestly requesting him that either by himselfe or by meanes of a certaine Cardinal whom he nam'd to him he would deale effectually with his Holinesse not to bee perswaded to send hither any Breue against the taking of the Oath things standing as they did for that otherwise his authority as well temporall to depose Princes as spirituall to define without a generall Councell would be more strongly called in question by English Catholikes then it hath beene in former times Now if his Holinesse had deferred for a time the sending hither of his first Breue and in the meane space had demaunded the opinion of English Catholikes whom most of all it concerned in this difficult controuersie about the lawfulnesse of the Oath he might doubtlesse haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter then he was or could be informed by his owne Diuines of Rome whom besides that they had not taken such paines in canuassing this question touching the certaintie of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes as many of our English Catholikes had he might haue some cause to suspect that they would speake partially in fauour of his authority either for hope of promotion as being men feruent to aduance all his pretended authoritie or for feare of incurring his displeasure and to bee accounted Aduersaries to the Sea Apostolicall as the euent alas hath prooued to bee ouer true 37 Or secondly the sense and meaning of those wordes may bee that his Holinesse by that long graue and mature deliberation and consultation was sufficiently that is truely and certainely informed of the whole matter and of the true sense and meaning of all the clauses of the Oath and this I say is very vntrue as likewise it is very vntrue that Cardinall Bellarmine notwithstanding all his graue mature and long deliberation and consultation had concerning this controuersie for betwixt this consultation of his Holinesse at which Cardinall Bellarmine was one of the chiefest and the publishing of his second booke against his Maiestie there passed almost foure whole yeeres and the consultation of his Holinesse could continue but few moneths seeing that the Oath was published heere about Iune and his Holinesse first Breue was dated the first of October next following hee was greatly mistaken and deceiued both in the vnderstanding of those wordes of the Oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. and of diuers other clauses thereof as I haue sufficiently conuinced in my Theologicall Disputation and Mr. Fitzherbert by his silence and not replying to this point being vrged by me thereunto doeth in effect acknowledge as much and also in his opinion touching the certaintie and infallibilitie of the doctrine for the Popes power to depose temporall Princes which without any sufficient ground euen according to his owne principles hee will needes haue to bee a point of faith 38 And heereby you may see how falsly and slaunderously and with small respect to his Holinesse whom Mr. Fitzherbert would seeme so much to reuerence hee concludeth in these words Å¿ P. 214. nu 5. Disp Theol. c. 10. s 2. nu 46. Therefore he that thinketh otherwise of his Holinesse as Widdrington doth affirming that his Breues were grounded vpon light foundations and false informations must needes hold him to be the most carelesse and negligent Pastour that euer gouerned the Church of God whereby any man may iudge what account Widdrington maketh of his Holinesse and his authoritie notwithstanding his submission of his writings to the Catholike Roman Church 39 But first it is very vntrue that from my wordes any such inference can bee gathered as Mr. Fitzherbert heere maketh I gaue indeede as you haue seene two answeres to his Holinesse Breues which are briefly comprised in those few words light foundations and false informations My first and principall answere which this fraudulent man altogeth concealeth was this that if his Holinesse Breue forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation was grounded vpon the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance as all my Aduersaries grant it was chiefly grounded thereon then I say it was not grounded vpon any certaine doctrine infallible and of faith but vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which were alwayes impugned by learned Catholikes which vncertaine and fallible grounds I called light for that they are not sufficient and weightie enough let them be neuer so probable to build thereon any certaine and infallible doctrine of faith and which euery Catholike vnlesse hee will deny his faith is bound to follow My second answere which this man doth also in great part conceale for that I did particularly set downe wherein his Holinesse was misinformed which he wholly dissembleth was that if his Holinesse Breue was grounded as by all likelihood it was vpon this foundation that his power to excommunicate his power to bind and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie which according to the common doctrine of Catholikes is indeede cleerely repugnant to faith is denyed and impugned in the Oath then I say that his Breues were grounded vpon false informations for that there is no such thing denyed in the Oath as I haue euidently conuinced howsoeuer Cardinall Bellarmine hath laboured to prooue the contrarie And neither of these answeres can bee sufficiently confuted by any of my Aduersaries neither are they repugnant to the submission of my writings to the Catholike Roman Church 40 So as you see that I made not that irreuerent inference which Mr. Fitzherbert heere concludeth I
Censures is impugned by the oath and will shew withall that I gaine nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and for the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues Secondly saith hee i Pag. 218. na 12. although wee should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath yet Widdrington gaineth nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues and this I say for two reasons the one because it doth not follow vpon the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that cause as any man may easily see who list to examine it the other reason is for that the Oath is forbidden in the Breue expresly because it contained many things contrarie to faith and the saluation of soules whereby it is euident that albeit his Holinesse had beene falsly perswaded that his spirituall authoritie was impugned by the Oath yet the prohibition of the said Oath in his Breue might bee iust as being grounded vpon other respects seeing that the Breue declareth it to bee vnlawfull for many causes and doeth not mention this for any of them 63 Yes Mr. Fitzherbert I gaine much thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues for seeing that as you your selfe confesse the Oath is vnlawfull and condemned by the Breues as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation in respect of two principall points to wit the exemption of temtemporall Princes from the Popes power to excommunicate and depose them if you admit as needes you must and doe that his Holinesse was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is denied in the Oath you can giue no sufficient reason why his Holinesse might not also be misinformed by them of the later and be falsly perswaded by them that his power to depose Princes to dispose of their Kingdomes and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance which is indeede expresly denied in the Oath is a point of faith and the contrary doctrine hereticall yea it is as morally certaine that his Holinesse was misinformed by them of this second point of all the clauses of the Oath which are pretended to be flat contrary to faith and saluation as he was misinformed by them of the former point and so you may see the weakenesse of your second reason 64 And as for your first reason I cannot see what coherence at all it hath with that whereof you alledge it to bee a reason For what connexion or coherence I pray you is there betwixt this your assertion that though you should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsely perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is denyed by the Oath yet Widdrington should gaine nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues and this assertion which you alledge as a reason of the former that it doth not follow vpon the answeres of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that cause For who would not thinke that man not well to know what he spake that should argue thus It doth not follow vpon the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that hee was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath therefore though we should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath yet my Aduersary gaineth nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues For besides that I did not say in that place that from the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons it followeth that hee forbade the Oath for that cause but I said indeed that from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter touching the consultation of the Diuines of Rome about the Oath and the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine from whom the Diuines of Rome did not dissent who teacheth that the Popes power to excommunicate euen heretical kings is plainly denied in the oath it followeth that his Holinesse forbade the Oath for that cause Neuerthelesse it is euident that albeit we abstract wholly from Fa. Parsons letter if my Aduersary once admit as he doth that his Holinesse was deluded and misinformed by others concerning this so manifest a point he can giue no reason why he might not also bee deluded and misinformed by others concerning the other points which are pretended to be in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation and so by this my Aduersaries grant I gaine much for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues to wit that they were grounded vpon false informations either that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is denied in the Oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and the contrary hereticall which also is manifestly false as I haue sufficiently conuinced in this Treatise 65 And hereby that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth is easily answered Besides that saith he k p. 218. nu 13 the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons concerning the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires for so were the word of Fa. Parsons letter did not exclude the deposition of Princes from his spirituall authority but necessarily include it because his said answere was to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam that is to say according to the meaning and drift of the Oath which was the speciall subiect of that Conference and therefore forasmuch as the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is directly denyed by the Oath and that the same is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication it is manifest that his Holinesse answering a demaund concerning the Oath and speaking of the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included therein his power aswell to depose as to excommunicate Princes especially knowing well as he did that the Oath denying his power to depose Princes doth by a necessary consequent deny his spiritual authority which includeth that power as I haue sufficiently declared and prooued in this Treatise l Chap. 2. per totum Item chap. 5. 6. 66 You haue heard before that the words which his Holinesse vsed to Fa. Parsons were that as for any actuall vsing Censures against his Maiestie he meat not but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires which last words in such affaires are now added by Mr. Fitzherbert he was resolued and would rather lose his head then lose one iote Now my Aduersary laboureth to shew that by those words but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such
affaires his Holinesse meant to include not onely the authority to vse Censures which onely were mentioned in the words next going before and to which onely any man according to the property of the words would restraine them but also to despose them which is not much materiall to the present purpose for be it so that his Holinesse speaking of the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included his power as well to depose as to excommunicate Princes it is nothing to the matter for that which I intend is that his Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines who consulted of the Oath not onely misinformed that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is plainly denied in the Oath but also that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall authority which is verie vntrue as in this Treatise I haue sufficiently declared and prooued 67 But that also which M. Fitzherbert addeth for a confirmation of his saying to wit that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects from their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some censure of Excommunication is both false and also repugnant to the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine For Childericke King of France which example Cardinall Bellarmine bringeth for a proofe that the Pope hath power to depose Princes was deposed and his subiects discharged of their allegiance and not by vertue of any Censure of Excommunication And it is one thing saith Becanus Becanus incōtrou Anglic. c. 3. p. 2. pag. 108. to excommunicate a King and another to depose or depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connexed with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue beene excommunicated and not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and not therefore excommunicated And yet my ignorant Aduersary to patch vp this silly answere of his doth now agreeable to his learning boldly affirme that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication whereas I haue sufficiently prooued aboue m Chap. 1. nu 21. seq chap. 5. sec 2. 131. seq out of the doctrine of Suarez Becanus and from the definition of excommunication that deposition is not an effect of Excommunication that therefore although they are sometimes ioyned together and that some Princes haue beene both excommunicated and deposed by the Pope yet they were not deposed by vertue of the Censure of Excommunication for that as his Maiestie did wel obserue n In his Premonition p. 9. Excommunication being only a spirituall Censure hath not vertue to worke this temporall effect 68 Now you shall see how vncharitably and also vnlearnedly this ignorant man concludeth this point Whereupon it followeth saith hee o p. 219. nu 14 that albeit his Holinesse had beene perswaded by Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and others as doubtlesse he was although this man would seeme to deny the same that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes impugned his spirituall authority he had not beene deluded or deceiued therein nor had erred in the reason why hee forbade the Oath though he had forbidden it for that cause onely as it is euident by the Breue he did not but for many respects And therefore thou seest good Reader what probable exceptions this silly sicke and scabbed sheepe taketh to the iudgement and sentence of his supreame Pastour and what account hee maketh of his Apostolicall authoritie and consequently what a good Catholike hee is 69 But if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance impugneth his spirituall authoritie to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures as needes hee must if hee will speake to the purpose for that all his former discourse hath beene to impugne my second answere to his Holinesse Breues which was that hee was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures is denyed in the Oath then I say that his Holinesse was fowly deluded and deceiued in that reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation although hee did not forbid it for that cause only But if his meaning bee that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes for to these two generall heads and to all that which doth necessarily follow thereon both this man and all my other Aduersaries doe chiefly reduce all their exceptions against the Oath and if for any other respects his Holinesse forbade the Oath let my Aduersarie name them and hee shall heare what wee will say thereunto impugneth his spirituall authoritie for that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes to dispose of their temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to discharge subiects of their temporall allegiance and which consequently are included in his spirituall power then I also say that his Holinesse was deluded dedeceiued and erred also in this reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation for that it is no point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to inflict temporall punishments c. but the contrarie hath euer beene maintained by learned Catholikes 70 Neither was Almaine a famous Doctour of Paris and those very many Doctours related by him or any other of those learned Authours whom partly I cited in my Apologie p nu 4. seq and partly aboue in this Treatise q Part. 1. euer accounted bad Catholikes or silly sicke and scabbed sheepe Neither can Card. Bellarmine euen according to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before and in his owne conscience whereunto I dare appeale heerein affirme that the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell whereon all my Aduersaries doe now at last chiefly rely to proue their doctrine of deposing to be of faith although it should haue mentioned as it doeth not mention absolute Princes is sufficient to make it certaine and of faith And therefore this ignorant and vnconscionable man calling mee a silly sicke and scabbed sheepe and no good Catholike for not beleeuing this doctrine to bee certaine and of faith which so many learned Catholike Doctours haue euer maintained to bee false and for not admitting his Holinesse declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon and consequently hath no greater force to binde according to Suarez doctrine then hath the reason whereon it is grounded sheweth himselfe to haue neither learning nor charitie but a vehement desire to disgrace mee with Catholikes and to take away my good name per fas nefas whether it bee by right or wrong as all the rest of his vncharitable and fraudulent discourse doeth
will vouchsafe to examine the cause himselfe and not to be ouer confident in the testimonie and conscience of his accuser who is both in great fauour with the Iudge and also is brought as a witnesse against him otherwise all the standers by will perceiue what manifest wrong is done him and hee will giue his Aduersaries great occasion to except and exclaime against him And this is my very case as you haue seene before 75 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth that I doe not promise to his Holinesse to retract or reforme my writings in case that he condemne them to which hee might also haue added that his Holinesse hath now condemned or rather forbidden some of my writings and I haue not as yet retracted or reformed them I answere first that I know not well what this silly man would conclude from hence vnlesse he would make his Reader belieue that I am obstinate in my doctrine which the ignorant man calleth an heresie and that I doe still maintaine that it is a probable doctrine and consequently may be maintained by any Catholike that the Pope hath not authority to depose temporall Princes and that therfore I am no Catholike but a formall heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that all my pretences to bee a Catholike doe proceede from no other ground but from a deepe d ssimulation or rather an artificall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes And this is the chiefe marke at which this rash-headed and vncharitable man aimeth at in this Chapter whereby hee plainely discouereth both the bitternes of his intemperate splene little beseeming the spirit of a religious Priest and also that he knoweth not himselfe what is required to be a Catholike or to haue true Catholike faith 76 Secondly therefore to answere this inference I doe boldly and resolutely affirme againe which also I haue sufficiently conuinced in this Treatise that it is a doctrine truely probable that the Pope hath no authority to depose absolute Princes or to discharge their subiects of their temporall allegiance and therefore it cannot truely bee noted of heresie errour or temerity and so the imputation of heresie concerning the doctrine it selfe is altogether auoided and the submission of all my writings to the Censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church professing that if through ignorance I haue written any thing which she approoueth not I doe also reprooue it condemne it and desire it to bee hâ—ld for not written which is a retractation and recalling in generall of whatsoeuer I haue written amisse is sufficient to cleare mee from all imputation of obstinacie or wilfulnesse vntill I bee certified of some particular thing which requireth a more particular retractation 77 True it is that I did not promise to his Holinesse to retract or reforme my writings and doctrine in case hee should condemne them vpon the false informations of my Aduersaries for that I was not bound to make any such promise as you shall more fully see beneath And now in that manner as the Cardinals of the Inquisition haue by the commandement of his Holinesse as the Decree mentioneth forbidden my Apologie and Theologicall Disputation in the same manner I haue retracted and recalled all that I haue written amisse for as they haue onely in generall forbidden those bookes not expressing any cause or crime either in particular or in generall for which they are forbidden although I haue most humbly and earnestly requested to know some cause thereof so also I haue in generall retracted recalled what I haue written amisse both by abhorring and detesting all heresie and errour in generall and also by submitting my selfe to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church and solemnely protesting to bee most ready to correct whatsoeuer in my writings is to be corrected to purge what is to bee purged to explaine what is to be explained and to retract what is to bee retracted which being so with what face conscieÌ„ce can this my ignorant and vncharitable Aduersary so confidently affirme that no zealous Catholike can take me for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that all my pretences to be a Catholike doe proceede from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrab e hypocrisie 78 But that vnlearned Catholikes may not be led blind folde by this ignorant and silly man who presumeth to be a Doctour and Teacher in these difficult points of Schoole-Diuinitie before he hath beene scarce a Scholler therein and that they may haue some sufficient light and directions to discerne vpon what grounds they ought to build their Catholike faith and whether they are bound to belieue with Catholike faith all that doctrine to bee faith which the Pope with the Cardinals of the Inquisition and his other Diuines of Rome propoundeth as of faith and that doctrine to be hereticall or erroneous which hee with their aduise and counsell condemneth as hereticall or erroneous I thinke it not amisse to set downe two principall obseruations to direct them therein 79 The first is that it is certaine and agreed vpon by all Diuines that true Catholike and supernaturall faith must alwaies bee certaine and infallible not onely in respect of the obiect or the thing which is to be belieued which must of necessity be true but chiefly and principally in respect of the reason or medium whereby wee assent thereunto for many opinions which include intrinsecally a feare and vncertainty as true naturall science and supernaturall faith include intrinsecally a certainety and exclude all feare doubt and vncertainty are true See Bannes secunda secundae q. 6. ar 2. and in respect of their obiect also necessary but the reason for which we belieue or giue assent is that which maketh our true Catholike and supernaturall faith and iudgement to bee infallible and this reason is the reuelation of God propounded to vs by the Church 80 The second is that it is also certaine that there is a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and other learned Catholikes especially of Paris whether the Pope defining and determining any doctrine to bee of faith and the contrary hereticall without a generall Councell may erre or no and whether the Pope be subiect or superiour to a generall Councell Victor relect 4 de potest Papae Conc. proposit 3. Bellar. li 2. de Conc. cap. 13. Whereupon learned Victoria affirmeth that both opinions concerning the superiority of the Pope or Councell are probable and Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that although in the Councell of Florence and in the last Lateran Councell the question seemeth to be defined yet because the Florentine Councell hath not so expresly defined it and some make doubt whether the Lateran Councell which hath most expresly defined it Bellar. ibid. ca. 17. albeit afterwards he saith that it is doubtfull whether shee defined it properly as to be
opinion are vncertaine and fallible and therefore although the Popes definitions made with mature deliberation and graue counsell may be a sufficient ground for Catholikes to thinke with opinion that the doctrine which he defineth is true if they haue no conuincing reasons to perswade them to the contrary yet they cannot be sufficient for Catholikes I doe not say to thinke probably but to beleeue assuredly with Catholike faith the doctrine which he so defineth without the approbation of a generall Councell to bee true The second difference is that albeit euery Catholike ought to be so firme and stedfast in his Catholike beliefe that hee must needes beleeue the contrary doctrine not onely to be false à parte rei but also to be improbable yet he ought not to bee so firme and stedfast in his opinion as to condemne of heresie errour or temeritie other learned Catholikes who hauing duely examined all the reasons and grounds for that opinion shall thinke against him or be of the contrary opinion although he pretend to prooue his doctrine to be true out of some Decree or definition euen of a generall Councell which Decree or definition the other learned Catholikes of the contrary opinion haue seene examined and answered thereunto and this I prooued at large in my Theologicall Disputation Å¿ Cha. 10. sec 2. out of the expresse doctrine of Fa. Vasquez which my ignorant Aduersary doth fraudulently conceale who as you haue seene vrgeth against mee certaine arguments which I there related and answered and dissembleth wholly the answeres which there I made to the same 86 Wherefore although the Pope be the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach and instruct them in the Catholike faith and in all other things which are necessary to saluation as also euery Bishop is a spirituall Pastour in his owne Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach and instruct all those that are committed to his charge in the Catholike faith and in all other things necessarie to the health of their soules because as Cardinall Bellarmine well affirmeth Bell. l. 5. de RoÌ„ Pont. c. 3. that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in his particular Dioecesse and those words Pasce oues meas Feed my sheepe Bell. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12 in sine Edit antiquâ—â— saith he and such like which are spoken to Saint Peter in regard of the Pastorall office are vnderstood to be spoken to all Pastors yet as no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith which the Bishop of the Dioecesse doth define or determine to be of faith so long as there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes concerning the certaintie of that doctrine for that it is certaine and agreed vpon by all Catholikes that euery particular Bishop may erre in his definitions and consequently they cannot be any assured and infallible grounds of the Catholike faith So also proportionally no man is bound to beleeue with Catholike faith any doctrine whereof there is a controuersie among learned Catholikes albeit the Pope without a generall Councell shall define it to be of faith for that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope defining without a generall Councell can erre or no and consequently vntill this controuersie be decided and determined by a generall Councell or the vniuersall acceptance of the Church as a point of faith such his definitions can be no assured and infallible grounds of true Catholike faith 87 And if you demaund that seeing the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way to saluation why are not all Christians bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund him I answere with the like demaund seeing that euery Bishop is the spirituall Pastour of all the faithfull within his Dioecesse and therefore ought to teach them the Catholike faith and direct them in the way of saluation why are not all the faithfull within his Dioâ—cesse committed to his charge bound to heare his voyce and to embrace all that he shall teach them and to obey him in all that he shall commaund them 88 But perchance you will say that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and his commaundements are Apostolicall as Mr. Fitzherbert in this Treatise often vrgeth against me the authoritie of the supreme spirituall Pastor his Apostolicall Breues and commandement therfore there is a great disparitie betwixt the Pope and the inferiour Bishops True it is that there is a great disparitie and difference betwixt the Pope who is the supreme Pastour and other Bishops who are not supreme but as there is a great disparitie betwixt them so there is a great difficultie and controuersie among learned Catholikes in what this disparitie and this supremacie of the Pope doth consist which were to long to examine at this present perchance hereafter if my Aduersaries will vrge me thereunto I shall treate of this disparitie and the Popes Supremacie more at large In the meane time all Catholikes doe agree in this that the Popes Supremacie doth not consist in this that he cannot command any vnlawfull thing and contrary to the law of God or that he cannot teach false doctrine and contrary to the word of God or that he cannot exceede the authority which Christ hath granted him or that hee cannot challenge to him a power or Iurisdiction as due to him which Christ hath not giuen him Yea and according to the doctrine of many famous and learned Catholikes cited by me elsewhere t In disp Theol. cap. 10. § 2 nu 27. the Popes Supremacy doth not consist in this that he cannot erre and bee deceiued in his definitions albeit they bee directed to the whole Church if he define without the approbation of a generall Councell or the acceptance of the vniuersall Church and consequently such his definitions cannot be certaine and infallible grounds of true Catholike Faith 89 Neyther are his commandements definitions or letters called Apostolicall for that they are alwayes conforme to the law of God and to the doctrine of the Apostles neyther is his authority called Apostolicall for that he hath alwayes the assistance of the holy Ghost anexed to his Decrees and doctrine in that manner as the Apostles had but chiefly and principally for that he is the successour of S. Peter the first Apostle and hath authority and iurisdiction ouer all Christians as the Apostles and principally S. Peter had although not with the like infallibility and continuall assistance of the holy Ghost And so the parity doth still remaine betwixt the Pope and other Bishops notwithstanding his Primacie in that both are Pastours and therefore are bound by their pastorall function to feede their sheepe to instruct them in the Catholike faith and to direct them in
the way to saluation and yet their sheep are not alwaies bound to heare and follow their voyce or call to beleeue with Catholike faith all their doctrine or to obey all their commandements for that their definitions are not certaine and infallible neither are they alwaies so assisted by the holy Ghost that they cannot command vnlawfull things So that albeit the Pope be our supreame spirituall Pastour Superiour and Iudge yet wee are not bound to obey him but in lawfull things and to which his authoritie doth extend 90 And if you aske againe to whom shall it belong to iudge whether the Popes definitions or doctrine be true or false or his commandements conforme to the law of God or no or that he exceed the authority and commission which Christ hath granted him or no I answere that if wee speake of Iudgement as it is an act of Iustice or of a Iudge doing iustice supposeth in him a superiority authority ouer the person whom he iudgeth which the Diuines call iudicium potestatis a iudgement of authority then according to the Diuines of Rome only God can iudge the Popes actions except in case of heresie or of schisme when more then one contend to be Pope for in these cases they graunt that a generall Councell may iudge the Pope But according to the Diuines of Paris not onely in the aforesaid cases but also in many others a Generall Councell whom they grant to be superiour to the Pope may by way of authority iudge the Popes actions and declare determine and define whether his definitions and commandements be conforme to the word and law of God or no. But if wee take iudgement S. Thom. prima secuÌ„da q. 93 ar 2. secunda secundae q. 51. ar 3. q. 60. ar 1. as it is an act of the vnderstanding and is commonly called by the Philosophers the second act or operation thereof and signifieth a right discerning or determination of the vnderstanding betwixt truth falshood good and euill in euery matter whether it be speculatiue or practicall and consisteth in the apprehension of a thing as it is in it selfe which the Diuines call iudicium discretionis a iudgement of discretion then euery learned man may iudge and discerne whether the Popes definitions or doctrine be true or false and whether his commandements bee conforme to the law of God or no neyther is that vulgar saying None can iudge his superiours actions to be vnderstood of this iudgement but of the former for this inward and priuate iudgement is the guide of euery mans conscience by which for that it is the rule of all morall actions he must iudge and discerne all his thoughts words and deeds actions and omissions 91 Seeing therefore it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope can erre in his definitions if hee define without a generall Councell and consequently they cannot be infallible grounds of Catholike faith it is euident that whensoeuer the Pope defineth any doctrine to be of faith which in very deed is Catholike doctrine and of faith we must not beleeue with Catholike faith that doctrin to be Catholike and of faith because the Pope hath defined the same for this reason and ground is as I haue said vncertaine and fallible but because the Catholike Church 1. Tim. 3. which onely is the infallible propounder of Catholike faith and according to the Apostle the pillar and ground of truth hath approued the same to be Catholike and of faith And thus much concerning the Popes definitions and decrees in points of faith and which are to be beleeued with Catholike faith 92 Now concerning manners and things commanded to bee done or not to be done we must carefully distinguish betwixt declaratiue and constitutiue precepts or commandements for in constitutiue commandements which doe make the thing which they forbid to be vnlawfull and doe not suppose it to be otherwise vnlawfull and forbidden by some former law first if the Pope command a thing which is manifestly lawfull and subiect to his commanding power wee are bound to obey but with this caueat or prouiso if by obeying we are not like to incurre any probable danger of some great temporall harme for that no Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall or contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doth seldome or neuer binde with any great temporall losse as I obserued elsewhere u In Disp Theol. cap. 10. § 2. nu 41. out of the common doctrine of Catholike Diuines Secondly if the Pope perchance commaund a thing which is manifestly vnlawfull then we are bound not to obey according to that saying of S. Peter God must be obeyed â—ather then men Acts cap. 5. 93 Thirdly if it be doubtfull whether the thing which the Pope commandeth be vnlawfull or whether he hath authority to command that thing or no In the discouery of D. Schulckenius caâ—umnies calum 15 nu 12. seq Sot de deteg secret memb 3. q. 2. then as I obserued elsewhere according to the doctrine of many learned Diuines as Sotus Corduba Salon Sayrus and others wee must doe that wherein there is lesse danger according to that approoued maxime Of two euils the lesser is to be chosen But Sotus doth more plainely and distinctly declare the whole matter When the Superiours commandement saith hee is of a thing secure and lawfull where no danger ariseth to the publike good or to a third person in a doubtfull matter we must for the most part obey As for example my Superiour commandeth me to study or to helpe sicke persons which are actions wherein there is no danger although it be doubtfull whether hee may impose such a commandement I must obey yet I added saith he for the most part because I am not alwaies bound to obey in a doubtfull matter as if the thing be ouer burdensome or laborious to the subiect For if my Superiour commaund me a long iourney and a hard or vneasie thing and it is doubtfull whether he hath authoritie to commaund the same I am not bound forthwith to obey And a little beneath the same Sotus as I related his words more at large aboue affirmeth that when it is doubtfull whether the Superiour commandeth that which is lawfull if it be in preiudice of a third person because that third person is in possession of his credit and goods we must incline to that part where there is lesse danger For when such danger doth arise to a third person if the subiect be doubtfull he doth not against obedience if hee demand of his Prelate a reason of his commaundement propounding humbly the reasons of his doubt Thus Sotus And by this the Reader may cleerely vnderstand the true sense and meaning of that vulgar maxime In doubts wee must obey our Superiour and stand to his iudgement 94 And as concerning declaratiue precepts which doe not make the thing which they forbid to be vnlawfull but doe onely declare
the State to take compassion of them and to suffer them to make their innocencie and oppression knowne to the whole world in that manner they should thinke fittest being so infinitely wronged for his Maiesties sake in yeelding him that temporall allegiance which he requireth and they in their consciences thinke to be due to him 116 An other reason may be a willingnesse in his Maiestie and the State to haue plainly discouered to the whole world the different grounds and principles in things concerning obedience due to God and Caesar etwixt Catholikes of quiet disposition and in all other things good subiects and such other Catholikes as in their hearts maintaine the like violent bloody maximes that the Powder-Traytors did and a desire that his Catholike subiects would plainly let him see that in all temporall affaires they would and might lawfully according to the grounds of Catholike Religion adhere to him notwithstanding any authority by which the Pope might pretend to commaund them the contrarie whereby himselfe and his State might bee the better secured from all perturbations which might arise from thence and they also freed from most grieuous penalties which otherwise would bee imposed vpon them 117 And if the Pope should vpon some occasion offered be desirous to know how the Iewes that are borne and liue in his temporall Dominions stand affected towards him in point of their ciuill loyaltie and due obedience and whether they thought that their Chiefe Priest or Synagogue had according to the grounds of their Religion authoritie to absolue them from the bond of their naturall allegiance and for that cause should suffer bookes to be printed vnder the name of Iewes with Epistles dedicatory to their chiefe Priests and submission of the whole to the censure of their Synagogue or if the French King should for some good respects bee desirous to know the like concerning his Protestant subiects and thereupon suffer bookes to be printed vnder the name of Protestants with Epistles dedicatory to their chiefe Ministers and submission of the whole to their Congregation or Synode would not any man thinke it to bee both a manifest slander and childish inference to conclude from hence that eyther the Pope was turned Iew or the King of France become a Protestant for suffering such bookes to be printed in that manner or that therefore they knew the Authours of them meant the same for a meere mockery and derision of their chiefe Priests Ministers or Synodes honouring them as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex Iudaeorum and spitting in his face And yet these are the manifest arguments which this vncharitable and ignorant fellow obiecteth against me to proue me an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike 118 An other Argument of the like kind vrgeth against mean other as foule a mouth'd and vncharitable Aduersarie of mine to wit that my bookes are printed without license and approbation of Catholike Superiours contrary to the decrees of the Lateran Councell vnder Pope Leo the tenth and also of the Councell of Trent But besides that this is more then this man doth know or can sufficiently prooue it is well knowne that neither that Lateran Councell nor the Councell of Trent were euer authentically receiued heere in England whereupon clandestine marriage which by a decree of the Councell of Trent is made inualide is heere in England euen among Catholikes accounted a true and valid marriage Moreouer it is well knowne that according to the doctrine of many learned Diuines which I haue related else where c In Disp Theol. cap. 10. sec 2. nu 41. Ecclesiasticall lawes doe not binde when there is danger of some great temporall harme by the obseruing of them or when some other necessitie to auoid great scandall or danger to Religion or the temporall common-wealth to know the trueth in a thing necessary to the great temporall or spirituall good or harme of many persons impugned by craft and violence and to defend himselfe and his credite from the slaunderous reports of vncharitable Aduersaries and such like necessities which are commanded or permitted by the law of God and nature all which may by any man of iudgement be applyed to the bookes written by me 119 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 222. nu 20. and 21. their Lordships know full well that Widdrington shall more easily instill his pernicious doctrine into the mindes of Catholikes vnder the pretence and name of a Catholike of a friend and of a brother of theirs then if hee should discouer himself to bee a Protestant and enemy of their cause for as the Poet saith Tuta frequensque via est per amici fallere nomen Tuta frequensque licet sit via crimen habet Which one translated very aptly thus It is a safe and common way by friendship to deceiue Though safe common be the way t' is knauery by your leaue S. Ambrose saith Nihil periculosius his haereticis esse potest c. S. Ambros de filij diuvnt c. 1. Nothing can bee more dangerous then those heretikes who with some one word onely as with a drop of poyson doe infect the pure and sincere faith of our Lord and of the Apostolicall tradition But what would he haue said if he had seene this fellowes bookes impugning directly the Sea Apostolike and the whole course of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church would he haue thought any thing more dangerous or pernicious then him and his workes No truely 120 That which his Maiesty and the State might very well know for their secret thoughts and intentions we cannot know but by coniecture was this that Catholikes would hardly beleeue or reade the writings and bookes of Protestants in matters which may be thought to concerne Religion And therefore to the end his Catholike subiects might plainely see and discerne according to the grounds of Catholike Religion the true difference betwixt spirituall obedience due to the Pope and temporall allegiance due to himselfe and the proper acts and obiects of eyther of them and thereby might the more easily be drawn to giue him that temporall allegiance which hee requireth at their hands And that also all other Catholikes of other Countreyes might perceiue the lawfulnesse of the Oath against which the Iesuites especially did so greatly exclaim vpon what doctrin principles his Maiesty grounded the same also that he himselfe might certainly know what particular exceptions his Holinesse would or could take against any clause of the Oath and what one thing in particular therein contained is contrary to faith and saluation as his Holinesse had in generall in his Breues affirmed that many things were therein clerely repugnant thereunto his Maiesty thought it not amisse to suffer my bookes to be printed vnder the name of a Catholike with Epistles dedicatory to the Pope and with submission of the
whole to the censure of the Catholike Romane Church in that manner as bookes are vsually printed by Catholikes And if S. Ambrose or any other of the ancient Fathers were now aliue and should see bookes of certaine Catholikes directly impugning the Soueraigne power and authority of Kings and absolute that Princes whom they did so highly honor and reuerence affirming them to be inferiour in temporals to none but God alone vnder pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike and subiecting them to the coerciue temporall power of spirituall Pastours whereas their generall doctrine was that with temporall punishments they are not to be punished but by God alone and broaching by violence and without sufficient ground with scandall to Catholike Religion and contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles and the whole primitiue Church new articles of faith in preiudice of temporall authority and not permitting any man eyther to call their new faith in question or for his better instruction or discussion of the controuersie to propound any difficulty against the same with a desire to be satisfied therein albeit he submit himselfe and all his writings to the censure of the Catholike Roman Church but with open mouth crying out against him and calling him an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike what would S. Ambrose trow you or any other of the ancient Fathers if they were now aliue say of such Catholikes Truly that nothing can be more dangerous then such Catholikes who vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike religion and to the Sea Apostolike inuent new articles of faith in preiudice of Christian Princes by wresting many places of the holy Scriptures as Quodcunque solueris Pasce oues meas Secularia iudicia si habueritis c. to a sense not dreamed of by the ancient Fathers by reason of their potency in the Court of Rome and their fauour with his Holinesse whose authority they pretend to aduance vniustly persecuting those that discouer their manifest frauds and falshoods 122 Lastly that which Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth heere against me migh Bartholus Carerius and other Canonists obiecteth against Cardinall Bellarmines booke directly impugning the authority of the Sea Apostolike vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church But the plaine truth is that neyther of vs both doe impugne that authority whiCh is certainely knowne and acknowledged by all Catholikes to belong to the Sea Apostolike but as hee impugneth the direct power of the Pope to dispose of temporalls for that there is no sufficient ground to proue the same albeit some Popes haue challenged the same as due to them and some Canonists affirme that it is hereticall to deny the same so I impugne the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine who holdeth that it is certaine and a point of faith that the Pope hath at least wise an indirect power to dispose of all temporals and consequently to depose temporall Princes in order to spirituall good for that there is no sufficient ground to confirme the same 123 And the like argument might Mr. Fitzherbert vrge against all those learned Catholikes who constantly deny the Pope to haue authority to dispence in any true and lawfull marriage which is not consummated notwithstanding so many practises of Popes to the contrary impugning directly the Sea Apostolike and the whole course of Ecclesiasticall gouernment vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church For Saint Antoninus doth of affirme Antonin 3. part tit 1. cap. 21. § 3. Caiet tom 1. opusc trac 28. de Matrim q. vnica Nauar. in Manual cap. 22. nu 21. Henriq lib. 11. de matrim cap. 8. nu 11. in Com. lit F. Sot in 4. dist 27. q. 1. ar 4. that hee saw the Bulles of Pope Martin the fifth and Pope Eugenius the fourth who dispenced therein and Card. Caietane relateth that in his time Popes did oftentimes dispence therein and Nauar affirmeth that Pope Paulus the third and Pope Pius the fourth did dispence therein three or foure times by his Counsell and aduise And Henriquez the Iesuite saith that Pope Gregorie the thirteenth did in one day dispence therein with eleuen persons Whereupon Dominicus Sotus although he submitteth himselfe and all his writings to the Censure of the Church is not afraide notwithstanding this often practise of Popes which my ignorant Aduersarie calleth the practise of the Church to say that those Popes erred therein following the Canonists opinion which he affirmeth to haue in it no shew of probabilitie And why then may it not be said in like manner that his Holinesse condemning the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation followed Cardinall Bellarmines opinion and other Diuines of Rome who hold that the Popes power to excommunicate and inflict Censures is denied in the Oath and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is denied in the Oath is certaine and of faith which their doctrine in my opinion hath in it no shew of probabilitie at all euen according to those rules which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe requireth to make any doctrine of Pope or generall Councell to be of faith Whereby is plainely discouered the manifest fraude and ignorance of my vncharitable Aduersarie in affirming my doctrine to be hereticall and my selfe to be an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholik for denying the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be of faith whereas euen according to the rules which Cardinall Bellarmine requireth to make a matter of faith he cannot bring any one argument Which hath so much as a shew of probabilitie to conuince the same 124 Marke now the fraudulent Admonition which Mr. Fitzherbert giueth to his Catholike Reader vnder pretence forsooth of sinceritie and the feruent zeale he hath of his soules health And therefore I hope saith he e Pag. 223. nu 22. thou wilt be wary good Catholike Reader and diligent to discouer Widdringtons fraude thereby to auoide the danger of his poysoned pen pondering all this matter in the iust ballance of prudence that is to say that thou wilt counterpoise his vaine pretence of probabilitie not onely with the graue and sacred authoritie of the Churches practise for many ages but also with the Canons of generall and Prouinciall Councells with the Decrees of Popes and with cleere doctrine of so many famous and learned Writers as hee impugneth Also that thou wilt weigh his presumption in defending and iustifying the Oath with the iudgement authority of thy supreame Pastour who condemneth and forbiddeth it the pretended force and soliditie of his doctrine and arguments with the ridiculous absurdities which thou hast euidently seene in his answeres to mee outward shewes of affection to thee and desire of thy good with the inward intelligence he hath with Gods enemies and thine who employ him to deceiue thee seruing themselues of him as Fowlers doe of birds which they keepe in
Cages for stalles to draw other birds with their chirping into their nets and snares Also that thou wilt ballance thy obligation to man with thy dutie to God and the losse of thy temporall goods with the gaine of euerlasting glory from the which the Diuell seeketh by his meanes to debarre thee and therefore I wish thee euer to beare in minde this comfortable lesson of the Apostle 2 Cor. 4. Quod momentaneum leue est tribulationis nostrae aeternum gloriae pondus operatur in nobis 125 But on the contrary side I hope thou wilt bee warie good Catholike Reader and diligent first to discouer the manifest fraud and falshood of this vnlearned and vncharitable man thereby to auoyde the danger of his slanderous and poisoned pen in propounding to thee a new article of faith so preiudiciall to the supreame authority of temporall Princes so dangerous to thy owne spirituall and temporall good so repugnant to the example and practise of Christ and his Apostles and of the whole primitiue Church vnknowen to the ancient Fathers vntill the time of Pope Gregory the seauenth which at the first broaching thereof was branded with the marke of nouelty This nouelty not to say heresie Sigeb ad ann 1080. Onuph lib. 4. de varia creat Rom. Pont. saith Sigebert A thing vnheard of before that age saith Onuphrius and lastly not confirmed by any one argument which hath any shew of a probable proofe to confirme euen according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds any doctrine which hath beene in controuersie among learned Catholikes to be certaine and of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 126 Secondly that thou wilt ponder all this matter in the iust ballance of prudence that is to say that thou wilt counterpoise his vaine pretended Catholike faith newly broached in the Christian world and the childish and ridiculous arguments brought to conuince the same with the example of Christ and his Apostles with the practise of the primitiue Church with the doctrine of the ancient Fathers with the authority of learned Catholikes who were neuer accounted heretikes or ill belieuers for impugning the same 127 Thirdly that thou wilt call to minde what is required euen according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds to make a matter of faith so that all Catholikes are bound to beleeue the same and that all the Acts euen of generall Councells doe not appertaine to faith but onely the bare Decrees and those not all but those onely which are propounded as of faith * See also Estius in Praefat epist ad Hebraeos Where also he affirmeth it to be probable that Dauid did not make all the 150. Psalmes although the Councell of Trent in the Decree of Canonical Scriptures expresly mentioneth Dauids Psalter of a 150. Psalmes Whereby thou maiest plainly see that he hath brought no one argument which hath any colour of a probable proofe drawne either from the practise of some Popes which he falsly and fraudulently calleth the practise of the Church or from any Canon or Decree of Pope or generall Councell or from any other authoritie whatsoeuer to prooue this doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and that the Councell of Lateran doth neither treate of the deposition of absolute Princes nor propound the doctrine whereof it treateth as of faith 128 Fourthly that thou wilt consider the doctrine of Sotus before rehearshed not onely concerning the Popes dispensations in lawfull and valide matrimony when carnall copulation doth not follow so often practised by diuers Popes which neuerthelesse hee impugneth as not hauing any shew of probabilitie but also touching the dutie of subiects towards their Superiours when they command any thing which is preiudiciall to a third person and the Subiect is doubtfull of the lawfulnesse thereof Whereby thou wilt cleerely perceiue that it is no presumption to reiect the iudgement of his Superiour albeit he be our supreme Pastour when it is contrary to the iudgement of other learned Catholikes or not to obey his declaratiue commandement grounded thereon especially humbly propounding to him the reasons of his doubts Neither is it more presumption for any man to say that the Pope was deceiued in his Breues following the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and some other Diuines of Rome who hold it a matter of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes seeing that many learned Catholikes haue euer maintained the contrary then it was for Sotus and many others of his opinion to say that all those Popes that dispenced in the aforesaid Marriages were deceiued following the doctrine of the Canonists 129 Fifthly that thou wilt weigh my sound Replyes and plaine dealing in propounding to thee sincerely the true state of euery difficultie and omitting nothing which he obiecteth against me with his childish and ridiculous arguments and answeres and false and fraudulent proceeding in seeking to confound thy vnderstanding with generall and ambiguous words and which haue diuers senses which hee omitteth to explaine and in vrging those arguments which I my selfe obiected and concealing the answeres which I made thereunto and in imposing vpon me many vntruths thereby to make some shew of impugning my answeres and in particular concerning the Lateran Councell which hee so often saith I doe impugne and then especially when I make no mention at all thereof whereas it is manifest that I doe not at any time impugne that Decree or Act but the exposition which he and some others make thereof and I doe expound it according to the grounds and principles of learned Catholikes both Diuines and Lawyers Also that thou wilt ballance thy dutie towards God with thy obedience due to Caesar and render to either of them that which is their due neither for feare of disgrace humane respect or any other temporall losse thou wilt so adhere to the Pope as to renounce thy allegiance due to thy temporall Prince from which the Deuill by my Aduersaries meanes vnder pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike seeketh to draw thee And therefore I wish thee euer to beare in minde the expresse commandent of our Sauiour Matth. 22. Render the things that are Caesars to Caesar and the things that are Gods to God and for thy more particular direction heerein especially to remember that vnboubted principle of Fa. Lessius which aboue in the Preface * nu 15. 16. I did also recommend to thy memorie A power which is not most certaine but probable cannot bee a ground or foundation to punish any man or to depriue him of his right and dominion De Regulis Iuris in 6o. and ff de Regulis Iuris In pari causa which he really possesseth for that according to the approued maxime both of the Canon and Ciuill law In a doubtfull or disputable case the state or condition of the possessor is to bee preferred 130 Lastly to that which this spitefull man obiecteth against me concerning my inward intelligence