Iudges within the gates doe not agree the Iewes ought to haue recourse did consist only of Priests and not of temporall but of spirituall Iudges and that the Iudge mentioned in this place they ought obey was either the high Priest himselfe or rather some other inferiour Priest subordinate to him neuerthelesse he cannot prooue from hence as he pretendeth that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes was in the hands of the high Priest For all that is ordained for the Priests and Iudges to do in this place of Deuteronomie is only to decide determine and declare the doubts and difficulties of the law to whose commandement and decree euery man was bound by the expresse law of God vnder paine of death to stand but to decide and declare what is the law of God to instruct the people therin and to command the people to obey their declaration instruction commandement is not a temporall but a pure spirituall cause as well obserueth Abulensis in cap. 11. Num. q. 23. 24. in cap. 18. Exodi q. 5.8 11. 16 And what Catholike man will deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue also authoritie to declare and determine what is the law of God when any doubt or difficulty shall arise and to command all Christians euen temporall Princes who are subiect to them in spirituals to obey their decree and determination and yet from hence it can not be rightly inferred in that manner as my Aduersarie from those words of Deuteronomie would conclude that the highest tribunall for iudgement in the new law not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes is in the hands of the chiefe spirituall Pastour for that to decide and determine what is the law of Christ and to command Christian Princes to obey their decision and determination is not a temporall but a meere spirituall cause 17 But if my Aduersarie had prooued as he hath not that the Priests of the old law had authoritie not only to interpret the law and to command the people to follow their interpretation but also to pronounce the sentence of death and to execute the same against those who should not obey their declaration and decree then hee had said something to the purpose for to inflict temporall punishments and to pronounce the sentence of death and to execute or inflict the same for what crime soeuer it be either temporal or spiritual is a temporal not a spiritual actiō I say to inflict temporal punishmēts c. For as I haue often said to impose or enioine temporal punishments and to command temporall Iudges to do iustice according to the law by punishing malefactours with corporall death if it be so ordained by the law may if it be done for a spiritual end be a spiritualactiō belonging to the authority of spiritual Pastors Neither can my Aduersarie prooue that the Iudge who was to giue sentence of death against those who either did not obey the commandement of the Priest and the decree of the Iudge or committed any other crime worthie of death by the law as blasphemie adulterie Sodomie c. was either a Priest or a temporall Iudge who had his authoritie deriued from the high Priest as he was a Priest I say as he was a Priest for that sometimes the chiefe temporall Iudge as I obserued before out of the Glosse was also a Priest as in the time of Holy Moyses and the Machabees and then he had authoritie to giue sentence of death not as he was a Priest but as hee was a temporall Prince or Iudge 18 Wherefore to little purpose is that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth Besides that saith he m Pap. 71. nu 6. afterwards God commanded the people exactly to obey the Priests Deut. 24. without mention of any other Iudge threatening to punish them him selfe in case they should transgresse the same saying Obserua diligenter c. Obserue diligently that thou incurre not the plague of Leprosie but shalt doe whatsoeuer the Priests of the Leuitical stocke shal teach thee according to that which I commanded them and doe thou fulfill it carefully So said Almightie God And to mooue them the rather to this exact obedience which he commanded he added presently Remember what our Lord God did to Mary in the way when you came out of Egypt that is to say how seuerely God punished Mary the Prophetesse sister to Moyses for her disobedience to him was stroken with leprosie for the same by which example Almightie God did notably inculcate vnto the people the necessitie of their obedience to the Priest and the danger of his indignation and seuere punishment which they should incurre by neglecting their dutie therein Thus said I in my Supplement and hauing prooued afterwards most n Nu. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. amply that God gaue also to the high Priest not only a soueraignitie of authoritie but also an infallibilitie of doctrine iudgement in causes of doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters and hauing also shewed the great priuiledges of the Leuites and Priests who were separated wholly c. 19 But what followeth from all this No man maketh any doubt but that the Priests of the old law were to be obeyed in those things wherein they had authoritie to comand as likewise neither Mr. Fitz. can make any doubt but that the cōmandement of the temporall Prince or Iudge was exactly to be followed in those things wherein they had authoritie to command True it is that the Priests were the chiefe interpreters of the law of God in the old Testament according to those words of the Prophet Malachie The lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge Malach. cap. 2. and the law they shall require of his mouth because he is the Angell or Messenger of the Lord of Hosts and that it belonged to the Priests to declare whether one was infected with leprosie or no But from hence it can not rightly be concluded that it belonged to the Priests as they were Priests but to the temporall Iudges of the people or to the children of Israel that is the whole multitude from whom the temporarall Iudges had commonly their election and authoritie to giue sentence of death and to inflict any temporall punishment appointed by the law And therefore although God ordained Leuit. 13. that Aaron or any one of his sonnes should declare and iudge who was infected with leprosie and after his declaration and iudgement that he was a leaper he should be separated yet it belonged to the children of Israel not as they were ministers of the Priests but of God who was their King and ordained that punishment to separate him and cast him out of the campe according to that of Num. 5. And the Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leaper and
whosoeuer hath a flux of seede and is polluted vpon the dead as well man as woman cast ye out of the campe 20 So likewise it belongeth to the Priests of the new Law to declare what is the Law of Christ and to iudge what is heresie vsurie or any other crime forbidden by the law of Christ and to command temporall Princes to roote out hereticks vsurers and such like malefactors by the meanes of temporall punishments for all this doth not exceede the bounds of spirituall authoritie but it doth not belong to the Priests of the new law as they are Priests to giue sentence of death or to punish temporally heretikes vsurers or any other malefactours by inflicting temporall punishments but only to temporall Princes who haue in their hands and power the sword of life and death and who therefore as I obserued o Disputat Theolog. ca. 7. sec 2. nu 17. Bannes 2.2 q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine out of Bannes may pardon sometimes the punishment of death and punish heretikes in some other manner 21 And therefore to as little purpose also is that which Mr. Fitzherbert next adioyneth that God gaue also to the high Priest an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement in causes of doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters For I willingly grant that the high Priests of the old Testament had an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement at least wise for many yeares together in doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters which could not be determined by the law yea and a greater infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement then is now in the new law in doubts and controuersies of particular facts as whether they should ouercome in such a warre how such an inheritance of particular men was to be deuided c. Either because as well obserueth Abulensis Abulensis q. 3. in 17. Deut. in fine Abulensis q. i9 in cap. 22. lib. 1. Reg. in Defensor part â— cap. 41. the high Priest did iudge in the presence of some Prophet to whom the truth was reuealed by God or because they did know the secrets of things by the plaâ—es of the Priests vestement which was called the rationale wherein was contained doctrine and truth whereof we haue treated saith Abulensis Exod. 28. 22 Or thirdly as the same Abulensis obserueth when the high Priest consulted our Lord about any thing by entering into the Sanctuary in the day of Expiation which happened but once a yeere for on that day the Priest did speake vnto our Lord within the Sanctuary and did heare him speake in the Propitiatory as hath beene declared Leuit. 16. For therefore it was commanded that at what time the high Priest did enter into the Sanctuary no man should be in the Tabernacle to wit least he should heare those things which were spoken in the Sanctuary Thus Abulensis none of which wayes to finde out the truth infallibly in any doubtfull matter is ordinarily granted to the Priests of the new Law Neuerthelesse it can not from hence bee sufficiently concluded that the high Priests of the old Law had a soueraigntie of temporall authoritie or in temporall things but onely in spirituall for that as well obserueth the saide Abulensis p Q. 23. in cap. 11. Num. to instruct in the questions of the Law and to consult almighty God was a spirituall thing 23 But that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth that the Leuites and Priests were separated wholly from temporall and ciuill state in such sort that they had no dependance thereon is very vntrue and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth the contrarie to bee probable q Supra nu 6. For as I aboue obserued out of S. Bonauenture S. Thomas Abulensis and many other learned Diuines in the Olde Testament the Priesthood was subiect to the Kingdome and Priests were directly subiect to the King as Laymen were to wit in temporalls as it appeareth saith Abulensis Num. 17. where God said that Eleezar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue who was a Secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim yea and in the time of Moses Aaron who was the high Priest was in temporalls subiect to Moses and for that cause called him his Lord Exod. 32. although in spiritualls Aaron was greater then Moses Q. 10. in 9. Leuit. Moses saith Abulensis expounding those words of Leuit. 9. and Aaron stretching forth his handes to the people hee blessed them was in temporalls greater then Aaron because hee iudged the whole people as it is contained Exod. 18. Chap. and he commanded the people those things which they ought to doe But in spiritualls Aaron was simply greater then Moses For Aaron was the high Priest but Moses one of the simple Leuites Also because Aaron had directly a right to minister but Moyses had onely this for want of Priests but this hee had not by any order or ordination And if thou say that Moses was greater then Aaron because hee commanded him to doe these sacrifices and whatsoeuer he did I answere saith Abulensis that it is not inferred from this because Moyses did not therefore commaund these things as hauing authoritie to commaund by some Prelacie or Order but because hee was the messenger of God relating those things which God had commaunded whereupon it is not properly saide that Moyses did commaund but that hee did declare the things to be done 24 But if thou yet obiect that Moyses was greater then Aaron because Moyses did consecrate Aaron It is answered saith Abulensis that it is not deduced from this for therefore Moyses did consecrate Aaron because there was no high Priest that could consecrate him nor also then any inferiour Priests for that as well the high Priest as the inferiour Priests were consecrated and yet neuerthelesse this consequence is not of force this man doth consecrate that man therefore hee is greater then hee For the Pope is consecrated by a Cardinall Bishop of Hostia who is inferiour to the Pope and after his consecration the Pope doth command him that consecrated him So also it happened among the high Priests in the Olde Testament For except the consecration of Aaron which was done by Moyses who was no Priest to wit by ordination but onely by the speciall priuiledge of God as the same Abulensis declareth q. 7. in cap. 17. Exodi and except the consecration of Eleazar which was done without any ceremonies as we shewed at large Exod. 19. all the later consecrations of the high Priests were done by inferiour Priests therefore Moyses was not greater for that he consecrated Aaron but Aaron was greater and because as the Apostle writeth Hebr. cap. 7. alwaies the lesser is blessed by the greater it was fit that the blessing ouer the people should bee done by Aaron Thus Abulensis See him also q. 2. in cap. 2. Num. 25 Now Mr. Fitzherberts next argument is as insufficient as the former I added further
fiftie men did oppose against him And also the three Princes of the tribe of Reuben to wit Dathan Abiron and Hon for the high Priesthood saying that hee gaue it vniustly to Aaron to wit in giuing all things to his kinred and he purged himselfe saying in this you shall know that our Lord hath sent mee to doe all things that you see Num. 16. and that I haue not forged them of my owne mind if they shall die the accustomed death of men our Lord hath not sent me Also before in the same Chapter Core said to Moyses and Aaron Let it suffice you that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones and our Lord is among them why lift you vp your selues aboue the people of our Lord But if Moyses had beene a Lord or a King no man could haue said this vnto him for that hee who was a Lord might haue lifted himselfe vp yea there is no greater lifting vp then to be a Lord. Thus Abulensis 40 And although Moyses alone did iudge the people without the helpe of any other Iudges who were subordained to him vntill Iethro father in law to Moyses came vnto him into the desert of Sin neere to the mount Sinai which happened either in the ende of the first yeere or in the beginning of the second since their departure out of Aegypt after that the law was giuen to Moyses in the mount Sinai yet afterwards by the aduise of Iethro who perceiuing that Moyses could not long sustaine so great a burden as to iudge himselfe alone the whole people of Israel sitting in iudgement from morning vntill night he was perswaded to impart the burden thereof to others and so choosing substantiall men out of all Israel he appointed them Princes of the people Tribunes and Centurians and Quinquagenarians and Deanes who iudged the people at all times and whatsoeuer was of greater difficultie they referred to Moyses they themselues iudging only the easier causes 41 But because these Iudges who were all subordinate to Moyses iudged onely of smaller causes and all matters of difficultie were referred to Moyses hee was neuerthelesse ouermuch troubled and therefore not long after at the sepulcher of Concupiscence Num. 11. almightie God at the request of Moyses appointed seuentie men of the ancients of Israel whom Moyses had chosen to assist him to whom hee gaue also the spirit of prophecie and to them were committed those things which did peculiarly belong to Moyses to wit that they should iudge of great matters as Moyses did for the iurisdiction of the 70. Iudges appointed by the aduise of Iethro who iudged the smaller matters did still remaine and also that they should consult our Lord and giue answeres concerning the questions of the law as Moyses did g Abul q. 24. in c. 11. nu and so that Iurisdiction which before by the aduise of Iethro did onely belong to Moyses was now by the commandement of God giuen to seuentie ancients or Elders who also were not Priests or Leuites but Lay-men chosen out of the ancients of Israel h Abul q. 61. and yet they had Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes i Abul q. 24. And after these seuentie men were appointed to helpe Moyses hee neuer complained in all the fortie yeeres that the Israelites were in the wildernesse that hee was burdened with the multitude of so many causes of the people k Abul q. 23. Num. 27. 42 Now to succeede Moyses and to bee the Captaine and Prince of all the people God appointed Iosue the sonne of Nun Moyses yet liuing And he was truly a Prince of the people for at his commandement not only the people but also Eleazar the high Priest were moued yet he was not a King but a Prince or Captaine neither also had he authoritie to iudge saith Abulensis but Iudges were appointed otherwise Neither is this against that which God commanded Numer 27. Abulensis q. 19. in cap. 8. Iudic. that as well Eleazar as all Israel were mooued at the commandement of Iosue because this is to be vnderstood concerning those things which appertained to warre and because all or the chiefe time of Iosue was in making warre by subduing the people of Chanaan therefore the power of Iosue was great Yet he was neuer called Lord or King 43 After the death of Iosue God raised other Princes of the people who were called Iudges or Sauiours Iudic. 2. and 3. neither were they Kings but their Princedome or principalitie was lesser neither were they called Lords as it appeareth Iudic. 8. when all the men of Israel said to Gedeon haue thou dominion ouer vs and thy sonne and thy sonnes sonne because thou hast deliuered vs from the hand of Madian To whom hee said I will not domineere or haue dominion ouer you neither shall my sonne haue dominion ouer you but the Lord shall haue dominion ouer you and yet Gedeon was a Captaine in the warres and a Iudge of the people of Israel and this principalitie or gouernment of the Iudges did continue for a long time together to wit for aboue 340. yeeres to the time of Samuel who was the last of the Iudges in whose time the Israelites desired a King as other nations had 44 After the Iudges the Kingly gouernment or principalitie did succeede For the people desired of Samuel a King and God commanded that hee should appoint Saul to bee a King ouer them and this principalitie or Kingly gouernment did endure a long time to wit to the captiuitie of Babylon when Sedechias was King 4. Reg. 45. After the returne of the Iewes from Babylon they had no King but the high Priests as Abulensis saith were the Princes of the people and this principalitie continued vntill the birth of Christ. Abulensis q. 91 in cap. â— Math. Neuerthelesse for a certaine time before the Natiuitie of Christ the high Priests who were Princes of the people did take the Kingly name and diademe and they did continue so vntill the time of Herod the stranger who killed his father in law Hircanus who was the high Priest and King and by the power of the Romanes was made himselfe the King of the Iewes and at this time Christ our Sauiour was borne and how the authoritie of Kings was greater then of the Iudges See beneath nu 52. seq 46 Lastly the Iewes not onely in the time of their Kings but also of Moyses Iosue and the Iudges had other Princes who had great authority and priuiledges among the people of Israel Q 5 in cap. 5. 1. Paralip See Abulensis q. 6. 7. in c. 5. 2. Paralip of which their rights and priuiledges Abulensis treateth at large For all the people of Israel were diuided into tribes families and houses all which are names of companies or congregations and they differ in this that one company is greater an other lesse and one doth containe or is contained in the other And first all the
is said And our Lord stroke the King and he was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a free house apart but Ioathan the Kings sonne gouerned the Palace and iudged the people of the Land But from hence it cannot be conuinced that this free house a part was in the City but rather apart out of the City and therefore the opinion of Iosephus seemeth to be more agreeable to the words of holy Scripture Num. 5. And our Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leper 172 Therefore I will conclude vpon the premisses cleane contrarie to Mr. Fitzherberts inference that for as much as the law of GOD assigned no Soueraigntie in iudgement to the High Priests and their consistorie in temporall causes but only in meere spirituall as was to declare the law of God and to iudge one to be infected or not infected with leprosie according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law and to declare them that were infected to be separated and cast out of the campe according to the Prescript of the law which is the plaine meaning of those words ad arbitrium illius separabitur and he shall be separated at his arbitrement or iudgement that is if the Priest doe declare or iudge him a leper he shall be separated and cast out of the campe and seeing that the executing of the law concerning temporall punishments and the separating of lepers by force and temporall constraint did not belong to the Priests but to the supreme temporall authoritie which did reside in the Kings and not in the Priests who were subiect to the Kings in temporalls and might be punished by them with temporall punishments as I haue amply proued in these two Sections and the aforesaid words Num. 5. Command the children of Israel he doth not say command the Priests although then the Israelites had no King neither did the supreme temporall authoritie reside in the Priests but rather in the people that they cast out of the Campe euery leper it followeth euidently that the Priests were not the supreme heads of the Kings in temporalls nor Kings therein subiect to them and their tribunall nor to be punished by them with temporall punishments but contrariwise and consequently that if an Oath had beene proposed by any of these Kings to his subiects whereby they should haue sworne that hee was free from all subiection in temporalls and from all temporall chasticement of the high Priest by way of temporall constraint I say by way of temporall constraint and putting in execution the law of God wherein temporall punishment were ordained and not by way only of declaring the law of God which as it haue sufficiently proued was a spirituall and not a temporall action the said Oath must needes haue beene conforme and not repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament And thus much concerning the arguments taken from the old Testament SECT III. Wherein all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the veritie is proued to make against himselfe 2. Those words of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. And feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted common-wealth are satisfied and D. Schulckenius Reply proued to be fraudulent and insufficient 3. the authoritie of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were ready to revenge all disobedience is answered Mr. Fitzherberts fraude in alledging the authoritie of S. Austin is plainly discouered and the conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be both false and fraudulent NOw from the old Testament Mr. Fitzherbert descendeth to the new and vpon a false supposall as I haue already conuinced to wit that he hath effectually proued that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreme and soueraigne authority to create punish and depose Kings he laboureth in vaine from the number 25 to 32. to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood of the new law not for that he think th that we are now bound to retaine the ceremoniall or iudiciall part thereof but to deduce as he saith a Num. 25. pag 83. a potent argument from thence as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood and especially in the chiefe Priest in the law of Christ And for proofe heereof he setteth downe two positions as the only grounds of this his potent argument 2 The first is that the old law and Testament being but a figure b Num. 26. pag 84. and a shadow of the new was no lesse inferiour there to in authoritie dignitie and perfection then Moses to Christ the dead and killing letter to the quickning spirit or the Priesthood of Aaron to the Priesthood of Melchisedech which was Christs Priesthood he should rather haue said which prefigured the excellencie of Christs Priesthood c See S. Thomas and the Schoolemen 3. part q. 22. ar 6. This position to wit Hebr. 10. that the old Testament was a figure and shadow and not inferiour to the new he proueth by the authoritie of S. Augustine d In Psal 119. who affirmeth that vetus Testamentum promissiones habet terrenas c. The old Testament hath earthly promises an earthly Palestine an earthly Hierusalem an earthly saluation to wit conquest of enemies aboundance of children fertilitie of soyle and plentie of fruites all these things are earthly promises and it is to be vnderstood spiritually in figure how the earthly Hierusalem was a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the heauenly kingdome So S. Austin and thereupon concludeth that if the olde Testament was a shadow of the new non mirum quia ibi tenebrae it is no meruaile though there were darkenesse there pinguiorâ—s enim vmbrae sunt tenebrae for thicker shadowes are darkenesse Thus argueth S. Augustine proouing the imperfection of the old law in respect of the new which the Apostle also proueth amply in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 7. saying that the old law was abolished propter infirmitatem eius inutilitatem for the infirmitie and invtilitie of it Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex for the law brought nothing to perfection 3 His second position is e nu 26.28 that the defects of the old law and Synagogue of the Iewes can not serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ and therefore though the Kings in the olde Testament should haue had authoritie ouer Priests yet it would not follow that Christian Kings should haue the like for that the defects and imperfections of the Synagogue which S. Austin calleth terrenum regnum an earthly kingdome were not to be transferred to the
power to command temporall things the accessorie and which by the institution of Christ doth follow the first and more noble power as the principall 56 And by this that Dilemma which he maketh is easily answered For I graunt the consequence in that forme of words as he setteth it downe in one sense and I denye it in an other I graunt it if it be vnderstood of the Popes power to command temporals and to enioyne temporall penalties in order to spirituall good and if he had intended nothing else then this I should indeed haue prooued nothing against him but should haue fortified his consequence But because in his consequence he spake of a power in the Church in generall ouer the soule body and goods therefore the Church sayth he hauing power ouer the soule hath power consequently ouer the body and goods which power may be vnderstood not onely of a power to command but also to dispose not onely to enioyne spirituall and temporall punishments but also to inflict them and because the Pope in order to spirituall good hath a power not only to command spirituall punishments but also to inflict them and by a iuridicall sentence to depriue men of certaine spirituall goods and benefites therefore by his consequence it might seeme to be rightly inferred that the Pope hath also in order to spirituall good a power to dispose of the bodie and of temporall goods euen as temporall Princes haue in order to temporall good a power not onely to command but also to dispose thereof and to depriue by a iuridicall sentence their subiects of their temporall goods and also of their corporall liues and because my Aduersaries drift and meaning was to prooue thus much by his consequence therefore in this sense which his words did beare and he also intend I did absolutely denye his consequence Now what repugnance or contradiction trow you can all his skill in Logike although it were farre greater then most men that know him suppose it to be find in granting his consequence in one sence and denying it in an other and whose folly is discouered and whether my instance or his Reply be ridiculous I dare aduenture to remit euen to his owne iudgement 57 But my Aduersarie perceiuing as it seemes that according to the vulgar axiome ducere ad inconueniens non est soluere argumentum to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument endeauoureth to answere my instance abstracting from my grant But let vs set aside sayth he k nu 13. pag. 36 Widdringtons graunt and consider how probable is the instance that he maketh against me by this argument considered in it selfe and compared with mine The accessorie sayth he followeth the principall and therefore he who is Lord of all horses is Lord of all bridles which no doubt is true if he speake of such a one as hath a supreme dominion or power as I doe in my argument when I speake of the Pope who being supreme head of the Church and in that respect hauing the direct charge of mens soules hath also indirectly the care and charge of whatsoeuer is accessorie to the soule and subordinate thereto so farre forth I meane as is requisite for the good of soules as also in like manner a supreme temporall Prince albeit he be not directly the Lord of all horses and bridles in his kingdome or State yet hauing directly the charge and care of the whole common wealth he may dispose not onely of all the horses but also of all the bridles in the common-wealth when it shall vndoubtedly be conuenient and necessarie for the publike good thereof 58 True it is that this consequence The accessorie or consequent doth necessarily follow the principall or antecedent therefore a supreme temporall Prince who is Lord of all horses is also Lord of all bridles or which is all one who may for the common good dispose of all the horses in his kingdome may also for the same good dispose of all the bridles is a true and good consequence but not for that a bridle is accessorie or necessarily annexed and consequent to a horse as my Aduersarie affirmeth for then it must be true not onely in a Prince but also in all other men who haue power to dispose of the principall and moreouer this consequence would also be good The accessorie followeth the principall therefore a supreme temporall Prince who buyeth all horses which according to my Aduersaries doctrine are the principall must consequently buy all bridles which are the accessorie But the aforesaid consequence is therefore good for that to be a supreme temporall Lord of all bridles is accessorie or consequent to be a supreme temporall Lord of all horses which is the more noble principall or antecedent and so the power in a temporall Prince to dispose of all horses is necessarily connected with his power to dispose of all bridles 59 Wherefore according to my opinion who doe not make bridles to be accessory to horses in that sense as accessory is taken in that maxime but a supreme power to dispose of all bridles to bee accessory or consequent to a supreme power to dispose of all horses for that a supreme power to dispose both of horses and bridles is necessarily included in a supreme power to dispose of all temporall things as a part in the whole the aforesaid argument speaking of a supreme temporall Prince is good not onely vi consequentis to vse the termes of Logicians by vertue of the consequent but also vi consequentiae by vertue of the consequence or which is all one not onely the consequent is true but also the consequence is good But he that will grant the argument to be good in regard that bridles are accessorie to horses as my Aduersarie doth he can not maintaine that argument to be good in a supreme temporall Prince by vertue of the consequence or which is all one by vertue of that maxime The accessorie followeth the principall but by vertue of an other maxime which is that euery part is contained in the whole and therefore a temporall Prince who for the common temporal good hath power to dispose of all temporall things hath power to dispose of all horses bridles and all other temporall things 60 Now although I did grant this consequence in the Pope that because the accessory or consequent doth follow the principall or antecedent therefore the Pope hauing power to commaund spirituals hath also power to command temporals in order to spirituall good not for that temporals are accessory or consequent to spirituals in that sense as accessory and consequent are taken in that maxime but for that a power in the Pope to commaund temporals in order to spirituall good is by the institution of Christ accessory and consequent to his power of commanding spirituals yet I vtterly denyed this consequence The accessory followeth the principall therefore the Pope hauing power to commaund and to dispose of spirituals or
to inflict spirituall punishments hath also power to dispose of temporals and not onely to command or inioyne but also to inflict temporall punishments or to punish temporally by way of constraint For although temporals are ordained to spirituals in that sense as I haue often declared and for that cause may be called accessory to spirituals yet as accessory is taken in that maxime they are neither accessory to spirituals for that spirituall good may in any man be very well without them neither is the Popes pretended power to dispose of temporalls in order to spirituall good and to punish with temporall punishments by way of constraint accessory or consequent to his power to dispose of spirituals or to punish with spirituall punishments or Ecclesiasticall censures 61 And by this is easily answered that which Mr. Fitzherbert saith in the next Paragraph concerning priuate men And if wee consider saith he l Nu. 14. p. 3â— also Widdringtons argument euen in particular and priuate men it may haue a very true sense and will fortifie mine for whosoeuer is Lord of any horse is Lord also of the bridles that belong to that horse because according to Widdringtons supposition they are accessory of the said horse and therefore according to my axiome doe follow their principall and the same must needes bee granted in this our case seeing that the Pope doth no otherwise dispose of temporall goods then the same doe belong to particular men whom he hath occasion to chastise for the benefit of their soules and the publike good of the Church and therefore when he punisheth any Prince temporally hee neither doth nor can doe it in other mens goods but onely in those goods or states which belong to that Prince as a Lord of a horse disposeth not of other mens bridles but of the bridles that belong to his owne horse for as other mens bridles are not accessory of that horse so neither are other mens goods accessory to the Prince who is to be punished but such goods or states onely as belong to him and may consequently be disposed of by his supreme Pastour when his and the publike good of the Church shall necessarily require it So as you see how well Widdrington argueth for mee and therefore the probabilitie that I see in this his argument is no other but that he playeth as I may say booty with me and helpeth vnder hand to defend my cause Thus much for the first argument 62 But first it is vntrue that I according to my owne doctrine doe suppose that bridles are accessory to horses as accessory is taken in the aforesaid maxime but I doe suppose and that truely according to my Aduersaries doctrine that bridles are accessory to horses for that they are made and ordained for horses in which sense hee taketh accessorie in that maxime and therefore he affirmeth that corporall and temporall goods are accessory to the spirituall good of the soule for that they are ordained and referred to the said spirituall good 63 Secondly it is also vntrue that the argument which I made against his consequence if it be considered in particular and priuate men can haue a very true sense as it is grounded in that rule or maxime the accessory followeth the principall and that it doth fortifie his consequence For whosoeuer saith he is Lord of any horse is Lord also of the bridles that belong to that horse because according to his owne supposition and not mine they are the accessory of the saide horse Obserue now good Reader how cunningly this man would shift off the argument or instance which I made against his consequence and delude thee with ambiguous words For what can any man imagine my Aduersary to vnderstand by these wordes the bridles that belong to that horse for surely no man can be so simple as to thinke that any bridle can be said to belong to a horse as to the true owner thereof or so proper to a horse that the horse can not be without that bridle for so indeede it would very well follow from that maxime that he who is Lord of that horse is also Lord of that bridle and he that should buy that horse should also buy that bridle which belongeth to that horse And therefore either it must be said that such a bridle doth belong to such a horse for that the bridlemaker did make it serue such a horse and for this respect it can not be truely said that he who is Lord of that horse is Lord also of that bridle for the bridlemaker and not he who is owner of that horse may be Lord and owner of the bridle or else for that such a bridle is for the most part or alwaies vsed for such a horse neither for this respect or any such like can it be truly said that he who is Lord of that horse is consequently Lord of that bridle and can dispose thereof because that bridle may be lent for the vse of that horse by some other man who is the true Lord and owner of that bridle and consequently may dispose thereof and not of the horse 64 It remaineth therefore that for this cause onely as my Aduersary himselfe here insinuateth such a bridle can bee said to belong to such a horse for that the same man who is the true Lord and owner both of the horse and bridle and consequently hath power to dispose of them both doth appoint that bridle to serue that horse and although in this sense that consequent bee true to wit that hee who is Lord of any horse is also Lord and can dispose of the bridles which belong to such a horse or to speake more properly which belong to the Lord of such a horse for that the same man is Lord of them both yet it is not true by vertue of the consequence or by vertue of that maxime The accessory followeth the principall or for that the horse is the principall and the bridle the accessorie in that sense as principall and accessorie ought to be taken in that maxime for then it must also follow that hee who buyeth that horse and consequently can dispose thereof as being the true owner of that horse hath also power to dispose of that bridle for that the accessorie must follow the principall which consequence is false but the consequent is true not by vertue of that maxime The accessorie followeth the principall but by vertue of another maxime which is that he who is the true Lord or owner of any horse bridle or of any such like temporall thing hath power to dispose thereof 65 Wherefore it is apparant that my aforesaid instance argument or consequence The accessorie followeth the principall therefore hee who is Lord of all horses is consequently Lord and can dispose of all bridles is neither true in Soueraigne Princes nor in priuate men vnderstanding as my Aduersarie doth that bridles are accessorie to horses neither doth that consequent although it bee true not
saith he r Pag. 72. nu 7 concerning the power and authoritie of the high Priest in temporall things that whereas both the dignities spirituall and temporall were sometimes in one person as in Moyses Heli and the Machabees and sometimes disioyned in distinct and seuerall persons as in the time of Iosue the Iudges and the Kings it is manifest that when they were seuered the spirituall was alwaies superiour as it may appeare by the commandement of almighty God to Moyses when he bad h m take Iosue Num. 17. and lay his hands vpon him before Eleazar the Priest and all the multitude and giue him part of his glory and that Eleazar should consult with God all the affaires of Iosue concluding Ad verbum illius egredietur c. according to his word that is to say the word of Eleazar Iosue shall goe out and shall goe in and all the children of Israel with him and the rest of the multitude Wherein Theodoret obserueth Theoderet q 48. in Num. that God commaunded Moyses to distribute his honour or dignitie betwixt Eleazar and Iosue yet so that Iosue should alwaies learne of Eleazar what he was to doe whereby it appeareth that Iosue was to bee directed by Eleazar in all affaires touching the ciuill gouernment which is sufficiently expressed by those words Ad verbum illius egredietur ingredietur Iosue shall goe out and in at the word of Eleazar 26 But truely I am ashamed to see the extreame boldnesse of this my vnlearned Aduersary when I call to minde what silly arguments he hath scraped together to make it forsooth manifest by the Law of God in the Olde Testament that the spirituall power was then the supreme power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally For this very text of holy Scripture which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to prooue that Eleazar was Superiour to Iosue learned Abulensis doth interprete cleane contrary Abulensis q. â—6 in c. 3. Iosue and bringeth it not once or twise but many times to proue that in the old Testament the Priests were subiect to the temporall Princes for that Eleazar was inferior subiect to Iosue Iosue saith Abulensis expounding those words and do thou command the Priests c. was not onely the Captaine of the people but also of the Priests although hee was neither a Priest nor a Leuite but of the Tribe of Ephraim as it appeareth Num. cap. 13. and he did command not onely the inferiour Priests of whom it is spoken in this place but also the high Priest as it appeareth Num. 27. where it is said for him if any thing be to be done Eleazar the Priest shall consult the Lord At his word to wit at the word of Iosue shall he to wit Eleazar and all the children of Israel goe out and shall goe in And the cause hereof is this for that in the Olde Testament the Secular and Ecclesiasticall or the Priestly and Regall Iurisdictions were not distinct as they are now although the offices of the Priests and Leuites were altogether distinct from the actions Å¿ Aboperibus of the Lay men whereupon the Priests when they offended might be put to death by the King as the Lay men might c. 27 But some will say saith the same Abulensis t Q. 2. in cap. 14. Iosue that the state of Eleazar was more honourable because he was the high Priest and Iosue was the Prince of the people but the state of Priests was greater then the state of Lay men as the Pope is more excellent then the Emperour or Kings But it is to be answered that this is false For the state of Priests in the Olde Testament was not more excellent then the state of Kings but the Priests were iudged by Kings and not onely concerning Kings but also Iosue who was no King was greater then the high Priest as it appeareth Num. cap. 27. where it is said that Eleazar the high Priest and euerie one shal at the commandement of Iosue goe in and goe out that is shall doe whatsoeuer they ought to doe Therefore Iosue was Superiour because to command is an act of a Superiour 28 And againe the said Abulensis u Q. 48. in cap. 27. Num. writeth thus At his word he shall goe in and shall goe out that is Eleazer the Priest shall serue at the commandement of Iosue by doing whatsoeuer he shall command For to goe out Num. 27. vers 17. and goe in is by the manner of speech taken for euery worke So it was taken aboue that God would put in authority ouer the Israelites a man who should goe out and goe in before them that is should doe whatsoeuer ought to be done before his people and in all things to be before them commanding and instructing But some may take to goe in and to goe out for to goe into the Sanctuary to consult the Lord for Iosue because it was saide aboue that whatsoeuer was to be done Eleazar should consult the Lord for Iosue And in this place it is added that at his commandement he ought to doe this to wit that whensoeuer Eleazar should be commanded to consult the Lord for Iosue he must be subiect to doe it But this sense cannot stand because Eleazar did not goe into the Sanctuarie to consult the Lord within the Sanctuarie putting on his Priestly vestements but by the rationale and Ephod he did consult the Lord as it hath beene declared Also it can not stand because it is not spoken onely of Eleazar that he shall goe in and goe out at the commandement of Iosue but also of all the children of Israel but they did not goe in to consult the Lord for Iosue therefore the first sense must stand Yet it is to be considered that Iosue because he was the Secular Prince is preferred here directly before the high Priest so that Eleazar was bound to obey Iosue in all things which he should command as likewise all the rest of the people and so it was in the time of Moyses who was not a Priest to wit by ordination and Prelacie yet Aaron who was the high Priest did obey him who was the Prince of the people And so it was in all the old Testament that the high Priests were subiect to the Kings c. Thus Abulensis 29 And thus you see that this learned man vnderstandeth those words of holy Scripture Ad verbum eius c. At his word he shall goe out and shall goe in in the cleane contrarie sense then wherein Mr. Fitzherbert doth expound them and yet forsooth it is manifest out of this place saith he that when the dignities spirituall and temporall were disioyned in distinct and seuerall persons as in the time of Iosue the spirituall was alwaies superiour But secondly I will goe farther with Mr. Fitzherbert and graunt him onely for Disputations sake that those words are so to be vnderstood that at the word of Eleazar Iosue
for their Iudges and then God vvas said to haue raised to them Sauiours So it is to be vnderstood of Hothoniel and Aod Iudic. 3. Other Iudges vvere made onely by the vvill of the people to wit because when they were in distresse they inquired who was a fit man among them to be Captaine in their warres And sometimes they tooke not those that were vertuous but onely who were exercised in warre So Iephte was chosen Iudic. 11. vvho vvas a Prince of theeues vvhom the Israelites because they saw him fit for warre desired to be their Captaine and Iudge And sometimes the Iudges were made onely by fauour and as it were by violence of the people as vvas Abimelech the sonne of Gedeon Iudic. 9. to whom also by the sedition of the Sichimites was giuen the title of a King And vvhen it is obiected that God raised a Sauiour I answere saith Abulensis that it is not to be vnderstood that God commanded any one to be Iudge by creating him and giuing him a certaine manner of authoritie but that God did incite the Israelites by some one of the wayes aforesaid to make some their Iudges and yet afterwards it depended vpon the will of the people to receiue them or reiect them and to giue them so much authoritie as they pleased 55 Secondly the authoritie of the Iudges was not deriued by succession to their posteritie but it remained in the power of the people one Iudge being dead to choose another or to choose none at all But to the greatnesse of authoritie it appertaineth to haue power to deriue it to their posterity as those things are properly ours concerning which wee may appoint others to inherite for in other things we are rather Administrators or Procuratours then Lords or hauing dominion and Seigniorie And the difference of this power to be a Iudge from that which by succession is transferred to posteritie is manifest by the example of Gedeon for when Gedeon was a Iudge in Israel the Israelites being desirous to exalt him to greater honour for the great victory he had against the Madianites saids vnto him haue thou dominion or Seignorie ouer vs and thy sonne and thy sonnes sonne that is all of thy posteritie but he being contented with the principalitie or preheminence of a Iudge would not accept thereof saying I will not haue dominion or Seigniory ouer you to wit by exercising the power of a Lord or King neither shall my sonne haue dominion or Seigniory ouer you but the Lord shall haue dominion or Seigniory ouer you and neuerthelesse he kept the principalitie of a Iudge so long as he liued Thirdly the Iudges could not impose tributes or other taxations vpon the people but they liued vpon their owne proper reuenues as other priuate persons except those things which by right appertained to them in warre because it was a custome among all nations that in vvarre a certaine peculiar part of the spoyle should belong to the Prince or chiefe Captaine as it appeareth by the decrees dis 1. cap. ius militare c. 56 Fourthly the Iudges were not Lords neither had they any power dominion or Seigniorie ouer the people but they were only Captaines or Leaders for as much as concerned those things which belonged to their office whereof I will speake beneath And in this there was a difference betwixt Kings and Iudges for Kings were Lords of the people of Israel and they had power to doe whatsoeuer they would which was not against the law therefore they called the Israelites their seruants as Saul called Dauid his seruant 1. Reg. 22. and Dauid called the Israelites his seruants 2. Reg. 20. but the Iudges were not called Lords as it appeareth by those former words of Gedeon refusing to haue that degree of principallitie according to which Princes are called Lords and said to haue dominion or Seigniorie ouer the people Neither were these called Iudges of iudging a Abulens q. 11. in Praefat. lib. Iudic. but as a Iudge is taken for a name of a certaine little principalitie For there is this difference betwixt a Lord and a Iudge for a Lord signifieth one who hath simply power dominion or Seigniorie and he hath power to doe what he will although it be not ordained by the law But a Iudge is he who hath not a libertie to command but he can onely command that which the lawes command and he hath a power giuen him to define according to the law and therefore he who is subiect to a Iudge is not subiect to the man but to the law but he that is subiect to a Lord is subiect to the man And because the principalitie of these Iudges or Sauiours was such that they could doe nothing according to their owne wils as Kings and Lords could doe but that onely which reason and the law did dictate they were called Iudges because Iudges haue the like principalitie 57 Fiftly lastly the office to which the Iudges were assumed was to fight for the people against their enemies as it is manifest by the institution of the Iudges For Iudic. 2. it is said that whensoeuer the Israelites were in the hands of their enemies God raised vp Iudges that should deliuer them And the same also is euident by the peculiar institutions of the Iudges for it is said of Hothoniel who was the first Iudge that when the Israelites were oppressed by the King of Mesopotamia God raised them vp a Sauiour called Hothoniel Iudic. 3. and the like is said of Aod in the same chapter and of Barac chap. 4. and of Gedeon chap. 6. and of Iephte chap. 11. and so of the rest and concerning the warres these Iudges had full power for all things whatsoeuer belonged to warfare were at their dispose and in this all the Israelites did obey them as in all warres the chiefe Captaines haue this full power concerning militarie discipline But the warres being ended these men remained as it were priuate persons to wit that they had not any Dominion or authoritie but yet they were alwaies very much honoured by the people and sometimes the gouernment of Cities was committed to their charge that they might dispose of them as Princes So Iair had thirtie sonnet who were Princes of thirtie Cities Iudic. 10. But to iudge of causes was not directly the office of these albeit sometimes it was committed to them especially when they were Prophets and prudent men So was Samuel who was the last Iudge of Israel and euery yeere he went about all Israel and iudged the people in three places to wit in Bethel Galgatha and Masphath Thus writeth Abulensis who also affirmeth that although Moyses and Iosue were greater then these Iudges for that they were chosen and appointed by God not onely to bc Captaines of the Israelites in the time of warre but also to be their Iudges and Gouernours yet he denyeth that Moyses himselfe was properly a Lord or King of the Israelites but rather that
the old Testament Priests did make warre and fight with the rest of the Israelites against their enemies but in the new Testament Priests doe abstaine from the shedding of blood and if they find any to be worthy of death they deliuer them ouer to the Secular power to be punished But this I say is nothing at all to the purpose For my argument was not concerning inferiour Priests but onely concerning the Pope neither also what Popes in practise and de facto doe but what according to the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to doe Now it is euident and approoued by the common consent of Catholike Diuines that the shedding of blood is not by the institution of Christ forbidden either the Pope or inferiour Bishops and Priests who therefore with the Popes licence make warre and concurre directly to the effusion of blood as oftentimes they haue done yea now at Rome all effusion of blood by a iuridicall sentence and condemning malefactours to death and all making of warres by the Popes subiects are deriued from the Popes authoritie not as he is Pope but as he is a temporall Prince for that which I contend is that Priests neither in the old law nor in the new as they are Priests or by their Priestly power haue authoritie to condemne any man to death or to inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment or the like 27 Secondly and principally to this example of Athalia I answered Å¿ Apolog. nu 366. seq that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did as Card. Bellarmine af firmeth in this place create Ioas King that is did giue him a right or true title to reigne which before he had not seeing that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by hereditarie right belong to Ioas presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously slaine although Athalia did tyrannically vsurpe the possession thereof For it is not vnusuall for one to possesse sometimes either with a good or bad conscience that thing whereof another man is the true lord or owner And therefore betwixt right and possession a great difference is commonly made by all Diuines and Lawyers Wherefore Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then what euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case For seeing that for his innocent life opinion of sanctitie and the dignitie of his office he was in great veneration among the people and Peeres of the kingdome his authoritie or fauour did preuaile so much with them that all men with vniforme consent would very easily be drawen especially by his perswasion to kill the treacherous vsurpresse and to seate the lawfull King who was vniustly detained from the possession of his kingdome in the possession thereof But this did onely argue the strength and power of Ioiada and his great fauour with the people and Peeres and not any authoritie in him to create a King who by right was not a lawfull King before 28 Wherefore from this example of Athalia nothing at all can by any true or probable consequence bee concluded in fauour of Cardinall Bellarmine because from the holy Scripture it cannot sufficiently be gathered either that Athalia was by the commandement of Ioiada slaine for Idolatrie but onely for manifest tyrannie for that shee had cruelly murthered the Royall issue and had vniustly vsurped the kingdome the true heire being aliue and therefore shee could not bee the lawfull Queene or that Ioiada the high Priest did command her to be slaine by his owne proper authoritie but by the consent of the King Peeres and people And therefore this example doeth nothing auaile to proue that true Kings and Princes albeit heretikes and Idolaters who are in lawfull possession of their kingdomes may bee depriued of their kingdomes or liues by the Popes authoritie 29 This second to wit that Ioiada the high Priest did onely by his aide and counsell sollicite and not by his owne proper authoritie but with the consent of the States command in the Kings name Athalia to bee slaine 2. Paral. 23. is manifest by those words And in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage tooke the Centurions c. and made a couenant with them to wit to kill Athalia and to seate Ioas the Kings sonne and lawfull King in the possession of his kingdome which shee had vniustly vsurped who going about Iuda saith the Scripture gathered together the Leuites out of all the cities of Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Hierusalem Therefore all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of GOD And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as the Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid which words the Glosse expounding 4. Reg. 11. writeth thus Heere is described the institution of the true heire whom also hee calleth the due King through the carefulnesse of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent and aide of the Princes and Nobles of the kingdome when it is saide And hee made a couenant with them Wherefore that commandement which Ioiada gaue to the Centurions to kill Athalia did proceede from that former couenant which before hee had made with them and the King And therefore as euery priuate subiect may and ought to command any man in the Kings name to aide him for the apprehending of a traitour to his Prince and Countrey without hauing any authoritie proper or peculiar to him to doe the same so it is not necessarie that any peculiar authoritie to command bee giuen to Ioiada onely for that hee with the consent of the King and the comon wealth commaunded Athalia vniustly vsurping the kingdome to bee slaine although wee should vnderstand that commandement of Ioiada of a commandement being taken strictly and not largely or commonly in which sense to command doth little differ from to counsell or perswade 30 But the first which is affirmed by Cardinall Bellarmine to wit that Athalia was slaine not onely for tyrannie but also for idolatrie albeit if this were true it nothing auaileth to prooue that a true and lawfull Prince although an Idolater may lawfully be slaine seeing that it is manifest that Athalia was not a true and lawfull Queene but an vsurper of the kingdome the true heire being aliue hee very insufficiently concludeth from they holy Scripture seeing that he relateth not truely those words which doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it and they brake his Altars and his Images doe not immediately follow either 4. Reg. 11. or 2. Paralip 23. the killing of Athalia as Cardinall Bellarmine vntruely affirmeth intending to proue from thence that shee was slaine for idolatrie but these wordes doe immediately follow her killing And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King
kingdome they may and not onely may but also are a bound to kill such a King c. But marke his words I answere saith he a Pag. 560. that my Aduersary Widdrington hath sometimes falsly and slanderously obiected to Bellarmine that he should giue occasion to subiects to rise vp against their Kings and to kill them and nor he in plaine words doth teach the same For Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother and now her selfe a Queene reigned peaceably the seuenth yeere she was accused by no man condemned by no Iudge and yet Widdrington doth contend that it was lawfull for the high Priest who according to his opinion and words was a subiect to exhort the people to rebellion and with the Peeres and people to conspire against the Queene and to kill her 44 But saith Widdrington she had vsurped the kingdome tyrannically I answere Be it so but now the people assenting shee reigned the seuenth yeere Who gaue to subiects authority ouer their Prince peaceably reigning Who iudged at that time Athalia to be a Tyrant not a Queene if she did not acknowledge a Superiour to her Let my Aduersary Widdrington diligently consider whether it be not by farre more dangerous to the life of Kings and Princes and to the safetie of Kingdomes and Common-wealths to giue power to the people and to subiects to rebell and conspire and at the last to kill Kings whom they rashly oftentimes and falsly account Tyrants then to say that in the Pope as head of the vniuersall Church and Christs Vicar is a iudiciall power to iudge Kings and if the deserue it to depose them b Why doth he not adde also to kill them as Ioiada did Athalia For who maketh any doubt that Kings are safer if they be subiect to the Popes equity and grauity to which Christ hath subiected them then if they be subiect to the rash leuity the people to which my Aduersary Widdrington doth subiect them 45 Euery faithfull subiect saith Widdrington ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did by killing Athalia VVhat did Ioiada Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother hauing killed all the Royall issue as it was thought had vsurped the kingdome of Iuda possessed the same peaceably now the seuenth yeere Ioiada the seuenth yeere commanded her to be slaine she suspecting no such thing and declared Ioas to be King The same saith my Aduersary Widdrington euery faithfull subiect in the like case ought to doe that is euery faithfull subiect if he thinke that one hath by an ill title vsurped the kingdom may and not onely may but also altogether ought to kill such a Prince notwithstāding that he hath possessed the kingdom peaceably now many yeeres that all the people haue obeyed him many yeeres that this Prince acknowledgeth no Superiour that he is not rightly or as it should bee accused heard condemned to haue vsurped the kingdome by an ill title 46 I declare it by an example Let vs suppose that Elizabeth did by an ill title vsurpe the kingdome of England and that the same by all right was fallen to the most excellent and most holy Mary Queene of Scotland and after her to her sonne now the most excellent and most potent King of great Brittaine In the meane time Elizabeth possessed the kingdome peaceably for many yeeres and did gouerne all things belonging to Kingly function no man contradicting that shee was condemned by no man what doe I say condemned that shee was accused by no man to vsurpe the kingdome tyrannically what ought the subiects here to doe Euery faithfull Subiect sayth my Aduersarie Widdrington ought in the like case to doe that Ioiada did by killing Athalia that is he ought to kill Queene Elizabeth and to transferre the kingdome to Mary and her sonne 47 Behold O Kings and Princes you haue one who is carefull of your securitie So obseruant of your Royall Maiestie are they who doe violate and calumniate the Pontificall authoritie Euery subiect saith Widdrington not onely may but also ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did O miserable state of Princes whose kingdome and life is subiect to the iudgement of euery priuate man If Card. Bellarmine had written the like thing what tumults would not my Aduersarie Widdrington make what clamours would he not raise Thus writeth this Doctour 48 But how false fraudulent and vnconscionable is this Doctours Reply I haue most cleerely conuinced heretofore c Disp Theolog in Admonit nu 6. For I neuer affirmed as this Doctour most slanderously and shamefully imposeth vpon me that euery faithfull subiect if he thinke any one to haue by an ill title vsurped the kingdome not onely may but also ought to kill such a King I onely said that Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then that euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in the like case Nowe this Doctour cleane altereth the case and turneth it from the case of Ioiada in killing Athalia which was this Athalia daughter to Achab king of Israel and wife to Ioram King of Iuda and mother to Ochozias King Iorams sonne who then reigned hearing that her sonne King Ochozias was slaine by Iehu did cruelly murther all the Kings stocke of the house was Ioram as she thought thereby to vsurpe the kingdome her selfe But Iosabeth King Iorams daughter the sister of Ochozias and the wife of Ioiada the high Priest taking Ioas the sonne of Ochozias stole him out of the middest of the Kings children that were slaine and his nurce out of the bed-chamber and hid them in the temple where they liued with Ioiada and Iosabeth sixe yeeres in the which Athalia reigned ouer the land But in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage for all the time before both Ioas was very yong and now began to haue some vnderstanding and hee also feared the power of Arthalia and by little and little procured the fauour of the people and souldiers to take his part in so iust a cause sent for the Centurions and communicating the whole matter with them made with them a couenant adiuring them in the house of our Lord to wit that they would constantly take his part in putting downe Athalia and setting vp Ioas the lawfull heire and rightful King from whom Athalia had now six yeeres tyrannically kept the kingdome who going about Iuda gathered together the Leuites out of all Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Ierusalem 49 And then Ioida brought them into the temple and shewed them the Kings sonne saying to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reign as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid and all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of God Then Ioiada gaue order and commandement to the Centurions in what manner they should stand in the temple with their souldiers to guarde the Kings person which the Centurions performed according to all things that Ioiada had commanded
them and after he had giuen them the speares and weapons of King Dauid which were in the temple with commandement that if any person should enter into the temple to disturbe them he should be slaine he brought foorth the Kings sonne and put the crowne vpon him and the testimonie and they made him King and anointed him and clapping with their hands said God saue the King Which noise when Athalia being in the Kings Palace neere to the temple heard shee went into the temple and seeing the King standing vpon the tribunall seate according to the manner and the Princes and the companies about him and the singers and trumpets neere him and all the people reioycing and sounding the trumpets shee rent her garments and cryed A Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason But Ioiada the high Priest commanded the Centurions that were ouer the armie not to kill her in the Temple but that shee should bee slaine with the sword without and that whosoeuer should follow her should bee stroken with the sword And they laid hands vpon her and when shee was entred within the gate of the horses of the Kings house they killed her there Thus it its written 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. 50 This therefore as you see was the case of Ioiada in commanding Athalia to bee slaine Ioiada not onely being the high Priest and therefore next in authoritie to the King for that next to the King there was none greater among the people then the high Priest d Abul q. 15. in c. 11. l. 4. Reg. but also being the Kings vncle by his wife and the Kings Protectour and Guardian did put in possession of the kingdome of Iuda Ioas the Kings sonne being but seuen yeeres old to whom the kingdome by the right of inheritance did appertaine whom hee kept secretly in the temple for sixe yeeres together and therefore did not onely by probable coniectures thinke but hee did certainely know that hee was the lawfull King and neuerthelesse before hee would accomplish the same hee communicated the matter with the Centurions and Princes of the people and made a couenant with them and hee also caused Athalia to bee slaine not onely for that shee had most tyrannically and barbarously vsurped the kingdome by killing all as shee thought of the Kings issue but also for that shee sought to make an open rebellion against the annointed King crying out in the Temple in the presence of the new crowned King of the high Priest being the King Vncle and Protectour of all the Peeres and people a Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason And this I say Ioiada and euery faithfull subiect in such a case that is hauing the protection of the true and whom for certaintie he knew to be the rightfull King not only might but also if it were in his power was bound to doe neither dare this Doctour vnlesse he will rashly and seditiously teach a most false and pernicious doctrine deny the same 51 But marke I pray you how learned Abulensis answereth to this question whether Ioiada was bound to make Ioas King that is put him in possession of the Kingdome to which he had right by hereditarie succession It was saith he e Q. 15. in cap. 11. lib. 4. Reg. a manifest sinne that Athalia should vsurpe to her selfe the kingdome Ioas being aliue to whom it did by lawfull right appertaine therefore Ioiada was bound to doe as much as lyed in his power that Ioas should not by Athalia be depriued of his right to the kingdome therefore he was bound when it did lye in his power to make Ioas King Secondly this is manifest because Ioiada was in a certain manner by his office to make Ioas King because after the King there was none greater among the people then was the high Priest and then there was no King therefore it belonged to Ioiada as to the high Priest to redresse the agreeuances which happened among the people and this was the greatest agreeuance that the King should be depriued of his right and therefore Ioiada was in this bound as much of lied in his power to procure a remedy by annointing Ioas King to whom the kingdome did of right belong Thirdly this is manifest because euery man is bound to execute the knowne will of God forasmuch as it doth preiudice charity or some commandement of God but God had said that of the seede of Dauid there should bee Kings for euer and it was not against charitie or any other commandement of God alwaies to annoint Kings of that tribe therefore Ioiada was bound as much as lied in his power to accomplish that will of God to wit that hee should annoint Ioas King And this was that whereon Ioiada grounded himselfe when he annointed Ioas King saying to the people Beholde the Kings sonne shall raigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid 2. Paralip 23â— as though hee should say because God commanded that the sonnes of Dauid should alwaies reigne therefore we ought to annoint this for King who was of the stocke of Dauid 52 And as concerning the killing of Athalia the said Abulensis f Ibidem â— 20. writeth thus I answere that it was lawfull for Ioiada to command Athalia to be slaine For the cause was iust to wit for that she intended to kill the King seeing that she had vsurped the Kingdome and also she was guiltie of death for many other causes or she had slaine all the Kings sonnes and she was a disturber of the people and a corrupter of the worship of GOD seeing that she brought in the worship of Baal into Ierusalem and had made there a temple and had Priests Therefore any one of these things were sufficient that she might be slaine Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard of the power For that now that is the King being in his minoritie he was the Prince of the people as being the high Priest who was alwaies the greatest Iudge in Israel from whose sentence it was not lawfull for any man to appeale vnder paine of death or to contemne in any wise his commandement Deut. 17. Neuerthelesse the high Priest was subiect to the King in temporalls and might be iudged by him as the said Abulensis before affirmed where he assigned the difference betwixt a Iudge and a King Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard he now represented the Kings person For he made a couenant in the place or person of the King with all the people and with GOD and he represented the Kings person in all things for that he had hitherto kept him hidden and now he annointed him King but it was lawfull for the King to command Athalia to be slaine who had vsurped the kingdome therefore it was lawfull also for Ioiada who represented the Kings person in all things 53 Now I remit to the iudgement of any vnderstanding man although he be neuer so partiall whether euery faithfull subiect hauing great
but onely to be deposed But this is very vntrue For although Card. Bellarmine doth not in expresse wordes yet by a cleere and necessary consequence he doth contend that the Pope hath power to depriue hereticall Kings not onely of their kingdomes but also of their liues seeing that he contendeth that the Pope hath authoritie in oder to spirituall good to dispose of all temporalls and I hope that the liues of Princes are not to bee excluded from temporall things See aboue nu 9 seq And although Ioas was made King de facto by the procurement of Ioiada yet it cannot with any credibilitie be denied but that all the time that Athalia raigned de facto and vniustly vsurped the kingdome Ioas was King de iure and that the kingdome and all Kingly authoritie did by right belong to him 68 But Widdrington doth not vvell prooue saith this Doctour that all those things were done onely by the counsell and not by the authoritie of Ioiada For as the Scripture testifieth both 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. Ioiada called the Centurions together Ioiada armed the Souldiers Ioiada commanded that if any one should enter within the precinct of the Temple he should be slaine if any one should follow the Queene he should likewise bee slaine Ioiada as saith the Glosse cited by Widdrington did institute the King Ioiada crowned the King Ioiada commaunded the Queene to be slaine Ioiada made a couenant betwixt himselfe the King and the people that they should be the people of our Lord Ioiada commanded the Temple of Baal to bee ouerthrowne the Altars of the Idols to be destroyed the Priest of Baal to be slaine Ioiada set the watch in the house of our Lord c. All these things Ioiada the high Priest did but because he alone could not accomplish the whole matter he adiured the Centurions that they would helpe valiantly and faithfully and therefore he made a couenant with them for the execution Wherefore nothing is giuen to the Centurions but obeying and executing at the commandement of Ioiada The Centurions saith the Scripture did according to all things that Ioiada the high Priest had commanded them 69 But why doth this Doctour still corrupt my wordes and meaning why doth he omit that word propria authoritate by his owne proper authoritie which of set purpose to expresse plainely my meaning I did set downe I neuer affirmed that all those things here mentioned by this Doctour were done by Ioiada without true and lawfull authoritie but I alwaies added that they were not done propria authoritate by his owne proper authority to wit which was proper and peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by the authority and consent of the King Princes and people and which things euery faithfull subiect might doe and was bound to doe in the like case that is if he were the Kings Protectour and Guardian and represented in all things the Kings person and such a King whom he did not onely probably imagine but also certainly knew to bee the rightfull and vndoubted King and heire of the kingdome 70 Neuerthelesse I doe willingly grant as I haue said before and oftentimes in all my bookes I haue freely confessed that Ioiada by his owne proper authoritie that is by his Priestly power had authoritie to declare to the people the Law of God and to command them to obserue the same but not to constraine them by temporall punishment to the obseruation thereof and that therefore he might commaund them in generall to put Ioas in possession of his kingdome knowing that it did by the Law of God and by the right of his inheritance belong to him as being descended by a direct line from the stocke of King Dauid according as God almighty had promised to Dauid and Salomon But concerning the particular manner how Athalia was to be deposed and Ioas was to be put in possession of his kingdome which was not contained in the Law of God this I said Ioiada could onely doe by his aduice and counsell if we respect him onely as he was high Priest but if we respect him as he was the Kings Protectour Keeper and Guardian and represented the Kings person in all things this I said hee did by authoritie but not by his owne proper authoritie as he was high Priest and which could not be common also to all other subiects in the like case but by the authority of the King and commonwealth and as he being the Kings Protectour and Guardian represented the Kings person in all things And therefore I doe not deny that Ioiada did all those things mentioned by this Doctour by authoritie but not by his owne proper authority which this Doctor hath not as yet any way impugned nor will be euer able to impugne 71 That Ioiada did not those things by his owne proper authoritie but in the name and by the authoritie of the King with the consent of the Princes and people I prooued by the words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse vpon that place Therefore all the multitude saith the Scripture made a couenant with the King in the house of God and Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sone shall raigne as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid The words of the Glosse are these Heere is described the institution of the true heire the due heire and which ought to be the due King and which ought to be for all these names veri haeredis haeredis debiti Regis debiti the Glosse vseth by the procurement of Ioiada the high Priest seeking thereunto the assent of the Princes and Nobles of the Realme when it is said And he made a couenant with them 72 Marke now how cunningly this Doctor would shift of these testimonies That which is added saith hee p Pag. 568. concerning the couenant with the King is vnderstood of the future King to wit with him who a little after was to be instituted King as it is manifest by the same place for presently it is added And Ioiada said to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne And the Glosse is against Widdrington for if heere be described the institution of the true King and to this is required the assent of the Princes assuredly Ioas was not King before albeit he was the Kings sonne For he that is King by succession ought not to be instituted but declared neither doth he neede the assent of the Princes Therefore Ioiada did constitute the King and depose the Queene but the Princes ayding and assisting him without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter 73 But if this Doctor had beene pleased to declare plainely the true state of the present question betwixt me and Cardinal Bellarmine as I did and not delude his Reader with ambiguous and equiuocall words the plaine trueth of this controuersie would presently haue appeared For this word King is equiuocal and may be taken either for a King de iure and
who hath true and lawfull right to the kingdome albeit he be not in possession thereof or for a King de facto and who doth actually reigne abstracting from that he doth reigne de iure by right and lawfully or by vsurpation Now I granted that Athalia was Queene de facto and in possession of the kingdome for sixe yeeres together but I denyed that shee was Queene de iure and that the kingdome did belong to her by right but to Ioas the rightfull heire as being the onely sonne then liuing of Ochozias King of Iuda and that therefore Ioiada did not create or institute Ioas King that is giue him a true right to reigne which he had not before for that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did reside in Ioas by right of inheritance and succession instantly vpon the death of his eldest brethren and this much the aforesaid words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse doe euidently conuince Wherefore that which this Doctour sayth concerning the couenant of the people with the King is vnderstood of the future King which a little after was to be instituted is also equiuocall for if he vnderstand that Ioas was not then King de facto but a little after by the procurement of Ioiada was made and instituted King de facto that is was put in possession of the kingdome and did actually reigne this was not the controuersie betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine for I neuer denyed but did alwaies in expresse words grant that Ioiada with the assent of the Princes and people did put Ioas in possession of his kingdome which Athalia had vniusty kept from him and in this sense Ioas who before was King de iure was afterwards by Ioiada created and instituted King de facto But if he meane that Ioas was not then King de iure and that the kingdome did not by right of inheritance and by the ordinance of almightie God belong to him this I say is plainely against the words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse Ecce filius Regis c. Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid that is behold the Kings sonne to whom therefore the right to the kingdome by inheritance doth belong although hee doth not actually reigne for that Athalia contrarie to the commandement of God who gaue the kingdome to the sonnes of Dauid hath tyrannically kept it from him shall reigne that is shall be King de facto and actually reigne according as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid 75 But the words of the Glosse are more plaine for he calleth Ioas not onely the true due or rightfull King but also the true due or rightfull heire Neither can this Doctour deny that Ioas was presently after the death of all his brethren the onely sonne of King Ochozias and consequently the true and onely heire to the kingdome of Iuda and therefore the true King de iure or by right For he can not be so ignorant as not to know that the heire to a kingdome hath presently after the death of his father all the right which his father deceased had to the kingdome It is manifest saith the rule of the law q ff de regulis iuris regula 59 approoued by all lawyers that an heire hath the same power and right which the deceased had and againe r Ibidem regula 62. Inheritance is no other thing then a succeeding to all the right which the deceased had Wherefore the words and sense of the Glosse are plaine for the words are not Here is described the institution of the true King but of the true heire whom he called before the due or rightfull heire Now it is manifest that Ioiada did not make or institute Ioas the true and rightfull heire to the kingdome of Iuda but he was made and instituted the rightfull heire by succession and by the ordinance of almightie God for that he was the onely sonne and heire suruiuing of the deceased King Ochozias And therefore those words of this Doctour Assuredly Ioas was not King before although he was the Kings sonne if he meane that he was not King de iure before are very vntrue but rather contrariwise I inferre that assuredly Ioas was King de iure before because he was the Kings sonne to whom by succession and inheritance the kingdome of Iuda did by right and by the ordinance of almightie God belong and those words of holy Scripture Behold the Kings sonne c. doe conuince as much 76 But he that is King by succession sayth this Doctour ought not to be instituted or made but to be declared neither doth he need the assent of the Princes It is true that he who is King de iure and by succession ought not to be instituted or made King de iure neither needeth he the consent of the Princes to make him King de iure But he that is King onely de iure and by succession but not King de facto and by possession ought to be instituted or made King de facto and to this is necessarie the assent and aide of the Princes and people Wherefore as this word to depose is equiuocall and may be taken either for to depriue one of his right or to put him out of possession of the thing he holdeth so also to institute create or make a King or heire is equiuocall and may be taken either for to giue one a right to a kingdome or inheritance which right he had not before or to put him in possession of the kingdome or inheritance whether he hath right thereunto or no. And therefore as well obserueth Gregorius Tholosanus Å¿ In Syntagin Iuâ—is lib. 17. cap. 16. nu 4. because the instituting or giuing of a benefice and the like may be said of a Dukedome Princedome Kingdome or inheritance is sometimes effected by giuing the possession or as it is commonly said by installing or inuesting therefore to institute is sometimes taken for to install or inuest as by deliuering some corporall thing as a ring a crowne a scepter c. by which the real and actuall possession is giuen apprehended or induced cap. ad haec de officio Archidiaconi § 1o. de consuetudine recti feudi lib. 2. de feudis tit 33. And in this sense the Glosse did vnderstand the word institution to wit for inuesting installing or putting Ioas into possession of his kingdome or which is all one making him King de facto For it is too too manifest that he was before the rightfull heire and King by succession and not then made or instituted the rightfull heire by the election of Ioiada and of Princes 77 Wherefore the last inference which this Doctour maketh in these words Therefore Ioiada did institute the King and deposed the Queene c. is very true if he meane that he did constitute the King de facto or put him in possession of
his kingdome and deposed the Queene de facto that is thrust her out of the possession of the kingdome For Ioiada in this sense did make or constitute the King and deposed the Queene by the aide and assistance of the Princes without whom he could not haue accomplished the matter but to make or constitute him King de iure or the rightfull heire to the kingdome onely succession without the aide and assent of Ioiada or the Princes was sufficient Neither dare this Doctour absolutely auerre as you haue seene that Ioas was not before this King de iure but Athalia but he affirmeth it with a credibile est which neuerthelesse I haue prooued to be incredible and to containe a very false scandalous and seditious doctrine 78 Lastly although that question betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine to wit whether Athalia was slaine onely for treason or also for idolatrie be not much materiall to the present controuersie betweene vs which is by what authoritie it was done seeing that whether she was slaine only for treason or also for idolatrie it was done by the authoritie of the King who then was crowned and confirmed by the Princes and people as this Doctour heere is not also vnwilling to grant Neuerthelesse I still affirme that it can not be prooued from the holy Scripture that she was slaine for idolatrie albeit I doe not deny that she deserued death therefore Whereupon the Scripture onely mentioneth that vpon her endeauouring to make a rebellion against the true and now anointed King crying out in the presence of the King Princes and people A conspiracie A conspiracie Treason Treason she was commanded to be slaine Neither can this Doctour sufficiently conclude from those words of holy Scripture Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. as Card. Bellarmine pretended to prooue or from those words immediatly going before And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would be the people of the Lord that Athalia was actually slaine for idolatrie although I doe willingly grant that she was an Idolatresse and therefore deserued death according to the law 79 Neither did I as this Doctour vntruely saith g pag. 570. either slaunder Card. Bellarmine or else knew not what I said my selfe when I affirmed that Card. Bellarmine did not sincerely relate the words of holy Scripture to wit Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. which words as he saith doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia For after the killing of Athalia these words And Ioiada made a couenant betweene himselfe and all the people and the King c. which as the Glosse affirmeth were a confirmation of the King newly annointed and crowned doe immediately follow and after them doe follow those words Therefore all the people entred into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. And whereas this Doctour affirmeth that Bellarmine did not meane that those words precisely Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal c. doe immediately follow after the words wherein the killing of Athalia was commanded but his meaning was that the ouerthrowing of the temple of Baal was done immediately after the killing of the Queene and therefore hee did not properly speake of wordes but of things done This is plainely both against the text of holy Scripture for that betwixt the killing of Athalia and the destruction of the temple of Baal was the confirmation of King Ioas newly crowned and annointed and of the couenant which Ioiada made betweene himselfe and all the people and the King that they would bee the people of our Lord and it is also against Cardinall Bellarmines owne wordes Those wordes saith Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. doe immediately follow the killing of Athalia And yet this Doctour forsooth will haue Cardinall Bellarmine not to speake properly of wordes but of things done contrary to Card. Bellarmines expresse words But truth and plaine dealing cannot colourably be impugned but by such pitifull shifts and fraudulent euasions 71 And thus thou seest good Reader how insufficiently this Doctour hath confuted my answer to Cardinall Bellarmines argument taken from the example of Athalia who was not deposed by Ioiada that is depriued of her right to reigne seeing that shee was neuer a lawfull Queene nor euer had any true right to reigne but shee was by the procurement of Ioiada and by the aide and assistance of the Princes and people thrust out of the possession of the kingdome which she tyrannically had for sixe yeeres vsurped and wrongfully detained from Ioas the true and rightfull King by hereditarie succession as being the onely sonne and heire suruiuing to King Ochozias and that Ioiada that which he did both in putting Ioas in possession and in killing Athalia not by his owne proper authoritie and which was peculiar to him as hee was high Priest but by that authoritie which might be common to euery faithfull subiect in the like case Now you shall see how bouldly and barely Mr. Fitzherbert repateth againe this example of Athalia without taking any notice of the answere which I made thereunto before in my Apologie and Theologicall Disputation 72 But now our Aduersaries saith Mr. Fitzherbert u Nu. 16. p 77. to answere this exemple of Athalia doe say that shee was no lawfull Queene but a Tyrant and vsurped the state in preiudice of Ioas the right heire whom Ioiada set vp and that therefore the example of her deposition cannot be of consequence to prooue that the high Priest in the old law had authoritie to depose a lawfull Prince But they are to vnderstand that it little importeth for the matter in hand whether shee were a true Queene or a Tyrant for though shee had beene a lawfull Queene yet hee should haue beene her lawfull Superiour it being euident that otherwise hee could not haue beene her Iudge to determine of her right and depose her as vnlawfull especially after shee had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the State for sixe yeeres to which purpose it is to be considered that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom he should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth the Iudge absolue a man when he is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power ouer him in both cases 73 Yes good Syr it much importeth to the matter in hand whether she was a true Queene or a Tyrant for if she had beene a lawfull Queene then he should not haue beene her lawfull Superiour in temporalls neither could he haue beene her lawfull Iudge to determine of her temporal right for that as I shewed before out of many learned Catholikes and which also Card. Bellarmine himselfe holdeth to be probable in
separated at the arbitrement of the Priest and consequently depriued of his authoritie to reigne S. Aug. in q. Euan. l. 2. q. 40. The Consequence Cardinall Bellarmine prooueth out of Saint Austin who teacheth that heresie was figured by leprosie and Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. who sayeth that all things chanced to the Iewes in a figure 83 Thus argued Cardinall Bellarmine from the example of King Ozias which if good Reader thou duely consider doth onely proue that it belonged to the Priests of the old Law to declare the Law of God when any difficultie should arise and that they were the supreame Iudges in spirituall matters as was to declare and iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie or no. For leprosie was not onely in the old Law a naturall disease and a contagious vncleannesse in the body whereupon the leper was by the law commanded to remaine out of the campe apart least others should bee infected by him but it was also a legall vncleannesse Abul q. 2. in c. 13. Leuit. and as well obserueth Abulensis it did principally debarre men from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things and because to iudge whether any one was to bee debarred from entering into the Sanctuarie and from touching sacred things did belong principally to the Priests who were the ministers of sacred things God appointed them to iudge whether any one was infected with leprosie and gaue them rules and directions whereby to know the same So that the principall thing which the Priest was to doe in the case of leprosie was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law of God whether any one was infected with leprosie or no and if hee found him infected to declare him so to bee and to condemne him of the sayde vncleannesse after which declaration the leper was by the law it selfe foorthwith debarred both from sacred and also ciuill conuersation for that hee was not onely depriued of all sacred rites but also he was to bee seuered from the rest of the people who were not defiled with such vncleannesse and commanded to liue apart out of the Campe or Citie 84 Now the execution of this law forasmuch as concerned the spirituall penaltie did belong principally to the High Priest who was the chiefe minister of sacred things but concerning the temporall or ciuill penaltie which was to bee debarred from ciuill conuersation the execution thereof if the leper would not of his owne accord vndergoe the penaltie did belong to the Ciuill Magistrate who was the minister of ciuill or temporall things As also when any temporall punishment as death whipping or such like was prescribed by the law against malefactours although the crime was spirituall as Idolatrie vsurping the office of a Priest c. the execution belonged to the temporall Iudge who in temporalls had authoritie ouer them Whereupon wee neuer reade in the holy Scripture that any true and lawfull King although he had committed any crime worthy of death according to the law as many Kings of the Israelites were Idolaters and King Ozias heere vsurped the office of a Priest which were crimes that deserued death according to the law were for such crimes put to death by the ordinarie authoritie of any man whatsoeuer for that Kings had no Superiour ouer them in temporalls who had authoritie to execute the law which did chiefly belong to themselues as I a little aboue d Nu. 80 obserued out of Abulensis or to punish them with temporall punishments in which sense King Dauid did truely say that hee had sinned onely to God saying Tibisolipeccaui for that God alone to whom onely he was subiect in temporals had power to punish him with temporall punishments as all the ancient Fathers doe expound that place So likewise in the new law it belongeth to spirituall Pastours to declare and determine what is heresie and whether one befallen into heresie or no but to punish heretikes with temporall punishments doth not belong to the authoritie of spirituall Pastours but of temporall Princes who in temporals are supreme and to whom onely the vsing of the temporall sword doth principally belong 85 Wherefore from this example of King Ozias nothing else can forcibly be prooued but that in the olde law it belonged to the Priests to declare the law of God and that onely Priests and not Lay-men were to intermeddle in sacred things For obserue good Reader what did the Priests 2. Paralip 26. and what was done by King Ozias First therefore King Ozias saith the Scripture entering into the temple of our Lord would burne incense vpon the Altar of incense And incontinently Azarias the Priest going in after him and with him the Priests of our Lord eightie most valiant men they resisted the King and said It is not thy office Ozias to burne incense to our Lord but of the Priests that is of the children of Aaron which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie goe out of the Sanctuarie contemne not because this thing shall not be reputed to thee for glorie by our Lord. Here is nothing done as you see by the Priests which is not spirituall And who maketh any doubt but that the Priests also of the new law may resist Kings if they attempt to intermeddle in sacred things which belong onely to Priests and tell them that it is not their office but of the Priests which are consecrated to this kind of ministerie and command them to goe out of the Church and not to contemne the law of God because it will not be reputed to them for glorie by our Lord God 86 But secondly King Ozias being angrie and holding in his hand the Censar to burne incense threatned the Priests And forthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests And when Azarias the high Priest had beheld him and all the rest of the Priests they saw the leprosie in his forehead and in haste they thrust him out yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out because he felt by and by the plague of our Lord. And here also is nothing which the Priests might not doe by their spirituall authoritie For I doe not deny but that it belongeth to the office of Priests to exclude excommunicated persons as in some sorte leapers were in the old law from the temple of God and from participation in sacred rites as S. Ambrose excluded Theodosius the Emperour Neuerthelesse it cannot be prooued by the words of holy Scripture that they thrust him out of the temple by corporall violence and by laying their hands vpon his sacred person but onely by denouncing with vehement words Gods indignation against him for feare of which he now being stricken by God miraculously with the plague of leprosie did of his owne accord depart in haste out of the temple which also S. Chrysostome doth sufficiently confirme saying Chrys hom 4. de verbis Isae vidi Dominum That they
his Successours haue authoritie to create depose and punish Princes temporally it doth likewise follow that the rest of the Apostles and their Successours haue the same authoritie ouer Kings and Princes who are subiect to them spiritually 11 Secondly those wordes of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood as I answered in my Apologie nu 36. of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings to absolue from sinnes not from debts to vnloose the bonds of the soule not of the body to open or shut the gates of the kingdome of heauen not of earthly kingdomes to giue or take away spirituall goods graces and benefits not temporall goods lands kingdomes or liues When it was said to S. Peter saith S. Augustine I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. he signified the vniuersall Church The rocke is not from Peter but Peter from the rocke vpon this rocke which thou hast confessed Aug. trac 124. in Ioan. I will build my Church The Church therefore which is founded on Christ receiueth from Christ the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that is power to binde and loose sinnes And againe beneath saith S. Augustine Peter the first of the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to bind and loose sinnes So also S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Fulgentius Ambr. lib. 1. de paenit c. 2. Chrysost Theoph. in Mat. 16. Fulgent Eus Emiss vbi supra Bernard l. 2. c. 6 de considerat Hug. Vict. tom 2. serm 64. Iust Monast Laurent Iust de casto connub verbi animae c. 10. Eusebius Emissen Theophylact S. Bernard Hugo de S. Victore Laurentius Iustinanus and infinite others vnderstand those words of our Sauiour of binding and loosing soules and sinnes Neither is there any one of the ancient Fathers or Doctours before Pope Gregorie the seuenth that wrested them to the giuing or taking away from any man whatsoeuer according to their deserts Empires Kingdomes Princedomes Dukedomes Earledomes and the possessions of all men Quia si potestis saith hee k In the Excommunication of Henry the 4. in the eight Roman Councel held by him in the yeere 1080. Iansenius c. 148. Concord Theophy in c. 21. Ioan. Basil in l. de vita solitar c. 23. in caelo ligare soluere potestis in terra Imperia Regna Principatus Ducatus Marchias Comitatus omnium hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere vnicuique concedere 12 I grant likewise that Pascere to feede is taken also for Regere to gouerne but not as a King gouerneth his kingdome but as a Sheepheard gouerneth his flocke as well obserueth Iansenius vpon this place of S. Iohn Christ saith Theophylact doeth not make Peter a Lord nor a King nor a Prince but commandeth him to be a Sheepheard Wherefore as those words whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings and were spoken not only to Saint Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles so also these wordes Feede my sheepe are to be vnderstood of spirituall feeding or gouernment and doe belong not onely to S. Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles whom S. Peter did represent Atque hoc ab ipso Christo docemur c. saith S. Basill And this wee are taught by Christ himselfe who appointed Peter the Pastour of his Church after him For Peter saith he doest thou loue me more then these Feede my sheepe and consequently hee giueth to all Pastours and Doctours the same power whereof this is a signe that all doe equally bind and loose after that manner as he Feede my sheepe saith S. Ambrose which sheepe and which flocke Amb. de dignit sacerd c. 2. not only blessed Peter did then take to his charge but hee did take charge of them with vs and all we tooke charge of them with him For not without cause Aug. de agone Christiano c. 30. saith S. Augustine among all the Apostles Peter sustained the person of this Catholike Church for to this Church the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter amd when it is said to him it is said to all Doest thou loue Feede my sheepe Let Bishops and Preachers of the word heare saith Theophylact what is commended to them Theoph. in c. 21. Ioan. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad anno 1580. Feede saith Christ my sheepe c. Certaine things saith Cardinall Bellarmine are said to Peter in regard of the Pastorall office which therefore are vnderstood to bee said to all Pastours as Feede my sheepe and confirme thy brethren and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. But of this my second answere more beneath l nu 21. seq where you shall see in what fraudulent manner D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same 13 Now you shall see what necessarie consequents Mr. Fitzherbert hath drawen from those words of our Sauiour spoken to S. Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. and Feede my sheepe For as much saith he m nu 33. p 87 Suppl nu 61. at there can be no good gouernment of men without chastisement when iust occasion requireth it followeth that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and so consequently to his Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish such as should deserue it Whereupon it followeth that seeing all Christian Princes are sheepe of Christs fould and to be gouerned and guided by their supreme Pastour they cannot exempt themselues from his iust chastisement when their owne demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it And this I say not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction 14 But first I willingly grant that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and also to the rest of his Apostles and also consequently to their Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish all those that are sheepe of Christs fould and consequently also all Christian Princes when their demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it But I vtterly denie that this chastisement is to be vnderstood as Mr. Fitzherbert saith not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Commmon-wealth and consequently granted her power to giue only spirituall goods graces and benefites not temporall goods lands or kingdomes so also the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to chastise and punish spiritually not temporally or which is all one to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments and to depriue their spirituall sheepe and subiects of those spirituall goods which they haue receiued from the Church and by being Christians and not of those temporall goods which they had before they became Christians and which they
Supplement is that the Emperours constitution is no way preiudiciall to the Canon of the Councell but a cleare confirmation thereof which I neuer denied and that the Emperours law could extend no further then to his owne subiects and that the Emperour himselfe and all Soueraigne Princes are vnder the iurisdiction of a generall Councell and subiect to her decrees whereof also no man maketh doubt if those decrees concerne spirituall affaires but if they concerne meere temporall matters wherin temporall Princes are supreame and not subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church as are the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted the whole drift of my Apollogie was to prooue it to be probable that the spirituall authority and iurisdiction of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer and consequently that the inflicting of such temporall punishments although it be for a spirituall end is a meere temporall matter wherein temporall Princes are supreame and subiect to none but God Which being so I had no reason to take any formall notice in that briefe Admonition of all the idle discourses hee made in his Supplement and which either were nothing at all against mee or might easily be satisfied by that I had said before in my Apologie But Mr. Fitzherbert doth shamefully corrupt my words and meaning and fowlely abuse me and his Reader in affirming as you haue seene that I doe restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne dominion whereas I made no such restraint but extended the sense of the Canon to the Dominions of all Christian Princes by whose consent and authority that Canon for as much as it concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made and had force to binde 47 Neither as I said doth the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth concerning the distinction of the Canon and of the Emperours decree in extension any way impugne but confirme the argument I brought from the Emperours law because or the same reason which Mr. Fitzherbert alleageth why those generall words Dominus temporalis or principalis cannot in the Emperours decree comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to him in temporals I also affirme that the same generall words cannot in the Canon comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to the Pope or Church in temporals as is the inflicting of temporall punishments to which as I haue often said the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend And if my Aduersary cannot bring more cleare and pregnant demonstrations then these to confirme his new Catholike faith hee neede not to waste any more time and labour in producing such cleare and pregnant demonstrations which euery Catholicke man of iudgement may clearely see to bee apparant sophismes and that notwithstanding all his vaine brags of his cleare and pregnant demonstrations and of my absurd arguments and answeres so often repeated by him in the end the Reader will see that Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus 48 And although it be cleare enough that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords yea and Masters yet because it is cleare that Dominus temporalis is not a proper tearme or title belonging to absolute Princes but common to all others of inferiour degree if any man should speake of them and giue them onely the titles of their Masterships Worships or Lordships he would both be accounted a rude and vnmannerly companion and also he should wrong those persons in giuing them onely those titles of worship or honour which are common to other persons of inferior ranke neither he that should onely vse such inferiour titles would be thought to speake of absolute Princes vnlesse some other circumstance should enforce vs to thinke the same And although it be also cleare that absolute Princes are subiect no lesse then the meanest Lord in Christendome to the decrees of a generall Councell which concerne spirituall matters yet because in meere temporall matters they are supreame and therin not subiect to any decree of Pope or Councell it is also probable that the inflicting of temporall punishments is a meere temporall matter and not belonging to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable and no way absurd to say that Dominus temporalis in the Canon of the Councell wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed is not to be vnderstood of absolute Princes for the same reason that in the Emperours constitution it is not extended to them but to such onely as were subiect to him in temporals 49 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 147. num 19. that he hath added another reason to fortifie the same which was as you haue heard before that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes except they be specified therein by the names of Princes for so indeed he saith inserting the same cunningly into his inference to make his argument grounded on the Emperours law to seeme the more probable and therefore hauing said that the Emperour could not vnderstand either himselfe or other absolute Princes by the name of one who hath no principall Lord hee concludeth ex quo probabiliter collegi c. Whereupon I gathered probably that those words Non habens Dominum principalem not hauing a principall Landlord or Lord could not comprehend absolute Princes who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be namely expressed Thus he sliding subtilly as you see from the Emperours law and the reason grounded thereon to the priuiledges of Princes which belongeth to another question and shall be fully debated and cleared as I hope in the next Chapter And in the meane time I conclude for the present that in all this hee hath shewed himselfe very absurd and that my cold answere as he tearmeth it would haue beene hote enough to dissolue his frozen and friuolous argument if he had not wholly dissembled the force and substance of my discourse in my Supplement concerning this point 50 It is very true that I haue in that briefe Admonition also another reason why absolute Princes are not included in the Canon of the Councell vnder those generall names Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or such like to wit for that in penall lawes they are not comprehended vnder such generall tearmes which denote titles of inferiour degree and dignity and in bringing this reason I vsed no craft or cunning but meant plainly and sincerely neither did I intend to slide cunningly and subtily as Mr. Fitzherbert would guilefully perswade his Reader from the Emperours law and reason grounded thereon to this reason for that the reason why in the Emperours law absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is the
c. Which are the expresse words of the oath of France and therefore they must be applyed to the temporall power of some other forraine Prince or Kingdome and they seeme chiefely to shoot at the abnegation of that doctrine and position which Iohn Tanquarell by a Decree of the Parliament of Paris t Anno 1561. in Tract de Iuribus c. p. 289 was enioyned to recall and to aske pardon of the King for his offence in defending the same to wit that the Pope Christs Vicar and a Monarch hauing spirituall and secular power hath authoritie to depriue Princes who rebell against his precepts of their kingdomes and dignities 33 But howsoeuer it be whether in the oath of France the authority of the temporall Common-wealth ouer the King be denied or no it is plaine that neither our King and Parliament who established our oath did intend thereby to meddle with the authority of the Common-wealth but onely of the Pope nor I who disputed of our oath did meane to treat of any other authority then of the Pope which onely in our oath is denied And therefore the Lord Cardinall of Peron to impugne the oath of France dealeth very cunningly when he affirmeth as you haue seene before that Widdrington hath not found out one Authour either Diuine or Lawyer who hath said that in case of heresie or infidelity the subiects cannot bee absolued from the oath of fidelity and the obligation which they owe to their Princes 34 For albeit I haue not brought any one Authour onely D. Barclay excepted who affirmeth these two things together to wit that in the case of heresie or infidelity Princes can neither by the authority of the Pope nor of the Common-wealth be deposed and their subiects released of the bond and oath of their temporall allegiance for that those Doctours of France who absolutely deny the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments doe commonly maintaine that the temporall Common-wealth may depose their Prince for heresie or infidelity and consequently discharge the subiects of their temporall allegiance which being once released the spirituall bond of the oath made to confirme the same is foorthwith dissolued neuerthelesse I haue brought diuers Authours both Diuines and Lawyers who absolutely and without any exception of heresie or infidelitie doe in expresse words affirme though not ioyntly and together yet seuerally and apart that neither the Pope hath any authority to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments not that the kingdome or common-wealth hath any power or authority ouer their absolute Prince to depose him 35 For among those Doctours who affirme that the common-wealth hath authority ouer their Prince in some cases to depose him there are many whom I cited in the former part of this Treatise and also answered all the obiections that D. Schulckenius hath made against some of them who doe absolutely and without any exception affirme that the Pope hath not authority to depose Princes and that the power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment c. which their generall assertion would be false if the Pope had authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer For if the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments for heresie then it would be true that the power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments and if the Pope can depose temporall Princes for heresie then it followeth that the Pope can depose temporall Princes which those Doctors doe absolutely deny 36 And among those Doctours who are vehement for the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments I brought u In Apol. nu 411. also diuers who deny that the people or common-wealth hath authority to depose their Prince The Pope onely hath authority to depriue or depose Emperours Kings and Princes saith Bartholus Baldus and Petrus Andreas Gambara And Gregorius Tholosnus Barth in leg si Imperator Cod. de Legibus nu 4. Bald. in proaemio ff veteris Gambara in tract de officio potest legati l. 2. tit de varijs ordinar titulis nu 220. Gregor Thol l 26. de Rep. c. 5 nu 14. 24. 25 albeit a French Doctour yet denieth that the people or common-wealth hath authority to iudge punish or depose their King And therefore he doth not approoue that fact of the Peeres of France in depriuing Childericke and expresly affirmeth that Pipin vsurped the Kingdome and he reprehendeth also the Pope who called saith he Pipin into Italy to helpe him against the Longobards and when he came he absolued him from the oath he had made to his King Childerike being neither heard nor called nor defended nor accused as Abbas Vspergensis and Entropius doe affirme and afterwards he saith that the Pope might bee deceiued in his opinion for that hee would reward Pipin bringing an army in his defence with the hurt of another And this in my iudgement is one of the chiefe causes that mooued the other French Doctours to be commonly of this opinion that the common-wealth may depose their King in some cases to excuse that fact of the French Peeres in deposing Childerike their true and rightfull King 37 Also Alexander Carerius a vehement defender of the Popes direct power in temporalls Carer l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. 3 in fauour of the Canonists against Cardinall Bellarmine is of the same opinion Hee that hath no Iudge vpon earth saith he Cap. 3. we must confesse that many Iudges cannot Iudge For in denying a singularitie by a collectiue and generall word pluralls are accounted to bee denied It is manifest therefore as hath beene said before that the Barons and people for want of coactiue power or authoritie which Vassalls haue not ouer their Lord cannot iudge nor depose their Prince And in the former Chapter answering the authoritie of Aristotle The Philosopher saith he speaketh of a King who is instituted by the election of the Communitie for such a one is punished and deposed by the Communitie which doth principally institute him as the Venetians and people of Genoa who choose to themselues a Duke and if he offend against the common-wealth shee may depose him But it is otherwise in a King who naturally and by succession and descending of a certaine race doth raigne And this assertion of Carerius and others seemeth agreeable to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers cited by me elsewhere y Apol. nu 5. seq in Append. ad Supplicat calū 17. nu 14. who expresly affirme that Kings and Emperours are inferiour to none but God to wit in temporalls and that they can bee punished to wit with temporall punishments by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So that you see how cunningly the Cardinall of Peron handleth this controuersie touching the deposition
with Gods enemieâ— c. thereby to discredit me with Catholikes and to draw their affection from mee and to make them beleeue that I am a Spie and haue intelligence with the State to seeke the ouerthrow of Catholikes I answere that it is a most vncharitable and malicious slander For I call God to witnesse that I neither began nor do continue to write of this dangerous and difficult question at the motion instigation counsell or aduise of any Protestant whatsoeuer but vpon my owne free will and motion after long deliberation had concerning all the dangers and difficulties which were like to befall mee thereby meerely and sincerely for the loue of God of my Prince and Countrey and a desire to know the truth in this important question which so neerely concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar as I solemnly and sincerely protested in the Preface of my first booke 131 And as for my intelligence with the State I doe sincerely protest and call God to bee both a witnesse and Reuenger if it bee not true that albeit I haue beene sent for sometimes to my Lord of Canterburies Grace and other times although but seldome haue gone vnto him of my owne accord about my owne particular affaires and should haue gone oftener for diuers respects but that I thought it best to abstaine that such slanderous backbyters should not take occasion thereby to make greater clamours against mee yet I neuer gaue any intelligence or information against any Catholike man whatsoeuer that might bee to him the least preiudice in the world albeit I haue had sometimes both fit occasion and iust cause and which in my conscience I might lawfully haue done in defence of my owne good name to seeke redresse against some vncharitable persons who haue most vnconscionably wronged me and sought my ouerthrow who although they bee of great account among Catholikes yet if the truth were knowne they would be most odious to all men for their execrable dissimulation and vnchristian carriage Neuerthelesse I thought it best to remit my innocie and the iustice of my cause to almightie God who in due time will be a iust Iudge and a seuere Reuenger hoping that my patience might in time be an occasion of their repentance Yet I doe freely confesse and acknowledge that I am infinitely bound to his Maiestie to my Lord of Canterbury diuers others of high place degree although I haue neuer spoken with them for many speciall fauours among which I account this not to be the least that they haue gratiously been pleased to suffer Catholikes to make knowne to the world their vnfained loyaltie and how much they detest that horrible and most abominable Powder-treason and the bloodie grounds and principles thereof for all which their fauours and benefits I will euer pray for their eternall and temporall happinesse and account my selfe vnable to giue them sufficient thankes for the same And truely I doe wish with all my heart that all Catholikes would giue such outward tokens of their true and inward loyaltie and sincere affection towards his Maiestie and the State that they might deserue to receiue some comfortable fauour at their hands 132 Now for a finall conclusion Mr. Fitzherbert will bring a more authenticall testimonie and iudgement then his owne concerning my selfe and my writings to wit the forbidding of two bookes of mine by a Decree of the Cardinalls of the Inquisition which neuerthelesse as you shall see is rather a virtuall confirmation then any condemnation of my doctrine And now to conclude saith he e Pag. 224. nu 23. 24. with a more authenticall testimonie and iudgement then my owne concerning Widdrington and his workes I thinke good to giue thee heere a true copie of a Decree very lately printed and published by a Congregation of Cardinalls deputed by his Holinesse for the examination of suspected bookes who by his Holinesse expresse order and commandement haue condemned and prohibited such bookes of his as haue hitherto come to their hands to wit his Apologie and Theologicall Disputation For although they find by a certain Preface annexed to his Theol. Dispu that he hath written also an other booke against an English Doctor yet because they haue neuer seene it they haue not expresly and separately censured or named it in the Decree neuerthelesse the subiect thereof being such as by the Preface it seemeth to bee that is to say containing the same doctrine them he hath deliuered in his other a bookes all Catholikes may easily iudge what opinion they ought to haue of it and may iustly expect that if hee bee a Catholike as hee professeth to bee hee will now shew it not onely changing priuately his opinion but also publikely retracting his doctrine with all conuenient speede thereby to cleare himselfe according to an expresse admonition giuen him in the said Decree vpon paine of such Ecclesiasticall Censures as shall otherwise be inflicted vpon him 133 The Copy of the Decree is this DEcretum Sacra Conregationis Illustrissimorum S.R.E. Cardinalium a S. D. N. Paulo Quinto Sanctaque Sede Apostolica ad Indicem librorum eorundemquc permissionem prohibitionem expurgationem impressionem in vniuersa Republica Christiana specialiter deputatorum vbique publicandum Sacra Congregatio Illustrissimorum S. R. E. Cardinalium ad Iudicem deputatorum viso libro falso inscripto Apologia Cardinalis Bellarminij pru Iure Principum aduersus suas ipsius rationes pro authoritate Papali Principes Seculares in ordine ad bonum spirituale deponâ—ndi Authore Rogero Widdringtono Catholico Anglo 1611. eiusdemque Authoris alio libro inscripto Disputatio Theologica de Iuramento Fidelitatis Sanctissimo Patri Paulo Papae V. dedicata Albionopoli 1613. vtrumque librum damnandum atque prohibendum esse censuit sicuti de mandato Sanctissimi Domini nostri D. Pauli Papae V. prefenti decreto penitus damnat prohibet quouis idiomate impressium aut imprimendum ac nisi illorum Author qui se Catholicum profiteur quam primum se purgauerit censuris ac alijs paenis Ecclesiasticis intelligat se omnino coercendum Mandat autem quòd nullus deniceps cuiuscunque gradus conditionis sub paenis in Sacro Concilio Tridentino in Indice librorum prohibitorum contentis supradictos libros audeat imprimere aut imprimi durare vel quomodocunque apud se detinere aut legere subijsdem paenis praecipit vt quicunque nunc eos habent vel habuerint in futurum locorum Ordinarijs seu Inquisitoribus statim a presentis decreti notitia illos exhibeant In quorum fidem praesens decretum manu sigillo Illustrissimi Reuerendissimi Domini D. Cardinalis S. Ceciliae Episcopi Albanensis signatum munitum fuit die 16. Martij 1614. P. Episcopus Albanensis Candinalis S. Cecilia Locus ✚ Sigilli Reg. fol. 50. Fr. Thomas Pallauicinus Ordinis Praedicatorum Secretarius Romae ex Typographia Camerae Apostolicae 1614. A Decree TO