Christians to beleeue that such a temporall Lord is rightly deposed and his temporall Vassals absolued from his obedience Besides that this cannot bee gathered from the words of this Decree it being not propounded as of faith which condition neuerthelesse is necessarie to make any Decree to appertaine to faith as I haue shewed before the same may be said of all particular Decrees precepts sentences depositions dispensations priuiledges and licences which are made or granted by the Pope or Councell and then all those three instances and examples which I brought against Fa. Lessius his arguments are of force for in like manner it may be said that albeit those licences and dispensations doe concerne particular facts and particular persons yet they bind all Christians to beleeue that such Priests for example doe truely and really conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation and that such dispensations are valide and haue effect which how absurd this is it is manifest and my Aduersary here acknowledgeth as much And this I hope may suffice to shew the weakenesse of Fa. Lessius his three arguments and the sufficiency of my three Instances which I opposed against them and the fraud and ignorance of Mr. Fitzherbert in setting downe and confuting the same CHAP. XVI Wherein another argument or rather answere of Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in labouring to prooue that Widdrington by his owne grant is fallen into heresie or errour is conuinced of palbable ignorance and lastly the Conclusion of all Widdringtons discourse in his Preface to his Apologeticall Answere is confirmed and what M. Fitzherhert excepteth against the same and also his briefe Recapitulation of all his Discourse in this his Treatise are confuted 1 AFter I had set downe my three Instances which I brought to confront with the three arguments brought by Fa. Lessius desiring him to satisfie my Instances and promising by his owne answeres to satisfie his obiections I added another answere or if you will call it an argument or instance in these words Finally are not the reasons by which Councells are induced or mooued to define any thing as it were some grounds which are propounded or supposed by them as foundations of their definitions and decrees and neuerthelesse no Diuine as I suppose will affirme that those reasons are to be receiued by Catholikes with the same certainty as the definitions themselues In Councells saith Cardinall Bellarmine Bellar. l. 2. de Conc. cap. 12. the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith For neither the Disputations which goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate are of faith See also Canus l. 6. de locis c. 8. but onely the bare Decrees and those not all but those onely which are propounded as of faith 2 These were my words in that Apologeticall Preface which albeit they are so cleere and manifest that no man of any learning can take any iust exception against them especially seeing that I did not apply them in particular to any Decree or Act of Pope or Councell yet Mr. Fitzherbert out of the profoundnesse forsooth of his Diuinitie will prooue them to be absurd and impertinent for so he is pleased to stile the argument of this Chapter Widdringtons absurditie saith he by an other impertinent argument is further discouered But let vs see how well he discouereth this There remaineth now saith Mr. Fitzherbert one argument onely to be examined which Widdrington addeth to his three Instances for the conclusion of the whole reasoning thus in effect that because the reasons which mooue Councells to define and determine any thing are as it were the foundations of their Decrees and yet not so certaine as the Decrees themselues which he confirmeth by the opinion and doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine Vbi supra and Canus therefore the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes whereupon the Canon of the Lateran Councell was grounded is not so certaine but that it may be erroneous and impugned without offence 3 But so shamefull and insupportable is the corrupt dealing of this vnlearned and fraudulent man that in very truth I am halfe ashamed to discouer and lay open the same For first it is too too manifest that I made no such argument in this place as this man faigneth either concerning the Decree of the Lateran Councell or concerning the Popes power to depose Princes whereof here I made no mention at all Neither also did I argue in this ridiculous manner that because the reasons which mooue Councells to define or determine any thing are not so certaine as the decrees themselues therfore they may be impugned without offence As who should say that because there is not promised to Popes such an infallibilitie but that they may erre in their priuate opinions iudgements dispensations licences Censures and Decrees therefore they doe erre in the same and such their opinions dispensations c. may be impugned and denied without offence If Mr. Fitzherbert had said without note of heresie he had said something to the purpose and spoken agreeably to the grounds which I maintaine for what thing soeuer is not of faith may be impugned and denied without note of heresie but to say without offence this is too too shamefull and palpable a falshood 4 As for example although Melchior Canus before related doth affirme that it is not hereticall to hold that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints for the reason which I there alledged out of him and consequently that he is not to be accounted an heretike or an impugner of the Catholike faith that should therefore say that the Church hath or doth erre in the canonization of such a Saint yet he affirmeth that whosoeuer should say that therefore the Church doth erre in the canonization of such a Saint is a rash and irreligious man and deserueth therefore to bee punished by the Church So likewise although it be certaine that temporall Princes and common-wealths may erre in making temporall lawes through ignorance inconsideration or some intemperate affection and that therefore he is not to be reputed an heretike who should rashly and without sufficient ground affirme that they haue and doe erre in making such temporall lawes yet it is also certaine that what subiect soeuer should rashly affirme that his temporall Prince hath erred in making such or such a law and that such or such lawes are vniust is worthily accounted an impious scandalous and turbulent person and deserueth therefore to be punished by the State So as you see how many grosse falshoods this man hath imposed vpon mee in so few lines 5 Wherefore all the argument I made heere was as you haue seene onely this The reasons ends and motiues for which Councells are moued or induced to make definitions and decrees are not alwayes so certaine and infallible as the definitions or Decrees themselues but such reasons ends and motiues are propounded by
vsuall manner rem facti and rem iuris a matter of fact a matter of law or right But here saith he a Pag. 17. 8. nu 2. I must desire Widdrington first to reforme his distinction or rather Antithesis which he maketh betwixt rem facti and rem fidei a matter of fact and a matter of faith Wherein there is no such opposition as hee seemeth to imagine or would at least haue to bee conceiued for if by a matter of fact onely he meanes a matter that is not speculatiue but consisteth onely in action or practise then matters of fact and faith may so well stand together that they may be and often are one and the selfe same thing I meane that a matter of fact not onely may but ought also to be beleeued vnder paine of damnation as it is euident in diuers Articles of our faith consisting in the beliefe of things done or to be done as in all the Historie of our Sauiours Incarnation life and death already past and in his last Iudgement our Resurrection and euerlasting reward or punishment which are yet to come and being matters of fact are neuerthelesse matters of faith and therefore Widdrington may doe well as I haue said to reforme his distinction and to make it according to the vsuall manner to wit rem facti and rem iuris a matter of fact and a matter of law or right which are indeed alwayes distinct 3 But first is it possible that this man should be so blind or ignorant as not to see that a matter of faith is alwayes a matter of law for that it is commaunded to be beleeued by the law of God and so how childishly he carpeth at that distinction or Antithesis a matter of fact onely and not a matter of faith desiring me to reforme that distinction and to make it according to the vsuall manner to wit rem facti and rem iuris a matter of faith and a matter of law seeing that it is manifest to euery Schoole-boy that a matter of faith is alwayes a matter of law as being a thing commanded to be beleeued by the law of God But matters of fact and of faith saith Mr. Fitzherbert may well stand together c. And therefore a matter of fact is not opposite to a matter of faith as Widdrington seemeth to imagine or would at least haue to be conceiued 4 But in the like manner I may say that matters of fact and matters of law may well stand together as it is euident in diuers Articles of our faith concerning our Sauiours Incarnation Passion Resurrection c. which are both matters of fact and of law seeing that they are things appertaining to the law of God and therefore a matter of fact is not opposite to a matter of law and alwayes distinct as Mr. Fitzherbert following therein Fa. Lessius from whom he tooke this friuolous exception not onely seemeth to imagine but also expresly affirmeth So that these men haue neede first to reforme their owne distinction or Antithesis which they make betwixt a matter of fact and a matter of law before they vndertake to be reformers of other men But the plaine truth is that I neither said nor imagined as these men vntruly affirme that I made an opposition or Antithesis betwixt a matter of faith and a matter of fact but betwixt a matter of faith and of fact onely which word onely if they had well considered they might easily haue perceiued that it doth exclude a matter of faith and that I did not make an opposition betwixt euery matter of fact and of faith but betwixt a matter of faith and of fact onely that is of such facts whic are onely grounded vpon a probable opinion or at the most not vpon any vndoubted doctrine of faith and such matters of fact and of faith can neuer stand together 5 For whereas Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Lessius against whom principally I wrote that Preface wherein I answered this Decree of the Lateran Councell did so much insist vpon this Decree that as I said before they would make the world beleeue that it alone were sufficient to make their doctrine to be of faith and the contrary flat hereticall my meaning was in this third answere to shew that no such thing could be proued from this Councell as they pretended for that this Decree for as much as it concerneth the future deposition of temporall Landlords or Lords was no matter of faith but of fact onely and that the Councell did not declare determine or define that this future deposition of them was therein decreed to proceede from the spirituall authority of the Church without the consent licence or authoritie of temporall Princes which my Aduersarie must first prooue or else they will speake little to the purpose Now Mr. Fitzherbert falsly supposing as you haue seene that I make an opposition betwixt a matter of fact and a matter of faith as though a matter of fact and a matter of faith cannot stand together which euery Schoole-boy knoweth to bee false you shall see what an idle discourse he maketh throughout this whole Chapter it being grounded vpon this false supposall 6 But because Mr. Fitzher in his ensuing discourse giueth me occasion to enter into a question which not a litle concerneth our present controuersie I thinke it not amisse before I goe any further to speake something thereof to wit with what kind of certainetie we are to beleeue that the Church cannot erre in making Decrees or precepts of manners that is whether as it is hereticall to hold that the Church can erre in making matters of faith so also it is hereticall to hold that she can erre in making lawes Decrees or precepts belonging to manners And albeit my meaning is not at this time to set downe what is my owne opinion concerning this matter because I doe not intend to relie much thereon for the answering of my Aduersaries obiections and so will not giue him occasion to flie from the principall controuersie to other by-questions and of lesse importance yet for the better instruction of the vnlearned Reader who may perchance imagine that euery Popes Breue is sufficient to make a matter of faith I will briefly relate what is the opinion of learned Catholikes and namely of Melchior Canus in this point 7 First therefore concerning matters of faith or things to beleeued Melchior Canus affirmeth that a Generall Councell being confirmed by the Popes authoritie cannot erre in the defining of Catholike doctrine Canus lib. 1. de locis cap. 4. concl 3. and this conclusion he taketh to be so certaine that the contrarie he accounteth hereticall But as I obserued in an other place b In disp Theol cap 10. sec 2. nu 13. to make such definitions to be certaine infallible and without errour he requireth two conditions the one is that the doctrine must bee propounded to the whole Church and not onely to priuate
commandement concerning all subiects not to obey their temporall Prince being deposed by the Pope or to rebell and plot conspiracies against him But if by commanding he vnderstand particular decrees and commandements propounded to particular persons Bishops Churches or Kingdomes against any particular Emperours Kings or temporall Princes then I say that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus the Church and much more the Pope may erre and of this sort are the depositions iudiciall sentences and commandements of Pope Gregory the seauenth in a Councell held at Rome against Henrie the fourth Emperor of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons against Frederike the second Emperour and all other particular depositions of whatsoeuer Emperours Kings or temporall Princes and in these commandements the Popes were euer resisted and contradicted both by Princes themselues and also by learned and vertuous Catholike subiects as it appeareth euidently not onely by the first depositions of Emperours and Princes but also by the two last of our late Queene Elizabeth and the last King of Fraunce who were obeyed in ciuill matters by their Catholike subiects acknowledged by them to be their true and rightfull Soueraignes notwithstanding the Popes particular declaration sentence and commandement to the contrary as I haue shewed at large concerning our late Queene in the first part and of the King of Fraunce the late troubles and ciuill warres in Fraunce which are yet both fresh in most mens memories and recorded also by Histories are sufficient testimonies 22 Thus thou seest good Reader that neither by this third example of Popes dispensations in vowes whereon not onely my third Instance but also the two former were grounded all which Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed did I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell as the silly man to make some shew of confuting them as absurd improbable impertinent fond and ridiculous doth most vntruely affirme neither did I in any one of my examples or Instances make any mention at all of the said Decree seeing that I had before sufficiently answered to this Decree not by impugning but onely by expounding it and by clearely conuincing that according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who are of opinion that the Church cannot by her spirituall power inflict temporall punishments it must according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne principles who acknowledgeth that all lawes and decrees whatsoeuer are to be restrained and limited according to the power of the Law-Maker c. be vnderstood of the deposing not of temporall Princes who are not subiect to the authoritie of the Church forasmuch as concerneth meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end whatsoeuer they bee inflicted but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes but that which I intended by my three examples and instances was to shew the weakenesse and insufficiency of Fa. Lessius his three arguments as I haue sufficiently declared before 23 But if I should presse M. Fitzherbert a little further and grant him for Disputation sake which he is not able to prooue to wit that the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell is to bee vnderstood of the deposition of temporall Princes yet the silly man would haue much adoe to prooue as also I haue signified before that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Cap. 13. nu 7. seq which I haue related aboue it is such a Decree that from thence it can be sufficiently gathered that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith seeing that according to their grounds onely those Decrees and precepts touching faith or manners are infallible and of faith which are generall and vniuersall and belong to the whole Church and all the faithfull and consequently as well Clearkes as Lay-men For onely in this case saith Canus the Councels Canus l. 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. or Fathers are to be vnderstood to pronounce of faith when the sentence or Decree belongeth to all Christians when it bindeth all Therefore the doctrine of Popes and Councells saith hee if it bee propounded to the whole Church if it bee also propounded with an obligation to be beleeued then doth their sentence or Decree concerne a point of faith And concerning Decrees and precepts of manners Canus teacheth the same When the Church saith he in a matter of weight and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all the people she cannot command any thing which is contrary to the Gospell or naturall reason but in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate men or Churches she may erre through ignorance not only in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. 5. And Cardinall Bellarmine also affirmeth that those Decrees or precepts concerning faith or manners wherein the Pope in whom he putteth all the infallibilitie of the Church cannot erre must bee generall and be propounded and belong to all the faithfull 24 Now this Act of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie besides that it is not properly a Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as I signified before containing in it any precept or obligation vnlesse they will grant the Councell to be aboue the Pope nor also propounded as of faith according to the rules of Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus before related and therefore it cannot according to their doctrine appertaine to faith it is not also a generall Decree and which appertaineth to the whole Church and all the faithfull for it doth not concerne Cleargie men who according to my Aduersaries false scandalous and seditious doctrine are not subiect to temporall Princes nor doe owe to them any temporall allegiance but onely the temporall Vassals of temporall Lords and those not all but of such a Lord onely who for a yeere remaineth excommunicated for neglecting to purge his territories of heresie For those words of the Councell vt ex tunc ipse c. that from that time the Pope may denounce his Vassals absolued from their fealtie can onely bind either the Pope to make that denunciation or that temporall Lord not to exact of his Vassals temporall fealtie or the Vassalls not to giue to that temporall Lord temporall fealty and so it cannot binde Cleargy men who doe not owe any temporall fidelity or obedience to temporal Lords according to my Aduersaries false doctrine nor also all Vassals but onely those of that temporall Lord wherevpon the decree is not generall and belonging to all the faithfull which neuerthelesse is necessary that any decree or precept concerning faith or manners doe appertaine to faith 25 And if perchance my Aduersary will say that it bindeth all
therefore as in the end of that Disputation I affirmed I did faithfully set downe all the chiefest arguments which are vsually alledged as well against the taking of the Oath as in fauour thereof neither did I affirme any thing of my owne opinion but onely as representing the persons of them who of set purpose do publikely maintain that the Oath either may or may not be lawfully taken leauing it to the Fatherly care of your Holinesse that when you haue bin fully informed of the whole progresse of the matter and haue diligently examined all the reasons for which English Catholikes obeying the Kings cōmandement haue taken the Oath you will be pleased particularly to approue them or to condemne them that Catholikes in this so most weightie a matter which doth so neerely concerne the prerogatiue of your spirituall Authoritie and of his Maiesties Royaltie being fearefull to resist your Holinesse precept declared in your Breues and also being desirous to obey as much as with a safe conscience they may his Maiesties commaund may cleerely perceiue which particular clauses of the Oath they are bound to admit and which they are bound to reiect and may in plaine and expresse tearmes without any ambiguity of words be instructed by your Holinesse in what manner they may satisfie their owne conscience your Holinesse will and also his Maiesties desire concerning all the particular parts of the Oath For as they are very ready to hazard their whole temporall estate and also to loose their liues for the Catholike faith which by the Church to whom this office belongeth to define matters of faith and not to priuate Doctours who may deceiue and be deceiued is declared to be truely the Catholike faith so doubtlesse they are vnwilling to expose themselues their whole Family and Posterity which this our age doth so much labour to aduance to eminent danger of their temporall vtter ruine onely for opinions although they be maintained by the greater and better part of Diuines so that others although farre fewer in number doe defend the contrary But as they are desirous with all their hearts to obey your Holinesse in spirituall matters and in those things which cannot be omitted without sinne so also they might iustly thinke themselues to be more hardly vsed then children are wont by their Parents if in these times specially wherein by reason of the Catholike faith which they professe they haue grieuously incurred his Maiesties high displeasure who is of a contrary Religion they should without sufficient reason be forbidden to giue that temporall Allegiance to his Maiestie which they perswade themselues to be by the Law of Christ due to him hauing alwayes before their eyes that commaundement of Christ our Sauiour Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and the things that are Gods Matth. 22. to God 11 And that your Holinesse may yet more cleerely perceiue that this my Disputation of the Oath which is rather to be called a most humble Supplication to your Holinesse was written in manner of an humble Petition I thinke it not amisse to repeate also word by word these very last words of my Epistle to your Holinesse 12 This therefore most Holy Father is our most humble Supplication to your Holinesse First that your Holinesse will be pleased to examine diligently the reasons for which our English Catholikes doe thinke the Oath may lawfully be taken and whereof they are perswaded your Holinesse is not yet rightly informed Secondly that after you haue throughly examined them you will vouchsafe in regard of your Pastorall carefulnesse to instruct them what parts of the Oath are I doe not say according to the probable opinion of some Dhctours but according to Catholike doctrine necessarily to be belieued by all Christians repugnant to faith and saluation and therefore cannot be taken by any Catholike with a safe and probable conscience Thirdly that if your Holinesse shall find that you haue not beene rightly informed of those reasons for which our English Catholikes are of opinion that the Oath may lawfully be taken and that therfore they haue not in a matter of so great weight proceeded rashly and vnaduisedly you will be pleased receiue them and their Priests into your ancient fauour and that if they or any of them haue not through their owne fault but through the indiscreet zeale of others suffered any losse or detriment in their good names or other wayes it may be restored againe to them in that best manner as shall seeme conuenient to the charitie iustice and wisedome of your Holinesse 13 Now what there is contained in this our humble Petition against which your Holinesse hath iust cause to take so high displeasure that you will not accept thereof I remit to the iudgement of indifferent men but especially of your Holinesse For by that which we haue said it doth manifestly appeare that this Disputation of the Oath was for that end composed by me to informe your Holinesse who is the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church and to whom Christ our Lord hath giuen charge to feede his sheepe not onely with precepts and Censures but also with the word of Doctrine and to instruct them in the Catholike faith truely of our state and to propound vnto your Holinesse sincerely and with all dutifull submission those doubts and difficulties which both to my selfe and to other Catholikes doe occure about this new Oath which is commaunded by his Maiestie forbidden by your Holinesse and daily taken by almost all Catholikes of the better sort to whom it is tendred yea euen by those who haue the Iesuits for their Directours howsoeuer these Fathers doe in outward shew seeme to condemne the same that after your Holinesse had duely examined the reasons and arguments which are vsually alledged on both sides against and for the taking of the Oath you would be pleased to satisfie our consciences and to make knowne vnto vs what parts of the Oath may according to the principles of the Catholike faith be lawfully and what parts may not lawfully be taken and lastly to declare vnto vs which be those many things which your Holinesse being not rightly informed by some as we imagine hath affirmed in your Breues to be cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation for no man be he neuer so great an enemie to the Oath dare auouch that all things contained in the Oath are repugnant to faith or saluation 14 Now I beseech your Holinesse to iudge first whether I the Authour of those Bookes who haue professed my selfe to be a Catholike and a Child of the Catholike Romane Church and haue subiected all my writings to her iudgement and Censure with that submission that whatsoeuer should not be approoued by her I would disprooue condemne and haue it for not written ought to be iudged by the Supreme Pastour and Father of the Catholike Church to be no Catholike nor a child of the Catholike Church If I be no Catholike doubtlesse I must bee
power on earth and might and did chastise Princes temporally in order to spirituall good it is sufficient to answere in generall that the contrarie doctrine to wit that in the old law the temporall power and not the spirituall was supreme and that the spirituall power was subiect to the temporall is maintained by many famous and most learned Catholike Diuines S. Bonauentura lib. 2. de Eccles hierarch cap. 1. in 4. dist 24. in litera S. Thom. lib. 1. de Regim Prin. cap. 14. whose opinion in this point Mr. Fitzherbert dare not presume to condemne as temeratious and improbable albeit my answere which is agreeable to their doctrine he sticketh not to call improbable For so teacheth S. Bonauenture a man otherwise addicted to the Popes temporall Monarchie In the old Testament saith he the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and therefore Kings then had power to remooue the high Priests from their office as Salomon remooued Abiathar The same teacheth S. Thomas or whosoeuer is the Author of that booke de regimine Principum Whereupon Card. Bellarmine himselfe writeth thus It is not improbable Bell. l. i. c. 14. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcla that in the olde Testament the King was absolutely greater then the high Priest both for that so teacheth S. Thomas in his first booke de Regimine Principum cap. 14. and also for that in the old Testament the promises were temporall and the sacrifices carnall 6 The same also doe teach Alphonsus Tostatus Abulensis Card. Bellar. de Script Eccles pag. 410. d q. 28 in c. 2. l. 3. Regum q. 48. c. 27. num a man most renowmed saith Card. Bellarmine for holinesse and learning Ioannes de Turrecremata e In sum de Eccles l. 2. c. 96. ad 4 c. obedientiam dest 93. q. 2. ad 2 Franciscus Victoria f Relect. 1. de potest Eccles cited by Corduba Sal s. Antonius Corduba g l. 4 quaest q. 5 ar 2 ss ad Vlti Ioannes Salas h q 95. de leg sec 21. and Burgensis i In Addit lid Nic. de Lyra in 1. Pet. cap. 2. all of them most famous Diuines You must also know saith Abulensis that Salomon had power to kill Abiathar although he was the High Priest for that in the old Testament the Ecclesiastical power was not distinct from the Secular power to wit in punishments for great crimes but Priests were directly subiects to the King as Lay men Also there was not a distinction of punishments for Priests and Lay men but in enormious crimes the sentence of death was common to all and because Abiathar had committed treason hee was to be put to death vnlesse Salomon would pardon him And that Priests were subiect to Lay men it appeareth Numer 27. where God said that Eleazar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue as it hath beene more declared Iosue 3. but Iosue was a secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim Thus Abuâ—ensis 7 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue how ignorantly my vnlearned Aduersarie taxeth my answere of improbabiâ—itie and impertinencie which neuerthelesse is most conformeable to the doctrine of so many famous and learned Catholike Diuines and which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe holdeth for not improbable and how vainely hee braggeth that hee will make it manifest euen by the law of Moyses that the spirituall power was then the supreame power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally whereas so many famous and learned Diuines whose doctrine this ignorant man feareth not to call improbable doe resolutely hold that in the olde Testament the high Priests were subiect to Kings and that the temporall power was superiour to the spirituall and might remooue the high Priests from their office and punish them temporally if they should deserue it 8 But let vs examine in particular the manifest proofes which this man deduceth from the Law of God in the old Testament His first and principall proofe is taken from that which is written in the 17. chapter of Deuteronomie This appeareth saith he k Pag. 70. nu 3.4.5 by the law set downe in Deuteronomie wherein it is ordained expressely that the highest tribunall for iudgement not only for spirituall but also for politicall and temporall causes should be in the hands of the high Priest The words of the law are these Si defficile ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris c. If thou perceiue that the iudgement with thee be hard and doubfull betweene bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie and not leprosie and thou seest that the words of the Iudges within the gates doe varie arise and goe vp to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come vp to the Priests of the Leuitical stock to the Iudges that shall be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall shew thee the truth of the iudgement and thou shalt do whatsoeuer they that are Presidents of the place which our Lord shall choose shal say and teach thee according to his Law and thou shalt follow their sentence neither shalt thou decline to the right nor to the left but he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away the euill out of Israel and the whole people shall feare that none after swell with pride 9 These are the words of the Law of God in Deuteronomie wherein it is to be noted that albeit there be here mention made of the Iudge to be consulted together with the Priests which some of the Aduersaries take to be a temporall Iudge though he may very well be vnderstood to bee the high Priest who was supreme Iudge in the Councell of Priests neuerthelesse I say that albeit he were a temporall Iudge yet it is euident that the finall decision of the doubts and controuersies in that Consistorie and consequently the supreme authoritie resided in the high Priest seeing that the said Iudge if he were a different person was no other then Minister either to see the high Priests commandement executed or to ordaine and decree the punishment of those who should disobey him it being ordained in the Law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest should die by the decree of the Iudge So that it belonged to the high Priest absolutely to command and to the Iudge to giue sentence of death against the transgressors of his commandement besides that c. 10 But first obserue good Reader the corrupt proceeding of this man who to prooue his purpose doth falsely and otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition alledge the words of holy Scripture
For although the Councell of Trent hath denounced anathema l Sess 4. against all them who shall not receiue for sacred and canonicall the entire bookes of holy Scripture with all their parts as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholike Church and are extant in the ancient vulgate Latine edition and hath ordained and declared that this ancient and vulgate Edition which by long custome of so many ages hath beene approoued in the Church shall be receiued for Canonicall in publike lessons disputations sermons and expositions and that no man shall dare or presume to reiect it vnder any pretence for which cause the said Councell hath moreouer ordained that heereafter the holy Scripture and especially this ancient and vulgar Edition shall bee printed very correctly which Decree of the Councell Pope Sixtus the fifth vndertooke to execute printing that vulgate Edition in the Vaticane and by a speciall Bull prefixed to the beginning thereof commanded that all men should take that and none other for holy Scripture which Edition because sundry errours were found therein Pope Clement the eight printed more correctly Neuerthelesse Mr. Fitzherbert is not afraide to cite contrary to the said decrees this place of holy Scripture otherwise then it is found in the vulgate Edition 11 For whereas in the vulgate Edition wee reade thus and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke and to the Iudge that shall be at that time Mr. Fitzherbert translateth it and to the Iudges in the plurall number But which importeth more whereas the wordes following a little after are thus in the vulgate Edition But he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at that time ministreth to our Lord thy God and the decree of the Iudge that man shall die and thou shalt take away c. Mr. Fitzherbert with small respect to the aforesaid Decrees citeth the wordes thus But he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away c. So that the sentence of death is in this place denounced by the expresse appointment of God not onely against him who shall not obey the commandement of the Priest but also against him that shall not obey the decree of the Iudge 12 Now whether this Iudge was a temporall or a spirituall Iudge and if he was a temporall Iudge whether he was subordinate to the High Priest or no it is a controuersie among Catholike Diuines Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that this Iudge may very well be vnderstood to be the High Priest himselfe who was the supreme Iudge in the Councel of Priests and albeit he were a temporall Iudge neuerthelesse I say saith Mr. Fitzherbert it is euident that the finall decision of doubts and controuersies in that consistory and consequently the supreame authoritie resided in the High Priest seeing that the said Iudge if hee were a different person was no other then a Minister c. 13 But albeit this Iudge may be vnderstood to be an inferiour spirituall Iudge subordinate to the high Priest as Abulensis affirmeth vpon that place and not the high Priest himselfe by reason of the coniunction copulatiue and but he that is proud refusing to obey the commandement of the high Priest and the decree of the Iudge which coniunction and saith Abulensis denoteth the Iudge to be a different person frō the high Priest neuerthelesse this Iudge may also be very well vnderstood to be a temporall Iudge and in temporall causes independent on the high Priest And truely the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to prooue that this Iudge if he were a temporall Iudge was onely a Minister of the high Priest is of small force for that to prooue the same he alledgeth as you haue seene the words of the holy Scripture otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition seeing that it is onely ordained in the law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest and the decree of the Iudge should die those words by the decree of the Iudge are neither in the Hebrew nor in the vulgate Edition declared so to be by Pope Sixtus and Clement And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert must not take it ill if I giue no credite to his bare I say and that I doe preferre the exposition of the Glosse of Nicolaus de Lyra vpon that place who affirmeth that this tribunall to which in doubtfull cases the Iewes were bound to haue recourse did consist both of spirituall of temporal power and that the one was independent on the other before his bare I say which is onely grounded vpon a false allegation of the words of the holy Scripture 14 The words of the Glosse vpon that place are these Hîc agitur c. Here it is treated sayth he of superiour Iudges to whom there ought to be made recourse in doubtfull and difficult matters and some things are put for example when it is said betweene bloud and bloud that is when one part of the Iudges doe say that the shedding of bloud of such a man is to be punished with death because it is reduced to wilfull murther an other part saith no because it is to be reduced to chance-medley Cause and cause to wit when one part of the Iudges saith that the cause of the plaintife is iust and an other the cause of the defendant Leprosie and not leprosie to wit when one part saith that the disease of such a man is leprosie and an other saith it is not Arise and goe vp c. In these cases and such like there must be had recourse to superiour Iudges to wit to the high Priest and to the Iudge of the people of Israel And sometimes it happened that both offices did concurre in one person as it is manifest in Holy who was Iudge and high Priest of the people 1. Reg. 4. but more commonly they were distinct persons as also offices Therefore this recourse may be vnderstood to both ioyntly and this was in causes which could not be decided by one without the other as in the building of the temple which could not be performed without Kingly authoritie nor ordered without the direction of the Priest or seuerally to both that in spirituall causes there should be recourse to the high Priest and in temporalls to the Iudge And from this grew the custome that from inferiour Ecclesiasticall Iudges there is made appeale to the chiefest Bishop and from inferiour Princes and Secular Iudges to the King or Emperour Thus writeth the Glosse whose doctrine in this point Mr. Fitzherbert will neuer be able to prooue to be improbable 15 But secondly although I should for Disputation sake grant Mr. Fitzherbert which he is neuer able to conuince that this tribunall Consistorie or Councell to which in doubts and difficulties of the law when the
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
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
company or congregation of the Israelites is diuided into twelue parts which are called twelue tribes for that all the company of the Israelites doth descend from the twelue sonnes of Iacob or Israel and in euery one of these twelue tribes there was alwaies one Prince So that in all Israel there were alwaies twelue men who were greater and more noble then the rest who were called the twelue Princes of the tribes Neither were these made Princes by election or lot but by birth for alwaies the eldest sonne that descended from the head or first Prince of the tribe by the right line of the eldest sonnes was called the Prince of all that tribe So that if he who was Prince or head of any tribe as Iudas or Zabulon had many sonnes the first borne or eldest sonne of them was the Prince of all that tribe and so it alwaies continued afterwards that alwaies the eldest sonne of the Prince of any tribe was Prince of that tribe after his Fathers death 47 Now in euery tribe there were diuers families for as euery one of the twelue sonnes of Iacob or Israel with all their progeny made a tribe so euery sonne of his twelue sonnes with all their progeny made a family So that among all the Israelites there were as many families as euery one of the sonnes of Iacob had sonnes As for example because Ruben the eldest sonne of Iacob had foure sonnes there were foure families in the tribe of Ruben and because Simeon the second sonne of Iacob had sixe sonnes there were sixe families in the tribe of Simeon and so proportionally of the rest and euery one of these families had a Prince who was alwaies the eldest sonne of Iacob his second sonnes for he alwayes descended from the first heads or Princes of the families by the direct line of the eldest sonnes and he was subiect to the Prince or head of the tribe whereof he was so that as the families were vnder the tribes so also the Princes of the families were vnder the Princes of the tribes and as many families as were in euery tribe so many Princes of families the Prince of the tribe had vnder him Abulensis q. 51 in c. 2. Iosue 48 Thirdly a house was taken for a peculiar congregation of companie of many kinsmen vnder the same familie and it comprehendeth all the persons that descend from the same father yet liuing to wit the sonnes daughters and grandchildren although they haue diuers oeconomies or dwell in houses a part from their parents and yet sometimes a house is taken for the congregation of all the tribes of Israel and sometimes for one onely tribe or familie as Psal 113. Psal 113. verse 1. 13. Arist 1. Poliâ— cap. 2. he blessed the house of Israel he blessed the house of Aaron but most strictly it is taken for a peculiar oeconomie consisting of husband wife children seruants And of these Princes of the tribes and families of Israel the holy Scripture maketh mention very often especially in the bookes of Numbers and of Iosue 3. Reg. 8.1 Paralip 5.7.15.26.27 and 2. Paralip 1. and 5. and their dignitie and priuiledges Abulensis declareth q. 5. in cap. 5.1 Paral. and in cap. 5.2 Paralip q 6. and 7. And of these Princes also who neuerthelesse were subiect not only to the Kings of Israel but also to Moyses Iosue and the Iudges may this place of holy Scripture be vnderstood to wit that a hee goate should be offered for euery such Prince offending through ignorance 49 Lastly concerning those three Authours which Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken from Card. Bellarmine l lib. 2 de Rom Pont. cap. 29. in tract contra Guiliel Barcl cap. 15. he might haue seene their testimonies long before he wrote against me fully answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay * Aduersus Card. Bell. cap. 15. §. 4. For Philo in that place doth not speake of Kings but of a Prince and which is more he affirmeth that this honour of offering a greater sacrifice to wit a calfe was giuen to the high Priest not in regard of himselfe but because he was a minister of the people doing publike sacrifices in the name of all the people Besides this authoritie of Philo only prooueth that the Priestly dignitie was more noble and excellent then the Princely dignitie whereof I doe not now dispute Neither doth Theodoret speake of Kings nor of the power of the high Priest but only of his dignitie and excellencie God commanded saith he that the Priest who shall transgresse the law shall sacrifice a calfe without spot but if all the people shall commit the like crime he appointeth the like sacrifice to be offered teaching how great the dignitie of the Priest is whom he hath made like or equall to all the people but he commandeth a Prince that shall transgresse the law to offer not a calfe but a hee goate so farre inferiour to Priestly dignitie is he to whom corporall command is committed But this is nothing else but that which S. Gregorie Nazianzen S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and other Fathers doe often say that the spirituall power is more noble excellent and worthy then the temporall which no man now calleth in question But the authoritie of Procopius Gazaeus is of farre lesser force both for that this Procopius as Card. Bellarmine m lib. 1. de Christo cap 6. and Antonius Posseuine n In verbo Prâ—copius doe affirme was a better Rhetorician then a Diuine and also for that he speaketh not of Kings but of a Prince nor of authority but of honour dignitie or reuerence which is due to Priests but especially although we should grant him to speake of authoritie and also of Kings for that he preferreth the people before the Prince and also yeeldeth a reason thereof which is now flat hereticall For he doth not say that a Prince offending shall offer a lesser sacrifice then a Priest for that a Prince is inferiour to a Priest in honour dignitie or authoritie although from hence he gathereth that the Priest and also the people are more honourable then the Prince but for that a Prince as soone as he shall pollute himselfe with sinne doth desist to be a Prince and falleth from his dignity which assertion is now condemned in the Councell of Constance among the articles of Iohn Wicleffe whereof the 15. article is this n Sess 45. Hee is no ciuill Lord Hee is no Prelate Hee is no Bishop whilest hee is in mortall sinne The words of Procopius are these It is to be noted that the Priest and the people doe offer the same sacrifice if they shall burthen themselues with sinne but a Prince doth purge his sinne with a distinct sacrifice because a Prince as soone as hee shall pollute himselfe with sinne doeth desist to bee a Prince and falleth from his dignitie Therefore from hence wee may gather that the Priest is more honourable then the Prince also that the
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
that they would bee the people of the Lord and after them doe immediately follow those words related by Cardinall Bellarmine Therefore all the people entered into the house of Baal and destroyed it c. Wherefore these last words which he bringeth for his onely ground are not so much to bee referred to the killing of Athalia as to the couenant made after Athalia was slaine betwixt Ioiada the people and the King that they would bee the people of God through which couenant made with God that they would bee his people they were mooued to destroy the house of Baal and his Images Therefore Cardinall Bellarmine doeth not well conclude from this place that Queene Athalia was slaine either by the proper authoritie of the high Priest as hee was high Priest or for Idolatrie in doing worship to Baal And although wee should also graunt him both yet how vicious it is to draw an argument from the killing of an vnlawfull Queene and vniustly vsurping the kingdome to prooue that a true King who is an Idolater may lawfully bee slaine any man that is not voide of naturall reason may presently perceiue Thus I answered to this example of Athalia in my Apologie 31 Now you shall see what a weake fallacious and slanderous Reply D. Schulckenius hath made to this my answere I answere saith hee r Pag. 558. that Athalia without doubt did tyrannically inuade the kingdome but seeing that shee ruled peaceably for sixe yeeres it is credible that by little and little by the consent of the people shee did get a lawfull right to the kingdome For so many Kings who are Tyrants in the beginning are afterwards by the consent of the people made lawfull Princes Surely Octauian Augustus himselfe who is numbred among the best Princes did oppresse the common wealth by force and armes and spoiled her of her libertie yet afterwards by the consent of the people hee began to bee accounted a lawfull Prince and did lawfully transfer the Empire to his posteritie Otho killed Galba Vitellius killed Otho Vespasian killed Vitellius Philip killed Gordian and yet they were all saluted Emperours by the Senate and people of Rome How did the Ostrogoths inuade and possesse Italie the Visigothe Spaine the Francks France the English Britanie and yet afterwards by the consent of the people they were accounted lawfull Kings of those Dominions 32 But any man though of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue the weakenesse of this his first Reply For first the maine controuersie betwixt mee and Cardinall Bellarmine as I haue often signified in other places at this present onely is whether it be certaine and a point of faith and by demonstratiue arguments it can be conuinced that the Pope hath power to depose temporall Princes and hee pretendeth to demonstrate the same and therefore hee calleth the contrarie opinion not so much an opinion as an heresie and his doctrine to bee the doctrine and voyce of the Catholike Church which euery Christian is bound to heare and follow otherwise hee is to bee accounted as a Heathen and a Publicane and now this Doctour for proofe of this his new Catholike faith bringeth a bare credibile est it is credible or which in sense is all one it is not incredible that although Athalia was without doubt an vsurpresse in the beginning yet afterwards by the consent of the people shee was lawfull Queene or did get a lawfull right to the kingdome as though a bare credibile est and sleight coniectures of his owne inuention are sufficient proofes to demonstrate a matter of so great moment as is the Popes authoritie to take away the kingdomes and liues of Soueraigne Princes who in temporalls are subiect to none but to GOD alone 33 Obserue now good Reader the reason for which this Doctour affirmeth that it is credible that Athalia did by little and little by the consent of the people get a lawfull right to the kingdome Because forsooth shee reigned peaceably sixe yeeres together as though either sixe yeeres prescription or peaceable possession is sufficient to giue to a most cruell Tyrant and Vsurper a true and lawfull right to the kingdome which he hath tyrannically vsurped especially the true and lawfull heire being aliue or thar sixe yeeres peaceable possession can be a credible presumption that the whole common-wealth hath giuen their free heartie and altogether willing consent that the said vsurper should be their true and rightfull King or thirdly that the common wealth can depriue the true heire and rightfull King of his right to the kingdome without any fault or negligence committed by him and giue it to another who hath no right thereunto For it is the common doctrine of the Lawyers Molina de Inst trac 2. disp 69. 74. as Molina well obserueth that ten yeeres at the least are required that a priuate man may against another priuate man get by prescription a lawfull right to any immoueable thing as lands houses or the like which hee bona fide with a good conscience possesseth and to get a lawfull right by prescription to those lands or houses which belong to the Crowne and yet may bee prescribed by a priuate man are required a hundred yeeres for those things which are intrinsecally due and proper to the Prince in signe of subiection due to him by his subiects as is the paying of tributes and which doe belong intrinsecally to his supreame temporall power as to punish offenders to bee subiect to the lawes to appeale to him from inferiour Iudges cannot by any subiect by continuall possession of neuer so long a time be prescribed besides that it is a common and approued rule of the law Å¿ Regula possessor de Reg. iuris in 60. and all Diuines that write de Iust Iure as Sotus Salon Aragona c. that whosoeuer possesseth any thing with a bad conscience can neuer prescribe or get a lawfull right to the thing which he possesseth See Molina tract 2. de Iustitia disput 72. 73. 74. and Lessius disp 2. cap. 6. dub 8. 12. 34 And therefore can any man be so senselesse as to imagine that only sixe yeeres possession are sufficient for a notorious tyrant and manifest vsurper who therefore can not with any probable presumption be thought to possesse with a good conscience the kingdome to get by prescription a lawfull right to a whole Realme against the true and rightfull heire who is liuing There is this deceipt Gregor Tholos lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 7. num 4. saith Gregorius Tholosanus of Tyrants or Vsurpers that after they haue inuaded the kingdome they would be partakers of the titles or rights of the true Princes whom they haue dethroned by vsing the generall Assemblies of the people or by forcing the authoritie of some Superiour which neuerthelesse doth not make them not to be true Tyrants and not to be contained in the lawes of Tyrants vnlesse as some are of opinion after they
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
Kings in the olde law were in spirituall matters subiect to the Priests and bound to obey them in spirituals and that the Priests might rebuke Kings and command them to depart out of the temple if contrarie to the law they should presume to offer Sacrifice and that it belonged to the Priests to declare the law of God and to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law whether one were infected with leprosie or no and if he were infected to declare or iudge him to be separated from the rest of the people according as the law of God ordayned All which were spirituall actions and therefore not exceeding the limites of Priestly function 158 But secondly hee seemeth to make some force in those words of the Scripture And they thrust him out in all haste c. as though he would signifie thereby that they thrust him out by head and shoulders as the prouerbe is or by laying violent hands vpon his sacred person which can not sufficiently be prooued to be so but onely that they thrust him out not by violence for he himselfe made haste to goe out but onely by their commandement or admonition and by denouncing Gods wrath against him and by crying against him and perchance with clapping of hands as against an vncleane and polluted person who by the law of God was forbidden to enter or remaine in the Sanctuarie in that manner as before they did endeauour to resist and under him from burning of incense not by force of armes and violently taking the Censar out of his hands but by their words and admonition commanding him to goe out of the Sanctuarie and not to contemne the law of God 2. Paralip 26. And they resisted the King saith the Scripture and sayd It is not thy office Ozias to burne incense to our Lord but to the Priests goe out of the Sanctuarie contemne not because this thing will not be reputed to thee for glory by our Lord. But Ozias contemned their words and bring angrie and holding in his hands the Censar to burne incense be threatned the Priests And foorthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead before the Priests in the house of our Lord before the altar of incense 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 to wit by their admonitions outcries and exclamations whose words and admonitions he himselfe being now sore afraid did willingly obey Yea and himselfe being sore afraid saith the Scripture made haste to goe out because he felt forthwith the plague of our Lord. 159 And that onely by their words and admonitions and not by force and violence they thrust him out Iosephus lib. 9. Antiquit. cap. 11. Iosephus in the words cited aboue c nu 106. doth plainly signifie The Priests sayth he after they perceiued the leprosie in the Kings face c. they admonished him that as a polluted and vncleane person he would goe out the Citie And he with the shame of his calamitie obeyed c. or as the Scripture saith he being sore afraid made haste to goe out And what need had they to thrust him out by force and violence when he himselfe made haste to goe out The same also S. Chrysostome in the place here cited by Mr. Fitzherbert Chrysostom hom 4. de verbis Isaia vidi Dominum doth most cleerly signifie in these words Et egrossus est Rex c. And the King went forth being made an example to all and the temple was purged and he was cast foorth no man thrusting him foorth * Nemine propellente and whereas he would arrogate to himselfe the Priesthood he lost that which he had to wit his corporall health and libertie to come and remaine in the Temple and Citie and he departed out of the temple 160 And the reason why the Priests ought not to lay violent hands on the Kings person and to compell him by force of armes S. Chrysostome did giue a little before in those words But King Ozias did not obey his admonisher but puffed vp with arrogancis he opened the temple and entered into the Sanctuarie with intention to offer incense But what did God After the Priest was contemned and the Priestly dignitie troden vnder foote marke the words following nec quicquam prateras potuit Sacerdos Nam Sacerdotis tantum est arguere c. Neither could the Priest doe anything more For it is the office of a Priest onely to reprooue and to giue a free admonition not to raise armes not to vse targets not to shake a lance not to shoote arrowes not to cast darts but onely to reprooue and to giue a free admonition After therefore the Priest had reprooued and yet the King did not yeeld but tooke weapons shields and sâ— and vsed his power thou the Priests said to God I haue done that which belonged to my office I can doe no more helpe thou the Priesthood which is troden vnder foote c. Thus S. Chrysostome And a little aboue The King saith he doth compell or force the Priest exhort the King by necessity the Priest by counsell the King hath sensible armour the Priest spirituall the King maketh warre against Barbarians the Priest against Deuills So you see that according to S. Chrysostome it belongeth not to the Priest to vse sensible weapons and to force by corporall violence but by counsell admonition or commandement 161 Thirdly although a leper was by the law of God bound to liue apart out of the Campe or City from the rest of the people yet as I obserued in my said Theologicall Disputation d In Admonit nu 28. it cannot bee sufficiently prooued that is belonged to the Priests of the old law to thrust lepers by force and violence out of the Campe or City but onely by iudging them to be lepers and by declaring that by the law of God they were to bee separated seeing that the Kings and not the Priests were the executours of the law against offendours and by force and corporall violence to punish them who did not obserue the law as I declared aboue e Nu. 80. out of Abulensis But that the Priests after they had declared one to be infected with leprosie and had charged him to depart and commanded them who were to execute the law to performe their dutie and what the law did prescribe had any farther authority as they were Priests to thrust him out by violence it cannot be prooued out of the old law Euen as now in the new law it belongeth to spirituall Pastours to declare whether one bee infected with spirituall leprosie but after they haue declared one to be infected with heresie and haue excluded him from the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull leauing him now to the Secular Court they haue no further power by the law of Christ as they are spirituall Pastours
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
disobeyeth the Church is excommunicated by the law of God Also for that otherwayes the Church doth excommunicate no man but declare him to be excommunicated by the law of God because he doth not obey the Church which how absurd this is it is manifest of it selfe c. First therefore by those words is signified this generall maxime that those who doe not heare the Church doe grieuously sinne and especially if they be obstinate and that therefore they are to be accounted and shunned as grieuous sinners as are Heathens and Publicanes Secondly It is signified that Christ our Lord will giue to his Church power to binde and loose And so in those words is contained the power to inflict the Censure of Excommunication but not the institution of the Censure it selfe or a commandement in particular but onely in generall of auoyding sinners who are disobedient to the Church vnder which generall law is comprehended an accomodate distribution to say so to wit a commandement to shunne euery one that is disobedient to the Church according to the degree and manner of the prohibition and separation which is made by the Church her selfe And this is the common exposition of Interpreters vpon that place and of Diuines handling this matter Thus Suarez Whereby it is apparant how disagreeably to Suarez doctrine Mr. Fitzherbert here affirmeth that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement ordained a temporall penalty of Excommunication when he commanded that he who will not heare the Church shall bee taken for an Ethnicke and a Publicane seeing that according to Suarez he ordained here no penalty or Censure at all of Excommunication 81 But because some Catholike Doctours as Almaine Eckius Clicthoueus and Driedo doe affirme whose doctrine in this poynt both Suarez and the more common opinion of Diuines doe reiect that at least-wise to the sinne of heresie if it be ioyned with obstinacy there is annexed some Censure or punishment by the law of God and their opinion may seeme to haue some ground in those authorities of holie Scripture whereof some are here vrged by Mr. Fitzherbert Suarez also answereth to these authorities and affirmeth that they are not forcible And first that those words of S. Paul ad Tit. 3. A man that is an heretike after the first and second admonition auoyd c. may bee vnderstood of the naturall obligation by which euery man is bound to auoyd danger of being infected and consequently to auoyd the person which is an occasion to him of sinning and such is an heretike whose speech spreadeth as a Canker 2. Tim. 2. So also it is said 1. Cor. 5. But now I wrote to you not to keepe company if he that is named a brother be a fornicator or a couetous person or a seruer of Idols or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner with such an one not so much as to take meate and Galat 5. Know you not that a little leauen corrupteth the whole paste Secondly although we should grant that the Apostle in that place ad Tit. 3. spoke of a proper Censure it doth not follow that this institution is diuine but at the most an institution of the Apostle because it is the commandement of S. Paul c. and especially for that it may be expounded Auoid that is Excommunicate for the Apostle spake to Titus who was a Bishop and had power to excommunicate 82 And according to this sense may be vnderstood those words of S. Iohn Epist 2. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine receiue him not into your house nor say to him God saue you although they rather seeme to be vnderstood of a naturall commandement not to cooperate with such men and not to giue them any signes whereby either wee should seeme to consent to them or that they should be confirmed in their errour And this S. Iohn did signifie in the next words For he that saith to him God saue you communicateth with his wicked workes As also S. Paul 2. Thess 3. said And if any obey not our word note him by an Epistle and doe not company with him that he may be confounded In which last word also the Apostle insinuateth that not onely to auoide communication in sinne but also to rebuke our neighbour charitably it is sometimes counselled or also commanded to abstaine from his companie that hee may be confounded of this sort also are those wordes 1. Cor. 5. which words doe admit almost all the aforesaid interpretations And if they be extended to a proper Censure they are to be vnderstood at what time and in what manner the Pastours of the Church shall iudge that these kinde of sinners are to be auoided And so by all these testimonies conferred together it is euidently gathered that there is no ground in Scripture for vs to say that any Censure is by the law of God annexed to heresie rather then to other sinnes And therefore the contrary opinion is farre more probable and it is the common opinion of other Doctours Thus Suarez And yet forsooth Mr. Fitzherbert maketh no doubt but that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement hath ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication whereas Suarez and the common opinion of Doctors doe resolutely affirme that no penaltie at all of Excommunication is by the commandement of Christ ordained against those that shall disobey the commandement of the Church 83 Wherefore lastly and principally all that Mr. Fitzherbert or any other can conclude from the former places of holy Scripture or such like is that the Church hath power in order to the spirituall good of soules to enioyne temporall punishments and to commaund the faithfull not to conuerse ciuilly with Heathens Publicanes or notorious sinners when otherwise by the law of nature they are not bound to conuerse ciuilly with them whereof I neuer made any doubt And therefore obserue good Reader the fraude and ignorance of this man who pretended to prooue that I contradicted my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour could command temporall punishments but not inflict them seeing that neither frō the reduction of temporall things to spiritual nor from the nature effects of Excommunication nor from those places of holy Scripture which he heere hath brought he concludeth any other thing then that Christians are commaunded to account him an Heathen and a Publican who will not heare the Church that the Apostle commanded the Corinthians and Thessalonians not to eate with notorious sinners and disobedient persons that S. Iohn commanded the faithfull not to receiue heretikes into their houses nor so much as to salute them all which I willingly granted but of the other part of the contradiction which was the principall thing he should haue proued that I must consequently grant that the spirituall Superiour can also inflict temporall punishments hee speaketh not one word 84 For if a Christian should not obserue the aforesaid commandements and will not account them for Heathens and Publicanes
hitherto he hath brought are only to demonstrate both the weakenesse of his cause and also his fraud and ignorance in dissembling the true state of the question in almost euery particular difficultie and confounding his Readers vnderstanding with ambiguous words and sentences which being once explained and the ambiguitie of them laid open doe foorthwith discouer either his want of learning or sinceritie as you may see almost in euery Chapter Neither is this his new coined Catholike faith concerning the Popes power to depose Princes agreeable to the vniuersall and continuall custome of the Catholike Church both for that this custome I doe not say of the Church but of some Popes to depose Princes began first by Pope Gregorie the seuenth Onuphr lib. 4. de varia creat Rom. Pont. who was the first Pope saith Onuphrius that contrarie to the custome of his Ancestours deposed the Emperour A thing vnheard of before that age and also for that it hath beene euer euen vnto this day contradicted by learned Catholikes and therefore neither in regard of time or persons can it bee called vniuersall neither can it be conuinced either by the holy Scriptures the practise of the Apostles the decrees of Popes or Councells or any one constitution of the Canon law What Cardinall Bellarmine hath proued against D. Barclay hath beene answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay to whose booke neither Card. Bellarmine not any other for him can in my iudgment make a sufficient Reply and what D. Schulckenius hath prooued against me you haue seene partly in this Treatise and partly in the Discouerie of his calumnies wherein I haue cleerely shewed all the arguments he bringeth to accuse me and my doctrine of heresie to be slanderous and himselfe to bee void of all Christian sinceritie modestie iustice and charitie 114 And as for D. Weston because his zeale is so furious his railing so intemperate and his arguments of so little force and for that very few of our Countrymen for ought I can learne are greatly moued but most men much scandalized with his vncharitable vnlearned and immodest Reply howsoeuer Mr. Fitzherbert expecting be like the same from him doth so exceedingly extoll it I thinke it neither needefull nor expedient vnlesse I should answere him in his railing humour according to the aduice of the wise man respondeaâ— stulto iuxto stultitiam suam which some vncharitable spirits who seeke all meanes to disgrace me would quickly reprehend in me to make him any formall answere especially seeing that all the arguments hee hath scraped together the chiefe heads whereof are heere in generall mentioned by my Aduersarie to wit the holy Scriptures and many examples of the Churches practise as diuers kinde of diuorces relaxation of debts exemption of children from the power of their Parents the abrogation of temporall and Ciuill lawes the dissolution of contracts and bargaines the imposition of temporall penalties and the right which spirituall Pastours haue to haue corporall maintenance and to take water to baptize children haue beene by me alreadie either in particular or in generall sufficiently answered 115 For first his arguments taken from the authoritie of the holy Scriptures I haue answered in particular and secondly all his other proofes and examples which are grounded vpon the practise of the Church and the Canons of Popes or Councells are to be vnderstood either of the disposing of spirituall things as of the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie which is not a meere ciuill contract but also a Sacrament and spirituall contract representing the vnion and coniunction of Christ our Sauiour with the mysticall body of his Church and therefore because it is both a Sacrament and also a ciuill contract it is now the more common opinion of Diuines p See Zanche lib. 7. de matrim disp 3. that Secular Princes if wee regard the nature of ciuill power haue also authoritie to ordaine the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie as it is a ciuill contract And although the Popes haue now reserued to themselues all causes belonging to Matrimonie in so much that Christian Princes cannot now lawfully dispose of the conditions and impediments of Matrimonie yet Petrus a Soto is of opinion Petr. Sot lec 4 de matrim versus finem that the Pope cannot depriue Princes of this their ciuill authoritie but that they of their owne accord and mooued by pietie haue yeelded to this reseruation of the Pope in regard that marriage is not onely a Ciuill contract but also a Sacrament of the Church or else they are so to bee vnderstood that they did confirme the Imperiall and Ciuill lawes or that they were made by the authoritie and expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or that they did declare the law of GOD and nature by which wee are commanded to auoide all probable danger of sinne or that they did only command and enioyne not inflict temporall penalties or finally that they did only argue a priuate right to some temporall thing but not by way of authoritie or superioritie to dispose of the same as not onely Priests but also priuate lay men may lawfully take another mans water to baptize a childe in extreame necessitie and spirituall Pastours haue a right to bee corporally releeued by them to whom they minister spirituall things as Saint Paul prooueth 1. Corinth 9. and in the ende concludeth So also our Lord ordained for them that preach the Gospel to liue of the Gospell 116 And can any iudicious man perswade himselfe that if Mr. Fitzherbert had thought in very deede these arguments of D. Weston to bee such conuincing proofes and demonstrations as in wordes hee boasteth he would for breuities sake haue forborne to vrge some of them in particular seeing that hee did not forbeare for breuities sake to take the greatest part of sixe or seuen chapters of this his Reply which containeth only seuenteene Chapters in all out of Fa Lessius masked vnder D. Singletons name concerning the Canon of the Councell of Lateran and by that decree touching the exemption of Children which he hath singled out of the rest for that as I imagine it was also greatly vrged by Fa. Suarez to which aboue I haue fully answered you may easily coniecture what kinde of demonstrations are contained in the rest Wherefore to conclude this Chapter if the Reader will but briefly reduce to some syllogisticall forme or methode all the Rhetoricall flourish which Mr. Fitzherbert hath heere made concerning the law of Nature it will presently appeare that hee hath prooued nothing else by the law of Nature then that spirituall things are more perfect excellent and worthie then temporall and that the temporall common-wealth is in perfection worth and nobilitie subiect and subordinate to the spirituall but that Religious Priests haue authoritie to punish the Ciuill Common-wealth or supreame gouernours thereof especially with temporall punishments he hath no way proued by the law of Nature but the flat contrarie I haue most cleerely conuinced
signified to the chiefe Bishop or Pope that from thenceforth he may denounce his vassals absolued from his fealty and expose his Land or territory to be taken by Catholikes who when the heritickes bee rooted out may possesse the same without contradiction and conserue it in the puritie of faith the right of the principall Landlord or Lord being reserued so that he giue no obstacle to this nor put any impediment thereto The same neuerthelesse to be obserued concerning those who haue no principall Landlords This is the decree of the Councell 21 Now all the difficulty consisteth chiefly in this what is to be vnderstood by those words dominus teÌ„poralis dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-lord Officer or if we will needs translate it so Lord Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement pretended to prooue that those words did comprehend Kings and absolute Princes and that therefore the Pope hath authority to depose temporal Princes and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance To which his argument I answered briefly in my aforesaid Admonition c Nu. 21. in this manner 22 Lastly to that decree of the Councell of Laâ—eran so often inculcated and vrged I gaue elsewhere d Widdr. in Praefat. ad Resp Apol. nu 43. diuerse answeres which this Authour F.T. dissembleth He insinuateth one of them and confuteth it mostly coldly to wit that by the name of him that hath not a principall Land-lord or if wee will needes haue him called Lord Emperours and absolute Kings are not to be vnderstood but other inferiour Land-Lords or Officers who are subiect to Kings seeing that the Emperour Fredericke fiue yeeres after this Councell was celebrated made the same decree almost in the very same words changing only spiritual penalties into temporal who by the name of him that hath not a principall Landlord or also Lord could not vnderstand himselfe and other absolute Princes Whereupon I probably gathered that those wordes Non habens Dominum principalem Not hauing a principall Landlord or also Lord could not by force of the words comprehend Kings and absolute Princes who vnlesse they be namely expressed in penall lawes are not to bee vnderstood to wit by the generall names of temporall and principall Landlords or Lords And to say that the Emperour did not comprehend Kings in those words and that the Pope did meane to comprehend them is barely to say not to demonstrate considering that if the Synode of Lateran had meant to haue comprehended Soueraigne Princes in that decree she might as easily haue named them by their proper names of Princes as by the generall names of principall Land-lords Officers or Lords or who haue no principall Land-lords Officers or Lords especially seeing that the same Councell in other decrees hath vsed the peculiar names of Princes Wherfore vntill some man shall clearly demonstrate I say not shall onely show probably that those answeres which I gaue to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable no effectuall argument can bee brought from that Councell whereby it may certainely and euidently be prooued that it is so certaine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes that the contrarie cannot without the note of heresie errour or temeritie be defended by Catholikes 23 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth thus e Chap. 9. nu 3 seq pa. 137. Now then saith he for as much as all our question heere is concerning the Canon of the Councell of Lateran and that some of those who may reade this Reply haue neuer seene that Canon or my Supplement I thinke good to set downe here what I said in my Supplement concerning that Councel Canon Therfore hauing declared that the Councell of Lateran vvas gathered by the generall consent as vvell of the Greeke as of the Latine Church and of the Emperours of the East and West Empire I added that there vvere present thereat S. Antonin tit 19. §. 6. Paul Aemil. lib. 6. Nauclar generat 41. Blond dec 2. lib. 6. in fine Platina in Innoc tert Concil Later sub Innoc. tert tom 3. conc Matth Paris Westmonast ad annum 1215. Can. 3. Supplem cap. 6. nu 2. the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Hierusalem and the substitutes of the two other Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch 70. Archbishops Greekes and Latines 412. Bishops and 800. other Prelates that is to say aboue 1200. Besides that there assisted also the Ambassadours not onely of the Romane and Greeke Emperours but also of the Kings of Hierusalem England France Spaine Hungary and Cyprus and of other absolute Princes So as I conclude that it was the greatest and most generall Councell that euer vvas assembled in the Church of God and then I added further as followeth 24 This was the great Councell of Lateran held vnder Innocentius the third in the yeere of our Lord 1215. wherein it was decreed thus Si Dominus temporalis c. If a temporall Lord being required and so foorth as you may see aboue Thus farre the Decree of this Oecumenicall Councell assembled by the consent of all Christendome wherein you see not only the Popes authoritie to depose Princes was auowed and acknowledged but also the practise thereof expressely ordained and determined when Princes shall neglect their duetie to purge their states of heresies and contemn with all the Ecclesiasticall Censures 25 Thus said I in my Supplement and now to come to Widdringtons answere first he chargeth me as thou hast seene good Reader to haue dissembled many answeres which he made else where concerning this Canon Secondly he saith that I haue neuerthelesse insinuate â—one of them and answered it most coldly and thirdly he layeth downe his said answere vvith some other reasonâ— vvhy he thinketh it to be probable that absolute Princes are not comprehended in that Canon Whereto I answere that I wonder vpon what ground he could charge me with the dissimulation of his former answeres which I protest I neuer saw vntill I chanced to haue a view of this his last Treatise I meane his Theologicall Disputation whereto is annexed the other which hee mentioneth for truely if I had seene those answeres vvhereof he speaketh I would not haue passed them ouer with silence no more then I passed Mr. Dunnes and such other as were then come to my knowledge And as for my cold answere I cannot see how it could be either cold or hoat to an argument which I had neuer seene but how hoatly and wisely he hath answered for his part it may appeare partly by the argument it selfe and partly by my discourse in my Supplement which he will nâ—edes take for an answere thereto His argument you see is that for as much as the Emperour Fredericke c. 26 But first it is to be obserued that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis are not well translated into English a temporall or principall Lord vnderstanding the word Lord as it is taken by vs for a title
of honour for those words doe signifie temporall Land-lords Gouernours Magistrates or Officers as Mayors Iudges Sheriffes Bayliffes Constables whether they be Lords or no as any man of iudgement may plainely see for that all these are Domini temporales and many of them may be Domini principales and I will more cleerely shew the same beneath So also when the Councell saith that condemned heretikes are to be left to the Secular Potestaes or their Bailiffes to be deseruedly punished it did not vnderstand absolute Princes as Kings and Emperours but other inferiour Officers and Magistrates as Mayors Consulls chiefe Iustices Captaines and Gouernours of Cities to whom the execution of iustice is committed as both the Italian and French word Potesta doth signifie and so in Italie the Gouernour of a Citie is called the Potesta and also it may more cleerely appeare by the Breues See Director Inquisitor circa finem or Apostolicall letters of Pope Innocent the fourth Alexander the fourth and Clement the fourth cited here beneath by my Aduersary for those of Honorius the third and Vrbanus the fourth I haue not seene neither is there any mention made of them in the Directorie of Inquisitors who direct their letters to all Marcquesses Earles Barons and Potestates Gouernours Consulls and Communities of Cities and other places c. as Pope Innocent doth or onely to Potestaes Counsells and Communities of Cities other places of Italy as Pope Alexander doth or to Potestaes or Gouernours Consulls Captaines Aâ—tians Counsells and Communities of Cities as Pope Clement doth where it is plaine that by the word Potestaes are not vnderstood so much as those Dukes of Italie who are in some sort absolute Princes as the Duke of Sauoy Florence Mantua Parma c. but onely inferiour Magistrates and Officers Rectours or Gouernours of Cities and other places 27 Secondly the ground and reason for which I affirmed that Mr. Fitzherbert dissembled diuers of my answeres to the decree of the Councell of Lateran was for that I supposed he had seene the Preface to my Apologeticall Answere wherein I discoursed at large of this decree against F. Lesâ—ius and the reason why I supposed that he had seene that Answere was for that it was published to the view of the world a yeere before hee wrote his Supplement and whether I might not probably suppose the same considering what particular intelligence the Colledge of Rome where then he liued hath of all things that passe in this Kingdome especially in things that greatly touch the Iesuites as that Preface doth I remit to the iudgement of the prudent Reader But because he now protesteth that he neuer saw that Preface before my Theologicall Disputation whereunto it is annexed came forth I will beleeue him therein and take his protestation for an answere and I doe willingly grant that I was mistaken therein as also I protest that in any other thing wherein I shall find my selfe to be mistaken I will most willingly acknowledge the same and if he and the rest of my Aduersaries will as willingly acknowledge their errours in all those things wherein they doe cleerely find themselues to be mistaken I make no doubt but that this controuersie betwixt vs will quickely be at an end 28 Thirdly obserue good Reader how fraudulently Mr. Fitzherbert hath concealed a principall clause which of set purpose I put downe in this my argument taken from the Constitution of the Emperour Fredericke For whereas I argued thus as you haue seene before that because the Emperour Fredericke enacting the selfe same law fiue yeeres after and vsing the very same words which the Councell did vse to wit a temporall principall Landlord Gouernour or also Lord and not hauing a principall Landlord Gouernour or Lords changing only spirituall penalties into temporall neither did nor could by those words comprehend Kings or absolute Princes therfore from thence it may be probably collected that those words in the Councell could not ex vi sua by force of the words comprehend Kings and Soueraigne Princes who in penall lawes are not to be vnderstood vnder generall words vnlesse they be expressed by name Mr. Fitzherbert concealeth those words ex vi sua by force of the words which neuerthelesse are very materiall to the force of my argument as any man of iudgement may cleerely perceiue For as you shall see beneath for the same reason why Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that Frederickes constitution did not by those Generall words comprehend Kings and absolute Princes I also affirme that Kings and absolute Princes are not vnder those generall words comprehended in the Decree of the Councell of Lateran 29 Now you shall see how well Mr. Fitzher impugneth this my argument taken from the Constitution of the Emperour Fredericke Widdringtons argument is saith he f Nu. 6. seq pag. 139. seq that for as much as the Emperour Fridericke made the same Constitution fiue yeeres after the Councell of Lateran almost in the same words changing onely the spirituall penalties into temporall therefore he did not meane to include therein either himselfe who was free from the subiection of lawes or else other absolute Princes who were not subiect to him Thus argueth he But how doth it follow hereon that the Canon of the Councell of Lateran did not include him and all other Princes For albeit they were free from all temporall lawes yet being members of the Catholike Church they were subiect to the lawes of that Councell and the rather for that their Ambassadours being present there either ratified the Decrees thereof or at least did not contradict them But to the end that this controuersie betwixt my Aduersary Widdrington and me concerning the Emperour Friderickes law may be the better vnderstood I thinke it not amisse to lay downe what I haue already said concerning the same in my Supplement where I proued against M. Iohn Dunne that the said law was so farre from preiudicing any way the Canon of the Councell that it doth notably confirme it to which purpose I said thus 30 Thou shalt therefore vnderstand good Reader that Fredericke the second Emperour of that name being in the beginning of his reigne an obedient child of the Church and willing to giue publike testimonie thereof to the world thought good to imitate the example of many of his predecessours as well in the confirmation of the liberties and priuiledges of the Cleargie as also in imploying his Imperiall authoritie in the extirpation of heresie Concil Lateran sub Innoc. 3. can 44. 46. Com. 4 â—oncil See constitut Frider. §. Ad decus honorem And forasmuch as this Councell of Lateran had then lately before promulgated diuers Canons to both those ends he published also certaine constitutions on his part with manifest relations to the Canons of the Councell For whereas the Councell complained of the small charity of some Secular Princes g The Councell did not complaine of Secular Princes but
to prooue that this law of the Emperour Frederike was no way preiuciall to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran but a notable confirmation thereof which is nothing at all against mee For I neuer intended to deny that this Constitution of Frederike was against the Canon of the saide Councell but I expresly affirmed that it was the same law and constitution containing the very same wordes with that of the Councell changing onely spirituall punishments into temporall and that therefore those wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-Lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in both Decrees haue though not equally yet proportionally the like restriction and limitation in both For that which I affirme is that this great and famous Councell of Lateran where almost all the Ambassadours of Christian Kings and Princes were present did represent as the Cardinall of Peron doth well obserue the whole Christian world or Common-wealth as well temporall as spirituall and was as it were a generall Parliament of all Christendome consisting both of temporall and spirituall authoritie of temporall Princes and spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted therein concerning spirituall matters as is the inflicting of spirituall Censures for what crime soeuer either spirituall or temporall did proceede meerely from the authoritie of spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted concerning temporall matters as is this decree whereof now we treate concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they bee inflicted did proceede meerely from the authoritie of Secular Princes who are the head and fountaine of all temporall authoritie and of all power to dispose of temporall matters for that as I haue prooued more at large in the first part of this Treatise by the testimonie of many learned Catholikes the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment but that when the Church or spirituall Pastours doe inflict such temporall punishments it proceedeth from the positiue grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes 38 And from this ground it euidently followeth that not onely in this Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the temporall punishing of heretikes their abetters but also in all other Canons of Popes or Councells when the inflicting of any tēporal punishmēt is ordained it is as probable that all the force which they haue to bind doth proceede originally frō the positiue grant consent and authoritie of temporal Princes as it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not by the institutiō of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporal or ciuill punishments and consequently that temporall Princes are not by any generall wordes included in such decrees as being themselues supreame and next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be punished with temporall punishments but by GOD alone Wherefore vnlesse my Aduersaries doe first prooue which in my iudgement they will neuer bee able to doe by some conuincing argument grounded vpon the authoritie either of the Holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleare definition of the Church that this doctrine which denyeth the Pope to haue by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments is absurd and not probable they spend their time in vaine and beate about the bush to little purpose whiles they bring neuer so many decrees and canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained for still the maine question remaineth yet a foote by what authoritie to wit temporall or spirituall those Canons for as much as concerneth the inflicting of such temporall punishments haue force to binde and the answere of Almaine and of many other Catholike Doctours will bee still readie at hand that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath onely authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and that the other punishments which hee vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law authoritie grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes and that therefore the lawes or Canons of spirituall Pastours enacting them cannot bind or comprehend temporall Princes themselues 39 And by this the Reader may cleerely see both the ground and reason from whence I deduced probably that absolute Princes are not included vnder any generall words whatsoeuer in penall lawes and canons of the Church wherein temporall penalties are inflicted for neither are they included as you shall see beneath in the next Chap. in penall lawes wherein spirituall punishments are inflicted vnder generall words or names which denote titles of inferiour degree place and dignitie as are Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis a temporall or principall Land-Lord Gouernour or also Lord and such like and also how weakely not to vse Mr. Fitzherberts foule word absurdly he prooueth that I shew my selfe to bee very absurd in perswading the Reader that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in the Canon and in the Emperours law haue like restriction though not equally yet proportionally in both For what can be more cleare saith he h p. 145. nu 15 then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince who maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended only to his owne subiects whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall tearmes do comprehend all Christian men as well absolute Princes as others because they are all subiect thereto yet the Lawes of temporall Princes being made in the like or in the same generall tearmes can comprehend none but their owne subiects and this being so what an absurd argument hath Widdrington made who because the words are all one in the Canon of the Councell and the Law of the Emperour will restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne Dominion 40 And therefore though the words Dominus temporalis or principalis or non habens Dominum principalem be generall in his Law yet they can bee vnderstood of none but such as being his subiects held their Lands or states of him or of some other in his Dominions in which respect Kings and other temporall Princes which held not of the Empire could not be comprehended therein though the same generall words in the Canon must needes comprehend as well all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes as other inferiour Lords because all of them being Domini temporales are subiect alike to the decrees of a generall Councell 41 True it is that nothing is more cleere then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of
euery Princes lawes is extended onely to his owne subiects Whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall termes may comprehend all Christian men aswell absolute Princes as others forasmuch as concerne spirituall matters and the inflicting of spirituall punishments because in these all Christians are subiect thereto yet considering that it is probable that Christian Princes in temporall matters and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable that the Canons of Popes or Councells made in generall tearmes concerning temporall affaires as are the inflicting of temporall punishments cannot comprehend temporall Princes who in these are absolute and supreame and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church which as I haue shewed before doeth extend to the inflicting onely of spirituall punishments Which being so the Reader may cleerely perceiue that the argument I brought from the Emperours constitution is not absurd but very probable and that the absurditie which his foule mouth so often casteth vpon mee falleth vpon himselfe For that which I in bringing that argument intended to affirme was this that for the same reason for which those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or non habeus Dominum principalem did not in the decree of Frederike comprehend either himselfe who was not subiect to his owne law at leastwise as it is coerciue or absolute Princes for that they were not subiect to him at all the same generall wordes in the Canon of the Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments doe not comprehend absolute Princes for that they are subiect to the authoritie of the Church onely in Spirituall matters and not in temporall as are the inflicting of temporall punishments 42 Wherefore I doe not restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power as Mr. Fitzherbert very grosely imposeth vpon mee but I restraine the sense of the Canon thus that if all Christian Princes had made the like law and in the same forme of words as Fredericke did then I say that all these lawes had beene a cleare confirmation of the sense and meaning of the Canon of the aforesaid Councell and that those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis and non habens Dominum principalem in all these lawes together made by all Christian Princes had signified the selfe same persons and no others then now they signifie in the decree of the Councell For that which I contend is that it is probable that this Canon forasmuch as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made by the Councell not as it had spirituall but onely as it had temporall authoritie or which is all one not by vertue of the spirituall power of the Church but by the authoritie and consent of all temporall Princes whose Ambassadours were present thereat because it is probable as I haue shewed aboue out of many learned Catholikes that the spirituall power of the Church doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of spirituall Whereby it is euident that albeit Emperours Kings and all other absolute Princes and inferiour Lords are subiect alike to the decrees of Generall Councells yea and of Prouinciall Councells held in their owne kingdomes in matters spirituall yet they are not subiect alike to the Decrees of generall Councells wherein temporall matters as are the inflicting of temporall punishments are decreed for that these decrees are made by the authority and consent of absolute Princes to whom onely all other inferiour persons are subiect in temporall affaires And heereby all that which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in the rest of this Chapter is already satisfied 43 So as you see saith hee i p. 146. nu 17. what probable arguments Widdrington giueth vs whiles neuerthelesse nothing will satisfie him from vs but demonstrations and therefore whereas I signified all this in effect in my Supplement hee taketh no formall notice of it but onely as it were glanceth at it in a word or two saying as you haue heard before Dicere Imperatorem c. To say that the Emperour did not include Kings in those wordes of his law and that the Pope did meane to doe it in the Canon is to say so but not to demonstrate So hee requiring as you see a demonstration of this point and craftily concealing and dissembling the reason that I gaue for my assertion in my Supplement as if I had giuen none at all but onely had barely said that Dominus temporalis in the Emperours law is not to be vnderstood of Kings as it is to bee taken in the Canon whereas you see the reasons which I haue giuen of the difference of the one and the other being grounded vpon the different power of the Generall Councell and the Emperour is so pregnant and cleare that it may serue for a demonstration to any Catholike man of iudgement 44 For I thinke it is not more cleare to any such that two and two make foure then that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords and that they are included in those words of the Canon because they being members of Christs Church are as subiect to a generall Councell as the meanest temporall Lord in Christendome As also it is no lesse cleare that Dominus temporalis in the Emperours constitution can be extended no further then to such temporall Lords as were some way subiect to him which my Aduersary himselfe acknowledgeth albeit he absurdly denieth that the same words in the Canon are to be vnderstood of Kings 45 But first whether my arguments and answeres bee probable or no and whether that foule aspersion of absurditie wherewith Mr. Fitzherbert so often chargeth me doth fall vpon his owne arguments and answeres or vpon mine I must remit to the iudgement of the learned Reader Secondly no learned man can denie but that to prooue any doctrine to be certaine and of faith it is necessary to bring demonstrations and conuincing proofes and that to prooue any doctrine to bee probable and the contrary not to be certaine nor of faith it sufficeth to bring onely probable arguments and answeres and therefore it is no maruaile that I expect at my Aduersaries hands cleare demonstrations and inuincible proofes seeing that they take vpon them to prooue their doctrine to be certaine and of faith whereas it sufficeth for mee that onely take vpon me at this time to shew their doctrine not to bee certaine and of faith to bring probable arguments and answers 46 Thirdly it is not true that I haue craftily concealed and dissembled the reason that he gaue in his Supplement why the words Dominus temporalis should in the Canon of the Councell comprehend absolute Princes and not in the Emperours constitution For all that hee laboureth as you haue seene to prooue in his
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
absolute Princes are not in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder the generall names of temporall Land-lords Gouernours Iudges Lords or such like was not grounded vpon any peculiar priuiledge proper to absolute Princes for the like I affirmed of a Bishop and an Abbot but vpon the knowne rules of the law which there I cited and vpon the authority of learned Lawyers and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert might haue saued his labour in seeking out of Restaurus Castaldus or others any such priuiledge peculiar to absolute Princes Neither also did I affirme that all Lawyers are of opinion that in penall lawes and odious matters an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the name of a Priest or Clearke nor an absolute Prince vnder the name of a temporall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord but that some Lawyers are of this opinion and this is enough to prooue it to be probable that in the Canon of the Lateran Councell Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall wordes of a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour Iudge or Lord. Wherefore although the opinion of Hostiensis of whom I will speake beneath or of any other Lawyer or Diuine whatsoeuer be expresly against this doctrine it is nothing to the purpose except it be also against the opinion of all Lawyers and Diuines 7 Secondly therefore that M. Fitzherbert may also see that I haue not inuented this doctrine of my owne head I will now for proofe of the same relate some Catholike Authors whom then I omitted to rehearse for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt thereof An Abbot saith Bartholomaeus Fumus in his Armilla aurea Armilla verbo Abbas nu 11. in an odious matter is not comprehended by the name of Monkes although he be in a fauourable matter according to the Doctours in cap. Armilla verbo Clericus nu 2. finali de Simonia And againe by the name of Clearkes saith hee in a fauourable matter are vnderstood all that haue any Clearkely dignity but in an odious matter vnder the name of a Clerke are not comprehended Bishops no Canons nor others placed in dignity nor Monkes nor Religious men that are exempted Vide Panormit in cap. bonae memoriae de postulat Praelatorum Armilla verbo Sacerdos nu 1 And againe by the name of a Priest saith he in a fauourable matter are vnderstood not onely Prasbyters but also Deacons and Subdeacons but in an odious matter onely Presbyters and not therefore Bishops are to bee vnderstood arg cap. si quisque de cohab Cleric mulierum where Panormitan obserueth the same Thus writeth Armilla Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia 8 The like hath Felinus cap. vlt. de Simonia § prima conclusio By the name of Monkes saith he Abbots are vnderstood in a fauourable matter but this conclusion is not true in an odious matter and for the same hee citeth Panormitan Pope Innocent and others And a little before out of diuers textes of the Canon Law he deduceth this general rule Quoties species aliquid addit generi nunquam appellatione generis venit species Whensoeuer the particular doth adde something to the generall the particular is not to be comprehended vnder the name of the generall which is the same in sense with that rule which he afterwards relateth out of Antonius de Butrio that in penall things the mixt or compound is not comprehended vnder the simple which rules Felinus limiteth thus vnlesse the punishment or odious matter doth tend principally to fauour the soule but how to know this for certaine it is very heard as you shall see beneath Sayrus tom 1. lib. 3. cap. 33. 9 The like teacheth our learned Countreyman Gregorius Sayrus expounding the Canon Vt periculosa Ne Clerici vel Monachi lib. 6. Wherein are excommunicated all Religious men who goe to any Schooles of learning vnlesse they haue first license graunted them by their Prelate with the aduise of the greater part of the Conuent An Abbot saith he going to Schooles without the license of his Superiour and Conuent doth not incurre this punishment according to Archidiaconus Geminianus Angelus Antoninus and Nauarrus in the places aboue cited because it is a penall constitution and therefore rather to be restrained then extended The same hath Nauarre vpon cap. finali de Simonia From the aforesaid it is also saith he inferred that the disposition Nauar. tom 2. Comment in cap. finali de Simonia nu 5. or constitution which speaketh of a Monke doth not comprehend an Abbot if the matter be not fauourable as Doctors here vpon this Canon do seeme to be of opinion 10 And Syluester treating of the Canon in Clement Vnica de vsuris wherein are excommunicated quicunque communitatum ipsarum Potestates Capitanei Rectores c. All Potestaes of Communities themselues Captaines Rectours or Gouernours Consulls Iudges Counsellers or any other Officiall or Officer who doe make write or dictate Constitutions that vsurers are to bee paid or being paid are not to be restored Siluest verbo Excommunicatio 19. nu 82. §. quadragessima tertia c. affirmeth that because this is a penall constitution consequently it is not extended to persons that are not expressed or which is all one expresly named therein and he proueth this by that rule of the Law in Sexto In penalties the milder part is to be chosen Moreouer Pope Innocent the third himselfe vnder whom this Councell of Lateran was held In can Sedes Apostolica de Rescriptis doth expresly decree that when in his Commissions persons of lesse worth more base are onely signified persons of greater worth and dignitie are not vnderstood to be included in a generall clause Now what man of iudgement can make any doubt but that Dominus temporalis is a person of lesse worth honour and dignitie then Dominus principalis who in the Canon is distinguished from Dominus temporalis and both of them are persons of lesse worth honour and authoritie then are Domini supremi as are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes And therefore these generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis being names of lesse worth and dignitie then are Domini supremi must not according to Pope Innocent his owne rule comprehend Emperours Kings and absolute Princes who are the most worthy most noble and most principall Lords and persons vpon earth 11 But wee will conclude this point with so plaine and manifest an authoritie that my Aduersarie both in respect of the Authour and also of his words being so cleere can take against it no colourable exception Lastly therefore Andreas Duuallius a famous Doctour of Paris and at this present the Kings Publike professour of Diuinitie and also a man otherwise much fauouring the Popes temporall authoritie ouer absolute Princes Andr. Duual de suprema Rom Pont. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q.
subiects from their temporall allegiance but because this supposition of his is not certaine his proofe grounded thereon cannot bee certaine And Emericus in the 31. question cited by my Aduersarie to prooue that the Inquisitours haue authoritie to proceede against Kings bringeth only the authoritie of Pope Clement the 4. and Vrbanus the 4. and those generall words contained in their Breues of what condition dignitie or degree soeuer they be and the same only confirmeth Pegna in his Commentarie vpon that question which doth not contradict my doctrine for I neuer denyed that in penall lawes absolute Princes may not be comprehended vnder such generall words supposing as they suppose which I deny that the Pope by his spirituall authoritie may inflict temporall punishments 23 But secondly and principally albeit these Doctours should as in the places cited by my Aduersarie they doe not contradict my doctrine in this point concerning the not comprehending of Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes Bishops of Priestes and absolute Princes vnder generall names of temporall Lords Gouernours Potestaes and such like yet it were little to the purpose seeing that other learned Lawyers and Diuines as I haue shewed before doe agree with mee in this point And therefore to prooue my doctrine in this point to bee absurd and improbable as this man after his vaine glorious bragging fashion boasteth it to bee it is not sufficient as I said and this I wish him to note well to bring the authoritie of one two twentie yea a hundred Lawyers or Diuines if other learned Lawyers and Diuines although the farre fewer in number doe contradict them therein 24 Now let vs proceede to the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts discourse And whereas saith hee g p. 151. nu 6. Widdrington seemeth also to ground this his deuise vpon two rules of the law to wit that in penall Lawes the milder or more fauourable part is to bee chosen and that odious things are to bee restrained and fauours amplified the same is commonly true when the text of the Law is so obscure or the case so doubtfull that two or more opinions may bee probably gathered thereof touching the quantitie or qualitie of the paine and how farre and to whom the same is to bee extended for in these cases of debt or such like the more fauourable or lesse rigorous opinion is to be followed but in this Canon both the words and sense are so cleare that hitherto no doubt hath beene made amongst the Canonists whether Kings or absolute Princes are comprehended therein 25 It is very true that my aforesaid answere to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters an Abbot is not included in the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop in the generall name of a Priest or Clerke nor a King in the generall name of a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord or the like I did partly ground vpon those rules of the law and partly vpon the authoritie of learned Lawyers and Diuines who as you haue seene doe confirme the same and therefore the wordes and sense of this Canon are not so cleare but that those Authours will consequently deny that Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are not in this Canon comprehended vnder those generall words of a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord as neither an Abbot is according to them in penall lawes and odious matters comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest or Clerke nor a King vnder the generall name of a Land-lord Gouernour or also Lord. And if the wordes and sense of this Canon bee so cleare as this man would make it to bee I wonder that neither Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies nor Molina nor Corduba nor Victoria nor D. Sanders nor Azor vehement defenders of the Popes authoritie to depose absolute Princes could not see the cleare sense of this Canon whereof they could not bee ignorant thereby to confirme their doctrine by a manifest decree of a generall Councell without flying to the particular facts of Popes oftentimes deposing Kings and Emperours which all learned men know to be no good argument to prooue that the Pope hath true right and authoritie so to doe 26 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert h pag. 152. these rules haue many exceptions which are very considerable and haue place in this case For first whereas all the obscuritie that can be imagined in this Canon and case is in the generall words Dominus temporalis and non habens Dominum principalem the Lawyers teach vs that verba generalia non dicuntur obscura generall words are not said to be obscure And the Lawyers also teach that in penall lawes and odious matters such generall words as denote some inferiour dignitie order title office or function as a temporall or principall Lord Gouernour Iudge or Land-lord a Monke a Clerke and a Priest are obscure and are not vnderstood to comprehend absolute Princes Abbots or Bishops 27 Secondly this rule of restriction saith hee is not to bee vnderstood quantum ad vim verborum of the force of the words and therefore the Lawyers also teach that penalties are to be extended as farre as the proprietie of the words doe permit And the Lawyers also teach vs that in penall lawes and odious matters such generall words as denote some inferiour title dignitie office order or function are not to bee extended as farre as the priorietie of the wordes doe permit and that therefore an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Lord Gouernour or Land-lord albeit an Abbot bee properly a Monke and a Bishop be properly a Priest and a King be properly a Lord Gouernour and Land-lord But Mr. Fitzherbert doeth not distinguish betwixt proper as it is distinguished from improper or metaphoricall in which sense it is true that the words of penall lawes are to bee vnderstood in a proper sense and not to bee restrained to an improper or metaphoricall sense and as proper is distinguished from common or generall in which sense an Abbot is not properly a Monke nor a Bishop is properly a Priest nor a King is properly a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord for that a Monke is not the proper name of an Abbot nor a Priest the proper name of a Bishop nor a temporall Lord the proper name of a King but they are names which are common also to inferiour Monkes inferiour Priests and inferiour Lords 28 Thirdly the rule saith hee faileth when the reason is expressed as it is in this Canon But Mr. Fitzherbert should haue declared what reason expressed in the law is required to haue the aforesaid rule to faile For in this Canon of the Lateran Councell there is no reason expressed why Dominus temporalis a temporall Land lord Gouernour or Lord must comprehend absolute Princes For the end and reason of
making this Canon was to put in execution the holy lawes before enacted by Christian Princes for the rooting out of heretikes which lawes were not put in practise by the negligence of inferiour Gouernours Magistrates and Officers to whose charge the execution of iustice is immediately committed for which reason it was sufficient to comprehend in that Canon only inferiour Lords Gouernours Magistrates and Land-lords who were negligent to put in execution the godly lawes before enacted by pious Emperours and Kings for the repressing of heretikes but of this reason more beneath 29 Lastly the rule saith Mr. Fitzherbert holdeth not say the Lawyers when there is question of the publike good or the fauour of the Church or of the faith or of soules for in thesâ—â—ases penalties are to bee extended and the law interpreted in preiudice of the delinquent So as these rules doe helpe Widdrington nothing at all seeing that these exceptions which are admitted by the Law doe cleerely exclude the restriction which hee requireth by vertue of the rules 30 And the Lawyers also doe absolutely and without the aforesaide exceptions affirme the aforesaide rules to bee true Wherefore Sayrus citing diuers Lawyers for the same doeth by vertue of this rule except Abbots from Excommunication although Excommunication bee rather medicinall then penall and ought not to bee inflicted but for the good of the soule And Andreas Duuallius did by vertue of this rule exempt the King of France from the Canon Vnam sanctam of Pope Boniface the eight which neuerthelesse was made in fauour of the Church Neither is there any law either spirituall or ciuill which ought not to concerne the publike good neither hath the Pope any authority either directiue or coerciue graunted him but for the good of soules So as these rules according to the opinion of learned Lawyers and Diuines doe helpe mee greatly and fauour my doctrine concerning the not including in penall lawes Abbots Bishops and Kings vnder the generall names of Monkes Priests and Lords although they bee enacted for the publike good the health of soules and in fauour of the Church 31 But the maine and principall ground whereon I stand why absolute Princes are not comprehended in this Canon of the Lateran Councell vnder those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is this as you haue seene before for that albeit I should grant my Aduersarie onely for disputation sake that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are included in the name of Monkes and Bishops in the name of Priests and Kings in the name of temporall Lords which neuerthelesse he will neuer bee able to conuince yet seeing that it is most cleare as Mr. Fitzherbert also confesseth that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation both of Princes and Church lawes is extended onely to their owne subiects it necessarily followeth that temporall Princes cannot bee comprehended vnder any generall words in any Canon or constitution of the Church but onely in those things wherein they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church From whence it cleerely followeth that if it bee probable as in very deede it is that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments or to depose temporall Princes it is also probable that this Canon of the Lateran Councell as also all other such like decrees wherein temporall punishments are in generall words inflicted vpon temporall Lords Gouernours or Land-lords was not made by spirituall but by temporall authoritie and therefore cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are supreame on the earth and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but that it was either made by the authority consent of all temporall Princes if wee will needes haue it to binde all Christian Kingdomes or else that it hath force onely to binde in the Popes dominions wherein he hath the place both of a spirituall Pastour and also of a temporall Prince 32 And whereas Widdrington giueth an instance saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Pag. 153. num 8. without any quotation of Law or Author that Bishops and Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned it is true in Bishops in the case onely of suspension or interdict from the which they are by an expresse Canon exempted except they be named as it appeareth in the Decretals lib. Tit. 11. cap. 4. §. Quia periculosum Glossa ibidem in verbum suspensionis 5. de sententia excommunicationis where also the Glosse saith expressely that they are not priuiledged from a generall penaltie of Excommunication because the Pope who giueth them the aforesaid priuiledge would not haue them to be exmpted from the Canon Si quis suadente and such like which inflict the penalty of Excommunication in generall tearmes and the same is to be said of Abbots or any other persons of dignitie to wit that they haue no exemption from the generall tearmes of penall lawes except they be priuiledged namely by some expresse Canon And therefore when my Aduersary shall shew me such a Canon whereby Princes haue the priuiledge that he pretendeth in their behalfe I will grant that he hath reason to exempt them from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran In the meane time he hath no more probability in this poynt then in the former 33 But first I neuer said as Mr. Fitzherbert to make some colour of a probable answere falsely layeth to my charge that Bishops or Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned For I make no doubt but that they are included in penall lawes vnder such generall words which denote no particular dignity order degree or function of Christian men and that therefore they are included in the Canon Si quis suadente Diabolo and in the Canon Omnis vtriusque sexus but that which I said was that in penall lawes and odious matters Bishops are not included in the generall name of Priests nor Abbots in the generall name of Monkes And for the proofe thereof I brought neither Canon nor Author for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt but that learned Lawyers and Diuines doe affirme the same But now finding my Aduersary for want of reading learning or sincerity to make doubt thereof I haue brought as you haue seene to prooue the same both learned Lawyers and Diuines and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe who called and ended this Councell of Lateran wherein he declareth that he doth not intend in his commissions to comprehend vnder a generall clause greater and worthier persons when lesse worthie and lesse noble persons are expressed And therefore seeing that I haue now shewed him both learned Authours and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe to prooue that Bishops are not in penall lawes comprehended
vnder the generall name of Priests or Clearkes nor Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes nor Kings vnder the generall name of Lords Gouernours or Landlords he must according to his owne confession grant that I haue reason to exempt Emperours Kings and absolute Princes from the Canon of the Lateran Councell 34 Neither did I ground this my doctrine vpon the Canon Quia periculosum wherein it is decreed that in the case of Suspension Interdict Bishops are not comprehended vnder any generall words whatsoeuer vnlesse they be expressed by the name of Bishops but vpon the authorities aforesaid chiefly vpon that reason which Mr. Fitzher himselfe acknowledgeth to be most true that all lawes are to be vnderstood according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation of euery Ecclesiasticall Canon is extended onely to those who are subiect to the spirituall authority of the Church as absolute Princes are not in meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes whom I haue named aboue in the first part of this Treatise and defended them from the friuolous exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath made against them 35 Finally saith Mr. Fitzherbert whereas Widdrington saith that the Synode would haue specified Princes by that name as well in this Canon if it had meant to include them therein as it did in some other Canons and Decrees concerning other matters who seeth not the vanitie of this coniecture For why should they be named more particularly then they are seeing that they are sufficiently comprehended in the generall tearme of Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord k He might as wel haue translated it a temporall Landlord n To wit no temporal Landlord aboue thē but the King which is also sufficiently explicated in this very Canon wherein we see that a temporall Lord l He might as well haue said a tempprall Landlord for Dominus temporalis signifieth both is diuided into two sorts the one of those who haue principall Lords m And also Landlords aboue them and the other of such as haue none of which sort are all absolute Princes that hold of none p And also other principall Landlords who haue no principall Landlord aboue them but the King who is not comprehended in odious matters vnder the name of a Landlord and therefore seeing that such are declared by the Canon to be subiect to the penaltie no lesse then those who holde of others it was needlesse to name them in other manner But belike my Aduersary will take vpon him not onely to interprete the Councell but also to teach it how to speake and what words to vse or else it must be of no force 36 No Mr. Fitzherbert God forbid that either I who professe my selfe to be a Catholike should be so arrogant as to take vpon mee to teach the Councell how to speake or what words to vse or that you who professe to be a teacher and to instruct others in this difficult controuersie which you will needes make a point of faith should bee so ignorant as not to know that the sense and meaning of the Councell is to be gathered from the sense and propertie of the words and that by the words we are taught what is the sense meaning of the Councell Now I haue sufficiently shewed before both by the authority of learned Lawyers and Diuines and also by conuincing reason that absolute Princes are not sufficiently comprehended in this Canon vnder the generall name of a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour of Lord both for that it is a penall law wherein an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Landlord Gouernour or Lord and ciefely for that it is such a penall law which is probable to bee a temporall and not a spirituall law for that it inflicteth temporall punishments which according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes cannot be inflicted but by temporall or ciuill power and that therefore those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or Lord cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church for that the words of euery law are to bee limitted according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes law whether hee bee a temporall or spirituall Prince is extended onely to his owne subiects 37 And if my Aduersary flie to his ancient shift that all Emperours Kings and other Christian Princes are children of the Church therfore subiect to the spirituall Pastors thereof It is true in spiritualls but not in temporalls as is the inflicting of temporall punishments wherein they are not subiect but absolute and supreme True also it is that Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord is in this Canon diuided into two sorts of Lords taking a Lord as the canon here doth take him to wit not only for a title of honour which Knights Gentlemen many inferiour Magistrates as Shiriffes Bayliffes Constables haue not but for euery person who hath tenants vassals or other persons any way subiect to him in which sense euery Land-lord Magistrate is called Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord The one sort is of those who haue principall and chiefe Gouernours or Land-lords aboue them as are all inferiour Magistrates and those who hold any land of others The other is of those who although they be subiect to the King yet they haue no other principall Land-lords or Gouernours aboue them and of this sort are both those who let their lands to others and yet hold their lands of none nor perchance of the King and also all principall Gouernours of the common-wealth who are subiect to no other then the King as are all the Lords or the body of the Kings priuie Councell together and in some sort the Lord Chancellour the Lord chiefe Iustice who haue no one principall Lord or Gouernour aboue them as all other subiects haue but the King alone yet neither of these sorts doe sufficiently expresse a King or a supreme and absolute Prince for that they are titles belonging also to subiects and inferiour persons And therefore the premises being considered it is probable that if the Councell had meant to haue comprehended Kings and absolute Princes in that Canon she would haue giuen them their proper titles of honour as she did in other Decrees and not include them in those common titles of honour which are giuen to persons of inferiour state and condition 38 And by this which I haue said in these two Chapters the Reader may cleerely see that these answeres which I haue giuen to the decree of the Lateran
of Princes confounding and inuoluing both questions concerning the authoritie of the Pope and also of the common-wealth to depose Princes together in one and then in affirming that Widdrington hath not brought any one Authour only D. Barclay excepted who saith that Princes for heresie cannot be deposed to wit neither by the Pope nor the common-wealth which is very true but it is not true that he hath brought no Authours who absolutely affirme that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes and that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments 38 An other cunning the Lord Cardinall of Peron may vse in confounding the oath or religious bond of temporall allegiance with the ciuill or naturall bond thereof which perchance he did for this end that his speech concerning the Popes authority to absolue from the oath of allegiance might seeme more plausible to his audience for that an oath is a sacred and spirituall thing and therefore not exceeding the obiect of the Popes spirituall power and all Diuines doe hold that the Pope hath authority to absolue from oathes either by releasing directly the spirituall bond it selfe or consequently by declaring the thing which is sworne not to be hic nunc in this particular case a fit matter of an oath but temporall allegiance and temporall kingdomes are temporall things and therefore that the Pope by his spirituall power should haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things and to absolue from temporall allegiance and to giue take away translate and dispose of temporall kingdomes would haue seemed very harsh in the yeeres of the greatest part of true French-men z In Apol. nu 148. 149. 39 But besides that as I haue shewed elsewhere the Pope cannot according to the doctrine of S. Thomas and his followers absolue from the oath of temporall allegiance but by declaring the naturall or ciuill bond it selfe of temporall allegiance to be voyd and of no force and consequently to be no fit matter to be sworne it little importeth to the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee touching the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance whether the Pope can release or take away the spirituall bond and obligation of the oath of allegiance it being a sacred and spirituall thing and made onely to confirme and corrobarate the former naturall bond of temporall allegiance For it doth not follow as wel noteth Ioannes Parisiensis Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. c. 16. ad 11 and I also obserued in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 6. sec 3. that because the Pope can release or take away the sacred and religious bond of temporall allegiance he can also release and dissolue the naturall and ciuill bond wherein all subiects by the law of God and nature stand bound to their temporall Prince before they make any oath of temporall allegiance and very few subiects in comparison of others doe vsually make any such oath of allegiance And therefore perchance the Cardinall would for the cause aforesaid rather discourse of the Popes power to absolue subiects from the oath that is the sacred and spirituall bond of temporall allegiance then to depose Princes and to take away their Crownes and Regall authority which being taken away both their temporall allegiance and also the sacred and spirituall bond thereof is by a necessary consequent foorthwith dissolued 37 And to omit diuerse other cunning shifts which the Cardinall of Peron hath vsed in his discourse touching the deposition of hereticall Princes and which the Kings Maiesty in his answere to the Cardinalls oration hath in my opinion very cleerely and excellently discouered two notable cunnings or rather fraudes he hath vsed in translating into French the decree of the Councell of Lateran whereof now wee treat The first is in translating into French those words Si Dominus temporalis if any Prince whereas it is manifest that those words Dominus temporalis doe signifie euery Land-lord Maior Iudge Consull Potesta Gouernour Shiriffe Bayliffe Constable or any other inferiour Officer or Pettie Lord and although the Cardinall will perchance affirme that in those generall wordes Dominus temporalis all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes are included which neuerthelesse I haue aboue confuted yet to translate those words Dominus temporalis any Prince as though the Councell had named Princes expresly and by the name of Princes cannot in my opinion bee excused from an egregious fraud and falshood The second is in translating those words vt ipse Summus Pontifex Vasallos ab eius fidelitate denunciet abfolutos that he the Pope may absolue his subiects from their oath of fidelitie whereas the words of the Councel only are that he may denounce or declare his Vassals absolued from their fidelity which words of the Councell doe expresly signifie that the vassalls were before absolued from their fidelity either by the decrees of Popes or of temporall Princes and that the Pope doth onely denounce or declare them absolued besides that the word vassalls he translateth subiects which haue farre different significations and that word a fidelitate from their fidelity he translateth from their oath of fidelity which in a Translator who is to set downe not only the sense but also the words cannot bee excused from an egregious corruption 38 Lastly I would gladly be resolued of this question either by the Cardinall of Peron or any other learned Catholike whether if the Doctours of Sorbon who hold the doctrine of the Councells superiority aboue the Pope to be true and conforme to the word of God and to the definitions of the generall Councels of Constance and Basil and consequently the contrary doctrine to be false impious and detestable and contrary to the word of God should make a decree that all of their Vniuersity should in their publike Readings Disputations and writings defend it as certaine that is should not maintaine or teach the contrary doctrine as probable or in any sort Or if the Doctours of Mentz who are of opinion that the doctrine for the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin is true conforme to the word of God and to the decree of the Councell of Basil and that the contrary is false and against the word of God and consequently impious and detestable should also make a Decree as Surius affirmeth b Vpon the yeere 1501. they haue done imitating saith he the decree of the Councell of Basil that it should bee altogether held that the most blessed mother of God was conceiued without the spot of originall sinne and did strictly ordaine that none heereafter should in that Vniuersitie bee promoted in sacred Diuinitie vnlesse he should before by oath make promise that he would neither maintaine in his minde nor any wise approoue the contrary opinion and the same question may be made concerning the Iesuites doctrine de auxilijs gratiae whether I say it must
from hence bee necessarily inferred that the aforesaid Doctours should thereby take vpon them to determine an article of faith to make a manifest and ineuitable schisme in the Church of God yea and to precipitate men into a manifest heresie and account the Pope if he should not hold the same not to bee the head of the Church and Christs Vicar but an hereticke and Antichrist and all the other parts of the Church who should maintaine the contrary not to bee true parts of the Church but members of Antichrist Of this question I would gladly be resolued for the resolution thereof would giue no small light whereby the iudicious Reader may see of what force are the chiefest obiections and inferences that the Cardinall of Peron vrgeth aginst the oath of France and the decree of the Parliament of Paris made the second of Ianuary 1615. 39 And thus much concerning the Lord Cardinall of Peron whom in truth I was very loath to mention for the great reuerence and respect wherewith I honour his Grace in regard of the singular gifts of honour and nature wherewith he is adorned but that the defence of truth in this important question touching our duties to God and Caesar and of my innocency which the slanderous tongues of some haue vniustly branded with the infamous note of errour and heresie for impugning their new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes and also the publishing of his oration to the view of the world wherby many vnlearned Catholikes not being able to discerne his artificiall and cunning manner both in propounding and handling this dangerous question touching the deposition of Princes are pittifully deluded and seduced haue vrged me thereunto Now to the matter from whence vpon this occasion giuen me by my Aduersarie touching the doctrine of Ioannes Parisiensis I haue made this digression 40 And as for the matter it selfe saith Mr. Fitzherbert c pag. 160. n. 7. for the which my Aduersary Widdrington produceth their testimonies to wit to prooue that many decrees of the Popes and generall Councells touching temporall things haue beene alwaies made with the expresse Nu. 47. or secret consent of Princes I cannot see what he could gaine or prooue thereby for the question now in hand if it should be granted him For would hee inferre that because many things haue beene decreed by Popes and Councels touching temporall matters therefore no such thing could be decreed in the Councell of Lateran without them Who seeth not the weakenesse and absurditie of this inference seeing that nothing else can follow of those premisses directly but that as diuers other decrees concerning temporall matters haue beene made with the consent of the Princes so also it may be that this Canon of the Councell of Lateran was made in like manner with their consent which no man will deny yea wee willingly grant not onely that it might bee so but also that it was so and inferre thereupon that forasmuch as all Christian Princes gaue their consent to this Canon in that famous generall Councell which was as I may say the Parliament of all Christendome therefore they are and euer shall be subiect thereto except it be repealed by some other generall Councell of like authoritie But how doth it follow that because this and diuers other Canons concerning politicall matters haue beene ratified by temporall Princes therefore they could not be lawfully made without their consent which is the point that Widdrington must prooue if he will argue to the purpose 41 But if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased to consider with an indifferent eye my answere and the principall drift and scope thereof he might easily haue seene that my answere was good and strong and the authority which I brought from Ioannes Parisiensis and Hostiensis sufficient to confirme the same For my principall answere was this that the decree of the Councell of Lateran did not in those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominos principales comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour Landlords Magistrates or Lords it being made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes as ordaining the inflicting of temporall punishments which to ordaine doth not belong to the spirituall but onely to the temporall power and that therefore not onely it did not but also it could not in those generall words comprehend absolute Princes themselues by whose authority it was made And to preuent an obiection which I foresaw some might make to wit that the decrees and Canons of Popes and Councels haue their force to binde from the authority of the Church and not from the consent approbation ratification or authority of temporall Princes I gaue the aforesaid answere that Popes and Councels doe oftentimes ordaine many things which to ordaine belongeth rather to the ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power by the expresse or tacite consent of Princes who are present by themselues or their Ambassadours or else presuming or at leastwise hoping that temporall Princes will ratifie the same and for the confirmation hereof I brought the authority of Hostiensis who affirmeth that according to the opinion of some Doctors which also Pope Innocent Io. Andreas doe affirme that the Canon Ad abolendam de haereticis wherein it is ordained that if Counts and Barons Rectours and Consuls of Cities and of other places doe refuse to take an oath to defend the Church against heretikes they shall be depriued of their honour had therefore force to binde because the Emperour gaue his consent thereunto And that therefore it is no maruaile if this decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments had therefore force to binde for that temporall Princes consented thereunto 42 And by this it is cleare that my meaning was not onely to affirme that the decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made by the consent of absolute Princes onely in that manner as absolute Princes do giue their consent to the making of Ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons which doe meerely proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authority but also that it was made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that to ordaine the inflicting of temporall punishments belongeth rather to the Ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power and therfore it would not haue had force to binde vnlesse absolute Princes had consented thereunto As likewise the Canon Ad abolendam wherein temporall punishments were inflicted was therefore of force according to the opinion of some Canonists as Hostiensis relateth for that the Emperour consented thereunto although the ordaining or inflicting of Excommunication which in that Canon Ad abolendam was ioyned together with the depriuation of temporall honour as it is also ioyned in the decree of the Lateran Councell did proceed and had force to binde from the spirituall authoritie of the Church to whom onely it belongeth to inflict
the Popes power in temporalls is declared 1 MY second answere to the obiection before mentioned was taken from an exposition of the Glosse vpon the Canon Adrianus dist 63. Where the Pope commaundeth the goods of those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated and vpon the Canon Delatori 5. q. 6. where he ordaineth the tongues of calumniatours or false accusers to be pulled out or being conuicted their heads to bee stroken off For to these Decrees the Glosse answereth thus Hîc docere Ecclesiam quid facere debeat Iudex Secularis The Church teacheth heere what a Seculiar Iudge ought to doe Which answere of the Glosse may be accommodated or applied to the like Decrees wherein the sacred Canons doe inflict temporall punishments And this answere the words of Siluester doe also fauour c. Thus I answered in the foresaid Preface 2 Now to this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth a Pag. 166. nu 1. 2. that it is as idle as the former For although it were true saith he that this Glosse were to be vnderstood as Widdrington would haue it yet it would not follow thereon that the same may be truely applied to all other Decrees of the Church which concerne the imposition of temporall punishments especially to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran which ordaineth the deposition of Princes for this Glosse doth treate onely of such as are subiect to the iurisdiction of Iudges and Secular Magistrates whereas the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes on whom no Secular Iudge or Magistrate can execute any penaltie and therefore there is such disparitie in these cases that the Glosse obiected by my Aduersarie Widdrington cannot be iustly applied to both alike 3 But this Reply of Mr. Fitzherbert is as idle and insufficient as his former For first he supposeth as certaine that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Emperours Kings and all absolute Princes which as you haue seene he hath not as yet by all the helpes hee hath had from Fa. Lessius sufficiently conuinced Secondly if we respect the force and proprietie of the words these two Canons especially the former are according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne grounds rather to be vnderstood of absolute Princes then is the Decree of the Lateran Councell for that the words of these Canons especially of the former are generall and doe not denote titles of inferiour honour or dignitie The Pope saith the Canon Hadrianus did excommunicate and commaunded vnlesse hee should repent his goods to be proclaimed or confiscated whosoeuer should infringe this Decree whereas the Councell of Lateran doth not speake in such generall tearmes but onely it mentioneth persons of inferiour state dignitie and title then are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes to wit temporall and principall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords or who haue not any principall Landlords Gouernours or Lords aboue them but onely Emperours Kings or absolute Princes But the truth is that both the Decree of the Lateran Councell and these Canons doe not comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour persons and subiects 4 Thirdly if this exposition of the Glosse is to be approoued my Aduersaries can bring no sufficient reason why the same may not also be applied to all other such like Canons of the Church wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained and especially to the Decree of the Lateran Councell to wit that all such Canons doe onely teach or declare what hath beene done or is to be done by Secular Princes or their Officers For besides that the reason which here Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth why the Decree of the Lateran Councell cannot be expounded in this sense because saith he the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes is a meere prtitio principij a giuing that for a reason which is the maine question betweene vs and hath not as yet beene sufficiently prooued by him the words of the Lateran Councell according to their proper signification doe chiefly import this sense For the Councell doth not decree that the Pope may absolue those vassall from their fidelitie but the words of the Councell onely are that the Pope may denounce that is may declare or teach that those vassalls are absolued frō their fidelitie to wit by the consent and authoritie of absolute Princes 5 And if the Glosse and diuerse other Doctors whom I related elsewhere expounding the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. wherein Pope Gregory the 7th in his Epistle to the Bishop of Mentz affirmeth b Xpolog nu 444. that an other Bishop of Rome called Zacharie deposed the King of France from his kingdome and absolued all the French-men from their oath of allegiance doe thus interprete those wordes hee deposed the King and absolued the Frenchmen that is he consented to them that deposed him and declared him to be lawfully deposed and the Frenchmen to be lawfully absolued from their allegiance why may not this Canon of the Lateran Councell bee vnderstood in this sense that from that time the Pope may denounce that is declare and teach that the vassalls of that temporall Landlord Gouernour or Lord who for neglecting to purge his territories from heresie is for a whole yeere excommunicated are absolued from their fealty and their territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes especially seeing that the word denounce or declare is in this Canon expresly contained 6 And if any one obiect that the words of the Lateran Councell cannot be well vnderstood in this sense that the Pope may denounce that is may declare and teach that the vassals are absolued from their fealty to wit by force of some temporall law or constitution made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that before this Councell of Lateran there was no such decree or constitution of temporall Princes by vertue whereof the vassals of such a temporall Land-lord were absolued from their fealty and therefore those words of the Councell are so to bee vnderstood that the Pope may not onely declare and teach that they are absolued but also really absolue such vassals from their fealty To this obiection I answere that albeit I haue not seene any such temporall law or Constitution of any temporall Prince before it is was enacted by Frederike the second Emperour fiue yeeres after this Lateran Councell by vertue whereof such Vassalls are absolued from their fealtie yet wee finde that Pope Gregorie the seuenth long before in the Canon Nos Sanctorum 15. q. 6. did absolue them who either by allegiance or by oath were obliged to excommunicated persons from their oath of fidelitie to which Canon those wordes of the Lateran Councell if they bee vnderstood in the aforesaide sense may haue reference but then wee must consequently to our doctrine say that both this decree of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the inflicting of this temporall punishment and also the Canon Nos sanctorum haue onely force to binde in the territories of the Church
make the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 38 Thirdly when I affirmed that from the vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church this onely can be gathered that Christ hath promised the infalliable assistance of the holy Ghost not to facts or probable opinions of Popes and Councells but to definitions onely by facts I vnderstand such acts as are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and by definitions I meant those Decrees which are propounded as of faith or which without any doubt or controuersie are deduced euidently from such infallible definitions or principles of faith of which sort this Act or Decree of the Lateran Councell is not as it is euident for those many reasons before alledged 39 And whereas Widdrington addeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 133. nu 12. Supra nu 1. an other circumstance to wit that the Councell did not determine by this Decree that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie or from the Ecclesiasticall power onely without the consent of Princes he is no lesse impertinent then in the former for what need was there to determine that the Pope had an vndoubted lawfull authoritie to depose Princes seeing that the same was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth as it is euident for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it Naucler goâ—erat 41. ad ann 12. which they would not haue done if they had doubted of the lawfulnesse of the Popes authoritie in that behalfe But first Mr. Fitzherbert doth egregiously abuse both me and his Reader in adding both heere and aboue the word Princes as though I had acknowledged that Act of the Lateran Councell to concerne the future deposition of Princes whereas I euer affirmed that it did onely concerne inferiour Magistrates Potestaes Landlords and Lords and not Soueraigne Princes and therfore I said onely that future deposition and my Aduersarie addeth of himselfe the word Princes 40 Secondly whether it was needfull or no for the Councell to declare whether that Act concerning the future deposition of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords or rather the denouncing of them ipso facto deposed was made by spirituall or temporall authoritie it is nothing materiall to our question this being sufficient for me that seeing that very many Catholike Doctors do affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the absoluing of Vassals from their temporall fealtie and the Councell did not declare by what authoritie that Act was made any Catholike man may probably and without any note of temeritie much lesse of heresie affirme that it was made not by any vndoubted lawfull Ecclesiasticall authoritie but onely by the authoritie licence and consent of absolute Princes But although it were not absolutely necessarie that the Councell should haue declared whether that future deposition was to proceed from Ecclesiasticall or temporall authoritie yet to make it a point of faith which all men are bound to beleeue that the aforesaid deposition was to proceede from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and not temporall it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same especially supposing that it is truely probable that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments As also if the Pope being now both a spirituall Pastour and also a temporall Prince should make a law whereof there may bee made a probable doubt whether it was made by vertue of his spirituall or of his temporall authoritie it is necessarie to make this point certaine and out of controuersie that he declare by what authoritie temporall or spirituall that lawe was enacted 41 Thirdly it is very vntrue that the Popes power to depose Princes was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth for that from the very first broaching thereof there alwayes hath beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side Azor. tom 2. li. 11. ca. 5. q. 8 and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in certaine causes the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kings of their kingdome And the euident reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth hereof to wit for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it is the maine question which is now betwixt vs and so he bringeth for an euident reason that which is the controuersie and to be prooued which is an euident petitio principij and condemned as vicious by all Logicians Neither doth Nauclerus whom my Aduersarie citeth in the margent as though hee would make his Reader beleeue that Nauclerus affirmeth that the whole Councell decreed the practise therof affirme any such thing For Nauclerus words are onely these There were many things truly then consulted of yet nothing could be plainly decreed for that they of Pisa and Genua made warre one against the other by Sea and those on this side the Alpes by land Yet some Constitutions are reported to be published whereof one is that whensoeuer the Princes of the world shall offend one the other the correcting belongeth to the Bishop of Rome Where you see first that Nauclerus expresly saith that albeit many things were consulted yet nothing at all could be plainely decreed Secondly that it was onely a report that some constitutions were published Thirdly he doth not say that these Constitutions were of the whole Councell or onely of Pope Innocent and recited in the Councell as Matthew Paris said Fourthly that this report was vntrue it is also plaine seeing that there is no such Constitution as hee mentioneth to be found in the Lateran Councell And lastly albeit there were such a Constitution it is nothing to the purpose seeing that it onely saith that when Princes are at variance it belongeth to the Pope to correct them to wit by Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not the question but that it belongeth to the Pope to correct Princes by deposing them and by inflicting temporall punishments which is the maine controuersie and whereof the practise as Mr. Fitzherbert saith citing Nauclerus in the margent was decreed by the whole Councell Nauclerus speaketh not any one word at all 42 Also Pope Innocent the third saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Pag. 183. u. 13. Naucler geuerat 42 ann 1246. Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. See Adolp Schulc pro Card. Bell. ca. 12 14 where he confuteth the answeres of Widdrington to these examples vnder whom the Councell of Lateran was held had not past three or foure yeeres before depriued the Emperour Otho of his right to the Empire by a sentence of Excommunication and deposition by vertue whereof Frederike the second whose Ambassadours were present at the Lateran Councell was made Emperour who also was afterwards deposed by Innocentius the fourth in the Generall Councell held at Lyons as
sufficiently answered 46 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius for the confutation of my answeres to these examples if the Reader will be pleased after he hath read ouer this my Treatise wherein I confute this Doctour but onely to conferre my answeres with his Replies hee will easily perceiue how egregiously hee shuffleth and that he hath much adoe to excuse Cardinall Bellarmine from manifest improbability and bringeth no one argument which prooueth any one of my answeres to bee improbable and if hee desire to see this Doctours Replies more particularly answered I remit him likewise for this present to Maister Iohn Barclay to whom as yet no answere hath beene made in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmines answere to his father but especially to the Bishop of Rochester who although a Protestant yet out of Catholike Authours and Catholike grounds hath very cleerely and particularly confuted all these examples and what Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius if they bee two sundrie men haue brought to confirme the same 47 Besides that saith M. Fitzherbert Å¿ Pag. 184. nu 14. neither the Church nor yet Secular Princes doe vse to declare in their lawes from what authority the execution thereof shall proceede but it sufficeth that their authority to decree ordaine and execute their Lawes is sufficiently knowne and acknowledged by their subiects wherby it appeareth that Widdrington doth very idly require that the Councell of Lateran should haue declared that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie being a matter which they held to bee without all doubt or Controuersie 48 But as for Secular Princes it is not needefull for them to declare by what authoritie they make temporall lawes and ordaine or inflict temporall punishments for that no Catholike euer made doubt but that they had full authoritie to doe the same but seeing that it hath euer beene a Controuersie among Catholikes and very many Doctours doe affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments whensoeuer the Church doth inflict such punishments without declaring by what authoritie she doeth the same we may probably answere according to the grounds of these Doctours that shee doeth it not by her spirituall authoritie which can inflict no such punishments but by the authoritie license and consent of temporall Princes and therefore that we must certainly beleeue that the Councell of Lateran did ordaine the future deposition not of temporall Princes as this man faineth but of inferiour Land-lords Magistrates or Lords by her vndoubted Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same seeing that both Catholike Princes and subiects haue euer made a great doubt and controuersie concerning this point neither could the Fathers of that Councell bee ignorant heereof who both saw and felt what great contradiction and opposition both Philip and Otho t Pag. 184. nu 15. and the Princes of Germanie and their fauourers made against this pretended authoritie of the Pope to depose the Emperour and to dispose of temporall matters belonging to the Empire 49 And as for the consent of Princes saith Mr. Fitzherbert which Widdrington also requireth to Decrees concerning temporall matters I haue alreadie answered him touching that point and shewed u See Chap. 11. nu 7. 8. 9 s and see also my answere to the same as well by the example of the Apostles themselues as by the practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes that their consent is needelesse to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Decrees and that if the same were needefull all Christian Princes should stand bound to obey the Decrees of the Councell because being enacted by their generall consent in a generall Parliament of all Christendome it cannot bee repealed without another generall Councell of like authoritie So as thou seest good Reader that Widdringtons third answere is in euery thing defectiue and no lesse improbable then the former Neuerthelesse hee presumeth so much vpon the probabilitie thereof that hee vndertaketh to answere also a Reply which hee imagineth we will make to his last argument he should rather haue said last answer wherof I will examine the particulars in the next chap. 50 And I also in those places cited heere by my Aduersarie haue fully confuted his answeres and haue cleerely shewed that by no example of the Apostles nor any one practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes it can bee conuinced that the Apostles by their ordinarie power for of their extraordinarie and miraculous power I doe not now dispute or any Pope or Councell in the primitiue Church did inflict temporall punishments And whether a temporall law made in a generall assemblie or Parliament of all Christian Princes or confirmed by the generall consent of them all cannot bee repealed but by such another generall Assemblie or by the generall consent of them all I haue sufficiently declared aboue x Cap. 8. nu 26. seq out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez when I treated of the law of Nations Two things only may for this present be added thereunto The first is that no humane law either Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill doth binde vnlesse it bee approoued by the acceptance of the people as the common opinion of Diuines and Lawyers doeth affirme y See Disput Theol. c. 6. sec 3. nu 25. and that many Decrees of this Lateran Councell and namely this Decree which is now in question that euery temporall Officer Land-Lord or Lord when they come first to their Office or Landes must take an Oath to roote out heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction was neuer obserued or put in execution in this kingdome and in many other Kingdomes and Nations it is manifest for ought wee can gather by the relation of Histories 51 The second is that there is great difference to bee obserued betwixt temporall kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and consequently betwixt the generall assemblies or Parliaments of them both for that all Christians doe make one true proper and totall mysticall body or Common-wealth which is the Catholike Church and spirituall kingdome of Christ really vnited in spiritualls and subiect to one supreame visible head or spirituall Superiour thereof but all Christians doe not make one true and totall Ciuill body or Common-wealth really vnited in temporalls and subiect to one supreame visible head or temporall Prince thereof but they doe make diuers entire temporall kingdomes or Common-wealths so that throughout all the whole world there is but one true entire Catholike Church or mysticall body of Christ but there are many true entire temporall kingdomes and common-wealths From whence the iudicious Reader may easily gather the reason why a Decree made by a Generall Councell or spirituall Parliament can not be repealed but by