also in readinesse that is in manifest and speedy effect to reuenge all disobedience that is to punish the offences of them who would not obey vs that they might correct themselues Which we will doe when your obedience shall be fulfilled that is when all the rest of you shall by loue be obedient in all things Thus S. Anselme Now what learned man will thus conclude that because S. Paul and the Apostles had a most ample extraordinarie and miraculous authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to conuert men to the faith of Christ and to reuenge or punish all that were disobedient with temporall punishments euen by death as S. Peter did Ananias and Saphyra or by depriuing them of their sight as S. Paul did Elimas the Magician or by deliuering them to Sathan to be visibly tormented by him as S. Paul did the incestuous Corinthian that therefore the ordinarie Pastours of the Church haue now either an extraordinarie or ordinary authoritie power might and effectuall meanes to doe the like 35 I omit that S. Ambrose or whosoeuer is the Authour of those Commentaries expoūdeth those words to reuenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled of the Corinthians themselues who being perfectly conuerted shall punish in themselues their former disobedience It is manifest saith S. Ambrose that he reuengeth disobedience when he condemneth it by obedience then destroying it when he bringeth to the faith those who doe resist or disobey that infidelitie may be condemned by them by whom it was defended The same also doth S. Anselme insinuate as you haue seene aboue 36 But S. Augustine saith Mr. Fitzherbert vnderstandeth those words of the Apostle hauing in a readinesse to reuenge all disobedience of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties True it is that S. Augustine applyeth those words of the Apostle to the authoritie of the Church to compell heretikes by temporall punishments to returne to the faith of Christ taking the Church as it containeth all the faithfull and consisteth both of temporall and spirituall power but it is not true that he vnderstandeth them of the authoritie of the Church as the Church is taken for Church-men or the spiritual Pastours of the Church Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth herein egregiously abuse his Reader For S. Augustines maine drift both in that 50. epistle in the former 48. epistle is only to proue against the Donatists that heretiks may lawfully be compelled with temporall punishments by the lawes of Christian Emperours to returne to the Catholike faith and that the Pastours of the Church did well in requesting Christian Emperours to make such lawes Wherefore the argument of the 48. epistle to Vincentius is that S. Austin was once of opinion that we must not deale with heretikes by violence but only with the word of God but afterwards being ouercome with the doctrine and example of others he changed his opinion and taught that it is lawfull to implore the lawes of Princes against the enemies of the faith so that it be done with an intention to correct and not with a desire to reuenge And the argument of this 50. Epistle is that S. Augustine sheweth with what moderation heritickes may through feare of Emperiall lawes be reduced to the communion of the Church And in his second booke of Retractations Cap. 48. mentioning this Epistle to Bonifacius he writeth thus At the same time I wrote also a booke meaning this 50. Epistle concerning the correction of the Donatists by reason of those who would not haue them to be corrected by the Emperiall lawes This booke beginneth thus Laudo gratulor admiror fili dilectissime Bonifaci 37 Iudge now good Reader what a shamefull fraud is this of Mr. Fitzherbert to make ignorant Catholikes beleeue that S. Augustine bringeth those words of the Apostle to prooue the authority left by our Sauiour to his Church that is to Churchmen or to the spirituall Pastours of the Church for so hee vnderstandeth the word Church in all this his Discourse to compell her rebellious disobedient children by force of temporall punishments to performe their duties whereas S. Augustines intent onely is to prooue the lawfulnesse of the Emperiall lawes compelling heretickes by temporall punishments to returne backe to the faith and that Church-men or the spirituall Pastours of the Church may lawfully implore the Emperiall lawes and desire Christian Princes to compell heretickes to forsake their heresie by force of temporall punishments so that they desire it with intent to correct them and not with a desire of reuenge 38 But if the Ecclesiasticall authority saith Mr. Fitzherbert y Pag. 90. did not extend it selfe to the chastisement of disobediēt Princes in their temporal states it must needs follow that Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are went to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or states subiect to them who when they appoint lieutenants or deputies any where do giue them authority ouer all sorts of subiects so much power as may suffice for the remedy of all inconueniences and specially of the greatest which may occurre in the States where they gouerne c. But this consequence I haue euer denied For as I haue often said to the good gouernment of the Church of Christ which is a spirituall not a temporall kingdome or common-wealth it is onely required that the Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie to inflict spirituall and not temporall punishments and this authoritie forasmuch as concerneth the authoritie and punishments themselues is sufficient to redresse all inconueniences neither is it necessarie either in a spirituall or a temporall kingdome that the chiefe Gouernours thereof should haue that power might or effectuall meanes whereby all inconueniences must actually at all times be redressed 39 And therefore as temporall Kings doe giue to their Lieutetenants Deputies or Vice-Royes sufficient temporall authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects in the Prouinces or States where they gouerne but not alwayes so much power taking power not for authoritie or iurisdiction but for might force or effectuall meanes as may suffice for the remedie of all inconueniences for this power the Kings themselues doe often times want in those Dominions where they themselues doe personally gouerne so Christ our Sauiour ordaining in his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Gouernment gaue to the spirituall Gouernours thereof sufficient spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest but not sufficient power might or effectuall meanes actually to redresse the same And as the Lieutenants Deputies or Vice-Royes of temporall Kings if they offend cannot be punished with temporall punishments by any subiect in the States where they gouerne but by the King alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls So
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
manifest which is most woorthy the obseruation that decrees of the Church cannot be certaine and firme which are not grounded vpon certaine and firme principles and foundations Wherefore if but one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church dependeth be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be certaine whether the question bee speculatiue or practicall For the Conclusion according to the maxime of the Logicians followeth the weaker part and if one of the principles or premisses bee weake it is necessarie that the conclusion in regard of that part bee weakened Wherby it is easily vnderstood that the iudgements of the Church which proceede from the vncertaine testimonies of men are weake to make a certaine and vndoubted beliefe of which sort is that whereby she iudgeth any one to be numbred in the Catalogue of Saints yet it is not lawfull to call in question such decrees without punishment but it is temerarious and irreligious not to giue credit to the Church in the canonizing of Saints which because he that doth doeth rashly and inconsiderately hee shall indeede deseruedly bee punished by the Church Thus Canus Canus l. 12. c. 1. 13 Lastly hee excuseth from heresie those who should affirme that the B. Virgin is not corporally assumpted into heauen which although saith hee it bee not contrary to faith yet because it is repugnant to the common consent of the Church it would bee taxed of malapert temeritie And albeit Fa. Suarez also doth affirme Suarez tom 2. disp 21. sec 2. that now it is so receiued an opinion that it cannot be called in question by any pious and Catholike man yet hee acknowledgeth that it is not of faith because it is neither defined by the Church neither is there any testimonie of Scripture or sufficient tradition Sot in 4. dist 43 q. 2. ar 1. Caiet tom 2. opu trac 2. de Concept cap. 1. which may cause infallible faith But Sotus saith only that it ought to bee beleeued most piously but yet it is not put among the articles of faith necessarily to bee beleeued And Caietane affirmeth that it is not to bee beleeued of necessitie but probably and piously For there is two manner of wayes saith hee whereby a thing may bee decreed to bee beleeued For some things are decreed to bee beleeued in such sort that hee who thinkes the contrarie is an heretike but some things as probably to bee beleeued as the common pietie of the Church doth probably beleeue concerning the corporall Assumption of the B. Virgin and her Sanctification in her mothers wombe Abul in cap. 22. Matth. q. 230. and other such like Abulensis also saith that it is not necessarie to holde this because it is not among the articles of faith neither also is there any thing defined by the Church that it ought to be held therefore it is lawfull for euery man to thinke as he will And the reasons which are brought to prooue her Resurrection are certaine persuasions and do not conuince yet because it is commonly held that she is risen it is more reasonable to hold it yet if any one doe affirme the contrarie wee doe not contend And neuerthelesse the aforesaid Authours knew right well that this doctrine concerning the corporall Assumption of the B. Virgin was neuer denyed by any Catholike and was also the ground and foundation of an Ecclesiasticall decree and custome to celebrate the Feast of the B. Virgins Assumption 14 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue what things are required to make one an heretike that should deny the decrees of the Church concerning manners to bee infallible and how rashly and vnchristianly my Aduersaries doe charge mee with heresie for denying the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith seeing that they cannot bring any one decree either of Pope or Councell whereby according to the conditions before required by Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus to the infallibilitie of decrees either touching faith or manners it can with any probable colour bee prooued that this doctrine is certaine and of faith but we must forsooth take their owne interpretations or rather wrestings of the Canons and false suppositions to bee sufficient decrees to determine matters of faith Now to Mr. Fitzherberts discourse 15 Secondly saith he c Pag. 178. nu 3. I wish Widdrington to consider that by this his distinction and the argument which hee deduceth from it hee may in like manner impugne the decree of the Apostles themselues made in their Councell at Hierusalem wherein they ordained and defined nothing else but matters of fact to wit that the Christians should abstaine from meates offered to Idols from things strangled and blood and fornication in all which the Apostles might according to this mans doctrine follow their owne priuate opinions and erre because their Decree concerned only matters of fact 16 But first this man supposeth that I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell which is very vntrue for I only expound and declare the sense and meaning of the Decree and disprooue the exposition which my Aduersaries make thereof Wherefore if wee may suppose that this Decree of the Apostles was concerning such a matter of fact which is not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith but only vpon opinions which are exposed to errour as I contend this Decree if wee may truely call it so of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Land-lords Magistrates or Lords to be such a matter of fact then I say we may in the like proportionate manner I doe not say impugne but expound this decree of the Apostles as I haue and shall beneath expound the decree of the Lateran Councell in such sort that from thence no infallible doctrine of faith can be concluded to prooue that which some Authours from thence pretend to conclude to wit that the Church hath authoritie to make new lawes which shall haue force to bind in conscience 17 As for example supposing onely for Disputation sake but not affirming that the Church hath not authoritie to make new lawes and precepts which shall haue force to bind in conscience which doctrine some Authours attribute to Gerson but onely to declare the lawes and precepts of GOD and Nature and also to determine those lawes and praecepts which GOD and Nature haue left vndetermined either concerning the time place or manner as for example wee are commanded by the law of GOD and Nature to honour GOD and his Saints to fast to receiue the Eucharist to confesse our sinnes c. yet the time place and manner are not determined but left to the determination of the Church and so the Church appointeth Holy-dayes fasting-dayes the time of Easter to receiue and confesse our sinnes and such like which being supposed for probable but not granted wee may I doe not say impugne but probably expound that decree of the Apostles as some ancient Fathers doe expound it so that
or Lords who remaine excommunicated for a whole yeare for neglecting to purge their territories of hereticall filth And thus much concerning the Apostles decree 22 And the like also saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 179. nu 4. 5. may bee said concerning other decrees of Popes and Councels the impugners whereof haue beene held and condemned by the Church for heretikes as for example it was decreed e Baron an 159 Euseb lib. 23. cap. 22. 23. 24 25. Theod. lib. 1. c. 9. Athan. in epist de Synod Arimin Ambros epist 83. by Pope Pius the first and confirmed by Pope Victor and after by the Councell of Nice that the feast of Easter should be celebrated at the same time that now it is kept vniuersally throughout Christendome according to the tradition left to the Romane Church by S. Peter whereas the Churches of Asia did celebrate the said feast with the Iewes to wit at the time prescribed in the law of Moyses following therein the tradition or at least the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist And albeit those decrees ordaine onely matter of fact and practise yet they which haue heretofore contradicted the same and adhered to the custome of the Iewes were and are still held by the Church for heretikes Epiphan haer 50 S. Aug haer 29. and registred for such by S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine in their Catalogues of heretikes vnder the name and title of Tessarescedecatitae that is to say Quartadecimani who with this distinction of Widdrington and his arguments might farre more probably defend their opinion then he doth or can defend his For they might say as well as he that those Decrees were not matters of faith but matters of fact onely wherein both the Pope and the Councels might follow their owne priuate opinions and consequently erre which being added to that which they said in defence of their heresie and might truely say to wit that they followed the practise of S. Iohn the Euangelist and of the Churches of Asia Euseb vbi supra Beda lib. 3. hist cap. 23. which receiued the same by tradition from him and continued it without interruption for 150. yeares this I say would giue another manner of probability to their doctrine then he can any way pretend for his and yet neuerthelesse they are worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees 23 But this obiection is as friuolous as the former first for that it supposeth that I oppose a matter of fact to a matter of faith and imagine that the one cannot stand with the other which is vntrue as I shewed before Secondly for that it supposeth also that I impugne the decree or rather Act and reason of the Lateran Councell which is also vntrue seeing that I doe not impugne it but onely as you haue seene expound it Thirdly for that there is a great disparity betwixt the decree concerning the celebrating of the Feast of Easter and this Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates seeing that the former is a true and proper decree implying an expresse precept and commandement but this Act is not a true proper decree containing in it any command grant or priuiledge as I shewed before and therefore we cannot rightly apply those arguments which the Diuines doe bring to prooue the Churches infallible authority to make decrees and precepts concerning manners to this Act of the Lateran Councel which is not grounded vpon any doctrine appertaining to faith but onely vpon opinion which may be exposed to errour 24 Fourthly the Quartadecimani Castro lib. 12. contra haer verbo Pascha Bell. lib. 3. de Cultu Sanct. cap. 12. as you may see in Alphonsus de Castro and Cardinall Bellarmine were not accounted heretikes for celebrating the Feast of Easter according to the custome of the Iewes contrary to the decree of the Church but for that they thought it necessary to celebrate that Feast according to the custome of the Iewes which is indeede hereticall And therefore that is very vntrue which Mr. Fitzherbert saith that the Quartadecimani were worthily held for heretikes because they did obstinately refuse to obey those decrees but because they refused to obey them vpon an hereticall ground Neither is it hereticall as I haue shewed before out of Canus to impugne or disobey a decree of the Church especially concerning facts and manners which are not necessary to saluation vnlesse it be impugned or disobeyed vpon an hereticall ground But if the decree bee grounded onely vpon an opinion which is exposed to errour and not vpon an infallible point of faith it is not hereticall to impugne that decree and to say that the Church may erre in making that decree Wherefore it is one thing to say that the Church may erre in making such or such a law and decree and another thing to say that the Church doth erre or hath erred in making that law and decree Canus lib. 5. q. 5 conclu 2. albeit Melchior Canus feareth not to say that hee doth not approoue all Church-lawes nor commend all punishments Censures Excommunications Irregularities Interdicts I know saith he that there be some such lawes which if they want nothing else yet doubtlesse they want prudence and discretion For in lawes precepts decrees and facts concerning manners which are not necessary to saluation and which are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith it is not hereticall to hold that Christ hath not promised to the Church any infallible assistance and that therefore she may erre in making such decrees yet I do not deny but that it were temerarious and irreligious for any priuate man to impugne any decree of a generall Councell and to say that the Church did erre in making that decree 25 As also it is no false doctrine much lesse hereticall to affirme that Kings and temporall Common-wealths may erre in making lawes and decrees concerning ciuill gouernment for that Christ hath not promised them his infallible assistance therein yet it were scandalous and seditious for a priuate man to impugne any temporall law established by the Prince and the Common-wealth and to say that they did erre in making that temporall law But as I said before I doe not impugne but onely expound this Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell according to the probable doctrine of very many Doctours who affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath not power to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall Censures But no maruaile that my Aduersary discourseth here so vnlearnedly seeing that hee hath so little insight in these Theologicall questions and I accuse rather his temerity then his ignorance that hee will take vpon him with such confidence to bee a teacher in these difficult questions wherein hee himselfe hath neuer beene a Schollar or scarce vnderstandeth the true state of the question And by this which hath beene said the iudicious
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
none of those Catholikes that hold as Fa. Lessius doth that the Pope cannot erre in his definitions although hee define without a generall Councell can make any doubt but that the aforesaid things should appertaine to faith but seeing that diuers Popes doe suppose the same as a certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences they are thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore they ought to be accounted no lesse certaine This was my second instance and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert in affirming my second example to be my second instance discouereth no lesse his fraude then he doth both his fraude and ignorance in impugning the same 3 Secondly it is also very vntrue that I from this example inferred as this man shamefully affirmeth that the ground of the Canon of the Lateran Councell may also be vncertaine and impugned without note of heresie or sinne seeing that it is euident as you haue seene before that I neither impugned but onely expounded the Canon or rather Act of the Lateran Councell neither did I apply any one of those three examples to the Canon of the Lateran Councell or in any one of my three instances made any mention of the Lateran Councell at all But as Fa. Lessius referred his second argument to the foundations not onely of the Decrees of deposition as he supposeth this decree of the Lateran Councell to be but also of the sentences of generall Councells as in his opinion was that denounced against Frederike the second by Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons so also I referred my second Instance to the foundations of Popes D crees and sentences vpon whom all the infallibility of the Church according to his doctrine doth depend And the same answere which my Aduersaries shall giue to my second instance will forthwith satisfie Fa. Lessius his second argument 4 For all the difficulty thereof as also of his former argument consisteth in this whether euery doctrine which Popes and Councells suppose as a ground and foundation of their Decrees and sentences is alwaies to be accounted a certaine and infallible ground and not subiect to errour or it may sometimes bee onely a probable ground and not alwayes an infallible point of faith and my second Instance doth sufficiently conuince that it is not alwaies a certaine and infallible ground whereby Fa. Lessius his argument is quite ouerthrowne Besides that the ground and foundation onely of those Decrees of Popes or generall Councells can be certaine and infallible which are made by spirituall and not temporall authoritie as I haue said before so that this argument of Fa. Lessius can little concerne the decree or Act of the Lateran Councell touching the deposition not of temporall Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates and Lords seeing that it was made by the consent and authority of temporall Princes to whom onely according to the probable doctrine of very many Doctours the inflicting of temporall punishments as of death exile priuation of goods imprisonment doth belong 3 Now let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert can say against this second example which he would make his Reader belieue to be my second Instance But Widdringtons instance saith he a Pag. 194. nu 2. seq is as little to the purpose as the former for albeit he alleadgeth not here a particular fact but a generall decree of a Pope directed to the whole Church yet he abuseth his Reader in seeking to perswade him that the foundation of that decree was the opinion or particular perswasion of Pope Sixtus Tom. 4. Concil post vitam Sixti 4. §. cum prae exelsa that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne whereas no such thing can be gathered by the decree but onely that his desire was by the concession of Indulgences to stirre vp the people to the deuote celebration of the Feast and thereby to giue thankes and praise to Almighty God for the benefite which all Cristian men haue receiued by her Conception to which end it imported nothing at all how she was conceiued I meane whether she were sanctified in the first instant of her conception as very many doe hold or shortly after as others teach and therefore the decree of Pope Sixtus is obserued as well by those that affirme her to haue beene conceiued in originall sinne as by those that denye it because nothing is ordained in the decree in fauour Ibid. §. Graue nimis or preiudice of either opinion 4 This may appeare as well by a latter Decree of his whereby hee ordained that both the opinions might be held and taught without note of heresie because saith he the question is not determined and decided by the Church as also by the expresse words of this Decree wherein hee signifieth that considering the ineffable dignity and worthinesse of the most blessed Virgin it is conuenient and necessary that all faithfull Christians giue praise and thanks to God for her meruellous conception Note that word meruailous to the end that by her merits and intercession they may be made more capable of Gods grace Thus saith Pope Sixtus in his Decree and then addeth Hac igitur consideratione inducti c. Therefore beeing moued with this consideration we determine and decree c. So he And his determination and Decree was no other but that all such as did with due deuotion assist at the diuine office and seruice appointed for the celebration of that Feast should gaine all those Indulgences which had beene granted before to such as celebrated the Feast of Corpus Christi 5 This then being the whole substance and effect as well of the Decree as of the motiue thereof expressed therein it is euident that Pope Sixtus had no other meaning in all this then to mooue all Christians to the deuout celebration of the feast of the conception of the blessed Virgin no lesse then of her Natiuity and other Feasts without any preiudice to the different opinions that eyther then were or after might be held concerning the manner of her conception in which respect the said Feast is celebrated by all Christians no lesse then her other Feasts which is as much as Pope Sixtus desired and intended whereby it appeareth that his Decree is indifferent to both opinions being obserued by the maintainers of both and that therefore it is not grounded vpon either of both 6 And now to apply this to our purpose whereas Widdrington pretendeth by this Instance to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is as vncertaine as the doctrine that the B. Virgin was conceiued without originall sinne which is impugned by very learned men it is to be considered that there is such disparitie in the cases and such weakenesse in his Instance that hee prooueth nothing at all against vs. For the Decree of Pope Sixtus had so little dependance on the doctrine of her immaculate Conception that he might haue made it
Princes was euer firmely belieued by the Church as an vndoubted point of faith but at the most as a probable opinion no Catholike man can be iustly impeached of heresie errour or temeritie as the aforesaid Conclusion of mine doth plainely conuince for maintaining the contrary doctrine And whether the instances arguments and answeres which I haue brought be weake friuolous or impertinent or Mr. Fitzh replies altogether vaine and fraudulent wherby he clearely discouereth both the weaknesse of his cause and also his manifest fraude and ignorance I remit to the iudgement of any indifferent Reader And thus much concerning his first obseruation 30 The other thing which I wish saith Mr. Fitzherbert l Pag. 204. nu 11. 12. to be noted is how Widdrington giueth sentence against himselfe as hauing incurred the note of errour or heresie in contemning to heare the voyce of the Church firmely beleeuing for if the Church had not firmely beleeued that the Pope hath power to depose Princes shee neither would nor could haue decreed in the Lateran Councell that Princes should bee deposed by the Pope for albeit shee doth and may in particular cases practise some things vpon a probable opinion when there is no Definition or Decree to the contrary yet it were most absurd and temerarious if not hereticall to say that shee euer made a generall Decree in a Councell touching either faith or manners but vpon a most certaine and assured ground and the reason is for that otherwise the Decrees of generall Councells should sometimes bee vncertaine as being grounded onely vpon a probable opinion yea all their Decrees might alwaies with some shew of reason bee impugned and reiected by any contentious heretike who might and would call the Decree in question and say that the same were onely probable as Widdrington doth in this case 31 Therefore seeing it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued by all Catholike Doctours See Bellar. de Concil l. 2. c. 2. 3. 4. Item Can. l. 5. de locis c. 5. Bannes 2ae 2ae q. 1. ar 10. dub 6. concl 2. that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the veritie of the holy Scriptures or may bee impugned or called in question by any Christian man it followeth euidently that all such Decrees are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions for if the grounds thereof were or might bee onely probable they might bee repugnant to the Scriptures and lawfully impugned or denyed by any man Whereupon it followeth that seeing the Lateran Councell hath for the speciall good of the Church decreed that Princes shall be deposed by the Pope in some cases the said Councell and consequently the Church doth firmely and assuredly beleeue and not thinke onely probably that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and therefore I conclude that Widdrington contemning and reiecting this beliefe of the Church is by his owne confession fallen into errour Luc. 19. or heresie so as I may well say to him with our Sauiour in the Gospell Ex ore tuo te iudicio serue nequam 32 But this obseruation of Mr. Fitzherbert is so childish not to say ridiculous that no Schoole-boy would argue in such a childish manner For what man that hath his wits about him would make this conclusion that his Aduersary by his own sentence grant confession is fallen into errour or heresie and to prooue the same bringeth two propositions whereof the one his Aduersary doth indeed very willingly grant but the other which is the maine difficultie betweene them he vtterly denyeth By the same manner of arguing I might also prooue that Mr. Fitzherbert is by his owne sentence grant and confession fallen into errour or heresie For hee graunteth that the Pope hath no other authority to depose Princes then that which was granted to S. Peter and his Successours by those wordes I will giue thee the keyes c. Whatsoeuer thou shalt lose c. Feede my sheepe or such like and that whosoeuer impugneth that which is decreed in the holy Scriptures is fallen into errour or heresie but in those and such like words of the holy Scriptures was onely granted to Saint Peter and his Successours authority to expell men from the Church of Christ not from temporall kingdomes to binde and loose with spirituall not with temporall bindings or loosings to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments therefore Mr. Fitzherbert contemning and reiecting the holy Scriptures is by his owne confession fallen into errour or heresie so as I may wel say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Gospel ex te ore tuo iudico serue nequam Now if I should haue argued in this manner against him he would quickely haue answered that albeit he grant the Maior proposition yet hee denieth the Minor and therefore cannot bee said to grant the conclusion which must bee inferred from the granting of both the premisses and for my goodly argument hee both would and might deseruedly haue giuen mee his vsuall absurd impertinent fond foolish and ridiculous nicknames 33. In this very like manner hee argueth against mee to prooue that by my owne sentence graunt and confession I am fallen into errour or heresie for contemning and reiecting the voyce of the Church in a generall Councell firmely beleeuing For although I graunt the Maior proposition to wit that whosoeuer contemneth to heare the voyce of the Church or of a General Councell firmely beleeuing or decreeing any doctrine as certaine and of faith is fallen into error or heresie yet I euer denyed the other proposition to wit that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did either Decree the deposition of Princes or firmely beleeue the doctrine thereof as certaine and of faith and therefore it cannot be rightly inferred that I graunt the conclusion which must be inferred from both the premisses for as the conclusion doth follow from both the premisses and not from one onely so he cannot be said to grant the conclusion who granteth not both the premisses or propositions but one onely And therefore those words of our Sauiour Exore tuo te iudico serue nequam may fitly be applied to himselfe who by his owne arguing sheweth himselfe to be a very ignorant fraudulent and slanderous man in charging me to bee fallen into errour or heresie by my owne grant and confession which euery Schoole-boy seeth to be most false 34 And as concerning that generall reason which heere hee bringeth why the Councell of Lateran must firmely and assuredly beleeue as certaine and of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to wit because it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued and taught by all Catholike Doctours that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the verity of the holy Scriptures or called in question by any Christian man and
that therefore all such Decrees are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions c. Besides that this reason supposeth which I euer denyed that in the Lateran Councell was decreed the deposition of temporall Princes which is the maine question betwixt vs it needeth also some further explication For if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that no Decree of a generall Councell made for the whole Church touching manners or things commanded or forbidden to be done whether it bee made by meere Ecclesiasticall power or by that temporall authority which spirituall Pastours haue receiued from the expresse and formall graunt and priuiledges or the vertuall and tacite consent or conniuence of temporall Princes may bee impugned or called in question by any Christian man without some note or aspersion of temeritie and impietie of this I will not contend with him for this also may bee said of meere temporall lawes which are made by the Princes Peeres and Commons of temporall kingdomes for the temporall good thereof which cannot bee impugned or called in question by any priuate man without some note of temeritie and impietie 35 But if his meaning be that all Catholike Doctours doe vniformly beleeue and teach that no Decree of a generall Councell made for the whole Church touching manners which are not otherwise necessary to saluation may not bee impugned or called in question without note of heresie this is very vntrue and therein he sheweth either to be little conuersant in the reading of Catholike Doctors or not to haue well obserued what they teach For as I shewed aboue learned Canus dare not resolue whether it be hereticall to affirme that some custome or law of the Church is euill or vniust and he plainly affirmeth that it is not hereticall to hold that the Church may erre in the canonizing of Saints and the grounds of such Decrees may be vncertaine S. Tho. quod 9. ar vlt. S. Antonin 3. part tit 12. c. 8. Caiet tom 1. Opusc trac 15. de Indulg c. 8. and fallible Whereupon Saint Thomas Saint Antoninus and Cardinall Caietane doe onely say that it is piously to be beleeued that the Church cannot erre in the canonizing of them And besides that Salmeron Suarez and Vasquez as I shewed aboue doe constantly hold that the ground and foundation of Pope Sixtus his Decree touching the celebration of the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception Chap. 15. nu 8 9. seq Suarez disp 21 sec 2. was not certaine but onely probable Suarez also affirmeth that it is not a point of faith that the B. Virgin is corporally assumpted into heauen although the Church doth celebrate the Feast of her Assumption and the reason heereof he giueth for that it is not as yet defined by the Church neither is there any testimony of Scripture or sufficient tradition which may make the beliefe therof infallible See S. August tom 10. ser 34. 35. de Sāctis 36 Whereupon S. Augustine in the booke of the B. Virgins Assumption and serm 35. de Sanctis if he be the Authour of them doth seeme to leaue it as doubtfull although he doth not deny but that it may piously be beleeued Caiet in opusc de Concept tō 2. opusc trac 1. c. 1 Sotus in 4. d. 43. q. 2. ar 1. Abul in c. 22. Matth. q. 230. And Cardinal Caietane and Sotus say onely that it is a very pious opinion and Abulensis saith that it is onely the more probable opinion And as concerning the Resurrection of the Virgin saith he It is not necessary to hold the same because it is not among the articles of our faith neither is there any thing defined by the Church that it ought to be held therefore it is lawfull for euery one to thinke as he will And the reasons which are brought to prooue her Resurrection are certaine perswasions and doe not conuince and yet because it is commonly held that she is risen it is more reasonable to hold the same but if any man doe affirme the contrary wee doe not repugne Thus Abulensis And heereof I thought good to admonish the iudicious Reader that heereby hee may most cleerely perceiue both the ignorance of Mr. Fitzherbert who so boldly affirmeth that all Ecclesiasticall Decrees which are made for the whole Church touching manners are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions and also that we ought not to condemne so easily any doctrine of heresie or errour vnlesse wee see the contrary by some cleere definition of the Church or some euident and vndoubted consequence deduced from thence to be determined as a point of faith neither is it sufficient in this case to bring onely probable arguments or which in our owne iudgement seeme to demonstrate out of the holy Scriptures ancient Fathers Decrees of Councels or Theologicall reasons which in the opinion of other learned Catholikes doe not conuince it to be a point of faith 37 Now you shall see what Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth touching his Reply to all the answeres I gaue especially to the Decree of the Lateran Councell And now hauing confuted saith hee l Pag. 205. nu 13. seq all that which I find in the Preface of his Apologeticall answere concerning the Councell of Lateran I will returne to examine the rest of his text in his Admonition from the which I haue beene a while diuerted by his remission of his Reader to the said Preface Thus thou Widdrington concludeth in his Admonition concerning as well the Councell of Lateran as my whole Discourse Priusquam igitur aliquis clare demonstrauerit c. Therefore before some one shall cleerely demonstrate I doe not say shall onely shew probably that the answeres which I haue giuen to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable no effectuall argument can be deduced from that Councell whereby it may certainly and euidently be prooued that it is so certaine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes that the contrary may not be defended by Catholikes without the note of heresie errour or temeritie And this for the present may suffice to confute this Authours more prolixe then solide discourse for I will perhaps in another place more exactly examine of what small force or moment are euery one of his arguments Thus saith Widdrington for the vpshot of his answeres to me wherein we may obserue these points following 38 First whereas he exacteth as you see some cleere demonstrations that his answeres to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable I hope he or at least the indifferent Reader may rest satisfied therein seeing that I haue made it cleere that his answeres to the said Councell are not onely improbable but also friuolous and sometimes ridiculous as being wholly impertinent to the matter or else preiudiciall to himselfe Secondly whereas he saith that no effectuall argument can be deduced from that Councell against him vntill it be demonstrated that his answeres thereto are improbable I may now
Fitzherbert turneth and windeth in such a running and fraudulent manner that his Reader cannot well perceiue of what imputation he meanes when he saith that if the second Breue be not sufficient to cleare his Holines of this imputation yet his third Breue must needs be aboundantly sufficient to doe it For that which I said onely is that his Holinesse by all likelihoode was not truely informed by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines of the true sense and meaning of some clauses of the Oath against which you haue seene with what fraude and falsitie my ignorant Aduersarie hath wrangled and iangled as though I had taxed his Holinesse for publishing his first Breue before he had seene or maturely weighed and pondered the Oath it selfe and all the clauses thereof and without graue and long deliberation had concerning all things contained in his Breue which how vntrue this imputation is wherewith hee chargeth me I haue alreadie shewed Now this silly man laboureth to prooue as also he insinuated before that because his Holinesse did maturely weigh and ponder the Oath and euery clause thereof before he sent hither his first Breue and did sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessarie to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence as well concerning the forbidding of the Oath by his first Breue as also concerning the punishing of such Priests that should take or defend the Oath to be lawfull by his third Breue sent hither two yeeres after which he could not saith my Aduersarie lawfully doe without due consideration and diligent discussion of the whole controuersie and sufficient information of all the circumstances thereof therefore his Holinesse neither was nor could all this time which was more then two yeeres be ignorant of the nature and qualitie of the Oath and that therefore he could not be ignorant but certainely knew that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation as he had declared by his first Breue 32 But to omit now those words sufficient information c. and that his Holinesse did sufficiently informe himselfe c. which my Aduersarie heere diuers times repeateth which because they are equiuocall and may haue a double sense I will declare beneath it is very vntrue and contrary to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and of all other learned Diuines to say that certaine and infallible knowledge of truth is in the Pope necessarily annexed to his long graue mature and diligent consideration and discussion of any doctrine or matter vnlesse the doctrine and matter be of such a nature and the discussion thereof be done with such circumstances and in such a manner as Christ hath promised him his infallible assistance which euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Christ hath not promised him in such decrees or definitions which are not directed and doe not appertaine to the whole Church as are these his Breues forbidding the Oath whereof the two first are onely directed to English Catholikes and the third onely to Mr. Birket then Arch-Priest For in customes lawes or decrees which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate persons or Churches not onely the Pope but also the Church may erre and be deceiued through ignorance I say saith Canus not onely in her iudgement of facts Canus lib. 5. q. 5. conel 3. or things done as whether such a one committed such a sinne hath lost his faculties ought to be censured and such like but also in her priuate precepts and lawes themselues and the true and proper reason hereof he bringeth from the authority of Pope Innocent the third which I related also aboue q Chap. 13. nu 11. for that albeit the iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued yet the iudgement of the Church is now and then led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue and is deceiued c. 33 Whereupon the Reader may most cleerely perceiue how vnlearnedly my ignorant Aduersarie doth inferre that because his Holinesse had a long graue and mature deliberation and consultation concerning the true sense of the Oath and of euery clause thereof and did send hither his third Breue for punishing those Priests that should take or defend the same therefore he could not be ignorant of the true sense of euery clause thereof but must certainly and infallibly know that many things are therein contained flat contrary to faith and saluation as he by his first Breue had declared as though his sentence and iudgement in Decrees which are directed onely to priuate persons or Churches should be alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither can deceiue nor be deceiued and that he cannot erre through ignorance or be led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue is deceiued in his priuate lawes decrees which are not common to the whole Church but doe belong to priuate men Bishops or Churches and that therefore those Priests whom he bindeth or punisheth by his Censure and sentence may not be free before God and those other Priests whom he doth not Censure may not deserue punishment in the sight of God according to that which Pope Innocent in the end of his aforesaid reason did affirme 34 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert often repeateth that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained in his first Breue among which the principall was that many things are contained in the Oath which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation was sufficiently informed of the whole matter are very equiuocall and may haue a double sense For first these words may signifie that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation was sufficiently informed to excuse him from sinne for doing what hee did and for sending hither his Breues to forbid the Oath and to punish those Priests that should take the Oath or teach it to be lawfull and with this point for that it little importeth our present question whether the Oath not onely in the Popes opinion and conscience but also really truely and certainely containeth in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation or no and for that it is a thing secret and vnknowne to me I will not inter meddle but leaue it to the conscience of his Holinesse and to the iudgement of God who searcheth the hearts and reines of men Yet this I dare boldly say that in my iudgement his Holinesse might haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter if hee had consulted this question concerning the certainty of his authority to depose Princes and whether his spirituall Supremacie or any other doctrine of faith or manners necessarie to saluation is denyed in the Oath not onely with his owne Diuines who are knowne to maintaine with such violence both his authority in temporals ouer temporall Princes which is the principall marke at which the Oath doth aime and his spirituall authority
ouer the whole Church or a Generall Councell but also with the Diuines of Fraunce who are not so vehement for either of them and with the learned Priests and Catholikes of England whom it did most concerne and I am fully perswaded or rather morally certaine that both the Cardinall Peron and many other learned Catholikes both of France and England would at that time plainely haue told his Holinesse and giuen him sufficient reasons for their saying that neither the doctrine for his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith or the contrary improbable nor that his power to excommunicate or any other spirituall authority of his which is certaine and of faith is denied in the oath 35 And this also of my owne knowledge is very true as I haue signified heeretofore r In the Epistle dedicatory nu 6. to his Holinesse that a certaine Priest not of meaner sort did presently vpon the resolution of Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest and of diuers other learned Priests and Catholikes that the Oath might lawfully be taken with all the speed he might write to Mr. Nicolas Fitzherbert being then at Rome and sincerely related vnto him how all things heere had past concerning the conference and resolution of learned Priests end Catholikes about the Oath earnestly requesting him that either by himselfe or by meanes of a certaine Cardinal whom he nam'd to him he would deale effectually with his Holinesse not to bee perswaded to send hither any Breue against the taking of the Oath things standing as they did for that otherwise his authority as well temporall to depose Princes as spirituall to define without a generall Councell would be more strongly called in question by English Catholikes then it hath beene in former times Now if his Holinesse had deferred for a time the sending hither of his first Breue and in the meane space had demaunded the opinion of English Catholikes whom most of all it concerned in this difficult controuersie about the lawfulnesse of the Oath he might doubtlesse haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter then he was or could be informed by his owne Diuines of Rome whom besides that they had not taken such paines in canuassing this question touching the certaintie of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes as many of our English Catholikes had he might haue some cause to suspect that they would speake partially in fauour of his authority either for hope of promotion as being men feruent to aduance all his pretended authoritie or for feare of incurring his displeasure and to bee accounted Aduersaries to the Sea Apostolicall as the euent alas hath prooued to bee ouer true 37 Or secondly the sense and meaning of those wordes may bee that his Holinesse by that long graue and mature deliberation and consultation was sufficiently that is truely and certainely informed of the whole matter and of the true sense and meaning of all the clauses of the Oath and this I say is very vntrue as likewise it is very vntrue that Cardinall Bellarmine notwithstanding all his graue mature and long deliberation and consultation had concerning this controuersie for betwixt this consultation of his Holinesse at which Cardinall Bellarmine was one of the chiefest and the publishing of his second booke against his Maiestie there passed almost foure whole yeeres and the consultation of his Holinesse could continue but few moneths seeing that the Oath was published heere about Iune and his Holinesse first Breue was dated the first of October next following hee was greatly mistaken and deceiued both in the vnderstanding of those wordes of the Oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. and of diuers other clauses thereof as I haue sufficiently conuinced in my Theologicall Disputation and Mr. Fitzherbert by his silence and not replying to this point being vrged by me thereunto doeth in effect acknowledge as much and also in his opinion touching the certaintie and infallibilitie of the doctrine for the Popes power to depose temporall Princes which without any sufficient ground euen according to his owne principles hee will needes haue to bee a point of faith 38 And heereby you may see how falsly and slaunderously and with small respect to his Holinesse whom Mr. Fitzherbert would seeme so much to reuerence hee concludeth in these words Å¿ P. 214. nu 5. Disp Theol. c. 10. s 2. nu 46. Therefore he that thinketh otherwise of his Holinesse as Widdrington doth affirming that his Breues were grounded vpon light foundations and false informations must needes hold him to be the most carelesse and negligent Pastour that euer gouerned the Church of God whereby any man may iudge what account Widdrington maketh of his Holinesse and his authoritie notwithstanding his submission of his writings to the Catholike Roman Church 39 But first it is very vntrue that from my wordes any such inference can bee gathered as Mr. Fitzherbert heere maketh I gaue indeede as you haue seene two answeres to his Holinesse Breues which are briefly comprised in those few words light foundations and false informations My first and principall answere which this fraudulent man altogeth concealeth was this that if his Holinesse Breue forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation was grounded vpon the Popes power to depose Princes to dispose of temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance as all my Aduersaries grant it was chiefly grounded thereon then I say it was not grounded vpon any certaine doctrine infallible and of faith but vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which were alwayes impugned by learned Catholikes which vncertaine and fallible grounds I called light for that they are not sufficient and weightie enough let them be neuer so probable to build thereon any certaine and infallible doctrine of faith and which euery Catholike vnlesse hee will deny his faith is bound to follow My second answere which this man doth also in great part conceale for that I did particularly set downe wherein his Holinesse was misinformed which he wholly dissembleth was that if his Holinesse Breue was grounded as by all likelihood it was vpon this foundation that his power to excommunicate his power to bind and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie which according to the common doctrine of Catholikes is indeede cleerely repugnant to faith is denyed and impugned in the Oath then I say that his Breues were grounded vpon false informations for that there is no such thing denyed in the Oath as I haue euidently conuinced howsoeuer Cardinall Bellarmine hath laboured to prooue the contrarie And neither of these answeres can bee sufficiently confuted by any of my Aduersaries neither are they repugnant to the submission of my writings to the Catholike Roman Church 40 So as you see that I made not that irreuerent inference which Mr. Fitzherbert heere concludeth I
held with Catholike faith was truely a generall Councell therefore vnto this day it remaineth a question euen among Catholikes And all the world seeth that the Diuines of Paris are admitted to Sacraments which ought not to bee tolerated if they committed any heresie errour or temerity for defending this doctrine as publike harlots are in some sort permitted at Rome but not suffered to receiue Sacraments so long as they persist in that wicked life 81 And from hence it euidently followeth first that it is not certaine and infallible that the Pope with his Cardinalls and Diuines yea and with the particular Romane Church defining determining or propounding to the whole Church any thing to be beleeued formally as of faith without a generall Councell cannot erre and be deceiued and consequently such definitions cannot be certaine and infallible nor can be an assured ground of Catholike faith nor a sufficient reason motiue medium or cause to beleeue any thing by him so defined with Catholike faith for that the fundamentall reason medium cause and motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine and infallible as I shewed before out of Bannes from whom other Diuines doe not dissent herein and if that reason be vncertaine doubtfull or fallible the faith or beliefe which is grounded and dependeth thereon cannot be truely Catholike and infallible 82 Secondly if the Popes decrees and definitions in things to be beleeued as of faith albeit directed to the whole Church and in things which doe not concerne his owne particular interest honour authority or prerogatiue and wherein therefore there can be no suspicion that he himselfe is led by affection or his Counsellers and Diuines by flattery to the making of such Decrees are not certaine and infallible but may be false and exposed to errour and consequently can be no sure ground of Catholike faith what iudgement can any sensible man make of such decrees or definitions which are neither directed to the whole Church but to particular persons or Churches nor are propounded as of faith nor grounded vpon any doctrine which is certaine and out of controuersie but onely vpon a question maintained on both sides by learned Catholikes and which also concerneth the Popes owne interest authority and prerogatiue as are his Breues directed to English Catholikes which are neither propounded to the whole Church nor containe any definition as of faith but onely a declaratiue precept which is grounded vpon a controuersie which began in Pope Gregory the seuenth his time and hath since continued betwixt the Bishops of Rome and Christian Princes concerning the authority which Popes pretend to haue ouer all their temporalls 83 Thirdly if the Popes Decrees together with the Romane Church by which he declareth and defineth any doctrine to be of faith or against faith may be fallible and exposed to errour and consequently can be no certaine rule or ground of Catholike faith nor any sufficient reason cause or motiue to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith so long as this controuersie among Catholikes concerning the Popes infallibility in his definitions remaineth vndecided much lesse can a Decree of any Congregation of Cardinalls declaring any doctrine to be of faith or condemning any doctrine as hereticall erroneous temerarious or scandalous be an assured ground of Catholike faith or a sufficient reason for any man to beleeue with Catholike faith that doctrine to be such as their Decrees doe declare or condâ—mne Which being so what iudgement I pray you can any reasonable man make of such their Decrees which condemne no doctrine at all either in generall or particular but onely forbid certaine bookes to be read or kept without declaring for what cause or crime either in particular or in generall they are forbidden and such bookes also as are written against one of the chiefest of their Congregation of which sort is that Decree of the Cardinalls wherein two bookes of mine written chiefly against Cardinall Bellarmine are forbidden without expressing any cause or crime at all either in particular or generall why they are forbidden 84 Fourthly by all this it is euident what infinite wrong this my ignorant Aduersary whether onely through blinde and inconsiderate zeale or also through some passionate splene taken against me for contradicting his writings and some others of his Societie I leaue to God his own conscience to iudge hath both done to me in so falsly and yet vpon such childish grounds accusing me to be no Catholike but an hereticke disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike for not admitting the Popes Breues and declaratiue precept grounded at the most vpon an opinion which learned Catholikes haue euer impugned and taxing my doctrine of heresie for that my bookes are forbidden by the Cardinalls of the Inquisition without condemning any position contained in them of any crime either in particular or generall and also into what eminent danger he both casteth himselfe headlong and seeketh also to draw after him vnlearned Catholikes if they will follow such a blinde guide in waies which he himselfe for want of Scholasticall learning hath neuer gone by endeauouring to ouerthrow their Catholike faith and to perswade them to build it vpon fallible grounds as vpon Popes Breues which neither are directed to the whole Church nor doe containe any definition or declaration of any particular doctrine and vpon the Decrees of certaine Cardinalls condemning bookes onely in generall tearmes which perchance some of them neuer read nor for want of sufficient learning doe well vnderstand but doe relie either vpon the relation or iudgement of other men to whom the charge of ouerseeing such bookes is committed by them whereas the grounds of true Catholike faith and the fundamentall reason why a man ought to beleeue any thing with Catholike faith must be certaine infallible and without all controuersie And thus you see in what a labyrinth this silly man hath wound himselfe who seeking to perswade his Reader that I am no true Catholike but a disguised and masked hereticke vnder the name of a Catholike for not building my Catholike faith vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are controuersed among learned Catholikes plainly bewraieth what a sound Catholike he himselfe is and vpon what sure grounds he buildeth his Catholike faith and would haue other Catholikes to build the same whereas according to the approoued doctrine of all learned Catholikes vnlesse it be built vpon certaine vndoubted and infallible grounds it cannot be a true Catholike faith but onely an vncertaine and fallible opinion masked vnder the vizard of Catholike faith 85 Lastly that vnlearned Catholikes may walke warily securely and without danger and bee not misled blindfold by this my ignorant Aduersary they must carefully obserue the difference betwixt the Church firmely beleeuing and probably thinking or which is all one betwixt Catholike faith and opinion The first difference is that the grounds of Catholike faith must bee certaine and infallible but the grounds of
whole to the censure of the Catholike Romane Church in that manner as bookes are vsually printed by Catholikes And if S. Ambrose or any other of the ancient Fathers were now aliue and should see bookes of certaine Catholikes directly impugning the Soueraigne power and authority of Kings and absolute that Princes whom they did so highly honor and reuerence affirming them to be inferiour in temporals to none but God alone vnder pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike and subiecting them to the coerciue temporall power of spirituall Pastours whereas their generall doctrine was that with temporall punishments they are not to be punished but by God alone and broaching by violence and without sufficient ground with scandall to Catholike Religion and contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles and the whole primitiue Church new articles of faith in preiudice of temporall authority and not permitting any man eyther to call their new faith in question or for his better instruction or discussion of the controuersie to propound any difficulty against the same with a desire to be satisfied therein albeit he submit himselfe and all his writings to the censure of the Catholike Roman Church but with open mouth crying out against him and calling him an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike what would S. Ambrose trow you or any other of the ancient Fathers if they were now aliue say of such Catholikes Truly that nothing can be more dangerous then such Catholikes who vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike religion and to the Sea Apostolike inuent new articles of faith in preiudice of Christian Princes by wresting many places of the holy Scriptures as Quodcunque solueris Pasce oues meas Secularia iudicia si habueritis c. to a sense not dreamed of by the ancient Fathers by reason of their potency in the Court of Rome and their fauour with his Holinesse whose authority they pretend to aduance vniustly persecuting those that discouer their manifest frauds and falshoods 122 Lastly that which Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth heere against me migh Bartholus Carerius and other Canonists obiecteth against Cardinall Bellarmines booke directly impugning the authority of the Sea Apostolike vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church But the plaine truth is that neyther of vs both doe impugne that authority whiCh is certainely knowne and acknowledged by all Catholikes to belong to the Sea Apostolike but as hee impugneth the direct power of the Pope to dispose of temporalls for that there is no sufficient ground to proue the same albeit some Popes haue challenged the same as due to them and some Canonists affirme that it is hereticall to deny the same so I impugne the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine who holdeth that it is certaine and a point of faith that the Pope hath at least wise an indirect power to dispose of all temporals and consequently to depose temporall Princes in order to spirituall good for that there is no sufficient ground to confirme the same 123 And the like argument might Mr. Fitzherbert vrge against all those learned Catholikes who constantly deny the Pope to haue authority to dispence in any true and lawfull marriage which is not consummated notwithstanding so many practises of Popes to the contrary impugning directly the Sea Apostolike and the whole course of Ecclesiasticall gouernment vnder a solemne protestation and profession of obedience to the Church For Saint Antoninus doth of affirme Antonin 3. part tit 1. cap. 21. § 3. Caiet tom 1. opusc trac 28. de Matrim q. vnica Nauar. in Manual cap. 22. nu 21. Henriq lib. 11. de matrim cap. 8. nu 11. in Com. lit F. Sot in 4. dist 27. q. 1. ar 4. that hee saw the Bulles of Pope Martin the fifth and Pope Eugenius the fourth who dispenced therein and Card. Caietane relateth that in his time Popes did oftentimes dispence therein and Nauar affirmeth that Pope Paulus the third and Pope Pius the fourth did dispence therein three or foure times by his Counsell and aduise And Henriquez the Iesuite saith that Pope Gregorie the thirteenth did in one day dispence therein with eleuen persons Whereupon Dominicus Sotus although he submitteth himselfe and all his writings to the Censure of the Church is not afraide notwithstanding this often practise of Popes which my ignorant Aduersarie calleth the practise of the Church to say that those Popes erred therein following the Canonists opinion which he affirmeth to haue in it no shew of probabilitie And why then may it not be said in like manner that his Holinesse condemning the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation followed Cardinall Bellarmines opinion and other Diuines of Rome who hold that the Popes power to excommunicate and inflict Censures is denied in the Oath and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes which is denied in the Oath is certaine and of faith which their doctrine in my opinion hath in it no shew of probabilitie at all euen according to those rules which Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe requireth to make any doctrine of Pope or generall Councell to be of faith Whereby is plainely discouered the manifest fraude and ignorance of my vncharitable Aduersarie in affirming my doctrine to be hereticall and my selfe to be an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholik for denying the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be of faith whereas euen according to the rules which Cardinall Bellarmine requireth to make a matter of faith he cannot bring any one argument Which hath so much as a shew of probabilitie to conuince the same 124 Marke now the fraudulent Admonition which Mr. Fitzherbert giueth to his Catholike Reader vnder pretence forsooth of sinceritie and the feruent zeale he hath of his soules health And therefore I hope saith he e Pag. 223. nu 22. thou wilt be wary good Catholike Reader and diligent to discouer Widdringtons fraude thereby to auoide the danger of his poysoned pen pondering all this matter in the iust ballance of prudence that is to say that thou wilt counterpoise his vaine pretence of probabilitie not onely with the graue and sacred authoritie of the Churches practise for many ages but also with the Canons of generall and Prouinciall Councells with the Decrees of Popes and with cleere doctrine of so many famous and learned Writers as hee impugneth Also that thou wilt weigh his presumption in defending and iustifying the Oath with the iudgement authority of thy supreame Pastour who condemneth and forbiddeth it the pretended force and soliditie of his doctrine and arguments with the ridiculous absurdities which thou hast euidently seene in his answeres to mee outward shewes of affection to thee and desire of thy good with the inward intelligence he hath with Gods enemies and thine who employ him to deceiue thee seruing themselues of him as Fowlers doe of birds which they keepe in
corrected to purge what is to be purged to explains what is to be explained and to retract what is to be retracted Whereby it will euidently appeare that I still remaine an obedient childe of the Church and a true Catholike and that my submission to the Catholike Romane Church was sincere vnfaigned and did not proceed from the least dissimulation at all and that from the aforesaid Decree no colourable argument can be drawne to prooue me to be no Catholike and childe of the Church and to condemne or disprooue but to iustifie and to approoue as well the Oath as the doctrine which I haue taught in my Bookes 137 This therefore is the Copie of my Purgation and humble Supplication to his Holinesse which for satisfaction of some Catholikes who perchance haue not seene it and also for some other respects I thinke it not amisse to set downe here againe To the most Holy and most blessed Father Pope Paul the fift Roger Widdrington an English Catholike wisheth euerlasting happinesse 1_THere came vnto my hands some few daies since most blessed Father a certaine Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the right Honourable Cardinals of the Holy Romane Church who are deputed for the examining of Bookes dated the 16. day of March of this present yeare 1614. and printed in Rome by the Printer of the Apostolicall Chamber wherein two Bookes written by me sincerity nnd simplicity of heart are by name but yet onely in generall words without naming any crime either in particular or in generall at which many doe maruaile altogether condemned and forbidden by the commandement of your Holinesse And the Authour of them vnlesse he shall forth with purge himselfe is threatned to bee punished with Censures and other Ecclesiasticall punishments 2 But what manner of purging your Holinesse doth expect at my hands who am the Authour of those Bookes and of what crime I ought to purge my selfe seeing that in this Decree there is no crime either in particular or in generall obiected against me of which I should purge my selfe neither is my conscience priuie to any crime for the making or publishing of those Bookes I cannot verily in any wise perceiue I know that certaine Doctours misinterpreting my words haue in their publike writingsfalsly and very iniuriously and not to speake a more heinous word I pray God to forgiue them impeached mee of certaine crimes by whose instigation I know not whether your Holinesse hath beene mooued to condemne those Bookes but considering that both they are my Aduersaries in this controuersie and that they are mooued in my opinion rather by affection then by solide reason and also that they doe fouly corrupt my words and wrest them to a bad sense and neuer meant by mee as I could most clearely demonstrate a a This I haue since demonstrated to his Holinesse in the discouery of D. Schulckenius or rather Card. Bellarmines slanders to your Holinesse if it were now a conuenient time I doe not thinke that so great authority is to bee giuen either to their sayings or writings of what learning or dignity soeuer otherwise they bee that they are of force to binde me either to embrace their opinions especially being grounded vpon so weake foundations or not to defend my innocency from their false accusations in such an exceeding great crime as heresie is 3 And that your Holinesse may cleerely perceiue that I haue alreadie in these bookes which are forbidden by your commandement purged my selfe as much as is sufficient for a childe of the Catholike Church I thinke it necessary to repeate againe with as much breuity as may be in what manner I haue in those bookes made profession of the Catholike faith which in my opinion aboundantly sufficeth for the purging of my selfe from all imputation of heresie errour or any other crime which doth depend on these and for what thing I made Supplication to your Holinesse in that Disputation of the Oath of Allegiance that thereby your Holinesse may manifestly perceiue that some persons not of the meanest degree although perchance with the ignorant sort of people they doe greatly impaire my credit yet they doe also bring your Holinesse into no small obloquy both among prudent Cacholikes and especially among those who are Aduersaries to the Catholike faith whiles they are not afraide to divulge not so circumspectly in my iudgement as is fitting that your Holinesse did in good earnest auouch that you thought the Authour of that Disputation to be neither a Catholike nor a childe of the Church whereas the Authour doth professe himselfe both to be a Catholike a childe of the Catholike Romane Church and also submitteth most humbly that Disputation and all his other writings to the iudgement of the Holy Catholike Romane Church neither that you would accept of the Dedication of that booke whereas that Dedication as it is manifest by the Authors Epistle to your Holinesse was onely a most humble Supplication of the Author and of other Catholikes to your Holinesse that your Holinesse as being the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church and whose office is to instruct and confirme the sheepe of Christ in the Catholike faith would be pleased to instruct them in the Catholike faith and in those things which your Holinesse had declared by your Breues to be in the Oath cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation And that your Holinesse did speake the aforesaid words both of the Author and also of the Dedication some heere giue foorth that your Holinesse his Nuncius then residing at Bruxells did signifie as much to M. George Birket the Arch-Priest who was then liuing and that the same Nuncius did withall affirme that he was certified thereof some few daies since for so are the expresse words of the Nuncius his letters b b These letters were dated at Bruxels 2. Novemb 1613. are to be seene aboue nu 134. which are carried about among us by letters of the Congregation of the holy Romane Inquisition by the commandement of your Holinesse to the end that hee first of all should write thereof to his Reuerence that hee according to his wisedome should signifie as much and make it knwone to Catholikes 4 First therefore I the Author of those bookes did protest that I composed them being mooued thereunto for the zeale of God of Religion and of my Countrey and for more particular reasons which I related in the beginning of those bookes without any respect of worldly fauour or feare neither with any obstinate minde but onely to finde out the Catholike truth in this most weighty Controuersie which belongeth to the yeelding of obedience due by the law of Christ to God and Casar to your Holinesse who is the supreme Pastour in earth of our soules and to our King his most excellent Maiesty In Apol. ad Lect. in fine who in temporalls is inferiour onely to God and I did submit most humbly whatsoeuer was contained in them to the iudgement
and censure of the Catholike Romane Church whose child I professed my selfe to bee and that if perchance any thing through ignorance had escaped mee In Disp Theo. in fine which should not bee approoued by her I did disprooue it condemne it and would haue it for not written In Disp c. 6. sec 3. nu 18. seq 5 Besides I did professe that with all due honour and respect I did reuerence all the Canons of the Catholike Church although I did freely confesse that betwixt the Catholike Church and the Pope who is onely the first and principall member thereof betwixt some Chapters or Decrees of the Canon-Law and betwixt others a great difference is to be made and neuerthelesse I sincerely affirmed that to euery one in his degree and place I gaue dutifull but not equall credit the vast Corps of the Canon-Law and in the volumes of the Councells are contained either sayings or assertions of the ancient Fathers or Decrees or sentences of Popes or Councells and these are either doctrinall and propounded as things to bee belieued by the faithfull or else morall and which in the externall discipline of the Church are commanded to be obserued 6 And first I did acknowledge that the doctrine which the Ancient Fathers either in expounding the holy Scriptures or in questions belonging to faith haue with vniforme consent deliuered I did also vndoubtedly beleeue as being certainly perswaded that it was inspired by the Holy Ghost 7 Secondly I also with Melchior Canus and other Diuines affirmed that the doctrine also of all the holy Fathers in things which doe appertaine to faith may plously and probably bee beleeued by Catholikes yet that it ought not of necessitie to be followed as certaine and infallible 8 Thirdly I did professe that the definitions of Generall Councells lawfully assembled and confirmed by the Pope wherein any doctrine is propounded to the whole Church to be beleeued of all men as of Faith are to be receiued by Catholikes as infallible rules of Faith Neuerthelesse I did freely affirme with the aforesaid Melchior Canus and Cardinall Bellarmine that those the said Councells are defined or else supposed onely as probable and those assertions which either incidently and by the way are inserted or for better declaration or proofe of their decisions be produced are sometimes subiect to errour and may by Catholikes without any wrong to the Catholike faith be reiected This withall obseruing of which also in other places I haue admonished the Reader that although I professing my selfe to be a childe of the Catholike Romane Church doe most willingly imbrace whatsoeuer Generall Councells confirmed by the Pope which represent the Catholike Church doe propound to the faithfull as necessarily to be beleeued of faith and which certainely and euidently is knowne to be the true sense and meaning of the Councells Neuerthelesse I doe not vndoubtedly beleeue euery doctrine which either Cardinall Bellarmine speaking with due reuerence or any other Doctour seeing that they are not appointed by God to be an vndoubted rule of the Catholike Faith doe cry out to be Catholike doctrine to be the voice of the Catholike Church to be the meaning of the Scriptures and Councells if especially some Catholike Doctours doe hold the contrary Them truely as it is meete I doe reuerence with all dutifull respect and I doe much attribute to their authoritie but that all those collections which they in their iudgements doe imagine to be euidently concluded from the holy Scriptures or Councells considering that oftentimes they are deceiued and doe deceiue For Card. Bellarmine himselfe in his old age hath recalled many things which he wrote when he was yonger and perchance he now growing elder will recall more and what they haue written when they were yonger they may recall when they grow elder are to be accounted for vndoubted assertions of faith and the contrary opinion of other Catholikes to be rather esteemed an heresie then an opinion this truely I cannot take in good part 9 Fourthly concerning the Canons or Decrees of Generall Councells belonging to manners and to the externall gouernment of the Church I promised to be most ready to receiue willingly all those Decrees which in places where I shall liue shall be generally receiued for these are properly called the Decrees or Canons of the Catholike or vniuersall Church which are by common consent admitted by the Vniuersall Church Neither doubtlesse is any man bound to admit those Lawes and precepts which in the Countrey where he liueth are not obserued by the people as according to the receiued opinion of Diuines and Lawyers I there affirmed And the same I there auouchâ—d is to be vnderstood proportionally of the Decrees of Popes and Prouinciall Councells For as concerning the Popes definitions belonging to faith if he define without a Generall Councell I confesse that I haue oftentimes auerred that very many especially ancient Diuines of the Vniuersitie of Paris whose names I there c c Cap. 10. sec 2. nu 27. related are of opinion that such Definitions vnlesse they be receiued by the Catholike Church as Definitions of Catholike Faith are subiect to errour whose opinion both for the authoritie of so famous men and also for the reasons and grounds whereon that opinion is founded I with many later Diuines to whose opinion also Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe d d Lib. de Concil cap. 13. doth plainely enough incline howsoeuer he would seeme also e e Lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. li. 2. de concil cap. 17. to auerre the contrary haue also oftentimes affirmed that it is not to be condemned of heresie errour or temeritie which also now againe speaking with all dutifull submission I feare not to confirme 10 Lastly concerning my Disputation of the Oath and the Dedication thereof which seemeth to be that stone of offence and rocke of scandall to some Diuines especially of the Society of Iesus and to those Catholikes who adhere to them I cannot to speake vnfaignedly in any wise vnderstand what can iustly be obiected against it or what fault I haue committed either in making it or else in dedicating it to your Holinesse of which I should purge my selfe For first of all I the Authour of that Disputation and Dedication haue therein professed that I did not write it with any obstinate mind but in manner of an humbly petition sincerely and for many reasons which I there related to informe your Holinesse more fully who as heere we thinke hath not beene rightly informed of the reasons for which English Catholikes are of opinion that the Oath may lawfully be taken and for this cause I did dedicate it to your Holinesse that after you had carefully examined all the reasons for which English Catholikes doe thinke the Oath may lawfully be taken your Holinesse might prouide both for their spirituall and temporall safety as according to your fatherly wisedome and charitie should be thought most conuenient And
oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is helde both by himselfe and other Protestants to be no way subiect to the Pope yea and to be himselfe supreme head of the Church of God in England and also by the first of these two reasons which he bringeth heere in his Reply why he suppoposed that the oath implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacy 29 And as for my supposition saith he Å¿ Nu. 10. that the Oath implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacy he should haue said of the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince for this was his supposition as I cleerely shewed before Thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that I was mooued thereto by two reasons which are manifest enough in the very place which Widdrington citeth The one was because it is euident that the faith and beliefe of all English Protestants is that the Kings Maiestie is no way subiect to the Pope but that hee is himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England Whereupon it may with great reason bee inferred that the deniall of the Popes power to depose his Maiestie which is expresly contained in the oath is supposed and implied therein as a necessary consequent of their beliefe who ordained it 30 For it is great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof for it is to bee presumed that euerie one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion as euery Artisan worketh according to the grounds and principles of his Art And therefore as the positions assertions and decrees of knowne and professed Catholikes are to bee interpreted according to the grounds of the Catholike faith so also the positions of all Sectaries whatsoeuer are to be vnderstood according to the different doctrines of their Sects In so much that if a Catholike and a Protestant should affirme both of them one thing which might be controuersed in respect of Religion the sense and meaning of either of them is to be interpreted according to their different Religions and their different grounds and sense thereof And vpon this consideration I made no doubt to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacie for that not onely his Maiestie but also all they of the Parliament which decreed it doe holde and beleeue that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because hee hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie 31 My other reason was the same that I touched before concerning the necessary deduction of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy for albeit the Supremacy of the Pope be not expresly abiured or denied by this oath yet it is denied couertly by a necessary consequent because his authoritie to depose Princes which is necessarily deduced from the supreame power that Christ gaue him is denied thereby as in like case if wee should deny that his Maiestie hath any lawfull power to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie all Protestants would say that we deny not onely his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy but also his temporall and Kingly authoritie because the power to suspend and depriue Bishops within his Realme is included therein and necessarily deduced from it in the opinion of all Protestants And in like manner we say with much more reason that whosoeuer abiureth the Popes power to depose Princes hee doth consequently abiure his spirituall authoritie because the former is included in the later and doth necessarily follow of it as it hath beene amply prooued by diuers and namely by me in my Supplement t Chap. 5.6 7 whereof I shall haue further occasion to lay downe the particulars heereafter Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 32 But first of all good Reader I wish thee to consider how cunningly this my Aduersary concealeth the first part of his supposition concerning the denyall of the Popes power to excommunicate whereof onely I vnderstood those words whereon hee groundeth his third accusation In the beginning of his Discourse he supposed as you haue seene that the Popes spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath for that his power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed therein And because his Maiesty had in expresse words publikely affirmed that his intention was not to denie in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate answering also the argument which Cardinall Bellarmine out of those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. brought to prooue the contrarie and because my Aduersarie did also without any proofe at all suppose as Fa. Gretzer had done before him that the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed therein for this cause I vsed those words that truely it is a wonder that learned men doe not blush c. which my Aduersary a little before carped at Now forsooth he pretending to yeeld a reason of his supposition yet yeeldeth none at all concerning this parte thereof touching the Popes power to excommunicate for which onely I vsed the aforesaid words and which if he could sufficiently prooue to be denyed in this oath all Catholikes would forthwith graunt him that the oath containeth a denyall of the Popes spirituall Supremacie which includeth as a generall the particular authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures but he cunningly passeth ouer to the Popes power to depose Princes which no man doubteth but is denyed in this oath yeeldeth two reasons such ones as they be why he supposed the oath to containe a denyall of the Popes Supremacy for that the Popes power to depose Princes is denied therein 33 His second reason for thereof I will speake in the first place which he tooke from the contents of the oath is the same which hee touched before concerning the necessarie deduction according to his beliefe and doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie But his beliefe and doctrine herein as also I touched before is not Catholike but a particular beliefe or rather opinion of himselfe and some other and not generall of all Catholikes for that many learned Catholikes as I shewed before are of opinion that Christ hath not giuen to S. Peter or to the Church authoritie to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment but onely Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And therefore there is a great disparitie in the similitude which my Aduersarie bringeth betwixt his Maiesties authoritie to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie in the opinion of Protestants and the Popes power to depose Princes in the opinion of Catholikes for that al Protestants do beleeue that his Maiesties power to suspend or depriue an Arch-bishop taking suspension in that sense wherein the Protestants doe hold that his Maiestie hath power to suspend
containe nothing which is repugnant to faith and saluation therefore English Catholikes to obey the iust command of their Prince doe take the oath and thinke it to be lawfull both for that they hauing duely examined all the clauses of the oath doe find nothing therein contrarie to faith and saluation and also for that many learned Catholikes whose opinion they may lawfully follow albeit other Diuines with the Popes Holinesse doe thinke otherwise doe constantly maintaine the same 50 Neither doe I giue more credite to his Maiestie then to his Holinesse but both of them with all dutifull respect I doe honour and also beleeue in those things which they of their certaine knowledge doe affirme to be true And therefore as I beleeue his Maiesties Royall word affirming that his intention was not by this new oath of allegiance to deny the Popes power to excommunicate so also I beleeue that first Breue of his Holinesse was not surreptitious and written without his knowledge or priuitie for that in his second Breue he doth auerre as much But as for the first Breue wherein English Catholikes are commanded not to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation it being as I saide onely a declaratiue precept and grounded vpon a fallible and in my iudgement a very false opinion that either the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath or that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power so depose Princes it is euident according to Suarez doctrine that no Catholike is bound to obey this his declaratiue precept vnlesse hee be also bound either to beleeue that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath which is apparently vntrue or to follow his opinion concerning the certainety of his power to depose which being in controuersie among Schoolemen and learned Doctours and as yet not decided by the Iudge as no man is bound according to the common doctrine of Vasquez and many others to follow it so also no man is bound according to the approued doctrine of Suarez to obey his declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon 51 Lastly I obserued in that place that if his Maiestie should by Act of Parliament commaund all his Catholike subiects to acknowledge by oath that the Pope is not by the institution of Christ the direct temporall Lord of this Kingdome or of any other and that hee hath no direct power to depose his Maiestie and that they will beare faith and true allegiance onely to his Maiestie as to their direct Lord and Soueraigne c. and his Holinesse following the Canonists opinion who hold it hereticall to affirme that the Pope hath not direct dominion ouer the whole Christian world should by his Apostolicall Breues forbid all English Catholikes to take such an oath for that it containeth as the Canonists imagine many things contrary to faith and saluation as Pope Sixtus the fifth if any credit may bee giuen to the Iesuites themselues did intend to condenme if he had liued Cardinall Bellarmine his first tome of controuersies for impugning the Popes direct dominion in temporals the very same inuectiue which Mr. Fitzherbert maketh against mee accusing me of impudencie impietie disobedience and of being no good Catholike for not obeying the Popes declaratiue precept which is only grounded vpon such an opion which no Catholike is bound to follow for that the contrary is maintained by many learned Diuines hee might also make against all those Catholikes who following heerein Cardinall Bellarmine and the common doctrine of Diuines should take that oath and thinke it to bee lawfull notwithstanding the Popes declaratiue precept to the contrary And doubtlesse Cardinall Bellarmine who vehemently impugneth the Canonists opinion would easily in the like manner as I haue cleered my selfe defend those Catholikes from all imputation of impudency impietie disobedience or any other crime notwithstanding the Popes declaratiue precept to the contrarie 52 Thus did I answere to this obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues but more amply in my Theologicall Disputation shewing also by sundry examples that diuers Popes haue in their Apostolicall Breues or decretall letters registred in the Canon law maintained false opinions and which now are flat hereticall and that therefore their opinions and consequently their declaratiue precepts grounded thereon are not alwaies to bee followed by Catholikes and withal that many learned Diuines haue impugned diuers decrees of Popes concerning the licences which they haue giuen to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and their dispensations in the solemne vow of religious chastitie and in marriage not consummate who were not therefore accounted impudent impious or disobedient children of the Catholike Church for that such decrees were not grounded vpon any infallible definition but onely vpon the Popes fallible opinion which they of set purpose did impugne Sot in 4. dist 27. q. 1. ar 4. insomuch that learned Sotus feareth not to confesse that the Popes who haue dispensed in marriage not consummate did erre following therein the Canonists opinion and which he boldly affirmeth to haue no shew or colour of probabilitie notwithstanding so many practises of sundry Popes who haue dispensed therein 53 But this my answere my Aduersary doth heere altogether conceale compelling me for cleering my selfe to repeate a great part thereof which if he had beene pleased sincerely to haue set downe the Reader would presently haue perceiued that the voyce of our supreme Pastour is not alwaies to be followed that it is no great wonder for a sheepe of Christs fold and childe of the Catholike Church to disobey without blushing the declaratiue commaund of his supreme Pastour when it is onely grounded vpon such an opinion which no Catholike is bound to follow for that the contrary is maintained by learned and vertuous Catholikes as is this which denieth the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary improbable and that the Popes power to excommunicate is impugned in the oath By which it is euident how iniuriously Mr. Fitzherbert to disgrace mee with his Reader hath accused me of the aforesaid ignominious crimes which rather may be retorted vpon himselfe And so I will conclude with him this chapter remitting to the consideration of the iudicious Reader what probabilitie and sinceritie we may expect of him heereafter for the confirmation of the rest of his Replies and answeres seeing that wee haue found him at the very first so fraudulent friuolous and repugnant to himselfe as you haue heard in this Chapter CHAP. II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersarie taken from that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall is confirmed and two instances which hee brought against that rule are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue secular iudgements c. is at large examined 1. MY Aduersarie in this Chapter goeth on with the like
Aduersaries by teaching that the Pope hath power to depose Christian Princes and not I who doe not maintaine that doctrine doe consequently impose that most horrible slander vpon the Vicar of Christ our common Father and Pastour 22 For wherefore thinke you doth this Doctour deny the consequence of my argument Marke I pray you his fallacious reason and how he fraudulently altereth my argument and cunningly changeth both the subiect and predicate of my antecedent proposition vpon which my consequence and consequent doe wholly depend For it doth not follow saith he from a power to depose a power to kill I neuer saide that from a power to depose in generall doeth follow a power to kill abstracting both from the persons who are to depose and kill and from the crimes for which the persons that may bee deposed may bee killed but my argument did specifie in particular as well the persons who were to depose and kill as the causes and crimes for which one may by them bee deposed or killed And I affirmed that from the doctrine that maintaineth the Popes power to depose hereticall Princes and publike enemies to the common spirituall good it doeth euidently follow that the Pope in order to the same publike spirituall good hath also power to kill such Princes and that therefore this argument was good The Pope in order to the common spirituall good hath power to depose absolute Princes if the crime deserue deposition therfore in order to the same spirituall good he hath power also to kill them if the crime deserue corporall death 23 And the reason or ground of my consequence was for that according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and those that maintaine the Popes power to depose Soueraigne Princes for this cause and reason they grant vnto the Pope a power to depose Princes in order to spirituall good for that they graunt the Pope to haue in order to spirituall good â—â—otestatem summam in temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater and therefore as great a power in temporals as â—emporall Princes haue Whereupon they are not afraid to affirme â—hat all Christian Princes Kings Emperours and Monarches are the Popes subiects in temporals in order to spirituall good as other infeâ—iour persons are subiect to temporall Princes in temporals in order to â—emporall good But a temporall Prince hath in order to temporall good authoritie not onely to take away the lands and liues of their â—ubiects if the crime deserue that punishment and the common temporall good doth require the same but also if the crime be publike and notorious and the malefactours or perturbers of the publike temporal good be so potent that without rebellion or great temporall harme â—hey can not be apprehended he hath authoritie to condemne them â—riuately and in their absence without any processe citation or deâ—ence and afterwards to giue licence to any priuate man to bereaue â—hem of their liues by any arte or stratageme and by any publike or â—riuie way therefore the Pope according to these desperate grounds â—nd principles which graunt him potestatem summam in temporalibus â—ath the like authoritie ouer temporall Princes in order to spirituall good who according to this false and scandalous doctrine are in order to spirituall good subiect to the Pope in temporals This was my â—rgument 24 wherefore my consequence was onely concerning the Pope â—o whom is therefore graunted by my Aduersaries a power to depose Princes for that he hath in order to spirituall good potestatem summam â—n temporalibus so great a power in temporals that none can be greater for â— supreme power in temporals doth necessarily include a power both to depose and kill if the crime deserue the same And therefore who would not admire or rather pitie that so learned a man as is he who â— reputed to be the true Authour of this booke should bring such vnâ—earned instances from those who haue not a supreme power in tempoâ—als or if they haue from a crime which doth not deserue death to imâ—ugne my consequence which speaketh both of one who is supposed â—o haue a supreme power in temporals and also of a crime which is so â—eynous that according to the law it deserueth death if it were committed by subiects or priuate men 25 For the consequences of those fiue examples which this Doâ—tour hath brought to impugne my arugment are all defectiue either â—or that the persons who are to depose and therefore to kill are not â—upposed to haue supreme power in temporals to wit euery Father Maâ—ter or Bishop or else because the crime for which the persons there â—pecified may be deposed doth not deserue so great a punishment as is death But if we once suppose a Father Master and Bishop to haue a supreme power in temporals ouer their sonnes seruants and Clerkes as the Pope is supposed by my Aduersaries to haue ouer all Christian Princes and also the crime to deserue death then I say it doth euidently follow that if such a Father hath power to depriue his sonne of his inheritance he hath also power to depriue him of his life not for that a power to kill is necessarily annexed to euery power to depose but to such a power to depose which is a supreme power ouer all temporals or rather for that a power to depose and to kill to take away goods and life are necessarily included in euery supreme power to dispose of all temporals And therefore all the shuffling shifting and cunning of this Doctour will neuer be able to weaken the force of my consequence but this consequence will euer remaine good and strong that if the Pope hath power to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes for that he is their supreme Lord in temporals in order to spirituall good it doth necessarily follow that he hath power also to depriue them of their liues if the necessitie of the common spirituall good require the same And therefore although the opinion of Card Bellarmine be receaued not by the Catholike Church as this Doctour vntruely affirmeth but by many Catholike Doctours and confirmed by the often practise of many later Popes yet alwaies contradicted by Catholike Kings and subiects neuerthelesse if these Catholike Doctours and Popes had duely considered what odious and detestable consequences doe follow from that opinion they would forthwith in my iudgement haue detested the premisses from which such hatefull conclusions and which this Doctour seemeth here so greatly to abhorre that he feareth not therefore to accuse me of imposing a most horrible slander vpon Christs Vicar are most cleerly and certainly deduced 26 Wherefore to conclude this point that which this Doctour answereth secondly concerning Athalia who was slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest is nothing to the purpose To this argument sayth he r Pag. 556. I answere now that examples are to be taken according to the conuenience of the matter and persons In
the old law the high Priest was subiect to the king in temporalls and might by him be iudged and punished with temporall punishments But if she were no lawfull Queene but an Vsurper as in deede she was then it is euident that Ioas was the true and rightfull King and that all ciuill authoritie did reside in him and was deriued from him as from the head of all ciuil power whereof the King is head as D. Schulckenius himselfe confesseth x Pag. 339. ad num 169. and that therefore Ioiada who was the Kings Protectour and Guardian now in his minoritie and represented the Kings person in all things might be her Iudge both to depose her and also to kill her as a manifest traitour and vsurper 74 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth especially after she had beene receiued for Queene and obeyed by the whole state for sixe yeeres doe sauour of that false scandalous and seditious doctrine which D. Schulckenius taught before as though either sixe yeeres prescription were sufficient to depriue a lawfull King of his Princely right and giue it to a wicked vsurper or that the kingdome of Iuda either did depriue or had authoritie to depriue the true rightfull and certainly knowne King of his lawfull inheritance and Princely right and that without any offence at all committed by him 75 Neither is that to the purpose which Mr. Fitzherbert would haue his Reader beleeue to wit that no man can lawfully condemne an offender ouer whom hee should not also haue power in case he were innocent for as well and iustly doth a Iudge absolue a man when hee is innocent as condemne him when he is nocent hauing equall authoritie and the same iudiciall power in both cases For I doe not deny that Ioiada being the Kings Protectour and Guardian and therefore representing the Kings person in all things was the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of Athalia and of euery other subiect in the kingdome but that which I contend is that although Ioiada was in spiritualls her Superiour and Iudge as he was high Priest yet in temporalls he was neither her Superiour or Iudge nor of any other subiect in the kingdome as hee was high Priest or by his Priestly authority but as hauing his authority deriued from the true and lawfull King in whom onely all supreme ciuill authority as in the head of all ciuill power doth reside And therefore this his consideration is not to the purpose as also it is not generally true For all Catholikes yea Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe y Lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19 doe grant that in time of Schisme when two contend to be the lawfull Pope the Church is the lawfull Superiour and Iudge of both Popes and that it belongeth to her to determine of their right neither yet Cardinall Bellarmine nor my Aduersary will affirme that the Church hath the same authoritie and iudiciall power ouer the true and vndoubted Pope Likewise what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to Cardinall Caietaine and others of his opinion that the Church is Superiour to an hereticall Pope and hath authoritie to iudge him and depose him who neuerthelesse will not admit that the Church is Superiour to a Pope who is no hereticke Moreouer no learned man can deny that when two contend to haue right or a title to any kingdome if they bee members of that kingdome the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to them and hath authoritie to iudge and determine of their right and yet wee may not therefore conclude that the whole kingdome or Common-wealth is Superiour to a knowne and vndoubted King 76 No lesse idle also is that which followeth z Nu. 17. p. 78. Besides that saith Mr. Fitherbert our Aduersaries must needes graunt either that Ioiada deposed her as her lawfull Iudge being high Priest or else that any peculiar man many of his owne authority take vpon him to depose and kill a Tyrant and vsurper which opinion was worthily condemned by the Councell of Constance as hereticall and with great reason for that no particular man can make himselfe another mans Iudge and much lesse the Iudge of a Prince Neither can there be any doctrine more dangerous to Common-wealths or pernicious to Princes states then that euery subiect may take vpon him to iudge when his Prince is a Tyrant and proceeds against him to his deposition or death 77 True it is that Ioiada deposed Athalia that is put her from the possession of the kingdome which she vniustly vsurped as her lawful Iudge being High-Priest but it is not true that he deposed her as being High-Priest or by his Priestly authoritie nor as a private man or by priuate authoritie but he both deposed her and commanded her to be slaine as her lawfull Iudge being the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his nonage and as representing the Kings person in all things and also with the assent of the Princes and people Neither from hence doth it follow that euery particular and priuate subiect may by his owne authoritie take vpon him to kill a manifest vsurper although S. Thomas a In 2. dist vltima q. 2. ar 2. ad 5. Caietan 2. 2. q. 64. ar 3. Sotus l. 5. de Iustit q. 1. ar 3 Solon 2 2. q. 64 ar 3. controuers 1. Aragon ibidem Lessius l. 2. de Iustit c. 9. dub 4 and many other Diuines are of opinion that euery particular subiect and citizen hath authoritie to kill not a manifest Tyrant in the abuse of gouernment but a manifest vsurper for in this case say they euery priuate Citizen hath sufficient authoritie giuen him by the consent of the rightfull King and also of the Common-wealth against whom this manifest vsurper doth continually make a manifest vniust warre and therefore it can not be called properly priuate but publike authoritie Neither say they is this doctrine aginst the decree of the Councell of Constance which doth not speake particularly of those who are manifest Tyrants by vsurpation but of Tyrants in generall comprehending also those who are true and lawfull Kings and onely Tyrants in gouernment For the proposition which is in that Councell condemned as hereticall scandalous and giuing way to fraudes deceipts treasons and periuries is this Euery Tyrant and consequently also a Tyrant onely in gouernment although otherwise a true and rightfull King may and ought lawfully and meritoriously to be slaine by any his vassall or subiect euen by secret wiles and craftie deceipts or flatteries notwithstanding any oath or confideracie made by them with him not expecting the sentence or commandment of any Iudge whatsoeuer which is in very trueth a most damnable and traiterous doctrine But that a manifest Tyrant by vsurpation may not be lawfully slaine by any priuate man hauing authoritie thereunto from the true rightfull and vndoubted King or from him who is the Kings Protectour and Guardian in his minoritie and representeth the Kings person in all things this is not condemned
or which is all one with that I said before as by the order and reference to spirituall good that is to the glory of God and the health of soules they become spirituall that is vertuous and vicious actions it is manifest that although this distinction of directly and indirectly may be applyed to the spiriturall directiueâ— or commanding power as I declared before for that spirituall Pastours haue no power to command temporall actions but in order to spirituall good and by that reference become spirituall and capable of vertue or vice which is the health or hurt of soules yet it cannot be applyed to the spirituall coerciue or punishing power vnlesse it be first proued that Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours for the health of soules authoritie to inflict as well temporall as spirituall punishments and that the obiects of the spirituall coerciue power are by the institution of Christ both temporall and spirituall punishments which my Aduersaries will neuer be able to proue from the holy Scriptures or the ancient Fathers and vnpartiall expositours thereof for to proue the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours and Priests by the law of Nature or naturall reason who as I haue shewed before were in the law of Nature subiect to the coerciue power of the ciuill Common-wealth is most idle and friuolous 77 Now you shall see how friuolous the second reason is which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to proue that I contradict my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour may command temporall punishments and yet in denying that he may inflict temporall punishments Furthermore Widdrington granteth saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 105. num 18. that the spirituall Superiour may punish spiritually that is to say by Censures of Excommunication Interdict and Suspension but who seeth not that he granteth consequently that the said spirituall Superiour may also punish temporally For Excommunication doth not only depriue a man of the vse of the Sacraments but also of the communication and conuersation of Christian men and of many temporall commodities euen according to our Sauiours owne commandement who ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication Matth. 18. when he commanded that he which will not heare the Church shall be taken for an Ethnike and a Publican that is to say shall be excluded not only from the participation of the spirituall benefits of the Church but also from the temporall companie 1. Cor. 4.2 Thess 3. and conuersation of the faithfull which was also ordained by the Apostle when he commanded the Corinthians and Thessalonians not to eate with notorious sinners and disobedient persons and by S. Iohn when he commanded that the Christians should not receiue heretikes into their houses nor so much as salute them in all which it cannot be denyed but that the offenders were punished temporally 78 But all this and the rest also which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth in the two next Paragraphes was before obiected by Fa. Suarez and fully answered by me in my Appendix but this man is pleased to repeate still the same obiections which by me and others haue beene before often answered Wherefore it is true that I doe grant that the spirituall Superiour may punish spiritually by Ecclesiasticall Censures but it is not true that I must consequently grant that he may also punish temporally for this I euer denyed and therfore it is a meere fiction of his owne braine that I contradict my selfe in affirming and denying the selfe same thing For First Excommunication as I shewed before l In my Appendix against Suarez part 2. sec 4. See also aboue chap. 1. nu 16. and seq and chap. 5. sec 2. num 131. seq doth not of it owne nature and by any institution of Christ depriue of ciuill conuersation but only of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall participation of the faithfull and therfore all ciuill contracts with excommunicated persons as buying selling changing lending c. are valid and of force if we respect only the law of Christ Secondly it is also true that by the law of the Church some temporall punishments may be annexed to Excommunication by way of command and so the Church hath power to command that we shall not ciuilly conuerse with excommunicated persons except in those cases wherein by the law of Nature and Nations we are bound ciuilly to conuerse with them So also spirituall Pastors as I haue shewed before may annexe to Excommunication the inflicting of those temporall punishments which from the grant and priueledges of temporall Princes they haue authoritie to inflict But this is nothing to that which Mr. Fitzherbert intended to proue For I neuer denyed that the spirituall Superiour may punish temporally by way of command or to speake more properly may command and enioyne temporall penalties and also inflict them by that ciuill authoritie which he hath receiued from the grant of temporall Princes but that which I denyed is that the spirituall Superiour hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments 79 Thirdly Mr. Fitzherbert affirming so boldly that our Sauiour by his owne commandement ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication doth erre most grosly seeing that he cannot proue that our Sauiour ordained any penaltie at all much lesse a temporall penaltie of Excommunication For if he had but sleightly runne ouer Schoole-Diuinitie and especially the Treatise of Ecclesiasticall Censures he could not but haue seene that although the power to excommunicate is de iure diuine and instituted by the law of Christ yet that according to the more common doctrine of Diuines neither Excommunication or any other Ecclesiasticall Censure or penaltie is de iure diuino and ordained by the commandement of Christ but de iure humano and instituted by the Church and that to no sinne is annexed any Censure by the law and commandement of Christ who did neuer by himselfe immediately ordaine that the Church should vse such or such a determinate punishment but he left to the prudent iudgement and arbitrement of the Church to determine in particular this or that punishment according to the authoritie she hath receiued Suarez tom 5. dis 2. sec 1. For thus writeth Fa. Suarez affirming it to be the more common opinion of Doctours and withall he answereth all the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought heere out of the holy Scriptures 80 But the contrarie doctrine saith Suarez may seeme to haue some ground in those word Matth. 18. If he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican For by those words our Sauiour Christ doth seeme to haue sufficiently shewed and instituted the Censure of Excommunication and that the Pastours of the Church are heere vertually commanded to excommunicate disobedient and obstinate Christians because by no other reason the faithfull can be bound to auoid such kind of men But from this place saith Suarez nothing can be gathered For otherwise one might also gather from thence that whosoeuer
being conuerted to the faith cannot remaine with the other consort who is not conuerted without offence or iniurie to GOD or if the partie who is not conuerted will needes depart from the Christian it is lawfull also for the Christian to depart and marrie another and the Church also may in the like case permit and ordaine the same for this is only to declare the law of GOD. But that which Fitzherbert addeth that in the like case the Church may ordaine the same not only for the benefit of the partie innocent but also for the iust punishment of the offender is repugnant to the common doctrine of Diuines for the offender in S. Pauls case was an infidell and not a Christian who only according to the common opinion of Diuines can be punished by the Church for what is it to me saith S. Paul ſ 1. Cor. 5. to iudge of them that are without for them that are without GOD will iudge But if Mr. Fitzherb meaning be that the Church may permit and ordaine the same concerning the separation of man and wife who both are Christians which the Apostle did permit and ordaine concerning the separation of man and wife whereof the one is become a Christian and the other remaineth still an infidell this also is most vntrue For the Apostle did not onely permit that the conuerted wife might depart from the companie of her husband who still remained an infidell and would not conuerse with her without iniurie to the Creatour but also that shee might dissolue the bond of matrimonie although by carnall copulation it were consummated and might marrie another husband but the Church cannot dissolue the bond of matrimonie if it be once consummated betwixt man and wife who both are Christians either for the punishment of the offender or for the benefit of the partie innocent 89 Neuerthelesse I doe not deny that when both the man and wife are Christians and the one cannot liue with the other without danger of being drawne into heresie or some other grieuous sinne the Church hath authoritie to command the partie that is in danger of being peruerted to leaue the companie of the other consort and so by way of command to punish the offender but this is nothing to that which Mr. Fitzherbert pretended to prooue to wit that the Church hath power to inflict temporall punishments and that I contradicted my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour might command temporall punishments but not inflict them For if the wife or husband in this case of spiritual danger will stil remaine with the other consort against the commandement of the Church or rather against the law of GOD and Nature which do forbid all spirituall danger can the Church in this case either dissolue the bond of matrimonie or depriue them of the right which either of them haue to performe the acts of matrimonie or else depriue the offender of his life libertie or goods or only punish him by inflicting spirituall or Ecclesiasticall censures This is the maine difficultie which is not so much as mentioned in all the arguments and authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert heere hath brought 90 But now in the next paragraph it may seeme that hee commeth somewhat neere to the point of the difficultie And in like maner saith hee t pag. 106. nu 20. there is no doubt but that the Church may punish an heretike by discharging his children from their filiall and naturall obligation to him exempting them from his authoritie when it shall bee necessarie for their spirituall good Concil Tolet. 4. can 59. as it may appeare by a Canon of the fourth Councell of Toledo which ordaineth that the baptized children of Iewes shall bee separated from their parents least they may be infected with their errour See Molina de Instit tract 2. disp 229. And the like is to bee said of the discharge of slaues and bondmen from the power and authoritie of their Lords when the said slaues are Catholikes and their Lords Heretikes for in that case the Church may not onely prouide for the soule of the Catholike but also iustly punish the hereticall Lord by granting freedome to the slaue And for the same reason the Church hath power to discharge subiects from their bond of obedience and allegiance to an hereticall Prince when there is euident danger of their soules and great detriment to the Church for the bond of allegiance to the Prince is not greater then the obligation of the Sonne to the Father the Wife to the Husband and the slaue to his Lord. 91 But all this I did fully answere in my Appendix u Part. 1. sec 9. to Suarez of whom my Aduersarie hath borrowed these arguments For albeit there be a naturall obligation whereby children are bound to honour and reuerence their Parents and from which without doubt the Church hath not authoritie to discharge the children of an heretike Sot l. 2. de Iust q. 3. ar 8. Valentia tom 2. disp 7. q. 4. punct 6. Vasq in 1am secundae tom 2. disp 179 cap. 2. Suarez lib. 2. de Leg. cap. 14. Salas q. 94. s◠9 vnlesse my vnlearned Aduersarie will graunt that the Church hath power to discharge one from that to which hee is otherwise bound by the law of Nature which is a Paradox in Diuinitie as you may see in Sotus Valentia Vasquez Suarez Salas and others who treate of lawes in so much that S. Thomas and his followers whose opinion Vasquez and many others doe approoue for the more probable doe affirme that God himselfe cannot dispence in the law of Nature or in any naturall precept contained in the Decalogue or ten Commandements as is this to honour Father and Mother Neuerthelesse what other naturall obligation there is besides this by which children are by the law of nature bound to honour and reuerence their Parents and from which the Church as Mr. Fitzherbert saith hath authority to discharge the children of an heretike I thinke he himselfe doth not well vnderstand but it seemeth he taketh honour or reuerence obedience which is due to Parents for all one which neuerthelesse are very much different 92 For all the power and authoritie which Parents haue now de facto to command their children considering that both Parents and children are now de facto euen in things belonging to the particular Family or Oeconomie parts and members of the Ciuill Common-wealth is ciuill and proceedeth from ciuill authority and may be enlarged diminished altered yea and quite taken away by the temporall Common-wealth or the supreame gouernour thereof and all obedience which children now de facto being parts and members of the Ciuill Common-wealth doe owe to their Parents is ciuill and dependeth vpon the lawes and ordinances of temporall Princes by whom it may be enlarged or restrained or quite taken away And therefore as Molina cited by my Aduersary Molina tract 2. de Instit disp 237. Glossa § ius autem
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
that they may imply that the Pope can remooue all impediments whatsoeuer which either the world or the Deuill with all their forces and sleights can oppose which proposition may at the first sight bee taken as I haue knowne diuers learned men vnderstand it in that first sense which before I shewed to bee false and therefore what great fault trow you could it bee for me to declare the meaning of those words more plainely seeing that a proposition may without doubt sometimes be false yea and as learned Diuines are of opinion may bee also hereticall according to that vulgar maxime S. Tho. secunda secundae q. 11. ar 2. Magister in 4. dist 13. which Saint Thomas and the Maister of the sentences attribute to Saint Hierome ex verbis inordinate prolatis incurritur haeresis haeresie is incurred by wordes inordinately vttered although hee by whom they were spoken had no badde meaning 33 Thirdly saith this Doctour k Ibid. it is to bee obserued that Widdrington whiles hee declareth what punishments the Church can inflict vpon her subiects that shall offend maketh mention onely of spirituall punishments as though the Church cannot inflict also temporall punishments whereof see what wee haue said aboue cap. 4. vpon the 40.41 and 42. numbers True it is that the maine scope of my Apologie was no other then to prooue it to bee probable that the spirituall power of the Church or Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall or ciuill punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures Neither hath this Doctour in those places to which hee remitteth his Reader prooued any other thing then that the Church by vertue of her spirituall power may command enioyne and impose temporall punishments and by the temporall authoritie giuen her by the grant and consent of temporall Princes may also inflict them vpon inferiour persons which I neuer denyed And so in this kingdome wee see by experience that albeit Bishops haue euer had authoritie to excommunicate disobedient persons and to enioyne temporall penalties as a thing proper to their spirituall power yet to imprison them they procure a Writ out of the temporall Court de excommunicato capiendo for apprehending an excommunicated person 34 Lastly saith this Doctour l Ibid. pag. 354 it is to bee obserued that whiles Widdrington declareth the power of Iurisdiction not without mysterie hee hath said nothing of the power to absolue from oaths and vowes and other things of that kind True it is that although I did not in that place expresly affirme as also I did not deny that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the absoluing from oathes and vowes yet of set purpose and for some mysterie I did then omit to make mention of them and the mysterie was this for that there is a great controuersie among learned Diuines especially betwixt the Thomists and their opposites wherewith I thought it neither necessarie nor expedient at that time to intermeddle not only in what maner the spiritual power of the Church may absolue froÌ„ oaths vowes but also whether the Church hath any authoritie at all to absolue from all Oaths and all vowes seeing that as afterwards m Praefat. ad Resp Apolog. nu 58. in Resp nu 148. I declared S. Thomas and his followers doe contend that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the solemne vow of religious chastitie and also that hee cannot absolue from any vow or oath by releasing the bond and obligation to performe that which is once sworne or vowed for this were to absolue from the law of Nature which commandeth vs to performe that which we haue once lawfully sworne or vowed but onely by declaring and interpreting that the matter which was sworne or vowed is not now in this particular case a sufficient matter to bee sworne or vowed From which doctrine it cleerely followeth that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue from the oath of true temporall allegiance vnlesse hee also haue authoritie as hee hath not to declare that true temporall allegiance is not in that particular case lawfull or necessary and consequently not a sufficient matter to bee sworne whereas true temporall allegiance is alwayes not onely lawfull but also necessary and commaunded by the law of God and nature And thus much concerning this Doctours obseruations 35 Now you shall see how well he confuteth the answere which I gaue to Cardinall Bellarmines argument supposing the aforesaid distinction Thus therefore I began to answere it Wherefore we grant the antecedent proposition in the sense which wee haue now declared But we deny that the power to vse to dispose of the temporals of all Christians is necessary to the spirituall end for such a power is not proportionate to that end therfore there is no likelyhood that for the spirituall end such a temporall power or which is all one such a power to dispose of temporals was by Christ our Sauiour giuen to his Church which is a spirituall and not temporall common-wealth I answere saith this Doctor n Num. 355. whether the power to vse and to dispose of the temporals of all Christians be necessary to the Church for her end is the principall question which is in controuersie Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth Widdrington denyeth But whiles he denyeth he is so destitute of Patrons and Doctours that also Ioannes Parisiensis whom in his booke he more often citeth for his opinion then any other is flat against him c. 36 But first it is not true that the principall question which is in controuersie is whether the power to dispose of the temporals of all christians be necessary to the Church for her end which is the saluatioÌ„ of soules but the principall question controuersie is whether Christ our Sauior gaue authority to his Church as it is a spirituall Kingdome consisteth onely of spirituall power to dispose of all temporals And Cardinall Bellarmine to proue that Christ gaue vnto his Church this power bringeth this for a reason because this power to dispose of all temporals is necessarie to her spirituall end to wit the saluation of soules which reason I say is not true and from thence it would cleerely follow that our Sauiour was of necessity tied to giue to spiritual Pastours authority to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of all temporals which no man I thinke that hath his wits about him will affirme And how did the Church of Christ thinke you dispose of temporals by way of authority when she was persecuted by the Pagan and Arrian Emperours for then if at any time a power to dispose of temporals should haue beene necessary to the saluation of soules Whereupon Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth That it is not absolutely necessary to resist the common enemie Bel. l. 1. de Conâ—l ca. 10. as is the Turke For if the Church could be conuersant vnder the most cruell persecutions of Nero Domitian Decius
also of Lateran or at least wise Pope Innocent in the Councell of Lateran perceiuing that many sensuall men are more afraide of sensible and temporall punishments then of spirituall therefore to withdraw them more easily from sinne they commanded enioyned and imposed by their spirituall authoritie as it is directiue corporall and temporall punishments which sensuall men doe most abhorre and also they inflicted the same punishments not by their spirituall authoritie as it is coerciue which is extended onely as I haue often said to Ecclesiastical Censures but by the temporall authoritie which they haue receiued from the expresse or tacite consent graunt and priuiledges of temporall Princes seeing that it is well knowne as I haue related elsewhere out of Iohn Gerson Gerson de potest Eccles considerat 4. that Princes out of their deuotion haue giuen to the Cleargie great authoritie of temporall Iurisdiction 46 Thirdly obserue the goodly reason that this man bringeth why the Councell of Lateran began first with spirituall punishments and the Councell of Trent with temporall For that saith hee the decree of the Councell of Lateran was made against those who knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication and the decree of the Councell of Trent was made against those that knew the greatnesse thereof as though either Christian Princes or people knew not the greatnesse of Excommunication at the time of the Councell of Lateran or that either in very truth or according to the Doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine Suarez and other vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes or in the iudgement of this Doctour himselfe it be commendable or lawfull first to depose Princes and to thrust them out of their kingdomes and afterwardes to excommunicate them and to declare them to be accounted as Heathens and Publicanes Be like this Doctour is perswaded that all his idle conceits must goe for an vndoubted oracle But he is deceiued for howsoeuer his fauourites will applaude all his sayings esteeming him as an other Pythagoras yet other men will require of him a more sufficient reason then a bare ipse dixit 47. Lastly it is not true that the Councell of Lateran did first commaund that Princes who fauour heretikes should be excommunicated and afterwards if this remedie did not auaile their subiects should be absolued from their allegiance because in that decree there is no mention made of Princes but onely of inferiour Officers and Magistrates But of this Decree we shall haue occasion to treate anon more at large As also it is a slaunder vsuall in this mans mouth that I contemne the foresaid decrees of the Councell of Lateran and of Trent which I doe reuerence with as much respect as he or any other Catholike ought to doe albeit I must needes confesse that although this Doctours interpretation of those decrees I doe not contemne for this is a word of arrogancie yet truely I doe not much regard vnlesse he shall bring better reasons to confirme the same then hitherto he hath brought And thus you see part of the answere I made to Cardinall Bellarmines second reason which afterwards I did prosecute more at large and in the end I did briefly insinuate how insufficiently Father Parsons grounding himselfe chiefly vpon this second argument of Cardinall Bellarmine did satisfie the Earle of Salisburies complaint 48 For the Earle of Salisburie saith Father Parsons y In the Preface to the Treatise tending to Mitigation nu 19. hath bin a long time sorrie that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie hath not bin made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. That not onely those Princes which acknowledge this superioritie might be secured from feares and iealosies of continuall treasons and bloodie Assassinates against their persons but those Kings also which doe not approoue the same and yet would faine reserue a charitable opinion of their subiects might know how farre to repose themselues in their fidelitie in ciuill obedience howsoeuer they see them diuided from them in point of conscience c. Now to this complaint or desire of the Earle of Salisbury to haue the matter defined and declared Father Parsons answereth that among Catholike people the matter is cleare and sufficiently defined and declared in all points wherein there may be made any doubt concerning this affaire And for the clearing of the whole matter he diuideth it into three questions 49 The first is whether any authority were left by Christ in his Church and Christian Common-wealth to restraine or represse censure or iudge any exorbitant and pernicious excesse of great men States or Princes or that he hath left them remedilesse wholy by any ordinarie authoritie And to this question the substance of his answere is this that as in all other common-wealths that are not Christian all Philosophers and other men of soundest wisedome prudence and experience either Iew or Gentile haue from the beginning of the world concurred in this that God and nature hath left some sufficient authoritie in euery common-wealth for the lawfull and orderly repressing of those euils euen in the highest persons So when Christ our Sauiour came to found his Common-wealth of Christians in farre more perfection then other states had beene established before subiecting temporall things to spirituall according to the degree of their natures ends and eminencies and appointing a supreme vniuersall Gouernour in the one with a generall charge to looke to all his sheepe without exception of great or small people or potentates vpon these suppositions I say all Catholike learned men doe ground and haue euer grounded that in Christian Common-wealthes not only the foresaid ordinary authoritie is left which euery other state and kingdome had by God and nature to preserue and protect themselues in the cases before laid down but further also for more sure orderly proceeding therin that the supreme care iudgement direction and censure of this matter was left principally by Christ our Sauiour vnto the said supreme Gouernour and Pastour of his Church and Common-wealth And in this there is no difference in opinion or beliefe betweene any sort of Catholikes whatsoeuer so they be Catholikes though in particular cases diuersitie of persons time place cause and other circumstances may mooue some diuersitie of opinions And thus much of the first question 50 The second question may bee about the manner how this authoritie or in what sort it was giuen by Christ to his said supreme Pastour whether directly or indirectly immediately or by a certaine consequence And to this question he answereth that albeit the Canonists doe commonly defend the first part and Catholike Diuines for the most part the second yet both parts fully agree that there is such an authoritie left by Christ in his Church for remedie of vrgent cases for that otherwise hee should not haue sufficiently prouided for the necessitie thereof So as this difference in the manner maketh no difference at all in the thing it selfe 51 The third
the Church hath not any effectuall remedie or which in his opinion is all one any sufficient authority to punish a knowen and vndoubted Pope for any crime whatsoeuer only heresie excepted Therefore you see what a foundation this Authour hath laid to subiect Popes to the examination censure and correction of a generall Councell which representeth the vniuersall Church and to quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine touching the Popes authority ouer a generall Councell which is also receiued by all the writers of his Society Thus I answered Father Parsons discourse in my Apologie 57 By which the Reader may easily perceiue what small satisfaction Fa. Parsons gaue to the Earle of Salisburies complaint both for that hee brought no cleare definition orthodoxall which the Earle required to prooue that the Pope hath authority to depose wicked Princes and to dispose of all their temporals but supposed it as graunted by all Catholikes for these silly reasons which I before rehearsed and also that from the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls it necessarily followeth as I conuinced in my Apologie d Nu. 43. Seg. that he may also takeaway their liues and giue leaue to others to kill them by all those wayes publike or secret by which temporall Princes may take away the liues of their wicked subiects and consequently his Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloudy Assassinates was not remooued by Father Parsons answere for that they who would attempt to kill such wicked and tyrannicall Princes and obstinate in their wickednesse might easily answere the decree of the Councell of Constance and affirme that what they did was not done by priuate but by publike and lawfull authoritie and that they had sufficient warrant from the virtuall at least wise and interpretatiue consent of the Pope who was bound by the law of God to giue his consent thereunto as in my Appendix against Suarez I did cleerely deduce e Part. 1. sec 9. nu 7. 8. and so those wicked miscreants that murthered the last two Kings of France and attempted to haue blowne vp with gun-powder our most noble King Queene with their Royall issue and all the nobility with the Knights and Burgeses of the Parliament did easily shift off the Decree of the Councell of Constance pretending that what they did was done by lawfull and publike authoritie 58 Now albeit Mr. Fitzherbert pretendeth to defend Fa. Parsons against that which I did answere for the respect and reuerence which hee beareth to the memorie of so woorthy a man and his old friend whereof I will say nothing at this time because as he was respected and reuerenced by many Catholikes so also hee was by many not reputed woorthy of such respect and reuerence the cause whereof I will omit now to relate neuerthelesse hee saith little or nothing as you shall see against that which I vrged against him For first the greatest part of his defence hee spendeth f Pag. 120. nu 16. seq in excusing him from that whereof I did not accuse him to wit that Fa. Parsons did not say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power to worke the effect for which it was ordained but also sufficientes vires sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same but onely that the power of the Church being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment which may bee exemplified in the power to remit sinnes to giue holy Orders to excommunicate and such like For albeit the Church haue sufficient power to doe all this yet the same cannot be executed either at all times or in all places or vpon all persons by reason aswell of the in capacitie of subiects as of other externall impediments which may hinder the execution So as it were extreme folly to say that the Church hath not onely sufficient power but also sufficient forces alwaies to execute and performe the same And the like we say concerning the power left by our Sauiour Christ to punish absolute Princes in their temporall states to wit that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient albeit the same cannot alwaies be executed and Fa. Parsons neuer taught or thought otherwise And therefore I must needes say as I said before that Widdrington hath either most grosly mistaken him which truely I cannot see how hee could doe in this place or else most maliciously abused and belyed him 59 But truely I must needes say that Mr. Fitzherbert to returne him backe his owne wordes hath either most grosly mistaken mee or else most maliciously abused and belyed me For I neither said nor meant to say that Fa. Parsons supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that Christ hath left to his Church sufficient force power or might to represse at all times all exorbitant excesses of Christian Princes or people but that he supposed as certaine and confessed by all Catholikes that the penalties wherewith the Church may punish her spirituall Children may be temporall punishments which supposition also of Fa. Parsons I declared afterwards as you haue seene in these wordes And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath power in temporalls to wit directly or indirectiy as this Au. hour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose but about the thing it selfe whether he hath in any manner at all such an authoritie whereof the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet it is not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath authoritie to depose the Emperour as we haue often said out of Trithemius 60 Neuerthelesse this also I must needes say that both D. Schulekenius and Mr. Fitzherbert and also Fa. Parsons cannot make good Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and sufficiently confute the answere I made thereunto but that they will bee driuen to suppose that the Church must haue not onely sufficient power and authoritie but also sufficient force power might and effectuall meanes to bring soules to paradise as any man of learning by that which I haue saide before may easily perceiue For the substance of Cardinall Bellarmines argument was this The Church must haue all necessarie and sufficient power or authoritie to saue soules for which the Ecclesiasticall power is ordained but the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures is not sufficient for this end therfore another power to wit to inflict also temporal punishments is necessary 61 To this argument I answered that the power to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures being considered in it selfe is sufficient to saue soules and that Ecclesiasticall Censures being so dreadfull punishments as I haue shewed are of themselues sufficient if they meete with a capable subiect to withdraw men from sinne neither is it necessarie that the Church must haue besides a power sufficient of it selfe sufficient force might
spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures And without doubt you would condemne me for a vaine-glorious Thraso if I should take vpon me to prooue by the testimony and grant of Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and of your selfe who are so vehement for the Popes power to depose Princes that the Pope hath no such power for that you and all the rest doe grant the Pope to bee the supreame spirituall Pastour and then by a necessarie consequence in my iudgement though not in yours I should inferre from thence that because the Pope is by the institution of Christ according to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers a spirituall Pastour and not a temporall Prince he hath only authoritie to giue or take away heauenly not earthly kingdomes to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to vse spirituall not temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill punishments This consequence the ancient Fathers made See aboue cha 5· sec 3. nu 11. seq But besides that it is not sufficient to prooue any conclusion by the authority of the Ciuill law vnles the Ciuil law granteth both the premises or propositions from whence that conclusion is deduced the insufficiencie of this consequence grounded vpon those rules The accessorie followeth the principall and he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse See chap. 2. 3. per totum I haue made manifest in the former Chapters 58 Secondly doe not dissemble Mr. Fitzherb nor seeke to delude your Reader but deale sincerely and be not ashamed to acknowledge your errour seeing that not onely your selfe but also Card. Bâ—ll Gretzer Lessius Becanus and also Suarez haue herein grosely erred For your meaning was not by making that long discourse out of the Ciuill law to proue the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour and to haue authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes onely to inferre by a necessary consequent in your owne vnderstanding that he may also punish them temporally in their persons and states but your meaning was to proue directly by the Ciuill law the Oath to be vnlawfull for that in your opinion it denieth the Popes power to Excommunicate Princes which the Ciuill law doth expresly acknowledge For in the beginning of your Supplement you tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine namely in respect of those clauses which do exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope and then after you had made an end of your long discourse concerning the Popes spirituall power acknowledged by the Ciuill law you made this inference that the Ciuill law cannot iustifie the Oath but doth flatly impugne it for that the Oath supposeth and implieth the Kings Maiestie to be supreme head of the English Church and not the Pope and thereupon denieth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince So that the Oath in your opinion contained two clauses the one a deniall of the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and this was that which you intended to prooue to bee directly repugnant to the Ciuill law the other was a deniall of the Popes power to depose Princes and this in a word or two related before you affirmed to be also repugnant to the ciuill law for that in your iudgement it followeth necessarily froÌ„ the fromer which how vaine an assertion this is you may see by that I haue said before for so you may make one to affirme any thing if to make him to graunt an argument or consequent it bee sufficient that he graunt the antecedent although hee deny the consequence But now it seemeth by your silence as I signified before in the first Chapter that you are ashamed to insist vpon the former clause concerning the Popes power to excommunicate Princes for which you made that long discourse to prooue by the Ciuill law the Popes supremacie in spirituals and yet rather then you will confesse your errour you care not to delude your Reader in dissembling the chiefe and principall cause for which you affirmed the Oath to bee repugnant to the Ciuill law to wit because it denyed the Popes power to excommunicate Princes wherein with many others of your Society you haue most fowlely and shamefully erred 59 Wherefore I may now very well conclude that the arguments which Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought in his Supplement grounded as well vpon the law of God of nature and nations as vpon the ciuill or imperiall law are very insufficient and that the answeres which in my Admonition I did briefly make to them doe stand sound and good notwithstanding any thing that Mr. Fitzherbert hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary Now you shall see what arguments he bringeth from the Canon law and especially from that so often named decree of the famous Councell of Lateran CHAP. IX Wherein the difficulties which some make concerning the authority of the Lateran Councel are propounded the decree of the Councell which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related and Widdringtons first answere to the said Decree is proued to be sound and sufficient and Mr. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted 1 WE are come now at last courteous Reader to examine what conuincing arguments can bee brought for proofe of this new pretended Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes out of the Canon law and especially from the decree of the great and famous Councell of Lateran whereon my principall Aduersaries seeing belike all their other arguments and authorities to bee cleane shaken and battered doe now chiefly rely Wherefore albeit neither the more ancient of our moderne Diuines who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba D. Sanders and others nor Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe who hath taken from these men all his chiefe arguments and authorities to confirme his new Catholike faith in this point did in his Controuersies make any great reckoning of the decree of this great Councell for otherwise without doubt he being not ignorant of this decree and also desirous to make his doctrine vnquestionable and therefore feareth not to brand the contrary opinion with the note of heresie would not haue beene contented onely with the fact of Pope Innocent the third in deposing Otho the Emperour and haue neglected to vrge this decree of the Councell of Lateran which was called by the said Pope Innocent yet now hee flyeth to the decree of the great Councell of Lateran as the chiefe pillar to support his new Catholike faith therefore in regard principally of this decree he doubteth not to affirme but how rashly and without sufficient ground you shall see beneath that whosoeuer denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes contemneth the voyce of the Church in this so great and famous a Councell and is to be accounted a Heathen and Publican and in
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
the authoritie of the Church resident either in her head the Pope or in her body a Councell to publish this declaration And not onely all the other parts of the Catholike Church but likewise all the Doctours who liued in Farance from the first setting vp of Schooles of Diuinitie amongst them haue held the affirmatiue opinion that in the case of hereticall or infidell Princes and such as persecute Christianitie or Catholike Religion their subiects may bee absolued from their Oath of Allegiance By meanes whereof though the contrarie doctrine were the truest yet notwithstanding all the other parts of the Church being against it you cannot hold it for more them problematicall in matter of faith I call that doctrine problematicall in matter of faith which we are not bound to beleeue by necessity of faith and the contradictorie thereof doth not binde them that belieue it with Excommunication and disunion or separation from the communitie Otherwise you must acknowledge that the communion which you exercise with the other parts of the Church holding the contrary doctrine yea euen that communion which you conserue with the memorie of your predecessours was vnlawfull defiled with heresie and excommunication 17 Thus you see that the Cardinall of Peron doth altogether auoide the maine question which is betwixt my Aduersaries and mee to wit concerning the Popes power to depriue a Prince of his Regall authority wherewith before his sentence of depriuation he was endued and ioyneth two questions together which nothing belong to our new Oath The first is whether if a Prince who either by himselfe or by his Predecessours hath made an oath to liue and die in the Christian Catholike Religion and afterwards becommeth an hereticke or infidell and laboureth to draw his subiects to the same may not bee declared fallen from his right as culpable of felony towards Christ to whom he hath made his Oath and his subiects may not bee declared absolued from their oath of allegiance The second question is whether the Pope or Church haue not authority to publish this declaration Now neither of these two questions appertaine to our new Oath nor are as yet called in question by mee For as concerning the later supposing that a Prince by reason of heresie or Apostacy either is actually depriued and fallen from his right to raigne which the Cardinall of Peron following therein Philopater seemeth heere to maintaine or else may for the same be depriued thereof by the Common-wealth no Catholike will make any doubt but that this being supposed the Pope or Church may declare him an hereticke or Apostata and consequently to be fallen thereby from his Royall dignity according to Philopaters doctrine or to bee depriued thereof by the Common-wealth as others contend and to declare that his subiects are either actually discharged or to be discharged of the naturall and ciuill bond of their temporall allegiance and consequently of their Oath or sacred bond which was made to confirme the same For no Catholike can make any doubt that to declare the law of God and who is an hereticke or infidell is a spirituall action and belongeth to the spirituall authority of the Church 18 But with the former question forasmuch as it may concerne what authority the Common-wealth hath to depriue hir Soueraigne Prince of his Royall right in case that he should forsake the Catholike faith which he hath once professed although as I haue often said I wil not intermeddle for not giuing my Aduersaries occasion to decline the principall question concerning the Popes authority to depriue hereticall Kings of their Regall power which they had before his sentence of depriuation neuerthelesse this scandalous and desperate position of Philopater against which I was somewhat vehement in my Apologie and yet is quite passed ouer with silence by D. Schulckenius which may bee some coniecture that hee also fauoureth that doctrine to wit that a Prince who maketh open profession of Arianisme or Mahometisme or any such like infidelitie and goeth about to plant the same within his dominions doth fall thereby ipso facto from his Regall authority and right to raigne albeit either himselfe or his predecessours haue made an oath to liue and die in the Catholike faith I account to be a very false damnable and seditious doctrine tending to the perturbation and subuersion of all temporall States wherein there is not a perfect vnitie of Religion giuing occasion to hereticall and infidell Princes not to become Catholikes fauouring that damnable doctrine which teacheth that among heretickes and infidells there is no true ciuill dominion authoritie or Iurisdiction and what Romane Catholike soeuer hee bee that maintaineth and teacheth the same in this kingdome I account him to speake plainly a manifest Arch-traitour for that hee must consequently maintaine that our Soueraigne Lord KING IAMES is not our true and rightfull King because albeit not he himselfe yet some of his predecessours haue solemnly sworne to liue and die in the Catholike Romane faith 19 For seeing that by Gods permission heresies must be according to that of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. Oportet haereses esse what State can be secure from continuall feares of tumults and insurrections when the subiects according to this doctrine must bee perswaded that their Prince if hee bee of a contrary Religion to that which they in their hearts professe and thinke to bee Catholike and seeke to draw them to his Religion as all Princes vsually doe is not a true and rightfull Prince but falne from his right to raigne and by their Church which they as also all heretickes thinke to be the true Catholike Church may be declared so to be With what security can any King whether he be a Catholike or no permit in his dominions any Religion contrary to his owne when his subiects of the contrary Religion must be perswaded that he is falne from his right to raigne if hee seeke to draw them as all Princes vsually do to his owne Religion With what security also can any hereticall or infidell Prince whose kingdome is wholly or for the greatest part infected with heresie or infidelity become a Catholike and seeke to draw his subiects to Catholike Religion when his subiects who are no Catholikes must according to the principles of this doctrine be perswaded that he is a rebell to God and an enemy to that Religion which they thinke to bee true and hath broken the oath which he or some of his predecessours haue made to liue and die in their faith and religion and consequently is fallen from his right as culpable of felony towardes GOD to whom hee hath made the oath of this Realme 20 Besides this assertion fauoureth that false not to say erroneous doctrine which teacheth that ciuill dominion is founded in grace or faith that in heretickes or infidells especially who seeke to draw their subiects to their heresie or infidelity as all heretickes and infidels commonly doe there is no ciuill authority
same Kingdome or Common-wealth and also that it may be truly presumed that they doe release the same if they choose or admit confirme and allow likewise an infidell or hereticke to bee their King For if the hereticall or infidell Kingdome hath true ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction why shall not likewise the hereticall or infidell Prince whom they shall choose or confirme be capable of the same ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction So that this pact couenant and agreement which is pretended to be made betwixt the predecessours of an hereticall Prince and his people can bee no sufficient cause and ground to make an hereticall Prince who is chosen or confirmed by an hereticall Kingdome to fall from his Royall dignity and be ipso facto depriued thereof for the confirming and establishing of that heresie which that Kingdome doth professe 25 Wherefore concerning the deposition of hereticall Princes as the state of this question is propounded by the Cardinall of Peron many particular questions are inuolued The first may be whether a Prince hauing either himselfe or his predecessours made an oath to liue and die in the Catholicke faith and doe afterwards fall to open profession of heresie and seeke to force his subiects consciences to doe the same is fallen thereby forthwith before any declaration of the Pope or Church from his Royall right and dignity and his subiects are absolued or freed ipso facto from the ciuill and sacred bond of their temporall allegiance and the affirmatiue part which Philopater teacheth and affirmeth to be certaine and vndoubted I account to be a very false scandalous seditious yea and flat traiterous doctrine The second question may be supposing this damnable doctrine to be true touching the cause and ground why such an hereticall Prince doth fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity to wit whether the breaking of the oath which he or his predecessours made to liue and die in the Catholike faith or his open profession of heresie or forcing of his subiects to doe the same whether I say all these or some of them together may be necessary or else any one of them bee sufficient that an hereticall Prince bee ipso facto depriued of his princely power and authority 26 The third question may be supposing still this false doctrine to be true whether the Pope or Church haue authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke a breaker of his oath and promise and a persecutor or enemy to Christ and Christian Religion and consequently to be fallen from all his Princely right And of this no doubt can be made supposing the former seeing that to declare authentically what is heresie who is infected therwth is a spiritual action consequently belonging to the authority of the Pope or Church The fourth question may be what effect this declaration of the Pope or Church doth worke seeing that before this declaration the aforesaid hereticall Prince hath lost and is depriued of all his princely authority and whether this declaration of the Pope or Church be necessary when the fact is so notorious and publike that no Subiect in the Realme can make any doubt but that the Prince is become an hereticke hath broken his oath to liue and die in the Catholike faith and doth force his Subiects consciences to follow his heresie And of this question also no great doubt in my opinion can be made supposing the former false doctrine to be true seeing that this declaration doth not depriue the Prince of any right at all but onely serueth to make it knowne and publike that he is depriued thereof and therefore is not greatly necessary when the fact is so publike and manifest to the view of the whole Kingdome that no man can make any doubt thereof 24 The fift question may be that supposing such a Prince doth not fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity neither by his open profession of heresie nor by breach of his oath nor by forcing his Subiects consciences to forsake their Religion whether the whole Kingdome or Common-wealth which the Parliament doth represent hath authority to depriue him of the same or which is all one whether the whole Kingdome or the King be the supreame and absolute temporall Iudge and Superiour And this question doth nothing appertaine to the Oath of England and it is grounded rather vpon the principles of morall Philosophie and Aristotles Politikes then of Diuinitie The last and principall question is whether the Pope or Church hath authority to depriue such a Prince for the aforesaid crimes of his right to raigne really truly to absolue his subiects from the natural bond of their temporall allegiance which being once dissolued the sacred or spirituall bond of the oath of allegiance which is grounded vpon the former ciuill bond and obligation and was made onely to corroborate the same is forthwith vnloosed or whether the Pope or Church hath only authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke and an enemy to Catholicke Religion and a breaker of his oath and promise and to command compell by Ecclesiasticall censures the Common-wealth supposing they haue such an authority to depriue him of his Regall power and authority and consequently to discharge euery subiect from the naturall and ciuill bond of his temporall allegiance which being taken away the sacred obligation of the oath without any other absolution dispensation or declaration of the Pope or Church is forthwith dissolued 28 All these questions the Lord Cardinall of Peron doth so cunningly inuolue in his question touching the oath of France that if wee descend to particulars I cannot see either what opinion hee doth follow concerning the deposing of hereticall Princes or how his doctrine impugneth our English oath although he would seeme to disprooue the same which onely denyeth the Popes authority to depriue the Kings Maiestie of his Royall dignity and to absolue his subiects from the ciuill bond of their temporall allegiance and doth not meddle at all with the temporall authority which a Kingdome or Common-wealth hath to depose their Prince 29 Wherefore these words of the Cardinall of Peron affirming that not onely all the other parts of the Catholicke Church Page 15. but likewise all the Doctours that liued in France from the first setting vp of Schooles of Diuinitie amongst them haue held that in the case of hereticall or infidell Princes and such as persecute Christianity or Catholicke Religion their subiects may be absolued from their oath of allegiance And againe Page 63. saith he citing Widdrington in the margent The English writers who haue put their hand to pen for the defence of the Oath made by the present King of England against the Pope hauing vsed all their endeauour to finde some Doctours and in particular French who had held their opinion before these last troubles could hitherto bring forth neuer any one neither Diuine Page 65. nor Lawyer who saith that in case
19. c. 17. Iuo p. 15. c. 88 vide Binium tom 1. Concil in notis in Concil Eliber Baron tom 2. Annal. anno 305. in fine but also in time of Lent and Easter assigning for the later ayeeres penance or to pay fiue and twentie shillings to the Church or to the poore and in another Canon they ordained that Bishops and their Ministers n Burchard l. 11. c. 67. Iuo p. 14. c. 115. might whip husband-men with rods for great crimes to make them doe penance against their wills least they might perish eternally in which Canons as also in the former Decrees of the Popes Callixtus and Vrbanus the penalties imposed were meere temporall albeit there was not then as I haue said any Christian Prince to ratifie the same 54 But this proofe also is as insufficient as the former First for that many learned men as the Reader may see in Binnius to whom Mr. Fitzherbert remitteth him doe reiect this Councell and account it erroneous for decreeing certaine errours so Melchior Canus Canus l. 5. de locis c. 4. Bellar. l. 2. de Imaginib c. 9. and Cardinall Bellarmine And although Baronius cited also by Binnius excuseth the Fathers of that Councell yet for that they seemed in diuers of their decrees to fauour the errours of Nouatian which were displeasing to their Successors his opinion is that there is no mention made by name of this Synode by ancient writers and so it did remaine almost abolished and yet my Aduersary will from this Councell bring forsooth a conuincing proofe 55 Secondly for that these two decrees cited here by Mr. Fitzherbert are not placed with the other Canons of the Councell but are adioyned as certaine fragments belonging thereunto Wherefore if some Authours as Vasquez witnesseth sticke not to affirme Vasq 3. part disp 105 cap. 2 tom 1. that diuers decrees which are placed among the Canons of this Councell were not made by the Councell but by some one or other adioyned afterwards with farre greater reason it may be said that these two decrees which by Binnius are reputed onely as fragments and not placed among the rest of the Canons were not made by the Councell but adioyned afterwards by some one or other whom Burchardus Iuo others following did attribute them to this Councell in that manner as diuers books are attributed to S. Augustine S. Chrysostome and other Fathers are printed among their works vnder their names which were neuer made by them 56 Thirdly for that some learned men as Garsias Loaisa o Whom Binnius in the place aboue cited calleth a most learned Interpreter a Collectour of all the Councells held in Spaine are of opinion that this Councell was not celebrated in the time of Constantius and Galerius but after the Councell of Nice in the time of Constantine the great and therefore no conuincing proofe can bee brought from the authority of this Councell as my Aduersary pretendeth to shew that in the time of the Pagan Emperours temporall and corporall punishments were not onely commanded but also ordained by the Church without the ratification and consent of any temporall Prince seeing that according to the opinion of learned men this Councell was not held in the time of the Pagan Emperours but after the Councell of Nice in the time of Constantine the great who as wee may well suppose would ratifie whatsoeuer the Pastours of the Church should thinke expedient and necessary for the spirituall good thereof and the eternall saluation of soules 57 But lastly from these two Canons heere cited by my Aduersary this onely at the most can be forcibly deduced that spirituall Pastours haue authority to impose command and enioyne temporall and corporall penances punishments and afflictions as to abstaine for certaine daies from carnall copulation and likewise to fast to weare haire-cloth to giue almes and such like which was ordained in the first Canon or to beat themselues or else to suffer themselues for their penance to be beaten with rods which was ordained in the second Canon and of this I neuer made doubt but I did euer grant that the Church hath authority by the institution of Christ to impose enioyne or command temporall and corporall afflictions penalties or punishments but all the difficulty betwixt my Aduersaries and mee is concerning the coerciue compulsiue or punishing power of the Church that is if they should refuse to obey the commandement of their Pastours and would not abstaine from the acts of matrimony nor beat themselues nor suffer themselues to be beaten with rods with what kinde of punishments could the Church by her spirituall authority which shee hath receiued from Christ force and compell them therevnto to wit whether by inflicting vpon them temporall and corporall punishments as my Aduersaries contend or only spirituall Censures by depriuing them either wholly or in part of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall communion as many other Catholikes doe probably according to my doctrine affirme this is the plaine and maine controuersie as I haue often said 58 Neither can it be prooued by any of these Canons that the coerciue or compulsiue spirituall power of spirituall Pastours doth extend to the inflicting of corporall or temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures as it may sufficiently appeare by the second Canon heere cited wherein is decreed that Si seniores ipsorum colonorum c. If the more ancient of these husband-men giuing thereby to vnderstand that the husband-men who were to be whipped by the Bishops or their Ministers for penance were boyes or youths shall take it in ill part or will therefore vse any reuenge or shall presume to defend them that they be not beaten they shall be punished with the sentence of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication Wherefore those wordes of this Canon that they may doe penance against their wills are not to bee vnderstood against their wills simply and absolutely by corporall force and violence which taketh away all willingnesse for such kind of penance or satisfaction is not acceptable before almightie God or of any merite at all before God but they are to be vnderstood against their wills secundum quid in some sort as Merchants against their wills for feare of being drowned cast their goods into the Sea to wit that they shall be compelled to doe penance and suffer themselues to be beaten against their wills for feare of being otherwise thrust out of the Church and depriued of Ecclesiasticall communion which kinde of compulsion being simply voluntary p See Disputat Theol. c. 9. sec vnit and inuoluntarie onely secundum quid may stand with that free will which is the ground and roote of meritorious and willing satisfaction acceptable in the sight of God Neither doth Mr. Fitzherbert by the rest of his examples grounded vpon the authority of the Apostles prooue any other thing but that spirituall Pastours may by their spirituall authority without the consent and authority of
same nature and quality in generall for that both of them ordaine temporall punishments which cannot be inflicted by spirituall Pastours by that authority which they haue receiued from Christ but onely by the authority priuiledges and consent of temporall Princes who onely haue authority to inflict temporall punishments as death exile confiscation of goods imprisonment and such like But with all this difference is to be obserued betwixt these two punishments that although some Ecclesiasticall persons as diuers Bishops of Germany being temporall Princes haue authority to inflict both kinde of punishments and to hang and draw as our English prouerbe saith within their temporall Dominions yet Ecclesiasticall leuitie as Saint Leo saith doth shun these bloudy punishments and the Canons of the Church doe forbid Cleargie-men to vse the same and to pronounce the sentence of death against any malefactour whatsoeuer immediately by themselues but onely by their Officers Neuerthelesse seeing that these Ecclesiasticall persons haue by the grant of temporall Princes authority as we say to hang and draw and what their Officers or Ministers doe in this case they doe it by their authority the aforesaid prohibition of the Church doth not take away or depriue them of their authority and iurisdiction but doth onely forbid them to execute the same by themselues immediately but onely by their Ministers So that if a Cleargie-man who is a temporall Prince as are the Bishops of Collen and Ments should notwithstanding the prohibition of the Church pronounce the sentence of death against any malefactour who deserueth the same although hee should offend against the prohibition of the Church yet he should not offend against iustice vsurping the power which he hath not by doing that which for want of temporall iurisdiction he hath no authority to doe in that manner as an other man who hauing no temporall iurisdiction and condemning one to death should offend 14 Secondly therefore although I doe not deny that the confiscation of goods is expresly ordained in diuers places of the Canon law as also the effusion of bloud by mutilation and death is expresly ordained in this Canon howsoeuer my Aduersary very boldly saith that the effusion of bloud by mutilation or death is no way ordained therein yet if wee distinguish ordaining from commanding or imposing because I haue euer granted that spirituall Pastours haue authority to command impose and enioyne but not to inflict temporall punishments all such Canons wherein temporall punishments are inflicted are either an approbation of the Imperiall law or a teaching and declaring what ought to be done by the Secular Prince or Iudge as the Glosse expoundeth both this Canon Delatori wherein the effusion of bloud by death and mutilation is decreed and also the Canon Hadrianus wherein onely the confiscation of goods is ordained or they were made and had force to binde by the consent of temporall Princes as other Doctours according to Hostiensis Ioannes Andreas and Pope Innocent interprete that so often vrged Canon Ad abolendam wherein Earles Barons Gouernours and Consuls of Cities and other places if they neglect to helpe the Church against heretikes are depriued of their honour 15 Neuerthelesse these Canons wherein temporall punishments are ordained for that they are made by sacred spirituall or Ecclesiasticall persons though not by sacred spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but by temporall and ciuill authority granted them by the priuiledges gift or consent of temporall Princes may be called sacred Ecclesiasticall and Apostolicall Canons Gerson de potest Eccles consider 4. according to that which I. Gerson writeth that there are some of opinion that Excommunication is the last punishment which the Ecclesiasticall power of Iurisdiction by the first institution of Christ can inflict so that it is not extended to imprisonment nor that any man be adiudged to death or corporall whipping but when the Ecclesiasticall Iudge doth this he doth it by the grant of Princes as the Cleargie by the deuotion of Princes hath receiued great authority of temporall Iurisdiction which iurisdiction or censure is neuerthelesse called spirituall as also the temporall goods of Ecclesiasticall persons are called spirituall because they are dedicated and applyed to them who serue the Church as also the breads of proposition the first fruites the tithes also the vessels of the Temple the Vestments and such like were in the old law called sacred or holy so also the new law doth obserue the same Thus Gerson 16 Thirdly the Glosse it selfe doth teach saith Mr. Fitzherbert e Pag. 167. num 6. Glossa in verb. publicat that by the former decree the Church doth ordaine the confiscation of goods and deposition from dignities saying Hìc Ecclesia publicat bona Laicorum quandoque deponit à dignitatibus Here the Church doth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth from dignities Thus saith the Glosse here which Widdrington wholly dissembleth because it maketh flatly against him and he taketh hold as it seemeth of the words immediately following though he doe not alleage them the words are Vel dic c. Or say that the Church teacheth here what ought to be done Wherein it cannot be with reason imagined that the Glosse contradicteth the former interpretation seeing that it teacheth also in many other places that the Church may and doth vse to impose temporall penalties by confiscation of goods imprisonment infamie and banishment as it may bee seene in the Glosses Lib. Detret cap. Licet tit de Paenis vpon 17. q. 4. Attendendum est 16. q. 1. Statuimus 27. q. 4. Quisquis and vpon the Decree Licet tit de poenis where the Glosse affirmeth expresly that if the Law doe ordaine only a spirituall punishment or a corporall the Iudge cannot change it into another except hee can dispence in the crime committed and that when the Law determineth nothing concerning the penaltie of the crime it is left to the will of the Iudge whether he will impose a pecuniarie penaltie or any other and lastly when the Iudge can dispence touching the crime he may inflict a penaltie of or some other Thus saith the Glosse 17 But first it is not true as you haue seene aboue that I either omitted to alleadge the second answere of the Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus seeing that it is all one with that which I did alleadge vpon the Canon Delatori to which the Glosse remitteth himselfe for his second answere or that I dissembled the first answere of the Glosse which teacheth that the Church doeth ordaine the confiscation of goods seeing that I onely intended to bring there those answeres of the Glosse which made for my doctrine and not those which made against it as if a man intend only to set downe Authours who fauour any one opinion may without any dissimulation omit to relate those Authours who are against it 18 Secondly is it possible that Mr. Fitzherbert can be so ignorant as to conceiue that the Glosse doeth then contradict
Delatori 28 But this hath beene at large already answered and first that albeit the former glosse doth acknowledge that the Church doth by this Canon ordaine the confiscation of Lay-mens goods and depriuation of their dignities which is also confirmed by the practise of the Church yet the former glosse doth not acknowledge that the Church doth ordaine this by that authoritie which shee hath receiued from Christ and not from the grant and priuiledges of Christian Princes whereof onely wee now dispute Secondly that those words of the former glosse confiscate and depose may well bee vnderstood in that sense wherein the same Glosser expoundeth the word depose in the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. and so as I shewed before the later glosse doth not contradict the former but it is rather an explication thereof and thirdly that albeit we should grant that the later glosse or exposition is repugnant to the former yet it is no absurdity for the same Glosser or Expositour to bring two contrarie glosses or expositions when they are grounded vpon the contrary opinions of learned Authours which may without any errour or absurditie be followed as I declared aboue by diuers examples 29 And therefore wee must distinguish saith Mr. Fitzherbert p Pag. 169. nu 8. betwixt the Canon and the execution thereof and say that when he affirmeth in the former Glosse that the Church teacheth there what ought to bee done and againe in the later that the Church teacheth what the Secular Iudge ought to doe he speaketh onely as the very words import of the execution of these two Canons giuing also to vnderstand that the execution of penall lawes doth belong sometimes to the Secular Iudge and not to the Ecclesiasticall especially in cases touching life and death or effusion of blood albeit in many other cases the Ecclesiasticall Iudge may not onely ordaine but also execute pecuniary and other temporall penalties in which respect the Councell of Trent which my Aduersarie Widdrington if he bee a Catholike as he pretendeth to bee must needes admit for a lawfull Councell decreeth that Ecclesiasticall Iudges shall abstaine from Censures when they may by their owne authority proceed against the delinquents by reall or personall execution So as I will conclude that these glosses which Widdrington alledgeth either doe make nothing against vs or if they doe they doe manifestly contradict as well themselues as other Glosses and many expresse Canons and the doctrine of all learned Canonists yea the whole course and continuall practise of the Canon law 30 But first as no man maketh doubt but that wee must distinguish betwixt Canons or lawes and the execution thereof so also no doubt can be made but that the Prince or Law-maker either spirituall or temporall who hath authority to make the Canon or law hath also authority to execute the same for that the executioner of the law is a meere Minister and Officer of the Prince who enacted the law and what he doth he doth not by his owne authoritie but by the authority committed to him by the Prince and therefore whatsoeuer a Prince either spirituall or temporall hath authority to execute by his Minister or Officer hee hath also authority to execute by himselfe Wherefore seeing that the Glosser doth expound these Canons alike as it may appeare by this that in the second Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus he remitteth the Reader to the Canon Delatori signifying thereby that both the Canon Hadrianus which ordaineth the confiscation of goods and also the Canon Delatori wherein the effusion of blood by mutilation and death is ordained are to bee vnderstood in the same sense if the meaning of the Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori was onely to teach that an Ecclesiasticall Iudge could not execute that Decree which ordaineth the effusion of blood but it must bee executed by a Secular Iudge his meaning also was in the Canon Hadrianus to teach that an Ecclesiasticall Iudge cannot also execute that decree which ordaineth the confiscation of goods which no man of learning can affirme for that Ecclesiasticall persons are not by the Canons of the Church forbidden to execute decrees which ordaine the confiscation of goods but onely those decrees which ordaine the effusion of blood albeit by the graunt and priuiledges of temporall Princes they may haue authority to execute the one and the other 31 Whereby secondly it is apparant that the Glosse affirming that the Church in both those Canons doth teach what a Secular Iudge ought to doe did not intend to speake onely of the execution of those Canons for that also a Secular Iudge whose office is to giue sentence and to declare the meaning of the law in this particular case or crime is not properly an Executioner of the law because after his sentence the law may still remaine not executed but also of the Decrees and Canons themselues and of the authority which the Church hath to make such Canons and to teach that the Church by her proper spirituall power which shee hath receiued from Christ hath not authority to make Decrees which ordaine the inflicting of temporall punishments whatsoeuer whether they bee criminall or onely ciuill for that the making of such Decrees belong onely to the Ciuill and not to the Ecclesiasticall power which according to the doctrine of very many Doctours whom the Glosser in the aforesaid Glosses doth follow is not extended to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures albeit by that ciuill power and iurisdiction which spirituall Pastours haue receiued by the grant of Secular Princes which their ciuill power and iurisdiction may bee also called sacred Ecclesiasticall and their owne power they haue authoritie to inflict as well criminall as ciuill punishments notwithstanding the Church hath forbid them to meddle with the effusion of blood And this temporall and ciuill authoritie and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours which the prohibition of the Church as I said before doth not take away the Councell of Trent calleth their owne authoritie although they haue receiued it not from the institution of Christ but from the grant of Secular Princes in that manner as the temporall goods of Church-men are called sacred Ecclesiasticall and their owne proper goods as I declared a little aboue out of Gerson 32 So as I will conclude that these two Glosses which I haue heere alledged doe greatly fauour my doctrine concerning the vncertaintie of the Popes power to inflict by the institution of Christ temporall punishments and doe no way contradict the course and practise of the Church or any Canon thereof and that albeit they were repugnant to themselues as also according to a probable exposition of the same Glosser I haue shewed they are not yet this were nothing to the purpose seeing that they are grounded vpon two contrary opinions taught and maintained by learned Catholikes although I will not deny that they are repugnant to many other Glosses and to the more common opinion
of the Canonists who make the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole Christian world and to haue dominion and authoritie in temporalls not onely directly but also indirectly And therefore the common doctrine of the Canonists who as Pope Pius the fifth q See Nauar. in c. Nō liceat 12. q. 2. §. tertio nu 6 did freely acknowledge doe attribute more authority to the Pope then is fit in points concerning the Popes authoritie especially when they are therein contradicted by other learned Catholikes is but a very weake ground to build any infallible doctrine or point of faith thereon 33 Besides that it is to be considered r Pag. 169. nu 9. 10 saith Mr. Fitzherbert that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties seeing it hath the power and authoritie not onely to inflict them but also to force the Secular Magistrate to execute them which shall appeare further ſ Infra nu 11 15. after a while and is not contradicted by the Glosse obiected by Widdrington except onely concerning the imposition of bloody penalties which indeed the said Glosse doth exclude by an expresse Canon as wee also doe in this question affirming onely as I haue said before that the Church may in some cases both ordaine and execute certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood by mutilation or death And this is so manifest in the Canon law that truely a man may wonder with what face Widdrington can seeke by some peece of an obscure Glosse to ouerthrow the cleere and manifest sense of the law it selfe and the euident and ancient practise of the Church which hee knoweth in his conscience to bee grounded vpon the Ecclesiasticall Canons but heereby wee may see that his intent is no other but to patch vp his pretended probability with shifts and shewes of whatsoeuer hee can wring and wrest to his purpose 34 But truely I cannot but maruaile with what face this man dare so boldly affirme that it little importeth for our question whether the Church can execute temporall penalties or no yet granting as you see he doth that the Church hath power and authority to inflict them for of the power of the Church to compell or force by Ecclesiasticall Censures the Secular Magistrate wee doe not now dispute seeing that authority to inflict temporall penalties and to execute them are either all one or if we will distinguish them by taking authority to inflict them for authority to make lawes to inflict them the former doth necessarily inferre the later For what man euen of meane learning or vnderstanding can bee so ignorant as to imagine that euery Prince either spirituall or temporall who hath supreme authoritie to inflict any penalties hath not authoritie also to execute the same Neither can it bee denied but that the Pope and also other Bishops of Germany who are both spirituall Pastours and also temporall Princes haue authoritie to ordaine inflict and execute not onely certaine corporall and temporall penalties without the effusion of blood as is the confiscation of goods but all corporall and temporall penalties euen with effusion of blood by mutilation and death For although they are forbidden by expresse Canons of the Church not to concurre to the effusion of blood yet this prohibition doth not depriue them of any iote of their temporall authoritie which they did not receiue from the Church but from the grant of temporall Princes insomuch that if contrary to the Canons of the Church they should pronounce the sentence of death yea execute the same vpon any malefactour that deserueth death according to the law they should not offend against iustice for vsurping that ciuill authoritie which they haue not in that manner as another priuate man who hath no temporall authority should offend but against Religion for not obeying the iust commandement of their supreme spirituall Superiour 35 And this is so manifest in the knowne principles of Morall Philosophie of Schoole Diuinitie of the Canon and Ciuill law and in the practise of the whole Christian world that no man of any learning can with any face denie the same But this is the vsuall tricke of my Aduersarie to blind his Readers vnderstanding with the obscuritie of generall words not distinguishing the true state of the question and then crying out against me that I denie the Decrees of Generall Councells the Ecclesiastiall Canuos and the practise of the Church which is a meere fiction of his owne braine For all the Canons of the holy Church I doe embrace with all dutifull respect but I doe not vnderstand them alwayes in that sense as he and others of his opinion doe expound them and I doe willingly grant that the practise of the Church since she hath beene endewed by Christian Princes with many temporall priuiledges of Ciuill Iurisdiction hath beene to inflict and execute certaine temporall penalties without effusion of blood by death or mutilation but that which I contend is that it cannot be sufficiently prooued by any Canon or practise of the Church that spirituall Pastours doe ordaine inflict or execute such temporall penalties by their spirituall authoritie which they haue receiued from Christ but onely by their ciuill and temporall power which hath beene graunted them by the free gift and liberalitie of temporall Princes And thus much concerning these two Glosses of Ioannes Teutonicus vpon the Canon Hadrianus Delatori which without any wringing or wresting of their words or meaning I haue shewed to make cleere for my purpose 36 The second principall exception which M. Fitzherbert taketh against me in this my second answere to the obiection which I propounded is for adding immediately certaine words out of Siluester as fauouring my aforesaid answere Also Siluesters words said I doe fauour this answere who writeth thus Ioannes Andreas following Hostiensis is of opinion that a Bishop cannot impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him but that he ought to make it to be inflicted by the Secular Iudge 37 Against this Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth t Pag. 170. nu 12. seq that Widdrington hath dissembled that which immediately followeth in Siluester to the end that his Reader may suppose that not onely Hostiensis and Ioannes Andreas but also Siluester was of that opinion whereas Siluester hauing said that which Widdrington obiecteth addeth presently sed hoc non placet Panormitano but this doctrine doth not please Panormitan because when the case is such that the Iudge doth challenge iurisdiction ouer a Lay-man there appeareth no reason why he cannot in the foresaid cases impose vpon him a pecuniarie penaltie as it may be seene in cap. Statuimus 16. q. 1. and 27. q. 4. cap. Quisquis Thus saith Siluester alledging Pà normitans words and the Canons by the which hee prooueth that a Bishop may impose a pecuniarie penaltie vpon a Lay-man that is not temporally subiect vnto him which Canons are
from the Soueraigntie of absolute Princes for it little importeth to the substance of the matter whether the Pope may depose hereticall or wicked Princes by a power or dominion ouer temporals which must bee called temporall or by a power which must bee called spirituall so that he may depose them or whether the Pope bee superiour to absolute Princes in temporals directly or indirectly so that they must acknowledge themselues not to be absolute but subiect to the Pope in temporals But as I haue signified heeretofore all the difficultie and ambiguitie of these words directly and indirectly will presently appeare and the whole mist which the Diuines by this distinction doe cast ouer the eyes of the vnlearned wil foorthwith vanish away if we will but duly consider the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of either of them 62 For as in all arts sciences faculties and powers whatsoeuer is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of that art science facultie or power is directly subiect to that art science facultie or power so what thing soeuer whether it be temporall or spirituall is directly contained vnder the formall obiect of the directiue or coerciue power is directly subiect to that power Seeing therefore that the proper acts and formall obiects by which all powers are distinguished of the spirituall directiue or commanding power are the commanding of vertue and the forbidding of vice from hence it followeth that all actions whatsoeuer whether they be spirituall or temporall as they are vertuous or vicious actions and necessary or hurtfull to the spirituall and eternall good of soules are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power So that the reference or relation of temporall actions to the spirituall good of soules doth nothing hinder but rather is a cause that as they are vertuous or vicious actions they are directly subiect to the spirituall directiue power 63 But if these Diuines will further say that the spirituall directiue power dominion or iurisdiction ouer temporall things is therefore said to be indirect for that it doth not command or forbid temporall things as they are temporall but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions no man maketh doubt of the matter or of the thing it selfe it being too too manifest to euery man of iudgement that temporall things are not subiect to the spirituall directiue power as they are temporall things but as in order to spirituall good they become spirituall that is vertuous or vicious actions but the speech is not so proper and giueth occasion to the vnlearned to be confounded and deluded with a superfluous ambiguitie and multiplicitie of words For what Diuine or Phylosopher can deny that all those things whatsoeuer which doe truly participate the definition or nature of the formall obiect of any art science facultie or power by what meanes or consideration soeuer they doe participate the same are directly subiect to that art science facultie or power And in the same proportionate manner as these men say that the Pope hath an indirect temporall directiue power or authoritie ouer temporall things it may bee said that temporall Princes haue an indirect spirituall directiue power ouer spirituall things for that as the Pope doth forbid temporall things not as they are temporall but as they are spirituall and hurtfull to the good of soules so temporall Princes may forbid spirituall things as Heresie Schisme periurie ministring of Sacraments with a poysoned matter whereby danger of death doth ensue not as they are spirituall but as they are temporall wrongs and hurtfull to the publike peace in the Common-wealth which is the formall obiect of the temporall directiue power So that this distinction of directly and indirectly cannot bee well applied to the spiritual directiue power but that in the like proportionate manner it may be also applied to the temporall directiue power dominion and Iurisdiction 64 And as concerning the Ecclesiasticall coerciue power we must discourse in the same manner and likewise consider what are the proper acts and formall obiects of this power as it is coerciue or punishing for whatsoeuer doth participate the nature and definition of the acts and obiects of this power is directly subiect thereunto Now concerning this point there are two principall opinions among Catholikes The first opinion and which now adaies is the more common for the causes by mee heeretofore l Apol. nu 449 alledged is that the inflicting of all punishments whatsoeuer being referred to spirituall good are the acts and obiects of the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing But the Authours of this opinion albeit they all agree in this that whatsoeuer authoritie the Church hath by the institution of Christ call it spirituall or temporall is in order to spirituall good and is giuen her by Christ for the eternall saluation of soules for which end Christ also himselfe descended from heauen and tooke our flesh vpon him yet in this they differ that the Canonists that commonly follow this opinion measuring the nature of the powers by their acts and obiects and graunting as they doe that Christ hath giuen to his Church authoritie to inflict both temporall and spirituall punishments doe also affirme that the Church hath by the institution of Christ truely properly directly and formally both temporall and spirituall power But the Diuines commonly perceiuing the absurdity of this doctrine and that it confoundeth the acts and obiects of the temporall and spirituall power and subiecteth the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes who by the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers are accounted to bee supreme in temporalls and therein subiect to none but to God alone to the Popes temporall authoritie to giue the more probable colour as they thinke to this pretended authoritie of the Church to dispose of all temporals and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good and to make it seeme lesse odious to Christian Princes and subiects doe differ from the Canonists at lest wise in words and therefore they affirme that the Church by the institution of Christ hath no true proper direct and formall temporall authoritie but onely vertuall or in effect which they call but verie improperly in my opinion indirect as I haue shewed before as the power of God and of the Angels to worke corporall effects although it be truely and formally spirituall as God and the Angels are truely and formally spirituall substances yet eminently vertually and in effect is corporall for that by their spirituall power they can worke corporall effects So that the Canonists and these Diuines doe not differ in effect and these Diuines doe in effect no lesse derogate from the temporall Soueraigntie of absolute Princes subiecting them in temporals who are supreme then the Canonists doe 65 The second principall opinion is of other m Apol. nu 4 seq and aboue in the first part of this Treatise learned
Catholikes both Diuines and Canonists whom I haue heeretofore related that the acts and obiects of the spirituall coerciue power are onely the inflicting of spirituall punishments or Ecclesiasticall Censures as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and not of temporall or ciuill penalties as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and consequently that the inflicting of temporall punishments are neither directly nor indirectly formally nor vertually subiect to the spirituall coerciue power of the Church but onely to the coerciue temporall power of temporall Princes for that no reference relation or reduction of the inflicting of temporall punishments to the glory of GOD or the saluation of soules can make temporall punishments to bee Ecclesiasticall Censures or the inflicting of temporall and ciuill punishments to bee the inflicting of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures 66 And although this opinion bee the lesse common among Catholikes for the reasons heretofore alledged especially through the watchfulnes of the coÌ„trary side since the time that some Popes haue challenged to themselues this temporall authoritie ouer Kings call it direct or indirect formall or vertuall as you please and the indiligence to speake with all reuerence of Christian Princes in suffering their temporall Soueraigntie to be so greatly and cunningly depressed and subiected yet in my iudgement it is more conforme to the true sense and meaning of the holy Scriptures to the practise of the primitiue Church to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers and to the true grounds and principles of morall Philosophy and Diuinitie and therefore to affirme this opinion which is embraced by so many Doctours as Almaine witnesseth and which is grounded vpon such plaine and pregnant reasons to be impious absurd improbable erroneous yea and hereticall as this foule mouth'd and rash headed ignorant man doth so often brand it is cleerely repugnant to the rules of Christian prudence charitie and modestie and to the knowne principles of Schoole-Diuinitie 67 And according to this opinion although we should suppose which is altogether vntrue though often inculcated by my Aduersarie that the inflicting of temporall punishments and the disposing of temporall things were absolutely necessarie for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules yet they should not therefore be subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but onely to the temporall authoritie of Christian Princes who as the Prophet Isay foretold Isa c. 49. were by Gods speciall prouidence appointed to be her nourcing Fathers Nources and Protectours In such cases of necessitie spirituall Pastours must implore the aide of Christian Princes and the Brachium Seculare or temporall power is bound by her lawes and other meanes to helpe the spirituall and both of them hauing neede one of the other being so vnited linked and conioyned as I haue shewed before m Paâ—t 2. c. 1. one with the other among Christians ought to vse all due meanes to helpe each other yet without breaking the bounds and limits prescribed by Christ to either of them 68 But truely in my opinion the weakenesse of their cause and of the grounds of this their doctrine touching the Popes temporall Monarchie ouer absolute Princes call it direct or indirect as you please may to any man of iudgement sufficiently appeare by their so often declining the true state of the question and not standing vpon any sure or certaine ground but flying from one argument to another as from conuenience to absolute necessitie sometimes affirming that the Pope may depose Princes and dispose of temporall things when it is conuenient for the good of the Church and the saluation of soules other times when it is absolutely necessarie thereunto But as I haue shewed before o Cap. 7. nu 36 seq this absolute necessitie is a meere fiction and onely supposed but neuer prooued and this pretended temporall authoritie of the Pope Almain de potest Eccle. q. 1 cap. 9. as Almaine said is rather very hurtfull then any way necessarie either for the good of the Pope or of Christian people And if by the practise of depositions as of Henrie the fourth by Pope Gregorie the seuenth of Fredrike the second by Innocent the fourth of Philip the the faire by Boniface the eight of our King Henrie the eight by Paul the third and Queene Elizabeth by Pope Pius the fifth which are the most famous depositions of all we may gather whether this authoritie be necessarie or hurtfull to the Church of God all histories make mention what infinite harme rather then any good at all came to the Church of God thereby And this I hope may suffice for the confirmation of my second answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell and for the confutation of my Aduersaries Reply Now let vs see the third answere CHAP. XIII Wherein Widdringtons third answere to the Decree of the Lateran Councell is confirmed and also it is shewed how certaine it is according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes that the Church cannot erre in Decrees or precepts of manners from whence it is cleerely deduced that from the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell it cannot with any colour of probabilitie be prooued that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and all M. Fitzherberts arguments to shew the contrarie are most plainely confuted 1 BEcause my Aduersaries did so much relie vpon this Decree of the Lateran Councell that they thought it alone to be sufficient to make their doctrine certaine and of faith and therefore feared not to brand the contrarie with the note of heresie my third answere to their argument grounded vpon the authoritie of the Lateran Councell was that the Canon or decree for so we call it yet of the said Councell touching the deposition of temporall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords was no matter of faith but of fact onely wherein as well the Pope as those Fathers following their owne opinions might erre and that the Councell did not determine or define that the future deposition not of Princes as Mr. Fitzherbert translateth it but of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull power or from the Ecclesiasticall power alone without the consent of Princes And therefore the opinion of those Fathers yeeldeth no more certainety for the Popes power to depose Princes then if they had declared their opinions forth of the Councell seeing that this onely can bee gathered from the certaine and vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church that the infalable assistance of the Holy Ghost is promised by our Sauiour Christ not to the facts or probable opinions of Popes or Councells but onely to their definitions 2 Against this answere Mr. Fitzherbert taketh some idle and friuolous exceptions And first he carpeth at that distinction or Antithesis betwixt rem facti duntaxat and rem fidei a matter of fact onely and a matter of faith which he would haue me to reforme and to make it according to the
or particular Churches or Bishops and the other that it be propounded with an obligation to bee beleeued as of faith which also Cardinall Bellarmine confirmeth For in Councells Bellar. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 42. saith he the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith for neither are of faith the disputations that goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate but onely the bare decrees and those not all but those onely which are propounded as of faith And it is easie say they to know when the Councell doth propound any thing with an obligation to be beleeued as of faith by the wordes of the Councell it selfe For they alwayes vse to say that they declare the Catholike faith or account them for heretickes or which is most common denounce anathema or excommunicate them who shall beleeue the contrary but when none of these things are said it is not certaine saith Cardinall Bellarmine that it is a point of faith Whereby may be plainly seene the insolent temeritie of some especially this my Aduersary who feare not to call them heretickes that deny the Popes power to depose Princes seeing that neither from the Councell of Lateran nor from any other Councell either Generall or Prouinciall nor which is more from any one Canon of any particular Pope they can bring so much as a colourable shew of any such decree which according to the aforesaid rules of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus haue the conditions required to make a point of faith Canus lib. 5. de loc cap. 5. q. 5. 8 Now concerning decrees and precepts belonging to manners or things commanded or forbidden to bee done the said Canus hauing first supposed and distinguished that the question may be either of such things as are necessary to saluation as being commaunded or forbidden by the law of God or Nature or of such things that are not so necessary he setteth downe this conclusion that the Church cannot erre in the doctrine of such manners as are necessary to saluation Therefore if the Church by a firme decree doe define that any thing is to bee done or to bee auoided she cannot erre therein as for example in commanding Lay-men to receiue the Sacrament vnder one onely kinde From whence hee inferreth this second conclusion that when the Church in a matter of moment and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all Christian people she cannot command any thing which is contrarie to the Gospell or naturall reason wherefore as a generall Councell cannot propound false things to be belieued by the people so it cannot propound euill things to be done propound saith he by a firme and certaine decree by which all men are bound to belieue and doe vnder paine of eternall damnation 9 But as concerning the certainty of this doctrine especially touching things which are not so necessary to saluation as not being repugnant to the Gospell or naturall reason whether it bee hereticall to affirme that some custome of the Church is euill or some law of the Church is vniust I dare not saith Canus define or determine Whereupon hee excuseth those from heresie who should affirme that the Church doth erre in the custome of communicating the people vnder one kinde only and hee answereth to the Councell of Constance which ordaineth that those are to be condemned as heretickes who affirme the Church to erre therein that the Councell at that time was without a head and that Pope Martin doth not simply or absolutely approue that article but hee onely defineth that those who shall teach that the Church doth erre in that manner of custome are to bee condemned as heretikes or as sauouring heresie Therefore that which Pope Martin being President of the Councell durst not condemne by the name of heresie neither I saith Canus dare nor ought to impeach of a greater censure But if in a custome necessary to saluation which that seemed to be whereof there was a controuersie in the Councell of Constance the modesty of Pope Martin was so great how much more modest ought we to be in condemning other errours which are repugnant to the custome of the Church which is not necessary to saluation Thus Canus which doctrine I would desire my Aduersary and such other vnlearned hoat-spurres who haue heresie and hereticall so frequent in their mouthes little knowing themselues what heresie is diligently to consider 10 Also the said Canus excuseth from heresie those who disprooue the custome of the Church to carry about in solemne procession the B. Sacrament For albeit saith hee to reprehend this custome vpon this ground that Christ is not really and truely present in the Eucharist bee heresie yet if thou regard the errour in it selfe it sauoureth heresie it is rashnesse and imprudence and although it be to be censured for many respects yet it is not heresie seeing that albeit in this custome the Church should not erre yet her authority would not therefore be endangered in matters of greater moment Neither doth the Councell of Trent simply or absolutely say anathema to those that shall reprehend this custome of the Church but to those that therefore reprehend it because they doe not admit the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist and therefore neither the adoration and woorship thereof 11 In like manner he excuseth from heresie those who affirme that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints For it is to bee obserued saith hee that some manners or customes of the Church are deliuered to the Church by Christ and the Apostles wherein hee that should say the Church to erre doth make Christ and the Apostles to be Authors of that errour but other manners or customes are brought in since the Apostles wherein although the Church should erre yet faith would not therefore bee endangered Therefore without danger of heresie it may bee held that the Church may in some law and custome erre And hee bringeth a reason wherefore it is not hereticall to say that the Church may erre in the Canonization of Saints by which he prooued a little before that in manners customes precepts and lawes which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate men or Churches the Church may erre through ignorance not onely in the iudgement of things done but also in the priuate precepts and lawes themselues And of this conclusion saith hee Pope Innocent gaue a true and fit reason in cap. A nobis desent Excom in these words The iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued but the iudgement of the Church doth sometimes follow opinion which oftentimes deceiueth and is deceiued whereupon it happeneth sometimes that he who is bound before God is loosed before the Church he that is free before God is tyed by an Ecclesiasticall Censure Thus Pope Innocent 12 For from hence saith Canus it is
Fa. Lessius his first argument which he produced without any restriction or limitation to be restrained and limited only to the decrees of Popes and generall Councels which are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and doe not onely concerne particular facts licences dispensations and iudiciall sentences concerning some particular Countries or persons besides that I haue declared aboue in what sence that proposition is true to wit that such decrees must be made by true Ecclesiasticall and not ciuill authority and also that they must be such decrees and sentences wherein it is certaine and of faith that the Church cannot erre I haue also here produced a decree of Pope Sixtus the fourth concerning the Feast of the blessed Virgins conception which was made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church and yet the ground and foundation of that decree was vncertaine as I prooued aboue and will more cleerely confirme beneath and euidently shew how Mr. Fitzherbert to answere this decree is forced to forsake the doctrine of the most learnedst Diuines of his own Society And also I might adde hereunto the decrees of Popes touching the canonization of Saints the ground and foundation whereof doth not appertaine to faith seeing that as I shewed before out of Canus that it is not hereticall to affirme that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints and yet these decrees are made for the direction and gouernment of the whole Church But as concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell touching the deposition of temporall Land-lords or Magistrates it is euident that I made no inference or any mention at all thereof in any one of my three Instances or examples as this man most shamefully affirmeth 43 Yet if he will needes haue me to apply this doctrine touching the vncertainty of the grounds and foundations of Popes decrees and sentences to the decrees of generall Councels and in particular to the often named Act of the Lateran Councell I doe confidently affirme that whensoeuer it is vncertaine and disputable among learned Catholikes whether a generall Councell hath authority to make this or that decree by her spirituall power without the consent and authority of temporall Princes as to inflict temporall punishments and to dispose of temporals wherein temporall Princes onely are supreame and the Councell maketh such a decree concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments or the disposing of temporals without declaring that she doth make that decree by her spirituall authority then I say it is lawfull for any man without any note of heresie errour or temerity to expound the decree of that Councell according to the probable opinion of those learned men and to affirme that the Councell made that decree not by spirituall power but by the consent and authority of temporall Princes And this is our case concerning the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell Neither is this to impugne the decree of the Councell but onely to expound it according to the probable doctrine of Catholikes And if Mr. Fitzherbert will say that this inference is ridiculous absurd improbable and not to the purpose and that hereby we may inferre quidlibet ex quolibet he sheweth himselfe as the plaine truth is to haue small skill in Theologicall learning 44 In the meane time saith he x Pag. 190 nu 12. ad finem Widdrington is to vnderstand further concerning this point that whereas hee demandeth whether it is not a most grieuous errour to graunt such licences whereupon most grieuous Sacriledges may follow to wit the inualid administration of Sacraments I answere that the Church both doth and may minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a propable opinion without any danger of formall sacriledge or sinne as when a childe is baptized in one of his feet or hands before he be fully borne into the world or when the Sacrament of Extreame Vnction is giuen to one of whom it is not certaine whether he be fully dead In these cases I say and diuers other such the Church doth administer Sacraments with some danger of inualiditie and yet without danger of formall Sacriledge in respect of the great hope of benefit which may follow to the soules of those to whom they are administred and I verily thinke that there was neuer any Catholike so impious hitherto as to condemne the same as sacrilegious either in the most famous and holy Father S. Gregory the Pope or in any other of his successors for albeit some learned men haue indeed denied that they had authority to giue such licence yet they were not so inconsiderate as either to condemne them of most grieuous or sacrilegious errour or to deny that the other opinion was probable seeing that it had beene practised so long since by S. Gregory and approoued not onely by so many most famous and learned Doctours but also by the Councell of Florence which treating of the Sacrament of Confirmation and hauing said that the Bishop is the Ordinary Minister thereof addeth afterwards Legitur tamen c. yet it is read that a simple Priest hath administred it by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike with Chrisme or holy Oyle made by a Bishop 45 So saith the Councell giuing to vnderstand that although a Bishop is the ordinary Minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation yet a Priest may be the extraordinary Minister of it by dispensation of the Sea Apostolike And this I hope may suffice to free as well S. Gregory as other Popes his Successours from all errour and much more all danger of sacriledge in this point Besides that the grant of such licences being meere matters of fact and concerning onely particular persons and Countries could not any way preiudice our cause albeit they were erroneous or sacrilegious seeing that as I haue sufficiently signified before the question betwixt him and vs for the present is only about a generall Decree of a Generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefit of the whole Church wherein wee doe indeed acknowledge the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost though not in euerie particular fact of a Pope Thus much for his first Instance 45 But still this man discouereth either his grosse ignorance or his accustomed fraud For first whereas I spake onely of errour of materiall sacriledge and of inualid administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation this man replieth of sinne of formall sacriledge and of vnlawfull administration of Sacraments For although it be certaine that a man may lawfully and without sinne or formall sacriledge minister Sacraments in cases of necessitie vpon a probable opinion yet it is not certaine that in such cases the Sacrament is ministred with effect and without errour or materiall sacriledge for truth falshood and errour haue their denomination from the effect or thing it selfe and probable ignorance and errour doe make the act lawfull though not valid and with effect 46 Secondly there is a great disparity betwixt
not onely as they are sinnes to the conscience of man but also as they are so a parte rei and are commonly called materiall not formall or sinfull errours rebellions and periuries the same also may bee answered to Fa. Lessius his argument to wit that it cannot be well inferred from that Maior proposition that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes must be of faith because it is no pernicious and sinnefull errour in his opinion to teach those doctrines by him mentioned and to incite men to such rebellions and periuries which according to his opinion are not formall and sinfull rebellions and periuries 51 Whereupon it is euident that in the same manner as my Aduersaries will answere my third instance I will answere Fa. Lessius his third argument and that if from Fa. Lessius his argument it may be well inferred that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith it may also by my instance be well inferred that the doctrines for the Popes power to giue authoritie to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and to dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie and also for the preseruation of the B. Virgin from originall sinne are certaine and of faith which how absurd it is to affirme it is too too apparant But more of this third argument beneath 52 Lastly to that which Mr. Fitzherbert saith in the end of this Chapter that the grant of such licences being meere matters of fact and concerning onely particular persons and Countreys could not any way preiudice his cause albeit they were erroneous and sacriledgious seeing that the question saith he betwixt me and them for the present is onely about a generall decree of a generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefite of the whole Church wherein Widdrington acknowledgeth the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost though not in euery particular fact of a Pope I answere first albeit I will not condemne those Popes of any pernicious errour that in time of necessitie grant such licences vpon a probable opinion yet I cannot see but that to grant such licences either as certaine when they are doubtfull or to grant them without necessitie onely vpon a probable opinion is a very dangerous and pernicious errour seeing that they concerne the valid and effectuall administration of a Sacrament which all men know to be a matter of great moment 53 And albeit the grant of such licences be meere matters of fact and concerne onely particular persons and Countreys yet from thence it may be cleerely gathered that those Popes who granted them did generally teach that the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by those Priests is a true valid and substantiall Sacrament which if it bee not so is a very great and pernicious errour in doctrine of manners and also that the instances drawne from thence doe quite ouerthrow all Fa. Lessius his three arguments and namely the first whereof the Maior proposition as you haue seene is generall and without limitation and may be applied to all decrees and sentences whatsoeuer of Popes or Councells whether they are generall Decrees or concerne only particular persons or Countreys Neither is it true as this man very shamefully affirmeth that the question betwixt me and them for the present is onely about a generall decree of a generall Councell ordained for the speciall good and benefite of the whole Church for the question betwixt them and me for the present is onely about the first argument of Fa. Lessius and my first instance made against the same and especially about the truth of his Maior proposition which as you haue seene speaketh of the ground and foundation generally of all Decrees and sentences both of Popes and Councells That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councells and Doctours doe propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences So that my Aduersarie very vntruely affirmeth that the question betwixt me and them for the present is onely about a generall Decree of a generall Councell And this may suffice for the confirmation of my first instance and the confutation of all that which Mr. Fitzherbert would seeme to haue made against the same whereas he hath not as you haue seene so much as set it downe at all Now you shall see how fraudulently and ignorantly he hath in the next Chapter obiected against my other two instances CHAP. XV. Wherein Widdringtons second example and his instances grounded thereon are confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in impugning the same is conuinced of manifest fraude and ignorance in taxing therein of fondnesse the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie Also the third example of Widdrington and his instances grounded thereon are prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts fraude in relating of the said instances and applying them to the Lateran Councell is plainely discouered 1 MY Aduersarie in this Chapter sheweth also the like fraude and ignorance as he did in the former Thus therefore he beginneth Widdringtons second instance is Widdr. vbi supra nu 57. that Pope Sixtus the fourth made a Decree concerning the celebration of the B. Virgins Conception notwithstanding that it is vncertaine and disputed amongst the Diuines without any blot of heresie errour or mortall sinne whether the blessed Virgin cantracted originall sinne in her Conception or was preserued from it by a peculiar prouidence of God Ibidem and therefore saith he it is manifest that the Doctrine which is either proposed or supposed by the Pope as the foundation of his Apostolicall Decree and Constitution concerning euen the religious worship of God is not so certaine and vndoubtedly true but that it may be impugned without danger of grieuous sinne So he whereupon he inferreth that the ground of the Canon of the Lateran Councell may also be vncertaine or impugned without note of heresie or sinne 2 But first it is very vntrue that this was my second instance which I brought to confront with Fa. Lessius his second argument although it be true that it was my second example whereon both my first and second instance were grounded For whereas Fa. Lessius to proue that the Popes power to depose Princes doth belong to faith argueth thus in his second argument If a generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath power to depose Princes no Catholike can make doubt but that it should belong to faith but seeing that she supposeth it as a certaine foundation of her Decrees and sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to bee accounted no lesse certaine To this argument I opposed an other instance not much vnlike to it which was this If the Pope should expresly define that he hath authoritie to giue licence to inferiour Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastitie or that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne
three Instances or in this Argument whereof now we treate make any mention at all of the Lateran Councell although indeede I haue now by the way and without any necessitie vrging mee thereunto signified as you haue seene aboue that those words of the Lateran Councell vt extuncipse c. that then the Pope may denounce his Vassalls absolued from their fealtie which my Aduersaries affirme to bee the Decree of the Lateran Councell ordaining the practise of the Popes power to depose Princes cannot according to their owne grounds bee a true proper and formall Decree containing any precept or obligation but rather the reason cause and end for which the former Decree was made as I haue more amply declared before 24 Secondly neither are all the reasons of Decrees so extrinsecall thereto that they may faile and yet the Decree stand good for some are so intrinsecall and as I may say so essentiall to the Decree that the Decree cannot possibly stand good if the doctrine bee not true or at least-wise presumed to bee true as I shewed before in the reason of the canonizing of Saints and of celebrating their Feast in honour of their Sanctitie and also of celebrating the Feast of the B. Virgins Conception in honour of the vnspotted puritie thereof and of these and such like reasons I chiefly meant when in the aforesaid argument I demanded whether the reasons that mooue Popes and Councells to define or decree something are not as it were certaine grounds and foundations of their definitions and decrees So that I may truely conclude with my Aduersaries owne wordes that hee argueth as ignorantly impertinently and absurdely in impugning this argument as in the former and in the same manner also hee still goeth on 25 But now will you heare saith hee i p. 203. nu 9. how well Widdrington concludeth this his last argument and condemneth himselfe of errour or heresie Thus then hee saith Quapropter c. Wherefore no man can doubt but that great difference is to bee made betwixt the voice Vbi supra nu 63 doctrine and consent of the Church firmely beleeuing or defining any thing as a matter of faith and the voice doctrine and consent of the Church onely probably thinking For no Catholike man doeth deny that hee who contemneth to heare the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing doeth fall into errour or heresie whereas Catholike Doctours whose authoritie the learnedst of my Aduersaries will easily admit doe plainely affirme that hee who being mooued with sufficient reason doeth not embrace the doctrine of the Church onely probably thinking doeth not expose himselfe to the danger of heresie errour or temeritie For Alphonsus Salmeron and Francis Suarez men truely very learned doe bring the practise and consent of the whole Church to confirme the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin and yet that the contrarie opinion may bee defended without any danger of deadly sinne they both plainely acknowledge and cannot also deny without great offence we saith Salmeron do oppose the consent of almost the vniuersall Church the vniforme doctrine of all vniuersities Salmer tom 13. ad Rom. 5. disp 51. §. deinde Suarez tom 2. disp 3. sec 2. And the second ground saith Suarez is to bee taken from the authoritie of the Church And first the vniuersall consent almost of the whole Church and especially for these two hundred yeeres almost all Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops almost all Religions and Vniuersities haue subscribed Thus Widdrington 26 But first Mr. Fitzherbert is fouly deceiued in saying or conceiuing that this is a conclusion of this my last argument For it is a conclusion and as it were a briefe collection and explication of all the answeres I made in that Apologeticall Preface to all the arguments by which my Aduersaries laboured to conuince mee and my doctrine touching the Popes power to depose Princes of temeritie errour and heresie For seeing that all the arguments which they brought to prooue my doctrine to bee temerarious erroneous yea and hereticall were grounded chiefly vpon the generall voice doctrine and consent of the Church as they pretend I thought good for a conclusion of all my answeres to these their false imputations to admonish the Reader of the aforesaid difference betwixt the voice of the Church firmely beleeuing and onely probably thinking whereby hee might plainely perceiue that considering all my former discourse and answeres I had clearely freed my selfe from all iust imputation of heresie errour and temerity 27 But secondly let vs now see what exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against this my so manifest and certaine conclusion Wherein I wish saith he i Pag. 203. num 10. to be noted two things the one how confident Widdrington is that he hath prooued by his three instances or examples and this his last argument that the Church ordaining and decreeing in the Lateran Councell that Princes shall in some cases be deposed by the Pope did not firmely belieue but onely probably thinke that the Pope hath lawfull power and authority to doe it whereas you haue seene his instances and arguments to be so weake friuolous and impertinent that they haue serued to no other purpose but to discouer his folly and the weakenesse of his cause 28 But truely I cannot but greatly pitty this poore mans case albeit I am much ashamed to see and discouer his palpable fraud and ignorance For neither did I in those three instances or examples or in this last argument make any mention at all of the decree of the Lateran Councell neither did I intend to make any inference from them concerning that decree neither did I euer graunt that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did ordaine or decree that Princes might in some cases be deposed by the Pope but I alwaies affirmed that the aforesaid decree or rather Act did onely concerne the deposition of inferiour Magistrates or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes that therfore that Act or decree was not made by meere Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently could not be a matter of faith but of fact onely as are all the decrees of temporall Princes concerning meere matters of fact For although it be a matter of faith that temporall Princes haue authority to make temporall Lawes yet it is not a matter of faith that in making such lawes they cannot erre and therefore their lawes are not matters of faith but of fact onely but the Church in making lawes to all the faithfull concerning such matters of fact or manners which are necessary to saluation cannot erre by commanding anything which is contrary to the Gospell or the law of Nature and therefore such lawes are not onely matters of fact but also of faith 29. That wherein I was confident is this that seeing my Aduersaries haue not hitherto brought nor will euer in my iudgement be able to bring any one sufficient argument to prooue that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose
Catholike Roman Church whereby hee professeth that if by ignorance hee haue failed in any thing which the Roman Church doth not approoue he doth also reprooue it condemne it and wisheth it to be held as not written let not this I say seduce thee or mooue thee to thinke that he teacheth Catholike doctrine concerning the matter now in question seeing that it is euident that all this is but a false luster and glosse cast vpon his counterfeite ware of purpose to deceiue thee 3 It is true all the bookes I haue written hitherto either in Latin or English I did submit to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church and in the first booke of all which I published in defence of the temporall right of Princes against Card. Bellarmines reasons whereby he pretended to demonstrate that it is not so much an opinion as an heresie to hold that the Pope hath no authority by the institution of Christ to depose temporall Princes and to dispose of temporals besides the submission thereof to the said Censure of the Catholike Romane Church I did also solemnely protest and call God to witnesse that neither through the spirit of flattery nor of contradiction but sincerely mooued with a vehement desire to finde out the truth in this difficult controuersie which so neerely concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar I did take vpon me the writing of that Apologie 4 And my third booke which is the Disputation of the Oath against which this man so greatly inueigheth I did not onely submit to the Censure of the said Catholike Romane Church protesting also that if either in that Disputation or elsewhere I had through ignorance written any thing which she did not approoue I also did disprooue it condemne it and would haue it for not written but also I did of set purpose dedicate it to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requesting him that considering we had diligently examined all the parts and parcels of the oath and yet could not finde any one thing among so many contrary to faith or saluation his Holinesse would be pleased in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall office after hee had duely considered all those obiections which we did propound vnto him for and against the Oath to make knowne vnto vs his poore and afflicted Catholikes one onely thing among so many which are so manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation as he had declared by his Breues protesting that if we could be assured of one onely thing contained in the Oath which is any way repugnant to faith or saluation wee would forthwith obey his declaratiue commaundement and would hazard our liues and all our fortunes in defence of the vndoubted Catholike faith 5 Now this vncharitable man notwithstanding all these my protestations and submissions will contrary to the commandement of Christ our Sauiour the knowne rules of charity and iustice iudge censure my inward thoughts which none but God and my owne conscience can know and boldly affirmeth that it is euident b Nu. 1. that all this is but a false luster and glosse cast vpon my counterfait ware of purpose to deceiue the Reader and that I am an hereticke disguised c Nu. 19. and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that all my pretences to bee a Catholike d Nu. 26. and my submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceeds from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes But God knoweth how wrongfully he belyeth me to whose iustice for the infinite wrong he hath done me I doe appeale and I make no doubt but that he will finde him a most iust Iudge and seuere reuenger either in this life or in the next or both vnlesse hee repent and satisfie mee in time for the great wrong he hath done me 6 But let vs heare the reasons which this vnconscionable man bringeth to colour this rash iudgement of his For if Widdrington saith he e Pa. 212. nu 2 so much respect and reuerence his Holinesse and the Romane Church as he pretendeth how chanceth it that vtterly reiecteth three Apostolicall Breues of his Holinesse vpon no better ground and reason but because his Holinesse hath beene ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and absurd 7 But albeit with all my heart and soule I doe greatly respect and reuerence the Popes Holinesse the Sea Apostolike the Romane Church and the Catholike Romane Church each of them in their due place and degree but not all of them with equall respect and reuerence for that no learned Catholike can deny but that betwixt all these a great difference is to be made neither are the errours misdemeanours or imperfections of Popes who being men and subiect to humane infirmities as others are to bee attributed to the Sea Apostolike or to the Roman Church although my ignorant Aduersary seemeth not only to make no distinction betwixt the Pope and the Sea Apostolike whereas if he will but reade S. Robert of Lincolne his life in Matthew Paris he may see what difference hee maketh betwixt Pope Innocent the fourth whom hee calleth Antichrist Mat. Paris in Henrico 3 o. pag. 843. and whose Breues as containing in them something which is hatefull to Christ our Sauiour detestable abhominable and very pernicious to mankind hee refused to obey and betwixt the most holy Sea Apostolike which hee saith can command no such detestable thing but also hee would make his Reader beleeue that I take the Roman Church and the Catholike Roman Church for all one whereas it is manifest that there is betwixt them almost as great difference as is betwixt the Kingdome of England and the Christian world or rather betwixt Rome and Christendome and also very many vertuous and learned Roman Catholikes doe not graunt that infallible authoritie to the Popes Holinesse or to the Roman Church which they grant to the Catholike Roman Church according to that saying of S. Hierome si authoâ—iâ—as quaeritur Hier. epist 85. ad Euangrium orbis maior est vrbe if authoritie bee demanded or sought for the world is greater then a Citie which sentence the Glosse vpon the Canon Legimus dist 93. citing and expounding saith Heere is an argument that the Decrees of a Councell doe preiudicate or goe before the Popes Decree if they contradict it 8 Neuerthelesse I doe also willingly acknowledge that I doe not so much respect and reuerence his Holinesse as to beleeue that all the commandements of Popes are iust and all their Breues and Decrees are grounded vpon infallible truth or that any Catholike is bound to obey his Holinesse declaratiue commandement when it is only grounded vpon a probable opinion which no man is bound to follow it being most euident that where there is no authoritie to command it is no irreuerence or vndutifull respect not to obey As likewise although all Subiects are bound to respect
publike writings dedicated to his Holinesse make great doubts and giue great reasons to shew that they haue erred at this very present desiring to be satisfied therein these learned men I say shall render a strict account at the day of iudgement for the temporall or spirituall harme which those poore ignorant soules who haue trusted to their learning and conscience haue sustained by their aduise and counsell and also they are bound to make satisfaction and restitution in this world for all the temporall losse which those poore soules haue incurred by their rash and pernicious counsell proceeding from wilfull and affectate or desired ignorance 98 Neuerthelesse also vnlearned Catholikes when they haue iust cause to doubt of the truth lawfulnes of any Decrees either of Pope or Cardinalls which are preiudiciall to a third person and especially to their temporall Prince and the whole kingdome are bound for as much as by their naturall wit and capacitie they are able to examine the matter and not to be led blindfold without sufficient reason which may fully satisfie their vnderstanding and conscience And this doctrine which I haue heere in this digression set downe is so sound easie and perspicuous that no learned man can take any iust exception thereat Yet I haue not set it downe for that it is necessarie to satisfie my Aduersaries obiections which before I clearely answered seeing that neither the Pope by his Breues nor the Cardinalls of the Inquisition by forbidding my bookes haue defined determined or declared this doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes to bee of faith because there is no mention at all made of this doctrine either in the Popes Breues or in the aforesaid Decree of the Cardinalls but I haue set it downe onely for satisfaction and instruction of the Catholike Reader that hee bee not led hood-winckt by the grosse ignorance of my vnlearned Aduersarie T.F. who as it seemeth doth not know what heresie or disobedience is yet pretendeth to be their guide and director therin but both of them may doe well to remember that saying of our Sauiour Si caecus caeco ducatum praestet ambo in foueam cadunt If the blinde bee guide to the blinde both fall into the ditch And by all this it is euident that I and other Catholikes cannot any way bee iustly taxed of disobedience for propounding to his Holinesse with all humilitie the doubts and reasons which wee haue not to admit his Breues which are so preiudiciall to his Maiestie and our selues and most humbly requesting him that he will satisfie and instruct vs therein but alas what little satisfaction wee haue receiued from his Holinesse you shall see beneath 99 Now to returne to my ignorant and vncharitable Aduersarie who hath laboured in vaine to prooue not onely that I am disobedient and irreuerent to the Sea Apostolike but also an heretike disguised and that my submission to the Censure of the Catholike Roman Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather an artificiall and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes and also that my meaning is to escape the Censures of the Church by appealing from the Pope to a generall Councell all which how false and slanderous they are you haue alreadie seene and yet wee reade that the Doctours and Catholikes of Paris haue diuers times appealed from the Pope being not well informed and aduised to a future Councell now this silly and vnconscionable man will forsooth confirme his aforesaid rash iudgement of mee concerning the last point of my appealing to a Councell by the example of Luther who at his first breach and disunion from the Church did as all Anostataes and heretikes are wont to doe appeale from the Pope to a generall Councell 100 This is manifest saith hee y p. 220. nu 17 euen in Luther himselfe who after hee had begunne to set abroach his heresie retained for a while the good opinion of many Catholikes with his pretence still to reuerence and highly esteeme the Popes authoritie insomuch that he wrote to Pope Leo in these words Quare Beatissime Pater Surius an 1517 prostratum me pedibus tuae Beatitudinis offero c. Wherefore most holy Father I offer my selfe prostrate at the feete of your Holinesse with all that I haue or am do you quicken or kill call or recall approoue or reprooue as it shall please you I will acknowledge your voyce as the voyce of Christ gouerning in you So he making as you see a farre greater and more absolute submission then Widdrington doth albeit within a while after being condemned first by a Legate of the Pope and after by the Pope himselfe he appealed first from the Legate to the Pope and afterward from the Pope to a future Councell and what became of him in the ende the world hath seene and felt by the bad fruites of his Apostacie Ibid. anno 1519 Sed Deus meliora 102 But first this silly man will not as I suppose finde fault with Luther for the humble submission hee made to the Pope but all that hee can reprehend in him may be two things the one is that he did it not sincerely and from his heart which if it be so as also it may be otherwise I cannot but much dislike such deepe dissimulation But for my owne part I protest before almightie God that the submission I made of my selfe and all my writings to the iudgement and Censure of the Catholike Roman Church I did it with all my heart and without any dissimulation at all The second may bee that hee did appeale afterwards from the Pope to a future Councell which although I doe not intend euer to doe but will take patiently all the Censures which shall bee imposed vpon mee I will onely appeale still to the Pope himselfe to informe him better and to make knowne to him and to the whole world my oppression and the iustice of my cause yet neither Luther nor any other can bee accounted an heretike Apostata or Schismatike for appealing from the Pope to a future Councell vpon a iust cause seeing it is well knowne that the Masters Doctours and the whole Vniuersitie of Paris did also appeale from the saide Pope Leo to a future Councell The copie of this Appeale which was made in the yeere 1517. the 27. of March is to bee seene in Bochell lib. 8. Decret Eccles Gallic cap. 8. who were not therefore accounted heretikes Apostataes Schismatikes silly sicke scabbed or rotten sheepe 102 Secondly Luther within two yeeres after hee began to publish his doctrine reuolted wholly from the Catholike Roman Church and renounced all obedience to the Bishop of Rome but since I began to write there be seuen yeeres fully expired and yet I continue still in the vnitie of the Catholike Roman Church and doe acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to bee my supreame spirituall Pastour Father and Superiour And albeit my opinion be that
distinction all sorts of forbidden bookes neither doe all crimes require the same Purgation doth make both the Sea Apostolike odious to the Aduersaries of Catholike Religion who will easily from hence take occasion to perswade themselues that the Bishops of Rome are wont to reiect at their pleasure and to suppresse violently by threatnings and not by reason or argument those opinions which they doe not like and to promote by fauours and not by reasons those opinions which are pleasing to them and also doth littel satisfie prudent Catholikes who can hardly perswade themselues that the Sacred Congregation of the right Honourable Cardinalls who are reputed for the examination of bookes to whose informations your Holinesse giuing credit as we are assuredly perswaded hath condemned those bookes and ordained that the Author shal be seuerely punished vnlesse be purge himselfe forthwith if they could haue found in them any proposition which is certainly knowne to be hereticall erroneous or repugnant to sound doctrine they would haue passed it ouer with such great silence and contrarie to the vsuall manner of the Sea Apostolike in condemning the bookes of Catholike Authors but of such especially who are commaunded vnder paine of Censures to purge themselues foorthwith as by innumerable examples which are extant in the Tomes of the Councells and in the Bulls of Popes I could demonstrate commaund the Author to purge himselfe onely in generall words without shewing any crime either in particular or generall of which he should purge himselfe 19 I therefore the Author of those bookes whom the Sacred Congregation by the commandement of your Holinesse hath enioyned to purge my selfe but as yet I know not of what crime a most dutifull childe of the Catholike Romane Church and of your Holinesse in spiritualls and withall a most loyall subiect of the Kingdome of England and of our Soueraigne Lord KING IAMES in temporalls being summoned before your Holinesse his supreme tribunall to purge my selfe prostrate at your Holinesse feet doe humbly request you by the dreadfull Maiestie of God the Supreme Iudge of all First that your Holinesse will iudge that which is right and doe me iustice and not giue credit to the information of them who are my Aduersaries in this controuersie and haue fowly corrupted my words contrary to my meaning but that you will examine my cause by your owne certaine knowledge and that you will make knowne to me all those things or at least wise some of them which in those my bookes condemned by your Holinesse commandement are cleerely knowne to bee repugnant to faith or good manners For I protest that I am most readie to correct those things that are to bee corrected to purge what is to be purged to explaine what is to be explained and to retract what is to bee retracted 2 Secondly that if your Holinesse after due examination of my writings shall finde that you haue beene misinformed by some persons and that nothing is to be found in those bookes contrarie to Catholike doctrine as some perchance haue suggested to your Holinesse you will bee pleased to recall that sentence of the Sacred Congregation published against me and my bookes through euill information or vehement importunitie of some men or through mis-vnderstanding the true meaning of my words and that you will haue a care of my good name in that good sort as shall beseeme your wisedome charitie and iustice and that you will account me to be a Catholike and a Child of the Catholike Roman Church For that which I did write in another place f f In Disp Theol. in Admon ad Lect. nu 8. I doe heere repeate againe I am a Catholike and a Child of the Catholike Roman Church and if any man of what degree soeuer hee be shall wrongfully accuse mee of heresie let him know assuredly that by the assistance of Almightie God I will by all those meanes which God and Nature hath granted to innocent men to defend themselues to the vttermost of my power defend my selfe from their calumnies or slanders vntill the Church being fully informed of my opinion shall in plaine and particular words for no man can recall errours vntill he know particularly what they bee condemne the same 21 Thirdly that your Holinesse will command that this my purgation and most humble Petition may for future memorie bee registred among the Acts of the holy Office of the Inquisition as the condemnation of my bookes is recorded as it appeareth by the Decree it selfe that those who heereafter shall succeede in that Office may giue their sentence and iudgement as well of this my Purgation as of that condemnation of my bookes and whether I am to bee accounted a Catholike and a child of the Church or an heretike 22 But if your Holinesse will not be pleased to admit this my Purgation and most humble Supplication and to recall the sentence which vpon euill information hath beene denounced against my bookes and to haue a care of my good name which hath beene wrongfully taken away although I know right well that the same most mercifull and great God who in times past preserued the credit of that holy man Robert Grosted Bishop of Lincolne with whom Pope Innocentius the fourth being wonderfully offended g g Mat. Paris in Henrico 3o. ad ann 1253. §. Diebus sub ijsdem ad annu 1254. §. Hoc etiam an Dominus Papa determined to cast his dead bones out of the Church and to bring him into so great obloquie that hee should bee proclaimed throughout the whole world for an Heathen Rebell and diobedient for that hee had written to the said Pope Innocentius in the spirit of humilitie and loue vt errores suos crebros corrigeret that he would correct his frequent or accustomed errours although I know I say that the same God who is not an accepter of persons is able also to deliuer me from the vniust attempts and false informations of any whatsoeuer and to make knowne my innocencie to your Holinesse and to the whole Christian world neuerthelesse prayers teares and patience ioyned with the testimonie of a good conscience shall bee my chiefest refuge and this shall bee my daily comfort that it is no what lesse but rather more happy and gratefull to God to suffer persecution for Iustice sake at the hands of Kinsemen and of the same Houshold who in friendship and societie ought to be more straightly linked then of Strangers 23 Finally if in this Purgation which the Sacred Congregation by commandement of your Holinesse hath enioyned mee I haue offended any man as I hope I haue not by speaking any thig not with that circumspection as is fitting for wittingly I would giue no man any iust cause of offence I doe most humbly craue pardon both of your Holinesse for whose temporall and perpetuall felicitie I will continually pray vnto our most mercifull God and also of the whole Christian world From my Study in the Feast of
question may be about the causes for which this authoritie may bee vsed as also the forme of proceeding to bee obserued therein whereunto he answereth that herein there are so many particularities to be considered as are ouerlong for this place onely it is sufficient for Catholike men to know that this may not be done without iust cause graue and vrgent motiues and due forme also of proceeding by admonition preuention intercession and other like preambles prescribed by Ecclesiasticall Canons to bee obserued whereby my Lordships doubts of feares and iealousies of continuall treasons and bloody Assassinates may iustly bee remooued For that this authoritie doth not onely not allow any such wicked or vnlawfull attempts but doth also expresly and publikely condemne the same and the doctrine thereof as may appeare not onely by the condemnation of Wickliffes wicked article in the Councell of Constance z Sess 15. wherein he affirmed That it was lawfull for euery priuate man to kill any Prince whom he held to bee a Tyrant but also by like condemnation of Caluin Beza c. 52 Thus you see that Father Parsons hath not answered to the Earle of Salisburies complaint in particular to wit that some cleere explication of the Papall authoritie ouer the kingdomes and liues of temporall Princes hath not beene made by some publike and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. But he supposeth it as certaine and graunted by Catholikes and in steade of some cleere and publike definition orthodoxall c. Which the Earle of Salisburie desired he bringeth onely certaine reasons which are in some sort grounded vpon the Law of Nature and the light of naturall reason to wit that Christ hath in his Church subiected temporall things to spirituall which also is true in the Law of Nature and that otherwise he had not so sufficiently prouided for the necessitie of his Church as God and Nature haue prouided for other temporall common-wealthes which are not so perfect as is his Church which reasons how weake and insufficient they are the Reader may presently perceiue by that which hath beene said before concerning the Law of Nature and against Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and also if he will but apply them to the Church and Synagogue in the old law in which without doubt God Almightie did both subiect temporall things to spirituall and for the necessitie whereof he did also sufficiently prouide and yet Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth it to probable that in the old Law the Priesthood was subiect to the kingdome and that Kings were not to bee temporally by the High Priest but contrariwise the High Priest was subiect in temporalls to the King and to bee punished by him with temporall punishments Wherefore after I had cleerely ouerthrowne Cardinall Bellarmines reason concluding thus And so it is manifest by that which I haue said how weake this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine is euen according to his owne principles I forthwith answered Father Parsons in this manner a Apolog. nu 203. 53 By which it is also apparant how weakely the Author of the English Treatise tending to Mitigation who groundeth his whole discourse for the Popes power to depose Princes vpon this second reason of Cardinall Bellarmine doth satisfie the Earle of Salisburies desire whereof we made mention aboue For although it be-true that Christ our Sauiour left in his Church which is a spirituall common-wealth as in all other well established common-wealths sufficient authoritie and power for as much as concerneth the power it selfe to defend her selfe from the iniuries of all men whatsoeuer to correct iudge punish all wicked persons of what state or condition soeuer they be that are subiect to the supreme Prince of this spirituall common-wealth as members of the head sheepe to their Pastours children to their Father Neuerthelesse that Christ left in his Church sufficient power might or force to represse at all times all excesses whatsoeuer of Christian Princes or that the punishments wherewith such Princes may be punished by the Church are temporall which doe passe the limits appointed by Christ to a spirituall common-wealth this besides that it seemeth to be supposed by this Authour as certaine without any reason at all is also most clearely repugnant to the common doctrine of the ancient Fathers who doe teach as I related aboue b Nu. 5 seq that the armour or weapons of the Church are spirituall not temporall and that Princes if they offend are for as much as concerneth temporall punishments to be left to the examination and iudgement of God alone 54 Wherefore there remaineth in the Church sufficient remedie and spirituall authoritie for temporall authoritie or which now I take for all one authoritie to dispose of temporalls is not agreeable to the condition of a spirituall common-wealth to represse by spirituall punishments the exorbitant excesses of all her subiects whatsoeuer and of this there is no controuersie among Catholikes as also to euery temporall common-wealth the law of God and nature hath giuen full and perfect temporall authoritie to punish all her subiects that shall offend with temporall punishments but not with spirituall which are not agreeable to a temporall common-wealth and to defend her selfe with corporall weapons from the wrongs and violence of all men though of forraine countreys how strong and potent soeuer they be albeit she hath not alwayes an effectuall remedie or sufficient force might or power to free her selfe from the vniust oppressions not onely of forraine countreys but also of her owne subiects by reason of their excessiue power and might 55 And therefore it is not onely a controuersie among Catholikes about the manner how the Pope hath authority to dispose of temporals and to depose temporall Princes to wit whether directly or indirectly immediatly or by a certaine consequence as this Authour without any proofe at all doth ill suppose as certaine and not doubted of by Catholikes but as I haue often said out of Trithemius It is a controuersie among the Schoolemen about the thing it selfe Trithem in Chron. monast Hirsang ad ann 1106. whether the Pope hath any such authority in any manner at all and as yet it is not determined by the Iudge whether hee hath any power to depose the Emperour or no. 56 Lastly if in euery well established Common-weath there is left sufficient remedy and authority by God and nature to represse and punish the more hainous offences of their Soueraigne Prince whereon the Discourse of this Authour in his first question whereupon the other two questions doe depend is chiefly grounded I doe not see in what manner and with what reason he can rid himselfe but that consequently hee must also grant that the Pope himselfe may for all enormous crimes be corrected iudged and punished by the Church Bel. li. 2. de Concil cap. 19. ad 2. nu whereas Cardinall Bellarmine as you haue seene aboue c Nu. 188. Apolog doth teach that