bitternesse as he did in the former and as before hee taxed me of fraude impudencie impietie and of being no good Catholike but how wrongfully you haue alreadie seene so now he boldly affirmeth that my arguments and answeres are partly repugnant to my owne doctrine and partly malicious improbable impertinent foolish and ridiculous but how vndeseruedly you shall presently perceiue He tooke vpon him as you haue seene to proue in his Supplement that the oath is vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine in respect of two clauses to wit that it doth exempt temporall Princes from Excommunication and deposition by the Pope and that therefore it was iustly condemned by his Holinesse and refused by Catholikes although for this later hee could not bee ignorant that where one Catholike hath refused it a hundred haue taken it And as for the first clause concerning excommunication hee passeth it ouer altogether with silence neither doth he bring any one argument or shew of argument to proue that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath for which cause I affirmed in my Admonition to the Reader that Mr. Fitzherberts supposition for so much as concerneth the Popes power to excommunicate Princes and consequently his Primacie in spiritualls which he doth not proue with any one reason to be denied in the oath but supposeth it as manifest is very vntrue 2 But as for the second clause concerning the Popes power to depose Princes which is expresly denied in the oath he maketh a long Rhetoricall discourse labouring in vaine to prooue that according to all lawes humane and diuine the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporals And because the breuitie of that Admonition which was made after my Theologicall Disputation was in the presse would not permit to examine in particular all the arguments which he brought to prooue the same I thought good to answere briefly such arguments as seemed most plausible and withall to insinuate a certaine distinction which I had oftentimes in my former bookes declared more at large betweene the Popes power to command temporals and to dispose of temporals to command or impose temporall penalties and to inflict temporall penalties or to punish temporally by way of coercion which distinction doth plainly declare the true state of the question which he seeketh to obscure and quite ouerthroweth all his chiefest grounds 3 Among the rest of his proofes he brought one from this vulgar rule of the law Accessorium sequitur principale The accessorie followeth the principall from whence hee inferred a Cap. 1. Suppl nu 67. that seeing not only the body but also temporall goods and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof it must needes follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glory of God for the which our soules bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained according to that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall b In Ad. nu 15 4 To this inference I answered briefly in this manner Secondly euery learned man may perceiue how vaine that consequence is which this Authour deduceth The accessorie followeth the principall therefore the Church hauing power ouer the soule hath consequently power ouer the body and goods except it be vnderstood of the power to command corporall things so farre foorth as they serue to spirituall things For we might also from that principle argue thus The accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that is Lord of all horses is Lord of all bridles The Pope hath power ouer the soule of the Prince therefore also ouer his life Let this Authour explicate what the Lawyers vnderstand by the name of accessorie and what by the name of principall in that axiome of theirs which suffereth many exceptions and is limited by them diuers wayes In the meane time wee deny his consequence not consequent as Mr. Fitzherbert translateth So that it is manifest that I did not deny that consequence if it had beene vnderstood of the power to command temporals in order to spirituall good but because the words are generall and so may comprehend both and Mr. Fitzherbert also meant of both therefore I did absolutely deny his consequence 5 Now my Aduersarie will needs haue me forsooth both to contradict my selfe in this answere and also to ouerthrow my owne arguments For hauing set downe my answere hee replyeth thus c Nu. 2. Wherein I wish it to be noted first what Widdrington granteth and after what he denyeth and I doubt not but it will easily appeare that he ouerthroweth his owne arguments and contradicteth himselfe He granteth as you see that my consequence is not vaine if it be vnderstood of a power in the Pope to command corporall things so farre forth as they are to serue spirituall things yet he denyeth my consequence albeit I doe not thereby suppose in the Pope any other power ouer bodies and goods then such as followeth of their subordination to the soule which is in effect the same relation and limitation that he maketh thereof to wit so far forth as corporall temporall things are to serue spirituall things as it may euidētly appeare by the discourse which I make concerning the same in my Supplement from whence he taketh my argument and therefore I thinke good to repeate here what I haue said there touching this point whereby I hope I shall not onely fortifie and prooue my consequence which he denyeth but also explicate fully what I meane by the name of accessorie and principall as you see he commanded me to doe he should rather haue said as I wished him to doe Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 6 And I also wish the Reader to obserue first what my Aduersarie pretendeth to prooue and after what he prooueth and I doubt not but it will easily appeare that I doe neither ouerthrow my owne arguments nor any way contradict my selfe He pretendeth to prooue that the Pope as Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to depose temporall Princes to punish them by depriuing them of their kingdomes and by disposing of all their temporals and not onely to command or enioyne but also to inflict temporall punishments as it appeareth by the whole scope of his Discourse both in his Supplement and also in this Treatise whereupon a little beneath in this chapter c Nu. 10. he calleth that distinction which I made betwixt the power to command corporall things and to punish corporally by way of coercion a friuolous distinction and afterwarde especially in the sixt chapter d nu 14. 15. 16. 17. hee laboureth to impugne the same and to prooue that if the Pope may command corporall and temporall things as they serue the spirituall and are reduced thereto he may also
willingly graunt that it may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests had power to command or enioyne bodily penances to their penitents as fasting prayer lying vpon sackcloth and ashes yea and giuing of almes in satisfaction of their sinnes as the building of Churches Colledges Hospitals or Religious Houses according to the greatnesse of their offence and the qualitie condition and abilitie of the penitent or to vse the tearme of Diuines claâ—e non errante the key not erring For if such penances should be enioyned without discretion and due regard of the greatnesse of the offence or of the state and condition of the penitent the key should erre and would not haue force to bind Secondly I doe also graunt that there is an order and subordination in worth and dignitie betwixt spirituall corporall and temporall goods or of the soule of the body and of fortune and that according to the light of nature the goods of the soule being most worthy are to be preferred and esteemed before the other two and that the goods of the body bodily life health libertie and such like bodily contentments are to be preferred before the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states and that all of them are with due order to be referred to the seruice and glorie of God and to the eternall saluation both of body and soule But what followeth from all this 33 Whereupon I inferre saith my Aduersarie r pag. 33. nu 5.6 according to the axiome of the law accessorium sequitur principale that seeing not onely the body but also temporall goode and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof a must needs follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glorie of God for the which 〈…〉 bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained And this me thinkes our aduersaries should not deny seeing that their Ecclesiasticall discipline admitteth not onely corporall chastisements by imprisonment but also pecuniaris mulcto and penalties Therefore vpon this I inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke and consequently to be fedde and gouerned by the supreme Pastour of the Church may also be chastised by him in their temporall states when it shall be necessarie for the glorie and seruice of God the benefite of soules and good of the whole Church whereto all Christian Kingdomes Isa 60. and Empyres are subordinate and subiect as I haue prooued before out of the holy Scripture and will prooue also after a while by the very law of nature and light of reason 34 But first touching the consequent or conclusion of his inference or argument to wit that the Pope hauing power ouer the soule hath power also ouer the body and goods when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and glory of God I doe willingly graunt the same if it be vnderstoode of a power not to dispose of corporall and temporall goods but to command and enioyne them in order to spirituall good albeit my Aduersarie did vnderstand it of both as I shewed before But as concerning the consequence inference or argument which hee draweth from that rule of the law De Regulis Iuris in 6. regula 42. The accessorie followeth the principall or as it is in the Canon law Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis It is fit or conuenient that the accessorie follow the nature of the principall which rule as the Glosse there affirmeth is taken from that rule of the Ciuill law ff de Regulis Iuris regula 138. Cum principalis causa c. When the principall cause is not consisting for the most part neither those things that follow haue place there can be no conuincing or demonstratiue argument as all my Aduersaries arguments must be if hee will prooue by them that the oath cannot with a safe and probable conscience be taken by any Catholike and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith be drawen from that generall rule of the law which hath so many exceptions restrictions and limitations and which are not as yet made sufficiently knowen by the Lawiers as neither what is vniuersally meant by Accessorie and what by Principall and what is to follow the nature of the principall 35 And therefore not without cause doth the rule of the Ciuill law from which this rule of the Canon law is taken adioyne that word plaerunque for the most part and the rule it selfe of the Canon law doth not absolutely say that the Accessorie must follow or doth follow the nature of the principall but it is fit or conuenient that the accessorie doe follow the nature of the principall to signifie that it doth not alwaies and of necessitie but for the most part and of congruitie follow the principall and that Iudges ought for the most part follow this rule in their iudgements if they haue no speciall reasoned meaning 〈…〉 to the contraries And therefore as the marginall Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doth well obserue Å¿ Leg. Et si is quem Cod. de praedijs alijs c. The accessorie doth not follow his principall when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall 36 Secondly therefore I would gladly know of my Aduersarie whether he will haue this rule to be grounded onely in humane law and hath it force and strength onely from thence so that if the Ciuill or Canon law had not made and ordained that rule it would not be of force and validitie or else it is grounded also in the law of God or nature If he graunt the first as commonly the Lawiers doe and therefore some things which seeme of their owne nature to be accessorie as a saddle and bridle are to a horse are not accessorie according to humane law and therefore he that selleth a horse doth not consequently sell the bridle and faddle and somethings which are not accessorie of their owne nature as a dowrie is not necessarily annexed to marriage are made accessorie according to humane lawe and therefore he that marrieth a woman with the consent of her parents hath right to a dowrie and the parents are bound by the Ciuill Law to giue a dowrie if they be able wherefore the Glosse vpon the aforesaid rule of the Ciuill law doth obserue that the word plaerunque for the most part was purposely added to that rule of the law for that sometimes that rule doth faile to which purpose he alledgeth many texts of the Ciuill law If my Aduersarie I say will graunt the first he can not but easily perceiue that there can no forcible argument be drawne from the
aforesaid rule to prooue that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath a disposing power ouer the body and ouer corporall and temporall goods because he hath power ouer the soule both for that the aforesaid rule is not generally true and especially as I obserued out of the Glosse when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall as there is not the same reason that a spirituall Pastour can dispose of the bodie and of corporall or temporall goods because he can dispose of the soule and of spirituall goods but chiefly for that our Sauiour Christ gaue to S. Peter and his Apostles all their spirituall and Pastorall power long before that rule of humane law was ordained and whether it were ordained before or after it is manifest that our Sauiour was not tyed to giue any power to S. Peter and the Apostles by force and vertue of any humane law neither can the institution of Christ depend vpon any rule which is grounded onely in humane law 37 But if my Aduersaries meaning bee that the aforesaid rule The accessory followeth the principall is grounded in the Law of God or nature so that abstracting from all humane lawes yet either by the institution of Christ or by a necessary sequell or consequence drawne from the light of naturall reason it is alwayes true I say alwaies true for otherwise if the rule be not generally true there can no inuincible argument be concluded from that rule to prooue that hee who hath the principall must of necessity haue the accessory or who hath power ouer the principall must of necessity haue power ouer the accessory then this rule may rather be called a rule or Maxime of Logike then a rule of Law and it is taken from that Topike place which the Logicians call The place of Antecedents and in sense it is all one with this dialecticall axiome Posito antecedenti necesse est poni consequens the Antecedent being put the consequent must of necessitie be put or follow or if we call the antecedent the principall and the consequent the accessory the principall being put the accessory must of necessity follow or which is all one the accessorie doth necessarily follow the principall 38 But in this sense neither can bridles be said to be accessory to horses for that horses can consist without bridles neither can any separable accident to vse the Logicians terme be said to bee accessory to the substance and so neither musicke physicke or any other Art can be said to be accessory to the soule for that the soule can consist without any of these Arts neither can the mortall body it selfe be said to be accessorie to the immortall soule for the soule can consist without the body neither can the goods of fortune as honour dignitie riches earthly kingdomes c. nor the goods of the body as health libertie and other bodily contentments be said as my Aduersary would haue them to be accessory in any man to the good of his soule and his eternall saluation which is the last end to which hee ought to referre all his corporall and temporall goods and miseries for that any man may attaine to eternall saluation and haue spirituall and iustifying grace which is the onely meanes to attaine thereunto without any worldly riches or preferments and without any bodily comforts and contentments albeit in another sense all the former inferiour things may bee called accessory for that they are ordained and referred to the other more worthy noble and principall things 39 Neuerthelesse I doe not deny as I haue often said that Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to Saint Peter and his Successours sufficient power to gouerne his Church by spirituall meanes and consequently power to command both spirituall and temporall things in order to spirituall good and to chastise the transgressours of his iust command with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures for that all these are spirituall meanes and comprehended in spirituall gouernment And because the commanding of spirituall and temporall things in order to spirituall good is by the institution of Christ annexed to spirituall gouernment or the power to command temporall things which is the lesse noble and therefore may be called accessorie is by the institution of Christ annexed to the power of commanding spiritual things which being the more noble may be called the principall therefore from that maxime of the Logicians there may be drawen a good argument supposing the institution of Christ that if the Pope hath power to command spirituall things in order to spirituall good he hath power also to command temporall things in order to the same spirituall good not for that temporall things are per se and of their owne nature subiect and subordained to spirituall things except onely in worth and nobilitie or that temporall things are the accessorie and spirituall things the principall taking accessorie and principall as I haue before declared but for that the power to command spirituall things is the principall or antecedent and the power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good is the accessorie or consequent and by the institution of Christ annexed to the power of commanding spirituall things 40 But for all this I vtterly deny that the power to dispose of temporall goods is by the institution of Christ annexed to spirituall gouernment or to the Popes power of commanding either spirituall or temporall things for that the disposing of temporall things for what ende soeuer it bee is not a spirituall but a temporall action and doeth belong to a temporall or ciuill power which by the institution of Christ hath it acts offices dignities meanes and ends distinguished from the spirituall power both which as they are supreame in their degree and order and consequently independent one of the other in those things which are proper to either of them so they cannot intermeddle with the actions of each either and as the supreame spirituall power doth reside in spirituall Pastours so the supreame temporall power doth reside in temporall Princes and as spirituall Pastours are by spirituall power spirituall lawes spirituall actions and spirituall meanes and punishments bound to bring all men as much as lyeth in them to euerlasting happinesse so also Christian Princes are bound as much as lyeth in them by temporall power temporall lawes temporall actions and temporall meanes and punishments to bring their subiects to the kingdome of heauen which is the last end to which all Christians ought to referre all that they haue or are 41 Wherefore if that which Mr. Fitzherbert doeth lastly inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke may bee chastised by the supreame Pastour of the Church in their temporall states bee so vnderstood that hee may by way of direction or command enioyne them temporall penalties or punishments as to fast to pray to giue almes or the like in satisfaction of their sinnes or for some other great spirituall good this is
very true and I haue affirmed the same too too often and this only he hath prooued by this Discourse which he hath here repeated out of his Supplement albeit this bee not the marke at which he aimeth and which hee pretended to prooue for as I haue shewed before Nu. 6. his chiefe drift and purpose was to proue that the Pope hath power not onely to command temporals in order to spirituall good but also to dispose of temporals not only to command christians that in satisfaction of their sinnes or in defence of the Church they will dispose of their temporall goods according to the qualitie of their offence and the necessitie of the Church shall require and their abilitie doth extend but also to depriue them of the right power and dominion which they haue ouer their temporall goods and states if they shall refuse to obey his iust command which my Aduersarie by this Discourse in his Supplement hath not as you haue seene so much as probably confirmed and neuerthelesse as I haue often said not onely probable arguments but conuincing authorities or demonstrations are required to prooue his doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of their temporals to bee certaine and a point of faith and that the oath cannot lawfully and with a safe conscience be taken by any Catholike And thus much concerning the Discourse which Mr. Fitzherbert hath made in his Supplement Now you shall see what from thence he doth inferre 42 Thus did I discourse saith he u Pag. 34. nu 7 and argue in my Supplement whereby my Aduersarie Widdrington may perceiue first what I meane by the accessorie and by the principall as that the soule of man and the seruice and glory of God are the principall and that the accessory is the body goods and all temporall states whatsoeuer because they are subordinate to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof and for Gods glory 43 And my Aduersarie also by that which I haue heere answered to his Discourse may perceiue that although the soule of man and the spirituall good thereof and the seruice and glory of God may in some sense bee called the principall and bodily and temporall goods the accessorie for that they are the lesse worthy and lesse noble and therefore though not of their owne nature referred yet by the intention and will of man ought to bee referred to the eternall good and saluation of the soule as to the last end of man in which sense temporall good may bee said to be subiect and ordained to the supernaturall good of the soule whereof I haue treated more at large aboue in the second part Yet in that sense as antecedent and consequent principall and accessorie are taken in that maxime the spirituall good of the soule eternall saluation and the supernaturall seruice and glorie of God cannot be called the principall or antecedent nor corporall goods and temporall states as health wealth honour c. the accessorie or consequent for that God may bee serued and glorified and the soule saued without hauing any such corporall or temporall contentments yea rather they doe hinder then promote the good of the soule for that according to our Sauiours owne wordes x Matth. 19. A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen For they y 1. Tim. 6. that will be made rich fall into tentation and the snare of the Deuill and many desires vnprofitable and hurtfull which drowne men into destruction and perdition and By many tribulations z Act. 14. we must enter into the kingdome of God 44 Neither did I desire my Aduersary to declare what he vnderstood in particular by the names of principall and accessory for I knew right well that hee tooke the good of the soule for principall and the goods of the body and of fortune to be the accessory for that they are referred and ordained to the good of the soule in which sense the words principall and accessory are not taken in that maxime as I shewed before and it will more cleerely appeare beneath but I desired him to declare what the Lawyers vnderstood in generall by the names of principall and accessory in that rule of the Law for that the nature and definition of principall and accessory being once knowne we might the better descend to particulars and more easily perceiue whether the good of the soule was to bee taken for principall and all other corporall and temporall goods for accessory in that rule of the Law and withall he should also haue explained if hee had meant to cleere and satisfie the vnderstanding of his Reader what the Lawyers vnderstood by those wordes to follow the nature of the principall all which my Aduersary hath as you haue seene neglected to declare 45 Secondly Widdrington may see saith Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 34. nu 8 the force and validitie of my consequence to wit because the Church hath power ouer the soule which is the principall therefore it hath power also ouer the accessorie that is to say ouer the body temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God for which our soules bodies goods states and all things else were ordained 46 And hee also may see in what manner his consequence is of force if it be onely vnderstood of a power to commaund temporall things in order to spiritual good to wit not for that the Church hauing power ouer the soule which he calleth the principall must also haue power ouer the body and temporall goods which he calleth the accessorie when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and the glory of God because temporall goods and states are not necessarie for the good of the soule and the glorie of God but rather lets and hinderances thereof seeing that soules may be saued and God glorified without the enioying of such corporall or temporall goods and therefore temporall goods and states can not rightly be called the accessory or consequent as accessory or consequent ought to be taken in that maxime But the force of his consequence can onely consist in this that because Christ our Sauiour hath giuen to Saint Peter and his Successours sufficient authority to gouerne the Church by spirituall meanes and in order to spirituall good to command not onely spirituall things which is the more noble and principall but also temporall things which power is the lesse noble and so by the institution of Christ annexed to the spirituall power of gouerning the Church and of commaunding spirituall things for which cause it may well be called the accessory or consequent therefore from that rule or maxime not of the law but of the Logicians The accessory or consequent doth necessarily follow the principall or antecedent it may be well inferred that the Pope hauing power to command spirituall things hath also power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good for that
and shewing his malicene lesse then before But how sincerely and truely he alledgeth the argument of Lessius I know not for I haue not his booke neither did I euer reade it and I make no doubt but if it had beene laid downe together with the circumstances thereof it would haue beene cleere enough of it selfe and not haue needed any defence or explication of mine And truely although it were as bare and naked as he makes it yet the consequence would be good and sound for ought he saith against it seeing he saith nothing in effect but that which may be vrged in like manner against the Apostle Saint Paul for the like argument in his Epistle to the Corinthians where commanding them to constitute and appoint Iudges amongst themselues to decide their controuersies he said Nescitis quoniam angelos iudicabimus quanto magis secularia Doe you not know that we shall iudge Angels and much more secular things as who would say seeing wee haue the greater and more eminent power haue we not also the lesse if we haue power ouer spirituall things haue we not also power ouer temporall or secular things Thus argued the Apostle vpon the same ground that Lessius doth to wit vpon this principle qui potest maius potestetiam minus 3 And now will this graue Sophister scoffe at the Apostles argument and say that he might as well haue concluded that Qui potest intelligere potest volare Hee which can vnderstand can flie for what can bee more different in kinde and nature then Angels and secular things and yet neuerthelesse the Apostle prooued soundly by an argument a maiori ad minus that the Church might ordaine and dispose of secular iudgements because it had a greater power to iudge of Angels and the reason that mooued him thereto was the same that mooued Lessius to wit the subordination of secular and temporall things to spirituall for albeit spirituall and temporall things are of different kinde and order being considered in their owne natures yet if they be respected and conioyned in one Ecclesiasticall or mysticall body and referred to one last end which is Gods seruice and glory they are subordinate the one to the other and therefore are not of diuers orders in that respect 4 And if hee grant not this how will he make good his owne former grant that the Pope hath power to command corporall and temporall things quatenus spiritualibus deseruiunt so farre forth as they serue spirituall things doth he not therein acknowledge this subordination and thereupon grant that power in the Pope as a consequent of his spirituall power why then doth he deny the argument of Lessius grounded vpon the same consideration seeing he argueth a maiori ad minus concerning things subordinate one to another as who would say that for as much as spirituall things are superiour in order and dignitie to temporall things and all of them principally ordained and referred to Gods glory and seruice therefore he that hath supreame power ouer the spirituall which is the greater and higher hath power also ouer the temporall which is the lesse and inferiour to dispose thereof as shall be requisite for Gods glorie and seruice where to both spirituall and temporall things are ordained 5 Whereupon it also followeth that the Pope hauing power to excommunicate Kings may depose them as well because the power to excommunicate is greater then the power to depose as also because the temporall state whereof the Pope depriueth the Prince is ordained to serue the spirituall and therefore to be disposed by the supreame spirituall Pastour so far forth as shall be necessarie for Gods seruice and the good of the Church So that you see the argument of Lessius if he made any such hath a good consequence Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 6 But to omit his bitter and slanderous words the maine substance of his reply in this chapter is as it was also in the former chapter grounded vpon the subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall and of temporall things to the eternall saluation of soules whereof I treated at large aboue in the second part which if the Reader will be pleased to peruse he will easily perceiue that all my Aduersaries reply in this chapter is of little worth and that from this subordination no sound argument can be drawne to prooue that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporall things For albeit the temporall power may be said to be subiect to the spirituall or rather temporall Princes are in spirituals and in temporals as they are reduced to spirituals subiect to the direction or command and to the spirituall coercion or correction of the supreame spirituall Pastour And albeit temporall goods and states both of the body and of fortune may be said to be subordained or rather ordained to the eternall saluation of soules although not of their owne nature as I declared in that place but in this sense that all Christians as well Laikes as Clerkes Kings as Popes are bound to refer all their powers and actions to the eternall saluation of their soules in so much that as spirituall Pastours are bound to referre and ordaine their spirituall power and the vse thereof to the eternall saluation of their own soules of those who are subiect to them so Christian Princes are bound to refer their temporall power the vse thereof to the eternall saluation of their own soules of their subiects Neuerthelesse considering that Christ hath left in the Christian world or common-wealth as it containeth both temporall spiritual power earthly kingdomes the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ two distinct supreme powers consequently independant one vpon the other and therfore neither subordained or subiect one to the other in those things which are proper to each other as the disposing of spiritual things and spiritual coercion or correction are proper do belong to the spiritual power so the disposing of temporall things and temporall coercion or correction are proper and doe only belong to the temporall power 7 So that although it belongeth to the supreame spirituall Pastour to direct and instruct a temporall Prince in his temporall power as it is Christian that is to instruct him in what manner hee ought to vse his temporall power according to the grounds of Christian Religion and to command him to vse his temporall power and to dispose of temporalls in that manner as Christ hath ordained to the benefit of his owne soule and of his Subiects and also to command him that he doe compell his Subiects by meanes of his temporall power or with temporall punishments to the obseruing of the lawes of Christ and of his Church and if the Prince refuse to obey the iust commandement of his spirituall Pastour it belongeth also to the spirituall Pastour to compell him thereunto by meanes of his spirituall power or with spirituall punishments and Ecclesiasticall Censures in that manner as the inflicting
of Ecclesiasticall Censures may bee called a compulsion yet the vsing of temporall power the disposing of temporall things the compelling with temporall punishments or the inflicting of temporall punishments and punishing temporally by way of constraint are only proper and doe belong to the temporall power for which cause S. Bernard as I shewed before did affirme that the materiall sword is according to our Sauiours command to be vsed for the Church but not by the Church with the hand of the Souldier not of the Priest at the booke or direction of the Pope but at the command of the Emperour 8 Now to come to my Aduersarie although he hath not as he saith Lessius booke nor euer reade it yet I haue both seene it and reade it and I haue alleadged truly his expresse words as they lye and I doubt not but that my Aduersarie may easily get a sight thereof But howsoeuer that which hee saith is very vntrue that I say nothing in effect against Lessius argument but that which may bee vrged in like manner against the Apostle Saint Paul for that Saint Pauls argument as I shewed before in the former chapter was not grounded vpon this maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon Lessius groundeth his argument for this maxime is very vntrue vnlesse the greater doeth actually or vertually include and imply the lesse or which I take for all one vnlesse the greater and the lesse be of the same kind or order But S. Pauls argument was grounded vpon this maxime hee that is not vnworthie to doe the greater is not vnworthie to doe the lesse For S. Paul intended only to prooue as I shewed before that Christians were not vnworthie to iudge of secular things because they were to iudge the world and the Angels and therefore by the argument a maiori ad minus they were not to be accounted vnworthie to decide secular causes Neither hath euery man that power whereof hee is not vnworthie but he hath onely that power which hee who hath authoritie to giue that power hath granted although perchance he be not vnworthie to haue a greater power as to be Lord Chancellour is a more great and eminent authoritie then to be Lord Chamberlaine and yet it is not lawfull thus to argue from that maxime he that hath the greater authoritie hath the lesse therefore he who is Lord Chancellour is also Lord Chamberlaine albeit we might rightly thus conclude as the Apostle did a maiori ad minus he that is not vnworthie to be Lord Chancellour is not vnworthy to be Lord Chamberlaine for that he who is not vnworthie to haue the greater authoritie is not vnworthie to haue the lesse 9 If therefore I had denied the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things because he had beene vnworthy to haue that authoritie then I had indeede disprooued the Apostles argument but seeing that I doe onely for this cause deny the Pope to haue authoritie to dispose of temporall things for that Christ our Sauiour hath not granted this authoritie to him but onely to temporall Princes I doe not goe against the Apostles argument Neither did the Apostle goe about to prooue that the Church might ordaine and dispose of secular iudgements taking secular iudgements for such as doe proceed from publike authoritie and can not be done by priuate power but hee onely commanded the Corinthians for auoiding of scandall to appoint arbitrarie Iudges among themselues which they might doe by their owne priuate power and without any derogation to the temporall Magistrate and in case of scandall they ought also so to doe and he onely intended to prooue that because they were not vnwoorthy to iudge the Angels and the world much more were they not vnworthy to be Arbitrarie Iudges in secular causes Wherefore Saint Paul did not intend to prooue either by the subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall or by any other argument that the Church might ordaine or dispose of those secular iudgements which belong to temporall authoritie neither can there be drawne any good argument from this subordination to prooue the same as I haue shewed more amply in the second part 10 Neither did I graunt that the spirituall Pastour hath power to command corporall and temporall things quatenus spiritualibus deseruiunt so farre forth as they serue spirituall things for that corporall and temporall things are ordained to spirituall things and to the eternall saluation of soules as my Aduersary vntruely affirmeth for then indeede I must also haue granted that the Pope hauing power to dispose of spirituall things hath consequently power to dispose of temporall things so farre soorth as they are to serue spirituall things but my reason was as you haue seene in the former chapter because the power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good is a spirituall power and agreeable to a spirituall Pastour and Gouernour as he is instituted by Christ but the power to dispose of temporall things whether it be in order to temporall or to spirituall good is a temporall power and therefore not agreeable to a spirituall Pastour according at our Sauiour hath in the Christian world or common wealth instituted ordained and distinguished these two supreme powers temporall and spirituall by their proper acts functions and dignities 11 And albeit both spirituall and temporall things are referred to one last end which is Gods honour and glorie as to the center to which both of them ought to tend yet from hence it can not be rightly concluded that the temporall power is subordained to the spirituall or that temporall things as temporall lawes temporal actions temporall punishments and the like are subordained to spirituall things as to spirituall lawes spirituall actions spirituall punishments and the like but that both of them are I doe not say subordained one to the other but ordained to one and the selfe same end which is the glorie and seruice of God and the saluation of soules which is as it were the center to which the temporall power by temporall lawes and by disposing of temporals and the spirituall power by spirituall lawes and by disposing or dispencing of spiriruall things ought to tend By which it is apparant that although it were supposed that the disposing of temporall things and the vsing of temporall power were in some cases necessarie to the honour and seruice of God to the good of the Church and to the saluation of soules yet it can not be performed but by the temporall power for that our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to spirituall Pastours onely spirituall power to promote and maintaine by spirituall meanes the good of the Church and to bring soules to heauen and temporall meanes and temporall power he hath left to the disposition of temporall Princes whom he forsaw and preordained to be Nurses Patrons and Protectours of his Church 12 Wherefore although my Aduersarie did endeauour as you haue seene in the former
also follow that the authoritie and power of the Church should be no better in effect then a cobweb which holdeth only the little flies and serueth to no purpose against the great ones sufficing to correct all inferiour persons and to preuent and remedy all the inconueniences that may grow from them but not to redresse the most dangerous and pernicious disobedience that may be to wit the rebellion of Princes against the Church from whence the greatest danger and damage to soules may and commonly doth arise if this then should be without remedie it must needes follow as I haue said that Christ hath not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church yea much worse then temporall Kings are wont to prouide for the administration of the Prouinces or States subiect to them who when they appoint Lieutenants or Deputies any where doe giue them authoritie ouer all sorts of subiects and 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 30 Therefore it must needes be granted that our Sauiour Christ ordaining a gouernment in his Church gaue to the Gouernours thereof sufficient power and iurisdiction to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest and when spirituall correction will not suffice then to chastice them also in their temporalities so farre forth as shall be necessarie for the publike good of the Church and for the due execution of their office and charge For as the Lawler saith Cui iurisdictio data est Iauolen leg 2. â— de Iurisdict ei quoque concessa esse videntur sine quibus iurisdictio explicaâ—i non potuit To whomsoeuer iurisdiction is giueÌ„ those things do seeme to be granted withall without the which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and this is also conforme to the axiome of the Philosophers qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth being giueth also those things that are consequents thereof or necessarily required thereto 31 But first I would demaund of Mr. Fitzherbert what remedie the Church hath against a most potent Christian Prince who shall contemne not only an Ecclesiasticall Censure but also euery sentence of depriuation or of any of other temporall or corporall chasticement denounced against him by the Pope doth he not contemne this Censure and sentence and by his authoritie and example draw his subiects for the most part to a generall reuolt from the Church shall we then say that Christ left not to his Church sufficient authoritie to remedie this How then is that fulfilled which the Apostle said of the most ample power of the Church to reuenge or punish all disobedience seeing that the disobedience of absolute Princes to this sentence of depriuation should be incorrigible and remedilesse Whereupon it would also follow that the authoritie and power of the Church should be in effect no better then a cobweb c. Let Mr. Fitzherbert satisfie this demaund and he will forthwith see that in the like manner his owne argument may be answered 32 Secondly as euery well instituted temporall common wealth and the chiefe gouernours thereof haue alwaies sufficient temporall power taking temporall power for authoritie to punish with temporall punishments all treasons rebellions and contempts whatsoeuer although they haue not alwaies sufficient power taking power for might force or effectuall meanes to redresse actually all disorders that shall arise in the common wealth for that if the perturbers of the common wealth be more potent and strong then the rulers and gouernours thereof they will little regard any sentence or declaration either of exile losse of goods and libertie or also of life that the Gouernours of the common wealth shall denounce against them and yet no man will deny that the chiefe Gouernours of the common wealth haue sufficient authoritie forasmuch as concerneth â—he authoritie it selfe to punish with temporall punishments euery particular contempt of these seditious and wicked subiects and to redresse all inconueniences that possibly may arise So likewise the chiefe Pastours or Gouernours of the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ haue alwaies sufficient spiritual power taking spirituall power for authoritie to punish with spirituall punishments all heresies schismes and other crimes whatsoeuer although they haue not alwaies sufficient spirituall power taking power for force might or effectuall meanes to redresse actually by spirituall punishments all inconueniences and disorders that shall arise in the Church of Christ For if the disturbers of the Church be peruerse obstinate and wilfull they will little regard and Censure sentence or declaration that the Pastours of the Church can possibly denounce against them and yet no man will deny that the chiefe Pastours or Gouernours of the Church of Christ haue sufficient authoritie for as much as concerneth the authoritie it selfe to punish with spirituall Censures euery particular contempt of these disobedient persons and that these spirituall Censures are of themselues sufficient to terrifie any Christian whatsoeuer and to withdraw him from sinne seeing that they are farre more grieuous and dreadfull as S. Augustine affirmeth then any temporall punishment whatsoeuer 33 Thirdly I answere that S. Paul had indeede through the gift of miracles which Christ our Sauiour gaue to him and to the rest of the Apostles not only a most ample and extraordinarie authoritie but also power might force and effectuall meanes to punish or reuenge all disobedience euen with temporall and corporall punishments Whereupon as S. Chrysostome obserueth vpon this place Chrysost in 2. Cor 10. Act. 14. Act. 2â— Act. 13. Auselni in 2. Cor. 10. hee did one time cure a lame man an other time hee raised one from death to life and an other time he punished Elymas the Magician with depriuing him of his sight And S. Anselme numbreth among this spirituall armour whereof the Apostle heere speaketh the doing of miracles For we saith S. Anselme speaking in the person of S. Paul doe not warre or fight according to the flesh For the weapons of our warfare are not carnall but spirituall and mighty to God our King for whom we warre or fight For we doe not beare a materiall lance or sword but we doe more mightily ouerthrow our enemies with the word then others doe with carnall weapons For our weapons are the word of preaching wisdome miracles charitie and other vertues c. 34 Wherefore S. Paul speaketh not only of authoritie to fight or punish but also of might force or effectuall meanes to ouercome his enemies Our weapons saith he are mighty to God to destroy munitions that is saith S. Anselme secular doctrines arguments and subtilities by which peruerse men doe strengthen their hearts that the word of truth may not be able to touch them because the art of Apostolicall preaching doth mightily pearce and ouerthrow through the vertue of spirituall grace these kind of munitions And we haue
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
disobeyeth the Church is excommunicated by the law of God Also for that otherwayes the Church doth excommunicate no man but declare him to be excommunicated by the law of God because he doth not obey the Church which how absurd this is it is manifest of it selfe c. First therefore by those words is signified this generall maxime that those who doe not heare the Church doe grieuously sinne and especially if they be obstinate and that therefore they are to be accounted and shunned as grieuous sinners as are Heathens and Publicanes Secondly It is signified that Christ our Lord will giue to his Church power to binde and loose And so in those words is contained the power to inflict the Censure of Excommunication but not the institution of the Censure it selfe or a commandement in particular but onely in generall of auoyding sinners who are disobedient to the Church vnder which generall law is comprehended an accomodate distribution to say so to wit a commandement to shunne euery one that is disobedient to the Church according to the degree and manner of the prohibition and separation which is made by the Church her selfe And this is the common exposition of Interpreters vpon that place and of Diuines handling this matter Thus Suarez Whereby it is apparant how disagreeably to Suarez doctrine Mr. Fitzherbert here affirmeth that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement ordained a temporall penalty of Excommunication when he commanded that he who will not heare the Church shall bee taken for an Ethnicke and a Publicane seeing that according to Suarez he ordained here no penalty or Censure at all of Excommunication 81 But because some Catholike Doctours as Almaine Eckius Clicthoueus and Driedo doe affirme whose doctrine in this poynt both Suarez and the more common opinion of Diuines doe reiect that at least-wise to the sinne of heresie if it be ioyned with obstinacy there is annexed some Censure or punishment by the law of God and their opinion may seeme to haue some ground in those authorities of holie Scripture whereof some are here vrged by Mr. Fitzherbert Suarez also answereth to these authorities and affirmeth that they are not forcible And first that those words of S. Paul ad Tit. 3. A man that is an heretike after the first and second admonition auoyd c. may bee vnderstood of the naturall obligation by which euery man is bound to auoyd danger of being infected and consequently to auoyd the person which is an occasion to him of sinning and such is an heretike whose speech spreadeth as a Canker 2. Tim. 2. So also it is said 1. Cor. 5. But now I wrote to you not to keepe company if he that is named a brother be a fornicator or a couetous person or a seruer of Idols or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner with such an one not so much as to take meate and Galat 5. Know you not that a little leauen corrupteth the whole paste Secondly although we should grant that the Apostle in that place ad Tit. 3. spoke of a proper Censure it doth not follow that this institution is diuine but at the most an institution of the Apostle because it is the commandement of S. Paul c. and especially for that it may be expounded Auoid that is Excommunicate for the Apostle spake to Titus who was a Bishop and had power to excommunicate 82 And according to this sense may be vnderstood those words of S. Iohn Epist 2. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine receiue him not into your house nor say to him God saue you although they rather seeme to be vnderstood of a naturall commandement not to cooperate with such men and not to giue them any signes whereby either wee should seeme to consent to them or that they should be confirmed in their errour And this S. Iohn did signifie in the next words For he that saith to him God saue you communicateth with his wicked workes As also S. Paul 2. Thess 3. said And if any obey not our word note him by an Epistle and doe not company with him that he may be confounded In which last word also the Apostle insinuateth that not onely to auoide communication in sinne but also to rebuke our neighbour charitably it is sometimes counselled or also commanded to abstaine from his companie that hee may be confounded of this sort also are those wordes 1. Cor. 5. which words doe admit almost all the aforesaid interpretations And if they be extended to a proper Censure they are to be vnderstood at what time and in what manner the Pastours of the Church shall iudge that these kinde of sinners are to be auoided And so by all these testimonies conferred together it is euidently gathered that there is no ground in Scripture for vs to say that any Censure is by the law of God annexed to heresie rather then to other sinnes And therefore the contrary opinion is farre more probable and it is the common opinion of other Doctours Thus Suarez And yet forsooth Mr. Fitzherbert maketh no doubt but that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement hath ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication whereas Suarez and the common opinion of Doctors doe resolutely affirme that no penaltie at all of Excommunication is by the commandement of Christ ordained against those that shall disobey the commandement of the Church 83 Wherefore lastly and principally all that Mr. Fitzherbert or any other can conclude from the former places of holy Scripture or such like is that the Church hath power in order to the spirituall good of soules to enioyne temporall punishments and to commaund the faithfull not to conuerse ciuilly with Heathens Publicanes or notorious sinners when otherwise by the law of nature they are not bound to conuerse ciuilly with them whereof I neuer made any doubt And therefore obserue good Reader the fraude and ignorance of this man who pretended to prooue that I contradicted my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour could command temporall punishments but not inflict them seeing that neither frō the reduction of temporall things to spiritual nor from the nature effects of Excommunication nor from those places of holy Scripture which he heere hath brought he concludeth any other thing then that Christians are commaunded to account him an Heathen and a Publican who will not heare the Church that the Apostle commanded the Corinthians and Thessalonians not to eate with notorious sinners and disobedient persons that S. Iohn commanded the faithfull not to receiue heretikes into their houses nor so much as to salute them all which I willingly granted but of the other part of the contradiction which was the principall thing he should haue proued that I must consequently grant that the spirituall Superiour can also inflict temporall punishments hee speaketh not one word 84 For if a Christian should not obserue the aforesaid commandements and will not account them for Heathens and Publicanes
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
and effectuall meanes to withdraw men actually from sinne for this were extreame folly to say as my Aduersarie himselfe confesseth For the sufficiencie saith hee of the power which Christ hath left to his Church in this point or any other consisteth in this that the power being considered in it selfe is sufficient to worke the effect for which it was ordained if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment Wherefore it is manifest that hee who will contend that the Church must haue a more sufficient power to saue soules then which of it selfe is sufficient if it meete with a capable subiect and haue no externall impediment must needes suppose that the Church must also haue sufficient force might and effectuall meanes to saue soules and a power to make the subiect capable and to remooue all external impediments or which is all one must haue such a sufficient power which is not onely sufficient in regard of the power being considered in it selfe but also in regard of all other things which are necessarie that the power worke the effect for which it was ordained for that these two are opposite parts or members of the distinction I made before and no man that hath any skill in Logike can be ignorant that in euery diuision consisting only of two parts or members we may rightly argue from the affirming of the one part to the denyall of the other and frō the denying of the one to the affirming of the other If therfore the power of the Church to inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures be of it selfe a sufficient coerciue power to withdraw men from sinne which is the end of Ecclesiasticall power and if men bee not thereby withdrawne from sinne it is not by reason of the insufficiencie of the power but of the indisposition of the subiect no other coerciue power to inflict temporall punishments can be necessarie And therefore the aforesaid distinction of Ecclesiasticall coerciue power considered in it selfe and in respect of the impediments which may be in regard of the subiect did quite ouerthrow Cardinall Bellarmines second argument and the whole discourse of Fa. Parsons which was grounded thereon So that Mr. Fitzherbert might with more credit haue left vntouched the satisfaction which Fa. Parsons pretended to giue to the Earle of Salisburies desire or complaint for ought hee hath beene able to say in defence of the same 62 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert quarelleth with mee for teaching in this my Discourse against Fa. Parsons that the penalties which the Church may I doe not say impose as hee vntruely imposeth vpon me for this power of the Church to impose command or enioyne temporall penalties I neuer denyed but to inflict are not temporall punishments and for remitting my Reader for this point to diuers authorities euen of the ancient Fathers related by mee in my Apologie hee wisheth mee g Pag. 122. nu 21. and the Reader to see the answere to those authorities in D. Schulckenius who giueth as he saith sufficient satisfaction to euery one of them and sheweth euidently that diuers of those Authours doe wholly impugne Widdringtons opinion and doctrine and finally telleth him of his bad fortune in alleadging such witnesses as either make nothing for him or quite ouerthrow him and the like may bee seene saith he in D. Westons Sanctuarie who also answereth the said places particularlay and fully I also in like manner wish him and the Reader to see how their answeres haue beene confuted partly by Mr. Iohn Barclay and partly by my selfe aboue in this Treatise h Part. 1. per totum where also I haue shewed the vanitie of these men that when they see their arguments and answeres most of all to bee shaken then they make the greatest brags to which silly shifts they haue beene driuen by their bad fortune to vndertake the defence of so bad a cause and through a vehement desire not to seeme to bee vanquished and to haue any way erred in hauing coined a new Catholike faith 63 Furthermore the Reader may see i Pag. 122. nu 22. C. Bel. in Tract de potest Sum. Pont. contra Barcl cap. 8. saith Mr. Fitzherbert many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay which Widdrington could not but haue seene no lesse then the former before he wrote against my Supplement and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in those answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Readers to those places and such like which hee knew were alreadie answered but perhaps he perswadeth himselfe that all his writings and assertions are as I haue said in the Preface like to the lawes of the Medes See Preface nu 15. and see also the answere thereunto Dan. 6. and Persians which are inuiolable and immutable And this shall suffice touching Father Parsons whom you see hee might with more credit haue left vntouched for ought hee hath beene able to prooue against him 64 But as the Reader may see many of them answered by the Cardinall himselfe in his booke against Barclay so also hee may see the Cardinalls answeres confuted by Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmine which Mr. Fitzherbert could not but haue seene before he wrote now his Reply against mee and therefore reason would that hee should haue shewed some insufficiencie in Mr. Iohn Barclayes answeres before he so confidently remitted me and his Reader to Cardinall Bellarmines booke against Barclay which he knew was already answered And therefore that which hee repeateth heere againe concerning the lawes of the Medes and Persians may more aptly be applyed to himselfe and other such like vehement defenders of the Popes power to depose Princes who for that they haue vnaduisedly begun to make their doctrine to be an infallible point of faith which they will neuer bee able to make good will yet defend the same per fas ne fas by right and wrong and perceiuing that they cannot preuaile with reason and arguments endeauour to ouersway their cause by force and authoritie clamours and threatnings as it is euident by the Breues which his Holinesse by their importunitie and sinistrous Information hath published to condemne the new Oath wherein chiefly that doctrine is denied as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation which they will neuer bee able to maintaine and by condemning some of my bookes in such generall wordes and commanding me vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith in so strange a maner not declaring of what crime either in particular or in generall I should purge my selfe although I haue often by diuers Supplications to his Holinesse most humbly and earnestly requested to bee particularly informed what one thing is contained in the Oath which is so cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation or what one thing I haue written in those bookes whereof I should purge my selfe as being contrarie to faith
from hence bee necessarily inferred that the aforesaid Doctours should thereby take vpon them to determine an article of faith to make a manifest and ineuitable schisme in the Church of God yea and to precipitate men into a manifest heresie and account the Pope if he should not hold the same not to bee the head of the Church and Christs Vicar but an hereticke and Antichrist and all the other parts of the Church who should maintaine the contrary not to bee true parts of the Church but members of Antichrist Of this question I would gladly be resolued for the resolution thereof would giue no small light whereby the iudicious Reader may see of what force are the chiefest obiections and inferences that the Cardinall of Peron vrgeth aginst the oath of France and the decree of the Parliament of Paris made the second of Ianuary 1615. 39 And thus much concerning the Lord Cardinall of Peron whom in truth I was very loath to mention for the great reuerence and respect wherewith I honour his Grace in regard of the singular gifts of honour and nature wherewith he is adorned but that the defence of truth in this important question touching our duties to God and Caesar and of my innocency which the slanderous tongues of some haue vniustly branded with the infamous note of errour and heresie for impugning their new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes and also the publishing of his oration to the view of the world wherby many vnlearned Catholikes not being able to discerne his artificiall and cunning manner both in propounding and handling this dangerous question touching the deposition of Princes are pittifully deluded and seduced haue vrged me thereunto Now to the matter from whence vpon this occasion giuen me by my Aduersarie touching the doctrine of Ioannes Parisiensis I haue made this digression 40 And as for the matter it selfe saith Mr. Fitzherbert c pag. 160. n. 7. for the which my Aduersary Widdrington produceth their testimonies to wit to prooue that many decrees of the Popes and generall Councells touching temporall things haue beene alwaies made with the expresse Nu. 47. or secret consent of Princes I cannot see what he could gaine or prooue thereby for the question now in hand if it should be granted him For would hee inferre that because many things haue beene decreed by Popes and Councels touching temporall matters therefore no such thing could be decreed in the Councell of Lateran without them Who seeth not the weakenesse and absurditie of this inference seeing that nothing else can follow of those premisses directly but that as diuers other decrees concerning temporall matters haue beene made with the consent of the Princes so also it may be that this Canon of the Councell of Lateran was made in like manner with their consent which no man will deny yea wee willingly grant not onely that it might bee so but also that it was so and inferre thereupon that forasmuch as all Christian Princes gaue their consent to this Canon in that famous generall Councell which was as I may say the Parliament of all Christendome therefore they are and euer shall be subiect thereto except it be repealed by some other generall Councell of like authoritie But how doth it follow that because this and diuers other Canons concerning politicall matters haue beene ratified by temporall Princes therefore they could not be lawfully made without their consent which is the point that Widdrington must prooue if he will argue to the purpose 41 But if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased to consider with an indifferent eye my answere and the principall drift and scope thereof he might easily haue seene that my answere was good and strong and the authority which I brought from Ioannes Parisiensis and Hostiensis sufficient to confirme the same For my principall answere was this that the decree of the Councell of Lateran did not in those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominos principales comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour Landlords Magistrates or Lords it being made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes as ordaining the inflicting of temporall punishments which to ordaine doth not belong to the spirituall but onely to the temporall power and that therefore not onely it did not but also it could not in those generall words comprehend absolute Princes themselues by whose authority it was made And to preuent an obiection which I foresaw some might make to wit that the decrees and Canons of Popes and Councels haue their force to binde from the authority of the Church and not from the consent approbation ratification or authority of temporall Princes I gaue the aforesaid answere that Popes and Councels doe oftentimes ordaine many things which to ordaine belongeth rather to the ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power by the expresse or tacite consent of Princes who are present by themselues or their Ambassadours or else presuming or at leastwise hoping that temporall Princes will ratifie the same and for the confirmation hereof I brought the authority of Hostiensis who affirmeth that according to the opinion of some Doctors which also Pope Innocent Io. Andreas doe affirme that the Canon Ad abolendam de haereticis wherein it is ordained that if Counts and Barons Rectours and Consuls of Cities and of other places doe refuse to take an oath to defend the Church against heretikes they shall be depriued of their honour had therefore force to binde because the Emperour gaue his consent thereunto And that therefore it is no maruaile if this decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments had therefore force to binde for that temporall Princes consented thereunto 42 And by this it is cleare that my meaning was not onely to affirme that the decree of the Lateran Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made by the consent of absolute Princes onely in that manner as absolute Princes do giue their consent to the making of Ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons which doe meerely proceede from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authority but also that it was made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that to ordaine the inflicting of temporall punishments belongeth rather to the Ciuill then to the Ecclesiasticall power and therfore it would not haue had force to binde vnlesse absolute Princes had consented thereunto As likewise the Canon Ad abolendam wherein temporall punishments were inflicted was therefore of force according to the opinion of some Canonists as Hostiensis relateth for that the Emperour consented thereunto although the ordaining or inflicting of Excommunication which in that Canon Ad abolendam was ioyned together with the depriuation of temporall honour as it is also ioyned in the decree of the Lateran Councell did proceed and had force to binde from the spirituall authoritie of the Church to whom onely it belongeth to inflict
Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Now Mr. Fitzherbert is it possible that you should be so ignorant as not to vnderstand the force of my answere and that I brought the testimonies of Ioannes Parisiensis and Hostiensis to great purpose Doe not you see what I gaine for the question which is in hand if you graunt me that the decree of the Lateran Counsell as also that Canon Ad abolendam according to those Doctours cited by Hostiensis had their force to binde from the consent of temporall Princes Can you bee so blinde as not to see how this inference is not weake and absurd but strong and certaine that because this and other decrees of Popes and Councels concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments were I do not onely say ratified by temporall Princes but had their force to binde from the consent of temporal Princes therfore they could not be lawfully made without their ratification and consent which is the point you say I must prooue if I will argue to the purpose vnlesse your weaknesse will admit that a law may lawfully or legally be made without that by vertue whereof it hath force to binde as those Canonists cited by Hostiensis Pope Innocent and Ioannes Andreas doe affirme that the Canon Ad abolendā ideo valuisse quia Imperator aut Princeps consensit Was therefore of force because the Emperour or Prince gaue his consent 44 And as for that inference you make that if that Canon of the Lateran Councell which was as it were a Parliament of all Christendome was made by the consent and I also adde by the authority of all Christian Princes therefore it cannot be repealed but by some other generall Councell of like authority although it nothing concerneth the deposition of absolute Princes by whose authority it was made but onely of inferiour Landlords Magistrates or Lords yet of what force this inference is you may for your better instruction see aboue d Ch. 8. nu 27. by the doctrine of Suarez who declareth in what manner the law of Nations may in this or that Nation be repealed for that a law of a generall Councell made by the consent and authority of all Christian Princes is as I may say a law of all Christian Nations 45 But let vs goe on and see how well you prooue that it is absurd to say that the Canon of the Lateran Councell and diuers other Canons concerning politicall matters could not be lawfully made without the consent of temporall Princes But how absurd is this saith Mr. Fitzherbert e Pag. 161. num 8. it may appeare euen by Widdringtons former graunt and expresse doctrine f Chap. 2. num 1. 2. touching the Popes power to command corporall and temporall things as they serue or are reduced to spirituall for this power being spirituall in respect of the spirituall end whereto it reduceth all temporall things must needes bee independent of temporall Princes vnlesse we shall also grant them a supreame spirituall authority 46 But how vaine this inference is I haue clearely shewed before g Chap. 6. num 66 seq by declaring the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of them both which my Aduersary not distinguishing doth thereby confound the vnderstanding of his vnlearned Reader For the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue or commanding are all those things spirituall or temporall which by the reference or reduction of them to a spirituall end may become spirituall things to wit vertuous or vicious actions which are the acts obiects of the spirituall power as it is directiue this spirituall power is independant of temporall Princes but the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing are not all spirituall things but onely spirituall punishments and because no reduction of temporall punishments to a spirituall end can make temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments therefore temporall punishments although by reducing them to a spirituall end may become spirituall things which are the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue yet still they remaine temporall punishments and therefore cannot by any reduction become the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing whereupon the inflicting of such punishments for what end soeuer they be inflicted must needes remaine dependant vpon the consent and authority of temporall Princes Neither also can my Aduersary be so ignorant as to affirme that temporall Princes cannot vse their supreame temporall power to a spirituall end as to the rooting out of heresie adultery and all other crimes vnlesse we grant them a supreame spirituall authority 47 Besides that this may be conuinced saith Mr. Fitzherbert h Pag. 161. num 8. by the practise of all the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours when not only corporall and temporall things were commanded by the Church but temporall and comporall penalties ordained without the ratification or consent of any temporall Prince This indeed were somewhat to the purpose if Mr. Fitzherbert could conuince that in the primitiue Church before Kings and Emperour were Christians temporall penalties were not onely commanded but also ordained as to ordaine is distinguished from to command for then it must needes follow that the primitiue Church did not onely command the inflicting of temporall punishments without the consent and authority of temporall Princes and that temporall punishments were then the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue which I neuer denied but also did inflict temporall punishments and that temporall punishments were then the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue or punishing which I vtterly denie Obserue now what pittifull arguments this silly man bringeth for conuincing proofes 48 This may appeare saith he by a decree of Pope Calixtus e Epist 2. Callixt tom 1. Concil in the time of the Emperour Alexander Seuerus whereby as well Lay-men as Priests and Cleargie-men were forbidden vpon paine of infamie to make conspiracies against their Bishops 48 The words of Pope Calixtus to the Bishops of Fraunce are these Wee haue heard that the crimes of conspiracies doe raigne in your parts and it hath beene made manifest vnto vs that their people doe conspire against their Bishops The subtilty or malice of which offence is abhominable not onely among Christians but also among Heathens and is forbidden by externall lawes And therefore not onely Ecclesiasticall but also Secular laws do condemne them that are guilty of this crime and not onely those that do conspire but those also who consent to them And our predecessours with a great company of Bishops haue commanded all them that are placed in Priestly dignity or are Clergy-men to fall from the dignity which they haue haue commanded that the rest be depriued of Communion and to be banished from the Church and haue thought or iudged all men together of either order to be infamous not onely the
temporall Princes impose enioyne or command temporall and corporall penalties afflictions and punishments and in this sense ordaine and depose of them For thus he writeth 59 Heereto may be added saith hee q Pag. 162. nu 10. 11. the Constitution of the Apostles themselues in their Councell held at Hierusalem wherein they imposed vpon the Christians a burden as they called it whereof part was meerely temporall to wit to abstaine from blood and that which was strangled Act. 15. Visum est say they Spiritui sancto nobis c. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from things immolated to Idolls and blood and that which is strangled and fornication Thus said they in their Canon disposing as you see of a temporall thing by their owne Apostolicall authoritie without any hope or expectation of the consent or ratification of any temporall Magistrate as they also did the like in the institution of Lent which as all the Fathers doe acknowledge is an Apostolicall tradition and consisteth in a meere temporall affliction and the like may be said not onely of all the examples alledged by mee before r See c. 2. nu 2 3. 4. concerning the practise of the Apostles partly in Å¿ Act 5.6 13 corporall punishments and partly in the disposition t 1. Cor. 6. of temporall things but also of the custome of the primitiue Church to impose corporall penances u Cypr. epist 10 ad Clerum Tertul. de paenit cap. 10. consisting in fasting watching wearing of haire-cloth and such like which albeit they were temporall things yet were imposed by the Church vpon her children by her owne authority though alwayes for a spirituall end to wit for the good of soules and Gods greater glory and seruice 60 Whereupon it followeth that the Church may also now in like manner dispose of temporall things to the same end by her owne authority without demanding the consent or ratification of any temporall Prince for no sufficient reason can bee assigned why the Church could doe it then and not now neither yet why it may for a spirituall end punish a man temporally in his body by some corporall affliction and in his honour by infamy and not in his temporall goods and state especially seeing that all temporall goods are inferiour to the body and both body and goods ordained for the seruice of the soule and for spirituall ends Whereupon I say it followeth euidently that the consent of temporall Princes is altogether needlesse to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Constitutions concerning temporall things albeit the Church hath alwaies vsed to auaile her selfe of their authoritie and power for the execution of all her Decrees as well spirituall as temporall matters and to that end admitteth and requireth the assistance of temporall Princes or their Ambassadours in generall Councells so as by all this it appeareth euidently that the Councell of Lateran needed not the consent or ratification of the Emperour or other temporall Princes for the validitie of the Canon now in question and consequently that my Aduersaries first answere to the obiection proposed by himselfe is to no purpose 61 Heere you see how Mr. Fitzherbert rangeth vp and downe to no purpose spending many words idly to prooue that which no man denieth to wit that the Church by her spirituall authoritie may without the consent of Princes command enioyne or impose temporall and corporall penalties which I haue alwaies granted yet craftily confounding in his inferences ordaining with commanding disposing with imposing and punishing temporally with enioyning temporall punishments which I haue euer distinguished He tooke vpon him as you heard to conuince by the practise of all the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours that corporall and temporall things were not onely commanded but also ordained by the Church without the ratification and consent of any temporall Prince because a little before x See nu 45. he doth acknowledge that I doe grant and expresly teach that the Pope hath power to command corporall and temporall things as they are reduced to spirituall and yet heere hee prooueth nothing else either by the Constitutions of the Apostles or by the practise of the primitiue Church but that spirituall Pastours may by their ordinary power for our question is not concerning the extraordinary power which the Apostles had to worke miracles command impose and enioyne temporall and corporall things as to abstaine from blood and that which is strangled from the eating of flesh vpon certaine daies as in Lent rather to suffer wrong and to appoint arbitrary Iudges among themselues to compose quietly their strifes then to haue recourse to the tribunalls of infidell Iudges and to doe corporall and temporall penances and that the Church may now also doe the same and that therefore the consent of temporall Princes is altogether needlesse to the validitie of such Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions which doe onely command impose or enioyne corporall and temporall penances and punishments and of this no Catholike maketh doubt 62 But that the primitiue Church did by her ordinary power for of miraculous and extraordinary power which is not to descend necessarily to Successours I doe not speake not onely command and impose but also did inflict temporall and corporall punishments without the consent of the party who was punished and did dispose of temporall things as to dispose is distinguished from to impose or command to wit by depriuing Christians of temporall right power and authority or that the consent and authority of temporall Princes is not necessary to the validity of such Ecclesiasticall Canons and Constitutions as is this decree of the Lateran Councell which is now in question wherein temporall punishments are not onely commaunded or imposed but also inflicted or that the assistance of temporall Princes or their Ambassadours is not onely required in generall Councells for the execution and not for the confirmation and validitie of such decrees wherein temporall punishments are inflicted and temporall things not onely commanded or imposed but also disposed of Mr. Fitzherbert hath not brought heere from the practise of the Primitiue Church so much as any probable or colourable much lesse as he vaunted any conuincing proofe and consequently my first answere to the obiection which I propounded standeth yet firme and solid and what he hath obiected to the contrary is to no purpose at all CHAP. XII Wherein an other answere of Widdrington grounded vpon certaine Glossers or Expositours of the Canon Law is confuted and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are prooued to be fraudulent and insufficient and moreouer it is shewed that from no Canon of the Church it can be prooued that the custome of the Church is to inflict by her spirituall power I doe not say to commaund or impose temporall penalties and the true difference betweene the Diuines and Canonists concerning
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
not onely vpon this fact of Popes giuing licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation but also vpon the two other examples before propounded whereas he hath not as you haue seene so much as related my first Instance 24 Secondly besides that not onely my first Instance or argument but also the other two Instances which I brought to comfort them with Fa. Lessius his three arguments were grounded vpon the licences which some Popes haue giuen to inferiour Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation it is very vntrue that I by any of my three instances laboured to prooue as this man affirmeth that the Decree of the Lateran Councell concerning the deposition of Princes might be vncertaine seeing that I alwayes contended that the Decree of the Lateran Councell did not concerne the deposition of Princes but onely of inferiour Magistrates and Landlords and also that it was not made by Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie but onely by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes So that Mr. Fitzherbert to shew that I argue most absurdly from the particular facts and dispensations of Popes to the generall Decrees of Popes and generall Councells betwixt which I doe not denie but that there is an euident disparitie sheweth himselfe to be very false and fraudulent For that which I contended by my first instance to prooue was that the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius first argument is not generally true and consequently that his argument could not be good That doctrine saith he doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctors doe either propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which proposition being generall may be applyed not onely to the decree of the Lateran Councell but also to all other particular decrees and sentences of Popes or Councells which the three aforesaid examples by me propounded touching the particular sentences dispensations licences and decrees of Popes do euidently conuince to be a very false proposition and consequently his argument grounded thereon to be very insufficient 25 And therefore to shew the weaknesse of Fa. Lessius his first argument I did oppose to it an other like instance for if that doctrine doth appertain to faith which Popes Doctors do propound or suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences which is the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius his first argument then this doctrin that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie and giue licence to inferiour Priests to minister the Sacrament of confirmation must also appertaine to faith seeing that it is propounded and supposed by Popes and Doctours as a certaine foundation of many Canons Decrees and iudiciall sentences of Popes Now by the answere which my Aduersaries will make to this instance I will also satisfie Fa. Lessius his first argument For all the force of that argument doth consist in the true sense and meaning of that Maior proposition for absolutely and in those generall words as it is spoken by him without any limitation it is as I said very vntrue but it must be limited both to those decrees constitutions iudiciall sentences grants and priuiledges which are certainely knowne to proceed from Ecclesiasticall not Ciuill authority and also to such Decrees which are propounded as of Faith or doe ordaine things cleerely and euidently deduced from some vndoubted doctrine of Faith as I shewed aboue out of Card. Bellarmine and Canus 26 For although it bee certaine and a poynt of faith that the Church of Christ as it includeth onely Church-men or Cleargy-men hath a full Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall power in generall and that the foundation of true and proper Ecclesiasticall Lawes Decrees or Canons is true Ecclesiasticall power also in generall yet in particular to what things the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power doth extend there is such a great controuersie among Doctours that in this point few things are sure or certaine as I shewed before out of Almaine as whether the Church hath power to giue licence to inferiour Priests to conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastitie to dissolue the bond of Matrimony which is not consummate and many such like and to come neere our matter to dispose of temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to depose temporall Princes for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer So that the foundation of such Decrees Canons constitutions licences dispensations and sentences cannot be certaine and a point of faith so long as it remaineth questionable and controuersed among Catholikes For it is manifest and most worthy to be noted as Canus said Canus lib 5. de loc cap. 5. q. vlt. concl 3. that those decrees of the Church can not be certaine and firme which are not grounded vpon certaine and firme principles and foundations Wherefore if but one of those things whereon the iudgement of the Church dependeth be vncertaine the decree of the Church cannot be vncertaine c. And by this Fa. Lessius his first argument is plainely solued For his Minor proposition is absolutely false and also his Maior is not true if it be vnderstood of Decrees Canons m Pag. 88. nu 7. and sentences which are not certainely knowne to proceed fâ—om spirituall authority 27 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert that he doth not argue against the Decree it selfe but against the reason whereupon it was grounded saying that it may be vncertaine and subiect to error no lesse then the reason which mooued some Popes to giue licence to a Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation But if he say this he is very absurd for he argueth in effect no otherwise then thus Gal. 2. Acts 15. Because S. Peter had no sufficient ground for his dissimulation at Antioch which S. Paul reprehended in him therefore the Apostles had no sufficient reason or ground for their Decree in the Councell at Hierusalem which no man that hath his right wits will say for that the Apostles had the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost in making their Decree which S. Peter had not eyther in his particular fact or in the foundation whereupon he grounded it 28 But first it is manifest as you haue seene before that I neuer argued eyther against the Decree of the Lateran Councell or against the reason of that Decree but I onely impugned the exposition which my Aduersaries make of that Decree and the reason whereby they pretend to prooue from that Decree that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith considering that it is vncertaine whether that Decree was made by true Ecclesiasticall or ciuill authority and also for that it is not a true and proper Decree containing in it any precept or obligation and though it were it is not propounded as of faith nor grounded vpon any cleare and vndoubted doctrine of faith which
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
ROGER WIDDRINGTONS Last REIOYNDER TO Mr. THOMAS FITZ-HERBERTS REPLY CONCERNING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE And the POPES power to depose PRINCES Wherein all his arguments taken from the Lawes of God in the old and new Testament of Nature of Nations from the Canon and Ciuill Law and from the Popes Breues condemning the Oath and the Cardinalls Decree forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes are answered Also many Replies and Instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered PROVERBS 12. The lip of truth shall be stable for euer but he that is an hasty witnesse frameth a tongue of lying IHS Permissu Superiorum 1619. ⧠The CONTENTS of this TREATISE THE Preface to the Reader wherein it is shewed first how dangerous and pernitious a thing it is vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike Religion and to the Sea Apostolike to coyne teach and publish by fraude and violence false articles of Catholike faith especially in things which doe greatly derogate from the temporall Soueraignty of absolute Princes Secondly how exceedingly Widdringtons Aduersaries doe preiudice themselues and their cause by handling this controuersie concerning the Oath of Allegiance and the Popes power to depose Princes in such a fraudulent vncharitable and slanderous manner and in not permitting learned Catholikes to whom the charge of soules is committed and who ought alwaies to bee ready to satisfie euery one that asketh them a reason of their Catholike faith to try and examine by the true touchstone of Catholike faith and the vndoubted principles of Catholike Religion whether the faith which they pretend to bee Catholike bee a false and forged Catholike faith or no Thirdly what is Widdringtons chiefe drift in making this Reioynder and in continuing still to handle this controuersie CHAP. I. Widdrington freeth himselfe of two fraudes whereof he is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe againe vp his Aduersary Secondly hee discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds Thirdly he plainly sheweth that he hath answeared probably and like a good Catholike CHAP II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersary taken from the rule of the law The accessory followeth the principall is confirmed Secondly Two Instances which he brought against that rule are prooued to be sound and sufficient Thirdly that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue Secular iudgements c. is at large examined CHAP. III. Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime Hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed Secondly the foure Instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polony are confuted CHAP. IIII. Widdringtons interpretation of that clause of the Oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to bee sound and sufficient and is cleered from all absurditie and contradiction euen by M. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike CHAP. V. Widdringtons answeres to all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the olde and new Testament are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrary to his owne doctrine SEC 1. First all the authorities which are brought out of the old law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and other learned Diuines Secondly the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular SEC 2. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the olde law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authority of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastice and depose Kings is disprooued Secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered Thirdly it is shewed that the authority of S. Chrysostome brought by M. Fitzherbert to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authority he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth Saint Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine SEC 3. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the verity is prooued to make against himselfe Secondly those words of our Sauiour Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted Common-wealth are satisfied and Doctor Schulckenius Reply is proued to be fraudulent and insufficient Thirdly the authoritie of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were readie to reuenge all disobedience is answered M. Fitzherberts fraud in alledging the authority of S. Augustine is plainely discouered and the Conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be false and fraudulent CHAP. VI. M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ Secondly that Religious Priests cannot by the law of Nature punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the law of Nature the ciuill societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers Replies of M. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted CHAP. VII 1. Certaine places of the old and new Testament are explained 2. D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere Widdrington made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisburie grounded thereon and fourthly other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias
and Saphyra and of others and from the practise of the Church and the person of man are cleerely confuted CHAP. VIII M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nations and the Ciuill law are answered and first the difference betwixt the Priests of the old and new Testament and the Priests of other Nations and also betwixt the law of Nations and of Nature is declared Secondly from thence it is prooued that among all Nations the ciuill common-wealth was supreme and disposed of all things both spirituall and temporall and punished all persons both Priests and others with temporall punishments and consequently that the new Oath cannot be impugned by the law of Nations Thirdly what M. Fitzherbert obiecteth from the Ciuill Law is confuted CHAP IX First the difficulties which some make concerning the authoritie of the Lateran Councell are propounded Secondly the decree of the Councel which is commonly vrged to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes is related Thirdly Widdringtons first answere to the said decree is prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts replies against the same are confuted CHAP. X. Widdringtons second answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell affirming that absolute Princes are not comprehended therein because they are not mentioned by their proper names but by inferiour titles is prooued to be neitheir improbable nor absurd but conforme to the doctrine of learned Diuines and Lawyers and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the said answere are shewed to be very insufficient and fraudulent CHAP. XI Widdringtons first answere to an obiection propounded by himselfe is prooued to bee sufficient and that the consent of temporall Princes is necessary to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall constitutions which inflict temporall punishments and consequently are not made by true spirituall authoritie Secondly the doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Peron in his speech to the Lower house of Parliament against the Oath propounded by them is examined Thirdly M. Fitzherberts obiections grounded vpon the decrees of Pope Callixtus Vrbanus the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine and the constitution of the Apostles are cleerely confuted CHAP. XII An other answere of Widdrington grounded vpon certaine Glossers or Expositours of the Canon Law is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are prooued to be fraudulent and insufficient Secondly it is shewed that from no Canon of the Church it can be prooued that the custome of the Church is or hath beene to inflict by her spirituall authoritie temporall penalties Thirdly the true difference betwixt the Diuines and Canonists concerning the Popes power in temporalls is declared CHAP. XIII Widdringtons third answere to the decree of the Lateran Councell is confirmed Secondly it is shewed how certaine it is according to the doctrine of learned Catholikes that the Church cannot erre in decrees or precepts of manners from whence it is cleerely deduced that from the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell it cannot with any colour of probabilitie be prooued that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes Thridly all M. Fitzherberts arguments to shew the contrary are most plainely confuted CHAP. XIIII Three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes Decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby he laboureth in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the Decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to be sound and sufficient Secondly the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons Instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraud and falshood Thirdly that proposition Many things may be certaine to the Sea Apostolike and yet seeme vncertaine to other learned men is examined CHAP. XV. Widdringtons second example and his Instances grounded thereon are confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in impugning the same is conuinced of manifest fraud and ignorance in taxing therein of fondnesse the learnedst Diuines of his owne Societie Also Widdringtons third example and his Instances grounded thereon are prooued to be sound and sufficient and M. Fitzherberts fraud in relating the said Instances and applying them to the Lateran Councell is plainely discouered CHAP. XVI Another argument or rather answere of Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in labouring to prooue that Widdrington by his owne grant is fallen into heresie or errour is conuinced of palpable ignorance The Conclusion of all Widdringtons discourse in his Preface to his Apologeticall answere is confirmed and what M. Fitzherbert excepteth against the same and also his briefe Recapitulation of all his Discourse in this his Treatise are confuted CHAP. XVII M. Fitzherberts vncharitable Admonition to the Catholike Reader that Widdrington is no other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike and that his submission to the Catholike Romane Church proceedeth from no other ground but from a deepe dissimulation or rather artificial and execrable hypocrisie to delude and deceiue Catholikes is clearely confuted and prooued to be voide of charity learning and sincerity and what reasons the King and State may haue to permit such submissions is there declared Widdringtons answere to the Popes Breues forbidding the Oath is confirmed and hee freed from all disobedience and irreuerence for not admitting them The decree of the Cardinals forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes and commanding him to purge himselfe forthwith is fully answered by his Purgation and humble Supplication which he made forthwith to his Holinesse THE PREFACE TO THE READER HOw dangerous and pernicious a thing it is deare Contreymen in any temporall Kingdome or Common-wealth to coyne or willingly to vtter and much more by fraud or violence to force the people to accept of counterfait money any man of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue And truely no lesse dangerous and pernicious is it in the spirituall Kingdome and Church of Christ 1 Tim. 3. which is the pillar and firmament of truth to inuent forge or divulge and which is farre worse to thrust vpon the faithfull by fraud and violence false articles and positions for true and infallible Catholike faith but especially in things which are greatly preiudiciall to the temporall Soueraigntie of Christian Princes whom Christ our Sauiour hath appointed to be Nurcing Fathers and Protectours of his Church Isay 19. Concil Trid. sess 25. cap. 20. de Reform for that thereby not onely Christian Princes are extreamely wronged but also the Christian Religion is greatly scandalized and the soules both of Princes and subiects are much endangered and therfore no lesse thanks doe they deserue at the hands of the Church of God who should discouer a false and forged Catholike faith and the first inuenters or publishers thereof then doe they at the hands of the temporall Kingdome who should disclose false and counterfait money and the first coiners or
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
very first so fraudulent friuolous and contrarie to his owne profession as you haue heard in this Chapter Thus you see with what bitternesse Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth his first Chapter 43 But if hee had beene pleased to haue dealt vprightly and as hee hath in a most spitefull manner vrged against me this obiection which is taken from his Holinesse Breues so also he had set downe the answere which in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation I gaue thereunto the Reader would presently haue perceiued that my Aduersarie hath passed the bounds of Christian charitie and iustice in wrongfully accusing me of impudencie impietie and disobedience to the Apostolicall decree of S. Peters Successour whose obedient child I did there and also I doe heere professe my selfe to be and am readie to obey in all those things wherein according to the grounds of Catholike Religion hee hath authoritie to command Neither can my Aduersarie without blushing affirme either that the Popes Holinesse albeit hee bee Saint Peters Successour cannot erre in his particular commands and decrees which are not propounded to the whole Church but to particular Churches or Kingdomes or that any Catholike is bound to obey him in those things wherein according to the doctrine of learned and vertuous Catholikes hee hath no authoritie to command 44 First therefore I shewed in that place out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez that there are two sorts of humane precepts as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill The one is called a constitutiue precept which of it selfe maketh that thing which it forbiddeth to bee vnlawfull which otherwise if that precept were not would not bee vnlawfull as the eating of flesh in Lent and the doing of seruile workes vpon Sundaies and Holidayes which if they were not forbidden by humane lawes would not be vnlawfull And although a constitutiue precept of humane power may sometimes binde with danger of some great temporall losse as of goods libertie yea also of life yet the Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall and contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doe seldome or neuer binde with very great temporall harme and therefore wee are not bound to abstaine from flesh in Lent or from doing seruile workes vpon Sundaies and holidaies when we are like to incurre thereby any probable danger of some great temporall hurt 45 The other is called a declaratiue precept which doth not of it selfe make but suppose and declare the thing which it forbiddeth to be vnlawfull as being before prohibited by some other former law as theft murder drunkennesse and such like which are otherwise forbidden by the law of God and nature And this kind of precept as well obserueth Suarex dependeth onely vpon the reason for which the act is commanded or forbidden or which is all one vpon the precedent law from whence all the obligation of the declaratiue precept doth proceed Insomuch that if the reason be not true and that there is no such precedent law or obligation as the declaratiue precept affirmeth to be the declaratiue precept hath no force to binde at all and with the same certaintie or probabilitie we are bound or not bound to obey a declaratiue precept as it is certaine or probable that there is or is not any other former bond and obligation 46 As for example his Holinesse doth by his Breues forbidde all English Catholikes to take the new oath of allegiance for that therein are contained many things which are cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation If therefore it be certaine or probable that nothing is contained in this oath which is repugnant to faith or saluation it is also certaine or probable that this declaratiue precept of his Holinesse which is grounded vpon this reason that something is contained therein contrary to faith and saluation is according to the doctrine of Suarez of no force to bind neither are English Catholikes by vertue of this declaratiue prohibition bound to refuse the said oath 47 Secondly I also shewed in that place that this declaratiue command of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation is such a declaratiue precept which is not grounded vpon any infallible reason or definition of the Church but onely vpon his opinatiue iudgement that his reason is true and that either his power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes which is denyed in the oath is a cleere point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall Supremacie and consequently the denyall thereof is plainly repugnant to Catholike faith Which being so it is manifest that wee are no further bound to obey this declaratiue prohibition of his Holinesse then we are bound to follow his opinion and to belieue that eyther his power to excommunicate or some such like is denyed in the oath or that whosoeuer denyeth his power to depose Princes denyeth the Catholike faith 48 Whereupon I concluded that considering neither his power to excommunicate or any such like is denyed in this oath as I haue prooued at large against Card. Bellarmine and others nor that his power to depose Princes which is expressely denyed in the oath is certaine and of faith the contrary doctrine being probable and also maintained by many learned Catholikes as partly also I haue already prooued by the testimonie of learned Catholikes before alledged and heere beneath by answering all my Aduersaries obiections I will make it more manifest Part. 1. per. tâ—tum there can bee made no doubt but that any English Catholike may with a safe conscience or without any crime of disobedience to his supreme spirituall Pastour or any preiudice to Catholike faith refuse to obey his Holinesse declaratiue command which is onely grounded vpon such an opinion which considering the contrary is probable and defended by many learned Catholikes may without any note of impudencie impiety or disobedience be reiected by Catholikes 49 Thirdly I also affirmed in that place that no Catholike doth onely for this cause take the oath or thinke it to be lawfull because the Kings Maiestie being of a contrarie Religion doth command it or thinke it to be lawfull as though those Catholikes who take the oath doe it onely vpon the Kings bare word affirming the oath to be lawfull and seeme thereby to preferre the opinion of a Protestant Prince in things which in some sort doe belong to Religion before the opinion of our supreme spirituall Pastour but because the Kings Maiestie being our lawfull Prince and Soueraigne Lord in temporals what religion soeuer hee professeth hath established an oath of allegiance to make a triall how his Catholike subiects stand affected towards him in point of their loyaltie and due obedience and commanded all Catholikes to take the same which oath learned Catholikes for probable reasons doe thinke to be truely in oath of temporall allegiance and to
containe nothing which is repugnant to faith and saluation therefore English Catholikes to obey the iust command of their Prince doe take the oath and thinke it to be lawfull both for that they hauing duely examined all the clauses of the oath doe find nothing therein contrarie to faith and saluation and also for that many learned Catholikes whose opinion they may lawfully follow albeit other Diuines with the Popes Holinesse doe thinke otherwise doe constantly maintaine the same 50 Neither doe I giue more credite to his Maiestie then to his Holinesse but both of them with all dutifull respect I doe honour and also beleeue in those things which they of their certaine knowledge doe affirme to be true And therefore as I beleeue his Maiesties Royall word affirming that his intention was not by this new oath of allegiance to deny the Popes power to excommunicate so also I beleeue that first Breue of his Holinesse was not surreptitious and written without his knowledge or priuitie for that in his second Breue he doth auerre as much But as for the first Breue wherein English Catholikes are commanded not to take the oath for that it containeth many things flat contrary to faith and saluation it being as I saide onely a declaratiue precept and grounded vpon a fallible and in my iudgement a very false opinion that either the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath or that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power so depose Princes it is euident according to Suarez doctrine that no Catholike is bound to obey this his declaratiue precept vnlesse hee be also bound either to beleeue that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the oath which is apparently vntrue or to follow his opinion concerning the certainety of his power to depose which being in controuersie among Schoolemen and learned Doctours and as yet not decided by the Iudge as no man is bound according to the common doctrine of Vasquez and many others to follow it so also no man is bound according to the approued doctrine of Suarez to obey his declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon 51 Lastly I obserued in that place that if his Maiestie should by Act of Parliament commaund all his Catholike subiects to acknowledge by oath that the Pope is not by the institution of Christ the direct temporall Lord of this Kingdome or of any other and that hee hath no direct power to depose his Maiestie and that they will beare faith and true allegiance onely to his Maiestie as to their direct Lord and Soueraigne c. and his Holinesse following the Canonists opinion who hold it hereticall to affirme that the Pope hath not direct dominion ouer the whole Christian world should by his Apostolicall Breues forbid all English Catholikes to take such an oath for that it containeth as the Canonists imagine many things contrary to faith and saluation as Pope Sixtus the fifth if any credit may bee giuen to the Iesuites themselues did intend to condenme if he had liued Cardinall Bellarmine his first tome of controuersies for impugning the Popes direct dominion in temporals the very same inuectiue which Mr. Fitzherbert maketh against mee accusing me of impudencie impietie disobedience and of being no good Catholike for not obeying the Popes declaratiue precept which is only grounded vpon such an opion which no Catholike is bound to follow for that the contrary is maintained by many learned Diuines hee might also make against all those Catholikes who following heerein Cardinall Bellarmine and the common doctrine of Diuines should take that oath and thinke it to bee lawfull notwithstanding the Popes declaratiue precept to the contrary And doubtlesse Cardinall Bellarmine who vehemently impugneth the Canonists opinion would easily in the like manner as I haue cleered my selfe defend those Catholikes from all imputation of impudency impietie disobedience or any other crime notwithstanding the Popes declaratiue precept to the contrarie 52 Thus did I answere to this obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues but more amply in my Theologicall Disputation shewing also by sundry examples that diuers Popes haue in their Apostolicall Breues or decretall letters registred in the Canon law maintained false opinions and which now are flat hereticall and that therefore their opinions and consequently their declaratiue precepts grounded thereon are not alwaies to bee followed by Catholikes and withal that many learned Diuines haue impugned diuers decrees of Popes concerning the licences which they haue giuen to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and their dispensations in the solemne vow of religious chastitie and in marriage not consummate who were not therefore accounted impudent impious or disobedient children of the Catholike Church for that such decrees were not grounded vpon any infallible definition but onely vpon the Popes fallible opinion which they of set purpose did impugne Sot in 4. dist 27. q. 1. ar 4. insomuch that learned Sotus feareth not to confesse that the Popes who haue dispensed in marriage not consummate did erre following therein the Canonists opinion and which he boldly affirmeth to haue no shew or colour of probabilitie notwithstanding so many practises of sundry Popes who haue dispensed therein 53 But this my answere my Aduersary doth heere altogether conceale compelling me for cleering my selfe to repeate a great part thereof which if he had beene pleased sincerely to haue set downe the Reader would presently haue perceiued that the voyce of our supreme Pastour is not alwaies to be followed that it is no great wonder for a sheepe of Christs fold and childe of the Catholike Church to disobey without blushing the declaratiue commaund of his supreme Pastour when it is onely grounded vpon such an opinion which no Catholike is bound to follow for that the contrary is maintained by learned and vertuous Catholikes as is this which denieth the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary improbable and that the Popes power to excommunicate is impugned in the oath By which it is euident how iniuriously Mr. Fitzherbert to disgrace mee with his Reader hath accused me of the aforesaid ignominious crimes which rather may be retorted vpon himselfe And so I will conclude with him this chapter remitting to the consideration of the iudicious Reader what probabilitie and sinceritie we may expect of him heereafter for the confirmation of the rest of his Replies and answeres seeing that wee haue found him at the very first so fraudulent friuolous and repugnant to himselfe as you haue heard in this Chapter CHAP. II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersarie taken from that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall is confirmed and two instances which hee brought against that rule are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue secular iudgements c. is at large examined 1. MY Aduersarie in this Chapter goeth on with the like
punish his subiects in their bodies or temporall goods and dispose of all their temporals for the same respect 7 And neuerthelesse neither out of holy Scriptures nor from this rule of the law the Accessorie followeth the principall nor from the subiection of temporall things to spirituall nor by any other argument doth my Aduersarie sufficiently prooue that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporals or to punish temporally by way of coercion which he pretended and would seeme to his Reader to prooue but onely that the Pope as Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to command temporall things and to punish by way of coercion Christian Princes and people with spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures By which it will easily appeare whether I doe contradict my selfe in my answere and ouerthrow my owne arguments or no For I granted that the consequence was not vaine if it were vnderstood of a power in the Pope to command corporall things in order to spirituall good but because he pretended to prooue that the Pope as Pope can not onely command or impose but also dispose of temporals not onely enioyne temporall penalties but also inflict them or punish temporally by way of temporall constraint therefore I did absolutely deny his consequence or the consequence as it was vnderstood by him 8 And if it had pleased my Aduersarie after he saw that I granted the consequence if it were vnderstood of the power to command temporall things as they are to serue spirituall to haue set downe plainly what he intended to prooue by that consequence and whether he meant of the power onely to command temporall things or also to dispose of temporals as to dispose is distinguished from to command the Reader would quickly haue perceiued his fraude and that I doe neither contradict my selfe nor ouerthrow my arguments but to blind the eies of his Reader he doth neither affirme the one nor the other in this place but he vseth as you haue heard such generall Words which may be applyed to both For whereas to cleere the vnderstanding of his Reader he should haue declared of what power he meant for that I granted the consequence if it were vnderstood of the power to command temporals but if it were vnderstood of the power to dispose of temporals in which sense he must needs vnderstood it if be will speake to purpose then I denyed his consequence yet he onely affirmeth that he doth not thereby suppose in the Pope any other power ouer bodies or goods thē such as followeth from the subordination to the soule which is in effect the same relation and limitation that Widdrington maketh thereof to wit so farre forth as corporall and temporall things are to serue spirituall But if he had expressed that according to his doctrine and not mine from the subordination and relation of the soule to the body and of temporall things to spirituall it necessarily followeth that the Pope hath power not onely to command or impose temporall things but also to dispose of temporall things not onely to enioyne temporall penalties but also to punish temporally by depriuing men of their temporals the Reader would presently haue perceiued both the weakenesse of his argument and the sufficiencie of my answere 9 For it is very apparant and my Aduersary knoweth it right well that I alwaies denied that either from the subordination subiection or relation of temporall things to spirituall things of temporall ends to spirituall ends of temporall power to spirituall power of temporall Princes to spirituall Pastours or from any other ground rule or principle it doth necessarily follow that the Pope as Pope and by his Pastorall office hath power to dispose of temporall things to depose temporall Princes to inflict temporall punishments or which is all one to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint as by depriuing any man of his goods libertie or life although I euer graunted that the Pope as Pope hath power to commaund or impose temporall things and to enioyne corporall or temporall punishments in order to spirituall good or which is all one so farre foorth as temporall things are to serue spirituall things that is are to be vsed to the honor of God and the good of soules and to compell by the inflicting of spirituall censures or punishments all Christians to obey his iust command And therefore with good reason and conformably to my owne doctrine I graunted the consequence if it were vnderstood of the power to command temporals and also denied it if it were vnderstood as my Aduersarie must needes vnderstand it of the power to dispose of temporals and to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint Neither doth my Aduersary by that Discourse which hee made in his Supplement and now repeateth againe prooue any other thing then that the Pope by the ordinary power of his Pastorall office may command temporall things and enioyne temporall penalties in order to spirituall good And therefore it had beene needlesse to set downe heere his wordes but that the Reader shall see that I am not willing to conceale any one of his arguments Thus therefore he writeth f Nu. 3. 10 Hauing discoursed in my Supplement g Supplem c. 1 nu 65. of the written Law of God deliuered to vs in the New Testament and prooued thereby that our Sauiour made Saint Peter the supreame Pastour and Gouernour of his Church I prooued also the extension of his spirituall power to temporall things thus The spirituall Pastour said I hauing power ouer the soule must needes haue authoritie ouer the body and temporall goods or states so farre foorth at lest as it shall bee conuenient for the good of the soule according to the rule of the Law to wit hee that hath the greater power hath the lesse By the which reason the Apostle iustified his dealing with temporall affaires yea with such as appertained to politicall gouernment when hee aduised the Corinthians to constitute and appoint Iudges among themselues to decide their controuersies rather then to haue recourse to the tribunals of Infidels Nescitis c. Know you not saith he h 1. Cor. 6. that we shall iudge Angels how much more secular things as who would say Seeing wee haue the greater and more eminent authoritie haue wee not also the lesse if we haue power ouer spirituall things shall wee not haue power ouer temporall and secular things Thus argueth the Apostle and thereupon doubted not to intermeddle in the temporall and politicall gouernement which then belonged to the Pagan Emperours 11 But how weake and altogether insufficient is this Discourse of his to prooue the Popes power to depose temporall Princes to dispose of all their temporals and to punish temporally by way of coertion which is the maine marke at which my Aduersary aymeth any man of indifferent vnderstanding and learning may easily perceiue For first although it be true that the spirituall Pastour hath that spirituall power ouer the soule and
body which for as much as appertaineth to the power it selfe and not in regard of all other things which are requisite that the power shall haue effect is sufficient and necessarie to the eternall saluation of soules yet that hee must needes haue euen ouer the soule and much lesse ouer the body and temporall goods and states all that power which is conuenient for the good of soule as my Aduersary heere affirmeth is very vntrue for this were a too too large extension of the Popes pastorall power ouer the soule and body and would cleerely prooue that the Pope should haue power to doe miracles as the Apostles had and by miraculous operations to bring actually all Christians to the kingdome of heauen For no man as I thinke can make doubt but that the Pope to haue all that power whereby all Christians shall bee actually saued is very conuenient for the good of soules Neither will my Aduersarie be euer able to prooue that it is necessary to the saluation of soules or to the gouernment of the Church as it was instituted by Christ to bee a spirituall and not a temporall Common-wealth to haue power to dispose of temporals and to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes and liues 12 Secondly that proposition he that hath the greater power hath the lesse which my Aduersary vntruely saith to bee a rule of the Law for that it is not to bee found among the rules either of the Canon or Ciuill Law is very vntrue if it bee taken in those generall wordes and without due limitations which my Aduersary doth not declare as might be conuinced by infinite examples whereof some may be seene in the next Chapter where wee shall treate of this Maxime more at large and for the present this onely shall suffice that if it were vniuersally true it would cleerely conuince that the Pope who by the institution of Christ hath spirituall power which is the greater power should also haue temporall power which is the lesse which my Aduersarie as I thinke will hardly grant vnlesse hee will now become a Canonist and affirme that the Pope as Pope hath both temporall and spirituall power and is both a temporall and spirituall Prince which is repugnant to the common doctrine of the Diuines of his owne Societie 13 True it is that if the lesse be taken for that which is contained in the greater either actually and formally or vertually he that hath the greater power hath formally or vertually also the lesse as because a hundred crownes is actually contained in a hundred pounds and foure degrees of heate is actually contained in eight and heate is vertually contained in light therefore from those rules of the law which rather may bee called rules of naturall reason for that they are grounded vpon the light of nature i De regulis iuris in 6. regula 35. 80. Plus semper continet in se quod est minus into to partem non est dubium contineri The greater doth alwaies containe in it the lesse and there is no doubt but that a part is contained in the whole we may rightly inferre that he who can giue a hundred pounds can giue a hundred crownes and the fire which can produce eight degrees of heate can produce foure and the Sunne that hath power to produce light hath also power to produce heate But temporall power is neither formally nor vertually contained in the spirituall power of the Pope although it be vertually and supereminently contained in the spirituall power of God almightie in whom all create powers are vertually in an infinite and superexcellent manner contained That which is obiected saith Ioannes Parisiensis he that hath power to doe the greater Ioan. Paris de potest Regia Papali cap. 17. ad 17. hath power to doe the lesse therefore the Pope who hath power in spiritualls hath also power in temporalls it is true in the greater and lesser which are per se subordained as because a Bishop hath power to ordaine a Priest therefore he hath also power to ordaine a Deacon but it doeth not hold in those things which are of a diuerse order or kind as because my father could beget a man therefore hee can also beget a dogge or because a Priest can absolue from sinne therefore hee can also absolue from the debt of money 14 Thirdly neither is that true which my Aduersary affirmeth that S. Paul by that proposition he that hath the greater power hath the lesse did iustifie his dealing with temporall affaires when hee aduised the Corinthians to constitute and appoint Iudges amongst themselues to decide their controuersies rather then to haue recourse to the tribunalls of Infidells which Iudges S. Chrysostome vpon this place calleth Arbiters and accorders or reconcilers For S. Paul foreseeing that some might easily obiect as S. Chrysostome obserueth that those Corinthians who were newly become Christians were for the most part rude ignorant and vnnoble and therefore might seeme to bee men vnfit and vnworthie to intermeddle in secular controuersies therefore to preuent this obiection he vseth an argument which the Logicians call a maiori ad minus from the greater to the lesse which argument is not grounded in that maxime he that hath the greater power hath the lesse but in this hee that is worthie to haue the greater power is not vnworthie to haue the lesse To preuent therefore that obiection S. Paul argueth in this maner Know you not that the Saints shall iudge of the world and if the world shall bee iudged by you are you vnworthie to iudge especially as Arbitratours of the least things Know you not that wee shall iudge Angels how much more secular things 15 This therefore is the force of the Apostles argument as Benedictus Iustinianus a learned Iesuite vpon this place doeth well declare The Apostle saith he argueth a maiori from the greater Beâ—ed Iustin in 1. Cor. 6. For if the Saints are accounted worthie to be appointed Iudges of the whole world who can thinke them vnworthie to bee ouer the meanest and least iudgements If to your iudgement the world shall be subiect are you to bee accounted vnworthie to decide and compose the least controuersies and strifes of your brethren If we shall iudge the Angels these bee the wordes of Photius related by Iustinian how much more shall wee bee fit to compose the strifes and controuersies which arise concerning things necessarie to mans life whereupon the Apostles argument doth well conclude saith Iustinian that those who are appointed Iudges of the world cannot bee accounted vnworthie to haue charge of humane iudgements if they bee appointed by them who haue this authoritie or who may by right subiect themselues to their iudgements as those who are in suite may to Arbitratours Neither is this repugnant saith Iustinian to the publike authoritie of Iudges and Magistrates for no man is compelled to goe to the Magistrate if by other waies he may
and spirituall power might command the Christians to doe and by spirituall Censures compell them so to doe when otherwise they should scandalize the Christian faith and religion And this very answere did I giue in my Apologie to this text of holy Scripture which was vrged by Card. Bellarmine to prooue that the Pope had power to depose and put downe Secular Princes as the Apostle had power to appoint and set vp new Iudges in Secular causes for I denyed his consequence because the appointing and setting vp of those Iudges did nothing derogate from the subiection due to Secular Princes for that they were onely Arbiters or peaceable composers of secular causes with the consent of the parties who were at strife but the putting downe of Princes or depriuing them of their Royall authoritie doth greatly derogate or rather quite ouerthrow and abolish their temporall soueraigntie 22 To which answere of mine D. Schulckenius onely replieth l In Apolog. pag. 444. That although these Iudges whom the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to appoint had not indeede vim coactiuam in foro externo a coactiue power in the externall Court and that if either partie would not obey the Apostle and goe to the Iudges appointed by the Church but would bring his cause to the publike tribunals of the heathen Magistrates the other partie was bound there to appeare and there to debate his cause yet they were not meere Arbiters or voluntary Iudges For Arbiters are chosen by the parties but these were chosen by the common consent of the Church and were appointed by publike authoritie by the command of the Apostle who was a spirituall Prince Besides none are bound to admit Arbiters vnlesse they will but Christians were bound to admit these Iudges and were forbidden to goe to the tribunals of Infidell Princes Moreouer the Saints are not to iudge the world and Angels as Arbiters chosen by them but as true Iudges and as sitting with Christ the supreame Iudge 23 But all this is easily satisfied by that which I said before For although the faithfull Corinthians were by the publike spirituall authoritie of the Apostle commaunded to choose those Iudges or Arbiters yet it doth not from thence follow either that those arbitrarie Iudges were to bee chosen by the whole Church and not onely by the parties that were at strife or that the Apostle for that he was a spirituall Prince had either himselfe publike authoritie to decide secular causes or could giue the same to any other But because the Christians were bound by the Law of God to compound their controuersies among themselues by way of arbitriment and not to bring their causes to the hearing of Heathen Iudges in case they should thereby scandalize the Christian Religion therefore the Apostle might by his publike spirituall and Pastorall power command them and also with spirituall Censures compell them so to doe 24 And although these arbitrarie Iudges were to be chosen by the whole Church and by the common consent of all the faithfull Corinthians which neuerthelesse can not bee sufficiently gathered from the Apostles wordes yet it doth not therefore follow that they were not meere Arbiters or voluntarie Iudges in power or which is all one that they had more then arbitrarie priuate or compromissorie power For it is not materiall by whom a publike or legall Iudge or else an Arbitratour or compromissorie Iudge bee chosen but from whom they receiue their authoritie to iudge as a true proper and publike Iudge may sometimes bee chosen by the people as is the Recorder of London by the Citie and the Chancellours of Oxford and Cambridge by the Vniuersities but it is the Kings Maiesty that giueth them publike authoritie to iudge And Achiters or voluntary Iudges may be chosen by the common consent of the people to decide by way of arbitrement or voluntarie submission all ciuill controuersies which shall arise among them yet seeing that they are onely Arbiters or haue onely arbitrarie voluntarie priuate or compromissorie power the parties onely who are at strife doe giue power to iudge and to make a finall end of their controuersies And although abstracting from scandall none are bound to admit Arbiters vnlesse they will yet if by not admitting them they should scandalize the Christian Religion as the Corinthians did they are bound to admit them or which is all one to giue them arbitrarie voluntrary or compromissorie power to decide and determine their controuersies 25 True also it is that the Saints are not to iudge the world or the bad Angels as Arbiters yet in what manner they are to iudge whether by onely assisting our Sauiour and approouing or applauding his sentence or by being Assessores supremi Iudicis Christi by sitting in seates of honour with Christ the supreme Iudge as Noble men and Iustices of peace do sit vpon the bench with the chiefe Iudge of Assises or in any other more peculiar manner it is a controuersie among Catholike Diuines although it be certaine that the Saints shall not be true and proper Iudges as Iudges are properly taken howsoeuer D. Schulckenius doth seeme heere to affirme the same for that to iudge and to giue iudgement doth properly signifie an act of Iurisdiction and superiority of power to giue the definitiue sentence pro or contra which Iurisdiction in respect of the last iudgement of soules is onely communicated to Christ. m Seâ— Suarez tom 2. disp 57. sect 4. But howsoeuer it be the argument of Saint Paul whereby he intended to prooue that Christians were not vnworthy to iudge Secular causes which he calleth the least things is of force as I declared before for if they be not vnworthy to iudge the world and Angels much lesse are they to be accompted vnworthy to decide by way of arbitrement Secular causes or the least things 26 And whereas D. Schulckenius affirmeth that those Iudges had no coactiue power in the externall Court and that if one of the parties should call the other to the tribunall of the Infidell Magistrate he were bound to appeare and debate his cause before the Heathen Iudge this doth make nothing against that which I haue said but is rather a confirmation that these Iudges were onely Arbitratours and voluntary Iudges in power to decide Secular causes For if they had beene true and proper Iudges and had not onely priuate and arbitrary power but also publike authority to iudge why should they not haue as all other true and proper Iudges haue both a commanding and also a coactiue power either temporall or spirituall according as D. Schulckenius will haue them to be temporall or spiritual Iudges And if they were true Iudges and not onely Arbitratours how could the faithfull Corinthians bee bound in conscience to leaue their tribunalls and goe to a Heathen Iudge to haue their cause decided by him if they should be called thither although against then willes seeing that they should thereby offend not only by reason of
this power to command temporall things is by the institution of Christ annexed and adioyned to the spirituall power of gouerning the Church and of commanding spirituall things I say by the institution of Christ for that there is no absolute necessarie or naturall connexion betwixt the power to command spirituall things and temporall things and therefore it was in our Sauiours absolute power and choice to haue graunted to Saint Peter and his Successours a power to command onely spirituall things and not temporall euen in order to spirituall good as he hath granted him a power to dispose onely of spirituall things and not of temporall but the disposing of temporall things for what end soeuer it be he hath left to the temporall power of Secular Princes who in temporals acknowledge no Superiour on earth 47 Thirdly Widdrington may note his absurditie saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Nu. 9. pag. 34 in denying the consequence and yet granting it in effect For granting as hee doth that the body and temporall goods are ordained to serue spirituall things Supra nu 1. and that therefore the Pope hath authoritie to command corporall and temporall things in order to spirituall he granteth consequently as much as I require to wit that the Pope hath power to punish corporally and temporally when it shall be conuenient for the good of soules and Gods glorie for he can giue no sufficient nor probable reason why the Pope can doe the one and not the other seing that it can not be denyed but that the Church hath alwaies vsed to enioyne bodily penance to her penitents as fasting prayer and lying vpon sackcloth and ashes which was vsually imposed euen in the primitiue Church Supra nu 5. as I shewed in the place alledged a little before out of my Supplement 48 Whereupon I inferre sayth he c nu 10. that if the Church may punish a man in his body for the good of his soule it may punish him in his goods to the same end seeing that temporall goods are inferiour to the body and ordained for the seruice of the body and soule Supra nu 5. as I haue before declared by the opinion of the Philosophers themselues But because he will giue me a better occasion hereafter d infra cap. 5. nu 1. 2. c. 39. Item cap. 6. nu 13. 14. 15. 16. seq to treate more amply of this point and to confute a friuoulous distinction of his of the power to command corporall things and to punish corporally I wil now say somewhat to the instances that he bringeth against my consequence which he impugneth by drawing two other consequences from the same principle and confronting them with mine to shew some absurdity therein 49 But Mr. Fitzherbert may also note that I haue committed no absurdity in denying absolutely the consequence and also graunting it with a condition for so I doe not graunt it in that sense wherein I doe deny it I graunt that the consequence is not in vaine if it bee vnderstood of the Popes power to commaund temporalls in order to spirituall good but because my Aduersarie did vnderstand it not onely of the Popes power to command temporals but also to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments or punish temporally not onely by the way of command but also by the way of temporall constraint therefore I did absolutely deny his consequence And therefore albeit I did grant this consequence The accessorie or consequent followeth the principall or antecedent being so vnderstood as I declared before therefore the Pope hauing power to gouerne the Church by spirituall meanes and to command spirituall things in order to spirituall good hath consequently supposing the institution of Christ power also to commaund corporall and temporall things in order to the same spirituall good yet I did not grant these consequences The accessory or consequent followeth the principall or antecedent therefore the Pope hauing by the institution of Christ power to commaund spirituall things in order to spirituall good hath consequently power to dispose of temporall things in order to the same spirituall good nor this The accessorie or consequent followeth the principall or antecedent therefore the Pope hauing power to dispose of spirituall things in order to spirituall good hath consequently power to dispose of temporall things in order to the same spirituall good 50 Obserue therefore good Reader how cunningly Mr. Fitzherbert to make thee imagine that my answere is absurd repugnant to my selfe endeauoureth to delude thee and to cast a myst before thine eies whilest he affirmeth that I graunting that the body and temporall goods are ordained to serue spirituall things and that therefore the Pope hath authoritie to command corporall and temporall things in order to spirituall good doe consequently graunt so much as he requireth to wit that the Pope hath power to punish corporally and temporall when it shal be conuenient a large extension of the Popes spirituall power to depriue Princes of their kingdomes for the good of soules and Gods glorie as though forsooth he requireth nothing else but that the Pope may only command temporall things and not dispose of temporall things may punish corporally and temporally by way onely of commanding or enioyning temporall and corporall penalties and not also by inflicting them or by way of temporall coercion and by depriuing Christian Princes and subiects of their temporal states and corporall liues whereas the whole scope of his Discourse as I shewed before and concerning depriuing them of their liues you shall see beneath e Nu. 65. tendeth to prooue the cleane contrarie and in this very place he plainly signifieth as much in promising to confute beneath a friuolous distinction of mine as he tearmeth it of the power to command corporall things and consequently corporall punishments and of the power to punish corporally not by the way of command for this power I haue graunted aboue an hundred times but by way of corporall coercion and constraint Which distinction doth breake the necke of a great part of his Discourse and also declareth the true state of the maine question betwixt him and me and therefore he might haue done well hauing so fit an occasion offered him to haue confuted in this place that distinction and not to leaue his Reader in suspense touching this point which is the maine controuersie betwixt him and me and which distinction being once ouerthrowen and proued to be friuolous this whole question concerning the Popes power to depose Princes and to inflict temporall and corporall punishments would presently be ended 51 But the plaine trueth is that neither in the fift chapter for there hee barely repeateth what he saide heere concerning this distinction nor in the sixt chapter doth he bring any one probable proofe to confute this distinction as I will cleerely shew in that place In the meane time without interrupting the order which hee obserueth in his Chapters and withall not
to leaue thee good Reader altogether in suspence thou maiest easily gather some ground and reason of this distinction partly from that which hath beene said a little before partly from the words which I related out of S. Bernard See aboue part 2. cap. 8. that the Pope may command but not vse the materiall sword and partly by the comparison which Cardinall Bellarmine out of f See aboue part cap. 9. S. Gregorie Nazianzene did make betwixt the soule and body and betwixt the spirituall and temporall power or common wealth For as the soule hath power to command coporall actions for the good both of the body and soule but she hath not power of her selfe without the concurrance of the body to do or exercise corporall actions euen for the good of the soule so also the spirituall power or common wealth may comand temporal actions in order to spirituall good but shee cannot of herselfe without the concurrance of the temporall power exercise any temporall action belonging to temporall gouernment although it bee neuer so much with order or reference to spirituall good neither doeth the reference of a temporall or bodily action to a spirituall ende alter or change the nature of the action for as a bodily action although it bee done for the good of the soule is still a bodily action and doth not by that reference become a spirituall action so a temporall action although it bee done for a spirituall end doth still remaine a temporall â—â—tion and vertue and vice may bee found as well in temporall as in â—â—irituall actions 52 Now you shall see how soundly Mr. Fitzherbert impugneth the two instances I brought against his consequence which were these The accessorie followeth the principall therefore he who is Lord of all horses is Lord of all bridles The Pope hath power ouer the soule of a Prince and therefore ouer his life To which he replieth in this manner g Pag. 35. nu 11.12 But of these two instances I must needes say that the former is ridiculous and the later malicious for by the former hee impugneth himselfe and not mee You haue heard him before admit my consequence so that it bee vnderstood of power to command corporall things in order to spirituall for he saith that my consequence is vaine except it be vnderstood in this manner and therefore being vnderstood so hee alloweth it for good And if we vnderstand it so then it must needes follow according to his owne ground that hee who is Lord of all horses which are the principall may command all bridles because they are the accessorie 53 Now then hee must either grant his owne argument or deny it if be grant it hee prooueth nothing thereby against mee but rather fortifieth my consequence which is as hee himselfe relateth it that the Church hauing power ouer the soule hath power also ouer the body and goods because the accessorie followeth the principall If hee deny it hee denieth his former grant which was as you haue heard that whosoeuer hath power to command the principall may command the accessorie for seeing that all horses are the principall and all bridles the accessorie according to his owne supposition in his argument hee that denieth the Lord of all horses to bee the Lord of all bridles denieth that hee who hath power to command the principall may command the accessorie which is the same that hee hath granted already as you haue heard so as I see not to what purpose this his argument serueth but to discouer his owne folly and yet forsooth hee will haue vs to beleeue in any case that all his arguments are probable at least 54 But I must needes say good Reader that my Aduersarie hath small reason for these two instances which I brought against that rule or maxime The accessorie followeth the principall as it was vnderstood by him to vse such vndecent tearmes for whose folly is discouered and who is the ridiculous and malicious you shall foorth with perceiue It is true that I granted the consequence not to be vaine if it were only vnderstood of a power in the Pope to command spirituall things and to punish temporally by way of command in order to spitituall good but from hence it doeth not follow according to my ground but according to his owne that he who is Lord of all horses may consequently command all bridles yea and it followeth according to his ground that hee who can dispose of all horses can dispose of all bridles and that hee who buyeth all horses doeth consequently buy all bridles For first by his consequence hee doth intend not only to prooue that the Pope hath power to command temporall things or to punish temporally by way of command but also to dispose of temporalls to depose temporall Princes and to inflict temporall punishments as I shewed before h Nu 6. and hee in the next paragraphes doth expresly affirme i Nu. 13.14.15.16 Secondly according also to his owne ground and not mine a bridle is accessorie to a horse for that it is ordained to serue a horse for which cause hee affirmeth that temporall things are accessorie to spirituall things for that they are ordained to serue spirituall things And therefore according to his owne ground these consequences are good The accessorie followeth the principall therefore he who is Lord of all horses is Lord of all bridles therefore hee who can command all horses can command all bridles therefore hee who can dispose of all horses can dispose of all bridles therefore hee who buyeth all horses which are the principall must consequently buy all bridles which are the accessorie 55 But I doe not graunt that a bridle is accessorie or consequent to a horse or that corporall and temporall goods are accessorie or consequent to the spirituall good of the soule in that sense as accessorie is and ought to be taken in that maxime The accessorie or consequent must follow the principall or antecedent or which is all one if the principall or antecedent be supposed or graunted the accessorie or consequent must of necessitie follow and my reason is for that a horse can be without a bridle and the spirituall good or life of the soule can be without corporall goods or temporall honour and riches yea and better without them then with them Neuerthelesse I doe graunt that the power to command temporall things in order to spirituall good is according to the institution of Christ accessorie or consequent to the power to command spirituall things in order to spirituall good for that both of them are by the institution of Christ connected and conioyned in the spirituall Pastour of the Church and because the power to command spirituall things is the more noble and worthy and the power to command temporall things the lesse noble and worthie as spirituall things are more noble then temporall therefore the power to commaund spirituall things may be well called the principall and the
power to command temporall things the accessorie and which by the institution of Christ doth follow the first and more noble power as the principall 56 And by this that Dilemma which he maketh is easily answered For I graunt the consequence in that forme of words as he setteth it downe in one sense and I denye it in an other I graunt it if it be vnderstood of the Popes power to command temporals and to enioyne temporall penalties in order to spirituall good and if he had intended nothing else then this I should indeed haue prooued nothing against him but should haue fortified his consequence But because in his consequence he spake of a power in the Church in generall ouer the soule body and goods therefore the Church sayth he hauing power ouer the soule hath power consequently ouer the body and goods which power may be vnderstood not onely of a power to command but also to dispose not onely to enioyne spirituall and temporall punishments but also to inflict them and because the Pope in order to spirituall good hath a power not only to command spirituall punishments but also to inflict them and by a iuridicall sentence to depriue men of certaine spirituall goods and benefites therefore by his consequence it might seeme to be rightly inferred that the Pope hath also in order to spirituall good a power to dispose of the bodie and of temporall goods euen as temporall Princes haue in order to temporall good a power not onely to command but also to dispose thereof and to depriue by a iuridicall sentence their subiects of their temporall goods and also of their corporall liues and because my Aduersaries drift and meaning was to prooue thus much by his consequence therefore in this sense which his words did beare and he also intend I did absolutely denye his consequence Now what repugnance or contradiction trow you can all his skill in Logike although it were farre greater then most men that know him suppose it to be find in granting his consequence in one sence and denying it in an other and whose folly is discouered and whether my instance or his Reply be ridiculous I dare aduenture to remit euen to his owne iudgement 57 But my Aduersarie perceiuing as it seemes that according to the vulgar axiome ducere ad inconueniens non est soluere argumentum to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument endeauoureth to answere my instance abstracting from my grant But let vs set aside sayth he k nu 13. pag. 36 Widdringtons graunt and consider how probable is the instance that he maketh against me by this argument considered in it selfe and compared with mine The accessorie sayth he followeth the principall and therefore he who is Lord of all horses is Lord of all bridles which no doubt is true if he speake of such a one as hath a supreme dominion or power as I doe in my argument when I speake of the Pope who being supreme head of the Church and in that respect hauing the direct charge of mens soules hath also indirectly the care and charge of whatsoeuer is accessorie to the soule and subordinate thereto so farre forth I meane as is requisite for the good of soules as also in like manner a supreme temporall Prince albeit he be not directly the Lord of all horses and bridles in his kingdome or State yet hauing directly the charge and care of the whole common wealth he may dispose not onely of all the horses but also of all the bridles in the common-wealth when it shall vndoubtedly be conuenient and necessarie for the publike good thereof 58 True it is that this consequence The accessorie or consequent doth necessarily follow the principall or antecedent therefore a supreme temporall Prince who is Lord of all horses is also Lord of all bridles or which is all one who may for the common good dispose of all the horses in his kingdome may also for the same good dispose of all the bridles is a true and good consequence but not for that a bridle is accessorie or necessarily annexed and consequent to a horse as my Aduersarie affirmeth for then it must be true not onely in a Prince but also in all other men who haue power to dispose of the principall and moreouer this consequence would also be good The accessorie followeth the principall therefore a supreme temporall Prince who buyeth all horses which according to my Aduersaries doctrine are the principall must consequently buy all bridles which are the accessorie But the aforesaid consequence is therefore good for that to be a supreme temporall Lord of all bridles is accessorie or consequent to be a supreme temporall Lord of all horses which is the more noble principall or antecedent and so the power in a temporall Prince to dispose of all horses is necessarily connected with his power to dispose of all bridles 59 Wherefore according to my opinion who doe not make bridles to be accessory to horses in that sense as accessory is taken in that maxime but a supreme power to dispose of all bridles to bee accessory or consequent to a supreme power to dispose of all horses for that a supreme power to dispose both of horses and bridles is necessarily included in a supreme power to dispose of all temporall things as a part in the whole the aforesaid argument speaking of a supreme temporall Prince is good not onely vi consequentis to vse the termes of Logicians by vertue of the consequent but also vi consequentiae by vertue of the consequence or which is all one not onely the consequent is true but also the consequence is good But he that will grant the argument to be good in regard that bridles are accessorie to horses as my Aduersarie doth he can not maintaine that argument to be good in a supreme temporall Prince by vertue of the consequence or which is all one by vertue of that maxime The accessorie followeth the principall but by vertue of an other maxime which is that euery part is contained in the whole and therefore a temporall Prince who for the common temporal good hath power to dispose of all temporall things hath power to dispose of all horses bridles and all other temporall things 60 Now although I did grant this consequence in the Pope that because the accessory or consequent doth follow the principall or antecedent therefore the Pope hauing power to commaund spirituals hath also power to command temporals in order to spirituall good not for that temporals are accessory or consequent to spirituals in that sense as accessory and consequent are taken in that maxime but for that a power in the Pope to commaund temporals in order to spirituall good is by the institution of Christ accessory and consequent to his power of commanding spirituals yet I vtterly denyed this consequence The accessory followeth the principall therefore the Pope hauing power to commaund and to dispose of spirituals or
by vertue of that maxime The accessorie followeth the principall but by vertue of this that hee who is Lord of any bridle hath power to dispose thereof or he that is Lord and can dispose of all temporall things hath consequently power to dispose both of all horses and all bridles fortifie my Aduersaries argument concerning the Popes power to dispose of all temporall things vnlesse it bee first prooued as hitherto it hath not beene that the Pope is Lord both in temporalls and spiritualls in such sort that for the common spirituall good hee may dispose of all temporall things as it is certaine that absolute Princes may for the common temporall good dispose of all temporalls and priuate men may dispose of those goods which are their owne And therefore the comparison which my Aduersarie heere maketh betwixt the Lord of a horse who only disposeth of his owne bridles and not of another mans and the Pope who to punish a Prince disposeth only of the Princes goods and states and not of other mens is to little purpose for that it doth suppose that which is in question and which hitherto hee hath not prooued to wit that the Pope hath power to dispose of the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians and that the publike good of the Church doth necessarily require that the Pope haue power to dispose of all temporalls And thus much concerning my first instance wherein whether I haue plaid bootie with them and helped vnder-hand to defend his cause and whether it be foolish ridiculous and repugnant to my owne doctrine I remit to the iudgement of any learned man 66 Now you shall see how well Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth to my second instance His other argument or instance saith he m Pag. 38. nu 15. 16. 17. is as I haue said no lesse malicious then his last was foolish and ridiculous The Pope saith hee hath power ouer the Princes soule ergo ouer his life because the accessorie followeth the principall wherein you see hee seeketh to draw vs to an odious question touching the liues of Princes Neuerthelesse to say somewhat vnto his argument and yet not to enter into such an odious matter let him make the case his owne and I will not deny but that the Pope hauing power ouer his soule and being withall supreame Gouernour of the whole Church hath power also ouer his life so farre foorth as it may be conuenient for the good of the Church I meane not that the Pope hath power to take his life without iust cause or by vniust or vnlawfull meanes which neither the temporall Prince who hath direct power ouer his body can doe but vpon iust occasion giuen by him and according to the ordinarie manner prescribed by the Ecclesiasticall Canons that is to say by deliuering him ouer to the secular Iustice S. Leo epist ad Turbium Astâ—ricens Episc because the Church as S. Leo saith refugit cruentas vltiones doth fly bloodie punishment and therefore the Church vseth not by her owne ministers to giue and much lesse to execute the sentence of death vpon any though shee might doe it if shee would for seeing there is nothing that hindreth it but Ecclesiasticall Canons the Pope being head of the Church might dispence therewith and make it lawfull if iust occasion required 67 And how true it is that the Pope hath power ouer the life of any Christian with the circumstances and limitations before mentioned I feare me my Aduersarie Widdrington might find to his cost if hee were heere and would not recant his doctrine euen in this point to wit that the Church cannot inflict temporall and corporall punishments whereby hee impugneth not only the ancient and vniuersall practise and custome of the Church but also the Ecclesiasticall Canons n Cap. ab abolendam cap. vergentis cap. excommunicamus extra de haeretic cap. licet de voto cap. 1. de homicidio in 6. Concil Trid. sess 24. c. 8. 25. cap. 3. and decrees of many Councells and Popes and finally of the Councell of Trent as I shall haue good occasion to shew more particularly heereafter o Inf. c. 11. nu 3. 9. item c. 12. nu 6. 7. s 68 In the meane time hee is to vnderstand that granting as hee doeth that the body is subordinate and subiect to the soule and that all corporall and temporall things are to serue spirituall things yea and to bee commanded by the supreame spirituall Pastour to that end and consequently that they are accessorie in the respect of the soule and good of the Church hee cannot with reason deny the consequence of my argument to wit that forasmuch as the accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that hath power ouer the soule and all other spirituall things hath power also ouer all things that are accessorie thereto namely the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians when the good of soules and of the whole Church doth necessarily require it as shall bee further declared after a while p Cap. 5. nu 37. 38. item c. 6. nu 12. 13. 14. seq vpon further occasion giuen by my Aduersarie 69 Heere you see that Mr. Fitzherbert doeth not deny my consequence but alloweth it for good in those his wordes And how true it is that the Pope hath power ouer the life of any Christian and consequently of Christian Kings with the circumstances and limitations before mentioned to wit so farre foorth as it may be conuenient for the good of the Church a large and intollerable extension of the Popes spirituall power to take away the liues of Christian Princes and subiects and vpon iust occasion giuen by him and againe that the Pope hath power ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians and consequently of Christian Princes when the good of soules and of the whole Church doth necessarily require it So that you see he graunteth my argument to be good but yet to be malicious that I speake the trueth but of malice But truely it is strange to what virulent and slanderous speeches some intemperate spirit hath drawen the libertie of this mans pen. If he imagine that with any colourable reply he can except against my aunswere then it is friuolous impertinent foolish and ridiculous if he can not then it is malicious God almightie who is the onely searcher of all mens hearts knoweth herein my innocencie and that zeale to the Catholike religion desire to know the trueth loue to my Prince and countrey and not any splene or malice hath mooued me to write both this and all the rest and therefore I humbly beseech his Diuine Maiestie to forgiue him and to graunt him true repentance for that which is past and that hereafter he may haue a more milde and temperate spirit 70 But wherefore trow you is my argument malicious because it draweth him sayth he to an odious question as though forsooth the propounding of
euery odious argument although it be neuer so good and conuincing must needs proceed from malice I confesse indeed that this doctrine concerning the killing of Christian Princes is odious abominable false scandalous neuer taught in the Church of God before these later yeeres and which all good subiects ought with all their hearts to detest and abhorre and Princes more narrowly to looke vnto and whether this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Christian Princes be a point of faith from whence such an odious scandalous and detestable doctrine doth necessarily follow I hope all good Catholikes and true hearted subiects will heereafter more diligently consider 71 And how true it is sayth my Aduersarie that the Pope hath power ouer the life of any Christian with the circumstances and limitations before mentioned I feare me my Aduersarie Widdrington might finde to his cost if he were here at Rome and would not recant his doctrine euen in this point to wit that the Church can not inflict corporall and temporall punishment whereby he impugneth c. But first that the Pope hath power at Rome ouer the liues of those who are his temporall subiects no man calleth in question for that he is now the temporall Prince of Rome But this prooueth not that the Pope as he is Pope and by vertue of his spirituall power hath authoritie to put any man to death If my Aduersarie could bring but one example that the Pope before he was a temporall Prince and when the Citie of Rome was subiect in temporals to the Roman Grecian French or German Emperours did by vertue of his spirituall power put any man to death then he should say something to the purpose if the facts and examples of Popes were a sufficient argument to prooue their right and authoritie 72 Secondly although it be true that the Church by vertue of her spirituall power hath authoritie to command impose or enioyne corporall and temporall punishments as I haue often said and the ancient and generall practise of the Church doth confirme the same yet that Ecclesiasticall authoritie is by the institution of Christ extended to the disposing of temporals or to the inflicting of corporall and temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment very many Doctours with Iacobus Almaine Almainus in libro de Dominio naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico in probatione secundae conclusionis as I haue often said doe expresly deny neither hath the contrarie as yet by any approoued practise and custome of the Church or by any other conuincing argument bene sufficiently prooued and what my Aduersarie doth particularly bring to that purpose from the Ecclesiasticall Canons and decrees of any Councell or Pope and from the late Councell of Trent you shall see in those places where he promiseth to shew it more particularly 73 In the meane time to conclude this Chapter with my Aduersarie he is also to vnderstand that albeit I doe graunt the body to be subordinate and subiect to the soule and that all corporall and temporall things are to serue spirituall things in that manner as I haue at large declared in the second part and in the beginning of the next chapter will briefly insinuate againe and therefore to be commanded by the supreme spirituall Pastour in order to spirituall good yet with good reason I did deny the consequence of his argument to wit that for as much as the accessorie followeth the principall therefore he that hath power ouer the soule and all other spirituall things hath power also ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians when the good of soules and of the whole Church doth necessarily require it if he vnderstand as it is cleere he doth of a power not onely to commaund enioyne or impose but also to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments for that temporall states and bodily goods are not accessorie to the spirituall good of the soule and of the Church as accessorie is and ought to be taken in that maxime because the spirituall good of soules and of the Church may bee without such temporall goods and states yea and in euery particular man perchance better without them then with them Neither is it necessarily required to the good of soules or of the whole Church that the Pope haue power to dispose of the temporall goods states or bodies either of Christian Princes or subiects and therefore the Reader may also well coniecture what he is to expect from my Aduersarie in the rest of his Replies when in this where he maketh a shew to haue so great aduantage against my answere that hee feareth not to call it friuolous impertinent foolish ridiculous and contrary to my owne doctrine yet all his exceptions are so improbable that his virulent speeches might very truely if Christian modestie and charitie would permit be retorted backe vpon himselfe CHAP. III. Wherein Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed and the foure instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Also Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polonie are confuted Mr. Fitzherbert in his third Chapter proceedeth with the like bitternesse and yet with as little probabilitie as hee did in the former For after I had made two instances against his argument drawne from that rule of the Law The accessory followeth the principall I brought foure instances against another like consequence of Fa. Lâ—ssius taken from another maxime The like argument said I a In Admonia nu 15. Fa. Lessius doth vrge The Pope saith he hath power to excommunicate Kings and therefore he hath also power to depose them because hee that hath power to inflict a greater punishmeÌ„t hath also power to inflict a lesse We might also conclude thus if it were lawfull to transcend from one thing to another of a diuers kinde and nature The Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings therefore also to kill them because he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse A man hath power to vnderstand therefore also to flye A priuate Priest hath power to absolue from sinnes therefore also from debts He hath power by force of the Sacraments to giue the kingdome of heauen therefore also to giue an earthly kingdome Are not these and such like goodly arguments to perswade English Catholikes to cast away prodigally all their goods and to deny their allegiance to their Prince Thus I argued in that place 2 Now my Aduersarie after he had repeated my words replieth against these instances in this manner b Nu. 1. 2. seq Thus saith Widdrington scoffing and cogging as you see
is that excommunication doth not take away the life of the soule but supposeth that it is before taken away and therefore it cannot be inflicted but for a mortall sin and it is applied as a wholsome medicine to restore the life of the soule againe neither is it in the Popes power to take away the life of the soule from any Christian concerning which life that vulgar saying of S. Chrysost Is most true nemo laeditur nisi a semetipso no man is hurt but by himselfe S. Chrysost tom 5. in libro Quod qui seipsum non laedit nemo laedere possit If I should haue vttered so grosse and palpable an errour which no heretike for ought I know euer taught what outcries would my Aduersarie haue made against me what nicknames would he haue giuen me 17 To my second instance which was this whosoeuer hath power to doe the greater hath power to do the lesse therefore a man who hath power to vnderstand hath power also to flie Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth thus g Nu. 8. pag. 44. But who seeth not the disparitie and Widdringtons absurditie therein for what dependance subordinatioÌ„ or connexion can be imagined betwixt vnderstanding and flying whereas he him selfe granteth a subordination of temporall things to spirituall and therefore is also forced as you haue heard to acknowledge a power in the Pope to command temporall things in order to spirituall whereby he conuinceth him selfe of extreame folly in framing this argument which hath no affinitie with the other 18 But who seeth not that there is no formal disparity nor any absurdity committed by me in this argument For first what dependance subordination connexion is betwixt excommunication deposition It is one thing saith Becanus h In Controuersia Anglicana cap. 3. q. 2. nu 1. to excommunicate a King and an other thing to depose him or depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connected with the other But marke the fraudulent dealing of this man Widdrington granteth saith he a subordination of temporall things to spirituall and therefore is forced to acknowledge a power in the Pope to command temporall things in order to spirituall It is true that I doe grant an ordination both of temporall and of spirituall things to the honour of God and the saluation of soules in that manner as I haue before declared but it is not true that I do either graunt a subordination or ordination of deposition to excommunication or that by reason of the ordination of temporall things to the honor seruice of God the saluation of soules I doe grant a power in the Pope to command temporall things in order to spirituall as my Aduersarie saith I doe but for that reason which I haue more at large declared in the former chapter 19 Seeing therefore that there is no dependance subordination or connexion betwixt excommunication and deposition what connexion or affinitie can my Aduersarie require betwixt vnderstanding and flying to shew a formall disparitie betwixt Lessius argument and the instance which I made against it And if hee say that albeit excommunication and deposition temporall things and spirituall are of a distinct kinde and order beeing considered in their owne natures yet if they bee respected as they are referred to one last end which is Gods seruice and glorie they are not of diuers orders but are connected in that respect it may also be replied that vnderstanding and flying and all things whatsoeuer are referred to Gods seruice and glorie as to the last end and therefore in this respect they are not of diuers orders but they haue herein a coherence and connexion If therefore by reason of the ordination and reference of excommunication and deposition to Gods seruice and glorie it may be rightly inferred that because the Pope for Gods seruice and glorie can excommunicate which is the greater he can also for the same end depose which is the lesse for the same ordination and reference of vnderstanding and flying to Gods seruice and glorie it may also be rightly inferred that because the Pope for Gods seruice and glory hath power to vnderstand which is the greater he hath also for the same end power to flie which is the lesse 20 But secondly and principally obserue good Reader how cunningly Mr. Fitzherbert would shun the difficulty and change the state of the question the force of Lessius his argument For the question between me Lessius only is whether this consequence The Pope can excommunicate therefore he can depose be good by vertue of that maxime he that can do the greater can do the lesse for this is Lessius argumeÌ„t Now my Aduersarie altereth this question and would make Lessius argument to be that the Pope can excommunicate therefore he can depose because temporall things are subordained to spirituall things whereas this is not Lessius argument which I did there impugne but it is an other framed by my Aduersarie and taken from an other medium to wit the subordination of tempotall things to spirituall grounded in that maxime the accessorie followeth the principall whereof I haue spoken enough in the former chapter For Lessius his argument hath an other medium to wit that maxime he that can do the greater can doe the lesse which I contend to be no good argumeÌ„t for that it would likewise follow from that maxime that the Pope because he can vnderstand which is the greater can also she which is the lesse For as excommunication deposition although they doe materially disagree for that they are of a diuerse kinde order yet they do formally agree in that maxime he that can do the greater can do the lesse because excommunication is the greater deposition is the lesse so also although there be a materiall disparitie betwixt vnderstanding flying for that they are of a diuerse kind order yet they do formally agree in that maxime of Lessius because vnderstanding is the greater and flying is the lesse And therefore the extreame folly wherewith my Aduersarie chargeth me may more truly if it were decent for me to vse such vndecent words be returned vpon himselfe in that hee taking vpoÌ„ him to defend Lessius argument cleane changeth the argument frameth an another out of his owne braine which hath a distinct medium is grounded vpon another maxime from that which Lessius vsed 21 To my third instance which was this He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse therefâ—re a priuate Priest who can absolue from sinnes can also absolue from debts Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth i Nu. 9. 10. 11. pag. 45. that Widdrington altereth the case in making his instance in priuate Priests whose power is much limited when the argument which he impugneth speaketh of the Pope who is the supreame spirituall Pastour and hath plenitudinem potestatis a plenitude or fulnesse of power and therefore albeit we teach that the Pope may excommunicate and
depose a Prince yet no man holdeth that a priuate Priest can doe either of them both yea and wee see that in the great Councell of Lateran where the deposition of Princes was ordained to be practised in some cases the sentence of their deposition was reserued to the Pope himselfe though the Metropolitan might excommunicate him 22 Besides that it is to be considered concerning the absolution of sinnes and debts that as neither Priest nor Pope can absolue from sinnes in all cases as when the sinner is not penitent or will not make restitution of fame or goods when he may conueniently doe it so may the Pope absolue from debts in some cases for the very same reason and in the very same case that he may depose a Prince to wit for the iust punishment of an offender when the same shall be very necessarie for the benefite of the whole Church for in such a case all priuate respects of temporall good or harme ought to yeeld to the common good of soules and the publike weale of the Church as in like manner all ciuill obligations cease when they are encountred and ouerweighed with the consideration of some great benefite or inconuenience to the whole common wealth for which respect the temporall Prince might in such a case iustly ordaine that a debter should bee discharged in law from the payment of his debt whereby the sayde debter should bee also discharged in conscience 23 And much more may the supreame spirituall Pastour of the Church discharge a man from all obligation in conscience to pay a debt when the same shall bee necessarie for the spirituall good and publike benefite of the Church whereto all temporall things ought to yeeld so as the Pope may in some cases absolue from debts as well as from sinnes and when hee cannot the reason is such as doth nothing derogate from his supreame authoritie and power to depose Princes and therfore this argument of my Aduersarie is as impertinent as the former 24 But it is too too apparant that I haue not any way altered the case or question For the case and question betweene mee and Lessius is not at this present whether the Pope can excommunicate or whether he can depose or whether this consequence The Pope can excommunicate therfore he can depose be good by reason of the Popes plenitude of power but whether it be good by vertue of that maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse and I affirme his consequence not to be good because that maxime is not true in those generall wordes as it is set downe So that the onely case and question betweene mee and Lessius now is whether that maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse be true and that therefore hee doeth from thence rightly inferre that because the Pope can excommunicate which is the greater hee can also depose which is the lesse And that this generall maxime of Lessius is not true I prooued by the two former instances and also by this for that if it bee true that whosoeuer can doe the greater can doe the lesse as Lessius affirmeth it doeth consequently follow that a priuate Priest who can absolue from sinnes which is the greater can also absolue from debts which is the lesse If Lessius maxime had beene euery Pope that can doe the greater can do the lesse and I would haue impugned this maxime by priuate Priests for that priuate Priests who can do the greater as to absolue from sins cannot doe the lesse as to absolue from debts then indeede I should haue altered the case in transferring the question from Popes to priuate Priests who are not contained in the subiect of that maxime euery Pope c. but seeing that Lessius maxime is generall qui potest maius potest minus he that can which includeth Clerkes and Laikes Kings and Subiects Pope and Priests and all other men whatsoeuer doe the greater can doe the lesse it is sufficient to prooue this maxime to bee false without altering the case if I can bring but one particular instāce whether it be of Pope or Priest King or subiect wherein this maxime is not true 25 And if I should haue argued in this manner hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse therefore a priuate Priest who can build a Church can build a Chappell would my Aduersarie trow you haue said that I had altered the case for that he speaketh of the Pope and I speake of priuate Priests and I would wish also my Aduersarie to call to mind what hee said a little before that S. Paul argued from that maxime which Lessius did hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse and yet I thinke hee will not say that either S. Paul or Lessius altered the case although Lessius spake only of the Pope in his consequent and S. Paul of priuate men Also I would gladly learne of my Aduersarie in what manner the maior proposition or antecedent of any argument and consequently the argument or consequence it selfe may according to his skill in Logicke bee impugned without altering the case as whether to impugne the maior proposition of this syllogisme he that was neuer taught Logicke cannot bee a good Logician but F. T. was neuer taught Logicke therefore F. T. cannot bee a good Logician it bee not sufficient without altering the case to bring this instance Mr. T. F. was neuer taught Logicke and yet hee is a good Logician and therefore that Maior proposition hee that was neuer taught Logicke cannot bee a good Logician is not true and so the consequence deduced from it cannot bee good which Maior proposition whether it bee sufficiently impugned or no without altering the case albeit I transferre the subiect of the minor proposition from F. T. to T. F. Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert knoweth full well 26 Wherefore it is sufficient without altering the case to impugne any vniuersall proposition which is the antecedent of any consequence and thereby to impugne the consequence it selfe which is grounded vpon that antecedent by bringing any one instance wherein that antecedent proposition is not found to be true although that instance be different either in subiect or in praedicate or in both from the consequent of the former argument or consequence so that the instance be contained in that antecedent proposition as a particular in the vniuersall And herein Mr. Fitzherbert doth bewray his want of of Logicke as before he bewrayed his want of Diuinitie in affirming that the Pope by Excommunication doth take away the life of the soule For if his skill in Logicke had beene but meane he would quickly haue perceiued that if one impugne the antecedent proposition of any consequence or argument by altering the consequent he doth not alter the case so that the praedicate and subiect of the consequent which is brought to impugne the antecedent be contained in the praedicate and subiect of the antecedent as a particular in
the vniuersall 27 And therefore I haue sufficiently without altering the case confuted that maxime he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse by this instance of a priuate Priest who is contained in that subiect hee that can as a particular in the vniuersall for that a priuate Priest can doe the greater to wit can absolue from sinnes and yet he can not doe the lesse to wit absolue from debts from whence it followeth that the aforesaid generall maxime is not true and therefore neither the consequence of that argument concerning the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently to depose which consequence is grounded vpon that generall maxime can be good By which it is apparant that from that maxime it can not be rightly concluded that because the Pope hath power to excommunicate which is the greater he hath power either to depriue Princes of their kingdomes or to absolue subiects from their debts which are the lesse 28 Neither is the deposing of Princes or the discharging of subiects from paying their debts necessary for the spirituall good and publike benefite of the Church or which is all one to the saluation of soules although they were necessary yet seeing they are temporall and not spirituall actions they must be performed for the same spirituall end by temporall and not spirituall power And therefore that argument which my Aduersarie vseth a maiori ad minus that because a temporall Prince may absolue his subiect from the payment of his debt therefore much more the supreame spirituall Pastour of the Church may doe the same is of little worth for that the disposing of temporall things and the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the discharging of subiects from paying their debts doe belong only to the temporall power of Secular Princes and not to Ecclesiasticall authoritie which by the institution of Christ is not extended to the inflicting of temporal punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. but only of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall censures as I haue shewed more at large in the first part 29 To my fourth and last instance which was this He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse therefore a priuate Priest who hath power to giue the kingdome of heauen to wit by vertue of the Sacraments hath power to giue an earthly kingdome Mr. Fitzherbert answereth as before k Nu. 12. 13. pag. 46. that Widdrington changeth the state of the question transferring it from the Pope to a priuate Priest for albeit this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if we change the consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto my Aduersarie Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreame authoritie and therefore the argument would be good thus Potest Papa per plenitudinem potestatis c The Pope may by the plenitude of his power giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore he may giue an earthly for the later being a necessarie consequent of the former is necessarily comprehended in it because the Pope by the plenitude of his power hath as much authoritie and iurisdiction as is necessarie for the gouernment and good of the Church Whereupon it followeth that whensoeuer it shall be absolutely necessarie and behoouefull for the Church that he change or transferre a kingdome or Empire he may doe it and giue not only the Kingly or Imperiall title but also the right to the crowne as Leo the third c. 30 But Mr Fitzherbert doth also in this answere bewray his ignorance and want of Logicke as he did in the former for it is cleere that he himselfe and not I doth alter the case and change the state of the question For the question is not concerning the consequent of Lessius argument but concerning the consequence or that antecedent proposition and maxime hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse whereon his consequence or argument is grounded and therefore by changing the consequent the case or state of the question is not altered when the consequent is included in the antecedent proposition as a particular in the vniuersall as in the former part of this argument a Priest can giue the kingdome of heauen is included in the former part of that maxime he that can doe the greater and the second part therefore he can giue an earthly kingdome is included in the second part of that maxime therefore he can doe the lesse for that to giue the kingdome of heauen is greater then to giue an earthly kingdome And to make the case more plaine to the vulgar sort put the case that I should argue thus Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore sugar is pleasant to the taste the consequent you see is true yet the consequence is not good for that the antecedent proposition is false And if my Aduersarie should impugne my consequence and prooue my antecedent proposition to be false by this instance Euery white thing is pleasant to the taste therefore chalke is pleasant to the taste and I should reply to this instance and say that he altereth the case changeth the state of the question in transferring it from sugar which is sweet to chalke which is vnsauoury would not my Aduersarie trow you according to his accustomed manner affirme that my reply is impertinent absurd foolish and ridiculous and send me backe to learne Logicke againe 32 Now you shall see how plainely Mr. Fitzherbert whiles hee vntruely chargeth mee as you haue seene with altering the case and changing the state of the question he doth alter and change it himselfe For albeit saith he this argument holdeth not in priuate Priests yet it is good in the Pope if wee changet he consideration of the force of the Sacraments whereto Widdrington ascribeth the Popes power to the plenitude of power by the vertue whereof the Pope hath a supreme authoritie c. But first it is vntrue and I wonder that Mr. Fitzherbert blusheth not to say that I ascribe the Popes power to the force of the Sacraments seeing that I speake not one word in my instance of the Pope but onely of priuate Priests And if I had ascribed the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace whereby we are made children of God and heires to the kingdome of heauen to the force and vertue of the Sacraments had this beene forsooth any vnsound or bad doctrine Will my Aduersarie ascribe the Popes power to remit sinnes and to giue iustifying grace not to the force and vertue of the Sacraments but to the plenitude of his power as though the Pope by the plenitude of his power could without the Sacraments remit sinnes and giue iustifying grace If this be his meaning all Catholikes know what Censure this doctrine deserueth and it is in some sort agreeable to that which he said a little before that the Pope by excommunication doeth take away the life
of the soule which is iustifying grace 32 Secondly obserue good Reader how my Aduersarie himselfe altereth the case and changeth the state of the question and the reason or principle whereon Lessius consequence or argument which I did impugne was grounded For Lessius his argument was this The Pope can excommunicate Kings therefore he can depose them because hee that can inflict the greater punishment can inflict the lesse which proposition supposeth that generall maxime he that can doe the greater can doe the lesse and this maxime was the reason and ground of his consequence or argument Now my Aduersary changeth this reason and ground and flieth to another The Pope saith hee may giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore hee may giue an earthly but for what reason thinke you I expected that he would haue yeelded Lessius reason because hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse which reason by those foure instances I did impugne but he flyeth from this reason to another because the Pope saith he hath a plenitude of power by which hee may giue the heauenly and consequently an earthly kingdome Before he affirmed as you haue seene that the Pope hauing power to excommunicate Kings may depose them as well because the power to excommunicate is greater then the power to depose and this was Lessius his reason which I impugned in this Chapter as also because the temporall state whereof the Pope depriueth the Prince is ordained to serue the spirituall and therefore to bee disposed by the supreme spirituall Pastour so farre soorth as shall be necessarie for Gods seruice and the good of the Church and this is the reason which my Aduersary brought in the former Chapter and was grounded in that rule of the Law The accessory followeth the principall which I impugned in that place Now he yeeldeth another reason which is taken from the plenitude of power which the supreme spirituall Pastour hath 33 So that you see how he himselfe now changeth the state of the question and flyeth from Lessius reason which I impugned to wit that hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse to the plenitude of the Popes power which reason neuerthelesse is of small force and it is rather petitio principij or a giuing that for a reason which is the question For albeit I doe not deny that the supreme spirituall Pastour hath in spirituals a plenitude of power that is a full spirituall power to gouerne the Church which is the spirituall kingdome of Christ as likewise all Soueraigne Princes haue in temporalls a plenitude of power that is a full temporall power to gouerne their temporall kingdomes yet how farre this plenitude or fulnesse of spirituall power is extended whether to the disposing of temporall things and to the giuing or depriuing of temporall kingdomes in order to spirituall good as my Aduersaries imagine or onely to the disposing or dispensing of spirituall things as many other learned Catholikes are of opinion this is that which is now in controuersie betwixt mee and Mr. Fitzherbert and which he taketh vpon him by all lawes humane and diuine cleerely to conuince and therefore to giue that for a reason which is the question is to commit that fault which the Logicians call petitio principij 34 If Mr. Fitzherbert had argued in that manner as Lessius did to wit that the Pope by the plenitude of his power may giue the heauenly kingdome and therefore hee may giue an earthly because hee that can doe the greater can do the lesse then he had not altered the state of the questiō or changed Lessius medium or reason but then I would also haue denied his consequence and haue impugned that reason of maxime by those foure instances and infinite other which might be brought which do cleerely directly confute and ouerthrow that maxime But seeing that he flyeth from that maxime which Lessius brought for his medium or reason to the plenitude of the Popes power he both altereth the state of the question and also giueth that for a reason which is the question For I vtterly deny that the Pope by that plenitude of power which Christ hath graunted to his Church can I doe not say command impose or enioyne temporall things as temporall penalties but dispose of temporall things or inflict temporall punishments although it bee imagined that they are necessary as they are not to the good of the Church and the saluation of soules it belonging only to the temporall power of Secular Princes whom Christ hath appointed to be Protectours of his Church to vse the temporall sword to inflict temporall punishments and to dispose of temporall things 35 Wherefore neither the plenitude of spirituall power in the supreme spirituall Pastour to giue the heauenly kingdome doth necessarily inferre a power in him to giue an earthly kingdome as a necessarie consequent of the former as my Aduersarie heere affirmeth although the supreme spirituall Pastour by the plenitude of his spirituall power hath as much spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction as is necessarie for the gouernment and good of the Church as it is instituted by Christ our Sauiour neither is the changing transferring or giuing of an earthly kingdome and the disposing of all temporall things absolutely necessarie for the spirituall good of the Church or which is all one for the sauing of soules as also my Aduersarie here supposeth from which necessitie for the most part he draweth an argument to prooue the aforesaid power to dispose of all temporall things to be in the Pope although sometimes he graunteth l cap. 2. nu 3. that the Pope hath the aforesaid power ouer temporall goods and States yea and of the bodies of all Christians so farre forth at least as it shall be conuenient for the good of the soule and of the Church which is a too too large and exorbitant extension of the Popes plenitude of power to take away the kingdomes and liues of Christian Princes and to dispose of all temporals for that as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth it is not absolutely necessarie for the good of the Church to resist the common enemie as is the Turke For if the Church sayth he m lib. 1. de Concil cap. 10 could conuerse * conuersari vnder the most cruell persecutions of Nero Domitian Decius and Diocletian why may it not also vnder the persecutiō of the Turks And although the disposing of temporal things the changing transferring giuing and taking away of temporall kingdomes were necessary for the spiritual good of soules or of the Church yet they being temporall actions and proper to the temporall power as God almightie hath distinguished in the Christian world or common-wealth the temporall and spirituall power by their proper actions functions and dignities they can not be performed by the spirituall but onely by the temporall and ciuill power which Christian Princes are by the law of Christ bound to vse in defence of the Church and for
he affirmeth that the Church in no case can iudge an vndoubted Pope so long as he is Pope Neuerthelesse I neuer affirmed that when the Emperour doth abandon and forsake his Empire and people and refuseth to be their Emperour any longer but leaueth them to themselues it is not in their power to choose them an other Emperour or to change the Imperiall Monarchie into Aristocratie or Democratie for that then the supreme temporall power and authoritie is immediately in the people and this also I prooued in that place out of Card. Bellarmines owne principles 45 Wherefore when D. Schulckenius a little aboue affirmed that I doe oftentimes graunt that the people cannot in any case deny ciuill obedience to that Prince whom once they haue had if his meaning be that I doe graunt that he who is once a Prince can not of his owne accord leaue to be a Prince and can not resigne his kingdome to the next heire and that the people are bound to yeeld ciuill obedience to him who was once their Prince but now of his owne accord hath resigned his kingdome to the next heire he doth greatly wrong me and abuse his Reader for to affirme this were foolish and ridiculous and contrarie to all reason and practise but that which I affirmed was that it is very probable and defended by many graue and learned Catholikes that the people who are subiect can in no case nor for any cause iudge or depose their Soueraigne Prince against his will and my reason was the same which Card. Bellarmine oftentimes vseth to prooue that the Church or a Generall Councell can not iudge or depose the Pope for that it is contrarie to all reason for an inferiour or subiect to iudge his Superiour and therefore those Catholikes that holde a Generall Councell may in some cases iudge the Pope doe also holde that it is superiour and aboue the Pope 46 That the Grecian Emperours had the Romane Empire as forsaken and abandoned by them I affirmed in these words Seeing therefore that as Lupoldus or Ludolphus writeth and diuers other Authors as Nauclerus Aeneas Siluius and Michael Coccinius doe insinuate the Emperours of Greece in the time of Charles the great and also before his time to wit in the time of his father Pipine and of his grandfather Charles Martellus did reigne in the West Empire only in name neither could the Church of Rome nor other Churches of Christ or also any others being by the Longobards vniustly oppressed in the same Empire haue iustice by them or by their authoritie and so the aforesaid Emperours had the West-Empire in a manner forsaken by gouerning therein only in name as it appeareth by diuers Chronicles the Pope Senate and people of Rome at leastwise by the tacite consent of all other Westerne men who were subiect to the Empire had euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine but now related full right and power which they could loose by no custome or translation of the Imperiall Seate as being to them connaturall and due by the law of nature to choose themselues a new Emprour and consequently to transfer the Empire which the Grecians kept in the Westerne parts only in name to Charles the great and his Successours the Imperiall Seate being in those parts at that time as it were vacant or without an Emperour Thus I wrote in my Apologie e Nu. 438. 47 And moreouer that the Greeke Emperours had the Westerne Empire and people for forsaken and abandoned and gaue at leastwise their tacite consent according to that rule of the law qui tacet consentire videtur that they might choose to themselues another Empeperour at leastwise in power and authoritie it is apparant for that they did neuer repugne contradict or gainesay that Charles the great should rule ouer them although perchance it displeased them that hee should haue the name of Emperour Yea and as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe writeth when the Empresse Irene heard that Charles was called and crowed Emperour by Pope Leo shee did not onely gainesay but also she would haue married Charles and had done if certaine perfidious Eunuches had not hindered her as Zonaras and Cedrenus doe write in the life of the said Irene Afterwards Irene being dead Nicephorus the Emperour who did succeede her sent Ambassadours to Charles as to an Emperour as writeth Ado in this Chronicle of the yeere 803. And a little after Nicephorus being dead Michael suceeding him sent Ambassadours to Charles who likewise did publikely honour him as an Emperour as writeth Ado in his Chronicle of the yeere 810. All which doe sufficiently confirme that the Greeke Emperours did not gainesay this translation nor conceiue it to be a wrong done to them and in preiudice of their Imperiall right and Soueraigntie 48 By all which it is manifest first that I doe not any wrong at all to the Latin Emperours who haue beene and shall be from the time of that translation as though their Empire were not grounded vpon any sound title or foundation for that all writers and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe doe agree in this that the Pope together with the rest of the people haue power to choose them another Emperour in case the Emperour will no longer reigne ouer them because in that case the supreame temporall power and authoritie is onely in the people or whole multitude but rather Card. Bellarmine as also I obserued in that place f Nu. 462. doth call in question and make doubtfull the right and title which the Latin Emperours haue to the Empire in that hee affirmeth that they haue all their right and title from the Pope alone seeing that there be many learned and graue Authours who make a great doubt whether the Pope alone hath by the institution of Christ any such power and authoritie to transfer Empires but no Authour not so much as Card. Bellarmine himselfe according to his doctrine which I related in that place doeth deny that the whole multitude hath full power and authoritie to transfer the Empire in the aforesaide case to wit when the Emperour doth abandon the Empire and will no longer reigne ouer the people 49 Secondly it is also manifest that I haue not any way contradicted my selfe in my answere and that I haue cleerely prooued by Card. Bellarmines owne grounds and by his owne Authours that the aforesaide translation was done by the authoritie decree ordinance and suffrages both of the Pope and of the people and consequently that the people did more then onely request applaude and assent to that translation to which D. Schulckenius maketh no answere at all and therefore his silence herein is both an euident signe that hee was not able to impugne my answere and that although hee doeth so highly commend his owne booke of the translation of the Empire as exactly soundly and diligently written yet his owne conscience for as much as concerneth this question seeth now the contrarie for that hee being so
discourse how by that staffe Pope Hormisda gaue to S. Remigius this power consecrating and the whole principalitie or Primacie of France and how Pope Victor did grant it to him and his Church Then his Father Henry beckoning he chose him to be King after him 55 This is all that Papirius Maso writeth So that all the difficultie of these words consisteth in that word election which cannot be vnderstood properly and for that election whereby one is made King or heire apparant to the crowne who was not King or heire apparant before the election For the Kings of France before that time and euer since haue their right and title to the crowne not by election but by hereditarie succession but it is taken for the religious ceremonie of consecration and a solemne declaration of the Archbishop that the person whom he consecrateth is chosen or rather acknowledged and accepted by the whole kingdome for King or heire apparant to the crowne Neither doth the consecration and declaration or if we will improperly call it election of the Archbishop giue any more right authoritie or Soueraignitie to the King of France then he had before neither if hee were not consecrated elected or declared to be King by the Archbishop should he want any temporall right authoritie or Soueraignitie for that the Kings authoritie Soueraignitie doth not necessarily depend on the Archbishops consecration election or declaration although some of the vulgar sort of people may perchance imagine that he is not a perfect King before he be consecrated and annointed 56 As likewise the Pope after he is chosen by the Cardinals is true Pope and hath all Papall power and iurisdiction before he is consecrated or crowned Pope neither doth his Papall authoritie necessarily depend vpon his coronation which belongs only to a religious ceremonie and a complementall but not needfull solemnitie But this I vnderstand for this present only of those Kings who haue their right and title by hereditarie succession and not of those who are Kings by election as is the Romane Emperour and the King of Polonia For it is a question among the Lawyers whether the Emperour before he bee crowned by the Pope or by his commission is truly Emperour and hath full Imperiall power or no whereof and from whence this may proceede I will not now dispute and so it may perchance be a custome among the Polonians that the King elect is not accounted a complete and perfect King before he be crowned and consecrated by the Metropolitan but this may proceede originally and chiefely from the people or Kingdome in whom the supreme Regall authoritie doth reside vntill they haue chosen a King in which time of vacancie they may extend or limite his authoritie or make him with what conditions they please yea and if they will change the Monarchie into Aristocratie or Democratie which cannot be likewise said of those Kingdomes which haue their Kings not by election but by hereditarie succession of whom that vulgar saying is verified that the King doth neuer die 57 Also when Boleslaus King of Polonia saith Mr. Fitzherbert had killed the holy Bishop Stanislaus Pope Gregorie the seuenth did not only excommunicate and depose him but also commanded the Bishops of that Realme that they should not annoint and crowne any King of Polonia without his expresse leaue and order whereby he that succeeded Boleslaus had but the title of Duke which remained also to his Successours for the space of two hundred and fiftie yeares So as this matter is cleare not only in reason but also in practise and so hath been for many ages whereby it appeareth that the Pope may giue as well the earthly as the heauenly kingdome for the good of the Church by the same reason and power that he may depriue Princes of their states when they deserue it and the good of the Church requireth it 58 And thus thou seest good Reader how probably this man Widdrington hath impugned the argument of Lessius seeing that of foure arguments that he hath scoffingly framed to counterfeit the same and to prooue a bad consequence therein there is not any one to his purpose and some of them being truly vnderstood and vrged according to the true state of the question which he hath changed in them doe make directly for vs so that his scoffes doe fall vpon one but himselfe and his owne ridiculous arguments and therefore whereas he concludeth them with a gybing demand asking whether these and the like are not goodly arguments to perswade the English Catholikes to cast away prodigally their goods and to deny their fidelitie to their Prince I may with much more reason demand of him whether these and such other answeres and arguments of his are not goodly ones to mooue the English Catholikes to be so prodigall of their soules as to cast them away vpon his word by denying fidelitie and obedience to their spirituall Pastour who hath the charge of their soules 59 But it seemeth that his minde and hand is altogether vpon his halfe penny as the prouerbe speaketh seeing that he hath so great care of the Catholikes goods and so little of their soules that he would haue them venter and hazard their eternall saluation to saue their temporall goods but I hope God will inspire them to be wiser and alwaies to remember the golden sentence of our Sauiour Marc. 8. Luc. 9. quid prodest homini c. What doth it profit a man to gaine all the world if he loose his soule Thus Mr. Fitzherbert endeth this chapter 60 But as for the example and practise of Pope Gregory the seuenth I doe freely acknowledge that hee was the first Authour and Writer that did in expresse wordes teach that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes also that he was the first Pope who contrary to the custome of his Ancestours as Onuphrius witnesseth b Li. 4. de varsa creat Rom. Pont. did practise the same but first he did practise it and then he endeuoured to prooue that he might lawfully doe it since which time it hath indeede beene practised by many Popes Neuerthelesse both the doctrine and the practise was not knowne to the ancient Fathers and also it hath euer beene resisted and contradicted by Catholike Princes and people both Diuines and Lawyers and therefore it cannot rightly bee called the practise of the Church And although the Pope might for sufficient cause command the Bishops of Polonia that they should not consecrate any King without his expresse leaue and order it being onely a religious ceremony yet it cannot bee sufficiently prooued either that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by way of sentence for of his power to depriue by way of command I doe not now dispute any Countrey of the title and name of a Kingdome without the consent of the Countrey or of him to whom the Countrey is subiect in temporalls it being no spirituall but a meere temporall title and
to doe God good seruice will be Pharisaicall sinfull and inexcusable and therefore I hope they will be wiser and not suffer themselues to bee carried away hoodwinkt with blinde obedience which is most dangerous when their obedience to man may be a disobedience to God but that they will alwaies remember that golden sentence of our Sauiour Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and the things that are Gods to God CHAP. IIII. Wherein Widdringtons Interpretation of that clause of the oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to be sound and sufficient and is cleared from all absurditie and contradiction euen by Mr. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike ALl that Mr Fitzherbert obiecteth in this Chapter I haue aboue in the end of the second part of this Treatise fully and verbatim already confuted and therefore I thinke it superfluous to repeate here the same againe CHAP. V. Wherein Widdringtons answeres to all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the old Testament and also in the new are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrarie to his owne doctrine BEcause this Chapter will be somwhat longer then the rest for that my Aduersarie hath scraped here together many authorities out of the law of God especially in the old Testament to prooue that the spirituall power not onely in the new law but also in the old hath euer been the supreme power on earth and might chastise Princes temporally and not onely command impose and enioyne temporall penalties but also dispose of temporals and inflict temporall punishments I thinke it not amisse to diuide it into three parts or sections In the first I will treate especially of those authorities which he hath brought out of the olde law before the institution of the Kings of Israel In the second I will confute those examples which he alledgeth out of the said olde Testament since the institution of those Kings and in the third I will examine those texts of holy Scripture which he hath taken out of the new Testament SECT I. Wherein all the authorities which are brought out of the olde law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and other learned Diuines also the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular FIrst therefore Mr. Fitzherbert in his fift chapter pretendeth to prooue that Widdringtons answere to his arguments deduced from the law of God is confuted by the expresse words and text of the Supplement and prooued to be not onely improbable but also fraudulent in that he dissembleth the whole substance and pith of Mr. Fitzherberts discourse for so is the title of his fift Chapter and then he proceedeth thus My Aduersarie Widdrington hauing trifled as you haue heard in the precedent Chapters goeth forward no lesse impertinently in these words Quarto si quis c. Fourthly if a man doe attentiuely read ouer Mr. Fitzherberts discourse he shall most clearely see that he hath effectually prooued nothing else out of the Law either of God or of Nature but that the temporall power in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall is subiect to the spirituall power so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall manner of correction and not temporall So Widdrington 2 Wherein he seemeth to acknowledge as you see that I haue effectually prooued by the law of God and Nature that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall so farre forth as concerneth the authoritie to command though not to punish temporally meaning that the spirituall power may command temporal and corporall things so farre forth as they are to serue the spirituall for so you haue heard him also confesse before a Sâ—e before chap. 2. nu 1. 2. and that it may punish spiritually that is to say by the way of spirituall censures but no way temporally wherein I wish to be obserued what he granteth and what he denyeth for of his grant will easily follow the confutation of his denyall as I haue partly signified before b Chap. 2. nu 1.2.9 10. and will shew more amply c Chap. 6. nu 14 15 seq See Supplem chap. 1. nu 10. when I shall haue first examined how true it is that I haue prooued effectually nothing else but that which he mentioneth For to this purpose it is to be considered what I haue debated concerning the law of God in my Supplement where I said thus 3 First I will speake of the law of God which if it be considered as it is a written law is diuided into the law of Moyses and the law of Grace deliuered by our Sauiour Iesus Christ and albeit the law of Moyses for so much as concerneth the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof doth not bind vs Christians yet I will make it manifest euen by that law that the spiritual power was then the supreme power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally when it was necessarie for the glorie of God and the good of the Church This appeareth by the law of God set downe in Deuteronomy c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 4 But whether he or I haue trifled in the precedent Chapters you haue already seene and how improbably he hath prooued my answere to his arguments to be improbable or fraudulent and hath confuted it by my owne doctrine as he vainly braggeth you shall presently perceiue And first Mr. Fitzherbert endeauoureth to confute my answere as improbable wherein I said that he hath prooued effectually nothing else by the law of God but that the temporall power in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall is subiect to the spirituall power so farre forth as concerneth commandement and a spirituall manner of correction and not temporall to which purpose he maketh a long and tedious repetition of that discourse which he made in his Supplement concerning the law of God especially in the old Testament preteÌ„ding forsooth to make it manifest euen by that law that the spiritual power was then the supreme power on earth and commanded all temporall authoritie yea and that it might and did chastise Princes temporally when it was necessarie for the glorie of God and the good of the Church 5 First therefore to all the arguments which either my Aduersarie here hath brought or any other can bring to conuince demonstrate or prooue effectually that the spirituall power in the old law was the supreme
kingdome they may and not onely may but also are a bound to kill such a King c. But marke his words I answere saith he a Pag. 560. that my Aduersary Widdrington hath sometimes falsly and slanderously obiected to Bellarmine that he should giue occasion to subiects to rise vp against their Kings and to kill them and nor he in plaine words doth teach the same For Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother and now her selfe a Queene reigned peaceably the seuenth yeere she was accused by no man condemned by no Iudge and yet Widdrington doth contend that it was lawfull for the high Priest who according to his opinion and words was a subiect to exhort the people to rebellion and with the Peeres and people to conspire against the Queene and to kill her 44 But saith Widdrington she had vsurped the kingdome tyrannically I answere Be it so but now the people assenting shee reigned the seuenth yeere Who gaue to subiects authority ouer their Prince peaceably reigning Who iudged at that time Athalia to be a Tyrant not a Queene if she did not acknowledge a Superiour to her Let my Aduersary Widdrington diligently consider whether it be not by farre more dangerous to the life of Kings and Princes and to the safetie of Kingdomes and Common-wealths to giue power to the people and to subiects to rebell and conspire and at the last to kill Kings whom they rashly oftentimes and falsly account Tyrants then to say that in the Pope as head of the vniuersall Church and Christs Vicar is a iudiciall power to iudge Kings and if the deserue it to depose them b Why doth he not adde also to kill them as Ioiada did Athalia For who maketh any doubt that Kings are safer if they be subiect to the Popes equity and grauity to which Christ hath subiected them then if they be subiect to the rash leuity the people to which my Aduersary Widdrington doth subiect them 45 Euery faithfull subiect saith Widdrington ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did by killing Athalia VVhat did Ioiada Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother hauing killed all the Royall issue as it was thought had vsurped the kingdome of Iuda possessed the same peaceably now the seuenth yeere Ioiada the seuenth yeere commanded her to be slaine she suspecting no such thing and declared Ioas to be King The same saith my Aduersary Widdrington euery faithfull subiect in the like case ought to doe that is euery faithfull subiect if he thinke that one hath by an ill title vsurped the kingdom may and not onely may but also altogether ought to kill such a Prince notwithstāding that he hath possessed the kingdom peaceably now many yeeres that all the people haue obeyed him many yeeres that this Prince acknowledgeth no Superiour that he is not rightly or as it should bee accused heard condemned to haue vsurped the kingdome by an ill title 46 I declare it by an example Let vs suppose that Elizabeth did by an ill title vsurpe the kingdome of England and that the same by all right was fallen to the most excellent and most holy Mary Queene of Scotland and after her to her sonne now the most excellent and most potent King of great Brittaine In the meane time Elizabeth possessed the kingdome peaceably for many yeeres and did gouerne all things belonging to Kingly function no man contradicting that shee was condemned by no man what doe I say condemned that shee was accused by no man to vsurpe the kingdome tyrannically what ought the subiects here to doe Euery faithfull Subiect sayth my Aduersarie Widdrington ought in the like case to doe that Ioiada did by killing Athalia that is he ought to kill Queene Elizabeth and to transferre the kingdome to Mary and her sonne 47 Behold O Kings and Princes you haue one who is carefull of your securitie So obseruant of your Royall Maiestie are they who doe violate and calumniate the Pontificall authoritie Euery subiect saith Widdrington not onely may but also ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did O miserable state of Princes whose kingdome and life is subiect to the iudgement of euery priuate man If Card. Bellarmine had written the like thing what tumults would not my Aduersarie Widdrington make what clamours would he not raise Thus writeth this Doctour 48 But how false fraudulent and vnconscionable is this Doctours Reply I haue most cleerely conuinced heretofore c Disp Theolog in Admonit nu 6. For I neuer affirmed as this Doctour most slanderously and shamefully imposeth vpon me that euery faithfull subiect if he thinke any one to haue by an ill title vsurped the kingdome not onely may but also ought to kill such a King I onely said that Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then that euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in the like case Nowe this Doctour cleane altereth the case and turneth it from the case of Ioiada in killing Athalia which was this Athalia daughter to Achab king of Israel and wife to Ioram King of Iuda and mother to Ochozias King Iorams sonne who then reigned hearing that her sonne King Ochozias was slaine by Iehu did cruelly murther all the Kings stocke of the house was Ioram as she thought thereby to vsurpe the kingdome her selfe But Iosabeth King Iorams daughter the sister of Ochozias and the wife of Ioiada the high Priest taking Ioas the sonne of Ochozias stole him out of the middest of the Kings children that were slaine and his nurce out of the bed-chamber and hid them in the temple where they liued with Ioiada and Iosabeth sixe yeeres in the which Athalia reigned ouer the land But in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage for all the time before both Ioas was very yong and now began to haue some vnderstanding and hee also feared the power of Arthalia and by little and little procured the fauour of the people and souldiers to take his part in so iust a cause sent for the Centurions and communicating the whole matter with them made with them a couenant adiuring them in the house of our Lord to wit that they would constantly take his part in putting downe Athalia and setting vp Ioas the lawfull heire and rightful King from whom Athalia had now six yeeres tyrannically kept the kingdome who going about Iuda gathered together the Leuites out of all Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Ierusalem 49 And then Ioida brought them into the temple and shewed them the Kings sonne saying to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reign as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid and all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of God Then Ioiada gaue order and commandement to the Centurions in what manner they should stand in the temple with their souldiers to guarde the Kings person which the Centurions performed according to all things that Ioiada had commanded
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
thrust him out no man enforcing him and the wordes of holy Scripture yea and himselfe being sore afraid made haste to goe out doe cleerely insinuate the same 87 And thirdly King Ozias saith the Scripture was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house apart full of the leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord. Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land Neither from this can it be gathered that the Priests of the old law did intermeddle in any temporall action or did depriue King Ozias of his kingdome or the administration thereof but the most that from hence can be concluded is that the plague of leprosie did depriue him of the administration of his kingdome by ordaining that a leaper should dwell apart out of the campe or Citie and the Priest did onely declare the law of God and denounce him according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law to be infected with leprosie which is no temporall but a meere spirituall action 88 As likewise spirituall Pastours now in the new law haue authoritie to declare that the goods of the faithfull are to be exposed if the necessitie of the Church doe require the same but not to dispose of them or to take them away by force from the faithfull and also to declare when Princes are to vse the materiall sword for the good of the Church but not to vse it themselues as before e part 1. cap. 3. part 2. cap. 9. I declared out of Ioannes Parisiensis and 8. Bernard And if we should suppose a case which is not to wit that heresie idolatie or any other mortall crime doth ipso facto depriue Princes and Prelates of their dominion and Iurisdiction which was the doctrine of Iohn Wicleffe condemned in the Councell of Constance and therefore those words of the Ordinary Glosse f in cap. 13. lib. 1. Reg. that a wicked King during the time of his wickednesse is not according to trueth to be celled a King but onely equiuocally as a stony or painted eye and the same much more is to be said of a wicked Prelate are to be read warily and expounded fauourably to excuse them from errour then I say that spirituall Pastours may be said to haue authoritie not properly to depose an hereticall King but to declare him to be infected with heresie and consequently according to this false supposition depriued ipso facto But all this is nothing else but to declare authentically the law of God which no man denyeth to be within the limites of spirituall Iurisdiction And this might aboundantly suffice for an answere to this example of King Ozias But because Mr. Fitzherbert shall not as I said take occasion to say that all this hath beene confuted already by D. Schulckenius I am enforced good Reader to intreate thy patience in laying downe before thine eies what I answered in my Apologie to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and what D. Schulckenius hath replyed to the same 89 First therefore I answered that if this argument of Card. Bellarmine taken from the example of King Ozias were of force it would prooue more then perchance Card. Bellarmine would willingly grant to wit that not only the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests haue power by the law of God to depriue Princes of their kingdomes for spirituall leprosie seeing that in the olde law not onely the high Priest but also inferiour Priests had power to iudge of leprosie The man saith the law g Leuit. 13. in whose skinne and flesh shall arise a diuers colour or a blisters or any thing as it were shining that is to say the plague of the leprosie shall be brought to Aaron the Priest or any one of his sonnes and at his arbitrement he shall be separated Besides this example doth also prooue that Prince not onely for heresie but also for all other mortall sinnes whatsoeuer may be deposed by Bishops and Priests for that not onely the sinne of heresie but also other sinnes were figured by leprosie Bellar. lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 3. as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth who speaking of the confessing of sinnes saith that the knowledge of sinne which was figured by leprosie and is most aptly named a spirituall leprosie appertaineth to Christian Priests This was my first answere 90 To which D. Schulckenius replyeth thus h pag. 542. ad num 355. I answere It is credible that is the old Testament according to the diuersitie of the leprosie and the diuersitie of the persons there were also diuers iudgements greater and lesser and that it was not lawfull for euery Priest to iudge a King But for this his credibile est it is credible he produceth neither Scripture reason nor any other authoritie and therefore we are rather to beleeue the words of holy Scripture which absolutely affirme that either Aaron the High-Priest or any one of his sonnes might iudge of leprosie without distinguishing either this kind or that kind of leprosie or this kind or that kind of person then the bare credibile est of this Doctour grounded vpon his owne bare word and not vpon any text of holy Scripture Abul q. 1. in cap. 13. Leuit. reason or authoritie Other Priests saith Abulensis had power to iudge in the plague of leprosie as Aaron and therefore to whom soeuer of them that person who had such signes should be showed it was sufficient Therefore when Christ had cured the ten lepers he did not send them specially to the High-Priest but to any one of the Priests saying Goe shew your selues to the Priests 91 But howsoeuer it be saith this Doctour concerning the custome of that nation assuredly in the Church of Christ greater causes are reserued to the See Apostolike as we read cap. Maiores de Baptismo eius effectu in the Decret all Epistles Therefore euery Priest may indeed iudge of the leprosie of sinne and absolue or bind his Subiects but some more heynous crimes are reserued to Bishops others also to the Pope as first of all is the crime of heresie to which the name of leprosie doth autonomasticè agree Therefore it is no meruaile that euery Priest cannot iudge Kings euen for the crime of heresie Adde that in the olde Testament it selfe we haue not an example wherein Princes were iudged for leprosie then by the high Priest 92 But this Reply doth not answere my argument For my argument did onely proceede of the power of Priests standing in the law of God and abstracting from the positiue lawes of the Church It would follow said I that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea also and Priests haue power by the law of God c. Now who knoweth not that cases are reserued onely by the law of the Church and that by the law of God there is no reseruation of cases but that
Sauiour Matth. 18. But if he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publicane that is separated from the Church Thus Suarez n Vbi supra Neither is it forbidden by the law of Christ that the faithfull shall not ciuilly conuerse with Heathens publicanes or notorious sinners vnlesse some spirituall danger as of scandall or of infection which by the law of Christ and nature they are otherwise bound to eschew shall arise from such ciuill conuersation as also Becanus doth expresly affirme o In opusc de fide Haereticis seruanda cap. 8. num 3. See also Abulensis q. 50. in cap. 9. Matth. 138 Moreouer this also is gathered from the very light of naturall reason For as in the whole Christian world there be two only common wealths kingdomes or Societies distinguished by their proper acts functions and dignities ad not depending one on the other in those things which are proper and peculiar to each one of them to wit the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ by which precisely and per se we receiue only spirituall graces and benefits and temporall common wealths Societies and kingdomes by which precisely we are made partaker only of temporall goods Greg. Tholos in Syntagmat Iuris lib. 31. cap. 8. num 3. and benefits So also there be two only communions the one in spirituall the other in temporall and ciuill affaires and two only Excommunications in generall as Gregorius Tholosanus and I also obserued aboue p Part. 2. cap. 2. num 7. the one Ecclesiasticall which excludeth from Ecclesiasticall communion as from Sacraments Suffrages or other sacred things the other ciuill which excludeth from ciuill communion which punishments the Ciuill Lawiers account imprisonments confinings relegations deportations and banishments by which the person excommunicated is debarred from the communion of some certaine companie towne City Countrey or kingdome and as ciuill Excommunication precisely and of it owne nature doth not debarre a man from any spirituall good grace or communion◠so neither spirituall Excommunication precisely and of it owne nature doth debarre a man from any temporall good benefit or communion 139 Neuerthelesse albeit the intrinsecall per se and necessarie effects of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication are only to debarre one from Ecclesiasticall or spirituall communion yet because our Sauiour Christ hath giuen to the spirituall Pastours of the Church authoritie to impose but not to inflict certaine temporall punishments vpon persons excommunicated all those temporall punishments which the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue according to different times and occasions adioined by way of commandement to the Censure of Excommunication may be called extrinsecall or accidentall effects of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication or rather temporall effects and punishments annexed by way of command to Excommunication But this with all ought greatly to be considered as Suarez doth well obserue Suarez tom 5. disp 8. sec 1. in fine sec 2. in principio that when Excommunication is said to exclude from Ecclesiasticall communion it is necessarily to be vnderstood of that communion which dependeth vpon the power and will of the Church and ouer which she hath right power or authoritie Whereupon those temporall punishments which spirituall Pastours may annect to Excommunication must be such as by the institution of Christ they haue authoritie to impose And therefore if it be a controuersie among learned Catholikes as in very deede it is whether spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to absolue subiects from the temporall allegiance which they owe to their temporall Princes and to depriue temporall Princes of their temporall dominion administration or Iurisdiction these temporall punishments can neuer so long as this controuersie remaineth vndecided be truly said to be necessarie effects annexed to Excommunication by the spirituall Pastours of the Church 140 Secondly I shewed also in that place that the spirituall Pastours of the Chuch haue authoritie in order to spirituall good to command and impose certaine temporall punishments and so also to annexe them to Ecclesiasticall Excommunication as not to eate or drinke with excommunicated persons or notorious malefactours not to salute them or to conuerse ciuilly with them except in such cases wherein they are bound by the law of God or nature ciuilly to conuerse And so the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue power to command vs in order to spirituall good to abstaine from certaine meates vpon certaine daies to giue almes to the poore not to conuerse ciuilly with excommunicated persons or notorious sinners if otherwise by the law of God or nature we are not bound to conuerse ciuilly with them and the aforesaid and such like temporall things to annexe by way of commandement to Excommunication whensoeuer they shall prudently iudge it to be necessarie to the saluation of soules And this only is confirmed by the institution and custome of the Church approued by perpetuall tradition and grounded in the holy Scripture 1. Cor. 5. With such a one not so much as to take meate and 2. Ioh. 1. Nor say to him God saue you Neither is there any difficultie among Catholikes concerning the power of spirituall Pastours to command and impose temporall things when it shall be necessarie to the spirituall good of the Church for that to command and impose a temporall thing in order to the spirituall good is not a temporall but a spirituall action as I haue often said But all the controuersie among Catholikes is concerning the coerciue power of spirituall Pastours and their authoritie to punish temporally by way of temporall constraint or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments For if contrarie to the commandement of our spirituall Pastours we will neither fast nor giue almes nor abstaine from ciuill conuersation with excommunicated persons the question is how farre then the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ proceed against vs by way of temporall constraint to the inflicting of temporall punishments For in this power to punish temporally or to inflict temporall punishmēts doth consist the whole controuersie betwixt me and my Aduersaries For I contend that the doctrine which Almaine and very many Doctours as he affirmeth doe maintaine is not repugnant to Catholike faith or the approued grounds of true Diuinitie to wit that the spirituall power of the Church can not inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods c. nay nor so much as to imprison but that her power doth onely extend to the inflicting of spirituall punishments as Excommunication or some such like spirituall Censure and that all other temporall punishments which she vseth to inflict doe proceed from the pure positiue law or to vse Gersons words from the graunt of Princes 142 And therefore thirdly I shewed also in that place that because Secular Princes haue granted many temporall priuiledges to the spirituall Pastours of the Church as to imprison to confine to impose or inflict pecuniarie mulcts and such like all those
Church of Christ which is called euery where in the Scripture Regnum Caelorum the kingdome of heauen though on the other side the consequent must needs be good that what excellencie dignitie or perfection soeuer was in the Synagogue the same must needs be farre more eminent and excellent in the Church of Christ as the Apostle taught expressely 2. Cor. 3. arguing thus Si ministratio damnationis c. If the ministration of death with letters figured in stones was in glorie that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moyses for the glorie of his countenance which is euacuated how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more in glorie For if the ministration of damnation be in glorie much more the ministerie of iustice aboundeth in glorie Thus argueth S. Paul proouing à fortiori the supereminent dignitie and glorie of Christs law by the great and eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law Hebr. 6.7.8 9. whereto tendeth also his argument to the Hebrewes concerning the imperfection and infirmitie of the Leuiticall Priesthood in regard of the most excellent and high perfection of the Priesthood of Christ 4 Whereupon it followeth euidently saith Mr. Fitzherbert f nu 29. 30 31. 32. that seeing the Priesthood of the olde Testament had such a supreme and soueraigne authoritie to create anoynt punish and depose Kings as appeareth in the former examples the Priesthood in the new Testament can not haue lesse power and authoritie for it can not be with reason imagined that God hauing taken vpon him our humanitie and honoured the same with a peculiar and mere excellent Priesthood then that of Aaron yea ordained a visible succession of Pastours and Priests for the gouernment of his Church to continue as the Apostle witnesseth g 1. Cor. 11. Ephes 4. Matth. 28. Luk. 10. Matth. 18. Heb. 13. vntill the end of the world commanding also that they should be heard and obeyed as himselfe it were I say against reason to thinke that he would giue lesse honour and priuiledge to these his owne substitute in his owne kingdome then he gaue to the successours of Aaron in the olde law whereby the shadow would be more worthie and perfect then the bodie the figure then the veritie the Leuiticall or Aaronicall Priesthood then the Priesthood of Christ and finally the Iewish Synagogue then Christs owne spouse and mysticall body which is his Church of the glorie maiesty whereof the Prophet I say foretold speaking in the person of God thus Ponam te saith he in superbiam seculorum c. Isay 60. I will place thee as the pride of all worlds or ages a ioy to generation and generation and thou shalt sucke the milke of nations and shalt bee fedde with the paps of Kings and the children of those who haue humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and shall adore the footsteps of thy feete and thy gates shall bee open continually and they shall not bee shut day nor night that the strength of all nations and their Kings may bee brought vnto thee For the Nation and the Kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish c. 5 Thus promised almighty God by his Prophet to raise and aduance the Church of Christ aboue the power of all Nations and kingdomes insomuch that hee threatned ruine and destruction vnto them Matth. 18. if they did not serue her whereby it maye easily be iudged what an excellent and eminent power our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter and his Successours when he not onely promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a rocke and that the gates of hell should not preuaile against it but also gaue him such ample authority to binde and loose that whatsoeuer he should binde or loose on earth should be bound and loosed in heauen yea and finally made him supreme Pastour of his flocke commanding him thrice to feede his sheepe and lambes that is to say to gouerne those that should any way pertaine to his fold the Catholike Church Thus said I in my Supplement Whereby it may appeare that the Popes power to chastice Princes temporally is most conforme to the law of God not onely in the old Testament but also in the new according to Saint Pauls argument a fortiori before mentioned drawne from the figure to the veritie And therefore now to declare how I prooued the same further by the new law c. Thus argeth Mr. Fitzherbert 6 Marke now good Reader what a trimme disourse this man hath made agains himselfe and what grounds he hath laid to ouerthrow his owne argument he groundeth thereon For first I doe willingly grant his first position to wit that the old Testament was a figure of the new the earthly Hierusalem a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the Iewes a figure of the heauenly and spirituall kingdome of Christ the eminent glorie of the Mosaicall law a figure of the supereminent dignitie and glory of the law of Christ the Priesthood in the old law farre inferiour in authoritie excellency and perfection to the Priesthood in the new law yea and that all things for the most part chanced to the Iewes in figure for that nihil as perfectum adduxit lex The law brought nothing to perfection But secondly concerning his second position it followeth euidently from hence that not only the defects of the old law cannot serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ but also that all things in the olde law being compared to the law of Christ were defectiue and imperfect for that the law brought nothing to perfection and that all the authoritie excellency and perfection of the old law was a figure and shadow of the authoritie excellency and perfection of the law of Christ 7 Whereupon it followeth euidently that although wee should suppose only for Disputation sake because the contrarie we haue sufficiently prooued before that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreame and soueraigne authoritie to create annoint punish or depose Kings yet we cannot from thence as from the figure to prooue the veritie conclude that therefore the Priesthood in the new Testament must haue the same authoritie for this were not to fulfill the figure as Cardinall Bellarmine before affirmed but that it must haue a farre more noble and excellent authoritie ouer Princes to create annoint punish and depose Kings in another more excellent degree to wit that considering the promises of the old law were earthly and of the new law heauenly the kingdome of the Iewes was temporall and the kingdome or Church of Christ eternall and spirituall from hence as from the figure to the veritie we may deduce a good argument to prooue that as the Priests of the old law had authoritie to cleanse corporall vncleannesse which did barre men from entering the earthly tabernacle made by the handes of men so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to
cleanse the soule of spirituall vncleannesse which doeth barre men from entring the Celestiall tabernacle created by God alone and as the Priests the old law had authoritie according to my Aduersaries false Doctrine to create annoint punish and depose earthly Kings so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to create institute and make them heires to the kingdome of heauen by the Sacrament of Baptisme to annoint them with the oile of grace by the sacrament of Confirmation to punish them with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures to depose or exclude them in some sort from the kingdome of heauen by denying them sacramentall absolution 8 In this manner should Mr. Fitzherbert haue argued from the figure to the veritie by which wee can onely proue that the Priests of the new law can create annoint punish and depose Kings in a more higher Bell. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. and not in the same degree for as Cardinall Bellarmine well obserued to fulfill the figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to be done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when hee was circumcised himselfe but when hee ordained Baptisme in place thereof and so the Priests of the new law doe not fulfill the figure of the Leuiticall Priesthood by creating annointing punishing and deposing earthly Kings in the same materiall manner as the Priests of Leui did but when they create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to wit Christians who by Baptisme are made heires to the kingdome of heauen with spirituall creation vnction chastisement and deposition as I haue declared before And by this the Reader may cleerely perceiue that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not sufficiently prooued either that the Priests of the old Testament had authoritie to create depose or punish temporally their Kings by way of temporall constraint for no man maketh doubt but that the Priests hoth of the olde and new law haue authoritie to annoint Kings it being only a sacred and religious ceremonie and to punish temporally by way of command and by declaring the law of GOD as to enioyne fastings almes-deedes and other corporall afflictions c. and to declare that this or that King shall be deposed if GOD shall so reueale because all these are meere spirituall actions or else that albeit wee should grant as my Aduersaries vntruely suppose that the Priests of the old law had the aforesaid authoritie to create depose and punish Kings temporally yet therefore from thence any probable and much lesse a potent argument as this man pretendeth can be drawne as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the Priests of the new law must have authoritie to doe the same things but onely to do things more excellent and of an higher degree and order as the body is more excellent and more perfect then the shadow the verity then the figure Christ then Moyses the new Law then the old heauenly kingdomes then earthly and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures are of another nature order and degree then temporall or ciuill punishments 9 Now Mr. Fitzherbert goeth on to prooue also out of the new Testament that the Priests of the new law especially the chiefe Pastour of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to punish Princes not onely with spirituall but also with temporall and corporall punishments And therefore now to declare saith hee g nu 32. p. 87. how I proued the same further by the new law it is to bee vnderstood Psal 77. Isa 44. Psal 2. Matth. 2. Apoc. 19. Aug. in Ioan. Bel. l. 1. de Rom. Pont c. 12. ad 6. obiect that I vrged h Suppl vbi supra nu 59. to that end the commission giuen by our Sauiour to St. Peter not onely to binde and loose but also to feede his sheepe shewing by many texts of Scripture as also by the authoritie of S. Augustine that Pascere to feede is taken for Regere to gouerne whereupon I drew certaine necessarie consequents in those words c. 10 But concerning the authoritie giuen by Christ our Sauiour to S. Peter to bind and loose or which euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine is all one in substance with to feede his sheepe for that by those words I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. was onely promised to S. Peter saith Cardinall Bellarmine not giuen the power to binde and loose and the keyes of the kingdome which keyes hee as the principall and ordinarie Prefect Prelate or Gouernour then onely receiued when he heard Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe I answere first that not onely S. Peter but also all the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and power to binde and loose and to feede the sheepe of Christs flocke seeing that as Christ saide to Saint Peter whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. so he said to the rest of the Apostles what things soeuer you shall binde c. albeit I will not deny that Saint Peter was the first of the Apostles but in what consisteth this prioritie principalitie primacie or superioritie of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles as likewise of the Pope ouer all other Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops and Bishops of Christs Church there is yet a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and of Paris and perchance hereafter I shall haue occasion to treate thereof more at large But that which for this present I intend to affirme is this that considering in those wordes of our Sauiour Tibi dabo claues c. I will giue thee the keyes c. Saint Peter represented the whole Church and not only to him but also to the rest of the Apostles and to the whole Church and Priesthood which Saint Peter did represent were promised the keyes and power to binde and loose as the holy Fathers and ancient Diuines doe commonly expound i As to omit Origen tract 1. in Matth. 16. Euseb Emis hom in Natali S. Petri. Theophylac in 1. Mat. 16. S. Ambr. in psa 38. lib. 1. de Paenit c. 2. Hieron lib. 1. contra Iouinian Aug. tra 50. 124. in Ioan. tract 10. in Epi. Ioan. in psal 108. Leo serm 3. in Anniu assumpt Fulgentius de fide ad Petr. l. 1. de remis pec c. 24. Beda Ansel in Mat. 16. Euthym. c. 33. in Matth. Haymo hom in fest Petri Pauli Hugo de S. vic l. 1. de Sacram. c. 26. alibi Durand in 4. dist 18. q. 2. â—yra in Mat. 16 Walden tom 2. doct fid c. 138. Cusanus l. 2. de Concord Cat. c. 13. 34. and commonly all the ancient Doctors of Paris if from the power to bind and loose promised to Saint Peter it doth necessarily follow that S. Peter and
his Successours haue authoritie to create depose and punish Princes temporally it doth likewise follow that the rest of the Apostles and their Successours haue the same authoritie ouer Kings and Princes who are subiect to them spiritually 11 Secondly those wordes of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood as I answered in my Apologie nu 36. of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings to absolue from sinnes not from debts to vnloose the bonds of the soule not of the body to open or shut the gates of the kingdome of heauen not of earthly kingdomes to giue or take away spirituall goods graces and benefits not temporall goods lands kingdomes or liues When it was said to S. Peter saith S. Augustine I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. he signified the vniuersall Church The rocke is not from Peter but Peter from the rocke vpon this rocke which thou hast confessed Aug. trac 124. in Ioan. I will build my Church The Church therefore which is founded on Christ receiueth from Christ the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that is power to binde and loose sinnes And againe beneath saith S. Augustine Peter the first of the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to bind and loose sinnes So also S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Fulgentius Ambr. lib. 1. de paenit c. 2. Chrysost Theoph. in Mat. 16. Fulgent Eus Emiss vbi supra Bernard l. 2. c. 6 de considerat Hug. Vict. tom 2. serm 64. Iust Monast Laurent Iust de casto connub verbi animae c. 10. Eusebius Emissen Theophylact S. Bernard Hugo de S. Victore Laurentius Iustinanus and infinite others vnderstand those words of our Sauiour of binding and loosing soules and sinnes Neither is there any one of the ancient Fathers or Doctours before Pope Gregorie the seuenth that wrested them to the giuing or taking away from any man whatsoeuer according to their deserts Empires Kingdomes Princedomes Dukedomes Earledomes and the possessions of all men Quia si potestis saith hee k In the Excommunication of Henry the 4. in the eight Roman Councel held by him in the yeere 1080. Iansenius c. 148. Concord Theophy in c. 21. Ioan. Basil in l. de vita solitar c. 23. in caelo ligare soluere potestis in terra Imperia Regna Principatus Ducatus Marchias Comitatus omnium hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere vnicuique concedere 12 I grant likewise that Pascere to feede is taken also for Regere to gouerne but not as a King gouerneth his kingdome but as a Sheepheard gouerneth his flocke as well obserueth Iansenius vpon this place of S. Iohn Christ saith Theophylact doeth not make Peter a Lord nor a King nor a Prince but commandeth him to be a Sheepheard Wherefore as those words whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings and were spoken not only to Saint Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles so also these wordes Feede my sheepe are to be vnderstood of spirituall feeding or gouernment and doe belong not onely to S. Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles whom S. Peter did represent Atque hoc ab ipso Christo docemur c. saith S. Basill And this wee are taught by Christ himselfe who appointed Peter the Pastour of his Church after him For Peter saith he doest thou loue me more then these Feede my sheepe and consequently hee giueth to all Pastours and Doctours the same power whereof this is a signe that all doe equally bind and loose after that manner as he Feede my sheepe saith S. Ambrose which sheepe and which flocke Amb. de dignit sacerd c. 2. not only blessed Peter did then take to his charge but hee did take charge of them with vs and all we tooke charge of them with him For not without cause Aug. de agone Christiano c. 30. saith S. Augustine among all the Apostles Peter sustained the person of this Catholike Church for to this Church the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter amd when it is said to him it is said to all Doest thou loue Feede my sheepe Let Bishops and Preachers of the word heare saith Theophylact what is commended to them Theoph. in c. 21. Ioan. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad anno 1580. Feede saith Christ my sheepe c. Certaine things saith Cardinall Bellarmine are said to Peter in regard of the Pastorall office which therefore are vnderstood to bee said to all Pastours as Feede my sheepe and confirme thy brethren and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. But of this my second answere more beneath l nu 21. seq where you shall see in what fraudulent manner D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same 13 Now you shall see what necessarie consequents Mr. Fitzherbert hath drawen from those words of our Sauiour spoken to S. Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. and Feede my sheepe For as much saith he m nu 33. p 87 Suppl nu 61. at there can be no good gouernment of men without chastisement when iust occasion requireth it followeth that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and so consequently to his Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish such as should deserue it Whereupon it followeth that seeing all Christian Princes are sheepe of Christs fould and to be gouerned and guided by their supreme Pastour they cannot exempt themselues from his iust chastisement when their owne demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it And this I say not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction 14 But first I willingly grant that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and also to the rest of his Apostles and also consequently to their Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish all those that are sheepe of Christs fould and consequently also all Christian Princes when their demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it But I vtterly denie that this chastisement is to be vnderstood as Mr. Fitzherbert saith not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Commmon-wealth and consequently granted her power to giue only spirituall goods graces and benefites not temporall goods lands or kingdomes so also the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to chastise and punish spiritually not temporally or which is all one to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments and to depriue their spirituall sheepe and subiects of those spirituall goods which they haue receiued from the Church and by being Christians and not of those temporall goods which they had before they became Christians and which they
receiue not from the Church but from the temporall kingdome or Common-wealth And therefore small credite is to be giuen to Mr. Fitzherberts bare I say vnlesse he could more sufficiently prooue and make good what he sayth 15 Marke now secondly how well he confirmeth this his I say For if bad Princes sayth he could not be temporally chastised by their Pastour when they contemne the spirituall rod of Ecclesiasticall Censures as wicked Princes commonly doe Christ had not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of the Church But this consequence which is so barely and without any proofe at all affirmed by him I vtterly denie For to the good gouernment of a spirituall kingdome or Common-wealth as is the Church of Christ t is sufficient for the Pastours and Gouernours thereof to haue authoritie to punish spiritually not temporally or to inflict spirituall noâ— temporall punishments as also to the good gouernment of temporall kingdomes or Common-wealths it is sufficient that their Kings Princes and other Gouernours haue authoritie to punish temporally or to inflict temporall not spirituall punishments But of this consequence more beneath m nu 21. seq for in effect it is all one with Card. Bellarmines second reason which D. Schulckenius as you shall see laboureth in vaine to make good against the answere which in my Apologie I brought thereunto 16 But this may yet be more euident saith Mr. Fitzherbert if we consider that the greatest inconuenience and harme that can happen to the Church of God groweth commonly by the negligence opposition rebellion or apostasie of Christian Princes who so long as they remaine obedient and dutifull to the Church are as the Prophet calleth them her Nutritij that is to say Isay 59. her Foster-fathers or as it were her Armes not onely to defend her against all forraine enemies but also to retaine all her subiects in their due obedience executing her lawes and decrees and confirming the same with her owne constitutions and therefore we see that in a Christian Countrey where the Prince is Catholike if any subiect doe contemne or resist an Excommunication or other Censure of the Church he is euen by the temporall and publike lawes and by the authoritie of the Prince forced presently to doe his dutie or else is seuerely punished so that while the Prince remaineth obedient to the Church there is no doubt or danger of disobedience in his subiects or of any other great inconuenience to ensue on their parts But if he become disobedient himselfe and fall into heresie Schisme or Apostasie what remedie hath the Church against him by a bare Ecclesiasticall Censure doth he not contemne it and by his authoritie and example draw his subiects for the most part to a generall reuolt from the Church shall we then say that Christ left not to his Church sufficient authoritie to remedie this 17 If a Christian Prince become disobedient to the Pastours of the Church and shall contemne all Ecclesiasticall Censures fearing not to be declared as a Heathen and Publican and to be deliuered ouer to Sathan by Excommunication which is a greater punishment saith S. Augustine then to be stricken with the sword to be consumed by fire Augustin lib. 1 contra Aduersar leg prophet cap. 17. or to be exposed to the deuouring of wild beasts the Church hath no other punishment to inflict vpon him and therefore in this case she hauing performed her office and inflicted her last punishment hath no other remedie then to leaue him to the iudgement and punishment of almightie God who will euer protect his Church and to flie to prayer fasting almes-deeds patience and such kind of spirituall armour or weapons which are proper saith the Glosse n ad Ephes 4. to the souldiers of Christ neither must she therefore vsurpe temporall and ciuill weapons or armour as are the depriuing of temporall and corporall goods which doe not belong to spirituall Pastours but to temporall Princes Kingdomes and Common-wealth Thus I answered in my Apologie o nu 184. and the reason hereof I gaue a little before for that Excommunication or such like spirituall Censure is the last and onely punishment which the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power by the institution of Christ can inflict Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. Almain in lib. de dominio nat ciu Eccles conclus 2. Bell. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19. ad secundum as Ioannes Parisiensis Iacobus Almaine and very many Doctours sayth Almaine doe affirme 18 And what if a wicked Pope shall afflict the Church and seeke to ouerthrow the spirituall good thereof and to draw soules into perdition what authoritie thinke you hath Christ our Sauiour the spouse Protectour and King of the Church according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine left to his Church to remedie this I answere saith he that it is no meruaile that the Church in this case remaineth without any effectuall humane remedie seeing that her safetie doth not chiefly relie vpon the industrie of mâ—n but vpon the protection of God who is her King Therefore although the Church hath not power to depose the Pope yet she may and ought to pray humbly to God that he will bring some remedie And it is certaine that God will haue a care of her safetie who will either conuert such a Pope or else take him out of the way before he destroy the Church And yet against this answere which may in like manner be applyed to wicked Princes persecuting the Church and contemning Ecclesiasticall Censures Mr. Fitzherbert dare not conclude that therefore Christ our Sauiour hath not sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church 19 But what thinke you doth D. Schulckenius reply to that which I answered that if wicked Princes shall contemne all Ecclesiasticall censures the Church hauing vsed her last punishment cannot proceed against them by inflicting temporall punishments Euen as he vsually doth throughout his whole booke by cunningly shifting of the difficultie and flying from one argument to an other and in the ende to his accustomed rayling Schulcken pag. 359. ad nu 184. and slanderous speeches I answere saith he The temeritie of this man who will haue himselfe to be accounted a Catholike is wonderfull A generall Councell of the Christian world saith that Princes favouring heretikes and contemning Excommunication are to be depriued of their dominions by the Sea Apostolike and one man doth freely contradict and affirme that the Church hath no other thing to doe but hath performed her office after she hath throwen the dart of Excommunication To whom ought Catholike men giue credite whether to the vniuersall Church giuing testimonie of her authoritie receiued from God unto one I know not whom who lying hid vnder another mans name lasheth out words 20 But first to returne him backe his bitter inuectiue truely I cannot but admire the fraudulent and vncharitable dealing of this Doctour who would haue himselfe to be accounted
so good sincere and zealous a Catholike and yet lyeth lurking and schulking vnder another mans name of purpose as it seemeth to lash out more freely contumelious words which in his owne name he would blush to vtter for otherwise he needed not to disguise himselfe for feare of incurring the displeasure of Princes for the doctrine he teacheth so preiudiciall to their temporall Soueraigntie which also he will needes haue to be forsooth an vndoubted point of Catholike faith both for that he being a man of so high a ranke and place and liuing out of their dominions and subiection can by their indignation taken against him receiue but little harme and also for that he teacheth heere little or nothing in preiudice of their Soueraigne authority which he did not long before in his owne shape and name without putting on any maske or vizard in very plaine words maintaine But in what an exorbitant manner the Court of Rome doth proceede against those Catholikes who for desire to know the truth in matters of greatest moment speake or write any thing be it with neuer so great submission which seemeth in their opinion to derogate from that authoritie which some Popes of late yeres haue claimed as due to them although it is and euer hath beene contradicted by learned Catholikes it is too too manifest and their proceedings against mee and my bookes in commanding mee vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe foorthwith and yet giuing mee no notice of any crime which I haue committed or any bad doctrine which I haue taught albeit I haue oftentimes with great instance desired to know the same protesting to purge and recall whatsoeuer I ought to purge and recall doth sufficiently confirme the same But now secondly to the matter from whence the virulent speeches of this Doctor hath caused mee to make this digression 21 Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies laboured to prooue from the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. which ought to haue all sufficient and necessary authoritie to the attaining of her end that the Church of Christ must haue authoritie to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to inflict temporall punishmēts and to depose temporall Princes for that this authoritie is necessary to her spirituall end which is the saluation of soules because otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow Religion To this argument I answered in my Apologie Apolog. 176. seq graunting to Card. Bellarmine that euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth ought to haue alwaies sufficient authority for as much as concerneth the authoritie it selfe to the attaining of her ende although she hath not alwaies sufficient power force meanes or abilitie actually to obtaine the same and to remooue all impediments which may hinder the same And so the Church of Christ being a perfect and well instituted spirituall Common-wealth hath all sufficient spirituall authority forasmuch as concerneth the authority it selfe to the attaining of her spirituall and which is the sauing of soules albeit she hath not alwaies sufficient power meanes or ability actually to bring all men to saluation to take away all the lets that may hinder the obtaining thereof But withall I denied that the authoritie to vse and dispose of temporall things or to inflict temporall punishments is necessary in spirituall Pastours to the sauing of soules but that the authority to vse and dispose of spirituall things and to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments is sufficient in spirituall Pastours to bring soules to saluation forasmuch as concerneth the authority and punishment themselues 22 Neither doth it therefore follow as Card. Bellarmine pretended to conclude that if the Church hath not authority to vse and dispose of temporalls and consequently to depose temporall Princes wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For the Church by her spirituall authority may punish them grieuously with Ecclesiasticall Censures which punishments are so great and dreadfull that of themselues they are able to terrifie any Christian Prince and to withdraw him from euill But if some Christian Prince for want of due consideration bee not terrified with Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall authority of the Church cannot inflict vpon him any temporall or ciuill punishment for that the onely and last punishment which the Church or which is all one the spirituall Pastours thereof by the institution of Christ can inflict is Excommunication or some such like spirituall Censure or punishment Thus I answered in my Apologie 23 Now D. Schulckenius to confute this my answere flyeth from Card. Bellarmines reason grounded vpon the nature of euery perfect and well instituted Common-wealth which reason I tooke vpon mee in that place to confute to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran which is his common skar crow For when he cannot confute the answere which I giue to any reason or authority brought by Card. Bellarmine to prooue the Popes power to depose Princes then his custome is to flye from that reason or authority to the Decree of the Councell of Lateran as though that onely Decree of the Councell of Lateran of which Card. Bellarmine in his Controuersies made no account at all were now a sufficient proofe to make good all his other reasons and authorities which Decree neuerthelesse he expoundeth according to his priuate spirit contrary to the words and true meaning of the same Councell and in stead of the Lateran Councell which I doe not impugne he would thrust vpon Catholikes his owne opinion which he violently wresteth from the words of the Councell 24 For as I haue often told him I am a true and sincere Catholike yea and a farre truer then he himselfe is if he build his Catholike faith vpon such weake and fallible grounds which some Catholike◠vnderstand in one sense and some in another it being well knowne to all learned Catholikes that the Catholike faith which is infallible cannot be built vpon vncertaine and fallible grounds and which are in controuersie among Catholikes but vpon vndoubted grounds and so acknowledged by all true and learned Catholikes So likewise I haue often told him that I doe giue all dutifull honour and respect to all the Decrees of any approoued Councell either touching faith or manners and I doe reuerence euery one of them in their due place and order but euery exposition which either Card. Bellarmine or any other priuate Doctour who may both deceiue and be deceiued maketh of any Decree of the Councell of Lateran or of any other Councell especially when other Doctours expound that Decree otherwise I doe not account to bee any good ground or rule of a true Catholike faith And therefore it is not true that I doe freely contradict the Decree of the Councell of Lateran but I doe freely contradict his priuate exposition of the Decree of that Councell it being contrary to the true sense and meaning of the wordes
thereof and no sufficient proofe to confirme his new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes as I will at large make plaine beneath p Chap. 9. seq 25 Secondly it is also vntrue that I onely am the man who denieth the spirituall Pastours of the Church to haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments and consequently to proceed to no other temporall chastisement after they haue cast the dart of Excommunication Many other learned Catholikes as I haue shewed aboue q Part. 2. per totum doe also deny the same and Almaine affirmeth that it is the doctrine of most Doctours that the Ecclesiasticall power cannot by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall or ciuill punishment as death exile priuation of goods c. Yea nor so much as to imprison With what face therefore dare this Doctour to terrifie simple Catholikes cry out so often Onely Widdrington or ely Widdrington as Card. Bellarmine did onely Barclay onely Barclay doe oppose themselues against all Catholikes But God be praised that my Aduersaries themselues haue liued to see what little credit is giuen by Catholikes to their vaunting words and with what disgrace their bookes haue beene handled by the State of France For Card. Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay was condemned and forbidden by the Parliament of Paris vnder paine of treason this Doctours booke against me was disgacefully burnt by the hangman before the great staires of the Pallace and the same fire but by a more publike sentence and in a more solemne manner Fa. Suarez booke also hat passed 26 Thirdly this Doctour very learnedly forsooth carpeth at me for abusing words in calling deposition and killing temporall armour or weapons My Aduersarie Widdrington saith he r Cap. 8. pag. 375. abuseth words when he affirmeth deposition and killing to be temporall armour or weapons F. who euer heard that deposition or killing are armour or weapons They are effects of armour or weapons but they themselues are not armour or weapons But first this Doctour hath so vigilant on eye ouer my words and writings to carpe at them that he quite forgetteth what words he himselfe doth vse For he himselfe heere confesseth that Ecclesiasticall Censures are spirituall armour or weapons whereupon in this very Chapter he callet Å¿ Cap. 8. pag. 360. Excommunication a dart and Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay t Cap. 19. pag. 185. calleth Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall sword and yet Excommunication and other Ecclesiasticall Censures are according to his owne doctrine effects of spirituall armour or weapons to wit of the Ecclesiasticall power which he calleth v Pag. 386. 387. in tract contra Barclai cap. 19. pag. â—88 the spirituall sword And if spirituall Censures or punishments may be called spirituall armour or weapons although they be an effect of the spirituall power or sword why may not I pray you temporall censures or punishments as are deposition and killing be called temporall weapons or armour although they be effects of the temporall power or sword If therefore I abuse words in calling temporall Censures or punishments temporall armour or weapons how can he excuse himselfe from abusing words in calling spirituall Censures or punishments spirituall armour or weapons 27 Secondly it is vsuall among Philosophers to nominate and describe a thing by the name of the cause whereupon they deuide a definition into a formall and causall definition or description as the Eclipse of the Moone is commonly described to be an interposition of the earth betwixt the body of they Sunne and of the Moone not for that the Eclipse of the Moone is formally that interposition for it is formally nothing else then a want of light in the Moone but for that it is caused by that interposition and Thunder according to the opinion of Empedocles and Anaxagoras is defined to be a quenching of fire inclosed in a cloude See Aristotle lib. 2. Meoteor sum 3. cap. 1. 2. but according to the doctrine of Aristotle a violent breaking out of a fiery exhalation inclosed in a cloud not for that Thunder is formally the aforesaid quenching or breaking forth for it is formally a sound or noice but for that this sound is caused from thence so likewise spirituall and temporall Censures may be called spirituall and temporall armour or weapons not for that formally they are so but for that they are effects caused from thence But lastly what man is so ignorant who knoweth not that the same thing may be both an effect and also a cause being considered diuers waies and so the same spirituall or temporall Censure and punishment as it proceedeth from the spirituall or temporall power which is rightly called the spirituall or temporall sword is an effect and not to be called a sword weapon or armour yet as it is a cause to bring great griefe to the person so punished or to redresse great euill it may well be called armour offensiue or defensiue yea and griefe it selfe may without abusing of words be called a sword according to that of the holy Scripture Luc. 2. And thy owne soule a sword shall pearce And thus you see how weakely and fraudulently this Doctour hath impugned my answere 28 Now to returne to Mr. Fitzherbert He forsooth bringeth an other reason but as insufficient as his former to proue that the Pastors of the Church haue authoritie to inflict temporall or corporall punishments vpon hereticall or schismaticall Princes if they shall contemne Ecclesiasticall Censures For otherwise how is that saith he x Num. 35. pag. 89. 2. Cor. 10. fulfilled which the Apostle said of the most ample power that he and other Apostles had to destroy Munitions Counsells and all Altitude or Lostinesse extolling it selfe against the knowledge of God yea and to reuenge or punish omnem inobedientiam all disobedience Which words S. Augustine August ad Bonifac Com. epist 50. vnderstandeth of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties and the same is also acknowledged by some of our principall Aduersaries namely Caluin Caluin vpon this place who not only expoundeth this place of the coercitiue and coactiue power that is in the Church but also groundeth the same vpon the words of our Sauiour to his Apostles Quicquid ligaueritis super terram Matth. 18. erit ligatum in caelis c. Whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen 29 Whereupon I inferre that if the Ecclesiasticall authoritie dâ—d not extend it selfe to the chasticement of disobedient Princes in their temporall states the Church should not haue the power whereof S. Paul speaketh that is to reuenge all disobedience seeing that the disobedience of absolute Princes to Ecclesiasticall Censures should be incorrigible and remedilesse Whereupon it would
likewise if temporall Kings themselues doe offend they cannot bee punished with temporall punishments but by God alone to whom onely they are subiect in temporalls Now to giue to temporall Common-wealths the vse of the spirituall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures or punishments or to the Church of Christ as it is a spirituall common-wealth the vse of the temporall power sword weapons or armour and authoritie to inflict temporall Censures or punishments it were both to confound the acts functions authoritie sword weapons and armour of the spirituall and temporall common-wealths which Christ our Sauiour hath distinguished and it is also repugnant to the expresse wordes of the holy Scripture 2. Cor. 10. nam arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt for the weapons or armour of our warfare are not carnall c. to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers who affirme that Emperours and Kings are in temporalls next to God in authoritie and consequently to be temporally punished by God alone and to the generall practise of the primitiue Church 40 Wherefore that comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth heere of the cobweb which holdeth onely the little flyes and serueth to no purpose against the great ones c. is idle and to no purpose For Ecclesiasticall Censures which are the punishments belonging to the Church of Christ are common both to Princes and Subiects and of themselues they are so dreadfull that they are able and sufficient of their owne nature to hold and keepe in awe all Christians whatsoeuer and to correct amend and bring all sinners as they did the Emperour Theodosius to true repentance But if some persons doe not feare these Censures and be not amended by them this is not to bee attributed to the weakenesse defect or imperfection of the Censure which of it selfe is most dreadfull yea and more horrible saith S. Augustine then any corporall death but to the indisposition of the offender who doth not duly consider the greatnesse and dreadfulnesse of that Ecclesiasticall Censure As likewise temporall punishments as is the sentence of death exile imprisonment whipping confiscation of goods c. are of themselues able and sufficient to withdraw any man from sinfull life yet they doe not actually correct and amend all malefactours but this is not to be attributed to the weakenesse or insufficiencie of the temporall sword but the rashnesse passion malice or inconsideration of such malefactours who for want of due consideration are not afraid of that temporall punishment which of it selfe is able to terrifie any prudent man and to redresse all kind of inconueniences in all sorts of subiects as well the highest as the lowest 41 Neither is it necessarie for the publike good of the Church as this man supposeth or for the due execution of the office and charge of spirituall Pastours that they should haue authoritie to chastise temporally or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments and to vse the temporall sword which is onely proper to temporall Princes or common-wealths and by the law of Christ forbidden spirituall Pastours as they are spirituall Pastours who haue only spirituall and not temporall authoritie as I proued aboue by the authoritie of S. Bernard Wherefore that axiome of the Lawyer Cui iurisdictio data est c. To whom iurisdiction is giuen those things also doe seeme to bee granted without which the iurisdiction could not be explicated and that other of the Philosophers Qui dat esse c. Hee that giueth being giueth also those things that are consequent to being or necessarily required thereunto are vnaptly applied to this purpose For spirituall iurisdiction can very well bee exercised without vsing temporall weapons or inflicting temporall punishments and to vse temporall weapons or to inflict temporall punishments is not a consequent or necessarily required to the spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely supposeth 42 Now you shall see in what manner hee concludeth this Chapter Thus then saith hee z pag. 91. nu 38.39 thou seest good Reader how I prooued in my Supplement by the law of GOD that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall states and dignities when the necessitie of the Church shall require it which I also prosecuted further there inferring the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians by the power he hath ouer the soule according to the two axiomes Qui potest maius potest minus He which may doe the more may doe the lesse and Accessorium sequitur principalis naturam The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall which I haue amply dâ—bated before with my Aduersarie Widdrington in the second and third chapters hauing also laide downe there the words of my Supplement touching the same and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate them heere 43 Now then I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether my Aduersarie Widdrington hath not notably abused me in two things the one in affirming as you haue heard before in the first Chapter that I grounded all my discourse against the Oath in my Supplement See Chapter 1. nu 3. 7. 9. vpon a bare supposition that the Popes spirituall authoritie is abiured therein and the other that I haue effectually prooued nothing else by the law of GOD but that the temporal power in spirituall things in temporal as they are reduced to spiritual is subiect to the spirituall power so far forth as concerneth the authoritie to command a spiritual maner of correction not temporall for so you haue heard him say in the beginning of this chap. though it be euident by the premisses Supra nu 1. that I haue grounded my arguments against the oath not vpon any such supposition as he mentioneth but vpon the very substance of the law of God in the old and new Testament and that I haue deduced from thence by most pregnant reasons and necessarie consequents that the Pope hath power to proceede to the temporall correction of Princes when the spirituall will not suffice and the necessitie of the Church doth require it 44 Whereupon it followeth euidently that the new Oath which impugneth this power of the Pope is repugnant to the law of GOD. So that you see how probable my Aduersarie Widdringtons answeres are or rather how fraudulent seeing that he dissembleth all the substance and pith of my arguments abusing therein his Reader no lesse then mee seeking to breede in him a false conceit of the substance and effect of my discourse and then framing his answere according to his owne forgerie So as in fine he answereth nothing of mine but his owne vaine conceits as it will also further appeare by that which resteth to be debated betwixt vs concerning the Lawes of Nature and Nations 45 But contrariwise thou seest good Reader that Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement neither hath sufficiently proued by the law of GOD as hee here
vntruely affirmeth either that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes in their temporall States and dignities except by way only of direction or commandement or that the necessitie of the Church doth require that spirituall Pastours should by their spirituall authoritie haue power to vse the temporall sword and to inflict temporall punishments nor hath rightly concluded the Popes power ouer the bodies and temporall goods of Christians from the power hee hath ouer their soules by those two axiomes Hee that may doe the greater may doe the lesse and The accessorie followeth the nature of the principall the true sense and meaning wherof I haue amply declared before in the second and third Chapters and haue laid open Mr. Fitzherberts fraude and ignorance in vrging those axiomes 46 Wherefore to conclude with him this Chapter I remit it good Reader to thy iudgement whether I haue any way abused Mr. Fitzherbert in two things as hee saith I haue done the one in affirming as thou hast heard before in the first Chapter that hee in his Supplement doth first of all suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate Princes is abiured in this Oath and the other that hee hath effectually proued nothing else by the law of God but that the temporall power is in spirituall things and in temporall as they are reduced to spirituall subiect to the spirituall power so farre foorth as concerneth the authoritie to command and a spirituall manner of punishing by way of coercion and not temporall For as I haue most amply shewed in this Chapter he hath not brought any one pregnant reason or necessarie consequent grounded vpon the law of GOD either in the olde Testament or in the new to proue that the Pope hath power to proceede by way of temporall coercion or which is all one by inflicting temporall punishments to the temporall correction or punishment of any Prince Neither also hath hee brought any one pregnant reason or argument to prooue either that spirituall punishments are not of themselues sufficient although by reason of the indisposition of the person so punished not alwayes effectuall to redresse all inconueniences and to correct or amend all the disobedient children of the Church or that the necessitie of the Church as it is instituted by Christ to be a spirituall and not a temporall common-wealth doth at any time require that the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof must haue authoritie to vse temporall weapons or which is all one to inflict temporall punishments whereupon it euidently followeth that this new Oath which denyeth this authoritie of the Pope is not repugnant to the law of God 47 Thus then thou seest that I haue soundly answered all Mr. Fitzherberts arguments without dissembling the substance or pith of any one of them and haue most cleerely shewed that I haue neither abused him nor the Reader in those two things which heere he mentioneth but that hee hath notably abused mee and bewrayed his manifest fraude and dissimulation in falsly relating the supposition whereon he groundeth his whole Discourse as I haue at large declared in the first Chapter and therefore I thinke it needelesse to repeate heere the same againe CHAP. VI. Wherein Mr. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the Law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the Law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ. Secondly that Religious Priests by the Law of Nature cannot punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the Law of Nature the ciuill Societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning Religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the Law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers replies of Mr. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted MY Aduersarie T. F. a man as most of our Countreymen know vnskilfull in Philosophie and Schoole-Diuinitie as being sciences which he hath little studied hath in this sixt Chapter taken a hard taske vpon him and which few men except such as are like to himselfe would aduenture but as our English prouerbe saith who is so bold as is blind Bayard For he will forsooth shew in this Chapter that he hath effectually prooued in his Supplement by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to chastise Princes temporally and consequently that the new Oath of Allegiance which denyeth the Popes power to depose Princes is repugnant to the law of Nature But how vnsoundly he hath prooued this and that by the law of Nature it may rather be conuinced that Religious Priests were subiect to temporall Princes and might be deposed by them and that all things both concerning State and Religion and the publike seruice of God did in the law of Nature depend vpon the authoritie of the temporall common-wealth you shall anon most cleerely perceiue 2 First therefore Mr. Fitzherbert a Pag. 94. nu 2 setteth downe the words which he wrote in his Supplement in this manner It is euident by the light of naturall reason that in all things wherein there is any naturall composition or combination there is a due subordination and subiection of that which is lesse perfect to the more perfect and of the inferiour to the Superiour as of the meanes to the end which is euident in the Hierarchies of Angels in the Orbes or Spheres in the Elements in the Powers of the soule in the Sciences and to omit other examples in all naturall Societies of Families Common-wealths and Kingdomes in which there is a superioritie and subiection the lesse perfect being inferiour and subordinate to the more perfect whereby nature giueth to euery thing the perfection which is conuenient for it according to the kind degree and qualitie thereof wherein we see nature tendeth still to greater perfection passing and as it were mouing by degrees from the lowest and and most imperfect creature to man from man to Angels and from them to Almightie God who as he is the Creatour of all so also he is the end consummation and perfection of all yea perfection it selfe by whom and in whom all naturall things are consummated and perfected 3 Here you see this man hath brought diuers examples wherein one thing is subiect and subordinate to another but to what purpose he hath brought them and how from any one of them he can well deduce that the Pope hath power to depose Princes by the law of Nature which is the principall subiect of this Chapter I cannot any way conceiue If he had declared in particular after what manner and with what kind of subiection these things are subordained one to the other euery man of meane vnderstanding would presently haue perceiued the non sequitur of all the consequences
necessitie of the Common-wealth shall require it so also the Ecclesiasticall Prince or head of the Church may giue lawes to temporall Common-wealths and the Gouernour thereof according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church the publike good whereof is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or Common-wealth by the same reason and law of Nature that the good of the soule is to be preferred before the good of the body spirituall good before temporall heauen before earth and the seruice of GOD before the seruice of any man or of all the men in the world 12 But first although it be true that Christian Princes who are the absolute heads of the temporall States or kingdomes which they gouerne being also parts and members of the mysticall body or spirituall kingdome of Christ which is the Church are consequently subiect in things belonging to the Church to wit in spirituall matters to the visible Pastours Gouernours or heads thereof yet it is not true that temporall kingdomes or common-wealths themselues being taken properly formally and in abstracto are either parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ or subiect and subordained to the Church or the visible heads thereof for then it must needes follow that temporall Princes not only as they are Christians in spirituall matters but also as they are temporall Princes and in temporall things are subiect to the visible heads or Gouernours of the Church which is cleerely repugnant to Mr. Fitzherberts owne words in that place pag. 95. num 4. who affirmeth that temporall Princes are absolute heads of the States which they gouerne in things pertaining only to their temporall States and consequently in them they cannot be subordinate and subiect to the visible heads of the Church 13 Wherefore that comparison which he maketh heere and is the chiefe ground of his Discourse betwixt families cities and kingdomes or ciuill common-wealths and betwixt ciuill common-wealths or kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ is no fit comparison and therefore neither can the Discourse which is grounded thereon be sound and sufficient For families and cities being taken properly formally and in abstracto are parts and members of the whole kingdome or common-wealth and consequently subordinate and subiect to the kingdome and absolute heads thereof seeing that they are particular ciuill Societies and consequently subiect to the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth as euery part is to the whole body and to the chiefe head thereof but temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto are not parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ vnlesse we will hold with the Canonists that the Church of Christ is compounded both of spirituall and ciuill power and that the Pope is both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of the whole Christian world And therefore although it be true that spirituall Pastours haue nothing to doe in matters meerely temporall and which belong to ciuill gouernment yet it is not true that temporall Princes haue not to doe with priuate families and cities in matters that belong to the ciuill gouernment of them for that priuate families and cities are true parts and members of the whole ciuill common-wealth or kingdome and I hope that the Prince who hath to doe with the whole kingdome and gouernment thereof hath also to doe with the gouernment of euery part thereof 14 Secondly no man maketh any doubt but that the spirituall Pastours and Gouernours of the Church may correct any King or ciuill Magistrate when hee doth any thing to the preiudice of the Church and that they may giue lawes to the Gouernours of temporall common-wealths according to the vrgent necessitie of the Church and also that the publike good of the Church is to be preferred before the particular good of any temporall Prince or common-wealth But all the difficultie consisteth in these points first whether authoritie to correct malefactours by the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods c. hath by the institution of Christ beene communicated to the spirituall Pastours of the Church or was leaft only to temporall Princes and the supreme Gouernours of temporall common-wealths Secondly whether spirituall Pastours may giue lawes to temporall Princes I doe not say as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection and are parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ for of this no Catholike maketh doubt but to temporall kingdomes or common-wealths being taken formally and in abstracto or which is all one to temporall Princes not as they are Christians and haue spirituall subiection but as they are temporall Princes and haue supreme temporall power which doth only reside in them and not in spirituall Pastours 15 Thirdly whether the particular or publike good of temporall Princes or common-wealths is to be preferred before the particular or publike good of the Church for that the temporall and spirituall power doe make one totall body or common-wealth which is the Church as Card. Bellarmine contendeth in which totall body the temporall common-wealth is per se and naturally subordained and subiect to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ or whether the spirituall good is to be preferred before the temporall by all Christians both Princes and subiects for that euery man who is a part and member of two cities or common-wealths the one more noble and excellent then the other is by the order of charitie bound to preferre caeteris paribus the more noble and excellent citie or common-wealth and the good thereof before the lesse noble and excellent city or common-wealth and the good of it These be the chiefe heads of this controuersie concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes or common-wealths among Christians and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ whereof I haue at large debated in the second part where the Reader may see all these points distinctly handled against Card. Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius and also touching all that which Mr. Fitzherbert doth confusedly discourse in this Chapter concerning the vnion and subordination of temporall kingdomes and the Church of Christ And therefore remitting the Reader to my former Treatise where he may cleerely see in what manner the temporall and spirituall power or the temporall and spirituall common-wealth are vnited and subordained let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert would at length conclude 16 Whereupon I conclude saith he d Pag. 96. nu 6 that seeing this Oath now in question is as I haue proued by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church to whom all Christian Princes are subiect euen by the law of Nature it followeth that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to nature then if a husband should exact the like Oath of his wife or a Maister of his seruant or the father of his children I meane an Oath which should
derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince As for example if a head of a family should bind his wife and children to defend him from the correction of his lawfull Prince when occasion should require I thinke no man will be so absurd to say that it is a lawfull Oath and correspondent to nature though the same should be coloured and shadowed neuer so much with pretence of Oeconomicall and filiall discipline and dutie And no more can the other Oath be lawfull and agreeable to Nature though it be neuer so much coloured with respect of temporall allegiance 17 But first obserue I pray you the egregious shufling of this man For he pretended to prooue in this Chapter by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and that therefore the new Oath which denieth this power to be in the Pope is repugnant to the law of nature And therefore I expected that he would haue brought some effectual argument taken from the law of nature abstracting frō the positiue law of God to confirme this power of the Pope to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and consequently that this Oath is by the law of Nature preiudiciall to the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours But now he flyeth from the law of Nature to the law of God to prooue that the Oath is preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church and supposing that he hath proued this by the law of GOD then it followeth saith he that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature then if a husband should exact of his wife a maiester of his seruant a father of his children an Oath which should derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince So that Mr. Fitzherbert doth only conclude heere that the Oath is vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature supposing that it is by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church 18 Secondly therefore although we should suppose heere with Mr. Fitzherbert that this new Oath is repugnant to the law of God as in very deede it is not yet he cannot therefore rightly conclude that it is also repugnant to the law of Nature which he in this Chapter pretendeth to proue for that euery transgression of the positiue law or institution of almighty God is vnlawfull and yet not repugnant to the law of Nature whereupon the Diuines doe deuide the law of God into the diuine naturall and the diuine positiue law and he that should deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to remit sinnes should contradict the law of God in the new Testament and so this deniall of Priestly authoritie to forgiue sinnes is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours and yet it doth not from thence follow that it is repugnant to the law of Nature which is naturally grafted in the hearts of euery man whether hee be Iew or Gentile infidell or Christian as the law of Nature is by my Aduersaries taken heere Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert concluding heere that the Oath is repugnant to the law of Nature for that it is preiudiciall to the power and iuridiction giuen by the law of Christ to the head of the Church seemeth not to vnderstand himselfe what is the law of Nature and how the law of Nature is distinguished from the positiue law of God But of this law of Nature more beneath e Num. 90. ◠seq and in the next chap. where also you shall see the reason wherefore the obedience in generall which a wife oweth to her husband a seruant to his Maister and children to their parents is not properly naturall but ciuill and yet the obedience in generall which subiects owe to their temporall Prince is not only called ciuill but also naturall allegiance 19 But thirdly it is not true that this Oath now in question is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church for that it denyeth the Popes power to depose Soueraine Princes and to inflict temporall punishments neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert prooued by the law of God that the Pope hath any such power as you haue seene at large in the former Chapter and to say that this Oath is repugnant to the law of nature taking the law of nature as it is distinguished from the positiue law of God or man and is nothing else then the dictamen or prescript of true reason concerning things to be done which either supposeth diuine reuelation and the supernaturall light of faith and is proper onely to true beleeuers and it is called by the Diuines the supernaturall law of nature supernaturall I say to man but connaturall to grace and faith which it supposeth or else supposeth onely naturall knowledge and is common to all men indued with naturall reason and is called properly and absolutely the naturall law for that it is connaturall to euery reasonable man is very vntrue as partly I haue shewed in the former Chapter where I haue answered all my Aduersaries arguments grounded vpon diuine reuelation and partly in this and the two next ensuing Chapters I will more cleerely conuince Now let vs goe on with the rest of his Discourse 20 For as no reason sayth he f Pag. 97. nu 7. 8. of Oeconomie or filiall or coniugall duetie holdeth when it is encountred with the respect of the weale publike or of due obedience to a lawfull Soueraigne So neither can any reason of common-wealth or allegiance to temporall Princes ouerweigh when the same is ballanced with the publike good of the Church of Christ whereto all temporall Princes doe owe more respect duety and subiection euen by the law of Nature then their Vassals and subiects owe to them because the Religion or Ecclesiasticall Societie which is the Church is as I haue said the supreme and most worthie Societie of all other on earth In which respect also all Societies inferiour to the Common-wealth yea euery member thereof haue more obligation owe more dutie to the Church which is the highest Societie then to the Common-wealth or any other whereto they are immediately subordinate as it may also be obserued in humane actions which tend finally to Religion as to their last ende for euery humane action ought to be more specially directed to Religion that is to say to the worship and seruice of God then to any other inferiour action whereto it may haue a more immediate relation 21 In which respect the Philosophers themselues being guided by the law of Nature and light of reason placed the end not onely of mens actions but also of euery man and of the Common-wealth it selfe in Religion because as Plato Plato in Timaeo in Epinomide and all the
the word vpside downe or peruerted the course of Nature but knew right well that things lesse perfect are not to be preferred before the more perfect the body before the soule sense before reason temporall things before spirituall policie before Religion earth before heauen and the world before God And therefore there is none but such ignorant men as my Aduersarie is that can or will affirme the new Oath of allegiance to be repugnant to the law of Nature or to the light of nature reason for that it denyeth the authoritie of spirituall Pastours to punish temporally ablute Princes or to depriue them of their kingdomes or dominions 44 And by this the insufficiencie of the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts Discourse will easily appeare This was some part saith he i Pag. 101. num 12. of my Discourse in my Supplement concerning the law of Nature whereby thou seest good Reader that I haue sufficiently shewed two things the one that according to the law of Nature the temporall state and power is subordinate and subiect to the spirituall when they are conioined in one body no lesse then the familie is subordinate and subiect to the Common-wealth in like case because the end of the temporall power is subordinate to the end of the spirituall power which ouerthroweth my Aduersaries false principle to wit that the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill Societie are so distinct in nature and office that though they be ioined together yet they haue no dependance the one of the other vpon which false ground and vaine supposition often affirmed by Barclay and him and neuer proued by either of them they found all their false doctrine 45 But how vntrue this is I haue already shewed For in the law of Nature the temporall state and power was not subiect and subordinate to the spirituall or Religious except only in excellencie and nobilitie whereof there is no question but contrariwise the Priests of the law of Nature were subiect in spirituall and religious affaires to the supreme ciuill Gouernour when they were distinct persons neither did they make two distinct Common-wealths as they doe in the law written but the ciuill Common-wealth had authoritie to dispose of all matters as well concerning Religion as state and not only to make Priests and to giue them Priestly power but also to increase diminish alter or to take away from them their Priestly authoritie and to determine of all things both temporall and spirituall which is not so in the law written wherein Priests haue their authoritie from the positiue institution and law of God himselfe 46 True it is that the Heathen Common-wealths gaue great authoritie priueledges and exemptions to those persons whom they chose and appointed to be their Priests especially to the chiefe Priest or Bishop whereof reade Alexander lib. 2. cap. 8. and lib. 3. cap. 27. to whom the Romanes gaue such great honour that they did esteeme him next to the King or supreme temporall Prince and gaue him authoritie to command and also to punish the King of sacred rites and all the other inferiour Priests Yea euen to Vestall Virgins who were Priests of the Goddesse Vesta such honour was giuen by the Romanes that if by chance they should meete any malefactour that was led to death hee should not for that time be put to death Plutarch in Numa Alex. lib. 5. cap. 12. vpon condition that the Virgin must sweare that her meeting of him was casuall and not of purpose But from hence it cannot be gathered that the religious Priests had by the law of Nature such authoritie priueledges and prerogatiues but only that the Common-wealth in honour of Religion did grant them such temporall honour and authoritie and would haue them to be obeyed in some matters of great moment vnder paine of death 47 Now in the new law in what manner the temporall Common-wealth or rather those persons who are parts and members therof are subiect to spirituall Pastours I haue at large declared aboue in the second part where I haue sufficiently proued out of Card. Bellarmines owne grounds that the coniunction of temporall power and of spirituall subiection in the same Christian man is not sufficient to make the temporall and spirituall Common-wealth among Christians one totall body or Common-wealth whereof the Pope is the supreme visible head for then the Pope must be both a temporall and spirituall Monarch of all Christendome and Christians and that although they should make one totall body or Common-wealth whereof Christ only is the head in that manner as I there declared yet from thence it could not be concluded that the temporall power or Common-wealth is per se and naturally subiect and subordinate to the spirituall power or Common-wealth but only that Christian Princes not as they haue temporall power but as being members of the Church of Christ they haue spirituall subiection and consequently in spiritualls and not in temporalls are subiect to the spirituall power or common-wealth and the spirituall Pastours thereof And there also I answered all the arguments which D. Schulckenius brought to proue the contrarie Let Mr. Fitzherbert impugne that Treatise and then he may haue some cause to brag that this doctrine of mine and Barclaies is a false and vaine supposition of our owne In the meane time the Reader may cleerely see how vainely and friuolously he hath proued by the law of Nature that the temporall power is subiect and subordinate to the spirituall and that in the law of Nature Religious Priests as they were such might command and correct temporally the temporall Common-wealth or supreme temporall Prince whereas the quite contrary is manifest by the law of nature 48 The other thing saith Mr. Fitzherbert that I haue shewed is that by reason of this naturall subordination and subiection of the lawes and lesse perfect Societies to the higher and more perfect it is most conforme to nature that the head of the Church who is the supreme spirituall Magistrate may command and correct all inferiour Magistrates as well temporall as spirituall when the necessitie either of the whole body or of the Church only which is the most perfect and supreme Societie doth require it as in like case the supreme ciuill Magistrate who is Prince and head of the Common-wealth iustly commandeth and punisheth the heads of Families or Cities notwithstanding that the said Families and Cities are distinct Societies and bodies and haue their lawes and Magistrates apart no lesse then the Common-wealth and Church haue theirs 49 But first it is vntrue that there is any naturall subordination and subiection of the temporall power or Common-wealth to the spirituall except in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and whereof no man maketh doubt neither doth the dignity and perfection of the more noble and excellent Societie inferre a superioritie in command and authoritie ouer the lesse worthy and lesse noble Societie vnlesse we will haue the companie of Goldsmiths to haue
is no naturall subordination of any Ciuill Societie to the Church of Christ except only in dignitie and perfection which is nothing to the purpose and that in the law of Nature it belonged to the Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe to dispose and order all things as well concerning Religion as Ciuill matters as to ordaine Priests to appoint with what kind of Sacrifices and in what maner and place God should be publikely worshipped to giue or take away to extend or diminish the authoritie dignitie and priuiledges of Religious Priests as the Common-wealth whose Ministers they were and to whom they were subiect not onely in temporalls but also in spiritualls should thinke expedient and therefore to make a naturall subordination subiection not only in dignitie and perfection but also in power and authority of the ciuil common-wealth to the Church of Christ is cleerly repugnant to nature to all natural reason 55 Secondly I also shewed the manifest difference betwixt families cities and all such like inferiour Ciuill Societies being compared to the whole Ciuill Common-wealth and betwixt the whole Ciuill Common-wealth being compared to the Church or spirituall kingdome of Christ for that not only the persons of all inferiour ciuill Societies but also the Societies themselues which are only compounded of ciuill power are true parts members of the whole ciuill Societie or common-wealth and that therefore the supreame ciuill Magistrate or Prince who hath power to dispose of the whole ciuill body or common-wealth hath power also to dispose of euery part and member thereof But the temporall Common-wealth it selfe which is compounded only of ciuill power is not a part and member of the Church of Christ which is compounded onely of spirituall and not ciuill or temporall authoritie as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe confesseth m Contra Barc c. 12. p. 137 in Schulck pag. 203. And therefore it doeth not follow by the same reason as my Aduersarie heere affirmeth that the supreame head of the Church of Christ may dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the ciuill common-wealth because the supreame Prince of the ciuill common-wealth may dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to all other inferiour ciuill Societies And whereas hee supposeth that to dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the ciuill common-wealth may bee absolutely necessarie for the conseruation of the Church is a meere fiction and idle supposition of his owne braine and although it were so necessarie yet it should not belong to spirituall Pastours who haue no ciuill power but to Christian Princes to dispose thereof as I haue shewed aboue And as for the comparison of the soule and body which all my Aduersaries doe so often inculcate I haue also shewed before n Part. 2. c. 8. most cleerely that it is no fit similitude to proue their purpose but maketh flat against them both because the temporall and spirituall common-wealth doe not make one totall body or compound in that manner as the body and soule doe make one man and also because albeit the soule may command the body to punish it selfe yet shee her selfe cannot punish the body without the helpe and concurrance of the body it selfe and therefore neither can the Church of Christ inflict temporall punishments without the helpe and concurrance of the temporall common-wealth 56 But now Mr. Fitzherbert will make forsooth all the matter more cleare And all this saith he o p. 103. nu 16 will bee yet more cleare if wee consider the weake reason that Widdrington giueth of his conceipt to prooue that the supreame spirituall power cannot punish temporally Wid. in Admon ad Lect. nu 17. For thus hee saith Atque ita recta ratio dictat vt superior quicunque c. And so right or true reason teacheth that euery Superior may punish his inferiour with some penaltie that is proportionate to his authority but that any other besides him that is supreame Gouernor of the ciuill cōmon-wealth may punish his inferiour with the paine or punishment of death or maiming or of the depriuatiō of all his goods this cannot be deduced from the rule or prescript of true reason Thus saith hee But to omit to speake of bloodie punishments by death or maiming which are neuer vsed by the Church and therefore are idly mentioned heere by my Aduersarie it is to bee noted that in the rest hee contradicteth not onely the ancient and common practise of the Church yea the holy Scriptures as I shall shew p Iufra nu 18.19.20 Item cap. 7.9.10.11 12. per totum after a while but also his owne grant and concession 57 If the prudent Reader had not sufficiently seene before the extreame vanitie palpable ignorance and irreligious conscience of this my Aduersarie hee might easily conceiue me to bee a very bad ignorant and inconsiderate man for contradicting as hee saith not onely the ancient and common practise of the Church yea and the holy Scriptures but also my owne graunt and concession but such bragging and slanderous words are as you haue often seene frequent in this mans mouth First therefore those words of mine Atque ita recta ratio dictat c. And so true reason teacheth c. were not brought by me as a reason but as a conclusion of that I saide before concerning the authoritie of Superiours to punish their subiects or inferiours with some kinde of punishments proportionate to their Coerciue power 58 Secondly it is vntrue that bloodie punishments by death or maiming are idly mentioned heere by mee seeing that hee himselfe in the former paragraph did affirme that the head of the Church may by way not only of commandement but also of punishment dispose of whatsoeuer belongeth to the Ciuill Common-wealth and consequently both of goods and bodies whereof no doubt the ciuill common-wealth may dispose and in the second Chapter also hee expresly taught that the Pope hauing power ouer my soule and being withall the supreame Gouernour of the whole Church hath also power ouer my life albeit with the liues of Princes it being an odious question hee will not meddle and a little after hee affirmeth that the Pope hath power ouer the temporall goods states and bodies of all Christians and consequently according to his doctrine also of all Christian Kings and Princes Why then doth he now say that bloodie punishments by death or maiming are idly mentioned heere by mee when I affirme that none but the supreame ciuill Superiour hath power to punish his subiect or inferiour with the punishment of death maiming or depriuation of goods But marke I pray you his goodly reason because forsooth bloodie punishments by death or maiming are neuer vsed by the Church whereas the question betwixt vs was not whether the Church doeth actually vse bloodie punishments for of this I spake not one word in this place albeit Pope Adrian did ordaine in the Canon law q In cap. Delatori 5. q. 6. that the tongues of some malefactours should bee pulled out and the
shall not the same reason hold for the spirituall Superiours power to punish in temporall things which are no lesse vsed and applyed to the seruice of the spirituall in punishment then in commandement as when delinquents are enioyned for the punishment of their sinnes to giue Almes to build Hospitals or Monasteries to goe in Pilgrimage and to afflict their bodies by fasting watching discipline haire-cloth and such like it is cleare that as well the corporall labours as the temporall expences are referred to a spirituall end to wit to Gods glory and the benefite of the Soule no lesse then if the same were imployed otherwayes for Gods seruice by the direction or commandement of the spirituall Superiour Also when heretikes are depriued of their honour fame goods or liues for the iust punishment of their heresie See Siluester verb. Haeres nu 12. 13. 14. according to the custome and Canons of the Church who knoweth not that the same to done for the glory of God and the great benefit of the Church So as there is no lesse relation or reduction of corporall and temporall goods to the spirituall in punishing then in commanding and therefore Widdrington cannot with any probability admit the one and reiect the other 64 The reason why the spirituall Pastours of the Church may command temporall punishments and yet may not inflict them or punish temporally or which is all one why the directiue power of spirituall Pastours is extended to temporall punishments for a spirituall end and yet their coerciue power is not for the same respect extended also to temporall punishments but restrained and limited to spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures I fully declared in my Appendyx to Fa. Suarez which Mr. Fitzherbert might well haue seene seeing that it was published the yeere before this his Reply came forth See Appendix part 1. sec 4. For Fa. Suarez argued in this manner The Ecclesiasticall power of the Church as it is directiue or commanding is not by those words of our Sauiour Quodcunque ligaueris c. Whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. determined to this or that manner of directing or commanding but doth without limitation comprehend all conuenient directing or commanding therefore the same is to be vnderstood of the coerciue or punishing power For we doe now suppose as a thing manifest and knowne to euery man of meane learning that in euery law there is contained the commandement which the Diuines call vis dirigens the directiue or commanding force or power and the punishment for feare of which we are in some sort compelled and constrained to performe the thing commanded which therefore the Diuines call vis cogens or coercens the compelling enforcing or punishing force or power of the law 65 This therefore was a part of my answere to the aforesaid argument of Fa. Suarez which my Aduersaries concealing thereof vrgeth me to repeat heere againe that the Reader may in some sort thereby perceiue that he still vrgeth the same arguments which haue before beenefully satisfied Secondly if that assertion or argument of Suarez be so vnderstood that as the Ecclesiasticall power to command is not limited to any certaine manner of commanding so that it be conuenient and beseeming the nature and condition of an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall body or Societie as it is by the institution of Christ distinguished from the ciuill body or Common-wealth so the Ecclesiasticall power to punish is not limitted to any certaine manner of punishing so that it be conuenient and beseeming the nature and condition of an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall body and society as it is instituted by Christ and distinguished from the ciuill Common-wealth then wee grant also his comparison or the consequence of his argument But then we affirme that as onely temporall correction or punishing is conuenient and proper to the temporall body or Common-wealth so also onely spirituall censures or punishments are by the institution of Christ conuenient and beseeming the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ as out of many Catholike Authours wee haue shewed a little before 66 Wherefore there is a great difference to be obserued betwixt the power to command and to punnish For the Ecclesiasticall power to command is as it were vnlimited and may be extended to all things both spirituall and also temporall not as they are temporall but as in regard of the vertue or sinne therein contained they become spirituall because the obiect of the Ecclesiasticall directiue or commanding power is vertue or vice which may be found in all things whatsoeuer aswell temporall as spirituall And so the Ecclesiasticall power forbidding a temporall thing as it is a sinne or hurtfull to spirituall good doth nothing which is vnbeseeming the nature and condition of a spirituall body or Society but the depriuing one of temporall lands goods libertie or life are alwaies temporall punishments for what crime soeuer either spirituall or temporall they be inflicted and therefore are not conuenient or beseeming the nature or condition of a spirituall Common-wealth as I haue shewed before 67 And this distinction or difference betwixt the commanding and chastising power doth euidently appeare in the ciuill Common-wealth which hauing for the obiect of her directiue or commanding power publike peace or publike disquietnesse as the Ecclesiasticall hath vertue or vice may forbid all things euen Ecclesiasticall matters as they are truely manifest wrongs to the ciuill society and vniust hindrances to the publike peace for that these vniust oppressions although principally and of themselues are spirituall yet secondarily and by accident they are temporall wrongs and in that regard may be punished by the ciuill Magistrate not with spirituall but with temporall punishments as before in this Disputation x Cap. 7. sec 2 nu 17. I haue shewed out of those two famous and learned Dominikes Sotus and Bannes Whereby we may perceiue that this manner of arguing which Suarez vseth in comparing the commanding or directiue power with the punishing or coerciue is not allowable for otherwise wee might in like manner conclude that as the Ciuill power to command is not so limitted but that it may sometimes be extended to Ecclesiasticall or spirituall matters so also the Ciuill power to punish is not so limited but that it may sometimes be extended to punish with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishment Thus I answered in that place 68 By which the Reader may cleerely see that the difference betwixt the directiue or commanding and the coerciue compelling or punishing power must bee taken as the natures and differences of all powers ought to be taken from their proper acts and obiects for the acts and obiects of the Ecclesiasticall power as it is directiue or commaunding are the commaunding of vertuous and the forbidding of vicious acts whereby the spirituall health of soules and euerlasting happinesse which is the last end of the spirituall power is obtained So that what thing soeuer be it temporall or spirituall that may be vertue or
vice that may be necessary or hurtfull to the spirituall good of soules may also be commaunded or forbidden by the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power as it is directiue And this is the reason why the spirituall power as it is directiue may be extended to temporall punishments that is may command or forbid temporall penalties or afflictions for that vertue and vice which are the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue may be found in them 69 So likewise the obiect of the ciuill power as it is directiue is the obtaining and conseruing of temporall peace and quietnesse in the temporall common-wealth and her acts are the commanding or forbidding of those things which are necessary or hurtfull to the publike peace which is the last end of the temporall power it selfe although it be not the last end of the temporall Christian Prince as I shewed aboue in the second part So that what thing soeuer be it spirituall or temporall that doth iniuriously disturbe the publike peace may be forbidden by the temporall power as it is directiue And this is the reason why the temporall power as it is directiue may be extended sometimes to spirituall actions not as they are spirituall but as they are reduced to temporall actions for that the iniurious disturbance of the publike temporall peace which is the obiect of the temporall power as it is dâ—rectiue may sometimes be found in them As the baptizing of one with poysoned water or the ministring of the B. Sacrament which is also poysoned as they are spirituall actions to wit the ministring of Sacraments which worke a spirituall effect are not subiect to the directiue power of the temporall Prince but as they worke a temporall effect which is iniurious to the temporal peace they are subiect to the temporall power as it is directiue And so a temporall Prince may forbid a spirituall Pastour who is subiect to him in temporalls to minister hic nunc the Sacrament of Baptisme whereby the party baptized shall be poysoned So also vniust Excommunications if they cause tumults and perturbations in the common-wealth or vnfit conuenticles by night with armour and weapons whereby probable danger of seditions or of other temporall wrongs may arise although these assemblies be made to preach the Gospell or instruct the people in the faith of Christ may be forbidden by the temporall power not as they are temporall actions but as they are temporall wrongs and truely iniurious to the publike temporall peace 70 And this doctrine is of it selfe so manifest and perspicuous that no man of any learning can deny it and to affirme that it is a doctrine altogether intollerable and which cannot be vttered but by one who is giuen to a reprobate sense for that it maketh the temporall Prince to bee Iudge of spirituall things and thereby maketh him truely the head of the Church as D. Schulckenius most rashly affirmeth y Pag. 7. 208. is an intollerable slaunder and which could not be vttered by any learned man vnlesse with some vehement passion of ire hee had beene altogether transported and his vnderstanding therewith had beene wholly blinded as I haue shewed more amply in the Discouery of his slaunders z In Appendice ad Supplicationem § 11. calumnia 11. For this doctrine doth not make the temporall Prince to be iudge of spirituall matters but of temporall nor to be the head of the Church that is of the mysticall body of Christ and his spirituall kingdome or of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall causes but onely of the politicke body and temporall common-wealth and of ciuill matters or which by reason of some true temporall wrong are reduced to ciuill matters 71 But the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power as it is coerciue compelling or punishing doth not consist in commaunding but in punishing and her proper act and obiect is the inflicting of spirituall Censures or punishments For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall kingdome so he hath giuen her correspondent weapons armour and punishments which she is to vse to wit Ecclesiasticall Censures as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and not ciuill punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. as I haue shewed before a Part. 1. per totum out of Almaine and many others both ancient Fathers and moderne Catholike Diuines and Lawyers which also is sufficiently grounded in the holy Scriptures And if hee will not heare the Church let him bee to thee as a Heathen and Publicane b Matth. 18 and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c Matth. 16 not of earthly kingdomes and the weapons of our warfare are not carnall d 2. Cor. 10. 72 So likewise the Ciuill power as it is coerciue doth not consist in commanding but in punishing and her proper act and obiect is the inflicting or vsing of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods c. Which S. Bernard f Lib. de considerat ad Eugenium called the drawing forth or vsing and exercising the materiall or temporall sword for although he affirmed the materiall or temporall sword to belong in some sort to the Church for that it was to be drawne forth or vsed for the Church but not by the Church yet he also affirmed that Christ our Sauiour did forbid spirituall Pastours to wit as they were such to draw forth or vse the materiall or temporall sword And therefore well said Petrus Damianus g In Epist ad Firnim that the kingdome and Priesthood are by their proper offices and functions so distinguished that the King should vse Secular weapons and the Priests be girded with the spirituall sword which in sense is all one with that saying of Gratian h 2. q. 7. cap. Nos si the Compiler of the Canon law called the Decree It belongeth to Kings to inflict corporall and to Priests to inflict spirituall punishments Now as the end both of the directiue and also of the coerciue power is temporall peace so the end both of the directiue or commanding and also of the coerciue or punishing spirituall power is the spirituall health of soules and euerlasting happinesse which as I haue shewed aboue in the second part is also the last end of euery Christian man to which spirituall Pastours by Ecclesiasticall lawes and spirituall Censures and Christian Princes by ciuill lawes and temporal punishments are by the law of Christ bound as much as lyeth in them to bring their Subiects 73 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue both the true meaning of those words of mine The spirituall Superiour may command corporall and temporall things as they serue spirituall and are reduced thereto but not inflict temporall punishments and also what Mr. Fitzherbert can rightly conclude from that assertion of his All temporall things and temporall punishments may bee referred to a spirituall ende to wit to Gods glory and the benefit of soules and
this no lesse in commanding then in punishing For corporall or temporall things to become spirituall things or to be reduced thereto is nothing else then that in corporall and temporall things there may bee found vertue or vice which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power and that therefore all temporall things and also all temporall punishments as they may become spirituall things or reduced thereto that is as by the relaâ—ion of them to Gods gloty and the health of soules there may reside in them vertue or vice may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall directiue or commanding power which hath for her acts and obiects the commaunding of vertue and the forbidding of vice but the act and obiect of the spirituall coerciue power is the inflicting and not the commanding of spirituall punishments and no relation of temporall punishments to Gods glory or to the health of soules can make them to bee spirituall punishments for that death exile priuation of goods c. although by the reference of them to Gods glory and the health of soules they may become spirituall actions that is in them may reside vertue or vice yet they can neuer become spirituall punishments and therefore although they may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power for that the obiect of the spirituall commanding power are all things wherein vertue or vice may be found yet they cannot be inflicted by the spirituall coerciue power which hath for her obiect the inflicting onely of spirituall and not of temporall punishments vnlesse the reference of temporall punishments to the glory of God and the health of soules can make temporall punishments to become I doe not say spirituall things but spirituall and not temporall punishments which is impossible And therefore with great reason I did admit the one to wit that the spirituall Superiour may commaund temporall punishments as they become spirituall things or are reduced thereunto that is to things wherein vertue or vice may be found and did reiect the other to wit that the Spirituall Superiour may in regard of the same reference or reduction inflict also temporall punishments for that no reference or reduction of the inflicting of temporall punishments to Gods glory and the health of soules can make temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments or the inflicting of temporall punishments to be the inflicting of spirituall punishments And therefore you may see I will not say with what probabilitie but with what palpable ignorance Mr. Fitzherbert i Suprat 2. nu 10. accuseth me of contradiction in this point and calleth it before a friuolous distinction of mine 74 And from this also which I haue said two other things may easily bee gathered The one is that to know what punishments are the obiect of the spirituall coerciue or punishing power wee haue no other way a priori then the holy Scriptures wherein the institution and law of Christ is contained and the reason is because there is no naturall necessitie that spirituall Pastours must haue authority to inflict temporall punishments and by the law of nature and the auncient Romanes and other Heathen common-wealths who were guided by the light of naturall reason I haue sufficiently prooued before that this naturall subordination and subiection especially in coerciue or punishing temporall authority or authority to punish temporally of the ciuill common-wealth to religious Priests which my Aduersary supposeth is a very vaine and idle fiction or Chymaera faigned without any colour or shew of true naturall reason Wherefore seeing that Christ our Sauiour might by his absolute power haue giuen to the spirituall Pastours of his Church a greater or lesser coerciue or punishing authority then hee hath giuen them yea and might haue giuen them no coerciue authority or power to punish at all so much as with spirituall Censures to know what coerciue or punishing power he hath actually giuen them cannot be proued by the law of Nature or by naturall reason but onely by the holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers who are the sincere Expositours thereof and liued before this controuersie concerning the Popes temporall authority ouer temporall Princes arose and therefore could neither fauour the one side nor the other 75 The second is that there is but little difference except in words betwixt the doctrine of the Diuines and Canonists concerning the spirituall coerciue or punishing power For although the Canonists doe suppose that all the power as well coerciue as directiue which Christ hath giuen to the Pastors of his Church is in ordine ad bonum spirituale in order to spirituall good or for the sauing of soules which the Diuines call indirectly yet because the Canonists hold that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath supreme authoritie to inflict as well temporall as spirituall punishments and consequently to punish all Christians euen temporall Princes as well temporally as spiritually therefore they feare not to affirme conformably to their grounds that the Pope is the supreme temporall and spirituall Monarch of the whole Christian world and hath true temporall coerciue authoritie But the Diuines although in effect grant as much yet they differ in words and that coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours which the Canonists call temporall for that it worketh the same temporall effect and hath the selfe same obiect which the temporall or ciuill coerciue authoritie hath wil not forsooth call it temporall authoritie but spirituall authoritie in temporalls and that not directly but indirectly or in order to spirituall good whereas the Canonists doe also hold that the Popes temporall coerciue authoritie or his coerciue authoritie in temporalls is also in order to spirituall good But this distinction of directly and indirectly was purposely inuented by the later Diuines to make their doctrine concerning the Popes authoritie to dispose of all temporalls and to inflict temporall punishments to be more plausible to the vulgar sort and to be lesse odious to Christian Princes and their loyall subiects who can not brooke to heare any man say that absolute and Soueraigne Princes are not supreme but subiect in temporalls to spirituall Pastours whereas in effect and very deed the Diuines notwithstanding this their distinction doe make absolute Princes whom the ancient Fathers with vniforme consent haue euer accounted to be next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be temporally punished but by GOD alone to be as much subiect in temporalls to spirituall Pastors and to be no lesse temporally punished by them then the Canonists doe So that the difference betwixt their opinions concerning the coerciue power of spirituall Pastours is rather verball and only about words them reall and in very deede 76 Seeing therefore that to haue power and authoritie directly in temporalls is nothing else then to haue power in temporalls as they are temporall and to haue power indirectly in temporalls is to haue power in temporalls not as they are temporall but as the Diuines say in order to spirituall good
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
Instit de patr potest Glossa ibidem Moli disp 228. and the Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doe well obserue the authoritie which Parents haue ouer their children was introduced by the Ciuill law of the Romanes from the time as the Glosse saith of Romulus the effects of which fatherly power authoritie or command the Glosse doth in briefe but Molina more at large set downe 93 Wherefore the Reader may by the way obserue that there is a great difference to be made betwixt the power and authority which Parents now liuing in ciuill Society haue ouer their Children consequently the obedience of Children answerable thereunto and the power and authority which the Ciuill Common-wealth or the supreme temporall Prince haue ouer subiects because all the authority and command which Parents haue ouer their children proceedeth from the Ciuill Common-wealth and is wholy depending thereon and not from the law of nature and therefore the obedience which children owe to their Parents supposing them to be Parents cannot properly be called naturall but ciuill obedience but the supreme authoritie that the temporall Common-wealth hath ouer her subiects supposing the aduniting of men in Ciuill Societie Bellar. lib. 3. de Laicis cap. 6. is euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine deriued from the law of nature Yea also it is very probable and affirmed by diuers learned men as I haue shewed heretofore x In Append. cōtra D. Schulcken calumnia 16. nu 8. that the supreame power and authority which temporall Princes haue ouer their subiects doth also proceed from the law of nature and prescript of naturall reason although their title or the designing of their persons to be Princes is not deriued from the law of nature but from the Common-wealth it selfe for which cause wee may truely and properly call that obedience which subiects owe to the ciuill Common-wealth or the Soueraigne Prince thereof not onely ciuill but also naturall obedience or allegiance consequently the bond thereof to be greater then the obligation of the Sonne to his Father the wife to the Husband and the slaue to his Lord. 94 Now to Mr Fitzherberts argument I answered in the said Appendix to Suarez that as the power and authority which Parents haue ouer their children is granted to them by the ciuill Common-wealth so also it cannot be taken away from them but by Ciuill authority And therefore those Canons either of Popes or Councels wherein children are exempted from the power and authoritie which by the Ciuill law their Parents haue ouer them doe either confirme that which was first decreed by the Imperiall law or they are made with the expresse or tacite consent of temporall Princes or they doe onely declare the law of God and nature to wit that children are to forsake the company of their Parents when by conuersing with them they are in danger to offend their Creatour As when the Father is accounted to be dead ciuilly either by some great sinne committed by him as heresie and treason or otherwise or if he make profession in an approued Religion whereby he is accounted dead to the world his Children are discharged by the Ciuill law from the power which he had ouer them as you may see in Molina in the place whereto my Aduersary remitteth his reader For it is a rule of the Ciuill law that naturall and ciuill death are equiualent concerning ciuill acts as noteth the Glosse vpon Leg. si decesserit ff qui satisdare So likewise if one be ordained a Bishop he is discharged thereby from the power and authority which his Father hath ouer him Authent de Sanct. Episcopis cap. 3. § Si uero contigerit And in this particular case which Mr. Fitzherbert here vrgeth that decree of the fourth Councell of Toledo was made by the authority and consent of King Sisennandus as I haue shewed more at large in that Appendix against Suarez Besides the decree of that Councell if it be vnderstood of Children which haue discretion is onely a declaration as I there obserued of the law of God and Nature whereby the baptized children of Iewes are freed not from the power or right which Parents haue ouer their Children but onely from their company for that the law of God and Nature forbiddeth all conuersation whereby one may incurre probable danger of reuolting from the faith or falling into any other sinne 95 And the like is to be said of the discharge of slaues and bondmen from the company of their Lords when the said slaues are Catholikes and their Lords heretikes For although these slaues if they be in danger to be peruerted may by the law of God Nature absent themselus from the company of their Lords vntil the danger be past as likewise a catholike wife may depart frō the company of her husband who is an heretike if she be in danger of being peruerted by his company this the Church hath power to declare and command them vnder paine of spirituall Censures to performe Neuerthelesse the Church hath no authority to dissolue the bond of Matrimony or to take away the right or fatherly power which hereticall Parents haue ouer their Children or to release the bond of slauery by which Lords haue a right or dominion ouer their slaues And therefore when the danger of being peruerted is past the wife is bound to returne to her Husband the Child to his Father and the bondman to his Lord vnlesse by the authority of the temporall Prince the Childe bee freed from the right and power which his Father had ouer him and the slaue from his bondage And therefore à fortiori and by a stronger reason the Church hath not authority to discharge subiects from the bond of obedience and allegiance to an hereticall Prince both for that thisis a temporall and ciuill punishment which therefore to inflict doth not belong to spirituall power and also for that temporall Princes being in temporals next vnder God cannot be temporally punished but by God alone and also because this bond of allegiance is naturall whereas the other obligations by which a wife a childe a slaue are bound to obey her husband his Father his Lord is ciuill and deriued from the Ciuill Common-wealth Neuerthelesse I doe not denie that the Church by a declaratiue precept may command the subiect to forsake the company of his Prince yea and perchance to depart the land if by such staying he be in probable danger to be peruerted yet still hee remaineth subiect to his Prince and when this danger is past he is bound by vertue of his allegiance to returne againe at the commandement of his Prince 96 And by this it is manifest how grossely Mr. Fitzherbert is deceiued in affirming so boldly That 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 Seeing that all the obedience which a Childe oweth to his
Father a Wife to her Husband and a Slaue to his Lord they now liuing in ciuill Societie and being parts and members of the ciuill Common-wealth is ciuill and dependeth vpon the authority of the temporall Prince who may therefore extend diminish or quite dissolue the bond of obedience although not of honour and reuerence which the Childe oweth to his Father and likewise the bond of obedience although not of matrimony by which the Wife is bound to her Husband and finally the bond both of obedience and of seruitude by which a slaue is bound to his Lord But the bond of allegiance whereby subiects are bound to obey the ciuill common-wealth as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe doth not deny is naturall and is due by the law of nature as the power and authority of the ciuill common-wealth ouer euery part and member thereof is in his opinion de lege natura due by the law of nature And therefore I doe not well vnderstand how Cardinall Bellarmine can according to his owne grounds affirme that the power and authority of the ciuill common-wealth ouer euery particular member thereof is de lâ—ge natura due by the law of nature and consequently the obedience and allegiance of the subiect answerable thereunto must also bee de lege natura commanded by the law of nature and withall maintaine that the Church can depriue an hereticall common-wealth of her ciuill power and authoritie and absolue the subiects from their naturall allegiance vnlesse hee will grant that the Church may absolue from the law of nature 97 Now by this which hath beene said you may easily perceiue the insufficiency of all the rest which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in this Chapter Now then saith hee y Pag. 107. nu 11. in all these examples it is euident that the Church disposeth of that which is temporall to spirituall ends and therefore my Aduersary Widdrington hath no probabilitie in the world to deny that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally especially granting as hee doth that he may command corporall and temporall things so farre foorth as they serue the spirituall But contrariwise as you haue seene it is euident that by none of all those examples he hath prooued that the Church I doe not say commaundeth but disposeth of that which is temporall to spirituall endes oâ— hath authority to inflict any temporall punishment or to depriue any man of any temporall right power or authority for what end soeuer And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert doth euidently discouer his ignorance in affirming that I haue no probabilitie in the world to deny that a spirituall Superiour may inflict temporall punishments or which is all one may punish temporally and to graunt as I doe that he may command corporall and temporall things so farre foorth as they serue the spirituall For this distinction which I haue sufficiently declared before betwixt the directiue or commanding and the coerciue or punishing power both of the spirituall and also of the temporall common-wealth and the reason thereof a priori which is taken from their proper acts and obiects from which according to the knowne principles of Philosophy the essence vnitie and distinction of euery power is to bee taken doth make plaine the whole difficultie and quite ouerthroweth the comparison which Mr. Fitzherbert maketh betwixt the spiritual directiue and the coerciue power or which is all one betwixt the power of spirituall Pastours to command temporall punishments for spirituall ends and to inflict them and which in naturall reason is so cleere and perspicuous that it cannot with any shew of probabilitie be impugned but the more it is sifted and impugned the more it appeareth plaine and manifest as all true doctrine doth as contrariwise falshood the more it is examined the more absurd it doth still appeare 98 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert z Pag. 107. nu 21. Widdrington himselfe teacheth also in his Apologie a Nu 153.154 15â— that spirituall things may come to haue the nature of temporall things and temporall things of spirituall by accident that is to say as he himselfe doth explicate Ratione peccati annexi By reason of some sinne annexed whereof hee also giueth this example when Ecclesiasticall persons doe apply their spirituall power to the hurt of the temporall state or temporall men abuse their power to the preiudice of the spirituall in these cases he saith the temporall power and state becommeth subiect to the spirituall and the spirituall to the temporall by reason of the iniury done and offence committed because temporall things doe thereby come to haue the qualitie of spirituall things and the spirituall also of temporall Thus teacheth he in his Apologie and affirmeth the same in effect in his Theologicall Disputation b Cap. 3. sec 1. nu 19. 99 That doctrine which I taught in my Apologie is very true and cannot with any probabilitie in the world be denied neither hath D. Schulckenius brought any one probable proofe to impugne the same but with railing speeches slaunderous imputations and fraudulent cauills seeketh to ouerbeare it as I haue most cleerely shewed c Calumnia 10.11.12 in the Discouery of his Calumnies For whereas I affirmed that as the spirituall power is not subiect to the temporall per se but onely per accidens by reason of vertue or vice which are the obiects of the spirituall directiue power and are oftentimes found in temporall actions so the temporall power is not subiect per se to the spirituall but onely per accidens by reason of the conseruing or disturbing of temporall peace which are the acts and obiects of the temporall directiue power and are sometimes found in spirituall actions as in vniust Excommunications and Interdicts when by them great tumults and perturbations doe in the common-wealth arise and in the euill administration of Sacraments whereby death or great corporall harme doth ensue And as the spirituall Superiour may for the euill administration of temporall things as they redound to the hurt of soules punish all his subiects that shall offend therein with spirituall punishments which onely are the obiect of the spirituall coerciue power so the temporall Superiour abstracting from the priuiledges of Princes and the Canons of the Church which doe exempt Cleargie men from the coerciue power of Secular Magistrates may for the euill administration of spirituall things as they redound to the perturbation of temporall peace punish all his Subiects that shall offend therein with temporall punishments which onely are the obiect of the temporall coerciue power 100 Now D. Schulckenius first affirmeth d Pag. 208. 292. that this doctrine is altogether intollerable and cannot be affirmed but by one who is giuen to a reprobate sense But how false and intollerable a slaunder this is vnconscionable void of all learning and which could not be vttered but by one who was wholly transported with some vehement passion I haue sufficiently shewed heeretofore e In Append. calumnia 11. Secondly he
cauilleth at the similitude for that saith he as there is not the same reason of the flesh and spirit of the body and soule of sense and reason of earth and heauen of Beasts and Angels of the sheepe and the Pastour especially in the comparing of the subiection and dominion so truely there is not the same reason of the temporall and spirituall power 101 But who seeth not what a friuolous cauill this is Who knoweth not that the body and the soule sense and reason earth and heauen Beasts and Angels Kings and Popes doe agree and are like in somethings and that in those things wherein they agree they may be compared together What man of iudgement would disprooue him that should say that as the body is an imperfect substance and is referred to the soule so the soule is an imperfect substance and is referred to the body as sense is sometimes subiect to reason so reason is sometimes subiect and captiuated by sense as the Pope is head of the Church and of spirituall power so the King is head of the ciuill common-wealth and of ciuill power and to omit that saying of the auncient Glosse f Patricius est Pater Papae in temporalibus sicut Papa est Pater Patricij in spiritualibus which Cardinall Bellarmine with small reuerence to antiquity affirmeth g Bell. contra Barcla c. 13. 16. to be razed out of the Canon law for doting olde age who can iustly mislike the like assertion of the Glosse vpon the twelfth Chapter of S. Marke As the King of France is subiect to the Bishop of Paris in spiritualls and his Lord in temporalls so Christ is the sonne of Dauid according to the flesh and his Lord according to his Dietie What man of learning can deny that although there be not the same reason of Christ and Dauid of the Bishop of Paris and the King of Fraunce of the temporall common-wealth and the spirituall concerning the particular manner of subiection and dominion yet in generall they may agree in this that the one is superiour and subiect to the other in a diuerse kind of superioritie and subiection and that although the King of France be a sheepe and the Bishop of Paris a spirituall Pastour and Dauid bee a man and Christ be God and the spirituall common-wealth be more excellent then the temporall yet they may bee compared one with the other in diuers kindes of superioritie and subiection But in such childish arguments and which are not worth the answering for want of better D. Schulckenius maketh great force 102 Secondly how vntrue it is which this Doctour so boldly affirmeth and which is one of the chiefe pillars whereon his doctrine concerning the Popes power to depose Princes is supported that the temporall power is per so subiect to the spirituall and that the spirituall power or spirituall Pastours are not per accident and by reason of vniust perturbing the publike peace subiect to the temporall power I haue shewed at large in the second part where I haue conuinced that this naturall subiection and subordination of the temporall power to the spirituall except only in perfection and excellencie is a meere fiction and that to affirme as this Doctour doth h Pag. 201. that Bishops are exempted omni iure from the ciuill power is a most false and intollerable doctrine and generally repugnant both to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers expounding that place of the Apostle Omnis anima c. Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers and to the common opinion of the Diuines and also the Iesuites who affirme that Cleargie men are not de facto exempted from the directiue power of temporall Princes and that they are bound to obserue their lawes not only by force of reason but also by force and vertue of the law 103 Now Mr. Fitzherbert in like manner being not able to proue as you haue seene this his fained naturall subordination of the temporall common-wealth to the spirituall except only in perfection worth and excellencie as spirituall things are more excellent then temporall which is nothing to the purpose and denyed by no man and hauing brought not so much as one proofe that the temporall power and spirituall doe make one body but barely and briefly supposeth the same whereas aboue in the second part I haue euidently conuinced the contrarie euen according to Card. Bellarmines owne grounds yet he feareth not to impeach of absurditie and impietie this doctrine which denyeth the aforesaid subordination and vnion thinking belike silly man that his bare I say is sufficient to satisfie the vnderstanding of the iudicious Reader But I let passe saith he i Pag. 108. nu 22. Widdringtons absurd and impious doctrine destroying the naturall subordination of temporall things to spirituall when they are ioyned in one body which I haue amply k Supra num 2. 3. seq proued euen by the law of Nature and I only wish to be obserued that albeit we should grant it to be true as it is most false that spirituall and temporall things may take the nature the one of the other equally by reason of some sinne annexed yet it would follow thereon that the spirituall Superiour may punish euen in temporall things because according to this doctrine temporall things doe become spirituall when the consideration of sinne entereth whereby also they are made proper to the spirituall communitie and consequently may be vsed and applyed by the spirituall Superiour to the punishment of his subiects 104 But first to let passe that Mr. Fitzherbert throughout this whole Treatise hath shewed himselfe to be a very vaine absurd ignorant and fowlemouthed man and that heere he hath proued nothing else by the law of Nature then that spirituall things are to be preferred before temporall things as the more perfect before the lesse perfect the soule before the body religion before policie heauen before earth and God before the world and consequently that the temporall common-wealth is in perfection worth and excellencie but not in authoritie subiect to the spirituall which no man calleth in question why doth he adde out of his owne braine that word equally except only to cauill and to perswade his Reader that I affirmed that spirituall and temporall things may be compared together not only in generall but also in euery point in particular and that betwixt them there is no disparitie at all seeing that I did not vse that word equally but the doctrine which I taught was this that not only temporall things by reason of some sinne annexed may oftentimes take the nature of spirituall things and therefore may be forbidden by the spirituall power of the Church which hath for the obiect of her directiue power vertue and vice in what actions so euer either temporall or spirituall they are to be found and consequently may be punished also by the Church with Ecclesiasticall Censures which only are the obiect of her coerciue or
punishing power but also spirituall things by reason of some vnlawfull disturbance of the publike temporall peace annexed vnto them may sometimes take the nature of temporall things and therefore may be forbidden by the temporall power of the Ciuill common-wealth which hath for the obiect of her directiue power the procuring and maintaining of publike peace and the shunning of all vnlawfull disturbance of this temporall peace in what actions soeuer either temporall or spirituall they are to be found and consequently may be also punished if we abstract from the priueledges of Princes and Ecclesiasticall Canons with temporall punishments which only are the obiect of the temporall coerciue power For what sensible man can deny that temporall Princes haue authoritie if we regard the nature and obiects of temporall power to forbid all men whatsoeuer that are subiect to their directiue power as also according to the common doctrine of Diuines are Cleargie men not to disturbe wrongfully the publike temporall peace by any actions whatsoeuer and to punish all them that shall transgresse their iust command and are subiect to their coerciue power with temporall punishments and that when the temporall Prince forbiddeth all vnlawfull poysonings the vnlawfull poysoning of men by spirituall actions as by baptizing with poisoned water is not contained vnder this command 105 Secondly it is not true that granting once as I often doe that temporall things may take the nature of spirituall things by reason of sinne annexed it must follow thereon as Mr. Fitzherbert concludeth that the spirituall Superiour may punish in temporall things or which he taketh for all one may inflict temporall punishments and the perspicuous reason heereof I alledged before for although temporall punishments doe become spirituall things when the consideration of sinne entereth for which they may be subiect to the directiue power of the Church which hath for her obiect vertue or vice and consequently they may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power of the Church as it is directiue yet still they remaine temporall punishments which are only subiect to the coerciue or punishing power of temporall Princes and therefore cannot be vsed or inflicted by the coerciue or punishing power of the Church which hath for her obiect spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures and not temporall punishments Wherefore vnlesse the consideration of sinne can make which is impossible temporall punishments to be I doe not say spirituall things but spirituall punishments it can neuer make temporall punishments to be the obiect of the spirituall power as it is coerciue although it maketh them to be the obiect of the spirituall power as it is directiue But my Aduersarie by not distinguishing these two powers and their proper acts and obiects would blind the vnderstanding of his vnlearned Reader with a confused reduction of temporall things to spirituall which this distinction of the directiue and coerciue power and the proper acts and obiects of either of them doth make most plaine and manifest 106 Also if temporall things saith Mr. Fitzherbert l Pag. 1. 8. nu 23. 24. may be come spirituall by reason of sinne annexed why shall they not also haue a spirituall nature and qualitie by the connexion of some vertue and specially when they are applied as I haue said before to a spirituall end as to the seruice and glory of God which is the end of all things spirituall and temporall to which purpose it may be obserued Rom. 12. that S. Paul exhorted the Romaines to exhibite their bodies hostiam viuentem sanctam Deo placentem c. a liuing sacrifice holy and pleasing God giuing to vnderstand that our bodies goods and what temporall thing soeuer is subiect to our soule being dedicated and applyed to Gods seruice and the good of the soule is sanctified therby and becommeth spirituall Whereupon it followeth that whensoeuer a spirituall Superiour punisheth his temporall subiects in their bodies or goods for satisfaction of their sinnes and for the seruice of God and the Church and the good of soules their corporall and temporall punishments becommeth spirituall by reason of the end and the vertue annexed and consequently is most lawfull and iust euen according to my Aduersarie Widdringtons owne doctrine 107 Whereto I also adde that whereas Widdrington saith that euerie Superiour may punish his subiects with penalties proportionate to his authoritie he must needes grant the same in this case for albeit temporall goods haue no naturall proportion with spirituall things yet they haue a morall proportion therewith because they are not able instruments of good workes â— Pet. 2. in which respect S. Peter calleth Almes and other good workes spirituales Hostias spirituall Sacrifices albeit they consist in the vse and imployment of temporall things and therefore when temporall things are necessarie to a spirituall end they may be disposed of by the Church as proportionate to the end whereto they are necessarie 108 No man maketh any doubt but that temporall things may become spirituall not only by reason of sinne but also of vertue annexed especially when they are applyed to a spirituall end as to the seruice and glory of God who is the end of all things spirituall and temporall and therefore when one doth punish his body by fasting discipline hairecloath or such like for the satisfaction of his sinnes and for the seruice of God although they be corporall punishments yet they are vertuous actions and in that regard spirituall things and consequently subiect to the spirituall power of the Church as it is directiue But from hence it doth not follow that these temporall punishments by reason of vertue annexed doe become spirituall punishments but only vertuous actions and in that regard spirituall things for still they remaine temporall punishments and therefore not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church as it is coerciue which hath for her obiect only the vsing and inflicting of Ecclesiasticall or spirituall not temporall or Ciuill punishments Wherefore a spirituall Superiour hath no authoritie by the institution of Christ to punish in body or goods for any end whatsoeuer by way of constraint his spirituall subiects whether they be Clearkes or Lay-men whom Mr. Fitzherbert improperly calleth his temporall Subiects for although they be temporall men yet comparing them to spirituall Superiours they are spirituall not temporall Subiects for that the obiect of the spirituall coerciue power are not temporall or corporall but only spirituall Censures or punishments although he may as I said command such corporall punishments when they are necessarie for the good of the soule in which case they become spirituall things to wit vertuous actions which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power But the cause of Mr. Fitzherberts errour is for that he doth not distinguish betwixt spirituall or temporall things and spirituall or temporall punishments and betwixt the acts and obiects of the spirituall directiue and of the spirituall coerciue power for although temporall punishments by reason of
vertue annexed doe become spirituall things that is vertuous actions and therefore subiect to the spirituall directiue power yet they doe not become spirituall Censures and therefore not subiect to the spirituall power as it is coerciue but they still remaine temporall punishments which are the obiect only of the temporall coerciue power 109 Wherefore that also which he addeth that euery Superiour may according to my doctrine punish his Subiect with penalties proportionate to his authoritie is very true but he must still distinguish betwixt the directiue and coerciue power or authoritie and in what manner temporall punishments are proportionate to either of them For because as well temporall as spirituall punishments may be vertuous or vicious actions therefore they are proportionate to the spirituall directiue power whose proper acts and obiects are the commanding of vertue and the forbidding of vice but because not the commanding either of temporall or spirituall punishments but only the actuall punishing with Ecclesiasticall censures or the inflicting of spirituall punishments is the proper act and obiect of the spirituall coerciue power therefore the inflicting onely of spirituall punishments and not of temporall is proportionate to the spirituall coerciue power From whence it euidently followeth that the Church for a spirituall end may command temporall things but not dispose of temporall things may command one to giue Almes for the satisfaction of his sinnes but may not take away his purse from him to giue Almes for that end may commaund one to punish and macerate his body when it rebelleth against the soule but not inflict vpon him corporall punishments for the same end 110 And by this also all the rest which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in this Chapter is clearely answered and the manifest absurditie which hee would put vpon mee doth manifestly fall vpon himselfe But now saith he m Pag. 109. nu 25.26.27 if together with all this we consider the naturall subordination of temporall things to spirituall whereof I haue sufficiently treated before n Supra num 2 3.4 seq Widdringtons absurdity will be most manifest as well in denying that the spirituall Superiour may punish his subiect in his person or temporall goods for a spirituall end as in affirming that the spirituall power may become subiect to the temporall no lesse then the temporall to the spirituall as though there were no subordination or subiection of the one to the other wherein he peruerteth the whole course of Nature no lesse then if he should say that in some cases the soule may be subiect to the body heauen to earth religion to policie Angels to men and God to the world whereby you may still see what probable arguments and answers he affordeth his Reader for the assurance and security of their consciences See Preface num 9. See also the answere therto nu 9. seq and that he had great reason to protest as you may remember I haue signified in the Preface that his meaning is not to lay downe any demonstrations or infallible arguments for the proofe or defence of his opinion 111 For truely all that he saith doth demonstrate nothing else but the weakenesse of his cause and his owne wilfulnesse if not of malice in defending such an improbable and extrauagant Paradoxe as this is which hee holdeth and defendeth contrary to the vniuersall and continuall custome of the Church grounded vpon the holy Scriptures the practise of the Apostles and the decrees of Popes and Councels and finally contrary to the whole course of the Canon law as it will euidently appeare in the ensuing Chapters and as Cardinall Bellarmine against Barclay and Doctour Schulckenius in his late Apologie for the Cardinall and diuers others haue sufficiently shewed and amongst our learned Countrimen Mr. Doctor Weston hath clerely soundly proued it in his booke intituled Iuris Pontificij Sanctuarium wherein he battereth all the foundations of my Aduersarie Widdringtons doctrine and fully confuteth him as well in all other points as in this touching the Popes power to punish temporally which hee o Quest 17.18.19.20.21 22. doth learnedly and amply demonstrate as well by the holy Scriptures as by many examples of the Churches practise to wit by diuers kinde of diuorces by the relaxation of debts exemption of children frō the power of their parents the abrogation of temporall and Ciuill lawes the dissolution of contracts and bargaines and finally by the imposition of temporall penalties almost vsuall and ordinarie in the practise of the Church as hee sheweth very particularly by the Ecclesiasticall Canons I forbeare for breuities sake to prosecute these points in particular only I shall haue iust occasion to treate now and then of the infliction of temporall penalties in answer of my Aduersaries pertinent obiections out of the Canons and Canonists which I hope may suffice for as much as I haue vndertaken to performe in this briefe Reply 112 But all that my Aduersary heere obiecteth I haue alreadie sufficiently confuted And first I haue cleerely conuinced that there is no naturall subordination of the temporall power to the spiritual except in nobilitie and therefore that neither the spirituall power speaking properly and in abstracto is subiect to the temporall nor the temporall to the spirituall except as I said in worth excellency and nobilitie wherein the spirituall doth excell but not in authoritie wherein they are both supreme vnlesse my Aduersaries will grant that temporall Princes are not supreme and absolute in temporall matters and spirituall Pastours are not supreme and absolute in spirituall causes which is a Paradox in true Diuinity Secondly I haue proued also most plainly that not onely temporall Princes being parts and members of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ are subiect to spirituall Pastours in spirituall things but also spirituall Pastours being parts and members of the temporall common-wealth are subiect to temporall Princes in all temporall things except wherein the law of God or man hath exempted them and to affirme the contrary were to peruert the whole course of Nature no lesse then if one should say that members are not subiect to the whole body and to the head thereof the bodie and soule to man heauen and earth to the whole world religion pollicy men Angels and the whole world to God Whereby you still see what improbable arguments answeres my Aduersary affoordeth his Readers for the assurance and securitie of their consciences in a matter belonging to their obedience due to God and Caesar and which forsooth he will needes haue to be a point of faith to the proofe whereof it is not sufficient to bring probable arguments but conuincing demonstrations as contrariwise it sufficeth to bring probable arguments and probable answeres to prooue any doctrine not to be certaine and of faith as I haue shewed more amply in the answere to his Preface whereto heere he remitteth his Reader 113 For truely all the effectuall proofes and cleere demonstrations which
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
other temporall commodities as I haue shewed in the last Chapter c Num. 18. 6 But truely I cannot but smile to see the vanitie of this man who though he see himselfe altogether vanquished yet he boasteth that hee is victorious and although he clearely perceiueth yea and almost expressely confesseth that his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. Chapter to be quite ouerthrowne yet hee braggeth that his cause is not thereby weakened or hurt any way but rather fortified and strengthened For if you note well what he granteth to wit That the penalty of corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the olde and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by excommunication you cannot but clearely see that his argument taken from Deuteronomy the 17. Chapter which onely text in particular I vndertooke to answere and which speaketh onely of corporall death is quite ouerthrowne and yet forsooth I doe hereby rather fortifie and strengthen then weaken or hurt any way his cause By which you may plainely perceiue what credit is to be giuen to the rest of his vaine-glorious brags seeing that in this so manifest an ouerthrow of his argument taken from the words of Deuteronomie the 17. he is not ashamed to boast that I haue rather fortified and strengthened then weakened or hurt any way his cause But will Widdrington saith he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication includeth a temporall punishment c. The inference that Widdrington maketh is that from the wordes of Deuteronomy the 17. which speake onely of corporall death Mr. Fitzherbert hath brought no good argument for that according to the doctrine of Saint Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine which hee himselfe also will not denie The penalty of corporall death is now in the new law turned to the death of the soule by Excommunication Neither is it true that Excommunication being of it own nature a separation frō the Ecclesiasticall conuersation of the faithfull doth of it owne nature include any temporall punishment at all as also I haue shewed in the last Chapter albeit I doe not denie that the Church hath now by way of command annexed to Excommunication some temporall penalties but not by way of inflicting them as I declared in that place for I euer granted that the Church hath power to command enioyne or impose temporall punishments but not to inflict them yet these to command and to inflict to impose and to dispose my Aduersary doth commonly confound 7 Besides that saith Mr. Fitzherbert d Pag. 114. numer 4.5 it is euident that in the olde Testament euen the temporall Princes themselues were punished by depriuation of their right to their temporall states and dominions as e 1 Reg. 16. Saul by Samuel Athalia f 4 Reg. 11. by Ioiada Ioram g 4 Reg. 9. by one of the children of the Prophets who being sent by Elizeus annointed Iehu King of Israel to the end he might destroy Iesabel all the house of Achab. Also Ozias was not only corporally expelled out of the temple by the Priests confined by their sentence to liue priuately is his own house but according to the opinion doctrine of S. Chrysostome he ought also to haue beene wholy depriued of the gouernment as I haue signified before h Cap. 5. nu 21. 22. at large And therefore seeing he telleth vs how the penalty of corporall death which was ordained in the olde Testament is now fulfilled spiritually in the new let him also tell vs to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their states and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end that wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment and in the meane time let him acknowledge according to his owne doctrine and instance here produced that the Church may punish temporally seeing it may excommunicate and consequently depriue men of many temporall commodities 8 But this also is very vntrue that the Priests of the olde Testament had authoritie to punish temporall Princes by depriuing them of their right to their temporall states and dominions as I amply prooued aboue in the 5. Chapter Neither doe these examples brought here by Mr. Fitzherbert prooue any such thing For to the examples of King Ozias and Athalia I haue answered aboue at large And as for the other two besides that Samuel Elias and Elizeus were not Priests it is manifest that what they did concerning the annointing or deposing of any King they did it not by their owne authority but onely as Prophets and speciall messengers sent by God to that purpose How long saith God to Samuel i 1 Reg. 16. dost thou mourne Saul whom I haue reiected that hee rule not ouer Israel Fill thy horne with oyle and come that I may send thee to Isai the Bethleemite for I haue prouided me a King among his Sons And again Goe saith God to k 3 Reg. 19. Elias and returne into thy way by the desert of Damascus and when thou art come thither thou shalt annoint Hazael King ouer Syria and Iehu the Sonne of Namsi thou shalt annoint King ouer Israel and Elizeus the Sonne of Saphat thou shalt annoynt Prophet for thee And therefore he that was sent by Elizeus to annoint Iehu was commanded to speake in the person of God not of Elizeus And holding saith l 4 Reg. 9. Elizeus to him that was sent the little boxe of oyle thou shalt power vpon his head and shalt say Thus saith our Lord I haue annointed thee King ouer Israel Now what man of iudgement would make this inference that because in the olde lawe some Prophets who were no Priests did by the expresse commandement of God make annoint or depose Kings therefore the Priests in the new law haue ordinary power and authority to doe the same Belike Mr. Fitzherbert will approoue also this argument that because Elias was commanded by God to annoint not onely Iehu King ouer Israel but also Hazael King ouer Syria therefore the Pope hath authority to make and depose not onely Christian but also Pagan Kings 9 Wherefore that demand which is heere made by my Aduersary to what spirituall punishment the depriuation of Princes right to their States and other temporall penalties then vsuall are now conuerted to the end wee may see the correspondence of the figure to the veritie in matters of punishment is friuolous both for that the Priests of the old law had no authority to depriue Kings of their temporall States and Dominions or to inflict temporall punishments and also albeit they had such an authority neuerthelesse it could not bee prooued from thence by deducing an argument from the figure to the veritie that therefore
the Priests of the new law must haue authoritie to doe the like but things farre more noble and excellent for that the veritie must be of a more high and excellent order then the figure as in the fifth Chapter I proued more at large And therefore as in the olde law all the figures promises and punishments were temporall so in the new law the veritie promises and punishments which correspond thereunto must be spirituall not temporall for otherwise the figure should bee the same with the veritie and not of an higher nature and order then the verity So that temporall life must correspond to spirituall life temporall kingdomes to spirituall kingdomes temporall goods to spirituall goods temporall promises and rewards to spirituall promises and rewards and temporall punishments to spirituall punishments all which spirituall punishments are contained in Excommunication Maior and Minor and in other Ecclesiasticall Censures and punishments And to that which he addeth in the end that I must acknowledge according to my owne doctrine that the Church may punish temporally seeing that shee may excommunicate I haue already fully m Cap. answered and denyed his consequence for that the Church of Christ neither by ExcoÌ„munication nor by any other way hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but only to punish temporally by way of command which no man denyeth And thus much concerning the olde law 10 Now to the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert brought out of the new Testament I answered thus Sixtly those places of the new Testament Quodcunque solueris super terram c. n Matth. 16. Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth c. and Pasce oues meas o Ioan. 21. Feede my sheepe as also the reason which Fa. Parsons bringeth to wit that otherwise the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth should bee imperfect and not sufficient for it selfe are explicated by mee elsewhere And that corporall killing of Ananias and Saphira and the visible deliuering of the fornicatour to Sathan are to be referred to the grace of miracles Neither will this Authour say as I imagine that the Pope hath power to kill wicked men and malefactours with the word of his mouth 11 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth in the same order And first to my answere to those two places Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feede my sheepe which I made in my Apologie p Apolog. nu 35. seq nu 203. seq wherevnto I remitted the Reader he replieth thus q Pag. 115. nu 6.7.8 That which Widdrington saith in his Apologie concerning these two texts allâ—dged out of the Gospell is no other but to prooue that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely which we willingly grant as D. Adolphus Schulckenius r Adolph Schulck in Apolog c. 4. § Respondeo p. 136 in his answere for Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared sufficiently and tolde my Aduersary Widdrington withall how vainely he hath laboured with a long discourse and many idle words to prooue that which neither the Cardinall nor any other Catholike will deny 12 For wee willingly grant saith Schulckenius that the Popes power is formally spirituall though virtually it is also temporall extending it selfe to temporall things so farre forth as they are subordinate to the spirituall and the necessitie of the Church shall require So hee Å¿ Ibidem and afterwards he also explicateth the same in these words Nam animus noster spiritus est c. For our soule saith he is a spirit and hath a spirituall power and yet it doth not onely thereby gouerne the body which is subiect vnto it but doth also chastise it with corporall punishments as watching hairecloth fasting and whipping And therefore if Bellarmine did say that the Pope doth iudge the faults of Princes and vpon their desert depriue them sometimes of their gouernment by a temporall power his Aduersary Widdrington should say somewhat to the purpose but now seeing that Bellarmine saith that the Pope vseth a spirituall power when hee depriueth Princes of their States for spirituall and Ecclesiasticall crimes such as heresies and Schismes are his Aduersary Widdrington doth idlely beate the ayre c. for he should haue prooued that a supreme spirituall power cannot extend it selfe to dispose of temporall things as they are referred to spirituall things Thus saith Schulckenius 13 And thereof my Aduersary Widdrington might haue taken notice if it had pleased him when he referred me and his Readers to his Apologie for answere to those places For albeit he may perhaps pretend that hee had not seene Schulckenius his Apologie for the Cardinall before hee had ended his Theologicall Disputation yet it is euident that he had seene and read it before he wrote his Admonition to the Reader wherein he writeth against me For he not onely maketh mention therein of the Apologie of Schulckenius but also carpeth at him for some things that hee handleth and therefore if he had meant sincerely he would not haue remitted vs to his owne Apologie for this point without some confutation of Schulckenius his Answere thereto I meane of so much as concerneth this matter For otherwise he may multiply bookes and write of this controuersie as long as he liueth and all to no purpose if he will still stand vpon his first grounds and dissemble the answeres that are made thereto and therefore as hee remitteth me to his Apologie so I remit him also to the answere of Schulckenius which I haue partly laide downe heere and may be seene more at large in him And this shall suffice for this point 14 But truely it is intollerable that these men should so shamefully both abuse me and delude their Reader I doe not say onely in dissembling the answere I made to their argument but in plainly corrupting the words and manifest sense thereof in which manner they may multiply bookes and make Replies with ease but with shame enough For it is too too apparantly vntrue that I labored in that place to prooue nothing else as those men falsly affirme but that which neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny to wit that Christ gaue to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely although it be well knowne that the common opinion of the Canonists doth deny the same who contend that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter not onely spirituall but also temporall authoritie and made him thereby not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert is grosly mistaken in saying so boldly that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely For I did not contend in that place about the authority which was giuen to Saint Peter to binde and loose which Cardinall Bellarmine taketh to bee all one with to feede his sheepe whether it was temporall or spirituall or both as the Canonists wil haue it but about the acts
it will not be amisse to set downe the substance of that I answered to Cardinall Bellarmines second argument which is the same in effect with that of Fa. Parsons and also to examine what D. Schulckenius replieth to the same To prooue therefore that the Church hath power to dispose of temporall things and to inflict temporall punishments Cardinall Bellarmine bringeth this argument Bel. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. The Ecclesiasticall common-wealth ought to be perfect and sufficient for it selfe in order to her end for such are all well established Common-wealths therefore shee ought to haue all power necessary to the attaining of her end but power to vse and to dispose of temporalls is necessary to the spirituall end because otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment fauour heretickes and ouerthrow religion therefore she hath also this power 20 To this argument I answered in my Apologie a Nu. 176. 177. seq first by distinguishing that equiuocall proposition The Ecclesiastical Common-wealth ought to be perfect and to haue all power sufficient and necessary to the attaining of her end which is the eternall saluation of soules For first the sense of that proposition may bee that the Church hath such a sufficient power to obtaine her end which is the saluation of soules that she can actually bring all soules to Paradise and can take away all the obstacles and lets which can any wise hinder the saluation of soules which sense those wordes of Cardinall Bellarmine b In Resp ad Tract Gersonii de valid Excom in consid 11. may haue which affirme that the Pope can effect all that which is necessary to bring soules to Paradise and that he can remoue all the impedements which the world or the Deuill withall their forces and sleights can oppose And this sense is plainly false and very well impugned by Paulus Venetus in his Italian Apologie c Fol. 57. colâ—â—n 2. both for that the Pope hath no sufficient meanes to saue an infant in the mothers wombe whom she cannot bring foorth aliue because it is not lawfull to cut the mothers wombe that the childe may be baptized or to saue him who being in mortall sinne is fallen mad vntill he returne to his wits againe which neuerthelesse is not in the Popes power Also the Pope hath no power ouer the internall motions of the minde which are very necessary to saluation Also for that there should neither bee Turkes nor Infidels nor Heretickes nor so much as euill Christians without the Popes great fault if hee could effect all that which is necessarie to bring soules to Paradise and could remooue all those things which doe hinder the obtaining of eternal saluation 21 Now concerning this first part of the distinction D. Schulckenius doth not deny that the aforesaid proposition The Ecclesiasticall common-wealth ought to bee perfect c. is in this sense false but hee denieth that Cardinall Bellarmine vnderstood it in this sense and he only reprehendeth me for omitting to set downe what Cardinall Bellarmine answered to the obiections of Paulus Venetus I answere saith he d Cap. 8. ad nu 177. p. 350. My Aduersarie Widdrington had done well if when hee related Paulus Venetus his arguments and vnnecessarie subtilties hee had also adioyned Cardinall Bellarmines answere For so both hee had done the Reader a pleasure and also had eased vs of the paines to answere But it is well that Paulus Venetus his arguments are not such that we must labour much to answere them For that which Bellarmine said that the Pope can effect all that which is necessarie to bring soules to Paradise and can remoue all the impediments c. is to be vnderstood in this sense that the Popes power is not limited or restrained as it is in men of inferiour Orders but it is most ample and most great and therefore the whole and full Ecclesiasticall power to giue Sacraments Indulgences Benefices to make lawes Decrees Canons to dispense in Oathes lawes vowes to examine iudge punish and that in euery Diocesse Prouince Kingdome It is to be added that these things are to be vnderstood for as much as concerneth the Popes part and in a matter fit to receiue his action And therefore no maruaile if the Pope cannot bring to saluation soules obstinate in heresie or in sinnes especially internall For it is their owne fault not the Popes seeing that he doth apply remedies of themselues effectual if they themselues would admit them So also it is no meruaile if the Pope cannot apply a remedy to an infant being in danger in the mothers wombe because such an infant is not capable of the Popes helpe And the same reason is of a man who when he hath committed a mortall sinne falleth madde c. 22 But first although when I published my Apologie I had seene Cardinall Bellarmines Reply to Paulus Venetus as I did not and therefore could not set downe what the Cardinal answered to his obiection yet I must then also haue affirmed as also I doe now that whatsoeuer Cardinall Bellarmines meaning was yet his words are so generall and without any limitation or declaration that they may very well be vnderstood in the aforesaide sense The Pope saith hee can effect all that which is necessary to bring soules to Paradise and can remooue all the impediments which the world and the Deuill with all their forces and sleights can oppose Seeing therefore that the Diuell can by his power cast a man being in mortall sinne into phrencie by which he is hindered from attaining to eternall saluation and can hinder an infant from being baptized by causing the mother not to deliuer it aliue and also can cause sundry inward motions in the soule of man and because Cardinall Bellarmines words are so generall and without any limitation or declaration The Pope saith he can remooue all the impediments to saluation which the Deuill with all his force and sleight can oppose it is plaine that they may very well bee so vnderstood that the Pope can also remooue the aforesaid impediments for that those impediments are included in all impediments as a particular in a vniuersall and therefore to take away all occasion of errour it was not vnnecessary to declare in what sense those wordes being so generall might bee true or false 23 Besides although the Popes power bee not so limitted and restrained as it is in men of inferiour Orders but it is most ample most great and full in a certaine measure and degree yet this Doctour cannot be ignorant that there is a great controuersie among learned Catholikes concerning the amplitude greatnesse and fulnesse of the Popes power as well in spirituals as in temporals For the Canonists doe hold that he hath formally properly and directly both temporall and spirituall power and that he is not onely a supreme spirituall Pastour but also a temporall Monarch but this Doctour with some other Diuines doe maintaine that he hath formally
properly and directly no temporall power but onely spirituall yet by this spirituall power of his they say he can dispose of all things and inflict all kinde of punishments as well temporall as spirituall as if hee had formally and directly temporall power and therefore they will not call this power of the Pope to dispose of all temporalls formally and directly but vertually and indirectly temporall power or a supreme power to dispose of all temporalls in order to spirituall good Other Diuines and Lawyers whom I cited aboue in the first part doe contend that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath neither formally nor virtually neither directly nor indirectly any temporal power or authority to dispose of temporall things or to inflict temporall punishments but onely spirituall power by which he may dispose or dispence in spirituall things and inflict spirituall punishments and also command enioyne or impose temporall things as in them may be found vertue or vice which are the obiect of the spirituall directiue power but no way dispose of temporall things or inflict temporall or ciuill punishments for that these are the acts and obiects onely of ciuill power 24 Neither also can this Doctour be ignorant that there is a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and of Paris about the amplitude greatnesse and fulnesse of the Popes spirituall power insomuch that Iacobus Almainus a famous Doctour of Paris doth affirme e Almain de author Eccles cap. 3. that there is so great a controuersie among Doctours concerning the plenitude or fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and to what things it is extended that in this matter there are few things secure or without doubt so that as William Occam saith it would bee very necessarie in these times that wise men being compelled by Oaths and horrible threatnings to speake the trueth should declare what things doe belong to the plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power and much more of Papall authoritie which Almaine with the other Diuines of Paris doe make inferiour to the power of the Church or of a Generall Councell Gerson de potest Eccles consid 12. which doth represent the Church for as Iohn Gerson and the said Almaine doe affirme deceitfull flatterie hath now ouermuch extended and amplified the greatnesse and fulnesse of Papall authoritie 25 Moreouer although I will not denie that the Pope hath authoritie to make lawes and Canons yet it is not certaine that hee hath authority to make lawes and Canons to binde a generall Councell for that the Doctours of Paris doe affirme that a generall Councell hath authority to make laws Canons to binde the Pope according to the expresse definitions of the Councels of Constance and Basill Conc. Const sess 5. The Councell doth ordaine define decree and determine saith the Councell of Constance as followeth And first it doth declare that the said Councell being gathered in the holy Ghost making a generall Councell and representing the Catholike Church hath immediately from Christ authority which euery man of what state or dignity soeuer although it be papall is bound to obey in those things which belong to faith and to the rooting out of the said Schisme and to the reforming of the said Church in the head and members Also it doth declare that euery man of whatsoeuer condition state or dignity hee bee although it be Papall that shall obstinately contemne to obey the commaundes statutes decrees or precepts of this sacred Synode being lawfully gathered concerning the aforesaid or appertaining to any of them made or to be made vnlesse he shall repent let him be subiect to condigne pennance and be deseruedly punished by hauing also recourse if it shal be needfull to other helps of law Which decrees of the Councell of Constance the Councell also of Basill which was lawfully called by Pope Eugenius the 4. and which at that time when these decrees were made Concil Basil sess 2. was not accounted a Schismaticall but a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell doth in the same expresse words confirme 26 Also although I will not deny that the Pope hath authority to dispence in vowes and oathes yet it is not certaine that hee hath authority to dispense in all vowes and in all oathes for that many Diuines do with S. Thomas maintaine that he hath not power to dispence in the solemne vowe of religious chastity or in those oathes which are made to confirme any thing which wee are otherwise bound to performe by the law of God or nature because the opinion of the Thomists is that the Pope doth dispence in oathes onely by declaring that the thing which is confirmed by oath is not now a sufficient matter of an oath as I haue declared more at large elsewhere f Disputat Theolog. c. 6. sec 6. nu 8. in Resp Apol. nu 148. 149. Lastly although I doe willingly graunt that the Pope hath authority to punish yet it is not certaine that he hath authority to punish with all kinde of punishments for that many learned Catholikes doe holde as you may see more at large aboue in the first part that Ecclesiasticall power is by the institution of Christ restrained onely to Ecclesiasticall Censures and cannot inflict temporall or ciuill punishments as death banishment imprisonment depriuing of temporall goods c. And thus much concerning the first part of the aforesaid distinction now touching the second part 27 Secondly therefore the meaning of Cardinall Bellarmines aforesaid proposition The Ecclesiasticall common-wealth ought to bee perfect and to haue all power sufficient and necessarie c. may bee that the Church hath all power sufficient and necessarie in order to her ende which is the saluation of soules in respect of the power it selfe and not in respect also of all those things which are in any wise necessarie that the power may actually worke her effect As the power for example of the Sunne to giue light may bee vnderstood sufficient either in respect of the power it selfe to giue light or in respect also of those things which doe any way concurre to the actuall giuing of light and which things if they bee wanting will hinder the giuing of light of which sort are a proportionate distance a capable and well disposed subiect And although the Sunne hath not sufficient power to remoue all those impediments which may hinder her actuall giuing of light for so it should draw the body that is to bee enlightened within a sufficient distance and make it also diaphanum cleare or perspicuous which to doe is not is the power of the Sunne neuerthelesse what man can therefore deny that the Sunne hath a perfect power and of it selfe sufficient to enlighten 28 And in this sense the aforesaid antecedent proposition is true For the Christian common-wealth or the Church of Christ hath a perfect and sufficient power for it selfe to bring soules to the kingdome of heauen for as much as belongeth to the power it selfe which neuerthelesse
doeth suppose the subiect to bee otherwise apt and well disposed For she hath power granted her by Christ to giue grace whereby we may come to the kingdome of heauen to Infants by the Sacrament of Baptisme and to men of discretion also by other Sacraments but especially of Penance by which the Priest as a Minister of Christ by vertue of the keyes which he hath receiued from Christ absolueth from sinnes and giueth grace neuerthelesse this power to worke actually her effect supposeth certaine necessarie dispositions on the behalfe of the persons who are to receiue the Sacraments as well in Infants as in men of discretion which dispositions the Church hath not alwayes power to procure Also besides this power which the Diuines call of Order the Church hath also power of Iurisdiction for shee hath authoritie to preach the word of GOD to correct sinners to make lawes and to punish the transgressours with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments For as the Church and the Ecclesiasticall power is spirituall so also she ought to haue meanes proportionate to such an end Wee graunt therefore the antecedent proposition in this sense which we haue now declared but we deny c. 29 Now this Doctour although hee granteth all this which I haue said to bee true yet he cannot forbeare to take certaine idle exceptions against the same I answere saith he g Pag. 353. ad nu 179. seq although all this doe make little or nothing to the soluing of Cardinall Bellarmines argument but to the enlarging of the volume of his booke they make much yet I would relate what hee hath said for that I saw certaine things to bee noted therein But whether they make little or nothing to solue Cardinall Bellarmines argument you shall see anon this is a vsuall tricke of this Doctour especially when my answere or argument is of greatest force that hee knoweth not well what to reply thereunto then with some idle or despitefull words to shift it of as that it is spoken either to disgrace Cardinall Bellarmine or to make the Sea Apostolike odious and dreadfull to Christian Princes or that it is nothing to the purpose but to enlarge my booke and to make it seeme to bee of a competent volume and such like trifling toies which doe argue rather want of matter and a spirit of contradiction then a true desire to examine sincerely this important and difficult controuersie and which with as great facilitie and farre greater reason may bee retorted backe vpon himselfe for his often repeating of the same sentences and which are nothing to the purpose as that of S. Leo Ecclesiastica lenitas refugit cruentas vltiones Ecclesiasticall lenitie doeth shunne cruell punishments which is nothing to the soluing of my argument and spending many wordes to prooue that the Pope hath power to command and enioyne temporall penalties whereof I made no question and consuming twentie eight whole pages to prooue that S. Peter and his Successours are the heads of the Church which no Catholike doth deny and which make little or nothing to the impugning of my doctrine but to the enlarging the volume of his booke they make much 30 Now you shall see what goodly obseruations this Doctour hath found out in this part of my answere First saith he h Pag. 353. it is to bee obserued that my Aduersarie Widdrington I know not with what cunning hath transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian Common-wealth or the Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels For in Bellarmines argument the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth is taken in the first and not in the later sense But Widdrington answereth of the Christian common-wealth as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men Let he himselfe see with what simplicitie hee did it who otherwise doeth seeme so scrupulously to shunne equiuocations 31 But first it is to bee obserued with what cunning or ignorance this Doctour affirmeth that I haue transferred the question from the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth as it is distinguished from the Common-wealth of Christian Laikes to the Christian common-wealth or Church of Christ as it is distinguished from the companie of Pagans and infidels See Apolog. nu 176. 180. seq seeing that I expresly spake of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth as it is a spirituall common-wealth and as it hath spirituall power Now with what colour of probabilitie can this Doctour inferre from any one word of mine that I euer saide that Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth reside in Lay-men or that when I treate of the spirituall power of the Church or of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth I take the Church as it comprehendeth Church-men and Lay-men True it is that the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Common-wealth kingdome or Church of Christ when wee speake properly and generally is taken both by Cardinall Bellarmine and my selfe as it comprehendeth Cleargie-men and Lay-men that is as it containeth both spirituall power and spirituall subiection spirituall Pastours and spirituall subiects and therefore Cardinall Bellarmine before in his first reason affirmed that Kings and Bishops Cleargie-men and Lay-men doe not make two common-wealths but one onely that is one Church As likewise a temporall common-wealth or kingdome when we speake properly and generally is taken as it comprehendeth both temporall Kings and temporall subiects that is as it containeth both ciuill power and ciuill subiection For what man of iudgement speaking generally of a temporall kingdome by the name of the kingdome vnderstandeth onely the King himselfe but when he speaketh of the temporall power of a kingdome as I expresly spake heere of the spirituall power of the Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth no iudicious man can vnderstand that he speaketh of subiects wherein no temporall power doeth reside Let this Doctour therefore see himselfe with what simplicitie he said that I comprehended heere in this answere vnder the name of the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth Cleargie-men and Lay-men when I treated of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power of the Church 32 Secondly it is to bee obserued saith this Doctour i Pag. 354. that which Widdrington heere disputeth of an apt and well disposed subiect that the Ecclesiasticall power may therein worke her effect to be true and that Cardinall Bellarmine hath the same in his answere to the obiections of Paulus Venetus and yet that Widdrington after his accustomed vprightnesse commended the argument of Paulus Venetus and dissembled Card. Bellarmines answere Heere you see that this Doctour granteth the distinction which I made to bee true and that Card. Bellarmine approoueth the same but that which he addeth that I dissembled Cardinall Bellarmines answere is very vntrue for I neuer saw his answere and although I had seene it and so might haue commended his meaning and his declaration yet truely I should not haue commended his words being spoken so generally and without any limitation or declaration seeing
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
Diocletian why can she not also vnder the persecution of the Turkes 37 Secondly neither is it true that I am destitute of Patrons and Doctours who maintaine that the Pope by his spirituall power cannot dispose of temporals or inflict temporall punishments as I haue shewed aboue in the first part where also I prooued that Ioannes Parisiensis doth no way fauour but flatly contradict Card. Bellarmines doctrine and also the very ashes of this Doctours booke if they could speake would giue sufficient testimony against him that this my doctrine is not altogether destitute of Patrons and Doctours But whereas this Doctour should haue prooued that the power to dispose of all temporals is necessary to the saluation of soules which Cardinall Bellarmine affirmed and I denied he flyeth from this reason to the authority of Doctours who affirme that the Pope hath power to dispose of temporals which is to runne vp and downe in a circle from intrinsecall grounds to extrinsecall from reason to authority and contrariwise and neuer to persist in any one medium or argument Wherefore whensoeuer any Author or my selfe do seeme to affirme or suppose that temporall things the disposing of them are in some cases necessary to the general good of the Church and to the saluation of soules it is not to be vnderstood of any absolute necessity but onely of some great conuenience or vtility for which in common speech wee oftentimes take necessity as it is well knowen to euery Logician who hath but read the beginning of Porphyries Introduction Cùm necessarium sit Chysaori c. Whereas it is necessarie o Chysaori c. In which case of necessity or great vtility temporall things are by the institution of Christ to be disposed of to a spirituall end by the temporall and ciuill power of Christian Princes and not by the spirituall power as he hath distinguished the acts offices and functions thereof from ciuill authority 38 But thou wilt say saith this Doctour o Pag. 355. that this power to dispose of temporals is not proportionate to the end of the Ecclesisticall power which is spirituall I answere first saith he that this power to dispose of temporals in the Pope is not formally temporall but formally spirituall and eminently temporall and therefore it is very well proportionate to a spirituall end But this is to declare the selfe same thing by it selfe for to haue vertually or eminently a temporal power is nothing else then to haue a power to dispose of temporall things or to doe all that which the temporall power can do which is the maine poynt which I vtterly deny and consequently affirme that according to the institution of Christ who hath left distinguished the acts functions and properties of the temporall power or Common-weath from them of the spirituall power or Church of Christ to dispose of temporall things and to inflict temporall punishments which are temporall and ciuill acts and punishments are not by the institution of Christ proportionate to the spiritual power and to the end thereof as it is by him distinguished from the ciuil power and the end obiects and acts thereof For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall Kingdome or Common-wealth and distinguished her directiue and coerciue power and the acts and obiects thereof from the acts and obiects of the ciuill power or Common-wealth so also hath he assigned spirituall punishments as meanes proportionate to her coerciue or punishing power as temporal punishments are proportionate to the temporall coerciue power 39 Wherefore this Doctor knowing right well that I haue alwayes denied the Church of Christ to haue either formally or eminently temporall power giueth a second answere I answere secondly saith he p Pag. 356. that temporall goods and the power it selfe ouer temporall goods haue indeede no naturall proportion with spirituall but they haue a very great morall proportion which for the present is sufficient For temporall goods are spirituall instruments of good workes in which respect S. Peter calleth Almes other good works 1 Pet. 2. although corporall spirituales hostias spirituall sacrifices Wherfore as the spirit in man disposeth of corporall actions as Almes fastings chastising of the flesh and such like as they are necessary to the health of the soule hee might adde also to the health of the body so the Prince of the Church may in order to a spirituall end and if his similitude were good may likewise in order to a temporall end dispose of temporall goods which for the same reason that they are necessary to the obtaining of that end for the same reason they are said to be proportionate to the same end 40 But this answere I haue confuted aboue partly in the second part q Par. 2. cap. 8. where I haue shewed that this similitude of the soule and body doth manifestly impugne their doctrine and that the soule doth not dispose of any temporall action as Almes fasting whipping and such like but onely by way of command and also not without the actiue concurrance of some corporall organ and besides that if the similitude were good the Pope should haue power not only for spirituall good but also for temporall to depose temporall Princes to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments and partly aboue in the former Chapter r Num. 108. where Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken this answere verbatim from this Doctour For temporall goods to haue a morall proportion with spirituall and to be spirituall instruments of good or bad workes is nothing else then that they may concurre to vertuous or vicious actions and be the obiect of vertue or vice which therefore may be commanded or forbidden by the spirituall power as it is directiue which hath for her obiect vertue and vice But no morrall proportion reference or relation can alter the nature of temporall goods or puishments or make temporall goods to become spirituall goods and temporall punishments to become spirituall punishments and therefore no such morall proportion is sufficient to cause temporall goods to be disposed or temporall punishments to be inflicted by the spirituall power as it is coerciue whose acts and obiects are onely the disposing of spirituall goods and the inflicting of spirituall punishments for a spirituall end 41 Lastly to the consequence of Cardinal Bellarmines argument whereby he laboured to prooue that the power to vse and dispose of temporals is necessary to the spirituall end I answered thus ſ Apolog. nu 183. by denying his consequence Neither doth it follow from thence as Cardinall Bellarmine doth ill and contrary to himselfe inferre that otherwise wicked Princes may without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For the Church hath as we said power to punish them not indeed with ciuill or temporall but with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments vnlesse perhaps Ecclesiasticall Censures are not woorthy to be reckoned among punishments whereas they are accounted by all men to be most sharpe
and dreadfull punishments Wherefore Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe doth in expresse words affirme t Lib. 3. de Eccles c. 6. that there is no greater punishment which can be inflicted by the Church then is Excommunition and againe u Lib. 3. de Laic c. 22. Aug. l. 1. contra Aduersar leg proph c. 17. that Excommunication is a greater punishment then corporall death and to this purpose hee citeth Saint Augustine affirming that it is more horrible to be deliuered ouer to Sathan by Excommunication then to be strucken with the sword to be consumed by fire or to be deuoured by wilde beasts 42 Now to this answere D. Schulckenius replieth in this manner x Pag. 357. I doe not see saith he in what thing Cardinall Bellarmine doth according to Widdringtons iudgement contradict himselfe That Excommunication is greater then all temporall punishments Bellarmine did write which is most true and no man vnlesse he be impious or madde can deny it but not therefore did he ill or contrary to himselfe write that it is necessary for the Church to haue power to dispose of temporals least that the Prince may without punishment nourish heretickes and ouerthrow religion For many are more afraide of temporall punishments then of Excommunication although this be without comparison the greater as boyes are more afraide of the rod then of loosing their inheritance And this is the cause why the Councell of Lateran cap. 3. did command that Princes who nourish heretickes should first be excommunicated and afterwards if this remedy doth not auaile that the subiects be absolued from their oath of allegiance and their territories be deliuered ouer to others to be possessed by them What will Widdrington say here that a Councell of the whole world was ignorant of the greatnesse of Excommunication or that she did contradict her selfe when she wrote those things Truely prudent men will condemne Widdrington of temerity and ignorance and will not in any wise reprehend the Councell Besides as the Councell of Lateran against those who are ignorant of the greatnesse of Excommunication doth command that the fauourers of heretickes be first excommunicated and afterwards depriued of their temporall dominions so contrariwise the Councell of Trent sess 25. cap. 3. against those who do know the greatnesse of Excommunication commaundeth first that malefactours be punished with temporall punishments with imprisonment exile pecuniary mulcts and at last if these doe not auaile to be strucken with the dart of Excommunication Neither doth the Councell of Trent contradict the Councell of Lateran or contradicteth her selfe or knoweth not the force of Excommunication But my Aduersary Widdrington who contemneth the decrees of so great Councels and yet professeth himselfe to be a Catholike is by his words repugnant to his profession 43 Obserue now good Reader the fraud and falshood of this man And first hee doth not see forsooth how Cardinall Bellarmine contradicteth himselfe in yeelding the reason why it is necessary that the Church haue power to dispose of temporals to wit for that otherwise wicked Princes might without punishment nourish heretikes and ouerthrow religion as though he were so blind that hee cannot see light at-noone dayes For what a more manifest contradiction can there bee then this that Excommunication is the greatest punishment that may be and yet that a Prince who is excommunicated for fauouring heretickes doth fauour heretickes without being punished But many men saith this Doctour are more afraide of lesser punishments then of greater as of corporall punishments more then of Excommunication as children are more afraid to be whipped then to be disinherited And what then Can any man of vnderstanding inferre from hence that therefore a Prince who is excommunicated for fauouring heretickes is not most grieuously punished or that a boy who is disinherited for his misdemeanor is not more grieuously punished then if he had beene onely whipped for the same 44 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue how true that is which this Doctour said aboue that the dictinction which I made there concerning the sufficiency of Ecclesiasticall power and of Ecclesiasticall Censures to bring soules to eternall saluation in regard of the power and of the Censures themselues and in regard of all other things which on the behalfe of the subiect or otherwise are required that the Ecclesiasticall power and Ecclesiasticall Censures doe actually worke their effect that is actually withdraw wicked Christians from sinne and so actually saue their soules doth little or nothing make to the saluing of Cardinall Bellarmines argument Seeing that you now thereby see most plainly that the spirituall power is of it selfe so great and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall punishments are of themselues so dreadfull and terrible that they are of themselues sufficient to withdraw any man from his wicked life And that therefore if this spirituall coerciue power and these spirituall Censures or punishments be of themselues sufficient for the spirituall end no other power of the Church to inflict temporall punishments is necessary to obtaine the same end for if spirituall punishments be sufficient temporall punishments are not necessary as any man of meane vnderstanding who knoweth the difference betwixt sufficient and necessary may easily perceiue And if any man be so wilfull that he is not terrified with Ecclesiasticall Censures it is not by reason of their insufficiency but by reason of the malice of the person and the indisposition of the subiect for to vse this Doctors owne words aboue it is their fault and not the Popes seeing that he applieth remedies and punishments which are effectuall of themselues if they thēselues will admit them And what if the Prince whom this Doctor saith the Pope hath power to depose doth not regard his sentence of deposition what other remedie trow you wil this Doctor faigne that the Pope hath authoritie afterwards to apply vnlesse he will say that hee must then haue sufficient force and might to thrust him by head and shoulders as the prouerbe saith out of his kingdome 45 Secondly neither did the Councell of Lateran nor of Trent inflict or impose temporall punishments for that reason which Cardinall Bellarmine heere giueth to wit because they thought that Christians who were excommunicated for fauouring heretickes or other crimes were not most grieuously punished and consequently that they might therefore by their spirituall power dispose of temporalls and inflict temporall punishments because otherwise they might fauour heretickes and commit other crimes without being punished as Cardinall Bellarmine did argue in his aforesaid reason for then the said Councells must also haue granted that Excommunication is not a most grieuous punishment yea and no punishment at all and so they must haue contradicted themselues and the receiued doctrine of the Church for that no man vnlesse hee bee impious or mad as this Doctour heere affirmeth can deny that Excommunication is more grieuous then any temporall punishment but the reason is because both the Councell of Trent and
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
or good manners For what man can be so simple as to imagine that if those most Illustrious Cardinalls of the Inquisition could plainely haue shewed any one thing which either in the Oath or in any of my bookes is repugnant to saith or good manners wee should not haue heard it proclaimed by my Aduersaries with open mouth And what else is this I pray you but to contend that their assertions are like to the lawes of the Medes and Persians which are inuiolable and immutable 65 And this may suffice touching Fa. Parsons discourse which Mr. Fitzherbert might with more credite to himselfe and with more respect and reuerence to his old friend haue left vntouched seeing that hee hath brought nothing against that which I obiected against Fa. Parsons discourse to satisfie the Earle of Salisburies desire but cauelleth onely about trifles which make nothing to the defence of Fa. Parsons as that I did not in that briefe Admonition to the Reader confute D. Schulckenius booke written against mee and Cardinall Bellarmines booke written against D. Barclay and also the whole particular discourse which hee himselfe made in his Supplement to prooue the Oath vnlawfull and repugnant to all lawes humane and diuine but remitted the Reader to some things which more at large I declared in my Apologie to the end that he duely considering my answeres and their Replyes and also what Mr. Iohn Barclay had written in defence of his Father against Cardinall Bellarmine might giue his iudgement accordingly vntill I had time to make a more full answere to them all And therefore seeing that now I haue in this Treatise more fully confuted both Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius if he bee another man and also Mr. Fitzherberts whole Reply which he hath patched together by the helpes of Cardinall Bellarmine or D. Schulckenius Fa. Suarez and Lessius wee shall see what a learned Reply hee will make to this my Treatise being destitute now of those helpes which hee had before of those mens writings and being left only to his owne wit and learning and to the aide which he can get from others of his Societie who are more expert in Schoole points then is himselfe whom all men know to haue little skill either in Philosophie or Schoole-Diuinitie And for a conclusion I wish the Reader to call to mind how hee imposeth vpon me heere two manifest falshoods the one that I affirme Fa. Parsons to suppose that Christ hath left to his Church not onely sufficient power and authoritie but also sufficient force might or effectuall meanes to represse at all times all excesses whatsoeuer of Christian Princes and the other that I quarrell with Father Parsons for teaching that the Church may impose temporall penalties which as you haue seene is very vntrue 66 Now let vs proceede to the examining of the rest of his Discourse After this saith he k Pag. 123. nu 23.24.25 Acts 5. 1 Cor. 5. Widdring in admoni nu 19. Widdrington taketh hold of two examples in my Supplement to wit the punishment of Ananias and Saphira and of the incestuous Corinthian which I alleaged to proue the power of the Church to inflict temporall penalties Whereof he saith thus Illa corporalis Ananiae Saphirae interfectio c. That corporall killing of Ananias and Saphira and the visible deliuery of the fornicatour to Sathan are to be referred to the grace of miracles neither will this Authour say as I thinke that the Pope hath power to kill wicked men and malefactours with the word of his mouth So he Whereto I answere that he trifleth no lesse in this then in his former answeres for albeit I will not say that the Pope hath power to kill with the word of his mouth that is to say to doe miracles yet I say he hath power to doe and ordaine those things in the Church which at their first institution were testified and confirmed by miracles 67 As for example I will not say that the Pope can giue the holy Ghost in some visible forme in the Sacrament of Baptisme and Confirmation as the holy Ghost was giuen in the Apostles time Acts 8. 10. yet I make no doubt but that the Pope may minister those Sacraments with the iuisible effect and fruite thereof which was visibly shewed and testified in the Apostles time by that miracle neither will I say that the Pope can deliuer a man to the visible possession of the Diuell to be bodily tormented as S. Paul did when he excommunicated the Corinthian 1 Cor. 5. and others neuerthelesse I say that if Widdrington doe not reforme and retract his pernicious doctrine the Pope both can See cap. 17. nu 23. seq Item Decretum Sacrae Cong and see them also there answered Chrys hom 15 in cap. 5. epist 1. ad Corinth Acts 5. Acts 12. 1 Cor. 5. Greg. hom 10. in Euang. and will ere it be long excommunicate him and deliuer him ouer to the inuisible power of the Diuell which effect was at the first ordinarily testified by the visible torments of the bodies of excommunicated persons vt castigaretur caro saith S. Chrysostome that their flesh might be chastised So as Widdrington may if it please him distinguish betwixt the miracles and that which was in the primatiue Church signified expressed and testified thereby 68 And therefore I say that for as much as it pleased God to testifie by the miraculous punishment of Ananias and Saphira and of Elymas the Magycian whom S. Paul stroke blinde and of the excommunicated Corinthian and others that the Church hath power as well ouer the body as ouer the soule it cannot with reason be denied but â—hat the power remaineth although the miraculous manner in the execution of it ceased when the Christian faith was once propagated and generally receiued because as S. Gregorie saith Signa data sunt fidelibus c. Signes or miracles are giuen or ordained for infidels and not for the faithfull 69 But it is Mr. Fitzherbert himselfe that trifleth no lesse in this then in his former answeres For the question here betwixt vs is not now whether the Pope hath an ordinary power granted him by Christ to inflict corporall and temporall punishments and to depriue the faithfull of their liues and dominions but whether from this miraculous fact of killing of Ananias and Sâ—phira at the word of S. Peter or from the miraculous deliuering of the incestuous Corinthian to Sathan to be coporally tormented by him that his soule might be saued or froÌ„ any other miraculous and extraordinary power which the Apostles had to inflict coporall punishments it can bee rightly concluded that the Pope hath an ordinary power to inflict also corporall punishments And whatsoeuer Mr. Fitzherbert saith I doe confidently auerro that it is a most vicious kinde of arguing from miraculous facts and from an extraordinary power which was graunted to the Apostles as they were Apostles at the first instituting of
the new law and abrogating of the olde to inflict corporall punishments to inferre that the Pope and other inferiour Bishops who succeeded the Apostles not as they were Apostles but as they were Bishops had an ordinary power to doe the like facts and to inflict the like corporall punishments But other arguments must be brought to prooue that the Prelates of the Church may now by their ordinary power doe those things which the Apostles at the first institution of the Church did by a miraculous and extraordinary power 70 For two powers were granted to the Apostles the one ordinary which should also descend to all their Successours who in that power are equall to the Apostles the other extraordinary wherein they did excell all the Prophets of the olde Testament For the Apostles were also Prophets as S. Peter prooueth by the authority of the Prophet Ioel against the Iewes who said that the Apostles were drunke Acts 2. And as well obserueth Abulensis they did excell the Prophets in many things Abulens q. 6. in Praefat. Mat. first in the manner of their Prophesie because God was ready to speake by the Apostles whensoeuer they would insomuch that they ought not to thinke what they should speake but the holy Ghost did immediately speake by them Math. 10. Luke 21. But it was not so in any Prophet of the Old Testament Secondly they did excell the Prophets in regard of the things which were reuealed because more high things were reuealed to the Apostles then were reuealed to the Prophets Thirdly they did also excell in regard of the miracles for they did wonderfull miracles not onely as great as Christ himselfe did but also greater as he said to Philip Iohn 14. Et maiora horum faciet The workes that I doe he also shall doe and greater then these shall he doe For it is read of S. Peter Acts 5. that when he passed through the streetes in Ierusalem they broughtforth the sicke into the streetes and laid them in beds and couches that when Peter came his shadow at the least might ouershadow any of them and they all might be deliuered from their infirmities which neuerthelesse wee doe not reade was euer done by Christ c. Fourthly the Apostles also did excell the Prophets for that they spake with all languages Acts 2. And this extraordinary power of the Apostles did not descend to all their Successours And therefore it is no good argument from an extraordinary and miraculous power which was granted to the Apostles to inflict corporall punishments to inferre an ordinary power in their Successours to inflict the same 71 Neither doe those examples which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth of the miraculous manner of giuing the holy Ghost as it was giuen in the Apostles time in the Sacrament of Baptisme and Confirmation make any thing at all for his purpose for that these Sacraments had in the Apostles time commonly two effects annexed to them the one was ordinary to wit the giuing of inuisible grace which proceeded from their ordinary power and which therefore was to descend to their Successours the other Miraculous and extraordinary to wit the visible appearing of the holy Ghost in the persons baptized or confirmed and this proceeded from a miraculous and extraordinary power and which therefore was not to descend to all their Successours neither is it lawfull to conclude that the Pope can worke that visible effect by his ordinary power which the Apostles did by their miraculous and extraordinary power So likewise Excommunication had in the Apostles time commonly two effects the one ordinary which was that the person excommunicated was depriued of spirituall graces and benefits and of Ecclesiasticall communion and reputed as a Heathen and a Publican and this effect proceeded from ordinary power and which therefore was to bee deriued to all their Successours the other extraordinary and miraculous which was to be corporally afflicted by Sathan and this proceeded from the extordinary and miraculous power granted to the Apostles ouer all Diuels Luc. 9. which therefore was not to descend to all their Successours Wherfore we cannot well conclude that because the Apostles did inflict corporal punishments by their miraculous power therfore their Successors may inflict corporal punishments by an ordinary power but other reasons must be brought to prooue the same for it is apparant to euery Schoole-boy that the former consequence is starke naught 72 But these visible torments saith Mr. Fitzherbert did testifie that the excommunicated person was deliuered ouer to the inuisible power of the Deuil as Widdrington if he do not reforme his pernicious doctrine both can and will ere it be long be excommunicated by the Pope and deliuered ouer to the inuisible power of the Deuill which effect was at the first ordinarily testified by the visible torments of the bodies of excommunicated persons so as Widdrington may if it please him distinguish betwixt the miracles and that which was in the primitiue Church signified expressed and testified thereby And Mr. Fitzherbert may if it please him cleerely see that I haue distinguished betwixt these two and haue granted that the inuisible effect which was signified expressed and testified because it proceeded from the ordinary power which the Apostles had might bee done also by the ordinary power which was granted to the Apostles Successours but not the visible apparitions torments or punishments which did testifie the inuisible effect for that they proceeded not from the ordinary but from the extraordinary power of the Apostles And if his Holinesse shall excommunicate mee as this man threatneth without giuing mee any notice what pernicious doctrine I haue taught that I may reforme and retract it the excommunication will be more hurtfull to their soules that shall bee cause thereof then to mine according to that saying which Gratian l 11 q. 3. Illud plane doth attribute to Saint Augustine Illud plane non temere dixerim c. This plainly will I speake without rashnesse that if any of the faithfull shall bee excommunicated vniustly it will rather hurt him that doth then who suffereth this wrong and I shall comfort my selfe with those words of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam But truely I am fully perswaded that his Holinesse hath had now so sufficient experience to what exorbitant proceedings these bad informers haue drawne him that hee will heereafter bee more warie to proceed against mee in that strange manner as the most Illustrious Cardinals of the Inquisition haue proceeded against mee and my bookes at which all the world doth woonder 73 Wherefore when Mr. Fitzherbert saith that by the miraculous punishment of Ananias and Saphira and of Elymas c. it pleased God te testifie that the Church hath power as well ouer the body as ouer the soule and therefore it cannot with reason be denied but that the power remaineth although the miraculous manner in the execution of it ceased when the Christian faith was generally
receiued if he meane that those miraculous punishments did testifie an ordinary power to bee in the Church that is in spirituall Pastours to inflict punishments as well vpon the bodie as vpon the soule this he must proue by some other reason then by his bare I say to which in very truth knowing his insufficiency in Theologicall learning I giue but little credit therefore with the same facility I deny it as he saith it for it is the maine questioÌ„ betwixt vs whether the Church hath any such ordinarie power or no But if hee meane that those miraculous punishments did signifie and testifie a miraculous and extraordinarie power to bee in the spirituall Pastours of the Church in the Apostles time to inflict in some sort temporall punishments as well vpon the body as vpon the soule then I willingly grant his I say but withall dcny that either the power it selfe it being extraordinary and miraculous or the effects and execution thereof which also were miraculous should afterwards remaine in the Church when the faith was once propagated and generally receiued according to that saying of Saint Gregory Signes or miracles were giuen for Infidels not for the faithfull I said to inflict in some sort temporall punishments for as well obserueth Abulensis Abul q. 96. in c. 20. Matth. the punishment which Saint Peter inflicted vpon Ananias and Saphira was onely by the way of prediction whereupon hee was not as a Iudge or executioner of Christ but as a Prophet and the punishment inflicted by Saint Paul was by way of prayer and intercession whereupon it was not any vse of Iurisdiction but of a miracle because the Deuils are not subiect to the commaund of men and so neither of them did exercise the vse of coerciue temporall power 74 And by this also that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth is easily answered Besides that saith he it is to be considered for the further explication of this point that although the punishments were miraculous and extraordinary for the manner of them yet if we consider the punishments themselues the Apostles exercised therein their ordinary and Apostolicall Iurisdiction as being the ordinary Iudges to whom the chastisement of spirituall offences appertained which is euident in the punishment of the incestuous Corinthian by the formall and iudiciall sentence pronounced by the Apostle saying 1. Cor. 5. Ego quidem absens c. I indeede absent in body but present in spirit haue already iudged as present him that hath so done in the name of our Lord Iesus you being gathered together and my spirit with the vertue of our Lord Iesus to deliuer such a one to Sathan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saued in the day of our Lord Iesus Christ Thus did the Apostle fulminate his terrible sentence of Excommunication shewing and exercising his Apostolicall authoritie And the same is also to bee vnderstood concerning the corporall punishment of Ananias and Saphara S. Chrysost in hunc locum in wich respect Saint Chrysostome saith That Petrus faciebat terribile iudicium Peter executed a terrible iudgement vpon them and Saint Hierome saith that merûere sententiam Apostoli S. Hieron epist 150. ad Hedibiani q. 2. in fine Apud August l. 3. c. 16. They deserued the sentence of the Apostle and the Authour of the booke De mirabilibus Scripturae amonst Saint Augustines workes saith that Petrus ligauit c. Peter did bind Ananias and his wife with the bond of death vt authoritas Apostolica quanta esset ostenderetur that it might appeare how great was the Apostolicall authoritie Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 75 But I neuer denyed that the Apostles were ordinary Iudges to whom the chastisement of spirituall offences appertained but that which I deny is that by these miraculous punishments of Ananias and Saphira and the incestuous Corinthian or such like it can bee prooued that the Apostles were ordinary Iudges to inflict temporall punishments for spirituall offences or that they exercised therein I doe not say their Apostolicall Bell. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. but their ordinary power and Iurisdiction for the Apostles had two powers one ordinary and which should descend to their Successours the other extrordinary or delegate which therefore should not descend neither is it lawfull from the punishments which they inflicted by their extraordinarie power to inferre that they did or might inflict the like punishments by their ordinary power this I say cannot be prooued by any miraculous fact or punishment which the Apostles inflicted by their extraordinary and delegate power And therefore although the Apostle in pronouncing his terrible sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous Corinthian shewed and exercised his ordinary Apostolicall power forasmuch as concerned the deliuering him ouer to the inuisible power of Sathan yet forasmuch as concerned the deliuering him ouer to the visible power of Sathan that is to bee visibly tormented by him the Apostle did not vse his ordinary Apostolicall but his extraordinary Apostolicall power And the same is also to be vnderstood touching the corporall punishment of Ananias and Saphira to wit that Saint Peter vsed therein his extraordinary Apostolicall power as I obserued aboue out of Abulensis 76 Neither doe S. Chrysostome S. Hierome or S. Augustine say any thing contrary to this For all that can be gathered from their wordes is onely this that the iudgement of S. Peter was terrible and that they deserued the sentence of the Apostle and that the binding of Ananias and Saphira with the bond of death did proceed from Apostolicall authority but that this their sentence iudgement and the binding of them with the bond of death did proceed from ordinary Apostolicall authority this cannot any way be gathered from the words of those holy Fathers but rather the flat contrary Chrys hom 12 in Act. For S. Chrysostome doth attribute their punishment to a great miracle both in regard Saint Peter knew their thoughts and what they had done priuily and also for that hee killed them by the commandement of his word And Saint Hierome Hieron epist 8 ad Demetriad although he deny that Saint Peter commanded or desired their death yet he attributeth that sentence of the Apostle to a miracle and to the spirit of Prophecie The Apostle Saint Peter saith he doth not wish their death as foolish Porphyrie doth calumniate but with a propheticall spirit he foretold the iudgement of God that the punishment of two might bee a doctrine to many So likewise the Author de mirabilibus S. Scripturae doth attribute their punishment to a miracle and to the Apostolicall virtue of Christ and to the same power whereby hee raised Tabitha from death which words Mr. Fitzherbert was willing to conceale August serm 204. de tempore quâ—est sermo 3. in Dom. 4. post Trinit 4. Reg. 2. And Saint Augustine himselfe compareth this fact of Saint Peter to that of Helizaeus at whose
prayer or curse two beares came forth of the forrest and tore fourtie two boyes that mocked him saying Come vp balde head come vp balde head Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert may distinguish if it please him betwixt the ordinary and extraordinary power of the Apostles and cleerely see that from the facts and punishments which the Apostles exercised by their extraordinary delegate miraculous power which therefore doth not descend to their Successours it is not lawfull to argue that the Apostles by their ordinary power might do the same or that their successors haue therfore power to inflict the like punishments 77 But heere saith Mr. Fitzherbert m Pag. 125. nu 28. perhaps Widdrinton will say that if Saint Peter exercied his Apostolicall power and iurisdiction therein it followeth that the Pope or other Ecclesiasticall Iudges may also giue sentence of death yea execute vpon such as deserue it which is contrary to the custome and Canons of the Church Whereto I answere that for as much as that time there were no Christian Princes or Magistrates to do iustice in that kind and that it was necessary in the beginning to inflict such an exemplar punishment vpon those two hypocrites for the terrour of other Saint Peter thought good to performe it himselfe although afterwards when Christian Religion was further propagated and Christian Princes held it for an honour to them to serue God and his Church with their temporall lawes and power the Church thought it needlesse to inflict bloodie penalties not because it might not doe it if it would but because it seemed more decent and conuenient for lenitie of a pious Mother to abstaine from the same and to vse more milde and lesse rigorous punishments in which respect the Church hath alwayes retained the vse of some temporall and corporall chastisements although she haue restrained her Ministers by Canons and constitutions from the effusion of blood remitting the iudgement and execution thereof wholy to the secular Magistrates who haue by their lawes sufficiently prouided for the execution of iustice in that kind 78 But first without perhaps I doe say and haue euidently conuinced not from those miraculous facts of the Apostles but from the doctrine and grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine and others who mainetaine the Popes power to depose Princes and to dispose of all their temporalls that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie also to kill wicked Princes by all those wayes publike or priuate by which temporall Princes haue authoritie to depriue their subiects of their liues as I haue insinuated aboue in this Treatise n Cha. 3 nu 15 and 16. and chap. 5. sec 2 nu 9 seq and prooued at large in my Apologie o Apolog nu â—3 seq to which D. Schulkenius answereth onely with a transcat let it passe as not belonging to the matter and Mr. Fitzherbert both in other places of this his Reply and also heere by these words not because it might not doe it if it would doth expressely acknowledge as much although forsooth he will not meddle with the liues of Princes to auoid enuy and yet he feareth not to say p Chap 2. nu 15.16 That the Pope can take away my life and the liues of all Christians Now what a scandalous doctrine this is and what feares and iealousies of continuall treasons inhumaine gun-powder plots and bloodie Assassinates against their Royall persons those Christian Princes especially who dissent from the Catholike Romane Religion may iustly conceiue thereby I haue sufficiently prooued in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez q Part. 1. sec 9 nu 5. seq where also I haue cleerely conuinced that this pretence of Ecclesiasticall lenitie and the clemencie of a Pious mother which onely for mildnesse sake as they pretend and not by any obligation doth not vse such rigorous punishments is a meere shift and cloake to dazell the eyes of the simple and vnlearned Catholikes For as it is no clemencie but a plaine crueltie for a mother not to cut off one member of her beloued child when it is in danger to infect and kill the whole body so also the Pope should bee cruell to the Church of God not to cut off an hereticall Prince that is in danger to infect the other members of the Church if we once suppose this scandalous damnable doctrin that the Pope hath power in order to spirituall good to dispose of all the temporals both of Christian Princes subiects as temporall Princes haue in order to temporal good authority to dispose of al the temporal corporal goods of their subiects 79 Secondly it is not true that the Church hath alwayes retained the vse of some temporall and corporall chastisements except onely by way of commaund whereof I neuer made doubt As also that reason which my Aduersary heere bringeth why the Church now since Christian Religion hath beene further propagated and Christian Princes haue held it for an honour to them to serue God and his Church with their temporall lawes thought it needlesse to inflict bloody punishments especially vpon wicked and disobedient Princes for that by their lawes they haue sufficiently prouided for the execution of iustice in that kind is very weake and insufficient because although Christian Princes haue sufficiently prouiued for the execution of iustice with bloodie punishments against their subiects yet they haue no way prouided for the execution of iustice in this kind against themselues and therefore if Christian Princes themselues become heretikes and seeke to draw their subiects to their heresie neither Ecclesiasticall lenitie nor the reason that my Aduersarie heere hath brought why the Church now thought it needlesse to inflict bloodie penalties can be any hinderance why the Pope may not proceed against them with bloody punishments if we once suppose that he hath power and authoritie so to do But the true ancient doctrine is that a Priest as he is a Priest is forbidden by the law of Christ to vse See aboue part 2. cap. 9. and not onely is counselled for decencie sake not to vse the material or temporal sword 80 But now Mr. Fitzherbert for the vpshot and conclusion of this Chapter will cleerely prooue by an argument which no man forsooth of iudgement can denie that the supreme spirituall Pastour hath power to punish his sheepe or subiects not onely in their soules but also in their bodies and goods And truely I cannot but wonder saith hee r Pag. 126. nu 29.30 that any man of iudgement can thinke it vnlawfull for the supreme spirituall Pastour to punish his sheepe or subiects in their bodies or goods seeing that it cannot be denied but that he is their Pastour and superiour in regard not onely of their soules but also of their bodies that is to say of their whole persons wherein their bodie is necessarily included and therefore for as much as euery man is bound to serue God no lesse with his body then
from the law of nations as to the former grounded vpon the law of nature q Nu. 13. 53 But first I haue cleerely shewed as you haue seene from the doctrine of Suarez and the common opinion of Diuines that the law of nations as it is distinguished from the law of nature is not directly deduced from the principles of the law of nature but it is a humane law hauing force to bind onely by the positiue constitution and decree of man Secondly that although according to the principles of naturall reason Religion is in dignitie perfection and nobilitie superiour to policie and policie is therein subordinate and subiect to it yet according to the law of nature and nations all the particular authoritie which the Religious Societie as it was distinguished from the Ciuill had to commaund or punish any man dependeth wholy vpon the Ciuill common-wealth not onely in temporall but also in religious affaires and the particular customes and municipall lawes not onely of the Romanes but also of all other nations graunting some temporall honour authoritie and prerogatiues to Religious Priests did not proceede from the law of nature nor was directly or indirectly deduced from the principles thereof but was deriued meerely from the positiue constitutions and graunts of euery particular Ciuill common-wealth in whose power it was to create depose and punish their Religious Priests and to extend diminish change and quite take away from them all their directiue and coerciue authoritie and Mr. Fitzherbert affirming the contrary speaketh not onely improbably and disagreeably to the doctrine of Suarez and all other learned Diuines but also discouereth heerein his great want of iudgement learning and reading Neuerthelesse I will not denie but that in this sense the particular customes and municipall lawes of nations graunting to their Religious Priests who were their immediate ministers for things belonging to the publike seruice and worship of their Gods some temporall honour and authoritie were most conforme to the law of nature and principles of naturall reason for that the law of nature and light of naturall reason doth approoue and allow such lawes and customes as fit and conuenient but not commaund and ordaine them as necessarie in which sense also the exemption of Cleargie men now in the new law from the coerciue authoritie of Secular Magistrates ordained by humane law may be said to be conforme to the law of nature for that it doth approoue such exemption as conuenient but not command it as necessary And thus much concerning the law of nations and nature 54 Now touching the Ciuill law r Pag. 134. nu 9. 10. Mr. Fitzherb maketh a quicke dispatch therof in these words And as for the Ciuill law saith he whereas Widdrington saith only that I haue proued nothing else thereby but that the Pope is the supreme superiour of the Church in spirituall matters he is to vnderstand that albeit I haue not directly prooued any thing else by the Ciuill law yet I haue also thereupon inferred the extention of his power to temporall things by a necessarie consequent For hauing concluded that the Imperiall or Ciuill law doth not onely establish the Popes Supremacie but also acknowledge the subiection of temporall Princes to him in matters belonging to their soules and the good of the Church I added this inference 55 Whereupon it followeth directly that it acknowledgeth also See Supplement cap. 1. nu 118. pag. 67. by a necessarie consequent that he may punish them temporally in their persons and states vvhen the good of soules and the seruice and glory of God doth require it according to the rule of the said law vvhich I haue touched before to wit that the accessorie followeth the principall and that he which hath the greater power hath also the lesse And therefore I conclude that the Ciuill law doth no way fauour support or iustifie the Oath and much lesse inioyne it Ibid. nu 64 65. but flatly impugne and ouerthrow it Thus said I in my Supplement remitting my Reader for the more ample proofe of this inference to that vvhich I had before handled concerning the same vvhen I treated of the law of God See cap. nu 3. seq vvhich I haue also repeated in the first Chapter as also I haue examined his answeres thereto and shewed them to be very idle and friuolous and therefore I may vvell conclude that the arguments in my Supplement grounded as well vpon the lawes of God Nature and Nations as vpon the Cuiill or Imperial law doe stand sound and good against the Oath notwithstanding any thing that my Aduersary Widdrington hath beene hitherto able to bring to the contrary 56 But fie Mr. Fitzherbert that you in whose mouth are so frequent absurd ridiculous impertinent friuolous foolish idle fradulent impious malicious as though all your writings were so graue wise substantiall and sincere should thus in euery Chapter delude your Reader and not to vse your owne foule words shew so great want of learning iudgement and sincerity For what man of learning or iudgement can sincerely thinke that the Ciuill law may be said sufficiently to patronize the Popes power to depose Princes and to impugne the new Oath for that it acknowledgeth the Pope to be the supreme spirituall Pastour or with what sinceritie can you make your Reader beleeue that you had no other meaning in spending fourteene whole Pages of your Supplement to prooue by the Ciuill law that the Pope is the supreme spirituall Pastour and hath authoritie to Excommunicate wicked Princes then onely to inferre thereupon by your necessarie or rather improbable consequent that he may therefore punish them temporally in their persons and states For first who would not imagine that when you boasted to prooue the Oath to be repugnant to the Ciuill law because it denieth the Popes power to depose Princes you would haue brought some text out of the Ciuill law where it is written that the Pope hath such a power to depose and not to haue made so much adoe to proue by the Ciuill law the Pope to be head of the Church and to haue authority to inflict spirituall Censures which no Catholike denieth and then forsooth in a word or two to deduce from thence by a farre fetched consequence of your owne and not of the Ciuill law that therefore the Pope may also punish them temporally in their persons and States 57 And truely if it be sufficient to condemne in this manner the Oath by the Ciuill law you might in the like manner for a greater florish haue brought the authoritie of all the auncient Fathers yea and of all Catholikes euen of my selfe and of all those who mainetaine the Oath to be lawfull for a cleere testimony to condemne the same for that all the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes euen my selfe and those who maintaine the Oath to be lawfull and denie the Popes power to depose Princes doe acknowledge the Pope to be the supreme
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
euery Princes lawes is extended onely to his owne subiects Whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall termes may comprehend all Christian men aswell absolute Princes as others forasmuch as concerne spirituall matters and the inflicting of spirituall punishments because in these all Christians are subiect thereto yet considering that it is probable that Christian Princes in temporall matters and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable that the Canons of Popes or Councells made in generall tearmes concerning temporall affaires as are the inflicting of temporall punishments cannot comprehend temporall Princes who in these are absolute and supreame and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church which as I haue shewed before doeth extend to the inflicting onely of spirituall punishments Which being so the Reader may cleerely perceiue that the argument I brought from the Emperours constitution is not absurd but very probable and that the absurditie which his foule mouth so often casteth vpon mee falleth vpon himselfe For that which I in bringing that argument intended to affirme was this that for the same reason for which those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or non habeus Dominum principalem did not in the decree of Frederike comprehend either himselfe who was not subiect to his owne law at leastwise as it is coerciue or absolute Princes for that they were not subiect to him at all the same generall wordes in the Canon of the Councell for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments doe not comprehend absolute Princes for that they are subiect to the authoritie of the Church onely in Spirituall matters and not in temporall as are the inflicting of temporall punishments 42 Wherefore I doe not restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power as Mr. Fitzherbert very grosely imposeth vpon mee but I restraine the sense of the Canon thus that if all Christian Princes had made the like law and in the same forme of words as Fredericke did then I say that all these lawes had beene a cleare confirmation of the sense and meaning of the Canon of the aforesaid Councell and that those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis and non habens Dominum principalem in all these lawes together made by all Christian Princes had signified the selfe same persons and no others then now they signifie in the decree of the Councell For that which I contend is that it is probable that this Canon forasmuch as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made by the Councell not as it had spirituall but onely as it had temporall authoritie or which is all one not by vertue of the spirituall power of the Church but by the authoritie and consent of all temporall Princes whose Ambassadours were present thereat because it is probable as I haue shewed aboue out of many learned Catholikes that the spirituall power of the Church doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of spirituall Whereby it is euident that albeit Emperours Kings and all other absolute Princes and inferiour Lords are subiect alike to the decrees of Generall Councells yea and of Prouinciall Councells held in their owne kingdomes in matters spirituall yet they are not subiect alike to the Decrees of generall Councells wherein temporall matters as are the inflicting of temporall punishments are decreed for that these decrees are made by the authority and consent of absolute Princes to whom onely all other inferiour persons are subiect in temporall affaires And heereby all that which Mr. Fitzherbert addeth in the rest of this Chapter is already satisfied 43 So as you see saith hee i p. 146. nu 17. what probable arguments Widdrington giueth vs whiles neuerthelesse nothing will satisfie him from vs but demonstrations and therefore whereas I signified all this in effect in my Supplement hee taketh no formall notice of it but onely as it were glanceth at it in a word or two saying as you haue heard before Dicere Imperatorem c. To say that the Emperour did not include Kings in those wordes of his law and that the Pope did meane to doe it in the Canon is to say so but not to demonstrate So hee requiring as you see a demonstration of this point and craftily concealing and dissembling the reason that I gaue for my assertion in my Supplement as if I had giuen none at all but onely had barely said that Dominus temporalis in the Emperours law is not to be vnderstood of Kings as it is to bee taken in the Canon whereas you see the reasons which I haue giuen of the difference of the one and the other being grounded vpon the different power of the Generall Councell and the Emperour is so pregnant and cleare that it may serue for a demonstration to any Catholike man of iudgement 44 For I thinke it is not more cleare to any such that two and two make foure then that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords and that they are included in those words of the Canon because they being members of Christs Church are as subiect to a generall Councell as the meanest temporall Lord in Christendome As also it is no lesse cleare that Dominus temporalis in the Emperours constitution can be extended no further then to such temporall Lords as were some way subiect to him which my Aduersary himselfe acknowledgeth albeit he absurdly denieth that the same words in the Canon are to be vnderstood of Kings 45 But first whether my arguments and answeres bee probable or no and whether that foule aspersion of absurditie wherewith Mr. Fitzherbert so often chargeth me doth fall vpon his owne arguments and answeres or vpon mine I must remit to the iudgement of the learned Reader Secondly no learned man can denie but that to prooue any doctrine to be certaine and of faith it is necessary to bring demonstrations and conuincing proofes and that to prooue any doctrine to bee probable and the contrary not to be certaine nor of faith it sufficeth to bring onely probable arguments and answeres and therefore it is no maruaile that I expect at my Aduersaries hands cleare demonstrations and inuincible proofes seeing that they take vpon them to prooue their doctrine to be certaine and of faith whereas it sufficeth for mee that onely take vpon me at this time to shew their doctrine not to bee certaine and of faith to bring probable arguments and answers 46 Thirdly it is not true that I haue craftily concealed and dissembled the reason that he gaue in his Supplement why the words Dominus temporalis should in the Canon of the Councell comprehend absolute Princes and not in the Emperours constitution For all that hee laboureth as you haue seene to prooue in his
Supplement is that the Emperours constitution is no way preiudiciall to the Canon of the Councell but a cleare confirmation thereof which I neuer denied and that the Emperours law could extend no further then to his owne subiects and that the Emperour himselfe and all Soueraigne Princes are vnder the iurisdiction of a generall Councell and subiect to her decrees whereof also no man maketh doubt if those decrees concerne spirituall affaires but if they concerne meere temporall matters wherin temporall Princes are supreame and not subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church as are the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted the whole drift of my Apollogie was to prooue it to be probable that the spirituall authority and iurisdiction of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer and consequently that the inflicting of such temporall punishments although it be for a spirituall end is a meere temporall matter wherein temporall Princes are supreame and subiect to none but God Which being so I had no reason to take any formall notice in that briefe Admonition of all the idle discourses hee made in his Supplement and which either were nothing at all against mee or might easily be satisfied by that I had said before in my Apologie But Mr. Fitzherbert doth shamefully corrupt my words and meaning and fowlely abuse me and his Reader in affirming as you haue seene that I doe restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne dominion whereas I made no such restraint but extended the sense of the Canon to the Dominions of all Christian Princes by whose consent and authority that Canon for as much as it concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments was made and had force to binde 47 Neither as I said doth the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth concerning the distinction of the Canon and of the Emperours decree in extension any way impugne but confirme the argument I brought from the Emperours law because or the same reason which Mr. Fitzherbert alleageth why those generall words Dominus temporalis or principalis cannot in the Emperours decree comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to him in temporals I also affirme that the same generall words cannot in the Canon comprehend absolute Princes for that they are not subiect to the Pope or Church in temporals as is the inflicting of temporall punishments to which as I haue often said the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend And if my Aduersary cannot bring more cleare and pregnant demonstrations then these to confirme his new Catholike faith hee neede not to waste any more time and labour in producing such cleare and pregnant demonstrations which euery Catholicke man of iudgement may clearely see to bee apparant sophismes and that notwithstanding all his vaine brags of his cleare and pregnant demonstrations and of my absurd arguments and answeres so often repeated by him in the end the Reader will see that Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus 48 And although it be cleare enough that Dominus temporalis is a generall tearme including absolute Princes as well as other Lords yea and Masters yet because it is cleare that Dominus temporalis is not a proper tearme or title belonging to absolute Princes but common to all others of inferiour degree if any man should speake of them and giue them onely the titles of their Masterships Worships or Lordships he would both be accounted a rude and vnmannerly companion and also he should wrong those persons in giuing them onely those titles of worship or honour which are common to other persons of inferior ranke neither he that should onely vse such inferiour titles would be thought to speake of absolute Princes vnlesse some other circumstance should enforce vs to thinke the same And although it be also cleare that absolute Princes are subiect no lesse then the meanest Lord in Christendome to the decrees of a generall Councell which concerne spirituall matters yet because in meere temporall matters they are supreame and therin not subiect to any decree of Pope or Councell it is also probable that the inflicting of temporall punishments is a meere temporall matter and not belonging to the spirituall power of the Church it is also probable and no way absurd to say that Dominus temporalis in the Canon of the Councell wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is decreed is not to be vnderstood of absolute Princes for the same reason that in the Emperours constitution it is not extended to them but to such onely as were subiect to him in temporals 49 But perhaps Widdrington will say saith Mr. Fitzherbert k Pag. 147. num 19. that he hath added another reason to fortifie the same which was as you haue heard before that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes except they be specified therein by the names of Princes for so indeed he saith inserting the same cunningly into his inference to make his argument grounded on the Emperours law to seeme the more probable and therefore hauing said that the Emperour could not vnderstand either himselfe or other absolute Princes by the name of one who hath no principall Lord hee concludeth ex quo probabiliter collegi c. Whereupon I gathered probably that those words Non habens Dominum principalem not hauing a principall Landlord or Lord could not comprehend absolute Princes who are not to be vnderstood as included in penall lawes except they be namely expressed Thus he sliding subtilly as you see from the Emperours law and the reason grounded thereon to the priuiledges of Princes which belongeth to another question and shall be fully debated and cleared as I hope in the next Chapter And in the meane time I conclude for the present that in all this hee hath shewed himselfe very absurd and that my cold answere as he tearmeth it would haue beene hote enough to dissolue his frozen and friuolous argument if he had not wholly dissembled the force and substance of my discourse in my Supplement concerning this point 50 It is very true that I haue in that briefe Admonition also another reason why absolute Princes are not included in the Canon of the Councell vnder those generall names Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis or such like to wit for that in penall lawes they are not comprehended vnder such generall tearmes which denote titles of inferiour degree and dignity and in bringing this reason I vsed no craft or cunning but meant plainly and sincerely neither did I intend to slide cunningly and subtily as Mr. Fitzherbert would guilefully perswade his Reader from the Emperours law and reason grounded thereon to this reason for that the reason why in the Emperours law absolute Princes are not comprehended vnder those generall names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is the
deserued punishments threatned against them may keepe immooueable and without perturbation the peace of the holy Churches of God Giuen the eight Calends of Iune Asclepius and Deodatus most excellent men being Consulls 17 Now what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to this ancient decree of Pope Liberius which hee wisheth mee well to note wherein it is decreed that Bishops if they perturbe the peace of the Church shall be depriued of their Priesthood by Regall or Kingly indignation For that secular men being placed in dignity may be depriued of their honour and dignity and if they be priuate men yet noble may forfeit all their goods and if they be ignoble may be whipped or perpetually banished by Regall or Kingly power or indignation which this Canon also of what credit soeuer it be doth ordaine is not any way repugnant to my doctrine Thus thou seest good Reader how grosly thou art abused through the fraud or ignorance of this vnlearned man who neuertheles presumeth to direct thy soule and conscience in this so high and dangerous a point of thy allegeance due to God and man wherein he cleerely sheweth himselfe to haue so little skill 18 Thirdly in what sense I affirmed that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes vnder generall words vnlesse they be expressed by name for which respect also Mr. Fitzherbert wisheth me to note well this Canon of Pope Liberius I haue declared before to wit that they are not in such lawes comprehended vnder generall words which denote some inferiour office or title of honour for I neuer intended to denie as this man imposeth vpon me that they are not included in any generall words except they be specified by the name of Princes if such generall words denote no inferiour office or title of honour So that neither Hostiensis for as much as concerneth this Canon of Liberius contradicteth my doctrine because those generall words Qui contra pacem Ecclesiae They who are against the peace of the Church do denote no inferiour office or title of honour and although he were against my doctrine it is too little to the purpose seeing that other Lawyers and Diuines doe contradict him herein and moreouer this Canon cited by Hostiensis is neither authenticall and of sufficient credit nor any way gaine-saith that which I affirme concerning this poynt Pag. 151. nu 5. 19 Now you shall see the third testimony which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of Hostiensis And this saith he c will be much more cleare by the third testimony cited out of the Canon law by Hostiensis which hee taketh out of the title de haereticia Decret lib. 5. tit 7. de Haretices wherin there is no particular mention of absolute Princes by the name of Princes neither is there in any other Decree concerning their deposition but onely this Canon of the Councell of Lateran now in question so as Widdrington may see not onely that Kings and absolute Princes haue no such exemption from penall Lawes as he pretendeth but also that they are included in the generall tearmes ouen of this Canon of the Councell of Lateran in the opinion of a famous Canonist who wrote not past fiftie yeares after the said Councell And if he say that they haue had this exemption or priuiledge since that time let him shew vs when and where they had it which I am sure he cannot doe as it may appeare by the Canonists who comprehend absolute Princes in other penall lawes wherein they are not otherwise mentioned then in generall tearmes as he may see in Simanca in his Institutions d Tit. 23. and Emericus in his third part of the Directorie e Q. 31. and Penna in his Annotations vpon the f Annot. 96. same 20 But first it is vntrue that in the whole title dehaereticis there is not any other Canon or decree concerning the deposition of Princes except this Decree of the Lateran Councell if wee once suppose as Hostiensis doth suppose that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for this once supposed they may very well bee included in the last Canon of this title De haereticis wherein Pope Gregory the ninth doth Decree and declare that whosoeuer are bound or obliged to manifest heretickes by any couenant strengthened with neuer so great securitie are absolued from the bond of all allegiance homage and obedience for in those words whosoeuer and manifest heretickes and such like generall tearmes which denote no title of office honour or dignity inferiour to Kingly maiesty all men whatsoeuer euen Kings and absolute Princes may be included if it be once granted that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes But because it is probable as I haue prooued at large aboue in this Treatise that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath no authority to depose temporall Princes or to inflict temporall punishments it consequently followeth that it is also probable that neither the aforesaid Canon Absolutos nor any other Canon made in such generall words wherein temporall punishments are inflicted can comprehend absolute Princes but that all such like Canons are made either by the Pope as he is a temporall Prince and consequently are of force onely in the territories of the Church or the Popes temporall dominions or else that they are made by the consent of temporall Princes and haue their force to binde from their authority and consequently doe concerne onely inferiour persons or subiects and not absolute Princes themselues who are free from the coerciue power of those lawes which are made by their owne authority 21 So that although I will not now contend neither doe I much regard of what opinion Hostiensis bee concerning the sense and meaning of this Canon of the Lateran Councell yet it is plaine that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not hitherto prooued out of Hostiensis as hee pretended to prooue that absolute Princes are comprehended in the penall lawes of the Church vnder such generall names which denote some office honour dignitie or title inferiour to Kingly Maiestie Neither doeth Simancas Emericus or Pegna in the places cited by my Aduersarie teach contrarie to my doctrine in this point to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are vnderstood by the generall name of Monkes Bishops by the generall name of Priests and Emperours Kings and absolute Princes by the generall name of Dominus temporalis a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord. 22 For Simancas in the 23. title cited by my Aduersarie nu 10. doth cleerely distinguish betwixt Dominos temporales and Reges temporall Lords and Kings and nu 11. hee proueth that hereticall Kings and Princes are forthwith deposed and their subiects absolued from their allegiance by the aforesaide Canon Absolutos of Gregorie the ninth which as I saide is a sufficient proofe supposing as hee doeth that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue
making this Canon was to put in execution the holy lawes before enacted by Christian Princes for the rooting out of heretikes which lawes were not put in practise by the negligence of inferiour Gouernours Magistrates and Officers to whose charge the execution of iustice is immediately committed for which reason it was sufficient to comprehend in that Canon only inferiour Lords Gouernours Magistrates and Land-lords who were negligent to put in execution the godly lawes before enacted by pious Emperours and Kings for the repressing of heretikes but of this reason more beneath 29 Lastly the rule saith Mr. Fitzherbert holdeth not say the Lawyers when there is question of the publike good or the fauour of the Church or of the faith or of soules for in thesâ—â—ases penalties are to bee extended and the law interpreted in preiudice of the delinquent So as these rules doe helpe Widdrington nothing at all seeing that these exceptions which are admitted by the Law doe cleerely exclude the restriction which hee requireth by vertue of the rules 30 And the Lawyers also doe absolutely and without the aforesaide exceptions affirme the aforesaide rules to bee true Wherefore Sayrus citing diuers Lawyers for the same doeth by vertue of this rule except Abbots from Excommunication although Excommunication bee rather medicinall then penall and ought not to bee inflicted but for the good of the soule And Andreas Duuallius did by vertue of this rule exempt the King of France from the Canon Vnam sanctam of Pope Boniface the eight which neuerthelesse was made in fauour of the Church Neither is there any law either spirituall or ciuill which ought not to concerne the publike good neither hath the Pope any authority either directiue or coerciue graunted him but for the good of soules So as these rules according to the opinion of learned Lawyers and Diuines doe helpe mee greatly and fauour my doctrine concerning the not including in penall lawes Abbots Bishops and Kings vnder the generall names of Monkes Priests and Lords although they bee enacted for the publike good the health of soules and in fauour of the Church 31 But the maine and principall ground whereon I stand why absolute Princes are not comprehended in this Canon of the Lateran Councell vnder those generall wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis is this as you haue seene before for that albeit I should grant my Aduersarie onely for disputation sake that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are included in the name of Monkes and Bishops in the name of Priests and Kings in the name of temporall Lords which neuerthelesse he will neuer bee able to conuince yet seeing that it is most cleare as Mr. Fitzherbert also confesseth that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation both of Princes and Church lawes is extended onely to their owne subiects it necessarily followeth that temporall Princes cannot bee comprehended vnder any generall words in any Canon or constitution of the Church but onely in those things wherein they are subiect to the spirituall power of the Church From whence it cleerely followeth that if it bee probable as in very deede it is that the spirituall Pastours of the Church haue no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments or to depose temporall Princes it is also probable that this Canon of the Lateran Councell as also all other such like decrees wherein temporall punishments are in generall words inflicted vpon temporall Lords Gouernours or Land-lords was not made by spirituall but by temporall authoritie and therefore cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals and for as much as concerneth the inflicting of temporall punishments are supreame on the earth and not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church but that it was either made by the authority consent of all temporall Princes if wee will needes haue it to binde all Christian Kingdomes or else that it hath force onely to binde in the Popes dominions wherein he hath the place both of a spirituall Pastour and also of a temporall Prince 32 And whereas Widdrington giueth an instance saith Mr. Fitzherbert i Pag. 153. num 8. without any quotation of Law or Author that Bishops and Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned it is true in Bishops in the case onely of suspension or interdict from the which they are by an expresse Canon exempted except they be named as it appeareth in the Decretals lib. Tit. 11. cap. 4. §. Quia periculosum Glossa ibidem in verbum suspensionis 5. de sententia excommunicationis where also the Glosse saith expressely that they are not priuiledged from a generall penaltie of Excommunication because the Pope who giueth them the aforesaid priuiledge would not haue them to be exmpted from the Canon Si quis suadente and such like which inflict the penalty of Excommunication in generall tearmes and the same is to be said of Abbots or any other persons of dignitie to wit that they haue no exemption from the generall tearmes of penall lawes except they be priuiledged namely by some expresse Canon And therefore when my Aduersary shall shew me such a Canon whereby Princes haue the priuiledge that he pretendeth in their behalfe I will grant that he hath reason to exempt them from the Canon of the Councell of Lateran In the meane time he hath no more probability in this poynt then in the former 33 But first I neuer said as Mr. Fitzherbert to make some colour of a probable answere falsely layeth to my charge that Bishops or Abbots are not included in penall lawes except they be mentioned For I make no doubt but that they are included in penall lawes vnder such generall words which denote no particular dignity order degree or function of Christian men and that therefore they are included in the Canon Si quis suadente Diabolo and in the Canon Omnis vtriusque sexus but that which I said was that in penall lawes and odious matters Bishops are not included in the generall name of Priests nor Abbots in the generall name of Monkes And for the proofe thereof I brought neither Canon nor Author for that I thought it so manifest that no man of any reading would make doubt but that learned Lawyers and Diuines doe affirme the same But now finding my Aduersary for want of reading learning or sincerity to make doubt thereof I haue brought as you haue seene to prooue the same both learned Lawyers and Diuines and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe who called and ended this Councell of Lateran wherein he declareth that he doth not intend in his commissions to comprehend vnder a generall clause greater and worthier persons when lesse worthie and lesse noble persons are expressed And therefore seeing that I haue now shewed him both learned Authours and also a Canon of Pope Innocent himselfe to prooue that Bishops are not in penall lawes comprehended
vnder the generall name of Priests or Clearkes nor Abbots vnder the generall name of Monkes nor Kings vnder the generall name of Lords Gouernours or Landlords he must according to his owne confession grant that I haue reason to exempt Emperours Kings and absolute Princes from the Canon of the Lateran Councell 34 Neither did I ground this my doctrine vpon the Canon Quia periculosum wherein it is decreed that in the case of Suspension Interdict Bishops are not comprehended vnder any generall words whatsoeuer vnlesse they be expressed by the name of Bishops but vpon the authorities aforesaid chiefly vpon that reason which Mr. Fitzher himselfe acknowledgeth to be most true that all lawes are to be vnderstood according to the power of the Law-maker and that therefore the obligation of euery Ecclesiasticall Canon is extended onely to those who are subiect to the spirituall authority of the Church as absolute Princes are not in meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they be inflicted according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes whom I haue named aboue in the first part of this Treatise and defended them from the friuolous exceptions which D. Schulckenius hath made against them 35 Finally saith Mr. Fitzherbert whereas Widdrington saith that the Synode would haue specified Princes by that name as well in this Canon if it had meant to include them therein as it did in some other Canons and Decrees concerning other matters who seeth not the vanitie of this coniecture For why should they be named more particularly then they are seeing that they are sufficiently comprehended in the generall tearme of Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord k He might as wel haue translated it a temporall Landlord n To wit no temporal Landlord aboue thē but the King which is also sufficiently explicated in this very Canon wherein we see that a temporall Lord l He might as well haue said a tempprall Landlord for Dominus temporalis signifieth both is diuided into two sorts the one of those who haue principall Lords m And also Landlords aboue them and the other of such as haue none of which sort are all absolute Princes that hold of none p And also other principall Landlords who haue no principall Landlord aboue them but the King who is not comprehended in odious matters vnder the name of a Landlord and therefore seeing that such are declared by the Canon to be subiect to the penaltie no lesse then those who holde of others it was needlesse to name them in other manner But belike my Aduersary will take vpon him not onely to interprete the Councell but also to teach it how to speake and what words to vse or else it must be of no force 36 No Mr. Fitzherbert God forbid that either I who professe my selfe to be a Catholike should be so arrogant as to take vpon mee to teach the Councell how to speake or what words to vse or that you who professe to be a teacher and to instruct others in this difficult controuersie which you will needes make a point of faith should bee so ignorant as not to know that the sense and meaning of the Councell is to be gathered from the sense and propertie of the words and that by the words we are taught what is the sense meaning of the Councell Now I haue sufficiently shewed before both by the authority of learned Lawyers and Diuines and also by conuincing reason that absolute Princes are not sufficiently comprehended in this Canon vnder the generall name of a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour of Lord both for that it is a penall law wherein an Abbot is not comprehended vnder the generall name of a Monke nor a Bishop vnder the generall name of a Priest nor a King vnder the generall name of a Landlord Gouernour or Lord and ciefely for that it is such a penall law which is probable to bee a temporall and not a spirituall law for that it inflicteth temporall punishments which according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes cannot be inflicted but by temporall or ciuill power and that therefore those generall words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Landlord Gouernour or Lord cannot comprehend absolute Princes who in temporals are not subiect to the spirituall power of the Church for that the words of euery law are to bee limitted according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes law whether hee bee a temporall or spirituall Prince is extended onely to his owne subiects 37 And if my Aduersary flie to his ancient shift that all Emperours Kings and other Christian Princes are children of the Church therfore subiect to the spirituall Pastors thereof It is true in spiritualls but not in temporalls as is the inflicting of temporall punishments wherein they are not subiect but absolute and supreme True also it is that Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord is in this Canon diuided into two sorts of Lords taking a Lord as the canon here doth take him to wit not only for a title of honour which Knights Gentlemen many inferiour Magistrates as Shiriffes Bayliffes Constables haue not but for euery person who hath tenants vassals or other persons any way subiect to him in which sense euery Land-lord Magistrate is called Dominus temporalis a temporall Lord Gouernour or Land-lord The one sort is of those who haue principall and chiefe Gouernours or Land-lords aboue them as are all inferiour Magistrates and those who hold any land of others The other is of those who although they be subiect to the King yet they haue no other principall Land-lords or Gouernours aboue them and of this sort are both those who let their lands to others and yet hold their lands of none nor perchance of the King and also all principall Gouernours of the common-wealth who are subiect to no other then the King as are all the Lords or the body of the Kings priuie Councell together and in some sort the Lord Chancellour the Lord chiefe Iustice who haue no one principall Lord or Gouernour aboue them as all other subiects haue but the King alone yet neither of these sorts doe sufficiently expresse a King or a supreme and absolute Prince for that they are titles belonging also to subiects and inferiour persons And therefore the premises being considered it is probable that if the Councell had meant to haue comprehended Kings and absolute Princes in that Canon she would haue giuen them their proper titles of honour as she did in other Decrees and not include them in those common titles of honour which are giuen to persons of inferiour state and condition 38 And by this which I haue said in these two Chapters the Reader may cleerely see that these answeres which I haue giuen to the decree of the Lateran
vs and not much amisse and therefore let vs see how he will answere it He giueth to this obiection three answeres The first is that both Popes and Councells doe oftentimes decree many things which belong rather to the politicall or temporall then to the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power to decree with the expresse or tacite consent of Princes who are there present by themselues or their Ambassadours or at leastwise presuming or hoping that Princes will ratifie the same And this say some Expositours of the Canon law saith Ioannes Parisiensis For Hostiensis extra de haereticis cap. Ad abolendam where the Pope commaundeth the goods of heretikes to be confiscated demaundeth what the Pope hath to doe with temporalls And he answereth with his Lord Pope Innocent that in very deede he hath nothing to doe therewith but he made this Decree with the assent of the Emperor who being then present at Padua gaue his consent 3 This is Widdringtons first answere wherein you see he relyeth specially vpon the authoritie of Ioannes Parisiensis who grounding his opinion vpon Hostiensis alledgeth him to no purpose at all partly for that no such thing is to be found in Hostiensis in the place which he quoteth to wit extra de haereticis cap. Hostiens in cap. Quod super his de voto volt redempt ad Abolendam and partly because Hostiensis not onely teacheth euidently elsewhere that the Pope hath direct Dominion ouer all temporall States whereupon it followeth that he may dispose thereof and of temporall things as he shall haue iust cause but also affirmeth and teacheth expresly that absolute Princes may bee deposed by the Pope and their states exposed to bee taken by other Catholikes Hostiensi lib. 5 Rub. de haereticis § qua poena if they bee negligent to purge their states of heresie and to this end he citeth this very Canon of the Councell of Lateran whereof we now treate to wit cap. Excommunicamus Si vero Dominus temporalis yea and addeth further that the Pope may depose a Prince for his negligence in Gouernement alledging for the same not onely 17. q. 4. Si quis deinceps but also the example of Zacharias the Pope who saith he deposuit Childericum Regem Franciae deposed Childericke King of France How then can Ioannes Parisiensis or any man else truely say that Hostiensis was of opinion that the Pope hath nothing to doe with temporall things 4 But first where doth Mr. Fitzherbert finde Ioannes Parisiensis to say that Hostiensis was of opinion that the Pope hath nothing to doe with temporall things For that which Parisiensis saith is onely this that Hostiensis giueth this answere that the Pope hath nothing to doe with temporall things and that it belongeth not to him to make generall decrees concerning the confiscation of goods and that this Decree was made with the assent of the Emperour who was then present at Padua and gaue his consent thereto but whether Hostiensis gaue this answere according to his owne opinion or of other Lawyers whom he doth not condemne Ioannes Parisiensis neither affirmeth nor denieth but onely saith that Hostiensis gaue this answere which is very true But these be vsuall trickes of Mr. Fitzherbert as you haue often seene aboue to misconstrue the words and meaning of his Aduersarie thereby to make some colourable shew of a probable answere Wherfore although it be most true that Hostiensis is of opinion that the Pope may vpon iust cause dispose of the Dominions of all Christian Princes and of all temporall things for that he expresly teacheth that the Pope is not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch of the whole world and hath direct dominion ouer all temporall States yet I doe not find Hostiensis to be so peremptorie in his opinion as to condemne the contrarie doctrine of heresie or of absurd and temerarious improbabilitie as all my Aduersaries not without great temeritie now vsallly doe 5 Secondly therefore it is also true that Hostiensis vpon the aforesaid Chapter Ad abolendam giueth also that answere whereof Ioannes Parisiensis maketh mention and doth not reiect it as improbable in which sense Parisiensis did call it Hostiensis his answere And this answere Mr. Fitzherbert might haue easily found in the foresaid place if he had not relyed vpon Fa. Lessius word who saith as much but had read ouer the whole Chapter himselfe For whereas Pope Lucius the third did in that Canon Ad abolendam ordaine from whom it is probable Pope Innocent the third tooke that decree of the Lateran Councell seeing that in substance they little differ vt Comites Barones Rectores c. that Earles Barons Gouernours and Consulls of Cities and of other places whom the Councell of Lateran comprehendeth vnder the names of Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis non habens Dominos principale shall promise by making a corporall oath according as they shall be admonished by the Bishops that they will faithfully and effectually when they shall be required by them helpe the Church against heretikes and their partakers vnfainedly according to their office and power and if they shall not obserue the same let them be depriued of the honour which they haue and let them in no wise be assumed to other honours c. The Cardinall Hostiensis vpon these wordes vt Comites c. to prooue the validitie of this Canon among other answeres he giueth also this which he doth not confute that some Doctors doe say that therefore this Canon was of force because the Emperour was present and gaue his consent secundum D. N. according to Pope Innocent the fourth whom he called Dominum nostrum 6 The same answere also hath Ioannes Andreas expounding that word Comites Note saith hee that the Pope doth decree concerning lay-men but this is in regard of sinne Others say that therefore these decrees were of force because the Prince gaue his consent and was present And also the same answere maketh Pope Innocent the fourth expounding the same word Comites Note saith he that the Pope may ordaine concerning Lay-men but this is in regard of sinne Others say that these decrees are therefore of force because the Prince was present Wherefore it is very true which Ioannes Parisiensis said that Hostiensis with his Lord Pope Innocent among other answeres concerning the validitie of this Canon gaue also this which they did not confute that it was therefore valued and of force because the Prince was present and gaue his consent And therefore I maruaile how Fa. Lessius a man otherwise very learned and as I euer supposed of great reading should be so ignorant in the studie of the Canon law as not to know and much more so boldly to denie that Hostiensis did write vpon the Chapter Ad abolendam or vpon other textes whereas there is no booke more knowne and more commonly cited by the Canon Lawyers then is the Lecture of Hostiensis vpon the
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
of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion the Subiects could not bee absolued from the oath of allegiance or from the obligation that they owe to their Princes these his words I say doe neither contradict those English Catholickes who defend our English oath to be lawfull nor doe shew or signifie that Widdrington hath not brought any Diuines or Lawyers both French-men and of other Nations who affirme that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For the Cardinals words are to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam according to the matter which he treateth of and which he would perswade his Reader the three estates of France endeauoured to establish by their oath to wit that the subiects of the King of France could not be absolued from the bond of their temporall allegiance by any authority whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall 30 Now it is euident that I neither produced nor intended to produce any Authors who in these generall tearmes expresly affirme that the Subiects of an hereticall Prince cannot be discharged of their allegiance neither by the spirituall authority of the Pope nor by the temporall power of the Common-wealth for that it was not my meaning as being a thing altogether impertinent to our Oath of England to examine what authority the ciuil Common-wealth hath ouer their Prince in the case of heresie or Apostacie For our oath onely denieth the Popes authoritie to depose our King and to discharge his subiects from their temporall allegiance and with the authority of the Common-wealth it doth not intermeddle But that the Pope hath no authority to depose temporall Princes and that the spirituall power of the Church doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment depriuation of goods and such like but onely to Ecclesiasticall censures I haue brought many Authours both French and others to prooue the same among whom are Ioannes Parisiensis and also Iacobus Almainus cited here by the Cardinall in his Treatises Ioan. Paris de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 14. de Domino naturali ciuili Ecclesiastico o Concls 2. in probat 2. conclus and de authoritate Ecclesiae p Cap. 2. Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. where he writeth according to his owne opinion though not in his Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica which the Cardinall citeth where he commenteth Occam and speaketh according to Occams doctrine albeit these Doctours doe on the other side affirme that the Common-wealth hath authority to depose a wicked and incorrigible King and so that the Pope may according to them depose him per accidens as Ioan. Parisiensis writeth or to vse Ioannes Maior his words applicando actiua passiuis as he that applieth fire to straw is said to burne the straw to wit by perswading aduising commanding and also by spirituall censures compelling them who haue authority to wit the people or Common-wealth to depose him and after he is deposed by the people or kingdome by declaring his subiects absolued and discharged from the naturall and consequently also spirituall bond of their allegiance but this is impertinent to our oath of England wherein only the Popes authority to depose depriue our King of his Dominions by way of iuridicall sentence is denied 31 Wherefore the English Translatour of the Cardinalls oration doth with as great boldnesse as with little truth shamefully affirme q In his Preface to the Reader that this difference is found between these two oathes that whereas the English oath in one of the clauses seemes to exclude not only the authoritie of the Church ouer Kings but euen of the common-wealth also yea though it should be accōpanied with that of the Church that of France shootes only at the abnegation of the Churches authority For contrariwise although the oath of France may as you shall see at the first sight seeme to deny both the authority of the Church and also of the Common-wealth to depose the King of France yet our Oath shootes onely at the abnegation of the Popes authority to depose our King and to absolue his Subiects from the bond of their temporall allegiance For as I haue shewed in my Theologicall disputation our oath doth onely affirme r Cap. 3. sec 4 that the Pope neither of himselfe that is by the spirituall authority which is granted him by the institution of Christ nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome for that the Church or Sea of Rome hath no such authority nor by any other meanes with any other that is neither as a totall or partiall as a principal or instrumentall cause hath any power or authority to depose the King c. which last words doe only at the most import that whether the temporall Common-wealth hath any authority ouer the King for any cause or crime whatsoeuer or no with which question the King and Parliament did not intermeddle yet the Common-wealth hath giuen no such authority to the Pope either by himselfe or with any other to depose the King c. 32 But the oath of France doth expresly affirme that there is no power on earth whatsoeuer either spirituall or temporall which hath any right ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue the sacred persons of our Kings nor to dispence or absolue their subiects from that loyaltie and obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoeuer for these be the expresse words of the oath of France which our English Translatour as it seemes either hath not seene or maliciously abuseth his Reader in affirming so shamefully that the oath of France shootes onely at the abnegation of the Churches authoritie which words of the oath of France also the Cardinall of Peron seemeth to vnderstand generally of all temporall and spirituall power whatsoeuer either out of the kingdome or of the kingdome it selfe as both by the propounding the state of his question and also by the whole drift of his oration any iudicious man may gather for which cause as I imagine he affirmeth ſ Pag. 115. that our Oath of England is more sweete and modest or moderate then that of France And truely although the words may seeme to any man at the first sight to haue that sense which the Cardinall pretendeth seeing that they expresly deny all power on earth both temporall and spirituall yet both the Translatour of his oration applieth them onely to the Popes authority and also if those words which hath any authority ouer his Maiesties kingdome to depriue be well obserued they may in my iudgement haue a very true sense to wit that the temporall power which there is mentioned is not to be referred to the authority of the kingdome it selfe seeing that no kingdome hath truely and properly right power and authority ouer itselfe neither hath the kingdome of France any right ouer the kingdome of France to depriue
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
it selfe when it bringeth two diuerse expositions of one text or Canon which suppose two contrarie opinions of Doctours and whereof the one contradicteth the other Will hee say Bell. l. 2. de Rom. â—ont cap. 29. that Cardinall Bellarmine contradicteth himselfe when to that text of holy Scripture Iohn 19. Thou shouldest not haue any power against me vnlesse it were giuen thee from aboue bringeth two answeres or expositions whereof the one contradicteth the other the first of Saint Cyrill and Saint Chrysostome that our Sauiour did not speake in that place of true power of Iurisdiction but onely of diuine permission and the other of S. Augustine and S. Bernard that Christ spake there of true power of Iurisdiction and likewise when to that text I appeale to Caesar Act. 25. hee answereth first that Saint Paul did appeale to Caesar de facto but not de iure and secondly that hee did appeale to him both de facto and de iure or when in the same place to another obiection hee giueth two answeres whereof the one contradicteth the other the first is that in the old law the kingdome was aboue the Priesthood and the second that the Priesthood was aboue the kingdome 19 For this is a most vsuall thing for the same Authour to bring to the same Canon text or obiection two contrarie answeres when they are grounded vpon two contrarie opinions whereof both are taught and maintained by learned men Wherefore Ioannes Teutonicus the Glosser of this Canon Hadrianus may without any contradiction bring two contrarie expositions of this Canon when they are grounded vpon the doctrine of learned men whose opinions in that point are one contrarie to the other As the first glosse of this Canon Hadrianus seemeth to follow the doctrine of those who hold that the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ inflict temporall punishments and the second of those who holde the contrarie to wit that it can onely command impose or enioyne temporall penalties and teach or declare what a temporall Prince or Iudge ought to doe and compell them also to doe their duties but not by inflicting temporall punishments but onely spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures and in like maner Hostiensis Ioannes Andreas and Pope Innocent before cited brought two contrarie expositions of the same Canon Ad abolendam which were grounded vpon these two contrarie opinions touching the Popes power to depriue Lay-men of their temporall honour 20 But the reason of Mr. Fitzherberts errour is for that hee silly man seemeth to bee ignorant how according to the rules of Logike modall propositions are contradictorie one to the other for to make them contradictorie the contradiction must bee in the modus and not in the dictum as these two propositions are not contradictorie for that both them may be together true It is the opinion of learned men that our Sauiours words to Pilate Thou shouldest not c. are to bee vnderstood of true power of iurisdiction for so teacheth Saint Augustine and Saint Bernard and It is the opinion of learned men that they are not to bee vnderstood of true power of Iurisdiction but only of diuine permission for so Saint Cyrill and Saint Chrysostome doe affirme but to make them contradictorie the contradiction must bee in the modus as thus It is the opinion of learned men that those words of our Sauiour are to bee vnderstood of true power of Iurisdiction and It is not the opinion of learned men that they are to bee vnderstood of true power of Iurisdiction for these two propositions cannot bee both true but if the one bee true the other must of necessitie bee false and contrariwise Seeing therefore that the Glosse heere vpon the Canon Hadrianus did not intend to bring only those expositions of this Canon which were certaine and out of controuersie but which were agreeable to the doctrine and opinions of learned men although the first Glosse were contradictorie to the second in the dictum yet because they are not contradictorie in the modus for that both of them are approoued by learned men the Glosser cannot be truly said to contradict himselfe in bringing these two contrarie Glosses of the same words both which learned Authours doe maintaine 21 But thirdly neither can Mr. Fitzherbert sufficiently prooue that the former Glosse maketh flat against me and contradicteth the second so much as in the dictum For albeit the expresse wordes of the former Glosse are these Heere the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth them from dignities Yet these words confiscate and depose may very well bee vnderstood as the same Glosse expoundeth the word depose vpon the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. where it is written that Pope Zacharie did depose the King of France for after the Glosse had brought arguments pro and contra for and against the Popes power to depose the Emperour at the last hee answereth thus Hee is saide to haue deposed the King who consented to them that deposed him or which in sense is all one as others expound who taught or declared that hee might bee deposed And according to this exposition the later Glosse doth not contradict the former but is rather an explication thereof For it is all one in sense to say that the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth them from dignities to wit by consenting to them who doe depose and confiscate or which is all one by teaching and declaring that they ought to bee deposed and their goods confiscated which is the former Glosse and to say that the Church doeth teach or declare what ought to bee done by the Secular Prince or Iudge concerning the deposing of Lay-men and confiscating their goods which is the later Glosse and as you haue seene all one in sense with the former 22 Besides the former of these two glosses heere doth only teach that the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes deposeth them from dignities which I neuer denyed but that the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay men and deposeth them from dignities by that spirituall power which she hath receiued from Christ and not onely from that temporall authoritie wherewith shee is endued by the graunt and consent of temporall Princes this the former Glosse which my Aduersarie vntruely saith to bee flat against me doeth not teach in this place but rather the flat contrarie seeing that for proofe of the aforesaid assertion the Glosse alledgeth the Canon Praeceptum 32. q. 5. which Canon is a decree of the 12. Councell of Toledo in Spaine which was gathered by the command of King Eringius who confirmed that Decree and whereat not onely the Bishops of Spaine but also the King and the Officers of the Kings Pallace were present and the King himselfe in his speech to the Councell did coniure not only the Bishops but also the Officers of his Pallace to examine and approoue the things which were there propounded
whereupon not only the Bishops but also 15. Noblemen of the Kings Pallace doe subscribe their names to the decrees of that Councell f See Binnius tom ◠Concil in Conc. Tolet. 12 And the Glosse it selfe expounding those words of this Canon Praeceptum ipsi sesuis meritis a Palatinae dignitatis officio separabunt It is an argument saith the Glosse that if any man contemne Excommunication the Secular Iudge or his Land-Lord hath power to depriue him of his feude or farme 23 Neither from any decree of the Canon law or from any glosse or exposition of Ioannes Teutonicus who glossed these decrees collected by Gratian can it be certainely gathered that the Church by her spirituall power which she receiued from Christ but onely by the grant and authority of temporall Princes may inflict temporall punishments for of her power to inflict spirituall censures and also to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties there is no controuersie betweene my Aduersaries and me Neither also from any of those foure glosses here cited by Mr. Fitzherbert to wit either vpon the Canon Attedendum which Canon as I shewed aboue is falsly attributed to Pope Vrbanus the second and by all probability the whole Canon Attendendū is forged and by some one or other inserted into that decretall Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Pope Vrbanus or vpon the Canon Statuimus or Quisquis or Licet de poenis which last Canon Licet is not glossed by Ioannes Teutonicus whose authority I brought vpon the Canon Hadrianus who expounded only the Decrees collected by Gratian and not the Decretals can it bee forcibly concluded that the Church that is the spirituall Pastours of the Church may without the authority and consent of temporall Princes inflict temporall punishments yea the first Glosse vpon the Canon Licet de poenis here cited by my Aduersary doth clearely fauour my doctrine For demanding why Archdeacons doe exact of Lay-men a pecuniary penalty as it is mentioned in that Canon he answereth because perhaps they were vnder their temporall Iurisdiction or they haue this by custome 24 Neither from the practise of the Church which Mr. Fitzherbert doth so inculcate can any thing be conuinced against this my doctrine And hereof saith hee g Page 168. num 7. the practise is and hath alwaies beene most manifest in the Church and acknowledged by the Canonists to bee grounded on the Canons as partly hath appeared already and shall appeare further h Infra nu 12. 13. 14. 15. seq after a while and therefore I say that those Glosses obiected by Widdrington must either bee so vnderstood that they may agree the one with the other and with the Glosses of other Canons yea with the generall opinion and doctrine of the Canonists and with the whole course and practise of the Canon Law or else they are to be reiected as absurd erroneous and false 25 But although it bee true that for many hundreds of yeares since that Christian Princes haue indewed the Church with great power of ciuill Iurisdiction the practise of the Church hath beene to inflict pecuniarie mulcts yet it is not true that it was the practise of the primitiue Church to inflict but onely to command impose or enioyne temporall penalties and this onely can be prooued by any authenticall Canon as I haue shewed aboue by answering all the Canons which my Aduersary hath alleadged And although also since the time of Pope Gregory the 7. who was the first Pope that began to challenge to himselfe authority as due to him by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments to dispose of all temporals and to depose temporall Princes diuers Popes and other learned men haue with might and maine by fauours and threatnings laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise for which cause it is no maruaile as I haue elsewhere obserued i Apol. nu 449. that their opinion hath beene the more common and generall in Schooles yet for that it hath beene euer contradicted by Christian Princes and learned Catholikes for which cause Ioannes Azorius a learned Iesuite expresly saith k Azor. tom 2. lib. 12. ca. 5. q. 8. that it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether the Pope in certaine cases hath right and authority to depriue Kings of their Kingdomes and about this the Schoole-men are at variance and as yet the controuersie saith Trithemius l In Chro. monast Hirsang an 1106. is not decided by the Iudge and very many Doctours as Almaine affirmeth doe denie that the Ecclesiasticall power can by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment m De Dominio natur ciuit Eccles conclus 2 in probatione illius but only spirituall censures It canot I say be truly called the general doctrine and practise of the Church neither are those Glosses and expositions of those Canonists who fauour this doctrine sufficient to decide the controuersie neither can the other Glosses and expositions which are grounded vpon the contrary doctrine and contradict the former glosses without grosse temeritie bee reiected as erroneous absurd and false 26 And truely in my opinion it is greatly to be maruailed and worthy also the obseruation that albeit for so many hundreds of yeeres both Popes and other Cleargie men haue so earnestly laboured to maintaine and aduance this doctrine and practise of Pope Gregory the seuenth touching the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of temporalls which neuerthelesse Sigebert did not feare to call a nouelty Sigebert ad annum 1088. not to say an heresie yet considering the great opposition which this doctrine and practise hath euer had by reason whereof it was behoouing to haue the matter made cleere and out of controuersie yet I say there cannot be found any one Canon constitution or definition either of Pope or Councell generall or Prouinciall wherein it is plainly decreed that the Pope or Church hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose temporall Princes to dispose of temporalls or to inflict temporall punishments but the certaintie of this doctrine must chiefly bee grounded vpon the facts of Popes which how weake a ground it is to prooue a true right and authoritie any man of iudgement may plainly see and I haue also shewed elsewhere n Apol. nu 444 seq 27 Now then saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Page 168. num 8. seeing that the Glosser acknowledgeth in his former glosse that the Church doth by the Canon ordaine the confiscation of Lay-mens goods and depriuation of their dignities which is also confirmed by diuers other Canons and glosses and the practise of the Church it cannot as I haue said bee imagined that hee meant to contradict it by that which followeth either in the same glosse or in the other vpon the Canon
Bishops authoritie and the Seculiar Iudge is but his instrument and Minister to execute his will yet that a Bishop may only make a pecuniarie penaltie to be inflicted by a Seculiar Iudge by forcing him thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures and not by temporall compulsion this doth very much import and altogether fauour my doctrine For I doe not now contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as by the institution of Christ it is directiue or which is all one commaunding imposing or inioyning for I doe not denie as I haue often said that spirituall Pastours may by their spirituall authoritie commaund impose and inioyne temporall Princes to make temporall lawes as Saint Ambrose did the Emperour Theodosius and to inflict temporall punishments in order to spirituall good in which case those lawes are not made nor those temporall penalties are inflicted by the authoritie of spirituall Pastours as though temporall Princes were only their instruments and Ministers to execute their wills as inferiour Magistrates are onely instruments and Ministers to execute the will of the Prince but I doe now onely contend about the Ecclesiasticall power as it is coerciue or punishing and I vtterly denie that it is a certaine and vndoubted point of faith that the spirituall coerciue power of the Church doth extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures 43 Secondly that fraude and impertinencie which Mr. Fitzherbert doth vntruely attribute to my answeres and obiections I haue clearely shewed to bee found in euery one of his Replies And as touching that absurditie which he now obiecteth against my answere it is cleere that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me is not concerning the power which either the Pope or inferiour Bishops haue by the grant consent and authoritie of temporall Princes I doe not say to commaund impose or inioyne but to inflict temporall penalties vpon Lay-men who are not their temporall subiects but whether any spirituall Pastour whether he be an inferiour Bishop or also the Pope himselfe hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict such temporall penalties And indeed my purpose is to conclude that because it is probable that an inferiour Bishop hath no such authoritie by the institution of Christ iure diuino therefore it is also probable that the Pope iure diuino and by the institution of Christ hath no such authority and vpon what probabilitie this my consequence is grounded and how absurdly Mr. Fitzherbert condemneth it of ridiculous absurditie you shall forthwith perceiue Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca. 3 44 And first according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euery Bishop in the particular which assertion he brought to prooue that if the Pope be a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church then euery Bishop is also a direct Lord in temporals of his owne particular Church or Diocesse which consequent he affirmeth to be manifestly false and therefore hee denyeth also that the Pope is a direct Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church Now from the same assertion I may as well conclude that if the Pope be an indirect Lord in temporals of the vniuersall Church and may inflict temporall punishments vpon all Christians in order to spirituall good then euery Bishop is also an indirect Lord in temporals in his owne particular Diocesse and may in order to spirituall good inflict temporall punishments vpon the Christians of his Diocesse because euery Bishop in his particular Diocesse is that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church And therefore to argue according to the rules of Logicke à destructione consequentis ad destructionem antecedentis from the ouerthrowing or denying of the consequent to the denying of the antecedent If a Bishop in his owne Diocesse cannot according to the institution of Christ inflict a pecuniarie mulct or temporall penalty of money vpon those Lay-men that are not his temporall subiects neither can the Pope in the vniuersall Church doe the same Victoria in relect 2. de potest Eccles Castro lib. 2. de iusta Haeres punit cap. 24. Vasques 1. 2. disp 152. cap. 3. num 28. 45 Secondly according to the doctrine of the Diuines of Paris which others also as Victoria Castro Vasquez although otherwise vehement maintainers of the Popes power indirectly in temporals doe in this point follow it is euident that Bishops doe not receiue their authority and Iurisdiction from the Pope but immediatly from Christ by vertue of those words which were spoken to all the Apostles Whatsoeuer you shall binde c. Matth. 18. And Whose sinnes you shall forgiue c. Iohn 19. And Feede my sheepe Iohn 20. Which words according to the Exposition of the ancient Fathers a See aboue cap. 5. num 10. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad 1586. which also Cardinall Bellar. did once approoue are vnderstood to be spoken also to all the Apostles Seeing therefore that S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles and consequently the Pope and other Bishops who succeede the Apostles as they were ordinary Pastours and had ordinary spirituall power to gouerne the Church receiued their power and iurisdiction in the selfe-same forme of words without any limitation or restriction from hence it clearely followeth that what Ecclesiastical power iurisdiction soeuer the Pope receiueth ouer the whole Church the same power and iurisdiction if we regard meerely the law of God and the institution of Christ other Bishops receiue ouer those who are subiect to their Bishopricke * A Bishop saith Ledesma 1. 4. ar 11. standing in the law of God hath as great power in his Prouince as the Pope in the whole world So that standing in the law of God and abstracting from the Canons of the Church euery Bishop may in his owne Bishoprick absolue from all cases inflict all censures dispense in oathes and vowes make lawes and Canons no lesse then the Pope may in the Vniuersall Church And therefore it is no absurd argument to conclude that because a Bishop cannot by vertue of that spirituall power which hee hath receiued from Christ inflict a pecuniarie penaltie vpon those that in spiritualls are subiect to his Diocesse therefore neither can the Pope doe the same in the Vniuersall Church 46 Whereby it is apparant that the comparison which M. Fitzherbert heere maketh betwixt a King and an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge a Bishop and a Parish Priest and betwixt the Pope and other Bishops is idle and impertinent for that no man can make any doubt but that an inferiour Magistrate or Iudge hath all his authoritie and iurisdiction from the King but Bishops according to the doctrine of many learned men haue not their authority and iurisdiction from the Pope but immediately from Christ as the Pope himselfe hath and all Catholikes confesse that Bishops are Peeres and Princes of the Church and principall Iudges in the externall spirituall Court
whereas none will acknowledge that Parish Priests are such and few will grant that they haue iurisdiction in the externall spirituall Court but onely in the Court of conscience Therefore although it were absurd to say that because euery Bishop can excommunicate in his owne Diocesse therefore euery Parish Priest can also excommunicate in his Parish yet as it is not absurd to say that because the Pope can excommunicate in the vniuersall Church therefore a Bishop standing in the law of Christ can also excommunicate in his owne Diocesse so it is not absurd and much lesse ridiculous to say that if the Pope can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon all Christians euery Bishop also standing in the law of Christ can inflict a temporall penaltie vpon those that are subiect to his Bishopricke no more then it is absurd or ridiculous for Cardinall Bellarmine to say that if the Pope hath direct dominion in temporalls in the vniuersall Church euery Bishop hath also direct dominion in temporalls in his owne particular Bishopricke for that according to his doctrine that which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church is euerie Bishop in his particular Diocesse 47 And as concerning that plenitude or fulnesse of the Popes Ecclesiasticall power which Mr. Fitzherbert with full mouth doth so often inculcate little vnderstanding poore man in what this fulnesse doth consist there is a great controuersie among Catholikes to what things this fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power doth extend Almainus de authore Eccles cap. 3. For there is so great a controuersie saith Almaine concerning the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and to what things it doth extend that there are few things in this matter secure or certaine insomuch that it were very necessary in these times as William Occam in the end of the first part of his Dialogue obserueth that wise men being inforced by oathes or horrible threatnings to speake the truth should declare those things which belong to the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power And how farre some Authours perchance for flattery to get priuiledges and benefices saith Almaine doe straine it to the preiudice of Princes so that they doe quite ouerthrow the Soueraigntie of Princes you may see in that his Treatise where hee expoundeth only the doctrine of Occam and how he notwithstandeth the fulnesse thereof in other his bookes where he speaketh according to his owne opinion will not haue it to extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment and this saith he a In lib. de dominio natu Ciu. Eccl. concl 12. is the opinion of most Doctours 48 And also the Doctours of Paris doe make the power and Iurisdiction of Bishops standing meerely in the law of Christ to be as full in intension as is the Popes power that is abstracting from his Primacie and the fulnesse of his power in extension for that the Popes power is extended to the whole Church and the power of Bishops is limited and restrained to their owne Bishoprikes albeit the Canons of the Church haue limited and restrained the fulnesse of Bishops power also in intension Bell. l. 5 de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. reseruing many cases and Censures to Papall authoritie But standing in the law of Christ Card. Bellarmine doeth very well affirme that euery Bishop is that in his owne Diocesse which the Pope is in the vniuersall Church which Mr. Fitzherbert must first proue to bee impertinent absurd and ridiculous and then let him put those imputations vpon my answere and the argument which he draweth from thence 49 A third principall exception Mr. Fitzherbert taketh against that which in confirmation of my aforesaid second answere I added in these words Adde hereunto that whensoeuer the Pope by a generall constitution decreeth any temporall thing but it pleased my Aduersarie to leaue out that word temporall which is preiudiciall to the right of another man who is not subiect to him in temporalls the same decree as some not improbably doe thinke doeth only extend vnlesse the contrarie bee expressed which last clause also Mr. Fitzherbert leaueth out to the territories of the Roman Church or the patrimonie of S. Peter wherein as Pope Innocent saith b Cap. per venerabil the Pope doth exercise the authoritie of a chiefe Bishop and doth execute the power of a Soueraigne Prince 50 Against this answere Mr. Fitzherbert obiecteth in this manner c pag. 173. nu 18. 19. Thus Widdrington telleth vs but who these some men are of whom he speaketh or where they affirme this hee listeth not to tell vs neither in his text nor in his margent lest by the cases which they propound and the circumstances of their doctrine we might discouer his abuse of their testimonie but whosoeuer they bee if there be any such that giue so generall a rule as hee mentioneth it must bee considered whether they speake of constitutions touching matters meerely temporall or else of penall lawes made against heresie or other enormious crimes for the benefit of the whole Church For no Catholike man I am sure hath euer said or will say that any generall Constitution of the Pope made for the reformation of faith or manners and punishment of delinquents in spirituall matters is to bee vnderstood to bee restrained to the Popes owne temporall patrimonie for seeing that hee hath no lesse spirituall authoritie throughout all Christendome then within his owne temporall dominions it were absurd and hereticall to say that his generall Decrees touching spirituall matters such as is the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie to the preiudice of some mans temporall state for so could not heretikes bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes decrees which neuerthelesse are generally executed Cap. vergentis Tit. 7. de haerâ—â— in preiudice not only of the delinquents but also of their children and next heires And this I say is so vniuersally practised by the Church that hee cannot be counted a Canonist nor yet a Catholike that will deny it to be lawfully done 51 But to omit the egregious fraude and falshood of this man in affirming mee to say that whensoeuer the Pope decreeth any thing c. and leauing out the word temporall and also that other clause vnlesse the contrarie be expressed which were the chiefe points whereon I did ground that my answere there is no man of any iudgement who may not cleerely perceiue that all those Catholike Doctours alleadged by mee heretofore d Apol. nu 4. seq and in the first part of this Treatise and among the rest those plerique Doctores very many or most Doctours whom Almaine citeth and followeth who affirme that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but onely Ecclesiasticall censures must consequently holde that when the Pope by a generall constitution decreeeth any temporall
she vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law or to vse Gersons words from the grant of Princes 56 Lastly Mr. Fitzherbert excepteth against that which I brought from the words of the Glosse vpon the Canon Per venerabilem to confirme the doctrine of those who affirme that the Pope hath not authority to make ciuill or temporall lawes or which is all one to ordaine meere temporall things out of his owne temporall dominions And these Authours the Glosse said I vpon the same Canon Per venerabilem doth seeme to fauour where it affirmeth that the Pope cannot legitimate any man who is not subiect to his temporall Iurisdiction to make him succeede in an inheritance as a lawfull heire for this were to put his sickle into another mans haruest and to vsurpe another mans Iurisdiction and to depriue some man of his right to succeede which hee ought not to doe and therefore he cannot legitimate any man for the Secular Court vnlesse the Prince shall permit or giue him leaue But if the Pope cannot legitimate one who is not legitimate nor depriue one of his right to succeede I see not by what authority he can make a lawfull and legitimate heire or Prince to be vnlawfull and not legitimate or depriue one of his inheritance which hee lawfully possesseth 57 But to this Glosse whose words as you see are most plaine and cleare Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth h Page 174. num 20. to the end that this my instance or example taken from the Glosse is no lesse impertinent then the former seeing that it concerneth onely a temporall matter without relation to any spirituall end And is it possible saith he that Widdrington cannot see the difference betwixt these two cases seeing that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end that is to make them capable of a temporall inheritance is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince whereas the deposition of Princes in this our case hauing a spirituall end to wit the extirpation of heresie and punishment of sinne to the exceeding great good of soules and the publike benefite of the Church is not meerely temporall in respect of the spirituall end and therefore may proceede from the spiritvall power of him that hath the supreame charge of soules and the gouernment of the whole Church in whom it may suffice for that purpose to haue an indirect dominion ouer temporall things to bee vsed and exercised in some cases when the necessity of the Church shall require it 58 Whereupon it also followeth that if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church that the Pope should legitimate a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance as for example if a kingdome should otherways fall into the hands or possession of Gods enemies in such a case I say he might doe it by his spirituall power and the indirect dominion he hath ouer temporall things as both Lawyers i See Couerra in 4 Decret 2. par §. 8. nu 16 and Diuines teach and the Glosse alleaged by Widdrington doth not denie it affirming onely that the Pope hath no power to legitimate a bastard out of his owne temporall Dominions to a meere temporall end which as I haue said is a farre different case from ours and not denyed by vs So as you see still how improbably Widdrington argueth and how absurdly he hath answered to his owne obiection And this I hope may suffice for the confutation of his second answere Let vs now heare the third 59 But in this also Mr. Fitzherbert sheweth as much fraude and ignorance as hee hath in the former For first it is euident that this assertion of the Glosse denying the Pope to haue authoritie out of his owne temporall dominions to make one capable of a temporall inheritance vnlesse the Prince giue him leaue is generall and without any relation at all either to a temporall or spirituall end and the onely exception limitation or restriction which the Glosse maketh is vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue so to doe which words being so generall doe plainly signifie that the Pope cannot out of his owne temporall dominions make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer vnlesse the Prince permit or giue him leaue And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that the Pope may for a spirituall end to wit for that the spirituall good of the Church and the saluation of soules make one capable or incapable of a temporall inheritance this explication corrupteth the text and is contrarie to the plaine words of the Glosse for if the Pope out of his owne temporall Dominions may for a spirituall end make one capable of a temporall inheritance or depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission then it cleerely followeth that the Pope may make one capable of a temporall inheritance and legitimate him for the Secular Court and depriue one of his right to succeed without the Princes leaue or permission which the Glosse in expresse words denieth 60 But secondly is it possible that this man cannot see how plainly he contradicteth himselfe in granting first that the legitimation of bastards to a temporall end is to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and that so it is a meere temporall thing and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince and afterwards in acknowledging that the legitimation of a bastard to make him capable of succession to a temporall inheritance if it were absolutely necessary for the good of the Church may bee done by the Popes spirituall power and indirect dominion which he hath ouer temporalls which is plainly repugnant to his former assertion seeing that no reference or relation of the making bastards capable of a temporall inheritance to the necessary good of the Church can make but that according to his former grant it still remaineth a meere temporall thing and is to a temporall end that is saith hee to make him capable of a temporall inheritance and therefore requireth the temporall power and direct dominion of a temporall Prince consequently it cannot be done by the spirituall power and indirect dominion which the Pope hath ouer temporall things 61 Wherefore this indirect temporall power authoritie dominion or iurisdiction is in my opinion a meere fiction purposely inuented without sufficient ground by the later Diuines to put a more colourable cloake vpon this pretended temporall authoritie of the Pope because they saw the Canonists doctrine making the Pope a temporall Monarch of the whole world to be very false absurd scandalous and odious both to Princes and subiects and yet in effect or substance they differ little or nothing at all For whatsoeuer the Canonists grant that the Pope may doe in temporalls directly the Diuines grant he may doe indirectly which doth in effect as much as the former derogate
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
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
Reader may easily perceiue how vaine and impertinent are the rest of Mr. Fitzherberts inferences and obiections in this Chapter which therefore I might well omit but that to giue satisfaction to the vnlearned Reader I am in a sort compelled to set them downe 26 Whereupon saith he f Page 180. num 6. it followeth first that Widdringtons answere to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran grounded vpon a distinction of a matter of fact and a matter of faith is very vaine and friuolous as well because the one doth not exclude the other as also because by that distinction hee may impugne the Decree of the Apostles themselues of the Popes Pius and Victor and of the Councell of Nice and such other touching matters of fact no lesse probably then hee impugneth the Canon of the Councell of Lateran 27 But to this as you haue seene I haue answered before and haue cleerely shewed that I did not impugne but onely expound the decree of the Lateran Councell and that I did not oppose a matter of faith to euery matter of fact but to a matter of fact onely or which is all one to such a matter of fact which is not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and such a matter of fact doth exclude a matter of faith also that by this distinction I doe not any wise impugne the decree of the Apostles of Pope Pius and Victor of the Councell of Nice or of any other touching matters of fact 28 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert g Pa. 180. nu 7 it appeareth that as the Quartadecimani were woorthily condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those Decrees so also those who doe with like obstinacy impugne the other Decree of the Councell of Lateran doe much more deserue to be held for heretickes seeing that they haue much lesse probability for their opinion then the other had 29 But this also hath been answered before for neither were the quartadecimani condemned of heresie because they obstinately contradicted the authoritie of those decrees but because they contradicted them vpon an hereticall ground Neither doe I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell but do only expound it according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who since the Councell of Lateran haue affirmed that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but that the Church when she inflicteth such punishments doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes which learned Doctours cannot without grosse temeritie and impudency be therefore condemned of heresie And if this decree of the Lateran Councell bee so cleere a proofe to make this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee a point of faith and the contrary hereticall as these men pretend I would gladly know why Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies Victoria Corduba Moliua or D. Sanders did not vrge it to make their doctrine in this point certaine vnquestionable and of faith and why Marsilius of Padua was not by some one of those who write of heresies accounted an hereticke for impugning this doctrine and why it was not by Castro Prateolus Cardinall Bellarmine or some other reckoned among one of his heresies but it must now forsooth within these few yeeres without any new definition either of Pope or Councell bee made an heresie which for a 1600. yeeres before was not by any ancient Father or Catholike Diuine accounted an heresie 30 Thirdly saith Mr. Fitzherbert h Pa. 181. nu â— whereas Widdrington concludeth this his third answere with this reason that the Fathers in the Councell of Lateran had no more assurance and certaintie for this their Decree then if they had declared their opinion foorth of the Councell because Christ hath not promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit vnto facts and probable opinions of Popes or Councells but to their definitions onely this his conclusion I say is most impertinent not onely because it impugneth the foresaid Decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Nicene Councell no lesse then this other of the Councell of Lateran but also because he flatly ouerthroweth himselfe seeing that this Decree of the Councell of Lateran is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresie and therefore seeing that our Sauiour promised the infallible assistance of his holy Spirit to the definitions of Popes and Councels as Widdrington hath here expresly affirmed it followeth that the Pope and Fathers in the Councell of Lateran neither did nor could erre in their definition or Decree concerning the deposition of Princes when it shall be necessary for the extirpation of heresie 31 But all this also I haue fully satisfied before and shewed a great disparity betwixt those decrees of the Apostles of Pope Pius and of the Councell of Nice and betwixt the Act of the Lateran Councell concerning the future deposition of temporall Potestaes both for that this Act of the Lateran Councell is no true and proper Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as those were and also for that no Catholike Authour affâ—rmeth that those Decrees were made by temporall but onely by spirituall authoritie but very many Doctours affirme that this Act was made by the authoritie and consent of temporall Princes seeing that according to their doctrine the Church by the institution of Christ hath not authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but that when shee vseth or inflicteth them shee doth it by the pure positiue law and priuiledges of Princes 32 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert saith that this Decree of the Lateran Councell is a true definition concerning the meanes to extirpate heresiâ— if hee meane by the Decree of the Lateran Councell this onely Act concerning the absoluing of Vassalls from their fealty whereof onely wee now dispute and by a definition hee vnderstand a Decree containing some precept or obligation either concerning faith or manners this is very vntrue for as I shewed before this Act according to his owne grounds containeth no precept bond or obligation vnlesse he will grant that the Councell hath authoritie to command or bind the Pope and therefore it is not properly a true Decree but onely the reason cause and end of the former Decree and although it were a true decree and in that sense a definition yet for that it was enacted not by spitituall but by temporall authoritie it is euident that no infallible assistance of the holy Ghost was promised by our Sauiour Christ to the making thereof But if by this Decree of the Lateran Councell he vnderstand the whole act which containeth diuers particular decrees coÌ„cerning the rooting out of heresie by spirituall meanes for to root out heresie by temporall meanes and inflicting temporall punishments as I haue often said doth not belong to spirituall but to temporall authoritie then I willingly graunt that this Decree is a true definition
sufficiently answered 46 And whereas Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader to D. Schulckenius for the confutation of my answeres to these examples if the Reader will be pleased after he hath read ouer this my Treatise wherein I confute this Doctour but onely to conferre my answeres with his Replies hee will easily perceiue how egregiously hee shuffleth and that he hath much adoe to excuse Cardinall Bellarmine from manifest improbability and bringeth no one argument which prooueth any one of my answeres to bee improbable and if hee desire to see this Doctours Replies more particularly answered I remit him likewise for this present to Maister Iohn Barclay to whom as yet no answere hath beene made in his booke against Cardinall Bellarmines answere to his father but especially to the Bishop of Rochester who although a Protestant yet out of Catholike Authours and Catholike grounds hath very cleerely and particularly confuted all these examples and what Cardinall Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius if they bee two sundrie men haue brought to confirme the same 47 Besides that saith M. Fitzherbert Å¿ Pag. 184. nu 14. neither the Church nor yet Secular Princes doe vse to declare in their lawes from what authority the execution thereof shall proceede but it sufficeth that their authority to decree ordaine and execute their Lawes is sufficiently knowne and acknowledged by their subiects wherby it appeareth that Widdrington doth very idly require that the Councell of Lateran should haue declared that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie being a matter which they held to bee without all doubt or Controuersie 48 But as for Secular Princes it is not needefull for them to declare by what authoritie they make temporall lawes and ordaine or inflict temporall punishments for that no Catholike euer made doubt but that they had full authoritie to doe the same but seeing that it hath euer beene a Controuersie among Catholikes and very many Doctours doe affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments whensoeuer the Church doth inflict such punishments without declaring by what authoritie she doeth the same we may probably answere according to the grounds of these Doctours that shee doeth it not by her spirituall authoritie which can inflict no such punishments but by the authoritie license and consent of temporall Princes and therefore that we must certainly beleeue that the Councell of Lateran did ordaine the future deposition not of temporall Princes as this man faineth but of inferiour Land-lords Magistrates or Lords by her vndoubted Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same seeing that both Catholike Princes and subiects haue euer made a great doubt and controuersie concerning this point neither could the Fathers of that Councell bee ignorant heereof who both saw and felt what great contradiction and opposition both Philip and Otho t Pag. 184. nu 15. and the Princes of Germanie and their fauourers made against this pretended authoritie of the Pope to depose the Emperour and to dispose of temporall matters belonging to the Empire 49 And as for the consent of Princes saith Mr. Fitzherbert which Widdrington also requireth to Decrees concerning temporall matters I haue alreadie answered him touching that point and shewed u See Chap. 11. nu 7. 8. 9 s and see also my answere to the same as well by the example of the Apostles themselues as by the practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes that their consent is needelesse to the validitie of Ecclesiasticall Decrees and that if the same were needefull all Christian Princes should stand bound to obey the Decrees of the Councell because being enacted by their generall consent in a generall Parliament of all Christendome it cannot bee repealed without another generall Councell of like authoritie So as thou seest good Reader that Widdringtons third answere is in euery thing defectiue and no lesse improbable then the former Neuerthelesse hee presumeth so much vpon the probabilitie thereof that hee vndertaketh to answere also a Reply which hee imagineth we will make to his last argument he should rather haue said last answer wherof I will examine the particulars in the next chap. 50 And I also in those places cited heere by my Aduersarie haue fully confuted his answeres and haue cleerely shewed that by no example of the Apostles nor any one practise of the primitiue Church when there were no Christian Emperours or Princes it can bee conuinced that the Apostles by their ordinarie power for of their extraordinarie and miraculous power I doe not now dispute or any Pope or Councell in the primitiue Church did inflict temporall punishments And whether a temporall law made in a generall assemblie or Parliament of all Christian Princes or confirmed by the generall consent of them all cannot bee repealed but by such another generall Assemblie or by the generall consent of them all I haue sufficiently declared aboue x Cap. 8. nu 26. seq out of the doctrine of Fa. Suarez when I treated of the law of Nations Two things only may for this present be added thereunto The first is that no humane law either Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill doth binde vnlesse it bee approoued by the acceptance of the people as the common opinion of Diuines and Lawyers doeth affirme y See Disput Theol. c. 6. sec 3. nu 25. and that many Decrees of this Lateran Councell and namely this Decree which is now in question that euery temporall Officer Land-Lord or Lord when they come first to their Office or Landes must take an Oath to roote out heretikes from the territories subiect to their Iurisdiction was neuer obserued or put in execution in this kingdome and in many other Kingdomes and Nations it is manifest for ought wee can gather by the relation of Histories 51 The second is that there is great difference to bee obserued betwixt temporall kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ and consequently betwixt the generall assemblies or Parliaments of them both for that all Christians doe make one true proper and totall mysticall body or Common-wealth which is the Catholike Church and spirituall kingdome of Christ really vnited in spiritualls and subiect to one supreame visible head or spirituall Superiour thereof but all Christians doe not make one true and totall Ciuill body or Common-wealth really vnited in temporalls and subiect to one supreame visible head or temporall Prince thereof but they doe make diuers entire temporall kingdomes or Common-wealths so that throughout all the whole world there is but one true entire Catholike Church or mysticall body of Christ but there are many true entire temporall kingdomes and common-wealths From whence the iudicious Reader may easily gather the reason why a Decree made by a Generall Councell or spirituall Parliament can not be repealed but by
another generall Councell of like authority and why a Bishop for example of Spaine as he is a part of the generall Councell which is a true formall body representing the whole Catholike Church hath power and iurisdiction ouer the Christians of another temporall kingdome for example of France and contrariwise but a temporall or Ciuill law made by the consent of all Christian Princes may bee repealed by euery Prince for as much as concerneth his owne kingdome by whose onely authoritie that law had force to binde in his kingdome which in temporalls is subiect to no other Prince but himselfe alone and therefore as that law had not force to binde in his kingdome from the authoritie of any other Prince so the authoritie and consent of no other Prince is necessarie for the repealing and abrogating of the same So as thou seest good Reader that my third answere is no way defectiue but in euery thing sound and sufficient and that Maister Fitzherbert in the impugning thereof hath very grossely bewrayed his egregious fraude and ignorance CHAP. XIIII VVherein three Instances grounded vpon three examples of Popes decrees and sentences brought by Widdrington to confute three arguments of Fa. Lessius whereby hee laboured in vaine to demonstrate that the foundations of the decrees and sentences of Popes and Councells must bee certaine and of faith are prooued to bee sound and sufficient and the first example brought by Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherberts exceptions against the same are confuted and hee himselfe in setting downe Widdringtons instances and applying them to the decree of the Lateran Councell is conuinced of manifest fraude and falshood 1. AFter I had giuen the aforesaide third answere to that Act of the Lateran Councell as you haue seene before I insinuated another difficultie a In the aforesaid Preface nu 51. concerning that Act in these wordes I omit now that those wordes that from that time the Pope may denounce or declare his Vassalls absolued from his fealtie doe containe in them some difficultie for if wee will regard the force or proprietie of the wordes they seeme onely to signifie that it belongeth to the Pope not truely to absolue Vassalls from their fealtie but onely to declare them alreadie absolued which is not the question which wee haue now in hand But this difficultie Mr. Fitzherbert passeth ouer with silence and skippeth to examine three instances which I did not onely imagine or suppose as hee saith would be made against my last answere but which Fa. Lessius in those expresse words by me related in a booke of his called Disputatio Apologetica pro potestate Summi Pontificis which went heere vp and downe for a while in hugger mugger and whereof by chance I had then a view but now it cannot be seene but by very speciall and secret friends which is a manifest token of a great diffidence in his cause did bring to demonstrate and cleerely conuince that it is a manifest point of faith that the Pope hath power and authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance 2 And because Mr. Fitzherbert doth ouer much pare and curtoll those three instances which I brought to confront and paralele with the three arguments or obiections vrged by Fa. Lessius I thinke it not amisse first of all to relate them word by word as there they are set downe by me Wherefore the first argument or obiection of Fa. Lesus is this 1. Argument of Fa Lessius That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes Councels and Doctours doe eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of their Decrees and sentences but this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and to absolue subiects from their allegiance is eyther propounded or supposed by Popes Councels and Doctors as a foundation of many Canons and iudiciall sentences therfore this doctrine doth appertaine to faith 2. Argument 3 His second argument is this If a Generall Councell should expresly define that the Church hath this authoritie no Catholike could make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that it doth suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of her Decrees and Sentences shee is thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to be accounted no lesse certaine 3. Argument 4 His third argument is this It is a poynt of Faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which is per se of it selfe vnlawfull for such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then is an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to depriue temporall Princes of their dominions the Church should erre in doctrine of manners and that in matters of very great moment For shee teacheth that after a Prince is deposed by the Popes authority all his subiects are absolued from his obedience and that his dominions may bee taken by another as it is manifest by the Councells Also that after a Prince is publikely excommunicated his subiects are absolued from their Oath of Allegiance in so much that they are not bound to obey him vntill hee he reconciled yea and she doth forbid them to obey him if the Censure be denounced All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the subiects shall thereby be incited to rebellions and periuries yea and against their will be compelled thereunto Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and commandeth rebellions and periuries and by her Censures doth compell men thereunto but to affirme this is hereticall therefore that also from whence this followeth is hereticall to wit that the Church hath not authority to absolue subiects from the bond of their oath and from their obedience 5 Thus argueth Fa. Lessius to which his arguments I did not answer in forme but onely propounded three other instances or arguments to confront them with his whereby the learned Reader might cleerely see the weakenesse and insufficiency of his obiections which my arguments I grounded in like manner vpon the dispensations decrees and iudiciall sentences of certaine Popes in these words * Praefatio Apol nu 56. seq 6 And first of all is not the due administration of Sacraments a matter of great moment and chiefly belonging to the Popes office is not an error concerning it to be accounted very pernicious But the Pope hath oftentimes giuen leaue to a Priest who was no Bishop to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation b As it appeareth by S. Gregory lib. 3. epist 26. and it is related in the Canon peruenit dist 95. and many Abbots at this day haue the same faculty Concil Flor. circa finem in Decreto Eugen. whereas it is a great cōtrouersie among
Diuines whether the Pope can giue leaue to such a Priest to administer this Sacrament Seeing therefore that to the Sacraments of the new Law as the Councell of Florence declareth are required three things the matter the forme and the Minister of which if any one be wanting it is not a true and perfect Sacrament and that it is a very great sacriledge that the due and lawfull matter and forme of a Sacrament should be seriously applied by an vnlawfull Minister if the Pope in whom only according to these Diuines the whole Ecclesiastiall power and authority to define infallibly matters of faith doth chiefly reside cannot grant authority to a Priest who is no Bishop to administer this Sacrament as very learned Diuines c Adrianus Papa in 4. in q. de confess ar 3. Durand in 4. dist 7. q. 3. 4 Bonauent ibid. Alphon. de Cast in l. de haer verbo confirmatio Petrus Soto lec 2. de confirm and others without any note of heresie or errour doe hold is it not a very great errour to grant such licences whereby there is danger that most heinous sacriledges to wit the inualid administrations of Sacraments should be committed 7 Moreouer Pope Sixtus the fourth did in honor of the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary make a Decree d It is to be seen in the 4. tome of the Councels after the life of Pope Sixtus for celebrating the Feast of her Conception to the end that all faithfull Christians should giue thanks and praise to almighty God for her wonderfull conception which he also cals immaculate e In the second decree of the immaculate Virgin and notwithstanding it is vncertaine and disputed by Diuines on both sides whether the B. Virgin was conceiued in originall sinne or by the speciall prouidence of God preserued from the same Is it not therefore from hence manifest that the doctrine which is propounded or supposed as a foundation of an Apostolicall constitution and decree and which belongeth to the religious seruice of God is not so certaine and vndoubted a truth but that without danger of deadly sinne it may be impugned 8 Lastly some Popes haue oftentimes dispenced with Princes who haue made a solemne vow of chastity in approoued Religions to contract matrimonie f See Azor. tom 1. li. 12. c. 7. q. 1. as it is recorded by Historiographers of Constantia daughter to Roger King of Sicilie of Casimirus King of Poland and of Ramirus King of Aragon and of Nicholas Iustinian a noble Venetian but if the Pope hath no authority to dispence in the solemne vowe of religious chastitie whereof there is a great controuersie among Catholike Doctours g For S. Thomas and all his followers whom Zanchez a Iesuite relateth lib. 8 de Matrimon disp 8. doe deny that the Pope hath such a power and Zanchez also saith that it is probable doubtlesse such dispensations would cause very many hainous sinnes and doe also great wrong to other Princes who by such dispensations should be vniustly depriued of their iust title to raigne and to succeede in their inheritance These bee the examples whereon I grounded my three arguments or instances to confront them with the former three of Fa. Lessius in these words 1. Instance of Widdrington 9 May we not therefore according to our aduersaries principles argue in this manner That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which the Pope in whom onely according to these Doctours all authoritie to define infallibly matters of faith doth reside h For they grant that the Pope alone without a Coūcell hath this insallibility the Councell without the Pope hath it not doth eyther propound or suppose as a certaine and vndoubted ground or foundation of his Decrees and sentences this is the Maior proposition of Fa. Lessius first argument But this doctrine that the B. Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne that the Pope can dispence in the solemn vow of chastity and giue leaue to a Priest who is no Bishop to Minister the Sacrament of Confirmation is propounded or supposed by Popes as a ground or foundation of many their decrees dispensations and iudiciall sentences therefore that doctrine doth appertaine to faith This is the substance of my first instance but in forme made like to Fa Lessius his first argument 2. Instance 10 Secondly if the Pope should expresly define that the Church hath such a power to wit to dispence in the solemne vow of chastitie to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and to define that the blessed Virgin was not conceiued in originall sinne no Catholike of those especially who hold that the Pope defining without a Generall Councell cannot erre can make any doubt but that this matter should appertaine to faith but seeing that Popes doe suppose it as a sure and certaine foundation of their Decrees and sentences they are thought no lesse to affirme the same therefore it ought to bee accounted no lesse certaine 3. Instance 11 Thirdly it is a point of faith as our Aduersaries suppose that the Pope cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally any thing to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or to bee vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding any thing which per se of it selfe is vnlawfull For such an errour is no lesse pernicious to the faithfull then an errour in faith But if the Pope should not haue that authority to dispence in the solemne vow of chastity or to giue leaue to an inferiour Priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation the Pope should erre in doctrine and precepts of manners and that in matters of very great moment For he teacheth that the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by an inferiour Priest who is no Bishop is a true Sacrament Also that if a Prince by the Popes dispensation doe marry a professed Nunne that marriage to be lawfull and valid and that their children are lawfully begotten and ought to succeed in the Kingdome and notwithstanding that the next of the blood Royall should for want of the lawfull issue of this Prince pretend a right to the Crowne yet the Pope may without doubt according to our Aduersaries doctrine commaund and also by Censures compell the Subiects to acknowledge the issue begotten by that marriage wherein the Pope did dispence to be their true vndoubted and rightfull Prince All which shall be false and not onely false but also pernicious for that the Subiects shall be incited thereby to doe iniuries and against their wills be compelled thereunto and Princes shall obtaine free liberty and licence from the Pope to commit incests and sacriledges Therefore the Church doth erre in doctrine of manners and counsaileth sacriledge and commandeth iniustice and by Censures compelleth thereunto But to affirme this it is heritical therefore that also from whence followeth is hereticall to wit that the Pope hath not authority to dispence
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
commandement concerning all subiects not to obey their temporall Prince being deposed by the Pope or to rebell and plot conspiracies against him But if by commanding he vnderstand particular decrees and commandements propounded to particular persons Bishops Churches or Kingdomes against any particular Emperours Kings or temporall Princes then I say that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus the Church and much more the Pope may erre and of this sort are the depositions iudiciall sentences and commandements of Pope Gregory the seauenth in a Councell held at Rome against Henrie the fourth Emperor of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons against Frederike the second Emperour and all other particular depositions of whatsoeuer Emperours Kings or temporall Princes and in these commandements the Popes were euer resisted and contradicted both by Princes themselues and also by learned and vertuous Catholike subiects as it appeareth euidently not onely by the first depositions of Emperours and Princes but also by the two last of our late Queene Elizabeth and the last King of Fraunce who were obeyed in ciuill matters by their Catholike subiects acknowledged by them to be their true and rightfull Soueraignes notwithstanding the Popes particular declaration sentence and commandement to the contrary as I haue shewed at large concerning our late Queene in the first part and of the King of Fraunce the late troubles and ciuill warres in Fraunce which are yet both fresh in most mens memories and recorded also by Histories are sufficient testimonies 22 Thus thou seest good Reader that neither by this third example of Popes dispensations in vowes whereon not onely my third Instance but also the two former were grounded all which Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed did I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell as the silly man to make some shew of confuting them as absurd improbable impertinent fond and ridiculous doth most vntruely affirme neither did I in any one of my examples or Instances make any mention at all of the said Decree seeing that I had before sufficiently answered to this Decree not by impugning but onely by expounding it and by clearely conuincing that according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who are of opinion that the Church cannot by her spirituall power inflict temporall punishments it must according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne principles who acknowledgeth that all lawes and decrees whatsoeuer are to be restrained and limited according to the power of the Law-Maker c. be vnderstood of the deposing not of temporall Princes who are not subiect to the authoritie of the Church forasmuch as concerneth meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end whatsoeuer they bee inflicted but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes but that which I intended by my three examples and instances was to shew the weakenesse and insufficiency of Fa. Lessius his three arguments as I haue sufficiently declared before 23 But if I should presse M. Fitzherbert a little further and grant him for Disputation sake which he is not able to prooue to wit that the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell is to bee vnderstood of the deposition of temporall Princes yet the silly man would haue much adoe to prooue as also I haue signified before that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Cap. 13. nu 7. seq which I haue related aboue it is such a Decree that from thence it can be sufficiently gathered that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith seeing that according to their grounds onely those Decrees and precepts touching faith or manners are infallible and of faith which are generall and vniuersall and belong to the whole Church and all the faithfull and consequently as well Clearkes as Lay-men For onely in this case saith Canus the Councels Canus l. 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. or Fathers are to be vnderstood to pronounce of faith when the sentence or Decree belongeth to all Christians when it bindeth all Therefore the doctrine of Popes and Councells saith hee if it bee propounded to the whole Church if it bee also propounded with an obligation to be beleeued then doth their sentence or Decree concerne a point of faith And concerning Decrees and precepts of manners Canus teacheth the same When the Church saith he in a matter of weight and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all the people she cannot command any thing which is contrary to the Gospell or naturall reason but in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate men or Churches she may erre through ignorance not only in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. 5. And Cardinall Bellarmine also affirmeth that those Decrees or precepts concerning faith or manners wherein the Pope in whom he putteth all the infallibilitie of the Church cannot erre must bee generall and be propounded and belong to all the faithfull 24 Now this Act of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie besides that it is not properly a Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as I signified before containing in it any precept or obligation vnlesse they will grant the Councell to be aboue the Pope nor also propounded as of faith according to the rules of Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus before related and therefore it cannot according to their doctrine appertaine to faith it is not also a generall Decree and which appertaineth to the whole Church and all the faithfull for it doth not concerne Cleargie men who according to my Aduersaries false scandalous and seditious doctrine are not subiect to temporall Princes nor doe owe to them any temporall allegiance but onely the temporall Vassals of temporall Lords and those not all but of such a Lord onely who for a yeere remaineth excommunicated for neglecting to purge his territories of heresie For those words of the Councell vt ex tunc ipse c. that from that time the Pope may denounce his Vassals absolued from their fealtie can onely bind either the Pope to make that denunciation or that temporall Lord not to exact of his Vassals temporall fealtie or the Vassalls not to giue to that temporall Lord temporall fealty and so it cannot binde Cleargy men who doe not owe any temporall fidelity or obedience to temporal Lords according to my Aduersaries false doctrine nor also all Vassals but onely those of that temporall Lord wherevpon the decree is not generall and belonging to all the faithfull which neuerthelesse is necessary that any decree or precept concerning faith or manners doe appertaine to faith 25 And if perchance my Aduersary will say that it bindeth all
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
Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome for of Fa. Parsons misinforming his Holinesse I made no mention at all in that answere but onely of his vrging his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the oath My words were these c Num. 52. Moreouer that his Holinesse was perswaded that in this oath is denied his spirituall authority to inflict Censures is plainely gathered by a letter of Fa. Parsons who did greatly vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues as both some Iesuites here with vs doe freely confesse and also no man who knoweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in his daies can make any doubt thereof This therefore is the true copie of that letter c. About some foure o fiue moneths agoe it was consulted by seauen or eight of the learnedst Diuines that could bee chosen who gaue their iudgement of it Their reasons are many but all reduced to this that the Popes authority in chastising Princes vpon a iust cause is de fide and consequently cannot bee denied when it is called into controuersie without denying of our faith nor that the Pope or any other authoritie can dispense in this c. 50 Now Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale this part of the letter whereby it is manifest that the Diuines of Rome did suppose that the Popes authority to punish Princes and consequently to excommunicate and to inflict spirituall Censures is denied in the oath for otherwise as I shewed in that place d Num. 57. they had argued very vitiously against the knowne rules of Logicke from a particular to inferre an vniuersall as thus The Pope cannot chastice Princes by taking away their liues or dominions therefore the Pope cannot chastise Princes as though the inflicting of spirituall Censures and the denouncing of anathema Aug. lib. 1. contra aduers leg prophet cap. 7. which according to Saint Augustine is more horrible then any corporall death were not to be accounted a chasticing of Princes We grant therefore that the Pope may chastice Princes by vsing Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not denied in the oath but we vtterly deny that to depriue Princes of their dominions or liues are to be ranked among spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures Thus I argued in that place from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter all which my fraudulent Aduersary thought best for his purpose to conceale and to skip ouer to the other part of the letter thinking from thence to take some colourable argument to prooue both that Fa. Parsons did not perswade and draw his Holinesse to the publication of his Breue also that the inference I made frō thence to wit that his Holinesse was perswaded that his authority to inflict Censures is denied in the oath is sorsooth improbable and impertinent wherein as you shall see he continueth still his ancient fraude and falsitie 51 For first I did not intend to prooue by Fa. Parsons letter or by his conference with his Holinesse that he vrged and perswaded his Holinesse to forbid the taking of the oath two other reasons I brought here to confirme the same wich Mr. Fitzherbert after his vsuall manner concealeth the one that some Iesuites heere in England did freely confesse the same the other that no man who konweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in Fa. Parsons time can make any doubt thereof To which may be added two other the first that Mr. Nicholas Fitzherbert whose letter is yet to be seene did send word to a friend of his that Fa. Parsons laboured much to haue the oath forbidden the second that the Prouinciall of the Iesuites at that time who is yet liuing did boast to diuers persons that he would cause to be reuersed what Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest had concluded concerning the lawfulnesse of the oath and would procure a Breue from his Holinesse to forbid all Catholikes to take the oath and which with very great expedition as I signified in my Epistle Dedicatory to his Holinesse was accordingly performed all which are to any man of iudgement very probable coniectures if not morall certainties that Fa. Parsons did vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the taking of the oath But howsoeuer it be it is not much materiall to my second answere or reason which is that his Holinesse was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures and consequently his spirituall supremacy is plainly denied in the oath whether Fa. Parsons did vrge and incite his Holinesse to forbid the oath or no. 52 Besides for the confirmation of my second answere those words of the Breue for that it containeth many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation and also his Holinesse answere to Fa. Parsons that he could not hold them for Catholikes who seemed to incline to the taking of the oath are very considerable for that before these our miserable times wherein so many new fangled Doctours are ready to coyne new articles of faith and to taxe with such facilitie their Catholike brethren of errour and heresie that will not foorth with approoue their nouelties it was neuer in the Church of God accounted an heresie to deny the Popes authoirty to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments neither hath any Catholike Author who writeth of heresies or Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe relating the errours of Marsilius of Padua ranked him among heretickes for denying the Popes power to depose Princes And very many Catholike Doctours with Iacobus Almaine who haue not therefore beene branded by any man with any note of heresie or errour doe resolutely affirme that the authoritie of the Church doth not extend by the institution of Christ to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods much lesse of kingdomes but onely of spirituall Censures And Fa. Suarez himselfe dare not auouch Suarez l. 6. c. 1. that the Popes spirituall authority is plainly and manifestly but onely couertly denied in the oath and this also he gathereth from many farre fetcht consequences all which I haue cleerely answered in my Appendix against him And therefore from the aforesaid words of his Holinesse that he could not take those Priests for Catholikes that inclined to the taking of the oath it may very probably be included that he was fully perswaded that not onely his authority to depose Princes but also his power to excommmicate and to binde and loose in generall as Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome then conceiued is plainly denied in the Oath 53 Secondly whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that hee can testifie vpon his owne knowledge that Fa. Parsons was so farre from perswading or drawing his Holinesse to the resolution which hee tooke concerning the publication of his Breue that he sought to induce him to some other course propounding meanes of mitigation c. I will not now contend about the
A thing not heard of before that age saith Onuphrius which their practise and the doctrine thereof hath neuerthelesse been euer contradicted by Christian Princes and their Catholike subiects and therefore it cannot be rightly called the generall practise of the Church nor ancient but in respect of this our age not from that practise can any sufficient argument be drawne to proue the doctrine to be certaine and of faith and that the contrary cannot be maintained by any Catholike without the note of heresie errours or temeritie Neither doe I contradict or impugne the expresse Canons of the Church the decrees of Popes and generall Councels and especially of that famous Lateran Councell but I expound them according to the probable doctrine of learned Diuines * See aboue in the first part of this Treatise See aboue chap. 11. from nu 3. cha 12. from nu 56. and Hostiensis vpon the same Canon Per venerabilem and exposition of the Canonists cited by Innotentius Hostiensis and Ioaâ—â—r Andreas vpon the Canon Ad abolendam and as the Glosse with those Doctors whom Hostiensis mentioneth and calleth them Masters vnderstand the Canon Per venerabitem Qui sily sint legitims and I impugne and contradict the doctrine and expositions which my Aduersaries make of the Canons of the Church and especially of the Decree or Act of this famous Lateran Councell 107 Thirdly that obseruation which my spightfull Aduersary vrgeth against me may be also vrged against Cardinall Bellarmine and many other zealous and learned Catholikes who notwithstanding their submission to the Catholike Romane Church yet they purposely impugne the authoritie and iurisdiction of the Sea Apostolike contradicting the Popes authority and dominion directly in temporals his power to dispence in certaine vowes and in marriage which is not consummated to giue leaue to inferiour Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation to define infallibly without a generall Councell c. albeit diuers Popes haue practised and maintained the contrary And therefore if this mans inference be good little heede is to bee taken to their submission of their writings to the Catholike Romane Church seeing that they purposely impugne the authority and iurisdiction of the Sea Apostolike But the plaine truth is that little heede is to be taken to the writings of this ignorant and vncharitable man seeing that to prooue me to be no other than an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike he bringeth such childish and witlesse arguments which may bee retorted vpon Cardinall Bellarmine and many other learned and zealous Catholikes who purposely impugne that authority and iurisdiction which some onely or a great part of Catholikes but not the Catholike Church or all Catholikes doe acknowledge as due to the Pope 108 But now this vncharitable man at the last vpshot will not shoot at randome as he hath hitherto done but he will forsooth hit the very marke and will manifestly prooue that no zealous Catholike can take me for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike And what more manifest argument saith he b Pag. 222. num 20. can a man desire of the truth hereof then that his Bookes are printed Cosmopoli and Albionopoli that is to say in good English in London with the consent and approbation of my Lord of Canterbury his fellowes Can any man perswade himselfe that their Lordships are turned Papists of late or that they would suffer books to be printed vnder the name of Catholikes with Epistles dedicatorie to the Pope and submission of the whole to the Censure of the Romane Church hee should haue added also Catholike if they did not know that the Authour thereof meant the same for a meere mockery and derision of his Holinesse honouring him as the Iewes did Christ when they kneeled downe and adored him saying Aue Rex Iudaeorum and spitting in his face 109 But although I am infinitely wronged and slandered by this vncharitable man in falsly accusing me of the greatest and most infamous crime that may be to wit of heresie and Apostacie and bringing such ridiculous arguments to prooue the same for the which at the day of iudgement he hath much to answere yet in very deed I doe in some sort pitty the silly man for that before he began to enter into this difficult controuersie wherein he shewed himselfe to haue so little skill he was of some account among English Catholikes and now hee hath so much empaired or rather quite lost that credit and good estimation they had of him by discouering so grosly his great want not onely of Theologicall learning but also of morall honestie The like vncharitable proceeding and vpon the like vncharitable friuolous grounds this zealous Father vsed against the Appellant Priests in the time of Pope Clement the eight to disgrace them with his Holinesse as hauing intelligence with the State and to be no good Catholikes c. but the effect hath prooued and Pope Clement also to the confusion of my backebiting Aduersary and his adherents hath confirmed and which also I make no doubt but that his Holinesse and all the world will ere it be long see and acknowledge concerning their course taken against mee that Mentita est iniquitas sibi Iniquitie hath belide it selfe 110 Marke now vpon what goodly principles hee relyeth to prooue mee to be no other then a hereticke disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike My bookes saith he are printed at London with the consent and approbation of my Lord of Canterbury and his fellowet Be it so therefore from hence we may very well conclude that all English Catholikes are infinitely bound to his Maiesty and the State who albeit by reason of that execrable Gun-powder plot the damnable grounds and principles from whence it was deriued might haue taken a fit occasion to repute all Catholikes without any distinction or difference of persons to be capitall enemies to his Maiestie and his temporall State and to perswade themselues and all the Protestant Subiects of the Realme that no true and constant Romane Catholike can be a true and constant subiect to his Maiestie yet his Maiestie and the State out of their most gracious fauour and clemencie were contented to permit his Catholike subiects to cleere themselues if they could of this most foule imputation so dangerous to themselues and so scandalous to their Religion and to make knowne to the whole world that according to the true grounds and principles of Catholike Religion his Maiestie might be assured that they might continue both his true obedient and constant subiects in all temporall affaires by vertue of the naturall bond of their temporall allegiance which the Pope hath not power to dissolue and also dutifull children of the Catholike Romane Church and of his Holinesse in all spirituall matters among which the deposing of Princes and the disposing of temporals are not according to the doctrine 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
Cages for stalles to draw other birds with their chirping into their nets and snares Also that thou wilt ballance thy obligation to man with thy dutie to God and the losse of thy temporall goods with the gaine of euerlasting glory from the which the Diuell seeketh by his meanes to debarre thee and therefore I wish thee euer to beare in minde this comfortable lesson of the Apostle 2 Cor. 4. Quod momentaneum leue est tribulationis nostrae aeternum gloriae pondus operatur in nobis 125 But on the contrary side I hope thou wilt bee warie good Catholike Reader and diligent first to discouer the manifest fraud and falshood of this vnlearned and vncharitable man thereby to auoyde the danger of his slanderous and poisoned pen in propounding to thee a new article of faith so preiudiciall to the supreame authority of temporall Princes so dangerous to thy owne spirituall and temporall good so repugnant to the example and practise of Christ and his Apostles and of the whole primitiue Church vnknowen to the ancient Fathers vntill the time of Pope Gregory the seauenth which at the first broaching thereof was branded with the marke of nouelty This nouelty not to say heresie Sigeb ad ann 1080. Onuph lib. 4. de varia creat Rom. Pont. saith Sigebert A thing vnheard of before that age saith Onuphrius and lastly not confirmed by any one argument which hath any shew of a probable proofe to confirme euen according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds any doctrine which hath beene in controuersie among learned Catholikes to be certaine and of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 126 Secondly that thou wilt ponder all this matter in the iust ballance of prudence that is to say that thou wilt counterpoise his vaine pretended Catholike faith newly broached in the Christian world and the childish and ridiculous arguments brought to conuince the same with the example of Christ and his Apostles with the practise of the primitiue Church with the doctrine of the ancient Fathers with the authority of learned Catholikes who were neuer accounted heretikes or ill belieuers for impugning the same 127 Thirdly that thou wilt call to minde what is required euen according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds to make a matter of faith so that all Catholikes are bound to beleeue the same and that all the Acts euen of generall Councells doe not appertaine to faith but onely the bare Decrees and those not all but those onely which are propounded as of faith * See also Estius in Praefat epist ad Hebraeos Where also he affirmeth it to be probable that Dauid did not make all the 150. Psalmes although the Councell of Trent in the Decree of Canonical Scriptures expresly mentioneth Dauids Psalter of a 150. Psalmes Whereby thou maiest plainly see that he hath brought no one argument which hath any colour of a probable proofe drawne either from the practise of some Popes which he falsly and fraudulently calleth the practise of the Church or from any Canon or Decree of Pope or generall Councell or from any other authoritie whatsoeuer to prooue this doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and that the Councell of Lateran doth neither treate of the deposition of absolute Princes nor propound the doctrine whereof it treateth as of faith 128 Fourthly that thou wilt consider the doctrine of Sotus before rehearshed not onely concerning the Popes dispensations in lawfull and valide matrimony when carnall copulation doth not follow so often practised by diuers Popes which neuerthelesse hee impugneth as not hauing any shew of probabilitie but also touching the dutie of subiects towards their Superiours when they command any thing which is preiudiciall to a third person and the Subiect is doubtfull of the lawfulnesse thereof Whereby thou wilt cleerely perceiue that it is no presumption to reiect the iudgement of his Superiour albeit he be our supreme Pastour when it is contrary to the iudgement of other learned Catholikes or not to obey his declaratiue commandement grounded thereon especially humbly propounding to him the reasons of his doubts Neither is it more presumption for any man to say that the Pope was deceiued in his Breues following the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and some other Diuines of Rome who hold it a matter of faith that the Pope hath authority to depose temporall Princes seeing that many learned Catholikes haue euer maintained the contrary then it was for Sotus and many others of his opinion to say that all those Popes that dispenced in the aforesaid Marriages were deceiued following the doctrine of the Canonists 129 Fifthly that thou wilt weigh my sound Replyes and plaine dealing in propounding to thee sincerely the true state of euery difficultie and omitting nothing which he obiecteth against me with his childish and ridiculous arguments and answeres and false and fraudulent proceeding in seeking to confound thy vnderstanding with generall and ambiguous words and which haue diuers senses which hee omitteth to explaine and in vrging those arguments which I my selfe obiected and concealing the answeres which I made thereunto and in imposing vpon me many vntruths thereby to make some shew of impugning my answeres and in particular concerning the Lateran Councell which hee so often saith I doe impugne and then especially when I make no mention at all thereof whereas it is manifest that I doe not at any time impugne that Decree or Act but the exposition which he and some others make thereof and I doe expound it according to the grounds and principles of learned Catholikes both Diuines and Lawyers Also that thou wilt ballance thy dutie towards God with thy obedience due to Caesar and render to either of them that which is their due neither for feare of disgrace humane respect or any other temporall losse thou wilt so adhere to the Pope as to renounce thy allegiance due to thy temporall Prince from which the Deuill by my Aduersaries meanes vnder pretence of zeale to the Sea Apostolike seeketh to draw thee And therefore I wish thee euer to beare in minde the expresse commandent of our Sauiour Matth. 22. Render the things that are Caesars to Caesar and the things that are Gods to God and for thy more particular direction heerein especially to remember that vnboubted principle of Fa. Lessius which aboue in the Preface * nu 15. 16. I did also recommend to thy memorie A power which is not most certaine but probable cannot bee a ground or foundation to punish any man or to depriue him of his right and dominion De Regulis Iuris in 6o. and ff de Regulis Iuris In pari causa which he really possesseth for that according to the approued maxime both of the Canon and Ciuill law In a doubtfull or disputable case the state or condition of the possessor is to bee preferred 130 Lastly to that which this spitefull man obiecteth against me concerning my inward intelligence
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
chapter to prooue by the subordination of temporall things to spirituall that the Pope because he hath power to command and to dispose of spirituall things which as he said are the principall and to which temporall things are subordained hath power also to dispose of temporals and thereupon grounded his argument vpon that rule of the law The accessorie followeth the principall which argument neuerthelesse how weake and insufficient it is I haue shewed in that place yet Lessius doth not ground his argument vpon that rule The accessorie followeth the principall but vpon this maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse from whence he concludeth that the Pope because he can excommunicate a King which is the greater punishment can also depose a King which is the lesse But this argument also is very insufficient for that the aforesaid maxime is not generally true as I prooued by foure instances except the lesse be actually or vertually included in the greater as deposition or the power to depose a King is neither actually nor vertually included in excommunication or in the power to excommunicate Therefore vnlesse it be first prooued as hitherto it hath not bene that deposition is actually or vertually included in excommunication or the power to depose in the power to excommunicate it is euident that no good argument can be drawne from that maxime He that can doe the greater can doe the lesse to proue that the Pope because he hath power to excommunicate a King which is the greater hath power also to depose him which is the lesse 13 Now you shall see how well Mr. Fitz. confuteth the foure instances I brought against Lessius argument This being so saith he c Nu. 67. pag. pag. 33. let vs examine a little what goodly arguments Widdring hath made to confront with the former to discouer the absurdity which he supposeth therein The first is Potest Papa Reges excommunicare ergo occidere The Pope may excommunicate Kings and therfore he may kill them whereto I answere as I did in the like before that he bewrayeth herein his malice seeking to draw vs to a most odious question supposing as it seemeth and maliciously insinuating that wee hold and teach that the Pope hauing excommunicated and deposed a King may murther him or cause him to be murthered and that some Popes haue practised the same as some shamelesse Sectaries haue impudently affirmed wherein he sheweth his good affection to Catholike Religion and the reuerend respect he beareth to the Sea Apostolike 14 But if he vnderstand nothing else by the word occidere but to take away the life of a delinquent by lawfull meanes I haue answered him already that if hee make the case his owne for with Princes liues I will not meddle I make no doubt but the Pope hath power ouer his life and therefore I also say further now concerning the argument whereof we treate that the consequence thereof is good in him and such a hee for seeing that it is a greater power to take away the life of the soule by excommunication then of the body by temporall death it followeth that the supreame Pastour hauing the greater power hath the lesse by reason of the subordination of the body to the soule and his supreame power to dispose of the body for the good of the soule and the publike benefite of the Church And thus much for this point 15 But to this Reply I will at this time answere no otherwise then I did before that in very deede it is a most odious question and the doctrine is worthie to bee hated and detested by all good Catholikes and whether such an odious detestable doctrine can be a most plaine necessarie cosequence of an vndoubted point of the Catholike faith as my Aduersaries will needes haue the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes and consequently to kill them which by an euident and necessarie consequence followeth from the former to be an infallible point of Catholike faith I remit to the consideration of any iudicious man Neither is it true that I did vrge this argument of malice God is my witnes and therefore in this my Aduersarie doth greatly wrong me neither doe I suppose or maliciously insinuate that some Popes haue practised the murthering of Kings as this vncharitable man vntruly affirmeth thinking thereby to perswade his Reader that I beare no good affection to Catholike Religion nor any reuerend respect to the Sea Apostolike but that which I suppose and insinuate is that he the rest of his Societie who hold that the Pope hath power to dispose of all the temporals both of Princes and subiects in order to spirituall good in as ample a maner as temporal Princes haue power to dispose of all the temporals of their subiects in order to temporall good must consequently hold that the Pope hauing excōmunicated deposed by his sentence an heretical King yea also without excōmunicatiō or deposition if the Pope shal think that neither of them wil preuaile but cause the said King to be more watchful may which I speak with horror murther him or cause him to be murthered that is may kil him or cause him to be slaine by all those meanes publike or secret by which a temporal Prince hath power to murther or cause to be murthered that is to kill or cause to be slaine any traiterous subiect or manifest rebel that cānot easily be apprehēded 16 And this I did demonstrate in my d Nu. 43 s Apologie against Cardinall Bellarmine to which my demonstration D. Schulckenius e In Apol ad nu 43 p. 144. answereth no otherwise then with a transeat let it passe For whither all this doth tend saith hee euery man seeth neither is it hard to solue the arguments Let them passe as making nothing to the matter and then hee maketh a long discourse to shew that neuer any Pope hath beene the cause of the death of any King which is nothing to the purpose so that in effect he granteth my argument and Suarez f In Defens c. l. 9. c. 4. n. 10 See my Appen against Suarez part 1. sec 9. hath now more expresly taught the same and my Aduersarie also doth heere plainly confirme as much for although forsooth with the liues of Princes he will not intermeddle because it is an odious question yet he maketh no doubt but that the Pope hath power ouer my life and ouer the life of any Christian marke these generall words for that he hath power to take away the life of my soule by excommunication and consequently the life of my body by corporall death which his reason proueth also the same of Christian Princes who according to his own grounds can be excōmunicated by the Pope But I'meruaile where this man hath learned this new diuinity that the Pope hath power to take away the life of the soule by excommunication The ancient and true Catholike doctrine
the necessarie good of their owne soules and of their subiects 36 Neither doe those examples or facts or Popes which my Aduersarie here bringeth or any such like sufficiently prooue a power in the Pope as he is a spirituall Pastour to change transferre giue or take away earthly kingdomes for that it is one thing sayth Card. Bellarmine n in Resp ad Apolog pag. 157. Edit Colon. to relate the facts of Kings and so likewise of Popes and an other thing to prooue their power right and authoritie As Leo the third Pope of that name o pag. 47. nu 13 Egmarth in vita Caroli Annales Francof anno 801. Paul Diacon lib. 23. Zonaras tom 3. Annal Cedrenus in vita Constant Irene sayth my Aduersarie gaue to Charles the great the Empyre of the West which was acknowledged by the Greeke Emperours themselues to be the Popes gift c. 37 But to this example I did fully and clecrely answer in my Apologie p nu 414. seq to wit that the Romane Empire was not translated from the Grecians to the Germans by the onely authoritie of the Pope but also by the common consent suffrages ordinance decree and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome both Clerkes and Laikes with the tacite consent at least wise of all others to whom it did belong amongst whom the chiefest of all was the Bishop of Rome who did not by his spirituall or Pontificall authoritie which he as Pope receiued from Christ cause that translation but as he being the principall member and citizen of Rome and of the Romane Empire did by his aduise consent solliciting procurement suffrage and authoritie chiefly set forward that translation and as he was Pope did by his Pontificall authoritie approoue it to be lawfull and no way repugnant to the law of God or nature for which causes he is said by many writers to haue transferred that Empire as the chiefe and principall Authour procurer and approouer thereof 38 And this I did sufficiently prooue in that place both by the grounds of Card. Bellarmine himselfe and also by the testimonies of those Authours whom he alledged For nothing can be concluded saith he q lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. by arguments taken from authoritie negatiuely For it doth not follow Luke Paul and Seneca doe not say that S. Peter was at Rome therefore S. Peter was not at Rome For these three were not bound to say all things and more credite is to be giuen to three witnesses affirming then to a thousand saying nothing so that these doe not deny what the others doe affirme Seeing therefore that none at all of those thirtie two Authours whom Card. Bellarmine brought for witnesses of the translation of the Empire made by the Pope doth deny that the aforesaid translation was done by the authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome and not onely three of Card. Bellarmines Authours but also many more whom I cited there doe most plainly affirme that both the authoritie of the Pope and also the consent decree ordinance suffrage and authoritie of the Senate and people of Rome did concurre to that translation more credite is to be giuen to them who doe affirme that the Empire was translated by the Pope Senate people of Rome then to all the rest although they were a thousand who albeit they say that this translation was done by the Pope yet they doe not deny that it was also done by the Senate and people of Rome Thus and much more to the same purpose did I answere in my Apologie r See Apologie 427. seq 39 Now you shall see how cunningly and insufficiently D. Schulckenius doth shift of this my answere For whereas he is very diligent for the most part to set downe my words and text in particular when hee imagineth that with any colourable Reply hee can confute them yet here he relateth Cardinall Bellarmines argument drawne from the translation of the Romane Empire to the French men but hee altogether concealeth my answere thereunto and so passeth ouer twentie pages of my Apologie wherein both by his owne grounds by his owne Authours and many others I cleerly proued that this translation was done not onely by the authoritie of the Pope but also of the Senate and people of Rome and onely with a flourish of words hee endeuoureth to prooue by a Dilemma which as you shall see is neither to the question betwixt me and Cardinall Bellarmine and which I also answered in that place That I must either approoue Card. Bellarmines opinion or else cleerely contradict my selfe in my answere Wherefore although D. Schulckenius maketh this title of his foureteenth Chapter The answere of Widdrington to the rest of the examples which are taken from the facts of Leo the third c. is examined yet hee neither examineth my answere to that fact of Leo nor setteth it downe at all albeit he confesseth that I haue at large disputed thereof But this is all that he replieth r Schulck in Apol. cap. â— pag. 597. 598. 40 And of the translation of the Empire Cardinall Bellarmine hath exactly soundly and diligently written three bookes of a iust bignesse in so much that nothing doth seeme can be added thereunto Onely at this time I doe make this argument against my Aduersary Widdrington Either that translation was true or faigned If hee say it was faigned hee will bee ouerwhelmed with the voyces of all Historiographers and hee will take away all humane faith out of the world But if hee say it was truely done I aske againe whether it was done iustly or vniustly if hee say it was done vniustly first he will contradict almost all Catholike Writers for onely the Magdeburgian Heretikes doe blame it as one of the miracles of Antichrist Besides that hee will wrong all the Latin Emperours who from that time haue beene shall be as though their Empire is not grounded vpon a sound foundation Lastly he will reprehend all the people of the West yea all the world who haue hitherto honoured the Latin Emperour as a true and lawfull possessour of the Empire For also the Grecians themselues with their Emperour and the Persians as wee haue related out of Bellarmine in the former Chapter Å¿ Ad nu 390. haue acknowledged the Latin Emperours as true and lawfull Emperours 41 But if Widdrington say that it was done iustly I demand whether it was done by the authority of the Romane Bishop the Citizens of Rome assenting or also requesting it or whether it was done by the authoritie of the people of Rome the Pope assenting and crowning and blessing the Emperour chosen by the people or whether it was done by the authoritie of the Pope and of the people of Rome together If he will say that it was done by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome the Citizens of Rome assenting and requesting it he will agree both with the truth of