and depriue is necessarily included in his Regall authoritie but all Catholikes doe not beleeue whatsoeuer my Aduersary and some few others doe that the power to depose Princes is necessarily included in that spirituall Supremacie which Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and his Successours as hath bene amply prooued by me and diuers others and what particulars Mr. Fitzherbert hath laide here or in his Supplement concerning this point we will beneath in their due places examine 34 His first reason he deduced from the grounds and principles of the Protestants Religion and from the doctrine and beliefe of his Maiesty and those of the Parliament who made the oath But how silly and insufficient this reason is yea and repugnant to his owne grounds and also of Fa. Parsons in whose defence hee wrote his Supplement any man of iudgement may quickly perceiue For behold his reason It is great reason sayth he to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authours thereof for it is to be presumed that euery one speaketh 〈◊〉 and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion but it is an assertion position and the beliefe not onely of his Maiestie but also of the Parliament which decreed the oath that the Pope cannot depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie therefore it is great reason to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacie 35 But first his Minor proposition is very vntrue For neither his Maiestie nor the Protestants doe hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie This indeed is the reason why they hold that the Pope cannot excommunicate his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie But the reason why they hold that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose his Maiesty is for that deposition being not an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall but a ciuill and temporall censure or punishment for what crime soeuer it be imposed can not be inflicted by any Ecclesiasticall or spirituall authoritie For which reason the Protestants doe holde that although the Protestant Bishops of this Realme haue Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall authoritie herein England yet they haue no authoritie by vertue of their Episcopall power to depose or depriue his Maiestie of his temporall dominions for that they take deposition or any such temporall violence as his Maiestie affirmeth u In his Premonition pag. 9. to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall Censure as Excommunication is 36 And although this be sufficient to shew the insufficiencie of this my Aduersaries reason yet graunting him onely for Disputation sake which he in his Minor proposition vntruely affirmeth that his Maiestie and the Parliament should hold that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because he hath no authoritie at all in England his reason neuerthelesse is both insufficient and also repugnant to that which Fa. Parsons and he himselfe suppose to be true For albeit Fa. Parsons doth confidently affirme x In his booke intituled The iudgement of a Catholike English man c. part 1. nu 22. pag. 13. and 16. that there is no man who sticketh or maketh difficultie to acknowledge our Soueraigne to be true King and rightfull Lord ouer all his Dominions for that euery English Catholike will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those parts and clauses of the oath that doe any way appertaine to the ciuill and temporall obedience due to his Maiestie whom hee acknowledgeth to be his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his Dominions and the same in effect doth my Aduersarie in his supposition affirme as you haue seene before y Nu. 6. yet according to this his reason neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be our true and lawfull Soueraigne nor can promise to yeeld him all temporall alleagiance nor to defend him from all treasons and traiterous conspiracies nor to disclose them when they shal come to their knowledge when any such acknowledgement shall be demanded at their hands by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of his Maiesty as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included and necessarily deduced from his temporall and Kingly authoritie and all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authoritie are by the lawes of this Realme made treasons and traiterous conspiracies 37 Seeing therefore to vse my Aduersaries wordes 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 euery one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the principles and grounds of his beliefe and Religion it is cleere that if my Aduersaries argument be good neither he nor any other Catholike can acknowledge King Iames to be their true and lawfull Soueraigne and that they will yeeld him all temporall allegiance and defend him from all treasons and disclose them when they shall come to their knowledge for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy as my Aduersary himselfe confesseth is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie and according to the lawes of this Realme all reconcilements to the Pope and all returnings of Priests into this land made by the Popes authority are treasons and traiterous conspiracies So that you see what contradiction there is in my Aduersaries sayings and what a prettie argument hee hath made to prooue himselfe a traytour seeing that according to his owne grounds hee can not acknowledge King Iames to be his true and lawfull Soueraigne nor promise to yeeld him all temporall allegiance if it should be exacted by the Protestant Magistrate for that in the opinion of all Protestants his Maiesties spirituall Supremacy is included in his Regall and Kingly authoritie 38 But secondly if Mr. Fitzherbert had beene pleased out of the desire of truth to handle this question betweene him and mee sincerely and not with a flourish of words to obscure the difficulty and blind the vnderstanding of simple and scrupulous Catholikes he might eyther out of his owne iudgement or at lest wise from of that which I in my Theologicall Disputation did answere to the arguments of Gretzer Disputatio Theol. c. 2. sect 1 who thought it vnlawfull to acknowledge King Iames to bee our Soueraigne Lord in temporals and of Capellus z Ibid. c. 6. sect 5. who also thought it vnlawfull for any Catholike to promise that he will disclose all treasons and traiterous conspiracies for the reasons aforesaide and also from that which out of the doctrine of Suarez a
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
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
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
and effects of that power and authority and I affirme that the effects of that power which was giuen to S. Peter to binde and loose to wit the bindings and loosings themselues were spirituall and not temporall bindings and loosings For this was my answere in that place t Apolog. â— 35.36 15 And although it be generally said by Christ our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. yet without doubt neither is that word whatsoeuer to bee taken in it whole latitude or generality or as the Logicians say with a complete distribution but with some limitatioÌ„ or accommodate distribution neither did Christ our Sauiour speake of euery binding but only of a certaine determinate binding And by the words that go before to wit the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and by those that follow in caelis also in heauen it is plaine enough that this bond which the Ecclesiasticall power may by the institution of Christ binde and loose is not a temporall â—â—nd but that it appertaineth to a heauenly and spirituall binding Whereupon the Interlineall Glosse expounding those wordes Matth. 18. What things soeuer you shall binde with the bond saith hee of Anathema Which also Franciscus Suarez a most famous Diuine of the Societie of Iesus doth expresly affirme But that which is added saith he u Tom. â— disp 1. sec 2. nu 5. Erit ligatum in caelo Shall bee bound also in heauen doth sufficiently declare this power not to be naturall but supernaturall and that bond marke this word bond to be spirituall and of a superiour or higher order And Ioannes Parisiensis To that saith hee x In Tract de potest Regia Papaâ— c. 15. which is secondly obiected Whatsoeuer you shall loose c. I answere according to Chrysostome and Rabanus that by this no other power is vnderstood to bee giuen but spirituall to wit obserue that which followeth to absolue from the bond of sinnes For it were foolish to vnderstand that by this is giuen authoritie to absolue from the bond of debts Thus I answered in my Apologie 16 Consider now Good Reader with what face or conscience these men can affirme that I haue laboured houre euen with sweate and vainly spent many words only to proue by those two authorities of holy Scripture that the Pontificall power is spiritually which neither Card. Bellarmine nor they doe deny but willingly grant whereas I doe not contend that the power to bind and loose which was giuen to S. Peter and to the rest of the Apostles is spirituall and not temporall but that the bond which the Ecclesiasticall power is to bind and loose is a spirituall and not a temporall bond which if my Aduersarie hence will grant it must needs follow that corporall and temporall punishments as watching haire-cloath fasting whipping imprisonment depriuing of corporall life or temporall goods all which are corporall and temporall bonds and punishments cannot be inflicted by that Ecclesiasticall power which Christ gaue to S. Peter and the other Apostles And therefore with what safetie our English Catholikes can aduenture their soules and whole estates vpon these men 1. Tim. 4. who haue according to the Apostles saying such wounded seared or canteriate consciences and in their publike writings doe so grosly and shamefully corrupt the words and meaning of their Aduersarie in a matter of such importance as is their obedience due to God and Caesar I remit to the consideration of any prudent man 17 The soule is a spirit saith D. Schulckenius related heere by my Aduersarie and hath a spirituall power yet it doth also chastice the body but in that manner as I declared in the second part with corporall punishments as watching hairecloath fasting and whipping And what then will they therefore inferre that because watching wearing of hairecloath fasting and whipping are commanded by the spirituall power of the foule therefore they are spirituall and not corporall actions and punishments No man maketh any doubt but that the power whereby God created the world the Angell moued the water y Ioan. 5. Ananias and Saphira were striken dead z Acts 5. was a spirituall power yet no man can deny that the creation of the world and the mouing of the water were corporall actions and the sudden putting to death of Ananias and Saphira were also corporall actions and punishments So likewise it cannot be denyed that the binding of men with fetters be it done by God Angells or men that is by a spirituall or temporall power is a corporall binding and the depriuing of any man of his temporall goods libertie or life let it be done by a spirituall or temporall power is still a temporall and not a spirituall punishment 18 If therefore these men as they make a shew in words will in very deede and sincerely grant what I affirmed and proued in that place they must needes confesse that the Pope by vertue of that commission which Christ gaue to Saint Peter and the other Apostles to binde and loose hath no authoritie to imprison men to bind them with corporall chaines to absolue or loose them from their temporall bonds debts or allegiance for that these are temporall and not spirituall bindings and loosings for what end or by what power soeuer they be done Neither did I contend in that place that the power and authority of the Apostles to binde and loose was not temporall but spirituall but onely that the bindings and loosings which were the effects of that power were onely spirituall and not temporall bindings and loosings See aboue a Cap. 5 sec 3. nu 10. sec more of these bonds to which the Ecclesiasticall power to binde and loose is by the ancient Fathers limited and restrained And heereby the Reader may easily perceiue that I had no great reason to confute in that briefe Admonition D. Schulckenius his Reply for as much as concerneth this point but it was sufficient to remit the Reader to my aforesaid answere seeing that D. Schulckenius saide nothing at all against it but cunningly flyed from the effects of the Apostles power to binde and loose which I there prooued to be onely spirituall and not temporall bonds to the power it selfe to binde and loose whereof I did not intend to dispute in that place knowing well that although the effects of that power had beene as they were not temporall bindings and loosings yet the power it selfe to binde and loose might for diuers reasons be called as Diuines doe call it a spirituall and not formally a temporall or ciuil power although as I said aboue b Cap. nu 7â— See also beneath cap. 12. nu 61. seq I thinke this question betwixt the Diuines and Canonists whether it be a spirituall or a temporall power to be more verball and of wordes then reall and of the thing it selfe And this may suffice for this point 19 Now before wee come to examine Fa. Parsons reason
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
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
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
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
make the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith and the contrary to be hereticall 38 Thirdly when I affirmed that from the vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Church this onely can be gathered that Christ hath promised the infalliable assistance of the holy Ghost not to facts or probable opinions of Popes and Councells but to definitions onely by facts I vnderstand such acts as are not grounded vpon any doctrine of faith and by definitions I meant those Decrees which are propounded as of faith or which without any doubt or controuersie are deduced euidently from such infallible definitions or principles of faith of which sort this Act or Decree of the Lateran Councell is not as it is euident for those many reasons before alledged 39 And whereas Widdrington addeth saith Mr. Fitzherbert n Pag. 133. nu 12. Supra nu 1. an other circumstance to wit that the Councell did not determine by this Decree that the future deposition of Princes should proceede from an vndoubted lawfull authoritie or from the Ecclesiasticall power onely without the consent of Princes he is no lesse impertinent then in the former for what need was there to determine that the Pope had an vndoubted lawfull authoritie to depose Princes seeing that the same was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth as it is euident for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it Naucler goâ—erat 41. ad ann 12. which they would not haue done if they had doubted of the lawfulnesse of the Popes authoritie in that behalfe But first Mr. Fitzherbert doth egregiously abuse both me and his Reader in adding both heere and aboue the word Princes as though I had acknowledged that Act of the Lateran Councell to concerne the future deposition of Princes whereas I euer affirmed that it did onely concerne inferiour Magistrates Potestaes Landlords and Lords and not Soueraigne Princes and therfore I said onely that future deposition and my Aduersarie addeth of himselfe the word Princes 40 Secondly whether it was needfull or no for the Councell to declare whether that Act concerning the future deposition of temporall Landlords Magistrates or Lords or rather the denouncing of them ipso facto deposed was made by spirituall or temporall authoritie it is nothing materiall to our question this being sufficient for me that seeing that very many Catholike Doctors do affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as is the absoluing of Vassals from their temporall fealtie and the Councell did not declare by what authoritie that Act was made any Catholike man may probably and without any note of temeritie much lesse of heresie affirme that it was made not by any vndoubted lawfull Ecclesiasticall authoritie but onely by the authoritie licence and consent of absolute Princes But although it were not absolutely necessarie that the Councell should haue declared whether that future deposition was to proceed from Ecclesiasticall or temporall authoritie yet to make it a point of faith which all men are bound to beleeue that the aforesaid deposition was to proceede from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and not temporall it was necessarie that the Councell should haue declared the same especially supposing that it is truely probable that the Ecclesiasticall power doth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments As also if the Pope being now both a spirituall Pastour and also a temporall Prince should make a law whereof there may bee made a probable doubt whether it was made by vertue of his spirituall or of his temporall authoritie it is necessarie to make this point certaine and out of controuersie that he declare by what authoritie temporall or spirituall that lawe was enacted 41 Thirdly it is very vntrue that the Popes power to depose Princes was not then any way called in question but admitted for a knowne truth for that from the very first broaching thereof there alwayes hath beene a great controuersie saith Fa. Azor betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side Azor. tom 2. li. 11. ca. 5. q. 8 and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in certaine causes the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kings of their kingdome And the euident reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth hereof to wit for that the whole Councell determined the practise of it is the maine question which is now betwixt vs and so he bringeth for an euident reason that which is the controuersie and to be prooued which is an euident petitio principij and condemned as vicious by all Logicians Neither doth Nauclerus whom my Aduersarie citeth in the margent as though hee would make his Reader beleeue that Nauclerus affirmeth that the whole Councell decreed the practise therof affirme any such thing For Nauclerus words are onely these There were many things truly then consulted of yet nothing could be plainly decreed for that they of Pisa and Genua made warre one against the other by Sea and those on this side the Alpes by land Yet some Constitutions are reported to be published whereof one is that whensoeuer the Princes of the world shall offend one the other the correcting belongeth to the Bishop of Rome Where you see first that Nauclerus expresly saith that albeit many things were consulted yet nothing at all could be plainely decreed Secondly that it was onely a report that some constitutions were published Thirdly he doth not say that these Constitutions were of the whole Councell or onely of Pope Innocent and recited in the Councell as Matthew Paris said Fourthly that this report was vntrue it is also plaine seeing that there is no such Constitution as hee mentioneth to be found in the Lateran Councell And lastly albeit there were such a Constitution it is nothing to the purpose seeing that it onely saith that when Princes are at variance it belongeth to the Pope to correct them to wit by Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not the question but that it belongeth to the Pope to correct Princes by deposing them and by inflicting temporall punishments which is the maine controuersie and whereof the practise as Mr. Fitzherbert saith citing Nauclerus in the margent was decreed by the whole Councell Nauclerus speaketh not any one word at all 42 Also Pope Innocent the third saith Mr. Fitzherbert o Pag. 183. u. 13. Naucler geuerat 42 ann 1246. Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. See Adolp Schulc pro Card. Bell. ca. 12 14 where he confuteth the answeres of Widdrington to these examples vnder whom the Councell of Lateran was held had not past three or foure yeeres before depriued the Emperour Otho of his right to the Empire by a sentence of Excommunication and deposition by vertue whereof Frederike the second whose Ambassadours were present at the Lateran Councell was made Emperour who also was afterwards deposed by Innocentius the fourth in the Generall Councell held at Lyons as
argument as you haue seen before although it be indeed my third example whereon all my three Instances were partly grounded neyther did I by this example eyther impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell or inferre from thence as this man vntruely affirmeth that the Decree of the Lateran Councell might be impugned without sinne For neyther did I impugne but onely expound the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell neyther did I in any one of my three Instances or also examples make mention at all of the Lateran Councell nor also did I euer acknowledge that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes was the ground and foundation of the Decree of the Lateran Councell But for this cause I produced this example of Popes dispensations in the solemne vow of chastitie to shew that the ground and foundation especially of Popes sentences of deposition as was that sentence of Gregorie the 7. against Henrie the 4. in a Councell held at Rome and of Innocent the 4. against Fredericke the second in the Councell of Lyons and other such sentences which concerne particular men doth not appertaine to faith by vertue of this proposition whereon both the first and second argument of Fa. Lessius was principally grounded That doctrine doth appertaine to faith which Popes and Councels suppose as a certaine foundation of their decrees and sentences for it is euident that there is no more reason why the ground and foundation of Popes particular sentences of depositions or punishments should appertaine to faith then of his particular grants of dispensations and priuiledges whereby it appeareth euidently that this was a fit example to confute Fa. Lessius his first and second argument which there I tooke in hand in my first and second Instance to confute 18 Besides I brought this example in my third Instance against Fa. Lessius his third argument whereby he laboured to prooue that it is a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes for that otherwise the Church and Pope should erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally something to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or contrariwise and also by commanding something of it selfe vnlawfull seeing that she teacheth that a Prince being deposed yea and excommunicated by the sentence of the Pope his subiects are absolued from his obedience yea and are bound not to obey him vntill he be reconciled if the Censure bee denounced whereby subiects are incited by the Pope to rebellions and periuries Against this argument I brought my third Instance which my Aduersary fraudulently concealeth and which was grounded not only vpon this third example of Popes licences giuen to Priests to Minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and might likewise bee grounded vpon the second of Pope Sixtus his decree for the celebrating of the blessed Virgins Conception 19 For if Fa. Lessius his third argument be good it may likewise be prooued as you may see by my third Instance that it is a poynt of faith that the Pope hath power to dispence in the solemne vow of Chastity to giue licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and also that the blessed Virgines Conception was pure holy and immaculate seeing that from these dispensations licences and decree of Pope Sixtus it euidently followeth that the Pope teacheth generally that the marriage of professed religious persons is a true Sacrament and the children begotten and borne by them are legitimate and if the Parents be Kings their children ought to be preferred in the Kindome before all others who may pretend otherwise a right thereto and the Sacrament of Confirmation ministred by an inferiour Priest with the Popes licence is a true and valid Sacrament and also that the honour and worship which is giuen to the blessed Virgines conception is a true and religious honour all which would according to Fa. Lessius his third argument bee false and pernicious because the faithfull should thereby be incited to commit iniuries and sacriledges yea and against their wils by Censures bee compelled thereunto if the Pope hath no such power to dispence in the solemne vowe of chastity nor to giue licence to Priests to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation and that the blessed Virgin was not in her Conception pure holy and immaculate But my Aduersary to obscure the whole difficulty and to blinde the Readers vnderstanding thought it best not to set downe fully but in that lame manner as you haue seene Fa. Lessius his three arguments and wholy to conceale the three Instances I made against them whereby hee might with a lesse shew of falsity boldly affirme that the three examples were my three Instances and that they were brought by me of purpose to impugne the decree of the Lateran Councell both which how vntrue they are and also of what little force are all Fa. Lessius his three arguments against which onely I brought my three Instances you haue seene before 20 For all the difficulty of Fa. Lessius his third argument consisteth in the vnderstanding of that Maior proposition It is a point of faith that the Church cannot erre in doctrine and precepts of manners by teaching generally something to be lawfull which is vnlawfull or vnlawfull which is lawfull or also by commanding something of it selfe vnlawfull For if by doctrine of maners teaching generally he meane a definitiue teaching or a propounding any thing as of faith with an obligation to bind all the faithfull to belieue that doctrine I grant that it is a point of faith that the Church or a generall Councell cannot erre in such doctrine or teaching for whether the Pope can erre or no in such teaching it is not a point of faith but as yet a controuersie betwixt the Roman and French Diuines but then I vtterly deny that any generall Councell yea or any Pope hath euer defined or taught generally that the Pope by vertue of his Ecclesiasticall power hath authority to depose temporall Princes to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance or to inflict temporall punishments But if by doctrine and teaching he meane opinatiue and probable doctrine and teaching besides that it cannot be conuinced that the Lateran Councell or any other generall Councell taught generally in this sense that the Pope by vertue of his spirituall power hath authority to depose temporall Princes his Maior proposition is very vntrue and therefore from thence it doth not follow that the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith 21 Likewise if by commanding something of it selfe euill Fa. Lessius vnderstand a generall commaundement propounded to the whole Church or all the faithfull I grant also that a generall Councell cannot erre in imposing such generall commandements although this be not so cleare a point of faith as the former as I haue shewed before out of the doctrine of learned Canus but then I deny that any generall Councell hath euer giuen any such generall
affaires his Holinesse meant to include not onely the authority to vse Censures which onely were mentioned in the words next going before and to which onely any man according to the property of the words would restraine them but also to despose them which is not much materiall to the present purpose for be it so that his Holinesse speaking of the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included his power as well to depose as to excommunicate Princes it is nothing to the matter for that which I intend is that his Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines who consulted of the Oath not onely misinformed that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is plainly denied in the Oath but also that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and necessarily included in his spirituall authority which is verie vntrue as in this Treatise I haue sufficiently declared and prooued 67 But that also which M. Fitzherbert addeth for a confirmation of his saying to wit that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects from their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some censure of Excommunication is both false and also repugnant to the grounds of Cardinall Bellarmine For Childericke King of France which example Cardinall Bellarmine bringeth for a proofe that the Pope hath power to depose Princes was deposed and his subiects discharged of their allegiance and not by vertue of any Censure of Excommunication And it is one thing saith Becanus Becanus incōtrou Anglic. c. 3. p. 2. pag. 108. to excommunicate a King and another to depose or depriue him of his kingdome neither is the one necessarily connexed with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue beene excommunicated and not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and not therefore excommunicated And yet my ignorant Aduersary to patch vp this silly answere of his doth now agreeable to his learning boldly affirme that the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication whereas I haue sufficiently prooued aboue m Chap. 1. nu 21. seq chap. 5. sec 2. 131. seq out of the doctrine of Suarez Becanus and from the definition of excommunication that deposition is not an effect of Excommunication that therefore although they are sometimes ioyned together and that some Princes haue beene both excommunicated and deposed by the Pope yet they were not deposed by vertue of the Censure of Excommunication for that as his Maiestie did wel obserue n In his Premonition p. 9. Excommunication being only a spirituall Censure hath not vertue to worke this temporall effect 68 Now you shall see how vncharitably and also vnlearnedly this ignorant man concludeth this point Whereupon it followeth saith hee o p. 219. nu 14 that albeit his Holinesse had beene perswaded by Cardinall Bellarmine Fa. Parsons and others as doubtlesse he was although this man would seeme to deny the same that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes impugned his spirituall authority he had not beene deluded or deceiued therein nor had erred in the reason why hee forbade the Oath though he had forbidden it for that cause onely as it is euident by the Breue he did not but for many respects And therefore thou seest good Reader what probable exceptions this silly sicke and scabbed sheepe taketh to the iudgement and sentence of his supreame Pastour and what account hee maketh of his Apostolicall authoritie and consequently what a good Catholike hee is 69 But if Mr. Fitzherbert meane that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance impugneth his spirituall authoritie to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures as needes hee must if hee will speake to the purpose for that all his former discourse hath beene to impugne my second answere to his Holinesse Breues which was that hee was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate Princes and to inflict spirituall Censures is denyed in the Oath then I say that his Holinesse was fowly deluded and deceiued in that reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation although hee did not forbid it for that cause only But if his meaning bee that the Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes for to these two generall heads and to all that which doth necessarily follow thereon both this man and all my other Aduersaries doe chiefly reduce all their exceptions against the Oath and if for any other respects his Holinesse forbade the Oath let my Aduersarie name them and hee shall heare what wee will say thereunto impugneth his spirituall authoritie for that it is a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes to dispose of their temporalls to inflict temporall punishments and to discharge subiects of their temporall allegiance and which consequently are included in his spirituall power then I also say that his Holinesse was deluded dedeceiued and erred also in this reason why hee forbade the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation for that it is no point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to inflict temporall punishments c. but the contrarie hath euer beene maintained by learned Catholikes 70 Neither was Almaine a famous Doctour of Paris and those very many Doctours related by him or any other of those learned Authours whom partly I cited in my Apologie p nu 4. seq and partly aboue in this Treatise q Part. 1. euer accounted bad Catholikes or silly sicke and scabbed sheepe Neither can Card. Bellarmine euen according to his owne grounds as I haue shewed before and in his owne conscience whereunto I dare appeale heerein affirme that the Decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell whereon all my Aduersaries doe now at last chiefly rely to proue their doctrine of deposing to be of faith although it should haue mentioned as it doeth not mention absolute Princes is sufficient to make it certaine and of faith And therefore this ignorant and vnconscionable man calling mee a silly sicke and scabbed sheepe and no good Catholike for not beleeuing this doctrine to bee certaine and of faith which so many learned Catholike Doctours haue euer maintained to bee false and for not admitting his Holinesse declaratiue precept which is grounded thereon and consequently hath no greater force to binde according to Suarez doctrine then hath the reason whereon it is grounded sheweth himselfe to haue neither learning nor charitie but a vehement desire to disgrace mee with Catholikes and to take away my good name per fas nefas whether it bee by right or wrong as all the rest of his vncharitable and fraudulent discourse doeth
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
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
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
to inflict spirituall punishments hath also power to dispose of temporals and not onely to command or inioyne but also to inflict temporall punishments or to punish temporally by way of constraint For although temporals are ordained to spirituals in that sense as I haue often declared and for that cause may be called accessory to spirituals yet as accessory is taken in that maxime they are neither accessory to spirituals for that spirituall good may in any man be very well without them neither is the Popes pretended power to dispose of temporalls in order to spirituall good and to punish with temporall punishments by way of constraint accessory or consequent to his power to dispose of spirituals or to punish with spirituall punishments or Ecclesiasticall censures 61 And by this is easily answered that which Mr. Fitzherbert saith in the next Paragraph concerning priuate men And if wee consider saith he l Nu. 14. p. 3â— also Widdringtons argument euen in particular and priuate men it may haue a very true sense and will fortifie mine for whosoeuer is Lord of any horse is Lord also of the bridles that belong to that horse because according to Widdringtons supposition they are accessory of the said horse and therefore according to my axiome doe follow their principall and the same must needes bee granted in this our case seeing that the Pope doth no otherwise dispose of temporall goods then the same doe belong to particular men whom he hath occasion to chastise for the benefit of their soules and the publike good of the Church and therefore when he punisheth any Prince temporally hee neither doth nor can doe it in other mens goods but onely in those goods or states which belong to that Prince as a Lord of a horse disposeth not of other mens bridles but of the bridles that belong to his owne horse for as other mens bridles are not accessory of that horse so neither are other mens goods accessory to the Prince who is to be punished but such goods or states onely as belong to him and may consequently be disposed of by his supreme Pastour when his and the publike good of the Church shall necessarily require it So as you see how well Widdrington argueth for mee and therefore the probabilitie that I see in this his argument is no other but that he playeth as I may say booty with me and helpeth vnder hand to defend my cause Thus much for the first argument 62 But first it is vntrue that I according to my owne doctrine doe suppose that bridles are accessory to horses as accessory is taken in the aforesaid maxime but I doe suppose and that truely according to my Aduersaries doctrine that bridles are accessory to horses for that they are made and ordained for horses in which sense hee taketh accessorie in that maxime and therefore he affirmeth that corporall and temporall goods are accessory to the spirituall good of the soule for that they are ordained and referred to the said spirituall good 63 Secondly it is also vntrue that the argument which I made against his consequence if it be considered in particular and priuate men can haue a very true sense as it is grounded in that rule or maxime the accessory followeth the principall and that it doth fortifie his consequence For whosoeuer saith he is Lord of any horse is Lord also of the bridles that belong to that horse because according to his owne supposition and not mine they are the accessory of the saide horse Obserue now good Reader how cunningly this man would shift off the argument or instance which I made against his consequence and delude thee with ambiguous words For what can any man imagine my Aduersary to vnderstand by these wordes the bridles that belong to that horse for surely no man can be so simple as to thinke that any bridle can be said to belong to a horse as to the true owner thereof or so proper to a horse that the horse can not be without that bridle for so indeede it would very well follow from that maxime that he who is Lord of that horse is also Lord of that bridle and he that should buy that horse should also buy that bridle which belongeth to that horse And therefore either it must be said that such a bridle doth belong to such a horse for that the bridlemaker did make it serue such a horse and for this respect it can not be truely said that he who is Lord of that horse is Lord also of that bridle for the bridlemaker and not he who is owner of that horse may be Lord and owner of the bridle or else for that such a bridle is for the most part or alwaies vsed for such a horse neither for this respect or any such like can it be truly said that he who is Lord of that horse is consequently Lord of that bridle and can dispose thereof because that bridle may be lent for the vse of that horse by some other man who is the true Lord and owner of that bridle and consequently may dispose thereof and not of the horse 64 It remaineth therefore that for this cause onely as my Aduersary himselfe here insinuateth such a bridle can bee said to belong to such a horse for that the same man who is the true Lord and owner both of the horse and bridle and consequently hath power to dispose of them both doth appoint that bridle to serue that horse and although in this sense that consequent bee true to wit that hee who is Lord of any horse is also Lord and can dispose of the bridles which belong to such a horse or to speake more properly which belong to the Lord of such a horse for that the same man is Lord of them both yet it is not true by vertue of the consequence or by vertue of that maxime The accessory followeth the principall or for that the horse is the principall and the bridle the accessorie in that sense as principall and accessorie ought to be taken in that maxime for then it must also follow that hee who buyeth that horse and consequently can dispose thereof as being the true owner of that horse hath also power to dispose of that bridle for that the accessorie must follow the principall which consequence is false but the consequent is true not by vertue of that maxime The accessorie followeth the principall but by vertue of another maxime which is that he who is the true Lord or owner of any horse bridle or of any such like temporall thing hath power to dispose thereof 65 Wherefore it is apparant that my aforesaid instance argument or consequence The accessorie followeth the principall therefore hee who is Lord of all horses is consequently Lord and can dispose of all bridles is neither true in Soueraigne Princes nor in priuate men vnderstanding as my Aduersarie doth that bridles are accessorie to horses neither doth that consequent although it bee true not
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
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
thing as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what ende soeuer they bee inflicted the sayde Decree can bind onely those of necessitie that belong to the Popes temporall Dominions 52 For seeing that as Suarez e Suarez l. 3. de Leg. c. 6. cap. 8. nu 3. and all other Diuines affirme all lawes enacted by the Pope as they are meerely ciuill and temporall doe bind onely in the Popes territories and as Mr. Fitzherbert himselfe before f Cap. 9. nu 15. acknowledged there can bee nothing more cleare then that all lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended onely to his owne subiects and whatsoeuer is decreed onely by the Popes temporall authoritie and as hee is a temporall Prince is a meere temporall thing and cannot extend beyond the Popes temporall dominions from hence it cleerely followeth that what Doctour soeuer affirmeth that the Pope hath no authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall penalties as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment and consequently that the inflicting of them is a meere temporall thing and that the decrees which doe inflict them cannot be made by the Popes spirituall but onely by his temporall authoritie and that therefore they cannot of necessitie binde but onely those who are subiect to his temporall authoritie or as hee is a temporall Prince must also affirme that whensoeuer the Pope by any generall Constitution decreeth the inflicting of any such temporall penaltie the saide Decree doeth extend onely to the Popes temporall Dominions and comprehendeth onely those who are subiect to him as hee is a temporall Prince and endued with temporall authoritie 53 Wherefore it is neither hereticall nor absurd to say as this foule-mouthed ignorant man affirmeth that the Popes generall Decrees touching the extirpation and punishment of heresie cannot extend to the whole Church if they inflict a temporall penaltie and that no heretike can bee temporally punished out of the Popes temporall dominions by vertue of the Popes Decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes for that according to the doctrine of very many Doctours as I said before the Popes spirituall authoritie doth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments but onely of Eccclesiasticall Censures and that therefore it belongeth only to temporall Princes to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with temporall punishments and to the Pope as hee is a spirituall Pastour to roote out heresies and punish heretikes with Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And this I will boldly say and yet remaine as good a Catholike yea and a farre better then Mr. Fitzherbert is notwithstanding all his bigge and bitter words if hee build his Catholike faith vpon such weake doubtfull and vncertaine principles 54 Whereupon it followeth that euery Decree Canon or Constitution of the Pope which ordaineth the inflicting of temporall penalties for any crime whatsouer if my Aduersarie will needes haue it to be of force out of the Popes territories is either an approbation of some former Imperiall law or is of force by vertue of the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes or is onely a declaring teaching or commanding what the temporall Prince or Iudge ought to doe Neither doth the Canon Vergentis of Pope Innocent the third which Mr. Fitzherbert citeth heere in the margent any way contradict what I haue said but it doth rather confirme the same for the words of the Canon are these Wee ordaine that in the territories subiect to our temporall Iurisdiction the goods of heretikes be confiscated and in other territories wee command the same to bee done by Secular Potestaes and Princes which if perchance they shall bee negligent to performe wee will and command that they be compelled thereunto by Ecclesiasticall Censures So that this Canon doth rather fauour then contradict what I said seeing that it distinguisheth the Popes territories from other kingdomes and signifieth that the Pope in his owne Dominions hath authoritie by his Decrees to confiscate the goods of heretikes but in other kingdomes he hath no such authoritie but only to command Secular Princes to make such Decrees for the extirpation of heresie and also if they bee negligent therein to compell them by Ecclesiasticall Censures thereunto Neither can Mr. Fitzherbert prooue by any one Canon of Pope or Councell or by any generall or particular practise of the Church that out of the Popes temporall dominions any heretike is temporally punished by vertue of the Popes decrees without the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes whereby the Reader may plainly see what an ignorant vncharitable and rash headed man is this my Aduersarie to taxe so easily and vpon such vncertaine grounds learned Catholikes of heresie which among all Christians is accounted so heinous and execrable a crime 53 But his fraude and ignorance will the more cleerely bee discouered if wee obserue the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and the acts and obiects of them both For the same spirituall action as heresie blasphemie sacriledge may be forbidden both by the spirituall and temporall power yea also for the same spirituall ende seeing that Christian Princes are bound by the law of Christ to referre all their actions the vse of their tēporall authoritie to Gods honour and glorie and to the good of their own soules of their subiects and by their temporall lawes to maintaine and aduance Christian Religion and to roote out heresie blasphemie and such like spirituall crimes out of their kingdomes so that the directiue or commanding temporall power as I haue signified heeretofore g Cap. 6. nu 66. seq may agree with the spirituall in the same acts obiects and end but the principall distinction betwixt the spirituall and temporall power is to be taken from both the powers as they are coerciue or punishing which alwayes haue distinct acts and obiects for the acts and obiect of the temporall power as it is coerciue or punishing are alwayes the inflicting of temporall punishments and of the spirituall the inflicting of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures so that the forbidding of heresie vnder paine of incurring Ecclesiasticall Censures for what ende soeuer temporall or spirituall it bee done can proceede onely from Ecclesiasticall authoritie and the forbidding of the same heresie vnder paine of incurring temporall punishments as death losse of goods or of any other temporall thing for what end soeuer it bee inflicted can proceede onely from temporall and ciuill authoritie because according to Almaine and those other many Doctours mentioned by him who were as good Catholikes as M. Fitzherbert is and farre more learned then hee is euer like to be the Ecclesiasticall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of ciuill or temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods imprisonment but onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures and the other punishments which
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
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
power which by the law of Christ shunneth bloodie punishments might in order to spirituall good depriue any man of corporall life or concurre to the effusion of blood And therefore if those Popes who haue been so vehement to maintaine their pretended power to depriue Princes of their kingdomes had duely considered what odious detestable and bloodie conclusions doe euidently follow from that doctrine and position I make no doubt but that they would likewise from their heart haue detested abhorred and vtterly forsaken and caused to haue beene hissed out of Christian schooles the doctrine and premisses from whence such horrible hatefull and abhominable conclusion is are so cleerely and certainly deduced Fourthly therefore although it be most true that Ecclesiasticall lenitie doth shunne bloobie punishments yet it is not for that the law of Christ doth forbid Ecclesiasticall persons to concurre in any case to the effusion of blood nor onely for that Ecclesiasticall persons are by the Popes lawes which by force of the lawes doe not bind the Popes themselues commanded not to inflict in any case bloodie punishments or not to vse the materiall sword but also for that it is not lawfull according to the law of Christ for Ecclesiasticall men as they are Ecclesiasticall men or for Popes as they are Popes or by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall power to inflict temporall punishments or which is all one as I obserued before p Part. 2. ca. 9. out of S. Bernard to vse the materiall sword 18 Now you shall see how fraudulently and insufficiently D. Sculckenius answereth this my argument at the number 335. where briefly I did onely touch the same for at the number 43 seq where at large I prooued the same he cunningly as you haue seene passeth it ouer onely with It is not a hard matter to solue the argument let it passe as not belonging to the matter That which Widdrington doth adioyne in the end sayth he q pag. 510. that from the doctrine of deposing Princes it doth manifestly follow that the spirituall Pastour may giue leaue to priuate men to kill by any arte or stratageme an hereticall Prince as a certaine wolfe is a most horrible slander like vnto which I know not that the breast of man hath at any time so despitefully vttered Act. 8. I see plainly that Widdrington is in the gall of bitternesse and the obligation of iniquitie For seeing that the opinion of Bellarmine is commonly receiued by the Catholike Church and also confirmed by most frequent practise whilest my Aduersarie Widdrington doth propound and debate it as spitefully as possibly he can he seemeth to haue no other purpose then to bring the Vicar of Christ his Father and Pastour whether he will or nill into the hatred and that most great of Princes and to make all Catholike Diuines and Lawyers to be odious yea and plainly and of set purpose to sound the alarme to call Princes to armes against the Church of God but iniquitie will belye it selfe 19 For it is one thing to depose one for a iust cause and another thing to kill him by priuie murtherers For it is oftentimes lawfull for one to depose who may not lawfully kill and oftentimes that is a cause of a iust deposing which would not bee a cause of a iust killing wherefore whatsoeuer it be concerning the trueth of the consequent which is not called in question neither doth it make to the purpose the consequence which my Aduersarie Widdrington doth inferre is denied whilest he argueth thus The Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore also to kill them c. for from the power to depose doth not follow the power to kill And to confirme it by examples A Father may for some cause depose his sonne from the right due to the first begotten sonne yet hee may not kill him or giue leaue to kill him A Master may depose a seruant from his office yet hee may not kill him A King may depose a Magistrate from his gouernment for some offence for which hee may not iustly kill him A Biship may depose a Clerke and yet hee may not foorthwith kill him The Pope may sometimes depose a Bishop and yet hee may not for the same cause iustly bereaue him of his life 20 But to omit the railing and slanderous speeches of this vncharitable Doctour whereof I haue spoken somewhat aboue and which more plainely will be discouered by laying open his manifest fraude and fallacious dealing in answering my argument marke good Reader I beseech thee how foulely and shamefully hee seeketh to delude thee in proouing the consequence of my argument not to bee good but to bee false and a most horrible slander and whether of himselfe or me that saying of the Prophet is verified mentita est iniquitas sibi Psal 26. iniquitie hath belyed her selfe For it is one thing saith this Doctour to depose one for a iust cause and another thing to kill him by priuie murtherers Who maketh any doubt of this and oftentimes saith hee one may lawfully depose who may not lawfully kill and oftentimes that may bee a cause of a iust dâ—position which is not a cause of a iust killing And of this also speaking in generall and abstracting from a supreame power to depose and kill and from the crimes for which one may lawfully bee deposed or killed there can be made no question But what of all this how can it from hence bee concluded that from the doctrine of the Popes power to depose hereticall or wicked Princes in order to the publike spirituall good which was the antecedent proposition of my argument it doth not manifestly follow that the Pope in order to the same spirituall good hath not also power to kill hereticall and wicked Princes and knowne perturbers of the common spirituall good by all those wayes publike or priuate and by all those Artes and Stratagemes by which temporall Princes in order to the publike temporall good may kill publike malefactours and perturbers of the publike temporall peace 21 Wherefore whatsoeuer it be saith he concerning the truth of the consequent which is not called in question nor maketh to the purpose the consequence which Widdrington inferreth whilest he concludeth thus The Pope hath power to depose Princes therefore also to kill them c. is denied But first I would gladly know wherefore this Doctor saith that the truth of my consequent which is that the Pope hath power to kill Princes is not called in question nor maketh to the purpose For if his meaning be as it seemeth to be that no Catholike affirmeth that the Pope hath power to kill Christian Kings for otherwise he would not so bouldly haue said that I by vrging this argument did impose vpon the Vicar of Christ a most horrible slander like vnto which the breast of man hath neuer so despitefully vttered then I say the consequence of my argument is good and to the purpose and it proueth that my
materially of an equall or not inferiour order and excellency then the things figured so that formally as they are figures or in that they are figures they are lesse perfect and excellent then are the things figured Now this Doctour doth craftily take here figures and the things figured not formally and according to that wherein they are figures but materially for otherwise as you shall see he saith nothing to the purpose and to the confuting of my answere For neither Manna nor the Paschall lambe are figures of the Eucharist as the accidents of the Eucharist doe concurre to the nourishing of the body but onely as they are profitable to the nourishing of the soule Neither was corporall leprosie or the separation of lepers from ciuill conuersation a figure of spirituall leprosie and of Ecclesiasticall separation or Excommunication as corporall leprosie doth infect the body and Excommunication doth separate from ciuill conuersation but only as spirituall leprosie doeth infect the soule and Ecclesiasticall Excommunication doth separate from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall communion for that a figure must in all those things wherein it is a figure be more noble and excellent then is the thing which is figured And therefore as Cardinall Bellarmine very well obserueth q Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. to fulfill a figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to bee 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 he himselfe was circumcised but when hee ordained Baptisme in the place thereof Thus Card. Bellarmine 148 From whence it euidently followeth that the separation of corporall lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation could not bee a figure of the separation of spirituall lepers also from ciuill conuersation for that ciuill conuersation is one and the self same thing and not another thing more excellent which according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine must succeede in place of the figure but the fulfilling of this figure must bee the separating of spirituall lepers from spirituall or Ecclesiasticall conuersation And therefore although Ecclesiasticall Excommunication hath by the lawes of the Church annexed vnto it in that manner as I haue before declared the excluding by way of commandement from ciuill conuersation if otherwise by the law of GOD and nature we are not bound ciuilly to conuerse yea and also according to Cardinall Bellarmine the depriuing of temporall kingdomes or at leastwise of the administration thereof yet the separating of lepers in the old law from ciuill conuersation or the depriuing them of temporall kingdomes or administration could not according to Cardinall Bellarmines grounds bee a figure of Ecclesiasticall Excommunication in the new law as Excommunication is pretended to worke the same effects but onely as it worketh more excellent effects to wit the separating of the faithfull from spirituall conuersation and excluding them from the kingdome of heauen 149 Wherefore if wee doe respect onely the nature and propertie of a figure it is euident that Cardinall Bellarmine according to his owne principles hath not any way prooued that because corporall leprosie and the punishments annexed thereunto in the old law to wit the depriuing of temporall kingdomes Iurisdiction or administration as Cardinall Bellarmine contendeth was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the punishments annexed thereunto in the new law therefore the same punishments to wit the depriuing of temporall dominion Iurisdiction or administration were figured by them and consequently may now by vertue of the figure bee ordained against spirituall lepers for this were not according to Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine to fulfill the figure and to put in place thereof something more excellent but to put that very same thing which the law in that figure prescribed to be done And therefore Cardinall Bellarmine must bring better arguments vnlesse he will quite discredit himselfe and his cause drawne from other heads then from the figure of leprosie and of separating lepers from ciuill conuersation which according to his owne principles doth as you haue seene make cleere against him to prooue that spirituall Pastours either by vertue of Excommunication or in any other manner haue authoritie to depriue temporall Princes of their kingdomes and dominions or of any temporall administration or Iurisdiction 150 Lastly whereas in the end of this my answere I affirmed as you haue seene that Cardinall Bellarmine did not truely and entirely set downe the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. And all these things chanced to them in figure for that hee left out that word these which is a relatiue and hath relation onely to those things whereof the Apostle spake before among which corporall leprosie is none and hee affirmeth him to say And all things chanced to the Iewes in figure this Doctour maketh much adoe and laboureth in vaine to excuse Card. Bellarmine And first hee answereth u pag. 553. that Cardinall Bellarmine did not produce the words but the sense of St. Paul but it is certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that Chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure but those and other like to them 151 But first this answere is not agreeable to Card. Bellarmines owne words The Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. saith Cardinall Bellarmine that all things did chance to the Iewes in figure and what I pray you is to say that the Apostle saith so then to produce the Apostles words Secondly although it bee certaine that the Apostle did not intend to say that those things onely which hee mentioned in that chapter did chance to the Iewes in figure yet it is certaine that the Apostle in that chapter did onely say that all these things and not all things absolutely as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth him to say did chance to the Iewes in figure Thirdly albeit S. Paul knew right well that not onely all those altogethere mentioned but many other such like dioâ—ce to the Iewes in figure yet it was sufficient for his purpose in that place onely to affirme that all those things there mentioned and not that all things absolutely did chance to the Iewes in figure neither was it necessarie that the Apostle should in that chapter say all hee knew it was suffient for him to say in that chapter onely that which did suffice for his present purpose Wherefore this Doctour must distinguish betwixt knowledge which is in the vnderstanding and meaning which is in the will and so hee may see that the Apostle knew right well that not onely those things there mentioned but those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure and yet onely meant to say in that place that all those things there mentioned and not all those and other such like did chance to the Iewes in figure Neither did St. Paul meane otherwise then the words which he spake did signifie but it is
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
doers but those also that consent to them And a little beneath And these are not to be admitted to the accusing of any man nor the word of thē or of excommunicated persons can hurt or accuse any man 49 But this authority of Pope Calixtus and all other such like as of Pope Anacletus Pope Pius and others related by Gratian 3. q. 4. are easily answered For as there are two sorts of Lawes Courts or Tribunals the spirituall the temporall so also there are two sorts of infamie as infamie is taken for a penalty ordained by the law f Vide Siluest verbo infamia Greg. Tholo in Syntag Iuris lib. 31. cap. 29. num 7. and other Doctors Cod. ex quibus causis infamia irrogatur ff de ijs qui notantur infamiae the one is called infamia iuris Canonica infamie of the spirituall Court by vertue whereof the person made infamous is depriued and made incapable of spirituall dignities and his word or testimonie is of no force to hurt any man in this spirituall Court and for as much as concerneth spirituall dignities punishments or Censures and of this infamy the aforesaid decree of Callixtus and all other Ecclesiasticall Canons made by spirituall authority wherein the penalty of infamie is inflicted are to be vnderstood The other infamie is ordained by the Ciuill law and is called by the Lawyers infamia iuris Ciuilis infamie of the Ciuill law or Court by vertue of which the person made infamous is depriued or made incapable of Secular dignities and his testimonie is not admitted to hurt any man in the Ciuill and criminall Court and for as much as concerneth temporal dignities and temporal punishments And of this ciuill infamie the words of Pope Calixtus are not to be vnderstood Neither can any man be so senselesse as to conceiue that the Popes of the primitiue Church declaring those to be infamous and not to bee admitted to accuse or giue testimony against any man who did forsake the Christian Religion became Apostataes and made conspiracies against Bishops and excommunicated persons did intend to make them incapable of Secular dignities and not to be admitted to accuse or giue testimonie in the Secular Court wherein the Popes themselues and all Christians were punished and persecuted for Christian Religion and Apostataes and accusers of Bishops were rewarded 50 The second conuincing proofe that the Popes of the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours did not onely command but also ordaine temporall punishments Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth from the authority of Pope Vrbanus g Epist Vrbani tom 1. Concil 17. q. 4. can Attendendum est And his Successour Vrbanus saith he h Pa. 161. nu 9 ordained in like sort the penaltie of infamy adding also imprisonment and perpetuall banishment for such as should goe about to vexe and molest Churches and to depriue them of their goods and possessions But this proofe is as insufficient as the former First for that this Epistle of Vrbanus is not authentical but counterfait and falsly imposed vpon Pope Vrbanus as may euidently appeare by the subscriptions of the Consulls to wit of Antoninus and Alexander whereas it is euident as Baronius i Adamū 224 and other Historiographers doe witnesse that Antoninus was slaine in the fourth yeere of Pope Callixtus in the yeere of our Lord 224. two yeeres before Vrbanus was created Pope 51 Secondly for that it is also euident that the whole Canon Attendendum wherein the penaltie of infamy imprisonment and of perpetuall banishment is ordained as it is set downe 17. q. 4. by Gratian hath beene thrust in by some one or other to this Epistle for that it hath no coherence at all with the words of the Epistle which immediately follow wherein the reason of this decree is giuen whereas if the whole Canon Attendendum be left out the sense is perfect and the reason there alledged very apt and sufficient For what coherence I pray you is there betwixt these words of this Canon that if any man molest Churches he shall be condemned of perpetuall infamy and hee imprisoned and banished for euer with these words which in the Epistle immediately follow because we ought according to the Apostle to deliuer such a man to Sathan that the spirit may bee safe in the day of our Lord c. Which neuerthelesse is a very fit reason of that which immediately goeth before this whole Canon Attendendum to wit that Church-goods ought not to be taken away by any man and applied to prophane vses least they incurre the punishment and death of Ananias and Saphira and which is worse bee made Anathema maranatha and if they shall not fall dead in body as Ananias and Saphira did yet there soule which is of more worth then the body doth fall dead and be separated from the company of the faithfull and doth slide into the deepe pit of hell because according to the Apostle wee ought to deliuer such a man to Sathan c. which wordes as you see haue a perfect sense and giue a very fit reason of the former words if the whole Canon Attendendum be left out and with it there is no sense and coherence of the words at all 52 Thirdly what man can be so simple as to imagine that either Pope Vrbanus or any other Pope of the primitiue Church in the time of the Pagan Emperours when not onely the goods of the Church were prophaned taken away and spoyled but also the Christians themselues imprisoned banished and put to cruell death would make a Decree that whosoeuer did take away or prophane the goods of Churches should be committed to prison or perpetually banished euen as if Mr. Arch-Priest should now make a decree that whatsoeuer Catholike shall take the oath of allegiance or repaire to Protestant Churches shall be imprisoned or perpetually banished and yet these in my Aduersaries iudgement are forsooth conuincing proofes Neuerthelesse this punishment of infamy is to be vnderstood as I shewed before of spirituall infamy to wit forasmuch as concerneth the spirituall Court and the penaltie of perpetuall banishment is to bee vnderstood of spirituall banishment or of banishment from the Church as it is expresly affirmed in the decree of his Predecessour Pope Callixtus And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert may vse some fraud in vrging from the decree of Pope Vrbanus the penaltie of banishment and in concealing the said penaltie in the decree of his Predecessour Pope Callixtus who in expresse words made mention of banishment from the Church 53 The third conuincing proofe Mr. Fitzherbert taketh from the authority of a Prouinciall Councell k pag. 162. nu 9 held at Eliberis l De Consecrat dist 1. can Omnis homo in Spaine in the time of Constantius father to Constantine the great Galerius which enacted that men should abstaine from their wiues not only some daies before they receiued the B. Sacrament m Barchard l.
the Popes power in temporalls is declared 1 MY second answere to the obiection before mentioned was taken from an exposition of the Glosse vpon the Canon Adrianus dist 63. Where the Pope commaundeth the goods of those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated and vpon the Canon Delatori 5. q. 6. where he ordaineth the tongues of calumniatours or false accusers to be pulled out or being conuicted their heads to bee stroken off For to these Decrees the Glosse answereth thus Hîc docere Ecclesiam quid facere debeat Iudex Secularis The Church teacheth heere what a Seculiar Iudge ought to doe Which answere of the Glosse may be accommodated or applied to the like Decrees wherein the sacred Canons doe inflict temporall punishments And this answere the words of Siluester doe also fauour c. Thus I answered in the foresaid Preface 2 Now to this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth a Pag. 166. nu 1. 2. that it is as idle as the former For although it were true saith he that this Glosse were to be vnderstood as Widdrington would haue it yet it would not follow thereon that the same may be truely applied to all other Decrees of the Church which concerne the imposition of temporall punishments especially to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran which ordaineth the deposition of Princes for this Glosse doth treate onely of such as are subiect to the iurisdiction of Iudges and Secular Magistrates whereas the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes on whom no Secular Iudge or Magistrate can execute any penaltie and therefore there is such disparitie in these cases that the Glosse obiected by my Aduersarie Widdrington cannot be iustly applied to both alike 3 But this Reply of Mr. Fitzherbert is as idle and insufficient as his former For first he supposeth as certaine that the Councell of Lateran ordained the deposition of Emperours Kings and all absolute Princes which as you haue seene he hath not as yet by all the helpes hee hath had from Fa. Lessius sufficiently conuinced Secondly if we respect the force and proprietie of the words these two Canons especially the former are according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne grounds rather to be vnderstood of absolute Princes then is the Decree of the Lateran Councell for that the words of these Canons especially of the former are generall and doe not denote titles of inferiour honour or dignitie The Pope saith the Canon Hadrianus did excommunicate and commaunded vnlesse hee should repent his goods to be proclaimed or confiscated whosoeuer should infringe this Decree whereas the Councell of Lateran doth not speake in such generall tearmes but onely it mentioneth persons of inferiour state dignitie and title then are Emperours Kings and absolute Princes to wit temporall and principall Land-lords Gouernours or Lords or who haue not any principall Landlords Gouernours or Lords aboue them but onely Emperours Kings or absolute Princes But the truth is that both the Decree of the Lateran Councell and these Canons doe not comprehend absolute Princes but onely inferiour persons and subiects 4 Thirdly if this exposition of the Glosse is to be approoued my Aduersaries can bring no sufficient reason why the same may not also be applied to all other such like Canons of the Church wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained and especially to the Decree of the Lateran Councell to wit that all such Canons doe onely teach or declare what hath beene done or is to be done by Secular Princes or their Officers For besides that the reason which here Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth why the Decree of the Lateran Councell cannot be expounded in this sense because saith he the Canon of the Lateran Councell speaketh of absolute Princes is a meere prtitio principij a giuing that for a reason which is the maine question betweene vs and hath not as yet beene sufficiently prooued by him the words of the Lateran Councell according to their proper signification doe chiefly import this sense For the Councell doth not decree that the Pope may absolue those vassall from their fidelitie but the words of the Councell onely are that the Pope may denounce that is may declare or teach that those vassalls are absolued frō their fidelitie to wit by the consent and authoritie of absolute Princes 5 And if the Glosse and diuerse other Doctors whom I related elsewhere expounding the Canon Alius 15. q. 6. wherein Pope Gregory the 7th in his Epistle to the Bishop of Mentz affirmeth b Xpolog nu 444. that an other Bishop of Rome called Zacharie deposed the King of France from his kingdome and absolued all the French-men from their oath of allegiance doe thus interprete those wordes hee deposed the King and absolued the Frenchmen that is he consented to them that deposed him and declared him to be lawfully deposed and the Frenchmen to be lawfully absolued from their allegiance why may not this Canon of the Lateran Councell bee vnderstood in this sense that from that time the Pope may denounce that is declare and teach that the vassalls of that temporall Landlord Gouernour or Lord who for neglecting to purge his territories from heresie is for a whole yeere excommunicated are absolued from their fealty and their territories exposed to be taken by Catholikes especially seeing that the word denounce or declare is in this Canon expresly contained 6 And if any one obiect that the words of the Lateran Councell cannot be well vnderstood in this sense that the Pope may denounce that is may declare and teach that the vassals are absolued from their fealty to wit by force of some temporall law or constitution made by the consent and authority of absolute Princes for that before this Councell of Lateran there was no such decree or constitution of temporall Princes by vertue whereof the vassals of such a temporall Land-lord were absolued from their fealty and therefore those words of the Councell are so to bee vnderstood that the Pope may not onely declare and teach that they are absolued but also really absolue such vassals from their fealty To this obiection I answere that albeit I haue not seene any such temporall law or Constitution of any temporall Prince before it is was enacted by Frederike the second Emperour fiue yeeres after this Lateran Councell by vertue whereof such Vassalls are absolued from their fealtie yet wee finde that Pope Gregorie the seuenth long before in the Canon Nos Sanctorum 15. q. 6. did absolue them who either by allegiance or by oath were obliged to excommunicated persons from their oath of fidelitie to which Canon those wordes of the Lateran Councell if they bee vnderstood in the aforesaide sense may haue reference but then wee must consequently to our doctrine say that both this decree of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the inflicting of this temporall punishment and also the Canon Nos sanctorum haue onely force to binde in the territories of the Church
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
Censures is impugned by the oath and will shew withall that I gaine nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and for the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues Secondly saith hee i Pag. 218. na 12. although wee should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath yet Widdrington gaineth nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues and this I say for two reasons the one because it doth not follow vpon the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that cause as any man may easily see who list to examine it the other reason is for that the Oath is forbidden in the Breue expresly because it contained many things contrarie to faith and the saluation of soules whereby it is euident that albeit his Holinesse had beene falsly perswaded that his spirituall authoritie was impugned by the Oath yet the prohibition of the said Oath in his Breue might bee iust as being grounded vpon other respects seeing that the Breue declareth it to bee vnlawfull for many causes and doeth not mention this for any of them 63 Yes Mr. Fitzherbert I gaine much thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues for seeing that as you your selfe confesse the Oath is vnlawfull and condemned by the Breues as containing in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation in respect of two principall points to wit the exemption of temtemporall Princes from the Popes power to excommunicate and depose them if you admit as needes you must and doe that his Holinesse was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures is denied in the Oath you can giue no sufficient reason why his Holinesse might not also be misinformed by them of the later and be falsly perswaded by them that his power to depose Princes to dispose of their Kingdomes and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance which is indeede expresly denied in the Oath is a point of faith and the contrary doctrine hereticall yea it is as morally certaine that his Holinesse was misinformed by them of this second point of all the clauses of the Oath which are pretended to be flat contrary to faith and saluation as he was misinformed by them of the former point and so you may see the weakenesse of your second reason 64 And as for your first reason I cannot see what coherence at all it hath with that whereof you alledge it to bee a reason For what connexion or coherence I pray you is there betwixt this your assertion that though you should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsely perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is denyed by the Oath yet Widdrington should gaine nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues and this assertion which you alledge as a reason of the former that it doth not follow vpon the answeres of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that cause For who would not thinke that man not well to know what he spake that should argue thus It doth not follow vpon the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons that he forbade the Oath for that hee was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath therefore though we should admit that the Pope was deluded and falsly perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is impugned by the Oath yet my Aduersary gaineth nothing thereby for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues For besides that I did not say in that place that from the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons it followeth that hee forbade the Oath for that cause but I said indeed that from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter touching the consultation of the Diuines of Rome about the Oath and the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine from whom the Diuines of Rome did not dissent who teacheth that the Popes power to excommunicate euen heretical kings is plainly denied in the oath it followeth that his Holinesse forbade the Oath for that cause Neuerthelesse it is euident that albeit we abstract wholly from Fa. Parsons letter if my Aduersary once admit as he doth that his Holinesse was deluded and misinformed by others concerning this so manifest a point he can giue no reason why he might not also bee deluded and misinformed by others concerning the other points which are pretended to be in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation and so by this my Aduersaries grant I gaine much for the iustification of the Oath and the disproofe of his Holinesse Breues to wit that they were grounded vpon false informations either that his spirituall power to inflict Censures is denied in the Oath which is very vntrue or that his power to depose Princes is a point of faith and the contrary hereticall which also is manifestly false as I haue sufficiently conuinced in this Treatise 65 And hereby that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth is easily answered Besides that saith he k p. 218. nu 13 the answere of his Holinesse to Fa. Parsons concerning the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires for so were the word of Fa. Parsons letter did not exclude the deposition of Princes from his spirituall authority but necessarily include it because his said answere was to be vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam that is to say according to the meaning and drift of the Oath which was the speciall subiect of that Conference and therefore forasmuch as the Popes power to depose Princes and to discharge subiects of their allegiance is directly denyed by the Oath and that the same is neuer effected or performed but by vertue of some Censure of Excommunication it is manifest that his Holinesse answering a demaund concerning the Oath and speaking of the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires included therein his power aswell to depose as to excommunicate Princes especially knowing well as he did that the Oath denying his power to depose Princes doth by a necessary consequent deny his spiritual authority which includeth that power as I haue sufficiently declared and prooued in this Treatise l Chap. 2. per totum Item chap. 5. 6. 66 You haue heard before that the words which his Holinesse vsed to Fa. Parsons were that as for any actuall vsing Censures against his Maiestie he meat not but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such affaires which last words in such affaires are now added by Mr. Fitzherbert he was resolued and would rather lose his head then lose one iote Now my Aduersary laboureth to shew that by those words but as for the authority of the Sea Apostolike in such