cleanse the soule of spirituall vncleannesse which doeth barre men from entring the Celestiall tabernacle created by God alone and as the Priests the old law had authoritie according to my Aduersaries false Doctrine to create annoint punish and depose earthly Kings so the Priests of the new law haue authoritie to create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to create institute and make them heires to the kingdome of heauen by the Sacrament of Baptisme to annoint them with the oile of grace by the sacrament of Confirmation to punish them with spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Censures to depose or exclude them in some sort from the kingdome of heauen by denying them sacramentall absolution 8 In this manner should Mr. Fitzherbert haue argued from the figure to the veritie by which wee can onely proue that the Priests of the new law can create annoint punish and depose Kings in a more higher Bell. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. and not in the same degree for as Cardinall Bellarmine well obserued to fulfill the figure is not to doe that very thing which the law prescribeth to be done but to put in place thereof some thing more excellent which to signifie that figure did goe before as Christ did not fulfill the figure of Circumcision when hee was circumcised himselfe but when hee ordained Baptisme in place thereof and so the Priests of the new law doe not fulfill the figure of the Leuiticall Priesthood by creating annointing punishing and deposing earthly Kings in the same materiall manner as the Priests of Leui did but when they create annoint punish and depose spirituall Kings to wit Christians who by Baptisme are made heires to the kingdome of heauen with spirituall creation vnction chastisement and deposition as I haue declared before And by this the Reader may cleerely perceiue that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not sufficiently prooued either that the Priests of the old Testament had authoritie to create depose or punish temporally their Kings by way of temporall constraint for no man maketh doubt but that the Priests hoth of the olde and new law haue authoritie to annoint Kings it being only a sacred and religious ceremonie and to punish temporally by way of command and by declaring the law of GOD as to enioyne fastings almes-deedes and other corporall afflictions c. and to declare that this or that King shall be deposed if GOD shall so reueale because all these are meere spirituall actions or else that albeit wee should grant as my Aduersaries vntruely suppose that the Priests of the old law had the aforesaid authoritie to create depose and punish Kings temporally yet therefore from thence any probable and much lesse a potent argument as this man pretendeth can be drawne as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the Priests of the new law must have authoritie to doe the same things but onely to do things more excellent and of an higher degree and order as the body is more excellent and more perfect then the shadow the verity then the figure Christ then Moyses the new Law then the old heauenly kingdomes then earthly and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures are of another nature order and degree then temporall or ciuill punishments 9 Now Mr. Fitzherbert goeth on to prooue also out of the new Testament that the Priests of the new law especially the chiefe Pastour of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to punish Princes not onely with spirituall but also with temporall and corporall punishments And therefore now to declare saith hee g nu 32. p. 87. how I proued the same further by the new law it is to bee vnderstood Psal 77. Isa 44. Psal 2. Matth. 2. Apoc. 19. Aug. in Ioan. Bel. l. 1. de Rom. Pont c. 12. ad 6. obiect that I vrged h Suppl vbi supra nu 59. to that end the commission giuen by our Sauiour to St. Peter not onely to binde and loose but also to feede his sheepe shewing by many texts of Scripture as also by the authoritie of S. Augustine that Pascere to feede is taken for Regere to gouerne whereupon I drew certaine necessarie consequents in those words c. 10 But concerning the authoritie giuen by Christ our Sauiour to S. Peter to bind and loose or which euen according to Card. Bellarmines doctrine is all one in substance with to feede his sheepe for that by those words I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde c. was onely promised to S. Peter saith Cardinall Bellarmine not giuen the power to binde and loose and the keyes of the kingdome which keyes hee as the principall and ordinarie Prefect Prelate or Gouernour then onely receiued when he heard Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe I answere first that not onely S. Peter but also all the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and power to binde and loose and to feede the sheepe of Christs flocke seeing that as Christ saide to Saint Peter whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. so he said to the rest of the Apostles what things soeuer you shall binde c. albeit I will not deny that Saint Peter was the first of the Apostles but in what consisteth this prioritie principalitie primacie or superioritie of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles as likewise of the Pope ouer all other Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops and Bishops of Christs Church there is yet a great controuersie betwixt the Diuines of Rome and of Paris and perchance hereafter I shall haue occasion to treate thereof more at large But that which for this present I intend to affirme is this that considering in those wordes of our Sauiour Tibi dabo claues c. I will giue thee the keyes c. Saint Peter represented the whole Church and not only to him but also to the rest of the Apostles and to the whole Church and Priesthood which Saint Peter did represent were promised the keyes and power to binde and loose as the holy Fathers and ancient Diuines doe commonly expound i As to omit Origen tract 1. in Matth. 16. Euseb Emis hom in Natali S. Petri. Theophylac in 1. Mat. 16. S. Ambr. in psa 38. lib. 1. de Paenit c. 2. Hieron lib. 1. contra Iouinian Aug. tra 50. 124. in Ioan. tract 10. in Epi. Ioan. in psal 108. Leo serm 3. in Anniu assumpt Fulgentius de fide ad Petr. l. 1. de remis pec c. 24. Beda Ansel in Mat. 16. Euthym. c. 33. in Matth. Haymo hom in fest Petri Pauli Hugo de S. vic l. 1. de Sacram. c. 26. alibi Durand in 4. dist 18. q. 2. â—yra in Mat. 16 Walden tom 2. doct fid c. 138. Cusanus l. 2. de Concord Cat. c. 13. 34. and commonly all the ancient Doctors of Paris if from the power to bind and loose promised to Saint Peter it doth necessarily follow that S. Peter and
thereof and no sufficient proofe to confirme his new inuented Catholike faith touching the Popes power to depose Princes as I will at large make plaine beneath p Chap. 9. seq 25 Secondly it is also vntrue that I onely am the man who denieth the spirituall Pastours of the Church to haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to inflict temporall punishments and consequently to proceed to no other temporall chastisement after they haue cast the dart of Excommunication Many other learned Catholikes as I haue shewed aboue q Part. 2. per totum doe also deny the same and Almaine affirmeth that it is the doctrine of most Doctours that the Ecclesiasticall power cannot by the institution of Christ inflict any temporall or ciuill punishment as death exile priuation of goods c. Yea nor so much as to imprison With what face therefore dare this Doctour to terrifie simple Catholikes cry out so often Onely Widdrington or ely Widdrington as Card. Bellarmine did onely Barclay onely Barclay doe oppose themselues against all Catholikes But God be praised that my Aduersaries themselues haue liued to see what little credit is giuen by Catholikes to their vaunting words and with what disgrace their bookes haue beene handled by the State of France For Card. Bellarmines booke against D. Barclay was condemned and forbidden by the Parliament of Paris vnder paine of treason this Doctours booke against me was disgacefully burnt by the hangman before the great staires of the Pallace and the same fire but by a more publike sentence and in a more solemne manner Fa. Suarez booke also hat passed 26 Thirdly this Doctour very learnedly forsooth carpeth at me for abusing words in calling deposition and killing temporall armour or weapons My Aduersarie Widdrington saith he r Cap. 8. pag. 375. abuseth words when he affirmeth deposition and killing to be temporall armour or weapons F. who euer heard that deposition or killing are armour or weapons They are effects of armour or weapons but they themselues are not armour or weapons But first this Doctour hath so vigilant on eye ouer my words and writings to carpe at them that he quite forgetteth what words he himselfe doth vse For he himselfe heere confesseth that Ecclesiasticall Censures are spirituall armour or weapons whereupon in this very Chapter he callet Å¿ Cap. 8. pag. 360. Excommunication a dart and Card. Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay t Cap. 19. pag. 185. calleth Ecclesiasticall Censures the spirituall sword and yet Excommunication and other Ecclesiasticall Censures are according to his owne doctrine effects of spirituall armour or weapons to wit of the Ecclesiasticall power which he calleth v Pag. 386. 387. in tract contra Barclai cap. 19. pag. â—88 the spirituall sword And if spirituall Censures or punishments may be called spirituall armour or weapons although they be an effect of the spirituall power or sword why may not I pray you temporall censures or punishments as are deposition and killing be called temporall weapons or armour although they be effects of the temporall power or sword If therefore I abuse words in calling temporall Censures or punishments temporall armour or weapons how can he excuse himselfe from abusing words in calling spirituall Censures or punishments spirituall armour or weapons 27 Secondly it is vsuall among Philosophers to nominate and describe a thing by the name of the cause whereupon they deuide a definition into a formall and causall definition or description as the Eclipse of the Moone is commonly described to be an interposition of the earth betwixt the body of they Sunne and of the Moone not for that the Eclipse of the Moone is formally that interposition for it is formally nothing else then a want of light in the Moone but for that it is caused by that interposition and Thunder according to the opinion of Empedocles and Anaxagoras is defined to be a quenching of fire inclosed in a cloude See Aristotle lib. 2. Meoteor sum 3. cap. 1. 2. but according to the doctrine of Aristotle a violent breaking out of a fiery exhalation inclosed in a cloud not for that Thunder is formally the aforesaid quenching or breaking forth for it is formally a sound or noice but for that this sound is caused from thence so likewise spirituall and temporall Censures may be called spirituall and temporall armour or weapons not for that formally they are so but for that they are effects caused from thence But lastly what man is so ignorant who knoweth not that the same thing may be both an effect and also a cause being considered diuers waies and so the same spirituall or temporall Censure and punishment as it proceedeth from the spirituall or temporall power which is rightly called the spirituall or temporall sword is an effect and not to be called a sword weapon or armour yet as it is a cause to bring great griefe to the person so punished or to redresse great euill it may well be called armour offensiue or defensiue yea and griefe it selfe may without abusing of words be called a sword according to that of the holy Scripture Luc. 2. And thy owne soule a sword shall pearce And thus you see how weakely and fraudulently this Doctour hath impugned my answere 28 Now to returne to Mr. Fitzherbert He forsooth bringeth an other reason but as insufficient as his former to proue that the Pastors of the Church haue authoritie to inflict temporall or corporall punishments vpon hereticall or schismaticall Princes if they shall contemne Ecclesiasticall Censures For otherwise how is that saith he x Num. 35. pag. 89. 2. Cor. 10. fulfilled which the Apostle said of the most ample power that he and other Apostles had to destroy Munitions Counsells and all Altitude or Lostinesse extolling it selfe against the knowledge of God yea and to reuenge or punish omnem inobedientiam all disobedience Which words S. Augustine August ad Bonifac Com. epist 50. vnderstandeth of the authoritie left by our Sauiour to his Church to compell her rebellious and disobedient children to performe their duties and the same is also acknowledged by some of our principall Aduersaries namely Caluin Caluin vpon this place who not only expoundeth this place of the coercitiue and coactiue power that is in the Church but also groundeth the same vpon the words of our Sauiour to his Apostles Quicquid ligaueritis super terram Matth. 18. erit ligatum in caelis c. Whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen 29 Whereupon I inferre that if the Ecclesiasticall authoritie dâ—d not extend it selfe to the chasticement of disobedient Princes in their temporall states the Church should not haue the power whereof S. Paul speaketh that is to reuenge all disobedience seeing that the disobedience of absolute Princes to Ecclesiasticall Censures should be incorrigible and remedilesse Whereupon it would
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
therefore as in the end of that Disputation I affirmed I did faithfully set downe all the chiefest arguments which are vsually alledged as well against the taking of the Oath as in fauour thereof neither did I affirme any thing of my owne opinion but onely as representing the persons of them who of set purpose do publikely maintain that the Oath either may or may not be lawfully taken leauing it to the Fatherly care of your Holinesse that when you haue bin fully informed of the whole progresse of the matter and haue diligently examined all the reasons for which English Catholikes obeying the Kings cōmandement haue taken the Oath you will be pleased particularly to approue them or to condemne them that Catholikes in this so most weightie a matter which doth so neerely concerne the prerogatiue of your spirituall Authoritie and of his Maiesties Royaltie being fearefull to resist your Holinesse precept declared in your Breues and also being desirous to obey as much as with a safe conscience they may his Maiesties commaund may cleerely perceiue which particular clauses of the Oath they are bound to admit and which they are bound to reiect and may in plaine and expresse tearmes without any ambiguity of words be instructed by your Holinesse in what manner they may satisfie their owne conscience your Holinesse will and also his Maiesties desire concerning all the particular parts of the Oath For as they are very ready to hazard their whole temporall estate and also to loose their liues for the Catholike faith which by the Church to whom this office belongeth to define matters of faith and not to priuate Doctours who may deceiue and be deceiued is declared to be truely the Catholike faith so doubtlesse they are vnwilling to expose themselues their whole Family and Posterity which this our age doth so much labour to aduance to eminent danger of their temporall vtter ruine onely for opinions although they be maintained by the greater and better part of Diuines so that others although farre fewer in number doe defend the contrary But as they are desirous with all their hearts to obey your Holinesse in spirituall matters and in those things which cannot be omitted without sinne so also they might iustly thinke themselues to be more hardly vsed then children are wont by their Parents if in these times specially wherein by reason of the Catholike faith which they professe they haue grieuously incurred his Maiesties high displeasure who is of a contrary Religion they should without sufficient reason be forbidden to giue that temporall Allegiance to his Maiestie which they perswade themselues to be by the Law of Christ due to him hauing alwayes before their eyes that commaundement of Christ our Sauiour Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and the things that are Gods Matth. 22. to God 11 And that your Holinesse may yet more cleerely perceiue that this my Disputation of the Oath which is rather to be called a most humble Supplication to your Holinesse was written in manner of an humble Petition I thinke it not amisse to repeate also word by word these very last words of my Epistle to your Holinesse 12 This therefore most Holy Father is our most humble Supplication to your Holinesse First that your Holinesse will be pleased to examine diligently the reasons for which our English Catholikes doe thinke the Oath may lawfully be taken and whereof they are perswaded your Holinesse is not yet rightly informed Secondly that after you haue throughly examined them you will vouchsafe in regard of your Pastorall carefulnesse to instruct them what parts of the Oath are I doe not say according to the probable opinion of some Dhctours but according to Catholike doctrine necessarily to be belieued by all Christians repugnant to faith and saluation and therefore cannot be taken by any Catholike with a safe and probable conscience Thirdly that if your Holinesse shall find that you haue not beene rightly informed of those reasons for which our English Catholikes are of opinion that the Oath may lawfully be taken and that therfore they haue not in a matter of so great weight proceeded rashly and vnaduisedly you will be pleased receiue them and their Priests into your ancient fauour and that if they or any of them haue not through their owne fault but through the indiscreet zeale of others suffered any losse or detriment in their good names or other wayes it may be restored againe to them in that best manner as shall seeme conuenient to the charitie iustice and wisedome of your Holinesse 13 Now what there is contained in this our humble Petition against which your Holinesse hath iust cause to take so high displeasure that you will not accept thereof I remit to the iudgement of indifferent men but especially of your Holinesse For by that which we haue said it doth manifestly appeare that this Disputation of the Oath was for that end composed by me to informe your Holinesse who is the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church and to whom Christ our Lord hath giuen charge to feede his sheepe not onely with precepts and Censures but also with the word of Doctrine and to instruct them in the Catholike faith truely of our state and to propound vnto your Holinesse sincerely and with all dutifull submission those doubts and difficulties which both to my selfe and to other Catholikes doe occure about this new Oath which is commaunded by his Maiestie forbidden by your Holinesse and daily taken by almost all Catholikes of the better sort to whom it is tendred yea euen by those who haue the Iesuits for their Directours howsoeuer these Fathers doe in outward shew seeme to condemne the same that after your Holinesse had duely examined the reasons and arguments which are vsually alledged on both sides against and for the taking of the Oath you would be pleased to satisfie our consciences and to make knowne vnto vs what parts of the Oath may according to the principles of the Catholike faith be lawfully and what parts may not lawfully be taken and lastly to declare vnto vs which be those many things which your Holinesse being not rightly informed by some as we imagine hath affirmed in your Breues to be cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation for no man be he neuer so great an enemie to the Oath dare auouch that all things contained in the Oath are repugnant to faith or saluation 14 Now I beseech your Holinesse to iudge first whether I the Authour of those Bookes who haue professed my selfe to be a Catholike and a Child of the Catholike Romane Church and haue subiected all my writings to her iudgement and Censure with that submission that whatsoeuer should not be approoued by her I would disprooue condemne and haue it for not written ought to be iudged by the Supreme Pastour and Father of the Catholike Church to be no Catholike nor a child of the Catholike Church If I be no Catholike doubtlesse I must bee
ROGER WIDDRINGTONS Last REIOYNDER TO Mr. THOMAS FITZ-HERBERTS REPLY CONCERNING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE And the POPES power to depose PRINCES Wherein all his arguments taken from the Lawes of God in the old and new Testament of Nature of Nations from the Canon and Ciuill Law and from the Popes Breues condemning the Oath and the Cardinalls Decree forbidding two of Widdringtons Bookes are answered Also many Replies and Instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered PROVERBS 12. The lip of truth shall be stable for euer but he that is an hasty witnesse frameth a tongue of lying IHS Permissu Superiorum 1619. ⧠The CONTENTS of this TREATISE THE Preface to the Reader wherein it is shewed first how dangerous and pernitious a thing it is vnder pretence of zeale to Catholike Religion and to the Sea Apostolike to coyne teach and publish by fraude and violence false articles of Catholike faith especially in things which doe greatly derogate from the temporall Soueraignty of absolute Princes Secondly how exceedingly Widdringtons Aduersaries doe preiudice themselues and their cause by handling this controuersie concerning the Oath of Allegiance and the Popes power to depose Princes in such a fraudulent vncharitable and slanderous manner and in not permitting learned Catholikes to whom the charge of soules is committed and who ought alwaies to bee ready to satisfie euery one that asketh them a reason of their Catholike faith to try and examine by the true touchstone of Catholike faith and the vndoubted principles of Catholike Religion whether the faith which they pretend to bee Catholike bee a false and forged Catholike faith or no Thirdly what is Widdringtons chiefe drift in making this Reioynder and in continuing still to handle this controuersie CHAP. I. Widdrington freeth himselfe of two fraudes whereof he is wrongfully accused and returneth them backe againe vp his Aduersary Secondly hee discouereth the fraude and falshood of his Aduersaries reasons which he yeeldeth for the supposition of his Discourse and that therein he contradicteth his owne grounds Thirdly he plainly sheweth that he hath answeared probably and like a good Catholike CHAP II. Widdringtons answere to an argument of his Aduersary taken from the rule of the law The accessory followeth the principall is confirmed Secondly Two Instances which he brought against that rule are prooued to be sound and sufficient Thirdly that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. If you haue Secular iudgements c. is at large examined CHAP. III. Widdringtons answere to Fa. Lessius argument taken from that maxime Hee that can doe the greater can doe the lesse is confirmed Secondly the foure Instances which hee brought to confute the said argument and maxime are examined and prooued to be neither friuolous nor impertinent but sound sufficient and to the purpose Thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines example touching the translation of the Romane Empire and the argument which D. Schulckenius bringeth to confirme the same with two other examples of Clodoueus King of France and of Boleslaus King of Polony are confuted CHAP. IIII. Widdringtons interpretation of that clause of the Oath wherein the doctrine that Princes who are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer is abiured as impious and hereticall is prooued to bee sound and sufficient and is cleered from all absurditie and contradiction euen by M. Fitzherberts owne examples and that it may without periurie be sworne by any Catholike CHAP. V. Widdringtons answeres to all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of God both in the olde and new Testament are prooued to be truely probable and sincere and no way fraudulent or contrary to his owne doctrine SEC 1. First all the authorities which are brought out of the old law are confuted in generall by the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and other learned Diuines Secondly the arguments taken from that place of Deuteron 17. Si difficile ambiguum c. and the examples of Eleazar and Iosue and from the difference of the sacrifices to be offered for Priests and Princes together with the testimonies of Philo Theodoret and Procopius are answered in particular SEC 2. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the olde law since the institution of Kings are at large examined and first his argument taken from the authority of Priests and Prophets to create annoint chastice and depose Kings is disprooued Secondly Widdringtons answeres to the examples of Queene Athalia deposed by Ioiada the high Priest and of King Ozias deposed by Azarias the high Priest are confirmed and whatsoeuer D. Schulckenius obiecteth against the said answeres is related and answered Thirdly it is shewed that the authority of S. Chrysostome brought by M. Fitzherbert to confirme the example of King Ozias maketh nothing for him but against him and that in vrging this authority he dealeth fraudulenty peruerteth Saint Chrysostomes meaning and also contradicteth Card. Bellarmine SEC 3. All M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the verity is prooued to make against himselfe Secondly those words of our Sauiour Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted Common-wealth are satisfied and Doctor Schulckenius Reply is proued to be fraudulent and insufficient Thirdly the authoritie of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were readie to reuenge all disobedience is answered M. Fitzherberts fraud in alledging the authority of S. Augustine is plainely discouered and the Conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be false and fraudulent CHAP. VI. M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the law of Nature are confuted and first it is shewed in what manner temporall things are by the law of Nature subordinate to spirituall and the temporall Common-wealth to the Church of Christ Secondly that Religious Priests cannot by the law of Nature punish temporall Princes temporally and that in the law of Nature the ciuill societie was supreme and disposed of all things as well concerning religion as State and that therefore the new Oath denying the Popes power to depose Princes is not repugnant to the law of Nature Thirdly the difference betwixt the directiue and coerciue power and how temporall things become spirituall is declared and from thence prooued that the Church may command but not inflict temporall punishments and diuers Replies of M. Fitzherbert and D. Schulckenius are confuted CHAP. VII 1. Certaine places of the old and new Testament are explained 2. D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere Widdrington made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and thirdly Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisburie grounded thereon and fourthly other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias
and to the Sea Apostolike yet for my own part I cannot see but that any prudent man may iustly suppose their zeale to bee blind and not according to knowledge but grounded vpon culpable or wilfull ignorance and that they themselues suspect their owne conscience to bee eroneous and their cause to be naught and therefore would not haue it to be further sifted and examined 11 For seing that the nature of truth being like to pure and perfect gold is such that the more it is examined the more cleere and perspicuous it doth still appeare and contrariwise falshood the more it is sifted the absurdity thereof still sheweth it selfe more manifest if my Aduersaries are in their consciences perswaded as in wordes they professe that they haue truth on their side and that the authority of spirituall Pastours to excommunicate vpon iust cause Christian Princes to binde and loose and to dispence in Oathes in generall which all Catholikes acknowledge to be included in their spirituall power be denyed in the late Oath of allegiance as they pretend or that their authoritie to depose Princes which all men confesse to bee denyed in the Oath bee certaine out of controuersie and a cleere point of Catholike faith for which two causes chiefly they cry out against the Oath and condemne it for vnlawfull as containing in it more then temporall allegiance to wit a manifest denyall of Ecclesiasticall authority why are they so much afraide to haue the matter charitably and sincerely debated by learned men Why will they not suffer those Catholikes especially who are learned and to whom the charge of soules is committed and are able to discerne betwixt truth and falshood betwixt Catholike faith and opinion 1. Pet. 3. and who ought to bee alwaies readie and prepared to satisfie euerie one that asketh them a reason of that faith which is in them to reade such bookes as doe sincerely and exactly handle this controuersie and all the difficulties on both sides and doe plainely declare in what particular manner all Christians are bound by the law of Christ according to the true and approoued grounds of Catholike Religion Matth. 22. to render to God and Caesar that which is their due 12 Why doe they so shamefully abuse his Holinesse by misinforming him that his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and to absolue from Oathes in generall is denyed in the Oath and that his power to depose Princes which indeed the Oath denyeth is a point of faith and thereupon by vrging him to condemne the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation and to forbid those bookes of Catholike Writers that doe plainly discouer their forgeries and euidently conuince that no such spirituall power as they pretend is denyed in the Oath and that his power to depose Princes which the Oath denyeth is not a point of faith but hath euer since the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth for before his age the practise thereof was not heard of Onuphrius l. 4. de varia creat Romani Pont. as Onuphrius witnesseth it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Popes and Christian Princes and those Catholikes who haue fauoured either part and which is more extrauagant by vrging him to commaund vnder paine of Censures the Author of those bookes to purge himselfe foorthwith and yet not to signifie vnto him any one crime either in generall or in particular of which he should purge himselfe although hee hath very often most humbly and instantly requested to know the same 13 Why doth not Cardinall Bellarmine my chiefest Aduersarie being accused by mee to his Holinesse in publike writings of manifest fraudes falshoods corruptions and calumnies cleare himselfe all this time of such fowle imputations which cannot but greatly blemish his honour and quite discredite his cause in the vnderstanding of any iudicious man if in his conscience hee thinke himselfe to bee guiltlesse and that I haue falsly accused him why doth hee not answere and iustifie himselfe and shew to the world that I haue belyed him that also thereby I may see my errour and aske him publike forgiuenesse and bee penitent for the same If hee see that I am innocent why doth hee not restore my credit which hee hath wrongfully taken away and in plaine tearmes confesse that hee was deceiued and mistaken in this controuersie and imitating the example of famous Saint Augustine retract all that hee hath written amisse especially to the hurt and disgrace of innocent men Can any man of iudgement imagine that hee being now so neere his graue would take such paines to write euery yeere some one or other little Treatise of deuotion which neuerthelesse will not excuse him before God from restoring the good name of them whom hee hath falsly defamed and that hee would bee so carelesse to purge himselfe of such shamelesse crimes which cannot but leaue his memory tainted with perpetuall infamy if with his credit hee could cleere himselfe And therefore if he did sincerely consider the admonition hee gaue to other Prelates vpon occasion of Pope Innocents examples to examine their conscience carefully whether it bee sound or erroneous hee might truely haue iust cause to bee sore afraide and greatly to suspect that howsoeuer hee maketh an outward shew of zeale sanctitie and deuotion hee hath within an erroneous and seared conscience for which hee must shortly before the tribunall of God render a strict account 14 All which their proceedings being duely considered whether they are not manifest signes that in their owne consciences they suspect the iustice of their cause and doe plainely see that they are not able to make good their newly inuented Catholike faith and yet will still goe on to maintaine by fraude and violence what they cannot by reason and argument wherein also how much they discredit themselues their cause how mightily they scandalize Catholike Religion and make the Sea Apostolike odious to Princes and subiects how egregiously they wrong and slander innocent Catholikes and how greatly they endanger their owne soules and others I leaue to the iudgement of any prudent and pious man 15 Wherefore my chiefe drift good Reader in this my answere to M. Fitzherbert is first to keepe and maintaine entire and inuiolate the puritie of true Catholike faith and Religion which is greatly defiled not onely by impugning true and vndoubted articles of faith but also by forging and defending false articles for true Secondly to defend my innocency which as long as I haue a pen to write or a tongue to speake I will God willing not bee afraide to maintaine against any man whatsoeuer that shall falsly accuse me and my doctrine of heresie and to make knowne my sincere proceeding in handling this great and dangerous controuersie which concerneth our obedience due to God and Caesar and the fraudulent and corrupt dealing of my Aduersaries who by fraud and violence seeke to afflict intangle and disturbe the consciences of
willingly graunt that it may be confirmed by the common custome and practise of the Primitiue Church that not onely the Pope but also inferiour Bishops yea and Priests had power to command or enioyne bodily penances to their penitents as fasting prayer lying vpon sackcloth and ashes yea and giuing of almes in satisfaction of their sinnes as the building of Churches Colledges Hospitals or Religious Houses according to the greatnesse of their offence and the qualitie condition and abilitie of the penitent or to vse the tearme of Diuines claâ—e non errante the key not erring For if such penances should be enioyned without discretion and due regard of the greatnesse of the offence or of the state and condition of the penitent the key should erre and would not haue force to bind Secondly I doe also graunt that there is an order and subordination in worth and dignitie betwixt spirituall corporall and temporall goods or of the soule of the body and of fortune and that according to the light of nature the goods of the soule being most worthy are to be preferred and esteemed before the other two and that the goods of the body bodily life health libertie and such like bodily contentments are to be preferred before the goods of fortune which are honour dignitie wealth and temporall states and that all of them are with due order to be referred to the seruice and glorie of God and to the eternall saluation both of body and soule But what followeth from all this 33 Whereupon I inferre saith my Aduersarie r pag. 33. nu 5.6 according to the axiome of the law accessorium sequitur principale that seeing not onely the body but also temporall goode and states are inferiour to the soule and ordained for the seruice thereof a must needs follow that the Church hauing power and authoritie ouer the body for the benefite of the soule hath also power ouer temporall goods and states when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and for the glorie of God for the which 〈…〉 bodies goods states and all things else were created and ordained And this me thinkes our aduersaries should not deny seeing that their Ecclesiasticall discipline admitteth not onely corporall chastisements by imprisonment but also pecuniaris mulcto and penalties Therefore vpon this I inferre that Christian Princes being sheepe of Christs flocke and consequently to be fedde and gouerned by the supreme Pastour of the Church may also be chastised by him in their temporall states when it shall be necessarie for the glorie and seruice of God the benefite of soules and good of the whole Church whereto all Christian Kingdomes Isa 60. and Empyres are subordinate and subiect as I haue prooued before out of the holy Scripture and will prooue also after a while by the very law of nature and light of reason 34 But first touching the consequent or conclusion of his inference or argument to wit that the Pope hauing power ouer the soule hath power also ouer the body and goods when it is necessarie for the good of the soule and glory of God I doe willingly graunt the same if it be vnderstoode of a power not to dispose of corporall and temporall goods but to command and enioyne them in order to spirituall good albeit my Aduersarie did vnderstand it of both as I shewed before But as concerning the consequence inference or argument which hee draweth from that rule of the law De Regulis Iuris in 6. regula 42. The accessorie followeth the principall or as it is in the Canon law Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis It is fit or conuenient that the accessorie follow the nature of the principall which rule as the Glosse there affirmeth is taken from that rule of the Ciuill law ff de Regulis Iuris regula 138. Cum principalis causa c. When the principall cause is not consisting for the most part neither those things that follow haue place there can be no conuincing or demonstratiue argument as all my Aduersaries arguments must be if hee will prooue by them that the oath cannot with a safe and probable conscience be taken by any Catholike and that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is a point of faith be drawen from that generall rule of the law which hath so many exceptions restrictions and limitations and which are not as yet made sufficiently knowen by the Lawiers as neither what is vniuersally meant by Accessorie and what by Principall and what is to follow the nature of the principall 35 And therefore not without cause doth the rule of the Ciuill law from which this rule of the Canon law is taken adioyne that word plaerunque for the most part and the rule it selfe of the Canon law doth not absolutely say that the Accessorie must follow or doth follow the nature of the principall but it is fit or conuenient that the accessorie doe follow the nature of the principall to signifie that it doth not alwaies and of necessitie but for the most part and of congruitie follow the principall and that Iudges ought for the most part follow this rule in their iudgements if they haue no speciall reasoned meaning 〈…〉 to the contraries And therefore as the marginall Glosse vpon the Ciuill law doth well obserue Å¿ Leg. Et si is quem Cod. de praedijs alijs c. The accessorie doth not follow his principall when in the accessorie there is not the same reason which is in the principall 36 Secondly therefore I would gladly know of my Aduersarie whether he will haue this rule to be grounded onely in humane law and hath it force and strength onely from thence so that if the Ciuill or Canon law had not made and ordained that rule it would not be of force and validitie or else it is grounded also in the law of God or nature If he graunt the first as commonly the Lawiers doe and therefore some things which seeme of their owne nature to be accessorie as a saddle and bridle are to a horse are not accessorie according to humane law and therefore he that selleth a horse doth not consequently sell the bridle and faddle and somethings which are not accessorie of their owne nature as a dowrie is not necessarily annexed to marriage are made accessorie according to humane lawe and therefore he that marrieth a woman with the consent of her parents hath right to a dowrie and the parents are bound by the Ciuill Law to giue a dowrie if they be able wherefore the Glosse vpon the aforesaid rule of the Ciuill law doth obserue that the word plaerunque for the most part was purposely added to that rule of the law for that sometimes that rule doth faile to which purpose he alledgeth many texts of the Ciuill law If my Aduersarie I say will graunt the first he can not but easily perceiue that there can no forcible argument be drawne from the
For although the Councell of Trent hath denounced anathema l Sess 4. against all them who shall not receiue for sacred and canonicall the entire bookes of holy Scripture with all their parts as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholike Church and are extant in the ancient vulgate Latine edition and hath ordained and declared that this ancient and vulgate Edition which by long custome of so many ages hath beene approoued in the Church shall be receiued for Canonicall in publike lessons disputations sermons and expositions and that no man shall dare or presume to reiect it vnder any pretence for which cause the said Councell hath moreouer ordained that heereafter the holy Scripture and especially this ancient and vulgar Edition shall bee printed very correctly which Decree of the Councell Pope Sixtus the fifth vndertooke to execute printing that vulgate Edition in the Vaticane and by a speciall Bull prefixed to the beginning thereof commanded that all men should take that and none other for holy Scripture which Edition because sundry errours were found therein Pope Clement the eight printed more correctly Neuerthelesse Mr. Fitzherbert is not afraide to cite contrary to the said decrees this place of holy Scripture otherwise then it is found in the vulgate Edition 11 For whereas in the vulgate Edition wee reade thus and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke and to the Iudge that shall be at that time Mr. Fitzherbert translateth it and to the Iudges in the plurall number But which importeth more whereas the wordes following a little after are thus in the vulgate Edition But he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at that time ministreth to our Lord thy God and the decree of the Iudge that man shall die and thou shalt take away c. Mr. Fitzherbert with small respect to the aforesaid Decrees citeth the wordes thus But he that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at time ministreth to our Lord thy God that man shall die by the decree of the Iudge and thou shalt take away c. So that the sentence of death is in this place denounced by the expresse appointment of God not onely against him who shall not obey the commandement of the Priest but also against him that shall not obey the decree of the Iudge 12 Now whether this Iudge was a temporall or a spirituall Iudge and if he was a temporall Iudge whether he was subordinate to the High Priest or no it is a controuersie among Catholike Diuines Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that this Iudge may very well be vnderstood to be the High Priest himselfe who was the supreme Iudge in the Councel of Priests and albeit he were a temporall Iudge neuerthelesse I say saith Mr. Fitzherbert it is euident that the finall decision of doubts and controuersies in that consistory and consequently the supreame authoritie resided in the High Priest seeing that the said Iudge if hee were a different person was no other then a Minister c. 13 But albeit this Iudge may be vnderstood to be an inferiour spirituall Iudge subordinate to the high Priest as Abulensis affirmeth vpon that place and not the high Priest himselfe by reason of the coniunction copulatiue and but he that is proud refusing to obey the commandement of the high Priest and the decree of the Iudge which coniunction and saith Abulensis denoteth the Iudge to be a different person frō the high Priest neuerthelesse this Iudge may also be very well vnderstood to be a temporall Iudge and in temporall causes independent on the high Priest And truely the reason which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth to prooue that this Iudge if he were a temporall Iudge was onely a Minister of the high Priest is of small force for that to prooue the same he alledgeth as you haue seene the words of the holy Scripture otherwise then they are in the vulgate Edition seeing that it is onely ordained in the law that he who should be so proud as to disobey the commandement of the high Priest and the decree of the Iudge should die those words by the decree of the Iudge are neither in the Hebrew nor in the vulgate Edition declared so to be by Pope Sixtus and Clement And therefore Mr. Fitzherbert must not take it ill if I giue no credite to his bare I say and that I doe preferre the exposition of the Glosse of Nicolaus de Lyra vpon that place who affirmeth that this tribunall to which in doubtfull cases the Iewes were bound to haue recourse did consist both of spirituall of temporal power and that the one was independent on the other before his bare I say which is onely grounded vpon a false allegation of the words of the holy Scripture 14 The words of the Glosse vpon that place are these Hîc agitur c. Here it is treated sayth he of superiour Iudges to whom there ought to be made recourse in doubtfull and difficult matters and some things are put for example when it is said betweene bloud and bloud that is when one part of the Iudges doe say that the shedding of bloud of such a man is to be punished with death because it is reduced to wilfull murther an other part saith no because it is to be reduced to chance-medley Cause and cause to wit when one part of the Iudges saith that the cause of the plaintife is iust and an other the cause of the defendant Leprosie and not leprosie to wit when one part saith that the disease of such a man is leprosie and an other saith it is not Arise and goe vp c. In these cases and such like there must be had recourse to superiour Iudges to wit to the high Priest and to the Iudge of the people of Israel And sometimes it happened that both offices did concurre in one person as it is manifest in Holy who was Iudge and high Priest of the people 1. Reg. 4. but more commonly they were distinct persons as also offices Therefore this recourse may be vnderstood to both ioyntly and this was in causes which could not be decided by one without the other as in the building of the temple which could not be performed without Kingly authoritie nor ordered without the direction of the Priest or seuerally to both that in spirituall causes there should be recourse to the high Priest and in temporalls to the Iudge And from this grew the custome that from inferiour Ecclesiasticall Iudges there is made appeale to the chiefest Bishop and from inferiour Princes and Secular Iudges to the King or Emperour Thus writeth the Glosse whose doctrine in this point Mr. Fitzherbert will neuer be able to prooue to be improbable 15 But secondly although I should for Disputation sake grant Mr. Fitzherbert which he is neuer able to conuince that this tribunall Consistorie or Councell to which in doubts and difficulties of the law when the
kingdome they may and not onely may but also are a bound to kill such a King c. But marke his words I answere saith he a Pag. 560. that my Aduersary Widdrington hath sometimes falsly and slanderously obiected to Bellarmine that he should giue occasion to subiects to rise vp against their Kings and to kill them and nor he in plaine words doth teach the same For Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother and now her selfe a Queene reigned peaceably the seuenth yeere she was accused by no man condemned by no Iudge and yet Widdrington doth contend that it was lawfull for the high Priest who according to his opinion and words was a subiect to exhort the people to rebellion and with the Peeres and people to conspire against the Queene and to kill her 44 But saith Widdrington she had vsurped the kingdome tyrannically I answere Be it so but now the people assenting shee reigned the seuenth yeere Who gaue to subiects authority ouer their Prince peaceably reigning Who iudged at that time Athalia to be a Tyrant not a Queene if she did not acknowledge a Superiour to her Let my Aduersary Widdrington diligently consider whether it be not by farre more dangerous to the life of Kings and Princes and to the safetie of Kingdomes and Common-wealths to giue power to the people and to subiects to rebell and conspire and at the last to kill Kings whom they rashly oftentimes and falsly account Tyrants then to say that in the Pope as head of the vniuersall Church and Christs Vicar is a iudiciall power to iudge Kings and if the deserue it to depose them b Why doth he not adde also to kill them as Ioiada did Athalia For who maketh any doubt that Kings are safer if they be subiect to the Popes equity and grauity to which Christ hath subiected them then if they be subiect to the rash leuity the people to which my Aduersary Widdrington doth subiect them 45 Euery faithfull subiect saith Widdrington ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did by killing Athalia VVhat did Ioiada Athalia a Kings wife a Kings mother hauing killed all the Royall issue as it was thought had vsurped the kingdome of Iuda possessed the same peaceably now the seuenth yeere Ioiada the seuenth yeere commanded her to be slaine she suspecting no such thing and declared Ioas to be King The same saith my Aduersary Widdrington euery faithfull subiect in the like case ought to doe that is euery faithfull subiect if he thinke that one hath by an ill title vsurped the kingdom may and not onely may but also altogether ought to kill such a Prince notwithstāding that he hath possessed the kingdom peaceably now many yeeres that all the people haue obeyed him many yeeres that this Prince acknowledgeth no Superiour that he is not rightly or as it should bee accused heard condemned to haue vsurped the kingdome by an ill title 46 I declare it by an example Let vs suppose that Elizabeth did by an ill title vsurpe the kingdome of England and that the same by all right was fallen to the most excellent and most holy Mary Queene of Scotland and after her to her sonne now the most excellent and most potent King of great Brittaine In the meane time Elizabeth possessed the kingdome peaceably for many yeeres and did gouerne all things belonging to Kingly function no man contradicting that shee was condemned by no man what doe I say condemned that shee was accused by no man to vsurpe the kingdome tyrannically what ought the subiects here to doe Euery faithfull Subiect sayth my Aduersarie Widdrington ought in the like case to doe that Ioiada did by killing Athalia that is he ought to kill Queene Elizabeth and to transferre the kingdome to Mary and her sonne 47 Behold O Kings and Princes you haue one who is carefull of your securitie So obseruant of your Royall Maiestie are they who doe violate and calumniate the Pontificall authoritie Euery subiect saith Widdrington not onely may but also ought to doe in the like case that Ioiada did O miserable state of Princes whose kingdome and life is subiect to the iudgement of euery priuate man If Card. Bellarmine had written the like thing what tumults would not my Aduersarie Widdrington make what clamours would he not raise Thus writeth this Doctour 48 But how false fraudulent and vnconscionable is this Doctours Reply I haue most cleerely conuinced heretofore c Disp Theolog in Admonit nu 6. For I neuer affirmed as this Doctour most slanderously and shamefully imposeth vpon me that euery faithfull subiect if he thinke any one to haue by an ill title vsurped the kingdome not onely may but also ought to kill such a King I onely said that Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then that euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in the like case Nowe this Doctour cleane altereth the case and turneth it from the case of Ioiada in killing Athalia which was this Athalia daughter to Achab king of Israel and wife to Ioram King of Iuda and mother to Ochozias King Iorams sonne who then reigned hearing that her sonne King Ochozias was slaine by Iehu did cruelly murther all the Kings stocke of the house was Ioram as she thought thereby to vsurpe the kingdome her selfe But Iosabeth King Iorams daughter the sister of Ochozias and the wife of Ioiada the high Priest taking Ioas the sonne of Ochozias stole him out of the middest of the Kings children that were slaine and his nurce out of the bed-chamber and hid them in the temple where they liued with Ioiada and Iosabeth sixe yeeres in the which Athalia reigned ouer the land But in the seuenth yeere Ioiada taking courage for all the time before both Ioas was very yong and now began to haue some vnderstanding and hee also feared the power of Arthalia and by little and little procured the fauour of the people and souldiers to take his part in so iust a cause sent for the Centurions and communicating the whole matter with them made with them a couenant adiuring them in the house of our Lord to wit that they would constantly take his part in putting downe Athalia and setting vp Ioas the lawfull heire and rightful King from whom Athalia had now six yeeres tyrannically kept the kingdome who going about Iuda gathered together the Leuites out of all Iuda and the Princes of the families of Israel and they came into Ierusalem 49 And then Ioida brought them into the temple and shewed them the Kings sonne saying to them Behold the Kings sonne shall reign as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid and all the multitude made a couenant with the King in the house of God Then Ioiada gaue order and commandement to the Centurions in what manner they should stand in the temple with their souldiers to guarde the Kings person which the Centurions performed according to all things that Ioiada had commanded
kingdome because he was vnfit and gaue him his brother Alphonsus the third for a Coadiutor and also he depriued of the Empire Friderike the second in the Councell of Lyons being declared an enemie to the Church 103 But first that King Ozias retained only the bare name of a King without any Royall right authoritie or dominion it is very false and affirmed by this Doctour without any colourable ground at all For the Scripture doth not only call Ozias a King after hee was infected with leprosie and recounteth the yeeres of his reigne in the same manner as he recounteth the yeeres of the reigne of other Kings who had not only the bare name but also the true authoritie of other Kings but it doth also affirme that the reigned all the rest of his life and that Ioathan beganne to reigne only after his Fathers death Sixteene yeeres old saith the Scripture Å¿ 2. Paralip 26. 4. Reg. 15. was Ozias who also was called Azarias 4. Reg. 15. When he beganne to reigne and he reigned two and fiftie yeeres in Ierusalem And againe t 2. Paralip 26. 27. And Ozias slept with his Fathers and they buried him in the Kings sepulchres field because he was a leaper and Ioathan his sonne reigned for him Fiue and twentie yeeres old was Ioathan when he beganne to reigne and therefore he did not reigne in his Fathers time and he reigned sixteene yeeres in Ierusalem 104 Ioathan saith Abulensis v 4 Reg. 15. â—â— was not called King neither did he sit in the Kings seate of estate but Ozias was called King all the time he liued and vnder him is reckoned the time of the kingdome and the power or authoritie concerning those things which were done in the kingdome did depend on him although they were administred by Ioathan his sonne and beneath This Ioathan saith Abulensis was the only or at least wise the eldest sonne of Ozias therefore he did succeede in the Kingdome his Father being dead for his Father being aliue he did gouerne the Palace and sustained the whole weight of the Kingly labour Also x lib. 26 de Repub. cap. 5. num â— Gregorius Tholosanus among other reasons which he brought to proue that a Prince ought not to be depriued of his kingdome for that hee is or seemeth to be vnfit to gouerne the same he produceth this example of King Ozias Seeing that saith he also Azarias or Ozias for he was called by both these names King of Iuda was striken by God with leprosie for this sinne that he did not destroy the Altars of the Idolls after he was become a leaper he liued indeede vntill the day of his death in a free house apart yet he was not depriued of his kingdome but Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings Palace and did iudge the people of the Land at his Coadiutor And another cause of his leprosie is alledged for that he presumed to burne incense vpon the Altar of incense which was only the office of a Priest yet in both places it is said that Ioathan reigned for him only after his death but that before his death he only administred the kingdome in his Fathers name 105 Wherefore that which this Doctour affirmeth that the Kings sonne administred the kingdome with full power is equiuocall although the Scripture maketh no mention that he administred the kingdome with full power but only that he gouerned the Kings Palace and iudged the people of the Land for if he meane that he administred the kingdome with a full absolute and supreme authoritie this is very vntrue for this authoritie did belong only to the King in whose name and by whose authoritie he gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people but if his meaning be that he administred the kingdome with a full delegate power and which in some cases the King may communicate to a subiect who is onely an administratour and gouernour but not a King this I will easily grant Belike this Doctour will haue the Kings Protectour and Guardian in the time of his minoritie or who administreth the kingdome when the King is absent in some forraine countrey or when hee is taken prisoner by his enemie or when by reason of some great infirmitie hee cannot gouerne by himselfe to haue full absolute and supreame power and consequently to be in very deede the Soueraigne King and to haue Kingly authoritie to gouerne the kingdome which how absurd it is any man but of meane capacitie may easily perceiue 106 Neither from Iosephus can any other thing bee gathered then which the Scripture it selfe affirmeth to wit that King Ozias liued in a house a-part and his sonne Ioathan gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Land For the words of Iosephus as they are related by this Doctour are not so bee vnderstood that Ioathan tooke vpon him the kingdome and to reigne for Ozias all the time of his life was King and did reigne as Iosephus affirmeth in the same place but that hee tooke vpon him to administer or gouerne the kingdome in his Fathers name who by reason of his infirmitie for which hee was bound by the law of God to liue in a house a part from the rest of the people could not conueniently gouerne the same But the words of Iosephus according to the Edition which I haue and which also Cardinall Bellarmine in his booke against Barclay followeth are these After the Priests had perceiued the leprosie in the Kings face they tolde him or if the word bee iudicauerunt and not indicauerunt they iudged that hee was stricken by God with the plague of leprosie and they admonished him that hee would depart the Citie as one polluted and vncleane And hee with the shame of his calamitie obeyed being so miserably punished for his pride ioyned with impietie and when for a time hee liued priuate out of the Citie his sonne Ioathan administring the kindome at length being consumed with sorrow hee dyed the sixtie eight yeere of his age and the fiftie second of his kingdome or reigne 107 From which wordes this onely can bee gathered that Ioathan administred the kingdome and gouerned the Kings Pallace and iudged the people as the Scripture saith yet that Ozias was stil King and reigned although he liued priuate that is not depriued of his kingdome for he still remained King and did reigne vntill his death as Iosephus confesseth but priuately to wit he did not meddle with the publike affaires of the kingdome but liued in a free house apart as the Scripture saith which words Abulensis expoundeth thus y 〈…〉 And hee dwelled in a free house apart that is hee did not dwell in the Kings Pallace for he being a leper ought not to giue himselfe to businesses neither did he dispose of the kingdome but Ioathan his sonne and it is called a free house that is sequestred from all businesse and frequentation of people for none did resort to him but those who
manifest that those words of the Apostle And all these things chanced to them in figure doe not signifie the same that these words doe And all things chanced to them in figure 152 His second answere is that the ancient Fathers and especially S. Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerdotio doe teach that the iudgement of the Priests in the old law concerning corporall leprosie was a figure of the iudgement of the Priests in the new Testament concerning sinnes But no man denyeth this for I make no doubt but that corporall leprosie and the iudgement thereof in the old law was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the iudgement belonging thereunto in the new law That which I contend is that Cardinall Bellarmine did not truely entirely and faithfully set downe those wordes of Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. And all these things chanced to them in figure for that hee left out that word these and that the Apostle did not say in that place that corporall leprosie and the iudgement thereof in the old law was a figure of spirituall leprosie and of the iudgement belonging thereunto in the new Testament and of this there needeth no other proofe then to peruse the words and text of the Apostle in that Chapter 153 Thirdly this Doctor answereth that S. Thomas x Prima secundae q. 104 ar 1. and S. Aug. y In lib viginti vnius sentent l. 16. contra Faustum cap. 28. l. 18. c. 6. l. 22. c. 24. in many places doe cite those words of S. Paul in that maner as Card. Bell. doth therefore C. Bell cannot bee reprehended for citing the wordes of the Apostle not entirely and sincerely vnlesse they also with him bee reprehended But first this is not to take away the aforesaid imputation from Card. Bellarmine but to lay it vpon others Secondly it is not true that St. Augustine citeth those wordes in that manner as Cardinall Bellarmine doeth but hee expresly setteth downe in all the later places All these things as it is in Saint Paul Onely in that booke Viginti vnius sententiarum he citeth indeede those wordes of the Apostle as Cardinall Bellarmine doth leauing out that word these yet D. Shulckenius being so well acquainted with Cardinall Bellarmine and his doctrine could hardly forget that Card. Bellarmine himselfe expressely denyeth z De Scriptoribus Ecclesiast ab anno 400. ad 500. in obseruat ad â—om 4. S. Augustini pag. 187. that booke viginti vnius sententiarum to be S. Augustius worke or to haue in it any graue thing or worthy S. Augustine 154 Neuerthelesse I doe not deny but that S. Austin S. Thomas or any other might by an other consequence gather from that saying of S. Paul that all things for the greater part did chance to the Iewes in figure For although S. Paul doth onely say That all these things did chance to the Iewes in figure yet seeing that there is no more reason why those things mentioned there and not also many other things not mentioned in that place as the Sabboth Circumcision c. which are named by S. Augustine should chance to the Iewes in figure we may from those words of S. Paul rightly inferre by an other consequence that all things for the greatest part did chance to the Iewes in figure But as I said that onely which I contend is that Card. Bellarmine did not truely entirely and faithfully relate those words of S. Paul neither hath this Doctour as you haue seene brought any colourable argument to confute the same 155 Thus thou seest good Reader that Card. Bellarmines argument taken from the example of King Ozias is most weake and insufficient and my answere thereunto to be sound and irreprooueable and D. Schulckenius Reply to be very fraudulent and in all points to be shaken and quite ouerthrowne and to haue wrapped in sentences with vnskilfull and ambiguous words Now you shall see how weakely and nakedly my vnlearned Aduersarie Mr. Fitzherbert notwithstanding he had seene my aforesaid answere to this example vrgeth againe the same But he bringeth nothing in confirmation thereof but what I answered before in my Apologie except the authoritie of S. Chrysostome whose words and meaning neuerthelesse he doth most fowlly corrupt and to which also in my English Theologicall Disputation a in the Admonition nu 23. seq which was published long before his Treatise against me came foorth I did most cleerely answere 156 Ozias was so farre saith Mr. Fitzherbert b Cap. 5. nu 19. pag. 79. Suppl pag. 19. from being supreme head ouer Priests in spirituall matters that he was subiect to them therein and bound to obey them no lesse then was the meanest subiect he had This is manifest by the plaine-plaine-words of the Scripture in this place where the high Priest hauing rebuked Ozias for his presumption did not onely command him to depart saying Egredere de Sanctuario c. Goe out of the Sanctuarie c. 2. Paralip 26. but also thrust him out of the same as soone as the leprosie was discouered in his forehead Festinato saith the Scripture expulerunt cum They thrust him out in all hast besides that it is manifest in the same place that God punished him as well for his disobedience in resisting and threatning the Priests as for presuming to Sacrifice and therefore though he had the Censar in his hand to burne the incense yet he was not stroken with leprosie vntill he had threatned the Priests Minabatur Sicerdotibus sayth the Scripture statimque orta est lepra in fronte eius c. He threatned the Priests and foorthwith there arose a leprosie in his forehead wherein was fulfilled the menacing admonition that God gaue to the people in the 24. of Deuteronomie as I haue declared before when he commanded them exactly to obey the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke bidding them remember how Mary was punished with leprosie for murmuring against Moyses Moreouer whereas there was a generall law giuen to the people in Leuiticus whereby all men without exception were bound in case of leprosie to vnder goe and obey the iudgement of the Priests and at their arbitrement to be separated from the company and conuersation of other men it is manifest by this example that the Kings were no lesse subiect to this law and bound to obey the Priests then euery other man in which respect Ozias was forced by the sentence of the Priests according to the prescript of the law to liue in a house apart so long as he liued And I can not omit c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 157 But what is all this to the purpose or how from hence doth it follow that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depose temporall Princes and had a Soueraigntie ouer them not onely in spirituall but also in temporall causes as this man pretendeth For all that Mr. Fitzherbert here hath said is briefly this First that the
is said And our Lord stroke the King and he was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a free house apart but Ioathan the Kings sonne gouerned the Palace and iudged the people of the Land But from hence it cannot be conuinced that this free house a part was in the City but rather apart out of the City and therefore the opinion of Iosephus seemeth to be more agreeable to the words of holy Scripture Num. 5. And our Lord spake to Moyses saying Command the children of Israel that they cast out of the campe euery leper 172 Therefore I will conclude vpon the premisses cleane contrarie to Mr. Fitzherberts inference that for as much as the law of GOD assigned no Soueraigntie in iudgement to the High Priests and their consistorie in temporall causes but only in meere spirituall as was to declare the law of God and to iudge one to be infected or not infected with leprosie according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law and to declare them that were infected to be separated and cast out of the campe according to the Prescript of the law which is the plaine meaning of those words ad arbitrium illius separabitur and he shall be separated at his arbitrement or iudgement that is if the Priest doe declare or iudge him a leper he shall be separated and cast out of the campe and seeing that the executing of the law concerning temporall punishments and the separating of lepers by force and temporall constraint did not belong to the Priests but to the supreme temporall authoritie which did reside in the Kings and not in the Priests who were subiect to the Kings in temporalls and might be punished by them with temporall punishments as I haue amply proued in these two Sections and the aforesaid words Num. 5. Command the children of Israel he doth not say command the Priests although then the Israelites had no King neither did the supreme temporall authoritie reside in the Priests but rather in the people that they cast out of the Campe euery leper it followeth euidently that the Priests were not the supreme heads of the Kings in temporalls nor Kings therein subiect to them and their tribunall nor to be punished by them with temporall punishments but contrariwise and consequently that if an Oath had beene proposed by any of these Kings to his subiects whereby they should haue sworne that hee was free from all subiection in temporalls and from all temporall chasticement of the high Priest by way of temporall constraint I say by way of temporall constraint and putting in execution the law of God wherein temporall punishment were ordained and not by way only of declaring the law of God which as it haue sufficiently proued was a spirituall and not a temporall action the said Oath must needes haue beene conforme and not repugnant to the law of God in the old Testament And thus much concerning the arguments taken from the old Testament SECT III. Wherein all M. Fitzherberts arguments taken from the new Testament are examined and first his comparison betweene the old law and the new the figure and the veritie is proued to make against himselfe 2. Those words of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. And feed my sheepe are declared and the arguments drawne from thence and from the nature of a well instituted common-wealth are satisfied and D. Schulckenius Reply proued to be fraudulent and insufficient 3. the authoritie of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. affirming that he and the rest were ready to revenge all disobedience is answered Mr. Fitzherberts fraude in alledging the authoritie of S. Austin is plainly discouered and the conclusion of his Chapter shewed to be both false and fraudulent NOw from the old Testament Mr. Fitzherbert descendeth to the new and vpon a false supposall as I haue already conuinced to wit that he hath effectually proued that the Priesthood of the old Testament had a supreme and soueraigne authority to create punish and depose Kings he laboureth in vaine from the number 25 to 32. to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood of the new law not for that he think th that we are now bound to retaine the ceremoniall or iudiciall part thereof but to deduce as he saith a Num. 25. pag 83. a potent argument from thence as from the figure to the veritie to proue that the like authoritie must needes be acknowledged in the Priesthood and especially in the chiefe Priest in the law of Christ And for proofe heereof he setteth downe two positions as the only grounds of this his potent argument 2 The first is that the old law and Testament being but a figure b Num. 26. pag 84. and a shadow of the new was no lesse inferiour there to in authoritie dignitie and perfection then Moses to Christ the dead and killing letter to the quickning spirit or the Priesthood of Aaron to the Priesthood of Melchisedech which was Christs Priesthood he should rather haue said which prefigured the excellencie of Christs Priesthood c See S. Thomas and the Schoolemen 3. part q. 22. ar 6. This position to wit Hebr. 10. that the old Testament was a figure and shadow and not inferiour to the new he proueth by the authoritie of S. Augustine d In Psal 119. who affirmeth that vetus Testamentum promissiones habet terrenas c. The old Testament hath earthly promises an earthly Palestine an earthly Hierusalem an earthly saluation to wit conquest of enemies aboundance of children fertilitie of soyle and plentie of fruites all these things are earthly promises and it is to be vnderstood spiritually in figure how the earthly Hierusalem was a shadow of the heauenly Hierusalem and the earthly kingdome of the heauenly kingdome So S. Austin and thereupon concludeth that if the olde Testament was a shadow of the new non mirum quia ibi tenebrae it is no meruaile though there were darkenesse there pinguiorâ—s enim vmbrae sunt tenebrae for thicker shadowes are darkenesse Thus argueth S. Augustine proouing the imperfection of the old law in respect of the new which the Apostle also proueth amply in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 7. saying that the old law was abolished propter infirmitatem eius inutilitatem for the infirmitie and invtilitie of it Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex for the law brought nothing to perfection 3 His second position is e nu 26.28 that the defects of the old law and Synagogue of the Iewes can not serue for a president to the new law and the Church of Christ and therefore though the Kings in the olde Testament should haue had authoritie ouer Priests yet it would not follow that Christian Kings should haue the like for that the defects and imperfections of the Synagogue which S. Austin calleth terrenum regnum an earthly kingdome were not to be transferred to the
his Successours haue authoritie to create depose and punish Princes temporally it doth likewise follow that the rest of the Apostles and their Successours haue the same authoritie ouer Kings and Princes who are subiect to them spiritually 11 Secondly those wordes of our Sauiour whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood as I answered in my Apologie nu 36. of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings to absolue from sinnes not from debts to vnloose the bonds of the soule not of the body to open or shut the gates of the kingdome of heauen not of earthly kingdomes to giue or take away spirituall goods graces and benefits not temporall goods lands kingdomes or liues When it was said to S. Peter saith S. Augustine I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. he signified the vniuersall Church The rocke is not from Peter but Peter from the rocke vpon this rocke which thou hast confessed Aug. trac 124. in Ioan. I will build my Church The Church therefore which is founded on Christ receiueth from Christ the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that is power to binde and loose sinnes And againe beneath saith S. Augustine Peter the first of the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to bind and loose sinnes So also S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Fulgentius Ambr. lib. 1. de paenit c. 2. Chrysost Theoph. in Mat. 16. Fulgent Eus Emiss vbi supra Bernard l. 2. c. 6 de considerat Hug. Vict. tom 2. serm 64. Iust Monast Laurent Iust de casto connub verbi animae c. 10. Eusebius Emissen Theophylact S. Bernard Hugo de S. Victore Laurentius Iustinanus and infinite others vnderstand those words of our Sauiour of binding and loosing soules and sinnes Neither is there any one of the ancient Fathers or Doctours before Pope Gregorie the seuenth that wrested them to the giuing or taking away from any man whatsoeuer according to their deserts Empires Kingdomes Princedomes Dukedomes Earledomes and the possessions of all men Quia si potestis saith hee k In the Excommunication of Henry the 4. in the eight Roman Councel held by him in the yeere 1080. Iansenius c. 148. Concord Theophy in c. 21. Ioan. Basil in l. de vita solitar c. 23. in caelo ligare soluere potestis in terra Imperia Regna Principatus Ducatus Marchias Comitatus omnium hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere vnicuique concedere 12 I grant likewise that Pascere to feede is taken also for Regere to gouerne but not as a King gouerneth his kingdome but as a Sheepheard gouerneth his flocke as well obserueth Iansenius vpon this place of S. Iohn Christ saith Theophylact doeth not make Peter a Lord nor a King nor a Prince but commandeth him to be a Sheepheard Wherefore as those words whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. are to be vnderstood of spirituall not temporall bindings and loosings and were spoken not only to Saint Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles so also these wordes Feede my sheepe are to be vnderstood of spirituall feeding or gouernment and doe belong not onely to S. Peter but also to the rest of the Apostles whom S. Peter did represent Atque hoc ab ipso Christo docemur c. saith S. Basill And this wee are taught by Christ himselfe who appointed Peter the Pastour of his Church after him For Peter saith he doest thou loue me more then these Feede my sheepe and consequently hee giueth to all Pastours and Doctours the same power whereof this is a signe that all doe equally bind and loose after that manner as he Feede my sheepe saith S. Ambrose which sheepe and which flocke Amb. de dignit sacerd c. 2. not only blessed Peter did then take to his charge but hee did take charge of them with vs and all we tooke charge of them with him For not without cause Aug. de agone Christiano c. 30. saith S. Augustine among all the Apostles Peter sustained the person of this Catholike Church for to this Church the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter amd when it is said to him it is said to all Doest thou loue Feede my sheepe Let Bishops and Preachers of the word heare saith Theophylact what is commended to them Theoph. in c. 21. Ioan. Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 12. in fine Edit Ingolstad anno 1580. Feede saith Christ my sheepe c. Certaine things saith Cardinall Bellarmine are said to Peter in regard of the Pastorall office which therefore are vnderstood to bee said to all Pastours as Feede my sheepe and confirme thy brethren and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. But of this my second answere more beneath l nu 21. seq where you shall see in what fraudulent manner D. Schulckenius replyeth to the same 13 Now you shall see what necessarie consequents Mr. Fitzherbert hath drawen from those words of our Sauiour spoken to S. Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind c. and Feede my sheepe For as much saith he m nu 33. p 87 Suppl nu 61. at there can be no good gouernment of men without chastisement when iust occasion requireth it followeth that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and so consequently to his Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish such as should deserue it Whereupon it followeth that seeing all Christian Princes are sheepe of Christs fould and to be gouerned and guided by their supreme Pastour they cannot exempt themselues from his iust chastisement when their owne demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it And this I say not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction 14 But first I willingly grant that Christ giuing the gouernment of his Church to S. Peter and also to the rest of his Apostles and also consequently to their Successours gaue them also power to chastise and punish all those that are sheepe of Christs fould and consequently also all Christian Princes when their demerites and the publike good of the Church shall require it But I vtterly denie that this chastisement is to be vnderstood as Mr. Fitzherbert saith not onely of spirituall but also of temporall and corporall correction For as Christ our Sauiour hath instituted his Church a spirituall and not a temporall Commmon-wealth and consequently granted her power to giue only spirituall goods graces and benefites not temporall goods lands or kingdomes so also the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours thereof haue authoritie by the institution of Christ to chastise and punish spiritually not temporally or which is all one to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments and to depriue their spirituall sheepe and subiects of those spirituall goods which they haue receiued from the Church and by being Christians and not of those temporall goods which they had before they became Christians and which they
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
disobeyeth the Church is excommunicated by the law of God Also for that otherwayes the Church doth excommunicate no man but declare him to be excommunicated by the law of God because he doth not obey the Church which how absurd this is it is manifest of it selfe c. First therefore by those words is signified this generall maxime that those who doe not heare the Church doe grieuously sinne and especially if they be obstinate and that therefore they are to be accounted and shunned as grieuous sinners as are Heathens and Publicanes Secondly It is signified that Christ our Lord will giue to his Church power to binde and loose And so in those words is contained the power to inflict the Censure of Excommunication but not the institution of the Censure it selfe or a commandement in particular but onely in generall of auoyding sinners who are disobedient to the Church vnder which generall law is comprehended an accomodate distribution to say so to wit a commandement to shunne euery one that is disobedient to the Church according to the degree and manner of the prohibition and separation which is made by the Church her selfe And this is the common exposition of Interpreters vpon that place and of Diuines handling this matter Thus Suarez Whereby it is apparant how disagreeably to Suarez doctrine Mr. Fitzherbert here affirmeth that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement ordained a temporall penalty of Excommunication when he commanded that he who will not heare the Church shall bee taken for an Ethnicke and a Publicane seeing that according to Suarez he ordained here no penalty or Censure at all of Excommunication 81 But because some Catholike Doctours as Almaine Eckius Clicthoueus and Driedo doe affirme whose doctrine in this poynt both Suarez and the more common opinion of Diuines doe reiect that at least-wise to the sinne of heresie if it be ioyned with obstinacy there is annexed some Censure or punishment by the law of God and their opinion may seeme to haue some ground in those authorities of holie Scripture whereof some are here vrged by Mr. Fitzherbert Suarez also answereth to these authorities and affirmeth that they are not forcible And first that those words of S. Paul ad Tit. 3. A man that is an heretike after the first and second admonition auoyd c. may bee vnderstood of the naturall obligation by which euery man is bound to auoyd danger of being infected and consequently to auoyd the person which is an occasion to him of sinning and such is an heretike whose speech spreadeth as a Canker 2. Tim. 2. So also it is said 1. Cor. 5. But now I wrote to you not to keepe company if he that is named a brother be a fornicator or a couetous person or a seruer of Idols or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner with such an one not so much as to take meate and Galat 5. Know you not that a little leauen corrupteth the whole paste Secondly although we should grant that the Apostle in that place ad Tit. 3. spoke of a proper Censure it doth not follow that this institution is diuine but at the most an institution of the Apostle because it is the commandement of S. Paul c. and especially for that it may be expounded Auoid that is Excommunicate for the Apostle spake to Titus who was a Bishop and had power to excommunicate 82 And according to this sense may be vnderstood those words of S. Iohn Epist 2. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine receiue him not into your house nor say to him God saue you although they rather seeme to be vnderstood of a naturall commandement not to cooperate with such men and not to giue them any signes whereby either wee should seeme to consent to them or that they should be confirmed in their errour And this S. Iohn did signifie in the next words For he that saith to him God saue you communicateth with his wicked workes As also S. Paul 2. Thess 3. said And if any obey not our word note him by an Epistle and doe not company with him that he may be confounded In which last word also the Apostle insinuateth that not onely to auoide communication in sinne but also to rebuke our neighbour charitably it is sometimes counselled or also commanded to abstaine from his companie that hee may be confounded of this sort also are those wordes 1. Cor. 5. which words doe admit almost all the aforesaid interpretations And if they be extended to a proper Censure they are to be vnderstood at what time and in what manner the Pastours of the Church shall iudge that these kinde of sinners are to be auoided And so by all these testimonies conferred together it is euidently gathered that there is no ground in Scripture for vs to say that any Censure is by the law of God annexed to heresie rather then to other sinnes And therefore the contrary opinion is farre more probable and it is the common opinion of other Doctours Thus Suarez And yet forsooth Mr. Fitzherbert maketh no doubt but that Christ our Sauiour by his owne commandement hath ordained a temporall penaltie of Excommunication whereas Suarez and the common opinion of Doctors doe resolutely affirme that no penaltie at all of Excommunication is by the commandement of Christ ordained against those that shall disobey the commandement of the Church 83 Wherefore lastly and principally all that Mr. Fitzherbert or any other can conclude from the former places of holy Scripture or such like is that the Church hath power in order to the spirituall good of soules to enioyne temporall punishments and to commaund the faithfull not to conuerse ciuilly with Heathens Publicanes or notorious sinners when otherwise by the law of nature they are not bound to conuerse ciuilly with them whereof I neuer made any doubt And therefore obserue good Reader the fraude and ignorance of this man who pretended to prooue that I contradicted my selfe in granting that the spirituall Superiour could command temporall punishments but not inflict them seeing that neither frō the reduction of temporall things to spiritual nor from the nature effects of Excommunication nor from those places of holy Scripture which he heere hath brought he concludeth any other thing then that Christians are commaunded to account him an Heathen and a Publican who will not heare the Church that the Apostle commanded the Corinthians and Thessalonians not to eate with notorious sinners and disobedient persons that S. Iohn commanded the faithfull not to receiue heretikes into their houses nor so much as to salute them all which I willingly granted but of the other part of the contradiction which was the principall thing he should haue proued that I must consequently grant that the spirituall Superiour can also inflict temporall punishments hee speaketh not one word 84 For if a Christian should not obserue the aforesaid commandements and will not account them for Heathens and Publicanes
for that in the law of Nature the Ciuill Common-wealth it selfe had the supreame authoritie to dispose of all things not only concerning State but also Religion CHAP. VII VVherein certaine places of the old and New Testament are explained D. Schulckenius Reply to the answere I made to those wordes Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Cardinall Bellarmines second reason and Fa. Parsons answere to the Earle of Salisbury grounded thereon and other arguments brought by M. Fitzherbert from the examples of Ananias and Saphyra and of others and from the practise of the Church and from the person of man are cleerely confuted 1. THE seuenth Chapter Mr. Fitzherbert beginneth in this manner Now let vs see saith he a Pag. 112. how my Aduersarie Widdrington proceedeth who hauing giuen his reason though so weake as you haue heard why hee thinketh it to bee against reason that a spirituall Superiour should punish temporally vndertaketh to answere one place onely alleadged by me out of the old law and foure out of the new omitting to say any thing else in particular to all the other places and arguments which I vrged out of the law of God and Nature 2 But first it is not true as Mr. Fitzherbert saith that I gaue any reason at all why I thought it to bee against reason that a spirituall Superiour should punish temporally for I neuer thought this to bee against naturall reason That which I affirmed onely was that true reason doeth teach that euery Superiour hath power to punish his subiect with some punishment proportionate to his authoritie to wit by depriuing him of those goods which are proper to that Communitie whereof hee is Superiour but that any other Superiour besides the supreame Gouernour of the ciuill common-wealth hath power to punish his subiects with death mayming or depriuation of temporall goods it cannot bee deduced from the necessarie rule or prescript of true reason This was that I said Now what man of learning that knoweth the difference betwixt contra naturam secundū naturam praeter and supra naturam that is against nature according to nature besides and aboue nature would affirme that because I thinke it cannot bee deduced from the law of Nature or the prescript of true naturall reason as Mr. Fitzherbert pretended to prooue that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally therefore I must thinke that it is against Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally as though this proposition It cannot bee prooued by the law of Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally doth according to his logicke necessarily inferre that therefore it is against the law of Nature that a spirituall Superiour may punish temporally For I make no doubt but that Christ our Sauiour might if it had pleased him haue giuen authoritie as I am fully perswaded hee hath not to spirituall Pastours to punish temporally and so in this case hee had granted nothing against the law of Nature or against the prescript of true naturall reason but only aboue Nature and the light of naturall reason yet in this case it could not bee prooued by the law of Nature but only by the positiue institution and law of Christ that spirituall Pastours haue authoritie to punish temporally Wherefore the law of Nature hath neither commanded nor forbidden hath neither giuen nor denyed to spirituall Pastours authoritie to punish temporally but if they haue any such authoritie it must be giuen them by the positiue grant of GOD or man and consequently it is neither against nor according but aboue or besides the law of Nature that spiritual Pastors should haue any such authoritie to punish temporally 3 Secondly the reason why I omitted to say something in particular to euery part of his idle Discourse in this Reply of his but answered onely some certaine arguments drawne from those sixe generall heads to wit from the old law and the new the law of Nature and nations the Canon and the Ciuill law was not for that I could not answere particularly euery one of them as the Reader may see by this Treatise wherein I haue answered his whole Reply and euery part thereof but the reason was for that neither the breuitie of such a short Admonition nor the Printer who had then finished the whole Disputation would hardly permit me to make so long a Discourse as there I made and therfore I chose out of purpose certaine arguments drawne from each one of those sixe seuerall heads which I thought to bee the strongest and which being answered the iudicious Reader might easily perceiue how all the rest might in the like maner be fully satisfied 4 Now you shall see what he obiecteth against that which I there did answere And first he setteth downe my words which are these Fiftly he that will diligently consider the vnder written sentences of S. Augustine and Cardinall Bellarmine will presently perceiue what a forcible proofe can bee deduced from that of Deuteronomie the 17. and such like places of the Old Testament which is a figure of the new Excommunication Bellar. lib. 2. de Ecclesia cap. 6. S. August q. 39. in Deut. saith Cardinall Bellarmine hath that place in the Church which the punishment of death had in the Old Testament and which the Common-wealth hath in temporals And Saint Augustine saith that Excommunication doth this now in the Church which killing or death did then in the Old Testament In which place hee compareth that which was said in the 24. of Deuteronomy He shall be slaine and thou shalt take away the euill from amidst thee with that which the Apostle saith 1 Corinth 5. Auferte malum ex vobis ipsis Take away euill from among your selues S. August lib. 2. de fide operibus cap. 2. And Saint Augustine teacheth in another place That the materiall sword which Moyses and Phinees vsed in the Old Testament was a figure of the degradations and excommunications which are to be vsed in the new law seeing that in the discipline of the Church saith S. Augustine the visible sword shall cease 5 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replyeth b Pag. 113. nu 2. in this manner Thus saith my Aduersary Widdrington wherein he rather fortifieth and strengtheneth our cause then weakeneth or hurteth it any way For if you note well what Widdrington saith and inferreth he prooueth nothing else but that the penalty of temporall or corporall death is not now inflicted in the new Testament as it was in the old and that the same is now turned to the spirituall death of the soule by Excommunication which we denie not But will he inferre hereupon that therefore the Church cannot now inflict other temporall penalties So should he make a very absurd inference especially seeing that the penalty of Excommunication which as he himselfe granted supplyeth the place of corporall death includeth a temporall punishment by the separation of the delinquent from the conuersation of men and from diuers
the Priests of the new law must haue authoritie to doe the like but things farre more noble and excellent for that the veritie must be of a more high and excellent order then the figure as in the fifth Chapter I proued more at large And therefore as in the olde law all the figures promises and punishments were temporall so in the new law the veritie promises and punishments which correspond thereunto must be spirituall not temporall for otherwise the figure should bee the same with the veritie and not of an higher nature and order then the verity So that temporall life must correspond to spirituall life temporall kingdomes to spirituall kingdomes temporall goods to spirituall goods temporall promises and rewards to spirituall promises and rewards and temporall punishments to spirituall punishments all which spirituall punishments are contained in Excommunication Maior and Minor and in other Ecclesiasticall Censures and punishments And to that which he addeth in the end that I must acknowledge according to my owne doctrine that the Church may punish temporally seeing that shee may excommunicate I haue already fully m Cap. answered and denyed his consequence for that the Church of Christ neither by ExcoÌ„munication nor by any other way hath by the institution of Christ authoritie to inflict temporall punishments but only to punish temporally by way of command which no man denyeth And thus much concerning the olde law 10 Now to the authorities which Mr. Fitzherbert brought out of the new Testament I answered thus Sixtly those places of the new Testament Quodcunque solueris super terram c. n Matth. 16. Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth c. and Pasce oues meas o Ioan. 21. Feede my sheepe as also the reason which Fa. Parsons bringeth to wit that otherwise the Ecclesiasticall common-wealth should bee imperfect and not sufficient for it selfe are explicated by mee elsewhere And that corporall killing of Ananias and Saphira and the visible deliuering of the fornicatour to Sathan are to be referred to the grace of miracles Neither will this Authour say as I imagine that the Pope hath power to kill wicked men and malefactours with the word of his mouth 11 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth in the same order And first to my answere to those two places Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. and Feede my sheepe which I made in my Apologie p Apolog. nu 35. seq nu 203. seq wherevnto I remitted the Reader he replieth thus q Pag. 115. nu 6.7.8 That which Widdrington saith in his Apologie concerning these two texts allâ—dged out of the Gospell is no other but to prooue that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely which we willingly grant as D. Adolphus Schulckenius r Adolph Schulck in Apolog c. 4. § Respondeo p. 136 in his answere for Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared sufficiently and tolde my Aduersary Widdrington withall how vainely he hath laboured with a long discourse and many idle words to prooue that which neither the Cardinall nor any other Catholike will deny 12 For wee willingly grant saith Schulckenius that the Popes power is formally spirituall though virtually it is also temporall extending it selfe to temporall things so farre forth as they are subordinate to the spirituall and the necessitie of the Church shall require So hee Å¿ Ibidem and afterwards he also explicateth the same in these words Nam animus noster spiritus est c. For our soule saith he is a spirit and hath a spirituall power and yet it doth not onely thereby gouerne the body which is subiect vnto it but doth also chastise it with corporall punishments as watching hairecloth fasting and whipping And therefore if Bellarmine did say that the Pope doth iudge the faults of Princes and vpon their desert depriue them sometimes of their gouernment by a temporall power his Aduersary Widdrington should say somewhat to the purpose but now seeing that Bellarmine saith that the Pope vseth a spirituall power when hee depriueth Princes of their States for spirituall and Ecclesiasticall crimes such as heresies and Schismes are his Aduersary Widdrington doth idlely beate the ayre c. for he should haue prooued that a supreme spirituall power cannot extend it selfe to dispose of temporall things as they are referred to spirituall things Thus saith Schulckenius 13 And thereof my Aduersary Widdrington might haue taken notice if it had pleased him when he referred me and his Readers to his Apologie for answere to those places For albeit he may perhaps pretend that hee had not seene Schulckenius his Apologie for the Cardinall before hee had ended his Theologicall Disputation yet it is euident that he had seene and read it before he wrote his Admonition to the Reader wherein he writeth against me For he not onely maketh mention therein of the Apologie of Schulckenius but also carpeth at him for some things that hee handleth and therefore if he had meant sincerely he would not haue remitted vs to his owne Apologie for this point without some confutation of Schulckenius his Answere thereto I meane of so much as concerneth this matter For otherwise he may multiply bookes and write of this controuersie as long as he liueth and all to no purpose if he will still stand vpon his first grounds and dissemble the answeres that are made thereto and therefore as hee remitteth me to his Apologie so I remit him also to the answere of Schulckenius which I haue partly laide downe heere and may be seene more at large in him And this shall suffice for this point 14 But truely it is intollerable that these men should so shamefully both abuse me and delude their Reader I doe not say onely in dissembling the answere I made to their argument but in plainly corrupting the words and manifest sense thereof in which manner they may multiply bookes and make Replies with ease but with shame enough For it is too too apparantly vntrue that I labored in that place to prooue nothing else as those men falsly affirme but that which neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny to wit that Christ gaue to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely although it be well knowne that the common opinion of the Canonists doth deny the same who contend that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter not onely spirituall but also temporall authoritie and made him thereby not onely a spirituall but also a temporall Monarch and therefore Mr. Fitzherbert is grosly mistaken in saying so boldly that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor any other Catholike will deny that Christ gaue thereby to S. Peter a spirituall authoritie onely For I did not contend in that place about the authority which was giuen to Saint Peter to binde and loose which Cardinall Bellarmine taketh to bee all one with to feede his sheepe whether it was temporall or spirituall or both as the Canonists wil haue it but about the acts
Citie and euery kingdome to those things which are conuenient for the whole kingdome And that all nations had intention to binde men to some things it is manifest by tradition they might sufficiently declare their intention by words customes or other signes especially in the beginning of the world when in regard of the few number of men and of their mutuall loue and concord it was an easie matter for all or the greater part of men to agree in the same will or intention and in some manner to publish and declare the same And this law is not the law of nature for that it is grounded in humane will and not in any necessary prescript of naturall reason neither is it the Ciuill law for that it is not proper and peculiar to one Citie or Kingdome therefore it is to be called the law of nations not onely for that nations doe vse receiue and admit it and are bound to obserue it as Mr. Fitzherbert doth heere insinuate for that they are bound also to receiue admit and obserue the law of nature but because it hath it force and obligation to bind themselues as from the Authors makers and enacters thereof 24 And by this the Reader may easily perceiue that the law of nations properly so called is not according to these Diuines comprehended in the law of nature as a part in the whole but is distinct from it essentially albeit they doe agree in many things Suarez lib. 2. cap. 19. 20. as Suarez doth declare at large For first they agree that both of them are in some sort common to all men in which respect both of them may be called the law of nations or of men if we onely regard the word or name Secondly they agree that as the matter of the law of nations hath regularly place onely among men so also the matter of the law of nature is proper to men either altogether or for the most part for sometimes also the law of nations may dispose in a matter common to brute beasts as in permitting fornication or the carnall company with sundry persons which is common also to beasts And therefore many examples which by the Ciuill Lawyers are contained vnder the law of nations onely in regard of this condition as Religion towards God honour to Parents piety towards our Countrey and such like doe onely in name belong to the law of nations properly so called for in very truth they appertaine to the law of nature Thirdly they agree that in both of them are contained precepts and prohibitions and also graunts concessions and permissions 25 But they differ first and principally for the affirmatiue precepts of the law of nations doe not inferre any necessitie of the thing commaunded onely of it owne nature by some euident deduction from the principles of nature for whatsoeuer is of this kind is naturall and therefore this necessitie must onely proceede from the consent and positiue constitution of men And in like manner the negatiue precepts of the law of nations doe not forbid any thing because it is euill of it selfe for this also is meerely naturall Wherefore in regard of humane reason the law of nations doth not onely declare the act to be euill but doth also make it euill neither doth it forbid euill for that it is euill as the law of nature doth but by forbidding the act it maketh it euill Secondly they differ in vniuersalitie and communitie to all Nations for the law of nature is common to all and only through error ignorance it is not kept by some but the law of nations is not alwaies but regularly common to all or almost all nations as S. Isidore writeth Isidor lib. 5. Etymolog ca. 5. whereupon without any errour that law may in some places not be obserued which by others is thought to belong to the law of nations 26 Thirdly they differ in mutability For the law of nations cannot bee so immutable as the law of Nature because immutability doth proceede from necessity and therefore where there is not the like necessity there cannot bee the like immutability Whereupon wee may easily gather that the precepts of the law of Nations are mutable for as much as they depend vpon the consent of men And the reason isâ— for that those things which are forbidden by the law of Nations are not simply absolutely and intrinsecally euill of themselues because these precepts are not deduced from the principles of nature by any necessary or euident deduction but doe onely binde by vertue of humane consent which hath been introduced at leastwise by a generall custome and therefore in regard of the matter there is no repugnance that in the law of Nations there may be made some alteration so that it be done by sufficient authority 27 Wherein it is to be obserued that this mutation doth happen otherwise in the law of Nations which is onely common for that all or many Nations doe agree in such or such a law and otherwise in that law which is common by the vse and custome of Nations as among themselues they haue a certaine Society and communication For the first law may bee changed by a particular Kingdome or Common-wealth for as much as concerneth that kingdome or Common-wealth because that law as it is in that Kingdome or Common-wealth is intrinsecally a Ciuill law to speake so and it is onely called the law of Nations either for that other Nations haue the same law or else for that it is so neere to the law of Nature that from thence the vniuersality of such a law doth arise But this law as it is per se and of it owne nature in euery Common-wealth doth depend vpon their peculiar determination and authority or custome of that Common-wealth in it selfe and without respect to other Common-wealths therefore it may be changed by that Common-wealth for as much as concerneth that Common-wealth although others doe not consent thereunto because euery Common-wealth is not bound to conforme her selfe to others As for example any Common-wealth may ordaine that within her selfe common harlots shall not be permitted or that all vniust buyings and sellings in euery excesse whatsoeuer shall be repealed and made voide or that they shall not vse money but other kinds of exchangings for although these things be not done de facto because there is no cause or profit to doe the same yet in respect of morall honesty and sufficient authority they doe not repugne to be done 28 But in the other law of Nations it is farre more hard to make any alteration because it doth respect the common good of all nations and it seemeth to be made by the authority of all and therefore without the consent of all it cannot be abolished Neuerthelesse in regard of the matter there is no repugnance but that it may be altered if all Nations should consent or if the contrary custome should by little and little be brought in But although this
which is a humane law so easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature that all nations doe receiue and admit it it is manifest that it cannot dissent from those infallible grounds which I haue laid alreadie as well out of the law of Nature as out of the law of GOD especially seeing that there is nothing wherein all Nations doe more vniformely agree by the very instinct of Nature then that all temporall things are inferiour to spirituall things and subordinate thereto whereupon it necessarily followeth c. But what grounds either infallible or fallible Mr. Fitzherbert hath alreadie laid as well out of the law of nature as out of the law of GOD you haue alreadie seene Neither doth any man make any doubt but that this is an infallible ground wherein all nations by the very instinct of nature doe vniformely agree that as all spirituall things are superiour to all temporall things in dignitie worth and excellencie in generall so all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to spirituall things in the same degree of subiection and subordination wherein spirituall things are superiour to them for no man can bee so foolish as to imagine that temporall things must be subiect to spirituall things in any other degree or kind of subiection or subordination then wherein spirituall things are superiour to them 33 Marke now what Mr. Fitzherbert would conclude from this infallible ground Whereupon it necessarily followeth saith he that all the temporall states of temporall Princes are subordinate to the Church and to the head thereof and to bee disposed by him when the good of the Church shall so require as I haue amply declared But fye for shame that Mr. Fitzherbert who is accounted a man of great iudgement though of small learning should make so childish and improbable a consequence and withall to esteeme it a necessarie inference For what man of iudgement would argue thus All temporall things are inferiour subiect and subordinate to spirituall things to wit in worth dignitie and excellencie therefore the Pope hath power to dispose of all temporall things when the good of the Church shall so require But my Aduersaries vsuall custome is to darken and confound the Readers vnderstanding with a mist of cloudie and ambiguous words which being once dissolued and taken away the plaine and perspicuous trueth will presently appeare For as concerning his antecedent proposition which is that all temporall things are inferiour to spirituall things and subordinate thereto first if his meaning be that all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to all spirituall things in euery kind of subiection this is apparantly false for that all spirituall things are not capeable of all kind of superioritie seeing that onely spirituall persons or substances and not spirituall accidents are capable of spirituall authoritie or iurisdiction which consisteth in a power to commaund to punish or to dispose of something 34 Secondly if his meaning be that all temporall things are inferiour and subordinate to all spirituall things in some kind of subiection this is very true for as all spirituall things in that they are spirituall are more excellent and of a more noble more perfect and of a superiour and higher degree or order then is any temporall thing so all temporall things as they are temporall are inferiour and subordinate in nobilitie perfection and excellencie to all spirituall things But from a superioritie in perfection worth and nobilitie to conclude a superioritie of another kind to wit in authoritie iurisdiction or power to dispose thereon is transcendere de genere ad genus to transcend from one kind to another which manner of arguing euery Schoole-boy knoweth to bee vicious as thus Angels both good and bad are superiour to men in substance knowledge might and other natural perfections but to conclude from hence that therefore Angels are superiour to men in authoritie or Iurisdiction and that therefore men are inferiour and subiect therein to Angels and are bound to obey them as their lawfull Superiours vnlesse they bee sent as messengers from God which the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import and which as Saint Gregory saith S. Greg. hom 34. in Euang a. is a word of office not of nature were a very fallacious kinde of arguing Also all seruile trades are inferiour subiect and subordinate to all liberall arts and sciences to wit in woorth perfection and nobilitie and this all trades-men will acknowledge but they would smile at him that should conclude from thence that therefore all they that are endued with any liberall art or science may command and punish all trades-men and dispose of what they haue when the good of the liberall arts or sciences shall so require 35 But thirdly if Mr. Fitzherbert in his antecedent proposition by spirituall things doeth not vnderstand all spirituall things but only spirituall persons who by their office haue charge of Religion and of all spirituall things appertaining to Religion and that all temporall things are by the instinct of nature and the light of naturall reason subiect and subordinate to spirituall persons in such sort that they may bee disposed of by them when the good of Religion shall so require then indeede supposing this antecedant proposition to bee true it doeth necessarily follow that the Pope hath power to dispose of all temporall things in order to spirituall good But then hee supposeth that which he should prooue and which I euer denyed for as I haue amply shewed before by the law of nature the ciuill Common-wealth it selfe and the supreame Gouernours thereof had supreame authoritie to dispose of all things as well concerning Religion as State and policie Neither did the Religious Societie and the ciuill Common-wealth in the law of nature make two totall and independent bodies Societies or Common-wealths as they doe now in the new Law wherein the temporall Prince or the Ciuill Common-wealth haue not to dispose of spirituall and religious affaires as they did in the law of nature and according to the custome of all nations and therefore it cannot bee prooued either by the law of nature or of nations that the Pope hath power to dispose of the bodies States or temporall goods of temporall Princes but contrariwise standing in the law of nature the Ciuill Common-wealth had supreame power and authoritie to dispose of the bodies and goods of Religious Priests and of all things belonging to Religion and the publike seruice of God 36 Wherefore to little purpose are those words which Mr. Fitzherbert next adioyneth And therefore Vlpian the Lawyer saith hee affirming that Ius Gentium the Law of Nations is that which is common onely to men putteth for example Religio erga Deum Religion towards God giuing to vnderstand that all Nations and people doe agree in nothing more then that due honour is to bee giuen to Almightie GOD which is not done when any thing is preferred before his seruice or when temporall things
to prooue that this law of the Emperour Frederike was no way preiuciall to the Canon of the Councell of Lateran but a notable confirmation thereof which is nothing at all against mee For I neuer intended to deny that this Constitution of Frederike was against the Canon of the saide Councell but I expresly affirmed that it was the same law and constitution containing the very same wordes with that of the Councell changing onely spirituall punishments into temporall and that therefore those wordes Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-Lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in both Decrees haue though not equally yet proportionally the like restriction and limitation in both For that which I affirme is that this great and famous Councell of Lateran where almost all the Ambassadours of Christian Kings and Princes were present did represent as the Cardinall of Peron doth well obserue the whole Christian world or Common-wealth as well temporall as spirituall and was as it were a generall Parliament of all Christendome consisting both of temporall and spirituall authoritie of temporall Princes and spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted therein concerning spirituall matters as is the inflicting of spirituall Censures for what crime soeuer either spirituall or temporall did proceede meerely from the authoritie of spirituall Pastours and that all the lawes and decrees which were enacted concerning temporall matters as is this decree whereof now we treate concerning the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end soeuer they bee inflicted did proceede meerely from the authoritie of Secular Princes who are the head and fountaine of all temporall authoritie and of all power to dispose of temporall matters for that as I haue prooued more at large in the first part of this Treatise by the testimonie of many learned Catholikes the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power doeth not by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of any temporall punishment as death exile priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes nay nor so much as imprisonment but that when the Church or spirituall Pastours doe inflict such temporall punishments it proceedeth from the positiue grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes 38 And from this ground it euidently followeth that not onely in this Canon of the Councell of Lateran concerning the temporall punishing of heretikes their abetters but also in all other Canons of Popes or Councells when the inflicting of any tēporal punishmēt is ordained it is as probable that all the force which they haue to bind doth proceede originally frō the positiue grant consent and authoritie of temporal Princes as it is probable that the spirituall power of the Church doth not by the institutiō of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporal or ciuill punishments and consequently that temporall Princes are not by any generall wordes included in such decrees as being themselues supreame and next vnder GOD in temporalls and not to be punished with temporall punishments but by GOD alone Wherefore vnlesse my Aduersaries doe first prooue which in my iudgement they will neuer bee able to doe by some conuincing argument grounded vpon the authoritie either of the Holy Scriptures ancient Fathers or some cleare definition of the Church that this doctrine which denyeth the Pope to haue by the institution of Christ authoritie to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments is absurd and not probable they spend their time in vaine and beate about the bush to little purpose whiles they bring neuer so many decrees and canons of Popes or Councells wherein the inflicting of temporall punishments is ordained for still the maine question remaineth yet a foote by what authoritie to wit temporall or spirituall those Canons for as much as concerneth the inflicting of such temporall punishments haue force to binde and the answere of Almaine and of many other Catholike Doctours will bee still readie at hand that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath onely authoritie to inflict spirituall punishments as Excommunication Suspension Interdict and that the other punishments which hee vseth doe proceede from the pure positiue law authoritie grant and priuiledges of temporall Princes and that therefore the lawes or Canons of spirituall Pastours enacting them cannot bind or comprehend temporall Princes themselues 39 And by this the Reader may cleerely see both the ground and reason from whence I deduced probably that absolute Princes are not included vnder any generall words whatsoeuer in penall lawes and canons of the Church wherein temporall penalties are inflicted for neither are they included as you shall see beneath in the next Chap. in penall lawes wherein spirituall punishments are inflicted vnder generall words or names which denote titles of inferiour degree place and dignitie as are Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis a temporall or principall Land-Lord Gouernour or also Lord and such like and also how weakely not to vse Mr. Fitzherberts foule word absurdly he prooueth that I shew my selfe to bee very absurd in perswading the Reader that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus principalis a temporall or principall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord which are vsed alike in the Canon and in the Emperours law haue like restriction though not equally yet proportionally in both For what can be more cleare saith he h p. 145. nu 15 then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince who maketh them and that therefore the obligation of euery Princes lawes is extended only to his owne subiects whereupon it followeth necessarily that albeit the Canons of Generall Councells being made in generall tearmes do comprehend all Christian men as well absolute Princes as others because they are all subiect thereto yet the Lawes of temporall Princes being made in the like or in the same generall tearmes can comprehend none but their owne subiects and this being so what an absurd argument hath Widdrington made who because the words are all one in the Canon of the Councell and the Law of the Emperour will restraine the sense of the Canon to the limits of the Emperours temporall power which could not exceede his owne Dominion 40 And therefore though the words Dominus temporalis or principalis or non habens Dominum principalem be generall in his Law yet they can bee vnderstood of none but such as being his subiects held their Lands or states of him or of some other in his Dominions in which respect Kings and other temporall Princes which held not of the Empire could not be comprehended therein though the same generall words in the Canon must needes comprehend as well all Emperours Kings and absolute Princes as other inferiour Lords because all of them being Domini temporales are subiect alike to the decrees of a generall Councell 41 True it is that nothing is more cleere then that all Lawes are limited according to the power of the Prince that maketh them and that therefore the obligation of
deserued punishments threatned against them may keepe immooueable and without perturbation the peace of the holy Churches of God Giuen the eight Calends of Iune Asclepius and Deodatus most excellent men being Consulls 17 Now what will Mr. Fitzherbert say to this ancient decree of Pope Liberius which hee wisheth mee well to note wherein it is decreed that Bishops if they perturbe the peace of the Church shall be depriued of their Priesthood by Regall or Kingly indignation For that secular men being placed in dignity may be depriued of their honour and dignity and if they be priuate men yet noble may forfeit all their goods and if they be ignoble may be whipped or perpetually banished by Regall or Kingly power or indignation which this Canon also of what credit soeuer it be doth ordaine is not any way repugnant to my doctrine Thus thou seest good Reader how grosly thou art abused through the fraud or ignorance of this vnlearned man who neuertheles presumeth to direct thy soule and conscience in this so high and dangerous a point of thy allegeance due to God and man wherein he cleerely sheweth himselfe to haue so little skill 18 Thirdly in what sense I affirmed that Kings and absolute Princes are not included in penall lawes vnder generall words vnlesse they be expressed by name for which respect also Mr. Fitzherbert wisheth me to note well this Canon of Pope Liberius I haue declared before to wit that they are not in such lawes comprehended vnder generall words which denote some inferiour office or title of honour for I neuer intended to denie as this man imposeth vpon me that they are not included in any generall words except they be specified by the name of Princes if such generall words denote no inferiour office or title of honour So that neither Hostiensis for as much as concerneth this Canon of Liberius contradicteth my doctrine because those generall words Qui contra pacem Ecclesiae They who are against the peace of the Church do denote no inferiour office or title of honour and although he were against my doctrine it is too little to the purpose seeing that other Lawyers and Diuines doe contradict him herein and moreouer this Canon cited by Hostiensis is neither authenticall and of sufficient credit nor any way gaine-saith that which I affirme concerning this poynt Pag. 151. nu 5. 19 Now you shall see the third testimony which Mr. Fitzherbert bringeth out of Hostiensis And this saith he c will be much more cleare by the third testimony cited out of the Canon law by Hostiensis which hee taketh out of the title de haereticia Decret lib. 5. tit 7. de Haretices wherin there is no particular mention of absolute Princes by the name of Princes neither is there in any other Decree concerning their deposition but onely this Canon of the Councell of Lateran now in question so as Widdrington may see not onely that Kings and absolute Princes haue no such exemption from penall Lawes as he pretendeth but also that they are included in the generall tearmes ouen of this Canon of the Councell of Lateran in the opinion of a famous Canonist who wrote not past fiftie yeares after the said Councell And if he say that they haue had this exemption or priuiledge since that time let him shew vs when and where they had it which I am sure he cannot doe as it may appeare by the Canonists who comprehend absolute Princes in other penall lawes wherein they are not otherwise mentioned then in generall tearmes as he may see in Simanca in his Institutions d Tit. 23. and Emericus in his third part of the Directorie e Q. 31. and Penna in his Annotations vpon the f Annot. 96. same 20 But first it is vntrue that in the whole title dehaereticis there is not any other Canon or decree concerning the deposition of Princes except this Decree of the Lateran Councell if wee once suppose as Hostiensis doth suppose that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to inflict temporall punishments for this once supposed they may very well bee included in the last Canon of this title De haereticis wherein Pope Gregory the ninth doth Decree and declare that whosoeuer are bound or obliged to manifest heretickes by any couenant strengthened with neuer so great securitie are absolued from the bond of all allegiance homage and obedience for in those words whosoeuer and manifest heretickes and such like generall tearmes which denote no title of office honour or dignity inferiour to Kingly maiesty all men whatsoeuer euen Kings and absolute Princes may be included if it be once granted that the Pope hath power to depose absolute Princes But because it is probable as I haue prooued at large aboue in this Treatise that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath no authority to depose temporall Princes or to inflict temporall punishments it consequently followeth that it is also probable that neither the aforesaid Canon Absolutos nor any other Canon made in such generall words wherein temporall punishments are inflicted can comprehend absolute Princes but that all such like Canons are made either by the Pope as he is a temporall Prince and consequently are of force onely in the territories of the Church or the Popes temporall dominions or else that they are made by the consent of temporall Princes and haue their force to binde from their authority and consequently doe concerne onely inferiour persons or subiects and not absolute Princes themselues who are free from the coerciue power of those lawes which are made by their owne authority 21 So that although I will not now contend neither doe I much regard of what opinion Hostiensis bee concerning the sense and meaning of this Canon of the Lateran Councell yet it is plaine that Mr. Fitzherbert hath not hitherto prooued out of Hostiensis as hee pretended to prooue that absolute Princes are comprehended in the penall lawes of the Church vnder such generall names which denote some office honour dignitie or title inferiour to Kingly Maiestie Neither doeth Simancas Emericus or Pegna in the places cited by my Aduersarie teach contrarie to my doctrine in this point to wit that in penall lawes and odious matters Abbots are vnderstood by the generall name of Monkes Bishops by the generall name of Priests and Emperours Kings and absolute Princes by the generall name of Dominus temporalis a temporall Land-lord Gouernour or Lord. 22 For Simancas in the 23. title cited by my Aduersarie nu 10. doth cleerely distinguish betwixt Dominos temporales and Reges temporall Lords and Kings and nu 11. hee proueth that hereticall Kings and Princes are forthwith deposed and their subiects absolued from their allegiance by the aforesaide Canon Absolutos of Gregorie the ninth which as I saide is a sufficient proofe supposing as hee doeth that the Pope hath authoritie to depose temporall Princes and to absolue
or the Popes Dominions wherein hee being a temporall Prince hath authoritie to inflict temporall punishments or that they haue force to binde by the consent and authoritie of temporall Princes 7 Neither haue I vsed any fraude in alleadging and applying the words of the Glosse to my purpose as Mr. Fitzherbert vntruely affirmeth Besides that saith he b pa. 166. nu 3 my Aduersarie Widdrington hath vsed no small fraude in the allegation and application of the Glosse to his purpose for whereas he mentioneth the Glosse vpon two seuerall decretalls hee setteth downe onely the later as though the same might serue indifferently for both and were so meant by the Glosser or that the two Decrees were both of one substance and nature as they are not but farre different and therefore doe require a different consideration 8 But it is not true that in setting downe the words of the later Glosse to wit vpon the Canon Delatori I haue omitted the wordes of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus seeing that the words of both Glosses are in substance all one and haue the same sense and signification For the words of the later Glosse are these Sed qualiter dat Papa c. But how doeth the Pope make lawes concerning the punishment of blood against that decree of the Councell of Toledo 23. q. 8. his a quibus But heere the Pope teacheth what the Secular Iudge ought to doe according to the Imperiall law 27. q. 1. si quis rapuerit And the words of the former Glosse vpon the Canon Hadrianus where the Pope commandeth the goods of all those who doe violate his Decree to be confiscated are these Hîc Ecclesia publicat c. Heere the Church doeth confiscate the goods of Lay-men and sometimes shee deposeth Lay-men from their dignities 3◠q. 5. praeceptum in fine Or else say that heere the Church teacheth what ought to bee done so 24. q. 3. de illicita and 5. q. 6. Delatori Wherefore it is manifest that the wordes of both the Glosses haue the selfe same sense seeing that for the vnderstanding of the former Glosse hee remitteth his Reader to the wordes of the later Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I did set downe 9 Neither did I intend to set downe all the expositions which were brought by the former Glosse It was sufficient for mee to bring that exposition of the Glosse which serued to my purpose to wit that as the Pope in the Canon Delatori ordaining a temporall punishment though criminall did according to the Glosse teach and declare what ought to bee done by the Secular Iudge according to the Imperiall law so also the Pope in the Canon Hadrianus ordaining a temporall punishment though ciuill to wit the confiscation of goods did also according to one exposition of the Glosse teach and declare what ought to be done by the Secular Prince or Iudge and that therefore the same words or answere of the Glosse vpon the Canon Delatori which I only set downe to which hee remitteth his Reader vpon the Canon Hadrianus might serue indifferently for both And although ciuill and bloodie or criminall punishments as criminall is opposed to Ciuill and the decrees which ordaine and inflict the same are of a different substance and nature in particular yet in generall they are of the same substance and nature for that both of them are temporall punishments and cannot according to the probable doctrine of many learned Catholikes be inflicted by the spirituall or Ecclesiasticall but onely by the ciuill or temporall power and that therefore when either of them are inflicted by spirituall Pastours this proceedeth from the ciuill authoritie priuiledges or consent of temporall Princes or if wee will needes haue such decrees to bee made by true spirituall authoritie the Church in making such decrees as well concerning ciuill as criminall or bloodie punishments doeth according to the expositions of the Glosse before rehearsed teach and declare what a Secular Prince or Iudge ought to doe 10 But to the end saith Mr. Fitzherbert c Pag. 166. num 4. that the Reader may the better vnderstand this matter and the true sense and meaning of these two Glosses it is to bee considered first that the Glosses of the Law being commonly very briefe and therefore many times obscure are to bee vnderstood according to the drift sense and circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses in other parts and places of the Law 11 True it is that when the Glosses or expositions of the law are obscure as being commonly briefe although not so briefe and for this respect not so obscure as the law it selfe for to little purpose were that Glosse or exposition which is more obscure then the text it selfe we must gather the sense meaning of such Glosses from the drift sense circumstances not only of the particular Canons glossed but also of other Canons and Glosses of the same Expositour or glosser in other parts and places of the law but with this caueat and prouiso that if the same Glosser or Expositour bring two diuers or contrarie Expositions of the same Canon which are grounded vpon two contrary opinions we must haue a regard to distinguish these two contrary opinions and the Glosses grounded thereon and for the vnderstanding of the Glosse or exposition which supposeth one opinion not to flye to that Glosse which supposeth the contrary doctrine and opinion for otherwise we shall make the sense and meaning of the Glosses to be more obscure and intricate then plaine and manifest As for example if the same Glosser or Expositour giue two diuers expositions of the same Canon whereof the one supposeth the Pope to haue either direct or indirect dominion in temporals and to haue authority either directly or indirectly to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishment and the other Glosse supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority in temporals for the vnderstanding of that Glosse which supposeth the Pope to haue such a dominion or authority in temporals wee must not flye to that other Glosse which supposeth that hee hath no such dominion or authority d Page 167. num 5. 12 Secondly saith Mr. Fitzherbert the penalties imposed in the two decrees here glossed are of different nature and quality the one concerning onely the confiscation of goods which is expresly ordained in diuers places of the law and the other touching onely the effusion of bloud by death or mutilation which is no where ordained or permitted but expresly forbidden to all Ecclesiasticall Iudges 13 But first although it be true that the penalties imposed in these two Canons are of different nature and qualitie in particular for that the one ordaineth a ciuill punishment to wit the confiscation of goods the other a criminall penaltie to wit the effusion of bloud by mutilation and also death yet both of them are as I said before of the
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
or particular Churches or Bishops and the other that it be propounded with an obligation to bee beleeued as of faith which also Cardinall Bellarmine confirmeth For in Councells Bellar. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 42. saith he the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith for neither are of faith the disputations that goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate but onely the bare decrees and those not all but those onely which are propounded as of faith And it is easie say they to know when the Councell doth propound any thing with an obligation to be beleeued as of faith by the wordes of the Councell it selfe For they alwayes vse to say that they declare the Catholike faith or account them for heretickes or which is most common denounce anathema or excommunicate them who shall beleeue the contrary but when none of these things are said it is not certaine saith Cardinall Bellarmine that it is a point of faith Whereby may be plainly seene the insolent temeritie of some especially this my Aduersary who feare not to call them heretickes that deny the Popes power to depose Princes seeing that neither from the Councell of Lateran nor from any other Councell either Generall or Prouinciall nor which is more from any one Canon of any particular Pope they can bring so much as a colourable shew of any such decree which according to the aforesaid rules of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus haue the conditions required to make a point of faith Canus lib. 5. de loc cap. 5. q. 5. 8 Now concerning decrees and precepts belonging to manners or things commanded or forbidden to bee done the said Canus hauing first supposed and distinguished that the question may be either of such things as are necessary to saluation as being commaunded or forbidden by the law of God or Nature or of such things that are not so necessary he setteth downe this conclusion that the Church cannot erre in the doctrine of such manners as are necessary to saluation Therefore if the Church by a firme decree doe define that any thing is to bee done or to bee auoided she cannot erre therein as for example in commanding Lay-men to receiue the Sacrament vnder one onely kinde From whence hee inferreth this second conclusion that when the Church in a matter of moment and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all Christian people she cannot command any thing which is contrarie to the Gospell or naturall reason wherefore as a generall Councell cannot propound false things to be belieued by the people so it cannot propound euill things to be done propound saith he by a firme and certaine decree by which all men are bound to belieue and doe vnder paine of eternall damnation 9 But as concerning the certainty of this doctrine especially touching things which are not so necessary to saluation as not being repugnant to the Gospell or naturall reason whether it bee hereticall to affirme that some custome of the Church is euill or some law of the Church is vniust I dare not saith Canus define or determine Whereupon hee excuseth those from heresie who should affirme that the Church doth erre in the custome of communicating the people vnder one kinde only and hee answereth to the Councell of Constance which ordaineth that those are to be condemned as heretickes who affirme the Church to erre therein that the Councell at that time was without a head and that Pope Martin doth not simply or absolutely approue that article but hee onely defineth that those who shall teach that the Church doth erre in that manner of custome are to bee condemned as heretikes or as sauouring heresie Therefore that which Pope Martin being President of the Councell durst not condemne by the name of heresie neither I saith Canus dare nor ought to impeach of a greater censure But if in a custome necessary to saluation which that seemed to be whereof there was a controuersie in the Councell of Constance the modesty of Pope Martin was so great how much more modest ought we to be in condemning other errours which are repugnant to the custome of the Church which is not necessary to saluation Thus Canus which doctrine I would desire my Aduersary and such other vnlearned hoat-spurres who haue heresie and hereticall so frequent in their mouthes little knowing themselues what heresie is diligently to consider 10 Also the said Canus excuseth from heresie those who disprooue the custome of the Church to carry about in solemne procession the B. Sacrament For albeit saith hee to reprehend this custome vpon this ground that Christ is not really and truely present in the Eucharist bee heresie yet if thou regard the errour in it selfe it sauoureth heresie it is rashnesse and imprudence and although it be to be censured for many respects yet it is not heresie seeing that albeit in this custome the Church should not erre yet her authority would not therefore be endangered in matters of greater moment Neither doth the Councell of Trent simply or absolutely say anathema to those that shall reprehend this custome of the Church but to those that therefore reprehend it because they doe not admit the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist and therefore neither the adoration and woorship thereof 11 In like manner he excuseth from heresie those who affirme that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints For it is to bee obserued saith hee that some manners or customes of the Church are deliuered to the Church by Christ and the Apostles wherein hee that should say the Church to erre doth make Christ and the Apostles to be Authors of that errour but other manners or customes are brought in since the Apostles wherein although the Church should erre yet faith would not therefore bee endangered Therefore without danger of heresie it may bee held that the Church may in some law and custome erre And hee bringeth a reason wherefore it is not hereticall to say that the Church may erre in the Canonization of Saints by which he prooued a little before that in manners customes precepts and lawes which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate men or Churches the Church may erre through ignorance not onely in the iudgement of things done but also in the priuate precepts and lawes themselues And of this conclusion saith hee Pope Innocent gaue a true and fit reason in cap. A nobis desent Excom in these words The iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued but the iudgement of the Church doth sometimes follow opinion which oftentimes deceiueth and is deceiued whereupon it happeneth sometimes that he who is bound before God is loosed before the Church he that is free before God is tyed by an Ecclesiasticall Censure Thus Pope Innocent 12 For from hence saith Canus it is
and knowledge of men For if wee take certaintie as it is in the thing it selfe which is rather to bee called necessitie there is nothing that is past which is not certaine or rather necessarily true So that all the power and authoritie which Christ hath giuen to S. Peter and consequently to the Pope as hee is Saint Peters Successour is most certaine in it selfe that is most true and necessarie yet all the power in particular which Christ hath giuen to Saint Peter and the Pope is not certaine quoad nos that is to the vnderstanding and knowledge of the faithfull nor of the Popes themselues 34 Secondly whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that albeit the reason which mooued some Popes to grant that licence to Priests seemed erroneous to some learned men yet it was not therefore vncertaine to the Popes that gaue it and againe It is euident saith he that many things may seeme vncertaine to some learned men and yet bee most certaine hee doth not say may seeme to be most certaine to the Sea Apostolike insinuating thereby that those Popes who gaue such licences did not only thinke or perswade themselues that they did certainely know but also that they did in very deede certainely knowe which is a farre different thing that they had authoritie giuen them from Christ to doe the same I would gladly learne of Fa. Lessius from whom Mr. Fitzherbert hath taken this assertion by what meanes those Popes came to such a certaine knowledge of things reuealed by Christ our Sauiour whereof other men and perhaps farre more learned then those Popes were in all sorts of learning both diuine and humane were so ignorant vncertaine and doubtfull For my owne part I doe not know by what way any man whatsoeuer hee bee can haue a certaine knowledge which is truely certaine and not onely imagined or thought to bee certaine of things supernaturall and reuealed by GOD but by diuine reuelation and this must bee either a priuate reuelation whereby God reuealeth himselfe to the priuate soule or spirit of a man as hee did in the old Law to the Patriarchs and Prophets and in the New to the Apostles and to diuers other holy men or else it must bee a publike reuelation knowne and approoued so to bee by the publike declaration or acceptance of the Church for the publike definitions of Popes without the approbation of a generall Councell or generall acceptance of the Church doe still remaine vncertaine seeing that it is as yet vncertaine and disputable among learned Catholikes whether the Pope hath authoritie to define certainely and infallibly that this or that thing which is in controuersie among famous and learned Catholike Diuines hath beene reuealed by God or no. 35 If therefore when Mr. Fitzherbert taxing mee most ignorantly of ridiculous absurditie doeth so confidently affirme it to bee euident that many things may seeme vncertaine to some learned men and yet bee most certaine to the Sea Apostolike his meaning bee that the Sea Apostolike hath this certaine knowledge by publike reuelation or by some necessarie consequence which is euidently deduced from publike reuelation I cannot possibly see how this can bee true for that publike reuelations and those things which are euidently deduced from publike reuelations are not proper onely to the Pope but are common also to other learned men and therefore also other learned men who are as skilfull and perchance farre more skilfull in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures and of publike reuelations traditions definitions declarations and of the generall consent and acceptance of the Church then those Popes are may haue as certaine a knowledge of things supernaturall and reuealed by publike reuelation as those Popes either haue or morally can haue 36 But if hee meane that the Sea Apostolike hath that certaintie of knowledge touching things reuealed by priuate reuelations or secret instincts and inspirations any learned man may plainely see that this is spoken without sufficient ground seeing that Christ our Sauiour hath not promised an infallibilitie of trueth to the priuate knowledge of any Pope or of the Prelates of the Church assembled together in a Generall Councell but onely to their Decrees and those not all but to such only which are propounded as of faith Neither also is it certaine that Christ hath promised an infallibilitie of truth so much as to the Popes publike definitions and decrees which are propounded as of faith if hee define without a Generall Councell and much lesse to his priuate knowledge and iudgement as it is manifest by the decrees of Pope Nicholas the first and of Pope Celestine the third whereof the first declared q De cons dist 4 can A quodam Iudaeo that Baptisme giuen in the name of Christ without expressing the three persons of the Trinitie is valid and of force and the second r Quondam in cap. Laudabilem de conuers coniugat that Marriage is so dissolued by heresie that the partie whose consort is fallen into heresie may lawfully marry another which doctrine is now condemned in the Councell of Trent and also by Pope Iohn the 22. who publikely taught Å¿ See Adrian Papa in q. 2. de Confirm circa finem Castro lib. 3. contra haeres verbo Beatitudo haer 62. Bell. l. 4. de Ro. Pont. c. 14 and if hee had not beene preuented by death was resolued to define that the soules of the Blessed should not see God before the Resurrection and by Pope Boniface the eight who in a letter to Philip le Bell King of France affirmed t See Nicol. Vignerius ad an 1300. Ioan. Tilius ad ann 1302. that he accounted them for heretikes who did not beleeue that the said King of France was not subiect to him in spiritualls and temporalls And as for these priuate reuelations they may also bee common to other vertuous and holy men as well as to Popes and with the same facilitie and vpon the same grounds wee may attribute priuate reuelations and certaintie of priuate knowledge as well to the one as to the other 37 And albeit it were so that many things are certaine to the priuate vnderstanding and knowledge of some Popes which are vncertaine and seeme erroneous to other learned men will my Aduersaries therefore affirme that those learned men are bound to follow the Popes priuate iudgement and to beleeue him vpon his bare word if hee say that hee is certaine his iudgement and knowledge to bee true vntill hee make manifest to them the certaintie thereof and vpon what grounds hee is so certainely perswaded his iudgement to bee certainely true This were doubtlesse a most pernicious doctrine and the opening of a wide gappe to errours and heresies For then should the Doctours of Paris See Pope Adr. in the place aboue cited who caused Pope Iohn to recall his errour haue beleeued him when hee commanded his doctrine or rather errour to bee held by all men and induced the Vniuersitie
Princes was euer firmely belieued by the Church as an vndoubted point of faith but at the most as a probable opinion no Catholike man can be iustly impeached of heresie errour or temeritie as the aforesaid Conclusion of mine doth plainely conuince for maintaining the contrary doctrine And whether the instances arguments and answeres which I haue brought be weake friuolous or impertinent or Mr. Fitzh replies altogether vaine and fraudulent wherby he clearely discouereth both the weaknesse of his cause and also his manifest fraude and ignorance I remit to the iudgement of any indifferent Reader And thus much concerning his first obseruation 30 The other thing which I wish saith Mr. Fitzherbert l Pag. 204. nu 11. 12. to be noted is how Widdrington giueth sentence against himselfe as hauing incurred the note of errour or heresie in contemning to heare the voyce of the Church firmely beleeuing for if the Church had not firmely beleeued that the Pope hath power to depose Princes shee neither would nor could haue decreed in the Lateran Councell that Princes should bee deposed by the Pope for albeit shee doth and may in particular cases practise some things vpon a probable opinion when there is no Definition or Decree to the contrary yet it were most absurd and temerarious if not hereticall to say that shee euer made a generall Decree in a Councell touching either faith or manners but vpon a most certaine and assured ground and the reason is for that otherwise the Decrees of generall Councells should sometimes bee vncertaine as being grounded onely vpon a probable opinion yea all their Decrees might alwaies with some shew of reason bee impugned and reiected by any contentious heretike who might and would call the Decree in question and say that the same were onely probable as Widdrington doth in this case 31 Therefore seeing it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued by all Catholike Doctours See Bellar. de Concil l. 2. c. 2. 3. 4. Item Can. l. 5. de locis c. 5. Bannes 2ae 2ae q. 1. ar 10. dub 6. concl 2. that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the veritie of the holy Scriptures or may bee impugned or called in question by any Christian man it followeth euidently that all such Decrees are founded vpon assured grounds and none vpon probable opinions for if the grounds thereof were or might bee onely probable they might bee repugnant to the Scriptures and lawfully impugned or denyed by any man Whereupon it followeth that seeing the Lateran Councell hath for the speciall good of the Church decreed that Princes shall be deposed by the Pope in some cases the said Councell and consequently the Church doth firmely and assuredly beleeue and not thinke onely probably that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and therefore I conclude that Widdrington contemning and reiecting this beliefe of the Church is by his owne confession fallen into errour Luc. 19. or heresie so as I may well say to him with our Sauiour in the Gospell Ex ore tuo te iudicio serue nequam 32 But this obseruation of Mr. Fitzherbert is so childish not to say ridiculous that no Schoole-boy would argue in such a childish manner For what man that hath his wits about him would make this conclusion that his Aduersary by his own sentence grant confession is fallen into errour or heresie and to prooue the same bringeth two propositions whereof the one his Aduersary doth indeed very willingly grant but the other which is the maine difficultie betweene them he vtterly denyeth By the same manner of arguing I might also prooue that Mr. Fitzherbert is by his owne sentence grant and confession fallen into errour or heresie For hee graunteth that the Pope hath no other authority to depose Princes then that which was granted to S. Peter and his Successours by those wordes I will giue thee the keyes c. Whatsoeuer thou shalt lose c. Feede my sheepe or such like and that whosoeuer impugneth that which is decreed in the holy Scriptures is fallen into errour or heresie but in those and such like words of the holy Scriptures was onely granted to Saint Peter and his Successours authority to expell men from the Church of Christ not from temporall kingdomes to binde and loose with spirituall not with temporall bindings or loosings to absolue from the bond of sinnes not of debts to inflict spirituall not temporall punishments therefore Mr. Fitzherbert contemning and reiecting the holy Scriptures is by his owne confession fallen into errour or heresie so as I may wel say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Gospel ex te ore tuo iudico serue nequam Now if I should haue argued in this manner against him he would quickely haue answered that albeit he grant the Maior proposition yet hee denieth the Minor and therefore cannot bee said to grant the conclusion which must bee inferred from the granting of both the premisses and for my goodly argument hee both would and might deseruedly haue giuen mee his vsuall absurd impertinent fond foolish and ridiculous nicknames 33. In this very like manner hee argueth against mee to prooue that by my owne sentence graunt and confession I am fallen into errour or heresie for contemning and reiecting the voyce of the Church in a generall Councell firmely beleeuing For although I graunt the Maior proposition to wit that whosoeuer contemneth to heare the voyce of the Church or of a General Councell firmely beleeuing or decreeing any doctrine as certaine and of faith is fallen into error or heresie yet I euer denyed the other proposition to wit that the Church in the Councell of Lateran did either Decree the deposition of Princes or firmely beleeue the doctrine thereof as certaine and of faith and therefore it cannot be rightly inferred that I graunt the conclusion which must be inferred from both the premisses for as the conclusion doth follow from both the premisses and not from one onely so he cannot be said to grant the conclusion who granteth not both the premisses or propositions but one onely And therefore those words of our Sauiour Exore tuo te iudico serue nequam may fitly be applied to himselfe who by his owne arguing sheweth himselfe to be a very ignorant fraudulent and slanderous man in charging me to bee fallen into errour or heresie by my owne grant and confession which euery Schoole-boy seeth to be most false 34 And as concerning that generall reason which heere hee bringeth why the Councell of Lateran must firmely and assuredly beleeue as certaine and of faith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to wit because it is most certaine and vniformly beleeued and taught by all Catholike Doctours that no Decree of generall Councells made for the whole Church touching either faith or manners can be repugnant to the verity of the holy Scriptures or called in question by any Christian man and
and reuerence their temporall Prince and to obey him in temporalls as with all my heart and soule I doe greatly respect and reuerence my Soueraigne Lord King IAMES acknowledging him to bee my onely Soueraigne Lord in temporalls to whom I owe all temporall allegiance as I acknowledge his Holinesse to bee my supreame spirituall Pastour to whom I owe spirituall obedience yet if the temporall Prince should command any thing which to his Suâ—iects consciences is manifestly vniust they may without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to their Prince not obey that vniust commandement knowing in that case they are bound rather to obey God then men especially if they bee readie to suffer without resistance the penaltie imposed by the law 9. Secondly that any Catholike might lawfully and without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse not obey or admit his Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath for that it containeth in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation I yeelded in my Theological Disputation f Cap. 10 sec 2 nu 50. seq two sufficient reasons whereof the first and principall Mr. Fitzherbert heere fraudulently concealeth and both vnlearnedly and guilefully as you shall foorthwith see hee cauelleth onely against the second and lesse principall reason For I did not affirme that no Catholike is bound to admit his Holinesse Breues onely for that hee was ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines albeit this alone had beene a very sufficient reason but chiefly and principally for that his Breues were grounded vpon probable opinion at the most that the Pope by the institution of Christ hath authoritie to dispose of all temporalls and to depose temporall Princes which doctrine being not certaine but in controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge no Catholike is bound to follow and consequently according to the doctrine of Fa. Suarez neither bound to obey his declaratiue commandement which is grounded thereon for that a declaratiue precept as is this of his Holinesse forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath hath no greater force then the reason whereon is grounded but this first reason which I brought for the chiefe and principall Mr. Fitzherbert cunnigly dissembleth 10. For seeing that his Holinesse did onely in generall worde forbid English Catholikes to take the Oath for that therein are contained many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation without specifying in particular any one of those many things I by probable coniectures or rather by morall certainties all circumstances considered did gather that his Holinesse by those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation did either vnderstand as by all likelihood hee did his power to inflict Censures to excommunicate his Maiestie to binde and loose in generall c. and consequently his spirituall Supremacie which hee conceiued were denyed in the Oath for that Cardinall Bellarmine did publikely in his booke against his Maiesties Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance also in this sense vnderstand the same and then it is apparant that his Holinesse was misinformed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused for that it is too too manifest as his Maiestie himselfe hath against Cardinall Bellarmine conuinced that the Popes power to inflict spirituall Censures and to excommunicate his Maiestie was not treated of at all in the Oath but purposely declined and Mr. Fitzherbert also seemeth couertly to confesse as much for that albeit in his Supplement he affirmed See aâ—oue chap. â— that the Oath is vnlawfull for that therein is denyed the Popes powers to excommunicate for which in my Admonition I taxed him of falsitie yet now in his Reply he altogether flyeth from that point acknowledging in effect by his silence that hee dare not now maintaine his former assertion 11 But because I could not certainely know and affirme although it bee very probable that his Holinesse vnderstood those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation of his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures c. as Cardinall Bellarmine Gretzer Lessius and Suarez did vnderstand them I added the second part of the disiunction to wit that his Holinesse vnderstood those many things c. in the former sense or else by those many things manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation hee vnderstood his power to depose Princes to dispose of all temporalls and to inflict temporall punishments for that his Holinesse was of opinion that the doctrine for his power to depose Princes c. which is expresly denyed in the Oath is certaine and of faith And if this bee the meaning of his Holinesse then if hee did adhere to this opinion by his owne reading studie and learning whereof I haue no certaintie for that I know not whether his Holinesse being accounted onely a Lawyer and not to make profession of Schoole-Diuinitie had before the publishing of his Breues exactly studied this question and throughly examined all that could bee obiected on either side then I say that his Holinesse was greatly mistaken for that it is euident that this doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes c. is not certaine and of faith but in controuersie among learned Catholikes and as yet not decided by the Iudge 12 But if his Holinesse did adhere to this opinion and conceiue that this doctrine for his power to depose Princes is certaine and of faith as it is very pobable hee did by the information of Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome who consulted of the Oath as Fa. Parsons relateth in his letter then I say that his Holinesse hath also beene ill informed of the matter and consequently deceiued and abused by them for that it is a controuersie among the Schoole-men saith Trithemius Trithem in Chron. Monast Hirsang ad an 1106. Almain de dominat ciuil Eccles conclus 2. in probat and as yet not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no And Almaine a very famous Schoole-Diuine and Doctour of Sorbon with very many or most Doctours as hee saith doeth resolutely affirme that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doeth not extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes but onely of spirituall Censures neither was he euer taxed by any man of heresie errour or temeritie for holding this opinion 13 These were the reasons which I propounded to his Holinesse why English Catholikes thought themselues not bound to obey his declaratiue precept contained in his Breues For these are my expresse words in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse g Cap. 10. sec 2 nu 8. seq And this is the reason most holy Father why very few Lay Catholikes of any name or worth with vs doe refuse to take the Oath being tendered them by the Magistrate For while they aduisedly cal to
Catholike may without any breach of charity or vndutifull respect not onely imagine but plainly see and say to be euidently vntrue and my Aduersarie himselfe as I signified before l Nu. 10. by his silence in this point doth in effect acknowledge as much 23 Besides can any man with reason perswade himselfe or imagine but that in such an important matter as is this of the Oath so famous throughout Christendome c. his Holinesse did at the very first before he published his first Breue not onely see the Oath it selfe maturely weigh and ponder it yea and sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessary to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence but also that he demaunded yea and followed the aduice and iudgement of his learned Counsell especially of Cardinall Bellarmine whose opinion in Theologicall matters is accounted at Rome as it were an Oracle concerning the true sense and meaning of the Oath and of all the parts and parcels thereof this truly cannot be imagined of his Holinesse by any charitable Catholike Which being so as any charitable Catholike may not onely imagine but also euidently see that Cardinall Bellarmine affirming so resolutely that the Popes power to excommunicate to binde and loose in generall to absolue from Oathes in generall and consequently the Popes Primacy in spiritualls is manifestly denied in the Oath did misinforme himselfe of the true sense and meaning of the Oath and was deceiued so likewise any charitable Catholike may not onely imagine but also with morall certaintie perswade himselfe all circumstances considered that his Holinesse also was ill informed and consequently deceiued and abused by Cardinall Bellarmine of the true sense and meaning of the Oath 24 Wherefore I neuer imagined or conceiued as this man seemeth to impose vpon me and therefore chargeth me with irreuerence vndutifull respect and temerity that his Holinesse did not before hee published his first Breue see the Oath it selfe maturely weigh and ponder it sufficiently as he thought informe himselfe both by his own knowledge and learning and also by the aduice of his learned Diuines and especially of Cardinall Bellarmine of the true sense and meaning of the Oath and of all parts and parcells thereof As likewise I neuer imagined or conceiued that Cardinall Bellarmine did not before he published his first booke against the Oath see the Oath it selfe maturely weigh and ponder it and sufficiently as hee thought informe himselfe both by his owne learning and by the aduice also of other Diuines of Rome of the true sense and meaning of the Oath and of all the parts and parcells thereof yet as it is euident that Cardinall Bellarmine notwithstanding all his seeing weighing pondering and informing himselfe of the true sense and meaning of the Oath was fowly mistaken deceiued misinformed of the true sense and meaning of those words notwithstanding any sententence of Excommunication c. and some other clauses of the Oath so also it is probable that his Holinesse was in the like manner mistaken and deceiued by the euill information of Cardinall Bellarmine of the true sense and meaning of the aforesaid clauses 25 And by this that also which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth to taxe me of temerity and malice and of accusing his Holinesse of lacke of wisedome of impiety and manifest lying is both answered and his fraud and falshood plainly discouered And howsoeuer saith he m Pa. 212. n. 3 my Aduersary Widdrington or any other might be so temerarious to haue that conceit at the first yet hee could not without great malice persist in that opinion after the publication of the second Breue wherein his Holinesse acknowledgeth and auoweth that the former was not false or surreptitious but written vpon his owne certaine knowledge motion and will and after long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained therein and that therefore the Catholikes were bound to obserue it wholly reiecting all interpretations to the contrary This being so according to my Aduersaries owne relation it is most euident that his Holinesse had taken sufficient information of the whole matter Disp Theol. c. 10. sec 2. nu 59 and all the circumstances thereof euen before he published his first Breue and therefore Widdrington affirming the contrary cannot haue that opinion which a charitable and pious Catholike ought to haue either of the wisedome and pietie of his Supreme Pastour or of the authoritie and veritie of his Apostolicall Breues and Decrees but doth in effect charge him to haue lyed manifestly in his second Breue when hee testified that hee made the first with such mature deliberation and certaine knowledge as you haue heard 26 To this second Breue which his Holinesse purposely sent hither as he himselfe in the beginning thereof affirmeth for that it was reported vnto him that some heere did say that his letters or Breue dated the 22. of October 1606. concerning the forbidding of the Oath were not written according to his owne mind and his owne proper will but rather for the respect and at the instigation of others for which cause they went about to perswade others that his commaundements in the said letters were not to be regarded I gaue this answere n Dis Theol. c. 10 sec 2. nu 59. which my fraudulent Aduersary altogether concealeth In the second Breue which was dated the first of September 1607. it is onely declared that the former letters of his Holinesse wherein he strictly commanded English Catholikes that they should in no wise take the said Oath were not false and surreptitious but written not onely vpon his certaine knowledge and by his owne proper motion and will by which words neuerthelesse he doth not intend to denie that he in writing them vsed the aduise and opinion of others but also after long and graue deliberation had concerning all the things which are contained in them and that therefore they were bound to obserue them exactly setting aside all interpretation which may perswade to the contrarie Which last words are so to be vnderstood that there must be made no friuolous interpretation of those letters or no such interpretation which should make any man to think or make any doubt that they were not written with his Holinesse knowledge and priuity and by his owne proper will Salas disp 21. de Leg. sec 2. Sa in Aphoris verbo Interpretatio nu 5. For as Ioannes Salas and Emanuell Sa both of them Diuines of the Society of Iesus doe well obserue It is lawfull for Doctours to interprete all lawes not indeed by a necessarie publike or iuridical but a priuate and not binding interpretation although the Prince should say that it should be lawfull for no man to interprete otherwise this our writing for then he onely forbiddeth friuolous interpretations and which are expressely contrary to his mind Which their doctrine is with far greater reason to be vnderstood of the Popes declaratiue precept which is only
Fitzherbert turneth and windeth in such a running and fraudulent manner that his Reader cannot well perceiue of what imputation he meanes when he saith that if the second Breue be not sufficient to cleare his Holines of this imputation yet his third Breue must needs be aboundantly sufficient to doe it For that which I said onely is that his Holinesse by all likelihoode was not truely informed by Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines of the true sense and meaning of some clauses of the Oath against which you haue seene with what fraude and falsitie my ignorant Aduersarie hath wrangled and iangled as though I had taxed his Holinesse for publishing his first Breue before he had seene or maturely weighed and pondered the Oath it selfe and all the clauses thereof and without graue and long deliberation had concerning all things contained in his Breue which how vntrue this imputation is wherewith hee chargeth me I haue alreadie shewed Now this silly man laboureth to prooue as also he insinuated before that because his Holinesse did maturely weigh and ponder the Oath and euery clause thereof before he sent hither his first Breue and did sufficiently informe himselfe of all circumstances necessarie to the publication of his Apostolicall and iudiciall sentence as well concerning the forbidding of the Oath by his first Breue as also concerning the punishing of such Priests that should take or defend the Oath to be lawfull by his third Breue sent hither two yeeres after which he could not saith my Aduersarie lawfully doe without due consideration and diligent discussion of the whole controuersie and sufficient information of all the circumstances thereof therefore his Holinesse neither was nor could all this time which was more then two yeeres be ignorant of the nature and qualitie of the Oath and that therefore he could not be ignorant but certainely knew that there are many things in the Oath flat contrary to faith and saluation as he had declared by his first Breue 32 But to omit now those words sufficient information c. and that his Holinesse did sufficiently informe himselfe c. which my Aduersarie heere diuers times repeateth which because they are equiuocall and may haue a double sense I will declare beneath it is very vntrue and contrary to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and of all other learned Diuines to say that certaine and infallible knowledge of truth is in the Pope necessarily annexed to his long graue mature and diligent consideration and discussion of any doctrine or matter vnlesse the doctrine and matter be of such a nature and the discussion thereof be done with such circumstances and in such a manner as Christ hath promised him his infallible assistance which euen according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Christ hath not promised him in such decrees or definitions which are not directed and doe not appertaine to the whole Church as are these his Breues forbidding the Oath whereof the two first are onely directed to English Catholikes and the third onely to Mr. Birket then Arch-Priest For in customes lawes or decrees which are not common to the whole Church but are referred to priuate persons or Churches not onely the Pope but also the Church may erre and be deceiued through ignorance I say saith Canus not onely in her iudgement of facts Canus lib. 5. q. 5. conel 3. or things done as whether such a one committed such a sinne hath lost his faculties ought to be censured and such like but also in her priuate precepts and lawes themselues and the true and proper reason hereof he bringeth from the authority of Pope Innocent the third which I related also aboue q Chap. 13. nu 11. for that albeit the iudgement of God is alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither deceiueth nor is deceiued yet the iudgement of the Church is now and then led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue and is deceiued c. 33 Whereupon the Reader may most cleerely perceiue how vnlearnedly my ignorant Aduersarie doth inferre that because his Holinesse had a long graue and mature deliberation and consultation concerning the true sense of the Oath and of euery clause thereof and did send hither his third Breue for punishing those Priests that should take or defend the same therefore he could not be ignorant of the true sense of euery clause thereof but must certainly and infallibly know that many things are therein contained flat contrary to faith and saluation as he by his first Breue had declared as though his sentence and iudgement in Decrees which are directed onely to priuate persons or Churches should be alwaies grounded vpon truth which neither can deceiue nor be deceiued and that he cannot erre through ignorance or be led by opinion which oftentimes doth deceiue is deceiued in his priuate lawes decrees which are not common to the whole Church but doe belong to priuate men Bishops or Churches and that therefore those Priests whom he bindeth or punisheth by his Censure and sentence may not be free before God and those other Priests whom he doth not Censure may not deserue punishment in the sight of God according to that which Pope Innocent in the end of his aforesaid reason did affirme 34 But those words which Mr. Fitzherbert often repeateth that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation had concerning all things contained in his first Breue among which the principall was that many things are contained in the Oath which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation was sufficiently informed of the whole matter are very equiuocall and may haue a double sense For first these words may signifie that his Holinesse after so long and graue deliberation was sufficiently informed to excuse him from sinne for doing what hee did and for sending hither his Breues to forbid the Oath and to punish those Priests that should take the Oath or teach it to be lawfull and with this point for that it little importeth our present question whether the Oath not onely in the Popes opinion and conscience but also really truely and certainely containeth in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation or no and for that it is a thing secret and vnknowne to me I will not inter meddle but leaue it to the conscience of his Holinesse and to the iudgement of God who searcheth the hearts and reines of men Yet this I dare boldly say that in my iudgement his Holinesse might haue beene more sufficiently informed of the whole matter if hee had consulted this question concerning the certainty of his authority to depose Princes and whether his spirituall Supremacie or any other doctrine of faith or manners necessarie to saluation is denyed in the Oath not onely with his owne Diuines who are knowne to maintaine with such violence both his authority in temporals ouer temporall Princes which is the principall marke at which the Oath doth aime and his spirituall authority
affirmed onely the Minor proposition to wit that his Holinesse Breues condemning the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation were grounded vpon an vncertaine and fallible foundation or doctrine and light that is not weightie enough to make a matter of faith to wit that it is against faith to say that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes c. and vpon false informations to wit that his power to excommunicate to binde and loose in generall and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed in the Oath and both these my assertions I haue sufficiently conuinced to bee true But this silly man thinking thereby to lay a foule aspersion vpon mee of irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse doth himselfe adde the Maior proposition not affirmed by mee and therein he plainly sheweth his owne irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse and to many other Popes accusing him and them by this Maior proposition which hee addeth to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastours that euer gouerned the Church of God For this is his Maior proposition whosoeuer affirmeth that his Holinesse Breues were grounded vpon light or vncertaine foundations and false informations must needes hold him to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastour that euer gouerned the Church of God by which his assertion hee plainely sheweth what little respect and reuerence hee beareth to his Holinesse and sundrie other Popes who oftentimes as I shewed before out of Pope Innocent the third t In the Canon Anobis 2. de sent Eucom are oftentimes lead in their iudgements and Apostolicall sentences by vncertaine opinions which both deceiue and are deceiued and not alwayes by true informations for which cause saith Pope Innocent it happeneth sometimes that hee who is bound before God is not bound before the Church and he that is free before God is bound by a Censure of the Church So that you see what account Mr. Fitzherbert to vse his owne wordes maketh of these Popes holding them according to this his assertion to bee the most carelesse and negligent Pastours that euer gouerned the Church of God 41 For my owne part I neither made that irreuerent inference which Mr. Fitzherbert heere collected but hee himselfe out of his want of learning and iudgement broached and inuented that irreuerent Maior proposition from whence if it were generally true that inference may indeed be gathered as well concerning his Holinesse Breues as also the Decrees and iudiciall sentences of other Popes wherein as Pope Innocentius himselfe acknowledged they are sometimes lead not by trueth but by opinion and information which oftentimes is false and both deceiueth and is deceiued neither did I deny that his Holinesse before hee published his Breues vsed graue long and mature deliberation concerning all things contained therein albeit I must needes confesse that hee might haue vsed a more graue long and mature deliberation if hee would haue consulted the matter not onely with his owne Diuines of Rome but also with those of France and these of England whom most of all it concerned and doubtlesse hee might by them haue had a more sufficient information of the whole matter and controuersie then hee had by his owne Diuines alone as the euent sheweth to bee very true But whether this his graue mature and long deliberation and consultation with his Diuines onely of Rome was sufficient to excuse him from all carelesnesse and negligence before the sight and iudgment of God I will not as I said before it being a thing not knowne to mee meddle therewith neither will I accuse or excuse his Holinesse from sinne for sending hither his Breues so preiudiciall to the Kings Maiestie and to all his Catholike subiects without making a more graue long and mature deliberation and discussion but I leaue it to the iudgement of almightie God who onely knoweth the secrets of all mens hearts when through ignorance or negligence they commit any offence And thus you haue seene that fraude hath beguiled it selfe and how in that snare which Mr. Fitzherbert to taxe me of irreuerence and small respect to his Holinesse hath said for me is wily beguily caught himselfe Now you shall see with what fraude and falsitie this silly ignorant and deceitfull man doth still goe on 42 And whereas Widdrington signifieth saith he u P. 214. nu 6. that his Holinesse was deceiued by Cardinall Bellarmine x Ibid. nu 51. 52. Item epi. Dedic nu 8. and Fa. Parsons hee sheweth himselfe very vaine and absurd in this coniecture For how can any man perswade himselfe with reason that his Holinesse meaning to giue his Apostolicall sentence in a matter of so great importance as was this of the Oath which sentence hee was well assured should be skanned and censured to the vttermost by all the Heretikes and Politikes of Christendome would suffer himselfe to bee led or guided by any two three or few persons were they neuer so learned or well steemed of him Besides that it is euident to all those that know how that matter passed that it was long debated in certaine Congregations of Cardinalls and other great Diuines wherein Cardinall Bellarmine had onely but one voice as other Cardinalls had and Fa. Parsons none at all for that hee did not enter therein 43 But obserue good Reader the egregious fraude and falsitie of this man who would make thee beleeue that I did say that his Holinesse was deceiued and misinformed of the true sense and meaning of certaine clauses of the Oath only by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa Parsons and not also by the other Diuines of Rome who consulted of this matter for which cause hee omitted to set downe entirely my second answere to his Holinesse Breues and also the particular points wherein I said his Holinesse was misinformed by them least that his manifest fraude and falsitie should presently haue beene discouered For albeit in my Epistle Dedicatorie to his Holinesse I named only Card. Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons for that they were the two chiefe and principall men that first stirred in this Controuersie by publike writings the one of the Italian and the other of our English Nation yet I did not there affirme that his Holinesse was misinformed deceiued led or guided onely by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons and in my second answere whereto also Mr. Fitzherbert in the margent remitteth his Reader I expresly signified the flat contrarie and with Card. Bellarmine for Fa. Parsons there I named not I also ioyned the other Diuines of Rome It is probable said I y Disp Theo. c. 10. s 2. nu 51. and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse did vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and especially Card. Bellar. c. z See the rest aboue nu 15. And a little after I set downe a copie of Fa. Parsons letter wherein at the very beginning
Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome for of Fa. Parsons misinforming his Holinesse I made no mention at all in that answere but onely of his vrging his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the oath My words were these c Num. 52. Moreouer that his Holinesse was perswaded that in this oath is denied his spirituall authority to inflict Censures is plainely gathered by a letter of Fa. Parsons who did greatly vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues as both some Iesuites here with vs doe freely confesse and also no man who knoweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in his daies can make any doubt thereof This therefore is the true copie of that letter c. About some foure o fiue moneths agoe it was consulted by seauen or eight of the learnedst Diuines that could bee chosen who gaue their iudgement of it Their reasons are many but all reduced to this that the Popes authority in chastising Princes vpon a iust cause is de fide and consequently cannot bee denied when it is called into controuersie without denying of our faith nor that the Pope or any other authoritie can dispense in this c. 50 Now Mr. Fitzherbert doth fraudulently conceale this part of the letter whereby it is manifest that the Diuines of Rome did suppose that the Popes authority to punish Princes and consequently to excommunicate and to inflict spirituall Censures is denied in the oath for otherwise as I shewed in that place d Num. 57. they had argued very vitiously against the knowne rules of Logicke from a particular to inferre an vniuersall as thus The Pope cannot chastice Princes by taking away their liues or dominions therefore the Pope cannot chastise Princes as though the inflicting of spirituall Censures and the denouncing of anathema Aug. lib. 1. contra aduers leg prophet cap. 7. which according to Saint Augustine is more horrible then any corporall death were not to be accounted a chasticing of Princes We grant therefore that the Pope may chastice Princes by vsing Ecclesiasticall Censures which is not denied in the oath but we vtterly deny that to depriue Princes of their dominions or liues are to be ranked among spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censures Thus I argued in that place from the first part of Fa. Parsons letter all which my fraudulent Aduersary thought best for his purpose to conceale and to skip ouer to the other part of the letter thinking from thence to take some colourable argument to prooue both that Fa. Parsons did not perswade and draw his Holinesse to the publication of his Breue also that the inference I made frō thence to wit that his Holinesse was perswaded that his authority to inflict Censures is denied in the oath is sorsooth improbable and impertinent wherein as you shall see he continueth still his ancient fraude and falsitie 51 For first I did not intend to prooue by Fa. Parsons letter or by his conference with his Holinesse that he vrged and perswaded his Holinesse to forbid the taking of the oath two other reasons I brought here to confirme the same wich Mr. Fitzherbert after his vsuall manner concealeth the one that some Iesuites heere in England did freely confesse the same the other that no man who konweth how our English affaires were carried at Rome in Fa. Parsons time can make any doubt thereof To which may be added two other the first that Mr. Nicholas Fitzherbert whose letter is yet to be seene did send word to a friend of his that Fa. Parsons laboured much to haue the oath forbidden the second that the Prouinciall of the Iesuites at that time who is yet liuing did boast to diuers persons that he would cause to be reuersed what Mr. Blackewell then Arch-Priest had concluded concerning the lawfulnesse of the oath and would procure a Breue from his Holinesse to forbid all Catholikes to take the oath and which with very great expedition as I signified in my Epistle Dedicatory to his Holinesse was accordingly performed all which are to any man of iudgement very probable coniectures if not morall certainties that Fa. Parsons did vrge and sollicite his Holinesse to send hither his Breues against the taking of the oath But howsoeuer it be it is not much materiall to my second answere or reason which is that his Holinesse was misinformed by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome that his power to excommunicate and to inflict Censures and consequently his spirituall supremacy is plainly denied in the oath whether Fa. Parsons did vrge and incite his Holinesse to forbid the oath or no. 52 Besides for the confirmation of my second answere those words of the Breue for that it containeth many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation and also his Holinesse answere to Fa. Parsons that he could not hold them for Catholikes who seemed to incline to the taking of the oath are very considerable for that before these our miserable times wherein so many new fangled Doctours are ready to coyne new articles of faith and to taxe with such facilitie their Catholike brethren of errour and heresie that will not foorth with approoue their nouelties it was neuer in the Church of God accounted an heresie to deny the Popes authoirty to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments neither hath any Catholike Author who writeth of heresies or Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe relating the errours of Marsilius of Padua ranked him among heretickes for denying the Popes power to depose Princes And very many Catholike Doctours with Iacobus Almaine who haue not therefore beene branded by any man with any note of heresie or errour doe resolutely affirme that the authoritie of the Church doth not extend by the institution of Christ to the inflicting of temporall punishments as death exile imprisonment priuation of goods much lesse of kingdomes but onely of spirituall Censures And Fa. Suarez himselfe dare not auouch Suarez l. 6. c. 1. that the Popes spirituall authority is plainly and manifestly but onely couertly denied in the oath and this also he gathereth from many farre fetcht consequences all which I haue cleerely answered in my Appendix against him And therefore from the aforesaid words of his Holinesse that he could not take those Priests for Catholikes that inclined to the taking of the oath it may very probably be included that he was fully perswaded that not onely his authority to depose Princes but also his power to excommmicate and to binde and loose in generall as Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome then conceiued is plainly denied in the Oath 53 Secondly whereas Mr. Fitzherbert affirmeth that hee can testifie vpon his owne knowledge that Fa. Parsons was so farre from perswading or drawing his Holinesse to the resolution which hee tooke concerning the publication of his Breue that he sought to induce him to some other course propounding meanes of mitigation c. I will not now contend about the
prooue that in the Oath are contained many things flat contrary to faith and saluation were very grossely mistaken And if his Holinesse trusting to the learning and honestie of these men was moued to condemne the Oath for that cause by the instigation of them as by all probable coniectures or rather by morall certainties he was as I conuinced before it is alas too too manifest that he was deluded to the great ignominie of the Sea Apostolike the grieuous scandall of Protestants and to the vtter temporall ruine of very many Catholikes 58 Now you shall see how childishly Mr. Fitzherbert cauilleth at that word if as though now at last I made a doubt and durst not absolutely auerre that his Holinesse was moued by the instigation of Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome to condemne the Oath for the aforesaid causes Wherein I wish to be noted saith he f Pag. 217. nu 11. first vpon what a weake ground Widdrington reiecteth the Popes Breues seeing that he relyeth onely vpon his bare opinion that the Pope was ill informed and deluded by others which he laboureth seriously g Ibid. nu 51. 52. 57. to peswade his Reader to bee very probable although it is so coniecturall and vncertaine that he is faine to conclude all as you heard h Nu. 58. with an if or a peraduenture so as if the Pope was not mooued vnto it by the instigation of those whom he nameth he concludeth or prooueth nothing but his owne impudencie and temeritie in opposing his idle conceipt and fantasie against the Popes serious and solemne testimony protesting in his second Breue as you haue heard that he forbadde the Oath vpon his owne certaine knowledge motion and will after long and graue deliberation and therefore I remit to the prudence and good conscience of any sincere Catholike whether he will beleeue in this case this mans vaine coniecture or the solemne protestation of his Holinesse 59 But in very deed I am ashamed that Mr. Fitzherbert should still so shamefully be wray his egregious fraude and ignorance For it is euident that I made no doubt but expressely and without a peraduenture affirmed that it is very probable yea and morally certaine in my iudgement that his Holinesse vnderstood the words of the Oath in that sense wherin the Diuines of Rome and especially Cardinall Bellarmine c. did conceiue them and that Cardinall Bellarmine who wrote in defence of his Breues did conceiue them in this sense that the Popes Primacie in spiritualls his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and to dispence in Oathes are denied in the Oath And therefore euery Schoole-boy may perceiue that those words And if his Holinesse c. which are a conclusion of the former words and therefore must haue relation thereunto are not to be vnderstood in this sense as my Aduersarie doth childishly glosse them to wit And if his Holinesse was mooued c. as peraduenture he was but as it is very probable yea and morally certaine he was as I said before For what man can with any reason imagine that Cardinall Bellarmine in the vnderstanding of the Oath did dissent from the opinion of the Diuines of Rome who consulted thereon or that his Holinesse did dissent therein from the opinion of them both And therefore this is no idle conceipt or fantasie of mine to conceiue so of his Holinesse but a manifest truth and morall certaintie and to conceiue otherwise of his Holinesse to wit that he followed not herein the aduise of his learned Diuines and vnderstood not the words of the Oath in that sense as they after their long consultation did vnderstand them were rather to taxe his Holinesse of imprudence and temeritie 60 And if the conceipt of mine be so idle and coniecturall and vncertaine as this fraudulent man would seeme to make it why doth not he in plaine words denie the same and say that his Holinesse did not vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherin Card. Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome did conceiue them but childishly would make his Reader beleeue that I my selfe grant it to be very coniecturall and vncertaine by concluding my second answere with an if wheras it is euident that I said plainely it was morally certaine and therefore that if to be referred thereunto and to haue this sense if it be true or morally certaine as true it is that his Holinesse was mooued c. Or why did he not answere the arguments which I brought to prooue that it was morally certaine but passeth them ouer as you haue seene with fraude and silence And when you Mr. Fitzherbert in your Supplement vnderstood the Oath to denie the Popes power to excommunicate and depriue Princes and in respect of those two points tooke vpon you to proue the Oath to be against all lawes humane and diuine although now your silence touching excommunication sheweth your former courage to be quailed can any man imagine but that you being then at Rome vnderstood those words of the Oath notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication c. in that sence wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome who consulted thereon did conceiue them 61 All which being considered you may take the impudency and temeritie which you would lay vpon me to your selfe and freely confesse that it is an idle impudent and temerarious conceipt and fantasie for any man to beleeue that his Holinesse did not vnderstand the words of the oath in that sense wherein Cardinall Bellarmine and his other learned Diuines did conceiue them and thereupon was mooued to forbid the â—â—th Neither is this against the Popes serious and solemne testimony protesting in his second Breue that hee forbade the oath vpon his owne certaine knowledge motion and will after long and graue deliberation for these words as I shewed before doe not signifie that he forbade the oath without the aduice and counsell of his learned Diuines for the words after long and graue deliberation doe rather signifie the plaine contrary but by them it is onely signified that his Breue was not surreptitious and counterfait and made without his priuitie or knowledge And therefore M. Fitzherbert vrging those words of his Holinesse which doe onely signifie that his Breue was not false and counterfait and made without his knowledge to prooue that he did not vnderstand the words of the oath in that sense as Cardinall Bellarmine and the other Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and thereupon was mooued to send hither his Breues for the forbidding of the oath sheweth himselfe to be both childish and malicious and to want both prudence and conscience in taxing me of impudency and temerity for affirming that which no man of iudgement and without great irreuerence to his Holinesse can deny 62 Now therefore M. Fitzherbert will for Disputation sake admit that the Pope was deluded and falsely perswaded by others that his spirituall power to inflict
the way to saluation and yet their sheep are not alwaies bound to heare and follow their voyce or call to beleeue with Catholike faith all their doctrine or to obey all their commandements for that their definitions are not certaine and infallible neither are they alwaies so assisted by the holy Ghost that they cannot command vnlawfull things So that albeit the Pope be our supreame spirituall Pastour Superiour and Iudge yet wee are not bound to obey him but in lawfull things and to which his authoritie doth extend 90 And if you aske againe to whom shall it belong to iudge whether the Popes definitions or doctrine be true or false or his commandements conforme to the law of God or no or that he exceed the authority and commission which Christ hath granted him or no I answere that if wee speake of Iudgement as it is an act of Iustice or of a Iudge doing iustice supposeth in him a superiority authority ouer the person whom he iudgeth which the Diuines call iudicium potestatis a iudgement of authority then according to the Diuines of Rome only God can iudge the Popes actions except in case of heresie or of schisme when more then one contend to be Pope for in these cases they graunt that a generall Councell may iudge the Pope But according to the Diuines of Paris not onely in the aforesaid cases but also in many others a Generall Councell whom they grant to be superiour to the Pope may by way of authority iudge the Popes actions and declare determine and define whether his definitions and commandements be conforme to the word and law of God or no. But if wee take iudgement S. Thom. prima secuÌ„da q. 93 ar 2. secunda secundae q. 51. ar 3. q. 60. ar 1. as it is an act of the vnderstanding and is commonly called by the Philosophers the second act or operation thereof and signifieth a right discerning or determination of the vnderstanding betwixt truth falshood good and euill in euery matter whether it be speculatiue or practicall and consisteth in the apprehension of a thing as it is in it selfe which the Diuines call iudicium discretionis a iudgement of discretion then euery learned man may iudge and discerne whether the Popes definitions or doctrine be true or false and whether his commandements bee conforme to the law of God or no neyther is that vulgar saying None can iudge his superiours actions to be vnderstood of this iudgement but of the former for this inward and priuate iudgement is the guide of euery mans conscience by which for that it is the rule of all morall actions he must iudge and discerne all his thoughts words and deeds actions and omissions 91 Seeing therefore it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope can erre in his definitions if hee define without a generall Councell and consequently they cannot be infallible grounds of Catholike faith it is euident that whensoeuer the Pope defineth any doctrine to be of faith which in very deed is Catholike doctrine and of faith we must not beleeue with Catholike faith that doctrin to be Catholike and of faith because the Pope hath defined the same for this reason and ground is as I haue said vncertaine and fallible but because the Catholike Church 1. Tim. 3. which onely is the infallible propounder of Catholike faith and according to the Apostle the pillar and ground of truth hath approued the same to be Catholike and of faith And thus much concerning the Popes definitions and decrees in points of faith and which are to be beleeued with Catholike faith 92 Now concerning manners and things commanded to bee done or not to be done we must carefully distinguish betwixt declaratiue and constitutiue precepts or commandements for in constitutiue commandements which doe make the thing which they forbid to be vnlawfull and doe not suppose it to be otherwise vnlawfull and forbidden by some former law first if the Pope command a thing which is manifestly lawfull and subiect to his commanding power wee are bound to obey but with this caueat or prouiso if by obeying we are not like to incurre any probable danger of some great temporall harme for that no Ecclesiasticall law setting aside scandall or contempt which are forbidden by the law of God and nature doth seldome or neuer binde with any great temporall losse as I obserued elsewhere u In Disp Theol. cap. 10. § 2. nu 41. out of the common doctrine of Catholike Diuines Secondly if the Pope perchance commaund a thing which is manifestly vnlawfull then we are bound not to obey according to that saying of S. Peter God must be obeyed â—ather then men Acts cap. 5. 93 Thirdly if it be doubtfull whether the thing which the Pope commandeth be vnlawfull or whether he hath authority to command that thing or no In the discouery of D. Schulckenius caâ—umnies calum 15 nu 12. seq Sot de deteg secret memb 3. q. 2. then as I obserued elsewhere according to the doctrine of many learned Diuines as Sotus Corduba Salon Sayrus and others wee must doe that wherein there is lesse danger according to that approoued maxime Of two euils the lesser is to be chosen But Sotus doth more plainely and distinctly declare the whole matter When the Superiours commandement saith hee is of a thing secure and lawfull where no danger ariseth to the publike good or to a third person in a doubtfull matter we must for the most part obey As for example my Superiour commandeth me to study or to helpe sicke persons which are actions wherein there is no danger although it be doubtfull whether hee may impose such a commandement I must obey yet I added saith he for the most part because I am not alwaies bound to obey in a doubtfull matter as if the thing be ouer burdensome or laborious to the subiect For if my Superiour commaund me a long iourney and a hard or vneasie thing and it is doubtfull whether he hath authoritie to commaund the same I am not bound forthwith to obey And a little beneath the same Sotus as I related his words more at large aboue affirmeth that when it is doubtfull whether the Superiour commandeth that which is lawfull if it be in preiudice of a third person because that third person is in possession of his credit and goods we must incline to that part where there is lesse danger For when such danger doth arise to a third person if the subiect be doubtfull he doth not against obedience if hee demand of his Prelate a reason of his commaundement propounding humbly the reasons of his doubt Thus Sotus And by this the Reader may cleerely vnderstand the true sense and meaning of that vulgar maxime In doubts wee must obey our Superiour and stand to his iudgement 94 And as concerning declaratiue precepts which doe not make the thing which they forbid to be vnlawfull but doe onely declare
no Catholike is bound to admit his Holinesse Breues forbidding Catholikes to take the Oath and to obey his declaratiue commandement contained therein for the reasons signified before which I humbly propounded to his Holinesse desiring him most earnestly as being our chiefe Pastour Teacher and Instructer to giue vs some satisfaction therein yet I cannot therefore in the iudgement of any learned man bee iustly accounted a disobedient childe to his Holinesse seeing that it is euident as I shewed before out of Dominicus Sotus that if a Superiour imposâ— a commandement whereby danger is feared to Religion or to the common-wealth or to a third person as all the world knoweth that the forbidding of the Oath is heere in England preiudiciall to Catholike Religion to his Maiestie and the temporall State and to all his Catholike subiects if the subiect be doubtfull that such a danger will arise he is not bound foorthwith to obey but he may without any disobedience demaund of his Prelate a reason of his commandement propounding humbly the reasons of his doubts 103 Besides Luthers doctrine was within two yeeres condemned not onely in generall words but also his propositions were specified in particular both by Pope Leo himselfe in his particular Bull concerning the same and also by the famous Vniuersities of Paris Louan and Collen But albeit two of my bookes are by a particular decree of the Cardinall forbidden in generall and I commanded vnder paine of Censures to purge my selfe forthwith yet they haue neither expressed any one proposition in particular neither as yet can I get them to name one proposition which is repugnant to faith or good manners although I haue most earnestly requested to know the same protesting from my heart to bee most readie to correct what is to bee corrected to purge what is to bee purged to explaine what is to be explained and to retract what is to bee retracted which their different proceeding against me and Luther doth plainly argue that they haue begun a worke which they cannot with their reputation continue and that there is no such dangerous doctrine contained in my bookes as Cardinall Bellarmine against whom I did chiefly write and who is my accuser Aduersarie and Iudge hath by all likelihood informed them and would gladly to saue his owne credit and that he hath not falsly to his great dishonour accused me and my doctrine of errour heresie and of being no good Catholike would make the world beleeue for which at the day of iudgement hee shall render a strict account And thus you see that this comparison which my indiscreete Aduersarie hath to disgrace me made betwixt me and Luther doth nothing helpe but greatly hurt his cause 104 Now you shall see what a fraudulent and vncharitable obseruation hee gathereth from hence That which I wish saith he z Pag. 121. nu 18. 19. to bee obserued heerein is how little heed is to bee taken to Widdringtons submission of his writings to the Roman Church he should haue saide Catholike Roman Church considering his doctrine and the course he holdeth in the maintaining thereof For as Cicero saide by Epicurus who wrote sometimes very vertuously and thereby deceiued many it is not so much to be considered what hee writeth as what his grounds and principles are and how well his writings agree therewith as for example what opinion he or any other hath or can haue of the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike who purposely impugneth the iurisdiction thereof contradicting as I haue shewed sufficiently in this Reply the ancient and generall practise of the Church the expresse Canons thereof and the Decrees of Popes and Generall Councells vpon an absurd supposition partly of a bare probabilitie in his own doctrine partly of a possibilitie of errour in Decrees touching matters of fact which he is not ashamed to say of the Decree of the famous Oecumenical Councel of Lateran albeit all Catholikes doe vniformely teach that generall Councells lawfully assembled and confirmed by the Pope cannot erre in any generall Decree touching either faith or manners as I haue sufficiently signified before a See chap. 16. nu 11. and 12. Besides that he vseth the very obiections arguments answeres shifts and euasions of heretikes discouering now and then such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade him without great disgust and indignation or can take him for any other then an heretike disguised and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike 105 But to answer the false and fraudulent obseruation or rather shamefull calumniation of this malignant spirit which hee would gladly colour with the luster of a faigned intemperate and Pharisaicall zeale to the Sea Apostolike I may rightly say to him as Saint Paul sayde to Elymas the Magician O plene omnidole omnifallacia Act. 13. c. O full of all guile and of all deceipt c. For to begin with his later wordes I doe not vse any other obiections arguments and answeres then which vertuous and learned Catholikes haued vsed before mee neither doe I discouer any arrogant proude or malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike whom I reuerence and respect with all my heart onely the plaine truth which Catholike Doctours haue said before me and which oftentimes breedeth enmitie I doe modestly reuerently and without any flattery which commonly procureth friends â—â—â—downe And this vncharitable and ignorant man might haue done well to haue named some one particular shift or euation which I haue vsed and which onely heretikes and no Catholikes doe vse or wherein I discouer such an arrogant proud and malicious spirit towards the Sea Apostolike that no zealous Catholike can reade it without disgust and indignation or take me for any other than an heretike disguished and masked vnder the vizard of a Catholike But this is a vsuall tricke of slanderers and backbiters to vse such generall speeches lest if they should descend to particulars their malicious and lying spirit would presently bee discouered 106 Secondly this silly man cannot prooue that any one thing either concerning my doctrine and the grounds and principles thereof or concerning the course which I hold in the maintenance thereof doth not agree with the submission I made of my writings to the censure and iudgement of the Catholike Romane Church For I doe not impugne any authoritie or iurisdiction which the Catholike Romane Church acknowledgeth as due to the Sea Apostolike but I impugne onely the Popes authority to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishment as a thing certaine and necessarily to be belieued or maintained by Catholikes for that the Catholike Church neuer acknowledged this authoritie to be due to him neither was this doctrine in the primitiue Church and for many hundred yeares after by the ancient Fathers so much as dreamed on but it hath been challenged practised by some Popes since the time of P. Gregorie the 7. Res ante ea secula inaudita
S. Iohn Baptist 1614. A most humble Child and Seruant of your Holinesse and of the Holy Sea Apostolike The Authour of the Bookes as aforesaid c. 138 THis is the Purgation humble Supplication which I sent to his Holinesse vpon the Decree and commandement of the Lord Cardinals to purge my selfe forthwith which their Decree if all things be duely considered doth rather confirme strengthen then any way condemne disprooue or weaken any particular doctrine contained in my bookes For can a man with reason imagine that those most Illustrious Cardinalls would not for their honour sake and for satisfaction of the Christian world haue expressed some bad doctrine contained in my bookes but haue forbidden them in such generall words without expressing any one proposition which is in them repugnant to faith or good manners and after such an vnvsuall manner haue commaunded me to purge my selfe foorthwith and that vnder paine of Ecclesiasticall Censures without declaring any crime either in particular or in generall whereof I should purge my selfe if the could haue named any one proposition which they could haue cleerely maintained to be repugnant to the Catholike faith or Christian manners especially seeing that my Theologicall Disputatation as I haue shewed aboue in my Purgation was onely an humble Petition to his Holinesse and a sincere propounding to his Fatherly consideration the great and many difficulties which by occasion of his Breues condemning the Oath as containing in it many things flat contrary to faith and saluation did vexe trouble and perplexe the soules and consciences of his poore afflicted Catholikes earnestly requesting him and in regard of his Pastorall office as it were coniuring him that he would be pleased to satisfie their difficulties and to make knowne to them any one thing in the Oath of those many which by his Breues he had declared to be cleerely repugnant to faith and saluation 139 Now to say as some Priests heere with vs to excuse this strange proceeding of his Holinesse and the Cardinalls doe very indiscreetly and vnlearnedly affirme that it is against the Maiestie of the Court of Rome to giue English Catholikes particular satisfaction in these points and that they must obey with blind obedience and without any further examining of the matter whatsoeuer his Holinesse and the Cardinalls of the Inquisition doe decree and command although it be in preiudice to themselues and to their temporall Prince and State it is alas rather to be pittied then answered For no man of learning or iudgement can make any doubt but that if a spirituall Superiour or Prelate of what dignitie or preheminence soeuer hee bee shall command or forbid any thing which is dangerous to Religion to the Common-wealth or to a third person as all the world seeth the forbidding of English Catholikes to take the new Oath of Allegiance to be heere in England thus dangerous and the subiect is doubtfull whether his prohibition or commandement bee lawfull or proceedeth from lawfull and vndoubted authoritie or no hee is not bound foorthwith to obey but hee may without any note of disobedience propound humbly to his Superiour or Prelate the reasons of his doubt and the causes which mooue him to thinke assuredly that his Superiour or Prelate was misled either by false information or by his owne fallible opinion in imposing such a dangerous command and the Superiour or Prelate and much more if he be the Supreme Pastour of our soules is bound by his Pastorall office to feed all the sheepe of Christs flocke with the word of doctrine and instruction in things necessary to saluation when they shall humbly and earnestly desire to be therein instructed by him to whom the charge of their soules is principally committed by Christ our Sauiour in those words spoken to S. Peter Pasce agos meos Pasce oues meas Feed my lambes Feede my sheepe 140 Seeing therefore that wee haue diuers times most humbly and earnestly requested his Holinesse being the Supreme Pastour of our soules to make knowne to vs any one thing of those many which he in his Breues hath onely in generall words declared to be flat contrary to faith and saluation or any one proposition contained in my bookes which is repugnant to faith or good manners protesting with all sinceritie to purge and retract forthwith whatsoeuer is to be purged and retracted and haue also propounded vnto him most humbly the reasons of our doubts and why we are perswaded that he hath heerein beene misled and drawne to this course either by his owne fallible opinion or by the bad information of Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines most instantly requesting to be satisfied herein and as yet cannot receiue from him any satisfaction at all And which also is very considerable seeing that I haue since that time made knowne to his Holinesse and to all the world by publike writings the manifest slaunders which Cardinall Bellarmine masked vnder the name of Doctour Schulckenius and who also in that Congregation of Cardinals deputed for the examining of bookes is one of the chiefest men and which is more strange both my principall Aduersary Accuser and Iudge hath very falsly imposed vpon me and how shamefully he hath corrupted my words and meaning to prooue me an heretike disguised vnder the faire colourable name of a Catholike and to impeach my doctrine of errour and heresie And besides the discouery of these shamefull calumnies for the which I demaunded iustice at his Holinesse hands I haue also made an other Supplication to his Holinesse most humbly requesting him either to declare vnto vs what one thing in the Oath is repugnant to faith and saluation and what one proposition in my bookes is contrary to faith or good manners or else to cause that Decree of the Cardinalls against my bookes to be reuersed and to account me and other Catholikes not to be disobedient children to the Sea Apostolike for not admitting his Breues which are grounded either vpon such an opinion which no Catholike is bound to follow or vpon the false information of Cardinall Bellarmine and his other Diuines or rather vpon both And considering also that not onely neither Cardinall Bellarmine hath for his credit sake cleared himselfe as yet of those fowle aspersions and crimes wherewith I haue charged him nor his Holinesse hath as yet vouchsafed to giue any fatherly instruction or satisfaction in these our important difficulties and necessarie requests but also the said Cardinalls haue after their former manner condemned that my Supplication onely in generall words without taking notice of the slaunders which Cardinall Bellarmine did falsly impose vpon me or expressing any one proposition contained in that Supplication or in any other my bookes contrary to Catholike doctrine or Christian manners as in that Supplication I desired to know All which things being considered I leaue good Catholike Reader to thy prudent consideration whether this strange proceeding of theirs be not an euident signe to any indifferent man that they can find no one thing in the Oath which is repugnant to faith or saluation nor any one proposition in my bookes contrarie to faith or good manners and that in they haue entred into such an exorbitant vncharitable and iniurious course and also drawne his Holinesse thereunto wherein with their honours they can hardly goe forward and yet rather then they will seeme to goe backeward and acknowledge freely that by the aduise of Cardinall Bellarmine and other Diuines of Rome they haue beene deceiued they will still goe on and care not to haue innocent Catholikes by their vniust proceedings to be accounted heretikes or disobedient children to the Sea Apostolike which in the end will turne to their great shame and dishonour and in the meane time cannot be but very scandalous to Catholike Religion very dishonourable to the Popes Holinesse and themselues very iniurious to English Catholikes and very burdensome to their owne consciences which so many dangers I beseech Almighty God with all my heart that he will inspire them to preuent in time and before it be to late So that it were farre better for the credit of my Aduersaries and of their cause and for the honour of the Sea Apostolike not to vrge any more the Popes Breues against the Oath or the Cardinalls Decree against my bookes but to bury them with perpetuall obliuion vnlesse his Holinesse and the Lord Cardinals of the Inquisition will descend to some particular points which with their reputation and honour they are able to maintaine The same submission * What reasons the State may haue to permit such submissions see aboue in this Chapter from num 110. which I made heretofore of all my writings to the Censure of the Catholike Romane Church I doe heere repeate againe FINIS Errata Page Line Errours Corrected 9 25 euen euer 30 8 soule soules 55 35 with them with him 108 34 the 70. Iudges the Iudges 116 28 Galgatha Galgala 131 1 make may make 144 19 presenting representing 155 36 of Princes of the Princes 170 14 shall beneath shall see beneath 200 31 was grace was not grace 200 36 reigne Ionathan reigne of Ionathan 250 43 nature naturall 286 29 not of malice not malice 286 37 amongst our amongst others our 287 8 pertienent impertinent 330 4 exercied exercised 330 7 as that as at that 347 7 Lawes Lawyers 372 25 selfe who would selfe would 389 17 or for 394 13 no nor 396 2 deserueth both in deserueth in 408 27 vpon to vpon him to 411 37 valued valid 418 37 of of his 435 19 Canonica Canonici 442 3 confuted confirmed 450 19 both them both of them 469 21 for that the for the 477 20 to belieued to be belieued 505 17 lilence licence 508 2 comfort confront 509 27 vncertaine certaine 515 42 dogmatike dogmatize 542 41 Decrees Decree 565 2 propound propounded 572 26 running cunning 576 32 altogeth altogether 584 12 included concluded 585 7 them then 591 15 meat means 591 23 despose depose 596 26 artificall artificiall 596 28 aimeth at in aimeth in 630 19 nud and 636 11 Dhctours Doctours
some speciall lawes might be introduced by the custome of the said nations For as in one Citie or prouince a custome doth bring in a law so also in the vniuersitie of mankind the law of nations might by custome be introduced and especially for that those things which belong to this law are both few and also very neere to the law of nature and haue from it a very easie inference and are so profitable and conuenient to nature it selfe that although it be not an euident inference as of a thing altogether necessary to morall honesty or vertue yet it is very conuenient to nature and of it selfe acceptable to all men 20 Wherefore the opinion of these Authours doth consist in these points The first is that the law of nations doth not onely permit or graunt somethings but also command and forbid by binding vnder sinne for that otherwise the law of nations would not properly be a law neither should a law in generall being taken properly and as it is a rule of reason or of vertue and vice which intrinsecally includeth some precept be well diuided into the law of nature of nations Vasque disp 157. cap. 4. in fine Thom. prim secun q. 95. ar 4. and the Ciuill Law and yet Vasquez himselfe doth affirme that the law of nations was by S. Thomas rightly numbred among humane lawes Besides the law of naure and the Ciuill law doe permit and grant many things and so the law of nature doth grant or permit but not command a man to marry a wife and to keepe and conserue his proper libertie and therefore it is not proper to the law of nations to permit or grant neither ought it by this to be distinguished from other lawes Moreouer if a permissiue or concessiue law in respect of all mankind as liuing in ciuill societie is called the law of nations why may not also a preceptiue or commanding law although it suppose ciuill societie in the same respect be called a law of nations Neither can there be made any doubt but that from ciuill society and from the positiue law of nations yea and from the ciuill law may arise a naturall obligation as for subiects to obey the positiue lawes of their princes for children to honour their parents for married persons to obserue coniugall duetie for seruants in generall to serue their masters e But see aboue cha 6. nu 23. nu 93. seq not to take away by priuate authoritie the goods of another man which hath beene giuen him by the positiue lawes or grants of temporall Princes and many such like all which doe suppose some ciuill society 21 The second is that the Ciuill Lawes and the Diuines doe not speake commonly of the law of nations after the same manner For the Diuines doe commonly call the law of nations that law which is ordained and made by nations and the law of nature they call that which nature it selfe or the prescript of naturall reason without the will and decree of man doth make and ordained But the Ciuill Lawyers doe oftentimes call the law of nature that law or right which is common also to brute beasts the law of nation that law which all men and onely men doe vse although-otherwise it be grounded vpon naturall reason as you may see in ff de iust iure where the law of nature is described to be that which Nature hath taught all sensible creatures and is not onely proper to men but common also to beastes fishes and birds as carnall copulation getting of children and bringing of them vp and the law of nations is described to be that which all Nations doe vse and which is common onely to men among themselues as Religion towards God to obey our Parents and Countrey to defend our selues from wrong and iniurie And therefore as very well obserueth Paradulphus Prateius cited by Salas Salas Disp 2. seq 4. vnlesse one diligently obserue which hath giuen occasion to many men of errour that the law of nations is by the Lawyers sometimes taken for the true law of nature and sometime it is taken for that law which is made and receiued by the greatest part of mankind and doe very well distinguish these two he will neuer come to the true knowledge of the law And therefore Bartholus to auoide this confusion doth distinguish two lawes of nations the one he calleth Ius primarium the first or principall law and this is the very law of nature which he defineth to bee that law which from the very beginning of Nations was introduced by naturall reason without any decree or constitution of Nations and the other he calleth Ius secundarium the lesse principall law of nations which all Nations doe vse by their owne decree or constitution 22 The third is that the law of nations being taken most properly and rigorously is both a positiue law as many Doctours cited by Salas doe hold that is it is a law made and enacted by the positiue constitution of men and not by the prescript of naturall reason Salas disp 2. sec 3. and also that the law of nature which doth containe in it both the knowne principles of nature or naturall reason and also the conclusions which are clearely easily directly deduced from those principles is not properly the law of nations And this also the Emperour Iustinian doth sufficiently confirme f Institut de Iure nat Gent. ciuile who maketh this distinction betwixt the ciuill law the law of nations that whatsoeuer euery particular people or nation doth enact or ordaine that is called the ciuill law as being a law proper to that citie But the law of nations is common to all mankind for that custome and humane necessities so requiring the nations of men haue made to themselues certaine lawes and truely if those lawes were naturall they could not be well said to bee made by men but by nature it selfe or by God the Authour of nature Seeing therefore that the law of nature is not made by men it cannot properly be called the law of nations Whereupon it followeth that it is not for this cause onely called the law of nations for that all nations doe vse it obserue it receiue or admit it as being easily and directly deduced from the very principles of nature but for that they doe vse obserue receiue and admit it as being the Authors and enacters thereof 23 So that as the ciuill law and the law of nature doe take their name or denomination from the Authors or makers thereof so also the law of nations Wherefore the law of nations is that which nations made for themselues and therefore it is a positiue law For all nations as they make one Communitie of mankind haue power to bind euery particular man to those things which are conuenient to all mankind as euery city hath power to bind euery member thereof to those things which are conuenient for that
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
commandement concerning all subiects not to obey their temporall Prince being deposed by the Pope or to rebell and plot conspiracies against him But if by commanding he vnderstand particular decrees and commandements propounded to particular persons Bishops Churches or Kingdomes against any particular Emperours Kings or temporall Princes then I say that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus the Church and much more the Pope may erre and of this sort are the depositions iudiciall sentences and commandements of Pope Gregory the seauenth in a Councell held at Rome against Henrie the fourth Emperor of Pope Innocent the fourth in the presence of the Councell of Lyons against Frederike the second Emperour and all other particular depositions of whatsoeuer Emperours Kings or temporall Princes and in these commandements the Popes were euer resisted and contradicted both by Princes themselues and also by learned and vertuous Catholike subiects as it appeareth euidently not onely by the first depositions of Emperours and Princes but also by the two last of our late Queene Elizabeth and the last King of Fraunce who were obeyed in ciuill matters by their Catholike subiects acknowledged by them to be their true and rightfull Soueraignes notwithstanding the Popes particular declaration sentence and commandement to the contrary as I haue shewed at large concerning our late Queene in the first part and of the King of Fraunce the late troubles and ciuill warres in Fraunce which are yet both fresh in most mens memories and recorded also by Histories are sufficient testimonies 22 Thus thou seest good Reader that neither by this third example of Popes dispensations in vowes whereon not onely my third Instance but also the two former were grounded all which Mr. Fitzherbert hath fraudulently concealed did I impugne the Decree of the Lateran Councell as the silly man to make some shew of confuting them as absurd improbable impertinent fond and ridiculous doth most vntruely affirme neither did I in any one of my examples or Instances make any mention at all of the said Decree seeing that I had before sufficiently answered to this Decree not by impugning but onely by expounding it and by clearely conuincing that according to the probable doctrine of very many learned Catholikes who are of opinion that the Church cannot by her spirituall power inflict temporall punishments it must according to Mr. Fitzherberts owne principles who acknowledgeth that all lawes and decrees whatsoeuer are to be restrained and limited according to the power of the Law-Maker c. be vnderstood of the deposing not of temporall Princes who are not subiect to the authoritie of the Church forasmuch as concerneth meere temporall matters as is the inflicting of temporall punishments for what cause crime or end whatsoeuer they bee inflicted but onely of inferiour Magistrates Land-Lords or Lords by the consent and authority of absolute Princes but that which I intended by my three examples and instances was to shew the weakenesse and insufficiency of Fa. Lessius his three arguments as I haue sufficiently declared before 23 But if I should presse M. Fitzherbert a little further and grant him for Disputation sake which he is not able to prooue to wit that the decree or rather Act of the Lateran Councell is to bee vnderstood of the deposition of temporall Princes yet the silly man would haue much adoe to prooue as also I haue signified before that according to the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine and Canus Cap. 13. nu 7. seq which I haue related aboue it is such a Decree that from thence it can be sufficiently gathered that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith seeing that according to their grounds onely those Decrees and precepts touching faith or manners are infallible and of faith which are generall and vniuersall and belong to the whole Church and all the faithfull and consequently as well Clearkes as Lay-men For onely in this case saith Canus the Councels Canus l. 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. or Fathers are to be vnderstood to pronounce of faith when the sentence or Decree belongeth to all Christians when it bindeth all Therefore the doctrine of Popes and Councells saith hee if it bee propounded to the whole Church if it bee also propounded with an obligation to be beleeued then doth their sentence or Decree concerne a point of faith And concerning Decrees and precepts of manners Canus teacheth the same When the Church saith he in a matter of weight and which is very profitable for the reforming of Christian manners doth make lawes to all the people she cannot command any thing which is contrary to the Gospell or naturall reason but in manners not common to the whole Church but which are referred to priuate men or Churches she may erre through ignorance not only in her iudgement of things done but also in her priuate precepts and lawes Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. 5. And Cardinall Bellarmine also affirmeth that those Decrees or precepts concerning faith or manners wherein the Pope in whom he putteth all the infallibilitie of the Church cannot erre must bee generall and be propounded and belong to all the faithfull 24 Now this Act of the Lateran Councell forasmuch as it concerneth the absoluing of Vassals from their fealtie besides that it is not properly a Decree according to my Aduersaries grounds as I signified before containing in it any precept or obligation vnlesse they will grant the Councell to be aboue the Pope nor also propounded as of faith according to the rules of Cardinal Bellarmine and Canus before related and therefore it cannot according to their doctrine appertaine to faith it is not also a generall Decree and which appertaineth to the whole Church and all the faithfull for it doth not concerne Cleargie men who according to my Aduersaries false scandalous and seditious doctrine are not subiect to temporall Princes nor doe owe to them any temporall allegiance but onely the temporall Vassals of temporall Lords and those not all but of such a Lord onely who for a yeere remaineth excommunicated for neglecting to purge his territories of heresie For those words of the Councell vt ex tunc ipse c. that from that time the Pope may denounce his Vassals absolued from their fealtie can onely bind either the Pope to make that denunciation or that temporall Lord not to exact of his Vassals temporall fealtie or the Vassalls not to giue to that temporall Lord temporall fealty and so it cannot binde Cleargy men who doe not owe any temporall fidelity or obedience to temporal Lords according to my Aduersaries false doctrine nor also all Vassals but onely those of that temporall Lord wherevpon the decree is not generall and belonging to all the faithfull which neuerthelesse is necessary that any decree or precept concerning faith or manners doe appertaine to faith 25 And if perchance my Aduersary will say that it bindeth all
Christians to beleeue that such a temporall Lord is rightly deposed and his temporall Vassals absolued from his obedience Besides that this cannot bee gathered from the words of this Decree it being not propounded as of faith which condition neuerthelesse is necessarie to make any Decree to appertaine to faith as I haue shewed before the same may be said of all particular Decrees precepts sentences depositions dispensations priuiledges and licences which are made or granted by the Pope or Councell and then all those three instances and examples which I brought against Fa. Lessius his arguments are of force for in like manner it may be said that albeit those licences and dispensations doe concerne particular facts and particular persons yet they bind all Christians to beleeue that such Priests for example doe truely and really conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation and that such dispensations are valide and haue effect which how absurd this is it is manifest and my Aduersary here acknowledgeth as much And this I hope may suffice to shew the weakenesse of Fa. Lessius his three arguments and the sufficiency of my three Instances which I opposed against them and the fraud and ignorance of Mr. Fitzherbert in setting downe and confuting the same CHAP. XVI Wherein another argument or rather answere of Widdrington is confirmed and M. Fitzherbert in labouring to prooue that Widdrington by his owne grant is fallen into heresie or errour is conuinced of palbable ignorance and lastly the Conclusion of all Widdringtons discourse in his Preface to his Apologeticall Answere is confirmed and what M. Fitzherhert excepteth against the same and also his briefe Recapitulation of all his Discourse in this his Treatise are confuted 1 AFter I had set downe my three Instances which I brought to confront with the three arguments brought by Fa. Lessius desiring him to satisfie my Instances and promising by his owne answeres to satisfie his obiections I added another answere or if you will call it an argument or instance in these words Finally are not the reasons by which Councells are induced or mooued to define any thing as it were some grounds which are propounded or supposed by them as foundations of their definitions and decrees and neuerthelesse no Diuine as I suppose will affirme that those reasons are to be receiued by Catholikes with the same certainty as the definitions themselues In Councells saith Cardinall Bellarmine Bellar. l. 2. de Conc. cap. 12. the greatest part of the Acts doe not appertaine to faith For neither the Disputations which goe before nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought to explicate and illustrate are of faith See also Canus l. 6. de locis c. 8. but onely the bare Decrees and those not all but those onely which are propounded as of faith 2 These were my words in that Apologeticall Preface which albeit they are so cleere and manifest that no man of any learning can take any iust exception against them especially seeing that I did not apply them in particular to any Decree or Act of Pope or Councell yet Mr. Fitzherbert out of the profoundnesse forsooth of his Diuinitie will prooue them to be absurd and impertinent for so he is pleased to stile the argument of this Chapter Widdringtons absurditie saith he by an other impertinent argument is further discouered But let vs see how well he discouereth this There remaineth now saith Mr. Fitzherbert one argument onely to be examined which Widdrington addeth to his three Instances for the conclusion of the whole reasoning thus in effect that because the reasons which mooue Councells to define and determine any thing are as it were the foundations of their Decrees and yet not so certaine as the Decrees themselues which he confirmeth by the opinion and doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine Vbi supra and Canus therefore the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes whereupon the Canon of the Lateran Councell was grounded is not so certaine but that it may be erroneous and impugned without offence 3 But so shamefull and insupportable is the corrupt dealing of this vnlearned and fraudulent man that in very truth I am halfe ashamed to discouer and lay open the same For first it is too too manifest that I made no such argument in this place as this man faigneth either concerning the Decree of the Lateran Councell or concerning the Popes power to depose Princes whereof here I made no mention at all Neither also did I argue in this ridiculous manner that because the reasons which mooue Councells to define or determine any thing are not so certaine as the decrees themselues therfore they may be impugned without offence As who should say that because there is not promised to Popes such an infallibilitie but that they may erre in their priuate opinions iudgements dispensations licences Censures and Decrees therefore they doe erre in the same and such their opinions dispensations c. may be impugned and denied without offence If Mr. Fitzherbert had said without note of heresie he had said something to the purpose and spoken agreeably to the grounds which I maintaine for what thing soeuer is not of faith may be impugned and denied without note of heresie but to say without offence this is too too shamefull and palpable a falshood 4 As for example although Melchior Canus before related doth affirme that it is not hereticall to hold that the Church may erre in the canonization of Saints for the reason which I there alledged out of him and consequently that he is not to be accounted an heretike or an impugner of the Catholike faith that should therefore say that the Church hath or doth erre in the canonization of such a Saint yet he affirmeth that whosoeuer should say that therefore the Church doth erre in the canonization of such a Saint is a rash and irreligious man and deserueth therefore to bee punished by the Church So likewise although it be certaine that temporall Princes and common-wealths may erre in making temporall lawes through ignorance inconsideration or some intemperate affection and that therefore he is not to be reputed an heretike who should rashly and without sufficient ground affirme that they haue and doe erre in making such temporall lawes yet it is also certaine that what subiect soeuer should rashly affirme that his temporall Prince hath erred in making such or such a law and that such or such lawes are vniust is worthily accounted an impious scandalous and turbulent person and deserueth therefore to be punished by the State So as you see how many grosse falshoods this man hath imposed vpon mee in so few lines 5 Wherefore all the argument I made heere was as you haue seene onely this The reasons ends and motiues for which Councells are moued or induced to make definitions and decrees are not alwayes so certaine and infallible as the definitions or Decrees themselues but such reasons ends and motiues are propounded by