haue saied of the knowen respect the Kings of England euer before bare to the Pope and the Apostolicall Sea 14. Seuenthlis I prooue this by the ancient Ceremonies of kissing the Popes feete and other Homage which no good Christian though a King or Emperour hath euer disdained fulfilling therein the prophecie of Esay Quam speciosi pedes Euangelizantis pacem How beautifull are the feet of him that Euangelizeth and preacheth peace Esay 52. And following therin the example of the three Kinges Matt. 2. who adored Christ and of the prime Christians who brought the price of their Lands to the feet of the Apostles Act. 4. 5. Act. 10. Phocius in Nomo con Cap. Constantinus dist 96. Naucler lib. 2. gener 18. Blond li. 10. Mart. Polonus Platina in Steph. 2. S. Ansel Luc li. 1. Collecta Plat. in Adria 1. Baro. to 12. anno 1130. Platina in Eugenio IV. and of Cornelius that fell at Peeters feet CONSTANTINE the Great Greater for his humilitie then for the greatnes of his victories and Emperie honoured the Pope as his Pastour and superiour and bestowed great temporall honour and Regalities vpon him IVSTINIAN the Great in the yeare 535. adored AGAPETVS Pope IVSTINIAN the second crouching to Pope CONSTANTINES the first feete embraced him King PIPIN going to meete Pope STEEVEN who was going to him into France for helpe kissed his feet and ledd his horse by the bridle into the Court and pallace CHARLES the Great would not be hindred by Pope ADRIAN the first from kissing his feet as Platina writeth LEWIS King of France and HENRIE the second King of England kissed humblie the feet of INNOCENT the second SIGISMVND the Emperour in the Councell of Constance worshipped Pope MARTIN prostrate vpon the ground ALBERT Emperour of the West and IOANNES PALEOLOGVS Emperour of the East vsed the same submission to EVGENIVS the fourth in the Councell of Florence 15. By this which hath bene said who is of so little insight that seeth not how Princes are and ought to be subiect vnto the chiefe Bishop and highest visible Pastour of the Church which if Princes also could see as their conceipt of their owne Authoritie many times hindreth them from seeing they would not encroach vpon the Church as they doe they would not contemne her lawes but honour them as Oracles they would not despise the Churches Pastours but would as the auncient Christian Princes were wont to do honour them aboue all terrene Potentates 16. And would to God our noble soueraigne King IAMES had bene trained vp in the schoole of Christs Catholike Church in which our ancient Kings his Predecessours learned their dutie towards the Pope that rare and deepe iudgement of his would neuer haue permitted him to thinke a Temporall King as great as the Pope In praf monitor pag. 5. to whom his Predecessours subiected their persons Kingdomes Crowns and Scepters it would neuer haue sunke into his learned head that the Pope should be Antichrist and consequentlie all his Predecessours the Kings of England yea of Christendome so wise so pious so warlike so victorious worshippers and fauourers of Antichrist he would neuer haue incited the Emperour and Christian Princcs In praef monitor to curbe him restraine him and to diminish that his Authoritie which not they but Christ gaue him by which he hath put the crowne vpon many an Emperour and Kings head by which all Christian Kinges and their Kingdomes haue bene maintayned in Religion wealth and prosperitie against which Authoritie no temporall stares haue long preuailed but like waues against the Rocke by persecuting it haue wasted and ruined them selues which Authoritie was not giuen him ex prima intentione to take away temporall Kingdomes from any vnlesse by euill comportement they make them selues vnworthie of all rule and humane societie but rather to conserue them and to adde vnto them a new Crowne and Kingdome of Heauen for non eripit mortalia qui regna dat Coelestia he that giueth to man heauenlie thinges goeth not about to take away from him those that be earthlie Imploie then ô noble soueraine your rare witt power and force to defend and protect this Authoritie not to impugne it shew your self worthie that Title of a Defendour of the faith which was giuen to your Predecessours by the Sea Apostolick not for impugning but for defending her faith and Authoritie Seeke not to sacke and rase that Citie which is built vpon a Rocke Thinke not to preuaile against that Church against which all the persecutions schismes and heresies that haue beene raised against her no nor the forces or gates of Hell could hetherto or shall euer here after preuaile Seeke not to sinke the shippe which PETER ruleth and at whose sterne CHRIST him self sitteth It may be by Gods permission tossed with windes waues and Tempests but it can neuer be drowned for as Pope GREGORIE the ninthe once tould an Emperour that thought by humane force and policie to sincke her Cuspinianus in Frederice Niteris incassum nauem submergere PETRI Fluctuat at nunquam mergitur illa ratis Thou striu'st in vaine S. PEETERS ship to sinke Floate may it well to drown it neuer thinke CHAPTER VI. That Princes Kings yea Emperours haue no authority to gouerne the Church or to make Ecclesiasticall lawes neither to be accounted heads or Superiours but subiects of the Church though protectours and defendours and therefore are modestly admonished of their duty and office 1. ALmightie God as he hath instituted two powers terrene and spirituall Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall and hath distinguished them in Natures obiects functions ends so to auoid confusion he hath placed them in diuers subiects The terrene power he hath giuen to Princes and Magistrates the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall to Priests Prelats and Pastours as aboue we haue seene For although there be no such naturall repugnancie but that these powers may consort in one Ep. 126. ad Euag. and the selfe same person for as S. HIEROME sayth in the law of Nature the first begotten of euerie familie were Priests and Temporall Lords Melchisedech also and Moyses and the Machabâ—et were Priests and Princes yet it is most conuenient that these two powers should be separated the King and Prince by reason of his warres and Temporall Affaires wherwith he is intangled being not so apt to menage matters of the Church and Religion the Prelate and Pastour being by office obliged to attend to diuine matters from which the menaging of common wealthes affaires would much distract him And therfore as the Church came to greater perfection Num. 27. so were these offices giuen to distinct officers For IOSVE was made Captaine and Commander in Temporall things 2. Paralip 19. ELEAZAR was the High Priest and chiefe in matters of the Church AMARIAS the High Priest commanded in his quae ad Deum pertinent in matters pertaining to God and ZABADIAS was deputed to the gouernment of those thinges that
Church but by the Magistrate I must tell him that if the Magistrate may punish Hereticks much more may the Church because the Magistrate and Prince as he is not to iudge which is heresie so it pertaines not to him to punish Hereticks Vide Suarâ—z lib. 4. de legibus cap. 11. heresie being a crime which pertaineth to the Ecclesiasticall not to the Temporall Court and therfore that Princes by their lawes do decree punishments against hereticks they do it by commission from the Church which is the cause why the Church first deliuereth them vp to secular power whence followeth that the Church who giueth Authoritie to Princes to punish Hereticks may do it her selfe when they are wanting in their office which also all the Arguments alleadged do conuince And Widdrington cannot denie Ca. ad ab solendum cap. vergentis c. ExcoÌ„municamus ca. fin de haereticis 15. q. 6. ca. not Sanctorum that the Church doth deliuer vp Hereticks to secular power which is a temporall punishment as also that she casteth them into prison confifcateth their goods makes them infamous vncapable of new secular offices and of the right and lawfull execution of the olde makes them vnable to make their last will or to succeed by Testament yea and that by her decrees they be excommunicated and consequentlie depriued of all Ciuill societie which are in like sort Temporall punishments Moreouer it cannot be denied but that the Councell of Trent sess 25. cap. 3. Commaundeth Ecclesiastical iudges not to vse Censures but when there is vrgent cause and in lieu therof to condemne malefactours to pecuniarie mulctes 3. And if the Church can thus punish ordinarie Christians temporallie she may inflict Temporall punishments vpon Kinges because although Kings as Kings are superiours to their subiectes yet as Christians and Christian Kinges also they are as subiect to the Church as others because as aboue I haue declared the reasoÌ„ why other Christians are subiect to the Church and her visible Head and Pastour is because they are incorporated to the Church and made members therof by baptisme and consequentlie subiect to the whole bodie and head but Kinges and Emperours are as well incorporated as other Christians being as well baptized and signed with as good and as vndefaceable a caracter of baptisme ergo they are as subiect And then say I If they be as subiect they may by the Churches authoritie be punished aswell as others and not only spirituallie but also temporallie as others may if once it be graunted that hereticall and rebellious Princes may be punished by the Chiefe Pastour by lesser penalties as coÌ„fiscations of goods infamie exile such like punishments which are inflicted on all obstinate hereticks then I shall easilie inferre that they may by the Church be depriued also of their Kingdomes that depriuation being a temporall punishment so of the same order with the others And though it be greater then many others yet why may it not be inflicted for an enormious rebellion or iniurie against the Church This I say to prooue that Princes by the Church may be punished temporallie though the Church alwayes beareth and ought to beare that respect to Princes that she will not vse teÌ„porall punishmeÌ„ts against Princes no nor any punishment at all but only when holsome admonition will not serue and the Church is much interessed CHAPTER XI The same power of the Pope ouer Princes is prooued by authority of Generall Councells out of which are gathered for the same authority euident and conuincing arguments 1. THe Authoritie of a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope quoad nos in respect of vs to whom a Councell is better knowen then Scripture though in it selfe not of so great credit as Scripture is the greatest in earth and vnder the cope of Heauen For if a Councell especiallie Generall confirmed by the Chiefe Pastour Act. 15. notwithstanding that it representeth the whole Church containeth all the Chiefe Pastours of the Church and hath in it assembled all the learning wisdome Authoritie and sanctitie yea the holy Ghost for directour may erre who cannot erre And after such Authoritie reiected whome shall we finde of greater Authoritie for interpreting Scripture deciding controuersies clearing doubts and difficulties and enacting holsome lawes Mat. 18. Christs bids vs holde him for no better then an Ethnike and Publican who will not heare the Church and where or when doth the Church more expreslie deliuer her mind or teach with more Authoritie or command with more right to be obeyed then in a Generall Councell â—â—au 14. 16. And if in any place or coÌ„munitie the holie Ghost presideth as certes Christ promised his Holy spirit to his Church and the Apostles and their Successours no doubt in a Generall Councell he teacheth all veritie Act. 15. Hence it is that S. PETER and the Councell holden at Hierusalem sayth Visum est spiritui sancto nobis 1. Tim. 3. It hath seemed good to the Holie Ghost and vs. And if the Church be euer the Pillar of truth it is in a Generall Councell If euer Christ fulfilleth his promise to be there where two or three are gathered together in his name Athan. in epist de Synodie Arim. Seleue. he fulfilleth it in a Generall Councell Wherefore ATHANASIVS calleth the decree of the Councell of NICE Sententiam Apostolicam An Apostolicall sentence and in another place he marueiles how any dare make any doubte Epist ad Epict. Ambros li. 5. epist 32. Aug. ep 162. 118. or moue any question concerning any matters decided in that Councell S. AMBROSE did giue such credit to it that he sayd neither death nor sword should separate him from that Authoritie S. AVGVSTINE calleth the sentence of a Generall Councell the last sentence from which is no appeale and saith that the Authoritie of Councels in the Church is saluberrima most holesome Ciril in dial 1. S. CIRILL of Alexandria calles a Generall Councell Basim immobile fundameÌ„tum Gregor epist 28. A ground and immoueable foundation S. GREGORIE the Great honoured the foure first Generall Councels to which the Councell of Trent is equall in Authoritie coÌ„sisting of as lawfull Bishops as the foure Ghospelles to wit for their infallibilitie This I thought good to premise because Widdrington and others seeme not to giue that respect to Councels as the Authoritie of them requireth Let vs now see what the Councels say of this matter in hand and then let me see the face that dareth face out so great Authoritie 2. And first let vs see what the Generall CouÌ„cell of LateraÌ„ held in the yeare of our Lord 1215. vnder INNOCENTIVS the third determineth in this matter Surius praefat in hoc Conc. Platina in Innocentie 3. No man sayth Laurentius Surius in his Preface to this Councell can doubt of the Authoritie and generalitie of this Councell because in it were handled matters of ReligioÌ„ determined
also with great consent both of the Latin and Greeke Church and in it were present the Patriatches of Constant inopole and Hierusalem in their proper persons the Patriatches of Alexandria and Antioche by their Legates Archbishops Latin and Greeke 70. Bishops 412. Abbots and Priours aboue 800. the totall number of all the Prelares were at least 1215. The Legates also of the Greeke and Romane Emperours of the Kinges of Hierusalem France Spaine England and other Princes were present with the rest This Councell then called the Great for the number of Prelates in the Third Chapter after excommunication pronounced against Hereticks admonisheth secular powers and commandeth them to purge their countries from Heretikes and to promise the same by oath then the Councell addeth Si verò Dominus temporalis c. Council Later sub Innoc 111. cap. 3. But if the Temporall Lord being required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his land or Territorie from hereticall lewdnesse let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitane and the rest of his Comprouinciall Bishops And if he contemne to satisfie within a yeare let this his contempt be signified to the Chiefe Bishop the Pope that from that tyme he the Pope may denounce his vasalles freed from all fidelitie vnto him and may expose his land to be possessed by Catholiks who heretickes being exterminated may possesse it without any contradiction and conserue it in puritie of faith without preiudice to the Principall Lords so that he put no obstacle nor impediment the same law notwithstanding obserued concerning those who haue not Principall Lords This Councell I suppose to be of sufficient Authoritie for it was Generall and in number of Prelates and Bishops surpassed the first Councell of NICE by many It was of as great Authoritie as any Councell can be because the Authoritie to make lawes and to decide controuersies dependeth not of the sanctitie but only of the lawfulnes of the Pastours and seing that these Pastours could say as much for their ordination and vocation as the Fathers of the Councell of NICE could it must needs follow that this Councell as are also all lawfull Generall Councels was of as great Authoritie as was that of NICE which our Soueraigne Liege King IAMES admitteth with the other first three Generall Councels In prâ—f monit pag. 37. and consequentlie cannot reiect this which is of the same Authoritie To say that the Pope speaketh onlie of them who are subiect temporally to his Temporall Authoritie which he hath in Italie were ridiculous because the wordes are Generall and if they were restrained to Italie the decree could haue had little force To say that absolute Princes are not comprehended in this decree but onlie inferiour Princes who holde feudum Regale of them is absurd for a little before this alleaged decree the CouÌ„cell ordained that seculares potestates secular powers must take an oath to expell hereticks out of their countries which wordes secular powers agree to absolute Kings and Emperours else when S. PAVL commaunded that euerie soule be subiect to higher powers potestatibus sublimiâ—ribus Rom. 13. Kinges and Emperours must be excepted because they goe not vnder the name of Powers And immediatly after this admonition the Councell addeth the alleaged decree Si verò Dominus Temporalis c. But of the Temporall Lord c. Where she calleth the same Dominos Temporales Temporall Lords whom before she called Potestates saeculares Secular powers And are not Kings and Emperours Domini Temporales Temporall Lords yea and principallie and more properlie to be called so then those Princes that holde of others If Widdrington would denie this Title to our King he would be counted a Traytour And what can they alleage against those others so expresse wordes eâdem nihilominus lege seruatâ circa eos qui non habent dominos principales the same law not withstanding obserued concerning those who haue not principall Lords In which words euen Kinges and Emperours are comprehended for they especially haue no Temporall Lords 3. But let Widdrington vnderstand by secular powers and Temporall Lordes whome he will as certes he spendeth many wordes to shew that by Temporall and principall Lordes absolute Princes are not vnderstoode if the Pope coulde make a decree of deposition against inferiour Princes why not against supreame Princes they in that they are Christians being as subiect to the Church and her Chiefe Pastour as other Christians of inferiour degree Widdr. in discussione discussionâ—s Decreti Concil Lat. sec 5. a. n. 3. Widdrington answereth that the Pope and Generall Councell may make a decree of deposition against inferiour magistrates or Lotdes by consent and Authoritie giuen them by Soueraigne Princes but he can not make a decree of deposition against supreame Princes because they neuer consented neuer gaue him Authoritie against them selues Idem sec 5. nu 15. Hence Widdrington sayth also that all temporall mulctes and punishmentes which the Church decreeth shee decreeth by authoritie giuen her from Princes and that therfore in such penall lawes Christians may refuse to obey till they know that the Prince gaue the Pope and Councell such Authoritie yea that in these lawes they may appeale from Pope or Generall Councell to the Princes But as in other thinges Widdrington to holde vp the cause whose defence he hath vndertaken is forced to helpe him selfe with the worst opinions and to seeke authoritie from the obscurest Authours and these of the least credit So dealeth he in this for he is not ignorant that whatsoeuer some one or two Authours may say that all the current of Diuines mislike them in this and counte it straunge yea and absurde to say that all the penall lawes of the Church which prescribe Temporall mulctes related in the Canon law and in Councelles should haue theire force not from the Councelles and Pastours but from Kinges and Princes For although they confesse that Princes gaue to the Pope his Temporall Demaines and consequentlie Temporall and princelie Authoritie within the limites of the same yet in what meeting of Princes in what Councell did euer Princes conspire to giue the Pope Temporall Authoritie through out the whole Church And in the last Generall Councell of Trent in which diuerse Temporall penalties are decreed what mention is there of the Princes donation of Authoritie to the Councell Princes and Emperours by them selues or their Legates are present at the Councell to protect the Fathers to assist them for execution of theire lawes but that they euer gaue authoritie to the Councell to enact any Temporall law or that the Fathers of the Councell and the Chiefe Pastour of the Church demaunded licence and Authoritie of the Emperour or Princes to make such lawes who euer read who euer heard And why could not the Princes why would not they them selues enact such lawes in their owne name as sometimes they haue don against Heretickes that being a thinge more honourable for them and
examples of the ould and nevv testament it is prooued that the Pope in some case can not only by spirituall censure but also by temporall punishment and euen by depriuation chastice Princes who are rebellious and doe tyrannically persecute and molest the church chap. 8. By Theologicall arguments grounded in principles of faith and the Nature of the church as it is an absolute common wealth the same power of the Supreame Pastour is prooued chap. 9. The same verity is confirmed by the practise of the Church in punnishing heretickes temporally with losse of goods liberty and liues chap. 10. The same power of the Pope ouer Princes is prooued by authority of Generall Councelles out of which are gathered for the same authority â—uident and conuincing arguments chap. 11. By the facts of the holy and learned Bishops of Rome especially Gregorie the seauenth the same power is confirmed chap. 12. By the number of Doctours who haue embraced the opinion that giueth this power to the Pope the same doctrine is prooued betwixt the number grauity and authority of which Doctours and those who staÌ„d for VViddringtons opinion there is no comparison to be made chap. 13. By the doctrine and practise of heretikes the same against them is demonstrated and thence is inferred that the questioÌ„ betwixt vs and them is not so much whether the Pope hath any such authority as whether the Pope or they haue it chap. 14. An explication of the late Oath of pretended Alleageance and of euery clause therof deduced out of the former and some other grounds by which is prooued that it can neither be proposed nor taken without grieuous offence of Almighty God Chap. 15. THE RIGHT AND IVRISDICTION OF THE PRELATE and the PRINCE CHAPTER I. BY WAY OF INTRODVCTION IT IS shewed that there be two powers in the Church the one Ciuill the other Ecclesiasticall which are both necessarie ALMIGHTY God in the first creation of this materiall world Gen. 1. prouided two great lightes to illuminate rule and gouerne it the one he called luminare maius the other luminare minus we commonly call them the SuÌ„ne Moone And no sooner had he created as it were the spirituall world of his Church but he appointed also two great lightes to gouerne it and direct it to the end prefixed The one is the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church residing in her Bishops and Pastours the other is the Temporall power of the CoÌ„mon wealth Magistrate or Prince Both powers are great in their kind both of God both as necessary to humane societie as the SuÌ„ne and Moone to this world Gelas ep ad â—mp Anastas VVherfore GELASIVS Pope saith Duo sunt Imperator Auguste quibus hic muÌ„dus principaliter regitur Autoritas sacra PomificuÌ„ Innoc. 3. Cap. Solitae de maior obed Regalis potestas Two thinges there are O noble Emperour by which this world is principallie gouerned the sacred Authoritie of Bishops and Regal power And Innocentius the Third vsing the former similitude saieth Ad firmamentum Coeli hoc est vniuersalis Ecclesiae fecit Deus duo magna luminaria id est duas instituit dignitates quae sunt Pontificalis Authoritas Regalis Potestas For the FirmameÌ„t of Heauen that is of the vniuersal Church God made two great lights that is he instituted two Dignities which are Pentifical Authoritie and Regal power But because the world now adaies aboundeth and as it were swarmeth with those kind of men whoÌ„ the Apostle calleth Animales homines 1. Cor. 2. quinoÌ„ sapiunt ea quae sunt spiritus sensual men who perceaue not those thinges that are of the spirit of God and therfore preferre the body before the soule this present life before the future time in which they are to liue but for a time before eternitie in which they are to liue eternally and consequently esteeme more of state then of Religion of the Common wealth then the Church and of the Temporall power of Princes then of the spirituall authoritie of Pastours I will by cleare and euident arguments so establish both that I will also sincerely deliuer which of them hath the preeminence and precedence For they who seeke to depriue vs of either of these powers do as if they would take from the world the Sunne or the Moone as though both were not necessary and they who do so admire the Temporall power and dignitie that they debase and misprise the spirituall though that indeede ruleth only the night of TeÌ„porall affaires this the day of the spirituall state are like vnto Owles who are so pleased with the Moone light that they could be contented there were no Sunne at all CHAPTER II. Some Ciuill power floweth immediatly froÌ„ God and nature Regali power proceedeth immediatly from the peoples election and donatioÌ„ mediatly from Gods ordination so that after the election of the people and reception the King is superiour who may command and binde in conscience the people are subiects and bound to obey 1. MAn by a naturall propension which God and Nature hath ingraffed in him desireth to consorte in companie and is prone to frieÌ„dship fellowship and societie And therfore Aristoâ—le saieth that Arist l. 1 Polit. ca. 2. Ciuitas est ex his quae natura sum The citie is one of those things which haue their source from nature and that homo natura ciuile est animal Man by nature is a ciuill liuinge creature And he addeth Ibidem Qui absque ciuitate est per naturam non per fortunam aut nequam est aut potior quam homo He that liueth out of the citie induced therto by inclination of nature not by fortuâ—e is either wicked orbâ—tter then man Ibidem Yea saith he Qui in coÌ„mum societate nequiâ— esse quique nullim indiget propter sufficientiam nulla pars est â—iuitatis quare aut Bestia aut Deus He that can not liue in common societie and needeth no mans hâ—lp by reason that he is sufficient of him selfe is no part of the Citie VVherfore he is either a beast or a God And thence he concludeth that Homo est sociale animal magis quà m Apes quà m omne gregariuÌ„ animal Man is a liuing creature more sociable theÌ„ bees or any consorting liuing creature And we see by experience how all reasonable and liuing Creatures desire societie The Angelles although they haue no familiar conuersation with meÌ„ as being aboue the raÌ„ke of men needing no humane helpe yet they haue Hierarchies and Orders rule and gouernment amongst them selues and the superiour illuminateth the inferiour and all of them speake and confer with one another and in this maÌ„ner they liue together which argueth a societie 〈◊〉 and though they conuerse not visibly and familiarly With vs yet for the charitie they beare vnto vs and for the neede we haue of theÌ„ some of them are our ordinary Guardians others are extraordinary Embassadours sent on diuine messages
l. 3. Pol. ca. 5. there are three parttcular Kinds of gouernment The first is called Monarchia when one as King and Monarch gouerneth The second is called Aristocratia when diuers but few and those of the better sort equall in Authoritie do rule The third is called Democratia when many and those of the Common people rule The first gouernmēt of it selfe is best because it is easier to finde one good and wise man then few much more hard to find many and it is easier for many to obey one then many for to obey many there are two difficulties the one in those that obey and that difficultie is also found in a Monarchie the second in the commanders and this is lesse in a Monarchie then in other gouernments because one can better agree then many and so when one commandeth it is easier for the subiects to agree in one then when many command Vide Bellar li. 1. de Sum. Pont. c. 2 And hence it is that Tyrannie which is opposit to Monarchie is not so bad as Faction opposed to Aristocratie nor Faction of a few so bad as Sedition of the people opposite to Democratie 7. Now therefore as the Communitie as is before declared hath power to gouerne it selfe so hath it power to choose that gouernment which it liketh best whether it be one of the former three simple gouernments or some other mixt of two or of all three of them And if the Communitie chooseth Magistrates who shall depend of the whole Communitie then the Communitie is the chiefe gouernour the Magistrates are but officers and ministers and so may be deposed by the people some times at pleasure some tymes only vpon some vrgent occasion and alwayes when the chiefe Magistrate dyeth his heyres succeed not necessarily but only they whom the people make choise of This gouernment was amongest the Romanes when they were gouerned by Plebiscita and Senatours and is this day to be seene in the Common VVealth of the Venetians the Geneuians and those of Genua If the Communitie make choise of a King then the Communitie despoileth it self of Authoritie and becometh a subiect and as it were a priuate person and giueth all power and Authoritie to the King to gouerne not principallie for his owne priuate but for the common good of the whole Kingdome And hence it is that the Common wealth cannot depose a King as it may a Magistrate vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie 8. Hence appeareth a great difference betwixt the afore said power of the Communitie and the Regall power of the King because the former power of the Communitie followeth of necessitie the lawfull meeting of many in one societie in so much that it is not in the peoples power to meet with intention to liue together and not to haue that power and so this power dependeth not of any election but that the King or Peeres or the Magistrate rule and gouerne depended at the first of the election and free choise of the people in whose power it was to choose one or many to gouerne the rest and so Kinglie power is in deede of God but by meanes of election It is of God because it proceeded from the Communities power which is of God and Nature necessarilie following the naturall inclination which God hath imprinted in vs to liue in societie and yet it is in the King by free election because though the Communitie haue authoritie from God and Nature to rule it self yet that this power is giuen to the determinate person of the King dependeth of the peoples election 9. Now some thinke that supposing the peoples election God immediatelie giueth the power VVid. in Apolog. Rosp nu 163. pag. 128. This is the opinion of WIDDRINGRON in his Apologetical Answere for the right of Princes where he affirmeth that Quicunque in supremum Reipublicae superiorem legitimè deputatur c. VVhosoeuer is lawfully deputed as soueraigne Superiour of the common VVealth although he receaue that dedeputation or Title of power by the free consent of of men yet the totall power of ruling God onlie giueth vnto him by the law of Nature But VViddringron should haue marked that the people and Cōmunitie from which lawfullie assembled necessarilie floweth as aboue we haue seene a power to gouerne it selfe and to appoint gouernours not onlie designeth the person of the King but also trāsferreth her authoritie frō her selfe to the King and becometh herselfe a subiect and as it were a priuat person So that the Cōmunitie not onlie designeth the person of the King but also despoiling het selfe of the power she had from God and Nature giueth it vnto the person chosen and designed by her for King D. The. 2.2 qu. 10. a. 10. And thersore S. Thom. sayth that Dominion and prelacie Ciuill are brought in by humane lawe 10. VVhorein may be seene a manifest difference also betwixt the Pope and the King For the Cardinalles When they choose one of their companie to be Pope designe onlie his person as Caietan well obserueth but Christ only Caiet in opusc de Pont◠and not the Cardinalles after this deputation of his person giueth the power and iurisdiction it being supernatural as not only the end to which it is ordayned but also the Actes and functions of this iurisdiction doe manifestlie declare and therfore seing that a supernaturall Iurisdiction surpasseth the actiuitie of the Cardinalles they being but morall Agents and vsing no sacrament in the election and creation of the Pope he being ordinarilie Priest and Bishop before this Autoritie must be attributed only to God as the Authour but the Kings authority is naturall and morall ordayned only of it self to natural functions and to a natural end which is temporall peace and felicitie and so it not exceeding the Actiuitie of the people or Communities power may and is giuen by the people and consequentlie not only the deputation of the Kinges person but also his Regall Authoritie proceedeth immediately from the people 11. VVhence also may be gathered a difference betwixt the Authoritie which was in the Communitie before it made choise of a King and the Authoritie of a King for that Authoritie of the Communitie is immediately of God Nature proceeding necessarilie from a Communitie lawfullie assembled in somuch that it is not in the power of the Communitie to be without this power vnles it giue it to one or many gouernours but the Authoritie of the King doth not necessarilie flowe from this Communitie because it is in the free choise of the Communitie to make election of that gouernment in particular which it shall thinke best and so if it make election of a Monarchical gouernment and consequentlie of the King the King is to thanke the Communitie not only for the deputation of his person but also for his Regal Authoritie which being a naturall power and being before contained eminenter or virtualiter eminentlie or virtuallie in the Communities
with his owne bloud But neither he nor any Apostle euer gaue that charge to Princes Fiftelie they differ in the cause efficient for the Ciuill and Temporall Power proceeds from God and Nature by meanes of the peoples election as is in the former Chapter declared but the spirituall power of the Church as it implieth Potestatem ordinis Iurisdictionis in foro interiori is from God immediatelie it being supernaturall and exceeding humane power And although the Ecclesiasticall humane power which inferiour Prelates haue proceeded from superiour Prelates especiallie the Pope yet not from the Prince or Common wealth but from the Pastours and Church So that as the Pope Priests and Church doe willinglie acknowledge the temporall and ciuill power of the Prince Magistrates and Common wealth or Kingdome so the Prince Magistrates and Common wealth must be content to recognize a spirituall power of the Pope Bishops Priests and Church to which obedience is due euen of Princes who are subiect to the Church no lesse then are temporall subiectes to the Prince yea rather more 7. This power all true Christians and Catholickes acknowledge none but Heretickes and Infidels deny The Waldenses Guido Carmel in har VVald Turrecr l. 4. SuÌ„ma de Eccl c. 35. CoÌ„c Const sess 8. et 15. a. 14 Luth. a. 27. Dan in Bulla Leon. 10 Cal l. 4. Inst ca. 20 n. 6. 7. as witnesse Guido and Turrecremata as also VVicleph and Hus as the Councell of Constance relateth denyed all Ecclesiasticall power and sayed that Popes and Bishops Decrees and Canons did not bynd any The same is Luthers opinion Caluin affirmeth that neither the Pope nor his mitred Caluin sayeth horned Bishops can bynde mens Consciences by their decrees and ordinances and that for two causes First because they are no true Bishops which yet neither he nor all his secte could euer prooue Secondlie because though they were true Bishops yet they are not legislatours or lawmakers that Tytle agreeing only to Christ only he and his graunt that they may inculcate Gods lawes but make no newe 8. Well it is knowen that is was alwaies the manner of Heretickes to contemne all Ecclesiasticall Authoritie because it condemned them But as I haue alleaged proofes in the former Chapter for Ciuill power of Princes so can I not want argumentes for the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power when Christ promised PETER that he should be the foundation and head of the Church he promised this power in and ouer the Church Mat. 16. for if PETER be head of the Church he can rule the mysticall bodie and if he can rule the same then can he also make Ecclesiasticall lawes for that is belonging to a superiour of euerie great and perfect communitie as is before shewed Secondlie Christ gaue this power to PETER when after his Resurrection he saied Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe Ioan. 21. For the office of a Pastour may be gathered by the office of a shepheard who is to gouerne his sheepe to feede them and to defend them from the wolfe and so a spirituall shepheard and Pastour must haue authoritie to rule by lawes to feede by preaching and Sacraments and to defend by censures and his Pastorall staffe and coerciue power Eph. 4. VVhereupon Saint Paul saith that Christ hath giuen to his Church not only Doctours and Prophetes to teach but also Pastours to feede and gouerne And seing that the Church hath as much neede now of a supreame visible Pastour and rather more then at the beginninge it followeth that PETER hath a successour who hath the like Authoritie And seing that all Fathers all Councelles all histories all practise of the Church possession and prescription for 1600. yeares stande for the Pope of Rome he is this successour and he it is that hath the supreame Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power after Christ Thirdlie Mat. 18. Christ commandeth to obey the Church and saith That he that will not giue eare to the Church is to be accounted as an Ethnike and Publican which is a signe that the Church hath Authoritie and Iurisdiction to heare causes and to pronounce sentences to which obedience is to be giuen Fourthlie not withstanding that in the old law of Moyses God determined almost all by him self by his morall iudiciall and ceremoniall lawes yet he gaue power to the Synagogue and her Pastours to interprete the law to resolue doubtes concerning the law and to enact some lawes as occasion was offred And therefore we see with what seueritie God commanded obedience to the Priests saying Deut. 17 Si difficile â—mbiguum c. If thou perceaue that the Iudgement with thee be hard and doubtfull betweene bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie and leprosie and thou â—â—e that the wordes of the Iudges within thy gate do â—arie arise and ge vp to the place which our Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke and to the Iudge that shall be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall thew thee the truthe of the Iudgement And thou shalt do what soeuer they that are Presidents of the place which our Lord shall choose shall say and teach thee according to his law and thou shalt follow the sentence c. And he that shal be prooued 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 the euill out of Israel and the whole people shall feare that none asterward swell with pride By which we see that the Highe Priest had Power not only directiue but also coerciue vnder paine of death And we read how the victorie of Iudith ouer Holofernes was celebrated by the Iewes with commandement of a holie daye Iudith vlt. which law was merelie Ecclesiasticall made by the Priests and was not commanded by God his law The like festiuall day was decreed by Mardocheus and receaued by the Iewes in memorie of their deliuerie from Amans tyrannie by meanes of Hester Hester 9. which also was no diuine but an humane and Ecclesiasticall law Likewise the Machabees instituted the feast of the Dedication 1. Mach. 4. Ioan. 10. which Christ afterwards obserued with the rest of the Iewes and yet this was not commanded by God his law Againe Christ commandeth to do that which they who sitt in Moyses Chaire doe saie Mat. 23. but not alwaies what they doe much more would he haue vs to do that Lib. 4. Inst cap. 20. n. 21. Act. 15. which they who sitt in Saint Peters yea Christs seate do command And we read in the Actes which Caluin well saw but glosseth vntowardlie how the Apostles in their first Councell made a new law by which they commanded the conuerted Gentils to abstaine from eating of bloud and things strangled which were now the olde lawe being abrogated things
morall It must needs followe that the spirituall power excelleth the temporall as much as the obiects endes and actes of that doe surpasse this 7. Fourthlie that power is greater to which euen the Princes them selues are subiect then that to which the subiects and people onlie are subiect not the Prince for though the Prince be subiect to his owne sawes quoad vim directiuam yet not quoad vim â—perciuam but the Prince is subiect to the spirituall powet of the Church as much as â—he lowest and meanest of his subiects ergo â—he spirituall power of the Church is more â—minent then the Temporall power of the Prince or Common VVealth The Maior â—roposition is euident The Minor I shall â—rooue in the next Chapter wherfore the â—onclusion must needs followe 8. Hitherto I haue prooued that the spiâ—ituall and Ecclesiasticall power is more â—minent and noble then the Temporall â—nd consequentlie that the spirituall is â—igher in dignitie but whether it can comâ—and correct curb or restraine the temâ—orall I haue not as yet either prooued or declared for many things are more highe in dignitie then others which yet haue no authoritie to command or punnish As for example the Protestants of this time will not lett to graunt that the Pope is the highest Patriarch in dignitie yet they say he can not command out of his particular Diocese of Rome and all Diuines graunt that the power of the Church is more noble then any power of Princes or Emperours that being spirituall and supernaturall this onely temporall and yet they say that they that are not baptized be they Princes or subiects are not subiect vnto it so as the Church can command or punnish them spirituallie And the King of France is more eminent in dignitie then any of the noblest subiects of England or Spaine and yet hath no authoritie to command or punnish them for faultes committed out of his Realme Wherfore it resteth that I prooue that the Church by her spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power can command all Christians euen Heretickes that are baptized And this besides what hath been saied in the former Chapter to the proofe thereof I shall briefely yet cleerely shew by these ensewing arguments 9. For first the Ecclesiasticall superiours are true Pastours of the Church ergo they can not only direct but command and correct at least by spirituall paines and chastisements The Antecedent I prooue out of scripture Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe Ioan. 21. saied Christ to S. Peter and his successours and all Pastours in their kinde Ad Eph. 4. Christ saieth S. Paul gaue to his Church some Apostles some Prophetes and other some Enangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours Act. 20. And the same Apostle speaking to Pastours sayth Attendite vobis c. Attend to your selues and your whole flocke To which purpose also S. Peter addeth saying 1. Pet. 5. Pascite qui in nobis est gregem Dei Feede the flocke of God which is in you The consequence I prooue because to a Pastour it belongeth not onlie to feede by Sacramentes and the word of God but also to rule to gouerne and correct and consequentlie the Pastours of the Church can make lawes which bynd all Christians their subiectes in conscience and they can correct and punnish â—he delinquents at least by spirituall chastisements of Excommunication and other Censures 10. Mat. 18. Secondlie Christ gaue power by his Apostles and successours to bynde and loose which argueth Iursdiction 11. Thirdlie the Apostles and their succesâ—ours haue vsed this Authoritie ouer Chriâ—tians Act. 15. 1. Cor. 5. Tit. 1. 1. Cor. 7. 2. Cor. 10 for they enacted lawes in their first Councell Saint Paul excommunicated the â—ncestuous Corinthian They appointed Bishops and Priests to gouerne particuler Churches Saint Paule distinguisheth his â—wne power of making lawes from Christs And hee saith Arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt sed potentia Deo ad destructionem munitionum c. The weapons of our VVarfare are not carnal but mightie to God vnto the destruction of munitions destroying Counsels and all loftinesse extolling it selfe against the Knowledge of God c. and hauing in a readinesse to reuenge all disobedience c. 12. Fiftlie I proue it by a Theological Argument By Baptisme Christians are made true members of the Mysticall bodie of Christs Church no lesse then subiects are of the Kingdome or Politicall bodie D. Tho. 3. p q. 63. art 6 q. 68. a. 1. q. 69. a. 4 5. yea more because they are incorporated to the Church by a reall supernaturall and indelible Caracter But all members are so subiect to the head that the head by Authoritie may command correct and punish them if they transgresse ergo the Pastours of the Church and especiallie the chiefe Pastour hath Iurisdiction ouer all those that are baptized be they true Christians or Heretickes or Apostataes This I confirme by this congruence Euerie one is bound to the lawes of the Realme in which he was borne by reason that his natiuitie in that place maketh him a true member of that Kingdome as our Soueraine Liege himselfe well obserueth In praef monitor pag. 12. And seing that Baptisme is a regeneration and newe natiuitie by which we are borne in the Church for euen the Children of Heretickes though they be baptized by Heretickes if they be trulie baptized are borne in the Churche it followeth that all that are baptized are bound to obey the Church and chiefe Pastour of the Church to obserue her lawes and may be punished by the Church if they transgresse the same else the Church which is the most eminent state and Common wealth should be inferiour vnto the lowest and meanest Politicall common wealth that is for there is no lawfull common wealth but it can make lawes and punish the transgressours 13. Sixtlie the Church is an absolute Common VVealth and consequentlie hath Authoritie to make lawes to appoint spirituall Magistrates to call Councels and to decide controuersies to correct and punish Heretickes and Blasphemers and all sinne which are properlie opposite to her gouernment and Ecclesiasticall peace but this supposeth a legislatiue an commanding and not only a directiue but also a coerciue power ergo the Church and especiallie her chiefe Pastour Christs Vicaire hath such Authoritie l. 2. ff de Iurisd omnium Iud. cap. Praeterea de officio delegati This Argument I confirme thus The Ciuill lawe telleth vs Cui iurifdictio data est ea quoque concessa esse videntur sine quibus iurisdictio explicari non potuit To whom iurisdiction is graunted those things also seeme to be graunted without which the iurisdiction could not be explicated And againe Ex eo quod causa alicui committitur super omnibus quae ad causam ipsam spectare noscuntur plenariam recipit Potestatem In that a cause is committed to any he receiueth full power ouer all things which are known to pertaine
especially by spirituall censures and may cast him out of the Church by excommunication else the Church were inferiour to all politicall bodies yea to a naturall bodie which hath authoritie for its owne preseruation to cutt of a rotten member least it infect the whole and to expell by purgation a malignant humour Neither is there any reason why in this point we should put any difference betwixt the King and another of his owne subiects For althoughe he be superiour in temporall matters to all his subiectes and is to be obeyed of thē yet is he subiect in spirituall matters to the Churches Pastours as much as his meanest subiect 5. And so it is not in the free choise of a Christian though baptized amongst Hereticks when he comes to yeares of discreation as ERASMVS and LVDOVICVS VIVES do absurdly holde to obserue Erasmus paraph. in Mat Ludouic Viues in com l. 1. de ciu Dei cap. 27. or not obserue the Christian law because he is bound to keepe the promise which the Church and his Godfathers made in his name no lesse then Pupills are bound to stand to that which their Tutours haue done in their name and for their profitt and goe he where he will be he of what religion he will he carrieth an indelible Caracter imprinted by Baptisme in hi◠soules by which the Church hath authoritie ouer him as ouer a member de iure debito and can commaund him to obserue the Christian law as also punish him if he disobey though he were an Emperour at least by spirituall punishment 6. Secondlie two Princes independent in one communitie would make a confusion vnlesse the one were subiect to the other and to be directed by the other Wherfore Aristotle as aboue I haue alledged saieth that Pluralitas Principatuum nō est bona Arict l. 12. Met. cap. vlt. Pluralitie of Principalities is not good to witt in one communitie and vnlesse one of them be subiect for the one might hinder the other the one might commaund one thinge the other cleane contrarie and so there would arise contention and confusion But the Church and common wealth of Christians is one bodie and Communitie at least materially if not formallie ergo these two Princes to wit the spirituall and temporali must haue some subordination But there is no reason that the Prince should direct and correct the Pastour he being the greater Prince hauing an higher power as it is aboue prooued ergo seing that both Pastour and Prince are of God and what is of God is rightlie ordayned Rom. 13. and with good order it followeth that the Chiefe Pastour must be superiour and must direct and correct the Prince as much as is necessarie to the Churches end and good 7 Thirdlie the chiefe Pastour and sometimes also inferiour Pastours as Bishops haue challenged to themselues as due Authoritie ouer Princes and haue excommunicated and layed spirituail punishements vpon them whome to condemne as vniust vsurpers they being so manie so wise so vpright and many of them holie Saints were meere madnesse ergo the Prince is subiect in spirituall matters yea and temporall matters also when they are necessarie for the Churches good and may be commaunded and punished at least spiritually if he refuse to obey he being in this case the Pastours subiect and inferiour 8. Eus l. 6. hist c. 25 alias 27. Nicephor l. 13. c. 34. Vide Baron an 407. Card. Alan Ausu 1. polibeller Cap. 2. So wee read that FABIAN Pope commaunded PHILIP the first Christian Emperour to take his place amongst the publick Penitentes so INNOCENTIVS the first excommunicated Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse for persecuting S. Iohn Chrrsostome The excommunication beginneth thus Vox sanguinis fratris mei Iohannis clamat ad Deum contra te ô Imperator sicuti quondam Abel Iusti contra Cain is modis omnibus vindicabitur The voice of the bloud of my brother Iohn Chrysostome cryeth to God against thee as Abels bloud in tymes past did against Cain and it by all meanes shal be reuenged The sentence followeth in these words Zonaras tom 3. Annal. Itaque ego minimus peccator cui Thronus Magni Apostoli Petri creditus est segrego reijcio te illam à perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri Therfore I the least and a sinner to whom the throne of Greate Peeter is committed do segregate and reiect thee and her Eudoxia from participation of the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God Of which Pope S. HIEROME giueth this commendation S. Hieron epist 8. Illud te pio charitatis affectu praemonendum puto vt S. Innocentij qui Apostolicae Cathedrae supradicti viri Anastasij successor filius est teneas fidem nec peregrinain quantumuis tibi prudens callidaque videaris doctrinam recipias That I thouht out of charitie to admonish thee that thou holde the faith of S. Innocentius who is the successour and sonne of the sea Apostolicke and of Anastasius neither do thou recedue any strange doctrine seeme thou to thy selfe neuer so wise and wittie GREGORIE the second in a Councell at Rome Anno 726. Vide Baron an 729. excommunicated Leo the Emperour surnamed Isauricus and Iconomachus and tooke from him his Gabelles in Italie and the Prouince it selfe Greg. l. 3. ep 5. 10. l. 7. ep 14. Vide Baron an 1076. GREGORIE the seuenth commēded by all but onlie Schismatikes Heretickes for a Saint as he who wrought myracles as well liuing as dead excōmunicated HENRIE the fourth Emperour of that name for many enormities threatening moreouer excommunication to all Princes Kinges Emperours that should vsurpe Inuestitures as the same Emperour had done Also he interdicted the Kingdome of Polonia and excommunicated the King BOLESLAVS for killinge Stanisldus his Bishop at the Altar because like a good Pastour he had before controlled his lust and excommunicated him Platina in vita Innoc. 3◠ALEXANDER the third excommunicated Frederick the first and if Henrie the second King of England had not submitted him self he had excommunicated him also as he was sollicited thereunto by Lewis the King of France INNOCENTIVS the third excommunicated Otho the fourth Emperour of that name Cap. ad Apostolicae desēt re Iudic in 6. GREGORIE the ninth against Frederick the second IOHN the twentie two against Ludouicus Bauarus INNOCENT the third against King Iohn of England VRBAN the second against Philip the first of France and other Popes against other Princes haue sed the like seueritie Albert. Pighius l. de visib mon. cap. 17. Mat. Paris ann 1204. Baron an 1101. euen to these our daies and in all their Epistles to Kinges and Emperours they call them Sonnes and speake to them as to their sheepe and subiects 9. Yea not onlie Popes but euen Bishops haue the like Authoritie ouer Kinges and Emperours as the Archbishop of Toledo ouer the King of Spaine
The Archbishop of Canterburie ouer the King of England The Archbishop of Rhemes ouet the King of France Gregor Naziâz orat 17. ad Pop. timore perculsuÌ„ prino Iras Vide cap. suscipitisne dist 10. and other Bishops ouer other Kinges S. GREGORIE Nazianzen challenged authoritie ouer Valentinian the Emperour for in an Oration which he made to his Citizens stricken with Feare and to the angrie Prince and Emperour conuerting his speech to the Prefects and euen to the Emperour him self thus he speaketh An me liberè loquentem eqno animo feretis Nam vos quoque potestati meae meisque subsellijs lex Christi subijeit Imperium enim ipsi quoque gerimus addo etiam praestantius ac perfectius nisi verò aequum est spiritum carni fasces submittere caelestia terrenis cedere Sed non dubito quin hanc dicendi libertatem ô Impervtor in optimam partem accepturussis vâ—pote facrimeigregis ouis sacra Magnique Pastoris Alumna rectèque iam inde à primis annis à spiritu ducta instituta Sanctaeque Beatae Trinitatis lumine aequè ac nos ipsi illustrata Will you take in good part that which I shall speake freely For the law of Christ doth subiect you also vnto my power and Tribunals for wee also beare rule and hauc an Empirè and that more eminent and perfect vnlesse a man should thinke it fitt for the spirit to be subiect to the flesh and that things celestiall should yeeld to things that be terrene But I doubt nor ô Emperour but that thou wilt take in good part this my freedome of speech as being a holy sheepe of my holy flocke brought vp vnder the Great Pastour and so from tender yeares well guided and instructed by the spirit and illuminated by the light of the Holy and blessed Trinitie no lesse then wee our selues S. AMBROSE excommunicated Theodosius for a slaughter committed Theodoret lib. 5. hist cap. 18. and a ciuill law enacted at Thessalonica and would not admit him into the Church till he had done pennance and recalled the former law Ita demum sayeth Theodoret Diuw Ambrosius vinclis illnm exoluit templum introire sidelissimus Imperator ausus non stans neque genibus flexis supplicabat Domino sed pronus humi stratus So at length S. Ambrose absolued him from the bonds of his excommunication when as the most faithfull Emperour presuming to enter into the Church did not either standing or kneeling make his praiers vnto our Lord but lying prostrate vpon the ground And when the Emperour after he had bene at the Ossertorie would haue stayed in the Chancell S. Ambrose sent him worde by a Deacon that that was the place onlie for Priestes and those of the Clergie which comaundement also the Emperour obeyed so willinglie that when afterwards at Constantinople the Patriach Nectarius would haue had him stayed in the Chancell he answered Vix cum gemitu didici discrimen inter Imperatorem sacerdotem vix inueni Doctorem veritatis I haue scarcely learned with sorrow the difference betwixt the Emperour and the Priest I haue scarcelie fouÌ„d a Doctour of the truth 9. Fourthlie I prooue this not only by the factes of Popes but also by their definitions in which Popes are to be credited though in their owne cause because most if not all of them were so learned that they knew what belonged to their Authoritie and so iust and holy also that they would not vsurpe what belonged not vnto them ADRIAN Pope maketh this decree Cap. vlâ— Suorum capitulorum c. gencrali 25. q 1. Generali decreto statuimus vt execrandum Anathema veâ—uti praeuaricator Catholicae fidei semper apud Deum reus existat quicunque Regum vel Potentum deinceps Romanorum Pontificium decretorum censuram in quocunque crediderit vel permiserit violundam Wee ordaine by our Generall decree that he bee before God as an Anatheme and as a Preuaricatour whosoeuer of the Kinges or potentates shall thinke or permit to be violated in any thinge the censure of the Romane Bishops Cap. duo sunt dist 96. and decrees GELASIVS Pope hauing tould Anastasius how by two powers Ecclesiasticall and Temporall the world is gouerned and that the Priests burden is so much the greater in that they are to answer for Kinges comportement in the diuine iudgement he addeth Nosti itaque inter haec ex illorum te pendere iudicio non illos ad tuam redigi posse voluntatem Thou knowest therfore that thou dependest of their Iudgement and that they are not to be subiect to thy will And therfore saieth he many Popes haue excommunicated diuers Kinges and Emperours Pope IOHN also sayth Cap. si Imperator dist 96. Si imperator Catholicus est quod salua pace illius dixerimus filius est non Praesul Ecclesiae If the Emperour be a Catholike by his good leaue be it spoken he is a sonne not a Prelate of the Church And afterward he addeth Imperatores Christiani subdere debent executiones suas Ecclesiasticis Praesulibus non praeferre Christian Emperours must submitte their executions vnto Ecclesiasticall Prelates and not preferre Cap. solita de â—nior â—bed INNOCENTIVS the third saieth That as God in the beginning of the world created two great lightes the Sunne and Moone and appointed that to rule the daie this the night so in the firmament of the Churche he hath placed two great lightes to wit Regall and Ecclesiasticall power that to rule the night of Temporall thinges this the day of spirituall thinges And this sayth he is by so much greater then that by how much the SuÌ„ne surpasseth the Moone And againe in the same place he saith That CHRIST excepted no Christians when he commanded PETâ—R and in him his successours to feed his sheepe vt alienum à suâ— demonstraret ouili qui Petrum successores eius Magistros non recognosceret Pastores To shew that he is an alien from his flocke who doth not acknowledge PETER and his successoures to bee his Masters and Pastours 10. Fiftlie I proue it by the Authoritie of Fathers and Bishops that were no Popes Ambr. orat in Auxent quae extat lib 5. epist eius post epist 32. yet great Saintes S. AMBROSE speaketh in this point plainlie Soluimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo Tributum Caesaris est non negatur Ecclesia Dei est Caesari vtique non debet addici quia ius Caesaris esse non potest Dei templum Quod cum honorificentia Imperatoris nemo dictum potest negare Quid enim honorificentius quà m vt Imperator filius Ecclesiae esse dicatur Wee haue payed to Caesar what thinges belong to Caesar and to God what is appertaining to God Tribute belongeth to Caesar and is not denyed him The Church is Gods and therfore is not to be giuen to Caesar because the Church of God can not be Caesars right
Which no man can denie but that it is spoken with the Emperours honour for what more honourable then that the Emperour should be called the sonne of the Church And then say I if he be a sonne he is a subiect no lesse then the sonne to the father The same Doctour in a booke wrote of Priestlie Dignitie sayth yet more Honor sublimitas Episcopalis sayeth he nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Lib. de dignit sacerd cap. 2. Si Regum fulgori compares Principum Diademati longè erit inferius quà m si plumbi metallum ad auri fulgorem compares quippe cum videas Regum colla Principum submitti genibus sacerdotum exosculatis ecrum dexteris orationibus eorum credant se communiri The honour dignitie and Highnes of a Bishop cannot be equalized by any comparisons If thou compare it to Kinglie lustre and the diademe of Princes thou shalt say lesse then if thou shouldst coÌ„pare lead to the glittering gould for as much as thou seest Kinges and Princes neckes submitted to the knees of Priests and theÌ„ selues kissing their right handes to be waranted by their prayers Hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae S. CHYSOSTOME Regi corpora commissa sunt sacerdoti auima Rex maculas corporum remittit sacerdos autem maculas peccatorum Ille cogit hic exhortatur Ille necessitate hic consilio Ille habet armasensibilia bic arma spiritualia Ille bellum gerit cum Barbaris mihi sacerdoti bellnm est aduersus Daemones Maior hic Principatus propterea Rex caput submittit manui sacerdotis vbique in veteri scriptura sacerdotes inungebant Reges To the King bodies are committed to the Priest soules The King forgiueth the punishments of the bodie the Priest the blottes and blemishes of sinnes He compelleth the Priest exhorteth he by necessitie this by counsell he hath sensible weapons this spirituall he makes warre against the Barbares I the Priest am to wage battaile against the deuils Greater is this Principalitie and therfore the King inclineth his head to the hand of the Priest and euerie where in the old Testament Priests did annoint Kinges And againe SiquideÌ„ sacerdotiuÌ„ Principatus est Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae ipso etiaÌ„ regno venerabilius ac maius c. Because Priest hoode is a Principalitie and that greater and more venerable then the Kingdome Speake not to mee of the purple and diademe and goulden robes these all be but shadowes and more vaine then springe flowers Speake not to mee of these thinges but if thou wilt see the difference betwixt a King and a Priest way the power giuen to them both and thou shalt see the Priest fitting much higher in dignitie then the Kinge For a though the Throne of a Kinge seeme to vs admirable for the pretious stones wherewith it is couered yet he hath allosted him onely the administration of earthlie thinges But to the Priest a throne is placed in heauen and he hath authoritie to pronounce sentence in heauenlie businesses Who sayth so Mat. 18. The King of the heauens him selfe What soeuer you shall bynde vppon earth shall be bound also in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose vppon earth shal be loosed also in heauen What can be compared with this honour from earth heauen taketh the principall power of iudging For the iudge sitteth on earth our Lord folioweth his seruaunt and whatsoeuer he shall iudge heere below that he approueth aboue And a little after Eoque Deus ipsum regale caput sacerdotis manibus subiecit not erudiens quod hic Princeps est illo maior Siquidom id quod minus est benedictionem accipit ab eo quod praestantius est And so much God hathsubmitted the Kinges head to the handes of the Priest teaching vs that this Prince is greater then he for he that is lesse receaueth benediction from him that is greater Yea S. CHYSOSTOME giueth not only Bishops but also euen Deacons Hom. 33. in Matth hom 83. in eund Authoririe ouer Kings Si dux igitur quispiam saieth he si Consul ipse si qui diademate ornatur indignè adeat cohibe ac coërce maiorem tu illo potestatem habes If therfore any Capitaine or Consul if he that is adorned with a diademe approach vnworthilie keepe him backe and restrayne him thou hast greater power then he And to this purpose we read that S. Re. MIGIVS the Apostle of France Histoire de l'Eglise de Reins lib. 1. cap. 13. a little before his death commanded the Bishops to excommunicate the Kinges of France if they should waste or inuade the Churches But aboue all most forcible is the testimonie of Ignat. Epist ad Smyrn S. IGNATIVS an Apostles scholler who so extolleth Princelie dignitie that yet he giues the precedence vnto the Bishops authoritie Honora Deum sayth he vt omnium authorem Dominum c. Honour God as the Authour and Lord of all and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests bearing the Image of God and houlding his princedome of him and his Priesthood of Christ And after him you must honour also the King For none is to be prefered before God nor equal to him nor none more honourable in the Church then the Bishop exercising the Priesthood of God for the saluation of the world Neither is any equall to the King in the Hoste or Campe procuring peace and beneuolence to the other Princes vnder him For he that honoureth the Bishop shal be honoured of God and he that dishonoureth him shall of God be dishonoured For if any man rising against the King is worthie of damnation how shall be escape Gods Iudgements that attempteth any thing against or without the Bishop For Priesthood is the Chiefe and summe of all mans good which whâ— soeuer disgraceth dishonoureth God and our Lord IESVS Christ the Chiefe Priest of God 11. Sixtlie this I proue by Emperours and Kings proper confession who all of them haue acknowledged Bishops and especiallie the Chiefe Bishop of Rome their Fathers Pastours and superiours and those that haue supreame authoritie ouet them CONSTANTINE the Great in an â—ict of his shortely after his baptisme â—saieth thus Cap. CoÌ„stantinus 2. dist 96. Vtile iudicauimus c. vt sicut in terris Beatus Petrus Vicarius filij Dei videtur esse constitutus it a etiam Pontifices qui ipsius Principis Apostolorum vices gerunt Principatus potestatem amplius quà m terrenae Imperialis Nostrae Serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur concessam à nobis nostroque Imperio obtineant Wee haue Iudged it profitable that as blessed Peeter is appointed the vicaire of the sonne of God in earth so also Bishops who are Vicegerents of this Prince of the Apostles should haue more amplie the power of principalitie graunted by vs and our Empire Ruffin lib. 1. cap. 2. then our terrene Imperiall Serenitie seemeth to haue And Russinus relateth how that when certaine Bishops assembled at
appertained to military affaires And so from the first establishing of the law of Moyses the Temple and Synagogue was committed to the Tribe of LEVI the scepter and regall Authoritie was giuen to the Tribe of IVDA in like sort in the law of Grace when the Church came to her greatest perfection Christ appointed particularly Apostles Doctours Ephes 4. and Pastours to gouerne the Church and confirmed Princes in their temporall Authoritie commanding that obedience should be giuen to the Pastour in spirituall matters and to the Prince in temporall Mat. 22 Rom. 13 2. VVherfore least in giuing one of these Potentates too much Mat. 22 I may do iniutie to the other I must follow our Sauiours Commandement and so giue to Cesar that which belongeth to him that I take not from God and his Church what appertaineth to them And although in giuing both but their due I may perchance displease one yet if I may haue that indifferent audience which the grauitie and equitie of the cause requireth I hope to offend neither and how soeuet it happen I had rather displease then do wronge or iniurie And wheras in our Iland by the sway of Authoritie and terrour of lawes it hath bene made High Treason to denie the Prince Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall I protest that what I shall say in this matter proceedeth not from any disloyall minde towards my Princes true Authoritie nor from any itching desire I haue to lay open the disgrace of my Countrie which I would rather couer if it were possible with my owne life and bloud and to discharge my self from all iust imputation of Treason I desire to haue the leaue to plead this onlie for my defence that if this be Treason in mee not onlie all Catholick Priests Doctours and Prelates of the Church but also all the ancient subiectes not onlie of England but of all other Christian Countries must incurre the same imputation with me because there was neuer Christians before our English Protestants that gaue Ecclesiasticall power to Princes and there was neuer King of England or of any other Countrie what soeuer that euer was so hardie as to challenge such Authoritie before King HENRIE the Eight which his Challenge seemed so preposterous and monstrous that all the World stood and to this day standeth amazed at it and euen our Puritanes at home and all the new sectes abroade do abhorre and derest it And I in this Chapter shall bring such Argumentes against it that I hope that euen our English protestants who hitherto haue adored it wil be ashamed hence forth to submitt them selues to so monstrous Authoritie 3. My first Arguments shall be drawen from scriptures them selues For if the King had any such Authoritie then no doubt scripture which â—s aboue wee haue seene so often inculcateth Princes Authoritie in matters temporall would neuer haue kept silent this Ecclesiasticall power if they had had any such this being the greater and more eminent but scripture neuer giueth Princes this Authoritie neuer commandeth Christians to obey them in Ecclesiasticall matters but rather giueth that Authoritie to Apostles Bishops and Pastours and Commandeth obedience in this kinde to them not to Princes ergo Princes haue no Authoritie to command in Ecclesiasticall matters The Minor Proposition in which onlie consists the difficultie I proue out of those places of Scripture which aboue I haue alleaged and here will bring in againe yet to another purpose For to S. PETER no Temporall Prince but an Apostle and Pastour was promised the headship of the Church and consequently the soueraintie and supreame power of the Church Tues Petrus super hane Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Mat. â—6 The Hebrew hathâ— Thou art a Rocke and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And seing that to PETER it was sayd Thou art a Rocke to him also and not to CHRIST the Chiefe and independent Rocke nor to the faith of Christ as our Aduersaries would haue it it must needs be sayd and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church because the Relatiue This hath relation to him that was spoken of imediatly before which was only PETER not CHRIST nor the faith of CHRIST and therfore the Rocke and foundation of the Church and Head being all one it followeth that PETER and consequently the Pope his successour for the Church after PETERS tyme had as much neede or rather more of a Head and Pastour as in PETERS tyme and none euer practized Authoritie ouer all the Church but the Pope as all Councels and histories do witnesse is the supreme Head of the Church and so not euerie King no not any King in his Kingdome Apostles Prophetes Euangelists Pastours and Doctours onlie CHRIST gaue to gouerne his Church as S. PAVLE sayth not Princes Ephes 4. Mat. 18 To Apostles it was sayd VVhat soeuer you shall binde vpon earth shall be bound also in Heauen and what soe-euer you shall loose vpon earth shall be also loosed in heauen Ioan. 20 Neuer to Princes To Apostles it was said VVhose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained Neuer to Princes Of Bishops and Priests it was sayd Neb. 13. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as being to render account for your soules of Princes neuer rather they by these wordes are commanded also to obey Act. 20. To Bishops it was sayd Take heedâ— to your selues and the whole flocke wherein the Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church which he hath purchased with his owne bloud to Princes neuer To a Bishop it was sayd Tit. 1. For this cause I left thee in CRETE that thou thouldst reforme the things that are wanting and thouldst order Priests by Cities as I also appointed thee To Princes neuer 4. I will not denie but that Princes are to assist the Church by sword scepter and Power and to punnish at the Churches direction not onlie Theefes and murderers but also Hereticks as CONSTANTINE and other Emperours did I graunt that they are nourcing Fathers Isay 49. but no Superiours to the Church And therfore if we read ouer both the old and new Testament we shall neuer finde that any King as King medled in the gouernment of Ecclesiasticall persons and matters 5. Bilson when he was VVardon of VVinchester wrote a booke called The True Difference betwixt Christian subiection and Vnchristian Rebellion in which he striueth but in vaine to prooue that the Prince hath supreme Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and gouernment of the Church And to prooue this he citeth Nabuchodonosor Darius Par. 2. pag. 191 the King of Niniue Moyses Iosue Dauid Salomon Asa Iosaphat Ezechias Manasses Iosias and Nehemias as though they had gouerned the Ecclesiasticall affaires of the Synagogue In Tortura Torti pa. 363. So doth also D. ANDREWES But if I should graunt them that all these were by God appointed Rulers of
other Titles to be quite exempt from him and subiect to none in temporall matters And seing that this supremacie in Ecclesiasticall matters either is not distinguished from their Regall Authoritie or is necessarilie annexed vnto it as they refuse to be subiect in temporall matters so might they in Ecclesiasticall The King of England Why he rather then the King of France The King of France why he rather then any of the others Yea if these Kings pretend not to be subiect to the Emperour much more may they claime exemption from one anotherr 9. If any answere that by Common consent they may either choose one to call the rest or being all equall they may meete altogether in one neither will this serue For as for the first meanes it is morally impossible because Kinges who haue high aspiring mindes would neuer be drawen to subiect them selues to any and so whilst euerie one would be Chiefe none should be Chiefe The second meanes is as impossible for first where shall they meet Certes no King will easilie leaue his Kingdome and so euerie one would be desirous to haue the Councell in his Countrie yea euerie one would refuse to haue such a meeting in his Kingdome for feare of daunger But suppose they meete when they are mett how shall they agree especiallie they being commonly of diuers Religions for if a King in that he is a King is to iudge in matters of the Church euery King hath right to be of this Councell and so the Turke the Persian the Muscouite shall haue place in this Councell If you say that not euerie King but onely Christian Kinges are Heads of the Church in their Kingdomes then at least Catholick Lutheran and Caluinian Kinges must be of the Councell and how shall these agree who shall moderat seing there is no more reason of one then another If you say that Bishops must be the Men that must make Decrees and Canons and conclude all in this Councell This they cannot do without Kinges if euerie King be supreme Head in their Countrie and therfore it was enacted accordinglie in the Parlament holden by King HENRIE the Eight in the twenty sixt yeare of his raigne That he should be reputed supreme Head of the Church of England and should haue all the honours Authorities and commodities belonging there vnto Amongst which honours the Principall and that which is necessarilie annexed vnto the Headship of the Church is to call Councels and to sitt as Chiefe Iudge in them See Poulton â—n his AbridgemeÌ„t of the statutes Sander de Schis Angl. And Queene ELIZABETH had also graunted vnto her by a Parlament in the first yeare of her raigne all power for the correction and reformation of the Clergie for the iudgements and punishmeÌ„ts of schismes and heresies for nominating of Bishops and for calling of Synods and that with such ample Authoritie that nothing should be decreed in any Synod with in the Realme without expresse licence and consent of the Queene And if the Bishops in the Councell agree not as I see not how they can if there be no one amongst them that can command who shall be the man that shall take vp the matter amongst them If you say the Kings I demand who shall beare the sway amongst them And so to make Kinges Heads of the Church in their Kingdomes is to hinder all Generall Councels which yet heretofore haue been so oft assembled by the Authoritie of the Pope to the great profit peace and vnitie of the Church 10. Fourthlie if Princes in that they are Princes or Christian Princes were Heades of the Church in their Realme then Children might be Heades of the Church yea and women also for they are capable of Regall Authoritie wheras not withstaÌ„ding the Wiseman pronounceth a vae curse to the land whose King is a Child Ecclesiastes 10. And much more woe it were to a Church whose head is a Child Surely S. PAVL 1. Cor. 14 that commands women to be silent in the Church would neuer haue permitted such to gouerne the Church And yet after King HENRIE had arrogated this monstrous power in a King to make it ridiculous to the world God permitted that next after him a Child came to be King the Head of the Church of England and next but one after the Child a womaÌ„ succeeded also in the like authoritie 11. Fiftlie to make enerie King supreme Head of the Church in his Kingdome destroyeth the vnitie of the Church for wheras there are three especiall and essentiall Vnities in the Church to wit Vnitie of Head and one gouernment Vnitie of one faith Vnitie of the same externall profession and worship of God by the same rites and Sacramentes If we receaue euerie Prince in his Realme for Head of the Church these three Vnities can not long be conserued For as for the first Vnitie though our Aduersaries would say that it may well be conserued in CHRIST who is the principall and onely principall and absolute Head yet because CHRIST is now ascended to his Father and conuerseth no more visibly amongst vs besides him the Church which is a Visible Congregation and bodie standeth in neede of a visible Head else should she be visibly headlesse and imperfect And therfore as scripture hath declared CHRIST for our soueraine and invisible head Ioan. 10 Vnum ouile vnus Pastor One fould Ephes 1. one Pastour And againe Ipsum dedit caput supra omnem Ecclesiam God the Father made him head ouer all the Church which is his bodie So doth scripture and CHRIST him self in scripture point out another vnderhead and visible Pastour Mat. 16. saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church and againe Pasâ—e oues meas feede my sheepe that is all Christians Ioan. 21 and so PETER was in his time and his successour the Pope now is Chiefe Head and visible pastour ouer all Christians and consequentlie ouer all Bishops euen in a Generall Councell vnlesse they will denie them selues to be the sheepe of Christ. And this Vnitie was necessarie to conserue the other Vnities of faith and eternall profession and worship of God by the same SacrameÌ„tes For diuers visible Heades would not so easilie agree amongst them selues it being a naturall thing for meÌ„ in equall authoritie to striue to drawe all to their partie Whereupon S. CIPRIAN sayth Cypria lib. 4. ep 9. lib. 1. epist 8. lib. de vnit Eccl. That the Church is Plebs suo sacerdoti adunata The people vnited to their Priest And that Non aliunde natae sunt haereses aut orta schismata nisi quod vni sacerdoti Dei ab vniuersa fraternitate non obtemperetur Not from any other source heresies or schismes are risen then for that obedience is not giuen to one Priest of all the fraternitie For why Exordium ab vno proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna Cathedra
he may make Ecclesiasticall lawes propose the word of God by preaching and true interpretation of it in Councels separate heretikes from the sheepefould by excommunication least they peruert others Yea if the Prince be supreme Head of the Church all Authoritie of preaching administration of Sacraments calling Councels iudging and defining in them collation of Benefices giuing of orders Iurisdictions absoluing dispensing excommunicating proceedeth from him VVherefore King HENRIE the Eight as he challenged the Title of supreme Head so he challenged almost all this Authoritie as we haue seene And to Queene ELIZABETH in the first Parlament and first yeare of her raigne the like authoritie was graunted Vide Sander de Schis Angl. fol. 149.150.151 See also Poultons Abbridgement of the statutes For in that Parlament it was decreed that she her heires and successours should haue all priueledges preeminences prerogatiues and spirituall superiorities which may be exercised or had of any power or man Ecclesiasticall That she and her successours should haue all power of nominating and substituting whom she will to correct heresies schismes abuses and to vse all authoritie which an Ecclesiasticall Magistrate may doe There also it was decreed that no Synode shoulde be called but by the Princes letters and commandement and that a Bishop should not be nominated or elected by any other then the Princes Authoritie nor should exercise any Iurisdiction but at the Queenes pleasure nor otherwise then by Authoritie from her Regall Maiestie And hence it is that the Prince writeth to the Archbishop in this manner For as much as all Iurisdiction as well Ecclesiasticall as secular proceedeth from Kinglie power as from the Head we giue thee Power to promote by these presents to holy Orders c. And the Archbishop of Canterburie vseth this stile VVe N. by the Diuine permission Archbishop and Primat of England authorised sufficientlie by the Kinges or Queenes Maiestie c. This argueth that in England all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to excommunicare absolue to preach and minister Sacraments to call Synodes to decree in them to make Ecclesiasticall lawes c. proceedeth from the Prince as from the Head and fountaine and consequentlie seing that what Authoritie the Prince giueth to others he hath him self hee may excommunicate make Ecclesiasticall lawes call Councels sitt as supreme Iudge in them as others by his Authoritie doe And seing he can giue to others Iurisdiction to giue Orders he may also minister Sacraments preach and teach for this Authoritie he giueth to others And therfore as in all Common wealthes the Prince can do those thinges which his inferiour Officers do though it be not alwaies so conuenient so if all Ecclesiasticall power proceedeth from the King as from the Head and fountaine looke what the Bishops and Ministers can do by Authoritie receaued from him that he also him self may do which yet is so ridiculous that our Princes hitherto haue bene ashamed of manie of those offices and as we shall see anon euen the Protestants of England when they are pressed are ashamed of this monstrous Authoritie 14. Seuenthlie if Christian Kings for few of our Aduersaries dare say that Pagan Kings haue Ecclesiasticall Authoritie be heads of the Church it followeth that till CONSTANTINE or PHILIP the first Christian Emperours the Church was without a head for three hundred yeares If you say that S. PETER and his successours were heads till CONSTANTINE then I demaund who deposed Pope SYLVESTER when CONSTANTINE came to be Christian and consequently Head or if S. SYLVESTER was not deposed then it followeth that there were two Heads at once and those not subordinate 28. Eightlie I prooue this by Kings and Emperours Confessions And as towching Kings wee haue seene their Confessions in the former Chapter As for Emperours CONSTANTINE as we haue seene called the Bishops of the Nicen Councell Ruffinus li. 1. cap. 2. Euseb lib. 4. de vita Constāt cap. 24. his Gods and Iudges and as Eusebius reporteth he was wont to say to Bishops Vos ô Episcopi intra Ecclesiam ego extra Ecclesiam à Deo Episcopus constitutus sum You ô Bishops in affaires with in the Church I in matters without the Church am appointed pointed Bishop by God Meaning that he was to be a vigilant Prince in the gouernment of the Empire but not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall affaires And therfore when the Donatists in a matter pertaininge to the Churches deciding appealed from a Councell of Bishops holden by Pope MEICHIADES vnto him Non est ausus saieth S. August epi. 162. Augustin Christianus Imperator sic eorum tumultuosas fallaces quaerelas suscipere vt de iudicio Episcoporum qui Romae sederant ipse iudicaret He durst not so to admit their complaints as to Iudge of the Bishops who in Rome had sit in Iudgement Yea OPTATVS saieth Optat. lib. 1. cont Parm. circa finem That when he saw they appealed in such a matter vnto him he exclamed O rabida furoris audacia sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet appellationem interposuerunt O VVood mad audacitie of furie they haue interposed an Appellation as is wont to be done in the causes of Gentils Tortura Tort. pa. 174. VVheras Doctour ANDREWS saith that CONSTANTIN delegated the Bishops to heare the Donatists cause I demande wheron he groundeth that for if he might delegate he might haue iudged of the Bishops sentence and yet S. AVGVSTIN saieth he durst not And although at last ouercome by their importunitie he heard them yet not as Iudge but as an Arbiter THEODOSIVS the yonger sent Counte Candidianu◠to the Councell of Ephesus With this caueat That he should not meddle in Ecclesiasticall matters because illicitum est eum qui non sit ex ordine sanctissimoram Episcoporum sese Eccelesiasticis immiscere tractatibus It is vnlawfull for him that is not of the order of most holy Bishops to entermeddle him selfe in Ecclesiasticall treaties and affaires But Doctour ANDREWES answereth Tortura Torti pa. 175. That it is no good Argument to say A Count can not meddle in Councels ergo an Emperour cannot But he should haue remembred that this Count was sent to supplie the Emperours place and therfore if he as the Emperours Ambassadour could not meddle in Councels neither could the Emperour him selfe He should also haue marked the Emperours reason which was because it is vnlawfull for him that is not of the order of Bishops to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires which reason aswell excludeth the Emperour as the Count vnlesse Doctour ANDREWES will make all Kings and Emperours Bishops VALENTINIAN the elder saied Sozom. 16 ca. 7. 2.1 Sibi qui vnus è laicorum numero erat non licere se huiusmodi rebus interponere It was not lawfull for him who is one of the layitie to meddle in such matters And although Doctour ANDREWES would expound Zozomen who reporteth this speech of the Emperour by Nicephorus Hist Tri. part lib. 7.
c. 8. who reporteth the Emperour to haue saied Mihe negotiis occupato Reipublicae curis distento res huiusmodi inquirere non facile est It is no easie for me who am busied with businesses and distracted with the cares of the Common wealth to take notice of these matters as though the Emperour had authoritie to meddle in Councels but was not at leisure yet the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Doctour ANDREWES leaue Tortura Torti pag. 174. signifieth not facile but fas as he may see in BVDAEVS and consequentlie that the Emperor meant that it was not lawfull for him to intermeddle in such matters And this meaning NICEPHORVS his next words do argue When he sayth Vos autem quibus haec procuratio mandata est But you to whom this procuration is committed The same meaning also do ZOZOMENVS his owne words following insinuat Et ideo Sacerdotes Episcopi quibus haec curae sunt c. And therfore Priests and Bishops who haue care of these thinges So that the Emperour meant that he could not onlie not be at leisure but also that it was not lawfull for him to meddle in Councels Yea he was so farre from intermedling in Ecclesiasticall matters that when the Bishops assembled at Milan desired him to nominate the Bishop of Milan he wrote to the Bishops to choose such a one as to whom said he we that gouerne the Empire may incline our heads because saith he supra nos est talis electio such an Election passeth our Authoritie 16. Ninthlie This the ancient Fathers haue taught and told euen Emperours to their faces ATHANASIVS Epist ad soli vitā agentes Si istud est iudicium Episcoporum quid commune cum eo habet Imperator c. If this belong to the Iudgement of Bishops what hath the Emperour to do with it And a little after Quando à condito aeuo auditum est quando Iudicium Ecclesiae Authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit aut quando vnquam hoc pro iudicio agnitum est Plurima ante haec Synodi fuere multa Iudicia Ecclesiae habita sunt Sed neque Patres istiusmodi res principi persuadere conati sunt nec Princeps sein rebus Ecclesiasticis curiosum praebuit VVhen from the beginning of the world was it hearde when did the Iudgement of the Church take her Authoritie from the Emperour Many Synods before these tymes haue been many Iudgementes of the Church haue been giuen But neither did the Fathers persuade the Prince to meddle in those matters neither was the Prince so curious as to entermeddle in Ecclesiasticall matters Yea in the same Epistle he addeth Quis enim videns eum Constantium in decernendo Ibidem Principem se facere Episcoporum praesidere Ecclesiasticis iudiciis non merito dicat illum eam ipsam Abominationem desolationis esse For who seing him Constantius making him selfe Prince of the Bishops in decerning and bearing Authoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall Iudgements may not worthilie say that he is the Abomination of desolation And in that very Epistle he often tymes calleth CONSTANTIVS the Precursour of Antichrist for arrogating Authoritie in Councelles and ouer Bishops and for entermeddling in matters appertaining to the Church HOSIVS Cordubensis Athan. Apol. pro fuga purum ab initio whom Athanasius calleth vere Osium that is a Saint and of whom he giueth this commendation In what Synode was not hee the Captaine and Ringleader VVhom did not hee by defending the truth draw to his Opinion VVhat Church doth not keepe the monuments of his Presidence HOSIVS I say thus highly commended by S. ATHANASIVS being vrged by Constantius to communicate with the Arrians and to subscribe against Athanasius Athan. epist ad soli vitam agentes wrote vnto the Emperour in this manner Beleeue mee sayth he who may be thy Grand father I was in the COVNCELL of SARDIS when thou and thy Blessed brother CONSTANS called vs thether c. VVhat Bishop there was banished or when did he entermeddle him selfe in Ecclesiasticall Iudgements And then he giueth th' Emperour this holsome Counsell worthie to be followed of all Princes Desine quaeso memineris te mortalem esse c. Leaue of I pray thee and remember that thou art a mortall man Feare the day of Iudgement Keepe thy selfe pure for that day Do not entermeddle thy selfe in Ecclesiasticall matters nor do thou commaund vs in this kinde but rather learne those thinges of vs. God to thee hath committed the Empire to vs he hath giuen the charge of thinges belonging to the Church and as he who with maligne lookes carpes at thy Empire contradicteth the diuine Ordinance so do thou take heed least drawing that which appertaineth to the Church vnto thy selfe thou be made guiltie of a great crime Giue it is sayd to Gaesar what belongeth to Caesar and what appertayneth to God to God VVherfore neither is it lawfull for vs to holde the Empire in earth neither hast thou O Emperour power ouer the sacrifices and holyes Ambros lib. 5. op 32. ad Valens These thinges I write for the care I haue of thy Saluation c. S. AMBROSE hath manie notable sentences vttered by him with libertie and plainesse worthie such a Prelat Writing to VALENTINIAN the younger who by the Instigation of his mother vrged him to a disputation or conference in matters of Religion in the Consistorie before the Emperour he refused because the Emperour had nothing to do in such matters neither saith he to Valentinian the younger ought any to iudge me contumacious seing that I affirme that onlie which thy Father of August Memorie did not only answere by speech but also by his lawes decreed to wit In causa fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicuius ordinis eum iudicare debere qui nec munere impar sit nec iure dissimilis Haec enim verba rescripti sunt Hoc est sacerdotes de sacerdotibus voluit iudicare That in a cause belonging to faith or to Ecclesiasticall order hee should giue Iudgement who is neither inseriour in office nor in Right vnlike For these are the words of the Rescript That is he would haue Priests to Iudge Priests And a little after Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo iudicasse c. When didst thou heare ô most Clement Emperour that laymen Iudged a Bishop in a cause of faithe and againe Pater tuus Deo fauente vir maturioris aeui dicebat Non est meum iudicare inter Episcopos c. Thy Father who by Gods fauour was a man of riper age sayd It is not my office to Iudge between Bishops thy Clemencie sayth I must Iudge And he being baptized in Christ thought him selfe vnable to beare such a waight of Iudgement thy Clemencie of whom the Sacraments are yet to be deserued Orat. in Auxent quae sequitur epist citatam arrogateth iudgement in a
matter of faith when as thou knowest not the mystieries of faith And yet againe to the same purpose he addeth Soluimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo c. VVe haue payed to Caesar what was Caesars Tribute is Caesars it is not denyed the Church is Gods therfore it must not be giuen to Caesar because the Temple can be no right of Caesars No maÌ„ can deny but that this is spokeÌ„ with Caesars honour For what more honorable then for the Emperour to be called the sonne of the Church Which when it is sayd it is sayd without sinne it is sayd with grace Imperator enim bonus intra Ecclesiam non supra Ecclesiam est for a good Emperour is within the Church not aboue the Church The like libertie of speech he vseth also in an Epistle to his sister Marcellina Ambr li. 5. cit ep 33. ad Marcellinam sororem Mandatur denique Trade Basilicam c. To be briefe the Emperours commaund is Deliuer vp the Church I answer it is neither lawfull for mee to deliuer it nor expedient for thee O Emperour to take it Thou canst by no law spoile or ransake the house of any priuat man and thinkest thou that the house of God may by thee be destroied and ruinated It is alleaged that to the Emperour all thinges are lawfull all thinges are his I answer doe not ô Emperour charge thy selfe as to thinke that thou hast Imperial right ouer diuine thinges Do not extoll thy selfe but if thou wilt raygne longe be subiect to God It is written Mat. 22 What is Gods to God what is Caesars to Caesar To the Emperour Palaces do belong to the Priests Churches To thee is committed the care and charge of publick walles not of those that be holy If S. AMBROSE would not yeeld a Church or Chappell to the Emperours disposition would he if he had liued in King HENRIE the Eight his time and in England haue permitted him to seaze vpon all Abbayes Abbay lands and Churches belonging vnto them Or would he or S. ATHANASIVS or HOSIVS haue permitted him to sitt in Parlament as supreme Iudge in matters not only temporall but Ecclesiasticall or if they had seene Cromwell appointed King Henrie the Eights Vicaire Generall in Spirituall causes taking place aboue all the Bishops and Archbishops in their Conuocation would not ATHANASIVS haue called it the Abomination of desolation 14. Bilson in his Difference pa. 174. Andr. in Tortura Tortipa 169. Field li. 5. de Eccles cap. 53. To this Argument Doctour BILSON Doctour ANDREWES and Doctour FIELD answere that Constantius and Valentinian the younger were reprehended by these Fathers not for medling in Councels and Ecclesiasticall affaires but for tyranizing ouer Bishops and for partiall and vniust dealing But if these Fathers had meaÌ„t no otherwise they would not so absolutly haue reprehended medling in Ecclesiasticall matters but would onlie haue inueighed against the abuses For if a Pope who is in deed Head of the Church should abuse his Authoritie in Councels or Ecclesiasticall Iudgments though euen a Catholick who takes him for supreme Head might reprehend the abuse Athan. supra yet he could not saie to him as ATHANASIVS did to Constantius If this be the Iudgment of Bishops what hath the Pope to do with it Nor could he say to the Pope as he did to the Emperour VVhen was it euer heard from the beginning of the world when did the Iudgment of the Church take Authoritie from the Pope Neither could he haue sayd to the Pope Hosius supra as HOSIVS sayd to the same Constantius VVhen was the Emperour present to wit as Iudge for as Protectour and hearer he knew and saw CONSTANTIN the Great present in the Councell of Nice in Ecclesiasticall Iudgments Neither could he haue sayd to the Pope as the same HOSIVS saieth to Constantius Do not intermeddle in Ecclestasticall businesses nor do thou command vs in this kind but rather learne these thinges of vs. Much lesse could those wordes of S. AMBROSE Ambros supra which he so bouldlie spake to Valentinian haue been sutable to the Pope or any supreme Head Ecclesiasticall VVhen didst thou heare ô most Clement Emperour Pope that any of the laitie Clergie Iudged Bishops in a cause of faith Much lesse could these other words of S. AMBROSE haue been fitting a Pope or any supreme head Ecclesiasticall A good Emperour Pope is in the Church not aboue the Church Nor could S. AMBROSE haue denyed so peremptorily to deliuer a Church or Chappell to the Emperour if he had deemed him supreme head of the Church much lesse could he haue alleadged that reason of his denyall To the Emperour Pallaces appertaine to the Priest Churches for if the King be supreme Heade of the Church then Churches pertaine to him as well as Pallaces 15. But let vs heare another Father S. Chrysost ho. 4. de verbis Isaiae 2. Paral. 26. CHRYSOSTOME pondering the audacious fact of King OZIAS who in the pride of his power victories and former vertues arrogated to him selfe the Priests office hath these words Rex cum esset Sacerdotij Principatum vsurpat Volo inquit adolere incensum quia iustus sum Sed mane intra terminos tuos alij sunt termini Regni alij termini Sacerdotij Being a King he vsurpeth the power of Priesthood I will sayth he offer incense because I am iust But stay within thy limits Others are the bounds of the Kingdome others of the Priesthood If then the King hath his limits prefixed and contained within the Kingdome it followeth that he cannot intermeddle him selfe as a superiour in Ecclesâ—asticall causes but he shall passe his limits The same Father in his next Homelie hath these words Chrysost hom 5. de verbis Isaiae which are worthy the marking Quanquam nobis admirandus videatur Thronus Regius ob gemmas affixas aurum quo obcinctus est tamen rerum terrenarum administrationem sortitus est nec vltra potestatem hanc praeterea quicquam habet Authoritatis Verum sacerdoti Thronus in Coelis collocatus est de coelestibus negotiis pronunciandi habet potestatem Although the Kings Throne seemes to vs worthy to be admired for the pretious stones wherwith it is besett and the gould wherwith it is couered yet the King hath only the administration of terrene things neither hath he beyond this power any further Authoritie But to the Priest a throne is placed in HeaueÌ„ and he hath power to pronounce senteÌ„ce of heauenly businesses and affaires appertaining vnto heauen 16. Tenthlie I proue this veritie by the Arguments wherwith in the former Chapter I haue prooued that Kings Christian by baptisme are made subiects of the Church as much as is the lowest Christian and that not onlie Popes but inferiour Bishops haue challenged superiority ouer them which also Princes from the beginning haue euer acknowledged For if Princes in matters Ecclesiasticall be
subiects to Bishops and especiallie to the Chiefe Bishop they can not in that kind be heads and superiours to Bishops 17. Lastlie I prooue this by out Aduersaries confession which is an argument ad hominem of no little force because none is presumed to lie against him selfe Calu. in cap. 7. Amos. CALVIN pronounceth thus of HENRIE the eight his supremacie Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt HENRICVM Regem Angliae certè fuerunt homines inconsiderrti dederuut enim ills summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enim blasphemi cum vocarent eum Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo They who in the beginning did so much extoll HENRIE the Eight King of England were men inconsiderate for they gaue him supreme power of all thinges and this did alwayes much aggreue mee For they were Blasphemous when they called him supreaine Head of the Church vnder Christ This was the opinion of CALVIN which is not to be contemned of our Protestants who follow him as an Oracle in other and those verie manie points And to him haue subscribed our Puritans in England and the Brethren of Heluetia Zurich Berne Geneua Polonia Hungarie and Scotland who all denie this supremacie of Kings in Ecclesiasticall causes Yea our Protestants them selues whilst they seeke to auoid the absurdities which aboue I haue produced against this supremacie and which Catholickes haue obiected do in effect despoile the King of all such Authoritie 19. Becanus in Dissid Angl. For first as BBCANVS hath tould them they are not agreed whether his Authoritie should be called Primacie or Supremacie nor whether he should be stiled Primate or Soueraine Salclebr pag. 140. D. And. in Tort. pag. 90. Tomson pag. 33. Head or Gouernour SALCLEBRIDGE calles the King Primate of the Church of England Doctour ANDREWES calles his Authoritie Primacie and yet TOMSON will not haue this authoritie called Primacie but Supremacie because the former word argueth a power Ecclesiasticall and of the same order with that which Prelates of the Church haue the last word he saith signifieth not so much And againe he will not haue it called Spirituall Authoritie but Authoritie in respect of Spirituall things Tomson pag. 31. Idem pag. 95. Salcl pag. 305 and he addeth that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And yet SALCLEBRIDGE saith that Kinges annointed with sacred oyle what will he then say of Kings that are not annointed are capable of Spirituall Iurisdiction And wheras at the first by the Parlament anno Domini 1543 in the yeare 35. of HENRIE the eight it was decreâ—d That the King should be called supreme head of the Church Poulton in his statute Tooker pag. 3. Burhill pag 133. and that also vnder paine of highe Treason yet now TOOKER and BVRHILL will not haue the King called head of the Church And so in deed Queene ELIZABETH in the First Parlament chose rather to be Gouernesse of the Church then Head 20. And as these men varie in the name so do they in the Power and thing it self TOOKER saith The King hath and can giue Tooker pag 305. Salclebr pa. 140. and take away all Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the outward court SALCLEBRIDGE sayth the King can dispense in pluralitie of benefices D. And. apud Tooker pa. 305. Bur. pa. 234. Salcl pa. 121. Took pag. 36. Bur. pag. 137. 242. Took pag. 15. D. And. pag. 151. and can licence a Bastard to take holie orders D. ANDREWES sayth hee hath all externall Iurisdiction but Censures yet BYRHIL denyeth him all Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall both in the inward and outward Court SALCLEBRIDGE sayth the King can giue Benefices create and depose Bishops and yet TOOKER sayth he can only nominate and present BVRHIL denyeth the King Authoritie to excommunicate yea he sayth he may bee excommunicated And the same doth also D. ANDREWES and TOOKER maintaine But what a supreme Head is he that can not cut of by excommunication an infecting and infected member What a Pastour that caÌ„ not cast out an infected sheepe by Excommunication And if he can not excommunicate but rather may be excommunicated it argueth that he hath a superiour who can exercise Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction ouer him and so he is not supreme Head of the Church Wherfore Catholicks as they acknowledge the Pope supreme Head Salcl pag. 136. so they say he can not be excoÌ„municated by any SALCLEBRIGE sayth that it is clearer then the sunne that Princes haue determined controuersies of faith in 8. Councels Tooker pag. 50. Bilson caeteri infra citandi and yet TOOKER as also D. BILSON D. ANDREWES and D. FIELD as wee shall see anone will not haue the King called superiour in matters of faith 21. After this doubting and varying they proceed to a flat denyall of the foresaied supremacie In Tortura Torti pa. 170. D. ANDREWES hath taken a great part of the Supremacie from the King for he confesseth that the Emperour hath no Imperiall right to diuine things These be his words Non est in ea quae diuina sunt Imperiale sed neque Pontificale ius vllum Ther is not in the King any Imperiall no nor Pontificall right ouer diuine thinges He addeth that the King hath no right to dispose of Churches which yet King HENRIE the 8. challenged and practized to the ruine of tenne thousand Churches in one yeare For thus sayth D. ANDREWES At illa diuina hîc quae tandem Aedes Templa Basilicae neque verò in ea quae ita diuina sunt Rex noster vllum sibi ius vendicet Ibid. pa. 171. And a little after he sayth That the King is no Iudge in a cause or matter of faith And in the next page he seemeth to affirme and prooue out of the Councels of Constantinople Pa. 172. Antioche and Carthage that the King is not to be Iudge in the causes of Bishops And the page next after that Pa. 173. In sacramentes the King hath neither supreame nor any power at all And besides all this he addeth that he cannot excommunicate Pag. 151 Nos Principi sayth he Cenfurae potestatem non facimus VVe do not graunt the Prince or King any power to excommunicate c. D. BILSON saith plainlie that the King hath Authoritie ouer the Persons of the Church Bilson in his true difference pag. 171 172. par 2. but not ouer the things of the Church to wit ouer the persons of the Bishops but not ouer faith Sacraments materiall Churches and such like Which yet I see not how it can stand together for if the King be supreme Head not only ouer the Kingdome but also ouer the Church that is of the persons of the Church then as because he is supreme Head of the Kingdome he can command his laye subiects in temporall matters as to paie Tribute to obey temporall lawes c. so if he be supreame Head of the Church and
lesse daungerous to them seing that by permitting Popes and Bishops to doe it they might derogate to their owne authoritie and giue occasion to them to prescribe against them and to do it not in the Princes but in their owne name and Authoritie And when did WIDDRINGTON heare that any good Christians appealed from the Church and Pope in these lawes vnto Princes as to their highest Superiours when did they reiect any of these lawes till they had informed them selues that they were made not by the Churches but by the Princes authoritie Certes WIDDRINGTON in this openeth a wide gap for Heretickes and all contemners of the Churches authoritie And what may he not defend if he be permitted to vse this libertie and audacitie As for his Authours we shall see hereafter in the ensewing thirteenth Chapter how many they are and of what Authoritie 4. Wherfore my Argument shall proceede as it began in this manner The Pope by VViddrington can make a Decree to depose inferiour Temporall Lordes ergo Supreame Princes they as Christians being as subiect te the Church by Baptisme as aboue is shewed in the 5. Chapter num 4.5.6 as much as the lowest Christians though in that they are absolute Princes they haue no Superiour but God in Temporall Authoritie To say that Pope INNOCENT made this Decree of his own head is but to shew great ignorance for in Generall Councels Popes speake ex Cathedra and as publick not priuate persons and what they decree is With the common consent of all the Bishops or the most part else if the Pope should do all of his owne head in vaine should he assemble Generall Councels But that all the Councell and Christian world consented to this decree it is cleare enough for that no mention is made of any variance betwixt the Pope and the Councell in this matter To say that the true Councell of Laterane is not extant or that the Canons extant were compiled only by INNOCENTIVS because in this Councell the Councell of Laterane though not this but another is cited and alleadged are so improbable euasions that they merit not confutation and are verie suffieientlie reiected by the booke called Discussio decreti Magni Concilij Lateranensis 5. One thinge there is bearing more shew which our Aduersaries might alleage to wit that if this Councell did in expresse tearmes define that the Pope hath power to depose Princes they would then yeeld because what a Generall Councell with the Pope defineth directly and expresly is a mattet of faith and it is heresie to gainsay it But seing that all thinges spoken or written in a Councell are not matters of faith for as Diuines commonlie say the reasons which the Councell bringeth for confirmation of her decree and those things which are spoken incidentlie Bellarm. lib 2. de Concil cap. 11. 12. and the things which are determined as probable are not of necessitie to be beleeued it seemeth that by this decree we are not bound to beleeue that the Pope can depose Princes because though the Pope and Councell make a decree of deposition yet they define not expresly nor sub Anathemate vnder paine of Curse that the Pope can depose Princes 6. But who so pleaseth to consider this decree well and without all passion or partiall affection must needs confesse that this decree ought to be of verie great credit for first the Pope and Councell suppose at least that the pope can depose Princes else they would neuer haue made such a Decree and consequentlie this decree argueth that the Pope and all the Prelates Princes and Legates present were of that opinion which no doubt they being so many and so learned must needs beare a great sway amongst all good Christians for what they thought all the Christian world at least for the most part thought all receauing and approouing this Councell But widdringtoÌ„ will say that he will not denie but that they all thought so piouslie and probablie yet because they defined not in expresse tearmes that the Pope can depose Princes he will not beleeue it A peremptorie Answer certainlie and wherin to say no more the Answerer shall shew him selfe verie slow and hard of beleefe and to hardie also who blusheth not to gainsay so many learned and godlie Prelates and whome so many graue countenances and Iudgements can not moue 7. But I will deale yet another Way and out of the selfe same decree Although the Pope and Councell in the alleaged decree do not expreslie define that Popes can vpon iust cause depose Princes yet it argueth that they nor onlie probablie but verilie and assuredlie thought he could else to haue grounded so odious a decree and iniurious also if the Pope haue not Authoritie vpon a probable opinion had bene great rashnesse For the Councell had exposed therby if the opinion had not bene supposed most assured the King and Common wealth yea and sometimes the whole Church to vprores garboiles rebellious warres and such like And warre should haue bene iust also on both sides For the subiects might haue refused to obey the deposed Prince as being freed by a Generall Councels authoritie from all obligation to him and being warranted by the same Councell that now he is no more their King but an vsurper and Inuader against whom euerie particuler man hath iustum bellum iust warre And so as if a forraine Prince should vniustlie inuade France without iust title or wrong receiued euerie Frenchman might resist him if he could because he hauing no Title all the Kingdome and euerie particuler member hath iust warre against him so if a Prince deposed persist in gouernment he is according to the Popes and Councels opinion which VViddrington confesseth to be probable an vsurper and inuader and consequentlie euerie one of his former subiects hath iust warre against him Cicero lib. 3. de offic Hâ—rodotus lib. 3. Xiphilin in Augusto AlexaÌ„d ab Alex. li. 3. c. 26 D. Th in 2. d. vlt. q. 2. a. 2. ad 5 Sot lib. 5. de Iust q. 1. art 3. alij infra cap. 15. citandi no lesse then as all the best Philosophers and Diuines teach the subiectes haue against an vsurper of the crowne And yet this Prince deposed might iustlie also persist in his possession because no man is bound to forgoe that to which he hath probable right being warranted by the rule of the law †Reg. 65 de Regulis Iuris in 6. In pari delicto velcausa potior est conditio possidentis In the like default or cause better is the condition of him that is in possession And againe * Reg. 11 ibid. Cum sunt iura partium obscura reo fauendum est potius quà m Actori VVhen the rightes of the parties are obscure the guiltie or accused is to be fauoured before the Actour or accuser But the Prince in this case hath according to VViddrington probable right and is in possession and he is reus not Actors
Albestanensis Bishop Hugo de Sancto Victore Henricus de Gandauo Vlricus Dionysius Carthufianus Ioanues Driedo Albertus Pighius Iacobus Latomus Conradus Brunus and to these may be added Adolphus Schulkenius and Lessius 6. Out of England he bringeth Alexander of Hales a learned Professour of Diuinitie and Maister to S. Thomas of Aquin and S. Bonauenture Holcot Franciscus Maironus Ioannes Bachonus Thomas VValdensis Prouinciall in his time in England of the order of Carmelites and one of the learnedst of his age Cardinall Pole Doctour Sanders To whome may be added Cardinall Allen in his Apologie and Answer to the libeller Doct. Stapleton Mr. Reynolds and diuers others of our learned writers since King HENRIE the Eight his time 7. Dareth now our aduersarie shew his face against such an ample Senate of Doctours and learned men can he thinke him selfe a good Catholicke that holdeth against Catholick Councells Chiefe Pastours Doctours yea and the Catholicke Church which neuer dissented from her Doctours and Pastours He will say that he wanteth not Doctours also O the Doctours I graunt he may alleadge Hereticks for his opinion for in this he conspireth with them for although as wee shall see anone they arrogate to them selues this power yet they denie it to the Pope Nay sayth VViddrington I haue Catholicke Doctours also to countenance my opinion and to free it from Heresie yea temeritie And who be these his Authours He alleageth Occam Ioannes Parisiensis Dante 's the Poet Almainus Ioannes Maior Hugo Vulcurunus Albericus and others But either these Authours were Schismatickes as Sigebert or they expreslie auerte the contrarie to that for which he alleadgeth them as Ocham and Almaine or finally they neither affirme the Popes power nor denie it in deposing Princes And so onlie fiue or six as Dante 's the Poet Sigebert the Schismatick Barclay Bochell and Lescherius expreslie holde with VViddrington Schulck pag. 131. as Schulckenius hath shewed particularlie of euerie one of the authors he alleageth And what are these obscure Authonrs to Scriptures Councels Popes Practise of the Church so many learned Authours of Italie France Spaine Germanie and England as are produced But that the Reader may see more plainelie how little authoritie Widdrington purchaseth to his opinion by his Authours I shall examine some of them in particular 8. Apol. n. 4 Disput Theolog. sec 3. c. 3. n. 4. New yeares-guift pa. 54. VViddrington in his Apologie and Theologicall Disputation and Newyeares guift alleageth out of Ioannes Azorius diuerse Authours as patrones of his opinion and seemeth to endeauour to bring in AZORIVS him selfe amongest them though by the head and shoulders IOANNES AZORIVS a famous Iesuit sayth he affirmeth that it hath euer been a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kinges on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in some certaine cases the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kinges of their Kingdomes c. And he alleageth diuerse Authours out of Azorius who fauour his opinion But First although he might haue some reason to alleage those Authours yet I can not see what reason he had to alleage them out of Azorius for if he would therby make his Reader beleeue that Azorius alloweth his opinion for probable in that it is countenaunced by these Authours by him alleaged he abuseth his Reader for that AZORIVS condemneth these his Authours and cōsequentlie him selfe verie deepelie whosoeuer pleaseth to reade AZORIVS shall see that he disputing this Question alleageth for the first opinion Tom. 2. lib. 4. instit moral c. 19. which denieth the Pope Authoritie of deposing Princes in some cases Lutherans Caluinistes and Marsilius Patauinus an hereticke and after that he sayeth non longè ab his fuerunt Gulielmus Ocham c. not farre different from these heretickes were William Ocham and Ioannes Parisiensis Deuines and Dante 's the Flonentine Poet and Almainus tract de suprem potest laicâ quaest 3. Maior in 4. dist 24. quaest 3. concl 3. who haue followed Ocham And then he addeth hauc sententiam Marsilij temerariam errorem continentem ipse Marsilius alij colligere se arbitrabantur imprimis c. This temerarious opinion and which containeth errour Marsilius and others thought they might gather first c. And after that he addeth reuera nisilabi errare velimus negare omnino non possumus penes Romanum Pontificem esse iure diuino vtramque potestatem trulie if we will not be deceaued and erre we can not at all deny but that the Romane Bishop hath bath authorities Tom. 2. lib. 10. Instit mor. c. 6. And after he prooueth this out of the canon Law by Diuines also and Lawiers The same Azorius addeth to these fauourers of VViddringtons opinion Hugo Michael vulcurunus and Albericus but condemneth them and prooueth out of Bartolus l. 1. ff de requirendis reis § vlt that Dante 's was after his death almost condemned of heresie and he alleageth Antonius 3. p. tit 21. cap. 5. § 2. who sayeth that Dante 's in hoc errauit erred in thu and so is put in the Index amongst prohibited authours and his booke of Monarohie condemned and of Albericus he sayeth he is cautè legendus warilie to be read and confuteth what he saith Wheras therfore Azorius sayeth that it hath euer been a great contronersie betwixt Emperours and Kinges on the one side and the Bishop of Rome on the other c. whence VViddrington would in ferre that his opinion were disputable and probable Azorius meaneth not that it hath been a controuersie betwixt Bishops of Rome and all Emperours and Kinges for seing that he coūteth this opinion of VViddrington temerarious and erroneous therin he should condemne all Emperours and Kinges of temeritie and errour but he meaneth schismaticall or hereticall Emperours and Kinges especiallie such as the Bishops of Rome haue deposed who to holde their crownes stood to it that the Pope could not depose them wherupon their followers complained of GREGORIE the seuenth And therfore in GREGORIE the seuenth his time when the greatest controuersie was about rhis matter none but the Emperour deposed and his followers Schismatickes as he was did contradict the Popes sentence of deposition yea then the Kinge of England William the Conquerour Alphonsus Kinge of Castile Philip King of Fraunce Kanuius King of Denmarcke Count Robert of Flaunders and other Princes held league and amitie with GREGORIE the seuenth against the Emperour and his Antipope Baron tom 11. an 1084 Et anno 1085. n. 11. 12 in Greg. 7. Epist ad Greg. 7. quam referunt Magdeburgēses Cent. 11. cap. 8. de Schismatibus circa med as may be seene in Baronius in his eleuenth Tome Yea the Emperour deposed pleading that he could not be deposed but for heresie confessed that he might haue been deposed for heresie Traditio Patrum est sayth he me solius Dei iudicio obnoxium esse nisi quod absit a
fier to the strawe there is great difference because he that applyeth the fier giueth no force nor actiuitie to the fier so his application is but conditio sine qua non and he is causa per accidens but the commaunder sometimes giueth authoritie and alwayes giueth morall influence and motion as doth the principall cause to the instrument and so he is a principall cause and causa per se 38. VVherfore to cleare the matter more I will distinguish three kindes of CoÌ„maunders The First is an vnlawfull commaunder The Second a lawfull Commaunder who hath Authoritie to commaund one to doe a thing but can not do it him selfe The Third is a commaunder who hath authoritie not onlie to commauÌ„d another but may also by him selfe do the thinge commaunded if he will And these are absolutelie called causes and causes principall and per se though not in the same manner In the First kinde are comprehended all Lordes or Masters who commaund theire seruantes or ministers to kill them whom they them selues haue no Authoritie to kill So if a Captaine should commaund his man to kill his enemie or one that standeth in his way of preferment or one whose wife or purse he desireth to haue he is sayd commonlie to be the principall cause Antonin lib. 4. tit 13. part 7. lib. 5. tit 15. part eadeÌ„ Mercado lib. 6. Sum. cap. 7. Vasq in Opusc de Restit c. 9. dis 1. dub 3. the seruant though he be a physicall cause yet he is but a ministeriall and instrumentall cause of the murder and though he haue no true Authoritie from his Master yet he hath as I sayd morall influence and doth the effect by vertue of that morall influeÌ„ce which moueth him And therfore if any restitution be to be made he is bound principallie and in the first place to restore and his seruant is not bound to restitution but in defect of his Master who is the principall cause and gaue morall influence and motion to his seruant although the seruant also because he was bound not to obey his Master shall endure the punishments due to murderers by the law Hence it is that Dâ—â—uines and Canonists do affirme that if the commaunder do recall his commaundemeÌ„t before his seruant hath donne the murder the seruant then shall be the principall and sole cause because after the commaundement is recalled he doth the murder of his owne Authoritie hauing now no morall influence or motion from his Master and so then he onlie is cause of the murder not his Master he onlie is bound to restitution if any be required not his Master and he onlie in the inward courte of Conscience deserueth hanging not his Master though the externall courte oftentymes when it presumeth that the Master did not reuoke his commaundement will pronounce sentence also against the Master In the Second kinde is the Confessarius who according to the common opinion in the Sacrarnent of Confession can commaund his peâ—itent to giue almes and his penitent is borind in conscience to giue the almes be it money bread corne or such like goodes and yet the penitent doth not loose dominion of those goods though he sinne in not giuing them to the poore and so the Confessariâ—us can not iustlie take them from him In the Third kind are Princes who giue authoritie to theire Iudges to coÌ„demne to death and by them or others his officers to the hangman to punish and hange malefactours Because although it be not conuenient for the Kinges Person to execute any immediatlie him selfe yet as he commaundeth and giueth authoritie to others so he might do that acte of iustice him selfe So the Pope or Bishop who giue authoritie to others to heare Confessions might them selues heare Confessions though because of their other affaires they vse not so to do 39. This distinction of commaunders supposed although the Pope had not authoritie of him selfe to depose a Prince yet if he can commaund the common wealth in some case to depose the Prince as VViddrington graunteth he can he should be a true morall and principall cause of the deposition because he should not onlie giue morall influence to the common wealth to depose for that euen an vnlawfull commaunder doth but he should also giue authoritie to the common wealth for although the common wealth hath of it selfe Authoritie to depose a Prince in some case and hath not this Authoritie from the Pope if the Pope haue Authoritie to commaund it followeth that the commoÌ„ wealth obeying his commaundement and Authoritie doth depose by his Authoritie And this to wit that the Pope may depose a Prince mediatlie by the common wealth I prooue out of VViddrington him selfe who to confirme his owne opinion which holdeth that the Pope can not depose a Prince alleageth Ioannes Parisiensis who writeth thus as VViddrington alleageth him Apud Widdr Disp Th. ca. 3. ser 3. n. 7. Si Rex est haereticus incorrigibilis contemptor Ecclesiâ—sticae Censurae porest Papa aliquid facere in populo vnde priuaretur ille saeculari honore deponeretur a populo excommunicando scilicet eos omnes ad quos spectat regem deponere qui ei vt Domino obedirent If a King be an hereticke and incorrigible and a contemner of the Churches Censure the Pope may do some thing in the people whereby he should be depriued of his secular honour and be deposed by the people to wit by excommunicating all those to whome it appertaineth to depose the King who should obey him as Lord. Out of this Aurhour whom WIDDRINGTON alleageth as a fauourer of his opinion I can easilie deduce that which VVIDDRINGTON denyeth to wit that though the Pope coulde not by him selfe depose a Prince yet he might by the Common wealth Because if the Pope can not onlie commaunde the Common wealth but also excommunicate all those subiectes that obey such a Prince he can compelle them to deny obedience to him vnlesse they will be separated by excommunicatioÌ„ from the Church out of which is no saluation If then any one would complayne of that Common wealth for deposing their Prince and denying obedience vnto him the people might answer that the Pope compelled them so to do and to leaue the King vnlesse they would leaue the Church whence followeth that the Pope in that case should be trulie sayd to haue beene the principall cause of deposition because he compelled the Common-wealth to depose him If VViddrington should say to his man kils such an one or I will kill thee who doubteth but that WIDDRINGTON should be counted the principall cause of murder wherfore seing that this Authour whom WIDDRINGTON produceth sayth that the Pope may say to the CoÌ„mon-wealth to whome it appertaineth to depose the Prince depose your Prince or I will separate you from the Church by Excommunication Aug. lib. cont aduers leg Prophet ca. 17. serm 68. de verbis Apost ca. omnis Christianus 11. q.
I will doe all these three things as I may sweare without daunger of periurie that the Pope can not depriue a Prince But out of these wordes of WIDDRINGTON I will frame this argument against him selfe I can noe more sweare these three thinges then I can sweare without all daunger of periurie that the Pope can not depriue a Prince but I can not without daunger of periurie sweare that the Pope cannot depriue a Prince ergo I cannot sweare these three things without daunger of periurie The maior proposition is WIDDRINGTONS the minor I haue often prooued because itis at least probable euen by WIDDRINGTONS confession that the Pope can depriue a Prince and if it be probable that he can it may be true if it may be true there is daunger of periurie to abiure it and so the Conclusion followeth to wit that I caÌ„ not sweare these three thinges without daunger of periurie The Sixt Clause Which Oath I acknowledge by full and lawfull Authoritie to be proposed vnto me and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrarie 59. In this Clause the swearer acknowledgeth that this Oath is proposed by full and lawfull authoritie which notwithstanding is not at least so certaine a thing as that a man may sweare it For although the Magistrate haue authority to propose an Oath of meere Ciuill alleageance vnto lay subiects yet he hath not anthority to propose such an Oath as this which as I haue prooued containeth so many thinges not to be sworne and so much derogateth to the Authoritie of the Pope which for so long a time he hath possessed and practised And especially the Magistrate can not pronose this Oath to all sortes of people seeing 〈◊〉 can not be without morall daunger of periurie much lesse can he propose it to Priests whose Ecclesiasticall immunitie freeth them from Magistrates and Temporall Iudges interrogations and Tribunals Ca. quâ—quam de Censibus in 6. Ca. aduersus cap. non minus de Immunit Eccl. and who only are to be examined by their Bishops and Ordinaries and by them to be punnished when they offend and not by any Temporall Iudges vnlesse the fault be so great that the Bishop thinketh it meet to degrade the delinquent and to deliuer him to secular power And so it being a thing at least verie doubtfull whether the Prince and Magistrate haue authority to propose such an oath yea it being euident that they cannot because as aboue is prooued it is euident that it containeth many things which are against faith and Authoritie of the Church and Councells the Prince and Magistrate can haue no authoritie at all much lesse full and lawfull Autho itie to propose this Oath And so neither can this Clause be admitted 60. Adde to this that what soeuer VVIDDRINGTON saith the King and Parlament by this oath do take vppon them to decide what power the Pope hath from Christe the Authour and S. Peter the Popes first Predecessour for what is it other to determine and decide a question then to declare that one parte of it is to bee beleeued and followed towitt that the Pope cannot depriue or depose a Prince and that the contrarie is to bee abiured as impious and hereticall And if anie Doctour of the Church should define this question or anie other how can he determine more playnlie and resolutelie As for Example the Church defineth that there are 7. Sacraments and pronounceth Anathema against the contrarie opinion which saith there are but two or not 7. Doth shee not in this define the question Euen so our Prince and Parlament by this oathe haue decreed that the Pope can not depose or depriue a Prince and they oblige the Subiect to sweare this parte and to abiure the contrarie as heresie Is not this then to determine 61. Whereas Widdrington alleageth Disp Th. c. 7. n. 11 that the facultie of diuinitie in Paris and Mentz doe oblige those that are to proceed Doctours not to teach or preach publiquelie that our B. Ladie was conceiued in originall sinne and yet doe not define the controuersie this maketh rather against him for they also doe in this define and though not absolutelie yet as much as by theire authoritie they can and therfore they doe not oblige their subiects to abiure as heresie the contrarie opinion of the Thomists for that were absolutelie to determine and to arrogate the Popes authoritie wherefore seing that the King and Parlament doe oblige Catholickes to abiure as heresie and vnder the penaltie also of a Premunire that the Pope cannot depriue or depose a Prince it followeth that they absolutelie determine of such a spirituall proposition and matter of diuinitie against the Practise of manie Popes and against the decree of the Lateran Councell and so in this they Challenge to them selues the Popes or Churches Authoritie to which it appertaineth to define what is heresie and consequeÌ„tlie to sweare that this oathe is proposed by lawfull Authoritie is to sweare in effect that the King and Parlament haue spirituall Authoritie and that the King is supreame Head of the Church of England and hath Authoritie to define what proposition is hereticall At least this Argument maketh it doubtefull least this Clause importeth thus much and so is not to bee sworne The Seuenth Clause And all these things I do plainlie and sincerelie acknowledge and sweare according to the expresse wordes by me spoken without any equiuocation or mentall reseruation whatsoeuer And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment hartilie willinglie and trulie vppon the true faith of a Christian So helpe mee God 62. Diuines affirme that the guiltie D. Th. 2. 2. q. 69. a. 1. Caiet ibid. Henric. quodl 1. q. 44. Petrus Nauar li. 2. de restit or supposed guiltie is not lawaies bound to answer according to the Iudges meaning and intention if the Iudge do not make his interrogations iuridicallie The same Diuines affirme that a Iudge doth not make his interrogations iuridicallie when he questioneth about any secret thing of which there is not some fame cap. 4. n. 136. Lessius lib. 2. de iust iure cap. 31. dub 3 alij Vide cap. qualiter quando ca. Inquisitionis dâ— Accusationibus or report against the supposed guiltie or when he examineth things which pertaine not to his Court but rather to the spirituall Court or when there is not semiplena probatio or sufficientia indicia or when the supposed guiltie knoweth him selfe innocent for then he is not bound to answer according to the Iudges intention but may equiuocate Likewise when he knoweth him selfe innocent and yet if he confesse the circumstance which is demaunded he should be presumed nocent he may denie it with an equiuocation As for example if one had been present when his companion without his consent killed another if the Iudge aske whether he was not present he may denie it meaning he was not so present as to consent or