dependent of it or subordinate vnto it as is to bee seene euidently in the aforesayd and many other examples 34. But as touching Widdringtons examples they are not to the purpose for no marueile that a stone cannot discourse by or with a man a man being not subordinate to a stone nor any instrument of it and so as litle marueile it is that a stone cannot depose a Prince by the Pope as that VViddrington cannot be said to low by an oxe bleate by a sheepe or beare fruite by a tree here being no subordination or dependence as there is in the other examples by me alleadged and in the power of the Prince and Common wealth which euen by WIDDRNIGTONS confession is dependent of the Popes authoritie and may be directed and commaunded by it 35. Secondly this I prooue by reason grounded in the opinion which euen WIDDRINGTON himselfe admitteth Supra cap. 3. sect 4. n. 3. For in the place alleadged he graunted as probable that the Common wealth can depose a Prince though he denieth that authoritie to the Pope Widdr. in Resp Apolog. n. 12.13.14.15.16.21.23.27.28 alibi And in his Apologeticall Answer he confesseth that the Pope hath authoritie to commaunde a Prince in Temporall matters for the necessarie good of the Church as to vse his authoritie and to draw his sword for the necessarie defence therof and that he may inflict Spirituall censures on him if he disobey 36. Now if wee putte this together we shall finde that the Pope euē in widdringtons opinion may depose a Prince by the Common wealth although he could not doe it by himselfe immediately Disp Th. cap. 3. sec 4. n. 2. et 3. for WIDDRINGTON graunteth as probable that the Common wealth can depose a lawfull Prince in case of intollerable tyrannie for he graunteth that the contrairie opinion to wit that the common wealth can not depose a Prince is but probable and he confesseth that the Pope being supreame Pastour of the Church may commaund the Common wealth to vse this her Temporall power when it is necessarie for the conseruation of the Church 〈…〉 And seing that a commaūder is thought to doe that which another doth by his commaundemēt and to bee a principall cause of that of which the cōmaunded is but an executioner if the Pope commaund the Common wealth to depose her Prince and she obey her Pastour as WIDDRINGTON confesseth shee is bound to do then the Pope in that case shal be said to haue deposed the Prince because what the Common wealth doth at his commandment he is said to doe 〈…〉 yea he in that case is the principall agent and the Common wealth his instrument onely and executioner But VViddrington graunteth that the Pope may commaund the Common wealth to depose her Prince ergo he graunteth that the Pope if not by himselfe immediatly yet by another that is by the Common wealth can depose a Prince With what conscience then can VViddrington sweare to that clause of the Oath which sayth that the Pope neither by himselfe nor by any Authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King c. seeing that he graunteth that the Pope may commaund the Common wealth to do it and that euery man is saied to do that which is done by his lawfull commaundement he being in that case the principall Agent and the Common wealth as is sayed a subordinate Agent and instrument onely 37. Pag. 75.76.77.78.79 To this VViddrington in his Newyearesguift answereth that a commaunder is not a true and proper cause especiallie when he hath not power to do that which he commaundeth but onlie a cause per accidens and so although the Pope should commaund the common wealth to depose their Prince and they at his commaundement should depose him yet the Pope should not be sayd to depose him as a true and proper cause Widdr. in bu Newyearesgift Pag. 65. n. 7. but onlie as a cause per accidēs But first VViddrington in this answer seemeth at least to contradict him selfe for if as he sayeth a commaunder is commonlie sayd to do that thinge which is donne by his commandement it followeth that a commaunder is commonlie counted a cause of that which is done by his commaundement and so if the Pope should commaund the common wealth to depose a Prince the common wealth should depose him at his commaundement he should be counted by the common conceite of men a cause of the deposition and though not by him selfe yet by an other should commonlie be sayd to haue deposed him How then can Widdrington sweare against this that is commonlie sayd to wit that the Pope neither by him selfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome or by any other meanes hath any power or authoritie to depose the King c. seing that it is probable by WIDDRINGTONS confession that he may be sayd to haue power to depose a King in case of intollerable Tyrannie by the common wealth Wheras VViddrington affirmeth that the Pope in this case commaunding the common wealth should be onlie causa per accidēs a cause by accident in that he applyeth onlie the common wealth which is causa per se and the true efficient cause I must first tell him that euen a cause per accidens is commonlie called a cause and therfore the theefe who applyeth fier to the house and is a cause by accident of burning the same in that he applyeth the fier which is causa per se of the burning of the house is sayd commonlie and absolurelie to haue burned the house and shall be bound to restitution yea and hanged and that iustlie also for burning the house Wherfore if the Pope in that case should be at least causa per accidens he should in common speech be counted the cause of that deposition And therfore if VViddrington durst not sweare that the theefe neither by him selfe nor by any other cause can burne a house if he can by applying the fier that cā burne it how dareth he sweare that the Pope can not either by him selfe or by any other cause depose a Prince seing that he by VViddringtons Confession can by his commaundement apply the common wealth which is a cause per se and sufficient for such an effect Secondlie Widdrington abuseth his tearmes in saying that a cōmaunder is a cause by accident for though he be no phisicall cause of the effect yet he is a morall cause and in that kinde a principall cause and a cause per se which intendeth the effect and moueth the commaunded as an instrumēt and the commaunded though he haue not alwaies from the cōmaunder true authoritie because sometymes the cōmaunder hath none him selfe yet he hath from him morall influence and is sayd to worke the effect by vertue of his commaundemēt And so betwixt the commaunder and the applyer of
that in this place as must signifie equalitie or identitie not similitude New-yeares-guifte Pag. 106. as VViddrington in his Newyeares-guifte confesseth that sometimes it doth in regard of the matter And so by this Clause wee are to abiure that Position not as like to heresie but as all one with heresie trulie heresie Thirdlie it is at least doubtfull least this may bee the sense to witt that the position is truelie heresie speciallie seing that the wordes and manner of speeche as WIDDRINGTON confesseth are to bee taken in the Common sense and according to the Lawemakers intention ergo this is a clause not to bee digested by anie tymerous conscience nor by any other then by an all deuouring conscience The Fift Clause And I do further beleeue and in conscience am resolued that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer hath power to absolue me of this Oath Sayrus in Claui Regia li. 6. ca. 11. n 7. Lesfius li 2. de iust et iure cap. 40. dub 17. num 114. Arragon 2.2 q. 88. art 10. in expl art §. his cōstitutis Psal 75. or any part thereof 55. In this Clause first is abiured all power to dispense in oathes and vowes which is hereticall it being a matter of faith conformable to common consent and to the Canons and practise of the Church that the Pope can dispense in oathes and vowes when there is iust cause And if in other oathes why not in this VViddrington perchaunce will answere that this Oath of Alleageance bindeth by law of God and Nature in which the Pope cannot dispense But he cannot be ignorant that all oathes and vowes do bynde by law of God and Nature according to that Psal 75. Vouete reddite Vow and render And yet if hee will be a Catholicke he must confesse that the Pope can and often times hath and doth dispense in some oathes and vowes as in a vow to make a longe pilgrimage or to giue a summe of mony to a Church or Monasterie which are temporall things though ordained to a spirituall end and why then can he not dispense in this for a good end to wit conseruation of faith and vpon iust cause as certes if euer there be iust cause to dispence then there is when the Prince with intolerable Tyrannie persecuteth faith and Religion 56. And therefore VViddrington should call to minde that distinction which Diuines vse in this matter to wit that there is duplex ius dininum naturale Sanchez lib. 2. de matrim disp 14. n. 5. ad 4 lib. 8. disp 6. n. 1. a two fold diuine and naturall law or right The one is absolute deriued onely from God and Nature the other supponit factum vel voluntatem humanam that is supposeth some fact or will of man Of this sorte are oathes and vowes which binde not absolutely but only supposing some fact or will of ours by which wee sweare or vowe what otherwise we needed not And although in all such things the Pope cannot dispense for he can not dispense in matrimonie consummated nor in matrimonie betwixt brother and sister nor in pluralitie of wyues which yet suppose some fact or will of ours yet he can dispense in vowes especiallie simple yea and in those that be solemne also as many Diuines do probablie holde He can also dispense in oathes alreadie made when there is iust cause for seeing that these vowes and oathes suppose our free will and consent and are such also as it is expedient that the Pope many times should dispense in them such as is not matrimony consummated nor mariage betwixt brother and sister nor pluralitie of wiues because if once dispensation in these were graunted it would occasion many fornications and aduoutries Sanchez lib. 2. de matrim disp 13. n. 11. lib. 7. disp 52 n. 11. disp 82. num 9. Vide etiā Bellarm li. de matrim ca. 10.16 28. as Sanchez and others obserue it was necessarie that CHRIST should leaue such power to his Church and especially to his Chiefe Vicaire the Pope by which he might take away the obligation of these oathes and vowes which in some circumstāce of times and persons can not so easily nor so conueniently be fulfilled and obserued So that to sweare that the Pope hath no Authoritie to dispense with a subiect in his Oath by which he hath sworne fidelitie to the King where as notwithstanding when the King is an intollerable Tyrant there is good reason In Disp Theolog. ca 6 sect 1. n. 2. and iust cause of dispensation were in effect what soeuer VViddrington affirmeth to abiure all Authoritie of the Church in dispensations For although it be no good Argument to argue à particulari ad vniuersale and to say The Pope can not dispense in this Oath ergo in none yet when there is the same reason of the particular which is in the vniuersall then to deny the particular were to deny the vniuersall And therefore as to say Peter who is a man as well as others is not risihilis were in effect to say that nullus homo est risibili so seeing there is the same reason of this Oath to Wards the Prince which is of other oathes he that denieth that the Pope can dispense in this Oath denyeth also in effect that he can dispense in any oath at all 57. This power which the Pope hath in dispensing in this Oath I confirme by all that which aboue I haue alleaged to proue that the Pope can depose Princes and absolue subiects from their alleageance and euen by the power of binding and loosing Mat. 18 which though ordinarilie it be vnderstood of loosing from sinnes and censures yet it is also extended to absolution from alleageance when it is necessarie to the Churches conseruation as aboue I haue shewed not only by Cardinall Bellarmine whose aythoritie VViddrington should rather reuerence then contemne but also by auncient Popes whose testimonies in this kinde ought to counterpoize all contrarie asseuerations they being in a matter of so great importance vndoubtedly illuminated by the spirit of trueth and deliuering the right sence of the Holy Ghost as his Chiefe and infallible interpretes 58. To this WIDDRINGTON answeareth Disp Th. cap. 6. graunting that although the Pope cannot dispense in iuramento assertorio of which noe man doubteth yet he may in iuramento promissorio a promissorie oath because the thing which we promise for the future tyme may prooue hurtfull or vnlawfull And seing that the things promised for the future tyme in this Clause are three 1. That I will keepe fidelity and obedience to the King and his heires notwithstanding excommunication or depriuation 2. That I will defend him and them with all my forces against all conspiracies made against them and theire Crowne and dignitie 3. That I will reueale all such treasons and trayterous cōspiracies c. He sayth I may as safelie and securelie sweare without all daunger of periurie that
power because as I haue saied the Communitie at first had authoritie to choose which gouernement in particuler it thought most conuenient is not to be ascribed immediatly to God D. Tho. 1.2 qu. 90. a. 3â— and. qu. 105. a. 1 ad 1. a second cause being found out sufficient to produce such an effect And so the Kings authoritie in particuler and taken determinatlie is not immediately of God or Nature but cometh to him by meantes not only of the peoples designation but also of the peoples gift and donation D. Th. 1.2 q. 105 ar 1. ad 1. and 2.2 q. 10. art 10. Caieta ib. Bellarm to 1. lib. 3. cap. 9. Suarez l. 3. de leg c. 4. Almai li. de potest eccl cap. 1. Prou. 8. Rom. 13. And this opinion is holden by the best Diuines both auncieÌ„t and moderne But this not withstanding it is most true which God saith Per me Reges regnant Kings raigne by me To which his Apostle subscribeth sayeing Non est potestas nisi à Deo itaque qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit There is no power but of God therfore he that resisteth the power restisteth the ordinance of God because Kinges authoritie proceedeth mediatelie from God to wit by meanes of the authoritie of the Communitie which proceedeth immediatelie from God and Nature and it is also Gods prouidence that Kinges raigne ouer vs and God as the first cause cooperateth to their election and creation and approoueth also the same But yet for all this the people is a second cause of Kinges authoritie 13. If any obiect that Saul and Dauid were immediately created by God Kinges of the Iewes I answere that God in this preuented the people for the peoples good for otherwise the Iewes by lawe of Nature had authority to choose and create them selues a King as is already prooued Neither doth it hence follow that the people is aboue the King or is not bound to obey the King or can depose the King at their pleasure for although the people at the first created the King yet they created him not as a simple Magistrate or officer but as an Absolute Prince and they dispoiled them selues of authoritie to giue it to the King as to one that can better rule then the confused multitude and became as it were 〈◊〉 priuate personne subiect not superiour â—o to King and so the Kinges power now 〈◊〉 so long at least as he is not an intolleâ—able Tyrant is not depending of the people â—nd no meruaile because many effectes which depend of their causes in fieri and in â—heir first production depend not of them â—n facto esse and conseruation So the Sonne â—â—ueth after his Father and fruite may be extant after the tree is consumed and we giue many thinges franckly and freelie which afterwards we can not at our pleasure â—ake away VVherfore as a freeman selleth â—im self freely but after the sale is so bound to his Maister that he can not free him self at his pleasure but remaineth will he nill he a subiect and bondman who before was a freeman so the people before the election of their King is free superiour but after is a bounden subiect and inferiour though by a Ciuil not despoticall subiectioÌ„ And so supposing this election the people is bound in conscience to obey their King as superiour and cannot now depose him vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie for then the common opinion holdeth D. Thom. Opus 20. de Regi Princ. cap. 1. Sotus l. 4 de Iust Iure q. 1. a. 3. q. 4. a. 1. Rom. 13. that the Authoritie which the people had in the beginning to create him returneth againe by deuolution to depose him but must obey him in lawfull thinges though he be difficile and gouerne not altogether as he should doe according to that Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit let euerie soule be subiect to higher powers and againe Itaque qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit therfore he that resisteth the power resisteth Gods ordinance And againe Ideoque necessitate subditi estote VVhich in Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ideo necessit as est subijci Therfore be subiect of necessitie and yet againe Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum 1. Pet. 2. siue Regi quasi praecelleÌ„ti c. Be subiect therfore to euerie humane creature for God whether it be to the King as excelling c. And as in the same chapter Saint PETER commandeth seruants to be subiect in all feare to their Maisters not only to the good and modest but also to the waiward so the people is bound to obey Kings Vide Lessium li. 2 dei â—st iure c. 9. dub 4. though Waiward and difficile yea though they be Tyrantes so that their first entrance be lawfull and they not deposed yea though their entrance were by vnlawfull Inuasion so that the people generallie did afterwards consent and accept of them as their Princes and superiours for to a superiour whilest he remaineth superiout and commandeth lawfull thinges obedience is due otherwise be he neuer so lawful if he command things vnlawfull we must obey God before men Act. 5. and the King before the Viceroy 14. But against that which I haue saied of the creation of Kinges by the peoples election some may obiect that nowadaies in all Europe almost all Kinges are made by succession as are the Kings of Spaine France â—nd England To this I answere that though this be so yet the source and origin of this is also the peoples election For at the first â—excepting those Kinges which extraordiâ—arilie were giueÌ„ immediately from God to the Iewes the people chose or approued â—he King but perceauing what difficultie and daunger also of tumults and sedition would ensue if after the death of their King they should be to seeke and stand vpon election of another they were conâ—ent that the lawfull heires of the first King â—hosen should succeed to his father without newe election although when the â—ewe King is crowned the peoples consent is demanded and the King is sworne vnto them And in Spaine the Archbishop of Toledo receaueth the Kinges oath in the name of the Church and people In France the Archbishop of Rhemes In England the Archbishop of Canterburie and so all Regall power though not immediatelie yet originallie cometh from the peoples election and donation 15. And therfore wee see that the Kinges power in diuers countries is diuersly limited as in France and England where many of the Kinges lawes are not taken to be of force vnles the Parlament of states concurre to the making or confirming of them which limitation VViddrington ascribeth to the King In Resp Apol n. 174. pa. 137. as though he did voluntarilie thus limit him self But who seeth not how vnlikely it is that Kinges should thus restraine their owne power and tye their owne hands
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
regna dat coelestia That Christ is come why dost thou dread O Herode thou vngodlie foe He doth not earthlie Kingdomes reaue That heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow 4. And so although CHRIST were euen as man a Temporall King yet he not actually raigning him self it is not likelie that he should giue any such authoritie to S. PETER and the Pope his successour And although hee had actually raigned him self yet it is not necessarie that he should giue that Authoritie to S. PETER for hee had also the power of Excellencie by which he might command euen Infidels not baptized and by which he instituted a Church Sacraments and a Priesthood which S. PETER and the Pope his Successour can not doe Certes none can denie but that CHRIST might haue giuen S. PETER supreme Iurisdiction spirituall ouer the Church without Temporall because as spirituall power is not necessarily annexed to the Temporall as I haue proued in the former Chapter so Temporall power is not necessarily ioyned to the spirituall and therfore seing that neither the law of God nor Nature nor man giueth any such Temporall Iurisdiction to the Chiefe Pastour of the Church why should either he challenge it or we giue it him especiallie it being a thing verie inconuenient and odious that either the Church or her Chiefe Pastour should haue any such Temporall power For if it were so that the Church or her supreme Pastour had any such soueraintie it would deterre all Pagan Kings and Princes from our Religion fearing least the Church by her absolute Authoritie might depriue them of their Kingdomes Crownes and Scepters at her pleasure And hence it is that the Popes them selues confesse that they haue no Imperiall nor Kinglie Authoritie giuen them by CHRIST but rather that these two powers are in distinct subiects So NICHOLAS Pope sayth Cum ad verum ventum est c. Ca. cum ad verū d. 96. Vide supra pa. 66. et pag. 78. VVhen it came to the vnderstanding of the truth neither did the Emperour take vnto him the rights of Bishop-like Authoritie nor did the Bishop vsurpe the name of the Emperour because the same Mediatour of God and men man Christ IESVS hath distinguished the offices of both powers by their proper and distinct dignities as that Christian Emperours for attaining eternall life should neede bishops and Bishops should vse the Imperiall lawes for the cause onely of temporall things And S. BERNARD Bern. li. 2. de Cōsid ca. 6. Nam quid tibi aliud dimisit Sanctus Apostolus quod habeo inquit tibi do c. VVhat other thing did the holie Apostle leaue vnto thee what I haue saith hee I giue thee VVhat is that One thing I know it is neither gould nor siluer seing that he sayth gould and siluer is not with mee Bee it that by some other way thou maist challenge this vnto thee yet not by Apostolicall right for he could not giue thee that which he had not VVhat he had he gaue sollicitude as he sayd ouer the Churches Did be giue thee rule and domination not ouer-ruling the Clergie but made example of the flocke and doost thou thinke this to be spoken onlie out of humilitie not in veritie the voice of our Lord is in the Ghospell the Princes of the Gentils ouer-rule them c. but it shal not be so amongst you 5. But although the Pope and Chiefe Pastour of the Church hath no direct Temporall power but only in his owne Temporall Patrimonie and Kingdome by which he may dispose of Kingdomes Crownes and scepters yet he hath a Spirituall power which may directlie and ordinarilie dispose of spirituall matters and indirectlie and in some extraordinarie case of the Temporall also that is when it shall be iudged necessarie for the consernation of the faith or Religion or the Churches lawes and right or some other great and necessarie good I say the Pope hath no direct power ouer Princes for then he might limit their power abrogate their lawes and depose their persons at least for some iust cause though it did not concerne either faith or the Churches right or necessarie good as the King can deale with his Viceroy and any of his subiects and then Princes should not be absolute and independent who yet as aboue is declared in Temporall matters and so long as they exceede not the bounds of their authority by commanding things contrary to Gods law or the Churches Canons acknowledg no Superiour in earth neither Pope nor Emperour nor Common wealth For as for the Emperour all Princes who are not his Vassals as the Kings of Spaine England and France are not as they acknowledge him Superiour in dignitie and therfore will and must giue him the precedence whersoeuer they meete yet they are not subiect to him nor bound to obey him vnlesse it be when the Pope the Chiefe Pastour and hee the greatest Prince in dignitie shall thinke it necessarie that all Christian Princes contribute or concurre for the defence of Christendome against the Turke or such like Common enemie As for the Pope I graunt that CHRIST gaue him no Temporall power at all which aboue I haue prooued for that Temporall power which he hath in Italie hee had not by Christs immediat graunt but onlie by Constantines and other Emperouts and Princes donation which donation supposed and confirmed also by Prescription and his subiects yea all the Christian worlds consent that part of Italie which he possesseth is as trulie appertaining to him as England is to the King of England France to the King of France and Spaine to the King of Spaine onlie the Pope cannot transfer his Kingdome to his Heyres as they may because it cometh not to him in particular by hereditarie succession but onlie by election Yea if the Pope were by the law of God a Temporall Soueraine Prince ouer all the world other Princes should holde of him and CONSTANTINES donation by which he made him Temporall Prince of Italie had been no donation but restitution As for the Common wealth I haue aboue declared how it hath despoiled it self of all authoritie and by translating it to the King is trulie a subiect and like a priuate person and so hath no power ouer the King vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie as aboue is explicated 6. I say yet that the Pope hath an Indirect power ouer Kings euen in Temporall mattters which power notwithstanding is not Temporall but spirituall nor any distinct power from his spirituall supremacie but euen the self same And therfore GREGORIE the Seuenth in his deposition of HENRIE the Fourth sayth that he deposeth him by the power he hath from S. PETER of binding and loosing And although his Pastorall and Spirituall power directly and ordinarily hath the menaging only of spirituall matters and so directly and ordinarily exerciseth it self in excommunicating interdicting and suspending frō Spirituall offices calling Councels and deciding controuersies of faith in them in making
force her subiects to Idolatrie and superstition hinder by violence preaching administration of Sacraments and all practize of Religion what should the Church do excommunicate these persecutours she cannot hauing no Spirituall power ouer them they being not incorporated to the Church by baptisme And if she could Psal 63. they would contemne all such weapons tanquam sagittas paruulorum as the arrowes of children What then must the Church stand still and let the cruell persecutour do his worst must she expose her selfe and her subiects to theire mercie that haue no mercie Cerres if in that case she might not take armes she were the vnablest and worst prouided Common wealth that euer was And what if the hereticks Vide Baron an Christi 348. Victorem Vticen de Persec Wandalica who commonlie are more cruell than Pagans as the crueltie of the Arrians and euen of Protestants and Puritans in France the low Countries and our Iland also beareth to euident witnesse would vse the like or greater crueltie and Tyrannie against the Church and the true faithfull people therof VVhat defensiue Armour hath CHRIST giuen her Excommunication you will say or other spirituall censures But what if they also as commonly they do would contemne all such armes and weapons How shall the Church conserue her selfe and withstand their crueltie should she expose her throate and brest to the Tyrants sword her selfe and her subiects to his crueltie should she permitt Sacraments and preaching to be forbidden all exercise of Religion to be hindered and in lieu therof all abomination to be set vp and promoted You will say that after she hath threatned Gods Iudgments vsed her spirituall Armes and weapons she hath no more to do hauing no Temporall Armes to vse and so must commit all to God But then say I that CHRIST who was incarnate and liued and dyed for the Church had not sufficiently prouided for her defence And they that say she can only haue accesse in that case to God are like to those Philosophers who deny all power to second causes to produce substantiall formes and effects and make God the onlie Authour But as these Philosophers are hissed out of the schooles because since God created all at the beginning he doth nothing in Nature but by second causes so I say that VViddrington and others who deny the Church all power to defend her selfe are vnnaturall Children yea mercilesse and cruell enemies in remitting her to God only who though he alwayes heare our praiers and petitions yet doth not alwaies graunt them VVherefore wee must finde out a sword and an ordinarie second cause which may in this case defend the Church and this is no other then her Spirituall power by which as aboue is declared she can dispose of Temporall goods and Kingdomes for the necessarie conseruation of the spirituall good For the better declaration wherof I demaund of our Protestantes in England if his Maiestie should turne Catholick and consequently should put the ministers out of office persecute them with sword and fier what would they doe They would perchaunce excommunicate him but what if he contemned such excommunication as iustlie he might they being no true Bishops what would they doe Trulie if a man may guesse by that they teach and haue practized in Scotland England FraÌ„ce Germanie the low countries they would trust more to their sword then their word as we shall see herafter that they haue done in the like case 10. In disp Theol. c. 3. n. 21. sect 1. An obiection of Widdr. But Widdrington taxing the learned Suarez sayth that if because the Church is an absolute Common wealth and consequently hath sufficient Authoritie to defend her selfe we may inferre that she may vse not only Spirituall but also Temporall armes wee must inferre also that God must giue the Church not only Authoritie to depose Princes but also force and meanes to execute the sentence of her deposition The Answer which yet wee see she alwayes hath not I answer that it is not necessarie that God should alwayes giue execution to matters for the King and Common wealth cannot alwaies actually suppresse Rebelles and vanquish enemies but yet as if the King or Common wealth had not authoritie to defend it selfe by defensiue and offensiue weapons neither he nor the Common wealth were sufficiently by God and Nature furnished or prouided for so if Christ had not giuen his Church power and Authoritie to defend and conserue her self by Temporall armes when the spirituall glaiue will not serue he had not prouided sufficiently for her neither had she had the Authoritie which is due to an absolute Common wealth And although God hath promised to protect his Church to the end as he promised to defend the Synagogue and to continue the Kingdome to Dauids posteritie yet he vseth second causes for the execution and performance of his sayed promise And therfore as not withstanding his promise the Iewes and Dauid vsed humane meanes as warres and such like for their conseruation so may the Church when her spirituall power is contemned 11. But although as this Argument prooueth the Church may vse Temporall armes in case of necessitie yet it is not so conuenient that she should do it by her selfe immediately but rather by the hand of the Prince when she can induce him to vndertake her cause and defence and for that cause though she vseth to deliuer hereticks brachio seculari to the secular arme and power yet she vseth not to punish them her selfe not for that she cannot but because it is not conuenient she should but only when Temporall Princes will not do that office for her Lib 4. de consider cap. 3. Ioan. 10. Mar. 26. whereupon S. BERNARD alluding to those wordes of Christ Conuerte gladium tuum in vaginam as he auerreth the power of handling the Temporall sword so he saith it is not conuenient for the Pastour to vse it but only to command it For thus he speaketh to Pope EVGENIVS the third Quid tu denuò gladium vsurpare tentas c. VVhat dost thou goe about to take to thy selfe againe that sword which once thou wast commanded to put vp in to the sheath VVhich yet whosoeuer denyeth to be thine doth not seeme to mee to haue sufficientlie attended to the word of out Lord who sayd Put vp thy sword into the scabbart It is thyne therfore perchance at thy becke though not by thy hand to be drawne otherwise if it did not any wise pertaine vnto thee when the Apostles sayd Behold two swords here our Lord would not haue answered It is enough but It is to much Therfore both the spirituall and materiall sword is the Churches but that is to be vsed for the Church this also of the Church Orat. in Auxent quae extat lib. 5. â—p eius post epist 32. that by the hand of the Priest this by the hand of the soulâ—iour but yet at the becke of the
affirme that in case of intolerable tyrannie against the Church the Pope may depose them But rather as they are content so to beare rule ouer their subiects as they will permitt God to beare rule ouer them so they should also be content to subiect them selues their Kingdomes Crownes and scepters to Christ and his Kingdome that raigning vnder him here for a time they may raigne with him hereafter for euer CHAPTER XV. An Explication of the late Oath of pretended Alleageance and of euery clause thereof deduced out of the former and some other grounds by which is prooued that it can neither be proposed nor taâ—en without grieuous offence of Almighty God 1. Vide Alphonsum de Castro V. IurameÌ„tum Gen. 21. Gen. 26. Gen. 31. Psal 17. Rom. 1.2 Cor 1. Philip. 1.1 Tim. 5 CAtholicks with common consent do confesse and hould against the Messalians Euchites Pelagians Waldenses Anabaptistes and Puritanes that it is lawfull in some cases to sweare as many of the greatest Sainctes haue done For ABRAHAM swore to Abimelech ISAAC to the same or another Abimelech IACOB to Laban MOYSES swore by Heauen and earth DAVID and others oftentimes vse this oath Viuit Deus as God liueth which is in effect to sweare by the life of God S. PAVL also did vse diuers oathes as Testis enim mihi est Deus for God is my witnesse and I call God to witnesse I testifie before God and such like Yea God him selfe knowing that we more easilie beleeue when a thing is sworne sweareth himselfe to winne credit at our hands Deut. 4. And in DEVTERONOMIE he commandeth vs to sweare saying Dominum Deum tuum timebis per nomen eius iurabis Thou shalt feare thy Lord God and shalt sweare by his name But as medicines are good yet not alwaies to be taken but onlie supposing a disease or sicknesse so oathes are not to be vsed but only supposing a necessitie as when we cannot otherwise be beleeued And therfore when there is no necessitie CHRIST sayth Mat. 5. Ego autem dicovobis non iurare omnino I say to you sweare not all to wit when there is no necessitie Iacob 1. And S. IAMES Nolite iur are quodcunque iur amentum Do not sweare any oath Deut. 6. But when there is necessitie God commandeth it Psal 62. as wee haue seene And Dauid commendeth it saying Laudabuntur omnes qui iurant in eo They all shall be praised who swearein him God Fot to sweare when necessitie vrgeth is an Acte of Religion and worship of God whome we acknowledge to be so true that he will not fauour a lye and of such a maiestie that none will dare to sweare by him vnlesse the thing be true which is the reason why oathes are easilie credited 2. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 89. art 3. But if we will haue our oathes free from all sinne we must ioyne to them these three companionsâ— or conditions Iudgement Veritie and Iustice according to that of HIEREMIE Hierem. 4 Iur obis in veritate in iudicio in iustitia Thou shalt sweare in Veritie Iudgement and Iustice. Iudgement is necessarie in the sweater Veritie in the thing he sweareth Iustice in the cause For want of Iudgement the oath is rash as when we sweare for euerie trifle for want of Veritie the oath is false and periurie as when we sweare a lye for want of Iustice it is vnlawfull as if one should sweare he would committ a sinne And if a man sweareth with out Iudgement he taketh Gods name in vaine if without Veritie he committeth periurie and makes God to patronize a lie if without Iustice he makes God a patron of sinne Wherfore he that would knowe whether the Oath which latelie is proposed to Catholickes be lawfull must marke whether it want not some one of these three companions or conditions to wit Iudgement Veritie and Iustice for if it want but one it is vnlawfull much more if it want all And because there may be difficultie as well about the proposer as the taker of this Oath let vs see first whether in the proposer may be found Iudgement Iustice and Veritie 3. As touching the first it may seeme not to be wanting in the Magistrate that proposeth and that for two reasons First because the Prince being of another religion then the Pope and knowing that Catholickes giue him power to depose Princes may seeme iustlie to feare least he will exercise this Authoritie vpon him Secondlie the late Gunpowder-plot may seeme to proceed from such an opinion and so the Magistrate to secure the Prince seemeth to haue reason to vrge the Catholicke subiects vnto such an Oath 4. But yet on the other side it seemeth most certaine that the Magistrate hath no iust cause to propose such an Oath consequentlie that in proposing it he obserueth not the first condition For first although the Magistrate may haue some cause to feare the Kings deposition supposing that he persecuteth the Catholicke faith and depriueth Catholicks of liuings libertie Rom. 13. and sometime life also yet as S. PAVL sayth Vis non timere potestatem bonum fac habebis laudem ex illa Dei enim Minister est tibi in bonum Si autem malum feceris time non enim sine causa gladium portat c. VVilt thou not feare the power do good and thou shalt haue praise of the same for he is Gods Minister vnto thee for good But if thou doe euill feare for he beareth not the sword without cause for he is Gods Minister a reuenger vnto wrath to him that doth euill So say I if Princes wil be free from all feare of the Popes power let them do good and they shall haue praise before God and men for the Pope is appointed Pastour vnto theÌ„ for their good But if they will do euill if they will persecute the Church her faith faithfull children then let them feare for he is Gods Minister hath the spirituall glaiue put into his hand to chastize correct all rebellious Christians And therefore as he that taketh a mans purse from him by violence hath no iust cause to compell him to sweare that he will not bewray him because he might and should haue abstayned from the iniurie and then an oath had not bene necessarie so the Prince or Magistrate hath no vrgent cause to propose this Oath to the Cath olicke subiectes because if he abstaine from persecutioÌ„ as he ought to do he needeth not feare the Popes power and so hath no sufficient cause to vrge his subiects by oath to abiure the Popes Authoritie that he in the meane while may persecute impunè 5. As for the Gunpowder plot it could not proceed from this opinion for it doth not follow that because the Pope caÌ„ depose the Prince therefore his subiects by priuate Authoritie may endeuour to kill him because the Pope is superiour the subiectes are inferiours he
to my Soueraigne speake no more of him then any other Prince but abstracting from all Princes factes and cases in particular I intend onlie to dispute as I haue hetherto of the Popes Right and Authoritie ouer Princes in generall The First Clause of the Oath I. A. B. do trulie and sincerelie acknowledge professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the world that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is lawfull and true King of this Realme and of all other his Maiesties Dominions and Countries 12. I will not stand much with WIDDRINGTON about this clause because all Catholicks will acknowledge his Maiestie that now is for their Prince and King and will sweare also fidelitie vnto him in all Temporall matters and this Oath hath bene offered by the Catholicks in an Epistle they wrote to his Maiestie which others also haue offered and for better notice and in argument of their true meaninge published their offer in print This then is one reason which maketh Catholicks to suspect that in this Oath couertlie is intended a denyall of the Popes spirituall supremacie For if the Prince and his Magistrate intended only Ciuill and Temporall Alleageance why did they not propose this Oath in the ordinarie tenour and termes of a Ciuill oath with which the former Kings of England and all Catholick Kinges of other Countries euen to this day content them selues Why bring they in the Popes Authoritie which other Princes leaue out But they knew that Catholicks would neuer haue refused such an oath and therefore to trouble and engage their consciences to haue thereby some pretence to seaze vpon their liuings and goods and to vexe their persons they deuised this Oath Which their manner of proceeding may make Catholicks iustlie suspect that some thing is intended to which in conscience they cannot agree and consequentlie oathes conscience and Religion being so nice and daungerous matters if there were no other reason then this In his Newyearesguift num 8. pag. 37. the Catholicks haue iust cause to make not only a scruple but also a conscience to take it And therefore Widdrington him selfe in his Newyeares-guist confesseth at least that in the beginning and why not still Catholickes might iustlie suspect this oath to be vnlawfull 13. Suarez Gretzerus Hence it is also that some writers make a scruple of those wordes Supremus Dominus Soueraigne Lord because the Oath being of it self suspicious and the King of England by his ordinarie Title giuen him by Parlament being stiled Supreame Head of the Church which dignitie the Bishops and Diuines of England affirme to be annexed to the Kinges Regalitie iure diuino as we haue seen aboue Chap. 6. they feare least a snake lie hid in the grasse and a pad in the strawe and that vnder that Title of Supreme or Soueraigne Lord is couertlie vnderstood Supreame Head of the Church of England not only in Temporall but also in Spirituall causes But because these wordes Soueraigne Lord may be taken in that good sense which ordinarilie they import and are not put ex parte praedicati but only ex parte subiecti for by this clause the swearer sweareth not that his Maiestie is Supreame or Soueraigne Lord but only that our Soueraigne Lord is true and lawfull King I will not much stand about them 14. For as if one should sweare that the Archbishop of Cantetburie is trulie a persecutour of Catholicks he should not sweare that he is trulie Archbishop but onlie that he who is called Archbishop of Canterburie is truly a persecutour so by swearing that our supreame Lord King IAMES is true and lawfull King we do not sweare that he is Soueraigne or Supreame Lord but only that he who is so stiled is our Prince and King which no English Catholicke will refuse to sweare But howsoeuer Catholicks haue good cause to suspect all things in this vnwonted Oath it being not the ordinarie Oath of Alleageāce which the Kings in other Countries propose and wherewith the Kings of England contented them selues till they began to seuer them selues from the true Catholicke Romane Church for true Catholicke and Romane euer went together and to banish out of their Realme all Papall Authoritie as an enemie to their state which other Princes do retaine and euer haue reuerenced and maintained as the Chiefe support of their Kingdoms And that which augmenteth the suspition is for that his Maiestie him selfe seemeth to make doubt of this Oath and so it seemeth daungerous either for the Magistrate to propose it or the subiects to receaue it For these are his Maiesties wordes vttered in the Parlament an 1606. Some doubtes haue been conceaued in vsing the Oath of Allegeance and that part of the Act which ordaineth the taking therof is thought so absurd as no man can tell who ought to be pressed therewith For I my selfe when vpon a tyme I called the Iudges before mee at their going to their courts moued the question vnto them wherin as I thought they could not reasonablie auswer So that this obscuritie in the Oath should first be cleared least swearing to that which wee vnderstand not wee expose our selues to periurie The Second Clause And that the Pope neither by him selfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King or to dispose of any of his Maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forraine Prince to anoy him or inuade his Countries or to discharge any of his subiects of their Alleageance and obedience to his Maiestie or to giue licence or leaue to any of them to beare Armes raise tumultes or to offer any violence or hurt to his Maiesties Royall person state or gouernment or to any of his Maiesties subiectes within his Maiesties Dominions 15. Widdr. in disp Theol. in exam huius clausulae This clause sayth VViddrington is Petra illa scandali lapis offensionis that Rocke of scandall and stone of offence at which so many of this age as well learned as vnlearned haue stumbled And in deed to VViddrington him selfe it hath beene such a Rocke of scandall but by his owne fault for many haue passed it with out either falling or stumbling that he hath not onlie stumbled and fallen at it him selfe but by his fall he hath beene the cause of the fall and ruine of many an hundred For if August serm 14. de Sāctis Act. 7. 22. as S. AVGVSTIN sayth S. PAVL by holding the garments of those that stoned S. STEVEN did more stone him then any of the stoners them selues Magis saeuiens omnes adiuuaudo quà m suis manibus lapidando Certes Widdrington persuading by his bookes that the Oath is lawfull sinneth more damnably then any one of them that take the Oath yea taketh it in euerie one of them and stumbleth and falleth in them all and consequently more then them all But vae homini illi