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
as God preuented the Iewes and whereas they by lawe of Nature had permission to choose their Kinges yet for their greater good he chose thē one him selue immediatelie so although by the lawe of Nature men otherwise might haue prescribed the manner of worshipping God and the worship had been lawfull so that it had been the worship of the true God and had been free from superstition yet because God hath ordained vs to a supernaturall end and would haue our Ecclesiasticall gouernment free from all superstition he hath himselfe appointed the manner of gouernment and hath giuen the Authoritie So in the lawe of Moyses he chose the Tribe of LEVI to serue in the Tabernacle and Temple and to menage Ecclesiasticall matters he instituted also sacrifices sacramentes and Ceremonies in like sort in the new lawe of Grace vnder which we liue he committed the gouernment of his Church to the Apostles and Disciples only and their successours he instituted seuen Sacramentes and a sacrifice he gaue vs a lawe and beleefe which first he deliuered by preaching then by the written Ghospelles and Epistles of his Apostles and other thinges he committed to the Church which he had instituted and established 5. So that as there is a Ciuill and Temporall Power residing in the Common wealth by which the Prince or Magistrate can gouerne and rule and cōmaund for the conseruation and promotion of the Temporall good of the same so is there a spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Power residing in the Church by which the Pastours haue Authoritie to preach teach administer Sacraments determine of matters of Religion to call Councelles for the better clearing of matters and enacte lawes which shall be thought expedient vnto the honour of God the spirituall good of the Church and euerie ones saluation And this is called Ecclesiasticall power which is distinct from the Temporall in many pointes 6. First in respect of the end and finall cause for Temporall power of it selfe aymeth only at Temporali Iustice peace and conseruation of the Temporall state of the Kingdome or Common wealth Ecclesiasticall power intendeth in this life the spirituall health of the soule and eternall rest and peace in the next Secondlie these powers haue diuers Actes and seing that powers are distinct by their Actes it followeth that Temporall and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power are distinct That they haue distinct Actes it is manifest for the Temporall power maketh lawes for this corporall life and Temporalle state but the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power maketh lawes for the soule and her direction the Temporall power remitteth the paines only of sinnes but the spirituall Power remitteth the sinne it self according to that Ioan. 20 Quorum remiseritis peccata c. VVhose sinnes you shall forgiue c. The Temporall power inflicteth and remitteth only Ciuill and Temporall punishments as imprisonment banishment temporall death but the spirituall power as now it is for in the old law there was not Potestas Clauium excommunicateth suspendeth interdicteth which are spiritual punishments and bonds of the soule and remitteth not only these paines but also eternall death and paine of Hell for when the Priest remitteth mortall sinnes he chaūgeth eternall paine into temporall yea some times when the Penitent cometh with a great contrition he remitteth both Eternall and Temporall Thirdly they differ in their obiectes for the spirituall power disposeth not of Temporall thinges but only as they are necessary to the spirituall The Temporall meddleth not with spirituall nor Ecclesiasticall matters according to that of S. AMBROSE S. Ambr. lib. 5. ep 33. ad Marcel soror Ad Impetatorem Palatia pertinent ad sacerdotem Ecclesiae Publicorum tibi maenium ius commissum est non sacrorum To the Emperour Pallaces appertaine to the Priest Churches to thee Emperour the right of common Walles is committed not of Churches And NICHOLAS Pope in an Epistle to MICHAEL the Emperour Ca. Cum ad verū dist 96. Vide etiā ca. Quoniam d. 10. Nec Imperator iura Pontificum arripuit nec Pontifex nomen Imperatoris vsurpauit quoniam Christus sic actibus propriis dignitatibus distinctis officia potestatis vtriusque discreuit Neither hath the Emperour taken to him the rights of Bishops neither hath the Bishop vsurped the name of the Emperour because Christ hath distinguished the offices of both by their distinct actes and dignities Fourthlie they differ in respect of the subiect and materiall cause for although it be not impossible for these two Powers to consort in the same subiect for we see they did in Melchisedech and in the first begotten of the Iewes in the law of Nature and in the Machabees who were Priests and Princes and consequentlie had temporall and spirituall power yet as in other thinges these powers are distinct so God not only in the law of Grace but also in the law written of Moyses would haue these powers placed in distinct subiectes and Persons 2. Paral◠19. For in the law of Moyses AMARIAS menaged matters of the Church law ZABADIAS gouerned the affaires of the Kingdome the Kinges and Princes of the Iewes were of the Tribe of IVDA the Priests of the Tribe of LEVI and those gouerned onely the Common VVealth enacted Temporall lawes waged battaile c. whereas the Priests ruled it matters of the Tabernacle and Temple offered sacrifice and gouerned the Synagogue And now in the law of Grace Christ gaue all spirituall power to the Apostles and their successours and not to Princes for to the Apostles and their successours it was saied VVhatsoeuer you shall bynd vpon earth Mat. 18. shal be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall losse vpon earth shal be loosed in heauen To Princes it was neuer sayd so To the Apostles and their successours it was sayd Ioan. 20. Whose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained To Princes neuer To S. PETER an Apostle and Priest it was sayed Mat. 16 Thou art Peter and vppon this Rock will I build my Church To no Prince was it euer sayd in that sort To Apostles and Priests Christ sayed Matth. vlt. Goinge therefore teach ye all Nations baptising them in the name of the father the sonne and the holy Ghost To Princes neuer To Apostles and Priests Christ said Ioan. 6. As my liuing father hath sent me so I send you that is to preach to minister Sacramentes and to gouerne the Church Ephes 4. To Princes neuer To the Apostles Doctours Pastours Prophets Christ committed his Church to be gouerned Act. 28. to Princes neuer To Priests S. Paul gaue this admonition Attendite vobis vniuerso gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei quam acquisiuit sanguine suo Take heede to your selues and to the whole flocke wherin the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased
to the cause But the Pastours of the Church as is manifest out of the alleaged places of scripture haue Authoritie to gouerne and rule the Church and all the members and subiects thereof ergo they haue authoritie to do all those thinges which are necessarily belonging therevnto but they should not haue all power belonging therevnto vnlesse they haue a Power Legislatiue and not onlie directiue but also coerciue at least by spirituall paines ouer Christians and the lay power and temporall Iurisdictions ergo their spirituall power is not onlie aboue the temporall in dignitie but also in authoritie and power of commanding else they had not sufficient power to gouerne the Church which is committed vnto them 14. But because this veritie will appeare more by that which I shall alleage in the next Chapter to prooue that the Pastours of the Church haue spirituall authoritie ouer Kinges and Emperours I will here make an end desiring all wordlinges and Politikes who so inculcare obedience to Princes and secular power not to forgett their dutie and obedience to the Church and her Pastours who haue Authoritie as well as princes and greater then theirs and to thinke also with them selues that he that will not obey the Church Mat. 18. is to be held as an Ethnike and publican and that Deut. 17 if he that stubbornlie refused to obey the Highe priest in the olde lawe was to die for such disobedience what punishment remaineth for them who contemne Church and Pope which yet are in dignitie and power as farre aboue the synagogue and her priests and Bishops as the veritie surpasseth the figure the bodie the shadow the guift the promise Christ Moyses Christes preisthood that of Aaron Christes facrifice and Sacramentes those of the Iewes and synagogue CHAPTER V. Ecclesiasticall and Temporall peeres and princes are compared together and out of the Comparison is gathered that not only priuate laymen but euen temporall princes though otherwise absolute are subiect to the pastours of the Church and especially to the supreame visible pastour as is prooued by many arguments 1. I intend not by this comparison to detract the least from Kings and Princes Naziāz orat 17. ad ciues timore perculsos Psal 81. for I acknowledge their Authoritie to be of God them selues the Images and sonnes of God according to that Ego dixi Dij estis filij excelsi omnes I saied you are Godds and the sonnes of the highest all I will not let to giue them in a good sence those high titles with which the Romanes and Grecians stiled them who called them Filios Deorum Deos terrae Ioues mundi The sonnes of Goddes Goddes of the earth and Iupiters of the world for as God is the supreame Monarch of the world so are they of their Kingdomes in the gouernment wherof they imitate the Monarchicall gouernment of the world I graunt that a King in respect of the laitye is as the eye and head in the bodie as she sunne amongst the planets as the Cedar amongst Trees as gould amongst metalles as fier amongst the Elements as the sea amongst waters I will willinglie acknowledge him the second person after God and onlie lesser then God in temporall Authoritie Tertul. l. aduersus Scap. c. 2. 2. But yet it is not one of Kings least honours to acknowledge thē selues sonnes of the Church Ambros orat in Auxentium as S. AMBROSE tould Valentinian the Euiperour And therfore as Priests are content to giue to the King and Prince that honour which is due vnto them so Princes must not disdaine to giue to Priess their due respect and right Princes I graunt are called Gods by participation and the anointed of God so are Priests and in this kinde greater Gods then they because they approche nearer vnto the true God and only God by essence who therfore is called Deus Deorum Psal 49. 135. God of Goddes and their consecration and anoynting being a Sacrament is farre holier then that of Kings for which cause CONSTANTIN called the Bishopes of NICE his Gods Ruf. l. 1. Cap. 2. and would not be Iudge of them to whose iudgement he was to stand and as Princes are Kinges so are Priests and by so much greater Kinges then they by how much it is more to be a Kinge of soules then bodies wherfore the scriptures alleaged in the former Chapter which giue to the spirituall power a superioritie and authoritie ouer the temporall do prooue also that Bishops and especiallig the High and chiefe Pastour are euen Kings Pastours Ioan. 21 and superiours For when Christ bad PETER feede his sheepe he made him Pastour ouer all Christians and so the King if he wil be a sheepe of Christ must be a sheepe of PETER and consequentlie of the Pope his successour Mat. 18. and must acknouwledge him his Pastour And When Christ saied Dic Ecclesiae c. Tell the Church and if he will not beare the Church let him be vnto thee is an Ethnick and Publican Did he exempt Princes from the Churches Tribunal And when he saied What soeuer you shal binde vpon earth Mat. vlt. shal be bound in heauen were Princes excepted No no. If Princes will be members of the Church they must be subiect to the visible Head therof If they will be sheepe of Christ they must acknowledge PETER and the Pope his successour for their Pastour 3. Neither can their temporall soueraintie exempt them for that only maketh them so absolute that they are subiect to no temporall power yet remaine they notwithstandinge subiect to the spirituall power of the Church and as subiect as the lowest Christian and haue no more commaund ouer the Church then the meanest of the people True it is that they are defendours or ought so to be and Protectours of the Church Pastours and superiours they are not but sheepe and inferiours And therfore after that the Prophet Esaye had saied Erunt Reges nutritij tui c. Esai 49. Kinges shall be thy nourcing Fathers to shewe that this importeth no superioritie ouer the Church he addeth VVith countenance cast downe toward the ground they shall adore thee the Churche and they shall licke vp the dust of thy feete 4. And this I proue first by reason grounded in faith and Diuinitie For the King by Baptisme is made as trulie a member of the Church as the meanest Christian and is incorporated as deepelie by the Caracter of Baptisme as any hee is regenerated and borne againe as much as any else he should not be so good a Christian as others And seing that by this incorporation and natiuitie as is before declared the Pastours especiallie the chief Pastour who is Head of this bodie hath power ouer all Christians it followeth that he hath also power ouer Kinges and so as the King can punnish rebelles Malefactours cast them out of the Realme by banishement so may the Chiefe Pastour punnish a rebellious King
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
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
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
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
per quem scandalum hoc venit Mat. 18. woe to that man by whom this scandall commeth 16. But to come to the examination of this Clause although Widdrington maketh no bones of it yet they that square all by conscience and the rule of faith and practise of the Church finde great and many difficulties not to be deuoured by any timorous conscience And first by all the Argumentes which hetherto haue beene produced it is as manifest that this Clause of the Oath wanteth Veritie which is the second companion and condition of a lawfull oath as it is euident that the Pope hath Authoritie to depose a Prince not whom soeuer but such a one in whome is iust cause of deposition to wit intollerable and Rebellious Tyrannie against the Church or some such like cause For if the Lutherans Caluinists and other heretickes who hould that a Prince who persecuteth their religion may be deposed and killed can not take this Oath vnlesse they first depose that conscience and chaunge their opinion much lesse can Catholicks who generally holde that the Pope can in some case depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes with out doing against their conscience 17. Widdr. disp Th. de IuraÌ„ Fidel ca. 2. sect 2. nu 3. ca. 3. sect 2. n. 3. Wheras VViddrington answereth that the thing which is sworne in this Oath is not that King IAMES is lawfull King and cannot be deposed but onlie that the partie who sweareth sincerelie acknowledgeth that he is lawfull King and cannot be deposed and so at least they who are perswaded that the Pope cannot depose Princes may with safe conscience and with out daunger of periurie sweare that they think he cannot be deposed I must tell him first that if this were the meaninge the Oath would litle auaile to the Kinges securitie Which yet the King sayth was intended by this oath by which he would distinguish betwixt Catholickes and be sure that they would stand for him though the Pope should depose him and would not out of that opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince atteÌ„pt any thing against him For although the subiect sweare that now at this present he is persuaded that the Pope can not depose a Prince yet seeing that many holde the contrarie he may after the Oath taken chaunge his minde either by conferring with the Doctours of the contrarie opinion or by reading their bookes and should not breake his former Oath he by that protesting only and swearing what then was his opinion Secondlie this is but a meere euasion because he that taketh the Oath sweareth from his hart and before God not onlie that he thinkes so but also that it is so and that most assuredlie it is so And this the verie wordes of the Oath do import which do make the swearer say that he doth sincerlie acknowledge and testifie in his Conscience and before God that King IAMES is lawfull King and that by no Authoritie he can be deposed Which meaning the Fourth Clause also confirmeth where he sweareth that the position and doctrine which holdeth that Princes excommunicated may be deposed and murthered is impious and hereticall By which manner of speech he not only sweareth what he thinketh but what absolutelie is to be houlden concerning such a doctrine and position Yea he doth not sweare at all what he thinketh as though his thinking were the immediat obiect of his oath or the thing which he sweareth but by those wordes I do trulie and sincerelie acknowiedge Professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the world he doth expresse his acte of swearing and protestation and by the ensewing wordes that our Soueraigne Lord King IAMES is lawfull and true King c. aend 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 c. he expresseth the obiect of the oath and the thing sworne to wit that King IAMES is lawfull King of which no English Catholicke maketh doubt and that the Pope can not depose him Otherwise if by this clause were onlie intended that he that taketh the oath should sweare what he thinketh it should haue been thus expressed I.A.B. do trulie and sincerelie acknowledge professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the world that I thinke and am perswaded that King IAMES is lawfull King and that the Pope can not depose him And I demaund of WIDDRINGTON if the Kinge would make an oath to oblige his subiectes to sweare not that they thinke but that indeed King IAMES is lawfull King and can not be deposed how he could more plainlie haue expressed it then he hath And although WIDDRINGTON is not now afrayd to auerre Widdr. in his Newyearesgift Pag. 62.63 that one may not onlie sweare that he thinketh that the Pope can not depose a Prince but also that absolutelie he can not depose him yet who can lawfullie sweare with such asseueration that the Pope absolutely hath no such power knowing that there are so many Argumentes and so great authoritie aboue produced for the contrarie 18. Let vs cleere the matter by an example of VViddrington his owne alleadginge Widdr. Disp Th. cap. 3. sect 1. num 11. There are two opinions amongst Diuines touching the Conception of our B. Ladie The Thomists say shee was conceiued in originall sinne though by and by after sanctified euen in her mothers wombe The Scotists and others holde that shee was sanctified in the first instant of her conception and so neuer contracted originall sinne at all and this is the more common opinion and most conformable to the practise of the Church celebrating the feast of her sayed Conception though the other be not condemned but allowed Now I demaund of VViddrington who bringeth for him selfe this example whether a Thomist can sweare that our Ladie was conceiued in originall sinne against the other opinion I graunt to Widdrington that he may sweare that he thinketh so if in deed he bee of that opinion for in swearing that which he thinketh he sweareth no falsehood but he can not sweare with the former asseueration that absolutely shee was conceiued in originall sinne he knowing that so many Authours holde the conrraâ—ie who are also countenanced by the Churches practise and consequently knowing that it is verie probable that the contrarie is true if not truest The same and with more reason may I say to Widdrington in our present case VViddrington holdeth and so do some others whome he produceth but with how little reason and Authoritie we haue seene that the Pope cannot depose Princes nor dispose of any Temporall matters out of his owne patrimonie and Kingdome and so though he ought to depose that conscience and opinion yet so long as he is of that opinion he may sweare that he thinketh so and shall sweare no falsehood if in deed he thinke so But yet he
man euen he that thinketh it by intrinsecall principles of reason and argument to be false frame a conscience that it is probable for the extrinsecall principles as the multitude learning and vertue of the Authours that holde it and consequently might sweare that he for these principles thinkes it probable yet he can not sweare as is cōmaunded by this Oath from his hart and before God that VViddringtons opinion is true and that therefore absolutely the Pope can not depose a Prince for any heresie or rebellion against the Church because as is before sayd he knowing that many hould contrarie to VViddrington and that farre moe are against him then with him who are as likelie yea more likelie to haue found out the truth then he he can not sweare absolutely that the Pope can not in any case depose Princes for that were to sweare that a thing false as I haue prooued or at least but probable as VViddrington confesseth is so certaine that the contrarie is most certainely false which is to sweare an vntruth and to commit periurie For as it is periurie to sweare that that is true which we know to be false so is it periurie to sweare that to be absolutely true which yet is doubtfull or at least but probable 23. Hence may easilie be gathered that this Clause of the Oath wanteth all the three companions of a lawfull Oath and so cannot be taken First it wanteth Iudgement because in deed as appeareth by my former arguments there is no iust cause or reason to sweare that it is probable much lesse that it is assured which is euen by VViddringtons owne acknowledgement but probable and so it is rash and wanteth Iudgement Secondly it wanteth Veritie for besides that I haue prooued aboue that VViddringtons opinion is false derogating to faith and Church yea scriptures and reasons and consequently that to sweare that it is true were to sweare an vntruth and to committ periurie VViddrington him selfe confesseth his opinion is but probable and consequentlie to sweare that it is vndoubtedlie true and the contrarie false is to sweare also an vntruth because it is false that that which is but probable is assuredlie true Thirdlie this Clause wanteth Iustice because it is an iniurie to the Pope to sweare absolutely that he hath no power nor Authoritie to depose Princes he hauing so assured and at least as I haue prooued so probable claime and Title to this Authoritie Widdr. supra euen by VViddrington his owne confession who acknowledgeth that the Popes who deposed Princes followed a probable opinion although he must also fay that all those Popes though holie and learned committed great in iustice in deposing thē they being in possession and hauing also probable right if those Popes had but probable Authoritie as aboue I haue declared 24. This might serue to reiect this Clause as altogether vnlawfull to be sworne but yet for more full satisfaction of Catholicks in this point I will bring another Argument to prooue that it can not in consciēce be sworne Because this Clause importeth that the Pope neither by him selfe nor by any another Authority or meanes can depose the King or dispose of any of his maiesties Dominions or authorize any forraine Prince to anoy him or inuade his countries or discharge any of his subiects of their alleageance or to giue licence or leaue to any of them to beare armes raise tumults or offer violence or hurt to his Maiesties Royall person state or gouernment or any his Maiesties subiects c. Wherein also is such difficultie that I can not see how in a matter so doubtfull or not so certaine a man may sweare so peremptorily and vndoubtedly Who so pleaseth to read Franciscus de Victoria that learned Dominican shall finde that he setteth downe diuers Titles by which the Spaniards might iustly inuade subdue the Indians which Titles whether any Christian Prince may haue to inuade England or any other countrie I will not dispute but onely alleadge them that the Reader may see that it is not so euident that a man may take this Clause of the Oath in so generall termes as is lyeth Victoria his opinion being no waies condemned but rather approoued by many Victoria Relect. de Indis Insulanis Titulis quibus Barbari potuerint venire inditionem Hispanorum 25. The first Title pertaining to this matter which Victoria alleadgeth is the Authoritie which the Pope hath to send Preachers euen to Infidels much more to Christian Countries that be hereticks because ouer these he hath spirituall Iurisdiction And although Paganes can not be compelled to imbrace Christian faith yet the Christian Preachers after they haue giuen reason of their Embassage may preach by that Authoritie which CHRIST gaue to his Apostles and successours when he sayd Euntes docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos c. Mat. 28 Going therfore teach yee all nations baptizing them c. And if the Paganes would hinder their preaching or after they haue preached hinder the conuersion of Infidels and the fruit of preaching they may with the souldiours whome they carrie with them force them to permitt them to preach and to permitt all that will to heare them and not to hinder their spirituall good and conuersion and if otherwise they cannot pursue nor defend this their right they may make warre vpon those that hinder them and pursue all those thinges which are lawfull in a iust warre And by this Title saith Victoria the Spaniards might make warre vpon the Indians if otherwise they could not preach the Christian faith nor withstand the obstinate Pagans who would hinder their conuersion that desired to be Christians And thus Victoria would say that the Pope might send Preachers to England and might desire and licence some Catholicke Prince to assist and defend the Preachers in procuring hereticks conuersion And if any hereticks woulde not permitte the Catholicke Doctours to preach or would hinder the conuersion of those that would be Catholicks the forraine Prince licenced by the Pope might in manner aforesaid as Victoria thinketh for I will say nothing of my selfe make warre vpon the English and seeing that warre cannot vnles by reason of ignorance be iust on both sides the English especially who are Catholicks could not defend those that oppose them selues against this Prince who assisteth the Preachers Thus would he say but as I so honour my Prince and loue my countrie that I desire not that any such Title should take place in England so I will not dispute of it 26. Another Title sayth Victoria by which the Spaniards might make warre on the Indians is if after some of them be conuerted to the Catholicke faith the others would force them to Idolatrie for then sayth he the Spaniards might by armes defend them they being become now their freinds and fellowes 27. A third Title sayth he might be this If the Indiās by lawfull or vnlawfull meanes that is by peaceble preaching
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
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.
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
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