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
monstretur The beginning is taken from one and the Primacie is giuen to PETER that one Church and one chaire may be shewed Cypr. ep ad Iubaianū Hier. lib. 2. contra Iouin And in his Epistle to Iubaianus Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui Claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one is by the voice of our Lord founded vpon one who hath receiued the Keyes And S. HIEROME sayth Inter duodecim vnus eligitur vt capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio Amongest twelue one is chosen that the Head being appointed the occasion of schisme may be taken away But if we admit euerie King as Head of the Church in his Kingdome we shall not haue one visible Head but manie and those also verie diuers For as Kings claime supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall because they are supreme Princes for the same reason may the senate in Venice Genua and Geneua challenge the same Authoritie Whence followeth that vnitie in faith and Sacraments vnder so diuers Heads cannot any long time be retained but we should haue as many Religions as Kings and as many diuers and independent Churches and Kingdomes for one King will not depend either for him selfe or his people of an other 12. This diuision we see alreadie proceedeth from these diuers Heads Haue we not seene how Religion in England hath changed with our Kinges since they challenged supremacie of our Church King HENRIE the Eight in the six and twentith yeare of his Raigne in the Parlament holden at VVestminster the third of Nouember 1534. enacted that the King should be reputed the onlie supreme Head in earth of the Church of England and should haue aswel the Title and stile as all honours authorities and commodities belonging thervnto and all power also to redresse all Heresies errours and abuses in the same and the yeare before also the fiftenth of Ianuary the King and Parlament decreed That no Appeales should be made to Rome no Annates or Impositions should be paied to the Bishop of Rome no sutes should be made to him for licēre or dispensation And yet in the Parlam̄et holden at Westminster anno Domini 1554. the first and second yeare of King PHILIP and Queene MARIE obedience was restored to the Church of Rome and all statutes repealed which derogated to the Authoritie and honour of the Sea Apostolick and the Title of the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall was reiected After this notwithstanding was the same Authoritie taken againe by Queene ELIZABETH in the Parlament Anno Domini 1558. Anno 1. regni Elizab die 13. Ian. Likewise in the Parlament holden by King HENRIE the Eight in the one and thirtith yeare of his raigne and eight and twentith of April and in the yeare of our Lord 1537. these six Articles were enacted The Six Articles The Reall presence of the true and naturall Bodie and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine without the substance of bread and wine 2. That Communion vnder both kindes is not necessarie for the people 3. That Priests cannot marrie after Priesthood 4. That Religious after their vowes cannot marrie 5. That Priuate Masses are according to Gods law and to be allowed 6. That Auricular Confession is expedient and necessarie And yet this statute was qualified and repealed by EDWARD the sixt his sonne and as yet a Child in the yeare of our Lord 1547. 4. Nouemb. and first yeare of his raigne After that againe the self same six Articles were receiued and confirmed in Queene MARIES raigne in the first Parlament an Domini 1553. 24. Octob. and in another an Domini 1554. Likewise King HENRIE the Eight in the Parlament holden the 22. of Ianuary and 34. of his raigne in the yeare of our Lord 1542. condemned Tindals Translation of the Bible and all bookes written against the Blessed Sacrament and forbad the Bible to be redd in English in any Church which statutes were repealed by King EDWARD at VVestminster an 1. Edu 6. Domini 1547. And yet the former statute of King HENRIE was renewed by Queen MARIE in the first yeare of her raigne an Domini 1553. and repealed againe by Queen ELIZABETH in the first yeare of her raigne So that if Kings be heads of the Church and haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction we shall haue as many Religions almost as Kinges And euen as King HBNRIE the Eight after his vsurpation of the supremacie changed his wiues and made his mariages lawfull and vnlawfull his children legitimat and illegitimat at his pleasure and by Authoritie also of the Parlament which durst not gainesaie so euery King shall haue authority to change religion and must be obeyed as the onlie supreme Head in earth of the Church For as King HENRIE the Eight and his young Sonne King EDWARD and his Daughter Queene ELIZABETH challenged Authoritie to redresse errours and correct heresies to giue validitie to all Ecclesiasticall lawes and Synodes as King HENRIE made it Heresie to denie the Reall Presence so another King of England or of another Kingdome may decree the contrarie As King HENRIE forbad Priests to marrie so another King will permit them to marrie As King HENRIE commanded the Bibles to be read and diuine seruice to be sayd and song in Latin so another will like better of the vulgar tongue of his owne Countrie and if you say that the King is tyed to the word of God euerie one of them will say that they follow the word of God hauing the Authoritie to iudge of heresies and consequentlie of the true meaning of the word of God 3. Sixtlie if Princes were Heads of the Church a ridiculous consequence and of which euen the Kinges and Queenes of England haue bene ashamed would follow to wit that they may preach minister Sacramentes excommunicate call Councels and sit as iudges in them c. For if the Prince be supreme head he is also supreme Pastour of the Church of his Kingdome for Head and Pastour in this kind is all one In Tortura Torti And this D. ANDREWES graunteth and prooueth by the example of DAVID to whom the people sayd That God had sayd vnto him Tu pafces populum meum Israel 2. Reg. 5 Thou shalt feede my people of Israel VVheras there only mention is of a Temporall Pastour gouernment and feeding as appeareth by the words following Tu eris Dux super Israel Thou shalt be Captain ouer Israel Gen. 45. And in this sence IOSEPH said Ego te pascam I will feede thee meaning his father IACOB So that if the Prince be Head of the Church he is Pastour but it pertaineth to the office of a Pastour to gouerne his sheepe by lawes to feede them with bread of the word of God Matt. 4. by which the soule liueth and the Sacraments to seuer an infected sheepe from the flocke by excōmunication least it infect the whole and consequentlie if the King be supreme head
power because as I haue saied the Communitie at first had authoritie to choose which gouernement in particuler it thought most conuenient is not to be ascribed immediatly to God D. Tho. 1.2 qu. 90. a. 3â— and. qu. 105. a. 1 ad 1. a second cause being found out sufficient to produce such an effect And so the Kings authoritie in particuler and taken determinatlie is not immediately of God or Nature but cometh to him by meantes not only of the peoples designation but also of the peoples gift and donation D. Th. 1.2 q. 105 ar 1. ad 1. and 2.2 q. 10. art 10. Caieta ib. Bellarm to 1. lib. 3. cap. 9. Suarez l. 3. de leg c. 4. Almai li. de potest eccl cap. 1. Prou. 8. Rom. 13. And this opinion is holden by the best Diuines both auncieÌ„t and moderne But this not withstanding it is most true which God saith Per me Reges regnant Kings raigne by me To which his Apostle subscribeth sayeing Non est potestas nisi à Deo itaque qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit There is no power but of God therfore he that resisteth the power restisteth the ordinance of God because Kinges authoritie proceedeth mediatelie from God to wit by meanes of the authoritie of the Communitie which proceedeth immediatelie from God and Nature and it is also Gods prouidence that Kinges raigne ouer vs and God as the first cause cooperateth to their election and creation and approoueth also the same But yet for all this the people is a second cause of Kinges authoritie 13. If any obiect that Saul and Dauid were immediately created by God Kinges of the Iewes I answere that God in this preuented the people for the peoples good for otherwise the Iewes by lawe of Nature had authority to choose and create them selues a King as is already prooued Neither doth it hence follow that the people is aboue the King or is not bound to obey the King or can depose the King at their pleasure for although the people at the first created the King yet they created him not as a simple Magistrate or officer but as an Absolute Prince and they dispoiled them selues of authoritie to giue it to the King as to one that can better rule then the confused multitude and became as it were 〈◊〉 priuate personne subiect not superiour â—o to King and so the Kinges power now 〈◊〉 so long at least as he is not an intolleâ—able Tyrant is not depending of the people â—nd no meruaile because many effectes which depend of their causes in fieri and in â—heir first production depend not of them â—n facto esse and conseruation So the Sonne â—â—ueth after his Father and fruite may be extant after the tree is consumed and we giue many thinges franckly and freelie which afterwards we can not at our pleasure â—ake away VVherfore as a freeman selleth â—im self freely but after the sale is so bound to his Maister that he can not free him self at his pleasure but remaineth will he nill he a subiect and bondman who before was a freeman so the people before the election of their King is free superiour but after is a bounden subiect and inferiour though by a Ciuil not despoticall subiectioÌ„ And so supposing this election the people is bound in conscience to obey their King as superiour and cannot now depose him vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie for then the common opinion holdeth D. Thom. Opus 20. de Regi Princ. cap. 1. Sotus l. 4 de Iust Iure q. 1. a. 3. q. 4. a. 1. Rom. 13. that the Authoritie which the people had in the beginning to create him returneth againe by deuolution to depose him but must obey him in lawfull thinges though he be difficile and gouerne not altogether as he should doe according to that Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit let euerie soule be subiect to higher powers and againe Itaque qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit therfore he that resisteth the power resisteth Gods ordinance And againe Ideoque necessitate subditi estote VVhich in Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ideo necessit as est subijci Therfore be subiect of necessitie and yet againe Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum 1. Pet. 2. siue Regi quasi praecelleÌ„ti c. Be subiect therfore to euerie humane creature for God whether it be to the King as excelling c. And as in the same chapter Saint PETER commandeth seruants to be subiect in all feare to their Maisters not only to the good and modest but also to the waiward so the people is bound to obey Kings Vide Lessium li. 2 dei â—st iure c. 9. dub 4. though Waiward and difficile yea though they be Tyrantes so that their first entrance be lawfull and they not deposed yea though their entrance were by vnlawfull Inuasion so that the people generallie did afterwards consent and accept of them as their Princes and superiours for to a superiour whilest he remaineth superiout and commandeth lawfull thinges obedience is due otherwise be he neuer so lawful if he command things vnlawfull we must obey God before men Act. 5. and the King before the Viceroy 14. But against that which I haue saied of the creation of Kinges by the peoples election some may obiect that nowadaies in all Europe almost all Kinges are made by succession as are the Kings of Spaine France â—nd England To this I answere that though this be so yet the source and origin of this is also the peoples election For at the first â—excepting those Kinges which extraordiâ—arilie were giueÌ„ immediately from God to the Iewes the people chose or approued â—he King but perceauing what difficultie and daunger also of tumults and sedition would ensue if after the death of their King they should be to seeke and stand vpon election of another they were conâ—ent that the lawfull heires of the first King â—hosen should succeed to his father without newe election although when the â—ewe King is crowned the peoples consent is demanded and the King is sworne vnto them And in Spaine the Archbishop of Toledo receaueth the Kinges oath in the name of the Church and people In France the Archbishop of Rhemes In England the Archbishop of Canterburie and so all Regall power though not immediatelie yet originallie cometh from the peoples election and donation 15. And therfore wee see that the Kinges power in diuers countries is diuersly limited as in France and England where many of the Kinges lawes are not taken to be of force vnles the Parlament of states concurre to the making or confirming of them which limitation VViddrington ascribeth to the King In Resp Apol n. 174. pa. 137. as though he did voluntarilie thus limit him self But who seeth not how vnlikely it is that Kinges should thus restraine their owne power and tye their owne hands
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
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
the Societie of Iesus relateth William Occham Iohn of Paris Dante 's Aligerius Ioannes Almainus c. do follow Who I say reading these wordes in VViddrington could thinke otherwise then that these two Authours which VViddrington produceth for the second opinion be produced for his Authours though out of Azorius as well as the other Authours But it seemeth he is loath altogether to refuse these two Authours and therefore he sayth Azorius maketh Occham a Classicall Authour and Gabriell and the Nominalles follow him as the Prince of the Nominalles and Suarez and Vasquez do ofte alleage him for theire opinion but what doth all this prooue but onlie that Occham in respect of his skille in Logicke and Philosophie and Schoole Diuinitie was a principall Doctour amongst the Nominalles and in that respect is often alleaged by Catholicke Doctours yet notwithstanding this euen Azorius Suarez and Vasquez do condemne Occhams bookes which VViddrington so esteemeth to wit those which he wrote against the Pope and his Authoritie And touching Dante 's he sayth Trithemius affirmed that Dante 's was most studious in Holie Scriptures But be it that Dante 's after Poetrie and Humanitie studied Scriptures yet he presuming to studie Scriptures without groundes in Diuinitie as Erasmus Laurentius Valla and others did might fall into erroures as well as they and certainlie who so pleaseth to reade his Monarchie shall perceaue in it more Poetrie Poeticall inuentions and slight and superficiall Philosophie then solid Diuinitie Whereas he reiecteth Bartolus censure of Dante 's as I haue no leisure so will I not wrangle with him about that This shall suffice me that both of these two Authours are censured in the Index expurgatorius set forth by Authoritie of the Councell of Trent and diuerse Popes And although Widdrington sayth that the compilers of the Index are not the Catholicke Church and that he knoweth not for what cause diuerse bookes in the Index are condemned wherin he sheweth little respect to Superiours yet at least those bookes which are censured in the Index can be no lesse then scandalous and the Authours no lesse then infamous and so no fit witnesses nor Authours to make an opinion probable So that let Widdrington choose what he will Either he will haue these Authours or he will not if he will they can giue no credit to his opinion they hauing none them selfes if he will not he hath two Authours fewer and by the same reason may reiect diuerse others yea all the other Authours and so vae soli woe to him that standeth post alone But he sayth that he produced not thē alone but with manie other Catholicke Godlie and learned Authours I answer that what the most of his Authours be I haue alreadie shewed and whereas he alleageth Tertullian S. Ambrose S. Hierom and others Schulkennius hath answered him that they are by him misconstrued Tertullian in his Apologeticut sayth Emperours are second to God and vndes his onlie power I answer that then Emperours were Pagans and so not subiect to the Church but to God onlie I answer secōdly that the Emperour and euerie absolute King Christian hath no temporall Superiour but God yet as Widdrington dareth not deny but that there is a spirituall power and Authoritie in the Chiefe Pastour aboue him which may punish him spirituallie so I say this power can in some case decree temporall punishment against him when spirituall punishment doth not preuaile Wheras S. Ambrose S. Hierom In Apol. n. 5. sequentibus Gregorius Turonensis alleaged by TViddrington say the Kinge is subiect to no lawes nor punishment but of God they meane that he is not subiect to his owne or any Tēporall Princes lawes and punishment but deny not but that he is subiect to Ecclesiasticall lawes power and may by that power be chastised by spirituall Censures and also temporall when the spirituall Censures are contemned In Apol. num 8. And whereas S. Augustine Pope Nicholas others alleaged by widdrington affirme that the Pope and Church hath no materiall or Temporall sword I graunt it because they by a materiall sword vnderstand temporall Authoritie to vse it and that the Pope hath not by Christs gift yet he hath from Christ as I haue aboue prooued a spirituall power by which he may commaund the Temporall sword as Widdrington him selfe acknowledgeth In Apol. n. 196. 197. and by this power he can decree temporall punishmentes when the spirituall censures will not take place though neither he nor the Church doth execute these temporall punishmentes especiallie of death and bloud it being a thing not beseeming the Church S. Leo ep 93. ad Turibiū Asturien Episcopum parum ab initio according to that of S Leo Ecclesiastica lenitas cruentas refugit vltiones The Ecclesiasticall lenitie escheweth bloudie reuenges And thus much cōcerning Widdringtons authours the examinatiō of which authours although it was not altogether necessarie Schulkennius hauing alreadie examined them yet I thought it some what requisit partlie because Schulkennius examination being in latin it cā not see easilie nor so generallie be made knowné to English men partlie because I haue examined diuerse Authours which Schulkennius did not and I haue added here and there something as facile est inuentis addere for more ample explication and now also vpon occasion of the sight of Widdringtons Appendix in which he answereth to Schulkennius Examination I haue brieflie refuted some of his Answers to Schulkennius touching his Authours Out of all this I gather that seing that WIDDRINGTONS Authours either make not for him or are of no or cracked credit or are quite opposite to him which it seemeth he him selfe now seeth and therefore in his Appendix reiecteth two of them and defendeth not the rest though prouoked by Schulkennius I may say that Widdrington amidst all his Authours standeth post alone and he but one opposeth him selfe not onlie to his Chiefe Pastours Censure but also against the current of all Catholicke and renowned Doctours and Authours CHAPTER XIIII By the doctrine and practise of heretikes the same against them is demonstrated and thence is inferred that the question betwixt vs and them is not so much whether the Pope hath any such authority as whether the Pope or they haue it 1. See The Protestats Apologie tract 3. sect 2. Gretser in comment exeget c. 7. The book of dāgerous pesitiont Sleidan lib. 18. hist fol. 263. li. 22. fol. 345 Osiander in Epit. Cēt. 16. pag. 526. Caluin in Dan. cap. 6. LAstlie I prooue this by the Protestantes and Reformers owne confession and practise alleaged by the Authour of the Protestants Apologie and many other authours To begin with Lutherans Sleydan and Osiander affirme that the Magdeburgians and other Lutheran Ministers defended resistance against the Magistrate and Prince as lawfull for defence of their Religion and therby excused the Rebellion which the Lutheran Princes made against the Emperour And if it be lawfull to resist
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
3. which S. AVGVSTINE sayth is a greater euill then to be killed by a sword consumed by fier or cast vnto wild beastes to be deuoured who doubteth but that he should be called the principall cause of the deposition he compelling the subiectes therunto by so great a punishment 40. Likewise as a forreine Prince may and is bound sometimes to defend Innocents so the Pope may licence and authorize yea and commaund him so to do he hauing authoritie as VViddrington auoucheth to commaund a Prince in tēporall matters and if at the Popes commaundement this Prince make warre vpon the Prince that intolerably molesteth Innocents in their faith and Religion as Victoria in the place before alleaged saith he may that which the Prince shall doe against the other tyrannizing Prince in the pursewing of his iust warre the Pope shal be said to do hee being the commaunder and consequently the principall agent And yet by this Clause of the Oath the subiects are commaunded to sweare that the Pope hath no authoritie to authorize any forreine Prince to anoy the King of England or to inuade his countries which is to abiure at least a probable opinion as certainely false which how it can be done with a good conscience I report me euen to VViddringtons large conscience But be this spoken to shew the daunger of swearing this Clause not to giue any scope against Kings or Princes whome I honour as God his Images and his Vicegerents in Earth The Third Clause Also I sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excōmunication or depriuation made or graunted or to be made or graunted by the Pope or his successours or by any authoritie deriued or pretended to be deriued from him or his Sea against the said King his Heires or successours or any Absolution of the sayd subiects from their obedience I will beare faith and true alleageance to his Maiesti◠his Heires and successours and him and them will defend to the vttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts what soeuer which shal be made against his or their persons their crowne and dignitie by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration or otherwise and will do my best endeuour to disclose and make knowne vnto his Maiestie his heires and successours all Treasons and Trayterous conspiracies which I shall knowe or heare of to be against him or any of them 41. Widdr. in Disp Theol. ca. 4. sect 1. n. 1. seqq Here VVIDDRINGTON insulteth against the learned Cardinall Bellarmine though the Phoenix for controuersies of this our age Cardinall Bellarmine sayth he Gretserus and Lessius contend that by this Clause is denyed to the Pope power to excommunicate which yet sayth he this Clause seemeth to suppose and the King professeth he had not the intention to denie But although this Clause seeme to suppose and the King in wordes seemeth to confesse or at least not to denie the Pope Authoritie to excommunicate yet in effect they denie it For depriuation of Regall Authority being an effect of excommunicating which ordinarily followeth excommunication of Kings and Princes in the deniall of the effect the cause is denied For as if you should say A man is not risibilis you should denie him to be homo so in denying that the Pope can depriue Princes of their Kingdomes you denie in effect tha he can excommunicate 42. Here WIDDRINGTON in his Newyearesgift insulteth against me for saying as he makes me to say that depriuation of Regall Authoritie is an effect of Excommunication as necessarilie following Excommunication as risibile followeth homo But if we looke into the matter narrowlie we shall finde he triumpheth before the victorie and counteth his chickins before they be hacht For first if we speake of the power of Excommunication and depriuation of which I speake but two lines before these wordes at which VViddrington carpeth I had shewed in the seauenth Chapter before that the power to excōmunicate which the cbiefe visible Pastour hath is one and the selfe same power with the power of depriuation and deposition which one power hath two actes and effectes the one principall and first intended called actus primarius and this is Excommunication or such like spirituall Censure and punishment the second is depriuation deposition and such like Temporall chastisement and correction which is actus secundarius a secundarie acte of the Chiefe Pastours spirituall power secondarilie intended when the first will not preuaile And these two actes are necessarilie belonging to the Popes spirituall power of Supremacie not that this power must needes alwayes exercise both or either of them but because the Pope can not haue this power but he must haue facultie to exercise them when a iust cause requireth it and so these two actes being necessarilie belonging to the Popes Supremacie he that denyeth him power to depriue or depose a Prince denyeth in effecte that he hath power to Excommunicate it being one and the selfe same power because the denyall of an effect necessarilie belonging to a cause is a virtuall denyall of the cause euen as to deny that fier can heate or rarifie is to deny it to be fier and to deny a man to be risibilis is to deny him to be man Secondlie if we speake of these two actes of this power although WIDDRNIGTON knoweth that the learned SVAREZ alleaged by him 2. p. Append contra Suarem sec 4. affirmeth that the suspension of Kinglie Authoritie is an effect of the acte of Excommunication I did not say that depriuation is alwayes an effect of the acte of Excommunication well knowing that although both these are so necessarilie belonging to the Popes power of Supremacie that it can not be without possibilitie of exercising them yet it is in his free choise to exercise either both or either of them and so he may excommunicate and not depriue and he may depriue as he did King CHILDERIC See Cap. Alius 15. q. 6. alleaged by me pag. 250. and not excommunicate And therfore I sayd onlie that depriuation of Regall Authoritie being aneffect of excommunication which ordinarilie followeth Excommunication of Kinges and Princes in the denyall of the effect the cause is denyed c. where WIDDRINGTON leaueth out those wordes which ordinarilie followeth because those wordes would haue made it plaine that I say not that depriuation is an effect of Excommunication in all Excommunicate persons but in Kinges and Princes nor alwayes in excommunicated Princes because a Kinge may be excommunicated and not deposed and he may be deposed as CHILDERIC King of Fraunce was and not Excommunicated but oftentimes and ordinarelie Cap. Alius 15. q. 6. because the Chiefe visible Pastour vseth not by name to excommunicere a Prince but he also ordinarilie especiallie in these later Ages deposeth him and for two reasons also the one because he ought not ordinatilie to proceede to so seuere a temporall punishment before he haue tryed whether the
or is taken copulatiuelie in the Clause alleadged As for example if one should say It is hereticall to say that a man may steale or committ aduoutrie in that proposition or is taken disiunctiuelie and the proposition importeth that it is hereticall to say that a man may either steale or committ aduoutrie Or because he may say this is true by reason of the matter not of the forme if he should say I derest as heresie that Position which sayth that a man may be baptized of an Heretieke either lawfullie or validlie were it not a false and hereticall detestation and yet by reason of one parte of the disiunctiue proposition to wit or validlie The verie like as who so marketh shall perceaue is the proposition alleadged and therfore it importeth that it is an hereticall proposition to say that Prince excommunicated and depriued by the Pope may be either deposed or killed Whence it cometh to passe that the partie who sweareth that Clause shall sweare that it is hereticall to say that Princes excommunicated by the Pope may be deposed which notwithstanding is no where condemned as hereticall yea is decreed by Generall Councells and practised by many holie and learned Popes allowed of by common consent and lastely confessed by VViddrington himselfe as probable 50. Secondlie seeing that this manner of speech is often yea ordinarily taken in a disiunctiue meaning it maketh this Clause at least doubtfull whether it also be not taken disiunctiuelie and so importe that it is hereticall to say that a Prince excommunicated may be deposed And seeing that no man can sweare a doubtfull thing least he expose himselfe to periurie in swearing false and consequently make himselfe guiltie indeed of periurie because euerie one is esteemed guiltie of that sinne or crime Eccles 3. to which he exposeth himselfe and qui amat periculum in illo peribit Ht that loueth daunger shall perish in it therfore he can not sweare this Clause hauing no better assurance for the trueth therof then as yet Widdrington or any other can alleadge which is none at all and so long remaining at the least doubtfull and vncertaine Thirdlie Widdrington in this his explication doth euidentlie eontradict the inteÌ„tion of the Kings Maiestie ParlameÌ„t Authours of the oath for their intention as we haue seene aboue was to secure the Prince not onlie from killing but also especiallie from depriuatioÌ„ and deposition partlie because a King ordinarilie would choose as willingelie to be killed as to be depriued and deposed he by deposition or depriuation being made of a King no Kinge but a priuat man partlie because when he is once depriued or deposed he is in daunger to be killed by his subiectes if he persist in gouernment for then they who holde his deposition to be of force do holde him as an inuader So that VViddrington by this exposition making the swearer to sweare onlie that the Kinge excoÌ„municated cannot be killed secureth him not from deposition or depriuatioÌ„ no nor from killing as I haue shewed and so maketh the oath frustrate secureth not the Kinge and contradicteth the Kings and Parlaments intention which they had in framing proposing and commaunding this oath to be taken therby to secure the King 51. Fourthlie although for the respect I owe and beare to Princes and especially to my owne naturall Liege I will not auerre that Princes persisting in possession and gouernment of their Kingdome after that the Pope hath excommunicated and depriued them may be deposed and killed also by their former subiectes or any other power or potentate yet seeing that many do affirme and holde it whose opinion notwithstanding is no waies censured for hereticall or so much as temerarious or erroneous I do not see how that position though taken in VViddringtons sense and meaninge can be abiured as hereticall I acknowledge that it is condemned as heresie in the Councell of Constance Concil CoÌ„stant sess 15. to say that quilibet Tyrannus potest debet licitè meritoriè occidi per quemlibet vasallum suum vel subditum c. Euery Tyrant may and ought lawfullie and meritoriously be killed by euerie one of his vasalls or subiects euen by secret wiles or ambushements and by craftie enticements and adulations notwithstanding whatsouer oath or couenant or without expecting the sentence or commandement of whatsoeuer Iudge But this is vnderstood of him who is true King but gouerneth tyrannically who can not be killed by any one of his vasalls or subiects and not of euery Tyrant For if the Tyrant be an open inuader and vsurper of the crowne without all Title then according to the †Vide D. Tho. lib. 1. de regim Princip c. 6. Caiet 2.2 q. 64. a. 3 Arragon ibid. Sayr lib. 7. Claeu Regiae cap. 10. uu 4. reliquos infra citandos common opinion euerie one of the Realme hath iustum bellum iust warre against him and so may kill him by way of defence Yea although the Tyrant haue iust Title and so be true King yet if he tyrannize in gouernment not howsoeuer for * RoÌ„ 13. 1. Pet. 2. euill Kings must be borne withall and ought to be obeyed but intolerably and so as the Common wealth can not consist vnder him that then not particuler subiects but the Common wealth after sufficient admonition may by common consent publick authoritie and publick senteÌ„ce depose him As for example if the Prince should vniustely kill all his nobilitie cause their wiues to be rauished massacre their children ransack their houses and families and withall giue their lands and liuings to others for no offence also but out of his owne humour then say diuers Authours the Common wealth as she made him King for although some be Kings by succession yet the first King as before is declared if he were lawfull came to the crowne by electioÌ„ of the people so by the same power which in case of intolerable tyrannie returneth againe vnto her she may depose him and if after deposition he persist she may kill him if otherwise she finde no meanes to resist him This was the opinion of many of the a Zenâ—phon lib. de Tyran Arist lib. 2. Polit. cap. 5. li 5. cap. 10. 11. Cic. lib. 3. de offic auncient Philosophers and this also many Christian b Gigas Paridius de Puteo alij citati a Suar. lib. 6. defens fidei Cathol c. 4. Lawiers and learned c D. Tho. citat in 2 d. vlt. q. 2 ar 2. ad 5. Gerson par 4 tract coÌ„tra adulatores consid 7. Sotus lib. 5. de iust q. 1. ar 3. Bannes 2.2 q 64. a 3. dub 1. § sed quaeret aliquis ValeÌ„tia to 3. disp 5 q. 8 p. 3. §. si est Tyrannus Molina to 4. de iust tract 3. disp 6. n. 2. Tolet lib. 5. Summa cap. 6 num 17. Sa in Aphorismis V. Tyrannus num 2. Lessius lib. 2. de iust iure cap. 9.
transmarinas epistolas diriget Sweare whether after the death of our Lord the King you desire that his sonne Hildericus should be King or that none of you will wrâ—â—e or send letters beyond the seas At this oath though in shew altogether lawfull the Catholike Bishops staggered and some of them suspecting all that cometh from the Enemies of Gods Church flatlie refused it others least the people should say that vitio sacerdotum qui iurare noluerunt non fuerint Ecclesiae restiturae by the fault of the Priests that would not sweare the Churches were not restored accepted of it But by and by appeared the hidden malice of the persecutour for he tooke aduantage thereby as well against those that swoare as those that refused to sweare To them that swoare his officers sayd VVhy against the commaundement of the Ghospell haue you â—Worne The King commaunded that you should neuer visit your Cities and Churchs againe but that being banished you should take lands to till colonatus iure by right of farmers and new Inhabitants yet with this condition also that you neither sing seruice nor pray nor carrie booke to reade nor Baptize nor giue orders nor reconcile any To them that refused to sweare they sayd quia regnum filii Domini nostri non optatis idcirco iurare noluistis c. Because you desire not that the sonne of our Lord the King should raigne after his Father therefore you would not sweare For which cause you are commaunded to be banished into the â—e of Corsica to hew trees for the Kings buildings So that in extraordinarie oathes the hereticall Magistrate hath sinister intentions and hidden meanings and vnder faire pretences coucheth malice and therfore all such oathes are by zealous Catholikes to be suspected much more this oath which in so plaine wordes abiureth the Popes lawfull authoritie which Councels and chiefe Doctors do giue him and which he hath practised so many yeares without contradiction of all sauing heretikes schismatikes and some few obscure authours ought to be houlden as suspected and as such of all timorous consciences to be auoided 21. VVherfore worthy Catholikes vse the benefit of persecution for that your good to which by God it is ordained or permitted let it serue for a winde to blow away your chaffe of Imperfections not to scatter the solid wheate of your faith charitie zeale feruour and constancie let it serue for a red sea to passe to the land of promise with the Israelites not to drowne you with the Aegiptians let it serue for a gale of wind to set you onward to the hauen of heauen not for a boysterous blast to driue you on the rockes of scandall let it serue for a blast to enkindle not to blow out your fier let it serue for a fire to purge you like gould not to melte and consume you like wax or lead to harden you as vessels sit to receaue Gods spirit and to carrie his name not to breake you in the heating And my dearest I vse S. PETERS words nolite peregrinari in feruore qui ad tentationem vobis sit quasi aliquid vobis contingat 1. Pet. 4. Thinke it not strauÌ„ge in the feruour which is to you for a tentation as though some new thing happened vnto you It is no new thing for the seruantes of God to suffer persecution but comfort your selues that in suffering for Instice you are companions to Christ the Prophets Apostles and Martyrs Take heede that none of you suffer for disloyaltie or ill demeanour but whosoeuer suffereth as a true Christian that is as a Catholicke Romane for these two alwayes go together let him not be ashamed but let him glorine God 1. Pet. 2. for such suffering is but to purge him to try him to associat him to Christ and his faith to marke him for one of Christs souldiers to conforme and configurate him here to Christ patient that he may be coÌ„figurated in heauen to Christ triuÌ„phant VVherfore plucke vp your hartes and call to mynd your former victories hetherto you neuer encountred but you ouercame and prooued stronger theÌ„ all the Tibornes rackes and Gibbets then all the Engines and Ministers of crueltie doe not now by dastardie and cowardlike yeelding obscure your former glorie and mortifie your former merites but seing that you haue of humane frailtie yeelded in this one point let this your disgrace and foile receiued thereby serue for a busset of Satan to humiliate you with S. PAVL 2. Cor. 12. least the greatnes of your reuelations as it is a reuealed doctrine to count it honour and felâ—â—itie to suffer for Christ might extoll you let it serue for a memoriall to put you in mynd that heretofore by Christ and his graces not by your own force you ouercame let it serue as a Monitour to admonish you sitting in the triumphant chariot of your former victories that you are of your selues but mortall and frayle men let this fall make you rise with a rebounde to greater courage then euer that so all thinges euen falles may cooperate to your good Rom. 8. 22. But my zeale of your Honour VVorthie Catholickes hath transported me and made mee not only to exceede the limites of an Epistle but also to be more officious then perchaunce gratefull to some who may thinke that if I knew or at least fealt the miseries which they endure I should rather condesceÌ„d vnto them with VViddrington then vrge them so much to refuse this oath whose refusall is so daungerous to their persons and pernicious to their estates But I haue for such an answer in readines to wit that I am not ignorant of your extreame afflictions and that as I protest I neuer thinke of your sufferances seriouslie but I suffer with you sensiblie and would if so I might ease you spend my blood and hazard my life euen for a relaxation from your temporall miseries but being perswaded as I am and standing vpon so sure grounds as this Treatise will manifest vnto you as that Phisition were vnworthie his Profession that would prescribe onely such Phisick to his patient as is pleasing to his tast not caring how contrarie it be to his health so if I with a VViddrington would seeke to soothe and sute a worldlie humour and so my speeches be pleasing to flesh and bloud little regard the health and state of your soules and securitie of your consciences I were vnworthie the roome I fill the person I sustaine and the function of a Spiritual Physition which I haue vndertaken VVherfore if my Physick be distastfull refuse it not it being healthfull neither be you angrie with the Physition for prescribing so bitter a potion he therby intending your good and if my speeches seeme too plaine thinke they are sincere and spoken out of loue if sharpe and byting persuade your selues that meliora sunt vulnera diligentis quà m fraudulenta oscula odientis Prou. 27. Better are the wounds of him that loueth then the fraudulent kisses of him
that hateth This I am sure I giue you no other counsell then I would follow my selfe who haue that opinion of the vnlawfulnes of this oath that I would loose liuings libertie and life rather then take it not that I would not giue that to Caesar which is due to Caesar but that I would not take from God which appertaineth to God not that I neglect a temporal life and state but that I preferre the spirituall not that I despise the Prince to whom I acknowledge all tempor all obedience and honour but that I honour the Pastour who hath the rule of my soule not that I regard not the Common wealth but that I desire to liue and dy an obedient sonne of the Church not that I feare not them who can kill the bodie but that I feare God more who can kill the soule Matt. 10. 23. And my intention and proiect I protest of dedicating this Treatise vnto you was not to irritate any Prince but onlie to declare his Authoritie and office not to flatter any Prelate but onlie to defend his right not to increase your persecution but to ridde you of this Anathema which hath prolonged it not to adde affliction to affliction but courage to your fainting and comfort to your griefes to helpe them to rise that are sallen and to confirme them that stand that they may the better keepe their standing And this being my sincere intention I hope not onlie you but all others who shall peruse this booke will make their profit of it and interpret it in that good meaning which the Authour intended Our Lord IESVS for whose cause you endure either ease you of this burden of aduersities vnder which you grone or giue you strength to beare it comfort in bearing and make mee a follower of your rare examples an Imitatour of your patience and partaker of your merits as you shall euer be of my poore prayers and small labours A Preface To the Reader GEntle Reader I did not thinke to haue set out this little booke the second tyme much lesse did I intēd to adde any thing vnto it And although Widdrington in his New-yeares gifte hath of late here and there glanced against some words and speeches of myne where he imagined most aduantage yet I thought as I see other learned writers haue done to haue quite giuen him ouer and not to haue made the least replye as not being desirous to contend with such as are resolued not to yeelde hauing other businesses to many where with to occupie my self But the Printer who first tooke this booke in hād and other friends also īportuning me to let it come forth againe and alleadging that the copies of the first Edition were all spent and yet moe demaunded I was cōtent volens nolens yeelding herein more to importunitie then to myne owne inclination to publishe it once more and vpon this occasion of this new edition to adde here and there something either for a more ample explication or for answer to Widdringtons obiections I was willing I confesse and forward ynough the first tyme to write of this subiect For although as by an accident I was one of the last who wrote in the defence of this the chiefe visible Pastours Authoritie now in Englād impugned so I counted my selfe amongst the least yet as when an house is set on fire some carrie water others ladders and euerie one repayreth thether to shew at least his good will to extinguish it So in this Cōbustion in which not onlie Heretiques but also some of them who make profession of the Catholique name doe endeuoure to put fire euen to the secundarie foundation of God his Church to wit the chiefe vifible Pastours Authoritie I thought it the part of euerie zealous Catholicke to runne to the extinguishing of this fire for though all haue not the like dexteritie yet all may shew the like good will Which I hauing performed in the former Editiō of this little booke according to my abilitie I thought to haue surceased had not importunitie of friendes ouercome mee And therfore after this as I meane not to dispute any more of this point with thē with whōe as I gather by the repulse which greater men then my selfe haue receaued there is little hope to preuaile so I wish all Catholiques seing that they haue hearde their chiefe visible Pastours sentence to leaue of all Disputation touching this his Authoritie and simplie and humblie to obey his commādement and consequentlie to acknowledge the sayd Authoritie to refuse the Oath by him cōdemned and yet to obey the King our Soueraigne and Liege Lord in all ciuil and temporall causes to be faithfull to him and his Royall posteritie and to pray day lie for his maiesties longe and prosperous life that he may liue lōge to vs alwayes to God and so raigne longe in the Kingdome of England as he may raigne for euer in the Kingdome of heauen The Contents of the Chapters BY way of introduction it is shewed that there be two powers in the Church the one Ciuill the other Ecclesiasticall which are both necessary Chap. 1. Some Ciuill povver followeth immediatly from God and nature Regall povver proceedeth immediatly from the peoples election and Donation mediatly from Gods ordination Soe that after the election of the people and reception the king is superiour who may Command and bynde in conscience the people are subiects bound to obey Chap. 2. Ecclesiasticall power is also of God and is distinct from the Ciuill Iurisdiction which also all members of the Church are bound in conscience to obey Chap. 3. These two Iurisdictions and powers Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill are compared and conferred and the preeminence is giuen to the Ecclesiasticall Chap. 4. Ecclesiasticall and temporall Peeres and Princes are compared together and out of the Comparison is gathered that not only priuat laymen but euen temporall Princes though otherwise absolute are subiect to the Pastours of the Church and especially to the Supreme visible Pastour as is prooued by many arguments Chap. 5. That Princes Kings yea emperours haue no authority to gouerne the Church or to make Ecclesiasticall lawes neither are to be accounted heads or Superiours but subiects of the Church though protectours and defendours and therefore are modestly admonished of their duty and office Chap. 6. Although the Pope be not direct temporall Lord and Superiour of the world nor of any part therof by Christs expresse guift and donation but only of the patrimony of Sainct Peter giuen him by Constantine the Great and other Catholicke Princes and confirmed by the consent of the Christian world yet by the spirituall power which Christ gaue him in his predecessour S. Peter 10.21 he may dispose of temporall things and euen of kingdomes for the good of the church and conseruation of her and her faith right and the manner how and in what case he can thus dispose of temporalities is explicated chap. 7. By diuers places and
who shall haue care of the spirituall and eternall life But let the one not encroache vpon the other let both helpe one another and both are stronger as was excellently obserued by NICHOLAS the Pope Nichol. epist ad Michael Imp. cap. Gum ad verum ventum est d. 96. Cum ad verum ventum est neque Imperator Iura Pontificatus arripuit nec Pontifex nomen Imperatoris vsurpauit quoniaem idem Mediator Dei hominum homo CHRISTVS IESVS sic propriis actibus dignitatibus distinctis officia Potestatis vtriusque difcreuit vt Christiani Imperatores pro aeternâ vitâ Pontificibus indigerent Pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodo rerum Imperialibus legibus vterentur VVhen it came to the vnderstanding of the truth neither the Emperour did take vnto him the rightes of Bishop-like authorotitie nor the Bishop did vsurp the name of the Emperour because the same Mediatour of God and men man Christ Iesus hath distinguished the offices of both powers by their proper actes and distinct dignities as that Christian Emperours for attaining eternall life should neede Bishops and Bishops should vse the Imperiall lawes for the cause only of temporall thinges 3. But as both are necessarie so both are not equall but the one inferiour to the other the one subordinate to the other else the one would be an hindraÌ„ce to the other and both would cause confusion And certes if we will not preferre the bodie before the soule heauen before earth temporall before eternall life VVe must preferre the spirituall and Ecclesiastieall power before the Temporall and consequentlie the Church before the Common VVealth 4. These two powers and the preemineÌ„ce of the spirituall before the Temporall were prefigured as Turrecremata hath well remarked by the two brazen Pillars in the Porch of Salomons Temple The Porch was a figure of the Church Militant Turrecr lib. 4. cap. 87. 3. Reg. 7. the Inner Temple of the Church Triumphant because as by the Porch the Iewes entred into the Temple so by the Church Militant and by no other way Christians haue entrance into the Church Triumphant The two brazen Pillars that sustained the Porch signified the Power Temporall spirituall which support the Church Militant and the pillar on the right hand signified the spirituall power the Pillar on the left hand the Temporall power whence it is that that must take the precedence of this and this must be subordinate to that 5. And truly that the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power is superiour to the Temporall and more eminent then it I prooue First by those thinges by which I haue prooued them in the former Chapter to be distinct For the end and finall cause of the temporall power is temporall and naturall to witt temporall peace the end of the spirituall Authoritie is eternall and supernaturall peace the immediat cause efficient of the Temporall is the people the immediat cause of the spirituall is God The matters in which the temporall power is occupied are temporall the affaires which the spirituall gouerneth are Ecclesiasticall and spirituall the functions of the temporall are all temporall the functions of the spirituall power are all spirituall and supernaturall as absoluing from sinnes ministring Sacraments offering of sacrifices enacting lawes for the soules health excommunicating absoluing c. The temporall ruleth especially the bodies the spirituall the soules that ruleth the Kingdome or Common Wealth this the Church To the King the Keyes of Cities are offered to the Priest and Pastour the Keyes of heauen He remitteth temporall Mulctes and paynes no sinnes at all The Priest and Pastour remitteth sinnes and absolueth from all paynes He can cast out of his Kingdome by banishement the Pastour out of the Church by Excommunication And therfore looke how farre eternall felicitie excelleth temporall God the People supernaturall and diuine thinges naturall and humane spirituall functions temporall soules bodies the Church the Common VVealth the Keyes of heauen the Keyes of cities sinnes ciuill penalties eternall temporall punishment excommunication banishement so farre the Ecclesiasticall and spirituall excelleth the Ciuill and Temporall Authoritie By this Argument S. CHRYSOSTOM as alwaies very excellentlie proueth the Priests to be greater then the King Chrysost homil 4. de verbis Isaiae tom 5. Mane intra tuos terminos ô Rex alij sunt termini Regni alij sacerdotij hoc Regnum illo maius est Rex ea quae sunt in terris sortitus est administranda caeterùm ius sacerdotij è supernis descendit Regi corpora commissa sunt sacerdoti animae Maior hic Principatus propterea Rex caput submittit manui sacerdotis vbique in scripturâ sacordotes inungebant Reges Remaine within thy boundes O King others are the limites of the Kingdome others of Priesthood this Kingdome is greater then that The King hath the administration of the things of the earth but the right of Priesthood defcendeth from aboue To the King bodies are coÌ„mitted to the Priest soules greater is this principalitie and therfore the King inclineth his head to the hand of the Priest and euerie where â—n Scripture Priests did anoint Kings Secondlie there is no Christian can denie but that since God hath ordained vs to a supernaturall end to witt the cleate vision and fruition of him selfe as all Scripture witnesseth that he hath all our goods also and states are ordained to the same end and are not well vsed but rather abused when they are vsed to serue our pleasures contrarie to that end whence followeth that all temporall thinges since the former Institution and ordination of God are Media meanes in respect not only of out supernaturall end but also of supernaturall meanes as Sacraments Grace and supernaturall functions which are more proportionate and more neere meanes to that end and consequentlie temporall power which ordaineth of these meanes is subiect to spirituall power which principally considereth the supernaturall meanes and end For as the art of ryding is more noble Arist li. 1. Eth. c. 1. then the art of making bridles as Aristotle to a like purpose reasoneth because this is ordained to that so the spirituall power which disposeth of supernaturall thinges is nobler then the Temporall this being ordained to that and the end being more noble then the meanes 6. Thirdlie Philosophers affirme that all habites and faculties are specified and dignified by their actes obiectes and endes and so Morall Philosophie which hath vertue and manners the health of the soule for its obiect is more noble then the art of Phisicke which teacheth only to cure the diseases of the bodie and to restore corporall health Seeing therefore that the obiects of spirituall power are supernaturall and heauenlie the obiects of Temporall power are naturall and earthlie the end also of spirituall power is eternall beatitude the end of temporall power temporall felicitie the actes also and functions of that power spirituall and supernaturall the actes of this naturall and
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
subiects to Bishops and especiallie to the Chiefe Bishop they can not in that kind be heads and superiours to Bishops 17. Lastlie I prooue this by out Aduersaries confession which is an argument ad hominem of no little force because none is presumed to lie against him selfe Calu. in cap. 7. Amos. CALVIN pronounceth thus of HENRIE the eight his supremacie Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt HENRICVM Regem Angliae certè fuerunt homines inconsiderrti dederuut enim ills summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enim blasphemi cum vocarent eum Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo They who in the beginning did so much extoll HENRIE the Eight King of England were men inconsiderate for they gaue him supreme power of all thinges and this did alwayes much aggreue mee For they were Blasphemous when they called him supreaine Head of the Church vnder Christ This was the opinion of CALVIN which is not to be contemned of our Protestants who follow him as an Oracle in other and those verie manie points And to him haue subscribed our Puritans in England and the Brethren of Heluetia Zurich Berne Geneua Polonia Hungarie and Scotland who all denie this supremacie of Kings in Ecclesiasticall causes Yea our Protestants them selues whilst they seeke to auoid the absurdities which aboue I haue produced against this supremacie and which Catholickes haue obiected do in effect despoile the King of all such Authoritie 19. Becanus in Dissid Angl. For first as BBCANVS hath tould them they are not agreed whether his Authoritie should be called Primacie or Supremacie nor whether he should be stiled Primate or Soueraine Salclebr pag. 140. D. And. in Tort. pag. 90. Tomson pag. 33. Head or Gouernour SALCLEBRIDGE calles the King Primate of the Church of England Doctour ANDREWES calles his Authoritie Primacie and yet TOMSON will not haue this authoritie called Primacie but Supremacie because the former word argueth a power Ecclesiasticall and of the same order with that which Prelates of the Church haue the last word he saith signifieth not so much And againe he will not haue it called Spirituall Authoritie but Authoritie in respect of Spirituall things Tomson pag. 31. Idem pag. 95. Salcl pag. 305 and he addeth that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And yet SALCLEBRIDGE saith that Kinges annointed with sacred oyle what will he then say of Kings that are not annointed are capable of Spirituall Iurisdiction And wheras at the first by the Parlament anno Domini 1543 in the yeare 35. of HENRIE the eight it was decreâ—d That the King should be called supreme head of the Church Poulton in his statute Tooker pag. 3. Burhill pag 133. and that also vnder paine of highe Treason yet now TOOKER and BVRHILL will not haue the King called head of the Church And so in deed Queene ELIZABETH in the First Parlament chose rather to be Gouernesse of the Church then Head 20. And as these men varie in the name so do they in the Power and thing it self TOOKER saith The King hath and can giue Tooker pag 305. Salclebr pa. 140. and take away all Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the outward court SALCLEBRIDGE sayth the King can dispense in pluralitie of benefices D. And. apud Tooker pa. 305. Bur. pa. 234. Salcl pa. 121. Took pag. 36. Bur. pag. 137. 242. Took pag. 15. D. And. pag. 151. and can licence a Bastard to take holie orders D. ANDREWES sayth hee hath all externall Iurisdiction but Censures yet BYRHIL denyeth him all Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall both in the inward and outward Court SALCLEBRIDGE sayth the King can giue Benefices create and depose Bishops and yet TOOKER sayth he can only nominate and present BVRHIL denyeth the King Authoritie to excommunicate yea he sayth he may bee excommunicated And the same doth also D. ANDREWES and TOOKER maintaine But what a supreme Head is he that can not cut of by excommunication an infecting and infected member What a Pastour that caÌ„ not cast out an infected sheepe by Excommunication And if he can not excommunicate but rather may be excommunicated it argueth that he hath a superiour who can exercise Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction ouer him and so he is not supreme Head of the Church Wherfore Catholicks as they acknowledge the Pope supreme Head Salcl pag. 136. so they say he can not be excoÌ„municated by any SALCLEBRIGE sayth that it is clearer then the sunne that Princes haue determined controuersies of faith in 8. Councels Tooker pag. 50. Bilson caeteri infra citandi and yet TOOKER as also D. BILSON D. ANDREWES and D. FIELD as wee shall see anone will not haue the King called superiour in matters of faith 21. After this doubting and varying they proceed to a flat denyall of the foresaied supremacie In Tortura Torti pa. 170. D. ANDREWES hath taken a great part of the Supremacie from the King for he confesseth that the Emperour hath no Imperiall right to diuine things These be his words Non est in ea quae diuina sunt Imperiale sed neque Pontificale ius vllum Ther is not in the King any Imperiall no nor Pontificall right ouer diuine thinges He addeth that the King hath no right to dispose of Churches which yet King HENRIE the 8. challenged and practized to the ruine of tenne thousand Churches in one yeare For thus sayth D. ANDREWES At illa diuina hîc quae tandem Aedes Templa Basilicae neque verò in ea quae ita diuina sunt Rex noster vllum sibi ius vendicet Ibid. pa. 171. And a little after he sayth That the King is no Iudge in a cause or matter of faith And in the next page he seemeth to affirme and prooue out of the Councels of Constantinople Pa. 172. Antioche and Carthage that the King is not to be Iudge in the causes of Bishops And the page next after that Pa. 173. In sacramentes the King hath neither supreame nor any power at all And besides all this he addeth that he cannot excommunicate Pag. 151 Nos Principi sayth he Cenfurae potestatem non facimus VVe do not graunt the Prince or King any power to excommunicate c. D. BILSON saith plainlie that the King hath Authoritie ouer the Persons of the Church Bilson in his true difference pag. 171 172. par 2. but not ouer the things of the Church to wit ouer the persons of the Bishops but not ouer faith Sacraments materiall Churches and such like Which yet I see not how it can stand together for if the King be supreme Head not only ouer the Kingdome but also ouer the Church that is of the persons of the Church then as because he is supreme Head of the Kingdome he can command his laye subiects in temporall matters as to paie Tribute to obey temporall lawes c. so if he be supreame Head of the Church and
hath Authoritie ouer Clergie men as Clergie men he can command euen Churchmen in Ecclesiasticall matters and can call Synodes determine controuersies of faith in them enact Ecclesiasticall lawes and bestowe Ecclesiasticall Benefices and so he shall haue Authoritie not onlie ouer the persons but also ouer the things of the Church And therfore as he that should say that the King for the necessarie good of the Common VVealth cannot dispose of the Temporalities of the Realme should in effect make him no King so BILSON in saying that the King hath no Authoritie ouer the spirituall things and graces of the Church makes him no Head of the Church nor superiour ouer Church men as Church men For if the King be Head of the persons of the Church he can command them as his subiects And then I demand of BILSON in what things he can command them If in temporall thinges onlie as to paie Tribute to go to warre c. then is he King only of the Common wealth but no Head of the Church If in Spirituall things as administration of Sacraments decisions of matters of faith in Councels c. then hath he the administration of spirituall things and hath authority not only ouer the persons but also ouer the things of the Church But I neede not wrest this frō BILSON by force of Argument for he no lesse plainely confesseth that the King is no Head of the Church Bilson par 2 pag. 240 These are his wordes VVe confesse Princes to be supreme Gouernours that is as we haue often told you supreme bearers of the sword which was first ordained from aboue to defend and preserue as wel godlines and honestie as peace and tranquillitie amongst men We giue Princes no power to deuise or inuēt newe Religions to alter or chaunge sacraments to decide or debate doubtes of faith to disturbe or infringe the Canons of the Church Thus he VVherby we see first how he derogateth from that authority which King HENRIE the 8 and Queene ELIZABETH challēged and the former Parlament approoued for by that authoritie King HENRIE the 8. exiled all the Popes authoritie forbad all Appeales to Rome contrary to the ancient Canons disposed of Abbaies and Churches without the Popes authority c. And by the same authoritie Q. ELIZABETH chaūged the sacraments and all the whole face and hew of religion and forbad Councels to be called or any thing in them to be decided without her consent Secondlie we may see also herby how BILSON maketh the King no supreme Head yea no head at all of the Church but only a Protectour and defender therof which Title all Catholikes graunt to Kinges acknowledging that the King is to defēd the Church to assist her by his temporall sword and Authoritie that shee bee not hindred in calling Councels and administration of the Church yea and to punish heretikes condemned by her and deliuered vp to secular power And no more doth BILSON graunt And so he denying the Prince to be head of the Church and graunting him to be only a protectour and defender is guiltie of high treason 22. D. Field lib. 5. de Eccles cap. 53. Doctour FIELD also in effect denieth this authority to the King for he distinguisheth things merelie Spirituall in this manner Either sayth he the power in these things is of order or of iurisdiction the power of order consisteth in preaching the worde in ministring Sacramēts and ordaining ministers and in these things saith he Princes haue no Authoritie at all much lesse supreme authority The power of iurisdiction standeth in prescribing lawes in hearing examining and iudging of opinion in matters of saith and things pertaining to Ecclesiasticall order and Ministerie and due performing of Gods seruice and in these the King can only by direction of the Clergie make penall and tempor all lawes for the Execution of Bishops lawes and Canons Thus he But to omitt how aptlie D. FIELD annexeth preaching to the power of order Vide Sairum lib. 4. de Censuris cap. 16. num 21 which may be exercised with licence of the Bishop by one that hath no Orders at all to omitt also how he can possiblie distinguish the powers of order ād Iurisdiction he and his Doctours denying all Caracters and making ordination nothing else but a meere deputation to such an office I auerre that D. FIELD in this contradicteth the former authority which was giuen by Parlament to King HENRIE the Eight and King EDWARD his sonne and Queene ELIZABETH his Daughter as may appeare plainlie by the actes of Parlament aboue alleadged and he maketh the King no Supreme Head of the Church but onlie an Assistant Protectour and Defendour therof as I haue shewed against D. BILSON 23. Wherfore the Catholicks of England haue iust cause to complaine of seuere dealing towards them who many of them haue bene condemned to Premuniries and cruell deathes for denying the snpremacie of the Prince in Spirituall causes of which notwithstanding the leardnest of the Ministerie make such doubt and question as we haue seene yea denie it in plaine termes For if that care had bin had of the Kings Catholick subiects which their number antiquitie and loyaltie seemed to require this question of the Supremacie should haue bene better discussed and more maturely resolued before the Ministers should haue preached it as necessarie to be beleeued and before Catholicks should haue been so seuerelie handled for denying it their own Doctours now varying so much as we haue seene about the very name and thing it self and some of the leardnest amongst them denying it as flatly as any Catholick can do 24. Remember then O Kinges Princes and Potentates of the earth what is belonging to your so high an office Psal 2. An exhortation to Princes Et nunc Reges intelligite erudimini qui iudicatis terram And now ô Kings vnderstand your office informe your selues ô you that iudge the earth what belongeth vnto you You are Iudges of the earth and Common wealth you are not to meddle with the Church which is called Regnum Coelorum Mat. 13 the Kingdome of Heauen You are Isa 49. as Esaye calleth you Nurcing Fathers but no Gouernours of the Church you are Protectours and Defendours and Assistants obliged by scepter and sword to assist her and to punish her Rebelles at her direction You are subiects no Superiours sheepe no Pastours Inferiour members no Heads and your greatest honour and safetie is to serue not to rule the Church to defend not to inuade her rightes Harken ô Princes to that holsome counsell which AZARIAS the High Priest gaue to King OZIAS 2. Paral. 26. Ioseph l. 9. Ant. cap. 11. who would be medling with the Priests office For when he being puffed vp with pride of hart tooke vppon him to offer Incense in the Temple and on the Altar of Incense AZARIAS matching his Kinglie pride with a Priestlie Zeale followed him at his heeles accompanied with fourescore Priests and
also with great consent both of the Latin and Greeke Church and in it were present the Patriatches of Constant inopole and Hierusalem in their proper persons the Patriatches of Alexandria and Antioche by their Legates Archbishops Latin and Greeke 70. Bishops 412. Abbots and Priours aboue 800. the totall number of all the Prelares were at least 1215. The Legates also of the Greeke and Romane Emperours of the Kinges of Hierusalem France Spaine England and other Princes were present with the rest This Councell then called the Great for the number of Prelates in the Third Chapter after excommunication pronounced against Hereticks admonisheth secular powers and commandeth them to purge their countries from Heretikes and to promise the same by oath then the Councell addeth Si verò Dominus temporalis c. Council Later sub Innoc 111. cap. 3. But if the Temporall Lord being required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his land or Territorie from hereticall lewdnesse let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitane and the rest of his Comprouinciall Bishops And if he contemne to satisfie within a yeare let this his contempt be signified to the Chiefe Bishop the Pope that from that tyme he the Pope may denounce his vasalles freed from all fidelitie vnto him and may expose his land to be possessed by Catholiks who heretickes being exterminated may possesse it without any contradiction and conserue it in puritie of faith without preiudice to the Principall Lords so that he put no obstacle nor impediment the same law notwithstanding obserued concerning those who haue not Principall Lords This Councell I suppose to be of sufficient Authoritie for it was Generall and in number of Prelates and Bishops surpassed the first Councell of NICE by many It was of as great Authoritie as any Councell can be because the Authoritie to make lawes and to decide controuersies dependeth not of the sanctitie but only of the lawfulnes of the Pastours and seing that these Pastours could say as much for their ordination and vocation as the Fathers of the Councell of NICE could it must needs follow that this Councell as are also all lawfull Generall Councels was of as great Authoritie as was that of NICE which our Soueraigne Liege King IAMES admitteth with the other first three Generall Councels In prâ—f monit pag. 37. and consequentlie cannot reiect this which is of the same Authoritie To say that the Pope speaketh onlie of them who are subiect temporally to his Temporall Authoritie which he hath in Italie were ridiculous because the wordes are Generall and if they were restrained to Italie the decree could haue had little force To say that absolute Princes are not comprehended in this decree but onlie inferiour Princes who holde feudum Regale of them is absurd for a little before this alleaged decree the CouÌ„cell ordained that seculares potestates secular powers must take an oath to expell hereticks out of their countries which wordes secular powers agree to absolute Kings and Emperours else when S. PAVL commaunded that euerie soule be subiect to higher powers potestatibus sublimiâ—ribus Rom. 13. Kinges and Emperours must be excepted because they goe not vnder the name of Powers And immediatly after this admonition the Councell addeth the alleaged decree Si verò Dominus Temporalis c. But of the Temporall Lord c. Where she calleth the same Dominos Temporales Temporall Lords whom before she called Potestates saeculares Secular powers And are not Kings and Emperours Domini Temporales Temporall Lords yea and principallie and more properlie to be called so then those Princes that holde of others If Widdrington would denie this Title to our King he would be counted a Traytour And what can they alleage against those others so expresse wordes eâdem nihilominus lege seruatâ circa eos qui non habent dominos principales the same law not withstanding obserued concerning those who haue not principall Lords In which words euen Kinges and Emperours are comprehended for they especially haue no Temporall Lords 3. But let Widdrington vnderstand by secular powers and Temporall Lordes whome he will as certes he spendeth many wordes to shew that by Temporall and principall Lordes absolute Princes are not vnderstoode if the Pope coulde make a decree of deposition against inferiour Princes why not against supreame Princes they in that they are Christians being as subiect to the Church and her Chiefe Pastour as other Christians of inferiour degree Widdr. in discussione discussionâ—s Decreti Concil Lat. sec 5. a. n. 3. Widdrington answereth that the Pope and Generall Councell may make a decree of deposition against inferiour magistrates or Lotdes by consent and Authoritie giuen them by Soueraigne Princes but he can not make a decree of deposition against supreame Princes because they neuer consented neuer gaue him Authoritie against them selues Idem sec 5. nu 15. Hence Widdrington sayth also that all temporall mulctes and punishmentes which the Church decreeth shee decreeth by authoritie giuen her from Princes and that therfore in such penall lawes Christians may refuse to obey till they know that the Prince gaue the Pope and Councell such Authoritie yea that in these lawes they may appeale from Pope or Generall Councell to the Princes But as in other thinges Widdrington to holde vp the cause whose defence he hath vndertaken is forced to helpe him selfe with the worst opinions and to seeke authoritie from the obscurest Authours and these of the least credit So dealeth he in this for he is not ignorant that whatsoeuer some one or two Authours may say that all the current of Diuines mislike them in this and counte it straunge yea and absurde to say that all the penall lawes of the Church which prescribe Temporall mulctes related in the Canon law and in Councelles should haue theire force not from the Councelles and Pastours but from Kinges and Princes For although they confesse that Princes gaue to the Pope his Temporall Demaines and consequentlie Temporall and princelie Authoritie within the limites of the same yet in what meeting of Princes in what Councell did euer Princes conspire to giue the Pope Temporall Authoritie through out the whole Church And in the last Generall Councell of Trent in which diuerse Temporall penalties are decreed what mention is there of the Princes donation of Authoritie to the Councell Princes and Emperours by them selues or their Legates are present at the Councell to protect the Fathers to assist them for execution of theire lawes but that they euer gaue authoritie to the Councell to enact any Temporall law or that the Fathers of the Councell and the Chiefe Pastour of the Church demaunded licence and Authoritie of the Emperour or Princes to make such lawes who euer read who euer heard And why could not the Princes why would not they them selues enact such lawes in their owne name as sometimes they haue don against Heretickes that being a thinge more honourable for them and
thing he might say vnlesse an Anathema be added as alwaies it is not that what the Councell defineth Widdr. supra n. 7. was defined but as probable He excepteth also that in an other of these definitioÌ„s it is defined quod Romanus Pontifex si Canonicè fuerit ordinatus meritis B. PETRI indubitanter sanctus efficitur That the Roman Bishop if he be Canonicallie ordained is made vndoubtedlie a saint by the merites of S. PETER which is true taken in the right sence because though euerie Pope be not a saint in life and manners yet he is a sainct in office because his office is holy and so euen Emperours are holie and therefore be stiled Sacra Maiestas Sacred Maiestie Bell li. â— de Rom. Pont. c. 8. tract de potest sum PoÌ„t contra Barcl pag. 28. seqq Schulck pag. 29. Many other Councels I could alleage as Bellarmine and Schulckennius haue done but these shall suffice all Generall Councels yea and prouinciall also if they be confirmed by the Pope according to the common opinion being of infallible Authoritie Who listeth to see the other Councels let him read the Authours prealleadged CHAPTER XII By the facts of the holy and learned Bishops of Rome especially before Gregorie the seauenth the same power is confirmed 1. MY Argumentes which I shall bring in this Chapter I grouÌ„d in the factes of Popes Bellarm. supra Schulck pag 36. Azor. 10. 2. lib. 10. cap. 8. whom Bellarmine Schulckenius and others commonlie produce to prooue that the Pope can depose Princes For although Popes may erre in matters of fact yet if it had bene an vniust and not to them an assured matter so many so learned and so holie Popes would neuer haue attempted such a thing And many of these depositions were decreed in Councels also Schulkenius hath produced twenty eight Popes that haue denounced deposition against Emperours Kings and Princes I shall content my self with the Popes who before GREGORIE the seuenth haue medled with crownes and scepters partlie because our Aduersaries affirme that GREGORIE the Seuenth was the first that medled with Temporall states of Princes partlie because they confesse that GREGORIE the Seuenth and others after him haue deposed Princes partlie also because they seeme to giue more credit to those former then these later Popes although in deed all haue the same Authoritie of which only and not of sanctitie of life deposition dependeth 2. S. GREGORIE the Great in two Epistle Greg. li. 11. epist 10. lib. 12. epist 32. threatneth deposition not onlie against Bishops and Priests but also against Kings Iudges and whatsoeuer secular persons that shall be so hardie as to infringe or violate priuileges by him graunted to the AVGVSTVNENSES and to the Monasterie of S. MEDARD For he sayth in the first place Si quis Regum c. If any King Priest Iudge or secular person acknowledging the tenour of this our constitution shall presume to do contrarie thereunto potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want the dignitie of his power and honour In the second place he sayth Si quis autem Regnum c. But if any King Prelate Iudge or other secular person whatsoeuer shall violate or contradict the decrees of this Apostolicke authoritie and our command or shall disquiet and trouble the Brothers of the Monasterie or shall ordaine otherwise then thus cuiuscunque dignitatis vel sublimitatis sit honore priuetur of what dignitie or place soeuer he be let him be depriued of his honour Which is an argument that S. GREGORIE thought he could depriue them as those also must needs haue acknowledged who subscribed to the later of the foresaied decrees to wit thirtie Bishops of seuerall countries and Prouinces together with the Kinge and Queene of France 3. Codrenus Zonaras in vita Leonis Isauri Sigebert in Chron. an 728. alij S. GREGORIE the second as aboue depriued LEO Isauricus of Italie and the Gabelles of that prouince * Platina in Gregorio III. Ado in ChroÌ„ an 744. Ced in vita Leonis Isauri Rheg li. 2 Chron. Sigebert an 750. Paul Aemil li. 2. de rebus gest FraÌ„c Fasc TeÌ„p in Zach. Otho Frising li. 5. hist c. 55. Marian. Scot. li. 3. Paulus Diac. li. 6 deff Longob ca. 5. Bonif. ep ad Zach. Pont. Some attribute this to GREGORIE the third but the reason is because he confirmed the former excommunication and deposition anno 730. 4. ZACHARIAS Pope deposed CHILDERIC King of France freed all his subiects from their fidelitie to him and gaue his Kingdome to PIPINE Father to CHARLES the Great and before Maior domus This Ado Viennensis Cedrenus Rhegino Sigibert Paulus Aemiliue Fasciculus Temporum Otho Frisingensis Marianus Scotus Paulus Diaconus and S. Boniface do auouch True it is that the Peeres and Nobles of France desired it and sent Legates to the Pope but the Pope was he by whose Authoritie he was deposed what soeuer Barclaie and VViddrington say to the contrarie And therefore the Olde Chronicon of France sett forth by Pitheus sayth that the Pope sayd it was better he should be King who had all the power as PIPINE being Maior Domus had the King doing nothing then he that had the name onlie dataque Authoritate suâ iussit PIPINVM Francorum Regem institui and by power giuen commanded Pipine to be instituted King Likewise the Authour of Fasciculus Temporum saith Ipse ZACHARIAS regâ—â— Francorum scilicet CHILDERICVM deposuit ZACHARIAS did depose the King of the French to wit CHILDERIC And after addeth Et hinc patet potestas Ecclesiae quanta fuerit hoc tempore qui regnum illud famosissimum transtulit de veris haeredibus ad genus PIPINI propter legitimam causam And here appeareth how great was the power of the Church at this tyme seing that he ZACHARIAS did transferre that most famous Kingdome from the true heires to the familie of PIPINE vpon a iust cause Rhegino sayth Per authoritatem Apostolicam iussit Pipinum Regem creari By the Apostolicall Authoritie he commanded PIPINE to be created King The same writeth Marianus Scotus saying Tunc ZACHARIAS Papa ex authoritate S. Petri Apostoli mandat populo Francorum vt PIPINVS qui potestate Regia vtebatur etiam nominis dignitate frueretur Then ZACHARIAS by the Authoritie of S. Peter the Apostle commandeth the people of the FreÌ„ch that PIPINE who exercised the Regall power should also enioy the name of the dignitie Besides this Paulus Aemilius relateth that one Burchardus a Bishop made an oration to him to perswade him to it for the Pope at first feared to vndertake a matter of so great importance yet when he considered how all the French desired Pipine Francos Sacramento Regi CHILDERICO dicto soluit he freed the French from their oath made to King CHILDERIC 5. LEO the third Pope a holy Prelate to whom God miraculouslie restored both his eyes and tongue of
must be skilfull in that art or science which Trithemius him selfe knew and therefore leaueth this question vndiscussed Secondly I answer that Trithemius speaketh of HENRIE the fourth Emperour who though he had committed many insolences against the Pope and Church and had set vp an Antipope c. which his enormities Trithemius calleth scelera inaudita yet he professed him selfe a Catholicke and so the Schoole Diuines to wit Ocham Almainus and such others as I haue related for others VViddrington can not alleage disputed whether he could be deposed he being or pretending to be no hereticke as appeareth by his Epistle to GREGORâ—E the seuenth aboue alleaged and what they resolued we haue seene 14. Widdr. In his Newyearesgift pag. 46. Disput Theol. c. 3. sec 3. num 13. Petrus Pithaeus God libert Ecc. Gallicana Petrus Pithaeus sayth VViddrington a man as Posseuin sayth trnlie learned and a diligent searcher of Antiquities affirmeth that the libertie of the Church of Fraunce is grounded in this Principle which Fraunce hath euer held for certaine that the Pope hath not power to depriue the French Kinge of his kingdome or in any other manner to dispose thereof and that notwithstanding any whatsoeuer monitions or monitories excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope can be made yet the subiectes are bounde to yeeld obedience due to the King for Temporalles neither therin can they be dispensed or absolued by the Pope And in his Disput Theologicall Cap. 3. sec 3. num 13. he sayth that Pithaeus out of a generall Maxim which Fraunce that is as he putteth in the margent the greater part euer approoued deduceth this particular proposition that the Pope can not depriue the French Kinge of his Kingdome But first here we see VViddrington ascribeth two thinges to Pithaeus which seeme to imply contradiction for in his Newyearesgift he makes him say that the libertie of the Church of Fraunce is grouÌ„ded in this Principle that the Pope hath not power to depriue the Kinge of his Kingdome And in his Theologicall Disputation he sayth that Pithaeus out of a certaine generall Maxim deduced this particuler proposition that the Pope can not giue the Kingedome of Freunce into prey nor depriue the Kinge of it And so he maketh this position That the Pope can not depriue the King of Fraunce both a generall Maxime in which the libertie of the Church of Fâ—aunce is grounded and also a particuler proposition deduced out of a generall Maxim which he nameth not which two thinges how they cohere let VViddrington looke And certes I can not imagin any Maxim receaued in Fraunce out of which either VViddrington or Pithaeus can deduce that the Pope can in no case depriue the King And if there were any such Maxim receaued in Fraunce that learned Prelat Cardinall Perone in his eloquent oration made in the Chamber of the Third estate not onlie in his owne name but also in the name of all the Nobilitie and Clergie of Fraunce would neuer haue dared before such curious Auditours to vtter these wordes following now if those who haue of set purpose laboured in fauour of the oath of England he putteth in the margent VViddrington to find out Authours who haue affirmed that in case of heresie or infidelitie the subiects could not be absolued from the obligation that they owe to their Princes could not find out any one and if those who haue since written of the same subiect in Fraunce could neuer find out in all FrauÌ„ce note these wordes since the time that Schooles of Diuinitie haue been instituted and sett open till this day one onlie Doctour neither Diuine nor Lawier nor Decree nor Councell nor determination nor acte of Parlament nor Magistrat either Ecclesiasticall or Politicke who hath sayd that in case of heresie or infidelitie the subiect can not be absolued from the oath of fidelitie which they owe to their Princes on the contrarie if all those who haue written for the defence of the Temporall power of Kinges haue euer excepted the case of heresie and Apostasie from Christian Religion how is it that they can without enforcing of Consciences make men not onlie to receaue this doctrine that in no case the subiectes can be absolued from the oath of Allegeance they owe to theire Princes for a perpetuall and vniuersall doctrine of the French Church c. Thus he whereby it is manifest that there is no such receaued Maxime in Fraunce out of which Pithaeus or Widdrington can deduce that the Pope in no case can depriue the King of Fraunce And what the opinion of the most Christian Kingdome of Fraunce at this present is may well appeare by this that all the nobilitie and Clergie the two most worthie Partes and members of that Realme in the yeare 1615. reiected an oath like to the oath of England as pernicious cause of Schisme the open gappe to heresie as our most Excellent and learned King in his Preface to his declaratioÌ„ for the right of Kinges set forth in FreÌ„ch the same yeare confesseth though in a coÌ„plaining manner and as it is to be seene in the Oration of the sayd Cardinall sent to our sayd Soueraigne And although the Tierce estate proposed an oath like to that of England yet that was but one and the lowest of the three estates and as Cardinal Perone affirmeth they had their lessons giuen them from England 15. He alleageth also out of Bochellus the Testimonie of Cardinall Pelue and other Prelates who in an assemblie at Paris 1595. reiected the Decree of the Councell of Trent sess 25. cap. 19. by which it is forbidden Kinges to permitte Duelles vnder payne of loosing the citie or place in which they permitte a Duelle Concilium TridentiuuÌ„ inquiunt excommunicat priuat Regem ciuitate illâ vel loco in quo permittit fieri duellum Hic Articulus est contra authoritatem Regis qui non potest priuari suo dominio temporali respectu cuius nullum Superiorem recognoscit The Councell of Trent say they excommunicateth and depriueth a Kinge of that Citie or place in which he permitteth a duelle to be made This Article is against the Authoritie of the Kinge who can not be depriued of his temporall Dominion in respect of which he acknowledgeth no Superiour I answer that it is not credible that Cardinall Pelue and those Prelates would thus reiect the Councell of Trent or affirme that the Pope can not depriue the King and least I may seeme to doe iniurie to Bochellus in not crediting him I shall giue reasones for it Cap. 3. pag. 111. for first as Schulkennius sheweth he thrustes into the Decrees of the Church of Fraunce and reckeneth amongest her liberties many scandalous thinges and to omitte many of them which Schulkennius noteth I will note onlie two or three of his absurdities which I haue seen in his book In his Preface to the Reader he sheweth him selfe no good Catholicke in carping vniustelie and saucilie
prison sayd he would not take the oath for the Bishopricke of London and two others of them Mr. Drurie and Mr. Cadwallader suffred death rather then they would take the oath VViddrington hath no more reason to alleage them now for the oath then I may haue to alleage now VViddrington against the oath because once he stood against it If WIDDRINGTON say they should not haue chauÌ„ged their opinion I must tell him that they had more reason to chauÌ„ge their opinion vpon their Chiefe Pastours commandement then VViddrington hath to chaunge his opinion against his Chiefe Pastours commandement This I say supposing they had once been of that opinion as they Protest they neuer were and therfore in their Protestation alleaged by VViddrington do giue the Pope as much authoritie as S. Peter had and professe that their intentions were not in any wise to diminish his authoritie Secondly I auswer that towardes the end of Queene Elizabethes raigne it was signified to certain Priestes theÌ„ being in London that the Queenes Maiestie was then so well affected to her Catholicke subiectes that she profered theÌ„ free vse of Religion prouided that she might haue securitie giuen for their fidelitie of which by reason of Pius Quintus sentence of Excommunication and deposition pronounced against her she seemed to stand in feare These 13. Reuerend Priestes easilie induced to beleeue that which they so much desired and fearefull not to giue way to so great a good pretended to English Catholickes were content to make that Protestation which Widdrington setteth downe Disput Theol. cap. 3. sec 3. â—um 11. by which they protest that they acknowledge her to haue as full Authoritie power and Soneraigntie ouer vs and ouer all the snbiectes in the Realme as any her Highenesse Predecessours had And wheras Widdrington maketh this inference ergo to make this their fact and Protestation lawfull they must needes deny that the Pope had authoritie to depose Queene Elizabeth I deny that his consequence and that for manie reasons For first although I will not be so bolde as to examine whether Pius Quintus had iust cause to depose Queene Elizabeth but rather suppose he had nor whether the 13. Priestes thought or might iustlie thinke that he had no iust cause yet the Pope may haue Authoritie to excommunicate and depose and yet if there want iust cause his sentence shall be inualid and of no force And so it followeth not the 13. Priestes acknowledged the Queene lawfull Queene after the sentence of deposition ergo they thought the Pope could not depose her because the sentence might be inualid not for want of Authoritie in the Pope but for want of iust cause in the Queene Disput Theol. cap. 10. So WIDDRINGTON affirmeth that the Catholickes of England may take the oath notwithstaÌ„ding the Popes commandement to the contrarie and if one should thence inferre ergo he thinketh the Pope hath no Authoritie to coÌ„maund he would deny the ConsequeÌ„ce and say that the commandement wanteth force to oblige not for want of Authoritie but by reason that it proceedeth from ill information So in the same Chapter he confesseth that the Archpriest hath power to take from the Priestes who holde the oath to be lawfull their faculties and yet if he should he would say they were not taken away not for wante of power but for want of iust cause So Father Personnes alleaged by Widdrington sayth Disput Theol. cap. 10. sec 2. n. 54. Si enim quaestio esset de facto c. for if the question were of facte as this is of the 13. Ptiestes to wit whether the Pope in this or that case can depose or excommunicate this or that Prince vpon these or these causes or whether the former Popes haue done rightin this or otherwise then some of these reasons which you affirme are alleaged by your frindes might be admitted into consideration whether it would be to aedification or destruction whether it would bringe with it commoditie or discommoditie whether it would be profitable or hurtfull or whether there were causes sufficient or not for no man defendeth that the Pope can depose without iust cause or whether due admonition of which in your letters there is mention hath been made Thirdlie suppose the sentence of Pius Quintus where valid and iust as the contrarie is not easilie to be thought of a man of such Authoritie and sanctitie and consequentlie that the Queene was iustlie and trulie deposed yet the 13. Priestes might promisse to obey her in Temporall and lawfull matters because they might thinke that the Queene would notwithstanding the sentence still raigne and gouerne and would persecute with losse of goods libertie and liues all those that would not obey her and seing that such domages excuse from the sentence of excommunication and giue leaue to communicate with the Prince excommunicated and to obey him in all lawfull matters the 13. Priestes supposing otherwise the daunger of incurring these domages might promisse obedience to the Queene in all lawfull matters Wherefore Diuines Casuists haue in these two verses comprehended all the thinges which excuse from excommunication and make communication with the excommunicat persons lawfull Haec Anathema quidem faciunt ne possit obesse Vtile lex humile res ignorata necesse Thirdly and lastly I answer that although the sentence of excommunication and deposition against Queene ELIZABETH were valid and consequentlie she trulie deposed and depriued of all Regall Authoritie yet the 13. Priestes at the time when they made that their Protestation might acknowledge Queene ELIZABETH to be their lawfull Queene and to haue as full Authoritie as any her predecessours had because that sentence of PIVS QVINTVS might at that time be abrogated and of no force and so cease to bind and consequentlie the Priestes might acknowledge that then she had as full power as she had before the senteÌ„ce and as much right and Authoritie as any of her Predecessours And indeede that PIVS QVINTVS sentence did at that time cease to binde it may be gathered by this that thirtie three yeares had passed from her deposition vnto the time in which these 13. Priests made their Protestation all which time as well Catholickes as ProtestaÌ„ts obeyed her as Queene the Popes then raigning knowing and not reclayming and consequentlie consenting which consent of the subiectes of England and Popes of Rome was sufficieÌ„t to abrogate the former sentence and consequentlie to putte Queene ELIZABETH in the same estate she was in before the sentence And that this tacit consent is sufficieÌ„t to abrogat either positiue law or sentence I prooue by Vasq wordes Vasq 1. 2. Disp 177. c. 2. n. 17. whome VViddrington so often alleageth For Vasquez iuÌ„ping herein with the common opinion of Diuines and Lawiers thus pronounceth Cum Princeps sciens vsum eum approbat vel non improbat nascitur consuetudo quae habet vim legis vel quaesufficit ad derogandum legi
antealata quia Princeps non improbans vsum censetur illum approbare when the Prince knowing the vse doth approoue it or doth not disprooue it there ariseth a custome which hath the force of a law or which sufficeth to derogate to the law before made because the Prince not disproouing an vse is thought to approoue it This is the doctrine of Diuines and Lawiers Widdr. Disput Theol. c. 6. sec 3. n. 25.27.28 which VViddrington him selfe approoueth in diuerse places Wherefore seing that in England the sentence of Pius Quintus pronounced against Queene Elizabeth was not obserued for three and thirtie yeares before the thirteene Priests Protestation and that all that while euen the Catholickes obeyed her as Queene the Popes knowing and not contradicting yea some of them as I haue heard of Pope Gregorie the 13. and Clement the 8. expresselie approouing it followeth that at the time of the 13. Priests Protestation the sentence of deposition by contrarie vse and custome was abrogated and so Queene ELIZABETH was at that time in the same state she was in before the sentence and consequētlie might be acknowledged for true Queene and to haue as full power and Authoritie as any of her Predecessours But because widdrington may alleage that these 13. reuerēd Priests not ōlie promised that they would acknowledge Q. Elizabeth notwithstanding any sentence alreadie pronoūced but also notwitstanding any Authoritie or any Excōmunication whatsoeuer either denoūced or to be denounced to yeeld vnto her Maiestie all obediēce in tēporall causes I answer that the 13. Reuerend Priests might acknowledge in the Pope authoritie to depose the Queene and yet promise her obedience in Lawfull thinges supposing the sentence would be inualid for some of the aforesayd causes and not for want of authoritie Againe they might thinke that if the Queene would giue for herafter libertie of Conscience as was pretended and continue the same as the 13. Priests might hope the Pope should haue no cause to Excommunicate or depose her and therfore would not or if he would they might imagine that in that case he could not iustlie nor without great iniurie to the Catholickes of England proceede so against her that being to prouoke her to a new persecution and so the 13. Reuerend Priestes might thinke them selues not bound to obey in that case the Popes sentence and commaundement it being vniust and consequentlie rebus sic stantibus they might promise notwithstanding any sentence to be denounced to obey the Queene in all Temporall and lawfull causes and to defend and assist her If VViddrington should here obiect that if the 13. Priests might promise to acknowledge and obey Queen Elizabeth notwithstanding any sentence to be pronounced supposing the sentence would be vniust why may not the Catholique Subiect of England take the oath of pretended alleageance and sweare that the Pope can not depose the King and that if he should he would still acknowledge and obey him supposing the sentence would be vniust I answer him that the case is not like because in the oath the question is de iure not de facto and therfore the Subiect sweareth absolutlie that the Pope hath not any power or Authoritie to depose the King and that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication or depriuation made or graunted or to be made or graunted against the sayd King or any absolution of the sayd subiectes from their obedience he will beare true fayth and true allegeance to his Maiestie And seing that the Pope hath such Authoritie to depose a Prince as here I suppose it is periurie at least to sweare absolutlie that he hath no such Authoritie ouer the King and it is iniurie to the Pope But the 13. Priests speake de facto not de iure and therfore they protest not that the Pope hath no such Authoritie but promise what they would doe de sacto notwithstanding any his Authoritie that is that not withstanding the Popes Authoritie and sentence so libertie of Conscience were graunted to all English Catholickes as they were borne in hand it should they would still acknowledge and obey the Queene supposing in that case the sentence would be vniust and so of no force to bynd in conscience Wherfore seing that these 13. Reuerend Priestes might make their Protestation of acknowledging and obeying Q. ELIZABETH not for that they thought the Pope could not depose her but for other reasons alleaged why should then VViddrington take them in the worst sence why should he bringe them so oft on the stage why should he thinke to grace his opinion by their grauitie learning and Authoritie he knowing whatsoeuer they thought of the Popes Authoritie in deposing before the Popes Breues came forth as they protest they neuer thought as VViddrington doth that when he began to impugne this the Popes Authoritie and against his Chiefe Pastours commaundement to defend the oath they protested in priuat and publicke the contrarie And so VViddrington may aske thē forgiuenesse by publicke writing whom he hath publickelie and yet wrongefullie sought to defame 18. Here because I would not passe my limittes of breuitie which I intended in this booke I thought to haue concluded this Chapter But after I had examined these Authours yea after that the Printer was come to this Chapter I came to the sight of VViddringtons Supplication and Appendix ioyned to it which before I had nor seene for that Catholickes making a scruple either to read or to keepe bookes forbidden by the Chiefe Pastour and Superiours being vigilant and worthilie to suppresse such bookes it is hard in Catholicke countries to meete with any of VViddringtons bookes two of them being expresselie condemned and all his later bookes being almost but repetitions of the former yet hauing hitte vpon this booke I was desirous to see with what dexteritie he defended these authours against Schulckennius And I find that he refused to acknowledge two of them to wit Dante 's and Ocham In Append § 6 num 2. saying Imprimis falsum est me aut Dantem aut Occamum pro meis authoribus produxisse c. First it is false that I produced either Dante 's or Ocham for my Authours But I onlie affirmed that by IOHN AZORIVS they were alleaged for that opinion And yet who could thinke otherwise then that he had produced them for his Authours seing that after the first opinion of Cardinall Bellarmine and others which holdeth that the Chiefe Pastour may in some case dispose of Temporalities and Regalities he setteth downe the second opinion of those who holde that the Chiefe Pastour in no case by no Authoritie either directlie or indirectlie hath power to depose a Prince and cōming to the Authours of this second opinion which he him selfe Embraceth he sayth Hanc sententiam vt refert Ioannes Azorius Societatis Iesu Theologus sequuntur Gulielmus Occamus Ioannes Parisiensis Dante 's Aligerius Iacobus Almainus c. This sentence as Ioannes Azorius a diuine of
affirme that in case of intolerable tyrannie against the Church the Pope may depose them But rather as they are content so to beare rule ouer their subiects as they will permitt God to beare rule ouer them so they should also be content to subiect them selues their Kingdomes Crownes and scepters to Christ and his Kingdome that raigning vnder him here for a time they may raigne with him hereafter for euer CHAPTER XV. An Explication of the late Oath of pretended Alleageance and of euery clause thereof deduced out of the former and some other grounds by which is prooued that it can neither be proposed nor taâ—en without grieuous offence of Almighty God 1. Vide Alphonsum de Castro V. IurameÌ„tum Gen. 21. Gen. 26. Gen. 31. Psal 17. Rom. 1.2 Cor 1. Philip. 1.1 Tim. 5 CAtholicks with common consent do confesse and hould against the Messalians Euchites Pelagians Waldenses Anabaptistes and Puritanes that it is lawfull in some cases to sweare as many of the greatest Sainctes haue done For ABRAHAM swore to Abimelech ISAAC to the same or another Abimelech IACOB to Laban MOYSES swore by Heauen and earth DAVID and others oftentimes vse this oath Viuit Deus as God liueth which is in effect to sweare by the life of God S. PAVL also did vse diuers oathes as Testis enim mihi est Deus for God is my witnesse and I call God to witnesse I testifie before God and such like Yea God him selfe knowing that we more easilie beleeue when a thing is sworne sweareth himselfe to winne credit at our hands Deut. 4. And in DEVTERONOMIE he commandeth vs to sweare saying Dominum Deum tuum timebis per nomen eius iurabis Thou shalt feare thy Lord God and shalt sweare by his name But as medicines are good yet not alwaies to be taken but onlie supposing a disease or sicknesse so oathes are not to be vsed but only supposing a necessitie as when we cannot otherwise be beleeued And therfore when there is no necessitie CHRIST sayth Mat. 5. Ego autem dicovobis non iurare omnino I say to you sweare not all to wit when there is no necessitie Iacob 1. And S. IAMES Nolite iur are quodcunque iur amentum Do not sweare any oath Deut. 6. But when there is necessitie God commandeth it Psal 62. as wee haue seene And Dauid commendeth it saying Laudabuntur omnes qui iurant in eo They all shall be praised who swearein him God Fot to sweare when necessitie vrgeth is an Acte of Religion and worship of God whome we acknowledge to be so true that he will not fauour a lye and of such a maiestie that none will dare to sweare by him vnlesse the thing be true which is the reason why oathes are easilie credited 2. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 89. art 3. But if we will haue our oathes free from all sinne we must ioyne to them these three companionsâ— or conditions Iudgement Veritie and Iustice according to that of HIEREMIE Hierem. 4 Iur obis in veritate in iudicio in iustitia Thou shalt sweare in Veritie Iudgement and Iustice. Iudgement is necessarie in the sweater Veritie in the thing he sweareth Iustice in the cause For want of Iudgement the oath is rash as when we sweare for euerie trifle for want of Veritie the oath is false and periurie as when we sweare a lye for want of Iustice it is vnlawfull as if one should sweare he would committ a sinne And if a man sweareth with out Iudgement he taketh Gods name in vaine if without Veritie he committeth periurie and makes God to patronize a lie if without Iustice he makes God a patron of sinne Wherfore he that would knowe whether the Oath which latelie is proposed to Catholickes be lawfull must marke whether it want not some one of these three companions or conditions to wit Iudgement Veritie and Iustice for if it want but one it is vnlawfull much more if it want all And because there may be difficultie as well about the proposer as the taker of this Oath let vs see first whether in the proposer may be found Iudgement Iustice and Veritie 3. As touching the first it may seeme not to be wanting in the Magistrate that proposeth and that for two reasons First because the Prince being of another religion then the Pope and knowing that Catholickes giue him power to depose Princes may seeme iustlie to feare least he will exercise this Authoritie vpon him Secondlie the late Gunpowder-plot may seeme to proceed from such an opinion and so the Magistrate to secure the Prince seemeth to haue reason to vrge the Catholicke subiects vnto such an Oath 4. But yet on the other side it seemeth most certaine that the Magistrate hath no iust cause to propose such an Oath consequentlie that in proposing it he obserueth not the first condition For first although the Magistrate may haue some cause to feare the Kings deposition supposing that he persecuteth the Catholicke faith and depriueth Catholicks of liuings libertie Rom. 13. and sometime life also yet as S. PAVL sayth Vis non timere potestatem bonum fac habebis laudem ex illa Dei enim Minister est tibi in bonum Si autem malum feceris time non enim sine causa gladium portat c. VVilt thou not feare the power do good and thou shalt haue praise of the same for he is Gods Minister vnto thee for good But if thou doe euill feare for he beareth not the sword without cause for he is Gods Minister a reuenger vnto wrath to him that doth euill So say I if Princes wil be free from all feare of the Popes power let them do good and they shall haue praise before God and men for the Pope is appointed Pastour vnto theÌ„ for their good But if they will do euill if they will persecute the Church her faith faithfull children then let them feare for he is Gods Minister hath the spirituall glaiue put into his hand to chastize correct all rebellious Christians And therefore as he that taketh a mans purse from him by violence hath no iust cause to compell him to sweare that he will not bewray him because he might and should haue abstayned from the iniurie and then an oath had not bene necessarie so the Prince or Magistrate hath no vrgent cause to propose this Oath to the Cath olicke subiectes because if he abstaine from persecutioÌ„ as he ought to do he needeth not feare the Popes power and so hath no sufficient cause to vrge his subiects by oath to abiure the Popes Authoritie that he in the meane while may persecute impunè 5. As for the Gunpowder plot it could not proceed from this opinion for it doth not follow that because the Pope caÌ„ depose the Prince therefore his subiects by priuate Authoritie may endeuour to kill him because the Pope is superiour the subiectes are inferiours he
hath publick they haue only priuate Authoritie 6. Secondlie the Prince or Magistrate can not iustly vexe subiects nor trouble their consciences with it but only for his own securitie but this Oath is so farre from securing the King that rather it exposeth him to greater daunger ergo to secure him selfe the King cannot iustlie propose this Oath That this Oath cannot secure the King it is manifest because the most that take this Oath take it against their conscience and not so much out of opinion as for feare yea they thinke they do ill in taking it and consequently they thinke they are not bound to obserue the same for to sweare to do an euill thing and after to fulfill the Oath is a double sinne one in swearing another in fulfilling An example is in Herod who sinned in promising by a solemne Oath that he would graunt his Daughter what soeuer she asked and as he was bound not to stand to such a rash oath so he sinned againe in fulfilling it And Widdrington requireth onlie that we should sweare that we thinke it probable that the Pope can not depose a Prince which opinion probable and consequentlie fearfull for a probable opinion is alwayes ioyned cisâ—â— formidine de opposito with feare of the opposite or coÌ„trarie may easilie chauÌ„ge with euerie winde and so can not secure the Prince And so the King after this Oath is no more secure then before because the Catholicks who take this Oath against their conscience know that they are not bound to keepe their oath And they who sweare onlie that they thinke it probable that the Pope can depose sweare with feare and without any certaine assent and so may easilie chauÌ„ge that opinion which they holde then in to the contrarie Yea the Prince thereby bringeth him self into greater daunger For by so vnwonted odious an Oath so contrarie to his subiectes consciences he cannot but make him self odious which how dangerous it is Cicero lib 2. de offic CICERO witnesseth saying Multorum odiis nullae opes nullae vir espoteruÌ„t resistere No richesse or forces are able to resist the hatreds of many 7. I know the Politicians say Oderint dum metuant Let them hate so they feare also Seneca lib. 2. de ira c. 11 But yet true is that which Seneca no inexpert Politician alleadgeth Necesse est vt multos timeat quem multi timent He must of necessitie feare many who causeth many to feare him Cicero lib. 2. de offie Because as Cicero sayth quem metuunt oderunt Men hate whome they feare And what securitie hath a Prince amongst them that hate him When subiects hate their Prince they are discontended when they are discontended they are desperate when they are desperate they care not for their owne liues when they care not for their owne liues let then the Prince feare his for as Seneca saith Seneca Qui suam vitam contemnit tuae Dominuâ— erit He thar contemneth his own life wil be master of thine And from this source proceeded the late Gun-pouder-plot 8. Wherefore if Kings will raigne securelie and fortifie them selues stronglie let them procure the loue and good will of their subiects Senecâ— lib. 2. de Clem. cap. 19. because as the same Morall Philosopher sayth Vnum est inexpugnabile munimentum amor Ciuium The only impregnable and inexpugnable fort and strong hould a Prince hath is the loue of his Citizens and subiects But if a Prince seeke rather to dominere odiously then to rule sweetlie desire rather to be feared then loued all the oathes that he shall extort of his subiectes cannot secure him all his watch and Guarde will not saue him CLAVDIVS the Emperour neuer went to a Banket but he enuironed the table with souldiours who only also serued him at the same and yet by his Taster he was poisened DOMITIAN made the walles of his Gallerie or Ambulachre of stones of Phengites which were transparent that so he might see on all sides and yet he was slaine by his Chamberlins And what a strong Guarde what armies can do to defend a Prince that is hated we haue seene by the example of the two HENRIES the Third and Fourth of France wherof the First was killed by a sillie Fryat the other by a poore companion in the middest of their Armies And so the first condition required to propose this Oath which is Iudgement that dictateth that an oath is neither to be proposed nor taken without iust cause is wanting 9. Veritie also which is the second companion of an oath is here deficient because it is false that the Pope can not depose Princes as I haue prooued by many Arguments and so to sweare it were to sweare a falsitie and consequently the proposer of this Oath obserueth not the second condition which is Veritie without the which all oathes are periurie and so neither to be proposed not taken 10. The third condition is also wanting because if it be true that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Princes as I haue prooued it is against Iustice to denie him this authoritie and consequently to sweare the denyall And so the Magistrate wanting Iudgement Veritie and Iustice cannot lawfully propose this Oath to Catholicks and especially to Priests who are exempted by their Clericall priuieledge from his Iurisdiction 11. But because this discourse is vndertaken rather for the instruction of the Catholicks to whome the Oath is proposed then for the Magistrate that proposeth it let this suffice for the proposers caueat and lesson and let vs come to the Catholicks and examine whether this Oath may with safe conscience be taken of them For if it may it were crueltie to vrge them to refuse it with losse of liuings and libertie But if it may not then it is as farre greater crueltie for Widdrington and others to perswade them that they may take it as it is more to loose eternall felicitie then Temporall riches of which Death will in fine despoile vs. And because Widdrington hath deuided the Oath into certaine clauses I will follow him in the same method Protesting first that as His HOLINESSE when he heard of this Oath affirmed as Father persons alleaged by WIDDRINGTON Widdr. Disp Th. sec 2. cap. 10. num 56. related that he had no intention to proceed actuallie by Censures against his Maiestie of England but rather to vse all Humanitie and onlie would suffer death rather then yeeld any iotte of the Authoritie due to the Sea Apostolique Soe I haue noe intention to dispute de facte but onlie de Iure that is not to question whether in this case or that case or whether for this cause or that cause His Maiestie or any other absolute Prince in particuler may be deposed or whether it would be more to destruction or edification but rather if the Oath did not mention His Maiestie and so enforce me to speake some tymes of him I would for the respect which I beare
knowing that so many Scriptures Theologicall reasons Councels Popes their factes and practise so many learned Doctours and Sainctes stand for the contrarie he can not sweare absolutely and with the former asseueration that the Pope hath no such authoritie he knowing that so many Authours and so great Argumentes and Authoritie do countenance the contrarie opinion Yea much lesse can he sweare for his opinion in this point then can a Thomist for his touching our Ladies Conception because the Thomist is licenced by the expresse leaue of the Church to teach and thinke as he doth and his aduersaries are commaunded by the Church not to condemne his opinion as hereticall Concil Trid. sess 5. c. 1. de Reform Sixtus 4 ca. graue nimis de reliq or erronious or rash which warrant VViddrington hath not for his opinion rather the Church hath condemned it in Councells and practise as wee haue shewed Who is then so hardie or rather so rash that dareth sweare absolutely that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes or dispose of their Kingdomes the contrarie being not only probable yea more probable which VViddrington can not denie but also a matter of faith or so neerely concerning faith as the arguments and authoritie produced do warrant that Cardinall Allan in his Answer to the libeller sayth Chap. 4. it concerneth the Popes Supremacie and power Apostolicall Apol. pro Card. Bellar. cap. 6. cont 4. pag. 259. and Schulkennius verie well auerreth the contrarie is either hereticall or erronious and temerarious either of which is enough to deterre any timorous conscience But be it that the opinion which holdeth that the Pope in some cases can depose a Prince were but probable yet seing that the thing which is probable may be true and if it be the more common and probable opinion as Widdrington denyeth not but that this opinion of deposing Princes is it is most like to be true It followeth consequently that he that abiureth this probable yea more probable opinion that the Pope can in some case depose Princes exposeth him selfe to probable daunger of swearing false and abiuring the truth and so is periured because qui amat periculum in illo peribit Eccl. 3. he that loueth daunger shall perish therein out of which wordes Diuines do prooue that he who wittinglie and willinglie exposeth him selfe to probable daunger of any sinne is guiltie before God of that sinne as if he had actuallie committed 19. Certes if Veritie be a necessarie companion of a lawfull oath no man can sweare more then he thinketh there is veritie in the thing he sweareth Wherefore that he may sweare that this opinion is probable he must in conscience thinke it at least probable which if he ponder the Authoritie which aboue I haue produced for the contrarie he can not possiblie and with any reason thinke to sweare that he thinketh it not only probable but also absolutely and vndoubtedly true he must in conscience be so perswaded else he should sweare against his conscience and otherwise then in his conscience is true And how can hee perswade him selfe so fullie as to sweare that from his hart and before God he thinketh and holdeth that the Pope in no case can depose Princes or dispose of their Dominions he knowing that so many and with so great reason holde the contrarie who are as likelie and as farre more likelie not to be deceaued then he as they haue more reason and Authoritie for their opinion then he 20. Pag. 62. and Pag. 63. WIDDRINGTON in his Newyeares-gift answereth that whatsoeuer opinioÌ„ a man followeth in Speculation concerning the Popes Authoritie to depriue Princes yet he may as certainelie acknowledge and sweare that the Pope hath no Authoritie to depose the King that is to practise his deposition as it is cleare and manifest that he may certainlie acknowledge and sweare that the Pope hath no authoritie to committe open iniustice and that in a doubtfull vncertaine and disputable case the condition of the possessour is to be preferred But although Widdrington maketh great accounte of this answer yet it will be found defectiue For first VViddrington is not ignorant that the power and exercise of the power are two thinges which also may be separated for we haue the power of seeing when we sleepe but not the exercise of it we haue the power of walking when we repose our selues on our bedde and yet then we walke not And so the power of excommunicating and deposing is one thing and the exercise of it is an other and therfore the Bishop may haue power to excommunicate and yet not exercise that power and the Pope may haue power to depose although he do not actuallie depose any Secondly WIDDRINGTON knoweth that a man may haue the power to do a thing validlie that is so as the thing donne shall stand in force and yet not lawfullie that is with out sinne As for example the Prelate or Soueraigne Prince who haue Authoritie to dispense in positiue lawes subiect to their Authoritie if they dispense with out iust cause the dispensation according to the probable opinion of diuerse Diuines is valid and of force and freeth the dispensed in conscience Soto li. 1 de Iustitia Iure q. 7 a. 3. Siluest Angelus V. Dispensatio but it is vnlawfull and the dispenser sinneth So the Pope or Bishop may sometymes Excommunicate validlie and yet not lawfullie For Diuines affirme Excommunication may be three wayes vniust Ex animo when there is iust cause to excommunicate but the Bishop who excommunicateth doth it not out of Zeale of iustice or desire of amendment but out of enuie hatred or malice Ex ordine when the Bishop hath iust cause to excommunicate but obserueth not the order of Canonicall Premonition which is to be donne thrice or once for thrice Ex cauiâ when there is no iust cause The first excommunication is alwayes valid Lib. 1. Thesauri â—â—suum â—â—â—sci entia ca. 7. but vnlawfull so is ordinarilie the second as noteth Sayrus our countrie man the third is not onlie vnlawfull but also inualid and of no force So also the Pope may depose validlie and yet not lawfullie or without sinne For if the Prince giue sufficient cause of deposition and the Pope notwithstanding should as such a superiour is not easilie to be thought so to do depose the Prince out of hatred or enuie or else when prudeÌ„ce would haue him to tolerate the Prince for feare of garboyles and greater hurte the deposition should be valid and of force but yet vnlawfull and sinnefull Wherefore seing that in this second clause we are to sweare that the Pope hath no power or Authoritie to depose the King or to dispose of his maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions c. Although perchaunce he can not now as thinges stand lawfullie exercise his power in deposing an absolute Prince because much more hurt then good might come of it yet if it be
probable that the Pope hath power to depose as Widdrington confesseth it is probable I demaunde of Widdrington how he can sweare resolutelie that the Pope hath no such authoritie he being not ignorant that many learned men holde it and that more then probable that he hath And so for all this Answer my former Argument is in force wherfore although it were but probable that the Pope hath authoritie to depose a Prince and that consequentlie he could not actuallie without iniustice depose him the cōdition of the Possessour being to be preferred yet seing that the power is one thinge the exercise an other and that it is at least probable that the Pope hath power to depose how can WIDDRINGTON knowing this probabilitie sweare absolutelie that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose As for example one is in possession of a Tenement and hath probable right an other hath also probable right to it but without possession and so can not iustlie dispossesse because in the like defaulte or cause De Reg◠Iuris in 6. better is the condition of him that is in possession Although therfore in this case one might sweare that he who is not in possession can not iustlie dispossesse the partie who hath the possession yet he could not sweare that he hath no right to the Tenement if he know that he hath probable right And therefore although if it were but probable that the Pope can depose one might sweare that he cannot exercise this power iustlie because melior est conditio Principis possidentis yet he could not sweare as in this clause he is commaunded that the Pope hath no power nor right to depose a Prince For as a man may haue probable right to a Tenement and yet can not put him out of possession who also hath probable right because possession hindereth so the Pope might haue probable authoritie to depose yet could not actuallie depose a Prince because his possession hindereth Lastelie by as many Arguments as I haue deduced out of Scriptures Councelles The ologicall principles and practise of holy Popes to prooue that the Pope can in some cases depose a Prince I haue also prooued WIDDRINGTONS opinion improbable And although three or foure Authours or as many as VVIDDRINGTON alleageth may make an opinion probable Vasq 1. 2. disp 62. ca. 4. yet as Vasquez and others do well obserue they must be skilfull in that arte and science and the rest of the torrent of Doctours must admitte it as probable and not note it of errour or temeritie And therfore though some few Doctours holde with VViddrington or rather he with them yet seing that the rest of the Doctours in number learning and sanctitie farre excelling do stand against his opinion that his Authours either holde against him or are censured by the Church that the Decrees of Councelles and facts of Popes do condemne him his Authours and his opinion and that latelie his Chiefe Pastours sentence hath pronounced that the oath of Alleageance containeth thinges contrarie to faith and saluation in which wordes no doubt WIDDRINGTONS opinion the principall subiect of the oath is deepelie taxed how can WIDDRINGTONS opinion be probable and if his opiniō be not probable the contrarie opinion which holdeth that the Pope can depose a Prince must be more then probable and no lesse then certaine as besides other Arguments the Lateran Decree which otherwise should be vniust doth demonstrate whence followeth that the Pope hath not onlie power to depose but may also execute it without iniustice the Prince deposed hauing no probable right or Title remaining And this is the opinion of all those who holde that the Pope can depose Princes and this was the opinion of the Popes so learned and so holie that haue deposed Princes and so must thinke it more then probable else the Prince as I said after deposition should retaine probable right and so being also in Possession could not iustlie be deposed 21. Widdr. Disp Th. cap. 3. sect 3. n. 3. cap. 10. sect 2. n. 11. This Argument will haue more force if we consider that this Oath is not onlie proposed to those that holde with WIDDRINGTON but also to those and those especially who holde against him and can not chaunge their opinion or depose their conscience because they haue no probable reason to depose it at least so as to thinke absolutely and vndoubtedly that the Pope cannot depose Princes or dispose of their Temporall states For although if VViddringtons opinion were probable as it is not they might so depose their conscience as to thinke the contrarie probable and consequently might sweare it is probable yet they can not sweare that they thinke from their hart and before God that VViddringtons opinion is absolutely true and consequently the contrarie absolutely false they knowing that there is such reason and Authority for the contrarie Yea this Oath is proposed to all sortes as well those that are learned as vnlearned as well those that haue capacitie to Iudge of the Oath as those that haue not such as are the most part of those to whome it is tendered And how shall they with any saferie of conscience sweare that before God and in their harts they thinke that the Pope can not depose Princes they being not able to iudge of the matter and knowing no more probabilitie for the one side then for the other 22. VViddrington sayth that those that can not iudge may rely vpon the learned and so though by intrinsecall principles which are the reasons and Arguments which are produced for this opinion they can not iudge which opinion is probable or more probable they being not of capacitie to conceaue of the force of Argumentes yet by extrinsecall principles that is Authoritie of others who are counted good and learned men they may frame to them selues a conscience that the Pope can not depose Princes because many learned and good men holde that opinion To which purpose he citeth his Maister Gabriel Vasquez whome notwithstanding he misconstrueth Vasq 1.2 disp 62. c. 8. For although Vasquez togeather with Henricus Conradus and Siluester whome he alleadgeth do holde that an ignorant man may follow in practise a probable opinion yea the Counsell of a prudent learned and good man who telleth him it is a probable opinion although the common opinion be contrarie And so if VViddringtons opinion were probable might also holde with him and consequently sweare what hee thinketh yet I denie VViddringtons opinion to be probable and haue prooued it not only improbable but also repugnant to scriptures Theologicall reasons Councels and consequently directlie or indirectlie to faith it selfe But suppose which yet I will not graunt that VViddringtons opinion were probable yet neither Vasquez nor any Diuine affirmeth that it is lawfull to sweare absolutely that VViddringtons opinion is true If VViddringtons opinion were probable by reason of the Authoritie of the Authours that holde it then might any
or force and violence were for the most part conuerted the Pope to conserue Religion might giue them a Christian Prince and send an Armie to put him in possession S. Thom. 2.2 q. 10 art 10. Innoc. ca. super his de voto voti redempt This he prooueth out of S. Thomas and the common opinion of Diuines who affirme that the Chiefe Pastour in fauour of Religion and for securing Christians saluation might free Christian slaues from seruitude and much more other Christians who are subiect not despoticè but only politicè yea this hee prooueth out of scripture because in fauour of faith a wife may be separated from a Pagan husband 1. Cor. 7. Cap. quanto de diuortiis much more a subiect from his Prince 28. A fourth Title is if the Prince generallie molest Innocentes by vniust lawes and vexations as if a Pagan King should sacrifice Innocent Children to his Gods then any forreine Prince especially by the counsell of the High Pastour after he hath warned the sayd King and seeth no redresse may take the cause of the Innocents vpon him and make warre vpon the King for their defence for as Innocents haue right from God and Nature to defend them selues so may another with their expresse or presumed licence vndertake their cause and wage warre in their defence 29. A fift Title may be grounded in the Popes temporall authoritie for hee being a temporall Prince might authorize the Duke of Vrbine for example or other his Feudataries to inuade England for satisfaction of iniuries if the King of England had done him any for so the King of England hath heretofore inuaded France for iniuries receaued and might againe hereafter if by the French the like iniuries should be offerred And yet this Clause of the Oath makes the Catholicke to sweare 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. or to anoy him or inuade his countries c. 30. Another Title of inuading a Princes country or resisting him may be this If Princes contrary to the Popes commandement and liking of all other Princes would call the Moores or Turkes into Spaine France or Germanie and commaund their subiects to assist them were they bound to obey or rather were they not bound to resist what they could And seeing that the bringing of the Moores or Turkes into those countries might bee preiudiciall to all Christian countries and euen to Christian faith might not other Princes especially cōmaunded by their Chiefe visible Pastour inuade their countries to hinder the entrance of such enemies And might nor yea ought not the Emperour and those Princes subiects to assist them against their owne Princes for the common good of Christendome And yet by this Clause we are cōmaunded to sweare that the Pope in no case can authorize subiects or Princes to annoy his Maiestie of England or any his countries 31. Wherefore although I will not auerre that Christian Princes may haue these titles to inuade England or any part of it or to make warre either against the Prince to whom I wish after long life hete eternity in heauen or countrie which is most deare vnto mee Yet by this it may easily appeare that it is not so euident as VViddrington would make it that this Oath may be taken with such an assured asseueration and in those so generall termes Victoria hauing alleadged so many Titles of iust warres which make this Clause at least doubtfull and so not to be sworne 32. Widdr. in Disp The ol c. 3. sect 4. n. 3. VViddrington answereth that in this Clause is not denyed that the Common wealth can depose a Prince but only is auerred that the Pope cannot either by himselfe or by the Common wealth or any other meanes And saith he if the Pope cannot by himselfe neither can hee by the Common wealth And this as he thinketh he conuinceth by examples For saith he as a stone neither with a man neither by a man hath power to vnderstand and disoourse and neither by the Common wealth nor with the Common wealth can depose a Prince because it hath no power of it selfe to discourse or depose so if wee suppose that the Pope of him selfe hath no power to depose a Prince he cannot by the Common wealth depose him though otherwife the Common wealth could And although saith Widdrington these examples be not like in all points because the stone is not capable at all of discoursing or deposing the Pope is at least capable of Authoritie to depose Princes if God would giue it him yet saith he if wee suppose that the Pope de facto hath no power to depose then a good argument may be drawne out of these similitudes For as the stone cannot by man or with a man discourse or depose Kings because it hath no power of it selfe so to doe so if the Pope haue no authoritie to depose Princes as Widdrington supposeth it cannot be or is not yet sufficiently prooued that he hath he cannot de facto by the Common wealth depose 33. But I shall make VViddrington to see by other examples and reason also how litle these his examples auaile For suppose the Pope could not depose a Prince by himselfe as I haue prooued he can yet he might doe it by a temporall Prince or the Common wealth and that also in VViddringtons opinion This I prooue first by examples For in the opinion of those Philosophers who say that no substance is immediately operatiue or actiue the substance or substantiall forme of fire can not produce fire immediately by it selfe and yet it can per calorem siccitatem by heate and siccity which are the fires instrument and actiue virtue and so wee say not only that heate produceth heate but also that fire produceth heate though not immediately but by meanes of the foresaid qualities So the sunne engendreth metalls and mineralls in the bowells of the earth and produceth as an vniuersall cause plantes and hearbes and yet not by his immediate substance but by mediation of his light and influences So the will of man is cause of walking speaking and other externall operations yet not by her selfe immediately but by mediation of other faculties which are dependent on her So a Prince that had neither hand nor foote or if he had should vse neither and so could not kill his enemie yet might he doe it by his Captaine if he should commaund him and if at his commaūd the Captaine should kill the Prince also should be said to haue killed yea to haue bene the principall cause of the murder though immediately he either could not or did not strike any stroke Wherefore VViddrington might haue called to mind that many tymes an agent may worke an effect by another which it can not by it selfe immediatly if the other cause which it vseth be
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.
spirituall punishment of excommunicatiō will preuaile the other because to excommunicate him and not to depriue him were to irritate him and prouoke him to furie and yet not to take his sword and power from him 43. And therefore in the Canon Lawe Temporall punishment followeth and accompanieth excommunication as Cap. No◠sanctorum 15. q. 6. Pope GREGORIE the seuenth holding as he sayth the statutes of his Predecessoures absolueth all those who are obliged by faith or fidelitie to excommunicated persons from their fidelitie And in the next Chapter which beginneth with the word Iuratos Pope VRBANE absolueth souldiours from their fidelitie to Count HVGO excommunicated And in the Decretalles Cap. Ad abolendum de Haereticis Countes Barons Rectors and Consulles of Cities who will not ayde the Church against heretickes are excommunicated and depriued or to be depriued of their former tēporall honour made vnable and vncapable of all future dignities and their Landes are Interdicted And in the next Chapter Vergentes INNOCENTIVS the Third confiscateth the goods of Heretickes And in the Chapter Si aduersus all Aduocates and Notaries who fauour Heretickes are made infamous and are depriued of their office Likewise in the Chapter Excommunicamus before cited all Heretickes are excommunicated and after the condemnatorie sentence are to be chastised with due punishment by the Secular Iudge and their goods are confiscated in which Chapter also is to be seene the Decree of the Great Councell of Lateran which aboue I haue alleaged And in the same Chapter beleeuers receiuers defendours and fauourers of Heretickes are excommunicated declared infamous and vnable to beare office to make a Testament or last will and if he be a Iudge his sentence is disanulled c. And in the last Chapter of this Title de Haereticis GREGORIE the Ninth concludeth with these wordes whosoeuer by any promise howsoeuer confirmed were obliged to those who are manifestlie fallen into Heresie let them know that they are absolued from the duetie of sidelitie homage and seruice And Cap. Cum secundum leges de Haereticis in 6. The Pope sayth that if by the Ciuill Lawe diuers transgressours which he nameth be iustlie depriued of their goods bona Haereticorum qui grauius horribilius ac detestabilius quam praedicti delinquunt ipso iure de fratrum nostrorum consilio decernimus confiscata the goods of Heretickes who more grieuouslie more horriblie and detestablie then the aforesayd delinquents do offend we decree ipso iure to be confiscated Wherfore although that Excommunication may be separated from all temporall punishment and that the Pope may excommunicate a Prince and yet not depose him as INNOCENTIVS the first did excommunicate ARCADIVS whome yet he deposed not yet seing that in the Common law Temporall punishment as confiscation of goods infamie and euen absolution from fidelitie to Princes are annexed to Excommunication and proceede from the power of Excommunication and ordinarilie follow the acte of Excommunication I might well say that depriuation of Regall authoritie is an effect which ordirilie followeth Excommunication of Kings and yet say no more then the learned Suarez aboue alleaged nor then S. 2.2 q. 12 art 2. THOMAS of AQVIN where he sayth that the Prince who hath made an Apostasie and reuolt from the true Christian faith receaued at least in Baptisme is conuenientlie depriued of rule ouer his subiects and that quam citò aliquis per sententiam denuntiatur Excommunicatus propter Apostasiam a fide ipso facto eius subditi sunt absoluti a dominio eius Iuramento fidelitatis so soone as any one by sentence is denounced Excommunicated for Apostasie from faith ipso facto at the same instant his subiects are absolued from his Dominion or Soueraigntie and from their oath of fidelitie Where it is manifest that he maketh absolution of the subiects from their fidelitie an effect in some sort of the acte of Excommunication 44. Put then all this together to wit first that depriuation of Regall authoritie is an acte though secondarie yet necessarilie appertaining to the Chiefe Pastours spirituall power by which he Excommunicateth he that denyeth him power to depriue denyeth necessarilie his power to excommunicate it being one and the selfe same power as aboue is prooued Secondlie seing that depriuation and other temporall punishments aboue related do ordinarilie follow the acte of excommunication though by a secondarie acte of the Popes spirituall power as is aboue explicated he that denyeth the Pope power to depriue denyeth him also power to excommunicate depriuation being at least a morall effect euen of the acte of excommunication This I explicate by homo and risibilis not that I auerre as necessarie a coniunction betwixt the acte of excommunication and depriuation as is betwixt homo and risibilis no example holding in all thinges but for that as because there is a necessarie and physicall connexion betwixt homo and risibilis he that denyeth a man to be risibilis doth necessarilie deny him to be homo so because there is a necessarie connexion betwixt the power of excommunication and depriuation both actes appertaining necessarilie to that power he that denyeth the Pope authoritie to depriue a Prince necessarilie denyeth him power to excommunicate the denyall of a necessarie effect implying vertuallie a denyall of the cause and because there is a morall coniunction at least betwixt the acte of excommunication depriuation this as before following ordinarilie that he that denyeth the Pope authoritie to depriue morallie at least denyeth him power to excōmunicate which is sufficiēt to make any timorous consciēce feare to sweare that the Pope can not depriue a Prince especiallie if thereunto be added that depriuation is a secondarie acte necessarilie appertaining to the Popes supremacie and power of excommunicating because the denyall of an acte and effect though secōdarie if it necessarilie belonge to a cause importeth a denyall of the cause and therfore not onlie he who denyeth that fier can burne or heate which is the first acte and effect of fier but also he that denyeth that fier can harden and rarefie which are secondarie actes of fier denyeth it to be fier And in this sence Lessius or his Recapitulatour cited by VViddrington sayd and whatsoeuer VViddrington sayth trulie sayd that Absolutio subditorum a vinculo fidelitatis est effectus qui sententiam Excommunicationis necessariò consequitur Widdr. in Disp Theol. c. 4. n. 4. 7. Ecclesiaepraxis per mille ducentorum amplius annorum spatium commonstrat Absolution of subiects from the bond of fidelitie is an effect which necessarilie followeth the sentence of Excommunication as the practise of more then twelue hundred yeares doth shew because this Absolution of subiectes from fidelitie is an acte necessarilie appertaining to the power of Excommunicating and morallie and ordinarilie it followeth euen the acte of excommunication as we haue sayd and prooued and in the same sence the Angelicall Doctour S. THOMAS of AQVIN sayth 2.2 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
sayth he let none of you suffer as a murderer or a chiefe or a rayler or coueter of other mens thinges but if as a Christian Catholique let him not be ashamed 1. Pet. 2. Bee you therfore Subiect to euerie humane Creatur for God whether it be to the King as excelling or to rulers as sent from him whether it bee to the Prelate or to the Prince Church or Common wealth it hauing been my onlie intention and the onlie drift of this booke that Prelate and Prince should both haue their due neither should bee iniuried 78. And therfore I exhort you to refuse the Oathe of pretended Allegeaunce because your Chiefe visible Pastour hath forbidden it and for that his Authoritie and Right therin is interessed and yet I would haue you also obey the King in all Temporall and Ciuill causes because such obedience Gods Law commaundeth and consequentlie to defend his Royal parson euen with hazard of your goods Landes and liues to pray for him and his Royall posteritie that he may liue and raigne long in his own person and after in a long posteritie that he may soe gouetn his Kingdome of England heere as he may not loose but gaine a greater Kingdome of Heauen herafter 79 And I most humblie also desire his most Excellent Maiestie An humble petition to the Kings maiestie out of his rare wisdome deepe Iudgement and long experieÌ„ce not to esteeme those his onlie faithfull Suhiectes who are best Temporisers because as many of these men serue not so much the King as the tyme and in it their own turnes so if tyme Fortune chauÌ„ge they also like the Fishe Polypus which taketh the hewe and colour of the stone to which it cleaueth will chaunge and varie The noble CONSTANT vs Father to CONSTANTINE the Great will be vnto his Maiestie a good President in 〈◊〉 Kinde Hee on a tyme to trye who were like to prooue his most faithfull Subiectes commaunded as EVSEBIVS relateth that all those of his Court Euseb li. de vita CoÌ„stan tini non longe ab initiâ— who would enâ—oy his frendship or participate of any his Honours and Dignities which he vsed to bestowe should sacrifice to the Goddes and that they who would not should be expelled the Court and depriued of all honour and fauour At which commaundement some of them loath to loose their honorable places and Dignities obeyed the King and forsaking Christian Religion sacrificed to the Idolles others fearing God more then the King and more him that can kill soule and bodye in hell then him that can kill onlie the body Mat. 10. but can not touch the soule left the Court and all hopes of preferrement rather then they would leaue their Religion or do any thing against their conscience which when the King Sawe he called backe those constant Christians and reiected from his Courte and companie those-false harted Temporizers saying that they whoe were not faithfull to God would neuer be sure and trustie to the King and that they who would not for any thing the world could afforde forsake God or their Religion or do any thing against conscience were most like to prooue most faithfull freinds and Subiectes to their Prince Which President if 〈◊〉 Maiestie our Soueraigne respect accordinglie he will deeme and shall by experience find that those his Catholique Subiectes who out of Religion and Conscience stand most constantlie for their faith the Church and her chiefe Visible Pastour will out of the same Religion and conscience which are the most strong and forcible bondes stand most stiffelie when occasion shal be offered for their King and Soueraigne and will prooue his most obedient peaceble and faithfull Subiectes The Printer to the Reader Although the Authour gentle Reader by publishing this his Treatise so late This is spoken of the first Edition may seeme to haue obserued no oportunitie of time yet I can assure thee that it was two yeeres since readie for the presse and much against his will hath all this while vppon some occasions been differred But seeing that the Oath is still proposed by the Magistrate and by some few also who feare more the losse of a Temporall then an eternall estate taken and moreouer defended he shall not be like to that Phisition who prescribeth Phisick after the disease is cured but rather to him who expecteth till the disease coÌ„meth to maturitie and ripenesse that so shewing it selfe more euidently he may apply the better remedie Receaue it therefore how late soeuer it come and vse it for thy good according to the Authours desire and sincere intention FINIS FAVLTS ESCAPED IN PRINTING PAg. 7. lin 10. bath corrige hath selue cor selfe p. 8. l. 11. Defert cor Desert p. 1â— l 22. to watdes cor towardes p. 14. l. 10. Indâ—â—h 8. Iudiâ—h 8. p. 14. l. 21 your co your p. 15. l. 3 Ghildbirth co Childbirth l. 15 eins cor eius p. 17. l. â—6 fornacet rieth cor fornace trieth p. 22. l. 26. substantiam cor substantiam p. 25. l. 2. tberfore corrige therfore p. 26. l. 3 you cor you p. 31. l. 18. visible cor visible p. 33. l. 8. followeth co floweth p. 3â— l. 9. and cor and. p. 43. l. 24. gnbernator cor guâ—ernator p. 48. l. 29. declare cor declare p. 50. l. 13. meantes cor meanes p. 55. l. 3 priuarelie or prâ—uate lie l. 5. children cor children p. 70. l. 1. that is cor that it l. 25. and cor and pag. 71. l. 29. ge cor goe p. 7â— l. 11. spirituall cor spirituall p. 75. l. 8 Fightlie cor Eighlie p. 76. l. 18. gouernmet co gouernment p 81. l. 24. defcendeth cor descendeth l. 28 Kâ—uges cor Kinges p. 82. l. 7. out cor our p. 85 l. 5. Enangelists cor Euangelists l. 10. nobis â—o vobis p 81 l. 22. and cor and. l. 2â— inâ—â—fidictio cor-iurisdictio p. 87. l. 12. facrifice cor sacrifice p. 91. l. 13. especiallig cor especiallie l. 23. is cor as pag. 93. l 10. infect cor infect p. 96. l. 11. thout cor thought lin 27. excommunication cor excommunication p. 98. l. 29. illnm cor illum p. 100. l. 25. of cor of p. 102. l. 19. bic cor hic l. 20. bellnm cor bellum p. 105. l. 9. ouet cor ouer l. 14. qui cor qui. l. 24. Russinus cor Ruffinus p. 107. l. 9. soue cor sonne l. 28. einsque cor einsque p. 108. l. 14. aud cor and. l. 19 hodie cor holie p. 11. l 16. first cor first p. 119. l. 24. howsoeuer cor howsoeuer p. 110. l. 23. derest cor detest p. 121. l. 3. Ecclesiastiaall cor Ecclesiasticall p. 123. lin 10. is cor if p. 127. l. 17. notwitstanding cor notwithstanding l. 20. snmendum cor sumendum l. 28. Ecclefiasticall cor Ecclesiasticall lin 31. Aristocle cor Aristotle p. 128. l. 5. Church cor Church p. 130. l. 12. os cor of l. 33. Generall cor Generall p. 131. l. 23. enerie cor euerie p. 132. lin 29. eternall cor externall p. 135. l. 12. aster cor after p. 137. l. 33. snpreme cor supreme p. 143. lin 21. gouerue cor gouerne pag. 1â—0 l. 21. quicquam cor quicquam pag. 151. l. 19. inconsiderrti cor inconsiderati p. 152. l. 10. BBCAMVS cor BECANVS p 153. l. 16. BYRHIL cor BVRHIL p. 154. l. 20. King cor King p. 155. l. 2. Supremacie cor supremacie p. 172. l. 24. heanen cor heauen lin 33. thetof cor therof p. 174. l. 17. although cor although p. 175 l. 17. Authontie cor Authoritie p. 179. l. 21. selues cor selues p. 186. lin 2. rempnblicam cor rempublicam l 5. The same doth also cor The same doth also p. 187. li. 18. Councell cor Councell pa. 190 l. 32. chrastizing cor chastizing p. 190. l. punish cor punish lin 13. sacrifice cor sacrifice p. 192. infecting co infecting p. 195. l. 18. that cor that p 196 l. 22. be cor he p. 198. l. 9. ther cor the. pag. 200. l. 6 hane cor haue p. 201. l. 25. Kingdomes cor Kingdomes p. 205. l 23. for as cor for as c. pag. 20â— l 19. Priuces cor Princes p. 208. l. 25. offensiue cor offensiue p. 214. l. 24. subiect corrige subiect p. 218. l. 11. And cor And. pag. 224. li. 24. selue cor selfe p. 228. l 31. which cor which p. 23â— l. 7. Prelares cor Prelates p. 235. l. 6. Lordes cor Lordes p. 237. l. 25. te cor to p. 238. l. 18 hecause cor because p. 240. l. 5. not cor not pag. 243. l. 18. which cor which p. 245. l. 1â— should cor should p. 246. l. 28. of cor of p. 249 lin 33. from cor from p. 257. l. 5. Epistle cor Epistles p. 257. l. 18. Regnnn cor Regum pa. 262. l. 17. denouuced cor denounced p. 268. l. 22 contronersie cor controuersie p. 269. l. 22. Englisch cor English p. 270. l. 2 Azorins cor Azorius p. 272. l. 2. cafu cor casu lin 22. edministrare cor administrare lin 28. propoaetion cor proposition l. 30. ne cor one p. 276. l. 21. aud cor and. p. 2â—8 l 22 trulie cor trulie p. 279. l. 16. Freunce cor Fraunce p. 284. l. 3. Councell co Councell p. 29â— l. 23. murout cor mirrour p. 288. l. 13. subiectes co subiectes l. 18. Queene cor Queene l. â—2 thc co the. p 290 l. 2. where cor were l 28. Thirdlie and lastlie cor Fourthlie and lastly p 297. l. 32. leisnre cor leisure p. 298. l 31. vndes cor vnder p. 2â—9 l 12. TViddrington cor VViddrington lin 24. beeause cor because p. 300. l 13. see cor soe p. 312. l. 32. os cor of p. 330 l. 21. Fot cor For. p. 334. l. 2â— saferie cor safetie Pag. 351. in marg dele Anton lib 4. and lib. cor l. pag. 353. lin 26 adde before if yet pag 353 lin 30. depose cor depose also pag 465. l last dele of excommunication denounced pag. 361 lin 10. abolendum cor abolendam pag. 368. l. 25. coe correct condemned pag. 368. l. 26. and cor but practised and. pag. 400. l. 23. perswaded cor perswade End
the Synagogue yet could it not thence be inferred that Princes are to gouerne the Church of Christ For first the Synagogue was more terrene and Lesse perfect then the Church and so as their sacrifices and Priests were terrene in respect of ours so God might haue giuen them terrene Princes for their chiefe Ecclesiasticall superiours which manner of gouernment is not to be made a patterne for the gouernment of the Church of CHRIST this being a more perfect common wealth more spirituall gouerned by more spirituall Pastours enriched with a more spirituall sacrifice and Sacraments Secondlie if Princes then were rulers of the Synagogue it was by Gods speciall and Indiciall law and seing the Iudiciall and Ceremoniall lawes are abrogated they can not binde Christians or if Bilson will needs haue it that Christian Princes must now gouerne the Church because they then ruled the Synagogue one might inferre that the Ministers of England must be circumcized and must offer Caldes because then the Iewish Priests did so VVherfore that law as Ceremoniall and Iudiciall being abrogated we must looke to the new law in which not withstanding there is no one Text or example that giueth Princes the rule of the Church Thirdlie I answere that none of all the Kings alledged by D. Bilson and D. Andrewes did gouerne the Synagogue in Ecclesiasticall matters but did onlie assist the priests that gouerned and punnished Malefactours and transgressours of the law Suarez according to the prescript of the law interpreted by the Priests as Suarez in his answere to our soueraine hath learnedlie declared 6. The second argument against Princes spirituall supremacie shall be this If a Prince hath authoritie to gouerne the Church of his Kingdome either he hath it preciselie because he is a King or because he is a Christian King but by neither of these waies he hath it ergo by no way he hath it Not because he is a King for Kinglie power only medleth with temporall and humane matters and therfore Kings are called Humanae Creaturae 1. Petri. 2. humane creatures and they haue their authoritie from the people in manner afore sayd which people can giue no Ecclesiasticall power that being spirituall and supernaturall yea if Kings as Kings had this Authoritie then the Kinges which raigned in the Apostles time though Infidels should haue been Heads of the Church although they were no members at all and consequentlie NERO should haue been Head of the Church and all the Apostles and the sheepe of Christ had bene committed to a Rauening Wolfe which though it be most absurd to imagine yet TOMSOM as BECANVS in his booke entituled the English Iarre reciteth is not ashamed to auouch it saying Omnes Principes etiam Pagani obiectiuè habent supremam potestatem in omnes omnino personas suorum subditorum generatim in res ipsas siue ciuiles sunt siue sacrae All Princes euen Paganes obiectiuelie haue supreme Authoritie ouer all the persons of their subiectes and generallie ouer their goods whether they be Ciuill or holy Not because he is a Christian King because Baptisme by which he is made a Christian and member of the Church giueth the King no new power no more then it doth to others that are baptized And therfore if before Baptisme he be no Head of the Church neither is he after Baptisme rather Baptisme as aboue we haue seene maketh him a subiect to the Church wheras before he was not and only giueth him a new charge to obey serue and assist the Church VVherby it may appeare how fowlie Doctour ANDREWS was deceiued when he sayd That an Ethnick King when he becommeth a Christian gaineth and getteth a new right and power ouer the Church and Spirituall matters for these are his wordes Quin Rex quiuis Tortura Torti pag. 40. cum de Ethnico Christianus fit non perdit terrenum ius sed acquirit ius nouum in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus Yea euery King when of an Ethnike he becometh Christian doth not loose his terrene right but getteth a new right in the spirituall goods of the Church And Citing Bellarmine he sayth Omnia haec Dominus tuus totidem verbis All those things thy Master Bellarmin in so many words affirmeth Bollar lib. 5. de Pont. ca. 2. 3. as though Bellarmine had affirmed that a Pagan King were Head of the Church and had right and power in spirituall matters whereas Bellarmine is too learned to make so grosse an errour and only affirmeth That Pagan Kings are true Princes and Lords of their Countries 7. But perchance they will say that the Prince hath this Authoritie by a speciall Graunt from God him self This they may say but with how little reason may appeare by that which alreadie I haue handled in this Chapter for I haue prooued out of scripture that Christ gaue all Authoritie concerning the gouernment of the Church to his Apostles and their successours and not any at all to Kings and Princes VVhich because our state pleasers perceaued well enough they are enforced to play the Iewes and to alledge examples out of the old law as D. Bilson and D. ANDREWS do which examples not witstanding as I haue shewed do not firt their purpose for they knew and D. ANDREWS confesseth saying Exemplum inde nobis snmendum est Tortura Torti pa. 363. cum in Testaemento nouo nullum habeamus Thence wee must take an example since in the new Testament we haue none that there is not one text or example in the new Testament that giues Princes any power ouer the Church but rather giueth it from them vnto the Pastours 8. Thirdlie if Princes were supreme Commanders in Ecclefiasticall matters and gouerment of the Church the gouernment of the Church should not be Monarchiall which yet is the best gouernment Aristoâ— l. 8. Eth c. 1â— Plato in Poli. Senec lib. 2. de Benef Plut. in opusc â—a de re Homer 2. Iliad Iustorat ad gent. Athan. orat ad Idola Gypr lib. de vanit IdoloruÌ„ Mat. 16. Ioan. 21. as Aristocle with all the best Philosophers and auncient Fathers do affirme and was in deed chosen by Christ for his Church as the writers of this time prooue out of scripture and especiallie out of those wordes spoken to S. Peter Thou art Peter and on this Rocke will I build my Church and those also Pafce oues meas seede my sheepe but rather if Kinges were euerie one head of the Church in their Kingdomes the gouernmeÌ„t of the Church should be Aristocraticall because the Church should be gouerned by diuers Princes which were most inconuenient in the Church and subiect to schismes and tumultes For if euerie King be supreme Head in his Kingdome when a Generall Councell should be called as his Maiestie of England desireth I demand who should call it The Emperour the Kinges of England Spaine and France though they giue him precedence in place and honour yet they pretend by prescription and