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
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
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
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
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
to the cause But the Pastours of the Church as is manifest out of the alleaged places of scripture haue Authoritie to gouerne and rule the Church and all the members and subiects thereof ergo they haue authoritie to do all those thinges which are necessarily belonging therevnto but they should not haue all power belonging therevnto vnlesse they haue a Power Legislatiue and not onlie directiue but also coerciue at least by spirituall paines ouer Christians and the lay power and temporall Iurisdictions ergo their spirituall power is not onlie aboue the temporall in dignitie but also in authoritie and power of commanding else they had not sufficient power to gouerne the Church which is committed vnto them 14. But because this veritie will appeare more by that which I shall alleage in the next Chapter to prooue that the Pastours of the Church haue spirituall authoritie ouer Kinges and Emperours I will here make an end desiring all wordlinges and Politikes who so inculcare obedience to Princes and secular power not to forgett their dutie and obedience to the Church and her Pastours who haue Authoritie as well as princes and greater then theirs and to thinke also with them selues that he that will not obey the Church Mat. 18. is to be held as an Ethnike and publican and that Deut. 17 if he that stubbornlie refused to obey the Highe priest in the olde lawe was to die for such disobedience what punishment remaineth for them who contemne Church and Pope which yet are in dignitie and power as farre aboue the synagogue and her priests and Bishops as the veritie surpasseth the figure the bodie the shadow the guift the promise Christ Moyses Christes preisthood that of Aaron Christes facrifice and Sacramentes those of the Iewes and synagogue CHAPTER V. Ecclesiasticall and Temporall peeres and princes are compared together and out of the Comparison is gathered that not only priuate laymen but euen temporall princes though otherwise absolute are subiect to the pastours of the Church and especially to the supreame visible pastour as is prooued by many arguments 1. I intend not by this comparison to detract the least from Kings and Princes Naziāz orat 17. ad ciues timore perculsos Psal 81. for I acknowledge their Authoritie to be of God them selues the Images and sonnes of God according to that Ego dixi Dij estis filij excelsi omnes I saied you are Godds and the sonnes of the highest all I will not let to giue them in a good sence those high titles with which the Romanes and Grecians stiled them who called them Filios Deorum Deos terrae Ioues mundi The sonnes of Goddes Goddes of the earth and Iupiters of the world for as God is the supreame Monarch of the world so are they of their Kingdomes in the gouernment wherof they imitate the Monarchicall gouernment of the world I graunt that a King in respect of the laitye is as the eye and head in the bodie as she sunne amongst the planets as the Cedar amongst Trees as gould amongst metalles as fier amongst the Elements as the sea amongst waters I will willinglie acknowledge him the second person after God and onlie lesser then God in temporall Authoritie Tertul. l. aduersus Scap. c. 2. 2. But yet it is not one of Kings least honours to acknowledge thē selues sonnes of the Church Ambros orat in Auxentium as S. AMBROSE tould Valentinian the Euiperour And therfore as Priests are content to giue to the King and Prince that honour which is due vnto them so Princes must not disdaine to giue to Priess their due respect and right Princes I graunt are called Gods by participation and the anointed of God so are Priests and in this kinde greater Gods then they because they approche nearer vnto the true God and only God by essence who therfore is called Deus Deorum Psal 49. 135. God of Goddes and their consecration and anoynting being a Sacrament is farre holier then that of Kings for which cause CONSTANTIN called the Bishopes of NICE his Gods Ruf. l. 1. Cap. 2. and would not be Iudge of them to whose iudgement he was to stand and as Princes are Kinges so are Priests and by so much greater Kinges then they by how much it is more to be a Kinge of soules then bodies wherfore the scriptures alleaged in the former Chapter which giue to the spirituall power a superioritie and authoritie ouer the temporall do prooue also that Bishops and especiallig the High and chiefe Pastour are euen Kings Pastours Ioan. 21 and superiours For when Christ bad PETER feede his sheepe he made him Pastour ouer all Christians and so the King if he wil be a sheepe of Christ must be a sheepe of PETER and consequentlie of the Pope his successour Mat. 18. and must acknouwledge him his Pastour And When Christ saied Dic Ecclesiae c. Tell the Church and if he will not beare the Church let him be vnto thee is an Ethnick and Publican Did he exempt Princes from the Churches Tribunal And when he saied What soeuer you shal binde vpon earth Mat. vlt. shal be bound in heauen were Princes excepted No no. If Princes will be members of the Church they must be subiect to the visible Head therof If they will be sheepe of Christ they must acknowledge PETER and the Pope his successour for their Pastour 3. Neither can their temporall soueraintie exempt them for that only maketh them so absolute that they are subiect to no temporall power yet remaine they notwithstandinge subiect to the spirituall power of the Church and as subiect as the lowest Christian and haue no more commaund ouer the Church then the meanest of the people True it is that they are defendours or ought so to be and Protectours of the Church Pastours and superiours they are not but sheepe and inferiours And therfore after that the Prophet Esaye had saied Erunt Reges nutritij tui c. Esai 49. Kinges shall be thy nourcing Fathers to shewe that this importeth no superioritie ouer the Church he addeth VVith countenance cast downe toward the ground they shall adore thee the Churche and they shall licke vp the dust of thy feete 4. And this I proue first by reason grounded in faith and Diuinitie For the King by Baptisme is made as trulie a member of the Church as the meanest Christian and is incorporated as deepelie by the Caracter of Baptisme as any hee is regenerated and borne againe as much as any else he should not be so good a Christian as others And seing that by this incorporation and natiuitie as is before declared the Pastours especiallie the chief Pastour who is Head of this bodie hath power ouer all Christians it followeth that he hath also power ouer Kinges and so as the King can punnish rebelles Malefactours cast them out of the Realme by banishement so may the Chiefe Pastour punnish a rebellious King
appertained to military affaires And so from the first establishing of the law of Moyses the Temple and Synagogue was committed to the Tribe of LEVI the scepter and regall Authoritie was giuen to the Tribe of IVDA in like sort in the law of Grace when the Church came to her greatest perfection Christ appointed particularly Apostles Doctours Ephes 4. and Pastours to gouerne the Church and confirmed Princes in their temporall Authoritie commanding that obedience should be giuen to the Pastour in spirituall matters and to the Prince in temporall Mat. 22 Rom. 13 2. VVherfore least in giuing one of these Potentates too much Mat. 22 I may do iniutie to the other I must follow our Sauiours Commandement and so giue to Cesar that which belongeth to him that I take not from God and his Church what appertaineth to them And although in giuing both but their due I may perchance displease one yet if I may haue that indifferent audience which the grauitie and equitie of the cause requireth I hope to offend neither and how soeuet it happen I had rather displease then do wronge or iniurie And wheras in our Iland by the sway of Authoritie and terrour of lawes it hath bene made High Treason to denie the Prince Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall I protest that what I shall say in this matter proceedeth not from any disloyall minde towards my Princes true Authoritie nor from any itching desire I haue to lay open the disgrace of my Countrie which I would rather couer if it were possible with my owne life and bloud and to discharge my self from all iust imputation of Treason I desire to haue the leaue to plead this onlie for my defence that if this be Treason in mee not onlie all Catholick Priests Doctours and Prelates of the Church but also all the ancient subiectes not onlie of England but of all other Christian Countries must incurre the same imputation with me because there was neuer Christians before our English Protestants that gaue Ecclesiasticall power to Princes and there was neuer King of England or of any other Countrie what soeuer that euer was so hardie as to challenge such Authoritie before King HENRIE the Eight which his Challenge seemed so preposterous and monstrous that all the World stood and to this day standeth amazed at it and euen our Puritanes at home and all the new sectes abroade do abhorre and derest it And I in this Chapter shall bring such Argumentes against it that I hope that euen our English protestants who hitherto haue adored it wil be ashamed hence forth to submitt them selues to so monstrous Authoritie 3. My first Arguments shall be drawen from scriptures them selues For if the King had any such Authoritie then no doubt scripture which â—s aboue wee haue seene so often inculcateth Princes Authoritie in matters temporall would neuer haue kept silent this Ecclesiasticall power if they had had any such this being the greater and more eminent but scripture neuer giueth Princes this Authoritie neuer commandeth Christians to obey them in Ecclesiasticall matters but rather giueth that Authoritie to Apostles Bishops and Pastours and Commandeth obedience in this kinde to them not to Princes ergo Princes haue no Authoritie to command in Ecclesiasticall matters The Minor Proposition in which onlie consists the difficultie I proue out of those places of Scripture which aboue I haue alleaged and here will bring in againe yet to another purpose For to S. PETER no Temporall Prince but an Apostle and Pastour was promised the headship of the Church and consequently the soueraintie and supreame power of the Church Tues Petrus super hane Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Mat. â—6 The Hebrew hathâ— Thou art a Rocke and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And seing that to PETER it was sayd Thou art a Rocke to him also and not to CHRIST the Chiefe and independent Rocke nor to the faith of Christ as our Aduersaries would haue it it must needs be sayd and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church because the Relatiue This hath relation to him that was spoken of imediatly before which was only PETER not CHRIST nor the faith of CHRIST and therfore the Rocke and foundation of the Church and Head being all one it followeth that PETER and consequently the Pope his successour for the Church after PETERS tyme had as much neede or rather more of a Head and Pastour as in PETERS tyme and none euer practized Authoritie ouer all the Church but the Pope as all Councels and histories do witnesse is the supreme Head of the Church and so not euerie King no not any King in his Kingdome Apostles Prophetes Euangelists Pastours and Doctours onlie CHRIST gaue to gouerne his Church as S. PAVLE sayth not Princes Ephes 4. Mat. 18 To Apostles it was sayd VVhat soeuer you shall binde vpon earth shall be bound also in Heauen and what soe-euer you shall loose vpon earth shall be also loosed in heauen Ioan. 20 Neuer to Princes To Apostles it was said VVhose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained Neuer to Princes Of Bishops and Priests it was sayd Neb. 13. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as being to render account for your soules of Princes neuer rather they by these wordes are commanded also to obey Act. 20. To Bishops it was sayd Take heedâ— to your selues and the whole flocke wherein the Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church which he hath purchased with his owne bloud to Princes neuer To a Bishop it was sayd Tit. 1. For this cause I left thee in CRETE that thou thouldst reforme the things that are wanting and thouldst order Priests by Cities as I also appointed thee To Princes neuer 4. I will not denie but that Princes are to assist the Church by sword scepter and Power and to punnish at the Churches direction not onlie Theefes and murderers but also Hereticks as CONSTANTINE and other Emperours did I graunt that they are nourcing Fathers Isay 49. but no Superiours to the Church And therfore if we read ouer both the old and new Testament we shall neuer finde that any King as King medled in the gouernment of Ecclesiasticall persons and matters 5. Bilson when he was VVardon of VVinchester wrote a booke called The True Difference betwixt Christian subiection and Vnchristian Rebellion in which he striueth but in vaine to prooue that the Prince hath supreme Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and gouernment of the Church And to prooue this he citeth Nabuchodonosor Darius Par. 2. pag. 191 the King of Niniue Moyses Iosue Dauid Salomon Asa Iosaphat Ezechias Manasses Iosias and Nehemias as though they had gouerned the Ecclesiasticall affaires of the Synagogue In Tortura Torti pa. 363. So doth also D. ANDREWES But if I should graunt them that all these were by God appointed Rulers of
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.