Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	king_n	scotland_n	york_n	2,525	5	9.5574	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A73418	Roger Widdringtons last reioynder to Mr. Thomas Fitz-Herberts Reply concerning the oath of allegiance, and the Popes power to depose princes wherein all his arguments, taken from the lawes of God, in the Old and New Testament, of nature, of nations, from the canon and ciuill law, and from the Popes breues, condemning the oath, and the cardinalls decree, forbidding two of Widdringtons bookes are answered : also many replies and instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius, and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted, and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1619 (1619)	STC 25599; ESTC S5197	680,529	682

our Sauiour by instituting his spirituall Kingdome or Church hath not changed the nature of temporal kingdomes or ciuill common-wealths from whence it cleerely followeth that all temporall kingdomes or common-wealths whether they consist of Christians or Pagans haue the same nature and are naturally ordained to one and the selfe same and which is a peaceable liuing in humane Societie 8 True it is that the same Christian man as well Prince as subiect is a part and member of the true ciuill common-wealth and also of the true spirituall or Ecclesiasticall kingdome or Church of Christ as also the same Paynim is a part and member of the true ciuill common-wealth and of a false Religious or Ecclesiasticall Societie and the reason heereof I declared more at large aboue in the second part because either temporal authoritie spiritual authoritie or temporal authoritie and spiritual subiection or temporal subiection spiritual subiection to omit spirituall authoritie and temporall subiection are vnited conioyned in one the selfe same Christian man by reason of which vnion and coniunction the same Christian man is either a temporall Prince and also a spirituall Prince or a temporal Prince and a spirituall subiect or a temporall subiect and also a spirituall subiect to omit now whether the same man may be a spirituall Prince and a temporall subiect for this dependeth vpon that question whether and in what manner our Sauiour Christ hath exempted Clergy men and especially the supreme spirituall Pastour from subiection to temporall Princes As likewise the same man may be of diuers trades as a Musition and a Physition the same man may bee Citizen of diuers cities as of London and Yorke the same man may be a King of diuers kingdomes as of England and Scotland But from hence it doth not follow that the temporall kingdome or common-wealth it selfe although the lesse noble and perfect must be subiect or naturally ordained to the spirituall Kingdome or Church of Christ which is the more noble and perfect Societie As likewise it doth not follow that because a man hath two trades the one more woorthy the other lesse woorthy or a citizen of two cities the one more noble the other lesse noble or a King of two Kingdomes the one more excellent the other lesse excellent that therefore the lesse worthy noble and excellent trade citie or kingdome it selfe must be subiect and subordained to the more worthy noble and excellent trade citie or kingdome 9 But this onely doth follow from the light of true reason that as the same man who hath two trades or artes to wit of Musicke and Physicke or a citizen of two cities as of London and Yorke or a King of two kingdomes as of England and Scotland must preferre cateris paribus the more noble and excellent before the lesse noble and excellent trade citie or kingdome and that as he is a Musition he is to bee guided and directed by the rules of Musicke and not of Physicke and as he is a citizen of London to be subiect to and gouerned by the lawes and customes of London and not of Yorke and as hee is King of England to rule and gouerne according to the lawes and customes of England and not of Scotland but that therefore Musicke must bee subiect to Physicke Yorke to London or Scotland to England except in worth dignitie or nobilitie or contrariwise it doth not follow from the light of true reason So in like manner it doth follow from the light of true reason that the same man who is a citizen of the temporall kingdome or common-wealth by his naturall birth or ciuill conuersation and also of the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ by Baptisme or spirituall regeneration must in temporalls bee subiect onely to the temporall Prince and be directed and gouerned by temporall authoritie which doth onely reside in the temporall Prince and in spiritualls must be subiect onely to spirituall Pastours and be directed and gouerned by spirituall authoritie which doth onely reside in the spirituall Pastours or Gouernours of the Church But that the temporall kingdome it selfe or which is all one the temporall Prince as hee hath temporall authoritie or as hee is a temporall Prince must bee subiect to the spirituall kingdome or which is all one to spirituall Pastours as they haue spirituall authoritie but onely as the temporall Prince hath spirituall subiection this cannot be inferred from the light of true reason But Mr. Fitzherbert forsooth supposeth this to bee so euident in reason that no man will deny it to wit that the temporall common-wealth it selfe is subiect and subordained to the Ecclesiasticall Society and naturally ordained to her whereas in the Second part of this Treatise I haue at large against Card. Bellarmine and D. Schulckenius confuted the same and out of their owne grounds cleerely prooued that there is no such vnion subiection or naturall ordination of temporall common-wealths to the spirituall kingdome or Church of Christ as they pretend but that temporall kingdomes and the spirituall kingdome of Christ doe make two totall bodies or common-wealths supreme and independent one vpon the other in those things which are proper to either of them to wit that temporall kingdomes are supreme in temporalls and consequently not subiect therein to the Church of Christ or the Pastours thereof and the Church supreme in spiritualls and not subiect to temporall kingdomes or the supreme Gouernours thereof 10 Now let vs see what Mr. Fitzherbert inferreth from the premisses Whereupon saith he c Pag. 75. nu 4 it is also further to be inferred that as all Common-wealths are subordinate and subiect to the Church so also the heads of them all I meane the temporall Princes that gouerne them are subordinate and subiect to the head of the Church For although they be absolute heads of the States which they gouerne in things pertaining only to their temporall States yet they are but members of the mysticall body of Christ which is the Church and therefore no lesse subiect to the visible head thereof in matters belonging thereto then their owne proper Vassalls are subiect to them and therefore as the King or Ciuill Magistrate iustly correcteth the head of any familie when he passeth the limits and bounds of true Oeconomie to the h●rt of the Common-wealth though neuerthelesse a familie is a distinct Societie from a Common-wealth hauing a peculiar end with different lawes and manner of gouernment so the head of the Church may correct any King or Ciuill Magistrate when he doth any thing to the preiudice of the Church pag. 96. num 5. 11 For although the spirituall Prince or Magistrate haue no dominion ouer temporall States and the Gouernours thereof in matters appertaining only and meerely to State no more then the temporall Prince hath to doe with priuate families in matters that belong only thereto yet as the temporall Prince may giue lawes to a familie or to the head thereof when the

Chapter 2 To begin therefore with his second accusation whereas in the beginning of my answere to the substance of M. Fitzherberts discourse I affirmed a Dis●●●●ol in 〈…〉 ●ect 〈◊〉 that first of all he supposeth that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes if they deserue it and the good of the Church and the saluation of soules doe necessarily require it is deni●d in this oath whereupon hee concludeth afterwards that although the oath doth not expressely affirme that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the English Church nor in plaine words deny the Pope so to be yet it supposeth and implieth both the one and the other and thereupon denyeth the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince and howsoeuer the matter may bee otherwise coloured it is euident that the true reason why the said authoritie of the Pope is impugned by the oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is held to bee no way subiect to the Pope yea and to bee himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England This being presupposed hee goeth about to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the law of God of Nature of Nations Canon and Ciuill c. 3 Now Mr. Fitzherbert doeth bouldly but vntruely affirme that I haue vsed herein two fraudes the one in the relation of his wordes the other in the vse and application of them For albeit saith hee b Chap. 1. nu 7 Widdrington alleadgeth them truely and doth not falsifie my text yet hee relateth them in such sort that his Reader must needes conceiue that I lay them downe in the very beginning of my Discourse for the onely foundation and ground of all my building and therefore as soone as he hath cited them he saith hoc posito probare contendit c. this being supposed hee laboureth to prooue that this oath is repugnant to the Diuine and Naturall law to the law of Nations Ciuill and Canon So hee and then hee proceedeth to the abridgement of all my Discourse beginning with the law of God in the olde Testament and so goeth on with the rest and impugneth my supposition as the onely foundation of all my Discourse and arguments 4. But the trueth is hee findeth those words of mine in the 66. page of my Supplement as it may appeare by his owne quotation thereof after I haue discoursed of the law of God in the old and new Testament and of the lawes of Nature and Nations and of the Ciuill law in the conclusion whereof I haue those words referring them to the Ciuill law onely for hauing prooued that the said law confirmeth and establisheth the Popes supremacie I inferred that it cannot fauour and much lesse enioyne and iustifie the oath for two reasons the one because the said oath is in part grounded vpon the beliefe that the Kings Maiestie is supreame head of the Church of God in England and no way subiect to the Pope which is repugnant to the Ciuill law and the other because the Ciuill law acknowledging the subiection of temporall Princes to the Pope in matters belonging to their soules and to the good of the Church doth by a necessarie consequent acknowledge that they may bee punished by him temporally in their persons and states where the good of soules and the seruice of God doeth require it according to the rule of the law Accossorium sequitur principale the accessorie followeth the principall Then I say I argued in the place which he citeth and I remitted my Reader for the confirmation of this second reason to a more ample Discourse thereof before in the same chapter c Nu 66. 56. Now then it appeareth as I haue said that hee hath dealt fraudulently with me two wayes the one in referring my supposition to all the lawes whereof I treated whereas I referred the same expresly and only to the Ciuill law the other c. Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 5 But truly I cannot but wonder that this my Aduersarie should at the very first beginning of his Reply be so inconsiderate as in wrongfully accusing me of fraude to deale so vntruly and fraudulently himselfe which could not but greatly empaire his credit with the ●udicious Reader and cause him to be iealous of his sinceritie in the rest of his Replyes when at the very first entrance hee should finde in him such fraudulent proceeding For that which I affirmed is very true and I meruaile that Mr. Fitzherbert doth not blush to deny the same to wit that hee did first of all that is at the very first beginning of his Discourse in the sixt page of his Supplement before hee began to prooue the oath to bee repugnant to any law Diuine or Humane suppose that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes if they deserue it and the good of the Church and the saluation of soules doe necessarily require it is denied in this oath For these be his expresse words in the sixt page and ninth number of his Supplement 6 Therefore I thinke good to let him vnderstand heere that my meaning is not to contradict any article of the oath that concerneth meerely Ciuill obedience to our Soueraigne but such clauses only as doe either directly or indirectly preiudice the authoritie of our spirituall supreame Pastour and namely those which doe exempt temporall Princes from excommunication and deposition by the Pope when iust occasion shall be giuen by them and the necessitie of the Church and the good of soules require it to which purpose I will prooue marke well these words that this new oath in respect of such clauses is repugnant to all lawes Humane and Diuine and therefore iustly condemned by his Holinesse and refused by Catholikes First then I will speake of the law of God c. So he 7 Wherefore it is apparant that Mr. Fitzherbert in the very beginning of his Discourse referreth his aforesaid supposition to all lawes both Humane and Diuine and yet now to taxe mee of fraude hee doth not blush to say that I haue dealt fraudulently with him in referring his aforesaide supposition to all the lawes whereof hee treateth whereas saith he hee referred the same expresly and onely to the Ciuill law Which errour of his I would not willingly haue construed in the worser sense but attribute it only to his obliuion and forgetfulnesse of what he himselfe had written in the beginning of his Discourse and not to any fraude in him but that my wordes which hee himselfe doth relate are so plaine that he cannot bee excused either from manifest fraude or from so palpable an errour which no man of vnderstanding can scarcely commit For marke my words which he himselfe setteth downe First of all he M. Fitz. supposeth that the Popes power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed in this oath wherupon afterwards to wit in the 66. page as it is euident by my quotation hee concludeth that although the oath doth not expresly affirme

oath is no other but because the Kings Maiestie is helde both by himselfe and other Protestants to be no way subiect to the Pope yea and to be himselfe supreme head of the Church of God in England and also by the first of these two reasons which he bringeth heere in his Reply why he suppoposed that the oath implieth a deniall of the Popes Supremacy 29 And as for my supposition saith he Å¿ Nu. 10. that the Oath implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacy he should haue said of the Popes authoritie to excommunicate and depose a temporall Prince for this was his supposition as I cleerely shewed before Thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that I was mooued thereto by two reasons which are manifest enough in the very place which Widdrington citeth The one was because it is euident that the faith and beliefe of all English Protestants is that the Kings Maiestie is no way subiect to the Pope but that hee is himselfe supreame head of the Church of God in England Whereupon it may with great reason bee inferred that the deniall of the Popes power to depose his Maiestie which is expresly contained in the oath is supposed and implied therein as a necessary consequent of their beliefe who ordained it 30 For it is great reason to interprete all assertions positions lawes or decrees especially such as touch Religion according to the doctrine and beliefe of the Authors thereof for it is to bee presumed that euerie one speaketh writeth and decreeth according to the grounds and principles of his beliefe and Religion as euery Artisan worketh according to the grounds and principles of his Art And therefore as the positions assertions and decrees of knowne and professed Catholikes are to bee interpreted according to the grounds of the Catholike faith so also the positions of all Sectaries whatsoeuer are to be vnderstood according to the different doctrines of their Sects In so much that if a Catholike and a Protestant should affirme both of them one thing which might be controuersed in respect of Religion the sense and meaning of either of them is to be interpreted according to their different Religions and their different grounds and sense thereof And vpon this consideration I made no doubt to affirme that the new oath denying the Popes power to depose his Maiestie implieth the deniall of the Popes Supremacie for that not onely his Maiestie but also all they of the Parliament which decreed it doe holde and beleeue that the Pope can not depose his Maiestie because hee hath no authoritie at all in England and especially ouer his Maiestie 31 My other reason was the same that I touched before concerning the necessary deduction of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy for albeit the Supremacy of the Pope be not expresly abiured or denied by this oath yet it is denied couertly by a necessary consequent because his authoritie to depose Princes which is necessarily deduced from the supreame power that Christ gaue him is denied thereby as in like case if wee should deny that his Maiestie hath any lawfull power to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie all Protestants would say that we deny not onely his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy but also his temporall and Kingly authoritie because the power to suspend and depriue Bishops within his Realme is included therein and necessarily deduced from it in the opinion of all Protestants And in like manner we say with much more reason that whosoeuer abiureth the Popes power to depose Princes hee doth consequently abiure his spirituall authoritie because the former is included in the later and doth necessarily follow of it as it hath beene amply prooued by diuers and namely by me in my Supplement t Chap. 5.6 7 whereof I shall haue further occasion to lay downe the particulars heereafter Thus Mr. Fitzherbert 32 But first of all good Reader I wish thee to consider how cunningly this my Aduersary concealeth the first part of his supposition concerning the denyall of the Popes power to excommunicate whereof onely I vnderstood those words whereon hee groundeth his third accusation In the beginning of his Discourse he supposed as you haue seene that the Popes spirituall Supremacie is denyed in this oath for that his power to excommunicate and depose Princes is denyed therein And because his Maiesty had in expresse words publikely affirmed that his intention was not to denie in this oath the Popes power to excommunicate answering also the argument which Cardinall Bellarmine out of those words of the oath notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication c. brought to prooue the contrarie and because my Aduersarie did also without any proofe at all suppose as Fa. Gretzer had done before him that the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall Supremacie is denyed therein for this cause I vsed those words that truely it is a wonder that learned men doe not blush c. which my Aduersary a little before carped at Now forsooth he pretending to yeeld a reason of his supposition yet yeeldeth none at all concerning this parte thereof touching the Popes power to excommunicate for which onely I vsed the aforesaid words and which if he could sufficiently prooue to be denyed in this oath all Catholikes would forthwith graunt him that the oath containeth a denyall of the Popes spirituall Supremacie which includeth as a generall the particular authoritie to inflict spirituall Censures but he cunningly passeth ouer to the Popes power to depose Princes which no man doubteth but is denyed in this oath yeeldeth two reasons such ones as they be why he supposed the oath to containe a denyall of the Popes Supremacy for that the Popes power to depose Princes is denied therein 33 His second reason for thereof I will speake in the first place which he tooke from the contents of the oath is the same which hee touched before concerning the necessarie deduction according to his beliefe and doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes from his Ecclesiasticall Supremacie But his beliefe and doctrine herein as also I touched before is not Catholike but a particular beliefe or rather opinion of himselfe and some other and not generall of all Catholikes for that many learned Catholikes as I shewed before are of opinion that Christ hath not giuen to S. Peter or to the Church authoritie to depose Princes or to inflict temporall punishments as death exile priuation of goods or imprisonment but onely Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Censures And therefore there is a great disparitie in the similitude which my Aduersarie bringeth betwixt his Maiesties authoritie to suspend or depriue the Arch-bishop of Canterburie in the opinion of Protestants and the Popes power to depose Princes in the opinion of Catholikes for that al Protestants do beleeue that his Maiesties power to suspend or depriue an Arch-bishop taking suspension in that sense wherein the Protestants doe hold that his Maiestie hath power to suspend

signified to the chiefe Bishop or Pope that from thenceforth he may denounce his vassals absolued from his fealty and expose his Land or territory to be taken by Catholikes who when the heritickes bee rooted out may possesse the same without contradiction and conserue it in the puritie of faith the right of the principall Landlord or Lord being reserued so that he giue no obstacle to this nor put any impediment thereto The same neuerthelesse to be obserued concerning those who haue no principall Landlords This is the decree of the Councell 21 Now all the difficulty consisteth chiefly in this what is to be vnderstood by those words dominus tēporalis dominus principalis a temporall and principall Land-lord Officer or if we will needs translate it so Lord Mr. Fitzherbert in his Supplement pretended to prooue that those words did comprehend Kings and absolute Princes and that therefore the Pope hath authority to depose temporal Princes and to absolue their subiects from their temporall allegiance To which his argument I answered briefly in my aforesaid Admonition c Nu. 21. in this manner 22 Lastly to that decree of the Councell of La●eran so often inculcated and vrged I gaue elsewhere d Widdr. in Praefat. ad Resp Apol. nu 43. diuerse answeres which this Authour F.T. dissembleth He insinuateth one of them and confuteth it mostly coldly to wit that by the name of him that hath not a principall Land-lord or if wee will needes haue him called Lord Emperours and absolute Kings are not to be vnderstood but other inferiour Land-Lords or Officers who are subiect to Kings seeing that the Emperour Fredericke fiue yeeres after this Councell was celebrated made the same decree almost in the very same words changing only spiritual penalties into temporal who by the name of him that hath not a principall Landlord or also Lord could not vnderstand himselfe and other absolute Princes Whereupon I probably gathered that those wordes Non habens Dominum principalem Not hauing a principall Landlord or also Lord could not by force of the words comprehend Kings and absolute Princes who vnlesse they be namely expressed in penall lawes are not to bee vnderstood to wit by the generall names of temporall and principall Landlords or Lords And to say that the Emperour did not comprehend Kings in those words and that the Pope did meane to comprehend them is barely to say not to demonstrate considering that if the Synode of Lateran had meant to haue comprehended Soueraigne Princes in that decree she might as easily haue named them by their proper names of Princes as by the generall names of principall Land-lords Officers or Lords or who haue no principall Land-lords Officers or Lords especially seeing that the same Councell in other decrees hath vsed the peculiar names of Princes Wherfore vntill some man shall clearly demonstrate I say not shall onely show probably that those answeres which I gaue to the Councell of Lateran are altogether improbable no effectuall argument can bee brought from that Councell whereby it may certainely and euidently be prooued that it is so certaine that the Pope hath power to depose Princes that the contrarie cannot without the note of heresie errour or temeritie be defended by Catholikes 23 To this my answere Mr. Fitzherbert replieth thus e Chap. 9. nu 3 seq pa. 137. Now then saith he for as much as all our question heere is concerning the Canon of the Councell of Lateran and that some of those who may reade this Reply haue neuer seene that Canon or my Supplement I thinke good to set downe here what I said in my Supplement concerning that Councel Canon Therfore hauing declared that the Councell of Lateran vvas gathered by the generall consent as vvell of the Greeke as of the Latine Church and of the Emperours of the East and West Empire I added that there vvere present thereat S. Antonin tit 19. §. 6. Paul Aemil. lib. 6. Nauclar generat 41. Blond dec 2. lib. 6. in fine Platina in Innoc tert Concil Later sub Innoc. tert tom 3. conc Matth Paris Westmonast ad annum 1215. Can. 3. Supplem cap. 6. nu 2. the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Hierusalem and the substitutes of the two other Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch 70. Archbishops Greekes and Latines 412. Bishops and 800. other Prelates that is to say aboue 1200. Besides that there assisted also the Ambassadours not onely of the Romane and Greeke Emperours but also of the Kings of Hierusalem England France Spaine Hungary and Cyprus and of other absolute Princes So as I conclude that it was the greatest and most generall Councell that euer vvas assembled in the Church of God and then I added further as followeth 24 This was the great Councell of Lateran held vnder Innocentius the third in the yeere of our Lord 1215. wherein it was decreed thus Si Dominus temporalis c. If a temporall Lord being required and so foorth as you may see aboue Thus farre the Decree of this Oecumenicall Councell assembled by the consent of all Christendome wherein you see not only the Popes authoritie to depose Princes was auowed and acknowledged but also the practise thereof expressely ordained and determined when Princes shall neglect their duetie to purge their states of heresies and contemn with all the Ecclesiasticall Censures 25 Thus said I in my Supplement and now to come to Widdringtons answere first he chargeth me as thou hast seene good Reader to haue dissembled many answeres which he made else where concerning this Canon Secondly he saith that I haue neuerthelesse insinuate ●one of them and answered it most coldly and thirdly he layeth downe his said answere vvith some other reason● vvhy he thinketh it to be probable that absolute Princes are not comprehended in that Canon Whereto I answere that I wonder vpon what ground he could charge me with the dissimulation of his former answeres which I protest I neuer saw vntill I chanced to haue a view of this his last Treatise I meane his Theologicall Disputation whereto is annexed the other which hee mentioneth for truely if I had seene those answeres vvhereof he speaketh I would not haue passed them ouer with silence no more then I passed Mr. Dunnes and such other as were then come to my knowledge And as for my cold answere I cannot see how it could be either cold or hoat to an argument which I had neuer seene but how hoatly and wisely he hath answered for his part it may appeare partly by the argument it selfe and partly by my discourse in my Supplement which he will n●edes take for an answere thereto His argument you see is that for as much as the Emperour Fredericke c. 26 But first it is to be obserued that those words Dominus temporalis Dominus Principalis are not well translated into English a temporall or principall Lord vnderstanding the word Lord as it is taken by vs for a title

same Kingdome or Common-wealth and also that it may be truly presumed that they doe release the same if they choose or admit confirme and allow likewise an infidell or hereticke to bee their King For if the hereticall or infidell Kingdome hath true ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction why shall not likewise the hereticall or infidell Prince whom they shall choose or confirme be capable of the same ciuill power dominion and iurisdiction So that this pact couenant and agreement which is pretended to be made betwixt the predecessours of an hereticall Prince and his people can bee no sufficient cause and ground to make an hereticall Prince who is chosen or confirmed by an hereticall Kingdome to fall from his Royall dignity and be ipso facto depriued thereof for the confirming and establishing of that heresie which that Kingdome doth professe 25 Wherefore concerning the deposition of hereticall Princes as the state of this question is propounded by the Cardinall of Peron many particular questions are inuolued The first may be whether a Prince hauing either himselfe or his predecessours made an oath to liue and die in the Catholicke faith and doe afterwards fall to open profession of heresie and seeke to force his subiects consciences to doe the same is fallen thereby forthwith before any declaration of the Pope or Church from his Royall right and dignity and his subiects are absolued or freed ipso facto from the ciuill and sacred bond of their temporall allegiance and the affirmatiue part which Philopater teacheth and affirmeth to be certaine and vndoubted I account to be a very false scandalous seditious yea and flat traiterous doctrine The second question may be supposing this damnable doctrine to be true touching the cause and ground why such an hereticall Prince doth fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity to wit whether the breaking of the oath which he or his predecessours made to liue and die in the Catholike faith or his open profession of heresie or forcing of his subiects to doe the same whether I say all these or some of them together may be necessary or else any one of them bee sufficient that an hereticall Prince bee ipso facto depriued of his princely power and authority 26 The third question may be supposing still this false doctrine to be true whether the Pope or Church haue authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke a breaker of his oath and promise and a persecutor or enemy to Christ and Christian Religion and consequently to be fallen from all his Princely right And of this no doubt can be made supposing the former seeing that to declare authentically what is heresie who is infected therwth is a spiritual action consequently belonging to the authority of the Pope or Church The fourth question may be what effect this declaration of the Pope or Church doth worke seeing that before this declaration the aforesaid hereticall Prince hath lost and is depriued of all his princely authority and whether this declaration of the Pope or Church be necessary when the fact is so notorious and publike that no Subiect in the Realme can make any doubt but that the Prince is become an hereticke hath broken his oath to liue and die in the Catholike faith and doth force his Subiects consciences to follow his heresie And of this question also no great doubt in my opinion can be made supposing the former false doctrine to be true seeing that this declaration doth not depriue the Prince of any right at all but onely serueth to make it knowne and publike that he is depriued thereof and therefore is not greatly necessary when the fact is so publike and manifest to the view of the whole Kingdome that no man can make any doubt thereof 24 The fift question may be that supposing such a Prince doth not fall ipso facto from his Royall dignity neither by his open profession of heresie nor by breach of his oath nor by forcing his Subiects consciences to forsake their Religion whether the whole Kingdome or Common-wealth which the Parliament doth represent hath authority to depriue him of the same or which is all one whether the whole Kingdome or the King be the supreame and absolute temporall Iudge and Superiour And this question doth nothing appertaine to the Oath of England and it is grounded rather vpon the principles of morall Philosophie and Aristotles Politikes then of Diuinitie The last and principall question is whether the Pope or Church hath authority to depriue such a Prince for the aforesaid crimes of his right to raigne really truly to absolue his subiects from the natural bond of their temporall allegiance which being once dissolued the sacred or spirituall bond of the oath of allegiance which is grounded vpon the former ciuill bond and obligation and was made onely to corroborate the same is forthwith vnloosed or whether the Pope or Church hath only authority to declare such a Prince to be an hereticke and an enemy to Catholicke Religion and a breaker of his oath and promise and to command compell by Ecclesiasticall censures the Common-wealth supposing they haue such an authority to depriue him of his Regall power and authority and consequently to discharge euery subiect from the naturall and ciuill bond of his temporall allegiance which being taken away the sacred obligation of the oath without any other absolution dispensation or declaration of the Pope or Church is forthwith dissolued 28 All these questions the Lord Cardinall of Peron doth so cunningly inuolue in his question touching the oath of France that if wee descend to particulars I cannot see either what opinion hee doth follow concerning the deposing of hereticall Princes or how his doctrine impugneth our English oath although he would seeme to disprooue the same which onely denyeth the Popes authority to depriue the Kings Maiestie of his Royall dignity and to absolue his subiects from the ciuill bond of their temporall allegiance and doth not meddle at all with the temporall authority which a Kingdome or Common-wealth hath to depose their Prince 29 Wherefore these words of the Cardinall of Peron affirming that not onely all the other parts of the Catholicke Church Page 15. but likewise all the Doctours that liued in France from the first setting vp of Schooles of Diuinitie amongst them haue held that in the case of hereticall or infidell Princes and such as persecute Christianity or Catholicke Religion their subiects may be absolued from their oath of allegiance And againe Page 63. saith he citing Widdrington in the margent The English writers who haue put their hand to pen for the defence of the Oath made by the present King of England against the Pope hauing vsed all their endeauour to finde some Doctours and in particular French who had held their opinion before these last troubles could hitherto bring forth neuer any one neither Diuine Page 65. nor Lawyer who saith that in case