dub 4. num 12. Suar. lib. 6. defens fidei cap. 4. Estius in 2. dist 44. §. 2 vers Vtrum verò Diuines do maintaine Yea this d Disput Theol. cap. 3. sect 4 n. 3. VViddrington himselfe dareth not denie for sayth he I do not absolutely professe testifie and declare that the Ciuill Common wealth hath no power to depose a Prince c. And if Kings who were not excommunicated nor depriued by the Pope may by the Common-wealth be deposed and killed when they are intolerable Tyrants why may not the Common wealth exercize the same power ouer Tyrants excommunicated and depriued by the Pope they after excommunication and depriuation being no more Kings but priuat men 52. How then and with what conscience can any one sweare that he holdeth it in conscience for an hereticall position and doctrine to say that Princes excommunicated by the Pope may by him or any other authority be deposed or killed Yea in the examination of the second Clause †Supra nu 14. seqq I haue alleaged Titles out of Victoria of iust warre which a forraine Prince may make against the true Prince in fauour of Religion and Innocencie which Titles are at least probable and at least are in no parte of scripture nor Councell condemned as vnlawfull and impious or hereticall I demaund then how VViddrington who holdeth it probable that the Common wealth may depose a Tyrant and that the Pope may commaūd the Common wealth so to do with a timorous conscience or with any conscience at all can sweare that the Prince excommunicated can in no case and by no authoritie nor for no Tyrannie be deposed or killed yea that it is an hereticall and damnable position to teach it so many teaching it whose doctrine was neuer condemned If Widdringtons conscience can disgest this what can it not disgest But VVIDDRINGTON as he that will make good that which can hardlie be auerred must needes doe hath deuised yet two answeres 53. Pag. 43. 52. 103. The first which hee giueth in his New-yeares-guifte is in effect this It is but a probable opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince and so after the Sentence of deposition or depriuatiō the Prince deposed hath probable right and Title and so being in Possession the Pope cannot iustlie depose him because better is the condition of the Possessour Wherefore as it is lawfull to sweare that it is hereticall to say that a man may steale or kill his neightbour by priuate Authoritie and not in his owne defence or thrust him out of his owne howse so it is as lawfull to sweare that it is heresie to say that the Pope may depose a Prince it being open Iniustice to dispossesse him who hath probable right and Title And if you obiect that it is not against any definitiō of Church or Councell to say that the Pope can depose a Prince and so cannot bee hereticall hee answereth that it is against Scripture which forbiddeth iniustice and that this is sufficiēt to make the assertiō heresie which affirmeth it lawfull But to omit that it is the manner of heretiques to square all by Scripture and not by the Churches definitiō this answeare first supposeth it to be an opinion onlie probable that the Pope can depose a Prince and yet aboue I haue prooued it no lesse then certayne by manie Arguments and by this in particular that if it were but probable the Decree of the Councell of Laterane and the facts of manie holie Popes who haue deposed Princes should bee all vniust which with what modestie Widdr. can graunt I reporte mee to all modest Catholickes And if it bee certaine that the Pope can depose a Prince then it is not probable that the Prince deposed hath probable right but rather it is certaine he hath not and so Possession without probable Title being not sufficient for that euen theeues haue such possession it followeth that the Pope may depose a Prince without all iniustice and so it cannot bee an heresie to teach that the Pope can depose a Prince and consequentlie that position can not bee abiured as heresie Secondlie the power to depose and the exercise of this power being two things as aboue wee haue seen in so much that one may haue power and yet can not lawfullie exercise it nor some tymes validlie and this clause of the oath not cōmaūding onlie to sweare that the Pope can not lawfullie depose but absolutlie that hee can not depose how can Widdrington without remorse sweare absolutelie that it is an heresie to say that the Pope cā depose a Prince 54. His second answeare which he hath in his Theologicall disputation Disp Th. c. 5. n. 28 Newyearesguifte pag. 105. as also in his Newyeares-guifte is this to witt that the aduerbe sicut as may heere onlie signifie a similitude and not equallitie or identitie and so the sense is I doe from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall that is not as a positiō with is heresie but which hath such affiniitie or similitude with heresie and errour that the Pope might declare it heresie if hee would As saith hee if one should say I detest him as a deuill I loue him as my brother he doth not therefore affirme him to be truelie a deuill or trulie his Brother And when S. GREGORIE saith Lib. 1 ep 24. that he receaued the 4. Generall Councells as the 4. Gospells and when Christe said Marc. 15. Be you perfitt as your heauenlie father is perfitt S. GREGORIE did not receiue those Councells as trulie scripture nor did Christ Counsell vs to bee trulie as perfitt as our heauenlie father But first this Sillie answere sheweth to what Shifts VViddrington is driuen For first the King and Parlament doe hold it as a position truelie hereticall that the Pope can depriue or that the Subiects can depose kill him whom the Pope depriueth and so it is most like that in this Clause they intend that the swearer should abiure that position as truelie hereticall Secondlie those protesting execrating and thundring wordes I doe further sweare that I doe from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious hereticall this dānable doctrine and positiō c. doe argue that the swearer detesteth that position as in deede hereticall impious and damnable otherwise if after so great wordes of abiuration hee should abiure it onlie as approching or something like to heresie wee might say parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus neither are VViddringtons examples to the purpose because it being euident that hee whom wee detest as a deuill can not be trulie a deuill and that hee whom wee loue as our brother can not bee our true brother it must needes signifie onlie similitude not equalitie but seing that it is not euident in terminis as the former positions are that that position can not bee heresie and that the Authours of the oathe doe hold it for heresie it followeth
Albestanensis Bishop Hugo de Sancto Victore Henricus de Gandauo Vlricus Dionysius Carthufianus Ioanues Driedo Albertus Pighius Iacobus Latomus Conradus Brunus and to these may be added Adolphus Schulkenius and Lessius 6. Out of England he bringeth Alexander of Hales a learned Professour of Diuinitie and Maister to S. Thomas of Aquin and S. Bonauenture Holcot Franciscus Maironus Ioannes Bachonus Thomas VValdensis Prouinciall in his time in England of the order of Carmelites and one of the learnedst of his age Cardinall Pole Doctour Sanders To whome may be added Cardinall Allen in his Apologie and Answer to the libeller Doct. Stapleton Mr. Reynolds and diuers others of our learned writers since King HENRIE the Eight his time 7. Dareth now our aduersarie shew his face against such an ample Senate of Doctours and learned men can he thinke him selfe a good Catholicke that holdeth against Catholick Councells Chiefe Pastours Doctours yea and the Catholicke Church which neuer dissented from her Doctours and Pastours He will say that he wanteth not Doctours also O the Doctours I graunt he may alleadge Hereticks for his opinion for in this he conspireth with them for although as wee shall see anone they arrogate to them selues this power yet they denie it to the Pope Nay sayth VViddrington I haue Catholicke Doctours also to countenance my opinion and to free it from Heresie yea temeritie And who be these his Authours He alleageth Occam Ioannes Parisiensis Dante 's the Poet Almainus Ioannes Maior Hugo Vulcurunus Albericus and others But either these Authours were Schismatickes as Sigebert or they expreslie auerte the contrarie to that for which he alleadgeth them as Ocham and Almaine or finally they neither affirme the Popes power nor denie it in deposing Princes And so onlie fiue or six as Dante 's the Poet Sigebert the Schismatick Barclay Bochell and Lescherius expreslie holde with VViddrington Schulck pag. 131. as Schulckenius hath shewed particularlie of euerie one of the authors he alleageth And what are these obscure Authonrs to Scriptures Councels Popes Practise of the Church so many learned Authours of Italie France Spaine Germanie and England as are produced But that the Reader may see more plainelie how little authoritie Widdrington purchaseth to his opinion by his Authours I shall examine some of them in particular 8. Apol. n. 4 Disput Theolog. sec 3. c. 3. n. 4. New yeares-guift pa. 54. VViddrington in his Apologie and Theologicall Disputation and Newyeares guift alleageth out of Ioannes Azorius diuerse Authours as patrones of his opinion and seemeth to endeauour to bring in AZORIVS him selfe amongest them though by the head and shoulders IOANNES AZORIVS a famous Iesuit sayth he affirmeth that it hath euer been a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kinges on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in some certaine cases the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kinges of their Kingdomes c. And he alleageth diuerse Authours out of Azorius who fauour his opinion But First although he might haue some reason to alleage those Authours yet I can not see what reason he had to alleage them out of Azorius for if he would therby make his Reader beleeue that Azorius alloweth his opinion for probable in that it is countenaunced by these Authours by him alleaged he abuseth his Reader for that AZORIVS condemneth these his Authours and cōsequentlie him selfe verie deepelie whosoeuer pleaseth to reade AZORIVS shall see that he disputing this Question alleageth for the first opinion Tom. 2. lib. 4. instit moral c. 19. which denieth the Pope Authoritie of deposing Princes in some cases Lutherans Caluinistes and Marsilius Patauinus an hereticke and after that he sayeth non longè ab his fuerunt Gulielmus Ocham c. not farre different from these heretickes were William Ocham and Ioannes Parisiensis Deuines and Dante 's the Flonentine Poet and Almainus tract de suprem potest laicâ quaest 3. Maior in 4. dist 24. quaest 3. concl 3. who haue followed Ocham And then he addeth hauc sententiam Marsilij temerariam errorem continentem ipse Marsilius alij colligere se arbitrabantur imprimis c. This temerarious opinion and which containeth errour Marsilius and others thought they might gather first c. And after that he addeth reuera nisilabi errare velimus negare omnino non possumus penes Romanum Pontificem esse iure diuino vtramque potestatem trulie if we will not be deceaued and erre we can not at all deny but that the Romane Bishop hath bath authorities Tom. 2. lib. 10. Instit mor. c. 6. And after he prooueth this out of the canon Law by Diuines also and Lawiers The same Azorius addeth to these fauourers of VViddringtons opinion Hugo Michael vulcurunus and Albericus but condemneth them and prooueth out of Bartolus l. 1. ff de requirendis reis § vlt that Dante 's was after his death almost condemned of heresie and he alleageth Antonius 3. p. tit 21. cap. 5. § 2. who sayeth that Dante 's in hoc errauit erred in thu and so is put in the Index amongst prohibited authours and his booke of Monarohie condemned and of Albericus he sayeth he is cautè legendus warilie to be read and confuteth what he saith Wheras therfore Azorius sayeth that it hath euer been a great contronersie betwixt Emperours and Kinges on the one side and the Bishop of Rome on the other c. whence VViddrington would in ferre that his opinion were disputable and probable Azorius meaneth not that it hath been a controuersie betwixt Bishops of Rome and all Emperours and Kinges for seing that he coūteth this opinion of VViddrington temerarious and erroneous therin he should condemne all Emperours and Kinges of temeritie and errour but he meaneth schismaticall or hereticall Emperours and Kinges especiallie such as the Bishops of Rome haue deposed who to holde their crownes stood to it that the Pope could not depose them wherupon their followers complained of GREGORIE the seuenth And therfore in GREGORIE the seuenth his time when the greatest controuersie was about rhis matter none but the Emperour deposed and his followers Schismatickes as he was did contradict the Popes sentence of deposition yea then the Kinge of England William the Conquerour Alphonsus Kinge of Castile Philip King of Fraunce Kanuius King of Denmarcke Count Robert of Flaunders and other Princes held league and amitie with GREGORIE the seuenth against the Emperour and his Antipope Baron tom 11. an 1084 Et anno 1085. n. 11. 12 in Greg. 7. Epist ad Greg. 7. quam referunt Magdeburgēses Cent. 11. cap. 8. de Schismatibus circa med as may be seene in Baronius in his eleuenth Tome Yea the Emperour deposed pleading that he could not be deposed but for heresie confessed that he might haue been deposed for heresie Traditio Patrum est sayth he me solius Dei iudicio obnoxium esse nisi quod absit a
knowing that so many Scriptures Theologicall reasons Councels Popes their factes and practise so many learned Doctours and Sainctes stand for the contrarie he can not sweare absolutely and with the former asseueration that the Pope hath no such authoritie he knowing that so many Authours and so great Argumentes and Authoritie do countenance the contrarie opinion Yea much lesse can he sweare for his opinion in this point then can a Thomist for his touching our Ladies Conception because the Thomist is licenced by the expresse leaue of the Church to teach and thinke as he doth and his aduersaries are commaunded by the Church not to condemne his opinion as hereticall Concil Trid. sess 5. c. 1. de Reform Sixtus 4 ca. graue nimis de reliq or erronious or rash which warrant VViddrington hath not for his opinion rather the Church hath condemned it in Councells and practise as wee haue shewed Who is then so hardie or rather so rash that dareth sweare absolutely that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes or dispose of their Kingdomes the contrarie being not only probable yea more probable which VViddrington can not denie but also a matter of faith or so neerely concerning faith as the arguments and authoritie produced do warrant that Cardinall Allan in his Answer to the libeller sayth Chap. 4. it concerneth the Popes Supremacie and power Apostolicall Apol. pro Card. Bellar. cap. 6. cont 4. pag. 259. and Schulkennius verie well auerreth the contrarie is either hereticall or erronious and temerarious either of which is enough to deterre any timorous conscience But be it that the opinion which holdeth that the Pope in some cases can depose a Prince were but probable yet seing that the thing which is probable may be true and if it be the more common and probable opinion as Widdrington denyeth not but that this opinion of deposing Princes is it is most like to be true It followeth consequently that he that abiureth this probable yea more probable opinion that the Pope can in some case depose Princes exposeth him selfe to probable daunger of swearing false and abiuring the truth and so is periured because qui amat periculum in illo peribit Eccl. 3. he that loueth daunger shall perish therein out of which wordes Diuines do prooue that he who wittinglie and willinglie exposeth him selfe to probable daunger of any sinne is guiltie before God of that sinne as if he had actuallie committed 19. Certes if Veritie be a necessarie companion of a lawfull oath no man can sweare more then he thinketh there is veritie in the thing he sweareth Wherefore that he may sweare that this opinion is probable he must in conscience thinke it at least probable which if he ponder the Authoritie which aboue I haue produced for the contrarie he can not possiblie and with any reason thinke to sweare that he thinketh it not only probable but also absolutely and vndoubtedly true he must in conscience be so perswaded else he should sweare against his conscience and otherwise then in his conscience is true And how can hee perswade him selfe so fullie as to sweare that from his hart and before God he thinketh and holdeth that the Pope in no case can depose Princes or dispose of their Dominions he knowing that so many and with so great reason holde the contrarie who are as likelie and as farre more likelie not to be deceaued then he as they haue more reason and Authoritie for their opinion then he 20. Pag. 62. and Pag. 63. WIDDRINGTON in his Newyeares-gift answereth that whatsoeuer opinioÌ„ a man followeth in Speculation concerning the Popes Authoritie to depriue Princes yet he may as certainelie acknowledge and sweare that the Pope hath no Authoritie to depose the King that is to practise his deposition as it is cleare and manifest that he may certainlie acknowledge and sweare that the Pope hath no authoritie to committe open iniustice and that in a doubtfull vncertaine and disputable case the condition of the possessour is to be preferred But although Widdrington maketh great accounte of this answer yet it will be found defectiue For first VViddrington is not ignorant that the power and exercise of the power are two thinges which also may be separated for we haue the power of seeing when we sleepe but not the exercise of it we haue the power of walking when we repose our selues on our bedde and yet then we walke not And so the power of excommunicating and deposing is one thing and the exercise of it is an other and therfore the Bishop may haue power to excommunicate and yet not exercise that power and the Pope may haue power to depose although he do not actuallie depose any Secondly WIDDRINGTON knoweth that a man may haue the power to do a thing validlie that is so as the thing donne shall stand in force and yet not lawfullie that is with out sinne As for example the Prelate or Soueraigne Prince who haue Authoritie to dispense in positiue lawes subiect to their Authoritie if they dispense with out iust cause the dispensation according to the probable opinion of diuerse Diuines is valid and of force and freeth the dispensed in conscience Soto li. 1 de Iustitia Iure q. 7 a. 3. Siluest Angelus V. Dispensatio but it is vnlawfull and the dispenser sinneth So the Pope or Bishop may sometymes Excommunicate validlie and yet not lawfullie For Diuines affirme Excommunication may be three wayes vniust Ex animo when there is iust cause to excommunicate but the Bishop who excommunicateth doth it not out of Zeale of iustice or desire of amendment but out of enuie hatred or malice Ex ordine when the Bishop hath iust cause to excommunicate but obserueth not the order of Canonicall Premonition which is to be donne thrice or once for thrice Ex cauiâ when there is no iust cause The first excommunication is alwayes valid Lib. 1. Thesauri â—â—suum â—â—â—sci entia ca. 7. but vnlawfull so is ordinarilie the second as noteth Sayrus our countrie man the third is not onlie vnlawfull but also inualid and of no force So also the Pope may depose validlie and yet not lawfullie or without sinne For if the Prince giue sufficient cause of deposition and the Pope notwithstanding should as such a superiour is not easilie to be thought so to do depose the Prince out of hatred or enuie or else when prudeÌ„ce would haue him to tolerate the Prince for feare of garboyles and greater hurte the deposition should be valid and of force but yet vnlawfull and sinnefull Wherefore seing that in this second clause we are to sweare that the Pope hath no power or Authoritie to depose the King or to dispose of his maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions c. Although perchaunce he can not now as thinges stand lawfullie exercise his power in deposing an absolute Prince because much more hurt then good might come of it yet if it be
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.
And if this limitation proceeded from the King he might at his pleasure also take it away which were to giue Princes too much scope and libertie VVherfore as the people gaue the King his authoritie so it was the people that thus limited and restrained him for their owne preseruation for to the same Authoritie that giueth power it pertaineth to restraine it 16. Hauing thus prooued that the King or Prince hath Authoritie from God as Authour of Nature yet by meanes of the peoples election and graunt to gouerne the Kingdome or Common wealth it followeth that he hath Authoritie not only to command priuarelie or particulerlie as the Goodman of the house may command his wife children or seruantes but also to make lawes which shall binde the whole Communitie or Common wealth otherwise if he should command and the people might disobey he could not rule nor direct the people and so should not haue sufficient Authoritie 17. By which may appeare how absurd the opinion of our Reformers is Luth l. de capt Bab. Calu. l. 3 Inst c. 19. n. 14 l. 4. c. 10. and how iniurious to Princes yea and to God that appointeth them who blush not to say and auouch that all Christians that is Caluinists indewed with faith are so freed by Christ from all lawes and humane power that they can not bynde them in coÌ„science 18. Certes Luther in his booke of Babylonical Captiuitie and Caluin in his InstitutioÌ„s make it a part of the office of a Redeemer in Christ to haue so freed vs from all humane Authoritie and lawes that they can not bynde vs in conscience And the Anabaptists and Trinitarians who an 155â— at Alba-Iulia sett forth certaine Antitheses of the true and false Christ in their seuenth Antithesis affirme that falsus Christus habet in suâ Ecclesiâ Reges Principes Magistratus gladios at verus Christus nihil tale in Ecclesiâ pati potest The false Christ hath in his Church Kinges Princes Magistrates swordes but the true Christ can abide no such thing in his Church But this opinion may be euidentlie conuinced by that which is sayd for if Princes haue power from God and Nature to rule they haue power to make lawes and if they can make lawes they can bynd in conscience els their lawes were strawes and to little purpose especiallie when the subiect can auoid by slight the penaltie of the lawe VVherfore Saint Paul commands vs to be subiect to all lawfull humane Authoritie non tantum propter iram sed etiam propter conscientiam not only for wrath but also for conscience sake Rom. 13. And he addeth that he that resisteth this power which is of God Dei ordinationi resistit qui autem resistunt ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resiste purchase to them selues damnation which argueth an obligation in conscience Againe the same Apostle commandeth Titus to admonish Christians to be subiect to Princes and Potestaâ—es Ad Tit. 3. 1. Pot. 2. Saint Peter commandeth them to be subiect to euerie humane creature for God whether it be King as excelling c. and he giues the reason saying for so is the will of God By which it is manifest that we are bouÌ„d vnder sinne vnder God his displeasure to honour and obey Kinges and Princes and consequentlie that we are bound in conscience 19. Let not then our Reformers traduce Catholickes as enemies to Princely Authoritie and Idolators of the Popes power for we acknowledge and reuerence them both highlie in their kind but let the Reformers looke to them selues Plautus because qui alterum incusat probri ipsum se intueri oportet he that accuseth another must looke that he him selfe be free Ioseph l. 18. Ant. c. 2. Aug. l. 3. côt Cros c. 15. Exira de haeret c. 4 Anton. 4. p. tit 11. ca. 7. § 9. Luth. l. de saecul petest Trinita aij supra Buchan li. de iure Regni GoodmaÌ„ l. de obedien pag. 203. Beza ep 78. ad Buchanan Luth. supra Caluin l. 4. Inst c. 19 §. 14. Exod. 12. VVee Catholickes say not with Iudas Galilaeus That no Prince is to be obeyed nor with Cresconius That the Magistrate ought not to punishe nor with the Beguards That the perfect are not bound to obey lawes nor with VVickleph That the Prince by mortall sinne looseth his Authoritie nor with Luther That the Turke is decies probior prudentiorque nostris principibus ten times honester and wiser then our Princes nor with the aforesaid Trinitarians Anabaptists and Libertines That the true Christ suffreth no Princes nor Magistrates in his Church nor with Buchanan That the people onlie is to make lawes Reges sunt veluti Tabulaeriorum custodes nor with Goodman That women cannot raigne and that therfore Wiat rising against Queene Marie was no Traitour nor with Beza doe we call that lawfull and worthy Queene Marie the Mother of our soueâ—aine King Iames Medaea and Athalia as though as he saith Nullum illius sceleribus nomen idoneum inueniri posset no name answerable to her wickednesses could be found out Nor with Luther and Caluin that Princes lawes bynd not the faithfull in conscience But wee say and beleeue with scripture Thow shalt not detract from the Gods that is Princes who are called Gods by participation nor speake euill of the Prince of thy people Prou. 8. Mat. 22. VVe confesse that by God Princes raigne we command to giue to Caesar what is due to Caesar we allowe of S. IGNATIVS counsell Caesari subiecti estote in ijs Ign. epi. ad Antioch in quibus nullum animae periculum Bee you subiect to Caesar in those thinges in which is no daunger of the soule we are taught to giue to Magistrates as S. Eus l. 4. hist c. 14 POLICARP sayd and Potestates appointed by God that honour which is not preiudiciall to our soules or ReligioÌ„ we worship as TERTVLLIAN sayeth the Emperour Lib. aduersus Scap. cap. 2. the King sic quomodo nobis licet ipsi expedit vt hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem so as it is lawfull for vs and expedient for him as a man second in Temporall Authoritie to God and only lesser then God For whilst the King keepeth within his bounds he hath no superiour in temporall matters but God And this is the honourable conceit which Catholikes haue of their Kinges and Princes CHAPTER III. Ecclesiasticall power is of God and distinct from the Ciuil Iurisdiction which also all members of the Church are bound in conscience to obey 1. HAuing giueÌ„ to Caesar and the Kingdome what is due to theÌ„ It followeth that I giue to Christ and his Vicaire yea and Church also what belongeth to them I haue prooued in the former chapter that Ciuill power is of God and Nature because it is necessarilie annexed to all lawfull societies to which God and Nature do incline
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
may raigne ouer them are content that this opinion of the Popes authoritie be taught in schooles and published in printed bookes And therfore of late his Catholike Maiestie with three Bishops of his Counsell and the Inquisition of Spaine authorized the printing and setting forth of a booke of this subiect composed by a learned Diuine Franciscus Suarius intituled Defensio fidei Catholicae Apostolicae aduersus Anglicanae sectae errores c. in which the Authoritie of the Pope in deposing Princes who by their tyrannie against the Church make them selues vnworthy of their honourable roome and place is largelie and learnedlie defended and prooued 2. I confesse that the Popes Temporall Authoritie which he hath in ROME and ITALIE proceeded not from the immediat guift of CHRIST but rather commeth to him by the a Cap. Cōstantinus d. 96. c. Ego Ludouic d. 63. ca. futuram 12. q. 1. Naucler gen 13. Magd. Cent. 4. c. 7. Petr. Damian disp cum Reg. Aduoc Anselm li. 4 c. 32. Iuo Carn p. 5. Decr. cap. 49. Genebr lib. 3. Chron. Abrahā Leuita in ca. 11. Dan. Donation of CONSTANTINE PIPIN CHARLES the Great LEWIS the Godlie and other Princes as is testified partlie by the Canon law partlie by the Actes of SILVESTER partlie by other auncient writers I graunt also that Christ made him no temporall Prince but only Pastour of the Christian world For although many b Ostiens in cap. quod super his de voto voti Redemp Anton. 3. p. tit 22. cap. 5 §. 13. Silu. V. Papa V. Legitimus Canonists affirme that the Pope is Temporall Lord of the whole world yet c Henr. quod lib. 6. q. 23. Turrecr lib. 2. Summ◠cap. 113. Caiet tom 1. Opusc tract 2. cap. 3. 2.2 q. 43. art 8. passim recentiores Diuines stand against them in this point and not without good reason For looke what power the Pope hath by Diuine right he hath from the Apostles And seing that CHRIST made his Apostles Pastours Ephes 4. Ioan. 21 Mat. 16. not Princes and gaue them a Church to rule not a Kingdome bestowed on them the Keyes of heauen not of Cities Mat. 18. Act. 20. Mat. 28. gaue them power to bind and loose the soule not the bodie to teach and baptize all Nations not to subiugate them and built his Church vpon an Apostle not vpon any King or Prince It followeth euidently that the Pope by Christs donation hath no title to Kingdomes and Empires 3. True it is that many Diuines and those also of note are of opinion that Christ as man was Temporall King ouer all the world which is the expresse opinion of S. a Anton. 3 p. tit 3. cap. 2. Antonine b Almai tract de potest Ecc. c. 8. Almainus c Turrec lib. 2. Summae cap. 116. Turrecremata d Ostiēs in cap. quod super his de voto voti redemp Ostiensis e Duran tract de Iurisd Eccl qu. 43. Durand f Nauar. in cap. Nouit de Iudiciis not 3. n. 8. 130. Nauar and others which they also prooue out of diuers places of scripture as Apoc. ◠Princeps Regum terrae Prince of the Kings of the earth Apoc. 19. Rex Regum Dominus Dominantium King of Kings and Lord of Lords Act. 10. Hic est omnium Dominus This is Lord of all Psalm 8. and Heb. 9. Omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius Thou hast subiected all things vnder his feet Matt. vlt. Data est mihi omnis potestas in Coelo in terra All power is giuen to me in heauen and in earth Yet most Interpreters expound these places as meant of Christs spirituall and Priestlie Power by which he was spirituall King of the world And though it be verie probable 1. Vasq 3 p. disp 87. ca. 3. as the Leardned Vasquez sheweth that Christ in deede as man was Temporall King of the world and had that Regall dignitie not by election or descent but only by Hypostaticall vnion which did so eleuate and dignifie his humane nature that it gaue him Authoritie euen as man ouer all the Kings of the earth by which he might haue commanded them euen in Temporall things and might haue depriued them of their Crownes Yet this it not so certaine because many Diuines also holde that Christ as man was no Temporall King But howsoeuer all allmost do agree that Christ neuer vsed any Regall power nor did actually raigne as King ouer any Countrie much lesse ouer all the world And therfore he sayd Ioan. 18 Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo My Kingdome is not of this world Because although his spirituall Kingdome the Church be in this world yet it is not of this world in respect of the spirituall authoritie and graces of the Church which are from heanen And although it be probable that he had Kinglie authoritie which is called Ius regnandi A right to raigne by which he might haue raigned and ruled temporallie in the world yet as I haue said he neuer actually raigned neither did he exercise any Kinglie act of his Kinglie Power and so hauing sayd that his kingdome is not of this world Ibidem be giueth a reason thetof saying Si enim ex hoc mundo esset Regnum meum ministri vtique decertarent vt non traderer Iudaeis For if my Kingdome were of this world my Ministers verily would striue that I should not be deliuered to the Iewes Which is a good reason if you vnderstand by his Kingdome the actual exercise of his Kinglie authoritie for otherwise one may be a true King in respect of his right as Kings driuen by force out of their Kingdomes are and yet haue no souldiers nor ministers to fight for them Ioan. 2. I know some Authours contend that he did actually exercise the Temporall power of a King when with a whippe he chased buyers and sellers out of the Temple yet that he did by the office of a Redeemer and Prophet whose part was to correct sinnes and abuses Others say that he vsed Kinglie Authoritie when he cast the Deuils into the Hogges and them into the sea Matth. 8. and when he withered the Figgetree Mat. 21. Mar. 11. Otherwise saye they he had done iniurie to the owners But all this an other Prophet might haue done though no King much more CHRIST the Prophet of Prophets and yet should he haue done no iniurie to the owner seing that what Prophets do miraculously they do by authority from God who is supreme Lord ouer life goods and all And because CHRIST did not actually raigne therfore Emperours and Kinges were absolute and were not vicaires or delegates to CHRIST and CHRIST tooke neither crownes nor scepters from them according to that of the Hymne of the Epiphanie In 1. Vesp Epiph. Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui
ergo he may stand in his owne defence and by warres defensiue may maintaine his possession And then to what iniuries and gatboiles the Church should expose Kings subiects and Kingdomes and consequently the whole Church who seeth not but he that is wilfullie blind and will not open his eyes so that either the Councell of Laterane was temerarious and rash to build so perilous a Decree vpon no assured but only probable opinion or she thought assuredly that the Pope had such Authoritie and then euerie obedient Child of the Church should rather follow hers then Widdringtons and some few his companions opinion For certes otherwise as it is iniustice to put one out of his land or house who hath probable right and withall possession because potior est cónditio possidentis better is the condition of him that is in possession So were it open iniustice in the Pope to depriue a King of his Crowne and Kingdome who hath probable right because it is as Widdrington saith but probable not assured that the Pope can depose him and who yet hath possession He answereth that the Church commandeth the Feast of the Conception and the Pope hath giuen authoritie to simple Priests to confirme and moreouer dispensed with Princes in the solemne vow of Religion which yet are grounded but on probable opinions But the foresaid Authour in his discussion of this Decree hath verie well shewed that such inconuenienecs follow not vpon these Decrees which are not so dangerous nor concerne not the whole Church as this decree doth but onlie particuler persons and therfore I will not actum agere 8. But here I can not but obserue how cunninglie Widdrington in his new yeares-gifte endeauoureth to make his Reader beleeue that I made this Argument against my selfe In his new yeares gift pag. 43. and 52. For wheras I out of the decree of the Generall Coūcell of Lateran which I supposed to be iust had inferred that the opinion which holdeth that the Pope can in some case depose a Prince on which this decree is grounded must needes be more then probable and no lesse then certaine else if it were but probable that the Pope can depose a Prince it were probable also that the Prince deposed had still probable Title and so being in possession should vniustly be dispossessed because better is the condition of the possessour who hath probable right VViddrington taketh it for a probable opinion only that the Pope can depose a Prince whieh I alwayes denied and disprooued and thence inferreth and as he would seeme euen by my argument and Confession that the Pope cannot without open iniustice depose a Prince Where I desire the Reader to note how I as all modest Catholickes should doe doe attribute so much to the Councelles decree that by it I prooue it to be a certaine opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince in some case else the decree had been vniust VViddrington notwitstanding this decree holdeth still that it is but a probable opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince and thence inferreth that the Pope can not iustlie depose and so is not ashamed nor afraid to confesse in effect that this decree of that so greate and Generall Councell is vniust which with what modestie he can do I report me to all modest Catholickes and to the iudgement of all iudicious Readers 9. Lastlie I will yet trie another waie to persuade these kinde of men which if they contemne Mat. 18. they can hardlie auoide that imputation of Ethnikes and Publicanes which Christ him selfe layeth on them that will not heare the Church For not onlie that which is expreslie and in actu signato defined by the Councell is to be beleeued vnder paine of heresie but also that which in actu exercito is defined I will explicate my self If the Pope especiallie with a Generall Councell decree or enact any Generall law which he commandeth to be obserued of the whole Church he doth not expresselie and in actu signato define the thing to be lawfull which he commandeth but yet he doth in actu exercito and tacitè define it to be lawfull because if he cannot erre in prescribing generall lawes to the vniuersall Church as if he could the whole Church which must obey her Chiefe Pastour should erre with him it followeth necessarily that he hath infallible assistance in enacting such lawes and consequently that it must not onlie be probable but also certainly true yea and so true that it is not onlie temeritie and rashenes but also obstinate heresie to holde that it is vnlawfull which the Pope thus commandeth Bellarm. lib 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. Du Valle lib. de suprema Rom. Pont. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q. 7. This is the opinion of Bellarmine which he prooueth also verie solidlie The same a learned Doctour of the Sorbonnes and Chiefe Reader in Diuinitie called Du Valle holdeth and as Diuines knowe it is the common opinion though some few holde the contrarie Du Valle hath these wordes Han◠autem infallibilitatem non minùs quà m in fidei definitionibus agnoscunt omnes Catholici Doctores But this Infallibllitie no lesse then in definitions of faith all Catholick Doctours do acknowledge This both Bellarmine and he as others also prooue by many Arguments For First if the Pope could command an vnlawfull thing he should command vice for vertue and might forbid vertue as vnlawfull whence should follow that the Church which must obey her Chiefe Pastour should erre in a matter necessarie to saluation for she should imbrace vice for vertue and imbracinge that should be no more Holie Yea then the Church should erre in a matter of faith because if the Pope cōmād vice for vertue the Church which must giue eare to her Chiefe Pastour should embrace it as lawfull and consequentlie should embrace a thing against faith for as it is against faith to say or thinke that Christ is not reallie in the Blessed Sacrament so is it to say or thinke that vice is vertue which yet the Chiefe Pastour should teach in commanding and the Church should beleeue in embracing and obseruing Whence I inferre that the former decree of the Councell is a matter of faith and necessarily to be beleeued For by this decree the Pope and Councell of Lateran do absolue the subiects from obedience and fidelitie by a Generall Decree do depose the Prince from his Kingdome which if it were vniust as it must needs be if the Pope had no Authoritie the Pope and Councell should erre in a matter against faith because the Catholick faith teacheth that vertue is good vice is euill and vnlawfull yet if this decree of deposition of the Prince and absolution of his subiects from their fidelitie were against iustice the Church which must obey her Chiefe Pastour should be bound to thinke iniustice to be iustice vice to be vertue which is against faith And therfore if VViddrington notwitstanding this
may by a compendious satisfaction take from all all scruple of scandall behould our Lords Bodie which I shall take and receaue let it be to mee this day a triall or experiment of myne Innocencie that Almighty God may this day either absolue me by his Iudgement from suspicion of the crime obiected against mee if I be Innocent or may kill me by sodain death if I be guiltie Then he demaūded of the Emperour whether he would make the like protestation but he hauing a guiltie conscience durst not After this the Emperour contemning all former promises and oathes returned to his vomit Wherfore the same Pope in the Councell also at ROME anno 1080. excommunicated him againe and againe declared him still deposed being before onlie absolued from excommunication and admitted to the Communion 10. Widdr. Disput Theol. c. 3. sect 1. n. 8. But VViddrington excepteth against this Councell for that it was not Generall But certes the Authoritie of this Councell is sufficient to moue any true Christian hart and child of the Church For many thinges giue this Councell great credit First as Schulckenius well obserueth it was confirmed by the Pope Schulck in Apol. pro Bellarm pag. 260. which according to the common opinion makes a matter of faith because to PETER and consequentlie to the Pope it was sayd super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Luc. 22. and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church and to him CHRIST sayd Ego rogaui pro te Petre vt non deficiat fides tua tu aliquando conuersus confirma fratres tuos I haue prayed for thee PETER that thy faith fayle not and thou once conuerted confirme thy brethren Where CHRIST prayed for PETER as a publick person and that he might not erre in teaching others because CHRIST prayed for him that he might confirme others and so if the Chiefe Pastour do speake ex Cathedra though not in a Generall but only in a Prouinciall Councell it makes a matter of faith according to the cōmon a D. Th. 2.2 q. 1. art 10. Waldēs lib. 2. doctrin Fidei cap. 47. et 48 Turrecr l. 2. summae cap. 109. Driedo lib. 4. de Eccles dogm ca. 3. par 3. Caiet in opusc de potestate Papae Conc. ca. 9. Canus lib. 6. de locis c. 7. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pont. c. 2. Du Valle l. de supr Pōt Author par 2. q. 1. alij opinion For although many heresies were condemned by Generall Councels yet farre more by Popes with their ordinarie Councell or Prouinciall Councels onely as the Quartadecimi by Pope VICTOR the Nouatians by CORNELIVS the Pelagians by INNOCENTIVS and ZOZIMVS and many other hereticks and heresies by other Popes without Generall Councels All which to call in question were to bring into doubt many Decretall Episties and to giue a great scope to many Hereticks to plead not guiltie as not being condemned by a Generall Councell Secondlie the Pope that decreed the deposition of HENRIE the fourth was a great Saint who was brought vp as him selfe often confesseth from a child in the schoole of S. PETER and so knew well the practise of the Church he wrought myracles liuing and dead and left many other testimonies of his great sanctitie and innocencie of life All which is abundantly testified by diuers authors whome b Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 13. Bellarmine citeth and is recorded also by c Baron tom 11. an 1084. n. 10. an 1085. n. 11. 13. Baronius Thirdlie his successours VICTOR the third VRBANVS the second PASCHALIS and others approoued this sentence of Excommunication and deposition Fourthlie all the Christian world except a few Schismatikes followers of the Emperour and the Antipape whom he sett vp fauoured and approoued the sentence as is easie to be seene in d Baron to 11. in Greg. 7. Baronius WILLIAM the Cōquerour King of England PHILIP King of France ALPHONSVS King of Castile CANVTVS King of Denmarke ROBERT Count of Flanders and other Princes held with GREGORIE the seuenth Yea the learnedst and holyest Bishops and Abbots were all for GREGORIE the seuenth as HVGO Abbot of Clunie BERNARDVS Abbot of Massilia DESIDERIVS Abbot of Cassina and after successour to Pope GREGORIE chosen so much against his will that for a yeere he would not vndertake the charge S. ALPHONSE Bishop of Salernum our learned LANERANC Archbishop of Canterburie Sainct ANSELME Bishop of Luca Abbas Vrsperg ad an 1080. to whom Vrspergensis though a Schismatick giueth this commendation Anselmus Lucensis liter is apprimè eruditus ingenio acutissimus facundia praecipaus quod omnibus maius est in Dei timore sancta conuersatione nominatissimus adeo vt tam in vitâ quà m post mortem referatur miraculis clarus Anselme of Luca greatlie learned most sharpe of witt principall in Eloquence and which is more then all most famous for his feare of God and holie conuersation in so much that he is sayd to haue floruished with miracles in his life tyme and after his death So this Schismaticke who followed the Emperour and Guibert the Antipape saith of him This S. ANSELME wrote an Epistle to Guibert the Antipape Baron anno 1080. num 29. in which he compared GRBGORIE the seuenth to S. CORNELIVS Pope and called Guibert the Antipape à Preuaricatour Lastlie all the Christian world sauing the Schismatikes applauded it none called this deposition in question none but Schismatikes doubted of his Authoritie So that the Emperour was deposed as it were by consent of the whole Church 14. I could alleage also that this Councell in which HENRIE the fourth was deposed did not onlie depose him but also did define that the Pope can depose Princes for to the same Councell Baron tom 11. an 1076. num 31. as BARONIVS affirmeth appertaine GREGORIE the seuenth his Breuiores sententiae shorter sentences which are intitled Dictatus Papae amongst which this is one Quod Papae liceat Reges deponere That it is lawfull for the Pope to depose Kinges Another is Quod à fidelitate iniquorum subiectos potest absoluere That he can absolue subiects from their fidelitie promised to wicked Kinges Neither are Widdringtons exceptions against these shorte sentences Widdr. Disput Thcol. c. 3. sect 1. n. 6. and definitions of any moment As for example Suppose sayth he these sentences were defined in that Councell of Rome Quomodo tibi constat eat tanquam propositiones ad fidem pertinentes non vt probabiles solùm assertiones definitas esse How knowest thou that those propositions are defined as appertaining to faith and not as probable assertions only By which exception he might except almost against all the Canons in all the Generall Councels and euen against the Generall Councell of Trent in whose Canons he shall finde Anathema pronounced but seldome in the doctrine defined in the Chapters And so when the Councell defineth any
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
per quem scandalum hoc venit Mat. 18. woe to that man by whom this scandall commeth 16. But to come to the examination of this Clause although Widdrington maketh no bones of it yet they that square all by conscience and the rule of faith and practise of the Church finde great and many difficulties not to be deuoured by any timorous conscience And first by all the Argumentes which hetherto haue beene produced it is as manifest that this Clause of the Oath wanteth Veritie which is the second companion and condition of a lawfull oath as it is euident that the Pope hath Authoritie to depose a Prince not whom soeuer but such a one in whome is iust cause of deposition to wit intollerable and Rebellious Tyrannie against the Church or some such like cause For if the Lutherans Caluinists and other heretickes who hould that a Prince who persecuteth their religion may be deposed and killed can not take this Oath vnlesse they first depose that conscience and chaunge their opinion much lesse can Catholicks who generally holde that the Pope can in some case depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes with out doing against their conscience 17. Widdr. disp Th. de IuraÌ„ Fidel ca. 2. sect 2. nu 3. ca. 3. sect 2. n. 3. Wheras VViddrington answereth that the thing which is sworne in this Oath is not that King IAMES is lawfull King and cannot be deposed but onlie that the partie who sweareth sincerelie acknowledgeth that he is lawfull King and cannot be deposed and so at least they who are perswaded that the Pope cannot depose Princes may with safe conscience and with out daunger of periurie sweare that they think he cannot be deposed I must tell him first that if this were the meaninge the Oath would litle auaile to the Kinges securitie Which yet the King sayth was intended by this oath by which he would distinguish betwixt Catholickes and be sure that they would stand for him though the Pope should depose him and would not out of that opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince atteÌ„pt any thing against him For although the subiect sweare that now at this present he is persuaded that the Pope can not depose a Prince yet seeing that many holde the contrarie he may after the Oath taken chaunge his minde either by conferring with the Doctours of the contrarie opinion or by reading their bookes and should not breake his former Oath he by that protesting only and swearing what then was his opinion Secondlie this is but a meere euasion because he that taketh the Oath sweareth from his hart and before God not onlie that he thinkes so but also that it is so and that most assuredlie it is so And this the verie wordes of the Oath do import which do make the swearer say that he doth sincerlie acknowledge and testifie in his Conscience and before God that King IAMES is lawfull King and that by no Authoritie he can be deposed Which meaning the Fourth Clause also confirmeth where he sweareth that the position and doctrine which holdeth that Princes excommunicated may be deposed and murthered is impious and hereticall By which manner of speech he not only sweareth what he thinketh but what absolutelie is to be houlden concerning such a doctrine and position Yea he doth not sweare at all what he thinketh as though his thinking were the immediat obiect of his oath or the thing which he sweareth but by those wordes I do trulie and sincerelie acknowiedge Professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the world he doth expresse his acte of swearing and protestation and by the ensewing wordes that our Soueraigne Lord King IAMES is lawfull and true King c. aend that the Pope neither by him selfe nor by any Authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or Authoritie to depose the King c. he expresseth the obiect of the oath and the thing sworne to wit that King IAMES is lawfull King of which no English Catholicke maketh doubt and that the Pope can not depose him Otherwise if by this clause were onlie intended that he that taketh the oath should sweare what he thinketh it should haue been thus expressed I.A.B. do trulie and sincerelie acknowledge professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the world that I thinke and am perswaded that King IAMES is lawfull King and that the Pope can not depose him And I demaund of WIDDRINGTON if the Kinge would make an oath to oblige his subiectes to sweare not that they thinke but that indeed King IAMES is lawfull King and can not be deposed how he could more plainlie haue expressed it then he hath And although WIDDRINGTON is not now afrayd to auerre Widdr. in his Newyearesgift Pag. 62.63 that one may not onlie sweare that he thinketh that the Pope can not depose a Prince but also that absolutelie he can not depose him yet who can lawfullie sweare with such asseueration that the Pope absolutely hath no such power knowing that there are so many Argumentes and so great authoritie aboue produced for the contrarie 18. Let vs cleere the matter by an example of VViddrington his owne alleadginge Widdr. Disp Th. cap. 3. sect 1. num 11. There are two opinions amongst Diuines touching the Conception of our B. Ladie The Thomists say shee was conceiued in originall sinne though by and by after sanctified euen in her mothers wombe The Scotists and others holde that shee was sanctified in the first instant of her conception and so neuer contracted originall sinne at all and this is the more common opinion and most conformable to the practise of the Church celebrating the feast of her sayed Conception though the other be not condemned but allowed Now I demaund of VViddrington who bringeth for him selfe this example whether a Thomist can sweare that our Ladie was conceiued in originall sinne against the other opinion I graunt to Widdrington that he may sweare that he thinketh so if in deed he bee of that opinion for in swearing that which he thinketh he sweareth no falsehood but he can not sweare with the former asseueration that absolutely shee was conceiued in originall sinne he knowing that so many Authours holde the conrraâ—ie who are also countenanced by the Churches practise and consequently knowing that it is verie probable that the contrarie is true if not truest The same and with more reason may I say to Widdrington in our present case VViddrington holdeth and so do some others whome he produceth but with how little reason and Authoritie we haue seene that the Pope cannot depose Princes nor dispose of any Temporall matters out of his owne patrimonie and Kingdome and so though he ought to depose that conscience and opinion yet so long as he is of that opinion he may sweare that he thinketh so and shall sweare no falsehood if in deed he thinke so But yet he
probable that the Pope hath power to depose as Widdrington confesseth it is probable I demaunde of Widdrington how he can sweare resolutelie that the Pope hath no such authoritie he being not ignorant that many learned men holde it and that more then probable that he hath And so for all this Answer my former Argument is in force wherfore although it were but probable that the Pope hath authoritie to depose a Prince and that consequentlie he could not actuallie without iniustice depose him the cōdition of the Possessour being to be preferred yet seing that the power is one thinge the exercise an other and that it is at least probable that the Pope hath power to depose how can WIDDRINGTON knowing this probabilitie sweare absolutelie that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose As for example one is in possession of a Tenement and hath probable right an other hath also probable right to it but without possession and so can not iustlie dispossesse because in the like defaulte or cause De Reg◠Iuris in 6. better is the condition of him that is in possession Although therfore in this case one might sweare that he who is not in possession can not iustlie dispossesse the partie who hath the possession yet he could not sweare that he hath no right to the Tenement if he know that he hath probable right And therefore although if it were but probable that the Pope can depose one might sweare that he cannot exercise this power iustlie because melior est conditio Principis possidentis yet he could not sweare as in this clause he is commaunded that the Pope hath no power nor right to depose a Prince For as a man may haue probable right to a Tenement and yet can not put him out of possession who also hath probable right because possession hindereth so the Pope might haue probable authoritie to depose yet could not actuallie depose a Prince because his possession hindereth Lastelie by as many Arguments as I haue deduced out of Scriptures Councelles The ologicall principles and practise of holy Popes to prooue that the Pope can in some cases depose a Prince I haue also prooued WIDDRINGTONS opinion improbable And although three or foure Authours or as many as VVIDDRINGTON alleageth may make an opinion probable Vasq 1. 2. disp 62. ca. 4. yet as Vasquez and others do well obserue they must be skilfull in that arte and science and the rest of the torrent of Doctours must admitte it as probable and not note it of errour or temeritie And therfore though some few Doctours holde with VViddrington or rather he with them yet seing that the rest of the Doctours in number learning and sanctitie farre excelling do stand against his opinion that his Authours either holde against him or are censured by the Church that the Decrees of Councelles and facts of Popes do condemne him his Authours and his opinion and that latelie his Chiefe Pastours sentence hath pronounced that the oath of Alleageance containeth thinges contrarie to faith and saluation in which wordes no doubt WIDDRINGTONS opinion the principall subiect of the oath is deepelie taxed how can WIDDRINGTONS opinion be probable and if his opiniō be not probable the contrarie opinion which holdeth that the Pope can depose a Prince must be more then probable and no lesse then certaine as besides other Arguments the Lateran Decree which otherwise should be vniust doth demonstrate whence followeth that the Pope hath not onlie power to depose but may also execute it without iniustice the Prince deposed hauing no probable right or Title remaining And this is the opinion of all those who holde that the Pope can depose Princes and this was the opinion of the Popes so learned and so holie that haue deposed Princes and so must thinke it more then probable else the Prince as I said after deposition should retaine probable right and so being also in Possession could not iustlie be deposed 21. Widdr. Disp Th. cap. 3. sect 3. n. 3. cap. 10. sect 2. n. 11. This Argument will haue more force if we consider that this Oath is not onlie proposed to those that holde with WIDDRINGTON but also to those and those especially who holde against him and can not chaunge their opinion or depose their conscience because they haue no probable reason to depose it at least so as to thinke absolutely and vndoubtedly that the Pope cannot depose Princes or dispose of their Temporall states For although if VViddringtons opinion were probable as it is not they might so depose their conscience as to thinke the contrarie probable and consequently might sweare it is probable yet they can not sweare that they thinke from their hart and before God that VViddringtons opinion is absolutely true and consequently the contrarie absolutely false they knowing that there is such reason and Authority for the contrarie Yea this Oath is proposed to all sortes as well those that are learned as vnlearned as well those that haue capacitie to Iudge of the Oath as those that haue not such as are the most part of those to whome it is tendered And how shall they with any saferie of conscience sweare that before God and in their harts they thinke that the Pope can not depose Princes they being not able to iudge of the matter and knowing no more probabilitie for the one side then for the other 22. VViddrington sayth that those that can not iudge may rely vpon the learned and so though by intrinsecall principles which are the reasons and Arguments which are produced for this opinion they can not iudge which opinion is probable or more probable they being not of capacitie to conceaue of the force of Argumentes yet by extrinsecall principles that is Authoritie of others who are counted good and learned men they may frame to them selues a conscience that the Pope can not depose Princes because many learned and good men holde that opinion To which purpose he citeth his Maister Gabriel Vasquez whome notwithstanding he misconstrueth Vasq 1.2 disp 62. c. 8. For although Vasquez togeather with Henricus Conradus and Siluester whome he alleadgeth do holde that an ignorant man may follow in practise a probable opinion yea the Counsell of a prudent learned and good man who telleth him it is a probable opinion although the common opinion be contrarie And so if VViddringtons opinion were probable might also holde with him and consequently sweare what hee thinketh yet I denie VViddringtons opinion to be probable and haue prooued it not only improbable but also repugnant to scriptures Theologicall reasons Councels and consequently directlie or indirectlie to faith it selfe But suppose which yet I will not graunt that VViddringtons opinion were probable yet neither Vasquez nor any Diuine affirmeth that it is lawfull to sweare absolutely that VViddringtons opinion is true If VViddringtons opinion were probable by reason of the Authoritie of the Authours that holde it then might any
man euen he that thinketh it by intrinsecall principles of reason and argument to be false frame a conscience that it is probable for the extrinsecall principles as the multitude learning and vertue of the Authours that holde it and consequently might sweare that he for these principles thinkes it probable yet he can not sweare as is cōmaunded by this Oath from his hart and before God that VViddringtons opinion is true and that therefore absolutely the Pope can not depose a Prince for any heresie or rebellion against the Church because as is before sayd he knowing that many hould contrarie to VViddrington and that farre moe are against him then with him who are as likelie yea more likelie to haue found out the truth then he he can not sweare absolutely that the Pope can not in any case depose Princes for that were to sweare that a thing false as I haue prooued or at least but probable as VViddrington confesseth is so certaine that the contrarie is most certainely false which is to sweare an vntruth and to commit periurie For as it is periurie to sweare that that is true which we know to be false so is it periurie to sweare that to be absolutely true which yet is doubtfull or at least but probable 23. Hence may easilie be gathered that this Clause of the Oath wanteth all the three companions of a lawfull Oath and so cannot be taken First it wanteth Iudgement because in deed as appeareth by my former arguments there is no iust cause or reason to sweare that it is probable much lesse that it is assured which is euen by VViddringtons owne acknowledgement but probable and so it is rash and wanteth Iudgement Secondly it wanteth Veritie for besides that I haue prooued aboue that VViddringtons opinion is false derogating to faith and Church yea scriptures and reasons and consequently that to sweare that it is true were to sweare an vntruth and to committ periurie VViddrington him selfe confesseth his opinion is but probable and consequentlie to sweare that it is vndoubtedlie true and the contrarie false is to sweare also an vntruth because it is false that that which is but probable is assuredlie true Thirdlie this Clause wanteth Iustice because it is an iniurie to the Pope to sweare absolutely that he hath no power nor Authoritie to depose Princes he hauing so assured and at least as I haue prooued so probable claime and Title to this Authoritie Widdr. supra euen by VViddrington his owne confession who acknowledgeth that the Popes who deposed Princes followed a probable opinion although he must also fay that all those Popes though holie and learned committed great in iustice in deposing thē they being in possession and hauing also probable right if those Popes had but probable Authoritie as aboue I haue declared 24. This might serue to reiect this Clause as altogether vnlawfull to be sworne but yet for more full satisfaction of Catholicks in this point I will bring another Argument to prooue that it can not in consciēce be sworne Because this Clause importeth that the Pope neither by him selfe nor by any another Authority or meanes can depose the King or dispose of any of his maiesties Dominions or authorize any forraine Prince to anoy him or inuade his countries or discharge any of his subiects of their alleageance or to giue licence or leaue to any of them to beare armes raise tumults or offer violence or hurt to his Maiesties Royall person state or gouernment or any his Maiesties subiects c. Wherein also is such difficultie that I can not see how in a matter so doubtfull or not so certaine a man may sweare so peremptorily and vndoubtedly Who so pleaseth to read Franciscus de Victoria that learned Dominican shall finde that he setteth downe diuers Titles by which the Spaniards might iustly inuade subdue the Indians which Titles whether any Christian Prince may haue to inuade England or any other countrie I will not dispute but onely alleadge them that the Reader may see that it is not so euident that a man may take this Clause of the Oath in so generall termes as is lyeth Victoria his opinion being no waies condemned but rather approoued by many Victoria Relect. de Indis Insulanis Titulis quibus Barbari potuerint venire inditionem Hispanorum 25. The first Title pertaining to this matter which Victoria alleadgeth is the Authoritie which the Pope hath to send Preachers euen to Infidels much more to Christian Countries that be hereticks because ouer these he hath spirituall Iurisdiction And although Paganes can not be compelled to imbrace Christian faith yet the Christian Preachers after they haue giuen reason of their Embassage may preach by that Authoritie which CHRIST gaue to his Apostles and successours when he sayd Euntes docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos c. Mat. 28 Going therfore teach yee all nations baptizing them c. And if the Paganes would hinder their preaching or after they haue preached hinder the conuersion of Infidels and the fruit of preaching they may with the souldiours whome they carrie with them force them to permitt them to preach and to permitt all that will to heare them and not to hinder their spirituall good and conuersion and if otherwise they cannot pursue nor defend this their right they may make warre vpon those that hinder them and pursue all those thinges which are lawfull in a iust warre And by this Title saith Victoria the Spaniards might make warre vpon the Indians if otherwise they could not preach the Christian faith nor withstand the obstinate Pagans who would hinder their conuersion that desired to be Christians And thus Victoria would say that the Pope might send Preachers to England and might desire and licence some Catholicke Prince to assist and defend the Preachers in procuring hereticks conuersion And if any hereticks woulde not permitte the Catholicke Doctours to preach or would hinder the conuersion of those that would be Catholicks the forraine Prince licenced by the Pope might in manner aforesaid as Victoria thinketh for I will say nothing of my selfe make warre vpon the English and seeing that warre cannot vnles by reason of ignorance be iust on both sides the English especially who are Catholicks could not defend those that oppose them selues against this Prince who assisteth the Preachers Thus would he say but as I so honour my Prince and loue my countrie that I desire not that any such Title should take place in England so I will not dispute of it 26. Another Title sayth Victoria by which the Spaniards might make warre on the Indians is if after some of them be conuerted to the Catholicke faith the others would force them to Idolatrie for then sayth he the Spaniards might by armes defend them they being become now their freinds and fellowes 27. A third Title sayth he might be this If the Indiās by lawfull or vnlawfull meanes that is by peaceble preaching
dependent of it or subordinate vnto it as is to bee seene euidently in the aforesayd and many other examples 34. But as touching Widdringtons examples they are not to the purpose for no marueile that a stone cannot discourse by or with a man a man being not subordinate to a stone nor any instrument of it and so as litle marueile it is that a stone cannot depose a Prince by the Pope as that VViddrington cannot be said to low by an oxe bleate by a sheepe or beare fruite by a tree here being no subordination or dependence as there is in the other examples by me alleadged and in the power of the Prince and Common wealth which euen by WIDDRNIGTONS confession is dependent of the Popes authoritie and may be directed and commaunded by it 35. Secondly this I prooue by reason grounded in the opinion which euen WIDDRINGTON himselfe admitteth Supra cap. 3. sect 4. n. 3. For in the place alleadged he graunted as probable that the Common wealth can depose a Prince though he denieth that authoritie to the Pope Widdr. in Resp Apolog. n. 12.13.14.15.16.21.23.27.28 alibi And in his Apologeticall Answer he confesseth that the Pope hath authoritie to commaunde a Prince in Temporall matters for the necessarie good of the Church as to vse his authoritie and to draw his sword for the necessarie defence therof and that he may inflict Spirituall censures on him if he disobey 36. Now if wee putte this together we shall finde that the Pope euē in widdringtons opinion may depose a Prince by the Common wealth although he could not doe it by himselfe immediately Disp Th. cap. 3. sec 4. n. 2. et 3. for WIDDRINGTON graunteth as probable that the Common wealth can depose a lawfull Prince in case of intollerable tyrannie for he graunteth that the contrairie opinion to wit that the common wealth can not depose a Prince is but probable and he confesseth that the Pope being supreame Pastour of the Church may commaund the Common wealth to vse this her Temporall power when it is necessarie for the conseruation of the Church 〈…〉 And seing that a commaūder is thought to doe that which another doth by his commaundemēt and to bee a principall cause of that of which the cōmaunded is but an executioner if the Pope commaund the Common wealth to depose her Prince and she obey her Pastour as WIDDRINGTON confesseth shee is bound to do then the Pope in that case shal be said to haue deposed the Prince because what the Common wealth doth at his commandment he is said to doe 〈…〉 yea he in that case is the principall agent and the Common wealth his instrument onely and executioner But VViddrington graunteth that the Pope may commaund the Common wealth to depose her Prince ergo he graunteth that the Pope if not by himselfe immediatly yet by another that is by the Common wealth can depose a Prince With what conscience then can VViddrington sweare to that clause of the Oath which sayth that the Pope neither by himselfe nor by any Authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King c. seeing that he graunteth that the Pope may commaund the Common wealth to do it and that euery man is saied to do that which is done by his lawfull commaundement he being in that case the principall Agent and the Common wealth as is sayed a subordinate Agent and instrument onely 37. Pag. 75.76.77.78.79 To this VViddrington in his Newyearesguift answereth that a commaunder is not a true and proper cause especiallie when he hath not power to do that which he commaundeth but onlie a cause per accidens and so although the Pope should commaund the common wealth to depose their Prince and they at his commaundement should depose him yet the Pope should not be sayd to depose him as a true and proper cause Widdr. in bu Newyearesgift Pag. 65. n. 7. but onlie as a cause per accidēs But first VViddrington in this answer seemeth at least to contradict him selfe for if as he sayeth a commaunder is commonlie sayd to do that thinge which is donne by his commandement it followeth that a commaunder is commonlie counted a cause of that which is done by his commaundement and so if the Pope should commaund the common wealth to depose a Prince the common wealth should depose him at his commaundement he should be counted by the common conceite of men a cause of the deposition and though not by him selfe yet by an other should commonlie be sayd to haue deposed him How then can Widdrington sweare against this that is commonlie sayd to wit that the Pope neither by him selfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome or by any other meanes hath any power or authoritie to depose the King c. seing that it is probable by WIDDRINGTONS confession that he may be sayd to haue power to depose a King in case of intollerable Tyrannie by the common wealth Wheras VViddrington affirmeth that the Pope in this case commaunding the common wealth should be onlie causa per accidēs a cause by accident in that he applyeth onlie the common wealth which is causa per se and the true efficient cause I must first tell him that euen a cause per accidens is commonlie called a cause and therfore the theefe who applyeth fier to the house and is a cause by accident of burning the same in that he applyeth the fier which is causa per se of the burning of the house is sayd commonlie and absolurelie to haue burned the house and shall be bound to restitution yea and hanged and that iustlie also for burning the house Wherfore if the Pope in that case should be at least causa per accidens he should in common speech be counted the cause of that deposition And therfore if VViddrington durst not sweare that the theefe neither by him selfe nor by any other cause can burne a house if he can by applying the fier that cā burne it how dareth he sweare that the Pope can not either by him selfe or by any other cause depose a Prince seing that he by VViddringtons Confession can by his commaundement apply the common wealth which is a cause per se and sufficient for such an effect Secondlie Widdrington abuseth his tearmes in saying that a cōmaunder is a cause by accident for though he be no phisicall cause of the effect yet he is a morall cause and in that kinde a principall cause and a cause per se which intendeth the effect and moueth the commaunded as an instrumēt and the commaunded though he haue not alwaies from the cōmaunder true authoritie because sometymes the cōmaunder hath none him selfe yet he hath from him morall influence and is sayd to worke the effect by vertue of his commaundemēt And so betwixt the commaunder and the applyer of
12 art 2. that so soone as one is denounced by sentence Excommunicated for Apostasie from faith ipso facto by the verie facte of Excommunication denounced his subiects are sreed from his Dominion Rule or Soueraigntie By which wordes S. THOMAS maketh depriuation an effect of the sentence of Excommunication as much as I did and therfore either meaneth that excommunication is a cause of depriuation immediatlie by it selfe or that Depriuation followeth it in manner aforesayd And so the acte of Depriuation being at least a secondarie acte of the Popes spirituall Supremacie to deny that he hath power to depriue is to deny that he hath power to excommunicate it being all one power and consequentlie it is to deny couertlie his spirituall Supremacie 45. But besides this all the Argumentes which I haue alleadged to prooue that the Pope can depose Princes and all which I haue sayd against the former two Clauses do manifestly prooue that this Clause wanteth the three companions of an Oath and so can not lawfullie be sworne That Iudgement wanteth it may appeare by that which I haue sayd in the verie beginning of my examination of this Oath That it wanteth Veritie it is as euident as it is that the Pope can depose Princes And though it were but probable that the Pope could degrade Princes yet to sweare absolutely that he can not were to expose the swearer to daunger of periurie yea it were to sweare a falsehood and so to committ actuall periurie For as it is periurie to sweare as true that which is false so is it to sweare a thing to be vndoubtedly and assuredly true which is but probable because it is false that that which is but probable is absolutely and assuredly true Wherefore seing that it is false that the Pope cannot in some case depose Princes Widdr. disp Th. c. 6. sec 3 n. 15. seqq and by VViddringtons frequent confession is at least probable that he can for he sayth that the Popes who deposed Princes followed a probable opinion and he confesseth that he contendeth not to shew that it is an hereticall or false opinion Disp Th. in praef n. 2. 3. but onely that it is not de fide tenenda to be held as a matter of faith it followeth that this Clause can not besworne it absolutely and with great asseueration denying the Pope Authority to depose And although if the Pope should excommuntcate and depose a Prince a subiect in some case might yet obey in lawfull thinges because feare of death or losse of liuings would excuse him when otherwise it is no scandall nor no absolute frustration of the Censure to obey him in particular yet to sweare this in so generall termes can not be lawfull as not only my former Arguments but also euen that which out of Victoria I haue alleaged doth manifestlie prooue 46. That this Clause wanteth also the third companion condition of a lawfull oath which is Iustice is as manifest because it derogateth from the Authoritie which the Pope iustlie claymeth and hath of long time not only possessed but also practised and so to sweare this Clause is to sweare and promise by oath an act of iniustice The Fourth Clause And I do further sweare that I do from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position that Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other what soeuer c. 40. This Clause as it is more plaine so can it with lesse shew be taken because the common opinion which holdeth that the Pope can depriue and depose Princes is most certaine as I aboue haue prooued and at least it is the more common and being confirmed by so many Argumentes and such Authoritie and practise of holy and auncient Popes and at least euen by VViddrington his owne confession holden as probable how can any that haue any conscience sweare that it is impious and how especially can he sweare that it is hereticall and damnable it neuer hauing beene conby the Church and defined by Generall Councels Widdr. in Disp Th. ca. 6. sect 2. n. 9. â—tseqq as aboue is declared 47 Widdrington answereth that to make the position here abiured as hereticall it is sufficient that one part of it be hereticall to witt that Princes excommunicated by the Pope may be murthered And therefore although it be not heresie to say that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed yet seing that at least it is hereticall to say that they may be killed it being flat against Scripture which forbiddeth absolutely to kill Exod. 20 1. Reg. 26. especiallie Kings for who shall extend his hand against the Anointed of our Lord and shall be innocent the positioÌ„ abiured must needs be hereticall 48. That it is sufficient to make the position here abiured hereticall that the last part thereof be hereticall WIDDRINGTON prooueth because sayth he the word May when it goeth before the Coniunction or signifieth that it is in our free choice and election to do the one or the other and therefore sayth he though the propositton seeme to be disiunctiue yet it is not an absolute but a conditionall disiunctiue aequiualent to a Copulatiue And so to sweare that it is hereticall doctrine to say that Princes excommunicated and depriued by the Pope may by their subiects or any others be deposed or murdered is to sweare that it is hereticall doctrine to say that after the Prince is excommunicated and depriued by the Pope it is in the free election of his subiects or others to depose him or kill him as they will which is hereticall because at least they cannot kill him as is prooned And to prooue that this is the meaning of that Clause he alleageth many examples and manners of speeches which haue the same sense as if one should say You may eate or drinke You may go by horse or on soote The meaning is you may do of these which you will 49. But this his Answer by his leaue is not sufficient to satisfie anie timorous or rightely fearefull conscience For first although sometimes the Coniunction Or when it followeth the verbe may be taken in the meaning that Widdrington affirmeth yet not alwaies yea ordinarily it is taken disiunctiuelie And so as to verifie a disiunctiue proposition it is sufficient that one part of it be true so to make it false both parts must be false As for example if one should lay a wager that to morrow it will either raine or snowe to winne the wager it is sufficient that it do either but to make the proposition false and to cause him to loose his wager neither must happen that is it must neither raine not snowe Wherefore seeing that the Coniunction or is ordinarily taken disiunctiuelie and many times also when may goeth before it it remaineth yet to be prooued by VViddrington that
I will doe all these three things as I may sweare without daunger of periurie that the Pope can not depriue a Prince But out of these wordes of WIDDRINGTON I will frame this argument against him selfe I can noe more sweare these three thinges then I can sweare without all daunger of periurie that the Pope can not depriue a Prince but I can not without daunger of periurie sweare that the Pope cannot depriue a Prince ergo I cannot sweare these three things without daunger of periurie The maior proposition is WIDDRINGTONS the minor I haue often prooued because itis at least probable euen by WIDDRINGTONS confession that the Pope can depriue a Prince and if it be probable that he can it may be true if it may be true there is daunger of periurie to abiure it and so the Conclusion followeth to wit that I caÌ„ not sweare these three thinges without daunger of periurie The Sixt Clause Which Oath I acknowledge by full and lawfull Authoritie to be proposed vnto me and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrarie 59. In this Clause the swearer acknowledgeth that this Oath is proposed by full and lawfull authoritie which notwithstanding is not at least so certaine a thing as that a man may sweare it For although the Magistrate haue authority to propose an Oath of meere Ciuill alleageance vnto lay subiects yet he hath not anthority to propose such an Oath as this which as I haue prooued containeth so many thinges not to be sworne and so much derogateth to the Authoritie of the Pope which for so long a time he hath possessed and practised And especially the Magistrate can not pronose this Oath to all sortes of people seeing 〈◊〉 can not be without morall daunger of periurie much lesse can he propose it to Priests whose Ecclesiasticall immunitie freeth them from Magistrates and Temporall Iudges interrogations and Tribunals Ca. quâ—quam de Censibus in 6. Ca. aduersus cap. non minus de Immunit Eccl. and who only are to be examined by their Bishops and Ordinaries and by them to be punnished when they offend and not by any Temporall Iudges vnlesse the fault be so great that the Bishop thinketh it meet to degrade the delinquent and to deliuer him to secular power And so it being a thing at least verie doubtfull whether the Prince and Magistrate haue authority to propose such an oath yea it being euident that they cannot because as aboue is prooued it is euident that it containeth many things which are against faith and Authoritie of the Church and Councells the Prince and Magistrate can haue no authoritie at all much lesse full and lawfull Autho itie to propose this Oath And so neither can this Clause be admitted 60. Adde to this that what soeuer VVIDDRINGTON saith the King and Parlament by this oath do take vppon them to decide what power the Pope hath from Christe the Authour and S. Peter the Popes first Predecessour for what is it other to determine and decide a question then to declare that one parte of it is to bee beleeued and followed towitt that the Pope cannot depriue or depose a Prince and that the contrarie is to bee abiured as impious and hereticall And if anie Doctour of the Church should define this question or anie other how can he determine more playnlie and resolutelie As for Example the Church defineth that there are 7. Sacraments and pronounceth Anathema against the contrarie opinion which saith there are but two or not 7. Doth shee not in this define the question Euen so our Prince and Parlament by this oathe haue decreed that the Pope can not depose or depriue a Prince and they oblige the Subiect to sweare this parte and to abiure the contrarie as heresie Is not this then to determine 61. Whereas Widdrington alleageth Disp Th. c. 7. n. 11 that the facultie of diuinitie in Paris and Mentz doe oblige those that are to proceed Doctours not to teach or preach publiquelie that our B. Ladie was conceiued in originall sinne and yet doe not define the controuersie this maketh rather against him for they also doe in this define and though not absolutelie yet as much as by theire authoritie they can and therfore they doe not oblige their subiects to abiure as heresie the contrarie opinion of the Thomists for that were absolutelie to determine and to arrogate the Popes authoritie wherefore seing that the King and Parlament doe oblige Catholickes to abiure as heresie and vnder the penaltie also of a Premunire that the Pope cannot depriue or depose a Prince it followeth that they absolutelie determine of such a spirituall proposition and matter of diuinitie against the Practise of manie Popes and against the decree of the Lateran Councell and so in this they Challenge to them selues the Popes or Churches Authoritie to which it appertaineth to define what is heresie and consequeÌ„tlie to sweare that this oathe is proposed by lawfull Authoritie is to sweare in effect that the King and Parlament haue spirituall Authoritie and that the King is supreame Head of the Church of England and hath Authoritie to define what proposition is hereticall At least this Argument maketh it doubtefull least this Clause importeth thus much and so is not to bee sworne The Seuenth Clause And all these things I do plainlie and sincerelie acknowledge and sweare according to the expresse wordes by me spoken without any equiuocation or mentall reseruation whatsoeuer And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment hartilie willinglie and trulie vppon the true faith of a Christian So helpe mee God 62. Diuines affirme that the guiltie D. Th. 2. 2. q. 69. a. 1. Caiet ibid. Henric. quodl 1. q. 44. Petrus Nauar li. 2. de restit or supposed guiltie is not lawaies bound to answer according to the Iudges meaning and intention if the Iudge do not make his interrogations iuridicallie The same Diuines affirme that a Iudge doth not make his interrogations iuridicallie when he questioneth about any secret thing of which there is not some fame cap. 4. n. 136. Lessius lib. 2. de iust iure cap. 31. dub 3 alij Vide cap. qualiter quando ca. Inquisitionis dâ— Accusationibus or report against the supposed guiltie or when he examineth things which pertaine not to his Court but rather to the spirituall Court or when there is not semiplena probatio or sufficientia indicia or when the supposed guiltie knoweth him selfe innocent for then he is not bound to answer according to the Iudges intention but may equiuocate Likewise when he knoweth him selfe innocent and yet if he confesse the circumstance which is demaunded he should be presumed nocent he may denie it with an equiuocation As for example if one had been present when his companion without his consent killed another if the Iudge aske whether he was not present he may denie it meaning he was not so present as to consent or
But now it shall not be amisse to obserue what securitie Widdr. by his Explicatiō of the Oath hath procured to the King His intention was by this fouourable Explication to make the world to see how Loyal and faithfull a subiect he is whoe exempteth his Prince in Temporalities from all subiection to the Chiefe Pastour and what securitie he procureth to his parson he hauing if his doctrine may goe for currant cut of all occasions of conspiracies and attempts of subiectes the Prince by VViddrington being placed so high aboue the reache so farre out of the Sphere of actiuitie of the Chiefe Pastours Authoritie that neither Pope nor Church can touch his crowne or meddle which his Regalitie by way of depriuation Yet if wee marke what hath been sayd by VViddrington in the deliuerie of his opinion and explication of the oath wee shall finde that he hath much iniured the Chiefe Pastour in wresting from him as much as in him lyeth that authoritie which not onlie many his Predecessours holie and learned but also diuers Councells euen Generall haue practised and which the Christian world many hundred yeares hath approoued and yet hath litle or not at all secured the Kings person or assured vnto him his Crowne and Scepter 68. Widdr. in Apol. n. 92. 197. Disp Th. ca. 3. sec 4. n. 3. For first he Confesseth in diuers places of his bookes as wee haue Seene that the Pope can commaund the Prince or cōmon wealth to vse or not vse the material sword he admitteth also as probable that the common wealth can depose the Prince in case of intolerable Tyrannie and consequentlie when the Pope shall Iudge a King worthie deposition he may according to VViddrington cōmaund the Common wealth vnder payn of Excommunication to depose the Prince and to depriue him of Regall Authoritie Wherin whoesoeth not that he as litle secureth the Prince which yet was intended by this oath as they whoe hold that the Chiefe Pastour can in some case depriue a Prince Because it is in effect all one daunger to the King whether he bee deposed by the Popes peremptorie commaundement or by his own immediat Authoritie 69. Widdr. Disp Th. in praef n. 2.3 Respons Apolog. praef ad Lectorē n. 8.9 et Disp Th. c. 6. n. 15 seqq Secondlie Widdring affirmeth that it is but probable that the Pope can not depose a Prince and consequentlie that it is probable that he can and that therfore the Popes who haue deposed Princes followed therin a probable opiniō wherby he giueth as litle securitie to the Prince as by his former assertion For after that VViddrington shall haue persuaded the Kings subiect that it is probable that the Pope can not depose the Prince hath he assured the Prince of his Subiectes fidelitie nothing lesse because this subiect with his probable opinion hauing neither euidence nor certaintie but onlie a probable opiniō which bringeth but a shewe of truth and that ioyned with feare vncertaintie may vpon the least discontentment or probable reason alleaged by others of the contrarie opinion alter his opinion it being not wel grounded and so the Prince shall haue no more assurance of him then hath the mariner of the wind in march or the fisherman of a wet eele holden by the tayle Which also I confirme because the nature of a probable opinion is such that it giueth free libertie to follow it or the contrarie that also being probable therfore in speculation wee may thinke in practise wee may follow not onlie one probable opinion but also the contrarie that also being probable whence followeth that if the Subiect heare of VViddrington that his opinion which holdeth that the Pope can not depose a Prince is but probable he will choose the contrarie if it be for his purpose or please more his humour and so will easilie condescend to thinke that the Pope can depose a Prince What securitie then giueth VViddringtō to the Prince whose securitie dependeth but on a probable opinion as mutable as a rottē sticke is brickle or a weather cock wauering and turning And what securitie from periurie hath the Subiect to sweare absolutlie that which is onlie probable and which consequentlie may be false 70. Thirdlie VViddr as wee haue also seen Widdr. Disp Th. c. 2. sec 2. n. 3. c. 3. sect 2. n. 3. byndeth the Subiect to sweare not that the Pope can not depose a Prince but onlie that he thinketh in his conscience that he can not and seing that this thinking is but a probable conceite and opinion the subiect after he hath sworn what he thinketh may easilie chaunge his opinion and yet commit no periurie he swearing onlie what then he thought not what he would thinke hereafter 71. Widdr. Disp Th. c. 6 sec 2 nu 8 seqq Fourthlie Widdrington explicating that fourth Clause of the oath And I do further sweare that I do from any heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position that Princes which bee excommunicate or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiectes sayth that to make that position impious and hereticall it is sufficiente if one parte of it to wit that Princes depriued may be murdered is impious and hereticall And so by his explication the Subiect sweareth onlie in that Clause that the Prince excommunicated can not be murdered and therfore he secureth the Prince onlie from killing not from deposition and consequentlie his explication contradicteth the intention of the King and Parlament which was to secure the Prince not onlie from killing but also and especiallie from deposing partlie because a King had as leaue be killed as deposed he by deposition being made a priuat man and of a King noe King partlie because a King deposed is in daunger if he persist in gouernment to be killed by his Subiects who if they approoue the sentence of deposition hold him noe more for their King And so VViddrington maketh the Oathe frustrate and secureth not the King either from deposition or killing 72. Whence it followeth that Widdrington hath done ill offices to the Chiefe visible Pastour in endeuouring to wrest from him that authoritie which he hath practised many hūdred yeares yet hath done noe good office or seruice to the King hauing not secured him from daunger of deposition if ther were any daūger I say if ther were any for although as some politians will continuallie busse into their Princes eares conspiracies plots and treacheries that they may be thought carefull subiectes and necessarie about the Kinges person so WIDDRINGTON maketh shew of many bug-beares Scarrcrowes of daungers hanging ouer the Kinges head by reason of this Catholique Common opinion by mee and others euen the most learned defended so to insinuate him selfe for a zealous subiect yet if wee looke better into the matter wee shall see that all this is but a needles feare that ther
by an inuisible blowe reached him from God perished most miserably d Earon tom 7. au 561. BELLISARIVS Iustinians Generall ouer his Armie to whome he was so deare that his pourtraict was printed in the one side of Iustinians Coyne with this Title Bilisarius Romanorum decus Bellisarius the glorie of the Romans for his molestation of SILVERIVS to grarifie therby THEODORA the Empresse had for suspicion of conspiracie against IVSTINIAN his eyes pulled out was despoiled of all his dignities and forced in fine to begg e CedreÌ„ in Anna Paul Diac. li. 20. reruÌ„ Roman Baron tom 8. an 713. Anast in Vital Baro. an 668. Paul Diac. lib. 19 reruÌ„ Rom. PHILIPPICVS for his contempt of CONSTANTINE Pope and propagating of heresie was depriued of his Empire and his eyes also f CONSTANS for persecuting THEODORVS Pope and violently carying away Pope MARTIN from Rome was slaine in a bathe g Fascie Temp. in Iust 2. Martin Pol. in Iust 2. IVSTâ—NIAN the second for infringing the Eight Synod and molesting of SERGIVS Pope who refused to consent to his heresie was depriued of his Empire and besides that of his nose and tongue h Baron tom 11. an 1080. HENRIE the Fourth Emperour excommunicated and deposed by GREGORIE the seuenth as we haue seene was by his owne sonne persecuted holden in prison and at length made a miserable end out of his owne Countrie i Neubr li. 4. c. 13 Palmer 〈◊〉 in ChroÌ„ an 1189 FREDERICK the first was drowned miserablie in a riuer of Armenia for punishment of the schisme he raised against ALEXANDER Pope as our NEVBRIGENSâ—S recordeth k Fascic Temp. in Frider. 2 Matt Westm an 1245 FREDERICK the Second after he was excommunicated and deposed by INNOCENT the Fourth Pope of that name was strangled by his owne sonne and dyed without Sacraments l Geneb lib 4. Chron. anno 2294. in Bonifacio 8. PHILIP le BEL King of France after he was excommunicated and deposed by BONIFACE the Eight neuer prospered as Genebrard la FreÌ„ch man writeth And after that BONIFACIVS was taken vnawares by the deceipts which PHILIP vsed a holy Bishop said The King is glad he hath BONIFACE Pope in holde but no good thereby will happen to him and his posteritie which Prophecie saith m Genebr lib 4. Chron. anno 1315. Genebrard was shortlie after fulfilled for the King perished by reason of a Boare that rushed betwixt his horses legges three of his sonnes that raigned after him dyed one after another in a short space their Queene 's dishonoured them with their infamous adulteries and the Issue of PHILIP fayling the contention betwixt our EDWARD the third sonne of the Daughter of PHILIP le Bel and PHILIP de Valois the sonne of CHARLES de Valois PHILIP le Bel his brother arose which contention cost France verie dearely And to spare our times as God threatned by his Prophet Isai 60. that the Kingdome that shall not serue the Church shall perish as we see all Greece is lost by their heresies and schismes against the Romane Church and England Germanie and Holland and other Countries know not what punishment hangeth ouer their heads so whosoeuer shall obserue the course of times and Histories shall finde that few Princes haue long prospered who haue persecuted the Romane Church and faith or haue been by her excommunicated or deposed 26. Wherfore Kings and Princes that contemne and despise the Church remember you are Men and that your Kingdome is subiect to a higher state of the Church Feare her glaiue that striketh euen the soule and spirit And if you will raigne long and prosperouslie here imitate those Constantines Martians Theodosius Pipins Charles the Great Lewis and others who were more glorious for amplifying the Churches Immunities and Demaines then for exteÌ„ding their Empire more renowned for the Churches and Monasteries they founded theÌ„ for the Cities and Castels they builded who by obeying honouring and enriching the Church strengtned and enriched their Kingdomes and haue prospered in all their warres and battailes But I will end with S. BERNARDS Counsell which he gaue to CONRADVS King of the Romanes Bern. ep 183. ad Conrad Regem Romam Rom. 13. desiring all Christian Princes to followe it Legi quippe Omnia anima Potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit c. Quam tamen sententiam cupio vos omnimodis moneo custodire in exhibenda reuerentia summae Apostolicae sedi I haue read indeed Let euerie soule be subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God which sentence not withstanding I desire and by all meanes warne you ô Princes to keepe by exhibiting reuerence to the highest and Apostolicall seat CHAPTER VII Although the Pope be not direct Temporall Lord and Superiour of the world nor of any part therof by Christs expresse guift and donation but only of the patrimony of Sainct Peter giuen him by Constantine the Great and other Catholicke Princes and confirmed by the consent of the Christian world yet by the spirituall power which Christ gaue him in his predecessour S. Peter Io 21. he may dispose of temporall things and euen of Kingdomes for the good of the Church and Conseruation of her and her faith right and the manner how and in what case he can thus dispose of temporalities is explicated 1. HAuing shewed by manie Arguments in the former Chapter that the Prince neither hath any spirituall Authoritie neither can by his Temporall power entermeddle him self as a Superiour in matters Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall It remaineth that we discusse and examine whether contrarie wise the Pope haue any temporall power or can by his Spirituall power dispose of temporall things A thing I confesse odious to some Princes who can hardly brooke it that you should meddle with their Crownes and Regalities thinking their Crownes so fast sett on their Heads that none but God can plucke them of and imagining they holde their scepters so fast that none vnder God can wrest them out of their hands But yet this question is odious only to such as sett little by the Churches Authoritie or at least preferre the state before Religion and the Temporall aduancement of the Common wealth before the Spirituall good of the Church for otherwise as guiltie malefactours only crie out of the Princes lawes Tribunals good subiects embrace and reuerence them so those Princes only whose consciences accuse them of some disloyaltie towards the Church or who desire to preferre their owne wils before the Churches commandement or to extend their Empire with encroaching on her Demaines and to rule so independentlie as they may not be controlled such Princes I say can not abyde to heare of any Authoritie in the Pope or Church which may restraine them Other Kings who counte it their honour to be obedient Children of the Church and who desire not to raigne ouer their subiects but so as God and his Church