haue saied of the knowen respect the Kings of England euer before bare to the Pope and the Apostolicall Sea 14. Seuenthlis I prooue this by the ancient Ceremonies of kissing the Popes feete and other Homage which no good Christian though a King or Emperour hath euer disdained fulfilling therein the prophecie of Esay Quam speciosi pedes Euangelizantis pacem How beautifull are the feet of him that Euangelizeth and preacheth peace Esay 52. And following therin the example of the three Kinges Matt. 2. who adored Christ and of the prime Christians who brought the price of their Lands to the feet of the Apostles Act. 4. 5. Act. 10. Phocius in Nomo con Cap. Constantinus dist 96. Naucler lib. 2. gener 18. Blond li. 10. Mart. Polonus Platina in Steph. 2. S. Ansel Luc li. 1. Collecta Plat. in Adria 1. Baro. to 12. anno 1130. Platina in Eugenio IV. and of Cornelius that fell at Peeters feet CONSTANTINE the Great Greater for his humilitie then for the greatnes of his victories and Emperie honoured the Pope as his Pastour and superiour and bestowed great temporall honour and Regalities vpon him IVSTINIAN the Great in the yeare 535. adored AGAPETVS Pope IVSTINIAN the second crouching to Pope CONSTANTINES the first feete embraced him King PIPIN going to meete Pope STEEVEN who was going to him into France for helpe kissed his feet and ledd his horse by the bridle into the Court and pallace CHARLES the Great would not be hindred by Pope ADRIAN the first from kissing his feet as Platina writeth LEWIS King of France and HENRIE the second King of England kissed humblie the feet of INNOCENT the second SIGISMVND the Emperour in the Councell of Constance worshipped Pope MARTIN prostrate vpon the ground ALBERT Emperour of the West and IOANNES PALEOLOGVS Emperour of the East vsed the same submission to EVGENIVS the fourth in the Councell of Florence 15. By this which hath bene said who is of so little insight that seeth not how Princes are and ought to be subiect vnto the chiefe Bishop and highest visible Pastour of the Church which if Princes also could see as their conceipt of their owne Authoritie many times hindreth them from seeing they would not encroach vpon the Church as they doe they would not contemne her lawes but honour them as Oracles they would not despise the Churches Pastours but would as the auncient Christian Princes were wont to do honour them aboue all terrene Potentates 16. And would to God our noble soueraigne King IAMES had bene trained vp in the schoole of Christs Catholike Church in which our ancient Kings his Predecessours learned their dutie towards the Pope that rare and deepe iudgement of his would neuer haue permitted him to thinke a Temporall King as great as the Pope In praf monitor pag. 5. to whom his Predecessours subiected their persons Kingdomes Crowns and Scepters it would neuer haue sunke into his learned head that the Pope should be Antichrist and consequentlie all his Predecessours the Kings of England yea of Christendome so wise so pious so warlike so victorious worshippers and fauourers of Antichrist he would neuer haue incited the Emperour and Christian Princcs In praef monitor to curbe him restraine him and to diminish that his Authoritie which not they but Christ gaue him by which he hath put the crowne vpon many an Emperour and Kings head by which all Christian Kinges and their Kingdomes haue bene maintayned in Religion wealth and prosperitie against which Authoritie no temporall stares haue long preuailed but like waues against the Rocke by persecuting it haue wasted and ruined them selues which Authoritie was not giuen him ex prima intentione to take away temporall Kingdomes from any vnlesse by euill comportement they make them selues vnworthie of all rule and humane societie but rather to conserue them and to adde vnto them a new Crowne and Kingdome of Heauen for non eripit mortalia qui regna dat Coelestia he that giueth to man heauenlie thinges goeth not about to take away from him those that be earthlie Imploie then ô noble soueraine your rare witt power and force to defend and protect this Authoritie not to impugne it shew your self worthie that Title of a Defendour of the faith which was giuen to your Predecessours by the Sea Apostolick not for impugning but for defending her faith and Authoritie Seeke not to sacke and rase that Citie which is built vpon a Rocke Thinke not to preuaile against that Church against which all the persecutions schismes and heresies that haue beene raised against her no nor the forces or gates of Hell could hetherto or shall euer here after preuaile Seeke not to sinke the shippe which PETER ruleth and at whose sterne CHRIST him self sitteth It may be by Gods permission tossed with windes waues and Tempests but it can neuer be drowned for as Pope GREGORIE the ninthe once tould an Emperour that thought by humane force and policie to sincke her Cuspinianus in Frederice Niteris incassum nauem submergere PETRI Fluctuat at nunquam mergitur illa ratis Thou striu'st in vaine S. PEETERS ship to sinke Floate may it well to drown it neuer thinke CHAPTER VI. That Princes Kings yea Emperours haue no authority to gouerne the Church or to make Ecclesiasticall lawes neither to be accounted heads or Superiours but subiects of the Church though protectours and defendours and therefore are modestly admonished of their duty and office 1. ALmightie God as he hath instituted two powers terrene and spirituall Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall and hath distinguished them in Natures obiects functions ends so to auoid confusion he hath placed them in diuers subiects The terrene power he hath giuen to Princes and Magistrates the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall to Priests Prelats and Pastours as aboue we haue seene For although there be no such naturall repugnancie but that these powers may consort in one Ep. 126. ad Euag. and the selfe same person for as S. HIEROME sayth in the law of Nature the first begotten of euerie familie were Priests and Temporall Lords Melchisedech also and Moyses and the Machabâ—et were Priests and Princes yet it is most conuenient that these two powers should be separated the King and Prince by reason of his warres and Temporall Affaires wherwith he is intangled being not so apt to menage matters of the Church and Religion the Prelate and Pastour being by office obliged to attend to diuine matters from which the menaging of common wealthes affaires would much distract him And therfore as the Church came to greater perfection Num. 27. so were these offices giuen to distinct officers For IOSVE was made Captaine and Commander in Temporall things 2. Paralip 19. ELEAZAR was the High Priest and chiefe in matters of the Church AMARIAS the High Priest commanded in his quae ad Deum pertinent in matters pertaining to God and ZABADIAS was deputed to the gouernment of those thinges that
hath Authoritie ouer Clergie men as Clergie men he can command euen Churchmen in Ecclesiasticall matters and can call Synodes determine controuersies of faith in them enact Ecclesiasticall lawes and bestowe Ecclesiasticall Benefices and so he shall haue Authoritie not onlie ouer the persons but also ouer the things of the Church And therfore as he that should say that the King for the necessarie good of the Common VVealth cannot dispose of the Temporalities of the Realme should in effect make him no King so BILSON in saying that the King hath no Authoritie ouer the spirituall things and graces of the Church makes him no Head of the Church nor superiour ouer Church men as Church men For if the King be Head of the persons of the Church he can command them as his subiects And then I demand of BILSON in what things he can command them If in temporall thinges onlie as to paie Tribute to go to warre c. then is he King only of the Common wealth but no Head of the Church If in Spirituall things as administration of Sacraments decisions of matters of faith in Councels c. then hath he the administration of spirituall things and hath authority not only ouer the persons but also ouer the things of the Church But I neede not wrest this frō BILSON by force of Argument for he no lesse plainely confesseth that the King is no Head of the Church Bilson par 2 pag. 240 These are his wordes VVe confesse Princes to be supreme Gouernours that is as we haue often told you supreme bearers of the sword which was first ordained from aboue to defend and preserue as wel godlines and honestie as peace and tranquillitie amongst men We giue Princes no power to deuise or inuēt newe Religions to alter or chaunge sacraments to decide or debate doubtes of faith to disturbe or infringe the Canons of the Church Thus he VVherby we see first how he derogateth from that authority which King HENRIE the 8 and Queene ELIZABETH challēged and the former Parlament approoued for by that authoritie King HENRIE the 8. exiled all the Popes authoritie forbad all Appeales to Rome contrary to the ancient Canons disposed of Abbaies and Churches without the Popes authority c. And by the same authoritie Q. ELIZABETH chaūged the sacraments and all the whole face and hew of religion and forbad Councels to be called or any thing in them to be decided without her consent Secondlie we may see also herby how BILSON maketh the King no supreme Head yea no head at all of the Church but only a Protectour and defender therof which Title all Catholikes graunt to Kinges acknowledging that the King is to defēd the Church to assist her by his temporall sword and Authoritie that shee bee not hindred in calling Councels and administration of the Church yea and to punish heretikes condemned by her and deliuered vp to secular power And no more doth BILSON graunt And so he denying the Prince to be head of the Church and graunting him to be only a protectour and defender is guiltie of high treason 22. D. Field lib. 5. de Eccles cap. 53. Doctour FIELD also in effect denieth this authority to the King for he distinguisheth things merelie Spirituall in this manner Either sayth he the power in these things is of order or of iurisdiction the power of order consisteth in preaching the worde in ministring Sacramēts and ordaining ministers and in these things saith he Princes haue no Authoritie at all much lesse supreme authority The power of iurisdiction standeth in prescribing lawes in hearing examining and iudging of opinion in matters of saith and things pertaining to Ecclesiasticall order and Ministerie and due performing of Gods seruice and in these the King can only by direction of the Clergie make penall and tempor all lawes for the Execution of Bishops lawes and Canons Thus he But to omitt how aptlie D. FIELD annexeth preaching to the power of order Vide Sairum lib. 4. de Censuris cap. 16. num 21 which may be exercised with licence of the Bishop by one that hath no Orders at all to omitt also how he can possiblie distinguish the powers of order ād Iurisdiction he and his Doctours denying all Caracters and making ordination nothing else but a meere deputation to such an office I auerre that D. FIELD in this contradicteth the former authority which was giuen by Parlament to King HENRIE the Eight and King EDWARD his sonne and Queene ELIZABETH his Daughter as may appeare plainlie by the actes of Parlament aboue alleadged and he maketh the King no Supreme Head of the Church but onlie an Assistant Protectour and Defendour therof as I haue shewed against D. BILSON 23. Wherfore the Catholicks of England haue iust cause to complaine of seuere dealing towards them who many of them haue bene condemned to Premuniries and cruell deathes for denying the snpremacie of the Prince in Spirituall causes of which notwithstanding the leardnest of the Ministerie make such doubt and question as we haue seene yea denie it in plaine termes For if that care had bin had of the Kings Catholick subiects which their number antiquitie and loyaltie seemed to require this question of the Supremacie should haue bene better discussed and more maturely resolued before the Ministers should haue preached it as necessarie to be beleeued and before Catholicks should haue been so seuerelie handled for denying it their own Doctours now varying so much as we haue seene about the very name and thing it self and some of the leardnest amongst them denying it as flatly as any Catholick can do 24. Remember then O Kinges Princes and Potentates of the earth what is belonging to your so high an office Psal 2. An exhortation to Princes Et nunc Reges intelligite erudimini qui iudicatis terram And now ô Kings vnderstand your office informe your selues ô you that iudge the earth what belongeth vnto you You are Iudges of the earth and Common wealth you are not to meddle with the Church which is called Regnum Coelorum Mat. 13 the Kingdome of Heauen You are Isa 49. as Esaye calleth you Nurcing Fathers but no Gouernours of the Church you are Protectours and Defendours and Assistants obliged by scepter and sword to assist her and to punish her Rebelles at her direction You are subiects no Superiours sheepe no Pastours Inferiour members no Heads and your greatest honour and safetie is to serue not to rule the Church to defend not to inuade her rightes Harken ô Princes to that holsome counsell which AZARIAS the High Priest gaue to King OZIAS 2. Paral. 26. Ioseph l. 9. Ant. cap. 11. who would be medling with the Priests office For when he being puffed vp with pride of hart tooke vppon him to offer Incense in the Temple and on the Altar of Incense AZARIAS matching his Kinglie pride with a Priestlie Zeale followed him at his heeles accompanied with fourescore Priests and
regna dat coelestia That Christ is come why dost thou dread O Herode thou vngodlie foe He doth not earthlie Kingdomes reaue That heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow 4. And so although CHRIST were euen as man a Temporall King yet he not actually raigning him self it is not likelie that he should giue any such authoritie to S. PETER and the Pope his successour And although hee had actually raigned him self yet it is not necessarie that he should giue that Authoritie to S. PETER for hee had also the power of Excellencie by which he might command euen Infidels not baptized and by which he instituted a Church Sacraments and a Priesthood which S. PETER and the Pope his Successour can not doe Certes none can denie but that CHRIST might haue giuen S. PETER supreme Iurisdiction spirituall ouer the Church without Temporall because as spirituall power is not necessarily annexed to the Temporall as I haue proued in the former Chapter so Temporall power is not necessarily ioyned to the spirituall and therfore seing that neither the law of God nor Nature nor man giueth any such Temporall Iurisdiction to the Chiefe Pastour of the Church why should either he challenge it or we giue it him especiallie it being a thing verie inconuenient and odious that either the Church or her Chiefe Pastour should haue any such Temporall power For if it were so that the Church or her supreme Pastour had any such soueraintie it would deterre all Pagan Kings and Princes from our Religion fearing least the Church by her absolute Authoritie might depriue them of their Kingdomes Crownes and Scepters at her pleasure And hence it is that the Popes them selues confesse that they haue no Imperiall nor Kinglie Authoritie giuen them by CHRIST but rather that these two powers are in distinct subiects So NICHOLAS Pope sayth Cum ad verum ventum est c. Ca. cum ad verū d. 96. Vide supra pa. 66. et pag. 78. VVhen it came to the vnderstanding of the truth neither did the Emperour take vnto him the rights of Bishop-like Authoritie nor did the Bishop vsurpe the name of the Emperour because the same Mediatour of God and men man Christ IESVS hath distinguished the offices of both powers by their proper and distinct dignities as that Christian Emperours for attaining eternall life should neede bishops and Bishops should vse the Imperiall lawes for the cause onely of temporall things And S. BERNARD Bern. li. 2. de Cōsid ca. 6. Nam quid tibi aliud dimisit Sanctus Apostolus quod habeo inquit tibi do c. VVhat other thing did the holie Apostle leaue vnto thee what I haue saith hee I giue thee VVhat is that One thing I know it is neither gould nor siluer seing that he sayth gould and siluer is not with mee Bee it that by some other way thou maist challenge this vnto thee yet not by Apostolicall right for he could not giue thee that which he had not VVhat he had he gaue sollicitude as he sayd ouer the Churches Did be giue thee rule and domination not ouer-ruling the Clergie but made example of the flocke and doost thou thinke this to be spoken onlie out of humilitie not in veritie the voice of our Lord is in the Ghospell the Princes of the Gentils ouer-rule them c. but it shal not be so amongst you 5. But although the Pope and Chiefe Pastour of the Church hath no direct Temporall power but only in his owne Temporall Patrimonie and Kingdome by which he may dispose of Kingdomes Crownes and scepters yet he hath a Spirituall power which may directlie and ordinarilie dispose of spirituall matters and indirectlie and in some extraordinarie case of the Temporall also that is when it shall be iudged necessarie for the consernation of the faith or Religion or the Churches lawes and right or some other great and necessarie good I say the Pope hath no direct power ouer Princes for then he might limit their power abrogate their lawes and depose their persons at least for some iust cause though it did not concerne either faith or the Churches right or necessarie good as the King can deale with his Viceroy and any of his subiects and then Princes should not be absolute and independent who yet as aboue is declared in Temporall matters and so long as they exceede not the bounds of their authority by commanding things contrary to Gods law or the Churches Canons acknowledg no Superiour in earth neither Pope nor Emperour nor Common wealth For as for the Emperour all Princes who are not his Vassals as the Kings of Spaine England and France are not as they acknowledge him Superiour in dignitie and therfore will and must giue him the precedence whersoeuer they meete yet they are not subiect to him nor bound to obey him vnlesse it be when the Pope the Chiefe Pastour and hee the greatest Prince in dignitie shall thinke it necessarie that all Christian Princes contribute or concurre for the defence of Christendome against the Turke or such like Common enemie As for the Pope I graunt that CHRIST gaue him no Temporall power at all which aboue I haue prooued for that Temporall power which he hath in Italie hee had not by Christs immediat graunt but onlie by Constantines and other Emperouts and Princes donation which donation supposed and confirmed also by Prescription and his subiects yea all the Christian worlds consent that part of Italie which he possesseth is as trulie appertaining to him as England is to the King of England France to the King of France and Spaine to the King of Spaine onlie the Pope cannot transfer his Kingdome to his Heyres as they may because it cometh not to him in particular by hereditarie succession but onlie by election Yea if the Pope were by the law of God a Temporall Soueraine Prince ouer all the world other Princes should holde of him and CONSTANTINES donation by which he made him Temporall Prince of Italie had been no donation but restitution As for the Common wealth I haue aboue declared how it hath despoiled it self of all authoritie and by translating it to the King is trulie a subiect and like a priuate person and so hath no power ouer the King vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie as aboue is explicated 6. I say yet that the Pope hath an Indirect power ouer Kings euen in Temporall mattters which power notwithstanding is not Temporall but spirituall nor any distinct power from his spirituall supremacie but euen the self same And therfore GREGORIE the Seuenth in his deposition of HENRIE the Fourth sayth that he deposeth him by the power he hath from S. PETER of binding and loosing And although his Pastorall and Spirituall power directly and ordinarily hath the menaging only of spirituall matters and so directly and ordinarily exerciseth it self in excommunicating interdicting and suspending frō Spirituall offices calling Councels and deciding controuersies of faith in them in making
is a temporall thing and yet the high Priest could depriue euen a King of the same and if he may dispose of this Temporall thing why not of other Temporall things though they be Kingdomes Secondly cohabitation or at least power and right of cohabitation societie is essentiallie included in Kingly power or at least necessarille annexed vnto it For a King is he that hath supreme power to gouerne his subiects And seing that gouernment necessarilie requireth yea importeth possibilitie or right to cohabitate and conuerse with subiects for how can he gouerne them if he cannot conuerse with them or his officers if the King might by the Priest be depriued of all right to cohabitate and conuerse he might be depriued also of his Kingdome Thirdlie OZIAS disobeyed the high Priest and notwithstanding his reprehension and expresse commandement to the contrarie did burne Incense to our Lord and so AZARIAS might haue caused him to haue bene killed for this disobedience in so great a matter Deut. 17 as appeareth by the law of God in Deuteronomie where MOYSES sayth He that shal be proued refusing to obey the commandement of the Priest which at that time ministreth to our Lord thy God and the decree of the Iudge that man shall die and thou shalt take away the euill out of Israel Hence I make this deduction AZARIAS the High Priest might haue pronounced sentence of death against King OZIAS for disobeying in so great a matter much more might he haue deposed him and depriued him of his Kingdome for death which is depriuation of life is a greater penaltie then depriuation of a Kingdome and includeth also that because a dead man cannot be King and if AZARIAS could depriue OZIAS of his Kingdome it is like that in separating him from cohabitatiō with the people he did in deed depriue him And certes this the Scripture in the same place insinuareth saying Fuit igitur OZIAS c. 2. Paral. 26. OZIAS therfore the King was a leper vnto the day of his death and he dwelt in a howse a part Moreouer IOATHAN his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the Lord. Which last words insinuate that his sonne raigned and was King in his place and consequentlie that he was deposed Lib. 9. Antiq. cap. 11. And so IOSEPHVS seemeth to haue vnderstood the matter when treatinge of this fact of OZIAS and the issue thereof he sayeth Et cum aliquādiu extra vrbem vixisset filio IOATHANO rempnblicam administrante moerore tandē confectus obijt and for some tyme he had liued out of the Citie his sonne IOATHAN administrating the cōmon wealth Hom. 4. de verhis Isai at last he was killed with sorrow The same doth also S. CHRYSOSTOME auouch saying Cumque sacerdotium sibi vellet sumere hoc quod habebat perdidit And when he would take vpon him Priesthood he lost that Kingdome which he had Barron an Christi 31. Tiberij 15. To this may be added that which Baronius well obserueth in his Annales to wit that the Iewes had a Councell called Synedrin or Sanedrin which consisted of 72. persons and succeeded the 72. who assisted Moises Num. 11. which Councell had authoritie to iudge of the Law of the Prophet and of Kinges and ouer this Councell the High Priest had supreame authoritie This Councell was of such credit that it summoned Herod to appeare and to answer to Hircanus and the Iudges vnder him to that which was to be obiected against him And when he appeared in his purple and with a stronge troupe Sameas one of the Iudges reprehended this his māner of comming and told him that he came in that manner Ex Iosepho lib. 14. Antiq 6.17 vt si capitalem iuxta leges sententiam in eum tulerimus nobis mactatis ipse euadat illatâ vi legibus that if we according to the Lawes should pronounce sentence of death against him he vsing force against the lawes and killing vs might escape By which it is plaine that this Councell and consequentlie the High Priest had authoritie to Iudge of the Law Prophet and Kinge and that therfore Azarias had Authoritie to pronounce sentence of death and much more of deposition against Ozias and seing he might depose him it is like the fore sayd circumstances considered that he did depose him 3. I confesse that our aduersaries may answer that this example doth not conuince that Ozias was deposed but only that he not actually gouerning his sonne gouerned for him he remaining still King till his death But yet if this fact be not taken barelie but with the law also of Leuiticus and the argument deduced out of it with other insinuations of scripture Losephus S. Chrysostome and the Authoritie of the Councel of Sanedt in it is sufficient to prooue that the high Priest did or might haue deposed him I confesse also that our Aduersaries might answer Deut. 2. that there was in the old law an expresse statute to put to death those that would disobey the High Priest in matters pertaining to the law and that therfore the High Priest might pronounce sentence of death and consequentlie of depriuation against a King but in the new law there being no such expresse law and the new law also being a law of sweetnesse and Charitie not of feare and rigour the case is not the like This they may say But yet seing that it made much for the honour of the Synagogue and her securitie to haue had such a power if the Church bee the veritie the Synagogue but the figure and as farre inferiour to the Church as the law and Priesthood and sacrifice of CHRIST is Superiour to that of MOYSES no honourable nor profitable power and authoritie graunted to the Synagogue is to be denyed to the Church and therfore seing it is an honour to haue Authoritie to depose Princes and that it is many tymes necessary for the conseruation of the Church her right and faith for many times admonitions yea commandements and excommunications will take no effect with proud and rebellious Princes if such power were graunted to the Synagogue it is not to be denied to the Church 4. Another example which Diuines vse to alleadge is 4. Reg. 11 2. Par. 22. 23 that of Queene ATHALIA who as we read in the fourth booke of Kings was by the Commandement of the high Priest depriued first of her Kingdome and afterwards of her life and that also after shee had raigned six yeares And although it may seeme that he only sett the right King Ioas in his Throne and displaced an vsurper who had killed all the right Kings sonnes sauing IOAS Bellarminus Becanus alij who was secretlie reserued and still liuing yet many learned Authours affirme that she was before her deposition true and lawfull Queene because though she entred by tyrānicall vsurpation yet raigning so long peaceably it is verie like that she was receaued
also with great consent both of the Latin and Greeke Church and in it were present the Patriatches of Constant inopole and Hierusalem in their proper persons the Patriatches of Alexandria and Antioche by their Legates Archbishops Latin and Greeke 70. Bishops 412. Abbots and Priours aboue 800. the totall number of all the Prelares were at least 1215. The Legates also of the Greeke and Romane Emperours of the Kinges of Hierusalem France Spaine England and other Princes were present with the rest This Councell then called the Great for the number of Prelates in the Third Chapter after excommunication pronounced against Hereticks admonisheth secular powers and commandeth them to purge their countries from Heretikes and to promise the same by oath then the Councell addeth Si verò Dominus temporalis c. Council Later sub Innoc 111. cap. 3. But if the Temporall Lord being required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his land or Territorie from hereticall lewdnesse let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitane and the rest of his Comprouinciall Bishops And if he contemne to satisfie within a yeare let this his contempt be signified to the Chiefe Bishop the Pope that from that tyme he the Pope may denounce his vasalles freed from all fidelitie vnto him and may expose his land to be possessed by Catholiks who heretickes being exterminated may possesse it without any contradiction and conserue it in puritie of faith without preiudice to the Principall Lords so that he put no obstacle nor impediment the same law notwithstanding obserued concerning those who haue not Principall Lords This Councell I suppose to be of sufficient Authoritie for it was Generall and in number of Prelates and Bishops surpassed the first Councell of NICE by many It was of as great Authoritie as any Councell can be because the Authoritie to make lawes and to decide controuersies dependeth not of the sanctitie but only of the lawfulnes of the Pastours and seing that these Pastours could say as much for their ordination and vocation as the Fathers of the Councell of NICE could it must needs follow that this Councell as are also all lawfull Generall Councels was of as great Authoritie as was that of NICE which our Soueraigne Liege King IAMES admitteth with the other first three Generall Councels In prâ—f monit pag. 37. and consequentlie cannot reiect this which is of the same Authoritie To say that the Pope speaketh onlie of them who are subiect temporally to his Temporall Authoritie which he hath in Italie were ridiculous because the wordes are Generall and if they were restrained to Italie the decree could haue had little force To say that absolute Princes are not comprehended in this decree but onlie inferiour Princes who holde feudum Regale of them is absurd for a little before this alleaged decree the CouÌ„cell ordained that seculares potestates secular powers must take an oath to expell hereticks out of their countries which wordes secular powers agree to absolute Kings and Emperours else when S. PAVL commaunded that euerie soule be subiect to higher powers potestatibus sublimiâ—ribus Rom. 13. Kinges and Emperours must be excepted because they goe not vnder the name of Powers And immediatly after this admonition the Councell addeth the alleaged decree Si verò Dominus Temporalis c. But of the Temporall Lord c. Where she calleth the same Dominos Temporales Temporall Lords whom before she called Potestates saeculares Secular powers And are not Kings and Emperours Domini Temporales Temporall Lords yea and principallie and more properlie to be called so then those Princes that holde of others If Widdrington would denie this Title to our King he would be counted a Traytour And what can they alleage against those others so expresse wordes eâdem nihilominus lege seruatâ circa eos qui non habent dominos principales the same law not withstanding obserued concerning those who haue not principall Lords In which words euen Kinges and Emperours are comprehended for they especially haue no Temporall Lords 3. But let Widdrington vnderstand by secular powers and Temporall Lordes whome he will as certes he spendeth many wordes to shew that by Temporall and principall Lordes absolute Princes are not vnderstoode if the Pope coulde make a decree of deposition against inferiour Princes why not against supreame Princes they in that they are Christians being as subiect to the Church and her Chiefe Pastour as other Christians of inferiour degree Widdr. in discussione discussionâ—s Decreti Concil Lat. sec 5. a. n. 3. Widdrington answereth that the Pope and Generall Councell may make a decree of deposition against inferiour magistrates or Lotdes by consent and Authoritie giuen them by Soueraigne Princes but he can not make a decree of deposition against supreame Princes because they neuer consented neuer gaue him Authoritie against them selues Idem sec 5. nu 15. Hence Widdrington sayth also that all temporall mulctes and punishmentes which the Church decreeth shee decreeth by authoritie giuen her from Princes and that therfore in such penall lawes Christians may refuse to obey till they know that the Prince gaue the Pope and Councell such Authoritie yea that in these lawes they may appeale from Pope or Generall Councell to the Princes But as in other thinges Widdrington to holde vp the cause whose defence he hath vndertaken is forced to helpe him selfe with the worst opinions and to seeke authoritie from the obscurest Authours and these of the least credit So dealeth he in this for he is not ignorant that whatsoeuer some one or two Authours may say that all the current of Diuines mislike them in this and counte it straunge yea and absurde to say that all the penall lawes of the Church which prescribe Temporall mulctes related in the Canon law and in Councelles should haue theire force not from the Councelles and Pastours but from Kinges and Princes For although they confesse that Princes gaue to the Pope his Temporall Demaines and consequentlie Temporall and princelie Authoritie within the limites of the same yet in what meeting of Princes in what Councell did euer Princes conspire to giue the Pope Temporall Authoritie through out the whole Church And in the last Generall Councell of Trent in which diuerse Temporall penalties are decreed what mention is there of the Princes donation of Authoritie to the Councell Princes and Emperours by them selues or their Legates are present at the Councell to protect the Fathers to assist them for execution of theire lawes but that they euer gaue authoritie to the Councell to enact any Temporall law or that the Fathers of the Councell and the Chiefe Pastour of the Church demaunded licence and Authoritie of the Emperour or Princes to make such lawes who euer read who euer heard And why could not the Princes why would not they them selues enact such lawes in their owne name as sometimes they haue don against Heretickes that being a thinge more honourable for them and
the Societie of Iesus relateth William Occham Iohn of Paris Dante 's Aligerius Ioannes Almainus c. do follow Who I say reading these wordes in VViddrington could thinke otherwise then that these two Authours which VViddrington produceth for the second opinion be produced for his Authours though out of Azorius as well as the other Authours But it seemeth he is loath altogether to refuse these two Authours and therefore he sayth Azorius maketh Occham a Classicall Authour and Gabriell and the Nominalles follow him as the Prince of the Nominalles and Suarez and Vasquez do ofte alleage him for theire opinion but what doth all this prooue but onlie that Occham in respect of his skille in Logicke and Philosophie and Schoole Diuinitie was a principall Doctour amongst the Nominalles and in that respect is often alleaged by Catholicke Doctours yet notwithstanding this euen Azorius Suarez and Vasquez do condemne Occhams bookes which VViddrington so esteemeth to wit those which he wrote against the Pope and his Authoritie And touching Dante 's he sayth Trithemius affirmed that Dante 's was most studious in Holie Scriptures But be it that Dante 's after Poetrie and Humanitie studied Scriptures yet he presuming to studie Scriptures without groundes in Diuinitie as Erasmus Laurentius Valla and others did might fall into erroures as well as they and certainlie who so pleaseth to reade his Monarchie shall perceaue in it more Poetrie Poeticall inuentions and slight and superficiall Philosophie then solid Diuinitie Whereas he reiecteth Bartolus censure of Dante 's as I haue no leisure so will I not wrangle with him about that This shall suffice me that both of these two Authours are censured in the Index expurgatorius set forth by Authoritie of the Councell of Trent and diuerse Popes And although Widdrington sayth that the compilers of the Index are not the Catholicke Church and that he knoweth not for what cause diuerse bookes in the Index are condemned wherin he sheweth little respect to Superiours yet at least those bookes which are censured in the Index can be no lesse then scandalous and the Authours no lesse then infamous and so no fit witnesses nor Authours to make an opinion probable So that let Widdrington choose what he will Either he will haue these Authours or he will not if he will they can giue no credit to his opinion they hauing none them selfes if he will not he hath two Authours fewer and by the same reason may reiect diuerse others yea all the other Authours and so vae soli woe to him that standeth post alone But he sayth that he produced not thē alone but with manie other Catholicke Godlie and learned Authours I answer that what the most of his Authours be I haue alreadie shewed and whereas he alleageth Tertullian S. Ambrose S. Hierom and others Schulkennius hath answered him that they are by him misconstrued Tertullian in his Apologeticut sayth Emperours are second to God and vndes his onlie power I answer that then Emperours were Pagans and so not subiect to the Church but to God onlie I answer secōdly that the Emperour and euerie absolute King Christian hath no temporall Superiour but God yet as Widdrington dareth not deny but that there is a spirituall power and Authoritie in the Chiefe Pastour aboue him which may punish him spirituallie so I say this power can in some case decree temporall punishment against him when spirituall punishment doth not preuaile Wheras S. Ambrose S. Hierom In Apol. n. 5. sequentibus Gregorius Turonensis alleaged by TViddrington say the Kinge is subiect to no lawes nor punishment but of God they meane that he is not subiect to his owne or any Tēporall Princes lawes and punishment but deny not but that he is subiect to Ecclesiasticall lawes power and may by that power be chastised by spirituall Censures and also temporall when the spirituall Censures are contemned In Apol. num 8. And whereas S. Augustine Pope Nicholas others alleaged by widdrington affirme that the Pope and Church hath no materiall or Temporall sword I graunt it because they by a materiall sword vnderstand temporall Authoritie to vse it and that the Pope hath not by Christs gift yet he hath from Christ as I haue aboue prooued a spirituall power by which he may commaund the Temporall sword as Widdrington him selfe acknowledgeth In Apol. n. 196. 197. and by this power he can decree temporall punishmentes when the spirituall censures will not take place though neither he nor the Church doth execute these temporall punishmentes especiallie of death and bloud it being a thing not beseeming the Church S. Leo ep 93. ad Turibiū Asturien Episcopum parum ab initio according to that of S Leo Ecclesiastica lenitas cruentas refugit vltiones The Ecclesiasticall lenitie escheweth bloudie reuenges And thus much cōcerning Widdringtons authours the examinatiō of which authours although it was not altogether necessarie Schulkennius hauing alreadie examined them yet I thought it some what requisit partlie because Schulkennius examination being in latin it cā not see easilie nor so generallie be made knowné to English men partlie because I haue examined diuerse Authours which Schulkennius did not and I haue added here and there something as facile est inuentis addere for more ample explication and now also vpon occasion of the sight of Widdringtons Appendix in which he answereth to Schulkennius Examination I haue brieflie refuted some of his Answers to Schulkennius touching his Authours Out of all this I gather that seing that WIDDRINGTONS Authours either make not for him or are of no or cracked credit or are quite opposite to him which it seemeth he him selfe now seeth and therefore in his Appendix reiecteth two of them and defendeth not the rest though prouoked by Schulkennius I may say that Widdrington amidst all his Authours standeth post alone and he but one opposeth him selfe not onlie to his Chiefe Pastours Censure but also against the current of all Catholicke and renowned Doctours and Authours CHAPTER XIIII By the doctrine and practise of heretikes the same against them is demonstrated and thence is inferred that the question betwixt vs and them is not so much whether the Pope hath any such authority as whether the Pope or they haue it 1. See The Protestats Apologie tract 3. sect 2. Gretser in comment exeget c. 7. The book of dāgerous pesitiont Sleidan lib. 18. hist fol. 263. li. 22. fol. 345 Osiander in Epit. Cēt. 16. pag. 526. Caluin in Dan. cap. 6. LAstlie I prooue this by the Protestantes and Reformers owne confession and practise alleaged by the Authour of the Protestants Apologie and many other authours To begin with Lutherans Sleydan and Osiander affirme that the Magdeburgians and other Lutheran Ministers defended resistance against the Magistrate and Prince as lawfull for defence of their Religion and therby excused the Rebellion which the Lutheran Princes made against the Emperour And if it be lawfull to resist
3. which S. AVGVSTINE sayth is a greater euill then to be killed by a sword consumed by fier or cast vnto wild beastes to be deuoured who doubteth but that he should be called the principall cause of the deposition he compelling the subiectes therunto by so great a punishment 40. Likewise as a forreine Prince may and is bound sometimes to defend Innocents so the Pope may licence and authorize yea and commaund him so to do he hauing authoritie as VViddrington auoucheth to commaund a Prince in tēporall matters and if at the Popes commaundement this Prince make warre vpon the Prince that intolerably molesteth Innocents in their faith and Religion as Victoria in the place before alleaged saith he may that which the Prince shall doe against the other tyrannizing Prince in the pursewing of his iust warre the Pope shal be said to do hee being the commaunder and consequently the principall agent And yet by this Clause of the Oath the subiects are commaunded to sweare that the Pope hath no authoritie to authorize any forreine Prince to anoy the King of England or to inuade his countries which is to abiure at least a probable opinion as certainely false which how it can be done with a good conscience I report me euen to VViddringtons large conscience But be this spoken to shew the daunger of swearing this Clause not to giue any scope against Kings or Princes whome I honour as God his Images and his Vicegerents in Earth The Third Clause Also I sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excōmunication or depriuation made or graunted or to be made or graunted by the Pope or his successours or by any authoritie deriued or pretended to be deriued from him or his Sea against the said King his Heires or successours or any Absolution of the sayd subiects from their obedience I will beare faith and true alleageance to his Maiesti◠his Heires and successours and him and them will defend to the vttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts what soeuer which shal be made against his or their persons their crowne and dignitie by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration or otherwise and will do my best endeuour to disclose and make knowne vnto his Maiestie his heires and successours all Treasons and Trayterous conspiracies which I shall knowe or heare of to be against him or any of them 41. Widdr. in Disp Theol. ca. 4. sect 1. n. 1. seqq Here VVIDDRINGTON insulteth against the learned Cardinall Bellarmine though the Phoenix for controuersies of this our age Cardinall Bellarmine sayth he Gretserus and Lessius contend that by this Clause is denyed to the Pope power to excommunicate which yet sayth he this Clause seemeth to suppose and the King professeth he had not the intention to denie But although this Clause seeme to suppose and the King in wordes seemeth to confesse or at least not to denie the Pope Authoritie to excommunicate yet in effect they denie it For depriuation of Regall Authority being an effect of excommunicating which ordinarily followeth excommunication of Kings and Princes in the deniall of the effect the cause is denied For as if you should say A man is not risibilis you should denie him to be homo so in denying that the Pope can depriue Princes of their Kingdomes you denie in effect tha he can excommunicate 42. Here WIDDRINGTON in his Newyearesgift insulteth against me for saying as he makes me to say that depriuation of Regall Authoritie is an effect of Excommunication as necessarilie following Excommunication as risibile followeth homo But if we looke into the matter narrowlie we shall finde he triumpheth before the victorie and counteth his chickins before they be hacht For first if we speake of the power of Excommunication and depriuation of which I speake but two lines before these wordes at which VViddrington carpeth I had shewed in the seauenth Chapter before that the power to excōmunicate which the cbiefe visible Pastour hath is one and the selfe same power with the power of depriuation and deposition which one power hath two actes and effectes the one principall and first intended called actus primarius and this is Excommunication or such like spirituall Censure and punishment the second is depriuation deposition and such like Temporall chastisement and correction which is actus secundarius a secundarie acte of the Chiefe Pastours spirituall power secondarilie intended when the first will not preuaile And these two actes are necessarilie belonging to the Popes spirituall power of Supremacie not that this power must needes alwayes exercise both or either of them but because the Pope can not haue this power but he must haue facultie to exercise them when a iust cause requireth it and so these two actes being necessarilie belonging to the Popes Supremacie he that denyeth him power to depriue or depose a Prince denyeth in effecte that he hath power to Excommunicate it being one and the selfe same power because the denyall of an effect necessarilie belonging to a cause is a virtuall denyall of the cause euen as to deny that fier can heate or rarifie is to deny it to be fier and to deny a man to be risibilis is to deny him to be man Secondlie if we speake of these two actes of this power although WIDDRNIGTON knoweth that the learned SVAREZ alleaged by him 2. p. Append contra Suarem sec 4. affirmeth that the suspension of Kinglie Authoritie is an effect of the acte of Excommunication I did not say that depriuation is alwayes an effect of the acte of Excommunication well knowing that although both these are so necessarilie belonging to the Popes power of Supremacie that it can not be without possibilitie of exercising them yet it is in his free choise to exercise either both or either of them and so he may excommunicate and not depriue and he may depriue as he did King CHILDERIC See Cap. Alius 15. q. 6. alleaged by me pag. 250. and not excommunicate And therfore I sayd onlie that depriuation of Regall Authoritie being aneffect of excommunication which ordinarilie followeth Excommunication of Kinges and Princes in the denyall of the effect the cause is denyed c. where WIDDRINGTON leaueth out those wordes which ordinarilie followeth because those wordes would haue made it plaine that I say not that depriuation is an effect of Excommunication in all Excommunicate persons but in Kinges and Princes nor alwayes in excommunicated Princes because a Kinge may be excommunicated and not deposed and he may be deposed as CHILDERIC King of Fraunce was and not Excommunicated but oftentimes and ordinarelie Cap. Alius 15. q. 6. because the Chiefe visible Pastour vseth not by name to excommunicere a Prince but he also ordinarilie especiallie in these later Ages deposeth him and for two reasons also the one because he ought not ordinatilie to proceede to so seuere a temporall punishment before he haue tryed whether the
that hateth This I am sure I giue you no other counsell then I would follow my selfe who haue that opinion of the vnlawfulnes of this oath that I would loose liuings libertie and life rather then take it not that I would not giue that to Caesar which is due to Caesar but that I would not take from God which appertaineth to God not that I neglect a temporal life and state but that I preferre the spirituall not that I despise the Prince to whom I acknowledge all tempor all obedience and honour but that I honour the Pastour who hath the rule of my soule not that I regard not the Common wealth but that I desire to liue and dy an obedient sonne of the Church not that I feare not them who can kill the bodie but that I feare God more who can kill the soule Matt. 10. 23. And my intention and proiect I protest of dedicating this Treatise vnto you was not to irritate any Prince but onlie to declare his Authoritie and office not to flatter any Prelate but onlie to defend his right not to increase your persecution but to ridde you of this Anathema which hath prolonged it not to adde affliction to affliction but courage to your fainting and comfort to your griefes to helpe them to rise that are sallen and to confirme them that stand that they may the better keepe their standing And this being my sincere intention I hope not onlie you but all others who shall peruse this booke will make their profit of it and interpret it in that good meaning which the Authour intended Our Lord IESVS for whose cause you endure either ease you of this burden of aduersities vnder which you grone or giue you strength to beare it comfort in bearing and make mee a follower of your rare examples an Imitatour of your patience and partaker of your merits as you shall euer be of my poore prayers and small labours A Preface To the Reader GEntle Reader I did not thinke to haue set out this little booke the second tyme much lesse did I intēd to adde any thing vnto it And although Widdrington in his New-yeares gifte hath of late here and there glanced against some words and speeches of myne where he imagined most aduantage yet I thought as I see other learned writers haue done to haue quite giuen him ouer and not to haue made the least replye as not being desirous to contend with such as are resolued not to yeelde hauing other businesses to many where with to occupie my self But the Printer who first tooke this booke in hād and other friends also īportuning me to let it come forth againe and alleadging that the copies of the first Edition were all spent and yet moe demaunded I was cōtent volens nolens yeelding herein more to importunitie then to myne owne inclination to publishe it once more and vpon this occasion of this new edition to adde here and there something either for a more ample explication or for answer to Widdringtons obiections I was willing I confesse and forward ynough the first tyme to write of this subiect For although as by an accident I was one of the last who wrote in the defence of this the chiefe visible Pastours Authoritie now in Englād impugned so I counted my selfe amongst the least yet as when an house is set on fire some carrie water others ladders and euerie one repayreth thether to shew at least his good will to extinguish it So in this Cōbustion in which not onlie Heretiques but also some of them who make profession of the Catholique name doe endeuoure to put fire euen to the secundarie foundation of God his Church to wit the chiefe vifible Pastours Authoritie I thought it the part of euerie zealous Catholicke to runne to the extinguishing of this fire for though all haue not the like dexteritie yet all may shew the like good will Which I hauing performed in the former Editiō of this little booke according to my abilitie I thought to haue surceased had not importunitie of friendes ouercome mee And therfore after this as I meane not to dispute any more of this point with thē with whōe as I gather by the repulse which greater men then my selfe haue receaued there is little hope to preuaile so I wish all Catholiques seing that they haue hearde their chiefe visible Pastours sentence to leaue of all Disputation touching this his Authoritie and simplie and humblie to obey his commādement and consequentlie to acknowledge the sayd Authoritie to refuse the Oath by him cōdemned and yet to obey the King our Soueraigne and Liege Lord in all ciuil and temporall causes to be faithfull to him and his Royall posteritie and to pray day lie for his maiesties longe and prosperous life that he may liue lōge to vs alwayes to God and so raigne longe in the Kingdome of England as he may raigne for euer in the Kingdome of heauen The Contents of the Chapters BY way of introduction it is shewed that there be two powers in the Church the one Ciuill the other Ecclesiasticall which are both necessary Chap. 1. Some Ciuill povver followeth immediatly from God and nature Regall povver proceedeth immediatly from the peoples election and Donation mediatly from Gods ordination Soe that after the election of the people and reception the king is superiour who may Command and bynde in conscience the people are subiects bound to obey Chap. 2. Ecclesiasticall power is also of God and is distinct from the Ciuill Iurisdiction which also all members of the Church are bound in conscience to obey Chap. 3. These two Iurisdictions and powers Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill are compared and conferred and the preeminence is giuen to the Ecclesiasticall Chap. 4. Ecclesiasticall and temporall Peeres and Princes are compared together and out of the Comparison is gathered that not only priuat laymen but euen temporall Princes though otherwise absolute are subiect to the Pastours of the Church and especially to the Supreme visible Pastour as is prooued by many arguments Chap. 5. That Princes Kings yea emperours haue no authority to gouerne the Church or to make Ecclesiasticall lawes neither are to be accounted heads or Superiours but subiects of the Church though protectours and defendours and therefore are modestly admonished of their duty and office Chap. 6. Although the Pope be not direct temporall Lord and Superiour of the world nor of any part therof by Christs expresse guift and donation but only of the patrimony of Sainct Peter giuen him by Constantine the Great and other Catholicke Princes and confirmed by the consent of the Christian world yet by the spirituall power which Christ gaue him in his predecessour S. Peter 10.21 he may dispose of temporall things and euen of kingdomes for the good of the church and conseruation of her and her faith right and the manner how and in what case he can thus dispose of temporalities is explicated chap. 7. By diuers places and
l. 3. Pol. ca. 5. there are three parttcular Kinds of gouernment The first is called Monarchia when one as King and Monarch gouerneth The second is called Aristocratia when diuers but few and those of the better sort equall in Authoritie do rule The third is called Democratia when many and those of the Common people rule The first gouernmēt of it selfe is best because it is easier to finde one good and wise man then few much more hard to find many and it is easier for many to obey one then many for to obey many there are two difficulties the one in those that obey and that difficultie is also found in a Monarchie the second in the commanders and this is lesse in a Monarchie then in other gouernments because one can better agree then many and so when one commandeth it is easier for the subiects to agree in one then when many command Vide Bellar li. 1. de Sum. Pont. c. 2 And hence it is that Tyrannie which is opposit to Monarchie is not so bad as Faction opposed to Aristocratie nor Faction of a few so bad as Sedition of the people opposite to Democratie 7. Now therefore as the Communitie as is before declared hath power to gouerne it selfe so hath it power to choose that gouernment which it liketh best whether it be one of the former three simple gouernments or some other mixt of two or of all three of them And if the Communitie chooseth Magistrates who shall depend of the whole Communitie then the Communitie is the chiefe gouernour the Magistrates are but officers and ministers and so may be deposed by the people some times at pleasure some tymes only vpon some vrgent occasion and alwayes when the chiefe Magistrate dyeth his heyres succeed not necessarily but only they whom the people make choise of This gouernment was amongest the Romanes when they were gouerned by Plebiscita and Senatours and is this day to be seene in the Common VVealth of the Venetians the Geneuians and those of Genua If the Communitie make choise of a King then the Communitie despoileth it self of Authoritie and becometh a subiect and as it were a priuate person and giueth all power and Authoritie to the King to gouerne not principallie for his owne priuate but for the common good of the whole Kingdome And hence it is that the Common wealth cannot depose a King as it may a Magistrate vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie 8. Hence appeareth a great difference betwixt the afore said power of the Communitie and the Regall power of the King because the former power of the Communitie followeth of necessitie the lawfull meeting of many in one societie in so much that it is not in the peoples power to meet with intention to liue together and not to haue that power and so this power dependeth not of any election but that the King or Peeres or the Magistrate rule and gouerne depended at the first of the election and free choise of the people in whose power it was to choose one or many to gouerne the rest and so Kinglie power is in deede of God but by meanes of election It is of God because it proceeded from the Communities power which is of God and Nature necessarilie following the naturall inclination which God hath imprinted in vs to liue in societie and yet it is in the King by free election because though the Communitie haue authoritie from God and Nature to rule it self yet that this power is giuen to the determinate person of the King dependeth of the peoples election 9. Now some thinke that supposing the peoples election God immediatelie giueth the power VVid. in Apolog. Rosp nu 163. pag. 128. This is the opinion of WIDDRINGRON in his Apologetical Answere for the right of Princes where he affirmeth that Quicunque in supremum Reipublicae superiorem legitimè deputatur c. VVhosoeuer is lawfully deputed as soueraigne Superiour of the common VVealth although he receaue that dedeputation or Title of power by the free consent of of men yet the totall power of ruling God onlie giueth vnto him by the law of Nature But VViddringron should haue marked that the people and Cōmunitie from which lawfullie assembled necessarilie floweth as aboue we haue seene a power to gouerne it selfe and to appoint gouernours not onlie designeth the person of the King but also trāsferreth her authoritie frō her selfe to the King and becometh herselfe a subiect and as it were a priuat person So that the Cōmunitie not onlie designeth the person of the King but also despoiling het selfe of the power she had from God and Nature giueth it vnto the person chosen and designed by her for King D. The. 2.2 qu. 10. a. 10. And thersore S. Thom. sayth that Dominion and prelacie Ciuill are brought in by humane lawe 10. VVhorein may be seene a manifest difference also betwixt the Pope and the King For the Cardinalles When they choose one of their companie to be Pope designe onlie his person as Caietan well obserueth but Christ only Caiet in opusc de Pont◠and not the Cardinalles after this deputation of his person giueth the power and iurisdiction it being supernatural as not only the end to which it is ordayned but also the Actes and functions of this iurisdiction doe manifestlie declare and therfore seing that a supernaturall Iurisdiction surpasseth the actiuitie of the Cardinalles they being but morall Agents and vsing no sacrament in the election and creation of the Pope he being ordinarilie Priest and Bishop before this Autoritie must be attributed only to God as the Authour but the Kings authority is naturall and morall ordayned only of it self to natural functions and to a natural end which is temporall peace and felicitie and so it not exceeding the Actiuitie of the people or Communities power may and is giuen by the people and consequentlie not only the deputation of the Kinges person but also his Regall Authoritie proceedeth immediately from the people 11. VVhence also may be gathered a difference betwixt the Authoritie which was in the Communitie before it made choise of a King and the Authoritie of a King for that Authoritie of the Communitie is immediately of God Nature proceeding necessarilie from a Communitie lawfullie assembled in somuch that it is not in the power of the Communitie to be without this power vnles it giue it to one or many gouernours but the Authoritie of the King doth not necessarilie flowe from this Communitie because it is in the free choise of the Communitie to make election of that gouernment in particular which it shall thinke best and so if it make election of a Monarchical gouernment and consequentlie of the King the King is to thanke the Communitie not only for the deputation of his person but also for his Regal Authoritie which being a naturall power and being before contained eminenter or virtualiter eminentlie or virtuallie in the Communities
power because as I haue saied the Communitie at first had authoritie to choose which gouernement in particuler it thought most conuenient is not to be ascribed immediatly to God D. Tho. 1.2 qu. 90. a. 3â— and. qu. 105. a. 1 ad 1. a second cause being found out sufficient to produce such an effect And so the Kings authoritie in particuler and taken determinatlie is not immediately of God or Nature but cometh to him by meantes not only of the peoples designation but also of the peoples gift and donation D. Th. 1.2 q. 105 ar 1. ad 1. and 2.2 q. 10. art 10. Caieta ib. Bellarm to 1. lib. 3. cap. 9. Suarez l. 3. de leg c. 4. Almai li. de potest eccl cap. 1. Prou. 8. Rom. 13. And this opinion is holden by the best Diuines both auncieÌ„t and moderne But this not withstanding it is most true which God saith Per me Reges regnant Kings raigne by me To which his Apostle subscribeth sayeing Non est potestas nisi à Deo itaque qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit There is no power but of God therfore he that resisteth the power restisteth the ordinance of God because Kinges authoritie proceedeth mediatelie from God to wit by meanes of the authoritie of the Communitie which proceedeth immediatelie from God and Nature and it is also Gods prouidence that Kinges raigne ouer vs and God as the first cause cooperateth to their election and creation and approoueth also the same But yet for all this the people is a second cause of Kinges authoritie 13. If any obiect that Saul and Dauid were immediately created by God Kinges of the Iewes I answere that God in this preuented the people for the peoples good for otherwise the Iewes by lawe of Nature had authority to choose and create them selues a King as is already prooued Neither doth it hence follow that the people is aboue the King or is not bound to obey the King or can depose the King at their pleasure for although the people at the first created the King yet they created him not as a simple Magistrate or officer but as an Absolute Prince and they dispoiled them selues of authoritie to giue it to the King as to one that can better rule then the confused multitude and became as it were 〈◊〉 priuate personne subiect not superiour â—o to King and so the Kinges power now 〈◊〉 so long at least as he is not an intolleâ—able Tyrant is not depending of the people â—nd no meruaile because many effectes which depend of their causes in fieri and in â—heir first production depend not of them â—n facto esse and conseruation So the Sonne â—â—ueth after his Father and fruite may be extant after the tree is consumed and we giue many thinges franckly and freelie which afterwards we can not at our pleasure â—ake away VVherfore as a freeman selleth â—im self freely but after the sale is so bound to his Maister that he can not free him self at his pleasure but remaineth will he nill he a subiect and bondman who before was a freeman so the people before the election of their King is free superiour but after is a bounden subiect and inferiour though by a Ciuil not despoticall subiectioÌ„ And so supposing this election the people is bound in conscience to obey their King as superiour and cannot now depose him vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie for then the common opinion holdeth D. Thom. Opus 20. de Regi Princ. cap. 1. Sotus l. 4 de Iust Iure q. 1. a. 3. q. 4. a. 1. Rom. 13. that the Authoritie which the people had in the beginning to create him returneth againe by deuolution to depose him but must obey him in lawfull thinges though he be difficile and gouerne not altogether as he should doe according to that Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit let euerie soule be subiect to higher powers and againe Itaque qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit therfore he that resisteth the power resisteth Gods ordinance And againe Ideoque necessitate subditi estote VVhich in Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ideo necessit as est subijci Therfore be subiect of necessitie and yet againe Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum 1. Pet. 2. siue Regi quasi praecelleÌ„ti c. Be subiect therfore to euerie humane creature for God whether it be to the King as excelling c. And as in the same chapter Saint PETER commandeth seruants to be subiect in all feare to their Maisters not only to the good and modest but also to the waiward so the people is bound to obey Kings Vide Lessium li. 2 dei â—st iure c. 9. dub 4. though Waiward and difficile yea though they be Tyrantes so that their first entrance be lawfull and they not deposed yea though their entrance were by vnlawfull Inuasion so that the people generallie did afterwards consent and accept of them as their Princes and superiours for to a superiour whilest he remaineth superiout and commandeth lawfull thinges obedience is due otherwise be he neuer so lawful if he command things vnlawfull we must obey God before men Act. 5. and the King before the Viceroy 14. But against that which I haue saied of the creation of Kinges by the peoples election some may obiect that nowadaies in all Europe almost all Kinges are made by succession as are the Kings of Spaine France â—nd England To this I answere that though this be so yet the source and origin of this is also the peoples election For at the first â—excepting those Kinges which extraordiâ—arilie were giueÌ„ immediately from God to the Iewes the people chose or approued â—he King but perceauing what difficultie and daunger also of tumults and sedition would ensue if after the death of their King they should be to seeke and stand vpon election of another they were conâ—ent that the lawfull heires of the first King â—hosen should succeed to his father without newe election although when the â—ewe King is crowned the peoples consent is demanded and the King is sworne vnto them And in Spaine the Archbishop of Toledo receaueth the Kinges oath in the name of the Church and people In France the Archbishop of Rhemes In England the Archbishop of Canterburie and so all Regall power though not immediatelie yet originallie cometh from the peoples election and donation 15. And therfore wee see that the Kinges power in diuers countries is diuersly limited as in France and England where many of the Kinges lawes are not taken to be of force vnles the Parlament of states concurre to the making or confirming of them which limitation VViddrington ascribeth to the King In Resp Apol n. 174. pa. 137. as though he did voluntarilie thus limit him self But who seeth not how vnlikely it is that Kinges should thus restraine their owne power and tye their owne hands
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
morall It must needs followe that the spirituall power excelleth the temporall as much as the obiects endes and actes of that doe surpasse this 7. Fourthlie that power is greater to which euen the Princes them selues are subiect then that to which the subiects and people onlie are subiect not the Prince for though the Prince be subiect to his owne sawes quoad vim directiuam yet not quoad vim â—perciuam but the Prince is subiect to the spirituall powet of the Church as much as â—he lowest and meanest of his subiects ergo â—he spirituall power of the Church is more â—minent then the Temporall power of the Prince or Common VVealth The Maior â—roposition is euident The Minor I shall â—rooue in the next Chapter wherfore the â—onclusion must needs followe 8. Hitherto I haue prooued that the spiâ—ituall and Ecclesiasticall power is more â—minent and noble then the Temporall â—nd consequentlie that the spirituall is â—igher in dignitie but whether it can comâ—and correct curb or restraine the temâ—orall I haue not as yet either prooued or declared for many things are more highe in dignitie then others which yet haue no authoritie to command or punnish As for example the Protestants of this time will not lett to graunt that the Pope is the highest Patriarch in dignitie yet they say he can not command out of his particular Diocese of Rome and all Diuines graunt that the power of the Church is more noble then any power of Princes or Emperours that being spirituall and supernaturall this onely temporall and yet they say that they that are not baptized be they Princes or subiects are not subiect vnto it so as the Church can command or punnish them spirituallie And the King of France is more eminent in dignitie then any of the noblest subiects of England or Spaine and yet hath no authoritie to command or punnish them for faultes committed out of his Realme Wherfore it resteth that I prooue that the Church by her spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power can command all Christians euen Heretickes that are baptized And this besides what hath been saied in the former Chapter to the proofe thereof I shall briefely yet cleerely shew by these ensewing arguments 9. For first the Ecclesiasticall superiours are true Pastours of the Church ergo they can not only direct but command and correct at least by spirituall paines and chastisements The Antecedent I prooue out of scripture Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe Ioan. 21. saied Christ to S. Peter and his successours and all Pastours in their kinde Ad Eph. 4. Christ saieth S. Paul gaue to his Church some Apostles some Prophetes and other some Enangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours Act. 20. And the same Apostle speaking to Pastours sayth Attendite vobis c. Attend to your selues and your whole flocke To which purpose also S. Peter addeth saying 1. Pet. 5. Pascite qui in nobis est gregem Dei Feede the flocke of God which is in you The consequence I prooue because to a Pastour it belongeth not onlie to feede by Sacramentes and the word of God but also to rule to gouerne and correct and consequentlie the Pastours of the Church can make lawes which bynd all Christians their subiectes in conscience and they can correct and punnish â—he delinquents at least by spirituall chastisements of Excommunication and other Censures 10. Mat. 18. Secondlie Christ gaue power by his Apostles and successours to bynde and loose which argueth Iursdiction 11. Thirdlie the Apostles and their succesâ—ours haue vsed this Authoritie ouer Chriâ—tians Act. 15. 1. Cor. 5. Tit. 1. 1. Cor. 7. 2. Cor. 10 for they enacted lawes in their first Councell Saint Paul excommunicated the â—ncestuous Corinthian They appointed Bishops and Priests to gouerne particuler Churches Saint Paule distinguisheth his â—wne power of making lawes from Christs And hee saith Arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt sed potentia Deo ad destructionem munitionum c. The weapons of our VVarfare are not carnal but mightie to God vnto the destruction of munitions destroying Counsels and all loftinesse extolling it selfe against the Knowledge of God c. and hauing in a readinesse to reuenge all disobedience c. 12. Fiftlie I proue it by a Theological Argument By Baptisme Christians are made true members of the Mysticall bodie of Christs Church no lesse then subiects are of the Kingdome or Politicall bodie D. Tho. 3. p q. 63. art 6 q. 68. a. 1. q. 69. a. 4 5. yea more because they are incorporated to the Church by a reall supernaturall and indelible Caracter But all members are so subiect to the head that the head by Authoritie may command correct and punish them if they transgresse ergo the Pastours of the Church and especiallie the chiefe Pastour hath Iurisdiction ouer all those that are baptized be they true Christians or Heretickes or Apostataes This I confirme by this congruence Euerie one is bound to the lawes of the Realme in which he was borne by reason that his natiuitie in that place maketh him a true member of that Kingdome as our Soueraine Liege himselfe well obserueth In praef monitor pag. 12. And seing that Baptisme is a regeneration and newe natiuitie by which we are borne in the Church for euen the Children of Heretickes though they be baptized by Heretickes if they be trulie baptized are borne in the Churche it followeth that all that are baptized are bound to obey the Church and chiefe Pastour of the Church to obserue her lawes and may be punished by the Church if they transgresse the same else the Church which is the most eminent state and Common wealth should be inferiour vnto the lowest and meanest Politicall common wealth that is for there is no lawfull common wealth but it can make lawes and punish the transgressours 13. Sixtlie the Church is an absolute Common VVealth and consequentlie hath Authoritie to make lawes to appoint spirituall Magistrates to call Councels and to decide controuersies to correct and punish Heretickes and Blasphemers and all sinne which are properlie opposite to her gouernment and Ecclesiasticall peace but this supposeth a legislatiue an commanding and not only a directiue but also a coerciue power ergo the Church and especiallie her chiefe Pastour Christs Vicaire hath such Authoritie l. 2. ff de Iurisd omnium Iud. cap. Praeterea de officio delegati This Argument I confirme thus The Ciuill lawe telleth vs Cui iurifdictio data est ea quoque concessa esse videntur sine quibus iurisdictio explicari non potuit To whom iurisdiction is graunted those things also seeme to be graunted without which the iurisdiction could not be explicated And againe Ex eo quod causa alicui committitur super omnibus quae ad causam ipsam spectare noscuntur plenariam recipit Potestatem In that a cause is committed to any he receiueth full power ouer all things which are known to pertaine
to the cause But the Pastours of the Church as is manifest out of the alleaged places of scripture haue Authoritie to gouerne and rule the Church and all the members and subiects thereof ergo they haue authoritie to do all those thinges which are necessarily belonging therevnto but they should not haue all power belonging therevnto vnlesse they haue a Power Legislatiue and not onlie directiue but also coerciue at least by spirituall paines ouer Christians and the lay power and temporall Iurisdictions ergo their spirituall power is not onlie aboue the temporall in dignitie but also in authoritie and power of commanding else they had not sufficient power to gouerne the Church which is committed vnto them 14. But because this veritie will appeare more by that which I shall alleage in the next Chapter to prooue that the Pastours of the Church haue spirituall authoritie ouer Kinges and Emperours I will here make an end desiring all wordlinges and Politikes who so inculcare obedience to Princes and secular power not to forgett their dutie and obedience to the Church and her Pastours who haue Authoritie as well as princes and greater then theirs and to thinke also with them selues that he that will not obey the Church Mat. 18. is to be held as an Ethnike and publican and that Deut. 17 if he that stubbornlie refused to obey the Highe priest in the olde lawe was to die for such disobedience what punishment remaineth for them who contemne Church and Pope which yet are in dignitie and power as farre aboue the synagogue and her priests and Bishops as the veritie surpasseth the figure the bodie the shadow the guift the promise Christ Moyses Christes preisthood that of Aaron Christes facrifice and Sacramentes those of the Iewes and synagogue CHAPTER V. Ecclesiasticall and Temporall peeres and princes are compared together and out of the Comparison is gathered that not only priuate laymen but euen temporall princes though otherwise absolute are subiect to the pastours of the Church and especially to the supreame visible pastour as is prooued by many arguments 1. I intend not by this comparison to detract the least from Kings and Princes Naziāz orat 17. ad ciues timore perculsos Psal 81. for I acknowledge their Authoritie to be of God them selues the Images and sonnes of God according to that Ego dixi Dij estis filij excelsi omnes I saied you are Godds and the sonnes of the highest all I will not let to giue them in a good sence those high titles with which the Romanes and Grecians stiled them who called them Filios Deorum Deos terrae Ioues mundi The sonnes of Goddes Goddes of the earth and Iupiters of the world for as God is the supreame Monarch of the world so are they of their Kingdomes in the gouernment wherof they imitate the Monarchicall gouernment of the world I graunt that a King in respect of the laitye is as the eye and head in the bodie as she sunne amongst the planets as the Cedar amongst Trees as gould amongst metalles as fier amongst the Elements as the sea amongst waters I will willinglie acknowledge him the second person after God and onlie lesser then God in temporall Authoritie Tertul. l. aduersus Scap. c. 2. 2. But yet it is not one of Kings least honours to acknowledge thē selues sonnes of the Church Ambros orat in Auxentium as S. AMBROSE tould Valentinian the Euiperour And therfore as Priests are content to giue to the King and Prince that honour which is due vnto them so Princes must not disdaine to giue to Priess their due respect and right Princes I graunt are called Gods by participation and the anointed of God so are Priests and in this kinde greater Gods then they because they approche nearer vnto the true God and only God by essence who therfore is called Deus Deorum Psal 49. 135. God of Goddes and their consecration and anoynting being a Sacrament is farre holier then that of Kings for which cause CONSTANTIN called the Bishopes of NICE his Gods Ruf. l. 1. Cap. 2. and would not be Iudge of them to whose iudgement he was to stand and as Princes are Kinges so are Priests and by so much greater Kinges then they by how much it is more to be a Kinge of soules then bodies wherfore the scriptures alleaged in the former Chapter which giue to the spirituall power a superioritie and authoritie ouer the temporall do prooue also that Bishops and especiallig the High and chiefe Pastour are euen Kings Pastours Ioan. 21 and superiours For when Christ bad PETER feede his sheepe he made him Pastour ouer all Christians and so the King if he wil be a sheepe of Christ must be a sheepe of PETER and consequentlie of the Pope his successour Mat. 18. and must acknouwledge him his Pastour And When Christ saied Dic Ecclesiae c. Tell the Church and if he will not beare the Church let him be vnto thee is an Ethnick and Publican Did he exempt Princes from the Churches Tribunal And when he saied What soeuer you shal binde vpon earth Mat. vlt. shal be bound in heauen were Princes excepted No no. If Princes will be members of the Church they must be subiect to the visible Head therof If they will be sheepe of Christ they must acknowledge PETER and the Pope his successour for their Pastour 3. Neither can their temporall soueraintie exempt them for that only maketh them so absolute that they are subiect to no temporall power yet remaine they notwithstandinge subiect to the spirituall power of the Church and as subiect as the lowest Christian and haue no more commaund ouer the Church then the meanest of the people True it is that they are defendours or ought so to be and Protectours of the Church Pastours and superiours they are not but sheepe and inferiours And therfore after that the Prophet Esaye had saied Erunt Reges nutritij tui c. Esai 49. Kinges shall be thy nourcing Fathers to shewe that this importeth no superioritie ouer the Church he addeth VVith countenance cast downe toward the ground they shall adore thee the Churche and they shall licke vp the dust of thy feete 4. And this I proue first by reason grounded in faith and Diuinitie For the King by Baptisme is made as trulie a member of the Church as the meanest Christian and is incorporated as deepelie by the Caracter of Baptisme as any hee is regenerated and borne againe as much as any else he should not be so good a Christian as others And seing that by this incorporation and natiuitie as is before declared the Pastours especiallie the chief Pastour who is Head of this bodie hath power ouer all Christians it followeth that he hath also power ouer Kinges and so as the King can punnish rebelles Malefactours cast them out of the Realme by banishement so may the Chiefe Pastour punnish a rebellious King
The Archbishop of Canterburie ouer the King of England The Archbishop of Rhemes ouet the King of France Gregor Naziâz orat 17. ad Pop. timore perculsuÌ„ prino Iras Vide cap. suscipitisne dist 10. and other Bishops ouer other Kinges S. GREGORIE Nazianzen challenged authoritie ouer Valentinian the Emperour for in an Oration which he made to his Citizens stricken with Feare and to the angrie Prince and Emperour conuerting his speech to the Prefects and euen to the Emperour him self thus he speaketh An me liberè loquentem eqno animo feretis Nam vos quoque potestati meae meisque subsellijs lex Christi subijeit Imperium enim ipsi quoque gerimus addo etiam praestantius ac perfectius nisi verò aequum est spiritum carni fasces submittere caelestia terrenis cedere Sed non dubito quin hanc dicendi libertatem ô Impervtor in optimam partem accepturussis vâ—pote facrimeigregis ouis sacra Magnique Pastoris Alumna rectèque iam inde à primis annis à spiritu ducta instituta Sanctaeque Beatae Trinitatis lumine aequè ac nos ipsi illustrata Will you take in good part that which I shall speake freely For the law of Christ doth subiect you also vnto my power and Tribunals for wee also beare rule and hauc an Empirè and that more eminent and perfect vnlesse a man should thinke it fitt for the spirit to be subiect to the flesh and that things celestiall should yeeld to things that be terrene But I doubt nor ô Emperour but that thou wilt take in good part this my freedome of speech as being a holy sheepe of my holy flocke brought vp vnder the Great Pastour and so from tender yeares well guided and instructed by the spirit and illuminated by the light of the Holy and blessed Trinitie no lesse then wee our selues S. AMBROSE excommunicated Theodosius for a slaughter committed Theodoret lib. 5. hist cap. 18. and a ciuill law enacted at Thessalonica and would not admit him into the Church till he had done pennance and recalled the former law Ita demum sayeth Theodoret Diuw Ambrosius vinclis illnm exoluit templum introire sidelissimus Imperator ausus non stans neque genibus flexis supplicabat Domino sed pronus humi stratus So at length S. Ambrose absolued him from the bonds of his excommunication when as the most faithfull Emperour presuming to enter into the Church did not either standing or kneeling make his praiers vnto our Lord but lying prostrate vpon the ground And when the Emperour after he had bene at the Ossertorie would haue stayed in the Chancell S. Ambrose sent him worde by a Deacon that that was the place onlie for Priestes and those of the Clergie which comaundement also the Emperour obeyed so willinglie that when afterwards at Constantinople the Patriach Nectarius would haue had him stayed in the Chancell he answered Vix cum gemitu didici discrimen inter Imperatorem sacerdotem vix inueni Doctorem veritatis I haue scarcely learned with sorrow the difference betwixt the Emperour and the Priest I haue scarcelie fouÌ„d a Doctour of the truth 9. Fourthlie I prooue this not only by the factes of Popes but also by their definitions in which Popes are to be credited though in their owne cause because most if not all of them were so learned that they knew what belonged to their Authoritie and so iust and holy also that they would not vsurpe what belonged not vnto them ADRIAN Pope maketh this decree Cap. vlâ— Suorum capitulorum c. gencrali 25. q 1. Generali decreto statuimus vt execrandum Anathema veâ—uti praeuaricator Catholicae fidei semper apud Deum reus existat quicunque Regum vel Potentum deinceps Romanorum Pontificium decretorum censuram in quocunque crediderit vel permiserit violundam Wee ordaine by our Generall decree that he bee before God as an Anatheme and as a Preuaricatour whosoeuer of the Kinges or potentates shall thinke or permit to be violated in any thinge the censure of the Romane Bishops Cap. duo sunt dist 96. and decrees GELASIVS Pope hauing tould Anastasius how by two powers Ecclesiasticall and Temporall the world is gouerned and that the Priests burden is so much the greater in that they are to answer for Kinges comportement in the diuine iudgement he addeth Nosti itaque inter haec ex illorum te pendere iudicio non illos ad tuam redigi posse voluntatem Thou knowest therfore that thou dependest of their Iudgement and that they are not to be subiect to thy will And therfore saieth he many Popes haue excommunicated diuers Kinges and Emperours Pope IOHN also sayth Cap. si Imperator dist 96. Si imperator Catholicus est quod salua pace illius dixerimus filius est non Praesul Ecclesiae If the Emperour be a Catholike by his good leaue be it spoken he is a sonne not a Prelate of the Church And afterward he addeth Imperatores Christiani subdere debent executiones suas Ecclesiasticis Praesulibus non praeferre Christian Emperours must submitte their executions vnto Ecclesiasticall Prelates and not preferre Cap. solita de â—nior â—bed INNOCENTIVS the third saieth That as God in the beginning of the world created two great lightes the Sunne and Moone and appointed that to rule the daie this the night so in the firmament of the Churche he hath placed two great lightes to wit Regall and Ecclesiasticall power that to rule the night of Temporall thinges this the day of spirituall thinges And this sayth he is by so much greater then that by how much the SuÌ„ne surpasseth the Moone And againe in the same place he saith That CHRIST excepted no Christians when he commanded PETâ—R and in him his successours to feed his sheepe vt alienum à suâ— demonstraret ouili qui Petrum successores eius Magistros non recognosceret Pastores To shew that he is an alien from his flocke who doth not acknowledge PETER and his successoures to bee his Masters and Pastours 10. Fiftlie I proue it by the Authoritie of Fathers and Bishops that were no Popes Ambr. orat in Auxent quae extat lib 5. epist eius post epist 32. yet great Saintes S. AMBROSE speaketh in this point plainlie Soluimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo Tributum Caesaris est non negatur Ecclesia Dei est Caesari vtique non debet addici quia ius Caesaris esse non potest Dei templum Quod cum honorificentia Imperatoris nemo dictum potest negare Quid enim honorificentius quà m vt Imperator filius Ecclesiae esse dicatur Wee haue payed to Caesar what thinges belong to Caesar and to God what is appertaining to God Tribute belongeth to Caesar and is not denyed him The Church is Gods and therfore is not to be giuen to Caesar because the Church of God can not be Caesars right
Which no man can denie but that it is spoken with the Emperours honour for what more honourable then that the Emperour should be called the sonne of the Church And then say I if he be a sonne he is a subiect no lesse then the sonne to the father The same Doctour in a booke wrote of Priestlie Dignitie sayth yet more Honor sublimitas Episcopalis sayeth he nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Lib. de dignit sacerd cap. 2. Si Regum fulgori compares Principum Diademati longè erit inferius quà m si plumbi metallum ad auri fulgorem compares quippe cum videas Regum colla Principum submitti genibus sacerdotum exosculatis ecrum dexteris orationibus eorum credant se communiri The honour dignitie and Highnes of a Bishop cannot be equalized by any comparisons If thou compare it to Kinglie lustre and the diademe of Princes thou shalt say lesse then if thou shouldst coÌ„pare lead to the glittering gould for as much as thou seest Kinges and Princes neckes submitted to the knees of Priests and theÌ„ selues kissing their right handes to be waranted by their prayers Hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae S. CHYSOSTOME Regi corpora commissa sunt sacerdoti auima Rex maculas corporum remittit sacerdos autem maculas peccatorum Ille cogit hic exhortatur Ille necessitate hic consilio Ille habet armasensibilia bic arma spiritualia Ille bellum gerit cum Barbaris mihi sacerdoti bellnm est aduersus Daemones Maior hic Principatus propterea Rex caput submittit manui sacerdotis vbique in veteri scriptura sacerdotes inungebant Reges To the King bodies are committed to the Priest soules The King forgiueth the punishments of the bodie the Priest the blottes and blemishes of sinnes He compelleth the Priest exhorteth he by necessitie this by counsell he hath sensible weapons this spirituall he makes warre against the Barbares I the Priest am to wage battaile against the deuils Greater is this Principalitie and therfore the King inclineth his head to the hand of the Priest and euerie where in the old Testament Priests did annoint Kinges And againe SiquideÌ„ sacerdotiuÌ„ Principatus est Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae ipso etiaÌ„ regno venerabilius ac maius c. Because Priest hoode is a Principalitie and that greater and more venerable then the Kingdome Speake not to mee of the purple and diademe and goulden robes these all be but shadowes and more vaine then springe flowers Speake not to mee of these thinges but if thou wilt see the difference betwixt a King and a Priest way the power giuen to them both and thou shalt see the Priest fitting much higher in dignitie then the Kinge For a though the Throne of a Kinge seeme to vs admirable for the pretious stones wherewith it is couered yet he hath allosted him onely the administration of earthlie thinges But to the Priest a throne is placed in heauen and he hath authoritie to pronounce sentence in heauenlie businesses Who sayth so Mat. 18. The King of the heauens him selfe What soeuer you shall bynde vppon earth shall be bound also in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose vppon earth shal be loosed also in heauen What can be compared with this honour from earth heauen taketh the principall power of iudging For the iudge sitteth on earth our Lord folioweth his seruaunt and whatsoeuer he shall iudge heere below that he approueth aboue And a little after Eoque Deus ipsum regale caput sacerdotis manibus subiecit not erudiens quod hic Princeps est illo maior Siquidom id quod minus est benedictionem accipit ab eo quod praestantius est And so much God hathsubmitted the Kinges head to the handes of the Priest teaching vs that this Prince is greater then he for he that is lesse receaueth benediction from him that is greater Yea S. CHYSOSTOME giueth not only Bishops but also euen Deacons Hom. 33. in Matth hom 83. in eund Authoririe ouer Kings Si dux igitur quispiam saieth he si Consul ipse si qui diademate ornatur indignè adeat cohibe ac coërce maiorem tu illo potestatem habes If therfore any Capitaine or Consul if he that is adorned with a diademe approach vnworthilie keepe him backe and restrayne him thou hast greater power then he And to this purpose we read that S. Re. MIGIVS the Apostle of France Histoire de l'Eglise de Reins lib. 1. cap. 13. a little before his death commanded the Bishops to excommunicate the Kinges of France if they should waste or inuade the Churches But aboue all most forcible is the testimonie of Ignat. Epist ad Smyrn S. IGNATIVS an Apostles scholler who so extolleth Princelie dignitie that yet he giues the precedence vnto the Bishops authoritie Honora Deum sayth he vt omnium authorem Dominum c. Honour God as the Authour and Lord of all and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests bearing the Image of God and houlding his princedome of him and his Priesthood of Christ And after him you must honour also the King For none is to be prefered before God nor equal to him nor none more honourable in the Church then the Bishop exercising the Priesthood of God for the saluation of the world Neither is any equall to the King in the Hoste or Campe procuring peace and beneuolence to the other Princes vnder him For he that honoureth the Bishop shal be honoured of God and he that dishonoureth him shall of God be dishonoured For if any man rising against the King is worthie of damnation how shall be escape Gods Iudgements that attempteth any thing against or without the Bishop For Priesthood is the Chiefe and summe of all mans good which whâ— soeuer disgraceth dishonoureth God and our Lord IESVS Christ the Chiefe Priest of God 11. Sixtlie this I proue by Emperours and Kings proper confession who all of them haue acknowledged Bishops and especiallie the Chiefe Bishop of Rome their Fathers Pastours and superiours and those that haue supreame authoritie ouet them CONSTANTINE the Great in an â—ict of his shortely after his baptisme â—saieth thus Cap. CoÌ„stantinus 2. dist 96. Vtile iudicauimus c. vt sicut in terris Beatus Petrus Vicarius filij Dei videtur esse constitutus it a etiam Pontifices qui ipsius Principis Apostolorum vices gerunt Principatus potestatem amplius quà m terrenae Imperialis Nostrae Serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur concessam à nobis nostroque Imperio obtineant Wee haue Iudged it profitable that as blessed Peeter is appointed the vicaire of the sonne of God in earth so also Bishops who are Vicegerents of this Prince of the Apostles should haue more amplie the power of principalitie graunted by vs and our Empire Ruffin lib. 1. cap. 2. then our terrene Imperiall Serenitie seemeth to haue And Russinus relateth how that when certaine Bishops assembled at
appertained to military affaires And so from the first establishing of the law of Moyses the Temple and Synagogue was committed to the Tribe of LEVI the scepter and regall Authoritie was giuen to the Tribe of IVDA in like sort in the law of Grace when the Church came to her greatest perfection Christ appointed particularly Apostles Doctours Ephes 4. and Pastours to gouerne the Church and confirmed Princes in their temporall Authoritie commanding that obedience should be giuen to the Pastour in spirituall matters and to the Prince in temporall Mat. 22 Rom. 13 2. VVherfore least in giuing one of these Potentates too much Mat. 22 I may do iniutie to the other I must follow our Sauiours Commandement and so giue to Cesar that which belongeth to him that I take not from God and his Church what appertaineth to them And although in giuing both but their due I may perchance displease one yet if I may haue that indifferent audience which the grauitie and equitie of the cause requireth I hope to offend neither and how soeuet it happen I had rather displease then do wronge or iniurie And wheras in our Iland by the sway of Authoritie and terrour of lawes it hath bene made High Treason to denie the Prince Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall I protest that what I shall say in this matter proceedeth not from any disloyall minde towards my Princes true Authoritie nor from any itching desire I haue to lay open the disgrace of my Countrie which I would rather couer if it were possible with my owne life and bloud and to discharge my self from all iust imputation of Treason I desire to haue the leaue to plead this onlie for my defence that if this be Treason in mee not onlie all Catholick Priests Doctours and Prelates of the Church but also all the ancient subiectes not onlie of England but of all other Christian Countries must incurre the same imputation with me because there was neuer Christians before our English Protestants that gaue Ecclesiasticall power to Princes and there was neuer King of England or of any other Countrie what soeuer that euer was so hardie as to challenge such Authoritie before King HENRIE the Eight which his Challenge seemed so preposterous and monstrous that all the World stood and to this day standeth amazed at it and euen our Puritanes at home and all the new sectes abroade do abhorre and derest it And I in this Chapter shall bring such Argumentes against it that I hope that euen our English protestants who hitherto haue adored it wil be ashamed hence forth to submitt them selues to so monstrous Authoritie 3. My first Arguments shall be drawen from scriptures them selues For if the King had any such Authoritie then no doubt scripture which â—s aboue wee haue seene so often inculcateth Princes Authoritie in matters temporall would neuer haue kept silent this Ecclesiasticall power if they had had any such this being the greater and more eminent but scripture neuer giueth Princes this Authoritie neuer commandeth Christians to obey them in Ecclesiasticall matters but rather giueth that Authoritie to Apostles Bishops and Pastours and Commandeth obedience in this kinde to them not to Princes ergo Princes haue no Authoritie to command in Ecclesiasticall matters The Minor Proposition in which onlie consists the difficultie I proue out of those places of Scripture which aboue I haue alleaged and here will bring in againe yet to another purpose For to S. PETER no Temporall Prince but an Apostle and Pastour was promised the headship of the Church and consequently the soueraintie and supreame power of the Church Tues Petrus super hane Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Mat. â—6 The Hebrew hathâ— Thou art a Rocke and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And seing that to PETER it was sayd Thou art a Rocke to him also and not to CHRIST the Chiefe and independent Rocke nor to the faith of Christ as our Aduersaries would haue it it must needs be sayd and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church because the Relatiue This hath relation to him that was spoken of imediatly before which was only PETER not CHRIST nor the faith of CHRIST and therfore the Rocke and foundation of the Church and Head being all one it followeth that PETER and consequently the Pope his successour for the Church after PETERS tyme had as much neede or rather more of a Head and Pastour as in PETERS tyme and none euer practized Authoritie ouer all the Church but the Pope as all Councels and histories do witnesse is the supreme Head of the Church and so not euerie King no not any King in his Kingdome Apostles Prophetes Euangelists Pastours and Doctours onlie CHRIST gaue to gouerne his Church as S. PAVLE sayth not Princes Ephes 4. Mat. 18 To Apostles it was sayd VVhat soeuer you shall binde vpon earth shall be bound also in Heauen and what soe-euer you shall loose vpon earth shall be also loosed in heauen Ioan. 20 Neuer to Princes To Apostles it was said VVhose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained Neuer to Princes Of Bishops and Priests it was sayd Neb. 13. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as being to render account for your soules of Princes neuer rather they by these wordes are commanded also to obey Act. 20. To Bishops it was sayd Take heedâ— to your selues and the whole flocke wherein the Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church which he hath purchased with his owne bloud to Princes neuer To a Bishop it was sayd Tit. 1. For this cause I left thee in CRETE that thou thouldst reforme the things that are wanting and thouldst order Priests by Cities as I also appointed thee To Princes neuer 4. I will not denie but that Princes are to assist the Church by sword scepter and Power and to punnish at the Churches direction not onlie Theefes and murderers but also Hereticks as CONSTANTINE and other Emperours did I graunt that they are nourcing Fathers Isay 49. but no Superiours to the Church And therfore if we read ouer both the old and new Testament we shall neuer finde that any King as King medled in the gouernment of Ecclesiasticall persons and matters 5. Bilson when he was VVardon of VVinchester wrote a booke called The True Difference betwixt Christian subiection and Vnchristian Rebellion in which he striueth but in vaine to prooue that the Prince hath supreme Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and gouernment of the Church And to prooue this he citeth Nabuchodonosor Darius Par. 2. pag. 191 the King of Niniue Moyses Iosue Dauid Salomon Asa Iosaphat Ezechias Manasses Iosias and Nehemias as though they had gouerned the Ecclesiasticall affaires of the Synagogue In Tortura Torti pa. 363. So doth also D. ANDREWES But if I should graunt them that all these were by God appointed Rulers of
the Synagogue yet could it not thence be inferred that Princes are to gouerne the Church of Christ For first the Synagogue was more terrene and Lesse perfect then the Church and so as their sacrifices and Priests were terrene in respect of ours so God might haue giuen them terrene Princes for their chiefe Ecclesiasticall superiours which manner of gouernment is not to be made a patterne for the gouernment of the Church of CHRIST this being a more perfect common wealth more spirituall gouerned by more spirituall Pastours enriched with a more spirituall sacrifice and Sacraments Secondlie if Princes then were rulers of the Synagogue it was by Gods speciall and Indiciall law and seing the Iudiciall and Ceremoniall lawes are abrogated they can not binde Christians or if Bilson will needs haue it that Christian Princes must now gouerne the Church because they then ruled the Synagogue one might inferre that the Ministers of England must be circumcized and must offer Caldes because then the Iewish Priests did so VVherfore that law as Ceremoniall and Iudiciall being abrogated we must looke to the new law in which not withstanding there is no one Text or example that giueth Princes the rule of the Church Thirdlie I answere that none of all the Kings alledged by D. Bilson and D. Andrewes did gouerne the Synagogue in Ecclesiasticall matters but did onlie assist the priests that gouerned and punnished Malefactours and transgressours of the law Suarez according to the prescript of the law interpreted by the Priests as Suarez in his answere to our soueraine hath learnedlie declared 6. The second argument against Princes spirituall supremacie shall be this If a Prince hath authoritie to gouerne the Church of his Kingdome either he hath it preciselie because he is a King or because he is a Christian King but by neither of these waies he hath it ergo by no way he hath it Not because he is a King for Kinglie power only medleth with temporall and humane matters and therfore Kings are called Humanae Creaturae 1. Petri. 2. humane creatures and they haue their authoritie from the people in manner afore sayd which people can giue no Ecclesiasticall power that being spirituall and supernaturall yea if Kings as Kings had this Authoritie then the Kinges which raigned in the Apostles time though Infidels should haue been Heads of the Church although they were no members at all and consequentlie NERO should haue been Head of the Church and all the Apostles and the sheepe of Christ had bene committed to a Rauening Wolfe which though it be most absurd to imagine yet TOMSOM as BECANVS in his booke entituled the English Iarre reciteth is not ashamed to auouch it saying Omnes Principes etiam Pagani obiectiuè habent supremam potestatem in omnes omnino personas suorum subditorum generatim in res ipsas siue ciuiles sunt siue sacrae All Princes euen Paganes obiectiuelie haue supreme Authoritie ouer all the persons of their subiectes and generallie ouer their goods whether they be Ciuill or holy Not because he is a Christian King because Baptisme by which he is made a Christian and member of the Church giueth the King no new power no more then it doth to others that are baptized And therfore if before Baptisme he be no Head of the Church neither is he after Baptisme rather Baptisme as aboue we haue seene maketh him a subiect to the Church wheras before he was not and only giueth him a new charge to obey serue and assist the Church VVherby it may appeare how fowlie Doctour ANDREWS was deceiued when he sayd That an Ethnick King when he becommeth a Christian gaineth and getteth a new right and power ouer the Church and Spirituall matters for these are his wordes Quin Rex quiuis Tortura Torti pag. 40. cum de Ethnico Christianus fit non perdit terrenum ius sed acquirit ius nouum in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus Yea euery King when of an Ethnike he becometh Christian doth not loose his terrene right but getteth a new right in the spirituall goods of the Church And Citing Bellarmine he sayth Omnia haec Dominus tuus totidem verbis All those things thy Master Bellarmin in so many words affirmeth Bollar lib. 5. de Pont. ca. 2. 3. as though Bellarmine had affirmed that a Pagan King were Head of the Church and had right and power in spirituall matters whereas Bellarmine is too learned to make so grosse an errour and only affirmeth That Pagan Kings are true Princes and Lords of their Countries 7. But perchance they will say that the Prince hath this Authoritie by a speciall Graunt from God him self This they may say but with how little reason may appeare by that which alreadie I haue handled in this Chapter for I haue prooued out of scripture that Christ gaue all Authoritie concerning the gouernment of the Church to his Apostles and their successours and not any at all to Kings and Princes VVhich because our state pleasers perceaued well enough they are enforced to play the Iewes and to alledge examples out of the old law as D. Bilson and D. ANDREWS do which examples not witstanding as I haue shewed do not firt their purpose for they knew and D. ANDREWS confesseth saying Exemplum inde nobis snmendum est Tortura Torti pa. 363. cum in Testaemento nouo nullum habeamus Thence wee must take an example since in the new Testament we haue none that there is not one text or example in the new Testament that giues Princes any power ouer the Church but rather giueth it from them vnto the Pastours 8. Thirdlie if Princes were supreme Commanders in Ecclefiasticall matters and gouerment of the Church the gouernment of the Church should not be Monarchiall which yet is the best gouernment Aristoâ— l. 8. Eth c. 1â— Plato in Poli. Senec lib. 2. de Benef Plut. in opusc â—a de re Homer 2. Iliad Iustorat ad gent. Athan. orat ad Idola Gypr lib. de vanit IdoloruÌ„ Mat. 16. Ioan. 21. as Aristocle with all the best Philosophers and auncient Fathers do affirme and was in deed chosen by Christ for his Church as the writers of this time prooue out of scripture and especiallie out of those wordes spoken to S. Peter Thou art Peter and on this Rocke will I build my Church and those also Pafce oues meas seede my sheepe but rather if Kinges were euerie one head of the Church in their Kingdomes the gouernmeÌ„t of the Church should be Aristocraticall because the Church should be gouerned by diuers Princes which were most inconuenient in the Church and subiect to schismes and tumultes For if euerie King be supreme Head in his Kingdome when a Generall Councell should be called as his Maiestie of England desireth I demand who should call it The Emperour the Kinges of England Spaine and France though they giue him precedence in place and honour yet they pretend by prescription and
other Titles to be quite exempt from him and subiect to none in temporall matters And seing that this supremacie in Ecclesiasticall matters either is not distinguished from their Regall Authoritie or is necessarilie annexed vnto it as they refuse to be subiect in temporall matters so might they in Ecclesiasticall The King of England Why he rather then the King of France The King of France why he rather then any of the others Yea if these Kings pretend not to be subiect to the Emperour much more may they claime exemption from one anotherr 9. If any answere that by Common consent they may either choose one to call the rest or being all equall they may meete altogether in one neither will this serue For as for the first meanes it is morally impossible because Kinges who haue high aspiring mindes would neuer be drawen to subiect them selues to any and so whilst euerie one would be Chiefe none should be Chiefe The second meanes is as impossible for first where shall they meet Certes no King will easilie leaue his Kingdome and so euerie one would be desirous to haue the Councell in his Countrie yea euerie one would refuse to haue such a meeting in his Kingdome for feare of daunger But suppose they meete when they are mett how shall they agree especiallie they being commonly of diuers Religions for if a King in that he is a King is to iudge in matters of the Church euery King hath right to be of this Councell and so the Turke the Persian the Muscouite shall haue place in this Councell If you say that not euerie King but onely Christian Kinges are Heads of the Church in their Kingdomes then at least Catholick Lutheran and Caluinian Kinges must be of the Councell and how shall these agree who shall moderat seing there is no more reason of one then another If you say that Bishops must be the Men that must make Decrees and Canons and conclude all in this Councell This they cannot do without Kinges if euerie King be supreme Head in their Countrie and therfore it was enacted accordinglie in the Parlament holden by King HENRIE the Eight in the twenty sixt yeare of his raigne That he should be reputed supreme Head of the Church of England and should haue all the honours Authorities and commodities belonging there vnto Amongst which honours the Principall and that which is necessarilie annexed vnto the Headship of the Church is to call Councels and to sitt as Chiefe Iudge in them See Poulton â—n his AbridgemeÌ„t of the statutes Sander de Schis Angl. And Queene ELIZABETH had also graunted vnto her by a Parlament in the first yeare of her raigne all power for the correction and reformation of the Clergie for the iudgements and punishmeÌ„ts of schismes and heresies for nominating of Bishops and for calling of Synods and that with such ample Authoritie that nothing should be decreed in any Synod with in the Realme without expresse licence and consent of the Queene And if the Bishops in the Councell agree not as I see not how they can if there be no one amongst them that can command who shall be the man that shall take vp the matter amongst them If you say the Kings I demand who shall beare the sway amongst them And so to make Kinges Heads of the Church in their Kingdomes is to hinder all Generall Councels which yet heretofore haue been so oft assembled by the Authoritie of the Pope to the great profit peace and vnitie of the Church 10. Fourthlie if Princes in that they are Princes or Christian Princes were Heades of the Church in their Realme then Children might be Heades of the Church yea and women also for they are capable of Regall Authoritie wheras not withstaÌ„ding the Wiseman pronounceth a vae curse to the land whose King is a Child Ecclesiastes 10. And much more woe it were to a Church whose head is a Child Surely S. PAVL 1. Cor. 14 that commands women to be silent in the Church would neuer haue permitted such to gouerne the Church And yet after King HENRIE had arrogated this monstrous power in a King to make it ridiculous to the world God permitted that next after him a Child came to be King the Head of the Church of England and next but one after the Child a womaÌ„ succeeded also in the like authoritie 11. Fiftlie to make enerie King supreme Head of the Church in his Kingdome destroyeth the vnitie of the Church for wheras there are three especiall and essentiall Vnities in the Church to wit Vnitie of Head and one gouernment Vnitie of one faith Vnitie of the same externall profession and worship of God by the same rites and Sacramentes If we receaue euerie Prince in his Realme for Head of the Church these three Vnities can not long be conserued For as for the first Vnitie though our Aduersaries would say that it may well be conserued in CHRIST who is the principall and onely principall and absolute Head yet because CHRIST is now ascended to his Father and conuerseth no more visibly amongst vs besides him the Church which is a Visible Congregation and bodie standeth in neede of a visible Head else should she be visibly headlesse and imperfect And therfore as scripture hath declared CHRIST for our soueraine and invisible head Ioan. 10 Vnum ouile vnus Pastor One fould Ephes 1. one Pastour And againe Ipsum dedit caput supra omnem Ecclesiam God the Father made him head ouer all the Church which is his bodie So doth scripture and CHRIST him self in scripture point out another vnderhead and visible Pastour Mat. 16. saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church and againe Pasâ—e oues meas feede my sheepe that is all Christians Ioan. 21 and so PETER was in his time and his successour the Pope now is Chiefe Head and visible pastour ouer all Christians and consequentlie ouer all Bishops euen in a Generall Councell vnlesse they will denie them selues to be the sheepe of Christ. And this Vnitie was necessarie to conserue the other Vnities of faith and eternall profession and worship of God by the same SacrameÌ„tes For diuers visible Heades would not so easilie agree amongst them selues it being a naturall thing for meÌ„ in equall authoritie to striue to drawe all to their partie Whereupon S. CIPRIAN sayth Cypria lib. 4. ep 9. lib. 1. epist 8. lib. de vnit Eccl. That the Church is Plebs suo sacerdoti adunata The people vnited to their Priest And that Non aliunde natae sunt haereses aut orta schismata nisi quod vni sacerdoti Dei ab vniuersa fraternitate non obtemperetur Not from any other source heresies or schismes are risen then for that obedience is not giuen to one Priest of all the fraternitie For why Exordium ab vno proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna Cathedra
monstretur The beginning is taken from one and the Primacie is giuen to PETER that one Church and one chaire may be shewed Cypr. ep ad Iubaianū Hier. lib. 2. contra Iouin And in his Epistle to Iubaianus Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui Claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one is by the voice of our Lord founded vpon one who hath receiued the Keyes And S. HIEROME sayth Inter duodecim vnus eligitur vt capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio Amongest twelue one is chosen that the Head being appointed the occasion of schisme may be taken away But if we admit euerie King as Head of the Church in his Kingdome we shall not haue one visible Head but manie and those also verie diuers For as Kings claime supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall because they are supreme Princes for the same reason may the senate in Venice Genua and Geneua challenge the same Authoritie Whence followeth that vnitie in faith and Sacraments vnder so diuers Heads cannot any long time be retained but we should haue as many Religions as Kings and as many diuers and independent Churches and Kingdomes for one King will not depend either for him selfe or his people of an other 12. This diuision we see alreadie proceedeth from these diuers Heads Haue we not seene how Religion in England hath changed with our Kinges since they challenged supremacie of our Church King HENRIE the Eight in the six and twentith yeare of his Raigne in the Parlament holden at VVestminster the third of Nouember 1534. enacted that the King should be reputed the onlie supreme Head in earth of the Church of England and should haue aswel the Title and stile as all honours authorities and commodities belonging thervnto and all power also to redresse all Heresies errours and abuses in the same and the yeare before also the fiftenth of Ianuary the King and Parlament decreed That no Appeales should be made to Rome no Annates or Impositions should be paied to the Bishop of Rome no sutes should be made to him for licēre or dispensation And yet in the Parlam̄et holden at Westminster anno Domini 1554. the first and second yeare of King PHILIP and Queene MARIE obedience was restored to the Church of Rome and all statutes repealed which derogated to the Authoritie and honour of the Sea Apostolick and the Title of the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall was reiected After this notwithstanding was the same Authoritie taken againe by Queene ELIZABETH in the Parlament Anno Domini 1558. Anno 1. regni Elizab die 13. Ian. Likewise in the Parlament holden by King HENRIE the Eight in the one and thirtith yeare of his raigne and eight and twentith of April and in the yeare of our Lord 1537. these six Articles were enacted The Six Articles The Reall presence of the true and naturall Bodie and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine without the substance of bread and wine 2. That Communion vnder both kindes is not necessarie for the people 3. That Priests cannot marrie after Priesthood 4. That Religious after their vowes cannot marrie 5. That Priuate Masses are according to Gods law and to be allowed 6. That Auricular Confession is expedient and necessarie And yet this statute was qualified and repealed by EDWARD the sixt his sonne and as yet a Child in the yeare of our Lord 1547. 4. Nouemb. and first yeare of his raigne After that againe the self same six Articles were receiued and confirmed in Queene MARIES raigne in the first Parlament an Domini 1553. 24. Octob. and in another an Domini 1554. Likewise King HENRIE the Eight in the Parlament holden the 22. of Ianuary and 34. of his raigne in the yeare of our Lord 1542. condemned Tindals Translation of the Bible and all bookes written against the Blessed Sacrament and forbad the Bible to be redd in English in any Church which statutes were repealed by King EDWARD at VVestminster an 1. Edu 6. Domini 1547. And yet the former statute of King HENRIE was renewed by Queen MARIE in the first yeare of her raigne an Domini 1553. and repealed againe by Queen ELIZABETH in the first yeare of her raigne So that if Kings be heads of the Church and haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction we shall haue as many Religions almost as Kinges And euen as King HBNRIE the Eight after his vsurpation of the supremacie changed his wiues and made his mariages lawfull and vnlawfull his children legitimat and illegitimat at his pleasure and by Authoritie also of the Parlament which durst not gainesaie so euery King shall haue authority to change religion and must be obeyed as the onlie supreme Head in earth of the Church For as King HENRIE the Eight and his young Sonne King EDWARD and his Daughter Queene ELIZABETH challenged Authoritie to redresse errours and correct heresies to giue validitie to all Ecclesiasticall lawes and Synodes as King HENRIE made it Heresie to denie the Reall Presence so another King of England or of another Kingdome may decree the contrarie As King HENRIE forbad Priests to marrie so another King will permit them to marrie As King HENRIE commanded the Bibles to be read and diuine seruice to be sayd and song in Latin so another will like better of the vulgar tongue of his owne Countrie and if you say that the King is tyed to the word of God euerie one of them will say that they follow the word of God hauing the Authoritie to iudge of heresies and consequentlie of the true meaning of the word of God 3. Sixtlie if Princes were Heads of the Church a ridiculous consequence and of which euen the Kinges and Queenes of England haue bene ashamed would follow to wit that they may preach minister Sacramentes excommunicate call Councels and sit as iudges in them c. For if the Prince be supreme head he is also supreme Pastour of the Church of his Kingdome for Head and Pastour in this kind is all one In Tortura Torti And this D. ANDREWES graunteth and prooueth by the example of DAVID to whom the people sayd That God had sayd vnto him Tu pafces populum meum Israel 2. Reg. 5 Thou shalt feede my people of Israel VVheras there only mention is of a Temporall Pastour gouernment and feeding as appeareth by the words following Tu eris Dux super Israel Thou shalt be Captain ouer Israel Gen. 45. And in this sence IOSEPH said Ego te pascam I will feede thee meaning his father IACOB So that if the Prince be Head of the Church he is Pastour but it pertaineth to the office of a Pastour to gouerne his sheepe by lawes to feede them with bread of the word of God Matt. 4. by which the soule liueth and the Sacraments to seuer an infected sheepe from the flocke by excōmunication least it infect the whole and consequentlie if the King be supreme head
matter of faith when as thou knowest not the mystieries of faith And yet againe to the same purpose he addeth Soluimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo c. VVe haue payed to Caesar what was Caesars Tribute is Caesars it is not denyed the Church is Gods therfore it must not be giuen to Caesar because the Temple can be no right of Caesars No maÌ„ can deny but that this is spokeÌ„ with Caesars honour For what more honorable then for the Emperour to be called the sonne of the Church Which when it is sayd it is sayd without sinne it is sayd with grace Imperator enim bonus intra Ecclesiam non supra Ecclesiam est for a good Emperour is within the Church not aboue the Church The like libertie of speech he vseth also in an Epistle to his sister Marcellina Ambr li. 5. cit ep 33. ad Marcellinam sororem Mandatur denique Trade Basilicam c. To be briefe the Emperours commaund is Deliuer vp the Church I answer it is neither lawfull for mee to deliuer it nor expedient for thee O Emperour to take it Thou canst by no law spoile or ransake the house of any priuat man and thinkest thou that the house of God may by thee be destroied and ruinated It is alleaged that to the Emperour all thinges are lawfull all thinges are his I answer doe not ô Emperour charge thy selfe as to thinke that thou hast Imperial right ouer diuine thinges Do not extoll thy selfe but if thou wilt raygne longe be subiect to God It is written Mat. 22 What is Gods to God what is Caesars to Caesar To the Emperour Palaces do belong to the Priests Churches To thee is committed the care and charge of publick walles not of those that be holy If S. AMBROSE would not yeeld a Church or Chappell to the Emperours disposition would he if he had liued in King HENRIE the Eight his time and in England haue permitted him to seaze vpon all Abbayes Abbay lands and Churches belonging vnto them Or would he or S. ATHANASIVS or HOSIVS haue permitted him to sitt in Parlament as supreme Iudge in matters not only temporall but Ecclesiasticall or if they had seene Cromwell appointed King Henrie the Eights Vicaire Generall in Spirituall causes taking place aboue all the Bishops and Archbishops in their Conuocation would not ATHANASIVS haue called it the Abomination of desolation 14. Bilson in his Difference pa. 174. Andr. in Tortura Tortipa 169. Field li. 5. de Eccles cap. 53. To this Argument Doctour BILSON Doctour ANDREWES and Doctour FIELD answere that Constantius and Valentinian the younger were reprehended by these Fathers not for medling in Councels and Ecclesiasticall affaires but for tyranizing ouer Bishops and for partiall and vniust dealing But if these Fathers had meaÌ„t no otherwise they would not so absolutly haue reprehended medling in Ecclesiasticall matters but would onlie haue inueighed against the abuses For if a Pope who is in deed Head of the Church should abuse his Authoritie in Councels or Ecclesiasticall Iudgments though euen a Catholick who takes him for supreme Head might reprehend the abuse Athan. supra yet he could not saie to him as ATHANASIVS did to Constantius If this be the Iudgment of Bishops what hath the Pope to do with it Nor could he say to the Pope as he did to the Emperour VVhen was it euer heard from the beginning of the world when did the Iudgment of the Church take Authoritie from the Pope Neither could he haue sayd to the Pope Hosius supra as HOSIVS sayd to the same Constantius VVhen was the Emperour present to wit as Iudge for as Protectour and hearer he knew and saw CONSTANTIN the Great present in the Councell of Nice in Ecclesiasticall Iudgments Neither could he haue sayd to the Pope as the same HOSIVS saieth to Constantius Do not intermeddle in Ecclestasticall businesses nor do thou command vs in this kind but rather learne these thinges of vs. Much lesse could those wordes of S. AMBROSE Ambros supra which he so bouldlie spake to Valentinian haue been sutable to the Pope or any supreme Head Ecclesiasticall VVhen didst thou heare ô most Clement Emperour Pope that any of the laitie Clergie Iudged Bishops in a cause of faith Much lesse could these other words of S. AMBROSE haue been fitting a Pope or any supreme head Ecclesiasticall A good Emperour Pope is in the Church not aboue the Church Nor could S. AMBROSE haue denyed so peremptorily to deliuer a Church or Chappell to the Emperour if he had deemed him supreme head of the Church much lesse could he haue alleadged that reason of his denyall To the Emperour Pallaces appertaine to the Priest Churches for if the King be supreme Heade of the Church then Churches pertaine to him as well as Pallaces 15. But let vs heare another Father S. Chrysost ho. 4. de verbis Isaiae 2. Paral. 26. CHRYSOSTOME pondering the audacious fact of King OZIAS who in the pride of his power victories and former vertues arrogated to him selfe the Priests office hath these words Rex cum esset Sacerdotij Principatum vsurpat Volo inquit adolere incensum quia iustus sum Sed mane intra terminos tuos alij sunt termini Regni alij termini Sacerdotij Being a King he vsurpeth the power of Priesthood I will sayth he offer incense because I am iust But stay within thy limits Others are the bounds of the Kingdome others of the Priesthood If then the King hath his limits prefixed and contained within the Kingdome it followeth that he cannot intermeddle him selfe as a superiour in Ecclesâ—asticall causes but he shall passe his limits The same Father in his next Homelie hath these words Chrysost hom 5. de verbis Isaiae which are worthy the marking Quanquam nobis admirandus videatur Thronus Regius ob gemmas affixas aurum quo obcinctus est tamen rerum terrenarum administrationem sortitus est nec vltra potestatem hanc praeterea quicquam habet Authoritatis Verum sacerdoti Thronus in Coelis collocatus est de coelestibus negotiis pronunciandi habet potestatem Although the Kings Throne seemes to vs worthy to be admired for the pretious stones wherwith it is besett and the gould wherwith it is couered yet the King hath only the administration of terrene things neither hath he beyond this power any further Authoritie But to the Priest a throne is placed in HeaueÌ„ and he hath power to pronounce senteÌ„ce of heauenly businesses and affaires appertaining vnto heauen 16. Tenthlie I proue this veritie by the Arguments wherwith in the former Chapter I haue prooued that Kings Christian by baptisme are made subiects of the Church as much as is the lowest Christian and that not onlie Popes but inferiour Bishops haue challenged superiority ouer them which also Princes from the beginning haue euer acknowledged For if Princes in matters Ecclesiasticall be
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
Ecclesiasticall lawes in giuing Authoritie to preach to minister Sacramentes and such like yet when it is necessarie for the conseruation of this power or of the Church or faith of which it hath the Charge that it dispose of Temporall matters it can do that also and so the same spirituall Authoritie which directlie and as it were ex prima intentione ordaineth and determineth of Spirituall matters dealeth also with Temporall affaires not absolutelie but as they are ordained and necessary to the attaining of the Spirituall end which is conseruation of the Church and faith and the soules faluation But because this power doth not respect Temporall thinges principallie and for them selnes but only secondarilie and as they are ordained to the conseruation of the Spirituall good of the Church it is sayd indirectlie only to respect Temporall matters and for as much as it medleth not ordinarilie but in some extraordinary case with the saied Temporall matters we may say that the Pope ordinarilie medleth with spirituall matters and hath for his ordinarie glaiue and weapons the Spirituall censures but when they will not serue to defend the Churches necessarie right then he may also vse the Temporall sword and punishment because the same Authoritie which handleth principallie directlie and ex prima intentione the spirituall glaiue may also command and handle the Temporall sword when it is necessarie to the spirituall end for then gladius est sub gladio as BONIFACE the Eight said The Temporall sword is subordinate and subiect to the Spirituall And this is the common opinion which our most Illustrious Cardinall Allan the honour of our countrie holdeth and defendeth in his Answer to the libeller Chap. 5.6 7. But this subiection of Temporall states to the Spirituall power of the Pope and Church may be diuerslie taken First it may be taken for subiection and inferioritie in the order of Dignitie only and so all Authours agree that the Spirituall power is Superiour to the Temporall Secondlie it may be vnderstood of a Superioritie in Directing not onlie by counsell but also by Commandement vnder paine of sinne and some spirituall mulct as excommunication suspension and Interdict And so also all good and Catholick Authours yea Barclaye and VViddrington confesse Widdring in Apol. n. 197. that the Spirituall power may not only direct by Counsell but may also command the Temporall power not to vse the Temporall sword or authoritie to the preiudice of the Church and it may also correct and punish those that refuse to obey by Spirituall penalties Thirdlie it may be taken for a subiection which importeth not onlie a subiection to the Commandement but also to the disposition of the Spirituall power in which sense the Pope and supreme Pastour may be said to haue Authoritie not only to command vnder paine of sinne Christian Princes to cease from persecuting or wrōging the Church or to implore their sword and Temporall Authorities and meanes to the necessarie defence of the Church but also if they refuse and contemne his spirituall Authoritie and penalties which he inflicteth vpon them he may dispose of their Crownes Kingdomes and Authoritie and bestowe them on some other that shall do the Church better seruice or at least shall not wronge her or do her that iniurie with the which the Churches right and faith cannot consist And this Authoritie Barclaye VViddrington and some others not only Hereticks Schismaticks but also who desire still to go by the name of Catholickes do deny Wherfore for the respect I beare and owe to God and his Church and for the information of some deceiued Catholicks and confutation of Hereticks and those Catholicks who in this point ioyne with them I will prooue it by many conuincing arguments in the ensuing chapters of this Treatise And first out of Scripture CHAPTER VIII By diuers places and examples of the old and nevv Testament it is prooued that the Pope in some case can not only by Spirituall Censure but also by Temporall punishment and euen by depriuation chastice Princes who are rebellious and doe tyrannically persecute and molest the Church 1. HAuing explicated how the Popes Spirituall power may dispose of Temporall things and euen Crownes and Diademes when it is necessarie for the Churches cōseruation or great and necessarie good it remaineth that I prooue the same But because the proofes are long and many I will in this Chapter alleadge only those Arguments which may be deduced out of the Text of Scripture And least the Aduersaries of the Popes authority in this point plaie with me as they haue donne with some learned writers of this time and bragge of the victorie when they can deuise any answere though neuer so slender I will be so bolde as to preuent them and to take this euasion from them For if it were sufficient to shape an vnshapen answere which hath only a shew of probabilitie then all the proofes out of scripture which the aunciēt Fathers produced against the auncient hereticks shal be called in question For what better and more pregnant place can be alleadged then that Ioa. 10. which the aunciēt Fathers cited out of S. IOHN against the Arrians Ego Pater vnum sumus I and the Father are one and yet the Arrians had their answer in redines to witt that God the Father and the Sonne are one not by vnitie of substance but consent of wils And what plainer wordes can be alleadged for the Reall presence then those of CHRIST This is my body Mat. 26. Clandius de Sainctes Repetit 1. ca. 10. and yet the Reformers of this time haue deuised no lesse then fowerscore expositions and answers all different from the Catholick sence and meaning But my Aduersaries are to waigh and ponder the soliditie of their answers and the conformitie also of them to the Churches definition and practise 2. 1. Reg. 13 My first proofe then shal be taken from examples of the olde and new Testament which do not a little patronize the aforesaid authoritie of the Pope SAMVEL as he anoynted King SAVL and created him King of the Iewes so he deposed him And although he did this as a Prophet yet this might be a figure of that which the Chiefe Pastour may do in the new law Zuing. art 41. 2. Paral. 26. whervpon Zuinglius whose authority must needs be of force against Protestantes saith plainly Quòd Reges deponi possunt Saulis exemplum manifestè docet That Kings may be deposed Saules example doth manifestlie teach 2. Par. 26. AZARIAS the High Priest deposed OZIAS for arrogating the Priests office for although God immediately marked him with a leprosie yet the high Priest after he was thus marked had authoritie from God by the Leuitical lawe Leu. 13. to separate him from all societie and cohabitation with his subiects Hence I inferre first that the high Priest had in some case authoritie to dispose of Temporall things though they belonged to Kings For cohabitation
by the peoples consent and although IOAS who was the right heyre was yet liuing yet because that was not knowen it seemeth that the people generallie consented to ATHALIA which consent was sufficient to make her lawfull Queene otherwise we must call in question the Titles of many Kings whose Predecessours entred into the possession of their Kingdomes by violence and inuasion and without all Title and yet afterwards prooued lawfull Kings by the common reception and consent of the people actually raigning for some time with expresse or tacitt consent of the people giuing à sufficient Title At least this example sheweth that the High Priest might be Iudge of the Kings right and Title which was to meddle in a Temporall matter and no lesse then a Kings Title 5. ELIAS also though a Prophet onlie 3. Reg. 18 4. Reg. 1. 2. and no Temporall Prince consumed by fire from Heauen OCHOSIAS Captaines and their fifties and made a massacre of Iesabels false Prophetes Againe ELISEVS his scholler by his curse sett Beares vpon those vngracious boyes who called him by scorne Bald-pate he stroke Giezi with the leprosie which he had taken from NAAMAN for his symonie Certes ELIAS was so famous for chrastizing rebellious Princes and their Captaines Eccl. 48. that Ecclesiasticus pronounceth thus of him VVho didst cast downe Kings to destruction and didst easilie breake their might and the glorious from their bed And howbeit they did this by extraordinarie and Propheticall power yet these examples shew how it is not vnbeseeming Spirituall power to controule sometimes Princes and to punish them euen temporally when Gods glorie and his Churches right and honour requireth it Num. 25 I could alleadge the example of MOYSES who caused the Princes to be hanged on Gibbets against the sunne for communicating with the Moabites in sactifice Exod. 32 who also by the assistaÌ„ce of the sonnes of LEVI killed aboue three thowsand for adoring the Goulden Calfe But I will come to the Newe law and see what proofes it yeeldeth 6. The new law though it be the law of Charitie not seueritie loue not feare yet it is not without examples of Temporall punishment vsed euen by the spirituall sword 1. Cor. 5 1. Tim. 1 S. PAVL excommunicated the In cestuous Christian as also Hyminaeus and Alexander and deliuered them vp to Satan for the destruction of the flesh for in the Primatiue Church to excommunication was annexed a Temporall punishment D. Th. 3. p. in Addit q. 21. a. 2. ad 3. Act. 13. by reason that then when any was excommunicated the Deuill by and by possessed him and tormented him corporally In the new law I behould S. PAVL stricking Elymas the Magician with corporall blindnes for hindring the fruict of the Ghospell Act. 5. and I find S. PETER pronouncing sentence of present death against Ananias and Saphira his wife for defrauding the Apostles in the price of the peece of land which they had vowed And although this also they did by the guift of miracles and extraordinarie prerogatiue of their Apostleship yet this sheweth that TeÌ„porall punishment doth not altogether surpasse the actiuitie and force of Spirituall power 7. Secondlie I prooue this by another Argument drawne from the persons of theÌ„ on whom it seemeth the Church may by warrant of scripture inflict Temporall punishment such as are obstinat Hereticks disobedient Princes to the Church D. Kellyson Rep. p. 185. Deut. 13 Blasphemers persecutours c. which examples a writer of this tyme alleageth though to another end In the old law which was a figure of the new false Prophets who persuaded to follow false Gods were slaine and stoned to death and the whole Citie that permitted worship of straunge Gods was commanded to be sacked and vtterly destroyed Deut. 17 And as we haue seene whosoeuer stubbornlie disobeyed the High Priest in matters pertaining to the law was to be killed And shall the Heretick stubborne against the Church who persuadeth vs to follow straunge Religions goe scotfree The person that was infected with a Corporall leprosie Leu. 13â— was separated from all societie and shall obstinat Hereticks prefigured by such infected and infecting persons be permitted to conuerse with vs yea to rule and gouerne amongst Christians heresie being a spirituall leprosie Aug lib. 2. quaest Euang. cap 40. Leu. 24. which mixeth falsehood with truth as a leprosie infecteth some parts of the flesh others remaining sound and infecting not only the bodie as that doth but euen the soule The blasphemer in the same law was by Gods owne mouth commanded to be cast out of the Camp and to be stoned of the people and shall the heretick in words commonlie blasphemous in deeds sacrilegious be permitted in the Church and not be cast out by Censure of excommunication Leis. 20â— and by death also when that will not serue NADAD and ABIV though sonnes of AARON for vsing straunge fire in their Censors were deuoured with fire from heauen Nu. 16. CHORE DATHAN ABIRON and HON for arrogating vnto them Aarons office were swallowed vp by the Earth and shall the Heretick who inuenteth straunge doctrines and who commonly without right ordination or vocation arrogateth Priestlie Authoritie be free from all Temporall punishment he commonly contemning all spirituall Censures Matt. 7. Ioan. 10. No no an heretick is a woolf and consequentlie to be driuen from the fold with stones and clubbes he is a theefe and so to be hanged he is a Canker Ioau 10. ergo to be burned and seared he is a false Coyner that is a deprauer of Gods word ergo to be hangâ—â— drawne 2. Tim. 2. Lib. 2. 3. de falsâ— moneta Mat. 13. Iudae 1. and quartered he is cockle ergo to be pluckt vp by the rootes least he hinder the growth of the good corne he is a tree of Autumne vnfruitfull twise dead being deuoid both of the life of faith and charitie ergo to be cast into the fire he is an euill humour ergo to be purged and expelled Mat. 7. he is a rotten and rotting member ergo to be cutt of least he infect the whole bodie 8. Thiralie I prooue this out of those verie wordes by which S. PETER was constituted supreame Pastour vnder Christ and vnder-Head of the Church Pasce oues meas Ioan. 21. Feed my sheep for to a Pastour it appertaineth to rule and gouerne his sheepe to feede them to cure them and to defend them from the woolfe or rauenous beast VVherfore S. PETER and his successour the Pope being the supreame visible Pastour of the Church is not onlie to rule and gouerne them by lawes nor onlie to feede them by the word and Sacraments nor only to cure and correct them by spirituall Censures but if they beinfected and infecting sheepe he may not only separate them from the Church by excommunication but also if they contemne that punishment by deposition and depriuation
force her subiects to Idolatrie and superstition hinder by violence preaching administration of Sacraments and all practize of Religion what should the Church do excommunicate these persecutours she cannot hauing no Spirituall power ouer them they being not incorporated to the Church by baptisme And if she could Psal 63. they would contemne all such weapons tanquam sagittas paruulorum as the arrowes of children What then must the Church stand still and let the cruell persecutour do his worst must she expose her selfe and her subiects to theire mercie that haue no mercie Cerres if in that case she might not take armes she were the vnablest and worst prouided Common wealth that euer was And what if the hereticks Vide Baron an Christi 348. Victorem Vticen de Persec Wandalica who commonlie are more cruell than Pagans as the crueltie of the Arrians and euen of Protestants and Puritans in France the low Countries and our Iland also beareth to euident witnesse would vse the like or greater crueltie and Tyrannie against the Church and the true faithfull people therof VVhat defensiue Armour hath CHRIST giuen her Excommunication you will say or other spirituall censures But what if they also as commonly they do would contemne all such armes and weapons How shall the Church conserue her selfe and withstand their crueltie should she expose her throate and brest to the Tyrants sword her selfe and her subiects to his crueltie should she permitt Sacraments and preaching to be forbidden all exercise of Religion to be hindered and in lieu therof all abomination to be set vp and promoted You will say that after she hath threatned Gods Iudgments vsed her spirituall Armes and weapons she hath no more to do hauing no Temporall Armes to vse and so must commit all to God But then say I that CHRIST who was incarnate and liued and dyed for the Church had not sufficiently prouided for her defence And they that say she can only haue accesse in that case to God are like to those Philosophers who deny all power to second causes to produce substantiall formes and effects and make God the onlie Authour But as these Philosophers are hissed out of the schooles because since God created all at the beginning he doth nothing in Nature but by second causes so I say that VViddrington and others who deny the Church all power to defend her selfe are vnnaturall Children yea mercilesse and cruell enemies in remitting her to God only who though he alwayes heare our praiers and petitions yet doth not alwaies graunt them VVherefore wee must finde out a sword and an ordinarie second cause which may in this case defend the Church and this is no other then her Spirituall power by which as aboue is declared she can dispose of Temporall goods and Kingdomes for the necessarie conseruation of the spirituall good For the better declaration wherof I demaund of our Protestantes in England if his Maiestie should turne Catholick and consequently should put the ministers out of office persecute them with sword and fier what would they doe They would perchaunce excommunicate him but what if he contemned such excommunication as iustlie he might they being no true Bishops what would they doe Trulie if a man may guesse by that they teach and haue practized in Scotland England FraÌ„ce Germanie the low countries they would trust more to their sword then their word as we shall see herafter that they haue done in the like case 10. In disp Theol. c. 3. n. 21. sect 1. An obiection of Widdr. But Widdrington taxing the learned Suarez sayth that if because the Church is an absolute Common wealth and consequently hath sufficient Authoritie to defend her selfe we may inferre that she may vse not only Spirituall but also Temporall armes wee must inferre also that God must giue the Church not only Authoritie to depose Princes but also force and meanes to execute the sentence of her deposition The Answer which yet wee see she alwayes hath not I answer that it is not necessarie that God should alwayes giue execution to matters for the King and Common wealth cannot alwaies actually suppresse Rebelles and vanquish enemies but yet as if the King or Common wealth had not authoritie to defend it selfe by defensiue and offensiue weapons neither he nor the Common wealth were sufficiently by God and Nature furnished or prouided for so if Christ had not giuen his Church power and Authoritie to defend and conserue her self by Temporall armes when the spirituall glaiue will not serue he had not prouided sufficiently for her neither had she had the Authoritie which is due to an absolute Common wealth And although God hath promised to protect his Church to the end as he promised to defend the Synagogue and to continue the Kingdome to Dauids posteritie yet he vseth second causes for the execution and performance of his sayed promise And therfore as not withstanding his promise the Iewes and Dauid vsed humane meanes as warres and such like for their conseruation so may the Church when her spirituall power is contemned 11. But although as this Argument prooueth the Church may vse Temporall armes in case of necessitie yet it is not so conuenient that she should do it by her selfe immediately but rather by the hand of the Prince when she can induce him to vndertake her cause and defence and for that cause though she vseth to deliuer hereticks brachio seculari to the secular arme and power yet she vseth not to punish them her selfe not for that she cannot but because it is not conuenient she should but only when Temporall Princes will not do that office for her Lib 4. de consider cap. 3. Ioan. 10. Mar. 26. whereupon S. BERNARD alluding to those wordes of Christ Conuerte gladium tuum in vaginam as he auerreth the power of handling the Temporall sword so he saith it is not conuenient for the Pastour to vse it but only to command it For thus he speaketh to Pope EVGENIVS the third Quid tu denuò gladium vsurpare tentas c. VVhat dost thou goe about to take to thy selfe againe that sword which once thou wast commanded to put vp in to the sheath VVhich yet whosoeuer denyeth to be thine doth not seeme to mee to haue sufficientlie attended to the word of out Lord who sayd Put vp thy sword into the scabbart It is thyne therfore perchance at thy becke though not by thy hand to be drawne otherwise if it did not any wise pertaine vnto thee when the Apostles sayd Behold two swords here our Lord would not haue answered It is enough but It is to much Therfore both the spirituall and materiall sword is the Churches but that is to be vsed for the Church this also of the Church Orat. in Auxent quae extat lib. 5. â—p eius post epist 32. that by the hand of the Priest this by the hand of the soulâ—iour but yet at the becke of the
thing he might say vnlesse an Anathema be added as alwaies it is not that what the Councell defineth Widdr. supra n. 7. was defined but as probable He excepteth also that in an other of these definitioÌ„s it is defined quod Romanus Pontifex si Canonicè fuerit ordinatus meritis B. PETRI indubitanter sanctus efficitur That the Roman Bishop if he be Canonicallie ordained is made vndoubtedlie a saint by the merites of S. PETER which is true taken in the right sence because though euerie Pope be not a saint in life and manners yet he is a sainct in office because his office is holy and so euen Emperours are holie and therefore be stiled Sacra Maiestas Sacred Maiestie Bell li. â— de Rom. Pont. c. 8. tract de potest sum PoÌ„t contra Barcl pag. 28. seqq Schulck pag. 29. Many other Councels I could alleage as Bellarmine and Schulckennius haue done but these shall suffice all Generall Councels yea and prouinciall also if they be confirmed by the Pope according to the common opinion being of infallible Authoritie Who listeth to see the other Councels let him read the Authours prealleadged CHAPTER XII By the facts of the holy and learned Bishops of Rome especially before Gregorie the seauenth the same power is confirmed 1. MY Argumentes which I shall bring in this Chapter I grouÌ„d in the factes of Popes Bellarm. supra Schulck pag 36. Azor. 10. 2. lib. 10. cap. 8. whom Bellarmine Schulckenius and others commonlie produce to prooue that the Pope can depose Princes For although Popes may erre in matters of fact yet if it had bene an vniust and not to them an assured matter so many so learned and so holie Popes would neuer haue attempted such a thing And many of these depositions were decreed in Councels also Schulkenius hath produced twenty eight Popes that haue denounced deposition against Emperours Kings and Princes I shall content my self with the Popes who before GREGORIE the seuenth haue medled with crownes and scepters partlie because our Aduersaries affirme that GREGORIE the Seuenth was the first that medled with Temporall states of Princes partlie because they confesse that GREGORIE the Seuenth and others after him haue deposed Princes partlie also because they seeme to giue more credit to those former then these later Popes although in deed all haue the same Authoritie of which only and not of sanctitie of life deposition dependeth 2. S. GREGORIE the Great in two Epistle Greg. li. 11. epist 10. lib. 12. epist 32. threatneth deposition not onlie against Bishops and Priests but also against Kings Iudges and whatsoeuer secular persons that shall be so hardie as to infringe or violate priuileges by him graunted to the AVGVSTVNENSES and to the Monasterie of S. MEDARD For he sayth in the first place Si quis Regum c. If any King Priest Iudge or secular person acknowledging the tenour of this our constitution shall presume to do contrarie thereunto potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat let him want the dignitie of his power and honour In the second place he sayth Si quis autem Regnum c. But if any King Prelate Iudge or other secular person whatsoeuer shall violate or contradict the decrees of this Apostolicke authoritie and our command or shall disquiet and trouble the Brothers of the Monasterie or shall ordaine otherwise then thus cuiuscunque dignitatis vel sublimitatis sit honore priuetur of what dignitie or place soeuer he be let him be depriued of his honour Which is an argument that S. GREGORIE thought he could depriue them as those also must needs haue acknowledged who subscribed to the later of the foresaied decrees to wit thirtie Bishops of seuerall countries and Prouinces together with the Kinge and Queene of France 3. Codrenus Zonaras in vita Leonis Isauri Sigebert in Chron. an 728. alij S. GREGORIE the second as aboue depriued LEO Isauricus of Italie and the Gabelles of that prouince * Platina in Gregorio III. Ado in ChroÌ„ an 744. Ced in vita Leonis Isauri Rheg li. 2 Chron. Sigebert an 750. Paul Aemil li. 2. de rebus gest FraÌ„c Fasc TeÌ„p in Zach. Otho Frising li. 5. hist c. 55. Marian. Scot. li. 3. Paulus Diac. li. 6 deff Longob ca. 5. Bonif. ep ad Zach. Pont. Some attribute this to GREGORIE the third but the reason is because he confirmed the former excommunication and deposition anno 730. 4. ZACHARIAS Pope deposed CHILDERIC King of France freed all his subiects from their fidelitie to him and gaue his Kingdome to PIPINE Father to CHARLES the Great and before Maior domus This Ado Viennensis Cedrenus Rhegino Sigibert Paulus Aemiliue Fasciculus Temporum Otho Frisingensis Marianus Scotus Paulus Diaconus and S. Boniface do auouch True it is that the Peeres and Nobles of France desired it and sent Legates to the Pope but the Pope was he by whose Authoritie he was deposed what soeuer Barclaie and VViddrington say to the contrarie And therefore the Olde Chronicon of France sett forth by Pitheus sayth that the Pope sayd it was better he should be King who had all the power as PIPINE being Maior Domus had the King doing nothing then he that had the name onlie dataque Authoritate suâ iussit PIPINVM Francorum Regem institui and by power giuen commanded Pipine to be instituted King Likewise the Authour of Fasciculus Temporum saith Ipse ZACHARIAS regâ—â— Francorum scilicet CHILDERICVM deposuit ZACHARIAS did depose the King of the French to wit CHILDERIC And after addeth Et hinc patet potestas Ecclesiae quanta fuerit hoc tempore qui regnum illud famosissimum transtulit de veris haeredibus ad genus PIPINI propter legitimam causam And here appeareth how great was the power of the Church at this tyme seing that he ZACHARIAS did transferre that most famous Kingdome from the true heires to the familie of PIPINE vpon a iust cause Rhegino sayth Per authoritatem Apostolicam iussit Pipinum Regem creari By the Apostolicall Authoritie he commanded PIPINE to be created King The same writeth Marianus Scotus saying Tunc ZACHARIAS Papa ex authoritate S. Petri Apostoli mandat populo Francorum vt PIPINVS qui potestate Regia vtebatur etiam nominis dignitate frueretur Then ZACHARIAS by the Authoritie of S. Peter the Apostle commandeth the people of the FreÌ„ch that PIPINE who exercised the Regall power should also enioy the name of the dignitie Besides this Paulus Aemilius relateth that one Burchardus a Bishop made an oration to him to perswade him to it for the Pope at first feared to vndertake a matter of so great importance yet when he considered how all the French desired Pipine Francos Sacramento Regi CHILDERICO dicto soluit he freed the French from their oath made to King CHILDERIC 5. LEO the third Pope a holy Prelate to whom God miraculouslie restored both his eyes and tongue of
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
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
by warre a Prince that persecureth Religion it is lawfull to kill him and consequentlie to depose him because the end of iust warre being peace all things in it are lawfull which are necessarie to obtaine peace and if vnles the Prince be taken away that iust peace cannot he had that also is lawfull 2. The Caluinists are not behind them in this point Caluin saith that earthlie Princes do bereaue them selues of Authoritie when they erect them selues against God yea that they are vnworthie to be reckened in the number of men and therfore we must rather spit in their faces then obey them Beza in ep dedic Noui Testam an 1554. epist 34. 37. Can. 3. an 1572 Beza in his Epistle Dedicatorie to his New Testament defendeth Rebellion against Princes of a different Religion if they permitt not but rather persecure Caluinisme The Hugonots of France in a Councell of Ministers at Berne haue decreed that euerie citie shall sweare that they and their posteritie will obserue firme and inuiolate the thinges following of which one is can 40. that vntill it please God in whose hands are the harts of Kings to change the hart of the French Tyrant so they call him in the meane time euerie Citie shall choose a Mayor to gouerne them as well in warre as in peace Another Canon is that all Captaines leaders neuer lay downe weapons as long as they shall see them persecute the Doctrine of Saluation Caluinisme and the Disciples of the same Caluinists Another is If it please God to raise vp some Christian Prince to take reuenge of their sinnes and to deliuer his people let them subiect them selues to that Prince as to another Cyrus sent to them from God And this doctrine of the same Hugonots was practised in France to the ruine of many cities and Churches and the slaughter of many thousands as The Historie of the Ciuill warres of France printed at London anno 1591. and Crispinus in his booke of the Estate of the Church and others haue written and to this day France remembreth yea feeleth it The like practise the hereticks in the lowe Countries haue vsed as Osiander confesseth and all the world witnesseth Moreouer Osiander sayth that the states there deposed their Prince Osiand in Epit. histor Eccles Cent. 16. pag. 941. Belgici publico scripto Domino Regi suo Philippo obedientiam subiectionem renunciant They of the low Countries renounce all obedience and subiection to their Lord and King Philip and consequentlie they depose him because there is no King without subiects Yea an Edict of this deposition is extant in their Historie printed at Francfort in the yeare 1583. in which they declare him to haue lost all right and title by his Tyrannie and forbid all vse of his name and seale 3. Zuingl in explaÌ„ art 42. fol. 84. Idem lib. 4. ep ad Conhardum c. pag. 868. 869. Zuinglius and the Zuinglians iumpe with them in the same opinion Quando Reges Principes Magistratus perfidè extra Regulam Christi egerint possunt cum Deo deponi When Kings Princes and Magistrates behaue them selues perfidiouslie and do against the rule of Christ they may with God be deposed And againe That Kings may be deposed Saules example doth teach manifestlie And againe Permittendum est Caesari officium debitum si modò sidem nobis permittat illibatam We must permitt due obedience to Caesar so that he permitt vs to enioy our faith inuiolate Coclaeus in Actis Luth. an 1531 And according to this doctrine the Tigurines molested the Catholicke Cantones sowed sedition and rebelled but afterwards in fiue battailes though moe in number and Artillerie they were ouercome and slaine and in the first battaile Zuinglius him self was slaine and afterwards burnt 4. See Sutcliffe in his Answere to a libell supplicatorie c. pag. 192. 193. Sutcl in his anwere to a libell c. pag. 95. Knox in Appellat ad nobilitatem populum Scotiae Buchan li. de Iure Reg. et li 7. hist Scot. I could alleadge Goodman who in his booke which in Queene MARIES time was printed at Geneua and is commended by Whittingham in his Epistle before the saied booke affirmeth that it is lawfull to withstand the Princes in case of Religion and that therfore VViat who rose against Queene MARIE was no Traytour The like was the doctrine of Knox and Buchanan Sutcliffe auoucheth that Knox said Noblemen Gouernours c. Iudges ought to reforme religion if the King will not If the Prince will not yeeld to his Nobles and people he armeth them with power to depose him If Princes be tyrants against God and his truth their subiects are freed from their oathes of obedience And with him accordeth Buchanan teachinge that the people is more excellent then the King and hath right to bestowe the Crowne at their pleasure That the People may arraigne the King c. That Reward should be giuen to them that kill Tyrants to wit those who persecute Religion And what sedition this doctrine raised in Scotland against that worthie and virtuous Queene MARIE his Maiesties mother and against his Maiestie him selfe all the world knowes and he best him selfe So that the question betwixt vs and our Reformers who so storme at this opinion of Catholicks which teacheth that Popes in some case exâ—taordinarie may depose Princes is not so much whether the Pope can doe it as whether he or rather a Luther Zuinglius Caluin Beza Knox or Buchanan can do it nor so much whether a Generall Councell can doe it but whether such a Councell rather then a Consistorie or Heard of Ministers can 5. And thus much I haue discoursed concerning this question whether the Pope can in any case depose a Rebellious Prince and who otherwise cannot be corrected not for that I honour not Princes or acknowledge not obedience due vnto them for I haue aboue prooued that they are in Temporall matters to be honoured and obeyed vnder paine of mortall sinne I haue also confessed and declared that so long as they conteine them selues with in their bounds and that their Temporall sword is not necessarilie to be drawne for the Churches defence they haue if they be absolute Superiours no superiour on earth in Temporall matters but only this I haue done to satisfie my conscience to discharge my dutie to Christ his Church and so to giue to Caesar and Temporall Princes what belongeth to them that I take not from God and his Church what is due to them 6. Wherein I hope I derogate no more from the Prince then many Catholicks do from the Pope who teach that in case of Heresie to which as a priuate man though not as a publike person they thinke him to be subiect he may be a Councell of Bishops and Prelates be deposed And therfore as Popes take this doctrine in good parte so ought Princes not to take it so haynously that we
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
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 force and violence were for the most part conuerted the Pope to conserue Religion might giue them a Christian Prince and send an Armie to put him in possession S. Thom. 2.2 q. 10 art 10. Innoc. ca. super his de voto voti redempt This he prooueth out of S. Thomas and the common opinion of Diuines who affirme that the Chiefe Pastour in fauour of Religion and for securing Christians saluation might free Christian slaues from seruitude and much more other Christians who are subiect not despoticè but only politicè yea this hee prooueth out of scripture because in fauour of faith a wife may be separated from a Pagan husband 1. Cor. 7. Cap. quanto de diuortiis much more a subiect from his Prince 28. A fourth Title is if the Prince generallie molest Innocentes by vniust lawes and vexations as if a Pagan King should sacrifice Innocent Children to his Gods then any forreine Prince especially by the counsell of the High Pastour after he hath warned the sayd King and seeth no redresse may take the cause of the Innocents vpon him and make warre vpon the King for their defence for as Innocents haue right from God and Nature to defend them selues so may another with their expresse or presumed licence vndertake their cause and wage warre in their defence 29. A fift Title may be grounded in the Popes temporall authoritie for hee being a temporall Prince might authorize the Duke of Vrbine for example or other his Feudataries to inuade England for satisfaction of iniuries if the King of England had done him any for so the King of England hath heretofore inuaded France for iniuries receaued and might againe hereafter if by the French the like iniuries should be offerred And yet this Clause of the Oath makes the Catholicke to sweare that the Pope neither by himselfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King c. or to anoy him or inuade his countries c. 30. Another Title of inuading a Princes country or resisting him may be this If Princes contrary to the Popes commandement and liking of all other Princes would call the Moores or Turkes into Spaine France or Germanie and commaund their subiects to assist them were they bound to obey or rather were they not bound to resist what they could And seeing that the bringing of the Moores or Turkes into those countries might bee preiudiciall to all Christian countries and euen to Christian faith might not other Princes especially cōmaunded by their Chiefe visible Pastour inuade their countries to hinder the entrance of such enemies And might nor yea ought not the Emperour and those Princes subiects to assist them against their owne Princes for the common good of Christendome And yet by this Clause we are cōmaunded to sweare that the Pope in no case can authorize subiects or Princes to annoy his Maiestie of England or any his countries 31. Wherefore although I will not auerre that Christian Princes may haue these titles to inuade England or any part of it or to make warre either against the Prince to whom I wish after long life hete eternity in heauen or countrie which is most deare vnto mee Yet by this it may easily appeare that it is not so euident as VViddrington would make it that this Oath may be taken with such an assured asseueration and in those so generall termes Victoria hauing alleadged so many Titles of iust warres which make this Clause at least doubtfull and so not to be sworne 32. Widdr. in Disp The ol c. 3. sect 4. n. 3. VViddrington answereth that in this Clause is not denyed that the Common wealth can depose a Prince but only is auerred that the Pope cannot either by himselfe or by the Common wealth or any other meanes And saith he if the Pope cannot by himselfe neither can hee by the Common wealth And this as he thinketh he conuinceth by examples For saith he as a stone neither with a man neither by a man hath power to vnderstand and disoourse and neither by the Common wealth nor with the Common wealth can depose a Prince because it hath no power of it selfe to discourse or depose so if wee suppose that the Pope of him selfe hath no power to depose a Prince he cannot by the Common wealth depose him though otherwife the Common wealth could And although saith Widdrington these examples be not like in all points because the stone is not capable at all of discoursing or deposing the Pope is at least capable of Authoritie to depose Princes if God would giue it him yet saith he if wee suppose that the Pope de facto hath no power to depose then a good argument may be drawne out of these similitudes For as the stone cannot by man or with a man discourse or depose Kings because it hath no power of it selfe so to doe so if the Pope haue no authoritie to depose Princes as Widdrington supposeth it cannot be or is not yet sufficiently prooued that he hath he cannot de facto by the Common wealth depose 33. But I shall make VViddrington to see by other examples and reason also how litle these his examples auaile For suppose the Pope could not depose a Prince by himselfe as I haue prooued he can yet he might doe it by a temporall Prince or the Common wealth and that also in VViddringtons opinion This I prooue first by examples For in the opinion of those Philosophers who say that no substance is immediately operatiue or actiue the substance or substantiall forme of fire can not produce fire immediately by it selfe and yet it can per calorem siccitatem by heate and siccity which are the fires instrument and actiue virtue and so wee say not only that heate produceth heate but also that fire produceth heate though not immediately but by meanes of the foresaid qualities So the sunne engendreth metalls and mineralls in the bowells of the earth and produceth as an vniuersall cause plantes and hearbes and yet not by his immediate substance but by mediation of his light and influences So the will of man is cause of walking speaking and other externall operations yet not by her selfe immediately but by mediation of other faculties which are dependent on her So a Prince that had neither hand nor foote or if he had should vse neither and so could not kill his enemie yet might he doe it by his Captaine if he should commaund him and if at his commaūd the Captaine should kill the Prince also should be said to haue killed yea to haue bene the principall cause of the murder though immediately he either could not or did not strike any stroke Wherefore VViddrington might haue called to mind that many tymes an agent may worke an effect by another which it can not by it selfe immediatly if the other cause which it vseth be
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
spirituall punishment of excommunicatiō will preuaile the other because to excommunicate him and not to depriue him were to irritate him and prouoke him to furie and yet not to take his sword and power from him 43. And therefore in the Canon Lawe Temporall punishment followeth and accompanieth excommunication as Cap. No◠sanctorum 15. q. 6. Pope GREGORIE the seuenth holding as he sayth the statutes of his Predecessoures absolueth all those who are obliged by faith or fidelitie to excommunicated persons from their fidelitie And in the next Chapter which beginneth with the word Iuratos Pope VRBANE absolueth souldiours from their fidelitie to Count HVGO excommunicated And in the Decretalles Cap. Ad abolendum de Haereticis Countes Barons Rectors and Consulles of Cities who will not ayde the Church against heretickes are excommunicated and depriued or to be depriued of their former tēporall honour made vnable and vncapable of all future dignities and their Landes are Interdicted And in the next Chapter Vergentes INNOCENTIVS the Third confiscateth the goods of Heretickes And in the Chapter Si aduersus all Aduocates and Notaries who fauour Heretickes are made infamous and are depriued of their office Likewise in the Chapter Excommunicamus before cited all Heretickes are excommunicated and after the condemnatorie sentence are to be chastised with due punishment by the Secular Iudge and their goods are confiscated in which Chapter also is to be seene the Decree of the Great Councell of Lateran which aboue I haue alleaged And in the same Chapter beleeuers receiuers defendours and fauourers of Heretickes are excommunicated declared infamous and vnable to beare office to make a Testament or last will and if he be a Iudge his sentence is disanulled c. And in the last Chapter of this Title de Haereticis GREGORIE the Ninth concludeth with these wordes whosoeuer by any promise howsoeuer confirmed were obliged to those who are manifestlie fallen into Heresie let them know that they are absolued from the duetie of sidelitie homage and seruice And Cap. Cum secundum leges de Haereticis in 6. The Pope sayth that if by the Ciuill Lawe diuers transgressours which he nameth be iustlie depriued of their goods bona Haereticorum qui grauius horribilius ac detestabilius quam praedicti delinquunt ipso iure de fratrum nostrorum consilio decernimus confiscata the goods of Heretickes who more grieuouslie more horriblie and detestablie then the aforesayd delinquents do offend we decree ipso iure to be confiscated Wherfore although that Excommunication may be separated from all temporall punishment and that the Pope may excommunicate a Prince and yet not depose him as INNOCENTIVS the first did excommunicate ARCADIVS whome yet he deposed not yet seing that in the Common law Temporall punishment as confiscation of goods infamie and euen absolution from fidelitie to Princes are annexed to Excommunication and proceede from the power of Excommunication and ordinarilie follow the acte of Excommunication I might well say that depriuation of Regall authoritie is an effect which ordirilie followeth Excommunication of Kings and yet say no more then the learned Suarez aboue alleaged nor then S. 2.2 q. 12 art 2. THOMAS of AQVIN where he sayth that the Prince who hath made an Apostasie and reuolt from the true Christian faith receaued at least in Baptisme is conuenientlie depriued of rule ouer his subiects and that quam citò aliquis per sententiam denuntiatur Excommunicatus propter Apostasiam a fide ipso facto eius subditi sunt absoluti a dominio eius Iuramento fidelitatis so soone as any one by sentence is denounced Excommunicated for Apostasie from faith ipso facto at the same instant his subiects are absolued from his Dominion or Soueraigntie and from their oath of fidelitie Where it is manifest that he maketh absolution of the subiects from their fidelitie an effect in some sort of the acte of Excommunication 44. Put then all this together to wit first that depriuation of Regall authoritie is an acte though secondarie yet necessarilie appertaining to the Chiefe Pastours spirituall power by which he Excommunicateth he that denyeth him power to depriue denyeth necessarilie his power to excommunicate it being one and the selfe same power as aboue is prooued Secondlie seing that depriuation and other temporall punishments aboue related do ordinarilie follow the acte of excommunication though by a secondarie acte of the Popes spirituall power as is aboue explicated he that denyeth the Pope power to depriue denyeth him also power to excommunicate depriuation being at least a morall effect euen of the acte of excommunication This I explicate by homo and risibilis not that I auerre as necessarie a coniunction betwixt the acte of excommunication and depriuation as is betwixt homo and risibilis no example holding in all thinges but for that as because there is a necessarie and physicall connexion betwixt homo and risibilis he that denyeth a man to be risibilis doth necessarilie deny him to be homo so because there is a necessarie connexion betwixt the power of excommunication and depriuation both actes appertaining necessarilie to that power he that denyeth the Pope authoritie to depriue a Prince necessarilie denyeth him power to excommunicate the denyall of a necessarie effect implying vertuallie a denyall of the cause and because there is a morall coniunction at least betwixt the acte of excommunication depriuation this as before following ordinarilie that he that denyeth the Pope authoritie to depriue morallie at least denyeth him power to excōmunicate which is sufficiēt to make any timorous consciēce feare to sweare that the Pope can not depriue a Prince especiallie if thereunto be added that depriuation is a secondarie acte necessarilie appertaining to the Popes supremacie and power of excommunicating because the denyall of an acte and effect though secōdarie if it necessarilie belonge to a cause importeth a denyall of the cause and therfore not onlie he who denyeth that fier can burne or heate which is the first acte and effect of fier but also he that denyeth that fier can harden and rarefie which are secondarie actes of fier denyeth it to be fier And in this sence Lessius or his Recapitulatour cited by VViddrington sayd and whatsoeuer VViddrington sayth trulie sayd that Absolutio subditorum a vinculo fidelitatis est effectus qui sententiam Excommunicationis necessariò consequitur Widdr. in Disp Theol. c. 4. n. 4. 7. Ecclesiaepraxis per mille ducentorum amplius annorum spatium commonstrat Absolution of subiects from the bond of fidelitie is an effect which necessarilie followeth the sentence of Excommunication as the practise of more then twelue hundred yeares doth shew because this Absolution of subiectes from fidelitie is an acte necessarilie appertaining to the power of Excommunicating and morallie and ordinarilie it followeth euen the acte of excommunication as we haue sayd and prooued and in the same sence the Angelicall Doctour S. THOMAS of AQVIN sayth 2.2 q.
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
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.
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
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
according to a probable opinion though he commaund a thing against the subiectes opinion and that also probable but the Pope VViddrington lawfull Superiour commaunding VViddrington not to defend the Oath of pretended allegeaunce commaundeth at least according to a probable opinion ergo VViddrington is bound to obey the Pope in this against his own opinion though that were also probable The Maior Vasquez proueth because the Subiect may follow any mans probable opinion and consequentlie his Superiours that also being probable and if he may he must because his Superiour commaundeth The Minor VViddrington graunteth and can not deny the Conclusion then followeth to wit that VViddrington is bound in conscience and vnder payne of mortall sinne the thing commaunded being of great importaÌ„ce to desist from defending the oath the Pope hauing condemned it and commaunding him not to defend it To say that the Pope is misinformed and that therfore his declaration and coÌ„maundement grounded therin doth not bynd in conscience is but a poore stay for VViddringtons conscieÌ„ce because Disp Th. c. 10. sec 1. n. 53. as VViddrington alleageth out of father Parsons letter he informed him selfe of seauen or eight of the most lerned Diuines in Rome and since he hath heard what VViddrington him selfe can suggest To alleage his Authours is to litle purpose they being as aboue wee haue seen few and of litle or no Authoritie To say the Pope may erre wil as litle seue VViddringtons turne because euerie lawfull Superiour is to be obeyed when he commaundeth according to a probable opinion though in other things and euen in this he may erre To answer that he is then onlie bound to obey his Superiour when ther is no notable daunger or domage in obeying is as litle to the purpose partlie because the opinion according to which the Pope commaundeth is more then probable as aboue is proued partlie because though ther may be Temporall domage in refusing to take the oath yet for VViddrington not to defend it by publique writing ther is no more dauÌ„ger to him theÌ„ to many moe who neuer set pen to paper for the defence of it rather VViddrington should feare the spirituall daunger and domage which is incurred either by defending or taken it as his chiefe Pastour hath assured him 75. Secondlie I wish VViddrington to reflect vpon his own selfe The socoÌ„a good Counsell to VViddringtâ—Ì„ and the state of life to which he is called the dauÌ„gerous course he runneth and how farre he is proceeded in it how heauie an enterprise he hath vndertaken and how hardlie hee shall be able to goe thorough with it whoe applaude him in it who condemne him what Authours he followeth whoÌ„ he contradicteth whom he maketh glad whom he contristateth what a Schisme as it were he hath made amongest some of his Catholique brethren with what doubtes and Scrouples he hath troubled the myndes of others How many wel meaning and before verie zealous Catholiques he hath induced to take the Oath and what scope he hath giuen to the persequutour to vexe and afflict those who out of conscience refuse to take it how litle gratefull he hath shewed him selfe to the Sea Apostolique which bredde brought him vp how much to officious to her Aduersaries his chiefe Applauders what litle comfort at the hower of his death he shall reape of these his labours how much discomfort 76. And to you Holsome Counsell to the Catholiques worthie constant and renowned Catholiques I giue this holsome Counsell Seing that this Oath so much derogateth from the Church and her chiefe Pastours honour and Authoritie and giueth such scope to her Enemies and Persecutours as you haue hetherto defended still sauing some fewe do this Church her faith and Authoritie and haue sustained losse of libertie liuinges and liues rather then you would consent to the least iniurie which is offred her so do you not by taking this Oath falsifie your faith to CHRIST his Church chiefe Vicaire You haue passed the raging stormes and Tempests of a Sea of Persecution make not shipwracke of all your spirituall marchandize and merites in the mouth of the hauen you haue long since laied your hand to the plough do not now looke backe Luc. 9. Exod. 14 you haue almost past the red Sea of Persecution which hitherto hath yeelded you passage go not backe to Aegipt for then you will neuer come to the Land of Promise you haue runne a long time in the race 1. Cor. 9. faint not now before the goale rather looke vp to Heauen Gal. 5. and you shall see the Angell houlding in his hand a crowne of glorie Currebatis benè quis vos impediuit veritati non obedire You ranne well who hindered you not to obey the truth Persuasio haec non est ex eo qui vocat vos Ibid. this persuasion to take this Oath is not of him Ibid. that called you It is of the Enemie who enuyeth that you ran so well But ego confido in vobis quod nihil aliud sapietis I haue confidence in you in our Lord that you will be of no other minde nor do otherwise then becometh good Catholicks and such Catholicks also who haue beene tried and purged in the fornace on whome the eyes of God his Saincts and all the world are fixed In the meane time qui conturbat vos por tabit iudicium suum quicunque est ille he that troubleth you he that hath cast stumbling blockes and scandals in your way he that like the serpent hath buzzed in your eares shall beare the Iudgement of almightie God whosoeuer he bee 77. And as I desire you should be constant in your faith and Religion obedient to the Church and her chiefe visible Pastour in all which is belonging to their Authoritie so I exhort you to obey the Kings Maiestie your Soueraige Lord and Liege in all things which appertaine to his Regall power and so to giue to God his Church and chiefe Vicaire their due hommage and respect as you deny not to the King Tribute Rom. 13. Custome feare honour obedience fidelitie and faithfull seruice not to thinke that this which I haue sayed in behalf of the authoritie of the Church and her chiefe visible Pastour hath been to detract any the least due right and respect from our Temporall Lord and Soueraigne much lesse to giue any waye or scope to plottes conspiracies or libelles which may irritate the Prince purchase no good but rather procure disgrace and preiudice to the cause for which you suffer For as S. PETER telles you 1. Pet. 2. what glorie is it if sinning and buffeted you suffer but if doing wel you susteine patientlie that is thanke before God for vnto this you are called For it is better as the same Apostle assureth you to suffer as doing well if the will of God will haue it soe then doing ill 1. Pet. 3. And therfore 1. Pet. 4.