Church but by the Magistrate I must tell him that if the Magistrate may punish Hereticks much more may the Church because the Magistrate and Prince as he is not to iudge which is heresie so it pertaines not to him to punish Hereticks Vide Suarâ—z lib. 4. de legibus cap. 11. heresie being a crime which pertaineth to the Ecclesiasticall not to the Temporall Court and therfore that Princes by their lawes do decree punishments against hereticks they do it by commission from the Church which is the cause why the Church first deliuereth them vp to secular power whence followeth that the Church who giueth Authoritie to Princes to punish Hereticks may do it her selfe when they are wanting in their office which also all the Arguments alleadged do conuince And Widdrington cannot denie Ca. ad ab solendum cap. vergentis c. ExcoÌ„municamus ca. fin de haereticis 15. q. 6. ca. not Sanctorum that the Church doth deliuer vp Hereticks to secular power which is a temporall punishment as also that she casteth them into prison confifcateth their goods makes them infamous vncapable of new secular offices and of the right and lawfull execution of the olde makes them vnable to make their last will or to succeed by Testament yea and that by her decrees they be excommunicated and consequentlie depriued of all Ciuill societie which are in like sort Temporall punishments Moreouer it cannot be denied but that the Councell of Trent sess 25. cap. 3. Commaundeth Ecclesiastical iudges not to vse Censures but when there is vrgent cause and in lieu therof to condemne malefactours to pecuniarie mulctes 3. And if the Church can thus punish ordinarie Christians temporallie she may inflict Temporall punishments vpon Kinges because although Kings as Kings are superiours to their subiectes yet as Christians and Christian Kinges also they are as subiect to the Church as others because as aboue I haue declared the reasoÌ„ why other Christians are subiect to the Church and her visible Head and Pastour is because they are incorporated to the Church and made members therof by baptisme and consequentlie subiect to the whole bodie and head but Kinges and Emperours are as well incorporated as other Christians being as well baptized and signed with as good and as vndefaceable a caracter of baptisme ergo they are as subiect And then say I If they be as subiect they may by the Churches authoritie be punished aswell as others and not only spirituallie but also temporallie as others may if once it be graunted that hereticall and rebellious Princes may be punished by the Chiefe Pastour by lesser penalties as coÌ„fiscations of goods infamie exile such like punishments which are inflicted on all obstinate hereticks then I shall easilie inferre that they may by the Church be depriued also of their Kingdomes that depriuation being a temporall punishment so of the same order with the others And though it be greater then many others yet why may it not be inflicted for an enormious rebellion or iniurie against the Church This I say to prooue that Princes by the Church may be punished temporallie though the Church alwayes beareth and ought to beare that respect to Princes that she will not vse teÌ„porall punishmeÌ„ts against Princes no nor any punishment at all but only when holsome admonition will not serue and the Church is much interessed CHAPTER XI The same power of the Pope ouer Princes is prooued by authority of Generall Councells out of which are gathered for the same authority euident and conuincing arguments 1. THe Authoritie of a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope quoad nos in respect of vs to whom a Councell is better knowen then Scripture though in it selfe not of so great credit as Scripture is the greatest in earth and vnder the cope of Heauen For if a Councell especiallie Generall confirmed by the Chiefe Pastour Act. 15. notwithstanding that it representeth the whole Church containeth all the Chiefe Pastours of the Church and hath in it assembled all the learning wisdome Authoritie and sanctitie yea the holy Ghost for directour may erre who cannot erre And after such Authoritie reiected whome shall we finde of greater Authoritie for interpreting Scripture deciding controuersies clearing doubts and difficulties and enacting holsome lawes Mat. 18. Christs bids vs holde him for no better then an Ethnike and Publican who will not heare the Church and where or when doth the Church more expreslie deliuer her mind or teach with more Authoritie or command with more right to be obeyed then in a Generall Councell â—â—au 14. 16. And if in any place or coÌ„munitie the holie Ghost presideth as certes Christ promised his Holy spirit to his Church and the Apostles and their Successours no doubt in a Generall Councell he teacheth all veritie Act. 15. Hence it is that S. PETER and the Councell holden at Hierusalem sayth Visum est spiritui sancto nobis 1. Tim. 3. It hath seemed good to the Holie Ghost and vs. And if the Church be euer the Pillar of truth it is in a Generall Councell If euer Christ fulfilleth his promise to be there where two or three are gathered together in his name Athan. in epist de Synodie Arim. Seleue. he fulfilleth it in a Generall Councell Wherefore ATHANASIVS calleth the decree of the Councell of NICE Sententiam Apostolicam An Apostolicall sentence and in another place he marueiles how any dare make any doubte Epist ad Epict. Ambros li. 5. epist 32. Aug. ep 162. 118. or moue any question concerning any matters decided in that Councell S. AMBROSE did giue such credit to it that he sayd neither death nor sword should separate him from that Authoritie S. AVGVSTINE calleth the sentence of a Generall Councell the last sentence from which is no appeale and saith that the Authoritie of Councels in the Church is saluberrima most holesome Ciril in dial 1. S. CIRILL of Alexandria calles a Generall Councell Basim immobile fundameÌ„tum Gregor epist 28. A ground and immoueable foundation S. GREGORIE the Great honoured the foure first Generall Councels to which the Councell of Trent is equall in Authoritie coÌ„sisting of as lawfull Bishops as the foure Ghospelles to wit for their infallibilitie This I thought good to premise because Widdrington and others seeme not to giue that respect to Councels as the Authoritie of them requireth Let vs now see what the Councels say of this matter in hand and then let me see the face that dareth face out so great Authoritie 2. And first let vs see what the Generall CouÌ„cell of LateraÌ„ held in the yeare of our Lord 1215. vnder INNOCENTIVS the third determineth in this matter Surius praefat in hoc Conc. Platina in Innocentie 3. No man sayth Laurentius Surius in his Preface to this Councell can doubt of the Authoritie and generalitie of this Councell because in it were handled matters of ReligioÌ„ determined
of their Kinglie Authoritie and if the woolfe come he may not only crie out against him by denouncing Gods law and Iudgements nor only strike him with his spirituall staffe but he may also vse euen the Temporall Club to chase him from the flocke and fould as many worthy Prelates of the Church haue done whose examples we shall anon alleadge And yet this not withstāding there shall still be a difference betwixt the Pope and the Temporall Prince because the Pope is to vse in the first place his spirituall glaiue and not to meddle with Kinges Regalities or temporall armes but onlie when it is necessarie for the good of the Church and when the Spirituall censures will no◠suffice the Prince is to vse Temporall armes and not to meddle with the Spirituall at all 9. Mat. 18. The like Argument I deduce out of these wordes of CHRIST Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi tanquam Ethnicus Publicanus If he will not heare the Church Chrysost in hunc locum let him be to thee as an Ethnike and Publican By the Church are vnderstood the Prelates of the Church and especially the Chiefe Prelate the Pope who gouerneth and commandeth in the Church and so this place is like to the former place of Deuteronomie Deut. 17 For as God there sayth that he that will not obey the high Priest shal be sentenced to death so here CHRIST sayth that he who will not obey the Pastours and especiallie the high Pastour shall be holden as an Ethnick and Publican that is by excommunication shal be cast out of all societie of the Church for with the Ethnikes and Publicans the Iewes had no commerce nor communication If then he contemne this censure of the Church the Chiefe Pastour may take his armes from him by which he molesteth her and seing that his Temporall power is that which is his Chiefest weapon the High Pastour may depriue him of it else the high visible Priest of the New law should be inferiour to the High Priest of the oulde law and MOYSES should be preferred before CHRIST and the Synagogue before the Church To make this deduction of more force I obserue that this place conuinceth that the Pastour of the Church may separate a disobedient Christian from the societie of the rest which is a Temporall punishment being a priuation of Temporall conuersation whence it followeth thar if the disobedience and default deserue it he may also depriue a Prince of his Crowne and Temporall Authoritie that being also a Temporall paine Which Argument shall be confirmed more hereafter 10. Many also and not improbablie alleage for proofe of that which hath bene said those words of our Blessed Sauiour to his Apostles Mat. 18. Whatsoeuer you shall binde vpon earth shall be bound also in heauen and what soeuer you shall loose vpon earth shal be loosed also in heauen For although this power of binding and loosing giuen to the Apostles and their Successours especiallie the Chiefe Pastour hath for her ordinarie functions loosing or detaining sinnes excommunicating or absoluing dispensing in vowes and oathes c. yet the wordes being generall VVhat soeuer you shall bind vpon earth it seemeth that they should not so be restrained but that they may be extended to loosing and absoluing euen from Temporall allegeance and obedience to the Prince when obedience to the Prince can not stand with the conseruation of the Churches right or faith for which that power was giuen And if the Pastour may free the subiects in this case from all obligation of obedience or dutie to the Prince he may make them no subiects and consequentlie the Prince no King nor superiour for the Prince and subiects are correlatiues which are of this nature that one cannot be without the other and one destroyed the other is destroyed VVherfore if the Chiefe Pastour of the Church can absolue the subiects from their allegeance be can make them no subiects if he can make them no subiectes he can make the Prince no Superiour and consequentlie depriue him of all Temporall Authoritie by which he is Superiour VVherevpon not only the learned writers of this time Cardinall BELLARMINE SVAREZ SCHVLKENIVS and others but also some of the auncients haue vnderstood this place of loosing in some case euen from Temporall allegeance S. GREGORIE the Seuenth who deposed HENRIE the fourth Emperour of that name in his depositiō which BARONIVS alleageth Baron tom 11. Anno 1080. num 11. calling vpon S. PETER and S. PAVLE sayth thus Agite nunc quaeso Patres Principes sanctissimi vt omnis mundus intelligat cognoscat quia si potestis in Coelo ligare obsoluere potestis in terra Imperia◠Regna Principatus Ducatus Marchias Comitatus omnium hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere vnicuique concedere Goe to now I pray you ô most holy Fathers and Princes that all the world may vnderstand and know that if you can bynde and loose in heauen you can in earth take away according to their deserts from euerie one and giue to others Empires Kingdomes Principalities Dukedomes Marquisdomes Counties and all mens possessions So INNOCENT the fourth in the Councell of Lions and in the deposition of FREDERICK the second expoundeth the same and warranteth therby his authority in deposing And thus much concerning proofes of the Popes authority out of scripture for deposing Princes and punishing Hereticks and rebelles to the Church by Temporall chastisements CHAPTER IX By Theologicall arguments grounded in principles of faith and the Nature of the Church as it is an absolute Common wealth the same power of the Supreame Pastour is prooued 1. WHat proofe holie Scripture yeeldeth for this veritie we haue seene in ther former Chapter Now let vs see what proofe reason grounded in faith and the Churches Nature can afforde vs. My first Argument I deduce from the comparison before mentioned betwixt the Spirituall and Temporall power by which I haue made it manifest that the Spirituall power exceedeth the Temporall as in many other things so in inflicting penalties and punishments for the Temporall power can onlie punish the bodie the Spirituall can chastize the soule that power can only decree and indict Temporall penalties and mulcts this can lay spirituall Censures and bonds vpon the soule euen excommunication This power which the Church hath to excommunicate I haue aboue in part prooued out of diuerse places of Scripture which here with some others I shall alleadge againe for my present purpose For to omitt that S. PAVL excommunicated that Incestuous Corinthian 1. Cor. 5. 1. Tim. 1. Tit. 3. 2. Thes 3. 2. Ioan. 1 2. Cor. 10 as also Hyminaeus and Alexander he insinuateth the same power where he commands vs to shunne hereticks and not to say Aue vnto them As also where he sayth Arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt sed potentia Deo ad destructionem c. The weapons of our warfare are not
against God and his Churches right and honour VVherfore seeing that by this oath the true and lawfull Authoritle of your chiefe visible head and Pallour is abiured as this booke will make plaine vnto you imitate the wise serpent expose bodie liuings libertie and all for the defence of your Head and if your zealous Pastour and Primat S. THOMAS of CANTERBVRIE indured banishment reuilings contumelies iniuries and at length death it self for the defeÌ„ce of the rights of the Church how much more should you constantlie endure for the defence of the Head of the Church 18. And although Widdrington telles you and as he would seeme as a freind and one that hath care of your temporall estates that you are not bound to loose any penny for the Authoritie of the Pope which this oath abiureth yet I desire you to coÌ„pare VViddrington to those Allens Card. Allan in his Answ to the libeller Hardings Sanders Bâ—istowes Stapletons who had as great a care of your temporall and more of your spirituall estates and yet wrote and taught that the Authoritie which this oath abiureth is to be defended with hazard of liuings and life To these I'desire you to adde the CouÌ„cels not only Prouincial but also General which in their decrees haue defined this authoritie the Popes so many so learned so holie who haue exercized it vpon rebellious Princes the Kings and Emperours though most herein interessed who haue acknowledged it the arguments also deducted out of Scripture and Principles of faith and Diuinitie which do conuince it all which this booke will make known vnto you and lastly the fatherlie admonition of your most Holie Father and chiefe visible Pastour PAVL by the Grace of God the fifte of that name who as by office he hath a generall charge and care of all Christian Nations so hath he a particular care not only of the spirituall but also of the temporall estates of all English Catholikes as our Colledges haue and do daiely experience and consequentlie would not expose your temporall estates to the furie of the persecutour by forbidding you this oath if as he telleth you it did not containe thinges which can not be sworne without euident and grieuous wronging of Gods honour and which are flat contrarie to faith and saluation Paulus 5. in Breu. And therfore seeing that hee like a wise and carefull Phisitian hath more care of your health then of contenting your tast and humour and VViddrington contrariewise permitteth you that which is pleasing to flesh and bloud not so much respecting how preiudicious it is to your soules health if you will preferre heauen before a temporall estate and the soule before the bodie you must also preserre your Holie Fathers counsel and admonition especiallie grounded in such authoritie before all the smooth and soothing prescriptions in the world warraÌ„ted by onlie Widdringtons and some few obscure Authors authoritie for although he alleadgeth often the Doctors of Sotbon and all the state of France yet by the late resistance made by the Clergie and nobilitie of France against the like Oath who seeth not how he abuseth his reader and iniureth that noble Monarchie 19. But put the case you should preferre VViddringtons counsel before your chiefe Pastours admonition and all the authoritie alleadged neither so what soeuer he beareth you in hand should you saue your temporall estates or decline persecution For to omitte that if you had at the first iointlie and couragionslie resisted the oath it is like you should neuer haue been so hoatlie pressed with it if now you should all resolue to accept of it neither so should you auoide persecution For as I haue tould you perchaunce your yeelding in this point hath prouoked your heauenlie Fathers wrath and induced him in this his so iustlie conceiued anger to vse or permitt still the rodd of persecution which otherwise he was readie to haue layed aside and the persecutour who proposeth this oath not seeking so much the Princes securitie which rather hereby as I haue shewed in the last chapter of this booke is more endaungered as the molestation of your Consciences and the pillage of your goods would not though you should accept of this oath surcease therfore from persecution but if he could not by this meanes molest your consciences and ruine your estates he would try other meanes as to compell you to their Churches or prophane Communion And this you may gather by his sorrow he shewed when in the beginning so many of you yeelded to take this oath and by this also that many who haue taken this oath can not so free them selues from molestation because nothing but your goods and miseries can satisfie the vnsatiable crueltie of bloudie persecutours And so by yeelding to this oath as you prouoke Gods greater anger so you moue the persecutour to no compassion rather you make him more insolent and redouble your owne miserie But suppose you could thus shake of this hâ—auie yoke of persecution yet it beeing vnlawfull as your chiefe Pastour and â—earnedst Doctours teach you as hetherto rapinam bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis cognoscentes vos habere meliorem manentem substantiaÌ„ Heb 10 the spoile of your owne goods you haue taken with ioy knowing that you haue a better and permanent substance so do you perseuere and continue And if God permit the persecutour to prey not only on your goods but also on your liues yet nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus animam autem non possunt occidere c. Matt 10. feare not them that can kill the bodie and are not able to kill the soule but rather feare him that can destroy both soule and bodie into Hel. 10. Many thinges do make this oath vnlawfull as you will easilie perceaue by the briese examination which the last chapter of this treatise maketh of it but if there were nothing but this that it is an vncouth and vnwonted oath neuer yet proposed by any Prince vnto his subiects and proposed also by the professed Enemies of Gods Church all Catholikes that feare to offend God or to doe iniurie to the Church and her right and authoritie ought to holde it as suspected and as such to shunne it and auoyd it For it is no new thing for heretikes vnder colour of oathes of fidelitie and ciuil alleageance to deceaue the well meaning and nought-suspecting Catholike VVee read in the historie of the persecution of the Wandalles Victor Vticen lib. 3. de pers Vand. how Hunnericus proposed such an oath to the Catholike Bishops assembled together at Carthage preteÌ„ding onely therby to assure him selfe of their sidelitie towards him and his sonne that was to succeede him which if they would take he premised to send them home to their Churches The oath seemed â—â—rie reasonable and was no other then this Iurate si post obitum Domini nostri Regis eius filium Hildericum desideratis esse Regem vel si nullus vestrum ad Regiones
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
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
probable that the Pope hath power to depose as Widdrington confesseth it is probable I demaunde of Widdrington how he can sweare resolutelie that the Pope hath no such authoritie he being not ignorant that many learned men holde it and that more then probable that he hath And so for all this Answer my former Argument is in force wherfore although it were but probable that the Pope hath authoritie to depose a Prince and that consequentlie he could not actuallie without iniustice depose him the cōdition of the Possessour being to be preferred yet seing that the power is one thinge the exercise an other and that it is at least probable that the Pope hath power to depose how can WIDDRINGTON knowing this probabilitie sweare absolutelie that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose As for example one is in possession of a Tenement and hath probable right an other hath also probable right to it but without possession and so can not iustlie dispossesse because in the like defaulte or cause De Reg◠Iuris in 6. better is the condition of him that is in possession Although therfore in this case one might sweare that he who is not in possession can not iustlie dispossesse the partie who hath the possession yet he could not sweare that he hath no right to the Tenement if he know that he hath probable right And therefore although if it were but probable that the Pope can depose one might sweare that he cannot exercise this power iustlie because melior est conditio Principis possidentis yet he could not sweare as in this clause he is commaunded that the Pope hath no power nor right to depose a Prince For as a man may haue probable right to a Tenement and yet can not put him out of possession who also hath probable right because possession hindereth so the Pope might haue probable authoritie to depose yet could not actuallie depose a Prince because his possession hindereth Lastelie by as many Arguments as I haue deduced out of Scriptures Councelles The ologicall principles and practise of holy Popes to prooue that the Pope can in some cases depose a Prince I haue also prooued WIDDRINGTONS opinion improbable And although three or foure Authours or as many as VVIDDRINGTON alleageth may make an opinion probable Vasq 1. 2. disp 62. ca. 4. yet as Vasquez and others do well obserue they must be skilfull in that arte and science and the rest of the torrent of Doctours must admitte it as probable and not note it of errour or temeritie And therfore though some few Doctours holde with VViddrington or rather he with them yet seing that the rest of the Doctours in number learning and sanctitie farre excelling do stand against his opinion that his Authours either holde against him or are censured by the Church that the Decrees of Councelles and facts of Popes do condemne him his Authours and his opinion and that latelie his Chiefe Pastours sentence hath pronounced that the oath of Alleageance containeth thinges contrarie to faith and saluation in which wordes no doubt WIDDRINGTONS opinion the principall subiect of the oath is deepelie taxed how can WIDDRINGTONS opinion be probable and if his opiniō be not probable the contrarie opinion which holdeth that the Pope can depose a Prince must be more then probable and no lesse then certaine as besides other Arguments the Lateran Decree which otherwise should be vniust doth demonstrate whence followeth that the Pope hath not onlie power to depose but may also execute it without iniustice the Prince deposed hauing no probable right or Title remaining And this is the opinion of all those who holde that the Pope can depose Princes and this was the opinion of the Popes so learned and so holie that haue deposed Princes and so must thinke it more then probable else the Prince as I said after deposition should retaine probable right and so being also in Possession could not iustlie be deposed 21. Widdr. Disp Th. cap. 3. sect 3. n. 3. cap. 10. sect 2. n. 11. This Argument will haue more force if we consider that this Oath is not onlie proposed to those that holde with WIDDRINGTON but also to those and those especially who holde against him and can not chaunge their opinion or depose their conscience because they haue no probable reason to depose it at least so as to thinke absolutely and vndoubtedly that the Pope cannot depose Princes or dispose of their Temporall states For although if VViddringtons opinion were probable as it is not they might so depose their conscience as to thinke the contrarie probable and consequently might sweare it is probable yet they can not sweare that they thinke from their hart and before God that VViddringtons opinion is absolutely true and consequently the contrarie absolutely false they knowing that there is such reason and Authority for the contrarie Yea this Oath is proposed to all sortes as well those that are learned as vnlearned as well those that haue capacitie to Iudge of the Oath as those that haue not such as are the most part of those to whome it is tendered And how shall they with any saferie of conscience sweare that before God and in their harts they thinke that the Pope can not depose Princes they being not able to iudge of the matter and knowing no more probabilitie for the one side then for the other 22. VViddrington sayth that those that can not iudge may rely vpon the learned and so though by intrinsecall principles which are the reasons and Arguments which are produced for this opinion they can not iudge which opinion is probable or more probable they being not of capacitie to conceaue of the force of Argumentes yet by extrinsecall principles that is Authoritie of others who are counted good and learned men they may frame to them selues a conscience that the Pope can not depose Princes because many learned and good men holde that opinion To which purpose he citeth his Maister Gabriel Vasquez whome notwithstanding he misconstrueth Vasq 1.2 disp 62. c. 8. For although Vasquez togeather with Henricus Conradus and Siluester whome he alleadgeth do holde that an ignorant man may follow in practise a probable opinion yea the Counsell of a prudent learned and good man who telleth him it is a probable opinion although the common opinion be contrarie And so if VViddringtons opinion were probable might also holde with him and consequently sweare what hee thinketh yet I denie VViddringtons opinion to be probable and haue prooued it not only improbable but also repugnant to scriptures Theologicall reasons Councels and consequently directlie or indirectlie to faith it selfe But suppose which yet I will not graunt that VViddringtons opinion were probable yet neither Vasquez nor any Diuine affirmeth that it is lawfull to sweare absolutely that VViddringtons opinion is true If VViddringtons opinion were probable by reason of the Authoritie of the Authours that holde it then might any