with his owne bloud But neither he nor any Apostle euer gaue that charge to Princes Fiftelie they differ in the cause efficient for the Ciuill and Temporall Power proceeds from God and Nature by meanes of the peoples election as is in the former Chapter declared but the spirituall power of the Church as it implieth Potestatem ordinis Iurisdictionis in foro interiori is from God immediatelie it being supernaturall and exceeding humane power And although the Ecclesiasticall humane power which inferiour Prelates haue proceeded from superiour Prelates especiallie the Pope yet not from the Prince or Common wealth but from the Pastours and Church So that as the Pope Priests and Church doe willinglie acknowledge the temporall and ciuill power of the Prince Magistrates and Common wealth or Kingdome so the Prince Magistrates and Common wealth must be content to recognize a spirituall power of the Pope Bishops Priests and Church to which obedience is due euen of Princes who are subiect to the Church no lesse then are temporall subiectes to the Prince yea rather more 7. This power all true Christians and Catholickes acknowledge none but Heretickes and Infidels deny The Waldenses Guido Carmel in har VVald Turrecr l. 4. SuÌ„ma de Eccl c. 35. CoÌ„c Const sess 8. et 15. a. 14 Luth. a. 27. Dan in Bulla Leon. 10 Cal l. 4. Inst ca. 20 n. 6. 7. as witnesse Guido and Turrecremata as also VVicleph and Hus as the Councell of Constance relateth denyed all Ecclesiasticall power and sayed that Popes and Bishops Decrees and Canons did not bynd any The same is Luthers opinion Caluin affirmeth that neither the Pope nor his mitred Caluin sayeth horned Bishops can bynde mens Consciences by their decrees and ordinances and that for two causes First because they are no true Bishops which yet neither he nor all his secte could euer prooue Secondlie because though they were true Bishops yet they are not legislatours or lawmakers that Tytle agreeing only to Christ only he and his graunt that they may inculcate Gods lawes but make no newe 8. Well it is knowen that is was alwaies the manner of Heretickes to contemne all Ecclesiasticall Authoritie because it condemned them But as I haue alleaged proofes in the former Chapter for Ciuill power of Princes so can I not want argumentes for the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power when Christ promised PETER that he should be the foundation and head of the Church he promised this power in and ouer the Church Mat. 16. for if PETER be head of the Church he can rule the mysticall bodie and if he can rule the same then can he also make Ecclesiasticall lawes for that is belonging to a superiour of euerie great and perfect communitie as is before shewed Secondlie Christ gaue this power to PETER when after his Resurrection he saied Pasce oues meas Feede my sheepe Ioan. 21. For the office of a Pastour may be gathered by the office of a shepheard who is to gouerne his sheepe to feede them and to defend them from the wolfe and so a spirituall shepheard and Pastour must haue authoritie to rule by lawes to feede by preaching and Sacraments and to defend by censures and his Pastorall staffe and coerciue power Eph. 4. VVhereupon Saint Paul saith that Christ hath giuen to his Church not only Doctours and Prophetes to teach but also Pastours to feede and gouerne And seing that the Church hath as much neede now of a supreame visible Pastour and rather more then at the beginninge it followeth that PETER hath a successour who hath the like Authoritie And seing that all Fathers all Councelles all histories all practise of the Church possession and prescription for 1600. yeares stande for the Pope of Rome he is this successour and he it is that hath the supreame Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power after Christ Thirdlie Mat. 18. Christ commandeth to obey the Church and saith That he that will not giue eare to the Church is to be accounted as an Ethnike and Publican which is a signe that the Church hath Authoritie and Iurisdiction to heare causes and to pronounce sentences to which obedience is to be giuen Fourthlie not withstanding that in the old law of Moyses God determined almost all by him self by his morall iudiciall and ceremoniall lawes yet he gaue power to the Synagogue and her Pastours to interprete the law to resolue doubtes concerning the law and to enact some lawes as occasion was offred And therefore we see with what seueritie God commanded obedience to the Priests saying Deut. 17 Si difficile â—mbiguum c. If thou perceaue that the Iudgement with thee be hard and doubtfull betweene bloud and bloud cause and cause leprosie and leprosie and thou â—â—e that the wordes of the Iudges within thy gate do â—arie arise and ge vp to the place which our Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke and to the Iudge that shall be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall thew thee the truthe of the Iudgement And thou shalt do what soeuer they that are Presidents of the place which our Lord shall choose shall say and teach thee according to his law and thou shalt follow the sentence c. And he that shal be prooued 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 and the whole people shall feare that none asterward swell with pride By which we see that the Highe Priest had Power not only directiue but also coerciue vnder paine of death And we read how the victorie of Iudith ouer Holofernes was celebrated by the Iewes with commandement of a holie daye Iudith vlt. which law was merelie Ecclesiasticall made by the Priests and was not commanded by God his law The like festiuall day was decreed by Mardocheus and receaued by the Iewes in memorie of their deliuerie from Amans tyrannie by meanes of Hester Hester 9. which also was no diuine but an humane and Ecclesiasticall law Likewise the Machabees instituted the feast of the Dedication 1. Mach. 4. Ioan. 10. which Christ afterwards obserued with the rest of the Iewes and yet this was not commanded by God his law Againe Christ commandeth to do that which they who sitt in Moyses Chaire doe saie Mat. 23. but not alwaies what they doe much more would he haue vs to do that Lib. 4. Inst cap. 20. n. 21. Act. 15. which they who sitt in Saint Peters yea Christs seate do command And we read in the Actes which Caluin well saw but glosseth vntowardlie how the Apostles in their first Councell made a new law by which they commanded the conuerted Gentils to abstaine from eating of bloud and things strangled which were now the olde lawe being abrogated things
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
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
examples of the ould 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 chap. 8. 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 chap. 9. The same verity is confirmed by the practise of the Church in punnishing heretickes temporally with losse of goods liberty and liues chap. 10. The same power of the Pope ouer Princes is prooued by authority of Generall Councelles out of which are gathered for the same authority â—uident and conuincing arguments chap. 11. By the facts of the holy and learned Bishops of Rome especially Gregorie the seauenth the same power is confirmed chap. 12. By the number of Doctours who haue embraced the opinion that giueth this power to the Pope the same doctrine is prooued betwixt the number grauity and authority of which Doctours and those who staÌ„d for VViddringtons opinion there is no comparison to be made chap. 13. By the doctrine and practise of heretikes the same against them is demonstrated and thence is inferred that the questioÌ„ betwixt vs and them is not so much whether the Pope hath any such authority as whether the Pope or they haue it chap. 14. An explication of the late Oath of pretended Alleageance and of euery clause therof deduced out of the former and some other grounds by which is prooued that it can neither be proposed nor taken without grieuous offence of Almighty God Chap. 15. THE RIGHT AND IVRISDICTION OF THE PRELATE and the PRINCE CHAPTER I. BY WAY OF INTRODVCTION IT IS shewed that there be two powers in the Church the one Ciuill the other Ecclesiasticall which are both necessarie ALMIGHTY God in the first creation of this materiall world Gen. 1. prouided two great lightes to illuminate rule and gouerne it the one he called luminare maius the other luminare minus we commonly call them the SuÌ„ne Moone And no sooner had he created as it were the spirituall world of his Church but he appointed also two great lightes to gouerne it and direct it to the end prefixed The one is the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church residing in her Bishops and Pastours the other is the Temporall power of the CoÌ„mon wealth Magistrate or Prince Both powers are great in their kind both of God both as necessary to humane societie as the SuÌ„ne and Moone to this world Gelas ep ad â—mp Anastas VVherfore GELASIVS Pope saith Duo sunt Imperator Auguste quibus hic muÌ„dus principaliter regitur Autoritas sacra PomificuÌ„ Innoc. 3. Cap. Solitae de maior obed Regalis potestas Two thinges there are O noble Emperour by which this world is principallie gouerned the sacred Authoritie of Bishops and Regal power And Innocentius the Third vsing the former similitude saieth Ad firmamentum Coeli hoc est vniuersalis Ecclesiae fecit Deus duo magna luminaria id est duas instituit dignitates quae sunt Pontificalis Authoritas Regalis Potestas For the FirmameÌ„t of Heauen that is of the vniuersal Church God made two great lights that is he instituted two Dignities which are Pentifical Authoritie and Regal power But because the world now adaies aboundeth and as it were swarmeth with those kind of men whoÌ„ the Apostle calleth Animales homines 1. Cor. 2. quinoÌ„ sapiunt ea quae sunt spiritus sensual men who perceaue not those thinges that are of the spirit of God and therfore preferre the body before the soule this present life before the future time in which they are to liue but for a time before eternitie in which they are to liue eternally and consequently esteeme more of state then of Religion of the Common wealth then the Church and of the Temporall power of Princes then of the spirituall authoritie of Pastours I will by cleare and euident arguments so establish both that I will also sincerely deliuer which of them hath the preeminence and precedence For they who seeke to depriue vs of either of these powers do as if they would take from the world the Sunne or the Moone as though both were not necessary and they who do so admire the Temporall power and dignitie that they debase and misprise the spirituall though that indeede ruleth only the night of TeÌ„porall affaires this the day of the spirituall state are like vnto Owles who are so pleased with the Moone light that they could be contented there were no Sunne at all CHAPTER II. Some Ciuill power floweth immediatly froÌ„ God and nature Regali power proceedeth immediatly from the peoples election and donatioÌ„ mediatly from Gods ordination so that after the election of the people and reception the King is superiour who may command and binde in conscience the people are subiects and bound to obey 1. MAn by a naturall propension which God and Nature hath ingraffed in him desireth to consorte in companie and is prone to frieÌ„dship fellowship and societie And therfore Aristoâ—le saieth that Arist l. 1 Polit. ca. 2. Ciuitas est ex his quae natura sum The citie is one of those things which haue their source from nature and that homo natura ciuile est animal Man by nature is a ciuill liuinge creature And he addeth Ibidem Qui absque ciuitate est per naturam non per fortunam aut nequam est aut potior quam homo He that liueth out of the citie induced therto by inclination of nature not by fortuâ—e is either wicked orbâ—tter then man Ibidem Yea saith he Qui in coÌ„mum societate nequiâ— esse quique nullim indiget propter sufficientiam nulla pars est â—iuitatis quare aut Bestia aut Deus He that can not liue in common societie and needeth no mans hâ—lp by reason that he is sufficient of him selfe is no part of the Citie VVherfore he is either a beast or a God And thence he concludeth that Homo est sociale animal magis quà m Apes quà m omne gregariuÌ„ animal Man is a liuing creature more sociable theÌ„ bees or any consorting liuing creature And we see by experience how all reasonable and liuing Creatures desire societie The Angelles although they haue no familiar conuersation with meÌ„ as being aboue the raÌ„ke of men needing no humane helpe yet they haue Hierarchies and Orders rule and gouernment amongst them selues and the superiour illuminateth the inferiour and all of them speake and confer with one another and in this maÌ„ner they liue together which argueth a societie 〈◊〉 and though they conuerse not visibly and familiarly With vs yet for the charitie they beare vnto vs and for the neede we haue of theÌ„ some of them are our ordinary Guardians others are extraordinary Embassadours sent on diuine messages
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
as God preuented the Iewes and whereas they by lawe of Nature had permission to choose their Kinges yet for their greater good he chose thē one him selue immediatelie so although by the lawe of Nature men otherwise might haue prescribed the manner of worshipping God and the worship had been lawfull so that it had been the worship of the true God and had been free from superstition yet because God hath ordained vs to a supernaturall end and would haue our Ecclesiasticall gouernment free from all superstition he hath himselfe appointed the manner of gouernment and hath giuen the Authoritie So in the lawe of Moyses he chose the Tribe of LEVI to serue in the Tabernacle and Temple and to menage Ecclesiasticall matters he instituted also sacrifices sacramentes and Ceremonies in like sort in the new lawe of Grace vnder which we liue he committed the gouernment of his Church to the Apostles and Disciples only and their successours he instituted seuen Sacramentes and a sacrifice he gaue vs a lawe and beleefe which first he deliuered by preaching then by the written Ghospelles and Epistles of his Apostles and other thinges he committed to the Church which he had instituted and established 5. So that as there is a Ciuill and Temporall Power residing in the Common wealth by which the Prince or Magistrate can gouerne and rule and cōmaund for the conseruation and promotion of the Temporall good of the same so is there a spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Power residing in the Church by which the Pastours haue Authoritie to preach teach administer Sacraments determine of matters of Religion to call Councelles for the better clearing of matters and enacte lawes which shall be thought expedient vnto the honour of God the spirituall good of the Church and euerie ones saluation And this is called Ecclesiasticall power which is distinct from the Temporall in many pointes 6. First in respect of the end and finall cause for Temporall power of it selfe aymeth only at Temporali Iustice peace and conseruation of the Temporall state of the Kingdome or Common wealth Ecclesiasticall power intendeth in this life the spirituall health of the soule and eternall rest and peace in the next Secondlie these powers haue diuers Actes and seing that powers are distinct by their Actes it followeth that Temporall and Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power are distinct That they haue distinct Actes it is manifest for the Temporall power maketh lawes for this corporall life and Temporalle state but the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power maketh lawes for the soule and her direction the Temporall power remitteth the paines only of sinnes but the spirituall Power remitteth the sinne it self according to that Ioan. 20 Quorum remiseritis peccata c. VVhose sinnes you shall forgiue c. The Temporall power inflicteth and remitteth only Ciuill and Temporall punishments as imprisonment banishment temporall death but the spirituall power as now it is for in the old law there was not Potestas Clauium excommunicateth suspendeth interdicteth which are spiritual punishments and bonds of the soule and remitteth not only these paines but also eternall death and paine of Hell for when the Priest remitteth mortall sinnes he chaūgeth eternall paine into temporall yea some times when the Penitent cometh with a great contrition he remitteth both Eternall and Temporall Thirdly they differ in their obiectes for the spirituall power disposeth not of Temporall thinges but only as they are necessary to the spirituall The Temporall meddleth not with spirituall nor Ecclesiasticall matters according to that of S. AMBROSE S. Ambr. lib. 5. ep 33. ad Marcel soror Ad Impetatorem Palatia pertinent ad sacerdotem Ecclesiae Publicorum tibi maenium ius commissum est non sacrorum To the Emperour Pallaces appertaine to the Priest Churches to thee Emperour the right of common Walles is committed not of Churches And NICHOLAS Pope in an Epistle to MICHAEL the Emperour Ca. Cum ad verū dist 96. Vide etiā ca. Quoniam d. 10. Nec Imperator iura Pontificum arripuit nec Pontifex nomen Imperatoris vsurpauit quoniam Christus sic actibus propriis dignitatibus distinctis officia potestatis vtriusque discreuit Neither hath the Emperour taken to him the rights of Bishops neither hath the Bishop vsurped the name of the Emperour because Christ hath distinguished the offices of both by their distinct actes and dignities Fourthlie they differ in respect of the subiect and materiall cause for although it be not impossible for these two Powers to consort in the same subiect for we see they did in Melchisedech and in the first begotten of the Iewes in the law of Nature and in the Machabees who were Priests and Princes and consequentlie had temporall and spirituall power yet as in other thinges these powers are distinct so God not only in the law of Grace but also in the law written of Moyses would haue these powers placed in distinct subiectes and Persons 2. Paral◠19. For in the law of Moyses AMARIAS menaged matters of the Church law ZABADIAS gouerned the affaires of the Kingdome the Kinges and Princes of the Iewes were of the Tribe of IVDA the Priests of the Tribe of LEVI and those gouerned onely the Common VVealth enacted Temporall lawes waged battaile c. whereas the Priests ruled it matters of the Tabernacle and Temple offered sacrifice and gouerned the Synagogue And now in the law of Grace Christ gaue all spirituall power to the Apostles and their successours and not to Princes for to the Apostles and their successours it was saied VVhatsoeuer you shall bynd vpon earth Mat. 18. shal be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall losse vpon earth shal be loosed in heauen To Princes it was neuer sayd so To the Apostles and their successours it was sayd Ioan. 20. Whose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained To Princes neuer To S. PETER an Apostle and Priest it was sayed Mat. 16 Thou art Peter and vppon this Rock will I build my Church To no Prince was it euer sayd in that sort To Apostles and Priests Christ sayed Matth. vlt. Goinge therefore teach ye all Nations baptising them in the name of the father the sonne and the holy Ghost To Princes neuer To Apostles and Priests Christ said Ioan. 6. As my liuing father hath sent me so I send you that is to preach to minister Sacramentes and to gouerne the Church Ephes 4. To Princes neuer To the Apostles Doctours Pastours Prophets Christ committed his Church to be gouerned Act. 28. to Princes neuer To Priests S. Paul gaue this admonition Attendite vobis vniuerso gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei quam acquisiuit sanguine suo Take heede to your selues and to the whole flocke wherin the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased
indifferent and not otherwise forbidden Fiftlie Mat. 18. Christ gaue authoritie to his Apostles to loose and bynd by excommunications suspensions and interdicts which actes of Iurisdiction are the spirituall bands and Censures which the Church layeth vpon rebellious Christians as Diuines and Fathers interprete Which power Saint Paul in his second Epistle to the Corinthians insinuateth saying If I come againe I will not spare and againe These things I write absent that being present I may not deale hardlie according to the power which our Lord hath giuen me vnto edification and not vnto destruction 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 5. D. Th. in hac loca Gregor Nyssâ—in orat aduersus eos qui agre ferunt reprehens Chrysost hom 60â— ad pop Ant. Hieron ep 53. And in his first Epistle he sayth VVhat will you in rodde that I come to you or in charitie and the spirit of mildnesse And againe he in absence by his letters and mandatum excommunicateth the incestuous person and deliuereth him vp to Satan Out of which wordes Saint Gregorie of Nisse and Saint Chrysostome do gather the power of Excommunication As also doth Saint Hierom who marueileth that the Bishop in whose Diocese Vigilantius liued did not Virga ferrea confringere vas inutile tradere in interitum carnis vt spiritus saluus fiat With an iron rodde breake that vnprofitable vessel and deliuer him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saued So S. AVGVSTIN Aug l 1. de pen. cap. 14. so all Fathers so Caluin him selfe vnderstand this place of the power of Excommunication though Caluin will haue onlie the Presbyterie and companie of Seniours not any one alone to excoÌ„municate contrarie to the expresse text which telleth vs that Saint Paul alone absent did excommunicate and deliuer vp to Satan VVhere is to be noted that by excommunication stubbern Christians are saied to be deliuered vp to Satan either because they are cast out of the Church where Satan domineereth or else for that they are depriued of the suffrages and helpes of the Church and so more exposed to Satans tentations or lastely because in the Primatiue Church the Deuil by and by seazed and tooke poslession of the person excommunicated 10. Sixtlie as because the law of Nature could not determine particulerly of all particulers Ciuill power was necessarie to gouerne the Communitie and enact lawes conducing to the Temporall state so because God his law hath not determined all particulers it was necessarie the Church should haue power to call Councelles tomake patticuler lawes according to the times and other circumstances 11. Seuenthlie euerie absolute Common wealth hath power in the Prince and Magistrates to gouerne and defend it self to make lawes to punishe Malefactours c. But the Church is an absolute Common wealth and more absolute then a Kingdome this being subordinate to that not that to this ergo it was to haue all spirituall Authoritie necessarie to gouerne and defend it selfe else Christ had not sufficientlie prouided for it 12. Fightlie we are bound to obey Princes lawes and Authoritie in conscience ergo much more the Churches Authoritie and law this being spirituall that but temporall this being the subordinant that the subordinat power as wee shall see herafter And therfore if the Apostle will haue euerie soule to be subiect to Authoritie and higher powers Rom. 13 he will especiallie that they be subiect if they be members of the Church vnto her spirituall power for as SYMMACHVS Pope sayd once to the Emperour ANASTASIVS Si omnis potestas à Deo est Ep. ad Anastaf Imp. magis ergo quae rebus praestituta est diuinis defer Deo in nobis nos deferemus Deo in te If all power be of God much more therfore that power which gouerneth diuine matters Honour thou God ô Emperour in vs and we will honour him in thee CHAPTER IIII. These two Iurisdictions and powers Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill are compared and conferred and the preeminence is giuen to the Ecclesiasticall 1. AS the little world Man called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can not consist without bodie and soule nor the great world without the Sunne and Moone so neither can the spirituall world of the Church flourish any time vnlesse it be supported as by two Pillars by the spirituall and Temporall power and Authoritie But as if the Moone should or could contend with the sunne and would or could disdaine to receaue light from the sunne or would or could encroach vpon the sunnes right in the gouernmet of the day all would be out of order so if one of these powers should be at variance with the other and would not receaue light and direction by the more lightsome or would encroach preposterouslie on the others demaines the Church could not long flourish And as if the body should rebell against the soule the flesh against the spirit sensualitie against reason it would perturbe reasons order and breake the Oeconomie of Morall life so if one of these powers should offer iniurie to the other the Mysticall bodie of Christ his Church would be out of frame Wherfore seeing that Christ the Wisdome of God is the Authout of both he no doubt hath disposed them sweetlie Sap. 7. and consequentlie hath setled some order betwixt them because Quae à Deo sunt Rom. 13. ordinata sunt Those thinges that are of God are ordered And for as much as Pluralitas principatuum non est bona Pluralitie of principalities is not good Arist l. 12. Metaph. cap. vlt. to wit Vnlesse one be subordinate to the other no doubt he hath subiected one of these to the other For which cause in this Chapter I will endeauour to shew which of these powers taketh the precedence which hath the preeminence and superioritie wherin and how farre 2. But because Comparisons betwixt so great Powers and Principalities and especiallie in these our corrupted times are odious I protest before hand that I entend not do detract any right or prerogatiue from either but onely to giue to Caesar and his temporall power what belongeth vnto them and to God and his Church Mat. 21. what appertaineth to them For I confesse and haue prooued that both these Authorities are of God both are excellent and eminent in their kinde both to be honoured both to be obeyed within their limites both so necessarie to the Church of God that it can no more stand without them then the world without Sunne and Moone For take away Temporall power and who shall defend the Church and assist her for the execution of her lawes and sentences Take away the spirituall power and who shall direct and correct the Temporall when it is exorbitant Take away the Temporall and who shall drawe the sworde Take away the spirituall and who shall preach the worde Take away the Temporall and who shall haue care of our corporall and temporall life Take away the spirituall and
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
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
he may make Ecclesiasticall lawes propose the word of God by preaching and true interpretation of it in Councels separate heretikes from the sheepefould by excommunication least they peruert others Yea if the Prince be supreme Head of the Church all Authoritie of preaching administration of Sacraments calling Councels iudging and defining in them collation of Benefices giuing of orders Iurisdictions absoluing dispensing excommunicating proceedeth from him VVherefore King HENRIE the Eight as he challenged the Title of supreme Head so he challenged almost all this Authoritie as we haue seene And to Queene ELIZABETH in the first Parlament and first yeare of her raigne the like authoritie was graunted Vide Sander de Schis Angl. fol. 149.150.151 See also Poultons Abbridgement of the statutes For in that Parlament it was decreed that she her heires and successours should haue all priueledges preeminences prerogatiues and spirituall superiorities which may be exercised or had of any power or man Ecclesiasticall That she and her successours should haue all power of nominating and substituting whom she will to correct heresies schismes abuses and to vse all authoritie which an Ecclesiasticall Magistrate may doe There also it was decreed that no Synode shoulde be called but by the Princes letters and commandement and that a Bishop should not be nominated or elected by any other then the Princes Authoritie nor should exercise any Iurisdiction but at the Queenes pleasure nor otherwise then by Authoritie from her Regall Maiestie And hence it is that the Prince writeth to the Archbishop in this manner For as much as all Iurisdiction as well Ecclesiasticall as secular proceedeth from Kinglie power as from the Head we giue thee Power to promote by these presents to holy Orders c. And the Archbishop of Canterburie vseth this stile VVe N. by the Diuine permission Archbishop and Primat of England authorised sufficientlie by the Kinges or Queenes Maiestie c. This argueth that in England all Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to excommunicare absolue to preach and minister Sacraments to call Synodes to decree in them to make Ecclesiasticall lawes c. proceedeth from the Prince as from the Head and fountaine and consequentlie seing that what Authoritie the Prince giueth to others he hath him self hee may excommunicate make Ecclesiasticall lawes call Councels sitt as supreme Iudge in them as others by his Authoritie doe And seing he can giue to others Iurisdiction to giue Orders he may also minister Sacraments preach and teach for this Authoritie he giueth to others And therfore as in all Common wealthes the Prince can do those thinges which his inferiour Officers do though it be not alwaies so conuenient so if all Ecclesiasticall power proceedeth from the King as from the Head and fountaine looke what the Bishops and Ministers can do by Authoritie receaued from him that he also him self may do which yet is so ridiculous that our Princes hitherto haue bene ashamed of manie of those offices and as we shall see anon euen the Protestants of England when they are pressed are ashamed of this monstrous Authoritie 14. Seuenthlie if Christian Kings for few of our Aduersaries dare say that Pagan Kings haue Ecclesiasticall Authoritie be heads of the Church it followeth that till CONSTANTINE or PHILIP the first Christian Emperours the Church was without a head for three hundred yeares If you say that S. PETER and his successours were heads till CONSTANTINE then I demaund who deposed Pope SYLVESTER when CONSTANTINE came to be Christian and consequently Head or if S. SYLVESTER was not deposed then it followeth that there were two Heads at once and those not subordinate 28. Eightlie I prooue this by Kings and Emperours Confessions And as towching Kings wee haue seene their Confessions in the former Chapter As for Emperours CONSTANTINE as we haue seene called the Bishops of the Nicen Councell Ruffinus li. 1. cap. 2. Euseb lib. 4. de vita Constāt cap. 24. his Gods and Iudges and as Eusebius reporteth he was wont to say to Bishops Vos ô Episcopi intra Ecclesiam ego extra Ecclesiam à Deo Episcopus constitutus sum You ô Bishops in affaires with in the Church I in matters without the Church am appointed pointed Bishop by God Meaning that he was to be a vigilant Prince in the gouernment of the Empire but not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall affaires And therfore when the Donatists in a matter pertaininge to the Churches deciding appealed from a Councell of Bishops holden by Pope MEICHIADES vnto him Non est ausus saieth S. August epi. 162. Augustin Christianus Imperator sic eorum tumultuosas fallaces quaerelas suscipere vt de iudicio Episcoporum qui Romae sederant ipse iudicaret He durst not so to admit their complaints as to Iudge of the Bishops who in Rome had sit in Iudgement Yea OPTATVS saieth Optat. lib. 1. cont Parm. circa finem That when he saw they appealed in such a matter vnto him he exclamed O rabida furoris audacia sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet appellationem interposuerunt O VVood mad audacitie of furie they haue interposed an Appellation as is wont to be done in the causes of Gentils Tortura Tort. pa. 174. VVheras Doctour ANDREWS saith that CONSTANTIN delegated the Bishops to heare the Donatists cause I demande wheron he groundeth that for if he might delegate he might haue iudged of the Bishops sentence and yet S. AVGVSTIN saieth he durst not And although at last ouercome by their importunitie he heard them yet not as Iudge but as an Arbiter THEODOSIVS the yonger sent Counte Candidianu◠to the Councell of Ephesus With this caueat That he should not meddle in Ecclesiasticall matters because illicitum est eum qui non sit ex ordine sanctissimoram Episcoporum sese Eccelesiasticis immiscere tractatibus It is vnlawfull for him that is not of the order of most holy Bishops to entermeddle him selfe in Ecclesiasticall treaties and affaires But Doctour ANDREWES answereth Tortura Torti pa. 175. That it is no good Argument to say A Count can not meddle in Councels ergo an Emperour cannot But he should haue remembred that this Count was sent to supplie the Emperours place and therfore if he as the Emperours Ambassadour could not meddle in Councels neither could the Emperour him selfe He should also haue marked the Emperours reason which was because it is vnlawfull for him that is not of the order of Bishops to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires which reason aswell excludeth the Emperour as the Count vnlesse Doctour ANDREWES will make all Kings and Emperours Bishops VALENTINIAN the elder saied Sozom. 16 ca. 7. 2.1 Sibi qui vnus è laicorum numero erat non licere se huiusmodi rebus interponere It was not lawfull for him who is one of the layitie to meddle in such matters And although Doctour ANDREWES would expound Zozomen who reporteth this speech of the Emperour by Nicephorus Hist Tri. part lib. 7.
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
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
enact lawes for the subiects directions and to inflict punishment on them that are Malefactours or perturbers of the Ciuill Peace at home but also may make warre abroad both offensiue and defensiue for her necessarie conseruation against another Common wealth though otherwise not subiect nisi ratione delicti which shall invade her rights or offer any notable iniurie And as for defensiue warre no man with the least shew can deny but that euerie Common wealth when there is iust cause may wage such warre because if euerie priuat man by the Authoritie which he hath from God and Nature to conserue that being which they haue giuen him L. vt vim ffâ—de lust Barthol l. 9 ff oâ— poen it l. Furum ff de sicartis Alex. 111 c. St vero 1. de sent excom Innoc. 111. cap. significasti 1. de homicid volunt casuali cap. dilecto de sent excom in 6. may vim vi repellere and kill rather then be killed much more may an absolute Common wealth defend it self euen by armes against another Common wealth or Prince that vniustlie inuadeth or wrongeth it As concerning offensiue or aggressiue warres although euerie priuat man can not reuenge iniuries past but only defend him selfe when they are actuallie inferred yet publick persons such as are Princes Magistrates and Common wealthes may And although Princes and states dependent of another can not wage warre without licence of the Superiour yet Princes and Common wealthes independent may not onlie punish Domesticall Malefactours and perturbers of Ciuill Peace and Iustice at home but also may make warres abroad against other Princes or Common Wealthes though otherwise not subiect and may not only defend them selues but also reuenge iniuries past and may take their enemies townes and strong houldes burne and kill till they haue procured iust renenge and future securitie and consequentlie may in that case depose and kill the Prince him selfe because the end of iust warre being peace all things in a iust warre are lawfull which are necessarie to obtaine peace and securitie And seing that many times the King or Common wealth cannot sufficiently reuenge nor secure them selues but by inuading the enemies countrie by sacking his cities killing his subiects and many times the Prince him selfe all these things are lawfull in a iust Warre and haue euer bene practized euen amongst the best and godliest Princes as euen scriptures auerre Counsels approoue and histories doe witnesse For in the olde law IOSVE DAVID the MACHABEES yea ABRAHAM and in the new CONSTANTINE the Great THEODOSIVS CHARLES the Great and many others are commended for their warres against Tyrants and the Enemies of God And onlie Hereticks or fauourers of Hereticks a Aug. lib. 22. coÌ„t Faustum ca. 74. Manichees b Thom. WaldeÌ„s tom 3. de Sacr. tit 24. cap. 169. Wicklefists and Anabaptists c Melancth de loc is tit de Magistratu condemne all warre as vnlawfull to whom d Chil. 4. cent 1. Adag 1. in ca. 3. Lucae Erasmus seemeth to subscribe And the reason of this ARISTOTLE giueth because saith he euerie absolute CoÌ„mon wealth must be sufficient in it self and must haue that Authoritie which is necessarie not onlie to defend it selfe whilst iniuries are inferred but also to reuenge them by warre after they are past and so to procure not onlie iust reuenge but also a secure stable peace for after tymes for if one Common Wealth or Prince should inuade another and yet could not be repelled no Common wealth could longe conserue it selfe Wherfore when a Kingdome or Common wealth is wronged it may not onlie defend but also reuenge it self in manner aforesaid for in this case one must yeeld and reason teacheth that the Common wealth which is nocent and which offereth wrong should rather yeeld then that which is innocent and receaueth wronge and so if the innocent Common Wealth cannot conserue it selfe whilst the other is in prosperitie it may make warre vpon it and ruine it or subiugate it rather then it selfe should be ruined And although none but God and lawfull Superiours can reuenge wronges past according to that Mihi vindictam ego retribuam Reuenge to mee Deut. 31 Rom. 12. Rom. 13. and I will reward and againe Dei enim minister est vindex in iram ei qui malum agit For he is the Minister of God a reuenger vnto wrath to him that doth euill And S. 1. Pet. 2. PETER biddeth vs to be obedient not onlie to Kings as excelling but also to rulers as sent by him ad vindictam malefactorum laudem verò bonoruÌ„ to the reuenge of malefactours but to the prayse of the good yet a Common wealth may reuenge it selfe vpon another Common wealth that offereth iniurie by reason that it hath publick and supreame Authoritie and that the Common wealth that offreth wrong makes it selfe subiect to the wronged ratione delicti 5. Vpon this ground layd I can now build diuers arguments to prooue that which is in this Chapter intended The First Sequel For first hence it followeth that the Church may vse defensiue warre not only against Christian Princes but also euen against Pagans and infidels that do molest her because Nature teacheth that euery one may vim vi repellere repell force by force and although the ordinarie Armes and weapons of the Church be Spirituall as excommunication and such like yet when these will not serue she may vse temporall For as Christ in establishing a Church gaue it a Spirituall being so he gaue it Authoritie to conserue and defend this being by all lawfull meanes And therfore if euerie one may vse all lawfull meanes to defend not onlie him selfe but euen his Temporall goods and may rather kill then be killed yea or spoiled of his goods because naturall reason teacheth that when God and nature giue anie being they giue authoritie to conserue and defend it else their liberalitie had bene in vaine So seing that Christ hath giuen his Church a being which consisteth in a Spirituall power to preach minister Sacraments gouerne by lawes c. whosoeuer shal be so hardie as to offer to depriue her of this her being and power she may euen with Temporall armes which otherwise are lawfull defend and mantaine her right And although Infidels who were neuer baptized be not subiects of the Church nor shee their Superiour according to that of S. PAVL 1. Cor. 5. Quid mihi de his qni foris sunt iudicare VVhat is it to me to iudge of theÌ„ that are without yet there is no superioritie or publick Authoritie required to defend for euerie priuat man may vim vi repellere repell force by force much more may the Church or anie other Common wealth else if a priuat man might defend him self and a Common wealth could not the priuat man should be in better estate then a Common wealth which is absurd Sanderus lib. 2. de visib mo narch cap. 4.
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
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
faeces Ecce ego tuli de manu tua calicem soporis fundum calicis indignationis meae non adijcies vt bibas illum vltra Et ponam illum in manu eorum qui te humiliauerunt Isa 51. Be lifted vp be lifted vp arise Hierusalē which hast drunken of the hande of our Lord the cuppe of his wrath euen to the bottome of the cup of drowsinesse hast thou drunke euen to the dregges Beholde I haue taken out of thy hande the cuppe of drousinesse the bottome of the cuppe of myne Indignation thou shalt not adde to drinck it any more And I will put it in their hand that haue humbled thee Is 51. perchance tempus miserēdi is at hand perchance prope est vr veniat tempus eius dies eius non elongabuntur Isa 14. it is neere that the tyme of your relaxation shal come and the dayes therof shal not be prolonged 13. Onlie looke that there be no ACHAN nor ANATHEMA amongst you Iosue 7. for if there bee God will take your wonted courage from you and the Citie of HAI will preuaile against you For as God is so mercifull that he spareth some tymes a whole Citie or kingdome for the merites of a few as he was readie to haue spared SODOME if he had found teniust men in it Genes 18. for iust men as S. AMBROSE sayth lib. 1. De Abraham c. 1. are a wall to their countrie and their faith saueth and defendeth the rest from destruction so also is he so iuste that out of his secret but yet iust Iudgements he chastiseth sometymes a whole armie as wee see in ACHAN IOSVE 7. or Kingdome for the enormitie of a few VVherfore VVorthie Catholickes the best meanes that I find to procure you a relaxation from this your so long persecution is to follow the counsell which the Ammonite ACHIOR gaue to HOLOFERNES Iudith 5. Perquire si est aliqua iniquitas c. Search if there bee any iniquitie of yours in the sight of your Lord God for if there bee then you may iustlie feare least God permitt his and your enemies to dominere ouer you as he permitted DANIEL HIEREMIE and TOBIE and many Innocents to be caryed into captiuitie with the nocent For as S. HIEROM sayth episi 13. Nostris peccatis barbari fortes sunt nostris vitiis Romanus fugatur exercitus By our sinnes the barbarous heretickes and barbarous persecutours become strong and the Roman Armie the Roman Church is chased and put to flight by our vices But as ACHIOR sayd Si non est offensio populi huius coram Deo suo Iudith 5. If there bee no offence of God amongst you your enemies shall not lōg preuaile because God whose cause you sustaine will fight for you and in you 14. As for me O constant Catholickes when I behould your vndaunted courage which you oppose against the furie of your Persecutours and your inuincible patience wherewith you haue hethert◠endured all kind of aduersities I can not but admire and commend you and praise God also for you and in you But when I consider also what is befallen some of you of late as I meruaile not therat so I can not but feareleast by that by which you thought to finde some ease of this heauy yoke of persecution vnder which you grone you haue augmented the burden and prolonged your miseries I meruaile not that after so heauie oppressions so long endured you grone with the Israelites Exod. 2. I meruaile not that after so furious assaultes so long sustained some giue backe and forsake their place and standing for what meruaile that in so great a winde some chasse is blown away that amongst so many vessels put into the fornace of tribulation to be hardened some breake in the hardening for vasa figuli probat fornax c. the fornacetryeth the potters vessels the tentation of tribulation iust men Eccl. 27. Rather I meruaile that in so great a storme troublesome Sea so few do suffer Shipwrack and in so great a heape of wheate so litle chasse is found and amongst so many peeces of gould which haue been cast into the fier so few proue light and counterfet Yet I feare also least your late giuing backe make the enemie with more bouldnes to presse vppon you and that the late Anathema which is fallen amongst you hath prouoked the wrath of God against you and hath giuen courage to your enemie taken it from you and hath added surie to him diminished zeale and feruour in you 15. You know what I meane it is the late proposed Oath which because it goeth vnder the name of Ciuil Alleageance gratefull to such good subiects as you are whom Religion and conscience teacheth to obey feare loue and serue your Prince hath deceiued some of you and hath made you vnder this alluring bayte to swallow downe the hooke that galleth euen the soule and conscience and in this goulden cup to drinke your deadlie poison and perdition So that I may say vnto you Anathema est in medio tui Israel non poteris stare coram hostibus tuis donec deleatur ex te qui hoc contaminatus est scelere IOSVE 7. There is Anathema in the middest of thee O Israel thou canst not stand before thine enemies till he be destroyed out of thee or his sinne in him that is contaminated with this wicked fact VVherfore O VVorthie Catholickes let nothing sticke in your hādes of this Anathema that our Lord may be turned from the wrath of his furie and may haue mercie on you Deut. 13. 16. You are not ignorant that modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit 1. Cor. 5. A little leauen corrupteth the whole paste One mortall sinne mortifieth all your former merites D. Th. 3. p. q. 89. a. 4. and he that offendeth in one point especiallie pertaining to faith and the Churches power right is made guiltie of all Iac. 2. This one hole which the persecutour hath made in the ship of your soule is sufficient to let in that water which will drowne you this one point of your chiefe visible Pastours Authoritie and power which though forced therunto you abiure is sufficient to disgrace all former constant and glorious Confession And it will little auaile you to haue layed your hand to the plough if now you looke backe to haue runne so well hetherto if now you faint before the goale to haue resisted hetherto so va iantlie if now you yeeld your selues slaues to tyrannie 17. And although some one persuadeth you that you may with safe conscience take this oathe and therefore are not bound with hazard of your estates to refuse it yet beleeue it persuasio haec non est ex eo qui vocat vos this persuasion is not of him that calleth you Gal 5. for as S. PETER telleth you In hoc vocati estis you are called to this to doe well and sustaine patientlie 1. Pet. 2. and not to yeeld in the least point
vnto vs and all of them assist vs immediately or mediately and therefore are called Administratorij Spiritus Ministring Spirits Brute beasts and liuing creatures deuoid of reason liue also in some societie For Pigeons of one Douecote beasts of one heard bees of one hyue Connies of one warren fishes of one finne birds of one feather do willinglie flock together but this their liuing together though it hath a similitude of societie because likenes of nature assembles them together yet it is not properlie societie they hauing neither speech nor any conceit of iustice commoditie or discommoditie which yet Arist supra as Aristotle affirmeth are necessarie to true societie only man is truly sociable because he is propense and prone to coÌ„panie for the loue of iustice friendship and conseruation of him selfe 2. And because God and Nature do nothing in vaine but all is for some end and proiect as they haue inclined meÌ„ to societie so haue they therby intended some good profitt to men which they are to reape For if it Were not for some end their inclination to societie should be in vaine if not for some good but euill God Nature should haue ordayned them to their hurt which caÌ„not piously be thought of either of them 3. Wherfore men are ordained vnto societie for two kind of commodities they reape therby The first is solace pleasure and delight for he that is alone hath no vse of that facultie which is proper vnto him to wit of speaking and so wanteth the pleasure which is taken in talking and discoursing and imparting conceites to one another and he cannot contract friendship which requireth familiaritie and so hath none to whome he may open him selfe impart his secrets communicare his ioyes and griefes which yet S. S. Ambro. lib. 3. de offic cap. vit AMBROSE calleth solatium huius vitae the solace of this life and that very pertinenrlie For as Cicero saieth Cic. l. de Amicitia Quid dulcius c. VVhat more pleasant then to haue one with whom thou mayst dare to speake as with thy selfe what great fruite and profit would be reaped by prosperitie vnles thou hadst a freind who might reioice in it as thou thy selfe and hard it would be to beare aduersities without him who would take them more grieuouslie then thou thy selfe Secondlie men are inclined to societie for profit and commoditie for he that liues alone must needs liue in some want If he be ignorant he hath none to reach him if he be perplexe he hath none to counsell him if he be sicke he hath none to cure him if he be poore he hath none to relieue him if he be assaulted he hath none to defend him if he fall he hath none to helpe him vp Eccl. c 4. And therefore Ecclesiastes telleth vs that melius est duos esse simul quam vnum c. It is better that two be together then one for they haue profit of their Societie if one fall he shal be stayed vp of the other VVoe to him that is alone because when he falleth he hath none to lift him vp And if two sleepe together they shal warme eche other one how shal he bee warmed 4. And seing that men assembled cannot gouerne them selues vnlesse some commaÌ„d some obey some direct some be directed it followeth that this societie hath power to gouerne it selfe and that this power is also of God For as God hath inclined vs to societie and so is the Authour of all lawfull societies so hath he giuen to them power to gouerne them selues which power is called Potestas ciuilis or temporalis Ciuil or temporall power else in vaine had he inclined vs to liue in societie And therfore as God and Nature in that they giue vs being do giue vs also power to defend our selues to repell force by force vim vi repellere so God and Nature being the Authours of societie do giue societies power to rule conserue and defend them selfes else in vaine had they authorized them And as this world could not consist vnles God the moderatour by naturall inclinations did vnite the partes together neither could man conserue him self Prou. 11. D. Thom. Opus 20. de Regimine princ c. 1. insinuat 1. 2 q 90. art 3. ad 2. qu. 97. a. 3. ad 3. Vict. Rolec de potest ciuil Suar. l. 3. de leg c. 1. Sotus l. 1. de lust q. 1. a 3. Bellarm to 1. l. 3. ca. 9. if he had not in him self a soule to command one member to help another and especiallie authoritie to defend the whole so if in societies there were not some power to rule and direct the good of euery particular to the common but euerie one should rule him self and neglect the common good of the societie there would be but confusion and confusion would bring dissolution because as the wise man saieth vbi non est gnbernator populus corruet where there is no Gouernour the people shal fall 5. This power as Saint Tho. Franciscus a Victoria Bellarm. Suarez Couarruuias Sotus and commonlie other Diuines affirme resideth first in the communitie For seing that Nature made all equall and that there is no more reason why this power should be in one then another it followeth that it is first in the Communitie I deny not but that in respect of imperfect societies to wit families the good man of the house by law of Nature is superiour and that at first all power was in the head of euery famelie but when families increasing men met together in Cities and Common wealthes then none in particular had authoritie to gouerne that new communitie and so the power was resident in the communitie Some perchance might imagin that this power in the beginning of the world was in ADAM the first Parent of mankind but although he was head of his familie and so had the power called Oeconomica yet had he no power of gouerning a Citie or Common wealth by creation and therfore S. AVGVSTIN well obserueth that after God had said Aug. lib. 19. de Ciuit. cap. 15. faciamus hominem ad Imaginem similitudinem nostram let vs make man to our Image and similitude he added not praesit hominibus and let him beare rule ouer men Gen. 1. but let him haue superioritie ouer the fishes of the sea the fowles of the ayre and beasts of the earth And so God at the first made no one man in particular Gouernour of Cities and such great societies and consequently this teÌ„porall power of gouerning was not residing in any one particular man but only in the whole communitie 6. But although no societies can lawfully meet but that there must be in them a ciuill power to gouerne them as is shewed yet the particular manner of gouerning dependeth also of the determination choise and election of the Communitie For as Plato and Aristotle affirme Plato dial do Regno l. dâ— Râ—p Arist
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
who shall haue care of the spirituall and eternall life But let the one not encroache vpon the other let both helpe one another and both are stronger as was excellently obserued by NICHOLAS the Pope Nichol. epist ad Michael Imp. cap. Gum ad verum ventum est d. 96. Cum ad verum ventum est neque Imperator Iura Pontificatus arripuit nec Pontifex nomen Imperatoris vsurpauit quoniaem idem Mediator Dei hominum homo CHRISTVS IESVS sic propriis actibus dignitatibus distinctis officia Potestatis vtriusque difcreuit vt Christiani Imperatores pro aeternâ vitâ Pontificibus indigerent Pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodo rerum Imperialibus legibus vterentur VVhen it came to the vnderstanding of the truth neither the Emperour did take vnto him the rightes of Bishop-like authorotitie nor the Bishop did vsurp the name of the Emperour because the same Mediatour of God and men man Christ Iesus hath distinguished the offices of both powers by their proper actes and distinct dignities as that Christian Emperours for attaining eternall life should neede Bishops and Bishops should vse the Imperiall lawes for the cause only of temporall thinges 3. But as both are necessarie so both are not equall but the one inferiour to the other the one subordinate to the other else the one would be an hindraÌ„ce to the other and both would cause confusion And certes if we will not preferre the bodie before the soule heauen before earth temporall before eternall life VVe must preferre the spirituall and Ecclesiastieall power before the Temporall and consequentlie the Church before the Common VVealth 4. These two powers and the preemineÌ„ce of the spirituall before the Temporall were prefigured as Turrecremata hath well remarked by the two brazen Pillars in the Porch of Salomons Temple The Porch was a figure of the Church Militant Turrecr lib. 4. cap. 87. 3. Reg. 7. the Inner Temple of the Church Triumphant because as by the Porch the Iewes entred into the Temple so by the Church Militant and by no other way Christians haue entrance into the Church Triumphant The two brazen Pillars that sustained the Porch signified the Power Temporall spirituall which support the Church Militant and the pillar on the right hand signified the spirituall power the Pillar on the left hand the Temporall power whence it is that that must take the precedence of this and this must be subordinate to that 5. And truly that the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power is superiour to the Temporall and more eminent then it I prooue First by those thinges by which I haue prooued them in the former Chapter to be distinct For the end and finall cause of the temporall power is temporall and naturall to witt temporall peace the end of the spirituall Authoritie is eternall and supernaturall peace the immediat cause efficient of the Temporall is the people the immediat cause of the spirituall is God The matters in which the temporall power is occupied are temporall the affaires which the spirituall gouerneth are Ecclesiasticall and spirituall the functions of the temporall are all temporall the functions of the spirituall power are all spirituall and supernaturall as absoluing from sinnes ministring Sacraments offering of sacrifices enacting lawes for the soules health excommunicating absoluing c. The temporall ruleth especially the bodies the spirituall the soules that ruleth the Kingdome or Common Wealth this the Church To the King the Keyes of Cities are offered to the Priest and Pastour the Keyes of heauen He remitteth temporall Mulctes and paynes no sinnes at all The Priest and Pastour remitteth sinnes and absolueth from all paynes He can cast out of his Kingdome by banishement the Pastour out of the Church by Excommunication And therfore looke how farre eternall felicitie excelleth temporall God the People supernaturall and diuine thinges naturall and humane spirituall functions temporall soules bodies the Church the Common VVealth the Keyes of heauen the Keyes of cities sinnes ciuill penalties eternall temporall punishment excommunication banishement so farre the Ecclesiasticall and spirituall excelleth the Ciuill and Temporall Authoritie By this Argument S. CHRYSOSTOM as alwaies very excellentlie proueth the Priests to be greater then the King Chrysost homil 4. de verbis Isaiae tom 5. Mane intra tuos terminos ô Rex alij sunt termini Regni alij sacerdotij hoc Regnum illo maius est Rex ea quae sunt in terris sortitus est administranda caeterùm ius sacerdotij è supernis descendit Regi corpora commissa sunt sacerdoti animae Maior hic Principatus propterea Rex caput submittit manui sacerdotis vbique in scripturâ sacordotes inungebant Reges Remaine within thy boundes O King others are the limites of the Kingdome others of Priesthood this Kingdome is greater then that The King hath the administration of the things of the earth but the right of Priesthood defcendeth from aboue To the King bodies are coÌ„mitted to the Priest soules greater is this principalitie and therfore the King inclineth his head to the hand of the Priest and euerie where â—n Scripture Priests did anoint Kings Secondlie there is no Christian can denie but that since God hath ordained vs to a supernaturall end to witt the cleate vision and fruition of him selfe as all Scripture witnesseth that he hath all our goods also and states are ordained to the same end and are not well vsed but rather abused when they are vsed to serue our pleasures contrarie to that end whence followeth that all temporall thinges since the former Institution and ordination of God are Media meanes in respect not only of out supernaturall end but also of supernaturall meanes as Sacraments Grace and supernaturall functions which are more proportionate and more neere meanes to that end and consequentlie temporall power which ordaineth of these meanes is subiect to spirituall power which principally considereth the supernaturall meanes and end For as the art of ryding is more noble Arist li. 1. Eth. c. 1. then the art of making bridles as Aristotle to a like purpose reasoneth because this is ordained to that so the spirituall power which disposeth of supernaturall thinges is nobler then the Temporall this being ordained to that and the end being more noble then the meanes 6. Thirdlie Philosophers affirme that all habites and faculties are specified and dignified by their actes obiectes and endes and so Morall Philosophie which hath vertue and manners the health of the soule for its obiect is more noble then the art of Phisicke which teacheth only to cure the diseases of the bodie and to restore corporall health Seeing therefore that the obiects of spirituall power are supernaturall and heauenlie the obiects of Temporall power are naturall and earthlie the end also of spirituall power is eternall beatitude the end of temporall power temporall felicitie the actes also and functions of that power spirituall and supernaturall the actes of this naturall and
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
especially by spirituall censures and may cast him out of the Church by excommunication else the Church were inferiour to all politicall bodies yea to a naturall bodie which hath authoritie for its owne preseruation to cutt of a rotten member least it infect the whole and to expell by purgation a malignant humour Neither is there any reason why in this point we should put any difference betwixt the King and another of his owne subiects For althoughe he be superiour in temporall matters to all his subiectes and is to be obeyed of thē yet is he subiect in spirituall matters to the Churches Pastours as much as his meanest subiect 5. And so it is not in the free choise of a Christian though baptized amongst Hereticks when he comes to yeares of discreation as ERASMVS and LVDOVICVS VIVES do absurdly holde to obserue Erasmus paraph. in Mat Ludouic Viues in com l. 1. de ciu Dei cap. 27. or not obserue the Christian law because he is bound to keepe the promise which the Church and his Godfathers made in his name no lesse then Pupills are bound to stand to that which their Tutours haue done in their name and for their profitt and goe he where he will be he of what religion he will he carrieth an indelible Caracter imprinted by Baptisme in hi◠soules by which the Church hath authoritie ouer him as ouer a member de iure debito and can commaund him to obserue the Christian law as also punish him if he disobey though he were an Emperour at least by spirituall punishment 6. Secondlie two Princes independent in one communitie would make a confusion vnlesse the one were subiect to the other and to be directed by the other Wherfore Aristotle as aboue I haue alledged saieth that Pluralitas Principatuum nō est bona Arict l. 12. Met. cap. vlt. Pluralitie of Principalities is not good to witt in one communitie and vnlesse one of them be subiect for the one might hinder the other the one might commaund one thinge the other cleane contrarie and so there would arise contention and confusion But the Church and common wealth of Christians is one bodie and Communitie at least materially if not formallie ergo these two Princes to wit the spirituall and temporali must haue some subordination But there is no reason that the Prince should direct and correct the Pastour he being the greater Prince hauing an higher power as it is aboue prooued ergo seing that both Pastour and Prince are of God and what is of God is rightlie ordayned Rom. 13. and with good order it followeth that the Chiefe Pastour must be superiour and must direct and correct the Prince as much as is necessarie to the Churches end and good 7 Thirdlie the chiefe Pastour and sometimes also inferiour Pastours as Bishops haue challenged to themselues as due Authoritie ouer Princes and haue excommunicated and layed spirituail punishements vpon them whome to condemne as vniust vsurpers they being so manie so wise so vpright and many of them holie Saints were meere madnesse ergo the Prince is subiect in spirituall matters yea and temporall matters also when they are necessarie for the Churches good and may be commaunded and punished at least spiritually if he refuse to obey he being in this case the Pastours subiect and inferiour 8. Eus l. 6. hist c. 25 alias 27. Nicephor l. 13. c. 34. Vide Baron an 407. Card. Alan Ausu 1. polibeller Cap. 2. So wee read that FABIAN Pope commaunded PHILIP the first Christian Emperour to take his place amongst the publick Penitentes so INNOCENTIVS the first excommunicated Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse for persecuting S. Iohn Chrrsostome The excommunication beginneth thus Vox sanguinis fratris mei Iohannis clamat ad Deum contra te ô Imperator sicuti quondam Abel Iusti contra Cain is modis omnibus vindicabitur The voice of the bloud of my brother Iohn Chrysostome cryeth to God against thee as Abels bloud in tymes past did against Cain and it by all meanes shal be reuenged The sentence followeth in these words Zonaras tom 3. Annal. Itaque ego minimus peccator cui Thronus Magni Apostoli Petri creditus est segrego reijcio te illam à perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri Therfore I the least and a sinner to whom the throne of Greate Peeter is committed do segregate and reiect thee and her Eudoxia from participation of the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God Of which Pope S. HIEROME giueth this commendation S. Hieron epist 8. Illud te pio charitatis affectu praemonendum puto vt S. Innocentij qui Apostolicae Cathedrae supradicti viri Anastasij successor filius est teneas fidem nec peregrinain quantumuis tibi prudens callidaque videaris doctrinam recipias That I thouht out of charitie to admonish thee that thou holde the faith of S. Innocentius who is the successour and sonne of the sea Apostolicke and of Anastasius neither do thou recedue any strange doctrine seeme thou to thy selfe neuer so wise and wittie GREGORIE the second in a Councell at Rome Anno 726. Vide Baron an 729. excommunicated Leo the Emperour surnamed Isauricus and Iconomachus and tooke from him his Gabelles in Italie and the Prouince it selfe Greg. l. 3. ep 5. 10. l. 7. ep 14. Vide Baron an 1076. GREGORIE the seuenth commēded by all but onlie Schismatikes Heretickes for a Saint as he who wrought myracles as well liuing as dead excōmunicated HENRIE the fourth Emperour of that name for many enormities threatening moreouer excommunication to all Princes Kinges Emperours that should vsurpe Inuestitures as the same Emperour had done Also he interdicted the Kingdome of Polonia and excommunicated the King BOLESLAVS for killinge Stanisldus his Bishop at the Altar because like a good Pastour he had before controlled his lust and excommunicated him Platina in vita Innoc. 3◠ALEXANDER the third excommunicated Frederick the first and if Henrie the second King of England had not submitted him self he had excommunicated him also as he was sollicited thereunto by Lewis the King of France INNOCENTIVS the third excommunicated Otho the fourth Emperour of that name Cap. ad Apostolicae desēt re Iudic in 6. GREGORIE the ninth against Frederick the second IOHN the twentie two against Ludouicus Bauarus INNOCENT the third against King Iohn of England VRBAN the second against Philip the first of France and other Popes against other Princes haue sed the like seueritie Albert. Pighius l. de visib mon. cap. 17. Mat. Paris ann 1204. Baron an 1101. euen to these our daies and in all their Epistles to Kinges and Emperours they call them Sonnes and speake to them as to their sheepe and subiects 9. Yea not onlie Popes but euen Bishops haue the like Authoritie ouer Kinges and Emperours as the Archbishop of Toledo ouer the King of Spaine
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
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
c. 8. who reporteth the Emperour to haue saied Mihe negotiis occupato Reipublicae curis distento res huiusmodi inquirere non facile est It is no easie for me who am busied with businesses and distracted with the cares of the Common wealth to take notice of these matters as though the Emperour had authoritie to meddle in Councels but was not at leisure yet the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Doctour ANDREWES leaue Tortura Torti pag. 174. signifieth not facile but fas as he may see in BVDAEVS and consequentlie that the Emperor meant that it was not lawfull for him to intermeddle in such matters And this meaning NICEPHORVS his next words do argue When he sayth Vos autem quibus haec procuratio mandata est But you to whom this procuration is committed The same meaning also do ZOZOMENVS his owne words following insinuat Et ideo Sacerdotes Episcopi quibus haec curae sunt c. And therfore Priests and Bishops who haue care of these thinges So that the Emperour meant that he could not onlie not be at leisure but also that it was not lawfull for him to meddle in Councels Yea he was so farre from intermedling in Ecclesiasticall matters that when the Bishops assembled at Milan desired him to nominate the Bishop of Milan he wrote to the Bishops to choose such a one as to whom said he we that gouerne the Empire may incline our heads because saith he supra nos est talis electio such an Election passeth our Authoritie 16. Ninthlie This the ancient Fathers haue taught and told euen Emperours to their faces ATHANASIVS Epist ad soli vitā agentes Si istud est iudicium Episcoporum quid commune cum eo habet Imperator c. If this belong to the Iudgement of Bishops what hath the Emperour to do with it And a little after Quando à condito aeuo auditum est quando Iudicium Ecclesiae Authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit aut quando vnquam hoc pro iudicio agnitum est Plurima ante haec Synodi fuere multa Iudicia Ecclesiae habita sunt Sed neque Patres istiusmodi res principi persuadere conati sunt nec Princeps sein rebus Ecclesiasticis curiosum praebuit VVhen from the beginning of the world was it hearde when did the Iudgement of the Church take her Authoritie from the Emperour Many Synods before these tymes haue been many Iudgementes of the Church haue been giuen But neither did the Fathers persuade the Prince to meddle in those matters neither was the Prince so curious as to entermeddle in Ecclesiasticall matters Yea in the same Epistle he addeth Quis enim videns eum Constantium in decernendo Ibidem Principem se facere Episcoporum praesidere Ecclesiasticis iudiciis non merito dicat illum eam ipsam Abominationem desolationis esse For who seing him Constantius making him selfe Prince of the Bishops in decerning and bearing Authoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall Iudgements may not worthilie say that he is the Abomination of desolation And in that very Epistle he often tymes calleth CONSTANTIVS the Precursour of Antichrist for arrogating Authoritie in Councelles and ouer Bishops and for entermeddling in matters appertaining to the Church HOSIVS Cordubensis Athan. Apol. pro fuga purum ab initio whom Athanasius calleth vere Osium that is a Saint and of whom he giueth this commendation In what Synode was not hee the Captaine and Ringleader VVhom did not hee by defending the truth draw to his Opinion VVhat Church doth not keepe the monuments of his Presidence HOSIVS I say thus highly commended by S. ATHANASIVS being vrged by Constantius to communicate with the Arrians and to subscribe against Athanasius Athan. epist ad soli vitam agentes wrote vnto the Emperour in this manner Beleeue mee sayth he who may be thy Grand father I was in the COVNCELL of SARDIS when thou and thy Blessed brother CONSTANS called vs thether c. VVhat Bishop there was banished or when did he entermeddle him selfe in Ecclesiasticall Iudgements And then he giueth th' Emperour this holsome Counsell worthie to be followed of all Princes Desine quaeso memineris te mortalem esse c. Leaue of I pray thee and remember that thou art a mortall man Feare the day of Iudgement Keepe thy selfe pure for that day Do not entermeddle thy selfe in Ecclesiasticall matters nor do thou commaund vs in this kinde but rather learne those thinges of vs. God to thee hath committed the Empire to vs he hath giuen the charge of thinges belonging to the Church and as he who with maligne lookes carpes at thy Empire contradicteth the diuine Ordinance so do thou take heed least drawing that which appertaineth to the Church vnto thy selfe thou be made guiltie of a great crime Giue it is sayd to Gaesar what belongeth to Caesar and what appertayneth to God to God VVherfore neither is it lawfull for vs to holde the Empire in earth neither hast thou O Emperour power ouer the sacrifices and holyes Ambros lib. 5. op 32. ad Valens These thinges I write for the care I haue of thy Saluation c. S. AMBROSE hath manie notable sentences vttered by him with libertie and plainesse worthie such a Prelat Writing to VALENTINIAN the younger who by the Instigation of his mother vrged him to a disputation or conference in matters of Religion in the Consistorie before the Emperour he refused because the Emperour had nothing to do in such matters neither saith he to Valentinian the younger ought any to iudge me contumacious seing that I affirme that onlie which thy Father of August Memorie did not only answere by speech but also by his lawes decreed to wit In causa fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicuius ordinis eum iudicare debere qui nec munere impar sit nec iure dissimilis Haec enim verba rescripti sunt Hoc est sacerdotes de sacerdotibus voluit iudicare That in a cause belonging to faith or to Ecclesiasticall order hee should giue Iudgement who is neither inseriour in office nor in Right vnlike For these are the words of the Rescript That is he would haue Priests to Iudge Priests And a little after Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo iudicasse c. When didst thou heare ô most Clement Emperour that laymen Iudged a Bishop in a cause of faithe and againe Pater tuus Deo fauente vir maturioris aeui dicebat Non est meum iudicare inter Episcopos c. Thy Father who by Gods fauour was a man of riper age sayd It is not my office to Iudge between Bishops thy Clemencie sayth I must Iudge And he being baptized in Christ thought him selfe vnable to beare such a waight of Iudgement thy Clemencie of whom the Sacraments are yet to be deserued Orat. in Auxent quae sequitur epist citatam arrogateth iudgement in a
by an inuisible blowe reached him from God perished most miserably d Earon tom 7. au 561. BELLISARIVS Iustinians Generall ouer his Armie to whome he was so deare that his pourtraict was printed in the one side of Iustinians Coyne with this Title Bilisarius Romanorum decus Bellisarius the glorie of the Romans for his molestation of SILVERIVS to grarifie therby THEODORA the Empresse had for suspicion of conspiracie against IVSTINIAN his eyes pulled out was despoiled of all his dignities and forced in fine to begg e CedreÌ„ in Anna Paul Diac. li. 20. reruÌ„ Roman Baron tom 8. an 713. Anast in Vital Baro. an 668. Paul Diac. lib. 19 reruÌ„ Rom. PHILIPPICVS for his contempt of CONSTANTINE Pope and propagating of heresie was depriued of his Empire and his eyes also f CONSTANS for persecuting THEODORVS Pope and violently carying away Pope MARTIN from Rome was slaine in a bathe g Fascie Temp. in Iust 2. Martin Pol. in Iust 2. IVSTâ—NIAN the second for infringing the Eight Synod and molesting of SERGIVS Pope who refused to consent to his heresie was depriued of his Empire and besides that of his nose and tongue h Baron tom 11. an 1080. HENRIE the Fourth Emperour excommunicated and deposed by GREGORIE the seuenth as we haue seene was by his owne sonne persecuted holden in prison and at length made a miserable end out of his owne Countrie i Neubr li. 4. c. 13 Palmer 〈◊〉 in ChroÌ„ an 1189 FREDERICK the first was drowned miserablie in a riuer of Armenia for punishment of the schisme he raised against ALEXANDER Pope as our NEVBRIGENSâ—S recordeth k Fascic Temp. in Frider. 2 Matt Westm an 1245 FREDERICK the Second after he was excommunicated and deposed by INNOCENT the Fourth Pope of that name was strangled by his owne sonne and dyed without Sacraments l Geneb lib 4. Chron. anno 2294. in Bonifacio 8. PHILIP le BEL King of France after he was excommunicated and deposed by BONIFACE the Eight neuer prospered as Genebrard la FreÌ„ch man writeth And after that BONIFACIVS was taken vnawares by the deceipts which PHILIP vsed a holy Bishop said The King is glad he hath BONIFACE Pope in holde but no good thereby will happen to him and his posteritie which Prophecie saith m Genebr lib 4. Chron. anno 1315. Genebrard was shortlie after fulfilled for the King perished by reason of a Boare that rushed betwixt his horses legges three of his sonnes that raigned after him dyed one after another in a short space their Queene 's dishonoured them with their infamous adulteries and the Issue of PHILIP fayling the contention betwixt our EDWARD the third sonne of the Daughter of PHILIP le Bel and PHILIP de Valois the sonne of CHARLES de Valois PHILIP le Bel his brother arose which contention cost France verie dearely And to spare our times as God threatned by his Prophet Isai 60. that the Kingdome that shall not serue the Church shall perish as we see all Greece is lost by their heresies and schismes against the Romane Church and England Germanie and Holland and other Countries know not what punishment hangeth ouer their heads so whosoeuer shall obserue the course of times and Histories shall finde that few Princes haue long prospered who haue persecuted the Romane Church and faith or haue been by her excommunicated or deposed 26. Wherfore Kings and Princes that contemne and despise the Church remember you are Men and that your Kingdome is subiect to a higher state of the Church Feare her glaiue that striketh euen the soule and spirit And if you will raigne long and prosperouslie here imitate those Constantines Martians Theodosius Pipins Charles the Great Lewis and others who were more glorious for amplifying the Churches Immunities and Demaines then for exteÌ„ding their Empire more renowned for the Churches and Monasteries they founded theÌ„ for the Cities and Castels they builded who by obeying honouring and enriching the Church strengtned and enriched their Kingdomes and haue prospered in all their warres and battailes But I will end with S. BERNARDS Counsell which he gaue to CONRADVS King of the Romanes Bern. ep 183. ad Conrad Regem Romam Rom. 13. desiring all Christian Princes to followe it Legi quippe Omnia anima Potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit c. Quam tamen sententiam cupio vos omnimodis moneo custodire in exhibenda reuerentia summae Apostolicae sedi I haue read indeed Let euerie soule be subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God which sentence not withstanding I desire and by all meanes warne you ô Princes to keepe by exhibiting reuerence to the highest and Apostolicall seat CHAPTER VII Although the Pope be not direct Temporall Lord and Superiour of the world nor of any part therof by Christs expresse guift and donation but only of the patrimony of Sainct Peter giuen him by Constantine the Great and other Catholicke Princes and confirmed by the consent of the Christian world yet by the spirituall power which Christ gaue him in his predecessour S. Peter Io 21. he may dispose of temporall things and euen of Kingdomes for the good of the Church and Conseruation of her and her faith right and the manner how and in what case he can thus dispose of temporalities is explicated 1. HAuing shewed by manie Arguments in the former Chapter that the Prince neither hath any spirituall Authoritie neither can by his Temporall power entermeddle him self as a Superiour in matters Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall It remaineth that we discusse and examine whether contrarie wise the Pope haue any temporall power or can by his Spirituall power dispose of temporall things A thing I confesse odious to some Princes who can hardly brooke it that you should meddle with their Crownes and Regalities thinking their Crownes so fast sett on their Heads that none but God can plucke them of and imagining they holde their scepters so fast that none vnder God can wrest them out of their hands But yet this question is odious only to such as sett little by the Churches Authoritie or at least preferre the state before Religion and the Temporall aduancement of the Common wealth before the Spirituall good of the Church for otherwise as guiltie malefactours only crie out of the Princes lawes Tribunals good subiects embrace and reuerence them so those Princes only whose consciences accuse them of some disloyaltie towards the Church or who desire to preferre their owne wils before the Churches commandement or to extend their Empire with encroaching on her Demaines and to rule so independentlie as they may not be controlled such Princes I say can not abyde to heare of any Authoritie in the Pope or Church which may restraine them Other Kings who counte it their honour to be obedient Children of the Church and who desire not to raigne ouer their subiects but so as God and his Church
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
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
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
carnall but mightie to God vnto the destruction of Munitions destroying Councels and all loftinesse extolling it self against the knowledg of God and bringing into Captiuitie all vnderstanding vnto the obedience of Christ and hauing in a readinesse to reuenge all disobedience And a little after quam dedit nobis Dominus c. which power our Lord hath giuen vs to edification not to your destruction Vpon which places S. CHRYSOSTOME sayth Chrysost hom 22. in ep ad Cor. Ad hoc potentiam accepimus vt aedificemus Quod si quis obluctetur tum demum altera quoque facultate vtamur eum diruentes ac prosternentes To this end we haue receaued power that we may edifie But if so be any stand out or become obstinate then may we vse another meanes pulling him downe and prostratinge him Which place as some think prooueth that the Chiefe Pastour may inflict Temporall punishment euen on Princes And therfore S. Aug. ep 50. ad Bonifac. Augustine hence prooueth that hereticks may he punished Temporally But at least it prooueth that the Pastours and especially the Chiefe Pastour of the Church haue not onlie Authoritie to preach and minister Sacraments but also to chastise offenders by spirituall Censures which power CALVIN in his Commentaties on this place affirmeth to be grounded on the text of S. MATTHEW before alleaged Mat. 18. VVhatsoeuer you shall binde on earth c. to which purpose he applieth that place of HIEREMIE Hier. 1. Behold I hane appointed thee this day ouer the Gentils and ouer Kingdomes that thou mayst pluck vp and destroy and waste and dissipate and build and plant which wordes insinuate power to dispose euen of Temporall Kingdomes and Authoritie and at least by Caluins Confession signifieth power to excommunicate and to inflict Spirituall paines which excommunication is no lesse paine and punishment then a Spirituall band and chayne wherewith the soule is chayned then a banishment from the Church of God then a deliuerie vp to Satan then a cutting of from all communion with the Church For as they who are obedient Children of the Church are partakers of three communions and communications Aug. li. 1 cont aduers legis proph cap. 17. Aug. ser 68. de verbis Apost habetur c. Omnis Christia nus 11. quast to wit of conuersation one with another of Sactaments and of suffrages prayers satisfactions and merites so he that is excommunicated is depriued of all these three goods Wherefore S. AVGVSTIN sayth that it is grauius malum excommunicarià Sacerdotibus Dei quà m si quis gladio feriretur flammis absorberetur aut ferisobijceretur It is a greater ill to be excommunicated by the Priests of God then if a man were kild by the sword consumed by fire or cast vnto wild beasts to be deuoured And againe Omnis Christianus qui à sacerdotibus excommunicatur Sathanae traditur c. Euery Christian that is excommunicated by the Priests is deliuered vp to Satan How so Because out of the Church is the Diuell as within the Church Christ and so hereby he is as it were deliuered vp to the diuell who is separated from Ecclesiasticall communion and societie Hence I deduce this Argument The Chiefe Pastour of the Church can excommunicate a Rebellious Prince and by excommunicating him depriue him of all the Spirituall Treasures of the Church as Sacraments suffrages merites and satisfactions yea he can cut him cleane from the Church and deliuer him vp to Satan ergo he can when it is necessarie for the good of the Church depriue him of Temporall goods and euen of his Kingdome I prooue the consequence because he that can inflict the greater punishment can inflict the lesser but it is a greater punishment to be cut of from the Church and to be depriued of her spirituall goods and graces then to be depriued of Cities countries and Temporall Kiugdomes ergo the Chiefe Pastour that can cast a Prince out of the Church can cast him out of his Kingdome 2. I know our Aduersaries will deny for all this my consequence as VViddrington doth because not alwayes he that can do more can do lesse but onlie then when the more and the lesse are of the same kinde and nature As for example he that can carrie fiftie pound weight can carrie fiue and twenty pownd weight and yet he that can discourse and reason which is more can not flye which is lesse because reasoning and flying are not of the same kinde and nature But yet for all this my illation and consequence is like to that of the Apostle S. PAVL 1. Cor. 6. which can not be denyed For sayth he If the world shall be iudged by you are you vnworthie to iudge of the least thinges know you not that we shall iudge Angels how much more secular things And the self same Argument vseth GREGORIE the seuenth to prooue that he might depose HENRIE the fourth for in the Instrument of that Emperours deposition speaking to the Apostles S. PETER Vide Baron tom 11. an 1080. n. 11. and S. PAVL he prooueth that they by him and he by authoritie receaued from them may depose the aforesaid Emperour because sayth he you by Popes your successours haue often taken Patriarchships Primacies Archiepiscopall and Episcopall Dignities from the wicked and vnworthy and haue bestowed them on Religious men Si enim spiritualia iudicatis quid de secularibus vos posse credendum est si Angelos dominantes omnibus superbis Principibus iudicabitis quid de illorum seruis facere potestis For if you iudge spirituall things what may we thinke you can do concerninge things that be secular and temporall And if you shall iudge Angels that haue dominion ouer all proud Princes what may you do with those that be their seruants and inferiours Where we see that not onlie GREGORIE the seuenth but also S. PAVL do vse the like Argument to that which I vsed and prooue that they who can iudge of spirituall matters may much more of temporall For although it doth not alwaies follow in good consequence that a man can do the lesser because he can do the greater as besides the alleaged example manie others do conuince for a man can speake which is more and yet he can not barke like a dog which is lesse yet when the things are of the same nature or at least not altogether disparate and independent the Consequence is good VVherfore seing that Temporall things are ordained to a spirituall end if not of their owne nature yet by God his institution who hath ordained vs vnto a supernaturall end as aboue I haue declared and consequentlie are subordinate and as it were meanes to a further end it may be sayd by good consequence as S. PAVL and S. GREGORIE the seuenth say The Chiefe Pastour can iudge and dispose of Spirituall things ergo he can iudge and dispose of Temporall things when they are necessarie to conferue the spirituall and
are necessarie meanes to attaine to the end of the Spirituall power which is conferuation of the Church and faith and the attaining of life euerlasting And so as S. THOMAS saith D. Th. 2. 2. q. 40. a. 2. ad 3 Omnis persona velars vel virtus ad quam pertinet finis habet disponere de his quae sunt ad finem Euery person or art or virtue to which the end belongeth may dispose of those things which are for the end Seeing then that God hath ordained Temporall things to the saluation of our soules and consequently to the Churches conseruation when the Chiefe Pastour whose office is to bring vs to our Spirituall end seeth that Temporall things are necessarie to that end he can not only command but also dispose of them Turrecr lib. 2. de Eccl. ca. 114. Hereupon TVRRECREMATA also vsinge the like Argument sayth To him that can dispose of the end it pertaineth to dispose of the meanes and to remoue also the Impediments as it is manifest in the Phisitian and sickman who because they haue Authoritie to procure health may make choise of the meanes and may remoue the Impediments of health VVherfore seing that the Chiefe Pastour is to looke to the soules health of his subiects he may not onlie command Temporall things but also dispose of them to that end and may remoue them when they are impediments to that end And because the King and his Kingdome are comprehended in the number of Temporall things which are ordained to the conseruation of the Church and the Spirituall end for God maketh a promise to his Chureh by the Prophet Esay Esai 49. That Kings shal be her Nurcing Fathers and that with a countenance cast downe to the ground they shall adore her Esai 60. and threatneth that the Nation and the Kingdome that shall not serue her shall perish it followeth also that when the Churches right and faith can not otherwise be conserued the Chiefe Pastour may dispose of the Kings Crowne and Kingdome hee in that case being subordinate to the Church and Christian faith Neither will VViddringtons answere serue to wit that in this case they are to be directed and commanded by the Chiefe Pastour for the conseruation of the Church but cannot be by him disposed because the argument prooueth more to wit that if the Chiefe Pastour can not only command in spirituall matters which are greater but also may dispose of them he may also dispose of the Temporall which are lesser they being in some case subordinate to the end of the Spirituall power which is conseruation of the Church and faith and procuration of eternall saluation 3. A second Theologicall Argument may be deduced from the Authoritie The Second Theologicall Argum. which the Church hath ouer Temporall power for as aboue I haue shewed the Spirituall power of the Church is not onlie Superiour to the Temporall in dignitie but also if they who haue this Temporall Authoritie be baptized in Authoritie of commanding not only in spirituall matters but also in Temporall when they hinder the Churches good or are necessarie for the Churches conseruation And therfore if the Prince make a Ciuill law which derogateth to the Church the Pastour can command them to alter or to abrogate it S. GREGORIE corrected MAVRITIVS the Emperours law Gregor lib. 7. Indic 1. by which he forbad souldiers to enter into Religion So S. AMBROSE though no Pope but Archbishop of Milan commanded Theodosius the Emperour Theodor. li. 5 cap. 17. 18 who had caused seuen thousand at Thessalonica to be killed for a sedition made against the Magistrates to make a new law by which he was so restrained that when he should condemne any to death or confiscation of goods the sentenee should not be executed till 30. daies after that he might haue time to iudge better when the furie of anger was past And the Canon law is full of commandementes of the Pope to Princes euen for the disposition of Temporall things Widdr. in Apol. n. 93. num 97.101.141 139.377 378. which also Widdrington graunteth For in his Apologie for the right of Princes he oftimes repeateth that the spirituall power can direct command and compell by Censures the Princes to make lawes which are necessarie for the Churches conseruation and to abrogate lawes which are iniurious to her and so to dispose Temporall things as they shall not preiudice the Church but rather serue her for her necessarie conseruation Widdr. Apolog. n. 197. Yea sayth he Potest Ecclesia propter instantem sui ipsius necessitatem praecipere vel prohibere vsum gladij materialis The Church when necessitie vrgeth can command or forbid the vse of the materiall and temporall sword And then say I if the Chiefe Pastour can command the Temporall power scepter and sword when the necessitie of the Church requireth he may also dispose of the Temporall power scepter and sword Widdr. in Apol. Resp nu 28. This consequēce Widdrington often tymes denieth but with how little reason we shall see brieflie For although euerie one that can command can not dispose yet Princes may I graunt the Ghostlie Father can command his Penitente to giue Almes and the Penitent shall be bound vnder sinne to obey yet he shall not therfore loose the proprietie and dominion of those his goods which he should haue giuen in almes Yea I graunt that the Prince when he commandeth his subiects to contribute for his warres or other necessities of the Realme doth not alwaies by and by depriue them of their dominion and proprietie but yet I say that as he can command Temporall things for the necessitie of the Realme of which he hath charge so he can by his absolute power called Dominium Altum when it is necessary for the Common wealth not only command but also take those goods from them and depriue them of the same as in many other cases he also confiscateth their goods and depriueth them of Dominion VVherfore seing that the Pope is the supreame visible and spirituall Prince of the Church he may not only command Christian Princes his subiects to vse their Scepter Authoritie and sword to the necessarie conseruation of the Church and especially not against the Church but may also if they contemne his commandement and Spirituall Censures for the necessarie conseruation of the Church and faith dispose of them else he were inferiour to the Prince and had not Authoritie sufficient for the conseruation of the Church which is committed and commended to his charge 4. The third Theologicall argument The third Argument shall be grounded in the Nature of the Church as it is a Common wealth for the Church is an absolute Common wealth not subordinate to any other as the Kingdome is to the Chiefe Pastour and Church Now it is so that euerie absolute Common wealth to wit which is no part nor is dependent of another hath power not onlie to
pag. 90. VVhat sayth our learned Country man Doctour SANDERS yf the Bishop should see a souldiour running through the streets with his sword drawn readie to kill euerie one that meeteth him might not the Bishop command some to take his sword from him for the defence of the people and especiallie the Clergie if he may giue one commission to take the sword in such a case from the souldiour why might he not take it from the Captaine yea Prince and Emperour 2.2 q. 10 art 10. Hence it is that the Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas sayth that the Church may free Christians from subiection to Pagan Princes and take from the Princes their Prelacie and Dominion ouer them Yea he sayth that the Church may though she vse not so to do free also Christians subiect to Pagan Princes though the Princes be not subiect temporallie to the Church 6. Secondlie hence I gather The secōd sequel that the Church may make not onlie defensiue but also offensiue warre against any other Prince or Common wealth that shall notably molest or persecute her or invade her Ecclesiasticall right For the Church is an absolute Common wealth subiect at least in Spirituall matters to no other Wherfore as England if it were notably wronged by France might wage warre euen offensiue against it and might not onlie defend it selfe from present wrong but might reuenge it self also of iniuries past so may the Church make warre euen offensiue against both Christians and Pagans for maintenance of her right for although Pagans by reason that they are not baptized and so not subiect to the Church can not be excommunicated or otherwise Spiritually punished by her as rebellious Christians may yet they may be temporally punished by temporall warre in regard that they are subiects as much as is required to inflict temporall punishments ratione delicti by reason of the wronge For so France is not now subiect to England and yet if it should wrong England notably England might punish it by temporall warre because it is subiect at least in this respect ratione delicti by reason of the offence and wrong offred And if the Church may wage warre offensiue against Pagan Persecutors whome she cannot punish Spiritually much more may she against Christian persecutours and Spirituall Tyrants that inuade her right and persecute her faith else she were not an absolute Common wealth nor had not sufficient Authoritie to defend and maintaine her state The sequel 7. Thirdlie If one absolute and independent Common wealth may wage warre defensiue and offensiue against another which is iniurious though otherwise not subiect much more may the Church against the Ciuill Common wealth seing that this is an inferiour state and truly subiect in Spirituall matters For if when two absolute and indepēdent Common wealthes are opposite that which is nocent and offereth wrong must yeeld to that which is innocēt and endureth wrong though otherwise it be neither subiect nor subordinate much more when the Ciuill Common wealth is opposite to the Church and that offreth wrong this receaueth ought the Ciuill Common wealth to yeeld to this it being not altogether absolute but subordinate and subiect therunto 8. But our Aduersaries obiect that the Church hath no Temporall An obiection but only a Spirituall sword and so can onlie excommunicate and inflict Censures but can neither defend nor offend by Temporall armes but rather when her Spirituall sword will not suffice she must haue patience hauing no other weapons to vse And to this purpose they cite those wordes of S. PAVL 2. Cor. 10 The weapons of our warfare are not carnall and those also of the same Apostle 2. Tim. 2 No man being a souldiour to God intangleth him selfe with secular businesses Yea they vrge euen these wordes of our Sauyour Mat. 26. Retourne thy sword into his place And they tell vs plainlie that the Church that is Ca. Clerici c quicun que 20. qu. 8. cap. cos qui 20. q. 3. The Answer Clergie men are forbidden by her own Canōs to make warre To this I haue an easie answer yea many answers First I answer that the ordinarie weapons of the Church are spirituall but when they will not serue for her defence in some cases she may vse temporall armes Secondlie I answer that the Church hath none but Spirituall armes that is spirituall power but by this power she can not only punish Spiritually but also Temporally and by it she can not only dispose of spirituall goods but euen of the Temporall when it is necessarie to conserue the faith and authoritie of the Church Thirdly to answer distinctly to euerie parcell of the obiection I say that the first place is vnderstood of the spirituall power of the Church which is not Temporall nor carnall but spirituall but as this power directlie and ordinarilie medleth only with spirituall matters and pumshments so indirectly and in some cases for the necessarie defence of the Church it can command the Temporall glaiue and handle it also when Princes at her commandement will not vse it to her end The other place forbiddeth only Clergie men to be to much sollicitous and studious about Temporall affaires The third place only forbiddeth to vse the sword for reuenge and by priuat authoritie And therfore after CHRIST had bidden S. PETER put vp his sword 1. Pet. 2. he addeth that all that take the sword shall perish with the sword which must needs be vnderstood of priuat men who indeed take it but receaue it not from authoritie For the Magistrate who receaueth the sword from the Prince may and must vse the same for the punishment of malefactours As for the alleaged Canons which forbid Priests and Religious to goe to warre I graunt that ordinarily they must not goe to warfare because it is not beseeming their function and is for that cause forbidden but yet by dispensation of the Chiefe Pastour they may D. Th. 2.2 qu. 40. a. 2. ad 3 Caietan ibidem Bannes ibid. dub 2. cou 2. dub 3 con 1. Couar Relect. in Clement Furiosus p. 2. §. 3. n. 2. and in case of great necessitie as if otherwise the Common wealth could not be defended they may and must euen without dispensation because to this they are bound by the law of Nature frō which the law of the Church doth not derogate no more then Grace doth from Nature as all Diuines do auouch If Priests then may fight and vse their temporall sword and armes for the necessarie conseruation of the Common wealth much more may they for the defence of the Church 9. And certes if the Church could not do this in such case of necessitie CHRIST had not sufficiently prouided for her nor giuen her that Authoritie which is requisite to euerie absolute Common wealth For what if Turkes and infidels should inuade the Church ruine her Temples and Monasteries despoile her of her Bishopricks and benefices
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
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
lesse daungerous to them seing that by permitting Popes and Bishops to doe it they might derogate to their owne authoritie and giue occasion to them to prescribe against them and to do it not in the Princes but in their owne name and Authoritie And when did WIDDRINGTON heare that any good Christians appealed from the Church and Pope in these lawes vnto Princes as to their highest Superiours when did they reiect any of these lawes till they had informed them selues that they were made not by the Churches but by the Princes authoritie Certes WIDDRINGTON in this openeth a wide gap for Heretickes and all contemners of the Churches authoritie And what may he not defend if he be permitted to vse this libertie and audacitie As for his Authours we shall see hereafter in the ensewing thirteenth Chapter how many they are and of what Authoritie 4. Wherfore my Argument shall proceede as it began in this manner The Pope by VViddrington can make a Decree to depose inferiour Temporall Lordes ergo Supreame Princes they as Christians being as subiect te the Church by Baptisme as aboue is shewed in the 5. Chapter num 4.5.6 as much as the lowest Christians though in that they are absolute Princes they haue no Superiour but God in Temporall Authoritie To say that Pope INNOCENT made this Decree of his own head is but to shew great ignorance for in Generall Councels Popes speake ex Cathedra and as publick not priuate persons and what they decree is With the common consent of all the Bishops or the most part else if the Pope should do all of his owne head in vaine should he assemble Generall Councels But that all the Councell and Christian world consented to this decree it is cleare enough for that no mention is made of any variance betwixt the Pope and the Councell in this matter To say that the true Councell of Laterane is not extant or that the Canons extant were compiled only by INNOCENTIVS because in this Councell the Councell of Laterane though not this but another is cited and alleadged are so improbable euasions that they merit not confutation and are verie suffieientlie reiected by the booke called Discussio decreti Magni Concilij Lateranensis 5. One thinge there is bearing more shew which our Aduersaries might alleage to wit that if this Councell did in expresse tearmes define that the Pope hath power to depose Princes they would then yeeld because what a Generall Councell with the Pope defineth directly and expresly is a mattet of faith and it is heresie to gainsay it But seing that all thinges spoken or written in a Councell are not matters of faith for as Diuines commonlie say the reasons which the Councell bringeth for confirmation of her decree and those things which are spoken incidentlie Bellarm. lib 2. de Concil cap. 11. 12. and the things which are determined as probable are not of necessitie to be beleeued it seemeth that by this decree we are not bound to beleeue that the Pope can depose Princes because though the Pope and Councell make a decree of deposition yet they define not expresly nor sub Anathemate vnder paine of Curse that the Pope can depose Princes 6. But who so pleaseth to consider this decree well and without all passion or partiall affection must needs confesse that this decree ought to be of verie great credit for first the Pope and Councell suppose at least that the pope can depose Princes else they would neuer haue made such a Decree and consequentlie this decree argueth that the Pope and all the Prelates Princes and Legates present were of that opinion which no doubt they being so many and so learned must needs beare a great sway amongst all good Christians for what they thought all the Christian world at least for the most part thought all receauing and approouing this Councell But widdringtoÌ„ will say that he will not denie but that they all thought so piouslie and probablie yet because they defined not in expresse tearmes that the Pope can depose Princes he will not beleeue it A peremptorie Answer certainlie and wherin to say no more the Answerer shall shew him selfe verie slow and hard of beleefe and to hardie also who blusheth not to gainsay so many learned and godlie Prelates and whome so many graue countenances and Iudgements can not moue 7. But I will deale yet another Way and out of the selfe same decree Although the Pope and Councell in the alleaged decree do not expreslie define that Popes can vpon iust cause depose Princes yet it argueth that they nor onlie probablie but verilie and assuredlie thought he could else to haue grounded so odious a decree and iniurious also if the Pope haue not Authoritie vpon a probable opinion had bene great rashnesse For the Councell had exposed therby if the opinion had not bene supposed most assured the King and Common wealth yea and sometimes the whole Church to vprores garboiles rebellious warres and such like And warre should haue bene iust also on both sides For the subiects might haue refused to obey the deposed Prince as being freed by a Generall Councels authoritie from all obligation to him and being warranted by the same Councell that now he is no more their King but an vsurper and Inuader against whom euerie particuler man hath iustum bellum iust warre And so as if a forraine Prince should vniustlie inuade France without iust title or wrong receiued euerie Frenchman might resist him if he could because he hauing no Title all the Kingdome and euerie particuler member hath iust warre against him so if a Prince deposed persist in gouernment he is according to the Popes and Councels opinion which VViddrington confesseth to be probable an vsurper and inuader and consequentlie euerie one of his former subiects hath iust warre against him Cicero lib. 3. de offic Hâ—rodotus lib. 3. Xiphilin in Augusto AlexaÌ„d ab Alex. li. 3. c. 26 D. Th in 2. d. vlt. q. 2. a. 2. ad 5 Sot lib. 5. de Iust q. 1. art 3. alij infra cap. 15. citandi no lesse then as all the best Philosophers and Diuines teach the subiectes haue against an vsurper of the crowne And yet this Prince deposed might iustlie also persist in his possession because no man is bound to forgoe that to which he hath probable right being warranted by the rule of the law †Reg. 65 de Regulis Iuris in 6. In pari delicto velcausa potior est conditio possidentis In the like default or cause better is the condition of him that is in possession And againe * Reg. 11 ibid. Cum sunt iura partium obscura reo fauendum est potius quà m Actori VVhen the rightes of the parties are obscure the guiltie or accused is to be fauoured before the Actour or accuser But the Prince in this case hath according to VViddrington probable right and is in possession and he is reus not Actors
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
prison sayd he would not take the oath for the Bishopricke of London and two others of them Mr. Drurie and Mr. Cadwallader suffred death rather then they would take the oath VViddrington hath no more reason to alleage them now for the oath then I may haue to alleage now VViddrington against the oath because once he stood against it If WIDDRINGTON say they should not haue chauÌ„ged their opinion I must tell him that they had more reason to chauÌ„ge their opinion vpon their Chiefe Pastours commandement then VViddrington hath to chaunge his opinion against his Chiefe Pastours commandement This I say supposing they had once been of that opinion as they Protest they neuer were and therfore in their Protestation alleaged by VViddrington do giue the Pope as much authoritie as S. Peter had and professe that their intentions were not in any wise to diminish his authoritie Secondly I auswer that towardes the end of Queene Elizabethes raigne it was signified to certain Priestes theÌ„ being in London that the Queenes Maiestie was then so well affected to her Catholicke subiectes that she profered theÌ„ free vse of Religion prouided that she might haue securitie giuen for their fidelitie of which by reason of Pius Quintus sentence of Excommunication and deposition pronounced against her she seemed to stand in feare These 13. Reuerend Priestes easilie induced to beleeue that which they so much desired and fearefull not to giue way to so great a good pretended to English Catholickes were content to make that Protestation which Widdrington setteth downe Disput Theol. cap. 3. sec 3. â—um 11. by which they protest that they acknowledge her to haue as full Authoritie power and Soneraigntie ouer vs and ouer all the snbiectes in the Realme as any her Highenesse Predecessours had And wheras Widdrington maketh this inference ergo to make this their fact and Protestation lawfull they must needes deny that the Pope had authoritie to depose Queene Elizabeth I deny that his consequence and that for manie reasons For first although I will not be so bolde as to examine whether Pius Quintus had iust cause to depose Queene Elizabeth but rather suppose he had nor whether the 13. Priestes thought or might iustlie thinke that he had no iust cause yet the Pope may haue Authoritie to excommunicate and depose and yet if there want iust cause his sentence shall be inualid and of no force And so it followeth not the 13. Priestes acknowledged the Queene lawfull Queene after the sentence of deposition ergo they thought the Pope could not depose her because the sentence might be inualid not for want of Authoritie in the Pope but for want of iust cause in the Queene Disput Theol. cap. 10. So WIDDRINGTON affirmeth that the Catholickes of England may take the oath notwithstaÌ„ding the Popes commandement to the contrarie and if one should thence inferre ergo he thinketh the Pope hath no Authoritie to coÌ„maund he would deny the ConsequeÌ„ce and say that the commandement wanteth force to oblige not for want of Authoritie but by reason that it proceedeth from ill information So in the same Chapter he confesseth that the Archpriest hath power to take from the Priestes who holde the oath to be lawfull their faculties and yet if he should he would say they were not taken away not for wante of power but for want of iust cause So Father Personnes alleaged by Widdrington sayth Disput Theol. cap. 10. sec 2. n. 54. Si enim quaestio esset de facto c. for if the question were of facte as this is of the 13. Ptiestes to wit whether the Pope in this or that case can depose or excommunicate this or that Prince vpon these or these causes or whether the former Popes haue done rightin this or otherwise then some of these reasons which you affirme are alleaged by your frindes might be admitted into consideration whether it would be to aedification or destruction whether it would bringe with it commoditie or discommoditie whether it would be profitable or hurtfull or whether there were causes sufficient or not for no man defendeth that the Pope can depose without iust cause or whether due admonition of which in your letters there is mention hath been made Thirdlie suppose the sentence of Pius Quintus where valid and iust as the contrarie is not easilie to be thought of a man of such Authoritie and sanctitie and consequentlie that the Queene was iustlie and trulie deposed yet the 13. Priestes might promisse to obey her in Temporall and lawfull matters because they might thinke that the Queene would notwithstanding the sentence still raigne and gouerne and would persecute with losse of goods libertie and liues all those that would not obey her and seing that such domages excuse from the sentence of excommunication and giue leaue to communicate with the Prince excommunicated and to obey him in all lawfull matters the 13. Priestes supposing otherwise the daunger of incurring these domages might promisse obedience to the Queene in all lawfull matters Wherefore Diuines Casuists haue in these two verses comprehended all the thinges which excuse from excommunication and make communication with the excommunicat persons lawfull Haec Anathema quidem faciunt ne possit obesse Vtile lex humile res ignorata necesse Thirdly and lastly I answer that although the sentence of excommunication and deposition against Queene ELIZABETH were valid and consequentlie she trulie deposed and depriued of all Regall Authoritie yet the 13. Priestes at the time when they made that their Protestation might acknowledge Queene ELIZABETH to be their lawfull Queene and to haue as full Authoritie as any her predecessours had because that sentence of PIVS QVINTVS might at that time be abrogated and of no force and so cease to bind and consequentlie the Priestes might acknowledge that then she had as full power as she had before the senteÌ„ce and as much right and Authoritie as any of her Predecessours And indeede that PIVS QVINTVS sentence did at that time cease to binde it may be gathered by this that thirtie three yeares had passed from her deposition vnto the time in which these 13. Priests made their Protestation all which time as well Catholickes as ProtestaÌ„ts obeyed her as Queene the Popes then raigning knowing and not reclayming and consequentlie consenting which consent of the subiectes of England and Popes of Rome was sufficieÌ„t to abrogate the former sentence and consequentlie to putte Queene ELIZABETH in the same estate she was in before the sentence And that this tacit consent is sufficieÌ„t to abrogat either positiue law or sentence I prooue by Vasq wordes Vasq 1. 2. Disp 177. c. 2. n. 17. whome VViddrington so often alleageth For Vasquez iuÌ„ping herein with the common opinion of Diuines and Lawiers thus pronounceth Cum Princeps sciens vsum eum approbat vel non improbat nascitur consuetudo quae habet vim legis vel quaesufficit ad derogandum legi
antealata quia Princeps non improbans vsum censetur illum approbare when the Prince knowing the vse doth approoue it or doth not disprooue it there ariseth a custome which hath the force of a law or which sufficeth to derogate to the law before made because the Prince not disproouing an vse is thought to approoue it This is the doctrine of Diuines and Lawiers Widdr. Disput Theol. c. 6. sec 3. n. 25.27.28 which VViddrington him selfe approoueth in diuerse places Wherefore seing that in England the sentence of Pius Quintus pronounced against Queene Elizabeth was not obserued for three and thirtie yeares before the thirteene Priests Protestation and that all that while euen the Catholickes obeyed her as Queene the Popes knowing and not contradicting yea some of them as I haue heard of Pope Gregorie the 13. and Clement the 8. expresselie approouing it followeth that at the time of the 13. Priests Protestation the sentence of deposition by contrarie vse and custome was abrogated and so Queene ELIZABETH was at that time in the same state she was in before the sentence and consequētlie might be acknowledged for true Queene and to haue as full power and Authoritie as any of her Predecessours But because widdrington may alleage that these 13. reuerēd Priests not ōlie promised that they would acknowledge Q. Elizabeth notwithstanding any sentence alreadie pronoūced but also notwitstanding any Authoritie or any Excōmunication whatsoeuer either denoūced or to be denounced to yeeld vnto her Maiestie all obediēce in tēporall causes I answer that the 13. Reuerend Priests might acknowledge in the Pope authoritie to depose the Queene and yet promise her obedience in Lawfull thinges supposing the sentence would be inualid for some of the aforesayd causes and not for want of authoritie Againe they might thinke that if the Queene would giue for herafter libertie of Conscience as was pretended and continue the same as the 13. Priests might hope the Pope should haue no cause to Excommunicate or depose her and therfore would not or if he would they might imagine that in that case he could not iustlie nor without great iniurie to the Catholickes of England proceede so against her that being to prouoke her to a new persecution and so the 13. Reuerend Priestes might thinke them selues not bound to obey in that case the Popes sentence and commaundement it being vniust and consequentlie rebus sic stantibus they might promise notwithstanding any sentence to be denounced to obey the Queene in all Temporall and lawfull causes and to defend and assist her If VViddrington should here obiect that if the 13. Priests might promise to acknowledge and obey Queen Elizabeth notwithstanding any sentence to be pronounced supposing the sentence would be vniust why may not the Catholique Subiect of England take the oath of pretended alleageance and sweare that the Pope can not depose the King and that if he should he would still acknowledge and obey him supposing the sentence would be vniust I answer him that the case is not like because in the oath the question is de iure not de facto and therfore the Subiect sweareth absolutlie that the Pope hath not any power or Authoritie to depose the King and that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication or depriuation made or graunted or to be made or graunted against the sayd King or any absolution of the sayd subiectes from their obedience he will beare true fayth and true allegeance to his Maiestie And seing that the Pope hath such Authoritie to depose a Prince as here I suppose it is periurie at least to sweare absolutlie that he hath no such Authoritie ouer the King and it is iniurie to the Pope But the 13. Priests speake de facto not de iure and therfore they protest not that the Pope hath no such Authoritie but promise what they would doe de sacto notwithstanding any his Authoritie that is that not withstanding the Popes Authoritie and sentence so libertie of Conscience were graunted to all English Catholickes as they were borne in hand it should they would still acknowledge and obey the Queene supposing in that case the sentence would be vniust and so of no force to bynd in conscience Wherfore seing that these 13. Reuerend Priestes might make their Protestation of acknowledging and obeying Q. ELIZABETH not for that they thought the Pope could not depose her but for other reasons alleaged why should then VViddrington take them in the worst sence why should he bringe them so oft on the stage why should he thinke to grace his opinion by their grauitie learning and Authoritie he knowing whatsoeuer they thought of the Popes Authoritie in deposing before the Popes Breues came forth as they protest they neuer thought as VViddrington doth that when he began to impugne this the Popes Authoritie and against his Chiefe Pastours commaundement to defend the oath they protested in priuat and publicke the contrarie And so VViddrington may aske thē forgiuenesse by publicke writing whom he hath publickelie and yet wrongefullie sought to defame 18. Here because I would not passe my limittes of breuitie which I intended in this booke I thought to haue concluded this Chapter But after I had examined these Authours yea after that the Printer was come to this Chapter I came to the sight of VViddringtons Supplication and Appendix ioyned to it which before I had nor seene for that Catholickes making a scruple either to read or to keepe bookes forbidden by the Chiefe Pastour and Superiours being vigilant and worthilie to suppresse such bookes it is hard in Catholicke countries to meete with any of VViddringtons bookes two of them being expresselie condemned and all his later bookes being almost but repetitions of the former yet hauing hitte vpon this booke I was desirous to see with what dexteritie he defended these authours against Schulckennius And I find that he refused to acknowledge two of them to wit Dante 's and Ocham In Append § 6 num 2. saying Imprimis falsum est me aut Dantem aut Occamum pro meis authoribus produxisse c. First it is false that I produced either Dante 's or Ocham for my Authours But I onlie affirmed that by IOHN AZORIVS they were alleaged for that opinion And yet who could thinke otherwise then that he had produced them for his Authours seing that after the first opinion of Cardinall Bellarmine and others which holdeth that the Chiefe Pastour may in some case dispose of Temporalities and Regalities he setteth downe the second opinion of those who holde that the Chiefe Pastour in no case by no Authoritie either directlie or indirectlie hath power to depose a Prince and cōming to the Authours of this second opinion which he him selfe Embraceth he sayth Hanc sententiam vt refert Ioannes Azorius Societatis Iesu Theologus sequuntur Gulielmus Occamus Ioannes Parisiensis Dante 's Aligerius Iacobus Almainus c. This sentence as Ioannes Azorius a diuine of
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
to my Soueraigne speake no more of him then any other Prince but abstracting from all Princes factes and cases in particular I intend onlie to dispute as I haue hetherto of the Popes Right and Authoritie ouer Princes in generall The First Clause of the Oath I. A. B. do trulie and sincerelie acknowledge professe and testifie in my conscience before God and the world that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is lawfull and true King of this Realme and of all other his Maiesties Dominions and Countries 12. I will not stand much with WIDDRINGTON about this clause because all Catholicks will acknowledge his Maiestie that now is for their Prince and King and will sweare also fidelitie vnto him in all Temporall matters and this Oath hath bene offered by the Catholicks in an Epistle they wrote to his Maiestie which others also haue offered and for better notice and in argument of their true meaninge published their offer in print This then is one reason which maketh Catholicks to suspect that in this Oath couertlie is intended a denyall of the Popes spirituall supremacie For if the Prince and his Magistrate intended only Ciuill and Temporall Alleageance why did they not propose this Oath in the ordinarie tenour and termes of a Ciuill oath with which the former Kings of England and all Catholick Kinges of other Countries euen to this day content them selues Why bring they in the Popes Authoritie which other Princes leaue out But they knew that Catholicks would neuer haue refused such an oath and therefore to trouble and engage their consciences to haue thereby some pretence to seaze vpon their liuings and goods and to vexe their persons they deuised this Oath Which their manner of proceeding may make Catholicks iustlie suspect that some thing is intended to which in conscience they cannot agree and consequentlie oathes conscience and Religion being so nice and daungerous matters if there were no other reason then this In his Newyearesguift num 8. pag. 37. the Catholicks haue iust cause to make not only a scruple but also a conscience to take it And therefore Widdrington him selfe in his Newyeares-guist confesseth at least that in the beginning and why not still Catholickes might iustlie suspect this oath to be vnlawfull 13. Suarez Gretzerus Hence it is also that some writers make a scruple of those wordes Supremus Dominus Soueraigne Lord because the Oath being of it self suspicious and the King of England by his ordinarie Title giuen him by Parlament being stiled Supreame Head of the Church which dignitie the Bishops and Diuines of England affirme to be annexed to the Kinges Regalitie iure diuino as we haue seen aboue Chap. 6. they feare least a snake lie hid in the grasse and a pad in the strawe and that vnder that Title of Supreme or Soueraigne Lord is couertlie vnderstood Supreame Head of the Church of England not only in Temporall but also in Spirituall causes But because these wordes Soueraigne Lord may be taken in that good sense which ordinarilie they import and are not put ex parte praedicati but only ex parte subiecti for by this clause the swearer sweareth not that his Maiestie is Supreame or Soueraigne Lord but only that our Soueraigne Lord is true and lawfull King I will not much stand about them 14. For as if one should sweare that the Archbishop of Cantetburie is trulie a persecutour of Catholicks he should not sweare that he is trulie Archbishop but onlie that he who is called Archbishop of Canterburie is truly a persecutour so by swearing that our supreame Lord King IAMES is true and lawfull King we do not sweare that he is Soueraigne or Supreame Lord but only that he who is so stiled is our Prince and King which no English Catholicke will refuse to sweare But howsoeuer Catholicks haue good cause to suspect all things in this vnwonted Oath it being not the ordinarie Oath of Alleageāce which the Kings in other Countries propose and wherewith the Kings of England contented them selues till they began to seuer them selues from the true Catholicke Romane Church for true Catholicke and Romane euer went together and to banish out of their Realme all Papall Authoritie as an enemie to their state which other Princes do retaine and euer haue reuerenced and maintained as the Chiefe support of their Kingdoms And that which augmenteth the suspition is for that his Maiestie him selfe seemeth to make doubt of this Oath and so it seemeth daungerous either for the Magistrate to propose it or the subiects to receaue it For these are his Maiesties wordes vttered in the Parlament an 1606. Some doubtes haue been conceaued in vsing the Oath of Allegeance and that part of the Act which ordaineth the taking therof is thought so absurd as no man can tell who ought to be pressed therewith For I my selfe when vpon a tyme I called the Iudges before mee at their going to their courts moued the question vnto them wherin as I thought they could not reasonablie auswer So that this obscuritie in the Oath should first be cleared least swearing to that which wee vnderstand not wee expose our selues to periurie The Second Clause And that the Pope neither by him selfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or Sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King or to dispose of any of his Maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forraine Prince to anoy him or inuade his Countries or to discharge any of his subiects of their Alleageance and obedience to his Maiestie or to giue licence or leaue to any of them to beare Armes raise tumultes or to offer any violence or hurt to his Maiesties Royall person state or gouernment or to any of his Maiesties subiectes within his Maiesties Dominions 15. Widdr. in disp Theol. in exam huius clausulae This clause sayth VViddrington is Petra illa scandali lapis offensionis that Rocke of scandall and stone of offence at which so many of this age as well learned as vnlearned haue stumbled And in deed to VViddrington him selfe it hath beene such a Rocke of scandall but by his owne fault for many haue passed it with out either falling or stumbling that he hath not onlie stumbled and fallen at it him selfe but by his fall he hath beene the cause of the fall and ruine of many an hundred For if August serm 14. de Sāctis Act. 7. 22. as S. AVGVSTIN sayth S. PAVL by holding the garments of those that stoned S. STEVEN did more stone him then any of the stoners them selues Magis saeuiens omnes adiuuaudo quà m suis manibus lapidando Certes Widdrington persuading by his bookes that the Oath is lawfull sinneth more damnably then any one of them that take the Oath yea taketh it in euerie one of them and stumbleth and falleth in them all and consequently more then them all But vae homini illi
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
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
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
fier to the strawe there is great difference because he that applyeth the fier giueth no force nor actiuitie to the fier so his application is but conditio sine qua non and he is causa per accidens but the commaunder sometimes giueth authoritie and alwayes giueth morall influence and motion as doth the principall cause to the instrument and so he is a principall cause and causa per se 38. VVherfore to cleare the matter more I will distinguish three kindes of CoÌ„maunders The First is an vnlawfull commaunder The Second a lawfull Commaunder who hath Authoritie to commaund one to doe a thing but can not do it him selfe The Third is a commaunder who hath authoritie not onlie to commauÌ„d another but may also by him selfe do the thinge commaunded if he will And these are absolutelie called causes and causes principall and per se though not in the same manner In the First kinde are comprehended all Lordes or Masters who commaund theire seruantes or ministers to kill them whom they them selues haue no Authoritie to kill So if a Captaine should commaund his man to kill his enemie or one that standeth in his way of preferment or one whose wife or purse he desireth to haue he is sayd commonlie to be the principall cause Antonin lib. 4. tit 13. part 7. lib. 5. tit 15. part eadeÌ„ Mercado lib. 6. Sum. cap. 7. Vasq in Opusc de Restit c. 9. dis 1. dub 3. the seruant though he be a physicall cause yet he is but a ministeriall and instrumentall cause of the murder and though he haue no true Authoritie from his Master yet he hath as I sayd morall influence and doth the effect by vertue of that morall influeÌ„ce which moueth him And therfore if any restitution be to be made he is bound principallie and in the first place to restore and his seruant is not bound to restitution but in defect of his Master who is the principall cause and gaue morall influence and motion to his seruant although the seruant also because he was bound not to obey his Master shall endure the punishments due to murderers by the law Hence it is that Dâ—â—uines and Canonists do affirme that if the commaunder do recall his commaundemeÌ„t before his seruant hath donne the murder the seruant then shall be the principall and sole cause because after the commaundement is recalled he doth the murder of his owne Authoritie hauing now no morall influence or motion from his Master and so then he onlie is cause of the murder not his Master he onlie is bound to restitution if any be required not his Master and he onlie in the inward courte of Conscience deserueth hanging not his Master though the externall courte oftentymes when it presumeth that the Master did not reuoke his commaundement will pronounce sentence also against the Master In the Second kinde is the Confessarius who according to the common opinion in the Sacrarnent of Confession can commaund his peâ—itent to giue almes and his penitent is borind in conscience to giue the almes be it money bread corne or such like goodes and yet the penitent doth not loose dominion of those goods though he sinne in not giuing them to the poore and so the Confessariâ—us can not iustlie take them from him In the Third kind are Princes who giue authoritie to theire Iudges to coÌ„demne to death and by them or others his officers to the hangman to punish and hange malefactours Because although it be not conuenient for the Kinges Person to execute any immediatlie him selfe yet as he commaundeth and giueth authoritie to others so he might do that acte of iustice him selfe So the Pope or Bishop who giue authoritie to others to heare Confessions might them selues heare Confessions though because of their other affaires they vse not so to do 39. This distinction of commaunders supposed although the Pope had not authoritie of him selfe to depose a Prince yet if he can commaund the common wealth in some case to depose the Prince as VViddrington graunteth he can he should be a true morall and principall cause of the deposition because he should not onlie giue morall influence to the common wealth to depose for that euen an vnlawfull commaunder doth but he should also giue authoritie to the common wealth for although the common wealth hath of it selfe Authoritie to depose a Prince in some case and hath not this Authoritie from the Pope if the Pope haue Authoritie to commaund it followeth that the commoÌ„ wealth obeying his commaundement and Authoritie doth depose by his Authoritie And this to wit that the Pope may depose a Prince mediatlie by the common wealth I prooue out of VViddrington him selfe who to confirme his owne opinion which holdeth that the Pope can not depose a Prince alleageth Ioannes Parisiensis who writeth thus as VViddrington alleageth him Apud Widdr Disp Th. ca. 3. ser 3. n. 7. Si Rex est haereticus incorrigibilis contemptor Ecclesiâ—sticae Censurae porest Papa aliquid facere in populo vnde priuaretur ille saeculari honore deponeretur a populo excommunicando scilicet eos omnes ad quos spectat regem deponere qui ei vt Domino obedirent If a King be an hereticke and incorrigible and a contemner of the Churches Censure the Pope may do some thing in the people whereby he should be depriued of his secular honour and be deposed by the people to wit by excommunicating all those to whome it appertaineth to depose the King who should obey him as Lord. Out of this Aurhour whom WIDDRINGTON alleageth as a fauourer of his opinion I can easilie deduce that which VVIDDRINGTON denyeth to wit that though the Pope coulde not by him selfe depose a Prince yet he might by the Common wealth Because if the Pope can not onlie commaunde the Common wealth but also excommunicate all those subiectes that obey such a Prince he can compelle them to deny obedience to him vnlesse they will be separated by excommunicatioÌ„ from the Church out of which is no saluation If then any one would complayne of that Common wealth for deposing their Prince and denying obedience vnto him the people might answer that the Pope compelled them so to do and to leaue the King vnlesse they would leaue the Church whence followeth that the Pope in that case should be trulie sayd to haue beene the principall cause of deposition because he compelled the Common-wealth to depose him If VViddrington should say to his man kils such an one or I will kill thee who doubteth but that WIDDRINGTON should be counted the principall cause of murder wherfore seing that this Authour whom WIDDRINGTON produceth sayth that the Pope may say to the CoÌ„mon-wealth to whome it appertaineth to depose the Prince depose your Prince or I will separate you from the Church by Excommunication Aug. lib. cont aduers leg Prophet ca. 17. serm 68. de verbis Apost ca. omnis Christianus 11. q.
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
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.
is morallie no such thing to be feared And therfore Catholicke Kinges notwithstanding this opinion which they approoue do not therfore think theÌ„ selues in lesse securitie But he will saye that our Soueraigne being of a contrarie Religion hath iust cause to feare Let him then write bookes to perswade his Maiestie to be a Catholique and therby put him out of this preteÌ„ded feare Yet suppose he neither will nor can perswade that I deny that there is any such daunger as WIDDRINGTON maketh shewe of For bee it as in deed it is that the Pope can in some case depose a Prince as when he is incompatible or intolerable for his spirituall tyrannie yet that case happeneth seeldome and when it happeneth he often tymes ought not depose him as if hee forsee more hurte then good will ensewe theron he must giue the Prince warning and admonition before he pronounce sentence of Excommunication or deposition to which if the Prince harken the Pope can proceed no farther And if his admonition be contemned he must not with out Counsell actuallie excommunicate or depose him to which perchaunce his Counsellers will not aggree and if both he and they aggree to haue him deposed yet the particular Subiectes can not put the Prince out of Possession onlie the CoÌ„mon wealth or publique Authoritie hath such power which yet the Common wealth can seeldem exequute and is not bound alwaies to execute but may still obey the Prince ExcoÌ„municated deposed in lawfull thinges if by disobeying him any notable daunger is like to be incurred as I haue shewed aboue in the thirtenth Chapter And seing that these Circumstances do seeldome all meet deposition of a King is rara auis in terris and the exequution of the sentence of deposition is yet rarer and consequent lie not so much to bee feared as VViddrington would haue it And therfore VViddrington if he inteÌ„d reallie to secure the Prince should not defend the Oathe as hetherto he hath done but rather perswaded the Prince to take it quite a waye ther being perchaunce some daunger to him in vrging an odious oath apte to breed alienation in the subiectes myndes and no morall daunger at all as I haue shewed in not vrging it at all the sentence of deposition of a Prince being a rare thing and the exequution of it farre rarer Heere I might conclude but that I haue a word or twoe to say to Widdrington vpon occasion of his Newyeares-guifte and as much to the Catholique subiectes concerning their obedience to the King and lastlie to his Maiestie concerning his confidence which he may securelie put in them 73. WIDDRINGTON as it is thought A freindlie Admonition to WiddringtoÌ„ masqued with the lettres E. I. in the beginning of the last yeare presented the Catholiques of England with a new Explication of the Oath or rather with an old made new and offered it vnto them as a New-yeares-guift of no smal price and valew as by which as he sayth they may be more fullie instructed then they haue been by I. E. the Authour of the Prelate and Prince whose explication of the Oathe he auoucheth to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie to bee Pestiferous But as for his Newyeares-guift Ep. ad Regem it being ceÌ„sured in other his bookes by his Chiefe Pastour the Catholique hath iust cause to saye Quicquid id est timeo Danaos donae ferentes What euer it is L. 2. Aeneid I feare the Greeks and bringers of such guiftes And as for my Explication I can assure the sayd English Catholiques that it is and was allowed by the same Superiours who haue censured and condeÌ„ned Widdringtons and it is grounded in the practise of sacred Councells and holie and learned Popes our Chiefe visible Pastours and it is countenaunced by all the grauest and lernedst diuines doctours writers as I haue shewed in the eleuenth twelfe and thirtenth Chapters and as VVIDDRINGTON him selfe knoweth who confesseth that the opinion which holdeth that the Pope can in some case depose a Prince is more Common and consequentlie more probable wheras WIDDRINGTONS Authours either stand against him or are not of Credit in a matter of Diuinitie or are of cracked credit being censured and condemned in the Index of forbidden Authours And therfore wheras he vaunteth a litle to much for one of his CoÌ„ditioÌ„ and Quilâ—â—ie that I shall shortlie heare with shame enough bona verba quaeso what goodlie instruction I haue giue I desire him to take heed least he shame him self as he hath to much alreadie and more then I or other his friends desire as for mee I will not be ashamed of my Explication of the Oath it being conformable to the aforesayd Authoritie let scaÌ„dalous or censured opinions and Authours blushe and shame to appeare in publique nihil veritas erubescit sayth Tertullian nisi solummodo abscondi Tertull. lib cont Valent inianos in initio truth blusheth at nothing but to be hidden As for VViddringtons tauntes bitter irreuerent and immodest speeches which he bestoweth to liberallie euen on the grauest and learnedst writers and Prelates of this age let not VViddrington thinke that they esteeme them or regard them Such speeches may disgrace him selfe but not theÌ„ rather they will therby gather as Catholickes commonlie doe that such lauish languages sauour litle of the spirit of an humble modest and Catholique man as Widdrington hath been esteemed and still desireth to be reputed Wherfore not intending to contend with him in that kind nor to render euill for euill but as true Catholiques ought to do good for euill out of the ancient good will I haue of long tyme born and still do beare to his parson though I like not his proceedinges I desire him to harken to this my ensewing good Counsell though in so doing perchaunce and contrarie also to my desire I may force vppon him an vnwelcome courtesie and an vngratefull fauour 74. I wish him first to consider with what securitie of conscience he can still persist in the defeÌ„ce of the Oath The first good Counsell to Widdringtâ— not onlie against all the Authoritie by me and others alleaged but also against the expresse commaundement of his chiefe and Supreame visible Pastour Widdâ— Disp Th. sec 2. ca. 10. n. 56. he alleageth Vasquez oftentymes to prooue that a man may follow in practise any probable opinion and he seemeth to be wel conuersant in him why then doth he not marke and make his commoditie of that Doctrine of Vasquez concerning the Superiour when he commaundeth according to a probable opinion Vasquez Vasâ— 1 â— disp 62. n. 32. following therin the common opinion affirmeth that a subiect is bound to obey his lawfull Superiour when he commaundeth according to a probable opinion though he commaund a thing which is against the Subiectes opinion and that also probable Out of this I frame this Argument A subiect is bound to obey his lawfull Superiour when he commaundeth
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.