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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
followed him sayth S. CHRYSOSTOME non vt Regem eiecturus Homi. 5. de verbis Isaiae sed vt profugum ingratum filium expulsurus not as though he were to cast out of the Temple a King but a Runnegate and vngrateful seruant Followeth him as an eagre Mastiffe doth the beast to chase him out of his Lord and Maisters howse and as one that tooke no care of the Kings threatning feared neither his Garde nor his Regalitie nor his golden crowne nor his Kinglie scepter nor his sterne lookes and Maiestie but with an vndaunted courage with a Constant countenance and a free voice that neuer had learned how to flatter 2. par 26 he telles him as plainlie as trulie Non est tui officij OZIA vt adoleas Incensum Domino sed sacerdotum hoc est filiorum Aaron qui consecrati sunt ad huiusmodi Ministerium egredere de sanctuario ne contempseris quia non reputabitur tibi ad gloriam hoc à Domino Deo It is not thy office OZIAS to burne Incense to our Lord but of the Priests that is of the Children of Aaron which are consecrated to this kinde of Ministerie Go out of the sanctuary contemne not because this thing shall not be reputed to thee for glorie of our Lord God Vide sayth S. Chrysostome Hom. 4. de verbis Esaiae libertatem vide mentem seruire nesciam vide linguam coelos attingentem vide libertatem incoercibilem vide hominis Corpus angeli mentem vide humi ingredientem in Caelo versantem Behould the freenesse and plainesse of a Priest behould a minde that neuer knew how to be seruile behould a tongue that is heard to Heauen behould an vnrestrained libertie behould the bodie of a man the mind of an Angell behould one treading on the ground yet conuersing in heauen Let me ô Christian Princes a Priest not of AARON but of Christ vse the like libertie against you that inuade the Churches right and arrogate Priestlie dignitie It is not thy office ô King ô Prince to meddle in Church matters or gouernment of the Church but it is the office of Priests and Prelates consecrated and ordayned for that purpose Dareth a Prince once offer to meddle in the Churches gouernment to sitt as Iudge in her Synodes to pronounce sentence in her tribunals to prescribe seruice in her Temples Depart ô King whosoeuer thou art that art thus hardie depart out of the sanctuary command no more in the Church if thou wilt command long and prosperouslie in thy Kingdome Depart I say this is no place for thee Contemne not my Counsell least thou paie for thy contempt and be stricken with a leprosie in thy forehead for such impudencie It is no glorie for thee ô King to meddle in Church matters It is a glorie indeed and as much greater then the office of a King at it is more to gouerne soules then bodies and to menage spirituall then temporall affaires But it is no honour to a King neither will it euer turne to the prosperitie of him or his Posteritie All the Auncient Kings yea and Emperours also so mightie in Armes so rich in Treasure so glittering in their Crownes Scepters purple and pretious stones so fortunate in VVarre so glorious in Victories neuer dreamed of such ambition but thought it their honour to be defendours not rulers of the Church subiects in Spirituall matters no Pastours Children no Fathers Inferiour members to the Church no supreme Heads and therfore submitted their scepters to the Pastorall staffe their Crowne to the Mitre their Temporall swords to the spirituall glaiues their lawes to the Canons their Kingdomes to the Church their persons to the Priests And shall now a King a Christian King arrogate Ecclesiasticall authority If he will raigne long ouer his subiects let him permitt the Churches rule and command ouer him If he will haue God for his Father let him acknowledge the Church for his Mother him self a sonne no Father a subiect in this kinde no superiour 25. Harken ô King whosoeuer thou art that arrogatest Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or encroachest vpon the Churches right and demaines vnto S. AMBROSE his Counsell which he gaue to VALENTINIAN the yonger When didst thou heare Supra citatus pag. 143 O most ClemeÌ„t King that laymen were Bishops Iudges in matters of faith and Church do not trouble thy self as to thinke that thou hast any Imperiall right in diuine matters Giue to God and his Church and Pastours what is due to them if thou wilt that thy subiects giue to thee what belongeth to thee ô King Giue eare ô King to graue Hosâ—vs his speech Leaue of Ibidem O King to intermeddle in such matters remember thou art a Mortall Man a King no Priest and reserue thy selfe pure and fâ—â—e from suth audacious attemptes command not Priests in Ecclesiasticall matters but rather learne such things of them ô Potentate ô Prince ô King Nu. 16. Harken to AZARIAS Counsell which he gaue to King OZIAS It is not thy office ô King to burne Incence to our Lord or if thou contemne AZARIAS his Counsell feare OZIAS his leprosie If thou wilt arrogate the Office of AARON take heed least with Chore Dathan and Abiron the earth deuoure thee or the fire coÌ„sume thee 2. Maâ— 3. If thou wilt robb the Treasure of the Temple take heed the Angell of God scourge thee not with Heliodorus 2. Maâ— 9. If thou wilt spoile the Temple and kill the people of God with Antiochus If thou wilt destroy the Temple with Nabuchodonosor vse prophanelie the holy vessels with Balthasar prophane the said Temple with Pompey and others feare their infamous and miserable ends knowing that there was neuer King nor Emperour that rebelled against the Church or persecuted her especially since Christs time and since he shed his bloud for her that hath not had some miserable end or other 26. And to omitt those Pagan Persecutours Nero Domitian Dioclesian Maximinian Iulian and others a Zonar Cedr in eius vira Rhegino lib. 1. Chron. an 5.8 Martin Polon in Anast ANASTASIVS the first Emperour of that name for resisting the Pope for fauouring the Arrian heresie and for disdaining to receaue or to admitt to his sight the legates whom HORMISDA Pope sent to him was sodainlie with a Thunderbolt leueled at him from heauen stricken to death b Theop. Miscel lib. 17. CedreÌ„ â—n Annal. Niceph. lib 18. c. 8. seqq alij omnes MAVRITIVS for his insolencies against S. GREGORIE was driuen out of his Empire chased into an Iland where by Phocas commandement himselfe his wise and children were miserablie slaine c Procop. lib. 3. de Bello Goth. Nicep li. 17. c 31. Vide Baron to 7 an 565. IVSTINIAN after many glorious victories fell into a most hard fortune for his heresie and tyranie against VIGILIVS Pope 〈◊〉 was infested on all sides with the Incursions of the Barbares and at length
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
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
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
ergo he may stand in his owne defence and by warres defensiue may maintaine his possession And then to what iniuries and gatboiles the Church should expose Kings subiects and Kingdomes and consequently the whole Church who seeth not but he that is wilfullie blind and will not open his eyes so that either the Councell of Laterane was temerarious and rash to build so perilous a Decree vpon no assured but only probable opinion or she thought assuredly that the Pope had such Authoritie and then euerie obedient Child of the Church should rather follow hers then Widdringtons and some few his companions opinion For certes otherwise as it is iniustice to put one out of his land or house who hath probable right and withall possession because potior est cónditio possidentis better is the condition of him that is in possession So were it open iniustice in the Pope to depriue a King of his Crowne and Kingdome who hath probable right because it is as Widdrington saith but probable not assured that the Pope can depose him and who yet hath possession He answereth that the Church commandeth the Feast of the Conception and the Pope hath giuen authoritie to simple Priests to confirme and moreouer dispensed with Princes in the solemne vow of Religion which yet are grounded but on probable opinions But the foresaid Authour in his discussion of this Decree hath verie well shewed that such inconuenienecs follow not vpon these Decrees which are not so dangerous nor concerne not the whole Church as this decree doth but onlie particuler persons and therfore I will not actum agere 8. But here I can not but obserue how cunninglie Widdrington in his new yeares-gifte endeauoureth to make his Reader beleeue that I made this Argument against my selfe In his new yeares gift pag. 43. and 52. For wheras I out of the decree of the Generall Coūcell of Lateran which I supposed to be iust had inferred that the opinion which holdeth that the Pope can in some case depose a Prince on which this decree is grounded must needes be more then probable and no lesse then certaine else if it were but probable that the Pope can depose a Prince it were probable also that the Prince deposed had still probable Title and so being in possession should vniustly be dispossessed because better is the condition of the possessour who hath probable right VViddrington taketh it for a probable opinion only that the Pope can depose a Prince whieh I alwayes denied and disprooued and thence inferreth and as he would seeme euen by my argument and Confession that the Pope cannot without open iniustice depose a Prince Where I desire the Reader to note how I as all modest Catholickes should doe doe attribute so much to the Councelles decree that by it I prooue it to be a certaine opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince in some case else the decree had been vniust VViddrington notwitstanding this decree holdeth still that it is but a probable opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince and thence inferreth that the Pope can not iustlie depose and so is not ashamed nor afraid to confesse in effect that this decree of that so greate and Generall Councell is vniust which with what modestie he can do I report me to all modest Catholickes and to the iudgement of all iudicious Readers 9. Lastlie I will yet trie another waie to persuade these kinde of men which if they contemne Mat. 18. they can hardlie auoide that imputation of Ethnikes and Publicanes which Christ him selfe layeth on them that will not heare the Church For not onlie that which is expreslie and in actu signato defined by the Councell is to be beleeued vnder paine of heresie but also that which in actu exercito is defined I will explicate my self If the Pope especiallie with a Generall Councell decree or enact any Generall law which he commandeth to be obserued of the whole Church he doth not expresselie and in actu signato define the thing to be lawfull which he commandeth but yet he doth in actu exercito and tacitè define it to be lawfull because if he cannot erre in prescribing generall lawes to the vniuersall Church as if he could the whole Church which must obey her Chiefe Pastour should erre with him it followeth necessarily that he hath infallible assistance in enacting such lawes and consequently that it must not onlie be probable but also certainly true yea and so true that it is not onlie temeritie and rashenes but also obstinate heresie to holde that it is vnlawfull which the Pope thus commandeth Bellarm. lib 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. Du Valle lib. de suprema Rom. Pont. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q. 7. This is the opinion of Bellarmine which he prooueth also verie solidlie The same a learned Doctour of the Sorbonnes and Chiefe Reader in Diuinitie called Du Valle holdeth and as Diuines knowe it is the common opinion though some few holde the contrarie Du Valle hath these wordes Han◠autem infallibilitatem non minùs quà m in fidei definitionibus agnoscunt omnes Catholici Doctores But this Infallibllitie no lesse then in definitions of faith all Catholick Doctours do acknowledge This both Bellarmine and he as others also prooue by many Arguments For First if the Pope could command an vnlawfull thing he should command vice for vertue and might forbid vertue as vnlawfull whence should follow that the Church which must obey her Chiefe Pastour should erre in a matter necessarie to saluation for she should imbrace vice for vertue and imbracinge that should be no more Holie Yea then the Church should erre in a matter of faith because if the Pope cōmād vice for vertue the Church which must giue eare to her Chiefe Pastour should embrace it as lawfull and consequentlie should embrace a thing against faith for as it is against faith to say or thinke that Christ is not reallie in the Blessed Sacrament so is it to say or thinke that vice is vertue which yet the Chiefe Pastour should teach in commanding and the Church should beleeue in embracing and obseruing Whence I inferre that the former decree of the Councell is a matter of faith and necessarily to be beleeued For by this decree the Pope and Councell of Lateran do absolue the subiects from obedience and fidelitie by a Generall Decree do depose the Prince from his Kingdome which if it were vniust as it must needs be if the Pope had no Authoritie the Pope and Councell should erre in a matter against faith because the Catholick faith teacheth that vertue is good vice is euill and vnlawfull yet if this decree of deposition of the Prince and absolution of his subiects from their fidelitie were against iustice the Church which must obey her Chiefe Pastour should be bound to thinke iniustice to be iustice vice to be vertue which is against faith And therfore if VViddrington notwitstanding this
decree will obstinate lie holde that the Pope cannot depose a Prince or free his subiects from their fidelitie and alleageance he must graunt that either the Pope with the Councell commandeth against faith or that hee disobeyeth against faith not beleeuing that to be iust which the Pope decreeth with a Generall Councell This decree of this Great Councell doth so trouble and pussle VViddrington that in his booke intitled discussio discussionis sec 1. he endeauoureth by many Arguments though as he would seeme in the name of others to make this Councell of little credit which was not the Spirit of the learned Cardinall Allan Chap. 4. who in his Answer to the Libeller calleth it the famous Councell of Lateran and comming to alleage this decree of the Fathers of that Councell he thus pronounceth These then are the wordes of their most renowned decree 10. The same Arguments I may drawe out of the Generall Councell of Lions Cap. 1 de homicidio in 6. which hath this decree Sacri approbatione Concilij statuimus c. By the approbation of the holie Councell wee do decree that whatsoeuer Prince Prelate or whatsoeuer Ecclesiasticall or secular person shall cause or command any Christian to bee killed by the aforesayd Murderers although death therby doe not follow or shall receaue or defend or hide them shall incurre ipso facto the sentences of excommunication and deposition from his dignitie honour office and benefice and that the same may be giuen freelie to others by them to whom the collation appertaineth 11. Likewise another Councell of Lions and Generall also held in the yeare of our Lord 1245. Ex Nauclero Aemilio Platina at which were present BALDVINE the Emperour and S. LEWIS of France INNOCENT the fourth with with consent of the Councell deposed FREDERICK the second and absolued his subiects from their oath made vnto him commanded vnder paine of Excommunication all his adherents to leaue him and not to obey him as Emperour gaue permission to the Electours to choose another in his place Extat cap. Ad Apostolicae de sent re iud in 6. Vide etiam Westmo naest an 1245. Mat. 16. The Decree is this Nos itaque super praemissis c. VVe therfore with our brethren and the Holie Councell hauing premised a diligent deliberation about the aforesayd and many other his hainous excesses seing that wee though vnworthie supplie the place of CHRIST in earth and that to vs in the person of Blessed Peter it was sayd VVhatsoeuer thou shalt bynde vpon earth it shal be bound also in heauen doe declare and denounce the aforesayd Prince who hath made him selfe vnworthie of Empire kingdomes and all honour and dignitie and who for his iniquities is reiected of God from raygning and ruling to be tyed in his own sinnes and as an abiect depriued of all honour and dignitie and yet not withstanding by sentence wee depriue him and absoluing perpetuallie all who are bound to him by oath of fidelitie from this oath do by Apostolicall Authoritie firmelie forbid that any hence forth doe obey him as Emperour c. 12. GREGORIE the seuenth in a Councell at Rome in the yeare of our Lord 1076. excommunicated and deposed HENRIE the fourth for many his insolences outrages and enormities Vide Baron an 1076. n. 25. The Excommanication beginneth thus Beate Petre Apostolorum Princeps inclina quaesumus pias aures tuas nobis audi me seruum tuum quem ab infantia nutristi vsque ad hunc diem de manu iniquorum liberasti qui me pro tua fidelitate oderunt odiunt Tu mihi testis es Domina mea Mater Dei Beatus Paulus frater tuus inter omnes sanctos quod tua Sancta Romanâ— Ecclesia me inuitum ad sua gubernacula traxit c. Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles we beseech theâ— to incline thy pious eares vnto vs and to heare meâ— thy seruant whom from my infancie thou hast nourished and vnto this day hast deliuered from the handes of the wicked who haue hated and do hate mee for my fidelitie towards thee Thou art my witnesse as is also my Ladie the Mother of God and Blessed Paul thy brother amongest all the Saintes that thy holie Romane Church drew mee against my will to her gouernment c. Then a little after he addeth the Excommunication and deposition it selfe Hac itaque fiducia fretus pro Ecclesia tuae honore defensione ex parte omnipotentis Dei Patris Filij Spiritus Sancti per tuam potestatem Authoritatem Henrico Regi Fiâ—io Henrici Imperatoris qui contra tuam Ecclesiam inauditâ superbiâ insurrexit totius Regni Teutonicorum Italiae gubernacula contradico omnes Christianos à vinoulo iuramenti quod sibi fecere facient absoluo vt nullus ei sicut Regi seruiat interdico c. Therfore building vpon this confidence for the honour and defence of the Church in the behalfe of the omnipotent God the Father the Sonne and the Holie Ghost by thy power and Authoritie I do take from King Henrie the sonne of Henrie the Emperour who by an vnwonted pride neuer heard of hath made insurrection against thy Church the gouernment of the whole Kingdome of the Almaines and of Italie and do absolue all Christians from the bond of oath which they haue made or shall make vnto him I do forbid any to serue him as King But because the Emperour after this submitted him selfe and promised by solemne oath satisfaction and shewed exteriourly great penance the Pope to shew that he desired not his deposition but as a meanes to the Churches true peace and his saluation absolued him from excommunication in the Castle of CANVSIVM where then the Pope was and admitted him to the Masse which he celebrated and in the Masse called the Emperour vnto the Altar and holding the Blessed Sacrament in his hand said to the Emperour Ego iam pridem à te tuisque fautoribus literas accepi quibus me insimulasti sedem Apostolicam per simoniacam haeresim occupasse I long since haue receiued letters from thee and from thy fautours by which thou hast accused mee to haue entred into possession of the Apostolicall seate by Simoniacall heresie And though saith he I could bring other testimonie of those that knew my life from my Childhood and were Authors of my promotion ego tamen saith he ne humano potiùs quà m diuino niti videar testimonio vt satisfactionis compendio omnem omnibus scandali scrupulum de medio auferam Ecce Corpus Dominicum quod sumptur us ero in experimentum mihi hodie fiat Innocentiae meae vt omnipotens Deus suo me bodie iudicio vel absoluat obiecti criminis suspicione si innocens sum vel subitanea interimat morte si reus sum Yet I saith he least I should seeme rather to leane vnto humane testimonie then diuine that I
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
an other that can So that Ocham and Almainus are quite opposite to VViddrington for VViddrington sayth the Pope can depose the Prince or dispose of temporall Kingdomes in no case they say he can regularlie depose and dispose in case of Schisme or Heresie and casuallie for a Ciuill faulte and crime that is when the secular Iudge Prince or common wealth is wanting In his Newye aresguift pag. 45. Almain q. in vesperiis vltra medium VViddrington obiecteth that Almainus auerteth that de ratione potestatis laicae est poenam ciuilem posse infligere vt sunt mors exilium bonorum priuatio sed nullam talem poenam ex institutione diuina infligere potest Ecclesiastica potestas imo nec incarcerare vt plerisque Doctoribus placet sed ad solam â—â—â—â—am spiritualem extenditur vipote excommunicationem c. It is pertaining to the nature of Laicall power to inflict a ciuill payne as death Banishment and priuation of goodes but the Ecclesiasticall power can inflict no such punishment by the diuine institution yea it can not imprison as many Doctours thinke but it is onlie extended to a spirituall punishment as excommunication c. But Widdrington should haue expounded Almainus by Almainus vnlesse he will make him flatlie to contradict him selfe and so to adde little credit to his opinion And therefore when Almainus sayth that the Ecclesiasticall power can inflict no Temporall punishment he meaneth that it can not regularlie and for a ciuill crime but graunteth with Ocham in the expresse wordes alleaged that it may inflict a Temporall punishment casuallie for a Ciuill crime and regularlie for the crime of heresie But perchaunce Widdrington hath better lucke in his other Authours 11. Ioan. Parisiens tract de potest Regia Papale Trithem de script Ecc. an 1280. An other Authour of his is Ioannes Parisiensis who as Trithemius testifieth was a Deuine well seen in Scriptures who taught publickelie in Paris c. And what sayth he If the Kinge sayth he were an hereticke and incorrigible and a contemner of the Ecclesiasticall censure the Pope might do some thing in the people wherby that King might be depriued of his honour and deposed by excommunicating all them to whom it belongeth to depose him c. To this Authour I answer first that he hath other positions also in that his tract which sound not well Secondlie as he sayth to little for the truth so he sayth to much for VViddrington and for the oath which he defendeth for as he sayth the Pope by him selfe can not depose the Prince so he sayth he can depose him by the people in that he can commaund them vnder paine of excoÌ„munication to depose him wherein he fauoureth the Prince as little as if he had sayd the Pope by him selfe can depose him for whether the Prince be deposed immediatlie or mediatlie by the Pope it is all one to the Prince it being as hard for the Prince to be deposed by the people at the Popes commaundement as by the Popes immediat Authoritie 12. After Dante 's and Almainus whome we haue alreadie examined In 4. d. 24 q. 3. ad 3. et 4 followeth Ioannes Maior who yet sayth no lesse then Ioannes Parisiensis for he after he hath denied the Pope to be direct Lord or that all Princes are his vassalles to be constituted and deposed at his will in which I also with all diuines will not let to agree sayth si intelligatur habere dominium in temporalibus casualiter c. if he be vnderstood to haue dominion in Temporall thinges casuallie and that he can do much to the deposition of Kinges by persuading counseling yea and by prouoking others to the sword against them Kinges when they are destroyers and altogeather vnprofitable spoylers of Christian faith and coÌ„mon wealth this is more gentlie to be borne neither is it against my sayinges HVGO cited by the Glosse In cap. caujam quae Qui filij sint legitimi Lib. de Regim mundi par 2. q. 2. princ num 82 as Schulkennius obserueth sayth not that the Pope can not depose the Emperour in case of heresie but onlie that he hath his authoritie from God Michael Vulcurunus as Schulkennius also obserueth standeth in plaine tearmes against VViddrington and therefore was not wiselie alleaged by him for he sayth that in case the Emperour or King should be rebellious to the Pope and would not assist him in necessitie he might expell such a Prince out of the Church and by this he shall be sayd to be expelled out of his Kingdome seing that he who hath rule ouer Christians ought to be Catholicke and a little after but yet sayth he if the Emperour or any other King be incorrigible in respect of faith and of a great and manifest sinne the Pope might depose or depriue such a man Trithem de Scrip. Eccl. an 1340. Albericus as appeareth by that which Trithemius sayth of him doubteth onlie whether certaine decretalles disposing of Temporall matters be iust Qua decretales an sint iustae Deus nouit nullaÌ„ enim earum saluo meliori consilio si erroneum foret reuoco credo luri consonam which decretalles whether they be iust or no God knoweth for I thinke not gaine saying better counsell and if it were erroneus I recall it that none of these decretalles are conformable to Law I answer that this man was a Lawier no Diuine and so being not skilfull in that science is not of Authoritie in a matter of diuinitie Secondlie he is doubtefull him selfe readie to recall what he sayth and so can giue no assurance to others 13. Trithemius is an other Authour and him VViddrington often bringeth on the stage Trithemius sayth he in his Theologicall Disputation Disput Theolog. cap. 2. n. 5. New-year asgift pag. 45. Trithem in ChroÌ„ Monast Hirsangiensis anne 1106. and in his Newyearesgift Abbot of the order of S. Benedict a man of greate learning and pietie sayd that the Question whether the Pope can depose a Prince or no was disputed amongst schoole Diuines and yet not determined by the Iudge And indeede Trithemius hath these woordes Ipse autem Henricus 4. primus est inter omnes Imperatores per Papam depositus Scholasticicertant adhuc sub iudice lis est vtrum Papa Imperatorem possit deponere quam quaestionem cum ad nos non pertineat indiscussam relinquamus Henrie the fourth was the first amongst all Emperours that was deposed by the Pope The Schoole Diuines do contend and as yet it is not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope caÌ„ depose an Emperour which question because it pertaineth not to vs let vs leaue vndiscussed I answer first that Trithemius was only a Chronographer and Historiographer and so his wordes are of no more authoritie then Ioannes de Sacrobosco his verdict in a case of Law for as Vasquez sayth and VViddrington aboue confesseth the Authours who can make an opinion probable
must be skilfull in that art or science which Trithemius him selfe knew and therefore leaueth this question vndiscussed Secondly I answer that Trithemius speaketh of HENRIE the fourth Emperour who though he had committed many insolences against the Pope and Church and had set vp an Antipope c. which his enormities Trithemius calleth scelera inaudita yet he professed him selfe a Catholicke and so the Schoole Diuines to wit Ocham Almainus and such others as I haue related for others VViddrington can not alleage disputed whether he could be deposed he being or pretending to be no hereticke as appeareth by his Epistle to GREGORâ—E the seuenth aboue alleaged and what they resolued we haue seene 14. Widdr. In his Newyearesgift pag. 46. Disput Theol. c. 3. sec 3. num 13. Petrus Pithaeus God libert Ecc. Gallicana Petrus Pithaeus sayth VViddrington a man as Posseuin sayth trnlie learned and a diligent searcher of Antiquities affirmeth that the libertie of the Church of Fraunce is grounded in this Principle which Fraunce hath euer held for certaine that the Pope hath not power to depriue the French Kinge of his kingdome or in any other manner to dispose thereof and that notwithstanding any whatsoeuer monitions or monitories excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope can be made yet the subiectes are bounde to yeeld obedience due to the King for Temporalles neither therin can they be dispensed or absolued by the Pope And in his Disput Theologicall Cap. 3. sec 3. num 13. he sayth that Pithaeus out of a generall Maxim which Fraunce that is as he putteth in the margent the greater part euer approoued deduceth this particular proposition that the Pope can not depriue the French Kinge of his Kingdome But first here we see VViddrington ascribeth two thinges to Pithaeus which seeme to imply contradiction for in his Newyearesgift he makes him say that the libertie of the Church of Fraunce is grouÌ„ded in this Principle that the Pope hath not power to depriue the Kinge of his Kingdome And in his Theologicall Disputation he sayth that Pithaeus out of a certaine generall Maxim deduced this particuler proposition that the Pope can not giue the Kingedome of Freunce into prey nor depriue the Kinge of it And so he maketh this position That the Pope can not depriue the King of Fraunce both a generall Maxime in which the libertie of the Church of Fâ—aunce is grounded and also a particuler proposition deduced out of a generall Maxim which he nameth not which two thinges how they cohere let VViddrington looke And certes I can not imagin any Maxim receaued in Fraunce out of which either VViddrington or Pithaeus can deduce that the Pope can in no case depriue the King And if there were any such Maxim receaued in Fraunce that learned Prelat Cardinall Perone in his eloquent oration made in the Chamber of the Third estate not onlie in his owne name but also in the name of all the Nobilitie and Clergie of Fraunce would neuer haue dared before such curious Auditours to vtter these wordes following now if those who haue of set purpose laboured in fauour of the oath of England he putteth in the margent VViddrington to find out Authours who haue affirmed that in case of heresie or infidelitie the subiects could not be absolued from the obligation that they owe to their Princes could not find out any one and if those who haue since written of the same subiect in Fraunce could neuer find out in all FrauÌ„ce note these wordes since the time that Schooles of Diuinitie haue been instituted and sett open till this day one onlie Doctour neither Diuine nor Lawier nor Decree nor Councell nor determination nor acte of Parlament nor Magistrat either Ecclesiasticall or Politicke who hath sayd that in case of heresie or infidelitie the subiect can not be absolued from the oath of fidelitie which they owe to their Princes on the contrarie if all those who haue written for the defence of the Temporall power of Kinges haue euer excepted the case of heresie and Apostasie from Christian Religion how is it that they can without enforcing of Consciences make men not onlie to receaue this doctrine that in no case the subiectes can be absolued from the oath of Allegeance they owe to theire Princes for a perpetuall and vniuersall doctrine of the French Church c. Thus he whereby it is manifest that there is no such receaued Maxime in Fraunce out of which Pithaeus or Widdrington can deduce that the Pope in no case can depriue the King of Fraunce And what the opinion of the most Christian Kingdome of Fraunce at this present is may well appeare by this that all the nobilitie and Clergie the two most worthie Partes and members of that Realme in the yeare 1615. reiected an oath like to the oath of England as pernicious cause of Schisme the open gappe to heresie as our most Excellent and learned King in his Preface to his declaratioÌ„ for the right of Kinges set forth in FreÌ„ch the same yeare confesseth though in a coÌ„plaining manner and as it is to be seene in the Oration of the sayd Cardinall sent to our sayd Soueraigne And although the Tierce estate proposed an oath like to that of England yet that was but one and the lowest of the three estates and as Cardinal Perone affirmeth they had their lessons giuen them from England 15. He alleageth also out of Bochellus the Testimonie of Cardinall Pelue and other Prelates who in an assemblie at Paris 1595. reiected the Decree of the Councell of Trent sess 25. cap. 19. by which it is forbidden Kinges to permitte Duelles vnder payne of loosing the citie or place in which they permitte a Duelle Concilium TridentiuuÌ„ inquiunt excommunicat priuat Regem ciuitate illâ vel loco in quo permittit fieri duellum Hic Articulus est contra authoritatem Regis qui non potest priuari suo dominio temporali respectu cuius nullum Superiorem recognoscit The Councell of Trent say they excommunicateth and depriueth a Kinge of that Citie or place in which he permitteth a duelle to be made This Article is against the Authoritie of the Kinge who can not be depriued of his temporall Dominion in respect of which he acknowledgeth no Superiour I answer that it is not credible that Cardinall Pelue and those Prelates would thus reiect the Councell of Trent or affirme that the Pope can not depriue the King and least I may seeme to doe iniurie to Bochellus in not crediting him I shall giue reasones for it Cap. 3. pag. 111. for first as Schulkennius sheweth he thrustes into the Decrees of the Church of Fraunce and reckeneth amongest her liberties many scandalous thinges and to omitte many of them which Schulkennius noteth I will note onlie two or three of his absurdities which I haue seen in his book In his Preface to the Reader he sheweth him selfe no good Catholicke in carping vniustelie and saucilie
affirme that in case of intolerable tyrannie against the Church the Pope may depose them But rather as they are content so to beare rule ouer their subiects as they will permitt God to beare rule ouer them so they should also be content to subiect them selues their Kingdomes Crownes and scepters to Christ and his Kingdome that raigning vnder him here for a time they may raigne with him hereafter for euer CHAPTER XV. An Explication of the late Oath of pretended Alleageance and of euery clause thereof deduced out of the former and some other grounds by which is prooued that it can neither be proposed nor taâ—en without grieuous offence of Almighty God 1. Vide Alphonsum de Castro V. IurameÌ„tum Gen. 21. Gen. 26. Gen. 31. Psal 17. Rom. 1.2 Cor 1. Philip. 1.1 Tim. 5 CAtholicks with common consent do confesse and hould against the Messalians Euchites Pelagians Waldenses Anabaptistes and Puritanes that it is lawfull in some cases to sweare as many of the greatest Sainctes haue done For ABRAHAM swore to Abimelech ISAAC to the same or another Abimelech IACOB to Laban MOYSES swore by Heauen and earth DAVID and others oftentimes vse this oath Viuit Deus as God liueth which is in effect to sweare by the life of God S. PAVL also did vse diuers oathes as Testis enim mihi est Deus for God is my witnesse and I call God to witnesse I testifie before God and such like Yea God him selfe knowing that we more easilie beleeue when a thing is sworne sweareth himselfe to winne credit at our hands Deut. 4. And in DEVTERONOMIE he commandeth vs to sweare saying Dominum Deum tuum timebis per nomen eius iurabis Thou shalt feare thy Lord God and shalt sweare by his name But as medicines are good yet not alwaies to be taken but onlie supposing a disease or sicknesse so oathes are not to be vsed but only supposing a necessitie as when we cannot otherwise be beleeued And therfore when there is no necessitie CHRIST sayth Mat. 5. Ego autem dicovobis non iurare omnino I say to you sweare not all to wit when there is no necessitie Iacob 1. And S. IAMES Nolite iur are quodcunque iur amentum Do not sweare any oath Deut. 6. But when there is necessitie God commandeth it Psal 62. as wee haue seene And Dauid commendeth it saying Laudabuntur omnes qui iurant in eo They all shall be praised who swearein him God Fot to sweare when necessitie vrgeth is an Acte of Religion and worship of God whome we acknowledge to be so true that he will not fauour a lye and of such a maiestie that none will dare to sweare by him vnlesse the thing be true which is the reason why oathes are easilie credited 2. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 89. art 3. But if we will haue our oathes free from all sinne we must ioyne to them these three companionsâ— or conditions Iudgement Veritie and Iustice according to that of HIEREMIE Hierem. 4 Iur obis in veritate in iudicio in iustitia Thou shalt sweare in Veritie Iudgement and Iustice. Iudgement is necessarie in the sweater Veritie in the thing he sweareth Iustice in the cause For want of Iudgement the oath is rash as when we sweare for euerie trifle for want of Veritie the oath is false and periurie as when we sweare a lye for want of Iustice it is vnlawfull as if one should sweare he would committ a sinne And if a man sweareth with out Iudgement he taketh Gods name in vaine if without Veritie he committeth periurie and makes God to patronize a lie if without Iustice he makes God a patron of sinne Wherfore he that would knowe whether the Oath which latelie is proposed to Catholickes be lawfull must marke whether it want not some one of these three companions or conditions to wit Iudgement Veritie and Iustice for if it want but one it is vnlawfull much more if it want all And because there may be difficultie as well about the proposer as the taker of this Oath let vs see first whether in the proposer may be found Iudgement Iustice and Veritie 3. As touching the first it may seeme not to be wanting in the Magistrate that proposeth and that for two reasons First because the Prince being of another religion then the Pope and knowing that Catholickes giue him power to depose Princes may seeme iustlie to feare least he will exercise this Authoritie vpon him Secondlie the late Gunpowder-plot may seeme to proceed from such an opinion and so the Magistrate to secure the Prince seemeth to haue reason to vrge the Catholicke subiects vnto such an Oath 4. But yet on the other side it seemeth most certaine that the Magistrate hath no iust cause to propose such an Oath consequentlie that in proposing it he obserueth not the first condition For first although the Magistrate may haue some cause to feare the Kings deposition supposing that he persecuteth the Catholicke faith and depriueth Catholicks of liuings libertie Rom. 13. and sometime life also yet as S. PAVL sayth Vis non timere potestatem bonum fac habebis laudem ex illa Dei enim Minister est tibi in bonum Si autem malum feceris time non enim sine causa gladium portat c. VVilt thou not feare the power do good and thou shalt haue praise of the same for he is Gods Minister vnto thee for good But if thou doe euill feare for he beareth not the sword without cause for he is Gods Minister a reuenger vnto wrath to him that doth euill So say I if Princes wil be free from all feare of the Popes power let them do good and they shall haue praise before God and men for the Pope is appointed Pastour vnto theÌ„ for their good But if they will do euill if they will persecute the Church her faith faithfull children then let them feare for he is Gods Minister hath the spirituall glaiue put into his hand to chastize correct all rebellious Christians And therefore as he that taketh a mans purse from him by violence hath no iust cause to compell him to sweare that he will not bewray him because he might and should haue abstayned from the iniurie and then an oath had not bene necessarie so the Prince or Magistrate hath no vrgent cause to propose this Oath to the Cath olicke subiectes because if he abstaine from persecutioÌ„ as he ought to do he needeth not feare the Popes power and so hath no sufficient cause to vrge his subiects by oath to abiure the Popes Authoritie that he in the meane while may persecute impunè 5. As for the Gunpowder plot it could not proceed from this opinion for it doth not follow that because the Pope caÌ„ depose the Prince therefore his subiects by priuate Authoritie may endeuour to kill him because the Pope is superiour the subiectes are inferiours he
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
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