THE RIGHT AND JURISDICTION OF THE PRELATE, and the PRINCE. OR, A TREATISE OF ECCLESIASTICAL, and REGAL authority.  
COMPILED BY I. E. STUDENT IN DIVINITY for the full Instruction and appeacement of the consciences of English Catholics, concerning the late Oath of pretended Allegiance. Together with a clear & Ample declaration, of every clause thereof, newly revewed and augmented by the author.  
Reddite ergo omnibus debita: cui tributum, tributum: cui vectigal, vectigal: cui timorem, timorem: cui honorem, honorem. Rom. 13.  
Render therefore to all men their due: to whom Tribute, Tribute: to whom Custom, Custom: to whom Fear, Fear: to whom Honour. Honour.  
Imprinted With licence of Superiors. ANNO DOM. 1621.   

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. To the most renowned, and constant English CATHOLICS.  
THIS LIFE OF OURS, (Right Honourable, Worshipful, and worthy Catholics (is a Raze, and course, in which we are to run for the winning of a goal. (1. Cor. 9) It is a Wrestling for a garland of eternal glory. (1. Cor. 9) It is a Warfare, in which we are to fight against three mighty, known, and professed enemies, for no less than a Kingdom of Heaven. Our life, (as JOB sayeth cap. 7.) is Militia super terram; A warfare, in which we stand always upon our guard, always in our armour, always with weapon in hand: but it is a warfare on earth, for in heaven it is a peace; a labour here, a rest there; a sowing in tears here, a reaping in joy there; a storm here, a calm there; a troublesome sea here, a quiet haven there; a battle here, a triumph there; and there fore the Church is called militant here, triumphant there. Wherefore as the husbandman laboureth in the field, resteth only at home: The wayfaring man traveleth in his ware, takes his ease only in his Inn: The Romans triumphed not in the same place, in which they waged war, but made war in foreign Countries for Towns, Provinces, and Kingdoms, and triumphed only in Rome: So we must not look for ease, peace, triumphs, and garlands in this life; but here we must prepare ourselves to skirmishes, encounters, combats, and battles, and in Heaven only expect our Triumph. The children of Israel got not the land of promise, but by the dint of the sword, by many encounters and bloody battles: neither shall we obtain heaven, unless we fight for it. Regnum coelorum vim patitur, & violenti rapiunt illud, (Mat. 11.) The Kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away. If we will win this City, we must lay siege unto it by watching and praying. If we will enter it, we must make a breach by the battery of good works. If we will take quiet possession of it, we must make war for it.  
2. So that the Church militant, is an army, and an army always ranged in battle array. Terribilis ut Castrorum acies ordinata. (Cant. 6) Terrible as the army of a Camp set in array: In which you shall see nothing but choros castrorum. (Cant. 7.) Companies of Camps. In which army, the King is Christ; his General, is his chief Vicaire; His Coronelles, are patriarchs, Bishops, and other Prelates; His Captains, and inferior Commanders, are inferior Priests and Pastors; His soldiers, are the rest of Christian troops, and Companies. To the furnishing of this Army, all the Sacraments of the new law are instituted and ordained. Matrimony peopleth this army, and furnisheth it with men. Baptism presseth and enroleth them. Confirmation armeth them, and giveth them their military Mark and livery. The Sacred Eucharist vittaileth the Camp, and furnisheth it with munition bread. The Sacrament of Order createth Coronelles, Captains, and such as are to command. The Sacrament of Penance healeth, and cureth the soldiers, who in this war are wounded, and even reviveth them, who are slain and killed. Extreme unction riddeth them, even of the relics of the wounds and diseases. And so all Christians are pressed to the war, and ordained to fight. the whole Church is a ranged Army, and every Christian ought to sing that song, which DAVID sung against GOLIATH Benedictus Dominus Deus meus, qui docet manus meas ad praelium. & digitos meos ad bellum. (Psal. 42.) Blessed be our Lord my God, who teacheth my hands to battle, and my fingers to war.  
3. In this Army, you, (o valiant and constant Catholics) are placed, as in the most dangerous, so in the most honourable rank and place. For as the General placeth there his most expert and hardy soldiers, where the enemy's Canon playeth oftenest, the darts and arrows fly thickest, the pikes are planted like a wood most terribly: so our King CHRIST JESUS, under whose banner and colours you fight, knowing your undaunted courage to be such that (absit verbo invidia) you are the most valiant soldiers of the present Church militant: he hath placed you against a wood of Pikes, against a shower of Bullets and Pellets, against the most furious assault, that the common enemy giveth to the Christian Army, and Church militant of Christ.  
4. For whereas Christians amongst the Turks, can buy their liberty of Conscience for money, you by no tribute can purchase such a favour. And whereas in Holland, and other countries, the Magistrate layeth hands on Priests and Catholics, only when he findeth them at Mass, or divine service; you are searched for more diligently than thiefs, murderers, and public harlots, and are apprehended, even in the streets and fields. And although in France and the Low Countries, Catholics have heretofore endured intolerable pillages, cruel deaths and torments, yet that fury lasted only a while, whilst the fury of heresy raged in her hot beginning: but against you the like fury hath long continued. That cruelty was practised only by way of tumult, but against you the like sharpness hath been used, under the colour of law, & show of justice: So that no Nation, no people Christian endureth at this day for Christ his Church, and her Pastors' authority, that which you have endured for these many years, without interruption. And whereas the more raging the Tempest is, the sooner it is appeased: & the more furious & bloody the battle is, the sooner it is ended: you have this long time suffered a violent and furious persecution, and yet you see no end of this fury, yea, no hope of an end, by humane means, old statutes being still renewed, new enacted. So that you are placed in that place of Christ's Army, which is exposed to the greatest fury of the Enemy: yea, you are set as a Butt or mark, against which, the enemies of God's Church, are permitted to discharge all their Artillery, and to empty the quivers of all the piercing arrows of afflictions, against you: and foe you may say as JOB did (job. 16.) Posuit me quasi signum. He bathe set me to him selue as it were a mark to shoot at. And seeing that he bathe been so long a spectator of these shottes, and furious assaults, it seemech he taketh delight and pleasure, not in your enemy's cruelty and fury, but in your dexterity in warding, constancy in keeping your standing, patience in suffering and enduring.  
5. And truly your afflictions seem to me, neither inferior, nor unlike to those of JOB, and your patience seemeth to match and to equalise his; only the order of your afflictions seem different. For he was assaulted first in his goods, them in his person; you contrariwise, first in your bodies and lives; now in your goods and livings. The Sabeians have rushed in upon you, as well as on JOB, and have spoilt many of you, impoverished the rest. Irruerunt Sabei, tuleruntque omnia. (job. 1.) The Sabeians came in violently, and have taken all things from you, the fire also of God, fell from heaven, and striking the sheep (of JOB,) and the servants hath consumed them. (job. 1.) and a fire not from heaven (unless by divine permission) but from earth, yea, from hell, and the unquenchable thirst of having, hath consumed all your substance. The Chaldees made three troops to invade the Camels of JOB, & struck his servants with the sword. (job 1.) So have they by three troops, to wit, Concupiscentia carnis Concupiscence of the flesh. (1. joan. 2.) Concupiscentia oculorum, concupiscence of the eyes, and Superbia vitae, pride of life, invaded you: because to satisfy their lust and carnality, their avarice, desire of riches, and all that may be seen by the eyes, their pride and ambition of greatness, they have made havoc of all you have. A vehement wind blowing boysteroussly from the country of the Defert, shaken the four Corners of jobs house, which falling, oppressed his Children. (job. 5.) The like whirl wind, from the North, and desert of heresy, hath shaken your houses, and by their fall, hath ruinated your families, oppressed your persons, your wives and children.  
6. And lest the devil should exprobate unto you, as he did to JOB, that hitherto your goods have rather suffered, than you; and that therefore if God would touch your body, and corporal life, he should soon see you break out into impatience (because skin for skin, and all things that a man hath, he will give for his life, job. 2, God hath permitted Satan, by his ministers, to have power over your bodies, and corporal life also, as appeareth by the prisons, in which some of you have rotten, some have statued, some have been choked with stinking airs, as may easily be seen by the racks, in which your joints have been dissolved, by the Tyburnes, on which you have been hanged, and under which you have been most butcherly quartered, & unboweled. Yea, to augment your affliction, many of you have not wanted a JOBS wife, carnal and worldly love, to buss in your ears that Carnal counsel, Benedic Deo & morere, (job. 2. (Curse God and die; Do against thy Conscience, frequent heretical service, take the oath of pretended Allegiance, rather than undo thyself, thy wife and Children: Yet you have not failed with JOB, to reprehend such a wise, and tell her that she hath spoken like one of the foolish women. (job. 2.), as Sir THOMAS MORE told his wife, that she was a foolish merchant, to counsel him to sell eternity, for short and uncertain time. Many also of you have not wanted heretics of your blood and stock, prefigured by JOBS false and feigned friends (job. 2.) who have gone about to persuade you, that these miseries, which oppress you, are befallen you for your obstinacy in Religion; and yet you have repelled such deceiving friends; yea, you have cast from you such scandalyzing eyes, that is, you have shaken off such friends, though otherwise as dear and necessary unto you, as your eyes, and have chosen rather to go to heaven blind (Matt. 8.) then to be directed by such ill-guyding eyes.  
8. But seeing that God hath not permitted Satan to have power over your souls, but only over your transitory goods, and mortal lives, lose ye not either heart or courage. Satan indeed, by his Ministers (as one telleth you) hath broken down the walls of your house, as no marvel, it was but of clay, but he could not lay hands on your soul (the good man of the house) that being forbidden him; he hath broken the chest of your body; and no marvel, it was but of rotten board; but he could not finger the treasure of your faith, God's grace, and such like jewels, they being locked up in the Cabinet, of your conscience, of which God and you only keep the key. And therefore be ye not dismayed, for the loss of your temporal goods, liuings, and liberty, yea, corporal life, seeing the principal (the soul) is safe, so long as you will. But for all temporal losses, give God thankes, and say with JOB, Dominus dedit, Dominus abstulit, sit nomen Domini benedictum. God gave all this, & he hath taken all away, be he praised as much for the taking away, as for the giving.  
8. And do you not imagine, that God hath forsaken you in permitting this pillage of your goods, and sackage of your estates, for such goods are common to the good and bad: rather take it for a sign of his father●ie love, in giving you patience to bear with alacrity all those oppressions; and persuade yourselves that necesse erat, quia accepti eratis Deo, ut tentatio probaret vos. (Tob. 12.) It was necessary, because you were acceptable to God, that this tentation should prove you. God hath indeed cast you into a furnace of tribulation, but as the Potter doth his earthen vessel, to harden it, not to break it: or as the Goldsmith doth his gold, to purge it, not to consume it. He hath indeed chastised you, but as his dearest children, not as servants, and out of his love, more than out of anger, as he hath dealt with his Apostles, his Martyrs, yea, his Mother, yea his Son, and all his dearest. For it is his manner, to chastise whom he loveth, and to scourge every child that he receiveth. As unto children he offereth himself unto you. For what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? (Heb. 12.) And when the correction is done, he will embrace you, and cast the rod into the fire. It is true, he hath wounded you, but as the Surgeon doth, to let out the corrupt matter. He woundeth and cureth, striketh, and his hands shall heal (job. 5.) And, the arrows of our Lord, are in you, (job. 6.) as they were in JOB, but they are as tents, which he will pull out, when they have drawn out all corruption. He hath permitted the wind of persecution, to beat furiously upon you, but it is to blow away all chaffe of imperfection, and that the solid wheat of your virtues may be the purer. He hath permitted you to be peeled, polled, and spoilt of your goods, but that spoiling is but lopping and pruning, that the tree hereafter may bear his fruits more abundantly.  
9 Say not there fore, God hath forsaken us, he thinketh no more of us; and if your enemies say, Deus dereliquit eos, persequimini & comprehendite eos, quia non est qui eripiat. (Ps. 70.) God hath forsaken them, follow them and apprehend them, there is none to deliver them: believe them not, but rather answer them: Non derelinquit Deus praesumentes de se. (judith. 6.) God doth not forsake them that presume of him. Tell them that you are of the Church, to which God promised, quod non vocabitur ultra derelicta & terra, eius non vocabitur amplius desolata, sed vocabitur voluntas Dei in ea. (Isa. 62.) That she shall no more be called forsaken, and her land shall no more be called desolate, but she shall be called, the will of God in her. And when you behold England's present desolate state, & compare it with her former glory it had, weep not as the Jews did at the sight of their second Temple. (ESDRAS 3.) For peradventure, Magna erit gloria domus istius novissimae, plusquàm primae. (AGGEIS 2.) Great shall be the glory of this last house, more than of the first. And peradventure at this present, England., though all dusty and slurred with the dust and blood of this battle, in which she fighteth, is more glorious in the eye of God, then when she flourished in her Churches, Monasteries, and Colleges, and shined in her golden peace. Be not astonished at the sight of the troops and forces, which the enemy hath brought into the field against you, nor do you cry at such a fight with ELIZEUS servant, Heu, Heu, Domine mi, quid faciemus? (4. Reg. 6.) Alas, Alas, My Lord, what shall we do? for there are more with you, then with them. Lift up your eyes to heaven, and you shall see more in that mountain prepared to fight for you, then are in the valley of this world, that fight against you. You shall see your Genera CHRIST JESUS, (whom S. Steven saw standing) ready to assist you, who giveth courage to your heart, force to your arm, edge to your sword, and who with his heavenly troops of Saints and Angels fighteth for you, and in you; else against such forces you could never have consisted; much less could you have daily increased forces and companies. And yet you see your Seminaries, where your soldiers are trained, are as full as ever, and now (thankes be to God) new forces of new Colleges and Monasteries, both of men and women (whose sex is not debarred from this war) do adjoin themselves unto you, armed with as great zeal as ever, with as much courage & dexterity in fight as ever, as appeareth by your Atkinsons, Thulises, Maxfieldes, & Helms, who even this year, by dying in the field, discouraged & discomfited their old Aduer saries. These troops of soldiers, promise one day a victory: This seed sown in tears, prognosticateth one day a harvest: These materials so well hewed and fashioned, assure us, that so wise an Architect as is CHRIST JESUS, would never have made them so ready for the building, had he not intended the reedisying of our defaced Temple, and ruinated Church of England.  
10. And although your General delay your victory, and suffer you many times to be ficercely assaulted, yet it is but to make your victory more glorious: Although, when the storm of persecution bloweth so boisterously, that your Ship may seem in danger of Shipwreck, he seemeth to sleep, and not to heed you, yet it is but to make you cry unto him with S. PETER, Domine salua nos, perimus. O Lord save us, we perish: Although he seem sometimes ready to leave you, and to go from you, yet he doth but fingere se longius ire, (Luc. 24.) make semblance to go further, thereby to give you occasion to cry with the two Disciples, Mane nobiscum Domine, quoniam advesperascit: Tarry with us, o Lord, because it waxeth with us to watdes' night, and the day is now fare spent: Although he seemeth to have taken all humane means from you, & even that hope, which at the first you put in your Princes presumed Clemency, and noble disposition, yet it is but to make you rely more on God, and not to put your confidence in Princes, in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation (Ps. 145.) For otherwise, those oppressions of so many Innocents', the equity and justice of your cause, the impiety and vengeance-crying sins of your adversaries, the extremity of your miseries and afflictions, do plead for mercy towards you, justice against them.  
11. But howsoever, you must not prescribe God a time, nor set him a day, as OZIAS did (judith. 7.8.) nor must you resolve as he did, to deliver up the City and Church of England, to the Enemy, unless God send you aid or secure within a certain time: For then judith will reprehend you, and demand sharply of you. Qui estis vos, qui tent atis Dominun? non est iste sermo qui misericordiam provocet, sed potius qui iram excitet, & furorem accendat. (judith. 8. What are you that tempt our Lord? This is no word, that may provoke mercy, but rather that may raise up wrath and inflame fury. Rather you must expect, in all patience, the time which God hath apppointed, assuring yourselves, that as he knoweth your necessities, better than yourselves, so is he more willing to release them, and as able as willing, because his power is his will; and therefore when it shall be most for his glory, and your good, he will lend his helping hand, and, as you have expected him, so he will be your arm in the morning, and your salvation in the time of your tribulation. Isa. 53.  
12. And what can you tell? perchance the iniquities of the Amorrheans are at their full. (Gen. 15.) and Gods sword is ready drawn, to take a just revenge of them: perchance the Cup of England's Martyrs blood, which God expected for an expiation for the sins of us, and our forefathers, is almost brimful, and so he will be shortly appeased: perchance your loving Father hath almost done the due correction, and now is ready to lay the rod aside: perchance the destroying Angel, whom S. GREGORY saw, is putting up his sword, which hath made such a slaughter among you: perchance England, that all this time of persecution hath traveled on Christ, and endured the throws and pangs of Ghildbirth, is now ready to be brought a bed, and that she shall forget her former pressure, and rejoice to see Christ in England, and England in Christ borne again, and shall be more comforted at England's birth to the Catholic Church, than she hath been grieved at her death, by Schism and Heresy: perchance the cup of tears, which God hath given you to drink, as a medicinable potion, is now almost drunk off to the bottom, and he is ready to speak these comfortable words unto you: Elevare, elevare; consurge Jerusalem, quae bibisti de manu Domini calicem irae eins; usque ad fundum calicis soporis bibisti, & potasti usque ad faeces. Ecce ego tuli de manu tua calicem soporis, fundum calicis indignationis meae, non adijcies ut bibas illum ultra. Et ponam illum in manu eorum, qui te humiliaverunt. (Isa. 51.) Be lifted up, be lifted up, arise Jerusalem which hast drunken of the hand of our Lord the cup of his wrath, even to the bottom of the cup of drowsiness, hast thou drunk, even to the dregges. Behold, I have taken out of thy hand the cup of drowsiness, the bottom of the cup of mine Indignation, thou shalt not add to drink it any more. And I will put it in their hand, that have humbled thee. (Is. 51. (perchance tempus miserendi is at hand; perchance prope est ur veniat tempus eius, & dies eius non elongabuntur (Isa. 14.) it is near that the time (of your relaxation) shall come, and the days thereof shall not be prolonged.  
13. Only look that there be no ACHAN nor ANATHEMA amongst you (joshua 7.) for if there be, God will take your wont courage from you, and the City of HAI will prevail against you. For as God is so merciful that he spareth some times a whole City or kingdom, for the merits of a few, as he was ready to have spared SODOM if he had found teniust men in it (Genes. 18.) for just men (as S. AMBROSE saith lib. 1. De Abraham. c. 1. are a wall to their country, and their faith saveth and defendeth the rest from destruction) so also is he so just, that out of his secret, but yet just judgements, he chastiseth sometimes a whole army (as we see in ACHAN, JOSVE 7.) or Kingdom, for the enormity of a few. Wherefore (Worthy Catholics) the best means that I find to procure you a relaxation from this your so long persecution, is to follow the counsel, which the Ammonite ACHIOR gave to HOLOFERNES (judith 5.) Perquire si est aliqua iniquitas etc. Search if there be any iniquity of yours in the sight of your Lord God, for if there be, than you may justly fear lest God permit his and your enemies to domineer over you, as he permitted DANIEL, HIEREMIE, and TOBY, and many Innocents' to be carried into captivity with the nocent. For as S. HIEROM saith episi. 13. Nostris peccatis barbari fortes sunt, nostris vitiis Romanus fugatur exercitus. By our sins, the barbarous (heretics and barbarous persecutors) become strong; and the Roman Army (the Roman Church) is chased, and put to flight by our vices. But, as ACHIOR said: Si non est offensio populi huius coram Deo suo (judith. 5.) If there be no offence of God amongst you, your enemies shall not long prevail, because God, whose cause you sustain, will fight for you, and in you.  
14. As for me (O constant Catholics) when I behold your undaunted courage, which you oppose against the fury of your Persecutors, and your invincible patience, wherewith you have hitherto endured all kind of adversities, I can not but admire and commend you, and praise God also for you and in you: But when I consider also what is befallen some of you of late, as I marvel not thereat, so I can not but feareleast by that, by which you thought to find some ease of this heavy yoke of persecution, under which you groan, you have augmented the burden and prolonged your miseries. I marvel not, that after so heavy oppressions so long endured, you groan with the Israelites (Exod. 2.) I marvel not, that after so furious assaults so long sustained, some give back, and forsake their place and standing: for what marvel that in so great a wind some chaffe is blown away? that amongst so many vessels put into the furnace of tribulation to be hardened, some break in the hardening? for vasa figuli probat fornax etc. the fornacetryeth the potter's vessels, & the tentation of tribulation just men. (Eccl. 27.) Rather I marvel that in so great a storm & troublesome Sea, so few do suffer Shipwreck; and in so great a heap of wheat, so little chaffe is found; and amongst so many pieces of gold, which have been cast into the fire, so few prove light and counterfeit. Yet I fear also lest your late giving back make the enemy with more boldness to press upon you; and that the late Anathema, which is fallen amongst you, hath provoked the wrath of God against you, and hath given courage to your enemy, taken it from you, and hath added furie to him, diminished zeal and fervour in you.  
15. You know what I mean: it is the late proposed Oath, which because it goeth under the name of Civil Allegiance grateful to such good subjects as you are, whom Religion and conscience teacheth to obey, fear, love, and serve your Prince, hath deceived some of you, and hath made you under this alluring bait, to swallow down the hook that galleth even the soul and conscience, and in this golden cup to drink your deadly poison and perdition. So that I may say unto you: Anathema est in medio tui Israel, non poteris stare coram hostibus tuis, donec deleatur ex te, qui hoc contaminatus est scelere, (JOSVE 7.) There is Anathema in the midst of thee, O Israel; thou canst not stand before thine enemies, till he be destroyed out of thee (or his sin in him) that is contaminated with this wicked fact. Wherefore, O Worthy Catholics, let nothing stick in your hands of this Anathema, that our Lord may be turned from the wrath of his fury, and may have mercy on you. (Deut. 13.)  
16. You are not ignorant, that modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit (1. Cor. 5.) A little leaven corrupteth the whole paste. One mortal sin mortifieth all your former merits, (D. Th. 3. p. q. 89. a. 4.) and he that offendeth in one point, especially pertaining to faith and the Church's power & right, is made guilty of all (jac. 2.) This one hole, which the persecutor hath made in the ship of your soul, is sufficient to let in that water which will drown you: this one point of your chief visible Pastors' Authority and power, which (though forced thereunto) you abjure, is sufficient to disgrace all former constant and glorious Confession. And it will little avail you to have laid your hand to the plough, if now you look back; to have run so well hitherto, if now you faint before the goal; to have resisted hitherto so va iantlie, if now you yield yourselves slaves to tyranny.  
17. And although some one persuadeth you, that you may with safe conscience take this oath, and therefore are not bound with hazard of your estates to refuse it, yet believe it, persuasio haec non est ex eo qui vocat vos: this persuasion is not of him that calleth you (Gall 5.) for as S. PETER telleth you: In hoc vocati estis you are called to this, to do well, and sustain patiently, (1. Pet. 2.) and not to yield in the least point against God and his Churches right and honour. Wherefore seeing that by this oath the true and lawful Authoritle of your chief visible head and Pallour is abjured (as this book will make plain unto, you) imitate the wise serpent, expose body, liuings, liberty, and all, for the defence of your Head: and if your zealous Pastor and Primate S. THOMAS of CANTERBURY, endured banishment, revile, contumelies, injuries, and at length death itself for the defence of the rights of the Church; how much more should you constantly endure for the defence of the Head of the Church?  
18. And although Widdrington tells you, (and as he would seem, as a friend, and one that hath care of your temporal estates) that you are not bound to lose any penny for the Authority of the Pope, which this oath abiureth: yet I desire you to compare Widdrington to those Allens, 
Card. Allan in his Answ. to the libeler.  Hardings, Sanders. B●istowes, Stapletons', who had as great a care of your temporal, and more of your spiritual estates, and yet wrote, and taught, that the Authority, which this oath abiureth, is to be defended with hazard of liuings and life. To these I'desire you to add the Counsels, not only Provincial, but also General, which in their decrees have defined this authority; the Popes so many, so learned, so holy, who have exercised it upon rebellious Princes; the Kings and Emperors (though most herein interessed) who have acknowledged it; the arguments also deducted out of Scripture, and Principles of faith and Divinity, which do convince it, (all which this book will make known unto you) and last the fatherly admonition of your most Holy Father and chief visible Pastor PAUL by the Grace of God the fifth of that name, who as by office he hath a general charge and care of all Christian Nations, so hath he a particular care, not only of the spiritual, but also of the temporal estates of all English Catholics, as our Colleges have, and do daily experience, and consequently would not expose your temporal estates to the fury of the persecutor, by forbidding you this oath, if (as he telleth you) it did not contain things, which can not be sworn without evident and grievous wronging of God's honour, and which are flat contrary to faith and salvation. (Paulus 5. in Breu.) And therefore seeing that he, like a wise and careful Physician, hath more care of your health, then of contenting your taste and humour; and Widdrington contrariwise permitteth you that which is pleasing to flesh, and blood, not so much respecting how preiudicious it is to your soul's health; if you will prefer heaven before a temporal estate, and the soul before the body, you must also preserre your Holy Father's counsel and admonition, especially grounded in such authority, before all the smooth and soothing prescriptions in the world, warranted by only widdrington's, and some few obscure Author's authority: for although he allegeth often the Doctors of Sotbon, and all the state of France, yet by the late resistance made by the Clergy, and nobility of France against the like Oath, who seethe not how he abuseth his reader and iniureth that noble Monarchy?  
19 But put the case you should prefer Widdringtons' counsel before your chief Pastors' admonition, and all the authority alleged, neither so (what soever he beareth you in hand) should you save your temporal estates, or decline persecution. For to omit that if you had at the first jointly and couragionslie resisted the oath, it is like you should never have been so hoatlie pressed with it; if now you should all resolve to accept of it, neither so should you avoid persecution. For (as I have told you) perchance your yielding in this point hath provoked your heavenly Father's wrath, and induced him in this his so justly conceived anger, to use or permit still the rod of persecution, which otherwise he was ready to have laid aside: and the persecutor, who proposeth this oath, not seeking so much the Prince's security (which rather hereby, as I have showed in the last chapter of this book, is more endangered) as the molestation of your Consciences, and the pillage of your goods, would not, though you should accept of this oath, surcease therefore from persecution; but if he could not by this means molest your consciences, and ruin your estates, he would try other means, as to compel you to their Churches or profane Communion. And this you may gather by his sorrow he shown, when in the beginning so many of you yielded to take this oath; and by this also, that many, who have taken this oath, can not so free themselves from molestation, because nothing but your goods and miseries can satisfy the unsatiable cruelty of bloody persecutors. And so by yielding to this oath, as you provoke Gods greater anger, so you move the persecutor to no compassion; rather you make him more insolent, and redouble your own misery. But suppose you could thus shake of this heavy yoke of persecution, yet it being unlawful (as your chief Pastor and learnedest Doctors teach you) as hitherto, rapinam bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis, cognoscentes vos habere meliorem & manentem substantiam, (Heb 10) the spoil of your own goods you have taken with joy, knowing that you have a better and permanent substance; so do you persevere and continue. And if God permit the persecutor to prey, not only on your goods, but also on your lives, yet nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus, animam autem non possunt occidere etc. (Matt 10.) fear not them that can kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body into Hel.  
10. Many things do make this oath unlawful, as you will easily perceive by the briese examination, which the last chapter of this treatise maketh of it; but if there were nothing but this, that it is an uncouth and unwonted oath, never yet proposed by any Prince unto his subjects, and proposed also by the professed Enemies of God's Church, all Catholics that fear to offend God, or to do injury to the Church, and her right and authority, aught to hold it as suspected, and as such to shun it, and avoid it. For it is no new thing for heretics under colour of oaths of fidelity and civil allegiance to deceive the well meaning and nought-suspecting Catholic. We read in the history of the persecution of the Wandalles, (Victor Vticen. lib. 3. de pers. Vand.) how Hunnericus proposed such an oath to the Catholic Bishops assembled together at Carthage, pretending only thereby to assure himself of their fidelity towards him and his son, that was to succeed him, which if they would take, he premised to send them home to their Churches. The oath seemed ●●rie reasonable, and was no other than this: jurate si post obitum Domini nostri Regis, eius filium Hildericum desideratis esse Regem, vel si nullus vestrum ad Regiones transmarinas epistolas diriget: Swear whether after the death of our Lord the King, you desire that his son Hildericus should be King: or that none of you will wr●●e or send letters beyond the seas. At this oath though in show altogether lawful, the Catholic Bishops staggered: and some of them suspecting all that cometh from the Enemies of God's Church, flatly refused it: others lest the people should say that vitio sacerdotum, qui iurare noluerunt, non fuerint Ecclesiae restiturae: by the fault of the Priests, that would not swear, the Churches were not restored, accepted of it. But by and by appeared the hidden malice of the persecutor: for he took advantage thereby, as well against those that swore, as those that refused to swear. To them that swore, his officers said: Why against the commandment of the Gospel have you sworn? The King commanded, that you should never visit your Cities and Churches again, but that being banished you should take lands to till, colonatus iure, by right of farmers and new Inhabitants, yet with this condition also, that you neither sing service, nor pray, nor carry book to read, nor Baptise, nor give orders, nor reconcile any. To them that refused to swear, they said: quia regnum filii Domini nostri non optatis, idcirco iurare noluistis etc. Because you desire not that the son of our Lord the King should reign after his Father, therefore you would not swear. For which cause you are commanded to be banished into the ●e of Corsica, to hue trees for the King's buildings. So that in extraordinary oaths the heretical Magistrate hath sinister intentions and hidden meanings, and under fair pretences coucheth malice: and therefore all such oaths are by zealous Catholics to be suspected: much more this oath, which in so plain words abiureth the Pope's lawful authority, which Counsels, and chief Doctors do give him, and which he hath practised so many years without contradiction of all, saving heretics, schismatics, and some few obscure authors, aught to be holden as suspected, and as such of all timorous consciences to be avoided.  
21. Wherefore, worthy Catholics, use the benefit of persecution for that your good, to which by God it is ordained or permitted: let it serve for a wind to blow away your chaff of Imperfections, not to scatter the solid wheat of your faith, charity, zeal, fervour, and constancy: let it serve for a red sea to pass to the land of promise with the Israelites, not to drown you with the Egyptians: let it serve for a gale of wind to set you onward to the haven of heaven, not for a boisterous blast to drive you on the rocks of scandal: let it serve for a blast to enkindle, not to blow out your fire: let it serve for a fire to purge you like gold, not to melt and consume you like wax or lead; to harden you as vessels sit to receive God's spirit, and to carry his name, not to break you in the heating. And my dearest. (I use S. PETER'S words) nolite peregrinari in feruore, qui ad tentationem vobis sit, quasi aliquid vobis contingat. (1. Pet. 4. Think it not strange in the fervour, which is to you for a tentation, as though some new thing happened unto you. It is no new thing for the servants of God to suffer persecution: but comfort yourselves that in suffering for Justice, you are companions to Christ, the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs. Take heed that none of you suffer for disloyalty or ill demeanour: but whosoever suffereth as a true Christian, that is, as a Catholic Roman (for these two always go together) let him not be ashamed, but let him glorine God (1. Pet. 2.) for such suffering is but to purge him, to try him, to associate him to Christ and his faith, to mark him for one of Christ's soldiers, to conform and configurate him here to Christ patiented, that he may be configurated in heaven to Christ triumphant. Wherefore pluck up your hearts, and call to mind your former victories, hitherto you never encountered, but you overcame and proved stronger than all the Tibornes, racks, and Gibbets, than all the Engines and Ministers of cruelty: do not now by dastardy and cowardlike yielding obscure your former glory, and mortify your former merits: but seeing that you have of humane frailty yielded in this one point, let this your disgrace and foil received thereby, serve for a busset of Satan to humiliate you with S. PAUL (2. Cor. 12.) lest the greatness of your revelations (as it is a revealed doctrine to count it honour and fel●●itie to suffer for Christ) might extol you: let it serve for a memorial to put you in mind, that heretofore by Christ and his graces, not by your own force you overcame: let it serve as a Monitour, to admonish you sitting in the triumphant chariot of your former victories, that you are of yourselves but mortal and frail men: let this fall make you rise with a rebound to greater courage than ever; that so all things, even falls, may cooperate to your good. (Rom. 8.)  
22. But my zeal of your Honour (Worthy Catholics) hath transported me, and made me not only to exceed the limits of an Epistle, but also to be more officious, then perchance grateful to some, who may think, that if I knew, or at least felt the miseries which they endure, I should rather condescend unto them with Widdrington, then urge them so much to refuse this oath, whose refusal is so dangerous to their persons, and pernicious to their estates. But I have for such an answer in readiness, to wit, that I am not ignorant of your extreme afflictions, and that (as I protest) I never think of your sufferances seriously, but I suffer with you sensibly, and would, if so I might ease you, spend my blood, and hazard my life, even for a relaxation from your temporal miseries: but being persuaded as I am, and standing upon so sure grounds, as this Treatise will manifest unto you, as that Physician were unworthy his Profession, that would prescribe only such Physic to his patient as is pleasing to his taste, not caring how contrary it be to his health, so if I, with a Widdrington, would seek to sooth, and suit a worldly humour, and so my speeches be pleasing to flesh and blood, little regard the health and state of your souls and security of your consciences, I were unworthy the room I fill, the person I sustain, and the function of a Spiritual Physician, which I have undertaken. Wherefore if my Physic be distasteful, refuse it not, it being healthful; neither be you angry with the Physician for prescribing so bitter a potion, he thereby intending your good: and if my speeches seem too plain, think they are sincere and spoken out of love; if sharp and biting, persuade yourselves that meliora sunt vulnera diligentis, quàm fraudulenta oscula odientis: (Prou. 27.) Better are the wounds of him that loveth, than the fraudulent kisses of him that hateth. This I am sure, I give you no other counsel, than I would follow myself, who have that opinion of the unlawfulness of this oath, that I would lose liuings, liberty, and life, rather than take it: not that I would not give that to Caesar, which is due to Caesar, but that I would not take from God which appertaineth to God: not that I neglect a temporal life and state, but that I prefer the spiritual: not that I despise the Prince, to whom I acknowledge all tempor all obedience and honour, but that I honour the Pastor, who hath the rule of my soul: not that I regard not the Common wealth, but that I desire to live and die an obedient son of the Church: not that I fear not them, who can kill the body, but that I fear God more, who can kill the soul: Matt. 10.  
23. And my intention and project (I protest) of dedicating this Treatise unto you, was not to irritate any Prince, but only to declare his Authority and office; not to flatter any Prelate, but only to defend his right; not to increase your persecution, but to rid you of this Anathema, which hath prolonged it; not to add affliction to affliction, but courage to your fainting, and comfort to your griefs, to help them to rise that are fallen, and to confirm them that stand, that they may the better keep their standing. And this being my sincere intention, I hope not only you, but all others, who shall peruse this book, will make their profit of it, and interpret it in that good meaning, which the Author intended. Our Lord JESUS, for whose cause you endure, either ease you of this burden of adversities, under which you groan, or give you strength to bear it, comfort in bearing, and make me a follower of your rare examples, an Imitator of your patience, and partaker of your merits, as you shall ever be of my poor prayers and small labours.   

A Preface. To the Reader.  
GEntle Reader, I did not think to have set out this little book the second time, much less did I intent to add any thing unto it. And although Widdrington in his New-year's gift, hath of late here and there glanced against some words and speeches of mine, where he imagined most advantage, yet I thought (as I see other learned writers have done) to have quite given him over, and not to have made the least reply, as not being desirous to contend with such, as are resolved not to yield, having other businesses to many where with to occupy myself. But the Printer who first took this book in hand, and other friends also importuning me, to let it come forth again, and alleging that the copies of the first Edition were all spent, and yet more demanded; I was content volens, nolens, yielding herein, more to importunity then to mine own inclination, to publish it once more, and upon this occasion of this new edition, to add here and there something, either for a more ample explication, or for answer to Widdringtons' objections. I was willing, I confess, and forward enough the first time to write of this subject. For although, as by an accident, I was one of the last, who wrote in the defence, of this the chief visible Pastors' Authority now in England impugned, so I counted myself amongst the least; yet as when an house is set on fire, some carry water, others ladders, and every one repaireth thither to show at least his good will to extinguish it: So in this Combustion in which not only Heretics, but also some of them who make profession of the Catholic name, do endeavour to put fire, even to the secundary foundation of God his Church to wit, the chief vifible Pastors' Authority; I thought it the part of every zealous Catholic to run to the extinguishing of this fire, for though all have not the like dexterity, yet all may show the like good will. Which I having performed in the former Edition of this little book according to my ability, I thought to have surceased, had not importunity of friends overcome me. And therefore after this, as I mean not to dispute any more of this point with than, with whom (as I gather by the repulse which greater men than myself have received) there is little hope to prevail; so I wish all Catholics, seeing that they have heard their chief visible Pastors' sentence, to leave of all Disputation touching this his Authority, and simply and humbly to obey his commandment, and consequently to acknowledge the said Authority, to refuse the Oath by him condemned, and yet to obey the King our Sovereign and Liege Lord in all civil and temporal causes, to be faithful to him and his Royal posterity, and to pray day lie for his majesty's long and prosperous life, that he may live long to us, always to God, and so reign long in the Kingdom of England, as he may reign for ever in the Kingdom of heaven.   

The Contents of the Chapters.  
BY way of introduction it is showed, that there be two powers in the Church; the one Civil; the other Ecclesiastical: which are both necessary. Chap. 1.  
Some Civil power followeth immediately from God and nature; Regal power proceedeth immediately from the people's election and Donation; mediately from God's ordination; So that after the election of the people and reception, the king is superior, who may Command and bind in conscience; the people are subjects bound to obey. Chap. 2.  
Ecclesiastical power is also of God, and is distinct from the Civil jurisdiction, which also all members of the Church are bound in conscience to obey. Chap. 3.  
These two jurisdictions and powers. Ecclesiastical and Civil, are compared and conferred: and the preeminence is given to the Ecclesiastical. Chap. 4.  
Ecclesiastical and temporal Peers and Princes are compared together, and out of the Comparison is gathered, that not only private laymen, but even temporal Princes, though otherwise absolute, are subject to the Pastors of the Church, and especially to the Supreme visible Pastor, as is proved by many arguments. Chap. 5.  
That Princes, Kings, yea emperor's have no authority to govern the Church, or to make Ecclesiastical laws, neither are to be accounted heads or Superiors, but subjects of the Church, though protectors and defendours; and therefore are modestly admonished of their duty and office. Chap. 6.  
Although the Pope be not direct temporal Lord and Superior of the world, nor of any part thereof, by Christ's express gift and donation, but only of the patrimony of Saint Peter given him by Constantine the Great, and other Catholic Princes, and confirmed by the consent of the Christian world: yet by the spiritual power, which Christ gave him in his predecessor S. Peter. (10.21. he may dispose of temporal things, and even of kingdoms, for the good of the church, and conservation of her, and her faith & right, and the manner how, and in what case he can thus dispose of temporalities, is explicated. chap. 7.  
By diverse places and examples of the old and new testament, it is proved that the Pope in some case can, not only by spiritual censure, but also by temporal punishment, and even by deprivation, chastise Princes, who are rebellious, and do tyrannically persecute, and molest the church. chap. 8.  
By Theological arguments, grounded in principles of faith, and the Nature of the church, as it is an absolute common wealth, the same power of the Supreme Pastor is proved. chap. 9  
The same verity is confirmed by the practice of the Church in punishing heretics temporally, with loss of goods, liberty, and lives. chap. 10.  
The same power of the Pope over Princes, is proved by authority of General Councils, out of which are gathered, for the same authority, evident and convincing arguments. chap. 11.  
By the facts of the holy and learned Bishops of Rome. especially Gregory the seaventh, the same power is confirmed, chap. 12.  
By the number of Doctors, who have embraced the opinion, that giveth this power to the Pope, the same doctrine is proved: betwixt the number, gravity, and authority of which Doctors, and those who stand for Widdringtons' opinion, there is no comparison to be made. chap. 13.  
By the doctrine and practice of heretics the same against them is demonstrated; and thence is inferred, that the question betwixt us and them, is not so much, whether the Pope hath any such authority, as whether the Pope, or they have it. chap. 14.  
An explication of the late Oath of pretended Allegiance, and of every clause thereof, deduced out of the former and some other grounds, by which is proved, that it can neither be proposed, nor taken, without grievous offence of Almighty God. Chap. 15.   

THE RIGHT AND JURISDICTION OF THE PRELATE, and the PRINCE.  

CHAPTER I.  
BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION IT IS showed that there be two powers in the Church; the one Civil; the other Ecclesiastical: which are both necessary.  
ALMIGHTY God in the first creation of this material world, 
Gen. 1.  provided two great lights to illuminate, rule, and govern it: the one he called luminare maius, the other luminare minus; we commonly call them the Sunne & Moon. And no sooner had he created (as it were) the spiritual world of his Church, but he appointed also two great lights to govern it and direct it to the end prefixed. The one is the Ecclesiastical power of the Church, residing in her Bishops and Pastors: the other is the Temporal power of the Common wealth, Magistrate, or Prince. Both powers are great in their kind, both of God, both as necessary to humane society, as the Sunne, and Moon to this world. 
Gelas. ep. ad ●mp. Anastas.  Wherefore GELASIUS Pope saith: Duo sunt, Imperator Auguste, quibus hic mundus principaliter regitur: Autoritas sacra Pomificum, 
Innoc. 3. Cap. Solitae de maior. & obed.  & Regalis potestas. Two things there are, O noble Emperor, by which this world is principally governed: the sacred Authority of Bishops, and Regal power. And Innocentius the Third using the former similitude sayeth: Ad firmamentum Coeli, hoc est universalis Ecclesiae, fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, id est, duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt Pontificalis Authoritas, & Regalis Potestas. For the Firmament of Heaven, that is, of the universal Church, God made two great lights, that is he instituted two Dignities, which are Pontifical Authority, and Regal power. But because the world now adays aboundeth, and as it were swarmeth with those kind of men, whom the Apostle calleth. Animales homines, 
1. Cor. 2.  quinon sapiunt ea quae sunt spiritus, sensual men, who perceive not those things that are of the spirit of God, and therefore prefer the body before the soul, this present life before the future, time, in which they are to live but for a time, before eternity, in which they are to live eternally, and consequently esteem more of state, then of Religion, of the Common wealth, than the Church, and of the Temporal power of Princes, then of the spiritual authority of Pastors: I will by clear and evident arguments so establish both, that I will also sincerely deliver which of them hath the preeminence, and precedence. For they who seek to deprive us of either of these powers, do as if they would take from the world the Sun or the Moon, as though both were not necessary; and they who do so admire the Temporal power and dignity, that they debase, and misprise the spiritual (though that indeed ruleth only the night of Temporal affairs, this the day of the spiritual state) are like unto Owls, who are so pleased with the Moon light, that they could be contented there were no Sun at all.   

CHAPTER II.  
Some Civil power floweth immediately from God and nature; Regali power proceedeth immediately from the people's election and donation, mediately from God's ordination; so that after the election of the people and reception, the King is superior, who may command and bind in conscience; the people are subjects and bound to obey.  
1. MAn by a natural propension, which God and Nature hath ingraffed in him, desireth to consort in company, and is prone to friendship, fellowship, and society. And therefore Aristo●le sayeth that. 
Arist. l. 1 Polit. ca 2.  Civitas est ex his quae natura sum: The city is one of those things, which have their source from nature, and that homo natura ciuile est animal: Man by nature is a civil living creature. And he addeth: 
Ibidem.  Qui absque civitate est, per naturam, non per fortunam, aut nequam est, aut potior quam homo. He that liveth out of the city induced thereto by inclination of nature, not by fortune, is either wicked, orb●tter than man. 
Ibidem.  Yea (saith he) Qui in commum societate nequi● esse, quique nullim indiget propter sufficientiam, nulla pars est ●iuitatis; quare aut Bestia, aut Deus. He that can not live in common society, and needeth no man's h●lp, by reason that he is sufficient of himself, is no part of the City, Wherefore he is either a beast, or a God. And thence he concludeth that. Homo est sociale animal, magis quàm Apes, & quàm omne gregarium animal. Man is a living creature more sociable than bees, or any consorting living creature. And we see by experience how all reasonable and living Creatures desire society. The Angels, although they have no familiar conversation with men, as being above the rank of men, & needing no humane help; yet they have Hierarchies and Orders, rule, and government amongst themselves, and the superior illuminateth the inferior, and all of them speak, and confer with one another; and in this manner they live together, which argueth a society 〈◊〉 and though they converse not visibly and familiarly With us, yet for the charity they bear unto us, and for the need we have of them, some of them are our ordinary Guardians, others are extraordinary Ambassadors sent on divine messages unto us, and all of them assist us immediately or mediately, and therefore are called Administratorij Spiritus, Ministering Spirits. Brute beasts, and living creatures devoid of reason live also in some society. For Pigeons of one Dovecote, beasts of one heard, bees of one hive, Coneys of one warren, fishes of one fin, birds of one feather, do willingly flock together: but this their living together, though it hath a similitude of society, because likeness of nature assembles them together; yet it is not properly society, they having neither speech, nor any conceit of justice, commodity, or discommodity, which yet, 
Arist. supra.  as Aristotle affirmeth, are necessary to true society; only man is truly sociable, because he is propense, and prone to company, for the love of justice, friendship▪ and conservation of himself.  
2. And because God and Nature do nothing in vain, but all is for some end, and project; as they have inclined men to society: so have they thereby intended some good & profit to men, which they are to reap. For if it Were not for some end, their inclination to society should be in vain; if not for some good, but evil, God & Nature should have ordained them to their hurt, which cannot piously be thought of either of them.  
3. Wherefore men are ordained unto society for two kind of commodities they reap thereby. The first is solace, pleasure, and delight: for he that is alone, hath no use of that faculty, which is proper unto him, to wit, of speaking, and so wanteth the pleasure which is taken in talking and discoursing, and imparting conceits to one another, and he cannot contract friendship, which requireth familiarity, and so hath none to whom he may open himself, impart his secrets, communicare his joys and griefs, which yet S. 
S. Ambro. lib. 3. the office cap. vit.  AMBROSE calleth solatium huius vitae, the solace of this life, and that very pertinenrlie. For as Cicero sayeth; 
Cic. l. de Amicitia.  Quid dulcius etc. What more pleasant then to have one, with whom thou mayst dare to speak as with thyself? what great fruit and profit would be reaped by prosperity, unless thou hadst a friend, who might rejoice in it as thou thyself? and hard it would be to bear adversities without him, who would take them more grievously, than thou thyself. secondly, men are inclined to society for profit and commodity; for he that life's alone, must needs live in some want: If he be ignorant, he hath none to reach him; if he be perplex, he hath none to counsel him; if he be sick, he hath none to cure him, if he be poor, he hath none to relieve him; if he be assaulted, he hath none to defend him; if he fall, he hath none to help him up. 
Eccl. c 4.  And therefore Ecclesiastes telleth us that, melius est duos esse simul quam unum etc. It is better that two be together, then one; for they have profit of their Society: if one fall, he shall be stayed up of the other. Woe to him that is alone: because when he falleth he hath none to lift him up. And if two sleep together, they shall warm each other: one how shall he be warmed?  
4. And seeing that men assembled cannot govern themselves, unless some command, some obey, some direct, some be directed: it followeth, that this society hath power to govern itself, and that this power is also of God. For as God hath inclined us to society, and so is the Author of all lawful societies; so hath he given to them power to govern themselves, which power is called Potestas civilis, or temporalis, Civil or temporal power, else in vain had he inclined us to live in society. And therefore as God and Nature, in that they give us being, do give us also power to defend ourselves, to repel force by force, & vim vi repellere; so God and Nature being the Authors of society, do give society's power to rule, conserve, and defend themselves, else in vain had they authorized them. And as this world could not consist, unless God the moderator by natural inclinations did unite the parts together, neither could man conserve himself, 
Prou. 11. D. Thom. Opus. 20. de Regimine princ. c. 1. & insinuat 1. 2 q 90. art. 3. ad 2. qu. 97. a. 3. ad 3. Vict. Rolec. de potest. civil. Suar. l. 3. de leg. c. 1. Sotus l. 1. de lust. q. 1. a 3. Bellarm. to. 1. l. 3. ca 9  if he had not in himself a soul to command one member to help another, and especially authority to defend the whole; so if in societies there were not some power to rule, and direct the good of every particular to the common, but every one should rule himself, and neglect the common good of the society, there would be but confusion, and confusion would bring dissolution: because as the wise man sayeth: ubi non est gnbernator, populus corruet: where there is no Governor, the people shall fall.  
5. This power, as Saint Tho. Franciscus a Victoria, Bellarm. Suarez, Covarrwias', Sotus, and commonly other Divines affirm, resideth first in the community. For seeing that Nature made all equal, and that there is no more reason why this power should be in one, than another, it followeth that it is first in the Community. I deny not but that in respect of imperfect societies, to wit, families, the good man of the house, by law of Nature is superior, and that at first, all power was in the head of every family; but when families increasing, men met together in Cities and Common wealths, than none in particular had authority to govern that new community, and so the power was resident in the community. Some perchance might imagine that this power in the beginning of the world was in ADAM the first Parent of mankind: but although he was head of his family, and so had the power called Oeconomica, yet had he no power of governing a City or Common wealth by creation; and therefore S. AUGUSTIN well observeth that after God had said, 
Aug. lib. 19 de Civit. cap. 15.  faciamus hominem ad Imaginem & similitudinem nostram; let us make man to our Image and similitude; he added not: & praesit hominibus; and let him bear rule over men, 
Gen. 1.  but let him have superiority over the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, and beasts of the earth. And so God at the first made no one man in particular Governor of Cities; and such great societies, and consequently this temporal power of governing was not residing in any one particular man, but only in the whole community.  
6. But although no societies can lawfully meet, but that there must be in them a civil power to govern them, as is showed: yet the particular manner of governing dependeth also of the determination, choice, and election of the Community. For as Plato and Aristotle affirm, 
Plato dial. do Regno. & l. d● R●p. Arist. l. 3. Pol. ca 5.  there are three parttcular Kind's of government: The first is called Monarchia, when one as King and Monarch governeth. The second is called Aristocratia, when diverse, but few, and those of the better sort, equal in Authority, do rule; The third is called Democratia, when many, and those of the Common people rule. The first government of itself is best, because it is easier to find one good and wise man, than few, much more hard to find many; and it is easier for many to obey one, than many; for to obey many, there are two difficulties; the one in those that obey, and that difficulty is also found in a Monarchy; the second in the commanders, and this is less in a Monarchy, then in other governments, because one can better agree then many, and so when one commandeth, it is easier for the subjects to agree in one, than when many command. 
Vide Bellar. li. 1. de Sum. Pont. c. 2  And hence it is that Tyranny which is opposite to Monarchy, is not so bad as Faction opposed to aristocraty, nor Faction of a few so bad, as Sedition of the people opposite to Democraty.  
7. Now therefore, as the Community (as is before declared) hath power to govern itself; so hath it power to choose that government which it liketh best, whether it be one of the former three simple governments, or some other mixed of two, or of all three of them. And if the Community chooseth Magistrates, who shall depend of the whole Community, than the Community is the chief governor, the Magistrates are but officers and ministers, and so may be deposed by the people, some times at pleasure, some times only upon some urgent occasion; and always when the chief Magistrate dyeth, his heirs succeed not necessarily, but only they, whom the people make choice of. This government was amongst the Romans, when they were governed by Plebiscita, and Senators; and is this day to be seen in the Common Wealth of the Venetians, the Genevians, and those of Genua. If the Community make choice of a King, than the Community despoileth itself of Authority, and becometh a subject, and as it were a private person, and giveth all power and Authority to the King to govern, not principally for his own private, but for the common good of the whole Kingdom. And hence it is that the Common wealth cannot depose a King, as it may a Magistrate, unless it be in case of intolerable Tyranny.  
8. Hence appeareth a great difference betwixt the afore said power of the Community, and the Regal power of the King, because the former power of the Community followeth of necessity the lawful meeting of many in one society, in so much that it is not in the people's power to meet with intention to live together, and not to have that power; and so this power dependeth not of any election: but that the King, or Peers, or the Magistrate rule, and govern, depended at the first of the election, and free choice of the people, in whose power it was to choose one or many to govern the rest, and so Kingly power is in deed of God, but by means of election. It is of God, because it proceeded from the Communities power, which is of God and Nature, necessarily following the natural inclination, which God hath imprinted in us to live in society; and yet it is in the King by free election, because though the Community have authority from God and Nature to rule itself, yet that this power is given to the determinate person of the King, dependeth of the people's election.  
9 Now some think that supposing the people's election▪ God immediately giveth the power. 
Wid. in Apolog. Rosp. nu. 163. pag. 128.  This is the opinion of WIDDRINGRON in his Apologetical Answer for the right of Princes, where he affirmeth that. Quicunque in supremum Reipublicae superiorem legitimè deputatur etc. Whosoever is lawfully deputed as sovereign Superior of the common Wealth, although he receive that dedeputation or Title of power by the free consent of of men, yet the total power of ruling God only giveth unto him by the law of Nature. But Widdringron should have marked, that the people and Community, from which lawfully assembled necessarily floweth (as above we have seen) a power to govern itself, and to appoint governors, not only designeth the person of the King, but also transferreth her authority from herself to the King, and becometh herself a subject, and as it were a private person. So that the Community not only designeth the person of the King; but also despoiling haet self of the power she had from God and Nature, giveth it unto the person chosen and designed by her for King. 
D. The. 2.2. qu. 10. a. 10.  And thersore S. Thom. saith that Dominion and prelacy (Civil) are brought in by humane law.  
10. Whorein may be seen a manifest difference also betwixt the Pope and the King. For the Cardinals, When they choose one of their company to be Pope, design only his person (as Caietan well observeth) but Christ only, 
Caiet. in opusc. de Pont●  and not the Cardinals, after this deputation of his person, giveth the power and jurisdiction, it being supernatural, as not only the end, to which it is ordained, but also the Acts and functions of this jurisdiction do manifestly declare; and therefore seeing that a supernatural jurisdiction surpasseth the activity of the Cardinals, they being but moral Agents, and using no sacrament in the election and creation of the Pope, he being ordinarily Priest and Bishop before, this Authority must be attributed only to God as the Author: but the King's authority is natural, and moral, ordained only of itself to natural functions, and to a natural end, which is temporal peace and felicity, and so it not exceeding the Activity of the people, or Communities power, may, and is given by the people, and consequently not only the deputation of the King's person, but also his Regal Authority proceedeth immediately from the people.  
11. Whence also may be gathered a difference betwixt the Authority, which was in the Community before it made choice of a King, and the Authority of a King, for that Authority of the Community, is immediately of God & Nature proceeding necessarily from a Community lawfully assembled, in somuch that it is not in the power of the Community to be without this power, unless it give it to one, or many governors; but the Authority of the King doth not necessarily flow from this Community, because it is in the free choice of the Community to make election of that government in particular, which it shall think best; and so if it make election of a Monarchical government, and consequently of the King, the King is to thank the Community, not only for the deputation of his person, but also for his Regal Authority, which being a natural power, and being before contained eminenter, or virtualiter, eminently or virtually, in the Communities power (because) as I have said (the Community at first had authority to choose which government in particular it thought most convenient) is not to be ascribed immediately to God, 
D. Tho. 1.2. qu. 90. a. 3● and. qu. 105. a. 1 ad 1.  a second cause being found out sufficient to produce such an effect. And so the King's authority in particular, and taken determinately, is not immediately of God, or Nature, but cometh to him by meantes, not only of the people's designation, but also of the people's gift and donation. 
D. Th. 1.2. q. 105 ar. 1. ad 1. and 2.2 q. 10. art. 10. Caieta. ib. Bellarm, to. 1. lib. 3. cap. 9 Suarez l. 3. de leg c. 4. Almai. li. de potest eccl, cap. 1. Prou. 8. Rom. 13.  And this opinion is holden by the best Divines both ancient and modern.  
But this not withstanding, it is most true, which God saith. Per me Reges regnant, King's reign by me. To which his Apostle subscribeth saying: Non est potestas nisi à Deo; itaque qui potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit: There is no power but of God; therefore he that resisteth the power, restisteth the ordinance of God: because King's authority proceedeth mediately from God, to wit, by means of the authority of the Community, which proceedeth immediately from God and Nature: and it is also God's providence that King's reign over us, and God as the first cause cooperateth to their election and creation, and approveth also the same. But yet for all this the people is a second cause of King's authority.  
13. If any object that Saul and David were immediately created by God Kings of the jews: I answer, that God in this prevented the people for the people's good, for otherwise the jews by law of Nature, had authority to choose and create themselves a King as is already proved. Neither doth it hence follow, that the people is above the King, or is not bound to obey the King, or can depose the King at their pleasure, for although the people at the first created the King: yet they created him not as a simple Magistrate, or officer, but as an Absolute Prince, and they despoiled themselves of authority, to give it to the King, as to one that can better rule, than the confused multitude, and became (as it were) 〈◊〉 private person, subject, not superior ●o to King; and so the King's power now 〈◊〉 so long at least as he is not an intolerable Tyrant) is not depending of the people; ●nd no marvel; because many effects, which depend of their causes in fieri, and in ●heir first production, depend not of them ●n facto esse, and conservation; So the Son ●●ueth after his Father, and fruit may be extant after the tree is consumed; and we give many things frankly and freely, which afterwards we can not at our pleasure ●ake away. Wherefore as a freeman selleth ●im self freely, but after the sale is so bound, to his Master, that he can not free himself at his pleasure, but remaineth, will he, nill he, a subject, and bondman, who before was a freeman; so the people before the election of their King, is free & superior, but after is a bounden subject and inferior, though by a Civil, not despotical subjection, And so supposing this election, the people is bound in conscience to obey their King as superior, and cannot now depose him, unless it be in case of intolerable Tyranny, (for then the common opinion holdeth, 
D. Thom. Opus. 20. de Regi. Princ. cap. 1. Sotus l. 4 the Iust. & jure q. 1. a. 3. & q. 4. a. 1. Rom. 13.  that the Authority, which the people had in the beginning to create him, returneth again by devolution to depose him) but must obey him in lawful things, though he be difficile, and govern not altogether as he should do, according to that: Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit: let every soul be subject to higher powers, and again: Itaque qui potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit: therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth God's ordinance. And again: Ideoque necessitate subditi estote. Which in Greek is; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ideo necessit as est subijci: Therefore be subject of necessity, and yet again: Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum, 
1. Pet. 2.  sive Regi, quasi praecellenti etc. Be subject therefore to every humane creature for God, whether it be to the King, as excelling etc. And as in the same chapter Saint PETER commandeth servants to be subject in all fear to their Masters, not only to the good and modest, but also to the wayward; so the people is bound to obey Kings, 
Vide Lessium li. 2 dei ●st & iure, c. 9 dub. 4.  though Wayward, and difficile, yea though they be Tyrants, so that their first entrance be lawful and they not deposed; yea though their entrance were by unlawful Invasion, so that the people generally did afterwards consent and accept of them as their Princes and superiors; for to a superior, whilst he remaineth superiout, and commandeth lawful things obedience is due; otherwise be he never so lawful, if he command things unlawful, we must obey God before men, 
Act. 5.  and the King before the Viceroy.  
14. But against that which I have said of the creation of Kings by the people's election, some may object, that nowadays in all Europe, almost all Kings are made by succession, as are the Kings of Spain, France, ●nd England. To this I answer, that though this be so, yet the source and origin of this is also the people's election. For at the first ●excepting those Kings, which extraordi●arilie were given immediately from God to the jews) the people chose or approved ●he King, but perceauing what difficulty and danger also of tumults and sedition would ensue, if after the death of their King, they should be to seek, and stand upon election of another, they were con●ent that the lawful heirs of the first King choose, should succeed to his father without new election, although when the ●ewe King is crowned, the people's consent is demanded, and the King is sworn unto them; And in Spain the Archbishop of Toledo receiveth the King's oath in the name of the Church and people; In France the Archbishop of Rheims, In England the Archbishop of Canterbury; and so all Regal power, though not immediately, yet originally cometh from the people's election and donation.  
15. And therefore we see that the King's power in diverse countries is diversely limited, as in France and England, where many of the King's laws are not taken to be of force, unless the Parliament of states concur to the making or confirming of them, which limitation Widdrington ascribeth to the King, 
In Resp. Apol n. 174. pa. 137.  as though he did voluntarily thus limit himself: But who seethe not how unlikely it is that Kings should thus restrain their own power, and tie their own hands? And if this limitation proceeded from the King, he might at his pleasure also take it away; which were to give Princes too much scope and liberty. Wherefore as the people gave the King his authority; so it was the people that thus limited and restrained him for their own preservation: for to the same Authority that giveth power, it pertaineth to restrain it.  
16. Having thus proved that the King or Prince hath Authority from God as Author of Nature (yet by means of the people's election and grant) to govern the Kingdom or Common wealth; it followeth that he hath Authority, not only to command privarelie, or particularly, as the Goodman of the house may command his wife, children, or servants, but also to make laws, which shall bind the whole Community, 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 have sufficient Authority.  
17. By which may appear how absurd the opinion of our Reformers is, 
Luth l. de captain. Bab. Calu. l. 3 Inst. c. 19 n. 14 & l. 4. c. 10.  and how injurious to Princes, yea and to God, that appointeth them, who blush not to say and avouch that all Christians (that is Caluinists) endued with faith, are so freed by Christ from all laws, and humane power, that they can not bind them in conscience.  
18. Certes Luther in his book of Babylonical Captivity, and Caluin in his Institutions make it a part of the office of a Redeemer, in Christ, to have so freed us from all humane Authority and laws, that they can not bind us in conscience. And the Anabaptists and Trinitarians, who an. 155●. at Alba-Iulia set forth certain Antitheses of the true and false Christ, in their seventh Antithesis affirm, 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 Kings, Princes, Magistrates swords; but the true Christ can abide no such thing in his Church. But this opinion may be evidently convinced by that which is said; for if Princes have power from God and Nature to rule, they have power to make laws; and if they can make laws, they can bind in conscience, else their laws were straws, and to little purpose, especially when the subject can avoid by slight the penalty of the law. Wherefore Saint Paul commands us to be subject to all lawful humane Authority 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 resist, purchase to themselves damnation: which argueth an obligation in conscience. Again the same Apostle commandeth Titus to admonish Christians to be subject to Princes and Potesta●es: 
Ad Tit. 3.  
1. Pot. 2.  Saint Peter commandeth them to be subject to every humane creature for God, whether it be King as excelling &c. and he gives the reason saying: for so is the will of God. By which it is manifest that we are bound under sin, & under God his displeasure, to honour and obey Kings, and Princes, and consequently that we are bound in conscience.  
19 Let not then our Reformers traduce Catholics as enemies to Princely Authority, and Idolators of the Pope's power; for we acknowledge and reverence them both highly in their kind: but let the Reformers look to themselves, 
Plautus.  because qui alterum incusat probri, ipsum se intueri oportet: he that accuseth another, must look that he himself be free. 
joseph. 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. Goodman l. de obedien. pag. 203. Beza ep. 78. ad Buchanan. Luth. supra. Caluin l. 4. Inst. c. 19 §. 14. Exod. 12.  We Catholics say not with judas Galilaeus. That no Prince is to be obeyed; nor with Cresconius, That the Magistrate ought not to punish; nor with the Beguards. That the perfect are not bound to obey laws; nor with Wickleph, That the Prince by mortal sin looseth his Authority; nor with Luther, That the Turk is decies probior; prudentiorque nostris principibus, ten times honester and wiser than 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 only is to make laws, Reges sunt veluti Tabulaeriorum custodes; nor with Goodman, That women cannot reign, and that therefore Wyatt rising against Queen Marie, was no Traitor; nor with Beza do we call that lawful and worthy Queen Marie, the Mother of our sovereign King james, Medea, and Athalia, as though (as he saith) Nullum illius sceleribus nomen idoneum inveniri posset: no name answerable to her wickednesses could be found out; Nor with Luther and Caluin, that Prince's laws bind not the faithful in conscience: But we say and believe with scripture; Thou shalt not detract from the Gods (that is, Princes, who are called Gods by participation) nor speak evil of the Prince of thy people. 
Prou. 8. Mat. 22.  We confess that by God Princes reign: we command to give to Caesar, what is due to Caesar: we allow of S. IGNATIUS counsel: Caesari subiecti estote in ijs, 
Ign. epi. ad Antioch.  in quibus nullum animae periculum. Be you subject to Caesar in those things, in which is no danger of the soul: we are taught to give to Magistrates (as S. 
Eus l. 4. hist. c. 14  POLICARP said) and Potestates appointed by God, that honour, which is not prejudicial to our souls, or Religion. we worship (as TERTULLIAN sayeth) the Emperor, 
Lib. adversus Scap. cap. 2.  (the King) sic quomodo & nobis licet, & ipsi expedit; ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem: so as it is lawful for us and expedient for him, as a man second (in Temporal Authority) to God, and only lesser than God. For whilst the King keepeth within his bounds, he hath no superior in temporal matters, but God. And this is the honourable conceit which Catholics have of their Kings and Princes.   

CHAPTER III.  
Ecclesiastical power is of God, and distinct from the Civil jurisdiction, which also all members of the Church are bound in conscience to obey.  
1. Having given to Caesar and the Kingdom, what is due to them; It followeth that I give to Christ and his Vicaire, yea and Church also, what belongeth to them. I have proved in the former chapter that Civil power is of God and Nature, because it is necessarily annexed to all lawful societies, to which God and Nature do incline us: And seeing that the end of all lawful societies is not only temporal felicity, but also the service and worship of God, (for we are not only created to speculate the stars, as Anaxagoras imagined; but also to know the Creator of all, and to adore him) I will go a step further, and will not fear to aver, that not only Civil Authority, but also some Religion and worship of God proceedeth from the Inclination and propension of Nature.  
2. Certes we are led by the light of reason to the knowledge of a Godhead and Divinity. For who is he that looking upon this admirable piece of work, which we call the world, thinks not by and by of a God that created it? If as S. 
Orat. de Theol.  GREGORY Nazianzen saith: Qui Citharam contemplatur, tametsi Citharaedum non videat, nihilominus affirmaret accuratâ mentis intelligentiâ mysticum instrumentum illud fuisse concinnatum, who so beholdeth an harp, although he see not the harper, will yet affirm that that mystical instrument was made and tuned by an exquisite understanding of the mind? If as Cicero saith, he that had seen Archimedes sphere, which imitated the Celestial globes, and represented all their diverse motions, could not but think of some cunning and and ingenious Mathematician or ginger that composed or devised it: How can man essentially reasonable, be so devoid of reason, as to think that the whole sphere, and globe of the world, in which he seethe so great order in so great variety of things, was composed and effected by chance, or of itself appeared in such goodly order, and not of one, who is above the rank of Creatures, which is God? Wherefore all Fathers and Divines affirm that by the light of Nature, every one, that will not wilfully be blind, (as Diagoras and Protagoras surnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were) may discover a Godhead. S. 
Orat. 2. the Theol. quae est 34.  GREGORY Nazianzen expressly affirmeth, that not only the law of Nature, but also even our eyes do bring us to the knowledge of God. Which point the wise man touching sayeth: 
Sap. 13.  A magnitudine enim speciei & creaturae cognoscibiliter poterat Creator omnium videri: For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the Creator of them may be seen to be known thereby. 
Rom. 1.  To whom also S. PAUL subscribeth in these words: Inuisibilia enim ipsius à creatura mundi, per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur, etc. For his invisible things, from the creation of the world are seen, being understood by those things that are made, etc.  
3. And if by natural reason we may discover a Godhead; the same reason will teach us, that a Religion is necessary, by which this Godhead should be worshipped. Whence it is that Lactantius saith: 
Lib. 7. de diu. Inst. cap. 6.  Idcirco mundus factus est, ut nascamur; ideo nascimur, ut cognoscamus factorem mundi ac nostri, Deum: Ideo agnoscimus, ut colamus; ideo colimus, ut Immortalitatem pro mercede laborum capiamus: Therefore the world was made, that we might be borne; therefore we are borne, that we may acknowledge the maker of the world, and of ourselves, God: therefore we acknowledge him, that we may worship him: therefore we worship him, that we may receive a reward for our labours. And certes there is such a necessary connexion betwixt God and Religion, supposing that there be any creature, that can worship him (as only men and Angels can) that if you grant a God, you must needs grant that he is to be worshipped. For by God we understand the most noble and excellent thing that is, and Which by creation hath a greater superiority over us, than our Parents have by generation: and seeing that honour and worship is due to excellency and superiority, supreme honour, which is Religion, must needs be due to God, who hath supreme excellency and superiority. And it is so deeply imprinted in us, that there is a God, and that he is to be worshipped, that as Cicero sayeth: Nulla gens est tam fera, 
Cicero de nat. Deor.  nulla tam immanis, cuius mentem non imbuerit Deorum colendorum opinio: No nation so barbarous, none so fierce and cruel, 
Plut adversus Coloton.  whose mind hath not been imbued with an opinion of the Gods, and that worship is due unto them, Whereto Plutarch addeth, That you shall sooner find Cities without walls, jaws, letters, coins, then without Temples, and worship of God, or Gods. Yea saith Cicero: 
Orat. 5. in Verren.  Omnes Religione moventur, & Deos Patrios, quos àmaioribus acceperunt, colendos sibi diligenter, & retinendos arbitr antur. All are moved with Religion, and do think that they must worship and keep diligently their Country Gods, whom they have received from their Ancestors. And although many have miss in the right God, whom they should have worshipped, yet thereby they shown their natural inclination to Religion; because from the Instinct they had from Nature to the worship of the true God by true Religion, proceeded their manifold superstitions and Idolatries, to which they would never have been so obstinately addicted, had they not imagined in them true worship and true Religion.  
4. Wherefore as by the natural Inclination, that men have to live in society, I have proved in the former chapter, that there is a Civil power, by which they may govern themselves in society; so by the natural inclination, by which men are no less prone to honour and worship a Godhead, I may prove that there is a kind of Ecclesiastical power, which is de jure Naturae, by which they might govern themselves in matters pertaining to God's worship, prescribe Ceremonies, and the manner how God should be honoured; else God and Nature in vain had inclined men to honour God in society. And so although God had left us to Nature, and had not ordained us to Grace or Glory; yet in all lawful societies, there had been two Powers, the one Civil, 
Vide Victoria. Relect. de potest. Eccles.  which should have prescribed laws tending to Motall justice, and conservation of the people in their temporal states; The other Ecclesiastical, prescribing laws and Ceremonies for the worship of God. And in this case these Powers had been distinguished in respect of their diverse acts and ends, and should most commodiously have been committed to diverse persons, or Magistrates and Priests; but then the Ecclesiastical power had not had the power to exercise any supernatural Acts, being not ordained in that case to a supernatural end, and proceeding only from Nature and natural inclination, as is declared.  
But if we dispute not of that which might have been, but that which is; then we must confess that all Ecclesiastical Power, which is now under the law of Christ, and was heretofore under the law of Moses, proceedeth from God his positive ordinance, Institution, and constitution. For as God prevented the jews, and whereas they by law of Nature had permission to choose their Kings, yet for their greater good, he chose than one him selue immediately: so although by the law of Nature, men otherwise might have prescribed the manner of worshipping God, and the worship had been lawful, so that it had been the worship of the true God, and had been free from superstition; yet because God hath ordained us to a supernatural end, and would have our Ecclesiastical government free from all superstition, he hath himself appointed the manner of government, and hath given the Authority. So in the law of Moses he chose the Tribe of LEVI to serve in the Tabernacle and Temple, and to menage Ecclesiastical matters; he instituted also sacrifices, sacraments, and Ceremonies: in like sort in the new law of Grace (under which we live) he committed the government of his Church to the Apostles and Disciples only, and their successors; he instituted seven Sacraments, and a sacrifice; he gave us a law and belief, which first he delivered by preaching, then by the written gospels, and Epistles of his Apostles; and other things he committed to the Church, which he had instituted and established.  
5. So that as there is a Civil and Temporal Power residing in the Common wealth, by which the Prince or Magistrate can govern and rule, and command for the conservation and promotion of the Temporal good of the same: so is there a spiritual and Ecclesiastical Power residing in the Church, by which the Pastors have Authority to preach, teach, administer Sacraments, determine of matters of Religion, to call Councils for the better clearing of matters, and enact laws which shall be thought expedient unto the honour of God, the spiritual good of the Church, and every one's salvation. And this is called Ecclesiastical power, which is distinct from the Temporal in many points.  
6. First in respect of the end and final cause: for Temporal power of itself aimeth only at Temporali justice, peace, and conservation of the Temporal state of the Kingdom or Common wealth; Ecclesiastical power intendeth in this life the spiritual health of the soul, and eternal rest and peace in the next. secondly these powers have diverse Acts, and seeing that powers are distinct by their Acts, it followeth that Temporal, and Ecclesiastical or spiritual power are distinct. That they have distinct Acts, it is manifest: for the Temporal power maketh laws for this corporal life, and Temporalle state; but the spiritual and Ecclesiastical power maketh laws for the soul, and her direction: the Temporal power remitteth the pains only of sins; but the spiritual Power, remitteth the sin itself, according to that: 
joan. 20  Quorum remiseritis peccata, etc. Whose sins you shall forgive etc. The Temporal power inflicteth and remitteth only Civil and Temporal punishments, as imprisonment, banishment, temporal death; but the spiritual power, as now it is, (for in the old law there was not Potestas Clavium) excommunicateth, suspendeth, interdicteth, which are spiritual punishments and bonds of the soul, and remitteth not only these pains, but also eternal death and pain of Hell; for when the Priest remitteth mortal sins, he changeth eternal pain into temporal; yea some times, when the Penitent cometh with a great contrition, he remitteth both Eternal and Temporal. Thirdly they differ in their objects; for the spiritual power disposeth not of Temporal things, but only as they are necessary to the spiritual; The Temporal meddleth not with spiritual, nor Ecclesiastical 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 Emperor Palaces appertain, to the Priest Churches: to thee (Emperor) the right of common Walls is committed, not of Churches. And NICHOLAS Pope in an Epistle to MICHAEL the Emperor. 
Ca Cum ad verum, dist. 96. Vide etiam ca Quoniam, d. 10.  Nec Imperator iura Pontificum arripuit, nec Pontifex nomen Imperatoris usurpavit; quoniam Christus sic actibus propriis & dignitatibus distinctis officia potestatis utriusque discrevit. Neither hath the Emperor taken to him the rights of Bishops, neither hath the Bishop usurped the name of the Emperor; because Christ hath distinguished the offices of both by their distinct acts and dignities. fourthly they differ in respect of the subject and material cause; for although it be not impossible for these two Powers to consort in the same subject (for we see they did in Melchisedech, and in the first begotten of the jews in the law of Nature, and in the Maccabees, who were Priests and Princes, and consequently had temporal, and spiritual power) yet as in other things these powers are distinct, so God, not only in the law of Grace, but also in the law written of Moses would have these powers placed in distinct subjects and Persons. 
2. Parall 19  For in the law of Moses AMARIAS' managed matters of the Church & law; ZABADIAS' governed the affairs of the Kingdom: the Kings and Princes of the jews were of the Tribe of JUDA, the Priests of the Tribe of LEVI; and those governed only the Common Wealth, enacted Temporal laws, waged battle etc. whereas the Priests ruled it matters of the Tabernacle and Temple, offered sacrifice, and governed the Synagogue: And now in the law of Grace Christ gave all spiritual power to the Apostles and their successors, and not to Princes; for to the Apostles, and their successors it was said: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, 
Mat. 18.  shallbe bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loss upon earth, shallbe loosed in heaven: To Princes it was never said so. To the Apostles, and their successors it was said: 
joan. 20.  Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose you shall retain, they are retained: To Princes never. To S. PETER an Apostle and Priest, it was said: 
Mat. 16  Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: To no Prince was it ever said in that sort: To Apostles and Priests Christ said: 
Matth. vlt.  going therefore teach ye all Nations, baptising them in the name of the father, the son, and the holy Ghost: To Princes never. To Apostles and Priests Christ said: 
joan. 6.  As my living father hath sent me, so I send you, that is, to preach, to minister Sacraments, and to govern the Church: 
Ephes. 4.  To Princes never. To the Apostles, Doctors, Pastors, Prophets, Christ committed his Church to be governed, 
Act. 28.  to Princes never. To Priests S. Paul gave this admonition: Attendite vobis, & universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei, quam acquisivit sanguine suo. Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock; wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. But neither he, nor any Apostle ever gave that charge to Princes. Fiftelie they differ in the cause efficient: for the Civil and Temporal Power proceeds from God, and Nature, by means of the people's election, as is in the former Chapter declared; but the spiritual power of the Church, as it implieth Potestatem ordinis & jurisdictionis in foro interiori, is from God immediately, it being supernatural, and exceeding humane power: And although the Ecclesiastical humane power, which inferior Prelates have, proceeded from superior Prelates, especially the Pope; yet not from the Prince or Common wealth, but from the Pastors, and Church. So that as the Pope, Priests, and Church do willingly acknowledge the temporal and civil power of the Prince, Magistrates, and Common wealth, or Kingdom; so the Prince, Magistrates, and Common wealth must be content to recognize a spiritual power of the Pope, Bishops, Priests, and Church, to which obedience is due even of Princes, who are subject to the Church no less than are temporal subjects to the Prince, yea rather more.  
7. This power all true Christians and Catholics acknowledge; none but Heretics and Infidels deny. The Waldenses, 
Guido Carmel. in har. Wald. Turrecr. l. 4. Summa de Eccl c. 35. Conc. 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 witness Guido, and Turrecremata; as also Wicleph, and Hus, as the Council of Constance relateth, denied all Ecclesiastical power, and said, that Popes, and Bishops Decrees, and Canons did not bind any. The same is Luther's opinion. Caluin affirmeth, that neither the Pope, nor his mitred (Caluin sayeth horned) Bishops can bind men's 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 sect, could ever prove. secondly because though they were true Bishops, yet they are not legislatours, or lawmakers, that Title agreeing only to Christ; only he and his grant that they may inculcate God's laws, but make no new,  
8. Well it is known that is was always the manner of Heretics to contemn all Ecclesiastical Authority, because it condemned them. But as I have alleged proofs in the former Chapter for Civil power of Princes; so can I not want arguments for the spiritual and Ecclesiastical power▪ when Christ promised PETER, that he should be the foundation and head of the Church, he promised this power in, and over the Church: 
Mat. 16.  for if PETER be head of the Church, he can rule the mystical body, and if he can rule the same, then can he also make Ecclesiastical laws, for that is belonging to a superior of every great and perfect community; as is before showed. secondly, Christ gave this power to PETER, when after his Resurrection he said: Pasce oves meas. Feed my sheep. 
joan. 21.  For the office of a Pastor may be gathered by the office of a shepherd, who is to govern his sheep, to feed them, and to defend them from the wolf; and so a spiritual shepherd and Pastor, must have authority to rule by laws, to feed by preaching and Sacraments, and to defend by censures and his Pastoral staff, and coercive power. 
Eph. 4.  Whereupon Saint Paul saith, that Christ hath given to his Church not only Doctors and Prophets to teach, but also Pastors to feed and govern. And seeing that the Church hath as much need now of a supreme visible Pastor, and rather more, then at the beginning, it followeth, that PETER hath a successor, who hath the like Authority: And seeing that all Fathers, all Councils, all histories, all practice of the Church, possession and prescription for 1600. years, stand for the Pope of Rome, he is this successor, and he it is, that hath the supreme Ecclesiastical and spiritual power after Christ. thirdly, 
Mat. 18.  Christ commandeth to obey the Church, and saith, That he that will not give ear to the Church, is to be accounted as an Ethnic and Publican; which is a sign, that the Church hath Authority and jurisdiction to hear causes, and to pronounce sentences, to which obedience is to be given. fourthly, not withstanding that in the old law of Moses God determined almost all by himself, by his moral, judicial▪ and ceremonial laws; yet he gave power to the Synagogue, and her Pastors to interpret the law, to resolve doubts concerning the law, and to enact some laws as occasion was offered. And therefore we see with what severity God commanded obedience to the Priests saying: 
Deut. 17  Si difficile & ●mbiguum &c. If thou perceive that the judgement with thee be hard and doubtful between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy; and thou ●●e that the words of the judges within thy gate do ●arie; arise and ge up to the place, which our Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leviticall stock, and to the judge that shall be at that time, and thou shalt ask of them, who shall thew thee the truth of the judgement. And thou shalt do what soever they, that are Precedents of the place, which our Lord shall choose, shall say and teach thee, according to his law, and thou shalt follow, the sentence etc. And he that shallbe proved refusing to obey the commandment of the Priest, which at that time ministereth to our Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die: and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel, and the whole people shall fear, that none asterward swell with pride. By which we see that the High Priest had Power not only directive, but also coercive under pain of death. And we read how the victory of judith over Holofernes was celebrated by the jews with commandment of a holy day: 
judith vlt.  which law was merely Ecclesiastical, made by the Priests, and was not commanded by God his law. The like festival day was decreed by Mardocheus, and received by the jews in memory of their delivery from Amans tyranny by means of Hester, 
Hester 9  which also was no divine, but an humane and Ecclesiastical law, Likewise the Maccabees instituted the feast of the Dedication, 
1. Mach. 4. joan. 10.  which Christ afterwards observed with the rest of the jews; and yet this was not commanded by God his law. Again Christ commandeth to do that which they who sit in Moses' Chair do say, 
Mat. 23.  but not always what they do; much more would he have us to do that, 
Lib. 4. Inst. cap. 20. n. 21. Act. 15.  which they who sit in Saint Peter, yea Christ's seat, do command. And we read in the Acts (which Caluin well saw, but glosseth untowardly) how the Apostles in their first Council made a new law, by which they commanded the converted Gentiles to abstain from eating of blood and things strangled, which were now (the old law being abrogated) things indifferent, and not otherwise forbidden. fively, 
Mat. 18.  Christ gave authority to his Apostles to lose and bind by excommunications, suspensions, and interdicts; which acts of jurisdiction are the spiritual bands and Censures, which the Church layeth upon rebellious Christians, as Divines and Fathers interpret; Which power Saint Paul in his second Epistle to the Corinthians insinuateth saying: If I come again, I will not spare; and again; These things I writ absent, that being present I may not deal hardly, according to the power, which our Lord hath given me unto edification, and not unto destruction, 
1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 5. D. Th. in hac loca. Gregor. Nyss●in orat. adversus eos qui agre ferunt reprehends. Chrysost. hom. 60● ad pop. Ant. Hieron. ep. 53.  And in his first Epistle he saith: What will you? in rod that I come to you, or in charity and the spirit of mildness? And again▪ he in absence by his letters and mandatum, excommunicateth the incestuous person, and delivereth him up to Satan. Out of which words Saint Gregory of Nisse, and Saint Chrysostome do gather the power of Excommunication: As also doth Saint Hierom, who marveleth that the Bishop, in whose Diocese Vigilantius lived, did not Virga ferrea confringere vas inutile, & tradere in interitum carnis, ut spiritus saluus fiat: With an iron rod break that unprofitable vessel, and deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved. So S. AUGUSTIN, 
Aug l 1. de pen. cap. 14.  so all Fathers, so Caluin himself understand this place of the power of Excommunication, though Caluin will have only the Presbytery and company of Seniors, not any one alone, to excommunicate, contrary to the express text, which telleth us, that Saint Paul alone absent did excommunicate, and deliver up to Satan. Where is to be noted, that by excommunication stubborn Christians are said to be delivered up to Satan, either because they are cast out of the Church, where Satan domineereth; or else for that they are deprived of the suffrages and helps of the Church, and so more exposed to Satan's tentations; or lastely because in the Primative Church, the Devil by and by seized and took poslession of the person excommunicated.  
10. Sixthly, as because the law of Nature could not determine particularly of all particulars, Civil power was necessary to govern the Community, and enact laws conducing to the Temporal state: so because God his law hath not determined all particulars; it was necessary the Church should have power to call Councils, tomake patticuler laws, according to the times and other circumstances.  
11. Seventhlie, every absolute Common wealth hath power in the Prince and Magistrates to govern and defend itself, to make laws, to punish Malefactors etc. But the Church is an absolute Common wealth, and more absolute than a Kingdom, this being subordinate to that, not that to this, ergo it was to have all spiritual Authority necessary to govern and defend itself, else Christ had not sufficiently provided for it.  
12. Fightlie, we are bound to obey Princes laws and Authority in conscience; ergo much more the Church's Authority and law, this being spiritual, that but temporal, this being the subordinant, that the subordinat power, as we shall see hereafter. And therefore if the Apostle will have every soul to be subject to Authority and higher powers, 
Rom. 13  he will especially that they be subject, if they be members of the Church, unto her spiritual power: for as SYMMACHUS Pope said once to the Emperor ANASTASIUS: Si omnis potestas à Deo est, 
Ep. ad Anastaf. Imp.  magis ergo quae rebus praestituta est divinis: defer Deo in nobis, & nos deferemus Deo in te. If all power be of God, much more therefore that power which governeth divine matters; Honour thou God (o Emperor) in us, and we will honour him in thee.   

CHAPTER FOUR  
These two jurisdictions and powers, Ecclesiastical and Civil, are compared and conferred: and the preeminence is given to the Ecclesiastical.  
1. AS the little world Man, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, can not consist without body and soul, nor the great world without the Sun and Moon: so neither can the spiritual world of the Church flourish any time, unless it be supported, as by two Pillars, by the spiritual and Temporal power and Authority. But as if the Moon should or could contend with the sun, and would or could disdain to receive light from the sun, or would or could encroach upon the sun's right in the governmet 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 receive light and direction by the more lightsome; or would encroach preposterously on the others domains, the Church could not long flourish. And as if the body should rebel against the soul, the flesh against the spirit, sensuality against reason, it would perturb reasons order, and break the Oeconomie of Moral life; so if one of these powers should offer injury to the other, the Mystical body of Christ his Church would be out of frame. Wherefore seeing that Christ, the Wisdom of God, is the Authout of both, he no doubt, hath disposed them sweetly, 
Sap. 7.  and consequently hath settled some order betwixt them, because. Quae à Deo sunt, 
Rom. 13.  ordinata sunt. Those things that are of God, are ordered. And for as much as Pluralitas principatuum non est bona; Plurality of principalities is not good, 
Arist. l. 12. Metaph. cap. vlt.  to wit, Unless one be subordinate to the other, no doubt he hath subjected one of these to the other. For which cause in this Chapter I will endeavour to show, which of these powers taketh the precedence, which hath the preeminence and superiority, wherein, and how fare.  
2. But because Comparisons betwixt so great Powers and Principalities, and especially in these our corrupted times, are odious, I protest before hand, that I intend not do detract any right or prerogative from either, but only to give to Caesar and his temporal power, what belongeth unto them, and to God and his Church, 
Mat. 21.  what appertaineth to them. For I confess, and have proved, that both these Authorities are of God; both are excellent and eminent in their kind; both to be honoured; both to be obeyed within their limits; both so necessary to the Church of God, that it can no more stand without them, than the world without Sun and Moon. For take away Temporal power, and who shall defend the Church, and assist her for the execution of her laws and sentences? Take away the spiritual power, and who shall direct and correct the Temporal when it is exorbitant? Take away the Temporal, and who shall draw the sword? Take away the spiritual, and who shall preach the word? Take away the Temporal, and who shall have care of our corporal and temporal life? Take away the spiritual, and who shall have care of the spiritual and eternal life? But let the one not encroach upon the other; let both help one another, and both are stronger; as was excellently observed 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 usurpavit; quoniaem idem Mediator Dei & hominum, homo CHRISTUS JESUS, sic propriis actibus & dignitatibus distinctis officia Potestatis utriusque difcrevit, ut & Christiani Imperatores pro aeternâ vitâ Pontificibus indigerent; & Pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodo rerum, Imperialibus legibus uterentur: When it came to the understanding of the truth, neither the Emperor did take unto him the rights of Bishop-like authorotitie, nor the Bishop did usurp the name of the Emperor; because the same Mediator of God and men, man Christ jesus, hath distinguished the offices of both powers by their proper acts and distinct dignities, as that Christian Emperors for attaining eternal life should need Bishops, and Bishops should use the Imperial laws for the cause only of temporal things.  
3. But as both are necessary, so both are not equal, but the one inferior to the other the one subordinate to the other, else the one would be an hindrance to the other, and both would cause confusion. And certes, if we will not prefer the body before the soul, heaven before earth, temporal before eternal life; We must prefer the spiritual and Ecclesiastieall power before the Temporal, and consequently the Church before the Common Wealth.  
4. These two powers, and the preeminence of the spiritual before the Temporal, were prefigured (as Turrecremata hath well remarked) by the two brazen Pillars in the Porch of salomon's 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 jews entered into the Temple, so by the Church Militant, and by no other way, Christians have entrance into the Church Triumphant: The two brazen Pillars that sustained the Porch, signified the Power Temporal & spiritual, which support the Church Militant: and the pillar on the right hand signified the spiritual power; the Pillar on the left hand the Temporal power; whence it is that that must take the precedence of this, and this must be subordinate to that.  
5. And truly that the spiritual and Ecclesiastical power is superior to the Temporal, and more eminent than it, I prove First by those things, by which I have proved them in the former Chapter to be distinct. For the end and final cause of the temporal power, is temporal and natural, to wit, temporal peace; the end of the spiritual Authority, is eternal and supernatural peace, the immediate cause efficient of the Temporal, is the people, the immediate cause of the spiritual, is God: The matters, in which the temporal power is occupied, are temporal; the affairs, which the spiritual governeth, are Ecclesiastical and spiritual: the functions of the temporal, are all temporal; the functions of the spiritual power, are all spiritual and supernatural, as absolving from sins, ministering Sacraments, offering of sacrifices, enacting laws for the soul's health, excommunicating, absolving, etc. The temporal ruleth especially the bodies; the spiritual, the souls: that ruleth the Kingdom, or Common Wealth; this the Church. To the King, the Keys of Cities are offered; to the Priest and Pastor the Keys of heaven: He remitteth temporal Mulctes and pains, no sins at all; The Priest and Pastor remitteth sins, and absolveth from all pains: He can cast out of his Kingdom by banishement; the Pastor out of the Church by Excommunication. And therefore, look how fare eternal felicity excelleth temporal, God the People, supernatural and divine things, natural and humane, spiritual functions, temporal, souls bodies, the Church the Common Wealth, the Keys of heaven the Keys of cities, sins civil penalties, eternal temporal punishment, excommunication banishement; so fare the Ecclesiastical and spiritual excelleth the Civil and Temporal Authority. By this Argument S. CHRYSOSTOM (as always) very excellently proveth the Priests to be greater than the King. 
Chrysost. homil. 4. de verbis Isaiae, tom. 5.  Mane intra tuos terminos, o 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, & ubique in scripturâ sacordotes inungebant Reges: Remain within thy bounds, O King: others are the limits of the Kingdom, others of Priesthood: this Kingdom is greater than that. The King hath the administration of the things of the earth, but the right of Priesthood defcendeth from above. To the King bodies are committed, to the Priest souls: greater is this principality: and therefore the King inclineth his head to the hand of the Priest: and every where ●n Scripture, Priests did anoint Kings. secondly, there is no Christian can deny, but that since God hath ordained us to a supernatural end, to wit, the cleate vision, and fruition of himself, (as all Scripture witnesseth that he hath) all our goods also and states are ordained to the same end, and are not well used, but rather abused, when they are used to serve our pleasures contrary to that end whence followeth that all temporal things, since the former Institution and ordination of God, are Media, means, in respect not only of out supernatural end, but also of supernatural means, as Sacraments, Grace, and supernatural functions, which are more proportionate, and more near means to that end; and consequently temporal power, which ordaineth of these means, is subject to spiritual power, which principally considereth the supernatural means and end. For as the art of riding is more noble, 
Arist. li. 1. Eth. c. 1.  than the art of making bridles (as Aristotle to a like purpose reasoneth) because this is ordained to that: so the spiritual power which disposeth of supernatural things, is nobler than the Temporal, this being ordained to that, and the end being more noble than the means.  
6. thirdly, Philosophers affirm that all habits and faculties are specified and dignified by their acts, objects, and ends, and so Moral Philosophy, which hath virtue and manners, the health of the soul, for its object, is more noble than the art of Physic, which teacheth only to cure the diseases of the body, and to restore corporal health. Seeing therefore that the objects of spiritual power are supernatural and heavenly, the objects of Temporal power, are natural and earthly; the end also of spiritual power is eternal beatitude, the end of temporal power, temporal felicity; the acts also and functions of that power, spiritual and supernatural, the acts of this natural and moral; It must needs follow, that the spiritual power excelleth the temporal, as much as the objects, ends, and acts of that do surpass this.  
7. fourthly, that power is greater, to which even the Princes themselves are subject, then that, to which the subjects and people only are subject, not the Prince (for though the Prince be subject to his own saws quoad vim directivam, yet not quoad vim ●perciuam) but the Prince is subject to the spiritual powet of the Church, as much as ●he lowest and meanest of his subjects; ergo ●he spiritual power of the Church is more ●minent than the Temporal power of the Prince or Common Wealth. The Mayor proposition is evident. The Minor I shall groove in the next Chapter. wherefore the conclusion must needs follow.  
8. Hitherto I have proved that the spiritual and Ecclesiastical power is more ●minent and noble than the Temporal, ●nd consequently that the spiritual is ●igher in dignity; but whether it can command, correct, kerb, or restrain the temporal, I have not as yet either proved or declared; for many things are more high in dignity than others, which yet have no authority to command or punish: As for example, the Protestants of this time will not let to grant that the Pope is the highest Patriarch in dignity, yet they say he can not command out of his particular Diocese of Rome; and all Divines grant, that the power of the Church is more noble, than any power of Princes or Emperors, that being spiritual and supernatural, this only temporal, and yet they say that they that are not baptised, be they Princes or subjects, are not subject unto it, so as the Church can command or punish them spiritually; And the King of France is more eminent in dignity, than any of the noblest subjects of England or Spain, and yet hath no authority to command or punish them for faults committed out of his Realm Wherefore it resteth that I prove that the Church by her spiritual and Ecclesiastical power can command all Christians, even Heretics that are baptised. And this, besides what hath been said in the former Chapter to the proof thereof, I shall briefly, yet clearly, show by these ensewing arguments.  
9 For first, the Ecclesiastical superiors are true Pastors of the Church; ergo they can not only direct, but command, and correct, at least by spiritual pains and chastisements. The Antecedent I prove out of scripture. Pasce oves meas; Feed my sheep, 
joan. 21.  said Christ to S. Peter and his successors, and all Pastors in their kind. 
Ad Eph. 4.  Christ (sayeth S. Paul) gave to his Church, some Apostles, some Prophets, and other some Enangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors. 
Act. 20.  And the same Apostle speaking to Pastors saith: Attendite vobis etc. Attend to yourselves, and your whole flock. To which purpose also S. Peter addeth saying; 
1. Pet. 5.  Pascite qui in nobis est gregem Dei. Feed the flock of God which is in you. The consequence I prove, because to a Pastor it belongeth not only to feed by Sacraments, and the word of God, but also to rule, to govern, and correct, and consequently the Pastors of the Church can make laws, which bind all Christians their subjects in conscience, and they can correct and punish ●he delinquents, at least by spiritual chastisements of Excommunication, and other Censures.  
10. 
Mat. 18.  secondly Christ gave power by his Apostles and successors to bind and lose, which argueth jursdiction.  
11. thirdly the Apostles, and their successors, have used this Authority over Christians: 
Act. 15. 1. Cor. 5. Tit. 1. 1. Cor. 7. 2. Cor. 10  for they enacted laws in their first Council. Saint Paul excommunicated the ●ncestuous Corinthian; They appointed Bishops and Priests to govern particular Churches; Saint Paul distinguisheth his ●wne power of making laws from Christ's: And he saith. Arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt, sed potentia Deo ad destructionem munitionum etc. The weapons of our Warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the destruction of munitions, destroying Counsels, and all loftiness extolling itself against the Knowledge of God etc. and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, etc.  
12. fively, I prove it by a Theological Argument. By Baptism Christians are made true members of the Mystical body of Christ's Church, no less than subjects are of the Kingdom or Political body, 
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 real, supernatural, and indelible Character; But all members are so subject to the head, that the head by Authority may command, correct, and punish them, if they transgress; ergo the Pastors of the Church, and especially the chief Pastor hath jurisdiction over all those that are baptised, be they true Christians, or Heretics, or Apostates. This I confirm by this congruence. Every one is bound to the laws of the Realm, in which he was borne, by reason that his nativity in that place, maketh him a true member of that Kingdom, as our Sovereign Liege himself well observeth: 
In praef. monitor. pag. 12.  And seeing that Baptism is a regeneration and new nativity, by which we are borne in the Church, (for even the Children of Heretics, though they be baptised by Heretics, if they be truly baptised, are borne in the Church) it followeth that all that are baptised, are bound to obey the Church, and chief Pastor of the Church, to observe her laws, and may be punished by the Church, if they transgress the same; else the Church, which is the most eminent state and Common wealth, should be inferior unto the lowest and meanest Political common wealth that is; for there is no lawful common wealth, but it can make laws, and punish the transgressors.  
13. Sixthly, the Church is an absolute Common Wealth, and consequently hath Authority to make laws, to appoint spiritual Magistrates, to call Counsels, and to decide controversies, to correct and punish Heretics and Blasphemers, and all sin, which are properly opposite to her government, and Ecclesiastical peace: but this supposeth a legislative an commanding, and not only a directive, but also a coercive power; ergo the Church and especially her chief Pastor Christ's Vicaire, hath such Authority. 
l. 2. ff. de Iurisd. omnium jud. cap. Praeterea, de officio delegati.  This Argument I confirm thus: The Civil law telleth us: Cui iurifdictio data est, ea quoque concessa esse videntur, sine quibus iurisdictio explicari non potuit: To whom jurisdiction is granted, those things also seem to be granted, without which the jurisdiction could not be explicated. And again: 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 receiveth full power over all things which are known to pertain to the cause: But the Pastors of the Church, as is manifest out of the alleged places of scripture, have Authority to govern and rule the Church, and all the members and subjects thereof; ergo they have authority to do all those things, which are necessarily belonging thereunto; but they should not have all power belonging thereunto, unless they have a Power Legislative, and not only directive, but also coercive, at least by spiritual pains over Christians▪ and the lay power, and temporal jurisdictions; ergo their spiritual power is not only above the temporal in dignity, but also in authority and power of commanding, else they had not sufficient power to govern the Church, which is committed unto them.  
14. But because this verity will appear more by that, which I shall allege in the next Chapter, to prove that the Pastors of the Church have spiritual authority over Kings and Emperors; I will here make an end desiring all wordlings and Politikes, who so inculcare obedience to Princes and secular power, not to forget their duty and obedience to the Church, and her Pastors. who have Authority as well as princes, and greater than theirs; and to think also with themselves, that he that will not obey the Church, 
Mat. 18.  is to be held as an Ethnic and publican; and that, 
Deut. 17  if he that stubbornly refused to obey the High priest in the old law was to die for such disobedience, what punishment remaineth for them, who contemn Church and Pope, which yet are in dignity and power as fare above the synagogue, and her priests and Bishops, as the verity surpasseth the figure, the body the shadow, the gift the promise, Christ Moses, Christ's preisthood that of Aaron, Christ's sacrifice and Sacraments, those of the jews and synagogue.   

CHAPTER V.  
Ecclesiastical and Temporal peers and princes are compared together, and out of the Comparison is gathered, that not only private laymen, but even temporal princes, though otherwise absolute, are subject to the pastors of the Church, and especially to the supreme visible pastor, as is proved by many arguments.  
1. I intent not by this comparison to detract the least from Kings and Princes; 
Nazianz. orat. 17. ad ciues timore perculsos. Psal. 81.  for I acknowledge their Authority to be of God, themselves the Images and sons of God, according to that. Ego dixi Dij estis, & filij excelsi omnes: I said: you are Gods, and the sons of the highest all. I will not let to give them, in a good sense, those high titles, with which the Romans and Grecians styled them, who called them Filios Deorum, Deos terrae, Ioues mundi, The sons of Gods, Gods of the earth, and jupiters' of the world: for as God is the supreme Monarch of the world, so are they of their Kingdoms, in the government whereof, they imitate the Monarchical government of the world. I grant that a King in respect of the laity, is as the eye and head in the body, as she sun amongst the planets, as the Cedar amongst Trees, as gold amongst metals, as fire amongst the Elements, as the sea amongst waters. I will willingly acknowledge him the second person after God, and only lesser than God in temporal Authority. 
Tertul. l. adversus Scap. c. 2.   
2. But yet it is not one of Kings lest honours to acknowledge them selues sons of the Church, 
Ambros. orat. in Auxentium.  as S. AMBROSE told Valentinian the Euiperour. And therefore as Priests are content to give to the King and Prince that honour, which is due unto them: so Princes must not disdain to give to Priess their due respect and right. Princes, I grant, are called Gods by participation, and the anointed of God: so are Priests, and in this kind greater Gods than they, because they approach nearer unto the true God, and only God by essence, who therefore is called Deus Deorum, 
Psal. 49. & 135.  God of Gods; and their consecration and anointing being a Sacrament, is fare holier than that of Kings; for which cause CONSTANTIN called the bishops of NICE his Gods, 
Ruf. l. 1. Cap. 2.  and would not be judge of them, to whose judgement he was to stand: and as Princes are Kings, so are Priests, and by so much greater Kings than they, by how much it is more to be a King of souls, than bodies. wherefore the scriptures alleged in the former Chapter, which give to the spiritual power a superiority and authority over the temporal, do prove also that Bishops, and especiallig the High and chief Pastor, are even Kings, Pastors, 
joan. 21  and superiors. For when Christ bade PETER feed his sheep, he made him Pastor over all Christians; and so the King, if he willbe a sheep of Christ, must be a sheep of PETER, and consequently of the Pope his successor, 
Mat. 18.  and must acknouwledge him his Pastor. And When Christ said: Dic Ecclesiae etc. Tell the Church, and if he will not bear the Church, let him be unto thee is an Ethnic and Publican, Did he exempt Princes from the Church's Tribunal? And when he said: What soever you shall bind upon earth, 
Mat. vlt.  shall be bound in heaven, were Princes excepted? No, no. If Princes will be members of the Church, they must be subject to the visible Head thereof: If they will be sheep of Christ, they must acknowledge PETER, and the Pope his successor, for their Pastor.  
3. Neither can their temporal sovereignty exempt them, for that only maketh them so absolute, that they are subject to no temporal power, yet remain they notwithstanding subject to the spiritual power of the Church, and as subject, as the lowest Christian; and have no more command over the Church, than the meanest of the people. True it is, that they are defendours, (or aught so to be) and Protectors of the Church, Pastors and superiors they are not, but sheep and inferiors; And therefore after that the Prophet Esaye had said: Erunt Reges nutritij tui etc. 
Esai. 49.  King's shall be thy nourcing Fathers; to show that this importeth no superiority over the Church, he addeth: With countenance cast down toward the ground, they shall adore thee (the Church) and they shall lick up the dust of thy feet.  
4. And this I prove first by reason grounded in faith and Divinity. For the King by Baptism is made as truly a member of the Church, as the meanest Christian, and is incorporated as deeply by the Character of Baptism, as any, he is regenerated and borne again, as much as any, else he should not be so good a Christian as others; And seeing that by this incorporation and nativity (as is before declared) the Pastors, especially the chief Pastor, who is Head of this body, hath power over all Christians; it followeth that he hath also power over Kings; and so as the King can punish rebels & Malefactors & cast them out of the Realm by banishement, so may the Chief Pastor punish a rebellious King, especially by spiritual censures, and may cast him out of the Church by excommunication; else the Church were inferior to all political bodies, yea to a natural body, which hath authority for its own preservation, to cut of a rotten member, lest it infect the whole, and to expel by purgation a malignant humour. Neither is there any reason, why in this point we should put any difference betwixt the King, and another of his own subjects. For although he be superior in temporal matters to all his subjects, and is to be obeyed of them, yet is he subject in spiritual matters to the Church's Pastors, as much as his meanest subject.  
5. And so it is not in the free choice of a Christian, though baptised amongst Heretics, when he comes to years of discreation (as ERASMUS, and LUDOVICUS VIVES do absurdly hold) to observe, 
Erasmus paraph. in Mat: Ludovic. Viues in come. l. 1. de ciu. Dei cap. 27.  or not observe the Christian law, because he is bound to keep the promise, which the Church, and his Godfathers made in his name, no less than Pupils are bound to stand to that, which their Tutors have done in their name, and for their profit; and go he where he will, be he of what religion he will, he carrieth an indelible Character imprinted by Baptism in hi● souls, by which the Church hath authority over him, as over a member de iure & debito, and can command him to observe the Christian law, as also punish him, if he disobey, though he were an Emperor, at least by spiritual punishment.  
6. secondly, two Princes independent in one community, would make a confusion, unless the one were subject to the other, and to be directed by the other. Wherefore Aristotle (as above I have alleged) sayeth that Pluralitas Principatuum non est bona: 
Arict. l. 12. Met. cap. vlt.  Plurality of Principalities is not good: to wit, in one community, and unless one of them be subject; for the one might hinder the other, the one might command one thing, the other clean contrary, and so there would arise contention and confusion; But the Church and common wealth of Christians is one body and Community, at least materially, if not formally; ergo these two Princes, to wit, the spiritual and temporali, must have some subordination: But there is no reason, that the Prince should direct, and correct the Pastor, he being the greater Prince, & having an higher power, as it is above proved; ergo seeing that both Pastor, and Prince are of God, and what is of God is rightly ordained, 
Rom. 13.  and with good order; it followeth that the Chief Pastor must be superior, and must direct, and correct the Prince, as much as is necessary to the Church's end and good.  
7, thirdly, the chief Pastor, and sometimes also inferior Pastors, as Bishops, have challenged to themselves as due, Authority over Princes, and have excommunicated and laid spirituail punishements upon them; whom to condemn as unjust usurpers (they being so many, so wise, so upright, and many of them holy Saints) were mere madness; ergo the Prince is subject in spiritual matters, yea and temporal matters also, when they are necessary for the Churches good, and may be commanded, and punished, at least spiritually, if he refuse to obey, he being in this case the Pastors' subject, and inferior.  
8. 
Eus. l. 6. hist. c. 25 alias 27. Nicephor l. 13. c. 34. Vide Baron. an. 407. Card. Alan. Ausu. 1. polibeller. Cap. 2.  So we read that FABIAN Pope commanded PHILIP the first Christian Emperor to take his place amongst the public Penitentes: so INNOCENTIUS the first excommunicated Arcadius the Emperor and Eudoxia the Empress, for persecuting S. john Chrrsostome. The excommunication beginneth thus: Vox sanguinis fratris mei Iohannis clamat ad Deum contra te (o Imperator) sicuti quondam Abel justi contra Cain, & is modis omnibus vindicabitur. The voice of the blood of my brother john (Chrysostome) cryeth to God against thee, as Abel's blood in times past did against Cain, and it by all means shallbe revenged. The sentence followeth in these words: 
Zonara's tom. 3. Annal.  Itaque ego minimus & peccator, cui Thronus Magni Apostoli Petri creditus est, segrego & reijcio te, & illam, à perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri: Therefore I the least, and a sinner, to whom the throne of Great Peter is committed, do segregate and reject thee and her (Eudoxia) from participation of the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God. Of which Pope S. HIEROME giveth this commendation: 
S. Hieron. epist. 8.  Illud te pio charitatis affectu praemonendum puto, ut S. Innocentij, qui Apostolicae Cathedrae, & supradicti viri (Anastasijs) successor, & filius est, teneas fidem, nec peregrinain, quantumuis tibi prudens callidaque videaris, doctrinam recipias. That I thouht out of charity to admonish thee, that thou hold the faith of S. Innocentius, who is the successor and son of the sea Apostolic, and of Anastasius: neither do thou recedue any strange doctrine, seem thou to thyself never so wise and witty. GREGORY the second in a Council at Rome Anno 726. 
Vide Baron. an. 729.  excommunicated Leo the Emperor surnamed Isauricus and Iconomachus, and took from him his Gabelles in Italy, and the Province itself. 
Greg. l. 3. ep. 5. & 10. & l. 7. ep. 14. Vide Baron. an. 1076.  GREGORY the seventh, (commended by all, but only Schismatics & Heretics, for a Saint (as he who wrought miracles as well living as dead) excommunicated HENRY the fourth Emperor of that name, for many enormities, threatening moreover excommunication to all Princes, Kings, & Emperors, that should usurp Inuestitures, as the same Emperor had done. Also he interdicted the Kingdom of Polonia, and excommunicated the King BOLESLAUS for killing Stanisldus his Bishop at the Altar, because like a good Pastor he had before controlled his lust, and excommunicated him. 
Platina in vita Innoc. 3●  ALEXANDER the third excommunicated Frederick the first; and if Henry the second King of England had not submitted himself, he had excommunicated him also, as he was solicited thereunto by Lewis the King of France. INNOCENTIUS the third excommunicated Otho the fourth Emperor of that name. 
Cap. ad Apostolicae descent. & re judic. in 6.  GREGORY the ninth against Frederick the second, JOHN the twenty two against Ludovicus Bavarus, INNOCENT the third against King john of England, VRBAN the second against Philip the first of France, and other Popes against other Princes, have said the like severity, 
Albert. Pighius l. de visib. mon. cap. 17. Mat. Paris. ann. 1204. Baron. an. 1101.  even to these our days; and in all their Epistles to Kings and Emperors they call them Sons, and speak to them as to their sheep and subjects.  
9 Yea not only Popes, but even Bishops have the like Authority over Kings and Emperors: as the Archbishop of Toledo over the King of Spain, The Archbishop of Canterbury over the King of England, The Archbishop of Rheims ovet the King of France, 
Gregor. Naziâz. orat. 17. ad Pop. timore perculsun, & prino. Iras. Vide cap. suscipitisne. dist. 10.  and other Bishops over other Kings. S. GREGORY Nazianzen challenged authority over Valentinian the Emperor; for in an Oration which he made to his Citizens stricken with Fear, and to the angry Prince and Emperor, converting his speech to the Prefects, and even to the Emperor himself, thus he speaketh: An me liberè loquentem eqno animo feretis? Nam vos quoque potestati meae, meisque subsellijs lex Christi subijeit; Imperium enim ipsi quoque gerimus, addo, etiam praestantius ac perfectius, nisi verò aequum est spiritum carni fasces submittere, & caelestia terrenis cedere. Sed non dubito, quin hanc dicendi libertatem (o Imperutor) in optimam partem accepturussis, v●pote facrimeigregis ovis sacra, Magnique Pastoris Alumna, rectèque iam inde à primis annis à spiritu ducta & instituta, Sanctaeque & Beatae Trinitatis lumine aequè ac nos ipsi illustrata: Will you take in good part that which I shall speak freely? For the law of Christ doth subject you also unto my power and Tribunals: for we also bear rule, and have an Empirè, and that more eminent and perfect, unless a man should think it fit for the spirit to be subject to the flesh, and that things celestial should yield to things that be terrene. But I doubt nor (o Emperor) but that thou wilt take in good part this my freedom of speech, as being a holy sheep of my holy flock, brought up under the Great Pastor, and so from tender years well guided and instructed by the spirit, and illuminated by the light of the Holy and blessed Trinity, no less than we ourselves. S. AMBROSE excommunicated Theodosius for a slaughter committed, 
Theodoret. lib. 5. hist. cap. 18.  and a civil law enacted at Thessalonica, and would not admit him into the Church, till he had done penance, and recalled the former law, Ita demum (sayeth Theodoret) Diuw Ambrose vinclis illnm exoluit, & templum introire sidelissimus Imperator ausus, non stans, neque genibus flexis supplicabat Domino, sed pronus humi stratus. So at length S. Ambrose absolved him from the bonds of his excommunication, when as the most faithful Emperor presuming to enter into the Church, did not either standing or kneeling make his prayers unto our Lord, but lying prostrate upon the ground. And when the Emperor, after he had been at the Ossertorie, would have stayed in the Chancel, S. Ambrose sent him word by a Deacon, that that was the place only for Priests and those of the Clergy; which commandment also the Emperor obeyed so willingly, that when afterwards at Constantinople the Patriach Nectarius would have had him stayed in the Chancel, he answered; Vix cum gemitu didici discrimen inter Imperatorem & sacerdotem; vix inveni Doctorem veritatis: I have scarcely learned with sorrow the difference betwixt the Emperor and the Priest; I have scarcely found a Doctor of the truth.  
9 fourthly I prove this, not only by the facts of Popes, but also by their definitions, in which Popes are to be credited, though in their own cause, because most, if not all of them, were so learned, that they knew what belonged to their Authority, and so just, and holy also, that they would not usurp what belonged not unto them. ADRIAN Pope maketh this decree; 
Cap. vl●. Suorum capitulorum etc. gencrali 25. q 1.  Generali decreto statuimus ut execrandum Anathema, & ve●uti praeuaricator Catholicae fidei semper apud Deum reus existat, quicunque Regum vel Potentum deinceps Romanorum Pontificium decretorum censuram in quocunque crediderit vel permiserit violundam. We ordain by our General decree that he be before God, as an Anatheme, and as a Prevaricatour, whosoever of the Kings or potentates shall think or permit to be violated in any thing the censure of the Roman Bishops, 
Cap. duo sunt dist. 96.  and decrees. GELASIUS Pope having told Anastasius how by two powers. Ecclesiastical and Temporal, the world is governed, and that the Priest's burden is so much the greater, in that they are to answer for Kings comportement in the divine judgement, he addeth: Nosti itaque inter haec ex illorum te pendere iudicio, non illos ad tuam redigi posse voluntatem. Thou knowest therefore that thou dependest of their judgement, and that they are not to be subject to thy will. And therefore (sayeth he) many Popes have excommunicated diverse Kings and Emperors. Pope JOHN also saith. 
Cap. si Imperator dist. 96.  Si imperator Catholicus est, (quod salua pace illius dixerimus) filius est, non Praesul Ecclesiae. If the Emperor be a Catholic (by his good leave be it spoken) he is a son, not a Prelate of the Church. And afterward he addeth: Imperatores Christiani subdere debent executiones suas Ecclesiasticis Praesulibus, non praeferre, Christian Emperors must submit their executions unto Ecclesiastical Prelates, and not prefer. 
Cap. solita de ●nior. & a-bed.  INNOCENTIUS the third sayeth, That as God in the beginning of the world created two great lights, the Sun and Moon, and appointed that to rule the day, this the night; so in the firmament of the Church he hath placed two great lights, to wit, Regal and Ecclesiastical power; that to rule the night of Temporal things, this the day of spiritual things. And this (saith he) is by so much greater than that, by how much the Sunne surpasseth the Moon. And again in the same place he saith, That CHRIST excepted no Christians, when he commanded PET●R, and in him his successors, to feed his sheep, ut alienum à su● demonstraret ovili, qui Petrum & successores eius, Magistros non recognosceret, & pastors: To show that he is an alien from his flock, who doth not acknowledge PETER and his successoures to be his Masters and Pastors.  
10. fively, I prove it by the Authority of Fathers and Bishops, that were no Popes, 
Ambr. orat. in Auxent. quae extat. lib 5. epist eius post epist 32.  yet great Saints. S. AMBROSE speaketh in this point plainly: Soluimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, & quae sunt Dei Deo; Tributum Caesaris est, non negatur: Ecclesia Dei est, Caesari utique non debet addici; quia ius Caesaris esse non potest Dei templum. Quod cum honorificentia Imperatoris nemo dictum potest negare. Quid enim honorificentius quàm ut Imperator filius Ecclesiae esse dicatur? We have paid to Caesar what things belong to Caesar, and to God what is appertaining to God. Tribute belongeth to Caesar, and is not denied him: The Church is Gods, and therefore is not to be given to Caesar: because the Church of God can not be Caesar's right: Which no man can deny, but that it is spoken with the Emperor's honour: for what more honourable than that the Emperor should be called the son of the Church? And then say I, if he be a son, he is a subject, no less than the son to the father. The same Doctor in a book wrote of Priestly Dignity, saith yet more: Honour & sublimitas Episcopalis (sayeth he) nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. 
Lib. de dignit. sacerd. cap. 2.  Si Regum fulgori compares, & Principum Diademati, longè erit inferius, quàm si plumbi metallum ad auri fulgorem compares: quip cum videas Regum colla, & Principum, submitti genibus sacerdotum, & exosculatis ecrum dexteris orationibus eorum credant se communiri, The honour, dignity, and Highness of a Bishop cannot be equalised by any comparisons. If thou compare it to Kingly lustre, and the diadem of Princes, thou shalt say less than if thou shouldst compare lead to the glittering gold: for as much as thou seest Kings and Princes necks submitted to the knees of Priests, and them selues kissing their right hands to be waranted by their prayers. 
Hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae.  S. CHYSOSTOME: Regi corpora commissa sunt, sacerdoti avima. Rex maculas corporum remittit, sacerdos autem maculas peccatorum. Ille cogit, hic exhortatur. Ille necessitate, hic consilio. Ille habet armasensibilia, bic arma spiritualia. Ille bellum gerit cum Barbaris, mihi (sacerdoti) bellnm est adversus Daemons. Maior hic Principatus, propterea Rex caput submittit manui sacerdotis: & ubique in veteri scriptura sacerdotes inungebant Reges. To the King bodies are committed, to the Priest souls. The King forgiveth the punishments of the body, the Priest the blottes and blemishes of sins. He compelleth, the Priest exhorteth; he by necessity, this by counsel; he hath sensible weapons, this spiritual; he makes war against the Barbares, I (the Priest) am to wage battle against the devils. Greater is this Principality, and therefore the King inclineth his head to the hand of the Priest: and every where in the old Testament, Priests did anoint Kings. And again: Siquiden sacerdotium Principatus est, 
Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae.  ipso etiam regno venerabilius ac maius etc. Because Priest hood is a Principality, and that greater and more venerable than the Kingdom. Speak not to me of the purple and diadem, and golden robes; these all be but shadows, and more vain than springe flowers. Speak not to me of these things, but if thou wilt see the difference betwixt a King and a Priest, way the power given to them both, and thou shalt see the Priest fitting much higher in dignity then the King. For a though the Throne of a King seem to us admirable, for the precious stones, wherewith it is covered, yet he hath allosted him only the administration of earthly things. But to the Priest a throne is placed in heaven, and he hath authority to pronounce sentence in heavenly businesses. Who saith so? 
Mat. 18.  The King of the heavens himself: What soever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall lose upon earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven. What can be compared with this honour? from earth heaven taketh the principal power of judging. For the judge sitteth on earth, our Lord folioweth his servant; and whatsoever he shall judge here below, that he approveth above. And a little after: Eoque Deus ipsum regale caput sacerdotis manibus subiecit, not erudiens, quod hic Princeps est illo maior. Siquidom id quod minus est, benedictionem accipit ab eo, quod praestantius est. And so much God hathsubmitted the King's head to the hands of the Priest, teaching us that this Prince is greater than he; for he that is less, receiveth benediction from him that is greater. Yea S. CHYSOSTOME giveth not only Bishops, but also even Deacons, 
Hom. 33. in Matth. & hom. 83. in eund.  authority over Kings: Si dux igitur quispiam (sayeth he) si Consul ipse, si qui diademate ornatur, indignè adeat, cohibe ac coërce; maiorem tu illo potestatem habes. If therefore any Capitaine or Consul, if he that is adorned with a diadem, approach unworthily, keep him back and restrain him; thou hast greater power than he. And to this purpose we read that S. Re. MIGIUS the Apostle of France, 
Histoire de l'Eglise de Reins lib. 1. cap. 13.  a little before his death, commanded the Bishops to excommunicate the Kings of France, if they should waste or invade the Churches. But above all most forcible is the testimony of. 
Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn.  S. IGNATIUS an Apostles scholar, who so extolleth Princely dignity, that yet he gives the precedence unto the Bishop's authority. Honora Deum (saith he) ut omnium authorem & Dominum &c. Honour God as the Author and Lord of all, and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests bearing the Image of God, and holding his princedom of him, and his Priesthood of Christ. And after him you must honour also the King. For none is to be preferred before God, nor equal to him; nor none more honourable in the Church than the Bishop, exercising the Priesthood of God for the salvation of the world. Neither is any equal to the King, in the Host or Camp, procuring peace and benevolence to the other Princes under him. For he that honoureth the Bishop, shallbe honoured of God, and he that dishonoureth him, shall of God be dishonoured. For if any man rising against the King is worthy of damnation, how shall be escape God's judgements that attempteth any thing against, or without the Bishop? For Priesthood is the Chief and sum of all man's good; which wh● soever disgraceth, dishonoureth God, and our Lord JESUS Christ the Chief Priest of God.  
11. Sixthly, this I prove by Emperors and Kings proper confession, who all of them have acknowledged Bishops, and especially the Chief Bishop of Rome, their Fathers, Pastors, and superiors, and those, that have supreme authority ovet them. CONSTANTINE the Great in an ●ict of his shortly after his baptism ●saieth thus: 
Cap. Constantinus 2. dist. 96.  Vtile iudicavimus etc. ut sicut in terris Beatus Petrus Vicarius filij Dei videtur esse constitutus, it a etiam & Pontifices, qui ipsius Principis Apostolorum vices gerunt, Principatus potestatem, amplius quàm terrenae Imperialis Nostrae Serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur, concessam à nobis, nostroque Imperio obtineant. We have judged it profitable, that as blessed Peter is appointed the vicar of the son of God in earth, so also Bishops, who are Vicegerents of this Prince of the Apostles, should have more amply the power of principality granted by us and our Empire, 
Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 2.  than our terrene Imperial Serenity seemeth to have. And Russinus relateth how that, when certain Bishops assembled at the Council of NICE offered him Memorials, in which were complaints and accusations of one another, he said to them: Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque iudicandi, & ideo nos à vobis rectè iudicamur. Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus iudicari; propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate iudicium, & vestraeiurgia, quacumque sunt, ad illud divinum reseruentur examen. Vos etenim nobis à Deo dati est is Dij, 
Psal. 81.  & conveniens non est ut homo iudicet Deos, sed ille solus, de quo scriptum est: Deus stetit in Synagoga Deorum, in medio autem Deos Diiudicat. God hath constituted you Priests, and hath given you power to judge even of us, & therefore we are rightly judged of you: But you can not be judged of men: for which cause do you expect only God's judgement betwixt you: and your differences what soever they be, let them be reserved to the othre examination. For you are given of God to us as our●●oddes, & it is not convenient that a man should judge Gods, but he only, of whom it is written: 
Psal. 81.  God stood in the Assembly of Gods, and in the midst he judgeth Gods. JUSTINIAN the Emperor in his sixth Constitution confesseth the same, 
Authent. Quomodo oportet Episcopum, etc.  saying: The greatest gifts of God among men is the Priesthood, and the Empire, of which two, the former having the administration of divine things, the other of hamane, both proceeding of one beginning, do adorn man's life etc. CHARLES the great useth this manner of style. 
Cap. In memoriam, dist. 19 Vide Baron. tom. 9 an. 801.  In memoriam Beati Petri Apostoli honoremus Sanctam Romanam & Apostolicam Sedem, ut qnae nobis Sacerdotalis est matter dignitat is, esse debeat Ecclesiasticae Magistra rationis: Quare seruanda est cum mansuetudine humilitas, ut licet vix ferendum ab illâ sede imponatur iugum, tamen feramus, & piâ devotione toleremus. In memory of Blessed Peter the Apostle let us honour the holy Roman and Apostolical Seat, that she which is to us the mother of Pristlie dignity, should be the mistress of Ecclesiastical discipline and affairs. Wherefore humility is to be kept with Mansuetude; that although a yoke scarcely tolerable should be imposed upon us from that Seat, yet let us bear it, and let us suffer it with a pious devotion. And in his Epistle to Pope ADRIAN thus he writeth. Sanctissimo Patri Adriano summo & Vniver sali Pontifiei, Carolus Dei gratia Rex, & spiritualis silius vester. To our most holy Father Adrian the Chiefest and Universal Bishop, Charles by the Grace of God King, and your spiritual son. 
Ludou. Rex. in epist. ad Pium 2.  King Lewis in an Epistle to PIUS the second styles him in this manner: Beatissimo Patri nostro Pio Papae secundo Obedientiam filialem. To our most Blessed Father Pope Pius the second, filial Obedience. And afterwards thus he writeth: Te Vicarium Dei viventis eâ veneratione prosequimur, ut sacra tua monita, praesertim in Ecclesiasticis rebus, velut vocem Pastoris audire promptâ ment velimus. Te Dominici Gregis Pastorem prefitemur, & scimus, teque iubentem sequimur. We bear thee the Vicaire of the living God such respect and reverence, that we will hear with a prompt mind thy sacred admonitions, especially in Ecclesiastical matters, as the voice of our Pastor. We profess and know thee to be the Pastor of our Lords flock, 
Nangius de gest is S. Lud. & Surin vitae eiusdem Aug. 25.  and we follow thy commandment. King LEWIS the Saint, and ninth of that name, gave this commandment to his son PHILIP: Sis devotus & obediens Matris Romanae Ecclesiae, eiusque Pontifici, tanquam Patri spirituali, te morigerum praebeas. Be thou devoted, and obedient to thy mother the Roman Church; and be thou obedient to her Bishop, as to thy spiritual father.  
12. The Kings of SPAIN, as being surnamed CATHOLIC, yield not in this point to the most Christian Kings of France. 
Vide Cïe. Later. sub Leone X. sess. 2.  FERDINAND professeth himself Filium Sancta Romanae Ecclesiae Matris nostrae deditissimum: The most devout son of the holy Roman Church our mother: and withal pro eius honore atque statu animam ponere paratissimum: To be most ready to expose his lise for her honour and state. 
Rox Alphons. in suis Legibus, Part. 1. tit. 5. l. 1.2.3.4. & 5. Carol. 5. in Edict. wormat.  King ALPHONSE in his laws calleth the Pope Patrum Patrem, Father of Fathers, and sayeth that therefore all Christians, when they have access unto him, do kiss his feet. CHARLES the fifth in his Edict made at Worms, in which he condemneth Luther and his book, calleth LEO the Tenth Beatissimum Patrem, Most blessed Father, and styles himself Sedis Apostolica Sanctaeque Ro●anae Ecclesiae primarium filium & Aduocatum. First Son and Advocate of the Sea Apostolic and the hodie Roman Church.  
13. Neither are our Kings of England behind them in this devotion. King LUCIUS the first Christian King of the Britons, although he might have found some preachers, which were the remnant of those that were converted by joseph of Arimathia and as many think by S. Peter himself, or at least might have found nearer help out of France yet to show his reverend conceit of the Sea Apostolic, sent Ambassadors to Pope ELEUTHER us obsecrans ut per eius mandatum Christianus fieret. 
Beda lib. 1 hist. Angl. ca 4.  Beseeching that by his commandment he might be made a Christian. INAS King of the West-English, in sigue of Homage to the Chief Pastor, 
Westmon. an. 727. Polid. Virg. lib. 4. hist. Angl. Alredus in vitae S. Eduardi. Polid. lib. 6. hist. Angl.  made his Kingdom tributary to the Pope of Rome, and set a tax upon every house called Peeter-pences, S. EDWARD King and Confessor giveth this title to Pope NICHOLAS the second: Summo universalis Eeclesiae Patri Nicholas, Edwardus Gratia Dei Anglorum Rex debitam subiectionem & obedientiam. To the chiefest Father of the universal Church Nicholas, Edward by the Grace of God King of the English, offereth due subjection and obedience. And in the same Epistle he writeth how he sendeth Peter-pences unto him, with other Royal gifts. King OSWIN long before, 
Beda lib. 3. cap. 25.  when there was a controversy about the time of observation of EASTER, and COLMAN Bishop had said, that he received his manner of celebrating EASTER from S. john the Euangeliste, and WILFRID said that he had his manner from Rome, and Saint Peter, to whom it was said: 
Mat. 16.  Tues Petrus etc. & tibidabo claues regni Caelorum; Thou art Peter etc. and to thee will I give the keys of heaven; The King having heard both, spoke in this manner: If it was said to Peter, I will give thee the keys of heaven: I say unto you then, that this is the Porter, whom I will not contradict, but as much as I know or can, I desire to obey in all things his statutes, lest when I come to heaven gates, there be none to open them to me. This said that Religious King, and this was his respect to the Sea Apostolic. 
Epist. ad joan. III.  KENULPHUS King of the Mercians, writing in his own, and all his Bishops, 
Vide Malmes. lib 1. de gest. Reg. Angl.  and Nobilities name, beginneth his letter in this humble manner: To my most holy and well-beloved Lord, LEO, the Roman Bishop of the holy and Apostolic Sea, Kenulph by the Grace of God King of Merchland with the Bishops, Dukes, and all degrees of honour with in our Dominions, with health of most sincere affection in Christ; and afterwards he sayeth: The sublimity of the Sea of Rome is our health, and the prosperity thereof our continual joy: Because whence you have your Apostolical dignity, thence had we the knowledge of the true saith. Wherefore I think it sit that the ear of our obedience be humbly inclined unto your commandments. And then demanding the Pope's benediction for the better government of his people, and resistance of foreign foes, he addeth: This blessing have all the Kings, who swayed the Mercian Sceptre, deserved to obtain at your Predecessors hands. This same do I in humble manner request, 
Malmes. lib. 3. de gest is Pont in Wilfrido. Malmes. lib. 1. de gest. Pont. Angl. Westm. an. 854. Bale Gent. 2. cap. 20.  and desire to obtain of you (most holy Father) first by way of adoption to receive me as a child, as I love you in the person of a Father, and shall imbrate you with the whole force of obedience. And afterwards he makes mention of a token of an hundred and twenty Mancuzes, which he requesteth him to accept. King ETHELDRED received the letters of Pope JOHN the seventh upon his Knees. King ETHELWOLPH sued to the Pope for a dispensation: sent his son Alfred to the Pope to be instructed, and sent Peter-pences, and made all England tributary to the Roman Sea. King ALFRED surnamed the Great, 
Malmes. lib. 3. de gest. Reg. Angl. Fox. Act. & Mon. pag 166. & 167. Stow. an. 1066.  of whose valour, learning, and Piety, our Chroniclers writ wonders, in his Preface before the Pastoral of S. Gregory, which he translated into the Saxon language, calleth him Christ's Vicaire. King WILLIAM the Conqueror offered to try his Title with Harold before the Pope, and after got his Title approved at Rome. He wrote an Epistle to GREGORY the seventh, in which he confirmeth the Tribute of Peter pence, which the Kings of England, 
Lib. 5. hist. Ang. Cambd. in Britan. pag. 350. Malmes. lib. 3. de gest. Reg. & lib. 1. hist. novel. Florent. Vigour. in Chron, an. 1107 Matth. Paris. pag 96. Houed. an. 1131. Fox. pag. 192. Fox. pag. 193. Houed. pa. 502.  even from King INAS, paid to the Pope, as Polidore Virgil writeth, in sign of reverence and subjection to the Roman Sea. King HENRY the first, surnamed Beauclerd for his knowledge in the seven liberal Sciences, built a Church at Dunstable, and by the Authority of Pope EUGENIUS the third, (as Cambden confesseth) placed there Canon Regulars; he yielded the investiture of Bishops, and entertained most honourably Pope INNOCENT the second, and caused him to be admitted through out all France. He wrote a letter to Pope PASCHAL, which Fox setteth down, and giveth him this Title. To the venerable Father PASCHAL chief Bishop; and at the same time (as the same Fox relateth) he wrote another letter to the said Pope demanding the Pall for Gerard Archbishop of York. King HENRY the second, though for a time he contended with Pope ALEXANDER the Third, yet after the death of S. THOMAS of Canterbury, 
Fox. pag. 227. Coop. an. 1072. Bal. cent. 3. cap. 4. Houed. par 2. Annal. pag. 677.  he permitted Appeals to the Pope, and submitted himself and his Kingdom unto his pleasure. King RICHARD surnamed Coeur de Lion, son to HENRY the second, wrote a letter to Pope CLEMENT the second, with this Title: To his most Reverend Lord and Blessed Father by the grace of God CLEMENT chief Bishop of the holy Apostolic Sea. and a little after: The facts of Princes (saith he) have better success, 
Houed. pag. 706.  when they receive assistance and favour from the Sea Apostolic. 
Matth. Paris. & Houed. an. 1190.  And so when this King went to the holy Land, he left the care and government of his Kingdom unto the Sea Apostolic. King HENRY the third, when the Pope sent a Legate into England (as Matthew Paris relateth) met the Legate at the Sea coast, 
Matth. Paris pag 589. Fox. act. pag. 287.  and bowing his head to his knees, conducted him: and after writing a letter to Pope INNOCENT, he calleth him most holy Father, and Lord, and Chief Bishop, and offereth Kisses to his blessed feet. King EDWARD the thiad writing a letter to the Pope, 
walsing. pag. 150.  which Walsingham serteth down, sayeth, That it is heresy to deny the Pope's judgement praesidere omni humanae creaturae. to preside over all humane creatures. The same King writing to Pope CLEMENT useth this submission. To his most holy Lord Clement by the divine providence Chief Bishop of the sacred Roman and universal Church, Edward by the Grace of God King of France, and England, and Lord of Ireland, devout kisses of your blessed feet. And the same King, and all his Nobles anno 1343. assembled in the Parliament at Westminster, in a letter written to the Pope, 
Fox Act. pa. 383.  which Fox setteth down, calleth him Head of the Holy Church. King HENRY the sift, that warlike and victorious Prince, sent his Ambassadors to the Council of Constance called for the condemnation of Wickleph, 
Stowe. an. 1416  and there demanded and obtained that England might be called a Nation, and one of the four Nations, that own devotion to the Church of Rome. 
Fox Acts pa. 799. Georg. Lilius in Chron. an. 1506.  King HENRY the seventh anno 1506. sent three solemn Orators to Pope JULIUS the second, to yield his obedience according to the manner unto the Sea of Rome. Yea King HENRY the eight in the year 152●. dedicated his book against Luther to Pope LEO the tenth, which book I have seen signed with the Kings own hand in an English Character, for which the Pope gave him, and his successors, the Title of Defendor of the faith. That he acknowledged the Pope his Pastor, appeareth by this, that at first he made suit to him for a separation from Queen CATHERINE, but when he perceived he could not obtain his suit, then, and upon that occasion only, he exiled the Pope's Authority, and made himself Head, and the first Head of the Church of England, as may appear by that, which I have said of the known respect the Kings of England ever before bare to the Pope, and the Apostolical Sea.  
14. Seventhlis, I prove this by the ancient Ceremonies of kissing the Pope's feet, and other Homage, which no good Christian, though a King or Emperor, hath ever disdained, fulfilling therein the prophecy of Esay: Quam speciosi pedes Euangelizantis pacem? How beautiful are the feet of him that Euangelizeth and preacheth peace? 
Esay. 52.  And following therein the example of the three Kings, 
Matt. 2.  who adored Christ; and of the prime Christians, who brought the price of their Lands to the feet of the Apostles: 
Act. 4. & 5. Act. 10. Phocius in Nomo. con. Cap. Constantinus. dist 96. Naucler. lib. 2. gener. 18. Blond. li. 10. Mart. Polonus & Platina in Steph. 2. S. Ansel. Luc li. 1. Collecta. Plat. in Adria. 1. Baro. to. 12. anno 1130. Platina in Eugenio IU.  and of Cornelius, that fell at Peter feet. CONSTANTINE the Great, Greater for his humility, then for the greatness of his victories and Empery, honoured the Pope as his Pastor, and superior, and bestowed great temporal honour and Regalities upon him. JUSTINIAN the Great in the year 535. adored AGAPETUS Pope. JUSTINIAN the second crouching to Pope CONSTANTINE'S the first feet, embraced him. King PIPIN going to meet Pope STEEVEN, who was going to him into France for help, kissed his feet, and led his horse by the bridle into the Court and palace. CHARLES the Great would not be hindered by Pope ADRIAN the first from kissing his feet, as Platina writeth. LEWIS King of France, and HENRY the second King of England kissed humbly the feet of INNOCENT the second. SIGISMOND the Emperor in the Council of Constance worshipped Pope MARTIN, prostrate upon the ground. ALBERT Emperor of the West, and JOANNES PALEOLOGUS Emperor of the East, used the same submission to EUGENIUS the fourth in the Council of Florence.  
15. By this which hath been said, who is of so little insight, that seethe not, how Princes are, and aught to be subject unto the chief Bishop, and highest visible Pastor of the Church, which if Prince's also could see (as their conceit of their own Authority many times hindereth them from seeing) they would not encroach upon the Church as they do; they would not contemn her laws, but honour them as Oracles; they would not despise the Church's Pastors, but would as the ancient Christian Princes were wont to do, honour them above all terrene Potentates.  
16. And would to God our noble sovereign King JAMES had been trained up in the school of Christ's Catholic Church, in which our ancient Kings his Predecessors learned their duty towards the Pope; that rare and deep judgement of his would never have permitted him to think a Temporal King as great as the Pope, 
In praf. monitor. pag. 5.  to whom his Predecessors subjected their persons, Kingdoms, Crowns, and Sceptres, it would never have sunk into his learned head, that the Pope should be Antichrist, and consequently all his Predecessors the Kings of England, yea of Christendom, so wise, so pious, so warlike, so victorious, worshippers and favourers of Antichrist: he would never have incited the Emperor and Christian Princcs, 
In praef. monitor.  to curb him, restrain him, and to diminish that his Authority, which not they, but Christ gave him, by which he hath put the crown upon many an Emperor and King's head, by which all Christian Kings, and their Kingdoms have been maintained in Religion, wealth and prosperity: against which Authority, no temporal stairs have long prevailed, but like waves against the Rock, by persecuting it, have wasted and ruined themselves: which Authority was not given him, ex prima intention, to take away temporal Kingdoms from any, (unless by evil comportement they make themselves unworthy of all rule and humane society) but rather to conserve them, and to add unto them a new Crown and Kingdom of Heaven, for, non eripit mortalia qui regna dat Coelestia, he that giveth to man heavenly things, goeth not about to take away from him those that be earthly. Employ then (o noble sovereign) your rare wit, power and force to defend and protect this Authority, not to impugn it, show yourself worthy that Title of a Defendor of the faith, which was given to your Predecessors by the Sea Apostolic, not for impugning, but for defending her faith and Authority. Seek not to sack and raze that City, which is built upon a Rock; Think not to prevail against that Church, against which all the persecutions, schisms, and heresies, that have been raised against her, no, nor the forces or gates of Hell, could hitherto, or shall ever here after prevail. Seek not to sink the ship, which PETER ruleth, and at whose stern CHRIST himself sitteth: It may be by God's permission, tossed with winds, waves, and Tempests, but it can never be drowned; for as Pope GREGORY the nine once told an Emperor that thought by humane force and policy to sink her: 
Cuspinianus in Frederice.   

Niteris incassum navem submergere PETRI:  
Fluctuat; at nunquam mergitur illa ratis   

Thou strivest in vain S. PETER ship to sink:  
Float may it well; to drown it, never think.    

CHAPTER VI.  
That Princes, Kings, yea Emperors have no authority to govern the Church, or to make Ecclesiastical laws, neither to be accounted heads or Superiors, but subjects of the Church, though protectors and defendours; and therefore are modestly admonished of their duty and office.  
1. Almighty God, as he hath instituted two powers, terrene, and spiritual, Civil and Ecclesiastical, and hath distinguished them in Natures, objects, functions, & ends, so to avoid confusion, he hath placed them in diverse subjects. The terrene power he hath given to Princes and Magistrates, the spiritual and Ecclesiastical to Priests, Prelates, and Pastors, as above we have seen. For although there be no such natural repugnancy, but that these powers may consort in one, 
Ep. 126. ad Euag.  and the self same person (for as S. HIEROME saith; in the law of Nature the first begotten of every family, were Priests and Temporal Lords, Melchisedech also, and Moses, and the Machab●et were Priests and Princes) yet it is most convenient that these two powers should be separated; the King and Prince, by reason of his wars and Temporal Affairs, wherewith he is entangled, being not so apt to menage matters of the Church and Religion, the Prelate and Pastor being by office obliged to attend to divine matters, from which the menaging of common wealth's affairs would much distract him. And therefore as the Church came to greater perfection, 
Num. 27.  so were these offices given to distinct officers. For JOSVE was made Captain and Commander in Temporal things, 
2. Paralip. 19  ELEAZAR, was the High Priest, and chief in matters of the Church. AMARIAS' the High Priest commanded, in his, quae ad Deum pertinent, in matters pertaining to God, and ZABADIAS' was deputed to the government of those things that appertained to military affairs. And so from the first establishing of the law of Moses, the Temple and Synagogue was committed to the Tribe of LEVI, the sceptre and regal Authority was given to the Tribe of JUDA; in like sort in the law of Grace, when the Church came to her greatest perfection, Christ appointed particularly Apostles, Doctors, 
Ephes. 4.  and Pastors to govern the Church; and confirmed Princes in their temporal Authority, commanding that obedience should be given to the Pastor in spiritual matters, and to the Prince in temporal. 
Mat. 22 Rom. 13   
2. Wherefore least in giving one of these Potentates too much, 
Mat. 22  I may do injury to the other, I must follow our Saviour's Commandment, and so give to Cesar that which belongeth to him, that I take not from God and his Church, what appertaineth to them. And although in giving both but their due, I may perchance displease one, yet if I may have that indifferent audience, which the gravity and equity of the cause requireth, I hope to offend neither: and how soevet it happen, I had rather displease, then do wrong or injury. And whereas in our Island, by the sway of Authority and terror of laws, it hath been made High Treason to deny the Prince Authority in matters Ecclesiastical I protest, that what I shall say in this matter proceedeth not from any disloyal mind towards my Princes true Authority, nor from any itching desire I have to lay open the disgrace of my Country, which I would rather cover, if it were possible, with my own life and blood, and to discharge myself from all just imputation of Treason, I desire to have the leave, to plead this only for my defence that if this be Treason in me, not only all Catholic Priests, Doctors, and Prelates of the Church, but also all the ancient subjects, not only of England, but of all other Christian Countries, must incur the same imputation with me, because there was never Christians before our English Protestants, that gave Ecclesiastical power to Princes, and there was never King of England, or of any other Country what soever, that ever was so hardy, as to challenge such Authority, before King HENRY the Eight; which his Challenge seemed so preposterous and monstrous, that all the World stood, and to this day standeth, amazed at it, and even our Puritans at home, and all the new sects abroad, do abhor and dearest it. And I in this Chapter shall bring such Arguments against it, that I hope, that even our English protestants, who hitherto have adored it, will be ashamed hence forth to submit themselves to so monstrous Authority.  
3. My first Arguments shall be drawn from scriptures themselves. For if the King had any such Authority, than no doubt scripture (which ●s above we have seen, so often inculcateth Prince's Authority in matters temporal) would never have kept silent this Ecclesiastical power, if they had had any such, this being the greater, and more eminent: but scripture never giveth Princes this Authority, never commandeth Christians to obey them in Ecclesiastical matters, but rather giveth that Authority to Apostles, Bishops, and Pastors, and Commandeth obedience in this kind to them, not to Princes; ergo Princess have no Authority to command in Ecclesiastical matters. The Minor Proposition, in which only consists the difficulty, I prove out of those places of Scripture, which above I have alleged, and here will bring in again, yet to another purpose. For to S. PETER, no Temporal Prince, but an Apostle, and Pastor, was promised the headship of the Church, and consequently the sovereignty and supreme power of the Church. Tues Petrus, & super hane Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. 
Mat. ●6.  The Hebrew hath Thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. And seeing that to PETER it was said, Thou art a Rock; to him also, and not to CHRIST the Chief and independent Rock, nor to the faith of Christ, as our Adversaries would have it, it must needs be said, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, because the Relative, This, hath relation to him, that was spoken of immediately before, which was only PETER, not CHRIST, nor the faith of CHRIST; and therefore the Rock, and foundation of the Church and Head being all one, it followeth that PETER, and consequently the Pope his successor (for the Church after PETER'S time, had as much need, or rather more, of a Head and Pastor, as in PETER'S time, and none ever practised Authority over all the Church, but the Pope, as all Counsels and histories do witness) is the supreme Head of the Church, and so not every King, no, not any King in his Kingdom. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists Pastors and Doctors only, CHRIST gave to govern his Church, (as S. PAUL saith) not Princes: 
Ephes. 4. Mat. 18  To Apostles it was said; What soever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven; and what soeever you shall lose upon earth, shall be also loosed in heaven: 
joan. 20  Never to Princes. To Apostles it was said: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose you shall retain, they are retained: Never to Princes. Of Bishops and Priests it was said: 
Neb. 13.  Obey your Prelates, and be subject to them; for they watch, as being to render account for your souls: of Princes never; rather they by these words are commanded, also to obey. 
Act. 20.  To Bishops it was said. Take heed● to yourselves, and the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church, which he hath purchased with his own blood, to Princes never. To a Bishop it was said: 
Tit. 1.  For this cause I left thee in CRETE, that thou thouldst reform the things, that are wanting, and thouldst order Priests by Cities, as I also appointed thee; To Princes never.  
4. I will not deny but that Princes are to assist the Church by sword, sceptre, and Power, and to punish at the Church's direction, not only Thiefs and murderers, but also Heretics as CONSTANTINE and other Emperors did, I grant that they are nourcing Fathers, 
Isay. 49.  but no Superiors to the Church. And therefore if we read over both the old and new Testament, we shall never find, that any King, as King, meddled in the government of Ecclesiastical persons and matters.  
5. Bilson when he was Wardon of Winchester, wrote a book called The True Difference betwixt Christian subjection and  Rebellion: in which he striveth, but in vain, to prove that the Prince hath supreme Authority in causes Ecclesiastical, and government of the Church. And to prove this, he citeth Nabuchodonosor, Darius, 
Par. 2. pag. 191  the King of Ninive, Moses, joshua, David, Solomon, Asa, josaphat, Ezechias, Manasses, josias, and Nehemias, as though they had governed the Ecclesiastical affairs of the Synagogue. 
In Tortura Torti pa. 363.  So doth also D. ANDREW'S. But if I should grant them that all these were by God appointed Rulers of the Synagogue; yet could it not thence be inferred that Princes are to govern the Church of Christ. For first the Synagogue was more terrene and Less perfect than the Church; and so as their sacrifices and Priests were terrene in respect of ours, so God might have given them terrene Princes for their chief Ecclesiastical superiors, which manner of government is not to be made a pattern for the government of the Church of CHRIST, this being a more perfect common wealth, more spiritual, governed by more spiritual Pastors, enriched with a more spiritual sacrifice and Sacraments. secondly, if Princes than were rulers of the Synagogue, it was by God's special and Indiciall law, and seeing the judicial and Ceremonial laws are abrogated, they can not bind Christians; or if Bilson will needs have it, that Christian Princes must now govern the Church, because they then ruled the Synagogue, one might infer that the Ministers of England must be circumcised, and must offer calls, because then the jewish Priests did so. Wherefore that law as Ceremonial and judicial, being abrogated, we must look to the new law; in which not withstanding there is no one Text or example, that giveth Princes the rule of the Church. thirdly I answer that none of all the Kings alleged by D. Bilson and D. Andrew's did govern the Synagogue in Ecclesiastical matters, but did only assist the priests, that governed and punished Malefactors and transgressors of the law, 
Suarez.  according to the prescript of the law interpreted by the Priests, as Suarez in his answer to our sovereign hath learnedly declared.  
6. The second argument against Princes spiritual supremacy shall be this. If a Prince hath authority to govern the Church of his Kingdom, either he hath it precisely because he is a King, or because he is a Christian King; but by neither of these ways he hath it; ergo by no way he hath it. Not because he is a King; for Kingly power only meddleth with temporal and humane matters, and therefore Kings are called Humanae Creaturae, 
1. Petri. 2.  humane creatures, and they have their authority from the people in manner afore said, which people can give no Ecclesiastical power, that being spiritual and supernatural; yea if Kings as Kings had this Authority, than the Kings which reigned in the Apostles time, though Infidels, should have been Heads of the Church, although they were no members at all, and consequently NERO should have been Head of the Church, and all the Apostles, and the sheep of Christ had been committed to a Ravening Wolf; which though it be most absurd to imagine, yet TOMSOM, as BECANUS in his book entitled the English jar reciteth, is not ashamed to avouch, it saying: Omnes Principes etiam Pagani obiectiuè habent supremam potestatem in omnes omnino personas suorum subditorum, generatim in res ipsas, sive civiles sunt, sive sacrae, All Princes, even Pagans, obiectivelie have supreme Authority over all the persons of their subjects, and generally over their goods, whether they be Civil or holy. Not because he is a Christian King, because Baptism, by which he is made a Christian and member of the Church, giveth the King no new power, no more than it doth to others that are baptised: And therefore if before Baptism he be no Head of the Church, neither is he after Baptism, rather Baptism, as above we have seen, maketh him a subject to the Church, whereas before he was not, and only giveth him a new charge to obey, serve, and assist the Church. Whereby it may appear how fowlie Doctor ANDREWS was deceived when he said, That an Ethnic King, when he becometh a Christian, gaineth and getteth a new right and power over the Church and Spiritual matters: for these are his words: Quin Rex quivis, 
Tortura Torti pag. 40.  cum de Ethnico Christianus fit, non perdit terrenum ius, sed acquirit ius nowm in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus. Yea every King when of an Ethnic he becometh Christian, doth not lose his terrene right, but getteth a new right in the spiritual goods of the Church. And Citing Bellarmine he saith: 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 spiritual matters, whereas Bellarmine is too learned to make so gross an error, 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 Authority by a special Grant from God himself. This they may say, but with how little reason, may appear by that, which already I have handled in this Chapter; for I have proved out of scripture, that Christ gave all Authority concerning the government of the Church to his Apostles and their successors, and not any at all to Kings and Princes. Which because our state pleasers perceived well enough, they are enforced to play the jews, and to allege examples out of the old law, as D. Bilson and D. ANDREWS do, which examples not witstanding, as I have showed, do not first their purpose; for they knew, and D. ANDREWS confesseth (saying, Exemplum inde nobis snmendum est, 
Tortura Torti pa. 363.  cum in Testaemento novo nullum habeamus. Thence we must take an example, since in the new Testament we have none) that there is not one text or example in the new Testament that gives Princes any power over the Church, but rather giveth it from them unto the Pastors.  
8. thirdly if Princess were supreme Commanders in Ecclesiastical matters, and government of the Church, the government of the Church should not be monarchial which yet is the best government, 
Aristo●. l. 8. Eth c. 1● Plato in Poli. Senec. lib. 2. the Benef. Plut. in opusc. ●a de re Homer. 2. Iliad. justorat. ad gent. Athan. orat. ad Idola. Gypr. lib. de vanit. Idolorun. Mat. 16. joan. 21.  as Aristocle with all the best Philosophers, and ancient Fathers do affirm, and was in deed chosen by Christ for his Church, as the writers of this time prove out of scripture, and especially out of those words spoken to S. Peter. Thou art Peter and on this Rock, will I build my Church; and those also: Pafce oves meas, seed my sheep, but rather. if Kings were every one head of the Church in their Kingdoms, the government of the Church, should be Aristocratical, because the Church should be governed by diverse Princes which were most inconvenient in the Church, and subject to schisms and tumults. For if every King be supreme Head in his Kingdom, when a General Council should be called (as his Majesty of England desireth) I demand who should call it? The Emperor? the Kings of England, Spain, and France, though they give him precedence in place and honour, yet they pretend by prescription and other Titles to be quite exempt from him, and subject to none in temporal matters; And seeing that this supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters, either is not distinguished from their Regal Authority, or is necessarily annexed unto it, as they refuse to be subject in temporal matters, so might they in Ecclesiastical. The King of England? Why he rather than the King of France? The King of France? why he rather than any of the others? Yea if these Kings pretend not to be subject to the Emperor, much more may they claim exemption from one anotherr.  
9 If any answer that by Common consent they may either choose one to call the rest, or being all equal, they may meet altogether in one; neither will this serve: For as for the first means, it is morally impossible, because Kings, who have high aspiring minds, would never be drawn to subject themselves to any, and so whilst every one would be Chief, none should be Chief. The second means is as impossible for first, where shall they meet? Certes no King will easily leave his Kingdom; and so every one would be desirous to have the Council in his Country, yea every one would refuse to have such a meeting in his Kingdom for fear of danger. But suppose they meet, when they are met how shall they agree, especially they being commonly of diverse Religions? for if a King, in that he is a King, is to judge in matters of the Church, every King hath right to be of this Council, and so the Turk, the Persian, the Muscovite, shall have place in this Council. If you say that not every King, but only Christian Kings are Heads of the Church in their Kingdoms; then at least Catholic, Lutheran, and Caluinian Kings, must be of the Council; and how shall these agree, who shall moderate, seeing there is no more reason of one than another? If you say that Bishops must be the Men, that must make Decrees, and Canons, and conclude all in this Council; This they cannot do without Kings, if every King be supreme Head in their Country: and therefore it was enacted accordingly in the Parliament holden by King HENRY the Eight, in the twenty sixth year of his reign, That he should be reputed supreme Head of the Church of England, and should have all the honours, Authorities, and commodities belonging there unto; Amongst which honours the Principal, and that which is necessarily annexed unto the Headship of the Church is to call Counsels, and to sit as Chief judge in them. 
See Poulton. ●n his Abridgement of the statutes. Saunder. de Schis. Angl.  And Queen ELIZABETH had also granted unto her by a Parliament in the first year of her reign, all power for the correction and reformation of the Clergy, for the judgements and punishments of schisms and heresies, for nominating of Bishops, and for calling of Synods, and that with such ample Authority, that nothing should be decreed in any Synod with in the Realm, without express licence, and consent of the Queen: And if the Bishops in the Council 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 up the matter amongst them? If you say the Kings, I demand, who shall bear the sway amongst them? And so to make Kings Heads of the Church in their Kingdoms, is to hinder all General Counsels, which yet heretofore have been so oft assembled by the Authority of the Pope, to the great profit, peace, and unity of the Church.  
10. fourthly, if Princes in that they are Princes, or Christian Princes, were Heads of the Church in their Realm, than Children might be Heads of the Church, yea and women also, for they are capable of Regal Authority, whereas not withstanding 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. PAUL, 
1. Cor. 14  that commands women to be silent in the Church, would never have permitted such to govern the Church. And yet after King HENRY 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 woman succeeded also in the like authority.  
11. fively, to make enerie King supreme Head of the Church in his Kingdom, destroyeth the unity of the Church, for whereas there are three especial, and essential Unities in the Church, to wit, Unity of Head and one government, Unity of one faith, Unity of the same external profession and worship of God by the same rites and Sacraments; If we receive every Prince in his Realm for Head of the Church, these three Unities can not long be conserved. For as for the first Unity, though our Adversaries would say, that it may well be conserved in CHRIST, who is the principal, and only principal, and absolute Head; yet because CHRIST is now ascended to his Father, and converseth no more visibly amongst us, besides him the Church, which is a Visible Congregation and body, standeth in need of a visible Head, else should she be visibly headless and imperfect. And therefore as scripture hath declared CHRIST for our sovereign and invisible head: 
joan. 10  Vnum ovile, unus Pastor. One fold, 
Ephes. 1.  one Pastor. And again: Ipsum dedit caput supra omnem Ecclesiam. God the Father made him head over all the Church, which is his body: So doth scripture, and CHRIST himself in scripture, point out another underhead, and visible Pastor, 
Mat. 16.  saying: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church; and again. Pas●e oves meas▪ feed my sheep, that is all Christians; 
joan. 21  and so PETER was in his time, and his successor the Pope, now is Chief Head and visible pastor over all Christians, and consequently over all Bishops, even in a General Council, unless they will deny themselves to be the sheep of Christ. And this Unity was necessary to conserve the other Unities of faith, and eternal profession and worship of God by the same Sacraments. For diverse visible Heads would not so easily agree amongst themselves, it being a natural thing for men, in equal authority, to strive to draw all to their party. Whereupon S. CYPRIAN saith: 
Cypria. lib. 4. ep. 9 lib. 1. epist. 8. lib. de unit. Eccl.  That the Church is Plebs suo sacerdoti adunata. The people united to their Priest. And that Non aliunde natae sunt haereses, aut orta schismata, nisi quod uni sacerdoti Dei ab universa fraternitate non obtemperetur. Not from any other source heresies or schisms are risen, then for that obedience is not given to one Priest of all the fraternity. For why? Exordium ab uno proficiscitur, & Primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia, & una Cathedra monstretur. The beginning is taken from one, and the Primacy is given to PETER, that one Church and one chair may be showed. 
Cypr. ep. ad jubaianun. Hier. lib. 2. contra jovin.  And in his Epistle to jubaianus: Ecclesia, quae una est, super unum, qui Claues accepit, voce Domini fundata est. The Church which is one, is by the voice of our Lord founded upon one, who hath received the Keys. And S. HIEROME saith; Inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto, schismatis tollatur occasio. Amongst twelve one is chosen, that the Head being appointed, the occasion of schism may be taken away. But if we admit every King as Head of the Church in his Kingdom, we shall not have one visible Head, but many, and those also very diverse. For as Kings claim supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, because they are supreme Princes, for the same reason may the senate in Venice, Genua, and Geneva challenge the same Authority: Whence followeth, that unity in faith and Sacraments under so diverse Heads, cannot any long time be retained; but we should have as many Religions, as Kings, and as many diverse and independent Churches and Kingdoms for one King will not depend either for himself, or his people of an other.  
12. This division we see already proceedeth from these diverse Heads. Have we not seen how Religion in England hath changed with our Kings, since they challenged supremacy of our Church? King HENRY the Eight in the six and twentith year of his Reign, in the Parliament holden at Westminster, the third of November 1534. enacted that the King should be reputed the only supreme Head in earth of the Church of England, and should have aswel the Title and style, as all honours, authorities, and commodities belonging thereunto, and all power also to redress all Heresies, errors, and abuses in the same: and the year before also, the fifteenth of january, the King and Parliament decreed. That no Appeals should be made to Rome, no Annates or Impositions should be paid to the Bishop of Rome, no suits should be made to him, for licenre or dispensation. And yet in the Parlamet holden at Westminster anno Domini 1554. the first and second year of King PHILIP and Queen MARIE, obedience was restored to the Church of Rome, and all statutes repealed, which derogated to the Authority and honour of the Sea Apostolic, and the Title of the King's supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical was rejected. After this notwithstanding was the same Authority taken again by Queen ELIZABETH in the Parliament Anno Domini 1558. 
Anno 1. regni Elizab die 13. jan.  Likewise in the Parliament holden by King HENRY the Eight in the one and thirtieth year of his reign, and eight and twentith of April, and in the year of our Lord 1537. these six Articles were enacted: 
The Six Articles.  The Real presence of the true and natural Body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, without the substance of bread and wine. 2. That Communion under both kinds, is not necessary for the people. 3. That Priests cannot marry after Priesthood. 4. That Religious after their vows cannot marry. 5. That Private Masses are according to God's law, and to be allowed 6. That Auricular Confession is expedient, and necessary. And yet this statute was qualified and repealed by EDWARD the sixth his son, and as yet a Child, in the year of our Lord 1547. 4. Novemb. and first year of his reign: After that again the self same six Articles were received and confirmed in Queen MARY'S reign in the first Parliament an. Domini 1553. 24. Octob. and in another an. Domini 1554. Likewise King HENRY the Eight, in the Parliament holden the 22. of january and 34. of his reign in the year of our Lord 1542. condemned Tindals' Translation of the Bible, and all books written against the Blessed Sacrament, and forbade the Bible to be red in English in any Church, which statutes were repealed by King EDWARD at Westminster an 1. Edu. 6. Domini 1547. And yet the former statute of King HENRY, was renewed by Queen MARIE in the first year of her reign an. Domini 1553. and repealed again by Queen ELIZABETH in the first year of her reign. So that if Kings be heads of the Church, and have supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, we shall have as many Religions almost, as Kings. And even as King HBNRIE the Eight after his usurpation of the supremacy, changed his wives, and made his marriages lawful and unlawful, his children legitimat and illegitimat at his pleasure, and by Authority also of the Parliament, which durst not gainsay; so every King shall have authority to change religion, and must be obeyed as the only supreme Head in earth of the Church For as King HENRY the Eight, and his young Son King EDWARD, and his Daughter Queen ELIZABETH challenged Authority to redress errors, and correct heresies, to give validity to all Ecclesiastical laws and Synods; as King HENRY made it Heresy to deny the Real Presence, so another King of England, or of another Kingdom, may decree the contrary. As King HENRY forbade Priests to marry; so another King will permit them to marry. As King HENRY commanded the Bible's to be read, and divine service to be said, and song in Latin; so another will like better of the vulgar tongue of his own Country: and if you say, that the King is tied to the word of God, every one of them will say, that they follow the word of God, having the Authority to judge of heresies, and consequently of the true meaning of the word of God.  
3. Sixthly, if Princes were Heads of the Church, a ridiculous consequence, and of which even the Kings and Queens of England have been ashamed, would follow; to wit, that they may preach, minister Sacraments, excommunicate, call Counsels and sit as judges in them etc. For if the Prince be supreme head, he is also supreme Pastor of the Church of his Kingdom; for Head and Pastor in this kind is all one. 
In Tortura Torti.  And this D. ANDREW'S granteth and proveth by the example of DAVID, to whom the people said, That God had said unto him: Tu pafces populum meum Israel. 
2. Reg. 5  Thou shalt feed my people of Israel. Whereas there only mention is of a Temporal Pastor, government, and feeding as appeareth by the words following: Tu eris Dux super Israel. Thou shalt be Captain over Israel. 
Gen. 45.  And in this sense JOSEPH said: Ego te pascam. I will feed thee, meaning his father JACOB. So that if the Prince be Head of the Church, he is Pastor; but it pertaineth to the office of a Pastor to govern his sheep by laws, to feed them with bread of the word of God, 
Matt. 4.  by which the soul liveth, and the Sacraments, to sever an infected sheep from the flock, by excommunication, lest it infect the whole; and consequently, if the King be supreme head, he may make Ecclesiastical laws, propose the word of God by preaching, and true interpretation of it in Counsels, separate heretics from the sheepefould by excommunication, lest they pervert others. Yea, if the Prince be supreme Head of the Church, all Authority of preaching, administration of Sacraments, calling Counsels, judging, and defining in them, collation of Benefices, giving of orders, jurisdictions, absolving dispensing, excommunicating proceedeth from him. Wherhfore King HENRY the Eight, as he challenged the Title of supreme Head, so he challenged almost all this Authority, as we have seen. And to Queen ELIZABETH in the first Parliament, and first year of her reign, the like authority was granted. 
Vide Saunder. de Schis. Angl. fol. 149.150.151 See also Poultons' Abbridgement of the statutes.  For in that Parliament it was decreed, that she, her heirs, and successors should have all privileges, preeminences, prerogatives, and spiritual superiorities, which may be exercised, or had of any power, or man Ecclesiastical: That she, and her successors, should have all power of nominating and substituting whom she will to correct heresies, schisms, abuses, and to use all authority, which an Ecclesiastical Magistrate may do. There also it was decreed, that no Synod should be called, but by the Prince's letters and commandment, and that a Bishop should not be nominated or elected by any other, than the Prince's Authority, nor should exercise any jurisdiction, but at the Queen's pleasure, nor otherwise then by Authority from her Regal Majesty. And hence it is, that the Prince writeth to the Archbishop in this manner: For as much as all jurisdiction, as well Ecclesiastical, as secular, proceedeth from Kingly power, as from the Head; we give thee Power to promote by these presents to holy Orders etc. And the Archbishop of Canterbury useth this style: We N. by the Divine permission Archbishop and Primate of England authorised sufficiently by the Kings or Queen's Majesty etc. This argueth that in England all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to excommunicare, absolve, to preach, and minister Sacraments, to call Synods, to decree in them, to make Ecclesiastical laws etc. proceedeth from the Prince, as from the Head and fountain; and consequently seeing that what Authority the Prince giveth to others, he hath himself, he may excommunicate, make Ecclesiastical laws, call Counsels, sit as supreme judge in them, as others by his Authority do. And seeing he can give to others jurisdiction to give Orders, he may also minister Sacraments, preach, and teach; for this Authority he giveth to others. And therefore as in all Common wealths, the Prince can do those things, which his inferior Officers do, though it be not always so convenient; so, if all Ecclesiastical power proceedeth from the King as from the Head and fountain, look what the Bishops and Ministers can do by Authority received from him, that he also himself may do; which yet is so ridiculous, that our Princes hitherto have been ashamed of many of those offices; and as we shall see anon, even the Protestants of England, when they are pressed, are ashamed of this monstrous Authority.  
14. Seventhlie if Christian Kings (for few of our Adversaries dare say that Pagan Kings have Ecclesiastical Authority) be heads of the Church; it followeth that till CONSTANTINE, or PHILIP, the first Christian Emperor's, the Church was without a head for three hundred years. If you say that S. PETER, and his successors were heads till CONSTANTINE, than I demand, who deposed Pope SYLVESTER, when CONSTANTINE came to be Christian, and consequently Head? or if S. SYLVESTER was not deposed, than it followeth that there were two Heads at once, and those not subordinate.  
28. eightly I prove this, by Kings and Emperor's Confessions. And as touching Kings, we have seen their Confessions in the former Chapter. As for Emperors, CONSTANTINE (as we have seen) called the Bishops of the Nicen Council, 
Ruffinus li. 1. cap. 2. Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Constant. cap. 24.  his Gods and judges; and as Eusebius reporteth he was wont to say to Bishops: Vos o Episcopi, intra Ecclesiam, ego extra Ecclesiam à Deo Episcopus constitutus sum. You, o Bishops, in affairs with in the Church, I in matters without the Church am appointed pointed Bishop by God. Meaning that he was to be a vigilant Prince, in the government of the Empire, but not to meddle with Ecclesiastical affairs. And therefore when the Donatists in a matter pertaining to the Churches deciding, appealed from a Council of Bishops holden by Pope MEICHIADES, unto him; Non est ausus (sayeth S. 
August. epi. 162.  Augustin) Christianus Imperator sic eorum tumultuosas & fallaces quaerelas suscipere, ut de iudicio Episcoporum, qui Romae sederant, ipse iudicaret. He durst not so to admit their complaints, as to judge of the Bishops who in Rome had sit in judgement. Yea OPTATUS sayeth, 
Optat. lib. 1. cont. Parm. circa finem.  That when he saw they appealed in such a matter unto him, he exclaimed: O rabida furoris audacia, sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. O Wood mad audacity of fury, they have interposed an Appellation as is wont to be done in the causes of Gentiles. 
Tortura Tort. pa. 174.  Whereas Doctor ANDREWS saith that CONSTANTIN delegated the Bishops to hear the Donatists cause, I demand whereon he groundeth that? for if he might delegate, he might have judged of the Bishop's sentence, and yet S. AUGUSTIN sayeth he durst not, And although at last, overcome by their importunity, he heard them, yet not as judge, but as an Arbiter. THEODOSIUS the younger sent Count Candidianu● to the Council of Ephesus With this caveat, That he should not meddle in Ecclesiastical matters; because, illicitum est eum, qui non sit ex ordine sanctissimoram Episcoporum, sese Eccelesiasticis immiscere tractatibus; It is unlawful for him that is not of the order of most holy Bishops, to intermeddle himself in Ecclesiastical treaties, and affairs. But Doctor ANDREW'S answereth, 
Tortura Torti pa. 175.  That it is no good Argument to say; A Count can not meddle in Counsels, ergo an Emperor cannot. But he should have remembered that this Count was sent to supply the Emperor's place, and therefore if he, as the Emperor's Ambassador, could not meddle in Counsels, neither could the Emperor himself. He should also have marked the Emperor's reason, which was, because it is unlawful for him, that is not of the order of Bishops, to meddle in Ecclesiastical affairs; which reason aswell excludeth the Emperor as the Count, unless Doctor ANDREW'S will make all Kings and Emperor's Bishops. VALENTINIAN the elder said, 
Sozom. 16 ca 7. & 2.1.  Sibi, qui unus è laicorum numero erat, non licere se huiusmodi rebus interponere: It was not lawful for him, who is one of the laiety, to meddle in such matters: And although Doctor ANDREW'S would expound Zozomen (who reporteth this speech of the Emperor) by Nicephorus, 
Hist. Tri. part. lib. 7. c. 8.  who reporteth the Emperor to have said; Mihe negotiis occupato, & Reipublicae curis distento, res huiusmodi inquirere non facile est; It is no easy for me, who am busied with businesses, and distracted with the cares of the Common wealth, to take notice of these matters: as though the Emperor had authority to meddle in Counsels, but was not at leisure; yet the greek word. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with Doctor ANDREW'S leave, 
Tortura Torti pag. 174.  signifieth not facile but, fas, as he may see in BUDAEUS, and consequently that the Emperor meant that it was not lawful for him to intermeddle in such matters. And this meaning NICEPHORUS his next words do argue When he saith: Vos autem quibus haec procuratio mandata est: But you to whom this procuration is committed. The same meaning also do ZOZOMENUS his own words following insinuat: Et ideo Sacerdotes & Episcopi, quibus haec curae sunt etc. And therefore Priests and Bishops who have care of these things. So that the Emperor meant, that he could not only not be at leisure, but also that it was not lawful for him to meddle in Counsels. Yea he was so fare from intermeddling in Ecclesiastical matters, that when the Bishops assembled at Milan, desired him to nominate the Bishop of Milan; he wrote to the Bishops to choose such a one as to whom (said he) we that govern the Empire may incline our heads, because, saith he, supra nos est talis electio: such an Election passeth our Authority.  
16. Ninthlie, This the ancient Fathers have taught, and told even Emperors to their faces. ATHANASIUS: 
Epist. ad soli. vitam agentes.  Si istud est iudicium Episcoporum, quid commune cum eo habet Imperator? etc. If this belong to the judgement of Bishops, what hath the Emperor to do with it? And a little after. Quando à condito aevo auditum est? quando judicium Ecclesiae Authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit? aut quando unquam hoc pro iudicio agnitum est? Plurima ante haec Synodi fuere, multa judicia Ecclesiae habita sunt. Sed neque Patres istiusmodi res principi persuadere conati sunt, nec Princeps sein rebus Ecclesiasticis curiosum praebuit. When from the beginning of the world was it heard, when did the judgement of the Church take her Authority from the Emperor? Many Synods before these times have been, many judgments of the Church have been given. But neither did the Fathers persuade the Prince to meddle in those matters, neither was the Prince so curious as to intermeddle in Ecclesiastical matters. Yea in the same Epistle he addeth: Quis enim videns eum (Constantium) in decernendo, 
Ibidem.  Principem se facere Episcoporum, & praesidere Ecclesiasticis iudiciis, non merito dicat, illum eam ipsam Abominationem desolationis esse? For who seeing him (Constantius) making himself Prince of the Bishops in decerning, and bearing Authority over Ecclesiastical judgements, may not worthily say that he is the Abomination of desolation? And in that very Epistle he often times calleth CONSTANTIUS the Precursour of Antichrist, for arrogating Authority in Councils, and over Bishops, and for entermeddling in matters appertaining to the Church. HOSIUS Cordubensis, 
Athan. Apol. pro fuga, purum ab initio.  whom Athanasius calleth vere Osium, that is, a Saint, and of whom he giveth this commendation: In what Synod was not he the Captain and Ringleader? Whom did not he by defending the truth draw to his Opinion? What Church doth not keep the monuments of his Presidence? HOSIUS, I say thus highly commended by S. ATHANASIUS, being urged by Constantius to communicate with the Arrians, and to subscribe against Athanasius, 
Athan. epist ad soli. vitam agentes.  wrote unto the Emperor in this manner. Believe me (saith he) who may be thy Grand father, I was in the COUNCIL of SARDIS, when thou and thy Blessed brother CONSTANS called us thither etc. What Bishop there, was banished? or when did he intermeddle himself in Ecclesiastical judgements? And then he giveth th' Emperor this wholesome Counsel, worthy to be followed of all Princes: Desine, quaeso, & memineris te mortalem esse, etc. Leave of, I pray thee, and remember, that thou art a mortal man. Fear the day of judgement: Keep thyself pure for that day. Do not intermeddle thyself in Ecclesiastical matters, nor do thou command us in this kind, but rather learn those things of us. God to thee hath committed the Empire, to us he hath given the charge of things belonging to the Church: and as he who with malign looks carp at thy Empire, contradicteth the divine Ordinance; so do thou take heed, least drawing that which appertaineth to the Church unto thyself, thou be made guilty of a great crime, Give, it is said, to Gaesar what belongeth to Caesar, and what appertaineth to God, to God. Wherefore neither is it lawful for us to hold the Empire in earth, neither haste thou, O Emperor, power over the sacrifices and holyes. 
Ambros. lib. 5. op. 32. ad Valens.  These things I writ for the care I have of thy Salvation etc. S. AMBROSE hath many notable sentences uttered by him with liberty and plainness worthy such a Prelate. Writing to VALENTINIAN the younger, who by the Instigation of his mother, urged him to a disputation or conference in matters of Religion in the Consistory before the Emperor, he refused, because the Emperor had nothing to do in such matters: neither (saith he to Valentinian the younger) ought any to judge me contumacious, seeing that I affirm that only, which thy Father of August Memory, did not only answer by speech, but also by his laws decreed, to wit, In causa fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicuius ordinis, eum iudicare debere, qui nec munere impar sit, nec iure dissimilis. Haec enim verba rescripti sunt. Hoc est, sacerdotes de sacerdotibus voluit iudicare. That in a cause belonging to faith, or to Ecclesiastical order, he should give judgement, who is neither inseriour in office, nor in Right unlike. For these are the words of the Rescript: That is, he would have Priests to judge Priests. And a little after: Quando audisti (Clementissime Imperator) in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo iudicasse? etc. When didst thou hear, o most Clement Emperor, that laymen judged a Bishop in a cause of faith? and again: Pater tuus Deo favente vir maturioris aevi dicebat: Non est meum iudicare inter Episcopos, etc. Thy Father, who by God's favour was a man of riper age, said: It is not my office to judge between Bishops; thy Clemency saith; I must judge, And he being baptised in Christ, thought himself unable to bear such a weight of judgement; thy Clemency, of whom the Sacraments are yet to be deserved, 
Orat. in Auxent. quae sequitur epist. citatam.  arrogateth judgement in a matter of faith, when as thou knowest not the mystieries of faith. And yet again to the same purpose he addeth: Soluimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari; & quae sunt Dei Deo etc. We have paid to Caesar what was Caesar's. Tribute is Caesar's, it is not denied: the Church is Gods, therefore it must not be given to Caesar; because the Temple can be no right of Caesar's. No man can deny, but that this is spoken with Caesar's honour. For what more honourable, then for the Emperor to be called the son of the Church? Which when it is said, it is said without sin, it is said with grace. Imperator enim bonus intra Ecclesiam, non supra Ecclesiam est: for a good Emperor is within the Church, not above the Church. The like liberty of speech he useth also in an Epistle to his sister Marcellina: 
Ambr li. 5. cit. ep. 33. ad Marcellinam sororem.  Mandatur denique; Trade Basilicam etc. To be brief, the Emperor's command is; Deliver up the Church. I answer, it is neither lawful for me to deliver it, nor expedient for thee. O Emperor, to take it. Thou canst by no law spoil or ransack the house of any private man; and thinkest thou that the house of God may by thee be destroyed and ruinated? It is alleged that to the Emperor all things are lawful, all things are his. I answer, do not (o Emperor) charge thyself, as to think that thou hast Imperial right over divine things. Do not extol thyself, but if thou wilt reign long, be subject to God. It is written: 
Mat. 22  What is Gods, to God; what is Caesar's, to Caesar. To the Emperor Palaces do belong, to the Priests Churches. To thee is committed the care and charge of public walls, not of those that be holy. If S. AMBROSE would not yield a Church or Chapel to the Emperor's disposition; would he, if he had lived in King HENRY the Eight his time, and in England, have permitted him to seize upon all abbeys, Abbay lands, and Churches belonging unto them? Or would he, or S. ATHANASIUS, or HOSIUS, have permitted him to sit in Parliament as supreme judge in matters, not only temporal, but Ecclesiastical? or if they had seen Cromwell appointed King Henry the Eights Vicaire General in Spiritual causes, taking place above all the Bishops and Archbishops in their Convocation, would not ATHANASIUS have called it the Abomination of desolation?  
14. 
Bilson in his Difference pa. 174. Andr. in Tortura Tortipa. 169. Field li. 5. de Eccles. cap. 53.  To this Argument Doctor BILSON, Doctor ANDREW'S, and Doctor FIELD answer, that Constantius and Valentinian the younger, were reprehended by these Fathers, not for meddling in Counsels and Ecclesiastical affairs, but for tyrannising over Bishops, and for partial and unjust dealing. But if these Fathers had meant no otherwise, they would not so absolutely have reprehended meddling in Ecclesiastical matters, but would only have inveighed against the abuses. For if a Pope, who is in deed Head of the Church, should abuse his Authority in Counsels or Ecclesiastical judgements; though even a Catholic, who takes him for supreme Head, might reprehend the abuse, 
Athan. supra.  yet he could not say to him as ATHANASIUS did to Constantius: If this be the judgement of Bishops, what hath the Pope to do with it? Nor could he say to the Pope, as he did to the Emperor: When was it ever heard from the beginning of the world? when did the judgement of the Church take Authority from the Pope? Neither could he have said to the Pope, 
Hosius supra.  as HOSIUS said to the same Constantius: When was the Emperor present (to wit as judge, for as Protector and hearer, he knew and saw CONSTANTIN the Great present in the Council of Nice) in Ecclesiastical judgements? Neither could he have said to the Pope, as the same HOSIUS sayeth to Constantius: Do not intermeddle in Ecclesiastical businesses; nor do thou command us in this kind, but rather learn these things of us. Much less could those words of S. AMBROSE, 
Ambros. supra.  which he so boldly spoke to Valentinian, have been suitable to the Pope, or any supreme Head Ecclesiastical: When didst thou hear, o most Clement Emperor, (Pope) that any of the laity (Clergy) judged Bishops in a cause of faith? Much less could these other words of S. AMBROSE have been fitting a Pope or any supreme head Ecclesiastical: A good Emperor (Pope) is in the Church, not above the Church. Nor could S. AMBROSE have denied so peremptorily to deliver a Church or Chapel to the Emperor, if he had deemed him supreme head of the Church: much less could he have alleged that reason of his denial: To the Emperor Palaces appertain, to the Priest Churches: for if the King be supreme Head of the Church, than Churches pertain to him as well as Palaces.  
15. But let us hear another Father S. 
Chrysost ho. 4. de verbis Isaiae. 2. Paral. 26.  CHRYSOSTOME; pondering the audacious fact of King OZIAS (who in the pride of his power, victories, and former virtues, arrogated to himself the Priest's office) hath these words: Rex cum esset, Sacerdotij Principatum usurpat. Volo, inquit, adolere incensum, quia iustus sum. Sed mane intra terminos tuos; alij sunt termini Regni; alij termini Sacerdotij. Being a King, he usurpeth the power of Priesthood. I will (saith he) offer incense, because I am just. But stay within thy limits. Others are the bounds of the Kingdom, others of the Priesthood. If then the King hath his limits prefixed, and contained within the Kingdom, it followeth that he cannot intermeddle himself as a superior in Eccles●asticall causes, but he shall pass his limits. The same Father in his next Homely hath these words, 
Chrysost. hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae.  which are worthy the marking: Quanquam nobis admirandus videatur Thronus Regius ob gemmas affixas, & aurum quo obcinctus est, tamen rerum terrenarum administrationem sortitus est, nec ultra potestatem hanc praeterea quicquam habet Authoritatis. Verum sacerdoti Thronus in Coelis collocatus est, & de coelestibus negotiis pronunciandi habet potestatem. Although the King's Throne seems to us worthy to be admired for the precious stones, wherewith it is beset, and the gold, wherewith it is covered, yet the King hath only the administration of terrene things, neither hath he beyond this power, any further Authority. But to the Priest a throne is placed in Heaven, and he hath power to pronounce sentence of heavenly businesses and affairs appertaining unto heaven.  
16. Tenthlie, I prove this verity by the Arguments wherewith in the former Chapter I have proved that King's Christian, by baptism are made subjects of the Church, as much as is the lowest Christian; and that not only Popes, but inferior Bishops have challenged superiority over them; which also Princes from the beginning have ever acknowledged. For if Princes in matters Ecclesiastical be subjects to Bishops and especially to the Chief Bishop, they can not in that kind be heads and superiors to Bishops.  
17. Lastlie, I prove this by out Adversary's confession, which is an argument ad hominem of no little force, because none is presumed to lie against himself. 
Calu. in cap. 7. Amos.  CALVIN pronounceth thus of HENRY the eight his supremacy: Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt HENRICUM Regem Angliae, certè fuerunt homines inconsiderrti: dederuut enim ills summam rerum omnium potestatem, & hoc me graviter semper vulneravit. Erant enim blasphemi, cum vocarent eum Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo. They who in the beginning did so much extol HENRY (the Eight) King of England, were men inconsiderate, for they gave him supreme power of all things, and this did always much aggreve me. For they were Blasphemous, when they called him supreaine Head of the Church under 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 very many points. And to him have subscribed our Puritans in England, and the Brethren of Helvetia, Zurich, Berne, Geneva, Polonia, Hungary, and Scotland, who all deny this supremacy of Kings in Ecclesiastical causes. Yea our Protestant's themselves, whilst they seek to avoid the absurdities, which above I have produced against this supremacy, and which Catholics have objected, do in effect despoil the King of all such Authority.  
19 
Becanus in Dissid. Angl.  For first, as BBCANUS hath told them, they are not agreed whether his Authority should be called Primacy, or Supremacy: nor whether he should be styled Primate, or Sovereign, 
Salclebr. pag. 140. D. And. in Tort. pag. 90. Tomson pag. 33.  Head, or Governor. SALCLEBRIDGE calls the King Primate of the Church of England: Doctor ANDREW'S calls his Authority Primacy; and yet TOMSON will not have this authority called Primacy, but Supremacy, because the former word argueth a power Ecclesiastical, and of the same order with that, which Prelates of the Church have; the last word he saith, signifieth not so much. And again he will not have it called Spiritual Authority, but Authority in respect of Spiritual things; 
Tomson. pag. 31. Idem pag. 95. Salcl. pag. 305  and he addeth that the King governeth Ecclesiastical things, but not Ecclesiastically. And yet SALCLEBRIDGE saith, that Kings anointed with sacred oil (what will he then say of Kings that are not anointed?) are capable of Spiritual jurisdiction. And whereas at the first by the Parliament anno Domini 1543 in the year 35. of HENRY the eight, it was decreed, That the King should be called supreme head of the Church, 
Poulton in his statute Tooker. pag. 3. Burhill. pag 133.  and that also under pain of high Treason; yet now TOOKER, and BURHILL will not have the King called head of the Church. And so in deed Queen ELIZABETH in the First Parliament, chose rather to be Governess of the Church, then Head.  
20. And as these men  in the name, so do they in the Power and thing itself. TOOKER saith, The King hath and can give, 
Tooker pag 305. Salclebr. pa. 140.  and take away all jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the outward court. SALCLEBRIDGE saith, the King can dispense in plurality 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 holy orders. D. ANDREW'S saith, he hath all external jurisdiction but Censures; yet BYRHIL denyeth him all jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, both in the inward and outward Court. SALCLEBRIDGE saith the King can give Benefices, create and depose Bishops: and yet TOOKER saith he can only nominate and present. BURHIL denyeth the King Authority to excommunicate, yea he saith he may be excommunicated. And the same doth also D. ANDREW'S and TOOKER maintain. But what a supreme Head is he, that can not cut of by excommunication an infecting, and infected member? What a Pastor, that can not cast out an infected sheep by Excommunication? And if he can not excommunicate, but rather may be excommunicated, it argueth, that he hath a superior, who can exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over him, and so he is not supreme Head of the Church. Wherefore Catholics, as they acknowledge the Pope supreme Head, 
Salcl. pag. 136.  so they say he can not be excommunicated by any. SALCLEBRIGE saith, that it is clearer than the sun, that Princes have determined controversies of faith in 8. Counsels: 
Tooker pag. 50. Bilson & caeteri infra citandi.  and yet TOOKER, as also D. BILSON, D. ANDREW'S, and D. FIELD (as we shall see anon) will not have the King called superior in matters of faith.  
21. After this doubting and varying, they proceed to a flat denial of the foresaied supremacy. 
In Tortura Torti pa. 170.  D. ANDREW'S hath taken a great part of the Supremacy from the King; for he confesseth, that the Emperor hath no Imperial right to divine things. These be his words: Non est in ea, quae divina sunt; Imperiale, sed neque Pontificale ius ullum. There is not (in the King) any Imperial, no nor Pontifical right over divine things. He addeth, that the King hath no right to dispose of Churches, which yet King HENRY the 8. challenged and practised to the ruin of ten thousand Churches in one year; For thus saith D. ANDREW'S: At illa divina hîc quae tandem? Aedes, Templa, Basilicae, neque verò in ea, quae ita divina sunt, Rex noster ullum sibi ius vendicet. 
Ibid. pa. 171.  And a little after he saith: That the King is no judge in a cause or matter of faith. And in the next page he seemeth to affirm and prove out of the Counsels of Constantinople, 
Pa. 172.  Antioch, and Carthage, that the King is not to be judge in the causes of Bishops. And the page next after that; 
Pa. 173.  In sacraments the King hath neither supreme, nor any power at all. And besides all this he addeth, that he cannot excommunicate: 
Pag. 151  Nos Principi (saith he.) Cenfurae potestatem non facimus. We do not grant the Prince or King any power to excommunicate etc. D. BILSON saith plainly, that the King hath Authority over the Persons of the Church, 
Bilson in his true difference, pag. 171 & 172. par. 2.  but not over the things of the Church, to wit, over the persons of the Bishops, but not over faith, Sacraments, material Churches, and such like. Which yet I see not how it can stand together; for if the King be supreme Head, not only over the Kingdom, but also over the Church, that is, of the persons of the Church; then as, because he is supreme Head of the Kingdom, he can command his lay subjects in temporal matters, as to pay Tribute, to obey temporal laws etc. so if he be supreme Head of the Church, and hath Authority over Clergy men, as Clergy men, he can command even Churchmen in Ecclesiastical matters, and can call Synods, determine controversies of faith in them, enact Ecclesiastical laws, and bestow Ecclesiastical Benefices; and so he shall have Authority, not only over the persons, but also over the things of the Church. And therefore as he that should say, that the King for the necessary good of the Common Wealth, cannot dispose of the Temporalities of the Realm, should in effect make him no King; so BILSON in saying, that the King hath no Authority over the spiritual things and graces of the Church, makes him no Head of the Church, nor superior over Church men, as Church men. For if the King be Head of the persons of the Church, he can command them as his subjects; And then I demand of BILSON, in what things he can command them? If in temporal things only, as to pay Tribute, to go to war etc. then is he King only of the Common wealth, but no Head of the Church: If in Spiritual things, as administration of Sacraments, decisions of matters of faith in Counsels etc. then hath he the administration of spiritual things, and hath authority, not only over the persons, but also over the things of the Church. But I need not wrest this from BILSON by force of Argument: for he no less plainly confesseth that the King is no Head of the Church. 
Bilson par. 2, pag. 240  These are his words. We confess Princes to be supreme Governors, that is, as we have often told you, supreme bearers of the sword, which was first ordained from above, to defend and preserve as well godliness and honesty, as peace and tranquillity amongst men. We give Princes no power to device or invent new Religions, to alter, or change sacraments, to decide or debate doubts of faith, to disturb, or infringe the Canons of the Church. Thus he. Whereby we see first how he derogateth from that authority, which King HENRY the 8, and Queen ELIZABETH challenged, and the former Parliament approved, for by that authority King HENRY the 8. exiled all the Pope's authority, forbade all Appeals to Rome, contrary to the ancient Canons, disposed of Abbays, and Churches without the Pope's authority etc. And by the same authority Q. ELIZABETH changed the sacraments, and all the whole face and hue of religion, and forbade Counsels to be called, or any thing in them to be decided without her consent. secondly we may see also hereby, how BILSON maketh the King no supreme Head, yea no head at all of the Church, but only a Protector and defender thereof: which Title all Catholics grant to Kings, acknowledging that the King is to defend the Church, to assist her by his temporal sword and Authority, that she be not hindered in calling Counsels and administration of the Church, yea and to punish heretics condemned by her, and delivered up to secular power. And no more doth BILSON grant. And so he denying the Prince to be head of the Church, and granting him to be only a protector and defender, is guilty of high treason.  
22. 
D. Field. lib. 5. de Eccles. cap. 53.  Doctor FIELD also in effect denieth this authority to the King: for he distinguisheth things merely Spiritual in this manner: Either (saith he) the power in these things is of order, or of jurisdiction; the power of order consisteth in preaching the word, in ministering Sacraments, and ordaining ministers; and in these things, saith he, Princes have no Authority at all, much less supreme authority. The power of jurisdiction standeth in prescribing laws, in hearing, examining, and judging of opinion in matters of saith, and things pertaining to Ecclesiastical order, and Ministry, and due performing of God's service; and in these the King can only by direction of the Clergy, make penal and tempor all laws for the Execution of Bishop's laws and Canons. Thus he. But to omit how aptly 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 omit also how he can possibly distinguish the powers of order and jurisdiction, he, and his Doctors denying all Characters, and making ordination nothing else but a mere deputation to such an office: I aver that D. FIELD in this contradicteth the former authority, which was given by Parliament to King HENRY the Eight, and King EDWARD his son, and Queen ELIZABETH his Daughter, as may appear plainly by the acts of Parliament above alleged; and he maketh the King no Supreme Head of the Church, but only an Assistant, Protector, and Defendor thereof, as I have showed against D. BILSON.  
23. Wherefore the Catholics of England have just cause to complain of severe dealing towards them; who many of them have been condemned to Premuniries, and cruel deaths for denying the snpremacie of the Prince in Spiritual causes, of which notwithstanding the leardnest of the Ministry make such doubt and question, as we have seen, yea deny it in plain terms. For if that care had been had of the King's Catholic subjects, which their number, antiquity, and loyalty seemed to require, this question of the Supremacy should have been better discussed, and more maturely resolved, before the Ministers should have preached it as necessary to be believed, and before Catholics should have been so severely handled for denying it, their own Doctors now varying so much, as we have seen, about the very name, and thing itself, and some of the leardnest amongst them, denying it as flatly as any Catholic can do.  
24. Remember then, O Kings, 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 o Kings understand your office, inform yourselves, o you that judge the earth, what belongeth unto you. You are judges of the earth and Common wealth, you are not to meddle with the Church, which is called, Regnum Coelorum, 
Mat. 13  the Kingdom of Heaven. You are, 
Isa. 49.  as Esaye calleth you, Nurcing Fathers, but no Governors of the Church; you are Protectors, and Defendours, and Assistants, obliged by sceptre and sword to assist her, and to punish her Rebels at her direction. You are subjects, no Superiors; sheep, no Pastors; Inferior members, no Heads; and your greatest honour and safety is to serve, not to rule the Church, to defend, not to invade her rights. Hearken, o Princes, to that wholesome counsel, which AZARIAS the High Priest gave to King OZIAS, 
2. Paral. 26. joseph. l. 9 Ant. cap. 11.  who would be meddling with the Priest's office. For when he being puffed up with pride of heart, took upon him to offer Incense in the Temple, and on the Altar of Incense, AZARIAS matching his Kingly pride with a Priestly Zeal, followed him at his heels, accompanied with fourscore Priests, and followed him (saith S. CHRYSOSTOME) non ut Regem eiecturus, 
Homi. 5. de verbis Isaiae.  sed ut profugum & ingratum filium expulsurus; not as though he were to cast out of the Temple a King, but a runagate and ungrateful servant, Followeth him as an eager Mastiff doth the beast to chase him out of his Lord and Master's house: and as one that took no care of the Kings threatening, feared neither his Guard, nor his Regality, nor his golden crown, nor his Kingly sceptre, nor his stern looks and Majesty, but with an undaunted courage, with a Constant countenance, and a free voice, that never had learned how to flatter, 
2. par. 26  he tells him as plainly, as truly: Non est tui officij, OZIA, ut 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 burn Incense to our Lord, but of the Priests, that is, of the Children of Aaron, which are consecrated to this kind of Ministry: Go out of the sanctuary, contemn not: because this thing shall not be reputed to thee for glory, of our Lord God. Vide (saith 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? Behold the freeness and plainness of a Priest; behold a mind that never knew how to be servile; behold a tongue that is heard to Heaven; behold an unrestrained liberty; behold the body of a man, the mind of an Angel; behold one treading on the ground, yet conversing in heaven. Let me, o Christian Princes, a Priest, not of AARON, but of Christ, use the like liberty against you, that invade the Churches right, and arrogate Priestly dignity. It is not thy office, o King, o Prince, to meddle in Church matters, or government of the Church, but it is the office of Priests and Prelates consecrated and ordained for that purpose. Dareth a Prince once offer to meddle in the Church's government? to sit as judge in her Synods? to pronounce sentence in her tribunals? to prescribe service in her Temples? Depart, o King, whosoever thou art, that art thus hardy, depart out of the sanctuary, command no more in the Church, if thou wilt command long and prosperously in thy Kingdom. Depart, I say, this is no place for thee. Contemn not my Counsel, lest thou pay for thy contempt, and be stricken with a leprosy in thy forehead for such impudency. It is no glory for thee, o King, to meddle in Church matters. It is a glory indeed, and as much greater than the office of a King, at it is more to govern souls than bodies, and to menage spiritual then temporal affairs: But it is no honour to a King, neither will it ever turn to the prosperity of him, or his Posterity. All the Ancient Kings, yea and Emperors also, so mighty in Arms, so rich in Treasure, so glittering in their Crowns, Sceptres, purple, and precious stones, so fortunate in War, so glorious in Victories, never dreamt of such ambition, but thought it their honour to be defendours, not rulers of the Church, subjects in Spiritual matters, no Pastors, Children no Fathers, Inferior members to the Church, no supreme Heads, and therefore submitted their sceptres to the Pastoral staff, their Crown to the Mitre, their Temporal swords to the spiritual glaives, their laws to the Canons, their Kingdoms to the Church, their persons to the Priests. And shall now a King, & a Christian King arrogate Ecclesiastical authority? If he will reign long over his subjects, let him permit the Church's rule, and command over him. If he will have God for his Father, let him acknowledge the Church for his Mother, himself a son, no Father, a subject in this kind, no superior.  
25. Hearken, o King, whosoever thou art that arrogatest Ecclesiastical jurisdiction or encroachest upon the Churches right and domains, unto S. AMBROSE his Counsel, which he gave to VALENTINIAN the younger. When didst thou hear. 
Supra citatus pag. 143  O most Clement King, that laymen were Bishops judges in matters of faith, and Church? do not trouble thyself, as to think that thou hast any Imperial right in divine matters: Give to God and his Church and Pastors, what is due to them, if thou wilt that thy subjects give to thee, what belongeth to thee o King. Give ear o King to grave Hos●vs his speech; Leave of, 
Ibidem.  O King, to intermeddle in such matters; remember thou art a Mortal Man, a King, no Priest, and reserve thyself pure and f●●e from such audacious attempts; command not Priests in Ecclesiastical matters, but rather learn such things of them, o Potentate, o Prince, o King. 
Nu. 16.  Hearken to AZARIAS Counsel, which he gave to King OZIAS: It is not thy office, o King, to burn Incense to our Lord; or if thou contemn AZARIAS his Counsel, fear OZIAS his leprosy. If thou wilt arrogate the Office of AARON, take heed least with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron, the earth devour thee or the fire consume thee. 
2. Ma●. 3.  If thou wilt rob the Treasure of the Temple, take heed the Angel of God scourge thee not with Heliodorus. 
2. Ma●. 9  If thou wilt spoil the Temple and kill the people of God, with Antiochus; If thou wilt destroy the Temple, with Nabuchodonosor; use profanely the holy vessels with Balthasar; profane the said Temple with Pompey and others, fear their infamous and miserable ends, knowing that there was never King nor Emperor, that rebelled against the Church, or persecuted her, especially since Christ's time, and since he shed his blood for her, that hath not had some miserable end or other.  
26. And to omit those Pagan Persecutors, Nero, Domitian, Dioclesian, Maximinian, julian; and others; 
a Zonar. & Cedr. in eius vira. Rhegino lib. 1. Chron. an. 5.8. Martin. Polon: in Anast.  ANASTASIUS the first Emperor of that name, for resisting the Pope, for favouring the Arrian heresy, and for disdaining to receive, or to admit to his sight the legates, whom HORMISDA Pope sent to him, was suddenly with a Thunderbolt, leveled at him from heaven, stricken to death. 
b Theop. Miscel. lib. 17. Cedrens. ●n Annal. Niceph. lib 18. c. 8. & seqq. & alij omnes.  MAURITIUS for his insolences against S. GREGORY, was driven out of his Empire, chased into an Island, where by Phocas commandment, himself, his wise, and children were miserable slain. 
c Procop. lib. 3. de Bello Goth. Nicep. li. 17. c 31. Vide Baron. to 7: an 565.  JUSTINIAN after many glorious victories, fell into a most hard fortune for his heresy and tyranny against VIGILIUS Pope; 〈◊〉 was infested on all sides with the Incursions of the Barbares, and at length by an invisible blow reached him from God, perished most miserably. 
d Earon. tom. 7. au. 561.  BELLISARIUS justinian's General over his Army, to whom he was so dear, that his portrait was printed in the one side of justinian's Coin, with this Title, Bilisarius Romanorum decus, Bellisarius the glory of the Romans, for his molestation of SILVERIUS, to grarifie thereby THEODORA the Empress, had, for suspicion of conspiracy against JUSTINIAN, his eyes pulled out, was despoiled of all his dignities, and forced in fine to beg. 
e Cedrens. in Anna. Paul. Diac. li. 20. rerum Roman. Baron. tom. 8. an. 713. Anast. in Vital. Baro. an. 668. Paul. Diac. lib. 19 rerum Rom.  PHILIPPICUS for his contempt of CONSTANTINE Pope, and propagating of heresy, was deprived of his Empire and his eyes also. f CONSTANS for persecuting THEODORUS Pope, and violently carrying away Pope MARTIN from Rome, was slain in a bathe, 
g Fascie. Temp. in Just. 2. Martin. Pol. in Just 2.  IVST●NIAN the second for infringing the Eight Synod, and molesting of SERGIUS Pope who refused to consent to his heresy, was deprived of his Empire, and besides that, of his nose and tongue. 
h Baron. tom. 11. an. 1080.  HENRY the Fourth Emperor excommunicated and deposed by GREGORY the seventh, as we have seen, was by his own son persecuted, holden in prison, and at length made a miserable end out of his own Country. 
i Neubr. li. 4. c. 13 Palmer 〈◊〉 in Chron. an. 1189  FREDERICK the first was drowned miserable in a river of Armenia, for punishment of the schism he raised against ALEXANDER Pope, as our NEVBRIGENS●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 own son, and died without Sacraments. 
l Geneb. lib 4. Chron. anno 2294. in Bonifacio 8.  PHILIP le BELL King of France after he was excommunicated and deposed by BONIFACE the Eight, never prospered as Genebrard la French man writeth. And after that BONIFACIUS was taken unawares by the deceits, which PHILIP used, a holy Bishop said: The King is glad he hath BONIFACE Pope in hold, but no good thereby will happen to him and his posterity; which Prophecy saith 
m Genebr. lib 4. Chron. anno 1315.  Genebrard, was shortly after fulfilled, for the King perished by reason of a Boar, that rushed betwixt his horses legs; three of his sons, that reigned after him, died one after another in a short space; their Queenes dishonoured them with their infamous adulteries; and the Issue of PHILIP failing, the contention betwixt our EDWARD the third, son of the Daughter of PHILIP le Bel, and PHILIP de Valois the son of CHARLES de Valois, PHILIP le Bel his brother, arose, which contention cost France very dear. And, to spare our times, as God threatened by his Prophet, 
Isai. 60.  that the Kingdom, that shall not serve the Church, shall perish, (as we see all Greece is lost by their heresies and schisms against the Roman Church, and England, Germany, and Holland, and other Countries, know not what punishment hangeth over their heads) so whosoever shall observe the course of times, and Histories, shall find that few Princes have long prospered, who have persecuted the Roman Church and faith, or have been by her excommunicated or deposed.  
26. Wherefore Kings and Princes that contemn and despise the Church, remember you are Men, and that your Kingdom is subject to a higher state of the Church. Fear her glaive, that striketh even the soul and spirit. And if you will reign long and prosperously here, imitate those Constantine's, Martians, Theodosius, Pipins, Charles the Great, Lewis, and others, who were more glorious for amplifying the Church's Immunities and Demaines, then for extending their Empire; more renowned for the Churches and Monasteries they founded, them for the Cities and Castles they builded; who by obeying, honouring, and enriching the Church, strengtned and enriched their Kingdoms, and have prospered in all their wars and battles. But I will end with S. BERNARD'S Counsel, which he gave to CONRADUS King of the Romans, 
Bern. ep. 183. ad Conrade. Regem Romam. Rom. 13.  desiring all Christian Princes to follow it: Legi quip: Omnia anima Potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit etc. Quam tamen sententiam cupio vos, & omnimodis moneo custodire in exhibenda reverentia summae & Apostolicae sedi: I have read indeed: Let every soul be subject to higher powers, and he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, which sentence not withstanding I desire, and by all means warn you (o Princes) to keep by exhibiting reverence to the highest, and Apostolical seat.   

CHAPTER VII.  
Although the Pope be not direct Temporal Lord and Superior of the world, nor of any part thereof, by Christ's express gift and donation, but only of the patrimony of Saint Peter given him by Constantine the Great, and other Catholic Princes, and confirmed by the consent of the Christian world: yet by the spiritual power, which Christ gave him in his predecessor S. Peter. (Io 21.) he may dispose of temporal things, and even of Kingdoms, for the good of the Church, and Conservation of her, and her faith & right: and the manner how, and in what case, he can thus dispose of temporalities, is explicated.  
1. Having showed by many Arguments in the former Chapter, that the Prince neither hath any spiritual Authority, neither can by his Temporal power intermeddle himself as a Superior in matters Spiritual and Ecclesiastical: It remaineth that we discuss and examine whether contrary wise the Pope have any temporal power, or can by his Spiritual power dispose of temporal things. A thing, I confess, odious to some Princes, who can hardly brook it, that you should meddle with their Crowns and Regalities, thinking their Crowns so fast set on their Heads, that none but God can pluck them of, and imagining they hold their sceptres so fast, that none under God can wrest them out of their hands. But yet this question is odious only to such as set little by the Church's Authority, or at least, prefer the state before Religion, and the Temporal advancement of the Common wealth, before the Spiritual good of the Church: for otherwise, as guilty malefactors only cry out of the Prince's laws & Tribunals, good subjects embrace and reverence them; so those Princes only, whose consciences accuse them of some disloyalty towards the Church, or who desire to prefer their own wills before the Church's commandment, 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 abide to hear of any Authority in the Pope, or Church, which may restrain them. Other Kings, who count it their honour to be obedient Children of the Church, and who desire not to reign over their subjects, but so as God, and his Church may reign over them, are content, that this opinion of the Pope's authority be taught in schools, and published in printed books. And therefore of late his Catholic Majesty with three Bishops of his Counsel, and the Inquisition of Spain authorised the printing and setting forth of a book of this subject, composed by a learned Divine Franciscus Suarius, & entitled, Defensio fidei Catholicae & Apostolicae, adversus Anglicanae sectae errores, etc. in which the Authority of the Pope in deposing Princes, who by their tyranny against the Church, make themselves unworthy of their honourable room and place, is largely and learnedly defended and proved.  
2. I confess that the Pope's Temporal Authority, which he hath in ROME and ITALY, proceeded not from the immediate gift of CHRIST, but rather cometh to him by the 
a Cap. Constantinus d. 96. c. Ego Ludovic. 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. Abraham Levita in ca 11. Dan.  Donation of CONSTANTINE, PIPIN, CHARLES the Great, LEWIS the Godly, and other Princes, as is testified partly by the Canon law, partly by the Acts of SILVESTER, partly by other ancient writers. I grant also, that Christ made him no temporal Prince, but only Pastor 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 affirm, that the Pope is Temporal 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.  Divines stand against them in this point, and not without good reason: For look what power the Pope hath by Divine right, he hath from the Apostles; And seeing that CHRIST made his Apostles Pastors, 
Ephes. 4. joan. 21 Mat. 16.  not Princes, and gave them a Church to rule, not a Kingdom, bestowed on them the Keys of heaven, not of Cities, 
Mat. 18. Act. 20. Mat. 28.  gave them power to bind and lose the soul, not the body, to teach and baptise all Nations, not to subjugated them; and built his Church upon an Apostle, not upon any King or Prince: It followeth evidently, that the Pope by Christ's donation, hath no title to Kingdoms and Empires.  
3. True it is that many Divines, and those also of note, are of opinion that Christ as man, was Temporal King over all the world, which is the express 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 Ostiens. in cap. quod super his, de voto & voti redemp.  Ostiensis, 
e Duran. tract. de Iurisd. Eccls qu. 43.  Durand, 
f Navar. in cap. Novit. de judiciis. not. 3. n. 8. & 130.  Navarre, and others: which they also prove out of diverse 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 subjected all things under his feet. Matt. vlt. Data est mihi omnis potestas in Coelo & in terra. All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Yet most Interpreters expound these places, as meant of Christ's spiritual and Priestly Power, by which he was spiritual King of the world. And though it be very probable, 
1. Vasq. 3 p. disp. 87. ca 3.  (as the Leardned Vasquez showeth) that Christ in deed as man was Temporal King of the world, and had that Regal dignity, not by election or descent, but only by Hypostatical union, which did so elevate, and dignify his humane nature, that it gave him Authority even as man over all the Kings of the earth, by which he might have commanded them even in Temporal things, and might have deprived them of their Crowns: Yet this it not so certain, because many Divines also hold, that Christ, as man, was no Temporal King. But howsoever, all almost do agree, that Christ never used any Regal power, nor did actually reign as King over any Country, much less over all the world. And therefore he said: 
joan. 18  Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo: My Kingdom is not of this world. Because although his spiritual Kingdom, the Church, be in this world, yet it is not of this world, in respect of the spiritual authority and graces of the Church, which are from heaven. And although it be probable, that he had Kingly authority, which is called. Ius regnandi, A right to reign, by which he might have reigned, and ruled temporally in the world; yet, as I have said, he never actually reigned, neither did he exercise any Kingly act of his Kingly Power: and so having said that his kingdom is not of this world, 
Ibidem.  be giveth a reason thetof saying: Si enim ex hoc mundo esset Regnum meum, ministri utique decertarent, ut non traderer Iudaeis: For if my Kingdom were of this world, my Ministers verily would strive that I should not be delivered to the jews, Which is a good reason. if you understand by his Kingdom the actual exercise of his Kingly authority: for otherwise, one may be a true King in respect of his right, (as Kings driven by force out of their Kingdoms are) and yet have no soldiers, nor ministers, to fight for them. 
joan. 2.  I know some Authors contend, that he did actually exercise the Temporal power of a King, when with a whip 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 sins and abuses. Others say, that he used Kingly Authority when he cast the Devils into the Hogs, and them, into the sea. Matth. 8. and when he withered the Figgetree. Mat. 21. & Mar. 11. Otherwise (say they) he had done injury to the owners. But all this an other Prophet might have done, though no King, much more CHRIST the Prophet of Prophets; and yet should he have done no injury to the owner, seeing that what Prophets do miraculously, they do by authority from God, who is supreme Lord over life, goods, and all. And because CHRIST did not actually reign, therefore Emperors and Kings were absolute, and were not vicars or delegates to CHRIST, and CHRIST took neither crowns, nor sceptres from them, according to that of the Hymn of the Epiphanie. 
In 1. Vesp. Epiph.   

Hostis Herodes impie,  
Christum venire quid times?  
Non eripit mortalia,  
Qui regna dat coelestia.   

That Christ is come why dost thou dread,  
O Herode thou ungodly foe?  
He doth, not earthly Kingdoms reave  
That heavenly Kingdoms doth bestow.   
4. And so although CHRIST were, even as man, a Temporal King, yet he not actually reigning himself, it is not likely that he should give any such authority to S. PETER, and the Pope his successor. And although he had actually reigned himself, yet it is not necessary that he should give that Authority to S. PETER; for he had also the power of Excellency, by which he might command even Infidels not baptised, and by which he instituted a Church, Sacraments, and a Priesthood, which S. PETER, and the Pope his Successor can not do. Certes none can deny, but that CHRIST might have given S. PETER supreme jurisdiction spiritual over the Church without Temporal, because as spiritual power is not necessarily annexed to the Temporal, as I have proved in the former Chapter, so Temporal power is not necessarily joined to the spiritual; and therefore seeing that neither the law of God, nor Nature, nor man giveth any such Temporal jurisdiction to the Chief Pastor of the Church, why should either he challenge it, or we give it him? especially it being a thing very inconvenient, and odious, that either the Church, or her Chief Pastor should have any such Temporal power. For if it were so, that the Church or her supreme Pastor had any such sovereignty, it would deter all Pagan Kings, and Princes from our Religion, fearing lest the Church by her absolute Authority, might deprive them of their Kingdoms, Crowns, and Sceptres at her pleasure. And hence it is, that the Popes themselves confess, that they have no Imperial, nor Kingly Authority given them by CHRIST, but rather that these two powers are in distinct subjects. So NICHOLAS Pope saith. Cum ad verum ventum est, etc. 
Ca cum ad verum, d. 96. Vide supra pa. 66. et pag. 78.  When it came to the understanding of the truth, neither did the Emperor take unto him the rights of Bishop-like Authority, nor did the Bishop usurp the name of the Emperor; because the same Mediator of God and men, man Christ JESUS, hath distinguished the offices of both powers by their proper and distinct dignities, as that Christian Emperors for attaining eternal life should need bishops, and Bishops should use the Imperial laws for the cause only of temporal things. And S. BERNARD: 
Bern. li. 2. de Consid. ca 6.  Nam quid tibi aliud dimisit Sanctus Apostolus? quod habeo, inquit, tibi do etc. What other thing did the holy Apostle leave unto thee? what I have (saith he) I give thee. What is that? One thing I know, it is neither gold nor silver, seeing that he saith, gold and silver is not with me. Be it that by some other way thou mayst challenge this unto thee, yet not by Apostolical right, for he could not give thee that which he had not. What he had he gave, solicitude (as he said) over the Churches. Did be give thee rule and domination? not overruling the Clergy, but made example of the flock, and dost thou think this to be spoken only out of humility, not in verity? the voice of our Lord is in the Gospel: the Princes of the Gentiles overrule them etc. but it shall not be so amongst you.  
5. But although the Pope and Chief Pastor of the Church hath no direct Temporal power, but only in his own Temporal Patrimony and Kingdom, by which he may dispose of Kingdoms, Crowns, and sceptres, yet he hath a Spiritual power, which may directly, and ordinarily dispose of spiritual matters, and indirectly, and in some extraordinary case, of the Temporal also; that is, when it shall be judged necessary for the consernation of the faith or Religion, or the Church's laws, and right, or some other great and necessary good. I say the Pope hath no direct power over Princes, for than he might limit their power, abrogate their laws, and depose their persons, at least for some just cause, though it did not concern either faith, or the Churches right, or necessary good, as the King can deal with his Viceroy, and any of his subjects; and then Princes should not be absolute and independent, who yet, as above is declared, in Temporal matters, and so long as they exceed not the bounds of their authority, by commanding things contrary to God's law, or the Church's Canons, acknowledge no Superior in earth, neither Pope, nor Emperor, nor Common wealth. For as for the Emperor, all Princes who are not his Vassals (as the Kings of Spain, England, and France are not) as they acknowledge him Superior in dignity, and therefore will, and must give him the precedence, wheresoever they meet, yet they are not subject to him, nor bound to obey him, unless it be when the Pope, the Chief Pastor, and he the greatest Prince in dignity, shall think it necessary that all Christian Princes contribute, or concur for the defence of Christendom against the Turk, or such like Common enemy. As for the Pope I grant that CHRIST gave him no Temporal power at all (which above I have proved) for that Temporal power, which he hath in Italy, he had not by Christ's immediate grant, but only by Constantine's, and other Emperouts and Princes donation, which donation supposed, and confirmed also by Prescription, and his subjects, yea all the Christian world's consent, that part of Italy, which he possesseth, is as truly appertaining to him, as England is to the King of England, France to the King of France, and Spain to the King of Spain; only the Pope cannot transfer his Kingdom to his Heirs, as they may, because it cometh not to him in particular by hereditary succession, but only by election. Yea if the Pope were by the law of God a Temporal Sovereign Prince over all the world, other Princes should hold of him; and CONSTANTINE'S donation by which he made him Temporal Prince of Italy, had been no donation, but restitution. As for the Common wealth, I have above declared how it hath despoiled itself of all authority, and by translating it to the King, is truly a subject, and like a private person, and so hath no power over the King, unless it be in case of intolerable Tyranny, as above is explicated.  
6. I say yet that the Pope hath an Indirect power over Kings even in Temporal matters, which power notwithstanding is not Temporal but spiritual, nor any distinct power from his spiritual supremacy, but even the self same: And therefore GREGORY the Seventh in his deposition of HENRY the Fourth saith, that he deposeth him by the power he hath from S. PETER of binding and losing. And although his Pastoral and Spiritual power, directly and ordinarily hath the menaging only of spiritual matters, and so directly and ordinarily exerciseth itself in excommunicating, interdicting and suspending from Spiritual offices, calling Counsels, and deciding controversies of faith in them, in making Ecclesiastical laws, in giving Authority to preach, to minister Sacraments, and such like; yet when it is necessary for the conservation of this power, or of the Church, or faith (of which it hath the Charge) that it dispose of Temporal matters, it can do that also: and so the same spiritual Authority which directly, and as it were ex prima intention ordaineth and determineth of Spiritual matters, dealeth also with Temporal affairs, not absolutely, but as they are ordained and necessary to the attaining of the Spiritual end, which is conservation of the Church and faith, and the soul's faluation. But because this power doth not respect Temporal things principally and for them selnes, but only secondarily and as they are ordained to the conservation of the Spiritual good of the Church, it is said indirectly only, to respect Temporal matters: and for as much as it meddleth not ordinarily but in some extraordinary case with the said Temporal matters, we may say that the Pope ordinarily meddleth with spiritual matters, and hath for his ordinary glaive and weapons, the Spiritual censures; but when they will not serve to defend the Churches necessary right, than he may also use the Temporal sword and punishment, because the same Authority which handleth principally, directly, and ex prima intention the spiritual glaive, may also command and handle the Temporal sword, when it is necessary to the spiritual end; for than gladius est sub gladio, as BONIFACE the Eight said; The Temporal sword is subordinate, and subject to the Spiritual. And this is the common opinion which our most Illustrious Cardinal Allan the honour of our country holdeth and defendeth in his Answer to the libeler. Chap. 5.6.  
7. But this subjection of Temporal states to the Spiritual power of the Pope and Church, may be diversly taken. First it may be taken for subjection and inferiority in the order of Dignity only, and so all Authors agree, that the Spiritual power, is Superior to the Temporal. secondly it may be understood of a Superiority in Directing, not only by counsel, but also by Commandment, under pain of sin, and some spiritual mulct, as excommunication, suspension, and Interdict: And so also all good and Catholic Authors, yea Barclaye and Widdrington confess, 
Widdring. in Apol. n. 197.  that the Spiritual power, may not only direct by Counsel, but may also command the Temporal power, not to use the Temporal sword or authority to the prejudice of the Church; and it may also correct and punish those that refuse to obey, by Spiritual penalties. thirdly it may be taken for a subjection, which importeth not only a subjection to the Commandment, but also to the disposition of the Spiritual power; in which sense the Pope and supreme Pastor may be said to have Authority not only to command under pain of sin Christian Princes to cease from persecuting or wronging the Church, or to implore their sword and Temporal Authorities and means, to the necessary defence of the Church, but also if they refuse, and contemn his spiritual Authority, and penalties, which he inflicteth upon them, he may dispose of their Crowns, Kingdoms, and Authority, and bestow them on some other, that shall do the Church better service, or at least shall not wrong her, or do her that injury, with the which the Churches right and faith cannot consist. And this Authority Barclaye, Widdrington, and some others, not only Heretics & Schismatics, but also who desire still to go by the name of Catholics do deny. Wherefore for the respect I bear and owe to God and his Church, and for the information of some deceived Catholics, and confutation of Heretics, and those Catholics, who in this point join with them, I will prove it by many convincing arguments in the ensuing chapters of this Treatise. And first out of Scripture.   

CHAPTER VIII.  
By diverse places and examples of the old and new Testament, it is proved that the Pope in some case can, not only by Spiritual Censure, but also by Temporal punishment, and even by deprivation, chastise Princes, who are rebellious, and do tyrannically persecute and molest the Church.  
1. Having explicated how the Pope's Spiritual power may dispose of Temporal things, and even Crowns, and Diadems, when it is necessary for the Church's conservation or great and necessary good; it remaineth, that I prove the same. But because the proofs are long and many, I will in this Chapter allege only those Arguments, which may be deduced out of the Text of Scripture. And lest the Adversaries of the Pope's authority in this point, play with me as they have done, with some learned writers of this time, and brag of the victory, when they can device any answer, though never so slender. I will be so bold as to prevent them, and to take this evasion from them. For if it were sufficient to shape an unshapen answer, which hath only a show of probability, than all the proofs out of scripture, which the ancient Fathers produced against the ancient heretics shallbe called in question. For what better and more pregnant place can be alleged, then that, 
joa. 10.  which the ancient Fathers cited out of S. JOHN against the Arrians: Ego & Pater unum sumus? I and the Father are one; and yet the Arrians had their answer in readiness, to wit, that God the Father, and the Son, are one, not by unity of substance, but consent of wills. And what plainer words can be alleged for the Real presence than those of CHRIST: This is my body? 
Mat. 26. Clandius de Saints Repetit. 1. ca 10.  and yet the Reformers of this time have devised no less than fourscore expositions and answers, all different from the Catholic sense and meaning. But my Adversaries are to weigh and ponder the solidity of their answers, and the conformity also of them to the Church's definition and practice.  
2. 
1. Reg. 13  My first proof then shallbe taken from examples of the old and new Testament, which do not a little patronise the aforesaid authority of the Pope. SAMVEL as he anointed King SAUL and created him King of the jews, so he deposed him. And although he did this as a Prophet, yet this might be a figure of that, which the Chief Pastor may do in the new law: 
Zuing. art 41. 2. Paral. 26.  whereupon Zuinglius (whose authority must needs be of force against Protestants) saith plainly: Quòd Reges deponi possunt, Saulis exemplum manifestè docet: That Kings may be deposed, Saules example doth manifestly teach. 
2. Par. 26.  AZARIAS the High Priest deposed OZIAS for arrogating the Priest's office: for although God immediately marked him with a leprosy, yet the high Priest after he was thus marked, had authority from God by the Levitical law, 
Leu. 13.  to separate him from all society and cohabitation with his subjects. Hence I infer first, that the high Priest had in some case authority to dispose of Temporal things, though they belonged to Kings. For cohabitation is a temporal thing, and yet the high Priest could deprive even a King of the same: and if he may dispose of this Temporal thing, why not of other Temporal things, though they be Kingdoms? Secondly, cohabitation or at least power and right of cohabitation & society, is essentially included in Kingly power, or at least necessarille annexed unto it: For a King is he that hath supreme power to govern his subjects. And seeing that government necessarily requireth, yea importeth possibility, or right to cohabitate, and converse with subjects (for how can he govern them, if he cannot converse with them, or his officers?) if the King might by the Priest be deprived of all right to cohabitate and converse, he might be deprived also of his Kingdom. thirdly, OZIAS disobeyed the high Priest, and notwithstanding his reprehension and express commandment to the contrary, did burn Incense to our Lord, and so AZARIAS might have caused him to have been killed for this disobedience in so great a matter, 
Deut. 17  as appeareth by the law of God in Deuteronomie, where MOSES saith: He that shallbe proved refusing to obey the commandment of the Priest, which at that time ministereth to our Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel. Hence I make this deduction AZARIAS the High Priest might have pronounced sentence of death against King OZIAS for disobeying in so great a matter, much more might he have deposed him, and deprived him of his Kingdom; for death, which is deprivation of life, is a greater penalty, than deprivation of a Kingdom, and includeth also that, because a dead man cannot be King: and if AZARIAS could deprive OZIAS of his Kingdom, it is like that in separating him from cohabitation with the people, he did in deed deprive him. And certes this the Scripture in the same place insinuareth saying: Fuit igitur OZIAS etc. 
2. Paral. 26.  OZIAS therefore the King was a leper unto the day of his death, and he dwelled in a house a part. Moreover JOATHAN his son governed the King's house and judged the people of the Lord. Which last words insinuate that his son reigned and was King in his place, and consequently that he was deposed. 
Lib. 9 Antiq. cap. 11.  And so JOSEPHUS seemeth to have understood the matter, when treating of this fact of OZIAS and the issue thereof he sayeth: Et cum aliquamdiu extra urbem vixisset, filio JOATHANO rempnblicam administrante, moerore tandem confectus obijt: and for some time he had lived out of the City, his son JOATHAN administrating the common wealth, 
Hom. 4. de verhis Isai.  at last he was killed with sorrow. The same doth also S. CHRYSOSTOME avouch saying: Cumque sacerdotium sibi vellet sumere, & hoc quod habebat perdidit: And when he would take upon him Priesthood. he lost that (Kingdom) which he had. 
Barron. an. Christi 31. Tiberij 15.  To this may be added, that which, Baronius well observeth in his Annals; to wit, that the jews had a Council called Synedrin, or Sanedrin, which consisted of 72. persons, and succeeded the 72. who assisted Moses Num. 11. which Council had authority to judge of the Law, of the Prophet, and of Kings; and over this Council the High Priest had supreme authority. This Council was of such credit, that it summoned Herod to appear, and to answer to Hircanus and the judges under him, to that which was to be objected against him. And when he appeared in his purple, and with a strong troop: Sameas one of the judges reprehended this his manner of coming, and told him, that he came in that manner; 
Ex josepho lib. 14. Antiq. 6.17.  ut si capitalem iuxta leges sententiam in eum tulerimus, nobis mactatis ipse evadat, illatâ vi legibus: that if we according to the Laws should pronounce sentence of death against him, he using force against the laws, and killing us, might escape. By which it is plain, that this Council, and consequently the High Priest, had authority to judge of the Law, Prophet, and King; and that therefore Azarias had Authority to pronounce sentence of death, and much more of deposition, against Ozias; and seeing he might depose him it is like the fore said circumstances considered, that he did depose him.  
3. I confess that our adversaries may answer, that this example doth not convince that Ozias was deposed, but only that he not actually governing, his son governed for him, he remaining still King till his death: But yet if this fact be not taken barely, but with the law also of Leviticus, and the argument deduced out of it, with other insinuations of scripture, Losephus, S. Chrysostome and the Authority of the Council of Sanedt in, it is sufficient to prove that the high Priest, did, or might have deposed him. I confess also that our Adversaries might answer, 
Deut. 2.  that there was in the old law an express statute to put to death, those, that would disobey the High Priest in matters pertaining to the law, and that therefore the High Priest might pronounce sentence of death, and consequently of deprivation against a King; but in the new law, there being no such express law, and the new law also being a law of sweetness and Charity, not of fear and rigour, the case is not the like? This they may say; But yet seeing that it made much for the honour of the Synagogue and her security, to have had such a power, if the Church be the verity, the Synagogue but the figure, and as fare inferior to the Church, as the law and Priesthood and sacrifice of CHRIST is Superior to that of MOSES; no honourable, nor profitable power and authority granted to the Synagogue, is to be denied to the Church; and therefore seeing it is an honour to have Authority to depose Princes, and that it is many times necessary for the conservation of the Church, her right, and faith (for many times admonitions, yea commandments, and excommunications will take no effect with proud and rebellious Princes) if such power were granted to the Synagogue, it is not to be denied to the Church.  
4. Another example which Divines use to allege is, 
4. Reg. 11 2. Par. 22. & 23  that of Queen ATHALIA, who (as we read in the fourth book of Kings) was by the Commandment of the high Priest deprived first of her Kingdom, and afterwards of her life, and that also after she had reigned six years. And although it may seem that he only set the right King joas, in his Throne, and displaced an usurper, who had killed all the right Kings sons saving JOAS, 
Bellarminus, Becanus & alij.  who was secretly reserved, and still living; yet many learned Authors affirm, that she was before her deposition true and lawful Queen; because though she entered by tyramnical usurpation, yet reigning so long peaceably, it is very like that she was received by the people's consent: and although JOAS, who was the right heir, was yet living, yet because that was not known, it seemeth that the people generally consented to ATHALIA, which consent was sufficient to make her lawful Queen, otherwise we must call in question the Titles of many Kings, whose Predecessors entered into the possession of their Kingdoms by violence and invasion, and without all Title, and yet afterwards proved lawful Kings by the common reception and consent of the people, actually reigning for some time with express or tacitt consent of the people, giving a sufficient Title. At least this example showeth that the High Priest might be judge of the King's right and Title, which was to meddle in a Temporal matter, and no less than a King's Title.  
5. ELIAS also, though a Prophet only, 
3. Reg. 18 4. Reg. 1. & 2.  and no Temporal Prince, consumed by fire from Heaven OCHOSIAS' Captains and their fifties, and made a massacre of jesabels' false Prophets. Again, ELISEUS, his scholar, by his curse set Bears upon those ungracious boys, who called him by scorn Baldpate; & he struck Giezi with the leprosy, which he had taken from NAAMAN, for his simony. Certes ELIAS was so famous for chrastizing rebellious Princes, and their Captains, 
Eccl. 48.  that Ecclesiasticus pronounceth thus of him: Who didst cast down Kings to destruction, and didst easily break their might, and the glorious from their bed: And howbeit they did this by extraordinary and Prophetical power; yet these examples show how it is not unbeseeming Spiritual power to control sometimes Princes, and to punish them even temporally, when God's glory, and his Churches right and honour requireth it. 
Num. 25  I could allege the example of MOSES, who caused the Princes to be hanged on Gibbets against the sun, for communicating with the Moabites in sactifice; 
Exod. 32  who also by the assistance of the sons of LEVI, killed above, three thousand for adoring the Golden Calf. But I will come to the New law, and see what proofs it yields.  
6. The new law, though it be the law of Charity, not severity, love, not fear, yet it is not without examples of Temporal punishment used even by the spiritual sword. 
1. Cor. 5 1. Tim. 1  S. PAUL excommunicated the In cestuous Christian, as also Hyminaeus and Alexander, and delivered them up to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh: for in the Primative Church, to excommunication was annexed a Temporal punishment, 
D. Th. 3. p. in Addit. q. 21. a. 2. ad 3. Act. 13.  by reason that then, when any was excommunicated, the Devil by and by possessed him and tormented him corporally. In the new law I behold S. PAUL striking Elymas the Magician with corporal blindness for hindering the fruit of the Gospel, 
Act. 5.  and I find S. PETER pronouncing sentence of present death against Ananias and Saphira his wife, for defrauding the Apostles in the price of the piece of land, which they had vowed. And although this also they did by the gift of miracles, and extraordinary prerogative of their Apostleship, yet this showeth that Temporal punishment doth not altogether surpass the activity and force of Spiritual power.  
7. secondly I prove this by another Argument drawn from the persons of them, on whom it seemeth the Church may by warrant of scripture inflict Temporal punishment, such as are obstinate Heretics, disobedient Princes to the Church, 
D. Kellyson Rep. p. 185. Deut. 13  Blasphemers, persecutors etc. which examples a writer of this time allegeth, though to another end. In the old law, which was a figure of the new, false Prophets, who persuaded to follow false Gods, were slain, and stoned to death, and the whole City that permitted worship of strange Gods, was commanded to be sacked, and utterly destroyed. 
Deut. 17  And (as we have seen) whosoever stubbornly disobeyed the High Priest in matters pertaining to the law, was to be killed: And shall the Heretic stubborn against the Church, & who persuadeth us to follow strange Religions, go scotfree? The person, that was infected with a Corporal leprosy, 
Leu. 13●  was separated from all society: and shall obstinate Heretics, prefigured by such infected, and infecting persons, be permitted to converse with us, yea to rule and govern amongst Christians, heresy being a spiritual leprosy, 
Aug lib. 2. quaest. Euang. cap 40. Leu. 24.  which mixeth falsehood with truth, as a leprosy infecteth some parts of the flesh, others remaining sound, and infecting, not only the body as that doth, but even the soul? The blasphemer, in the same law was by Gods own mouth commanded to be cast out of the Camp, and to be stoned of the people: and shall the heretic in words commonly blasphemous, in deeds sacrilegious, be permitted in the Church, and not be cast out by Censure of excommunication, 
Leis. 20●  and by death also, when that will not serve? NADAD and ABIV, though sons of AARON for using strange fire in their Censors, were devoured with fire from heaven: 
Nu. 16.  CHORE, DATHAN, ABIRON, and HON, for arrogating unto them Aaron's office, were swallowed up by the Earth: and shall the Heretic who inventeth strange doctrines, and who commonly without right ordination or vocation arrogateth Priestly Authority, be free from all Temporal punishment, he commonly contemning all spiritual Censures? 
Matt. 7. & joan. 10.  No, no, an heretic is a wolf, and consequently to be driven from the fold with stones and clubs: he is a thief, and so to be hanged; he is a Canker, 
joau. 10.  ergo to be burned and seared, he is a false coiner, that is a depraver of God's word, ergo to be hang●●, drawn, 
2. Tim. 2. Lib. 2. & 3. de fals● moneta. Mat. 13. judae. 1.  and quartered, he is cockle, ergo to be plucked up by the roots, lest he hinder the growth of the good corn; he is a tree of Autumn unfruitful, twice dead, being devoid both of the life of faith and charity, ergo to be cast into the fire; he is an evil humour, ergo to be purged and expelled; 
Mat. 7.  he is a rotten, and rotting member, ergo to be cut of least he infect the whole body.  
8. Thiralie I prove this out of those very words, by which S. PETER was constituted supreme Pastor under Christ, and under-head of the Church: Pasce oves meas: 
joan. 21.  Feed my sheep: for to a Pastor it appertaineth to rule and govern his sheep, to feed them, to cure them, and to defend them from the wolf, or ravenous beast. Wherefore S. PETER, and his successor the Pope, being the supreme visible Pastor of the Church, is not only to rule, and govern them by laws, nor only to feed them by the word and Sacraments, nor only to cure and correct them by spiritual Censures; but if they beinfected, and infecting sheep, he may not only separate them from the Church by excommunication, but also if they contemn that punishment, by deposition, and deprivation of their Kingly Authority: and if the wolf come, he may not only cry out against him by denouncing God's law and judgements, nor only strike him with his spiritual staff, but he may also use even the Temporal Club to chase him from the flock and fouled, as many worthy Prelates of the Church have done, whose examples we shall anon allege. And yet this not withstanding there shall still be a difference betwixt the Pope and the Temporal Prince; because the Pope is to use in the first place his spiritual glaive, and not to meddle with King's Regalities, or temporal arms, but only when it is necessary for the good of the Church, and when the Spiritual censures will no● suffice: the Prince is to use Temporal arms, and not to meddle with the Spiritual at all.  
9 
Mat. 18.  The like Argument I deduce out of these words of CHRIST: Si Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi tanquam Ethnicus & Publicanus. If he will not hear the Church, 
Chrysost. in hunc locum.  let him be to thee as an Ethnic and Publican. By the Church are understood the Prelates of the Church, and especially the Chief Prelate, the Pope, who governeth and commandeth in the Church: and so this place is like to the former place of Deuteronomie. 
Deut. 17  For as God there saith, that he that will not obey the high Priest shallbe sentenced to death; so here CHRIST saith, that he who will not obey the Pastors, and especially the high Pastor, shall be holden as an Ethnic, and Publican, that is, by excommunication shallbe cast out of all society of the Church; for with the ethnics and Publicans the jews had no commerce, nor communication. If then he contemn this censure of the Church, the Chief Pastor may take his arms from him, by which he molesteth her, and seeing that his Temporal power is that, which is his Chiefest weapon, the High Pastor may deprive him of it, else the high visible Priest of the New law, should be inferior to the High Priest of the old law, and MOSES should be preferred before CHRIST, and the Synagogue before the Church. To make this deduction of more force, I observe that this place convinceth, that the Pastor of the Church may separate a disobedient Christian from the society of the rest, which is a Temporal punishment, being a privation of Temporal conversation; whence it followeth, that if the disobedience and default deserve it, he may also deprive a Prince of his Crown, and Temporal Authority, that being also a Temporal pain. Which Argument shall be confirmed more hereafter.  
10. Many also, and not improbablie, allege for proof of that which hath been said, those words of our Blessed Saviour to his Apostles; 
Mat. 18.  Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and what soever you shall lose upon earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven. For although this power of binding and losing given to the Apostles and their Successors, especially the Chief Pastor, hath for her ordinary functions, losing or detaining sins, excommunicating or absolving, dispensing in vows and oaths etc. yet the words being general, What soever you shall bind upon earth, it seemeth that they should not so be restrained, but that they may be extended to losing and absolving even from Temporal allegiance and obedience to the Prince, when obedience to the Prince can not stand with the conservation of the Churches right, or faith, for which that power was given. And if the Pastor may free the subjects in this case from all obligation of obedience or duty to the Prince, he may make them no subjects, and consequently the Prince no King, nor superior; for the Prince and subjects are correlatives, which are of this nature, that one cannot be without the other, and one destroyed, the other is destroyed. Wherefore if the Chief Pastor of the Church can absolve the subjects from their allegiance, be can make them no subjects; if he can make them no subjects, he can make the Prince no Superior, and consequently deprive him of all Temporal Authority, by which he is Superior. Whereupon not only the learned writers of this time, Cardinal BELLARMINE, SVAREZ, SCHULKENIUS, and others, but also some of the ancients have understood this place of losing in some case even from Temporal allegiance. S. GREGORY the Seventh, who deposed HENRY the fourth Emperor of that name, in his deposition which BARONIUS allegeth, 
Baron. tom. 11. Anno 1080. num. 11.  calling upon S. PETER and S. PAUL, saith thus: Agite nunc quaeso Patres, & Principes sanctissimi ut omnis mundus intelligat & cognoscat, quia si potestis in Coelo ligare & obsoluere, potestis in terra Imperial, Regna, Principatus, Ducatus, Marchias, Comitatus, & omnium hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere unicuique & concedere: Go to now I pray you, o most holy Fathers and Princes, that all the world may understand and know, that if you can bind and lose in heaven, you can in earth take away according to their deserts from every one, and give to others Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities, Dukedoms, Marquisdomes, Counties, and all men's possessions. So INNOCENT the fourth in the Council of Lions, and in the deposition of FREDERICK the second expoundeth the same, and warranteth thereby his authority in deposing. And thus much concerning proofs of the Pope's authority out of scripture for deposing Princes, and punishing Heretics and rebels to the Church by Temporal chastisements.   

CHAPTER IX.  
By Theological arguments grounded in principles of faith, and the Nature of the Church as it is an absolute Common wealth, the same power of the Supreme Pastor is proved.  
1. WHat proof holy Scripture yields for this verity, we have seen in their former Chapter, Now let us see what proof reason grounded in faith, and the Church's Nature, can afford us. My first Argument I deduce from the comparison before mentioned betwixt the Spiritual, and Temporal power, by which I have made it manifest, that the Spiritual power exceedeth the Temporal, as in many other things, so in inflicting penalties and punishments; for the Temporal power can only punish the body, the Spiritual can chastise the soul; that power can only decree, and indict Temporal penalties and mulcts, this can lay spiritual Censures and bonds upon the soul, even excommunication. This power which the Church hath to excommunicate, I have above in part proved out of divers places of Scripture, which here with some others I shall allege again for my present purpose. For to omit that S. PAUL excommunicated that Incestuous Corinthian, 
1. Cor. 5. 1. Tim. 1. Tit. 3. 2. Thes. 3. 2. joan. 1 2. Cor. 10  as also Hyminaeus and Alexander, he insinuateth the same power where he commands us to shun heretics, and not to say Aue unto them. As also where he saith: Arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt, sed potentia Deo ad destructionem etc. The weapons of our warfare, are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the destruction of Munitions, destroying Counsels and all loftiness extolling itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into Captivity all understanding unto the obedience of Christ, and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience. And a little after: quam dedit nobis Dominus etc. which power our Lord hath given us to edification, not to your destruction. Upon which places S. CHRYSOSTOME saith: 
Chrysost. hom. 22. in ep. ad Cor.  Ad hoc potentiam accepimus ut aedificemus; Quod si quis obluctetur, tum demum altera quoque facultate utamur, eum diruentes ac prosternentes. To this end we have received power that we may edify. But if so be any stand out, or become obstinate, then may we use another means, pulling him down and prostrating him. Which place (as some think) proveth that the Chief Pastor may inflict Temporal punishment even on Princes. And therefore S. 
Aug. ep. 50. ad Bonifac.  Augustine hence proveth that heretics may he punished Temporally: But at least it proveth, that the Pastors, and especially the Chief Pastor of the Church, have not only Authority to preach and minister Sacraments, but also to chastise offenders by spiritual Censures; which power CALVIN in his Commentaties on this place affirmeth to be grounded on the text of S. MATTHEW before alleged: 
Mat. 18.  Whatsoever you shall bind on earth etc. to which purpose he applieth that place of HIEREMIE: 
Hier. 1.  Behold I have appointed thee this day over the Gentiles, and over Kingdoms, that thou mayst pluck up and destroy, and waste and dissipate, and build and plant; which words insinuate power to dispose even of Temporal Kingdoms, and Authority; and, at least by Caluins' Confession, signifieth power to excommunicate, and to inflict Spiritual pains; which excommunication is no less pain and punishment, than a Spiritual band and chain, wherewith the soul is chained, than a banishment from the Church of God, than a delivery up to Satan, than 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. adverse. legis & proph. cap. 17. Aug. ser. 68 de verbis Apost. & habetur c. Omnis Christia nus. 11. quast.  to wit, of conversation one with another, of Sactaments, and of suffrages, prayers, satisfactions, and merits; so he that is excommunicated is deprived of all these three goods. Wherefore S. AUGUSTIN saith that it is gravius malum excommunicarià Sacerdotibus Dei, quàm 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 killed by the sword, consumed by fire, or cast unto wild beasts to be devoured. And again: Omnis Christianus, qui à sacerdotibus excommunicatur, Sathanae traditur etc. Every Christian that is excommunicated by the Priests is delivered up to Satan. How so? Because out of the Church is the Devil, as within the Church Christ: and so hereby he is as it were delivered up to the devil, who is separated from Ecclesiastical communion and society. Hence I deduce this Argument: The Chief Pastor of the Church can excommunicate a Rebellious Prince, and by excommunicating him, deprive him of all the Spiritual Treasures of the Church, as Sacraments, suffrages, merits, and satisfactions, yea he can cut him clean from the Church, and deliver him up to Satan: ergo he can, when it is necessary for the good of the Church, deprive him of Temporal goods, and even of his Kingdom. I prove 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 deprived of her spiritual goods and graces, then to be deprived of Cities, countries, and Temporal Kiugdomes, ergo the Chief Pastor, that can cast a Prince out of the Church, can cast him out of his Kingdom.  
2. I know our Adversaries will deny for all this my consequence (as Widdrington doth) because not always he that can do more, can do less, but only then, when the more and the less are of the same kind and nature: As for example, he that can carry fifty pound weight, can carry five and twenty pound weight, and yet he that can discourse and reason, which is more, can not fly, which is less, because reasoning and flying are not of the same kind and nature. But yet for all this, my illation and consequence is like to that of the Apostle S. PAUL, 
1. Cor. 6.  which can not be denied: For, (saith he) If the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge of the least things? know you not that we shall judge Angels? how much more secular things? And the self same Argument useth GREGORY the seventh to prove that he might depose HENRY the fourth: for in the Instrument of that Emperor's deposition, speaking to the Apostles S. PETER, 
Vide Baron. tom. 11. an. 1080. n. 11.  and S. PAUL, he proveth that they by him, and he by authority received from them may depose the aforesaid Emperor, because, saith he, you, (by Popes your successors) have often taken Patriarchships, Primacies, archiepiscopal and Episcopal Dignities from the wicked and unworthy, and have 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 judge spiritual things, what may we think you can do concerning things that be secular and temporal? And if you shall judge Angels that have dominion over all proud Princes, what may you do with those that be their servants and inferiors? Where we see, that not only GREGORY the seventh, but also S. PAUL do use the like Argument to that which I used, and prove, that they, who can judge of spiritual matters, may much more of temporal; For although it doth not always follow in good consequence, that a man can do the lesser, because he can do the greater, as besides the alleged example, many others do convince, for a man can speak, which is more, and yet he can not bark like a dog, which is less: yet when the things are of the same nature, or at least not altogether disparate and independent, the Consequence is good. Wherefore seeing that Temporal things are ordained to a spiritual end, (if not of their own nature, yet by God his institution, who hath ordained us unto a supernatural end, as above I have declared) and consequently are subordinate, and as it were means to a further end, it may be said by good consequence, as S. PAUL and S. GREGORY the seventh say: The Chief Pastor can judge, and dispose of Spiritual things, ergo he can judge and dispose of Temporal things, when they are necessary to conferue the spiritual, and are necessary means to attain to the end of the Spiritual power, which is conferuation of the Church and faith, and the attaining of life everlasting. 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: Every 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 Temporal things to the salvation of our souls, and consequently to the Church's conservation; when the Chief Pastor, whose office is to bring us to our Spiritual end, seethe that Temporal things are necessary to that end, he can not only command, but also dispose of them. 
Turrecr. lib. 2. de Eccl. ca 114.  Hereupon TURRECREMATA also using the like Argument saith: To him that can dispose of the end, it pertaineth to dispose of the means, and to remove also the Impediments, as it is manifest in the Physician and sick-man, who because they have Authority to procure health, may make choice of the means, and may remove the Impediments of health. Wherefore seeing that the Chief Pastor is to look to the soul's health of his subjects, he may, not only command Temporal things, but also dispose of them to that end, and may remove them, when they are impediments to that end. And because the King and his Kingdom are comprehended in the number of Temporal things, which are ordained to the conservation of the Church, and the Spiritual end (for God maketh a promise to his Chureh by the Prophet Esay: 
Esai. 49.  That Kings shallbe her Nurcing Fathers, and that with a countenance cast down to the ground, they shall adore her: 
Esai. 60.  and threatneth that the Nation, and the Kingdom that shall not serve her, shall perish) it followeth also that, when the Churches right and faith can not otherwise be conserved, the Chief Pastor may dispose of the King's Crown and Kingdom, he in that case being subordinate to the Church and Christian faith. Neither will Widdringtons answer serve, to wit, that in this case they are to be directed and commanded by the Chief Pastor for the conservation of the Church, but cannot be by him disposed: because the argument proveth more, to wit, that if the Chief Pastor can not only command in spiritual matters, which are greater, but also may dispose of them, he may also dispose of the Temporal, which are lesser, they being in some case subordinate to the end of the Spiritual power, which is conservation of the Church, and faith, and procuration of eternal salvation.  
3. A second Theological Argument may be deduced from the Authority, 
The Second Theological Argum.  which the Church hath over Temporal power: for as above I have showed) the Spiritual power of the Church is not only Superior to the Temporal in dignity, but also (if they who have this Temporal Authority be baptised) in Authority of commanding, not only in spiritual matters, but also in Temporal, when they hinder the Churches good, or are necessary for the Church's conservation. And therefore if the Prince make a Civil law, which derogateth to the Church, the Pastor can command them to alter or to abrogate it. S. GREGORY corrected MAURITIUS the Emperor's law, 
Gregor. lib. 7. Indic. 1.  by which he forbade soldiers to enter into Religion. So S. AMBROSE, though no Pope, but Archbishop of Milan, commanded Theodosius the Emperor, 
Theodor. li. 5 cap. 17. & 18  who had caused seven 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 condemn any to death or confiscation of goods, the sentenee should not be executed till 30. days after, that he might have time to judge better, when the fury of anger was passed. And the Canon law is full of commandments of the Pope to Princes even for the disposition of Temporal things; 
Widdr. in Apol. n. 93. & num. 97.101.141 139.377 378.  which also Widdrington granteth. For in his Apology for the right of Princes, he oftimes repeateth, that the spiritual power can direct, command, and compel by Censures the Princes to make laws, which are necessary for the Church's conservation, and to abrogate laws, which are injurious to her, and so to dispose Temporal things, as they shall not prejudice the Church, but rather serve her for her necessary conservation. 
Widdr. Apolog. n. 197.  Yea (saith he) Potest Ecclesia propter instantem sui ipsius necessitatem praecipere vel prohibere usum gladij materialis: The Church, when necessity urgeth, can command or forbid the use of the material and temporal sword. And then (say I) if the Chief Pastor can command the Temporal power, sceptre, and sword, when the necessity of the Church requireth he may also dispose of the Temporal power, sceptre, and sword. 
Widdr. in Apol. Resp. nu. 28.  This consequence Widdrington often times denieth, but with how little reason we shall see briefly. For although every one that can command, can not dispose, yet Princes may. I grant the Ghostly Father can command his Penitent to give Alms, and the Penitent shall be bound under sin to obey; yet he shall not therefore lose the propriety, and dominion of those his goods, which he should have given in alms. Yea I grant that the Prince, when he commandeth his subjects to contribute for his wars, or other necessities of the Realm, doth not always by and by deprive them of their dominion and propriety; but yet I say, that as he can command Temporal things for the necessity of the Realm, 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 deprive them of the same, as in many other cases he also confiscateth their goods and depriveth them of Dominion. Wherefore seeing that the Pope is the supreme visible and spiritual Prince of the Church, he may, not only command Christian Princes his subjects to use their Sceptre, Authority, and sword to the necessary conservation of the Church, and especially not against the Church, but may also (if they contemn his commandment and Spiritual Censures) for the necessary conservation of the Church and faith, dispose of them, else he were inferior to the Prince, and had not Authority sufficient for the conservation of the Church, which is committed and commended to his charge.  
4. 
The third Theological 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 Kingdom is to the Chief Pastor and Church: Now it is so, that every absolute Common wealth, to wit, which is no part, nor is dependent of another, hath power not only to enact laws for the subjects directions, and to inflict punishment on them that are Malefactors, or perturbers of the Civil Peace at home, but also may make war abroad both offensive and defensive for her necessary conservation against another Common wealth (though otherwise not subject, nisi ratione delicti) which shall invade her rights, or offer any notable injury. And as for defensive war, no man with the least show can deny, but that every Common wealth, when there is just cause may wage such war; because if every private man by the Authority, which he hath from God and Nature to conserve that being which they have given him, 
L. ut vim ff●de lust. Barthol. l. 9 ff o● poen it & l. Furum ff. de sicartis. Alex. 111 c. St vero 1. de sent. excom. Innoc. 111. cap. significasti 1. de homicide. volunt. & casuali: & cap. dilecto de sent, excom in 6.  may vim vi repellere, and kill rather than be killed, much more may an absolute Common wealth defend itself even by arms against another Common wealth or Prince, that uniustly invadeth or wrongeth it. As concerning offensive or aggressive wars, although every private man can not revenge injuries past, but only defend himself when they are actually inferred, yet public persons, such as are Princes, Magistrates, and Common wealths may: And although Princes and states dependent of another can not wage war without licence of the Superior, yet Princes and Common wealths independent may not only punish Domestical Malefactors, and perturbers of Civil Peace and justice at home, but also may make wars abroad against other Princes or Common Wealths though otherwise not subject, and may not only defend themselves, but also revenge injuries past, and may take their enemy's towns and strong holds, burn and kill, till they have procured just renenge and future security, and consequently may in that case depose and kill the Prince himself, because the end of just war being peace, all things in a just war are lawful, which are necessary to obtain peace and security: And seeing that many times the King or Common wealth cannot sufficiently revenge nor secure themselves, but by invading the enemy's country, by sacking his cities, killing his subjects, and many times the Prince himself; all these things are lawful in a just War, and have ever been practised even amongst the best and godliest Princes, as even scriptures aver, Counsels approve, and histories do witness. For in the old law JOSVE, DAVID, the MACCABEES, yea ABRAHAM; and in the new, CONSTANTINE the Great, THEODOSIUS, CHARLES the Great, and many others are commended for their wars against Tyrants and the Enemies of God. And only Heretics, or favourers of Heretics, 
a Aug. lib. 22. cont. Faustum ca 74.  Manichees, 
b Thom. Waldens. tom 3. de Sacr. tit. 24. cap. 169.  Wicklefists,. and Anabaptists 
c Melancth de locis. tit. de Magistratu.  condemn all war as unlawful, to whom 
d Chil. 4. cent. 1. Adag. 1. & in ca 3. Lucae.  Erasmus seemeth to subscribe. And the reason of this ARISTOTLE giveth: because (saith he) every absolute Common wealth must be sufficient in itself, and must have that Authority, which is necessary, not only to defend itself whilst injuries are inferred, but also to revenge them by war after they are passed, and so to procure not only just revenge, but also a secure & stable peace for after times; for if one Common Wealth or Prince should invade another, and yet could not be repelled, no Common wealth could long conserve itself. Wherefore when a Kingdom or Common wealth is wronged, it may, not only defend, but also revenge itself in manner aforesaid, for in this case one must yield, and reason teacheth that the Common wealth, which is nocent, and which offereth wrong, should rather yield, then that, which is innocent, and receiveth wrong: and so if the innocent Common Wealth cannot conserve itself whilst the other is in prosperity, it may make war upon it and ruin it, or subjugated it, rather than itself should be ruined. And although none but God and lawful Superiors can revenge wrongs past (according to that Mihi vindictam & ego retribuam: Revenge to me, 
Deut. 31 & Rom. 12. Rom. 13.  and I will reward: and again. Dei enim minister est, vindex in iram ei, qui malum agit: For he is the Minister of God, a revenger unto wrath to him that doth evil. And S. 
1. Pet. 2.  PETER biddeth us to be obedient, not only to Kings, as excelling, but also to rulers as sent by him, ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem verò bonorum, to the revenge of malefactors but to the praise of the good:) yet a Common wealth may revenge itself upon another Common wealth that offereth injury, by reason that it hath public and supreme Authority, and that the Common wealth that offereth wrong makes itself subject to the wronged ratione delicti.  
5. Upon this ground laid, I can now build diverse arguments to prove that which is in this Chapter intended. 
The First Sequel.  For first hence it followeth, that the Church may use defensive war, not only against Christian Princes, but also even against Pagans and infidels, that do molest her; because Nature teacheth that every one may vim vi repellere, repel force by force: and although the ordinary Arms and weapons of the Church be Spiritual, as excommunication, and such like, yet when these will not serve, she may use temporal. For as Christ in establishing a Church gave it a Spiritual being, so he gave it Authority to conserve and defend this being by all lawful means: And therefore if every one may use all lawful means to defend, not only himself, but even his Temporal goods, and may rather kill, then be killed, yea or spoiled of his goods, because natural reason teacheth, that when God and nature give any being, they give authority to conserve and defend it, else their liberality had been in vain: So seeing that Christ hath given his Church a being, which consisteth in a Spiritual power to preach, minister Sacraments, govern by laws etc. whosoever shallbe so hardy, as to offer to deprive her of this her being, and power, she may even with Temporal arms, which otherwise are lawful, defend and maintain her right. And although Infidels, who were never baptised, be not subjects of the Church, nor she their Superior, according to that of S. PAUL. 
1. Cor. 5.  Quid mihi de his, qni foris sunt. iudicare? What is it to me to judge of them that are without? yet there is no superiority or public Authority required to defend; for every private man may vim vi repellere, repel force by force, much more may the Church, or any other Common wealth: else if a private man might defend himself, and a Common wealth could not, the private man should be in better estate, than a Common wealth, which is absurd. 
Sanderus lib. 2. de visib. more narch. cap. 4. pag. 90.  What (saith our learned Country man Doctor SANDERS) if the Bishop should see a soldier running through the streets with his sword drawn, ready to kill every one that meeteth him, might not the Bishop command some to take his sword from him for the defence of the people, and especially the Clergy? if he may give one commission to take the sword in such a case from the soldier, why might he not take it from the Captain; yea Prince, and Emperor? 
2.2. q. 10 art. 10.  Hence it is that the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas saith that the Church may free Christians from subjection to Pagan Princes and take from the Princes their Prelacy and Dominion over them. Yea, he saith that the Church may (though she use not so to do) free also Christians subject to Pagan Princes, though the Princes be not subject temporally to the Church.  
6. secondly hence I gather, 
The second sequel.  that the Church may make, not only defensive, but also offensive war against any other Prince or Common wealth that shall notably molest or persecute her, or invade her Ecclesiastical right. For the Church is an absolute Common wealth, subject, at least in Spiritual matters, to no other. Wherefore as England, if it were notably wronged by France, might wage war, even offensive against it, and might not only defend itself from present wrong, but might revenge itself also of injuries past, so may the Church make war, even offensive against both Christians and Pagans for maintenance of her right; for although Pagans, by reason that they are not baptised, and so not subject to the Church, can not be excommunicated, or otherwise Spiritually punished by her, as rebellious Christians may; yet they may be temporally punished by temporal war, in regard that they are subjects (as much as is required to inflict temporal punishments) ratione delicti, by reason of the wrong. For so France is not now subject to England, and yet if it should wrong England notably, England might punish it by temporal war, because it is subject at least in this respect ratione delicti, by reason of the offence and wrong offered. And if the Church may wage war offensive against Pagan Persecutors, whom she cannot punish Spiritually, much more may she against Christian persecutors and Spiritual Tyrants, that invade her right and persecute her faith, else she were not an absolute Common wealth, nor had not sufficient Authority to defend, and maintain her state. 
The sequel.   
7. thirdly, If one absolute and independent Common wealth may wage war defensive and offensive against another, which is injurious, though otherwise not subject, much more may the Church against the Civil Common wealth, seeing that this is an inferior state, and truly subject in Spiritual matters. For if, when two absolute and independent Common wealths are opposite, that which is nocent and offereth wrong, must yield to that which is innocent and endureth wrong, though otherwise it be neither subject, nor subordinate; much more, when the Civil Common wealth is opposite to the Church, and that offereth wrong, this receiveth, ought the Civil Common wealth to yield to this, it being not altogether absolute, but subordinate and subject thereunto.  
8. But our Adversary's object that the Church hath no Temporal, 
An objection.  but only a Spiritual sword, and so can only excommunicate and inflict Censures, but can neither defend nor offend by Temporal arms; but rather, when her Spiritual sword will not suffice, she must have patience, having no other weapons to use. And to this purpose they cite those words of S. PAUL; 
2. Cor. 10  The weapons of our warfare are not carnal; and those also of the same Apostle: 
2. Tim. 2  No man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular businesses. Yea they urge even these words of our Savyour: 
Mat. 26.  Return thy sword into his place. And they tell us plainly, that the Church, that is, 
Ca Clerici &c, quicun. que. 20. qu. 8. & cap. cos qui 20. q. 3. The Answer.  Clergy men, are forbidden by her own Canons to make war. To this I have an easy answer, yea many answers. First I answer that the ordinary weapons of the Church are spiritual, but when they will not serve for her defence, in some cases she may use temporal arms. secondly I answer that the Church hath none but Spiritual arms, that is, spiritual power, but by this power she can, not only punish▪ Spiritually, but also Temporally, and by it she can, not only dispose of spiritual goods, but even of the Temporal, when it is necessary to conserve the faith and authority of the Church. Thirdly, to answer distinctly to every parcel of the objection, I say that the first place is understood of the spiritual power of the Church, which is not Temporal, nor carnal, but spiritual; but as this power directly and ordinarily meddleth only with spiritual matters and pumshments, so indirectly, and in some cases for the necessary defence of the Church, it can command the Temporal glaive, and handle it also, when Princes at her commandment will not use it to her end. The other place forbiddeth only Clergy men to be to much solicitous and studious about Temporal affairs. The third place only forbiddeth to use the sword for revenge, and by private authority: And therefore after CHRIST had bidden S. PETER put up his sword, 
1. Pet. 2.  he addeth that all that take the sword, shall perish with the sword; which must needs be understood of private men, who indeed take it, but receive it not from authority. For the Magistrate who receiveth the sword from the Prince, may, and must use the same for the punishment of malefactors. As for the alleged Canons which forbidden Priests, and Religious to go to war. I grant that ordinarily they must not go to warfare, because it is not beseeming their function, and is for that cause forbidden; but yet by dispensation of the Chief Pastor, they may, 
D. Th. 2.2. qu. 40. a. 2. ad 3 Caietan, ibidem. Bannes' ibid. dub 2. cou. 2. & dub. 3 con. 1. Covar. Relect. in Clement. Furiosus p. 2. §. 3. n. 2.  and in case of great necessity (as if otherwise the Common wealth could not be defended) they may and must even without dispensation, because to this they are bound by the law of Nature, from which the law of the Church doth not derogate, no more than Grace doth from Nature, as all Divines do avouch. If Priests then may fight and use their temporal sword and arms for the necessary conservation of the Common wealth, much more may they for the defence of the Church.  
9 And certes, if the Church could not do this in such case of necessity. CHRIST had not sufficiently provided for her, nor given her that Authority, which is requisite to every absolute Common wealth. For what if Turks and infidels should invade the Church, ruin her Temples and Monasteries, despoil her of her Bishoprics and benefices, force her subjects to Idolatry and superstition hinder by violence preaching, administration of Sacraments, and all practice of Religion, what should the Church do? excommunicate these persecutors? she cannot, having no Spiritual power over them, they being not incorporated to the Church by baptism. And if she could, 
Psal. 63.  they would contemn all such weapons tanquam sagittas paruulorum: as the arrows of children. What then? must the Church stand still, and let the cruel persecutor do his worst? must she expose herself, and her subjects to their mercy, that have no mercy? Cerres, if in that case she might not take arms, she were the unablest and worst provided Common wealth that ever was. And what if the heretics, 
Vide Baron. an. Christi 348. & Victorem Vticen. de Persec. Wandalica.  who commonly are more cruel than Pagan's (as the cruelty of the Arrians, and even of Protestants and Puritans in France, the low Countries, and our Island also, beareth to evident witness) would use the like, or greater cruelty and Tyranny against the Church and the true faithful people thereof? What defensive Armour hath CHRIST given her? Excommunication (you will say) or other spiritual censures. But what if they also (as commonly they do) would contemn all such arms and weapons? How shall the Church conserve herself and withstand their cruelty? should she expose her throat and breast to the Tyrant's sword, herself and her subjects to his cruelty? should she permit Sacraments and preaching to be forbidden, all exercise of Religion to be hindered, and in lieu thereof all abomination to be set up and promoted? You will say that after she hath threatened God's judgements, used her spiritual Arms and weapons, she hath no more to do, having no Temporal Arms to use, and so must commit all to God, But then say I, that CHRIST, who was incarnate, and lived and died for the Church, had not sufficiently provided for her defence. And they that say she can only have access in that case to God, are like to those Philosophers who deny all power to second causes to produce substantial forms and effects, and make God the only Author. But as these Philosophers, are hissed out of the schools, because since God created all at the beginning, he doth nothing in Nature, but by second causes: so I say, that Widdrington and others, who deny the Church all power to defend herself, are unnatural Children, yea merciless and cruel enemies, in remitting her to God only, who though he always hear our prayers and petitions, yet doth not always grant them. Wherhfore we must find out a sword and an ordinary second cause which may in this case defend the Church, and this is no other than her Spiritual power, by which, as above is declared, she can dispose of Temporal goods, and Kingdoms for the necessary conservation of the spiritual good: For the better declaration whereof I demand of our Protestants in England, if his Majesty should turn Catholic, and consequently should put the ministers out of office, persecute them with sword and fire, what would they do? They would perchance excommunicate him; but what if he contemned such excommunication, as justly he might, they being no true Bishops, what would they do? Truly if a man may guess by that they teach and have practised in Scotland, England, France, Germany & the low countries, they would trust more to their sword then their word, as we shall see hereafter that they have done in the like case.  
10. 
In disp. Theol. c. 3. n. 21. sect. 1. An objection of Widdr.  But Widdrington taxing the learned Suarez saith; that if because the Church is an absolute Common wealth, and consequently hath sufficient Authority to defend herself, we may infer that she may use, not only Spiritual, but also Temporal arms, we must infer also, that God must give the Church not only Authority to depose Princes, but also force and means to execute the sentence of her deposition, 
The Answer.  which yet we see she always hath not. I answer, that it is not necessary that God should always give execution to matters: for the King and Common wealth cannot always actually suppress Rebels and vanquish enemies; but yet as if the King or Common wealth had not authority to defend itself by defensive and offensive weapons, neither he, nor the Common wealth were sufficiently by God and Nature furnished or provided for; so if Christ had not given his Church power and Authority to defend and conserve herself by Temporal arms, when the spiritual glaive will not serve, he had not provided sufficiently for her, neither had she had the Authority 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 Kingdom to David's posterity) yet he useth second causes for the execution and performance of his said promise. And therefore as not withstanding his promise, the jews and David used humane means, as wars, and such like, for their conservation; so may the Church when her spiritual power is contemned.  
11. But although (as this Argument proveth) the Church may use Temporal arms in case of necessity, yet it is not so convenient that she should do it by herself immediately, but rather by the hand of the Prince, when she can induce him to undertake her cause and defence, and for that cause, though she useth to deliver heretic's brachio seculari, to the secular arm and power, yet she useth not to punish them herself, not for that she cannot, but because it is not convenient she should, but only when Temporal Princes will not do that office for her, 
Lib 4. the consider. cap. 3. joan. 10. Mar. 26.  whereupon S. BERNARD, alluding to those words of Christ: Convert gladium tuum in vaginam, as he averreth the power of handling the Temporal sword, so he saith it is not convenient for the Pastor to use it, but only to command it. For thus he speaketh to Pope EUGENIUS the third; Quid tu denuò gladium usurpare tentas, etc. What dost thou go about to take to thyself again that sword, which once thou wast commanded to put up in to the sheath? Which yet, whosoever denyeth to be thine, doth not seem to me to have sufficiently attended to the word of out Lord, who said; Put up thy sword into the scabbart. It is thine therefore & perchance at thy beck, though not by thy hand to be drawn: otherwise if it did not any wise pertain unto thee, when the Apostles said: Behold two swords here, our Lord would not have answered, It is enough, but, It is to much. Therefore both the spiritual and material sword is the Churches, but that is to be used for the Church▪ this also of the Church: 
Orat. in Auxent. quae extat lib. 5. ●p. eius. post epist. 32.  that by the hand of the Priest, this by the hand of the soldier, but yet at the beck of the Priest and commandment of the Emperor. And therefore when S. AMBROSE saith: Dolere potero, poteroflere, etc. I may be sorry, I may weep, I may groan. Against arms, soldiers, and the Goths, my tears are my weapons. For such are the arms and defences of the Priest. Other wise I neither must, nor can resist, When I say S. AMBROSE saith that he hath no other arms but tears and prayers, he meaneth only that the ordinary weapons of the Church are Spiritual, but denieth not but that in an extraordinary case, the Church and Chief Pastor may use Temporal arms, when spiritual weapons are not sufficient.   

CHAPTER X.  
The same verity is confirmed by the practice of the Church in punishing heretics temporally, with loss of goods, liberty and lives.  
1. THe Church is a City on a Hill, 
Matt. 5  and therefore so illuminated by the Son of justice, that no cloud of error can obscure or endarken her: 
Mat. 16.  She is builded on a Rock so surely that the gates of hell, heresies, can never prevail against her: 
1. Tim. 3.  She is the pillar of truth, and therefore can not maintain any untruth: She is the Spouse of Christ, 
Osee 2.  and so privy to all his secrets: She is so guided by her Head Christ jesus, so directed by his, and his Father's spirit the Holy ghost, that she can not err either in her definitions, or general practices and customs: and therefore S. AUGUSTINE saith, that to call in question quod tota per orbem frequentat Ecclesia: 
Aug. ep. 118.  that which the whole Church through out the world practiseth, is insolentissima insania, most insolent madness. Amongst other of her practices one is, and that very ancient and general to punish by sword, or fire, or else by Temporal mulctes an obstinate Heretic; And therefore to doubt whether it be lawful or no, 
August. ep. 48. & 50. l. M●nichaeos, l. A riani, & l. quicunque, C. de haeret. Cap. ad abolendam, Ca vergentis, c. excommunicamus 1. & 2. de haeret.  is by S. AUGUSTINE'S rule most insolent madness, This practice, I know, pleaseth not heretics, no more than the execution of justice is liked of Malefactors. And therefore the 
a August. li. 2. contra epist. Parmen. ca 7. lib. 2. contra lit. Petil. cap. 10. & lib. 2. contra ep. Gaudent. cap. 17. & 26.  Donatists and 
b joan. Huss. art. 14. Constantia damnat.  Hussits in times past, and of late 
c Luth. in Assert. a. 33.  Luther to save their own skins, stiffly stand to it, that the Church cannot punish heretics Temporally, especially with death; and the same 
d In Assart. art. 33.  Luther in one of his articles condemned by LEO the Tenth, saith: haereticos comburi estcontra voluntatem spiritus: that heretics should be burned is against the will of the spirit. To whom not withstanding Caluin in practice subscribed not, for he caused Michael Seruetus to be burnt, reserving for him selue his golden Chain, as 
e Resp. pag. 54.  Restius reporteth; & both he and Beza by and by published in print, that it is lawful to use the Temporal sword against Heretics, which also Benedictus Aretius alloweth in his history De supplicio Valentini Gentilis. And certes that Heretics may be temporally punished by the Church, I have already proved by many places of scripture, especially out of the old Testament, out of which I may argue for the Churches practise with S. Cyprian: 
Cypr de Exhort. Martyrij cap. 1.  Si ante adventum Christi circa Deum colendum, & Idola speruenda, haec praecepta seruata sunt, quanto magis post adventum Christi sunt seruanda, quando ille veniens non verbis tantum nos hortatus sit, sed & factis. If before the Coming of Christ those precepts were observed touching the worshipping of God, and rejecting of Idols: how much more are they to be observed after the coming of Christ, seeing that he coming hath not exhorted us only by words, but also by deeds? 
Aug ep. 48 et. 50.  S. AUGUSTIN speaking of the heretics of his time saith: Videte qualia faciunt, & qualia patiuntur. Occidunt animas, & affliguntur in corpore: See what things they do, and what they suffer; they kill souls, and are punished in body; they kill sempiternally, 
Lib. 2. contra lit. Petil ●a. 7. & li. 1. contra. Parm. cap. 7. Concil. Calced. Act. 1. Anton. 3. p●tit. 19 c. 1. §. 4.  and suffer Temporal deaths. And in diverse other places he proveth that they may be punished Temporally; though once he was of opinion, that they should not be forced by the sword, but persuaded only by the word. Dioscor●● Bishop of Alexandria in the first Action of the Council of Chalcedon: Simo Eutyches praeter dagma Ecclesiae sapit, non solum paenâ dignus est, sed & igne. If Eutyches think otherwise then the Church teacheth, he deserveth, not only to be punished, but also to be burned. Whereupon S. Antonine reporteth that in the time of INNOCENTIUS the Third, no less than a hundred and fourscore Heretics of the Albigenses were burned for obstinate and pertinacious maintaining of their damnable sect. 
Concil. Constat. sess 15. art. 14.  And in the Council of Constance JOHN HUS, and HIEROM of prague were condemned to the same death, 
In praem. Concil. Nicen. Sozom. li. 1. c 20 Sòcr. li. 1 cap 6 & Niceph. li. 8. cap. 18. can. Ipsapietas 23. qu. 3 l. Quicunque C de haeret. Et ca ad abolendam, ca vergentis c. excom municamus v. c. absolutos de haret Concil. Lateran. sub Inn●c. 3. can. 3. l. Cuncti l. Ariani. l. Manichaeos'. C. de heret.  and ended their miserable life by fire. Where also Hus his fourteenth Article, in which he affirmed contrary to this practice, that the Prelates of the Church in delivering Heretics to secular power, were like to the Scribes and Pharisees, who procured Christ's death, and yet said: Nobis non licet interficere quenquam; It is not lawful for us to kill any, was condemned. Certes in the Council of NICE, ARRIUS books were commanded to be burnt under pain of death, as he, and his followers were banished. In THEODOSIUS the Emperors time heretics were mulcted and punished in their purses. And after MARTIAN and VALENTINIAN decreed punishment of death against them. The Common law also is full of Temporal punishments prescribed for heretics. They are delivered up to the secular power to be punished according to the Emperor's laws; their goods are confiscated; Advocates and Notaries, that favour them, are sufpended from their offices, and made by the law infamous for ever; They are deprived of the right of making their last Will and Testament, or succeeding by Testament; and are condemned to perpetual prison; Finally those that were bound to Heretics, are freed from their bonds.  
2. If Widdrington answer that this Argument proveth only that Heretics may be punished, yet not by the Church, but by the Magistrate: I must tell him, that if the Magistrate may punish Heretics, much more may the Church, because the Magistrate and Prince, as he is not to judge which is heresy, so it pertains not to him to punish Heretics, 
Vide Suar●z lib. 4. de legibus cap. 11.  heresy being a crime which pertaineth to the Ecclesiastical, not to the Temporal Court; and therefore that Princes by their laws do decree punishments against heretics, they do it by commission from the Church, which is the cause why the Church first delivereth them up to secular power: whence followeth that the Church, who giveth Authority to Princes to punish Heretics, may do it herself when they are wanting in their office, which also all the Arguments alleged do convince. And Widdrington cannot deny, 
Ca ad ab solendum cap. vergentis. c. Excommunicamus. ca fin. de haereticis. & 15. q. 6. ca not Sanctorum.  that the Church doth deliver up Heretics to secular power, which is a temporal punishment, as also that she casteth them into prison, confifcateth their goods, makes them infamous, uncapable of new secular offices, and of the right and lawful execution of the old, makes them unable to make their last will, or to succeed by Testament; yea and that by her decrees they be excommunicated, and consequently deprived of all Civil society, which are in like sort Temporal punishments. Moreover, it cannot be denied but that the Council of Trent, sess. 25. cap. 3. Commandeth Ecclesiastical judges not to use Censures but when there is urgent cause; and in lieu thereof to condemn malefactors to pecuniary mulctes.  
3. And if the Church can thus punish ordinary Christians temporally, she may inflict Temporal punishments upon Kings, because although Kings as Kings are superiors to their subjects, yet as Christians, and Christian Kings also, they are as subject to the Church, as others, because (as above I have declared) the reason why other Christians are subject to the Church, and her visible Head and Pastor, is, because they are incorporated to the Church, and made members thereof by baptism, and consequently subject to the whole body and head, but Kings and Emperors are as well incorporated as other Christians, being as well baptised and signed with as good and as undefaceable a character of baptism, ergo they are as subject. And then say I, If they be as subject, they may by the Church's authority be punished aswell as others, and not only spiritually, but also temporally, as others may: & if once it be granted that heretical and rebellious Princes may be punished by the Chief Pastor by lesser penalties, as confiscations of goods, infamy, exile, & such like punishments, which are inflicted on all obstinate heretics; then I shall easily infer, that they may by the Church be deprived also of their Kingdoms, that deprivation being a temporal punishment, & so of the same order with the others; And though it be greater than many others, yet, why may it not be inflicted for an enormous rebellion or injury against the Church? This I say to prove that Princes by the Church may be punished temporally though the Church always beareth and aught to bear that respect to Princes, that she will not use temporal punishments against Princes, no nor any punishment at all, but only when wholesome admonition will not serve, and the Church is much interessed.   

CHAPTER XI.  
The same power of the Pope over Princes is proved by authority of General Counsels, out of which are gathered, for the same authority, evident and convincing arguments.  
1. THe Authority of a General Council, confirmed by the Pope, quoad nos, in respect of us (to whom a Council is better known than Scripture, though in itself not of so great credit as Scripture) is the greatest in earth, and under the cope of Heaven. For if a Council, especially General, confirmed by the Chief Pastor, 
Act. 15.  notwithstanding that it representeth the whole Church, containeth all the Chief Pastors of the Church, and hath in it assembled all the learning, wisdom, Authority, and sanctity, yea the holy Ghost for director, may err: who cannot err? And after such Authority rejected, whom shall we find of greater Authority for interpreting Scripture, deciding controversies, clearing doubts and difficulties, and enacting wholesome laws? 
Mat. 18.  Christ's bids us hold him for no better than an Ethnic and Publican who will not hear the Church, and where, or when doth the Church more expressly deliver her mind, or teach with more Authority, or command with more right to be obeyed, then in a General Council? 
●●au. 14. & 16.  And if in any place or community the holy Ghost presideth (as certes Christ promised his Holy spirit to his Church, and the Apostles, and their Successors) no doubt in a General Council he teacheth all verity. 
Act. 15.  Hence it is, that S. PETER and the Council holden at Jerusalem, saith: Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis: 
1. Tim. 3.  It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us. And if the Church be ever the Pillar of truth, it is in a General Council: If ever Christ fulfilleth his promise to be there where two or three are gathered together in his name, 
Athan. in epist. de Synodie Arim. & Seleve.  he fulfilleth it in a General Council. Wherefore ATHANASIUS calleth the decree of the Council of NICE Sententiam Apostolicam, An Apostolical sentence, and in another place he marueiles how any dare make any doubt, 
Epist. ad Epict. Ambros. li. 5. epist. 32. Aug. ep. 162. & 118.  or move any question concerning any matters decided in that Council. S. AMBROSE did give such credit to it, that he said neither death nor sword should separate him from that Authority. S. AUGUSTINE calleth the sentence of a General Council the last sentence from which is no appeal, and saith that the Authority of Counsels in the Church is saluberrima, most wholesome. 
Ciril in dial. 1.  S. CIRILL of Alexandria calls a General Council Basim, & immobile fundamentum. 
Gregor. epist. 28.  A ground and immoveable foundation. S. GREGORY the Great honoured the four first General Counsels (to which the Council of Trent is equal in Authority, consisting of as lawful Bishops) as the four gospels, to wit for their infallibility. This I thought good to premise, because Widdrington and others seem not to give that respect to Counsels, as the Authority of them requireth. Let us now see what the Counsels say of this matter in hand, and then let me see the face, that dareth face out so great Authority.  
2. And first let us see what the General Council of Lateran, held in the year of our Lord 1215. under INNOCENTIUS the third, determineth in this matter. 
Surius praefat. in hoc Conc. Platina in innocenty 3.  No man (saith Laurentius Surius in his Preface to this Council) can doubt of the Authority and generality of this Council, because in it were handled matters of Religion, & determined also with great consent both of the Latin and Greek Church, and in it were present the Patriatches of Constant inopole and Jerusalem in their proper persons, the Patriatches of Alexandria and Antioch by their Legates; Archbishops Latin and Greeke 70. Bishops 412. Abbots and Priours above 800. the total number of all the Prelares were at least 1215. The Legates also of the Greek, and Roman Emperors, of the Kings of Jerusalem, France, Spain, England, and other Princes, were present with the rest. This Council then, called the Great for the number of Prelates, in the Third Chapter, after excommunication pronounced against Heretics, admonisheth secular powers, and commandeth them to purge their countries from Heretics, and to promise the same by oath: then the Council addeth: Si verò Dominus temporalis etc. 
Council. Later. sub Innoc. 111. cap. 3.  But if the Temporal Lord being required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his land or Territory from heretical lewdness, let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and the rest of his Comprovinciall Bishops. And if he contemn to satisfy within a year, let this (his contempt) be signified to the Chief Bishop (the Pope) that from that time he (the Pope) may denounce his vasalles freed from all fidelity unto him, and may expose his land to be possessed by catholics, who (heretics being exterminated) may possess it without any contradiction, and conserve it in purity of faith without prejudice to the Principal Lords, so that he put no obstacle nor impediment, the same law notwithstanding observed concerning those who have not Principal Lords. This Council I suppose to be of sufficient Authority, for it was General, and in number of Prelates and Bishops surpassed the first Council of NICE by many; It was of as great Authority, as any Council can be, because the Authority to make laws, and to decide controversies, dependeth not of the sanctity, but only of the lawfulness of the Pastors, and seeing that these Pastors could say as much for their ordination and vocation, as the Fathers of the Council of NICE could, it must needs follow that this Council (as are also all lawful General Counsels) was of as great Authority as was that of NICE, which our Sovereign Liege King JAMES admitteth with the other first three General Counsels, 
In pr●f. monit. pag. 37.  and consequently cannot reject this, which is of the same Authority. To say that the Pope speaketh only of them, who are subject temporally to his Temporal Authority which he hath in Italy, were ridiculous, because the words are General; and if they were restrained to Italy, the decree could have had little force. To say that absolute Princes are not comprehended in this decree, but only inferior Princes, who hold feudum Regale of them, is absurd; for a little before this alleged decree, the Council ordained that seculares potestates, secular powers, must take an oath to expel heretics out of their countries, which words secular powers agree to absolute Kings and Emperors, else when S. PAUL commanded that every soul be subject to higher powers, potestatibus sublimi●ribus, 
Rom. 13.  Kings and Emperors must be excepted, because they go not under the name of Powers. And immediately after this admonition the Council addeth the alleged decree: Si verò Dominus Temporalis etc. But of the Temporal Lord etc. Where she calleth the same Dominos Temporales, Temporal Lords, whom before she called Potestates saeculares, Secular powers. And are not Kings and Emperors Domini Temporales, Temporal Lords? yea and principally, and more properly to be called so, than those Princes that hold of others? If Widdrington would deny this Title to our King, he would be counted a Traitor. And what can they allege against those others so express words: eâdem nihilominus lege seruatâ circa eos, qui non habent dominos principales, the same law not withstanding observed concerning those who have not principal Lords? In which words even Kings and Emperors are comprehended, for they especially have no Temporal Lords.  
3. But let Widdrington understand by secular powers and Temporal Lords whom he will (as certes he spendeth many words to show that by Temporal and principal Lords absolute Princes are not understood) if the Pope could make a decree of deposition against inferior Princes, why not against supreme Princes, they in that they are Christians being as subject to the Church and her Chief Pastor as other Christians of inferior degree? 
Widdr. in discussione discussion●s Decreti Concil. Lat. sec. 5. a. n. 3.  Widdrington answereth that the Pope and General Council may make a decree of deposition against inferior magistrates or Lotdes by consent and Authority given them by Sovereign Princes, but he can not make a decree of deposition against supreme Princes, because they never consented, never gave him Authority against themselves. 
Idem sec. 5. nu. 15.  Hence Widdrington saith also, that all temporal mulctes, and punishments which the Church decreeth, she decreeth by authority given her from Princes, and that therefore in such penal laws Christians may refuse to obey, till they know that the Prince gave the Pope, and Council such Authority; yea, that in these laws they may appeal from Pope, or General Council to the Princes. But as in other things, Widdrington to hold up the cause whose defence he hath undertaken, is forced to help himself with the worst opinions, and to seek authority from the obscurest Authors, and these of the least credit; So dealeth he in this: for he is not ignorant, that whatsoever some one, or two Authors may say, that all the current of Divines mislike them in this, and count it strange, yea and absurd, to say that all the penal laws of the Church, which prescribe Temporal mulctes related in the Canon law, and in Councils; should have their force not from the Councils and Pastors, but from Kings and Princes. For although they confess, that Princes gave to the Pope his Temporal Demaines, and consequently Temporal and princely Authority within the limits of the same; yet in what meeting of Princes, in what Council, did ever Princes conspire to give the Pope Temporal Authority through out the whole Church? And in the last General Council of Trent in which divers Temporal penalties are decreed, what mention is there of the Prince's donation of Authority to the Council? Princes and Emperors by themselves or their Legates are present at the Council to protect the Fathers, to assist them for execution of their laws, but that they ever gave authority to the Council to enact any Temporal law, or that the Fathers of the Council and the Chief Pastor of the Church demanded licence and Authority of the Emperor or Princes to make such laws, who ever read? who ever heard? And why could not the Princes, why would not they themselves enact such laws in their own name (as sometimes they have done against Heretics) that being a thing more honourable for them and less dangerous to them, seeing that by permitting Popes and Bishops to do it, they might derogate to their own authority and give occasion to them to prescribe against them and to do it not in the Princes but in their own name and Authority? And when did WIDDRINGTON hear that any good Christians appealed from the Church and Pope in these laws unto Princes as to their highest Superiors? when did they reject any of these laws till they had informed themselves that they were made not by the Churches but by the Prince's authority? Certes WIDDRINGTON in this openeth a wide gap for Heretics and all contemners of the Church's authority. And what may he not defend if he be permitted to use this liberty and audacity? As for his Authors we shall see hereafter in the ensewing thirteenth Chapter, how many they are and of what Authority.  
4. Wherefore my Argument shall proceed as it began in this manner: The Pope by Widdrington can make a Decree to depose inferior Temporal Lords ergo Supreme Princes, they as Christians being as subject te the Church by Baptism (as above is showed in the 5. Chapter num. 4.5.6.) as much as the lowest Christians, though in that they are absolute Princes they have no Superior but God in Temporal Authority. To say that Pope INNOCENT made this Decree of his own head, is but to show great ignorance, for in General Counsels Popes speak ex Cathedra, and as public, not private persons; and what they decree, is With the common consent of all the Bishops, or the most part; else if the Pope should do all of his own head, in vain should he assemble General Counsels. But that all the Council and Christian world consented to this decree, it is clear enough, for that no mention is made of any variance betwixt the Pope, and the Council in this matter. To say that the true Council of Laterane is not extant, or that the Canons extant were compiled only by INNOCENTIUS, because in this Council, the Council of Laterane (though not this, but another) is cited and alleged, are so improbable evasions, that they merit not confutation, and are very suffieientlie rejected by the book called Discussio decreti Magni Concilij Lateranensis.  
5. One thing there is bearing more show, which our Adversaries might allege, to wit, that if this Council did in express terms define that the Pope hath power to depose Princes, they would then yield, because what a General Council with the Pope defineth directly, and expressly, is a mattet of faith, and it is heresy to gainsay it. But seeing that all things spoken, or written in a Council are not matters of faith, (for, as Divines commonly say, the reasons which the Council bringeth for confirmation of her decree, and those things which are spoken incidentlie, 
Bellarm. lib 2. de Concil. cap. 11. & 12.  and the things which are determined as probable, are not of necessity to be believed) it seemeth that by this decree we are not bound to believe that the Pope can depose Princes; because though the Pope and Council make a decree of deposition, yet they define not expressly nor sub Anathemate, under pain of Curse, that the Pope can depose Princes.  
6. But who so pleaseth to consider this decree well, and without all passion, or partial affection, must needs confess, that this decree ought to be of very great credit: for first the Pope and Council suppose at least that the pope can depose Princes, else they would never have made such a Decree, and consequently this decree argueth that the Pope and all the Prelates, Princes, and Legates present, were of that opinion, which no doubt, they being so many and so learned, must needs bear a great sway amongst all good Christians; for what they thought, all the Christian world, at least for the most part, thought, all receiving and approving this Council. But widdrington will say, that he will not deny, but that they all thought so piously, and probably, yet because they defined not in express terms that the Pope can depose Princes, he will not believe it. A peremptory Answer certainly, and wherein (to say no more) the Answerer shall show him self very slow and hard of belief, and to hardy also, who blusheth not to gainsay so many learned and godly Prelates, and whom so many grave countenances and judgements can not move.  
7. But I will deal yet another Way, and out of the self same decree. Although the Pope and Council in the alleged decree do not expressly define that Popes can upon just cause depose Princes, yet it argueth that they, nor only probably, but verily, and assuredly thought he could, else to have grounded so odious a decree, and injurious also (if the Pope have not Authority) upon a probable opinion, had been great rashness. For the Council had exposed thereby (if the opinion had not been supposed most assured) the King and Common wealth, yea and sometimes the whole Church to uproars, garboils, rebellious wars, and such like: And war should have been just also on both sides: For the subjects might have refused to obey the deposed Prince, as being freed by a General Counsels authority from all obligation to him, and being warranted by the same Council, that now he is no more their King, but an usurper and Inuader, against whom every particular man hath iustum bellum; just war. And so as if a foreign Prince should uniustly invade France without just title or wrong received, every Frenchman might resist him, if he could, because he having no Title, all the Kingdom, and every particular member hath just war against him; so if a Prince deposed persist in government, he is according to the Popes and Counsels opinion (which Widdrington confesseth to be probable) an usurper and invader, and consequently every one of his former subjects hath just war against him, 
Cicero lib. 3. the office H●rodotus lib. 3. Xiphilin. in Augusto. Alexand, ab Alex. li. 3. c. 26 D. Th' in 2. d. vlt. q. 2. a. 2. ad 5 Sot. lib. 5. the Iust. q. 1. art 3. & alij infra cap. 15. citandi.  no less than (as all the best Philosophers and Divines teach) the subjects have against an usurper of the crown. And yet this Prince deposed might justly also persist in his possession, because no man is bound to forgo that, to which he hath probable right, being warranted by the rule of the law 
† Reg. 65 de Regulis juris, in 6.  In pari delicto velcausa potior est conditio possidentis. In the like default or cause, better is the condition of him that is in possession. And again: 
* Reg. 11 ibid.  Cum sunt iura partium obscura, reo favendum est potius quàm Actori. When the rights of the parties are obscure, the guilty or accused is to be favoured before the Actor or accuser: But the Prince in this case hath, according to Widdrington, probable right, and is in possession; and he is reus, not Actors ergo he may stand in his own defence, and by wars defensive may maintain his possession: And then to what injuries and gatboiles the Church should expose Kings subjects and Kingdoms, and consequently the whole Church, who seethe not, but he that is wilfully blind, and will not open his eyes? so that either the Council of Laterane was temerarious and rash to build so perilous a Decree upon no assured, but only probable opinion; or she thought assuredly that the Pope had such Authority; and then every obedient Child of the Church should rather follow hers, than widdrington's, and some few his companions opinion. For certes, otherwise as it is injustice to put one out of his land or house, who hath probable right, and withal possession, because potior est cónditio possidentis, better is the condition of him that is in possession. So were it open injustice in the Pope to deprive a King of his Crown and Kingdom, 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 given authority to simple Priests to confirm, and moreover dispensed with Princes in the solemn vow of Religion, which yet are grounded but on probable opinions: But the foresaid Author in his discussion of this Decree, hath very well showed that such inconuenienecs follow not upon these Decrees, which are not so dangerous, nor concern not the whole Church, as this decree doth, but only particular persons, and therefore I will not actum agere.  
8. But here I can not but observe how cunningly Widdrington in his new yeares-gifte endeavoureth to make his Reader believe that I made this Argument against myself. 
In his new years gift pag. 43. and 52.  For whereas I out of the decree of the General Council of Lateran (which I supposed to be just) had inferred, that the opinion which holdeth, that the Pope can in some case depose a Prince (on which this decree is grounded) must needs be more than probable, and no less than certain; 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 unjustly be dispossessed; because better is the condition of the possessor, who hath probable right: Widdrington taketh it for a probable opinion only that the Pope can depose a Prince, (which I always denied and disproved) and thence inferreth, and (as he would seem) even by my argument, and Confession, that the Pope cannot without open injustice depose a Prince. Where I desire the Reader to note, how I (as all modest Catholics should do) do attribute so much to the Councils decree that by it, I prove it to be a certain opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince in some case, else the decree had been unjust: Widdrington 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 justly depose, and so is not ashamed, nor afraid to confess in effect that this decree of that so great, and General Council is unjust: which with what modesty he can do. I report me to all modest Catholics, and to the judgement of all judicious Readers.  
9 Lastlie I will yet try another way to persuade these kind of men, which if they contemn, 
Mat. 18.  they can hardly avoid that imputation of Ethnikes and Publicans, which Christ himself layeth on them that will not hear the Church. For not only that, which is expressly, and in actu signato defined by the Council, is to be believed under pain of heresy, but also that, which in actu exercito is defined. I will explicate myself. If the Pope, especially with a General Council, decree or enact any General law, which he commandeth to be observed of the whole Church, he doth not expressly and in actu signato define the thing to be lawful which he commandeth, but yet he doth in actu exercito and tacitè define it to be lawful, because if he cannot err in prescribing general laws to the universal Church (as if he could, the whole Church, which must obey her Chief Pastor, should err with him) it followeth necessarily that he hath infallible assistance in enacting such laws, and consequently that it must not only be probable, but also certainly true, yea and so true, that it is not only temereity and rashness, but also obstinate heresy to hold that it is unlawful, 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 proveth also very solidly. The same a learned Doctor of the Sorbonnes, and Chief Reader in Divinity called Du Valle holdeth, and (as Divines know) it is the common opinion, though some few hold the contrary. Du Valle hath these words: Han● autem (infallibilitatem) non minùs, quàm in fidei definitionibus agnoscunt omnes Catholici Doctores. But this (Infallibllitie) no less than in definitions of faith all Catholic Doctors do acknowledge. This both Bellarmine and he, as others also, prove by many Arguments. For First, if the Pope could command an unlawful thing, he should command vice for virtue, and might forbid virtue as unlawful: whence should follow that the Church (which must obey her Chief Pastor) should err in a matter necessary to salvation; for she should embrace vice for virtue, and imbracinge that, should be no more Holy. Yea than the Church should err in a matter of faith, because if the Pope command vice for virtue, the Church, which must give ear to her Chief Pastor, should embrace it as lawful, and consequently should embrace a thing against faith; for, as it is against faith to say or think that Christ is not really in the Blessed Sacrament, so is it to say or think that vice is virtue: which yet the Chief Pastor should teach in commanding, and the Church should believe in embracing and observing? Whence I infer that the former decree of the Council is a matter of faith, and necessarily to be believed. For by this decree, the Pope and Council of Lateran do absolve the subjects from obedience and fidelity by a General Decree, & do depose the Prince from his Kingdom, which if it were unjust (as it must needs be, if the Pope had no Authority) the Pope and Council should err in a matter against faith, because the Catholic faith teacheth, that virtue is good, vice is evil and unlawful; & yet if this decree of deposition of the Prince and absolution of his subjects from their fidelity were against justice, the Church, which must obey her Chief Pastor, should be bound to think injustice to be justice, & vice to be virtue, which is against faith. And therefore if Widdrington, notwitstanding this decree, will obstinate lie hold, that the Pope cannot depose a Prince, or free his subjects from their fidelity and allegiance, he must grant, that either the Pope with the Council commandeth against faith, or that he disobeyeth against faith, not believing that to be just, which the Pope decreeth with a General Council. This decree of this Great Council doth so trouble and pussle Widdrington that in his book entitled discussio discussionis, 
sec. 1.  he endeavoureth by many Arguments (though as he would seem in the name of others) to make this Council of little credit: which was not the Spirit of the learned Cardinal Allan, 
Chap. 4.  who in his Answer to the Libeler calleth it the famous Council of Lateran, and coming to allege this decree of the Fathers of that Council, he thus pronounceth: These than are the words of their most renowned decree.  
10. The same Arguments I may draw out of the General Council of Lions, 
Cap. 1 de homicidio in 6.  which hath this decree: Sacri approbatione Concilij statuimus etc. By the approbation of the holy Council we do decree that whatsoever Prince, Prelate, or whatsoever Ecclesiastical or secular person shall cause, or command any Christian to be killed by the aforesaid Murderers (although death thereby do not follow) or shall receive or defend, or hide them, shall incur, ipso facto, the sentences of excommunication, and deposition from his dignity, honour, office, and benefice, and that the same may be given freely to others by them, to whom the collation appertaineth.  
11. Likewise another Council of Lions, and General also, held in the year of our Lord 1245. 
Ex Nauclero, Aemilio, Platina.  at which were present BALDVINE the Emperor and S. LEWIS of France, INNOCENT the fourth, with with consent of the Council deposed FREDERICK the second, and absolved his subjects from their oath made unto him, commanded under pain of Excommunication all his adherents to leave him, and not to obey him as Emperor, & gave 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, etc. We therefore with our brethren, and the Holy Council having premised a diligent deliberation about the aforesaid, and many other his heinous excesses; seeing that we, though unworthy, supply the place of CHRIST in earth, and that to us in the person of Blessed Peter it was said: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shallbe bound also in heaven; do declare and denounce the aforesaid Prince, who hath made himself unworthy of Empire, kingdoms, and all honour and dignity, and who for his iniquities is rejected of God from reigning and ruling, to be tied in his own sins, and as an abject, deprived of all honour and dignity: and yet not withstanding by sentence we deprive him, and absolving perpetually all who are bound to him by oath of fidelity from this oath, do by Apostolical Authority firmly forbid that any hence forth do obey him as Emperor etc.  
12. GREGORY the seventh in a Council at Rome in the year of our Lord 1076. excommunicated and deposed HENRY the fourth for many his insolences, outrages, and enormities. 
Vide Baron. an 1076. n. 25.  The Excommanication beginneth thus: Beat Petre Apostolorum Princeps, inclina, quaesumus, pias aures tuas nobis, & audi me seruum tuum, quem ab infantia nutristi, & usque 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 Roman● Ecclesia me invitum ad sua gubernacula traxit etc. Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, we beseech the● to incline thy pious ears unto us, and to hear me● thy servant, whom from my infancy thou hast nourished, and unto this day hast delivered from the hands of the wicked, who have hated and do hate me for my fidelity towards thee. Thou art my witness, as is also my Lady the Mother of God, and Blessed Paul thy brother amongst all the Saints, that thy holy Roman Church drew me against my will to her government etc. Then a little after he addeth the Excommunication and deposition itself: Hac itaque fiducia fretus, pro Ecclesia tuae honore & defension, ex parte omnipotentis Dei Patris, & Filij, & Spiritus Sancti, per tuam potestatem & Authoritatem, Henrico Regi Fi●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; & ut nullus ei sicut Regi seruiat interdico etc. Therefore building upon this confidence, for the honour and defence of the Church, in the behalf of the omnipotent God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by thy power and Authority, I do take from King Henry the son of Henry the Emperor, who by an unwonted pride never heard of hath made insurrection against thy Church, the government of the whole Kingdom of the Almains and of Italy, and do absolve all Christians from the bond of oath, which they have made, or shall make unto him, & I do forbid any to serve him as King. But because the Emperor, after this, submitted himself, and promised by solemn oath satisfaction, and shown exteriorly great penance; the Pope to show that he desired not his deposition, but as a means to the Churches true peace, and his salvation, absolved him from excommunication in the Castle of CANUSIUM, where then the Pope was, and admitted him to the Mass, which he celebrated: and in the Mass called the Emperor unto the Altar, and holding the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, said to the Emperor: Ego iam pridem àte tuisque fautoribus literas accepi, quibus me insimulasti sedem Apostolicam per simoniacam haeresim occupasse. I long since have received letters from thee and from thy fautours, by which thou hast accused me to have entered into possession of the Apostolical seat by Simoniacal heresy. And though (saith he) I could bring other testimony of those that knew my life from my Childhood, and were Authors of my promotion: ego tamen (saith he) ne humano potiùs quàm divino niti videar testimonio, ut satisfactionis compendio omnem omnibus scandali scrupulum de medio auferam: Ecce Corpus Dominicum, quod sumptur us ero, in experimentum mihi hodie fiat Innocentiae meae, ut omnipotens Deus suo me body iudicio vel absoluat obiecti criminis suspicion, si innocens sum, vel subitanea interimat morte, si reus sum. Yet I (saith he) lest I should seem rather to lean unto humane testimony, then divine, that I may by a compendious satisfaction take from all, all scruple of scandal; behold our Lord's Body which I shall take and receive, let it be to me this day a trial or experiment of mine Innocence, that Almighty God may this day either absolve me by his judgement from suspicion of the crime objected against me, if I be Innocent, or may kill me by sudden death, if I be guilty. Then he demanded of the Emperor, whether he would make the like protestation, but he having a guilty conscience durst not. After this the Emperor contemning all former promises and oaths, returned to his vomit. Wherefore the same Pope in the Council also at ROME anno 1080. excommunicated him again, and again declared him still deposed, being before only absolved from excommunication, and admitted to the Communion.  
10. 
Widdr. Disput. Theol. c. 3. sect. 1. n. 8.  But Widdrington excepteth against this Council, for that it was not General. But certes the Authority of this Council is sufficient to move any true Christian heart, and child of the Church. For many things give this Council great credit: First (as Schulckenius well observeth) it was confirmed by the Pope, 
Schulck. in Apol. pro Bellarm. pag. 260.  which (according to the common opinion) makes a matter of faith, because to PETER, and consequently to the Pope it was said: & super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam: 
Luc. 22.  and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and to him CHRIST said: Ego rogavi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua: & tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos. I have prayed for thee, PETER, that thy faith fail not; and thou once converted confirm thy brethren. Where CHRIST, prayed for PETER as a public person, and that he might not err in teaching others, because CHRIST prayed for him, that he might confirm others, and so if the Chief Pastor do speak ex Cathedra, though not in a General, but only in a Provincial Council, it makes a matter of faith, according to the common 
a D. Th. 2.2. q. 1. art. 10. Waldens'. lib. 2. doctrine. Fidei cap. 47. et 48 Turrecr. l. 2. summae. cap. 109. Driedo lib. 4. de Eccles. dogm. ca 3. par. 3. Caiet. in opusc. de potestate Papae & Conc. ca 9 Canus lib. 6. de locis, c. 7. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pont. c. 2. Du Valle l. de supr. Pont. Author. par. 2. q. 1. & alij.  opinion. For although many heresies were condemned by General Counsels, yet fare more by Popes with their ordinary Council, or Provincial Counsels only, as the Quartadecimi by Pope VICTOR, the Novatians by CORNELIUS, the Pelagians by INNOCENTIUS and ZOZIMUS, and many other heretics and heresies by other Popes without General Counsels. All which to call in question were to bring into doubt many Decretal Episties, and to give a great scope to many Heretics to plead not guilty, as not being condemned by a General Council. secondly the Pope that decreed the deposition of HENRY the fourth was a great Saint, who was brought up, as himself often confesseth, from a child in the school of S. PETER, and so knew well the practice of the Church: he wrought miracles living and dead, and left many other testimonies of his great sanctity, and innocence of life. All which is abundantly testified by diverse authors, whom 
b Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 13.  Bellarmine citeth, and is recorded also by 
c Baron. tom. 11. an. 1084. n. 10. & an. 1085. n. 11. & 13.  Baronius. thirdly his successor's VICTOR the third, VRBANUS the second, PASCHALIS, and others approved this sentence of Excommunication and deposition. fourthly, all the Christian world, except a few Schismatics followers of the Emperor, and the Antipape whom he set up, favoured and approved the sentence, as is easy to be seen in 
d Baron. to. 11. in Greg. 7.  Baronius. WILLIAM the Conqueror King of England, PHILIP King of France, ALPHONSUS King of Castille, CANUTUS King of Denmark, ROBERT Count of Flanders, and other Princes held with GREGORY the seventh. Yea the learnedst and holiest Bishops, and Abbots were all for GREGORY the seventh, as HUGO Abbot of Clunie, BERNARDUS Abbot of Massilia, DESIDERIUS Abbot of Cassina, and after successor to Pope GREGORY, chosen so much against his will, that for a year he would not undertake the charge, S. ALPHONSE Bishop of Salernum, our learned LANERANC Archbishop of Canterbury, Saint ANSELME Bishop of Luca, 
Abbas Vrsperg. ad an. 1080.  to whom Vrspergensis, though a Schismatic, giveth this commendation: Anselmus Lucensis litter is apprimè eruditus, ingenio acutissimus, facundia praecipaus, & quod omnibus maius est, in Dei timore & sancta conversatione nominatissimus, adeo ut tam in vitâ, quàm post mortem referatur miraculis clarus. Anselme of Luca greatly learned, most sharp of wit, principal in Eloquence, and (which is more than all) most famous for his fear of God and holy conversation, in so much that he is said to have floruished with miracles in his life time and after his death. So this Schismatic, who followed the Emperor, and Guibert the Antipape, saith of him. This S. ANSELME wrote an Epistle to Guibert the Antipape, 
Baron. anno 1080. num. 29.  in which he compared GRBGORIE the seventh to S. CORNELIUS Pope, and called Guibert the Antipape à Prevaricatour. Lastlie all the Christian world, saving the Schismatics, applauded it, none called this deposition in question, none but Schismatics doubted of his Authority. So that the Emperor was deposed, as it were by consent of the whole Church.  
14. I could allege also that this Council, in which HENRY the fourth was deposed, did not only depose him, but also did define that the Pope can depose Princes: for to the same Council, 
Baron. tom. 11. an. 1076. num. 31.  as BARONIUS affirmeth, appertain GREGORY the seventh his Breviores sententiae, shorter sentences, which are entitled Dictatus Papae, amongst which this is one: Quod Papae liceat Reges deponere. That it is lawful for the Pope to depose Kings. Another is: Quod à fidelitate iniquorum subiectos potest absoluere. That he can absolve subjects from their fidelity promised to wicked (Kings,) Neither are Widdringtons' exceptions against these short sentences, 
Widdr. Disput. Thcol. c. 3. sect. 1. n. 6.  and definitions of any moment. As for example; Suppose (saith he) these sentences were defined in that Council of Rome; Quomodo tibi constat eat tanquam propositiones ad fidem pertinentes, & non ut probabiles solùm assertiones definitas esse? How knowest thou that those propositions are defined as appertaining to faith, and not as probable assertions only? By which exception he might except almost against all the Canons in all the General Counsels, and even against the General Council of Trent, in whose Canons he shall find Anathema pronounced but seldom in the doctrine defined in the Chapters; And so when the Council defineth any thing, he might say, unless an Anathema be added, as always it is not, that what the Council defineth, 
Widdr. supra, n. 7.  was defined but as probable. He excepteth also that in an other of these definitions it is defined quod Romanus Pontifex. si Canonicè fuerit ordinatus, meritis B. PETRI indubitanter sanctus efficitur: That the Roman Bishop, if he be canonically ordained, is made undoubtedly a saint by the merits of S. PETER: which is true taken in the right sense, because though every Pope be not a saint in life and manners, yet he is a saint in office, because his office is holy, and so even Emperors are holy, and therefore be styled Sacra Maiestas, Sacred Majesty. 
Bell, li. ● de Rom. Pont. c. 8. & tract. de potest. sum. Pont. contra Barcl. pag. 28. & seqq. Schulck. pag. 29.  Many other Counsels I could allege, as Bellarmine and Schulckennius have done: but these shall suffice all General Counsels yea and provincial also, if they be confirmed by the Pope (according to the common opinion) being of infallible Authority. Who listeth to see the other Counsels, let him read the Authors prealleadged.   

CHAPTER XII.  
By the facts of the holy and learned Bishops of Rome, especially before Gregory the seaventh, the same power is confirmed.  
1. MY Arguments, which I shall bring in this Chapter I ground in the facts of Popes, 
Bellarm. supra, & Schulck. pag 36. Azor. 10. 2. lib. 10. cap. 8.  whom Bellarmine, Schulckenius, and others commonly produce, to prove that the Pope can depose Princes. For although Popes may err in matters of fact, yet if it had been an unjust, and not to them an assured matter, so many, so learned, and so holy Popes, would never have attempted such a thing. And many of these depositions were decreed in Counsels also. Schulkenius hath produced twenty eight Popes that have denounced deposition against Emperors, Kings, and Princes. I shall content myself with the Popes, who before GREGORY the seventh have meddled with crowns and sceptres; partly because our Adversaries affirm that GREGORY the Seventh was the first that meddled with Temporal states of Princes; partly because they confess that GREGORY the Seventh, and others after him, have deposed Princes; partly also because they seem to give more credit to those former, than these later Popes, although in deed all have the same Authority of which only, and not of sanctity of life, deposition dependeth,  
2. S. GREGORY the Great, in two Epistle, 
Greg. li. 11. epist. 10. & lib. 12. epist. 32.  threatneth deposition, not only against Bishops and Priests, but also against Kings, judges, and whatsoever secular persons that shall be so hardy as to infringe or violate privileges by him granted to the AUGUSTUNENSES, and to the Monastery of S. MEDARD. For he saith in the first place: Si quis Regum etc. If any King, Priest, judge, or secular person acknowledging the tenor of this our constitution shall presume to do contrary thereunto, potestatis, honorisque sui dignitate careat, let him want the dignity of his power and honour. In the second place he saith: Si quis autem Regnum etc. But if any King, Prelate, judge or other secular person whatsoever shall violate or contradict the decrees of this Apostolic authority and our command, or shall disquiet and trouble the Brothers (of the Monastery) or shall ordain otherwise then thus, cuiuscunque dignitatis vel sublimitatis sit, honore privetur, of what dignity or place soever he be, let him be deprived of his honour. Which is an argument that S. GREGORY thought he could deprive them; as those also must needs have acknowledged, who subscribed to the later of the foresaied decrees, to wit, thirty Bishops of several countries and Provinces, together with the King and Queen of France.  
3. 
Codrenus & Zonaras in vita Leonis Isauri. Sigebert. in Chron. an. 728. & alij.  S. GREGORY the second, as above, deprived LEO Isauricus of Italy, and the Gabelles of that province. 
* Platina in Gregorio III. Ado in Chron. an. 744. Ced. in vita Leonis Isauri. Rheg. li. 2 Chron. Sigebert. an. 750. Paul. Aemil. li. 2. de rebus gest. Franc Fasc. Temp. 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 GREGORY 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 subjects from their fidelity to him, and gave his Kingdom to PIPINE Father to CHARLES the Great, and before Maior domus. This Ado Viennensis, Cedrenus, Rhegino, Sigibert, Paulus Aemilive, Fasciculus Temporum, Otho Frisingensis, Marianus Scotus, Paulus Diaconus, and S. Boniface do avouch. True it is that the Peers and Nobles of France desired it, and sent Legates to the Pope; but the Pope was he, by whose Authority he was deposed, what soever Barclaie and Widdrington say to the contrary. And therefore the Old Chronicon of France, set forth by Pitheus, saith that the Pope said, it was better he should be King, who had all the power (as PIPINE being Mayor Domus had, the King doing nothing) than he that had the name only: dataque Authoritate suâ iussit PIPINUM Francorum Regem institui; and by power given, commanded Pipine to be instituted King. Likewise the Author of Fasciculus Temporum saith: Ipse (ZACHARIAS) reg●● Francorum, scilicet CHILDERICUM, 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 time, seeing that he (ZACHARIAS) did transfer that most famous Kingdom from the true heirs, to the family of PIPINE, upon a just cause. Rhegino saith: Per authoritatem Apostolicam, iussit Pipinum Regem creari. By the Apostolical Authority he commanded PIPINE to be created King: The same writeth Marianus Scotus saying: Tunc ZACHARIAS Papa ex authoritate S. Petri Apostoli mandat populo Francorum, ut PIPINUS, qui potestate Regia utebatur, etiam nominis dignitate frueretur: Then ZACHARIAS by the Authority of S. Peter the Apostle commandeth the people of the French, that PIPINE, who exercised the Regal power, should also enjoy the name of the dignity. Besides this, Paulus Aemilius relateth that one Burchardus a Bishop, made an oration to him to persuade him to it; for the Pope at first feared to undertake 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 miraculously restored both his eyes and tongue, of which he was barbarously deprived by certain emulatours, cteated and anointed CHARLES the Great Emperor, and made his son King, 
Anastas. apud Baron. an. 799.  as Anastasius (whom Baronius allegeth) declareth at large: which no sooner was done, but the Romans cried: 
Vide Baron. an. 800. & Az or. to. 2. lib. 10. Instit. mor. c. 8.  Carolo pijssimo, Angusto, à Deo coronato, magno, pacifico Imperatori, vita & victoria. And the Author of Fascicul● Temporum saith, that CHARLES took the Diadem of the Empire from Pope LEO the third, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Paulus Diaconus, Ado, Albertus Krantius, Otho Frisingensis, Marianus Scotus, 
Bell. li. 5. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 8. Magdeburg cent 8. ca 10. col. 751.  and all Chroniclers, whom Cardinal Bellarmine allegeth affirm the same. Yea the Magdeburgians in blaspheming that this Translation of the Empire was one of the Chief miracles of Antichrist, affirm it. And although Marsilius of Milan (whom Barclay and Widdrington are enforced to follow against the torrent of all good Autours) affirmeth that the people of Rome were the Authors of this Translation; yet Cardinal Bellarmine plainly demonstrateth the contrary, not only by all Historiographers, who attribute this to the Pope, but also by this, that the people of Rome, if they had any Authority to choose the Emperor, had lost it when the seat of the Empire was translated to Constantinople, and therefore for the space of five hundred years, that is, from CONSTANTINE the Great, to CHARLES the Great, never meddled with choosing the Emperor. 
Lib. 5. the Roman. Pontif. cap. 8. §. ad alios. & seqq.  Yea, as Cardinal Bellarmine showeth, the people of Rome never meddled with the election of the Emperor, for that he came to the Empire either by hereditary descent, or by acclamation of the soldiers.  
6. GREGORY the fifth also instituted the seven Electours and gave them Authority to choose the Emperor, which manner is used to this day. So Platina, Blondus, Nauclerus, and others alleged by Cardinal Bellarmine in the place above noted. Wherefore as Cardinal Bellarmine doth, so do I urge our adversaries with this dilemna: Either the Pope did sufficiently transfer the Empire to CHARLES the Great, and institute the seven Electours, or no: If he did, than he hath power to dispose of Temporal Kingdoms; If he did not, than the Emperors are not legitimate, nor the Electours sufficient. GREGORY the seventh is alleged in the former Chapter.  
7. These Popes I thought good to allege, that our Adversaries may see, that it is not true which they say, to wit, that GREGORY the seventh was the first that challeged to himself power to dispose of kingdoms, for all the alleged were before GREGORY the seventh. The rest of the Popes who have deposed Princes, he that desireth to know, may read Cardinal Bellarmine against Barclay, and Schulkenius against Widdrington. Conformable to these facts of Popes is the the Doctrine of S. 
2.2. q. 12 art. 2.  Thomas of Aquin that great light of the Church, which he delivereth unto us in these words. Infidelitatem illorum qui fidem susceperunt potest (Ecclesia) punire, & convenienter in hoc puniuntur quod subditis fidelibus dominari non possint. Hoc enim vergere posset in magnam fidei corruptionem, quia (ut dictum est, hoino Apostata pravo corde machinatur malum & iurgia seminat, intendens homines separare a fide. Et ideo quàm citò aliquis per sententiam denuntiatur excommunicatus propter Apostasiam a fide, ipso facto eius subditi sunt absoluti a Dominio eius, & juramento Fidelitatis: The infidelity of those who have received the faith, the Church may punish by sentence, and conveniently in this are they punished, that they may not bear rule over faithful (Christian) subjects. For this might turn to a great corruption of Faith, because (as it is said) a man Apostata with a wicked heart doth plot evil and soweth brawls, intending to separate men from Faith. And therefore so soon as any one is by sentence denounced excommunicated for Apostasy from Faith, ipso facto, by and by, his subjects are absolved from his Dominion, and from the Oath of Fidelity. Thus this learned Doctor pronounceth: and thereby justifieth these facts of these holy Popes.   

CHAPTER XIII.  
By the number of Doctors, who have embraced the opinion, that giveth this power to the Pope, the same doctrine is proved? betwixt the number, gravity, and authority of which Doctors, and those who stand for Widdringtons' opinion, there is no comparison to be made.  
1. THis proof will not be of least force, because the voice of the Chief Doctors of the Church is the voice of the whole Church, which never dissenterh from that, which her Doctors commonly teach her: and seeing that the voice of the Doctors is the voice of CHRIST (according to that: qui vos audit, me audit; 
Luc. 10.  he that heareth you, heareth me) and that the Church is the pillar of truth; if ever vox populi be vox Dei, 
1. Tim. 3.  the voice of the people, the voice of God: this sentence which the Church prononnceth partly by her Chief Pastors and Counsels, partly by her Doctors, 
Tract. de potest. Sum. Pont. adversus Barclaium in initio.  must especially be of God. But because Bellarmine hath exactly set down their words, I will only for brevity sake set down their names, referring the Reader to him for their sentences.  
2. Our of Italy he allegeth Gregory the seventh (to whom may be added those Prelates, who, as above we have seen, allowed of his deposing of HENRY the fourth) S. Thomas of Aquin, S. Bonanenture, Aegidius Romanus, B. Augustinus Triumphus, B. joannes de Capistrano, S. Antoninus, Isidorus Mediolanenses, Gabriel Biel, Thomas Caietan, Alexander de S. Elpidio, Pelrus de Monte Venetus, Petrus Ancharanus, Sylvester Prieras, Astensis, Nicholaus Abbas Parnomitanus, joannes de Anania, Bartholdus, Baldus, Petrus A●dreas Gambara, Restaurus Castaldus, Dominicus Cardinalis Tuscus: to whom may be added Cardinal Bellarmine himself, & Cardinal Baron.  
3. Out of France he allegeth S. Bernard, (whose words above are cited) Petrus de Palude Patriarch of Jerusalem, Durand Bishop of Meux, Herueus General of the Dominicans, jacobus Almain, Henricus Cardinalis Ostiensis, Petrus Bertrandus Cardinal and Bishop, joannes de Sylva; Stephanus Aufrerius, Guilielmus Durandus called Speculator, joannes Faber, Aegidius Bellamera Bishop of Auinion, joannes Quintinus, Remundus Ruffus, to whom may be added Genebrard, Andreas du Vallius, and others.  
4. Out of Spain S. Raimundus, Pelagius Aluarus, joannes de Turrecremata Cardinal, Cyprianus Benetus Arragonensis, Franciscus Victoria, Dominicus à Soto, Alphonsus de Castro, jacobus Simanca, Dominicus Bannes, Martinus Ledesmius, Gregorius de Valentia, Guilielmus de Monserat Catalanus, Alphonsus Aluarez, Antonius Cordubensis, Ludovicus Molina, Didacus' Covarrwias, Ferdmandus Vasquius, Michael de Aninyon, Martinus Navarrus, to whom now may be added two other learned Divines Franciscus' Suarez, and Gabriel Vasquez.  
5. Out of Germany he produceth Stephanus Albestanensis Bishop, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Henricus de Gandavo, Vlricus, Dionysius Carthufianus, joanues Driedo, Albertus Pighius, jacobus Latomus, Conradus Brunus: and to these may be added Adolphus Schulkenius, and Lessius.  
6. Out of England he bringeth Alexander of Hales a learned Professor of Divinity, and Master to S. Thomas of Aquin and S. Bonaventure, Holcot, Franciscus Maironus, joannes Bachonus, Thomas Waldensis Provincial in his time in England of the order of Carmelites, and one of the learnedst of his age, Cardinal Pole, Doctor Sanders: To whom may be added Cardinal Allen in his Apology, and Answer to the libeler, Doct. Stapleton, Mr. Reynolds, and diverse others of our learned writers since King HENRY the Eight his time.  
7. Dareth now our adversary show his face against such an ample Senate of Doctors, and learned men? can he think himself a good Catholic that holdeth against Catholic Counsels, Chief Pastors, Doctors, yea and the Catholic Church, which never dissented from her Doctors and Pastors? He will say that he wanteth not Doctors also. O the Doctors! I grant he may allege Heretics for his opinion; for in this he conspireth with them; for although, as we shall see anon, they arrogate to themselves this power, yet they deny it to the Pope. Nay, saith Widdrington, I have Catholic Doctors also to countenance my opinion, and to free it from Heresy, yea temereity. And who be these his Authors? He allegeth Occam, joannes Parisiensis, Dantes the Poet, Almainus, joannes Maior, Hugo, Vulcurunus, Albericus, and others. But either these Authors were schismatics, as Sigebert; or they expressly averte the contrary to that, for which he allegeth them as Ocham and Almain; or finally they neither affirm; the Pope's power, nor deny it in deposing Princes: And so only five or six, as Dantes the Poet, Sigebert the Schismatic, Barclay, Bochell, and Lescherius expressly hold with Widdrington, 
Schulck. pag. 131.  as Schulckenius hath showed particularly of every one of the authors he allegeth. And what are these obscure Authonrs to Scriptures, Counsels, Popes, Practise of the Church so many learned Authors of Italy, France, Spain, Germany and England, as are produced? But that the Reader may see more plainly how little authority Widdrington purchaseth to his opinion by his Authors, I shall examine some of them in particular.  
8. 
Apol. n. 4 Disput. Theolog. sec. 3. c. 3. n. 4. New yeares-guift pa. 54.  Widdrington in his Apology and Theological Disputation and Newyeares' gift allegeth out of joannes Azorius divers Authors as patroness of his opinion and seemeth to endeavour to bring in AZORIUS himself amongst them, though by the head and shoulders. JOANNES AZORIUS a famous jesuit (saith he) affirmeth that it hath ever been a great controversy betwixt Emperors and Kings on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in some certain cases the Pope hath a right and power to deprive Kings of their Kingdoms etc. And he allegeth divers Authors out of Azorius who favour his opinion. But First although he might have some reason to allege those Authors, yet I can not see what reason he had to allege them out of Azorius; for if he would thereby make his Reader believe that Azorius alloweth his opinion for probable in that it is countenanced by these Authors by him alleged, he abuseth his Reader, for that AZORIUS condemneth these his Authors and consequently himself very deeply: whosoever pleaseth to read AZORIUS shall see that he disputing this Question allegeth for the first opinion, 
Tom. 2. lib. 4. instit, moral. c. 19  which denieth the Pope Authority of deposing Princes in some cases, Lutherans, Caluinistes, and Marsilius Patavinus an heretic, and after that he sayeth, non longè ab his fuerunt Gulielmus Ocham, etc. not fare different from these (heretics) were William Ocham, and joannes Parisiensis Divines, and Dantes the Flonentine Poet, and Almainus tract. de suprem. potest. laicâ quaest. 3. Mayor in 4. dist. 24. quaest. 3. concl. 3. who have followed Ocham. And then he addeth: have sententiam Marsilij temerariam & errorem continentem ipse Marsilius & alij colligere se arbitrabantur, imprimis etc. This temerarious opinion and which containeth error, Marsilius and others thought they might gather first etc. And after that he addeth: revera nisilabi & errare velimus, negare omnino non possumus penes Romanum Pontificem esse iure divino utramque potestatem: truly if we will not be deceived and err, we can not at all deny, but that the Roman Bishop hath bathe authorities. 
Tom. 2. lib. 10. Instit. mor. c. 6.  And after he proveth this out of the canon Law, by Divines also and Lawyers. The same Azorius addeth to these favourers of Widdringtons' opinion Hugo, Michael vulcurunus, and Albericus, but condemneth them, and proveth out of Bartolus l. 1. ff. de requirendis reis §. vlt: that Dantes was after his: death almost condemned of heresy, and he allegeth Antonius 3. p. tit. 21. cap. 5. §. 2. who sayeth that Dantes in hoc erravit, erred in thou: and so is put in the Index amongst prohibited authors, and his book of Monarohie condemned: and of Albericus he sayeth he is cautè legendus, warily to be read, and confuteth what he saith. Whereas therefore Azorius sayeth, that it hath ever been a great contronersie betwixt Emperors and Kings, on the one side and the Bishop of Rome on the other etc. (whence Widdrington would in far that his opinion were disputable and probable) Azorius meaneth not, that it hath been a controversy betwixt Bishops of Rome and all Emperors and Kings; for seeing that he counteth this opinion of Widdrington temerarious and erroneous, therein he should condemn all Emperors and Kings of temereity and error: but he meaneth schismatical or heretical Emperors and Kings, especially such as the Bishops of Rome have deposed, who to hold their crowns, stood to it, that the Pope could not depose them: whereupon their followers complained of GREGORY the seventh. And therefore in GREGORY the seventh his time, when the greatest controversy was about rhiss matter, none but the Emperor deposed, and his followers schismatics as he was, did contradict the Pope's sentence of deposition: yea than the King of England William the Conqueror, Alphonsus' King of Castille, Philip King of France, Kanuius King of Denmarcke, Count Robert of Flaunders, and other Princes held league and amity with GREGORY the seventh against the Emperor and his Antipope, 
Baron. tom. 11. an. 1084 Et anno 1085. n. 11. & 12 in Greg. 7. Epist. ad Greg. 7. quam referunt Magdeburgenses Cent. 11. cap. 8. de Schismatibus circa med.  as may be seen in Baronius in his eleventh Tome. Yea the Emperor deposed, pleading that he could not be deposed but for heresy, confessed that he might have been deposed for heresy: Traditio Patrum est (saith he) me solius Dei iudicio obnoxium esse, nisi (quod absit) a Catholicâ side deviaverim. It is a Tradition of the Fathers that I am subject only to God's judgement, unless (which Godforbid) I should suarue from the Catholic faith.  
9 But let us come to his Authors in particular, of which I shall examine only them whom Azorius, and whom he himself allegeth in his Newyearesgift which he first dedicated in English to English Catholics, and now hath set it out in Latin and commended it to the King our Sovereign. The Authors whom Azorinial. leageth are Ocham, joannes Parisiensis, Dantes, Almainus, Maior, Hugo, Michael Vulcurunus, and Albericus. To whom Widdrington in his Newyearesguift addeth Trithemius, Petrus Pithaeus, D. Barclay, the 13. English Priests and Confessors, the court of Parliament at Paris. But first suppose all these were plainly, of Widdringtons' opinion yet I could make three general exceptions against them. The first is because many of these Authors are no Divines and so their testimony can not make Widdringtons' opinion which is belonging to Divinity probable: because as Aristotle and Vasquez, 
In his Newyeares' gift c. 3. pag. 51. Arist. 1. Top. 8. & Vasq. apud eandem. Disput. Theol. cap. 10. sec. 2. nu. 22.  alleged by Widdrington, affirm; that opinion is probable which is approved by wise, learned, and skilful men in that art, but many of Widdringtons' Authors are not Divines: ergo they can not make Widdringtons' opinion probable. And by this Argument I can except against Trithemius an historiographer, Dantes a poet, Albericus, Bochellus and Barclay layers: because ne suitor extra crepidam: Et unicuique in suâ arte credendum. The second is because divers of these Authors have their reputation stained and their credit cracked; and if the testimony of infamous persons is not admitted in Temporal affairs much less in matters belonging to faith and Divinity; by which I might except against Dantes who was as Bartholus saith, suspected at least of heresy: and who is registered in the Index of forbidden Authors: against Ocham who was Pensioner of the Schismatical Emperor, was excommunicated of the Pope for some errors and was the enemy of Pope JOHN the 22. as Trithemius and Genebrard in Chron. do avouch, and his books are prohibited in the Index of forbidden books as also are the books of Antonius de Rosellis an other of WIDDRINGTONS' Authors, and him particulerlie Navarre and Possevine do condemn. The third exception is that either they say nothing for him or against him, and so I except against the rest. 
Navar. relec. in cap. norunt, de iudiciu, Possevin. in apparatu sacro.  But although this were sufficient to reject Widdringtons' Authors, yet I will examine them in particular, and show that most of them do not only not favour him, but do plainly contradict him.  
10. Amongst these let OCHAM speak first because he is the principal, or let ALMAINUS speak out of his mouth and writings, that so at once we may see both their opinions. ALMAINUS then who jumpeth in this point of doctrine with OCHAM and speaketh out of his mouth, 
Lib. de suprem. potest. cap. 9  in a certain little book of supreme Ecclesiastical power which containeth an exposition of Ochams' decisions hath these words: non dedit Christus potestatem (Petro) laicos suis proprietaetibus ac dominiis privandi, nisi in casu si contingeret Principem saecularem abutire suâiu perniciem Christianitatis vel fidei: it a quod ille abusus esset maximo nocumento pro consecutione foelicitatis aeternae. N●● negat Ochan●us, quin in tali casu Papa possit cum deponere, etsialijs Doctores hoc negant, quamuis habeat potestatem declarandi ipsum esse deponendum. Christ gave not Power to Peter to deprive laiemen of their proprieties and dominions, except in case it should happen that a Prince should abuse his power to the destruction of Christianity or faith, in so much that the abuse should be a great damage to the attaining of eternal felicity. Ocham denieth not but that in such a case the Pope may depose him, though other Doctors do deny this, though he have power to declare him to be deposed. The same Almainus in the same book bringeth in Ocham answering to the first Argument thus: 
q. 2. c. 5  Ad 1. Respondet Doctor (Ochamus) transeat Maior; & ad Minorem notat Doctor quod Imperator potest esse dignus depositione dupliciter: uno modo propter crimen spirituale, ut propter haeresim quia haereticus & Schismaticus, & utitur potestate eius in detrimentum Christianitatis: Alio modo propter crimen civil, utpotè negligit administrare iustitiam etc. Tumsi Imperator sit dignus depositione propter crimen primi generis, puta propter crimen spirituale potest deponi a Papa, cum habeat plenam potestatem in puniendis peccatis spiritualibus. To the first (Argument) the Doctor (Ocham) answereth, let the Mayor proposition pass, and touching the Minor Propoaetion, the Doctor (Ocham) noteth that the Emperor may be worthiss deposition two ways: ne way for a spiritual crime as heresy, because an heretic and Schismatic, and useth his power to the detriment of Christianity: An other way, for a civil crime, because he neglecteth to administer justice etc. Then, if the Emperor be worthy deposition for a crime of the first kind, to wit for a spiritual crime, he may be deposed by the Pope, he having full power to punish spiritual sins. And again in the same Chapter answering to the fourth allegation, he bringeth in Ocham thus answering: dicit Doctor quod Papa potest transferre imperium, sed hoc est solum casualiter, hoc est, quando non est judex saecularis: ita si desit congregatio populi, potest Papa transfer, & hoc casualiter. Secundo potest pro crimine purè spirituali, ut si gens illius imperij efficeretur haeretica, vel transferret se ad aliam sectam, dimittendo sectam Christianam, posset propter hoc Papa illam Gentem privare dignitate Imperiali, & transfer in aliam gentem, sed hoc non est regulariter, sed solùm causaliter. Regulariter potest pro crimine haeresis, sed non pro crimine civili, nisi casualiter, put a in defectu illius qui potest. The Doctor (Ocham) saith, that the Pope can transfer the Empire (from the Grecians to the Germans) but this only casually, that is, when there is no saecular judge: so if the Congregation of the people be wanting, the Pope can transfer (the Empire) and this casually. secondly he can for a crime merely spiritual, as if the nation of that Empire should become heretical or should transfer itself to an other sect relinquishing the Christian sect, for this, the Pope might deprive that nation of Imperial dignity, and so transfer it to an other nation. But this is not regularly (or ordinarily) but only casually. regularly he can (depose) for the crime of heresy, but not for a civil crime, unless casually, to wit in the defect of an other that can. So that Ocham and Almainus are quite opposite to Widdrington; for Widdrington saith the Pope can depose the Prince, or dispose of temporal Kingdoms in no case; they say he can regularly depose and dispose in case of Schism or Heresy, and casually for a Civil fault and crime, that is, when the secular judge, Prince or common wealth is wanting. 
In his Newye aresguift pag. 45. Almain. q. in vesperiis. ultra medium.  Widdrington objecteth that Almainus averteth, that de ratione potestatis laicae est poenam civilem posse infligere, ut sunt mors, exilium, bonorum privatio, sed nullam talem poenam ex institutione divina infligere potest Ecclesiastica potestas; imo nec incarcerare, ut plerisque Doctoribus placet, sed ad solam ●●●●am spiritualem extenditur, vipote excommunicationem etc. It is pertaining to the nature of Laical power to inflict a civil pain, as death, Banishment, and privation of goods; but the Ecclesiastical power can inflict no such punishment by the divine institution: yea it can not imprison, as many Doctors think, but it is only extended to a spiritual punishment, as excommunication etc. But Widdrington should have expounded Almainus by Almainus, unless he will make him flatly to contradict himself, and so to add little credit to his opinion. And therefore when Almainus saith that the Ecclesiastical power can inflict no Temporal punishment, he meaneth that it can not regularly and for a civil crime, but granteth with Ocham in the express words alleged, that it may inflict a Temporal punishment casually for a Civil crime, and regularly for the crime of heresy. But perchance Widdrington hath better luck in his other Authors.  
11. 
joan. Parisiens'. tract. de potest. Regia & Papale. Trithem. de script. Ecc. an. 1280.  another Author of his is joannes Parisiensis who (as Trithemius testifieth) was a Divine well seen in Scriptures, who taught publicly in Paris etc. And what saith he? If the King (saith he) were an heretic, and incorrigible, and a contemner of the Ecclesiastical censure, the Pope might do some thing in the people, whereby that King might be deprived of his honour and deposed, by excommunicating all them to whom it belongeth to depose him etc. To this Author I answer first that he hath other positions also in that his tract which sound not well. secondly as he saith to little for the truth so he saith to much for Widdrington and for the oath which he defendeth: for as he saith the Pope by himself can not depose the Prince, so he saith he can depose him by the people in that he can command them under pain of excommunication to depose him; wherein he favoureth the Prince as little as if he had said the Pope by himself can depose him: for whether the Prince be deposed immediately, or mediately 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 Pope's commandment, as by the Pope's immediate Authority.  
12. After Dantes and Almainus whom we have already examined, 
In 4. d. 24 q. 3. ad 3. et 4  followeth joannes Maior, who yet saith no less than joannes Parisiensis: for he after he hath denied the Pope to be direct Lord, or that all Princes are his vassals to be constituted and deposed at his will (in which I also with all divines will not let to agree) saith, si intelligatur habere dominium in temporalibus casualiter, etc. if he be understood to have dominion in Temporal things casually, and that he can do much to the deposition of Kings, by persuading, counseling, yea and by provoking others to the sword against them (Kings) when they are destroyers and altogether unprofitable spoilers of Christian faith and common wealth, this is more gently to be borne, neither is it against my sayings. HUGO cited by the Gloss, 
In cap. caujam quae. Qui filij sint legitimi. Lib. de Regim. mundi par. 2. q. 2. princ. num. 82  as Schulkennius observeth, saith not that the Pope can not depose the Emperor in case of heresy, but only that he hath his authority from God. Michael Vulcurunus (as Schulkennius also observeth) standeth in plain terms against Widdrington and therefore was not wisely alleged by him: for he saith that in case the Emperor or King should be rebellious to the Pope, and would not assist him in necessity, he might expel such a Prince out of the Church, and by this he shall be said to be expelled out of his Kingdom, seeing that he who hath rule over Christians ought to be Catholic: and a little after: but yet (saith he) if the Emperor, or any other King be incorrigible in respect of faith, and of a great and manifest sin, the Pope might depose or deprive such a man. 
Trithem. de Scrip. Eccl. an. 1340.  Albericus, as appeareth by that which Trithemius saith of him, doubteth only whether certain decretalles disposing of Temporal matters be just. Qua decretales an sint iustae Deus novit: nullam enim earum saluo meliori consilio (& si erroneum foret revoco) credo luri consonam: which decretalles whether they be just or no, God knoweth, for I think, not gain saying better counsel (and if it were erroneus I recall it) that none of these decretalles are conformable to Law. I answer that this man was a Lawyer, no Divine, and so being not skilful in that science, is not of Authority in a matter of divinity. secondly he is doubtful himself, ready to recall what he saith, and so can give no assurance to others.  
13. Trithemius is an other Author, and him Widdrington often bringeth on the stage. Trithemius (saith he in his Theological Disputation, 
Disput. Theolog. cap. 2. n. 5. New-year asgift. pag. 45. Trithem. in Chron. Monast. Hirsangiensis arm 1106.  and in his Newyearesgift) Abbot of the order of S. Benedict, a man of great learning and piety said, that the Question whether the Pope can depose a Prince or no, was disputed amongst school Divines, and yet not determined by the judge. And indeed Trithemius hath these words. Ipse autem Henricus 4. primus est inter omnes Imperatores per Papam depositus. Scholasticicertant, & adhuc sub iudice lis est, utrum Papa Imperatorem possit deponere: quam quaestionem cum ad nos non pertineat, indiscussam relinquamus. Henry the fourth was the first amongst all Emperors that was deposed by the Pope. The School Divines do contend, and as yet it is not decided by the judge, whether the Pope can depose an Emperor: which question because it pertaineth not to us, let us leave undiscussed. I answer first that Trithemius was only a Chronographer and Historiographer, and so his words are of no more authority than joannes de Sacrobosco his verdict in a case of Law, for as Vasquez saith (and Widdrington above confesseth) the Authors who can make an opinion probable must be skilful in that art or science; which Trithemius himself knew, and therefore leaveth this question undiscussed. Secondly I answer that Trithemius speaketh of HENRY the fourth Emperor, who though he had committed many insolences against the Pope and Church, and had set up an Antipope &c. (which his enormities Trithemius calleth scelera inaudita) yet he professed himself a Catholic, and so the School Divines, to wit, Ocham, Almainus and such others as I have related (for others Widdrington can not allege) disputed whether he could be deposed he being or pretending to be no heretic, as appeareth by his Epistle to GREGOR●E the seventh; 
above alleged.  and what they resolved we have seen.  
14. 
Widdr. In his Newyearesgift pag. 46. Disput. Theol. c. 3. sec. 3. num. 13. Petrus Pithaeus God, libert. Ecc. Gallicana.  Petrus Pithaeus (saith Widdrington) a man, (as Possevin saith) trnlie learned and a diligent searcher of Antiquities, affirmeth that the liberty of the Church of France is grounded in this Principle which France hath ever held for certain, that the Pope hath not power to deprive the French King of his kingdom, or in any other manner to dispose thereof: and that notwithstanding any whatsoever monitions, or monitories, excommunications, or Interdicts which by the Pope can be made, yet the subjects are bound to yield obedience due to the King for temporals, neither therein can they be dispensed or absolved by the Pope. And in his Disput. Theological, 
Cap. 3. sec. 3. num. 13.  he saith that Pithaeus out of a general Maxim which France (that is, as he putteth in the margin, the greater part) ever approved, deduceth this particular proposition, that the Pope can not deprive the French King of his Kingdom. But first here we see Widdrington ascribeth two things to Pithaeus which seem to imply contradiction: for in his Newyearesgift he makes him say that the liberty of the Church of France is grounded in this Principle; that the Pope hath not power to deprive the King of his Kingdom. And in his Theological Disputation, he saith that Pithaeus out of a certain general Maxim deduced this particular proposition, that the Pope can not give the Kingdom of Freunce into prey, nor deprive the King of it. And so he maketh this position, That the Pope can not deprive the King of France, both a general Maxim in which the liberty of the Church of F●aunce is grounded, and also a particular proposition deduced out of a general Maxim, which he nameth not: which two things, how they cohere, let Widdrington look. And certes I can not imagine any Maxim received in France, out of which either Widdrington or Pithaeus can deduce that the Pope can in no case deprive the King. And if there were any such Maxim received in France, that learned Prelate Cardinal Perone in his eloquent oration made in the Chamber of the Third estate not only in his own name, but also in the name of all the Nobility and Clergy of France, would never have dared before such curious Auditors, to utter these words following: now if those who have of set purpose laboured in favour of the oath of England (he putteth in the margin Widdrington) to find out Authors who have affirmed that in case of heresy or infidelity, the subjects could not be absolved from the obligation, that they own to their Princes, could not find out any one: and if those who have since written of the same subject in France could never find out in all France (note these words) since the time that Schools of Divinity have been instituted and set open till this day, one only Doctor, neither Divine, nor Lawyer, nor Decree, nor Council, nor determination, nor act of Parliament, nor Magistrate either Ecclesiastical or Politic, who hath said that in case of heresy or infidelity the subject, can not be absolved from the oath of fidelity which they own to their Princes: on the contrary, if all those who have written for the defence of the Temporal power of Kings, have ever excepted the case of heresy and Apostasy from Christian Religion: how is it that they can without enforcing of Consciences, make men not only to receive this doctrine that in no case the subjects can be absolved from the oath of Allegiance they own to their Princes, for a perpetual and universal doctrine of the French Church, etc. Thus he whereby it is manifest, that there is no such received Maxim in France, out of which Pithaeus or Widdrington can deduce that the Pope in no case can deprive the King of France. And what the opinion of the most Christian Kingdom of France at this present is, may well appear by this, that all the nobility and Clergy, the two most worthy Parts and members, of that Realm in the year 1615. rejected an oath like to the oath of England, as pernicious, cause of Schism, & the open gap to heresy, as our most Excellent and learned King in his Preface to his declaration for the right of Kings set forth in French the same year, confesseth, though in a complaining manner, and as it is to be seen in the Oration of the said Cardinal sent to our said Sovereign. 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 given them from England.  
15. He allegeth also out of Bochellus the Testimony of Cardinal Pelue, and other Prelates, who in an assembly at Paris 1595. rejected the Decree of the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 19 by which it is forbidden Kings to permit Duelles under pain of losing the city or place in which they permit a Duelle. Concilium Tridentiwm (inquiunt) excommunicate, & private Regem civitate illâ vel loco in quo permittit fieri duellum. Hic Articulus est contra authoritatem Regis, qui non potest privari suo dominio temporali, respectu cuius nullum Superiorem recognoscit. The Council of Trent (say they) excommunicateth and depriveth a King of that City or place, in which he permitteth a duelle to be made. This Article is against the Authority of the King who can not be deprived of his temporal Dominion in respect of which he acknowledgeth no Superior. I answer that it is not credible that Cardinal Pelue and those Prelates would thus reject the Council of Trent, or affirm that the Pope can not deprive the King: and lest I may seem to do injury to Bochellus in not crediting him, I shall give reasons for it, 
Cap. 3. pag. 111.  for first as Schulkennius showeth, he thrusts into the Decrees of the Church of France, and reckoneth amongst her liberties many scandalous things: and to omit many of them which Schulkennius noteth, I will note only two or three of his absurdities, which I have seen in his book. In his Preface to the Reader he showeth himself no good Catholic in carping uniustelie and saucily at that venerable Council of Trent, 
Bochel. in praef, ad lectorem.  saying: quantas novissimis temporibus, ubique terrarum excitarit turbas Synodus Tridentina, nemo est qui nesciat: what troubles in these latter times, the Council of Trent hath stirred up, no man is ignorant. And in an other place: he seeks to exempt the King of France and his Officers from Excommunication, 
Lib. 2. tit. 16. cap. 3.  as though they could not be excommunicated by their Pastor, wherein whilst he would exalt his King he depresseth him so low, as that he maketh him of Christian●ssimus (which title he hath worthily long enjoyed) not to be Christianus: because if he be a Christian he is a sheep of Christ, and consequently of S. PETER to whom Christ committed his sheep, 
joan. 21. Pasce oves meas.  and consequently also of the Bishop of Rome his successor, yea and of other Pastoures: and therefore for a just cause may be by them severed from the fold by Excommunication, 
Lib. 5. c. 45. pag. 906. en Extraic. d'aucuns' artic●tes du Concile de Trent.  Likewise in his 5. book he setteth down an extract of many of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which (like to no good Catholic) he rejecteth as contrary to the liberty and practice of France. Yea in many places upon the least occasion he glanceth against that hohe and renowned Council. Wherefore as in other things, so in this which he fathereth on Cardinal Pelue and other Prelates, he deserveth no credit. secondly the imputation which he layeth on them is so absurd, that I can not believe that they who were well seen in the Councils Decrees, would ever reject that Decree of the Council: because that Decree only depriveth a King of the city, place, or Dominion which he holdeth of the Church, as is manifest by those words qu●d ab ●cclesia obtinent: 
Concil. Trid. ●ess. 25. c. 19  which they hold of the Church; wherefore either the King of France holdeth some city or demaine of the Pope and Church, or he doth not. If he do, no marvel that the Pope can in that case deprive him, the Pope being in this his Temporal Lord of whom he holdeth that Temporal Dominion: if he be not, that extract of BOCHELLUS is most absurd which he setteth down in these french words. L● concile excommunie & privy le Roy de la Ville on lieu, 
Bochell. lib. 5. tit. 20. c. 45. pag. 916 En extraict d'aueuns articles du Concile de Trent.  ou il aurà permis un duel sess. 25. cap. 19 the Council of Trent excommunicateth and depriveth the King of the town, or place, where he shall permit a duelle sess. 25. cap. 19 where we see that he ascribeth to the Council, as though it did absolutely deprive the King of whatsoever town or place, whereas the Council depriveth him only of that town or place which he holdeth of the Church. And therefore these words following (Ceste Article est country l'authoritie du Roy, qui ne peut estre priuè de son temporel ou partie d'iceluy, pour le regard duquel il ne recognoit aucun Superieur quelque il soit. This Article is against the Authority of the King, who can not be deprived of his temporalities or any part thereof, in respect of which he acknowledgeth no Superior.) these words, I say, are most absurd and unworthy that grave Assembly, not unbeseeming Bochellus whose spirit they resemble. Wherefore this book of Bochellus is forbidden to be printed or sold in Catholic countries, where the Council of Trent is received, and where a Censor librorum is appointed. And yet such authors Widdrington is enforced to fly unto.  
16. He allegeth also Mr. George Blacwell the late Archpriest, who in his examination, and as Widdrington saith, even to his death persisted in Widdringtons' opinion concerning both the oath and deposition of Kings. But it is well known to many, that Mr. Blacwell whilst he was at liberty, was so Zealous for the Pope's Authority deposing, that he thought it a matter of faith. And I have heard a Catholic Gentleman named, who visiting M. Blacwell in Prison, said unto him: did not you M. Blacwell, heretofore tell me that the oath of allegiance was in no case lawful? And Widdrington himself knoweth that in a certain conference betwixt the Archpriest and other Priests at which, Widdrington himself was present, Mr. Archpriest said he thought the Pope had Authority to depose a Prince, but yet, matters standing as they did, he could not lawfully exercise it. Yea in that conference also WIDDRINGTON himself was ZEALOUS for this the Pope's authority, though after his imprisonment, and after his Chief Pastors' Breves which should have confirmed him, he hath changed his opinion. Let then the Reader judge of what Authority the words of a fearful old man then Prisoner, and straightly examined, are, he especially having averred the contrary when he was at liberty? what else can hence be gathered, than that rather out of fear then judgement, he allowed the oath when he was in his Adversary's hands, of whom otherwise he expected all rigour. And perchance WIDDRINGTON himself, who before his imprisonment was so Zealous for the Pope's authority, and against the oath, hath not now so much changed his mind as his tongue, nor speaketh not so much out of judgement and opinion as out of fear or faintenesse of heart. And now that he hath begun, he thinks he must go forward.  
17. Lastely he allegeth in all his books the 13. Reverend Priests, thinking by their Authority and credit (for they were grave and learned men, constant confessors, and two of them glorious martyrs) to grace and credit his opinion. But because they are able enough to answer for themselves, I will not intermeddle myself in other men's matters, only in a word or two I will answer what in effect I think they might answer, and what I have heard some of them answer. And this I thought good to do for 2. reasons: first for the respect and love I bear to them, they being of my coat, and principal men of the English Clergy, which so constantly hath borne the brunt of a long persecution, that it may be an example to all other Clergies, and a mirrout to furure ages. Secondly lest I should do them injury: For if I answering to Widdringtons other Authors, should say nothing of these by Widdrington so often alleged, I might give occasion to the world to think, that I passed these with silence because they were so manifest fautours of Widdringtons' opinion, as I could not tell what to say in their defence. I answer First that this their protestation was by them made before the Pope's Breves came forth, that is Anno 1603. and therefore be it that then they were of that opinion; yet seeing that since the Breves were published, they profess and protest the contrary, as Widdrington well knoweth, and that one of them yet living, whilst he was in prison, said he would not take the oath for the Bishopric of London, and two others of them (Mr. Drury and Mr. Cadwallader) suffered death rather than they would take the oath; Widdrington hath no more reason to allege them now for the oath, than I may have to allege now Widdrington against the oath, because once he stood against it. If WIDDRINGTON say they should not have changed their opinion; I must tell him, that they had more reason to change their opinion upon their Chief Pastors' commandment, than Widdrington hath to change his opinion against his Chief Pastors' commandment. This I say supposing they had once been of that opinion, as they Protest they never were, and therefore in their Protestation alleged by Widdrington, do give the Pope as much authority as S. Peter had, and profess that their intentions were not in any wise to diminish his authority. Secondly I auswer that towards the end of Queen Elizabethes reign it was signified to certain Priests then being in London, that the Queen's Majesty was then so well affected to her Catholic subjects, that she proffered them free use of Religion, provided that she might have security given for their fidelity, of which by reason of Pius Quintus sentence of Excommunication and deposition pronounced against her, she seemed to stand in fear. These 13. Reverend Priests easily induced to believe that which they so much desired, and fearful not to give way to so great a good pretended to English Catholics, were content to make that Protestation which Widdrington setteth down, 
Disput. Theol. cap. 3. sec. 3. ●um. 11.  by which they protest that they acknowledge her to have as full Authority, power, and Soneraigntie over us, and over all the snbiectes in the Realm, as any her highness Predecessors had. And whereas Widdrington maketh this inference; ergo to make this their fact and Protestation lawful, they must needs deny that the Pope had authority to depose Queen Elizabeth: I deny that his consequence, and that for many reasons. For first although I will not be so bold as to examine whether Pius Quintus had just cause to depose Queen Elizabeth, but rather suppose he had, nor whether the 13. Priest's thought, or might justly think that he had no just cause; yet the Pope may have Authority to excommunicate and depose, and yet if there want just cause, his sentence shall be invalid and of no force. And so it followeth not; the 13. Priests acknowledged the Queen lawful Queen after the sentence of deposition, ergo they thought the Pope could not depose her, because the sentence might be invalid, not for want of Authority in the Pope, but for want of just cause in the Queen. 
Disput. Theol. cap. 10.  So WIDDRINGTON affirmeth that the Catholics of England may take the oath notwithstanding the Pope's commandment to the contrary: and if one should thence infer, ergo he thinketh the Pope hath no Authority to command, he would deny the Consequence, and say, that the commandment wanteth force to oblige, not for want of Authority, but by reason that it proceedeth from ill information. So in the same Chapter, he confesseth, that the Archpriest hath power to take from the Priests, who hold the oath to be lawful, their faculties: and yet if he should, he would say they were not taken away, not for want of power, but for want of just cause. So Father Personnes alleged by Widdrington, saith: 
Disput. Theol. cap. 10. sec. 2. n. 54.  Si enim quaestio esset de facto etc. for if the question were of fact (as this is of the 13. Ptiestes') to wit whether the Pope in this, or that case can depose or excommunicate this, or that Prince, upon these or these causes, or whether the former Popes have done rightin this, or otherwise, than some of these reasons which you affirm are alleged by your friends, might be admitted into consideration, whether it would be to aedification or destruction, whether it would bring with it commodity or discommodity, whether it would be profitable or hurtful, or whether there were causes sufficient or not (for no man defendeth, that the Pope can depose without just cause) or whether due admonition (of which in your letters there is mention) hath been made. thirdly suppose the sentence of Pius Quintus where valid and just (as the contrary is not easily to be thought of a man of such Authority and sanctity) and consequently that the Queen was justly and truly deposed: yet the 13. Priest's might promise to obey her in Temporal and lawful matters, because they might think, that the Queen would notwithstanding the sentence still reign and govern, and would persecute with loss of goods, liberty, and life's all those, that would not obey her; and seeing that such damages excuse from the sentence of excommunication, and give leave to communicate with the Prince excommunicated, and to obey him in all lawful matters; the 13. Priest's supposing otherwise the danger of incurring these damages, might promise obedience to the Queen in all lawful matters. Wherefore Divines & Casuists have in these two verses comprehended all the things which excuse from excommunication, and make communication with the excommunicate persons lawful: 
Haec Anathema quidem faciunt ne possit obesse:  
Vtile, lex, humile, res ignorata, necesse.  Thirdly and lastly I answer, that although the sentence of excommunication and deposition against Queen ELIZABETH were valid, and consequently she truly deposed and deprived of all Regal Authority, yet the 13. Priests at the time when they made that their Protestation might acknowledge Queen ELIZABETH to be their lawful Queen, and to have as full Authority as any her predecessors had: because that sentence of PIUS QVINTUS might at that time be abrogated, and of no force, and so cease to bind, and consequently the Priests might acknowledge, that then she had as full power as she had before the sentence, and as much right and Authority as any of her Predecessors. And indeed that PIUS QVINTUS sentence did at that time cease to bind, it may be gathered by this, that thirty three years had passed from her deposition unto the time in which these 13. Priests made their Protestation: all which time as well Catholics as Protestant's obeyed her as Queen, the Popes then reigning knowing, and not reclaiming, and consequently consenting: which consent of the subjects of England and Popes of Rome, was sufficient to abrogate the former sentence, and consequently to put Queen ELIZABETH in the same estate she was in before the sentence. And that this tacit consent is sufficient to abrogat either positive law or sentence, I prove by Vasq. words, 
Vasq. 1. 2. Disp. 177. c. 2. n. 17.  whom Widdrington so often allegeth. For Vasquez iumping herein with the common opinion of Divines and Lawyers, thus pronounceth. Cum Princeps sciens usum eum approbat, vel non improbat, nascitur consuetudo quae habet vim legis, vel quaesufficit ad derogandum legi antealata, quia Princeps non improbans usum, censetur illum approbare: when the Prince knowing the use, doth approve it, or doth not disprove it, there ariseth a custom which hath the force of a law, or which sufficeth to derogate to the law before made, because the Prince not disproouing an use, is thought to approve it. This is the doctrine of Divines and Lawyers, 
Widdr. Disput. Theol. c. 6. sec. 3. n. 25.27.28.  which Widdrington himself approveth in divers places. Wherefore seeing that in England the sentence of Pius Quintus pronounced against Queen Elizabeth, was not observed for three and thirty years before the thirteen Priests Protestation, and that all that while even the Catholics obeyed her as Queen, the Pope's knowing and not contradicting, yea some of them (as I have heard of Pope Gregory the 13. and Clement the 8.) expressly approving, it followeth that at the time of the 13. Priest's Protestation, the sentence of deposition by contrary use and custom, was abrogated, and so Queen ELIZABETH was at that time in the same state she was in before the sentence, and consequently might be acknowledged for true Queen, and to have as full power, and Authority, as any of her Predecessors. But because widdrington may allege, that these 13. reverend Priests not onlie promised that they would acknowledge Q. Elizabeth, notwithstanding any sentence already pronounced; but also notwitstanding any Authority, or any Excommunication whatsoever, either denounced, or to be denounced, to yield unto her Majesty all obedience in temporal causes, I answer that the 13. Reverend Priests might acknowledge in the Pope authority to depose the Queen, and yet promise her obedience in Lawful things, supposing the sentence would be invalid for some of the aforesaid causes, and not for want of authority. Again, they might think that if the Queen would give for hereafter liberty of Conscience, as was pretended, and continue the same, as the 13. Priest's might hope, the Pope should have no cause to Excommunicate or depose her, and therefore would not, or if he would, they might imagine that in that case he could not justly, nor without great injury to the Catholics of England, proceed so against her, that, being to provoke her to a new persecution; and so the 13. Reverend Priests might think themselves not bound to obey in that case the Pope's sentence and commandment, it being unjust, and consequently, rebus sic stantibus, they might promise, notwithstanding any sentence to be denounced, to obey the Queen in all Temporal and lawful causes, and to defend and assist her. If Widdrington should here object, that if the 13. Priest's might promise to acknowledge and obey Queen Elizabeth, notwithstanding any sentence to be pronounced, supposing the sentence would be unjust: why may not the Catholic Subject of England, take the oath of pretended allegiance, and swear that the Pope can not depose the King, and that if he should, he would still acknowledge and obey him, supposing the sentence would be unjust? I answer him that the case is not like; because in the oath the question is de iure not de facto, and therefore the Subject sweareth absolutely, that the Pope hath not any power or Authority to depose the King, and that notwithstanding any sentence of Excommunication or deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted against the said King, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience, he will bear true faith and true allegiance to his Majesty. And seeing that the Pope hath such Authority to depose a Prince, as here I suppose, it is perjury at least to swear absolutely that he hath no such Authority over the King, and it is injury to the Pope. But the 13. Priests speak de facto not de iure, and therefore they protest not that the Pope hath no such Authority, but promise what they would do de sacto, notwithstanding any his Authority, that is, that not withstanding the Pope's Authority and sentence, (so liberty of Conscience were granted to all English Catholics as they were borne in hand it should) they would still acknowledge and obey the Queen, supposing in that case, the sentence would be unjust, and so of no force to bind in conscience. Wherefore seeing that these 13. Reverend Priests might make their Protestation of acknowledging and obeying Q. ELIZABETH, not for that they thought the Pope could not depose her, but for other reasons alleged: why should then Widdrington take them in the worst sense? why should he bring them so oft on the stage? why should he think to grace his opinion by their gravity, learning, and Authority, he knowing, whatsoever they thought of the Pope's Authority in deposing, before the Pope's Breves came forth (as they protest they never thought as Widdrington doth) that when he began to impugn this the Pope's Authority, and against his Chief Pastors' commandment to defend the oath, they protested in private and public the contrary. And so Widdrington may ask them forgiveness by public writing, whom he hath publicly and yet wrongefullie sought to defame.  
18. Here because I would not pass my limits of brevity which I intended in this book, I thought to have concluded this Chapter. But after I had examined these Authors, yea after that the Printer was come to this Chapter, I came to the sight of Widdringtons' Supplication and Appendix joined to it, which before I had nor seen: for that Catholics making a scruple either to read, or to keep books forbidden by the Chief Pastor, and Superiors being vigilant (and worthily) to suppress such books, it is hard in Catholic countries to meet with any of Widdringtons' books, two of them being expressly condemned, and all his later books being almost but repetitions of the former: yet having hit upon this book, I was desirous to see with what dexterity he defended these authors against Schulckennius. And I find that he refused to acknowledge two of them, to wit Dantes and Ocham, 
In Append. § 6 num. 2.  saying: Imprimis falsum est, me aut Dantem aut Occamum pro meis authoribus produxisse etc. First it is false, that I produced either Dantes or Ocham for my Authors. But I only affirmed that by JOHN AZORIUS, they were alleged for that opinion. And yet who could think otherwise, then that he had produced them for his Authors, seeing that after the first opinion of Cardinal Bellarmine and others which holdeth that the Chief Pastor may in some case dispose of Temporalities and Regalities, he setteth down the second opinion of those who hold that the Chief Pastor in no case, by no Authority, either directly or indirectly, hath power to depose a Prince; and coming to the Authors of this second opinion, which he himself Embraceth, he saith: Hanc sententiam (ut refert Ioannes Azorius, Societatis jesu Theologus) sequuntur Gulielmus Occamus, joannes Parisiensis, Dantes, Aligerius, jacobus Almainus etc. This sentence (as joannes Azorius a divine of the Society of jesus relateth) William Occam, john of Paris, Dantes Aligerius, joannes Almainus, etc. do follow. Who I say reading these words in Widdrington, could think otherwise, then that these two Authors which Widdrington produceth for the second opinion, be produced for his Authors, though out of Azorius, as well as the other Authors. But it seemeth he is loath altogether to refuse these two Authors, and therefore he saith, Azorius maketh Occam a Classical Author, and Gabriel and the Nominalles follow him as the Prince of the Nominalles, and Suarez and Vasquez, do oft allege him for their opinion; but what doth all this prove, but only that Occam in respect of his skill in Logic and Philosophy and School Divinity, was a principal Doctor amongst the Nominalles, and in that respect is often alleged by Catholic Doctors? yet notwithstanding this, even Azorius, Suarez, and Vasquez, do condemn Occhams' books, which Widdrington so esteemeth, to wit those which he wrote against the Pope, and his Authority. And touching Dantes, he saith, Trithemius affirmed that Dantes was most studious in Holy Scriptures. But be it that Dantes after Poetry and Humanity studied Scriptures, yet he presuming to study Scriptures without grounds in Divinity, as Erasmus, Laurentius Valla, and others did, might fall into errors as well as they. and certainly who so pleaseth to read his Monarchy shall perceive in it more Poetry, Poetical inventions, and slight and superficial Philosophy, then solid Divinity. Whereas he rejecteth Bartolus censure of Dantes, as I have no leisure, so will I not wrangle with him about that. This shall suffice me, that both of these two Authors are censured in the Index expurgatorius set forth by Authority of the Council of Trent and divers Popes. And although Widdrington saith, that the compilers of the Index are not the Catholic Church, and that he knoweth not for what cause divers books in the Index are condemned, wherein he showeth little respect to Superiors; yet at least those books, which are censured in the Index, can be no less than scandalous, and the Authors no less than infamous, and so no fit witnesses, nor Authors to make an opinion probable. So that let Widdrington choose what he will. Either he will have these Authors, or he will not; if he will, they can give no credit to his opinion, they having none themselves; if he will not, he hath two Authors fewer, and by the same reason may reject divers others, yea all the other Authors: and so, vae soli, woe to him that standeth post alone. But he saith, that he produced not them alone, but with many other Catholic, Godly and learned Authors. I answer that what the most of his Authors be, I have already showed, and whereas he allegeth Tertullian S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, and others, Schulkennius hath answered him, that they are by him misconstrued. Tertullian in his Apologeticut saith Emperors, are second to God and undes his only power; I answer that then Emperors were Pagans, and so not subject to the Church but to God only. I answer secondly, that the Emperor and every absolute King Christian, hath no temporal Superior but God: yet as Widdrington dareth not deny, but that there is a spiritual power and Authority in the Chief Pastor above him which may punish him spiritually, so I say this power can in some case decree temporal punishment against him, when spiritual punishment doth not prevail. Whereas S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, 
In Apol. n. 5. & sequentibus.  Gregorius Turonensis, alleged by TViddrington, say the King is subject to no laws nor punishment, but of God: they mean that he is not subject to his own, or any Temporal Prince's laws and punishment, but deny not but that he is subject to Ecclesiastical laws & power, and may by that power be chastised by spiritual Censures, and also temporal, when the spiritual Censures are contemned. 
In Apol. num. 8.  And whereas S. Augustine, Pope Nicholas, & others alleged by widdrington, affirm that the Pope and Church hath no material or Temporal sword; I grant it, because they by a material sword understand temporal Authority to use it, and that the Pope hath not by Christ's gift, yet he hath from Christ (as I have above proved) a spiritual power by which he may command the Temporal sword as Widdrington himself acknowledgeth, 
In Apol. n. 196. 197.  and by this power he can decree temporal punishments when the spiritual censures will not take place, though neither he, nor the Church doth execute these temporal punishments, especially of death and blood, it being a thing not beseeming the Church, 
S. Leo ep. 93. ad Turibium Asturien. Episcopum parum ab initio.  according to that of S Leo: Ecclesiastica lenitas, cruentas refugit ultiones. The Ecclesiastical lenity escheweth bloody revenges. And thus much concerning Widdringtons' authors: the examination of which authors, although it was not altogether necessary (Schulkennius having already examined them) yet I thought it some what requisite, partly because Schulkennius examination being in latin, it can not see easily nor so generally be made knowné to English men, partly because I have examined divers Authors which Schulkennius did not, and I have added here and there something (as facile est inventis addere) for more ample explication, and now also upon occasion of the sight of Widdringtons' Appendix in which he answereth to Schulkennius' Examination, I have briefly refuted some of his Answers to Schulkennius touching his Authors. Out of all this I gather, that seeing that WIDDRINGTONS' Authors either make not for him or are of no, or cracked credit, or are quite opposite to him (which it seemeth he himself now seethe, and therefore in his Appendix rejecteth two of them, and defendeth not the rest, though provoked by Schulkennius) I may say that Widdrington amidst all his Authors standeth post alone, and he but one opposeth himself not only to his Chief Pastors' Censure, but also against the current of all Catholic and renowned Doctors and Authors.   

CHAPTER XIIII.  
By the doctrine and practice of heretics, the same against them is demonstrated; and thence is inferred, that the question betwixt us and them, is not so much, whether the Pope hath any such authority, as whether the Pope, or they have it.  
1. 
See The Protestats Apology tract. 3. sect. 2. Gretser. in comment. exeget. c. 7. The book of dangerous pesitiont. Sleidan. lib. 18. hist. fol. 263. & li. 22. fol. 345 Osiander in Epit. Cent. 16. pag. 526. Caluin. in Dan. cap. 6.  LAstlie I prove this by the Protestants and Reformers own confession and practise alleged by the Author of the Protestants Apology, and many other authors. To begin with Lutherans, Sleydan and Osiander affirm that the Magdeburgians and other Lutheran Ministers defended resistance against the Magistrate and Prince, as lawful for defence of their Religion, and thereby excused the Rebellion, which the Lutheran Princes made against the Emperor. And if it be lawful to resist by war a Prince that persecuteth Religion, it is lawful to kill him, and consequently to depose him: because the end of just war being peace, all things in it are lawful, which are necessary to obtain peace; and if, unless the Prince be taken away, that just peace cannot he had, that also is lawful.  
2. The Caluinists are not behind them in this point: Caluin saith, that earthly Princes do bereave themselves of Authority, when they erect themselves against God; yea that they are unworthy to be reckoned in the number of men, and therefore we must rather spit in their faces, then obey them. 
Beza in ep. dedic. Novi Testam. an. 1554. & epist. 34. & 37. Can. 3. an. 1572  Beza in his Epistle Dedicatory to his New Testament defendeth Rebellion against Princes of a different Religion, if they permit not, but rather persecure Caluinisme. The Hugonots of France in a Council of Ministers at Berne, have decreed, that every city shall swear, that they and their posterity will observe firm and inviolate the things following; of which one is can 40. that until it please God, in whose hands are the hearts of Kings, to change the heart of the French Tyrant (so they call him) in the mean time every City shall choose a Mayor to govern them, as well in war, as in peace. Another Canon is, that all Captains & leaders never lay down weapons, as long as they shall see them persecute the Doctrine of Salvation (Caluinisme) and the Disciples of the same (Caluinists.) Another is; If it please God to raise up some Christian Prince to take revenge of their sins, and to deliver his people, let them subject themselves to that Prince as to another Cyrus sent to them from God. And this doctrine of the same Hugonots was practised in France to the ruin of many cities and Churches, and the slaughter of many thousands, as The History of the Civil wars of France printed at London anno 1591. and Crispinus in his book of the Estate of the Church, and others have written, and to this day France remembreth, yea feeleth it. The like practice the heretics in the low Countries have used, as Osiander confesseth, and all the world witnesseth. Moreover Osiander saith that the states there deposed their Prince: 
Osiand. in Epit. histor. Eccles. Cent. 16. pag. 941.  Belgici publico scripto Domino & Regi suo Philippo obedientiam & subiectionem renunciant: They of the low Countries renounce all obedience and subjection to their Lord and King Philip, and consequently they depose him, because there is no King without subjects. Yea an Edict of this deposition is extant in their History printed at Francfort in the year 1583. in which they declare him to have lost all right and title by his Tyranny, and forbidden all use of his name and seal.  
3. 
Zuingl. in explan. art. 42. fol. 84. Idem lib. 4. ep. ad Conhardum etc. pag. 868. & 869.  Zuinglius and the Zwinglians jump with them in the same opinion. Quando (Reges, Principes, & Magistratus) perfidè & extra Regulam Christi egerint, possunt cum Deo deponi: When Kings, Princes, and Magistrates behave themselves perfidiouslie, and do against the rule of Christ, they may (with God) be deposed. And again: That Kings may be deposed Saules example doth teach manifestly. And again: Permittendum est Caesari officium debitum, si modò sidem nobis permittat illibatam. We must permit due obedience to Caesar, so that he permit us to enjoy our faith inviolate. 
Coclaeus in Acts Luth. an. 1531  And according to this doctrine the Tigurines molested the Catholic Cantones, sowed sedition, and rebelled; but afterwards in five battles, though more in number and Artillery, they were overcome and slain, and in the first battle Zuinglius himself was slain, and afterwards burnt.  
4. 
See Sutcliffe in his Answer to a libel supplicatory etc. pag. 192. & 193. Sutcl. in his anwere to a libel. etc. pag. 95. Knox in Appellat. ad nobilitatem & populum Scotiae. Buchan. li. de jure Reg. et li 7. hist. Scot  I could allege Goodman, who in his book (which in Queen MARY'S time was printed at Geneva, and is commended by Whittingham in his Epistle before the said book) affirmeth that it is lawful to withstand the Princes in case of Religion, and that therefore Wyatt, who rose against Queen MARIE, was no Traitor. The like was the doctrine of Knox and Buchanan. Sutcliffe avoucheth that Knox said: Noblemen, Governors, etc. judge's ought to reform religion, if the King will not: If the Prince will not yield to his Nobles, and people, he armeth them with power to depose him: If Princes be tyrants against God and his truth, their subjects are freed from their oaths of obedience. And with him accordeth Buchanan teaching that the people is more excellent than the King, and hath right to bestow the Crown at their pleasure, That the People may arraign the King etc. That Reward should be given to them that kill Tyrants, to wit, those who persecute Religion. And what sedition this doctrine raised in Scotland against that worthy and virtuous Queen MARIE, his Majesty's mother, and against his Majesty himself, all the world knows, and he best himself. So that the question betwixt us, and our Reformers, who so storm at this opinion of Catholics, which teacheth that Popes in some case ex●taordinarie may depose Princes, is not so much whether the Pope can do it, as whether he, or rather a Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza, Knox, or Buchanan can do it; nor so much whether a General Council can do it, but whether such a Council rather than a Consistory, or Herd of Ministers can.  
5. And thus much I have discoursed concerning this question, whether the Pope can in any case depose a Rebellious Prince, and who otherwise cannot be corrected: not for that I honour not Princes, or acknowledge not obedience due unto them, for I have above proved that they are in Temporal matters to be honoured and obeyed under pain of mortal sin; I have also confessed and declared, that so long as they contain themselves with in their bounds, and that their Temporal sword is not necessarily to be drawn for the Church's defence, they have (if they be absolute Superiors) no superior on earth in Temporal matters: but only this I have done to satisfy my conscience, to discharge my duty to Christ his Church, and so to give to Caesar and Temporal Princes what belongeth to them, that I take not from God and his Church what is due to them.  
6. Wherein I hope I derogate no more from the Prince, than many Catholics do from the Pope, who teach that in case of Heresy (to which as a private man, though not as a public person, they think him to be subject) he may be a Council of Bishops and Prelates be deposed. And therefore as Popes take this doctrine in good part, so ought Princes not to take it so heinous that we affirm, that in case of intolerable tyranny against the Church, the Pope may depose them: But rather as they are content so to bear rule over their subjects, as they will permit God to bear rule over them; so they should also be content to subject themselves▪ their Kingdoms, Crowns, and sceptres to Christ and his Kingdom, that reigning under him here for a time, they may reign with him hereafter for ever.   

CHAPTER XV.  
An Explication of the late Oath of pretended Allegiance, and of every clause thereof, deduced out of the former and some other grounds, by which is proved, that it can neither be proposed, nor ta●en, without grievous offence of Almighty God.  
1. 
Vide Alphonsum de Castro, V juramentum. Gen. 21. Gen. 26. Gen. 31. Psal. 17. Rom. 1.2. Cor 1. Philip. 1.1. Tim. 5  CAtholicks with common consent do confess and hold against the Messalians, Euchites, Pelagians, Waldenses, anabaptists, and Puritans, that it is lawful in some cases to swear, as many of the greatest Saints have done: For ABRAHAM swore to Abimelech, ISAAC to the same, or another Abimelech, JACOB to Laban. MOSES' swore by Heaven and earth; DAVID and others oftentimes use this oath; Vivit Deus; as God liveth; which is in effect to swear by the life of God; S. PAUL also did use diverse oaths, as Testis enim mihi est Deus: for God is my witness; and I call God to witness; I testify before God; and such like. Yea God himself knowing that we more easily believe when a thing is sworn, sweareth himself, to win credit at our hands. 
Deut. 4.  And in DEUTERONOMIE he commandeth us to swear saying. Dominum Deum tuum timebis, & per nomen eius iurabis: Thou shalt fear thy Lord God, and shalt swear by his name. But as medicines are good, yet not always to be taken, but only supposing a disease or sickness; so oaths are not to be used, but only supposing a necessity, as when we cannot otherwise be believed. And therefore when there is no necessity, CHRIST saith: 
Mat. 5.  Ego autem dicovobis, non iurare omnino: I say to you; swear not all, to wit, when there is no necessity. 
jacob. 1.  And S. JAMES: Nolite iur are quodcunque iur amentum: Do not swear any oath. 
Deut. 6.  But when there is necessity, God commandeth it, 
Psal. 62.  as we have seen. And David commendeth it saying: Laudabuntur omnes qui iurant in eo: They all shall be praised who swearein him (God.) For to swear when necessity urgeth, is an Act of Religion, and worship of God, whom we acknowledge to be so true, that he will not favour a lie, and of such a majesty, that none will dare to swear by him, unless the thing be true: which is the reason why oaths are easily credited.  
2. 
D. Thom. 2.2. q. 89. art. 3.  But if we will have our oaths free from all sin, we must join to them these three companions●, or conditions: judgement Verity, and justice; according to that of HIEREMIE: 
Hierem. 4  jur obis in veritate, & in iudicio, & in iustitia: Thou shalt swear in Verity, judgement, and justice.. judgement is necessary in the sweater, Verity in the thing he sweareth, justice in the cause. For want of judgement the oath is rash, as when we swear for every trifle; for want of Verity, the oath is false and perjury, as when we swear a lie; for want of justice, it is unlawful, as if one should swear he would commit a sin. And if a man sweareth with out judgement, he taketh God's name in vain; if without Verity, he committeth perjury, and makes God to patronise a lie; if without justice he makes God a patron of sin. Wherefore he that would know whether the Oath, which lately is proposed to Catholics, be lawful, must mark whether it want not some one of these three companions or conditions, to wit, judgement, Verity, and justice; for if it want but one, it is unlawful; much more if it want all. And because there may be difficulty as well about the proposer, as the taker of this Oath; let us see first whether in the proposer may be found judgement, justice, and Verity.  
3. As touching the first, it may seem not to be wanting in the Magistrate that proposeth, and that for two reasons. First because the Prince being of another religion than the Pope, and knowing that Catholics give him power to depose Princes, may seem justly to fear lest he will exercise this Authority upon him. secondly the late Gunpowder-plot may seem to proceed from such an opinion, and so the Magistrate, to secure the Prince, seemeth to have reason to urge the Catholic subjects unto such an Oath.  
4. But yet on the other side it seemeth most certain, that the Magistrate hath no just cause to propose such an Oath, & consequently that in proposing it, he observeth not the first condition. For first although the Magistrate may have some cause to fear the King's deposition, supposing that he persecuteth the Catholic faith, and depriveth Catholics of livings, liberty, 
Rom. 13.  and sometime life also; yet, as S. PAUL saith: 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 etc. Will't thou not fear the power? do good and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is God's Minister unto thee for good. But if thou do evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword without cause, for he is God's Minister, a revenger unto wrath to him that doth evil. So say I, if Princes willbe free from all fear of the Pope's power, let them do good, and they shall have praise before God and men; for the Pope is appointed Pastor unto them for their good. But if they will do evil, if they will persecute the Church, her faith, & faithful children; then let them fear, for he is God's Minister, & hath the spiritual glaive put into his hand to chastise, & correct all rebellious Christians. And therefore as he that taketh a man's purse from him by violence, hath no just cause to compel him to swear that he will not bewray him, because he might, and should have abstained from the injury, and then an oath had not been necessary: so the Prince or Magistrate hath no urgent cause to propose this Oath to the Catholicke subjects, because if he abstain from persecution, as he ought to do, he needeth not fear the Pope's power, and so hath no sufficient cause to urge his subjects by oath to abjure the Pope's Authority that he in the mean 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 can depose the Prince, therefore his subjects by private Authority may endeavour to kill him; because the Pope is superior, the subjects are inferiors; he hath public, they have only private Authority.  
6. secondly the Prince or Magistrate can not justly vex subjects, nor trouble their consciences with it, but only for his own security: but this Oath is so fare from securing the King, that rather it exposeth him to greater danger; ergo to secure himself, the King cannot justly propose this Oath. That this Oath cannot secure the King, it is manifest, because the most that take this Oath, take it against their conscience, and not so much out of opinion, as for fear; yea they think they do ill in taking it, and consequently they think they are not bound to observe the same, for to swear to do an evil thing, and after to fulfil the Oath, is a double sin, one in swearing, another in fulfilling. An example is in Herod, who sinned in promising by a solemn Oath, that he would grant his Daughter what soever she asked, and as he was bound not to stand to such a rash oath, so he sinned again in fulfilling it. And Widdrington requireth only, that we should swear, that we think it probable, that the Pope can not depose a Prince, which opinion probable, and consequently fearful (for a probable opinion is always joined cis●● formidine de opposito, with fear of the opposite or contrary) may easily change with every wind, and so can not secure the Prince. And so the King after this Oath is no more secure than before, because the Catholics, who take this Oath against their conscience, know that they are not bound to keep their oath. And they who swear only that they think it probable that the Pope can depose, swear with fear and without any certain assent, and so may easily change that opinion which they hold then, in to the contrary. Yea the Prince thereby bringeth himself into greater danger. For by so unwonted & odious an Oath, so contrary to his subjects consciences, he cannot but make himself odious, which how dangerous it is, 
Cicero lib 2. de office.  CICERO witnesseth saying: Multorum odiis nullae opes, nullae vir espoterunt resistere; No richesses or forces are able to resist the hatreds of many.  
7. I know the Politicians say: Oderint dum metuant. Let them hate, so they fear also. 
Seneca lib. 2. de ira, c. 11  But yet true is that, which Seneca no inexpert Politician allegeth: Necesse est ut multos timeat, quem multi timent: He must of necessity fear many, who causeth many to fear him. 
Cicero lib. 2. the offie.  Because as Cicero saith: quem metuunt, oderunt. Men hate whom they fear. And what security hath a Prince amongst them that hate him? When subjects hate their Prince, they are discontended, when they are discontended, they are desperate, when they are desperate, they care not for their own lives, when they care not for their own lives, let then the Prince fear his; for as Seneca saith: 
Seneca.  Qui suam vitam contemnit, tuae Dominu● erit: He that contemneth his own life, willbe master of thine. And from this source proceeded the late Gun-pouder-plot.  
8. Wherefore if Kings will reign securely, and fortify themselves strongly, let them procure the love and good will of their subjects, 
Senec● lib. 2. de Clem. cap. 19  because as the same Moral Philosopher saith; Vnum est inexpugnabile munimentum, amor Civium: The only impregnable, and inexpugnable fort and strong hold a Prince hath, is the love of his Citizens and subjects. But if a Prince seek rather to domineer odiously, then to rule sweetly, desire rather to be feared, then loved; all the oaths, that he shall extort of his subjects, cannot secure him, all his watch and Guard will not save him. CLAUDIUS the Emperor never went to a Banquet, but he environed the table with soldiers, who only also served him at the same; and yet by his Taster he was poisened. DOMITIAN made the walls of his Gallery, or Ambulachre, of stones of Phengites, which were transparent, that so he might see on all sides, and yet he was slain by his Chamberlins. And what a strong Guard, what armies can do to defend a Prince that is hated, we have seen by the example of the two HENRY'S, the Third, and Fourth of France, whereof the First was killed by a silly Fryat, the other by a poor companion, in the midst of their Armies, And so the first condition required to propose this Oath, which is judgement, that dictateth that an oath is neither to be proposed nor taken without just cause, is wanting.  
9 Verity also, which is the second companion of an oath, is here deficient, because it is false that the Pope can not depose Princes, as I have proved by many Arguments, and so to swear it, were to swear a falsity, and consequently the proposer of this Oath observeth not the second condition, which is Verity, without the which all oaths are perjury, and so neither to be proposed, not taken.  
10. The third condition is also wanting, because if it be true that the Pope hath authority to depose Princes (as I have proved) it is against justice to deny him this authority, and consequently to swear the denial. And so the Magistrate wanting judgement, Verity, and justice, cannot lawfully propose this Oath to Catholics, and especially to Priests, who are exempted by their clerical privieledge from his jurisdiction.  
11. But because this discourse is undertaken rather for the instruction of the Catholics, to whom the Oath is proposed, then for the Magistrate, that proposeth it; let this suffice for the proposers caveat and lesson, and let us come to the Catholics, and examine, whether this Oath may with safe conscience be taken of them: For if it may, it were cruelty to urge them to refuse it with loss of liuings and liberty; But if it may not, than it is as fare greater cruelty for Widdrington, and others, to persuade them that they may take it, as it is more to lose eternal felicity, then Temporal riches, of which Death will in fine despoil us. And because Widdrington hath divided the Oath into certain clauses, I will follow him in the same method: Protesting first, that as His HOLINESS when he heard of this Oath, affirmed (as Father persons alleged by WIDDRINGTON, 
Widdr. Disp. Th. sec. 2. cap. 10. num. 56.  related) that he had no intention, to proceed actually by Censures against his Majesty (of England) but rather to use all Humanity, and only would suffer death rather than yield any jot of the Authority due to the Sea Apostolic: So I have no intention to dispute de fact, but only the jure, that is, not to question whether in this case, or that case, or whether for this cause, or that cause, His Majesty, or any other absolute Prince in particular may be deposed, or whether it would be more to destruction, or edification: but rather (if the Oath did not mention His Majesty, and so enforce me to speak some times of him) I would for the respect which I bear to my Sovereign, speak no more of him then any other Prince, but, abstracting from all Princes, facts, and cases in particular, I intent only to dispute, as I have hitherto, of the Pope's Right, and Authority over Princes in general.  
The First Clause of the Oath.  
I. A. B. do truly and sincerely acknowledge profess, and testify in my conscience before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King james is lawful and true King of this Realm, and of all other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries.  
12. I will not stand much with WIDDRINGTON about this clause, because all Catholics will acknowledge his Majesty that now is, for their Prince and King, and will swear also fidelity unto him in all Temporal matters; and this Oath hath been offered by the Catholics in an Epistle they wrote to his Majesty; which others also have offered, and for better notice and in argument of their true meaning published their offer in print. This then is one reason which maketh Catholics to suspect, that in this Oath covert is intended a denial of the Pope's spiritual supremacy. For if the Prince, and his Magistrate intended only Civil and Temporal Allegiance, why did they not propose this Oath in the ordinary tenor and terms of a Civil oath, with which the former Kings of England, and all Catholic Kings of other Countries even to this day content themselves? Why bring they in the Pope's Authority, which other Princes leave out? But they knew that Catholics would never have refused such an oath, and therefore to trouble, and engage their consciences, to have thereby some pretence to seize upon their liuings and goods, and to vex their persons, they devised this Oath. Which their manner of proceeding may make Catholics justly suspect that some thing is intended, to which in conscience they cannot agree, and consequently (oaths, conscience, and Religion being so nice and dangerous matters) if there were no other reason then this, 
In his Newyearesguift numb 8. pag. 37.  the Catholics have just cause to make, not only a scruple, but also a conscience to take it. And therefore Widdrington himself in his Newyeares-guist, confesseth at least, that in the beginning (and why not still?) Catholics might justly suspect this oath to be unlawful.  
13. 
Suarez & Gretzerus.  Hence it is also, that some writers make a scruple of those words, Supremus Dominus, Sovereign Lord: because the Oath being of itself, suspicious, and the King of England, by his ordinary Title given him by Parliament, being styled Supreme Head of the Church, (which dignity the Bishops and Divines of England affirm to be annexed to the King's Regality iure divino, as we have seen above Chap. 6.) they fear lest a snake lie hid in the grass, and a pad in the straw, and that under that Title of Supreme or Sovereign Lord, is covertly understood Supreme Head of the Church of England, not only in Temporal, but also in Spiritual causes. But because these words (Sovereign Lord) may be taken in that good sense, which ordinarily they import, and are not put ex parte praedicati, but only ex parte subiecti, (for by this clause the swearer sweareth not that his Majesty is Supreme or Sovereign Lord, but only that our Sovereign Lord is true and lawful King) I will not much stand about them.  
14. For as if one should swear, that the Archbishop of Cantetburie is truly a persecutor of Catholics, he should not swear that he is truly Archbishop, but only that he, who is called Archbishop of Canterbury, is truly a persecutor: so by swearing that our supreme Lord King JAMES is true, and lawful King, we do not swear that he is Sovereign or Supreme Lord, but only that he, who is so styled, is our Prince and King, which no English Catholic will refuse to swear. But howsoever Catholics have good cause to suspect all things in this unwonted Oath, it being not the ordinary Oath of Allegiance, which the Kings in other Country's propose, and wherewith the Kings of England contented themselves, till they began to sever themselves from the true Catholic Roman Church (for true Catholic and Roman ever went together) and to banish out of their Realm all Papal Authority, as an enemy to their state, which other Princes do retain, and ever have reverenced and maintained as the Chief support of their Kingdoms. And that which augmenteth the suspicion is, for that his Majesty himself seemeth to make doubt of this Oath; and so it seemeth dangerous either for the Magistrate to propose it, or the subjects to receive it. For these are his Majesty's words uttered in the Parliament an. 1606. Some doubts have been conceived in using the Oath of Allegiance, and that part of the Act, which ordaineth the taking thereof, is thought so absurd, as no man can tell, who ought to be pressed therewith. For I myself, when upon a time I called the judges before me at their going to their courts, moved the question unto them, wherein, as I thought, they could not reasonably auswer. So that this obscurity in the Oath should first be cleared, lest swearing to that which we understand not, we expose ourselves to perjury.  
The Second Clause.  
And that the Pope neither by himself, nor by any authority of the Church, or Sea of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power or authority to depose the King, or to dispose of any of his Majesty's Kingdoms or Dominions, or to authorise any foreign Prince to annoy him, or invade his Countries, or to discharge any of his subjects of their Allegiance and obedience to his Majesty, or to give licence, or leave to any of them, to bear Arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence, or hurt to his Majesty's Royal person, state, or government, or to any of his Majesty's subjects within his Majesty's Dominions.  
15. 
Widdr. in disp. Theol. in exam. huius clausulae.  This clause (saith Widdrington) is Petra illa scandali & lapis offensionis: that Rock of scandal and stone of offence, at which so many of this age, as well learned, as unlearned have stumbled. And in deed to Widdrington himself it hath been such a Rock of scandal (but by his own fault, for many have passed it with out either falling or stumbling) that he hath not only stumbled and fallen at it himself, but by his fall he hath been the cause of the fall and ruin of many an hundred. For if, 
August. serm 14. de Sanctis. Act. 7. & 22.  as S. AUGUSTIN saith, S. PAUL by holding the garments of those that stoned S. STEVEN did more stone him then any of the stoners themselves. Magis saeviens omnes adiwaudo quàm suis manibus lapidando: Certes Widdrington persuading by his books that the Oath is lawful, sinneth more damnably, than any one of them, that take the Oath, yea taketh it in every one of them, and stumbleth and falleth in them all, and consequently more than them all. But vae homini illi, per quem scandalum hoc venit: 
Mat. 18.  woe to that man, by whom this scandal cometh.  
16. But to come to the examination of this Clause, although Widdrington maketh no bones of it, yet they that square all by conscience, and the rule of faith, and practise of the Church, find great and many difficulties not to be devoured by any timorous conscience. And first by all the Arguments, which hitherto have been produced, it is as manifest that this Clause of the Oath wanteth Verity (which is the second companion and condition of a lawful oath) as it is evident, that the Pope hath Authority to depose a Prince, not whom soever, but such a one, in whom is just cause of deposition, to wit intolerable and Rebellious Tyranny against the Church, or some such like cause. For if the Lutherans, Caluinists, and other heretics, who hold that a Prince, who persecuteth their religion, may be deposed and killed, can not take this Oath, unless they first depose that conscience, and change their opinion; much less can Catholics, who generally hold that the Pope can in some case depose Princes, and dispose of their Kingdoms, with out doing against their conscience.  
17. 
Widdr. disp. Th. de juran. Fidel ca 2. sect. 2. nu. 3. & ca 3. sect. 2. n. 3.  Whereas Widdrington answereth that the thing which is sworn in this Oath is not, that King JAMES is lawful King, and cannot be deposed, but only that the party, who sweareth, sincerely acknowledgeth that he is lawful King and cannot be deposed; and so at least they, who are persuaded that the Pope cannot depose Princes, may with safe conscience, and with out danger of perjury, swear that they think he cannot be deposed: I must tell him first, that if this were the meaning, the Oath would little avail to the King's security; Which yet the King saith was intended by this oath, by which he would distinguish betwixt Catholics, and be sure that they would stand for him, though the Pope should depose him, and would not out of that opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince, attempt any thing against him. For although the subject swear that now at this present he is persuaded that the Pope can not depose a Prince, yet seeing that many hold the contrary, he may after the Oath taken, change his mind, either by conferring with the Doctors of the contrary opinion, or by reading their books, and should not break his former Oath, he by that protesting only and swearing what then was his opinion. secondly, this is but a mere evasion, because he that taketh the Oath, sweareth from his heart, and before God, not only that he thinks so, but also that it is so, and that most assuredly it is so. And this, the very words of the Oath do import, which do make the swearer say, that he doth sincerely acknowledge and testify in his Conscience and before God that King JAMES is lawful King, and that by no Authority he can be deposed. Which meaning the Fourth Clause also confirmeth, where he sweareth, that the position and doctrine, which holdeth, that Princes excommunicated, may be deposed and murdered, is impious and heretical. By which manner of speech, he not only sweareth what he thinketh, but what absolutely is to be holden concerning such a doctrine and position. Yea he doth not swear at all what he thinketh, as though his thinking were the immediate object of his oath, or the thing which he sweareth, but by those words, I do truly and sincerely acknowiedge, Profess, and testify in my conscience before God and the world, he doth express his act of swearing and protestation, and by the ensewing words, that our Sovereign Lord King JAMES is lawful and true King etc. aend that the Pope neither by himself, nor by any Authority of the Church or Sea of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power, or Authority to depose the King etc. he expresseth the object of the oath, and the thing sworn, to wit, that King JAMES is lawful King (of which no English Catholic maketh doubt) and that the Pope can not depose him. Otherwise if by this clause were only intended, that he that taketh the oath should swear what he thinketh, it should have been thus expressed. I.A.B. do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, and testify in my conscience before God, and the world, that I think, and am persuaded, that King JAMES is lawful King, and that the Pope can not depose him. And I demand of WIDDRINGTON, if the King would make an oath to oblige his subjects to swear not that they think, but that indeed King JAMES is lawful King, and can not be deposed, how he could more plainly have expressed it, than he hath? And although WIDDRINGTON is not now afraid to aver, 
Widdr. in his Newyearesgift. Pag. 62.63.  that one may not only swear that he thinketh that the Pope can not depose a Prince, but also that absolutely he can not depose him, yet who can lawfully swear with such asseveration, that the Pope absolutely hath no such power, knowing that there are so many Arguments, and so great authority above produced for the contrary?  
18. Let us clear the matter by an example of Widdrington his own alleging? 
Widdr. Disp. Th. cap. 3. sect. 1. num. 11.  There are two opinions amongst Divines touching the Conception of our B. Lady; The Thomists say, she was conceived in original sin, though by and by after sanctified even in her mother's womb. The Scotists, and others hold that she was sanctified in the first instant of her conception, and so never contracted original sin at all; and this is the more common opinion, and most conformable to the practice of the Church, celebrating the feast of her said Conception, though the other be not condemned, but allowed. Now I demand of Widdrington, who bringeth for himself this example, whether a Thomist can swear that our Lady was conceived in original sin against the other opinion? I grant to Widdrington, that he may swear, that he thinketh so, if in deed he be of that opinion; for in swearing that which he thinketh, he sweareth no falsehood: but he can not swear with the former asseveration that absolutely she was conceived in original sin, he knowing that so many Authors hold the conrra●ie, who are also countenanced by the Church's practice, and consequently knowing that it is very probable that the contrary is true, if not truest. The same, and with more reason, may I say to Widdrington in our present case. Widdrington holdeth, and so do some others whom he produceth (but with how little reason and Authority we have seen) that the Pope cannot depose Princes, nor dispose of any Temporal matters out of his own patrimony and Kingdom, and so though he ought to depose that conscience and opinion, yet so long as he is of that opinion, he may swear that he thinketh so, and shall swear no falsehood, if in deed he think so. But yet he knowing that so many Scriptures, Theological reasons, Counsels, Popes, their facts and practice, so many learned Doctors and Saints, stand for the contrary, he can not swear absolutely, and with the former asseveration, that the Pope hath no such authority, he knowing that so many Authors and so great Arguments and Authority, do countenance the contrary opinion: Yea much less can he swear for his opinion in this point, then can a Thomist for his, touching our Lady's Conception: because the Thomist is licenced by the express leave of the Church, to teach and think as he doth, and his adversaries are commanded by the Church not to condemn his opinion as heretical, 
Concil. Trid. sess. 5. c. 1. de Reform. Sixtus 4 ca grave nimis de reliq.  or erroneous, or rash, which warrant Widdrington hath not for his opinion; rather the Church hath condemned it in Counsels and practice, as we have showed. Who is then so hardy, or rather so rash, that dareth swear absolutely that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes, or dispose of their Kingdoms, the contrary being not only probable, yea more probable, which Widdrington can not deny, but also a matter of faith, or so nearly concerning faith, (as the arguments and authority produced do warrant) that Cardinal Allan in his Answer to the libeler saith, 
Chap. 4.  it concerneth the Pope's Supremacy and power Apostolical, 
Apol. pro Card. Bellar. cap. 6. cont. 4. pag. 259.  and Schulkennius very well averreth, the contrary is either heretical, or erroneous, and temerarious; either of which is enough to deter 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 seeing 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 himself to probable danger of swearing false, and abjuring the truth, and so is perjured; because, qui amat periculum in illo peribit: 
Eccl. 3.  he that loveth danger shall perish therein: out of which words Divines do prove, that he who wittingly and willingly exposeth himself to probable danger of any sin, is guilty before God of that sin, as if he had actually committed.  
19 Certes if Verity be a necessary companion of a lawful oath, no man can swear more, than he thinketh there is verity in the thing he sweareth. Wherefore that he may swear that this opinion is probable, he must in conscience think it at least probable, which (if he ponder the Authority, which above I have produced for the contrary) he can not possibly and with any reason think: to swear that he thinketh it not only probable, but also absolutely and undoubtedly true, he must in conscience be so persuaded, else he should swear against his conscience, and otherwise then in his conscience is true. And how can he persuade himself so fully, as to swear, that from his heart 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 hold the contrary, who are as likely, and as fare more likely not to be deceived than he, as they have more reason and Authority for their opinion, than he.  
20. 
Pag. 62. and Pag. 63.  WIDDRINGTON in his Newyearesgift answereth, that whatsoever opinion a man followeth in Speculation concerning the Pope's Authority to deprive Princes, yet he may as certainly acknowledge, and swear that the Pope hath no Authority to depose the King (that is to practise his deposition) as it is clear and manifest, that he may certainly acknowledge and swear, that the Pope hath no authority to commit open injustice; and that in a doubtful, uncertain, and disputable case the condition of the possessor is to be preferred. But although Widdrington maketh great account of this answer, yet it will be found defective. For first Widdrington is not ignorant, that the power and exercise of the power are two things, which also may be separated: for we have the power of seeing when we sleep, but not the exercise of it; & we have the power of walking when we repose ourselves on our bed, and yet then we walk not. And so the power of excommunicating and deposing is one thing, and the exercise of it is an other; and therefore the Bishop may have power to excommunicate, and yet not exercise that power; and the Pope may have power to depose, although he do not actually depose any. Secondly WIDDRINGTON knoweth, that a man may have the power to do a thing validlie, that is, so as the thing donne shall stand in force, and yet not lawfully, that is, with out sin. As for example, the Prelate or Sovereign Prince, who have Authority to dispense in positive laws subject to their Authority, if they dispense with out just cause, the dispensation according to the probable opinion of divers Divines, is valid and of force, and freeth the dispensed in conscience, 
Soto li. 1 de justitia & jure q. 7 a. 3. silvest & Angelus V Dispensatio.  but it is unlawful, and the dispenser sinneth. So the Pope or Bishop may sometimes Excommunicate validlie, and yet not lawfully. For Divines affirm, Excommunication may be three ways unjust: Ex animo, when there is just cause to excommunicate, but the Bishop who excommunicateth doth it not out of Zeal of justice, or desire of amendment, but out of envy, hatred, or malice; Ex ordine, when the Bishop hath just cause to excommunicate, but observeth not the order of Canonical Premonition, which is to be done thrice, or once for thrice; Ex caviâ when there is no just cause. The first excommunication is always valid, 
Lib. 1. Thesauri ●●suum ●●●sci entia ca 7.  but unlawful; so is ordinarily the second as noteth Sayrus our country man; the third is not only unlawful but also invalid and of no force. So also the Pope may depose validlie, and yet not lawfully; or without sin. For if the Prince give sufficient cause of deposition, and the Pope notwithstanding should (as such a superior is not easily to be thought so to do) depose the Prince out of hatred or envy, or else when prudence would have him to tolerate the Prince for fear of garboils and greater hurt, the deposition should be valid and of force, but yet unlawful, and sinful. Wherefore seeing that in this second clause we are to swear that the Pope hath no power or Authority to depose the King, or to dispose of his majesty's Kingdoms or Dominions, etc. Although perchance he can not now, as things stand, lawfully exercise his power in deposing an absolute Prince, because much more hurt then good might come of it; yet if it be probable, that the Pope hath power to depose (as Widdrington confesseth it is probable) I demand of Widdrington, how he can swear resolutely that the Pope hath no such authority, he being not ignorant that many learned men hold it, and that more than probable that he hath? And so for all this Answer, my former Argument is in force. wherefore although it were but probable, that the Pope hath authority to depose a Prince, and that consequently he could not actually without injustice depose him (the condition of the Possessor being to be preferred) yet seeing that the power is one thing, & the exercise an other, and that it is at least probable that the Pope hath power to depose, how can WIDDRINGTON, knowing this probability, swear absolutely that the Pope hath no authority to depose? As for example, one is in possession of a Tenement and hath probable right, an other hath also probable right to it, but without possession, and so can not justly dispossess, because in the like default or cause, 
De Reg● juris in 6.  better is the condition of him that is in possession. Although therefore in this case one might swear, that he, who is not in possession, can not justly dispossess the party who hath the possession: yet he could not swear, that he hath no right to the Tenement, if he know that he hath probable right. And therefore although if it were but probable, that the Pope can depose, one might swear that he cannot exercise this power justly, because melior est conditio Principis possidentis, yet he could not swear (as in this clause he is commanded) that the Pope hath no power nor right to depose a Prince. For as a man may have probable right to a Tenement, and yet can not put him out of possession who also hath probable right, because possession hindereth: so the Pope might have probable authority to depose, yet could not actually depose a Prince, because his possession hindereth. lastlly by as many Arguments, as I have deduced out of Scriptures, Councils, The ologicall principles, and practise of holy Popes, to prove that the Pope can in some cases depose a Prince, I have also proved WIDDRINGTONS' opinion improbable. And although three or four Authors, or as many as WIDDRINGTON allegeth may make an opinion probable, 
Vasq. 1. 2. disp. 62. ca 4.  yet as Vasquez and others do well observe, they must be skilful in that art and science, and the rest of the torrent of Doctors must admit it as probable, and not note it of error or temereity. And therefore though some few Doctors hold with Widdrington, or rather he with them; yet seeing that the rest of the Doctors in number, learning, and sanctity fare excelling, do stand against his opinion; that his Authors either hold against him, or are censured by the Church; that the Decrees of Councils and facts of Popes do condemn him, his Authors, and his opinion; and that lately his Chief Pastors' sentence hath pronounced, that the oath of Allegiance containeth things contrary to faith and salvation: in which words, no doubt WIDDRINGTONS' opinion, the principal subject of the oath is deeply taxed; how can WIDDRINGTONS' opinion be probable? and if his opinion be not probable, the contrary opinion which holdeth, that the Pope can depose a Prince, must be more than probable, and no less than certain, as besides other Arguments the Lateran Decree which otherwise should be unjust, doth demonstrate: whence followeth, that the Pope hath not only power to depose, but may also execute it without injustice, the Prince deposed having no probable right or Title remaining. And this is the opinion of all those, who hold that the Pope can depose Princes, and this was the opinion of the Popes so learned, and so holy, that have deposed Princes, and so must think it more than probable, else the Prince (as I said) after deposition should retain probable right, and so being also in Possession, could not justly be deposed.  
21. 
Widdr. Disp. Th. cap. 3. sect. 3. n. 3. & cap. 10. sect. 2. n. 11.  This Argument will have more force, if we consider that this Oath is not only proposed to those that hold with WIDDRINGTON, but also to those, and those especially, who hold against him, and can not change their opinion, or depose their conscience, because they have no probable reason to depose it, at least so as to think absolutely and undoubtedly that the Pope cannot depose Princes, or dispose of their Temporal states. For although, if Widdringtons' opinion were probable (as it is not) they might so depose their conscience, as to think the contrary probable, and consequently might swear it is probable; yet they can not swear that they think from their heart and before God, that Widdringtons' opinion is absolutely true, and consequently the contrary absolutely false, they knowing that there is such reason and Authority for the contrary. Yea this Oath is proposed to all sorts, as well those that are learned as unlearned, as well those that have capacity to judge of the Oath, as those that have not, such as are the most part of those, to whom it is tendered. And how shall they with any safety of conscience swear, that before God, and in their hearts, they think that the Pope can not depose Princes, they being not able to judge of the matter, and knowing no more probability for the one side, then for the other?  
22. Widdrington saith, that those that can not judge, may rely upon the learned, and so though by intrinsical principles, which are the reasons and Arguments, which are produced for this opinion, they can not judge which opinion is probable, or more probable, they being not of capacity to conceive of the force of Arguments, yet by extrinsecall principles, that is, Authority of others, who are counted good and learned men, they may frame to themselves a conscience that the Pope can not depose Princes, because many learned and good men hold that opinion. To which purpose he citeth his Master Gabriel Vasquez, whom notwithstanding he misconstrueth. 
Vasq. 1.2. disp. 62. c. 8.  For although Vasquez together with Henricus, Conradus, and Silvester, whom he allegeth, do hold that an ignorant man may follow in practise a probable opinion, yea the Counsel of a prudent, learned, and good man, who telleth him it is a probable opinion, although the common opinion be contrary; And so if Widdringtons' opinion were probable, might also hold with him, and consequently swear what he thinketh; yet I deny Widdringtons' opinion to be probable, and have proved it not only improbable, but also repugnant to scriptures, Theological reasons, Counsels, and consequently directly or indirectly to faith itself. But suppose (which yet I will not grant) that Widdringtons' opinion were probable, yet neither Vasquez, nor any Divine affirmeth, that it is lawful to swear absolutely that Widdringtons' opinion is true. If Widdringtons' opinion were probable by reason of the Authority of the Authors that hold it, than might any man, even he that thinketh it by intrinsical principles of reason and argument, to be false, frame a conscience, that it is probable for the extrinsecall principles, as the multitude, learning, and virtue of the Authors that hold it, and consequently might swear that he for these principles thinks it probable, yet he can not swear (as is commanded by this Oath) from his heart, and before God, that Widdringtons' opinion is true, and that therefore absolutely the Pope can not depose a Prince for any heresy or rebellion against the Church, because (as is before said) he knowing, that many hold contrary to Widdrington, and that fare more are against him, then with him, who are as likely, yea more likely to have found out the truth, than he, he can not swear absolutely that the Pope can not in any case depose Princes; for that were to swear that a thing false (as I have proved) or at least but probable (as Widdrington confesseth) is so certain, that the contrary is most certainly false, which is to swear an untruth, and to commit perjury. For as it is perjury to swear, that that is true, which we know to be false, so is it perjury to swear that to be absolutely true, which yet is doubtful, or at least but probable.  
23. Hence may easily be gathered, that this Clause of the Oath wanteth all the three companions of a lawful Oath, and so cannot be taken. First it wanteth judgement, because in deed, as appeareth by my former arguments, there is no just cause or reason to swear that it is probable, much less that it is assured, which is, even by Widdringtons own acknowledgement, but probable; and so it is rash, and wanteth judgement. Secondly it wanteth Verity: for besides that I have proved above, that Widdringtons' opinion is false, derogating to faith and Church, yea scriptures and reasons, and consequently that to swear that it is true, were to swear an untruth, and to commit perjury; Widdrington himself confesseth his opinion is but probable, and consequently to swear that it is undoubtedly true, and the contrary false, is to swear also an untruth, because it is false, that, that which is but probable, is assuredly true. thirdly this Clause wanteth justice, because it is an injury to the Pope, to swear absolutely that he hath no power, nor Authority to depose Princes, he having so assured, and at least (as I have proved) so probable claim and Title to this Authority, 
Widdr. supra.  even by Widdrington his own confession, who acknowledgeth that the Popes who deposed Princes followed a probable opinion: although he must also faith, that all those Popes, though holy and learned, committed great in justice in deposing them, they being in possession, and having also probable right, if those Popes had but probable Authority, as above I have declared.  
24. This might serve to reject this Clause as altogether unlawful to be sworn: but yet for more full satisfaction of Catholics in this point, I will bring another Argument to prove that it can not in conscience be sworn. Because this Clause importeth that the Pope neither by himself, nor by any another Authority or means, can depose the King, or dispose of any of his majesty's Dominions, or authorise any foreign Prince to annoy him, or invade his countries, or discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance, or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults, or offer violence or hurt to his Majesty's Royal person, state, or government, or any his Majesty's subjects etc. Wherein also is such difficulty, that I can not see how in a matter so doubtful, or not so certain, a man may swear so peremptorily, and undoubtedly. Who so pleaseth to read Franciscus de Victoria that learned Dominican, shall find that he setteth down diverse Titles, by which the Spaniards might justly invade & subdue the Indians; which Titles whether any Christian Prince may have to invade England, or any other country, I will not dispute, but only allege them, that the Reader may see that it is not so evident that a man may take this Clause of the Oath in so general terms as is lieth, Victoria his opinion being no ways condemned, but rather approved by many. 
Victoria Relect. de Indis Insulanis & Titulis quibus Barbari potuerint venire inditionem Hispanorum.   
25. The first Title pertaining to this matter, which Victoria allegeth, is the Authority which the Pope hath to send Preachers even to Infidels, much more to Christian Countries that be heretics, because over these he hath spiritual jurisdiction. And although Pagans can not be compelled to embrace Christian faith; yet the Christian Preachers, after they have given reason of their Embassage, may preach by that Authority, which CHRIST gave to his Apostles and successors, when he said: Euntes docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos etc. 
Mat. 28  Going therefore teach ye all nations baptising them, etc. And if the Pagans would hinder their preaching, or after they have preached hinder the conversion of Infidels, and the fruit of preaching; they may with the soldiers, whom they carry with them, force them to permit them to preach, and to permit all that will to hear them, and not to hinder their spiritual good and conversion; and if otherwise they cannot pursue nor defend this their right, they may make war upon those, that hinder them, and pursue all those things which are lawful in a just war. And by this Title (saith Victoria) the Spaniards might make war upon the Indians, if otherwise they could not preach the Christian faith, nor withstand the obstinate Pagans, who would hinder their conversion, that desired to be Christians. And thus Victoria would say that the Pope might send Preachers to England, and might desire and licence some Catholic Prince to assist and defend the Preachers in procuring heretics conversion. And if any heretics would not permit the Catholic Doctors to preach, or would hinder the conversion of those, that would be Catholics, the foreign Prince licenced by the Pope, might in manner aforesaid (as Victoria thinketh, for I will say nothing of myself) make war upon the English, and seeing that war cannot (unless by reason of ignorance) be just on both sides, the English, especially who are Catholics, could not defend those that oppose themselves against this Prince, who assisteth the Preachers. Thus would he say: but as I so honour my Prince, and love my country, that I desire not that any such Title should take place in England, so I will not dispute of it.  
26. Another Title (saith Victoria) by which the Spaniards might make war on the Indians is, if after some of them be converted to the Catholic faith, the others would force them to Idolatry, for then (saith he) the Spaniards might by arms defend them, they being become now their friends and fellows.  
27. A third Title (saith he) might be this: If the Indian's by lawful or unlawful means, that is by peaceble preaching, or force and violence, were for the most part converted, the Pope to conserve Religion might give them a Christian Prince, and send an Army to put him in possession. 
S. Thom. 2.2. q. 10 art. 10. Innoc. ca super his de voto & voti redempt.  This he proveth out of S. Thomas, and the common opinion of Divines, who affirm that the Chief Pastor in favour of Religion, and for securing Christian's salvation, might free Christian slaves from servitude, and much more other Christians, who are subject, not despoticè, but only politicè; yea this he proveth out of scripture, because in favour of faith a wife may be separated from a Pagan husband, 
1. Cor. 7. Cap. quanto, de divortiis,  much more a subject from his Prince.  
28. A fourth Title is if the Prince generally molest Innocentes by unjust laws, and vexations; as if a Pagan King should sacrifice Innocent Children to his Gods, than any foreign Prince, especially by the counsel of the High Pastor, after he hath warned the said King, and seethe no redress, may take the cause of the Innocents' upon him, and make war upon the King for their defence, for as Innocents' have right from God and Nature to defend themselves, so may another with their express or presumed licence, undertake their cause, and wage war in their defence.  
29. A fift Title may be grounded in the Pope's temporal authority, for he being a temporal Prince might authorise the Duke of Urbine for example, or other his Feudataries, to invade England for satisfaction of injuries, if the King of England had done him any, (for so the King of England hath heretofore invaded France for injuries received, and might again hereafter, if by the French the like injuries should be offerred.) And yet this Clause of the Oath makes the Catholic to swear, that the Pope neither by himself, nor by any authority of the Church or Sea of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power or authority to depose the King etc. or to annoy him or invade his countries etc.  
30. Another Title of invading a Prince's country or resisting him may be this. If Princes contrary to the Pope's commandment, and liking of all other Princes, would call the Moors or Turks into Spain, France, or Germany, and command their subjects to assist them; were they bound to obey, or rather were they not bound to resist what they could? And seeing that the bringing of the Moors or Turks into those countries might be prejudicial to all Christian countries, and even to Christian faith; might not other Princes, especially commanded by their Chief visible Pastor, invade their countries to hinder the entrance of such enemies? And might nor, yea ought not the Emperor, and those Prince's subjects, to assist them against their own Princes for the common good of Christendom? And yet by this Clause we are commanded to swear that the Pope in no case can authorise subjects or Princes to annoy his Majesty of England, or any his countries.  
31. Wherefore although I will not aver, that Christian Princes may have these titles to invade England, or any part of it, or to make war, either against the Prince (to whom I wish after long life heat eternity in heaven) or country, which is most dear unto me; Yet by this it may easily appear, that it is not so evident, as Widdrington would make it, that this Oath may be taken with such an assured asseveration, and in those so general terms, Victoria having alleged so many Titles of just wars, which make this Clause at least doubtful, and so not to be sworn.  
32. 
Widdr. in Disp. The ol. c. 3. sect. 4. n. 3.  Widdrington answereth that in this Clause is not denied that the Common wealth can depose a Prince, but only is averred that the Pope cannot either by himself, or by the Common wealth, or any other means. And (saith he) if the Pope cannot by himself, neither can he by the Common wealth. And this (as he thinketh) he convinceth by examples. For (saith he) as a stone neither with a man, neither by a man hath power to understand and disoourse, and neither by the Common wealth, nor with the Common wealth can depose a Prince, because it hath no power of itself to discourse or depose: so if we suppose that the Pope of himself hath no power to depose a Prince, he cannot by the Common wealth depose him, though otherwife the Common wealth could. And although (saith Widdrington) these examples be not like in all points, because the stone is not capable at all of discoursing or deposing, the Pope is at least capable of Authority to depose Princes, if God would give it him, yet (saith he) if we suppose that the Pope de facto hath no power to depose, than a good argument may be drawn out of these similitudes. For as the stone cannot by man, or with a man discourse, or depose Kings, because it hath no power of itself so to do: so if the Pope have no authority to depose Princes (as Widdrington supposeth it cannot be, or is not yet sufficiently proved that he hath) he cannot de facto by the Common wealth depose.  
33. But I shall make Widdrington to see by other examples and reason also, how little these his examples avail. For suppose the Pope could not depose a Prince by himself (as I have proved he can) yet he might do it by a temporal Prince, or the Common wealth, and that also in Widdringtons' opinion. This I prove first by examples. For in the opinion of those Philosophers, who say that no substance is immediately operative or active, the substance or substantial form of fire can not produce fire immediately by itself, and yet it can per calorem & siccitatem, by heat and siccity, which are the fires instrument and active virtue; and so we say not only that heat produceth heat, but also that fire produceth heat, though not immediately, but by means of the foresaid qualities. So the sun engendereth metals and minerals in the bowels of the earth, and produceth as an universal cause, plants and herbs; and yet not by his immediate substance, but by mediation of his light and influences. So the will of man is cause of walking, speaking, and other external operations, yet not by herself immediately, but by mediation of other faculties, which are dependent on her. So a Prince that had neither hand nor foot, or if he had, should use neither, and so could not kill his enemy, yet might he do it by his Captain, if he should command him; and if at his command the Captain should kill, the Prince also should be said to have killed, yea & to have been the principal cause of the murder, though immediately he either could not, or did not strike any stroke. Wherefore Widdrington might have called to mind, that many times an agent may work an effect by another, which it can not by itself immediately, if the other cause, which it useth, be dependent of it, or subordinate unto it, as is to be seen evidently in the aforesaid, and many other examples.  
34. But as touching Widdringtons' examples, they are not to the purpose: for no marvel that a stone cannot discourse by, or with a man, a man being not subordinate to a stone, nor any instrument of it; and so as little marvel it is, that a stone cannot depose a Prince by the Pope, as that Widdrington cannot be said to low by an ox, bleat by a sheep, or bear fruit by a tree, here being no subordination or dependence, as there is in the other examples by me alleged, and in the power of the Prince and Common wealth, which even by WIDDRNIGTONS' confession is dependent of the Pope's authority, and may be directed and commanded by it.  
35. Secondly, this I prove by reason grounded in the opinion, which even WIDDRINGTON himself admitteth. 
Supra cap. 3. sect. 4. n. 3.  For in the place alleged he granted as probable, that the Common wealth can depose a Prince, though he denieth that authority to the Pope. 
Widdr. in Resp. Apolog. n. 12.13.14.15.16.21.23.27.28. & alibi.  And in his Apologetical Answer he confesseth that the Pope hath authority to command a Prince in Temporal matters for the necessary good of the Church, as to use his authority, and to draw his sword for the necessary defence thereof, and that he may inflict Spiritual censures on him, if he disobey.  
36. Now if we put this together, we shall find, that the Pope, even in widdringtons opinion, may depose a Prince by the Common wealth, although he could not do it by himself immediately: 
Disp. Th. cap. 3. sec. 4. n. 2. et 3.  for WIDDRINGTON granteth as probable, that the Common wealth can depose a lawful Prince in case of intolerable tyranny, for he granteth that the contrairie opinion, to wit, that the common wealth can not depose a Prince, is but probable, and he confesseth that the Pope being supreme Pastor of the Church may command the Common wealth to use this her Temporal power, when it is necessary for the conservation of the Church. 
〈…〉  And seeing that a commander is thought to do that, which another doth by his commandment, and to be a principal cause of that, of which the commanded is but an executioner; if the Pope command the Common wealth to depose her Prince, and she obey her Pastor (as WIDDRINGTON confesseth she is bound to do) then the Pope in that case shallbe said to have deposed the Prince, because what the Common wealth doth at his commandment, he is said to do: 
〈…〉  yea he in that case is the principal agent and the Common wealth his instrument only and executioner: But Widdrington granteth that the Pope may command the Common wealth to depose her Prince, ergo he granteth that the Pope; if not by himself immediately, yet by another, that is, by the Common wealth, can depose a Prince. With what conscience then can Widdrington swear to that clause of the Oath, which saith that the Pope neither by himself, nor by any Authority of the Church, or Sea of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power or authority to depose the King & c.? seeing that he granteth that the Pope may command the Common wealth to do it, and that every man is said to do that, which is done by his lawful commandment, he being in that case the principal Agent, and the Common wealth (as is said) a subordinate Agent and instrument only.  
37. 
Pag. 75.76.77.78.79.  To this Widdrington in his Newyearesguift answereth, that a commander is not a true and proper cause, especially when he hath not power to do that which he commandeth, but only a cause per accidens: and so although the Pope should command the common wealth to depose their Prince, and they at his commandment should depose him; yet the Pope should not be said to depose him as a true and proper cause, 
Widdr. in but Newyearesgift. Pag. 65. n. 7.  but only as a cause per accidens. But first Widdrington in this answer seemeth at least to contradict himself; for if (as he sayeth) a commander is commonly said to do that thing which is done by his commandment; it followeth that a commander is commonly counted a cause of that which is done by his commandment: and so if the Pope should command the common wealth to depose a Prince, & the common wealth should depose him at his commandment, he should be counted by the common conceit of men, a cause of the deposition: and though not by himself, yet by an other should commonly be said to have deposed him. How then can Widdrington swear against this that is commonly said, to wit, that the Pope neither by himself, nor by any authority of the Church or Sea of Rome, or by any other means, hath any power, or authority to depose the King etc. seeing that it is probable by WIDDRINGTONS' confession, that he may be said to have power to depose a King, in case of intolerable Tyranny, by the common wealth? Whereas Widdrington affirmeth, that the Pope in this case commanding the common wealth, should be only causa per accidens, a cause by accident, in that he applieth only the common wealth, which is causa per se, and the true efficient cause; I must first tell him, that even a cause per accidens is commonly called a cause; and therefore the thief who applieth fire to the house, and is a cause by accident of burning the same, in that he applieth the fire, which is causa per se of the burning of the house, is said commonly and absolurelie to have burned the house, and shall be bound to restitution, yea and hanged, and that justly also, for burning the house. Wherefore if the Pope in that case should be at lest causa per accidens, he should in common speech be counted the cause of that deposition. And therefore if Widdrington durst not swear, that the thief neither by himself, nor by any other cause can burn a house, if he can by applying the fire that can burn it; how dareth he swear, that the Pope can not either by himself, or by any other cause depose a Prince, seeing that he, by Widdringtons' Confession, can by his commandment apply the common wealth, which is a cause per se, and sufficient for such an effect. secondly Widdrington abuseth his terms, in saying that a commander is a cause by accident, for though he be no physical cause of the effect, yet he is a moral cause, and in that kind a principal cause, and a cause per se, which intendeth the effect, and moveth the commanded as an instrument; and the commanded though he have not always from the commander true authority (because sometimes the commander hath none himself) yet he hath from him moral influence, and is said to work the effect by virtue of his commandment. And so betwixt the commander and the applyer of fire to the straw, there is great difference: because he that applieth the fire, giveth no force nor activity to the fire, & so his application is but conditio sine qua non, and he is causa per accidens: but the commander sometimes giveth authority, and always giveth moral influence and motion, (as doth the principal cause to the instrument) and so he is a principal cause and causa per se.  
38. Wherefore to clear the matter more I will distinguish three kinds of Commanders. The First is an unlawful commander. The Second a lawful Commander, who hath Authority to command one to do a thing, but can not do it himself. The Third is a commander, who hath authority not only to command another, but may also by himself do the thing commanded, if he will. And these are absolutely called causes, and causes principal, and per se, though not in the same manner. In the First kind are comprehended all Lords or Masters, who command their servants, or ministers to kill them, whom they themselves have no Authority to kill. So if a Captain should command his man to kill his enemy, or one that standeth in his way of preferment, or one whose wife or purse he desireth to have, he is said commonly to be the principal cause, 
Antonin. lib. 4. tit. 13. part. 7. lib. 5. tit. 15. part. eadem Mercado lib. 6. Sum. cap. 7. Vasq in Opusc. de Restit. c. 9 dis. 1. dub. 3.  & the servant, though he be a physical cause, yet he is but a ministerial and instrumental cause of the murder, and though he have no true Authority from his Master, yet he hath (as I said) moral influence, and doth the effect by virtue of that moral influence, which moveth him. And therefore if any restitution be to be made, he is bound principally, and in the first place to restore, and his servant is not bound to restitution but in defect of his Master, who is the principal cause, and gave moral influence and motion to his servant: although the servant also, because he was bound not to obey his Master, shall endure the punishments due to murderers by the law. Hence it is, that D●●uines and Canonists do affirm; that if the commander do recall his commandment before his servant hath done the murder, the servant than shall be the principal and sole cause; because after the commandment is recalled, he doth the murder of his own Authority, having now no moral influence or motion from his Master; and so then he only is cause of the murder, not his Master; he only is bound to restitution, if any be required, not his Master; and he only in the inward court of Conscience deserveth hanging, not his Master; though the external court oftentimes, when it presumeth that the Master did not revoke his commandment, will pronounce sentence also against the Master. In the Second kind is the Confessarius, who, according to the common opinion, in the Sacrarnent of Confession can command his penitent to give alms, and his penitent is borind in conscience to give the alms, be it money, bread, corn, or such like goods, and yet the penitent doth not lose dominion of those goods, though he sin in not giving them to the poor, and so the Confessari●us can not justly take them from him. In the Third kind are Princes who give authority to their judges to condemn to death, and by them or others his officers to the hangman, to punish and hang malefactors. Because although it be not convenient for the King's Person to execute any immediately himself, yet as he commandeth and giveth authority to others, so he might do that act of justice himself. So the Pope or Bishop, who give authority to others to hear Confessions, might themselves hear Confessions, though because of their other affairs they use not so to do.  
39 This distinction of commanders supposed, although the Pope had not authority of himself to depose a Prince, yet if he can command the common wealth in some case to depose the Prince (as Widdrington granteth he can) he should be a true moral, and principal cause of the deposition, because he should not only give moral influence to the common wealth to depose (for that even an unlawful commander doth) but he should also give authority to the common wealth: for although the common wealth hath of itself Authority to depose a Prince in some case, and hath not this Authority from the Pope, if the Pope have Authority to command, it followeth, that the common wealth obeying his commandment and Authority, doth depose by his Authority. And this, to wit, that the Pope may depose a Prince mediately by the common wealth. I prove out of Widdrington himself, who to confirm his own opinion, which holdeth that the Pope can not depose a Prince, allegeth joannes Parisiensis, who writeth thus as Widdrington allegeth him: 
Apud Widdr, Disp. Th. ca 3. ser. 3. n. 7.  Si Rex est haereticus, & incorrigibilis & contemptor Ecclesi●sticae Censurae, poorest Papa aliquid facere in populo unde privaretur ille saeculari honore, & deponeretur a populo, excommunicando scilicet eos omnes, ad quos spectat regem deponere, qui ei ut Domino obedirent: If a King be an heretic, and incorrigible, and a contemner of the Church's Censure, the Pope may do some thing in the people, whereby he should be deprived of his secular honour, and be deposed by the people, to wit, by excommunicating all those, to whom it appertaineth to depose the King, who should obey him as Lord. Out of this Aurhour whom WIDDRINGTON allegeth as a favourer of his opinion, I can easily deduce that which WIDDRINGTON denyeth, to wit, that though the Pope could not by himself depose a Prince, yet he might by the Common wealth. Because if the Pope can not only command the Common wealth, but also excommunicate all those subjects that obey such a Prince, he can compelle them to deny obedience to him, unless they will be separated by excommunication from the Church, out of which is no salvation. If then any one would complain of that Common wealth for deposing their Prince, and denying obedience unto him; the people might answer, that the Pope compelled them so to do, and to leave the King, unless they would leave the Church: whence followeth, that the Pope in that case should be truly said to have been the principal cause of deposition, because he compelled the Commonwealth to depose him: If Widdrington should say to his man, kills such an one, or I will kill thee; who doubteth, but that WIDDRINGTON should be counted the principal cause of murder: wherefore seeing that this Author (whom WIDDRINGTON produceth) saith, that the Pope may say to the Commonwealth, to whom it appertaineth to depose the Prince; depose your Prince, or I will separate you from the Church by Excommunication, 
Aug. lib. cont. adverse. leg. & Prophet. ca 17. serm. 68 de verbis Apost. ca omnis Christianus 11. q. 3.  (which S. AUGUSTINE saith is a greater evil then to be killed by a sword, consumed by fire, or cast unto wild beasts to be devoured) who doubteth but that he should be called the principal cause of the deposition, he compelling the subjects thereunto by so great a punishment?  
40. Likewise as a foreign Prince may, and is bound sometimes to defend Innocents', so the Pope may licence and authorise, yea and command him so to do, he having authority, as Widdrington avoucheth, to command a Prince in temporal matters: and if at the Pope's commandment this Prince make war upon the Prince that intolerably molesteth Innocents' in their faith and Religion (as Victoria in the place before alleged, saith he may) that which the Prince shall do against the other tyrannising Prince in the pursewing of his just war, the Pope shallbe said to do, he being the commander, and consequently the principal agent. And yet by this Clause of the Oath, the subjects are commanded to swear that the Pope hath no authority to authorise any foreign Prince to annoy the King of England, or to invade his countries. which is to abjure at least a probable opinion as certainly false: which how it can be done with a good conscience, I report me even to Widdringtons' large conscience. But be this spoken to show the danger of swearing this Clause, not to give any scope against Kings or Princes, whom I honour as God his Images, and his Vicegerents in Earth.  
The Third Clause.  
Also I swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excommunication or deprivation made, or granted, or to be made, or granted by the Pope, or his successors, or by any authority derived, or pretended to be derived from him, or his Sea, against the said King, his Heirs, or successors, or any Absolution of the said subjects from their obedience, I will bear faith, and true allegiance to his Maiesti●, his Heirs and successors, and him, and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies, and attempts what soever, which shallbe made against his, or their persons, their crown, and dignity, by reason or colour of any such sentence, or declaration, or otherwise; and will do my best endeavour to disclose, and make known unto his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, all Treasons, and Traitorous conspiracies, which I shall know, or hear of to be against him, or any of them.  
41. 
Widdr. in Disp. Theol. ca 4. sect. 1. n. 1. & seqq.  Here WIDDRINGTON insulteth against the learned Cardinal Bellarmine, though the Phoenix for controversies of this our age. Cardinal Bellarmine (saith he) Gretserus, and Lessius contend, that by this Clause is denied to the Pope power to excommunicate, which yet (saith he) this Clause seemeth to suppose, and the King professeth he had not the intention to deny. But although this Clause seem to suppose, and the King in words seemeth to confess, or at least not to deny the Pope Authority to excommunicate, yet in effect they deny it. For deprivation of Regal Authority being an effect of excommunicating, which ordinarily followeth excommunication of Kings and Princes, in the denial of the effect, the cause is denied. For as if you should say, A man is not risibilis, you should deny him to be homo; so in denying that the Pope can deprive Princes of their Kingdoms, you deny in effect than he can excommunicate.  
42. Here WIDDRINGTON in his Newyearesgift insulteth against me for saying, as he makes me to say, that deprivation of Regal Authority is an effect of Excommunication, as necessarily following Excommunication, as risibile followeth homo. But if we look into the matter narrowly, we shall find he triumpheth before the victory, and counteth his chickens before they be hatched. For first if we speak of the power of Excommunication and deprivation (of which I speak but two lines before these words at which Widdrington carpeth) I had showed in the seaventh Chapter before, that the power to excommunicate which the cbiefe visible Pastor hath, is one and the self same power with the power of deprivation and deposition; which one power hath two acts and effects, the one principal and first intended called actus primarius, and this is Excommunication, or such like spiritual Censure and punishment; the second is deprivation, deposition, and such like Temporal chastisement and correction, which is actus secundarius, a secundary act of the Chief Pastors spiritual power secondarily intended when the first will not prevail. And these two acts are necessarily belonging to the Pope's spiritual power of Supremacy; not that this power must needs always exercise both, or either of them, but because the Pope can not have this power, but he must have faculty to exercise them when a just cause requireth it: and so these two acts being necessarily belonging to the Pope's Supremacy, he that denyeth him power to deprive or depose a Prince, denyeth in effect that he hath power to Excommunicate, it being one and the self same power: because the denial of an effect necessarily belonging to a cause, is a virtual denial of the cause; even as to deny that fire can heat, or rarify, is to deny it to be fire, and to deny a man to be risibilis, is to deny him to be man. secondly if we speak of these two acts of this power (although WIDDRNIGTON knoweth that the learned SVAREZ alleged by him, 
2. p. Append contra Suarem sec. 4.  affirmeth that the suspension of Kingly Authority is an effect of the act of Excommunication) I did not say, that deprivation is always an effect of the act of Excommunication, well knowing that although both these are so necessarily belonging to the Pope's power of Supremacy, that it can not be without possibility of exercising them, yet it is in his free choice to exercise either both, or either of them: and so he may excommunicate and not deprive, and he may deprive (as he did King CHILDERIC, 
See Cap. Alius 15. q. 6.  alleged by me pag. 250. and not excommunicate. And therefore I said only; that deprivation of Regal Authority being aneffect of excommunication which ordinarily followeth Excommunication of Kings and Princes, in the denial of the effect, the cause is denied etc. where WIDDRINGTON leaveth out those words (which ordinarily followeth) because those words would have made it plain, that I say not that deprivation is an effect of Excommunication in all Excommunicate persons but in Kings and Princes, nor always in excommunicated Princes (because a King may be excommunicated and not deposed, and he may be deposed, as CHILDERIC King of France was and not Excommunicated) but oftentimes and ordinarily; 
Cap. Alius 15. q. 6.  because the Chief visible Pastor useth not by name to excommunicere a Prince, but he also ordinarily, especially in these later Ages, deposeth him, and for two reasons also: the one because he ought not ordinatilie to proceed to so severe a temporal punishment before he have tried whether the spiritual punishment of excommunication will prevail: the other, because to excommunicate him, and not to deprive him, were to irritate him and provoke him to fury, and yet not to take his sword and power from him.  
43. And therefore in the Canon Law Temporal punishment followeth and accompanieth excommunication as Cap. No● sanctorum 15. q. 6. Pope GREGORY the seventh holding (as he saith) the statutes of his Predecessoures', absolveth all those who are obliged by faith or fidelity to excommunicated persons from their fidelity. And in the next Chapter which beginneth with the word juratos, Pope VRBANE absolveth soldiers from their fidelity to Count HUGO excommunicated. And in the Decretalles Cap. Ad abolendum de Haereticis Countess, Barons, Rectors, and Consulles of Cities, who will not aid the Church against heretics, are excommunicated and deprived, or to be deprived of their former temporal honour, made unable and uncapable of all future dignities, and their Lands are Interdicted. And in the next Chapter Vergentes INNOCENTIUS the Third confiscateth the goods of Heretics. And in the Chapter Si adversus all Advocates, and Notaries, who favour Heretics, are made infamous, and are deprived of their office. Likewise in the Chapter. Excommunicamus. before cited all Heretics are excommunicated, and after the condemnatory sentence are to be chastised with due punishment by the Secular judge, and their goods are confiscated: in which Chapter also is to be seen the Decree of the Great Council of Lateran, which above I have alleged: And in the same Chapter believers, receivers, defendours, and favourers of Heretics are excommunicated, declared infamous, and unable to bear office, to make a Testament or last will; and if he be a judge, his sentence is disannulled etc. And in the last Chapter of this Title de Haereticis. GREGORY the Ninth concludeth with these words: whosoever by any promise howsoever confirmed, were obliged to those who are manifestly fallen into Heresy, let them know that they are absolved from the duty of fidelity, homage, and service. And Cap. Cum secundum leges de Haereticis in 6. The Pope saith, that if by the Civil Law diverse transgressors, which he nameth, be justly deprived of their goods, bona Haereticorum (qui gravius, horribilius, ac detestabilius, quam praedicti delinquunt) ipso iure, de fratrum nostrorum consilio decernimus confiscata: the goods of Heretics, (who more grievously, more horribly, and detestably, than the aforesaid delinquents, do offend) we decree ipso iure to be confiscated. Wherefore although that Excommunication may be separated from all temporal punishment, and that the Pope may excommunicate a Prince, and yet not depose him (as INNOCENTIUS the first did excommunicate ARCADIUS whom yet he deposed not) yet seeing, that in the Common law Temporal punishment, as confiscation of goods, infamy, and even absolution from fidelity to Princes are annexed to Excommunication, and proceed from the power of Excommunication, and ordinarily follow the act of Excommunication: I might well say that deprivation of Regal authority is an effect which ordirilie followeth Excommunication of Kings and yet say no more than the learned Suarez above alleged, nor then S. 
2.2. q. 12 art. 2.  THOMAS of AQVIN, where he saith, that the Prince who hath made an Apostasy and revolt from the true Christian faith received at least in Baptism, is conveniently deprived of rule over his subjects, and that quam citò aliquis per sententiam denuntiatur Excommunicatus propter Apostasiam a fide, ipso facto eius subditi sunt absoluti a dominio eius, & juramento fidelitatis: so soon as any one by sentence is denounced Excommunicated for Apostasy from faith, ipso facto, at the same instant his subjects are absolved from his Dominion or Sovereignty, and from their oath of fidelity. Where it is manifest, that he maketh absolution of the subjects from their fidelity an effect in some sort of the act of Excommunication.  
44. Put then all this together, to wit, first, that deprivation of Regal authority is an act though secondary, yet necessarily appertaining to the Chief Pastors spiritual power by which he Excommunicateth; he that denyeth him power to deprive, denyeth necessarily his power to excommunicate, it being one, and the self same power, as above is proved. secondly, seeing that deprivation, and other temporal punishments above related do ordinarily follow the act of excommunication, though by a secondary act of the Pope's spiritual power, as is above explicated, he that denyeth the Pope power to deprive, denyeth him also power to excommunicate, deprivation being at least a moral effect even of the act of excommunication. This I explicate by homo, and risibilis, not that I aver as necessary a conjunction betwixt the act of excommunication and deprivation, as is betwixt homo and risibilis no example holding in all things, but for that as because there is a necessary, and physical connexion betwixt homo and risibilis, he that denyeth a man to be risibilis, doth necessarily deny him to be homo: so because there is a necessary connexion betwixt the power of excommunication and deprivation, both acts appertaining necessarily to that power, he that denyeth the Pope authority to deprive a Prince, necessarily denyeth him power to excommunicate, the denial of a necessary effect implying vertuallie a denial of the cause: and because there is a moral conjunction, at least betwixt the act of excommunication & deprivation, this as before following ordinarily that, he that denyeth the Pope authority to deprive, morally at least denyeth him power to excommunicate: which is sufficient to make any timorous conscience fear to swear that the Pope can not deprive a Prince, especially if thereunto be added, that deprivation is a secondary act necessarily appertaining to the Pope's supremacy and power of excommunicating, because the denial of an act and effect though secondary (if it necessarily belong to a cause) importeth a denial of the cause; and therefore not only he who denyeth that fire can burn or heat (which is the first act and effect of fire) but also he that denyeth that fire can harden and rarefie (which are secondary acts of fire) denyeth it to be fire. And in this sense Lessius, or his Recapitulatour cited by Widdrington said, and (whatsoever Widdrington saith) truly said, that Absolutio subditorum a vinculo fidelitatis est effectus, qui sententiam Excommunicationis necessariò consequitur, 
Widdr. in Disp. Theol. c. 4. n. 4. & 7.  & Ecclesiaepraxis per mille ducentorum & amplius annorum spatium commonstrat: Absolution of subjects from the bond of fidelity, is an effect which necessarily followeth the sentence of Excommunication, as the practice of more than twelve hundred years doth show; because this Absolution of subjects from fidelity, is an act necessarily appertaining to the power of Excommunicating, and morally and ordinarily it followeth even the act of excommunication as we have said, and proved; and in the same sense the Angelical Doctor S. THOMAS of AQVIN saith, 
2.2. q. 12 art. 2.  that so soon as one is denounced by sentence Excommunicated for Apostasy from faith, ipso facto by the very fact of Excommunication denounced his subjects are sreed from his Dominion, Rule or Sovereignty. By which words S. THOMAS maketh deprivation an effect of the sentence of Excommunication as much as I did; and therefore either meaneth, that excommunication is a cause of deprivation immediately by itself, or that Deprivation followeth it in manner aforesaid. And so the act of Deprivation being at least a secondary act of the Pope's spiritual Supremacy; to deny that he hath power to deprive, is to deny that he hath power to excommunicate, it being all one power, and consequently it is to deny covert his spiritual Supremacy.  
45. But besides this, all the Arguments, which I have alleged to prove that the Pope can depose Princes, and all which I have said against the former two Clauses, do manifestly prove that this Clause wanteth the three companions of an Oath, and so can not lawfully be sworn. That judgement wanteth, it may appear by that, which I have said in the very beginning of my examination of this Oath. That it wanteth Verity, it is as evident, as it is that the Pope can depose Princes. And though it were but probable that the Pope could degrade Princes, yet to swear absolutely that he can not, were to expose the swearer to danger of perjury; yea it were to swear a falsehood, and so to commit actual perjury. For as it is perjury to swear as true that which is false, so is it to swear a thing to be undoubtedly and assuredly true, which is but probable; because it is false, that that which is but probable, is absolutely, and assuredly true. Wherefore seeing that it is false that the Pope cannot in some case depose Princes, 
Widdr. disp Th. c. 6. sec 3 n. 15. & seqq.  and by Widdringtons' frequent confession, is at least probable that he can (for he saith that the Popes, who deposed Princes, followed a probable opinion, and he confesseth that he contendeth not to show that it is an heretical or false opinion, 
Disp. Th. in praef. n. 2. & 3.  but only that it is not de fide tenenda: to be held as a matter of faith) it followeth that this Clause can not besworne, it absolutely and with great asseveration denying the Pope Authority to depose. And although if the Pope should excommuntcate and depose a Prince, a subject in some case might yet obey in lawful things, because fear of death, or loss of liuings would excuse him, when otherwise it is no scandal, nor no absolute frustration of the Censure to obey him in particular; yet to swear this in so general terms, can not be lawful, as not only my former Arguments, but also even that, which out of Victoria I have alleged, doth manifestly prove.  
46. That this Clause wanteth also the third companion & condition of a lawful oath, which is justice, is as manifest, because it derogateth from the Authority, which the Pope justly claimeth, and hath of long time not only possessed, but also practised: and so to swear this Clause, is to swear and promise by oath an act of injustice.  
The Fourth Clause.  
And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that Princes, which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other what soever etc.  
40. This Clause, as it is more plain, so can it with less show be taken, because the common opinion, which holdeth that the Pope can deprive and depose Princes, is most certain, as I above have proved, and at least it is the more common, and being confirmed by so many Arguments and such Authority and practice of holy and ancient Popes; and at least, even by Widdrington his own confession, holden as probable; how can any that have any conscience swear that it is impious? and how especially can he swear that it is heretical and damnable, it never having been conby the Church, and defined by General Counsels, 
Widdr. in Disp. Th. ca 6. sect. 2. n. 9 ●tseqq.  as above is declared?  
47 Widdrington answereth that to make the position here abjured as heretical, it is sufficient that one part of it be heretical, to wit, that Princes excommunicated by the Pope, may be murdered. And therefore although it be not heresy to say that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed; yet seeing that at least it is heretical to say, that they may be killed, it being flat against Scripture which forbiddeth absolutely to kill, 
Exod. 20 1. Reg. 26.  especially Kings (for who shall extend his hand against the Anointed of our Lord, and shall be innocent?) the position abjured must needs be heretical.  
48. That it is sufficient, to make the position here abjured heretical, that the last part thereof be heretical, WIDDRINGTON proveth; because (saith he) the word (May) when it goeth before the Conjunction (or) signifieth that it is in our free choice and election to do the one or the other, and therefore (saith he) though the propositton seem to be disiunctive, yet it is not an absolute, but a conditional disiunctive, aequivalent to a Copulative. And so to swear that it is heretical doctrine to say that Princes excommunicated and deprived by the Pope, may by their subjects, or any others be deposed or murdered; is to swear that it is heretical doctrine to say that after the Prince is excommunicated and deprived by the Pope, it is in the free election of his subjects or others to depose him, or kill him, as they will, which is heretical; because at least they cannot kill him, as is prooned. And to prove that this is the meaning of that Clause, he allegeth many examples and manners of speeches, which have the same sense: as if one should say: You may eat or drink. You may go by horse, or on soot: The meaning is, you may do of these which you will.  
49. But this his Answer (by his leave) is not sufficient to satisfy any timorous or rightly fearful conscience. For first, although sometimes the Conjunction (Or) when it followeth the verb (may) be taken in the meaning that Widdrington affirmeth, yet not always; yea ordinarily it is taken disiunctivelie. And so, as to verify a disiunctive proposition, it is sufficient that one part of it be true; so to make it false, both parts must be false. As for example, if one should lay a wager, that to morrow it will either rain or snow, to win the wager, it is sufficient that it do either; but to make the proposition false, and to cause him to lose his wager, neither must happen, that is, it must neither rain, not snow. Wherefore seeing that the Conjunction (or) is ordinarily taken disiunctivelie, and many times also when (may) goeth before it; it remaineth yet to be proved by Widdrington that (or) is taken copulativelie in the Clause alleged. As for example if one should say: It is heretical to say that a man may steal or commit adultery, in that proposition (or) is taken disiunctivelie, and the proposition importeth that it is heretical to say that a man may either steal or commit adultery: Or (because he may say this is true by reason of the matter not of the form) if he should say: I dearest as heresy that Position which saith, that a man may be baptised of an Heretieke either lawfully or validlie, were it not a false and heretical detestation? and yet by reason of one part of the disiunctive proposition, to wit, or validlie. The very like (as who so marketh shall perceive) is the proposition alleged; and therefore it importeth, that it is an heretical proposition, to say that Prince excommunicated and deprived by the Pope, may be either deposed or killed. Whence it cometh to pass, that the party who sweareth that Clause, shall swear that it is heretical to say that Princes excommunicated by the Pope may be deposed, which notwithstanding is no where condemned as heretical, yea is decreed by General Counsels, and practised by many holy and learned Popes, allowed of by common consent, and lastely confessed by Widdrington himself as probable.  
50. secondly, seeing that this manner of speech is often, yea ordinarily taken in a disiunctive meaning, it maketh this Clause at least doubtful, whether it also be not taken disiunctivelie, and so import that it is heretical to say that a Prince excommunicated may be deposed. And seeing that no man can swear a doubtful thing, lest he expose himself to perjury in swearing false, and consequently make himself guilty indeed of perjury, because every one is esteemed guilty of that sin or crime, 
Eccles. 3.  to which he exposeth himself, and qui amat periculum, in illo peribit: Ht that loveth danger, shall perish in it: therefore he can not swear this Clause, having no better assurance for the truth thereof, then as yet Widdrington, or any other can allege (which is none at all) and so long, remaining at the least doubtful and uncertain. thirdly Widdrington in this his explication doth evidently eontradict the intention of the King's Majesty, Parliament, & Authors of the oath; for their intention (as we have seen above) was to secure the Prince not only from killing, but also, & especially from deprivation, and deposition; partly because a King ordinarily would choose as willingelie to be killed, as to be deprived and deposed, he by deposition or deprivation being made of a King no King, but a private man; partly because when he is once deprived, or deposed, he is in danger to be killed by his subjects if he persist in government, for than they who hold his deposition to be of force, do hold him as an invader. So that Widdrington by this exposition making the swearer to swear only that the King excommunicated cannot be killed, secureth him not from deposition or deprivation, no nor from killing, as I have showed, and so maketh the oath frustrate, secureth not the King, and contradicteth the Kings and Parliaments intention, which they had in framing, proposing, and commanding this oath to be taken, thereby to secure the King.  
51. fourthly although for the respect I own and bear to Princes, and especially to my own natural Liege, I will not aver that Princes persisting in possession and government of their Kingdom, after that the Pope hath excommunicated and deprived them, may be deposed, and killed also by their former subjects, or any other power or potentate: yet seeing that many do affirm and hold it, whose opinion notwithstanding is no ways censured for heretical, or so much as temerarious, or erroneous; I do not see how that position, though taken in Widdringtons' sense and meaning, can be abjured as heretical. I acknowledge that it is condemned as heresy in the Council of Constance, 
Concil. Constant. sess. 15.  to say that quilibet Tyrannus potest & debet licitè & meritoriè occidi per quemlibet vasallum suum vel subditum etc. Every Tyrant may and ought lawfully and meritoriously be killed by every one of his vasals or subjects, even by secret wiles or ambushements, and by crafty enticements and adulations, notwithstanding whatsoever oath or covenant, or without expecting the sentence or commandment of whatsoever judge. But this is understood of him, who is true King, but governeth tyrannically (who can not be killed by any one of his vasals or subjects) and not of every Tyrant. For if the Tyrant be an open invader and usurper of the crown without all Title, than (according to the 
† Vide D. Tho. lib. 1. de regim. Princip. c. 6. Caiet. 2.2. q. 64. a. 3 & Arragon. ibid. Sayr. lib. 7. Claeu. Regiae, cap. 10. vu. 4. & reliquos infra citandos.  common opinion) every one of the Realm hath iustum bellum, just war against him, and so may kill him by way of defence: Yea although the Tyrant have just Title, and so be true King, yet if he tyrannize in government, not howsoever (for 
* Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2.  evil Kings must be borne withal and aught to be obeyed) but intolerably, and so as the Common wealth can not consist under him, that then, not particular subjects, but the Common wealth after sufficient admonition, may by common consent, public authority, and public sentence depose him. As for example, if the Prince should unjustly kill all his nobility, cause their wives to be ravished, massacre their children, ransack their houses and families, and withal give their lands and liuings to others, & for no offence also, but out of his own humour; then (say diverse Authors) the Common wealth, as she made him King (for although some be Kings by succession, yet the first King, as before is declared, if he were lawful, came to the crown by election of the people) so by the same power, which in case of intolerable tyranny returneth again unto her, she may depose him, and, if after deposition he persist, she may kill him, if otherwise she find no means to resist him. This was the opinion of many of the 
a Zen●phon lib. de Tyrant. Arist. lib. 2. Polit. cap. 5. & li 5. cap. 10. & 11. Cic. lib. 3. de office.  ancient Philosophers; and this also many Christian 
b Gigas, Paridius de Puteo, & alij citati a Suar. lib. 6. defence. fidei Cathol. c. 4.  Lawyers, and learned 
c D. Tho. citat. in 2 d. vlt. q. 2 ar. 2. ad 5. Gerson par. 4 tract. contra adulatores, consid. 7. Sotus lib. 5. de just. q. 1. are 3. Bannes' 2.2. q 64. a 3. dub. 1. § sed quaeret aliquis. Valentia to. 3. disp. 5 q. 8 p. 3. §. si est Tyrannus, Molina to. 4. de just. tract. 3. disp. 6. n. 2. Tolet lib. 5. Summa, cap. 6 num. 17. Sa in Aphorismis, V Tyrannus, num. 2. Lessius lib. 2. de just. & iure, cap. 9 dub. 4. num. 12. Suar. lib. 6. defence fidei, cap. 4. Estius in 2. dist. 44. §. 2 vers. Vtrum verò.  Divines do maintain. Yea this 
d Disput. Theol. cap. 3. sect. 4 n. 3.  Widdrington himself dareth not deny▪ for (saith he) I do not absolutely profess, testify, and declare that the Civil Common wealth hath no power to depose a Prince etc. And if Kings, who were not excommunicated nor deprived by the Pope, may by the Commonwealth be deposed and killed, when they are intolerable Tyrants; why may not the Common wealth exercise the same power over Tyrants excommunicated and deprived by the Pope, they after excommunication and deprivation being no more Kings, but private men?  
52. How then, and with what conscience can any one swear that he holdeth it in conscience for an heretical position and doctrine, to say that Princes excommunicated by the Pope, may by him, or any other authority be deposed or killed? Yea in the examination of the second Clause, 
† Supra nu. 14. & seqq.  I have alleged Titles out of Victoria of just war, which a foreign Prince may make against the true Prince in favour of Religion and Innocence; which Titles are at least probable, and at least are in no part of scripture nor Council condemned as unlawful and impious, or heretical. I demand then how Widdrington (who holdeth it probable that the Common wealth may depose a Tyrant, and that the Pope may command the Common wealth so to do) with a timorous conscience, or with any conscience at all, can swear that the Prince excommunicated can in no case, and by no authority, nor for no Tyranny be deposed or killed: yea that it is an heretical and damnable position to teach it, so many teaching it, whose doctrine was never condemned? If Widdringtons' conscience can digest this, what can it not digest? But WIDDRINGTON (as he that will make good that which can hardly be averred, must needs do) hath devised yet two answers.  
53. 
Pag. 43. 52. 103.  The first which he giveth in his Newyearesguifte, is in effect this: It is but a probable opinion that the Pope can depose a Prince, and so after the Sentence of deposition or deprivation, the Prince deposed hath probable right and Title, and so being in Possession, the Pope cannot justly depose him, because better is the condition of the Possessor. Wherefore as it is lawful to swear that it is heretical to say that a man may steal, or kill his neightbour by private Authority and not in his own defence, or thrust him out of his own house; so it is as lawful to swear that it is heresy: to say that the Pope may depose a Prince, it being open Injustice to dispossess him, who hath probable right and Title. And if you object that it is not against any definition of Church or Council to say that the Pope can depose a Prince, and so cannot be heretical: he answereth that it is against Scripture, which forbiddeth injustice, and that this is sufficient to make the assertion heresy, which affirmeth it lawful. But to omit that it is the manner of heretics to square all by Scripture, and not by the Church's definition: this answer first supposeth it to be an opinion only probable, that the Pope can depose a Prince, and yet above I have proved it, no less than certain by many Arguments, and by this in particular, that if it were but probable, the Decree of the Council of Laterane, and the facts of many holy Popes who have deposed Princes, should be all unjust; which with what modesty Widdr. can grant, I report me to all modest Catholics. And if it be certain that the Pope can depose a Prince, than it is not probable, that the Prince deposed hath probable right, but rather it is certain he hath not, and so Possession without probable Title being not sufficient (for that even thiefs have such possession) it followeth that the Pope may depose a Prince without all injustice, and so it cannot be an heresy to teach that the Pope can depose a Prince, and consequently that position can not be abjured as heresy. secondly the power to depose, and the exercise of this power being two things (as above we have seen) in so much that one may have power and yet can not lawfully exercise it, nor some times validlie; and this clause of the oath not commanding only to swear, that the Pope can not lawfully depose, but absolutely that he can not depose, how can Widdrington without remorse swear absolutely, that it is an heresy to say that the Pope can depose a Prince.  
54. His second answer which he hath in his Theological disputation, 
Disp. Th. c. 5. n. 28 Newyearesguifte pag. 105.  as also in his Newyearesguifte, is this; to wit, that the adverb sicut, as, may here only signify a similitude and not equality, or identity: and so the sense is, I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious, and heretical, that is not as a position with is heresy, but which hath such affiniitie or similitude with heresy and error, that the Pope might declare it heresy if he would. As, saith he, if one should say I detest him as a devil, I love him as my brother, he doth not therefore affirm him to be truly a devil, or truly his Brother. And when S. GREGORY saith, 
Lib. 1 ep. 24.  that he received the 4. General Counsels as the 4. Gospels': and when Christ said Marc. 15. Be you perfitt as your heavenly father is perfitt. S. GREGORY did not receive those Counsels as truly scripture, nor did Christ Counsel us to be truly as perfitt as our heavenly father. But first this Silly answer showeth to what Shifts Widdrington is driven. For first the King and Parliament do hold it as a position truly heretical that the Pope can deprive, or that the Subjects can depose & kill him whom the Pope depriveth: and so it is most like that in this Clause they intent that the swearer should abjure that position as truly heretical. secondly those protesting, execrating, and thundering words: I do further swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious & heretical this damnable doctrine and position etc. do argue that the swearer detesteth that position as in deed heretical, impious, and damnable; otherwise, if after so great words of abjuration he should abjure it only as approaching or something like to heresy, we might say, parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus. neither are Widdringtons' examples to the purpose, because it being evident that he whom we detest as a devil, can not be truly a devil, and that he whom we love as our brother, can not be our true brother; it must needs signify only similitude not equality; but seeing that it is not evident in terminis, as the former positions are, that that position can not be heresy, and that the Authors of the oath do hold it for heresy, it followeth that in this place (as) must signify equality or identity, not similitude: 
Newyearesguifte Pag. 106.  as Widdrington in his Newyearesguifte confesseth that sometimes it doth in regard of the matter; And so by this Clause we are to abjure that Position, not as like to heresy, but as all one with heresy, & truly heresy. thirdly it is at least doubtful lest this may be the sense, to wit, that the position is truly heresy, specially seeing that the words and manner of speech (as WIDDRINGTON confesseth) are to be taken in the Common sense, and according to the Lawemakers' intention, ergo this is a clause, not to be digested by any timorous conscience, nor by any other, then by an all devouring conscience.  
The Fift Clause.  
And I do further believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath, 
Sayrus in Clavi Regia li. 6. ca 11. n 7. Lesfius li, 2. de just. et iure cap. 40. dub. 17. num. 114. Arragon. 2.2. q. 88 art. 10. in expl. art. §. his constitutis Psal. 75.  or any part thereof.  
55. In this Clause first is abjured all power to dispense in oaths and vows, which is heretical, it being a matter of faith conformable to common consent and to the Canons and practice of the Church, that the Pope can dispense in oaths and vows, when there is just cause. And if in other oaths, why not in this? Widdrington perchance will answer, that this Oath of Allegiance bindeth by law of God and Nature, in which the Pope cannot dispense. But he cannot be ignorant that all oaths and vows do bind by law of God and Nature, according to that: 
Psal. 75.  Vovete & reddite: Vow and render. And yet if he will be a Catholic, he must confess, that the Pope can, and often times hath, and doth dispense in some oaths and vows, as in a vow to make a long pilgrimage, or to give a sum of money to a Church or Monastery, which are temporal things, though ordained to a spiritual end: and why then can he not dispense in this for a good end, to wit, conservation of faith, and upon just cause, as certes, if ever there be just cause to dispense, than there is, when the Prince with intolerable Tyranny persecuteth faith and Religion?  
56. And therefore Widdrington should call to mind that distinction, which Divines use in this matter, to wit, that there is duplex ius dininum naturale, 
Sanchez lib. 2. the matrim. disp. 14. n. 5. ad 4 & lib. 8. disp. 6. n. 1.  a two fold divine and natural law or right. The one is absolute, derived only from God and Nature: the other supponit factum, vel voluntatem humanam, that is supposeth some fact, or will of man. Of this sort are oaths and vows, which bind not absolutely, but only supposing some fact or will of ours, by which we swear or vow what otherwise we needed not. And although in all such things the Pope cannot dispense (for he can not dispense in matrimony consummated, nor in matrimony betwixt brother and sister, nor in plurality of wives, which yet suppose some fact or will of ours) yet he can dispense in vows, especially simple, yea and in those that be solemn also, as many Divines do probably hold: He can also dispense in oaths already made, when there is just cause; for seeing that these vows and oaths suppose our free will and consent, and are such also, as it is expedient that the Pope many times should dispense in them (such as is not matrimony consummated, nor marriage betwixt brother and sister, nor plurality of wives, because if once dispensation in these were granted, it would occasion many fornications and adulteries, 
Sanchez lib. 2. the matrim. disp. 13. n. 11. lib. 7. disp. 52 n. 11. & disp. 82. num. 9 Vide etiam Bellarm li. de matrim. ca 10.16. & 28.  as Sanchez and others observe) it was necessary that CHRIST should leave such power to his Church, and especially to his Chief Vicaire, the Pope, by which he might take away the obligation of these oaths and vows, which in some circumstance of times and persons can not so easily, nor so conveniently be fulfilled and observed. So that to swear that the Pope hath no Authority to dispense with a subject in his Oath, by which he hath sworn fidelity to the King, where as notwithstanding, when the King is an intolerable Tyrant, there is good reason, 
In Disp. Theolog. ca 6 sect. 1. n. 2.  and just cause of dispensation, were in effect (what soever Widdrington affirmeth) to abjure all Authority of the Church in dispensations. For although it be no good Argument to argue à particulari ad universale, and to say, The Pope can not dispense in this Oath, ergo in none: yet when there is the same reason of the particular, which is in the universal, then to deny the particular, were to deny the universal. And therefore as to say, Peter (who is a man as well as others) is not risihilis, were in effect to say that nullus homo est risibili; so seeing there is the same reason of this Oath to Wards the Prince, which is of other oaths, he that denieth that the Pope can dispense in this Oath, denyeth also in effect that he can dispense in any oath at all.  
57 This power, which the Pope hath in dispensing in this Oath, I confirm by all that, which above I have alleged to prove that the Pope can depose Princes, and absolve subjects from their allegiance, and even by the power of binding and losing, 
Mat. 18  which though ordinarily it be understood of losing from sins and censures, yet it is also extended to absolution from allegiance, when it is necessary to the Church's conservation (as above I have showed) not only by Cardinal Bellarmine, whose aythoritie Widdrington should rather reverence than contemn, but also by ancient Popes, whose testimonies in this kind aught to counterpoise all contrary asseverations, they being in a matter of so great importance undoubtedly illuminated by the spirit of truth, and delivering the right sense of the Holy Ghost, as his Chief and infallible interprete.  
58. To this WIDDRINGTON answereth, 
Disp. Th. cap. 6.  granting that although the Pope cannot dispense in iuramento assertorio, (of which no man doubteth) yet he may in iuramento promissorio, a promissory oath, because the thing which we promise for the future time, may prove hurtful or unlawful. And seeing that the things promised for the future time in this Clause are three. 1. That I will keep fidelity and obedience to the King and his heirs, notwithstanding excommunication or deprivation; 2. That I will defend him and them with all my forces against all conspiracies made against them and their Crown and dignity. 3. That I will reveal all such treasons and traitorous conspiracies etc. He saith I may as safely and securely swear without all danger of perjury, that I will do all these three things, as I may swear without danger of perjury, that the Pope can not deprive a Prince. But out of these words of WIDDRINGTON, I will frame this argument against himself: I can no more swear these three things, than I can swear without all danger of perjury, that the Pope can not deprive a Prince: but I can not without danger of perjury swear, that the Pope cannot deprive a Prince, ergo I cannot swear these three things without danger of perjury. The mayor proposition is widdrington's, the minor I have often proved, because itis at least probable, even by WIDDRINGTONS' confession, that the Pope can deprive a Prince; and if it be probable that he can, it may be true, if it may be true, there is danger of perjury to abjure it: and so the Conclusion followeth, to wit, that I can not swear these three things without danger of perjury.  
The sixth Clause.  
Which Oath I acknowledge by full and lawful Authority to be proposed unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary.  
59 In this Clause the swearer acknowledgeth that this Oath is proposed by full and lawful authority, which notwithstanding is not at least so certain a thing, as that a man may swear it. For although the Magistrate have authority to propose an Oath of mere Civil allegiance unto lay subjects; yet he hath not authority to propose such an Oath as this, which (as I have proved) containeth so many things not to be sworn, and so much derogateth to the Authority of the Pope, which for so long a time he hath possessed and practised. And especially the Magistrate can not pronose this Oath to all sorts of people, seeing 〈◊〉 can not be without moral danger of perjury; much less can he propose it to Priests, whose Ecclesiastical immunity freeth them from Magistrates and Temporal judge's interrogations, and Tribunals, 
Ca qu●quam, de Censibus in 6. Ca adversus & cap. non minus, de Immunit. Eccl.  and who only are to be examined by their Bishops and Ordinaries, and by them to be punished when they offend, and not by any Temporal judges, unless the fault be so great, that the Bishop thinketh it meet to degrade the delinquent, and to deliver him to secular power. And so it being a thing at least very doubtful, whether the Prince and Magistrate have authority to propose such an oath; yea it being evident that they cannot, because (as above is proved) it is evident that it containeth many things, which are against faith, and Authority of the Church and Counsels: the Prince and Magistrate can have no authority at all, much less full and lawful Autho itie, to propose this Oath. And so neither can this Clause be admitted.  
60. Add to this, that, what soever WIDDRINGTON saith, the King and Parliament by this oath, do take upon them to decide what power the Pope hath from Christ the Author and S. Peter the Pope's first Predecessor: for what is it other to determine and decide a question, then to declare, that one part of it is to be believed and followed, towitt that the Pope cannot deprive or depose a Prince, and that the contrary is to be abjured as impious and heretical? And if any Doctor of the Church should define this question or any other, how can he determine more plainly and resolutely. As for Example the Church defineth, that there are 7. Sacraments and pronounceth Anathema against the contrary opinion which saith there are but two or not. 7. Doth she not in this define the question? Even so our Prince and Parliament by this oath have decreed, that the Pope can not depose or deprive a Prince, and they oblige the Subject to swear this part, and to abjure the contrary as heresy. Is not this then to determine?  
61. Whereas Widdrington allegeth, 
Disp. Th. c. 7. n. 11  that the faculty of divinity in Paris and Mentz, do oblige those that are to proceed Doctors, not to teach or preach publicly, that our B. Lady was conceived in original sin, and yet do not define the controversy; this maketh rather against him; for they also do in this define, and though not absolutely, yet as much as by their authority they can; and therefore they do not oblige their subjects to abjure as heresy the contrary opinion of the Thomists, for that were absolutely to determine, and to arrogate the Pope's authority: wherefore seeing that the King and Parliament do oblige Catholics to abjure as heresy, and under the penalty also of a Praemunire, that the Pope cannot deprive or depose a Prince, it followeth that they absolutely determine of such a spiritual proposition and matter of divinity, & against the Practice of many Popes, and against the decree of the Lateran Council; and so in this they Challenge to themselves the Popes or Church's Authority, to which it appertaineth to define what is heresy; and consequently to swear that this oath is proposed by lawful Authority, is to swear in effect that the King and Parliament have spiritual Authority, and that the King is supreme Head of the Church of England, and hath Authority to define what proposition is heretical. At least this Argument maketh it doubtful lest this Clause importeth thus much, and so is not to be sworn.  
The Seventh Clause.  
And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to the express words by me spoken & without any equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever. And I do make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God.  
62. Divines affirm that the guilty, 
D. Th. 2. 2. q. 69. a. 1. Caiet. ibid. Henric. quodl. 1. q. 44. Petrus Navarre. li. 2. de restit.  or supposed guilty, is not laways bound to answer according to the judge's meaning and intention, if the judge do not make his interrogations iuridicallie. The same Divines affirm that a judge doth not make his interrogations iuridicallie, when he questioneth about any secret thing, of which there is not some fame, 
cap. 4. n. 136. Lessius lib. 2. de just. & iure cap. 31. dub. 3 & alij. Vide cap. qualiter & quando, & ca Inquisitionis, d● Accusationibus.  or report against the supposed guilty; or when he examineth things, which pertain not to his Court, but rather to the spiritual Court; or when there is not semiplena probatio, or sufficientia indicia, or when the supposed guilty knoweth himself innocent, for than he is not bound to answer according to the judge's intention, but may equivocate. Likewise when he knoweth himself innocent, and yet if he confess the circumstance, which is demanded, he should be presumed nocent, he may deny it with an equivocation. As for example, if one had been present when his companion, without his consent, killed another, if the judge ask whether he was not present, he may deny it, meaning he was not so present, as to consent or cooperate, for if he should confess that he had been present, he would be presumed to have consented or cooperated, & so should be unjustly condemned. Add hereunto that the same Divines affirm that we are not bound to answer according to the judge's meaning, 
Caietan. & alij supra citati.  when the person interrogated, doubteth whether the judge hath Authority, or proceedeth iuridicallie, and according to form of law and equity.  
63. All which being so, this Clause of the Oath is very hard; for notwithstanding (as we have seen) that it is certain that the Prince and Magistrate have not Authority to propose such an Oath, which containeth so many things unlawful to be sworn, and which so derogateth from the Pope's lawful Authority, as also from Counsels, and the practice of the Church, and which besides that, pertaineth not to the Temporal Court and Tribunal; yet this Clause bindeth the subjects to answer, and swear without all mental reservation, yea to swear that heartily and willingly they take this oath, whereas most of mere fear, and altogether against their wills and conscience take it, and cannot depose their conscience, or think that the Oath is lawful.  
64. 
Disp. Th. ca 8 and Newyearesguifte cap. 8.  Widdrington answereth that this clause dependeth of the lawfulness and justice of the oath, & seeing that the oath containeth no injustice nor falsehood (as he saith he hath proved) it followeth that in this Clause there is no difficulty. But because the words indeed do imply, that we swear all that goeth before, he useth much art to make this Clause speak, not to the Authors, but to his own mind. For whereas these words: And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to the express words by me spoken etc. do import, according to the Common manner of speaking, and use of words, that I not only sincerely acknowledge, but also do swear (the conjunction (&) and being copulative) yet Widdrington contrary to his rule taken out of Suarez for the interpretation of the law, 
Disp. Th. c. 1. sec. 2.  which in this and other things he leaveth at his pleasure; saith that the word (Swear) is not to be referred to the former words (and all these things) but to the words plainly & sincerely. As if the sense were not this; I do plainly and sincerely both acknowledge and swear all which I have spoken and averted in this oath; but this: that which I have acknowledged I do plainly & sincerely acknowledge, and that which I have sworn, I do plainly and sincerely swear. And this exposition he putteth, because in diverse parts of the oath (as he averreth) the swearer declareth and sweareth not the thing, as for Example, that the Pope can not depose a Prince, but only what his opinion is. And this interpretation, he proveth by conferring this last Clause which the first. But first Widdrington herein goeth from his rule of interpreting, which is that the words of the Law, unless some other circumstance hinder, aught to be taken according to the common use of words. For who reading or hearing these words, And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to the express words by me spoken, would not by & by understand, that he not only acknowledgeth but also sweareth all these things by him spoken? And as Widdrington proveth his interpretation by conferring this last Clause, which the first and second, so will I prove mine by the same conference.  
65. The first and second Clause then are these: I. A. B. do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, and testify in my Conscience before God and the world, etc. And what do I acknowledge Profess and testify? that I acknowledge and testify? that were to confound & make all one the act of swearing and the object of swearing, or the thing sworn. What then do I acknowledge, profess and testify? That which followeth, to wit, that our Sovereign Lord King JAMES is lawful and true King of this realm etc. And that which followeth in the second Clause, to wit, that the Pope neither by himself, nor by any Authority of the Church or Sea of Rome, or any other means with any other, hath any Authority to depose the King. In these two Clauses, as even here and above I have proved, is not protested nor sworn what the swearer thinketh for that present, because according to WIDDRINGTONS' rule, that is not the plain sense of the words, and for that (as above also I have showed) that would little secure the King (because he that sweareth may afterwards change his opinion and yet not contradict this his former Oath:) but the swearer testifieth in his Conscience before God and the world that the Pope cannot depose the King. Now let us hear the last Clause: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge, and swear, according to the express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and Common sense, and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever. And seeing that amongst all these things, this is one, to wit, that the Pope can not depose King JAMES, that also is acknowledged and sworn. And for as much as this Position, that the Pope can not depose a Prince, is false, as I have proved, or at most is but probable, and therefore in controversy as WIDDRINGTON above confesseth, he that sweareth this Clause exposeth himself to perjury: because if it be but probable that the Pope can not depose a Prince, the contrary, to wit that the Pope can depose a Prince is probable, and if it be probable it may be true, and so to abjure it by oath, is to expose the sweater to evident danger of perjury. I say evident danger; for there is evident danger of perjury where there is evident probability that the thing Sworn may be false, but so it is in our case, ergo.  
66. This I thought briefly to say for examination of this Oath, and some instruction for the subjects, especially Catholics, to whom this Oath is proposed. And because I have at large in the former Chapters proved the Principal object, & thing, which this Oath abiureth, to wit, that the Pope can in some case depose Princes, I refer the Reader to those Chapters, and withal to the whole Treatise for his fuller instruction and satisfaction in this matter; which if he peruse, I doubt not, but partly by this examination, partly by the former Chapters, he shall see how unlawful this Oath is, and what just cause the Chief Vicaire of CHRIST, S. PETER'S successor, PAUL by the grace of God, the fift, who now reigneth, and sitteth at the stern of S. PETER'S ship, had to forbid by his Breves this Oath, as containing things, which cannot be sworn without most evident and grievous wronging of God's Honour: and which are flat contrary to faith and salvation.  
67. 
Little socuritie given by Widdr. to the King.  But now it shall not be amiss to observe what security Widdr. by his Explication of the Oath, hath procured to the King. His intention was by this fovourable Explication, to make the world to see, how Loyal and faithful a subject he is, who exempteth his Prince in Temporalities from all subjection to the Chief Pastor, and what security he procureth to his parson, he having (if his doctrine may go for currant) cut of all occasions of conspiracies and attempts of subjects; the Prince by Widdrington being placed so high above the reach, so fare out of the Sphere of activity of the Chief Pastors' Authority, that neither Pope nor Church can touch his crown, or meddle which his Regality, by way of deprivation. Yet if we mark what hath been said by Widdrington in the delivery of his opinion and explication of the oath, we shall find that he hath much injured the Chief Pastor in wresting from him (as much as in him lieth) that authority which not only many his Predecessors holy and learned, but also diverse Counsels even General have practised, and which the Christian world many hundred years hath approved: and yet hath little, or not at all, secured the King's person, or assured unto him his Crown and Sceptre.  
68 
Widdr. in Apol. n. 92. & 197. Disp. Th. ca 3. sec. 4. n. 3.  For first he Confesseth in diverse places of his books (as we have Seen) that the Pope can command the Prince or common wealth to use or not use the material sword; he admitteth also as probable, that the common wealth can depose the Prince in case of intolerable Tyranny; and consequently when the Pope shall judge a King worthy deposition, he may according to Widdrington command the Common wealth, under pain of Excommunication, to depose the Prince, and to deprive him of Regal Authority. Wherein whoesoeth not, that he as little secureth the Prince (which yet was intended by this oath) as they whoe hold, that the Chief Pastor, can in some case deprive a Prince. Because it is in effect all one danger to the King, whether he be deposed by the Pope's peremptory commandment, or by his own immediate Authority.  
69. 
Widdr. Disp. Th. in praef. n. 2.3. & Respons. Apolog. praef. ad Lectorem n. 8.9. et Disp Th. c. 6. n. 15 & seqq.  secondly Widdring. affirmeth that it is but probable that the Pope can not depose a Prince, and consequently that it is probable that he can; and that therefore the Popes who have deposed Princes, followed therein a probable opinion: whereby he giveth as little security to the Prince, as by his former assertion. For after that Widdrington shall have persuaded the King's subject, that it is probable that the Pope can not depose the Prince, hath he assured the Prince of his Subject's fidelity? nothing less, because this subject with his probable opinion having neither evidence nor certainty, but only a probable opinion which bringeth but a show of truth, and that joined with fear & uncertainty; may upon the least discontentment, or probable reason alleged by others of the contrary opinion, altar his opinion, it being not well grounded; and so the Prince shall have no more assurance of him, then hath the mariner of the wind in march, or the fisherman of a wet eel holden by the tail. Which also I confirm, because the nature of a probable opinion is such, that it giveth free liberty to follow it, or the contrary, that also being probable, & therefore in speculation we may think, in practice we may follow not only one probable opinion, but also the contrary, that also being probable. whence followeth that if the Subject hear of Widdrington, that his opinion, which holdeth that the Pope can not depose a Prince, is but probable, he will choose the contrary, if it be for his purpose, or please more his humour; and so will easily condescend to think that the Pope can depose a Prince. What security then giveth Widdrington to the Prince, whose security dependeth but on a probable opinion, as mutable as a rotten stick is brickle, or a weather cock wavering and turning. And what security from perjury hath the Subject to swear absolutely that which is only probable, and which consequently may be false?  
70. thirdly Widdr. as we have also seen, 
Widdr. Disp. Th. c. 2. sec. 2. n. 3. etc. 3. sect. 2. n. 3.  bindeth the Subject to swear, not that the Pope can not depose a Prince, but only that he thinketh in his conscience that he can not; and seeing that this thinking is but a probable conceit and opinion; the subject after he hath sworn what he thinketh may, easily change his opinion, and yet commit no perjury, he swearing only what then he thought, not what he would think hereafter.  
71. 
Widdr. Disp. Th. c. 6 sec. 2 nu. 8 & seqq.  fourthly Widdrington explicating that fourth Clause of the oath: And I do further swear that I do from any heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, that Princes which be excommunicate or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, saith, that to make that position impious and heretical: it is sufficient if one part of it, to wit, that Princes deprived may be murdered, is impious and heretical; And so by his explication the Subject sweareth only in that Clause, that the Prince excommunicated, can not be murdered, and therefore he secureth the Prince only from killing, not from deposition; and consequently his explication contradicteth the intention of the King and Parliament, which was to secure the Prince not only from killing, but also, and especially, from deposing: partly because a King had as leave be killed as deposed, he by deposition being made a private man, and of a King, no King; partly because a King deposed, is in danger, if he persist in government, to be killed by his Subjects, who, if they approve the sentence of deposition, hold him no more for their King. And so Widdrington maketh the Oath frustrate, and secureth not the King either from deposition or killing.  
72. Whence it followeth that Widdrington hath done ill offices to the Chief visible Pastor, in endeavouring to wrest from him that authority, which he hath practised many hundred years: & yet hath done no good office or service to the King, having not secured him from danger of deposition, if there were any danger. I say, if there were any; for although, as some politians will continually buss into their Prince's ears conspiracies, plots, and treacheries, that they may be thought careful subjects and necessary about the King's person, so WIDDRINGTON maketh show of many bugbears & Scarrcrowes of dangers hanging over the King's head by reason of this Catholic Common opinion by me and others even the most learned, defended, so to insinuate himself for a zealous subject: yet if we look better into the matter, we shall see, that all this is but a needle's fear, & that there is morally no such thing to be feared. And therefore Catholic Kings notwithstanding this opinion which they approve, do not therefore think them selues in less security. But he will say that our Sovereign being of a contrary Religion, hath just cause to fear. Let him then writ books to persuade his Majesty to be a Catholic, and thereby put him out of this pretended fear. Yet suppose he neither will nor can persuade that; I deny that there is any such danger, as WIDDRINGTON maketh show of. For be it (as in deed it is) that the Pope can in some case depose a Prince, as when he is incompatible or intolerable for his spiritual tyranny; yet that case happeneth seldom, and when it happeneth, he often times ought not depose him, as if he foresee more hurt then good will ensue thereon; & he must give the Prince warning and admonition, before he pronounce sentence of Excommunication or deposition; to which if the Prince hearken, the Pope can proceed no farther. And if his admonition be contemned, he must not with out Counsel, actually excommunicate, or depose him, to which perchance, his Counsellors will not aggree: and if both he, and they aggree to have him deposed, yet the particular Subjects can not put the Prince out of Possession; only the Common wealth, or public Authority hath such power; which yet the Common wealth can seeldem execute, and is not bound always to execute, but may still obey the Prince Excommunicated & deposed in lawful things, if by disobeying him, any notable danger is like to be incurred, as I have showed above in the thirtenth Chapter. And seeing that these Circumstances do seldom all meet, deposition of a King is rara avis in terris, and the execution of the sentence of deposition is yet rarer, and consequent lie not so much to be feared, as Widdrington would have it. And therefore Widdrington, if he intent really to secure the Prince, should not defend the Oath, as hitherto he hath done, but rather persuaded the Prince to take it quite a way, there being perchance some danger to him in urging an odious oath apt to breed alienation in the subjects minds, and no moral danger at all (as I have showed) in not urging it at all; the sentence of deposition of a Prince being a rare thing, and the execution of it fare rarer. Hear I might conclude, but that I have a word or two to say to Widdrington upon occasion of his Newyearesguifte, and as much to the Catholic subjects concerning their obedience to the King, and lastlie to his Majesty concerning his confidence which he may securely put in them.  
73. WIDDRINGTON, as it is thought, 
A friendly Admonition to Widdrington.  masked with the letters E. I. in the beginning of the last year, presented the Catholics of England with a new Explication of the Oath, or rather with an old made new, and offered it unto them as a Newyearesguift of no small price and value, as by which (as he saith) they may be more fully instructed, than they have been by I. E. the Author of the Prelate and Prince; whose explication of the Oath, he avoucheth to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, to be Pestiferous. But as for his Newyearesguift, 
Ep. ad Regem.  it being censured in other his books by his Chief Pastor, the Catholic hath just cause to say: 
Quicquid id est, timeo Danaos, & donae ferentes:  
What ever it is. 
L. 2. Aeneid.  I fear the Greeks and bringers of such gifts.  And as for my Explication, I can assure the said English Catholics, that it is, and was allowed by the same Superiors, who have censured and condemned widdrington's, and it is grounded in the practice of sacred Counsels and holy and learned Popes, our Chief visible Pastors, and it is countenanced by all the gravest and lernedst divines, doctors, & writers, as I have showed in the eleventh, twelfe, and thirtenth Chapters, and as WIDDRINGTON himself knoweth, who confesseth that the opinion which holdeth that the Pope can in some case depose a Prince, is more Common, and consequently more probable: whereas WIDDRINGTONS' Authors, either stand against him, or are not of Credit in a matter of Divinity, or are of cracked credit, being censured and condemned in the Index of forbidden Authors. And therefore whereas he vaunteth a little to much for one of his Condition and Quil●●ie, that I shall shortly hear with shame enough (bona verba quaeso) what goodly instruction I have give; I desire him to take heed lest he shame himself, as he hath to much already, and more than I, or other his friends desire: as for me, I will not be ashamed of my Explication of the Oath, it being conformable to the aforesaid Authority; let scandalous or censured opinions and Authors blush and shame to appear in public, nihil veritas erubescit (saith Tertullian) nisi solummodo abscondi, 
Tertull. lib cont. Valent inianos in initio.  truth blusheth at nothing, but to be hidden. As for Widdringtons' taunts, bitter, irreverent, and immodest speeches, which he bestoweth to liberally even on the gravest and learnedst writers and Prelates of this age; let not Widdrington think that they esteem them or regard them. Such speeches may disgrace himself, but not them: rather they will thereby gather (as Catholics commonly do) that such lavish languages savour little of the spirit of an humble, modest, and Catholic man, as Widdrington hath been esteemed, and still desireth to be reputed. Wherefore not intending to contend with him in that kind, nor to render evil for evil, but as true Catholics ought to do, good for evil: out of the ancient good will I have of long time born, and still do bear to his parson (though I like not his proceedings) I desire him to hearken to this my ensuing good Counsel; though in so doing perchance (and contrary also to my desire) I may force upon him an unwelcome courtesy, and an ungrateful favour.  
74. I wish him first to consider with what security of conscience he can still persist in the defence of the Oath, 
The first good Counsel to Widdringt●.  not only against all the Authority by me and others alleged, but also against the express commandment of his chief and Supreme visible Pastor? 
Widdy. Disp. Th. sec. 2. ca 10. n. 56.  he allegeth Vasquez oftentimes to prove, that a man may follow in practise any probable opinion, and he seemeth to be well conversant in him: why then doth he not mark and make his commodity of that Doctrine of Vasquez concerning the Superior, when he commandeth according to a probable opinion? Vasquez, 
Vas● 1. ● disp 62. n. 32.  following therein the common opinion, affirmeth that a subject is bound to obey his lawful Superior when he commandeth according to a probable opinion, though he command a thing which is against the Subject's opinion, and that also probable. Out of this I frame this Argument: A subject is bound to obey his lawful Superior when he commandeth according to a probable opinion, though he command a thing against the subjects opinion, and that also probable: but the Pope Widdrington lawful Superior, commanding Widdrington not to defend the Oath of pretended allegiance, commandeth at least according to a probable opinion: ergo Widdrington is bound to obey the Pope in this against his own opinion, though that were also probable. The Mayor Vasquez proveth; because the Subject may follow any man's probable opinion, and consequently his Superiors, that also being probable; and if he may, he must; because his Superior commandeth. The Minor Widdrington granteth, and can not deny: the Conclusion than followeth, to wit, that Widdrington is bound in conscience and under pain of mortal sin (the thing commanded being of great importance) to desist from defending the oath, the Pope having condemned it, and commanding him not to defend it. To say that the Pope is misinformed, and that therefore his declaration and commandment grounded therein, doth not bind in conscience, is but a poor stay for Widdringtons' conscience; because, 
Disp. Th. c. 10. sec. 1. n. 53.  as Widdrington allegeth out of father Parson's letter, he informed himself, of seven or eight of the most learned Divines in Rome, and since, he hath heard what Widdrington himself can suggest. To allege his Authors, is to little purpose, they being (as above we have seen) few, and of little or no Authority. To say the Pope may err, will as little seve Widdringtons turn, because every lawful Superior is to be obeyed when he commandeth according to a probable opinion; though in other things, and even in this he may err. To answer that he is then only bound to obey his Superior when there is no notable danger or damage in obeying; is as little to the purpose: partly because the opinion according to which the Pope commandeth, is more than probable, as above is proved; partly because though there may be Temporal damage in refusing to take the oath, yet for Widdrington not to defend it by public writing, there is no more danger to him, than to many more who never set pen to paper for the defence of it; rather Widdrington should fear the spiritual danger and damage which is incurred either by defending or taken it, as his chief Pastor hath assured him.  
75. secondly I wish Widdrington to reflect upon his own self, 
The socona good Counsel to Widdringt●̄.  and the state of life to which he is called; the dangerous course he runneth, and how fare he is proceeded in it; how heavy an enterprise he hath undertaken, and how hardly he shall be able to go through with it; who applaud him in it, who condemn him; what Authors he followeth, whom he contradicteth; whom he maketh glad, whom he contristateth; what a Schism, as it were, he hath made amongst some of his Catholic brethren, with what doubts and Scrouples he hath troubled the minds of others: How many well meaning and before very zealous Catholics, he hath induced to take the Oath, and what scope he hath given to the persecutor to vex and afflict those who out of conscience refuse to take it; how little grateful he hath showed himself to the Sea Apostolic, which bred & brought him up, how much to officious to her Adversaries, his chief Applauders; what little comfort at the hour of his death, he shall reap of these his labours, how much discomfort.  
76. And to you, 
Wholesome Counsel to the Catholics.  worthy, constant, and renowned Catholics, I give this wholesome Counsel. Seeing that this Oath so much derogateth from the Church and her chief Pastors' honour and Authority, and giveth such scope to her Enemies and Persecutors; as you have hitherto defended (& still, saving some few, do) this Church, her faith, and Authority, and have sustained loss of liberty, livings, and lives, rather than you would consent to the least injury, which is offered her; so do you not (by taking this Oath) falsify your faith to CHRIST, his Church, & chief Vicaire. You have passed the raging storms and Tempests of a Sea of Persecution, make not shipwreck of all your spiritual merchandise and merits in the mouth of the haven: you have long since laid your hand to the plough do not now look back: 
Luc. 9 Exod. 14  you have almost past the red Sea of Persecution, which hitherto hath yielded you passage, go not back to Egypt, for than you will never come to the Land of Promise: you have run a long time in the race, 
1. Cor. 9  faint not now before the goal; rather look up to Heaven, 
Gal. 5.  and you shall see the Angel holding in his hand a crown of glory. Currebatis benè quis vos impedivit veritati non obedire? You ran well; who hindered you not to obey the truth? Persuasio haec non est ex eo, qui vocat vos: 
Ibid.  this persuasion (to take this Oath) is not of him, 
Ibid.  that called you. It is of the Enemy, who enuyeth that you ran so well. But ego confido in vobis, quod nihil aliud sapietis: I have confidence in you in our Lord, that you will be of no other mind, nor do otherwise, then becometh good Catholics, and such Catholics also, who have been tried and purged in the furnace, on whom the eyes of God, his Saints, and all the world are fixed. In the mean time, qui conturbat vos por tabit iudicium suum, quicunque est ille; he that troubleth you, he that hath cast stumbling blocks and scandals in your way, he that like the serpent hath buzzed in your ears, shall bear the judgement of almighty God, whosoever he be.  
77. And as I desire you should be constant in your faith and Religion, obedient to the Church and her chief visible Pastor in all which is belonging to their Authority: so I exhort you to obey the King's Majesty your Soveraige Lord and Liege in all things which appertain to his Regal power; and so to give to God, his Church, and chief Vicaire their due, homage, and respect, as you deny not to the King Tribute, 
Rom. 13.  Custom, fear, honour, obedience, fidelity and faithful service: & not to think that this which I have said in behalf of the authority of the Church and her chief visible Pastor, hath been to detract any the least due, right, and respect from our Temporal Lord and Sovereign, much less to give any way, or scope to plots, conspiracies, or libels, which may irritate the Prince, purchase no good, but rather procure disgrace and prejudice to the cause for which you suffer. For as S. PETER tells you: 
1. Pet. 2.  what glory is it, if sinning and buffeted you suffer? but if doing well you sustain patiently, that is thank before God, for unto this you are called. For it is better (as the same Apostle assureth you) to suffer as doing well (if the will of God will have it so) then doing ill. 
1. Pet. 3.  And therefore, 
1. Pet. 4.  saith he, let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a chief, or a railer, or coveter of other men's things, but if as a Christian (Catholic) let him not be ashamed. 
1. Pet. 2.  Be you therefore Subject to every humane Creature for God, whether it be to the King as excelling, or to rulers as sent from him, whether it be to the Prelate or to the Prince, Church, or Common wealth: it having been my only intention, and the only drift of this book, that Prelate and Prince should both have their due, neither should be injuried.  
78. And therefore I exhort you to refuse the Oath of pretended Allegiance, because your Chief visible Pastor, hath forbidden it, and for that, his Authority and Right, therein is interessed: and yet I would have you also obey the King in all Temporal and Civil causes, because such obedience God's Law commandeth; and consequently to defend his Royal parson even with hazard of your goods, Lands, and lives, to pray for him and his Royal posterity, that he may live and reign long in his own person, and after in a long posterity, & that he may so govetn his Kingdom of England here, as he may not lose, but gain, a greater Kingdom of Heaven hereafter.  
79 And I most humbly also desire his most Excellent Majesty, 
An humble petition to the King's majesty.  out of his rare wisdom, deep judgement, and long experience, not to esteem those his only faithful Suhiectes, who are best Temporisers: because as many of these men serve not so much the King, as the time, and in it, their own turns: so if time & Fortune change, they also like the Fish Polypus which taketh the hue and colour of the stone to which it cleaveth, will change and . The noble CONSTANT us Father to CONSTANTINE the Great, will be unto his Majesty a good Precedent in 〈◊〉 Kind. He on a time, to try who were like to prove his most faithful Subjects, commanded (as EUSEBIUS relateth) that all those of his Court, 
Euseb. li. de vita Constan tini non longe ab initi●.  who would en●oy his friendship, or participate of any his Honours and Dignities, which he used to bestow, should sacrifice to the Gods, and that they who would not, should be expelled the Court, and deprived of all honour and favour. At which commandment, some of them loath to lose their honourable places and Dignities, obeyed the King, and forsaking Christian Religion, sacrificed to the Idols: others fearing God more than the King, and more him that can kill soul and body in hell, then him that can kill only the body, 
Mat. 10.  but can not touch the soul; left the Court and all hopes of preferment, rather than they would leave their Religion, or do any thing against their conscience, which when the King Sawe, he called back those constant Christians, and rejected from his Court and company those-false hearted Temporizers, saying, that they who were not faithful to God, would never be sure and trusty to the King, and that they who would not for any thing the world could afford, forsake God or their Religion, or do any thing against conscience, were most like to prove most faithful friends and Subjects to their Prince. Which Precedent if 〈◊〉 Majesty our Sovereign respect accordingly, he will deem, and shall by experience find, that those his Catholic Subjects, who out of Religion and Conscience, stand most constantly for their faith, the Church, and her chief Visible Pastor, will, out of the same Religion and conscience (which are the most strong and forcible bonds) stand most stiffly (when occasion shallbe offered) for their King and Sovereign, and will prove his most obedient, peaceble, and faithful Subjects.    

The Printer to the Reader.  
Although the Author (gentle Reader) by publishing this his Treatise so late, 
This is spoken of the first Edition.  may seem to have observed no opportunity of time; yet I can assure thee, that it was two years since ready for the press, and much against his will hath all this while, upon some occasions, been differred. But seeing that the Oath is still proposed by the Magistrate, and by some few also (who fear more the loss of a Temporal, than an eternal estate) taken, and moreover defended; he shall not be like to that Physician, who prescribeth Physic after the disease is cured, but rather to him, who expecteth till the disease comes to maturity and ripeness, that so showing itself more evidently, he may apply the better remedy. Receive it therefore (how late soever it come) and use it for thy good, according to the Authors desire, and sincere intention.  
FINIS.   

FAULTS ESCAPED IN PRINTING.  
PAg. 7. lin. 10. bath corrige hath. selue cor. self. p. 8. l. 11. Defert cor. Desert, p. 1●. l 22. to watdes cor. towards. p. 14. l. 10. (Indish 8.) Iudi●h 8.) p. 14. l. 21 your co. your. p. 15. l. 3 Ghildbirth co. Childbirth l. 15 eins. cor. eius. p. 17. l. ●6 fornacet rieth cor. furnace trieth. p. 22. l. 26. substantiam cor. substantiam. p. 25. l. 2. tberfore corrige therefore. p. 26. l. 3 you, cor. you. p. 31. l. 18. visible cor. visible. p. 33. l. 8. followeth co. floweth. p. 3●. l. 9 and cor. and. p. 43. l. 24. gnbernator cor. gu●ernator. p. 48. l. 29. declare cor. declare. p. 50. l. 13. meantes cor. means. p. 55. l. 3 privarelie or. pr●uate lie. l. 5. children cor. children. p. 70. l. 1. that is cor. that it l. 25. and cor. and pag. 71. l. 29. ge cor. go p. 7●. l. 11. spiritual cor. spiritual. p. 75. l. 8 Fightlie cor. Eighlie. p. 76. l. 18. governmet co. government. p 81. l. 24. defcendeth cor. descendeth. l. 28 K●uges cor. Kings. p. 82. l. 7. out cor. our. p. 85 l. 5. Enangelists cor. Evangelists. l. 10. nobis ●o. vobis p 81 l. 22. and cor. and. l. 2●. in●●fidictio cor-iurisdictio. p. 87. l. 12. sacrifice cor. sacrifice. p. 91. l. 13. especiallig cor. especially. l. 23. is cor. as. pag. 93. l 10. infect cor▪ infect. p. 96. l. 11. thou't cor. thought. lin. 27. excommunication cor. excommunication. p. 98. l. 29. illnm cor. illum. p. 100 l. 25. of cor. of. p. 102. l. 19 bic cor. hic. l. 20. bellnm cor. bellum. p. 105. l. 9 ovet cor. over. l. 14. qui cor. qui. l. 24. Russinus cor. Ruffinus. p. 107. l. 9 sove cor. son. l. 28. einsque cor. einsque. p. 108. l. 14. and cor. and. l. 19 hodie cor. holy. p. 11. l 16. first cor. first. p. 119. l. 24. howsoever cor. howsoever. p. 110. l. 23. dearest. cor. detest. p. 121. l. 3. Ecclesiastiaall cor. Ecclesiastical. p. 123. lin. 10. is cor. if p. 127. l. 17. notwithstanding cor. notwithstanding l. 20. snmendum cor. sumendum. l. 28. Ecclesiastical cor. Ecclesiastical. lin. 31. Aristocle cor. Aristotle. p. 128. l. 5. Church cor. Church. p. 130. l. 12. os. cor. of. l. 33. General cor. General, p. 131. l. 23. enerie cor. every. p. 132. lin. 29. eternal cor. external. p. 135. l. 12. aster cor. after. p. 137. l. 33. snpreme cor. supreme p. 143. lin. 21. goverue cor. govern. pag. 100L. l. 21. quicquam cor. quicquam. pag. 151. l. 19 inconsiderrti cor. inconsiderati. p. 152. l. 10. BBCAMUS cor. BECANUS. p, 153. l. 16. BYRHIL cor. BURHIL. p. 154. l. 20. King cor. King, p. 155. l. 2. Supremacy cor. supremacy. p. 172. l. 24. heanen cor. heaven. lin. 33. thetof cor. thereof. p. 174. l. 17. although cor. although. p. 175 l. 17. Authontie cor. Authority. p. 179. l. 21. selves cor selves. p. 186. lin. 2. rempnblicam cor. rempublicam. l 5. The same doth also cor. The same doth also p. 187. li. 18. Council cor. Council pa. 190, l. 32. chrastizing cor. chastizing p. 190. l. punish cor. punish lin. 13. sacrifice cor. sacrifice. p. 192. infecting co. infecting. p. 195. l. 18. that. cor. that p 196 l. 22. be cor. he. p. 198. l. 9 theridamas cor. the. pag. 200. l. 6 have cor. have. p. 201. l. 25. Kingdom's cor. Kingdoms. p. 205. l 23. for as & cor. for (as &c.) pag. 20●. l 19 Priuces cor. Princes. p. 208. l. 25. offensive cor. offensive p. 214. l. 24. subject corrige subject p. 218. l. 11. And cor. And. pag. 224. li. 24. selue cor. self. p. 228. l 31. which cor. which. p. 23●. l. 7. Prelares cor. Prelates. p. 235. l. 6. Lords cor. Lords. p. 237. l. 25. te cor. to. p. 238. l. 18 hecause cor. because. p. 240. l. 5. not cor. not. pag. 243. l. 18. which cor. which p. 245. l. 1●. should cor. should p. 246. l. 28. of cor of. p. 249 lin. 33. from cor. from. p. 257. l. 5. Epistle. cor. Epistles. p. 257. l. 18. Regnnn. cor. Regum pa. 262. l. 17. denowced cor. denounced. p. 268. l. 22 contronersie cor. controversy. p. 269. l. 22. English cor. English p. 270. l. 2, Azorins cor. Azorius. p. 272. l. 2. cafu cor. casu. lin. 22. edministrare cor. administrare. lin. 28. propoaetion cor. proposition l. 30. ne cor. one. p. 276. l. 21. and cor. and. p. 2●8. l 22 truly cor. truly, p. 279. l. 16. Freunce cor France. p. 284. l. 3. Council co. Council. p. 29● l. 23. murout, cor. mirror. p. 288. l. 13. subjects co. subjects'. l. 18. Queen cor. Queen. l. ●2 thc. co. the. p 290 l. 2. where cor. were. l 28. thirdly and lastlie cor. fourthly and lastly. p 297. l. 32. leisnre cor. leisure. p. 298. l 31. undes cor. under. p. 2●9. l 12. TViddrington cor. Widdrington. lin. 24. because cor because. p. 300. l 13. see cor. so. p. 312. l. 32. os cor. of. p. 330 l. 21. Fot. cor. For. p. 334. l. 2●. safety cor. safety.  
Pag. 351. in mark deal Anton lib 4. and lib. cor. l. pag. 353. lin. 26 add before if yet pag 353 lin. 30. depose. cor. depose also. pag 465. l last deal of excommunication denounced. pag. 361 lin 10. abolendum cor. abolendam pag. 368. l. 25. coe. correct condemned. pag. 368. l. 26. and cor but practised and. pag. 400. l. 23. persuaded cor. persuade.  
End